Does Philosophy still hold a place in progressing society? DEBATE
Scroll to see replies
Just a brief look at some of the achievements of philosophy shows it still has a place in the world:
Some scientific and mathematical breakthroughs:
- Origin of our species and planet: perspective on our place in the universe
- Vaccines and disease prevention: extending our lives
- Controlling electricity and power enabling industry: reducing starvation and developing technology
Some philosophical breakthroughs:
- Liberalism, human rights and democracy: justice and fairness in society
- Scientific and deductive method (arguably could fall into both sections): the birth of science and mathematics/understanding why they work
- The relativism of culture: fighting the tendency for powerful nations to impose their cultures on others through war
Obviously this isn't meant to be comprehensive but both seem to remain important in society. I'm also ignoring the fact that philosophy and mathematics are an art in themselves; they don't just serve us through their results for humanity
Some scientific and mathematical breakthroughs:
- Origin of our species and planet: perspective on our place in the universe
- Vaccines and disease prevention: extending our lives
- Controlling electricity and power enabling industry: reducing starvation and developing technology
Some philosophical breakthroughs:
- Liberalism, human rights and democracy: justice and fairness in society
- Scientific and deductive method (arguably could fall into both sections): the birth of science and mathematics/understanding why they work
- The relativism of culture: fighting the tendency for powerful nations to impose their cultures on others through war
Obviously this isn't meant to be comprehensive but both seem to remain important in society. I'm also ignoring the fact that philosophy and mathematics are an art in themselves; they don't just serve us through their results for humanity
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I dunno. In the same way pure maths helps us? Or doesn't.
What are the ethics behind STEM cell research? What about the ethics of ge Could we make an AI that is alive? Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct? Should we bomb Syria? There are no solid empirically equations you can use to answer those questions.
Analytical philosophy and science are reliant on each other (the former by definition). Raw science can not answer everything by a long shot, especially intrinsically human questions.
What are the ethics behind STEM cell research? What about the ethics of ge Could we make an AI that is alive? Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct? Should we bomb Syria? There are no solid empirically equations you can use to answer those questions.
Analytical philosophy and science are reliant on each other (the former by definition). Raw science can not answer everything by a long shot, especially intrinsically human questions.
Science does not care what is ethical but what is probably true.
All these questions are impossible to answer, morality or ethics are not objective truths. You could answer them by using subjective assumptions but what good is that?
Certainly more than religion does...
Original post by SgtHaytham
Certainly more than religion does...
That's not good by any means.
Original post by Professor Oak
Just a brief look at some of the achievements of philosophy shows it still has a place in the world:
Some scientific and mathematical breakthroughs:
- Origin of our species and planet: perspective on our place in the universe
- Vaccines and disease prevention: extending our lives
- Controlling electricity and power enabling industry: reducing starvation and developing technology
Some philosophical breakthroughs:
- Liberalism, human rights and democracy: justice and fairness in society
- Scientific and deductive method (arguably could fall into both sections): the birth of science and mathematics/understanding why they work
- The relativism of culture: fighting the tendency for powerful nations to impose their cultures on others through war
Obviously this isn't meant to be comprehensive but both seem to remain important in society. I'm also ignoring the fact that philosophy and mathematics are an art in themselves; they don't just serve us through their results for humanity
Some scientific and mathematical breakthroughs:
- Origin of our species and planet: perspective on our place in the universe
- Vaccines and disease prevention: extending our lives
- Controlling electricity and power enabling industry: reducing starvation and developing technology
Some philosophical breakthroughs:
- Liberalism, human rights and democracy: justice and fairness in society
- Scientific and deductive method (arguably could fall into both sections): the birth of science and mathematics/understanding why they work
- The relativism of culture: fighting the tendency for powerful nations to impose their cultures on others through war
Obviously this isn't meant to be comprehensive but both seem to remain important in society. I'm also ignoring the fact that philosophy and mathematics are an art in themselves; they don't just serve us through their results for humanity
All totally subjective views.
Original post by dozyrosie
All totally subjective views.
OK
I'm not suggesting liberalism and democracy are the ideal set up, just that they were better than what came before which is very little accountability to the public good.
I'm also not suggesting that cultural relativism is the right path, just that it's better than the imperialism that came before it. Hence why they're still important for progress.
A few questions:
You don't think these were important developments? Are you expecting objective truth in politics and ethics? Are you suggesting that subjective claims aren't important?
(edited 8 years ago)
Do you need consistent growth in order to be important to society? Does your progress need to be compared to the sciences?
How much has addition come along in the last 30 years? Do we say addition is no longer needed?
Specifically with the role between philosophy and Science, ofcourse there is still a link. As someone has already said, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics - you cannot rule any out empirically. Which interpretation is chosen will use philosophy.
What theory of time is correct? Is it tensed or tenseless? Again, empirical you won't be able to find out, philosophy is in fact the main tool in arguing for that.
In Cosmology and the study of our beginning, philosophy is absolutely relevant. At the moment, theories like the multiverse are just as much metaphysics as they are physics. People like Vilenkin will give you philosophical answers regarding cosmology. Could there have been an eternal quantum gravity region? A vacuum from which the beginnings of the universe tunnelled into existence? No. Because, a quantum vacuum is incredibly unstable, yet it would have to be 'metastable' in order to be past eternal and then suddenly change less than 1 billion years ago.
Logic and metaphysics still play a role at the frontier of cosmology.
Posted from TSR Mobile
How much has addition come along in the last 30 years? Do we say addition is no longer needed?
Specifically with the role between philosophy and Science, ofcourse there is still a link. As someone has already said, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics - you cannot rule any out empirically. Which interpretation is chosen will use philosophy.
What theory of time is correct? Is it tensed or tenseless? Again, empirical you won't be able to find out, philosophy is in fact the main tool in arguing for that.
In Cosmology and the study of our beginning, philosophy is absolutely relevant. At the moment, theories like the multiverse are just as much metaphysics as they are physics. People like Vilenkin will give you philosophical answers regarding cosmology. Could there have been an eternal quantum gravity region? A vacuum from which the beginnings of the universe tunnelled into existence? No. Because, a quantum vacuum is incredibly unstable, yet it would have to be 'metastable' in order to be past eternal and then suddenly change less than 1 billion years ago.
Logic and metaphysics still play a role at the frontier of cosmology.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just a note on Stephen Hawking. Rees, a former astronomer royal and close friends of Hawking's, said that Stephen had read little philosophy and even less theology to take his opinion seriously on the matter.
Certainly, this is clear. In his book 'the grand design' Hawking goes on a journey about the realism- anti realism debate shortly after saying philosophy is dead - In the same book! I kid you not.
Philosphers like Massimo P and David Albert have effectively dealt with NDT and Krauss respectively on their philosophical views.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Certainly, this is clear. In his book 'the grand design' Hawking goes on a journey about the realism- anti realism debate shortly after saying philosophy is dead - In the same book! I kid you not.
Philosphers like Massimo P and David Albert have effectively dealt with NDT and Krauss respectively on their philosophical views.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Supermonkey92
Do you need consistent growth in order to be important to society? Does your progress need to be compared to the sciences?
How much has addition come along in the last 30 years? Do we say addition is no longer needed?
Specifically with the role between philosophy and Science, ofcourse there is still a link. As someone has already said, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics - you cannot rule any out empirically. Which interpretation is chosen will use philosophy.
What theory of time is correct? Is it tensed or tenseless? Again, empirical you won't be able to find out, philosophy is in fact the main tool in arguing for that.
In Cosmology and the study of our beginning, philosophy is absolutely relevant. At the moment, theories like the multiverse are just as much metaphysics as they are physics. People like Vilenkin will give you philosophical answers regarding cosmology. Could there have been an eternal quantum gravity region? A vacuum from which the beginnings of the universe tunnelled into existence? No. Because, a quantum vacuum is incredibly unstable, yet it would have to be 'metastable' in order to be past eternal and then suddenly change less than 1 billion years ago.
Logic and metaphysics still play a role at the frontier of cosmology.
Posted from TSR Mobile
How much has addition come along in the last 30 years? Do we say addition is no longer needed?
Specifically with the role between philosophy and Science, ofcourse there is still a link. As someone has already said, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics - you cannot rule any out empirically. Which interpretation is chosen will use philosophy.
What theory of time is correct? Is it tensed or tenseless? Again, empirical you won't be able to find out, philosophy is in fact the main tool in arguing for that.
