Philosophy Now Forum

Here is the Video related to the above Debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-uaZvcCuo

Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead was clearly hyperbole. But when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, has philosophy really got anything left to contribute? Does the rise of physics demand the end of metaphysics?

Debating these questions are:

Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Théorique of the Aix-Marseille University
Eleanor Knox, King's College London
Alex Rosenberg, Duke University

Chair: Ritula Shah, Journalist and Broadcaster

The Annual Debate. "Has Science Killed Philosophy?" 1930 GMT, Wednesday 17th November 2021

I have listened to the video.
Both the Physicist - Carlo Rovelli, and Physicist/philosopher -Eleanor Knox agree there is no way Science will Philosophy, however the philosopher -Alex Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

What Alex defends is, whatever questions that are left then are merely pseudo-questions.

Your views?

Personally I do not believe Science will ever kill Philosophy due to the inherent nature of what-is-philosophy.

The point is, philosophy-proper an overriding tool to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
As such, science [to know] is merely a sub-tool to philosophy-proper.

As Kant has asserted the whole perspective of life for the individual[s] and thus for the group is the following main elements,

• 1. What can I know? - epistemology
  2. What should I do? - Morality & Ethics
  3. What I can hope for? - Philosophy of life

The above elements are managed and modulated by Philosophy-proper.
Science meanwhile is only a subset of 'epistemology' which is philosophical and cover the whole range of what-can-I-know.

It is true science will answers a lot of questions that were supposedly belong to philosophy and that is because these questions were not then identified with its specific subset thus were temporary housed within philosophy, thus they are pseudo-philosophical questions.
This was what happened with Mathematics and Science then which were separated from philosophy-proper when they are able to self-manage as a separate field of knowledge.

I believe many of the questions raised in Morality & Ethics, biology, consciousness and various will be separated from philosophy when they are able to self-manage on their own.

However, despite the separation of these knowledge from philosophy-proper, philosophy-proper with its inherent function will still be very necessary for the well being of the individual[s] and humanity in relation to the meta-perspective of the main theme 1, 2, & 3 listed above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:37 amThe Annual Debate. "Has Science Killed Philosophy?" 1930 GMT, Wednesday 17th November 2021

Your views?

I watched it as it was going out; nobody made any slam dunk points, and I don't suppose anyone ever will. Philosophy is essentially story telling. You take a couple of premises and see where they lead. Even assuming the initial premises are 'true', every step taken from them increases the possibility that some false assumption or faulty logic is introduced. Philosophy has never been a reliable source of truth, well, apart from Parmenides and Descartes. In science, at least the theoretical wing, the premises are observed and minutely scrutinised phenomena and the logic will include a lot more maths, but the story telling is much the same. So are the pitfalls.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:37 amThe Annual Debate. "Has Science Killed Philosophy?" 1930 GMT, Wednesday 17th November 2021

Your views?

I watched it as it was going out; nobody made any slam dunk points, and I don't suppose anyone ever will. Philosophy is essentially story telling. You take a couple of premises and see where they lead. Even assuming the initial premises are 'true', every step taken from them increases the possibility that some false assumption or faulty logic is introduced. Philosophy has never been a reliable source of truth, well, apart from Parmenides and Descartes. In science, at least the theoretical wing, the premises are observed and minutely scrutinised phenomena and the logic will include a lot more maths, but the story telling is much the same. So are the pitfalls.

"Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead" which I believe is narrow-minded because of his very restricted definition of 'what is philosophy'. Hawking's presumption is that philosophy's most critical question is searching from the fundamental origins of the physical world, i.e. i.e. confined in Physics which is Hawking's specialty.

Similarly in your case you are also defining philosophy too narrowly as "story telling" i.e. confined to 'what is truth' of reality.

As I had mentioned, philosophy is basically a tool to manage and optimize the following aspects of the whole of life [well-being], i.e.

• 1. What can I know? - epistemology
  2. What should I do? - Morality & Ethics
  3. What I can hope for? - Philosophy of life

Knowing truths is covered within 1 epistemology only but then this is limited in the sense there is no 'Absolute' truths, but only dynamic coherent truths which we must adapt to.

