I like the term "epistemic trespass" and generally agree with the idea
glen promotes in that regard.
My direct experience with *many* experimentalists trained and
self-selected as physicists or chemists or materials scientists was that
many of them were excellent engineers, computer systems developers,
programmers, even mech/elec/hydro/pneumo-techs... but *mainly* because
those skills/disciplines were in directs support of what they were
trying to do and it was a useful shortcut/leverage to be able to do all
those things for themselves rather than wait for the availability of
specialists in those areas and then communicate their needs. Only a
*few* theorists seemed to have these skills because, perhaps they rarely
*needed* that kind of support, though some had avocations or hobbies
that exercised those skills. I would hazard that more of the
theoreticians were more deeply interested in the mathematics and
philosophical embeddings that their avowed day-work implied. The
experimentalists *might* be interested (and/or facile) in those things
but to some extent by constitution, self-selection, utilitarianism were
less engaged.
I am glad that Tyson is out there "spreading the faith" to some extent,
but it doesn't surprise me that he might give philosophers the
brush-back unthoughtfully. I feel like Sabine Hossenfelder, in her
very subtle style may have done the same thing but with a straight face
rather than a big grin, even though much of her science-communication is
smack dab in the middle (IMO) of these epistimic boundaries which is
where (IMO) the best stuff resides. I was recently put off by Paul
Hawkin's need to deprecate/dismiss any talk (or thought?) about
consciousness in deference to the presumably more formally defineable
"intelligence", but I also understand that one good way to make progress
on technical things is to downscope until your reach does not exceed
your grasp (by much) and Hawkin's experience as a tech entreprenuer
(Palm Pilot) suggests that he is more better served by staying closer to
the engineering and tech end of the (multi-dimensional?) spectrum than
the philosophical one. I also understand that as one moves out into
the yet-more-abstract of philosophy and mathematics and semiotics (for
example) they seem more likely to be laced with BS (and perhaps often
are?)... but that ambiguity/difficulty is part of what makes it worth
spending time in (IMO again).
Not only do we not like our various sacred-cows skewered by others we
don't even like them being called by unfamiliar names, until you realize
those names *might* be "terms of endearment"?
I am not familiar with Hawking or Mlodinow's assertions but it triggers
my associative memory to Russell and Whitehead's (and others)
assertions around/Principia Mathematica/. Or the (yet more)
classic/"God is Dead/ - Neitchze 1882 V. /Neitchze is dead/ - God
1900". I do suspect that the practice and vocation of philosophy is
being altered in the face of things like the development of Category
Theory and now LLMs ... in the common CS vernacular, /it is not
deprecated but is being refactored/?
On 7/14/23 11:02 AM, glen wrote:
This merely seems like triggered gatekeeping to me. Yeah, sure,
working philosophers have skills and behaviors working [insert your
favorite other clique] don't have. But, if it's not already obvious,
especially to anyone who's had ANY contact with organizations like the
SFI, epistemic trespassing can be wildly productive. We're all bad at
things we're not good at. >8^D I haven't seen the Tyson rant that
seems to have triggered Ramsey. But *leaving someone out* of your cf
list is NOT a snub ... despite what the hip-and-trendy might claim.
It's merely evidence that any presentation is limited in space and
time. My guess is that if you listen to Tyson with a little
generosity, you'd hear him make sounds sympathetic to the expertise of
the peri-science cliques.
Now, Hawking and Mlodinow's explicit claim that philosophy is dead ...
now, that's a different story.
On 7/14/23 08:33, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Joe Ramsey, who took over my job.in <http://job.in> the Philosophy
Department at Carnegie Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:
I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited
defense of science in which he oddly gave no credit to philosophers
at all. His straw man philosopher is a dedicated *armchair*
philosopher who spins theories without paying attention to scientific
practice and contributes nothing to scientific understanding. He
misses that scientists themselves are constantly raising obviously
philosophical questions and are often ill-equipped to think about
them clearly. What is the correct interpretation of quantum
mechanics? What is the right way to think about reductionism? Is
reductionism the right way to think about science? What is the nature
of consciousness? Can you explain consciousness in terms of
neuroscience? Are biological kinds real? What does it even mean to be
real? Or is realism a red herring; should we be pragmatists instead?
Scientists raise all kinds of philosophical questions and have
ill-informed opinions about them. But *philosophers* try to answer
them, and scientists do pay attention to the controversies. At least
the smart ones do.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
