RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 28, 2022 at 9:48 am
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2022 at 9:54 am by polymath257.)
(February 28, 2022 at 6:42 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:(February 27, 2022 at 11:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And just where do think modern physics got its theory of causation?
Modern physics doesn't have a theory of causation, does it? (Maybe I'm wrong on that. If so, what is the theory? How does it differ from what philosophers have come up with?)
Not that physics needs to or ought to have a theory of causation. Modern physics has told us many accurate things about causation that philosophers never would have (for example, that there is a speed of causation, the speed of light, or of sound, depending on the medium). But it's like Hume says. You can't observe causation. So unless you think about what causation is, you have no intellectual connection to it besides the fact of it.
Hume got a ball rolling, by noting that we cannot *observe* causality. But he still thought causality was basic. Kant thought of it as a basic way of thinking.
Modern quantum theory is acausal. It is probabilistic in essence and there are no 'necessary causes'. Instead, the main 'theory of causation' in modern physics is in quantum field theories and, essentially, says that correlations in probabilities don't travel faster than light.
Classical examples of causality arise because macroscopic things are made of a LOT of quantum level things. The *averages* of the probabilities have a deterministic, even Newtonian, structure. The fact that Avagadro's number is big is why we can even talk about causality at the macroscopic level.
I don't see philosophers grappling with this basic set of facts. Instead, they seem to think that causality is an a priori truth that *must* hold for science to be done. But that is clearly wrong.
Instead of causality upholding the laws of physics, we now see that the laws of physics *allow* for causality in some circumstances.
(February 25, 2022 at 10:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: Another point I want to make is that consistency is a weak filter for truth. But it seems to be the primary filter for philosophy.
For example, it seems that Newtonian physics is *internally consistent*. It even has intuitive appeal. But, we now know that it is *wrong* (although a good approximation). For that matter, even the Ptolemaic system is *internally consistent*.
Quote:Yeah. I think the correct position is internally inconsistent=false.
If somebody thinks internally consistent=true, well shit. That's wrong. I don't even think Plato made such a claim.
[/quote]
And so what else is required above consistency? You cannot determine the truth of falsity of a consistent statement by simply sitting and thinking about it. At some point, you *need* to do some sort of observation. That is why some empiricism is required. It is an additional filter to weed out falsehoods. And it does this incredibly well, as witnessed by the advances of science once it became prominent.
(February 28, 2022 at 9:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: Ethics and aesthetics are, among other things, methods of knowing oneself.
"Know yourself" is, famously, good advice.
But knowledge of oneself, of this type, is not scientific knowledge. It is not empirical, quantifiable, or repeatable by distant researchers. It is also more than mere opinion.
Knowing everything there is to know about physics while NOT knowing oneself would be a poor choice of values.
Yes, this is required to 'live the good life'.
And, if philosophy limited itself to such *opinions* that can vary from person to person because of differences in personality, it would maximize its value.
Again, the main value of philosophy is in *asking questions* and *challenging assumptions*, not in finding truth or knowledge. When it comes up with grand over-reaching theories, it tends to fall on its face.
