Our argument proceeds via a comparison with thought experiments. We first develop a list of purposes for engaging in thought experiments in philosophy. We then argue that computer simulations achieve many of these -- sometimes better than thought experiments.
On this later point, we appeal to the problem of complex social systems to motivate why thought experiments may be particularly poorly suited for this topic. But, many philosophers have used thought experiments about social systems anyway (eg Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Hume).
We also argue that the process of building a simulation (even one that is never actually used) is helpful in uncovering hidden assumptions and being precise in one's thinking. These are virtues that philosophers prize, and so are reasons to include simulations as methods.
We then consider several common objections to using computer simulations in philosophy. These objections pertain to issues like: correctness, validation, robustness, and the like.
To forestall misunderstanding, we are not trying to replace current philosophical methods. Nor are we arguing that *every* philosopher should be a simulator. But, we argue that philosophers should embrace simulations as a core method.
For those who know simulations in the sciences, much of what we say will be totally familiar. Our hope was to adapt these arguments explicitly for a philosophical audience who might think either philosophy is unique or might not have encountered simulations before.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just in case anyone reading this is thinking about debating a crackpot on a famous podcast. Here are some important tips for how to debate from a former debater and coach.
1. I don't care that you are an expert. You have not prepped for the debate. In college, we scouted. A lot. Knowing the subject matter is not enough, you need to know what your opponent is going to say and prepare specifically for that.
2. Prepping is not just scouting, but also preparing what you will say in response. Framing your argument is super important and thinking through what you'll say is critical. Plan for way more than you think you need because you never know what direction it will go.
I think slot machines are really interesting and I'm always curious about why they are designed the way they are. They have changed in some pretty significant, and I'm curious to know why.
(Fair warning, I'm not an expert on any of this, so this may be all hot air.)
My understanding is that there has been a kind of paradigm shift in the way that slot machines are being designed. The machines of 30 years ago focused on maintaining the veneer of "winning."
They were designed to make it seem like you had a lot of "near misses" where you almost won big, except for one small thing. They also made sure that you could always hear someone else winning, so it seemed like a win was just around the corner
1. Be specific about your knowledge of the student. Detail how you know the student and on what basis you make a judgment. We (seriously) get letters where it's not clear the faculty knows the student very well, but still says incredibly nice things.
2. Match your letter to the students other application materials. It looks strange when the letter doesn't match the application. (We do sometimes get "This student will excel in any CS PhD program." It's not as crazy given our program, but still a little off putting.)
First, unless I knew someone really well, I would be cautious saying something is "not worth it." I don't know how much value someone puts on learning philosophy or how much $ they have. How could I possibly judge whether something was worth it for them?
I think a lot of people have in mind "financially remunerative" when they say "worth it." This is an ironic standard for a philosopher to adopt. (Dear philosophers, somethings other than money have value. Surprised I have to say this.)
This is a common question that philosophers ask and get asked a lot. In my opinion, the answer is obviously "yes" and thinking that there might not be progress in philosophy is the result of thinking about philosophy the wrong way. A 🧵
Since I'm a philosopher, I need to know what counts as philosophy? Let's start with a simple version: has there been progress on the questions asked by people who were called "philosophers"?
The answer here is quite obviously yes. Aristotle, for instance, asked a bunch of questions regarding physics, biology, psychology, etc. We know SO MUCH MORE than he did, so there is obviously progress on those questions.
A short story about the time I was accused of being part of a cabal to keep a dangerous & "controversial" idea from seeing the light of day.
It's not the idea that you probably think it is...
Last year I (and a bunch of other folks I know) got an email from a seemingly nice fellow who wanted to talk to me about infinity and set theory.
Initially the emails started off very kind. The writer said he was "confused" about how infinities work in math.
He had some questions because it seemed incoherent that infinity + 1 = infinity. He wondered why this didn't violate basic properties of addition. (He mistakenly thought that infinity could be treated just like a regular natural number for the purposes of addition.)