Paul Davies - Why Philosophy of Science?

[@imammamunu9537]

Always insightful to listen to Paul Davies.

[@ricklanders]

Very interesting and illuminating discussion, esp. re time & the arrow of time, which indeed is a confusing distinction. I could listen to Paul Davies philosophize all day!

[@longcastle4863]

In you think about what Davies is saying, if time and space are emergent properties then so too is cause and effect -- suggesting the possibility at least that what emerges at one level can perhaps fade out or become less pronounced at another. As in, for example, what seems to be the emergent property of autonomy in biological entities -- suggesting a reduced influence upon them of the deterministic system from which they emerged...

[@RoxanneM-]

When I went to school, all scientific fields and programs, including medical school had to teach Epistemology. This was in all curriculums. As I learned in that class, Philosophy of Science is essential to learn how to think and to be aware of our thinking processes. Maybe this should be put back in all curriculums since, as I see it, especially in medicine, we seem to be repeating patterns of thinking and not really getting very innovative. You can’t solve a problem if we use the same thinking which created it.

[@andreasplosky8516]

Completely agree. Epistemology is fundamental.

[@nelson_rebel3907]

Isnt time itself just a human description of sequenced movements of matter and atoms? And not an actual physical property itself of the universe since movement and sequence of events one after another is the only thing we are actually describing with time as a parameter

[@TheTroofSayer]

3 very simple reasons why philosophy is important. The purpose of science is knowledge, the purpose of engineering is to apply said knowledge. Together, these two branches require commitment and informed (credentialed) investment. Investments, like the LHC, can be expensive. Absent the priority to invest, on the other hand, the role of philosophy is principally to assess whether the right questions are being asked (as Paul Davies suggests at 2:50 wrt the nature of time). Are the right questions being asked in the life sciences? Mainstream biology has been heavily invested in the physicalist, bottom-up narrative. There is little justification for this, for example, from the perspective of entropy. There *is* also a top-down direction of causation that engages with the bottom-up, best understood in the semiotic context of "knowing how to be". The young of many species learn first from their parents, and later from their communities, colonies and ecosystems. Simpler organisms also have to "know how to be" but obtain their cues for being from their bodily predispositions - their bodies engaging with their ecosystems - "informing" them of their priorities. Does this same rationale extend to matter? I suspect it does, once you factor in cube-root scaling to subatomic levels. This top-down direction of causation deserves to be tested, but will never be while investment in the one-way, bottom-up physicalist narrative reigns supreme. Our physicalist-biology travesty has transpired because the priority to credentialize, invest and compete has overridden philosophy's domain, the need to question. With its priority to question, philosophy is an important branch of the science of "knowing how to be" and we neglect it at our peril.

[@MrJPI]

Paul Davies in one of the scientist I value a lot. He is very professional an also very humane, he doesn't DECLARE how things are or how we should think, he values the thoughts of other people even those that are not what we call real scientists.

[@stephenzhao5809]

4:54 maybe as whichiswhat I favor is that both space and time will turn out to be emergent concepts that is that the world at a more fundamental level will be built out of something else we know not what though there's plenty of speculative stuff out there

[@mark.J6708]

Holy cow what a great interview, a definite must watch again. Seems obvious that laws are both emergent and fundamental along side our universe does it not? Does it sound absurd to say laws existed, that we continue to discover and may seem more wiggly than just concrete, to say that laws existed before our universe? Does such an idea say that creation itself is bound by laws discovered by humans. Tiny Rock amongst billions and billions what?

[@treasurepoem]

Great conversation as usual. It looks like I'm going to have to try and get used to the new numerous camera movements or have they always been like this and I'm just now noticing them?

[@mark.J6708]

Could time be an arrow of time and a flow of time? An aspect of time that flows like water, water that flows and swirls sometime back upon itself or possibly even a concept of salmon flowing up river? But doing so does nothing to the flow of time along its arrow.. what happens or can it happen like some rivers do in floods, rivers as a whole flowing backwards before dumping back into the sea? Does some water of time just sit and hardly move like water in swamps? Have philosophers pondered such things before?

[@kichigan1]

Critical Thinking is the beginning of the Philosophy of Science. It not only helps us all in identifying fallacies, but also in defining terminology and understanding what's strong logical argument. Also, Philosophy of Science can help identify what's science and what's belief or ideology, and whether a thinking is permeated with ideology.

[@irfanmehmud63]

Dear Robert Kuhn, I have been watching your videos for almost 3 years. I think you have never touched these subjects: 1) Alternative/Non-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution in Biology 2) The concept of Reincarnation 3) Prophetic revelations as a source of knowledge Or I have missed them?

[@tomjackson7755]

He is trying to get closer to truth that is why he doesn't cover christian fantasy

[@dongshengdi773]

@@tomjackson7755 They are not Christian fantasies. In fact, Robert has interviewed many Catholic priests and devout Christians on his show. If you understand science, it is very much a fantasy as well . All are subjective interpretations by a majority, the scientific consensus. science is ever-changing and constantly open to re-interpretation. What's confirmed as "scientific truth" today can easily be marked as "scientifically disproved" tomorrow. New discoveries can render the information in this post obsolete at any time. The point is We don't know what is Ultimate Reality. Brain in a Vat , Fish in a Bowl . We only use science for practical purposes. It doesn't mean they are absolute truths

[@tomjackson7755]

@@dongshengdi773 With those 3 things I would bet that they are christain fantasies that he is listing. I am well aware that he has had many christians on this show. He doesn't try to hide that they are talking about christian fantasies like this guy did. "Ultimate Reality" and "absolute truths" those are some nice philosophic buzzwords. Yes, we only use science for practical purposes. We also only use philosophy to try to shoehorn fantasies into existence and it never works.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

If time and space are emergent as Paul Davies suggests physicists are going to have fun for a long time trying to figure out what is fundamental.

[@chicobento2812]

We have been.. having fun for a long time.

[@mintakan003]

One topic I hope CTT would address someday, is the "arrow of time" (misnomer?). This corresponds to (generally) increasing entropy. But this seems correlative to me, rather than getting to the essence. It may have something to do with the Big Bang, and the phenomenology of what is observed afterwards. But the reason I say *generally* (but not always) correlative, is because one can have local areas of decreasing entropy, such as biological life. One doesn't say time flows backwards (locally), in such a case. So entropy seems incidental. The closest account that gets to the essence of time, and in a precise manner, is Relativity. This includes local reference frames. But this is one version of time. There is also the subjective version, as Paul Davies mentioned. All these concepts could use clarification.

[@DavidElstob73]

Regarding entropy, I think that it's the reason we have creativity. Obviously there's the biological aspect of the human brain/body, but the randomness of ideas is surely down to entropy. We are all made of atoms, after all. The same thing can be said for good and evil. It's not really anybody's fault which side of the equation their genetics and upbringing has given them.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

CTT, could you interview Deirdre Carabine, concering Negative Theology and here book, 'The Unknown God'.

[@longcastle4863]

It's really too bad Kant used such technical language to express his ideas, often making his books, not just a chore to understand, but to quote a p!ssed off Nietzsche, _"dry as dust"_ as well. I say this because, imo, Kant's ideas could very much still hold value even now for scientists -- especially, I think, in the field of physics.

[@longcastle4863]

@@nelsonpinheiro718 Nice nice very nice. Seriously.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might quantum mechanics be time (future / present / past) slicing space in block universe?

[@kricketflyd111]

Using the tesseract cube as an example can people see the cube within and is that the fourth dimension?

[@longcastle4863]

If physicists bothered to read philosophy they would understand that every model they or anyone else comes up with about how some aspect of the Universe works is and always will be only an approximation -- and that the ideal of a _theory of everything,_ therefore, is a theoretical impossibility.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Very true. They dont understand relativity -- it's ignorance.

[@bitkurd]

Reality escapes all concepts 😅

[@tonyatkinson2210]

I disagree . Most scientists fully understand that all scientific theories are provisional . If they didn’t believe they they would stop trying to prove each others theories wrong . As for a theory of everything . There is no reason why this is impossible - but like all theories it will stand or fall on whether it has predictive value . It will remain the best theory of everything until a better theory - with better predictions comes along . This is what happened with newton . His theory of gravity superseded by einsteins . - better predictions . Einstein still remains provisional .

