I actually live on the same road as him now! I see him popping out to Tescos occasionally.

Pleasure. Thanks for watching.

I've met a lot of scientists who can't talk intelligently outside their own discipline. The same isnt true of most philosophers.

The only problem of academic philosophy is that it chose to get rid one of the most essential steps in its methodology....science. So I guess in a way, he is right about philosophy and the way it is performed outside science or math. I can not see why someone could claim that he is close minded. I can blame him (and the host)for not setting their definitions straight.

All he's saying is that science makes progress without the use of philosophy, most scientists don't know anything about philosophy and yet they do extremely well. And if asking questions is philosophy then everyone is a philosopher wich makes the "job" of the professional philosopher trivial.

He is a bit absolute...but he is right to make that claim because from the moment a philosopher includes an empirical methodology in his evaluation, he automatically becomes a scientist. In my opinion Science is Philosophy. Its the only useful and best way to do philosophy. Its the only complete version of philosophy which includes ALL the steps of a valid philosophical approach. (epistemology, physics, metaphysics,aesthetics, ethics, politics ....loop). Philosophy without Physics(modern science) is just an incomplete and useless tool that can lead us to pseudo philosophical trails. I think that Philosophy is a great tool in its complete form and every version that does not include the scientific step should be labeled differently(pseudo philosophy).

@@nickolasgaspar9660 what about mathematics? Epistemologically mathematical knowledge could all be known a priori. Although as a question of methodology when you work in the field there is of course some inspiration drawn from observations in the empirical world. But in that sense so does philosophy.

@@pookz3067 Well mathematics is nothing more than an expression of Logic. Its a language that enables us to keep analogies and relations intact and induce our results. Mathematical "claims" without empirical verification are useless, since the GIGO effect lurks behind all aspects of our reasoning. Great example Higgs math. He did win the Nobel Prize 60 years ago with his mathematical "predictions". He was awarded the Prize after LHC empirically validated his math. I will agree, all our methods of reasoning are and should be based on Empirically based epistemology and all our logical conclusions should always seek empirical validation.

That is because he is not a philosopher. W What has the philosophy of religion contributed to religion? What has the philosophy of art contributed to art .?.

How is he right about Popper? I don't know about other sciences, but in physics, falsifiability is one of the most important criteria that separate crackpot theories from actual ones.

Philosophers have contributed theorems taught in graduate level theoretical CS courses, while believing they were doing philosophy, not computer science. It’s only an empty set if you don’t consider any of its useful contributions (e.g the scientific method itself) to be philosophy.

@@pookz3067 But this contributions is science.. Science can do that.

@@guilhermesilveira5254 read some Nietzsche; he will enlighten you to the modernistic scientist society in which we deceptively live in .

You are much closer to the real issue than any one else in this thread.

That is a common misconception about the difference between philosophy and science. Science was not born from philosophy. Our empirical curiosity to understand the world always comes first. We fist burn our selves and then think what we can do with fire. Science is nothing more than an ESSENTIAL step/branch in our philosophical toolbox. In order to do good philosophy you need to include science in the mix...period. Science (physics) was an crucial step after epistemology and before metaphysics in philosophy. Science did not choose to abandon the philosophical toolbox. Its was philosophy (academic) that chose to leave science out from its methodology. Academic philosophy (outside math and science) is a lazy version of real philosophy. its like all those stupid painting styles or music styles or sculptures etc. Not all people are suitable to create (with their hands or their minds) so we have those special versions of niches to accommodate everybody. Academic philosophy tends to accommodates many intellectually lazy individuals...that is the said truth. In science due to its procedures and standards makes it way more difficult.

in reality science is the best way to do philosophy. He is criticizing the decision of academic philosophy to leave science outside its toolbox.

@@nickolasgaspar9660: Most, if not all, contemporary analytic philosophy departments do not leave science outside of the metaphysical toolbox required to attempt an understanding of reality. Philosophy needs science and vice versa.

@@MontyCantsin5 Agree

That is not what science is Rostam. allow me to copy what I wrote in a previous comment. I try to define science in relation to philosophy. "Philosophy is a toolbox that we came up with in order to achieve wisdom by accumulating knowledge. Science was a crucial step/method in that philosophical toolbox, capable at evaluating knowledge claims. Science even today is the best and most productive way to do philosophy(accumulate knowledge). Philosophy is an incomplete toolbox unable to evaluate truth or knowledge claims ...thus to produce knowledge."

Yes philosophy on it's own wont really accomplish anything practical just like intentions without actions wont accomplish anything but philosophy itself precedes science and without it science would be without direction just like some1 acting without any actual intentions wouldn't really do much meaningful, on purpose at least

If someone makes the argument that "evolution is wrong because science was wrong in the past" how can you argue against them without using philosophy? You cant. Science is built upon philosophy. A PH.d is literally a doctorate of philosophy.

@@lymmy9609 if everything is philosophy, then nothing is philosophy. if me debating with the electrician about where the cables, lines should be and cost, etc is philosophy then...lol IDK. Science guides itself by the results, not by authority. Philosophers are always telling you to go read Plato or Heidegger or Hegel and who tf said those white men who been dead for along time should be dictating what is and is not a good argument or what reality is and on what standards? makes no fucking sense. "metaphysical concepts" have existed way before classical Greece, probably other hominids like neanderthals also had words equivalent to "freedom" or even religions. Philosophers know that philosophy is JUST A GAME that's why their only accomplishments were the birth of math and science (and that's debatable)....yeah having rules in dialogues and explaining what you're talking about helps. Mayan and aztec societies used math and built complex architecture without the help of WHITE MEN

@@millerstation92 so ignorant

Let's say that someone says "evolution is wrong because science has been wrong before" how do you argue against that person without using philosophy. Science is built on philosophy. The idea of logic and logical contradictions is philosophy but all of philosophy is built on this concept.

+K Theodor Working in an organized manner (which science and engineering are) does not require any background let alone a PhD in philosophy. Mere theoretical or thought experiments is not philosophy. Einstein would turn in his grave when he was said to be a philosopher because he excelled in his thought experiments. His thought experiments were always supported by maths to prove (or as often disprove) them and Einstein was notoriously bad in Mathematics so he often relied on others to verify his work or assist him. I can;'t recall a philosopher who actually proves his hypnothesis in a concrete matter in mathematics (even psychologists of all people are moving to more predictive mathematical models because their general assumptions proved them often wrong). Most philosophy students can't even properly perform maths and physics nor could they create or think up good experiments to prove (or more important disprove) their axioms. In that case I think philosophy is useless, metaphysical hypothesis are all fun but nothing more than games. If you can't prove or disprove (which gets increasingly harder with metaphysical questions) that what's the worth for the world? Science like Prof. Wolpert says contributes noticeably to the world, it improves our lives and the way we look up on the world and the universe -- more concretely and I dare so more correctly than most philosophers argued it would be in the past. So if anything applied science actually does more for philosophy than philosophy does for all of mankind.

+Raymond Doetjes You're right: the scientific method just happened to fall from the sky, and ever since it landed scientists have been doing science.

K Theodor The scientific method is not something that is solely from the brain of a philosopher. It's something we keep evolving and it's not attributed to philosophy -- Hell most philosophers have no idea how to empirically disprove an hypnothesis. This is why philosophy has been stuck in a rut for the past 300+ years and real empirical science has changed the world for the better.

+Raymond Doetjes What is your knowledge of philosophy to support your claim that philosophy has been struck for the past 300+ years? Do you think that what bioethicist do is a waste of time? Do you think that the philosophical questions about the nature of the mind which led to the creation and establishment of the so-called cognitive sciences were just a joke? What about the work of some philosophers on the foundations of evolutionary game theory, and how such work had an impact on disciplines such as economics? That said (or that asked) I wonder why scientists are always insisting with the fact that philosophy has never contributed to science. So what? No one is ever asking whether the history of art has contributed to political science, or whether literature had an impact on biology, or whether physics contributed to the establishment of peaceful international relations. The point is that philosophy first of all contributes to philosophy, than some philosophical ideas may permeate society and affect other fields (both in the humanities and sometimes in the natural sciences too). Saying that "philosophy has never contributed to science, therefore philosophy is useless" is like saying "the *only* useful thing in the world is science, so all the other things (i.e., art, literature, political science, but even photography, cinema, marketing, and so on and so forth) are useless and should not be pursued at all". Nice...

+Raymond Doetjes Typical example of someone trashing philosophy whilst demonstrating they know virtually nothing about it. Much like the Professor admitted in this video. Trashes it without having read much of it. Let's go through the nonsense you wrote. "Working in an organized manner (which science and engineering are) does not require any background let alone a PhD in philosophy. Mere theoretical or thought experiments is not philosophy. Einstein would turn in his grave when he was said to be a philosopher because he excelled in his thought experiments. His thought experiments were always supported by maths to prove (or as often disprove) them and Einstein was notoriously bad in Mathematics so he often relied on others to verify his work or assist him." This is mostly fine. Don't think there's anything too bad here. Bit speculative, but whatever. "I can;'t recall a philosopher who actually proves his hypothesis in a concrete matter in mathematics (even psychologists of all people are moving to more predictive mathematical models because their general assumptions proved them often wrong)." What philosophy have you read? Why do you think you need maths in particular to prove a hypothesis in a 'concrete' manner? What even is proving something in a 'concrete' manner, versus just proving something? This reads like you're assuming you need maths to prove anything - an obviously bogus claim. (Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, so Socrates is mortal. - no maths there!) "Most philosophy students can't even properly perform maths and physics nor could they create or think up good experiments to prove (or more important disprove) their axioms." Got any data to back up that baseless sweeping generalisation? Let's suppose your nonsense claim was supported by some evidence. Why does it even matter? Most Philosophy students can't do a physics experiment. Ok. Most Physics students can't read the works of Homer in the original Greek. So what? Most Maths students can't perform the same as a Physical Education student on an endurance test. So what? You see the point. You're just making irrelevant and speculative claims about what philosophers can and can't do. Maybe this comes back to your seeming assumption (in the previous quote) that you need maths to prove anything (which is also nonsense). And what axioms do you have in mind? What exactly do you think philosophers are out to prove or disprove? An axiom is something you postulate. It's like a premise. So you're saying philosophers can't prove their premises? Ever? Again, give some examples. And why suppose you need experiments to prove and disprove axioms? Plenty of stuff doesn't require experimentation. At this point you're just waffling/bullshitting. "In that case I think philosophy is useless, metaphysical hypothesis are all fun but nothing more than games" In what case? What you concluded in the previous quote? Ok. So philosophy is useless because philosophy students aren't good at maths and physics? That seems silly. What about the work of their professors? Seems pretty stupid to judge a whole field on the basis of the work of its students, no? Seems even stupider once you realise that many philosophers are also qualified physicists and that many places offer joint degrees in physics and philosophy, or maths. Or maybe you think it's useless because of what you seemed to suggest earlier, that you need maths to prove anything, and that since philosophy students (you say nothing about their professors) can't do maths they can't prove anything. So philosophy is useless because its students can't prove anything? Well that argument requires that assumption that you need maths to prove anything, an already highly suspicious assumption which you have offered 0 reasons to buy. "If you can't prove or disprove (which gets increasingly harder with metaphysical questions) that what's the worth for the world?" That's just a stupid rhetorical question. Your insinuation is that philosophy is not valuable because it can't prove or disprove anything. That's a stupid assumption which you haven't backed up. And besides, can art prove or disprove anything? Is it also worthless? Most of human history suggests art is worthwhile. "Science like Prof. Wolpert says contributes noticeably to the world, it improves our lives and the way we look up on the world and the universe -- more concretely and I dare so more correctly than most philosophers argued it would be in the past." The second half of this sentence barely makes sense. It reads like pontification. "So if anything applied science actually does more for philosophy than philosophy does for all of mankind." You stated this as if it's the conclusion of an argument. You didn't argue for it. You just stated it as if it's obviously true (it isn't). "The scientific method is not something that is solely from the brain of a philosopher." Trivially true. "It's something we keep evolving and it's not attributed to philosophy" It is attributed to philosophy by some, so that's false. "-- Hell most philosophers have no idea how to empirically disprove an hypnothesis." Yet more speculative nonsense. You have no evidence for this. "This is why philosophy has been stuck in a rut for the past 300+ years and real empirical science has changed the world for the better." It hasn't been stuck in a rut, and the fact you claim it has been shows you don't know what you're talking about. Moreover philosophy has changed the world for the better, and the fact you think it hasn't shows you don't know what you're talking about. Two examples come immediately to mind. First, effective altruism. That has certainly improved the world. It has been championed, developed, and argued for by a number of philosophers. Second Nozick's influence on libertarianism, depending on if you think free market libertarianism was good or bad under Regan, Thatcher, etc. (see: www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2011/06/the_liberty_scam.html) I wouldn't argue that science has had *more* positive influence on the world. But you insinuate that philosophy has no positive influence on the world, which is false.

In my understanding, science is the analysis and derivation of theories and proofs based on observed evidences while philosophy is similar to "out of the box" thinking. Philosophy is coming up with ideas and theories out of thin air or based on experiences rather than observation. Having said that I do believe that philosophers are capable of analyzing and formulating theories based on evidence but it is not philosophy at that point.

@@thxhxndrick6364 Pure mathematics shares the characteristics of philosophy you describe. Basing theories on the scientific method is one huge, important body of knowledge, but there are nonemprical truths that exist.

You obviously don't have a clue what philosophy actually is.

Miles Thomas please tell me what the philosophy is ?

Generally speaking it is the use of reason to investigate questions about ethics, knowledge and how we acquire it, how scientific knowledge is acquired, the nature of logic and mathematics, the existence of God or not, the relation of language to the mind and reality, the purpose of existence, whether we have free will, whether the mind exists separately from the body and if so in what sense, the nature of time (which is also a scientific question) etc etc. The list Is endless.

yes , generally you are right but i was speaking more generally. Everything you wrote is about what mind can reationalize so it is the same as i wrote that the philosophy is all about thinking in a clever way.

Your definitions are a bit vague and unidentifiable. Philosophy is a toolbox that we came up with in order to achieve wisdom by accumulating knowledge. Science was a crucial step/method in that philosophical toolbox, capable at evaluating knowledge claims. Science even today is the best and most productive way to do philosophy(accumulate knowledge). Philosophy is an incomplete toolbox unable to evaluate truth or knowledge claims ...thus to produce knowledge.

I c you are interested in this debate. The truth is that Science is (was) a crucial step in the Philosophical toolbox. Its the second step, identified in the early days of philosophy by Aristotle. For more than 2000 years we understood that in order to produce valuable philosophical concepts, we must not skip any of those steps (epistemology, physics(science), metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, politics and back to epistemology). Science did not choose a separate way! It was philosophy (bad philosophy) that chose to continue without the second important step in its methodology. This poor version adopted by the Academy is what Wolpert's talk is all about.

No he is just talking about a certain version of Philosophy, the philosophy done outside science and math, the kind of philosophy that the Academy patronizes.

You could not be more wrong.

Without philosophy of science scientists can't reasonably argue against mystics claiming that their medicine is legit. If someone said "evolution is wrong because science has been wrong in the past" the only way you could argue against them is by using philosophy. Without philosophy there is no science, without science there is still philosophy.

The battle between modern philosophers and scientists is the internal war between two denominations of materialism. Just like the war between Protestants and Catholics is the war between two denominations of Christianity. Besides this I must say that there are many enemies of philosophy among totally different peoples, with different worldviews. Atheist Wolpert, many Protestants, many Salafi Sunnis, many Orthodox Jews...