Fermi Society of Philosophy

Scientific Platonism without Metaphysical Presuppositions talk by Peter Punin

by Lev Burov

Update: Peter asked to share these presentation notes with those who are interested to ask follow-up questions.

Time: today, Dec 1, at the usual place and time.

Title: Scientific Platonism without Metaphysical Presuppositions

Subtitle: A Way to Go Beyond Dogmatic Materialism

Reference paper available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11465/

Abstract: Belonging to metaphysics, scientific Platonism nevertheless can be defended without metaphysical presuppositions. Comparing the complexity and intrinsic plausibility of the hypotheses Platonism and its negations respectively require to remain consistent, we realize that the conception of an immaterial truth beyond matter is easier to support than materialism.

Advertisements

The priority of remarks

by alexeyburov

Dear colleagues,

The number of people in our meetings is getting bigger, and we have to accept certain limitations and regulations for remarks. I would suggest the following, so please comment with related ideas.

  1. During a talk, only short interrupting questions are welcome, not longer than a couple of sentences.
  2. After a talk, to avoid situations when a single person highjacks all the time, one should rise a hand before speaking.
  3. During discussions, those who have prepared slides (one or two) and sent them to the chairperson (to me so far) have the privilege to start first with a mini-talk, which follow the same rules as #1.
  4. If you wish to continue discussion after the meeting is over, you may try to invite your favorite interlocutor to have a lunch/coffee together. As for me, I would be happy to get that sort of invitation.

Next meetings

by alexeyburov

dec1-jan12-white

Free Will, open discussion

by alexeyburov

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for all of you participated in our free-will discussion, ignited by Kevin’s talk four weeks ago (Kevin, thanks again!). I am especially grateful for those who prepared slides, reflected their struggle with this really hard old and important problem.

Kevin’s summary of his talk: free-will-recap

Lev’s contemplations on the style: kevin-free-will-style-critique

Matt’s pseudo-problem argument: matt_the-free-will-problem

Al’s determinism/chance considerations: al_brunsting_determinism-indeterminism-fermilab-philsoc-nov1716 .

Most likely, some of you did not express all what they wanted in the most clear way they would like. If so, this blog is exactly for such statements and clarifications; everybody is welcome to comment to this post. As for me, I am doing that right now.

 

A Reason Open to Mystery

by giorgioambrosio

What tools can our reason use in addressing the many different questions we face in our life? What does it mean to be reasonable? What is the sense of the mysterious? Some points about these questions for a dialogue about a broader reason.

Slides:  reason_open_to_mystery_v5_typo-corrected

Free Will: In Search of a Definition

by ksiehl

There are few cocepts that are as important in people’s minds as free will.  We seem to depend on it both for our own self-esteem–valuing our achievements–as well as for our commitment to a justice system.  To say that we lack free will could have potentially devastating consequences for society.  And yet, for all its importance, it seems to be quite a mysterious concept.

Everyone knows what free will means, and yet perhaps nobody really understands what free will means. Finding a definition of free will that is both logically self-consistent and testable–at least in principle–is a task that is not as easy as it may seem.

free-will

 

Free Will: In Search of a Definition

by ksiehl

There are few cocepts that are as important in people’s minds as free will.  We seem to depend on it both for our own self-esteem–valuing our achievements–as well as for our commitment to a justice system.  To say that we lack free will could have potentially devastating consequences for society.  And yet, for all its importance, it seems to be quite a mysterious concept.

Everyone knows what free will means, and yet perhaps nobody really understands what free will means. Finding a definition of free will that is both logically self-consistent and testable–at least in principle–is a task that is not as easy as it may seem.

Coming Talks

by alexeyburov

Dear all, we’ll have the following talks Oct 20 (Kevin) and Nov 3 (Giorgio):

white-poster-oct6_2016

Needham Question, part 2

by alexeyburov

The last part of my talk suggests which of the pre-existing key ingredients of the Scientific Revolution were missed in the non-Western civilizations.

The presentation (parts 1 and 2) is here.

Needham Question, part I

by alexeyburov

The first part of my approach to the Needham question is concentrated on the most important components of the Scientific Revolution of XVII c. The main ideas of Galileo and Descartes are considered with an effort to explicate their ingredients and roots.

The presentation pdf is here.