Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I disagree, I believe a person's philosophy can very well be equivalent to a person's world view.

I explicitly stated that "philosophy" can be synonymous with "worldview." You have once again stated that you disagree with something I've said, immediately prior to restating exactly what I've said.

I believe this is the case here.

Then your belief is in error.

I disagree that Hawking's use of the phrase amounts to 'poor philosophy.' You may accuse him of awkwardly wording of his 'philosophy...'

Hawking is not a philosopher, but it is not hard to understand his philosophy and world view as I described in various posts.

Once again, I was not critiquing Hawking's worldview. That would be fairly silly, since I share Hawking's worldview. I was critiquing his ability to articulate his position.

[shunyadragon]

I explicitly stated that "philosophy" can be synonymous with "worldview." You have once again stated that you disagree with something I've said, immediately prior to restating exactly what I've said.

No, you also said,

that was not how we were utilizing the word "philosophy" when critiquing Hawking. Rather, we were discussing "philosophy" as referring to his ability to form consistent and logically sound propositions.

, which I disagree with for the reasons I gave. See below highlighted.

Once again, I was not critiquing Hawking's worldview. That would be fairly silly, since I share Hawking's worldview. I was critiquing his ability to articulate his position.

I believe if you are willing to read more of Hawking's writings, instead of tunnel focusing on one sound bite, you will find that he does articulate his position. I cited one reference that he clearly described his position.

[Jude]

So you think "Let there be light" does not refer to the Big Bang, then, given it occurs after the creation of heaven and earth?

I believe the first ten words that I recorded. Beyond that I don't attempt to turn the Bible into a science book. However, I don't see where science has shown the Bible to be false on any issue.

Further, your first 10 words say nothing (pun unintended) on what was there before hand.

Well we just disagree here. It explicitly says, "In the beginning..1) God 2) created 3) heaven and earth

I asked last time if you had a better word for it, and you ignored the question. Seems to me that while "nothing" may not be ideal, it is the best word we have. Unless you have a better one?

I agree with BP that vacuum seems interchangeable with your concept of nothing.

Consider this for the open-minded then.

Christianity has set itself up against science. not all Christianity, but enough to give itself a bad name for scientists. We all know how the church handled Galileo. We all know a lot of Christians reject evolution - and will pervert science to promote their own creationism as it suits them.

Interesting story there with Galileo. Of course not just the church but the whole of science was in the Aristotelian camp. I can't deny that there was church pressure to stay true to their pet Biblical interpretation of fixed Earth. It was a lesson learned that we should never forget but the argument was not wholly church driven.
As for evolution, I feel that Christianity is well suited to follow scientific evidence wherever it leads but as Plantinga says it's the only game in town for naturalism. I think that if you are concerned about a group of Christians pulling down the edifice of evolution then your own paranoia is showing

However, that does not mean scientists are doing science to defeat Christianity. By-and-large, scientists do science for the sake of science. Papers that get published in scientific journals do so because of the evidence, not because they undermine religion.

I don't paint with such a broad brush. Of course I would largely agree with you but when Krauss has Dawkins write the forward for his book because his first choice Christopher Hitchens was too sick, well, I don't exactly get the warm fuzzies that Krauss has no ideological ax to grind.
I love this quote by Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion:
Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth? Well you were wrong.

So maybe I'm paranoid or you're naďve.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "accident". I think the planets keep to their orbit because they follow natural laws and not because there is an intelligent agent keeping them on track.

You're right of course. I should have learned my lesson with the word nothing.
And I think that the word law points towards a lawgiver.

Sure, go for it. What do you hope to prove by doing so?

The point that I thought was obvious but obviously is not as SD has replied that I am engaging in philosophy too is just this: This comment was in response to your observation that as we continue to search for answers it will be science and not philosophy that provides them. That statement is itself philosophical and if we make sense of what our science tells us it will be by using philosophy to do so. We can't NOT use philosophy. That is part of what I said earlier about Hawking announcing the death of philosophy and then going on to use philosophy in at least half of his book. Can you acknowledge this?

[Jude]

Confusing to say the least.

