Apparently Stephen Hawking not only thinks that spontaneous creation from nothingness is somehow a scientific concept: he also claims that "philosophy is dead" (and as I point out, this is hardly surprising given the core anti-intellectualism lurking behind his amateur philosophizing).
Here's a reaction from Burke's Corner:
In his failure to exercise modesty in his pursuit of scientific knowledge, Hawking makes a particularly startling claim - that "philosophy is dead". From Plato and Aristotle to Maimonides and Aquinas to Kant and Hegel, Hawking dismisses how the human mind across cultures and millenia has reflected on transcendence and humanity's place in a vast universe. Hawking's lack of humility before this endeavour is staggering. In her Absence of Mind, Marilynne Robinson rightly states that this approach to science excludes "the whole enterprise of metaphysical thought," despite metaphysical reflection being a defining characteristic of the human experience.
Mathematician Eric Priest also responds, in The Guardian:
As a scientist, you are continually questioning, rarely coming up with a definitive answer. The limitations of your own knowledge and expertise together with the beauty and mystery of life and the universe often fill you with a sense of profound humility. Thus, unequivocal assertions are not part of a genuine scientific quest.
...
Furthermore, many of the questions that are most crucial to us as human beings are not addressed adequately at all by science, such as the nature of beauty and love and how to live one's life – often philosophy or history or theology are better suited to help answer them.
And here's his pragmatic conclusion:
You cannot prove whether God exists or not. But you can ask whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more consistent with your experience.
And we should really ask people what Hawking and his ilk think of literature and the humanities in general. "I am only interested in the hard sciences and everything else is squishy and impractical and insufficiently number-ish" is not an argument. It simply reflects an orientation toward activities that are as far away from social concerns as possible. It's what we associate with being a nerd, and in a sense these sorts of pseudo-philosophical Papal Bulls by the popularizers of science are simply the ultimate revenge of the nerds.
Worse, they are a rejection of interiority, a rejection of the idea that reflection is a worthwhile endeavor. Our own thoughts and feelings cannot be "data"; me must concentrate only on empirical objects. It's an attempt to kill off large areas of inquiry, because those areas of inquiry defy easy answers and point to the limits of scientific inquiry. They curb its domain. And it's important to some that a) empirical science be capable of being extended to all worthwhile domains of inquiry and b) that there be a promise of complete answers to all questions at some point in the future of scientific inquiry. These instincts -- to the absoluteness of certain standpoints and the promise of an end to questioning and, by fiat, a complete picture of the world -- are in fact the instincts of fundamentalist religion. That's why I see this as just another battle between fundamentalists demanding certainty -- whose obsession with their counterpart Christian and Islamic fundamentalists is telling -- and people (religious or not) who want to suspend judgment for the sake of thinking about things. Abandoning the need for the promise of completeness, to an end to inquiry, would be just as much a truer form of atheism as it is a truer form of faith.
By: Wes Alwan
Where is the ‘I concur’ button?
Ha — thanks, we’ll have to add that.
Another case of someone who’s gained such widespread notoriety in his/her academic field that it is irresistible to presume that their special expertise naturally translates universally to all domains of understanding. For some reason, given all the possibilities, I always think of Noam Chomsky.
Alfred North Whitehead would no doubt have a description for this that goes like ‘Fallacy of Misplaced Expertise’: Ah, but even Alfred was given to grand philosophizing, having made a bigger splash in mathematics first.
And so it goes.
Burl — thanks, I like “fallacy of misplaced expertise.” Ab hominem?
partem scio, ergo totum? aliquid ergo onmnem?
@Geoff, yes, I like those.
Ego eggo zeppo eminem.
or just Em Inem
leggo my eggo?
After you leggo the eggos you can put an em in ’em.
leggo my eggo to put em inem’s in ’em …
Wow you guys are teaching Latin, and simultaneously, showing how all those volumes on Aristotelian-Scholastic causation/teleology were compiled.
Mucho Kudos!
(Don’t eat Brie: It’s natcho cheese.)
Er, exactly when did Hawking say “I am only interested in…”? Typical mis-ascibing of a belief/attitude/etc. Hawking’s a nerd? Don’t think so….although looks like Alwan may well be.
Philosophy IS dead… and should be – just about everything it ever proposed turned out to be wrong – a characteristic of internalised human thought… just about always wrong.
@Bandit64, then I’m not sure why you would want to hang out in a graveyard talking to corpses rather than attend a book-burning and advancing the project of ridding the world of all its “internalized human thought.”
@Everyone else, it’s important to note that the M-theory/string theory upon which Hawking bases his speculations are anything but settled, and currently non-testable and non-predictive. In fact many physicists reject them as fancy mathematics unhinged from reality (“internalized human thought”?). See my long comment here: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/09/07/stephen-hawking-nothing-has-more-explanatory-value-than-god/
One of Hawking’s other great contributions to science: we shouldn’t talk to aliens: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
And we should be ready to colonize Mars by 2046. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1172319.php/Physicist_Stephen_Hawking_predicts_colonization_of_Mars_by_2046
It’s very sad and backwards that Hawking’s sophomoric bullshit should be taken seriously while serious thinking is celebrated as “dead.” It’s as if the college freshman had taken over the university and turned every course into “leisure studies.” There are legions of poorly educated people who take solace in these Franksteinian fusions of pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science as indications that they need not educate themselves. Philosophy is hard, but thankfully it is also useless. I’ll get my “philosophy” from Reader’s Digest, Deeprak Choprah, and any pontificate who also happens to have the credential of “scientist.”
Here’s another detailed criticism: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3639&sec_id=3639
A review in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16990802):
“It is hard to evaluate their case against recent philosophy, because the only subsequent mention of it, after the announcement of its death, is, rather oddly, an approving reference to a philosopher’s analysis of the concept of a law of nature, which, they say, “is a more subtle question than one may at first think.” There are actually rather a lot of questions that are more subtle than the authors think. It soon becomes evident that Professor Hawking and Mr Mlodinow regard a philosophical problem as something you knock off over a quick cup of tea after you have run out of Sudoku puzzles.
“The main novelty in “The Grand Design” is the authors’ application of a way of interpreting quantum mechanics, derived from the ideas of the late Richard Feynman, to the universe as a whole. According to this way of thinking, “the universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously.” The authors also assert that the world’s past did not unfold of its own accord, but that “we create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.” They say that these surprising ideas have passed every experimental test to which they have been put, but that is misleading in a way that is unfortunately typical of the authors. It is the bare bones of quantum mechanics that have proved to be consistent with what is presently known of the subatomic world. The authors’ interpretations and extrapolations of it have not been subjected to any decisive tests, and it is not clear that they ever could be.”
very nice post
I think Hawking would be right to claim “metaphysics is dead”, if not philosophy. Metaphysics really has been left behind by modern physics and the scientific method. However it is true that modern physicists sometimes come up with untestable theories which are themselves outside the scientific method. Hawking is doing exactly that, on occasion.
I don’t think people realise how important the scientific method is. This applies to Stephen Hawking, as well as to metaphysical blatherers.
Even if Sudoku is rather trivial given sufficient familiarity with it, at least one who starts a sudoku puzzle can make progress with it.
Maybe not philosophy as a whole, but certain tracts of philosophy consist of chasing one’s own tail with the english language, running forever in circles and never progressing, only blathering.
I don’t think some scientists realise how self important and precious they have become. “This is what ‘THE science’ says – how dare you question ME, I am a scientist. Begone devil!” I think science is wonderful. Really dig it. But at the end of the day, science is a part of the scene, not the only game in town.
Lets try Hawking on for size again. This is from the Guardian – http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/11/science-stephen-hawking-brian-cox
“Q: What is the most difficult ethical dilemma facing science today?
SH: It is over genetic engineering. It should soon be possible dramatically to increase the intelligence and life span of a few individuals. They and their offspring could become a master race. Evolution pays no regard to social justice. It was not fair on the Neanderthals they were replaced by modern humans.”
