The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
GST about experts and nonexperts in Internet discussions
Posts
I think the point is more that a consensus on a particular theory or debate might not be easily provable some times. A consensus may be informal and the expert knowledgeable of that consensus because they are in that particular field.
That's why I find the response rockmgr wrote to my post in the OP to be a little disingenuous or at least off-base. "We are just have fun and learning stuff" would sound much more compelling to me if some of the posts in that thread weren't effectively just circlejerking about how the various arguments against moral realism are decisive or at least quite strong when in fact they aren't. I don't have a problem with people circlejerking about arguments against X or Y if the arguments are good ones, but that's not what's going on in the thread. Everyone's jumping on a bandwagon to slag off moral realism despite not really understanding a lot of the key points. If it were just "learning stuff" it seems to me the climate would be more like the subreddit, where the questions would be directed to understanding the view and objections, if offered at all, would be offered in the spirit of "I'm doing my best to find out why the idea you're presenting might be compelling" rather than "I'm doing my best to explain why the idea you're presenting is wrong."
Of course, it's also a little unfair to desire that things resemble the subreddit, because on reddit various conversations are contained in their own subthreads, meaning it's easy to keep the various conversations distinct, whereas on a traditional forum everything gets mushed together and the dialectic gets muddled in a thousand ways. It's not clear how many people have accepted which replies or what direction people are coming from and so on and so forth. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what topic someone has in mind when they raise a new issue, etc.
There is one way that things could be improved right off the bat, though, without worrying about expertise or anything at all like that. People could adopt the idea that the best way to understand a topic is not to offer objections against it in the spirit of defeating the view that is being examined, but rather to try to understand the motivations for adopting the view being examined or rejecting the opposition to the view being examined. That's less of a "debate" and more of a "let's learn some stuff," and I think that structure works a lot better in many cases (especially in that specific topic, where the reasons for adopting moral realism are much more subtle, nuanced, and difficult to understand than people seem to realize).
The point where expertise does come in, though, is deciding whether it makes more sense to go into "it's time for me to learn" mode or whether one ought to go into "I am going to defend my position" mode. If an expert in the topic is telling you that you don't know what you are talking about, this suggests to me that one ought to swap into "it's time for me to learn" mode. Experts, I think, are in a position to realize whether you lack the requisite knowledge to effectively attack the theory in question, and if they're telling you that your objections are not very good and that you would be better off spending some time learning about the thing you are objecting to, I have a hard time coming up with reasons to disagree with the expert.
Addressing the person, rather than the argument, is a lousy way to carry out a philosophical discussion. If a person does have inadequate knowledge, lack of familiarity with jargon, etc., that will be evident in their argument. An actual expert will be able to both defend their position, and re-articulate the layperson's attack against the position in a more effective manner.
"You do not know what you are talking about." is unhelpful and unproductive.
"Here is a better way to articulate the argument I think you want to make." is helpful and productive.
In philosophy, at least, part of being an expert on X is knowing the arguments against X, and the appropriate replies. If anything, the expert wants to encourage more critique, and foster the arguments of those who disagree. We do not find Truth by hiding in our tower. We find Truth by beating the shit out of arguments, and abandoning the ones that fall.
They would be boring shows if it was just "bill do heavy things fall faster than slow things?" "no, next question".
I am denying that it is always helpful and productive. The problem is that the better way to articulate the argument sometimes requires first understanding the position against which you are arguing, and it's difficult to get people to focus on understanding that when they are so eager to refute it that they keep jumping ahead to the part where they give their reasons for it being wrong.
The expert doesn't want to encourage more critique and foster the arguments of those who disagree. The expert wants to encourage more good critique and foster the good arguments of those who disagree. I am proposing that it is sometimes impossible to offer a good critique or a good argument without first understanding in some depth the position being criticized, and the best way to help someone come up with an argument against a position is sometimes not to literally help them do that but rather to help them understand the position first. If, however, they are dead-set on destroying the position, you're not going to be able to do much to help them understand it. At least, that has been my experience. We find "Truth" by beating the shit out of good arguments, not by beating the shit out of arguments that are terrible because, in our ignorance, we think those are the good arguments. But that is what is largely going on in the other thread.
I don't remember anyone arguing with Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard though. My point is that sometimes offering arguments against a theory and having an expert clarify your arguments is sometimes not a good way to learn. Sometimes you first need to understand the theory.
If the argument is to discuss moral realism, then yes, expert opinion should carry some weight; to begin with, they're substantially better able to determine what is and is not moral realism compared to the average person. If the argument is about whether a politician lying is acceptable under any circumstance, then non-experts can feel free to weigh in. Expert philosophers should avoid using terms like "universal prescriptivism," "ethical non-naturalism," or "categorical imperative" in such debates.
Similar things will apply in other topics. If we're talking about the right to privacy in the digital age, it's absolutely fine for technical experts to be clear about what can and cannot be done, and what probably will or will not be possible in the near future, and for philosophical experts to weigh in on ought vs can. With that said, non-expert opinions of "I feel really uncomfortable with the idea that my every movement is being tracked at all times" and "I feel safer being tracked - if something happens to me, it could be the difference between life and death" are just as valid as the expert opinions. In that example, I'd hope that experts would be able to educate non-experts.
They heard you. They just ignored you.
I'm not an expert in anything, but I have expertise in some things. I do not flaunt it on the internet because it is incredibly freeing to be wrong with no consequence. The teacher/student relationship is delicate in real life until each proves themselves, and on the internet where benevolent intentions can never be validated, it is impossible.
Plus, I can get honest views from people much easier if they don't respect me, and I can use them for bargain introspection. To get that in the real world, somebody has to really hate you or really love you.
Plus, if you are viewed as a regular forumer, you get to elevate the level of debate by injecting your expertise into the vernacular of the standard internet forumer.
Also you don't get doxxed
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Although I'm sympathetic to your point here, and certainly sympathetic to the frustration inherent in the experiences you describe (which I have shared before, to my dismay), I think that a certain amount of this is inherent to the nature of the forum -- where people understandably want to dive in, because they're here for recreation.
I have found myself happier for adjusting my expectations to better line up with that, which does sometimes involve just giving up--but that's fine now and then. Anyway, ymmv and all.
I take it another one of the points that I made, though, and in fact a point that comes out in the part I've quoted above, is that things could be better if people changed their minds about things. This is not to say they will or even that they should, but it does at least strike me as a possibility worth mentioning, especially because it has never been super clear to me what the resistance to it would be, apart from pig-headedness or something equally ugly that I would love to avoid having to accuse anyone of.
This is doubly so when people walk around evincing an "I'm just here to learn" mien when, as you point out, they're more interested in diving right into the debate without first familiarizing themselves with the basics to the degree it would take to make coherent and competent arguments.
One might think that even someone with an attitude of "I just want to learn" might be perfectly justified in jumping into the debate rather than (and here is the issue we are talking about in this thread) deferring to the judgment of more knowledgeable people about whether jumping into the debate makes sense. It has been my position in this thread that there is no such justification, or at least that the justification is very shaky and perhaps not always present. I have yet to see anyone refute this point to my satisfaction and so I have yet to change my mind.
Trust me, I'm an expert....
In semiconductor photo lithography.
Of course that doesn't mean it'll convince the goofball you're arguing with online, but it tends to convince everyone else reading the argument at least. Whereas "Because I'm an expert!" is rarely convincing, especially on the internet.
The justification is it's an internet debate forum. There doesn't need to be any beyond that.
Exactly. This is a debate forum, not an educational one.
Which I think is one of the problems - in some ways a 100-page very silly debate about semantics is seen as more worthwhile than an 'echo chamber'. I don't think that way myself, but that's what D&D is for, and it's not my time and money creating it.
You seem to be saying that an internet forum should be like a classroom, where there are instructors with independently verified expertise and students who are paying money to learn. Here, anyone can pose as an expert based on some undergrad classes and people are here, like MrMister said, for recreation first and learning second. If you want to avail yourself of the authority of expertise, cite it from reputable sources. As far as you personally are concerned, you are just another voice in the debate. That's not because the plebes are pigheaded dummies, it's because it's the internet. Whatever personal authority you establish comes from doing exactly what J describes:
That's the the biggest thing.
