Hilary Putnam on the Philosophy of Science (1977)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 11. 2015
- In this program, world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee and Hilary Putnam of Harvard examine current philosophical thought that dismisses the primacy and infallibility of mathematical logic and the scientific method. Modern thinkers, such as Einstein, are credited with introducing interpretive logic into their scientific theories.
the interviewer is amazing, the guy comes up with amazing questions in a blink of an eye
Calm down, Ralph.
Bryan Magee was a philosopher too. Not that I’m informing anyone but it is worth remembering. He’s not just an interview tv person.
@@bpatrickhoburgglad i read this first! thank you
I love Magee he truly is a great interviewer
Wonderful! A discussion between two brilliant men. R.I.P. Hilary.
And RIP Magee
love how happy he is to discuss these matters
I got to meet Dr. Putnam at Muhlenberg College many years ago. It was a treat. That was in his The Many Faces of Realism days. Brilliant man!
How lucky you are
Bryan Magee = my hero.
I love this guy. He makes sense. Great thinker!
Putnam is a freaking genius hes always looking at the present knowing this is the future
100% agree!
thanks for upload, respect!
Might be my favorite interview of the series.
Haha I love this show. Hasn't started yet but I know I will love this episode!!!!
The presenter is awesome!
Good discussion.
As for Putnam saying there is no mind independent truth and the Kant was right, read Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency" where he gives a counter example of something that is NOT dependent on the mind and hence "really" objective.
"Truth"? What is that?
@@casteretpollux At its most basic level, truth refers to the correspondence between what is believed or asserted and what actually exists or happens in the world.
alguien tendrá esta entrevista en español que por favor me comparta el Ling.
The article Minds and Machines, published in 1960, is the begin of cognitive science.
Philosophy of mind, language and logic , thank you on induction and deduction.
I like Putnams warm smile :D
One of the wonders for me is the Mathematicians ability to do calculations rapidly and accurately without using a computer or anything else.
pattern recognition, like chess players.
Professionally there are two basic answers right now to this question: one is the representation-computation processsing based on bayesian inference; the other is the cognition-action integration hypothesis
someone will have this interview in Spanish that please share with me the Ling.
Imagine saying something and Hilary Putnam responses "That is *exactly* true"
Amazing.
A very pleasant discussion. "FACT" or "VALUE JUDGEMENT" would seem to imply a sort of Social Contract, that observers agree on a description of an event. This in turn implies agreement between observers as to the language used. Evidently, the question also turns on the religious point of view. In this case we see how a religious description of an event differs from a scientific description of an event.
Hi. Thanks for the subs :)
good work
Strong interviewer.
Let's go in distant future. Let's assume that Science has discovered all the fundamental particles/concepts that explain this universe completely.
I think..
1. These fundamental particles/concepts will have to be taken as a 'given' (with no further explanation possible).
2. This is the ultimate future of science...to reach at something, which has to be taken as a 'given'.
What is number anyway?
Hmm, like, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and... I could go forever, really.
Does anybody number anybody any way?
One of the differences between a thing and if we have more of that things is what we call number.
Oh my goodness. To paraphrase Twain, “the rumors of science’s untimely demise have been greatly exaggerated.”
Tell that to the conspiracy nut Evangelicals.
Nietzsche would disagree
A way to weed out women from Philosophy to keep philosophy a man's disciple etc is the deliberate focus on math and engineering as a prerequisite. Since the time of Plato essentially.
Why does that weed out women
I knew her well
Who had the better hair: Bertrand Russell or young Wittgenstein?
The laws of Classical Physics aren't wrong, but they only apply to the macro- and microscopic world. They can't be applied to the atomic and subatomic world. For the latter, Quantum Physics was needed. But both worlds are connected, and so are their theories.
Could there be perception without interpretation?
Yes, that's the case in sleepwalking
29:05
10:15 - Alternative Facts!
Haha, no no, don't worry, Putnam means something much less controversial here!
Leaving aside the number of Hilbert's problems (23, not 50), Putnam ascribes to a Kantian theory of truth what actually belongs to a Kantian theory of phenomena: they are partially mind-made, I do not think there is a Kantian theory of truth, though there are Kant-influenced theories of truth, like Putnam's.
Well Said.
There is an implicit theory of truth having to do with the status of judgment in Kant, since judgments are only meaningful as claimables, i.e. discursively truth-apt items. These require the synthetic combo of concept and intuition. In a sense, phenomena only exist as opportunities to perform judgments.
@@mcurtisallen you dont belong on CZcams comments.. sound like you should be teaching Philosophy .. lol.
Thank you. You answered my question before I wrote it down. It's fundamental.
@@mcurtisallen What do you mean by phenomena ?
