"Philosophy is dead"

[Michael]

To many of my friends out there: I’m concerned you don’t appreciate the utility or function or nature of philosophy, apart from pop-culture’s pallid understanding.

When you say things like “Philosophers often have the luxury of thinking continually without conclusion or an end state” it is very concerning, because you are assuming all too much, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is good philosophy, and there is bad philosophy. But philosophy is chiefly concerned with getting to the bottom of things so that life and living can be improved upon. The word philosophy literally means “the love of wisdom”. And wisdom is defined as “the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment”. It is concerned with good “judgement” or the ability to decide the quality or soundness of things.

Philosophy is responsible for EVERY single school of thought or academic discipline today.

Biological sciences, mathematics, physical sciences, astronomy, psychology, economics, archeology, paleontology, neuroscience, anthropology, aesthetics, sociology, ethics, engineering, politics, etc etc etc etc.

And they all very much have an end in mind.

It’s called refining the quality of our thoughts, so that they reflect “reality” and improve our “utility” as humans striving to live optimally.

Discarding faulty or poor assumptions, uncovering false assumptions, shedding light on self-deception, probing deeper into arguments, into the nature of things, the relationships of things, etc.

Talking and asking questions is not necessarily “philosophy”. If its meandering or pointless or noise, its called “bullshit”.

Everyone should study philosophy, and practice it regularly, and employ it in their daily lives.

It would improve society from being so mindless, from not challenging bullshit dogma by self proclaimed and often deluded “experts” or “authority figures” that spew hot air which may sound good, and may be emotionally appealing or temporarily self serving, but is just…. total… utter… garbage. Because it’s false or deception or lies or fantasy or inaccurate or outdated, etc.

Philosophy is the process or vehicle of getting us quality information about our world and our relation to it, and refining and improving our understanding of this process.

Before mankind thought about these things, he asked questions: how? what? why? when? where? who?

The first philosophers conversed with his fellow man, who shared their reasoning and their experiences. They continually challenged each other’s experiences, their perceptions, their “reasoning” and came up with rules for good arguments, formulating formal and informal logic, and examined the very nature of perception and experience.

Overtime, from the Greeks until now (and before the Greeks the Egyptians and Babylonians and other civilization’s contributions we lost in the fire of the Library of Alexandria), these conversations coalesced and became more specific, with specific ends in mind, and they developed into separate conversations, or schools of thought.

These schools of thought now comprise the disciplines or studies or “majors” we encounter in academia today.

When you have exhausted the fundamental understanding of each of these disciplines, you are considered a “doctor of philosophy” or Phd. You can now expand the bounds of this school of thought, and add additional knowledge to the cannon of that specific discipline.

Unfortunately “modern” academia doesn’t teach people “how to think” or educate people on the process of philosophy like they once did, which was always considered the “queen of the sciences”.

Now they just force you to memorize what everyone else already thought, and you don’t challenge it. Just sit there. Read and memorize. Don’t question.

This is a problem.

This is a problem because we need thinkers, we need people who can think originally, who can generate new information and perspectives to problems all on their own, and not rely on others or outside knowledge to guide their way. This not only prevents the spread of false knowledge, it stimulates inquiry into new ways of thinking, and generates new questions about things and problems and dilemmas previously overlooked.

This is exactly why I believe our society needs more philosophy.

[M]

If it’s the nature of society that most people prefer certainties, have convictions acquired less by reason than by the conditioning or indoctrination received in childhood and adolescence, and who go through life more or less intellectually incurious, mustn’t it be the case that philosophy has never been a popular pursuit but at any time has been engaged in by a relative few?

To put it a different way, if a tendency for philosophical thinking isn’t something that seems to go in or out of vogue or that noticeably waxes or wanes (as compared, say, to anti-intellectualism), can philosophy be dead as long as there are the inevitable few who find themselves at home with uncertainty and tentative conclusions and who are looking for the kind of insights that necessitate philosophical thinking?

[Scott]

Is philosophy dead M?

Science constrains philosophy but I do not think the scope of philosophy will be reduced to an intellectual area of zero. Philosophy was once a vast area of the intellectual landscape and it is shrinking but will it not go to zero and be simply a closed historical set of theories that are obsolete?

Does the progress of science diminish or free philosophy? Science makes progress with the accumulation of facts using ever more sophisticated data collection methods, better tools that drive theory to become fine grained. Galieo’s telescope and the discovering of the moons of Jupiter over turned the dogma of the Catholic church and actually set philosophy free, while giving birth to astronomy. Both profited and dogma based on false premises declined. Today we have the Hubble deep field and astrophysics expands, and philosophy interprets a much wider sense of the cosmos. Hubble and the deep field may make a philosopher humbled and jealous of the astrophysicist… but we can also see our home galaxy of the milky way floating like a paramecia in a great lake of existence of which our minds are like sub-atomic particles buzzing in its gut. These sub-atomic particles are peeking at the whole of creation, how great is that? Philosophy is not dead my friends, focus and constraint is also called concentration.

Consider two classes of questions, first those systems that can be mathematically modeled and data can be collected and related to a model. Is this truly the only class of ALL questions? I think that there are important questions that cannot be modeled and since they cannot be calculated must be conceptually interpreted. These questions are open to all, and when engaged in them you are in the room or space of philosophy. To be a philosopher is to spend most of your time in this space, and this is small a small space, it is a niche space, and it is a space of limited carrying capacity due to the fact that it cannot generate much economic value. But it is not an empty space, not an empty room, it is not a dead room, but crowded with yammering thinkers all disparate for someone to listen to them so they can unload conceptual depth, communicate insights, and try to free you from invalid conclusions. Far from dead… philosophy is a rocking cocktail party.

Let’s walk over to the ethics discussion for a second. Click on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Thin and Thick conceptions of ethics. Just published hot topic…

What is good and bad is merely “thin” ethics, that concept might be calculated using a utility algorithm, but ethics can be more sophisticated and “thicker” such as how to embody courage and act with compassion to make the world a place that we would wish our children to be born into. The thicker ethics it is the more specific stances we can take and calculation becomes more difficult. If we find Utilitarism somewhat stale, and the cultivation of virtue to be in vogue than we are further from a science of ethics rather than closer. I tend to think with an increasingly computational view of mind questions of soul, like courage will drift into this cocktail party as an antidote to machine conceptions of the self. What do you think M? Don’t you think that Thick ethics may be counterpoint to computational psychology?

So today we see ourselves as a collection of trillions of neural connections, a Connectome. Each mind is highly diverse and adaptable, some minds practical and some minds pursue beauty and ideas, some minds are very interested in the problem of reproduction. A population of organisms expresses a diversity of minds which may optimize cultural survival in a species that stores information outside the individual in places such as libraries.

There are a vast variety of minds on the earth today and some are philosophical in character. I would maintain that there will always be a certain portion of minds that will adapt to philosophy because there will always be a niche of questions that are of the type to be called philosophical.

