Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Here's the video where philosopher Peter Singer and physicist Lawrence Krauss discuss reason and truth (25:34-29:20): https://youtu.be/t8co-mbyJzQ?t=25m34s
Krauss says that he accepts only experiential truth, truth based on evidence. Singer brings up counterexamples of mathematical proof as well as laws of logic. Krauss then says that mathematical truths are empirical, because ultimately they're subject to testing.
Krauss has been highly critical of the importance of philosophy before and now he had a philosopher on the stage. I was very much interested in this discussion, however, it turned out a little less satisfying than I was hoping as they talked very little about philosophy vs science and the importance of philosophy.
What do you think about the quick discussion? Do you think that there is only experiential truth?
Krauss says that he accepts only experiential truth, truth based on evidence. Singer brings up counterexamples of mathematical proof as well as laws of logic. Krauss then says that mathematical truths are empirical, because ultimately they're subject to testing.
Krauss has been highly critical of the importance of philosophy before and now he had a philosopher on the stage. I was very much interested in this discussion, however, it turned out a little less satisfying than I was hoping as they talked very little about philosophy vs science and the importance of philosophy.
What do you think about the quick discussion? Do you think that there is only experiential truth?
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Neither are very bright, the discussing isn't very deep, and when it gets deep like the sister and brother sex both utterly fail, the condom could burst and thus they could have a child. It could inspire others to do the same, after only hearing half the tale.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Krauss is notoriously shallow, raised on one side of a fence such as to see that all things derived from that side. He reverse engineers what he sees so as to conjecture that his truth comes first and is more important.
But to get to the actual concern, the scientific method serves ONLY the purpose of verifying what has been philosophically hypothesized. Krauss unintentionally states that fact. Science never provides truth. It merely disqualifies what can be disproven. That is why science alone, as Krauss wishes it to be, would be seriously limited.
The sad truth for Krauss (would love to debate him myself) is that every spec of physics can be entirely derived without a single empirical experiment. The exact opposite of Krauss' position is the reality. He just hasn't met a good enough philosopher (probably avoids them).
But to get to the actual concern, the scientific method serves ONLY the purpose of verifying what has been philosophically hypothesized. Krauss unintentionally states that fact. Science never provides truth. It merely disqualifies what can be disproven. That is why science alone, as Krauss wishes it to be, would be seriously limited.
The sad truth for Krauss (would love to debate him myself) is that every spec of physics can be entirely derived without a single empirical experiment. The exact opposite of Krauss' position is the reality. He just hasn't met a good enough philosopher (probably avoids them).
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
I have issues with Singer for his Paris exemption ethical blind spot. If he can do that, what else can he overlook, I wonder?
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.Dalek Prime wrote:I have issues with Singer for his Paris exemption ethical blind spot. If he can do that, what else can he overlook, I wonder?
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.A_Seagull wrote:Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.Dalek Prime wrote:I have issues with Singer for his Paris exemption ethical blind spot. If he can do that, what else can he overlook, I wonder?
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that its laws and theories are probably true as opposed to beingJSS wrote:
to get to the actual concern the scientific method serves ONLY the purpose of verifying what has been philosophically
hypothesized. Krauss unintentionally states that fact. Science never provides truth. It merely disqualifies what can be
disproven. That is why science alone as Krauss wishes it to be would be seriously limited
definitely true. It uses evidence to determine the validity of any hypothesis. Definite truth by contrast is the remit of an
axiomatically deductive system of logic such as mathematics. And it uses proof to determine the validity of any equation
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
That seems a lesser view. Science provides a test to see if a hypothesis fails. If the hypothesis does not fail, the hypothesis might be true. Science cannot say that the hypothesis was true, only that it did not fail the test.surreptitious57 wrote:Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that its laws and theories are probably true as opposed to beingJSS wrote:
to get to the actual concern the scientific method serves ONLY the purpose of verifying what has been philosophically
hypothesized. Krauss unintentionally states that fact. Science never provides truth. It merely disqualifies what can be
disproven. That is why science alone as Krauss wishes it to be would be seriously limited
definitely true. It uses evidence to determine the validity of any hypothesis. Definite truth by contrast is the remit of an
axiomatically deductive system of logic such as mathematics. And it uses proof to determine the validity of any equation
Science is a type of lie detector .. which can be (and has been) circumvented.
Logic provides an occasional block for false positives (accepting a false theory) when it can arrange for a falsifiable demonstration. If a test logically cannot possibly yield a particular result unless the hypothesis is true, then science can say that the hypothesis is true. But that is the philosopher/logician in science.
Empirical demonstrations merely let you know that your guess of what was going to result was or wasn't wrong. It is up to a logician to determine if the reasoning behind your guess was necessarily true.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
But it can say that the hypothesis is probably true till it has been falsified or hasJSS wrote:
Science cannot say that the hypothesis was true only that it did not fail the test
been replaced by an alternative hypothesis that has more evidence to support it
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Why what???Dalek Prime wrote:Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.A_Seagull wrote:Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.Dalek Prime wrote:I have issues with Singer for his Paris exemption ethical blind spot. If he can do that, what else can he overlook, I wonder?
Why do you ask people to live up to their ethics?
If I can't what?? ... I tend not to preach anyway... I prefer to ask questions.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
Only intuitively, not scientifically. One cannot calculate the probability of something being true unless one knows how many alternatives there are and the possibility of each. They can never know that. All they can say is that "this is the best guess we are willing to go with" - not really any different than the other religions.surreptitious57 wrote:But it can say that the hypothesis is probably true till it has been falsified or hasJSS wrote:
Science cannot say that the hypothesis was true only that it did not fail the test
been replaced by an alternative hypothesis that has more evidence to support it
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
A_Seagull wrote:Why what??? Why do you ask?Dalek Prime wrote:Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.A_Seagull wrote: Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.
Why do you ask people to live up to their ethics? Why bother with ethics at all then, if they won't be put into practice?
If I can't what?? Live up to your ethics, of course. ... I tend not to preach anyway... I prefer to ask questions. I was referring to Peter Singer, not you.
Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth
I loved the Peter Singer's deep sigh when Lawrence Krauss raised free will - very appropriate :D. That horse has been so flogged it's just about skeletal and PS's reply was very well articulated. Otherwise the talk was clearly aimed at the general public rather than philosophy buffs.