Mohamed Ibrahim Mousa

201600903

Reflective Essay 4, PHIL 101, Fall 2018:

In recent years, Stephen Hawking has claimed that "Philosophy is dead". Based upon your
readings and studying for the past three months, try to respond to such claim.

It is not easy for people of a certain discipline to tolerate other disciplines. This note is applicable

to many ages not just the modern age only. Priests and theologians used to belittle other secular

sought of knowledge. In the modern times, scientists do the same thing again with other

disciplines. However, it is noteworthy, that this attitude is mainly adopted by the dominant

discipline. Other minor disciplines feel obligated to tolerate their more dominant counterparts.

Most scientists in the Islamic era and also medieval ages respected the dominant discipline

(Theology). Similarly, theologians in modern times respect the dominant discipline (Science). In

this context, I think we can have a better understanding of “Philosophy is Dead”. Hawking’s

saying was analogous to Nietzsche quote “God is dead”. He wanted to make a remarkable and

bold announcement. However, as we shall discuss, I think his belief is completely wrong.

The first obvious way of interpreting this quote is that philosophy is no longer the efficient way

of humans to discover reality. This interpretation is supported by Hawking himself. Hawking

added “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge”

[1]. He thinks that if science presented new ideas which were not expected by philosophy then it

is its superior. This argument is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, Science and Philosophy, as we

define them now, have different fields of study. Their fields can overlap of course, but in general,

they are separated. It is all about the level of analysis, I think. When an engineer decides to stop
questions is when the questions are of no practical interest to him. When a scientist decides to

stop questioning is when the questions cannot be answered empirically within the current

paradigm of theories. I have to admit, it is not very clear or consistent when a philosopher stops

questions! The idea is that each discipline has its degree of analysis and interests. To say that

philosophy is replaced by science is like saying: “Zoology is replaced by botany”. Any

particular Philosophy cannot be replaced by anything rather than other philosophy. We here

remember El-Ghazzaly works for sure. Even adopting that science is the only way for knowledge

is another philosophy. Ignoring the deeper layer of questions is a sign of a dogmatic mind, in my

view and is not a good sign. Philosophy and science belong to different layers. Deciding that

such deeper layer (philosophy) does not exist or is not useful or practical is yet another

philosophy.

The second reason to refute the later interpretation is more complicated. It is about how to falsify

the statement. If philosophers had a prediction that can be measured then scientists would reject

it till it is empirically tested. However, if it is tested empirically they will say that it is now

science and no longer philosophy! As an example, many Islamic scholars believed that the

cosmos has a beginning in time based on their philosophical arguments, El-Ghazzaly for

example. It is arguable whether to regard this as philosophy or not, but the point is that

prediction was tested empirically to be strongly probable. However, no one would say that it

proves its premises. Simply put, scientists have a view of what is knowledge and how to test it

that excludes philosophy. Furthermore, and more importantly, this view cannot be tested subject

to its own criteria. You cannot argue from science for science. Similarly, you cannot argue from

science against other disciplines of knowledge based on scientific criteria.

The extra reason, Hawking added, was that philosophy could not cope with the advancement of

science especially physics [1]. I was dissatisfied when I first read his quote. It clearly, shows an

ignorance of contemporary advances in philosophy of science beginning in the last century.

Several treatises of the most modern physical theories and hypothesis are a topic of hot debate

between philosophers. This is not limited to academic philosophers; many prominent physicists

contribute valuably to these debates and discussions. See for example Lee Simolin: “The Trouble

With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next”. It may

seem exotic at first that such an announcement comes from a famous and smart scientist, but this

is expected from scientists who focus on very specific and narrow area of knowledge. Their big

picture of what are other disciplines becomes amazingly diminished. Saying that philosophy did

not or could not cope with recent advances in science is simply wrong. This is simple and

obvious to any well-rounded good reader, in my opinion.

Philosophy is about asking what cannot be answered. Not that we are masochists that like to

torture ourselves!, but because our minds want to maximize its reach of truth. You ought to use

all the tools you have. If some phenomenon can be examined empirically, then it is ridiculous no

to do so. You shall think rationally and theoretically about it as much as you can and also, at the

same time, experiment it to the fullest. And if some other phenomenon cannot be treated

empirically, then the only thing we have is to think about rationally as much as we can and try to

reason how it might happen or if it exists. To conclude this lovely course, I think it is known that

wise men have always wanted to find truth, the truth about the afterlife, the truth about this life,

the truth about who they are and what they will experience. They indeed had different aims and

goals. Some were idealists who believed they only seek truth for itself. Some others, whether

consciously or unconsciously, sought it for other aims. Whether for pragmatic benefits like the
pleasure of knowing about this world, or more serious fears like the hell in the afterlife, they

sought it. A real wise man should doubt if all these are true aims or obligatory good paths in life.

He should doubt science ability to know the truth or even approximate it. He shall doubt

philosophy’s ability too. However, he shall not doubt seeking knowledge by all means (Science

and Philosophy or he discovered a completely new way!). Simply, because when you ask me:

“Why should I seek knowledge?” Then this question by itself is asking and seeking of

knowledge!

References:

[1] Warman, M. (2018). Stephen Hawking tells Google 'philosophy is dead'. [online]

Telegraph.co.uk. Available at:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-

philosophy-is-dead.html [Accessed 13 Dec. 2018].

[2] Harnad, J. (2008). The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science,

and what comes next. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 30(3), 66-69.