Leaderboard

You did not say history, you said philosophy. Those are different disciplines. So please, don't move the goalposts. You're basically telling the ballplayer they don't understand baseball well enough, And you, as someone without any baseball creds. They might retort "Don't tell me about baseball" or even "WTH does philosophy have to do with baseball?" (something, as with the laser alignment issue, I would be interested in finding out) You should learn about renormalization. Well that would go back to Nobel and the invention of dynamite. What philosophy, specifically?

The topic, of course. When it is no offense, what is it? I always wonder how physicists could say philosophy is useless, during them making philosophical remarks or ponderings. Take the famous Feynman video about 'what is magnetism'. He nearly does not talk physics: instead he is pondering what such 'what is ...' questions factually mean, and what physics can say about it (not what physics says about it). In another video he explains the role of experiment in science. But that is not physics either. So what is it? To give a hint: it starts with 'ph' but ends with 'y'... To repeat my disclaimer: Maybe it is a bit too harsh: I think the great minds examine this philosophical baggage, can explain it, maybe even justify it. Feynman is a fine example, even where he ridicules philosophy. It must haven been the quality of the philosophy lectures he visited.

Really ? So why did you specifically exclude it ? At least you accede there is such a thing as philosophy of physics. The principle of creating a critical mass of fissionable material. I don't understand the allusion.

When it is no offense, what is it? Gymnastics ( mental or otherwise ) are not useless. Mental gymnastics sharpen the mind and help refine our thought processes. ( I have alluded to this in a previous post ) Are we heading towards the conclusion that Philosophers use the word 'knowledge' to mean justified true beliefs, while the rest of us ( Physicists included ) use it to mean a commonly accepted, evolving, body of information ?

As I have asked before, what philosophy will help me align a laser into a single-mode optical fiber? The issue I have is that the topic is wielded as a blunt instrument. Are there areas of physics where philosophy would be helpful to scientists? Certainly. And I read about some of this, and the scientists are discussing philosophical issues (involving interpretations of QM, for example) But it is often stated such there is the insinuation that every scientist would benefit from adding philosophy to the mix (and worse, IMO, when it comes from people who have demonstrated not understanding the science) and I suspect that is a source of the hostility.

And I'd reiterate, this is almost certainly a minority view in science as a whole (physics being the apparent exception). Try asking a psychologist if he thinks consciousness is real. Try asking a geologist if she thinks tectonic plates are real. Try asking a paleontologist if he thinks dinosaurs are real. Try asking a chemist if she thinks oxygen is real. Try asking a neuroscientist if she thinks neurons are real. Try asking Richard Dawkins whether he thinks natural selection is real or merely a theoretical postulate, useful for predictive purposes, but not to be taken at face value. . . .

It may be worth noting that, logically, to know that one is getting closer to the truth requires knowing where that truth resides. If you approach something whose location is unknown, then you only do so by accident. There is certainly the feeling that one is closing in on the truth, but that's a feeling resting on a web of beliefs, about what all those pretty, regular patterns we observe mean. Our beliefs about what constitutes genuine knowledge need constant inspection, which is where the tools of philosophy are handy.

I think of it as the timid, bashing a strawman. Part of this arises from viewing philosophy as a unitary academic field rather than an array of subjects that range from austere metascience* and ontology to more worldly ethics and political philosophy. And linguistic philosophy, too. Every field can benefit from a meta-discipline that steps outside of the field and considers it's methods, scope, aspirations, symbolic systems, and epistemic stance. As others note here, many fine scientists have engaged in meta reflections, whether they called it that or not. And I can think of very few physicists who have never engaged in a little epistemology as regards the inferences they can make from many indirect sorts of observations. *(when I use the term "metascience, " I'm trying to show the contours of something a little more than metaphysics -- it's all that is "meta," which includes epistemology and, in fields like cosmology, some ontology as well)

Cough, cough. Trivia time, folks: Can you name a scientist who threw a party to celebrate when his life's work was flushed down the toilet? I take it on trust that prof Krauss is outstanding in his field (not unlike the scarecrow who won a Nobel prize). When he steps back from his own area of expertise, though, and gets philosophical about science, well . . . without meaning to be rude, it's almost painful to have to listen to. Personally, I see it as regrettable that certain scientists are not only ignorant of, but hostile to, philosophy. - Gerald Holton, "The Advancement of Science and its Burdens", p122

Don't sell yourself short... This has been one of the most interesting discussions in quite a while. It even brought Markus out of 'retirement'. They say that the first step on the path to better oneself is recognizing one's shortcomings. You're on your way to becoming a much better Physicist. 8 pages of ( very informative and interesting ) discussion, and that is your conclusion ? That sometimes Physicists ( and people in general ) sometimes use inappropriate words to describe things/effects ? You're only back briefly, and already we are learning and ggaining new interests.

Bullshit. This idea of "valid" is ridiculous as it has little application to reality and none to truth. I suspect you would like to idealize reality and turn it into a model that fits your rules. (Plato is not the only one who has that problem.) The Plague is a highly contagious deadly disease -- truth. Some people when exposed to the Plague do not get it and/or do not die -- truth. Does that negate the Plague as a highly contagious deadly disease? Men grow beards -- truth. If a woman grows a beard does that invalidate her as a woman? I have no idea where your thoughts of "absolute" and counterexamples come from, but they are idealized nonsense. It is not good Philosophy and it is not good Science. It is piss poor communication, so I will apologize for my part in that very bad communication. So what you are saying is that a premise does not need to be true; it can be false as long as it works and does what we require of it. Philosophy is not therefore necessary. Congratulations studiot. Religion will be so happy, because I think you just validated "God". Gee