11 ms·

Physics Needs Philosophy. Philosophy Needs Physics

97 points by lainon 8y ago

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
If anything this seems like an argument for even less philosophy in physics.
- Valmar 8y ago
  If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. That’s a strong and sweeping claim about a varied field, much of which is only concerned with experiments. Do you have anything like support for your claim? Remember that most of physics isn’t the highly popularized version of theoretical physics you may be familiar with. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. No... shit? That’s why physics is dependent on observation and experiments, and why there is a division between physics and mathematics. We’re talking over the internet because of the concrete, useful things brought to us by physics. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way. How is philosophy in any way a cure for this imagined loss of rigor? The problem with physics according to you is a divorce from reality, and your solution is something even more abstract, less amenable to rigor, and famously fluid? Huh?!
  - forkandwait 8y ago
    Science avoids the "cesspool of rigid dogma" by experimentation not by a priori argumentation. This point seems to be lost on a bunch of physicists these days who wallow in their derivations and forget that the fundamental revolution in modern science was the empirical method. The silly philosophers who got overthrown never knew it.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      I'm currently reading a book that talks a lot about the history of particle physics from 1950 to 2000. It amazes me how diverse the scientist's philosophical outlooks were, the only thing they agreed on in the end was empiricism. Given their success, I think that's a strong testament to the idea that philosophy doesn't "power" science the way math does. Here's a philosophy-free formulation of science: (i.e. one where scientists don't have to know any philosophy) - People set up symbol games with rules, that produce symbols. - They also set up physical machines that produce symbols. - When they match, they're happy. I think that does a good job of capturing why physics was able to progress so well without concurrent progress in philosophy. At the end of a day, a physicist will have a number on their scratch paper and a number on the meter and the goal is to get them to match. Mainly the role of philosophy is to guard them from any distractions that would confuse them away from doing that, and perhaps to bend their brains into coming up with good symbol games.
      - naasking 8y ago
        Except that's unnecessarily inefficient and still incomplete, since it doesn't tell you anything about what to do with multiple games that predict the same symbols, about what sort of games you should focus more effort on, what should you do with games that don't produce the right symbols, why you should or shouldn't modify game rules that fail such tests so they pass such tests, and more. Philosophy informs these questions. For instance, a scientific process modelled on Solomonoff induction would give you more insight on what kind of games you should set up and why, which games are better than others for the same symbol outputs and why, to what extend modifying a game is a valid approach, etc.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Mathematics can never truly model reality. While I don't disagree with your overall point, this claim is pure conjecture. Ironically, it depends on your philosophy of mathematics. If most physicists were mathematical Platonists, then your argument based on this claim falls apart.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      It's not conjecture at all - it's empirical fact. There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. Physics is made of limited toy models of complex systems. It makes accurate predictions over limited timescales under limited conditions. That's it. That's all you get. The limited accuracy doesn't keep the predictions from being useful over human-friendly timescales. But it takes an unrealistic act of hubris to believe physics does more than this, and that after a few hundred years of effort its predictions and frameworks are already perfectly accurate and perfectly correct.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. You're talking about simulation not modelling, which is what I and the GP are talking about. Totally different basket of fish. A model can 100% accurately represent the underlying system, and yet be practically incomputable. Intractability or incomputability are not hallmarks of modelling failure. Furthermore, you can't dismiss an a priori argument that reality is mathematical by an appeal to empiricism. In such a world, empiricism is itself a mathematical process.
        oldandtired 8y ago
        No model can ever be 100% accurate. Part of it being a model (whether a physical model or a theory, etc) is that it idealises certain aspects of that which is being modelled. Simulations are one form of model. So to call simulations a different basket of fish is a mistake. Every model attempts to predict the outcome of something. Nor can you say that reality is mathematical as an a priori argument or knowledge. It is simply a claim that is open to dispute. You are now dipping into philosophy. What would be much more accurate is that mathematics is a very useful tool in developing models of the universe around us. Certainly, there are various mathematical streams that give interesting insights in the physical world around us. But just because they are useful doesn't mean that they are correct.
lainon 8y ago
His lecture on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
amasad 8y ago
I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face. How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings? Take scientific realism for example. Roughly, whether our theories have a 1-1 mapping to reality. Are the entities described by, say physics, really exist? Say an electron? Or is it just a concept or a tool we use to understand the world? A common objection to scientific realism is Pessimistic Meta Induction. Roughly, we've been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we're likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong). I personally find Structural Realism to be a compelling argument -- it's sort of a "third way". Roughly, look, we've been wrong and theories change and evolve but the basic structure of our theories remains intact. Therefore the structure must map on to reality. Full discussion here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ That's merely one example of meta questions about physics that physics itself cannot fully answer and only philosophy can help us understand. I think part of the reason we don't have consesus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is because of this dismissal of philosophy by physicists.
- kazinator 8y ago
  I suspect that some scientists disregard philosophy as a separate primary academic activity. What they are doing has philosophical underpinnings; the have gone with particular underpinnings that work and don't wish to be wasting time re-examining them all the time and re-evaluating them against various other hoky possibilities. Science does have its answers about, say, what it means to know something about the world. Those answers work for science and scientists; scientists don't feel the need to idly debate about what it means to know something. Whether or not the entity in a theory really exists or is just a theoretical construct is something that can be probed. The "atom" of ancient Greece was just a theoretical construct based on the hand-waving hypothesis that division of matter into finer and finer pieces surely must bottom out when we reach some pieces which are indivisible. It's not the same thing as a modern atom. A theoretical construct becomes real when several layers of lower level constructs are empirically validated. I.e. since we can predict and observe the effects of sub-sub-atomic particles, doubting that an atom or molecule is a real entity is just short of lunacy. > physics itself cannot fully answer and only philosophy can help us understand Philosophy can't make us understand anything. Philosophy just wants to entice you into endless debating whereby what you understand is a growing body of philosophical hypotheses.
kashyapc 8y ago
I hope more scientists, specifically those in the public eye, don't blatantly berate philosophy "because they can't do experiments on important questions". The incident that jumps to memory involves the science "popularizer" Lawrence Krauss, who berated (although he has issued a non-apology) a philosopher of physics, David Albert, for critically reviewing Krauss's book: In response to a critical review by philosopher of physics David Albert, Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher” and told the Atlantic’s Ross Andersen that philosophers are threatened by science because “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”. Peter Woit, Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia, discusses (although, it is roughly six years old now) that here[1], with references. Here[2] is a comment from that same blog post sharing "examples of contributions from philosophy to progress in physics". Don't mean to single out Krauss on that; of course there are other well-known scientists too. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=1 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=... [2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=1#comment-109987 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=...
mrleiter 8y ago
Amongst other things I study Philosophy and find it fascinating. It can really open your mind to a variety of subjects, whether it is maths, physics, business or law. Doesn't matter. There is a whole area dedicated to technology [1]. I started studying it because I felt many important questions lingering in my head, but no satisfying answer. And the truth is: philosophy does not give to satisfying answers. But what it does give you is a sharper mind, a mind that can formulate the right questions, which can give you so much more insight. If you come from a technological side and have not wandered into philosophy yet, why not start with something analytical? Start with type theory by Bertrand Russell [2]. Then move onto his thoughts on religion and science [3]. In my eyes, philosophy is beauty and I would never want to miss it. It's very often a challenge, to challenge your own convictions, your thoughts, your way of living. If you let yourself "fall into" it, then there is a whole universe. Currently I am reading Ludwig Wittgensteins "Philosophical Investigations" [4]. It's almost a complete opposite of what he wrote decades earlier about language, that it is much more than a logical system. What is language? Why does it work? How does it work? It's a fascinating journey into the mind of another brilliant person (who also happens to be a pupil of Russell). So please, go ahead and enjoy philosophy :) I am all for it. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/ [3] https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.52360 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.52360 [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#PhilInve https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#PhilInve
- aidenn0 8y ago
  My experience with philosophy was all undergrad and peaked at the 300 level. That experience is what has led to my belief that the overwhelming majority of philosophy has little of value to offer me. I'm certainly open to being wrong about this; if I were to judge the field of computing solely by what is taught in undergraduate courses, I'd have a lower opinion of it. However I still got the impression that the most well grounded fields of philosophy are no more related to reality than the more ivory-tower fields of computer science.
Ptyx 8y ago
"The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect." Bertrand Russell
- Balgair 8y ago
  Great passage, thank you! I think some of the umbrage between the STEMy folks and the philosophers comes from the educational differences. Namely, math. STEMy folks, especially physicists, take a LOT of math. In my limited experiences, most philosophers do not have the calculus, let alone the matrix algebra, diff. eqs., Lagrangians, or the stats background (anecdata, so please rebuke!). Not that those things are required to do philosophy, but the lack of them limits the philosopher a lot. This is especially true in today's world filled with matrix algebra and stats, err... Machine Learning and AI. We constantly hear about the ethics of a self driving car near a school-bus, but it's all so much jawing discussion and shows an infantile understanding of the machines that are doing the driving. The lack of rigorous high level logic (Godel, Escher, Bach comes to mind) hinders many modern philosophers and puts their discipline off at the separate table for kids at Thanksgiving. If they want to be relevant in the modern world, they need to speak one of the important languages: math.
  - Schiphol 8y ago
tim333 8y ago
There seems a difference between philosophical thinking by physicists or at least people who understand the physics which can be useful and philosophising by people who don't which is often not.
ptr_void 8y ago
A related discussion for laymen like me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8
Animats 8y ago
Physics doesn't need philosophy. Physicists do. High energy physics and cosmology have run into the limits of what can be tested experimentally. Theorizing in advance of the data has become mainstream. Hence string theory. This is a jobs program, not science. The experimental action seems to be down at the low end, around absolute zero. Many new interesting results down there, some of which are turning into useful technologies.
dionian 8y ago
Newton's famous science book uses 'the philosophy of nature' in its title, not 'science'. I think those two terms tend to have different connotations these days.
nyc111 8y ago
But what is philosophy? To say that physics excludes philosophy is philosophy. Physics, at its core, is based on a philosophical statement. To choose empiricism as physics' main epistemological method is philosophy. Then there is physicists' discussions of the oldest scholastic and philosophical subjects of time and space. And physicists' love of cosmogony, another tradional philosophical topic. So why physicists claim that physics is not philosophy while the evidence shows that physics studies old philosophical topics? The reason is simple. To hate philosophy is a tradition of the profession. Why? Because physics became a profession when people who used to call themselves "natural philosophers" became "physicists". People like Faraday objected to this change because he thought this reduced physics to a profession like "pharmacists." Like most natural philosophers at the time Faraday considered himself a philosopher. And there is also the textbook story that physics was born as a "scientific revolution" against those scoundrels and enemies of science called peripatetic Aristotelian philosophers. Since most physicists' knowledge of history of science comes from sidebars in physics textbook they studied at school, they still fight this old fight: physics is the opposite of philosophy because philosophy is nothing but writing yet another commentary on Aristotle. Therefore physics cannot be philosophy.

97 points by lainon 8y ago

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago

If anything this seems like an argument for even less philosophy in physics.

Valmar 8y ago
If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. That’s a strong and sweeping claim about a varied field, much of which is only concerned with experiments. Do you have anything like support for your claim? Remember that most of physics isn’t the highly popularized version of theoretical physics you may be familiar with. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. No... shit? That’s why physics is dependent on observation and experiments, and why there is a division between physics and mathematics. We’re talking over the internet because of the concrete, useful things brought to us by physics. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way. How is philosophy in any way a cure for this imagined loss of rigor? The problem with physics according to you is a divorce from reality, and your solution is something even more abstract, less amenable to rigor, and famously fluid? Huh?!
- forkandwait 8y ago
  Science avoids the "cesspool of rigid dogma" by experimentation not by a priori argumentation. This point seems to be lost on a bunch of physicists these days who wallow in their derivations and forget that the fundamental revolution in modern science was the empirical method. The silly philosophers who got overthrown never knew it.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    I'm currently reading a book that talks a lot about the history of particle physics from 1950 to 2000. It amazes me how diverse the scientist's philosophical outlooks were, the only thing they agreed on in the end was empiricism. Given their success, I think that's a strong testament to the idea that philosophy doesn't "power" science the way math does. Here's a philosophy-free formulation of science: (i.e. one where scientists don't have to know any philosophy) - People set up symbol games with rules, that produce symbols. - They also set up physical machines that produce symbols. - When they match, they're happy. I think that does a good job of capturing why physics was able to progress so well without concurrent progress in philosophy. At the end of a day, a physicist will have a number on their scratch paper and a number on the meter and the goal is to get them to match. Mainly the role of philosophy is to guard them from any distractions that would confuse them away from doing that, and perhaps to bend their brains into coming up with good symbol games.
    - naasking 8y ago
      Except that's unnecessarily inefficient and still incomplete, since it doesn't tell you anything about what to do with multiple games that predict the same symbols, about what sort of games you should focus more effort on, what should you do with games that don't produce the right symbols, why you should or shouldn't modify game rules that fail such tests so they pass such tests, and more. Philosophy informs these questions. For instance, a scientific process modelled on Solomonoff induction would give you more insight on what kind of games you should set up and why, which games are better than others for the same symbol outputs and why, to what extend modifying a game is a valid approach, etc.
- naasking 8y ago
  > Mathematics can never truly model reality. While I don't disagree with your overall point, this claim is pure conjecture. Ironically, it depends on your philosophy of mathematics. If most physicists were mathematical Platonists, then your argument based on this claim falls apart.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    It's not conjecture at all - it's empirical fact. There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. Physics is made of limited toy models of complex systems. It makes accurate predictions over limited timescales under limited conditions. That's it. That's all you get. The limited accuracy doesn't keep the predictions from being useful over human-friendly timescales. But it takes an unrealistic act of hubris to believe physics does more than this, and that after a few hundred years of effort its predictions and frameworks are already perfectly accurate and perfectly correct.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. You're talking about simulation not modelling, which is what I and the GP are talking about. Totally different basket of fish. A model can 100% accurately represent the underlying system, and yet be practically incomputable. Intractability or incomputability are not hallmarks of modelling failure. Furthermore, you can't dismiss an a priori argument that reality is mathematical by an appeal to empiricism. In such a world, empiricism is itself a mathematical process.
      - oldandtired 8y ago
        No model can ever be 100% accurate. Part of it being a model (whether a physical model or a theory, etc) is that it idealises certain aspects of that which is being modelled. Simulations are one form of model. So to call simulations a different basket of fish is a mistake. Every model attempts to predict the outcome of something. Nor can you say that reality is mathematical as an a priori argument or knowledge. It is simply a claim that is open to dispute. You are now dipping into philosophy. What would be much more accurate is that mathematics is a very useful tool in developing models of the universe around us. Certainly, there are various mathematical streams that give interesting insights in the physical world around us. But just because they are useful doesn't mean that they are correct.

lainon 8y ago

His lecture on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

amasad 8y ago

I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face. How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings? Take scientific realism for example. Roughly, whether our theories have a 1-1 mapping to reality. Are the entities described by, say physics, really exist? Say an electron? Or is it just a concept or a tool we use to understand the world? A common objection to scientific realism is Pessimistic Meta Induction. Roughly, we've been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we're likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong). I personally find Structural Realism to be a compelling argument -- it's sort of a "third way". Roughly, look, we've been wrong and theories change and evolve but the basic structure of our theories remains intact. Therefore the structure must map on to reality. Full discussion here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ That's merely one example of meta questions about physics that physics itself cannot fully answer and only philosophy can help us understand. I think part of the reason we don't have consesus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is because of this dismissal of philosophy by physicists.

kazinator 8y ago
I suspect that some scientists disregard philosophy as a separate primary academic activity. What they are doing has philosophical underpinnings; the have gone with particular underpinnings that work and don't wish to be wasting time re-examining them all the time and re-evaluating them against various other hoky possibilities. Science does have its answers about, say, what it means to know something about the world. Those answers work for science and scientists; scientists don't feel the need to idly debate about what it means to know something. Whether or not the entity in a theory really exists or is just a theoretical construct is something that can be probed. The "atom" of ancient Greece was just a theoretical construct based on the hand-waving hypothesis that division of matter into finer and finer pieces surely must bottom out when we reach some pieces which are indivisible. It's not the same thing as a modern atom. A theoretical construct becomes real when several layers of lower level constructs are empirically validated. I.e. since we can predict and observe the effects of sub-sub-atomic particles, doubting that an atom or molecule is a real entity is just short of lunacy. > physics itself cannot fully answer and only philosophy can help us understand Philosophy can't make us understand anything. Philosophy just wants to entice you into endless debating whereby what you understand is a growing body of philosophical hypotheses.

kashyapc 8y ago

I hope more scientists, specifically those in the public eye, don't blatantly berate philosophy "because they can't do experiments on important questions". The incident that jumps to memory involves the science "popularizer" Lawrence Krauss, who berated (although he has issued a non-apology) a philosopher of physics, David Albert, for critically reviewing Krauss's book: In response to a critical review by philosopher of physics David Albert, Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher” and told the Atlantic’s Ross Andersen that philosophers are threatened by science because “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”. Peter Woit, Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia, discusses (although, it is roughly six years old now) that here[1], with references. Here[2] is a comment from that same blog post sharing "examples of contributions from philosophy to progress in physics". Don't mean to single out Krauss on that; of course there are other well-known scientists too. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=1 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=... [2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=1#comment-109987 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=...

mrleiter 8y ago

Amongst other things I study Philosophy and find it fascinating. It can really open your mind to a variety of subjects, whether it is maths, physics, business or law. Doesn't matter. There is a whole area dedicated to technology [1]. I started studying it because I felt many important questions lingering in my head, but no satisfying answer. And the truth is: philosophy does not give to satisfying answers. But what it does give you is a sharper mind, a mind that can formulate the right questions, which can give you so much more insight. If you come from a technological side and have not wandered into philosophy yet, why not start with something analytical? Start with type theory by Bertrand Russell [2]. Then move onto his thoughts on religion and science [3]. In my eyes, philosophy is beauty and I would never want to miss it. It's very often a challenge, to challenge your own convictions, your thoughts, your way of living. If you let yourself "fall into" it, then there is a whole universe. Currently I am reading Ludwig Wittgensteins "Philosophical Investigations" [4]. It's almost a complete opposite of what he wrote decades earlier about language, that it is much more than a logical system. What is language? Why does it work? How does it work? It's a fascinating journey into the mind of another brilliant person (who also happens to be a pupil of Russell). So please, go ahead and enjoy philosophy :) I am all for it. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/ [3] https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.52360 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.52360 [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#PhilInve https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#PhilInve

aidenn0 8y ago
My experience with philosophy was all undergrad and peaked at the 300 level. That experience is what has led to my belief that the overwhelming majority of philosophy has little of value to offer me. I'm certainly open to being wrong about this; if I were to judge the field of computing solely by what is taught in undergraduate courses, I'd have a lower opinion of it. However I still got the impression that the most well grounded fields of philosophy are no more related to reality than the more ivory-tower fields of computer science.

Ptyx 8y ago

"The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect." Bertrand Russell

Balgair 8y ago
Great passage, thank you! I think some of the umbrage between the STEMy folks and the philosophers comes from the educational differences. Namely, math. STEMy folks, especially physicists, take a LOT of math. In my limited experiences, most philosophers do not have the calculus, let alone the matrix algebra, diff. eqs., Lagrangians, or the stats background (anecdata, so please rebuke!). Not that those things are required to do philosophy, but the lack of them limits the philosopher a lot. This is especially true in today's world filled with matrix algebra and stats, err... Machine Learning and AI. We constantly hear about the ethics of a self driving car near a school-bus, but it's all so much jawing discussion and shows an infantile understanding of the machines that are doing the driving. The lack of rigorous high level logic (Godel, Escher, Bach comes to mind) hinders many modern philosophers and puts their discipline off at the separate table for kids at Thanksgiving. If they want to be relevant in the modern world, they need to speak one of the important languages: math.
- Schiphol 8y ago

tim333 8y ago

There seems a difference between philosophical thinking by physicists or at least people who understand the physics which can be useful and philosophising by people who don't which is often not.

ptr_void 8y ago

A related discussion for laymen like me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8

Animats 8y ago

Physics doesn't need philosophy. Physicists do. High energy physics and cosmology have run into the limits of what can be tested experimentally. Theorizing in advance of the data has become mainstream. Hence string theory. This is a jobs program, not science. The experimental action seems to be down at the low end, around absolute zero. Many new interesting results down there, some of which are turning into useful technologies.

dionian 8y ago

Newton's famous science book uses 'the philosophy of nature' in its title, not 'science'. I think those two terms tend to have different connotations these days.

nyc111 8y ago

But what is philosophy? To say that physics excludes philosophy is philosophy. Physics, at its core, is based on a philosophical statement. To choose empiricism as physics' main epistemological method is philosophy. Then there is physicists' discussions of the oldest scholastic and philosophical subjects of time and space. And physicists' love of cosmogony, another tradional philosophical topic. So why physicists claim that physics is not philosophy while the evidence shows that physics studies old philosophical topics? The reason is simple. To hate philosophy is a tradition of the profession. Why? Because physics became a profession when people who used to call themselves "natural philosophers" became "physicists". People like Faraday objected to this change because he thought this reduced physics to a profession like "pharmacists." Like most natural philosophers at the time Faraday considered himself a philosopher. And there is also the textbook story that physics was born as a "scientific revolution" against those scoundrels and enemies of science called peripatetic Aristotelian philosophers. Since most physicists' knowledge of history of science comes from sidebars in physics textbook they studied at school, they still fight this old fight: physics is the opposite of philosophy because philosophy is nothing but writing yet another commentary on Aristotle. Therefore physics cannot be philosophy.