The Physicist and the Philsopher:

[MigL]

Ahhh, but you left out the most important part, Beecee ...

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

That would make Philosophy essential for Physicists as it gives them insight into developing testable answers.

 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Ahhh, but you left out the most important part, Beecee ...

Hmmm, not really, I have mentioned and agree that philosophy is the foundation stone of science earlier on.

And have had a heavy night celebrating a great progressive Labor win!

[Eise]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

If you read through my posts in this issue, my point was that much of what is covered by science today, was once the exclusive domain of philsophers, and perhaps in those circumstances, philsophy is superfluous at best. This was imo the main area of criticism by Krauss.

Not quite: 'philosophy' was just the name of every activity that wanted to understand the world. (Was Newton a philosopher? His main work is titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.) It is our understanding of the musings of Aristotle that he was active at disciplines that we now distinguish: during my physics study in the context of the history of physics I learned about his 'laws of falling bodies', during my philosophy study I learned about Aristotle's logic (syllogisms, categories, etc), and I assume he would also appear in the history of biology. There are some overlappings, e.g. Aristotle's concept of causality that is interesting for the history of philosophy and physics alike.

It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

The way I see it ( IOW, opinion, so I could be totally out to lunch ) both Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature.

In modern days, no, not so much. Genady is partially right: 

22 hours ago, Genady said:

But physics and philosophy don't overlap, or do they?

To simplify: if the topic is nature, it is physics; if the topic is methods and general assumptions behind physics then it is philosophy. And in this sense there are at least periods in which physics needs philosophy, even if it are physicists themselves who are doing the philosophising. But physics does not need music or sports; physicists might, but they are not special in this respect.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

The opnion above is in my case re-enforced, particularly with 2 so called phislophical types on this forum, that I have crossed swords with a few times.

There are a few reasons, why you got this impression. First, the irony, or even sarcasm, of one of these was just too much. As a science fan, you could get the impression that you are plainly stupid. (If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously. AFAIR his point was that the selfunderstanding of science (a philosophical topic!) of many scientists is poor, but you read somehow that he implied that science in general is wrong.

But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken:

Quote

It is a well known fact that physicists are greatly given to the supernatural. Why this should be I don't know, but the fact is plain. One of the most absurd of all spiritualists is Sir Oliver Lodge. I have the suspicion that the cause may be that physics itself, as currently practised, is largely moonshine. Certainly there is a great deal of highly dubious stuff in the work of such men as Eddington.

Quote

The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.

Do you really want to call him in the witness stand?

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Philosophers on the other hand seem to make their living, picking each other apart, never quite agreeing on any one particular philosophy.

Philosophy is not science. In the natural sciences there is always an arbiter: nature itself. Philosophy is essentially reflecting  on our thinking. But as the thinking changes, due to developments in science and society, the reflecting will change as well. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which has as its foundations philosophy.

Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which is a part of philosophy.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

And therein lies a point I raised earlier...define talking?

This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Eise...I'm a non scientist, although have made plenty of efforts to learn from reputable reading material, and forums such as this,  and certainly have never studied any philsophy.

Yes, I notice you are pretty good informed about the contents of modern physics and astronomy. But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices?

Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list:

• Lee Smolin
• Sean Carroll
• Carlo Rovelli
• Albert Einstein

From the latter:

Quote

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. 

Quote

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Eise

[swansont]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

see one side (science) as practical, the other just asking questions without any real answers (philosophy)

Scientists play around with ideas that don’t necessarily work out, but reveal things nonetheless - excluding lines of thought, advancing ideas that might apply elsewhere. There’s a lot of “what if” that happens. There’s no inherent problem with “just asking questions” on either side of the aisle.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Eise said:

It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions.

That's the point I'm making. Philosophical and metaphyical questions now handled by science. The same applies to the definition of "nothing" and nothing as defined in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

(If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously.

😊 No that certainly was not the one I was referring to. Both are still active, both avoid answering questions directly, both at times dishonestly, and both indulge in poor philosophy as a substitute. But let's let that slide.

9 hours ago, Eise said:

But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken:

Do you really want to call him in the witness stand?

I'm not sure if that's a valid argument. Even Trump has probably on rare occasions been right. And inversely, someone like Eistein or Bertrand Russell, have probably at times been wrong. And I'm also big enough and ugly enough to understand that any quote, can be out of context. Still, we all use them when it suits our purpose. 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. 

That caricature has mostly been used by a couple here sadly, that like to reflect that somehow they are deeeep thinkers, yet as I said, actually avoid answering questions directly. 

