dstrohmaier

I doubt your assessment of the literature. Since we do not seem to agree on this, I would defer to the opinion of specialists in this case. An independent panel of economists would thus have to settle the issue.

But your other argumentation is quite interesting. Do you also hold that 0 physicist ever worked on the theory of phlogiston? Or on ether? Neither of those to exist. Because your argumentation would also imply that. I would reject that suggestion. So even if I were to grant that this problem does not exist, which I do not, I would disagree with the conclusion of your post.

The point of linking these studies was that economists study these issues. As I am not an economist myself, I do not want to weigh in on the specific final conclusion the literature arrives at. All I can say, that multiple studies seem to find an unexplained part which is taken to be due to discrimination.

As far as I can see, the comments did not (just) assert that adjusted wages were nearly identical. They asserted:

1) That this is not a serious issue and 0 economists study it.

2) That at no point in history was the adjusted wage different between men and women. (This was asserted and not argued for.)

Comments which just asserted that adjusted wages might be nearly identical can still be seen. I agree that this might be debated. The other two opinions appear more extrem and much less plausible, as far as I am concerned.

Here is a case in which I think you do not engage in the most charitable interpretation: 'You're saying "has now been flagged" like I called for all women to be killed' A more charitable interpretation would have been that I wanted to make clear that what I responded to can no longer be seen. I ask you to please interpret me as charitably as possible. I will try to do the same.

You said 0 economists study the issue. I showed you that multiple economists study it. You now also assert that I didn't make you change your mind. Do you still hold that 0 economists study the issue? If you do not, you have changed your mind. If you do still hold that opinion, then I am not sure how to proceed as that would indicate that you are impervious to argumentation.

You are using the number of 10% in two ways: 1.) About 10% of the gender pay gap are unaccounted for and therefore likely to be the result of direct discrimination. 2.) Every group is discriminated against by other people by around 10% of the population. But these are very different issues. If every group was discriminated against by 10% of the population, the resulting pay differences would (more or less) even out. The does not, which suggests that this a widespread and systematic phenomenon. For some people, although perhaps not you and I grant that it would need to be debated, this might make the problem appear more severe.

Much of your posts just questions the importance of the issue. That is a normative question, which I consider separate from the issue whether the gender pay gap can be partially traced back to discrimination. Here is what I hold in regard to that normative question: I do not want to tell other people that they should not care about the discrimination they experience when I am on the end that profits or at least does not suffer it. It is up to people subjected to this treatment to decide how big of an issue they want to make out of it. I suggest it is a good normative heuristic that one should be wary to question the severity of the problem if one is on the side who is not affected by it. If you are fine discounting discrimination you experience, then that is all well but I would suggest you should not extend that to other people so easily.

(I edited this post to more adequately reflect the position of the previous poster.)

I believe you are willfully misconstruing my position instead of trying to engage in the most charitable interpretation.

You original comment which has now been flagged suggested that 0 economists took the issue of the gender gap serious. By "denialism" I meant to refer to your position of denying that this is an issue at all. That it is an issue treated by serious economists is a fact. You have since reneged from that denial, which I consider a step forward. What you are now questioning is how big an issue it is.

Nowhere in my comment do I refer to any "evial patriarchy", although I do consider such an issue grave. If around half of the working population is discriminated against by 5% that would be a pretty huge issue overall. That other instances of discrimination exist, for example discrimination against people of Italian descent does not change that.

I am afraid you are also incorrect in picking out the end of the Wikipedia section I linked to. As this section I linked to points out, the Uber setting is very special because the pay is set via the Uber company without hiring the drivers in the usual sense.

This denialism is not compatible with the facts. While part of the gender pay gap can be explained by the factors you describe, not all of it can. This unexplained part is often assumed to be (largely) due to discrimination. This unexplained part has also been shrinking over time, indicating that discrimination has decreased. (See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-014-0320-... )

Here are journal articles on the topics, showing that economic researchers are covering the topic:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/209845

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0077995020954435...

https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMP.2007.24286161

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073088848601300...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390606000...

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/344125

You can find more publications here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=di...

For a start, the Wikipedia article unifies many sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...

No they have not been and they were not paid the same because of sexist discrimination. Here is one article discussing the historical reduction (not eliminiation) of the gender pay gap: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-014-0320-...

As the article argues, the reduction is largely due to a reduction in the "unexplained part", which is usually attributed to discrimination.

You can also find other sources on Wikipedia suggesting your claim is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_i...

People who are interested in this topic might want to read Richard Pettigrew's "Choosing for Changing Selves":

https://richardpettigrew.com/books/choosing-book/

He offers a response to L.A. Paul and a way to choose in light of changing selves. I am not sure how convinced I am myself, but it is very good philosophical work.

But if you are a modal realist, then you get that comfort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism

"Few questioned the institution of slavery, and none the patriarchy"

Plato's Republic questioned both slavery and patriarchy. Since this is arguably the most influential philosophical work of the classics, the above statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is true that slavery and patriarchy were the deeply engrained status quo at that point of history and that Plato's vision had authoritarian features, but there was more questionening than the linked text suggests.

Epicurus allowing women into his school as a matter of rule rather than exception, thousands of years before our universities would do so, also deserves our respect.

Whether or not these topics fall under the domain of philosophy, let me assure you that people in philosophy departments are covering them. Especially philosophers working in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science have a lot to say about issues such as embodiment, the relation between agents and environment (consider the extended mind debate or the debate about affordances), representation (e.g. Fodor), and many more.

I agree partially. It is true that philosophy cannot entirely keep up with scientific and technical developments, which is not surprising given the amount of resources that flow into philosophy compared to the money spent on STEM fields. That being said, philosophers hardly talk about the Chinese room and qualia these days. There is even a tiny move away from the hard problem of consciousness. See: https://philpapers.org/archive/CHATMO-32.pdf

Embodiment, to pick one of your examples is a huge topic in philosophy: https://philpapers.org/browse/embodiment-and-situated-cognit...

Also, there is me. I have a PhD in philosophy and work towards an MPhil in CS to cover the areas you mention. Some philosophers are on it, trying to keep up.

Philosophy of mathematics is just one part of the connection between philosophy and mathematics. Many historical philosophers have been heavily influenced by mathematical thinking.

To give just a few examples from European history of philosophy: Spinoza took the geometric method (basically the axiomatic method) from Euclid. Kant is heavily drawing on geometry and the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry has been suggested as disproving him. If you look into Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Sciences, you will find a lengthy discussion of calculus.

In current analytic philosophy there are many other areas of overlap and cross-polination, for example in decision theory and metaphysics.

Regarding the discovery vs. invention question. It has indeed already been discussed within philosophy. Here are just two examples in philosophy of mathematics: https://philpapers.org/rec/DETDIA-3 https://philpapers.org/rec/FINMDO

I use portacle with SBCL on Windows: https://portacle.github.io/ Generally SBCL appears a good implementation.

For those who care about the shortcomings of academic philosophy, I just wrote a blog post on why I'm switching from academic philosophy to computer science at least for a while. https://dstrohmaier.github.io/life/2018/04/20/restarting-my-...

I recognise at least some of the points, although I'm much less bothered by philosophy having little connection to the pragmatic purposes of many people. The abstract she uses to illustrate her point is also a infelicitous choice. It is from Sinhababu's "Possible Girls" and that guy is a weirdo, in the best sense of the word, even for philosophy.