But the point with "truth" is it cannot help one much to make life decisions optimally in all aspects of life positively [2] and anticipating & acting toward the future [3].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:51 amPhilosophy is essentially story telling. You take a couple of premises and see where they lead. Even assuming the initial premises are 'true', every step taken from them increases the possibility that some false assumption or faulty logic is introduced. Philosophy has never been a reliable source of truth, well, apart from Parmenides and Descartes. In science, at least the theoretical wing, the premises are observed and minutely scrutinised phenomena and the logic will include a lot more maths, but the story telling is much the same. So are the pitfalls.

"Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead" which I believe is narrow-minded because of his very restricted definition of 'what is philosophy'. Hawking's presumption is that philosophy's most critical question is searching from the fundamental origins of the physical world, i.e. i.e. confined in Physics which is Hawking's specialty.

I think Hawking was bright enough to appreciate that there is more to philosophy than his own interests. But he knew how to wind people up and the value of a provocative statement. In a sense, he's absolutely right (at least in the English speaking world). The founding of the Royal Society with its emphasis on empirically and mathematically derived hypotheses established the criteria by which science has been judged ever since. The idea that 'natural philosophy' could compete as a source of 'truth' has been dead ever since.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amSimilarly in your case you are also defining philosophy too narrowly as "story telling" i.e. confined to 'what is truth' of reality.

It is your story that story telling is "confined to 'what is truth' of reality". To my mind, that is an oxymoron; to describe something as a story is to concede that you don't know if it is the truth.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amAs I had mentioned, philosophy is basically a tool...

Again, that is your story. In my version it is logic that is the tool, or rather the set of tools. As I said, you start with a set of premises and you bolt together a story, using the appropriate tools.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am...to manage and optimize the following aspects of the whole of life [well-being], i.e.

• 1. What can I know? - epistemology
  2. What should I do? - Morality & Ethics
  3. What I can hope for? - Philosophy of life

You're doing exactly what you accused Stephen Hawking of doing, by saying philosophy is about what you think is most important.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amKnowing truths is covered within 1 epistemology only but then this is limited in the sense there is no 'Absolute' truths...

As I said, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am...but only dynamic coherent truths which we must adapt to.

Do you mean contingent? There are lots of things that happen to be true, but might have been otherwise - pretty much the entire universe, as far as we can tell.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amBut the point with "truth" is it cannot help one much to make life decisions optimally in all aspects of life positively [2] and anticipating & acting toward the future [3].

Right. Which is why we rely on stories.

I'm quite proud of this observation I made in another thread:

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:19 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:... having models of physics which make sense would be a significant improvement over continuing to get by with those that don't.

I think scientists are concerned to provide the means for predictable and reliable practical solutions to material problems. The philosopher's project, on the other hand, is to reduce and avoid cognitive dissonance. I can see how the latter will be improved by models which "make sense", but the former requires only that models "work" . This is why many scientists want to claim that philosophy is dead.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:51 amPhilosophy is essentially story telling. You take a couple of premises and see where they lead. Even assuming the initial premises are 'true', every step taken from them increases the possibility that some false assumption or faulty logic is introduced. Philosophy has never been a reliable source of truth, well, apart from Parmenides and Descartes. In science, at least the theoretical wing, the premises are observed and minutely scrutinised phenomena and the logic will include a lot more maths, but the story telling is much the same. So are the pitfalls.

"Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead" which I believe is narrow-minded because of his very restricted definition of 'what is philosophy'. Hawking's presumption is that philosophy's most critical question is searching from the fundamental origins of the physical world, i.e. i.e. confined in Physics which is Hawking's specialty.

I think Hawking was bright enough to appreciate that there is more to philosophy than his own interests. But he knew how to wind people up and the value of a provocative statement. In a sense, he's absolutely right (at least in the English speaking world). The founding of the Royal Society with its emphasis on empirically and mathematically derived hypotheses established the criteria by which science has been judged ever since. The idea that 'natural philosophy' could compete as a source of 'truth' has been dead ever since.

The point is the best Hawking's in his state could do was to focus his limited resources to Physics. Thus he had limited resources to cover all fields of subject in more details. What Hawking had in mind was that the sole purpose of philosophy is to find the ultimate substance as in Substance Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
In contrast to the above, Hawking proposed his Model Dependent Realism [MDR];
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

As I had stated, the ultimate aim of philosophy-proper is not chasing after truths.
The inherent purpose of philosophy-proper is a tool to manage one's life optimally.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amSimilarly in your case you are also defining philosophy too narrowly as "story telling" i.e. confined to 'what is truth' of reality.

It is your story that story telling is "confined to 'what is truth' of reality". To my mind, that is an oxymoron; to describe something as a story is to concede that you don't know if it is the truth.

'Story' is your call, not mine.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it must always be qualified to a specific model [note MDR above] or framework of knowledge.
As Popper asserted, the best truths we have at present, i.e. scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amAs I had mentioned, philosophy is basically a tool...

Again, that is your story. In my version it is logic that is the tool, or rather the set of tools. As I said, you start with a set of premises and you bolt together a story, using the appropriate tools.

Logic is a tool of philosophy [as the main tool]. The other tools that philosophy relied upon are mathematics, science, etc. to generate the relevant knowledge for philosophy to optimize the well being of the individual[s].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am...to manage and optimize the following aspects of the whole of life [well-being], i.e.

• 1. What can I know? - epistemology
  2. What should I do? - Morality & Ethics, etc.
  3. What I can hope for? - Philosophy of life

You're doing exactly what you accused Stephen Hawking of doing, by saying philosophy is about what you think is most important.

You cannot deny the above activities cover the whole extent of life and living optimally.
Truth is merely one aspect of 1 i.e. epistemology.
Therefore what I propose is rationally more important than Hawking's limited claim.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amKnowing truths is covered within 1 epistemology only but then this is limited in the sense there is no 'Absolute' truths...

As I said, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved that.

Parmenides and Descartes did make claims of truths but their truths are never 'absolute' but are dependent on the specific model of knowledge they construct and depend upon. "Dependent" = never absolutely absolute.
Note Model Dependent Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Their truths are also very contentious , i.e. Parmenides' truths are opposed by Heraclitus. Descartes' "I AM" is illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 am...but only dynamic coherent truths which we must adapt to.

Do you mean contingent? There are lots of things that happen to be true, but might have been otherwise - pretty much the entire universe, as far as we can tell.

Yes, what is truth is contingent upon some model of knowledge. As such truths cannot be absolute so subject to change.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:02 amBut the point with "truth" is it cannot help one much to make life decisions optimally in all aspects of life positively [2] and anticipating & acting toward the future [3].

Right. Which is why we rely on stories.

Yes, stories in a way but they are limited, what we need is to rely on "philosophy" as the overriding managing director of one's life.
As I wrote somewhere, the function of philosophy-proper is akin to the function of the Symphonic Conductor, CEO, General, and the likes which manage all the activities of life optimally. Such management need its specific skills of managing optimally.

With the analogy of a Symphony, 'truths' are merely the individuals with their assigned instrument, but it is the Conductor that synchronize the activities of all the players into a good musical symphony.

The point is, like the skills of the Conductor of a Symphony varies with individuals from beginners to professional, the skills of philosophy-proper also varies within nearly 8 billion individuals of humanity.
Unfortunately with philosophy-proper the majority >95% of people [beginners] do not have sufficient competence to execute philosophy-proper, thus there is a need to expedite its activeness within the masses.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amThe point is the best Hawking's in his state could do was to focus his limited resources to Physics.

That's just silly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am'Story' is your call, not mine.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it must always be qualified to a specific model [note MDR above] or framework of knowledge.
As Popper asserted, the best truths we have at present, i.e. scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.

It's just different words for the same thing. Call it a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm it is fictional; like a story.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amParmenides and Descartes did make claims of truths but their truths are never 'absolute' but are dependent on the specific model of knowledge they construct and depend upon. "Dependent" = never absolutely absolute.

They both made observations which are true regardless of any model of knowledge. Parmenides pointed out that something exists, which cannot be stated without it being true. Descartes pointed out that thinking exists, which cannot be thought without it being true.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amUnfortunately with philosophy-proper the majority >95% of people [beginners] do not have sufficient competence to execute philosophy-proper, thus there is a need to expedite its activeness within the masses.

Do you think that will change what people believe?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:03 pm They both made observations which are true regardless of any model of knowledge.

Well... that entirely depends on your model/theory/paradigm of truth.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:03 pm Parmenides pointed out that something exists, which cannot be stated without it being true.
Descartes pointed out that thinking exists, which cannot be thought without it being true.

Yea. Bullshit. "Something" is a noun. Nouns express ontology.
Exists is an adjective about the noun. Adjectives express qualitative claims about ontology/nouns.

The only way you get to utter the sentence "thinking/something exists" is by getting thoroughly confused about ontology and epistemology before you even start.

Asserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

Yea. Bullshit.
Not at all.

