[2010] - pietarinen - essential analytic philosophy

8/13/2019 [2010] - Pietarinen - Essential Analytic Philosophy

1/74

AhtiVeikko Pietarinenahti [email protected], University of HelsinkiDepartment of Philosophy, History, Culture, and Art Studies

Fudan Daxue512 May 2010

In this mini-course of six lectures, I will present the basic principles and practices thatcharacterize analytic philosophy in the western philosophical tradition. The first two lecturesintroduce the key notions of analytic philosophy. The next two lectures concern the nature ofarguments and their use in scientific research. The last two lectures are more practical in theirorientation and address the matters of writing and publishing research papers in philosophy,concluding with some thoughts on the contemporary profession of philosophy.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/74

Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 2


3/74

3

Philosophy of Logic, Action, Norms,

Probability, Induction,

Causation:

The Logical Problem of Induction (1941) Logical Empiricism (1945) An Essay in Modal Logic (1951)

The Varieties

of

Goodness

(1963) Explanation and Understanding (1971)

Logic and Humanism (1998) Many editions of Wittgensteins worksCultural Essays:

Like Oswald Spengler, vW believed in a decline of western culture (The Myth of Progress, 1993)

Philosophy becomes fragmentary

(Logic and

Philosophy

in

the

Twentieth

Century,

1994,

Chinese

translation

by

Chen Bo, Philosophical Translation Quarterly 2, 2000.)

Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy


4/74


5/74

5

1989 2006

The Nobel Prize in Philosophy



6/746

Kaila thought that logic is agateway to serious philosophising Much of Finnish analytic philosophy tradition is probably due to his teachings

Both von Wrights and Hintikkas teacher Participated the Vienna Circle Coined the term Logical Empiricism Worked on metaphysics, philosophy of science and psychology.



7/74

I: Introducing Analytic Philosophy1. What is Analytic Philosophy?2. Analysis

II: Argumentation

and

Philosophy

of

Science3. Argumentation

4. Reasoning in Science

III: Practising Philosophy5. Writing and Publishing in Philosophy6. Professional Devlopment in Philosophy



8/74

AhtiVeikko PietarinenFudan Daxue, 5.5.2010

In this lecture, I look into the characteristic features of the mainstream westernphilosophy, commonly known as analytic philosophy. What is it? What are its

methods? What distinguishes it from other areas of philosophy, such as continentalphilosophy? How was it born? What is the situation in the contemporary scenery ofanalytic philosophy?

Reading: John Searle, Contemporary Philosophy in the United States, 2003.


9/74

The dominant form of Western philosophy Roughly 100 years old Continuous with the philosophical tradition Not only AngloAmerican:

Roots in the Central Europe Dominant also in Scandinavia; increasingly so in Germany, France,...

Began as a revolutionary movement, now mainstream Situation now: Demise? Crisis? Post analytic philosophy?



10/74

Core Analytic Philosophy ( Areas of Specialization ): Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Logic, Philosophy of Mathematics Metaphysics & Epistemology (M & E) Philosophy of Science History of Contemporary (20th Century) Philosophy

Systematic Philosophy / Theoretical Philosophy (especially in North Europe, where Theoretical and Practical philosophy are separated, in Finland even belong to

different departments

and

faculties)



11/74Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 11

Theoretical

Practical

AnalyticContinental

Language LogicMathematicsMind

Philosophy of Science

MetaethicsPragmatism

M & E

Phenomenology

Hermeneutics

Existentialism

Aesthetics

Structuralism

Feminism

Political philosophy

Applied ethics

Ethics

Experimental philosophy

Metaphilosophy


12/74Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 12

Theoretical

Practical

AnalyticContinental

Austin, Kripke RussellFrege, DummettDavidson, Searle

Carnap, Quine, Hintikka

MetaethicsPeirce, Putnam

M & E

Husserl

Habermas

Heidegger

Aesthetics

Derrida

Kristeva

Rawls

Applied ethics

Ethics

Experimental philosophy

Metaphilosophy


13/74

Analysis (Greek: loosen up, dissolve) :1. Progressive analysis

Plato/Socrates: decomposition of concepts Human being (analysandum ): rational + animal (analysans ) Knowledge = justified true belief

2. Regressive analysis Aristotle, Euclid: start with the proposition and try to find the

first causes or principles that demonstrate the proposition For example, Pythagorass Theorem

Analytic/synthetic a priori/a posteriori (Kant) Conceptual, logical analysis (Bolzano, Frege, Russell,

Moore,...)

The Linguistic Turn; Ordinary Language Philosophy (Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, Strawson, Grice,...).Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 13


14/74

1. Began as a revolutionary movement in Vienna, Austria

Phenomenalism, positivism (August Comte, Ernst Mach) Logical positivism/empiricism,The Vienna Circle (Morris Schlick, Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap,...)

Wittgenstein G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, Frank Ramsey,... (Cambridge resistance to Oxford & British idealism)

Strive for the ideal language of mathematics, thought, The Frege Russell logicism, formalism The Unity of Science Movement, in continental Europe as well as in

the US (Carnap, Neurath, Charles Morris in the US).

2. After the WWII, the English hemisphere begins to dominate. Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 14


15/74

Confrontation because of differences in the methods of doing philosophy, not so much in the subject matter

Opposition generates rival schools, isms Controversies best addressed on the metaphilosophical level

The Analytic: To strive for increase in knowledge, clearness of ideas, rigour and cogency of arguments

To rely on experiments and observations To take the role model to be a scientist To leave no room for literary philosophy: use plain language, together with technical terms that are well defined.



16/74

History of Philosophy

History matters:

No

one

can

think

in

a vacuum But not to study history only for its own sake.

Breaking up with the tradition? Study history as if it is a contemporary phenomenon, as if Frege was just a fellow of another college (results in anachronisms?)

Problems and questions define the subject matter, not what somebody has said about something (the key idea of systematic

philosophy) Or continuing the tradition?

No radicalism anymore in the main ideas and methods

(and certainly

less

so

than

in

some

parts

of

continental

philosophy)



17/74

The dominant philosophy now in the US, UK, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Germany,... Increasingly more in France, South Europe, Latin America, China,...

Progress and crisis? Considerable expansion of its scope But becoming the establishment creates opposition and self criticism

What is the power of analysis? What is the value of clarity and rigour in philosophy? What is the success of a rational argument?

We will come back to these questions in the last lecture 6.



18/74

AhtiVeikko Pietarinen

ahti [email protected], University of HelsinkiDepartment of Philosophy, History, Culture, and Art Studies

Fudan Daxue6.5.2010

This lecture takes a look at the notion of analysis. We observe some developmentsin analytic philosophy variously found in the works of Frege, Russell, Carnap,

Quine, Donald Davidson, J.L. Austin and Paul Grice, for example.

Reading: Michael

Beaney,

Analysis,

2009.


19/74

What is Analytic Philosophy?

Study of meaning1. The first attempt (19001950):

Search for foundations , do it by reduction :1. Phenomenalism (logical positivism)2. Behaviourism3. Conventionalism (social, linguistic)

4. Logicism Conceptual, logical analysis (The Linguistic Turn)1. Analyse ordinary language2. Develop better, ideal, formal, symbolic, artificial language

(The Unity of Science Movement)



20/74

There were problems finding the foundations!2. The second attempt (1950):

Rejection of the analytic synthetic distinction Quine (Two Dogmas of Empiricism, 1951) Rejection of conceptual schemas (critique of Quine) Davidson (On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme, 1975) Criticism of the fact value distinction Austin Searle (speech act theory); Paul Grice (logic of communication) Hilary Putnam (Reason, Truth and History , 1981) Rejection of foundationalism Wittgenstein...

(These are steps towards pragmatism)Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 20


21/74

So what remains? New philosophies of science have emerged

Cognitive Science & AI; Biology; Economics; Law;...

Take distance to the problematic tradition (Frege, Russell,Quine,...)

