Hawking, "Philosophy is Dead"

[Kant:I'79]

I don't know if any of you are aware of a statement Stephen K. Hawking made recently, he said, " Philosophers have not kept up with the progress of science, therefore, Philosophy is dead." I have heard a lot on the subject as far as raising the question on Ethics, political philosophy, etc, etc.. but what do you all think about the statement in regards to philosophy of science. awaiting your reply.

[Rowan]

I think that his statement is ill-concieved. Philosophy is of the basis of human thought, even in the sciences. Where Science learned to understand how to create things by learning about the world, it is philosophy that crafts these into whats' and asks the whys'.
Even where science as a practice isn't concerned, we operate largely on a philosophical basis in our daily life.
The idea that philosophy is dead is absurd; it's pretty self-evident that it isn't.

[Zin5ki]

From a Grauniad interview:

Martin Rees: What I said at the time is that I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read little philosophy and less theology, so I don't think his views should be taken with any special weight.

Interviewer: You have read on those subjects. What's your view?

Rees: What's my view? Well, I'm not prepared to pronounce on these things. I think it's rather foolish when scientists do so.

Italics added.

[xcthulhu]

Scientists haven't kept up with philosophy either, so they tend to be lousy philosophers.

I could say some contributions by philosophical logicians, having been one. Wittgenstein invented truth tables in his Principia, for instance, which you can find in any textbook on VHSIC design (although engineers don't really bother with intellectual history and this is really obscure history). If you guys wanted I could write a little list of this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be so long.

I am honestly a little sympathetic with Hawking, having myself become frustrated with philosophy and abandoned my career aspirations in the subject. I don't consider Hawking to be very original - British empiricists have been declaring philosophy is dead and commit it to the flames since Bacon and Hume.

The original Hume is a lot more dramatic than Hawking, and I don't think the criticism that he didn't know what he was talking about is applicable:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

In the same vein, I have got to ask, what are some important real world applications of the ideas in Heidegger's Being and Time?

[Lomax]

I haven't read the text in which the Hawking quotation occurs, so all I have to go on is Christopher Hitchens' explanation of the statement (which he admits to be unclear and open to interpretation).

It's worth noting that science used to be called "natural philosophy", and that folks like Descartes and Kant showed themselves to be capable of making important scientific discoveries. However, as science has progressed and the body of knowledge has grown, it has become increasingly difficult to have any valuable, original input regarding a scientific matter unless one's knowledge is specialised to a narrow field. Hitchens believes Hawking is saying that philosophers can no longer make important contributions because they are not specialists*. However, it seems to me that Professor Hawking is quite unaware that many philosophers are already specialising. I have to agree with Xcthulhu and Mr Rees; Hawking is genius at what he does best, but quite ignorant about what he doesn't.

Lomax

___

* I think it is worth noting that it is precisely the broadness of study given to some philosophers which makes their input valuable. Even when philosophy is construed as a subset of, or continuity with, science, I think there are several skills at which philosophers particularly excel; for instance, noting the implications and bearings such diverse fields as (eg.) ethics, politics, math, linguistics and physics can sometimes have upon each other.

[AmbivalentOne]

I would be curious to see where Hawking draws the line between science and philosophy. Maybe, if you come up with a theory, you are a dead philosopher - if you test it, you are a living scientist. You gotta die first, then you can be born.

I would also like to know what he means by 'dead'. I'm pretty sure people still do philosophy, and even if they didn't our love for Sophia will never die.

[xcthulhu]

I would be curious to see where Hawking draws the line between science and philosophy. Maybe, if you come up with a theory, you are a dead philosopher - if you test it, you are a living scientist. You gotta die first, then you can be born.

Excellent point.

So let's turn to Hawking himself for a second: can anyone say some observational evidence for Hawking radiation?

[xcthulhu]

So let's turn to Hawking himself for a second: can anyone say some observational evidence for Hawking radiation?

I guess nobody has tried to answer this, so I'll say it.

There is no astronomical evidence of Hawking radiation.

