What Philosophy Can Do

the exactness is a fake”.

We cannot, then, replace Plato’s philosopher-kings with scientist-kings. First, we can’t just take at face value a group’s claim to scientific authority; we have to decide whom to accept as experts. Further, there will often be a non-trivial logical gap between established scientific results and specific policy decisions; and, even 2,400 years afte

They suggest instead that, where the mind is concerned, we need a fundamental distinction of the subjective from the objective (roughly, an inside/private view of the mind versus an outside/public one). This distinction supports dualism, for which consciousness depends on the brain but isn’t identical with it. Dualism is opposed to materialism, whi

Once we have accepted the authority of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its conclusions. To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality, science is not a taxi cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like. It is, rather, an express train that, once we board it, we must take wherever it may go.

To have good reason to think that my argument adequately supports my view, I have to be thoroughly acquainted with my opponents’ best arguments. Only then can I tell whether I have ignored any evidence relevant to my conclusion.

we will need to put arguments on both sides in their strongest forms, take account of all relevant evidence, keep in mind the role of convictions and the resulting limits of argument, and assess responsibly the significance of the disagreement remaining when argument has done what it can.

No-holds-barred public debate is the most reliable process for attaining such knowledge, since other processes—accepting another’s authority, following emotions, agreeing with the most attractive advertising, acting on gut-instincts—are not directed toward knowledge and reach it only by accident. The higher the level of public debate—that is, the c

Ignoring the Principle of Relevant Evidence creates false confidence in the strength of our positions in political debates.

The most common way of excluding other relevant differences is through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).