3 ms·
>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. There are many things in modern philos
by GoblinSlayer 3y ago
>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy.
There are many things in modern philosophy. You don't make claims based on ignorance, do you? How modern physics is different from such a modern philosophic idea as compatibilism?
>This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a professional physicist.
There are many kinds of professional physicists too. Some can live without philosophy, some can live without much math too: the computer will do math for them. Arguably philosophic ignorance delays development of fundamental physics.
- dventimi 3y agoName one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that branch of physics, philosophy classes are a required part of the graduate curriculum.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThat's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem. Insurance against it IRL is polymorphism: some people won't be ignorant, but you suggest uniform ignorance.
- dventimi 3y ago> That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem. I choose to believe that if you could name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy, you would have named it. Therefore, I take your comment to mean that you can't name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy. That's consistent with the possibility that no such branch exists. Put another way, philosophy is utterly useless for physics, which is something I wrote elsewhere in this thread
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]