I love truth - real truth.
I loathe feel-good truth.
That's why I love science -
because science has real truth.
Of course, scientific truth is
not perfect, not permanent,
not immediate, and not
necessarily "big truth" with a
capital "T" - science does not
deliver meaning-of-life truth -
but science is always getting...
well, closer to truth.
While science is humanity's
transcending achievement,
science as a way of thinking
is an evolving enterprise.
What makes science work?
What constitutes good science?
What are the
boundaries of science?
How deep can science dig into
the foundations of the world?
These are the kinds
of questions that
"philosophy of science" asks.
But, why do some scientists
dismiss philosophy as archaic,
a hindrance to science,
a nuisance?
Can philosophy help science?
I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn
and Closer To Truth
is my journey to find out.
If philosophy can help science,
by what capacities could
it do so?
Improve the scientific method?
Facilitate scientific
interpretation,
implications, meaning?
A "philosophy" of something
seeks to uncover conceptual
bedrock, reveal deepest reality.
But can "philosophy
of science" do this?
What do scientists
think of philosophy?
They're different opinions,
of course.
I begin with one of the world's
most esteemed scientists,
a Nobel Laureate in Physics whom
I have come to respect for his
deep understanding of how the
world works - Steven Weinberg.
Steve, what do you
think of philosophy?
Well, I used to
be very enthusiastic
about studying philosophy.
I had a minor in philosophy
as an undergraduate.
But, you know, science;
particularly physics, to me,
is so much more predictive
and capable of having real
success and real failure.
In physics, you can often have
the healthy experience of being
found to be simply
wrong about something.
And I don't know how
often philosophers have
that healthy experience.
How often has a philosopher
published an article in which
he's said, I've decided I've
been wrong about the nature of
truth, or something like that?
So, there's a crispness
to physics which
I find lacking philosophy.
On the other hand, philosophers
I think understand this and they
would argue that that's not
their job to calculate things or
predict things or to answer
questions; their job is to
ask deep questions.
And I have to agree with that.
But, the questions they ask
don't really seem to me to be
helpful in physics.
For instance, there's a
tremendous philosophical concern
about the nature of truth,
the nature of reality.
People in every day life use
concepts like truth and reality
in a useful way.
I mean, they deal with those
concepts, they say, well,
it's true the newspaper wasn't
delivered today and the cause of
it was the newspaper deliverer
overslept and I really hope that
it will be delivered tomorrow.
The use of truth and reality
and cause and so on in science,
seems to be not different in
any philosophically relevant
way from their use
in every day life.
And since we're comfortable
with these concepts in every
day life, I don't see any reason
why we shouldn't be comfortable
with them in science.
To Steve, science operates
by common-sense concepts,
and philosophy's only
meaningful contribution
to science is to
refute other, more
obstructionist,
timewasting philosophies.
The counter claim, of course, is
that this argument, by itself,
is a philosophical argument -
and hence self-refuting.
I'm conflicted.
On the one hand, Steve makes
sense - and the counter claim
seems a bit glib.
On the other hand,
I remain unsatisfied.
The world is wondrous with
ever-deeper levels of reality -
and I am just not sure that
science - at least as we know it
- can get at the deep and most
general features of the world.
I ask a polymath scientist - an
expert in physics, cosmologist,
biology and astrobiology -
and who doesn't fear
disruptive ideas - Paul Davies.
Paul, philosophy
came before science.
And today, some scientists would
say that the only purpose of
good philosophy is to keep
all the rest of philosophy
away from science.
(laughs)
How do you see the relationship
between science and philosophy?
Well, it's an uneasy
relationship and you're quite
right that philosophers have
had something of a bad press in
the scientific community.
They're regarded as sort of
meddlers and also as people who
nitpick about minor points
of detail or meaning and that
science is sort of a rough and
ready enterprise in which we
sort of charge ahead based on
a mixture of intuition and luck
and a whole lot of other things.
And sure, the philosophers can
come through afterwards and
clean up the mess and maybe
write the textbooks and present
it to the public, but they
have no business at the cutting
edge of science.
But, I think that's
a bit unfair.
You're quite right, if you look
back historically that most
of the things that now
occupy scientists were once
part of philosophy.
The nature of space
and time is a good one.
It's now part of the
Theory of Relativity.
The nature of matter.
Well, that's now particle
physics, and so on.
And the question is there
still something in the realm of
philosophy that they're
preparing the ground for the
next generation of
scientists to look at?
And there certainly are
such things, for example the
mind/body problem.
The nature of mind,
its relationship to matter.
It's a total mess in science.
Of course, we've got
the neuroscientists.
They're doing heroic work in
figuring out what's going on in
the brain, but that's really
not getting to the heart of the
matter of the nature of
consciousness, and philosophers
have had 3,000 years
to ponder that.