In Cosmology and the study of our beginning, philosophy is absolutely relevant. At the moment, theories like the multiverse are just as much metaphysics as they are physics. People like Vilenkin will give you philosophical answers regarding cosmology. Could there have been an eternal quantum gravity region? A vacuum from which the beginnings of the universe tunnelled into existence? No. Because, a quantum vacuum is incredibly unstable, yet it would have to be 'metastable' in order to be past eternal and then suddenly change less than 1 billion years ago.
Logic and metaphysics still play a role at the frontier of cosmology.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If a scientist uses a philosophical argument that is fine, when a philosopher tries to input a philosophical argument into science, without knowledge of the science then it is junk.
Most of those on TSR who defend philosophy haven't a clue about science, they are as bad as the religious, no meat in their stew.
Is a vacuum at all possible, methinks not.
Original post by dozyrosie
Science does not care what is ethical but what is probably true.
All these questions are impossible to answer, morality or ethics are not objective truths. You could answer them by using subjective assumptions but what good is that?
All these questions are impossible to answer, morality or ethics are not objective truths. You could answer them by using subjective assumptions but what good is that?
So you do not answer ethical questions, even though you undoubtedly live you life by your ethics?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by dozyrosie
To emphasise my last post, and RF's quote, The Aristotelian idea of cosmology was still accepted up to the early nineteenth century, and is completely wrong. The religious keep philosophy going now and they are almost definitely wrong.
What about Aristotelian logic?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Supermonkey92
So you do not answer ethical questions, even though you undoubtedly live you life by your ethics?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
We all do. Do my opinions carry more weight? Only if I can produce evidence and even then I still may be wrong.
Original post by dozyrosie
If a scientist uses a philosophical argument that is fine, when a philosopher tries to input a philosophical argument into science, without knowledge of the science then it is junk.
Most of those on TSR who defend philosophy haven't a clue about science, they are as bad as the religious, no meat in their stew.
Is a vacuum at all possible, methinks not.
Most of those on TSR who defend philosophy haven't a clue about science, they are as bad as the religious, no meat in their stew.
Is a vacuum at all possible, methinks not.
So you accept philosophy is still useful in modern science in some capacity?
The second point seems obvious, if you are using philosophy to help further a science you don't know, it will be junk. But that's just because junk in gets you junk out. Philosphers of physics like David Albert will have PHD's in physics.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by High Stakes
Just a question I wanted some light shed on. I'm a science student at heart but I also quite like philosophy and recognise it as the father of sciences. But I'm interested in the implications that philosophy has on society today. Does it still contribute to our understanding of the world and the natural sciences?
Some prominent figures such as Laurence Krauss and Neil DeGrass Tyson have made a lot of claims about philosophy being useless. Stephen Hawking stated that philosophy is 'dead'.
Any insights?
Some prominent figures such as Laurence Krauss and Neil DeGrass Tyson have made a lot of claims about philosophy being useless. Stephen Hawking stated that philosophy is 'dead'.
Any insights?
Hawking seemed to take a scientist's typical viewpoint (that philosophy is an amateur version of science for non-experts) to the logical extreme, but he was presumably talking about questions like the origin and structure of the universe and so on, which have long been part of cosmological science and not philosophy, so I suspect it was more a case of him not 'getting' philosophy.
What did happen was that philosophy got far too technical and semantic and there is a more relaxed and interesting wave of philosophy to do with practical questions of life choices, the ethics of political actions and so on, which still has a lot of mileage in it.
Original post by Supermonkey92
So you accept philosophy is still useful in modern science in some capacity?
The second point seems obvious, if you are using philosophy to help further a science you don't know, it will be junk. But that's just because junk in gets you junk out. Philosphers of physics like David Albert will have PHD's in physics.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The second point seems obvious, if you are using philosophy to help further a science you don't know, it will be junk. But that's just because junk in gets you junk out. Philosphers of physics like David Albert will have PHD's in physics.
Posted from TSR Mobile
There are great thinkers, some of these are scientists some are not, like great writers etc. There is nothing wrong with holding a philosophy PhD alongside your other one, but I don't see it as a necessary.
