Stephen Mumford > Quotes

“A metaphysical understanding of what the world is, how it works, and how it all fits together, in general and abstract terms, could be the most real and important thing there is. In that case, we don't do metaphysics so that we can stay healthy and wealthy: we want to stay healthy and wealthy so that we can do metaphysics.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“we should instead substitute a simple notion of existence and allow that things come into and go out of existence. When present, they are real. After that, they are not.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“We like to feel that we are dealing in objective, eternal, and immutable truths, unaffected by our human perspective on things.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“All that matters for philosophers is that it could be true.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“When something changes, we should not see it as a single thing bearing contrary properties, according to perdurantism, but as different things–temporal parts–bearing those properties. If the view is an attempt to explain change, then it means that each of those temporal parts must themselves be changeless.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“There is more to the world than that which we humans have created.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“the physicalist will say that ultimately some such kind of explanation exists for the mind, even if the details would be staggeringly complex.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“Many of the questions will have sounded simple, silly, or childish, and they are often dismissed as such. Once we grow up, we are not expected to ask what a circle is, whether time passes, or whether nothing is something. It is almost as if the natural sense of wonder with which we are born is disciplined out of us.”
― Stephen Mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction

“But it should not follow automatically that because a theory works out mathematically, within a model, the world is exactly like that model or like the maths.”
― Stephen Mumford, Causation: A Very Short Introduction

“Are [the arts and the sciences] really as distinct as we seem to assume? [...] Most universities will have distinct faculties of arts and sciences, for instance. But the division clearly has some artificiality. Suppose one assumed, for example, that the arts were about creativity while the sciences were about a rigorous application of technique and methods. This would be an oversimplification because all disciplines need both.

The best science requires creative thinking. Someone has to see a problem, form a hypothesis about a solution, and then figure out how to test that hypothesis and implement its findings. That all requires creative thinking, which is often called innovation. The very best scientists display creative genius equal to any artist. [...] And let us also consider our artists. Creativity alone fails to deliver us anything of worth. A musician or painter must also learn a technique, sometimes as rigorous and precise as found in any science, in order that they can turn their thoughts into a work. They must attain mastery over their medium. Even a writer works within the rules of grammar to produce beauty.
[...]
The logical positivists, who were reconstructing David Hume’s general approach, looked at verifiability as the mark of science. But most of science cannot be verified. It mainly consists of theories that we retain as long as they work but which are often rejected. Science is theoretical rather than proven. Having seen this, Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as the criterion of science. While we cannot prove theories true, he argued, we can at least prove that some are false and this is what demonstrates the superiority of science. The rest is nonsense on his account. The same problems afflict Popper’s account, however. It is just as hard to prove a theory false as it is to prove one true. I am also in sympathy with the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus who says that far from being nonsense, the non-sciences are often the most meaningful things in our lives.

I am not sure the relationship to truth is really what divides the arts and sciences. [...] The sciences get us what we want. They have plenty of extrinsic value. Medicine enables us to cure illness, for instance, and physics enables us to develop technology. I do not think, in contrast, that we pursue the arts for what they get us. They are usually ends in themselves. But I said this was only a vague distinction. Our greatest scientists are not merely looking to fix practical problems. Newton, Einstein and Darwin seemed primarily to be seeking understanding of the world for its own sake, motivated primarily by a sense of wonder. I would take this again as indicative of the arts and sciences not being as far apart as they are usually depicted. And nor do I see them as being opposed. The best in any field will have a mixture of creativity and discipline and to that extent the arts and sciences are complimentary.”
― Stephen Mumford

“The cheese contains a hole, for instance. Is the hole part of the cheese?”
― Stephen mumford, Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction