Would it be better if more scientists studied philosophy?

_{News
November 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Instead of ridiculing it, as Stephen Hawking did?

From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:

Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed public
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”

Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.

You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

Comments

JS, the implicit appeals happened again. The point is made. KFkairosfocus_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

JS, your argument just now pivots on implicit appeals to our intuitive acknowledgement of first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, etc.
Thank you for providing an excellent example of placing philosophical dissembling over evidence. Readers will note that you have used this lame approach on multiple occasions rather than address the actual issues that have been raised. The expectation/hope that people will respond truthfully and with a smidgen of reason is a societal expectation. It is a reciprocal expectation, as are so many other expectations. They are behaviors that people start learning in the first year of life. If they are duties, they are self-imposed, not fundamental to our existence. The fact that you are not comfortable with the consequences of this reality does not make it any less real.Joe Schooner_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

JS, your argument just now pivots on implicit appeals to our intuitive acknowledgement of first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, etc. That is, you inadvertently exemplified how even objectors cannot escape appealing to what they would object to. So, we have inescapable, so inescapably true and so pervasive first principles. Which are therefore generally warranted and objectively true. It also becomes significant to observe the actual Ciceronian list as identifying the innocuous nature and wholesomeness of what is being so desperately derided and dismissed as "twisted." First duties, to truth, to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice, etc. That these and their manifest inescapability thus self-evidence and objectivity should be so stridently objected to speaks shameful volumes on our anticivilisational indoctrination that has been embedded in the academy, education, the media and general opinion. KF PS: The Pagan Roman Stoic, Rhetor and Statesman, Cicero, in On the Republic:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
kairosfocus_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

Seversky, scientists with a sound grounding in philosophy are a good thing. But they are scientists first. Where the danger lies is when people use twisted philosophical arguments to counter sound scientific conclusions based on clear evidence because it goes against their world view. A prime example is the philosophical arguments/insistence that there are objective moral truths. Or that same sex attraction is a disorder. Or that the use of the birth control pill is wrong. Or that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Or that divorce, in some cases is best for all involved.Joe Schooner_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Sev, Science is pursued under duty of care towards truth, involving right reason, warrant and associated wider prudence (especially given our error-proneness) and yes these spread across all responsible endeavours. That happens to include Science. Yes, we have limitations in science and would do a lot better to openly acknowledge them, including on grand narratives about the prehistoric past and origins of the world of life. But such are routinely presented as if they were practically certain (never mind how often they have to be fairly drastically revised). KFkairosfocus_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

i think scientists would benefit from a grounding in philosophy but then we probably all would. Whether that would do anything to moderate the more arrogance-prone is another matter. But it might stop some from pontificating about science as a search for "truth".Seversky_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

JS, kindly refrain from needless vulgar references.
How would you prefer that verbal manipulation for the purpose of confabulation be classified?Joe Schooner_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

JS, kindly refrain from needless vulgar references. As for worldviews analysis and linked consideration of hard questions on comparative difficulties, the very notion of evidence and its warranting value is a philosophical issue. Contempt for philosophical questions is a sign of an age manipulated into shallow thinking and indoctrination. KFkairosfocus_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Never had much respect for philosophy. Always seemed to be an attempt to use linguistic masturbation to support a world view that can’t be supported by the evidence.Joe Schooner_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

No. It would be better if credentialed and authoritative philosophers got AGGRESSIVE with scientists. Philosophers should be trying to correct atrocious epistemology and genocidal ethics. Instead they're just quibbling about 5000-year-old completely unanswerable questions.polistra_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply