Sunday, December 6, 2015

More at philpercs

Here I am moaning about the pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy that seem so prevalent these days in academia. It's probably very boring to go on about this, but part of me thinks it's something that should be done constantly. After all:
6.53 The right method for philosophy would properly be this: To say nothing other than what can be said, thus propositions of natural science – thus something that has nothing to do with philosophy –, and then always, if another wanted to say something metaphysical, to point out to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying for the other person – he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy – but it would be the only strictly correct one. 
I'm not talking about metaphysics, and Wittgenstein doesn't really seem to recommend this "right method," but still. One role for the philosopher, as for the satirist, is pointing out nonsense. And this isn't likely to work if it isn't done consistently. (Although it might not work even then.)

8 comments:

  1. can't tell you how many time at academic conferences (philo and science) i've asked the speaker for a basic working definition for some key term in their presentation/paper only to be met with a changing of the subject (often by someone hosting the event) and or hostility. I do wonder more and more how much we (ha waxing royal) are really just interested in people who are thinking thru the implications of what they are saying/doing/thinking?
    -dmf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's something to be said for thinking through the implications of what you are saying/doing/thinking. But there's also something to be said for defining your terms and knowing what you are talking about. And taking care not to talk bull.

      Delete
    2. yep, was just saying that beyond basic competence (as i noted above a stretch for most)
      I don't know that we need Philosophy for all just people (including in philo) who can think thru what they are proposing.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I don't know about philosophy for all. A little of most things is pretty much a waste of time, and not everyone is going to major in philosophy. Probably a lot more should than do now, though, and a cultural shift in favor of thinking things through (and being skeptical of bull) would be nice.

      Delete
  2. You're right to be depressed about the HigherEd article on academic writing; the evidence-based approach to academic wirting instruction is largely misguided ... Resident writing consultant at Copenhagen Business School (my workplace), Thomas Basbøll, offers some sensible skepticism and counter-advice:

    http://secondlanguage.blogspot.dk/2015/02/evidence-and-experience-in-writing.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks very much! Very interesting link and discussion.

      Delete
    2. do make sure you find your way from there to his other work if you've never seen it before

      Delete