Credibility and Minutia
Let's say someone has a Ph.D in Electrical/Electronic Engineering and Physics, and knows all the minutia of all the technology from start to finish.. from the theoretical physics surrounding how electrons operate, the properties of conductive materials, the theories behind the most physically complex quantum computing and regular computing processors and circuit boards, to the most complex networks and neural networks and logic gate theories, to even how machine code gets compiled and translated into various computer languages.. He knows all the ins and outs of the most popular computer languages (C++, Java are like peanuts to this guy.. he invented the compilers and programming language of his own, doesn't need those generic ones).. Understand even how the most complex peripherals work (audio, video, monitor engineering, pixelation, colors, hexidecimal).. knows information theory up the yingyang.. compression theory, electronics everything from simple circuits up to the most complex relay boards imaginable, electrical and even some plumbing components..everything from your fridge electronics and condensers, HVAC, electrical grid and power station theory, etc. etc.
With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy?
With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy?
Comments (30)
However, it is hard to say which of two people who are both theoretical beings, has deeper philosophical insight.
How about on matters such as ethics, politics, social theory, etc?
Yes, this is almost where I'm going with this. Let's change this up a bit...
What happens if I knew how to do all the practical trades (I can design, build, engineer a house, commercial building, and many types of structures) AND I knew about as much as an above average professor in applied and theoretical physics, as well as electrical/electronic engineering.. In fact, I have many patents, scholarly articles that have advanced tangibly the outcomes of many electronic manufacturing techniques that have affected many areas of industry, including both B2B products, and direct consumer products. Let's say I also designed and participated in constructing (along with the contractors and average worker) many buildings that are used by businesses small and large for their daily operations. Also, I have constructed several housing developments occupied by dozens of lower to upper-middle class residents residing in 1 bedroom (but spacious) apartments to 6 bedroom houses of various sizes, construction materials, architectural designs, and techniques.
NOW let us say I am also an antinatalist and think that the best option for humans (despite all my productive capacities) is to not procreate. Does my philosophy/ethic have more credibility?
Good question. What I'm trying to get at is a possible bias we have for people we perceive as having more productive capacity or insight into "how-things-work" in a way that affects us tangibly. These people are deemed (my theory goes) as having more credibility in claims of a philosophic import.
I purposely juxtaposed a highly (what most people consider) "productive" person with the (oft-considered) "odious" claim of antinatalism to make the contrast really hit home. Most people would think a "respectable productive person" would not claim such a thing, as if necessarily, they must have a positive view of existence or some other more moral majority opinion (i.e. a respectable productive citizen who wants to see X, Y, Z just like me!!).
People are HOPING the practically-accomplished person in the sciences and construction trades would be a "pragmatic-realist" (like them) and not something as "dreaded" as an antinatalist. And they hope that they would hold the generic/majority values of a procreation-sympathizer/agnostic. That kind of cognitive dissonance would make the claim more credible, because everything else they have accomplished is something they admire and has "helped" the systems in place in a way that they praise.
But for the "respectable folk" and not the rabble it would have to be high profile scientists, inventors, titans of industry, highly trained technicians that are experts in their field and have contributed many tangible products, innovations, and services etc. People who are deemed as accomplished in the ways of life they deem as respectable.
But I am also trying to reveal that people often deem that knowing minutia in a field itself confers by some necessity, better understanding in existential matters like antinatalism.
I don’t think I agree. To begin with, at least personally regarding philosophy, what establishes one’s credibility is his ability to articulate sound arguments. “Expert” philosophers are constantly being disagreed with by other experts, as well as novices. So I don’t think one’s academic credentials, or notoriety hold much particular sway when it comes to accepting one’s philosophical views.
Also, philosophy tends to be very subjective to begin with. Therefore, oftentimes what ideas one accepts depends solely on whether or not it is appealing to them. To be blunt, you and I will likely never agree on AN. Even if you become, or are, some world renowned philosopher, or if AN becomes popular, it won’t change what I value, or how I prioritize those values. Unless there’s a way to objectively determine what we should value most, I see no way of overcoming our difference of opinion.
I'm just suggesting there may be a bias. I think more empirical evidence might be needed.
Quoting Pinprick
No doubt.. But I think it may be an interesting study to see if the pro-natalist (or sympathizers rather) see knowing minutia on some field (math, science, electronics, physics, construction even), must mean that one must have more philosophical insight as if one can just "plumb the depths" of knowledge, one will get to some sort of philosophical insight. I guess in this way, a question arises, "Does knowing a lot about something, make one more of an expert in philosophical concepts like the human condition?"
