The Symposium

Ami

21:00

I agree with @mfg too.

mfg

@Ami right i was kind of expounding on her note, do you mean no one will be there to edit?

Ruben

@Ami you want to push non-academics.

Ami

I think you misunderstood

mfg

she meant encourage them

Ami

I probably phrased it poorly

Ruben

21:00

Yes I understood that ^^

Ami

(Ami is a man)

Joseph Spiros

@Ruben Downvotes and comments are the right of the people voting and commenting. I really don't see a point in talking about whether or not things should or shouldn't be voted for/against. :)

Ruben

I know we're not on a playground.

Chuck

Stop this debate know and focus on the phrase

'mature and considered philosophical analysis'

Joe

We should encourage academic questions, certainly. Is that the line? There's more to unpack here

M. Tibbits

21:01

Clarification: Is overwhelming desire to not facilitate introductory questions? I don't have a degree in philosophy, but I've taken college courses: should I even be here?

Ruben

@M. I'd like to know that too, I'm probably in the same situation.

Joseph Spiros

@MTibbits I think you should, and should be able to both ask and answer questions. Other people may disagree.

Ruben

@Chuck I can't answer this, sorry.

Michael Mrozek

Not to go all Area 51 on you, but you should come up with example questions that are good, and questions likely to be asked that are bad

Joe

@m @ruben yes! Again there simply will not be enough academics to man the site

Joseph Spiros

21:02

@Chuck With all due respect to you as moderator, I don't think you're going to get anyone to define that.

@Chuck Everyone feels the way you do about my questions about that one.

Ami

@M., @Ruben, I don't think anyone is expressing intolerance for non academics like myself, the problem is poor phraseology in questions

M. Tibbits

@MichaelMrozek completely agree.

Ruben

@Chuck @Joseph Nope. But if no one can define the phrase, then there is a really huge lack of academics.

mfg

@Ami no she isn't, sorry friend

Ami

@mfg, no problem

Chuck

21:03

I'll have a crack at it if no-one else offers

Ruben

Please do.

Joe

Please do @chuck

Joseph Spiros

@Ruben I've felt that from the start. Which is why I think the community should be self-moderating with votes and comments and far fewer closures.

@Chuck Go for it!

Ruben

@Ami No, I'm feeling tolerated. I just don't know if I can add to this debate.

M. Tibbits

I agree with @JosephSpiros on the closures. Vote to influence what's good and bad. Comment, answer, edit, and offer fixup sessions.

Ami

21:06

Suggestion for the site definition:

Chuck

Mature=Secure in its terminology and free from unnecessary referencing and casual/offhand remarks meant to hide shallowness .... Considered= Not argumentative or confrontational, with understanding of the traditions/debates/cultures involved in the asking of the question

Ami

Questions on this site should be (somewhat) relevant to the study of philosophy that goes on in an academic setting. Please try to formulate any hidden assumptions you might be harboring and avoid questions with an agenda!

Joseph Spiros

I don't understand; if SE sites can request minor changes to the software, such as the change of different closure reasons, why can't we just remove the ability to close, or make it require 5000+ rep to vote for, or something? Why is it pointless for us to discuss the MECHANICS of closure as it relates to the ideals of this site?

Joe

@chuck @ami both agreed

Joseph Spiros

I swear, you philosophers...

Joe

21:07

Can we please work on a definition? And then move on to moderation guidelines and policy

Chuck

Philosophical=Included in widely accepted canons and if not dealing with abstract reasoning/methods of argumentation/forms of debate

Michael Mrozek

@JosephSpiros Is 3000 not sufficient? That's what it is on launched sites

Joe

@chuck I like both of those points

Joseph Spiros

@MichaelMrozek Oh, that might be sufficient. Thank you, I was not aware. I still think it might be worth discussion, as not only have I asked this again and again, some people have agreed with some of the things I've said.

Chuck

Analysis=Precise and rigorous adherence to the demands of the questions. That is, answers free from overgeneralization (e.g. answering a question on consequentialist ethics by mentinoning a benevolent God) or overspecification

Joseph Spiros

21:08

It's still easier to close than it is to reopen, and I think that's the salient point.

Chuck

OK so my aggregate would be:

Joe

@chuck I think that covers it very well

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck Forgive me for the noise/interruption.

