Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
<
Julian Baggini No one who has understood even a fraction of what science has told us about the universe can fail to be in awe of both the cosmos and of science. When physics is compared with the humanities and social sciences, it is easy for the scientists to feel smug and the rest of us to feel somewhat envious. Philosophers in particular can suffer from lab-coat envy. If only our achievements were so clear and indisputable! How wonderful it would be to be free from the duty of constantly justifying the value of your discipline.
awe(n.): reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder
in awe: they gazed in awe at the galaxy.
in awe of: his staff members are in awe of him.
awe(v.): they were owed by the vastness of the forest.
awed(adj.): I watched her in awed silence.
smug: showing pride
indisputable: unable to be denied
if only...
(1) Willy would have to tell Gorge more, if only to keep him from pestering.
(2) If only I had listened to you!
However – and I'm sure you could see a "but" coming – I do wonder whether science hasn't suffered from a little mission creep of late. Not content with having achieved so much, some scientists want to take over the domain of other disciplines.
mission creep
mission 指任务，creep 指一个匍匐爬行的动作。这个动作可以有许多引伸含义，比如蛇通常匍匐爬行，让人感到害怕(creepy)；另外藤蔓植物的生长方式也是匍匐在地上逐渐延伸的(creeper)
v.
-The child crept downstairs, fearing his parents hearing the noise. 蹑手蹑脚
-The soldier creeps up on an enemy. 悄悄靠近
-Tiredness can easily creep up on you while you're driving.
-The creeping centralization of power. 悄然发生
-Errors crept into his game. 没有察觉的出现
-Interest rates have been creeping up in the past few weeks. 逐渐的缓慢增长
-Ivy creeps over the walls of the university buildings. 蔓延
-her arms crept around his neck.
-A slight feeling of suspicion crept over me.
n.
-the traffic moved at a creep.
-soil creep; creep of the plastic bottle 逐渐滑落、变形
-He's a nasty little creep! 讨厌鬼
phrase
-Lisa received an anonymous note that crept her out. 把她吓坏了
-This old house gives me the creeps. 让我紧张／让我害怕
mission creep: the expansion of a mission beyond its initial goals, often after initial successes. To succeed at the beginning may lead to a dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
mission creep 原本形容军事，一开始的成功导致膨胀的野心，于是不顾初始的目的，野心开始膨胀，直到野心超出了能力范围，产生毁灭性的失败，才清醒过来。
在这里，Julian 首先肯定了科学的成功。科学家们的成就so clear and indisputable, 他们也不必像哲学家一样，需要 constantly justifying the value of their discipline, 因为社会十分认可科学的价值和成就。但是，这种认可，是否让科学家们过于骄傲(to feel smug), 忘记了自己本来只是在科学的领域耕耘，而开始跨越边界，对其它领域指手画脚呢？(take over the domain of other disciplines) Julian 警醒科学家们，小心mission creep! 一开始的成功不代表你们可以无往不胜。
I don't feel proprietorial about the problems of philosophy. History has taught us that many philosophical issues can grow up, leave home and live elsewhere. Science was once natural philosophy and psychology sat alongside metaphysics. But there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.
proprietorial: owning
property 指财产，proprietor - the owner of the property
proper 原意是belong to oneself, 然而后来衍生出了了“合乎个人身份地位”的含义。因此这个词根产生的单词或者有关于财产, 或者有关于礼节。
n.
- property : possessions
- propriety: appropriateness
Propriety used to forbid a young unmarried man and woman to go almost anywhere without an adult. Today we may talk about the propriety of government official's dealings with private citizens or the impropriety of speaking out of turn in a meeting. Whenever rules, principles and standard procedures are clearly stated, propriety can become an issue.
adj.
- proprietorial: relating to an owner or the fact of owning something.
proprietorial rights 所有权
He laid a proprietorial hand on her arms. 紧紧抓住她的手 (as if he owned her) - proprietary: privately owned ; run as profit-making
A proprietary trademark is a name that only the owner can use. (proprietary medicine, proprietary brands 专利）
Baseball fans often take a proprietary attitude toward their favorite team--that is, they behave as if they own it, even though the only thing they may own is the right to yell from a bleacher seat till the end of the a game.
v.
- appropriate: to use, grab (often without right); to set apart for a particular purpose
Each year the president and Congress create a budget and appropriate funds for each item in it.
Misappropriation of funds, on the other hand, is a nice way o saying "theft".
If someone appropriated pieces of your novel, you might take him/her to court; and if you appropriated trade secrets from your former employers, you might be the one sued. - expropriate: to take away the ownership剥夺; to transfer to oneself 征用
In 1536, Henry VIII declared himself head of the new Church of England and expropriated the lands and wealth of the Roman Catholic monasteries.
Nearly all of North America was expropriated from the American Indians, usually without payment at all.
Today's democratic governments only carry out legal expropriations, in which the owners are properly paid for their land.
Some of the things you have said and written suggest that you share some of science's imperialist ambitions. So tell me, how far do you think science can and should offer answers to the questions that are still considered the domain of philosophy?
Lawrence Krauss Thanks for the kind words about science and your generous attitude. As for your "but" and your sense of my imperialist ambitions, I don't see it as imperialism at all. It's merely distinguishing between questions that are answerable and those that aren't. To first approximation, all the answerable ones end up moving into the domain of empirical knowledge, aka science.
To a first approximation
数学上指第一近似值
the value of pi to a first approximation is 22⁄7
作为习语，a preface to any comment that indicates that the comment is only approximately true.
To a first approximation, I feel good.
aka
习语的简写 = also known as
science = empirical knowledge
Getting to your question of morality, for example, science provides the basis for moral decisions, which are sensible only if they are based on reason, which is itself based on empirical evidence. Without some knowledge of the consequences of actions, which must be based on empirical evidence, then I think "reason" alone is impotent. If I don't know what my actions will produce, then I cannot make a sensible decision about whether they are moral or not. Ultimately, I think our understanding of neurobiology and evolutionary biology and psychology will reduce our understanding of morality to some well-defined biological constructs.
impotent: powerless
相应的，potent: having great power, influence, or effect
pollen 花粉，孕育生命的力量所在。跟孕育生命有关，impotent, potent 难免也与生殖相关的力量挂上关系。
male impotence: unable to achieve an erection
...reduce our understanding of morality to well-defiend biological constructs.
把模糊的道德问题简化为清晰定义的生物构造。
deduction is a key concept in science.
The chief philosophical questions that do grow up are those that leave home. This is particularly relevant in physics and cosmology. Vague philosophical debates about cause and effect, and something and nothing, for example – which I have had to deal with since my new book appeared – are very good examples of this. One can debate until one is blue in the face what the meaning of "non-existence" is, but while that may be an interesting philosophical question, it is really quite impotent, I would argue. It doesn't give any insight into how things actually might arise and evolve, which is really what interests me.
vague philosophical debates are impotent to give real insights into those big questions.
JB I've got more sympathy with your position than you might expect. I agree that many traditional questions of metaphysics are now best approached by scientists and you do a brilliant job of arguing that "why is there something rather than nothing?" is one of them. But we are missing something if we say, as you do, that the "chief philosophical questions that do grow up are those that leave home". I think you say this because you endorse a principle that the key distinction is between empirical questions that are answerable and non-empirical ones that aren't.
endorse: declare one's public approval or support of 表示公开支持
本文中意指“你秉持的原则是。。。”
名人做广告，官方机构出局证明，这些亦都是常见的公开声明支持态度的场景，因此也是endorse 的常用情形。 具象来说，也可直接表示“在背后签字”以示同意。
The report was endorsed by the college.
代词的巧妙运用，使得句子变得精简：
the key distinction is between empirical questions that are answerable and non-empirical ones that aren't (non-empirical questions that are not answerable).
My contention is that the chief philosophical questions are those that grow up without leaving home, important questions that remain unanswered when all the facts are in. Moral questions are the prime example. No factual discovery could ever settle a question of right or wrong. But that does not mean that moral questions are empty questions or pseudo-questions. We can think better about them and can even have more informed debates by learning new facts. What we conclude about animal ethics, for example, has changed as we have learned more about non-human cognition.
my contention: my assertion maintained in this argument
(1) dispute: the captured territory was one of the main areas of contention between the two countries.
(2) assertion: Our client's contention is that the fire was an accident.
(3) competition: Only three teams are now in contention for the title.
contend (v.)
(1) struggle: she had to contend with his uncertain temper.
(2) compete: Three armed groups were contending for power.
(3) maintain: I would contend that the minister's thinking is flawed on this point.
informed debates:
debates with knowledge, debates based on an understanding of the facts of the situation
What is disparagingly called scientism insists that, if a question isn't amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all. I would reply that it is an ineliminable feature of human life that we are confronted with many issues that are not scientifically tractable, but we can grapple with them, understand them as best we can and we can do this with some rigour and seriousness of mind.
disparage (v.) : belittle, regard or represent as being of little worth
amenable to: (of a thing) capable of being acted upon in a particular way; susceptible to
the patients had cardiac failure not amenable to medical treatment.
amenable children (easily to be controlled)
we are confronted with many issues
被动句没有使用介词by
confront 初级用法：
遭遇，面对 confront + object
300 policemen confronted an equal number of union supporters.
we knew we couldn't ignore the race issue and decided we'd confront it head on.
confront 升级用法：
"someone1" confront "someone2" with "something"
Tricia confronted him with her suspicions.
Tricia 迫使他直面她的质疑。
这个句式中有两个对象，一个物体，对象1动作于对象2，这个动作时让对象2“面对”某物体。因此对象2处于被动状态。
我们常常感到身不由己不得不面对某些事实，但是并没有一个具体的人强迫我们。为表达这一含义，衍生出一个惯用句式：
someone be confronted with something
这里，动作的发出者隐去了，因为动作没有具体的来源，我们只是感到这种强迫面对的力量。
something 出现在someone面前，必须要处理，或者是某种威胁，导致someone 无法回避。
post-czarist Russia was confronted with a Ukrainian national movement.
we were confronted with pictures of moving skeletons.
grapple 近身搏斗 (grab 抓， grip紧握，grasp 抓住，gripping = so exciting that holds your attention)
grapple with: work hard to overcome
It sounds to me as though you might not accept this and endorse the scientistic point of view. Is that right?
LK In fact, I've got more sympathy with your position than you might expect. I do think philosophical discussions can inform decision-making in many important ways, by allowing reflections on facts, but that ultimately the only source of facts is via empirical exploration. And I agree with you that there are many features of human life for which decisions are required on issues that are not scientifically tractable. Human affairs and human beings are far too messy for reason alone, and even empirical evidence, to guide us at all stages. I have said I think Lewis Carroll was correct when suggesting, via Alice, the need to believe several impossible things before breakfast. We all do it every day in order to get out of bed – perhaps that we like our jobs, or our spouses, or ourselves for that matter.
but that...
本句的句式：主＋谓＋宾，by短语，but＋noun. 因此使用that从句，避免谓语冲突。
for which
介词＋从句，使用方法，何时前面加逗号，何时不加（待补）
Where I might disagree is the extent to which this remains time-invariant. What is not scientifically tractable today may be so tomorrow. We don't know where the insights will come from, but that is what makes the voyage of discovery so interesting. And I do think factual discoveries can resolve even moral questions.
the extent to which this remains time-invariant.
在何种程度上这论断恒定不变
Take homosexuality, for example. Iron age scriptures might argue that homosexuality is "wrong", but scientific discoveries about the frequency of homosexual behaviour in a variety of species tell us that it is completely natural in a rather fixed fraction of populations and that it has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts. This surely tells us that it is biologically based, not harmful and not innately "wrong". In fact, I think you actually accede to this point about the impact of science when you argue that our research into non-human cognition has altered our view of ethics.
scripture 经书，经典
script 稿子，书写的作品
accede to... 表达让步
I admit I am pleased to have read that you agree that "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question best addressed by scientists. But, in this regard, as I have argued that "why" questions are really "how" questions, would you also agree that all "why" questions have no meaning, as they presume "purpose" that may not exist?
JB It would certainly be foolish to rule out in advance the possibility that what now appears to be a non-factual question might one day be answered by science. But it's also important to be properly sceptical about how far we anticipate science being able to go. If not, then we might be too quick to turn over important philosophical issues to scientists prematurely.
turn over... to; turn... over to... 移交，转交
They turned him over to the police.
Your example of homosexuality is a case in point. I agree that the main reasons for thinking it is wrong are linked with outmoded ways of thought. But the way you put it, it is because science shows us that homosexual behaviour "is completely natural", "has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts", is "biologically based" and "not harmful" that we can conclude it is "not innately 'wrong'". But this mixes up ethical and scientific forms of justification. Homosexuality is morally acceptable, but not for scientific reasons. Right and wrong are not simply matters of evolutionary impacts and what is natural. There have been claims, for example, that rape is both natural and has evolutionary advantages. But the people who made those claims were also at great pains to stress this did not make them right – efforts that critics sadly ignored. Similar claims have been made for infidelity. What science tells us about the naturalness of certain sexual behaviours informs ethical reflection, but does not determine its conclusions. We need to be clear on this. It's one thing to accept that one day these issues might be better addressed by scientists than philosophers, quite another to hand them over prematurely.
...a case in point. 切题
outmoded: old-fashioned
what science tells us about the naturalness of certain sexual behaviors informs ethical reflection, but does not determine its conclusions. 在动词的程度上辨析。
It's one thing to..., quite another to...
XX 和 XX 是两回事
LK Once again, there are only subtle disagreements. We have an intellect and can therefore override various other biological tendencies in the name of social harmony. However, I think that science can either modify or determine our moral convictions. The fact that infidelity, for example, is a fact of biology must, for any thinking person, modify any "absolute" condemnation of it. Moreover, that many moral convictions vary from society to society means that they are learned and, therefore, the province of psychology. Others are more universal and are, therefore, hard-wired – a matter of neurobiology. A retreat to moral judgment too often assumes some sort of illusionary belief in free will which I think is naive.
Human has intellect to override biological tendencies in the name of social harmony.
Science can either modify or determine moral convictions.
For example, infidelity is biologically proved to be "natural", which moderated "absolute" condemnation of it. Disputes on moral convictions can be within the province of psychology or even hardwired to neurobiology.
It is naive to easily retreat to moral judgement rather than scientific exploration when dealing with moralities as it presumes some sort of illusionary belief in free will.
I want to change the subject. I admit I am pleased that you agree that "why is there something rather than nothing" is a question best addressed by scientists. But I claim more generally that the only meaningful "why" questions are really "how" questions. Do you agree?
面对现实问题总是退回简单的道德谴责（而不是更进取的探寻事物如何发生，人性如何运行），很幼稚。
Let me give an example to put things in context. Astronomer Johannes Kepler claimed in 1595 to answer an important "why" question: why are there six planets? The answer, he believed, lay in the five Platonic solids whose faces can be composed of regular polygons – triangles, squares, etc – and which could be circumscribed by spheres whose size would increase as the number of faces increased. If these spheres then separated the orbits of the planets, he conjectured, perhaps their relative distances from the sun and their number could be understood as revealing, in a deep sense, the mind of God.
the five Platonic solids could be circumscribed by spheres.
5个柏拉图固体被球体绕行。
"Why" was then meaningful because its answer revealed purpose to the universe. Now, we understand the question is meaningless. We not only know there are not six planets, but moreover that our solar system is not unique, nor necessarily typical. The important question then becomes: "How does our solar system have the number of planets distributed as it does?" The answer to this question might shed light on the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe, for example. Not only has "why" become "how" but "why" no longer has any useful meaning, given that it presumes purpose for which there is no evidence.
shed light on something = helpful for more understanding of something
JB I don't know whether it's a virtue or a vice, but in philosophy there is nothing "only" about subtle disagreements! But given we've got as close as we're probably going to on ethics, let's turn to the difference between "how" and "why" questions.
a virtue or a vice: good or bad
Again, I agree with a lot here. I am unpersuaded, for example, by the argument that there is never any conflict between religion and science because the latter deals with "how" questions and the former "why" ones. The two cannot be so easily disentangled. If a Christian argues that God explains why there was a big bang, then that inevitably says something about God's role in how the universe came into being, too. But I would not go so far as to say that all "why" questions can only be properly understood as "how" ones. The clearest example here is of human action, for which adequate explanations can rarely do without "why" questions. We do things for reasons.
"why" questions can be meaningful. (i.g. the reasons of human action)
Some very hard-nosed philosophers and scientists describe this as a convenient fiction, an illusion. They claim the real explanation for human action lies at the level of "how", specifically, how brains receive information, process it and then produce action.
hard-nosed: determined, realistic
But if we want to know why someone made a sacrifice for a person close to them, a purely neurological answer would not be a complete one. The full truth would require saying that there was a "why" at work, too: love. Love is indeed at root the product of the firings of neurons and release of hormones. How the biochemical and psychological points of view fit together is clearly puzzling, and, as your aside on free will suggests, our naive assumptions about human freedom are almost certainly false. But we have no reason to think that one day science will make it unnecessary for us to ask "why" questions about human action to which things such as love will be the answer. Or is that romantic tosh? Is there no reason why you're bothering to have this conversation, that you are doing it simply because your brain works the way it does?
aside (n.) : a remark that is not directly relate to the main topic of discussion
The recipe book has little asides about the importance of home and family.
romantic tosh: romantic rubbish
"why" question is philosophical and "how" question is scientific ?
social sciences answers "how" love formed, presented and worked in generating those human actions JB mentioned.
LK Well, I am certainly enjoying the conversation, which is apparently "why" I am doing it. However, I know that my enjoyment derives from hard-wired processes that make it enjoyable for humans to tangle linguistically and philosophically. I guess I would have to turn your question around and ask why (if you will excuse the "why" question!) you think that things such as love will never be reducible to the firing of neurons and biochemical reactions? For that not to be the case, there would have to be something beyond the purely "physical" that governs our consciousness. I guess I see nothing that suggests this is the case. Certainly, we already understand many aspects of sacrifice in terms of evolutionary biology. Sacrifice is, in many cases, good for survival of a group or kin. It makes evolutionary sense for some people, in this case to act altruistically, if propagation of genes is driving action in a basic sense. It is not a large leap of the imagination to expect that we will one day be able to break down those social actions, studied on a macro scale, to biological reactions at a micro scale.
propagate (v.) 繁殖，宣传
propaganda (n.)
It is not a large leap of the imagination （注意定冠词）
break down something to something 拆解
In a purely practical sense, this may be computationally too difficult to do in the near future, and maybe it will always be so, but everything I know about the universe makes me timid to use the word always. What isn't ruled out by the laws of physics is, in some sense, inevitable. So, right now, I cannot imagine that I could computationally determine the motion of all the particles in the room in which I am breathing air, so that I have to take average quantities and do statistics in order to compute physical behaviour. But, one day, who knows?
timid : lack of courage or confidence
what isn't ruled out by the laws of physics is inevitable.
= anything not ruled out by the laws of physics is inevitable to happen.
JB Who knows? Indeed. Which is why philosophy needs to accept it may one day be made redundant. But science also has to accept there may be limits to its reach.
I don't think there is more stuff in the universe than the stuff of physical science. But I am skeptical that human behavior could ever be explained by physics or biology alone. Although we are literally made of the same stuff as stars, that stuff has organized itself so complexly that things such as consciousness have emerged that cannot be fully understood only by examining the bedrock of bosons and fermions. At least, I think they can't. I'm happy for physicists to have a go. But, until they succeed, I think they should refrain from making any claims that the only real questions are scientific questions and the rest is noise. If that were true, wouldn't this conversation just be noise too?
solid rock underlining loose deposits such as soil or alluvium
Honesty is the bedrock of a good relationship.
consciousness cannot be fully understood only be examining the bedrock of bosons and fermions.
refrain from: 克制 (v. = desist from)
re + bridle (马笼头）
He refrained from criticizing the government in public.
refrain (n.) : repeating comments, repeating poems
Complaints about poor food have become a familiar refrain.
LK We can end in essential agreement then. I suspect many people think many of my conversations are just noise, but, in any case, we won't really know the answer to whether science can yield a complete picture of reality, good at all levels, unless we try. You and I agree fundamentally that physical reality is all there is, but we merely have different levels of optimism about how effectively and how completely we can understand it via the methods of science. I continue to be surprised by the progress that is possible by continuing to ask questions of nature and let her answer through experiment. Stars are easier to understand than people, I expect, but that is what makes the enterprise so exciting. The mysteries are what make life worth living and I would be sad if the day comes when we can no longer find answerable questions that have yet to be answered, and puzzles that can be solved. What surprises me is how we have become victims of our own success, at least in certain areas. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we may be frighteningly close to the limits of empirical inquiry as a guide to understanding. After that, we will have to rely on good ideas alone, and that is always much harder and less reliable.
whether science can yield a complete picture of reality.
whether science can produce a complete picture of reality.
That is what makes the enterprise so exciting. 事业
conclusion: Physical reality is all there is. You and I have different levels of optimism about the effects of the methods of science.
mysteries that sciences cannot resolve: what makes our life worth living? what are good ideas ?
The Ego Trick by Julian Baggini is published by Granta.
A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence M Krauss is published by Simon & Schuster.