Hilary Putnam on Non-Scientific Knowledge (1998)

Hilary Putnam gives a talk on non-scientific knowledge in 1998 as part of the Gavin David Young Lecture Series at the University of Adelaide. Among other things, he discusses the attempt to demarcate between science and non-science, the entanglement of facts and values, relativism, and the notion of objectivity, including objectivity regarding values.
Hilary Putnam (1926-2016) was an American philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist who was a central figure in analytic philosophy. He made important contributions to many areas, including the philosophy of mind, logic, the philosophy of language, epistemology, the philosophy of science and mathematics.
00:00 Aim of Talk
05:13 Demarcation between Science & Non-Science
15:45 Epistemic Values & Relativism
22:11 Reliabilist Epistemology
27:17 Objectivity
37:57 Fact/Value Entanglement
#Philosophy #Epistemology #Putnam

[@chadbrockman4791]

He was as good at explaining his thinking as anyone I've every watched give a talk, with some competition. It's wonderful to have access to lectures like this.

[@naftalibendavid]

Wow! I think I got about 15% of that and I will probably never know the percentage for sure. There’s an admirable flexibility about the beginning. I realize that I don’t have an adequate foundation, but what an inspiring motivation for getting started.

[@jakecarlo9950]

Very good, thank you.

[@fearitselfpinball8912]

What a conclusion...

[@lewreed1871]

This gave me an actual, physical buzz. Thanks!

[@randalltilander6684]

Is this lecture published anywhere?

[@221Dw]

TH-cam

[@gerardo49078]

here

[@blairhakamies4132]

🌹

[@jackoneill8654]

OD, yeah

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

It should be obvious that science is only a means for attaining specific kinds of empirical knowledge, and not identical with knowledge itself -- as knowledge in general is more fundamental and has a wider-scope than that attained by the sciences.

[@Bill-ou7zp]

That’s crazy that Popper called natural selection metaphysics lol

[@starfishsystems]

This seems at first glance to be a thoroughly uninteresting perspective on epistemology.
Of course as subjective experiencers, we have concerns outside of what can be objectively investigated. If we were some other, perhaps very different species, we would certainly have different concerns. However we might formulate them, our values would likewise be different.
This is entirely to be expected. But, for the moment, it's not very interesting. Once we reach the point of having another intelligent species to converse with, we can compare notes on these matters, and that should prove very interesting indeed. But at the moment, it's a little like asking what are the optimal conditions for life in the universe, when the only available instance is this planet.

[@kaffeephilosophy]

🤣🤣🤣

[@zacoolm]

“No clear demarcation between scientific and non-scientific knowledge” …music to the ruling elites ears

[@MycoWizard]

what?

[@pure_the0ry]

That is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. The ruling elite's main method of domination is to establish a realm of knowledge inaccessible to the common person; "working class people just can't understand basic economics, homosexuals are mentally diseased, etc." Whether it's a high priest or an economist, rigid scientism begets a ruling elite every time; those with the scientific knowledge.

[@Kingfish179]

Brain dead take

[@garetcrossman6626]

The opposite would be the case. The elites want a strong demarcation between the two to the extent that science has absolute authority, since elites effectively own the mainstream media platforms, educational institutions, the science journals, and all the major, recognised appurtenances of science. Scientistic ideology serves the elites no end.

[@Booer]

damnnn, looks like poppers demarcation was true after all...you were just wrong Putnam about his recanting. i dont even know poppers work like that dawggg to know hes wackado - this is the first thing ive heard about popper that makes sense

[@deanodebo]

Note the strong value judgment that any definition of science MUST include the theory of evolution. Talk about metaphysical assumptions. That’s not science!

[@phylwx]

Thats one in a bunch of examples of shortcommings to popper's falsifiability he mentions. Just another addendum to the old "falsifiability can't be falsified". Calm down and think about it.

[@deanodebo]

@@phylwx
That’s quite different. If we agree that scientific theories should be falsifiable, we can acknowledge that THAT is a metaphysical value judgment and move forward with the business of science.
On the other hand, to make exception for evolution is to throw out the baby with the bath water
Basically, they’re saying evolution is prior to the scientific method. Taking it as a priori. Well, then it’s clearly not science. It’s faith, indeed!

[@phylwx]

@@deanodebo "If you can't make experiments, make observations".
Its methodologically valid and years light ahead than liberal economy.

[@deanodebo]

@@phylwx
Has anyone observed macro-evolution?

[@phylwx]

@@deanodebo As much as the higgs-boson field.
The invisible hand of the market, tho? You're barking at the wrong tree.

[@djl8710]

Lost me at around 30 minutes. How may names dropped is too many? He is truly smelling his own farts.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

Unnecessary. He's talking to an audience who have read or knows what the names of these people have said. Laypersons will only smell farts. Some smell dots connected from what is in any list of undergraduate (and graduate) readings. These names are relevant, but you should've been paying attention to the arguments, then again you'd need to read any reading list to know the simple definitions of the occasional jargon. This small effort should be achievable to a layperson before you "smell farts."

[@tabishshibli4067]

@@dionysianapollomarx agreed but this is a man who thinks the orbit of mercury is a confirmation of SR. Reminds me of Bergson a lot.

[@Xcalator35]

@@tabishshibli4067 HP knew a LOT of physics! His remak was not that the orbit of mercury confirms Special Relativity but that Whitehead's theory was empirically equivalent to (i.e., had more or less the same empirical content) General Relativity (not Special Relativity btw). Mercury perhelion precesion was implied by both theories.

[@tabishshibli4067]

@@Xcalator35 okay thanks. Will listen over again. I MOST CERTAINLY MISSED SOMETHING.

[@Rudi361]

@@Xcalator35 How do you know Putnam knew a lot of physics?