Secondly there will always be minds that are of the type that do not seek only the pleasure of sex and material wealth, or only practical scientific/ engineering solutions or only artistic expressions… some minds are pre-occupied with interpretation of concepts and seeking an understanding for its own sake, and seeking to free their fellow beings from dogmatic, bigoted, and unsound arguments. Philosophers tend to like at least 3 things in life: (1) they mull over concepts and argue about them (nature of being, mind, or self is popular), (2) they consider questions of choice and argue about them (ethics: Virtue, Deonology, Utility remain hot topics, or political organization: Communism, Parliamentary systems etc…), (3) they like to free their fellow beings from dogmatic false arguments based on poor logic or false premises and like to argue about it (the philosopher pulling you out of the cave and into the light(Plato)) are still relevant today.

Philosophers are of the type that become animated in the presence of false premises and false logical chains that can become elaborate systems of thought. Such as the nice little hand grenade that M has tossed into the room. By logical consequence if we think philosophy is dead we better abandon ship or we are going down with her. Red alert... battle stations or man the life boats???

Logical consequence is something philosophers enjoy, like building a grand cathedral of logical conclusions or tearing down a grand cathedral which is actually revealed by science to be a dogmatic a prison based on false premises. But philosophers play a role here, they build a new grand cathedral based on better premises and new belief system emerges which lasts as long at the premises can hold.

Science gives us the view of the moons of Jupiter, reveals that the DNA in our blood contains a billion year history of life. The cathedral of belief is rebuilt on new premises, philosophers are building this stuff out. Philosophical jealousy of scientists forging new foundational premises that change beliefs should not make philosophers commit suicide.

Science can blast out a buttress in our cathedrals of belief, but it in reality it forces conceptual remodeling which gives philosophers a lot of work to do. Philosophers should not be jealous of scientific success, rather we should be glad that we have work to do and we should start remodeling our conception of reality.

In conclusion Kurt Godel has shown that every logical system has limits. Knowledge has three classes, (1) that which can be proved true or false, (2) that which is true but cannot be proved, and (3) that which cannot be proved true or false. Our reality is constructed of information, it follows neuro-computational rules, and mystery is logically shown to be alive in this system.

Science is a logical system, our brains appear to be computational, but even if our brains are fully computational, we are still faced with situations beyond computation. Modern neuroscience is constraining philosophers to think about the mind in a frame work of computation today, but this scientific constraint lets us gain philosophical focus and construct a new belief edifice. We have work to do!

By the laws of physics our atoms are determined, but by the laws of logic we have choices without a computationally defined answer. Therefore we must cultivate philosophy and we have some design freedom in our beliefs. A philosopher is like an architect constrained by materials, but still free to construct mind within that constraint. Some philosophies have been wrecked by the earthquakes of discovery, the moons of Jupiter have smashed a gaping hole in the dogma of the Catholic church for example, and Hubble is eroding away the entire edifice of god as a bearded white man on a throne. We have work to do! There is a new cathedral to build on firmer ground.

At birth we are thrust into light and into a complex constructed information reality to engage with the mystery of existence. Our premises are becoming stronger, we building with steel now, our models have increasing precision, and we have augmented our minds with external computers so we can build higher.

Is philosophy really constrained by science? We have stronger premises to build with and we are more concentrated and freed from dead ends like conceiving of life as a kind of phlogiston.

Let us blaze brighter rather than weep in pity over the shattered prisons of grandiose systems based on false premises… when faced with a machine conception of the self rather than a secure heaven of infinite life after death… let us now contemplate our courage, cultivate our generosity, and work to free our friends and not be entangled by the greed and selfishness of our material culture. Philosophers there is work to be done!

[Feliks]

Adeel wrote: "Stephen Hawking, in his latest book, The Grand Design, claims that philosophy is dead:

Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens a..."

Hawking is short-sighted and even a little obtuse with this opinion. The 'latest developments of science' haven't altered the human condition in the slightest. Not one little bit. Knowledge of physics --or anything else connected to the purely material world--doesn't matter a damn. Metaphysics are what matters. Can Hawking name one way in which science has furthered men's humanity in this so-called modern age? Aren't we still using science merely to create better missiles, bombs, and other tortures? Isn't the world in an Orwellian uproar right now with government running amok, citizens bewildered, and everyone's privacy invaded at will?

The simplest problems of living and loving, explored by the Greeks--remain the most fundamental impasses we still face in daily life today. Hawking's a dope. He exhibits the classic scientist's myopia. It's fogging his vision. It isn't philosophy which is dead, it is people who are dead. Brain-dead. Too many people today.

But lacking cognizance towards philosophy doesn't mean it doesn't still govern us; and just because the masses have grown more clueless and dense, doesn't mean we should look to them as 'the norm'.

[J.]

Feliks,

While I agree that philosophy is yet to snuff it. I disagree with your initial argument.

Arguing that science has not improved the human condition ignores things like public sanitation, agriscience, modern medicine, etc. We are much better off with full stomachs, clean water, and freedom from smallpox. At least you have more time to think if you live past 35.

The simple answer is that philosophy is thriving, in as much as science is philosophy. In its purest form science is a modern expression of empiricism.

[M]

What occurred to me when I read the thread title “Philosophy is dead” is that it might not be a question so much of whether the claim is true or false but of whether it’s relevant.

The statement “Philosophy is dead” seems to presuppose that at one time philosophy was alive as an academic discipline, a practice, perhaps a habit of mind, but it seems to me, from acquaintances in academe and in the working world, that a predisposition to be introspective is relatively uncommon, that in general, people think about things as much as they have to, and even then within the distorting constraints of such things as their temperament and worldview.

Perhaps, in the days before other disciplines had carved kingdoms out of the vast territory that once belonged to philosophy, the percentage of introspective students was higher, but somehow that seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely is that the academic arrangement has changed (like shifting countries on a map) but that the nature of students, and of people in general, has remained more or less the same.

Not all learning requires introspection. Conceivably, a student could do well in a history of philosophy course yet engage very little in introspection, simply regurgitate Hegel’s notions, or Bentham’s, or Hume’s. The teacher unwise enough to ask, “Well, what do you think of any of that?” invites the response, “I’m not here to test ideas. I’m here to pass exams.”

There are always some students, though, who don’t mind testing ideas, some who even enjoy it, and the same (at least, in my experience) is true among people in the world beyond the gates of the university. It’s astonishing to hear auto mechanics or members of a hospital’s housekeeping staff get into a quasi-philosophical conversation, but it happens. All that’s necessary is that the persons involved find themselves motivated to dissect, as best they can, the ideas being discussed.

What constitutes that particular frame of mind, a mind in the mood to take an idea apart, is what interested me in this thread.

[Stephie]

Here's my two cents worth.

Philosophy is not and will not be dead as long as there are people to ask questions about the reasons why and the meaning we attach to the world.

The way I see philosophy is that it is an exploration. Most of the great philosophers explore(ed) their known and unknown world(s), not laying down a firm path to travel upon. When a philosopher thinks they have hit upon the answer, that philosopher has given up on philosophy and has entered the realm of dogma.