Oh, ethics, that’s philosophy, yeah? There are questions posed by science that, by it’s own admission, it is unequipped to answer. (unless, of course, you are Sam Harris – http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/03/25/sam-harris-derives-ought-from-is/) The suggestion that Philosophy is dead – ie, implying it’s practice is not useful – is not simply erroneous, but foolish in the extreme.
Science, like politicians, view society as continually advancing. Stopping, standing still = bad. Advance, progress = good. My question is where are we advancing to? To my mind, implicit in the notion of ‘advancing’ is a goal to which one advances. For science it might be enough to say advancing means simply more knowledge. The more we know the better. And to a certain extent this is probably fair. The more knowledge with which we can equip ourselves the better. However, science is a part of a broader society, and it tends to reflect that society’s goals. So it is fair to ask what we are advancing to? What are our goals? If we don’t have any goals, how can we said to be advancing? Why is this age ‘better’ than the previous ones?
While this might just be blathering and semantics to some. To me, these question and many others are important ones to which Science cannot provide an answer. Simply saying there is no answer and please stop asking is really the antithesis of what it is to be human. We will always ask why. If Steven doesn’t want to play that’s just sad.
@matth: thanks.
@Jack — I agree that you should stick to those things at which you can make some progress. Sudoku is an admirable start.
@Geoff — I love science, and once thought I would be a physicist. But I also loved the humanities, and I found it more interesting and more difficult. It’s a brave new world in which great thinking and writing by people with an actual education in the humanities amounts to “blathering,” while those who have no aptitude for it or interest in it can — without shame and as if they were doing something profound — engage in the kind of laughably inane speculations that would earn them a failing grade on a freshman philosophy exam. It’s a peril of early specialization, and seems to involve toddler-like illusions of omnipotence.
Wes,
In my primary and secondary schooling the only subjects I was any good at were Maths and Science related. Owing to a quirk in the Australian education system at that time, it was not necessary that the humanities contribute to the final result of my Higher School Certificate. The HSC/UAT and other state based variants are how University places are allocated – high scores gain you access to the ‘prestigious’ courses. Because I ranked well, top 5%, I came out of school believing myself to be rather intelligent.
Although I dropped out of a B. App. Sc. Physiotherapy after 18 months, a popular and hence difficult course to gain entry to, it took too long to be disabused of this false belief. It was a chance discovery in a book store that lead me to the study of History in my late twenties.
I finally discovered the world, and at the same time discovered how arrogant, vile, and stupid I was. I look at the world of ‘science’ – and some of its more vociferous proponents – as it appears too often on the web nowadays with the same sense in which I view my pre-humanities days: with embarrassment and a sense of sadness. I still love science and it’s explorations, but the ability to fit them in to a slightly wider vision of the world and some essential intellectual humility are gifts I am grateful for.
@Geoff — very interesting history, and very nicely put.
Indeed, if every question posed by science was another question that could only be answered by science, then science would be quite useless. Interaction with other fields* is more than a good sign, it’s essential.
*[not necessarily academic ones, they could be real world topics or concerns]
Metaphysics does not really interact with other fields, even in philosophy, let alone outside it. It is a closed loop that doesn’t do anything.
It probably passed you by that I agree philosophical debate about genetics is extremely important, and I never said otherwise. However I should add I believe in democracy, and this kind of debate is too important to leave up to any particular denomination.
This quotation stuff is a nightmare.
Nope. I never said that. That wouldn’t make any sense. Great writers and blatherers have nothing in common with one another.
Great, so your studies in the humanities allowed you to discover the world. Obviously I haven’t. Surely this claim to “special knowledge” of some sort, is not very intellectually humble?
Jack,
Your last post first:
I am not sure how you have construed my autobographical and self deprecatory comments as an attack on yourself. I have no idea about what you ‘know’ or do not ‘know’ and neither do I make any claim to ‘special knowledge’. It is knowledge that is freely available to anyone with the inclination. Prior to studies in the humanities my vision was limited by a groundless assumption of my own intelligence based upon narrow learning. The humanities opened my eyes to a lot of things I was simply unaware of, disabusing me of false pretensions. In this sense I discovered the world, and I continue to discover the world as there is a great deal to discover.
Your other post:
My first two questions – rhetorical questions – were not about the direction of science. They were about the direction of society – what does it mean to advance. I have no desires to see scientific exploration limited as such. For example recent comments from current government in Britain re research funding I find rather alarming. Or did you ignore the parts where I say I am a fan of science?
You will also note that ‘better’ is here, as it is was previously in inverted comma’s. My question – again rhetorical – is what does it mean to for something to be better. I am not in fact asking “why” is this age better but rather how, in the context of human societies, do we judge one outcome to be better than an other? With respect to this your argument is quite specious.
So, unless there is a recent peer reviewed scientific article which establishes the nature of the ‘good’ with reference to universally applicable laws of nature, science still doesn’t offer us a means of adjudicating. Science does fantastic work, but sometimes it forgets itself and its role.
neither do I make no claim to ’special knowledge’.
That should be “neither do I make any claim to ’special knowledge’.”
Edit button guys?
@Geoff, edited, I’ll see if there’s a setting to allow user edits.
@Wes, that would be quite handy.
@Jack – you said-
“Survival of the human race has an importance that cannot be debated.”
Why cannot this be debated. Why is the survival of the human race in any sense ‘important’? What tells us this? What would the effect be if it were extinguished in an instant tomorrow, slighlty after lunch AEST.
Please don’t think I want to see it end any time soon, but there is a difference between ‘not usually debated’ and ‘cannot be debated’. This drives to the heart of my earlier questions. To what end are we striving or ‘advancing’ and why must we get there?
Well, you *did* ask “why this age is better than the one before”. Maybe you meant something else, but I can’t be blamed for answering the question as it stood.
Clean water, space rockets, and computers have huge applications and huge potential applications to society. I don’t think I need to explain them, in the sense that everyone must have *some* idea of how huge they are.
Better is a value judgement, and best left to democracy. Most people would agree that having these things is better for the human race than not having them. If one person finds an amazing philosophical argument why they are in fact worse, it wouldn’t mean anything.
So, unless there is a recent peer reviewed scientific article which establishes the nature of the ‘good’ with reference to universally applicable laws of nature, science still doesn’t offer us a means of adjudicating. Science does fantastic work, but sometimes it forgets itself and its role.
Science doesn’t tell us who should be the next US president. So what? Science doesn’t investigate those kinds of things.
That 4th paragraph should have been quoted. Without an edit button to play around with, it’s hard to work out how to do so.
Okay, maybe I should rephrase – the survival of the human race is important to humans. This allows for the possibility of aliens to whom it is not particularly important.
Perhaps you think that absolutely anything is ripe for debate. But I don’t.
So, we might say that reports of the death of Philosophy are somewhat exaggerated. There are self imposed limits to the scope of scientific investigation. But these do not align with the limits of human inquiry.
I don’t think we need to start considering aliens just yet, but is interesting that you did.
I was thinking more along the lines that if the entire human enterprise were to end, there would be very little protest. We would no longer be here to object and the universe will likely put an end to us one way or another sometime near or far, so it wouldn’t be overly upset.
What you introduced is the notion that for something to be ‘important’ there might need to be someone for it to be ‘important’ – or unimportant – to. The horrible, squishy and imprecise individual who judges.
Why don’t you think such consideration’s are ripe for debate? I think that it’s a debate that is well worth having. Unless you think reaching for the stars to simply to fulfill the basic biological impulse to perpetuate a few particular strands of DNA is a noble cause. You can’t simply close your mind, stick your fingers in your ear and sing. What did you say about science?
If someone suggests your definition of what is up for debate falls in a narrow band well inside the possible imaginings and wanderings of human inquiry, maybe it’s your definition that needs to be discarded.
More commentary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/08/stephen-hawking-philosophy-maths
Great writing and discussion, Thank you Wes Alwan and Co., and those who commented.