At 32:35, she argues that it doesn't help that some of our most prominent scientists attack philosophy. Laurence Krauss is one of the people that comes to mind who thinks, very arrogantly, that as "explanations" from physics develop, the less we need philosophy. As a physicist, I have come to realize that the exact opposite is true. Physics is nothing without philosophy. I want to hear more from Goldstein.
And why wouldn't science be able to answer the question whether justice matters? 2:19 It seems to me that the only way to answer this question is using the scientific method.
The purpose of philosophy is not to give answers but to ask the correct questions and to describe all possible universes, with as much coherence as possible. It is science's role to dive into this pool of data and see what fits to the universe we live in. As such, you would need people arguing more about _what if_ rather then _what is_. The reason why we scientifically oriented people don't quite understand the role of philosophy is that we have not met really good philosophers and the philosophy that's needed to advance science is usually done by scientists themselves.
Still I don't see how you could reliably answer the _what if_ question other than using the scientific method. Isn't making predictions the supreme discipline of science?
Caren Ami Okay okay, I did not define my terms. Philosophy does not answer questions per se but is rather the discipline of deep inquiry, which poses the relevant questions, imagines the possible scenarios and gives us a wealth of options from which the scientist, like you've pointed out, finds the answer that applies to us. Let me give you a positive achievement of philosophy to a similar question, one that is most insightful and with which science does not concern itself much, were it not to be discovered as a possibility by philosophers. Thinking on the implications of the disovery of ignorance, aka the scientific revolution, Daniel Dennett and Slavoj Zizek submit to us that religious fanatics and proselytizers are not true believers. They argue that to literalists, their holy books don't make a lot of sense and outright contradict reality and so they need to reinforce their beliefs by finding others like them, spreading the word and arguing with those who don't thus making themselves a little more confident. It's a sort of mutual subjectivism, if you will. They want to grow in numbers to boost up their morale. Thus indirectly (Zizek directly) they call people like Hitchens, Harris and Krauss and such anti-theists narrow minded and naive in their attempts to solve this problem. I'd go so far as to say they are fanatics themselves and ironically believe in the power of the same books they despise. So now, a scientist who loves philosophy, must read their writings and put them to the test. Get ISIS under a cat scan, show them pictures of iPhones, money, cars, make them hear sermons etc and see what parts of their brains light up. Then we have our answer and it would seem that philosophers were right. So even though philosophy did not as you clearly state that it cannot give answers, it sure as hell gave us a valid hypothesis which is too non trivial to be thought of by scientists who usually have their narrow areas of expertise, if they are to excel at what they do. Like Rebecca said, they're joined at the hip. Philosophy is the part of formulating a hypothesis, within the scientific method. The reason why the two sides are somewhat antagonistic is that philosophers feel envy at scientist superstars as we usually reward the winner and not the losers. Nobody awards anything to the person filling up Einstein's coffee mug. And so philosophers sometimes posit as fact, some untested hypothesis. On the other hand, scientists tend to be cocky and neglect their cultural influences and the fact that they did not discover much and are a link in a long chain of thousands of years of philosophy.
I agree with you that an important role of philosophy is to ask questions. I am not so sure I can follow your reasoning. You say, " _I'd go so far as to say they are fanatics themselves and ironically believe in the power of the same books they despise_", while it seems to me that there is abundance of evidence for the power of these books, and no need to _believe in_ something for this conclusion. " _Daniel Dennett and Slavoj Zizek submit to us that religious fanatics and proselytizers are not true believers._" How do they define "true" believer? My out-of-the-head working definition would be that "true" believers pass the lie detector test when saying they believe in something (let's assume for sake of argument that lie detectors are reliable). That is, that _they_ actually _mean_ they believe in it when they say they believe in it. " _Get ISIS under a cat scan, show them pictures of iPhones, money, cars, make them hear sermons etc and see what parts of their brains light up. Then we have our answer and it would seem that philosophers were right._" How do you know the answer? What is the answer? Why is it relevant who made the right guess? As long as we didn't do the experiment and don't know the outcome, we do not know the answer, right?
Caren Ami I'm not someone to answer all of this, but it's worth noting that it does not matter who guessed what, but the fact that it was guessed does.
The best Philosophy extends from FACT . As we update out factual database our Philosophy will be tweaked . Theology has no place within Philosophy as it is not verifiable FACT just myth or as I like to call it primitive clap-trap. Science is the heart of what we are , and Philosophy is linked to what we know and what we are. Science is what we truly know that is proved to be true.
Geez, I wish I could meet a female as well spoken and intelligent as Rebecca. I pretty much agree with everything she stated. I consider myself an empirical realist /Transcendental Idealist. The idea morality is anchored in a god is an abhorrent idea. One of the most pernicious ideas created by humanity.
***** ? Huh. Its obviously abhorrent because it assumes humans can't be virtuous without being commanded like a fucking slave drone . It diminishes the character of humanity. It diminishes human nature itself. It's insulting.
***** "For example, if you say ethics is grounded in evolution, a claim I disagree with, but, for the sake of argument, let's say someone makes that claim, how does that differ from a claim that morality is vested in a god as far as human virtue is concerned? " Uh if our morality came from evolution then our human virtue is natural and not magic. It is part of our very nature. Well let's see, evolution occurred and we have evidence. We have no evidence of any god beings. Why would a claim in a god assume anything of the kind? Because it follows from the premise of god being the arbiter of morality. Is something good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good. You lose either way. You are never going to answer Euthyphro sorry. What is so hard to understand? If morality come from a god then its arbitrarily commanded and thus you are just a slave to commands. Pretty simple Its even worse if a god exist because then the idea of you being commanded doesn't even make sense because with omniscience comes determinism. You don't even have choices in what you do morally speaking. You cannot have virtues with an omniscient being. Virtues assume you have choices in your actions. You can choose to be virtuous or not virtuous. "For example, if you say ethics is grounded in evolution, a claim I disagree with," So you are an atheist ( yes that is what you are) yet you say ethics is not grounded in evolution? Where else did it come from? Genes/ behavior. Did some sky fairy imbue us with morality that is not a god? You are no agnostic because an "agnostic" would not say they were agnostic they would say they were an atheist. Agnosticism / gnosticism has to do with knowledge claims and atheism/theism has to do with beliefs. If you are agnostic in regards to knowledge of god then you are by definition an atheist because you have no current positive belief in a god.
***** perhaps it is fine to place morality in a philosophical god, but you are likely talking biblical, in which your morality is a strict code of text, that demands ridiculous, dated rules that none but insane people would follow, or even think, otherwise.
At 32:35, she argues that it doesn't help that some of our most prominent scientists attack philosophy. Laurence Krauss is one of the people that comes to mind who thinks, very arrogantly, that as "explanations" from physics develop, the less we need philosophy. As a physicist, I have come to realize that the exact opposite is true. Physics is nothing without philosophy. I want to hear more from Goldstein.
She seems to rant a fair bit, I think there are better mascots for philosophy.
And why wouldn't science be able to answer the question whether justice matters? 2:19 It seems to me that the only way to answer this question is using the scientific method.
The purpose of philosophy is not to give answers but to ask the correct questions and to describe all possible universes, with as much coherence as possible. It is science's role to dive into this pool of data and see what fits to the universe we live in. As such, you would need people arguing more about _what if_ rather then _what is_. The reason why we scientifically oriented people don't quite understand the role of philosophy is that we have not met really good philosophers and the philosophy that's needed to advance science is usually done by scientists themselves.
Still I don't see how you could reliably answer the _what if_ question other than using the scientific method. Isn't making predictions the supreme discipline of science?
Caren Ami Okay okay, I did not define my terms. Philosophy does not answer questions per se but is rather the discipline of deep inquiry, which poses the relevant questions, imagines the possible scenarios and gives us a wealth of options from which the scientist, like you've pointed out, finds the answer that applies to us.
Let me give you a positive achievement of philosophy to a similar question, one that is most insightful and with which science does not concern itself much, were it not to be discovered as a possibility by philosophers.
Thinking on the implications of the disovery of ignorance, aka the scientific revolution, Daniel Dennett and Slavoj Zizek submit to us that religious fanatics and proselytizers are not true believers. They argue that to literalists, their holy books don't make a lot of sense and outright contradict reality and so they need to reinforce their beliefs by finding others like them, spreading the word and arguing with those who don't thus making themselves a little more confident. It's a sort of mutual subjectivism, if you will. They want to grow in numbers to boost up their morale. Thus indirectly (Zizek directly) they call people like Hitchens, Harris and Krauss and such anti-theists narrow minded and naive in their attempts to solve this problem. I'd go so far as to say they are fanatics themselves and ironically believe in the power of the same books they despise.
So now, a scientist who loves philosophy, must read their writings and put them to the test. Get ISIS under a cat scan, show them pictures of iPhones, money, cars, make them hear sermons etc and see what parts of their brains light up. Then we have our answer and it would seem that philosophers were right.
So even though philosophy did not as you clearly state that it cannot give answers, it sure as hell gave us a valid hypothesis which is too non trivial to be thought of by scientists who usually have their narrow areas of expertise, if they are to excel at what they do.
Like Rebecca said, they're joined at the hip. Philosophy is the part of formulating a hypothesis, within the scientific method.
The reason why the two sides are somewhat antagonistic is that philosophers feel envy at scientist superstars as we usually reward the winner and not the losers. Nobody awards anything to the person filling up Einstein's coffee mug. And so philosophers sometimes posit as fact, some untested hypothesis. On the other hand, scientists tend to be cocky and neglect their cultural influences and the fact that they did not discover much and are a link in a long chain of thousands of years of philosophy.
I agree with you that an important role of philosophy is to ask questions. I am not so sure I can follow your reasoning. You say, " _I'd go so far as to say they are fanatics themselves and ironically believe in the power of the same books they despise_", while it seems to me that there is abundance of evidence for the power of these books, and no need to _believe in_ something for this conclusion.
" _Daniel Dennett and Slavoj Zizek submit to us that religious fanatics and proselytizers are not true believers._" How do they define "true" believer? My out-of-the-head working definition would be that "true" believers pass the lie detector test when saying they believe in something (let's assume for sake of argument that lie detectors are reliable). That is, that _they_ actually _mean_ they believe in it when they say they believe in it.
" _Get ISIS under a cat scan, show them pictures of iPhones, money, cars, make them hear sermons etc and see what parts of their brains light up. Then we have our answer and it would seem that philosophers were right._" How do you know the answer? What is the answer? Why is it relevant who made the right guess? As long as we didn't do the experiment and don't know the outcome, we do not know the answer, right?
Caren Ami I'm not someone to answer all of this, but it's worth noting that it does not matter who guessed what, but the fact that it was guessed does.
Wonderful Q&A. I love the playfulness between philosopher Rebecca Goldstein and Dr. Peter Atkins.
Dr Rebecca Goldstein takes questions about philosophy from an audience of humanists, including Professor Peter Atkins
The best Philosophy extends from FACT . As we update out factual database our Philosophy will be tweaked . Theology has no place within Philosophy as it is not verifiable FACT just myth or as I like to call it primitive clap-trap. Science is the heart of what we are , and Philosophy is linked to what we know and what we are. Science is what we truly know that is proved to be true.
Geez, I wish I could meet a female as well spoken and intelligent as Rebecca. I pretty much agree with everything she stated. I consider myself an empirical realist /Transcendental Idealist.
The idea morality is anchored in a god is an abhorrent idea. One of the most pernicious ideas created by humanity.
There's a lot of smart women, I assure you. Don't sell half the world short, now. :)
Ja'dden Norman
I know, I just would like to meet one :)
*****
? Huh. Its obviously abhorrent because it assumes humans can't be virtuous without being commanded like a fucking slave drone . It diminishes the character of humanity. It diminishes human nature itself. It's insulting.
*****
"For example, if you say ethics is grounded in evolution, a claim I disagree with, but, for the sake of argument, let's say someone makes that claim, how does that differ from a claim that morality is vested in a god as far as human virtue is concerned? "
Uh if our morality came from evolution then our human virtue is natural and not magic. It is part of our very nature.
Well let's see, evolution occurred and we have evidence. We have no evidence of any god beings. Why would a claim in a god assume anything of the kind? Because it follows from the premise of god being the arbiter of morality. Is something good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good. You lose either way. You are never going to answer Euthyphro sorry.
What is so hard to understand? If morality come from a god then its arbitrarily commanded and thus you are just a slave to commands. Pretty simple Its even worse if a god exist because then the idea of you being commanded doesn't even make sense because with omniscience comes determinism. You don't even have choices in what you do morally speaking. You cannot have virtues with an omniscient being. Virtues assume you have choices in your actions. You can choose to be virtuous or not virtuous.
"For example, if you say ethics is grounded in evolution, a claim I disagree with,"
So you are an atheist ( yes that is what you are) yet you say ethics is not grounded in evolution? Where else did it come from? Genes/ behavior. Did some sky fairy imbue us with morality that is not a god?
You are no
agnostic because an "agnostic" would not say they were agnostic they would say they were an atheist.
Agnosticism / gnosticism has to do with knowledge claims and atheism/theism has to do with beliefs. If you are agnostic in regards to knowledge of god then you are by definition an atheist because you have no current positive belief in a god.
***** perhaps it is fine to place morality in a philosophical god, but you are likely talking biblical, in which your morality is a strict code of text, that demands ridiculous, dated rules that none but insane people would follow, or even think, otherwise.
Unbelievable! Such vain rantings of such a brilliant mind.