[Cliff]

Adeel wrote: "Stephen Hawking, in his latest book, The Grand Design, claims that philosophy is dead:

...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."

Wow. Check out this claim made early on in the synopsis of The Grand Design: "A MARVELOUSLY CONCISE BOOK WITH NEW ANSWERS TO THE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS OF LIFE". And as the synopsis goes on to state them, here are a few of the questions:

When and how did the universe begin?
Why are we here?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the nature of reality?

That the book is claiming to answer questions such as these using string theory (see synopsis) and its landscape is quite surprising, given that there is still so much doubt and controversy surrounding string theory. See for example A Fight for the Soul of Science, Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory, and if you want a larger picture of the problem check out Lee Smolin's awesomely written book The Trouble with Physics.

The basic problem is not only that string theory asks us to believe in a "multiverse" consisting of over 10 billion "parallel universes" in which our universe has at least 5 dimensions above and beyond the 4D-spacetime of relativity theory, but also that it asks us to believe in this without ever having made a single corroborated prediction.

Now obviously this does not prove that one day a formulation of string theory will not be found which successfully combines quantum theory and relativity [as Smolin points out in his book], but to claim to answer the (undoubtedly philosophical) questions above using a theory which is obviously quite-far-from-complete seems a bit an overstated claim now doesn't it?

Moreover, if - as the synopsis of The Grand Design claims - M-theory is "currently the only viable candidate for a complete theory of everything," I would worry not that philosophy is dead, but that physics is dead (because if you read carefully, you will see that M-theory is not even completely formulated, it is only conjectured to exist). Thankfully however, there are physicists at work who are not string theorists, and in fact there do exist alternate approaches to quantum gravity:

1. Loop Quantum Gravity
2. Asymptotically Safe Gravity
3. Causal Dynamical Triangulations
4. Emergent gravity

It appears that for some, that which is called "string theory" has replaced "philosophy" as the context in which they ask questions such as those above; but it is obvious that neither string theory nor philosophy is dead, since the former has not been falsified (and if it is unfalsifiable then it is a purely mathematical / metaphysical theory anyway), and since these questions have obviously not been given universally-acceptable answers yet.

[Mark]

Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could any tool in philosophy take on this claim?

I thought you were being sarcastic, Tyler? Anyway, I dont think I would take Hawking's throwaway comment seriously enough to warrant a refutation. Still, it remains perhaps interesting to ask which discipline is furthering our understanding of reality more, science (called "natural philosophy" in its 17th century nascent stages) or philosophy. But even this question appears to be missing the point - it seems obvious that science has had unparalleled success in expanding our knowledge of the fabric of reality. So does it really matter? Is it not human knowledge we should be striving to expand, using a number of investigative disciplines holistically?

Specifically on Hawking's comment - it seems clear to me that the spirit of his comment is directed at metaphysics and ontology. Here, insights in quantum physics over the last 100 odd years have opened up insights into the non-intuitive nature of reality that metaphysics and ontology could not have generated. But now that we do know something about the anti-empirical nature of our reality, we, as humans, need to come to terms with it somehow. We need to create a context that allows us to relate insights of quantum mechanics to our empirical world. New philosophical models in the field of ontology are beginning to focus on the relationships of properties to each other, rather than on the properties themselves, and in so doing seek to create a cognitive model more appropriate to understand the findings of physics on an "intuitive" level. One proponent of this structural ontology is Meinard Kuhlmann, who holds degrees in both physics and philosophy (see, for example, his recent paper http://link.springer.com/article/10.1...).

So it seems that science and philosophy continue to work together. It seems silly to deny the validity of any inquisitive discipline out of hand, just as it seems immature (to me) to try and establish the superiority of one over the other.

[Mark]

Desgreene wrote: "John wrote: "Desgreene wrote: "Plato was of his time but Platonic philosophy, like religion, is more of interest to historians of philosophy than to modern thinkers. A lot of what Plato expounds is..."

Fascinating, Desgreene. In your research, have you encountered the works of Meinard Kuhlmann (my previous post refers)? There appears to be a whole new field of structural ontology (Kuhlmann calls it "trope ontology") that developed in an attempt to grasp the implications of quantum physics. I am intrigued that you appear to have been working on similar / identical ideas for the last five years.

[G.G.]

Mark wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could any tool in philosophy take on this cl..."

Hi, Mark, I hope you mind if I drop in. I have to say that I think Hawking meant exactly what he said, as did deGrasse Tyson (“Yeah, if you [philosophers] are distracted by your [philosophy] questions so that you can’t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’ is a pointless delay in our progress”). And these attitudes that philosophy today is pretty much useless and unproductive actually have a ring of truth, simply because many modern philosophers themselves have allowed philosophy as we generally understand it to degenerate into a bunch of rarified intellectual quibbling that now appeals to only a very select minority of people. This isn’t just my opinion but the opinion of many professional philosophers, Hadot, Kingsley, Wang in his Beyond Analytic Philosophy, et.al. Philosophy has lost touch with our everyday concerns. I think that Hawking and deGrasse Tyson are right to put this out there; however, I also think that they’re incredibly blind if they believe that human progress (if there is such a thing) is predicated on mere scientific progress, quantification, and new tech toys such as bigger and better telescopes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an admirer of both men (especially deGrasse Tyson since I’m an amateur astrophotographer). But science doesn’t solve the problems that humans (who rule our world) encounter every day, lust, greed, fear, all the things that make our world go around. At base, scientific progress doesn’t make our world go around; the human heart does. And this is why a number of modern day philosophers are intent on calling attention to the hi-jacking of philosophia and its transformative value by our modern intellectual sparring that really seems to serve very little purpose. Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. Greg

[Feliks]

re: message #264 by 'J'

"Arguing that science has not improved the human condition ignores things like public sanitation, agriscience, modern medicine, etc. We are much better off with full stomachs, clean water, and freedom from smallpox. At least you have more time to think if you live past 35."

These are all lumped under the aegis of 'health & medicine'. I've already acknowledged--I always do acknowledge--that medicine is the only technological advancement modern times have provided that has made the world any better.

But even that is debatable, because these advances only make things 'better for humans'. Meanwhile, we destroy the planet for all the other species we share this earth with, so how much praise should we really give ourselves?

Another point: medicine is not even 'new' or modern'. Its not a modern invention. The study of medicine is an ancient practice. No matter whether the world grew up or not, we would always have practised medicine --and always would--regardless of technological change. Our society still got along --still did great things--no matter what the efficiency of our doctors' skills were. [And ultimately, we all die anyway so the whole question of 'medical progress' is kind of moot.]

So I come back around again to the question: "How does modern technology benefit the world?" The answer is that it does not. It causes more problems than it can ever cure.

[Mark]

Feliks wrote: "re: message #264 by 'J'

"Arguing that science has not improved the human condition ignores things like public sanitation, agriscience, modern medicine, etc. We are much better off with full stomac..."

Is there an alternative that you would promote? Indeed, if you agree that curiosity is a basic human quality, and the development of technology an inevitable consequence of that quality, would you not be forced to conclude that the very make-up of human DNA is a problem, rather than the technology itself? What do you think about James Lovelock's "Gaia principle"?

Apologies - this sounds as if I am firing questions at you. Well, I was, but only to hear your views. I am genuinely interested what you see as the implications of your stance on technololgy.

[Mark]

G.G. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could any tool in philosophy ta..."

G.G. - thanks for your comment. I agreee, I also think Hawking meant what he said.

[J.]

Feliks wrote: "re: message #264 by 'J'

"Arguing that science has not improved the human condition ignores things like public sanitation, agriscience, modern medicine, etc. We are much better off with full stomac..."

For the sake of clarity, at what point would you have arrested technological development and set us on a path of spiritual enrichment? Are we talking hunter/gatherers or Mennonites? Also what do you mean by, "still did great things"? (Art & architecture?)

[Feliks]

I don't mind taking a stance; defending it; or being 'fired questions at'. I take it as a given that you blokes are inquiring politely.

I only hope my knowledge of history is sufficient enough to support my values in responding.

Stay tuned whilst I mull over possible ruminations worth articulating...

[Mark]

Thanks Feliks - looking forward to your ruminations!

[Feliks]

Fell asleep last night trying to distill down a concise reply. Resuming the attempt this morning.

Not sure if I can make this coherent; but 'just to make a start'...here goes...

Well, I'm reminded of the occasions where I've been forced to step into a discussion and defend colonialism --everyone seems to revile colonialism these days; to hear some people describe it, the British Empire was little better than the Nazis. Of course, I'm as sickened as anyone else when I read of the horrible despoliation and genocide which the Spanish Empire carried out on the Americas. [However, one can easily see that there were reasons which make that an odd/extreme case.]

Overall, I feel that the colonial era which followed the discovery of the New World was inevitable and necessary. It had its 'good' and it had its 'bad'. Many 'backward lands' were brought the benefits of civilization; at the same time as many lands were raped/plundered.

Nevertheless: in a sense, colonialism is but the natural outgrowth of nationalism. Only if we had somehow abolished nation-states prior to the Age of Exploration; could it have been avoided.

In retrospect, was there a way to better handle colonies in such a manner as to help them, and not hurt them? Is progress always a double-edged sword?

The same 'difficult' historical retrogression faces me immediately as I try to answer this question about technology. It is the same kind of quandary. Is there a way to 'pick and choose' ..."only the good technologies" and shunt aside the negative, dangerous, and dehumanizing ones?

Looking back at the wild twists-and-turns which the course of modern history has taken; it is easy to see that such 'restraint' was never attainable. Just as in the 1500s; nationalism itself prevents us.

Yes, advances in the discovery of the atom in the early 1900s ultimately gave us a means to thwart cancer. And yet...we turned that noble science into the deadliest, most terrifying of weapons when--in the 1940s--we struggled against the Axis powers.

Was the victory we so badly needed over Japan & Germany truly reason enough to develop nuclear weapons? [To this specific question, the answer is no--that war was winnable without the introduction of nukes.]

But could anyone have sensed this at the time and employed enough restraint to curtail the Manhattan Project? Unlikely. But my point is this: there should have been; there should have been more forebearance.

As history has rolled on, as other 'bottled-up genies' find their way into our clutch; can we not learn and remember? Are we ever going to exercise restraint?

Naturally, what modern medicine has done in the 20c. alone --no one would want to lose the tremendous victories against polio, cholera, infantile paralysis. And there are still other diseases right now which have yet to be solved; and we wouldn't want that effort to stop.

But does that mean that we have to accept--at the same time--this dehumanizing and planet-threatening Jet Age? Automobile Age? Computer Age? Space Age? Nuclear Age? Age of Terrorism?

Aren't we getting more than we bargained for when you can't walk down "Main Street" in some small American town somewhere --and not know at any given moment--whether you are going to be blown-to-bits?

What is that jet doing, crossing high-in-the-sky above you? What are those satellites doing, whizzing around in space? Who is watching us and recording us every hour of the day? Why are we embracing an Orwellian world?

Why aren't we attacking the problem of world hunger, why are we raping the oceans; why are we letting species die out; why are we meddling with GMO; why are we tampering with world climate; why are governments still as feudal-minded as they were in the Dark Ages?

What is anybody ever doing to improve the human condition? Why does most technology ....never do anything for the good; why does most technology only isolate us; only add decay, sloth, gluttony, violence, and divisiveness?

Yes, I realize that western society was never truly idyllic. There were always diseases; hunger; poverty; war; revolts. But down throughout the history of Europe and America there were also peaceful, stable timeperiods for humanity and culture to bloom and develop.

We have glorious literature, music; philosophy, spirituality, humanism. We have fought back against oppressors; fascists; and tyrannies. We've got wonderful universities, hospitals, libraries, theaters, museums; opera houses; education; conservation; symphonies; cathedrals, missions. Charities, good works, and good deeds can be found all over, if one looks.

Back to the question: where would the line against technology fall, if I were to draw it? Well. It would probably have to be a 'wavering line' which admits some computerization (but not all); some atomic technologies (but not weapons); some air travel (but not this crazy, wasteful jet age). Strict reduction of automobiles; strict reduction of military technology; abandoning of all pointless 'space exploration'... and I'd only tolerate a very little bit of satellite/telecom technology.

To technology which keeps the world stable and safe and functional; I say 'yes'. Canals, dams, bridges, railroads. But technology which is simply for personal indulgence; ignorance; decadence, or luxury? I say 'no'.

You get the idea. I'm calling for a re-applying of sustainable practices. People today --wrapped up in their little handheld gadgets--seem to have entirely forgotten that technology is killing the planet...all in order so that they can daydream, play kiddie games and avoid boredom!

A little restraint. A little forethought. A little asking ourselves, 'do we really need this, or does this new invention just line some fatcat industrialist's pocket?' ...or...'do we really need this, or is it just the insane military-corporate establishment wanting more murderous toys?'

Not that anyone has the power to ever implement this; but yes that's what I would want. Certain trends... you can foresee in advance...that they are just not going to improve humanity. So let's avoid them. Let's stop 'drinking-the-Kool-Aid'. Let's get off this addiction to the foolish and 'the new'.

"Let us cease this cry of 'Progress!' until a thousand years have passed...!" (Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

[Mark]

Feliks - thank you! You went into great depths in your response and I feel privileged to share what clearly are deeply-felt thoughts for you, and issues you have spent a long time thinking about.

I am not going to hide that my view differs from yours in important respects, but I think that interestingly, we may agree on the essence.

A little restraint. A little forethought This I agree with whole-heartedly, and I believe this is the crux of the issue. I do not believe technology is the problem, human beings are the problem. But not human beings per se, but a lack of ethical maturity in human beings. As we become more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the universe, we must at the same time develop the philosophical depth that allows us to manage the implications of our scientific insights. Which of course brings us back to the topic of this thread.

