Philosophers, Physicists and Cranks

INRM said:
I think sometimes the question "Should we do it?" (which is more the domain of philosophers) should be be asked rather than just "Can we?" (which is more the domain of scientists).

Not to say that scientists don't ponder the ethics of certain issues sometimes. But I think in general scientists tend to ask "Can we" more than "Should we". Additionally I think some scientists tend to be a little short-sighted.

I do find it disturbing, though that people in the science fields seem to show an increasing disdain for philosophers and an increasing desire to be "free" of them.


INRM
Click to expand...
The 'Should we do it?' question is indeed in the domain of philosophy but in moral philosophy not the philosophy of science. Agreed, it should be considered by scientists. It is a difficult problem and should probably be decided by politicians and/or the public. In the UK we have just had such a case with discussion of stem cells and human embryos. It was interesting, and worrying, that rather than a well argued discussion it became religious.

Can't see why there is any problem with scientists showing disdain for philosophers. Unless they show some utility, what are they worth, certainly nothing to a scientist.
 
lenny said:
would you accept a statement like that as evidence if it came from the woo-side?
Click to expand...

If someone pompously said 'The study of physics is the study of physics' I wouldn't treat it as evidence, I would just treat it with derision. :)
 
leon_heller said:
I didn't think that was the purpose of philosophy. It's more to do with 'how', such as Popper's ideas on scientific methodology.
Click to expand...
john wheeler used to claim the "how does it come to be that ...?" as the question scientists might use to replace the "why" question. philosophers of science (who know their science) don't seem to go for the "Why" question, or the "How" question, but they are sometimes useful when they ask variations on the "what does it mean to say that" question.
 
Skwinty said:
Even the most profound philosopher when sitting eating his dinner, hasn't any difficulty making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak, but it still implies the existence of the steak, which he is able to lift by the fort to his mouth. The philosophers that were unable to make this analysis and idea have fallen by the wayside through hunger. Richard Feynman



This must have been Feynman's buffoonery at play here
Click to expand...

Surely your joking about Mr Feynman :)
 
Acleron said:
Can't see why there is any problem with scientists showing disdain for philosophers. Unless they show some utility, what are they worth, ...
Click to expand...

agreed (given the "unless")

what do you think of bertrand russell? (whitehead, von mises...)

or mathematicans for that matter?
 
Last edited:
lenny said:
agreed (given the "unless")

what do you think of bertrand russell? (whitehead, von mises...)

or mathematicans for that matter?
Click to expand...

Bertrand Russell the mathematician or the philosopher?
From my question, yoy can probably see that I admire mathematicians. :D
 
Acleron said:
Bertrand Russell the mathematician or the philosopher?
From my question, yoy can probably see that I admire mathematicians. :D
Click to expand...
i probably can, yes.

but i am unsure how to do that decomposition, and doubt any meaningful sense of linear superposition exists. so unless you can supply one, i'll have to stay with Russell the man.

(partitioning him by age does not bode well for science, as i recall)
 
In a beautifully understandable universe

is there a difference between a beautifully understandable universe and a beautifully describable universe?
 
Perhaps I'm over generalizing, but in my view a large part of the problem with modern philosophers of physics is that they rarely understand the topic well enough to be able to say anything intelligent. Even QM - invented a century ago - is difficult enough that few philosophers seem to be able to come to grips with it. More timely and interesting topics - modern cosmology, string theory, the anthropic principle, which ought to be their bread and butter - seem totally out of reach for them.

As for cranks/crackpots, I think the best way to characterize them is that they believe everyone that came before them was wrong. In real loony crackpots this just means they haven't studied or don't understand the subject (but think they can replace it). Such people are very common and totally uninteresting. The more interesting ones are smart, know the subject, and are just iconoclasts or are wedded to some fringe theory. Those are good to have around, at least in moderation.
 
sol invictus said:
Perhaps I'm over generalizing, but in my view a large part of the problem with modern philosophers of physics is that they rarely understand the topic well enough to be able to say anything intelligent.
Click to expand...
i am happy to ignore those. (along with scientists in the same boat.)

i agree with you that this appears to be a large part of the problem (in both camps).
 
Acleron said:
Oh yes and also between those and a describably beautiful universe. :D
Click to expand...

oh yes, very nice. i'll have one of those please.

but as you answer yes, it seems there may be a bit of a philosopher in you (no offense intended).

now, what about Russell? (have you read nancy cartwright per chance?)
 
Skwinty said:
Philosophy of science is rarely taught today and that is a pity.
Click to expand...

Quantitatively, how much more rarely is philosophy of science taught today than yesterday?

If we knew the why's perhaps the rest would come a bit easier and science wouldn't have to contemplate the issues of overcomplex models and theories.
Click to expand...

How do you support this statement?

all aspects of science today call for rationlisation of the current paradigm.
Click to expand...

What does this statement mean?

As to how many philosophers can claim to having read Kants work by 16, probably very few, How may scientists have studied the philosophy of science, probably very few.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Do we actually know?

Is there a genuine problem problem with communication between the real practices of philosophy and science (as opposed to flamewars on teh internets)? I haven't seen much evidence of a real problem here...
 
Last edited:
Acleron said:
The 'Should we do it?' question is indeed in the domain of philosophy but in moral philosophy not the philosophy of science. Agreed, it should be considered by scientists. It is a difficult problem and should probably be decided by politicians and/or the public. In the UK we have just had such a case with discussion of stem cells and human embryos. It was interesting, and worrying, that rather than a well argued discussion it became religious.
Click to expand...

When I was talking about philosophy, I guess I meant moral philosophy (and I'm not talking about religion). I would agree with you that I think it needs to be thought of by scientists. But I don't think politicians should be completely left to the task as I think they're too interested in conservative right wing christianity and I think public opinion, while important shouldn't be completely be up to the task either, people can get all panicky and caught up in trends, not that they should be ignored. I think both should be used, but I think moral philosophers need to chime in as well -- smart, cool, intelligent, ethical heads.

Moral philosophy is very important, and is definetly of utility to scientific-advancement -- people can do all sorts of things, some good, some useless, and some horrifically bad. We shouldn't be doing the ones that are useless or horrifically bad! And somebody's gotta say "should we do this?" "Is this good, is this useless, or is this horrifically dangerous?".

Not that I'm saying that all scientists don't do this, but some don't and some scientists can be a little too short-sighted.
 
Last edited:
lenny said:
oh yes, very nice. i'll have one of those please.

but as you answer yes, it seems there may be a bit of a philosopher in you (no offense intended).
Click to expand...
But accepted all the same :(
lenny said:
now, what about Russell? (have you read nancy cartwright per chance?)
Click to expand...

Russell's maths was groundbreaking, his destruction of Hilbert's dream may have been disappointing but was certainly important. Was any of his philosophical musings of similar importance to anyone other than a philosopher.

If it is this Nancy Cartwright, I haven't looked at anything she has written but if the cited article is a true reflection then she seems to be stating the obvious and then getting it wrong.
 
INRM The degree of danger of a particular piece of science or research is best determined by the scientists. Who decides whether it should go ahead given a particular level of danger is the difficult part. Moral philosophers have no more right or insight than anyone else in this type of decision. I agree that politicians should not decide on their own but in our imperfect democracy they often reflect the views of the majority.
 
Acleron said:
..I agree that politicians should not decide on their own but in our imperfect democracy they often reflect the views of the majority.
Click to expand...
.
Obviously, but too many people think real-world physical qualities are determined by opinion.
As if wishing could make gravity go away.
Or voting on making pi exactly 3.0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom