Latest / Why We Do What We Do / Mini: Does Philosophy Matter for Expertise?

Transcript

Mini: Does Philosophy Matter for Expertise? · Why We Do What We Do

0:03
You're listening to Why we do what we do? Welcome to why we do
0:16
what we do. I'm your host, Abraham, and I'm your host,
0:18
Shane. I should have said welcome to why we do what we do?
0:21
Mini. Because this is a short, bite sized episode, we're going to
0:23
try and keep it under fifteen minutes. That's what we do, yeah,
0:26
which is an impressive feat for us, because we do not do that.
0:30
We are long winded af all right, Yeah, but today and normally when
0:35
we've done this, we've actually had them fairly scripted. We've had a really
0:37
close specific agenda for what we're going to accomplish in the length of this topic,
0:42
and this one, I chose to go the exact furthest opposite route I've
0:46
ever gone anything we've ever done this podcast, which is Shane doesn't even know
0:50
what we're talking about yet, I have no idea, could not even hazard
0:53
a guess, because I wanted this to be a dialogue because a question occurred
0:56
to me on this week and I wanted to answer it, and I wanted
0:59
to have it be sort of a heart to heart conversation. So Shane,
1:00
are you ready as ready as I could possibly be? Okay, So,
1:04
I want to get your opinion on this ready. Possibly that's great. How
1:11
important do you think philosophy is to competency? So how important is it for
1:18
someone's relative competency in a subject to also have the sort of philosophy and understanding
1:23
of that subject. Ooh, that's a really difficult question, right. I
1:30
think it's really important. But I guess maybe something that's important for me to
1:34
maybe express is that I think that a well rounded education that gives you skills,
1:41
intellectual tools to problem solve, to think critically, to criticize, to
1:46
turn an idea around over it, Like, I think that that in itself
1:49
is so critical, and I feel like you can't do that without philosophy.
1:53
So like, I feel like, if you're going to be competent about something,
1:56
I don't think that you need to for example, like I don't think
1:59
that you need to be like have philosophy to be competent in like a particular
2:04
practice in terms of like application of something Like, I don't think that's required
2:07
for fluency and that particular skills. Maybe what I'm saying, but I think
2:10
if you're gonna go the route of like calling yourself an expert, then you
2:15
should know every facet of this thing, or at least have the skills to
2:17
be able to explore every facet of whatever the concept or principle or thing is.
2:22
If that makes sense. Sure, yeah, yeah, I think I'm
2:24
picking a put your laying down there. I get what you're saying. A.
2:28
I sort of came up with some scenarios for trying to highlight whether or
2:30
not because, as you said, like, on the one hand, thinking
2:35
that philosophy is critically important kind of in a way means that people who get
2:39
trained to a level of fluency, competency, and something are still not good
2:45
enough at it because they don't have the philosophy right. Like you imagine people
2:47
who maybe never had a chance to go to college, maybe even never had
2:52
a chance to graduate high school, but nevertheless picked up some technical profession for
2:55
which they're perfectly good at it, like they can do their job. Sure,
2:59
but here here's an example I came up with. I was wondering,
3:01
like, and because I have a direction, I'm going with the specifically right,
3:06
Let's say you had like a plumber who they can perfectly install plumbing.
3:09
They can put in pipes, they can hook up a toilet, they can
3:12
hook up a sink. They know how to do that thing. They're fine.
3:15
If you hire them for a job, they'll come in and do that
3:17
job just fine. But what they believe is that the reason plumbing works is
3:23
because incorporeal magic gnomes are moving water pressure through those pipes. Sure, and
3:29
that is how the system works in every situation of plumbing. Does that in
3:34
any way inhibit their ability to be a good plumber? I think no,
3:38
But I do think that there's a lot to umpact within that because they lack
3:43
some level of introspection or knowledge base that they're going to pass on to somebody
3:49
else. So, like I think of it from that perspective, like individually
3:52
probably doesn't matter that much. But I think from a perspective of if they're
3:55
a teacher, if they have apprentices and they're teaching that down the line,
3:59
and that's like the base of knowledge that gets passed down, then that becomes
4:01
like a harmful thing. So I think, I think it really depends on
4:04
where that goes and how much spread that particular philosophy or particular thought has,
4:11
right, I mean, you could be right, and I think that you're
4:15
you know, presumably they could pass on their knowledge of how to do things
4:17
perfectly well, but then also pass on their knowledge of the or their their
4:23
beliefs about the incorporeal magic gnomes who move water around the various plumbing fixtures.