It has often been said that guns dont kill people, but people kill people. This is true as far as it goes, but still simplistic. People create guns for a specific, and unique purpose. We need to hope that mankind survives for long enough to develop to a level of social co-operation that makes guns unnecessary.

But a human being is still a biological organism, an animal with instincts and emotions, an animal that may use a tool designed to embed a nail into a piece wood to cave somebody's head in. That is not the fault of the hammer, and no interdict on the production of hammers will help elevate the maturity of the assaulter to a sufficient level. That maturity we need to develop ourselves, and I am afraid no level of central planning which technologies may be deemed harmful can aid us in this.

So in the end, it is like with everything else. Nobody can absolve us from the need to develop into mature, and self-responsible individuals. We each need to take this responsibility ourselves, and while I totally hear where you are coming from, we wont get there by suppressing certain technologies, and promoting others. One, merely practical, reason for this is that you cannot predict the applications scientific insights will make possible. The development of quantum physics since Max Planck gave us the condensator and the atom-bomb. Is the insight into the workings of our world at the machine code level responsible for the annihilation of millions in Hiroshima? Hardly.

"Let us cease this cry of 'Progress!' until a thousand years have passed...!". I am afraid we have already done that, Feliks. These thousand years was the Aristotle-dominated millennium since the rise of the Catholic Church in the 4th century. It ended with the discovery of America.

[Feliks]

Well it hasn't been a thousand yrs since Tennyson coined that line of his. Thank goodness.

Anyway thank you for the kind remarks on my post. Your points too, are well-taken and engaging, in their turn.

I didn't really set out to compare colonialism with technocracy but as I began writing it seemed naturally to sift out that way.

The bitterest attackers of the post-colonial era...I agree with their vehemence in this sense: the 'evil' of imperialism and empires is not merely that they carried out such harm to helpless peoples such as the Amer-Indian tribes of North and South America.

We can all see how vile that was. But compounding the error is the tendency of modern society 'to forget'...to ignore our guilt, to neglect this tragic episode, to dismiss the knowledge that everything we enjoy today was built on blood and savagery.
We're too content with our comforts, and not in enough touch with our conscience.

I'm sure the natives of Hispanola (were we able to speak to them, which we can not because they were eradicated) would have a very different view of colonialism than the people of today's Spain might. Spain reaped all the benefits of that long-ago encounter between the two. Therefore the views I articulated earlier would hardly find widespread endorsement. I'm sure the Venezualans, Peruvians, and Mexicans never felt the 'necessity' of colonization. And I agree with them. We owe them more than we can ever repay.

And it is the same thing with technology. If we could ask them--what might all those victims from Nagasaki & Hiroshima say about the Atomic age they helped usher in with their deaths? Would they congratulate us on our efficiency?

Who are we disenfranchising today, with globalization and technology running amok? It's the new aegis for plunder and ruin, the new standard of despoilment.

Every earthly resource is funneled into finding new 'commodities'. Making the sale. When was the last time anyone questioned this?

If a corporation wants a new source of platinum, they use geo-satellites to find out wherever an untapped deposit lies and then they make a deal with whatever government owns that land and they go in and strip it. And it doesn't matter what stands in the way. If a multi-national conglomerate wants to market a 'convenient new kitchen blender' to American housewives, that's all the defense they need for their deeds. "Kill off a biologically unique habitat? --yes, why not; it's just a swamp which no one wants anyway." Only the winners are ever consulted.

This, they call progress.

[J.]

Feliks,

Yep, we're evil. Funny thing is that while both science and philosophy have given us plenty of reasons why we're evil, neither has found a satisfactory solution for the lesser demons of our nature. You seem to be arguing that one should have jurisdiction over the other. I'm inclined to think that they are both mental exercises carried out by us angry monkeys. How does either point of view matter?

[Feliks]

J. wrote: "Feliks,

Yep, we're evil. Funny thing is that while both science and philosophy have given us plenty of reasons why we're evil, neither has found a satisfactory solution for the lesser demons of ou..."

This is a pretty wild paraphrase of my paragraphs, but if we're going for succinctness and terseness, then okay. I'll bite.

The viewpoint that matters is the viewpoint which is ethically-grounded. We have the capacity to know in advance whether our actions hurt others. Not hurting others, matters.

We can't cop-out by claiming "we're just dumb monkeys and we don't know what we're doing".

Whether we improve ourselves by law, education, science, religion, or philosophy..one or all of these...we have to find some way to avoid self-destruction.

[G.G.]

Mark wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could any tool in ..."

Cool, Mark. And my name's Greg. I just use GG for writing.

[Mark]

G.G. wrote: "Mark wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could..."

Excellent, Greg. Very pleased to meet you and interchange ideas.

[Darren]

At this point, I feel the greatest advancement that could occur to other forms of life is the extermination of the human-species. Apologies to those I have offended with this viewpoint.

[G.G.]

Darren wrote: "At this point, I feel the greatest advancement that could occur to other forms of life is the extermination of the human-species. Apologies to those I have offended with this viewpoint."

I'm assuming you'd be willing to go first? But I get the sentiment. My wife gets so frustrated with things re: world ecology that I've heard her make that comment. I guess we can thank the ever lingering Spencer and the Soc. Darwinists for much of what's happening. Take care. Greg

[Mark]

Well... check this out, though...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...

[epiphenomenalism]

Speaking of the Hawking quote - he does have a point and I agree with it completely, at least as far as we're speaking of metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science. If in the beginning of the 20th century philosophy played a great role in the scientific advancement, helping physicists in particular to break with the conventional view of the world, one that was useless in quantum mechanics, then today the situation is exactly the opposite and worse, because unlike the past physicists, philosophers aren't willing to accept the lesson being taught. It is the physicists who have extremely advanced theories, and they are consistently dismissed in philosophy. It's volumes upon volumes of accusations of physicists of incompetence, diatribes about the physicist's personal lives and characters that are presented as proof that their theories have no credibility, little or no engagement with the theories themselves, attempts to revive theories that are long dead, metaphysical theorizing as if physics didn't even exist etc. If you don't see Hawking's point, you probably just aren't aware of what philosophers are writing about Hawking's field. I'm sure that Hawking had no intention to criticize ethics or logic, merely what relates to his own field. And it's a disaster over there.

[Mark]

At msg 288:

unlike the past physicists, philosophers aren't willing to accept the lesson being taught. It is the physicists who have extremely advanced theories, and they are consistently dismissed in philosophy

I am sure there are such philosophers, but it sounds as if their analysis has little merit. Conversely, there are philosophers (often those who also have a degree in physics) who are thinking about ontology and epistemology in light of the non-intuitive insights physics is providing. Classical views of ontology, for example, may have to be re-written to make some intuitive sense of the world of quantum physics. But I am sure an attempt to do this can be fruitful, and re-define the (intuitive) interpretation of reality humans have. Check out, for example, this work by Meinard Kuhlmann:
https://www.amazon.de/Ultimate-Consti...
This is a wide field, and a huge can of worms we're opening... happy to chat more about this if people are interested.

[epiphenomenalism]

Mark Hebwood wrote: "Classical views of ontology, for example, may have to be re-written to make some intuitive sense of the world of quantum physics.''

This is the impression one gets when reading philosophy of physics/science: perhaps we may have to rewrite, perhaps not. This is also one of the reasons why Hawking was justified in saying what he said. The classical ontology has been discarded as obsolete more than a century ago, and philosophers still haven't come to terms with that. I'm not sure how much a physics degree helps here, since some of the greatest abusers of science actually do have a physics degree. Perhaps they wanted to study philosophy all along. Perhaps they shifted from physics to philosophy because in the former one cannot build a career engaging with very low quality pet theories that border on pseudoscience. When working on my MSc thesis in philosophy of physics, eventually I had to give up reading philosophy altogether - the standard in academia is not much higher than that in pop-science books. Of course there are philosophers doing quality research, but they are few. Fields as metaphysics, epistemology and philosophies of various sciences have done great work in the past, but currently they're at their rock bottom.

[Mark]

Perhaps they shifted from physics to philosophy because in the former one cannot build a career engaging with very low quality pet theories that border on pseudoscience

When working on my MSc thesis in philosophy of physics, eventually I had to give up reading philosophy altogether - the standard in academia is not much higher than that in pop-science books

Reading your post, I can almost see you trembling with irritation and frustration. I took the liberty to look at your reading list and found that you seem to engage constructively with the world of philosophy of science. Clearly, as a postgraduate in the field, you will have acquired a profound knowledge of its central ideas - and it looks as if you value contributions from scholars such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn etc as high-quality and valuable.

If I may be bold, and forgive me for saying this, I gain the impression that perhaps you are allowing your frustration to push you into an emotional opposition to philosophy. But even if you are correct in your evaluation of current philosophical thought, would you not need to conclude that it is the treatment of the subject, rather than the subject itself, that is lacking?

As far as statements go, "philosophy is dead" does not sound particularly insightful to me. Hearing your frustration, maybe it should be "philosophers are dead"? But if they are, what prevents you, or me, or anybody else interested in the field to do intellectually incisive, analytically penetrating work in the field?

[epiphenomenalism]

As I wrote, character assessments and claims that people are too blinded by emotion to recognize the rightness of philosophy, whilst avoiding to discuss the theories in question, are common strategies in the field and one of the primary reasons for the failures of it. And no, I do not think that paraphrasing criticism until it doesn't say anything bad about the field is an adequate way of dealing with problems.

[Mark]

I must admit I do not understand your second point - and I did think about what you may have had in mind. I think I may understand your first one - would you be able to point to philosophers who you think are the worst offenders? As I said, from your reading list it does not look as if you would be opposed to philosophy of science per se. Btw - did the paucity of intellectual rigour you perceived in philosophy of science prompt you to change your subject to physics or another natural science?

[Nicolas]

When Hawking writes philosophy is dead he means the classical philosophers used data available at the time, and as science progresses that data tends to erode. Philosophy in a broader sense, thinking our actions, acting in accordance with our thought, remains intact.

[[deleted user]]

Adeel wrote: "Stephen Hawking, in his latest book, The Grand Design, claims that philosophy is dead:

I think Hawking is probably referring to the scientific method's evidence-based practice supplanting the generation of theories about how the world around us actually functions. I imagine that it was a rhetorical statement rather statement of absolute fact. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit (as I have quite often tended to do with people, sadly), however, it is obvious that philosophy, in the sense of theorizing (or model generating) is an integral part of the scientific method (although, perhaps, not explicitly referenced as such).

In the most literal sense, philosophy simply means the love of wisdom; I think that most scholars and scientists probably love wisdom.

So, very broadly speaking, as long as people think in abstractions (language, itself, is an abstraction) models will need to be generated for the purpose of comprehension, and therefore the part of philosophy that pertains to theorizing will exist; and likewise, so long as there are lovers of wisdom, then literally, philosophy, by definition will exist.

Of course, Hawking might have just been trying to get our attention! lol!

[[deleted user]]

Firstly, I am sad to hear about Hawking's death.

But I also wanted to share a small paradigmatic shift that I recently had after I began to read Mary Midgley's Animals And Why They Matter. Reading this book has really brought home to me the great need that there is for philosophy today, especially in the field of ethics. Because in school my primary focus had been political philosophy, I had not really gotten into ethics, feeling a bit overtaken with the weight of the arguments from necessity which we were forced to attempt to digest at a rather alarming (yet excitingly challenging) rate. I think it takes some time to truly orient such material in one's own mind (especially, if not continuing to study as vigorously as when in school).

Since beginning to read Midgely, however, I no longer see political theory as the essential framework around and with which other fields of philosophy necessarily find themselves respectively orbiting and intersecting. Instead, now ethics seems to me to be the most central philosophical field. Everything seems to stem really from what we value - and the working out of what we value in terms of value conflicts and challenges, and the discussion of such things is really the core of ethics.

Although typically laws are enacted to deal with changes that are consequent to technological, structural, and relational changes, more and more the idea of simply enacting laws, codes, etc, on the basis of common knowledge and precedent is becoming less sufficient due to multi-disciplinary requirements (inclusive of potential implications to standing ethical positions that either need re-thinking, or are completely novel). I am beginning to see, therefore, a need for thinkers soundly grounded in ethics and other forms of philosophy to be able to better forecast some of the arguments that will need to be weighed and debated.

Ruth Chang, for instance, decided to leave her career as a successful lawyer and become a philosopher in the field of ethics. It would not surprise me if many more philosophers would come into demand in the near future in the field of ethics, and possibly even in other fields as well.

So, although it is sad to see Mr. Hawking pass away, I do think that the field of ethics is alive, and probably will continue to emerge as a leading philosophical field of study.

[Feliks]

Well, now Stephen Hawking is dead. Philosophy wins again.

[Feliks]

I'll go further. I say, 'good riddance' to clowns like Hawking. He's left the field none too soon.

Perfect specimen of his useless class: feeble, palsied, detached from any kind of inward self-illumination. Childishly obsessed with electron clouds and photon waves. As if that ever helped anyone get through their life. So wearied by these foppish science geeks who believe in nothing except their stale, dry, textbooks. No life, no passion. The most trite citizen imaginable.

[[deleted user]]

Science doesn't answer the same questions as philosophy and never can.

[Sunil]

Hey G., How much of science and philosophy have you actually read?

[[deleted user]]

Sunil wrote: "Hey G., How much of science and philosophy have you actually read?"

I have read enough to know that I don't like drivel.

[(Lee) C.T. Ransbury]

This is an old thread, but I'm making a comment because my book "From Void to Universe" is based on some of these ideas. The book presents a theory by which even young-earth creationists can accept all scientific conclusions without giving up their beliefs, but the reasoning behind it developed into a theory that goes well beyond that simple goal.

