The Symposium

Ami

19:03

56 minute countdown...

Joe

19:28

good afternoon @Ami :)

Ami

Good afternoon Joe

and everyone else

Joe

@mfg, @Ruben, @thei welcome and good afternoon to you as well :)

Ami

@Joe, awesome blog

thei

@Joe good evening, actually :)

Ami

In Germany?

Ruben

19:38

Yes, in Germany

Joe

@Ami thank you so much, though I cannot entirely take credit. There are several very bright people who help me out :)

Ruben

I don't know what @Joe is referring to in his last message @Ami, does this mean I'm not getting all the messages?

Ami

@Ruben, Joe was referring to what I wrote a few minutes ago about his blog

I'm sure you're getting all the messages

Ruben

@Ami I'm sorry, didn't see it.

Isn't this the time the discussion is supposed to be?

Ami

15 more minutes I believe

what time is it by you?

Ruben

19:45

not my best apparently ^^

Chuck

hello

Ami

welcome

In case some people haven't seen it yet:

1

Q: Thoughts for our moderation policy?

What are your thoughts for a serious moderation policy for this site? In particular, what questions would you like answered at the meeting?

Chuck

Maybe this is too early, but I think people are being way too trigger-happy with the close button - there are currently 9 closed questions on the Newest Questions page. Most of which, I think, should be open

Joe

Call to order? Or should we wait a few minutes?

Chuck

Point is - If something is perhaps a little too general (e.g. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/345/…) but well-phrased and not confrontational, it should be left open. Such questions I'm sure will attract interesting answers

Roll call then

Ami

20:00

@Joe, will you handle the call to order?

Joe

This meeting is hereby called to order :)

Rebecca Chernoff

@Ami I think the community needs to figure out what the site actually about before talking about moderation.

Ami

correct

this discussion should be about the definition of our philosophy.SE site

Joe

I second

Ami

@Chuck asked about the closing of the following question:

Joe

20:02

Move that first order of business is site definition

Ruben

I agree

Ami

1

Q: At what point can a being be said to have gained sentience?

It's pretty much universally accepted that healthy humans have sentience, but that's where the agreement stops. Many would say that complex animals have sentience, such as dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc. But what about a mouse? An ant? A bacterium? And what about a severely brain-damaged human...

consciousness sentience

Joe

My feeling on this -- interesting bu effectively unanswerable...

Ami

define "answerable"

what kind of answers are we looking for on this site?

Ruben

Yes, this is the core topic, why I wanted to participate in this discussion

Chuck

20:04

Nothing is effectively answerable in philosophy - if this site is going to be about effectively answerable philosophical questions then it should be restricted to questions on scholarship only

Ben Hocking

I think Joe is technically correct that the question cannot be "answered", but I think it can be "addressed". The question would be better if it were reworded, but it's not off-topic, IMO.

Ami

If someone were to provide a bibliography of philosophical theories and opinions about human sentience, wouldn't that be a good answer?

Chuck

Which is not, I believe, a satisfying definition for this site

Joe

@Ben agreed

Ruben

@Chuck agreed

Joe

20:04

@Ami that would be a good answer

Ruben

However, I think the view on the answerableness of questions in philosophy is a question itself?

Chuck

@Ami Yes, that would be a great answer and I'm sure satisfying to the questioner

Ami

@ruben, answerable in philosophy is not the same thing as answerable as per the philosophy.SE community

Chuck

Such questions should be given room to breathe

Ruben

@Ami This is clear.

I think this community will be uninteresting to me if it focuses on history of philosophy.

Chuck

20:07

We need a rule of thumb here

George Edison

Is this the philosophy chat room?

Ami

yes

Ruben

Yes. @George

George Edison

Oh, good.

Hello everyone.

Ami

what's an example of a question that we all can agree is off topic?

Joe

20:08

@George, we are having a quick meeting on definition and moderation guidelines

George Edison

@Joe I have a problem too... I can't access the site :P

Joe

I think the various 'general reference' questions are good indicators of "too easy"

Ami

@joe, why?

