tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1089793401363692640..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On the difference between science and philosophyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68577741525993285182013-07-25T20:22:01.064-04:002013-07-25T20:22:01.064-04:00The certainty that people feel a theory has does n...The certainty that people feel a theory has does not make that theory more than tentative.<br /><br />The last clause is fitting; there is a dogmatic streak in any enterprise in which human self-esteem is at stake. That is why it is important that the institutions of science are open to all criticism, even if individuals aren't.Crawshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170908226986136752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84796793138052465082012-04-27T13:12:21.151-04:002012-04-27T13:12:21.151-04:00"Scientific theories are always tentative ......"Scientific theories are always tentative ..." If you believe this, try to convince physicists that the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations should be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where dark-matter-compensation-constant is approximately sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^-5 . It is like trying to convince the Pope that Judaism is better than Catholicism.David Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10537922851243581921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9213671612410026502011-01-10T08:50:13.421-05:002011-01-10T08:50:13.421-05:00scadza, my point is that Harris has done no such t...scadza, my point is that Harris has done no such thing at all because moral questions are not the sort of questions that can be decided on empirical grounds. Science can help us making decisions about specific courses of action, but what kind of action we want to take depends on our values.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64056340382166282472011-01-10T00:30:38.270-05:002011-01-10T00:30:38.270-05:00I think Sam Harris is trying to close the gap betw...I think Sam Harris is trying to close the gap between Science and Morality. And he is doing a nice job at it.<br />By defining that morality means as a landscape over which the humanity moves, he illustrates that there are right and wrong answers for moral questions.<br /><br />This advancement would not have come if Sam Harris would not have background in Philosophy. He has brought the morality debate into purview of science.scadzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04733361617492050871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56159412963884419832010-03-17T13:32:00.586-04:002010-03-17T13:32:00.586-04:00I hope you will forgive me for being blunt.
My at...I hope you will forgive me for being blunt.<br /><br />My attitude can be summed up like this:<br /><br />If all the scientists in the world die, we will suffer.<br /><br />If all the philosophers in the world die, big deal!<br /><br /><br />There must be something wrong with philosophy when the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is cause for debate. Why angels? Why not Teletubbies?<br /><br />Science, on the other hand, relies on demonstrable data, logic, and reasoning. Unlike philosophy, it contributes many wonderful inventions to the world. You don't even need to study philosophy to think logically or choose between good and evil. Science makes things work, whereas philosophy is very often just intellectual masturbation. Instead of wasting four years in a university poring over long-winded drivel and obfuscating paragraphs, why not devote your time to becoming an engineer or a doctor? Wouldn't that be more productive?<br /><br /><br />(By the way, I am an atheist.)The Philistine!https://www.blogger.com/profile/11651854848275370677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10957821010926113362010-02-03T17:44:27.006-05:002010-02-03T17:44:27.006-05:00@Nick Barrowman:
Thanks for the reference! I read...@Nick Barrowman:<br /><br />Thanks for the reference! I read the article on Midgley.<br /><br />Frankly, though, I don't see any real critique in it, besides what seems to be a misunderstanding of Wilson. But I suppose it is a second-generation source. I'll look into Midgley further if she's worth it.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44737301767590501732010-01-28T13:22:50.976-05:002010-01-28T13:22:50.976-05:00Mary Midgley has written critically about some of ...Mary Midgley has written critically about some of E.O. Wilson's ideas. A blog post that touches on this is <a href="http://joelinker.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/e-o-wilson%E2%80%99s-happy-ant-in-mary-midgley%E2%80%99s-primate-picnic/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80425097956355124162010-01-27T14:24:59.915-05:002010-01-27T14:24:59.915-05:00I am a fan of EO Wilson's idea of consilience,...I am a fan of EO Wilson's idea of consilience, so I was surprised first to read of him in Massimo's post as a proponent of scientism, then to see a "defense" of his ideas by somebody who sees them as a club to hit the arts faculty with.<br /><br />Inevitably, we hit upon the cardinal sin of "reductionism"... I wanted, though, to ask seriously if there is a more in-depth critique of Wilson's programme somewhere that I ought to read.<br /><br />Thanks, and sorry for this being an old thread.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15201402476158551112009-12-12T10:41:07.509-05:002009-12-12T10:41:07.509-05:00test,