Avoid excess naturalism; leave room for metaphysics Back to a renewed kind of conceptual analysis

New logics, new tools, new methods Study of semantics and pragmatics

Are we now in the post analytic phase?



22/74

Analytic philosophy should really be seen as a set of interlocking subtraditions held together by a shared repertoire of conceptions of analysis upon which individual philosophers draw in different ways. (Beaney 2009)

The ancient idea of analysis (Greek: loosen up, dissolve) :1. Progressive analysis

Plato/Socrates: decomposition of concepts Human being (analysandum ): rational + animal (analysans )

2. Regressive analysis Aristotle, Euclid: start with the proposition and try to find the

first principles

that

demonstrate

the

proposition Pythagorass Theorem



23/74

The 20th century notions of analysis:3. The interpretive analysis

Translate the statements into the correct logical form (Frege, Russell,...)

(1), (2) and (3) are already found in medieval philosophy (John Buridan, Summulae , c.1350) Port Royal Logic (1662) emphasises philosophical method:

The art of arranging a series of thoughts properly, either for discovering the truth when we do not know it, or for proving to others what we already know, can generally be called method. Hence there are two kinds of method, one for discovering the truth, which is known as analysis ,... The other is for making the truth understood by others once it is found. This is known as synthesis[method of composition , instruction ].



24/74

Translate statements into their correct logical form

Frege: Move from subject predicate form to functionargument formsFor example, Socrates is a philosopher: f ( x ) = x is a philosopher, a = Socrates, f (a) = content/judgment

Russell:1. The present King of France is bald: 2. There is one and only one King of France, and whatever is King of

France is bald:3.

Wittgenstein: Logic (truth functional analysis) is really the structure and nature of the

world (Tractatus )

Philosophy is a matter of getting clear about the grammar of our language (Philosophical Investigations )Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 24

( ( ) (( ( ) ( )) ( ))). x K x y K y y x B x =


25/74

Rudolf Carnap: Quasianalysis: dont seek anything more fundamental by

decomposition, but give a relation between concepts that then defines or constructs things (abstraction)

For example: The number of as = The number of bs iff there are just as many as as bs. The direction of a = The direction of b iff a is parallel to b.

Analysis is thus explication or rational reconstruction.The task of making more exact a vague concept used in everyday life ... replacing it by a newly constructed, more exact concept.

(Carnap 1947)


( ) ( ) if and only if ( , ). f a f b R a b=


26/74

Sir Michael Dummett: The only route to the analysis of thought goes through the analysis of language. (1993) (Strong claim...)

Linguistic Philosophy (Ryle, Davidson, Chomsky, Austin, Strawson, Searle, Grice...)Language before thought?

Find the logical geography of concepts (Ryle) Syntax determines semantics (Chomsky)

Use the

theory

of

truth

as

a theory

of

meaning

(Davidson)Thought before language?

Study the ordinary use of language: speech act theory, pragmatics (Austin, Strawson, Searle)

Explain meaning in terms of intentions to communicate (Grice 1957):Literal meaning : Sentence S means X among the group of language users G := Members of G use S to communicate that X Speakers meaning : By uttering S to the interpreter A, a member U of the group Gmeans X by intending to:1. get A to believe that X ,

2. get A to

think

that

U intends

(1),

and3. get A to recognize U s intention (1) as a reason to believe that X .



27/74



28/74

What analysis means in recent analytic philosophy: Elucidation (explication, explanation)

Explain the conceptual components, instead of trying to reduce them to some ideal notation

Investigate the use of concepts and practices associated with concepts, instead of giving the necessary and sufficient conditions that are intended to define their meaning.

Acts of construction (like Carnaps rational reconstruction) Find alternative expressions, statements, paraphrases, which need not be exactly synonymous to the analysandum , but which are exact, fruitful and simple, and serve the cognitive purposes equally well (or sufficiently well)

as the original does.



29/74

So what is Analytic Philosophy?1. Study of meaning2. Emphasis on linguistic meaning3. Importance of methods4. Some understanding of the method of analysis5. Importance of arguments and reasoning6. Importance of knowing what goes on in science

Analytic philosophy,

then,

is

a broad...movement

in

which

various conceptions of analysis compete and pull in different directions. Reductive and connective, revisionary and descriptive, linguistic and psychological, formal and empirical

elements all

coexist

in

creative

tension,

[which]

is

the

great

strength of the analytic tradition. (Beaney 2009)



30/74


Fudan Daxue7.5.2010

We address the topics such as: What is an argument in philosophy?How to evaluate arguments? How to develop a cogent argument in

philosophy? What are the common fallacies and how to deal withthem? What is rhetoric?

Reading: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlmailto:[email protected]


31/74

1. Suppose (as Aristotle believed) that the heavier a body is, the faster it falls to the ground and suppose we have two bodies, a heavy one called M and a light one called m. Under our initial assumption M will fall faster than m. Now suppose that M and m are joined together thus M+m. Now what happens? Well

M+m is heavier than M so by our initial assumption it should fall faster than M alone. But in the joined body M+m, m and Mwill each tend to fall just as fast as before they were joined, so

m will act as a brake on M and M+m will fall slower than Malone. Hence it follows from our initial assumption that M+mwill fall both faster and slower than M alone. Since this is absurd our initial assumption must be false.



32/74

2. Either there is a Christian God or there isnt. Suppose you believe in His existence and live a Christian life. Then, if He does exist you will enjoy eternal bliss and if He doesnt exist you will lose very little. But suppose you dont believe in His existence and dont live a Christian life. If He doesnt exist you will lose

nothing, but

if

He

does

exist

you

will

suffer

eternal

damnation! !So it is rational and prudent to believe in Gods existence and to

live a Christian life.

1. Galilei Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, 16382. Pascals Wager, 1661.

Question: What kinds of strengths and weaknesses you can find in these arguments?



33/74

Arguments aim at establishing conclusions by

reasoning from the premises We argue for a case by giving reasons for accepting some conclusion.

Establish: prove, demonstrate, justify, show, support,... Conclusion: that what we want to establish

Reasoning: the method of establishing Premises: where we start from, the reasons given, the assumptions, evidence, facts, data

Accepting a conclusion: Do the given reasons establish it?Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 33


34/74

If the money supply were to increase at less than 5%

the rate of inflation would come down. Since the money supply is increasing at about 10% inflation will not come down.

Is this an argument?



35/74

If the money supply were to increase at less than 5%,


Is this an argument? Yes: Premisses: If... and the money supply... Conclusion: inflation will not come down.

Is this a good argument?



36/74

If the money supply were to increase at less than 5%,


Is this an argument? Yes: Premisses: If... and the money supply... Conclusion: inflation will not come down.


No: This reasoning does not establish its conclusion: the reasons could both be true and the conclusion false. Why?



37/74

If the money supply were to increase at less than 5%, the rate of inflation would come down. Since the money supply is increasing at about 10% inflation will not come down.

Is this an argument? Yes: Premisses: If...down and the money supply...10% Conclusion: inflation will not come down.


No: This reasoning does not establish its conclusion: the reasons could both be true and the conclusion false. Why?

Something else could bring inflation down, for example a fall

in the

price

of

imports.

So there is an error in the argument (it is not sound ).



38/74

All philosophers are strangeJohn is strange Therefore, John is a philosopher

6000 people died as a result of drinking last year.4000 people died as a result of driving last year.500 people died as a result of drink driving last year.Therefore, Drink driving is safer than either drinking or driving alone.

Nothing is better than freedom. On the other hand, Prison life is better than nothing. Therefore, Prison life is better than freedom.

To build a large thing, you need a plan.To make a plan, you need a written language.Neolithic British had no written language.Therefore, aliens from outer space built Stonehenge.



39/74

Theorem : Reductio ad absurdum (RAA) is not a good method of

proof. Proof : by Reductio ad absurdum. 1. Suppose RAA were a good method of proof.

2. Then

this

argument

would

be

good.

