Peter Lewis, Dartmouth College
The Blind Spot: Experience, Science, and the Search for “Truth”
A workshop with philosophers, physicists, and cognitive scientists
What is “truth”? Can it be objectively defined? To what extent are scientific statements “true”? Is the truth in the physical sciences different than in pure mathematics? This workshop brings together an international group of philosophers, physicists, and cognitive neuroscientists to discuss the nature of truth in science and its relation to our experience of the world. If we cannot detach experience from our description of the world, to what extent is science objective? Does experience influence and limit our scientific narrative of Nature? Join us for what promises to be a fascinating discussion on the foundations of science and its relation to philosophy
This event, moderated by ICE Director Marcelo Gleiser, is free and open to the public.
Speakers:
Michel Bitbol, CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
Adam Frank, University of Rochester
Chris Fuchs, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Jenann Ismael, Columbia University
Peter Lewis, Dartmouth College
Michela Massimi, University of Edinburgh
Robert Sharf, University of California, Berkeley
Mark Sprevak, University of Edinburgh
Evan Thompson, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Peter Tse, Dartmouth College
Пікірлер: 4
It's such a great video! If you upload parts of it with titles like "The Crisis of Science" or "The Measurement Problem", it'll surely get way more views.
This is a wonderful talk, and deserves to have more views. I have some comments about the “Coda” at the end. At 27:30, Peter Lewis rightly says, “Any attempt to incorporate lived experience into science itself is bound to fail since it will necessarily abstract away from the lived nature of that experience.” But at 28:10 the lecture ends with a Coda by D.C. Williams, which I precis as follows, “Study of the messy life-world is a waste of time. It cannot lead to greater metaphysical clarity. Better to study science which will eventually sort everything out.” I strongly disagree with this. First note that the final sentence contradicts Lewis’s conclusion. My own position is: Study of the life-world (which is the fundamental reality) is THE vital project for philosophers. Its messiness is greatly reduced by insisting on the criterion of consistency with current science. As to the best that future science could plausibly ever hope to achieve - this would be to give the mathematical structure of the life-world. There is more to the life-world than structure, so physicalism is false. Regards, Peter E.
🙏🏽✍️
On a mundane note: this series of videos would receive more viewers if their TITLES were more informative