Timothy Williamson - What is Naturalism?

I don't find this discussion particularly illuminating. His point that there are other 'ways of knowing' beyond the scientific one has been regurgitated by philosophers over and over again, specifically in order to provide vague description and justification of their discipline. Alright, science has certain limitations, some of which can perhaps even be delineated by a priori means, but does that mean that there are other methodologies for reaching real knowledge of the world besides the one used by the natural sciences? I am not so sure. Every philosophical conception of this difference is in principle bound to come up as vague, misleading, or incomplete. Williamson's whole discussion of this topic comes up as being somewhat superficial in my opinion. Why does he think it necessary that naturalism has to be well defined by its proponents if it is to be taken seriously as an overarching methodological, ontological, etc. framework? The same challenge can be issued to supernaturalism by claiming that it needs to be well defined if what it says is to be taken seriously. But I think it is a philosopher's prejudice to ask for a clean-cut definition in either case, by way of putting out necessary and sufficient conditions for each class of phenomena. Take ghosts as an example. The existence of such entities cannot be accommodated within the framework (or worldview?) of naturalism because it would violate the principle of energy conservation, along with other repeatedly verified empirical facts. Of course, there might be other supernatural phenomena that would possibly pose a more formidable challenge to naturalism, but it seems to me that in the end they all rest on the evocation of ghost-like entities, and that's exactly why it is reasonable (in a careful reading of this term) to put them all under one umbrella term. But this of course doesn't mean that we can 'prove' the non-existence of such things, not in the way a philosopher would want us to do. As far as mathematics goes, I am not convinced by Williamson's reasons for taking this seriously as a counterexample to naturalism. First of all, not all parts of mathematics are 'created equal' - some have empirical import, others constitute purely abstract, clearly non-empirical areas of research. Not only that, but one mathematical idea or hypothesis, which at the time of its original formulation was of a completely abstract, purely mathematical interest, can at some later point in time find its appropriate empirical application (e.g. Riemannian hyperbolic geometry). But again, I don't think there are definite boundaries here, and we should make our decisions on a case-to-case basis. Finally, I wish Williamson had provided a more detailed analysis of what he means by philosophy in general, because I feel there is a tension between his thesis of the autonomy of philosophy, and his Quinean claim that philosophy is somehow continuous with natural sciences. Without further examination, it seems to me that the same problem Quine had when it comes to situating philosophy on a spectrum that extends from logic and pure mathematics on the one hand, and applied physics on the other is encountered here as well, albeit in a somewhat different form.

Worst speaker ever, I could not follow the lecture: I was far more worried for his life as he slurred words gasping for some air and then suddenly went apnea mode...

I'm sorry, this man is almost incomprehensible, he puts a full stop or ellipsis after every other word! Even his body language seems to be apologising for his lack of any iclear deas. Sorry, such a nice, sincere chap.

If I had to lie about naturalism like this man does, I'd hem and haw and um and uh and eh as well.....

Menghubungkan kaedah saintifik dengan falsafah - bahawa semua makhluk dan kejadian
di alam semesta adalah semula jadi

o Pendekatan untuk masalah falsafah yang menafsirkannya sebagai hanya dapat diubati melalui kaedah sains empirikal

o Menolak kewujudan realiti ghaib yang benar-benar berlaku peruntukan untuk ghaib, dengan syarat bahawa pengetahuan tentangnya dapat
secara tidak langsung

o Masalah-masalah falsafah yang secara tradisional dianggap tidak diformulasikan
dan dapat diselesaikan / dipindahkan dengan kaedah naturalistik & empirikal

Love Williamson's comments on theology

Play on 1,75 speed...

