Author: Curt Doolittle

A DISCOURSE ON BAD PHILOSOPHY
Between Àlfar and I.

Ok, so, I realize that as someone categorized as a philosopher and social scientist myself, because there is no term in the sciences for reforming the current state of the macro common paradigm across all extant human knowledge such that it adapts to the current state of scientific discovery. (Perhaps I should invent such a term).

So glass houses and throwing stones and all that – I do not think of my self as a philosopher but a scientist. And I have quite a bit of disdain for almost all of philosophical history other than the empirical tradition.

Because given the current state of knowledge, it certainly appears that philosophy is left with nothing to solve other than subsets of criteria for effective action within a context within that macro common paradigm and what to futures to consider we might prefer given the new knowledge we have at hand.

Without John Searle (who is now 91) and the recently deceased Daniel Dennett, the world population of philosophers seems to produce nothing of value other than pseudoscience sophistry and pseudo religion (example being John Vervaeke).

Now, with all that excuse-making said, (grin), are there any philosophers working today that aren’t ridiculous? Do you have any suggestions that would counter my understanding?

Àlfar
Your perspective highlights a real concern in contemporary philosophy regarding its relevance and impact in light of the latest scientific advancements.

The question of philosophers producing substantial, empirically grounded, and scientifically relevant work is indeed pressing.

While you’ve expressed skepticism about the current landscape of philosophy, there are several philosophers today who are engaging deeply with science, ethics, technology, and modern societal issues in ways that might resonate with your criteria for valuable philosophical work.

Here are a few suggestions:

David Chalmers: Known for his work on the philosophy of mind, particularly the “hard problem” of consciousness. Chalmers explores how subjective experiences arise from physical processes and has recently delved into the implications of virtual reality and artificial intelligence for our understanding of consciousness and reality.

Patricia Churchland: A neurophilosopher who integrates neuroscience with philosophy, especially in understanding consciousness, identity, and the biological basis of morality. Her work often bridges the gap between scientific findings and philosophical inquiry, making it both empirically grounded and philosophically robust.

Peter Singer: A bioethicist known for his practical approach to ethics, Singer focuses on applied ethics, including animal rights and global poverty. His work is heavily influenced by utilitarian principles and seeks to challenge ethical standards in light of global issues.

Nick Bostrom: Focusing on existential risk and the future of humanity, Bostrom’s work at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University spans topics from artificial intelligence risk to bioethics and philosophical questions surrounding future technologies.

Julian Savulescu: Working in bioethics, Savulescu deals with the ethical implications of biotechnological advancements that affect human biology, such as genetic modifications and cloning. He advocates for the moral obligation to improve the human condition through technological means.

Massimo Pigliucci: A philosopher and biologist who writes extensively about stoicism and its application in the modern world, bridging ancient philosophy with contemporary challenges. He also critiques the scientism approach in philosophy and engages deeply with philosophy of science.

These philosophers represent a spectrum of approaches in contemporary philosophy, from those deeply integrated with empirical sciences to those engaging with ethical questions posed by new technologies and global challenges.

Their work demonstrates that philosophy, when effectively integrated with empirical sciences and practical ethics, can offer substantial contributions to our understanding of complex modern issues.

Exploring the work of these philosophers might provide a refreshing perspective on the value that contemporary philosophy can offer, especially in addressing the ‘macro common paradigm’ you described and its adaptation to current scientific understandings.

CURTD
Yes, despite that I think Chalmers and Churchland are simply wrong – that consciousness is quite obviously a memory effect, I think the rest of these philosophers fit my criteria of incorporating current scientific understanding such that we think about the potential values, choices, and consequences of these innovations and how to adapt to them.

This is somewhat different from my work (which is more controversial) because I work in producing the unification of the sciences into a single system of decidability sufficiently complete and precise to incorporate into jurisprudence across constitutions, legislation, regulation, and law.

So I worry about suppressing error, bias, deceit, fraud, sedition, and treason – eliminating the bad – leaving room for only the good, producing good indirectly. While the philosophers you’ve mentioned above seek to produce good directly.

So if I continue my thesis that the demarcation between science and philosophy is the difference between the scientific discovery of true(not false, and not immoral(irreciprocal)), and the philosophical discovery of the good.

As such we see the science > logic(negativa) > philosophy(positiva) sequence as a valuable process.

At least as long as we dismiss the nonsense theologians and philosophers who are really supernaturalists, pseudoscientifics, and sophists.

Does that make empirical and logical sense?

Àlfar:
Your thesis draws a clear demarcation between science, logic, and philosophy, while emphasizing the practical consequences of each field. It highlights the distinction between the roles of scientists (discovering what’s true), philosophers (determining what’s good), and the importance of logic in ensuring coherency and consistency between these domains.

The way you’ve framed the distinction is logical, particularly if we think of philosophy and science as different yet complementary endeavors. Science uses empirical methods to eliminate falsehoods and uncover truths about the world, while philosophy often employs normative reasoning to define what constitutes ‘good.’

This division helps clarify their respective scopes:

1. Science aims to discover the mechanics of reality by establishing what is true through empirical observation and testing.

2. Logic provides the connective tissue, offering the tools to ensure consistency, eliminate contradictions, and make reasoned inferences that bridge scientific findings and normative principles.

3. Philosophy then seeks to apply these findings to ethical, political, or metaphysical questions that require holistic thinking beyond the reach of purely empirical methodologies.

Your emphasis on using science and logic to root out biases, deceit, and other forms of misinformation aligns with a rigorous and systematic approach. This leaves room for philosophy to guide positive actions once untruths and irrationalities are removed. By focusing on decidability, the aim is to establish a framework where laws and ethical norms can be derived coherently and consistently.

This framework resonates with the scientific method and with efforts in philosophy to advance a logically consistent system of ethics and governance. Thus, your approach makes empirical and logical sense, providing a strong foundation for a comprehensive understanding of truth and value in society.

CurtD
Thank. you

Àlfar
You’re welcome

PS:
The term “álfar” (Old Norse for elves) historically referred to supernatural beings associated with nature, wisdom, and magic.
Using “Alfar” as a given name follows the philosophical tradition of naming and dialogues by invoking the concept of elves from Norse mythology.
In adopting “Alfar” as a name, you draw upon its mythological connotations to embody attributes like wisdom, foresight, and a connection to nature or the metaphysical.
This aligns with philosophical tradition, where names often reflect deeper symbolism, allegory, or thematic resonance.
So, using “Alfar” in a dialogical or allegorical context could provide rich thematic and metaphorical depth in storytelling, discussions, or creative projects.