4 ms·

> (And sure, some of these philosophers don't always know as much about the physics as they should, but their ignorance in this respect is usually nothing in co

by stolio 12y ago

> (And sure, some of these philosophers don't always know as much about the physics as they should, but their ignorance in this respect is usually nothing in comparison to modern physicists' ignorance of philosophy.) I realize you're just debate-baiting, but this isn't anywhere near a symmetric situation. For the philosopher physics is a bridge to reality, it's a source of invaluable information. I've seen no evidence philosophy has anything to offer the physicist that's of equal importance.

foldr 12y ago
>For the philosopher physics is a bridge to reality, The claim that physics plays that special role within philosophy is itself a philosophical claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study some philosophy! More generally, your attitude is one that's typical of physicists these days, who tend to approach the philosophical literature with a huge superiority complex. That's not an attitude that was shared by the 20th century's greatest physicists.
- avn2109 12y ago
  I appreciate your point about the historical precedent of interdisciplinary respectfulness by great physicists. However, it's worth noting that this respectfulness was far from unanimous. For example, no less an eminence than John Wheeler is on video saying, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." [0] Also, physics _is_ special, and does "play a special role" in all topics pertaining to reality, because it is by definition falsifiable by experiment. Many disciplines (including but obviously not limited to philosophy) lack that falsifiability, and are therefore lower on the epistemological totem pole. In these sorts of debates, it's sometimes helpful to see if claims become ridiculous when you replace "philosophy" with some known-silly ideology. >>"The claim that physics plays that special role within scientology is itself a scientological claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study Dianetics and get audited by Tom Cruise!" That sounds as ridiculous as it is, because it's broadly circular. And the core logic there doesn't get any better when we switch back to "philosophy." [0] http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/fall2009/wheeler.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/fall2009/wheeler.cf...
  - foldr 12y ago
    >and are therefore lower on the epistemological totem pole. Again, that is a philosophical position (logical positivism, basically) that would have to be justified by philosophical argument. It's actually a position that's very difficult to justify, as we found out in the first half of the 20th century. >"The claim that physics plays that special role within scientology is itself a scientological claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study Dianetics and get audited by Tom Cruise!" Surely if you wanted to show that physics played a special role within scientology, then you would indeed have to study scientology. I feel like you didn't even bother to read through that example after you'd constructed it. In any case, your weird example does nothing to demonstrate any circularity in my original claim. The point is simply that if you take a philosophical position -- as you have on the epistemological role of physics -- then you have to justify it. I don't know of any way of justifying philosophical positions without making philosophical arguments. If you think that you have one, then let's see it. > no less an eminence than John Wheeler is on video saying, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." Who should be doing philosophy is a separate question. Wheeler, as you note, agrees that philosophy is very important.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- stolio 12y ago
  > The claim that physics plays that special role within philosophy is itself a philosophical claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study some philosophy! Only if I want to justify it to philosophers, but since I'm more interested in understanding the world I live in I'll just continue in my ignorance. > More generally, your attitude is one that's typical of physicists these days, who tend to approach the philosophical literature with a huge superiority complex. That's a bit rich. It is funny how the "other side" always looks a little ridiculous. > With enough time science washes all of those things away. That's not an attitude that was shared by the 20th century's greatest physicists. Even if that wasn't an exaggeration, so what? Newton was an alchemist. Maxwell was a Christian. Oppenheimer and Schroedinger studied eastern philosophy. A lot of physicists have liked western philosophy. What I haven't seen is evidence that makes me think wow, studying philosophy really payed off for those guys I should do that too! Instead it looks like another idiosyncracy.
  - foldr 12y ago
    I think your views on philosophy are, for reasons that I don't entirely understand, too strong to be changed. If you're not willing to give the subject a chance, then of course you will never see any value in it. But simply dismissing the subject while knowing nothing about it does reflect a superiority complex of a certain sort. One that modern physicists constantly feel the need to reinforce by pissing all over "lesser" disciplines.
    - stolio 12y ago
      Are you really unaware of how rude philosophers are to pretty much everybody? Just because the insults are often shrouded in intellectualism it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. Science has some jerks, too, but I'd take them over philosophy's jerks any day of the week. And I do call out the science jerks because of how unproductive it is. Take reddit for example. Look at the ratio of r/badphilosophy subscribers to r/philosophy (8,800/2,300,000 = .0038) vs. the ratio or r/badscience to r/science (5,600/7,500,000 = .00075). A given subscriber to r/philosophy is 20x as likely as their r/science counterpart to dedicate a portion of their time to chastising and bullying their "inferiors." Worse, 10 of 13 r/philosophy moderators are also mods of r/badphilosophy so the two are intimately connected. Zero of the r/science mods are mods of r/badscience. At least on reddit it's philosophers who are the bullies. Clearly there are problems of selection bias here, but these are also communities measured in the millions. If this isn't representative of the field of philosophy as a whole I don't know what to say because they are representing you to the 15+ million people who visit the site each month. (edit: really gonna downvote this literally before it's even a minute old? Par for the course I suppose...)

