One intriguing aspect of the advance of science is the continuing evolution of what constitutes explanation.
In the good old days metaphor was w widespread staple of explanation. ( An atom is like an orange surrounded by ping pong balls.)
But as science has delved deeper and further the worlds revealed have defined metaphor. Quantum physics has no everyday analogy. Neither do phenomenon on an astrological scale. And if our models correspond incredibly well to measured reality but include a string of finely tuned parameters what are we to make of that? This will likely become commonplace with AI. Mathematicians work in spaces so rarified that it is now commonplace for them to only be able to correspond with the handful of specialists who have reprogrammed their brains to embrace these abstract entities.
How ironic that as we understand the world better we find it harder to explain.
Quite possibly. I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it. (In general, I'm an "epistemological pluralist": although I generally work under the assumption that science is the best guide to reality, I'm glad that there are smart, thoughtful people who explore the world from different perspectives and starting points).
Science is the best guide only to the physical realm, the metaphysical realm remains up for grabs, even though science implies mastery of that, or that it doesn't exist, etc. They learned a lot from religion about planting beliefs in people's minds, and improved upon it!! But it will fall, eventually.
And if asked to defend the claim, they will respond with predictable memes, insults, and unsupportable claims of fact. Humans are illogical LLM's that have been trained on the culture they were raised in.
> The first sentence seems to be inline with human nature for boys and men.
I have conducted easily over 10,000 casual experiments in this domain, all humans suffer from this problem, the only question is which propositions they fail on - and, finding ones (a non-exhaustive set, of course) they will fail on is extremely easy.
What's particularly interesting is that even people who genuinely have a deep *academic* understanding of philosophy make (many/most of) the very same errors as those who do not (see: this article).
Perhaps someday someone will build something based on this knowledge.
Interesting project. I’ve never been able to see science become self-aware as a predictive model-crafting system, like the brain which hallucinates consciousness. Math has it within Gödels theorem. Perhaps this philosophy of science is a beginning.
You parenthetically note Karl Popper failed to explain what science is, etc. I’m intrigued: Popper (and Deutsch, who’s admittedly a scientist) come off to me as the most compelling philosophers so far in answering these epistemological questions. What would you recommend as the best criticism of his/their work?
A good place to start for a really brief intro is either Tim Lewens' treatment in "The meaning of science" or the chapters in the Peter Godfrey-Smith book I mention "Theory and Reality". I'll write something about this at some point.
IMHO Popper's popularity (and Deutsch) stems from the fact that the core ideas are so non technicall and so intuitively appealing. Sadly this has resulted in cult like behavior with Popper fans who know little if anything about philosophy expressing incredulity that all philosophers today are deluded or evil for not having absorbed the sermons from the Mount.
Philosophy will never die! A perhaps slightly different than standard approach to the philosophy of science I have written about are the two essays Science and Explananation (https://tmfow.substack.com/p/science-and-explanation) and World Views (https://tmfow.substack.com/p/world-views), heavily influenced by my reading of Kuhn’s later work, Feyerabend and van Fraassen, among others.
That's an interesting use of the term 'eulogy'. The word comes from eu- -logy, 'good words'. A eulogy is a praise singing. Often, yes, you find eulogies at funerals, because of the de mortui nil nisi bonum principle, but they are certainly not confined to funerals!
Hawkins was doing the opposite of providing an eulogy, it was more a dyslogy, if there were such a term.
Groundbreaking post Prof. Williams. Thank you. This appears to be an introductory lecture or maybe “invitational lecture” for a philosophy of science class taught here on Substack. I would suggest that it is, if that is your plan. If so, count me in.
Is there any particular reason you didn’t use the word morals in this sentence? “What is the actual and appropriate role of values in science?” By values do you mean the same as morals?
Often the term "values" is used more broadly - to include morals but also to include other kinds of values (e..g, social, aesthetic, political, etc.) values as well. Here's a nice article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
What it looks like is Hawking was right at what he meant (i.e. viewing philosophy as method rather than set of objects), and the rest is fighting over words. Whatever parts of philosophy are scientific just become sciences of their own (see: logic; see: metaethics; see: psychology; and regarding your post, I'm very tempted to add "see: metascience" to the list), and the bad parts ("interpreting what Big Name philosophers of the past said" is a particularly persistent example) that largely define what philosophy is for an outside observer are indeed intellectually dead.
Thank you for these resources – I've added some of them to my reading list.
While I find your arguments compelling, it would be nice to give some practical examples of how advances in the philosophy of science contributed to scientific progress. That may be the best way of convincing the skeptics. Do any specific examples come to mind?
One intriguing aspect of the advance of science is the continuing evolution of what constitutes explanation.
In the good old days metaphor was w widespread staple of explanation. ( An atom is like an orange surrounded by ping pong balls.)
But as science has delved deeper and further the worlds revealed have defined metaphor. Quantum physics has no everyday analogy. Neither do phenomenon on an astrological scale. And if our models correspond incredibly well to measured reality but include a string of finely tuned parameters what are we to make of that? This will likely become commonplace with AI. Mathematicians work in spaces so rarified that it is now commonplace for them to only be able to correspond with the handful of specialists who have reprogrammed their brains to embrace these abstract entities.
How ironic that as we understand the world better we find it harder to explain.
