Philosophy is redundant

[eFestivals]

What on earth are you babbling on about?

He has a philosophy that he uses to extend his theories regarding the behaviour of the physical universe. Ergo, philosophy is not redundant - not to him, not to the concept known as the universe, not to his theory of it and not to the modern world.

The universe is an entirely conceptual entity and you cannot conclude anything about it without the philosophical principle of reason. It is not a scientific concept; there is no evidence for it.

When you think of your mother, does a summary image of her appear in your mind that is parts of her but not the whole, or are you thinking everything about what your mother is, from her own birth, to your father shagging her, thru her giving birth to you, to her scolding you and loving you, feeding you, clothing you, etc, etc, etc?

So ... when you say 'mother', it means a million different things, all at once.

Likewise when Hawkings says 'philosophy'.

It takes a special sort of ignorance to stick to the stubborn literal interpretation that you're using.

Edited October 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

All Hawking seems to be saying is that certain questions humans ask are better answered with empiricism. I'm cerainly prepared to accept that answers regarding the natural world are better resolved using empirical research (science). But philosophy, in the broad sense, has to interpret the evidence. All science can do is provide it. As soon as interpretation is involved, philosophy is being used. We have a whole set of pre existing theories that the evidence must be measured against.

So in the broad sense, philosophy is not redundant.

Philosophy as an academic discipline is concerned with much more than the natural world, however. It analyses the very concepts that are being used by humans, including science - causality, natural law etc., which we all take for granted.

Hawking, as a scientist, is making a philosophical assertion that only empiricism exists. Which as worm has been trying to point out, is self contradictory.

Neil, you keep saying that all humans think, so we don't need philosophy. That's like saying all humans experience, so we don't need science.

Humans can come to incorrect conclusions, because of the tendency to generalise and to make category errors. Which is why we talk of nouns as though they have a concrete existence - thoughts, minds, souls, etc., when really we're talking about properties or dispositions (in my opinion that is). Philosophers try not to make these mistakes, and to point out flaws in reasoning.

Humans can also come to incorrect conclusions placed on our limited perspective. Science can correct these errors. So we now know that the earth isn't at the centre of the universe, that there's no gravity in space, that time is relative. Without science, we could have had several competing theories but no means of deciding between them.

So I don't see why either should have primacy over the other. Humans philosophise about reality, science provides evidence, the evidence is measured against current theory. Then the theory is either shown as being supported, or in need of modification.

So there's a constant quest for knowledge in the physical world using science and philosophy in tandem. You can't have one without the other. I don't see why it has to be a competition, and I think it's scientists who tend to forget that all our knowledge is based on conceptual definitions, which are philosophical in nature.

Edited October 2, 2010 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

He's a scientist ... he is supposed to be literal! There can be no vagueness in his mathematics or his hypothesis ...

I think that he is being literal and maybe you are not, which is why I feel that you and Hawkins are treading different paths on this subject.

Of course he's not being literal.

As worm keeps pointing out, he's using philosophy to dismiss philosophy. He's not so dumb as to not realise that's the case.

[feral chile]

Of course he's not being literal.

As worm keeps pointing out, he's using philosophy to dismiss philosophy. He's not so dumb as to not realise that's the case.

[eFestivals]

Neil, you keep saying that all humans think, so we don't need philosophy. That's like saying all humans experience, so we don't need science.

That's not quite what I've been saying.

What I'm saying is that in the age of science all humans think scientifically (to a lesser or greater degree) - and so we don't need philosophy to tell us how to think around that. It's what we're now doing by default.

Humans can come to incorrect conclusions, because of the tendency to generalise and to make category errors. Which is why we talk of nouns as though they have a concrete existence - thoughts, minds, souls, etc., when really we're talking about properties or dispositions (in my opinion that is). Philosophers try not to make these mistakes, and to point out flaws in reasoning.

except they use reasoning to critique others reasoning, while refusing to have their reasoning disputed.

The reasoning used by 'philosophers' to do that is raw reasoning without consideration of human reality. And so from flaws come more flaws - such as giving credit to the god idea that otherwise wouldn't be entertained.

Because of course it's just as possible that tomorrow you'll turn into a frog as there being a god. Yet people everywhere will happily dismiss the idea that tomorrow you'll be a frog as worthless, but most will hesitate (at least) about dismissing the idea of god.

In our real lives we've already made philosophy redundant. Within naval-gazing it's still considered a worthwhile pursuit.

Humans can also come to incorrect conclusions placed on our limited perspective. Science can correct these errors. So we now know that the earth isn't at the centre of the universe, that there's no gravity in space, that time is relative. Without science, we could have had several competing theories but no means of deciding between them.

and yet all of that can be done by a set of science rules which would have had no need for the more encompassing idea of philosophy.

So I don't see why either should have primacy over the other.

spot on! So Hawkings is in the position to say "philosophy is redundant", because he has no need of philosophy. The questions have been asked long ago, the rules are there to investigate those questions, and he need only concern himself with the science.

So there's a constant quest for knowledge in the physical world using science and philosophy in tandem. You can't have one without the other. I don't see why it has to be a competition, and I think it's scientists who tend to forget that all our knowledge is based on conceptual definitions, which are philosophical in nature.

Yes, they're philosophical in nature, but they're also fixed in anyone's reality (until such time as they might change). The scientist can only work to the definitions he has.

And so at best, from the point of view of the scientist philosophy is only ever a history lesson, and of as much interest to a scientist as (say) why Hitler invaded Poland - none at all.

[feral chile]

That's not quite what I've been saying.

What I'm saying is that in the age of science all humans think scientifically (to a lesser or greater degree) - and so we don't need philosophy to tell us how to think around that. It's what we're now doing by default.

except they use reasoning to critique others reasoning, while refusing to have their reasoning disputed.

The reasoning used by 'philosophers' to do that is raw reasoning without consideration of human reality. And so from flaws come more flaws - such as giving credit to the god idea that otherwise wouldn't be entertained.

Because of course it's just as possible that tomorrow you'll turn into a frog as there being a god. Yet people everywhere will happily dismiss the idea that tomorrow you'll be a frog as worthless, but most will hesitate (at least) about dismissing the idea of god.

In our real lives we've already made philosophy redundant. Within naval-gazing it's still considered a worthwhile pursuit.

and yet all of that can be done by a set of science rules which would have had no need for the more encompassing idea of philosophy.

spot on! So Hawkings is in the position to say "philosophy is redundant", because he has no need of philosophy. The questions have been asked long ago, the rules are there to investigate those questions, and he need only concern himself with the science.

Yes, they're philosophical in nature, but they're also fixed in anyone's reality (until such time as they might change). The scientist can only work to the definitions he has.

And so at best, from the point of view of the scientist philosophy is only ever a history lesson, and of as much interest to a scientist as (say) why Hitler invaded Poland - none at all.

Edited October 2, 2010 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm sure he's not. So therefore he must be aware that what he's saying contradicts his assertion. He's making an unscientific assertion (incapable of empirical validation) to suggest that empirical validation is the only means to obtain knowledge.

it might be impossible to validate 100%, but the trail of evidence leading to where he's got to makes the lack of absolute validation as good as irrelevant, and with it makes the philosophical idea that there might be a god (and all other wacky possibilities) as good as irrelevant too. It's as likely that there might be a supreme-being-frog as any existing idea of god, but it's only the existing ideas of god that are credited by some humans as possible - and backed up by inconsistent philosophers; you don't hear of philosophers considering if the supreme being is a frog, but they do consider those existing ideas of god.

That inconsistency by philosophers in their realities gets to show that even they know of their redundancy. If they philosophised as good as they like to think they do they'd know that.

How can he use philosophy to make his point that science is the only truth? By his own assertion he must make a scientific hypothesis. But his statement is untestable opinion. So what he says would mean that his own statement is redundant.

his own statement - and the linked views on how the world formed - is backed by evidence (not absolute, but VERY strong evidence all the same).

The ridiculous possibilities - anything ridiculous you can think of (and the god idea) - that philosophy offers don't have that evidence, they just have an idea with nothing behind it.

He's simply stated what we as real individuals already know - that just because something is a possibility doesn't mean that it's a probability. It's those ridiculous possibilities offered by philosophy that are redundant, in the light of strong evidence, and strong evidence that we as humans recognise as such as proven by almost all that we do. His own statement is NOT redundant - he has the evidence that the possibilities offered by philosophy doesn't.

[eFestivals]

That's the key here I think.

yep - it's a statement I've made right thru this thread.

But I don't think philosophy is trying to do science, or argue against science.

ohhhhh, it does.

It says to the scientist: but you haven't considered the possibility that you'll turn into a frog tomorrow (or any other wacky idea).

Yet that's the most ridiculous idea, so why bother with it? Philosophy is chucking irrelevances like that into any thinking, and by doing so weakening the arguement of science by throwing doubt onto it when there's no reason to doubt on such an irrelevant basis.

I don't disagree with you as far as God's concerned - as a materialist, I only believe in the physical. Where I disagree is that I know not everyone is a materialist, and that there are some things a materialist can't explain.

yet the religious can't either. And they abandon their religious angle of intellectual approach for everything else in life.

Subjective experience being one of them. If you think of colour, you can have a perfect objective definition of the physical properties making up colour, a biological definition of perception etc. But that doesn't really explain colour to someone who can't see it.

So there's always a part of human experience that escapes objective analysis. Philosophy analyses this in various ways.

does philosophy get anyone any nearer to explaining a colour?

And so that philosophicsal question is redundant. It leads nowhere.

And soo, soooooo, sooooooooooo many others too.

So (grudgingly I must admit, because I'm very much of an empirical disposition) I don't think we can rule it out completely.

You rule out you turning into a frog. Care to tell me the difference?

It's a pointless cultural indulgence, that's all.

[Kemmel]

Rock 'n' Roll

[feral chile]

it might be impossible to validate 100%, but the trail of evidence leading to where he's got to makes the lack of absolute validation as good as irrelevant, and with it makes the philosophical idea that there might be a god (and all other wacky possibilities) as good as irrelevant too. It's as likely that there might be a supreme-being-frog as any existing idea of god, but it's only the existing ideas of god that are credited by some humans as possible - and backed up by inconsistent philosophers; you don't hear of philosophers considering if the supreme being is a frog, but they do consider those existing ideas of god.

That inconsistency by philosophers in their realities gets to show that even they know of their redundancy. If they philosophised as good as they like to think they do they'd know that.

his own statement - and the linked views on how the world formed - is backed by evidence (not absolute, but VERY strong evidence all the same).

The ridiculous possibilities - anything ridiculous you can think of (and the god idea) - that philosophy offers don't have that evidence, they just have an idea with nothing behind it.

He's simply stated what we as real individuals already know - that just because something is a possibility doesn't mean that it's a probability. It's those ridiculous possibilities offered by philosophy that are redundant, in the light of strong evidence, and strong evidence that we as humans recognise as such as proven by almost all that we do. His own statement is NOT redundant - he has the evidence that the possibilities offered by philosophy doesn't.

Edited October 2, 2010 by feral chile

[feral chile]

yep - it's a statement I've made right thru this thread.

ohhhhh, it does.

It says to the scientist: but you haven't considered the possibility that you'll turn into a frog tomorrow (or any other wacky idea).

Yet that's the most ridiculous idea, so why bother with it? Philosophy is chucking irrelevances like that into any thinking, and by doing so weakening the arguement of science by throwing doubt onto it when there's no reason to doubt on such an irrelevant basis.

yet the religious can't either. And they abandon their religious angle of intellectual approach for everything else in life.

does philosophy get anyone any nearer to explaining a colour?

And so that philosophicsal question is redundant. It leads nowhere.

And soo, soooooo, sooooooooooo many others too.

You rule out you turning into a frog. Care to tell me the difference?

It's a pointless cultural indulgence, that's all.

[eFestivals]

Put simply, what Hawkings is saying is simply this.....

If you don't know how to w*nk, the question "how do you w*nk?" is a valid one.

Once you know how to w*nk, the question is redundant.

[feral chile]

Put simply, what Hawkings is saying is simply this.....

If you don't know how to w*nk, the question "how do you w*nk?" is a valid one.

Once you know how to w*nk, the question is redundant.

Edited October 2, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

When you think of your mother, does a summary image of her appear in your mind that is parts of her but not the whole, or are you thinking everything about what your mother is, from her own birth, to your father shagging her, thru her giving birth to you, to her scolding you and loving you, feeding you, clothing you, etc, etc, etc?

So ... when you say 'mother', it means a million different things, all at once.

Likewise when Hawkings says 'philosophy'.

It takes a special sort of ignorance to stick to the stubborn literal interpretation that you're using.

Edited October 4, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No Neil, it shows that philosophy is not redundant.