I mean if your not enjoying yourself here, what's the point?
This seems like an entirely separate issue. If the experts aren't actually experts, then nothing I say has any bite. But we are presumably discusses cases where the experts are experts. If the experts aren't experts then I'm happy to agree that arguing with them is likely going to be just as fruitful as taking a more inquisitive, less confrontational approach.
I already responded to _J_'s point above, and I don't think you've said anything to make me question my response. As for me being just another voice in the debate, I guess if people are happy to just assume I don't know what I'm talking about any more than they do, then this would explain why they are arguing rather than trying to learn, but I would hope that people would trust me enough to believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. Above you say "if you want to avail yourself of the authority of expertise, cite it from reputable sources," but I linked the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a few times in the other thread to no avail, so I'm not sure what more I can do beyond giving everyone a detailed bibliography of 20 books they should read if they're going to insist on not taking my word for granted.
People aren't necessarily "arguing against" you. They're pointing out aspects they see as inconsistent or illogical or whatever. Declaring yourself an expert and saying you're right rarely convinces anyone. Well written posts that explain the person's reasoning are generally what convince people.
You want people to defer to expertise, and you want them to be invested principally in learning. That sounds more like a classroom than a general purpose forum to me. Sure, there are "Ask a... " and Stack Exchange sites that work that way. They have a community rating system for identifying reliable authorities, and their reason for existing is for people to come and get answers from the experts. This forum can't work that way. That doesn't mean that people don't learn. Whether this learning is more efficient than querying experts for facts is a pedagogical question that I think has no definitive answer. For my money, even a bad argument is a better learning method than a lecture, as long as you actually are willing to learn. But whether you agree or not, learning is always going to be a secondary reason for people to be here.
Another big thing that tends to happen on forums like these - or really just in arguments in general - is that even when the ill-informed party won't give up their viewpoint during the initial debate, they're often much more amenable to changing their opinion when it comes up again.
Nobody enjoys losing after all, but a convincingly laid out argument from expertise can still change minds long term... If maybe sometimes for no better reason than they don't want to lose the argument again.
I think we see that kind of thing happen all the time on these forums, with people changing sides as they gain more information, even if there's never some sort of like formal declaration of defeat.
"Trust me, I'm an expert" is a red flag.
Yeah, that's why I think there is an important difference between cases where there is and is not an expert consensus. If there is no consensus, and you're trying to use your expertise as a bludgeon against people attacking your position, that's a problem. I don't think people would take it very well if some economist from the Austrian school showed up and said we were all wrong and simply unequipped to challenge him.
Hey, everybody learns different.
I do better when I try to defend a position (or at least the old saying of the fastest way to get a correct answer on internet)
I always try to make everyone understand that I think that I am wrong and am trying to understand why that is. If I have not made that clear I apologize.
But to use the mr wizard I am the kid asking why feathers don't fall as fast as bowling balls.
On my iPad so I'll be brief. Issues in modern philosophy's role in society:
(1) Comingling between the history of philosophy and the practice of it. Phlogiston in physics, Flat Earth in geography, barter in economics, leeches in medicine, prescriptivism in linguistics - none of these are accorded the same time, intellectual space and respect that The Theory of Forms or Deontology are accorded. Which leads me on to:
(2) Presenting multiple answers rather than single ones. Again this is a matter of degree but most areas of study offer single accepted theories or a small number of fundamentally conflicting ones. Philosophy rarely does so.
(3) 'Professional philosopher'. Has such a person ever existed? Philosophers have been educators, members of wealthy elites, or writers, to earn their daily bread, mostly. Modern academics mix all three categories, particularly if we examine wealth on a global scale. I'd even be interested to see research on the class/parental wealth of different academic disciplines, because I imagine few academic philosophers come from backgrounds where wondering how to pay for food is a serious issue.
These are just some of the reasons why philosophy is treated as a game anyone can play. And I personally think that's how it has to be, even if it makes Internet discussion difficult or irritates academics.
Same goes for scientists, though maybe to a lesser degree. But maybe that's just how it is over here. Glorious Socialist forms of higher education are just better.