And so, that we have a sort of
prepared position, or at least a
shopping list of possibilities,
against which to carry out our
work in that area.
I tend to get on very well with
philosophers because I find them
very useful people to talk to,
because they can often clarify
my own arguments, even
if I'm using them only as
a sounding board.
I'll give you a very good
example of that, and I have
derived great benefit from my
early exposure to philosophers
of the nature of time.
And my scientific colleagues are
awfully sloppy in the way they
talk about time because
they continually talk about
time flowing, that the
passage of time, and so on.
Philosophers will tell you that
these are meaningless concepts,
and they just
muddle the thinking.
And so, people confuse the
asymmetry of the world in time,
often called the arrow of time,
with the psychological
impression of the flow of time,
which we have and it belongs to
neuroscience, not to physics.
And I've known some very
distinguished physicists get
totally muddled because
they are conflating these two
completely distinct concepts.
The philosophers cleaned
that up a hundred years ago.
Another area that philosophers
deal with in science is the
nature of physical law.
And some philosophers, the
radical empiricists, would say,
there is no law...
there are not even regularities;
there are just observations that
you could do on a continuing
basis and we can never really
get down very far.
What do you think is that?
I'm pleased you've raised
this subject, because it's dear
to my heart.
So, most of my colleagues who
work in fundamental physics and
cosmology think of the laws of
physics as eternal, immutable,
transcendent perfect
mathematical relationships.
They're sort of out there
in some platonic realm.
And they're absolutely precise.
If you say, well, maybe
the laws are a bit sloppy,
there's wiggle room.
That's horror, shock
horror, that they are
perfect mathematical forms.
Of course, we can
never test that.
They want these laws to be
transcendent because they want
the laws to explain the coming
into being of the universe.
If you say, well, the laws of
physics came into being along
with the universe, but didn't
somehow logically or in some
temporal sense precede it,
then the package of marbles,
the laws and the universe
just popping into being for no
reason looks very alarming.
So, there is this tendency
among my colleagues to think of
these laws as already existing.
Having, as a philosopher
might say, ontological status.
That they are the bedrock of
reality, these laws, and that
the actual universe that
is described by those laws
is contingent upon them.
I've changed my point
of view on that.
You know, I think this dualism
that goes back to Newton
at least, of separating our
description of the world into
timeless immutable laws, and
changing contingent states of
the world, it's about time
we abandoned that dualism.
So, I'm exploring the idea that
the laws and the states of the
world could be coupled together.
That the laws are not immutable.
Some people say, maybe the
laws change with time.
I think that's a bad
way of looking at it.
It could change with the state
of the world and so that opens
up all sorts of new
possibilities, which we
haven't explored yet.
Paul raises the big questions -
time, laws, consciousness -
and shows how each depends
on a philosophical analysis.
I pursue one of them -
consciousness - as a test case -
to discern whether philosophy
can enhance science.
Is appreciating philosophy
essential for doing science?
No.
Is appreciating
philosophy helpful
for comprehending science?
Here, I speak with a
scientist who was appointed
as "Professor of Neuroscience
and Philosophy" at the
University of London
- Colin Blakemore.
Colin is a neuroscientist,
an expert on visual cognition
and neural plasticity.
Why is he also a philosopher?
I start with the
nature of philosophy.
What's the aim of philosophy?
And it is I think to
explore the nature of ideas.
The Platonic notion.
And the origin of those ideas
and the distinction between
truth and falsehood.
So, it focuses on
many different issues.
First of all, on the
clarity of argument,
rational philosophy and logic.
On how to discover facts
through thinking and reasoning.
And that of course is an
area where science has very
significantly extended the kinds
of questions that can be asked.
Instead of sitting in an
armchair reflecting on what
might be the case, you can
go out and look under a
microscope or perform an
experiment of some sort.
There's a big overlap of course
between physics and mathematics
and philosophy which
is well established.
I think what we're seeing now is
the invasion of philosophical
territory by many, many other
areas of science but most
particularly by neuroscience.
Some philosophers have
found this very threatening,
and retreat I think to as it
were philosophical dictats,
claims of territory, areas that
science will never invade,
often resorting to sort of
Wittgensteinian arguments
about the significance
of language, of words.
Other philosophers are playing
the game and see the potential
for essentially creating
a new form of philosophy.
And certainly adding to the
richness of neuroscience by
posing kinds of questions that
perhaps people with a biological
or medical background
might not think of posing.
Hmm, what are some of those?
Well, of course, consciousness
and how it works is a
very obvious one.
The nature of knowledge.
What it means to say that
you've proven something
by an experiment.
Can we ever really prove ideas?
Is there such a thing
as truth and falsehood?
Are ideas right and wrong?
So, I see a very rich
possibility of interaction,
which will certainly not just be
one way; not just neuroscience
invading more and
more philosophy.
Well, I think many philosophers
will accept the reality of
neuroscience, but there are
many scientists; not just
neuroscientists, physicists too,
who just think philosophy is an
archaic bird and it may have
been what gave rise to science,
but it is now the old generation
who will and should die.
Well, it is interesting that,
you know, we have this subject
called philosophy of science.
A very respectable
academic discipline.
There are professorships and
students take it and so on,
there's very little interaction
between philosophy of science
and active scientists.
It's curious, really.
Well, it's very telling.
It is telling and worrying.
I mean, one problem
is territoriality.
Another is that, you know,
there's just a whole lot of
other stuff to
get your head around.
It's difficult enough to
keep up with science.
If you're told that there are
other disciplines that are going
to determine how you
do understand science,
that's tough going.
So, a lot of the difficulty on
both sides, the sort of jousting
between science and philosophy
has to do with wanting to
maintain some sort
of territorial control.
And also not being willing
to face the challenge of
understanding that huge
background of knowledge,
literature and so on, on both
sides, which need to be
appreciated before there
could be a real dialogue.
But, it's asymmetrical because
I think most philosophers agree
they need to understand science
but it's not clear that most
scientists think they need
to understand philosophy.
I think you're right, yeah.
And I would disagree
with that profoundly.
You would disagree.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I think philosophy helps to
sharpen the way in which
questions are asked.
It enables scientists to do
something that they should
really do, which is to rank the
importance and the significance
of the questions that they ask,
to distinguish the big questions
from the trivial ones.
Philosophy helps a great deal
with that, particularly in the
area that I'm especially
interested in which is
epistemology theory
of knowledge.
How we actually gain
our knowledge of the world,
and what matters.
You know, if the great empirical
philosophers, you know, Barclay,
Hume and so on, had had
micro-electrodes, they would
have been neuroscientists, no
doubt about it 'cause the kinds
of issues that they were
thinking about; how do brains
capture ideas and knowledge,
are exactly the kinds of things
that neuroscientists
are interested in.
So, tell me what kind of
progress you would like to
see in epistemology.
Well, one obvious question
is how objects and things are
recognized for their own
integrity, their own value.
How they're labeled
and described.
How does the neutral image
falling on the retina become
passed and interpreted by
the brain in terms of objects,
and significance
is attached to them.
I mean, our knowledge of
the world is largely that.
What are things?
What threats and opportunities
do they pose for us?
Those are big
epistemological questions.
And neuroscience
can address those.
They become computational
questions rather than
just philosophical questions.
But then reflect back
on the philosophy.
And do you see an iterative
process where then that would
help clarify that data coming
in would enable the philosopher
to ask more precise questions?
So, philosophers, for instance,
have been very interested in,
I mean, Descartes, for instance
was very interested in the
figments of vision,
the false interpretations.
Seeing faces in the flames of
a fire or something like this.
I'm thinking that there
might be something almost
magical about that.
Well, we can now give
interpretive explanations of
those sorts of phenomena
in terms of brain processes.
Bringing together, you know,
important philosophical problems
with an understanding
of how the brain works.
Colin calls for science
and philosophy to stop the
'territorial jousting' - so that
each can learn from the other.
That sounds sensible.
So, why won't some scientists
"waste their time"?
And why do some philosophers
feel unappreciated?
Is neuroscience a new term in
the philosophy-science equation?
Can neuroscience mediate?
Catalyze harmony?
Some scientists expect that
neuroscience will reduce all
philosophical issues to
neural events in the brain.
Some philosophers expect
that when neuroscience fails to
explain consciousness,
the failure will reaffirm the
relevance of philosophy.
But in the end, do
scientists need philosophers?
I meet an MIT professor
working on the frontiers of
computational complexity
and quantum computers -
Scott Aaronson.
One could be forgiven
for calling Scott a
kind of philosopher.
The world needs good
philosophers, if for no
other reason than to
refute the bad philosophers.
Right?
It's the same reason why we
need soldiers, we need lawyers.
Even in the age of science, you
know, philosophy does play a
very important role in
helping to clarify concepts.
I go ever year or two to
meetings where I talk to
professional philosophers and
I find that they're, you know,
often they actually listen to
you much more carefully than
your fellow scientists do.
They're really good at spotting
imprecision in language or
unstated assumptions,
things of that kind.
Now, at the same time,
I also think it's true
that the critique of
philosophy is that, you know,
it doesn't really make progress.
Right, it just goes
around in circles.
You know, and that does
have some truth to it.
But, I think that there is a
sort of philosophical progress
which is possible, and which is
wonderful when it happens and
this is that we can often sort
of identify some aspect of a
philosophical question that can
actually be addressed using math
or using science, and then we
can just sort of break it off.
And then we can tackle that.
Okay, and then of course,
you know, people will say,
but you've just replaced
the real mystery by this other
question that you can answer.
You know, and you say, okay,
fine, we should admit that
that's what we're doing.
You know, we're using philosophy
as an inspiration for science
questions but, you know, now
we can keep returning to the
philosophical question and we
can find, okay, maybe, you know,
we can find a new scientific
question that captures some new
aspect of the philosophical
question that was, you know,
that hadn't been touched before.
And, you know, and in this way
we can actually make progress.
So, you know, to give a few -
there are many questions that
people would once have called
philosophical, like is nature
determined or random?
Right now, you know, we have
quantum mechanics that can say
a lot about that.
What is the nature of
mathematical knowledge?
Right, you know,
since the time of Gödel,
Gödel's incompleteness theorem,
we have learned that
mathematics itself can
say a tremendous amount
about that question.
You know, or like,
what are infinitesimals?
Right, can you have something,
you know, can you have something
that's smaller than any positive
number, but greater than zero?
Right or, you know, when
you drop a ball, you know,
is it moving at the very
instant when you drop it?
Okay, at least if we've taken a
calculus course, right, we hope
we no longer get confused
about that sort of thing.
That was, you know,
hugely confusing to the
ancient Greek philosophers.
This is the closest thing
to philosophical progress that
I can see.
People taking the ancient
mysteries of philosophy and not
quite solving them, but
taking an aspect of them that,
you know, captures part of
what people want to know about,
and then addressing it using
the tools of math and science.
Scott sees the problems with
philosophy - especially its
lack of progress.
But he also recognizes
three benefits:
Philosophers listen carefully.
They spot imprecisions.
They uncover hidden assumptions.
I'd like there to be more.
But, whenever my 'likes' begin
to affect my reason, I remind
myself to return to
Steven Weinberg.
I want to emphasize, I don't
mean that the scientist has a
deep understanding of truth and
reality, which makes philosophy
unnecessary, I don't feel that
I understand what is meant by
truth in any profound way.
I'm a principle philistine.
I understand truth in science
the same way I understand it in
every day life and I don't
see that any more is needed.
So, that although philosophers
may have a way of asking
profound questions about
truth or reality or cause,
it just isn't helpful to
the work of a scientist.
And historically, I think
it never has been helpful.
With the one exception
that every once in a while,
scientists have been bedeviled
by a philosophical doctrine of
one kind or another.
For example, when Newton's
theories became known on the
continent, it was felt that they
were insufficiently mechanistic
because they involved action at
a distant; the Sun attracts the
Earth over 93 million miles.
And that was repellant to
the scientists, particularly in
France, who had become imbued
with ideas due to Decarte,
that things had to happen
because local pushing's
and pulling's and
mechanical philosophy.
Well, science played the role,
but also with the help of
British philosophy, of
dispelling what I regard as the
counter productive doctrines
of continental philosophy.
So, philosophy had its benefit
by negating the negative effects
of other philosophy.
Right, exactly, exactly.
I once used the analogy that
just as nation states generally
didn't have any particular value
to their inhabitants until the
invention of the post office,
except protecting their
inhabitants from
other nation states.
And philosophy seemed
to me somewhat like that.
But, this has taken a
long time to understand.
Of course, the word the
scientist only dates back to
the early 19th Century.
Before, it was coined by
William Whewell in the early
19th Century, there was no
word scientist, people spoke of
philosophers or natural
philosophers to distinguish them
from other kinds of
philosophers, and, you know,
the great work of Newton
is called the principles
of mathematical philosophy.
It took a while to understand
that science is different from
philosophy that perhaps I should
say philosophy is different from
science, they both can
precede and perhaps both have
legitimate functions,
but they're not the same.
Now, it may be that there's
some deep philosophical truth,
which in the future, will
turn out to be the key to
advance in physics.
But, I haven't seen it in
my time and I'm skeptical.
"Skeptical" is the
right place to start.
Does appreciating the
"meaning of science" require
"philosophy of science"?
There are two applications here.
The first applies philosophy to
science - exploring the nature
of science and the scientific
process - including the careful
examination of
questions and methods.
Science can
discern regularities,
making exquisitely
accurate predictions.
But, can science
reveal bedrock reality?
The second application
applies science to philosophy,
addressing with science the big
questions raised by philosophy.
For example:
What is time?
Does it flow?
What are laws of nature?
Can they change?
How can mind come from brain?
Will philosophy continue
to wither... becoming a
handmaiden of science?
Or can philosophy regain its
high perch as a fundamental
probe of reality?
The ultimate arbiter, I suspect,
may be consciousness -
in getting... closer to truth.
For complete interviews
and for further information,
please visit
www.closertotruth.com