3. But this argument is no good. Therefore, RAA is not a good method of proof.

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2Ahttp://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swf

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2Ahttp://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swfhttp://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.htmlhttp://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.htmlhttp://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2Ahttp://consc.net/misc/proofs.html


40/74



41/74


If you present a true statement, I will give you 10RMB. If you present a false statement, you will give me 100RMB or I will give you

1000RMB (I choose which), but I will not give you 10RMB. Which statement will you choose?


42/74


If you present a true statement, I will give you

10RMB. If you present a false statement, you will give me 100RMB or I will give you 1000RMB (I choose which), but I will not give you 10RMB.

Which statement will you choose?A: You will not give me 10RMB nor 1000RMB.

Proof: If A is true, what it says must be the case. That is, I will not

give you 10RMB and I will not give you 1000RMB. But for a true statement, I have to give you 10RMB. This is a contradiction, so A must be false. Since A is false, what is says is not the case. That is, I will give you 10RMB or 1000RMB. But I cannot give you 10RMB for a

false statement, so I must give you 1000RMB.


43/74


ahti [email protected], University of HelsinkiDepartment of Philosophy, History, Culture, and Art Studies

Fudan Daxue10.5.2010

We introduce essentials of philosophy of science from the point of view ofargumentative structures in science. Topics explained include induction, abduction,falsification, instrumentalism, realism. How to argue scientifically? What is thenature of reasoning in science? What is the structure of research?

Reading: Papineau, D. (2003). Philosophy of Science, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy.


44/74

Epistemology of Science: What counts as scientific knowledge? Does science discover truths? How to choose between competing theories? What is the relationship between theories and

experiments?

Metaphysics of

Science: Are all events determined by causes?

Is there a purpose in nature?

Can other theories be reduced to others (e.g., to physics)?Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 44


45/74

The process by which scientists decide, based on observations and experiments, that some theory, principle or law is true (All As are Bs).

The Problem of Induction How to generalise from finite information?

Is it a threat to scientific knowledge (scepticism)? Falsificationism (Sir Karl Popper)

Science does not in fact rest on induction

First: come up with a hypothesis or a theory , and then see if it stands up to a test: If tests prove negative, theory is falsified If tests fit the theory, continue to uphold it as undefeated.

Scientific interence is refutation : Some A is not B not: All As are Bs.



46/74


47/74

2. It seems that falsificationism does not solve (or that it evades) the problem of induction What shows that a scientific theory is right? What is the rational basis for believing that the predictions that a theory

makes are right? What is the role of past evidence? We dont believe in new theories immediately, they start out as

hypotheses. Do we need to try to solve it?

Yes: Bayesianism Beliefs come in degrees in which we take something to be probable (these are

subjective probabilities) Amounts to rational belief revision No: Induction is a natural form of reasoning (see next slide).

Why do

rational

thinkers

expect

future

to

be

like

the

past?


Pr( / )Pr( / ) Pr( ) (Bayes Formula)Pr( ) E H H E H

E =


48/74

1. Deduction:

M is P All the beans in this bag are whiteS is M These beans in my hand are from this bagS is (necessarily) P These beans in my hand are white.

2. Induction:S1, S2, S3,... are M These beans in my hand are from this bagS1, S2, S3,... are P These beans in my hand are whiteAny M is (probably) P All the beans in this bag are white.

3. Abduction:M is P1, P2, P3,... All the beans in this bag are whiteS is P1, P2, P3,... These beans in my hand are white S is (plausibly) M These beans in my hand are from this bag.



49/74

How do we know about unobservable things? (Electromagnetic waves, viruses, electrons, quarks,...)

1. Realists think that observable facts are sufficient to enable us to indirectly infer the existence of unobservable things. In addition to making predictions, theories explain phenomena.

2. Instrumentalists think that theories about unobservables are useful tools for many calculations and predictions, but say nothing about their truths. Scientists postulate all kinds of things but need not believe in them.

