Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion 1. Science Thinks Humans are Special 2. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions 3. Science Reveres Its Own Saints 4. Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins 5. Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics 6. Science Has Its Own Priesthood 7. Science is Based on Established Dogmas 8. Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends 9. Most of Science is Unfounded 10. Science Requires Faith
Im so glad to se Searle out and kicking as one of my all time favorite thinkers. I never did find his summary on Kant though. Or his early material on ethics. Would be great to get access.
When I was young I was very interested in philosophy and my favorite questions were always around ethics because it seemed to me then as is still does now that being human is being ethical and having humanistic values. With time I drifted towards religions because they essentially deal with ethical questions.
Religion may direct us into a set of principles by which people can live in harmony, morally and ethically. What I disagree with is religion using god or the fear of God to impose their own beliefs 🙂
Is it possible that there may be a cosmic code of ethics, a cosmic code of conduct, which applies to all conscious beings and can only be derived through objective science? IF there was such a thing, would you not prefer to know and practice these true universal ethics rather than whatever humans made up thousands of years ago?
@@bodhihouareau-rose8964 'a cosmic code of conduct under the juridiction of science'? What you mean by 'cosmic', I think, is 'universal'. Religious ethics, as found at the core of humanity's sacred texts, is profoundly universal: it is the same in all religions because it is essentially universal.
Backward causation is certainly less ambiguous than "emergence"...of course causation can have many names...perfect correlations is my favourite and one that does away with the problem of entanglement!
'Scientists need philosophy of science like birds need ornithology,' or so Richard Feynman supposedly said. Also, I recommend Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized by Ladyman, Ross and Collier.
A few random thoughts on Philosophy from a life-long science researcher: My favourite quote, from Shakespeare. - 'There was never philosopher who could bear the toothache patiently'. An answer I gave to a Nihilist once, for real. - 'Just stand there while I punch you in the face as hard as I can, then we can debate if that was real or all in your mind'. My practical view on Philosophy is that the best Philosophy is the kind that helps us find and explain the real world the most precisely, because the real world is real, has existed long before philosophers evolved, and will still be here long after all humans are extinct. The best Philosophy leads us to find facts that are true instead of kidding ourselves. Philosophy is best used to help us understand what we know, and separate it from what we think we know but don't really, what we wished we knew, and what we want to be real whether it is real or not. Most importantly about ourselves.
Your take on punching someone in the face and seeing if it is real or not doesn't matter about whether it hurts them or not. Just because the person feels hurt doesn't prove that it's real. Just like Sam Harris says that if you put your hand on a hot stove, it will hurt and it's real. That's just an assertion with no proof of whether it's objectively real that the stove is actually there. You could be imagining it, hallucinating, or being a brain in a vat that imagines a punch and simulates pain. Just because it's not pragmatic to believe that everything could be a dream, simulation, etc., doesn't take away from the possibility of the punch not being real.
@@simonhibbs887 I understand. I just like to question people and see what their reasons are. A lot of people just make claims that "seem obvious" and then say "if anyone disagrees then they are stupid" which is just a logical fallacy of Ad Hominem. Thanks for responding!
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012.
@@dongshengdi773 l interpret your post as saying the Bible and The Origin of Species, they both require the same kind and amount of faith to be believed.
A mathematical concept... Just because you can represent it on a graph or with an equation, doesn't make it reality. Not that it's impossible, but the multiverse interpretation holds the burden of proof and Occam's razor is pretty sharp.
@bodhihouareau-rose8964 true, it is a mathematical concept. But there are ontic interpretations of QM that employ Hilbert space, well, ontologically. The very question of asking for a different type of space is ontological in essence. The point is that there is a potential solution to the problem that is both scientifically and philosophically rigorous. Whether it's true is a whole other matter.
Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens. DNA is an encoding device for inheritance
...Hello, most amazing, as I see it, we currently exist in the Multiverse. There are not infinite Parallel universe. However in your and my current universes, as you stated,your shirt could have been, blue, pastel green, maybe even, mint hued pastel green. The choice of shirts infinite with your exercising your free will. I like yourself am fascinated by the simple beauty of everyday life. What a marvelous gift from GOD, where each fingerprint is Unique to each woman and man, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings....I am amazed as each of us are born blank of knowledge, yet the tremendous growth of the Knowledge/understanding of Everything in a most minimal moment of Time/Space...Blessings...
The difference between complex vs. complicated. Social science thinks it can do science in the world of the complicated like physics or chemistry, but what they are trying to study is highly complex, and can not be drilled down to one or two variables. That's why most social sciences have methodology issues and problems with reproducibility. No wonder these fields have been captured by ideology.
Is the philosophy of science the philosophy of rationality? I consider General Semantics one branch of the philosophy of linguistics rationality, scientific or otherwise.
He doesn't make a distinction between philosophy and science at his level - and this is the real truth. Regardless of division or facets of a subject or mountain, it is ultimately one mountain. Field theory, metaphysics, physics, mysticism, science, theology, is one and the same thing. It's only acknowledged when persons can overcome their minds that rule them rather than by the intellect and reason.
From a historical perspective, just because we can't see something isn't very strong evidence that there isn't something more. I don't see how good scientists can't help but have some interest in philosophy, and good philosophers should have an interest in what science is saying.
Isn't philosophy pure abstract thinking? Allowing the mind, reason and imagination to ask fundamental questions about Existence and offering speculative answers?
Arguably all questions are philosophical in nature, it's just that for many of them we have evidence for what the answer is. However in general we distinguish between questions that are amenable to evidential settlement of the answer and call those scientific questions. There are many questions that are definitional or open to interpretation, or for which it's unlikely we will ever have any evidence one way or another. Those are all what e usually mean by philosophical questions, because they are only amenable to philosophical discussion, not evidential inquiry. However, just for fun, there's also the question of how to interpret scientific inquiry, the nature of theories, etc.
Love Searle, even though I disagree with him so often. In this case, there's no mystery about the space in which the main multiverse theories occur, it's the same space we inhabit. Eternal inflation supposes that our spacetime is a pattern of regions, some of which are inflating at any given time and others of which like ours are in a more stable state. The process leads these regions to have varying parameters of physics, but they're all causally contiguous with our region of spacetime. The quantum many worlds interpretation says that there is a superposition of states in our universe, and in fact we know that superposition is a real phenomenon, we even exploit it in some of our technology. This interview was a while ago though, so I don't now if Searle still has the same opinions. On the rest I think he's spot on, and I've always admired the way he tries to keep an open mind even on issues he has strong opinions on. Strong opinions held lightly, that's a great example to follow.
Ideia of philosophy of Science is it full pratice it is inconsistency with reality. Before Science pratice philosophy of scientist questions about picture out how experiences is evidence. Guys is completely wrong.
Philosophy( a lifestyle) and science(a tool). Philosophers seek the divine, to become homogenous, practices in imitating, thus ultimately union with the one. Philosophy is greatly alike to yoga; what wisdom is to the philosopher is liberation to the yogi. Science - a tool, and methodologies that cater to particular investigations, and most importantly, for our way of life, to live better, more proficient and healthy - although there are contentions that arise from the two fold use in utilizing science. Persons who deny the divine are not genuine men of science.
It’s good to see that Searle is still enthusiastic about philosophy as well as so intellectually lucid.
Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion
1. Science Thinks Humans are Special
2. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions
3. Science Reveres Its Own Saints
4. Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins
5. Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics
6. Science Has Its Own Priesthood
7. Science is Based on Established Dogmas
8. Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends
9. Most of Science is Unfounded
10. Science Requires Faith
This was from at least 11 years ago.
Im so glad to se Searle out and kicking as one of my all time favorite thinkers. I never did find his summary on Kant though. Or his early material on ethics. Would be great to get access.
"I cannot imagine living a life without being obsessed by philosophical questions"
- John Searle
When I was young I was very interested in philosophy and my favorite questions were always around ethics because it seemed to me then as is still does now that being human is being ethical and having humanistic values.
With time I drifted towards religions because they essentially deal with ethical questions.
Religion may direct us into a set of principles by which people can live in harmony, morally and ethically. What I disagree with is religion using god or the fear of God to impose their own beliefs 🙂
@@quantumkath OK but that's a different matter. The sacred texts, with their stress on humanistic values are what I was refering to.
@@catherinemira75 fair enough!
Is it possible that there may be a cosmic code of ethics, a cosmic code of conduct, which applies to all conscious beings and can only be derived through objective science?
IF there was such a thing, would you not prefer to know and practice these true universal ethics rather than whatever humans made up thousands of years ago?
@@bodhihouareau-rose8964 'a cosmic code of conduct under the juridiction of science'?
What you mean by 'cosmic', I think, is 'universal'. Religious ethics, as found at the core of humanity's sacred texts, is profoundly universal: it is the same in all religions because it is essentially universal.
This program changed my life by changing what I think about and maintaining a vast perspective. THANK YOU!!!
Backward causation is certainly less ambiguous than "emergence"...of course causation can have many names...perfect correlations is my favourite and one that does away with the problem of entanglement!
John Searle - if only the rest were this brilliant.
'Scientists need philosophy of science like birds need ornithology,' or so Richard Feynman supposedly said.
Also, I recommend Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized by Ladyman, Ross and Collier.
May I assume that the release of this video indicates that the ethics issues around Searle have been resolved?
Science is not thinking, it's a shortened thinking. And philosophy frees from these reductions and makes you think..
Searle should read "Gustavo Bueno`s" Philosophy of science to "really update and understand" what science really is.
A few random thoughts on Philosophy from a life-long science researcher:
My favourite quote, from Shakespeare.
- 'There was never philosopher who could bear the toothache patiently'.
An answer I gave to a Nihilist once, for real.
- 'Just stand there while I punch you in the face as hard as I can, then we can debate if that was real or all in your mind'.
My practical view on Philosophy is that the best Philosophy is the kind that helps us find and explain the real world the most precisely, because the real world is real, has existed long before philosophers evolved, and will still be here long after all humans are extinct.
The best Philosophy leads us to find facts that are true instead of kidding ourselves.
Philosophy is best used to help us understand what we know, and separate it from what we think we know but don't really, what we wished we knew, and what we want to be real whether it is real or not. Most importantly about ourselves.
There's an old joke, everyone's a realist when they're punched in the face.
Your take on punching someone in the face and seeing if it is real or not doesn't matter about whether it hurts them or not. Just because the person feels hurt doesn't prove that it's real. Just like Sam Harris says that if you put your hand on a hot stove, it will hurt and it's real. That's just an assertion with no proof of whether it's objectively real that the stove is actually there. You could be imagining it, hallucinating, or being a brain in a vat that imagines a punch and simulates pain. Just because it's not pragmatic to believe that everything could be a dream, simulation, etc., doesn't take away from the possibility of the punch not being real.
@@isaacklanderud9773 Sure, and in fact I'm an empiricist not a realist, but it's still a fun saying.
@@simonhibbs887 I understand. I just like to question people and see what their reasons are. A lot of people just make claims that "seem obvious" and then say "if anyone disagrees then they are stupid" which is just a logical fallacy of Ad Hominem. Thanks for responding!
Philosophy is the womb of science.
Philosophy is the womb of rationality, which is the womb of science. Like daphnia, the water bug.
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012.
@@dongshengdi773 l interpret your post as saying the Bible and The Origin of Species, they both require the same kind and amount of faith to be believed.
Such a great speed, that it would not be observable for us today has not much been considered so far. Why is that?
Sorry, but: Where was this video filmed? What are those things in the background? [Also, Good stuff as usual].
I'm not sure, but I've seen other clips from the same interview on the channel in the past.
Quartz and amethysta crystals in the background
they are called "Crystals"
Searle has never heard of Hilbert space before? Because that's exactly the different kind of space he is talking about towards the end...
A mathematical concept... Just because you can represent it on a graph or with an equation, doesn't make it reality. Not that it's impossible, but the multiverse interpretation holds the burden of proof and Occam's razor is pretty sharp.
@bodhihouareau-rose8964 true, it is a mathematical concept. But there are ontic interpretations of QM that employ Hilbert space, well, ontologically. The very question of asking for a different type of space is ontological in essence. The point is that there is a potential solution to the problem that is both scientifically and philosophically rigorous. Whether it's true is a whole other matter.
Without philosophy science is finite horizon without science philosophy is infinite in our beyond reality which can't be pragmatic reality...
Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens.
DNA is an encoding device for inheritance
@@dongshengdi773 None of that requires faith unless the person thinking it is utterly ignorant and more than a little stupid.
...Hello, most amazing, as I see it, we currently exist in the Multiverse. There are not infinite Parallel universe. However in your and my current universes, as you stated,your shirt could have been, blue, pastel green, maybe even, mint hued pastel green. The choice of shirts infinite with your exercising your free will. I like yourself am fascinated by the simple beauty of everyday life. What a marvelous gift from GOD, where each fingerprint is Unique to each woman and man, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings....I am amazed as each of us are born blank of knowledge, yet the tremendous growth of the Knowledge/understanding of Everything in a most minimal moment of Time/Space...Blessings...
The important answers are different depending on whether you believe in a consciously designed reality or not.
Why Philosophy of Science?
Philosophy Is the why of science and science is the how to the why
The difference between complex vs. complicated. Social science thinks it can do science in the world of the complicated like physics or chemistry, but what they are trying to study is highly complex, and can not be drilled down to one or two variables. That's why most social sciences have methodology issues and problems with reproducibility. No wonder these fields have been captured by ideology.
Is the philosophy of science the philosophy of rationality? I consider General Semantics one branch of the philosophy of linguistics rationality, scientific or otherwise.
Philosophy is always necessary. The problem is the ignorance of man.
Focus fade-in, arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
He doesn't make a distinction between philosophy and science at his level - and this is the real truth. Regardless of division or facets of a subject or mountain, it is ultimately one mountain. Field theory, metaphysics, physics, mysticism, science, theology, is one and the same thing. It's only acknowledged when persons can overcome their minds that rule them rather than by the intellect and reason.
John Searle strikes me as a very intelligent man. I'd like to hear more from him.
The channel has several interviews with him, and they're all worth searching for. You might find comments from me on a few.
@@simonhibbs887 excellent. Thank you
From a historical perspective, just because we can't see something isn't very strong evidence that there isn't something more. I don't see how good scientists can't help but have some interest in philosophy, and good philosophers should have an interest in what science is saying.
Another Robert "WHY" question.
Isn't philosophy pure abstract thinking? Allowing the mind, reason and imagination to ask fundamental questions about Existence and offering speculative answers?
Arguably all questions are philosophical in nature, it's just that for many of them we have evidence for what the answer is. However in general we distinguish between questions that are amenable to evidential settlement of the answer and call those scientific questions. There are many questions that are definitional or open to interpretation, or for which it's unlikely we will ever have any evidence one way or another. Those are all what e usually mean by philosophical questions, because they are only amenable to philosophical discussion, not evidential inquiry. However, just for fun, there's also the question of how to interpret scientific inquiry, the nature of theories, etc.
@@simonhibbs887 I can buy that.
😂😂😂😂
Science would benefit if it lost its arrogance and read philosophy. Would probably speed up its progress.
Love Searle, even though I disagree with him so often. In this case, there's no mystery about the space in which the main multiverse theories occur, it's the same space we inhabit. Eternal inflation supposes that our spacetime is a pattern of regions, some of which are inflating at any given time and others of which like ours are in a more stable state. The process leads these regions to have varying parameters of physics, but they're all causally contiguous with our region of spacetime. The quantum many worlds interpretation says that there is a superposition of states in our universe, and in fact we know that superposition is a real phenomenon, we even exploit it in some of our technology. This interview was a while ago though, so I don't now if Searle still has the same opinions.
On the rest I think he's spot on, and I've always admired the way he tries to keep an open mind even on issues he has strong opinions on. Strong opinions held lightly, that's a great example to follow.
My favorite Searle quote is: “I decide to raise my arm and the damn thing goes up”.
I think you get the message, lol.
Ideia of philosophy of Science is it full pratice it is inconsistency with reality. Before Science pratice philosophy of scientist questions about picture out how experiences is evidence. Guys is completely wrong.
…what?
Am I having a stroke
😳😵💫🤪
@@Hmmmmmmm1 good for YOU.
@@Maxwell-mv9rx…WHAT?
Philosophy( a lifestyle) and science(a tool).
Philosophers seek the divine, to become homogenous, practices in imitating, thus ultimately union with the one. Philosophy is greatly alike to yoga; what wisdom is to the philosopher is liberation to the yogi.
Science - a tool, and methodologies that cater to particular investigations, and most importantly, for our way of life, to live better, more proficient and healthy - although there are contentions that arise from the two fold use in utilizing science. Persons who deny the divine are not genuine men of science.