Hilary Putnam on Non-Scientific Knowledge (1998)

Hilary Putnam gives a talk on non-scientific knowledge in 1998 as part of the Gavin David Young Lecture Series at the University of Adelaide. Among other things, he discusses the attempt to demarcate between science and non-science, the entanglement of facts and values, relativism, and the notion of objectivity, including objectivity regarding values.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016) was an American philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist who was a central figure in analytic philosophy. He made important contributions to many areas, including the philosophy of mind, logic, the philosophy of language, epistemology, the philosophy of science and mathematics.

00:00 Aim of Talk
05:13 Demarcation between Science & Non-Science
15:45 Epistemic Values & Relativism
22:11 Reliabilist Epistemology
27:17 Objectivity
37:57 Fact/Value Entanglement

#Philosophy #Epistemology #Putnam

[chadbrockman]

He was as good at explaining his thinking as anyone I've every watched give a talk, with some competition. It's wonderful to have access to lectures like this.

[naftalibendavid]

Wow! I think I got about 15% of that and I will probably never know the percentage for sure. There’s an admirable flexibility about the beginning. I realize that I don’t have an adequate foundation, but what an inspiring motivation for getting started.

[lewreed]

This gave me an actual, physical buzz. Thanks!

[alwaysgreatusa]

It should be obvious that science is only a means for attaining specific kinds of empirical knowledge, and not identical with knowledge itself -- as knowledge in general is more fundamental and has a wider-scope than that attained by the sciences.

[Bill-ouzp]

That’s crazy that Popper called natural selection metaphysics lol

[starfishsystems]

This seems at first glance to be a thoroughly uninteresting perspective on epistemology.

Of course as subjective experiencers, we have concerns outside of what can be objectively investigated. If we were some other, perhaps very different species, we would certainly have different concerns. However we might formulate them, our values would likewise be different.

This is entirely to be expected. But, for the moment, it's not very interesting. Once we reach the point of having another intelligent species to converse with, we can compare notes on these matters, and that should prove very interesting indeed. But at the moment, it's a little like asking what are the optimal conditions for life in the universe, when the only available instance is this planet.

[zacoolm]

“No clear demarcation between scientific and non-scientific knowledge” …music to the ruling elites ears

[Booer]

damnnn, looks like poppers demarcation was true after all...you were just wrong Putnam about his recanting. i dont even know poppers work like that dawggg to know hes wackado - this is the first thing ive heard about popper that makes sense

[deanodebo]

Note the strong value judgment that any definition of science MUST include the theory of evolution. Talk about metaphysical assumptions. That’s not science!

[djl]

Lost me at around 30 minutes. How may names dropped is too many? He is truly smelling his own farts.