How worthless is Philosophy?

[arewethereyet]

Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

The best things in life are useless.

Seems to me that the best things in life are the things that make your life good, enjoyable, satisfying, etc.  I can't really see that as useless.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a philosophical statement, not necessarily a true one. Why is art-art better than "commercial art". Why is a bowl made by the indiginous hands of wherever..and you can tell..because of the imperfections in the glass, better than a machine perfect glass bowl? The idea being that the things which we invest with great value despite or especially in spite of a lack of any practical value are somehow worth even more on account of that very act.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

The best things in life are useless.

That statement disproves itself.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Since Bel ignores most of us, we will never know why he thinks that the best things in life are useless. *sniffle* How can we go on?

[Fireball]

I took a philosophy course at uni- "Induction and the Scientific Method". Entirely appropriate for my physics major. Had a nice sidebar into De Morgan's rules, to boot. How many times have I been inflicted with history classes at uni? My take is that if I have to study history, political science and English to gain a degree in physics, then those other people should study trig/algebra/calculus. It's only fair.

[brewer]

I took a required ethics class in grad school.

[Orbit]

Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

Actually, as a college instructor, I'm going to disagree with you, but for a different reason than you might be expecting. We were having a meeting with faculty in my program (Sociology) today, and the big complaint was that "undergrads can't write, even after they've had the required lower-level English composition courses". I said that it's not that they can't write, it's that they can't think. They have no idea what an argument is (other than a fight). Logic is alien to them. The basic idea of the scientific method is missing. And then they write, but because they can't think in the first place, what comes out is seldom a clear exposition of well, anything.

Philosophy, as a lower-level General Education-type class, is super valuable in teaching undergrads of any major what counts as an argument, how to support your argument, and what logic and logical fallacies are. I think every undergrad should have a class in philosophy at that kind of level at least. In social science, students need to conceptualize a research question, define their terms, and decide how to measure what they need to measure. Philosophy prepares them to do that. I know they aren't ready for formal instruction in epistemology at that level, but I want them to at least know how to think before they arrive in my Social Research Methods class.

[Belacqua]

Actually, as a college instructor, I'm going to disagree with you, but for a different reason than you might be expecting. We were having a meeting with faculty in my program (Sociology) today, and the big complaint was that "undergrads can't write, even after they've had the required lower-level English composition courses". I said that it's not that they can't write, it's that they can't think. They have no idea what an argument is (other than a fight). Logic is alien to them. The basic idea of the scientific method is missing. And then they write, but because they can't think in the first place, what comes out is seldom a clear exposition of well, anything.

Philosophy, as a lower-level General Education-type class, is super valuable in teaching undergrads of any major what counts as an argument, how to support your argument, and what logic and logical fallacies are. I think every undergrad should have a class in philosophy at that kind of level at least. In social science, students need to conceptualize a research question, define their terms, and decide how to measure what they need to measure. Philosophy prepares them to do that. I know they aren't ready for formal instruction in epistemology at that level, but I want them to at least know how to think before they arrive in my Social Research Methods class.

Very good points here, and good to hear from someone actively involved in the profession.

If the kind of class you describe is what we're calling "philosophy," then I agree that it would be extremely useful. For college and for anyone who wants to think and discuss clearly. 

Probably when I think of philosophy, I think of what comes next, after the course you describe. That is, the class you describe tells us what  the tools are and how to use them, while philosophy is what one does with the tools that one has mastered. General Education would include "what counts as an argument, how to support your argument, and what logic and logical fallacies are" as crucial knowledge. Philosophy would put this knowledge to use in discussing issues like "what is a good life?" or "what should government do for people?" 

Basically I think you're describing what used to be called the Trivium, the first three parts of the seven Liberal Arts. One doesn't do philosophy until one has a basic grasp of all seven. 

But here I'm not fighting with you, I'm just defining terms. It depends on what we mean by "philosophy."

[Brian37]

Philosophy is a loaded term because anything can be a philosophy to the mind of the holder. 

In academic terms it is only useful in the sense it is part of history. But it has long since been surpassed by scientific method. In other words we don't have to simply rely on brain farts. We can actually put our claims to testing, control groups, falsification and peer review. 

But things like religious religious philosophy , political philosophy and economic philosophies, those are highly subjective and really not good ways to find consensus outside tribalism.

[Angrboda]