Philosophical conflicts.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Xeney : One Thread

Did you take any of the tests I linked to today? Any interesting results?

In general, do you feel you have a consistent and well-thought philosophical outlook on life? If so, how did you develop it? Does it come from religion, from things you've read, or from an innate sense of right/wrong/reality? Or have you never really thought about it that much?

Do you like having your beliefs challenged, or do you tend to react badly? Do you think that's because you're very sure of yourself, or because you aren't sure at all?

Finally, do you think there's anything wrong with being philosophically inconsistent on some points?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Answers

I'll save my substantive answer for later, but folks should try this link out- one of the better uses of the web, I think.

Yes, some of the statements are vaguely worded (that resulted in my answers to two of the three issues that it pointed me out as inconsitent on, I think), but nonetheless, it seems fairly accurate.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


Here is the link to the main games page if anyone hasn't read today's entry yet. We're mostly talking about the Philosophical Health Check.

After reconsidering, I'm taking back what I said about it being a dumb test. I think my objections stem from a basic philosophical (hah!) issue: I'm not convinced that one needs a consistent philosophy in order to be happy and healthy. Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't really thought about this. But I'm not sure it's any better to examine your beliefs and make sure they're all consistent and tidy, than to just go with your gut, even if that means you're inconsistent sometimes.

You know? Someone convince me otherwise.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


I think what bugs me about the test is that I have to agree or disagree to an absolute, and that's just not what life is about. And of course, I was annoyed when informed that I gave conflicting answers, because the things I agree with are in grey areas. It's not very often that I can make a statement about morals or judgements or philosophies and be certain that it's my final answer. No one is ever absolutely consistent in how they think; of course that's just my opinion.

I took the other artist test, putting Picasso against Kurt Cobain, and Picasso kicked serious grunge ass.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


You go, Picasso.

I just took the logical reasoning test and got them all correct, which would shock the hell out of Jeremy, I'm sure. That one was kind of fun.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


I have to agree with Keli, the lack of "grey area" answers is annoying (although I do understand how it greatly simplifies scoring the test).

I scored a low level of tension, but some of my answers were a bit arbitrary, since my real belief was a resounding "depends" in many cases. So I guess I can say that I'm not very sure of my beliefs in the abstract, but like the nonexperts in art, "I know them when I see them."

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001



The folks who put together the Philosophical Health Check need to choose their words more carefully if they want to identify tensions in my philosophy for me. Actually, I got a "low" tension score.

The test results purported that my responses were contradictory when I said both that I believe in an all-powerful, loving God and that the suffering of innocent children is morally reprehensible. Apparently I have discovered the "problem of evil." As Archibald MacLeish famously rhymed, "If God is good he is not God. If God is God he is not good. Choose the even, choose the odd. I would not stay here if I could."

If others of y'all who took the test have solved the problem of evil, I would be delighted to hear about it. I guess what the test-givers meant to tell me is that a philsophically consistent person would either (a) not believe in an all-powerful deity, (b) believe in an all-powerful but malign deity, or (c) sit back and enjoy the suffering of innocent children.

Don't you hate it when a f*cking Internet test condescends to you?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


Yes, I do. I got that answer when I tried to answer like a fundamentalist Christian.

I also scored a low level of tension both times I took the test, but the areas they did point out annoyed me a little.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


I took that test, and there was tension in a few of my replies. I was also annoyed because lots of times my answer is "it depends". I could see where they were going with some of the questions, and that affected my answers.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being philosophically inconsistent on some points. Life is complicated. I'm willing to say that I don't know what's right in every situation. I guess it seems worse to be 100% consistent and unbending - that just doesn't seem like the intelligent way to look at life.

I confess I don't think about this stuff very often. I hate philosophical questions and am bored by "what-if" discussions. Far more interesting to talk about real cases and make decisions about them, and I don't care if circumstances make me make different decisions in different cases.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


Eh.

I scored a tension quotient of 33%, and didn't find it all that interesting. Their approach is to take two statements that don't actually contradict each other if you take more than a few seconds to think them through, then point out that, okay, they could be reconciled if you're not, in fact, brain dead. What's being measured here isn't tension, but... actually, I can't tell what they're measuring, and I can't say I care.

To use a couple of the "contradictions" they found in my case...

