tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1783012237513263006..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Law Contra Dawkins on the Value of PhilosophyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51733521835573244682013-05-13T21:42:18.122-07:002013-05-13T21:42:18.122-07:00Just in case you were wondering, Crude, Dawkins ha...<i>Just in case you were wondering, Crude, <b>Dawkins has never been my idol</b>.</i><br /><br />:D :D :DCrudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69686794915217255482013-05-13T21:15:10.473-07:002013-05-13T21:15:10.473-07:00>He's not skeptical enough to question the ...>He's not skeptical enough to question the views of his idol <br /><br />LOL!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91399892832220365172013-05-13T21:14:18.986-07:002013-05-13T21:14:18.986-07:00Just in case you were wondering, Crude, Dawkins ha...Just in case you were wondering, Crude, Dawkins has never been my idol. I just get disgusted by the visceral hatred I find here, and the total unwillingness to see anything of value in what he says.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76752915555670146922013-05-13T20:46:22.321-07:002013-05-13T20:46:22.321-07:00After hanging around FTB and idolizing PZ Myers, i...<i>After hanging around FTB and idolizing PZ Myers, it's no wonder he has such a confused and jaded view of skepticism. <b>He's not skeptical enough to question the views of his idol</b> or to make a real attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff.</i><br /><br />:DCrudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85970459854797160272013-05-13T20:45:04.976-07:002013-05-13T20:45:04.976-07:00After hanging around FTB and idolizing PZ Myers, i...After hanging around FTB and idolizing PZ Myers, it's no wonder he has such a confused and jaded view of skepticism. He's not skeptical enough to question the views of his idol or to make a real attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12344142061010092812013-05-13T19:02:56.357-07:002013-05-13T19:02:56.357-07:00Martin, you bring in a writer.to support your clai...Martin, you bring in a writer.to support your claim. Why is that? What is his background that stands as the benchmark against which all skepticism is assessed? Simply because you agree with his sentiments does not constitute an earth-shattering revelation of any merit it worth. In reading through his blog the man seems to be a contrarian for all the wrong reasons, And voices them accordingly.<br /><br />SheeshPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29163196760287981882013-05-13T15:37:12.055-07:002013-05-13T15:37:12.055-07:00>Maudlin is pretty much protecting
You never s...>Maudlin is pretty much protecting<br /><br />You never say anything even remotely related to the point in question.<br /><br />The point is that Hawking is incorrect that philosophy has not kept up with science, as explained by Maudlin.<br /><br />>No discoveries in cosmology or physics or astronomy etc to my knowledge has come from philosophy.<br /><br />Yes, that's right, because that is the domain of science, not philosophy. Hey! What recent cosmological discoveries has Art and Literature Criticism come up with recently?!<br /><br />>Where philosophy has soiled its own nest is its persistence in some quarters to continue to peddle the existence of a supernatural<br /><br />In other words, there is no supernatural world...why? Because physics has either shown that there is not, or because it has been interpreted that way. Either way, a philosophical conclusion. No one has ever been able to give a satisfactory definition of natural and supernatural anyway so honestly I have no idea what you've even said here.<br /><br />I love watching you naive (not logical!) positivists burn the branches you are sitting on, completely unaware you are doing so, and completely unaware you are peddling a philosophy which was refuted 60 years ago, LOL! <br /><br /><a href="http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html" rel="nofollow">This guy</a> words it better than I ever could: <br /><br />"One reason you don't hear about positivism often in skeptic circles is that skeptics have no time for philosophy; many skeptics hate and fear it. It's the skeptic Kryptonite. As a fundamental, rigorous, intellectually respectable but defiantly non-scientific discipline, philosophy makes a lot of skeptics feel threatened. <br /><br />"Skeptics are like a naval fortress, with weapons fixed to sea; while they regard themselves invulnerable against fleets of art grads, paranormalists, and true believers, they know that philosophers can strike them freely in their defenceless rear. Little wonder that philosophers bring out their inferiority complex."