>At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said

>>2806706
He's wrong. Science cannot, in principle, address questions of metaphysics (being, consciousness, etc.) and ethics.

>>2806709
Why don't you think there can't be a measurable determination of consciousness or the relative strengths and outcomes of ethics?

>>2806724
Well, I was a bit extreme perhaps about metaphysics... I think that it's possible science may touch on questions of being and consciousness at some point, but it would require immense and unprecedented leaps forward in science. At the moment, science has zero answers to the hard problem of consciousness. As for ethics, I can't imagine any scientific progress being made on the matter regardless of how much science advances in other regards. Science can shed light on how particular ethical schemes are likely to unfold in the real world, but science cannot address questions of what is right and wrong.

>>2806709
This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ

>>2806709
Substantiate your claims with proof.

>>2806732
neither can philosophy shed light on what's right and wrong other than reaching the conclusion that there is none

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Science is a branch of philosophy. Also he should stick to his own field. This is the equivalent of Deepak Chopra waxing spiritual about quantum mechanics.

>>2806706
>le robot beep bop man
Outside of his particular field (in which he hasnt been relevant for years) why should anyone care what he thinks. Its almost as bad as when people take Chomsky to be some sort of all knowing political intellectual.

The irony is that what his "science" is today is due to epistemology. And he does not even take account that the limits of his "science" are based on philosophy, especially ethics.

>>2806709
You're wrong.
Any question about reality -be it the material or the immaterial- is, in principle, a scientific question.

>>2806709
That's because these concepts are not scientific, but human fabrications. It's like saying science can't address questions of the Tooth Fairy. Well, it can insofar as showing the tooth fairy is a human fabrication.

>>2806771
Science is first and foremost about the method. If Mary leaves the room she will learn new things becuase she is now capable of testing her theories against new observations and refining them accordingly.

>philosophy gay
>science cool

Great argument, wheels.

>>2806706
Does Hawking realize that here he is making a philosophical, and not a scientific statement? Can he test this statement using the scientific method?

The thing that frustrates me about this new popular scientism is how incredibly ignorant it is. And it's because we don't really teach philosophy in our schools.

If there is one thing I want students to learn, more than anything else, including math and science, it is this: understand that you have presuppositions, be aware of what they are and what they mean. Otherwise, you sound like an idiot talking about any other field in which you aren't specialized.