Menghubungkan kaedah saintifik dengan falsafah - bahawa semua makhluk dan kejadian di alam semesta adalah semula jadi o Pendekatan untuk masalah falsafah yang menafsirkannya sebagai hanya dapat diubati melalui kaedah sains empirikal o Menolak kewujudan realiti ghaib yang benar-benar berlaku peruntukan untuk ghaib, dengan syarat bahawa pengetahuan tentangnya dapat secara tidak langsung o Masalah-masalah falsafah yang secara tradisional dianggap tidak diformulasikan dan dapat diselesaikan / dipindahkan dengan kaedah naturalistik & empirikal
I don't find this discussion particularly illuminating. His point that there are other 'ways of knowing' beyond the scientific one has been regurgitated by philosophers over and over again, specifically in order to provide vague description and justification of their discipline. Alright, science has certain limitations, some of which can perhaps even be delineated by a priori means, but does that mean that there are other methodologies for reaching real knowledge of the world besides the one used by the natural sciences? I am not so sure. Every philosophical conception of this difference is in principle bound to come up as vague, misleading, or incomplete. Williamson's whole discussion of this topic comes up as being somewhat superficial in my opinion. Why does he think it necessary that naturalism has to be well defined by its proponents if it is to be taken seriously as an overarching methodological, ontological, etc. framework? The same challenge can be issued to supernaturalism by claiming that it needs to be well defined if what it says is to be taken seriously. But I think it is a philosopher's prejudice to ask for a clean-cut definition in either case, by way of putting out necessary and sufficient conditions for each class of phenomena. Take ghosts as an example. The existence of such entities cannot be accommodated within the framework (or worldview?) of naturalism because it would violate the principle of energy conservation, along with other repeatedly verified empirical facts. Of course, there might be other supernatural phenomena that would possibly pose a more formidable challenge to naturalism, but it seems to me that in the end they all rest on the evocation of ghost-like entities, and that's exactly why it is reasonable (in a careful reading of this term) to put them all under one umbrella term. But this of course doesn't mean that we can 'prove' the non-existence of such things, not in the way a philosopher would want us to do. As far as mathematics goes, I am not convinced by Williamson's reasons for taking this seriously as a counterexample to naturalism. First of all, not all parts of mathematics are 'created equal' - some have empirical import, others constitute purely abstract, clearly non-empirical areas of research. Not only that, but one mathematical idea or hypothesis, which at the time of its original formulation was of a completely abstract, purely mathematical interest, can at some later point in time find its appropriate empirical application (e.g. Riemannian hyperbolic geometry). But again, I don't think there are definite boundaries here, and we should make our decisions on a case-to-case basis. Finally, I wish Williamson had provided a more detailed analysis of what he means by philosophy in general, because I feel there is a tension between his thesis of the autonomy of philosophy, and his Quinean claim that philosophy is somehow continuous with natural sciences. Without further examination, it seems to me that the same problem Quine had when it comes to situating philosophy on a spectrum that extends from logic and pure mathematics on the one hand, and applied physics on the other is encountered here as well, albeit in a somewhat different form.
they wouldn't have to keep regurgitating this point if people actually got them and stopped pushing/preaching for some form of scientism/positivism, but some/many still do so philosophers(and scientists) have to keep wasting part of their time saying the obvious.
+Alberto Cagliani So I thought at first. On a second review, what a difficult topic to talk about. I'm not sure I know of another mind who could have spoken about it any better while maintaining the depth that T. Williamson when into.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Williamson ridiculing continental philosophy, accusing the likes of Derrida of obscurantism. I've managed to listen to him for 10 minutes. I'm lost for words.
It is well known that many leading continental philosophers used deliberately opaque language in an attempt to feign profundity so Williamson's pointed remarks are hardly unfounded. Have you read any of Williamson's work? It's pretty straightforward in its use of language and always attempts to aim for conceptual clarity.
@Greg Alpacca: I wouldn't want to deny that there are profound and worthwhile ideas contained within the work of many continental philosophers. Heidegger, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc...all great and worthy of intense study. Brandom's work on Hegel would be an example of the analytic revival of continental thought within neopragmatism that you alluded to towards the end of your comment. Graham Priest's use of Heideggerian thought would be another. I'm well aware of these. This doesn't negate the reality that there was, and still is, a lack of transparency and a real push for clarity in terms of the writing style (broadly more literary in its approach when compared to the more recent analytic tradition) used. John Searle has spoken well about this; the videos of him talking about Foucault's work are easy enough to find.
@Greg Alpacca: You make a number of very good points and I largely agree with your summation. I do think the snobbery that was perhaps present in analytic circles is waning and from what I've read, philosophers are increasingly looking towards Eastern ideas (from India, China, Japan, etc) to attempt to better understand logic, the nature of being, personal identity...the list goes on and on. This can only be a good thing and I hope new insights and progress arises out of it. I just found an article by Keith Frankish that touches upon the topic of obscurity within philosophical writing and elucidates the different problems at play nicely. While he rightly makes reference to, '...some philosophers (writing) obscurely because it creates an aura of profundity and mystery.' he also poses an argument *for* obscurity on the grounds that, '(some philosophical thought) doesn’t seek to construct precise theories; rather, it reaches out to unmapped areas..., where we do not yet know what techniques to employ, what concepts to use, or even what questions to ask. It is more like art than science...' I find this latter idea very interesting too. Here's the full article: aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure?fbclid=IwAR1atSuHNnmg9aAVr3Jgoxj6hKj00sJvyCUg2RevCwbUfk6cXnfXpB2Fb8g
Williamson is simply brilliant as a thinker, but is unfortunately not great as a speaker. Part of the problem is that people with his level of intelligence will never be accessible to the masses
bushfingers I have no trouble understanding what he's saying. It's just that his thinking is unnecessarily muddled. Murkiness, a British accent and tenure are not alone impressive to me.
Yes. Clarity is half the journey. He's breathing through his mouth a lot, and that's stressful to the body, and makes his presentation seem more halting than it is. @@utah133
I think that from his perspective, you would appear the same way. I've come to realize that scientists and analytic philosophers operate under different definitions of what counts as a "description of reality". For scientists, a description of reality is a mathematically constructed model that predicts experimental results. For analytic philosophers, a description of reality is a theory which generates sentences that can be defended as accurate from every angle of rational attack. From each side, the other appears vague and noncommittal. I assume you understand why philosophy might appear that way from the scientific perspective. Science appears the same way from the philosophical perspective because even if you can predict experimental results, in the case where that alone does not give you an accurate statement that is defensible from all angles of rational attack, how have you reached a "description of reality" in the sense of facts that describe what is really the case? Sometimes, refusing to support either of two contending sides is in fact the correct rational move.
Let me present an analogy illustrating why I don't think it's at all wishy washy to say that both naturalists and anti-naturalists are definitely wrong: If astrologers who use stars and planets and palmists were having a fight about which of them have the superior method, and you stood up and said they are both bogus, and then both sides said you were being unsure, then that would be unfair to you, since you are making a definite statement about both sides being wrong.
Also imagine that in this situation, once you manage to make both sides understand that you think they wrong, they start accusing you of saying that humans can never predict future events under any circumstances, so you have to start navigating the waters very carefully to save your belief in natural science.
@@laertesindeed yes, you did. in the first comment, then again in your reply to that other user, and now you are lying about having lied. should/could just have said nothing at all. it would have been better.
I'm sorry, this man is almost incomprehensible, he puts a full stop or ellipsis after every other word! Even his body language seems to be apologising for his lack of any iclear deas. Sorry, such a nice, sincere chap.
Worst speaker ever, I could not follow the lecture: I was far more worried for his life as he slurred words gasping for some air and then suddenly went apnea mode...
It is not magic when your Creator always was. *It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother.* That's 100% magic and 100% not true. Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.
If something always 'was' is not magic.... then the universe always 'was' and it is not magic, and there is still no evidence for your vindictive blood-eating zombie tyrant in the sky..... You've just turned your supernatural piffle into an infinite regress. Your blood-eating zombie tyrant supposedly made itself exist and programmed itself to want you to spill more blood for it so it can assuage its anger against itself. Then you complain that you don't believe things make themselves exist because that would be troubling to you.....all the while you already accepted that your blood-eating zombie tyrant did exactly what makes you troubled. You're a hypocrite and a liar.... and you were urged long ago to seek out a mental health professional to see to your medical well-being.
Finally I have found a philosopher who speaks clearly, uses simple words and whom I understand :) .
Full of GAPS, dead air & lapses...Methinks the Professor needs to review his notes first before appearing in the podium!
_you forgot. ,. ; stammers_
@@abjoseck9548 I like it, gives me time to reflect and keep up with the content. He is being very precise and clear content wise.
Love Williamson's comments on theology
Please allow subtitles for those of us who aren't native speakers. Thanks.
I would love to know which are T. Williamson's favorite books on logic and the philosophy of logic, and/or philosophy books general.
I understand why!
There are too many idiotic comments here.
Play on 1,75 speed...
Menghubungkan kaedah saintifik dengan falsafah - bahawa semua makhluk dan kejadian
di alam semesta adalah semula jadi
o Pendekatan untuk masalah falsafah yang menafsirkannya sebagai hanya dapat diubati melalui kaedah sains empirikal
o Menolak kewujudan realiti ghaib yang benar-benar berlaku peruntukan untuk ghaib, dengan syarat bahawa pengetahuan tentangnya dapat
secara tidak langsung
o Masalah-masalah falsafah yang secara tradisional dianggap tidak diformulasikan
dan dapat diselesaikan / dipindahkan dengan kaedah naturalistik & empirikal
He could do with a script and a few less ah and øh's and stutteting noises, it takes away some of the focus from this great lecture.
I don't find this discussion particularly illuminating. His point that there are other 'ways of knowing' beyond the scientific one has been regurgitated by philosophers over and over again, specifically in order to provide vague description and justification of their discipline. Alright, science has certain limitations, some of which can perhaps even be delineated by a priori means, but does that mean that there are other methodologies for reaching real knowledge of the world besides the one used by the natural sciences? I am not so sure. Every philosophical conception of this difference is in principle bound to come up as vague, misleading, or incomplete. Williamson's whole discussion of this topic comes up as being somewhat superficial in my opinion. Why does he think it necessary that naturalism has to be well defined by its proponents if it is to be taken seriously as an overarching methodological, ontological, etc. framework? The same challenge can be issued to supernaturalism by claiming that it needs to be well defined if what it says is to be taken seriously. But I think it is a philosopher's prejudice to ask for a clean-cut definition in either case, by way of putting out necessary and sufficient conditions for each class of phenomena. Take ghosts as an example. The existence of such entities cannot be accommodated within the framework (or worldview?) of naturalism because it would violate the principle of energy conservation, along with other repeatedly verified empirical facts. Of course, there might be other supernatural phenomena that would possibly pose a more formidable challenge to naturalism, but it seems to me that in the end they all rest on the evocation of ghost-like entities, and that's exactly why it is reasonable (in a careful reading of this term) to put them all under one umbrella term. But this of course doesn't mean that we can 'prove' the non-existence of such things, not in the way a philosopher would want us to do. As far as mathematics goes, I am not convinced by Williamson's reasons for taking this seriously as a counterexample to naturalism. First of all, not all parts of mathematics are 'created equal' - some have empirical import, others constitute purely abstract, clearly non-empirical areas of research. Not only that, but one mathematical idea or hypothesis, which at the time of its original formulation was of a completely abstract, purely mathematical interest, can at some later point in time find its appropriate empirical application (e.g. Riemannian hyperbolic geometry). But again, I don't think there are definite boundaries here, and we should make our decisions on a case-to-case basis. Finally, I wish Williamson had provided a more detailed analysis of what he means by philosophy in general, because I feel there is a tension between his thesis of the autonomy of philosophy, and his Quinean claim that philosophy is somehow continuous with natural sciences. Without further examination, it seems to me that the same problem Quine had when it comes to situating philosophy on a spectrum that extends from logic and pure mathematics on the one hand, and applied physics on the other is encountered here as well, albeit in a somewhat different form.
