A Disservice to Science: Exploring Philosophical Questions in Nature

[jackmell]

I wish to state for the record that I believe we do a disservice to science by extinguishing the flame of curiosity in those young in here who wish to explore more philosophical questions in Nature.

I repeat, the smallest of perturbations can produce the most dramatic effect, and the Riemann Hypothesis remains unproven.

 

[Evo]

We encourage all members to learn correct science and ask good questions. We encourage curiosity of valid science. What we don't allow is meaningless speculation, misinformation and crackpottery. Many people (obviously) can't tell the difference.

 

[jackmell]

We encourage all members to learn correct science and ask good questions.

Good questions huh? And philosophical questions, rational ones approached reasonably, are they good?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wish to state for the record that I believe my local vegetarian restaurant does a disservice to the community by not serving hamburgers.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Oh they're great all right, great when you're in the shower and need something to pass the time. Someone people like to sing, some people like to ponder over empirically meaningless philosophical questions so to each his own. But on a serious physics forum? Nah

 

[Evo]

Good questions huh? And philosophical questions, rational ones approached reasonably, are they good?

Since science became a valid field, it replaced "philosphical' questions with valid scientific questions. If you want to be "philosophical", there are many philosophy forums on the internet. We are a mainstream science forum.

 

[Borek]

I believe we do a disservice to science by extinguishing the flame of curiosity in those young in here who wish to explore more philosophical questions in Nature.

Quite the contrary - we would do the a disservice allowing discussions called "philosophical", but being completely unscientific in their nature.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Good questions huh? And philosophical questions, rational ones approached reasonably, are they good?

Philosophical discussion is at the mentor's discretion because we lack a professional philosopher on staff.

 

[Evo]

Philosophical discussion is at the mentor's discretion because we lack a professional philosopher on staff.

A professional philosopher may have zero scientific credentials, thus would not be eligible to moderate scientific discussions. That's the problem.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I wish to state for the record that I believe we do a disservice to science by extinguishing the flame of curiosity in those young in here who wish to explore more philosophical questions in Nature.

How many young people actually come to this site for philosophical quandaries? Honestly? A good number of them come here because of school/university homework problems.

 

[jackmell]

What a hail of arrows reminiscent of that scene in Braveheart.

They speculate quite a bit in Cosmology don't they? I think so. But we understand, a lot we don't know about the Universe and it's origins and we sympathize with them. It's a beautifully interesting thought nevertheless.

Aren't many of the scientific discoveries preceded by a curious mind probing the workings of Nature beyond what is currently known, and sometimes that probing begins with philosophical questions?

 

[Evo]

What a hail of arrows reminiscent of that scene in Braveheart.

They speculate quite a bit in Cosmology don't they? I think so. But we understand, a lot we don't know about the Universe and it's origins and we sympathize with them. It's a beautifully interesting thought nevertheless.

Aren't many of the scientific discoveries preceded by a curious mind probing the workings of Nature beyond what is currently known, and sometimes that probing begins with philosophical questions?

Just because you can call questions "philosophical", doesn't mean anything specific. If someones prefers qualitative and subjective standards rather than quantitative and objective ones, they can go to a philosophy forum. Calling a discussion "philosophical", when it pertains to hard science, is just an invitation for nonsense which we have worked hard to keep out of this forum. Let's just stick to "scientific questions" and keep the 2 am epiphanies, idle speculation and nonsense out. This is not against philosophy per se, it's about keeping discussions here factual.

 

[jackmell]

This is not against philosophy per se, it's about keeping discussions here factual.

Do we have any facts matter at the smallest level is composed of vibrating strings? Are discussions about String Theory allowed in here?

What about the Beyond forum? They're trying to go beyond the BB right? What (hard-empirical) facts do we have about origins?

No, I don't wanna' go no where else. I like PF and try not to cause trouble.

 

[Evo]

Do we have any facts matter at the smallest level is composed of vibrating strings? Are discussions about String Theory allowed in here?

What about the Beyond forum? They're trying to go beyond the BB right? What (hard-empirical) facts do we have about origins?

No, I don't wanna' go no where else. I like PF and try not to cause trouble.

The BTSM forum has more leeway due to the subjects, but they are not idle speculation, misinformation or crackpottery (which, unfortunately, is what we get here when the word "philosophy" is used). If you ever looked at the discussions in our old philosophy forum, you know what a mess that was, people that had no clue about the science were carrying on lengthy inaccurate discussions, ignoring anyone that tried to correct them.

So basically, what we do is try to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as we can and promote worthwhile discussions. I think our members and staff do a fairly good job of it.

 

[DiracPool]

Aren't many of the scientific discoveries preceded by a curious mind probing the workings of Nature beyond what is currently known, and sometimes that probing begins with philosophical questions?

