Blog 20161026 Who is a
philosopher?
Just received an
interesting question from Philip
Atkinson, who seems to already know the answer to the question he asks:
“Please forgive the impertinence of my question,
but as there is no useful accepted definition of philosophy, how do you know
you are a philosopher?”
Actually, we are all
philosophers, just as “we are all scientists” as the good book ("The
Scientific Worldview") says with its first sentence. The rest is just
detail. My definition of philosophy is: The study and understanding of how the
universe works. Thus, even infants begin their studies and understandings
probably even before they are born. Of course, most folks are too busy
subsisting: gathering food, shelter, and clothing just to stay alive. Their
philosophies are unlikely to cover much more than their immediate surroundings
and day-to-day concerns. More fortunate types like you and I have free time
that avails us the opportunity to contemplate the universe in more detail.
Upon doing so, I think of
philosophy as the “conclusions” part of life. When we write a scientific work,
we are always asked: What do you conclude from all that you have discovered? After
40 or so years of living, one should have some conclusions. Younger folks may want
to know what they are.
Unfortunately or not, as
humanity reaches out to explore ever-increasing portions of the universe, the
philosophic job also becomes ever-more complex. We have at our disposal the
millions of volumes prepared by previous philosophers and scientists. We have
the benefit of their speculations and prognostications. We have the benefit of
the history of what worked and what did not work. As data accumulate, our
pronouncements about how the universe works invariably are challenged—they
eventually need revision. Nonetheless, certain laws of nature appear to be
immutable. For instance, the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and
the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), will never fail us,
despite what the cosmogonists proclaim. That is why I started my work with a
firm foundation: "The Ten Assumptions of Science."[1]
Without such a consupponible beginning, anyone who attempts grand conclusions and
what it all means for humanity will most certainly be wrong.
Today’s philosophers have
to be scientists as well. They have to be able to answer the big questions in
physics such as: What is the universal mechanism of evolution? Is light a
particle or a wave? Are there more than three dimensions? Is the universe
infinite or finite? Is the universe expanding? Does dark energy exist? Is the
equation E=mc2
valid? Does aether exist? And the big questions in sociology: Is there
free will? What is the meaning of life? Will humanity become extinct by its own
hand? Why are there wars? What is the evolutionary purpose of religion? Is
there life after death? Is there a god? What is the P-C gap and what does it
have to do with global population growth? Are there contradictions in your
work? And on and on… Answer one question incorrectly, and you have to go back
to the books.
Another primary concern for
philosophers is knowing their place within the determinism-indeterminism philosophical
struggle. I hinted at my place by using the word “consupponible,” which,
according to Collingwood,[2]
means that if you hold several fundamental assumptions, they should not
contradict each other. That puts me on the deterministic end of the struggle.
Contradictions are an abomination for scientists. That is why I oppose much of
today’s physics and cosmology, which is fraught with contradictions and
flat-out paradoxes more in tune with religion than science. Today,
the frontier in philosophy includes the resolution and removal of the
indeterministic speculations that have become rampant
since 1905.
[1] Borchardt, Glenn,
2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview:
Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761
]; Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, Ten assumptions of science and the demise of
'cosmogony', Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, p. 3-6 [ http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/TTAOSATDOC.pdf
].
Posts
1 comment:
Anyone who doesn't understand that the universe is deterministic and deterministic only needs to go back and study their physics all over from the beginning. One cannot even walk to the village without a deterministic universe.
I thought everyone knew that.
G
Post a Comment