Oh dear, it seems Stephen Hawking doesn't understand philosophy any more than Neil deGrasse Tyson. How is this possible ? Even at the most basic level science relies on philosophy, not least of which is the necessity to question one's own biases and indeed other people's biases. Or what the role of science should be in society, or how we should organise academia to best pursue knowledge and avoid the pitfalls of prestige-based arguments without discounting expertise, or why people insist on believing things that fly in the face of all evidence, or how we ensure that a scientific consensus is established independently and not just from a "follow the herd" mentality. None of these things are trivial.
But there are much higher level questions too : what does it mean to say that proper time is zero at the speed or light ? What does probability mean in an infinite Universe or multiverse ? How can something be a particle and a wave simultaneously ? Can science answer the question, "why" or is it limited only to "how" ?
Science is an intensely philosophical exercise whether you like it or not.
Great article (too complex to summarise).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
I saw a spoof article on Hawking saying he admitted just doing it for the notoriety. I actually think it's more truth and less spoof...
ReplyDelete