4:29
Right, But what also occurred to me is the what happens when they run
4:32
into a situation That is, they don't like they've done all the mechanical part
4:38
of it right, but it's still not working correctly, and you don't don't
4:42
understand things like atmospheric pressure and hydrodynamics and basic like principles of chemistry and natural
4:49
science that govern how plumbing actually works. They how do they problem solve a
4:55
situation where the incorporeal noomes are behaving erradically? I think that question to unpack
5:00
that a little bit. Is that an issue of a philosophy getting in the
5:04
way, or is that an issue of a gap in their knowledge from some
5:08
other place, because I don't think that those two are necessarily directly linked in
5:14
that way. Like I think somebody could have still a knowledge of atmospheric pressure
5:17
and all that stuff and still have the belief that like atmospheric pressure is caused
5:20
by invisible gnomes or whatever. Like I think that you could probably there's probably
5:25
like layers to that that you could unpack. I don't know that a lack
5:29
of knowledge necessarily implies a philosophic problem, if that makes sense. At some
5:35
point, though, my thought was that the belief in the supernatural will meet
5:42
at a point where the causes have to be from natural science, like things
5:46
that we understand from a natural science perspective, and will be directly at odds
5:49
with things we understand with a supernatural belief. Sure, and so at some
5:56
point those two cross paths, and they are no longer going to be a
6:00
effective because they don't they don't have that natural science even basic philosophy of like
6:05
what are the factors that could be related to the problem I'm encountering. As
6:10
technology develops and things become new, will they be able to follow the logic
6:14
of why something works differently than how it used to work because it's now relying
6:17
on a different system of pressure than something, or different kind of seal or
6:21
a different kind of piping material, whatever it might be. Yeah, So
6:26
I hear that. So I think maybe where I keep going back to,
6:29
and this is probably because of my worldview, is that I go, Okay,
6:32
so they're going to come to an impass with this this philosophical belief versus
6:36
this like actual practical application that's going to happen at some point. And I
6:41
can see that happening to me, like if I'm doing that, like I
6:45
go back to, like, well, what's the core issue? Because I
6:47
feel like philosophy is so like thought experiments and so like a whole different kind
6:53
of level of like intellectual engagement. And so I go, Okay, So
6:58
what happens when I come into the impass? When I don't know how to
7:00
do something or how to fix something? I go, I need help?
7:03
Right, So, like I lean into that, going well, I arrive
7:05
at a certain area and that becomes a skill deficit, not necessarily a philosophical
7:12
crisis or something, if that makes sense. Sure, Now my question goes,
7:15
when I arrive at that impasse, is my philosophical belief flexible enough that
7:19
I can learn the skill around this to still hold that belief and still gain
7:26
more knowledge to move forward. I think that's another kind of individual skill set
7:30
to look at, is like can I hold this philosophical belief while also learning
7:35
new skills to continue to gain more confidence? Because I always think of when
7:40
I was in grad school. I think of that the phrase science doesn't have
7:43
a finish line, so where like invisible gnomes does, right, Like there's
7:47
a finish line for that, where the science and the advancement of technology doesn't
7:51
have that finished line. And so I feel like that's kind of the crux
7:55
or the problem is that if they don't have that skill set to put it
7:59
the side for a second and learn a new skill, then that might be
8:01
a different issue. If they're refusing to learn something because they're like, I'm
8:05
not going to learn that because the gnomes are going to be mad at me.
8:07
If that's I'm going to go, you should probably talk to a therapist
8:11
first second. So there's a different conversation to be had there, right,
8:15
So I think that's probably where I would arrive from that flexibility, that psychological
8:18
flexibility standpoint well, And just to be clear, I think when you say
8:22
science doesn't have a finished line that the gnomes do, is suggesting that because
8:26
science is a process, right, so it's ongoing. It just is it
8:31
is constantly re evaluating revalue. Whereas the idea of the incorporeal gnomes is the
8:39
answer. It's like, we don't have anywhere else to go we have our
8:41
solution, right, it's not a process. So just to make sure people
8:45
are clearing that now. The reason I chose incorporeal gnomes as the answer is
8:50
because nobody believes that I just made it up. Like I was pretty confident
8:52
I could make up a thing, and like, this is not an established
8:56
set of superstitions or things that you're going to go around ask people and then
9:00
and be like, oh yeah, sure the incorporeal names, but I'm into
9:01
it now. Great. So I wanted to get this closer and close to
9:07
reality over a series of examples, and I think the next one's can go
9:09
a little bit faster. So the next one is like, okay, so
9:11
incorporeal gnomes, where we were putting that aside, Now let's go onto and
9:16
that was we're talking about, like how Plumber interacts with that. Now we
9:18
want to go onto a natural scientist who believes in ghosts, right, yeah,
9:24
because I think this is the exact same problem. You have someone who's
9:28
doing an interpretation analysis of the world, probably solving problems, might have some
9:31
actual practical application of theirs, but they also believe that ghosts exists. And
9:37
what I'm asking is, like, does that belief hinder how far they can
9:41
go as natural scientists because their philosophy allows for something that is directly in contrast
9:50
with the reality of the world that they're acting with. Let's unpack that for
9:54
a second, because I think then the question becomes is it is it a
9:56
hindrance because they can't see beyond? Or is it a hindrance because they are
10:03
unwilling to adapt? Right? So, like I think that that's that's a
10:07
conversation to be had within that. So there's there's a point where they go,
10:09
Okay, So like this is my answer, and I guess maybe what
10:13
I'm saying is I think it only becomes a hindrance if they are unwilling to
10:18
learn something new or or their curiosity stops about like some type of inquiry.
10:24
If inquiry stops because of that, then that becomes a different thing. Because
10:28
I've worked with scientists that believe in God, and is that not kind of
10:31
a similar a similar thing where you kind of go, okay, well,
10:35
like I'm sorry, okay, yeah, I take it back. I take
10:39
it back. I didn't saynything about the Bible, but what I but what
10:41
I mean, But what I'm saying, I guess is if it becomes a
10:43
space where they no longer have scientific inquiry, They don't have the ability to
10:50
ask relevant questions that are related to the actual application that I think that,
10:56
yeah, that's when it becomes a problem. I don't think that having the
10:58
two ideas at the same time as a problem. I think that when they
11:01
start intersecting and the day do you stop each other, that becomes a problem
11:05
for the scientist part at least. I think that's a very reasonable place to
11:07
be. And I appreciate your sort of devil's advocate position on this, and
11:11
so I would actually argue that that kind of has it has to create a
11:13
hindrance unless your work is pretty narrow and it does not ever ask you to
11:18
ask questions outside of what is whatever the relatively small scope of observation that you
11:24
rely on, that maybe you can have be completely divorced from something like the
11:28
idea of ghosts. At some point you're run into causal mechanisms that clash with
11:33
one another. Sure Like you just you don't get to have a natural science
11:35
observation of the world and also believe that ghosts exists. At some point in
11:39
those cross paths, you probably could if you don't ever expand out of whatever
11:43
a narrow niche sort of feel that has nothing to do with ghosts might exist,
11:46
but at some point I think that that inherently will create that hindrance for
11:50
a lot of natural scientists, and probably not all of them. Yeah,
11:52
So the next one, again we're coming up on time. So going fast
11:56
is it is taking the same exact idea because I think in corporaterial gnomes affecting
12:01
plumbing, same exact thing as ghosts affecting natural science, same exact thing in
12:05
my mind, as believing in extraterrestrial aliens living among us is to astronomers.
12:11
And then as you jump the gun is like okay, So then a scientist
12:16
believing in God because this is actually funny is because this just came up in
12:20
a recent training I had to complete the And I don't think that they meant
12:22
this to be as funny as I found it to be at all. Sure,
12:26
but they're sort of like saying, if you're trying to do science,
12:30
but your religious belief tells you that this can't possibly be the answer, then
12:35
like you're probably not a good candidate to be doing that science because you won't
12:39
be able to see beyond the belief the preconceived beliefs that you have that already
12:43
tell you that you think you know the answer before you even ask the question,
12:48
so you come into it with bias. And I thought that was very
12:50
funny because I'm like, basically, what you're saying as part of a training
12:54
is that people who are religious can't be maximally good scientists depending on the questions
13:01
that they're asking, because I think they just said it might be the case
13:03
that these beliefs could clash with your because it creates preconceived notions and conclusions where
13:09
you then come in with a very heavy handed bias that influences your decision.
13:15
But I was like, that does make sense, And so then the question
13:16
becomes again because right bring in a full circle. Does your philosophy impact competency?
13:24
If you allow yourself to embrace philosophy that allows for supernatural, non metaphysical
13:31
things or I guess metaphysical things to exist, does that hinder how good you
13:37
could possibly be, like, as competent you could possibly be as a scientist
13:41
or in any given field. Really, I think that's a fair question.
13:46
I think what I arrive on on this is that yes it can, but
13:50
it's still a circumstantial view like it still go back to that where I think
13:56
it really depends on how lightly or how strongly you hold that philosophical belief and
14:01
how willing you are to adjust that philosophical belief in the name of whatever new
14:05
knowledge comes up. Right. I think of a de Grosseteisen or whatever.
14:09
Yeah, he talks about you know, somebody had asked him about the existence
14:13
of God and he says, well, you know that he kind of brought
14:16
up this really great argument saying that you know, at this point in time,
14:20
there is no evidence to me that says that this entity or this thing
14:24
exists. So I have a hard time believing this. As a scientist.
14:28
When this exists, however, I am more than willing to shift my viewpoint
14:33
around that. And so I think that I think that regardless of what your
14:37
philosophy is, if you hold your philosophy too tight, then that prevents you
14:41
from being a good scientist period because a good scientist is able to adjust their
14:45
viewpoints based on new data. And if your philosophy doesn't allow you to adjust
14:48
your new points, your viewpoints based on new data, then I go back
14:54
to be that being a skill deficit, you're holding onto something too tightly,
14:56
which is preventing you from gaining a skill, are kind of setting up a
15:01
ceiling for you, fair enough. And I also say, I think,
15:03
just to sort of end on, is that the other thing here is that
15:07
beliefs aren't real things. And so you can believe any number of contrasting ideas,
15:13
or say that any number of contrasting ideas at the same time, and
15:16
even though they we understand them to symbolically represent things that are at contrast with
15:22
one another, it doesn't affect the natural world as it exists. I could
15:26
say I am up and down in black and white and real and not real,
15:30
and here and not here, all at the same time. It doesn't
15:31
matter that I said those things because because see I'm shorting her, because they're
15:37
just words, and the words ultimately don't have any bearing on the natural world.
15:41
It simply is my orientation to it, and even my orientation to it
15:45
again is essentially an arbitrary fabrication that is symbolic in nature. So that being
15:50
said, those are things that drastically impact my ability to think and do work,
15:56
because what I'm doing is when I'm thinking and doing work, I'm using
15:58
my life language and my language is part philosophy is part of the language that
16:03
I use. So yeah, all right, Hi, it's fair. That
16:04
was really fun. Thank you for going on that journey with me. I
16:07
think we're short of a time. We might even have to have justin cut
16:08
this down a little bit to get to fifteen minutes. But thank you for
16:11
being open to that conversation. Thank you everybody for listening. This is why
16:15
we do what we do. Mini, Is there anything for you that you'd
16:18
like to add or anything that I missed before we wrap up here? Have
16:21
fun, y'all. Enjoy philosophy a little bit, Go read some Go read
16:23
some Socrates or Soak Creates or whatever his name is. Yeah, I hope
16:26
I give everyone a little bit something to think about and see. You know,
16:30
I let us know, let us know. Do we get it wrong?
16:32
Do you do disagree? Reach out to us. You can email us
16:34
directly at info wwdwwdpodcast dot com, or reach us on the social social media
16:38
platforms. But I'll think I'll let it go at that. This is Abraham,
16:41
this is Shane. We're out. See ya. You've been listening to
16:45
why we do what we do. You can learn more about this and other
16:48
episodes by going to WWD WWD podcast dot com. Thanks for listening, and
16:56
we hope you have an awesome day.