No worm. For it to show that it first has to be defined what Hawkings is meaning when he says 'philosophy', just as any comment about your mother needs.

Now, seeing that they're HIS words and not yours, it's him that's in the right place to define what he means when he says 'philosophy' and not you - just as it's your place to define what you mean with 'mother' when you say mother.

As you say here that you stick to literal meanings for everything, that explains an awful lot - such as why you have such a f**ked up view and opinion about everything, because you understand absolutely nothing.

[eFestivals]

But by saying philosophy is therefore redundant, he's indirectly claiming that all human experience can be explained by science. That's not true.

Only if you're doing the worm thing and take everything literally. But if you were doing that you'd never use the word 'true', because there is no such thing, only best assumptions.

So that gets to show that you're treating his words inconsistently compared with your own words - you give yourself a flexibility of meaning which you don't grant him. And by doing so, you fail completely.

He's not claiming all human experience can be explained by science. He's saying that the bits of human experience that he's interested in can be best explained by science.

I don't get why some of you are finding that so hard to grasp.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand why you think no-one understands what you're saying. Maybe it's just disagreement?

those that understand I don't say don't understand.

Those that make clear that they don't get it I try and wise up by pointing out where they're going wrong - such as with worm, and feral.

[worm]

No worm. For it to show that it first has to be defined what Hawkings is meaning when he says 'philosophy', just as any comment about your mother needs.

[worm]

Only if you're doing the worm thing and take everything literally. But if you were doing that you'd never use the word 'true', because there is no such thing, only best assumptions.

Edited October 4, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, it shows that Hawking's opinion about philosophy being redundant isn't relevant to the tpic of this thread.

I suggest you read the first post in this thread, which gives the clear relevance.

The thread is about philosophy being redundant.

No i9t's not. It's about Hawkings saying that it is.

You've just insisted that the expert in question is irrelevant because his assertion is not to be taken literally.

No, I'm saying your posts here are irrelevant, because you're insisting on taking Hawkings words out of the context they were made in.

All of your posts are also made within a context. Why do you think your context should be respected by no other contexts should be?

Wake up man. If he doesn't mean that philosophy is redundant when he says that philosophy is redundant then he's not relevant to the discussion.

If you don't take him as he's meaning than you're not relevant to the discussion.

[eFestivals]

We are quite literally talking about philosophy and whether or not it is redundant in the modern world. You have to take this literally as it is the topic in question.

"literally" also always includes a context. The context here is Hawkings.

As the first post makes clear to anyone but those fixated on just a summary title.

If Hawking does not literally mean philosophy when he says philosophy then he isn't relevant. Why should we take his incorrect version of philosophy (meaning redundant questions) into account?

Yet you don't mean philosophy literally any more than Hawkings does.

You have your own literal interpretation of what philosophy is, just as Hawkings does, and anyone else. But just you are always right. Oh yeah.

Oh dear. The great philosopher worm being taught how to do philosophy by Neil. Who'd have thought it eh?

Philosophy is not redundant as can be evidenced by science. What is wrong is you indulging everyone with completely irrelevant rubbish.

Can philosophy present evidence to back that up, to the same extent as science can present evidence to back up a scientific take on philosophy?

[worm]

I suggest you read the first post in this thread, which gives the clear relevance.

Edited October 4, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

If it's relevant then his assertion is wrong.

from the context you wish to view it, yes.

From the context that he was using, not a jot.

The error here is yours, but your insistence that only your context is right - yet it's not your place to give the context, they're not your words.

And we've just found out according to you that what he said is of no relevance.

Only from the viewpoint of a literal moron.

They've all been made in relation to the assertion that philosophy is redundant. An assertion BACKED UP by a reference to Hawking. A reference now shown to be completely irrelevant or incorrect.

only to a literal moron.

My counter: Philosophy is not dead and the thoughts of the expert are not relevant as he doesn't mean philosophy.

yes he does.

He means "philosophy" no less accurately than you use any word. When you say 'mother' to your father, you're not thinking 'oh yeah, that woman loves it up the arse' like he might be doing, do you?

If the thread had been 'Hawking suggests that redundant questions are redundant' then I'd not have posted in it.

I'll have to start a thread 'worm is redundant' and see if your statement holds true.

[worm]

"literally" also always includes a context. The context here is Hawking

[worm]

from the context you wish to view it, yes.

Edited October 4, 2010 by worm