Timothy Williamson - What is Naturalism?

Timothy Williamson, Wykeham Professor of Logic, University of Oxford - "What is Naturalism?"

[WojciechDomalewski]

Finally I have found a philosopher who speaks clearly, uses simple words and whom I understand :) .

[edisonyi]

Love Williamson's comments on theology

[dxd-uj]

Please allow subtitles for those of us who aren't native speakers. Thanks.

[pontifrancesco]

There are too many idiotic comments here.

[freeri]

I would love to know which are T. Williamson's favorite books on logic and the philosophy of logic, and/or philosophy books general.

[bushfingers]

Williamson is simply brilliant as a thinker, but is unfortunately not great as a speaker. Part of the problem is that people with his level of intelligence will never be accessible to the masses

[MrAlanfalk]

He could do with a script and a few less ah and øh's and stutteting noises, it takes away some of the focus from this great lecture.

[gandommy.]

Menghubungkan kaedah saintifik dengan falsafah - bahawa semua makhluk dan kejadian
di alam semesta adalah semula jadi

o Pendekatan untuk masalah falsafah yang menafsirkannya sebagai hanya dapat diubati melalui kaedah sains empirikal

o Menolak kewujudan realiti ghaib yang benar-benar berlaku peruntukan untuk ghaib, dengan syarat bahawa pengetahuan tentangnya dapat
secara tidak langsung

o Masalah-masalah falsafah yang secara tradisional dianggap tidak diformulasikan
dan dapat diselesaikan / dipindahkan dengan kaedah naturalistik & empirikal

[dj]

I don't find this discussion particularly illuminating. His point that there are other 'ways of knowing' beyond the scientific one has been regurgitated by philosophers over and over again, specifically in order to provide vague description and justification of their discipline. Alright, science has certain limitations, some of which can perhaps even be delineated by a priori means, but does that mean that there are other methodologies for reaching real knowledge of the world besides the one used by the natural sciences? I am not so sure. Every philosophical conception of this difference is in principle bound to come up as vague, misleading, or incomplete. Williamson's whole discussion of this topic comes up as being somewhat superficial in my opinion. Why does he think it necessary that naturalism has to be well defined by its proponents if it is to be taken seriously as an overarching methodological, ontological, etc. framework? The same challenge can be issued to supernaturalism by claiming that it needs to be well defined if what it says is to be taken seriously. But I think it is a philosopher's prejudice to ask for a clean-cut definition in either case, by way of putting out necessary and sufficient conditions for each class of phenomena. Take ghosts as an example. The existence of such entities cannot be accommodated within the framework (or worldview?) of naturalism because it would violate the principle of energy conservation, along with other repeatedly verified empirical facts. Of course, there might be other supernatural phenomena that would possibly pose a more formidable challenge to naturalism, but it seems to me that in the end they all rest on the evocation of ghost-like entities, and that's exactly why it is reasonable (in a careful reading of this term) to put them all under one umbrella term. But this of course doesn't mean that we can 'prove' the non-existence of such things, not in the way a philosopher would want us to do. As far as mathematics goes, I am not convinced by Williamson's reasons for taking this seriously as a counterexample to naturalism. First of all, not all parts of mathematics are 'created equal' - some have empirical import, others constitute purely abstract, clearly non-empirical areas of research. Not only that, but one mathematical idea or hypothesis, which at the time of its original formulation was of a completely abstract, purely mathematical interest, can at some later point in time find its appropriate empirical application (e.g. Riemannian hyperbolic geometry). But again, I don't think there are definite boundaries here, and we should make our decisions on a case-to-case basis. Finally, I wish Williamson had provided a more detailed analysis of what he means by philosophy in general, because I feel there is a tension between his thesis of the autonomy of philosophy, and his Quinean claim that philosophy is somehow continuous with natural sciences. Without further examination, it seems to me that the same problem Quine had when it comes to situating philosophy on a spectrum that extends from logic and pure mathematics on the one hand, and applied physics on the other is encountered here as well, albeit in a somewhat different form.

[Thegarethcrossman]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Williamson ridiculing continental philosophy, accusing the likes of Derrida of obscurantism. I've managed to listen to him for 10 minutes. I'm lost for words.

[Tripurasaha]

The main problem is his stammering which prohibits clear understanding his lecture

[GDKRichardson]

"Uh...um...uh...uh...um..." Maybe he should simply read from his notes, since he has such a hard time articulating his thoughts.

[davidangelapaceoshea]

This man just doesn't want to commit himself to anything because he is not sure of anything.

[patbonny]

I'm sorry, this man is almost incomprehensible, he puts a full stop or ellipsis after every other word! Even his body language seems to be apologising for his lack of any iclear deas. Sorry, such a nice, sincere chap.

[mickey]

If he could stop stammering and get to the god damn point this video would be 30 mins long.

[laertesindeed]

If I had to lie about naturalism like this man does, I'd hem and haw and um and uh and eh as

[JungleJargon]

It is not magic when your Creator always was. *It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother.* That's 100% magic and 100% not true.

Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.

[george]

That guy might know his topic, but he sure has no speaking ability. Can't stand listening to him.

[ezequielsanchez]

Worst speaker ever, I could not follow the lecture: I was far more worried for his life as he slurred words gasping for some air and then suddenly went apnea mode...