Dogmas, science, assumptions and the need for Philosophy!

640px-Carlo_Rovelli_crop1-244x300

Horgan: What’s your opinion of the recent philosophy-bashing by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Rovelli: Seriously: I think they are stupid in this. I have admiration for them in other things, but here they have gone really wrong. Look: Einstein, Heisenberg, Newton, Bohr…. and many many others of the greatest scientists of all times, much greater than the names you mention, of course, read philosophy, learned from philosophy, and could have never done the great science they did without the input they got from philosophy, as they claimed repeatedly. You see: the scientists that talk philosophy down are simply superficial: they have a philosophy (usually some ill-digested mixture of Popper and Kuhn) and think that this is the “true” philosophy, and do not realize that this has limitations.

Here is an example: theoretical physics has not done great in the last decades. Why? Well, one of the reasons, I think, is that it got trapped in a wrong philosophy: the idea that you can make progress by guessing new theory and disregarding the qualitative content of previous theories. This is the physics of the “why not?” Why not studying this theory, or the other? Why not another dimension, another field, another universe? Science has never advanced in this manner in the past. Science does not advance by guessing. It advances by new data or by a deep investigation of the content and the apparent contradictions of previous empirically successful theories. Quite remarkably, the best piece of physics done by the three people you mention is Hawking’s black-hole radiation, which is exactly this. But most of current theoretical physics is not of this sort. Why? Largely because of the philosophical superficiality of the current bunch of scientists. (1)

READ ALSO:  I believe in science! What?!?

Couldn’t say it more eloquently

Modern science is a science with no compass. Or even worse to be exact: A science which does not accept it has a compass EVEN THOUGH it has one!

A science which has specific philosophical dogmas as foundations (e.g. materialism, atheism, nihilism) but does not even acknowledge it!

Be aware of the hidden assumptions on which you base your thought.

They are there. No matter how hard you try not to accept it.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments (

)

  1. magnocrat

    We have neuroscientists like Sam Harris who claims that the self along with free will is an illusion.
    He says he has proof the brain makes decisions many seconds before we decide. Not only that but the decision is predetermined.
    All quite frightening if it is true.
    I have no training or special skills, I’m just an interested skeptic.

    1. skakos

      All these “evidence” and yet we do feel and know that WE decide. Who makes those electrons move in our brain “before” we decide? When is the decision actually made? Thinking without assumptions is truly difficult…

      1. magnocrat

        The human mind seeks a purpose in everything. Scientists rely on fixed laws which govern behaviour even they cannot bear chaos. Inspite of science and religion much that happens seems to have no rhyme or reason.

      2. skakos

        “Seems” based on what? Do you believe we are just products of chaos? Is order just an illusion when we see it?

%d bloggers like this: