Comments for Evolving Thoughts

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by On Wilkins on metaphysical determinism | The Heretical Philosopher

On Wilkins on metaphysical determinism | The Heretical Philosopher — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:13:22 +0000

[...] Wilkins has an interesting post, titled “Metaphysical determinism“, and this post will consist of some rambling comments on John’s [...]

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by John Farrell

John Farrell — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:16:37 +0000

I am simply saying that science tends to do philosophy after it has done the science.

Great point. And as you know, I’m more than a little preoccupied with the argument of a certain tradition, that thinks science should do all its philosophy before the science. (And indeed tends to disqualify all science philosophizing that’s been done after the science.)

Here’s a recent example.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/oerter-contra-principle-of-causality.html

0 likes

Comment on Analytic thinking, religion and science – the rhetoric and the psychology by Helen De Cruz

Helen De Cruz — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:12:19 +0000

John: as I noted in the Prosblogion, the whole system 1 vs system 2 thinking debate is loaded with normative undertones. G&N strongly caution against making any normative interpretations “Finally, we caution that the present studies are silent on long-standing debates about the intrinsic value or rationality of religious beliefs…” Nevertheless, as Elqayam & Evans point out, there is a tendency in the psychology of reasoning to equate the analytic response with the correct one, and the intuitive with the incorrect response (see here: http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/elqayam/Elqayam_&_Evans_2011_BBS.pdf)
As they caution ” In a dual-process framework, normativism can lead to a fallacious “ought-is” inference, in which normative responses are taken as diagnostic of analytic reasoning. “. Further on they write “In fact, dual-process research suffers from this form of normativist reasoning. It leads researchers to think that they have an easy shortcut method to identify the type of process from the correctness of the response, when none such is in fact available.”
G&N rely on this dual-process framework, and also to some extent play into this normativism. For instance, in their first experiment consistently have the intuitive answer as incorrect and the analytic one as correct. Even though they disavow making normative conclusions, the setup of this experiment fits within Elqayam and Over’s analysis of normative reasoning studies, where participants systematically need to give the analytic answer in order to give the correct answer. This can easily lead to the study’s results being interpreted in terms of intuitiveness being less rational than analytical reasoning.

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:00:37 +0000

Metaphysical concepts may not be a working part of the machinery of the sciences, but they aren’t just instances of philosophers horning in on somebody else’s turf. At a minimum, scientists need comprehensive and comprehensible basic ideas for purposes of pedagogy and public relations and even more to explain to themselves why what they do has more dignity then cosmic bookkeeping. Of course there’s no necessity that philosophy professors should be be the ones who meet these needs—these discussions always seem to involve an equivocation between the philosophy as an academic discipline and philosophy as an unavoidable human activity.

It also occurs to me that what differentiates doing science and doing philosophy is far from clear. For example, are the various interpretations of quantum mechanics philosophy or physics? It seems inevitable, to me at least, that there be explanation/exegesis above the technical/experimental activities of the sciences; but it remains an open question whether there is only one such level or if an ultimate level even makes sense. Maybe it’s a case of turtles all the way up.

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by John S. Wilkins

John S. Wilkins — Sun, 20 May 2012 22:02:28 +0000

The metaphysical determinism thesis is not restricted to philosophy of science. The claim is often made that neo-Platonism, idealism, monism and the like have influenced or affected the progress of the development of scientific theories. This is about how philosophy is supposed to determine science, not whether there are philosophical issues in the development of science, which of course there are. There are philosophical issues, and positions to be held, in everything humans do. I am simply saying that science tends to do philosophy after it has done the science.

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by Nick

Nick — Sun, 20 May 2012 14:29:34 +0000

The only way I can think of to get you to rethink the orientation you’ve expressed here is to ask you why you are equivocating “philosophy” and “philosophy of science”. The former is a vast, sprawling plurality of modes of study, within which the latter is a relatively small subdivision.Krauss rightly saw, in his resonse to the brouhaha, that he was guilty of this same equivocation, writing of his respect for Peter Singer, for example. Yet, again and again it appears.

Perhaps some philosophizing is in order: we need to know what standard of value we have swallowed wholesale that enables us to conclude that a field of study must contribute directly to the hard sciences in order to be, as you put it, “relevant”.

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by John S. Wilkins

John S. Wilkins — Sun, 20 May 2012 10:15:18 +0000

Damn autocorrect! It doesn’t understand philosophy!

0 likes

Comment on Metaphysical determinism by Miles R.

Miles R. — Sun, 20 May 2012 09:56:45 +0000

“the Kantian nominal/phenomenal distinction” (parag. 3)

Were you thinking of the opposition of nominalism and realism while trying to refer to the distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal?

0 likes

Comment on Evolution quotes: Theories are not the whole of science by John The Plumber

John The Plumber — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:40:10 +0000

I only knew of The Way of All Flesh – thanks to your link, I find a whole a library – and this snippet.

“My notes always grow longer if I shorten them. I mean the process of compression makes them more pregnant and they breed new notes”

Which here seems nicely to fit the bill – of web sites and theories.

p.s. Hope the leg’s mending .

0 likes

Comment on Evolution quotes: Theories are not the whole of science by James Goetz

James Goetz — Wed, 16 May 2012 23:56:02 +0000

I don’t know if there are categorical boundaries between physics, chemistry, biophysics, biochemistry, and biology. Do you know if these categorical boundaries exist? If yes, can you define them?

Also, I suppose that the laws of nature that enable biological life have existed since the first Planck time.

0 likes