Ruben

IF there is a way to answer questions in philosophy, then I think great answers should provide these answers and link to references where the answer is treated in depth.

Ami

I believe general reference questions are allowed on other sites like programmers

Ruben

20:09

@George it's in private beta

Ami

@Ruben, agreed

Joe

I just worry whether they are really adding that much -- especially when they can be answered with a trivial search

Ruben

I think general reference questions are not for the private bet.

thei

@Ami What about: What is utilitarian ethics?Reason: Because it can be found in the good ressources that we will list in the FAQ.

George Edison

@Ruben But... I just got an email saying it went public...?

Joe

20:10

My suggestion as to a rule of thumb: would this be interesting for an expert?

Ami

whether or not reference questions are for private beta is a different issue

Ruben

The goal is to make the site interesting to experts

But this is not the long-term goal, right?

Yes, maybe we should talk about this one at a time.

Ami

@Ruben, I think we'll all agree we're talking long term goals here

Joe

@George I believe it would be going public now, if we had our house in order :/

Ben Hocking

@Joe I'm no expert in philosophy, but I know a bit about general relativity, and what might be very good questions about general relativity often wouldn't be considered interesting by experts.

George Edison

20:11

So the email was wrong...?

Time to write a Meta question I guess.

Joe

@George, I cannot say but if it's not accessible that would be my inference...

Ruben

@Ami Yes. So let's not discuss general reference questions.

Ami

@Joe, why wouldn't an expert be interested in a list of resources for learning about a certain topic (general reference)?

Chuck

@Joe Yes, good ROT. But we should also allow for questions that reveal confusions that are didactically interesting/revealing

Joe

@Ruben agreed, let's try to determine our definition
@Ami my worry is that these do not add very much. But for now lets focus on our long term trajectory if we could.

Chuck

20:13

Such questions usually allow for very good philosophical writing

Ami

no problem

Chuck

OK are we going to talk about definition now?

Ruben

@Chuck Very much agreed.

Joe

@chuck agreed, I think my concern would be exhibiting domain awareness

Some questions just can't be meaningfully answered as formulated

Ruben

Define meaningfully answered.

Joseph Spiros

20:14

I'm still a little lost as to why we can't simply /not close/ questions, and just downvote/upvote as we think they're interesting/answerable/etc.?

If people upvote answers, I don't see how that's not a vote for "this question is answerable" by someone

thei

I am not an expert on philosophy. I don't think that more than a minority of the questions can be intrinsically interesting to the experts. So, I think that the question should be to those of you who see themselves as experts: What would you think are questions that you would think sufficiently motivating to spread your knowledge?

Ami

@JosephSpiros, we still need to know which questions to downvote

Chuck

I wouldn't use answerability as a criterion. This will confuse us. I would use this instead: The question contains terminology that is (irreperably) ambiguous/idiosyncratic/nonsensical

Joe

So suggestions for our on/off topic line? I like @Chuck's suggestion, any others?

Ami

how about leading questions?

Joseph Spiros

20:15

@Ami You downvote what you want to downvote, I'll downvote what I want to downvote, and patterns will naturally emerge?

Ami

questions with unstated assumptions

Ruben

I would like to talk about answerability

Ben Hocking

There are "questions" on other StackExchange sites (such as StackOverflow) that also aren't worded very well as questions, but if a reasonable question can be inferred from them, then a good answer will state what is assumed to be the real question and answer that. It might not be the best solution, but it's not a bad solution.

Ami

@BenHocking, this gets into the difference between questions that can be objectively answered and questions that can't...

on SO, if the code compiles you win

thei

@Ben Hocking: Yes, but are "you" (general you) willing to do it?

