I'm not sold either! It's just something else to ponder. The challenge is how to keep up with revolutionary progress in the sciences with static models. How do we explain even simple demonstrations of magnetism? — magritte
Although quantum physics has influenced philosophy in the sense that it has grown a new flourishing and blossoming branch of the tree of philosophy, apart from some recent contact between philosophy of physics and metaphysics, quantum physics has had hardly any influence on philosophy at all, and at best some influence on metaphysics, mostly in recent times. With regard to prominent issues intensely thought about by philosophers, such as those on the Chalmers-Bourget list [referring to their 2014 survey "What do philosophers believe?" - SC], we dare conclude that it is difficult to see how quantum physics could bear on those issues. If it cannot, it ought not, for ought implies can. — F.A. Muller
I like that.I once had a discussion with a man who I finally forced to confess that he believed a human being was not, essentially, any better than a rock; so I asked him, “so you don’t mind if I kick you around in the argument a little?”,...and he was offended! — Todd Martin
Was it Kant earlier that went a bit astray when referring to Euclidian geometry and not knowing that later non-Euclidian geometry would be a hot topic in math? Philosophers can relate to science, but basing philosophy on science can be a tricky thing as our scientific understanding can change a lot. Still, why the connection?Obviously, Darwinism and Einstein's relativity have had a pronounced effect on philosophy (for better or for worse). — SophistiCat
Philosophers can relate to science, but basing philosophy on science can be a tricky thing as our scientific understanding can change a lot. — ssu
People tend simply to think that physics, Quantum Mechanics, cosmology etc. are somehow close to the basic philosophical questions, hence we let physicists blabber about philosophical question, things that they actually have not studied or worked on. — ssu
For starters, remembering just what you said there: the current state of science isn't the last word or the truth about nature. Hence don't make your philosophy totally dependent of the current science of the present.Well, what would we base it on then? We obviously cannot assume that the current state of science is the last word and the whole truth about nature. — SophistiCat
There is a reason why so-called fundamental physics is often thought to have an intimate connection with basic metaphysical questions (cf. physicalism, metaphysical and ontological grounding...) For example, while it is not a given that the ontology of fundamental physics has some sort of metaphysical priority, it is a popular enough notion. — SophistiCat
Well, if philosophy means love of wisdom, the link to science should be obvious. Just as PhD is is short for Doctor of Philosophy. Yet the problem is that when philosophers have a broader view, that makes it far more difficult to understand things you are handling.Still, if we view science as a branch or outgrowth of philosophy, then professional scientists, as a rule, have a much more narrow specialization than professional philosophers. — SophistiCat
Yet Is philosophy just thinking about nature? Natural sciences answer more directly to what nature is, yet any question of "what should be" and you need philosophy.Conversely, when you look at the history of thought, most important new developments in the thinking about nature were driven by developments in science. — SophistiCat
Hence if you are making a philosophical argument, far better to base it on previous philosophical inquiry on the question at hand. — ssu
I would ask why would it be so. Because philosophy has debated already for long the problems of physicalism and materialism. And the pseudo-scientific world view was about a "Clock-work universe" and then this changed to "Multiverse" with Butterfly-effects, it really isn't pure philosophy. — ssu
Yet Is philosophy just thinking about nature? Natural sciences answer more directly to what nature is, yet any question of "what should be" and you need philosophy. — ssu
Well, you seem not to hold philosophy in high regard compared to natural sciences. But just like "pure math" isn't at all dismissed by natural science, I think especially analytical philosophy and formal logic has it's place also.I just can't think of a single advantage in rejecting the fruits of the most productive period in the history of scientific thought and empirical research in favor of recycling past ideas. Ideas, which themselves were, of course, to a great extent informed by observations and scientific ideas of their time and times past. — SophistiCat
Well, you seem not to hold philosophy in high regard compared to natural sciences. — ssu
What I just oppose is the simple reductionism of the view that If physics at the nuclear level uses QM, the QM should be used as an overall philosophy — ssu
When it is appropriate. That's all I want to say.But since we have this specialization and division of labor, philosophers should be using scientific results and ideas where it is appropriate — SophistiCat
I am not denigrating philosophy. But since we have this specialization and division of labor, philosophers should be using scientific results and ideas where it is appropriate - for example, when discussing the metaphysics of space and time (e.g. The Ontology of Spacetime ed. D. Dieks.) — SophistiCat
Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Science (like theoretical physics) was born of philosophy. Whereas philosophy is a system of logical thought processes, science is grounded in physical experiments that are reproduceable and verifiable. — Neuron420
Philosophy, although employing the odd inductive argument here and there, is a field whose mainstay is deductive logic and deductive logic is all about absolute truths - truths that can't be false. — TheMadFool
For example, scientists could try to explain very global concepts such as life, intelligence, welfare, and expose the limits of science in understanding (or measuring, defining) these concepts. But that was never part of a discipline. Some scientists do have opinions on these concepts but they’re not knowledge, it stays at a personal level. And when philosophers try to think on scientific knowledge, well, they often lack the scientific background to do it right.
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to create such a discipline ? Or does anyone know such a thing ? — Avema
I am not sure I understand what you have in mind. Can you elaborate a little further, give a more specific example? — SophistiCat
What I mean is that science sometimes goes off limits and gives fast conclusions like "we can measure welfare, time dilatation,..., without investigating further the meaning of these words. And if you don't do that, how can you know exactly what you're talking about ? It ends up being in the field of philosophy, because it can be subject to much more interpretations that science can deal with.
But if they would define it clearly, it could stay within the limits of science. They could say something like “if we define welfare this way, it involves these scientific concepts that can be measured through these other notions”, and then you clearly see all the uncertainties on the language itself, because what science is actually “sure” about is these notions that can be directly related to observations/measurements. — Avema
This seems to be the opposite of consensus — Kenosha Kid
:up:I didn't read the book referred, but judging from the table of contents, it looks like it completely ignores the principal ontological feature of time, and that is the important difference between future and past. When we respect the empirical fact that the past consists of events which have actually already occurred, and the future consists of the possibility for events, it becomes evident that we need a conception of space which is radically different from anything employed by physicists. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you know what I mean ? — Avema
And it is hard for scientists to do that because they're only used to defining notions that are quite directly related to experiments. — Avema
Right, I guess I shoud have been more specific : what in the quote is the opposite of consensus ?
Do you think what I said is wrong, like scientists don't say things like "we can measure welfare" ?
Or do you think that defining such concepts in a scientific way wouldn't lead to consensus ? — Avema
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.