I understand there are no known observational consequences, either. If they ever do find evidence I'm sure it will mean a Nobel Prize for Hawking (to date he has never been awarded one).

So, on top of not having read enough philosophy to have an educated opinion, Hawking is also not a particularly stellar example of a scientist committed to hard-nosed empiricism.

My 2 cents.

[Lomax]

I have similar problems with some of Hawking's other views. He says we should fear the wrath of aliens, apparently not caring that the nearest inhabitable planet is so far away that nothing can cross the gulf alive; and he claims that string theory is tenable provided we assume 17 dimension, which I can't make sense of at all. I'm cautious about criticising him on the latter point, because my knowledge of physics isn't really sufficient - I don't want to do a Mary Midgley - but I'm pleased to see Dawkins shares my view about the aliens.

[flatearthsurvivor]

Philosophy begins when knowledge is absent. Philosophy ends when knowledge is present. As knowledge increases, the range of "acceptable" philosophical "explanations" concerning the nature of reality will narrow. Philosophy, therefore, will become confined to narrower and narrower corridors as the true nature of reality is revealed. However, since there will always be unknowns, philosophy will live as long as thinking creatures do.

[whynot]

And if humans survive long enough to effectively conquer the majestic heights of knowledge acquisition scientifically, what's to become of all the theoretical scientists and mathematical modelers? Soon enough the engineers will be calling the shots and making the same claims about scientists. We're all working ourselves out of a job.

[Marshall]

And if humans survive long enough to effectively conquer the majestic heights of knowledge acquisition scientifically, what's to become of all the theoretical scientists and mathematical modelers? Soon enough the engineers will be calling the shots and making the same claims about scientists. We're all working ourselves out of a job.

We see things differently, which is fine.
I see things differently from you.
I picture the heights of knowledge as having no top.
I picture the process of discovering ever deeper explanations as an infinite regress.

Every human explanation (of how things come to be the way they are, in nature) involves laws, rules, a rational setup, initial conditions, assumptions, concepts like space time or some other concepts to take their place. So then you can go deeper and ask how did that set up come to be the way it is.

If an explanation works it is both a source of intense delight, adding to the beauty one sees in the world, and also it is something new to explain.

I do not fear Engineers supplanting scientists. Faraday was a lab tech and he gave us the idea of a Field (as opposed to Newton's particles).

Eugene Wigner was trained as a Chemical Engineer and he discovered that quantum field theory was based on symmetry groups----the most, or one of the most, beautiful and deep discoveries of 20th century theoretical physics.

He was a Chemical Engineer but he had the curiosity to become one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the past 100 years.

The human mind will tend to follow its bliss and there is no end to this road. My 2 cents.

We can forget about Hawking. His productivity was 20 or more years back. He just writes controversial pops to make money and enjoy fame. Xcthulhu and Lomax already said what needs to be said.

[zenzei]

Reduntless ATM maybe. But in the long run I doubt it will "Die" per say.

[whynot]

And if humans survive long enough to effectively conquer the majestic heights of knowledge acquisition scientifically, what's to become of all the theoretical scientists and mathematical modelers? Soon enough the engineers will be calling the shots and making the same claims about scientists. We're all working ourselves out of a job.

We see things differently, which is fine.
I see things differently from you.
I picture the heights of knowledge as having no top.
I picture the process of discovering ever deeper explanations as an infinite regress.

Every human explanation (of how things come to be the way they are, in nature) involves laws, rules, a rational setup, initial conditions, assumptions, concepts like space time or some other concepts to take their place. So then you can go deeper and ask how did that set up come to be the way it is.

If an explanation works it is both a source of intense delight, adding to the beauty one sees in the world, and also it is something new to explain.

I do not fear Engineers supplanting scientists. Faraday was a lab tech and he gave us the idea of a Field (as opposed to Newton's particles).

Eugene Wigner was trained as a Chemical Engineer and he discovered that quantum field theory was based on symmetry groups----the most, or one of the most, beautiful and deep discoveries of 20th century theoretical physics.

He was a Chemical Engineer but he had the curiosity to become one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the past 100 years.