From what I have seen on TSR from those who study philosophy, it seems to be a way of supporting their biased religious beliefs, or leads them to agnosticism, even though the evidences are continually building up. In short they disregard science in favour of ancient writings or a stoic demand for absolute truth, a truth they should understand is impossible to find.
I think the physicists who bash philosophy are really saying that if you are going to contribute anything useful to knowledge in those fields, you really have to be a mathematician. Certainly subjects like cosmology can get pretty philosophical at times, but only those with the mathematical chops can argue sensibly at that level. But there are those like David Albert who identify as philosophers who can certainly do that. But then he has a PhD in theoretical physics.
I'm torn on the subject. On the one hand, if philosophy is defined loosely as "thinking well", then we all need philosophy. Science and politics and many other subjects are 100% underpinned by that idea. On the other hand, I don't think we need philosophy as a stand alone subject to be able to do that. When I teach my students about control groups, or statistical inference, or evolutionary biology, you could argue it is "philosophy". But it's not the kind of stuff you focus on in a philosophy degree (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think of philosophy like using herbs and seasoning in cooking. It can transform a mediocre dish into something spectacular. But you learn about seasoning as you learn about cooking actual recipes; "on the job", as it were. Similarly, you learn about philosophy by learning science (or other subject). But to do a course solely focusing on seasoning is weird and unproductive. That's what I feel about philosophy degrees.
I'm torn on the subject. On the one hand, if philosophy is defined loosely as "thinking well", then we all need philosophy. Science and politics and many other subjects are 100% underpinned by that idea. On the other hand, I don't think we need philosophy as a stand alone subject to be able to do that. When I teach my students about control groups, or statistical inference, or evolutionary biology, you could argue it is "philosophy". But it's not the kind of stuff you focus on in a philosophy degree (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think of philosophy like using herbs and seasoning in cooking. It can transform a mediocre dish into something spectacular. But you learn about seasoning as you learn about cooking actual recipes; "on the job", as it were. Similarly, you learn about philosophy by learning science (or other subject). But to do a course solely focusing on seasoning is weird and unproductive. That's what I feel about philosophy degrees.
Original post by chazwomaq
I think the physicists who bash philosophy are really saying that if you are going to contribute anything useful to knowledge in those fields, you really have to be a mathematician. Certainly subjects like cosmology can get pretty philosophical at times, but only those with the mathematical chops can argue sensibly at that level. But there are those like David Albert who identify as philosophers who can certainly do that. But then he has a PhD in theoretical physics.
I'm torn on the subject. On the one hand, if philosophy is defined loosely as "thinking well", then we all need philosophy. Science and politics and many other subjects are 100% underpinned by that idea. On the other hand, I don't think we need philosophy as a stand alone subject to be able to do that. When I teach my students about control groups, or statistical inference, or evolutionary biology, you could argue it is "philosophy". But it's not the kind of stuff you focus on in a philosophy degree (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think of philosophy like using herbs and seasoning in cooking. It can transform a mediocre dish into something spectacular. But you learn about seasoning as you learn about cooking actual recipes; "on the job", as it were. Similarly, you learn about philosophy by learning science (or other subject). But to do a course solely focusing on seasoning is weird and unproductive. That's what I feel about philosophy degrees.
I'm torn on the subject. On the one hand, if philosophy is defined loosely as "thinking well", then we all need philosophy. Science and politics and many other subjects are 100% underpinned by that idea. On the other hand, I don't think we need philosophy as a stand alone subject to be able to do that. When I teach my students about control groups, or statistical inference, or evolutionary biology, you could argue it is "philosophy". But it's not the kind of stuff you focus on in a philosophy degree (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think of philosophy like using herbs and seasoning in cooking. It can transform a mediocre dish into something spectacular. But you learn about seasoning as you learn about cooking actual recipes; "on the job", as it were. Similarly, you learn about philosophy by learning science (or other subject). But to do a course solely focusing on seasoning is weird and unproductive. That's what I feel about philosophy degrees.
What if someone pursued a degree like Mathematics & Philosophy or Physics & Philosophy at university? Do you believe that a philosopher who wants to make any positive contribution to the sciences must possess a high degree of technical knowledge in sciences before making philosophical statements?
Original post by Supermonkey92
So you accept philosophy is still useful in modern science in some capacity?