But yeah uhm academia in general is heavily biased towards wealthy elites.
I'm sympathetic, but sometimes the answer to that question is "after 6 years of graduate level education"
I've found myself in the position where giving someone the whole story involves publishing a book. Giving cliff notes will be a disservice, and I don't have the time to take you through the last 3 seminars I took.
So what do I do then?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
True but professional scientists do exist, as do professional economists. People who just science for a living, and get paid for the fruits of that labour (as much as anyone does, c.f. Marx). Other disciplines also, to greater or lesser extent. So that point extends to other fields as well. I just wanted to put some perspective on the phrase 'professional philosopher'. Thinktank members maybe? Some of those are professional philosophers. Where does the funding for those thinktanks come from?
This is both right and wrong.
It is not the case that just anyone can come in and do philosophy in the manner in which it is successfully done. There's so much more than just thinking and understanding.
I mean, you are right, that it isn't more than thinking and understanding, but that's deceptive because it's thinking and understanding in a particular way, with a wealth of background knowledge.
Yes, philosophy is a byproduct of having a certain level of wealth in a society. You can't devote yourself to academia if you are starving. I mean, if you luck out and get public funding for an education, you can totally do it!
But that's the same with any field. You can't be a chemical researcher if you are starving and in poverty unless you get some financial assistance to get into schools.
I basically am not sure I agree with anything here.
Doody head.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I mean, you get people in Bioethics working in hospitals and for the NIH or WHO. They just do bioethics, and that's it.
Thinktanks of all kinds attract philosophers as well. Corporations hire specialists in business ethics.
There are a lot of people that make a living just doing philosophy. As much as anyone's job is "just doing" one thing and one thing only.
Also, academia was sort of always where philosophers were. Because sadly publishing papers isn't something that anyone gets paid for.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Realize that if you're unable to communicate the idea effectively on an internet debate forum that perhaps it's not the place to try and do so.
I would say that the easiest thing to do would be to explain the debate (supposing there is one) as a broad overview and then state your opinion.
Or maybe it's easier to say that I think you have been doing a perfect job answering my questions and you just should do just like that with the stipulation that if you aren't enjoying yourself maybe old boy just stays wrong.
People with philosophy degrees end up in many different places. If philosophy is just understanding and thinking they would all count as professional philosophers.
I dunno, I don't think you can easily distinguish between science and philosophy as professions when you look at their position as academic disciplines.
That background knowledge, that should be background, is too much, well, in the foreground. I'm not denigrating the Greeks at all - one of the ways people describe genius is that its discoveries seem obvious in hindsight but were unimaginable at the time. But I've seen J wibble on about the theory of Forms here. People should be able to just decide that idea is done and dead, and move on.
The conflation of history of philosophy and practice of it is an important one, I think. Previous philosophers influence so much of our thought that I know from my own experience that I 'came up with' many famous old ideas before I'd ever heard of them. That's not saying there's anything good about my brain - just that, given our culture, it's perfectly possible for someone modern to think about the is-ought fallacy without ever having heard of Hume. So I think a better philosophical education (and I have experienced undergraduate philosophy classes in all their pain) might focus less on the thoughts of the past, and more on the thoughts of the future. YMMV.
The offering multiple answers one is a biggie, I think. Philosophy presents itself as a discipline that is ever-evolving, where little or nothing is settled. That is one area which I think is very different from others. And so all us 'amateur' philosophers view that as an invitation to dive in. I took Socrates' line about the unexamined life to heart from a very young age. I believe in the pursuit of philosophy and wisdom as fundamental to my life. Who can tell me to stop merely because of my ineptness at it?
The professional philosopher point has two sides - one, to not be too precious about one's status as a paid philosopher, if one's income is really coming from teaching rather than philosophising. The other is that today's amateur is tomorrow's professional. The line between professional and amateur has always been very fuzzy in philosophy. Many famous academic philosophers were working in other disciplines, such as Nietzsche. Others, such as Hume, had more mundane jobs. So much of the greatest contributions has been from non-professionals. If those non-professionals can contribute, why can't I?