The human mind will tend to follow its bliss and there is no end to this road. My 2 cents.

We can forget about Hawking. His productivity was 20 or more years back. He just writes controversial pops to make money and enjoy fame. Xcthulhu and Lomax already said what needs to be said.

whynot: I think I like the way you view things better...but actually Marshall, my reply above was a kind of tongue-in-cheek stab at humor, (I won't give up my day job...yet). I'm impressed with your detailed knowledge of the history of scientific advancement Marshall.

[Marshall]

Thanks for the kind words, Whynot. I see now that I completely missed your dry tongue-in-cheek tone. So I answered in a kind of literal-minded humorless way. As I get older this is probably happening more and more frequently :-D

[saynotodawkins]

I think the key concept Hawkings appears to be missing,
is that all science is.. is the philosophy for which we have gained some degree of empirical evidence and verification for.
Considering this, philosophy cannot be behind, instead its the scientists are yet to produce means of verification/falsification for philosophical theories and thoughts.
If physicists decide the universe is in fact purposeful, they're only thousands of years behind the philosophical thinking of men like Aristotle...

[Carcass Drip]

Philosophy underpinns everything that Humans do and think about

[legosbulock]

Until everything is known, philosophy will never die.

[kymberly]

I am not familiar with Hawking's more recent suggestions or the exact context of this quote.

But could it be that the statement "Philosophy is dead" was an intentionally gross exaggeration? It isn't that philosophy is completely useless, but that science has taken up many of the questions that were previously championed by philosophy.

Someone mentioned that Hawking himself has made some interesting claims that could not be based upon factual evidence. This could show an effort in the science community to broaden their questions beyond the most logical next step. Not to say that science has any right to be doing this, I know that much of it's beauty is in the idea of the purity of evidence. Perhaps Hawking himself believes that these questions naturally lay side by side and believes that he has watched science consume much of philosophy in recent years.

[BadgerJelly]

It cannot die. Its certainly not wide spread enough though. Science wouldn't move without philosophy and I personally find it very weird how everyone seems to put more significance on one subject over another.

I personally would like to see Philosophy taught in schools. Its seems like a great way to be sociable and relate ideas and beliefs and understand one another.

[wuliheron]

Hawking is one of the great physicists of the century, but among the worst philosophers I can think of. Statements like this garner him unwarranted attention and help sell his books. I wouldn't read too much more into it.

[Neri]

The matter may be stated simply. Science concerns itself with what seems to be real. Philosophy concerns itself with what is real. Many of the theoretical underpinnings of so-called natural laws would be laughable were it not for their predictive power. The widely held view that phenomena are equivalent to reality is rooted in this predictability. This does not kill philosophy but only reduces it to naive realism.

[wuliheron]

The matter may be stated simply. Science concerns itself with what seems to be real. Philosophy concerns itself with what is real. Many of the theoretical underpinnings of so-called natural laws would be laughable were it not for their predictive power. The widely held view that phenomena are equivalent to reality is rooted in this predictability. This does not kill philosophy but only reduces it to naive realism.

What utter rubbish. Realism is a two thousand year old idea that hasn't been popular in philosophy for ages. Pragmatists and others could not care less about the subject and are still making invaluable contributions to the sciences to this day without resorting to mystical mumbo jumbo, metaphysical nonsense, and appeals to "realism".

[BadgerJelly]

Hawking is one of the great physicists of the century, but among the worst philosophers I can think of. Statements like this garner him unwarranted attention and help sell his books. I wouldn't read too much more into it.

Greatest of the century? Well as the century is only 12 years old he certainly appears to be more than he is!

He is probably the most over hyped Physicist of ALL time for that I give him and the media credit and he has opened up Physics to the public a little just because of his disease. As for his ability? It goes hand in hand with his disease and he has come up with some astounding ideas.

Bad at philosophy? He made one VERY nice statement :

My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.

That is the true philosophy of mankind its just most of us are not aware of it IMO

[wuliheron]

Hawking is one of the great physicists of the century, but among the worst philosophers I can think of. Statements like this garner him unwarranted attention and help sell his books. I wouldn't read too much more into it.

