Hawking, "Philosophy is Dead"

[Neri]

Wiliheron,

I will ignore the evasive prattle and put a specific question to you.

Assuming, arguendo, that there are two scientific theories (regarding the same phenomena) that are mutually and irreconcilably contradictory as a matter of logic and mathematics but each is internally consistent and has equal predictive value—can both be right?

[wuliheron]

Wiliheron,

I will ignore the evasive prattle and put a specific question to you.

Assuming, arguendo, that there are two scientific theories (regarding the same phenomena) that are mutually and irreconcilably contradictory as a matter of logic and mathematics but each is internally consistent and has equal predictive value—can both be right?

Sure, they can both be right and they can both be wrong because right and wrong are merely words that have no demonstrable meaning outside specific contexts.

[Neri]

Wiliheron,

Can a scientific theory (or any proposition, for that matter) be both true and false in a particular context? If not, what is it that makes it either true or false in that context?

If the proposition—“Right and wrong are merely words that have no demonstrable meaning outside specific contexts”—is true, does that mean it cannot also be false?

What is it exactly that constitutes truth and falsity in any context?

[mtbturtle]

This might be a little behind but how does Hawking see, define philosophy?

Neri, Wuliheron - "What is it exactly that constitutes truth and falsity in any context?" Good question worth multiple threads all its own. I'll split this one if you like, let me know where to begin.

[BadgerJelly]

My philosophy is I think I am human.

Then I would have to define what I think I am ...

[Neri]

Mtbturtle,

The questions I presented are related to the present inquiry in the following way:

Instrumentalism has afflicted science with anti-realism; for it holds that scientific theories possess no truth in themselves. Such theories are seen as only “tools of thought” allowing the scientist to calculate a predicted set of observations from a given set of observations [by way of instruments, calculating devices and the like].

Thus, observational statements were regarded as true, whereas theoretical statements were viewed as having no epistemic or ontological content. Unfortunately, it is never explained what it is about observational statements that makes them true. Nor was it explained how a thing without epistemic content can yield the truth. For obvious reasons, this doctrine fell out of favour in the early 20th Century before the advent of quantum mechanics.

The latter scientific theory teaches that cat can be alive and dead at the same time. Indeed, any theory that claims that a thing can be both the case and not the case cannot be entirely true. Yet QM has the ability to predict observational data on the sub-atomic level with astounding accuracy—even given an inherent uncertainty principle. These perplexities have breathed new life into instrumentalism.

Yet, this philosophical point of view has remained unable to explain why theories infected with patent illogic can predict a future set of observations with such accuracy. If predicted observations are true, there must be some element of truth in that which predicts them. That is, there must be some logical connection between theoretical statements and the observations they are able to predict. All of this reduces itself to a uniquely philosophical question:

Wherein lies the truth in science?

[Neri]

I might add that instrumentalism is anti-realistic only in the sense that it denies ontological content to theoretical statements. It is naively realistic in the sense that it presumes that observations are quite as they appear.

[wuliheron]

Wiliheron,

Can a scientific theory (or any proposition, for that matter) be both true and false in a particular context? If not, what is it that makes it either true or false in that context?

If the proposition—“Right and wrong are merely words that have no demonstrable meaning outside specific contexts”—is true, does that mean it cannot also be false?

What is it exactly that constitutes truth and falsity in any context?

Supposedly someone once asked Wittgenstein what meaning is to which he replied, "What do you mean by what is meaning?"

I point at the sky and say, "That is up", but for someone on the opposite side of the planet it is the opposite direction. That's an example of something truthful in one context, and false in another.

As for what makes something truthful in one context and false in the next, why obviously we do. We decide what is true and false and as our context changes so do our notions of what is true and false.

P.S.- This is not an instrumentalist view, but is known as "Functionalism" or "Pragmatic Contextualism". It's more of a systems science perspective that avoids metaphysics altogether and merely attempts to describe the system well enough to make predictions. A sort of Zen-like modern philosophy first popularized by Wittgenstein and now widely used in the sciences when more traditional approaches fail.

Within this century such approaches combined with the rapid advances in neurology are expected to finally turn linguistics into a rigorous science and put all this semantic splitting of hairs to rest once and for all. Imagine all the hot air that will finally be put to rest in both the sciences and philosophies and you get some idea of just how important this kind of pragmatic approach is.

[Neri]

Wuliheron,

To make the blanket statement that "we make a thing true in one context and false in another" is to deny that truth has any connection with a reality independent of our conscious experiences. In fact, it rejects that sort of reality altogether. One wonders why a person who holds such a conviction does not abandon science altogether; for indeed, if that were the case, science would be no more that an elaborate form of self-deception.

One cannot properly argue that science is justified by its powers of prediction, for such an argument necessarily contains the presumption that whatever is successfully predicted has a reality independent of our experience of it. We could not ourselves be making the realized prediction true in the context in which it appears. Its truth must be taken as independent our minds’ acceptance of it, if we are to position the predictive power of science as its own justification.

As I pointed out earlier, your argument grants ontological status to observational statements while denying it to theoretical ones without explaining why this should be the case if all truth lies entirely in the mind. In other words, the argument contradicts its own major anti-realistic premise.

[Bucephelus]

Philosphy is not dead. It is well and alive. Look at all of the math and sciences that humanity has.

Philosophy has conquered Earth. Now if the next great philosophers would just look up into the night skies and write about conquering space in the method that the likes of Ptolemy, Copernicus and the many other philosophers wrote during their time then a new age of humanity reborn will be written.

Let me write a little philosphy for you now.

"Be a man rich in wealth and knowledge be suited best to remain in his home and never venture into new lands for fear of ridicule of those who are lazy and rich only in wealth and not knowledge?"

"A man be knowledgeable in his riches and wealth but only as far as his planet will allow him to walk to the ends of. To be rich and knowledgeable among the stars and heavens of spreading the seed of man across the expanse of the unknown will unleash a tamed lion once again."

"The man who knows what change is good for his realm will lead without regard to loss as to not lead will make his empire shackled to the wall of a deeper and more dreadful despair."

[Keep_Relentless]

I agree with the mainstream direction of this thread. I think "Philosophy is dead" is a ridiculous statement, akin to "I don't like to think". This does not put Hawking in a favourable light from my perspective.
Philosophy doesn't need to, and isn't expected to, keep up with science, because science uses assumptions and impressions to race ahead. Philosophy assumes nothing, and it lays the foundation of all activity.

[gerhard]

I like the way this thread has run, covering all bases and staying on the subject.
I think Lomax's first post is probably the most realistic and balanced input as to why Hawking made that statement.
My opinion, as already said by others, is that philosophy is just mentality, which produces opinions etc, which will always exist regardless of what heights we reach in knowledge, and as Marshal pointed out, there is no limit to knowledge.
The claim that we have reached the end of knowledge is a signal of derailment.

[swingtrade2]

philosophy is an idea. ideas come and go, no existence. what experiences the idea is real, nothing else.

[Wilson]

I suspect Hawkings' point was that in olden days philosophy dealt with such issues as the nature of reality, which is now the business of physicists. It also tried to define the nature of goodness and morality and values. At this point I believe that morality is subjective and was something we evolved because it gave survival advantages to us. Then there was the question of God and religion, whereas today it's a matter of opinion, and the techniques of philosophy aren't much help. There are a number of other examples of issues philosophy dealt with long ago, which now are in the realm of science - or the kind of logic untrained people can do. So its field of study has shriveled.

What are the topics today where philosophy still has a role to play?

[Danlanglois]

As I understand Hawking, he means that science, in place of philosophy, has moved into position to be responsible for answering such questions as, "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?"

I don't expect that he's really that knowledgeable about philosophy, though. I could learn more about Hawking's views, I think physics is interesting enough.

[skakos]

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.

It could go the other way around: Science is dead, since it became totally independent (or ignorant) of Philosophy.

[Gregorygregg1]

If Dr. Hawkings is making a point that people no longer love wisdom, one might not agree that philosophy is dead, but rather that it is much diminished. I suspect his words are an overstatement stemming from his frustration with the path of humanity. It seems he has forsaken hope for the future.

[skakos]

There are a lot of people who share his opinion. And unfortunately, that thing is on its own a cause for the diminishment of philosophy. Something like a self-fullfilling prophecy...

[skakos]

I agree with the mainstream direction of this thread. I think "Philosophy is dead" is a ridiculous statement, akin to "I don't like to think". This does not put Hawking in a favourable light from my perspective.
Philosophy doesn't need to, and isn't expected to, keep up with science, because science uses assumptions and impressions to race ahead. Philosophy assumes nothing, and it lays the foundation of all activity.

It is not only a "ridiculous" statement. I believe it is a dangerous one. When you disregard the foundations on which you build your house, it will crash down on you...

[mtbturtle]

http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy

Hawking contra Philosophy

Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence.

Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space. More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics. In earlier times – Hawking conceded – philosophers not only tried to keep up but sometimes made significant scientific contributions of their own. However they were now, in so far as they had any influence at all, just an obstacle to progress through their endless going-on about the same old issues of truth, knowledge, the problem of induction, and so forth. Had philosophers just paid a bit more attention to the scientific literature they would have gathered that these were no longer live issues for anyone remotely au fait with the latest thinking. Then their options would be either to shut up shop and cease the charade called ‘philosophy of science’ or else to carry on and invite further ridicule for their head-in-the-sand attitude.

Predictably enough the journalists went off to find themselves media-friendly philosophers – not hard to do nowadays – who would argue the contrary case in a suitably vigorous way. On the whole the responses, or those that I came across, seemed overly anxious to strike a conciliatory note, or to grant Hawking’s thesis some measure of truth as judged by the standards of the natural science community while tactfully dissenting with regard to philosophy and the human sciences. I think the case needs stating more firmly and, perhaps, less tactfully since otherwise it looks like a forced retreat to cover internal disarray. Besides, there is good reason to mount a much sturdier defence on principled grounds. These have to do with the scientists’ need to philosophize and their proneness to philosophize badly or commit certain avoidable errors if they don’t take at least some passing interest in what philosophers have to say.
Science is Philosophical

Professor Hawking has probably been talking to the wrong philosophers, or picked up some wrong ideas about the kinds of discussion that currently go on in philosophy of science. His lofty dismissal of that whole enterprise as a useless, scientifically irrelevant pseudo-discipline fails to reckon with several important facts about the way that science has typically been practised since its early-modern (seventeenth-century) point of departure and, even more, in the wake of twentieth century developments such as quantum mechanics and relativity.

[Obvious Leo]

Having just read through this entire thread I find myself in a minority position. I broadly agree with Hawking. I reckon Hawking is a better philosopher than he is a physicist, which is saying not much. So too was Einstein if it comes to that, but in his case I can be more forgiving. In my view the philosophers have been asleep at the wheel throughout the 20th century and let the physicists get away with describing reality to fit their models instead of devising their models to describe reality. Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin and to regard them as disconnected disciplines is to make a nonsense of them both.

Regards Leo

[Gregorygregg1]

....In my view the philosophers have been asleep at the wheel throughout the 20th century and let the physicists get away with describing reality to fit their models instead of devising their models to describe reality. Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin and to regard them as disconnected disciplines is to make a nonsense of them both.

Regards Leo

Asleep is not dead. There are perhaps those who's best interest would be served if philosophy's sleep were an endless one. Not the philosophy of intellectuals, full of abstract concepts, but the philosophy of the common man. Notions of basic justice, equality and responsibility to life. These constitute the sleeping philosophy that threatens the status quo. Whenever they begin to rouse from slumber, they are promptly bludgeoned back to sleep.

[Zin5ki]

In my view the philosophers have been asleep at the wheel throughout the 20th century and let the physicists get away with describing reality to fit their models instead of devising their models to describe reality.

Could you give examples of which philosophers are guilty in this respect? The Vienna Circle perhaps? Quine? Ayer?

It seems odd to suggest that it is the fault of philosophers for any malpractice within empirical fields: philosophers are right to leave scientists to their specialised means of investigating matters soluble in part by quantitative and experimental methods, for the former, like others in the humanities, are more apt to contemplate questions of a sort such methods cannot decide. Scientific blame ought only to fall upon those on the relevant side of this rough dichotomy.

Whilst there is indeed a certain optimism your position on the relationship between natural science and philosophy expresses, it is unfortunately at odds with trends that have existed within the academy for centuries. The identity of the domain over which a physicist and a metaphysician quantify their interests is not eo ipso indicative of any methodological intersection. Indeed, this might not have been the case in the days of Leibniz, for instance, though nobody can ignore that his theory of differential calculus has been of more benefit to physicists than his Monadology, whilst the opposite is true for philosophers.

[mtbturtle]

Having just read through this entire thread I find myself in a minority position. I broadly agree with Hawking. I reckon Hawking is a better philosopher than he is a physicist, which is saying not much. So too was Einstein if it comes to that, but in his case I can be more forgiving. In my view the philosophers have been asleep at the wheel throughout the 20th century and let the physicists get away with describing reality to fit their models instead of devising their models to describe reality. Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin and to regard them as disconnected disciplines is to make a nonsense of them both.

Regards Leo

I take science to be a particular kind of epistemology, way of knowing. As such science is a part of philosophy and if philosophy dies science goes with it, even before it.