non-physicalism is very different from Cart...test,<br /><br />non-physicalism is very different from Cartesian dualism, so my point stands.<br /><br />Besides, the fact that *only* 27% of philosophers consider non-physicalism (it used to be close to 100%) still means progress. You know, there are scientists who still don't accept evolution...<br /><br />Incidentally, I find non-physicalism an ill-defined and almost downright silly position, but that's my opinion...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21825793609872343852009-12-12T08:13:20.039-05:002009-12-12T08:13:20.039-05:00Professor, you said that no professional philosoph...Professor, you said that no professional philosopher considers himself/herself a Cartesian dualist anymore. But a recent survey by conducted David Chalmers showed that 27% of professional philosophers selected "non-physicalism" when asked about the mind. Granted that non-physicalism is probably technically not the same as Cartesian dualism, but 1. 27% is a very large number. 2. non-physicalism is still very close to dualism. Doesn't it demonstrate that the progress of philosophy, if at all, is very very slow?scitationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01303760032343125161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59555838062134911492009-11-26T09:36:21.280-05:002009-11-26T09:36:21.280-05:00Luke,
I stand by my column and general commentary...Luke,<br /><br />I stand by my column and general commentary on E.O. Wilson, and I certainly don't like Pinker's take an iota more. Again, I think Dennett is more nuanced about it.<br /><br />It seems to me that these people's ideas of "consilience" is a thinly veiled scientistic reduction of the humanities (including philosophy, which I actually see as hovering between humanities and sciences) into the sciences, particularly the biological ones. (And yes, this is not at all what Whewell had in mind.)<br /><br />Pinker's misunderstanding of Gould would be comical, if it weren't for the fact that Pinker is one of the most influential scientist-intellectuals at the moment, not a comedian.<br /><br />As for D.S. Wilson, he co-wrote a paper for the Quarterly Review of Biology recently, for which I was the editor, in which he brought E.O. much closer to sanity (then again, I don't really know how much of the paper E.O. contributed to). Still, I have my own disagreements about D.S.'s over-emphasis on what Dawkins (ironically!) would call "universal Darwinism." I'm going to give a seminar at Binghamton next week, and I'll spend a lot of time with D.S.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9168168120304518982009-11-26T00:09:39.060-05:002009-11-26T00:09:39.060-05:00Hey, the J up there wasn't me. Just to clarify...Hey, the J up there wasn't me. Just to clarify. Damn, I gotta get a more unique handle...<br /><br />I like this "last Thursdayism" thing, if it is what I suppose it is (world created last Thursday, and set up to look like it was very old, fabricated memories and all?). I think I'll convert to that. After all, no one can prove me wrong... :-PJ. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28827700651868678252009-11-25T20:32:04.947-05:002009-11-25T20:32:04.947-05:00I want to add my personal opinion of Edge.org.
I ...I want to add my personal opinion of Edge.org.<br /><br />I like Edge, always have. I was a major advocate of the site. However, I have changed my opinion of Edge considerably. First thing I notice is the in-group mentality has taken over to a disturbing point. Here, I am mostly irritated by the lack of scope brought to scientific understandings and has been greatly replaced with a core ideal that reflects Brockman's and a few others agenda. In this way I find it a potential force against free and open inquiry. At times I will want to shout that what was started as a wonderful contribution is nothing more than an elitist club that is horribly naive in scope and forethought. <br /><br />To many scientific sites are slowly falling into the trap of bias while both neglecting to outline that bias and offerings are limited to either confirmational information gathering or outlets to scorn opposing scientific views (of course I am *not* arguing bias is inherently bad). I have come to the conclusion a contributing factor to my observation is an agenda of an atheistic belief system which wishes to maintain a certain protocol, or agenda. <br /><br />I would add that I am an "atheist", and in no way can be pigeon holed into an "atheist, but..." argument or anything of the sort.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69912262134395242212009-11-25T20:14:53.909-05:002009-11-25T20:14:53.909-05:00I apologize for my poorly written comment above, a...I apologize for my poorly written comment above, and for my choice of certain words.<br /><br />Massimo,<br /><br />In your essay from Skeptical Inquirer (SI); Toward A Consilience of Sciences and Humanities, you take E.O. Wilson to task for what you consider his scientistic attitude, in deed, to the point of arguing it is in part responsible for the popularity of the postmodernist movement (Something you offer no evidence for by the way). So, therefore we have the two extremes of where science supposedly lies to these sides. <br /><br />It's true what you say about the difficulty between the two cultures, science and the humanities. However, it appears you may be pushing E.O. Wilson a bit to far to one side (while blaming him for the other) by saying how he is misrepresenting Whewell's "consilience" (one example of course). Wouldn't be easier to just recognize E.O. was creating a framework from which to work from and there is no need for devout literalism here? <br /><br />I think you're overstating as much as Glass has. Your article, which I just dug up from my stack of SI's, reminds me also that you should do a blog on morality and science.<br /><br />I think we are all saying the same thing and emphasis appears to be clouding judgment and that goes for both sides. The problem of emphasis has been around in many scientific discussion, especially between the sciences and the humanities. <br /><br />Take for instance the bloated debates between Stephen J. Gould and Dennett/Dawkins. Dennett was so confused by Gould's argument in Wonderful Life that he mislabeled the argument in the title of his own essay in reply, ""Tinker to Evers to Chance", of course missing that it's not about chance per se and contingency is not taking over. Or even Pinker confusing Gould's skepticism of EP, even recently (on edge.org strangely enough) he stated Gould would not accept EP at any level, this is not true and Gould, in the same way he stated repeatedly that when he said replay the tape a million times and we won't get Homo Sapiens and still Dennett got it wrong, he also said EP showed great potential and would most likely bare fruit. <br /><br />Again, what it appears to be happening in these debates, or whatever they are, is manly based on emphasis, but that is not to say both sides are right. It only recognizes how easily it can be to overlook the obvious when beliefs are challenged. <br /><br />I noticed in a blog from around the time of you SI essay had mentioned David Sloan Wilson (made sure you noted he wasn't E.O. - BTW, link is broken in that blogpost). However, David Wilson has been talking a great deal about bridging the humanities and science. Take a look at his Evos program and his treating religion as a natural phenomena, that's exactly what Dennett is basically saying. You paint E.O. Wilson as holding religion as purely biological (reducing everything to biology), and you of course recognize it must be for the most part given everything is, but you don't really argue that E.O. is off base. What you do do is lead into a discussion of morality and finish saying that it's wrong to hold that biology can give us a "satisifactory account of the panoply of current and historical ethical norms across societies". <br /><br />However, that quote above may make a good reply to a Sam Harris type scientism, but I fail to see E.O. Wilson goes that far, and in fact, E.O. and David Wilson seem very much on the same page in this regard. <br /><br />Here's a quote from <b>David's Evos</b> web site:<br /><br />~ "<b>BU’s Evolutionary Studies Program is the first of its kind to teach evolution in a truly integrated fashion, beginning with core principles and extending in all directions, from the biological sciences to all aspects of humanity, including the nature of religion</b>" <br /><br />I'll return to this topic later once I get some replies in so I know what the hell is going on.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71457424283655384202009-11-25T19:12:24.522-05:002009-11-25T19:12:24.522-05:00Hold on a second here, jesus, people running amok....Hold on a second here, jesus, people running amok.<br /><br />Massimo, are you telling me you're not aware of edge.org?<br /><br />Glass' depiction of Edge is craziness, almost hard to describe off base. <br /><br />~ "3rd culture posits that science through neuroscience and complex systems science will encompass the humanities as we know it and render it toothless and obsolete."<br /><br />Encompass the humanities? = B.S.<br />Render it toothless and obsolete? = B.S.<br /><br />Massimo wrote:<br /><br />~ "The only name that surprises me there is Dennett, who is usually more sophisticated than the rest of the bunch."<br /><br />That's wildly dissapointing, taking the absurd description by Glass, this is the person it would surprise to find to want to do that? What about E.O. Wilson, the person who wrote the book, Consilience? Dennet has offered idea about bridging the Humanities with science in much the same way as David Sloan Wilson and Mike Shermer (who offers the idea that history can be scientific, and I agree). <br /><br />I really don't understand what's going on these days. The idea here is to bridge the humanities with more proven scientific approaches etc., not to make the humanities "toothless", quite the contrary! And yes, Philosophy is in the Humanities dept, as well as Law, Literature and many others. Of course Pinker wants to bridge Humanities, given is interest in Language and using a scientific evolutionary approach - Massimo, surely you know this. <br /><br />Unless I'm misreading people here, I'm really taken by surprise.