6 ms·
The only lasting source of enlightenment seems to come from science, and “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” -Fey
by M_Grey 10y ago
The only lasting source of enlightenment seems to come from science, and “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” -Feynman
- pmoriarty 10y agoI would be very interested to know how much Feynman actually knew about the philosophy of science. My guess would be not very much at all. Feynman, like some other famous scientists, gave in to the temptation of pontificating on subjects he knew very little about. Philosophy in general was something he seemed to have contempt for, without knowing much about it. I'd take his pronouncements on it with a huge grain of salt.
- M_Grey 10y ago...Based on your assumption that he was ignorant of the subject, which you assume without any particular reason? That's somewhat ironic.
- oldmanjay 10y agoFeynman did have a body of work to lean on that implies he understood science very deeply, which leads me to wonder what secrets the "philosophy of science" could possibly hold that he didn't understand. Edit: verb tenses that wishfully put forth we still had Feynman.
- tim333 10y agoFeynman was pretty sophisticated philosophically when it came to scientific matters. I'm not sure he studied the philosophical literature much partly because a lot of it is kind of bad. See him on why questions for example - http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_why_questions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_wh... Or his talk on cargo cult science - http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm Or the discussion of quantum mechanics in QED. I've yet to see similar clarity from a philosopher of science. I think the philosophers annoyed him because they weren't very good but self important in spite of that.
- pmoriarty 10y agoThank you for these. On the "why questions" video from the first link, which I've seen before, Feynman's answer only shows that he's used to answering the kind of question asked of him, regarding why magnets repel, and similar questions involving physics. Yes, he realizes that there are larger issues involved in such questions and their answers, but he steers all the answers and questions back to physics, which to him are the more interesting answers and questions. Nowhere is there any evidence that his own answers are informed by any kind of reading of philosophical literature or familiarity with the world of philosophy. Regarding the "Cargo Cult Science" essay. In it Feynman states "even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world." His interest in the question of what is and isn't science, and his answer to it are some of the central things that philosophy of science studies. No amount of physics experiments are going to give you any insight in to that question. To attempt to answer it, as Feynman did, is to practice philosophy of science, which Feynman himself in the original quote which started this thread decries as useless. The whole essay is really an attempt to engage in philosophy of science, but without any evidence that Feynman is familiar with the field. The result is interesting both because Feynman is an entertaining and capable writer, and because of his obvious familiarity with the practice of science and its ideals. But it's not nearly as insightful as it could have been had he actually undertaken to study the subject academically. It's really an opinion piece aimed at explaining in very general ways some of the practices and ideals of science as Feynman sees them to laymen and other scientists, and almost a polemic on scientific integrity. Also, it should be pointed out that the philosophy of science studies a lot more than just the questions addressed in this essay. They are important questions, but there's a lot more about science that is philosophically interesting. Regarding your point about the clarity of Feynman's writing compared to those of philosophers: it's sadly all too true that way too many of them are very poor and obscure writers compared to Feynman. On the other hand, many others are very clear (if usually pretty dry). When there is lack of clarity, some of it is due to lack of writing ability or interest in clarity (or even wilful obscurity), but in other cases it's due to the specialized knowledge or terminology that is required to understand it -- much like that which would be required to understand a paper in an academic physics journal. If you attempt to tackle such a paper without a great deal of academic physics under your belt, you are likely to be confused. So it is with philosophy, where you'd be a lot better off with some philosophy courses under your belt before you try to make sense of much of it.
- mannykannot 10y ago> Feynman, like some other famous scientists, gave in to the temptation of pontificating on subjects he knew very little about. I suspect that is what some physicists think philosophy does in their field, but if so, I don't see that there is anything for them to get worked up about. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since Bergson annoyed Einstein.
- b-orges 10y agoIt would be difficult to argue that science is the only lasting source of enlightenment. Science certainly helped to disentangle us from religious dogma and to provide a new, rational foundation for interpreting the world. It has led to an unprecedented advancement of technology and a deeper understanding of the universe. But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. It would also be difficult to argue that the philosophy of science is useless. Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. That's why instead scientists are just becoming professional philosophers themselves!
- M_Grey 10y agoBeing disenchanted with reality and turning to fantasy is a normal human response, but it's far from enlightened.
- b-orges 10y agoWhat are you talking about fantasy? Why are you assuming that fantasy is the only recourse and that there aren't enlightened alternatives? I can't claim to hold some answer but certainly it's more enlightened to maintain a position of modest uncertainty than to exclaim "Everyone but me is living in a fantasy! Nobody else can handle the truth!"
- M_Grey 10y agoCould you please refrain from attributing words to me, which I've never said? Thanks.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>But in what way does science in the 21st century continue to advance and preserve human enlightenment? It isn't difficult to acknowledge the opposite effect -- that science has led to a certain disenchantment with the world and our place in it. I think that the regression of human enlightenment comes more from your insistence about how science destroys magic, which never actually existed, than from science itself. All science has done is politely explain that our ways of making sense and meaning out of our experiences have to conform to the way the world actually is. >Philosophy is more important to science than ever as it struggles to meaningfully interpret its data, especially in quantum mechanics and neurology. I know it upsets scientists to think about receiving help from a philosopher. Nobody is upset about seeking help from a relevant domain expert. However, we are continuing to try to politely explain that trying to make sense of the world in terms of ghosts or Platonic Forms does not work. Naturalistic philosophers hear no complaints from scientists, because their philosophizing fits inside reality. The problem comes from the rather irritating philosophers who continue to insist that a world without ghosts or Forms is innately meaningless and has no place for human life in it.
- westoncb 10y agoFor one, I think Feynman had a more complex perspective on the situation than what that single quote would indicate. He probably would not have written The Character of Physical Law otherwise. You can see, however, from how it's written that he's not working in the tradition of academic philosophy of science—but that's probably more an issue with their methods than with the validity/interest of their subject matter. Also, it seems like there are increasingly many places in science where having a sort of self-awareness about what one's doing while practicing is useful. Formalization of observation and measurement in physics would be part—but what sticks out to me even more is the way competing theories are weighed against one another. We've generalized beyond particular theories to working in a framework capable of evaluating and comparing various competing theories using standard measures (and aesthetic judgement)—much like evaluating software architectures. This has occurred somewhat in parallel with philosophy of science increasingly pointing out that scientific formulations have a degree of arbitrariness to them (in a similar manner to how you can express a single algorithm many many different ways)—rather than being either truth or not truth.
- vaags 10y agoI actually think ornithology could be quite useful to birds, if only they had the mind for it.
- M_Grey 10y agoMaybe it would just give them 'The Yips'.
- bobthechef 10y agoWell, he's partially correct. You don't study the philosophy of science (or philosophy for that matter) because of some utility it has in relation to something else (here, empirical science). You study it for its own sake. That's what theoretical sciences (including philosophy, though ethics is also practical) are about, truth for its own sake. That philosophy may have a beneficial influence on the practice of science is not negated, but it's important to understand the primary aim. As far as quotes are concerned, here's one from Feyerabend that explicitly names Feynman: "The withdrawal of philosophy into a 'professional' shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth" In other words, the ignorance of philosophy so prevalent among scientists has rendered them a class of boorish technicians. And it seems to be getting worse. Just look at Lawrence Krauss and friends.