You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/ ]Do you agree with him[/url]?
Why? Why not?
😛
So he wants us to philosophise about the death of philosophy?
[img] 
[/img]
Well he's singlehandedly made bow ties uncool again
I say it's pure fiction and I don't do fiction. Or do I?
Well he's singlehandedly made bow ties uncool again
Other than as part of formal wear, I have yet to find anyone who has made them look cool.
[img] 
[/img]
It will never die as long as we have brains to think with (err.......), but it's become completely divorced from (and incapable of influencing) science. So as a mechanism for understanding the natural world I'd say that Nye is right and it is deceased from this perspective.
Historically it preceded science of course - gave birth to it, and was then completely interwoven for centuries. But now it's just one more body to add to the trail of the dead - crushed by the inexorable rise of science.
Sorry if this sounds patronising, Garry_Lager, but I think you are bang on. One of the things I hoped might arise in this thread is the need to distinguish the contemporary bias of science towards technology.
In many ways, I see true science as having become first enraptured by, then enslaved by, technology. Consequently, science - at least in the public sphere - speaks a technological, as opposed to a philosophical, language.
In that respect, I would be inclined to turn the tables on Mr Nye, and suggest that it is science that is dead.
Like the caterpillar that becomes a butterfly - for better or for worse in this case - science has given over to technology.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm sure if you root around in the fridge, Rorschach, you might find a beer in there.
Like the caterpillar that becomes a butterfly - for better or for worse in this case - science has given over to technology.
A dictionary could put an end to this kind of nonsense instantly.
SaxonRider - Member
I'm sure if you root around in the fridge, Rorschach, you might find a beer in there.
POSTED 2 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Or at least something that looks like one.
Drunked 'em all already.
Yeah, I'm not sure you're right 5thElefant, or we would have stopped thinking sometime in the 18th century.
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam.
In that respect, I would be inclined to turn the tables on Mr Nye, and suggest that it is science that is dead.
Not sure why you'd want to say that either of those disciplines was dead. Other than maybe for dramatic effect.
Yeah, I'm not sure you're right 5thElefant, or we would have stopped thinking sometime in the 18th century.
You're confusing talking crap with thinking.
Another perspective on this is that modern natural scientists (and social scientists, a group of which I have more experience) have developed, in my view, a worrying tendency to see and report the world in terms of certainties. Perhaps a simple decision heuristic, perhaps a reflection of the change in style of debate or, most insidiously, sheer laziness, but it is inherently inimical to the uncertainty embraced by philosophy.
It is possible that this is coloured by the fact that I am not a natural scientist, such that whenever a colleague is explaining an issue or when I am reading about it in the media I am going to be faced by a simplification of the question which may therefore omit the nuances. However one of the main frustrations of my former career as an academic economist was the portrayal of certainties that were not present.
Another perspective on this is that modern natural scientists have developed, in my view, a worrying tendency to see and report the world in terms of certainties.
Only a very bad scientist would do that - despite what the general public believe.
Nye uses words like 'truth' and 'reality', taking them for granted, without actually considering the implications of their definitions. This is where he goes wrong when talking about philosophy. The equivalent of saying 'I'm not going to bother proving that, it's obvious, isn't it?'
I fully agree, molgrips. I am not adequately qualified to judge on this in the natural sciences, albeit better informed than the general public but not enough to dismiss swathes of very intelligent people as fundamentally wrong.
In the field where I am adequately qualified I again could not dismiss swathes, and would be wary of emotive generalizations, but the proportion of academics unable or unwilling to address the fragility of their assumptions was deeply frustrating.
Perhaps an explanation is that the bad scientists are concentrated in the social sciences...
I agree with molgrips.
As a scientist, I don't view anything as a "certainty". I also don't believe science is 'enslaved' by technology. A lot of thinking is still required in science, despite the technology. Finally I don't view science as having an inexorable rise. If philosophy gave birth to science, isn't science a natural extension of it, and therefore a way of thinking that humans have always had?