Joe

(I have a short commute home, will be back on in just a few moments.)

mfg

@Ami additionally, instead of embedding agenda in the question, answer your own question, mark it complete and then delete it?

@Chuck good mature+considered make for good questions

Ruben

21:10

I don't know which canons are widely accepted.

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck Disagree with "mature", open to too much interpretation even in your formation.

Ami

More content for a site definition:

rather, a disclaimer which can be used to help out new users:

Please be advised: good questions are as important to philosophers as good answers. When you ask a question be prepared to get advice from the community to clarify your assumptions and better define your terms.

Chuck

Answers that are terminologically secure, not shallow or pretentious, that show an understanding of the questioner's level/tradition/culture and do not treat him or her dismissively, that can either be included in accepted canons of philosophical discourse or are such as to be focused on abstract reasoning and widely accepted methods of argumentation and be precise in that they rigorously adhere to the demands of the original question

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck I like this "analysis" definition, though. Very nicely stated. Though I'm not sure if it's perfect.

Ruben

@Ami Like it.

mfg

21:14

@Ami I think in particular the latter part about what to expect

Chuck

@Ami Like it too

mfg

i might add not to take edits personally and thats why theres a roll back button

Joseph Spiros

@Ami I do too.

Ami

@mfg, agreed

Ruben

Sorry, again I'm not sure if by asking I add something to this debate, but I believe I might be the sort of serious non-academic from a field not too far away (psychology), who might be more numerous than serious academics (I think many scholarly philosophers may at first find Q&A foreign).

Joseph Spiros

21:15

@Chuck PLEASE can we discuss the mechanics of closure, and not just the philosophy of it? Can we not accept it as immutable? I would like to hear what you all have to say beyond "that's beyond the scope of our discussion", because it really does seem relevant.

@Chuck OR can you explain to me how the mechanics of the very thing we're talking about isn't relevant?

mfg

@Ruben my study mate was a psych/phil double major, i was rel. studies/phil double major; it takes all kinds

M. Tibbits

What about 'thought-provoking' instead of mature?

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck I feel like phrasing it around the mechanics of closure might get us further along than trying to define all these words.

Rebecca Chernoff

@JosephSpiros talking about closing questions isn't relevant. This community needs to figure out what the site is about. If you can't figure out what the site is about, how can there be a site? And if there's no site, there's nothing to close or re-open.

So figure out what the site is about.

mfg

@JosephSpiros its not currently relevant because we are working out the modus operandi of the site

Ruben

21:17

@mfg I still don't know the accepted canons.

Chuck

@Joseph The mechanics of closure are about Questions. mature and considered philosophical analysis was about the answers

Ami

raison d'etre

Chuck

OK regarding questions

Ami

@chuck, can you write up what you've got so far and post it on a tread on meta?

Ruben

@Ami What are you referring to?

Robert Cartaino

21:18

Wow, sorry to arrive late (storm here). Are you guys still trying (after 1 hr, 20 minutes in) to figure out what you are talking about?

Chuck

If we have a good understanding of what kind of answers we should encourage the community to privide, we should also understand which questions will be unlikely to be amenable to such questions

and should therefore be closed

Does that answer your worry?

Joseph Spiros

@RebeccaChernoff I disagree. Not that we shouldn't figure out what this site is about, but at the mechanism by which we figure that out.

Ruben

@Rob Yes, there are some problems with staying on topic.

Joseph Spiros

@Chuck Sure, I follow you.

Rebecca Chernoff

@JosephSpiros For most sites, voting and closing questions is the appropriate means because the site topics are already mostly figured out.

The Philosophy site needs more extreme measures, which is the reason for this chat.

mfg

21:20

@Ruben i still dont understand that [question]; it's okay that you havent gotten an undergrad or a minor let alone a finishing degree. if you have a question, and want reasoned, rational thought laid into it, bring it to phil.se and we will sort it out for you. if it belongs somewhere else with better experts we'll tell you, but if its one of ours we'll dissect it, tell you whats wrong with the question and give you an answer

Chuck

@Ami will do

Joseph Spiros

@RebeccaChernoff I understand, and I agree that ONE of them should be used, but not BOTH.

