Stephen Hawking, in his recent book entitled The Grand Design, states that philosophy is dead. Without going into the reasons behind his thinking, I'd like to know the response of current philosophers to Hawking's statement. He has laid down a gauntlet of sorts, a challenge to philosophers to make their work relevant to the recent advances and discoveries made by cosmologists, astrophysicists, and others on the cutting edge of scientific discovery and investigation. Are present-day philosophers up to Hawking's challenge?

As far as I can see, no philosopher has given up the profession on the basis of Hawking's argument. This should come as no surprise, it would be like turkeys voting for an early Thanksgiving.

Philosophers are used to scientists telling them that science has resolved longstanding philosophical problems. Even if it had, that very statement would itself be a philosophical and not a scientific topic, and so would require philosophers to examine it.

Scientists who write obituaries for philosophy forget that science depends on philosophical assumptions. When some lab results or observations of the visible universe confirm or disconfirm a prediction in physics, Hawking and colleagues draw conclusions about the whole universe. But does any set of observations justify conclusions about unobserved cases? Is "elegance" an objective feature of a theory, and does it make a theory having it more likely to be true? And so on. Philosophers grapple with these questions; scientists just presume answers to them. Unless we ignore such questions, philosophizing is inescapable.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman, Stephen Maitzen
Read another response about Philosophy, Science