And most scientific writing in newspapers and magazines is tosh! Barely worth reading if you want to understand science.
When I was at university, the scientists I knew could easily be divided into good ones and weak ones.
It's an impossibility....if we can think, we can philosophise...
And most scientific writing in newspapers and magazines is tosh! Barely worth reading if you want to understand science.
Yep! It really bugs me in this modern age when news sites publish some fantastical science headline ("Scientists find link between hamsters and rectal cancer") but then completely fail to provide any kind of link to the actual paper, or even just a proper citation so I can find it easily myself.
Why is that?
Is it because when you do eventually find the paper you discover that it is far less startling than news suggested it was and they have grossly simplified or misinterpreted it?
What he is saying is that no scientist on the ground cares about the philosophical definitions of truth and reality. They are too busy pushing back the frontiers of knowledge and understanding for the greater glory of mankind.molgrips - MemberNye uses words like 'truth' and 'reality', taking them for granted, without actually considering the implications of their definitions.
200 years ago this might have been a problem, as the deep structures of scientific enquiry were still being built. Now, it isn't.
The two areas may coalesce again in the future, although I doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes. Something revolutionary in quantum physics or neuroscience, say, will happen eventually and need new ways of thinking.
I don't see that as a problem either. Philosophy is still interesting, but it is a diversion. Humans are not at the centre of the world from a scientific point of view, so scientists don't need to care about philosophy. But there is more to humanity than science, so if you are into those questions then fill your boots. I won't jusge, unlike Nye.
I also don't believe science is 'enslaved' by technology.
What I mean by this is that 'science' is now often confused with technology. NOT technology in the sense of there being a proliferation of iPhones everywhere, but technology in the sense of science being confused with just one potential outcome of itself.
Science as speculation... science as a methodological exploration of truth... this is increasingly hard to find; not because it does not exist, but because its existence has been obscured by so-called public apologists for science who are in fact what I would call 'technologists'.
Really? Higgs boson and gravitational waves have been huge mainstream news items in recent years, they are all about the search for truth. It's still a pretty big topic for popular science TV too.
Sure, it's not the Victorian heydey of Royal Society lectures any more, but that's because the cutting edge stuff has become too complex for the layman.
So as a mechanism for understanding the natural world I'd say that Nye is right and it is deceased from this perspective.
I'd disagree when you look at Ecosophy; as it looks at man's [i]relationship[/i] to the natural world.
Or has Science now become such a fundamental worldview that it dislikes any branch that may question it, its methods or its results?
Technically all branches of science are children of philosophy.
Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
The Ancient Greek word ????????? (philosophia) was probably coined by Pythagoras[4] and literally means "love of wisdom" or "friend of wisdom
So if we take the Greek more literally and apply Nye's worldview to it then I can paraphase it as
"The love of wisdom is dead, particularly when applied to science."
Higgs boson and gravitational waves have been huge mainstream news items in recent years, they are all about the search for truth
I agree. But I am thinking about the way Brian Cox or Jim al-Khalili talk about such things. Their tone is insufferably self-congratulatory. And because they are popularists, in their communication there must almost inevitably be a concrete connection between the concept and reality as people experience it. Read: technology.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Their tone is insufferably self-congratulatory
I thought of them as simply showing love for what has already been learned. Without wishing to sound patronising, to understand the subject is to understand how little we know and how poorly equipped we are to even start asking questions - and I'm sure Cox et al are well aware of this. But they can still love a mystery.
Technically all branches of science are children of philosophy.
Yet metaphysics literally means "beyond physics".
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has claimed philosophy is not “a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world”
Did anyone tell him that's not what it's for? Astrophysics isn't much use for cleaning my house, but I don't go round moaning about it.
But I am thinking about the way Brian Cox or Jim al-Khalili talk about such things. Their tone is insufferably self-congratulatory.
I think you're bringing your own prejudices to this. There is a tendency on the internet for people to be aggressively dickish about science, but people are aggressively dickish about everything on the internet so I don't think that proves anything.
Science as speculation... science as a methodological exploration of truth... this is increasingly hard to find; not because it does not exist, but because its existence has been obscured by so-called public apologists for science who are in fact what I would call 'technologists'.
There is more science available to people than ever before, go and watch some TED talks, read an issue of Nature, New Scientist or which ever journal you fancy, it is increasingly open access and cox and co make it more digestible to the public. Tho the media often doesn't get it at all.
Philosophy isn't dead, the useful bits have been appropriated by the scientific method.
The rest is still interesting for its own sake, if you like it, but people do want to relate to something tangible as well.
Agree with above comment, your own prejudices about TV scientists seem to be coming through
what about ethics? how can science replace that?
brakes - Member
what about ethics? how can science replace that?
Well it's a big county I'll give you that, sits on the East Coast so I guess someone would/could/may do/possibility/might never happen, paint it Orange and call it Orange County?
Most folks have fake tans who live there, seems logical No?
Well it's a big county I'll give you that, sits on the East Coast so I guess someone would/could/may do/possibility/might never happen, paint it Orange and call it Orange County?Most folks have fake tans who live there, seems logical No?
Is this related to Kent's categorical imperative?
what about ethics? how can science replace that?
If you take a "least harm" approach, advances in science could give concrete answers to previously woolly ethical questions?
bikebouy you need to re-write that
"Well it'th a big county I'll give you that, thitth on the Eatht Coatht tho I guess thomeone would/could/may do/poththibility/might never happen,etc..."
If you take a "least harm" approach, advances in science could give concrete answers to previously woolly ethical questions?
But why 'least harm'? Because our middle-class, liberal values currently demand it? It hasn't always been that way, so why not subscribe to an evolutionary ethic, for example whereby what is right is determined by majority opinion?
If you take a "least harm" approach
Plus quantifying collective harm is actually rather difficult to do.
How does science explain scientists believing in god?
SaxonRider- I take your point about Brian Cox. I think he is good at explaining complex physics in a way that the general public can understand, but I also think he got a bit big for his boots. Furthermore, he's a physicist and I didn't like his attempts to pretend to be an expert in biological sciences.
I do like Jim Al-Khalili though 🙂
How does science explain scientists believing in god?
As Neil Degrasse Tyson points out elsewhere, there is no contradiction because the knowledge that science pursues, and the faith that pursues God, constitute completely different epistemic categories.
If you take a "least harm" approach, advances in science could give concrete answers to previously woolly ethical questions?
But why 'least harm'? Because our middle-class, liberal values currently demand it? It hasn't always been that way, so why not subscribe to an evolutionary ethic, for example whereby what is right is determined by majority opinion?
Hence my use of the word "if".
Plus quantifying collective harm is actually rather difficult to do.
At the moment.
I'm quite happy for philosophy to keep going, investigating and considering ethical questions. I think we need it; for example, the Google Car is the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ]trolley problem[/url].
Reading what The Science Guy and others have said about philosophy, it seems they were talking about philosophy's contribution to discovering how the natural world works, rather than moral dilemmas. For that, it does seem that the scientific method is more successful than thinking really really hard about something and then declaring it to be true.
How does science explain scientists believing in god?
Do you count psychology as a science?
And don't I get anything for that Kent gag? Tough audience.
At the moment.
It's been pretty difficult since John Stuart Mill, what invention are you waiting for that'll make it easier mike?
We do it already, to varying degrees. Look at an argument on changing speed limits or helmet compulsion. We quantify the harm caused by either side of the decision.
[i]How does science explain scientists believing in god?[/i]
[i]As Neil Degrasse Tyson points out elsewhere, there is no contradiction because the knowledge that science pursues, and the faith that pursues God, constitute completely different epistemic categories. [/i]
That is a philisophical answer.....
Look at an [b]argument[/b] on changing speed limits or helmet compulsion. We quantify the harm caused by either side of the decision.
We attempt it, yes. We don't succeed though, that's why the arguments are a) inconclusive and b) bitter.