This site is devoted to recreational philosophy with a scientific and skeptical approach. It is inspired by the principle that beliefs should be entertained only to the extent that they are supported by evidence. Where evidence is available only in part, a belief should only be held to be probable and where there is no evidence, the belief should be held to be worthless. I am well aware that, in today’s intellectual climate, many will hold this to be a very unorthodox point of view. A further heresy is my belief that anything worth saying about philosophy can be said in plain words.
It is the job of philosophy to answer the two great questions. How can I be sure that what I know is true? How can I be sure that what I do is right? In philosophy, to a greater extent than in the rest of science, it is very difficult to adhere to the principle of evidence stated above. As we dig deeper to examine the very mechanisms by which we weigh the evidence for any proposition we find that we have to accept some of our principles of reasoning on an a priori basis. Values are even more immune to evidence, indeed it can be shown that no valid conclusion of value can be made other than as a deduction from a value already held. Our ultimate values must be a priori.
If it is true that our bodies and our minds are the product of evolution by natural selection (and there is not the slightest doubt that it is true), it has great consequences for philosophy. Information has got into our brains by two routes – observation through the senses and prior information installed by natural selection. There are no other sources. Natural selection has built into our brains information describing the world of the past and describing the nature of natural selection itself. It is to natural selection that we must look to understand our rules of logic and basic values which we “just know” without evidence.
There is, of course, the problem that we have discovered what we know about evolution by using the brains, sense organs and a priori beliefs that evolution has produced. There is danger of a circularity, but we have no other equipment with which to make our investigations. We can only be careful and do our best.
Philosophy, as it is practiced today, shows all the characteristics of an underdeveloped science. It gives undue reverence to ancient authority instead of evidence and argument. It hides its inadequacies behind language incomprehensible to the commoner. And it doesn’t deliver results. I believe it is possible to do better.
The philosophical consequences of evolution are only now beginning to receive the debate they deserve, although many who regard themselves as philosophers consider it irrelevant, or at best a side issue. I think that for philosophy to progress from its present rather elementary state, it must take account of some of the conclusions of biology and evolutionary psychology. Evolution is the neglected information source.
What is Wrong with Philosophy?
A lecture to the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution on 7 May 2002
A lecture to the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution on 11 February 2004
Consciousness and Our Duty to Animals (In preparation)
A short proof of the EVP A brief introduction to the argument for the derivation of values from our origin as products of natural selection. To prove that they have come from evolution is easy, but that they ought to have is much harder!
Readers’ comments and FAQs Some questions and answers on the EVP
The Purpose of Life (ISBN 0 9540291 0 0) The 2001 book examining the consequences for individual purpose and ethics of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
References and Links A few sources for biology and philosophy.
The EVP Newsletter An occasional newsletter taking a scientific and sceptical (or skeptical!) look at some subjects of philosophy. It is produced for recreation and discussion only and all are welcome to join the mailing list.