He would have credibility and legitimacy in dealing with computers, including in the general philosophy of computers. But he would be lost on a medical issue, or a social one.
No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.
Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa.
I think it's an urban myth that this is so. But it can certainly happen that a person who has expertise in one field takes for granted that said field is as important to and revealing of humanity as a whole as it is to said person's career and means of living.
Well, yes, how about them?
I agree, and wish to add that other divisions also create credibility (and the opposite): level of smarts, level of religiosity, level of physical strength or athletic ability, level of good looks!! Yes, look at the celebrity thing. Level of social status, level of talent (among writers, artists and performers), etc. All divisions by sub-culture have their heroes. Heck, even being well-groomed and well-dressed (and the opposite) can give preconceptions to one's credibility or not.
Don't you think there is a "production bias" for middle-class types in general though, when it comes to legitimacy? The more you produce tangible things that increase some sort of tangible product/services, that confers credibility.
Agreed. I am just trying to define the "respectable middle-class" approach is measuring someone's productive capacities (and I specified examples of this). In a philosophy forum like this, or in most places where these philosophical debates take place, you are dealing with these middle-class types.
Very good point. You know about a bunch of theories on math, ergo you must know something more than the person that does not study this when it comes to some other X philosophical thing about big questions about the human condition. Now widen this to more practical things like making tangible products and services (engineering and trades for example). It's even more tempting to say they must know something more about the human condition. Thus my juxtaposition of the respectable productive man with the odious antinatalist position. Normally the middle-class type would say: "Ah yes, all is well, this very (what I deem) productive citizen is some variant of "pragmatic-realist" (or put any what-is-considered respectable philosophy here).. It may cause cognitive dissonance to learn that same person is an antinatalist, They did stuff that "helped" society in such a tangible way... "Why are they against bringing more people into the world?" might be their question. Minutia, minutia, minutia.
Yes, I agree with those, but I am focusing specifically on productive capacity, specifically ones that involve practical trades and science/technology because these are seen as particularly valuable and credible.
You mean like Bill Gates?
He's a good example. But it can be a more unknown person who can prove their credentials in their productive capacities. Then the middle-class type might have a bias to believe they "know" something in the philosophical realm.
Credibility and legitimacy is relative. Thus, I would answer you question "No." They don't. Not necessarily.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It certainly helps, but it's not necessary.
I knew a sniper once who had all the dope down pat, and he could shoot, too. But philosophical insight would seem to go more to the who, what, where, when, why, how, and should of his employment.
That's why I think STEM should follow the natural intellectual curiosity that springs from the Liberal Arts, rather than preceding it. That used to be the U.S. advantage. Not so much any more.
I have a rant on "gravitas." When I think of guys like Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley Jr., Justice Scalia, and others like them, I perceive this deep-voiced, contemplative, paternal, relaxed, calming fount of wisdom. So good is the show that many "lesser" people want what he has and aspire to it (Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden, et al). But when you look at Henry's record, some might say he's been flat out wrong on just about every policy position he's ever held.
So yes, in my opinion, we do have the bias you mention. A guy can be a mile wide and an inch deep, all hat and no cattle. Then you've got a guy like Ben Stein who is extremely intelligent and an encyclopedia of knowledge but, in my opinion, lacking wisdom. But, because he's got "gravitas" he get's an ear just like Henry, Bill, et al.
I was taught that in logic you consider what is said, not who said it. It's hard to do, but it can be done.
Agreed, and there can be a whole discussion of expertise vs. wisdom, etc. However, I would like to focus specifically on expertise in the science/technology/practical trades that leads to measurable increase in innovations and production of goods and services. The middle-class respectable man is measured by how they produce. "What did you DO today?" And those who increased production measurably with something tangible, seem to be the most respected. I am not saying this has to be a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk. Rather, this could just be a very well credentialed technician who knows their field very well and has measurably contributed output to it. These are the people whose positions make them praiseworthy to the respectable middle-class, and so "must" be most wise because they embody their value of production of goods and services, increase in technological capacity, etc.. Thus the assumption is that if they are so "productive" they must hold the values of the middle-class that gets them to be so contributing to the system (pragmatic-realists). So it would be more than disconcerting if a middle-class admirer was to find out that this person was an antinatalist as well.. They might say something like "Oh, but but, you put output into the system, and why aren't you buying into the values of "the system is good" if you have "contributed" (that concept here is biased too) to the system so much?
True enough.. but we can assume people are valued more for their productive capacity than not, and thus taken more seriously the more they are seen as having "contributed" something substantial to the system.