Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Post History
I have slowly been influenced by this question as a new perspective has crept into my mind. It could be interesting if Codidact had higher standards for “answerability” than Philosophy SE. It would...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Michael
·
2024-03-03T21:54:42Z (8 months ago)
Markdown list
- I have slowly been influenced by this question as a new perspective has crept into my mind. It could be interesting if Codidact had higher standards for “answerability” than Philosophy SE. It would take time and experience to codify new moderation principles, but working with a few specific examples can help us greatly to extrapolate from that data.
For example, here is a question I asked:[Could a philosophical zombie verify that it is a philosophical zombie?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290921)- I think this is a good question to embark on some philosophical cogitation with, but one can imagine it would invite varying answers, vying with each other. It would be dialectical, an excellent philosophical exercise, yet perhaps not truly meeting the bar of an impartial informational reference material that Codidact could be.
- For now, I can only brainstorm variations on this question that are more objectively answerable:
Who first coined the concept of a philosophical zombie?What is a philosophical zombie?What are competing definitions of a p-zombie?What properties of p-zombies are contested amongst philosophers?Still, when attempting to make philosophy questions purely objectively answerable, it may become too dry - as if the only valid questions are about the history of philosophy, “Who said X when?”, “What did person Y think about Z?”- Here is one possible criteria to put forward. It is ok to put forward an open-ended question, like, “What are qualia?”, but your answer, and the question, should be similar to a publishable academic research article in a philosophy journal. Not in length, but in (attempted) completeness of argumentation.
- This could be a first step in trying to develop a criteria to fulfill, to be revised with time.
- I have slowly been influenced by this question as a new perspective has crept into my mind. It could be interesting if Codidact had higher standards for “answerability” than Philosophy SE. It would take time and experience to codify new moderation principles, but working with a few specific examples can help us greatly to extrapolate from that data.
- For example, here is a question I asked: [Could a philosophical zombie verify that it is a philosophical zombie?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290921)
- I think this is a good question to embark on some philosophical cogitation with, but one can imagine it would invite varying answers, vying with each other. It would be dialectical, an excellent philosophical exercise, yet perhaps not truly meeting the bar of an impartial informational reference material that Codidact could be.
- For now, I can only brainstorm variations on this question that are more objectively answerable:
- - Who first coined the concept of a philosophical zombie?
- - What is a philosophical zombie?
- - What are competing definitions of a p-zombie?
- - What properties of p-zombies are contested amongst philosophers?
- Still, when attempting to make philosophy questions purely objectively answerable, it may become too dry—as if the only valid questions are about the history of philosophy, “Who said X when?”, “What did person Y think about Z?”
- Here is one possible criteria to put forward. It is ok to put forward an open-ended question, like, “What are qualia?”, but your answer, and the question, should be similar to a publishable academic research article in a philosophy journal. Not in length, but in (attempted) completeness of argumentation.
- This could be a first step in trying to develop a criteria to fulfill, to be revised with time.
#1: Initial revision
by
Julius H.
·
2024-02-25T21:16:24Z (8 months ago)
I have slowly been influenced by this question as a new perspective has crept into my mind. It could be interesting if Codidact had higher standards for “answerability” than Philosophy SE. It would take time and experience to codify new moderation principles, but working with a few specific examples can help us greatly to extrapolate from that data. For example, here is a question I asked: [Could a philosophical zombie verify that it is a philosophical zombie?](https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/290921) I think this is a good question to embark on some philosophical cogitation with, but one can imagine it would invite varying answers, vying with each other. It would be dialectical, an excellent philosophical exercise, yet perhaps not truly meeting the bar of an impartial informational reference material that Codidact could be. For now, I can only brainstorm variations on this question that are more objectively answerable: Who first coined the concept of a philosophical zombie? What is a philosophical zombie? What are competing definitions of a p-zombie? What properties of p-zombies are contested amongst philosophers? Still, when attempting to make philosophy questions purely objectively answerable, it may become too dry - as if the only valid questions are about the history of philosophy, “Who said X when?”, “What did person Y think about Z?” Here is one possible criteria to put forward. It is ok to put forward an open-ended question, like, “What are qualia?”, but your answer, and the question, should be similar to a publishable academic research article in a philosophy journal. Not in length, but in (attempted) completeness of argumentation. This could be a first step in trying to develop a criteria to fulfill, to be revised with time.