4 ms·

YES! And if it enlarges one's worldview, it's because Philosophy stands as the root, the superset if you will, of all other areas of knowledge, art, science, et

YES! And if it enlarges one's worldview, it's because Philosophy stands as the root, the superset if you will, of all other areas of knowledge, art, science, etc. For example, if Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem explores the boundaries of what Mathematics can know and we want to seriously understand what this means, then we are entering Philosophy.

hilbert42 2y ago
Exactly, Philosophy does stand at the root. I often wonder why some—perhaps all too many—scientists (especially physicists) dismiss Philosophy as being irrelevant and pooh-pooh its ideas. For me, Philosophy and Science are and have always been complementary, after all Science was once called Natural Philosophy. I say that as someone whose main profession is electronics (it pays the bills). Re Gödel: I'd like to have been in the same room as Russell and Whitehead when they were reading Gödel's Incompleteness papers of 1930/'31 for the first time. In the light of Principia Mathematica one wonders what they must have thought. There are some references† but it's a pity they aren't more enlightening. Perhaps the answer is here in the words of the man himself (it's very hard not to think so): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaB8AFOhZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaB8AFOhZo. For those who doubt the value of Philosophy then these few words of inspirational wisdom ought to put their minds at rest. ___ † https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29288/what-sources-discuss-russells-response-to-g%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorems https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29288/what-so..., https://www.jstor.org/stable/44083314 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44083314
- mistermann 2y ago
  > I often wonder why some—perhaps all too many—scientists (especially physicists) dismiss Philosophy as being irrelevant and pooh-pooh its ideas. Should this be surprising? What does one learn in Physics that could give one the ideas and methods to identify and escape the Naive Realism that default consciousness/reality is composed of? Is this not a bit like being surprised that philosophers can't do physics? That's one aspect. Another aspect is cognitive training: if you are a member of a community, you are subject to indoctrination of the beliefs of the ideology, and the beliefs of the ideology cannot be understood to be false/flawed without the right knowledge and methods. What we should wonder about imho is why things are like this, because this problem is fundamental, it is always and everywhere.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  As a Physicist, let me explain my own viewpoint, not necessarily shared by other physicists. Think of musicians. Most of the great musicians across never studied music theory, and never studied philosophy relevant to music in some way. But every good musician practices philosophy. They ask, what is good music, what does it mean to produce good music? What is relationship of my audience with my music? Why does this kind of music produce these kinds of emotions? And they discuss this with other musicians quite a lot. They are engaging with philosophy as it concerns their profession. Physicists/scientists also do this. Some more than others. What do the results of this experiment truly mean? Can we trust the results? What criteria should we use to judge a new theory? These discussions happen all the time. Physicists are obviously not opposed to any of this because it is part of their profession. What philosophers mean, when they say, why do Physicists not read the stuff we want you to read. And invariably that stuff is a hundred or five hundred years old. Physicists love and revere Einstein, so they take his words and rewrite it and improve it a thousand times, so that a century later we have a far far far more sophisticated philosophical understanding of general relativity and, say, entanglement, than he ever did. This is what Physicists are interested in. Improving the quality of the body of our knowledge and beliefs. If philosophers want Physicists to read philosophy, at minimum, they will have to rewrite and improve the stuff of dusty old men, and make strong connections with modern physics research. And ask people to read this new stuff.

hilbert42 2y ago

Exactly, Philosophy does stand at the root. I often wonder why some—perhaps all too many—scientists (especially physicists) dismiss Philosophy as being irrelevant and pooh-pooh its ideas. For me, Philosophy and Science are and have always been complementary, after all Science was once called Natural Philosophy. I say that as someone whose main profession is electronics (it pays the bills). Re Gödel: I'd like to have been in the same room as Russell and Whitehead when they were reading Gödel's Incompleteness papers of 1930/'31 for the first time. In the light of Principia Mathematica one wonders what they must have thought. There are some references† but it's a pity they aren't more enlightening. Perhaps the answer is here in the words of the man himself (it's very hard not to think so): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaB8AFOhZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihaB8AFOhZo. For those who doubt the value of Philosophy then these few words of inspirational wisdom ought to put their minds at rest. ___ † https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29288/what-sources-discuss-russells-response-to-g%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorems https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29288/what-so..., https://www.jstor.org/stable/44083314 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44083314

mistermann 2y ago
> I often wonder why some—perhaps all too many—scientists (especially physicists) dismiss Philosophy as being irrelevant and pooh-pooh its ideas. Should this be surprising? What does one learn in Physics that could give one the ideas and methods to identify and escape the Naive Realism that default consciousness/reality is composed of? Is this not a bit like being surprised that philosophers can't do physics? That's one aspect. Another aspect is cognitive training: if you are a member of a community, you are subject to indoctrination of the beliefs of the ideology, and the beliefs of the ideology cannot be understood to be false/flawed without the right knowledge and methods. What we should wonder about imho is why things are like this, because this problem is fundamental, it is always and everywhere.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
As a Physicist, let me explain my own viewpoint, not necessarily shared by other physicists. Think of musicians. Most of the great musicians across never studied music theory, and never studied philosophy relevant to music in some way. But every good musician practices philosophy. They ask, what is good music, what does it mean to produce good music? What is relationship of my audience with my music? Why does this kind of music produce these kinds of emotions? And they discuss this with other musicians quite a lot. They are engaging with philosophy as it concerns their profession. Physicists/scientists also do this. Some more than others. What do the results of this experiment truly mean? Can we trust the results? What criteria should we use to judge a new theory? These discussions happen all the time. Physicists are obviously not opposed to any of this because it is part of their profession. What philosophers mean, when they say, why do Physicists not read the stuff we want you to read. And invariably that stuff is a hundred or five hundred years old. Physicists love and revere Einstein, so they take his words and rewrite it and improve it a thousand times, so that a century later we have a far far far more sophisticated philosophical understanding of general relativity and, say, entanglement, than he ever did. This is what Physicists are interested in. Improving the quality of the body of our knowledge and beliefs. If philosophers want Physicists to read philosophy, at minimum, they will have to rewrite and improve the stuff of dusty old men, and make strong connections with modern physics research. And ask people to read this new stuff.