• schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    Let's say someone has a Ph.D in Electrical/Electronic Engineering and Physics, and knows all the minutia of all the technology from start to finish.. from the theoretical physics surrounding how electrons operate, the properties of conductive materials, the theories behind the most physically complex quantum computing and regular computing processors and circuit boards, to the most complex networks and neural networks and logic gate theories, to even how machine code gets compiled and translated into various computer languages.. He knows all the ins and outs of the most popular computer languages (C++, Java are like peanuts to this guy.. he invented the compilers and programming language of his own, doesn't need those generic ones).. Understand even how the most complex peripherals work (audio, video, monitor engineering, pixelation, colors, hexidecimal).. knows information theory up the yingyang.. compression theory, electronics everything from simple circuits up to the most complex relay boards imaginable, electrical and even some plumbing components..everything from your fridge electronics and condensers, HVAC, electrical grid and power station theory, etc. etc.

    With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy?
  • god must be atheist
    2.7k
    A philosopher who uses the physics evidence in his philosophy, must understand the concepts. A physicist as you described, has all these tools, but he may lack practical or theoretical knowledge how to apply physics to his version of truth.

    However, it is hard to say which of two people who are both theoretical beings, has deeper philosophical insight.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    A physicist as you described, has all these tools, but he may lack practical or theoretical knowledge how to apply physics to his version of truth.god must be atheist

    How about on matters such as ethics, politics, social theory, etc?
  • Albero
    90
    I actually think one should have practical know-how, and my reasoning is that I think it poses a problem in the realm of public perception. For example, let's say Joe is a professor of philosophy but he knows absolutely jack sh*it about how the pipes under his house get his water or something like that. He just hands money to a repairman when things go awry and away he goes back to working on his new book. Joe's neighbours might associate him with the stereotype of the academic who can write theory all day but doesn't know anything remotely practical. Joe is afraid to get his hands dirty, and he's just a sissy liberal arts major or what have you. This is a little different, but I think another example is Western self-help commodifications of Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, or whatever. All talk that was carefully researched by someone who knows what they're doing, but no show on how to actually do anything. Praxis and experience greatly increase a person's credibility, because I can know Kant from A-Z but where does that really get me?
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    Joe is afraid to get his hands dirty, and he's just a sissy liberal arts major or what have you. This is a little different, but I think another example is Western self-help commodifications of Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, or whatever. All talk that was carefully researched by someone who knows what they're doing, but no show on how to actually do anything. Praxis and experience greatly increase a person's credibility, because I can know Kant from A-Z but where does that really get me?Albero

    Yes, this is almost where I'm going with this. Let's change this up a bit...

    What happens if I knew how to do all the practical trades (I can design, build, engineer a house, commercial building, and many types of structures) AND I knew about as much as an above average professor in applied and theoretical physics, as well as electrical/electronic engineering.. In fact, I have many patents, scholarly articles that have advanced tangibly the outcomes of many electronic manufacturing techniques that have affected many areas of industry, including both B2B products, and direct consumer products. Let's say I also designed and participated in constructing (along with the contractors and average worker) many buildings that are used by businesses small and large for their daily operations. Also, I have constructed several housing developments occupied by dozens of lower to upper-middle class residents residing in 1 bedroom (but spacious) apartments to 6 bedroom houses of various sizes, construction materials, architectural designs, and techniques.

    NOW let us say I am also an antinatalist and think that the best option for humans (despite all my productive capacities) is to not procreate. Does my philosophy/ethic have more credibility?
  • Albero
    90
    Sure, I think so. But maybe I might not be fully grasping what you're getting at...Are you asking that does this knowledge I have of everything onit's own make any position more credible, or is it only credible if one has all this knowledge of stuff and understands how to apply it? If you have experience with patents, consumer products, all of which have positively impacted industry, then maybe you could use that experience to make anti-natalism marketable or make it so that your knowledge with trades, computer coding, and electronic manufacturing can lead to the development of machines that can simply replace children so parents are satisfied and nobody has to be born (seems impossible to me, but you never know I guess)
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    Are you asking that does this knowledge I have of everything onit's own make any position more credible, or is it only credible if one has all this knowledge of stuff and understands how to apply it?Albero

    Good question. What I'm trying to get at is a possible bias we have for people we perceive as having more productive capacity or insight into "how-things-work" in a way that affects us tangibly. These people are deemed (my theory goes) as having more credibility in claims of a philosophic import.

    I purposely juxtaposed a highly (what most people consider) "productive" person with the (oft-considered) "odious" claim of antinatalism to make the contrast really hit home. Most people would think a "respectable productive person" would not claim such a thing, as if necessarily, they must have a positive view of existence or some other more moral majority opinion (i.e. a respectable productive citizen who wants to see X, Y, Z just like me!!).
  • Albero
    90
    Got it, but some questions first: Do you think it's bad that we have this bias (if it's real) ? I personally don't see why it would be bad if someone who's been around the block for years says "this is how you do it" compared to someone who's been working for a month. Another thing, are you trying to say others perceive antinatalists as being lazy or lacking? I mean it's pretty darn hopeless that's for sure, but lazy? Nah, not necessarily
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    Do you think it's bad that we have this bias (if it's real) ? I personally don't see why it would be bad if someone who's been around the block for years says "this is how you do it" compared to someone who's been working for a month. Another thing, are you trying to say others perceive antinatalists as being lazy or lacking? I mean it's pretty darn hopeless that's for sure, but lazy?Albero

    People are HOPING the practically-accomplished person in the sciences and construction trades would be a "pragmatic-realist" (like them) and not something as "dreaded" as an antinatalist. And they hope that they would hold the generic/majority values of a procreation-sympathizer/agnostic. That kind of cognitive dissonance would make the claim more credible, because everything else they have accomplished is something they admire and has "helped" the systems in place in a way that they praise.
  • Albero
    90
    aw yeah, then agreed. I remember reading that when polio was big and scary, they had to get Elvis on TV and take a vaccine to prove to everyone it was safe. Maybe if some high profile Hollywood types started telling everyone at the Academy Awards to be antinatalist it would gain considerable traction.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    Maybe if some high profile Hollywood types started telling everyone at the Academy Awards to be antinatalist it would gain considerable traction.Albero

    But for the "respectable folk" and not the rabble it would have to be high profile scientists, inventors, titans of industry, highly trained technicians that are experts in their field and have contributed many tangible products, innovations, and services etc. People who are deemed as accomplished in the ways of life they deem as respectable.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k

    But I am also trying to reveal that people often deem that knowing minutia in a field itself confers by some necessity, better understanding in existential matters like antinatalism.
  • Pinprick
    606
    I'm trying to say that there may be psychological hoops that people will accept for someone to be credible. Thus a random guy on the internet saying "Antinatalism... good" is not going to be fly as much as this highly-decorated person saying the same thing who is known for all these socially-accepted accomplishments (from the perspective of middle class social normative values).schopenhauer1

    I don’t think I agree. To begin with, at least personally regarding philosophy, what establishes one’s credibility is his ability to articulate sound arguments. “Expert” philosophers are constantly being disagreed with by other experts, as well as novices. So I don’t think one’s academic credentials, or notoriety hold much particular sway when it comes to accepting one’s philosophical views.

    Also, philosophy tends to be very subjective to begin with. Therefore, oftentimes what ideas one accepts depends solely on whether or not it is appealing to them. To be blunt, you and I will likely never agree on AN. Even if you become, or are, some world renowned philosopher, or if AN becomes popular, it won’t change what I value, or how I prioritize those values. Unless there’s a way to objectively determine what we should value most, I see no way of overcoming our difference of opinion.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    So I don’t think one’s academic credentials, or notoriety hold much particular sway when it comes to accepting one’s philosophical views.Pinprick

    I'm just suggesting there may be a bias. I think more empirical evidence might be needed.

    Also, philosophy tends to be very subjective to begin with. Therefore, oftentimes what ideas one accepts depends solely on whether or not it is appealing to them. To be blunt, you and I will likely never agree on AN. Even if you become, or are, some world renowned philosopher, or if AN becomes popular, it won’t change what I value, or how I prioritize those values. Unless there’s a way to objectively determine what we should value most, I see no way of overcoming our difference of opinion.Pinprick

    No doubt.. But I think it may be an interesting study to see if the pro-natalist (or sympathizers rather) see knowing minutia on some field (math, science, electronics, physics, construction even), must mean that one must have more philosophical insight as if one can just "plumb the depths" of knowledge, one will get to some sort of philosophical insight. I guess in this way, a question arises, "Does knowing a lot about something, make one more of an expert in philosophical concepts like the human condition?"
  • Olivier5
    2k
    would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy?schopenhauer1

    He would have credibility and legitimacy in dealing with computers, including in the general philosophy of computers. But he would be lost on a medical issue, or a social one.
  • baker
    1k
    But I am also trying to reveal that people often deem that knowing minutia in a field itself confers by some necessity, better understanding in existential matters like antinatalism.schopenhauer1
    No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

    Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa.
  • baker
    1k
    I guess in this way, a question arises, "Does knowing a lot about something, make one more of an expert in philosophical concepts like the human condition?"schopenhauer1
    I think it's an urban myth that this is so. But it can certainly happen that a person who has expertise in one field takes for granted that said field is as important to and revealing of humanity as a whole as it is to said person's career and means of living.
  • god must be atheist
    2.7k
    How about on matters such as ethics, politics, social theory, etc?schopenhauer1

    Well, yes, how about them?
  • god must be atheist
    2.7k
    No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

    Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa.
    baker

    I agree, and wish to add that other divisions also create credibility (and the opposite): level of smarts, level of religiosity, level of physical strength or athletic ability, level of good looks!! Yes, look at the celebrity thing. Level of social status, level of talent (among writers, artists and performers), etc. All divisions by sub-culture have their heroes. Heck, even being well-groomed and well-dressed (and the opposite) can give preconceptions to one's credibility or not.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    He would have credibility and legitimacy in dealing with computers, including in the general philosophy of computers. But he would be lost on a medical issue, or a social one.Olivier5

    Don't you think there is a "production bias" for middle-class types in general though, when it comes to legitimacy? The more you produce tangible things that increase some sort of tangible product/services, that confers credibility.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

    Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa.
    baker

    Agreed. I am just trying to define the "respectable middle-class" approach is measuring someone's productive capacities (and I specified examples of this). In a philosophy forum like this, or in most places where these philosophical debates take place, you are dealing with these middle-class types.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    I think it's an urban myth that this is so. But it can certainly happen that a person who has expertise in one field takes for granted that said field is as important to and revealing of humanity as a whole as it is to said person's career and means of living.baker

    Very good point. You know about a bunch of theories on math, ergo you must know something more than the person that does not study this when it comes to some other X philosophical thing about big questions about the human condition. Now widen this to more practical things like making tangible products and services (engineering and trades for example). It's even more tempting to say they must know something more about the human condition. Thus my juxtaposition of the respectable productive man with the odious antinatalist position. Normally the middle-class type would say: "Ah yes, all is well, this very (what I deem) productive citizen is some variant of "pragmatic-realist" (or put any what-is-considered respectable philosophy here).. It may cause cognitive dissonance to learn that same person is an antinatalist, They did stuff that "helped" society in such a tangible way... "Why are they against bringing more people into the world?" might be their question. Minutia, minutia, minutia.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    I agree, and wish to add that other divisions also create credibility (and the opposite): level of smarts, level of religiosity, level of physical strength or athletic ability, level of good looks!! Yes, look at the celebrity thing. Level of social status, level of talent (among writers, artists and performers), etc. All divisions by sub-culture have their heroes. Heck, even being well-groomed and well-dressed (and the opposite) can give preconceptions to one's credibility or not.god must be atheist

    Yes, I agree with those, but I am focusing specifically on productive capacity, specifically ones that involve practical trades and science/technology because these are seen as particularly valuable and credible.
  • Olivier5
    2k
    The more you produce tangible things that increase some sort of tangible product/services, that confers credibility.schopenhauer1

    You mean like Bill Gates?
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k
    You mean like Bill Gates?Olivier5

    He's a good example. But it can be a more unknown person who can prove their credentials in their productive capacities. Then the middle-class type might have a bias to believe they "know" something in the philosophical realm.
  • J O Lambert
    5
    I agree - it is stiil only a midly entertaing toy for autistic childen.
  • James Riley
    317
    With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts?schopenhauer1

    Credibility and legitimacy is relative. Thus, I would answer you question "No." They don't. Not necessarily.

    Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy?schopenhauer1

    It certainly helps, but it's not necessary.

    I knew a sniper once who had all the dope down pat, and he could shoot, too. But philosophical insight would seem to go more to the who, what, where, when, why, how, and should of his employment.

    That's why I think STEM should follow the natural intellectual curiosity that springs from the Liberal Arts, rather than preceding it. That used to be the U.S. advantage. Not so much any more.
  • James Riley
    317
    Good question. What I'm trying to get at is a possible bias we have for people we perceive as having more productive capacity or insight into "how-things-work" in a way that affects us tangibly.schopenhauer1

    I have a rant on "gravitas." When I think of guys like Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley Jr., Justice Scalia, and others like them, I perceive this deep-voiced, contemplative, paternal, relaxed, calming fount of wisdom. So good is the show that many "lesser" people want what he has and aspire to it (Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden, et al). But when you look at Henry's record, some might say he's been flat out wrong on just about every policy position he's ever held.

    So yes, in my opinion, we do have the bias you mention. A guy can be a mile wide and an inch deep, all hat and no cattle. Then you've got a guy like Ben Stein who is extremely intelligent and an encyclopedia of knowledge but, in my opinion, lacking wisdom. But, because he's got "gravitas" he get's an ear just like Henry, Bill, et al.

    I was taught that in logic you consider what is said, not who said it. It's hard to do, but it can be done.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k

    Agreed, and there can be a whole discussion of expertise vs. wisdom, etc. However, I would like to focus specifically on expertise in the science/technology/practical trades that leads to measurable increase in innovations and production of goods and services. The middle-class respectable man is measured by how they produce. "What did you DO today?" And those who increased production measurably with something tangible, seem to be the most respected. I am not saying this has to be a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk. Rather, this could just be a very well credentialed technician who knows their field very well and has measurably contributed output to it. These are the people whose positions make them praiseworthy to the respectable middle-class, and so "must" be most wise because they embody their value of production of goods and services, increase in technological capacity, etc.. Thus the assumption is that if they are so "productive" they must hold the values of the middle-class that gets them to be so contributing to the system (pragmatic-realists). So it would be more than disconcerting if a middle-class admirer was to find out that this person was an antinatalist as well.. They might say something like "Oh, but but, you put output into the system, and why aren't you buying into the values of "the system is good" if you have "contributed" (that concept here is biased too) to the system so much?
  • Olivier5
    2k
    Not sure the middle class is that uniform but yes, maybe, on topics like the mind for instance. Assuming the mind is like a computer.
  • schopenhauer1
    5.5k

    True enough.. but we can assume people are valued more for their productive capacity than not, and thus taken more seriously the more they are seen as having "contributed" something substantial to the system.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.