4 ms·

I appreciate your point about the historical precedent of interdisciplinary respectfulness by great physicists. However, it's worth noting that this respectfuln

by 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.

by avn2109 12y ago

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.