W host W guest
18:20
Wow, intellectually stimulating. I had no idea that Putnam was Kantian.
I'm 12 and what is this!
Stefan Milojevic this is your window into a world of magic! Listen carefully!
You're not allow to comment if you give your age
You also have 12 upvotes as I write this.
Your 18 now. I hope you've worked out that they are full of bs.
RIP Bryan Magee
It was sad, but your post rhymes, which compensates somewhat.
What when a woman knew geometry and weren't allowed in Plato's havens
There's a principle in biology, that evolving integrated complexity will have to lose attributes that no longer have survival value, so adaptations to change must be selected for at an earlier stage of development of the brain-body, so that although the biological toolkit may lose specific components of great usefulness, the eventual repertoire of adaptations becomes more generalized, or so the explanation goes for Neoteny, the retention of childhood characteristics in adults.
In and of itself, this is a reason to always redevelop every generation's development from first principles, setting aside working hypotheses and reviewing the fitness of the basic underpinnings. That's not a Philosophy, that's the application of the scientific method as it corresponds to observations.
So if and when a point is reached in formal education that the student's capabilities are matched to the human environment, then it's appropriate to award the Dr of Philosophy title before society's problems are re-evaluated and appropriate changes are attempted in the formal manner. None of this need apply to those in the general population who has natural aptitudes.
So, teaching Philosophy? Philosophy has a spectrum from "idle" love of sophistry/words, to extracting the defining principles of existence from a holistic analysis of all knowledge, and then, "think for themselves", in order to act upon the refinements.
If there's a field of philosophy that correlates human biology, then it's the medical requirements of mind and body that correspond to mental/philosophical health. Immunity and treatment of stressors, parasites and predators within the social culture. Once the treatment is recommended according to the best analysis, then it's an application for the best science, and recently, the best tools of science are to do with AI. It's applied philosophy made real.
So umm do we qualify and understand the scopes methods and limitations of science simply through magic?
What you mean by "Principle in biology"? Doesn,t looks like an empirical observation made by science...
This is the kind of thinking the world is in desperate need of today
Science and mathematics of the Standard Model shows how fine tuning the parameter space gave rise to the new branch of physics of 'self-organizing systems', that explains everything from economics to psychology to the evolution of life and consciousness, intelligence, meme etc., yet we do not know how to define space, time, mass etc., and have no clue how FT occurred, or why mathematical laws, rules, algorithm are timeless and a priory and why physical reality has mathematical structure.
Yet we discover how we won a series of lotteries in a row, each with one in a million/billion chance to win so that life evolve with perfection and with probability one, implying divine purpose, intelligent design by the universal consciousness.
Naimul Haq ok Hegel
if one rolls a dice 100 times, what is the chance that every side rolls a six? well it is 6^100. Now, what is the chance that any random pattern be rolled 100 times? 6^100. Every possible outcome is has the same chance. The fact that the laws of physics are what they are is not inherently special. You make the presumption that they were more likely to be something else, than what they are. Further, if they were different, who are you to say that life would have evolved differently? Simply because we require the circumstances that we have is irrelevant to the possibility that in another universe life evolved for those parameters. Finally, we don't even know whether the laws of physics could be different. It could be that if a 4 dimensional universe exists, then the laws we experience must be the case. We simply don't know.
Therefore, the claim that the universe must have had a creator because it is perfect for us falls into three main traps. 1) The universe came before us, therefore, we are designed for it not the other way around. 2) The laws that exist today are not more unlikely than any other set of laws. It's because we think that what we have is special, that makes it seem so impossible. 3) Any claim to understand why the laws of physics are what they are is fallacious because we don't know. They might be set for every possible universe or they might not be. It could be that the laws we believe are true today are entirely wrong (in fact that is quite likely judging by how wrong humans have in history)
@Naim ulHaq Look up "anthropic principle", it will be clear why your rationale is fallacious.
Sorry there is no actual fine tuning..that's a myth!
Sounds like a Harry Potter book
A wicked Austrian once said the most important things in human life are nonsensical.
Professor Putnam surely had a part-time job at Hogwarts!
ISFJ with developed Fe
thumbs up if you've had special relativity in high school
O La weaa fome
Pulary Hitman
how can his name be hilary`?
your question implies that you find it strange that a man could be named Hilary, when in fact Hilary is more often used as a man's name than a woman's.
@@wallacecleaver4485 Maria is used by males only as a composite first name, like Luis María or José María.
He was born into a French family
Magee makes a straw man of scientific method here. It’s a very weak discussion, as much as I admire them both.
Prof Putnam seems to need to burp.
he says "there is no algorithm to get scientific knowledge" then how is that our minds can get scientific knowledge
Science never comes to knowledge. Probabilities, but never knowledge.