Why the hostility toward philosophy?

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

p.s. ...thanks for posting that article. It is an interesting read. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

What do you mean by "not optional?" A metaphysicist does not need to be an empiricist, and for those of us who are rationalists instead, there is nothing terribly compelling about the claim that metaphysics needs to be constrained by empirical evidence. (Informed by, yes. Constrained by, no.) We would reject that empiricism is even possible at all without a rationalist foundation, and I would also point out that some of the "common sense" intuitions that empiricists offer as evidence that reasoning without empirical evidence leads to error have actually been challenged by philosophers and theologians for millennia. Augustine denied absolute time in the 4th century, so the idea that science has been tearing down traditional metaphysics seems out of place. (Sometimes I wonder if it isn't empiricism itself that cripples people's intuitions, since too strong a focus on observation might weaken one's ability to think outside the box, so to speak.)

I don't really have a problem with people trying to make metaphysics the Handmaiden of Science, but I think the via media presented by the various Neo-Aristotelian naturalists (Kit Fine and the other people being railed against in that paper) is more appropriate for that task. A heavily scientistic metaphysics is not a neutral metaphysics that rigorously engages with the science -- it is one that transforms the scientific model of reality into an ontology, with any attempt to rationally engage with what scientific evidence might entail being decried as not evidence based. I think this actually cripples philosophy, if one thinks its main purpose ought to be challenging and breaking up paradigms that narrow one's worldview.

If one wishes to avoid metaphysical territory that lies outside of strict empiricism, then that is fine. Similarly, if one wishes to build their philosophical system upon a particular religious revelation, that can be done also. I don't see how either type of constraint could be viewed as non-optional, though.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What do you mean by "not optional?" A metaphysicist does not need to be an empiricist, and for those of us who are rationalists instead, there is nothing terribly compelling about the claim that metaphysics needs to be constrained by empirical evidence. (Informed by, yes. Constrained by, no.) We would reject that empiricism is even possible at all without a rationalist foundation, and I would also point out that some of the "common sense" intuitions that empiricists offer as evidence that reasoning without empirical evidence leads to error have actually been challenged by philosophers and theologians for millennia. Augustine denied absolute time in the 4th century, so the idea that science has been tearing down traditional metaphysics seems out of place. (Sometimes I wonder if it isn't empiricism itself that cripples people's intuitions, since too strong a focus on observation might weaken one's ability to think outside the box, so to speak.)

I don't really have a problem with people trying to make metaphysics the Handmaiden of Science, but I think the via media presented by the various Neo-Aristotelian naturalists (Kit Fine and the other people being railed against in that paper) is more appropriate for that task. A heavily scientistic metaphysics is not a neutral metaphysics that rigorously engages with the science -- it is one that transforms the scientific model of reality into an ontology, with any attempt to rationally engage with what scientific evidence might entail being decried as not evidence based. I think this actually cripples philosophy, if one thinks its main purpose ought to be challenging and breaking up paradigms that narrow one's worldview.
That is right, which is also why science needs philosophy—because the excesses of scientism can, as you point out, lead to any attempt to rationally engage with the evidence being dismissed as "not evidence based". We can sometimes see this happen in ordinary conversation also, where bald invocations of science are made without regard for different ways in which the science in question could be interpreted. This is a conversation stopper, and thus undesirable.
If one wishes to avoid metaphysical territory that lies outside of strict empiricism, then that is fine. Similarly, if one wishes to build their philosophical system upon a particular religious revelation, that can be done also. I don't see how either type of constraint could be viewed as non-optional, though.
Perhaps "not optional" was too strong. I was more reflecting on one of the factors that, in my own view, should constrain theoretical content. This is a bone of contention though, and I didn't mean to imply that "not optional" was some sort of consensus view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That sounds all fine and dandy, Arch...if we're wanting to build a 737 that actually keeps flying.

But, your paper, although interesting, is being presented to us while couched within the Christian Apologetics section of a Christian Forum, so while I can agree that "Free-Range" meta-physics is limited, there's still the problem that ... as long as God is a part of our epistemic makeup in the processes of Christian belief formation, along with the usual epistemic human applications, then this paper of yours will have limited value.

