September 22, 2012
Philosophy v science: Julian Baggini talks to Lawrence Krauss
Julian Baggini and Lawrence Krauss in The Guardian:
Julian Baggini No one who has understood even a fraction of what science has told us about the universe can fail to be in awe of both the cosmos and of science. When physics is compared with the humanities and social sciences, it is easy for the scientists to feel smug and the rest of us to feel somewhat envious. Philosophers in particular can suffer from lab-coat envy. If only our achievements were so clear and indisputable! How wonderful it would be to be free from the duty of constantly justifying the value of your discipline.
However – and I'm sure you could see a "but" coming – I do wonder whether science hasn't suffered from a little mission creep of late. Not content with having achieved so much, some scientists want to take over the domain of other disciplines.
I don't feel proprietorial about the problems of philosophy. History has taught us that many philosophical issues can grow up, leave home and live elsewhere. Science was once natural philosophy and psychology sat alongside metaphysics. But there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.
Some of the things you have said and written suggest that you share some of science's imperialist ambitions. So tell me, how far do you think science can and should offer answers to the questions that are still considered the domain of philosophy?
Lawrence Krauss Thanks for the kind words about science and your generous attitude. As for your "but" and your sense of my imperialist ambitions, I don't see it as imperialism at all. It's merely distinguishing between questions that are answerable and those that aren't. To first approximation, all the answerable ones end up moving into the domain of empirical knowledge, aka science.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:54 AM | Permalink
Comments
Like there isn't a lot of science friction around eh?
Even the "hard science" has weekly debatable excursions eh?
Philosophy, psychology, the practice of this, and the practice of that (law, medicine, etc) are not alone in being "practice"... there is also "the practice of science" if the truth be known.
Gotta practice to make perfect eh?
Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Dredd | Sep 22, 2012 12:45:20 PM
But, "if Like there isn't a lot of science friction around eh?" = Link ==> http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-mystery-of-science-friction.html, and 'Even the "hard science" has weekly debatable excursions eh?' = Link ==> http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/09/weekend-rebel-science-excursion-11.html, Some peoples might said ?, still there is room 4 debate ! although the Lock of argument, analysis, ponder of the Brain, thinking and talk has been the Cause of this (to my taste)set-backs. Finding the facts of Sciences, and a philosophical interpretation for every Non-Philosophical, Practical and Logical event, will not help Man to become more Perfect, more Human or More Intelligent?, as well that this practices, are taking out way from the Literal beauty of the though the meditation, the Literal the Abstraction, the Dream and the Imagination? Making the extravagant seem a bit more Uglier than before, and hardly more comprehensibly so not to included meditation, and, in-silences thinking, (Solitude), which help to realize that the Man God will become a reality soon or later? So, the though in paper or writing, becomes just mere practice of what will seem A desperate call for Logic or the Sciences of Logistics, to come to the rescue. "But" there's no Time, to make practical a Humanistic Sciences.
Posted by: Words1 | Sep 23, 2012 6:30:55 AM
"I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example."
I believe that science can enter this domain and should, rather than be relegated only to the purview of religion as it always has been.
As Sam Harris eloquently states in his book, The Moral Landscape, "My goal is the convince you that human knowledge and human values can no longer be kept apart." And, "Dogmatism is a well-recognized obstacle to scientific reasoning; and yet, because scientists have been reluctant even to imagine that they might have something prescriptive to say about values, dogmatism is still granted remarkable scope on questions of both truth and goodness under the banner of religion."
As I have frustratingly noticed, dogmatism is often the enemy of morality, impeding critical thinking, even common sense. Knowledge needs to be a player for a more just world.
Posted by: joe arrigo | Sep 23, 2012 11:28:12 AM
Oh noes...
Infidelity, rape, lies, theft, murder, cannibalism, infanticide, scientists posing as moralizing rationalists... no end to the potential word substitutions here.
Posted by: Carlos | Sep 23, 2012 12:51:00 PM
Post a comment