"It's Philosophy!"

John Albert

Illuminator
John Albert
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,140
We see this particular special pleading a lot around here, and I encounter it regularly outside this forum as well: people trying to pass off all manner of fantasy and silliness under the pretense of "philosophy."

It may take the form of making categorical statements or predictions about the objective universe (or asserting the existence of supernatural entities) then handwaving the request for evidence on the basis that "it's philosophy, not science, so I don't have to show evidence."

Beyond the question of burden of proof, the "philosophy" plea is also sometimes used to deflect criticism of one's reasoning, as if "philosophy" is a freewheeling mode of discourse that ignores logical fallacies and entertains all ideas on equal merit without critical analysis.

I figure this particular sophism is pervasive enough to warrant a dedicated thread to discuss in a pedagogical manner. Feel free to post links to other discussions wherein the issue was handled in a particularly effective way.
 
It does seem that saying "it's philosophy" is often a shorthand for "I can post any old sloblocks I like and nobody can challenge me on it in any way whatsoever."

It also seems that it's often a way to simply call people who disagree with you uneducated because if you don't agree with their inane ramblings, then the reason is obviously that you simply don't know enough about philosophy. Oddly, though, this is only rarely accompanied by these people invoking specific philosophers and/or schools of philosophical thought.
 
I would hazard a guess that most debating these pseudophilosophers here have a better understanding of said discipline.
 
Most of the people using this argument seem to have little education in philosophy, or at the very most, limited to the pre-Enlightenment, pre-Positivist schools of thought.
 
Isn't it used to shut up atheists sometimes? Or naturalists generally, if they point to that science doesn't support the idea of a soul.
 
It seems like a strategy to try to make unevidenced beliefs unassailable. I believe this, and you believe that, so what's the difference? It's the same nonsensical argument we hear from Creationists. They say the science of evolution is just a belief, too, so everyone could be just as right as anyone else.

Another argument which strikes me as being related, and just as flawed, is the one where my position might be true and your position might be true, so we both have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Or the one where I believe a lot of Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real and you don't believe any Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real, so let's meet half way and agree that some Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real. It's an effort to diminish reality to the level of their fantasy, or at least drag it part way there to lend some legitimacy to their faith.

But what do I know? It's just philosophy. :p
 
GeeMack said:
It seems like a strategy to try to make unevidenced beliefs unassailable. I believe this, and you believe that, so what's the difference? It's the same nonsensical argument we hear from Creationists. They say the science of evolution is just a belief, too, so everyone could be just as right as anyone else.

Another argument which strikes me as being related, and just as flawed, is the one where my position might be true and your position might be true, so we both have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Or the one where I believe a lot of Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real and you don't believe any Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real, so let's meet half way and agree that some Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real. It's an effort to diminish reality to the level of their fantasy, or at least drag it part way there to lend some legitimacy to their faith.

But what do I know? It's just philosophy. :p
Click to expand...

The assertion that it's just philosophy, that is philosophy!:D:boxedin:
 
Last year, on another forum I was involved in a discussion where philosophy was constantly used as a fog in which to confuse the argument.

I invented the term "Phogging the issue" to cover such instances.
 
It seems like the word "philosophy" is often used in an especially loose sense, not unlike how some wooists abuse the term "theory" to lend sciencey credence to any old notion they can pull out of their own backsides without a scrap of evidence.


GeeMack said:
It seems like a strategy to try to make unevidenced beliefs unassailable. I believe this, and you believe that, so what's the difference? It's the same nonsensical argument we hear from Creationists. They say the science of evolution is just a belief, too, so everyone could be just as right as anyone else.
Click to expand...


I occasionally hear a variation on that theme (no argument being better or worse than any other) from some philosophy students who turn the above premise into a form of ad hominem. They basically argue that because they can categorize or pigeonhole your argument in academic philosophical terms, that justifies an offhand dismissal of your entire point of view. As in, "well you're obviously a materialist empiricist positivist, so of course you'd say a thing like that."


GeeMack said:
Another argument which strikes me as being related, and just as flawed, is the one where my position might be true and your position might be true, so we both have a 50/50 chance of being correct.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes. The old "science is not perfect and nor are we, so neither of us can be 100% certain" argument. It's basically just an argument from ignorance, since it relies upon uncertainty and ignores relative degrees of probability based on proven, empirical facts. Framing it as a "50/50" chance would also involve a lie of false statistics.


GeeMack said:
Or the one where I believe a lot of Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real and you don't believe any Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real, so let's meet half way and agree that some Bigfoot/alien/ghost sightings are real. It's an effort to diminish reality to the level of their fantasy, or at least drag it part way there to lend some legitimacy to their faith.
Click to expand...


I've seen that one called "appeal to compromise" and "appeal to diplomacy." I believe it could be generalized as some variety of appeal to emotion.
 