Greatest of the century? Well as the century is only 12 years old he certainly appears to be more than he is!

I said "great", not "greatest", and I meant of the last hundred years.

He is probably the most over hyped Physicist of ALL time for that I give him and the media credit and he has opened up Physics to the public a little just because of his disease. As for his ability? It goes hand in hand with his disease and he has come up with some astounding ideas.

Bad at philosophy? He made one VERY nice statement :

My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.

That is the true philosophy of mankind its just most of us are not aware of it IMO

That's not philosophy, its unbridled hubris.

[BadgerJelly]

:)

Last 100 years ... Mmmm ... maybe just I really don't know. I can name many who are better but most I don't know so this could be correct.

For starters though > Einstein, Ed Witton, Kip Thorpe ... its like we're fighting over who the best football player is! :P

Hawking will probably do more than me but I think I have something to offer just not directly to the field of Physics.

Just because the answer is unobtainable today doesn't mean it will still be so tomorrow :)
My aim is the same as Hawking and if you think this is because of hubris you really don't understand me which is not surprising as we have never actually met or sat down and talked together about anything.

[Neri]

BadgerJelly,


Regarding Your Response to My Post


To equate truth with popularity bespeaks the absence of critical thought. In your case, the problem lies not with naïve realism but with something far more basic—the rejection of truth itself.

Truth is neither consensus nor utility. It is correspondence with reality. Indeed, truth goes its own way without awaiting our approval. Truth and reality, like epistemology and metaphysics, are opposite sides of the same coin.

While instrumentalism and pragmatism are currently in vogue, they are woefully lacking in credibility. Taking such positions to the logical extreme, we would be obliged to say that two scientific theories that are mutually and irreconcilably contradictory as a matter of logic and mathematics are nonetheless both true, so long as each is internally consistent and both have equal predictive value. This is the real rubbish. Truth cannot be left in the lurch, for it will not remain there long.

On the other hand, the phenomenologists and the strict idealists tell us there is no truth but that of our own making. Truth, they say, is only a concoction of the mind. They see us as imprisoned in a realm of windowless qualia. To them the roll of philosophy is no more than a study of that which seems real to us owing to the idiosyncrasies of our thought processes. Thus, we are expected to believe that we have been thrust into a dream world forever closed off from reality.

Naïve realism says that things are exactly as they appear. The fact that this position cannot withstand logical scrutiny does compel us to throw reality in the garbage—and with it, truth itself. Our sensory impressions may not represent things as they really are, but we are not limited to sensations. We also have logic.

A formulation of a kind of representative reality may be expressed as follows:

The world consists of logical relations. We have knowledge of the world if we understand the relations which comprise it. Mathematics [which is a form of logic], when coupled with sensory experience (observational and experimental data), has the power to explicate these relations. Accordingly, we may say that utility does not account for the truth of logic. Rather, it is the other way round.

[Neri]

I apologize, BadgerJelly. My response was intended for Wuliheron. While you are at it, change "roll of philosophy" to "role of philosophy.”

[wuliheron]

I apologize, BadgerJelly. My response was intended for Wuliheron. While you are at it, change "roll of philosophy" to "role of philosophy.”

OK, then I'll try to address your post.

Rambling on about truth and reality is not a philosophical argument. Vague assertions that instrumentalism and pragmatism are woefully lacking in credibility is not a philosophical argument. If you wish to jump on a stump and spout metaphysical rhetoric its fine by me, but I have no comment other then to point out it is pointless to attempt a real discussion with someone only interested in spouting rhetoric.

[wuliheron]

Nice. I didn't get the utility statement at the end.

It seems that common people fit into these patterns. What would you consider yourself as, philosophically?

You're asking me I assume? I guess the best description would be I'm a Pragmatic Taoist. It's similar to Philosophical and Quan Taoism, but without all the mysticism. More along the lines of Wittgenstein and modern Contextualism, although I'm very much an amateur natural language philosopher just doing my own thing.