Is the distinction between observable/unobservable meaningful in the first place? No: Kuhn, Feyerabend Underdetermination of theories by evidence (The Duhem Quine thesis)

Pessimistic meta induction: most past theories turned out false.Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 49


50/74

Key issues include:

1. Causation and explanation2. Laws and accidents3. Teleology and purpose4.

Theoretical reduction

We will not go into these topics in philosophy of science this time.



51/74


[email protected], University of Helsinki

Department of Philosophy, History, Culture, and Art Studies


In these last two lectures, we look inside the academic profession of philosophy in theWestern tradition. The first lecture focuses on how to write and publish papers inphilosophical journals. What do the editors and reviewers expect of a submission? How

does the peer review work? What was the Sokal Affair? How to find the right journal? Whatis the todays publication scene in philosophy?

Readings: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.html .

Shatz, D. (2004). Peer Review and the Marketplace of Ideas, in Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.htmlmailto:[email protected]


52/74


53/74

1. What is the general area of investigation?2. What kinds of research problems are there?3. For what questions you are searching for answers?4. Then make the topic more precise5. Make a structure of the plan6. Find a preliminary thesis7. Is the plan now feasible?8. Is the topic worth investigating?

9. What is

the

expected

contribution?10. What background theories are needed?

11. How is the plan connected with what has been done before?12. How do you search for answers? How to solve the problems?13. Do some interesting conclusions follow?



54/74

Some common problems in the topic selection:

1. too broad (or too narrow) topic2. trendy topics3. ignoring the research strengths of the institution4. choosing any topic from the instructor5. changing the topic in the middle.


Good topics

and

good

questions

produce

new ideas

A big answer to a small question may be

better than

a small

answer

to

a big

question...


55/74

Problems/questions clear Contribution Creativity, ideas Succesful argumentation Critical attitude Systematicity, coherence Conceptual clarity Communicability Scholarly attitude

...Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 55

Not just a report on what

others have said Methods for your thesis: Criticise Defend Find counterexamples Compare two approaches Argue that one thesis

implies something else Argue that one thesis presupposes something ...


56/74

The key component: Peer Review

This is how science really works: journals, press, conference program committees, job/tenure committees, funding organizations,... all use peer review

The referees recommend (and thus determine) the acceptance/resubmission/rejection

Seems to ensure the academic quality, protect us from errors and disinformation, lead to scientific progress The key requirement for acceptance: The submission makes a

significant contribution to knowledge Reviewed publications are the most valuable ones for everybody.



57/74

How compelling is this rationale for peer review?

Its not

a perfect

system:


Slow Doesnt keep up well with

technology & the increase in

information Errors (even frauds) may undergo undetected

Affiliation bias

Referee/Editorial bias Heavily cited and famous papers may have been originally rejected

Peer review works in the large scale, however... Double blind review helps here a little bit... But is it enough?


58/74

Lets try the initial assumption of

The Marketplace

of

Ideas

Let

the

millions

of

flowers

bloom.

That is, could we have an open peer review system instead of a closed one?

Probably not: Too much junk , gobbledegook and crackpot science out there Better let somebody to do the tough review work for us Universities, journals, presses need prestige and power High standards make it easier to judge quality in scholarly

performance

The closed,

expert

based

system,

rather

than

proliferation,

is

bound to lead to truth and scientific progress.


Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social


59/74

Alan Sokal: Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward the Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, Social Text 1996.

The point was not only to show problems with the journals peer review practices, but to defend the standards of scientific & philosophical work from

the threats of those postmodern literary intellectuals pontificating on science and its philosophy and making a complete bungle of both.

Check out Sokals new book: Beyond the Hoax: Science,

Philosophy and Culture, Oxford University Press, 2009. Explains the original joke sentence by sentence Includes an Afterword that was rejected by Social Text journal on the

grounds that

it

did

not

meet

their

intellectual

standards.


conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my

apartment. I live

on

the

21st

floor.


60/74

Some top general philosophy journals(resubmission rate; aver. review time):Analysis (4%; 0.69)Australasian J. of Philosophy (49%; 4.18)ErkenntnisJournal of Philosophy (3%; 12.59)Mind (27%; 7.62)MonistNos (17%; 3.47)Philosophical Quarterly (12%; 2.32)Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research (26%; 2.67)Philosophical Review (12%; 7.62)Philosophical Studies (12%; 3.81)Synthese


Some top special phil. journals:British J. for the Philosophy of ScienceBulletin of Symbolic LogicEconomics and PhilosophyEthics

Journal of

the

History

of

IdeasJournal of Philosophical Logic

Journal of Symbolic LogicLinguistics and PhilosophyMind and LanguageNotre Dame Journal of Formal LogicPhilosophia MathematicaPhilosophy of ScienceStudia Logica

Theory and DecisionVivarium
http://monist.buffalo.edu/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0029-4624&site=1http://www.springer.com/west/home/philosophy?SGWID=4-40385-70-35761018-0http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ET/http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://www.studialogica.org/http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.brill.nl/vivhttp://www.brill.nl/vivhttp://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/economic+theory?SGWID=4-40537-70-35644794-0http://www.studialogica.org/http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/home.htmlhttp://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.nd.edu/~ndjfl/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0268-1064http://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35609217-detailsPage=journal|description&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/journal/10988/abouthttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-journal.htmlhttp://www.springer.com/west/home?SGWID=4-102-70-35614830-0&changeHeader=true&referer=www.wkap.nl&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/prod/j/0022-3611http://jhi.pennpress.org/strands/jhi/home.htm;jsessionid=340ACC10D7C632F514F7C77CEC4EF544http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ET/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EAPhttp://www.aslonline.org/journals-bulletin.htmlhttp://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.springer.com/west/home/philosophy?SGWID=4-40385-70-35761018-0http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0029-4624&site=1http://monist.buffalo.edu/


61/74

Plato:

SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?GLAUCON: I agree.CEPHALUS: It would seem so.POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.PHAEDO: By all means.

PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 61


62/74

Sellars has established to McDowell's and my satisfaction that P.

Therefore P. [Bob Brandom] Sellars argues that P. (Actually, Sellars argues that not P, but that was wearing his black hat.) Therefore P. [Bob Brandom]

Someday someone might discover that P, and I want to get the credit. Therefore P. [Colin McGinn]

The argument for not P has seven steps, and I'm way too old for that. Therefore P. [John Searle]



63/74



This last lecture presents some thoughts on the status of philosophy in present-dayacademia. Questions to be taken up include: What is the difference between being aphilosopher and being a philosophy professor? What is the real work professors get to do at

the universities? What is the relationship to other disciplines? Is philosophy science,humanities, or neither? What is the contribution academic philosophy has to the society?Where is philosophy now and where is it going?


64/74

1. How do philosophers and philosophy professors differ from

one another?2. What is the real work philosophers get to do at the

universities?

3. What characterises professionalism?4. And what characterises academic job hunting?5. How does philosophy relate to other disciplines?6. What is the contribution of philosophy to the society?7. Where is philosophy?8. What does the future of philosophy look like?


Never let


65/74

1. There are more philosophers than professional philosophers The former may be a group of less expert dilettante, but widely attuned to by

the laymen (politicians, businessmen, artists,...) But is that philosophy? Arent they Sophists , the antagonists of Plato?

2. Universities Third Mission (OECD):Expect increased contribution to the society

What does this mean? Universities have always been in the society Universities dont teach public intellectuanism, nor do they should

So how

to

carry

out

the

Third

Mission? YES: Learn how to explain complex issues: Write clearly; Write general science,

textbooks; Give public lectures. But dont overdo.

NO: Comment on whatever happens to be the current issue in the media.


facts get inthe way ofarguments


66/74

Spend their time reading & knowing everything? Publish bestseller books that go down in history? Engage in peripatetic

discourse with colleagues on day to day basis? Teach a class or two per semester so how can they be so busy? The Reality:

Ok, write that book, and earn about 19$ per year Grade student papers until midnight Argue with your colleagues, but not quite on philosophy...

Sit in silly committees that make no difference to your real work... Prof. Lounasmaas receipe for wanna be scientists:

24h = 18h research + 1h eating + 1h socialising + 4h up to you to decide...

(Paul Erds: make it 19 hours...)Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 66


67/74

Tough path to follow:Grad.student PhD Post doc Fellowships Tenure Tracks (assist./associate prof.) Tenures Promotions...

Bottlenecks, reasons for early failures: Graduate from a weak program (7 main GPs in the US get 70% of TTs; a TT call from some of these may get 500+ applications)

No enough support from PhD & post doc supervisors; Mentors Without TTs its really drifting (= writing grant applications)

Engage in strategic planning: PPP: Get involved with Projects ; Work on Problems ; Publish early Early in the career and pre tenure, dont waste time with

Monographs, non journal publication, unnecessary admin, the same old University...

New ideas is all that really matters! Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 67


68/74

1. Disintrestedness1. Autonomy of the HE institution

Maintanance of academic standards; High degree of job security. Guaranteed by self regulation.

2. Specialization Contribution to knowledge; Mastery of methods; Transmissibility of skills Hard to balance with the external pressures for more generalization

(needed in science politics, but less so in scholarship and education)

2. Professional research ethics1. Autonomy of science

Search for truth; Reliability of knowledge; Objectivity; Progress

2. Norms of research (good scientific practice)Pietarinen: Analytic Philosophy 68


69/74

Is it Science or Humanities? Philosophy: the closest thing to science, but it is using words in a funny

way (R. Feynman) Be mindful of the Ethics of Terminology (C. Peirce) Philosophy unjustly associated with the humanities?

Or unjustly associated with Quinean naturalism?(The 2010 US post doc fellowships in humanities: 53, none in philosophy)

C.P. Snow: The Two Cultures (1959)

This still

exists?

The Sokal Affair Beyond the Hoax (2009): The Literary Humanists never really got the joke; just became more and more defensible.



70/74

The Crisis in Philosophy (Jason Stanley 2010)1. Legitimacy issues in its foreign policy?

Happened with the humanities in the 1970s, need to justify themselves, political pressure

Now its philosophys turn to justify itself, also given the prevailing

economic situations2. Internal dispersion?

Philosophy becomes fragmentary; Non communication between

groups of,

say,

analytic

and

continental

philosophers The cure? Admit that literary philosophy is better off with the

literature/art studies; and the rest has its home with the social & natural sciences.



71/74

Lets go back to the Third Mission:

1. What is

it

that

really

changes

the

world? Political decisions? Wars, natural disasters? Arts?

How about:

Ideas. Scientific discoveries.

New methods and new media of communication.

2. Philosophy is science, whose findings concern fundamental conceptual thinking. Rightly understood, our future depends on the

progress of science more than on anything else.



72/74

1. Searle, John (2003). Contemporary Philosophy in the United States, in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy (2nd Edition). Edited by Nicholas Brunnin and E.P. TsuiJames,

Blackwell, 122. 2. Beaney, Michael (2009). Analysis, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/

3. A Handout on Fallacies, The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

4. Papineau, David (2003). Philosophy of Science, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy (2nd Edition). Edited by Nicholas Brunnin and E.P. TsuiJames, Blackwell, 286 316.

5. a. Philosophy, The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.htmlb. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review and the Marketplace of Ideas, in Peer Review: A

Critical Inquiry , New York: Rowman, 1534. (Appeared in 1996 as Is Peer Review Overrated?, Monist 79, 536563.)

6. a. Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/b. Stanley, Jason (2010). The Crisis in Philosophy: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/04/05/stanley

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.htmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://leiterreports.typepad.com/http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/04/05/stanleyhttp://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/04/05/stanleyhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://leiterreports.typepad.com/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.htmlhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/


73/74


74/74

Feynman: Theorem: Mathematicians can prove

only trivial theorems, because every theorem that is proved is trivial.(Statement: Philosophers can say only obvious

things, because every thing that is said is obvious.) Erds: Mathematician is the machine that turns coffee into theorems(Philosopher is the machine that turns tea into ideas.)

[2010] - pietarinen - essential analytic philosophy

Documents