Rebecca Chernoff

and right now, we are using this chat.

mfg

philosophy is 90% understanding what is inaccurate about the question

2

Ami

@mfg, awesome!

mfg

21:21

thats all method; 10% is writing the answer

Chuck

@mfg Though I personally agree, some traditions would violently disagree with that

(unfortunately)

Joseph Spiros

@RebeccaChernoff I agree, and my view is that the "extreme measure" may simply be disabling one of those methods, as "philosophy" is APPARENTLY (see this chat) up for debate. Forever (see history).

mfg

wittgenstein certainly wouldn't

Ruben

@mfg Yes. I'm trying to debate whether Chuck's definition is a good one. I like it, but it includes the phrase "accepted canons" and I think that won't help those who might consider the FAQ before they ask.

Chuck

@Ruben You are right 'accepted canons' is problematic

mfg

21:22

oh, that's where 'canons' came from

Ruben

I've hidden Joseph's posts and encourage others to do the same to stay on the topic of debating the topic.

mfg

copy/paste?

Rebecca Chernoff

@JosephSpiros this isn't helping. This chat is the here and now. If you want to help the site such that it continues to exist, constructively help figure out what this site is about during this chat discussion. Worry about closing posts after that. Your continual obsession with closing questions is not helping.

Chuck

OK will paste what we have so far

Is @Joe still in?

Joe

I'm monitoring

mfg

21:23

just the canonons part, i thought i read it all

Ruben

Philosophical=Included in widely accepted canons and if not dealing with abstract reasoning/methods of argumentation/forms of debate

Ami

@Chuck, once you post that question on meta, drop the link here and we might be able to move the discussion to that thread

Joseph Spiros

Alright, well, if the five or six of you want to continue discussing your own ideal world, to the exclusion of the hundreds of other people who participated in the Area 51 proposal that got us here in the first place, that's fine. I was actually trying to talk about how to make the site as useful as possible for as many people as possible, within the context of "philosophy".

You guys have fun.

Rebecca Chernoff

@JosephSpiros, help figure out the answer to this question that Robert asked on the meta:

##What is this site about?

In particular, there seems to be two types of questions asked on this site:

1. Questions *about* the [branches of philosophy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and its principles.
1. Questions posed as [philosophical arguments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_argument) or declarative sentence which would then be answered by an argument in logic.

There have been a few meta posts bandied about this issue, but the threads were far from conclusive. Some seem to feel that it should be one or the other, but not both:

Joe

@ami agreed, I think we are as far as we are likely to get today. Let's move further debate into a thread and adjourn this soon

Chuck

21:26

Q: What is this site about? A:About asking serious, thought-provoking, philosophically-minded questions that invite answers that are terminologically secure, not shallow or pretentious, that show an understanding

of the questioner's level/tradition/culture and do not treat him or her dismissively, that can either be included in accepted canons of philosophical discourse or are such as to be focused on abstract reasoning and widely accepted methods of argumentation and be precise in that they rigorously adhere to the demands of the original question

added thought-provoking and philosophically-minded

Ami

@joe, my attention span doesn't last this long

Joe

@chuck thank you so much for managing this

M. Tibbits

yes, I've only witnessed the last few minutes, but thank you @Chuck.

mfg

"that can either be included in accepted canons of philosophical discourse " = "that can either be part of a particular School of Philosophical thought (e.g. Epicureanism)"

Ruben

Canons: One could in principle map accepted canons in the FAQ, but I don't even know what this list would contain, how long it would be. I also do not know, what this adds. Aren't some really interesting questions problematic for accepted canons? Is Ayn Rand an accepted canon? Can there be no attack in principle on Ayn Rand's philosophy because of that?

mfg

21:29

@Chuck (if you wanted to replace canons)

@Ruben I would avoid that word as it glosses closely to Dogma and doctrine; I would stick to speaking generally of schools or movements

Chuck

@mfg thanks

Am doing the meta thread now be back in 3

@mfg will change it into your version

mfg

@Chuck I really do like what youve got down so far

Ruben

David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.

