<div dir="auto"><br><span style="font-size:12.8px">>I do suspect that the practice and vocation of philosophy is being altered in the face of things like the development of Category Theory and now LLMs</span><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">One of Joe Ramsey's colleagues, Steve Awodey, is working on a reformulation of the foundations of mathematics based on category theory.</div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 12:03 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I like the term "epistemic trespass" and generally agree with the
idea glen promotes in that regard. <br>
</p>
<p>My direct experience with *many* experimentalists trained and
self-selected as physicists or chemists or materials scientists
was that many of them were excellent engineers, computer systems
developers, programmers, even mech/elec/hydro/pneumo-techs...
but *mainly* because those skills/disciplines were in directs
support of what they were trying to do and it was a useful
shortcut/leverage to be able to do all those things for themselves
rather than wait for the availability of specialists in those
areas and then communicate their needs. Only a *few* theorists
seemed to have these skills because, perhaps they rarely *needed*
that kind of support, though some had avocations or hobbies that
exercised those skills. I would hazard that more of the
theoreticians were more deeply interested in the mathematics and
philosophical embeddings that their avowed day-work implied. The
experimentalists *might* be interested (and/or facile) in those
things but to some extent by constitution, self-selection,
utilitarianism were less engaged.</p>
<p>I am glad that Tyson is out there "spreading the faith" to some
extent, but it doesn't surprise me that he might give philosophers
the brush-back unthoughtfully. I feel like Sabine Hossenfelder,
in her very subtle style may have done the same thing but with a
straight face rather than a big grin, even though much of her
science-communication is smack dab in the middle (IMO) of these
epistimic boundaries which is where (IMO) the best stuff
resides. I was recently put off by Paul Hawkin's need to
deprecate/dismiss any talk (or thought?) about consciousness in
deference to the presumably more formally defineable
"intelligence", but I also understand that one good way to make
progress on technical things is to downscope until your reach does
not exceed your grasp (by much) and Hawkin's experience as a tech
entreprenuer (Palm Pilot) suggests that he is more better served
by staying closer to the engineering and tech end of the
(multi-dimensional?) spectrum than the philosophical one. I also
understand that as one moves out into the yet-more-abstract of
philosophy and mathematics and semiotics (for example) they seem
more likely to be laced with BS (and perhaps often are?)... but
that ambiguity/difficulty is part of what makes it worth spending
time in (IMO again).</p>
<p>Not only do we not like our various sacred-cows skewered by
others we don't even like them being called by unfamiliar names,
until you realize those names *might* be "terms of endearment"?</p>
<p>I am not familiar with Hawking or Mlodinow's assertions but it
triggers my associative memory to Russell and Whitehead's (and
others) assertions around<i> Principia Mathematica</i>. Or the
(yet more) classic<i> "God is Dead</i> - Neitchze 1882 V. <i>Neitchze
is dead</i> - God 1900". I do suspect that the practice and
vocation of philosophy is being altered in the face of things like
the development of Category Theory and now LLMs ... in the common
CS vernacular, <i>it is not deprecated but is being refactored</i>?<br>
</p>
<div>On 7/14/23 11:02 AM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">This
merely seems like triggered gatekeeping to me. Yeah, sure, working
philosophers have skills and behaviors working [insert your
favorite other clique] don't have. But, if it's not already
obvious, especially to anyone who's had ANY contact with
organizations like the SFI, epistemic trespassing can be wildly
productive. We're all bad at things we're not good at. >8^D I
haven't seen the Tyson rant that seems to have triggered Ramsey.
But *leaving someone out* of your cf list is NOT a snub ...
despite what the hip-and-trendy might claim. It's merely evidence
that any presentation is limited in space and time. My guess is
that if you listen to Tyson with a little generosity, you'd hear
him make sounds sympathetic to the expertise of the peri-science
cliques.
<br>
<br>
Now, Hawking and Mlodinow's explicit claim that philosophy is dead
... now, that's a different story.
<br>
<br>
On 7/14/23 08:33, Frank Wimberly wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Joe Ramsey, who took over my <a href="http://job.in" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">job.in</a>
<a href="http://job.in" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><http://job.in></a> the Philosophy Department at Carnegie
Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:
<br>
<br>
I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited
defense of science in which he oddly gave no credit to
philosophers at all. His straw man philosopher is a dedicated
*armchair* philosopher who spins theories without paying
attention to scientific practice and contributes nothing to
scientific understanding. He misses that scientists themselves
are constantly raising obviously philosophical questions and are
often ill-equipped to think about them clearly. What is the
correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? What is the right
way to think about reductionism? Is reductionism the right way
to think about science? What is the nature of consciousness? Can
you explain consciousness in terms of neuroscience? Are
biological kinds real? What does it even mean to be real? Or is
realism a red herring; should we be pragmatists instead?
Scientists raise all kinds of philosophical questions and have
ill-informed opinions about them. But *philosophers* try to
answer them, and scientists do pay attention to the
controversies. At least the smart ones do.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>