You agreed that: There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures

And also that: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

After pointing out why they think this is a problem, they go on to say:

To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other?

The answer is "yes," obviously.

Similarly, in the "contradiction" Alleline quotes, the key word is the needless suffering of children. From God's perspective, nothing happens without a purpose, hence no contradiction.

And so on. Every question is raises is trivial, not interesting at all. At least if you ask me.

To answer Beth's questions at the top: do I feel I have a consistent philosophical outlook? For the most part, yes. Credit a combination of religion and an introspective nature.

Do I think there's anything wrong with being philosophically inconsistent in some areas? Oh, absolutely. No question. It sure seems to suggest that one isn't thinking one's positions through, and I can hardly think of a more damning accusation to make of someone.

This is not to say that my outlook is 100% perfect; it is to say that I consider the areas in which it is inconsistent to represent perhaps my most pressing problems. This is where all the action is; what actually does with one's life is merely the symptoms.

Oh, and I love being challenged, provided that it's on a logical level, rather than a personal attack or an emotional appeal.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001


I scored a 27%. Of the four items I got pinged for, I'd say two of them are legitimate tension points, although not for the reasons they suggest, but all four of them were semantical issues, and that does bug me.

As to my own philosophical outlook, I think it's fairly consistant, and where it's not, I try to be aware of the fact that it isn't... but no, I don't necessarily think that it should be thoroughly consistant... I think it's something we spend our lives developing, and it ought to be fairly malleable to take new understandings into account as we go. I worry about fairly young people who are totally hardwired to their own viewpoint - they've got a lot of years ahead of them, trying to make everything fit into their view. Seems like you should leave some room for further learning and experience.

I HATE having my beliefs challenged, but that's mostly because I hate getting caught unaware - I much prefer any beliefs I'm carrying around to have already been examined by me. So I hate when it happens, but I value it when it does.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001



I also got a 27 percent. Of the four pairs, I think only one was a genuine tension point. The other three were because I interpreted their definitions differently than they did.

For example, I said there are no absolute truths, but also that the holocaust is a historical reality. I took "truth" to mean statements of moral or ethical ideals, not matters of objective fact.

Overall, I think it's a pretty good test for pointing out possible tension points, but not without its flaws. Better explanations of what they mean by words that can have various shades of interpretation would help.



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

To answer another of Beth's questions, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with being philosophically inconsistent on some points. It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's the natural state of not having fully made up your mind about something, or truly holding two beliefs that conflict. It only means that you're either still working through something that is difficult for you to settle on for some reason, or that there may really be no fully consistent position you can take.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

At the bottom of the test, I read the line "Based on an orginal idea by Marilyn Mason" too quickly, and has this mental image of goth- rocker Marilyn Manson, in full costume and makeup, sitting down to create this insightful philosophy quiz ...

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

The other two tests both seem kind of dumb. The art test is just opinion ... you pick the characteristics that you think are important to art, then pick two people and rate your opinion of how they fulfill each of those parameters, and you get back what amounts to "You think X is better than Y," which tells me nothing I didn't already know.

The "staying alive" test likewise is just an elaborate way of asking the question "do you think your identity is based on your physical self or your thoughts?"



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

I'm a bit distrustful of people who have worked out their philosophical ideas consistently, especially when they let that consistency dictate to them. I like a little bit more philosophical incoherence in people...

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


It made value judgements about what is "needless" and "unnecessary." One of my tensions was I believe we should do as little as possible to harm the earth but then I disagree that we should drive a car when we have the ability to ride the bus. I could ride the bus every day if I wanted to, but life is too short to spend an hour to get 5 miles. I think that would hurt the earth more because I would be wasting time that I could instead be productive towards raising and interacting with my child, or doing ANYTHING else besides sitting in a sweaty bus.

I guess that's the bus system's fault, though...

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


Alleline

"I guess what the test-givers meant to tell me is that a philsophically consistent person would either (a) not believe in an all-powerful deity, (b) believe in an all-powerful but malign deity, or (c) sit back and enjoy the suffering of innocent children."

We meant to tell you no such thing. Merely that if you want to consistently hold that there is an all-powerful, benign deity and also that there is great suffering in the world, then you need to develop some kind of theodicy in order to reconcile the two beliefs (to the extent that you want to hold beliefs without tension).

That seems perfectly reasonable to me...

J.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


Why? Why is a consistent theology/philosophy important for everyone to have? I'd like to hear your answer.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Michael H.

About our dumb tests. Perhaps it's not so much that the tests are dumb but more that you're super-bright (I'm being serious). Here's a comment from a teacher about the Britney Spears/Shakespeare test (it's on our letters page, though it's about to scroll off):

"I humbly request that you do NOT lock this article behind a password, but keep it publicly accessible forever! It is an invaluable teaching tool for me and many colleagues who have had enough of student essays that examine art only in terms of its "communicating emotion". The structure of this TPM interactive investigation effectively opens minds immediately."

The point is that it is a big mistake to make judgements about what is obvious to other people, on the basis of what you personally find obvious.

J.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


"Why is a consistent theology/philosophy important for everyone to have? I'd like to hear your answer."

I'm not sure if you're addressing this to me? But if so:

Well, I didn't say that it was important (I deliberately included several "ifs" in my response).

But if I was to argue that it was important, then the argument would be constructed something like this.

Some beliefs contain propositional claims about the nature of the world. So, for example, you might have:

a) The cat is sitting on the mat;

b) Cats are not able to sit;

It might be possible to believe both these things. And if you personally want to believe both these things, then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But as statements about the world, both these things cannot be true (let's assume that - because you talked about contradictory beliefs). That means that the moment you claim that your beliefs are "true" (and obviously there's a whole philosopical literature about what is involved in such a claim) then you're wrong.

That's the problem. If you hold beliefs that contradict in this fashion, you're simply wrong if you assert that both are true of the world.

The question then is simply, does that worry you? And I suspect that the answer is that it is a worry when the beliefs are obviously contradictory. (Hence there is a whole literature on stuff like cognitive dissonance).

J.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


My problem with most philosophy (and hell, I studied the subject for a lot of years) is that in the end almost everything a philosopher says is his/her personal matter of opinion.

Philosophers cannot proof anything they state in a normal sense of the word, and not only because most are painfully unaware of recent developments in other sciences; philosophers are only able to deliver stories.

Which makes them more like lawyers, priests, or snake oil sellers, than scientists. Rhetorics matter, so inconsistencies matter, because those will make them vulnerable for attack.

A study of Philosophy is probably the best way to develop the power of bullshit detection though, I have to say that.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001


I think it was Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Don't know if that means anything here, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I find that most people in arguments flounder to make a point so instead they try to attack what they see as "hypocricy" (sp?) in their opponent. We aren't computers, functioning with some endless string of zeros and ones. Life is not that binary. Like most others here my real answers to online tests (and not just this one) rarely fit into the simple "yes or no" answers they offer. Do I support killing abortion doctors? No. Do I support Captain John Brown? Yes. Does this make me a huge hypocrite? I don't care.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Mr. Stangroom, thank you for opening the debate by responding to my provocation. I'll reply on Monday.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I like how they used the word "tensions" because that makes a lot of sense to me. According to the test, two tensions are at work in my life, the one mentioned about on the environment and the one mentioned above about genocide being wrong but there also being no absolutes. Yep, I could have told you before the test that I feel these tensions working in my life.

And I think that's normal. Like some of you have said, it's impossible and, well, boring to be so consistent. You never need to think, you just act according to a formula of thinking. Tensions and contradictions wake you up to the world around you. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised (and bothered) that I only had two tensions show up in the test. I would not think I'm that consistent.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001


I took the philosophical tension test. I had no tensions at all. This kind of scares me. I always thought I believed lots of logically inconsistent things. I mean, I think of myself as Muslim but I don't believe in the immortal soul and on occasion I don't believe in God. That's not good enough for them?

I agree with Beth, the staying alive test was more interesting. And my results were, according to the analysis, "disturbing." Much better.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


Mr. Stangroom, after some reflection, I guess I overreacted to your use of the term "tension." Fair enough, there is tension in believing both in a good, all-powerful deity and in human suffering. It is not, however, internally contradictory. Unlike your "cats cannot sit"/"the cat is sitting" example, there are a number of arguments that relieve the tension of believing in a good, omnipotent deity. Since you are likely familiar with them, I will not trot them out (free will, original sin, etc.).

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I LOVE that the philosophical test guy is responding to our questions!

So here's mine.

I got pinged because I said that (1) the government should test drugs to make sure they're safe, and (2) alternative medicines and such are valuable. Here's what the test told me:

"You agreed that: The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety And also that: Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines."

What I meant when I answered that alternative medicines question was that alternative medicines can be as valuable as traditional medicines. And by equating them with traditional medicines, I was also assuming that they should be tested just like traditional medicines. I was also assuming that the question included nonmedicinal treatments, like chiropracty, accupuncture, and massage. I wasn't presuming--nor does the test question imply--that alternative medicines "need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones." That showed up in the discussion of my answers. I think if that's going to be one of the rating points, it should appear in the question.

[I don't, in fact, take alternative medications that haven't been government approved, which means that I don't take any alternative medicines. I wish that somebody would go ahead and test these things and give them FDA approval--but I imagine the pharmaceutical lobbies would have something to say about that.]

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


I have a bachelor's in political science. My studies included classes in political philosophy and the philosophy of law, with such works as Hobbes's Leviathan, Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Rawls's A Theory of Justice, Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Dworkin's Law's Empire ... etc.

I say this not to boast, but to show that (a) in this particular field, I am not a complete ignoramus; (b) if a Web site called "The Philosopers' Magazine" wants my attention, it has to compete with the Real Philosophy Books on my to-be-read-someday pile, like Nozick's The Examined Life and Maimonides' The Guide to the Perplexed.

Now, for all I know, I could actually be a disembodied brain in a vat, with all of my sensations simulated by some computer hooked up to it, and this computer I'm typing on, not to mention Beth, the World-Wide Web, and The Philosophers' Magazine, might have no physical existence whatsoever. However, I will be so bold as to assert that not only does The Philosophers' Magazine exist, but this Philosophical Health Check is a gimmick for marketing it.

Free advice, guys: Find a better gimmick. Or at least, revise your gimmick so it doesn't essentially say: "Hey, reader, look at how clueless you are! Read our magazine to get a clue!" I'm actually wondering if The Philosophers' Magazine is some kind of front for the Scientologists, because this marketing technique reminds me of the "personality tests" that Scientologists administer (in order to prove that you have a damaged personality, which Dianetics can restore to robust health).

For example, your tests inform me that the belief in an an omni{scient,potent,benevolent} God conflicts with, er, is in "tension" with, the belief that needless suffering is bad, leading to "The Problem of Evil", which many "theodicies" have attempted to resolve. No shit, Sherlock. Off the top of my head, I know of three published attempts to resolve this problem; I wouldn't say any of them contains an ironclad proof -- if we did have an ironclad proof to resolve the issue, then nobody would consider the Problem of Evil to be interesting any more -- but they are at least rationally defensible, the people who first proposed them were not dumb, and this has been a thought-about issue for at least the past two thousand years. Did the authors of the Philosophical Health Check consider that maybe I have actually thought about The Problem of Evil before taking their test? Apparently not:

The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them....

This test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by the test.

Observe how the authors don't say "you may have already found a rationally coherent way of reconciling some of these tensions that we didn't consider when we wrote this test".

So if the people running this magazine are going to insult my intelligence like that in their marketing gimmick, I don't have high hopes for the quality of the articles in their magazine. I'll stick with Maimonides, thanks.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


(I fear to tread here, lest I get pulled in like quicksand. I'll just say that you should move The Examined Life to the top of your pile.)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Seth

I can't say that I really understand the point of your posting. But I'll try to respond.

"Did the authors of the Philosophical Health Check consider that maybe I have actually thought about The Problem of Evil before taking their test?"

Well actually, we weren't thinking about you at all when we devised it. But I suppose if I were to think about you, then I'd say that I'd rather hope that you'd think to yourself, "Well okay, I know about this stuff, but there will certainly be some people doing this test - probably the majority - who don't".

In your case I suggest the following course of action. When you visit a website do so with the awareness that the content is not specifically tailored for you. And try not to feel insulted by a computer program.

J.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


Amy

It's my pleasure responding to people's comments.

I'm afraid that I don't really understand the force of your objection. The statement you agreed to stated that:

"Alternative and complementary medicine IS as valuable as mainstream medicine."

It didn't use the word "can" (for the obvious reasons you point out).

Obviously, if alternative and complementary medicines were tested both for safety and efficacy then things would be different, but they're not.

J.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


Alleline

Thanks. I think we're in agreement.

Except I actually think the two statements are internally contradictory (I think the theodicies fail abjectly). But the test is much less closed-minded than I am...!

J.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


To Everybody

Your reactions are interesting (and actually pretty typical - you wouldn't believe (except for Seth) the abuse I've been subject to because of the PHC!).

Just a bit of background information which you may or may not find interesting.

Seth is right in the sense that we were aware that it was going to attract people into the web site. It's been played some 50,000 times in the last 10 months (which is good from our point of view). Obviously, some people react the same way that he has done, but others are more positive (so, for example, the PHC features on the web sites of quite a number of philosophy departments as a way of introducing critical thinking to people who haven't had any experience of it before [I can even give you the URLs!]).

We make absolutely no apology for being aware of the need to publicise the web site. Nobody is making a living from a Philosophy Magazine, and we have absolutely no institutional backing. It's swings and roundabouts with the need for publicity. Seth is just wrong if he thinks that any significant numbers of people are going to subscribe to a magazine because of any marketing gimmick. They're not. That's not how it works. What does work is building a loyal readership for the website - of that readership, over time, a small percentage will subscribe. I suspect that Seth thinks that the PHC will not work in that respect. I just think that he's wrong. If I thought he was right, I'd take the thing down (obviously).

The PHC test itself. It's an exercise in critical thinking. We didn't just sit down, invent the questions, and then stick the thing on the web site. After we'd put the test together, it was sent to about 25 professional philosophers for their comments. We tweaked the answers in response to their comments.

We think it is pretty solid. The key to remember is that it is talking about tensions, not contradictions (although, in my view, there are some straight contradictions). In terms of the feedback we had, it was suggested that two of the pairs were weak. They were the atheism pair and the art pair. My view is that the art pair probably is just not very well set up, and that the atheism pair is sound (but many of the beta-test philosophers thought otherwise).

Lastly, it's interesting that people tend to think that the Identity activity is better. I completely disagree!

J.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001


As an exercise in critical thinking, the PHC seems weak. Socrates didn't just ask Euthyphro two yes/no questions and then say "You're contradicting yourself! Gotcha!"

I recall some book (maybe In a Different Voice?) where a woman described the first session of a philosophy class she took. The professor held up a cube (or some other geometric solid, I don't know which) and asked the class: "What shape is this?" Everyone said, "a cube". The professor said, "You only saw one side of this shape from one perspective, and you're all positive it's a cube!"

And in fact, the shape was a cube. The professor's point was that everyone can make this kind of deduction from limited information, and their deductions are usually accurate. The woman describing the class found it a refreshing change from her other college classes, where the professors tried to impress upon her how much she wasn't capable of.

It would be interesting to see a philosophy non-test that took this approach, e.g....

Under what circumstances would you say a country's highest court of appeal has made a mistake when it interpreted that country's law?
  1. Never; whatever that court decides is the law, by definition.
  2. Only when it contradicts the plain text of the law -- and if two laws contradict each other and there's no third law that governs which has priority, the court has free choice about how to resolve the issue.
  3. When it contradicts the intent of the legislators who passed the law, even if its opinion is consistent with the law's text.
  4. When it violates the spirit of the law as a whole, even when the plain text of some individual laws also go against that spirit.
  5. When it violates some "natural law" that is more important than the laws of the country, even when no written legislation acknowledges the authority of that "natural law".
...and if the reader picked (1), the Web server would respond, "This point of view is called 'legal realism'. You would probably be interested in a more detailed discussion of legal realism, in ... and you should consider these critiques of legal realism...."

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Seth

Well, we'll skate over the fact that you're parodying what the PHC actually says about tensions.

Your test. I know you probably didn't spend much time thinking about this, but if you approached me with this idea, I'd respond like this.

1. Why do you think people would be interested? They are certainly interested in their own beliefs, how they fit together, etc., but why would they be interested in the functioning of a country's appeal court?

2. What structure do you imagine your test having? Would you ask just one question? Would there be a series of questions? If so, what would motivate people to carry on answering the questions (what's in it for them)? Don't forget, we might be talking about 14 year olds here. Would they get to see the analyses of the other possible answers? ETC

3. How many people do you think are going to understand this? I remember when I first started teaching, I was teaching undergraduates - two out of my class were unable to name the UK prime- minister (we're based in the UK). It was Margaret Thatcher. And you're talking about appeal courts, plain text of the law, natural law, etc...

Anyhow, it's not that you couldn't construct something along these lines, it just isn't as straightforward as you seem to think it might be.

As it happens, one of our activites - http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/matrix_start.htm - has much more of this structure. But we've dressed it up a bit.

And yes, some people hate this one too (and some people love it).

J.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


Like Michael, I got pinged on the Holocaust/absolute truth thing, and I agree with what he said about the distinction.

I also got pinged on this one:

You agreed that: Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood And also that: On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

While I don't necessarily agree that the two points of view are inconsistent with one another, this is actually a legitimate point of tension for me.

My philosphical outlook on life is very consistent, I think, but circumstances have sometimes made me wish that I was able to believe something that I don't believe.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


J. -- I used a philosophy-of-law example because it was the first one that came to mind (remember, I came to philosophy through political science), and because at least in the US, second-guessing the courts and complaining about "activist" or "politicized" judges seems to be a popular pastime. Alternatively, considering the amount of pro- and anti-libertarian flamage all over the Net, a questionnaire examining one's attitude toward private property rights would probably get a lot of hits. I think that opinions on these issues have a much greater affect on people's behavior than opinions on whether we are all living in the Matrix, or even the question of theodicy.

Your "Matrix" site is closer to my ideal than the PHC, although it has far too much Flash for my taste, and far too few points where the reader can actually make a choice, and my objections to its content are similar to my objections to the PHC's content.

I agree that setting up such a questionnaire would not be straightforward. Good pedagogy, like good philosophy, requires effort.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


"Good pedagogy, like good philosophy, requires effort."

Right, and we spent an awful lot of time thinking about it (and, as I say, sending it out to professional philosophers for their comments, etc).

What I find most bizarre about this whole exchange, I think, is your apparent confidence in your own judgements. It seems to me that you're not saying "Well, this isn't to my taste" or "Well, this clearly isn't aimed at people like me" - you're saying "this is bad".

I find this bizarre because:

a) I don't understand how it is that you think you're in the best position to judge the merit of the thing;

b) It seems to deny any kind of perspectivalism (is that such a word!?) to judgements about online tests;

c) You haven't actually said very much about why you don't like it, except that you feel insulted by it (which I find extraordinary, actually) and it was too obvious for you (well, obviously, it's not aimed at people like you);

d) You seem to be standing in judgement over the decisions of people you don't know, when you don't know what kinds of thoughts they had about the test, how much time they spent checking that it was solid, etc. Don't you think that's just a tad arrogant (almost as arrogant as the test itself!).

I should say that I don't really have a personal axe to grind here, in the sense that it wasn't my idea originally, and because of the fact that much of the work that I did on it in the early stages was altered as a result of the feedback we got. (I'm just the programmer - and even that was easy!). But I do find the world-view you seem to inhabit intriguing...

J.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


Way off track, but I'm dying of curiousity.

Just what, exactly, does a 'professional philosopher' do?

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


we spent an awful lot of time thinking about it (and, as I say, sending it out to professional philosophers for their comments, etc)
I'm sure those philosophers did a good job checking out the content of the site. For example, I assume that when you quote Descartes, you quote him accurately. My objection is to the technique used in the test.
It seems to me that you're not saying "Well, this isn't to my taste" or "Well, this clearly isn't aimed at people like me" - you're saying "this is bad".
Yes. I think it's a badly designed test. I believe that there are standards for good pedagogy, and that these standards are not merely matters of taste, and that this test falls below these standards. Yes, I arrogantly stand in judgement over the people who made the test. (When I say "The Phantom Menace sucked", I'm arrogantly standing in judgement over George Lucas, so the test authors are in good company.)

I don't accept the argument "this test wasn't designed for people like you", because: (a) There's no "you must be less educated than this undergraduate to take this test" disclaimer. (b) If you look at the comments earlier in this thread, Keli, Dawn, Alleline, Beth, Shmuel, Lynda B, MichaelH, and David Grenier all complained that either they either wanted more options than "agree" and "disagree", or that the "tension" the test deduced from their answers was no more than a quibble over the meanings of the words in their statements. Was the test not designed for them, either?

