Thanks for putting this video up! I'm reading Putnam's Renewing Philosophy and writing the first part of my dissertation on Williams' critique of scientism, so this is really interesting!
“Philosophy of Science?” Philosophy is the Greek translation to the term “love of wisdom.” Science is trial and error, simply a method, an organized way of doing something, etc. The philosophy is in the observation of the results from trial and error. An example of science and philosophy is in the book: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
Besides the problem of pessimistic induction, McGee points out correctly that QM has difficulties of interpretation, however that does not entail that there isn't a single, correct interpretation, even if we cannot find out which. Though some scientists talk as if QM was just an uninterpreted calculi, it is clearly not so, since even if not fully interpreted there is an intended interpretation which takes as its objects: fields, particles, probability distributions, etc.
For example, consider modal logic. A modal model is an ordered triple consisting of a non-empty set of objects, some relation of access and an interpretation function. However if we employ modal logic for discussing modality it is clear that the members of the non-empty set must be possible worlds, whatever those are. So in modal logic disagreements of interpretation don't concern the members of W, but rather just what those members are: sets of propositions? concrete possible worlds? etc.
@ogirv101 2: One of the most central notions in philosophy is that we can not really know anything for certain, and that philosophy never gives us any direct rigid knowledge of the world, but rather that it sheds light on the things we can not know. Thus it is commonly said even by philosophers that philosophy is not a science in its strictest sense. Like previously said, not to advocate relativism or skepticism, but the main idea is that philosophy is about wisdom, not knowledge.
The best way to view the whole equivalent descriptions business is that while there may be several different ways to describe a single event such that each is true, it is not the case that just any description will do. For example, we could have one theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, and another that stated objects fall at a rate of 32 m/s2 (approx.), and each would be correct. However, a theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 11 m/s2 would be wrong.
I miss this old brown world of genuine experts (rather than merely talking heads) discussing deep subjects intelligently and politely. No fancy editing, no flashy cgi clips and music, and obviously no 'sexing up' in order to bump the viewing figures.
@ogirv101 1: With reference to my previous posts, I wasn't trying to discredit philosophy in my labeling of pseudo-science; that was just to mark my point. The truth value in philosophy draws upon ever changing criteria. Philosophy "proves" a lot of things, but then you have to decide which of the contradicting proofs to go with. The cognitional approaches are ever changing, rendering philosophy as a sort of literary art, rather than direct science.
Being 70. Lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 247 365. Absolute truth is a disingenuous pursuit whereas the pursuit of 'a truth' is an experiential truth 'in question' that is to say, what may be true now is subjective and not objectively implicit.
Also, Putnam's discussion of simultaneity as an example of a difficulty to the traditional concept of truth, hardly is one. This doesn't challenge truth as correspondence, rather it challenges our conception of time and the difficulties of supposing that there is an absolute frame of reference. However, ascriptions of truth to two or more observations of different space-time metrics for the same phenomenon is only incoherent under the supposition of an absolute frame of reference. Continues ..
If you get rid of this presuposition (the absolute frame of reference), then the position is clearly coherent. It doesn't challenge truth, not even bivalence. QM, under some interpretations might challenge bivalence and therefore realism, though not all interpretations have this outcome. And, in any case, a multi-valued logic can also employ the concept of truth.
@ogirv101 Alright. I was just trying to say that there is a difference between sciences such as logic or mathematics on the one hand, and unverifiable sciences such as philosophy on the other. When you have two opposing theories in mathematics, it goes without saying that only one can be right, but it is not necessarily that easy in philosophy (or psychology, sociology et. c.) I'm not saying they are futile, of course, advocating any relativism, but there is a difference in their proving powers
McGee tends to go beyond what Putnam is stating and even from what can be gathered by the history of science and philosophical speculation. For instance, when he says that science is not reliable. Science is more reliable, in the sense of its predictive and explanatory qualities, than most human endeavors. Rather, the difficulty is that is called pessimistic induction: if all past theories have been improved upon or substituted, this will probably be so with all future theories.
@meshzzizk Of course the distinction between sciences and what is to be qualified only as pseudo-science is a never ending debate, seeing as creationists, et.c. (or most people in general wishing to call their practices "scientific") will never give in to the arguments against their scientificness. What "science" is can be reduced to a philosophical problem if you push it far enough, but you only barely have to open a book on philosophy of science to be able to draw the line.
"Theory is only a small part of science".........yea the other small part is empirical observation. They're the two small components which comprise science.
Maybe, but you can't know that. It's not the case that EVERY scientific theory eventually fails and is replaced.There is nothing suggesting that rocks will fall upwards in the future, thereby falsifying Newton completely. The point is that we cannot be absolutely sure something is utterly as we think, because we might find out new things about them, although we might also never do. Saying relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong just like that seems fairly dogmatic and intuitively based to me.
Neither of the last two sentences is logical. If the "supernatural" were shown to be true it could well be science providing the evidence. Just because science has not provided evidence for the existence of "gods" does not mean that they don't exist (which is of course a partly different question as to whether or not specific religions are supported by scientific evidence).
@ogirv101 Well, actually science and philosophy uses both inductive and deductive reasoning in various degrees, philosophy is not entirely a priori, and science is based upon the entirety of previous theories in its interpretation of observational data, thus deductive. Also science is deductive in its novel predictions from the theories. And yes, in western analytical tradition, of course philosophy claims to be scientific, but are you actually naive enough to call philosophical theories fact?
@meshzzizk Alright, I take it back. It is harsh to say there is any definite borderline, but I still hold that it is possible to make some criteria that separate scientific from unscientific. Not all inquiries are scientific. The term scientific method testifies that science has something to do with method and goes beyond mere inquiry. The creationism debate was an example.
He says that people of religion hold their ideas as infallible. Wrong. The very nature of God is a mystery. Just like when you ask if the sun is yellow and some one says its white. If you ask is your soul a spiritual body, and some one says your soul is a physical body in another realm. Things like that. The fine details are different but the idea is the same. You two philosophers sure do make some odd claims.
You can be agnostic and athiest at the same, one doesn't exclude the other. Agnostic mean you don't know and athiest means you don't beleive, and I think you can not know and not beleive at the same time. If the supernatural was showen to be true then science would be showen to be wrong at it's most basic leve;, assuming the universe is natural. That hasn't happen so it's pretty sure that religion is bot true.
Yes, Putnam doesn't mention the most common distinctions between sciences and non-sciences, which are characterized for instance by the formation of falsifiable theories through experiment, capacity of self revision and correction, and in general the ideal of unprejudiced search for the truth in itself based on the facts, and absence of modeling through ad hoc theories. These are some of the features separating true sciences such as physics from pseudo-sciences such as sociology or philosophy
If only all of those dogmatic atheists (I'm agnostic so don't misjudge) who keep claiming that "certainty in science" has replaced God would listen then understand (highly improbable) this interview, then maybe they'd wake up from their stubborn and misguided insistence that science is complete, all powerful and all knowing. It is a method which has evolved and is highly useful. It is not a replacement for God. If it was then it would stop being science.
If you tell me gravity is a force,you must explain mechanically the origin of such force, If you can not,well it is philosophy. Nor Newton neither Einstein can explain the mechanical nature of gravity vector. The same with electricity and the rest of forces. If you give an e-mail I will send you a 54 pages which prove that forces. Trust me.
The fact cuantum mechanics works it doesn't mean in "some way" is fundamentaly right.Tolomeo's theory worked out for a long time and it doesn't mean he was in some way "fundamentaly right,in fact he was completely wrong in a fundamental level.Cuantum mechanics is gonna disappear soon precisely because is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!!The same with Theory of relativity!!
@martinheideggershut You're seriously claiming to understand this better than Hilary Putnam, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century? Jesus on a bike. . .
"Maybe . . ." Would be a perfect end to this discussion.
Thanks for putting this video up! I'm reading Putnam's Renewing Philosophy and writing the first part of my dissertation on Williams' critique of scientism, so this is really interesting!
Thank you so much for posting these videos! Would it be possible to list the interview/filming dates in the info on the right?
“Philosophy of Science?” Philosophy is the Greek translation to the term “love of wisdom.” Science is trial and error, simply a method, an organized way of doing something, etc. The philosophy is in the observation of the results from trial and error. An example of science and philosophy is in the book: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
Besides the problem of pessimistic induction, McGee points out correctly that QM has difficulties of interpretation, however that does not entail that there isn't a single, correct interpretation, even if we cannot find out which. Though some scientists talk as if QM was just an uninterpreted calculi, it is clearly not so, since even if not fully interpreted there is an intended interpretation which takes as its objects: fields, particles, probability distributions, etc.
For example, consider modal logic. A modal model is an ordered triple consisting of a non-empty set of objects, some relation of access and an interpretation function. However if we employ modal logic for discussing modality it is clear that the members of the non-empty set must be possible worlds, whatever those are. So in modal logic disagreements of interpretation don't concern the members of W, but rather just what those members are: sets of propositions? concrete possible worlds? etc.
Yes, I thought the same thing about Putnam's discussion of simultaneity.
Thanks so much for uploading!
I don't know when this segment was originally produced but around 4:35 sounds quite a bit like Kuhn.
@ogirv101
2: One of the most central notions in philosophy is that we can not really know anything for certain, and that philosophy never gives us any direct rigid knowledge of the world, but rather that it sheds light on the things we can not know. Thus it is commonly said even by philosophers that philosophy is not a science in its strictest sense. Like previously said, not to advocate relativism or skepticism, but the main idea is that philosophy is about wisdom, not knowledge.
Just loved that noncommittal "maybe" at the end of this clip!!
The best way to view the whole equivalent descriptions business is that while there may be several different ways to describe a single event such that each is true, it is not the case that just any description will do. For example, we could have one theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, and another that stated objects fall at a rate of 32 m/s2 (approx.), and each would be correct. However, a theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 11 m/s2 would be wrong.
I miss this old brown world of genuine experts (rather than merely talking heads) discussing deep subjects intelligently and politely. No fancy editing, no flashy cgi clips and music, and obviously no 'sexing up' in order to bump the viewing figures.
@ogirv101
1: With reference to my previous posts, I wasn't trying to discredit philosophy in my labeling of pseudo-science; that was just to mark my point. The truth value in philosophy draws upon ever changing criteria. Philosophy "proves" a lot of things, but then you have to decide which of the contradicting proofs to go with. The cognitional approaches are ever changing, rendering philosophy as a sort of literary art, rather than direct science.
@scruethedemiurge Yea, that was kind of what I was hinting for
Professor Popper has a ring to it
Being 70. Lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 247 365.
Absolute truth is a disingenuous pursuit whereas the pursuit of 'a truth' is an experiential truth 'in question' that is to say, what may be true now is subjective and not objectively implicit.
Also, Putnam's discussion of simultaneity as an example of a difficulty to the traditional concept of truth, hardly is one. This doesn't challenge truth as correspondence, rather it challenges our conception of time and the difficulties of supposing that there is an absolute frame of reference. However, ascriptions of truth to two or more observations of different space-time metrics for the same phenomenon is only incoherent under the supposition of an absolute frame of reference. Continues ..
If you get rid of this presuposition (the absolute frame of reference), then the position is clearly coherent. It doesn't challenge truth, not even bivalence. QM, under some interpretations might challenge bivalence and therefore realism, though not all interpretations have this outcome. And, in any case, a multi-valued logic can also employ the concept of truth.
Me too! Well put.
many people still think that science explains the world how it really is... they need to watch these videos...
Sorry, that was supposed to be 32 f/s2 instead of 32 m/s2. You get the point.
Excellent video. Shame about the comments, but hey, this is RUclips after all.
ahhhh I love it!!!
Wondering is fun = )
@ogirv101
Alright. I was just trying to say that there is a difference between sciences such as logic or mathematics on the one hand, and unverifiable sciences such as philosophy on the other. When you have two opposing theories in mathematics, it goes without saying that only one can be right, but it is not necessarily that easy in philosophy (or psychology, sociology et. c.) I'm not saying they are futile, of course, advocating any relativism, but there is a difference in their proving powers
@benfirst Me too! Total shock.
good stuff indeed.
Equivilent descriptions, indeed I've long said their is no necessary conflict between science and religion, pure religion anyway.
LOL! I like his hair
equivalent descriptions
cool
I wish television was still academicaly enriching.
McGee tends to go beyond what Putnam is stating and even from what can be gathered by the history of science and philosophical speculation. For instance, when he says that science is not reliable. Science is more reliable, in the sense of its predictive and explanatory qualities, than most human endeavors. Rather, the difficulty is that is called pessimistic induction: if all past theories have been improved upon or substituted, this will probably be so with all future theories.
@meshzzizk
Of course the distinction between sciences and what is to be qualified only as pseudo-science is a never ending debate, seeing as creationists, et.c. (or most people in general wishing to call their practices "scientific") will never give in to the arguments against their scientificness. What "science" is can be reduced to a philosophical problem if you push it far enough, but you only barely have to open a book on philosophy of science to be able to draw the line.
just because the truth can never be obtained does not mean the absolute truth does not exist
excellent
hahaha i love how this interview ends.
"Theory is only a small part of science".........yea the other small part is empirical observation. They're the two small components which comprise science.
What have they anything to do with this video, what was the point of that comment? Please this rediculous way of advertising junk has to stop.
Maybe, but you can't know that. It's not the case that EVERY scientific theory eventually fails and is replaced.There is nothing suggesting that rocks will fall upwards in the future, thereby falsifying Newton completely. The point is that we cannot be absolutely sure something is utterly as we think, because we might find out new things about them, although we might also never do. Saying relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong just like that seems fairly dogmatic and intuitively based to me.
Putnam actually looks a bit like Kant.
haha "Maybe"
how about collective subjectivity? just a thought.
Neither of the last two sentences is logical. If the "supernatural" were shown to be true it could well be science providing the evidence. Just because science has not provided evidence for the existence of "gods" does not mean that they don't exist (which is of course a partly different question as to whether or not specific religions are supported by scientific evidence).
@ogirv101
Well, actually science and philosophy uses both inductive and deductive reasoning in various degrees, philosophy is not entirely a priori, and science is based upon the entirety of previous theories in its interpretation of observational data, thus deductive. Also science is deductive in its novel predictions from the theories.
And yes, in western analytical tradition, of course philosophy claims to be scientific, but are you actually naive enough to call philosophical theories fact?
@meshzzizk
Alright, I take it back. It is harsh to say there is any definite borderline, but I still hold that it is possible to make some criteria that separate scientific from unscientific. Not all inquiries are scientific. The term scientific method testifies that science has something to do with method and goes beyond mere inquiry. The creationism debate was an example.
He says that people of religion hold their ideas as infallible. Wrong. The very nature of God is a mystery. Just like when you ask if the sun is yellow and some one says its white. If you ask is your soul a spiritual body, and some one says your soul is a physical body in another realm. Things like that. The fine details are different but the idea is the same. You two philosophers sure do make some odd claims.
gosh, putnam reminds me of willy wonka in the old movie lol
@scruethedemiurge
Well, some might call logic a science.
(I was responding to kokofan50)
You can be agnostic and athiest at the same, one doesn't exclude the other. Agnostic mean you don't know and athiest means you don't beleive, and I think you can not know and not beleive at the same time. If the supernatural was showen to be true then science would be showen to be wrong at it's most basic leve;, assuming the universe is natural. That hasn't happen so it's pretty sure that religion is bot true.
i love youtube...its a place where people named shitstain can talk about the fundamentals of science
@andersv20 Of course logic is a science.
Yes, Putnam doesn't mention the most common distinctions between sciences and non-sciences, which are characterized for instance by the formation of falsifiable theories through experiment, capacity of self revision and correction, and in general the ideal of unprejudiced search for the truth in itself based on the facts, and absence of modeling through ad hoc theories. These are some of the features separating true sciences such as physics from pseudo-sciences such as sociology or philosophy
If only all of those dogmatic atheists (I'm agnostic so don't misjudge) who keep claiming that "certainty in science" has replaced God would listen then understand (highly improbable) this interview, then maybe they'd wake up from their stubborn and misguided insistence that science is complete, all powerful and all knowing. It is a method which has evolved and is highly useful. It is not a replacement for God. If it was then it would stop being science.
If you tell me gravity is a force,you must explain mechanically the origin of such force, If you can not,well it is philosophy. Nor Newton neither Einstein can explain the mechanical nature of gravity vector. The same with electricity and the rest of forces. If you give an e-mail I will send you a 54 pages which prove that forces. Trust me.
The fact cuantum mechanics works it doesn't mean in "some way" is fundamentaly right.Tolomeo's theory worked out for a long time and it doesn't mean he was in some way "fundamentaly right,in fact he was completely wrong in a fundamental level.Cuantum mechanics is gonna disappear soon precisely because is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!!The same with Theory of relativity!!
The interviewber misconception of what science is was painfull to listen
did you just reduce philosophy to logic?
@martinheideggershut
You're seriously claiming to understand this better than Hilary Putnam, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century? Jesus on a bike. . .
This discussion simply PROVES that science is but a tool.......not a "God substitute".....LOL
Which god would you like to be substituted? We invented so many of them. ;-)