In my childhood, it was very much ‘speak when spoken to’ in the formative years which I suspect was more to do with controlling a large family and especially those of us in the relegation zone of it
And yet children have the most pure of logic that should be heard because they literally say what they see, so Gen X arguably became the flag bearers for free expression in the post war rejection of austerity and all that went with it
I need to explore this more, but I think the Stephen Hawking declaration that, “philosophy is dead” was far more nefarious than it seems Hawking appears to imply that the only opinion that matters is that derived via academic discipline This seems to me to be a path to religious dogma especially as much of academia tends to mark its own homework via peer review
The last four years has seen 24/7 output via the media of this “expert opinion” and “the science” (Guardian and Telegraph) much of which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny
Seems to me the route to truth therefore has to be free expression and dialectic
Without it, a false consensus will prevail and humanity will continue to enjoy the regular servings of reductions of freedom and democracy to “protect our freedoms and democracy”
Always good to be reminded of Hitchens in full flow John.
Hawking makes the mistake many do, which is to dismiss academic disciplines that do not build from the foundations i.e. with maths. I addressed this fallacy briefly two weeks ago.
In the early paragraphs I cite David Deutsch's example of the copper atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Churchill. How did it get there? There is a mathematical explanation of the movement of particles and there is a historical explanation based on his being a war time hero. The higher level historical explanation is the more meaningful one.
That science and maths is the foundation of all knowledge is a philosophical argument. To use it to say philosophy is dead is therefore an error. Even the best brains fall for it.
This was not the only category error that Hawking made. He said humans are cosmic scum and irrelevant in universal terms. We are the only known life form that is capable of shaping the universe. I'd say that makes us extremely relevant, even if we are small in stature.
https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?si=64VZOlfUMWP1MgNx
In my childhood, it was very much ‘speak when spoken to’ in the formative years which I suspect was more to do with controlling a large family and especially those of us in the relegation zone of it
And yet children have the most pure of logic that should be heard because they literally say what they see, so Gen X arguably became the flag bearers for free expression in the post war rejection of austerity and all that went with it
I need to explore this more, but I think the Stephen Hawking declaration that, “philosophy is dead” was far more nefarious than it seems Hawking appears to imply that the only opinion that matters is that derived via academic discipline This seems to me to be a path to religious dogma especially as much of academia tends to mark its own homework via peer review
The last four years has seen 24/7 output via the media of this “expert opinion” and “the science” (Guardian and Telegraph) much of which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny
Seems to me the route to truth therefore has to be free expression and dialectic
Without it, a false consensus will prevail and humanity will continue to enjoy the regular servings of reductions of freedom and democracy to “protect our freedoms and democracy”
Always good to be reminded of Hitchens in full flow John.
Hawking makes the mistake many do, which is to dismiss academic disciplines that do not build from the foundations i.e. with maths. I addressed this fallacy briefly two weeks ago.
https://simonmaughan.substack.com/p/how-machines-beat-human-investors
In the early paragraphs I cite David Deutsch's example of the copper atom at the tip of the nose of the statue of Churchill. How did it get there? There is a mathematical explanation of the movement of particles and there is a historical explanation based on his being a war time hero. The higher level historical explanation is the more meaningful one.
That science and maths is the foundation of all knowledge is a philosophical argument. To use it to say philosophy is dead is therefore an error. Even the best brains fall for it.
This was not the only category error that Hawking made. He said humans are cosmic scum and irrelevant in universal terms. We are the only known life form that is capable of shaping the universe. I'd say that makes us extremely relevant, even if we are small in stature.