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


Lynda: Begging for TA positions and waiting tables.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

This is the weirdest thread ever. I don't even know what anyone's talking about anymore.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

My impression is that Seth's position is that since the program isn't aimed at someone with a working knowledge of the issues, and that it's not perfect, it should have a warning label on it.

Jeremy replies, "Dude- it's just a nifty program designed to make some people think. It's not a thesis!" (a loose translation, mind you).

I'm more inclined to lean toward Jeremy's side of things. Seth, it may amaze you, but the vast majority of people have never explicity considered the issues presented by this site. I think anyone who *had* thought about these things before would have assumed the label you're demanding.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


Thank you. It takes a brave man to translate from Philosopher into Lawyer.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Hi, all -- Just took the test, read all your comments, and find myself agreeing with many of Seth's points. (Seth is my husband, btw, but my agreeing with him is in spite of that.)

My major objection to this test is a point that Seth doesn't make strongly, and which I think should be a concern for The Philosophers' Magazine. After taking the test and being told that I had various "philosophical tensions" my reaction was "but had I been permitted to qualify my definitions of terms, I'd have had a smaller 'tension' score!" (Mine was 27.) This is mainly because I have given some thought to many of the issues brought up in the questions... My concern is that someone who hasn't given (well, anything) much thought but who also feels a little hoodwinked by the absolute terms the test questions force me into, will conclude that philosophy is a worthless endeavor, an endless word game. (Quite possibly it -- and all human speech -- is, but this is not the time to get into that.)

The result of this, I fear, will be the employment of an even greater number of "professional philosophers" as "TAs or table-waiters." (Sorry if I've misquoted the jibe, I'm feeling too lazy to check back!)

That is to say, J., that I'm concerned that this test will give novices a view of philosophy that's too shallow. Good goals, but the execution could stand some additional complexity.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


Seth

Well, clearly, I don't necessarily agree with the comments of the list of people you specify.

We did consider using some kind of Likert scale, but rejected it - it would have been too messy (I still think that). And anyhow, I'm sure you're aware of the phenomenon of "doorstep opinions" (seeing as you're a political scientist) - we'd have simply introduced gradations of opinion that people just don't have.

But:

"Was the test not designed for them, either?"

To be honest, not really. The test will only have the kind of value that I think you think it ought, when it is taken by people who are almost entirely unreflective about their beliefs. I just don't think that is true of the people on this board (the very fact that they're here at all suggests that they're already more than averagely reflective, thoughtful, etc). It's a big mistake to assume that the people you're talking about are representative of people in general. They aren't. (Obviously, it is also the case that people visiting a philosophy web site will also not be representative of people in general; and the same applies to people using the internet).

Also, regardless of whether or not you or I are right about this, you'll be aware that in this kind of context two factors mean that one must take people's reactions with a pinch of salt: (a) group think; and (b) self-serving bias (and I'm not for a moment claiming that I'm magically exempt from these things).

Of course, I quite understand that from your perspective I'm just denying that it can ever be important what people here think. But you have to remember that I have access to a whole series of data sets that you don't vis-a-vis this test (for example, how many people use our referral scheme; what they say [it's anonymous - I hasten to add!]; etc).

Your stuff about what the philosophers did with their beta-testing is just wrong. They weren't looking at accuracy (we're not going to get that stuff wrong - well, we might, but don't tell anyone!). Actually they'd have been mighty peeved if we'd used them for that purpose (and rightly, why should they be expected to correct errors of fact on our part?). They were considering precisely the same kind of thing you're talking about (particularly, whether the tensions identified were actually tensions).

Anyhow, I think this has run its course. I'm sure we're both aware of what the other thinks. And Curtis seems to have summarised the whole debate in about two sentences, and I can't do better than that!

It's been fun!

J.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001


My reaction to this test is based, I think, on the spirit in which it was offered. If it had been linked to as "a nifty program designed to make some people think", and was posted on some undergraduate's Web site, I would have classifed it with "Am I Hot Or Not", the "what gender are you" tests, etc. But it comes with an aura of Academic Authority, so I judged it by the same standards I'd use to judge a textbook or a teacher -- and when people who claim this kind of Authority do sloppy work, I get peeved.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