Absolutely! Unfortunately, they're going to have to do that probing somewhere else, as I discovered the hard way several times earlier on. If you want to put your philosophical musings to the test against the PF community, you first need to dis-assemble your grandiosity into bite size chunks that fit into the empirical mathematical-physics processor that is allowed at PF. Then you can take the processed data and try to reassemble it into some sort of realistic model. The sort of fringe science that I find is allowed here, such as strings and various cosmological models are allowed because they are cutting edge, they are not challenging any otherwise well-established orthodoxy like perpetual motion stuff does. I think PF sees themselves as a forum to discuss mainstream science as the world's academic institutions create them, and understandably are reluctant to entertain fringe science that is outside that realm. That is the job of the academics at the universities and the communities they work with, not PF. Anyway, that has just been my personal observation. For instance, I think that you could introduce what would ordinarily be considered to be a crackpot thread somewhere in the forum and it would remain if you could find a reference to it in some reputable mainstream journal. If you can't, its probably going to get deleted.

 

[russ_watters]

WAren't many of the scientific discoveries preceded by a curious mind probing the workings of Nature beyond what is currently known, and sometimes that probing begins with philosophical questions?

No.

More to the point, new discoveries are never done by neophytes, on the internet. That's why we don't allow development of [unpublished] new science here at all, philosophical or otherwise.

 

[Curious3141]

I wish to state for the record that I believe my local vegetarian restaurant does a disservice to the community by not serving hamburgers.

That metaphor is going to fly right over the heads of those it is intended for.

 

[lisab]

No.

More to the point, new discoveries are never done by neophytes, on the internet. That's why we don't allow development of [unpublished] new science here at all, philosophical or otherwise.

Exactly.

Jackmell I understand your point. But I'll tell you what I (and lots of others) have said many times: before a person can think outside of the box, he has to learn how to think very clearly in the box. The problem with allowing discussions that lean towards philosophy is they attract people who know nothing about the box at all.

Problem is, it takes a long, long, long time to learn how to think in the box.

 

[Tenshou]

Exactly.
before a person can think outside of the box, he has to learn how to think very clearly in the box. The problem with allowing discussions that lean towards philosophy is they attract people who know nothing about the box at all.

Problem is, it takes a long, long, long time to learn how to think in the box.

Forgive my curiosity, but could you explain why thinking in the box is necessary for thinking outside of it? I am pretty sure Game Theory was developed in a completely different box :) Albeit, those who can think in side of boxes do have a more "adept" or fluency in which "words" aren't made up. you know what I mean?

 

[DiracPool]

Forgive my curiosity, but could you explain why thinking in the box is necessary for thinking outside of it?

Because that way you know what and where the box is, and you know whether you're inside or out of it. If you start outside the box without ever being inside, you may be so far out you that you forgot that there ever was a box

 

[Evo]

Forgive my curiosity, but could you explain why thinking in the box is necessary for thinking outside of it? I am pretty sure Game Theory was developed in a completely different box :) Albeit, those who can think in side of boxes do have a more "adept" or fluency in which "words" aren't made up. you know what I mean?

I believe she is talking about the mainstream science this forum deals with. We admittedly don't/can't deal with everything here.

 

[lisab]

Because that way you know what and where the box is, and you know whether you're inside or out of it. If you start outside the box without ever being inside, you may be so far out you that you forgot that there ever was a box

Most laymen have no idea how well the 'celebrity' physicists were educated in boring ol' classical physics. Einstein, Plank, Bohr...all of them had a profound, deep understanding of the fundamentals.

Game theory...well, the purpose of PF is to help people learn *mainstream* physics and other sciences. We aren't here to midwife in new theories.

 

[Tenshou]

I understand :P but being here on PF has given me some deep insights and a way for me to put in time to be "well educated" and I would like to say that you might have just midwifed a new theory on some certain concepts about geometric measure theory :3

 

[ZapperZ]

I wish to state for the record that I believe we do a disservice to science by extinguishing the flame of curiosity in those young in here who wish to explore more philosophical questions in Nature.

This is a statement that has no empirical evidence to back it, other than personal opinion. If this is how we want to play the game, then I can play that as well and I'll invoke Lawrence Krauss's opinion on this:

As a practicing physicist however, the situation is somewhat different. There, I, and most of the colleagues with whom I have discussed this matter, have found that philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in my field. Even in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful. For example, on the nature of science and the scientific method, I have found the insights offered by scientists who have chosen to write concretely about their experience and reflections, from Jacob Bronowski, to Richard Feynman, to Francis Crick, to Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, and Sir James Jeans, to have provided me with a better practical guide than the work of even the most significant philosophical writers of whom I am aware, such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. I admit that this could primarily reflect of my own philosophical limitations, but I suspect this experience is more common than not among my scientific colleagues.

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

If you start outside the box without ever being inside, you may be so far out you that you forgot that there ever was a box

Or you may actually be inside the box, in a room that was once occupied briefly but then declared unfit for human habitation. And you can't read the notice on the door because you're inside.

 

[Tenshou]

To be completely honest, I don't think that philosophy is too bad, a philosophy can lead to a new insight, but since it has been declared by the few mods and admins who wish to keep it off. Also, I don't understand how discussing if a person should be formally educated by a system which some people believe that this system is broken, is wrong or "loving wisdom". I mean I got flagged because I was asking questions? That isn't cool man :/

 

[WannabeNewton]

I honestly don't get how something related to nature that cannot be determined mathematically nor empirically could be of any use to a forum like this. People can say whatever the hell they want about philosophy leading to "grand insights" in physics and giving people the ability to "think outside the box" in physics but until they actually do something to prove it in a general setting their word is, for lack of a better term, worthless.

 

[Tenshou]

I would like to have a discussion about constructivism and non-constructivism, but I fear it maybe labeled "wisdom loving" I mean I have seen a few forums, but still some people just like to throw around there power. Also, lots of logicians and set theorist had "philosophical" thoughts about the nature of sets, and if you say that each book doesn't have its own philosophical thoughts tucked away in the words of the pages, I think that you may have not read the book.

I honestly don't get how something related to nature that cannot be determined mathematically nor empirically could be of any use to a forum like this. People can say whatever the hell they want about philosophy leading to "grand insights" in physics and giving people the ability to "think outside the box" in physics but until they actually do something to prove it in a general setting their word is, for lack of a better term, worthless.

 

[WannabeNewton]

If you make a thread about constructivism (in mathematics), you'll most likely just get hit by micromass

 

[Tenshou]

Most likely XD and sadly Q~Q

 

[micromass]

I would like to have a discussion about constructivism and non-constructivism, but I fear it maybe labeled "wisdom loving" I mean I have seen a few forums, but still some people just like to throw around there power. Also, lots of logicians and set theorist had "philosophical" thoughts about the nature of sets, and if you say that each book doesn't have its own philosophical thoughts tucked away in the words of the pages, I think that you may have not read the book.

Constructivism and intuitionism are pretty important in the history of mathematics. The nature of sets is also very important for nowadays mathematics (in particular set theory and logic). If you want to start a thread about it, then I will allow this since these things are crucial in the history of mathematics.

Similarly, discussions on interpretations of QM are also philosophy, but they are usually allowed here. Why? Because they play a large role in the history of the subject and in the intepretation of the subject.

Philosophy not allowed are things which are totally irrelevant to the history of mathematics or science. For example, are baseballs sentient. (yes, we had threads like this).

 

[Tenshou]

But what about the thread I had made, I mean the one with education? I thought it had a historical basis, I mean people before didn't have "formal" educations, they went to school until a certain age and then went about doing what they wanted to do (Newton prime example, wasn't a human calculator, just a imaginative curious genius), I asked a simple question(or wanted to ask) Why do we need to jump through the hoop of today's society just so we may be accredited with false metals and other ornaments? But I got hit with a Red flag because I had gotten my answer and the rest of the discussion would fall into philosophy :/ I don't believe it is fair that I got that red flag. And are you sure I won't get another one red flag and get banned for the 3 strikes if I do start this topic on constructivism and non constructivism D:

 

[Evo]

What I don't understand is why some people don't understand that you don't need "philosophy" to ask questions about science. To be honest, understanding philosophy has nothing specifically to do with knowing the actual science and there is no demonstrated benefit when it comes to facts (see ZapperZ's post). There is a demonstrated downside, especially on the internet, of people that don't know the science saying that the nonsense they're spouting is "philosophy" and so should be accepted. No, actually it shouldn't.

Definition of philosophy - The study of the nature of reality and existence, of what it is possible to know, and of right and wrong behavior, or a particular set of beliefs of this type:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/philosophy

 

[Tenshou]

What I don't understand is why some people don't understand that you don't need "philosophy" to ask questions about science. To be honest, understanding philosophy has nothing specifically to do with knowing the actual science and there is no demonstrated benefit when it comes to facts (see ZapperZ's post). There is a demonstrated downside, especially on the internet, of people that don't know the science saying that the nonsense they're spouting is "philosophy" and so should be accepted. No, actually it shouldn't.



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/philosophy

I don't think people should just blindly accept any philosophy that comes there way, because that would be Religion, PF isn't a religious cult. Of course, you don't need philosophy, you just need to find something which peaks your curiosity.

 

[Evo]

But what about the thread I had made, I mean the one with education? I thought it had a historical basis, I mean people before didn't have "formal" educations, they went to school until a certain age and then went about doing what they wanted to do (Newton prime example, wasn't a human calculator, just a imaginative curious genius), I asked a simple question(or wanted to ask) Why do we need to jump through the hoop of today's society just so we may be accredited with false metals and other ornaments? But I got hit with a Red flag because I had gotten my answer and the rest of the discussion would fall into philosophy :/ I don't believe it is fair that I got that red flag. And are you sure I won't get another one red flag and get banned for the 3 strikes if I do start this topic on constructivism and non constructivism D:

If you post in math, which is micro's specialty and he says it's ok, then you can trust him, at least for starting the thread, of course the direction the thread takes after your initial post matters for anyone posting in it.