Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence
We'll need a context of course. And that's basically what we do at the new forum I was recently invited to join. We explore the "for all practical purposes" implications of human interactions given insightful speculations from both philosophers and scientists. What are the limitations of logic and epistemology? What are the limitations of the scientific method? How might God and religion be factored in?Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space.
So, is this "generally true"? And what of that crucial distinction between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy? The role the scientific method either can or cannot play in regard to conflicting value judgments. And above all, what beliefs can actually be demonstrated to be true for all rational men and women?More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics. In earlier times – Hawking conceded – philosophers not only tried to keep up but sometimes made significant scientific contributions of their own. However they were now, in so far as they had any influence at all, just an obstacle to progress through their endless going-on about the same old issues of truth, knowledge, the problem of induction, and so forth.
"The philosophy of science is a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge." UC, BerkeleyHad philosophers just paid a bit more attention to the scientific literature they would have gathered that these were no longer live issues for anyone remotely au fait with the latest thinking. Then their options would be either to shut up shop and cease the charade called ‘philosophy of science’ or else to carry on and invite further ridicule for their head-in-the-sand attitude.
My own main interest here revolves around "I" at the existential juncture encompassing identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Logic and scientific knowledge there. And, in my view, less regarding what we can know and more regarding what we may not ever be able to grasp in a No God universe.