We can at least credit the man for doing exactly what's been suggested, in this thread, philosophers should be doing.

What's not to like?

He explicitly premises his philosophy on contemporary science, particularly in ecology, biology, and cosmology. His work has been enormously influential.

(February 22, 2022 at 2:01 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We can at least credit the man for doing exactly what's been suggested, in this thread, philosophers should be doing.  

What's not to like?

He explicitly premises his philosophy on contemporary science, particularly in ecology, biology, and cosmology.  His work has been enormously influential.

Not on me, never heard of him before. And from what I read in wiki I wouldn't give him much credit. 'Religious Naturalism' is a non starter.

Not sure what to do with that. Here we have a philosopher doing what we've suggested. Went to Princeton. Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Colorado State. A prolific author in the academic and pop market contexts. You've never heard of him before, but you think his ideas are a non starter.

Why, and exactly what bar are we looking to meet, since it's not the bar commented upon at length in thread? I'm tempted to ask whether the problem is that he wasn't doing all of that while spinning plates and playing the kazoo.... Ultimately, though, I don't think you have to agree with someone's conclusions to acknowledge the fact that they've done alot of work, good work, and exactly the kind of work we'd like to see done by someone in the field.

---

-just to add to my disorientation here, a significant portion of his contribution is asking (and providing his own answer)...to the very question in this thread. It's like he was made in a test tube for this discussion as it's played out.

(February 22, 2022 at 3:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not sure what to do with that.  Here we have a philosopher doing what we've suggested.  Went to Princeton.  Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Colorado State.  A prolific author in the academic and pop market contexts.  You've never heard of him before, but you think his ideas are a non starter.

Why, and exactly what bar are we looking to meet, since it's not the bar commented upon at length in thread?  I'm tempted to ask whether the problem is that he wasn't doing all of that while spinning plates and playing the kazoo....  Ultimately, though, I don't think you have to agree with someone's conclusions to acknowledge the fact that they've done alot of work, good work, and exactly the kind of work we'd like to see done by someone in the field.

---

-just to add to my disorientation here, a significant portion of his contribution is asking (and providing his own answer)...to the very question in this thread.  It's like he was made in a test tube for this discussion as it's played out.

Sorry, but what's your point? I have to acknowledge philosophers work for it's own sake? Maybe I need to acknowledge the father of chiropractic and all the subsequent chrio thinkers also. It was philosophy after all.

Yes, his ideas/thoughts are a non starter for me. If you like it, fine by me. Give me my space to not indulge.

Your post is one of the reasons I don't like to dialogue with you.

I like vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate.

The point was to provide an example of a philosopher that meets the assorted criteria in thread, while evading criticisms offered in thread, as an answer to the question of this thread. I don't think that whether you, I, or the housecat like his work is relevant to any of that, but I am interested in why some ideas are non starters for given people.

(February 22, 2022 at 4:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I like vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate.  

The point was to provide an example of a philosopher that meets the assorted criteria in thread, while evading criticisms offered in thread, as an answer to the question of this thread.  I don't think that whether you, I, or the housecat like his work is relevant to any of that, but I am interested in why some ideas are non starters for given people.

I notice that you don't reply directly to me. Is that because if I don't reply you think you've got the upper hand?

What assorted criteria? Is philosophy a worth while subject of study (thread title, premise), that depends on the particular philosophy and person(s). It should be obvious, even to you, I don't have much use for philosophy that I don't find valid or have a particular impact in my life.

Would you like to tell me what makes a chair? I'd rather focus on making a chair.

(February 22, 2022 at 5:23 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't have much use for philosophy that I don't find valid or have a particular impact in my life. 

I'm curious what philosophy you've found a use for, and has an impact on your life.

Not really my cup of tea, nor would it be Crosby's. He's strongly associated with pragmatism, as you probably read on the wiki. That's part of why he thinks philosophy is a worthwhile subject of study. As a commentator on human ecology, the ideas he advocates for could be useful to you in deciding what kind of chair to make, what to make it of, how to make it, etc.

They probably already have been.

Steven Pinker made a quick comment today on philosophy and science. The comments under Laura Kennedy's tweet are also worth reading.

(February 22, 2022 at 3:57 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 22, 2022 at 2:58 am)highdimensionman Wrote: throwing a bit more philosophy into the debate to improve open mindedness and perspective

I've heard a few things like this, but I don't know enough about physics to understand specifics. Can you tell us a few examples of what could be relevant?

A while back I did see an article (not technical at all) suggesting that given recent discoveries about quantum physics, it would make sense to take seriously again Aristotelian ideas about act vs. potency, and think of potentialities as really existing things. (If that sounds confused, it's my fault, since I don't know enough to describe it effectively.) 

It's interesting to me that the generation of really famous physicists -- the household names -- was far more educated in and open to philosophy than many of the current crop. Einstein cited influence from Schopenhauer, Heisenberg claimed that physics shows Plato was right, and wrote an entire book on physics and philosophy.

Well many physics theorists are trying to find a mathematical seed like property that could with enough seeding behave much like reality other theorists are trying to see how bundled up dimensional seeds can harmonise to a 4D space time like what we exist in. As of yet no one has found that good a fit. A new approach call constructor theory focuses more on building from and mapping whats possible. All of these areas are pushing the very limits of our current general axioms or underpinning assumptions of truth. In time we will likely have to model far more possibilities and investigate more axioms to see if we can get more clarity regarding the fabric of reality. Physics therefore needs more philosophy right now to prepare minds for the future challenges of science exploration and discovery.