4 ms·

I think of philosophers as basically being 1000 Shakespearean monkeys. The world would be better served by 1000 scientists.

sgt101 10y ago
Peeling back a level, science is a belief system based on observations. What is a valid observation - if I say I saw it once that is not valid, if I say look in this place or way and you can see it too, well, that is. But what if I say "look in this place and way and you will see this kind of thing once out of a billion trials, and all the other things that are seen are not real"? Science admits that view, and I would not disagree but I am aware that this is a choice - a philosophical view that I have adopted as part of the assumptions that I make to use the belief system that we currently call science. This system is different from the versions of science that were in use 100 years ago, and is changing now with the rejection of intervalism (p=0.05). So bring in 1000 scientists and let them do some philosophy, because to do anything that's what they have to do.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Science is not a belief system, it's a method of verifying beliefs and turning them into knowledge.
  - sgt101 10y ago
    Is the practice of science fixed? Do scientists use, unwaveringly, the methods of their predecessors? Why do the methods and practices of science vary over time?
    - Numberwang 10y ago
      Methods vary in philosophy, in science they improve.
      - sgt101 10y ago
        I can hear the pattering of tiny feet on the heads of pins....
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      I fail to see the relevance of any of your questions to the topic at hand, so rather than playing the Socratic method, how about you just lay out your argument.
calibraxis 10y ago
What are we talking about with "philosophy"? And what is "physics"? Are physicists featureless spheres unable to be "philosophers"? https://www.edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics https://www.edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics What "philosophers" are we talking about here? Lakatos? Chomsky? Newton? Logicians? Or do we have some composite postmodern blowhard in mind? (Like any industry's products, philosophy's product quality varies with factors like producer. So specifics are important.) There's a bias in physics culture against philosophy. (It's no doubt elsewhere too, but very apparent in physics.) But fortunately, there's many exceptions who like to take a step back and think about what they're doing.
pessimizer 10y ago
Not if the scientists are working on string theory. I'd rather have philosophers 100:1 in that case.
tamana 10y ago
Thank you for explaining your philosophy of science.
- Numberwang 10y ago
  Shorter version with nothing lost: "Thank you for explaining your science."
JackFr 10y ago
> The world would be better served by 1000 scientists. Why? "The world would be better served" carries a lot of cultural baggage.

sgt101 10y ago

Peeling back a level, science is a belief system based on observations. What is a valid observation - if I say I saw it once that is not valid, if I say look in this place or way and you can see it too, well, that is. But what if I say "look in this place and way and you will see this kind of thing once out of a billion trials, and all the other things that are seen are not real"? Science admits that view, and I would not disagree but I am aware that this is a choice - a philosophical view that I have adopted as part of the assumptions that I make to use the belief system that we currently call science. This system is different from the versions of science that were in use 100 years ago, and is changing now with the rejection of intervalism (p=0.05). So bring in 1000 scientists and let them do some philosophy, because to do anything that's what they have to do.

gnaritas 10y ago
Science is not a belief system, it's a method of verifying beliefs and turning them into knowledge.
- sgt101 10y ago
  Is the practice of science fixed? Do scientists use, unwaveringly, the methods of their predecessors? Why do the methods and practices of science vary over time?
  - Numberwang 10y ago
    Methods vary in philosophy, in science they improve.
    - sgt101 10y ago
      I can hear the pattering of tiny feet on the heads of pins....
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    I fail to see the relevance of any of your questions to the topic at hand, so rather than playing the Socratic method, how about you just lay out your argument.

calibraxis 10y ago

What are we talking about with "philosophy"? And what is "physics"? Are physicists featureless spheres unable to be "philosophers"? https://www.edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics https://www.edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics What "philosophers" are we talking about here? Lakatos? Chomsky? Newton? Logicians? Or do we have some composite postmodern blowhard in mind? (Like any industry's products, philosophy's product quality varies with factors like producer. So specifics are important.) There's a bias in physics culture against philosophy. (It's no doubt elsewhere too, but very apparent in physics.) But fortunately, there's many exceptions who like to take a step back and think about what they're doing.

pessimizer 10y ago

Not if the scientists are working on string theory. I'd rather have philosophers 100:1 in that case.

tamana 10y ago

Thank you for explaining your philosophy of science.

Numberwang 10y ago
Shorter version with nothing lost: "Thank you for explaining your science."

JackFr 10y ago

> The world would be better served by 1000 scientists. Why? "The world would be better served" carries a lot of cultural baggage.