The book is partially intended to point out the flaws in any theory that requires a denial of empirical facts or a need to discredit credible research. Anyone that's interested in things like "Simulation theories", might find this book interesting, although it's a different idea, it has similarities in concept. ARCs of the book are available for a limited time on the book's website if anyone wants to read it.
http://voidtouniverse.com

***********************************
Okay then...
So, here are my thoughts on what's wrong with Hawking's "Philosophy is Dead" assertion.

Science is the study of what IS. (it's determined to discover the nature of what IS)
It's based on empirical evidence found within the natural universe and any deductions and inferences that can be determined from that evidence. It has no way to understand or make any conclusions about anything beyond the natural reality.

Religion is the study of what IS. (it's dogmatic about already knowing what IS)
It's based on "divine knowledge" given from supernatural sources to a small number of human representatives who then pass it on to everyone else. It is accepted whole cloth and cannot understand or conduct further analysis about anything not in agreement with that "divine knowledge".

Philosophy is the study of what CAN BE. (it defines ABSTRACT possibilities of what IS)
It's based on the mental processes of a sentient mind's ability to produce abstract thought. It has the ability to create concepts and make conclusions about anything in the natural reality or beyond.

Without philosophy, neither science nor religion is possible. It's especially problematic for a scientist to declare philosophy dead because the very foundations that science stands on (logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method itself) are all philosophical constructs. Without philosophy, science has no foundation or tools to work with.


***********************************
Somewhat related to that same idea of "Philosophy is dead" is another idea that "Theoretical physics is not real science".

The argument seems to be that since theoretical physics has progressed beyond what can be tested, it is therefore pseudo-science. That isn't correct though, theoretical science still adheres to the scientific process.

It studies the existing evidence it has, then formulates hypotheses that are predictive of possible results. It then determines what further evidence would be necessary to confirm or invalidate the predictions, and then presents it for other scientists to duplicate the work themselves. It remains theoretical because there is not any current technology that can perform the necessary tests to confirm or invalidate the predictions. The best it can do is perform thought experiments using advanced math. Since the equations can show a likelihood that predicted results could be possible, the theorists can continue to the next step of their research and make new hypotheses based on the "thought experiment" test results. If there's any evidence presented that can show their hypothesis to be invalid, then they go back to that step and begin again.

The reason theoretical physics isn't pseudo-science is because never in the process, do the scientists move beyond what each step of the process can show to be possible. Even if the hypotheses can't be tested by physical experimentation, they must still be confirmed as much as possible by whatever means are available (most commonly math). The theoretical scientists are still following the scientific method.

Theoretical physics still follows the scientific process, even if some test result may have to wait years for any kind of real-world confirmation. The fact that there are predictions waiting to be confirmed is enough for it to be a valid hypothesis. Since there is enough consistency among all the hypothesis, some which can and have been tested, the theoretical physicists are able to formulate theories. Theoretical physics acknowledges that it is waiting for a lot of data that will need to be confirmed in order to prove their theories. Every now and then our technology progresses to where new experiments can be performed which validate, (or sometimes invalidate) the work of theoretical physics.

Pseudo-science, on the other hand, is based on flawed reasoning. It ignores errors in the scientific process. Pseudo-scientific theories (i.e., ancient-alien theories, many creationism theories, etc) typically make giant leaps from the results of a test to the conclusion that is drawn. There could certainly be a progression from the one to the other, but many logically necessary intervening steps are skipped. Within those missing steps in a pseudo-scientific theory are many opportunities for their theory to be proven wrong. The pseudo-scientific theorists typically ignore that possibility.

The other error often made with pseudo-science is to ignore actual evidence that directly does invalidate the theory. Pseudo-scientific theories also don't usually acknowledge how much more data would be needed to confirm the theory. Pseudo-scientific theories are usually presented as if they already have enough evidence to support the theory as an absolute fact. That creates a situation in which the pseudo-scientific theories are easily debunked by credible science, yet unfortunately easy for the uninformed masses to accept them anyway.

[(Lee) C.T. Ransbury]

As I read the opening comment about Hawkings statement, I was impressed by the lack of understanding he had about the usefulness of philosophy.

He claimed that philosophy is dead because the questions it's meant to answer are already answered by science. The following examples are given in the quote.

"How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?"
Hawking's apparently feels that science is the only answer to that question. That isn't something that can definitively be known. There are many ways to understand the world, science is but one of those ways. Philosophy is another way. Religion is another way. They all provide different ways to understand the word, so Hawking is wrong on this point.

"How does the universe behave?"
As long as we're only concerned with the physics of the natural universe that we absolutely know exists, then science is the best way to determine that answer. If we're interested at all about the possibility of any underlying factors beyond just physics, then science can't make such a determination. Philosophy is necessary to consider such concepts beyond just the physics of the universe.

"What is the nature of reality?"
Again, as we consider just the reality of the natural universe, then science is the best way to find the answers. If there might be an overall reality beyond that of the natural universe then that is outside the scope of what science is capable of studying. So, philosophy is again necessary to consider such concepts.

"Where did all this come from?"
Same idea applies for this one. Science can only determine an answer based on the evidence existing within the natural universe. It can make determinations about what natural process occurred and what natural causes may have been involved as everything came about. If there might be any additional causes beyond just what can be known about the natural universe, then it's not within the scope of science to determine and no scientific conclusion can be reached about that possibility. Once again, philosophy is necessary to consider such concepts.

"Did the universe need a creator?"
Well, science is pretty definitive about this point. The evidence within our universe is such that we know it's possible for a universe such as ours to have originated without the need for a creator. Hawking has apparently confused this question with another though. The fact that the existence of our natural universe doesn't appear to require a creator, does not answer the question "Was there a creator?" Just because a creator is not needed to explain the existence of the universe does not mean that one does not exist. It just means that science doesn't need to consider the existence of a creator when determining the physics and natural properties of the universe.

The concept of a creator is about something outside the natural universe and so it's also outside the scope of science to make a determination about it. If there were evidence in the universe of a supernatural creation then science could say that a creator did exist, but since there is no evidence about it then science can make no determination about it at all. There are questions unrelated to the nature of the universe, though, in which the possibility of creation or a creator can be useful to consider. Again, philosophy is necessary to consider such questions.


So, for each of those listed questions that Hawking said science has all the answers for, it can be shown that science is lacking in its ability to determine if their might be anything more to know about them beyond what science has determined.

As much as Hawking might have thought science has fully answered all those questions, it has really only provided answers about the natural properties for each of those things. It definitely does not support his argument that philosophy is dead.

Philosophy can still show there might be more to understand beyond just the physical and natural properties of reality.

My other post ../topic/show/19899299 about science, creationism, and the "Void to Universe theory" is an example of how a supernatural creation is still a possibility even though there's no evidence of it in the natural universe. It also shows there can be answers determined about possibilities of such an overall reality that provide understanding beyond just what's necessary to explain the natural properties of the universe. That's a concept that philosophy can consider that's completely beyond the scope of what science has any way to determine.