[@longcastle4863]

@@tonyatkinson2210 Did you mean to say agree? Because it sounds like you meant to say agree

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@longcastle4863 I disagree . A theory of everything isn’t an impossibility . Esp if it’s useful at predicting reality

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I noticed we should reject errors and myths in the description, I used to think the word myth always meant a story wasn't true but I've found that very often they are. The description also mentioned the scientific method which I think is wonderful to use but we shouldn't worship it by sticking fingers in our ears and shouting I can't hear you. 🤶

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

time turns the pages / slices of space in block universe?

[@notanemoprog]

These 7 minutes 42 seconds flew by like crazy

[@PlainsPup]

Why do people speak of science and philosophy as two different things? Isn’t science really just Aristotle’s natural philosophy?

[@PlainsPup]

@skygardener7849 Yes, but fundamentally isn’t science still just philosophy, in which logic is applied using empirical methods and quantitative data?

[@cyborg-zl2mc]

You can say that science is a specialized area of philosophy just like most other areas of study that were part of philosophy became specialized.

[@PlainsPup]

@@cyborg-zl2mc That’s how I see it, yes: epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, ethics, and science.

[@bobcabot]

ja true: scientist did or do laugh about many Philosophers all day and even Philosophers did laugh about Philosophers ( infamous example: Schopenhauer on Hegel - and i did ) nothing curious here, but very recently the new approach on Information did shake a bit the world of Physics in favour of Hegel...

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

He seems a lot more open minded than the guy yesterday. He has a lot of very interesting things to say. I thought it was very interesting when he said the laws of physics might possibly change with the state of the world. It makes me wonder if he agrees imagination is more important than knowledge. I have noticed that some people that watch science videos are not very receptive to philosophers. 🙏

[@b.g.5869]

Are you under the impression that these videos are produced on a daily basis? The "guy from yesterday" was a clip from an interview with Michael Shermer from over ten years ago. "Today's clip" is obviously not new either, though it's more recent than 'yesterday's'.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

@@b.g.5869 I heard the guy "yesterday" was from 20 years ago. I'm hoping he's changed his mind about some things since then or at least opened it. 🙏

[@b.g.5869]

@@imaginaryuniverse632 What specifically did he say that you disagree with and why?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

@@b.g.5869 My reasoning is in the comments of the video. 🙏

[@b.g.5869]

@@imaginaryuniverse632 I don't know where the comments in the other video are. Why can't you just tell me what you disagreed with and why? Did you forget what you disagreed with and why you disagreed with it 🤔?

[@bobbabai]

I appreciate philosophy because it's where ideas can come from. But ideas aren't truth. I don't appreciate when philosophy claims truth in the face of contradicting evidence. People love philosophical ideas without a basis of evidence because it means they don't have to look for evidence in order to tell a story they like. I do appreciate how philosophy challenges assumptions that are made by science.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

Truth is also an idea. Evidence based science is called verificationism in philosophy of Science. However, the verification principle itself presents many problems: What is it and how shall it be expressed? It is not analytic because it cannot be derived from logic. But it is not empirical either, because it cannot be empirically discovered or verified. So what is it? If a strict adherence to the verification principle is maintained, then the verification principle itself is meaningless nonsense. That conclusion won't do, however, because the verification principle is meaningful. So, again, what is it? The correct answer is that it is, in fact, a metaphysical statement. But if it is both meaningful and metaphysical, this means that at least some metaphysical statements are meaningful, and that refutes the verification principle. In other words, investigation of the verification principle serves to refute that principle itself.

[@Self-Duality]

Philosophically-unoriented science quickly becomes trivial, self-limiting, or destructive.

[@longcastle4863]

I value philosophy, but aren't you kind of overstating it? Plenty of valuable knowledge has been gained by scientists who were not philosophically inclined.

[@bobbabai]

"...the heart of the matter of mind and consciousness..." This guy claims to know what that is, that philosophers are on the right track. That philosophers will lead science on the path to the next great areas of investigation. I don't think that's an assumption one should make. But I am all for philosophers coming up with new ideas. They just need to be very careful when claiming truth.

[@longcastle4863]

Philosophers are pretty much the last people these days to claim anything as _"truth"._ They're much more apt to say there's no such thing as truth, just useful ideas.

[@bobbabai]

@@longcastle4863 that seems really contradictory

[@longcastle4863]

@@bobbabai Well, we know, for example, that Newton's theory of gravity is not a hundred percent true, yet it is very useful; is able to account for a lot of the effects of gravity we see in the world and gets us to the Moon and Mars and Pluto etc. And already, I think, scientists are starting to recognize that Einstein's model of gravity is not a hundred percent true either, but accounts for even more of the effects of gravity then Newton's model and gives us GPS etc. And this, I believe most philosophers would say, is the same with all our models of Reality.

[@bobbabai]

@@longcastle4863 So what you're saying is: science keeps finding better answers. Philosophy:

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@bobbabai philosophers, concerning the Truth will say nothing, as silence is the best method as it is unmixed with thought and mind -- everything in your head is not the knowledge of the divine or principles, or acknowledgement of the ungenerate, rather the effects and multiplicity and accidents. You only know what things are from their attributes. The very mind is an already lower knowledge than what really is. Silence really is the closest to Truth. Acknowledged by the Greeks and Indians.

[@whitefiddle]

Science is "rough-and-ready," by which they mean "science is sloppy as Hell."

[@DavidElstob73]

Science might be sloppy collectively, generally speaking, but there are still some amazing achievements all round. How else did they get the JWS telescope to the Lagrange point?

[@whitefiddle]

@@DavidElstob73 Thanks for that deep thought and trenchant argument. That ranks right up there with Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[@chrisgale5634]

Still a much better option than superstitious gobbledegook...

[@whitefiddle]

@@chrisgale5634 So all philosophy is "superstitious gobbledegook", is it? Following THAT logic, you won't object to my equating science with Dr. Mengele. Sheesh you people are cerebrally challenged.

[@dongshengdi773]

@@DavidElstob73 Faith is at the very core of science. The original meaning of science was philosophy of nature. They were used interchangeably during the Islamic Golden Age. Religion is just a philosophy of whoever the founder is. Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddha. Christianity is the philosophy of Jesus Christ. So forth and so on. And philosophy is considered a science because it uses logic. Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can philosophy help theoretical science how to look at nature?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

where space has epistemological knowledge, time could have ontological experience?

[@mark.J6708]

Key phrase: benefited from early exposure to philosophy. I would argue that early on future scientists should study philosophy and Sherlock Holmes as well as science fiction, and continue to do so. Philosophy from the past has helped a lot, but future philosophy is as important, if not more so, than future science. Like it or not, philosophy is tied to moral concepts, future science and today's science must, absolutely must, be tied to philosophy of what humankind is reaching for. Are we doing something just because we can? Are we doing things that help us now and in the future become more than we are today? Just the recent history (vile and immoral examples abound so much it is not worth even listing any, if you can find none or deny the existence of such things you are an ostrich, and a idjit of one as well) shows that scientific exploration without morals leads to horrific outcomes and despicable uses. No, not just talking about W2 or recent history either, if you do not see it alive and well in today's world you are CHOOSING not to. Designer babies and cloning, qnd BioWeapons .........

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Interesting you mention Sherlock . A fallacy has been named after him based on his fallacious reasoning “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

[@tonyatkinson2210]

What’s wrong with designer babies ? Wouldn’t you want a child in which inherited genetic diseases are avoided ? Also - while science can be used for evil , it can also be used for good : antibiotics, vaccines , sewage systems , transport etc If it wasn’t for science we’d all still be dying in our 30’s from tooth decay and abscesses

[@mark.J6708]

@@tonyatkinson2210 much less interested in that than the idea of observation and linking things together. When you eliminate all possibilities it may not provide the answer, it may just prove there are more possibilities that you are not considering? There are many, many reasons to read Sherlock Holmes, not the least of which is to not be dismissive of things off the cuff. Same reason one should look at ochams razor.. it is right and not right.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@mark.J6708 yes. When you eliminate all known possibilities then you are left with unknown possibilities. But at that point you have no way of evaluating which unknown possibilities are true and which aren’t . Holmes’s argued that at the point we must accept the only remaining candidate explanation , even if it’s an improbable explanation . He was wrong . The honest answer at that point is “we don’t know “ .

[@aarrvindmbd1974]

Consciousness, psychology, free will mind and soul,moral and ethics and its origin ,social systems and emergence of culture ,destiny the nature of time ,intelligent design and so on may not be understood by science . Science itself is the outcome of the rational doubt then the rational speculation which is quite philosophy and then working on the true science and Maths on it to prove or Discover, so it is very stupid who says that the philosophy has nothing to do with science .A highly rational philosophy is part of the science because science is unable to understand those aspects.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Intelligent design certainly . I agree entirely they ID is in no way akin to science . It’s not a science and it doesn’t belong in a science classroom .

[@patientson]

Science, if implemented, on a personally level is equivalent to practical mysticism of religious text. Philosophers are constant pastors who use grammar alone to beautify what they will never implement on a practical level. Both Science and Philosophers are theorist with no practical experience of metaphysical science. If they were excellent students of the living, we would find many christ-like and excellent native doctors will change the people to know life. Every creation from that of the greater light to the animals and land we all stand on will be respected. There wont be greedy, ignorant and wicked premise posed as humane, spiritual and caring entities in societies.

[@Life_42]

0:15 LOL

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

Philosophy gives rise to logic and that gives rise to maths

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Tell that Russell and Frege

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Time’s past so quickly, until we’re looking at it , then time’s starts to move’s slowly, and acting like a bacteria and coping itself! Of course there’s an example’s why !

[@r2c3]

5:20 why not, let's strip the sweetness from the candy bars and just deal with the units instead 🤔

[@osos-js3jj]

Am I the only one that understood and/or knows that, he is a direct advisor to Xi regarding, how Americans think... amongst other things?

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

how could we define "alive without breathing" that happening in our mother womb...and these realm(alive without breathing) will happen again in our "after life realm"

[@Robinson8491]

Going Leibnizian like Smolin

[@Ed-quadF]

If the laws of physics are immutable and timeless well...that's kinda like saying, God. So I'm with Paul on rethinking that idea.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe quantum time evolves into classic space?

[@jessebryant9233]

You can't do science without philosophy. Too bad so few scientists are good philosophers!

[@tomjackson7755]

Wrong as usual. What philosophy is needed to boil water?

[@waerlogauk]

The philosophical approach is good, possibly essential to finding the correct questions but a bad way to find the correct answers.

[@Quwucuqin]

I don't think so they both revolves around truth but Philosophy would stop cause of the philosophers doesn't do a detail research as scientists.

[@Quwucuqin]

Bro looks like Einstein

[@mikel4879]

Why philosophy of science? It is very simple: if you give food to your mouth, it must talk!😂🤣😂

Earth is greater than science. Science is just a subject. Earth goes beyond our ideas.

[@chrisgale5634]

That's just new age waffle.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Very nicely put.

@@chrisgale5634 You know "science" is not reality, right? We use science to experiment with reality. Science is a subject, not reality. Evidence can be about reality, but evidence can never "be" reality. Scientists often have success. But, scientists often fail. You do know that, right?

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

Well Space, and time are wrong, and particle physics is also wrong, so science, and philosophy are on equally wrong grounds so far. The area of least resistance in loop/quantum gravity is mistaken for time, and gravity spinning inside holes is mistaken for particles.

[@osos-js3jj]

He being,Not Davies.

[@missh1774]

mm cool

[@bobcabot]

s! sry...

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Paul lacks Philosophy standard. He describes evolution Phich events but declines shows it in Philosophy proceedings. Mr. Paul philosophy of Science needs show up though doubt and questions in phich reality.

[@aminomar7890]

Not humans! they have no human characteristics!Unbelievable!