Philosophy is Dead

@north,

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.

2 Replies

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.

it is not efficacy that philosophy comes into play at all but the interpretation of the empiricism of the evidence that does

1 Reply

@Chumly,

...that one is funny ! What do you think is the rational fundament for empiricism in the first place ???

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Thanks for your rejoinder on Bohr. I was not referring to "the Bohr atom", only to his celebrated comments on the inapplicability of classical logic in quantum mechanics.

You think I have a bias to some sort of "belief system", but other than questioning "duality" I don't know what you mean. Surely that's like accusing an atheist of having a "belief system" ?

Allow me to recommend to you the Berkeley lectures on the history of modern physics (if I have not already done so).

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

I agree. Science and philosophy are very interrelated fields, especially physics, which used to be known as natural philosophy. This is why I'm so surprised by Hawking's statement.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...that one is funny ! What do you think is the rational fundament for empiricism in the first place ???

I would like a shot at this answer: It is because what works can always be seen as reasonable... Observation is essentially our only source of knowledge of moral forms and of the social forms we create out of them... How could we possibly deny to ourselves this sole source of knowledge only because we cannot prove its value in advance of its successful use???

0 Replies

kennethamy wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.

demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy

I challenge you (or anyone else) to tell me what that means.

1 Reply

@The Outsider,

The Outsider wrote:

I agree. Science and philosophy are very interrelated fields, especially physics, which used to be known as natural philosophy. This is why I'm so surprised by Hawking's statement.

They are not interrelated, but are the same subject, as you say, natural philosophy, as opposed to what??? Metaphysics or theology??? Those notions I hope have been banished from true philosophy, which is physics, but no person can think to understand man or mankind without reference to moral forms that are part and parcel of metaphysic and theology... I am not saying that the speicific ideas addressed in metphysics and theology have any power or reality, but for the fact that people hold them as real they are as real as those people who hold them, and must be considered to understand mankind and our morals... So moral philosophy having none of the tools or methods of physical philosophy is the parent of all philosophy, and unlike physics is impossible to master in any sense of the word... Can you see where I come by my conclusion??? Mankind used to invoke the powers of God to control nature, and now invoke knowledge to control nature, but they have not, in doing this, banished God from the imaginations or men, and in part because people do no see the benefit of science but are called upon to sacrifice for it, and suffer from it, and know no less of fear or insecurity because of science...

Too much of science has been turned to private wealth and public poverty, and too much of knowledge has been turned to national coercion and international war... People should have long ago freed themselves of the burden of belief, and instead are driven by necessity deeper into their beliefs, and hopes, wishes, and desires... Science was once our hope and is now our curse and it has driven us into a deeper dependence on what should be, by now, a long dead hope that we could actually in some fashion control our own destinies by spiritual means...

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.

demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy

I challenge you (or anyone else) to tell me what that means.

Its meaning cannot be told, but can only be presumed... It is like reaching for a coil of rope and finding your self in possession of a snake... You may think you have it only to find it has you...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Thanks for your rejoinder on Bohr. I was not referring to "the Bohr atom", only to his celebrated comments on the inapplicability of classical logic in quantum mechanics.

You think I have a bias to some sort of "belief system", but other than questioning "duality" I don't know what you mean. Surely that's like accusing an atheist of having a "belief system" ?

Allow me to recommend to you the Berkeley lectures on the history of modern physics (if I have not already done so).

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

Yes much thanks I have seen it at your prior recommendation. The belief system you appear to have adopted is one in which modern particle physics gives you grounds to believe that your perceptions (or for that matter other's agreements) will alter the characteristics of entropy (for example).

1 Reply

@The Outsider,

The Outsider wrote:

I agree. Science and philosophy are very interrelated fields, especially physics, which used to be known as natural philosophy. This is why I'm so surprised by Hawking's statement.

Astronomy used to be astrology, and chemistry used to be alchemy. And what is that supposed to show? About the same thing that the fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy shows. Namely, that the origins of something need have nothing to do with what it is.

Hawkin's statement may be surprising, but that Hawkin made it is not. He frequently talks about things he does not know anything about. He appears to think that his credentials as a physicist extend to all other subject matters.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I challenge you to demonstrate via empiricism that the scientific method has a requirement for a philosophy in order to provide efficacy. Sorry but acronyms will be of little avail. Good luck you're gonna need it.

it is not efficacy that philosophy comes into play at all but the interpretation of the empiricism of the evidence that does

If you are suggesting that philosophy is a requirement for so-called "interpretation of the empiricism of the evidence" you have made no substantive argument to support such a claim, let alone to demonstrate said claim via empiricism.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

I'm interested by what you mean by my lack of science. Is that to say my lack of knowledge in science? Or something different? I lack knowledge of many things, I assure you. Very Happy

It is not my intention to actively defend Nietzsche. I have read a fair amount of his works, but wouldn't assume to fully understand his thought. I am not however convinced that he enabled Nazism or their application of eugenics.

