Your complimentary articles
You’ve read all of your complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please
If you are a subscriber please sign in to your account.
To buy or renew a subscription please visit Subscriptions.
If you are a print subscriber you can contact us to create an online account.
Letters
Letters
Sources of Disagreement • Zizek Re-Enunciated • Popper Pops Up • Attention Grabbing • The Beatles Can Get Back • Hope Spreads • Advances via Technology?
Sources of Disagreement
Dear Editor: I read with interest Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi’s essay in Issue 169 on objectivity in science, basically arguing that it’s a chimera by citing Kuhn’s paradigmatic model of scientific revolutions. What’s often left out of this discussion is the role of philosophy in science, which scientists prefer to ignore and philosophers tend to exaggerate.
On YouTube you’ll find some of the brightest physicists and philosophers promoting their pet theories in contrast to what the status quo believes, unconstrained by the rigors of academically permitted paradigms. But their theories are often determined by philosophical considerations, such as: Do we live in a multiverse? Will AI become conscious? Is there quantum gravity? None of these questions can be answered by empirical means given our current limitations, which of course may change. I like the quote (source unknown), “Only future generations can tell us how ignorant the current generation is.
…
Advertisement
