jcsd said:
That's the entire point though isn't it, you seem to have a false idea of the relationship between philosphy and science. Scientists in general are not remotely interested in what your modern philsopher has to say, they do not regard him as an authority on empircal methods, they regard scientists as the authority in that area (after they develop these methods and empriricism should be devloped empirically). So while they ceratinly do philosphize on empricism etc, this philsophizing does not contribute to the scientifc process.
No, I definitely do not think that is even remotely the point. I think the issues of this debate need to be made more clear. I read what one side says and it seems irrelevant to what the other side is pointing out.
This little war originally got going because I offered a debate. From my side of it, I wanted defend the potential value of the philosophy section here at PF to be beneficial to members, and not as a necessary to practicing science!
To be clear:
I have not said nor do I believe philosophical concerns should be involved in the practice of science. That would be a disaster! (Doesn’t that seem a bit too close to those days of the Church’s interference?) I don’t know how that got to be part of the discussion because I don’t believe any philosopher type here would suggest such a thing. The only connection I see is not to on-going science, but to science students who might be interested in learning the history of thought that led to the empirical method.
Beyond that I’ve said that the philosophy area at PF could be helpful in encouraging participants to think more empirically (and I don’t mean established scientists!) if the PF staff were committed to that.
Okay, so scientists should be free to practice empiricism unfettered by philosophy. Throw the silly idea of interference or participation by philosophers in scientific research out of the debate.
If it isn’t
inside the laboratory where philosophical issues arise, where might they? Well, I say it is
outside of the laboratory and in the social situations where we all live, including scientists. Take a look at where the most posts are at PF and you will see it is in General Discussion, with Politics being a big chunk of that. In the main index, after General Physics at 56k is General philosophy at 29k posts. (By the way, would you suggest getting rid of General Discussion and Politics since they are not “exact sciences”?)
What that says to me is that people are attracted to PF not just because of the science they can learn and teach, but they also because they are thinking about what goes on in the world, why they are alive, how to be happy, what “truth” is, is war ever justified, should teenage lovers be accused of rape, how to find a girl/boy friend . . .
It is a good thing to have people come to a science site looking for answers, even if some of the questions science can’t directly answer. In my opinion, when trying to think, it is always better to want whatever facts are available. In contrast to that approach to thinking, do a Google search on philosophy sites that are available for someone and you will see there are many choices. Much of the discussion that goes on is ghastly, with little if any reference to facts about how reality works.
In addition to the everyday matters of living (which I think is what most people ponder) I believe there are also a couple of huge philosophical issues up for grab in the world arena. Metacristi has mentioned the idea of “epistemological privilege,” and the idea of scientism dogma. The questions involved there are no less than a battle for the mind of humanity (or an important part of it).
Some say empiricism can reveal all revealable truths about reality. Because science so far only has given us physical facts, many conclude existence is entirely physical. I feel safe saying that most of the science thinkers at this site are of that
physicalist opinion.
But there problems with the theory, one of which is explaining the presence of consciousness in the universe (we humans). Now, devoted physicalists may assert they will get the answer one day, just give them time. But some of us counter that claim by saying their faith is due to already believing physicalistically, not because there is enough encouragement from the evidence yet to believe consciousness is purely physical.
Meanwhile, the human world is watching and listening. In an issue of
Scientific American, Michael Shermer, writing in his regular column
Skeptic, pointed out that, “being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s shamans who command our veneration.” Yet while people are listening to science specials on TV, the vast majority are also going to church at other times.
So what is the truth about creation, and our presence here? Can science really answer all the knowable questions, or is there “something more”? If you look at some of the best debates we’ve had in philosophy area at PF, in my opinion it is that issue of physicalism versus “something more.” Maybe the scientism devotees here want to get rid of everyone who questions empiricism’s claim to epistemological privilege. But even if they do, the question will still be a most important one for humanity.
Should we let it be fought out only at rationalistic philosophy sites, pseudoscience sites, in local bars? Or can we provide a format here where intelligent people who disagree can argue such controversial subjects with facts, and within standards of sound debating rules?
He wants to discuss his views on relativity, and I intend to deepenth my understanding of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".