Where did Nietzsche state that he agreed with the study of eugenics? Where is the Ubermensch stated to be a racially defined ideal? I mean these as honest questions; I have not come across these ideas in my readings.

Much of what I have read of Nietzsche seems contrary to Nazi sentiment. He states in the foreword to "The Anti-Christ" that his readers should be above politics and nationalism. He was very anti-German. As he states in his autobiography, "So far, they [the Germans] have compromised themselves in relation to me; I doubt that in future they will do any better."

I'm in the dark as to what you mean by Wittgenstein's "keep your mouth shut" philosophy, unless this is a misguided allusion to his seventh proposition.

These are the reasons I do not understand your statements. I would be happy to be enlightened.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Quote:

The belief system you appear to have adopted is one in which modern particle physics gives you grounds to believe that your perceptions (or for that matter other's agreements) will alter the characteristics of entropy (for example).

Not quite. QM indicates that the observer cannot be separated from the observed. The "observation event" is a conjoint one ontologically speaking, but this does not preclude agreement between "like" observers about the nature of such events. Thus there may universal agreement about "increasing entropy". However, "entropy" per se is still a function of "human observer states" in as much that "disorder" is a cognitive concept relative to "order". Without "observers/pattern perceivers" entropy would be meaningless.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Wow. I'm not sure where that came from. Maybe we're not communicating very well. Let me try to clearer.

I say "natural philosophy" (which is of course what the course of study that was the precursor to the modern natural sciences such as physics was called in universities) meaning a particular focus within the general subject of philosophy. Other foci would include ethics, logic, epistomology, aesthetics, political philosophy, etc.

Science and philosophy stem from the same basic question. They are both attempts to understand the world. But these two subjects in modern times are differentiated by their goals. Science seeks answers. I suspect this is why scientists are so often frustrated with philosophers and their seeming inablity to produce answers. Philosophy seeks to understand the basis of the question itself. Why are we asking this question? Is there a reason in pursuing this question? What exactly do we define as reason? ... I'll stop there.

Take the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The scientific answer is to go out, devise a method for testing the proposition and a few weeks later you'll come back and announce, "Well, we've got our answers for birch and hickory, but further investigation is needed for maple." The philosphical response, however, "How do you define sound?"

3 Replies

@The Outsider,

Quote:

Take the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The scientific answer is to go out, devise a method for testing the proposition and a few weeks later you'll come back and announce, "Well, we've got our answers for birch and hickory, but further investigation is needed for maple." The philosphical response, however, "How do you define sound?"

I don't particularly want to get int your dialogue with Fido, but your physicist-philosopher division falls apart immediately when you consider Einstein's "thought experiments" about "time" which lead to relativity and beyond. The significant point is that "progress" in physics is being advanced "by the mind"...experiment is trails in its wake and many physicists don't get their hands dirty.

2 Replies

@The Outsider,

The Khyber Pass was there and not meant as an invasion route to India but it was used by invaders to invade India. It is associated with India and invasion. Similarly, Nietzsche will be associated with Nazism. There is biographical information that shows he was linked with the movement. Anyway, like the Khyber Pass and India, he will be linked with Nazism. Ubermensch has an undercurrent of racism. As I pointed out DNA shows there is no such thing as race. But your deductive powers do not allow you to see the steps Ubermensch leading to Nazism. I am sorry for you.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Take the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The scientific answer is to go out, devise a method for testing the proposition and a few weeks later you'll come back and announce, "Well, we've got our answers for birch and hickory, but further investigation is needed for maple." The philosphical response, however, "How do you define sound?"

I don't particularly want to get int your dialogue with Fido, but your physicist-philosopher division falls apart immediately when you consider Einstein's "thought experiments" about "time" which lead to relativity and beyond. The significant point is that "progress" in physics is being advanced "by the mind"...experiment is trails in its wake and many physicists don't get their hands dirty.

I personally think that "thought experiments" belong to philosophy. Einstein reportedly recognized a need for scientists to understand epistemological issues and even moral issues.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

Wandel, Good point.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I agree with Einstein when he said 'God does not play dice'. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Hypothesis only confirms our current inability to observe subatomic particles so he resorted statistics to guess the location of electrons, etc. Of course, the nature of electron is uncertain. Is it a particle or another manifestation of energy after all electricity is moving electrons.

0 Replies

Philosophy is Dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know