If aliens ever sent us a message, it would probably be too little too late if you know what I mean, both for them and and for us. :groan:

Not necessarily. What if their civilization imploded because of rampant moral relativism?

Possible, very possible.

I thought about it some more: philosophy of physics definitely matters, but most of our science is done through the same old methods outside of that highly specialized field. Or so it seems.

This is my fun theory on what we might discover as we travel the galaxy in terms of new information given to us by advanced alien civilizations. — ToothyMaw

We already live amongst intelllectually advanced aliens, interacting with them in myriad ways. And yet this direct and unrestricted access does not make possible the transfer of one mode of thinking from one individual or group to another. Why not? Because we can only assimilate complex ideas that are consistent with our own worldview. As a result, we share a world in which ancient, traditional, modern and postmodern ways of thinking co-exist. If the immediacy of social media cannot bridge these gaps in outlook, our exposure to other-worldly cultures will fare no better.

We already live amongst intelllectually advanced aliens, interacting with them in myriad ways. — Joshs

What? Where are these aliens? Do you mean smart people?

this direct and unrestricted access does not make possible the transfer of one mode of thinking from one individual or group to another. Why not? Because we can only assimilate complex ideas that are consistent with our own worldview. — Joshs

I think people often change their worldviews in light of discovering new, complex ideas, although people often don't, too. I change my views quite often, even if I have a semi-consistent worldview.

As a result, we share a world in which ancient, traditional, modern and postmodern ways of thinking co-exist. If the immediacy of social media cannot bridge these gaps in outlook, our exposure to other-worldly cultures will fare no better. — Joshs

That's pretty pessimistic. I think that philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians, at least, would pay attention to what we might be able to learn from such advanced aliens. Maybe many people wouldn't adopt, say, moral facts given to us by aliens, but much of the important stuff would get through.

Not to mention, the advances we might make would be largely self-discovered if the surprise box exists. I think people would probably be more likely to invest themselves in such discoveries because of that.

However, we would have no idea of where the surprise box is guiding us, which could be creepy. So, there's that.

I think that philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians, at least, would pay attention to what we might be able to learn from such advanced aliens. — ToothyMaw

It’s not a question of paying attention but of comprehending what one is paying attention to. We have philosophers , scientists and mathematicians today who represent widely differing levels of cultural understanding. The more traditional among them are living in the midst of ‘aliens’ they cannot comprehend.

An example: Derrida is a controversial figure. Some think he is a charlatan and others beleive he is one of the most important thinkers of the past 200 years. I happen to side with the latter camp. Let’s assume for the sake of argument I’m right. Did you know that in the 1990’s a group of scholars signed a petition protesting against Cambridge University awarding Derrida an honorary degree. Among them was one of the leading philosophers of our era, W.O. Quine. How is it that one of the most brilliant and well respected scholars can so utterly fail to see the brilliance of a contemporary thinker?
In the case of Quine and Derrida I suggest it was not just a matter of difference in style and approach, but the content of the work. Quine was not ready to grasp what Derrida was trying to tell us. For Quine , Derrida was a space alien.

Not to mention, the advances we might make would be largely self-discovered if the surprise box exists — ToothyMaw

You mean like the robot hand in Terminator 2?
I think our most talented philosophers, mathematicians and scientists will become Quines when presented with the ideas of an advanced civilization, just as the ideas of Freud, Darwin and Einstein would have been gibberish to the scientists of ancient Babylonia or Azteca. Science doesnt emerge in a vacuum, it is a product of larger cultural worldviews.

It’s not a question of paying attention but of comprehending what one is paying attention to. We have philosophers , scientists and mathematicians today who represent widely differing levels of cultural understanding. The more traditional among them are living in the midst of ‘aliens’ they cannot comprehend. — Joshs

I don't see how culture would get in the way of good science. Scientists, if they are good scientists, largely shouldn't pay attention to culture. That's not to say we shouldn't have ethicists directing how we use our science, but culture doesn't matter that much, I think. The same goes for mathematics.

As for philosophy, yes, philosophers have a tendency to make more mistakes because the only corrective methods are when it intersects with science, or someone formulates an indisputable counterargument. There is no hard and fast means of showing a philosopher to be wrong if they cloak their arguments in layers of ambiguity.

You mean like the robot hand in Terminator 2?
I think our most talented philosophers, mathematicians and scientists will become Quines when presented with the ideas of an advanced civilization, just as the ideas of Freud, Darwin and Einstein would have been gibberish to the scientists of ancient Babylonia or Azteca. Science doesnt emerge in a vacuum, it is a product of larger cultural worldviews. — Joshs

That's part of why the surprise box would read our inputs to determine where we are technologically/philosophically/scientifically (and maybe even culturally) and then guide us instead of just giving us a bunch of information outside of some absolutely necessary proofs and explicit philosophical arguments.

You are right to think that the aliens' information would be doubted, but if the surprise box works the way I say it would, then your trepidations wouldn't apply so much.

I also suppose we have something of a paradox: the more surprising the alien information, the more and more efficiently the information would be communicated, but also the less likely that we would accept it.

Thus, the surprise box.

I don't see how culture would get in the way of good science. Scientists, if they are good scientists, largely shouldn't pay attention to culture. That's not to say we shouldn't have ethicists directing how we use our science, but culture doesn't matter that much, I think. The same goes for mathematics. — ToothyMaw

I dont think you’ll find many contemporary philosophers of science who would agree with you here. Your view is more consistent with a 19th century perspective on the relation between science and culture. Today it is widely accepted that, far from ignoring culture, the science of an era is inseparably intertwined with all other areas of culture in terms of mural shaping and influence.

Right. I agree, I'm probably just not in touch with how science is related to culture. Probably because I'm no scientist or philosopher of science. But I get what you are saying. Thanks for the correction.

I find that every time I talk about something I don't really understand on this forum I get corrected. Maybe I should stop talking about things I don't understand.

I find that every time I talk about something I don't really understand on this forum I get corrected. Maybe I should stop talking about things I don't understand — ToothyMaw

Just because a majority of philosophers believes a certain thing doesn’t mean they’re right. Just gives you an opportunity to investigate what they’re saying and decide for yourself. Afterwards, you may decide they’re full of crap.

Right. Thanks for the wisdom, Josh. I'll look into some more contemporary accounts of philosophy of science.