[tjradcliffe]

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a PhD in physics and some post-graduate education in philosophy, and have worked closely with philosophers on real problems in epistemology and metaphysics, mostly around identity theory.

On the basis of that experience, I would recommend focusing on a traditional CS or EECS degree, and take philosophy on the side.

By taking a traditional degree you will provide yourself with a deep, broad foundation from which to evaluate various philosophical mutterings, and will be well-positioned to realize just how imbecilic most of them are.

There is a mathematician's joke that be successful in math you need a pencil, a paper, and a garbage can, while to be successful in philosophy you only need a pencil and paper (philosophers publish their mistakes, and sometimes build careers on them.)

Philosophy does have uses. It encourages a certain kind of rigour in thinking, but the content of the subject is mostly philosopher's imaginations, and three hundred years of science has taught us that the human imagination is almost completely useless for understanding reality. What we can or cannot imagine is utterly unrelated to what actually is.

AJ Ayer, for example, could not imagine the kind of empirical test of metaphysical propositions that Bell showed we could actually perform. A willful ignorance of the poverty of imagination as a tool for understanding reality was the basis for the entire Positivist program, which was, unsurprisingly, a failure.

So stick with the core subject and extend your reach to philosophy. You'll be far better served that way, and when you do philosophize it will have a far higher chance of being insightful and useful rather than obvious nonsense to anyone actually in the field you are philosophizing about.

[chrisdevereux]

I won't bother dazzling everyone with a list of qualifications, but you're really misrepresenting Positivism here. Positivism is really the idea that being empirically testable is a necessary condition for being both non-trivial and meaningful. Not (except maybe when being polemical, as Ayer could sometimes) that metaphysics is necessarily unverifiable.

Most of the problems we class as "metaphysics" probably aren't empirically verifiable, but if a few turn out to be, it isn't a big problem for the positivist program. Their objection to metaphysics isn't as principled as you make it out to be. It just falls out of verificationist semantics.

So if a physicist manages to empirically verify a few things that might have seemend metaphysical, then cool, turns out they were doing physics not metaphysics.

[jkarni]

Agreed. I find it hilarious that a position (logical positivism, I mean) that is often criticized for failing it's own test of meaningfulness - because it lacks verification conditions - can also be criticized for being empirically false...

[walterbell]

> "three hundred years of science has taught us that the human imagination is almost completely useless for understanding reality"

Sometimes, reality is changed by the human imagination, e.g. by generating a new hypothesis to be tested by science.

Questions vs Answers: http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park

[metaphorm]

upvoted, for well written, detailed and thoughtful post. as others have mentioned, i don't completely agree with your critique of positivism here. i've always seen positivism as a philosophical movement to try and ground philosophy in verifiable propositions, which is to say, to make it more like physical science.

[theVirginian]

If I could downvote you a thousand times I would. Philosophy is not 'imbecilic' as you claim. This type of thought only reflects your own shallow lack of understanding of philosophy and its crucial role.

[walterbell]

Yes. Principles of law and media are based on philosophy. Business model and technology innovations inevitably encounter unprepared laws. At those boundaries, you are either equipped with the philosophical tools to chart new precedents, or you are left to choose from a menu of canned options, none designed for your innovation.

[SoloMune]

What is the difference between EECS vs Computer Engineering? I want to major in engineering while also gaining experience in Computer Science.

[hkmurakami]

More pertinent is what the program actually does (depends on school) rather than the surface level label.

[ionlyhaveabsc]

It differs between degree programs, and the way the faculty is organized. Sometimes you have seperate EE and CS faculties, and sometimes you have a EECS faculty.