I have been wondering lately whether something analogous to Gresham's Law also applies in philosophy: Bad philosophy drives out good (philosophy).

I didn't know what Gresham's Law was so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Here's how they state it:

"Bad money drives out good under legal tender laws."

So what would be the equivalent of legal tender laws for philosophy? In other words, as I understand it, what makes us accept both bad and good philosophy as having similar face value?

I don't think there are legal tender laws in philosophy. But there is certainly a difference between good and bad philosophy. One criterion is between those who argue to sustain their views, and those who merely assert what they believe, expecting others to believe what they assert as well.

I don't think there are legal tender laws in philosophy. But there is certainly a difference between good and bad philosophy. One criterion is between those who argue to sustain their views, and those who merely assert what they believe, expecting others to believe what they assert as well.

I have been wondering lately whether something analogous to Gresham's Law also applies in philosophy: Bad philosophy drives out good (philosophy).

I think it depends upon "where" one is looking. Bad philosophy tends to be favored by people who have not studied enough to know the difference between good and bad, and who stumbled upon the bad first. It also will be favored by those who are unreasonable, and who judge matters based upon what they want to believe rather than on what evidence they find. This is probably the majority of people. An example is Harold Kushner, author of the popular book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. His conception of God is based not upon any evidence, but upon what he wants God to be like. You can hear a short interview in which he says this, though he does not point out that it is stupid and unreasonable to judge things that way:

Rabbi Kushner: An 'Accommodation' With God : NPR

Transcript:
Rabbi Kushner: An 'Accommodation' With God : NPR

Relevant quote from the interview of Harold Kushner:
[INDENT][INDENT]What I realized is, where did we ever get the notion that worshiping power was the greatest compliment we could play to God? Why is power the most admirable virtue? If I, walking through the wards of a hospital, have to face the fact that either God is all powerful but not kind, or thoroughly kind and loving but not totally powerful, I would rather compromise God's power and affirm his love.[/INDENT][/INDENT]Because he would rather believe a particular idea than the alternative, he concludes that what he prefers is true! Notice, no evidence one way or the other is presented, or even sought.

And that is a common way for people to judge things, not by any facts or evidence, but by personal preference. Imagine, deciding that a certain design is strong enough for building a bridge simply because one wanted it to be strong enough! It is too stupid for words. Of course, people see the issue regarding the bridge more clearly than regarding God, so they are apt to not be consistent in this. This may be due to the reasons stated by Bryan Caplan:

[INDENT][INDENT]The gist of my theory is that people persistently hold wildly irrational religious beliefs because the material cost is usually very low. In terms of daily life, what difference does it make if the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion? So it's not surprising how readily people shut their eyes to the geological evidence. In contrast, when the cost of irrationality is high, believers conveniently forget the teachings of their religion. Lots of religions promise paradise to martyrs, but adherents eager to die for their beliefs are one-in-a-million.[/INDENT][/INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Why Religious Beliefs Are Irrational, and Why Economists Should Care[/INDENT][/INDENT]There are countless examples of this. We can compare the popularity of William James' The Will to Believe with the popularity of William Kingdon Clifford's The Ethics of Belief and see that the essay which is filled with foolishness is the most popular. This is because the foolish essay tells people what they want to be told. That the one is foolish can be seen by reading the book that can be found via:

The Ethics Of Belief

But with reasonable people (all three or four of them in the world), bad philosophy does not drive out good philosophy.

I read that ethics of belief book the last time you linked it Pyrrho, and liked it a lot. Was nice to see burger expanding on all the problems I had with James' reasoning as I read his piece.

************

I don't think bad philosophy drives out good philosophy. I think bad philosophers drive out good philosophers. The proof is that you are here on this forum to discuss it instead of craigslist :p

I don't mind replying to someone I think is vastly mistaken, but I don't want to reply to someone who isn't seeking out answers.

