TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is Philosophy dead?

Was it buried beneath pragmatic scientific discourse? Stabbed through the heart by the stake of probability. Is there any room for conjecture in the button down business of modern scientific thought? In the world of proof, what is the point of pondering?

I sometimes chuckle and think philosophers and theologians are off in a corner somewhere playing chess, while the scientific community is haphazardly reinventing our reality.

Is there truth in the evident, or are we chasing our own tail?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 30 2013: At first glance I thought it would be important to define modern science. I suppose simply quantifying publications would allow us to speak to specifics - albeit generally. What part does philosophy play in publications? I should think a large part. Quite simply put, can you have science without philosophy? Or more directly - can a proof ever really be proven? That's a bit circular. I think the real problem is consumption. Most people don't think abstractly or theoretically. It's easier to consume publications - that way we accept not knowing everything. This also helps us to "move forward". It's important to consider the role education plays. One does not learn to think philosophically, but we must learn to think in terms of modern science.

    my 2ยข
    • Oct 2 2013: First, in science, there is no such thing as "a proof" in the mathematical sense. In science, there is only "failure to reject the null hypothesis" (frequentist) or "support for the hypothesis at a level of X" (Bayesian), or some mixture, but never proof. It is always a matter of "It fits for now, more more than less, for the moment."
      • Oct 2 2013: I'm not sure that physics would be very valuable without mathematics. I think science is normally regarded as a method to obtain knowledge. I'm sure that in a specific context that statement makes sense to you.
        • Oct 3 2013: I did not say that physics should not use mathematics. I said that mathematical "proof" is not valid to apply to the sciences, since the sciences are ultimately based on empirical evidence. The closest that one can get is a "prediction" based on logical application of current theory. But this is still not "proof". It still needs to be tested by measurement, and no measurement is 100% infallible, thus, "proof" cannot be attained in the sciences. What physics have you done, professionally? I'd love to see your papers.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.