Chuck

20:17

@Ben @Ruben I want to avoid 'answerability' as a criterion exactly because it would exclude questions such as the one I linked above (on sentience) - And I believe they should be included. And a terminological soundness criterion would definitely let them through

Joseph Spiros

I understand that people interested in philosophy are going to want to DISCUSS all this stuff, and that's why we're here, but why can't it be trusted that the system will work itself out naturally if we just accept systematic principles?

In attempting to reduce the problem to the single principle I think is needed to solve it, I came up with "disable the closing of questions".

Ruben

@Chuck You believe that it would be excluded.

Joseph Spiros

Well, and "vote often"

Ruben

@Chuck I'm simply not on the same page.

Ami

@JosephSpiros, in private beta I saw questions with +5, -5 in votes

thei

20:18

@JosephSpiros Because the participants are extremely heterogeneous.

Ami

I think having some guidelines and consensus would help

Joe

Agreed

Ruben

I think there are more laymen present in this SE than in others.

Joseph Spiros

@Ami @thei And somehow that means it won't work itself out? Obviously, something with +10 -5 will beat something with +5 -5.

Ami

+5, -5 is a very strange thing for newbie to the site

Chuck

20:19

@Ruben You believe that 'When does a being attain sentience?' is 'answerable'? OK then we need to get straight on what we mean by answerable

Ami

@JosephSpiros, I hear your point

Ruben

Exactly.

I also think so many closed questions on the front page convey hostility.

Chuck

I absolutely agree

Joe

@Ruben also agreed

Chuck

That's why I raised the issue

Joseph Spiros

20:19

@Ruben Indeed

Chuck

I don't think it's very welcoming when you see 8 closed questions in a row

Ami

lets say the question read: "what is sentience?"

would that be acceptable?

thei

@JosephSpiros If some messages get consistently closed, then some people will leave. Questions can be closed with a few votes and reopened with a few votes. This is not very practical.

Joe

@Chuck, understood. Lets try to define the community.

Joseph Spiros

This is why I just think questions should never be closed; let the community decide fluidly what is accepted and what isn't. It's annoying when I can't answer a question that quite frankly IS a philosophical question, just because there's five stodgy people

It's MUCH EASIER to close a question than it is to reopen one.

Chuck

20:21

@Joe OK - how doe we do this? Take turns offering definitions? Someone offers one we discuss it?

Ami

I agree with @JosephSpiros's point.

Joe

The issue at hand is what our community is about

Ruben

@Chuck I am a layman, but I have participated in a two-week seminar on metaethics. If you think, I'm not sufficiently qualified because I'm not on the same page on answerability, then I think a lot of potential askers will be excluded from the site.

Joseph Spiros

Who visits a closed question to see if it should be reopened? Not many people, I'd wager, especially compared to the number of people who want to run around dictating answerability.

Joe

@Joseph, that's why we are here -- to get our arms around a consistent on/off topic and moderation policy.

Ami

20:22

I agree that downvotes are better than vote to close in most cases, but deciding on a site definition will help clarify what our culture should be

When down votes should and close votes should be applied

Chuck

Can I offer my ideal vision of how this site would look like? And then maybe you can tell me if you agree or not and if you do try and find a definition that would bring about such a structure

Ben Hocking

Can we at least _all_ agree that this was properly closed:
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7/what-would-a-zombie-apocalypse-really-look-like

Joe

Go for it, @Chuck

Joseph Spiros

@Joe I understand that, and maybe a group of you can come up with a policy for how people should generally vote. But allowing questions to be closed just doesn't seem to fit to me, I'm sorry. This is philosophy, and while you can claim that the philosophy.SE site wil have rules beyond those applied to the definition of philosophy itself, a lot of people are going to come here not knowing those rules, and some of them might vote to close things.

Ruben

@Chuck I think philosophers need to agree on axioms, otherwise they won't have much to discuss. Does the same hold true for this site?

Ben Hocking

20:23

("What would a Zombie apocalypse really look like?")

Ruben

@Ben if you post it on one line it will get one-boxed, but yeah, I think most will agree

Joseph Spiros

@Ruben I would argue that each question is enough of an island to allow different questions to presume different axioms.

Ruben

@Joseph Really? every question?

Joseph Spiros

@BenHocking Not really, no. I think -8 was enough to say what needed to be said by the community.

Joe

My sense is that this place should be for serious questions about philosophy. Any thoughts on casual questions?

Joseph Spiros

20:25

@BenHocking I mean, yes, of course I agree, but I wouldn't be sad if we couldn't close it.

Ami

@Joe, define "serious"

mfg

@JosephSpiros You don't ask an astronomer a question about the sign Pisces, the pieces may be stars but in the case of many closed questions they were asking questions of a content and format not answerable by the tools of philosophy.

3

Joe

Questions formally addressed to the theory and practice of philosophy, that aren't trivially answerable by a Google search, and that would be interesting to experts.

Chuck

OK I think there should be three groups of questions to be encouraged and let through. 1) Questions that are not strictly answerable (like sentience) but which can provoke interesting approaches/bibliographical information from different traditions in philosophy (e.g. from analytic as well as continental experts) - i.e. community-wiki types

Joseph Spiros

@mfg I am not saying that certain questions being closed was damaging to the community.

thei

20:27

@BenHocking This was the first question I saw. On the upside, it made me laugh.

Joseph Spiros

I am saying that the closure mechanism itself is too potentially damaging to the community.

Joe

@chuck agreed

Ruben

What about questions that have not been answered/addressed in the literature? @Joe

Chuck

2) Not strictly answerable questions that can provoke interesting arguments from response to response and even allow room for people to contribute original remarks and go out on a (rigorous and eloquent) limb occasionally

mfg

@Chuck but don't those basically solicit discussion?

Ami

20:28

@Ruben, what is "the literature"

Joe

@Ruben Honestly my feeling is that they belong here. What do others think?

Ruben

@Chuck 2) I think the SE format is bad for them.

Joseph Spiros

Compare: When evil (let's not get too far into this) people die, I don't regret it, even in cases where they are killed. But I do regret that people are /ever/ killed.

Chuck

3)Precise, well-worded, specific questions that are localized with respect to a tradition/school etc. Bibliographical/reference/scholarly questions included in this too

Ruben

@Ami Scholarly philosophy

Joseph Spiros

20:29

Why not just let the questions die a natural death; why kill them with a closure?

Ruben

@Joe I think so too. I'm undecided on whether the SE format befits them.

Joseph Spiros

Let public opinion sort it out, rather than a complex series of subjective rules and determinations?

user2334

@Joe As long as it's not armchair philosophy, it should be fine. Those questions likely will be the "soft" questions that are the low-hanging fruit for the curious, not the experts

Joe

@Joseph, closing a question is a normal part of the lifecycle on an SE site. I'm not sure why you think we should avoid it.

Chuck

So these three types of questions. (1) will be the least numerous, (2) will be very rare and will allowed to thrive only if they provoke significant interest, and (3) would be very common

mfg

20:29

@Joe agreed.

Joseph Spiros

@Joe Have you been reading everything I've been saying?

Ruben

@Joseph I read it all. I think you have argued your point well. I don't agree.

Joe

@Joseph you are saying it is hostile and potentially damaging to the community to use standard moderation tools. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, however.

user2334

@JosephSpiros Speaking as a moderator of one of the most discussion-prone SE sites (Programmers), it's important you have a clear, firm closure policy from the get-go otherwise it takes months to fix.

3

Ami

In many cases bad questions can be salvaged if the community tries

Ruben

20:30

@Chuck 3) most numerous? not currently?!

Joseph Spiros

God, this is going to get so annoying in this particular chat. Okay, so, LAWS are a normal part of the lifecycle of a government, right? So, why do bicameral legislatures exist? They exist to make it HARDER to pass them.

It's too EASY to close questions.

Chuck

No not currently - but ideally

Joe

@Joseph, i am definitely agreed with the basic point that not every casual question should get closed.