Steven Hawking was a brilliant man, but at it's foundation, Science is still a branch of Philosophy. To claim that Philosophy is dead would actually by extension mean that Science is dead. I don't think Hawking actually considered that fact. His conclusion that "philosophy is dead" is not supported by the facts he put forth. His conclusion was fundamentally incorrect. :)

[Rhonda]

Lee wrote: "As I read the opening comment about Hawkings statement, I was impressed by the lack of understanding he had about the usefulness of philosophy."
Without being a smart ass, I would like to add that his name is Stephen Hawking.
As far as science telling us anything about the universe, science is able to measure it and give us constantly changing and revised theories about its contents. It makes no claims about the origins or purposes of such, at least without extending beyond its own realm.
On the other hand, it does one good in philosophy or religion to understand a bit about physical principles. I recall a philosopher of the twentieth century who used the example of water expanding in a radiator when it froze and he insisted that the cap had to be on tight. In fact, water doesn't freeze like that and the cap would have made no difference. By this and hundreds of other examples, it is easy to see why science did not think philosophy was equipped to explain what they were talking about.

[(Lee) C.T. Ransbury]

Rhonda wrote: "Lee wrote: "... As far as science telling us anything about the universe, science is able to measure it and give us constantly changing and revised theories about its contents. It makes no claims about the origins or purposes of such, at least without extending beyond its own realm. ..."

Hi Rhonda, yes that's exactly my point about science. It is the absolute best method for determining the physics and properties of the natural universe. That's what it was designed to do, and most scientists acknowledge that it can make no claims about what might or might not exist beyond that scope. When someone like Stephen Hawking (typos have been corrected) :) makes a statement that philosophy is dead, and provides examples of all the things that he says science can provide the only answers necessary, then he has crossed over into claiming things beyond the scope of science.

For Hawking to claim there's nothing to know beyond what science can tell us, that's no different than theologians claiming that the spiritual "truths" are all that is necessary. (Actually it is different for other reasons, but it's still the same type of dogmatic claim.)

Theologians don't have much of a leg to stand on when they claim that science is wrong, but they do have a point when they say that science doesn't prove religion wrong. Now that puts an onus on them to find a way to understand their religious texts and spiritual revelations in such a way as to not contradict the findings of science. (Philosophy can also provide explanations about that as well. That's the point of the Void to Universe theory" that's discussed in the thread goodreads.com/topic/show/19899299). The problem for religious missionaries is they're trying to convince people of something in which the information has only the spiritual experiences of individuals as their source. For the information they present to be true it must have somehow resulted in the actual evidence that scientists find, otherwise it has no validity. Simply claiming the evidence is wrong is not a sufficient argument to support a creationism theory or the existence of God.

For science though, there'is no way to prove a negative. Simply having no evidence of the things claimed by theologians is not proof that their beliefs are invalid. It is possible that there could be something unknowable and undefinable by scientific observation that goes beyond what science can conclude about the natural universe. Science must just consider it as irrelevant as far as what it is trying to determine. Whether there is a greater reality beyond the natural reality or not, the natural universe would have to be the same either way. Considering any religious knowledge of a supernatural reality, or not, wouldn't change the evidence that scientists find within the universe, so It's simpler to just consider the evidence independently of such religious information.

Philosophy on the other hand is not limited to only consider the natural world. Science is fundamentally a discipline of philosophy that was developed to study just the evidence within the natural world. It is capable of reaching empirical truths about the physics and natural properties of things within the universe, but can't make any determination beyond a natural reality. Philosophy can go past just the discipline of science to accept the conclusions about the natural world while also considering the possibility of a supernatural reality as well.

So, philosophy can consider both the conclusions of science and the spiritual beliefs of religion to reach understandings about things beyond just a natural reality. Philosophy can consider additional possibilities to search for any universal truths that might apply no matter what possible reality is correct.

[Numi]

Adeel wrote: "Stephen Hawking, in his latest book, The Grand Design, claims that philosophy is dead:

Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens a..."

Philosophy wasn't dead - he simply did not look in the right place. I found it - in the toilet (courtesy of the 20th century).

The Philosophy of Broader Survival has placed philosophy where it should have been all along - as the ultimate life-guiding body of thinking which addresses Continued Universal Human Cluelessness. Religions failed because they do not deal with reality - they belong to the arts (being elaborate systems of make-believe).

[Rhonda]

Concerning Hawking's and other scientific pronouncements concerning philosophy, I recently came upon a very good article on this subject.
https://www.academia.edu is where I found the paper called Peirce on Science and Metaphysics. It is written by Andrew S. Reynolds, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada.
I freely admit my profound admiration for Charles Peirce and, although I may be biased on this issue, the quote at the beginning of the paper echoes the thoughts I have about theoretical scientists in general:
Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics…and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which they are packed. (CP 1.129)
I think that this paper might provide a new basis upon which to reinnervate this discussion and encourage philosophical thought.

[Daniel]

Tyler wrote: "Wow. A great physicist has made a sweeping dismissal of philosophy. The paragraph in which he does this seems daunting, unanswerable even. Could any tool in philosophy take on this claim?

When con..."

Hello Tyler,

This was hilarious. Thank you for outlining all of the small points. I think Hawking didn't understand: that all sciences are sub-sects of philosophy; that using language requires the philosophy or rhetoric to even declare a position such as "philosophy is dead", which was only further compounded by his assertion of faith in science to take its place.

Either way, what I see here is a somewhat common consensus toward philosophy: philosophy isn't socially popular enough to do anything for humanity.

Ironically, that is because most philosophy tends to be.... anti-capitalist. So naturally (by that I mean politically and economically) there are many mechanisms at bay to keep philosophic ideas that induce individuals to think for themselves, and thus not be capitalistic sheep lead unto a slaughter, as suppressed as possible.

On a second aspect of my not well thought out rant and response here, Philosophy is not static, it isn't an equation that explains the universe, it is a practice of inquiry that is alive so long as anyone holds skeptical and creative attitudes.

In conclusion I think that saying that 'philosophy is dead' is something that only a boring person would say. Unapologetically since Hawking was confined to doing math and physics from a wheel chair, unable to speak in a normal human capacity it isn't hard to understand that he was not a fun guy; he was bored and over time that made him boring and pessimistic. The trick I think philosophy should adapt to move forward into reigniting its historical impact is to do so incognito.

In effect, to do it without the term, label, expectation and deer god of Valhalla without academia's over assertion of its control over what 'is and isn't philosophy', which Tyler you alluded to, that from an academic stance it might very well appear that philosophy is dead, but academia is not the origin of philosophy, its quite the opposite in fact.

Anyways, its silly to take people like Hawking seriously. He just wanted to be cool and say something edgy.

[Walter]

Rhonda wrote: "Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics…and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which they are packed. (CP 1.129)"

That's an excellent quote!

W

[8stitches 9lives]

Philosophy will never be dead. There will always be curious people asking the important questions.