Great Talk By Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Really relevant to assignment 2, talking about curvature + geometry of the universe, touches on multiverses and cosmic ‘natural selection’… also just a really fascinating and compelling talk for philosophical and entertainment purposes. Definitely worth a look, but it’s around an hour long so settle in for the long haul. It’s well worth it.
Also be aware that its context is at a conference of Atheist Alliance International, so it steps on some toes but on the whole it’s a really inspiring and excellent TED-style talk.
Yet another thing that’s making me question why I chose an Arts degree… :D
owen
—
I agree - it is stuff like this that makes me regret not choosing physics at university. :)
Anyway, on the topic of Lawrence Krauss, has anyone here seen that interview Krauss recently did titled “has physics made philosophy and religion obsolete?” - link: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
He really tears into philosophy, making provocative statements like it hasn’t really progressed in 2000 years. But as he claims, given the close historical relationship between philosophy and physics, will physics make philosophy obsolete?
I personally don’t agree. After doing some animal ethics classes, I hate to think that physicists will tell us how to think about the issues involved. And philosophy encompasses so many areas (ethics, human rights, language, politics etc.).
From my layperson’s perspective of it, physics describes the world but philosophy is about how we think about it.
What does everyone else think about physics making philosophy obsolete?
I actually got to speak with Krauss during the holidays when he and Dawkins were down for that speech at the ANU. When I told Krauss I was doing a philosophy of the cosmos course, he said it must be an eye-opener and he wished me luck. After reading this interview and some of his book “Universe from Nothing”, I take a different view of what he meant by he wished me luck :/
—
I can’t watch the video at the moment, but I read the article. It basically came across as an arrogant physicist who thinks he has all the answers? His opinions on philosophy to me just suggested that he’s never really studied any and has only a layperson’s understanding of what it’s about. Which is funny, given these seem to be the same sort of charges he’s levelling at philosophers. If he believes that philosophers are only attempting to understand questions that can be answered scientifically, it seems he’s really missed the point.
Heather B.
—
Yes, I agree that he missed the point. The point of philosophy (or even the philosophy of science) is not advance science or solve scientific problems, as Krauss insinuated in this article. That’s the job of science! And the idea that philosophy hasn’t progressed in 2000 years - I think he is measuring philosophical progress using scientific progress. Argh.
Sally
—
While I think krauss is very blunt, I think he is essentially correct. Philosophy cannot make progress without developments in other subjects. I think Philosophy can reflect upon new work in fields such as physics or biology, and the implications this would have on old questions, but I do not think these insights answer any of the “old” questions.
Why not? Because most Philosophers question whether humans can know anything, and I think at that stage, we might as well go and do something productive because this question can NEVER be answered.
I also think it true that the great philosophers of the 20th century were all either logicians or mathematicians in some form or another. I think Analytic Philosophy is the last bastion of the eminence Philosophy once held.
Of course Philosophy is relevant in regard to Morality and Ethics which can be very important aspects of society. But I do not think Philosophy can claim to be the field in which one understands “why” things are true, as it may once have.
Paul Rosenthal
—
I’m not certain what exactly you mean by “make progress”? Although it may be true that it cannot in most (or any?) instances make scientific/technological breakthroughs, I don’t think that’s what any philosopher is attempting.
Heather B.
—
I found another article by Krauss - this time he ‘clarifies’ some of the things we was talking about in the interview.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos
Not so blunt this time and mentions the philosophical texts he has read, but plenty much the same content as the previous interview.
I find it a little disheartening that Krauss views philosophy in such a way. I know that philosophy doesn’t aim to make scientific breakthroughs, but surely physics would benefit if it engaged more with the philosophy of science given the philosophical undertones in science and the scientific method. I know I am just a layperson in all of this (the last time I studied any physics or philosophy was five years ago), but being provocative and belittling other disciplines (whether it be philosophy, theology, whatever) doesn’t help anyone.
Sally
“Philosophy cannot make progress without developments in other subjects.” (Paul)
I’m sure this is right. I’m not sure exactly what philosophy is, but whatever it is it’s something extremely general, and that’s one reason why it has to keep listening to other disciplines.
This is the main reason why I like doing philosophy of science. The science keeps changing, and that makes it obvious that the philosophy has to keep changing.
Jason
Hullo all,
on ‘physics making philosophy obsolete’ topic (Sally):
There is a relevant quote I quite like, that: ‘philosophy without science is empty, whilst science without philosophy is blind’ – … anyway, It sums up my feelings on the topic quite nicely.
It seems that as an inevitable consequence of the growth of knowledge and specialisation (due to poor overworked academics time/energy limitations) that the major separation between phil and physics eventuated..
Still I think that both philosophy and the natural sciences lose something when they fail to engage with the perspectives/insights/methodologies provided by the other discipline.
on ‘Renders philosophy obsolete’?!:
Science may have grown out of philosophy due to increased empirical specialisation, but the idea that science now renders/or will render philosophy obsolete seems a huge stretch. For one, there has been a reconvergence of physics & phil in recent years.
Some examples: —recent interest in scientific foundational issues, which require philosophical analysis… —the influence that popper and kuhn have had upon scientific methodology, falsification, periods of revolutionary science. —and as we’ve been studying the philosophical issues raised by recent developments in scientific cosmology, — and the interpretative problems facing quantum theory in general, including the details of its application in describing/explainning the behaviour of matter, micro and macroscopic matter,
all these areas to me, appear essentially to require philosophy, and to highlight philosophies continued relevance.
If interested, there are some good routledge articles which outline the historical background of the phil/physics separation
http://www.rep.routledge.com.virtual.anu.edu.au/article/Q139?ssid=363059082&n=1#
Julien
Also further on : “Philosophy cannot make progress without developments in other subjects.” (Paul)
I agree, the scientific-philosophy position holds a similar view of philosophy, roughly, not as an autonomous discipline existing prior to the sciences but instead as a critical discipline dependent upon both natural and social sciences, mathematics and logic
Philosophy may be dependent upon other disciplines advancement. But this in no way implies philosophy is rendered redundant by scientific advancement & discipline specialisation ( as Krauss occasionally implies)..
Interesting relevant routledge article, look up; 1 Scientific philosophy and philosophy of science
Julien 2
