Does anything exist?

[IanS]

Apart from the above post -

As well as that link to an article in Scientific American by Carlo Rovelli, there is in fact a fairly recent public lecture at LSE (London School of Economics) by Rovelli, on precisely the same material that I think was contained in that article in Sci.Am (probably a great deal more, because it is a very long filmed talk/lecture). Here's a link to that -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4


But when introducing Rovelli to the audience at LSE, the host also said that Rovelli had previously written a complete book on this idea of how philosophy has contributed to fundamental science. The closest I could find is the book called “Anaximander” (link below), ie just the name of a famous philosopher from the Greco-Roman period 2400 years ago … but I presume that is the book they are talking about -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anaximande...thors_browse-bin:Carlo+Rovelli&s=books&sr=1-4


Anyway, that book aside for a moment – in the lecture at about 22 mins, Rovelli talks about Galileo and Newton and he says they would not have got their initial ideas about gravity and space etc., were it not for the fact that they already knew what had been said by Plato and Democtitus (and others) 2000 years earlier. IOW, Rovelli is simply saying that of course people such as Plato and Socrates and countless others had tried to propose answers to many of these questions as early 500BC (or even earlier) … ie questions of what I have called “core fundamental” science, ie the nature of matter, space, time, the origin of the universe and the origin of human life etc.

Well, we all know that ancient philosophers pondered such questions. Nobody is disputing that. And we know that they proposed all sorts of explanations. All of them actually wrong … or at the very least merely “right” only in the sense of being a rough simple idea of something (such as an “atom”).

None of that is the issue here. The issue here is whether philosophers today have contributed discoveries and explanations for what we know broadly as “reality” as described in terms of atomic structure (ie QM), relativity (as explanations of space and time), or the Big Bang (as an explanation of how and why our universe exists), and Evolution (as the explanation of why any of us, ie humans, even exist all) … but what have modern day, or any ancient, philosophers actually discovered and explained themselves in any of that? … where are the research papers from philosophers showing how THEY (and not any scientists) first discovered and explained QM, Relativity, Big Bang, Evolution etc., ie the overall description that we now have for “reality”??

Although I did not read Rovelli's article in the link to Sci.Am., I did listen to his YouTube lecture on what I think is exactly all the same ideas but in much greater detail. And I did not hear anything from him to claim or show that philosophers (past or present) should be credited with discovering any of the above. What I think Rovelli is concerned with, what he is impressed by and what he thinks is important as the contribution from philosophy, is the historical fact that from ancient times various philosophers had ideas about how to answer or explain the nature of "matter", space & the stars, etc. And he says that later scientists such as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr & Heisenberg and many others were of course aware of what those much earlier philosophers had proposed as explanations ... and he says that was a vital influence in their thinking … eg to say that Einstein or Heisenberg would ponder what the earlier philosophical explanations were, and that would be an inspiration for their own thoughts etc.

Well, that may indeed be the case. But what their own thoughts lead them to (in fact their own "research", because it was vastly more than merely "their own thoughts"), and also what was by that date (eg c.1900) their knowledge of many new experimental results, became very different from what those earlier philosophers had ever imagined. It may have been in that sense a progression from earlier philosophical ideas, but by that stage (and even more so today) what people like Einstein, Heisenberg or any of them were doing had moved far beyond what had been previously practiced as “philosophy”, and moved well into what by then (and certainly now) had become a new way of study that we call “science”. There's a historical connection of course, because all of it is just a matter of anyone trying to investigate and explain all sorts of things in the world around us … and that had been going on since even long before those famous Greek-Roman period philosophers … and it's still going on today, on a vastly greater and more complex level … but that level is now what we call “science” (it's no longer what we once called “philosophy”).


All that said – I think Rovelli is an engaging and likable charachter, and no doubt a very capable theoretical physcist. And on that basis I will probably buy a copy of his book (“Anaximander”), where I see from the contents that he includes chapters on the relevence to modern day science. So I hope that shows I am not stubbornly refusing to consider the contribution of philosophy. But, so far, I am closer to the position of Weinberg and Hawking, rather than that of Rovelli … but I will see what more Rovelli has to say in his book.

 

[Belz...]

Wait, have I misunderstood you? Do you agree that basic research has to provide an immediate return on investment? That can't be right. It's not very scientific...

What I'm saying is that this has NOTHING to do with what I said. Don't try to make me follow your change of topic.

 

[Belz...]

You got a way to back this up?

Yeah, this thread. That's why we've given up on the philosophiles.

You sure?

You understood his point. There's no way you thought he wasn't being hyperbolic; in fact you called him on it.

What I understand most of his posts to mean "I want to shut this conversation down no matter how many lies I have to bury the thread in!" Is that what you understand too?

Speaking of lies, the above is one.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

No, how about you clarify what you meant by "conceptual space" and what in the blazes it has to do with reality? The main complaint about philosophy is that it says a lot of pointless things very eloquently. The counter-argument to that is not what you've been doing so far, which is essentially proving the complaint right.

Google "philosophy":

philosophy /fɪˈlɒsəfi/
noun: philosophy

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
* a particular system of philosophical thought.
* the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience
2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

Similar: thinking reasoning thought wisdom knowledge

There's a leg up for you. I suggest rereading the posts; that might clue you in this time into my use of the various terms employed. Some linguists go so far as to speak of conceptual geometry -- a tad avante-garde, but proving fascinating and potentially fruitful -- which may tie some day into proper neuroscience, but that is for A-game discussion only. TL;DR: a physical, not functional, description of language and thought is well in the works, a holy grail in the field.

Another helpful tip: The difference between a physical and a functional description in science is that one is, gee, physical, and the other, gosh, conceptual.

(Think I may need to keep playing the Walnut Bowling minigame in Plants v Zombies to get a challenge.)

ETA: See the first post; all you need is there.

 

[Belz...]

Google "philosophy":

I'm not going to do your work for you. Either answer my question or continue to speak gibberish. What is "conceptual space"?

As for your condescending tone, it's not going to help you make your case. So far your posts in this thread have contained a lot of words but little useful stuff.

 

[Jimbo07]

What I'm saying is that this has NOTHING to do with what I said. Don't try to make me follow your change of topic.

What change of topic? Aside from the fact that this whole conversation doesn't seem to be following the thread's title, of course...

You said:

In order to be called useful, yes.

and

...and? I don't see the relation with what I said. There are plenty of things we do that are useless.

Unless I've misunderstood the thrust of this conversation, it seems like some folks here are asking others to defend the utility of philosophy. The relation is that in the wider world, others have questioned the utility of science, of fundamental research.

I, personally, think the position of the MPP in the article is indefensible, but so are weak attacks on philosophy. Saying that, "the natural sciences have had more success describing the physical world than previous natural philosophies, neener, neener, neener," isn't a very robust reason to withdraw funding from philosophy departments. In that case, let's withdraw funding from all fundamental research, too.

 

[Belz...]

Unless I've misunderstood the thrust of this conversation, it seems like some folks here are asking others to defend the utility of philosophy.

Yes, but your other post had nothing to do with that.

 

[Jimbo07]

Yes, but your other post had nothing to do with that.

It has everything to do with it. Some people think that philosophy is useless. Others think fundamental research in science is useless. I'd say that we shouldn't withdraw funding from either.

I don't think the value of philosophy (nor of basic research) comes from some pre-determined output. Funding should be small, maybe, but not zero. Given that we don't know what will come out of the academic exercise of these things, I don't object to them continuing.

 

[Belz...]

It has everything to do with it. Some people think that philosophy is useless. Others think fundamental research in science is useless.

Other people think space travel is useless, but we're not discussing that. Science is useful, no matter what some nutbag says. We're seeking to know what tangible results philosophy has. So far, zilch.

 

[Jimbo07]

Other people think space travel is useless, but we're not discussing that. Science is useful, no matter what some nutbag says. We're seeking to know what tangible results philosophy has. So far, zilch.

But... that's not what philosophy is. It's not a results machine. Rather than checking a dictionary definition, go to something like the Harvard philosophy department homepage. They say it's about exploration of issues and investigation. There's a lot of ethics, climate ethics, etc. in there. People are dismissing it as an academic exercise, but it's literally about the academic exercise! Working philosophy considers natural science, not dismisses it.

It's a far cry from what we tend to get around here, like, "oh, my sophomore philosophy class told me that we can't PROVE the TRUTH of any particular reality (therefore, there's room for me to inject my favourite supernatural character/magic power/whatever)." That doesn't have to be defended, because that's not philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

But... that's not what philosophy is. It's not a results machine.

I can't decide if that's a strawman or just bad wording. No one's asking it to produce as much as science. But some tangible results would be nice.

Rather than checking a dictionary definition, go to something like the Harvard philosophy department homepage.

You each are telling me something different. Some want to use the dictionary definition, others something else, and so on. Again it seems that philosophy means something different to everyone, which makes it hard to pin it down, which in turns seems to be the whole point.

They say it's about exploration of issues and investigation.

And those should produce some sort of result. If the only output is more discussion and no usable conclusion, then it's worthless except as entertainment.

 

[Jimbo07]

I can't decide if that's a strawman or just bad wording. No one's asking it to produce as much as science. But some tangible results would be nice.

How so? By the way, when was the last time you actually read a published academic paper in philosophy? It's been a looooong time for me. I don't know what's going on these days, but then, I don't know what's going on at the frontiers of topological quantum field theory, either, so there's that.

You each are telling me something different.

Than what somebody else here is using? Probably. I wouldn't rely on a short dictionary definition of philosophy, or science, or anything really. It's like using an encyclopedia. It's a starting point for discussion, not an end.

Some want to use the dictionary definition, others something else, and so on.

That's their problem. Trotting out a dictionary definition is probably a poor defence of the exercise of philosophy.

Again it seems that philosophy means something different to everyone, which makes it hard to pin it down, which in turns seems to be the whole point.

It's not up to us to pin it down, though, is it? That's up to the taxpayer, and not even then, in the case of private schools. I think the taxpayer should support philosophy, exactly as unadulterated academic exercise, but that's probably an unpopular opinion.

And those should produce some sort of result. If the only output is more discussion and no usable conclusion, then it's worthless except as entertainment.

Well, that's just not reasonable at all, is it? Disciplined thinking, especially taken as a minor, or second degree, might be of great help, even to future scientists. Meanwhile, you may find working philosophers with undergraduate degrees in a natural science.

ETA: My position can be summarized as: I support a department of generalized academic thought, with ethics as one of its sub-disciplines. Maybe it can incorporate thinking from several other disciplines. Call it philosophy, if you will, but there it is. I also support fundamental scientific research, with no guarantee of a particular pay-off, so long as approval undergoes the necessary vetting.

 

[Belz...]

How so?

How so what?

By the way, when was the last time you actually read a published academic paper in philosophy? It's been a looooong time for me. I don't know what's going on these days, but then, I don't know what's going on at the frontiers of topological quantum field theory, either, so there's that.

What's the relevance of this question? I never asked for academic papers. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions here.

It's a starting point for discussion, not an end.

Of course it's not an end, since the whole point of philosophy is the journey.

That's their problem. Trotting out a dictionary definition is probably a poor defence of the exercise of philosophy.

Take it to them. I can't rely on your disparate claims.

It's not up to us to pin it down, though, is it? That's up to the taxpayer, and not even then, in the case of private schools.

What are you even talking about? Who's talking about schools and funding here, except you?

Well, that's just not reasonable at all, is it? Disciplined thinking, especially taken as a minor, or second degree, might be of great help, even to future scientists.

Ah, another definition of philosophy. As soon as the definitions you earlier posted become inconvenient, philosophy becomes "everything" again. Now philosophy includes mere "disciplined thinking". No. Teaching critical thinking skills and the like don't require philosophy.

I also don't think you understand what I mean by tangible outcomes. It's such a simple word, however.

 

[Jimbo07]

What's the relevance of this question? I never asked for academic papers. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions here.

The relevance is... are you attacking working philosophy, or internet posters' interpretation of philosophy?

Of course it's not an end, since the whole point of philosophy is the journey.

We seem to be in agreement, here. I think the only difference is that I'm claiming that it's the journey itself that has utility. I suspect you don't agree.

Take it to them. I can't rely on your disparate claims.

I've made no disparate claims amongst my own claims (unless by accident). If I disagree with other posters here, that's fine.

What are you even talking about? Who's talking about schools and funding here, except you?

I'm talking brass-tacks utility. The 'worth' of any discipline influences its funding. If you're attacking philosophy in an abstract sense, disconnected from the practice, then you're attacking what... thought? Reason? That seems odd.

Ah, another definition of philosophy. As soon as the definitions you earlier posted become inconvenient, philosophy becomes "everything" again. Now philosophy includes mere "disciplined thinking". No.

Yes.

Teaching critical thinking skills and the like don't require philosophy.

Where, in all that's relevant, do you think 'critical thinking' comes from?

I also don't think you understand what I mean by tangible outcomes. It's such a simple word, however.

Please, do explain, what are tangible outcomes? Is that the appropriate metric for judging the worth of philosophy?

 

[theprestige]

I like philosophy. I know I often act like I think it's a waste of time, but that's not quite true. The fundamental nature of our conceptual frameworks is worth exploring. Even if it's turtles all the way down. Even if the exploration ends up just being a exercise in seeing how far down the stack of turtles you can dive. Philosophy does that.

Science does something similar with the fundamental nature of the physical framework of reality.

 

[LarryS]

Re Rovelli, he is neither a materialist nor idealist, but rather he suggests what exists are interactions/relections of objects only, the null space of physicalism when material is removed. The above is a 25 cent summary . . .
His 'conclusion' has been compared to the philosophy of a 3rd century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. Rovelli admits to this - but says he came to this conclusion independently without reading or hearing of Nagarjuna.
Nagarjuna came to his conclusion by arguing that all positive claims re the structure and nature of reality will result in conflicting evidence or contradictions, or both.
Nagarjuna argues; all claims such as: reality is particles, reality is waves (function), 'string', reality is fire, earth, male, female, good, evil, etc. . . . all such claims are indefensible. Reality is 'empty' of all qualities, properties and attributes.
Nagarjuna also laid out a method where any individual could verify this for himself/herself - through direct experience of the mind - though allegedly it can take decades of practice.
BTW, Nagarjuna's work - 'emptiness' - is the foundation of Buddhist practice.
In the spirit of of this thread, I'll then nominate Nagarjuna as a philosopher who contributed to our understanding of reality, and our place in it.

 

[Belz...]

The relevance is... are you attacking working philosophy, or internet posters' interpretation of philosophy?

The relevance of your question about academic papers is about whether I attack philosophy or posters' interpretation? That doesn't make any sense.

We seem to be in agreement, here. I think the only difference is that I'm claiming that it's the journey itself that has utility. I suspect you don't agree.

By that definition, watching a movie has utility. That's not what we are talking about.

I'm talking brass-tacks utility. The 'worth' of any discipline influences its funding. If you're attacking philosophy in an abstract sense, disconnected from the practice, then you're attacking what... thought? Reason? That seems odd.

No one's attacking philosophy, so you can stop repeating that. What does ANY of that have to do with school funding?

Yes.

What? Yes what? You snipped a part of my sentence as if it ends in "no" although that was a "now", and you say yes... to what?

Where, in all that's relevant, do you think 'critical thinking' comes from?

I'm sure you think it's philosophy, but once again it's because your definition fo philosophy isn't the one you posted. It's whatever is convenient to you at any given moment.

Please, do explain, what are tangible outcomes?

Well it depends on what you mean by "are".

Is that the appropriate metric for judging the worth of philosophy?

The worth of anything.

 

[Jimbo07]

The relevance of your question about academic papers is about whether I attack philosophy or posters' interpretation? That doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense. Are you attacking working philosophy, or just your understanding based on what people are saying on the internet? In short, have you maybe created a bit of a strawman somewhere?

