Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

[The Pixie]

Our culture is awash in misinformation about practically everything but I understand your concerns. I don't expect any legislation to be forthcoming that in any way threatens evolution unless it really is worthy. What specific job titles outside a career in science education do you think one's position on evolution would interfere with? Not trying to invalidate your concerns, just curious.

Where does it stop? If fundamentalists get evolution out, what next? Radiometric dating? Astronomy? Geology?

The issue is whether we teach current science as science or we allow religion to pick and choose the bits they will allow?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

who said anything about faultless?

You're right-- that was a bit hyperbolic on my part; so allow me to rephrase:

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person has capabilities which they do not actually possess.

[shunyadragon]

You're right-- that was a bit hyperbolic on my part; so allow me to rephrase:

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person has capabilities which they do not actually possess.

I never came close to pretending anything about Hawking. The thread did not go beyond one awkward sound bite concerning his philosophy and world view, which was unfortunate. It cannot be expected that some one like Hawking will be particularly articulate in terms of philosophy. But a careful reading of Hawking will reveal enough on the aspects of his philosophy and world view that are adequate. You came in on a thread defending a theist was being critical of Hawking based one sound bite, with a religious bias. This is not a good way to start nor end a discussion on Hawking.

[shunyadragon]

You're right-- that was a bit hyperbolic on my part; so allow me to rephrase:

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person has capabilities which they do not actually possess.

Read the article, and go from there.

[David Hayward]

Lee Smolin seems pretty phiosophical.

[The Pixie]

You're right-- that was a bit hyperbolic on my part; so allow me to rephrase:

It is possible to have a complete respect and admiration for a particular person without pretending that person has capabilities which they do not actually possess.

I guess I must have missed it, but can you explain what you think is wrong with Hawking's philosophy?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I guess I must have missed it, but can you explain what you think is wrong with Hawking's philosophy?

He has a tendency to make assertions which are poorly founded, spurious, and vaguely defined. The quote about the universe creating itself is just one example. Another example would be this statement which he made in Black Holes and Baby Universes: "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics."

That claim is poorly formed, poorly supported, and betrays a thorough ignorance of Classical Theology. That's indicative of poor philosophy.

However, as I've mentioned several times, Hawking is not a philosopher. We have no reason to expect him to have competence in that field. It does not diminish his actual accomplishments or abilities, in the least.

[The Pixie]

He has a tendency to make assertions which are poorly founded, spurious, and vaguely defined. The quote about the universe creating itself is just one example. Another example would be this statement which he made in Black Holes and Baby Universes: "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics."

That claim is poorly formed, poorly supported, and betrays a thorough ignorance of Classical Theology. That's indicative of poor philosophy.

However, as I've mentioned several times, Hawking is not a philosopher. We have no reason to expect him to have competence in that field. It does not diminish his actual accomplishments or abilities, in the least.

But what does that actually mean? Just take the quote about the universe creating itself. How is it poorly founded? What does mean to be "badly founded"?

In what way is it spurious? Merely asserting it is is certainly bad philosophy. Tell us what makes it spurious.

What terms are vaguely defined? We have discussed "nothing"; it is true he uses the term differently to philosophers, are you saying he never states what he means by "nothing"? That would be bad physics as wel as bad philosophy if that is the case.

That claim is poorly formed, poorly supported, and betrays a thorough ignorance of Classical Theology. That's indicative of poor philosophy.

Can you give an example of a theory in cosmology that is well supported?

[shunyadragon]

Can you give an example of a theory in cosmology that is well supported?

My criteria for a well supported theory is the predictive value of the basis for the theory. In terms of Hawking and other physicists the prediction of 'Black Holes,' and the basic particles that make up matter represent successful predictions that support the basic theories of Quantum Mechanics, and the more fundamental Theory of Relativity.

Post#65 by David Howard gives a good reference concerning Lee Smolin and the scientific philosophies concerning the theories of Physics. GREAT REFERENCE!!!!

I consider Lee Smolin definitely more articulate in describing the philosophies behind the sciences of Cosmology and Phyisics. More on Lee Smolin to follow.

[The Pixie]

My criteria for a well supported theory is the predictive value of the basis for the theory. ...

I agree and I would trust a physicists to have one before a philosopher. So it is odd that Boxing Pythagoras says Hawking's hypothesis is bad philosophy because it is not well supported, which is why I asked for a hypothesis from cosmology that is well supported to see what good philosophy looks like in this context. It will be interesting to see if Boxing Pythagoras gives an example proposed by philosophers or physicists.

[shunyadragon]

I agree and I would trust a physicists to have one before a philosopher. So it is odd that Boxing Pythagoras says Hawking's hypothesis is bad philosophy because it is not well supported, which is why I asked for a hypothesis from cosmology that is well supported to see what good philosophy looks like in this context. It will be interesting to see if Boxing Pythagoras gives an example proposed by philosophers or physicists.

I do not consider Hawking's philosophy 'bad,' nor 'not well supported.' Hawking is simply not a philosopher nor articulate in expressing his philosophy.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But what does that actually mean? Just take the quote about the universe creating itself. How is it poorly founded? What does mean to be "badly founded"?

The quote about the universe creating itself is poor because, as I have said earlier in the thread, the words which Hawking uses in that statement mean precisely the opposite of the sentiment which he intends to convey. Hawking is attempting, by that statement, of giving laymen a description of the implications of his past-unbounded model of spacetime. However, as Hawking is well aware (and as he explicitly states elsewhere in his work) on such a model, the universe is not "created," at all. So, in order to describe a model in which the universe is not created at all, Hawking says that the universe "can and will create itself from nothing."

In what way is it spurious? Merely asserting it is is certainly bad philosophy. Tell us what makes it spurious.

The quote about the universe "creating itself" is not spurious, because it's not even plausible. However, the second example I gave is spurious. The claim that God "would have to act through the laws of physics" is plausible, but has not been demonstrated to be true and stands in direct opposition to the descriptions of God offered by Classical Theology. As Hawking makes this statement without ample support, it is spurious.

What terms are vaguely defined? We have discussed "nothing"; it is true he uses the term differently to philosophers, are you saying he never states what he means by "nothing"? That would be bad physics as wel as bad philosophy if that is the case.

In the case of the first statement, the word "create" is vague, as I have mentioned. In the case of the second quote, "God" is vague.

Can you give an example of a theory in cosmology that is well supported?

Sure! There are plenty. Special and General Relativity, Lamda-CDM, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Hubble's Law, et cetera, et cetera. Not sure how that's relevant, though, since my critique of Hawking's philosophical ability has nothing to do with cosmological physics.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I do not consider Hawking's philosophy 'bad,' nor 'not well supported.' Hawking is simply not a philosopher nor articulate in expressing his philosophy.

Not articulating one's propositions well is precisely what I mean when I say "bad philosophy" or claim that the proposition is "not well supported."

[The Pixie]

The quote about the universe creating itself is poor because, as I have said earlier in the thread, the words which Hawking uses in that statement mean precisely the opposite of the sentiment which he intends to convey. Hawking is attempting, by that statement, of giving laymen a description of the implications of his past-unbounded model of spacetime. However, as Hawking is well aware (and as he explicitly states elsewhere in his work) on such a model, the universe is not "created," at all. So, in order to describe a model in which the universe is not created at all, Hawking says that the universe "can and will create itself from nothing."

Ah, so it is not Hawking's position you are disparaging, rather it is that particular phrase. That is fair enough. but you said before:

"However, as I've mentioned several times, Hawking is not a philosopher. We have no reason to expect him to have competence in that field. It does not diminish his actual accomplishments or abilities, in the least."

You cannot say Hawking is offering a bad philosophy because he uses vague definitions if you also admit he explicitly states what he means elsewhere in his work.

The quote about the universe "creating itself" is not spurious, because it's not even plausible. However, the second example I gave is spurious. The claim that God "would have to act through the laws of physics" is plausible, but has not been demonstrated to be true and stands in direct opposition to the descriptions of God offered by Classical Theology. As Hawking makes this statement without ample support, it is spurious.

What is the support for the opposing theory, Classical Theology?

Do you think a philosophical claim should only be advanced if there is good support for it? Can you give a cosmological philosophy that does have "ample support"?

In the case of the first statement, the word "create" is vague, as I have mentioned. In the case of the second quote, "God" is vague.

So again it is just that phrase that is bad philosophy, and not Hawking's thinking in general right? As you said, Hawking has been explicit elsewhere.

Sure! There are plenty. Special and General Relativity, Lamda-CDM, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Hubble's Law, et cetera, et cetera. Not sure how that's relevant, though, since my critique of Hawking's philosophical ability has nothing to do with cosmological physics.

Those all sound like science to me, not philosophy. You said before:

"That claim is poorly formed, poorly supported, and betrays a thorough ignorance of Classical Theology. That's indicative of poor philosophy."

I am trying to understand the link from poorly supported to poor philosophy, so I was asking for a philosophy that is well supported. Hawking was discussing cosmology, so it seems reasonable to look at philosophies in that arena.

To be clear here, my suspicion is that there are none. I think Hawking is speculating about the beginning of the universe, albeit speculation based on our cutting edge understanding of physics, and as such I would guess his speculation is as well supported as any philosophers and rather better than most. However, I invite you to show otherwise.

[The Pixie]

Not articulating one's propositions well is precisely what I mean when I say "bad philosophy" ...

Ah, I see. In that case disregard my last post. I thought you meant his philosophy was bad when you said "bad philosophy", not that he did not express it well.