Re: Fw: [gang8] A Bigger Bang

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar Tomasson wrote:
>>The notion that such premises may suffice for us to "know the mind of God"
>>brands Hawking an epistemological dummy.

>>In turn, this raises troubling questions about the substantive worth of his
>> "scientific" views on the "universe" for, as Einstein cautioned:
>>``Science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all -
primitive and muddled.''

You are just repeating the mistake you make with economists.
Epistemology has always been in a muddle, and there is little
hope of accord even now, even among the most thoughtful
specialists.  So why on earth would we expect physicists or
economists to speak coherently on epistemological matters,
when even specialist philosophers continue to routinely
rake each other over the coals?

Fortunately it is possible to make substantive contributions
in economics, physics, and even philosophy without
resolving epistemological conundrums that persist for millennia.
If you want to know something about Hawking (or
Samuelson's) contributions, either learn enough about
what they are doing to read it yourself, or else rely on
the judgments of their peers---who in any case will
have the last say.

As for what Hawking meant with his fanciful rhetorical
flight, that should be evident from reading his popular
work.  It is just a flowery expression of his realist
ontology combined with a certain epistemological
optimism that is common among realists.  While these
positions can be attacked,  what matters is not their
philsophical coherence but their scientific productiveness.
As has been argued many times:  regardless of its
philosophical merits, realism may have psychological
advantages for the researcher.

Alan Isaac