March 9, 1999
Dear Dr. Swartz,
I liked your ruminations on philosophy as a blood sport. As a student of
Cognitive Science, I had to take a couple of philosophy courses. Though I
did not come away with the impression of a blood sport, I certainly
understood that philosophy had to be treated VERY differently from other
disciplines in cogsci.
I think one of the reasons why philosophers act differently is the nature
of the discipline itself. Philosophers tend to identify themselves far too
closely with their opinions. Any challenge to those opinions, however
remote, are then taken to be statements at a personal level.
Things are different in the sciences. The scientists' positions are more
aloof. They are about things "outside". Besides, they also have very
rigorous ways of testing positions and reaching a consensus. For
philosophers, there are only arguments. So things tend to tilt towards
sound and fury. (I would like to think of cogsci as a way of changing this
state of affairs. It can ask philosophers, legitimately, "where's the
evidence?")
As well, I think philosophers tend to start off with a world-view and are
somewhat closed to data that go against this view. Scientists have a more
open view about the world. They know that their theories are, to an extent,
ad hoc and experimental data may result in radical changes to held
beliefs. For a philosopher, say a realist, his/her metaphysical commitments
are not ad hoc at all! (One of the comments aired in this context goes:
"If Einstein was a philosopher, he would never have postulated Relativity!"
Same goes for Quantum Mechanics, I think.)
This science-philosophy debate was a dominant one in our programme and I
think it relates closely to the point you are making. Maybe philosophy
needs to detach positions from persons.
I like to think that cogsci's effort to "intrude" into things philosophical
will change the blood sport nature of philosophy. I am not saying that all
philosophy needs is a spot of science to make it more civilised. Maybe it
will result in things getting bloodier. (I can just see the massacre of a
generation of cogsci students!) But, as you pointed out, things definitely
are different in the sciences.
As a parting note, I would like to suggest an empirical way of finding out
whether a bit of science helps philosophy: find out whether philosophers
doing cogsci do things differently at a cogsci conference.
Note: the author's name and address have been withheld at his
request. –Norman Swartz
|