…and this is a 
Religion, philosophy, homeopathy, acupuncture…which one doesn't belong?
Category: Skepticism
Posted on: May 15, 2007 3:18 PM, by PZ Myers
Lewis Wolpert has a pleasant interview in Salon today — I find most of what he says copacetic. I very much like his developmental biology textbook, but I'm afraid I found his recent popular book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), far too scattered and unfocused to be memorable. It's a pleasant enough read — get it and you won't regret it — but it was more like an agreeable conversation with an intelligent and eccentric fellow than a work that will either shake you up or strengthen your views…and that also comes through in the interview. He's pretty much a sensible skeptic who doesn't put up with much woo-woo nonsense.
There is one part that I didn't much care for, that would probably prompt me to start an argument if this were a conversation:
You call David Hume your "hero philosopher." Why do you like him so much?
First of all, I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that.
That's just me, though. If I had my druthers, I'd have a philosophy of science requirement in place for our biology majors, as an essential piece of background in a good liberal arts education—biology has gotten so huge, though, that something had to go, and that's one we aren't even going to try to push into the curriculum, and I'm probably the only person in my discipline who'd consider it useful.
Comments
I certainly hope that when he says he has no interest in philosophy he's referring to metaphysics rather than ethics. A science with no regard to ethics is a Frankenstein's monster or NAZI eugenics waiting to happen.
Posted by: arbitrista | May 15, 2007 3:39 PM
"I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever... David Hume does say such interesting and important things."
Is this some sort of multiple personality problem, or is he just gibbering?
It's typical of the way many rational people think of philosophy though: Good arguments are just good arguments, but when an argument is flawed, illogical or irrelevant it's philosophy.
Posted by: Steevl | May 15, 2007 3:56 PM
Hume was early with his criticisms of religion, and was persecuted for his views, but he's had plenty of company over the years. I wonder why just Hume appeals to Wolpert. After all, pure Empiricism has so many sticky aspects to it.
Posted by: utenzi | May 15, 2007 4:00 PM
I'd love to see phil of science as a requirement for any natural science, or even any bachelor's degree. As an undergrad, gobbling up phil of mind and phil of science classes, I was shocked at how many science majors had almost no awareness of ideas like instrumentalism vs realism, falsification, context of discovery/justification, etc. (I suspect that topic list is showing my age.)
Posted by: Tim | May 15, 2007 4:09 PM
I'm surprised that a practicing scientist would have only Hume as a philosophical hero. Hume's arguments pretty much yanked away a key aspect of the foundations of science. It's like a mathematician whose only hero is Goedel.
Posted by: Tulse | May 15, 2007 4:10 PM
I'd love to see phil of science as a requirement for any natural science, or even any bachelor's degree. As an undergrad, gobbling up phil of mind and phil of science classes, I was shocked at how many science majors had almost no awareness of ideas like instrumentalism vs realism, falsification, context of discovery/justification, etc. (I suspect that topic list is showing my age.)
That was pretty much my impression when I took philosophy of science. How the hell can someone graduate with a science degree when they don't know the importance of falsification? It's one of the fundamental principles of science, yet it's not necessary to learn about it. Maybe this is why so many people who graduated with science degrees can't see the boundary between science and pseudoscience - they never learned it. (Yes, I know the demarcation problem is a lot more complicated than just falsifiability; it's just the best balance of simplicity and power.)
Posted by: Infophile | May 15, 2007 4:21 PM
Philosophy can mean many things. When it is simply a way of viewing a body of knowledge, a new perspective or paradigm (i.e. philosophy of science), then it is fine. In fact, I don't even really think of that as philosophy per se. When I think philosophy, I think of those horrible arguments that try to conjure up knowledge from nothing. You cannot sit in an armchair and divine empirical knowledge, which was the bulk of philosophy before the scientific method took hold. It sounds like this is the type of philosophy Lewis is talking about.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | May 15, 2007 4:23 PM
OT post - sorry, but I had to point out how Dr Dembski attempted to smear Dawkins, but had it backfire!
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=59262
Usual story over at UD - post something innaccurate, change it when it's pointed out, delete it and pretend it never existed.
Posted by: RandomInternetuser | May 15, 2007 4:23 PM
I agree that philosophy of science should be a requirement for biology majors. Precisely because the field is so large and complicated. The only way you can keep track of everything and sort stuff out is through logical rigor.
A major problem in biology today is that some of the fundamental simplifying assumptions are completely wrong, for example homeostasis. The various parameters of physiology may be "the same" within our ability to measure them, but the assumption of stasis is clearly wrong.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 15, 2007 4:25 PM
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Posted by: gordonsowner | May 15, 2007 4:32 PM
Still, if you had to pick only one philosopher and toss the rest, you could do worse than Hume.
Posted by: Grumpy | May 15, 2007 4:58 PM
[Meta-offtopic]
Not that I don't love philosophers, bashing the anti-scients, reading what clan PZ's up to, and all that good stuff, but... can I vote for more science on Pharyngula, like I seem to remember once upon a time?
[/meta-offtopic]
R
Posted by: Rupert | May 15, 2007 5:07 PM
The Cure Is Compassion
Deepak Chopra - May 15, 2007
"Modern medicine has reached the stage where diagnosis runs far ahead of cures, especially in cutting edge
area like genetics and stem cells. The genes that cause many cancers are quickly being isolated, far faster than
knowing how to correct the damage they cause. The same seems true in politics as well. Countless books and articles diagnose what's wrong with everything from the Iraq war to global warming, but cures seem to lag behind blame, accusation, regret, alarm, and anxiety, all of which are familiar symptoms when a patient has found out bad news but has no way of reaching a cure...."
"I wager that anyone with the courage to display actual love, sympathy, and kindness would rocket into public favor.
We are desperate to get out of this prevailing tension and hostility that prisons public life today. You may think that compassion is a naive cure, but the alternative is simply more of the same disease."
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/05/the_cure_is_com_1.html
He can cure cancer by compassion
"I wager that anyone with the courage to display actual love, sympathy, and kindness would rocket into public favor."
- Deepak Chopra
***
If compassion were the cure for cancer,
for the cure of all ills in the Iraq war,
and the display of actual, not phony love,
real but not unreal sympathy,
and kindness, heartfelt, not superfluous
were all and all,
would then a quantum guru from India,
now rolling in gold in the West,
who has real compassion, real sympathy
and heartfelt kindness, not soar
like a rocket into the public favor?
Or perhaps he has
as he can cure cancer by compassion.
~White Wings
http://whitewings.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/he-can-cure-cancer.htm
Posted by: V | May 15, 2007 5:11 PM
The Cure Is Compassion
Deepak Chopra - May 15, 2007
"Modern medicine has reached the stage where diagnosis runs far ahead of cures, especially in cutting edge
area like genetics and stem cells. The genes that cause many cancers are quickly being isolated, far faster than
knowing how to correct the damage they cause. The same seems true in politics as well. Countless books and articles diagnose what's wrong with everything from the Iraq war to global warming, but cures seem to lag behind blame, accusation, regret, alarm, and anxiety, all of which are familiar symptoms when a patient has found out bad news but has no way of reaching a cure...."
"I wager that anyone with the courage to display actual love, sympathy, and kindness would rocket into public favor.
We are desperate to get out of this prevailing tension and hostility that prisons public life today. You may think that compassion is a naive cure, but the alternative is simply more of the same disease."
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/05/the_cure_is_com_1.html
He can cure cancer by compassion
"I wager that anyone with the courage to display actual love, sympathy, and kindness would rocket into public favor."
- Deepak Chopra
***
If compassion were the cure for cancer,
for the cure of all ills in the Iraq war,
and the display of actual, not phony love,
real but not unreal sympathy,
and kindness, heartfelt, not superfluous
were all and all,
would then a quantum guru from India,
now rolling in gold in the West,
who has real compassion, real sympathy
and heartfelt kindness, not soar
like a rocket into the public favor?
Or perhaps he has
as he can cure cancer by compassion.
~White Wings
whitewings.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/he-can-cure-cancer.htm
Posted by: V | May 15, 2007 5:12 PM
Really, I am pumping out just as much science -- it's just that more of it is going into this book project and right now, and into preparing for a talk, and putting together columns for Seed, so you don't get to see it here.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 15, 2007 5:18 PM
How about more "philosophy-of-science"-posts?
Also,
"copacetic"???
I don't believe in that word.
Is that American "English"?
Posted by: robd | May 15, 2007 5:23 PM
Do British computers not have Google installed on them?
Posted by: notthedroids | May 15, 2007 5:27 PM
I'm fairly cynical about these Salon articles. They've run several articles in the past year in which they interview either a famous atheist or a left-wing moderate Christian. Then everyone runs to the letters page to have a 30 page debate arguing whether or not God exists.
There really aren't that many new arguments on either side of the God debate. I don't think Wolpert says anything that I haven't heard 100 times before.
