Philosophy Now Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 979047.stm

Hawking strikes again. What an idiot.

Hurray for Susan Greenfield!

As Étienne Gilson remarked, philosophy always buries its undertakers.

Isn't there an atheists vs skeptics thread around this site?

I'm telling you atheists fear skepticism more than religious people do because nothing rubs an atheist the wrong way better than telling them they don't exist.

Is philosophy dead?

Philosophy, from the Greek words philos and sophia meaning "love of wisdom".

If our definition of philosophy is following the path to wisdom, where ever it may lead, we can make a case that path leads outside of thought, a state where philosophy might be said to be dead.

Within the divisive arena of thought, the great minds will spend thousands of years arguing about whose discipline is dead, with each camp struggling to achieve final victory over the others. Somehow this doesn't smell like wisdom.

Wisdom would seem to be something more like standing outside of all the arguments, observing the debate unfold carefully with objectivity, which implies a detachment from conclusions.

Given Hawking's recent ramblings, I think he's speaking for himself...

Scientists are good at telling us what they can do but it takes wiser heads to tell them whether they should.

Personally, if he means Metaphysics, which is what most appear to think Philosophy is, I think he's pretty much right.

I also think Phenomenology is a modern question and answer, and Ethics, Politics and Logic will probably always be around despite Physics and now Biology.

This isn't a shocking statement considering that Hawking considers himself a contemporary Positivist.

Declares the end of philosophy, then ironically introduces "model-dependent realism". From what reviewers have said, the latter sounds akin to perspectivism. "There isn't any one complete truth and every observer perceives/conceives the world from their own POV and mind"; there's no single model, but multiple ways to make predictions; if different theories forecast the same results, none of them could be judged incorrect. But surely some can be more privileged than others, as in Nietzsch's perspectivism; Hawking can't be spouting the epistemic egalitarianism of postmodernism.

Richard Rorty likewise wanted to eliminate philosophy or demote it to literary criticism, but he instead dismissed all "realisms" and representationalism (there was just causation; relational influences between whatever entities or circumstances were not representational).

Even in case I admit the the matter has originated from nothing, I can not accept the life has originated from nothing ... Unlucky Hawking does not have a chance to recognize it

Here is an excellent article regarding humility and scientists.http://chronicle.com/article/Cosmology- ... le-/124568

Physics is dead. The particle based metaphysics at its foundation has exhausted its explanatory potential.

the monad is dead; long live the monad

-Imp

Rortabend wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 979047.stm

Hawking strikes again. What an idiot.

Hurray for Susan Greenfield!

"Philosophy has not kept up with Physics and Biology"

Philosophy underpins all of science and can just as easily undermine it.

"Science explains the Universe"

Nothing explains the universe and science can only describe it.

I knew Hawkins was not the greatest scientist on earth, but I did not know he was THAT ignorant of philosophy.

Wootah wrote:Isn't there an atheists vs skeptics thread around this site?

I'm telling you atheists fear skepticism more than religious people do because nothing rubs an atheist the wrong way better than telling them they don't exist.

This is meaning less drivel.
Atheists are Skeptics par excellence.