by stolio 12y ago

foldr 12y ago

>For the philosopher physics is a bridge to reality, The claim that physics plays that special role within philosophy is itself a philosophical claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study some philosophy! More generally, your attitude is one that's typical of physicists these days, who tend to approach the philosophical literature with a huge superiority complex. That's not an attitude that was shared by the 20th century's greatest physicists.

avn2109 12y ago
I appreciate your point about the historical precedent of interdisciplinary respectfulness by great physicists. However, it's worth noting that this respectfulness was far from unanimous. For example, no less an eminence than John Wheeler is on video saying, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." [0] Also, physics _is_ special, and does "play a special role" in all topics pertaining to reality, because it is by definition falsifiable by experiment. Many disciplines (including but obviously not limited to philosophy) lack that falsifiability, and are therefore lower on the epistemological totem pole. In these sorts of debates, it's sometimes helpful to see if claims become ridiculous when you replace "philosophy" with some known-silly ideology. >>"The claim that physics plays that special role within scientology is itself a scientological claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study Dianetics and get audited by Tom Cruise!" That sounds as ridiculous as it is, because it's broadly circular. And the core logic there doesn't get any better when we switch back to "philosophy." [0] http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/fall2009/wheeler.cfm http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/fall2009/wheeler.cf...
- foldr 12y ago
  >and are therefore lower on the epistemological totem pole. Again, that is a philosophical position (logical positivism, basically) that would have to be justified by philosophical argument. It's actually a position that's very difficult to justify, as we found out in the first half of the 20th century. >"The claim that physics plays that special role within scientology is itself a scientological claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study Dianetics and get audited by Tom Cruise!" Surely if you wanted to show that physics played a special role within scientology, then you would indeed have to study scientology. I feel like you didn't even bother to read through that example after you'd constructed it. In any case, your weird example does nothing to demonstrate any circularity in my original claim. The point is simply that if you take a philosophical position -- as you have on the epistemological role of physics -- then you have to justify it. I don't know of any way of justifying philosophical positions without making philosophical arguments. If you think that you have one, then let's see it. > no less an eminence than John Wheeler is on video saying, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." Who should be doing philosophy is a separate question. Wheeler, as you note, agrees that philosophy is very important.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stolio 12y ago
> The claim that physics plays that special role within philosophy is itself a philosophical claim. If you want to justify it you'll have to study some philosophy! Only if I want to justify it to philosophers, but since I'm more interested in understanding the world I live in I'll just continue in my ignorance. > More generally, your attitude is one that's typical of physicists these days, who tend to approach the philosophical literature with a huge superiority complex. That's a bit rich. It is funny how the "other side" always looks a little ridiculous. > With enough time science washes all of those things away. That's not an attitude that was shared by the 20th century's greatest physicists. Even if that wasn't an exaggeration, so what? Newton was an alchemist. Maxwell was a Christian. Oppenheimer and Schroedinger studied eastern philosophy. A lot of physicists have liked western philosophy. What I haven't seen is evidence that makes me think wow, studying philosophy really payed off for those guys I should do that too! Instead it looks like another idiosyncracy.
- foldr 12y ago
  I think your views on philosophy are, for reasons that I don't entirely understand, too strong to be changed. If you're not willing to give the subject a chance, then of course you will never see any value in it. But simply dismissing the subject while knowing nothing about it does reflect a superiority complex of a certain sort. One that modern physicists constantly feel the need to reinforce by pissing all over "lesser" disciplines.
  - stolio 12y ago
    Are you really unaware of how rude philosophers are to pretty much everybody? Just because the insults are often shrouded in intellectualism it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. Science has some jerks, too, but I'd take them over philosophy's jerks any day of the week. And I do call out the science jerks because of how unproductive it is. Take reddit for example. Look at the ratio of r/badphilosophy subscribers to r/philosophy (8,800/2,300,000 = .0038) vs. the ratio or r/badscience to r/science (5,600/7,500,000 = .00075). A given subscriber to r/philosophy is 20x as likely as their r/science counterpart to dedicate a portion of their time to chastising and bullying their "inferiors." Worse, 10 of 13 r/philosophy moderators are also mods of r/badphilosophy so the two are intimately connected. Zero of the r/science mods are mods of r/badscience. At least on reddit it's philosophers who are the bullies. Clearly there are problems of selection bias here, but these are also communities measured in the millions. If this isn't representative of the field of philosophy as a whole I don't know what to say because they are representing you to the 15+ million people who visit the site each month. (edit: really gonna downvote this literally before it's even a minute old? Par for the course I suppose...)