I was driving kids to school yesterday. The temperature and humidity and traffic conditions were perfect: clouds of exhaust steam were hanging in the air. When opposing traffic would drive by at speed, you could see the entire steam column shift to one side and back again. It's a great demonstration of how pressure waves propagate, and it is only clearly visible one morning every couple hundred.

I think its a question that looks interresting on the outside but once you start thinking about it your just gonna drown in questions about definitions and stuff like that. Did the question allow for this and that etc, its just gonna be a mess all the way through.

Brainstorming usually involves making somewhat of mess in the process.

So am i allowed to use my eyes to sense what i find in physics books? Then i dont even need to be super intelligent to derive alot of the laws. I just need to have a library card.

Im just guessing that trying to answer the topic question that questions like rationalism vs empiricism will stand before you pretty quick (and there are many subquestions here), and also questions like the one i just asked, and e.g questions about wheter the laws of physics we have already found are actually the real laws or just good approximate models of laws (if so do they count?). But you know, i discuss alot of random crap so why not.

Put them in Rome 2000 years ago if that makes it easier. The idea is to think about whether the vast data stream that human senses pick up is sufficient to determine the laws of reality with a sufficient intelligence processing the data stream.

If your answer is no - what is the minimum set of results, tools or laws you'd need?

For example - you give our hero a microscope and nothing else. Or a scanning electron microscope. Is that sufficient?

Personally I think our current laws of physics are discernible from this data stream and sufficient deduction. What exists, how it exists, and more importantly what doesn't, will allow you to fit the data to a single set of laws pretty quickly with sufficient intelligence, at least to some level beyond our current knowledge where it all breaks down.

You need particle accelerators. The consensus view is that there isn't any way to derive what happens at the electroweak scale from what you see below it.

If I remember the Theory Of Equations that my father taught me, if you have x data points, there is only one equation of x-1 degree that fits it. But there are an infinite number of equations of degree x or higher that does.

Who alive is good at "actual philosophy".

It actually doesn't take too much to reach the level of "good." But Hawking, Dawkins, and Tyson aren't at that level. All three have fallen into the "I'm a smart person" trap where they think that because they're smart and people tell them that they're smart that whatever they think about whatever subject they want to must also be smart.

And that's why they're quite awful at actual philosophy. They don't take it seriously enough to actually think carefully about it, and so end up spouting off all sorts of nonsense.

who actually philosophizes about being alive, good, quotation marks, actuality, and philosophy? Post-philosophizing about what is is.

That's why I asked for examples. The modern philosophy I've read from actual philosophers is also often nonsense as well. Hardly fair to hold Hawking or Tyson to higher standards than the field holds itself to.

Not that I agree with your characterization of them. I don't see those guys spouting off nonsense about algebraic geometry or number theory just because they think they're smart, so I think it has more to do with philosophy being a wasteland.

I'm curious what you've read from "modern philosophy" and whether your disagreements are content or style type disagreements.

I guess I need to elaborate more on what "actual philosophy" means, because it means something a bit different from "academic philosophy." Academic philosophy is the stuff that journals are made of. Actual philosophy is more of a statement about one's ability to reason through nuanced conversations about difficult topics.

For example, I would consider Mike Rowe to be "good" at "actual philosophy." I may not agree with his perspectives, but I think he argues his position fairly well and makes his points effectively. He at least shows the ability to think about complex issues, present his case, address counter-arguments, and make sensible conclusions.

And while there's a lot I disagree with PZ Myers about, he's at least pretty good at not spouting off stupid things.

I'm in no way holding those guys to the level of academic philosophers. But it seems that they sometimes can't even get themselves out of the intellectual basement on some topics.

They don't talk math because they're smart enough to know they don't know much about math. They have a certain amount of "respect" for it. But that doesn't absolve them from their other errors. The issue isn't just philosophy per se. It's their ability to just make sensible statements and articulate reasonable positions. That's part of the "actual philosophy" piece. They're basically making statements and arguments that wouldn't get a passing grade in a Philosophy 201 class.

Stephen Hawking's "Philosophy is Dead": http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08...g_3098261.html

PZ Myers on Tyson's knowledge of biology: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...egrasse-tyson/

Tyson's ignorance of history: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ou...ck-wrong-hero/

Dawkins on the morality of abortion: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...down-syndrome/

All of these have philosophical groundings. Hawking is basically making a self-defeating claim. Tyson tries to make his argument about biology using a poorly thought-out "pleasure-pain" model of behavior. He also messes up basic historical facts in order to score points (which is probably the most offensive piece of his bad philosophical perspective -- that he simply doesn't care about facts when he wants to make a point about something). Dawkins just shows he really doesn't think that deeply about moral philosophy.

A broad view of philosophy up to current times is at least worth it's own thread.

A question about what intelligence can grok physics may sound like, How much philosophical consideration is necessary to understand physics and recognize it?

So for physics to exists and for existence to be considered, thoughtful consideration of existence may be involved with the capability to approximate existent physics using observation.

Another way to put it is that since physics exists and is discovered through investigation with consideration that considering existence is just part of considering physics, however hidden, and is part of an intelligent capability to discover and recognize physics.

What does discovering physics without philosophy look like in the imagination? Is that realistic? It's seems a bit absurd. Quiet acts of philosophy fits better.

It's not about disagreements. I'll use the math technique of arguing against the strongest case rather than the weakest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_designator

If you asked me whether that concept comes from one the most important philosophical works of the last 50 years or a stoned dorm room conversation i'd snap call stoned dorm room.....maybe its actually both.


I'm fine with what Hakwing said. Similar things have been said by "great" philosophers (wittgenstien etc), And its not at all self defeating. He was saying people trained in only philosophy and not science don't have anything of value to add. He is not one of those people so its clearly consistent, whether you agree or not.

I'm fine with Dawkins quote as well. Again actual, well respected philosophers (Peter Singer) have said similar things.

I agree that none of those thoughts are very "deep", (thats why actual philosophers make similar arguments) but neither betray any sort of lack of thinking/logic. (I didn't read the Tyson one because I don't think they were relevant to philosophy)

I think what Aaron sees as "sophisticated" and "well thought out" are arguments where the author catches the ball, plays with it skilfully, and throws it back. In essence, confusing the intellectual equivalent of rhetoric with actual results. That's a common view in academia, but the intellectual equivalent of rhetoric is neither necessary nor sufficient. People with actually brilliant minds and deep knowledge and real things to do with their time often just skip the bull**** and get to the meat. Some of the examples he gives fit in that category.

Everyone should click this link. It's hilarious. If you want to see what a non-physicist holding forth on the thoughts of physicists looks like, this is fantastic. A highlight:

We've reached philosophical (not to mention scientific) ****** overload at this point, so I won't quote any more. Suffice to say, the philosophy of physics is far, even comically far, beyond the author's grasp - which is kind of Hawking's point.

Ironically, this lazy dismissal makes the same kind (in fact a worse kind) of error that you're claiming others are making.

Hawking's claim makes perfect sense within the bounds in which its given. It's a pointed and correct criticism on the bounds of philosophy - at least as its practiced by current philosophers.

I don't agree more broadly that philosophy is dead - it just seems that way when materialism has been so successful - but I don't think there's good evidence he was making that broad point.

On top of that I'll also add that philosophy, kind of like physics, might have reached a point where all the easy thought experiments are done, and we require either better thinking hardware or surprises from the real world (aka physics or neuroscience) that take us in new philosophical directions we couldn't come up with on our own. I think there's a reasonable chance we're at that point.

There are a lot of ways to interpret what he said as perfectly valid. But cuck minds, not naming anyone in particular:
instantly put it in their own narrow, silly, overarching framework and miss the point, while being broadly dismissive of what very intellectually accomplished people have said.

I'm unclear of the relevance of this example. What are you arguing exactly?

Stoned dorm room conversations can lead to interesting insights if the people involved are insightful. They can also lead to nonsense and noise of little value.

I'm not sure that your characterization is accurate. I don't have a full quote, but here's a more complete quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...y-is-dead.html

I'll let you help me parse this in a way that reads out what you're saying about the statement.

Singer's position on infanticide is actually consistent. I disagree with it, but it is a logical consequence of his assumptions. I don't think Dawkins' conclusion is the issue. I think his argumentation is all over the place and poorly thought out.

In essence, you're taking a "results-oriented" approach to philosophy. Other people have concluded similar things, so the statement is well-reasoned. I disagree with that perspective entirely. Well-reasoned people can reach a vast range of conclusions, but it does not imply that people who reach similar conclusions did so on the basis of careful contemplation.

Your analogy misses the mark because the reasoning is not hidden. We can see the author attempting to catch the ball, bobbling it, stumbling around, and flinging it in the general direction of the other player. Indeed, you're making precisely the "results-oriented" error I claimed was happening. You see "the player was thrown out" and are assuming that the technique was there all along.

I disagree that either Hawking or Dawkins are demonstrably well-reasoned and suspect that they reach conclusions you're amenable to, and so assume that the things they said actually made sense.

I agree Dawkins seems unforgivably dense, philosophically. Your other two points aren't strong though.

You asked me what modern philosophy I've read. I gave an example of something I read and don't really see as any better thought out or deeper than what Hawking or Dawkins said. It came from one of the most important philosophical works of the past 50 years.

I mean, I don't think it takes much parsing

Dawkins position seems fine to me

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a...of-twitterwar/

Again, hardly brilliant but nothing that would lead me to think the person couldn't pass Philosophy 201. I find your arguments here or the article you posted claiming Aristotle is required to understand quantum mechanics alot worse, for example.

If the end conclusions of Hawking/Dawkins are fine and well respected people in the field argue similar things the burden is on you to explain why they aren't well reasoned. You haven't done that.

Do you think you being a theist has any impact on this evaluation, knowing both Hawkin' and Dawkin' are atheists?

Philosophy needs to be continuously revised, updated and modified based on scientific findings and evidence, our understanding of human nature and reality. I think that following the research in many fields are doable for thinkers that have the interest and devotion to it, so they can produce fine philosophy in many different areas and be updated on what the real world tells us. But on questions about the universe you have to be able to follow and interpret and understand what research in Physics tells us. And this is no part time job probably, because you would also need to understand alot of the advanced mathematics that is used in top level physics. So suddenly you need to be an expert in alot of difficult things where each of those things alone might even be enough in itself. Following the scientific advances in other fields is somewhat easier, e.g when reading new research from political science or psychology its well within reach if you just have done some formal education and you done some reading already on the subject.

So im guessing that some of these scientists like laurence krauss, lee smolin, and hawking feels that recent philosophy on reality and the universe and stuff like that have been misguided and are in lack of good perspective and feels outdated and slow. Therefore they feel the need to step in and take the role as philosophers themselves.

But then you will have the situation where people that dont "talk" like philosophers anymore are doing the philosophy. They dont display the proper "my thoughts are grandiose" kind of attitude, they dont word themselves in the same way as more traditional philosophers, maybe they dont dwell that much on details, they dont deliver philosophy in the good old proper way basically. But also they will be underinformed in other areas, e.g these guys doesnt know much about whats going on in sociology research or psychology. A philosophy is guided by a broad range of stuff.

So im gonna guess this is whats happening.

For modern philosophers that aren't engaged in highly technical and abstruse little niches I guess I'd pick Dennett and Chalmers, but that probably doesn't tell you much except that I like philosophy of mind :P

If you want to do a "my favorite philosophers" thread, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who enjoys your insights.