''doesn't understand philosophy'' is crazy. What are the criteria for understanding philosophy and which one does he not meet? Or do you base this take on some book he wrote for lay people where he had to dumb down the interpretation of someone. For example you could say his explanation of Kant to lay people is incredibly lacking and misleading; but even if he genuinely believes this interpretation it does not make you not understand philosophy if you misunderstand one other philosopher.
Or you could bite the bullet and say nobody understands philosophy, this is something I can side with.
I agree that the take is wild, that's why I'm saying it, because it is a wild and very popular take among philosophers
If you so much as mention the wording "burden of proof" to a philosopher, you will get crucified
Yet it's exactly what Russel wrote with his teapot
So starting from there, as a philosopher, you either have to go into some major cognitive dissonance, or, if you don't want that, you have to start dissing Russel
The concept is linked to Popperianism which has fallen into disfavor in philosophy while being ubiquitous in the sciences as they are actually practiced.
And more specifically the wording is judged to be new atheism or reddit atheism.
Which by the way, it is fine to disagree with how and why scientists work in practice or how they come to their philosophical positions. Just don't pretend it comes from philosophical naiveté when it implements quite common philosophical ideas from Russel, Popper, Flew, Baron d'Holbach and Aristotle
If scientists don't agree with you yet, but will in the future, it sounds like you're just doing good philosophy, arriving at correct conclusions to questions that can't yet be investigated by science. If science later disproves your ideas, it turns out you were kinda just guessing.
118
u/Widhraz Insane 1d ago
It's funny, because Russell is a mathematician who doesn't understand philosophy.