3 ms·

Well, r/science and r/askscience are filled with "real" scientists and in general they're two of the calmest and most respectful communities on the site. You m

by stolio 12y ago

Well, r/science and r/askscience are filled with "real" scientists and in general they're two of the calmest and most respectful communities on the site. You may not want to admit it but that shows a lot. That's the joy of empiricism, winning arguments is no longer what it's all about. You've mentioned the "superiority complex" four times now? So lets look at it. Physicists show deep respect for many fields: chemistry, mathematics, computer science, earth science, materials science, biology, astronomy, engineering, etc. Even Feynman who was famously irreverent joked about how much top level physicists have to ingratiate themselves to mathematicians. I think your feelings are hurt because philosophy isn't in this group. > Actually you won't find many philosophers who are disrespectful of physics even outside their academic work. Oh, you want to restrict the conversation to academics insulting academic work? That's strange but OK. Scientists absolutely should be dismissive of the Philosophy of Science because when the field gets something right it tends to be 10-100 years behind and, probably because of the egos of the philosophers writing the books, it misdefines science to exaggerate the importance of philosophy. People who learn what science is from the Philosophy of Science get a picture in their head of a caricature of science and they become not just wrong, but aggressively and arrogantly wrong about what science is. Of course the scientific community pushes back, why should philosophy be allowed to teach people wrong ideas just to beef up their own self-importance?

foldr 12y ago
> I think your feelings are hurt because philosophy isn't in this group. Not really. I'm not a philosopher. Nor do I particularly need or desire the respect of physicists. Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless you point to something specific. Instead of doing that you've just, again, dismissed an entire field which you know very little about. See what I mean about that superiority complex? Perhaps you can point me to an example of a philosopher of science who (a) dismisses all of physics and (b) has never studied any physics. As far as who is "100 years behind", I'd say it's the other way round. Most modern scientists routinely characterize the scientific method using philosophical ideas from the first half of the 20th century.
- stolio 12y ago
  Back to harping on the superiority complex? > Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless you point to something specific. I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces. > Perhaps you can point me to an example of a philosopher of science who (a) dismisses all of physics and (b) has never studied any physics. I'm not sure why you're making this request. I've never claimed there's even one philosopher of science who has "dismissed all of physics" nor have I claimed there's one who has never studied any physics. > Most modern scientists routinely characterize the scientific method using philosophical ideas from the first half of the 20th century. You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? It's something that kids are taught in junior high, it's there mostly to give the scientifically illiterate a ballpark idea of what's going on. Yes, people generally make fools of themselves when they talk about it because they're philosophizing. It's usually only philosophers who think a precise definition of it is at all important. This brings us back to philosophers defining science in a way that the field of philosophy is important to it, but if a scientific idea depends upon a strict definition of "the scientific method" (or any other philosophical idea) it's probably a shitty scientific idea and it's probably wrong.
  - foldr 12y ago
    >I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces. I mean a specific reference to work in the philosophy of science. As far as I can tell you haven't read any, which is why I'm kind of baffled that you object to it so much. >I'm not sure why you're making this request. Because you are doing (a) and (b) with regard to the philosophy of science. I'm pointing out that you are being far more arrogant and dismissive with regard to the philosophy of science than any philosopher of science would be with regard to physics. >You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? That is largely the case within the philosophy of science, yes, since the demarcation problem is generally thought to be insoluble these days. But of course, given that science usually claims to have a special epistemological status, there is a genuine question as where this comes from. Working scientists' ideas about this tend to be very naive, and drawn largely from the philosophy of science of the first half of the 20th century.

by stolio 12y ago

foldr 12y ago

> I think your feelings are hurt because philosophy isn't in this group. Not really. I'm not a philosopher. Nor do I particularly need or desire the respect of physicists. Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless you point to something specific. Instead of doing that you've just, again, dismissed an entire field which you know very little about. See what I mean about that superiority complex? Perhaps you can point me to an example of a philosopher of science who (a) dismisses all of physics and (b) has never studied any physics. As far as who is "100 years behind", I'd say it's the other way round. Most modern scientists routinely characterize the scientific method using philosophical ideas from the first half of the 20th century.

stolio 12y ago
Back to harping on the superiority complex? > Now, if you're going to criticize work within the philosophy of science, it's impossible for me to respond unless you point to something specific. I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces. > Perhaps you can point me to an example of a philosopher of science who (a) dismisses all of physics and (b) has never studied any physics. I'm not sure why you're making this request. I've never claimed there's even one philosopher of science who has "dismissed all of physics" nor have I claimed there's one who has never studied any physics. > Most modern scientists routinely characterize the scientific method using philosophical ideas from the first half of the 20th century. You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? It's something that kids are taught in junior high, it's there mostly to give the scientifically illiterate a ballpark idea of what's going on. Yes, people generally make fools of themselves when they talk about it because they're philosophizing. It's usually only philosophers who think a precise definition of it is at all important. This brings us back to philosophers defining science in a way that the field of philosophy is important to it, but if a scientific idea depends upon a strict definition of "the scientific method" (or any other philosophical idea) it's probably a shitty scientific idea and it's probably wrong.
- foldr 12y ago
  >I did. The quality of the students the philosophy of science produces. I mean a specific reference to work in the philosophy of science. As far as I can tell you haven't read any, which is why I'm kind of baffled that you object to it so much. >I'm not sure why you're making this request. Because you are doing (a) and (b) with regard to the philosophy of science. I'm pointing out that you are being far more arrogant and dismissive with regard to the philosophy of science than any philosopher of science would be with regard to physics. >You do realize that nobody really talks or cares about the scientific method, right? That is largely the case within the philosophy of science, yes, since the demarcation problem is generally thought to be insoluble these days. But of course, given that science usually claims to have a special epistemological status, there is a genuine question as where this comes from. Working scientists' ideas about this tend to be very naive, and drawn largely from the philosophy of science of the first half of the 20th century.