Are there any flaws in that claim that science is the best way to learn about reality? 😉
Quite possibly. I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it. (In general, I'm an "epistemological pluralist": although I generally work under the assumption that science is the best guide to reality, I'm glad that there are smart, thoughtful people who explore the world from different perspectives and starting points).
Science is the best guide only to the physical realm, the metaphysical realm remains up for grabs, even though science implies mastery of that, or that it doesn't exist, etc. They learned a lot from religion about planting beliefs in people's minds, and improved upon it!! But it will fall, eventually.
“Critics of philosophy often claim that it’s pointless, masturbatory, and outdated.” Hahaha
And if asked to defend the claim, they will respond with predictable memes, insults, and unsupportable claims of fact. Humans are illogical LLM's that have been trained on the culture they were raised in.
The first sentence seems to be inline with human nature for boys and men. I’m reading Joyce Benenson’s book right now.
> The first sentence seems to be inline with human nature for boys and men.
I have conducted easily over 10,000 casual experiments in this domain, all humans suffer from this problem, the only question is which propositions they fail on - and, finding ones (a non-exhaustive set, of course) they will fail on is extremely easy.
What's particularly interesting is that even people who genuinely have a deep *academic* understanding of philosophy make (many/most of) the very same errors as those who do not (see: this article).
Perhaps someday someone will build something based on this knowledge.
Interesting. Build something like?
And did you mean to include a link or is that written as intended?
Something that can ~resolve this problem that has been plaguing humanity forever.
More than just a lack of self-control and other virtues?
As intended. ;)
Got it. I’m new to philosophy.
Interesting project. I’ve never been able to see science become self-aware as a predictive model-crafting system, like the brain which hallucinates consciousness. Math has it within Gödels theorem. Perhaps this philosophy of science is a beginning.
You parenthetically note Karl Popper failed to explain what science is, etc. I’m intrigued: Popper (and Deutsch, who’s admittedly a scientist) come off to me as the most compelling philosophers so far in answering these epistemological questions. What would you recommend as the best criticism of his/their work?
A good place to start for a really brief intro is either Tim Lewens' treatment in "The meaning of science" or the chapters in the Peter Godfrey-Smith book I mention "Theory and Reality". I'll write something about this at some point.
IMHO Popper's popularity (and Deutsch) stems from the fact that the core ideas are so non technicall and so intuitively appealing. Sadly this has resulted in cult like behavior with Popper fans who know little if anything about philosophy expressing incredulity that all philosophers today are deluded or evil for not having absorbed the sermons from the Mount.
Philosophy will never die! A perhaps slightly different than standard approach to the philosophy of science I have written about are the two essays Science and Explananation (https://tmfow.substack.com/p/science-and-explanation) and World Views (https://tmfow.substack.com/p/world-views), heavily influenced by my reading of Kuhn’s later work, Feyerabend and van Fraassen, among others.
I have also written about why philosophy might be more important than ever here: Philosophy for our Future (https://tmfow.substack.com/p/philosophy-for-our-future)
Curious what your thoughts are on these perspectives!
Interesting - thanks for sharing. Will try to find some time to check them out.
That's an interesting use of the term 'eulogy'. The word comes from eu- -logy, 'good words'. A eulogy is a praise singing. Often, yes, you find eulogies at funerals, because of the de mortui nil nisi bonum principle, but they are certainly not confined to funerals!
Hawkins was doing the opposite of providing an eulogy, it was more a dyslogy, if there were such a term.
Thanks for this - I really should have known this 😅
I mention this post in the comments section of Virginia Postrel latest post.
https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/from-the-archives-another-view-of/comment/48533194?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios
Groundbreaking post Prof. Williams. Thank you. This appears to be an introductory lecture or maybe “invitational lecture” for a philosophy of science class taught here on Substack. I would suggest that it is, if that is your plan. If so, count me in.
Thanks Scott. Yes - I will be posting more essays about this topic in the future, as well as numerous related topics as well.
Feminist philosophy of science?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/
Is there any particular reason you didn’t use the word morals in this sentence? “What is the actual and appropriate role of values in science?” By values do you mean the same as morals?
Often the term "values" is used more broadly - to include morals but also to include other kinds of values (e..g, social, aesthetic, political, etc.) values as well. Here's a nice article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
You are correct: philosophy isn’t dead—it’s been a corpse for centuries, its remains picked clean by science, logic, and empirical inquiry.
I think this is a very balanced overview of PofS and a very fair representation of where we are today.
Throw in a bit of Gettier for chuckles and you're all good.
What it looks like is Hawking was right at what he meant (i.e. viewing philosophy as method rather than set of objects), and the rest is fighting over words. Whatever parts of philosophy are scientific just become sciences of their own (see: logic; see: metaethics; see: psychology; and regarding your post, I'm very tempted to add "see: metascience" to the list), and the bad parts ("interpreting what Big Name philosophers of the past said" is a particularly persistent example) that largely define what philosophy is for an outside observer are indeed intellectually dead.
Thank you for these resources – I've added some of them to my reading list.
While I find your arguments compelling, it would be nice to give some practical examples of how advances in the philosophy of science contributed to scientific progress. That may be the best way of convincing the skeptics. Do any specific examples come to mind?
Not the point of your post, but I'm curious why and what you teach in feminist philosophy of science?