9 hours ago, Eise said:

 But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices?

Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list:

• Lee Smolin
• Sean Carroll
• Carlo Rovelli
• Albert Einstein

From the latter:

While I am familiar with all four, the two I mostly respect are Einstein and Carroll.

I don't really know how to refute your argument properly, which reflects more on me being a poor debater, suffice to say, my criticism of philosophy is not as blanketing as you seem to make out. Afterall, I have said we all like playing philosophers, although hopefully I prefer the more practical side and that side more able to reach a solution or a consensus, rather then the innane aspects that Feynman talks about.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Scientists play around with ideas that don’t necessarily work out, but reveal things nonetheless - excluding lines of thought, advancing ideas that might apply elsewhere. There’s a lot of “what if” that happens. There’s no inherent problem with “just asking questions” on either side of the aisle.

That's my point as I said earlier and the point Krauss makes. Ideas, subjects being scientifically discussed that as yet we have no answers for and were once the domain of philosophers. 

[Eise]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

That's the point I'm making. Philosophical and metaphyical questions now handled by science.

By scientists, not by science. But the questions are still philosophical, and a training in philosophy definitely helps. I don't care who does the philosophising, as long as it is 'quality philosophy': well argued positions, well informed about the subject (physics in this case), but also well informed about the philosophical relevant areas to avoid overhauled positions, faulty logic, etc. Most of the present-day well-known academicians doing philosophy of physics have double PhDs,  both in physics and in philosophy. To exaggerate a little, Krauss, with no extended education in philosophy, is critisising Aristotle, but none of today's academicians doing philosophy of physics.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm not sure if that's a valid argument.

You can use citations to strengthen your point, by citing experts in the field, i.e. valid arguments from authority. I just wanted to show that Mencken is not such an authority. 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Still, we all use them when it suits our purpose.

Depends on the purpose. If it is to ridicule philosophy, then sure, you can use such bonmots. If you want to make valid argumentative points, no, not so much. What is your purpose?

12 hours ago, beecee said:

That caricature has mostly been used by a couple here sadly, that like to reflect that somehow they are deeeep thinkers, yet as I said, actually avoid answering questions directly. 

But then you equate everybody who thinks he is philosophical with philosophy as it is done in academia. You know physics is bullshit? Just read the crackpot postings here. 

I cannot help it that there are many specialists here in different sciences that can correct wrong positions, but it seems that I am the only one here who studied philosophy as a main subject. And my time is limited; as you probably noticed, I am not posting very much at the moment. Maybe when I am retired, in a couple of years...

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't really know how to refute your argument properly, which reflects more on me being a poor debater, suffice to say, my criticism of philosophy is not as blanketing as you seem to make out. Afterall, I have said we all like playing philosophers, although hopefully I prefer the more practical side and that side more able to reach a solution or a consensus, rather then the innane aspects that Feynman talks about.

Yes, but you should not mistake 'playing philosophy' for 'academic philosophy'.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

That's my point as I said earlier and the point Krauss makes. Ideas, subjects being scientifically discussed that as yet we have no answers for and were once the domain of philosophers. 

But not today's philosophy. And what was Aristotle doing?

• language analysis
• grammar
• logic
• biology
• physics
• philosophy

Isn't it a bit funny, just because everything was called 'philosophy' in those days, that modern physics has taken the place of philosophy in the domain of fundamental questions? 

Just to add a citation by Sean Carroll:

Quote

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by <A Universe from Nothing>, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Eise
Typo

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, Eise said:

 What is your purpose?

I believe action/s are more powerful than words. If a certain situation in my society bothers me, I won't just sit on my arse in front of a keyboard and wax on lyrically.  I will do something practical if I can to help or improve that position. My philosophy in life is to enjoy it,help out when and where I can, based on my capabilities and live by the generally accepted morals in my democratic society. My quotes of choice I suspect may reflect those morals, although I disagree with your "not to make valid points" Plenty of wise quotes on many aspects of science, one of my favourite being 

"Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic".

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

You can use citations to strengthen your point, by citing experts in the field, i.e. a valid argument from authority. I just wanted to show that Mencken is not such an authority. 

Agree totally with your first point, on Mencken I decided to refresh my memory...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#Death My conclusion? Much I like about the man, much I agree with, and much I respect. By the same token, also much I disgree with and totally reject.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Isn't it a bit funny, just because everything was called 'philosophy' in those days, that modern physics has taken the place of philosophy in the domain of fundamental questions? 

Newton dabbled in Alchemy or changing of one element Pb to Au. Today we use nuclear fission/fusion to do such changing of one element to another. Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Just to add a citation by Sean Carroll:

Respect the man very much and have watched many debates with him...Your quote of himis interesting. Here's another by someone deserving of much respect.....

"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended". Albert Eistein:

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I cannot help it that there are many specialists here in different sciences that can correct wrong positions, but it seems that I am the only one here who studied philosophy as a main subject. And my time is limited, as you probably noticed, I am not posting very much at the moment. Maybe if I am retired, in a couple of years...

I'm happy that you chose this poor old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder to exercise your obvious philsophical knowledge with. It is a welcome change  ...mostly! 😉

[dimreepr]

58 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe action/s are more powerful than words. If a certain situation in my society bothers me, I won't just sit on my arse in front of a keyboard and wax on lyrically.  I will do something practical if I can to help or improve that position. My philosophy in life is to enjoy it,help out when and where I can, based on my capabilities and live by the generally accepted morals in my democratic society.

Philosophy doesn't accept what's generally believed, it's there to question 'why it's generally believed'; you freely admit that you've not been trained in either discipline.

To do something practical in a violent situation also requires training; otherwise you're just an angry old man trying to take out Bruce Lee in a street fight.

Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophy doesn't accept what's generally believed, it's there to question 'why it's generally believed'; you freely admit that you've not been trained in either discipline.

There isn't really much philosophy does accept though. And while I admit I'm not trained in either, I also do not avoid questions with silly pedantic "define belief" type of nonsense that poor self proclaimed philosophers  indulge in.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To do something practical in a violent situation also requires training; otherwise you're just an angry old man trying to take out Bruce Lee in a street fight.

As usual, you avoid what I was talking about to a reasonable philosopher. I'm referring to getting of your big arse and doing something practical about what you perceive as wrong, instead of waxing on lyrically with unreal and invalid analogies,  and generally avoiding questions and/or proper answering. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective.

Never thrown an "unjust" punch in my adult life, and when I have had cause, it is certainly effective. But you seem obsessed with taking this off topic. Why is that?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

Is that supposed to add anything to my useful debate with Eise  a trained philosopher? Or is this you again, trying to gain some traction and recognition? 😴 For your edification though, entropy (or disorder) of course is part of the science of thermodynamics and is a concept that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. Hope that helps.

I repeat......

Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Edited May 24, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

There isn't really much philosophy does accept though. And while I admit I'm not trained in either, I also do not avoid questions with silly pedantic "define belief" type of nonsense that poor self proclaimed philosophers  indulge in.

I've never proclaimed myself a philosopher, and just to be clear "I AM NOT A (trained) PHILOSOPHER"; I am, however, guilty of philosophising, the quality of which you're not qualified to assess, as your no expert.

So, FFS, stop using it as an excuse.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Is that supposed to add anything to my useful debate with Eise  a trained philosopher? Or is this you again, trying to gain some traction and recognition? 😴 For your edification though, entropy (or disorder) of course is part of the science of thermodynamics and is a concept that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time. Hope that helps.

I repeat......

Science is a discipline in eternal progress, and we do science even if we do not understand what we are doing.....

"Science is a discipline in eternal progress way of thinking, and we do science even if we do not  to understand what we are doing." FTFY

And for science read philosophy.

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've never proclaimed myself a philosopher, and just to be clear "I AM NOT A (trained) PHILOSOPHER"; I am, however, guilty of philosophising, the quality of which you're not qualified to assess, as your no expert.

Actually guilty of proposing situations entirely unworkable and denying the obvious. I don't need to be an expert to see this. 😉

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, FFS, stop using it as an excuse.

🥱 Far from being an excuse, it is observational evidence, over a number of topics, and as others have also concluded and observed.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"Science is a discipline in eternal progress way of thinking, and we do science even if we do not  to understand what we are doing." FTFY

And for science read philosophy.

Not sure if rewording basically what I have been saying is smart or just a sign of frustration. 😏 My advice? take an asprin and have a good lie down.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” Einstein:

Edited May 25, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Actually guilty of proposing situations entirely unworkable and denying the obvious. I don't need to be an expert to see this. 😉

🥱 Far from being an excuse, it is observational evidence, over a number of topics, and as others have also concluded and observed.

Not sure if rewording basically what I have been saying is smart or just a sign of frustration. 😏 My advice? take an asprin and have a good lie down.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” Einstein:

If you walked up to a door and decided it was a push door, you'd be there all day pushing; even after the owner told you "it's actually a pull door".

 

[beecee]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you walked up to a door and decided it was a push door, you'd be there all day pushing; even after the owner told you "it's actually a pull door".