Yes you can tell he’s never ventured out of the academy and never walked out into nature itself. I think he’s completely bastardizing the deepest understanding of naturalism into some sort of reductionism. The fact that he thinks metaphysical naturalism collapses into the mythological variation supports my initial claim. For those who are psychedelic users out there you know that science itself is reductionist in comparison with naturalism. You will know how much science objectifies the world and leaves no wiggle room for states of mind and differing behaviors between primal and contemporary thinking. To me naturalism is realizing the pattern and tendencies(along with the fundamental workings of what we call evolution(it is much more than what the word seems to suggest)). As an undeniable fact, it should be known that you absolutely do not need to think of naturalism only in terms of science, but rather can take a much more abstract and existential take on the idea. To me naturalism is more or less realizing how things are and how they work in a general and conceptual sense not to be so specific like scientific thinkers would do. You do not need science to tell you how “evolution” works as our ancestors have understood it innately and subconsciously. Most ancient cultures seemed to have a much more connected and full perception on what nature is and our relationship to it(as they had very little else to compare to like society and advanced culture(of course this is a decreasing trend)). I think the problem is that because we are disconnected and distant to the immediate moment of nature(the primal setting(our inherent origin)) and are escaping with and hiding behind technology and ideologies. To me this is almost bound to lead to disconnected and fantastical ideas about mans relationship with nature like western thought exemplifies. I think if naturalism not so much as a philosophy as much as a realization and a more or less full perspective(of how “good” and “bad”, “pain” and “pleasure” create and build off each other. To me it is an acceptance(or even praise by the societal contrast) of all the innate and bestial/primal ways of being to more highly appreciate the more seeming positive aspects of life. To me it says that no matter how much we try to escape via “technological advancement” and “civilization”, Nature(the part of nature we’d rather not do business with) will always prevail and dictate ultimately. We may be on a trend of “transcendence” from the more natural ways, but I think many people can see this trend is about to turn around and head back the other direction and I think that’s an inevitable cycle. Also I don’t think that naturalist think that there is no “god” but rather defines that god based off of the natural and automatic origins, as nature and chaos are our origin as a species. I personally think of the process itself as a god or as having relative divinity(relative to man and other organisms) and no superstition or personifying needed(tho many including myself will often refer to nature as the mother(or dark mother(in effect) to have a bit more respect and consideration but most I know do not take this very seriously. It’s an easy way to add some more personal connections with the process that created and ultimately dictates us all(to a great if not full extent). To me this naturalism sees the ego as an equally opposite force to the natural life of hardships and life threatening confrontation and thus doesn’t see the ego out of place, just us as a species and how we conduct ourself and define our place. Maybe I’m skewing “naturalism” to something that isn’t commonly associated with the term but to me this idea predates the term where it seems like the contemporary version relies on it. Whether or not this idea is frequently used, it is still worthy of the term naturalism. But my main point is that I think(based on the first 8 minutes I seen) he highly simplifies and reduces naturalism to simply an ideology and scientific concept.

If he could stop stammering and get to the god damn point this video would be 30 mins long.

Please allow subtitles for those of us who aren't native speakers. Thanks.

There are too many idiotic comments here.

That guy might know his topic, but he sure has no speaking ability. Can't stand listening to him.

It is not magic when your Creator always was. It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother. That's 100% magic and 100% not true.

Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.

"Uh...um...uh...uh...um..." Maybe he should simply read from his notes, since he has such a hard time articulating his thoughts.

I would love to know which are T. Williamson's favorite books on logic and the philosophy of logic, and/or philosophy books general.

This guy is an obscurantist. Check with an actual scientist, Sean Carroll mainly, for a concise explanation of the truth of naturalism.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember Williamson ridiculing continental philosophy, accusing the likes of Derrida of obscurantism. I've managed to listen to him for 10 minutes. I'm lost for words.

He could do with a script and a few less ah and øh's and stutteting noises, it takes away some of the focus from this great lecture.

Williamson is simply brilliant as a thinker, but is unfortunately not great as a speaker. Part of the problem is that people with his level of intelligence will never be accessible to the masses

Finally I have found a philosopher who speaks clearly, uses simple words and whom I understand :) .

This man just doesn't want to commit himself to anything because he is not sure of anything.

Just breathe, pal.