RE: Is philosophy dead?
January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2016 at 11:46 am by Cato.)
Similar to what has already been said, I routinely answer the question thIs way...
Science can give us the ability to build nuclear weapons and can accurately predict the consequences of their use, but philosophy is needed to decide to build or deploy them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithab...ic-method/
The above link is an article that discusses last month's meeting in Munich where scientists and philosophers discussed the current state and future of the philosophy of science. The impetus for the meeting stems from certain scientists raising concerns regarding other scientists vigorously defending the validity of theories with non-empirical criteria; e.g., elegance.
It will be some time before the formal report is generated from the conference, but there is a plethora of comments from participants and observers floating the internet. I recommend the four links in the last paragraph of the linked article pointing to Massimo Pigliucci. He gives thorough notes on the proceedings as well as his thoughts on the discussion.
Pigliucci is an evolutionary biologist turned philosopher. It was Pigliucci's public engagement with Krauss that resulted in the latter's change of opinion regarding the utility of philosophy. Pigliucci also champions academia getting out of the ivory tower and engaging the public. The referenced links take you to his site Plato's Footnote, which I recommend for anyone interested in this topic or useful philosophy in general. I give the word useful here the meaning of a Venn diagram intersection between the analytic and continental schools of thought as they are applied to practical considerations of the world we live in.
Science can give us the ability to build nuclear weapons and can accurately predict the consequences of their use, but philosophy is needed to decide to build or deploy them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithab...ic-method/
The above link is an article that discusses last month's meeting in Munich where scientists and philosophers discussed the current state and future of the philosophy of science. The impetus for the meeting stems from certain scientists raising concerns regarding other scientists vigorously defending the validity of theories with non-empirical criteria; e.g., elegance.
It will be some time before the formal report is generated from the conference, but there is a plethora of comments from participants and observers floating the internet. I recommend the four links in the last paragraph of the linked article pointing to Massimo Pigliucci. He gives thorough notes on the proceedings as well as his thoughts on the discussion.
Pigliucci is an evolutionary biologist turned philosopher. It was Pigliucci's public engagement with Krauss that resulted in the latter's change of opinion regarding the utility of philosophy. Pigliucci also champions academia getting out of the ivory tower and engaging the public. The referenced links take you to his site Plato's Footnote, which I recommend for anyone interested in this topic or useful philosophy in general. I give the word useful here the meaning of a Venn diagram intersection between the analytic and continental schools of thought as they are applied to practical considerations of the world we live in.
