You haven’t produced any summary of an argument, or even a real link to one justifying the claim that all academic philosophy is obscure on purpose, in any of your comments.
Instead you’ve linked to a blog post about AI and academic publishing; and a paper from 15 years ago that says social sciences and humanities are plagued by a problem with obscurity.
This isn’t how actual philosophical debate works. But it’s a perfect example of how LW is not a serious intellectual community.
And you still haven’t made any real point, other than drop a couple names.
What do they have to say? What is their argument? Why is a behavioral economist’s opinion relevant in a discussion about academic philosophy? Etc.
“Academic philosophy is obscure on purpose and X two people say so.” is not an argument.
I would encourage you to consult the aforementioned figures if my observation is not shared by you.
- https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/how-ai-will-revolution...
- https://philpapers.org/rec/ELSHAS (via Sci-Hub)
So just to recap here:
You haven’t produced any summary of an argument, or even a real link to one justifying the claim that all academic philosophy is obscure on purpose, in any of your comments.
Instead you’ve linked to a blog post about AI and academic publishing; and a paper from 15 years ago that says social sciences and humanities are plagued by a problem with obscurity.
This isn’t how actual philosophical debate works. But it’s a perfect example of how LW is not a serious intellectual community.
1 reply →