Skip to main content

Philosophy degree - why'd you want to study something useless like that?

Also - it's fascinating.

Comments

Unknown said…
I don't doubt that studying philosophy is valuable; but is this chart telling us something about the effect of studying philosophy or something about the sort of people who decide to study philosophy?
Philip Rand said…
Well Unknown...

I think there are only two types of people who are attracted to study philosophy...

1/ Those who wish to search for truth.

2/ Those who wish to search for justice.

Interestingly, in my experience I find these two "searches" mutually exclusive...one is either drawn to one or the other...NEVER both...

Philosophy is like Psychology...in fact this is what it has in common with Theology...

I still haven't come to the conclusion that Philosophy is scholarly...

It is a form of "knowledge" but whether it is scholarly knowledge...I doubt...I mean, you can't make anything with philosophy...no power in philosophy, like theology...but it can make one feel better mentally like psychology...

K said…
My computer science degree is feeling like less of an achievement all of a sudden
L.Long said…
I am very fond of stating that 'philosophy is the art of throwing BS and sounding intelligent while doing so.' Primarily because of the ways that apologist make use of it.
But I like philosophy and know that to do it well improves your methods of laying out coherent thoughts and ideas.
Unknown said…
I think philosophy plays a significant role in terms of pointing out what we don't really know for sure. This gives rise to the consideration of multiple variable influences for knowledge, creating a certain kind of intelligent perspective. See philosopher.io
Unknown said…
Stephen
Agree with the tenor of both your recent posts. But it's a sad state of affairs that philosophy needs defending.

IMHO, there's a bit of problem right now with philosophy (along with statistics, sadly) getting short shrift in the sciences, especially the life sciences (John Wilkins has spoken of this).

Philosophy is important both for the practical conduct of science and for its ethical conduct.
Philip Rand said…
Here is a philosophical own goal...

Dr Andy Martin (Cambridge) has invented, Becksistentialism which he terms is "existentialism but with a very cool haircut".

You can find his ideas on Dr Martin's blog, "Becks in Paris".
Paul P. Mealing said…
From my limited experience, I'd say that the method of philosophy is argument, which is also how it is presented. It teaches you to be analytical and insightful and to think deeply about what you are talking about.

Regards, Paul.
Anonymous said…
While I don't doubt Philosophy is useful in terms of self-development, such development does not pay the bills. I am from a working class background myself and a primary consideration must be the jobs you can do with your chosen course of study. Philosophy doesn't, at least not directly, afford one many options. It seems to me that you can either teach it or write books, or both but not much else.

Education to degree level is mostly a one-shot deal for working class folk. If you get the oppertunity you had better make it count. If you pick something with decent monetary return you might be able to afford additional education further down the line. You really don't want to be in the position of being utterly unconnected from any employment above manual labour (I mean no connections through friends or relatives to better oppertunities), and a philosophy degree.
HH said…
Hi Damien,

"Philosophy is important both for the practical conduct of science and for its ethical conduct."

Would you mind expanding on that, particularly the first part.
Philip Rand said…
Perhaps HH it depends on what one means with the word "practical"...

Practical implies the "empirical", meaning what we can "measure", i.e. photons, electrons, etc...so with regards to quantum physics say, one does not require philosophy to support a physics theory because it can be empirically valid without recourse to metaphysics, i.e. what IS a photon?...what IS an electron?

It is only when these types of metaphysical questions are asked that philosophy has any role in science.

I mean, think of the discovery of the Higg's...We use theory/calculations to predict tracks in a bubble chamber, from the experiments we infer the trajectories we see in the bubble chamber are "particles" flying through the chamber leaving tracks...

However, what is wrong with this is that really what we are seeing is a succession of bubbles...AND the mistake is to link them together...because in quantum theory "stuff" does not have trajectories...instead they are simply independent "events"...

This is when philosophy comes into play with science...it is in the interpretation of these events...and with it perhaps certain insights that may point in a new direction of research.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
"HH said...
Hi Damien,

"Philosophy is important both for the practical conduct of science and for its ethical conduct."

Would you mind expanding on that, particularly the first part."


With regard to "practical" I'm referring on the role of philosophy in narrowing down Best Practice for the process of investigation.

e.g.

1) Hypothesis framing
2) Experimental design and appropriate statistics analysis
3) Data interpretation and conclusions

Science needs, and has always needed, philosophy because the former is ultimately an inductive process through which we are hoping to draw accurate conclusions about the universal from a mere sample.

Philosophy has been instrumental in figuring out the ways to strengthen that inductive process and mitigating its innate weaknesses. Unfortunately, things such as the importance of a good falsifiable hypothesis and avoiding post hoc theorizing &c are being forgotten, and it's clear that this is having negative consequences. There's a real problem both in the biological sciences and in psychology right now with failure to reproduce findings, even the really important ones (there was a pharmaceutical firm that reproduced something like 50 landmark experiments and only succeeded in reproducing 20% of them). In a small number of cases this is due to outright fraud, but in many cases faulty experimental design and inappropriate use and interpretation of statistics is key.

On top of that, there's this trend for government funding agencies to encourage, and sink tremendous amounts of money into, whimsical Big Science investigations. Ones that are too often driven by some vague, ambiguous, and usually conceptually dubious goal (see Genome Project, BRAIN Initiative, Protein Structure Initiative and similar ill-conceived boondoggle fishing expeditions).

So, yeah, philosophy is important to the efficiency of the scientific method, which has clear cost benefits both in terms of time and money. Frankly, I think a philosopher should be employed in every life science department (scientists seem to be cottoning onto the usefulness of having a resident statistician in the house, so maybe there's hope for us yet).
Philip Rand said…
Damien you bring up some interesting points...

I was wondering, is the question:

"Why can't I push my hand through a brick wall."

A scientific question, a philosophical question or both?

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o