[FRIAM] Philosophy and Science

[Steve Smith]

I like the term "epistemic trespass" and generally agree with the idea 
glen promotes in that regard.

My direct experience with *many* experimentalists trained and 
self-selected as physicists or chemists or materials scientists was that 
many of them were excellent engineers, computer systems developers, 
programmers, even mech/elec/hydro/pneumo-techs... but *mainly* because 
those skills/disciplines were in directs support of what they were 
trying to do and it was a useful shortcut/leverage to be able to do all 
those things for themselves rather than wait for the availability of 
specialists in those areas and then communicate their needs.   Only a 
*few* theorists seemed to have these skills because, perhaps they rarely 
*needed* that kind of support, though some had avocations or hobbies 
that exercised those skills.  I would hazard that more of the 
theoreticians were more deeply interested in the mathematics and 
philosophical embeddings that their avowed day-work implied.  The 
experimentalists *might* be interested (and/or facile) in those things 
but to some extent by constitution, self-selection, utilitarianism were 
less engaged.

I am glad that Tyson is out there "spreading the faith" to some extent, 
but it doesn't surprise me that he might give philosophers the 
brush-back unthoughtfully.   I feel like Sabine  Hossenfelder, in her 
very subtle style may have done the same thing but with a straight face 
rather than a big grin, even though much of her science-communication is 
smack dab in the middle (IMO) of these epistimic boundaries which is 
where (IMO) the best stuff resides.   I was recently put off by Paul 
Hawkin's need to deprecate/dismiss any talk (or thought?) about 
consciousness in deference to the presumably more formally defineable 
"intelligence", but I also understand that one good way to make progress 
on technical things is to downscope until your reach does not exceed 
your grasp (by much) and Hawkin's experience as a tech entreprenuer 
(Palm Pilot) suggests that he is more better served by staying closer to 
the engineering and tech end of the (multi-dimensional?) spectrum than 
the philosophical one.   I also understand that as one moves out into 
the yet-more-abstract of philosophy and mathematics and semiotics (for 
example) they seem more likely to be laced with BS (and perhaps often 
are?)... but that ambiguity/difficulty is part of what makes it worth 
spending time in (IMO again).

Not only do we not like our various sacred-cows skewered by others we 
don't even like them being called by unfamiliar names, until you realize 
those names *might* be "terms of endearment"?

I am not familiar with Hawking or Mlodinow's assertions but it triggers 
my associative memory to Russell and Whitehead's  (and others) 
assertions around/Principia Mathematica/.  Or the (yet more) 
classic/"God is Dead/ - Neitchze 1882 V. /Neitchze is dead/ - God 
1900".    I do suspect that the practice and vocation of philosophy is 
being altered in the face of things like the development of Category 
Theory and now LLMs ...  in the common CS vernacular, /it is not 
deprecated but is being refactored/?

On 7/14/23 11:02 AM, glen wrote:
> This merely seems like triggered gatekeeping to me. Yeah, sure, 
> working philosophers have skills and behaviors working [insert your 
> favorite other clique] don't have. But, if it's not already obvious, 
> especially to anyone who's had ANY contact with organizations like the 
> SFI, epistemic trespassing can be wildly productive. We're all bad at 
> things we're not good at. >8^D I haven't seen the Tyson rant that 
> seems to have triggered Ramsey. But *leaving someone out* of your cf 
> list is NOT a snub ... despite what the hip-and-trendy might claim. 
> It's merely evidence that any presentation is limited in space and 
> time. My guess is that if you listen to Tyson with a little 
> generosity, you'd hear him make sounds sympathetic to the expertise of 
> the peri-science cliques.
>
> Now, Hawking and Mlodinow's explicit claim that philosophy is dead ... 
> now, that's a different story.
>
> On 7/14/23 08:33, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Joe Ramsey, who took over my job.in <http://job.in> the Philosophy 
>> Department at Carnegie Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:
>>
>> I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited 
>> defense of science in which he oddly gave no credit to philosophers 
>> at all. His straw man philosopher is a dedicated *armchair* 
>> philosopher who spins theories without paying attention to scientific 
>> practice and contributes nothing to scientific understanding. He 
>> misses that scientists themselves are constantly raising obviously 
>> philosophical questions and are often ill-equipped to think about 
>> them clearly. What is the correct interpretation of quantum 
>> mechanics? What is the right way to think about reductionism? Is 
>> reductionism the right way to think about science? What is the nature 
>> of consciousness? Can you explain consciousness in terms of 
>> neuroscience? Are biological kinds real? What does it even mean to be 
>> real? Or is realism a red herring; should we be pragmatists instead? 
>> Scientists raise all kinds of philosophical questions and have 
>> ill-informed opinions about them. But *philosophers* try to answer 
>> them, and scientists do pay attention to the controversies. At least 
>> the smart ones do.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230714/d346e9c0/attachment.html>