(I don't want to talk about Ayn Rand, I just want something sharper in the definition than "canons" or "movements" both of which sound like dogma to my mind)

mfg

Philisophical Disciplines?

that is more broad, but carries the same point

Dori

List of academic disciplines

An academic discipline, or field of study, is a branch of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or university level. Disciplines are defined (in part), and recognized by the academic journals in which research is published, and the learned societies and academic departments or faculties to which their practitioners belong. Fields of study usually have several sub-disciplines or branches, and the distinguishing lines between these are often both arbitrary and ambiguous. Overview The University of Paris in 1231 consisted of four faculties: Theology, Medicine, Canon Law a...

Chuck

21:33

@mfg I added 'widely-studied'

@Ruben that should esclude Randian objectivism which is idiosyncratic

i.e. particular, widely-studied ...

Dori

That's a link to Wikipedia's list of Philosophy disciplines

mfg

For me the whole thing comes back to that college department scale stackexchange idea, and within the philosophy department there was a professor who was good and x, and one who wrote on y, etc

Chuck

0

Q: What is this site about?

Following the Chat, here is a proposed answer: About asking serious, thought-provoking, philosophically-minded questions that invite answers that are terminologically secure, not shallow or pretentious, that show an understanding of the questioner's level/tradition/culture and do not treat him o...

Dori

Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". Branches of philosophy The following branches are the main areas of study: * Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substa...

Chuck

here is the link

Am editing to add some stuff about the types we discussed

Dori

21:35

That's the list of branches of Philosophy on Wikipedia

Chuck

i.e. types of questions that should be encourged

mfg

@Chuck dont edit in the types of questions, leave those for voting, mark as CW

(if you want this thread to be about that

)

Chuck

OK good i'm too tired to look it up now

Ruben

I think the 3 types of questions are still too blurry to be voted on. I would first include prototypes of these questions as links.

Chuck

should I CW the What is the site about? question

Ruben

21:36

(prototypes as in links to main site)

Joseph Spiros

@RebeccaChernoff meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/89/… I have replied as per your request.

Feel free to downvote it, all of you.

Chuck

Are we going to adjourn this meeting?

Joe

@Chuck yes, let's adjourn for now but i would like to setup a followup in a few days if others agree?

Ami

@Chuck I think that would be a good idea

@Joe, go for it

Chuck

@Joe yes go for it

Ruben

21:41

@Joe Good

Joe

@dori, @rebecca could we possibly set up a follow up meeting at the same time, three days from now?

Chuck

@Ruben Let me just say that I appreciate your skepticism, and you raise valid questions, I wish I could type fast enough to give considered responses to all of them - let me think and we'll tackle them next time

Rebecca Chernoff

@Joe on Saturday?

Ami

@Joe, lets not do it on a weekend

Joe

hmmm, good point

monday, then?

Ruben

21:42

will be hungover on Saturday

Joe

or friday, but that seems very soon

Ami

How about Monday?

Ruben

can't we agree on one more meta question: Name prototypes for type 1-3 and the answers are links plus the supposed category and we vote?

Dori

@Joe I think Friday is better, because this needs to get hashed out, and soon

mfg

Thanks for the work <>'s and everybody else, here's to no magic unicorn rep for philosophy participants

thei

21:43

I strongly suggest to not have it at the same time.

Ruben

I can't make time for a session like this again, I think.

Joe

@dori understood; friday then

what time?

6PM EST, timeboxed to 1hr is my suggestion

Dori

So, pretty much 48 hours from now?

Joe

if that works for others -- @ruben, @ami, @chuck?

Ruben

this is midnight in Germany

isn't it?

(sorry if I'm just being bad with timezones)

Ami

21:45

I'll try my best to make it

Rebecca Chernoff

friday night at midnight? just call that the weekend...

Ruben

Sorry, but how could I be hungover on saturday if I chat with you on friday night.

Joe

we can go earlier if that's easier for others?

Ami

How many new questions do we expect to have in the system in just 48 hours?

Joe

i would expect at least another 15-20 -- we have several new questions already

Ami

21:47

I recommend we wait longer so that some patterns might start to emerge before we do this again

Joe

the mods reccomend we meet again soon to clear this up once and for all

Dori

@Ami A lot -- when a site first hits public beta, it usually gets slammed in the first couple of days.

Joe

let's plan to meet back here in 48, for those that can make it. contribute to the thread on meta where chuck has posted his notes if you're going to be unable to get here and we'll try to work through that feedback if we have time.

Ami

sounds good

Joe

thanks everyone! i think we have actually made some progress today

Ami

21:49

Agreed

Ruben

Sounds good, I won't make it, but I have faith in yall

Rebecca Chernoff

you're sticking with Friday evening/night?

what time?

Ami

4pm

US eastern time

9 pm in London

Dori

@RebeccaChernoff In 48 hours and ten minutes from now

Joseph Spiros

@Ami 8PM? Isn't it EDT?

Joe

21:50

@Dori @RebeccaChernoff @RobertCartaino thank you all so much for your help

Dori

@Ami I thought he said 6pm Eastern

Joseph Spiros

@Ami Oh, do they have summer time too?

Joe

i think others were having issues with the 6pm est (it's midnight in germany)

Rebecca Chernoff

Added: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/538/…

Joe

if possible let's do same time, friday?

Ami

21:51

@Dori, I assumed we wanted to do it the same time of day that this meeting was

Rebecca Chernoff

that how y'all want it?

Joe

perfect

Dori

OK, then: 46 hours and ten minutes from now.

Ami

great

Ruben

I would try making it then.

Btw. it's midnight in Germany now as well.

Ami

21:52

@Ruben, thanks for staying up for us

Ruben

So thanks to all of you for remaining civil and explaining stuff to me. If this works out, it could be cool (I'm not all skeptic @Chuck).

Dori

@Ruben Hopefully the next one won't be two hours long

Rebecca Chernoff

If y'all are worried about being hungover on Saturday, I'm not sure how a Friday night chat is better, but that's for y'all.

Ruben

you can't go dancing before 12pm in Berlin.

Rebecca Chernoff

same difference

Joe

21:55

@ruben, yes thank you for staying up :)

Dori

Whoops, looks like @RebeccaChernoff and I both created one (I've deleted mine)

Ruben

@reb don't get it. I'm good with 9pm on Friday, because this is not the time I go out. @Joe @Ami Thanks for taking an interest in my sleeping habits, I would've been up till midnight anyway, but I just wanted to say goodbye now.

Rebecca Chernoff

@Dori oh sorry did I scroll right past yours?

Dori

@RebeccaChernoff I think I created mine about 30 seconds later.

Joe

22:15

@GeorgeEdison what are your thoughts on the general reference questions?

George Edison

@Joe Hmmm...

Joe

(oh, by the way, it's difficult to thank you enough for proposing this.)

George Edison

It's difficult to thank everyone who participated in the private beta :)

It really looks like it's off to a good start.

I created the proposal to learn... it's working so far :)

Joe

that's good to hear :) we're a little worried about our trajectory

that's the main reason we had the meeting today

do you think general reference questions should be allowed here? we started seeing a glut of them in the pattern "define-that-fallacy!" and it started seeming a bit too trivial

what do you think?

George Edison

True...

A lot of those kinds of questions can easily be looked up on Wikipedia for example.

Joe

22:22

right

George Edison

And Google can fill in a lot of other gaps.

So after some thinking, I think it might be a good idea to close those ones.

It might seem a little unusual, but I think in the long run, it will help the site out.

Joe

I worry about overly aggressive closure too -- but we can't let trivial Q&A choke out practical and/or scholarly questions

maybe i'm missing the line entirely, and being too hostile

but the patterns we choose to allow now...

thanks, @GeorgeEdison -- let me know if you want to talk this through further. we were planning to address moderation policy once we had worked through our definition, which somewhat predictably is taking a long time

George Edison

Thanks for your contributions to the site!

I'll let you know if I think of anything further.

Roland Taylor

22:46

hi

George Edison

@RolandTaylor Hey! I know you...

Roland Taylor

23:17

@GeorgeEdison hmm you look familiar :)

Roland Taylor

23:31

I'm not sure if I have the right tag for my question but it's the best I could find :P:

0

Q: Can something infinite be absolute?

Let's say we have an equation that has no end to its result. (Sorry I don't have an example to hand, and the value of Pi is still under question so I won't use that). Can this value be considered absolute (like an absolute truth)? Or would it be undefined (even though we know what it "is")?

determinism

Transcript for