The Myth of Science

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42526072

Is Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment still relevant? It was written in the midst of the second world war and aiming to explain why “humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism.”[1] Is its prognosis of how “thought in its headlong rush into pragmatism is forfeiting its sublating character, and therefore its relation to truth”[2] still accurate?

Learning to Love the Shit-Stirrer

By London Stereoscopic Company - Hulton Archive, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30913285

The liberty to speak one’s mind is not absolute, nor is it necessarily the highest priority when it conflicts with other values. John Stuart Mill believes that free speech is valuable in creating a dynamic, creative and progressive society, even as he acknowledges the need for limits in situations such as when a society is under threat from enemies[1] or when speech can lead to harmful actions.[2] While we may seem to be able to speak more freely today than in Mill’s time, there remain threats to free speech, with the decline of the mainstream media, attacks on and detention of journalists[3], the rise of echo-chambers on social media platforms reducing the access to alternative views, and the prevalence of fake news. There are potentially also chilling effects[4] from laws putatively put in place to prevent harm but may stifle free speech, such as hate speech laws in Europe and Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.

Similar Premises, Different Conclusions

Can two philosophers with similar presuppositions and argumentation end up with vastly different conclusions? Locke in Two Treatises of Government and Hobbes in Leviathan present their accounts of the State of Nature (SON). While they ground their theories on rather similar presuppositions and argumentation, they come to diametrically different conclusions on what the ideal government is. This reflects the differing historical circumstances shaping their thinking, but it also demonstrates the continuing value of studying both thinkers, as different societies may require different solutions.

Multi-Dimensional Man

By Copy of Silanion, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7831217

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[1] Even though The Republic was written by Plato 2,400 years ago, a modern reader will sympathise with the everyman notions of justice presented by Socrates’s interlocutors in Book I who believe that:

1) Justice is “to speak the truth and to pay your debts.”[2]

2) Justice is “giving to each man what is proper to him.”[3]

3) Justice serves the “interest of the stronger.”[4]

This essay will focus on the third idea of ‘might makes right,’ Socrates’s argument against it, and formulate an alternative response of the multi-dimensional man, which Socrates may find hard to resist.

Lakatos Rationalises Kuhn

By Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science - Professor Imre Lakatos, c1960sUploaded by Fæ, No restrictions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15336126

Both Lakatos and Kuhn recognise that history and sociology are needed to understand the scientific enterprise.[1] However, Kuhn interprets changes in paradigms as sudden and irrational in contrast to Lakatos who, examining the same history, sees instead a dynamic of progressive and degenerating research programmes (RP) while continuing to accept Kuhn’s idea of scientific revolution. This paper examines how Lakatos rationalises Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution.

Is Artificial Consciousness Possible?

Image by Comfreak from Pixabay

Can machines become conscious or is artificial consciousness (AC) an impossible dream? If AC is possible, would we want to create it? This paper will attempt to answer the first question using Hartmann’s framework developed in New Ways of Ontology, where he carries out an ontological investigation into the structure of the world. I will contrast his four ontological strata with potentially fruitful approaches in the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and consider what is needed to remain on the right track. The answer to the second question depends on the first – to aim for AC or to avoid it, we need to understand whether and how it can happen.

Seeing is Believing – Why Fake News Works

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Do you consider yourself a discerning reader of the news?

When presented with a new piece of information, about something you do not know about, what do you do? A perfectly rational being ought to suspend judgement and investigate further before deciding if the information is true or false. This was how 17th century French philosopher René Descartes thought our mental systems worked. But is this really how we deal with new information? If you find yourself nodding, think again.