Real Scientists vs New Atheists/Scientism on the Importance of Philosophy

[Shad]

I don't remember that guy. So I don't know what he's known for. I do like deGrasse Tyson though and the quote makes sense. Didn't know he's now lumped in with "New Atheists"... didn't even know he was atheist.

He is very short with views he think hinder progress. Many of those views happen to be shared with the others. However he does not do God debates as much as Krauss and Dawkins so is not such an advocate of atheism. Either mislabeled or the label in more of an umbrella term with black/white spectrum or for/against. As Tyson does not entertain God talk very much he could be labelled as such using the later definition

 

[1137]

What I know of physolophy is that it keeps on back pedalling furiously when a new scientific discovery is done. Viceversa, science does not give a rip of what the most fashionable philosophical is, when it finds something new. Obviously.

So, it should be obvious which one is intellectually dominant here.

Ciao

- viole

Interesting. So you're aware much of modern science is logically unsound, and even believe science doesn't care about logical soundness. Yet you still accept it's supposed materialistic findings. Very informative insight into the materialist position.

 

[Altfish]

Interesting. So you're aware much of modern science is logically unsound, and even believe science doesn't care about logical soundness. Yet you still accept it's supposed materialistic findings. Very informative insight into the materialist position.

Meanwhile religion flies us into buildings

 

[George-ananda]

My thought is that those on the left can get over my head with philosophy and metaphysics. Those on the right are beneath the level of even my own higher thoughts.

 

[Woberts]

Interesting. So you're aware much of modern science is logically unsound, and even believe science doesn't care about logical soundness. Yet you still accept it's supposed materialistic findings. Very informative insight into the materialist position.

How is modern science 'logically unsound'?

 

[David T]

I al

I have a hard time figuring out any major similarities between linguistics and mathematics you could be referring to.
Only point would be that the findings of both are also used by other sciences (even if not always in a proper manner...), but that's pretty much the case for any science.

I am always speaking neurologically. Both are symbolic abstractions thus is brain region related. And they obviously both have developed together as seen in historical context.

 

[David T]

My thought is that those on the left can get over my head with philosophy and metaphysics. Those on the right are beneath the level of even my own higher thoughts.

Jibberish on one side arguing with confusion on the other. I totally support that scientifically emperically.

 

[George-ananda]

Jibberish on one side arguing with confusion on the other. I totally support that scientifically emperically.

I certainly support scientific empiricism too. The question though becomes, is that the end-all of knowledge?

 

[David T]

I certainly support scientific empiricism too. The question though becomes, is that the end-all of knowledge?

To quote saint francis "a labour works with their hands, a craftsman works with their hands and their mind, an artist works with their hands, their mind and their heart."

So the answer from a labours perspective they defer to the craftsman, the craftsman says yes indeed, the artist laughs at the craftmans absurdity. The world is filled with craftsmen pretending to be artists!

 

[Cacotopia]

I don't remember that guy. So I don't know what he's known for. I do like deGrasse Tyson though and the quote makes sense. Didn't know he's now lumped in with "New Atheists"... didn't even know he was atheist.

I don't think he is though. perhaps, but he has not sided with the 4 horsement on the argument against deities. He is too busy looking up at the stars.

 

[Liu]

I al

I am always speaking neurologically. Both are symbolic abstractions thus is brain region related. And they obviously both have developed together as seen in historical context.

Ah, you're talking about the object under investigation and not about the discipline or the scientists studying it.
In the latter, there are major differences, e.g. mathematics is mainly about using these abstractions and making more of them, linguistics is mainly about figuring out why we make these abstractions the way we do.
But I guess this isn't the thread to discuss this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The philosophy they are talking about is not modern philosophy.

So...philosophy has changed, huh? I agree with you.

But didn’t Krauss just state the opposite, that “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”?

Another one who’s full of himself!

 

[Shad]

The question though becomes, is that the end-all of knowledge?

Never has, never will.

 

[exchemist]

I certainly support scientific empiricism too. The question though becomes, is that the end-all of knowledge?

Indeed not.

Unless, I suppose, you are a very narrow-minded physicalist.

 

[George-ananda]

To quote saint francis "a labour works with their hands, a craftsman works with their hands and their mind, an artist works with their hands, their mind and their heart."

So the answer from a labours perspective they defer to the craftsman, the craftsman says yes indeed, the artist laughs at the craftmans absurdity. The world is filled with craftsmen pretending to be artists!

Yeah, I certainly don't see any artists on the right side of the frame.

 

[Polymath257]

Notice the ones on the right. Are they scientists in any real sense or just poster boys for science when they are on TV or a book promotional tour?

Dawkins, Krauss, and Tyson are all real scientists. They all did substantial research before becoming poster boys. Nye is a popular character and not much more from what I know.

 

[Shad]

But didn’t Krauss just state the opposite, that “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”?

Yes he did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dawkins, Krauss, and Tyson are all real scientists. They all did substantial research before becoming poster boys. Nye is a popular character and not much more from what I know.

He is a part time superhero too:

 

[Polymath257]

So...philosophy has changed, huh? I agree with you.

But didn’t Krauss just state the opposite, that “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”?

Another one who’s full of himself!

Prior to the rise of quantum mechanics, philosophy had a bit more leverage. The problem is that philosophers seem to be stuck in classical reasoning patterns we *know* are wrong. It hasn't adjusted to really deal with the insights that have been found in the last 60 years or so. That inertia (I hope it will be overcome) has made it largely irrelevant to working scientists.

Modern philosophy, as it applies to science and scientists is almost irrelevant, and often a negative influence. The only positive influence I can think of from philosophy on science was from Popper and even he wasn't really relevant to how science does its stuff.

 

[David T]

Yeah, I certainly don't see any artists on the right side of the frame.

Exactly!!!! They are always challenging our perceptions and if it gets reductive they most certainly challenge that always.