Timeline for Should viable philosophical theories not always be consistent with science?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2018 at 18:12 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 7, 2018 at 8:15 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 17:14 | comment | added | user935 | Note that "flying purple couches running for office" in worlds we can't observe isn't contradicted by science and there is not a "dissonance with facts". Lack of evidence can't disprove something. "Science" should say "you're talking about phenomena that you openly agree can't be observed; therefore, this is outside the realm of science". However, it can still be in the realm of philosophy. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 13:34 | comment | added | user20253 | I'd say that any scientific theory should work in metaphysics and vice versa and if it doesn't I would reject it. So I see what the prof was getting at. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 12:13 | answer | added | CriglCragl | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 7:30 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/970924498420731905 | ||
| Mar 6, 2018 at 7:02 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | This question is not really about time and relativity. Maybe you should update the title? | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 6:52 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | @questioereponsum I never said theories are unrelated to facts. My point is just that theories contrarily to facts are in need of an interpretation, and that it makes perfect sense to say that this is an advantage that a metaphysical thesis fits well with it, not an absolute constraint as you wish. The"testing"of philosophy claims, if you wish to call that "testing" (which is telling by the way), is via rational argumentation. Assimilating this to nothing but logic+compliance with facts is positivism. Also what a "fact"is is a very complex matter. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 5:37 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 5:17 | comment | added | user9166 | @quaestioeresponsum "Possible Worlds" as different from Evertt's "Many Worlds" which are taken seriously by no one -- except everyone since Feynman -- including Hawking, who tried to use this framing to handle the stability of black holes. Somehow there is no evidence for either of them, but the former is somehow objectionable, while the latter is just fine? I think you are cherry picking a bit. | |
| Mar 6, 2018 at 2:05 | answer | added | user19423 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 21:50 | comment | added | amphibient | yes, people defend shields that protect them from the bitch of scrutiny... | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 21:47 | comment | added | quaestio e responsum | @amphibient - I agree. The reactions I have witnessed to this desire have been full-blown anger and frustration, much like that expressed by dogmatists of any religion when faced with logical arguments espoused by those who reject their premises on a philosophical basis. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 21:13 | comment | added | amphibient | because being liable to answer the rigors of scientific method would hinder philosophers' abilities to pontificate airy ideas without a burden of proof. Attempts to redefine philosophy as more of a science include logical positivism (Vienna Circle), analytic philosophy etc. It's funny how much "certified" philosophers hate purported frauds like Sam Harris (a great guy IMO) and denounce them as "scientistic" for simply wanting to subject ethics and values to reason rather that irrationality | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:41 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:39 | comment | added | nwr | This is what is traditionally called the "saving the phenomena" debate about the relationship between scientific formalism and reality. There is a lot of room for skepticism. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:38 | comment | added | quaestio e responsum | The testing of philosophical claims is done via logic and, if relevant, via a comparison with the extant facts. Calling this "Positivism" is scapegoating. Logical Positivism is an incredibly complex context to impute to someone merely asking for coherence and consistency of claims. To do so assumes so many other [unstated] factors. The fact is that philosophical claims are always tested in some form or fashion, unless we are relativists who accept the possibility of anything and everything suggested being true. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:35 | comment | added | quaestio e responsum | Respectfully, I am not confusing anything. Facts and theories are not equivalent, but theories do involve facts, otherwise any wild or inane explanation that a given person may suggest has the status of a "theory." This simply isn't true. I have read Lewis and have concluded that he is an erudite charlatan. The fact that one can at once maintain that Lewis' positions are "crazy" yet also state that he argues "precisely and convincingly" speaks, I think, directly to my point. I, of course, do not know you, but your expressed sentiments are something I have encountered before. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:26 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | And in any case, whether philosophical theses would take into account scientific theories, and whether philosophical claims should be testable are two different questions (and answering "yes"to the latter is actually positivism) | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:21 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | Regarding Lewis: almost nobody actually endorses his theory. It's considered somehow "serious" because that solves a lot of philosophical problems, and Lewis did argue precisely and convincingly on this, but most philosophers I know still think it's crazy. Maybe you should read Lewis and make your opinion! | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:16 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | I think you make a confusion between facts and theories. Theories can always be reinterpreted so as to match with any metaphysics, it's just that some fit in more naturally, which is an advantage. For example it is always possible to introduce a preferred reference frame in relativity. This is an ad hoc move: a big drawback for sure, but not an incoherence with facts. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:13 | comment | added | quaestio e responsum | How about theorizing about "possible worlds" a la David Lewis? There is zero evidence for them, and indeed it is claimed that we can never actually access them, yet it is taken seriously that they not only may exist, but also might contain such things as flying purple couches running for office. This is completely absurd and the fact that it is entertained as serious metaphysics is disheartening, to say the least. This is especially true since the logical rules of evidence require at least something on which to base a hypothesis rather than an (admitted) nothing whatsoever. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:06 | comment | added | user935 | Perhaps you could give an example of philosophy that is contradicted by science but still considered valid? | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:14 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2018 at 20:01 | history | asked | quaestio e responsum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |