Philosophy discussion
General
>
"Philosophy is dead"
Desgreene wrote: "To address your other point - the reason Newtonian physics is still part of scientific education is that it is still valid in a non-relativistic (which for the most part is our human experience) spacetime."Interestingly, Ptolemaic astronomy of cycles and epicycles is still valid to describe the motions of the planets. It doesn't begin to break down until you move beyond our solar system. Those old thinkers were a lot smarter than many moderns give them credit for being.
Desgreene wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I believe philosophy has always been 'dead', in the sense that Hawking intends: 'Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists hav..."This might come as a surprise to you, Desgreene, but philosophy isn't a science, and therefore expecting it to meet anything "Popperian" is sort of ridiculous.
Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: ""I struggle as I find modern philosophy trapped in a personal world where each philosopher creates a language to tease out his solipsistic world." I'm a..."Why is Newtonian physics valid? It's totally wrong, mathematically speaking (relativistically or not). You haven't substantively countered my point.
John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: ""I struggle as I find modern philosophy trapped in a personal world where each philosopher creates a language to tease out his solipsis..."Newtonian physics is not "wrong" - it just applies within a limited domain.
Patrice wrote: "Wasn't the point that Plato was making that no one's thought should be put on a pedestal? Everything should always be questioned?"Absolutely agree.
John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I believe philosophy has always been 'dead', in the sense that Hawking intends: 'Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physi..."Why is putting philosophical hypothesis to a Popperian test 'ridiculous'? Who is laughing at the idea?
Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: ""I struggle as I find modern philosophy trapped in a personal world where each philosopher creates a language to tease out..."You're missing the point of my question. The point is that Newton was "of his time" (the same thing that you dismissively accused Plato of being), yet we STILL teach the equations that he derived. My point wasn't in trying to show the rightness or wrongness of Newton, but rather that accusing someone of being "of a [particular] time" - and especially using that as an excuse to not have to wrestle with their thought - is futile.
Also, technically speaking, since most interesting physics takes place at non-zero velocities, Newtonian physics is "wrong." It might be close, but it's wrong. As Everyman pointed out, you can use Ptolemaic astronomy to get very nearly accurate positions of the planets, but that doesn't change the fact that his fundamental assumption of a geocentric solar system was incorrect.
Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I believe philosophy has always been 'dead', in the sense that Hawking intends: 'Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, parti..."Desgreene, as I already said in the first post, it's ridiculous because no one that really cares about philosophy would ever claim that it's a science. Only people that try to demote its importance would ever imply that it needs to live up to something like the standards of science. As far as I'm aware, not even Popper suggested it.
Patrice wrote: "Wasn't the point that Plato was making that no one's thought should be put on a pedestal? Everything should always be questioned?"Well, technically it was Socrates speaking through Plato's dialogues, but yes. :)
Good question, Patrice! I just think Plato is trustworthy, I guess. Beside, Plato wasn't nearly as much a gadfly as Socrates was ... he would actually admit to believing in something every once in a while. P.S. Glad to see you around again, stranger.
Clearly when one reads Plato instead of commentary or summations about him it is clear that there is a point where Socrates' point of view is no longer being given. Further, The later dialogues, all of which raise extremely important and germane issues for the modern world, contrary to what some have stated here, are very modern in their approach and ought never to be shuffled away into the closet in deference to those writers who are temporally closer to us. Scheler, Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty each could not have succeeded to any great degree without Platonic guidance.
I would imagine it goes without saying that, in Plato's work, "there is a point where Socrates' point of view is no longer being given." I guess that's why they call them Platonic dialogues instead of Socratic monologues.
And the mention of Plato's work shows why philosophy isn't quite as dead as one might think. Many of the questions posed by the ancients, such as What should man do?, have never been answered. Of course we know most of them won't be because they have many answers. But no other field of study is capable of taking up those questions at all. I think people get confused by the fact that they're such old questions, and wrongly conclude that because philosophy still doesn't answer them decisively it must be useless.
As long as there are brains, there will be philosophy.
Well, what Hawking said was brainless in a number of important ways.
John, I think you are pushing your thoughts to a level where you are, potentially, missing the forest for the trees. First, to draw such an impermeable, stark boundary between philosophy and science is simply not workable. In my view, they have always overlapped...at absolute minimum they overlap as pertains to epistemology. Philosophy and science both address episteme...what we can actually "know". So the lines are a bit more blurry than you would like to believe. What Hawking is partially getting at pokes at the root of that question. And that was also the point that I understood Stephen to be making re: Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability.Now...that said, when I read it my immediate reaction was that Hawking pushed his own statement too far. However, at the core of what he was saying...this epistemological question, and the way that science addresses it is most definitely relative to the philosophical enterprise...and it certainly was not "brainless". I would just encourage you to avoid the strong demarcations. As intellectual history has evolved, I don't think they should be taken for more than they are...a convenience.
I agree...they are yours...and you can say anything that you would like. And your opinions are yours. Agreed...totally.
I'll leave it to you to read back over your posts and make your own decision about whether you drew that line of demarcation in the statements and accusations that you...in your own opinion, and to which you are entitled...made.
OK. As I said, I'll leave that to you.
I agree. That is why we are here. To share ideas and, hopefully, learn from that sharing. The great thing about my opinions, you see, is that they are mine (sound familiar?). I thought it would be helpful to the discussion to point them out to you. If you don't accept them...well, that's fine. That's what I meant.
Here's another suggested consideration for you. When you call another person's post "ridiculous", imply to someone else that they haven't read widely enough in history, and then flippantly refer to the thoughts of someone at the level of Hawking's mind as "brainless", I must say that it is simply amusing that you then turn around and feel that my comments back to you on those points are "picking". In my experience, people who throw around those kinds of accusations and statements are not open to what you refer to as trading ideas...they are just looking for a platform to spout.
Now...I'm sure that you will disagree with that...and as you correctly pointed out, it will be your distinct right to do so. Up to you...I'll just leave the last little rant to you...which is my distinct right (smile).
I know precisely what you are trying to say...I actually think you went past just trying, and succeeded. I just don't happen to find it to be a compelling argument, that's all. You know how these opinions are! Ridiculous, at times.
Ah...first "ridiculous", then "brainless", not to mention insufficiently read in history, and now "clueless".Moreover, if someone disagrees with you, they are not only ridiculous in their views, and clueless, but unable to understand.
OK...guess I'll wait for a more elementary thinker to dialogue with (smile)
You'll have no problems, I assure you. Good riddance, and good luck in your future reading comprehension endeavours.
Robert wrote: "Thanks. You too"Admirable restraint - the mark of gentility!
Thanks Desgreene. I see he deleted all of his responses to me. Oh well...as he pointed out (in one that he deleted) it's certainly his right.
Hi Robert --Philosophy and science both address episteme...what we can actually "know". [...] What Hawking is partially getting at pokes at the root of that question.
I agree where you say this epistemological question, and the way that science addresses it is most definitely relative to the philosophical enterprise. But I don't see how it follows that this was what Hawking was getting at. To my reading he seemed to be doing the opposite.
Are you referring to the last sentence Adeel quoted? Because John's posts were deleted before I saw them I don't know if he brought up this point; so I apologize if I'm bringing it up a second time.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --Hi Tyler...yes, John got pissed and deleted his posts in our debate. Somewhat puerile of him in my opinion, but that's not important.
I guess my statement needs a bit of clarification. I'm not trying to say that Hawking was making a deliberate and specific statement concerning epistemology...that's why I used the phrase "pokes at..." What I was trying to say is that Hawking's point, as I read it, has an underlying point in epistemological questions. Here's what I mean: he said, "What is the nature of reality? ......Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. (deletions mine to try and call out the fundamental point)
All of the questions that Hawking references about the nature of reality and the universe (the book was called "The Grand Design", or something like that)are necessarily infused with an underlying epistemology. It may not be overt, but anytime one tries to answer them, that answer is necessarily grounded in an epistemological method, whether the answerer realizes that or not. If a Christian says, "God created it", that is because his/her epistemology is based in divine revelation, just as an example.
