The role of Science is to understand and solve specific problems while the role of Philosophy is the pursuit of truth and wisdom. The tool of Science is knowledge which is usually acquired through rigorous study and clarified by peer consensus. Philosophers are like scientists without a laboratory as it deals with abstract concepts such as morals and religion that often seem impossible to prove. Science can be and is often ‘bought’. Scientists are paid to prove that smoking cigarets is hazardous, or not. To prove that global warming is caused by human activity, or not. I’m not aware of corporations hiring philosophers to prove their products are safe but I’m sure this is because scientists are better trusted and more easily understood today compared to philosophers who cannot show proof of their assertions. Neither scientists nor philosophers possess any absolute truths but Philosophy is useful if only in keeping scientists honest.
The Case For Mars Dr Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author who believes that humans will travel to Mars in the not too distant future and will eventually establish permanent colonies on the red planet. His enthusiasm for the idea is contagious. This well produced 2011 YouTube documentary focuses on Zubrin, his successes and his disappointments in convincing the political establishment as well as the NASA bureaucracy that this is the natural destiny for human kind. I think he's right.
Enlarge
Can Science tell us right from wrong? Nov 20, 2013 This is a profound question that does not have a simple answer. Here we have a fairly good debate featuring several scientists and philosophers that I follow closely. The panel consisted of Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Peter Singer and Roger Bingham. This was a lively exchange which brought up the problem of scientists, like Harris and Krauss, trying to be philosophers and philosophers, like Singer and Blackburn, spending too much effort defending the role of philosophy. Also, I find a format such as this . . . with a lot of panelists leads to frustration . . . too many people with a lot to say but not enough time to say it. Makes one wonder if scientists and philosophers can coexist in today’s world. Watch the whole hour debate HERE.
Michio Kaku Today popular scientists such as Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku are all over the internet and that’s a very good thing. They are great public champions of science. I wish philosophy had such a prominent perch in society. Thirty years ago science had Carl Sagan doing the occasional documentary or spot on Johnny Carson. Now with Cable television and more recently the internet has spread scientific knowledge to far more people. With some very serious scientists, that are also great communicators, such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku, both of which are prominent on PBS as well as on the web, science has become highly entertaining and far more accessible.
Neil Turok "We are analog beings living in a digital world facing a quantum future" Nov 12, 2012 Neil Turok the Massey Lectures 2012 In this year's CBC Massey Lectures Neil Turok, the South Africa born theoretical physicist gave us an optimistic yet careful look at humanity's future within the universe. Scientists are beginning to understand how it all came together and to reveal the mysteries of the atom. He says "we are analog beings living in a digital world facing a quantum future". He has not helped my understanding of quantum physics but I now see its mind boggling possibilities. I share his view that we need a new enlightenment and agree that Canada could be at the forefront in such an enlightenment just as in the sixteenth century Scotland, a humble country sitting next to the powerful England at the time produced some remarkable thinking from people such as Adam Smith and David Hume. Turok mentions that many of our problems today are because of "selfish, individualistic behaviours that are at the root cause of our environmental and financial crises". I have little doubt that science can save us and that quantum technology has the potential to solve the many problems of our modern world. But we live in societies today that may not respond to what needs to be done fast enough. And it continues to be a question if we are willing to take on the problems collectively and globally while we are still able. It is comforting to hear scientists, like Turok, speak of a wonderful future. We need that. But it may be even more important to have philosophical, honest and objective insights as an integral part of the public dialogue. Scientists, like Turok, cannot be expected to be objective, (they love science and have bought into its potential), yet they are looked upon for guidance today while philosophy is considered irrelevant and is often discouraged. Perhaps a new Canadian enlightenment will feature a reemergence and respect of philosophy.
HERE is a link to the fifth and final lecture in the series from Toronto. 54mins.
The Impact Of Air Travel Feb. 15, 2014 I find when I try to engage in conversation with people about the impact of air travel on our planet I'm often accused of being judgmental and self-righteous but it’s my view that a real friend will not sit silent when he or she is wrong about an important issue, like the impact of air travel on the environment, which is something that affects all of us. Just as over 90% of the world's people have never flown in an airplane the right thing for those of us who are privileged must be to set an example buy showing restraint through cutting back on air travel.
Lawrence Krauss Krauss is an American/Canadian theoretical physicist. I see him as a pop scientist with a hell of a lot of knowledge on cosmology. However I find he often tends to be full of his own self importance and often comes off a bit strong. Also he seldom hides his disregard for philosophy and philosophers. This is an attitude I find unacceptable. Here is an example (see footnote). I can see how theoretical physicists, such as Krauss, can become critical of philosophers. It is the scientists that do the hands on work, it is they who conduct the experiments . . . while philosophers tend to stand back and pass judgement. But that is the very point of why philosophy is so useful . . . to see the large picture where scientists, by necessity, are much more focused . . . often on a single discipline. The pursuit of science is to solve specific problems while the role of philosophy is the pursuit of truth. It is hard for scientists to see the forest and I think Krauss is a good example as his ego so often gets in the way of truth.
Footnote: Here is a blog entry by Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York who questions Lawrence Krauss’ harsh view of philosophy. I agree with Pigliucci.
Human Survival April 6, 2012 Before we look at personal survival strategies . . . like how do we live off the land . . . wouldn't it be better to step back and consider if there is any point to it all? To study the problem philosophically because I think we have a clear distinction here between our concern for our personal survival and the survival of humanity.
I believe humans live in a pragmatic world and are primarily concerned with self interest. However we sometimes do not act, even in our own self interest, unless we are certain that catastrophe really is imminent. Often we are just not willing to make the required sacrifice to our lifestyle until we see it as urgent. We procrastinate and we're not always rational. This crude side of human nature seems to be sending us down a road to extinction. It may even be inevitable.
Okay, I agree with what you're thinking . . . humans are more complicated than that. We do have the ability to see a larger picture . . . to see beyond ourselves . . . to even come to grips with the thought that our personal self isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. It can even serve our self interest if we do what we can to serve humanity in some tangible way. It gives us a feeling that we are doing something useful . . . and that, I believe, we need as much as food, if we are to have a happy existence in our short time here.
So, given we all agree that there will probably be hard times ahead . . . what then should our strategy be? Should we go on pursuing our personal survival? Or work to change societies so that we can ward off an otherwise certain catastrophe?
