4 ms·

It would be difficult to argue that science is the only lasting source of enlightenment. Science certainly helped to disentangle us from religious dogma and to

by b-orges 10y ago

It would be difficult to argue that science is the only lasting source of enlightenment. Science certainly helped to disentangle us from religious dogma and to provide a new, rational foundation for interpreting the world. It has led to an unprecedented advancement of technology and a deeper understanding of the universe. But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. It would also be difficult to argue that the philosophy of science is useless. Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. That's why instead scientists are just becoming professional philosophers themselves!

M_Grey 10y ago
Being disenchanted with reality and turning to fantasy is a normal human response, but it's far from enlightened.
- b-orges 10y ago
  What are you talking about fantasy? Why are you assuming that fantasy is the only recourse and that there aren't enlightened alternatives? I can't claim to hold some answer but certainly it's more enlightened to maintain a position of modest uncertainty than to exclaim "Everyone but me is living in a fantasy! Nobody else can handle the truth!"
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Could you please refrain from attributing words to me, which I've never said? Thanks.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. I think that the regression of human enlightenment comes more from your insistence about how science destroys magic, which never actually existed, than from science itself. All science has done is politely explain that our ways of making sense and meaning out of our experiences have to conform to the way the world actually is. >Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. Nobody is upset about seeking help from a relevant domain expert. However, we are continuing to try to politely explain that trying to make sense of the world in terms of ghosts or Platonic Forms does not work. Naturalistic philosophers hear no complaints from scientists, because their philosophizing fits inside reality. The problem comes from the rather irritating philosophers who continue to insist that a world without ghosts or Forms is innately meaningless and has no place for human life in it.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  This isn't true. The majority of contemporary philosophers do not believe in anything supernatural, but plenty of scientists still dismiss their work. I say nothing supernatural, because the precise meaning of "naturalism" is contested in philosophy. For rather complex reasons, you can accept evolution, accept that modern physics is essentially accurate (only inaccurate so far as we're still discovering things and refining theory, etc), deny that there are immaterial souls or Cartesian dualism, yet not count as a naturalist. I am not sure if naturalism is necessarily a majority position.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >I say nothing supernatural, because the precise meaning of "naturalism" is contested in philosophy. For rather complex reasons, you can accept evolution, accept that modern physics is essentially accurate (only inaccurate so far as we're still discovering things and refining theory, etc), deny that there are immaterial souls or Cartesian dualism, yet not count as a naturalist. I am not sure if naturalism is necessarily a majority position. As far as I can tell, it's not a majority position, and that's a damn shame upon philosophers. They still want to cling to their Platonic Forms, even while claiming not to be Cartesians. Well, it doesn't work that way. We scientists are going to keep asking to see the Form of the Power-Set, the Form of the Good (oh boy does that one ever cause fights!), and of course the Form of "Materialism" (scare-quoted because the "materialism" so pilloried by philosophers tends to bear little resemblance to the content of any science post-Newton). If you can't show them to us, we're not going to accept that they exist in the same sense as books, chairs, and alpha particles.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
      "If you can't show them to us, we're not going to accept that they exist in the same sense as books, chairs, and alpha particles." Most scientists believe in plenty of things they can't see, such as magnetism, viruses, gravity, etc. What they can see of these are, arguably, their effects or the behavior of instruments that can detect them. But many scientists also believe in plenty of things that can neither be seen nor (again, arguably) measured, like love, freedom, happiness, and even God. I am reminded of this anecdote about a dedicated neurophisiologist writing to his wife: My dear. I Have long thought of myself as an acute and well-informed interpreter of your behaviour. I think I have been able to identify nearly every thought that has made you smile! My research has even made such a progress that I no longer need to understand you IN THIS WAY. I'm happy to say I'm now in a position, with the aid of an apparatus which I shall promptly attach you, to assign to each body movement you make a specific antecedent condition in your cortex. In the meantime, perhaps you would have dinner with me tonight. I trust you will not resist if I bring along this apparatus then to help me determine, as quickly as possible, the physiological idiosyncracies which obtain in your system.

by b-orges 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago

Being disenchanted with reality and turning to fantasy is a normal human response, but it's far from enlightened.

b-orges 10y ago
What are you talking about fantasy? Why are you assuming that fantasy is the only recourse and that there aren't enlightened alternatives? I can't claim to hold some answer but certainly it's more enlightened to maintain a position of modest uncertainty than to exclaim "Everyone but me is living in a fantasy! Nobody else can handle the truth!"
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Could you please refrain from attributing words to me, which I've never said? Thanks.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. I think that the regression of human enlightenment comes more from your insistence about how science destroys magic, which never actually existed, than from science itself. All science has done is politely explain that our ways of making sense and meaning out of our experiences have to conform to the way the world actually is. >Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. Nobody is upset about seeking help from a relevant domain expert. However, we are continuing to try to politely explain that trying to make sense of the world in terms of ghosts or Platonic Forms does not work. Naturalistic philosophers hear no complaints from scientists, because their philosophizing fits inside reality. The problem comes from the rather irritating philosophers who continue to insist that a world without ghosts or Forms is innately meaningless and has no place for human life in it.

hyperpape 10y ago
This isn't true. The majority of contemporary philosophers do not believe in anything supernatural, but plenty of scientists still dismiss their work. I say nothing supernatural, because the precise meaning of "naturalism" is contested in philosophy. For rather complex reasons, you can accept evolution, accept that modern physics is essentially accurate (only inaccurate so far as we're still discovering things and refining theory, etc), deny that there are immaterial souls or Cartesian dualism, yet not count as a naturalist. I am not sure if naturalism is necessarily a majority position.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >I say nothing supernatural, because the precise meaning of "naturalism" is contested in philosophy. For rather complex reasons, you can accept evolution, accept that modern physics is essentially accurate (only inaccurate so far as we're still discovering things and refining theory, etc), deny that there are immaterial souls or Cartesian dualism, yet not count as a naturalist. I am not sure if naturalism is necessarily a majority position. As far as I can tell, it's not a majority position, and that's a damn shame upon philosophers. They still want to cling to their Platonic Forms, even while claiming not to be Cartesians. Well, it doesn't work that way. We scientists are going to keep asking to see the Form of the Power-Set, the Form of the Good (oh boy does that one ever cause fights!), and of course the Form of "Materialism" (scare-quoted because the "materialism" so pilloried by philosophers tends to bear little resemblance to the content of any science post-Newton). If you can't show them to us, we're not going to accept that they exist in the same sense as books, chairs, and alpha particles.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "If you can't show them to us, we're not going to accept that they exist in the same sense as books, chairs, and alpha particles." Most scientists believe in plenty of things they can't see, such as magnetism, viruses, gravity, etc. What they can see of these are, arguably, their effects or the behavior of instruments that can detect them. But many scientists also believe in plenty of things that can neither be seen nor (again, arguably) measured, like love, freedom, happiness, and even God. I am reminded of this anecdote about a dedicated neurophisiologist writing to his wife: My dear. I Have long thought of myself as an acute and well-informed interpreter of your behaviour. I think I have been able to identify nearly every thought that has made you smile! My research has even made such a progress that I no longer need to understand you IN THIS WAY. I'm happy to say I'm now in a position, with the aid of an apparatus which I shall promptly attach you, to assign to each body movement you make a specific antecedent condition in your cortex. In the meantime, perhaps you would have dinner with me tonight. I trust you will not resist if I bring along this apparatus then to help me determine, as quickly as possible, the physiological idiosyncracies which obtain in your system.