As I said to John, I think the way Hawking (and his cowriter) expressed the idea (philosophy is dead) went too far. But cutting past all the hyperbole...I think what is behind his statement is an epistemological point, namely, a point concerning how we, as he said, carry out our "quest for knowledge". Science, in Hawking's view, has surpassed the ability of philosophy to offer definitive and plausible answers. Science's advances are based on the scientific method, which is an epistemologically grounded method. Here is where Popper's criterion for "falsifiability" comes in. In the scientific view, a proposition that can't be falsified can't, therefore, be verified. That's the epistemological point. Behind Hawking's unnecessary diatribe is that belief. Using that method, modern physics has been able to offer falsifiable statements, and test them, about what used to be considered "mystery", or more precisely following Aristotle, "metaphysics" (that which comes AFTER the physics). Hawking is implying, partially, that philosophy has not kept up with these advances, and therefore has little to say that is epistemologically sound.
Does that help at all?
Actually John, I did read the thread. You are correct...when I made the point to you I had only read the page of the thread showing...didn't realize there was a page earlier. However, obviously Tyler wanted me to expound, so I did. Maybe my thoughts added something, maybe they didn't. But thanks for your input, and your continued childishness.
(laughing) John...have you considered therapy? You obviously have some serious issues with growing up. Anyway, I won't bother you with any more responses to your posts. I'm sure you will like that. Glad to help out. (smile)
Yeah. And when you follow through with something you actually say - or understand something someone else says - pigs will fly.
I'll answer Robert's post in another post. Speaking just as moderator for a moment, it's true much of this has been said before. But the thread is long, and people just joining the discussion are less likely to read the whole thing the longer it gets. So the same points will often come up again in different guises, and we'll often repeat ourselves.On top of that a certain amount of thread drift is to be expected. It's my good luck to moderate this group because our members value the conventions of good argumentation which usually work automatically to prevent the inevitable banter from getting overly personal -- except for that one time when I got it in the face on the Personal Freedoms thread.
Hi Robert --Science's advances are based on the scientific method, which is an epistemologically grounded method. Here is where Popper's criterion for "falsifiability" comes in.
Hawking's book is aimed at a general readership, and his paragraph on philosophy is very broad, which makes it vulnerable in many ways. Because of this generality, I don't think Hawking meant to press any narrower point about epistemology.
But if we poke at it (ourselves) and try to think what a sounder argument in Hawking's favor might look like, science leads us to epistemology as you say. Here we have Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion as an example. The problem is this: Did Popper derive this modification to the scientific method based on science, or based on philosophy? What that boils down to is what status the philosophy of science possesses.
I contend Popper's falsifiablity is based in philosophy because methodology is one of the areas of concern in the philosophy of science, and also because I don't see how science can develop itself entirely from within, free from outside input.
The confusion is that each field has its philosophy, and all these evaluative branches of philosophy tie together into the general enterprise of philosophy. Yet on the other hand, is there any clear point about which we can say that we're no longer dealing with science as such, but rather the philosophy of science?
In the case of falsifiability I think Popper was thinking philosophically when he introduced the concept because up to that point it wasn't a clear scientific principle. On the other hand, there was something like it in philosophy: We're entitled to ask someone we're arguing with, "What would it take for me to prove your wrong?" And we consider that our interlocutor's point is unsound if his answer amounts to "Nothing can." Popper seems to have translated that into a scientific principle.
I don't know how Hawking would respond to that because falsifiability is so recent an innovation in science, hardly older than I am (okay, maybe not that recent). That newness indicates that philosophy must still have something to say, even to scientists. It would then be an error to peremptorily dismiss its efficacy as Hawking did.
Tyler...thanks for that reasonable exposition. A few brief comments:You said: "But the thread is long, and people just joining the discussion are less likely to read the whole thing the longer it gets. So the same points will often come up again in different guises".
Precisely...very well-said. As I pointed out above to John when he was having one of his tantrums, that is exactly what happened with me. I only read the second page of the thread. In addition, I was just trying to respond to your question the best I could. I had not read the first page of the thread before doing it. I guess that makes me worthy of crucifixion (haha!)
You then said: "Because of this generality, I don't think Hawking meant to press any narrower point about epistemology." You and I are not in disagreement on this. I tried to say (although I might not have been clear) that this was not specifically the point Hawking was making. Rather, I believe it UNDERLIES the point he was making - i.e it is the place from which he was proceeding in making the point. I tried above to explain why, and I'll just let that stand for what it is.
You also said: "The problem is this: Did Popper derive this modification to the scientific method based on science, or based on philosophy?" You then went on to state your belief that it was based in philosophy, and that that science needs philosophy as input to its knowledge enterprise (I hope that's something close to an accurate summary). Although I don't disagree with that fundamental point, I guess the distinction between whether it was "philosophy" or "science" is just not that meaningful to me. What is most to the point for me in this particular discussion is this: how do we know what we know?
So, for me, I see it as a Venn diagram with permeable lines. And from that perspective I believe that Hawking proceeds from a specific epistemological foundation. When one proceeds from that place, it is not difficult to see how they would criticize much of philosophy which expounds for hundreds of pages concerning the "why" and the "nature" of the "Design" from a point that can't be controverted, because by its nature it isn't falsifiable, and therefore not verifiable, and therefore - from his perspective, ultimately meaningless. That's why I disagreed with John that DesGreene's bringing in Popper was, to quote John, "ridiculous". It wasn't ridiculous in my view - it was directly to the fundamental point.
So, to reiterate, I do think Hawking's statement was way too broad - I've said that from the beginning. However, I think there are foundations BEHIND it which are worthy of reflection, and whether one agrees or disagrees, it certainly wasn't "brainless".
I don't think we are far apart at all from reading your post above. Rather, I think it is more a point of emphasis. At least that's how I see it.
Thanks again for the voice of reason in the discussion.
Popper isn't ridiculous, and I never said that he was. There you go with your impressive reading comprehension again. But your constant nattering about him certainly is ridiculous.
Hi Robert --I don't think we are far apart at all from reading your post above. Rather, I think it is more a point of emphasis.
Yes, there's a different emphasis in regard to epistemology. Science, or perhaps some scientists, may see it as belonging to their field.
This might stem from the Enlightenment, which is when science and religion spun off from philosophy to become distinct areas of inquiry. Like a bad divorce, everyone wants custody of the children, in this case epistemology.
Physicists can have strange ideas about this. I know one who insists philosophy died back then because David Hume killed it. With a cutoff date like that, they don't take into account subsequent developments in philosophy concerning epistemology, including ideas about the mind, identity, and epistemic realism.
Someone said earlier on the thread (I can't find the quote) that maybe it was science that hadn't kept up with philosophy, not the other way round. They may not realize that philosophy seldom deals with teleology or metaphysics (as opposed to ontology) anymore -- those two childern religion got custody of. Such a position would be attacking a straw man.
In any case, the epistemological problem of "how do we know what we know" may, as you point out, be the crux of the problem, at least for some scientists. Apparently, they're maintaining that the philosophy of science is science, not philosophy.
Thanks Tyler. That all makes good sense. In this particular question, I'm not sure whether it matters who has "rights" to what. It's really, at its foundation, a basic question: For the physicist - is there a philosophical "school" (other than the scientific method) that can offer a hypothesis about the origins of the universe that will stand the test of verification and, thereby, falsiability? What do you think?
Hi Robert --I think physics has to turn to some branch of philosophy. None of the cutting edge models of advanced physics can be falsified, yet one or more of those models may nevertheless be true representations of reality. The only way to evaluate the various models would have to rely on the kind of reasoning and logic first established by philosophy and still subject to it. The most advanced physics is largely speculative, so perhaps there already is a philosophy of physics concerning it. I don't know the answer, though, and I plead Socratic ignorance.
Tyler,I think your assessment of physics is accurate. However, I think that the physicists would agree that it is accurate. Here's the thing, the way I see it: scientists fully realize that their speculative hypotheses are just that - speculative - until they are tested and proven useful under a variety of circumstances. They realize that. That's the core of their way of thinking. What they are questioning is: does philosophy understand the same thing about its speculation? If so, how do philosopher's think they will test THEIR ideas for usefulness? How will the tests be constructed? How will the hypotheses be modified and why and under what circumstances?
Typically, the scientists feel that this is not a process that many philosophers can even speak to, and thereby, they question their epistemological foundation.
What they are questioning is: does philosophy understand the same thing about its speculation? If so, how do philosopher's think they will test THEIR ideas for usefulness?It's important to recall that science was until recently a branch of philosophy, and the methods of both might not be so different. But we have to keep in mind that we wouldn't explain philosophy in terms of science any more then we would evaluate chemistry in terms of the principles of biology.
Too many concepts apply best only within their fields. Yet too many people will make a philosophical point by saying, "Well, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows us that ...", without realizing that UP may not be the best approach to a philosophical problem.
In philosophy, the "test" of a proposition is logic and reasoning. That was the case when science separated from philosophy, and it's still true. But logic takes different forms in both instances because they study different questions. So falsifiabilty is an issue in philosophy, as I said earlier, although it doesn't go by that name.
Philosophy deals primarily with ideas and science deals mostly with the physical world. An idea that's not falsifiable in philosophy is held in similar regard as an experiment that's not falsifiable in science.
Some ideas in philosophy cannot be assessed logically, so they're speculative. But most philosophy certainly can be. The logical evaluation of another person's ideas is, in a sense, what philosophy is all about. If more people only knew how much fun it is to engage in rational thinking, they'd never want to do anything else. And the world would be a vastly better place to live in.
Because both philosophy and science operate upon a contingent universe, neither can give absolute proof of anything. If that's what scientists are asking for, they're holding philosophy to an arbitrary standard they themselves could never meet, so their demand is inconsistent.
Tyler...good points. Actually, much epistemology would say that no theory can ever be "proven", so to speak, it can only be falsified (see C.I. Lewis - "Mind and The World Order"). I don't disagree with anything you say above. My only fundamental point is that what you say above is precisely why so many scientists see little value in philosophy in terms of ultimate questions. It's, at bottom, an epistemological disagreement, and epistemology is actually common to both science and philosophy (along with any other effort to build knowledge). So, for me, it's not of primary importance to put the two into different schools and judge the two only by the standards of that discipline. Since epistemology is common to both, that can be, and often is, the point of disagreement. I think that is so here, and is ultimately what is behind Hawking's blatant overstatement.
Hi Robert --If philosophy cannot answer "ultimate questions," neither can physics. So they're in no postion to cast aspersions, as I said. But I'm unclear as to what you mean by ultimate questions.
If we want to pick up the question of epistemology again, that is a question for philosophy, not science. I know of no scientific research possible into the subject of epistemology unless we're talking about social sciences. But to the extent that they meet the criteria of science, their research is trivial and tentative. Same with neurobiology. It tells us practically nothing in answer to the question,"How do we know what we know?" When it comes to that question, philosophy is where it's at; in fact, it's one of the hottest areas of philosophical investigation right now.
Tyler, ou are right: "ultimate questions" was probably not the best phrase. I think what Hawking's criticism was directed toward was Philosophy's inability to answer questions about the universe, it's nature, and the "why" questions in a way that he finds satisfying...and I was trying to explicate why he doesn't feel satisfied (at least, what my interpretation is).Neurobiology may not provide much theory about knowledge, but it is certainly BASED in a certain theory of knowledge. Yes, you could say that philosophy has contributed that theory of knowledge through the philosophy of science. You could say that the scientific method is a reason that science should be grateful to philosophy. Maybe so. I just don't think that was Hawking's point.
The entire approach of science to understanding the world is founded strongly in the scientific method, which is an application of a particular theory of knowledge. As long as philosophy attempts to address these kinds of questions from a perspective that is not founded in that theory of knowledge, scientists will continue to find it wanting.
However, that certainly doesn't warrant an overstatement like "philosophy is dead".
Hi Robert --The entire approach of science to understanding the world is founded strongly in the scientific method, which is an application of a particular theory of knowledge. As long as philosophy attempts to address these kinds of questions from a perspective that is not founded in that theory of knowledge, scientists will continue to find it wanting.
Because epistemology is properly a philosophical endeavor, scientists have their contention backward. It is the business of philosophy to evaluate the scientific method, not the other way round. That in fact is what happens when philosophy, such as the philosophy of science, establishes modifications to the epistemological aspects of the scientific method.
My question to such scientists is how they think a contingent method designed to explore material entities can be used to evaluate concepts, and why they reject logic and reason in favor of
method as the gold standard philosophy must aspire to.
Because the dismissal of philosophy amounts to a dismissal of established logic and reason which science itself uses, I cannot believe more than a few scientists actually think this.
Tyler -Well, I guess I wouldn't go quite that far. I personally don't see much fruit in attempting to determine who's right it is to evaluate who. Yes, I know that's what Hawking's statement did and that is why I thought it went overboard.
I was only trying to offer thoughts on the root of the problem underlying Hawking's statement. Regardless of who has the right to evaluate, people will evaluate. And in this case, that evaluation is based (in my opinion) often on epistemology.
As an example - look at Dawkin's work. If you cut through all the polemics, at the root of his problem with religion is a problem of epistemology.
So, that's really what I was trying to do...offer a few thoughts on the ROOT of the problem.
Could the scientists apply their method to evaluating concepts? Probably not. However, I'm not sure how important they would find that inability to be. It's not their primary concern, and they would probably question the value of that as a primary concern. Again...two different starting points.
Finally, I have read a lot of Hawking's work. I do not feel at all that he was dismissing logic and reason. Knowing his work, that assumption would be somewhat absurd, in my view. However, he did say what he said, and if taken literally your statement, "the dismissal of philosophy amounts to a dismissal of established logic and reason" applies. I just don't take it literally, and don't feel that was what he was trying to say...because it doesn't reflect his work as a whole.
And again...THAT is why I believe his chosen words were excessive...certainly a bad choice.
I think if he had said something like "metaphysics is dead" he would have been closer to the mark. But if he has said something like Dawkins did, that "religion is dead" (in terms of metaphysical explanations), his book would have created a storm.
Tyler:Well...good points all. Yes...I think you are right on both accounts!
Thanks for the great discussion.
You're welcome -- I enjoy these discussions.
How many of us really want to live in a world where everything is known, where there are no mysteries, where there is ambiguity, where one can point an instrument at a person and read their every thought by reading and properly interpreting (thanks to the great advances in science and computing power) their very brain waves, where when one looks across a room there is no magic in seeing a beautiful woman smiling at one, but one knows with scientific exactitude precisely what she is thinking and wanting or not wanting. Maybe this is an ideal world for some. It's not for me.
Everyman,Sorry...I'm guess I'm not following your point. Do you see someone as advocating "a world where everything is known, where there are no mysteries, where there is ambiguity, where one can point an instrument at a person and read their every thought by reading and properly interpreting (thanks to the great advances in science and computing power) their very brain waves, where when one looks across a room there is no magic in seeing a beautiful woman smiling at one, but one knows with scientific exactitude precisely what she is thinking and wanting or not wanting" ?
Philosophy
Books mentioned in this topic
The Grand Design (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The Grand Design (other topics)
The Grand Design (other topics)
The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (other topics)
More...
Ah John you persist in questioning my credentials and not addressing my ideas!(Quote:"I assume you've read more than just one sweeping history on the subject.")
To address your other point - the reason Newtonian physics is still part of scientific education is that it is still valid in a non-relativistic (which for the most part is our human experience) spacetime.
However for the last hundred years or so we know that relativistic dynamics are at the core of physical understanding. Newtonian dynamics are but a rough simplification.