• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

From Technologist to Humanist: Google’s “In-House” Philosopher

July 24, 2011 by Tom McDonald 5 Comments

I had been thinking about the PEL debate on the value of higher education, and came across this compelling story by Damon Horowitz.

Did you know that Google has an "in-house philosopher"? Horowitz shares his personal story of self-transformation in this article for the Chronicle of Higher Education. With a background in software engineering, he had developed a career in the world of information technology. He had established his own business engineering "natural language processing" components for Artificial Intelligence systems. (Natural language processing is the part of AI, usually based on formal logic, that is supposed to make computers understand us).

But his challenging encounters with the limitations of AI led him to broader philosophical questions about "the nature of thought, the structure of language, [and] the grounds of meaning." Horowitz thus left the world of IT to do a PhD in Philosophy and has today become a sort of evangelist for appreciation of the humanities in the world of technology. He makes an argument for the value of leaving technology to do a degree in the humanities (it is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed after all), but even if you are not sold on that idea, his point extends to a larger argument about importance of bringing a humanities perspective to the world of technology which is bad off for its lack:

From Technologist to Philosopher
http://chronicle.com/article/From-Technologist-to/128231/

- Tom McDonald

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus Tagged With: artificial intelligence, logic, philosophy of language, value of higher education

Comments

  1. burl says

    July 25, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Tom

    You can watch Horowitz on TED and see him present this paper at Stanford’s vid site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DBt9mVdgnI&NR=1.

    This idea of instilling humanistic sensibilities and creativity in engineers was the rage in the late 70s and early 80s. All sorts of curricular experiments, behavioristic papers at conferences of the American Society of Engineering Educators, required reading books like Pirsig’s ‘ZAMM,’ Roger von Oech’s ‘Whack on the Side of the Head,’ Sam Florman ‘Existential Pleasures of Engineering,’ understanding left brain vs. right brain, self-directed learning for engineering material, testing students to determine their Myers-Briggs personality types, etc.

    I do not think for one minute that Horowitz is right about the benefits of philosophy for technology or promoting humanistic thoughts or more ethically enlightened technology. But if one is so inclined as to think philosophy can do this, I suggest that it is for the business management group, not engineering, that the reschooling would be impactful. Google engineers will only embrace Burning Man as long as their company’s leaders say so.

    When I ponder what possible impact on engineering the philosophy I have learned during my somewhat intensive self-study of the field since retiring from engineering 6 years ago, I never see any – none.

    Reply
  2. Ethan Gach says

    July 25, 2011 at 9:57 am

    First, the supposedly anit-humanist strawman oft constructed:

    ““Maybe you, too, are disposed toward critical thinking. Maybe, despite the comfort and security that your job offers, you, too, have noticed cracks in the technotopian bubble.

    Maybe you are worn out by endless marketing platitudes about the endless benefits of your products; and you’re not entirely at ease with your contribution to the broader culture industry.

    Maybe you are unsatisfied by oversimplifications in the product itself. What exactly is the relationship created by “friending” someone online? How can your online profile capture the full glory of your performance of self?”

    Maybe you’re just not a good thinker in general! So of course, the humanities has something for you as well.

    I’m disappointed by Horowitz’s readiness to make those who work primarily on, with, through technology/science unthinking automaton simpletons who lack an imaginative or thoughtful bone in their body.

    Surely with that juxtaposition, who wouldn’t flee to the humanities?

    Then there’s this persuasive argument, perhaps a by-product of the non-scientific and apparently non-evidence supported land he fled to:

    “Getting a humanities Ph.D. is the most deterministic path you can find to becoming exceptional in the industry. It is no longer just engineers who dominate our technology leadership, because it is no longer the case that computers are so mysterious that only engineers can understand what they are capable of. There is an industrywide shift toward more “product thinking” in leadership—leaders who understand the social and cultural contexts in which our technologies are deployed.

    Products must appeal to human beings, and a rigorously cultivated humanistic sensibility is a valued asset for this challenge. That is perhaps why a technology leader of the highest status—Steve Jobs—recently credited an appreciation for the liberal arts as key to his company’s tremendous success with their various i-gadgets.

    It is a convenient truth: You go into the humanities to pursue your intellectual passion; and it just so happens, as a by-product, that you emerge as a desired commodity for industry. Such is the halo of human flourishing.”

    So save yourselfs, rich technophiles, and in so doing, become a more prized commodity as well!

    Philosophy PhDs for all!

    It sounds like Horowitz wasn’t helped by the “humanities” per se, as he was hurt by his apparently stilted undergraduate education and intellectually stifled career.

    Reply
    • Tom McDonald says

      July 26, 2011 at 10:10 pm

      Ethan, when you say you are “disappointed by Horowitz’s readiness to make those who work primarily on, with, through technology/science unthinking automaton simpletons who lack an imaginative or thoughtful bone in their body” I wonder whether you have worked in the technology industry. I have been working in consumer-oriented web and mobile apps development in corporate environments for over ten years, and though I do not take Horowitz’s argument to be perfect by any stretch, I can testify that his sort of perspective is not as common as it should be. I would desperately appreciate for someone at his level to instill a sense of humanistic critical thinking toward narrow-minded techno-culture in the companies I have worked for.

      Reply
      • Ethan Gach says

        July 27, 2011 at 2:27 pm

        You are probably right, and I wouldn’t doubt your experience or it’s etrapability (yay for making up words).

        That said, do you think it’s easier, or mor likely, for people on the humanities side to cross into the tech/science realm, or for more people to make the Horowitz move?

        I had a sophemore year Statitcs professor (PhD in aerospace engineering) who had taken to getting his masters in philosophy later on in life. He always claimed that it was easier to come up the science/math side and then go down the humanities route, than to go to go in reverse.

        It seems, with philosophy at least, that that isn’t unheard of, given so many of the famous philosopher’s mathmatical backgrounds.

        How do you see it Tom?

        Reply
  3. burl says

    July 27, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Tom

    I have spent my whole engineering career often frustratingly aware of what you are getting at. It is THE key thesis of Pirsig’s ZAMM book – romantic v classic quality (or, art/science, opposite Myers-Brigg temperament, right/left brain, conventional/libertine, even, in some sense, progressive/conservative).

    What I have come to conclude is that it simply takes all kinds. The sphere of creature relationships lies in the contrast of these poles.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Theo on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two)
  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in