Philosophy
I've just listened to an episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage which asked 'Is philosophy dead?' There were good points and arguments bandied around but obviously I only get the impetus to post about the bad points ;)
Caveats: I can't remember the names of people who were on the panel, and unfortunately two of them sounded quite similar so I can't properly attribute arguments. I also don't know enough about philosophy (or physics, frankly) to generalise.
The discussion kept going to the theme of consciousness. Mr Philosophy said that physics can never explain or understand consciousness. Brian Cox gave the theoretical example that if a computer/AI was produced that passed the Turing test, that that computer would be a possible model for consciousness (at least I think that's what he was saying - he was interrupted by Mr Philosophy).
Mr Philosophy went on to claim that computers were already very complex, and some of them pass the Turing test, and nobody would mistake them for a conscious being (said with a patronising smirk to his voice). I need to listen to it again, because I think he managed to contradict himself there in the space of a sentence.
He also came up with the example (unless it was Mr Physician-philosopher) that a 'friend of his' who has a degree in physics, knows the theory of electro-magnetism etc. and yet is still puzzled by just 'why' electricity works. Therefore philosophy is still necessary. Erm - I don't understand all the whys and wherefores of electricity even after a physics degree, but I suspect that's because I don't have a perfect understanding of the physics of it. You can only say physics fails to explain it if everyone who has studied it still feels puzzled. And then there's the possibility of it being explained in the future...
My problems with Mr Philosophy's arguments is that they mistake the ignorance of individuals as failings of science, and he also makes the mistake of claiming that 'can't now' means 'never can'.
Which is daft, because there are sensible arguments to refute the fact that philosophy isn't dead, even in the context of science. First of all, one should define what is meant by philosophy (and that in itself is a philosophical matter...). If we look at Stephen Hawking's description of the philosophy he claims is dead, then it is for answering questions such as "How does the universe behave? ... Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?" (The grand design / Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow. Quote from http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371 - Look inside feature). I believe when Hawking and Mlodinow claim that 'philosophy is dead' in this context, they mean that science is more capable of answering these questions than philosophy, and that the tradition of science as thought rather than experiment is dead. I would agree with that. However, without philosophy, which questions would we not be asking science to provide answers for? Philosophy is there to say 'Why?'. Philosophy can ask 'Who?' even if science has no evidence for a 'who'. The fact that philosophy can ask questions that science doesn't have evidence for is actually pivotal for science - because if nobody asks 'why?', 'who?' or 'how?', science can't answer.
My conclusion is that philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive, therefore trying to debunk one in favour of the other is a bit pointless, unless you want people to be talking about your new book.
Caveats: I can't remember the names of people who were on the panel, and unfortunately two of them sounded quite similar so I can't properly attribute arguments. I also don't know enough about philosophy (or physics, frankly) to generalise.
The discussion kept going to the theme of consciousness. Mr Philosophy said that physics can never explain or understand consciousness. Brian Cox gave the theoretical example that if a computer/AI was produced that passed the Turing test, that that computer would be a possible model for consciousness (at least I think that's what he was saying - he was interrupted by Mr Philosophy).
Mr Philosophy went on to claim that computers were already very complex, and some of them pass the Turing test, and nobody would mistake them for a conscious being (said with a patronising smirk to his voice). I need to listen to it again, because I think he managed to contradict himself there in the space of a sentence.
He also came up with the example (unless it was Mr Physician-philosopher) that a 'friend of his' who has a degree in physics, knows the theory of electro-magnetism etc. and yet is still puzzled by just 'why' electricity works. Therefore philosophy is still necessary. Erm - I don't understand all the whys and wherefores of electricity even after a physics degree, but I suspect that's because I don't have a perfect understanding of the physics of it. You can only say physics fails to explain it if everyone who has studied it still feels puzzled. And then there's the possibility of it being explained in the future...
My problems with Mr Philosophy's arguments is that they mistake the ignorance of individuals as failings of science, and he also makes the mistake of claiming that 'can't now' means 'never can'.
Which is daft, because there are sensible arguments to refute the fact that philosophy isn't dead, even in the context of science. First of all, one should define what is meant by philosophy (and that in itself is a philosophical matter...). If we look at Stephen Hawking's description of the philosophy he claims is dead, then it is for answering questions such as "How does the universe behave? ... Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?" (The grand design / Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow. Quote from http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371 - Look inside feature). I believe when Hawking and Mlodinow claim that 'philosophy is dead' in this context, they mean that science is more capable of answering these questions than philosophy, and that the tradition of science as thought rather than experiment is dead. I would agree with that. However, without philosophy, which questions would we not be asking science to provide answers for? Philosophy is there to say 'Why?'. Philosophy can ask 'Who?' even if science has no evidence for a 'who'. The fact that philosophy can ask questions that science doesn't have evidence for is actually pivotal for science - because if nobody asks 'why?', 'who?' or 'how?', science can't answer.
My conclusion is that philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive, therefore trying to debunk one in favour of the other is a bit pointless, unless you want people to be talking about your new book.