I think it depends upon "where" one is looking. Bad philosophy tends to be favored by people who have not studied enough to know the difference between good and bad, and who stumbled upon the bad first. It also will be favored by those who are unreasonable, and who judge matters based upon what they want to believe rather than on what evidence they find. This is probably the majority of people. An example is Harold Kushner, author of the popular book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. His conception of God is based not upon any evidence, but upon what he wants God to be like. You can hear a short interview in which he says this, though he does not point out that it is stupid and unreasonable to judge things that way:

Rabbi Kushner: An 'Accommodation' With God : NPR

Transcript:
Rabbi Kushner: An 'Accommodation' With God : NPR

Relevant quote from the interview of Harold Kushner:
[INDENT][INDENT]What I realized is, where did we ever get the notion that worshiping power was the greatest compliment we could play to God? Why is power the most admirable virtue? If I, walking through the wards of a hospital, have to face the fact that either God is all powerful but not kind, or thoroughly kind and loving but not totally powerful, I would rather compromise God's power and affirm his love.[/INDENT][/INDENT]Because he would rather believe a particular idea than the alternative, he concludes that what he prefers is true! Notice, no evidence one way or the other is presented, or even sought.

And that is a common way for people to judge things, not by any facts or evidence, but by personal preference. Imagine, deciding that a certain design is strong enough for building a bridge simply because one wanted it to be strong enough! It is too stupid for words. Of course, people see the issue regarding the bridge more clearly than regarding God, so they are apt to not be consistent in this. This may be due to the reasons stated by Bryan Caplan:

[INDENT][INDENT]The gist of my theory is that people persistently hold wildly irrational religious beliefs because the material cost is usually very low. In terms of daily life, what difference does it make if the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion? So it's not surprising how readily people shut their eyes to the geological evidence. In contrast, when the cost of irrationality is high, believers conveniently forget the teachings of their religion. Lots of religions promise paradise to martyrs, but adherents eager to die for their beliefs are one-in-a-million.[/INDENT][/INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Why Religious Beliefs Are Irrational, and Why Economists Should Care[/INDENT][/INDENT]There are countless examples of this. We can compare the popularity of William James' The Will to Believe with the popularity of William Kingdon Clifford's The Ethics of Belief and see that the essay which is filled with foolishness is the most popular. This is because the foolish essay tells people what they want to be told. That the one is foolish can be seen by reading the book that can be found via:

The Ethics Of Belief

But with reasonable people (all three or four of them in the world), bad philosophy does not drive out good philosophy.

I have been wondering lately whether something analogous to Gresham's Law also applies in philosophy: Bad philosophy drives out good (philosophy).

Okay so from my recent season in Academic Decathalon the economic laws have been drilled into my mind. To clarify, Greshem's law states that bad money drives out good money from the economy due to hoarders. E.G when the silver content of a quarter drops from, say, 50% to 13% then the commodity value of the old quarters becomes higher than the fiat value of the new ones, and people stash the old ones to sell at a higher price later. So there can really be no such concept in philosophy. How could someone hoard good philosophy? and how would that drive out the good philosophy?

I would propose that Weed's law is just as valid: good philosophy drives out bad (with the exception of American university campuses). Of course, either law leaves open what "good" philosophy is, while Gresham's law, applying to coinage, does not.

I don't think there are legal tender laws in philosophy. But there is certainly a difference between good and bad philosophy. One criterion is between those who argue to sustain their views, and those who merely assert what they believe, expecting others to believe what they assert as well.

seems like less assertion and more discussion should be going on. my view changes with every new bit of info i get. this may not be apparent as i have alot of info already so not often does something come along to effect my view drastically. it only takes me a few minutes to tell if someone im talking with will not change their view for any reason. sadly this is when i end the conversation.

Bad is any philosophy based on bad intentions or faulty logic.

I wonder if we can catalog bad philosophic intentions here.

I think you mean that either law leaves it open what good philosophy is. And don't forget British, and even a few continental institutions. They indulge in what you might call, "bad" philosophy, too. French, German, and Italian institutions are not the only ones in Europe. And then, of course, there are those in Australia, Canada, and so on.

no US bad philiosophy , interesting