Last edited:
John Albert said:
It seems like the word "philosophy" is being used in an especially loose sense, not unlike how some wooists abuse the term "theory" to mean any old notion they can pull out of their own backside without a scrap of evidence.
Click to expand...

I think "philosophy" has replaced the word "faith" for smarter people wanting to pull out stuff without backing it up.
 
If a philosopher falls over in a forest and there's no one around to hear him, does he go "ouch!"?
 
Stray Cat said:
If a philosopher falls over in a forest and there's no one around to hear him, does he go "ouch!"?
Click to expand...


If you strangle a philosopher in the middle of an argument and there's no one around to see, do you still have to go to jail?


*ETA: it's just a joke!
 
Last edited:
All kidding aside, I'm curious about how to best deal with arguments like that.

I'm not really versed enough in philosophy to refute those kinds of arguments in proper philosophical terms, so I'm inquiring how to address these issues patiently and reasonably without coming off as an uneducated, dismissive naysayer. What strategies have you guys found to be effective? Would anyone here with a background in philosophy care to chime in?
 
I feel the grim specter of William Lane Craig somewhere nearby... His whole criticism of Dawkins boils down to "He's not a philosopher, and he's not very sophisticated" blah blah.

I doubt than any argument would be effective if they can discount those proposed by Hitchens.
 
John Albert said:
All kidding aside, I'm curious about how to best deal with arguments like that.

I'm not really versed enough in philosophy to refute those kinds of arguments in proper philosophical terms, so I'm inquiring how to address these issues patiently and reasonably without coming off as an uneducated, dismissive naysayer. What strategies have you guys found to be effective? Would anyone here with a background in philosophy care to chime in?
Click to expand...

I think that science trumps philosophy in every field where science can be applied. In particular, philosophy can't make claims about objective reality that go beyond a priori knowledge. I'd suggest quoting Descartes at anyone who thinks otherwise.
 
Cayvmann said:
I feel the grim specter of William Lane Craig somewhere nearby... His whole criticism of Dawkins boils down to "He's not a philosopher, and he's not very sophisticated" blah blah.
Click to expand...

So, who hands out the bona fide philosopher credentials? After all, many great philosophers have not had actual academic degrees in philosophy so it's not about that.
 
Weak Kitten said:
So, who hands out the bona fide philosopher credentials? After all, many great philosophers have not had actual academic degrees in philosophy so it's not about that.
Click to expand...

I think it's just society in general.
 
Cayvmann said:
I feel the grim specter of William Lane Craig somewhere nearby... His whole criticism of Dawkins boils down to "He's not a philosopher, and he's not very sophisticated" blah blah.

I doubt than any argument would be effective if they can discount those proposed by Hitchens.
Click to expand...

I know, right? It's like Democritus was not very sophisticated and his ideas weren't an exactly accurate model, therefore we must completely forego atomic theory.

Despite the metaphorical mountains of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, -- nope! it doesn't work.
 
GeeMack said:
Another argument which strikes me as being related, and just as flawed, is the one where my position might be true and youposition might be true, so we both have a 50/50 chance of being correct
.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the one that really annoys me too!!
 
John Albert said:
Ah, yes. The old "science is not perfect and nor are we, so neither of us can be 100% certain" argument. It's basically just an argument from ignorance, since it relies upon uncertainty and ignores relative degrees of probability based on proven, empirical facts. Framing it as a "50/50" chance would also involve a lie of false statistics.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show that one needs to be careful in bringing up the "uncertain" nature of science in discussions. One must not lose track of the fact that while science does have uncertainty, it can also give certainty. True, it cannot give absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean it can't give certainty so darn good that for all practical purposes it may as well be absolute.
 
Last edited:
Twiler said:
I think that science trumps philosophy in every field where science can be applied. In particular, philosophy can't make claims about objective reality that go beyond a priori knowledge. I'd suggest quoting Descartes at anyone who thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

Say that to a philosopher, do you know what word he or she will throw at you with a 99% probability?

Scientism!


Did you guess it right?
 
The definition of "scientism" is the belief that the scientific method is theoretically applicable in any and all situations where a decision is to be made, regardless whether the subject involves determinations about objective reality.

For example, beyond providing an understanding of the real-world implications of one's own choices, science is useless for making moral decisions. Science may be able to tell you about the potential outcomes of a particular set of options, but it cannot answer the question of which is the more or less "moral" choice. However, "scientism" would attempt to make the misguided case that everything is objective, therefore science can reasonably be applied to morality.
 
Last edited:
As Dennett put it, I'm not aware of any person who is actually guilty of scientism. Sagan, Dawkins, etc, none.
 
Humes fork said:
Say that to a philosopher, do you know what word he or she will throw at you with a 99% probability?

Scientism!


Did you guess it right?
Click to expand...

I've studied philosophy, and I can't remember ever coming across that word.
 
What is the difference between philosophising and hypothesizing?

(This is not a setup line for a joke ;) )
 
Donn said:
What is the difference between philosophising and hypothesizing?

(This is not a setup line for a joke ;) )
Click to expand...

Well, if you make a hypothesis within a mathematical context, it would considered part of mathematics rather than philosophy, and similarly for science. So, I'd say that there's technically no difference, but you'd usually equate hypothesizing with philosophising only when you're not acting within a more specific field.
 
Donn said:
What is the difference between philosophising and hypothesizing?
Click to expand...


It's mostly a matter of context. "Hypothesizing" means to posit an hypothesis.

A "hypothesis" is a speculative explanation based on empirical observations, for the express purpose of being tested experimentally or otherwise evaluated within a framework of established facts or mathematical laws. A proper hypothesis must also be falsifiable. Without falsifiability and the explicit purpose of testing, a given explanation is not really an hypothesis. Lacking those criteria, such a proposal would be more accurately described as a "speculation," an "assumption," or (if you want to get snarky about it) a "wild-ass guess."

Does that sound about right?
 
Last edited:
I think John Albert is basically correct that "It's Philosphy" has become another version of solipsitic special pleading, same as faith and even subjectivity are often used.

It's the same sad dance, the language just changes; trying to scorched earth all intellectual standards so you can still hold your pet woo theory.
 
I have very little patience sometimes, so I would go even further than John Albert. I would say a "hypothesis" that is not falsifiable is a superstition.

That may seem harsh, but I think it's justifiably harsh. The justification being that without the possibility of this "hypothesis" being falsified it is indistinguishable from any other superstition. The supporting evidence is the same. Usually that means "well, that's what it looks like from here...".
 
I do think it's rather sad that so many people have some emotional attachment to certain illogical ideas and when asked defend them the best defense they can come up with is "It has no effect."

I don't think people get that you can't have something being meaningful but at the same time unfalsefiable, because anything that can give you meaning, that meaning becomes evidence for or against it.

People dance around this by playing the "for me" or "subjective" or "very personal" escape clauses.
 
In

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8140608#post8140608

there is a guy that dismisses everything he does not like as irrelevant and any opposition or correction to his math as 'you are not getting it'.

He is also extremely quarrelsome; you can get him to disagree with you on anything. You say snow is white, then he will say it is black and that your perception is not unified.

He does not respond to being pointed out any of his contradictions or redefinitions, but rather gets into a childish 'but you did x wrong'...

The only reason I still am responding to that thread is because it feels like the guy needs some companionship or such... he posts in that thread to get it bumped into current, trying to get people in to discuss with him, nay, read his 'teachings'.

It feels like that thread is his life's work and there is nothing after it.
 
JoeBentley said:
I think John Albert is basically correct that "It's Philosphy" has become another version of solipsitic special pleading, same as faith and even subjectivity are often used.

It's the same sad dance, the language just changes; trying to scorched earth all intellectual standards so you can still hold your pet woo theory.
Click to expand...

And it's an argument that most philosophers I know (at university) don't use. If you have any criticism of their idea, they won't say It's Philosophy! and be done with it. They might not give compelling arguments, but they (mostly) will not say "I'm right and there's nothing you can do about it."
 
Indeed. If you "use" philosphy you're probably at least trying to honestly understand something.

If you just "invoke" philosphy as some sort of magic word, you're probably an idiot.

I'll admit on no level am I philosphy's biggest fan, but there's a huge difference between real philosphy (which is valid and has it's place) and some 16 year old stoner that just watched the Matrix for the first time.
 
JoeBentley said:
Indeed. If you "use" philosphy you're probably at least trying to honestly understand something.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But what that philosopher is trying to understand is the 'Human Condition' or the nature of perceptions of reality. Or the reality of perceptions of nature.

These are valid areas of study that do not lend themselves to study by scientific method. Philosophy has been used throughout history as an umbrella term for areas as diverse as alchemy and what we would now call 'political science', but the term has never been so misused as it is by the current generation. This is not the fault of 'philosophy', it is because there are so many people who have no other term with which to legitimise their views or beliefs.
 
azzthom said:
Agreed. But what that philosopher is trying to understand is the 'Human Condition' or the nature of perceptions of reality. Or the reality of perceptions of nature.

These are valid areas of study that do not lend themselves to study by scientific method. Philosophy has been used throughout history as an umbrella term for areas as diverse as alchemy and what we would now call 'political science', but the term has never been so misused as it is by the current generation. This is not the fault of 'philosophy', it is because there are so many people who have no other term with which to legitimise their views or beliefs.
Click to expand...

To make matters worse, in my country/language the term 'philosophy' can mean anything from the academic discipline, to a general outlook on life, to the mission of a corporation.
 
BNRT said:
To make matters worse, in my country/language the term 'philosophy' can mean anything from the academic discipline, to a general outlook on life, to the mission of a corporation.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's the same here. A massively overused term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom