Philosophy Now Forum

To whet your appetite for our forthcoming Round Table debate on science and philosophy, Rick Lewis put a few questions to Professor David Papineau.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/26/David_Papineau

Some snippet comments:

Papineau wrote:Of course, not all claims made by philosophers, or by scientists, are in fact true. But that is just to say that there is bad philosophy and bad science.

Not necessarily bad philosophy nor bad science. There are standards for both, and being true isn't one of them. 'Consistent' is closer to the mark.

Papineau correctly binds the two fields. Philosophy and science are bound to each other. The former must be consistent with the findings of the latter, and science is increasingly reaching to philosophical solutions where falsifications get further and further beyond reach.

Papineau wrote:My current interests include materialist theories of consciousness, and the bearing of Darwinian ideas on human psychology.

Looking forward to these topics. Will they be included in the round table discussions?

Papineau wrote:I think that when it comes to questions of value – of moral, political, and aesthetic worth – we need to go beyond science, and turn to the exploration of appropriate human responses.

These are not outside the realm of science, no? But indeed, areas where philosophy and science cannot be separated.

Does science need philosophy?

Papineau wrote:Yes. I think of philosophy as the science of very hard problems – problems which can’t be solved simply by gathering more empirical evidence, as with ordinary scientific problems, but which require the unravelling of implicit assumptions. We get problems like this right within science, as well as in traditional philosophical areas like knowledge and free will. Examples are the interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the asymmetry of time, or the logic of natural selection. These are live issues within science, but they require philosophical techniques, and philosophers can contribute as much to their solution as scientists.

The distinction here, as I see it, is whenever phenomena is confirmed by empirical evidence, science will default to those conclusions while not limiting itself to further possibilities. It's right until its wrong.

Philosophy conversely can create any number of theories surrounding the empirical evidence, its interactions and "interpretations" merely yielding more abstraction on what has already been empirically denoted. In that sense, philosophy offers nothing more than an artificial extension of complications of no further concern to science or anything it has empirically validated.

At best science may collude with philosophy only to a very limited degree. Reverse the question and philosophy's dependence on science as input becomes much greater.

Flaws in scientific reasoning sometimes lead to accepted "facts". Philosophy should demand flawless reasoning.

Science overlaps with philosophy. It's not as if the data comes in and automatically a scientific theory is born. One has to think philosophically about the data in coming up with a scientific theory, the data, all by itself, does not answer the question on what theories we should embrace. Now, granted, only those with a significant science background can engage in such thinking, productively, but it doesn't change the fact that philosophy is part of science, even though most people do not think of it this way.

"There are standards for both, and being true isn't one of them. 'Consistent' is closer to the mark."

Yeah, I don't get this. Let me explain via anecdote...

My 11 year old is havin' trouble with math...he thinks 'almost right' is good enough...I explained that 1 plus 1 is always 2 no matter where he goes in the entirety of the universe. 1 plus 1 is never 3 or 27 or -2; it's always 2. So 'almost right' is 'wrong'.

Granted, questions of morality, ethics, etc. are fuzzier than numbers, but, seems to me striving for 'true' (what's real or factual) is the essence of philosophy (and science). 'Consistent' isn't good enough (cuz being consistently 'wrong' just means you're 'wrong' all the time).

Yeah, a lot of the time we're stuck with "It's right until its wrong" but we keep lookin', yeah? We don't stop with 'almost right', do we?

1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It entirely depends on what system one is working in. In a finite system, 1 + 1 could equal 0. Just think of how we tell time? Start at 12 and add 20, you don't end up with 32, because the system repeats after 12.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:57 pm 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It entirely depends on what system one is working in. In a finite system, 1 + 1 could equal 0. Just think of how we tell time? Start at 12 and add 20, you don't end up with 32, because the system repeats after 12.

Numbers refer to amounts but don't determine amounts. Clocks are an index for time but don't determine time. Both numbers and time are frames of reference and must logically reference objects or time. Changing the frames of reference won't change what's happening in nature. Saying, " Start at 12 and add 20, you don't end up with 32, because the system repeats after 12." is using two different frames of reference not two different times. In other words you are saying the same thing in two different ways.

Jay: You are making a fundamental error of thinking that math is empirical, and that addition always refers to adding discrete physical real world objects. Math is 100% non-empirical. Can you name a single math theorem that has ever been overturned by any empirical discovery or scientific law? Did Euclidean geometry all of a sudden disappear after Einstein showed spacetime was curved and not flat?

I stand by my statement. The value of 1 + 1 is entirely dependent on the math system one is using. I used the example of a clock, because that is an example of finite mathematics that people are familiar with.

Does the curvature of spacetime explain why people and objects are bound to Earth? Spacetime is a frame of reference, not a determinate. If it's a frame reference of determinates, it's not empirical (so far).

So you see, you can manipulate references but, if you do, you haven't changed nature.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:55 pm "There are standards for both, and being true isn't one of them. 'Consistent' is closer to the mark."

Yeah, I don't get this. Let me explain via anecdote...

My 11 year old is havin' trouble with math...he thinks 'almost right' is good enough.

Math is neither science nor philosophy, just a tool for both. I wasn't pushing 'close enough'. Just sometimes (in both subjects) two views are consistent with reality. Truth is not knowable. Math isn't so much like that.
I say that, but there are unknowable things even there. Is .999... equal to 1? Depends on some pretty fundamental axioms, which need to be accepted before the question can be answered.