My apologies. I thought my responses were clear enough but I haven't posted a lot. It is probably the case that I should expand on my thoughts to be more clear, that I assume too much. I will make a conscious effort to be more complete in what I try to say.
Is there any particular bit that you would like me to try to clear up?

If the watchmaker is blind, we will have no watches.

I certainly agree

Actually, the theological view is better described as Cosmogony. The difference has been apparent since the pagans and the philosophy of Lucretius.

Well they both speak to origins and that was where I was coming from but I know that you say:
Cosmogony is the philosophical and the theological epistemology dealing with the origins of our physical existence based on religious beliefs.
But I find no other definition of cosmogony that is so rigid though I certainly haven't done exhaustive research. I believe that both disciplines are rife with metaphysics concerning origins.

So is yours.

See above reply to The Pixie

When I cleared off my comments that you copied on top I accidently deleted your request for citation. I don't know exactly what you want? Every thing I have read (again not exhaustive) says that even at ground state/zero NRG there are still fluctuations that are not "philosophically" nothing. Even though they are tiny and can cancel each other out. That there is always a certain amount of uncertainty and for there to ever be truly nothing that uncertainty would have to reduce to zero. Hey I know my limitations. That's just the what I read from various sources.

[Jude]

FYI Heading off for a weeks vacation tomorrow evening and won't be checking in. Have the last word please. I will catch it but not reply. Hate trying to use phone.
Would like to part with one last Berlinski quote that I think appropriate and funny:

The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question and answer, as in the Catholic catechism.
A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology

Q. From what did our universe evolve?
A. Our universe evolved from a much smaller much emptier universe. You may think of it as an egg.

Q. What was the smaller emptier universe like?
A. It was a four dimensional sphere with nothing inside it. You may think of that as weird.

Q. How can a sphere have four dimensions?
A. A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.

Q. Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?
A. The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.

Q. Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe?
A. Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein's field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.

Q. Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?
A. It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.

Q. When was it there?
A. It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.

Q. Where did the egg come from?
A. The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of it as astonishing.

Q. If the egg did not come from anywhere how did it get there?
A. The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of that as a done deal.

Q. How did our universe evolve from the egg?
A. It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.

This catechism I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.



Happy Memorial Day weekend. Be safe.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, you also said, "that was not how we were utilizing the word 'philosophy' when critiquing Hawking," which I disagree with for the reasons I gave.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. Your opinion has no bearing on the intention behind the statements which Jude and I made. I have clarified, specifically, that when Jude and I were critiquing Hawking's philosophy, we were not critiquing his worldview, but were rather critiquing his ability to consistently articulate a proposition.

If you really want to insist on ignoring that clarification in order to knock down a Straw Man, I'm simply going to ignore any further points you make on the subject.

Interesting story there with Galileo. Of course not just the church but the whole of science was in the Aristotelian camp.

Well, certainly not "the whole of science." Galileo was far from being the only Copernican, at his time. However, it is safe to say that the general consensus was Aristotelian.

As for evolution, I feel that Christianity is well suited to follow scientific evidence wherever it leads but as Plantinga says it's the only game in town for naturalism. I think that if you are concerned about a group of Christians pulling down the edifice of evolution then your own paranoia is showing

We're not concerned about a group of Christians "pulling down the edifice of evolution." We're concerned about people spreading misinformation and creating legislation based on that information which can affect the quality of children's education.

And I think that the word law points towards a lawgiver.

It doesn't.

This catechism I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology.

He's right: it's not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is a Straw Man of quantum cosmology.

[Jude]

We're not concerned about a group of Christians "pulling down the edifice of evolution." We're concerned about people spreading misinformation and creating legislation based on that information which can affect the quality of children's education.

Our culture is awash in misinformation about practically everything but I understand your concerns. I don't expect any legislation to be forthcoming that in any way threatens evolution unless it really is worthy. What specific job titles outside a career in science education do you think one's position on evolution would interfere with? Not trying to invalidate your concerns, just curious.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Our culture is awash in misinformation about practically everything but I understand your concerns. I don't expect any legislation to be forthcoming that in any way threatens evolution unless it really is worthy. What specific job titles outside a career in science education do you think one's position on evolution would interfere with? Not trying to invalidate your concerns, just curious.

For my part, my concern is less about the particular issue of evolution, and more about teaching children that it is okay to ignore scientific conclusions which are opposed to your preconceived beliefs. That sort of thing filters out into all areas of life. I have a favorite quote from Isaac Asimov along these lines:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

[Jude]

For my part, my concern is less about the particular issue of evolution, and more about teaching children that it is okay to ignore scientific conclusions which are opposed to your preconceived beliefs. That sort of thing filters out into all areas of life. I have a favorite quote from Isaac Asimov along these lines:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

Understood. I am concerned that we be sure we are sure of a thing before we elevate it to the level of "knowledge". Not to imply evolution is not. The word evolution can carry different meanings (wow, here we go again with definitions) and what is really knowledge and not philosophy can be hard to separate sometimes for people like me who aren't educated in the proper fields. Call it paranoia, but I get a little antsy that certain people's best guess interpretations rise to the level of knowledge. It reminds me of the days when the church held sway politically and only certain men could officially tell the masses what interpretations were acceptable. It concerns me that some men now reside in positions to where their underlying assumptions bear on and create what is considered knowledge and what is not and that often this goes beyond what we can prove. They in effect become modern culture's high priests and only their interpretations have any merit. I hope SD thinks this is on topic as I do. It speaks to an intersection of science/philosophy. At least I think it does.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Call it paranoia, but I get a little antsy that certain people's best guess interpretations rise to the level of knowledge.

What would you consider to be an example of "certain people's best guess interpretations [risen] to the level of knowledge?"

It concerns me that some men now reside in positions to where their underlying assumptions bear on and create what is considered knowledge and what is not and that often this goes beyond what we can prove.

Which men? What underlying assumptions?

[Adrift]

What would you consider to be an example of "certain people's best guess interpretations [risen] to the level of knowledge?"

If I had to guess, probably things like Luminiferous Aether, Eugenics, the Static Universe, the theory that stress/spicy food causes ulcers, the Food Pyramid.

Which men? What underlying assumptions?

Again, guessing here, but probably highly regarded academic types...you know, professors whose biases supercede their objectivity in the classroom, and underpin their teaching material. As secularism grows in the West, scientists and academic types are now considered the new high priests, with their own set of dogmas. I'm no anti-intellectualist, but I don't think it's hard to see. Even a number of scientists and philosophers have begun to take notice (Rupert Sheldrake, Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis and the like). There's a danger, I think, in going too far in one direction or the other. Thinking that our best scientific minds have (or will have) all of the answers or that they have none of the answers.

[Paprika]

Well, sure. "Quantum vacuum" is a much better word for what some cosmologists have posited as existing prior to the Big Bang. "Nothing" is not the best word, in the least.

What about "aether"?

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't matter if you disagree. Your opinion has no bearing on the intention behind the statements which Jude and I made. I have clarified, specifically, that when Jude and I were critiquing Hawking's philosophy, we were not critiquing his worldview, but were rather critiquing his ability to consistently articulate a proposition.

If you really want to insist on ignoring that clarification in order to knock down a Straw Man, I'm simply going to ignore any further points you make on the subject.

Well, certainly not "the whole of science." Galileo was far from being the only Copernican, at his time. However, it is safe to say that the general consensus was Aristotelian.

Your clarifications are meaningless, because your basing your conclusions on one sound bite.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Your clarifications are meaningless, because your basing your conclusions on one sound bite.

Actually, I'm not. I'm thoroughly familiar with Professor Hawking, having been a fan of his since I first read A Brief History of Time while I was in High School. For decades, I have been reading his work, listening to his interviews, and watching his lectures and speeches. Hawking is a fantastic scientist and educator. He is a rather poor philosopher. That's not really surprising, nor is it an insult, considering the fact that his own training was in science and education, and not in philosophy.

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person is faultless.

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I'm not. I'm thoroughly familiar with Professor Hawking, having been a fan of his since I first read A Brief History of Time while I was in High School. For decades, I have been reading his work, listening to his interviews, and watching his lectures and speeches. Hawking is a fantastic scientist and educator. He is a rather poor philosopher. That's not really surprising, nor is it an insult, considering the fact that his own training was in science and education, and not in philosophy.

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person is faultless.

who said anything about faultless?