Class Warfare Blog

March 23, 2016

Philosophy Unchained … from Facts

I was reading an obituary in the N.Y. Times written for a Harvard philosopher whose “influence ranged widely across many fields of thought, including mathematical logic, philosophy of mind and language, epistemology and metaphysics,” Hilary Putnam.

The obit stated “Early on, Professor Putnam studied with Hans Reichenbach, a leading proponent of logical positivism, the school of thought, now in disrepute, that maintains that the only basis of knowledge is that which can be scientifically verified. But Professor Putnam argued against it, offering a course at Harvard in “nonscientific knowledge,” encompassing the wisdom that comes from aesthetics, ethics and religion.

Ah, “the wisdom that comes from aesthetics, ethics, and religion.” And, what, pray tell, is that exactly? Aesthetics is an attempt to provide structure for what people “like” to see, hear, taste, etc. Are there any absolute aesthetic principles or are these just pronouncements about “what I like” by this or that person? Ethics, a study of various systems of ethics created by various people and institutions that, again, seems to be statements about “how I want other people to behave.” There is even a strong core of what is called “situational ethics,” which is telling in itself that while there may be agreements here and there, none of the agreed upon statements are strong enough to say they are factual. And, then … religion. Is their any congruence that we can point to between or among the world’s religions that we might be able to point to as being universal wisdom. I suggest not. (I keep challenging anybody to make a clear, definitive statement of what “Christian ethics” are. I especially would like to know what makes them Christian, as all such utterances I have encountered to date pre-existed Christianity.)

The obituary went on to highlight a favorite tool of this worthy philosopher, that of the “thought experiment.” This was the description of one such experiment he made prominent:

In a 1975 paper called “The Meaning of ‘Meaning,’” Professor Putnam further illustrated his argument with a famous thought experiment called Twin Earth. He imagined a planet alongside our own that was a facsimile in almost every way, including holding a replica of each person. The only difference on Twin Earth was its water. Though it looks like H2O, tastes like H2O, fills the lakes, rivers and oceans and performs the same functions as H2O, Twin Earth’s water had a different chemical makeup, abbreviated as XYZ.

“Therefore, if an earthling named, say, Oscar, were to travel to Twin Earth and visit his doppelgänger, Twin Oscar, when they referred to water, they would actually be talking about two different things, even though they appeared to be the same. Because Oscar and Twin Oscar are identical in every way, including their thoughts at a given time, Professor Putnam argued, meaning cannot simply be a function of what is formulated in someone’s head.

A logical positivist could have pointed out the obvious error in Professor Putnam’s “Twin Earth” thought experiment. His mistake is in building his two Earths with one difference: in the invented Earth, water has a different chemical structure, unspecified other than as XYZ. Had the professor known a little bit of chemistry, he would have known that what makes chemicals different is their chemical structure. If you have a substance whose formula is different from H2O, it is not water, nor does it behave like water. There are variants of water in which the hydrogen atoms are replaced by isotopes that are rarer forms than “ordinary” hydrogen. One such is “heavy water” in which the hydrogen atoms are replaced by deuterium atoms (making the molecule heavier, but keeping its molecular structure quite the same as ordinary water). If you were to drink this smallest variant of the substance water, it would kill you. What the professor describes is an impossible magical “different water” and therefore any conclusion he might come to from this experiment is quite bankrupt. When we think water we are referring to just one chemical substance which cannot be anything else. And this we have formulated in our heads.

The author of the obituary claims that logical positivism is in “disrepute” and I suggest that that is a problem. The source of the disrepute comes from those who wish to engage in magical thinking and have things they way they want them to be rather than what they are.

In the U.S. right now there is massive anti-intellectual sentiment. Just look at our politicians who begin every sentence on a scientific topic with “Well, I am no scientist, but …” Just look at the people who are trusted to lead our governments. President Obama is an outlier, most of the rest are what might be charitably characterized as “far from brilliant,” and Representative Louie Gommert of Texas … well he is an outlier, too, but closer to the norm than is the President. We would be better served if we took a longer look at the merits of logical positivism. And we will be better served, I predict, now that scientists are spending more time investigating things like ethics, wisdom, knowledge, religion, etc. Long the purview of “social scientists” these topics will benefit from some rigorous scrutiny from real scientists. And, possibly much like biblical archeology, some of these topics may disappear altogether as being no longer necessary or defensible.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. You see, this is precisely why i didn’t go into philosophy. I thought about, but I just couldn’t see what the purpose was. It produced nothing. Philosopher A says “X,” Philosopher B says says, “No, its Y.” The story ends there. The human condition has not been moved one inch forward.

    Comment by john zande — March 23, 2016 @ 9:55 am | Reply

    • One of my philosophy professors started his ethics class with the statement that in 4000 years, philosophy hasn’t been able to define “is good.” I went to bat for him when he was fighting for tenure.

      I enjoy philosophy for what it is, but am frustrated when people seem to claim for it more than it being “the meanderings of people who like to think about shit.”

      I spent quite a while developing my personal philosophy and, unlike my writings, got it down to an economical five words: “what is is; shit happens.”

      On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Comment by Steve Ruis — March 23, 2016 @ 10:39 am | Reply

  2. In that thought experiment, in order for the Twin Earth to be identical, other than XYZ versus H2O, XYZ has to have the same physical and chemical properties like melting and freezing point, heat absorbency, conductivity, ability to react with other chemical compounds the same way, including the chemicals in our bodies. In other words, be water.

    Comment by List of X — March 23, 2016 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

    • Yep, you got it. They ended up just having different names for the exact same substance which is a language problem, not a “concepts exist outside our heads” piece of evidence.

      On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Comment by Steve Ruis — March 23, 2016 @ 1:56 pm | Reply

  3. So, only knowledge that can be verified scientifically is in disrepute? But knowledge based on La La Land is to be the basis of our existence? No wonder we are a doomed species! But then again I am an optimist! When quit my struggle against ignorance, I will live out my life on my boat. When reality bites us on our ass, my wife, dog, cats, and I will sail off and tell the world to kiss our collective butts!

    Comment by Holding The Line In Florida — March 23, 2016 @ 2:55 pm | Reply

    • Did you see the movie Waterworld, mate?

      ;o)

      On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Comment by Steve Ruis — March 23, 2016 @ 9:07 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: