4 ms·
>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
by animationwill 6y ago
>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
I'm sorry, what kind of non sensical bias is that? That's like saying that science doesn't care about truth, or is more important than truth. After all, "Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest." [1]
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
- mannykannot 6y agoWhile I do not think the opinion stated in that quote is a useful one, neither do I think it is any better to say that it implies science does not care about truth, on the basis that philosophy has declared itself to be concerned with truth. It is reasonable to assume that both enterprises are seeking truth in their own ways. Einstein and Bohr seem to have considered their work to be philosophical in nature, and Tim Maudlin has feet in both camps.
- selestify 6y agoI think that is exactly animationwill’s point — that the statement he made is ridiculous, and so too is the author’s statement.
- jchook 6y agoDoesn't the whole article basically suggest that modern science isn't really concerned with truth as much as useful models?