3 ms·
Towards the end: > This doesn’t explain why philosophy is different to physics (and basically all of the other subjects). Why would you want to be like Socrat
by petters 10y ago
Towards the end:
> This doesn’t explain why
philosophy is different to physics (and basically all of the other subjects). Why would you want to be like Socrates, and not like Newton?
And I don't feel convinced the author has an answer.
- gumby 10y agoShe walks up to it but doesn't get there (yet -- it doesn't sound like she's read much philosophy yet). All other disciplines have split off / descended from philosophy (not just in the case of western/Greek philosophy) because "philosophy" essentially just means "science". I say "disciplines" because I mean the formal study of action; thus I include Engineering in this (the Greeks recognized a difference between tradecraft (techne) and theory of which modern engineering is the amalgam). She clearly hasn't yet been exposed to this (she writes, "The story I hear about philosophy—and I actually don’t know how much it is true—is that as bits of philosophy come to have any methodological tools other than ‘think about it’, they break off and become their own sciences."). This is precisely true, yet wrong! Think of it as abstraction: chemistry and physics broke off semi-independently; they are clearly highly related disciplines; yet trying to work with chemistry solely at the subatomic level would be a disaster. Likewise biology and ecology. I can very well believe that there are very interesting quantum sensing phenomena involved in how, say, a group of pitcher plants lure insects, phenomena which are very important to the integrity of the rainforest; yet trying to save it by working at that level would be futile. It's better to think of chemistry, physics, ecology, and religion as technologies (trades) and work with them. They practical use has shifted from the brain to the hand. These fields still have useful roots in philosophy and can make valuable use of "traditional" philosophical tools. For example it's clear that almost all (but not 100%!) of the arguments against worrying about anthropomorphic global climate change are made by people who have a very limited understanding of epistemology, which is probably the most important subject to understand for anyone in the practical sciences. Which brings her to the second part of her answer, which she also gives: "...suggest that in physics students are maybe missing out on learning the styles of thought that produce progress in physics.... might partially explain why Nobel prizewinner advisors beget Nobel prizewinner students." Well, umm, yes. If you study under someone who works on "X" you'll become skilled in "X". If your goal is the areas in which the Nobel committee award prizes, yes, this can help. But the problem is broader than that and applies to all disciplines. If you want to become a master craftsperson/artist like Noguchi, you should study under him (except he's dead) -- not to duplicate his work but to understand how he thought. This is no different in programming: we read others' code to learn how to think about programming. There are still many gems in the old literature, overlooked by cultural stigma. In fact the characterization of "old" is a misnomer. In my professional life I have frequently had recourse to Wittgenstein, Heidigger and Plato (sorry, I don't like Aristotle) and they are not only useful in shaping my direct work but when discussing it with coworkers -- essentially this understanding itself forms a techne.