Complex Numbers

Hammer Time

One of the stupidest things about this timeline is how much weight people put on what celebrities say.

Science and philosophy can, and should, coexist  
MC Hammer's recent tweet has sparked a conversation about the complementary nature of these two fields

Another stupid thing about this timeline is Twitter.

Nevertheless, I can't find any real fault in what MC Hammer said here.

MC Hammer recently brought the hammer down on those who see science and philosophy as fundamentally opposed disciplines. He first tweeted a link to this paper, showing that STEM fields account for 21.3% of citations of philosophy of science journals. Some tweeters responded with unflattering, and inaccurate, characterizations of philosophy that put it at odds with science. In response, MC Hammer had some words of advice praised by scientists and philosophers alike: "It's not science vs Philosophy ... It's Science + Philosophy. Elevate your Thinking and Consciousness. When you measure include the measurer."

As both science and philosophy are interests of mine, I do see that sometimes they're at odds. And they have completely different ways of approaching ideas. I see this as a good thing.

MC Hammer's insistence on the complementary nature of science and philosophy is in line with this 2019 opinion paper, published in PNAS. The authors described a continuum of science and philosophy, as the two fields share "the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation.”

The big difference, as I see it at least, is that philosophy doesn't have to cleave to objective truth. One can draw perfectly logical conclusions from false (or at least unverifiable) premises, leading to faulty conclusions even with rigorous logic, but that's not what science is supposed to be about.

Tweets by MC Hammer promoting these views will hopefully also help to break down harmful stereotypes of the disciplines that might prevent scientists and philosophers from working together for the good of society.

I still think entertainers, no matter how talented or intelligent, have entirely too much sway over popular opinion. It's like... I'm a Springsteen fan because I like his music, but anything he says about anything other than music carries no more weight with me than when anyone else says such things.

In any case, it's always been clear to me that, deliberately or not, philosophy guides science, and science can inform philosophy. Examples? Well, consider animal testing in the biological sciences. For a while, it was generally accepted, but as attitudes changed and we found out more (partly through animal testing), such things were curtailed and subject to ethical review. There's no purely scientific rationale for not doing tests on animals (including human animals), but there's plenty of philosophical reasons not to.

After all, sometimes I wonder if the phrase "curiosity killed the cat" is more about a human's curiosity than the poor cat's.

On a personal note, for anyone who's tired of seeing these things pop up in here, I've signed up for the 30DBC again for next month. It's not like I don't have dozens more articles in the queue; it's just time for something different again.

Speaking of something different, today (Thursday) is the day I officially reach full vaccine protection, two weeks after my second shot. While it's not a good idea to start running around licking doorknobs or bathing in people's sneezes, I intend to celebrate by going to *gasp* a movie theater.

Godzilla vs. Kong looks good. If by "good" I mean "thin plot, mediocre acting, but kaiju battles with budget-breaking CGI." Which in fact I do.