<br /><br />I think that's right. That's why so many "skeptics" lash out when philosophy is discussed. They were comfortable in their positivism, thinking they had the world all figured out! LOL!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63944571459483300282013-05-13T15:35:29.675-07:002013-05-13T15:35:29.675-07:00In the second article from Martin from 'Philos...In the second article from Martin from 'Philosophy Now', is Chris Norris, the writer of the article a philosopher defending philosophy or a scientist defending philosophy?<br /><br />He [Norris] does reach a reasonable conclusion that in that philosophy needs to get its act together and weed out the half-baked philosophy that pervades the discipline.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62721283384273937282013-05-13T15:25:54.251-07:002013-05-13T15:25:54.251-07:00There is nothing in the Maudlin interview [from Ma...There is nothing in the Maudlin interview [from Martin at May 13, 2013 7:50 AM] that suggests Hawking has got it wrong. No discoveries in cosmology or physics or astronomy etc to my knowledge has come from philosophy. Philosophy is an appended second-order discipline that 'interprets' scientific discoveries, at which time the bun-fight starts between the various interpretations. Maudlin is pretty much protecting his patch of academia which is what one would be expected to do but it doesn't take away Hawking's frustration at philosophers imagining they are at the forefront of science.<br /><br />So I wouldn't take too much from the bit of professional resentment that goes on. Where philosophy has soiled its own nest is its persistence in some quarters to continue to peddle the existence of a supernatural netherworld replete with a cornucopia of putative live entities capable of physical intervention in the natural world on the odd occasion when one takes a fancy to do so.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44791099883242996302013-05-13T15:21:31.827-07:002013-05-13T15:21:31.827-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87493805180268426192013-05-13T12:43:22.481-07:002013-05-13T12:43:22.481-07:00I notice you say nothing about the philosopher of ...I notice you say nothing about the philosopher of cosmology who notes that Hawking actually describes the exact opposite of reality: that "the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists."<br /><br />>"What he actually argues for is removal of the barriers that have stood so long between the fields of science and philosophy. His admiration of modern physics has to do with its ability to answer not just "how" questions but also "why" questions."<br /><br />Which are all philosophical considerations. Which is dead. So dissolving the barriers is not open to him because philosophy is dead.<br /><br />In fact, his model-dependent realism is a sort of Kantian idealism, where they split the world into phenomenal and noumenal realms. All philosophy, of course. <a href="http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy" rel="nofollow">From Philosophy Now</a>:<br /><br />"Here Hawking’s argument shows all the signs of a rudderless drifting between various positions adopted by different philosophers from Kant to the present.... So if Hawking is right to charge some philosophers with a culpable ignorance of science then there is room for a polite but firm tu quoque, whether phrased in terms of pots calling kettles black or boots on other feet. For it is equally the case that hostility or indifference toward philosophy can sometimes lead scientists, especially those with a strong speculative bent, not only to reinvent the wheel but to produce wheels that don’t track straight and consequently tend to upset the vehicle."<br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57811212991901541542013-05-13T11:49:36.908-07:002013-05-13T11:49:36.908-07:00Martin,
I haven't read the book by Hawking, b...Martin,<br /><br />I haven't read the book by Hawking, but I suspect your interpretation of it is not precisely what he intended. This is what reviewer John Wojcik says: "What he actually argues for is removal of the barriers that have stood so long between the fields of science and philosophy. His admiration of modern physics has to do with its ability to answer not just "how" questions but also "why" questions."<br /><br />http://www.peoplesworld.org/philosophy-is-dead-asserts-stephen-hawking-in-new-book/<br /><br />So then you twist his logic so badly that it doesn't represent anything he says or thinks. Typical. The cognitive dissonance is all yours (or at least it should be.) Come on, we're talking about someone who has a brilliant mind. Even if he isn't a philosopher, you should give him a little credit. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53978235569467953532013-05-13T07:50:00.057-07:002013-05-13T07:50:00.057-07:00>And who would know better than he?
