|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 8, 2011 17:32:01 GMT
Related to the blog post about the Templeton Prize going to Martin Rees is that there is an editorial about it on the Guardian. I won't spoil what the editor's stance is but I can "reveal" that the comments are typical. Here's the article from the news section of Nature. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 8, 2011 18:21:58 GMT
I loved Michael White's take on this in the Guardian:
British boffin gives right answer to the question "would you like £1million with no strings attached?"
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 8, 2011 23:08:12 GMT
I loved Michael White's take on this in the Guardian: British boffin gives right answer to the question "would you like £1million with no strings attached?" If you put it like that .....  |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 8, 2011 23:42:18 GMT
Related to the blog post about the Templeton Prize going to Martin Rees is that there is an editorial about it on the Guardian. I won't spoil what the editor's stance is but I can "reveal" that the comments are typical. Here's the article from the news section of Nature. I note that the Guardian described Rees as "a declared atheist", whereas I felt sure he had described himself very much as an agnostic. For example, in Just Six Numbers he writes: "The fundamental question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' remains the province of the philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, that 'whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent'." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2011 5:10:50 GMT
"The fundamental question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' remains the province of the philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, that 'whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent'." Reese has no business to tell philosophers which questions they should attempt to answer and which not. He's also late to the party, since philosophers have wrestled with that question, and as a result you have the Leibnizian cosmological argument. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 9, 2011 11:15:10 GMT
To me Rees is advising philosophers to employ greater humility and caution and less fatuousness,when considering such a question,and as such he should be commended.I am unaware of any conclusions that even scratch the surface of why there is something rather than nothing...
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 9, 2011 17:22:15 GMT
I think that Rees is not telling any philosopher what question they are allowed to address, but that he is suggesting that sometimes it is wiser for them to respond with Wittgenstein line. Not that that is a very agreeable suggestion, but I don't think he didn't say what you think he said. Just came across this quote by Martin Rees, I think you'll like this one better, Matko: "Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've know for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic." www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/martin-rees-we-shouldnt-attach-any-weight-to-what-hawking-says-about-god-2090421.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2011 18:47:57 GMT
I think that Rees is not telling any philosopher what question they are allowed to address, but that he is suggesting that sometimes it is wiser for them to respond with Wittgenstein line. Not that that is a very agreeable suggestion, but I don't think he didn't say what you think he said. I guess I overreacted. But I still don't know what he means with humility when it comes to philosophy. The days of ambitious philosophical systems are over. Why is there something rather than nothing is a subject fully under philosophy's domain, so if philosophers shouldn't be ready to try to give meaningful answers to it, then what is the next course of action according to Reese? Thank you for the other quote. Reese is spot on there. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 10, 2011 7:16:51 GMT
Rees explicitly states that the question,'remains the province of the philosophers',even giving an emminent philosopher's conclusion,this is plainly not telling philosophers which questions they should attempt to answer and which not.Given the scale and complexity of this question,Rees and Wittgenstein,seem wise indeed to me if I understand them correctly,in urging a more humble and cautious approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 10, 2011 12:58:19 GMT
Rees explicitly states that the question,'remains the province of the philosophers',even giving an emminent philosopher's conclusion,this is plainly not telling philosophers which questions they should attempt to answer and which not.Given the scale and complexity of this question,Rees and Wittgenstein,seem wise indeed to me if I understand them correctly,in urging a more humble and cautious approach. I can understand that that is a respectable approach, but I disagree with it. Scientists have certain standards of evidence required for valid conclusions (95% confidence limits, etc), but we, and they, make many of our most important decisions in life (both practical decisions on courses of action, careers, partners, children and more intangible decisions on worldview, politics, ethics and philosophy) on less rigorous grounds. There are good reasons for these differences. Science is factual and there is generally no imperative to arrive at an answer quickly. So rigorous standards are appropriate. But there are some cases where waiting for scientific certainty is detrimental. For example, in environmental management, waiting for scientific certainty may well allow irreversible effects, so managers may adopt a process of "adaptive management", where a plausible management process based on the best evidence available is adopted, and adjusted as the results of management are compared to predictions. I think a similar process is also better for life decisions, where, if we wait until we can resolve them precisely we will almost certainly still be waiting when we die. I therefore think it makes sense to go with what we have, and adjust as we go. Thus, while I have great respect for Rees, I think he has applied the wrong methodology to the metaphysical questions. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 11, 2011 7:30:00 GMT
Unklee of course your approach is respectable also,I just can't help thinking that whilst philosophy should cover questions like this it needs to be modest in its conclusions.It staggers me to think anyone would have more than 1% confidence in answering this the biggest question of all,I can see no imperative for speed here.We are after all only speculating,however eruditely (or not).
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 11, 2011 22:01:54 GMT
Unklee of course your approach is respectable also,I just can't help thinking that whilst philosophy should cover questions like this it needs to be modest in its conclusions.It staggers me to think anyone would have more than 1% confidence in answering this the biggest question of all,I can see no imperative for speed here.We are after all only speculating,however eruditely (or not). It depends on our aims, I think. If we were "indulging" in scientific or philosophical curiosity, then of course there would be no imperative for speed. Our lives wouldn't be changed all that much by the answer - as, for example, would be the case if we were discussing whether there is life in other galaxies. But we are discussing whether God exists, and not just an abstract removed deistic god, but a Abrahamic type monotheistic God who takes a great deal of interest in what we do and think. Allegedly, our response to this question and this God makes an enormous difference to our lives and our entrance into an afterlife. For me, the life of Jesus is the starting point, and it poses a question to all of us. History can give us clues to the answer, and then we ask these philosophical questions as a further set of clues, which (IMO) confirm my conclusions about Jesus. Thus I think the situation is more like being in a burning building and needing to find a way out, or up to the final question in a billion dollar TV game and needing to get the right answer, or asking the most beautiful girl in the world to marry me and desperately hoping she'll say yes. |
|
