I recently picked up a copy of Dr. Stephen Hawking‘s latest book, The Grand Design, and I was looking forward to learning about the latest developments in theoretical physics. I hadn’t even finished the first page before I was tempted to throw the whole thing in the garbage. On the very first page, Dr. Hawking has, unintentionally, revealed in stark clarity the serious danger facing the scientific community: intellectual irrelevance.
The first paragraph muses, mildly poetically, on how humans have always wondered about the nature of the Universe. And here is how the second paragraph starts:
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
I was stunned that so intelligent and accomplished a thinker could draw such a small-minded and ignorant conclusion. Really? Philosophy is dead? Science is all that there is? If that is truly your belief, Dr. Hawking, then I pity you.
Now before anyone labels me a Creationist or assumes I’m a member of the Hollow Earth Society, relax. I’m a huge proponent of science and embrace the advances in human knowledge it brings. For the record, my father, whom I respect greatly, has a PhD in physics and if it was possible to get one without having to do math I’d have one myself. Fascinating stuff. But for all its success in recent centuries, science is hardly the be-all and end-all of human discovery.
Here’s the critical thing that unfortunately some scientists just don’t get: not only does science not have all the answers, science can’t even form all the questions. Science is a tool at our disposal, very well suited to exploring certain aspects of our existence. It is completely incapable of exploring other, equally important aspects of our existence. Unfortunately, it seems that some people who have devoted their lives to science, such as Dr. Hawking and that particularly sad and laughable figure Richard Dawkins, have decided that anything which science cannot address simply doesn’t exist.
This is the very real danger facing modern science, and physics in particular. Believe too much in the superiority of your own specialty and you will lose connection with the rest of reality. This ultimately leads to intellectual irrelevance, as the rest of the world carries on addressing the full spectrum of knowledge that exists. It’s ironic, and sad, that some of the brightest minds around today are becoming the very thing that they criticize so vocally.
Philosophy is not dead, Dr. Hawking. But if too many of your colleagues adopt the extremes that you appear to have, theoretical physics will be. It will be replaced by a relevant school of thought that encompasses rather than excludes.
Originally published at Virtues of War
Photo Credits:
All photos courtesy of Bennett Coles
Recent Bennett R. Coles Articles:
- A No-BS Tour of Modern Publishing Part 4 – The traditional industry: the bookstores (and distributors)
- A No-BS Tour of Modern Publishing Part III – The Traditional Industry: The Publishers
- A No-BS Tour of Modern Publishing Part II – Making sense of the lingo
- A No-BS Tour of Modern Publishing Part I – Author Motivations
- Star Wars: The Next Generation
Jonas Paulo Negreiros says
After much philosophizing, Mr. Hawkins came to the conclusion that thinkers bother physicists.
Stephen J. Crothers says
Hawking’s latest book is an addition to an already long list of his nonsense. Consider the following for starters:
All alleged black hole universes:
(1) are spatially infinite
(2) are eternal
(3) contain only one mass
(4) are not expanding
(5) are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.
The alleged big bang universes:
(1) are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two cases)
(2) are of finite age
(3) contain radiation and many masses, (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial!)
(4) are expanding
(5) are not asymptotically anything.
The defining features of the black hole universes clearly contradict the defining features of the big bang universes. Consequently the black hole universes and the big bang universes are mutually exclusive – they cannot coexist. No mathematics is required to see this because it is a matter of elementary logic.
Stephen J. Crothers
Eric Brad says
I will start by saying that I have not read Dr. Hawkings latest book but, given what you have quoted, I cannot say that I disagree with his assertion that modern philosophy is dead.
I do not come to that decision lightly. While I understand Mr. Coles’ reaction to such a statement, he offers precious little for me to look for in 21st century philosophy. By contrast, my satellite television is full of science based programs grappling with everything from the origin of life to the origin of the universe itself and our place in it.
I can’t say with any authority or certainty that philosophy is dead in the 21st century. What I can say is that it is not staking out any prime real estate on best seller lists, television networks, or mainstream media in general. Without any “superstars” like Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku represent in the scientific community, modern philosophy seems to be represented more by the religious architypes such as the Pope, Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, or Muslim cleric Hamza Yusef.
I appreciate Ben Coles’ desire to have a philosophical voice contributing to the modern debate but I don’t really see much of one. I can understand why Dr. Hawking commented as he did. Modern philosophy may not be dead, but it’s certainly doing a good job of hiding from me!
Bennett R. Coles says
Thanks for the comment, Eric. It brings to the forefront the very relevant question underlying this conversation: what is philosophy?
You’re absolutely right that our mainstream media is pretty bereft of dedicated “philosophers” but that doesn’t mean that modern society has become non-philosophical. At its most fundamental, philosophy is about asking questions, and very often it’s about trying to discuss concepts that are beyond our immediate sensory perception. There are many modern fields of study like this: political science, history, the study of literature or music, to name but a few. We’ve given these fields specific names today, but they’re still very much the same sorts of issues that Plato and Socrates grappled with. Let’s not forget that for two thousand years science was considered part of philosophy and the great thinkers were free to explore any field of study that interested them, without labels.
The fields of study I mention above are clearly outside of what we’d call science, and while they may not provide the same sort of precision or nifty formulas, they can still produce valid, evidence-supported theories that can make insightful commentary on reality and the human condition. The fact that they may be less precise or concrete doesn’t make them less valuable, it merely reflects the non-precise nature of their subject matter.
My sole objection to Dr. Hawking’s assertion is that he seems to ignore any field of study that isn’t considered “science” in today’s common perception. For someone as smart and savvy as he is, I was very disappointed.
BRC
Ron Krumpos says
In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
In my free ebook on comparative mysticism, “the greatest achievement in life,” is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is the center of all religion.”
E=mc², Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Love, Grace, Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.