The second point seems obvious, if you are using philosophy to help further a science you don't know, it will be junk. But that's just because junk in gets you junk out. Philosphers of physics like David Albert will have PHD's in physics.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The second point seems obvious, if you are using philosophy to help further a science you don't know, it will be junk. But that's just because junk in gets you junk out. Philosphers of physics like David Albert will have PHD's in physics.
Posted from TSR Mobile
So you're implying that it is as of recent, impractical to pursue philosophy purely. Rather, it ought to be accompanied with another field of study, a science?
Original post by dozyrosie
Science does not care what is ethical but what is probably true.
All these questions are impossible to answer, morality or ethics are not objective truths. You could answer them by using subjective assumptions but what good is that?
All these questions are impossible to answer, morality or ethics are not objective truths. You could answer them by using subjective assumptions but what good is that?
They are incredibly important questions though. We have to try and answer them. I don't really know what you are saying other than agreeing with me that there are a load of important questions that science alone can not answer.
Something else I always note in this kind of discussion is that when people mean philosophy they normally mean say a philosophy professor pontificating about some abstract obscure subject. When there are actually loads of example of practical philosophy in action, we just don't think of it as philosophy. When a group of politicians and medical professionals debate and discus what the rules around manipulating the DNA of a fetus should be. When the cut of point for an abortion should be. Is it ethical to terminate a zygote if you know it is going to develop into a disabled child. That is all practical philosophy.
To say philosophy is useless based on the more abstract pure philosophy off philosophy's sake is exactly the same as saying pure and theoretical physics is worthless because what practical value does it have? Yet anyone who knows anything would know that you wouldn't have all the practical applications of physics, like your PC you type this on, without the pure abstract physics for physics sake stuff. It's the same with philosophy.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Hawking seemed to take a scientist's typical viewpoint (that philosophy is an amateur version of science for non-experts) to the logical extreme, but he was presumably talking about questions like the origin and structure of the universe and so on, which have long been part of cosmological science and not philosophy, so I suspect it was more a case of him not 'getting' philosophy.
I think part of that is that is due to science being able to establish certain phenomena and "stuff" with incredible accuracy that negates a load of philosophy. I think most scientists even knowingly or unknowing apply analytical philosophy to everything. It doesn't matter what may seem logical to our monkey brains on subjects like atomic structure. What we think is irrelevant when we have empirical evidence to show us how atoms actually behave and what they are made up of making a load of philosophical inquiries into that subject our of date and useless. Then on questions on much more squishy subjects like politics the academics and thinkers will try to bolster their philosophical arguments with scientific fact wherever they can.
I think that is the best approach to find out about the world. You only ditch science in favor for pure "logical" monkey brain thinking when you have no choice but to do so.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by High Stakes
Just a question I wanted some light shed on. I'm a science student at heart but I also quite like philosophy and recognise it as the father of sciences. But I'm interested in the implications that philosophy has on society today. Does it still contribute to our understanding of the world and the natural sciences?
Some prominent figures such as Laurence Krauss and Neil DeGrass Tyson have made a lot of claims about philosophy being useless. Stephen Hawking stated that philosophy is 'dead'.
Any insights?
Some prominent figures such as Laurence Krauss and Neil DeGrass Tyson have made a lot of claims about philosophy being useless. Stephen Hawking stated that philosophy is 'dead'.
Any insights?
I think that it depends on how one looks at it.
Realistically, it may not aid the sciences as it once did, yet I believe that philosophy still has a major place in today's society. Philosophy has completely shaped our ethics, religious standpoint and the like, and will arguably continue to do so as long as we question what we are told.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR - Religious Studies
- Welcome to the Philosophy Forum! - Please read before posting
- PPE or law ?? v. lost
- I have just finished my first year at the University of Leeds, ask me anything!
- Philosophy at Oxford PPL
- a level subjects for politics
- A Level Philosophy / Religious studies
- Can you do an economics PhD after doing an international political economy masters?
- Differing Political Opinions with family.
- How likely is it to be accepted on for a PhD program without a master's in 2023?
- Trevs college Durham 2023!!
- Royal Veterinary College Hold List 2024
- LSE Anthropology and Law 2023
- Imperial computing
- GCSE Sociology -AQA
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Lancaster Uni Uncovered - Tips and Useful links
- Choosing a University
- Accounting AAT vs ACCA
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
