4 ms·

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Feynman nailed it imo.

amasad 8y ago
Even if I conceded that philosophy of science is not useful for scientist (I doubt that's the case) my comment was mainly concerned about the layman's understand of the world. While "Shutup and calculate" is useful for invention and technology it's detrimental to our understanding of the world which, arguably, is why science was so useful to start with. For an interesting discussion on the power of explanations check out David Duetsch's work in the book the Beginning of Infinity. He claims that explanations are fundamental to progress.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Other than book deals, tv spots and entertainment, what have all of the many Interpretations of QM gotten us? By contrast what has shut up and calculate gotten us? All modern electronics for a start...
  - goatlover 8y ago
    Good thing Einstein didn't just shut up and calculate.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Says you, by claiming credit for philosophy in his work. Ironically if Einstein had taken a non-philosophical view of QM maybe his genius could have been applied to its advancement rather than disproven railings against it on philosophical grounds.
      - goatlover 8y ago
        Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect helped inspire the QM revolution. But I had Relativity in mind, the thing he's most well known for. As for his later life, he was searching for the TOE, which is an ongoing thing. Problem is that harmonizing gravity with QM has proved very difficult. As for debating QM, it's quite possible that will eventually lead to a new understanding. That's why shut and calculate is insufficient to advance the field. You need the theoretical side spinning out ideas for the shut and calculate types to carry out experiments and plug the data into equations. Some of these ideas range into the metaphysical side of things until they can be empirically tested.
      - smaddox 8y ago
        I assume you're talking about "God does not play dice". Einstein's famous quote may yet be proven correct. Everettian theory (many-worlds interpretation), Bohmian Mechanics, and Exotic Probability theory are all deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. My money is on Exotic Probability theory winning out, with a lower level physical theory (perhaps causal networks?), providing the exotic probabilities. Einstein was fully capable of discovering exotic probability theory, having contributed greatly to the development of bosonic statistics. Unfortunately, he did not, and we've been floundering about with string theory and the like ever since his famous quote.
- goatlover 8y ago
  Add in a Feynman quote: "In fact it is necessary for the very existence that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."
ppseafield 8y ago
Back when I was in college, I saw on reddit this quote and a wonderful response to it, which I'll try to recount it fully. There is a species of birds in Europe that time their eggs' hatchings to a particular point in spring, which coincides with the hatching time of a particular type of greenworm that the birds and their young eat. Because of global warming, the timing of these birds' egg hatching has not lined up as well with the greenworms, and their population as a consequence is in decline. If the birds examined their own methods of timing the egg laying and hatching, they could realign it with the greenworms, thus allowing them to improve the survival rates of their young. Thus, orthinology can be useful to birds, and as per Feynman's argument by analogy, philosophy can be useful to scientists. :) Philosophy of Science concerns itself with the process of doing scientific work, how to do it well, what determines scientific and unscientific work, what kinds of traits make a given scientific theory better than another. At a time where scientific fields are becoming more concerned with reproducibility, papers are published just to inflate citation numbers, junk journals abound, pressure exists to simply publish quantity... Does it not seem like examining the method and process of scientific work is becoming more necessary?
- xelxebar 8y ago
  Ooh. My curiosity is piqued. What bird is this? If like to read up a bit more.
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    I found the comment! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/esfrv/im_an_ornithologist_ama/c1an53m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/esfrv/im_an_ornitholo... The comment wasn't exactly as I remembered it, but it says more or less the same thing.
theaeolist 8y ago
That ornithology is not useful to birds says more about the birds than about ornithology.
- Cyphase 8y ago
  Indeed. Is anthropology useful to humans? I hope we'd all agree that it is, and would be even/especially if conducted by aliens (assuming they shared their findings, which would be a massive violation of the Prime Directive).

Even if I conceded that philosophy of science is not useful for scientist (I doubt that's the case) my comment was mainly concerned about the layman's understand of the world. While "Shutup and calculate" is useful for invention and technology it's detrimental to our understanding of the world which, arguably, is why science was so useful to start with. For an interesting discussion on the power of explanations check out David Duetsch's work in the book the Beginning of Infinity. He claims that explanations are fundamental to progress.

GW150914 8y ago
Other than book deals, tv spots and entertainment, what have all of the many Interpretations of QM gotten us? By contrast what has shut up and calculate gotten us? All modern electronics for a start...
- goatlover 8y ago
  Good thing Einstein didn't just shut up and calculate.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Says you, by claiming credit for philosophy in his work. Ironically if Einstein had taken a non-philosophical view of QM maybe his genius could have been applied to its advancement rather than disproven railings against it on philosophical grounds.
    - goatlover 8y ago
      Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect helped inspire the QM revolution. But I had Relativity in mind, the thing he's most well known for. As for his later life, he was searching for the TOE, which is an ongoing thing. Problem is that harmonizing gravity with QM has proved very difficult. As for debating QM, it's quite possible that will eventually lead to a new understanding. That's why shut and calculate is insufficient to advance the field. You need the theoretical side spinning out ideas for the shut and calculate types to carry out experiments and plug the data into equations. Some of these ideas range into the metaphysical side of things until they can be empirically tested.
    - smaddox 8y ago
      I assume you're talking about "God does not play dice". Einstein's famous quote may yet be proven correct. Everettian theory (many-worlds interpretation), Bohmian Mechanics, and Exotic Probability theory are all deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. My money is on Exotic Probability theory winning out, with a lower level physical theory (perhaps causal networks?), providing the exotic probabilities. Einstein was fully capable of discovering exotic probability theory, having contributed greatly to the development of bosonic statistics. Unfortunately, he did not, and we've been floundering about with string theory and the like ever since his famous quote.
goatlover 8y ago
Add in a Feynman quote: "In fact it is necessary for the very existence that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."

ppseafield 8y ago

Back when I was in college, I saw on reddit this quote and a wonderful response to it, which I'll try to recount it fully. There is a species of birds in Europe that time their eggs' hatchings to a particular point in spring, which coincides with the hatching time of a particular type of greenworm that the birds and their young eat. Because of global warming, the timing of these birds' egg hatching has not lined up as well with the greenworms, and their population as a consequence is in decline. If the birds examined their own methods of timing the egg laying and hatching, they could realign it with the greenworms, thus allowing them to improve the survival rates of their young. Thus, orthinology can be useful to birds, and as per Feynman's argument by analogy, philosophy can be useful to scientists. :) Philosophy of Science concerns itself with the process of doing scientific work, how to do it well, what determines scientific and unscientific work, what kinds of traits make a given scientific theory better than another. At a time where scientific fields are becoming more concerned with reproducibility, papers are published just to inflate citation numbers, junk journals abound, pressure exists to simply publish quantity... Does it not seem like examining the method and process of scientific work is becoming more necessary?

xelxebar 8y ago
Ooh. My curiosity is piqued. What bird is this? If like to read up a bit more.
- ppseafield 8y ago
  I found the comment! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/esfrv/im_an_ornithologist_ama/c1an53m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/esfrv/im_an_ornitholo... The comment wasn't exactly as I remembered it, but it says more or less the same thing.

theaeolist 8y ago

That ornithology is not useful to birds says more about the birds than about ornithology.

Cyphase 8y ago
Indeed. Is anthropology useful to humans? I hope we'd all agree that it is, and would be even/especially if conducted by aliens (assuming they shared their findings, which would be a massive violation of the Prime Directive).