“A Little Philosophy Is A Dangerous Thing - NPR News” plus 1 more

---

A Little Philosophy Is A Dangerous Thing - NPR News Posted: 04 Feb 2011 11:44 AM PST elleinad/Flickr How real is real? Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow do not succeed in murdering philosophy in their recent book The Grand Design. Nor do they even try. Perhaps this is because they believe, as they blandly announce on the first page, that philosophy is already dead. But the joke's on them. If philosophy were a big burlap bag, then these writers seem to have delivered us their book higgledy-piggledy from somewhere in the dark within. Other commentators, on this blog (here and here), and elsewhere, have focused on what Hawking and Mlodinow have to say about physics, about God and about the relation between them. I begin, where the authors' themselves begin, with a different issue: the apparent conflict between appearance and reality. (John Haldane anticipates my criticisms in his review.) "The naive view of reality," Hawking and Mlodinow assert, "is not compatible with modern physics." That seems about right. Take the table in front of you. It's brown, rectangular, and solid. Well, is it really?   Since the time of Newton, we have been told that actually the table, like all matter, is a colorless cloud of particles moving in empty space. There is no table, really, and there is no color; color is produced by the action of particles on your nervous system. Of course there isn't really a nervous system either. There isn't really a you. We are non-things in a world devoid of any of the properties "we" seem to experience it as having. Notice that this problem — how to reconcile what physics teaches us about how things are with our ordinary conception of ourselves and the world we live in — is a problem that arises out of the practice of physics itself. In this sense it arises in physics. (Indeed, it was in the writings of natural philosophers, aka physicists, such as Galileo and Newton, that the problem finds its finest articulation.) But notice, too, that it is not a problem that physics can solve by simply doing more physics. It's a problem about physics, after all. And this is the hallmark of philosophical problems, which usually take the form of a distinctive and urgent puzzlement about what we take for granted. Philosophical problems arise when we are not sure how to go on, or not sure what we've been doing all along, and they arise in any domain whatsoever (neuroscience, biology, religion, politics, morality, and, of course, physics). Can breakthroughs in physics solve the philosophical problem of making sense of the meaning of physics itself? Do the "recent discoveries" and "theoretical advances" of the last few decades enable us to frame new approaches to the question of the apparent incompatibility of common sense and modern physics, as Hawking and Mlodinow seem to suggest? They offer us "model-dependent realism." As they explain: "According to model-dependent realism it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation … then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is convenient in the situation under consideration." And they assert, not very persuasively, that model-dependent realism "short-circuits" debates about the nature of reality. But what is observation, anyway? It's what we learn by looking, inspecting, measuring. In this sense, observations are themselves a kind of judgment. And judgments of this sort are usually the answers to the questions we ask, given what interests us, what we are curious about, and what we expect to be the case, that is, given our theoretical framework. I can find out whether there are brick houses on Elm Street by looking. In a different context, I can test whether my eyes are working by checking whether I see the brick houses. We don't have any grip on the idea of what we can see (or measure, or detect) apart from our prior understanding of what there is. It may be that Hawking and Mlodinow, like the Viennese positivists in the 1930s who first developed the ideas that Hawking and Mlodinow seem to have rediscovered, take for granted that neuroscience, or perhaps the language of pure experience, does provide a theory-neutral way of describing our observations. As they write: "Model-dependent realism applies not only to scientific models but also to the conscious and subconscious mental models we all create in order to interpret and understand the everyday world." Like Carnap then, and like Hume before him, Hawking and Mlodinow seem to think that the world of common sense is a kind of theoretical construct that is developed in each of us, in the brain, or in the mind, on the basis of the data in the sensory stimulation that bombards us. They are in good company, to be sure. But to judge from the text, Hawking and Mlodinow don't seem to have any sense of the history, the pre-history, or indeed the lively present of the ideas they are tossing around. Model-dependent realism is not an up-to-date physics solution to a problem once relegated to philosophy; it's a rehash of philosophical ideas whose real interest seems to elude the authors. Hard problems sometimes have simple solutions. But no service is rendered when smart people pretend that hard problems are simple. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php Five Filters featured article: Collateral Damage - WikiLeaks In The Crosshairs.

Possum Philosophy: Gun owners for generations - Southwest Virginia Today Posted: 04 Feb 2011 02:08 PM PST By Stephanie Porter-Nichols Published: February 4, 2011 By ROBERT CAHILL/Columnist Anytime there is a tragic shooting incident, it immediately stirs the anti-gun lobby into crying for more and stricter gun laws. In a way this is understandable, at least for those not familiar with guns. It is their thoughts that the strictest laws would prevent these killings. I am sorry but I cannot agree. I come from a family of gun owners. In fact, I would have to say I cannot remember ever living in a home that did not have a working firearm and the ammunition needed to shoot it. Never. My Dad was a crack-shot. He used to put on shooting shows for his family. Often on Sunday afternoon, Dad and an uncle or two would load us boys up, drive out into the countryside and shoot. It was a fun, recreational thing. I have seen my Dad, an expert marksman, have us stick matches, the strike-anywhere kind into a wooden fence post with the strike-able end up of course. He would then brace himself on the roof of our car, take aim and light that match by hitting the striking tip with his shot. Believe me, this takes real skill with a weapon. He taught all his boys to shoot, and though none of us match his skills, we all can generally hit whatever we may be shooting at in the general area we wish to strike. He also taught us all to be responsible with guns. His standard reminder to all of us was, "Boy, guns are not toys. Don't ever point a gun at anything or anybody you don't intend to kill." He was serious about his guns and safety. On my 10th birthday my Dad gave me a Savage .22 Hornet Rifle. Although Mom had concerns, dad said he was confident in my ability to own and use it safely. The main requirements were to always use it safely as he had taught me. And at first, never to take it out without Dad or one of my uncles along to supervise. Oh I promised with great fervor and in fairness, and I meant it at that moment in time. But most folks will tell you that 10-year-old boys are weak-willed when it comes to certain types of temptation. And the opportunity to show off your new real rifle, not a BB gun, in front of a couple of buddies was just too much. Mom and dad had gone shopping one Saturday afternoon and the younger kids had gone along. I had some buddies there so we stayed behind, not unusual. Dad and mom hadn't been gone long when I got out my gun to show the guys. It was a nice day, and all of them wanted to take a shot or two. Well, we at least had enough sense not to fire it there in the backyard, too many homes around. But we were only a short trot at least then to the backside of Lover's Leap, a rather large hill. It was time for Elmer Fudd and his buds to go hunting. Barry Chapman even had his little dog Checkers along so, like Fudd, we were "wabbit hunting." Or so we thought. Sure we would be back in plenty of time. Just a quick trip up the backside of the hill, snap off a few rounds. Maybe even bag a rabbit or two and be home long before mom and dad. Ah, but you know the old saying about the best laid plans of mice and men. Well, it goes for 10-year-old boys too. We didn't kill a rabbit; I don't remember if we even saw one. But we did shoot a few times each, not at anything in particular, just shooting. We strode proudly back into base camp (the backyard at my home) only to discover dad's car in the driveway. Yes, we were caught red-handed. Mom and dad were not happy to say the least. Dad took the gun from me and sold it, telling me I obviously was not as ready as he had thought I was. It was a few years before I owned another one. I was brokenhearted, but I learned a lesson about responsibility. However, my love of firearms and shooting were not in the least diminished. Like most of my fellow southwestern Virginians, I believe in gun-ownership by individuals. We do not consider it a safety hazard; we consider it a necessity and even more or less a duty. We are not the only ones. For example, the town of Kennesaw, Ga., part of the Atlanta metropolitan area, in 1982 adopted a gun ordinance. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, the ordinance stated, "(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."  The ordinance made exemptions for heads of household that were mentally, physically, or due to criminal records, unable to own a weapon. It also made allowance for families who simply could not afford one or whose religious or moral beliefs prevented their having one. Although many naysayers claim the law did no good, a considerable drop in crime statistics seem to point otherwise. I honestly believe, had practically every citizen at the rally in Arizona, where the Congresswoman was shot and others killed, been carrying legal weapons and trained in its use, the outcome would have been different. While every injury might not have been prevented, casualty counts could have been far less. I wish that rather than cries going out to strengthen regulations to prevent gun ownership, an approach more like Kennesaw's would be the result. Every home should have at least one working firearm and someone in the household should pass a course showing proficiency in its use. No permit should be required. However, certain rules prohibiting ownership by known criminals, those with history of mental problems and such should be in place. Those who fit the prohibitions yet found carrying firearms should face strict penalties, including possible long-term imprisonment. In other words we are a free citizenry, we should return to acting as such. One of the considerations of the Japanese military during World War II was an actual invasion of the United States on a large scale. However, some members of the military command warned that, thanks to U.S. citizens being free and well armed compared to most countries, it would be an impossible task. Rather than stricter gun control laws, we need tougher laws for those who do commit crime. Two quotes come to mind, "A well-armed citizenry is a free citizenry" and "The best gun control is being able to hit what you shoot at!" A freelance journalist, Robert "Rocky" Cahill writes regularly for the News & Messenger. His Possum Philosophy column appears in each Saturday edition.  This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php Five Filters featured article: Collateral Damage - WikiLeaks In The Crosshairs.

You are subscribed to email updates from Philosophy - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610