Philosophers

[frogfactory]

I've managed to accidentally end up in a workshop about science run entirely by humanities people again. And oh my god do philosophers drive me mad when they try to talk about science and the scientific process. It always seems to end up consisting of misunderstandings, half-truths, generalizations from single (often anomolous) experiences*, and outright errors. And then they pat each other's backs about the jargon-filled nonsense they've generated and write a book about it.

What on earth are philosophers for? Do they think scientists don't think about how and why they practice science and in what context? Effing parasites, the lot of them. I can't believe they get paid for it.

The second session was humanities people talking about humanities, which was quite interesting. I'm afraid the third session is going to be on science again. If you don't hear from me again, I've probably been murdered for contradicting a lank-haired, sandal-wearing philosopher of science who once met a particle physicist.

Grr.

*This may be irony. I'm not sure yet.

[challenge]

And oh my god do philosophers drive me mad when they try to talk about science and the scientific process. It always seems to end up consisting of misunderstandings, half-truths, generalizations from single (often anomolous) experiences*, and outright errors. And then they pat each other's backs about the jargon-filled nonsense they've generated and write a book about it.

I'm really curious what you mean with this. misunderstandings?

My personal experience of philosophers is that they might stand in the corner of Aristotle and might push for the hypothesis driven research a bit more than some of the biological science research that, for example, I've been involved in.

(You know, the one where you might have some kind of hypothesis to start with but it's not really voiced and then start investigating... and investigating... and finding out things emperical .... and then rewrite the hypothesis and in the end write a paper that doesn't necessary fit the order of how you investigated things but how they look in the end kind of. If this makes sense?)

Then again, I have been known to take a few of the philosophy classes and being a bit aloof with jargon speak as deduction, induction and other known theories.... although I don't think they would consider me a true part of their gang maybe I would be considered a hang around

[frogfactory]

Oh, it was really the first speaker who thoroughly got on my nerves by claiming that the concept of emergent phenomena was seen as fringe science by 'scientists', having met a couple of physicists and determined that there wasn't a group in their department dedicated to complexity studies.

I think a lot of cognitive neurologists, cell biologists, hydrodynamic physicists/engineers, chaos theorists and meteorologists would be rather surprised to be described as 'fringe scientists'.

Anyway, the day got better, and I lived.

[The Prof]

It always seems to end up consisting of misunderstandings, half-truths, generalizations from single (often anomolous) experiences*, and outright errors.

Can you give us an example of the outright errors?

And can I ask what conference this is? Sounds interesting.

[frogfactory]

I would say that describing the concept of emergent phenomena from complex systems as 'fringe science' that most scientists don't take seriously constitutes an outright error.

I can't accuse them of making any errors regarding the actual details of the science, because there wasn't any science, just talk about scientists and how they do it.

On the plus side, I now know what 'ontology' means, although I'm still baffled as to what an 'ontological argument' is.

[Editor]

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

[frogfactory]

Yeah, that was confusing me all the way through the talks, I later realised - I was hearing 'ontogeny' every time someone said 'ontology'. Rather different

[amy c.]

I have to look it up every time too. What surprises me most, in my limited experience with them, is their certainty that they do understand both "science" and "scientists" -- it's remarkably unyielding. But I shouldn't really be surprised; the lit scholars are the same way, and are happy to explain how and why writers write. (What still surprises me is the hair. I don't understand the matted/lank fashion. I met one last year who looked like he lived under a bridge & belonged to some hobo temperance union. Turned out to be a young brilliant thing who got accepted to all the best graduate schools.) But then that's knocking up against my experience in humanities in general, which is that actual experience doesn't count for much.

I don't know that it would work on philosophers, but with the sociologists you might accuse them of being Orientalists, attracted by the lab's exoticism, and preying on you in an imperialist and paternalistic way, instead of allowing your own sociology to develop within your culture. It wouldn't work longterm, of course, but you'd distract several of them for months if not years.

Just curious: How old were the panelists? Also, I wish you'd the next ones exactly what you ask here, whether they think you guys don't think about what you do, and why the lines of thought they deem important are necessarily the important ones. I mean I suspect you can get them defensive and/or furious in a hurry, in the same way it's possible to infuriate a room full of K12 teachers by suggesting that having some understanding of the subject you're teaching is important. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I do think it's worth keeping an open ear, btw, because occasionally there might be a smart one. There are good lit scholars once in a while, too. I still think of some of Latour's formulations sometimes, btw. Including the general one in Lab Life about science being primarily a literary enterprise. Thought of it after looking at that recent quiz here about what you fear most. Far and away the top answer had to do with being beaten to publication.

[tideliar]

...But then that's knocking up against my experience in humanities in general, which is that actual experience doesn't count for much...

That's that old post-modernist relativism innit? There are no absolute truths, experience is an individual enterprise, therefore my reality/morality is as valid as yours.

Load of bollocks if you ask me, but there you go. I really don't get it. It really does strike me as the kind of personal moral philosophy you embrace just because you're eager to ge away with being a tosser. You don't have to think, just talk bollocks.

here endeth Dr. Tideliar's Philosophy 101 class

[frogfactory]

Also, I wish you'd the next ones exactly what you ask here, whether they think you guys don't think about what you do, and why the lines of thought they deem important are necessarily the important ones.

Oh, I did. I thought I was going to get beaten up after class. By one of the professors. He attacked me in a break, just before talks were starting up again, such that I had to shush him so that the speaker could start.

[amy c.]

Oh, I did. I thought I was going to get beaten up after class. By one of the professors. He attacked me in a break, just before talks were starting up again, such that I had to shush him so that the speaker could start.

Really? Now I'm curious -- what'd he say?

Maybe one day I'll stop being surprised by that sort of behavior. Especially when whatever it is you're saying is demonstrably true.

[frogfactory]

Oh, he sat next to me and asked me if he'd answered my question, and I told him (politely) that I was afraid he hadn't, and that we seemed to be talking at cross purposes. He got pretty agitated and started accusing me in a rather personal fashion of not paying attention and not having a clue what I was talking about. I think the word 'girl' may have been used in his description of me. It didn't last long - I had to shush him at that point for the speaker, but it struck me as a remarkable way to behave.

[tideliar]

You should've given him the nut!

[Editor]

In the humanities conference I attended (SLSA Europe, 2006) there was a lot of hostility towards science, even though that is what they were meant to be studying from their humanities vantage.

I wasn't sure if it was an inferiority complex, or a latent fear, but the love/hate edge was definitely there.