Philosophy

Relative importance

I want to say more about those rumored forces mentioned in JoAnne’s post, but tomorrow (Thurs) I’m giving a presentation on Time’s Arrow, and, ironically, I’m running out of time. The event itself should be great fun. It’s sponsored by the Illinois Humanities Council, and will be held at the Museum of Contemporary Art. I’ll talk about time in Einstein’s universe for half an hour, and then we’ll have responses from philosopher David Albert and artist Antonia Contro. Preposterous Universe readers will remember David from my report on a meeting last December. Antonia, in addition to being a talented artist, is the executive director of Marwen, a non-profit organization devoted to teaching disadvanaged youths about art. The moderator will be former Preposterous guest-blogger (and occasional radio host) Gretchen Helfrich, and I’m sure it will be a blast.

The event is sold out, but at some point it will be televised on the Illinois Channel (“like CSPAN for Illinois”). You can also check out two previous events in the Humanities Council’s celebration of the Einstein year: Peter Galison on Einstein and Poincare, and Janna Levin and Rocky Kolb on cosmology.

Here’s a teaser for my talk. How important is the notion of “time,” anyway? I did the obvious thing — I asked Google. So here is the number of search results returned when you search Google for various important concepts.

  • space:                   422,000,000 pages found
  • money:                 262,000,000 pages found
  • fun:                       173,000,000 pages found
  • love:                     170,000,000 pages found
  • sex:                       76,400,000 pages found
  • peace:                   89,900,000 pages found
  • war:                     179,000,000 pages found
  • harry potter:         20,900,000 pages found
  • time:                   972,000,000 pages found

Good news there about love vs. sex. Not so much about peace vs. war. But the important thing is, “time” kicks the rest of the concepts’ collective butts, with nearly a billion pages found. Yet another reason I should get a raise.

Relative importance Read More »

18 Comments

Enlightenment

Things have been busy, but at some point I hope to stop just linking and start actually writing something. In the meantime, why not link to something profound?

Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intelligence!

— Immanuel Kant, in “What Is Enlightenment?”, 1784

Is it too cynical to think that the anti-science attitude on the part of our government is part of a bigger picture, a roll-back of rationality itself? Shakespeare’s Sister examines the evidence, and concludes that it’s not too cynical at all.

Enlightenment Read More »

4 Comments

Perspectivalism

As an undergraduate I took a delightful course in the Philosophy of Religion from a young lecturer named Tony Godzieba. He was a committed anti-foundationalist, and would discourse passionately on the Hermeneutics of Suspicion — along with Augustine and Aquinas we read Nietzsche and Freud and Ricoeur and had a grand old time.

But Tony had one deeply ingrained habit that used to drive me nuts. He took seriously the idea that there was no neutral vantage point from which we could discuss absolute truths; rather, our lively class discussions were to be thought of as interactions between a variety of perspectives. And he knew that my friend Padi Boyd (who was also taking the class) and I were the astronomy majors in the room. So whenever he would call on either of us, he would (with the best of intentions) inevitably say something like “So now let’s get the natural-science perspective on this.”

Man, that drove me crazy. Putting aside for the moment any disputes between foundationalist and perspectivalist theories of truth, granting that anything I say might necessarily be coming from some perspective, there is still a crucially important difference between my perspective (or that of any other individual scientist) and some abstracted notion of a “natural-science perspective.” When I would argue that St. Anselm’s ontological proof for the existence of God was a load of hooey, I may have been informed by my scientific education, but also by innumerable other influences — random and deliberate, obvious and hidden, justified and irrational. Physical sciences propose crisp mathematical structures in order to model the inner workings of the natural world, but the scientists themselves are human, all too human.

So what we have here is a group blog constructed by some idiosyncratic human beings who also happen to be physicists. Sometimes we’ll talk about science, other times it will be food or literature or whatever moves us — I know I have some incisive things to say about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, for one thing. We’re not a representative collection of scientists, just some engaged individuals curious about our world.

Welcome!

Perspectivalism Read More »

7 Comments
Scroll to Top