Posted on 02/09/2019 8:31:40 AM PST by aspasia
There are at least three areas of inquiry traditionally in the purview of philosophy that now are often claimed to be best — or only — studied scientifically: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Let us discuss each in turn.
Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow open their 2010 book The Grand Design by asking:
What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? ... Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.Though physicists might once have been dismissive of metaphysics as mere speculation, they would also have characterized such questions as inherently speculative and so beyond their own realm of expertise. The claims of Hawking and Mlodinow, and many other writers, thus represent a striking departure from the traditional view.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewatlantis.com ...
Yes, it might go wrong with that. Sort of like scientismits claims are too broad.
Or like the idea of common reason. Something about the concept of common reason is promising, politically. Like an average or a majority. It makes politics possible. But whenever it because exclusive, it can be politically dangerous. Political freedom is necessary against the big ideas.
And so philosophy is not dead, because we still have to determine when a definition or theory is too broad and goes over the line.
Good points.
I prefer to think of science as an attempt to measure what we can observe.
The modern problem is drawing conclusions and stating some sort of relationship, too soon.
But Heisenberg observed that we can’t measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time.
I think that time only exists when there is motion.
Does that mean there is a supernaturalism? The God factor?
My life is science, but I have received miracles that only God could offer. I prefer to celebrate both.
Exactly.
Galileo’s Christianity got him this ...
He was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest
Very nicely said, thanks!
I wonder what kind of a career boost someone with a bachelor’s in philosophy can expect in the marketplace. Not much, I imagine.
And have you come up with a better representation of a hierarchy than a pyramid yet?
An intense amount of measurement that produces heaps of data. This data is then displayed as fact or truth and somehow from that we are told how to behave. That is what I thought would be called the politicization of science. But the Internet thinks politicization of science is the anti-science stance of someone who disputes data or at least refuses to behave in a way that confirms the data as truth.
If it were somehow possible to see how it actually pans out with a couple hundred more years of research/exploration, I'd make a sizable bet against the validity of the multiverse concept.
This one of which we're aware seems quite large enough to hold a practically infinite number of mind-boggling phenomena.
(click for really really big :-)
“the idea that one can dispute a scientific conclusion because there are dissenting opinions out there is the most dangerous one to science in society.”
I bet this guy calls global warming skeptics “deniers”. Skepticism is one of true science most important attributes.
The economic utility of earning a philosophy major is something other than the need for philosophical activity in all fields of human knowledge.
But if you think about it, an BA in philosophy could be quite advantageous for a psychologist seeking to get hired.
“heaps of data”
The error occurs when meaning and relationships are laid onto data.
Connecting the dots, that’s where politics soils science.
There is overwhelming data that blue-eyed people have terrible chopstick skills.
Well, the use of chopsticks absolutely cannot cause blue eyes, that would be silly, we are born that way. That’s a fact.
So, therefore blue eyes have to be the cause. That’s the only logical meaning. Right?
Well in theory a BS in philosophy should mean you can read, synthesize what you read & write about it an literate fashion (Note not literary fashion!).
Of course nowadays it more likely means you slept in class less the your peers!
Actually the real beef is about whether our sex and gender are fluid or not. The textbook publishers are on full steam ahead.
Until this knowledge is completely understood one cannot transcend. It’s there, it’s obtainable even while in the physical. But we limit this possibility with predetermined ideology as a collective.
Sex has always been variable, gender is the label.
The problem is self identity, how we describe ourselves.
You’re right publishers and psychologists are making a fortune stirring up that description, giving power to this identity and that.
I feel sorry for the identity confused people.
There is a pattern that repeats it’s self from the atom to the molecule, to the solar system, to the galaxies, to galaxy clusters, to the center of the universe. How can one assume this same pattern stops and becomes finite? All common sense dictates it continues and is infinite. And it is possible the creation of universes is perpetual and they are always being created.
You speak of accretion, the action of gravity
It used to be said a college degree meant you know how to use the library to find out what you need to know.
Nowadays, substitute the internet. As the mangled meme goes, the internet is the suppository of humam knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.