People who...>And who would know better than he?<br /><br />People who, I don't know, DO philosophy of science. Hawking is a physicist, not a philosopher, and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a philosopher of physics who says: <br /><br />"Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just... uninformed." <br /><br />In fact, though, it's even worse than that. For Hawking's book The Grand Design is a defense of <i>model-dependent realism</i>, the view that we can never know reality itself; we can only know our models and how well they match up with reality. Now, that may well be true (or not). But the point is is that it is a prime example of...guess what? Epistemology. <br /><br />So per Hawking:<br /><br />1. Philosophy is dead<br />2. Here is my philosophy "model-dependent realism"<br />3. But since philosophy is dead, my model-dependent realism is dead<br />4. But it isn't dead because I defend it in my book<br />5. So model-dependent realism is simultaneously A) dead, and B) not dead<br /><br />It's amazing that such cognitive dissonance is possible in someone so brilliant, but there it is. I think he just used up all his skill points on "physics" when he was creating his RPG character, and now there isn't any left for anything else.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82019702312820152262013-05-13T06:59:41.949-07:002013-05-13T06:59:41.949-07:00"Every time I read academic philosophy, the a..."Every time I read academic philosophy, the author always seems to be hyper aware of what is going on in science."<br /><br />What I see is that SOME philosophers are aware of scientific advances, and MANY philosophers THINK they are, and pat themselves on the back for being so much smarter than everyone else. But this article isn't about recent advances in science. It's about ignorance. Law, like many other philosophers, piles on Dawkins for his philosophical ignorance. But he himself is ignorant of some pretty basic principles of science.<br /><br />As for Hawking, there may be some philosophers who have kept up with recent advances in physics, but in general I suspect he's quite correct. And who would know better than he?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59610399749623661082013-05-13T06:35:21.137-07:002013-05-13T06:35:21.137-07:00im-skeptical,
I see the opposite. Every time I re...im-skeptical,<br /><br />I see the opposite. Every time I read academic philosophy, the author always seems to be hyper aware of what is going on in science. But when I read science, like Hawking, he seems to be clueless as to what is going on in philosophy, saying silly things like "philosophy has not kept up with physics", which is just absurd if you are familiar with the literature. The only way he can say that is by simply not reading.That's the only way for him to maintain that false belief.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13080138435702446692013-05-13T05:40:13.628-07:002013-05-13T05:40:13.628-07:00The original post seems right. Whatever we call it...The original post seems right. Whatever we call it, everyon should agree that there is a place for sustained critical, rational thinking about things. Philosophy proper does have the tendncy to be destrucgive and critical, not constructive or generate positive stable results. But that is just a tendency, and there are constructive aspects, even if still somewhat contentious... E.g., look at Thomas Berry (theology), Rawls on justice, Russell's Principia, Putnam's Twin Earth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76008273243996198742013-05-12T20:25:26.913-07:002013-05-12T20:25:26.913-07:00Doug
"It doesn't matter that I'm post...Doug<br /><i>"It doesn't matter that I'm posting on a Christian blog. You're posting here too. Does that mean we should interpret your comments in the context of Christianity? "</i><br /><br />Yes, but rather through the context of a-christianity. I have no beef with philosophy per se. And I have no beef with the links between philosophy and science. It is a mistake to imagine science as beholden to philosophy to explain scientific research and discoveries. And because logic is at the centre of science activity does not translate to science being a subset of philosophy. <br /><br />Philosophy is a second order intellectual activity. This can be best illustrated in how philosophy can be used to 'justify' supernaturalism while concurrently demonstrating supernaturalism as a figment. The use of logic as a process cannot in and of itself identify truth or otherwise of a proposition. Indeed a false initial premise can proceed, engaging all the constraints and conditions of logic and still arrive at a false conclusion that is logical. The false outcome complies with logic but remains false. <br /><br /><i>"A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the <b>logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises"</b></i> Wiki<br /><br />Here are some pearler arguments. All follow the rules of logic. All are tendentious:<br /><br /><i>"God is defined as the most perfect being. A perfect being must have every trait or property that it's better to have than not to have. It is better to exist than not to exist. Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />Hillary Clinton must be a communist spy. She supports socialized health care, and everyone who supports socialized health care is a communist spy.<br /><br />It has rained more than 15 inches per year in Amherst every year for the past 30 years. So you can safely bet it will rain more than 15 inches in Amherst this year. <br /><br />The Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on symbiosis. It stands to reason that the Encyclopedia Americana has an article on symbiosis as well, since the two reference works tend to cover the same topics.<br /><br />Jason isn't an NRA member. Almost 90% of NRA members are republicans, and Jason isn't a republican."</i><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53167982435004123922013-05-12T19:30:28.377-07:002013-05-12T19:30:28.377-07:00Martin,
"I think this is the fundamental pro...Martin,<br /><br />"I think this is the fundamental problem with this whole rejection of philosophy thing. They think of philosophy as competing with science, as trying to do the same thing that science does."<br /><br />The problem that I see is not a rejection of philosophy by scientists so much as a rejection of science by philosophers. I don't think there should be any division between them. They should work together to seek truth and knowledge. A philosopher should no more feel superior to scientists than a chemist feels superior to a mathematician. (I'm not aware of any such feelings.)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79355857174110775332013-05-12T18:44:37.280-07:002013-05-12T18:44:37.280-07:00Martin,
