3 ms·

Thank you for this post! Loved it. I feel like this is part of a larger bias among scientists to view the history of science as a clear progression from worse

Thank you for this post! Loved it. I feel like this is part of a larger bias among scientists to view the history of science as a clear progression from worse methods of explanation to better. This pernicious misreading of history seems to lead many scientists to view philosophers as proto-scientists rather than the more complex thought pioneers and concept creators that they are. Notable exceptions to this would include Albert Einstein who cited inspiration from and exhibited a competent understanding of Spinoza.

jeangenie 12y ago
Crockford articulates this point quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAXlJEmNMg#t=260 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAXlJEmNMg#t=260, specifically the myth of inevitability.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
Philosophers are proto-scientists in the same way that alchemists are proto-scientists. They were both pursuing a goal that we now know is both impossible and uninteresting: turning base metals into gold in the case of alchemists, and certain propositions in the case of philosophers. As a scientist who has studied philosophy seriously, I am comfortable saying this is generally true of everything philosophers do: it is based on a fundamentally mistaken approach to understanding the world that vastly over-states the role of introspection, the fidelity of the senses, common-sense, memory, and the human perspective. The arts are an appropriate place for such explorations, and they should be understood as what they are: studies of human experience, and nothing else. They can't teach us anything about the way the world actually is, or what are the optimal principles to govern our behaviour, or any of the other things that philosophers claim to this day is their unique subject of study. There is a role for natural philosophy as the foundations of science, but the rest? Un-natural philosophy has neither place nor use, and Einstein's modest affection for Spinoza was almost completely irrelevant to this actual science. Philosophers have been trying to claim "inspiration" for the work of scientists for centuries (there used to be a significant contingent of Aristotelians who claimed Newton was inspired by Aristotle, which is almost completely without empirical basis.) It's kind of sad, seeing a several thousand year exercise in wrong-headedness finally meet its inevitable end, and of course there will be a few who insist on soldiering blindly on, arbitrarily privileging the human scale and human senses, blissfully unaware they are spouting gibberish, while the rest of us feel rather sad for them, and try to keep them away from sharp objects and the reins of power.
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Philosophers like Lakatos offer a lot to scientists. Because science is a human endeavor, and its participants may reflect on why they do what they do. It can go well if the philosopher tries to understand science, speaks with scientists, etc. (Maybe mainstream philosophy is full of decadent garbage, but so is lots of mainstream programming, in my view.) Also, science has limits. (Which is fine because that's how it derives strengths.) Chomsky-as-philospher discusses them. To the extent that they act like martial arts schools, where each tries to prove the superiority of their own school... well we can all reflect on whether that's how we want to spend our one life.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > what are the optimal principles to govern our behaviour Given the litany of factual errors in your post, I'd be entertained to hear what you imagine is able to provide optimal principles to govern our behavior. I hope you say science.
- igravious 12y ago
  'gibberish', eh? Ouch. I refute it thus: science itself cannot tell us why I should believe the claims of the astronomer over the claims of the astrologer. The moment you try to explain why the belief system of the former should be privileged over the belief system of the latter you have left the realm of what science itself claims it can do. I have no problem with scientists thinking they have displaced theologians with their better explanations of the natural world; I reject totally that science can in any way replace the inter-generational philosophical project, I reject that the proper place for the philosophical project is the arts, and I reject that the philosophical project has in any way come to an end. Also, your insults do you an injustice. And didn't anyone ever tell you that pride comes before a fall?
  - 3ifbyw 12y ago
    The object of science, in the final analysis, is the collection, evaluation, and‒if the stars align‒acceptance as truth of sufficiently explanatory evidence. It is laughable to assert that the astrologers have better assisted us in this endeavor, or even that their contributions are on a par with those of astronomers. If you cannot adopt this perspective, you are simply lost to logical discourse; what evidence could possibly be provided to you to convince you to value evidence? For what it's worth, you might like to know that it's destruction which pride precedeth.[0] 0: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm

jeangenie 12y ago

Crockford articulates this point quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAXlJEmNMg#t=260 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxAXlJEmNMg#t=260, specifically the myth of inevitability.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

Philosophers are proto-scientists in the same way that alchemists are proto-scientists. They were both pursuing a goal that we now know is both impossible and uninteresting: turning base metals into gold in the case of alchemists, and certain propositions in the case of philosophers. As a scientist who has studied philosophy seriously, I am comfortable saying this is generally true of everything philosophers do: it is based on a fundamentally mistaken approach to understanding the world that vastly over-states the role of introspection, the fidelity of the senses, common-sense, memory, and the human perspective. The arts are an appropriate place for such explorations, and they should be understood as what they are: studies of human experience, and nothing else. They can't teach us anything about the way the world actually is, or what are the optimal principles to govern our behaviour, or any of the other things that philosophers claim to this day is their unique subject of study. There is a role for natural philosophy as the foundations of science, but the rest? Un-natural philosophy has neither place nor use, and Einstein's modest affection for Spinoza was almost completely irrelevant to this actual science. Philosophers have been trying to claim "inspiration" for the work of scientists for centuries (there used to be a significant contingent of Aristotelians who claimed Newton was inspired by Aristotle, which is almost completely without empirical basis.) It's kind of sad, seeing a several thousand year exercise in wrong-headedness finally meet its inevitable end, and of course there will be a few who insist on soldiering blindly on, arbitrarily privileging the human scale and human senses, blissfully unaware they are spouting gibberish, while the rest of us feel rather sad for them, and try to keep them away from sharp objects and the reins of power.

calibraxis 12y ago
Philosophers like Lakatos offer a lot to scientists. Because science is a human endeavor, and its participants may reflect on why they do what they do. It can go well if the philosopher tries to understand science, speaks with scientists, etc. (Maybe mainstream philosophy is full of decadent garbage, but so is lots of mainstream programming, in my view.) Also, science has limits. (Which is fine because that's how it derives strengths.) Chomsky-as-philospher discusses them. To the extent that they act like martial arts schools, where each tries to prove the superiority of their own school... well we can all reflect on whether that's how we want to spend our one life.
saraid216 12y ago
> what are the optimal principles to govern our behaviour Given the litany of factual errors in your post, I'd be entertained to hear what you imagine is able to provide optimal principles to govern our behavior. I hope you say science.
igravious 12y ago
'gibberish', eh? Ouch. I refute it thus: science itself cannot tell us why I should believe the claims of the astronomer over the claims of the astrologer. The moment you try to explain why the belief system of the former should be privileged over the belief system of the latter you have left the realm of what science itself claims it can do. I have no problem with scientists thinking they have displaced theologians with their better explanations of the natural world; I reject totally that science can in any way replace the inter-generational philosophical project, I reject that the proper place for the philosophical project is the arts, and I reject that the philosophical project has in any way come to an end. Also, your insults do you an injustice. And didn't anyone ever tell you that pride comes before a fall?
- 3ifbyw 12y ago
  The object of science, in the final analysis, is the collection, evaluation, and‒if the stars align‒acceptance as truth of sufficiently explanatory evidence. It is laughable to assert that the astrologers have better assisted us in this endeavor, or even that their contributions are on a par with those of astronomers. If you cannot adopt this perspective, you are simply lost to logical discourse; what evidence could possibly be provided to you to convince you to value evidence? For what it's worth, you might like to know that it's destruction which pride precedeth.[0] 0: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm