I appreciate the philosophy of putting knowledge to top position (I'd agree! It's personal "mission" of mine, esp. to improve our epistemology in general), but why I'd agree with Oppy that some trivialities are probably non-sensical to track is simply because of opportunity cost. I'm not saying you should spend all time collecting most important knowledge. We don't necessarliy know what it is, and there's also this thing to rest, take some time off and all that. But _when_ we have time to learn new things, because our time and capacity is limited, I would not spend time storing to log what brand of ice cream I had for dessert. If we had all the time and and much, much bigger cognitive capabilities then sure, why wouldn't we log minutiae as well for future generations.
This was an insightful interview. I really appreciate you asking a different track of questions to Prof. Oppy. Also, it's great to see young Naturalists such as yourself doing important work, especially in highly religious countries where there is still a lot of stigma against Naturalism and Atheism. Wishing you the best of luck in this project.
Thank You very much..! Indeed it’s not easy being a naturalist (and content creator) in my country. So the appreciation You’re giving really means a lot for me to keep on moving..!
Brilliant...Prof Graham terlihat sekali bijak & sgt hati2 menjawab. Uncertainty is not bad...that's lovely...kita tahu banyak & disaat yg sama kita jga tak punya pengetahuan yg cukup bahkan tidak tahu...Ehm sya tidak setuju bahwa utk meraih pengetahuan orang itu harus sejahtera...ini hanya tentang kemauan saja...Dan ehm...Untung saja umur manusia gak selama itu utk menyaksikan matahari bakalan hilang beserta smua keluarganya...😂...so Dont Worry Be Hepi🤩
I wonder if Dr. Oppy has ever answered a question without starting it with “okay, so…” No shade, love Dr. Oppy and his mind, just something I’ve noticed after listening to hours of his debates, interviews, conversations, and podcast guest appearances.
I think I agree with Oppy’s definition of naturalism as being a metaphysical statement about causal reality. But he sort of loses me when he separates normativity/ethics from this causal system. I think science has quite a bit to say about human morality. Not about whether certain values are right or wrong, but about the origin of values within various human cultures. There seem to be entire scientific fields, anthropology and evolutionary psychology and the like, dedicated to the study of these kinds of things. Experts in these fields would certainly say values were “caused” by a variety of physical factors that can be studied by science. I therefore don’t see how the naturalist can separate them from the causal realm.
I agree with You on this one.. I’m not agree with Prof Oppy as well in His ethics. I think science could answer morality in a sense of how it emerges as a means of survival tactic within social mammal But I was way too starstricken by Prof Oppy’s presence that I couldn’t even refute Him 😅😅
I'm not sure how science is in the business of discovering what one ought do in any stance independent sense. What facts would we discover such that my counting blades of grass all day is out of accord with some stance independent norm? And if I don't follow the norm what happens? It just seems to be inert. I find as a naturalist it's better to shave off that extra commitment when we can explain values or norms at the level of intentional states. Better yet we might as well eliminate all normativity if we can go about it. I struggle to remove the stance dependent normativity or internal normative states from my view, but if we could I find that to preserve our ontological economy
@@jmike2039 I think, in a sense of moral value, science could explain morality. Through neuroscience and evolutionary biology, we do a good job in understanding ethics and metaethics. But that doesn’t mean science could (and should) decide which ethical position should we take given most of our circumstances.. Science could explain, but science shouldn’t necessarily decide
@@jmike2039 Science is in the business of explaining where our values come from (I mentioned neuroscience and anthropology before). We can also use scientific methods to investigate the world and inform ourselves about the types of values we should believe in. I love most of Oppy's views, but I just find him incoherent here. And in terms of parsimony, my understanding is Oppy's a moral realist and believes in things like moral truths. Not the simplest moral theory, in my opinion.
I don’t really have any opinion on that as I’m not familiar with global scientific realism.. but I believe, science best explains reality Thanks for asking 😁
@@fubilosophy surely if you're a philosopher, you know about scientific realism in philosophy of science? scientific theories have to be empirically adequate & thus provide accurate descriptions of phenomena, but that's not explanation. eg. physical laws are rigid patterns that accurately describe observed experimental regularities, but they don't 'explain' why these occur the way they do, or another example from physics; magnetism. we can describe it very accurately, but no one ever explained why magnetic phenomena exist. obviously, explanation can include such empirical adequacy, but scientific explanations seem to be limited to that. re: realism, how do you construe the statement that 'fermions exist'? what do you take this to mean?
@@real_pattern yes, I’m aware of scientific realism.. and I believe, as far as I’m concerned, scientific realism best explains reality But i agree that science doesn’t answer the “why” question.. And I have my doubts whether science could answer the “why” question
![[UNCUT] ชาวบ้านถาม “นายกอุ๊งอิ๊งค์” ประชาชนมีกิน มีใช้ กี่โมง? I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 16 ส.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKZvOzLIJJc/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate the philosophy of putting knowledge to top position (I'd agree! It's personal "mission" of mine, esp. to improve our epistemology in general), but why I'd agree with Oppy that some trivialities are probably non-sensical to track is simply because of opportunity cost.
I'm not saying you should spend all time collecting most important knowledge. We don't necessarliy know what it is, and there's also this thing to rest, take some time off and all that. But _when_ we have time to learn new things, because our time and capacity is limited, I would not spend time storing to log what brand of ice cream I had for dessert.
If we had all the time and and much, much bigger cognitive capabilities then sure, why wouldn't we log minutiae as well for future generations.
Proper hydration is clearly a big part of successful philosophical enquiry.
This was an insightful interview. I really appreciate you asking a different track of questions to Prof. Oppy. Also, it's great to see young Naturalists such as yourself doing important work, especially in highly religious countries where there is still a lot of stigma against Naturalism and Atheism. Wishing you the best of luck in this project.
Thank You very much..!
Indeed it’s not easy being a naturalist (and content creator) in my country.
So the appreciation You’re giving really means a lot for me to keep on moving..!
Amazing interview. always good to listen to this great man.
Brilliant...Prof Graham terlihat sekali bijak & sgt hati2 menjawab. Uncertainty is not bad...that's lovely...kita tahu banyak & disaat yg sama kita jga tak punya pengetahuan yg cukup bahkan tidak tahu...Ehm sya tidak setuju bahwa utk meraih pengetahuan orang itu harus sejahtera...ini hanya tentang kemauan saja...Dan ehm...Untung saja umur manusia gak selama itu utk menyaksikan matahari bakalan hilang beserta smua keluarganya...😂...so Dont Worry Be Hepi🤩
I wonder if Dr. Oppy has ever answered a question without starting it with “okay, so…”
No shade, love Dr. Oppy and his mind, just something I’ve noticed after listening to hours of his debates, interviews, conversations, and podcast guest appearances.
Bro, no way, you got Oppy on your podcast!
Hi Abdullah! It's Abdullah from Pakistan. Keep the good work up 👌❤️
Thank You Abdullah..!
Man we should really make an Abdullah Only Club don’t we..? 😆
I think I agree with Oppy’s definition of naturalism as being a metaphysical statement about causal reality. But he sort of loses me when he separates normativity/ethics from this causal system. I think science has quite a bit to say about human morality. Not about whether certain values are right or wrong, but about the origin of values within various human cultures. There seem to be entire scientific fields, anthropology and evolutionary psychology and the like, dedicated to the study of these kinds of things. Experts in these fields would certainly say values were “caused” by a variety of physical factors that can be studied by science. I therefore don’t see how the naturalist can separate them from the causal realm.
I agree with You on this one..
I’m not agree with Prof Oppy as well in His ethics. I think science could answer morality in a sense of how it emerges as a means of survival tactic within social mammal
But I was way too starstricken by Prof Oppy’s presence that I couldn’t even refute Him 😅😅
You did a great job
I'm not sure how science is in the business of discovering what one ought do in any stance independent sense.
What facts would we discover such that my counting blades of grass all day is out of accord with some stance independent norm? And if I don't follow the norm what happens? It just seems to be inert.
I find as a naturalist it's better to shave off that extra commitment when we can explain values or norms at the level of intentional states. Better yet we might as well eliminate all normativity if we can go about it. I struggle to remove the stance dependent normativity or internal normative states from my view, but if we could I find that to preserve our ontological economy
@@jmike2039 I think, in a sense of moral value, science could explain morality. Through neuroscience and evolutionary biology, we do a good job in understanding ethics and metaethics.
But that doesn’t mean science could (and should) decide which ethical position should we take given most of our circumstances..
Science could explain, but science shouldn’t necessarily decide
@@jmike2039 Science is in the business of explaining where our values come from (I mentioned neuroscience and anthropology before). We can also use scientific methods to investigate the world and inform ourselves about the types of values we should believe in. I love most of Oppy's views, but I just find him incoherent here.
And in terms of parsimony, my understanding is Oppy's a moral realist and believes in things like moral truths. Not the simplest moral theory, in my opinion.
Bang, how did you invite graham oppy to your channel?
I just invited Him via e-mail and He accepted 😅😅
He’s a very humble person tbh,
Keren😮
Klk ad terjemahan bhasa indonisia pasti sangat keren ni😂😂
Semoga yg berikutnya ada terjemahnya
klik sj tranlatenya
do you endorse global scientific realism?
I don’t really have any opinion on that as I’m not familiar with global scientific realism.. but I believe, science best explains reality
Thanks for asking 😁
@@fubilosophy surely if you're a philosopher, you know about scientific realism in philosophy of science?
scientific theories have to be empirically adequate & thus provide accurate descriptions of phenomena, but that's not explanation.
eg. physical laws are rigid patterns that accurately describe observed experimental regularities, but they don't 'explain' why these occur the way they do, or another example from physics; magnetism. we can describe it very accurately, but no one ever explained why magnetic phenomena exist. obviously, explanation can include such empirical adequacy, but scientific explanations seem to be limited to that.
re: realism, how do you construe the statement that 'fermions exist'? what do you take this to mean?
@@real_pattern yes, I’m aware of scientific realism.. and I believe, as far as I’m concerned, scientific realism best explains reality
But i agree that science doesn’t answer the “why” question..
And I have my doubts whether science could answer the “why” question