3 ms·

Right off the bat the professor himself admits this is a philosophical work, it's not scientific. And in fact, the more he explains about it the clearer that no

by Udo 12y ago

Right off the bat the professor himself admits this is a philosophical work, it's not scientific. And in fact, the more he explains about it the clearer that notion becomes. This "theory" is intended to fix a perceived problem with philosophy and theology, not to achieve any kind of scientific progress. There are several points in this presentation where I feel our current scientific understanding of the universe is being grossly misrepresented. At best you could view this as an effort to build a bridge between those two worlds, but I've yet to see an instance where such an intention resulted in something that remained scientifically valid. This gap is exactly as wide as the difference between the willingness to see nature as it is on the one hand, and the need to reserve a special corner for humans on the other hand. I'd imagine philosophers object to the characterization, but my guess is very few scientists would argue that this work is intended to advance cosmology or indeed physics as a discipline.

ExpiredLink 12y ago
> this is a philosophical work, it's not scientific BTW, logically and historically all science is philosophy and vice versa. The special branches of science are philosophies limited to certain areas unified by the all-encompassing concept of rationality.
- fchollet 12y ago
  No. While historically this has been true during the pre-scientific era, the terms "philosophy" and "science" have diverged towards their specific modern meanings since the 17th century. Both are grounded in rationality; that's not specific to just science. That's not how you define Science. Science is defined as a process of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, leading to the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses --things that the more abstract field of Philosophy is not concerned with.
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    I think that's true if you're talking about a university class, and most of the people who are associated with philosophy are not scientists, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that science is only valid because of epistemological assumptions we arrived at through reasoning. I would be even be comfortable saying that science is an experimentally-focused branch of epistemology. Denying the relationship undermines the validity of the scientific method. Without the connection, scientific assumptions become just as valid as any arbitrary prophetic system of belief. Here's a helpful definition of philosophy from Wikipedia: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

by Udo 12y ago

ExpiredLink 12y ago

> this is a philosophical work, it's not scientific BTW, logically and historically all science is philosophy and vice versa. The special branches of science are philosophies limited to certain areas unified by the all-encompassing concept of rationality.

fchollet 12y ago
No. While historically this has been true during the pre-scientific era, the terms "philosophy" and "science" have diverged towards their specific modern meanings since the 17th century. Both are grounded in rationality; that's not specific to just science. That's not how you define Science. Science is defined as a process of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, leading to the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses --things that the more abstract field of Philosophy is not concerned with.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  I think that's true if you're talking about a university class, and most of the people who are associated with philosophy are not scientists, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that science is only valid because of epistemological assumptions we arrived at through reasoning. I would be even be comfortable saying that science is an experimentally-focused branch of epistemology. Denying the relationship undermines the validity of the scientific method. Without the connection, scientific assumptions become just as valid as any arbitrary prophetic system of belief. Here's a helpful definition of philosophy from Wikipedia: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy