Philosophers – Shut Up Now!
What is it about philosophers that they can’t resist pontificating about things they know nothing about? The examples are legion. Mary Midgley and David Stove wittering on about Darwinism and selfish genes. Simon Blackburn and Mary Warnock making a mess even of amateur political commentary. And Roger Scruton demonstrating that there’s no start to what he knows about popular music.
And the latest example? Have a look at this from an article in Issue 22 of The Philosophers’ Magazine (a title which sounds vaguely familiar):
Subjects like sociology, psychology, religious studies and history, which adjoin philosophy, all require empirical support, which is interpreted within the lines of a largely unquestioned methodology. Philosophy is the only subject in which the basic assumptions of these other subjects could conceivably be questioned, so if you don’t fall into line with the assumptions predominant in these other subjects it’s no good running to them for refuge. You’ll probably find minds even more closed there than they are in philosophy itself.
So who wrote this? Maybe a (bad) GCSE student. Nope. Robert Ellis, a philosophy PhD.
Needless to say, it is absolute, utter tosh. Sociology, for example, is rife with theoretical and methodological debate. Even at high school level, students are required to understand that there are huge differences, for example, between the way in which positivists and phenomenologists do their sociology. Method is an explicit part of the A-Level examination. Texbooks have been put together and organised around arguments about what constitutes sociology proper.
And, of course, it’s the same in the other subjects (at least the ones that I know something about.) So, for example, the history of psychology is at least in part dominated by an argument about the appropriateness of behaviourism as a strategy for finding out about behaviour and the mind.
So here’s my Message to Philosophers: Shut up!* You’re making fools of yourselves.
* You are permitted to talk quietly, amongst yourselves – though preferably not in public – about your own subject.
“a largely unquestioned methodology”
Good grief. Largely unquestioned? What a bizarre thing to say! One has only to look at Richard Evans’ essay Postmodernism and History right on this site, for example. It’s all about questioning the methodology.
It might be a bit pot calling the kettle purple to tell them to shut up, though. After all we’re making quite a lot of noise ourselves…
The exercise of philosophy is certainly not the only way to feed skepticism about the epistemological status of science, but, mong other thimgs, it helps you to understand why you should not tell people you desagree with to shut up.
Fabio
“it helps you to understand why you should not tell people you desagree with to shut up.”
Hmmm. I must have missed that lesson.
JS
Never mind, it’s always time to learn something new. Even for you (maybe…).
So Fabio, do you think I should stop telling people to shut-up?
Because that would be amusingly paradoxical, no?
JS
Of course it would, so it’s something you have to learn by yourself.
But let’s not get hostile.
What do you do for a living? – if you allow me to ask (seriously, I’m not trying to be sarcastic or sort of). By the way, I apologize if I heve been so.
Fabio
So presumably you’d be quite happy for me to say something like:
Philosophers learn for yourselves not to talk about things of which you know nothing.
The serious point here is that I just think you’ve got this wrong. I don’t think there is any philosophical principle which legitimates people making substantive claims when:
(a) they’re wrong;
(b) they haven’t bothered to do even cursory research about whatever it is they’re pontificating on;
“What do you do for a living?”
Lot’s of different things (including writing on philosophy and science). You?
p.s., I feel no hostility towards you…
Well honestly. It is unfair. Nobody ever comments on my Notes and Comments, and here you get comment after comment. It is so unfair. I think I’ll go on strike.
That was a short strike.
Look, this will please you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,920457,00.html
Someone in the department of philosophy at Bristol (a public school toff, no doubt) who agrees with you (probably). One who’s allowed to talk then?
More than likely they’re not on the staff. Probably they just clean the windows or something…
I have no objection to window cleaners pontificating on these kinds of matters.
I suppose there are statistics somewhere, but what I wonder is: Of the people who don’t drop out of a PhD program, how many are ultimately rejected? A low number I would guess, but I’m not inclined to research it. It does make for some fantastic reading sometimes. ;) (Oh, by the way, I always thought that a ‘philosophy PhD’ was a redundancy) So much for standards!
Well, some definitely are. I don’t know percentages either, but it does happen. People fail their orals, or their dissertation isn’t good enough. And it’s quite common for people to be unable to write the thing in the first place. All in all it’s much better just to avoid the whole issue and be an ignorant amateur…
When I was at the L.S.E. only one in eight PhDs were completed.
Of those who complete, the pass first time rate is about 50%. But the outright fail rate is very low.