This post is in response to Krauss' interview published in the Atlantic:
Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?
For Krauss to claim that Russell was really a mathematician and not a philosopher I think is wrong. I have read quite a lot of philosophy by Russell, if you look at his bibliography philosophy takes up the majority of his writing. Russell was both a philosopher and a mathematician as well as being an historian, a political activist, a social commentator and much more besides.
Krauss also implies that Russell was wrong on some key points. Whilst this is undoubtedly true, that doesn't in any way make him a bad mathematician or a bad philosopher. It's the very nature of enquiry that as our understanding improves we are likely to be proved wrong. Russell helped us move forward and contributed more than very many people. Krauss is an intellectual midget compared to Russell and could do well to learn some humility.
I'm also not sure that I can agree that the media should carry the blame for the neutrinos travelling faster than light 'incident'. The problem was that a measuring device was faulty as it hadn't been screwed in to the correct tolerance. The physicists published results which, if true would have thrown a lot of physics in chaos - one of the flying sheep that we discussed earlier.
The problem with physicists is that a lot of them would kill their grannies to get a Nobel Prize. They publish too quickly, because the only way to get a Nobel Prize is to be the first, so adopting a blunderbuss approach to academic papers can mean that although 99.9% of the time they are completely wrong, occasionally they chance upon something that turns out to be true and get credit for it. This is truly moronic behaviour in my opinion.
On the whole I think physicists can often benefit from working alongside philosophers and Krauss' attitude is both condescending and rude. He should learn some manners.
Showing posts with label Russell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russell. Show all posts
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Philosophy v Science
I was struck by Russell's claim that, unlike science, "utility does not belong to philosophy".
The reason science has progressed so quickly is that we generally see the benefits that accrue. The resources put into philosophy are minuscule in comparison to science.
What is interesting to me, as a taxpayer, is how the scientists at Cern managed to persuade governments to hand-over such huge amounts of funding to investigate further theoretical physics. I'm interested to know if the Higgs Boson exists, but personally I'm not willing to bankrupt myself to find the answer! How come this branch of physics, which may well produce no material benefits at all, is suddenly receiving so much government support?
I would also argue that the importance or prominence of philosophy has declined in recent decades in relation to other academic pursuits. This may in part be due to the general "dumbing down" of the media in general. When I look back at television in the 1950s - 1980s, the BBC used to frequently broadcast programmes which benefited from the input of some of the greatest minds. Nowadays, all we seem to get is wall-to-wall "entertainment" with a few science programmes which are so dumbed-down as to be unwatchable.
As an aside, I highly recommend Cosmos by Carl Sagan and Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, both available from Amazon.
The reason science has progressed so quickly is that we generally see the benefits that accrue. The resources put into philosophy are minuscule in comparison to science.
What is interesting to me, as a taxpayer, is how the scientists at Cern managed to persuade governments to hand-over such huge amounts of funding to investigate further theoretical physics. I'm interested to know if the Higgs Boson exists, but personally I'm not willing to bankrupt myself to find the answer! How come this branch of physics, which may well produce no material benefits at all, is suddenly receiving so much government support?
I would also argue that the importance or prominence of philosophy has declined in recent decades in relation to other academic pursuits. This may in part be due to the general "dumbing down" of the media in general. When I look back at television in the 1950s - 1980s, the BBC used to frequently broadcast programmes which benefited from the input of some of the greatest minds. Nowadays, all we seem to get is wall-to-wall "entertainment" with a few science programmes which are so dumbed-down as to be unwatchable.
As an aside, I highly recommend Cosmos by Carl Sagan and Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, both available from Amazon.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Is an unexamined life worth living?
Today's assignment was to read Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy, 'Chapter XV: The value of
philosophy' and the section from Plato's Apology
where Socrates gives a speech defending himself against the charges of "corrupting the
young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other
daimonia that are novel".
We were then asked to post on the question "Is an unexamined life worth living?".
My response was as follows:
To answer this question I believe it is helpful to explain what we mean by "worth". For a life to be worth living it has to either have a purpose and go some way to achieve that purpose, or have some value to someone / something.
On both these points I don't see why in principle an unexamined life could not have either purpose and/or value.
Before addressing the question of whether life has to be examined before it has worth, I would like to consider whether life has any purpose in itself.
Survival machines
Richard Dawkins argues that the universe has no purpose, at least not one that we know about. In his book 'The Selfish Gene' he argues that the fundamental purpose of life is really the survival of our genes. Our bodies are "survival machines" for our genes. He writes "survival machines began as passive receptacles for the genes, providing little more than walls to protect them from the chemical warfare of their rivals and the ravages of accidental molecular bombardment". In this sense, the purpose of life is to propagate our genes, an as such an unexamined life has as much worth as an examined life. What matters is survival.
Purpose and value is a human construct
As an atheist, I do not believe that life has any purpose other than the purpose we provide for it ourselves as rational, sentient, reflective and emotional creatures.
Dawkins goes on to explain how humans have evolved into social beings. Our brains have grown to give us the ability to think and reflect. We have gained the power to overcome our mechanistic history and organise ourselves into societies that ascribe purpose, worth and value to different things.
Socrates comes across as intellectually arrogant in The Apology. He argues that "daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living". Yet he gives us little support for this proposition, other than his eloquence.
As an example of an unexamined life that I believe is worth living I would argue that great musicians or great sportsmen who do not reflect on life, but do provide great pleasure for others, are leading lives that are worth living.
We were then asked to post on the question "Is an unexamined life worth living?".
My response was as follows:
To answer this question I believe it is helpful to explain what we mean by "worth". For a life to be worth living it has to either have a purpose and go some way to achieve that purpose, or have some value to someone / something.
On both these points I don't see why in principle an unexamined life could not have either purpose and/or value.
Before addressing the question of whether life has to be examined before it has worth, I would like to consider whether life has any purpose in itself.
Survival machines
Richard Dawkins argues that the universe has no purpose, at least not one that we know about. In his book 'The Selfish Gene' he argues that the fundamental purpose of life is really the survival of our genes. Our bodies are "survival machines" for our genes. He writes "survival machines began as passive receptacles for the genes, providing little more than walls to protect them from the chemical warfare of their rivals and the ravages of accidental molecular bombardment". In this sense, the purpose of life is to propagate our genes, an as such an unexamined life has as much worth as an examined life. What matters is survival.
Purpose and value is a human construct
As an atheist, I do not believe that life has any purpose other than the purpose we provide for it ourselves as rational, sentient, reflective and emotional creatures.
Dawkins goes on to explain how humans have evolved into social beings. Our brains have grown to give us the ability to think and reflect. We have gained the power to overcome our mechanistic history and organise ourselves into societies that ascribe purpose, worth and value to different things.
Socrates comes across as intellectually arrogant in The Apology. He argues that "daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living". Yet he gives us little support for this proposition, other than his eloquence.
As an example of an unexamined life that I believe is worth living I would argue that great musicians or great sportsmen who do not reflect on life, but do provide great pleasure for others, are leading lives that are worth living.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Inaugural post
Philosophy Explained will share my progress undertaking an online study course 'Introduction to Philosophy' from the Oxford Department for Continuing Education.
Starting in April 2012 and lasting for ten weeks, the objective of the course is described as follows:
"Even as our knowledge continually expands, philosophical questions asked since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers continue to perplex us. This course offers students the opportunity to explore four topics in philosophy - knowledge, reality, free will and morality. Through a series of guided readings, and participation in discussions and other online events, you will not only learn how philosophers have tackled these topics, but learn how to tackle them for yourselves."
Prior to the official kick-off in April, I'm going to have a look at the reading list and share some thoughts on general philosophical matters. If all goes to plan, I aim to update my blog daily.
As an undergraduate I studies PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford. To misquote George Bernard Shaw, education is wasted on the young (I probably spent a little too much time on the river) so I'm hoping that a bit of life experience will help me get the most from the course. Who knows, maybe it will lead to something more.
It will also be interesting to me to see how the Internet adds to the experience of studying an academic subject - perhaps this can be topic for a future blog post.
For my degree I took five philosophy papers:
I hope you enjoy reading my blog and would welcome questions, comments and feedback.
Starting in April 2012 and lasting for ten weeks, the objective of the course is described as follows:
"Even as our knowledge continually expands, philosophical questions asked since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers continue to perplex us. This course offers students the opportunity to explore four topics in philosophy - knowledge, reality, free will and morality. Through a series of guided readings, and participation in discussions and other online events, you will not only learn how philosophers have tackled these topics, but learn how to tackle them for yourselves."
Prior to the official kick-off in April, I'm going to have a look at the reading list and share some thoughts on general philosophical matters. If all goes to plan, I aim to update my blog daily.
As an undergraduate I studies PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford. To misquote George Bernard Shaw, education is wasted on the young (I probably spent a little too much time on the river) so I'm hoping that a bit of life experience will help me get the most from the course. Who knows, maybe it will lead to something more.
It will also be interesting to me to see how the Internet adds to the experience of studying an academic subject - perhaps this can be topic for a future blog post.
For my degree I took five philosophy papers:
- general philosophy
- moral and political philosophy
- continental philosophy
- the philosophy of Kant
- Russell and Wittgenstein
I hope you enjoy reading my blog and would welcome questions, comments and feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)