Philosophy or Physics Major?

[Protein]

It seems like my interests are divided between physics and philosophy. Really, I just want to study whatever brings me closer to the truth, whatever that is. In a perfect world I would study both physics and philosophy, but I'm not sure how viable that is. I'm not sure how to pose this question without sounding like a dunce. Physics is involved right understanding the observable world around us, but it also seems to be trying to find some sort of answer of what reality and all this is. But on the same token, isn't science based on philosophical assumptions? What if those assumptions are wrong and this is just some dream-reality? I want to come closer to the Truth of what all this is... what to make all of it... but I don't now which path is the right path to take, so to say. This isn't a subjective question regarding what I'm interested in more -- I'm actually wondering (objectively) whether (in our day and age) science or philosophy is a better way for understanding reality and how it works.

[Mr Skeptic]

Philosophy is the search for the truth. I can save you a few decades of schooling: the answer is we haven't a clue, but at least we can prove we exist in some form or another because that is necessary for thinking. You'll also learn about making convincing arguments when you don't know what you're talking about (ie, how to convince people about your premises, or from given premises reach a conclusion). This latter aspect will be more useful -- it will let you ponder joblessness, for example.

 

Science is the search for practical truth, and by practical I mean having predictive value as to what observations we expect to make given certain circumstances. Impractical truth is not part of science (for example, whether reality is just a computer simulation, whether there exists an invisible pink unicorn, whether there is a god that has no predictable effect on the universe). Some questions just aren't part of science, but for the most part those questions don't really matter.

[ydoaPs]

You could double major, or you could major in physics and minor in philosophy.

[Sisyphus]

I was a double major in physics and philosophy, for reasons similar to your present dilemma. There is indeed a lot of perspective that each can lend to the other, and I don't regret it. And despite the common jokes, philosophy majors certainly are employable. Just not, generally, in the same sorts of jobs as physics majors. It's not synergistic in that sense, or probably in course load. And get used to people having very vague notions of what you study but judging it anyway, and get used to idiots who think they are "philosophers." (Of course, we have lots of people here who think they are physicists, too.)

 

Also, you would have to be prepared for a lot of work. Philosophy is going to involve the most difficult reading of any subject, and physics the most difficult math (except for pure mathematics).

[Alley123]

Greetings, I was also a Philosophy and Physics major, and although very interesting, if not extremely interesting, especially if one has that particular bent that makes it such, the work load can approach impossible. I mean let's check it out for a moment; you need the math through advanced calc, this math part is not even considered a big deal, it just you need it contained in the essential "flows" if you want it all to "work". The physics courses all have problems that have to be done, and these problems can often take a bit of time to do, some like an hour. So there is certainly a lot of busy work time even once you have done the reading or attended all lectures. Philosophy is almost like reading science text books, with one small exception, it's usually even denser. Philosophy can get worse because it often gets into examining broader notions, like human consciousness for example. And like the extreme math that you will need, it is probably good to on the side do some casual reading in the Philosophy of Science. I always had a few extra textbooks lying around covering the Philosophy of Science, and that does cover a lot of history about it too. The other thing about Philosophy to keep in mind is that the papers you will have to write really must adhere to stricter guidelines than say a paper normally written for History or English. This is because the philosphy professors are additionally examining the logic, that is an important part of philosophy as well. And if you mess upin that area you can easily loose a letter grade without even batting an eye, or two for that matter. Basically the crux of the matter is this, and explains why the combiniation of the two subjects physics and philosophy can and are so dam rigorous ..... and the reason is due to the level of abstractions that exist in both. Although there area areas that seem to jive in both, physics and philosophy are actually totally dicotomous to each other, totally different ends of the intellectual scales. It can get crazy, for example, the idea of building machines that can predict the future for us, of course if you know anything at all about this subject you know that in modern physics it is considered a total impossibilty to do - it is not supported by physics to put it bluntly, but philosophy says "well let's take a shot at it anyway" to give you an idea. Thanks and best of luck ..

[MigL]

Furthering knowledge is never a bad thing.

If you can handle the workload, by all means, do a combined major.

 

Myself, however, I tend to side with Mr.Skeptic for all the excellent reasons he cited.

[Hans de Vries]

Philosophy is useless. Unless you absolutely love philosophy, go for physics.

 

Why do I say philosophy is uselsss? Because not only it's teachings cannot be verified in any way but they are actually unlikely to influence the way our world works. Maybe you should do a major in political philosophy or religious studies, at least this is real tanigble stuff that influences the way entire countries work.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[ydoaPs]

There's also the option of doing an HPS degree. It's the area of philosophy specifically dealing with science.

[Finding the Elephant]

I have studied both and enjoy them. Both enrich my thinking, and both are valuable. Just different sides of the same coin really. I would avoid the temptation of taking sides.

[tomirae]

In response to "philosophy is useless", let's start with the facts:

 

Fact 1: Philosophy is the Father of Science and it was through the philosophy of Aristotle, and his theory on deductive reasoning that the scientific method was born. Philosophy teaches an individual how to think, and reason using logic. Where would the world be without the question, "what if?"

Fact 2: Philosophy majors performed SUBSTANTIALLY better than average on EACH of the graduate admissions tests surveyed. Not one other group of majors shows this consistent pattern – not even economics or the physical sciences, whose majors did exceptionally well in some areas but only marginally better than average on the verbal portion of the GRE. Biology majors performed better than average on all tests, but the margins were consistently smaller than those of philosophy majors. SOURCE: US Department of Education studies. By the way, the tests include the GRE, the GMAT and the LSAT

Fact 3: I was a philosophy major and because of my education not only did I learn to use logic, reason and thought, I also became an exceptional writer and strong leader. I am able to see patterns that others miss. I can understand law, science, politics, finance, business and art in a way that others can't because I have learned how to think and analyze key components and their relationship to each other. Through philosophy I gained wisdom, not just knowledge. Knowledge can be looked up on the internet, but wisdom is a skill-set that philosophers are taught. I am now the president of a public technology firm.

Fact 4: The greatest scientific thinker of the 20th century was also a philosopher. Albert Einstein. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

To anybody considering double majoring in philosophy and physics, go for it. It will be a lot of hard work, so make sure you have a passion for both. By the way, my daughter is currently a philosophy and astrophysics major at a top university.

[ajb]

My rather bias opinion is that you should go for physics: this really is the closest to a 'true' understanding of the Universe.

[ydoaPs]

My rather bias opinion is that you should go for physics: this really is the closest to a 'true' understanding of the Universe.

If you're a realist, yeah. If you're an anti-realist, not so much. As a general trend, experimentalists tend to be anti-realists (hi, swansont) and theorists tend to be realists (hi, ajb). Though, when you're dealing with new theory, like the quantum gravity theorists, sometimes the line between the scientists and the philosophers of science tends to be not so clear. It's not unheard of for theoretical physicists to cite philosophers of science.

 

So, my suggestion, if you want the "'true' understanding of the Universe" is to either double major in philosophy of physics (or HPS if there's no specific phil physics program available) and physics or to major in philosophy of physics (or HPS) and minor in physics.

 

The philosophy of physics courses will focus more on the foundational issues that are often ignored in traditional physics programs. Things like the metaphysical choices one has when it comes to physical theories (ex. GR implies either indeterminism or the unreality of time, so pick your poison and see what happens) and what the theories are even about (ex. Is QFT about particles, fields, both, or neither?).

 

So, it really depends on what your focus is.

[Sensei]

If you're a realist, yeah. If you're an anti-realist, not so much. As a general trend, experimentalists tend to be anti-realists (hi, swansont) and theorists tend to be realists (hi, ajb).

Are you kidding me? I would say that Swansont is realist, and ajb is anti-realist..

Ajb is mathematician. And they tend to have geometric based interpretation of Universe.

See f.e. what happened to Perelman..

 

According to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

"Anti-realism in science"

"In philosophy of science, anti-realism applies chiefly to claims about the non-reality of "unobservable" entities such as electrons or genes, which are not detectable with human senses."

 

"scientist" who would say so to me, would instantly land up in crackpot/layman zone..

As I am saying these electrons emitted by radioactive isotopes, or from decay of cosmic rays, in particle detectors such as Cloud Chamber..

Mathematician can think/interpret these objects-electrons as mathematical not existing in reality objects, because they have very little experimental experience.

And have not seen them on their own eyes..

While they're real and can be seen (at least where they were a while ago).

Edited November 11, 2015 by Sensei

[ajb]

We have to be careful with mixing mathematical models with nature itself. My philosophy is quite pragmatic here: 'real' things are what I can measure. Of course this open up a can or worms with what we are actually measuring and how this relates to the theory at hand!