As for its application to the Philosophy and Science debate: I guess it's applicable. But again, its applicability will essentially apply to the doing of science, which it seems to me, Bryant's position on metaphysics is just another way of expressing a nuanced 'Methodological Naturalism,' which I agree with when doing science.
Bryant's argument is not about the doing of science though, but the doing of metaphysics. Granted, this topic is somewhat controversial, and I've kind of glided over the issues without really getting into details (largely because this thread is about hostility toward philosophy as a whole and not specific debates in metametaphysics).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sorry for the accidental "funny" rating, @Archaeopteryx. What is funny is trying to press the right button on a tablet.

(Alright, I need to go check out of this hotel. And of CF, lol. If anyone sees me post in the next two months, and it's not about Holy Week in Seville, yell at me.)
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Sorry for the accidental "funny" rating, @Archaeopteryx.
I just recently had someone PM me about a funny rating I gave them, I never thought I’d see that happen haha, they wanted to know why I didn’t add to the discussion if I found something funny about it lol
(Alright, I need to go check out of this hotel. And of CF, lol. If anyone sees me post in the next two months, and it's not about Holy Week in Seville, yell at me.)
Have fun!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bryant's argument is not about the doing of science though, but the doing of metaphysics. Granted, this topic is somewhat controversial, and I've kind of glided over the issues without really getting into details (largely because this thread is about hostility toward philosophy as a whole and not specific debates in metametaphysics).

Yes, I've kind of picked up on the metaphysical focus of the article as I've been reading through it, but being that I'm about half done with it at the moment, I'm sure this focus will become clearer as I approach the end of it. But whether its focus is metaphysics or not, I'd really wish this thread could be in a spot more conducive to participation from all kinds of folks, from your fellow atheists in particular ... ;)
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Neither. I see them as continuous and integrated.

There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

Metaphysical systems always grow up around scientific and logical systems and are thus related to them in some ways, but also attempt to transcend those roots to reach a more universal terminus. The problem is that when modern science bumps into traditional metaphysics paradigms are at stake and, secondarily, consensus views of older science are confronting novel interpretations of new science. An important element in this is that in times past the philosophers and the scientists were one and the same people (or groups of people), and when you have that close-knit connection the metaphysics benefits enormously. The article in the OP laments the modern parting of science and philosophy, and this is precisely one of the reasons why the older, unified systems will continue to carry so much weight.

Methodology of metaphysics, or "Metametaphysics" is a tricky field, but it is very unlikely that the entrenched disputes found there can be adjudicated by scientific input. As is so often the case in metaphysics, the causality is rather in the other direction: interpretive debates in the scientific world (e.g. quantum mechanics) depend largely or solely on the metaphysical presuppositions at play. This is why, for many, the methodology of metaphysics is merely descriptive, surveying options, differences, systems, coherence, etc. I would call that approach necessary but insufficient, and yet it does help us understand the primacy of metaphysics over science.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Metaphysical systems always grow up around scientific and logical systems and are thus related to them in some ways, but also attempt to transcend those roots to reach a more universal terminus. The problem is that when modern science bumps into traditional metaphysics paradigms are at stake and, secondarily, consensus views of older science are confronting novel interpretations of new science. An important element in this is that in times past the philosophers and the scientists were one and the same people (or groups of people), and when you have that close-knit connection the metaphysics benefits enormously. The article in the OP laments the modern parting of science and philosophy, and this is precisely one of the reasons why the older, unified systems will continue to carry so much weight.

Methodology of metaphysics, or "Metametaphysics" is a tricky field, but it is very unlikely that the entrenched disputes found there can be adjudicated by scientific input. As is so often the case in metaphysics, the causality is rather in the other direction: interpretive debates in the scientific world (e.g. quantum mechanics) depend largely or solely on the metaphysical presuppositions at play. This is why, for many, the methodology of metaphysics is merely descriptive, surveying options, differences, systems, coherence, etc. I would call that approach necessary but insufficient, and yet it does help us understand the primacy of metaphysics over science.
I agree partly, but diverge somewhat on the latter point. We already have difficulty clearly demarcating scientific disputes from more metaphysical ones, and the historically tight link between the two—alluded to in that PNAS article—suggests that scientific and philosophical developments often build upon one another, rather than occurring in isolation. So I don't see why certain disputes should be deemed "off limits" to science or why we should confine ourselves to academic silos, which may well fuel the animosity talked about in the OP. The misperception that the two are separate endeavours—enterprises that proceed entirely independently of one another—is exactly the point I think we should be challenging, especially if we want to emphasise why philosophy matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree partly, but diverge somewhat on the latter point. We already have difficulty clearly demarcating scientific disputes from more metaphysical ones, and the historically tight link between the two—alluded to in that PNAS article—suggests that scientific and philosophical developments often build upon one another, rather than occurring in isolation. So I don't see why certain disputes should be deemed "off limits" to science or why we should confine ourselves to academic silos, which may well fuel the animosity talked about in the OP. The misperception that the two are separate endeavours—enterprises that proceed entirely independently of one another—is exactly the point I think we should be challenging, especially if we want to emphasise why philosophy matters.

I think that one inherent technical issue here is the extent that a person, whether Christian or atheist, thinks that religion, even generally speaking, counts as a form of metaphysics. This to me is an area that becomes a rather ambiguous one for all to travel in and we need to be clear on just how the tensions between philosophy and science (ala someone like Quine, for instance) relate to the concern over the tensions that also exist between religion and science [as in whether we should follow the predilections of scientists who subscribe to Methodological Naturalism versus those who instead rely upon Philosophical Naturalism].
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I agree partly, but diverge somewhat on the latter point. We already have difficulty clearly demarcating scientific disputes from more metaphysical ones, and the historically tight link between the two—alluded to in that PNAS article—suggests that scientific and philosophical developments often build upon one another, rather than occurring in isolation. So I don't see why certain disputes should be deemed "off limits" to science or why we should confine ourselves to academic silos, which may well fuel the animosity talked about in the OP. The misperception that the two are separate endeavours—enterprises that proceed entirely independently of one another—is exactly the point I think we should be challenging, especially if we want to emphasise why philosophy matters.

I can appreciate what you are saying, but the exact relationship between metaphysics and science is quite obscure, and metaphysicians tend to argue with metaphysicians while scientists weigh in very rarely on metaphysical topics. Metaphysicians and philosophers will occasionally weigh in on scientific topics, but only to critique the inferences, methodological assumptions, or the like rather than to say anything about the specifically scientific findings/data. Perhaps this is because metaphysics requires some familiarity with natural science whereas the reverse is not true--at least scientists require no explicit familiarity with metaphysics.

In general though I agree that cross-fertilization is helpful. Edward Feser has been drawing attention to philosopher Alex Byrne's critiques of social science (one, two, three.) and he himself just critiqued the AI crowd on a philosophical basis. These are a few examples of philosophy critiquing science. Perhaps there are scientists critiquing philosophers elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I can appreciate what you are saying, but the exact relationship between metaphysics and science is quite obscure, and metaphysicians tend to argue with metaphysicians while scientists weigh in very rarely on metaphysical topics. Metaphysicians and philosophers will occasionally weigh in on scientific topics, but only to critique the inferences, methodological assumptions, or the like rather than to say anything about the specifically scientific findings/data. Perhaps this is because metaphysics requires some familiarity with natural science whereas the reverse is not true--at least scientists require no explicit familiarity with metaphysics.

In general though I agree that cross-fertilization is helpful. Edward Feser has been drawing attention to philosopher Alex Byrne's critiques of social science (one, two, three.) and he himself just critiqued the AI crowd on a philosophical basis. These are a few examples of philosophy critiquing science. Perhaps there are scientists critiquing philosophers elsewhere.
I don't see it as "philosophy critiquing science" or "scientists critiquing philosophers," though that does of course happen. I see it as the two working together on the same problems, although perhaps with different focuses. That's why at least some philosophers have scientific training in the fields to which they contribute (e.g., philosophers of physics with prior physics degrees, neurophilosophy, computer science, etc), why philosophers and scientists attend some of the same conferences and publish in some of the same journals, and why science courses (including the one I teach into) increasingly seem to incorporate material that would usually be discussed within philosophy courses. This is all good, in my view, because sometimes academic silos can cultivate a kind of intellectual myopia.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Graham Priest's review of Timothy Williamson's latest book, Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning, may be of interest here. It isn't directly relevant to the question of why some are inclined to be dismissive of philosophy, but it does touch on questions of how philosophy is practiced. And it's sparked an interesting discussion on Twitter (1, 2).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0