Does anyone have links to articles in which Hawking, Krauss, and Tyson engage in philosophy-bashing?
My guess is that they are simply bashing bad philosophy, which is almost as important as promoting good philosophy. Analogously, I would say that bashing bad science is almost as important as promoting good science.
Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
Tyson:
the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution
philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn’t even exist in any important way back then. So, I’m disappointed because there is a lot of brainpower there, that might have otherwise contributed mightily, but today simply does not. It’s not that there can’t be other philosophical subjects, there is religious philosophy, and ethical philosophy, and political philosophy, plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do, but the frontier of the physical sciences does not appear to be among them.
Seems to me they are saying that inferential distance between philosophers and modern physics is too big, so unless philosophers start seriously studying physics, they will no longer be able to contribute meaningfully using their intuition only. (Of course they can still provide some Deep Wisdom, or post-facto explanations.)
Yes, but they were saying this without actually considering the available evidence. There are many philosophers out there who do seriously study physics, and Hawking and Tyson were swiftly corrected on this point by other physicists who do in fact actively engage with philosophical work (Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli, for instance).
Neither Hawking nor Tyson seems to be even passingly familiar with contemporary philosophy of science. For instance, in The Grand Design, Hawking first declares that philosophy of science is dead, then goes on to defend a view he calls “model-dependent realism”, which he evidently regards as his innovation, but which philosophers of science have actually been writing about for decades.
Is philosophy supposed to be “about the real world” or not?
If yes, then we can debate whether it is successful in this attempt.
If no, fair enough. But then I ask why should anyone care about philosophy at all?
Because this seems to me like conveniently shifting definitions (by defenders of philosophy in general). If I decide not to care about philosophy, I am told that philosophy is important for understanding the world, or human thinking, or whatever. But when I start examining how useful philosophy actually is for understanding the world or human thinking, then suddenly no, philosophy is about something else (ability to ask creative questions, or some unspecific noble spiritual activity).
It’s a little more complicated than about the real world or not. Truth about the real world requires empirical confirmation of theories: theories require concepts, ways of expressing concepts, and so on. Science specialises in some of those areas, philosophy in others.
To look at it another way, is this site about reality? Is Clippie real? Are utility functions?
advancedatheist provided a reasonable argument and you mocked him/her in return instead of engaging it. And several people upvoted you. I expected better from this forum.
Does anyone have links to articles in which Hawking, Krauss, and Tyson engage in philosophy-bashing?
My guess is that they are simply bashing bad philosophy, which is almost as important as promoting good philosophy. Analogously, I would say that bashing bad science is almost as important as promoting good science.
Hawking’s philosophy-bashing was at Google Zeitgeist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
Tyson’s comments were in this podcast:
http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/nerdist-podcast-neil-degrasse-tyson-returns-again/
Transcript of the comments here:
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/
Krauss set things off in this interview:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
Hawking:
Tyson:
Seems to me they are saying that inferential distance between philosophers and modern physics is too big, so unless philosophers start seriously studying physics, they will no longer be able to contribute meaningfully using their intuition only. (Of course they can still provide some Deep Wisdom, or post-facto explanations.)
Yes, but they were saying this without actually considering the available evidence. There are many philosophers out there who do seriously study physics, and Hawking and Tyson were swiftly corrected on this point by other physicists who do in fact actively engage with philosophical work (Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli, for instance).
Neither Hawking nor Tyson seems to be even passingly familiar with contemporary philosophy of science. For instance, in The Grand Design, Hawking first declares that philosophy of science is dead, then goes on to defend a view he calls “model-dependent realism”, which he evidently regards as his innovation, but which philosophers of science have actually been writing about for decades.
If philosophy had actually converged onto an agreed upon view of the world, today’s physicists might regard it differently.
“If this hammer were better at soldering joints, electricians would appreciate it better”
Is philosophy supposed to be “about the real world” or not?
If yes, then we can debate whether it is successful in this attempt.
If no, fair enough. But then I ask why should anyone care about philosophy at all?
Because this seems to me like conveniently shifting definitions (by defenders of philosophy in general). If I decide not to care about philosophy, I am told that philosophy is important for understanding the world, or human thinking, or whatever. But when I start examining how useful philosophy actually is for understanding the world or human thinking, then suddenly no, philosophy is about something else (ability to ask creative questions, or some unspecific noble spiritual activity).
It’s a little more complicated than about the real world or not. Truth about the real world requires empirical confirmation of theories: theories require concepts, ways of expressing concepts, and so on. Science specialises in some of those areas, philosophy in others.
To look at it another way, is this site about reality? Is Clippie real? Are utility functions?
advancedatheist provided a reasonable argument and you mocked him/her in return instead of engaging it. And several people upvoted you. I expected better from this forum.
There’s a difference between unproductive mockery and making a good point with a snarky analogy.
They are qualified to do that?