First off, science can provide empirically tested premises and so the conclusions of the philosophical argument will be more certain. But second, and more importantly, how do you know what you said concerning philosophical arguments and knowing is correct? Philosophy, not science, gave you those conclusions.

Let me wish you a bon voyage in your journey to solipsism. You have an overly optimistic estimate of the value of philosophy in general, and in its ability to generate knowledge. As I note and you gloss over, there are many schools of thought in philosophy, and some off those are contradictory. How are we to be sure that we have chosen correctly? Do you propose some meta-philosophy? Or will you just rely on private revealed ‘knowledge’?

That really is the issue, in that philosophy is largely the province of one mind when it comes to an individual deciding how s/he comes about knowledge. The strength of the scientific approach is that it rules out evidence available only to one individual. Science allows multiple individuals to gain knowledge about our shared reality. If you wish to claim philosophically that there is no actual shared reality between us, then do so, but in such case our attempt at communication is predestined to fail.

Your arguments make no sense. How can philosophy provide a more certain answer when science is what connects the premises and conclusions to reality? It seems you’ve slipped into argumentation you don’t really understand yourself; just words determined to buttress a presumed need for an invisible father figure to cuddle you and tell you everything will be alright.

It would be interesting to see if you could survive for a month based only on what you claim to know through philosophy and without using anything that is a product of science. I know you won’t try this though. I’ve already seen you cut and run twice when the questions get too hard and you’re forced to stop tap dancing give an answer. You’re only a scientific realist when you can use you own definition of the term that guts its entire meaning. Is the only reason you want to call yourself a scientific realist is to share the mantle of science’s success? You still can’t accept the scientific consensus of the age of the Earth, parading around instead the lack of consensus in philosophical thought as superior. I think the real reason you can’t accept a 4.5 billion year old Earth is that it is very damaging to your theology. Perhaps someday you’ll recognize that theology and truth are the real non-overlapping magisteria.

A mental device in which anything that goes in (good or bad), comes out as garbage? Now that goes one step beyond a perpetual GIGO machine to AIGO machine!

(A = anything.)

@ Nick,

Nice to see good old comment sense and application still gets people somewhere.

Ha, all there talk on thermodynamics has actually found an exception to the 2nd law – a perpetual obfuscation machine.

Given this, my knowledge, particularly of historical events/names/dates/places is somewhat chaotic.

However, why is it that I can read a post from, say– Iapetus on philosophic ideas, and not only understand, but actually learn things. Whereas I struggle to even read some of the philosophic (TM) ideas presented by Stuart etal..

Perhaps this is because Iapetus puts effort into highlighting and describing the limitations of particular ideas, and also the assumptions that you must accept with the idea. This is in direct contrast to the TM style which appears to be more a matter of hiding the necessary assumptions and accepting no limitations to the arguments.

In light of your comments regarding [...] Isn’t Ken referring to Stuart, Matt, etc.? You seem to be referring to other people as far as I can see, i.e. AFAICS you’re referring to something other than the intended target as it were.

By the way, that someone is an atheist doesn’t make them qualified in science so I’m not sure why you mention ‘atheist’ in this response or why it’s relevant, or even why a list of people who study philosophy of religion is relevant here. I can’t see were Ken is talking about this here. Perhaps you could explain.

(I would add, I be wary of putting any weight on internet-based lists, especially as they can include/exclude people for any number of reasons. You’re really better looking at the logic of the arguments that the people you refer to present rather than point to a list as some kind of “authoritative ruling” in my opinion.)

You might also wish to remember that ’scientism’ is a phrase used almost exclusively by, if not coined by, those who have an agenda to “attack” science. It might be viewed as showing that he has an agenda or bias.

Qualifications are about people’s real knowledge in an area, as I’d like to think you realise. Degrees, titles, etc.—when accurately reflecting a person’s knowledge—are short-hands for the knowledge they represent.

I’m with Ken that is is remarkably arrogant to presume to know how to tell experienced people in any craft how to do their craft if you know little, even more so if you have demonstrated repeatedly that you haven’t the knowledge to usefully comment on that craft.

These things always remind me of D.I.Y. disasters. The over-proud hubby thinking that he can remodel the kitchen (or whatever task) on his own, when he has no experience in joinery, plumbing, etc. Most sane people can see the disaster in their eyes before it happens!

From a scientists’ point of view watching Stuart, Johnson, etc, is much the same as watching a hopeless DIY disaster-in-the-making, with the added twist that it’s perpetually on-going!!

To answer your question.

No it is not arrogant for a non-scientist to comment on science. A lot do and a lot of non-scientists have a real fascination with the subject. I would have thought my attitude on this should be obvious.

But the thing is, Madeleine, I have been involved in scientific research for over 40 years. Not surprisingly, therefore,I have a good practical understanding of the scientific culture, methods and philosophy. I understand scientific epistemology. While I have studied these subjects to varying degrees – the practical experience is, I believe, invaluable.

Now, I know that students straight out of school, studying philosophy in their first year at university can get carried away. I remember very clearly some of the immature responses such students had during my time at university. It’s perfectly natural. Fortunately they grow out of it. They mature.

But it would be very arrogant for such a student to lecture a practising scientist about their work. To tell them they are ignorant about science/philosophy.

That is what I object to with the “Thinking Matter” people. I am happy to discuss science and the philosophy of science with you and them. I love the subjects.

But lecturing and sermonising (and lets face it one of your people has often described me as a fool and a moron) is offensive and arrogant. Surely that is understandable that I will treat such behaviour with disdain or humour?

Stuart is quite welcome to tell us why he thinks the way he does about the age of the earth, or the second law of thermodynamics. He can give us his evidence. We can discuss that. We are used to vigorous evidence based debates in science. But he refuses to and instead lectures us about how science should be done, what it is, what the philosophy of science is.

So, of course we will tell him we think he is being silly. It’s got nothing to do with degrees. It’s purely what he says.

I have the same attitude to other fields like theology and philosophy. The later interests me, and of course I will comment on it – especially as it relates to science, to my personal experience, and where I think people are being naive or otherwise incorrect.

As for theology – I am not at all interested. You can have it. I tend to agree with Dawkins that it’s not really a subject. Certainly not one that I want to get into.

By the way – if Matt has been missing my articles, let him know about the latest one – Epistemolo-what?!! – which also is a response to some of his comments about scientific epistemology. I would love to get his response.

I was taking my tone from your little sermon on arrogance above.

Matt did read your series on human morality and your post here and is interested in responding to both – both are on his to do list. The issue he has though is time, not lack of inclination.

Question for you:

If it is “arrogant” for a non-scientist to comment on science, is it likewise then, “arrogant” for a non-ethicist to comment on ethics or a non-theologian to comment on theology or a non-philosopher to comment on philosophy?

(By the way, strangely enough I happen to be part way through reviewing a recently published philosophy of science text book. My review should go on-line in the next few weeks. It is very relevant to the discussion in this post so I look forward to any feedback on my review from your TM people).

I don’t think we ever discuss degrees here. Stuart was challenged on claims he made about a scientific theory (as was Johnson Philip). Both got them wrong. But they refuse to discuss it, preferring to give us arrogant lectures/sermons. Degrees weren’t mentioned – although I admit I have referred to Philip’s lack of scientific publications which I find very strange, given his self-promotion in that area.

Anyway, I am grateful that you are getting Matt on to the job. I was disappointed that he ignored my series of posts on human morality as they had been specifically written in response to criticism he had made of some of my ideas. He might like to take up those points as well.

I look forward to a useful and respectful discussion.

(Read a philosophy of science textbook if you are not sure of the meaning of the two things, there are plenty online).