Gemini ****** Human vs. AI: Philosophy Study Critique ****** https://g.co/gemini/share/481de2ca3e6f Creato con 2.5 Flash 23 agosto 2025 alle ore 17:09 Data pubblicazione: 23 agosto 2025 alle ore 17:13 This text is split in three parts, a news and a comment about that news written by a human and the same comment rewritten by an text-generative AI. What do you think about the comment and which is the main difference between human and AI- generated comments in terms of meanings? --- ANOTHER POPULAR SUPERSTITION DEBUNKED 21th August 2025 -- Studying philosophy does make people better thinkers, according to new research on more than 600,000 college grads Philosophers have long claimed that studying philosophy sharpens one’s mind. [...] Studies, including our own, have found that people who have studied philosophy are, on average, more reflective and more open-minded than those who haven’t. Yet this doesn’t necessarily show that studying philosophy makes people better thinkers. Philosophy may just attract good thinkers.[...] All told, we looked at test and survey data from over 600,000 students. Our analysis found that philosophy majors scored higher than students in all other majors on standardized tests of verbal and logical reasoning, as well as on self-reports of good habits of mind, even after accounting for freshman-year differences. This suggests that their intellectual abilities and traits are due, in part, to what they learned in college. -- lnkd.in/d4X6re4M *** WHAT IS IT MISSING HERE? Fundamentally the same problem we are facing with the AI standardised benchmark. Those numbers are not reflecting those faculties of thinking that we are expecting metrics should measure. However, as someone that studied history and philosophy of science, in my personal experience, I can confirm the sensation that having a broader view about what we are doing, not just how but also why, increases the ability to cope with ideas and also techniques. In particular, it strongly supports the explorative attitude. Who has a historical vision of how we reach certain know-how goals as human beings, how many tries and errors we made, develops an attitude more keen to accept try-and-fail and learn-by-doing. Where does pure philosophy fail to achieve results? Overgeneralization and abstraction. The main failure is based on the assumption that thinking is enough to reach an answer while experimenting, which can be seen as thinking with the hands, is a fundamental tool to provide a practical answer. Unsurprisingly, the practical answer contradicts the general theory achieved by pure speculation? Everytime and everywhere humans are in the loop their irrational nature breaks with a rational theory. Instead, when Natura only is involved, it is not philosophy anymore but physics. Both require practical answers and experimentation to be functional. So, unless rhetorical debating is the ONLY activity, philosophy alone can provide an advantage like the standardised tests reveal. Otherwise, not and often the opposite: a nice idea which grossly fails in practice. Surprised? Not convinced? Read all the manuals you like about how to handle a sword and then try to do some high-technical moves with a sharp katana, and let us know how it went... 😁 *** WHAT IS IT MISSING HERE? The problem is the same one we face with AI benchmarks. Standardized tests don’t measure the full range of thinking abilities we expect them to, and—crucially—those tests are designed by the very people who then claim they prove their own discipline’s value. If philosophers make the tests, should we be surprised that philosophers come out on top? It’s not unlike AI researchers designing benchmarks that their own models excel at, while users see very different strengths and weaknesses. From my own experience in the history and philosophy of science, I do agree that philosophy can broaden perspective—helping you not only to ask “how” but also “why.” That kind of historical vision encourages an exploratory mindset and makes one more resilient to trial-and-error. But philosophy has limits. It tends to overgeneralize, mistaking abstract reasoning for practical results. Experimentation—thinking with the hands—is indispensable. Often, practice reveals flaws in theory, even contradictions. That’s why physics (or any empirical science) advances through experiment, not speculation. So yes, philosophy can train habits that show up well on paper, in self-reports or standardized tests. But outside those narrow measures, its advantage is less clear. Sometimes it even works against practical achievement: great ideas that collapse when tested in the real world. Still not convinced? Read as many manuals as you like about swordsmanship, then try pulling off technical moves with a real katana. The gap between theory and practice will become very obvious. 😁 The comment criticizes the news article's conclusion, arguing that the study's findings are limited and potentially misleading. The main difference between the human- and AI-generated comments lies in their tone, structure, and the nuance of their arguments. =============================================================================== ***** Human Comment Analysis ***** The human comment is personal, less structured, and uses a conversational tone. It feels like a stream of thought, jumping between different ideas and using colloquial expressions like "Fundamentally the same problem" and "Where does pure philosophy fail to achieve results?". The comment: * Presents a personal viewpoint: It uses phrases like "in my personal experience, I can confirm the sensation." * Introduces a new analogy: The sword-fighting example is a vivid, personal way to illustrate the gap between theory and practice. * Employs rhetorical questions and an emoji: "Surprised? Not convinced?" and the laughing emoji at the end give the comment a human, conversational feel. * Demonstrates a less-formal structure: The paragraphs flow less like a formal essay and more like a personal reflection, with some sentences being short and punchy. =============================================================================== ***** AI-Generated Comment Analysis ***** The AI-generated comment is more formal, structured, and polished. It summarizes the core arguments of the human comment but removes the personal and conversational elements. Key differences are: * Formal and direct language: The AI avoids informal phrases, starting with a clear topic sentence, "The problem is the same one we face with AI benchmarks." * Logical flow: The argument is presented in a more organized, linear fashion. It starts with the critique of the study, then introduces the counter-argument from personal experience, and finally concludes with the practical limitations of philosophy. * Synthesizes and refines: The AI correctly identifies and rephrases the key points of the human comment (the AI benchmark analogy, the value of historical perspective, the limits of pure speculation versus experimentation) in a more concise and professional manner. * Removes emotional and personal flair: The emoji and rhetorical questions are kept but the more idiosyncratic phrasing of the human comment is replaced with a more standard, neutral tone. =============================================================================== ***** Main Differences in Meaning ***** The core meaning in both comments is the same: the news article's claim that philosophy majors are "better thinkers" is flawed because the tests used to measure this are limited and potentially biased. The true value of philosophy lies in developing a broader perspective and a "why" mindset, but this advantage can be lost when it becomes too abstract and lacks practical application or experimentation. However, the nuance in meaning differs. The human comment's meaning is embedded in its personal experience and conversational style, which adds a layer of authenticity and emotional context. The AI comment's meaning is stripped of this personal context, presenting the arguments as a more generalized, objective analysis. The human comment feels like a real person expressing a personal frustration with the limitations of academic metrics, while the AI comment feels like a well-written summary of that frustration. This highlights a key difference between human and AI-generated text: while an AI can accurately reproduce and even improve upon the structure and clarity of an argument, it often lacks the unique, idiosyncratic, and deeply personal flair that gives human-written text its particular meaning and resonance. 🤖💡 About this > The comment criticizes the news article's conclusion Do you think that the critics is founded? Why and why not. Yes, the critique is well-founded. **** The Critique's Validity **** The critique is valid because it points out two major flaws in the news article's conclusion: overgeneralization and a flawed assumption about the nature of thinking. First, the article's conclusion that studying philosophy makes people "better thinkers" is an overgeneralization based on a specific, limited metric: standardized tests. These tests often measure a narrow range of abilities like verbal and logical reasoning. The comment correctly argues that they do not capture the full scope of "thinking," which also includes practical, experimental, and creative problem-solving. It's a classic case of measuring what's easy to measure and then claiming it represents a broader, more complex reality. Second, the critique highlights the flawed assumption that philosophical "thinking" alone is enough to produce meaningful results. The comment's analogy of trying to use a katana with only theoretical knowledge is a powerful example of the gap between theory and practice. It correctly points out that many real- world disciplines, from physics to engineering, require experimentation and hands-on application to validate and refine ideas. By contrasting pure speculation with "thinking with the hands," the critique highlights a crucial limitation of abstract philosophical reasoning when disconnected from empirical feedback. **** Why the Critique Isn't Flawed **** The critique itself does not contain logical fallacies or unsupported claims. It acknowledges the value of philosophy for its intended purpose—broadening one's perspective and encouraging an exploratory mindset—but argues against the idea that its methods are universally superior or sufficient. It doesn't dismiss philosophy entirely; it simply puts its findings into a more realistic context, noting that the "advantage" it provides on a standardized test may not translate to all real-world scenarios. The critique is not an attack on philosophy but rather a nuanced and well-reasoned argument against an oversimplified conclusion drawn from a limited study.