By that definition, watching a movie has utility.

It probably does, not just for entertainment, but for spurring reflection, and so on.

That's not what we are talking about.

That may be a consequence of my arriving late to the conversation, I suppose. Can you reiterate for me what we are talking about, then?

No one's attacking philosophy, so you can stop repeating that. What does ANY of that have to do with school funding?

Again, that must be my misunderstanding. Demanding that someone demonstrate the utility of something seems like an attack (or, let's say challenge, I'm not that belligerent). It may be a response to some earlier challenge, sure, but it still is. Isn't it?

What? Yes what? You snipped a part of my sentence as if it ends in "no" although that was a "now", and you say yes... to what?

You said:

Now philosophy includes mere "disciplined thinking". No.

I'm sorry if the "No" was a typo for "Now." It read to me like an attempt at a mic drop, so I go snippy and simply replied "Yes." Philosophy doesn't merely include "disciplined thinking," it has it at its core. For example, formal (symbolic) logic courses are often a requirement of undergraduate programs.

I'm sure you think it's philosophy, but once again it's because your definition fo philosophy isn't the one you posted. It's whatever is convenient to you at any given moment.

I'm sorry, which definitions have I posted which are (again, unless accidentally), inconsistent with each other? I don't even think I posited a formal definition, apart from recommending that people check the websites of schools, rather than dictionaries.

The worth of anything.

In a sense, although it may not be apparent from my posts, I'm arguing with myself. I tend to think of the worth of things, in terms of their output. When I read others saying the same thing, it makes me slightly uncomfortable and ask myself why I say similar things. I've studied just barely enough philosophy to suspect that the exercise has some kind of 'worth,' without knowing enough to be able to generate a formal definition for you, myself. At the same time, I don't receive anything tangible in the same sense that I get carrots from the garden.

ETA: On the other hand, the very first post in this thread isn't even philosophy! It's like... telling each other dream stories? The closest thing to honest philosophy was asking which philosophers may have held (posited?) such a view.

 

[theprestige]

Again I will ask, again I will be ignored.

Philosophy defenders give me an actual real work example of philosophy failing THAT didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of philosophy.

Just as soon as you or some other science defender gives me an actual real work [sic] example of science failing THAT [sic] didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of science. As counter examples, I give you Galilean, Newtonian, and Einsteinian Relativity; and Euclidean and non-Euclidian geometry.

---

I had originally remembered this as a request for a real-world application of philosophy. So I'll go ahead and give my answer to that one as well: Human rights. Specifically, the right to rebel. Whether or not you have the right to rebel against your government is a purely philosophical question. Whether or not your government can meaningly prohibit rebellion (e.g., with a clause in the constitution) is purely a philosophical question.

But rebellion is a real-world thing with real-world effects. Your philosophy of government authority and individual rights has real-world applications to how you live your life and relate to your government.

 

[Belz...]

It does make sense. Are you attacking working philosophy, or just your understanding based on what people are saying on the internet?

What does that have to do with academic papers? For ****'s sake.

It probably does, not just for entertainment, but for spurring reflection, and so on.

You're diluting your definitions to uselessness. Homeopathic philosophy, as it were. "Spurring reflection" is one of the vaguest things I've ever read.

Demanding that someone demonstrate the utility of something seems like an attack

It's a request to demonstrate a claim that philosophy has utility beyond the entertainment value. Someone else's claim.

I'm sorry if the "No" was a typo for "Now."

No, it was a "no". I misread your reply originally.

Philosophy doesn't merely include "disciplined thinking," it has it at its core.

If it has it as its core, then critical thinking doesn't stem from philosophy as you implied. So my comment on that stands.

I'm sorry, which definitions have I posted which are (again, unless accidentally), inconsistent with each other?

You said "Rather than checking a dictionary definition, go to something like the Harvard philosophy department homepage. ".

Philosophy as defined by non-dictionary sources like, say Wiki and such, talk about a more narrow list of topics philosophy is used for, but whenever that doesn't suit the philosophiles here, suddenly philosophy is any "good" type of thinking. That doesn't wash.