我发现解决哲学上关于真理的问题的最好方法是经验。将哲学与科学联系起来，将知识与智慧结合起来，而隧道尽头的真理或光明就是最简单、最美丽的“一”。
If you are still searching for truth, study nature, the answer is right here. =

孩子惊恐地看着父母争吵到疏远的地步。但也许，在宗教和科学之间，哲学更像是惊愕地看着自己的孩子走向死亡的父母。第一次世界大战是旧政权的最后一战，在旧政权中，公民和宗教权威不可避免地结合在一起，相互依存。第二次战争确立了科学与国家之间新的封建范式，作为资本经济下社会规范的合理化。也就是说，量词成了我们的上帝。但是，思维的形式结构仍然只能构建证明推理的手段，而不能构建真理，甚至只能通过将最迫切需要质疑的东西视为公理来构建真理。如果没有类似的自负行为，认知事实仍然不能自发地构建直觉。时间是一种良性的异常现象，它不能作为自己的表述。它是一种离开或改变的行为，它的反应在某种程度上是自由的，而不是自负的。这种自由阐明了离开的机会的价值或优点。 That is, there is nothing unilateral that time is. And neither god nor the quantifier science must take as axiomatic can be so lost the one that unprecedented meaning overwhelms the laws of necessity. It takes a living mind to find the worth and meaning in such loss.
In the thread about Leibniz he was characterized, by Voltaire, as Dr. Pangloss, but science has replaced him with Mr. Gradgrind. There are things in this world that are not imagined in Hawking's speculations. There is a limit to how finely we can slice time into a calculus of probabilities, alternative universes protects the binary structure of logic with a dubious epistemics. The mind is not a text. It is, perhaps, more like a palimpsest in which we cannot read what is written without sacrificing the process of overwriting it is, and cannot access that process without sacrificing what is written there. But if we are satisfied with this ignorance and pass over it in silence we are betraying philosophy, not completing its mission, as so many seem to believe.

Hawking is not the only scientist to have undermined his otherwise strong claim to being a very smart person by disparaging fields of endeavor other than science. (Another example is eminent evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson, referring to the publication of Darwin?s Origin of Species: ?All attempts to answer that question [?What is man??] before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.? ) The main theme of Hawking?s book was that we?re getting closer to explaining everything, including the big bang, without needing to invoke God. Fine, but for that to imply the death of philosophy, current philosophy would have to be focused on God, which it obviously isn?t. In fact one active area of modern philosophy is the philosophy of science itself. That work is needed because deeply-held scientific values such as predictiveness and simplicity (parsimony) are not completely unproblematic. It is to the credit of the philosophy community that philosophers are taking seriously those scientific values and attempting to clarify them. Meanwhile we scientists go blithely ahead using them, with some like Hawking not only being unaware they need clarifying, but even going so far as to disparage the clarifiers? field. I like Laura?s very convincing essay, including her description of philosophical endeavor and progress as getting ?clearer about issues as time goes on, even if we don?t come up with final and agreed upon answers.?
It seems to me that science and philosophy are linked in another way, although I don?t know whether experts in the history or philosophy of science would agree with this concept: I think science is exactly what we get when we take certain ideas in philosophy seriously. Are things as they seem to each person, or are some things a certain way no matter what anyone observes, believes, or wishes? Accepting the latter implies the possibility of investigating those things in a shared enterprise where observations can be repeated by others and explanations are be subjected to public scrutiny and refutation, exactly as is done in science. But assuming things are a certain way independent of human minds also implies that no state of our mind can guarantee that a given belief is true, so the results of the enterprise must be accepted as tentative. This is also supposed to be a feature of science, although one that some scientists tend to forget in their enthusiasm for their subject.

Those who insists the core of philosophy is linguistic should appreciate how the perennial recurrence of questions that never seem to get resolved has the rather remarkable effect of expanding our language capabilities regarding that issue. If this is how language comes into being it is not facts or varification that drives our interest in it, but the intuition that talking in a context of an effort to bring intense rigor to a subject that defies answers gives us the power to find answers where they can be found. This is why science will always be the weak sister to philosophy, regardless of its otherwise appearing to be the very paradigm of power. Can the pursuit of wisdom endure amongst us without our loving it?
事实上，达尔文最重要的影响不是他的进化论，而是他自己都没有意识到的一个简单的方法论突破，如果别人让他这么做，他可能会反对。这是一个相当惊人的启示:如果我们要理解生命是如何形成的，我们就需要研究生活的本来面目。

The modern scientific movement comes off as nothing more than an attempt to prescribe preferences, to me. First, I'd like to see any scientist no matter the field try to answer the question of why we need science, without using philosophical thought. The only honest answer, if Hawking were to remain consistent, is to say "Because it appeals to me". Any answer outside of that, like N.D. Tysons' answer "Humans need to know the truth", is philosophical in nature. There is no laboratory that can demonstrate the "need" for truth. Maybe I am biased because I am a Christian and I've always had a love for philosophy, but this movement comes across to me as some sort of obscure challenge for scientists to prove their field of thought trumps theology or philosophy.

Hawking is not the first one to say this. I think Nietzsche does somewhere. Heidegger published a book called The End of Philosophy. "Philosophers", so called (very little that passes for philosophy today deserves the name) have been announcing the end of metaphysics for decades, ontology has become a foreign word, and dialectic is treated as heresy. But if philosophy is dead, this is a case of cold-blooded murder, not natural causes. But the coroner has been bought-off by technocrats or intimidated into silence by the Leo Strauss crowd. The fact is that fundamental issues remain as alive as ever that can only be ignored or deemed either settled or moot as an act of dishonesty or venality.

Truth 101
我想，不久的将来，真理将成为我们学习任何事物的最重要的一课，包括历史、数学、物理或科学。真理是唯一能让我们自由的课程。哲学必须领路。但是，在哲学能够分享真理之前，它必须首先找到真理，对于许多人或大多数人来说，还有许多工作要做。哲学到底有没有探索呢?
Einstein said that of all the people he would like most to be associated with, it would be the "true searchers", for which there are only a few living at one time. Philosophy needs our help, (and it is not money Philosophy Talk!) philosophy simply needs the truth to share.
=

Been reading John Gray? The narrative sounds similar. I agree though, I watched a debate with Sam Harris and Laurence Krauss claiming that science has proven morality. They stated that "Monkeys are charitable to each other, and ostracize the greedy chimps." Great, that hardly demonstrates anything more than a couple monkeys acting on instinct to protect the tribe. Kant would be rolling in his grave with a moral prescription like that, obviously implying that intent means nothing. But wait! Sam Harris later on claimed that morality is directly based on intent, he claimed that "Christians are immoral because they're concerned with an end goal, rather than doing good for its own sake." Which leaves a very huge contradiction, because certainly apes don't have "good will", they have impulsive preferences. At least, if they do it hasn't been demonstrated by science. Not to mention, how do we measure "good for its own sake", everyone acts according to their desires. If charity makes you feel good, you'll be drawn to it, if it doesn't, you wont.

One day soon is not the same one this one is. One, and time, extends only in dissipation. If we ignore this we don't know what we mean by one, any one. And this is truth. It's all too easy to get lost in the one. Until you lose it.
霍金是在我把物理置之脑后之后出现的。那是我那个年代的费曼，他是一个完全不同的人。他有一种天才，能把最难的概念变得容易，甚至有趣。霍金的弦理论，虽然我不再有资格评论它的数学正确性，但正如我所理解的那样，它是一个由其他方面不连贯的事件组成的系统。在这个能量(非常高)和时间(非常小)的水平上，甚至量子理论的概率演算都不起作用。因此，从理论上讲，它是由一种“迷人的吸引器”在数学顺序之外组织起来的随机事件序列。但它没有数学价值，因为每一个合并它的事件对所有其他事件来说都是一个完美的异常，而数学(和逻辑)公式只能通过扩展来定义。时间分为延伸和反常时刻。这是科学无法解决的奥秘，它只能把某种可拓的公式作为它的公理。数并不能穿透延伸和力矩之间的密封，它只是否定它。 To any mathematical formula anomaly is void. It has no numerical value. Its value is lexical or semantic, and inhabits the realm of morality, not quantity. This does not mean it is immaterial, it means that quantity is immaterial to its value. If anything, it is more what matter is.
John Gray sounds to me like just another Straussian, a blend of Friedrich Hayek and Joseph de Maistre. Nothing notable or new.

"John Gray sounds to me like just another Straussian, a blend of Friedrich Hayek and Joseph de Maistre. Nothing notable or new"
I wouldn't quite say he's "notable", but I think he has some relevance in the modern era. He's the only living thinker (with any noteriety) I know of that is defending philosophy and theology against the technocratic humanists in a coherent manner. Though, what IS notable to me, while he used to be just another run-of-the-mill free market economist, he shifted his opinion halfway through is career and though certainly still supports free markets, he doesn't prescribe them invariably to all nations and all peoples. He is one of the very very few economists in history that accepts the fact that cultural preference is more important in determining the function of the economy of a nation rather than some "one size fits all" economic theory. I agree with him whole-heartedly. Personally, I am a free market guy myself and I find it preferable, but I realize that it simply isn't for everyone because we all have different goals. That is what I like most about him.

Great comments, thanks!

Don't get me started on a Sam Harris/Lawrence Krauss rant...

事实证明，我确实有格雷关于柏林的书，但没有足够的材料(或兴趣)来发现他思维的转变。
我们认为，要研究哲学，就必须准备作出严格有效的推论，而要做到这一点，我们就必须把范畴看成是封闭的，把命题看成是完整的。其结果是形成了一种“思维”的习惯。也就是说，我们认为现实遵循我们可以预先确定和计划的理性原则。这都是一种信念(或自负)的一部分，即时间是一种延伸，而不是反常的时刻。量词的规则是因为唯一完整的意义是死亡。所以我们认为时间是持久的，是持续的时期。当然，我们试图计划我们的生活，但这并不意味着这些计划有确定性，它只是意味着我们不能在没有死亡迫在眉睫的自负的情况下度过时间。所以我们把所有的鸡蛋放在这个篮子里。但生活并非如此。它不会顺从地接受思想的中心计划，服从或坚持游戏计划。 It plays with things, it disobeys and defies the concept. But this process fills out the meaning of the idea, it does not undo it. Sometimes going in reverse is the best way forward. Put wings on a pig and it will do everything but fly until it can see nothing else to do with them. This is why progress can be real without seeming so. But if time is more real and material as the qualifier of extension, rather than the mere counting out of it, then there is a dialectical structure to it in which all the alternatives are explored or exhausted as the material progress of implementing the idea. A case in point is the way villagers in the feudal system carried on a semi-collective, and yet richly private life under the noses of their feudal lords. Amongst themselves they had an intense commitment to the right of their neighbors to influence all community decisions and implemented this as a constant flow of bickering that their masters regarded with scorn derision and complete lack of understanding, as if in a foreign language. But in that language the common folk were able to dispute and undermine the authority of their 'lords' until there was no disputing their influence, and the way was prepared for democracy. This is real, it happened. The murderous lords of feudal Europe were simply talked into democracy, but in a way they hardly knew was happening. The dialectic is real, but it does not follow causal laws or the rigid patterns of mind we have grown to believe implicitly. Hegel had it right, but you have to realize that he would have been thrown in jail if his superiors knew what he was at, and so he put his thesis in terms flattering to them, but clear enough to a more penetrating reader. nothing real should be taken on face value. For then it gets quantified and voided of its real value, or its value as real. I'd suggest Feyerabend's The Conquest of Abundance. And then ask yourself, what is this abundance is.

'Western Science' assumes a truth, or assumes that 'knowledge' (apart from memory) exists. This might be the biggest problem of both western science and philosophy (dualism). Western Science improved skill, but together with philosophy was at standstill since Enlightenment.
Have a look at:http://paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/western-scientific-paradigm.html

Revisiting this discussion prompted this thought: Gould's idea of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) and the related ideas of several contributors above that some questions cannot (ever) be addressed by science has a deep flaw. We need only think of the consequences of the abrupt steps in knowledge that the telescope and the microscope brought. Consider the new knowledge from the microscope. Prior to van Leeuwenhoek and the others, no religious or philosophical traditions had *anything* to say - or think - about the microworld both within us and beyond us. The transformation of understanding of microbial-driven disease alone has had profound consequences for our understanding of ourselves and key features of the human condition. Similarly, consider the telescope's revelations about the nature of Earth's location and 'status' in the Cosmos. In contrast to the utter ignorance of the microworld that microscopy dispelled, philosophy (and especially religion) had indeed long nurtured an Earth-Human-centric ‘universal’ view that was abruptly overturned (Popes notwithstanding). And the insights of evolutionary biology and all that has followed have placed humankind in a very different context from that previously sustained by philosophical (and religious) considerations alone for millennia.

在每一种情况下，我们都可以说，科学并没有颠覆长久以来人们常常珍视的信仰和哲学传统。在所有这一切中，“主教权”的重叠只是不请自来的——而且常常是完全出乎意料的——从科学的常规工作中出现。最后，只有哲学的领域被迫撤退。
More recently, the consequences of our cellular structure and function (originating exclusively from microscopy) and the interplay between the inheritance mechanisms (critically including, but not exclusive to, DNA) and our intergenerational cellular continuity as living things have necessarily impinged on profound philosophical consideration. The 'hard question' for philosophy (as labelled by David Chalmers) of consciousness will undoubtedly be circumscribed by neuroscience and cognate disciplines, albeit that philosophers might help shape a more general ‘appreciation’ of the scientific insight.
In all these very fundamental areas the 'Magisterium' on one side had to yield ground as the other demonstrated its greater competence to address the question, indeed often to frame the very question *for the first time*. Presently, philosophy still wrestles with matters that are 'old-hat' science such as Relativity, Quantum mechanics and the rest. To realise (from Relativity) that there is no universal 'now' turns over a fundamental tenet of Immanuel Kant - his 'intuition of space and time' from which he derived his justification for 'absolute certainty'. Philosophers largely still fail to take such matters on board and alter their thinking accordingly. (Chalmers recent survey of academic philosophers reveals how – quite unlike ion Science – there is very little concordance or consensus over a wide range of 'world views' across the discipline). At root, Philosophy lacks the key tool that Science ruthlessly deploys - Popper's falsifiability test. Unless philosophical ideas can be refuted, they will persist ... and so they do. In the end, science repeatedly butts up against the objectivity of having to describe Nature, reality, the objective world of which we are entirely a part, *reliably*; philosophy never *has* to - even if parts of the discipline can often do so ... in the end.
因此，科学确实正在取代哲学，而且在人类文化的许多领域都是如此。这里的几个贡献者似乎没有注意到这一点。就像旧的宗教信仰或“上帝”的特征占据了我们理解的空白，哲学，因为它被广泛地进行，冒着同样的风险。但是，科学总是第一个揭示出许多巨大的差距:这些差距以前是未知的，也没有被占据——这是哲学的另一个缺点。从根本上说，哲学缺乏科学所拥有的解决分歧的强大机制。但是，就像宗教信仰一样，它对我们在这个世界上的思考和行动有着真正的控制:因为它有一个现实，但不是来源于一个可靠或永久的基础。