Ruben

@Joseph It is the private beta, nearly everyone with SE experience has the privilege, that will change.

Isn't that right?

Joe

Can anyone help summarize our consensus so far?

Ami

20:32

@JosephSpiros, I tend to agree with you, I just don't think this is the right time to be having this debate

post about it on meta

mfg

@MarkTrapp as a refugee of atheism.se, i can whole-heartedly bear witness to that and the subsequent extinction of the site

Rebecca Chernoff

@Ruben yes, rep privileges have been bumped up now philosophy.stackexchange.com/faq

Ruben

@Chuck Do you think this will attract experts? How many scholars in philosophy (PhD upward) does the community contain at the moment (not a rhetorical question)?

Joseph Spiros

When I suggest that we not close questions, it's just a random idea on how to fix the problem of closure being too easy. If closure was MUCH harder, I wouldn't be making this argument and I'm totally open to other solutions.

So long as you all agree that letting just about any five people close a question isn't a good idea, I'm good.

Chuck

OK some on step up and moderate this chat - this is too confusing to read and reply at the same time

Nominate @Joe

Ruben

20:33

@Joseph read rebecca's last message. Please stop arguing that point for now, this was intended as different topic.

Joe

@Joseph understood. Note that closing has just become harder. let's focus on a definition statement if we could.

Joseph Spiros

@Ruben I just did, thanks.

Ruben

Nominate @Chuck

Joe

Second @chucks nomination

If you wish :)

mfg

so what are the particularly good questions we have available to sort through for a positive example?

Ami

20:34

@chuck, can you please repost your 3 question types

I forgot them

Chuck

OK - but bear with me I am not a fast typer

Reposting

Ami

(copy paste)

Chuck

OK I think there should be three groups of questions to be encouraged and let through. 1) Questions that are not strictly answerable (like sentience) but which can provoke interesting approaches/bibliographical information from different traditions in philosophy (e.g. from analytic as well as continental experts) - i.e. community-wiki types

2) Not strictly answerable questions that can provoke interesting arguments from response to response and even allow room for people to contribute original remarks and go out on a (rigorous and eloquent) limb occasionally

3)Precise, well-worded, specific questions that are localized with respect to a tradition/school etc. Bibliographical/reference/scholarly questions included in this too

So these three types of questions. (1) will be the least numerous, (2) will be very rare and will allowed to thrive only if they provoke significant interest, and (3) would be very common

oh thanks

Joe

I think we need to come up with a line on 2

Ami

so @Chuck is in favor of the sentience question. Does anyone disagree?

Ruben

20:37

Can we group the top-voted question, to be on the same page?

Ami

I tend to agree with chuck, I think the question sure endure downvotes until someone rephrases it

Chuck

Let me explain why I think something like the sentience question (which I view as type (2)) is good for this site

Ruben

Example of 1)

19

Q: Was mathematics invented or discovered?

What would it mean to say that mathematics was invented and how would this be different from saying mathematics was discovered? Is this even a serious philosophical question or just a meaningless/tautological linguistic ambiguity?

mathematics natural-sciences

Joseph Spiros

I'm not entirely clear on what questions that leaves out? Is there any possibility of describing with minimal subjectivity what questions wouldn't be acceptable?

(I can think of questions that would be left out but I'm having trouble coming up with a description)

Rebecca Chernoff

I haven't seen it linked (sorry if I missed it), but here's Robert's original post:

9

Q: NOT READY FOR PUBLIC BETA -- What is this site about?

We decided to keep the Philosophy Stack Exchange in PRIVATE beta a bit longer until we can get a clear statement (and enforcement) of one major issue: What is this site about? In particular, there seems to be two types of questions asked on this site: Questions about the branches of philosoph...

discussion featured site-definition

Joe

20:39

Thanks @Rebecca

Chuck

Someone who likes Bergson can answer it in interesting terms using arguments about elan vital. Someone into the philosophy of language could offer a perspective on why 'sentience' is inherently vague term. Someone into neuroscience and AI could offer that kind of perspective. All interesting, none of them answers, all possibly original - all in all a great read for a visitor, even an expert

mfg

Presumably, all questions will flow seeking centralized answers or de-centralized answers. Basically in the former, the most accurate answer wins. In the latter, the most comprehensive and concise answer wins.

Ami

Does anyone here disagree with chuck?

Joe

I worry it is too causal but could possibly be helpful and possibly interesting.

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck Someone into the philosophy of language could offer a perspective on any written question...

Ruben

20:41

@Chuck and the most easily understood answer is voted to the top.

Ami

or the shortest

Chuck

@Joseph true, but you know what I'm getting at

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck I do, but it seems like a lot of people here aren't willing to trust that we all "know what each other is getting at"

That seems to be WHY we are here

Joe

This may be a side thought but it has struck me that we may need a sister site like Programmers for SO

M. Tibbits

@Joe there's no way you're going to get a sister site if this one can't get off the ground.

Chuck

20:42

@Joseph Using my moderator powers to urge you to focus on the definition issues - you are right about what you say but we can't really resolve that now

Joe

At any rate, so we are agreed to permit casual open-ended questions within reason?

Ami

@Joe, it would look like these guys: forums.philosophyforums.com

mfg

i think in the schema @chuck is laying out #1 promotes collections of various answers, #2 promotes discussion, and only #3 promotes attempts to answer

M. Tibbits

@mfg agree.

Chuck

@mfg That is right - do you think that is a problem?

Joe

20:44

My favorite group is 3, but I'm wiling to admit select 2s and 1s on a case by case basis. Nevertheless we do need to determine a line here.

mfg

i wont say the community doesnt want that, but i will say (sorry to hammer home on bad memories) #1 & #2 killed atheism.se

Ami

I think we are permitting casual questions. If the OP didn't put in any effort down vote. If you have the privileges help by rewording questions for the better whenever possible.

Michael Mrozek

@Joe The problem with allowing "some of them" is new users get confused, and when their question gets closed they get upset. "You allowed that other question, what's wrong with mine?"

Chuck

@Joe @mfg you are right about the dangers - but note that in my mind ideally (3) would be by far the most numerous group

mfg

admitting some of #1/2 is problematic for obvious reasons of when and why are they allowed, though a good faq entry can help smooth it over

Chuck

20:45

So maybe we should work on a definition that achieves that

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck (sigh) I don't agree that it being unresolvable means we should keep discussing things that depend on it being resolved. I think this entire problem is unresolvable which is what I'm trying to point out. Which is why I take my stance on closure. But, as you wish, fearless leader. I shall just sit and watch

M. Tibbits

@Chuck @mfg @joe wouldn't #1 and #2 essentially be wikis?

mfg

@Chuck i would hope so, but #1/2 are the most pernicious; we only have ~160 in a week? many of which are closed? the natives will get rrestless

Joe

We are already restless :/

M. Tibbits

When I saw 8 questions closed on the first page, I was quite surprised.

Chuck

20:46

@mfg Yes but note that the (1)s and (2)s will involve only a handful of questions - there are not infinite issues that invite these groupings

i.e.

there will be the ONE sentience question

or the ONE dreams question

ideally, that is

mfg

and there will be dozens of attempts to clarify and expand on each of those ONEs, each will be marginally different but equally less interesting beyond the armchair philophizing mentioned above

thei

@Chuck What makes you think that there will only be a handful of these questions? Even if the rest is closed as duplicate, this is not true if you just let me watch Star Trek under alcoholic influence while being logged onto the philosophy site.

2

Ruben

define armchair philosophy? @mfg

Chuck

OK - I am inviting someone to propose a definition

Joseph Spiros

@thei @thei or Andromeda, more likely.

Chuck

20:49

(Not of armchair philosophy, mind you)

Michael Mrozek

I'm pretty sure every site starts with the plan "well we'll allow some of them, but they'll be pretty rare", and before they know it it becomes "why is the entire front page filled with terrible questions?", and then it's too late

Chuck

Let's have a definition and try to stretch and twist it see if it holds up - and if it does whether it is realistic to expect the three types I suggested to spring out of it

user2334

@Ruben armchair philosophy is not serious; shot-in-the-dark answering. Not rigorous. "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"

Joe

@michael agreed; my definition would be "answers to serious questions about philosophy" -- meaning formally addressed to the methods of philosophical analysis, not answerable by a trivial search, interesting to experts

mfg

@Ruben in this case it would manifest as basically people philoso-ranto-phizing and loosely referring as needed to some reference to keep on topic

Ami

20:50

@MarkTrapp, that's actually one of my favorite questions of philosophy

Chuck

OK so @Joe's suggestion:

What is this site about?

Joseph Spiros

If I may raise one issue that doesn't seem to be getting much attention: What about non-western philosophy? How will loosely-defined rules affect questions asked in such contexts? Will questions be closed because of moderators being read in the western tradition?

mfg

but we all agree on three, and think #3 works? ("Precise, well-worded, specific questions that are localized with respect to a tradition/school etc. Bibliographical/reference/scholarly questions included in this too"
)

Chuck

Answer: About asking serious questions that invite answers utilizing the methods of mature and considered philosophical analysis

Ruben

I can NOT tell what the methods of philosophical analysis are. And I think there are even more who think they do (I mean: there exists a huge public misperception of what philosophy is about).

Chuck

20:52

Is that about right 2Joe?

George Edison

The site has now launched!

Ruben

@mfg I agree that 3 is good, but this won't keep me here.

Joe

@Chuck right on the money

Michael Mrozek

@GeorgeEdison It went public at least a half-hour ago :)

Joe

@Ruben can your clarify your objection?

Ruben

20:53

I can try.

Chuck

@Ruben So what would you want other than (3)?

Ami

@Joe, the point is there may not be enough academics on the SE network to keep this site afloat

3

Joe

@Ami understood and agreed

M. Tibbits

@Ami precisely.

mfg

@Ruben i think i feel that sentiment, but i think that if there was a sufficient volume of #3 where the questions weren't spread so thinly across disciplines you might find you like it more than you think

Chuck

20:54

@Joseph Point taken about non-Western philosophy. Hopefully people with expertise in non-Western philosophy will come. Otherwise I don;t see how such questions could be answered

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck I like the way it SOUNDS, I just want clarification on what "mature and considered philosophical analysis" means, or it should be stated that the definition of that concept is to be considered flexibly/loosely.

Ami

I'm in favor of taking the question's of people who are not academics and pushing them (through down votes and comments) to rephrase like an academician would

Ruben

By example: philosophy of science. the majority of natural scientists I know encourage Popper's view (finer nets of falsification). the majority of philosophers (I've been told) think Popper rebuked. This has not arrived in the natural sciences.

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck What if they come and the questions are closed, and they can't answer? :)

George Edison

@MichaelMrozek I was eating lunch.... so I missed it :P

Ruben

20:56

@Ami yes, that was part of my point in my message @mfg

Chuck

OK - Let's try and clarify 'mature and considered philosophical analysis'

Joe

@Chuck agreed, if we can clarify that at all we have our line

mfg

If non-academics ask question, it would be incumbent upon academics to try to rephrase the question. Think of helping out someone on superuser. I may have no idea how to ask my question, but its sure to me a real question, and often comments edits, fixup sessions (if closed) on meta can help it out

2

Chuck

Focus on this now - let's see if we get something and then if we feed it back to the definition let's see if we get something good

Ruben

@Joe No, I don't understand the line as is, so I can't "have" it.

Joseph Spiros

20:58

@mfg Agree.

Ruben

@mfg agreed @Ami disagreed. they won't be found when other non-academics search for them?!

M. Tibbits

@Ruben agreed.

Ami

@Ruben, what did I say different from what mfg said?

Transcript for