You can point at thinking; or at something, ...
But neither "Cogito ergo sum" nor "ὅπως ἐστίν" is "pointing" in the way nouns usually point. ("ὅπως ἐστίν" doesn't even have a noun as such).

... blurring the lines between ontology and epistemology.
Interesting objection. I'm not sure blurred lines are always a problem. Might this be a case where blurring the lines between traditional demarcations of philosophical discourse was a good thing?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:18 pmAsserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

Yes, but not wrong.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm But neither "Cogito ergo sum" nor "ὅπως ἐστίν" is "pointing" in the way nouns usually point. ("ὅπως ἐστίν" doesn't even have a noun as such).

Immaterial. Both expressions are ontological commitments (in the way Quine uses that prhase).
If you are talking about "cogito", then the "cogito" is ontological.
If you are talking about "that", then the "that' is ontological.

Descartes ontologically commits to "thought", and then makes a qualitative claim about it.
Parmenides ontologically commits to the "being", and then goes to make a qualitative claim about it.

All qualitative claims about ontology are assertions.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:38 pm Interesting objection. I'm not sure blurred lines are always a problem. Might this be a case where blurring the lines between traditional demarcations of philosophical discourse was a good thing?

I don't know. How do you demarcate "good" from "bad" things?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:41 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:18 pmAsserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

Yes, but not wrong.

Not right either.

Not unless you have some a priori framework/paradigm of "right" and "wrong" in which you assert the rightness/wrongness of Philosophical claims.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:48 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:41 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:18 pmAsserting existence and truth is frivolous in deflationary theories of truth...

Yes, but not wrong.

Not right either.

Well yes, according to some versions of deflationary truth, every part of 'I think, therefore I am' after I is frivolous.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:48 pmNot unless you have some a priory framework/paradigm of "right" and "wrong" in which you assert the rightness/wrongness of Philosophical claims.

I

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amThe point is the best Hawking's in his state could do was to focus his limited resources to Physics.

That's just silly.

Nope! Why?

Hawking was assuming the ultimate of Philosophy's quest is that of Substance Theory'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
and Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
thus his counter with his Model Dependent Realism.

It is also a fact that in his physical state his resources are limited thus confined to specialty, i.e. Physics.

If you are familiar with the process of getting a PhD, where one must confined oneself to a very specific field of knowledge and very narrow Statement of Problem to enable one to be effective to concludes one's thesis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 am'Story' is your call, not mine.
Whatever is claimed as truth, it must always be qualified to a specific model [note MDR above] or framework of knowledge.
As Popper asserted, the best truths we have at present, i.e. scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.

It's just different words for the same thing. Call it a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm it is fictional; like a story.

The term 'story' is generally for reference to
1. -an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.

A model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm can be both for real or fictional things, but in this case, the reference is to real things only.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amParmenides and Descartes did make claims of truths but their truths are never 'absolute' but are dependent on the specific model of knowledge they construct and depend upon. "Dependent" = never absolutely absolute.

They both made observations which are true regardless of any model of knowledge. Parmenides pointed out that something exists, which cannot be stated without it being true. Descartes pointed out that thinking exists, which cannot be thought without it being true.

I agree it can be "true regardless of any model of knowledge."
But truths are subject to degree of veracity conditioned upon the specific framework.
The 'truths' re God's existence and his works claimed from a theological framework will have 0.001 degree of veracity in relation to empirical justification and reality. [if you are non-theistic and rational you'll agree.]
Meanwhile truths [merely polished conjectures] from the Scientific Framework can be rated as say 80/100 as the most credible truths at present as the standard.
I would rate Parmenides' truth at say 50/100 since it is empirically based, but Descartes' 'I AM' as real constitutionally would be a 0.01 truth.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:23 amUnfortunately with philosophy-proper the majority >95% of people [beginners] do not have sufficient competence to execute philosophy-proper, thus there is a need to expedite its activeness within the masses.

Do you think that will change what people believe?

There is a difference between knowing and doing.
As I had stated the function of philosophy covers knowing [1] and doing the right thing [2].
Thus if we can expedite the knowing [beliefs] in the masses, then they can be guided with such knowledge to do the right actions to optimize the well-being of the individual[s] and thus contribute to that of humanity.

Note the extensive exposure of knowledge re climate change, on LGBTQ, health issues, slavery, wars, etc. had contributed to changing people's beliefs and action. So the extensive exposure re philosophy-proper [as rational and productive with net positivity] will likely change people's beliefs.