5 ms·

The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy,

by M_Grey 10y ago

The last 150 years have seen the rise of science as the dominant force in the intellectual space. A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. The last 150 years has essentially seen a brain-drain from Phil -> Sci. The result is that what's left for philosophers to talk about and contribute is... debatable. Worse, the space their ideas can occupy shrinks as its claimed by fields with more rigor and more of a basis in scientific endeavor.

Erik816 10y ago
Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."
- goatlover 10y ago
  The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
  - Erik816 10y ago
    Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
  - ryuker16 10y ago
    Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach
- igravious 10y ago
  No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.
  - Erik816 10y ago
    This is probably too large of a topic to debate on a message board, but I would claim that the subject of "how ought we to live" is much larger than the small subset of issues discussed in academic philosophy under the rubric of "ethics." And while I agree that subjective/objective is a murky distinction, I still think it's useful.
goatlover 10y ago
There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today. And there are plenty of philosophers who have taken findings from science and asked what the implications are. Why do we experience a flow of time, if physics is time reversible? How does consciousness fit into an empirical (objective) framework? Is there a definition of free will that is compatible with the findings of neuroscience and psychology?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    Depends on whether you think science can answer all the metaphysical questions. Is there a real world, independent of our minds? If so, what is it made of, independent of our models? Can we know? Scientists themselves have stated their own positions on these kinds of questions from anti-realist to idealist to instrumentalist, to various varieties of realism, to math as what's fundamentally real, the universe is computing itself, we live inside a simulation, etc. Ethics, politics, art, and values are judgements we make as humans. Science can inform our values, but it cannot tell us which values to adopt, or what system of government or economics we should want. You might think that equality and justice for all are the right sort of values, but other groups and societies have (and still do) thought otherwise. For some pleasure is the highest (and only true good). For others, it's a cause, it's family, it's power, it's money, etc.
  - Erik816 10y ago
    Science is unlikely to fill in gaps of subjective experience and values, because it explicitly rules out subjective experience as part of its method. Which it should do. But then it can't very well claim that subjective experience has no value simply because it has no scientific value.
igravious 10y ago
You have both intuited where I was coming from and missed the point I was making. Yes, the last 150 years could be characterised by the "rise of science" as you put it. But not only science, huge technological advances that have allowed us to manipulate those very things that were once abstract notions. Technology is what is important here, not science. The things that are drawn together under a scientific heading are those things that are amenable to the scientific method and our understanding of this method is grounded in the philosophy of science. It's a two way street. The more the we discover the more there is to know. For now there is plenty of space and technology advances dictate for now that the spaces are not shrinking but growing. Regarding brain-drain, make of it what you will but studies have shown that in terms of IQ those who choose philosophy are comparable to their peers. So quality is not lacking, quantity-wise I could not say. Where I think that philosophy has lost its way is in believing the very things you put forward, the sort of tired old false narratives that circulate in academia and in wider society.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
As Wittgenstein once said, all left for philosophy to do is language analysis.
empath75 10y ago
Computer science is often just applied philosophy.
justin66 10y ago
> A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. This is such a strangely ahistorical point of view. The obvious conterexample: we managed to get a little mileage out of political philosophy, which has no "overlap with science" in the way you mean. Creation of modern democracy and so on.

by M_Grey 10y ago

Erik816 10y ago

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

goatlover 10y ago
The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
- Erik816 10y ago
  Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach
igravious 10y ago
No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.
- Erik816 10y ago
  This is probably too large of a topic to debate on a message board, but I would claim that the subject of "how ought we to live" is much larger than the small subset of issues discussed in academic philosophy under the rubric of "ethics." And while I agree that subjective/objective is a murky distinction, I still think it's useful.

goatlover 10y ago

There are age old philosophical questions in metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics that science is not equipped to answer. Questions that the ancient Greeks asked which still puzzle philosophers (and anyone who thinks about them, including scientists) today. And there are plenty of philosophers who have taken findings from science and asked what the implications are. Why do we experience a flow of time, if physics is time reversible? How does consciousness fit into an empirical (objective) framework? Is there a definition of free will that is compatible with the findings of neuroscience and psychology?

M_Grey 10y ago
To be honest, that sounds to me like playing in the gaps because that's what's left, and those gaps are likely to be filled one by one.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Depends on whether you think science can answer all the metaphysical questions. Is there a real world, independent of our minds? If so, what is it made of, independent of our models? Can we know? Scientists themselves have stated their own positions on these kinds of questions from anti-realist to idealist to instrumentalist, to various varieties of realism, to math as what's fundamentally real, the universe is computing itself, we live inside a simulation, etc. Ethics, politics, art, and values are judgements we make as humans. Science can inform our values, but it cannot tell us which values to adopt, or what system of government or economics we should want. You might think that equality and justice for all are the right sort of values, but other groups and societies have (and still do) thought otherwise. For some pleasure is the highest (and only true good). For others, it's a cause, it's family, it's power, it's money, etc.
- Erik816 10y ago
  Science is unlikely to fill in gaps of subjective experience and values, because it explicitly rules out subjective experience as part of its method. Which it should do. But then it can't very well claim that subjective experience has no value simply because it has no scientific value.

igravious 10y ago

You have both intuited where I was coming from and missed the point I was making. Yes, the last 150 years could be characterised by the "rise of science" as you put it. But not only science, huge technological advances that have allowed us to manipulate those very things that were once abstract notions. Technology is what is important here, not science. The things that are drawn together under a scientific heading are those things that are amenable to the scientific method and our understanding of this method is grounded in the philosophy of science. It's a two way street. The more the we discover the more there is to know. For now there is plenty of space and technology advances dictate for now that the spaces are not shrinking but growing. Regarding brain-drain, make of it what you will but studies have shown that in terms of IQ those who choose philosophy are comparable to their peers. So quality is not lacking, quantity-wise I could not say. Where I think that philosophy has lost its way is in believing the very things you put forward, the sort of tired old false narratives that circulate in academia and in wider society.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

As Wittgenstein once said, all left for philosophy to do is language analysis.

empath75 10y ago

Computer science is often just applied philosophy.

justin66 10y ago

> A lot of what used to be good and impressive about philosophy, as opposed to just a lot of hand-waving, were the parts which had some overlap with science. This is such a strangely ahistorical point of view. The obvious conterexample: we managed to get a little mileage out of political philosophy, which has no "overlap with science" in the way you mean. Creation of modern democracy and so on.