How should philosophy relate to all (current) scientific research?
For what is considered scientific or even scientifically proven is a question that is negotiated outside philosophy in a strongly tendentious way.
For example, the right denies the scientific nature of climate research and sees a political agenda implicated in it. The left, on the other hand, does not like the discipline of evolutionary psychology at all and doubts its objectivity. Yet both climate researchers and evolutionary psychologists see themselves as genuine natural scientists.
Another example: theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says the following:
"I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take." (Sean Carroll – The Big Picture)
On the other hand, there is parapsychologist Dean Radin, PhD, with his books whose titles are revealing:
The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena
Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities
There is certainly also a science claimed behind the theoretical edifice of gender/queer studies, while right-wingers are devoted to a supposedly scientific biologistic theory of intelligence.
Is the philosopher allowed to interfere in these debates? Surely he must regard everything as equal, everything as equally possible. He should not be biased.
And this is especially so, because throughout their history, philosophers have repeatedly embarrassed themselves to the extreme with supposedly empirical findings that, in retrospect, turned out to be completely wrong.
An anything goes attitude, at least with respect to empirical science, might be appropriate for the philosopher.
I am thinking, of course, of Paul Feyerabend, who philosophically called for defending something like acupuncture. Furthermore, he has sharply criticized a cheap attack of physicists on astrology back then. Should he have been more silent? After all, he only wanted the sciences to be treated democratically, completely without authorities, so that, for example, both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in school.
For example, the right denies the scientific nature of climate research and sees a political agenda implicated in it. The left, on the other hand, does not like the discipline of evolutionary psychology at all and doubts its objectivity. Yet both climate researchers and evolutionary psychologists see themselves as genuine natural scientists.
Another example: theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says the following:
"I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take." (Sean Carroll – The Big Picture)
On the other hand, there is parapsychologist Dean Radin, PhD, with his books whose titles are revealing:
The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena
Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities
There is certainly also a science claimed behind the theoretical edifice of gender/queer studies, while right-wingers are devoted to a supposedly scientific biologistic theory of intelligence.
Is the philosopher allowed to interfere in these debates? Surely he must regard everything as equal, everything as equally possible. He should not be biased.
And this is especially so, because throughout their history, philosophers have repeatedly embarrassed themselves to the extreme with supposedly empirical findings that, in retrospect, turned out to be completely wrong.
An anything goes attitude, at least with respect to empirical science, might be appropriate for the philosopher.
I am thinking, of course, of Paul Feyerabend, who philosophically called for defending something like acupuncture. Furthermore, he has sharply criticized a cheap attack of physicists on astrology back then. Should he have been more silent? After all, he only wanted the sciences to be treated democratically, completely without authorities, so that, for example, both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in school.
Comments (17)
One role I can think that is fundamentally philosophical rather than scientific is addressing issues related to the scientific method rather than results or theories. Examples:
Also - ethical issues. Examples:
Intelligent design is a science?
To answer the question posed in the title of the thread . . . with utmost caution. If a philosopher wishes to engage in scientific speculation (philosophizing) they should learn the science. (Beware of quantum mysticism) :chin:
The representatives of ID see themselves as scientific. There is an interview between ID proponent Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins lists the scientific reasons for evolution. Wendy Wright replied that these are the reasons for ID.
Quoting jgill
My point was that the philosopher does not simply face the one unmistakable science, but he only sees many sciences that at least claim to be scientific and fight each other. For example, there is an alternative to cosmology or astrophysics. That would be the plasma cosmology or the theory of the electric universe. The representatives of it consider the mainstream as nonsensical. To be mainstream should not be a reason or value also for the philosopher either.
You know that philosophy of science is a thing, right?
My point was generally about the philosopher as such.
I don't know how philosophers of science relate to the fringe sciences. Or what they say about evolutionary psychology or climate research. Or what they say at all about current purely scientific debates. Are they biased there? It would not only be unphilosophical but also unscientific to follow the mainstream simply because it is mainstream. After all, today's mainstream can be tomorrow's nonsense.
What other approach would you advise? Given that evidence, rational conclusion, intuition...all severely underdetermine theory, we're left with either consensus or divergence.
I think that if one is in the role of a philosopher, one should refrain from judgment, at least as far as the theoretical of science is concerned. If you leave this role and become a private person, then you are allowed to have your personal opinion about everything and it would not be wrong for you to go along with the scientific zeitgeist from a social point of view because of the resulting social acceptance.
To find the most efficient way to bridge solution and expression. In the most comprehensive and universally acceptable way possible.
To find solutions without expression is useless information and expression without solutions to convey is just babbling gibberish.
That is my intentions to study philosophy.
Guys doing experiments, calculating, theorizing, investigating following the scientific method - that's science. The scientific method itself - that's metaphysics, i.e. philosophy.
I don't see how philosophy can help you with that. Programming language theory and computer science is more relevant no?
The thing in itself won't help you design a parser.
Well is complicated to explain in under 250 words and to type on my cell phone. That is a challenge by it self.
So hopefully I can explain myself in the best way possible without sounding stupid.
You need to have the very basic concept of logic. Recognize logic in its most primitive state.
Than have the most basic concept of expressing idea. Recognize expression in its most primitive state.
Hopefully, I am explaining myself correctly but is like trying to learn the anatomy of analytical thinking and anatomy of communication.
How creativity made an idea and from that idea a proper form of expression is required to make it part of the external world.
How to translate these concept into a source code to mimic these attributes.
In other words I’m a modern day Dr. Frankenstein
Using Philosophers or bits and pieces of them to manifest my creation. Identify certain attributes of philosophy and see if it can be mimicked in a artificial way.
Dissecting the human consciousness and taking what I need to manifest an artificial thought in a system. Philosophy is my cemetery and how Dr. Frankistein harvest body parts which in my case will be attributes of the mind.
Like I said is a work in progress and my investigation is not complete so I can’t say my pursuit is worth wild or is a bunch of gibberish. I’ll find out after I am done with this informal investigation.
Here is an example of what I am trying to explain:.
2 + 2 = 4
Two apple plus Two orange still equals four OR two?
**Insufficient information provided**
Count apples
2
Count Oranges
2
How many groups?
2
How many group of apples?
1
Which is the correct answer?
**Insufficient information provided**
You see by a single question it produces multiple answers depending on the information is presented, how you ask the question and how is perceived.
Concept of information manipulation and how information is processed. Also, concept of type of expression to communicate the idea across. I am hesitant to bring up Boolean Law as a comparison but I am sure my explanation sounds similar to those context. Other concept like Super position state define by quantum computing. How to reference these concept to understand consciousness.
I believe technology is just mimicking nature and to understand neuro-Science, Psychology, Philosophy, anatomy, Metaphysics and religion. Is all part of the journey to create an AI to the likeness of the human consciousness. Not just understand code and it’s mechanics.
I better stop because just this single component
alone can be exhausting to explain. But like I said philosophy to me is compatible to programming languages like C, C++, python etc... oh and pseudo code.
Philosophy to me is more like information manipulation than truth and how to produce desired results.
In programming this is akin to operating on 2 different types, which would either throw an error or do some kind of operator overloading (depending on the particular programming language being used).
Your description of philosophy seems to have reduced it to study of logical relations. Mathematical logic is, as I'm sure you already know, a part of CS and boolean logic is what the whole science is built on. Good luck in your experiments though.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct!
Quoting emancipate
Thank you,
Philosophy interprets (problematizes) science, etc.
At best, through reflective equilibrium, science & philosophy clarify-edify the understanding of reality of those who are engaged with each discipline separately and as complementaries to one another.