What can we learn from a medieval philosopher who had visions of the Virgin Mary and explained how angels speak and move. Quite a bit, it turns out. Thomas Aquinas developed “a philosophical framework for the process of doubt and open scientific inquiry.”
P2: What can I know?
More about how Aristotle invented science
Another review, this one by Henry Gee, of Armand Marie Leroi’s The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science. It’s true that Aristotle make some mistakes in his investiations. But “in science, there is no shame in being wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. Aristotle was a pioneer in that he started not with a prior scheme, but sought, as dispassionately as he could, to explain what he saw.”
Ten questions for the philosophy of cosmology
How can philosophers work with physicists to study the origin and development of the universe? Sean Carroll poses questions for the philosophy of cosmology. For example, are time and space fundamental features of the universe, or do they emerge from more basic features? Philosophers have considered time, space, and Carroll’s other questions throughout … well, over considerable time and space.
Locke, Leibniz, and the blind boy who now sees
Quaere, how much do we really see? What can we learn about knowledge when sight is restored to a 13-year-old boy who had been blind since birth? Charlie Huenemann explains what the empiricist Locke and the rationalist Leibniz had to say about this. And don’t miss the very interesting readers’ comments to this very interesting essay.
How Aristotle invented science
Susan H. Gordon’s review of Armand Marie Leroi’s The Lagoon: “And so, in 2014, Aristotle joins the ranks of his fellow biologists. ‘Intimacy with the natural world shines from his works,’ writes Leroi, a communion that allowed Aristotle to ‘sieve the ocean of natural history folklore and travelogue for grains of truth from which to build a new science.’ Following his new scientific inquiry, Aristotle arrived at a final why: Why does any of this happen at all? It would take centuries before Darwin could find a scientifically plausible answer, and in ancient Greece Aristotle looked again to the practical for his own: Biological systems are true so that we might exist. And to exist is simply better than to not exist.”
Dreaming the dream
What are the chances “you’re an isolated brain floating lonely through the vast expanse of the Universe with all your thoughts, memories and perceptions just figments of your imagination.” Consider Boltzmann brains. How would you know whether you’re one or not?
Why take a stance on God?
Keith DeRose thinks “those who claim to know whether God exists — whether theists or atheists — are just blowing smoke.” And yet he also thinks it is rational to take a stance on whether or not God exists.
Precognitive police
“Predictive policing could help prevent crime. But do we want a future where computer oracles and spies track us from birth?” Probably not, according to Henrick Karoliszyn. Consider this scenario: “I am walking down the street and a mobile brain scan looks at my brain along with a picture of a training camp in Afghanistan. If I’ve not been there, I’m sent happily on my way. But if I have, my brain lurches a certain way, I’m taken off the street and carted off to Guantánamo and detained indefinitely as a potential enemy combatant.” Would that be moral?
Outlook: gloomy
Are you an optimistic person always looking on the bright side? Not likely, says Jacob Burak. But there is a bright side to the fact that we are wired to be gloomy: “In fact, studies show that depressed people may be sadder, but they are also wiser … . This ‘depressive realism’ gives the forlorn a more accurate perception of reality, especially in terms of their own place in the world and their ability to influence events.”
Socratically Speaking 