Hilary Putnam on the Philosophy of Science: Section 2

[Esoparagon]

Very interesting but still.... my god, how lost they are in their nonsense.

[mavericksay]

Thanks so much for uploading!

[alenblake38g]

This is a "rhetorical" video. =p

[lathe144]

I think at minute nine Putnam calls Scientists slaves!

[jefffinley11]

This video went viral on Mozambique

[iiNDiTC]

Philosophy of Science is not the same thing as saying Philosophy IS science. I would agree with Kaufmann's statement that philosophy is closer to literature than it is to any sort of scientific discipline.

[iiNDiTC]

did anyone else cringe when Putnam said "professor popper" ? Here I'm assuming he means Karl Popper...

[wa9r]

good stuff indeed.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

Excellent video. Shame about the comments, but hey, this is YouTube after all.

[martinheideggershut]

This "philosopher" has no clue. His examples are bad examples. Theory is only a small part of science. Science is a lot more than theoretical physics.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@martinheideggershut

You're seriously claiming to understand this better than Hilary Putnam, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century? Jesus on a bike. . .

[williamblakeism]

@martinheideggershut

I think Magee touches on that quite well at 8:00

[zieben64]

As a student studying physics i find all of this bullshit. My teacher openly says "we don't know what happens in the electron field" instead of saying "it has to do with our observations."

[PaulthePhil]

We don't objectively know what happens but we do know what subjectively happens.

[NiHuWi]

@zieben64 I think you're misunderstanding the point he's making. He's noting that depending on the way we make observations (in certain cases), such as with what happens in the electron field, we get different results. In that way, we can't be certain about what is actually happening.

The two statements aren't necessarily incompatible.

[slash20062006]

gosh, putnam reminds me of willy wonka in the old movie lol

[Scaevolish]

Putnam actually looks a bit like Kant.

[augustofretes]

I can't help to find a constant mistake made here, objective truth doesn't imply absolute truth

[mandrawncarriage]

hahaha i love how this interview ends.

[meshzzizk]

"Maybe!"

[jerryhello100]

It looks like Putnam is wearing one of those old white wigs, the 17th 18 th centuries.

[realitycheck888]

There seems to me here to be an over emphasis on the 'contribution of the mind'. It is not a subjective contribution, or effect created by the make up of our minds that causes the effect that two separate boy scouts, as Putnam illustrates, can witness two events happening in a different order but that the two boy scouts are traveling at different speeds from different locations. If you swapped the boy scouts with another types of observer (e.g. computers) they would disagree in just the same way

[QMPhilosophe]

Interesting point, porcupine!

[glassboy]

I don't know when this segment was originally produced but around 4:35 sounds quite a bit like Kuhn.

[drchaffee]

Just loved that noncommittal "maybe" at the end of this clip!!

[suddenlyitsobvious]

If you start out wrong, you end up wrong. You don't keep building on the same foundations while simultaneously pretending you are fundamentally reappraising these foundations.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

Yeah yeah, truth is relative...A bit late for that statement.

One can't say 300 years after Kant that truth is relative and that we need to change certain things, when all of the past productions have already materialized in society and completely determine the current scientific outlook.

The process of continually changing the perspective towards relativity and even nihilism in a dynamic that represents a "fuite en avant" serves to occult the refusal to sanitize the basis, the foundation.

[amoughazanfar]

thanks to flame 

[MrTStoddart]

This is profound, really, in its brevity and complexity. Thank you so much for posting this.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

Thanks for putting this video up! I'm reading Putnam's Renewing Philosophy and writing the first part of my dissertation on Williams' critique of scientism, so this is really interesting!

[nazra7]

He says that people of religion hold their ideas as infallible. Wrong. The very nature of God is a mystery. Just like when you ask if the sun is yellow and some one says its white. If you ask is your soul a spiritual body, and some one says your soul is a physical body in another realm. Things like that. The fine details are different but the idea is the same. You two philosophers sure do make some odd claims.

[nazra7]

many people still think that science explains the world how it really is... they need to watch these videos...

[patrickofdundee]

the best years of television seem to be behind us!

[perceival]

Maybe. This is really brilliant, but their elitism sometimes interferes with their ability to communicate. Perhaps tv can do better.

[luckynumber58]

i love youtube...its a place where people named shitstain can talk about the fundamentals of science

[nambypamby34]

Sure our minds can look at things differently and that can be (our truth) But when your pipes freeze over in the winter.There are going to be resonable ways to fix the problem.

[benfirst]

I always thought Hilary Putnam was a woman...

[CammieSpectrum]

there is also a relativist style philosopher called Hilary Lawson, though he is really really wordy

[Burdell22000]

He´s just one of the Monty Pythons

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@benfirst Me too! Total shock.

[gen6k]

he went into 4 DiMenSIoNAL SPaCe

[robertwc82]

just because the truth can never be obtained does not mean the absolute truth does not exist

[dirtyharree]

Science is NEVER wrong. Theories are.

In fact, falsifiability is a hallmark of science. Any theory, God for example, which is not falsifiable cannot even qualify to be a scientific theory.

[bananabread119]

@dirtyharree

Science is wrong. Theories are a grouping of facts! Hypothesis are educated guesses and are sometimes wrong.

[robertwc82]

science is a method, saying it is wrong is like saying cooking is wrong, a recipe can be wrong but cooking isnt falsafied by individual mistakes.

perhaps they think we should start eating half dead, raw animals because someone burns some toast lol

[dirtyharree]

EXACTLY! nice analogy

[zappa3837]

The best way to view the whole equivalent descriptions business is that while there may be several different ways to describe a single event such that each is true, it is not the case that just any description will do. For example, we could have one theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, and another that stated objects fall at a rate of 32 m/s2 (approx.), and each would be correct. However, a theory which stated that objects fall at a rate of 11 m/s2 would be wrong.

[zappa3837]

Sorry, that was supposed to be 32 f/s2 instead of 32 m/s2. You get the point.

[bevon17]

ahhhh I love it!!!

Wondering is fun = )

[eydos]

Heidegger told this ages ago, but then he was labeled irrational, funny. But I am glad that the rest of thinking is slowly growing up to his genius.

[5hitstain]

Religious and scientific descriptions are not equivalent at all. One allows for corrections based on empirical data, the other rejects criticism and draws its conclusions from divinely inspired material. They are fundamentally irreconcilable. Everything that characterizes what is best in our modern world view comes from advances in science and philosophy, whereas religion has done nothing worth noting, at least in recent memory, if ever.

[andersv20]

Yes, Putnam doesn't mention the most common distinctions between sciences and non-sciences, which are characterized for instance by the formation of falsifiable theories through experiment, capacity of self revision and correction, and in general the ideal of unprejudiced search for the truth in itself based on the facts, and absence of modeling through ad hoc theories. These are some of the features separating true sciences such as physics from pseudo-sciences such as sociology or philosophy

[meshzzizk]

I very much doubt that Putnam thinks falsification is an important, never mind definitive, aspect of science. And self-revision in light of problems *is* to adjust your framework with ad hoc theories and modifications, precisely the kind of thing that Popper and other advocates of the falsification criterion thought degraded a theory's scientific standing.

[andersv20]

@meshzzizk

Of course the distinction between sciences and what is to be qualified only as pseudo-science is a never ending debate, seeing as creationists, et.c. (or most people in general wishing to call their practices "scientific") will never give in to the arguments against their scientificness. What "science" is can be reduced to a philosophical problem if you push it far enough, but you only barely have to open a book on philosophy of science to be able to draw the line.

[meshzzizk]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The debate regarding how to demarcate and define science endures within philosophy of science. If you want to make creationism your straw man, that's fine, since everyone knows it's a ridiculous idea, but how and where the line between science and non-science should be drawn is very far from a settled issue in philosophy of science. I don't understand how you could have ever "open[ed] a book on" the subject and not know that.

[andersv20]

@meshzzizk

Alright, I take it back. It is harsh to say there is any definite borderline, but I still hold that it is possible to make some criteria that separate scientific from unscientific. Not all inquiries are scientific. The term scientific method testifies that science has something to do with method and goes beyond mere inquiry. The creationism debate was an example.

[ogirv101]

@andersv20:

Socioloy and philosophy are formal sciences and social sciences, not pseudo-sciences you idiot.

[andersv20]

@ogirv101

2: One of the most central notions in philosophy is that we can not really know anything for certain, and that philosophy never gives us any direct rigid knowledge of the world, but rather that it sheds light on the things we can not know. Thus it is commonly said even by philosophers that philosophy is not a science in its strictest sense. Like previously said, not to advocate relativism or skepticism, but the main idea is that philosophy is about wisdom, not knowledge.

[ogirv101]

@andersv20:

One of the most central notions in philosophy is that we can't know things for ceirtain? On the contrary, it is the only thing that does, because most philosophical debates are based off deductive reasoning, while Science on the other hand does by using inductive reasoning.

Philosophy is a science, a formal science. Just because there are idiot factions such as the relativists and the Skeptcs, doesn't mean a thing. It's like arguing over YECs inside Biology.

[andersv20]

@ogirv101

Well, actually science and philosophy uses both inductive and deductive reasoning in various degrees, philosophy is not entirely a priori, and science is based upon the entirety of previous theories in its interpretation of observational data, thus deductive. Also science is deductive in its novel predictions from the theories.

And yes, in western analytical tradition, of course philosophy claims to be scientific, but are you actually naive enough to call philosophical theories fact?

[ogirv101]

@andersv20:

Yes we all know that, but philosophical debates centrally revolve around deductive reasoning, and science around inductive reasoning. You should have understood that.

Also, no Science is not deductive in prediction of theories. Mainly because theories have never explained all phenomenon, and many times new theories have to be developed to explain ceirtain behavior (i.e. General relativity vs. Newtonian Mechanics). That in itself is inductive, look up David Hume on this.