<br /><br />I'll respond more if someone responds to be setting me straight on this. Clearly we can bring a more scientific approach to music, but I'll be fucking damned if the quest here by whack-jobs is to argue to make it "toothless" and "obsolete". <br /> <br />My understanding of E.O.Wilson's, Pinker's and Dennett's as well as David Sloan Wilson, Shermer and others is to bridge the cultures which will enhance both the sciences and the Humanities. <br /><br />Massimo, you've been arguing for a scientifically informed ideal, including with Philosophy, surely you're not abandoning that in the face of some crazy talk? <br /><br />One last note, this is the kind of thing I've been referring to on many sites. There are people who are either generally new and heavily influenced by a few newer books by "new atheist" or are older and can't let go of obscene biases that are talking huge amounts of uninformed, "group think", bad propaganda, bullshit. <br /><br />Glad I'm back from break, need to go longer!Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87559181864221411072009-11-25T04:55:00.948-05:002009-11-25T04:55:00.948-05:00Massimo,
I've found this post only now throu...Massimo, <br /><br />I've found this post only now through a long twitter chain: I mostly agree with what you say and I would like to address you to a recent post of mine where I touch precisely the same topic, in particulare dealing with the 'speculative' dimension of both science and philosophy [http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/speculative-science-and-speculative-philosophy/] Cheers, FabioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33004274935196543802009-11-25T00:26:39.784-05:002009-11-25T00:26:39.784-05:00"Sounds good at first sight."
Synesthes..."Sounds good at first sight."<br /><br />Synesthesia?<br /><br />;)perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71888819983211718322009-11-24T03:56:04.026-05:002009-11-24T03:56:04.026-05:00perspicio:
Sounds good at first sight.
Glass:
S...perspicio:<br /><br />Sounds good at first sight.<br /><br />Glass:<br /><br />Sorry, sounds garbled again, or at least to me. Just because you redefine faculty borders and "kingdoms" (of rationalism? Huh?) to accommodate your conclusions these redefinitions do not become useful to others.<br /><br />To me, science and rational inquiry are about everything that can be supposed to exist - that is why I say that people like Dawkins should not shut their mouth about gods, but are eminently qualified to discuss the question. But there are useful questions (about all these things that science can deal with in its own way) that cannot be addressed with the tools of sciences sensu stricto. You can quantify the average perception of beauty scientifically but that does not mean that what science has to say on the matter of beauty is already all that humans can and should say about it. Simply throwing all the humanities you do not like out of the window is very immature and ultimately a terribly dreary outlook.<br /><br />Oh, and of course you had to pull the quantum card. Argh. Also, what does that have to do with anything? I doubt that you can deduce <i>anything</i> to exist without somehow providing at least circumstantial evidence for its existence, but that is completely besides the point. Are you operating under the impression that philosophy is about deducing if there is a tree on the other side of the house without seeing it or what?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90361166494143050872009-11-23T15:02:02.392-05:002009-11-23T15:02:02.392-05:00Massimo, I got to be running - but will come back....Massimo, I got to be running - but will come back. I trace the source of our disagreement to that you put Philosophy squarely in the Humanities, while I put it ABOVE humanities. Philosophy is NOT humanities and has nothing to do with society.<br /><br />The correct dichotomy is not nature vs. humans (as humans are after all part of nature), but empiricism vs. rationalism.<br /><br />Science is empiricism. Philosophy is rationalism. And humanities is well, irrationalism or over-rationalism - essentially BS.<br /><br />And I disagree with your video on Philosophy. There are 6 parts to philosophy IMO - Logic/mathematics, epistemology, ontology, and ethics (or value systems). These have NOTHING to do with society of humans. They apply to ANY society - such as ants or robots.<br /><br />The crappy part of philosophy, metaphysics/theology, and aesthetics (subsumed and decimated by recent discoveries in neuro-mind science) is jettisoned to the underworld of the humanities. Political philosophy is really a question of ethics and systems science, and most of that belongs to PoliSci anyways.<br /><br />So you see the 3rd culture has a very high regard for Philosophy and relinquishes the kingdom of rationalism to it. However, I can smell social-centrism in most of what you write - this is unfortunate because value systems (ethics) is essentially arbitrary and essentially nothing to do with humans.<br /><br />Unfortunately for philosophers quantum physics has proven that rationalism breaks down in the microworld (you cannot deduce that a particle is here, until you see it). On this basis Science is the top dog. But philosophy properly reconstituted is essential for the advancement of society, whatever "advancement" means.<br /><br />Looking forward to your thoughts.<br /><br />GlassGlasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60271799544994627102009-11-23T12:40:08.758-05:002009-11-23T12:40:08.758-05:00Well, by "trivial" I mean that in treati...Well, by "trivial" I mean that in treating them as valid objects for analytical purposes, the reasoning faculties of our minds (presumably) make no innate distinction between a concept derived directly from sensory stimuli and one generated through, say, imagination, memory, self-reflection, etc. The only real distinction I can perceive is how many degrees of abstraction are involved in generating each kind (and therefore how neatly and reliably each maps onto our sensory experience of the universe). Looking at that distinction in isolation (i.e. temporarily ignoring all of the knowledge we already have about its implications), it certainly appears fairly trivial.<br /><br />By "crucial" I mean that not making a distinction between these two kinds of concepts for analytical purposes can be credited with giving rise to the vast and glorious realms of abstract thought, which we know as philosophy.<br /><br />By way of analogy, we could observe that the fact that water expands when it freezes is, by itself, a trivial fact - but of course we know that this fact is crucial for the existence of life as we know it.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17914958603107348342009-11-23T12:21:28.168-05:002009-11-23T12:21:28.168-05:00perspicio,
yes, I can second your distinction, th...perspicio,<br /><br />yes, I can second your distinction, though I don't see in what sense it can possibly be "trivial" (and indeed, if it is trivial, how can it then be "crucial"?).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54755434846770789542009-11-23T12:14:49.078-05:002009-11-23T12:14:49.078-05:00Wow, this party still has some life? Sweeeeet. Thi...Wow, this party still has some life? Sweeeeet. This has been one of my favorite discussions at this blog so far.<br /><br />I am curious to hear Massimo's and Mintman's response to an earlier idea I tossed out onto the floor....<br /><br />"Philosophy differs from science in only one trivial, yet ultimately crucial, aspect: it begins with the recognition of concepts as distinct phenomena in their own right. Thus, philosophy gets started by working with the raw stuff of thought itself, whereas science just grabs hold of thoughts and uses them."<br /><br />Do you feel that that's a fair statement? Does the overall sense of the difference between the two disciplines ring true? Is it too restrictive to say that identifying and analyzing thoughts as distinct phenomena is the fundamental difference between philosophy and science?perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44961454310225661082009-11-23T08:06:42.705-05:002009-11-23T08:06:42.705-05:00Glass,
I'm not surprised that the group you m...Glass,<br /><br />I'm not surprised that the group you mention wishes to "encompass the humanities" and absorb them into science. The amount of hubris is incredible, not to mention their intellectual naiveté. The only name that surprises me there is Dennett, who is usually more sophisticated than the rest of the bunch.<br /><br />As for philosophy (as opposed to science) gone astray through the ages, ever heard of eugenics, phlogiston, caloric fluid, ether, phrenology, ...??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70059584539504453982009-11-23T04:19:42.322-05:002009-11-23T04:19:42.322-05:00Joe Glass:
Don't know if I should take your p...Joe Glass:<br /><br />Don't know if I should take your posting as satire or confused ramblings, but the latter seems more plausible, unfortunately. <i>Humanities - get ready as you will be swept aside?</i> Seriously? I would have thought <i>I</i> was one of those arrogant, "scientistic" natural scientists who do not think much of most sociology, economics and philology, but you definitely take the cake. Do you honestly think that questions like "why did Shakespeare cite Aristotle here in Act IV", "what is a fair salary", "to what degree did the civilian Germans know of the holocaust" and "is the death penalty just" can be answered by the natural sciences if you just give them enough computers and tomographs, or do you simply consider these questions <i>BS</i>, to use your own words? If the former, then you need to get your head checked, if the latter, you need to grow up.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63451742201908641532009-11-22T23:24:18.101-05:002009-11-22T23:24:18.101-05:00Not sure why I am listed as Joe and then Glass. T...Not sure why I am listed as Joe and then Glass. They are the same.Glasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08584807961717745839noreply@blogger.com