Hilary Putnam on Non-Scientific Knowledge (1998)

  Рет қаралды 23,962

Philosophy Overdose

Philosophy Overdose

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 53
@chadbrockman4791
@chadbrockman4791 2 жыл бұрын
He was as good at explaining his thinking as anyone I've every watched give a talk, with some competition. It's wonderful to have access to lectures like this.
@naftalibendavid
@naftalibendavid 11 ай бұрын
Wow! I think I got about 15% of that and I will probably never know the percentage for sure. There’s an admirable flexibility about the beginning. I realize that I don’t have an adequate foundation, but what an inspiring motivation for getting started.
@lewreed1871
@lewreed1871 Жыл бұрын
This gave me an actual, physical buzz. Thanks!
@fearitselfpinball8912
@fearitselfpinball8912 2 жыл бұрын
What a conclusion...
@randalltilander6684
@randalltilander6684 2 жыл бұрын
Is this lecture published anywhere?
@221Dw
@221Dw 2 жыл бұрын
KZbin
@gerardo49078
@gerardo49078 2 жыл бұрын
here
@jakecarlo9950
@jakecarlo9950 2 жыл бұрын
Very good, thank you.
@alwaysgreatusa223
@alwaysgreatusa223 Жыл бұрын
It should be obvious that science is only a means for attaining specific kinds of empirical knowledge, and not identical with knowledge itself -- as knowledge in general is more fundamental and has a wider-scope than that attained by the sciences.
@blairhakamies4132
@blairhakamies4132 2 жыл бұрын
🌹
@jackoneill8654
@jackoneill8654 2 жыл бұрын
OD, yeah
@Bill-ou7zp
@Bill-ou7zp 7 ай бұрын
That’s crazy that Popper called natural selection metaphysics lol
@starfishsystems
@starfishsystems 2 жыл бұрын
This seems at first glance to be a thoroughly uninteresting perspective on epistemology. Of course as subjective experiencers, we have concerns outside of what can be objectively investigated. If we were some other, perhaps very different species, we would certainly have different concerns. However we might formulate them, our values would likewise be different. This is entirely to be expected. But, for the moment, it's not very interesting. Once we reach the point of having another intelligent species to converse with, we can compare notes on these matters, and that should prove very interesting indeed. But at the moment, it's a little like asking what are the optimal conditions for life in the universe, when the only available instance is this planet.
@kaffeephilosophy
@kaffeephilosophy Жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣
@zacoolm
@zacoolm 2 жыл бұрын
“No clear demarcation between scientific and non-scientific knowledge” …music to the ruling elites ears
@MycoWizard
@MycoWizard 2 жыл бұрын
what?
@pure_the0ry
@pure_the0ry 2 жыл бұрын
That is the dumbest thing I've read in a while. The ruling elite's main method of domination is to establish a realm of knowledge inaccessible to the common person; "working class people just can't understand basic economics, homosexuals are mentally diseased, etc." Whether it's a high priest or an economist, rigid scientism begets a ruling elite every time; those with the scientific knowledge.
@Kingfish179
@Kingfish179 11 ай бұрын
Brain dead take
@garetcrossman6626
@garetcrossman6626 10 ай бұрын
The opposite would be the case. The elites want a strong demarcation between the two to the extent that science has absolute authority, since elites effectively own the mainstream media platforms, educational institutions, the science journals, and all the major, recognised appurtenances of science. Scientistic ideology serves the elites no end.
@Booer
@Booer 2 жыл бұрын
damnnn, looks like poppers demarcation was true after all...you were just wrong Putnam about his recanting. i dont even know poppers work like that dawggg to know hes wackado - this is the first thing ive heard about popper that makes sense
@deanodebo
@deanodebo 2 жыл бұрын
Note the strong value judgment that any definition of science MUST include the theory of evolution. Talk about metaphysical assumptions. That’s not science!
@phylwx
@phylwx 2 жыл бұрын
Thats one in a bunch of examples of shortcommings to popper's falsifiability he mentions. Just another addendum to the old "falsifiability can't be falsified". Calm down and think about it.
@deanodebo
@deanodebo 2 жыл бұрын
@@phylwx That’s quite different. If we agree that scientific theories should be falsifiable, we can acknowledge that THAT is a metaphysical value judgment and move forward with the business of science. On the other hand, to make exception for evolution is to throw out the baby with the bath water Basically, they’re saying evolution is prior to the scientific method. Taking it as a priori. Well, then it’s clearly not science. It’s faith, indeed!
@phylwx
@phylwx 2 жыл бұрын
@@deanodebo "If you can't make experiments, make observations". Its methodologically valid and years light ahead than liberal economy.
@deanodebo
@deanodebo 2 жыл бұрын
@@phylwx Has anyone observed macro-evolution?
@phylwx
@phylwx 2 жыл бұрын
@@deanodebo As much as the higgs-boson field. The invisible hand of the market, tho? You're barking at the wrong tree.
@djl8710
@djl8710 2 жыл бұрын
Lost me at around 30 minutes. How may names dropped is too many? He is truly smelling his own farts.
@dionysianapollomarx
@dionysianapollomarx 2 жыл бұрын
Unnecessary. He's talking to an audience who have read or knows what the names of these people have said. Laypersons will only smell farts. Some smell dots connected from what is in any list of undergraduate (and graduate) readings. These names are relevant, but you should've been paying attention to the arguments, then again you'd need to read any reading list to know the simple definitions of the occasional jargon. This small effort should be achievable to a layperson before you "smell farts."
@tabishshibli4067
@tabishshibli4067 2 жыл бұрын
@@dionysianapollomarx agreed but this is a man who thinks the orbit of mercury is a confirmation of SR. Reminds me of Bergson a lot.
@Xcalator35
@Xcalator35 2 жыл бұрын
@@tabishshibli4067 HP knew a LOT of physics! His remak was not that the orbit of mercury confirms Special Relativity but that Whitehead's theory was empirically equivalent to (i.e., had more or less the same empirical content) General Relativity (not Special Relativity btw). Mercury perhelion precesion was implied by both theories.
@tabishshibli4067
@tabishshibli4067 2 жыл бұрын
@@Xcalator35 okay thanks. Will listen over again. I MOST CERTAINLY MISSED SOMETHING.
@Rudi361
@Rudi361 2 жыл бұрын
@@Xcalator35 How do you know Putnam knew a lot of physics?
Anti-Realism - Searle & Putnam
7:29
Philosophy Overdose
Рет қаралды 14 М.
Hilary Putnam on the Philosophy of Science (1977)
43:57
mehranshargh
Рет қаралды 84 М.
Quilt Challenge, No Skills, Just Luck#Funnyfamily #Partygames #Funny
00:32
Family Games Media
Рет қаралды 55 МЛН
Tuna 🍣 ​⁠@patrickzeinali ​⁠@ChefRush
00:48
albert_cancook
Рет қаралды 148 МЛН
“Don’t stop the chances.”
00:44
ISSEI / いっせい
Рет қаралды 62 МЛН
Hilary Putnam and Alvin Plantinga - The God Problem
50:31
David Balcarras
Рет қаралды 6 М.
Hilary Putnam Interview - Mind, Truth & Science (1998)
1:28:29
Philosophy Overdose
Рет қаралды 19 М.
Pragmatism & Truth - Rorty, Putnam, & Conant (2002)
48:50
Philosophy Overdose
Рет қаралды 28 М.
The Fact/Value Dichotomy & its Critics - Hilary Putnam (2007)
47:22
Philosophy Overdose
Рет қаралды 8 М.
The Fact/Value Dichotomy and its critics - Hilary Putnam
49:24
Steven Pinker - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews
1:08:14
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
Рет қаралды 453 М.
Heidegger: Being and Time
44:53
Michael Sugrue
Рет қаралды 814 М.
Noam Chomsky on Decoding the Human Mind & Neural Nets
58:27
Eye on AI
Рет қаралды 56 М.
Putnam on Pragmatism & its Founders
1:04:23
Harvard Philosophy Department
Рет қаралды 6 М.