[andersv20]

@ogirv101

1: With reference to my previous posts, I wasn't trying to discredit philosophy in my labeling of pseudo-science; that was just to mark my point. The truth value in philosophy draws upon ever changing criteria. Philosophy "proves" a lot of things, but then you have to decide which of the contradicting proofs to go with. The cognitional approaches are ever changing, rendering philosophy as a sort of literary art, rather than direct science.

[scruethedemiurge]

Equivilent descriptions, indeed I've long said their is no necessary conflict between science and religion, pure religion anyway.

[andersv20]

@scruethedemiurge

Well, some might call logic a science.

[scruethedemiurge]

@andersv20 Of course logic is a science.

[andersv20]

@scruethedemiurge Yea, that was kind of what I was hinting for

[ogirv101]

@andersv20:

Any form of study is a science. Philosophy and such are formal sciences, and what we're talking on now are the natural sciences. Logic is the science of correct reasoning.

[andersv20]

@ogirv101

Alright. I was just trying to say that there is a difference between sciences such as logic or mathematics on the one hand, and unverifiable sciences such as philosophy on the other. When you have two opposing theories in mathematics, it goes without saying that only one can be right, but it is not necessarily that easy in philosophy (or psychology, sociology et. c.) I'm not saying they are futile, of course, advocating any relativism, but there is a difference in their proving powers

[rdanneskjold11]

I find Putnam's description of QM a bit poorly worded. It sounds like, from his description, you can merely reconceptualize your thoughts about electrons and in doing so your observations of them (likewise reconceptualized) will come out true--so you can choose one just as well as the other. This is just the most sensible way I can think of to interpret his words. I'm sure this is not actually what he meant, but his words seem to express it.

[Nanumir]

good good stuff

[alexmigda]

haha "Maybe"

how about collective subjectivity? just a thought.

[bucles2000]

The fact cuantum mechanics works it doesn't mean in "some way" is fundamentaly right.Tolomeo's theory worked out for a long time and it doesn't mean he was in some way "fundamentaly right,in fact he was completely wrong in a fundamental level.Cuantum mechanics is gonna disappear soon precisely because is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!!The same with Theory of relativity!!

[andersv20]

Maybe, but you can't know that. It's not the case that EVERY scientific theory eventually fails and is replaced.There is nothing suggesting that rocks will fall upwards in the future, thereby falsifying Newton completely. The point is that we cannot be absolutely sure something is utterly as we think, because we might find out new things about them, although we might also never do. Saying relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong just like that seems fairly dogmatic and intuitively based to me.

[bucles2000]

If you tell me gravity is a force,you must explain mechanically the origin of such force, If you can not,well it is philosophy. Nor Newton neither Einstein can explain the mechanical nature of gravity vector. The same with electricity and the rest of forces. If you give an e-mail I will send you a 54 pages which prove that forces. Trust me.

[AlephNine]

Wow! Does someone have a torrent of these videos? PM me if you do have a source, rapidshare or torrent.

[denkbeeld]

Brilliant job flame! thanks a lot

[3rdEarlRussell]

If you get rid of this presuposition (the absolute frame of reference), then the position is clearly coherent. It doesn't challenge truth, not even bivalence. QM, under some interpretations might challenge bivalence and therefore realism, though not all interpretations have this outcome. And, in any case, a multi-valued logic can also employ the concept of truth.

[3rdEarlRussell]

Also, Putnam's discussion of simultaneity as an example of a difficulty to the traditional concept of truth, hardly is one. This doesn't challenge truth as correspondence, rather it challenges our conception of time and the difficulties of supposing that there is an absolute frame of reference. However, ascriptions of truth to two or more observations of different space-time metrics for the same phenomenon is only incoherent under the supposition of an absolute frame of reference. Continues ..

[Guaguanco11]

Yes, I thought the same thing about Putnam's discussion of simultaneity.

[3rdEarlRussell]

For example, consider modal logic. A modal model is an ordered triple consisting of a non-empty set of objects, some relation of access and an interpretation function. However if we employ modal logic for discussing modality it is clear that the members of the non-empty set must be possible worlds, whatever those are. So in modal logic disagreements of interpretation don't concern the members of W, but rather just what those members are: sets of propositions? concrete possible worlds? etc.

[3rdEarlRussell]

Besides the problem of pessimistic induction, McGee points out correctly that QM has difficulties of interpretation, however that does not entail that there isn't a single, correct interpretation, even if we cannot find out which. Though some scientists talk as if QM was just an uninterpreted calculi, it is clearly not so, since even if not fully interpreted there is an intended interpretation which takes as its objects: fields, particles, probability distributions, etc.

[3rdEarlRussell]

McGee tends to go beyond what Putnam is stating and even from what can be gathered by the history of science and philosophical speculation. For instance, when he says that science is not reliable. Science is more reliable, in the sense of its predictive and explanatory qualities, than most human endeavors. Rather, the difficulty is that is called pessimistic induction: if all past theories have been improved upon or substituted, this will probably be so with all future theories.

[dtlocke]

Thank you so much for posting these videos! Would it be possible to list the interview/filming dates in the info on the right?

[Laurenciee]

Great stuff!!

[georgio316]

i luv this stuff!!!

[greece666]

excellent