3 ms·

There are a number of symptoms & causes to these issues. One root cause is the systematic removal of the Philosophy of Science from scientific discourse. Philos

There are a number of symptoms & causes to these issues. One root cause is the systematic removal of the Philosophy of Science from scientific discourse. Philosophy is crucial in correctly interpreting the meaning of truth, identifying presuppositions, & relating models, results of experiments/studies within the greater context (e.g. unknown unknowns) of reality.

buboard 8y ago
au contraire, philosophy of science, (specifically only the feminist & structuralist part of it) has been widely adopted. The problem is all the other fields were left back.
jstewartmobile 8y ago
From the interviews I've seen, Einstein and Feynman spent far more time discussing philosophy than physics. And going by Newton's papers, every worked-out fluxion could be accompanied by a dive into theology or the occult. That being said, I doubt that's the missing element. I'd blame it on the fact that most researchers are not free. They need the job; their peers also want the job. The brain only has so many cycles. I don't see how anyone can do their best work in a state of perpetual vigilance--so much backstabbing!
- briantakita 8y ago
  Newton, Einstein, & Feynman are also dead. All three of these scientists were connected to the upper echelons of society, had enormous cultural influence, & designed their models based on a philosophy. I think you are referring to lower level scientists who have to fit within the hegemonic framework. Same thing happens in programming (e.g. corporations want React developers instead of developers who can develop the most innovative & profitable idea). Scientists used to be natural philosophers. Rigorous philosophical discussion has been slowly removed from the sciences in favor of consensus & presenting a unified political front. Pragmatics & predetermined social agendas has taken over. The synical side of me says: "this is by design. Science coopted to become a tool of propaganda." Giving the practitioners of Science the benefit of the doubt: "science is not practiced in a cultural vacuum. We build models based on our common understanding & interpret results based on our models."
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    Unfortunately, not a new situation. Nearly every insight which falls short of total incontrovertible victory--from Semelweis to Yudkin--is an invitation to a knee-capping by your peers.

buboard 8y ago

au contraire, philosophy of science, (specifically only the feminist & structuralist part of it) has been widely adopted. The problem is all the other fields were left back.

jstewartmobile 8y ago

From the interviews I've seen, Einstein and Feynman spent far more time discussing philosophy than physics. And going by Newton's papers, every worked-out fluxion could be accompanied by a dive into theology or the occult. That being said, I doubt that's the missing element. I'd blame it on the fact that most researchers are not free. They need the job; their peers also want the job. The brain only has so many cycles. I don't see how anyone can do their best work in a state of perpetual vigilance--so much backstabbing!

briantakita 8y ago
Newton, Einstein, & Feynman are also dead. All three of these scientists were connected to the upper echelons of society, had enormous cultural influence, & designed their models based on a philosophy. I think you are referring to lower level scientists who have to fit within the hegemonic framework. Same thing happens in programming (e.g. corporations want React developers instead of developers who can develop the most innovative & profitable idea). Scientists used to be natural philosophers. Rigorous philosophical discussion has been slowly removed from the sciences in favor of consensus & presenting a unified political front. Pragmatics & predetermined social agendas has taken over. The synical side of me says: "this is by design. Science coopted to become a tool of propaganda." Giving the practitioners of Science the benefit of the doubt: "science is not practiced in a cultural vacuum. We build models based on our common understanding & interpret results based on our models."
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  Unfortunately, not a new situation. Nearly every insight which falls short of total incontrovertible victory--from Semelweis to Yudkin--is an invitation to a knee-capping by your peers.