Is philosophy no longer relevant?

[darksidehippo]

I have noticed that a lot of universities are starting to cancel their philosophy courses. In America we see this a lot. I was watching a Youtube lecture and I noticed a very famous scientist explaining to someone in the audience that since around the 1920's. Science and philosophy have headed in different directions with only really science offering tangible results.

Stephen Hawkings also has this view on philosophy:


Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

The reason I have brought this up is because I have seen a couple of "qualified philosophers"(people apparently trained in philosophy) on this forum with hideously warped views on science. So it got me thinking if philosophy is still relevant and does it have a positive or negative impact on our society.

My view is that it used to be relevant but now has worked its way into wooh-territory (since science evolved) and is often used to justify things like racism and science warping.

What is you view?

[unskinnybob]

Philosophy and religion can go to the grave.

[Pooky]

I am doing Philosophy next semester at university. I hope it's interesting.

[copacetic]

What is philosophy?

[Arthur]

What is philosophy?At last, a philosopher!

[joelus]

No, science itself is rooted in a philosophy - in that it makes several philosophical assumptions, including metaphysical and epistemological assumptions.

What can science tell us about ethics and morality, epistemology, metaphysics, politics, aesthetics?

Philosophy is far from dead, though in our current age it is less relevant. Science has answered many questions that puzzled philosophers in the past but I suspect a time will come when philosophy is once again relevant

[Arthur]

No, science itself is rooted in a philosophy - in that it makes several philosophical assumptions, including metaphysical and epistemological assumptions.

What can science tell us about ethics and morality, epistemology, metaphysics, politics, aesthetics?

Philosophy is far from dead, though in our current age it is less relevant. Science has answered many questions that puzzled philosophers in the past but I suspect a time will come when philosophy is once again relevantNice.

Science is a sub-branch of philosophy. Until a century or so ago, Science was called Natural Philosophy.

Very broadly speaking:
Philosophy is primarily concerned with what and why.
Science is largely concerned with how.

The lack of philosophical education today leads many who love science to think descriptions explain everything. They don't and can't.

[copacetic]

I am not remotely trained, or to be honest all that interested in 'philosophy'. Not that I have an issue with it, or with philosophers in general - Frankly, I just start feeling a bit stupid when I attempt to read an actual book or article by an academic philosopher.

There is an aspect to philosophy that annoys me though, and that would be the layers of philosophical bull**** that people with specific agendas use to obfuscate the fact that they either don't really have anything to say and/or are making claims for which there is simply no evidence.

One way or the other, as long as we are trying to figure **** out, whatever our methods, that's only a good thing.

[darksidehippo]

No, science itself is rooted in a philosophy - in that it makes several philosophical assumptions, including metaphysical and epistemological assumptions.

What can science tell us about ethics and morality, epistemology, metaphysics, politics, aesthetics?

Philosophy is far from dead, though in our current age it is less relevant. Science has answered many questions that puzzled philosophers in the past but I suspect a time will come when philosophy is once again relevant

Science can teach us a lot about how ethics and morality evolved. There is an entire branch of science dedicated to politics called political science. When politicians need that type of advice they're more likely to go to the political scientists rather than the political philosophers.

What has philosophy given us in the last 50 years that has contributed to humanity?

I said in my post and was mentioned in the Hawking's quote that in the past, philosophy and science were almost the same thing, but since the 1920's science has got to the stage where only hard data answers the real questions.

So explain how philosophy has helped humanity in the last 50 years. Has it given us anything tangible? What has it contributed recently that is relevant to us? Science is easily able to offer an ocean of knowledge that is relevant, that we use daily and that helps improve our lives. What happened to philosophy?

If philosophy is far from dead, why are US universities killing off their philosophy departments? All I see coming from philosophers is how to punt their funny religious beliefs, how to cloak their anti-scientific views and how to justify racism and/or greed.

I feel that is just creates a group of bull****ters that use complex words to confuse people. I am willing to concede that my perception of philosophers was created by reading the philosophers on this forum so I am willing to accept I have a very warped view of what they really are doing these days.

Lastly, for disclosure to you have any type of philosophical qualifications?

[Arthur]

I am not remotely trained, or to be honest all that interested in 'philosophy'. Not that I have an issue with it, or with philosophers in general - Frankly, I just start feeling a bit stupid when I attempt to read an actual book or article by an academic philosopher.

There is an aspect to philosophy that annoys me though, and that would be the layers of philosophical bull**** that people with specific agendas use to obfuscate the fact that they either don't really have anything to say and/or are making claims for which there is simply no evidence.

One way or the other, as long as we are trying to figure **** out, whatever our methods, that's only a good thing.Yes!

What you are describing are Sophists -- and this is exactly the same problem Socrates and Plato had with the Sophists in his day. They thought themselves wise (hence the name) but in reality deployed reason and rhetoric with an agenda other than the pursuit of Truth. The very name "Philosophers" arose to distinguish themselves from the Sophists, who were arrogant and detestable.

[ghoti]

Philosophy.. meh, used to important now it is not. Science > Philosophy : for acquiring human knowledge.

[Jabberwocky]

Last time I checked hypothesis was still part of the scientific method. The problem with philosophy is that it doesn`t seem do care about the other steps.

[ghoti]

Last time I checked hypothesis was still part of the scientific method. The problem with philosophy is that it doesn`t seem do care about the other steps.

So basically puts out a guess at what it thinks is the right answer, but doesnt bother to test or back up its guess with empirical data?

[joelus]

Science can teach us a lot about how ethics and morality evolved. There is an entire branch of science dedicated to politics called political science. When politicians need that type of advice they're more likely to go to the political scientists rather than the political philosophers.

What has philosophy given us in the last 50 years that has contributed to humanity?

I said in my post and was mentioned in the Hawking's quote that in the past, philosophy and science were almost the same thing, but since the 1920's science has got to the stage where only hard data answers the real questions.

So explain how philosophy has helped humanity in the last 50 years. Has it given us anything tangible? What has it contributed recently that is relevant to us? Science is easily able to offer an ocean of knowledge that is relevant, that we use daily and that helps improve our lives. What happened to philosophy?

If philosophy is far from dead, why are US universities killing off their philosophy departments? All I see coming from philosophers is how to punt their funny religious beliefs, how to cloak their anti-scientific views and how to justify racism and/or greed.

I feel that is just creates a group of bull****ters that use complex words to confuse people. I am willing to concede that my perception of philosophers was created by reading the philosophers on this forum so I am willing to accept I have a very warped view of what they really are doing these days.

Lastly, for disclosure to you have any type of philosophical qualifications?
Ah you see, there it is, philosophy.
For example, it is your philosophy that something only has value if it is useful to people and contributes to society.

Science cannot tell us what is moral or ethical, it can speculate on the evolution of morality but not what makes something moral. Likewise, science can study political systems but cannot derive or specify political systems. Philosophy of science studies the underlying assumptions of science and definitions of science, which science itself cannot study. Everything and anything which cannot be experimentally reproduced, which is not falsifiable, is beyond the realm of science (this itself, the concept of falsifiability, was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable.)

To see the contributions philosophy has made one need only look at our politics, systems of justice, economics and, of course, the philosophy of science, itself.

I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy.

[TheHiveMind]

Ideology is largely based on philosophy
Science is at the mercy of the ideology that it works under.

It is the restriction of truth, by drawing invisible boundaries, redirecting resources and focus, abusing half truths..

It's a problem, but how to solve it?

[Jabberwocky]

So basically puts out a guess at what it thinks is the right answer, but doesnt bother to test or back up its guess with empirical data?

Thats what I would think, philosphy is a broad term, like art. I see it as part of science, but not science on its own.
Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

[ghoti]

Thats what I would think, philosphy is a broad term, like art. I see it as part of science, but not science on its own.
Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers? :D

[joelus]

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers? :D

(1) what are the aims of science?
(2) how should one interpret the results of science?
(3) can science answer these questions?
(4) what are the grounds of validity of scientific reasoning?
(5) were these scientifically established?
(6) is Ockham's razor, as used by science, scientific or philosophical?

Answers based in science only, please

[Rocket Raccoon]

Scientist need to create the perfect dagga plant so I may give the world it's greatest philosopher.

Your move science.

[nogard]

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers? :D
This is what I wanted to post.

And this

Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

[Unhappy438]

There is an aspect to philosophy that annoys me though, and that would be the layers of philosophical bull**** that people with specific agendas use to obfuscate the fact that they either don't really have anything to say and/or are making claims for which there is simply no evidence.

One way or the other, as long as we are trying to figure **** out, whatever our methods, that's only a good thing.

Completely agree

[ghoti]

(1) what are the aims of science?

To quantify and describe our knowledge on the natural world. Its there to figure out what is real and what is not real. To show us how stuff really works.


(2) how should one interpret the results of science?
By looking at the data, testing the facts, using empirical evidence and testable experimentation to remove bias to come to a conclusion, even if its not the one you wanted. It should also undergo peer review. I feel this is a big difference between the way science and philosophy work. In science you are meant to look at the empirical evidence and draw conclusions. Conclusions are derived from the facts. In philosophy I feel you look at conclusions and try rationalize the facts to get there.


(3) can science answer these questions?
Without it, you would not have had the Internet or your computer to even ask me the questions. Concepts like computers, robots, satellites and such would have been science fiction not really philosophy that brought it to be.


(4) what are the grounds of validity of scientific reasoning?

Not sure what you are asking but I think the answer is for something to be scientific is has to comply with the scientific method.


(5) were these scientifically established?

I think evolved is a better word than established. As we know more we improve the scientific method.


(6) is Ockham's razor, as used by science, scientific or philosophical?
Philosophical I would think. In science the simplest answer is not always the right answer, and using 'Ockham's' razor could land you in a whole heap of wrong. It might be good enough for the hypothesis state, but anything you state in scientific theory should be testable. A small example. You find a rock in South America that matches a rock in Africa. You can confirm that both pieces were from the same original rock. Using Ockham's razor one might think that the simplest answer... like, "someone brought the rock here" would be correct. A more complex answer which involves plate tectonics and continental drift might not enter your mind. Im not saying Ockham's razor is useless. It has its place informally. It just can not be relied on.


Answers based in science only, please
Is that like Chinese?

[joelus]

The idea here is that it is impossible to take philosophy out of science - science itself is a philosophy:

To quantify and describe our knowledge on the natural world. Its there to figure out what is real and what is not real. To show us how stuff really works.

By looking at the data, testing the facts, using empirical evidence and testable experimentation to remove bias to come to a conclusion, even if its not the one you wanted. It should also undergo peer review. I feel this is a big difference between the way science and philosophy work. In science you are meant to look at the empirical evidence and draw conclusions. Conclusions are derived from the facts. In philosophy I feel you look at conclusions and try rationalize the facts to get there.

Example: This is a philosophical position. Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[7] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[8]

Realists often point to the success of recent scientific theories as evidence for the truth (or near truth) of our current theories.[9][10][11][12][13] Antirealists point to either the history of science,[14][15] epistemic morals,[8] the success of false modeling assumptions,[16] or widely termed postmodern criticisms of objectivity as evidence against scientific realisms.[17] Some antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science



Without it, you would not have had the Internet or your computer to even ask me the questions.

Likewise with philosophy. Without philosophy you would not have science and would not have had the Internet or your computer to even answer my questions. Science is rooted in philosophy, cannot function without it.



Not sure what you are asking but I think the answer is for something to be scientific is has to comply with the scientific method.

Right, but the scientific method itself is a philosophy.
For example: How is it that scientists can assert that Newton's Third Law is universally true? After all, it is not possible for them to have tested every incidence of an action, and found a reaction. They have, of course, tested many, many actions, and in each one have been able to find the corresponding reaction. But can we be sure that the next time we test the Third Law, it will be found to hold true?

One solution to this problem is to rely on the notion of induction. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.
^ This is philosophical. It is a philosophical position that asserts that enough repetitions, peer reviews, etc means we take it as fact.

[OrbitalDawn]

All I see coming from philosophers is how to punt their funny religious beliefs, how to cloak their anti-scientific views and how to justify racism and/or greed.

I wouldn't call Apache a philosopher...


Science cannot tell us what is moral or ethical, it can speculate on the evolution of morality but not what makes something moral.

Depends what you think morality is. If you're of the view that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, then science definitely has a role to play. It's possible to empirically determine whether certain things (actions, choices etc.) contribute to wellbeing or suffering, or whether they detract from them. So in that sense, science can tell us whether something is moral or immoral.

[joelus]

I wouldn't call Apache a philosopher...



Depends what you think morality is. If you're of the view that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, then science definitely has a role to play. It's possible to empirically determine whether certain things (actions, choices etc.) contribute to wellbeing or suffering, or whether they detract from them. So in that sense, science can tell us whether something is moral or immoral.

You are talking about a branch of philosophy called Meta-Ethics: the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
(as opposed to Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action and Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations)

Your statement: "Depends what you think morality is" is a philosophical question and people have been debating it for a long time. For example, even with your definition that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, is the wellbeing and suffering of an individual more important than the community? Is it moral to experiment on animals which would increase suffering of thousands of rats, but may decrease the suffering of one individual?

[OrbitalDawn]

You are talking about a branch of philosophy called Meta-Ethics: the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
(as opposed to Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action and Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations)

Your statement: "Depends what you think morality is" is a philosophical question and people have been debating it for a long time. For example, even with your definition that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, is the wellbeing and suffering of an individual more important than the community? Is it moral to experiment on animals which would increase suffering of thousands of rats, but may decrease the suffering of one individual?

Yep, and given the apparent lack of any objective moral standard, this is how morality and ethics are determined. It's an ongoing conversation and debate, with potential conundrums along the way. My point is, empirical science also has a role to play in this. We can use empirically gathered data to inform our discussion and philosophical inquiries into what constitutes morality and what it means to live a "good life".

[Elimentals]

In Short:

Science: So you can learn how to clone a T-Rex.
Philosophy: So you can learn that its a bad idea.

[Arthur]

It's a serious philosophical error to see science and philosophy as somehow opposed or incompatible.

[ghoti]

I think the point being made is not that its opposed... its just no longer really relevant (except to a couple of philosophers).

[joelus]

I think the point being made is not that its opposed... its just no longer really relevant (except to a couple of philosophers).

I think it is very relevant. People philosophise all the time without realising they are doing so, usually badly and make life changing decisions based on their philosophy. Apartheid was a philosophy, democracy is a philosophy, capitalism is a philosophy, environmentalism is a philosophy, etc. Learning to debate, recognise logical fallacy's, analytic thinking, deduction, induction, etc, all useful tools and the world would be a much better place if more people were taught to make use of these philosophical tools. Not only is it relevant but needed now more than ever.

I think only in a very narrow specific field - the study of the natural world - has philosophy become less relevant.

[BigAl-sa]

Popper: Conjectures and Refutations. Read it, then post your words of wisdom...

/edit fixed title

[murraybiscuit]

As much as I'm an empiricist, I like to allow for the possibility that there may be a stage at which things don't obey rules, can't be predicted and the veneer of order starts to give way to something else. History shows us that when mankind thinks they know it all, they couldn't be farther from the truth. I applaud scientific achievement but am wary of scientific hubris.

From a laypersons point of view, science is very good at describing how things are, but offers little help in deciding what ought to be done about it.

[Unhappy438]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=1h02m50s

[ghoti]

I think only in a very narrow specific field - the study of the natural world - has philosophy become less relevant.
I wonder why people like Dawkins, Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have such negative perceptions of it.

[ghoti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=1h02m50s

Yeah, I had watched this as well! :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=1h02m50s

[copacetic]

I wonder why people like Dawkins, Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have such negative perceptions of it.

Do they?

I'm not sure I've noticed that.

Philosophy, in a general sense, is a vast subject that addresses many different matters, in a variety of different manners.

Some of it is utter bollocks, and some of it is very worthwhile, like most of what goes on in this world of ours.

[Unhappy438]

Do they?

I'm not sure I've noticed that.

Philosophy, in a general sense, is a vast subject that addresses many different matters, in a variety of different manners.

Some of it is utter bollocks, and some of it is very worthwhile, like most of what goes on in this world of ours.

Watch the video i posted , they think philosophy of Science is dead. Please note that is what the OP specifies not other areas of philosophy.

[ghoti]

Do they?

I'm not sure I've noticed that.




Watch the video i posted , they think philosophy of Science is dead. Please note that is what the OP specifies not other areas of philosophy.

What Unhappy said.

Also:


The Growing Rejection of Philosophy
By LITTLEROOM
Added: Sunday, 27 March 2011 at 5:31 AM

Stephen Hawking stirred up the debate by emphatically writing that "philosophy is dead." P.Z. Myers, in his lecture "Science and Atheism: Natural Allies," said that too much philosophy would "ruin you." Richard Feynman said "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." In the recent article posted on this site, "The Blurred Reality of Humanity," by the fourth comment the contempt for philosophy had begun.

Dawkins, in a video I saw of him quite a while ago, stated that he didn't feel that philosophy was dead, but that philosophers needed to be scientifically literate. This is the view I take. What I wonder however is why some other atheists don't? Most atheists I know value logic and truth, so why would they see philosophy as counter to such values? Are A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett not up to snuff? Do we consider rationally assessing science itself, i.e. the Philosophy of Science, a waste of time? Of course philosophy can go off the rails and become fluffy, esoteric, and ambiguous, but the ideas we so embrace to demonstrate the superiority of science, like falsification, the need for evidence, and (at times) deduction, are all philosophy. Good philosophy is not only interesting, but central to the goal of ridding the world of irrationality and promoting reason in its place. We really should embrace it more.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/607764-the-growing-rejection-of-philosophy

I agree with Dawkins. I wish philosophers could become scientifically literate to be able to offer more meaningful contributions.

[copacetic]

Watch the video i posted , they think philosophy of Science is dead. Please note that is what the OP specifies not other areas of philosophy.

He doesn't really though, does he? He seems to be talking about philosophy in general.

In any event, I don't know enough to comment meaningfully.

As for the video, I'm sure I watched it a while back, but I'll grab it and check it out.

[copacetic]

What Unhappy said.

Also:


http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/607764-the-growing-rejection-of-philosophy

I agree with Dawkins. I wish philosophers could become scientifically literate to be able to offer more meaningful contributions.


Stephen Hawking stirred up the debate by emphatically writing that "philosophy is dead." P.Z. Myers, in his lecture "Science and Atheism: Natural Allies," said that too much philosophy would "ruin you." Richard Feynman said "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." In the recent article posted on this site, "The Blurred Reality of Humanity," by the fourth comment the contempt for philosophy had begun.

Dawkins, in a video I saw of him quite a while ago, stated that he didn't feel that philosophy was dead, but that philosophers needed to be scientifically literate. This is the view I take. What I wonder however is why some other atheists don't? Most atheists I know value logic and truth, so why would they see philosophy as counter to such values? Are A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett not up to snuff? Do we consider rationally assessing science itself, i.e. the Philosophy of Science, a waste of time? Of course philosophy can go off the rails and become fluffy, esoteric, and ambiguous, but the ideas we so embrace to demonstrate the superiority of science, like falsification, the need for evidence, and (at times) deduction, are all philosophy. Good philosophy is not only interesting, but central to the goal of ridding the world of irrationality and promoting reason in its place. We really should embrace it more.

This is a view that sounds reasonable to me.

[Unhappy438]

He doesn't really though, does he? He seems to be talking about philosophy in general.

In any event, I don't know enough to comment meaningfully.

As for the video, I'm sure I watched it a while back, but I'll grab it and check it out.

Well the way i see it he only talks about Science and Philosophy , i dont want to answer for him though maybe he can clear up that point for us.

Oh and if you click on the link i posted it will take you straight to the Philosophy of Science part, so you don't have to watch the entire 1 hour plus video :) .

[Pr⊕phet]

Yes!

What you are describing are Sophists -- and this is exactly the same problem Socrates and Plato had with the Sophists in his day. They thought themselves wise (hence the name) but in reality deployed reason and rhetoric with an agenda other than the pursuit of Truth. The very name "Philosophers" arose to distinguish themselves from the Sophists, who were arrogant and detestable.

Apatheia and Therapeia is all but forgotten.

[rwenzori]

So explain how philosophy has helped humanity in the last 50 years. Has it given us anything tangible? What has it contributed recently that is relevant to us? Science is easily able to offer an ocean of knowledge that is relevant, that we use daily and that helps improve our lives. What happened to philosophy?

You make an assumption ( philosophical? ) that philosophy has as its purpose tangible benefits to humankind. Let's turn the universities into technikons so we can produce lots of economically productive artisans. Whatever happened to Fart for Fart's sake anyway?


All I see coming from philosophers is how to punt their funny religious beliefs, how to cloak their anti-scientific views and how to justify racism and/or greed.

Most of that drivel bears as much resemblance to philosophy as fishpaste does to dolomite.

[Arthur]

as fishpaste does to dolomite.:D nice one. Copyrighted?

[Geriatrix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=1h02m50s
Nice vid ghoti!

[rwenzori]

:D nice one. Copyrighted?

Public domain. ;)

[joelus]

I wonder why people like Dawkins, Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have such negative perceptions of it.

Although I don't think philosophy per se is irrelevant, I do concede that perhaps philosophy of science is no longer relevant - the important philosophical ideas behind science and the scientific method have been distilled and clarified over the years to an extent that argument is no longer constructive, and, of course, it works.

I started watching the video but ran out of airtime :( was enjoying it, but didn't get to the part where they discuss this topic of philosophy of science. I was hoping for some irony, as in two guys philosophising about how philosophy is no longer relevant!

To answer your question though, Dawkins, Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson are not philosophers and it's not their area of expertise, so to look at them for authority in this is to commit a logical fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam
(which is not to say they are wrong, of course, just that they are not necessarily right about this)