- #1
circularsquar
Do you agree with Stephen Hawking when say "Philosophy is dead" ?
*I would have posted it in the philosophy sub-forum , but I thought the material might not meet the guidelines . The content of this thread would fit a general and informal discussion more , I thought. Please move it to any sub-forum where this topic fits if it doesn't belong to the general discussion forum. Please bear with a newcomer and do reply in this thread
. If a similar topic exists I would be glad to be redirected to it via a link*
Hello friends , most of you may have heard Stephen Hawking put forth the proposition that "Philosophy is dead and that Science is the modern torch-bearer of knowledge" . He says that philosophy has failed to keep with modern science.
Do you agree ?
Is there a confusion over what is meant by 'Philosophy' here ?
I personally think Hawking is referring to a traditional kind of philosophy here which used to deal with unsolvable problems such as realism/idealism , mind-body dualism , and which sometimes tended to be theological. In that case he maybe right in a sense.
But why is he not considering the schools of Philosophy such as logical positivism or modern analytical philosophy . Aren't these philosophers well versed with science ? Does Stephen Hawking also include philosophers such as W V O Quine , Bertrand Russell , Hilary Putnam, Karl Popper in the list of those philosophers who haven't kept up with science?
And most importantly when he is writing popular science books and doing speculations over reality , isn't he doing 'philosophy' ? For I used to think the job of science does not include interpretation, and as soon as one gets into interpretations one enters the 'philosophy of science' .
*Sorry for the grammatical error in title of thread , noticed it now.
*
*I would have posted it in the philosophy sub-forum , but I thought the material might not meet the guidelines . The content of this thread would fit a general and informal discussion more , I thought. Please move it to any sub-forum where this topic fits if it doesn't belong to the general discussion forum. Please bear with a newcomer and do reply in this thread
. If a similar topic exists I would be glad to be redirected to it via a link*Hello friends , most of you may have heard Stephen Hawking put forth the proposition that "Philosophy is dead and that Science is the modern torch-bearer of knowledge" . He says that philosophy has failed to keep with modern science.
Do you agree ?
Is there a confusion over what is meant by 'Philosophy' here ?
I personally think Hawking is referring to a traditional kind of philosophy here which used to deal with unsolvable problems such as realism/idealism , mind-body dualism , and which sometimes tended to be theological. In that case he maybe right in a sense.
But why is he not considering the schools of Philosophy such as logical positivism or modern analytical philosophy . Aren't these philosophers well versed with science ? Does Stephen Hawking also include philosophers such as W V O Quine , Bertrand Russell , Hilary Putnam, Karl Popper in the list of those philosophers who haven't kept up with science?
And most importantly when he is writing popular science books and doing speculations over reality , isn't he doing 'philosophy' ? For I used to think the job of science does not include interpretation, and as soon as one gets into interpretations one enters the 'philosophy of science' .
*Sorry for the grammatical error in title of thread , noticed it now.
*