Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Risto
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:59 am

Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by Risto » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:02 pm

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?

HexHammer
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by HexHammer » Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:46 pm

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.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by JSS » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:15 pm

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). 8)

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4198
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:00 pm

I have issues with Singer for his Paris exemption ethical blind spot. If he can do that, what else can he overlook, I wonder?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by A_Seagull » Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:08 am

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?
Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4198
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:06 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
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?
Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.
Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:57 pm

JSS 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
Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that its laws and theories are probably true as opposed to being
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

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by JSS » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:08 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
JSS 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
Science is primarily an inductive discipline which means that its laws and theories are probably true as opposed to being
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
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.

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.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:30 pm

JSS wrote:
Science cannot say that the hypothesis was true only that it did not fail the test
But it can say that the hypothesis is probably true till it has been falsified or has
been replaced by an alternative hypothesis that has more evidence to support it

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by A_Seagull » Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:21 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
A_Seagull wrote:
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?
Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.
Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.
Why what???

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.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by JSS » Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:37 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
JSS wrote:
Science cannot say that the hypothesis was true only that it did not fail the test
But it can say that the hypothesis is probably true till it has been falsified or has
been replaced by an alternative hypothesis that has more evidence to support it
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.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4198
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by Dalek Prime » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:12 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
A_Seagull wrote: Is it possible to have ethical snobbery without hypocrisy? I doubt it.
Why? Because I ask people to live up to their ethics? If you can't, you best not preach them.
Why what??? Why do you ask?

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.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2653
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Philosopher & Physicist Discussing Truth

Post by Greta » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:16 am

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests