Is philosophy useful for a career in science?

[Peron]

I'm just wondering if people who go choose a career in science need philosophy.

[ecoli]

Depends on the kind of philosophy. I think scientists could use more epistemology and to study the empiricist philosophers, since that's what the scientific method is founded on.

 

Of course, the scientific method isn't real, so scientists should study Bayesian philosophy.

[Peron]

Okay, thanks

[ajb]

I guess that a little bit of philosophy can go a long way. For sure you should have some idea about the philosophy of science (and/or mathematics) and in particular the scientific method as ecoli states.

 

I am though of the opinion that too much philosophy is not a good thing. It can distract you from the scientific nature of your work. But that is just me, others I am sure will disagree.

Edited March 11, 2011 by ajb

[thinker_jeff]

I'm just wondering if people who go choose a career in science need philosophy.

 

The first, every adult has some philosophy evidently because there are always some general questions about the world and people you have to explain for yourself. For examples:

Does God exist or doesn't?

If God exist, how does God run the world?

If God doesn't exist, where does the world and people come from?

Why do we do what we do?

 

The second, when you are qualified to have a career in science, you must have a systematic philosophy of science already.

 

The third, some systematic philosophies have many theories contradicted to science.

 

Therefore, you don't need systematic philosophy before learning science; and in fact, that is good condition for your study in science.

Edited March 11, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[ecoli]

The second, when you are qualified to have a career in science, you must have a systematic philosophy of science already.

 

This is, in my experience, untrue.

 

The third, some systematic philosophies have many theories contradicted to science.

 

Therefore, you don't need systematic philosophy before learning science; and in fact, that is good condition for your study in science.

How are you defining "systematic"?

[Marat]

Many people understand philosophy from the outside and thus falsely believe that it has to do with uncritical assertions of arbitrary beliefs, which is the very opposite of what it is like in its modern, academic form. If you study philosophy today you will essentially learn the art of critical thinking and the way to address the problems of theory-formation and criticism which best catch the inferential errors being made. I have seen countless scientific publications which are full of facts, statistics, hard science, well-controlled experiments, and hypotheses and totally, utterly, ignorant, simply because the authors lacked sufficient philosophical training to spot the faulty logic at the basis of their thinking.

 

Studying philosophy is not just a good preparation for doing logically rigorous work in the natural sciences, it is an essential prerequisite to not making a fool of yourself for the rest of your life. If you look seriously at Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, they are basically just rigorous philosophical analysis extracting the logical consequences from a very few empirical data to which the methodology developed in the philosophical discipline of positivism has been applied.

[thinker_jeff]

This is, in my experience, untrue.

 

How are you defining "systematic"?

 

Let's define "systematic" first. I use this word as "presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles" (See http://www.merriam-w...nary/systematic ).

For example, if a person thinks that the reason we do what we do is just executing the instruction from God, he should believe that God runs the world all the time. Otherwise, his philosophy is not systematic.

When you charge on a scientific research, you should have a lot of things to consider, a lot of issues to resolve, and a lot of challenge to face. If you are qualified to be such person, you should know how to formulate your scientific ideas as a coherent body, which means you should have the systematic philosophy already.

By the way, I believe that all of the religions are systematic philosophies, too.

Edited March 12, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[Dan_Ny]

define "career" first. and "science". and, if it comes to that, "philosophy". and actually, what exactly do you mean by "useful"?

[Peron]

I guess that a little bit of philosophy can go a long way. For sure you should have some idea about the philosophy of science (and/or mathematics) and in particular the scientific method as ecoli states.

 

I am though of the opinion that too much philosophy is not a good thing. It can distract you from the scientific nature of your work. But that is just me, others I am sure will disagree.

 

Distract in what way, could you elaborate? Thanks

[Marat]

The same type of intellectual talent, as well as some of the same knowledge, is required to do creative physics (cosmology, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, fundamental particles) as is needed for doing philosophy. Einstein's work can really be seen just as an applied science version of the philosophical discipline of positivism, and it can be traced intellectually to the thinking of the philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach. Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and Thomas Kuhn are notable examples of people who were both capable of writing about science on an advanced level and doing significant work in philosophy. Puzzles like Schroedinger's Cat and the Twin Paradox are studied in advanced courses in the philosophy of science. If you want to be a Heisenberg rather than just a Fermi, you need to complement your understanding of physics by a strong background in philosophy.

[imatfaal]

"rather than just a Fermi" - by any reasonable usage of those words that phrase is nonsense.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with Marat. Philosophy is at its heart a system to ensure that given your assumptions are true, the conclusions you draw from them are true (a system for preserving truth). You'll get to practice drawing conclusions, and also spotting faulty reasoning. Even though in science you'll use a lot of inductive logic, you also use lots of deductive logic. You can't do science without knowing these sorts of things, and philosophy studies them in detail. Also, it improves your ability to think clearly by asking you to formally state your assumptions, and practice drawing conclusions from assumptions you don't really believe.

[thinker_jeff]

The same type of intellectual talent, as well as some of the same knowledge, is required to do creative physics (cosmology, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, fundamental particles) as is needed for doing philosophy. Einstein's work can really be seen just as an applied science version of the philosophical discipline of positivism, and it can be traced intellectually to the thinking of the philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach. Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and Thomas Kuhn are notable examples of people who were both capable of writing about science on an advanced level and doing significant work in philosophy. Puzzles like Schroedinger's Cat and the Twin Paradox are studied in advanced courses in the philosophy of science. If you want to be a Heisenberg rather than just a Fermi, you need to complement your understanding of physics by a strong background in philosophy.

The creative philosophy seems backup of the upmost talent and the achievement by such talent; however, such philosophy is really a part of the achievement by the talent. I don't see how you can seperate it from the talent.

Einstein would never ask "Is philosophy useful" because he had the upmost one naturally, which was not taught by anybody.

Edited March 29, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[Ophiolite]

My impression is that you could be a cpmpetent, cookie cutter scientist, filling in the details of a broad brush theory without an ounce of philosophy. If you wish to make a real impression on the field you had better have a solid basis in philosophy. Paradigm busting doesn't happen without deep thinking.