/lit/ - Literature

>>21464123
Epistemologists, mathematicians/philosophers of mathematics (hardly a distinction anymore), and logicians definetly have something to add to science vis-á-vis methodology and an understanding of how science can arrive at knowledge.

You are absolutely correct that philosophy should be more informed by science. Example: Jaworski's Philosophy of Mind is an excellent primer to the field as far as philosophy is concerned but suffers badly from lack of background on the findings of cognitive science and neuroscience. But you also have stuff like the Great Courses series by Grim that blends them excellently.

The idea that physics is the starting point for metaphysics is a little ludicrous when you have no less than 9 major interpretations of quantum mechanics, none with majority support anymore. Said work in quantum foundations has been carried along by a significant degree by philosophers of physics or partnerships between them and theoretical physicists and mathematicians more often.

Just because the origins of "metaphysics" has "physics," which didn't exist in its modern form then, doesn't make physics necessarily foundational. There is the entire issue of Kant's trancendental and the way in which human faculties and tendencies of intuition shape how we view reality. For example, the attack on the entire idea of distinct objects that exist "of themselves," i.e. sans relations, has come under attack from both the side of cognitive neuroscience and physics, particularly vis-á-vis QFT/QCD. Pic related for example, which is obviously in part a philosophical work, but is by a cognitive scientist.

Plenty of philosophy of science/metaphysics informed by science IS published each year. It just tends to be scientists who publish it because philosophy is a small field and a large proportion of it is historical philosophy or humanities related (aesthetics, ethics, etc.). I don't see how you can claim that there is a sensible way to ground aesthetics and ethics in physics.

It's also hard to have any background in cognitive neuroscience and claim philosophers like Chalmers and Dennett haven't made a huge impact on the field and interpreting research findings in a holistic (if sometimes dumb) framework.

>>21039941
This is a scientific argument for idealism. There are others.

>>20754749
Last rec on the expanding horizons front.

The Great Courses econ class is decent enough too. It's sort of milquetoast neolib in some places, but definitely will get you to realize /pol/ argument around econ are generally based off profound misunderstandings of the field and its findings.

Great Courses are way cheaper on Amazon. You can either subscribe to the videos for $7 a month or get a bunch of the classes for free off their Audible platform.

Their modern philosophy course is good too, but a bit too wide. The Conservative Tradition one is quite good, and shows how current /pol/ conservatism has gone way off the rails.

Cognitive neuroscience argument for what seems somewhat like idealism. It isn't full idealism or anti-realism, because it doesn't deny a noumenal world. What it says is that our conscious world of 3D space and time as discrete objects is a product of evolution selecting for fitness and coming across solutions for extreme data compression (think about Avagadro's number and the amount of information in the phase space of just a mole of gas).

The core analogy is that our world of discrete objects and 3D space is analogous to a computer desktop. On a desktop we are emails as icons, we delete things by putting them into a recycling bin, and we organize files in folders. Really, everything going on is electrical currents moving through microscopic logic gates. His argument is that our common conceptions that we use for science can be as badly off as assuming the location of a file on a screen says whether its data is actually stored to the left or right of some other file on a hard drive.

Fairly well supported by findings in cognitive science on how vision is something largely constructed, by no means anything like an accurate representation of actual photon stimulation in the eye.

>"Science increasingly suggests that the world we perceive, the world that we have built up our scientific models around, does not exist outside our minds. Concepts like discrete things, space, etc. only exist in our minds."
>"There is a something out there. There is something our senses and reason refer to, but X, Y, and Z research suggests it isn't what we think it is and that we can never know it as it actually exists."

A lot of books like this have come out. Did we do 200+ years of science just to get Kant version 2.0?

We even have neorationalism / neo-neoPlatonism getting shopped around by physicists claiming reality is actually built up from abstract mathematical entities...

>>20603705
About how evolution misleads us about how the world actually is and how this leaks into science.

>>19250600