Thats the trouble with atheism- it's not that interesting a subject. You don't need 20 books to explain it- the argument against God can be made in a few pages.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 15, 2007 5:37 PM
He sounds pretty shallow on this subject. Like anyone does when saying something like "absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever." Buh? Even 'postmoderns' like Žižek occasionally have some useful things to say.
One of my favorite quotes from Dan Dennett (a philosopher who often says very useful things) is "..there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage has been taken on board without examination."
Posted by: Pete | May 15, 2007 5:37 PM
Saying that philosophy is useless is itself a philosophical view -- it's an applied pragmatism or utilitarianism.
Also, empiricism is a philosophy (and central to science!), so equating "philosophy" with armchair a priori non-empirical reasoning is absurd (mathematics would actually qualify as the latter, I know I did my undergrad math degree mostly from an armchair -- anyone think math is bullshit or useless?). It's sad when people dismiss philosophy just because there is a lot of bad philosophy out there. You might as well dismiss biology because of all the Behes and Wells' and Egnors.
Posted by: AL | May 15, 2007 5:49 PM
"I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad."
This has to be one of the most idiotic non-religious statements I've ever heard. Never mind that he singlehandedly dismisses my entire profession, but a sweeping generalization like this is usually the product of very small minds. The rigours of logic and argument have been honed by philosophy for thousands of years, the very logic and argumentation upon which he relies to support his position. As for David Hume, he was not produced in a vaccuum, and would find this guy's statement laughable and insulting. Hume is great on religion, but he's also dated. Even he gave ground to the design argument. I'll not be rushing out to get this wanker's book any time soon.
"For as to beauty itself, it has no absolute, it has only a relative existence. It depends as much upon the nature of the being in whom the sentament is produced as on the nature of the being by whom it is produced" - Jeremy Bentham
"Science is a system based on direct experience, and controlled by experimental verification. Verification is science is not, however, of single statements but of the entire system" - Rudolf Carnap
"I think therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
"The unexamed life is a life not worth living" - Socrates
"All our knowledge falls within the bounds of possible experience" - Kant
"{Humanity}is naturally free, and the examples of history showing, that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the concent of the people" - John Locke
"To abondon religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness" - Karl Marx
"It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the questions" - JS Mill
"Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature-nature is always valueless, but has been givin value at some point, as a present-and it was we who bestowed it." - Nietzsche
"Philosophy begins in wonder" - Plato
A concept this man has no knowledge of. I could go on with this list all day, but my pont is surely clear by now. Accoding to Wolpert, there is nothing of use in the above, or in the many other things these and other philosophers have said. Much of the enlightenment owes thanks to philosophy. The linguistic turn post-Wittgenstein? Useless. The study of consciousness and neurophilosophy? Useless. Falsification is science and Popper? Uselss. Just because he may not be able to understand or follow their arguments, doesn't mean they're useless. That's creationist thinking. Beware this man.
Yours In Reason,
Nevyn
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 5:58 PM
How can anyone say that philosophers have "nothing useful to say whatsoever"? Maybe it's just that philosophy interests me, but it seems to me that there are plenty of philosophers who have extremely useful things to say and plenty who actually do have "nothing useful to say." But isn't that how it is in any discipline?
Like AL said, philosophy isn't just armchair non-empirical thought. Richard Carrier (my favorite philosopher) says,
"...it is folly to ignore philosophy. For this, the 'pursuit of wisdom,' is the very activity of studying launguage, logic, and method, and of employing these tools to construct a comprehensive and intelligible - and ultimately useful - view of yourself and the world."
Dismissing all of philosophy is like shooting yourself in the foot - your ignoring any and all advice anyone can give in your pursuit simply because it's advice, without even considering it.
Posted by: Eric Davison | May 15, 2007 6:08 PM
Why do you people hate all developmental biologists so much?
(Just joking. I think he said a very stupid thing, too.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 15, 2007 6:23 PM
I think Wolpert is guilty of careless language more than anything else.
Many people say 'philosophy', but what they really mean by that are aspects of philosophy they find distasteful or irrelevant, such as metaphysics. No educated person, which of course includes Wolpert, could ever doubt that philosophy is useful: it provides us with tools to not merely evaluate the truth or falsehood of claims, but to clarify the nature of things under investigation, and the nature of those means we propose to test claims with.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 15, 2007 6:27 PM
Oh, I get him. This is what the philosophers do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFeNllfpylk
By the way, did anybody notice the article says he says religion is adaptive? I haven't a subscription, so I don't know what exactly he said, or what his arguments are.
Posted by: Oh, fishy, fishy, fishy, fish! | May 15, 2007 6:36 PM
Scott said, "No educated person, which of course includes Wolpert, could ever doubt that philosophy is useful"
Wolpert said, "philosophers . . . have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever"
If he hadn't mentioned Hume I might agree with you, but he obviously had some vetting process that Hume passed that no one from Aristotle to Russell to the Churchlands passed and thus have nothing useful to say WHATSOEVER. He doesn't deserve special pleading on his behalf (another "useless" philosophy term). He needs to do it himself, and soon.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 6:36 PM
I'm a philosophy major. I understand why some people get the feeling that a lot of philosophy is just glorified bullshitting--a lot of it really is!
But underneath a lot of the bullshittery there really are a lot of philosophers who have very insightful things to say. I'm not very fond of metaphysics, but I think a good grounding in ethics and epistemology is crucial for well-rounded thinking. That's not to say metaphysics should be completely ignored--I just don't find it as important as the other two major branches.
One big problem is that philosophy, like the other branches of the humanities, has been infested with a lot of gibberish, and a lot of it comes from postmodernists. I think a lot of philosophers think that philosophy boils down to writing deliberately obtuse and nonsensical gibberish that sounds, to the untrained ear, like really technical, complex analysis. It's unfortunate that this kind of shit goes on. I think these people are giving the humanities as a whole a really bad name. English, History, Art, and Philosophy are beginning to be viewed by some people as pointless or shallow, despite the fact that those are all important things to understand.
Posted by: Wes | May 15, 2007 7:10 PM
Everything good in philosophy can also be categorized as another discipline, and is included in those fields of study. Everything bad in philosophy is left to philosophy.
Which is precisely why professional philosophers are so terrible. It's not just that they satisfy Sturgeon's Law, but that they exceed it so very enthusiastically.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 7:12 PM
"But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that."
He would seem to be unaware that Hume's arguments against miracles and the like were known to be fallacious at the time he said them.
And why atheists like Hume so much is a mystery, given he said things like.
"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author and no rational enquirer can after serious reflection suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion"
Posted by: The Sci Phi Show | May 15, 2007 7:15 PM
I agree with Wolpert. I don't think philosophy is capable of discovering truth and it is, therefore, effectively useless. Some naturalists have argued that philosophy is a kind of immature science, a clearing of the brush before science can proceed, that can eventually become science; that might be true but it's an assertion that needs to be backed up by more evidence than "Aristotle talked about physics before Galileo and Newton." I've yet to see anyone make a serious case for it.
The one thing I took away from studying philosophy, and the one thing I wish other people would take away from studying philosophy, is an appreciation for the contingency of many things people accept as unexamined truths. Reading the Bible can be useful to a Christian if he comes to appreciate the inconsistencies and rejects his Christian upbringing. Likewise, we've all been influenced by philosophy and especially by the philosophical interpretation of science (to the point where most people can't tell the difference between the interpretation and science as practiced), and we all need to appreciate just how arbitrary it is. That doesn't make it useful in and of itself though.
In my experience the result of scientists studying philosophy is not usually an appreciation for the contingency of the unexamined truths they hold. Witness the popularity of logical positivism in Einstein's time and the current (incredibly annoying) popularity of Popper's ridiculous falsificationism. Philosophically-minded scientists seem to be drawn to revisionist philosophy of science. If you see a scientist quoting a philosopher these days it's likely to be Kuhn or Popper. I think they like Kuhn because of the entertaining and grim idea that things only change when the older generation dies and Popper because falsificationism makes science sound so heroic. It's as if Popper found the one thing more heroic than Hume's inductive fallibilism: not only could everything I just said turn out to be false but it's only worthwhile insofar as it can so be shot down by my peers.
There's also areas of philosophy that study things that should be in scientific or mathematical fields but aren't because they're marginalised. Consciousness might turn out to be like that (to some degree). And I personally think nominalist accounts of mathematics should be a part of mathematics and physics proper (tying the two together).
Posted by: poke | May 15, 2007 8:03 PM
from the very first comment:
A science with no regard to ethics is a Frankenstein's monster or NAZI eugenics waiting to happen.
so, uh your first example is completely fictional and the second had nothing to do with science to begin with.
surely you can make a better argument for ethics in science than that???
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 15, 2007 8:10 PM
First off; in relation to the other topics that he discussed besides philosophy, I received a pamphlet in the mail for a new product that "supports the release of adult stem cells from the bone marrow into the circulation, thereby aiding the ability of circulating stem cells to reach areas of tissue injury or damage." So I checked out this website. It has a 9 minute streaming video, and invitation to sell; but I couldn't find a list of any studies, not even any pseudo clinical trials to support the claims of the manufacturers. You can sign up as a distributor, and there is plenty of information about that.
They also mention anti-oxidants. Just thought I would share.
From what I learned in philosophy classes, the discipline provides the structure for logical thought which applies to science. One of the things that Kelly Tripplehorn fails to understand is that logical conclusions aren't the end of science, which is why he posted his "challenge." It's a useful guide.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 15, 2007 8:12 PM
First, mathematics is science.
Secondly, such things are usually pushed to the margin for a very good reason. The discipline of philosophy is where all of the garbage ends up being excluded to, and the people who pursue it there aren't particularly appreciative of the kind of rigorous reason that put it (and thus them) there.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:12 PM
We have to rewrite the entire curriculum for biology. The current one at most university is Teh Sucks. Biology majors heads are filled with disjointed facts, without a modicum of understanding of theory, practical application, or mathematics. Philosophy of Science isn't even high on my list. How about looking at how engineers train their undergrads? How about senior projects, calculus, physics with calculus and diffy-Q? Instead the curriculum is all about producing high MCAT scorers.
And that's why biology is at it's current standstill, the bulk of funding going into Protein-X255 without any hope of producing coherent understanding. Why most developmental biology can't even see that its about the topology. Why most neuroscientist don't have a clue about information theory - literally, most don't know Nyquist!
Ahh, somedays are just hopeless.
Maybe Biology graduate programs should just cease to accept Biology undergrads. That may be the only practical solution.
Posted by: frog | May 15, 2007 8:13 PM
How about looking at how engineers train their undergrads?
well, i can't say much for that, considering the preponderance of engineers who apparently find nothing wrong with ID.
many engineers who have tried to explain this trend make it clear that most undergrad engineering programs do nothing to stress basic concepts of logical or analytical thinking, and little about the history of the concepts they are taught.
while I tend to agree that many undergraduate programs in biology tend to focus on memorization than application, looking to the engineers for guidance might not be the best.
besides that, there ARE good undergrad programs in biology that do stress application and experience.
the one I went through at UC Santa Barbara was excellent in that way, and that was 20 years ago; it's even better now.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 15, 2007 8:21 PM
And that's why biology is at it's current standstill,
LOL!
Posted by: windy | May 15, 2007 8:23 PM
I've got to concur. This is the most exciting time in biology in the last several hundred years. Real biotechnology is within our reach. Combine it with the fledgling science of cognitive psychology, and the sky itself wouldn't be the limit.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:25 PM
Caledonian:
You say:
"Everything good in philosophy can also be categorized as another discipline, and is included in those fields of study. Everything bad in philosophy is left to philosophy."
If you read Harry Frankfurt, you would know that this statement is a very good example of "bullshit."
You also say:
"First, mathematics is science."
Really? Looks a lot more like logic and set theory to me. You often run experiments that discuss the number three? You look at the world and prove Fermat's Last Theorem through empirical investigation, do you?
There is no science without philosophy. There are only scientists who don't understand the substantive philosophical committments they operate under.
Maybe you just don't know what "philosophy" "mathematics" and "science" mean.
Of course, we could have an argument about what these words mean, and what disciplines fit where, the relations between these very concepts...
But then we'd be doing philosophy. Oops.
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 8:26 PM
Caledonian, I agree that mathematics is science, I added the addendum about marginalised sciences because I happen to think a nominalist account of mathematics (such as Hartry Field's work) is a better foundation for mathematics than those philosophies that are actually represented in mathematics (i.e., trying to locate foundations in logic or set theory or whatever). You probably disagree.
Something I'd like to add about Wolpert. I found it disturbing to see a scientist saying the following:
"There's no question about it"? Has something miraculous happened in the science of human evolution I don't know about?
Posted by: poke | May 15, 2007 8:27 PM
Every time I perform a computation, I'm performing an experiment. Assertions about mathematics are really just predictions that when other people do the same computations, or I do the computations again in the future, the same answer will be reached.
What, you think it's possible to separate logic from 'scientific' experimentation? Without logic, we cannot draw conclusions, no matter how many physical systems we study. When we perform math, we're also studying physical systems - often those that are between our ears and keep our head from caving in. But we can also utilize electronic computational devices instead of neural ones, and the same principle applies.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:29 PM
"Every time I perform a computation, I'm performing an experiment. Assertions about mathematics are really just predictions that when other people do the same computations, or I do the computations again in the future, the same answer will be reached."
That's a substantive philosophical view about what logic and mathematics is! That's a philosophical claim!
And a false one. But that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 8:32 PM
Although I'm vastly amused by your unthinking rejection of a rather obvious truth, Patrick, I'm more annoyed by your stupidity.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:36 PM
The methods of philosophy demand support and argumentation for propositions such as, "Everything good in philosophy can ... be categorized as another discipline...Everything bad in philosophy is left to philosophy...Which is precisely why professional philosophers are so terrible." and "Popper's ridiculous falsificationism." It is an unfamiliarity with the reasoning skills philosophy provides that may make statements like this apear significant. It also requires you to define terms like "truth" and removes the shield of equivocation from sentences like, "I don't think philosophy is capable of discovering truth and it is, therefore, effectively useless" which might sound dismissive to things like semantics, ethics, phenomonology, aesthetics, etc. And defining your terms is a precept in philosophy at least since Socrates.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 8:41 PM
"Although I'm vastly amused by your unthinking rejection of a rather obvious truth, Patrick, I'm more annoyed by your stupidity."
That is not a response to my claim. Maybe if you took a philosophy course you would know what an ad hominem argument is.
I didn't provide a reason for rejecting psychologism about mathematics and logic because it wasn't relevant. Though many mathematicians and mathematical logicians would reject your "obvious truth" just as much as I would. But that isn't the point.
You might think that analytic philosophers are broadly wrong about most things to the point of being useless.
But that is clearly distinct from saying that philosophical questions are irrelevant or unimportant.
Psychologism vs. realism vs. nominalism (etc etc) about math and logic is a philosophical question. So you are doing philosophy.
I can only conclude that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 8:46 PM
Yes, yes, we know you'd love to claim reasoning itself for philosophy, but the principles are far, far older than our thinking about them - and they've been incorporated into other disciplines.
What great discoveries has philosophy made by itself, hmmm? Can you name even one useful concept that wasn't developed under the aegis of another discipline?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:47 PM
Just a thought Cal, what department tought Logic at your school? Of course, this doesn't make logic philosophy. We have Aristotle to thank for that. Every time you talk about logic or critical thinking, you're singing the praises of philosophy.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 8:47 PM
"Can you name even one useful concept that wasn't developed under the aegis of another discipline?"
Natural rights.
Want more?
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 8:50 PM
It's mathematics. There was a time when there was no distinction between the two concepts. That time is over.
Geometry's older than Aristotle, Nevyn. And even Aristotle didn't invent logic - he just observed it in action and described it. It's older than him.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:52 PM
That's neither true nor useful.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 8:54 PM
Hmm. In 1992, Wolpert published a book titled The Unnatural Nature of Science, which the Library of Congress categorized as Philosophy of Science. All I remember about it is that at a time when I was reading a fair bit of phil. of sci., I got a third of the way through Wolpert's slender volume and quit. I've still got it -- anyone want me to send it to them?
Posted by: Vasha | May 15, 2007 8:56 PM
I am not saying that all reasoning is philosophy. I am arguing that the question "Is mathematics science or something else?" is NOT A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. It is a philosophical one.
As for what philosophy has given us...
Modern predicate calculus. Or human rights. Or supervenience. Indeterminacy of translation...theory-ladenness of perception...
Rawls's original position has been very useful in economics, law, and political science. Ditto for utilitarianism of various stripes. Many scientists have found discussions in philosophy of science to be quite useful. Much modern probability theory has been motivated by philosophers. Bayes thought he was doing philosophy. Einstein's thinking, by his own admission, owed a great debt to Hume, Leibniz, and Kant.
Of course the question is quite silly. Philosophers are trying to get things right. The great discoveries are the theories themselves. I think that Kant's ethical system is a brilliant and compelling intellectual achievement.
But I can equally say, "What great discoveries has biology made by itself?" If we are correct, then science relies on logic and rules of inductive and abductive reasoning that can be clarified and sharpened through philosophical analysis.
And of course, why should we suggest that only scientific discoveries matter? What about compelling theories of value and discussions about why life is worth living?
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 9:00 PM
"Natural rights.
Want more?
That's neither true nor useful."
Philosophical claim. Natural rights is a claim about what has value in the world. The claim that it is an erroneous theory of value is an ethical question. It's philosophy.
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 9:04 PM
Aristotle codified logic from a loose analytic idea to a method of thinking and iteraction between people and the world. Math and geometry never aspired to this. The concept of natural rights is a philosophical idea through and through, perhaps getting its most thurough initial treatment from Locke. Once again, this is what philosophy does. If you wish to continue this conversation, perhaps you should tell us how you define philosophy and how you come to that deffinition.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 9:06 PM
The list is longer than I can name.
You've got it backwards. Philosophical analysis can be improved by applying scientific reasoning to it.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:08 PM
Patrick said - "But I can equally say, "What great discoveries has biology made by itself?"
Cal said - "The list is longer than I can name."
Saying it doesn't make it true. You must support your claims if you want to have an adult conversation.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 9:14 PM
Questions about the nature of the world can only be resolved by examining the world itself. The assertion that your concept of 'value' has any actual meaning is an empirical one. It's science. Even if we limit ethics to an arbitrary set of rules set up by human beings to argue about, the question of which rules they've actually set up is still science - the study of philosophers, not 'philosophy', is anthropological.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:15 PM
If it's true, it doesn't matter what we say about it. Something philosophers have never quite grasped.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:17 PM
But we aren't talking about the meaning of the word "value" or people's "beliefs" about value.
We are talking about what things ought to be valued. What objects are actually right and what lives are actually good. Use-mention distinction...also philosopy. The anthropological question is relevant but not exhaustive.
P.S. Crude empiricism and verificationism (which you seem to be espousing) is a philosophical position. How does one scientifically demonstrate that the only things worth talking about are those that science can talk about?
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 9:19 PM
"Saying it doesn't make it true.
If it's true, it doesn't matter what we say about it. Something philosophers have never quite grasped."
Begging the question...philosophers.
Posted by: Patrick | May 15, 2007 9:21 PM
Umm ... mathematics is not a science it is a language.
Posted by: The Sci Phi Show | May 15, 2007 9:23 PM
No, that's empirical.
Only for a ludicrous definition of 'philosophical' in which all discussion of concepts is considered philosophy.
And you ought to know better than to ask for a justification of that method made with that method. That's just stupid.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:23 PM
I didn't give an argument for dismissing Popper because I tend not to give reasoned arguments with my passing shots. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to use a scientific argument than the "reasoning skills philosophy provides" to dismiss his work, although this won't be double-blind and peer reviewed. Sometimes with particularly low hanging fruit the science can be done conversationally. I refer you to the evidence: science as practiced and the complete absence of falsification criteria therein.
The fact that philosophers have also pointed out that Popper's work is somewhat lackluster as a description of science as practiced doesn't, by the way, make the argument philosophical. Similarly, criticizing philosophy is not doing philosophy, and not every argument is philosophical simply because philosophy deals with argument. The fact that philosophy is so broadly defined as to cause you to lapse into playground arguments of the "but you're still doing philosophy!" sort is philosophy's problem not mine.
Posted by: poke | May 15, 2007 9:24 PM
It's more than that. Languages can express concepts, but they don't automatically grant the capacity to derive conclusions from other statements. Math is a subset of all language - and the study of what mathematics says is a scientific discipline.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:25 PM
"The assertion that your concept of 'value' has any actual meaning is an empirical one"
This is an is/ought distinction. The meaning of value IS NOT empirical. That's the point. Further, you can't get to the way things should be from the way things are. One can (and must IMO) inform the other, but neither stands alone.
"If it's true, it doesn't matter what we say about it."
This is just silly. I wouldn't be suprised to hear creationists say things like that about the bible. On the converse, it matters quite a bit what we say about EvoDevo, how we say it and who we say it to, regardless of its overwgelming validity.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 9:27 PM
Hon, even concepts that are totally arbitrary and defined only by human convention can be known empirically - you just look at the people in question and see what they say.
If the concept has ANY implications for reality, we can look at the relevant parts of reality in order to study the concept and confirm/refute assertions made about those implications. Something that isn't empirical in any way has no reality at all - you can't even discuss it.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:30 PM
I don't think I've enjoyed a back and forth like this one for a while. Thanks! And Patrick, keep fighting the good fight. You're spot on.
(BTW - I'm going to disagree about Aristotle simply observing logic in action and describing it. This just isn't true. Look back at the philosophy and mathematics and the medical writers prior to Aristotle and you're not going to see logical reasoning in action. You're just not. Sorry. Aristotle, and the Stoics after him, did far more than simply recognize and record the rules of logic that were already being used and it's a shame that that incredible achievement isn't as recognized and admired as it ought to be. Oh, and let's not forget Aristotle's important contributions to biology as well.)
Posted by: Laetitiae | May 15, 2007 9:39 PM
"Hon"?
Listen you condescending dicksmack, when you can piece an argument together that doesn't rely on one fallacy after another, then wrap up with some offhand personal attack (yes, I see the irony) maybe you'll be able to talk with the big kids at the grown up table. Until then, I'll stop feeding the troll. I should have done this earlier, but I have a habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Have a nice life, slick.
Posted by: Nevyn | May 15, 2007 9:42 PM
Just to clarify this point about the boundaries of philosophy. This problem (lack of a definite boundary) comes up a lot in the humanities because the humanities are canonical rather than scientific. Philosophy is a "dialogue through the centuries" as I recall one philosopher putting it. The question of the usefulness of philosophy would, in my mind, be a question of the usefulness of that tradition. It's a question of the usefulness of all the books you'd find filed under "philosophy" rather than the usefulness of "reasoned argument in general" (or some other definition so broad as to be worthless).
Posted by: poke | May 15, 2007 9:42 PM
He noticed that public debate used certain kinds of arguments, some of which struck him as being correct and some as incorrect. He began categorizing correct arguments and explaining why the incorrect ones failed - and thus the study of logic was born.
He also noted that spurious arguments were often effective despite being wrong, which is why he was concerned with arguing to convince rather than 'correctly'. Rhetoric, sadly, has little logic about it.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:48 PM
Just so we get this out of the way:
Is anyone going to try to argue that there are meaningful statements that are NOT empirical in nature? If so, how precisely do we determine anything about those statements?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 15, 2007 9:49 PM
Well, I don't care what anyone says- I think Catherine Zeta Jones IS hot.
(Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 15, 2007 11:16 PM
@Icthyic: Of course any generalization is an over-generalization. And of course engineering is too narrow - any undergraduate degree is. If you spend time learning math, you miss out on literature, etc. But engineering at least gives you the tools to actually do something - then you depend on time to actually learn substance. Most undergrad biology programs pretty much leave you with nothing. They may not believe in ID, but they believe in enough nonsense to make up for that!
@Caledonian: BS. Today is not the most exciting time in biology. Many, many biologist are frustrated. We've cataloged endless series of proteins. We've mapped genomes. The last twenty years have been wonderful in that respect. But today? It's same-old-same-old. More proteins, more genes. No idea how protein machines work. Simulations are complete BS today. No new theoretical structures have been built. Nothing really exciting has happened since the fifties! And fairly little interesting has happened in the last ten years - although of course there are a few clues about interesting things that are coming down the pike, someday. Biology is seriously stuck, and keeps on funding the same nonsense over and over. I'm sure something will break sooner or later (something always breaks), but it's going to crush most biologist, because most biologists are just spinning their wheels (which, after all is the normal state of science).
Windy: LOL? Good argument - a mastery of language. Just keep on accepting the common wisdom. Like every field, the dum-dums keep thinking they're making master break-throughs, while all they're doing is counting the number of legs on a beetle. Now there is LOL!
Posted by: frog | May 15, 2007 11:17 PM
That is the most absurd characterization of the current state of biology I've read yet. Maybe you ought to switch to developmental biology, or bioinformatics, or systems biology, or something that isn't quite as boring as whatever you're doing now. Microbiology? Signaling? Immunology?
I keep seeing new and interesting stuff coming up. I think your point of view is seriously blinkered.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 15, 2007 11:24 PM
Tim: On the other hand, I've seen that a good many philosophy students (particularly undergraduates) have no grasp of science, technnology, etc. relevant to their fields. Of course they are cheered on to do this by some august members of the profession. For example, Jaegwon Kim claims that neuroscience is irrelevant to his work in the philosophy of mind.
Pete: Dennett is half right. See above.
AL: Of course, empiricism is no more central to science than rationalism.
Scott Hatfield, OM: Even that should be some metaphysics. Some of us argue for the relevance of a scientific metaphysics.
Vasha: I'll take it.
Caledonian: Strictly speaking, using the original meaning of the word, yes, there are. If you mean, however, what Bunge suggests we call factual statements, then the answer is still yes, but they are all the formal statements. (This presupposes a fictionalist philosophy of math, of course.) In order to evaluate your claim, specify clearly what you mean by empirical.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | May 15, 2007 11:38 PM
For the huge amount of money that gets sucked into biology, and the best you can come up with is bioinformatics, basically attaching well-known algorithms to search genomes? Seriously?
I'd love for systems biology to really develop, but we're about a hundred years off from knowing the components for it to be anything serious. We're like cave-men facing an amplifier.
Most of our funding today goes into molecular biology. And that's a big pile of stinking feces. On top of that, it has an excrescence of molecular dynamics. That's what the NIH is putting the big money into, that's what everyone wants to kn