they wouldn't have to keep regurgitating this point if people actually got them and stopped pushing/preaching for some form of scientism/positivism, but some/many still do so philosophers(and scientists) have to keep wasting part of their time saying the obvious.
Just breathe, pal.
+Alberto Cagliani So I thought at first. On a second review, what a difficult topic to talk about. I'm not sure I know of another mind who could have spoken about it any better while maintaining the depth that T. Williamson when into.
+Alberto Cagliani I honestly listened to it on 1.25 speed. Worked better for me
Is that an option on youtube? How did you do that?
Mark X Yeah, you click the little wheel, at the bottom right side, and you have speed
I love you. Thank you.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Williamson ridiculing continental philosophy, accusing the likes of Derrida of obscurantism. I've managed to listen to him for 10 minutes. I'm lost for words.
It is well known that many leading continental philosophers used deliberately opaque language in an attempt to feign profundity so Williamson's pointed remarks are hardly unfounded. Have you read any of Williamson's work? It's pretty straightforward in its use of language and always attempts to aim for conceptual clarity.
@Greg Alpacca: I wouldn't want to deny that there are profound and worthwhile ideas contained within the work of many continental philosophers. Heidegger, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc...all great and worthy of intense study. Brandom's work on Hegel would be an example of the analytic revival of continental thought within neopragmatism that you alluded to towards the end of your comment. Graham Priest's use of Heideggerian thought would be another. I'm well aware of these. This doesn't negate the reality that there was, and still is, a lack of transparency and a real push for clarity in terms of the writing style (broadly more literary in its approach when compared to the more recent analytic tradition) used. John Searle has spoken well about this; the videos of him talking about Foucault's work are easy enough to find.
@Greg Alpacca: You make a number of very good points and I largely agree with your summation. I do think the snobbery that was perhaps present in analytic circles is waning and from what I've read, philosophers are increasingly looking towards Eastern ideas (from India, China, Japan, etc) to attempt to better understand logic, the nature of being, personal identity...the list goes on and on. This can only be a good thing and I hope new insights and progress arises out of it.
I just found an article by Keith Frankish that touches upon the topic of obscurity within philosophical writing and elucidates the different problems at play nicely. While he rightly makes reference to, '...some philosophers (writing) obscurely because it creates an aura of profundity and mystery.' he also poses an argument *for* obscurity on the grounds that, '(some philosophical thought) doesn’t seek to construct precise theories; rather, it reaches out to unmapped areas..., where we do not yet know what techniques to employ, what concepts to use, or even what questions to ask. It is more like art than science...'
I find this latter idea very interesting too.
Here's the full article: aeon.co/ideas/is-great-philosophy-by-its-nature-difficult-and-obscure?fbclid=IwAR1atSuHNnmg9aAVr3Jgoxj6hKj00sJvyCUg2RevCwbUfk6cXnfXpB2Fb8g
Williamson is simply brilliant as a thinker, but is unfortunately not great as a speaker. Part of the problem is that people with his level of intelligence will never be accessible to the masses
Especially the part about knowledge-that having primacy over knowledge-how.
bushfingers I have no trouble understanding what he's saying. It's just that his thinking is unnecessarily muddled. Murkiness, a British accent and tenure are not alone impressive to me.
Yes. Clarity is half the journey. He's breathing through his mouth a lot, and that's stressful to the body, and makes his presentation seem more halting than it is. @@utah133
"Uh...um...uh...uh...um..." Maybe he should simply read from his notes, since he has such a hard time articulating his thoughts.
This man just doesn't want to commit himself to anything because he is not sure of anything.
Well yes - reality can be rather complicated
I think that from his perspective, you would appear the same way.
I've come to realize that scientists and analytic philosophers operate under different definitions of what counts as a "description of reality". For scientists, a description of reality is a mathematically constructed model that predicts experimental results. For analytic philosophers, a description of reality is a theory which generates sentences that can be defended as accurate from every angle of rational attack. From each side, the other appears vague and noncommittal.
I assume you understand why philosophy might appear that way from the scientific perspective. Science appears the same way from the philosophical perspective because even if you can predict experimental results, in the case where that alone does not give you an accurate statement that is defensible from all angles of rational attack, how have you reached a "description of reality" in the sense of facts that describe what is really the case?
Sometimes, refusing to support either of two contending sides is in fact the correct rational move.
Let me present an analogy illustrating why I don't think it's at all wishy washy to say that both naturalists and anti-naturalists are definitely wrong: If astrologers who use stars and planets and palmists were having a fight about which of them have the superior method, and you stood up and said they are both bogus, and then both sides said you were being unsure, then that would be unfair to you, since you are making a definite statement about both sides being wrong.
Also imagine that in this situation, once you manage to make both sides understand that you think they wrong, they start accusing you of saying that humans can never predict future events under any circumstances, so you have to start navigating the waters very carefully to save your belief in natural science.
Williamson commits to plenty of views. He is one of the philosophers with the strongest opinions.
If I had to lie about naturalism like this man does, I'd hem and haw and um and uh and eh as well.....
Well that’s insanely rude, and false, but also hilarious. Philosophers do not lie, they at worst misunderstand
@@jacobcastle5925 You just lied. You are a liar. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@@laertesindeed maybe but so did you so you should be too.
@@jonathacirilo5745 Not in the slightest......you just lied about me; in an even more disgraceful and shockingly unethical way.
@@laertesindeed yes, you did. in the first comment, then again in your reply to that other user, and now you are lying about having lied. should/could just have said nothing at all. it would have been better.
If he could stop stammering and get to the god damn point this video would be 30 mins long.
That guy might know his topic, but he sure has no speaking ability. Can't stand listening to him.
Knowledge about a difficult topic is much scarcer than speaking ability.
I'm sorry, this man is almost incomprehensible, he puts a full stop or ellipsis after every other word! Even his body language seems to be apologising for his lack of any iclear deas. Sorry, such a nice, sincere chap.
Try listening to him, he is clear.
Worst speaker ever, I could not follow the lecture: I was far more worried for his life as he slurred words gasping for some air and then suddenly went apnea mode...
It is not magic when your Creator always was. *It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother.* That's 100% magic and 100% not true.
Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.
Show me on the doll where he hurt you.
If something always 'was' is not magic.... then the universe always 'was' and it is not magic, and there is still no evidence for your vindictive blood-eating zombie tyrant in the sky.....
You've just turned your supernatural piffle into an infinite regress. Your blood-eating zombie tyrant supposedly made itself exist and programmed itself to want you to spill more blood for it so it can assuage its anger against itself. Then you complain that you don't believe things make themselves exist because that would be troubling to you.....all the while you already accepted that your blood-eating zombie tyrant did exactly what makes you troubled.
You're a hypocrite and a liar.... and you were urged long ago to seek out a mental health professional to see to your medical well-being.
@@zverh It was your mind that was touched. You believe in magical matter.
@@laertesindeed Did you enjoy beating your strawman that you made?