It just deals with a more abstract topic,...Martin,<br /><br /><i>It just deals with a more abstract topic, and so is much more difficult to get definitive answers on things. Think of ethics. </i><br /><br />You can even <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXZHIRt_oKI/AAAAAAAAAFw/j6kmhIdEQTI/s1600-h/ATHEIST+LOGIC.jpg" rel="nofollow">do it within science itself</a>.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89376086974785449772013-05-12T18:23:14.056-07:002013-05-12T18:23:14.056-07:00im-skeptical,
>Here's an experiment for yo...im-skeptical,<br /><br />>Here's an experiment for you.<br /><br />I think this is the fundamental problem with this whole rejection of philosophy thing. They think of philosophy as competing with science, as trying to do the same thing that science does. But it isn't. <br /><br />>But I have come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that philosophy is incapable of providing definitive answers on any topic.<br /><br />It just deals with a more abstract topic, and so is much more difficult to get definitive answers on things. Think of ethics. There is no agreement on whether ethical questions are objective or subjectve, and if objective, whether deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics is the correct answer. Why? Because the topic is much more abstract. You can't reach out and measure moral values with a scale, thus proving something definitely one way or another. <br /><br />It's just the nature of the topic. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51992569485959718092013-05-12T18:18:00.496-07:002013-05-12T18:18:00.496-07:00It doesn't matter that I'm posting on a Ch...It doesn't matter that I'm posting on a Christian blog. You're posting here too. Does that mean we should interpret your comments in the context of Christianity? Hardly. My point about science presupposing philosophy would be true if I were a Taoist, a Muslim, a Zoroastrian, or even an atheist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62619795873670599332013-05-12T17:56:34.145-07:002013-05-12T17:56:34.145-07:00Doug
"Papalinton, you're going on and on ...Doug<br /><i>"Papalinton, you're going on and on about theology, when I never even brought it up. Science presupposes logic, and logic is a branch of philosophy. Therefore, science presupposes philosophy. That's all I claimed. Theistic implications are another matter entirely."</i><br /><br />In an acontextual setting your account is half-right. But one could just as easily presuppose that since you are commenting on a philosophical site dedicated to the promulgation of Christian thinking and christian truths [particularly C S Lewis], it would be fair to presuppose that theology figures highly in informing your comment. I make no concession about atheism being anything other than a close informing principle. Why do you and other christians repeatedly abjure from conceding religion plays a fundamental role in your philosophical musings? <br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84551311414443269212013-05-12T17:37:31.235-07:002013-05-12T17:37:31.235-07:00Philosophy is a method of ordered thinking, a proc...Philosophy is a method of ordered thinking, a process set down according to prescribed rules and conventions. in earlier times the Greek philosophers developed philosophy as a means of explaining the natural world around them and their relationship to it. Later it was appropriated and commandeered by Christian theology at which point it sauntered off seeking to establish a causal link between the supernatural and natural world. It was used to 'justify' the inexplicable, the ineffable, unknowable and the unseen nature of gods and godworld. One need only to read the Platonism of Augustine or the Aristotelianism of Aquinas to appreciate how Christianity itself was quite differently perceived. Today philosophy supervenes science. <br /><br />Today we speak of the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of education. etc etc. It continues to supervene the properly basic areas of investigation and discovery. In and of itself philosophy does not discover new knowledge or information. It manipulates existing information into lines of thought that are not truths in themselves but rather according to the parameters in which that knowledge and information is defined. That is why there are as many pro philosophers as there are con philosophers on any one subject. <br /><br />It seems to me that philosophy has come full circle from the days of the Greek atomists and physicos to today's scientifically-informed philosophers, grounding their supervening powers in the natural world. Of course philosophical outliers such as Feser and Plantiga and NT Wright continue the tradition of engaging in 'philosophy unplugged'.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89044766282527126132013-05-12T16:49:20.589-07:002013-05-12T16:49:20.589-07:00Papalinton, you're going on and on about theol...Papalinton, you're going on and on about theology, when I never even brought it up. Science presupposes logic, and logic is a branch of philosophy. Therefore, science presupposes philosophy. That's all I claimed. Theistic implications are another matter entirely.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78443287640862111182013-05-12T13:31:00.619-07:002013-05-12T13:31:00.619-07:00Here's an experiment for you. Take three philo...<i>Here's an experiment for you. Take three philosophers who know nothing about science and ask them to solve a problem in optics involving refraction and reflection. I bet you'll get three different results, all based on 'sound' logic. And those three will argue among themselves about which one is right.</i><br /><br />Damn it, Dan beat me to the punch here. I mean, what exactly is this supposed to prove? That specialists in one field tend not to do real good work other fields that they are not trained in? We already knew that; after all, we have discussed a certain zoologist's butchering of history, philosophy and theology several times on this site. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com