Is Philosophy Useless for Scientific Research?

[0xDEADBEEF]

Weinberg's “Against Philosophy”

Philosophy is useless for Scientists and the only positive thing that can be said about it, is, that it protects us from even worse philosophy. Read and comment:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf"
I hope you have heard of the author...

 

[wittgenstein]

People that believe that complicated philosophical arguments do not reveal reality are pragmatists. Pragmatism is a particular philosophy, with thousands of books filled with complicated philosophical arguments to back up its claims. So those that believe that all philosophy is rubbish are followers of a particular philosophy. Ironic, aint it!

 

[drankin]

People that believe that complicated philosophical arguments do not reveal reality are pragmatists. Pragmatism is a particular philosophy, with thousands of books filled with complicated philosophical arguments to back up its claims. So those that believe that all philosophy is rubbish are followers of a particular philosophy. Ironic, aint it!

LOL, I agree. Everyone has a philosophy.

 

[apeiron]

But if you actually read the chpt, Weinberg actually makes decent points. He stirs things up by saying "philosophy is bunk". But then shows how certain philosophies, like atomism, have proved fruitful in the history of science.

And then in self-contradicting fashion, argues that the purity of positivism (a philosophically held position of course) does not actually make for good science. Weinberg doesn't say it, but this in itself is the argument for why science needs the salt of philosophy. You need to make bold intuitive guesses as part of the evolution of knowledge.

So the kind of philosophy a scientist needs is at "the history of ideas" level. It helps to see past our prejudices if we know how those prejudices were formed.

Then as to future scientific knowledge, we should not expect contemporary philosophers to come out with specific answers to particular questions. But they could help lay the groundwork for future fruitful ideas like atomism.

 

[JoeDawg]

Science is a philosophy, with its roots mainly in the 'empiricism' of the enlightenment, which is of course based on ancient philosophies. This is a silly bigotry.

 

[humanino]

This very subforum is living for proof for an experimentalist such as me reading Weinberg's theoretical words.

 

[apeiron]

For me it is more proof that philosophy doesn't get taught enough.

 

[humanino]

This is a beautiful text, and like anything Weinberg does, I doubt anybody can improve.

 

[SixNein]

Philosophy is useless for Scientists and the only positive thing that can be said about it, is, that it protects us from even worse philosophy. Read and comment:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf"
I hope you have heard of the author...

Perhaps he just doesn't understand the usefulness of philosophy. One great uses of philosophy is paradoxes because they can give great insights into difficult problems. One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century turned a philosophical paradox into profound mathematics.

I believe in Platonism, so I guess my opinion is tainted and jaded.

 

[JoeDawg]

This is a beautiful text, and like anything Weinberg does, I doubt anybody can improve.

That's not science or philosophy.

That's religion.

 

[humanino]

This is a beautiful text, and like anything Weinberg does, I doubt anybody can improve.

I want to elaborate. We all have our personal interpretations of the reading (I hope) we all just did. I do not think Weinberg just told me he is "against" philosophy. My understanding of what I just read, being "against" philosophy is an absurd idea, and the root of the contradiction some people may feel here. We can not be "against" philosophy because we all have ours, it is inescapable as soon as we think. This very subforum is living proof that everybody has his own.

What is useful for physics, the way science progresses, is not by ignoring philosophy, and in several places he gives examples. The way it progresses is by forming new personal philosophies which go beyond what was done by the respectful elders. The part of philosophy which claim to deal with science, which is the only part he talks about, can only try to keep up with the new genuine progress being made not by philosophers, but by physicists. Science is never written in stone, and scientists should always keep a fair balance (as everybody) when they use philosophy as an inspiration.

When we quantum physicists say "shut up and calculate" we never meant (or if somebody did, they should not have) there is nothing to discuss about, no sense of an underlying reality. We mean "we'll discuss about it when someone has something worth to discuss". So develop your own ideas, this is necessary of course, but since experiment is the ultimate judge for scientific ideas, endless discussions about unproven ideas are mostly fruitless. This is almost an empirical statement based on a few decades of experience. Every theorist has their own philosophical prejudice why their approach must be better.

 

[humanino]

That's not science or philosophy.

That's religion.

No, again, that's an empirical fact. It would be religion if I read nothing else. But I do read, including your own post.

 

[humanino]

...

So yes, what I'm saying is, before you put your own interpretation in Weinberg's mouth and then think you can reproach him, you may read again.

 

[JoeDawg]

So yes, what I'm saying is, before you put your own interpretation in Weinberg's mouth and then think you can reproach him, you may read again.

I'm always open to the opinions of experts... when they are talking within their field of expertise. I do not believe this is the case here. This is reactionary, and ill-informed.
Invoking Feyerabend, and the boogeyman of 'relativism', does no one any favours.

The philosophy of science has a long and important history that is still very relevant to how scientists do science.

And, he admits he doesn't know what he is talking about, then goes on to talk authoritatively on the subject. Could it be improved upon? Uhm, yes, very much.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

This quote is about a particular type of philosophy. Perhaps this is what Weinberg means?

 

[humanino]

The philosophy of science has a long and important history that is still very relevant to how scientists do science.

Yes it is ! But not anymore for the particular, very specific, point of helping scientists making new theories about fundamental physics. I only wish it would be otherwise. I would rather if someone came up suddenly with a new book going really beyond established physics, including a first chapter on philosophy, ten chapters on the theory, one chapter on experimental evidence, and yet another concluding chapter on philosophy. That would be perfect. It just does not seem likely anymore.

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes it is ! But not for the particular, very specific point of making new physical theories.

Sigh.

How one evaluates, justifies and utilizes; hypotheses, laws, and theories; is all part of what the philosophy of science is.

Newton's understanding of gravity was purely observational. He described a pattern. He had no interest in what makes it work. His interest was in how it works, the rules. Einstein wanted more of an 'explanation'. These are distinctly different views of what science is for. And the distinction remains.

When a scientist is doing labwork, recording data, and such. No, the major concern is not about what his understanding of science is. But once a scientist moves beyond simply recording data, into inductive reasoning, explanation, and justification; the philosophy of science does become important. And the fact many scientists don't understand this, does impact on the science they do.

 

[JoeDawg]

This quote is about a particular type of philosophy. Perhaps this is what Weinberg means?

The quote only really applies if you believe all scientists are birdbrains. :)

 

[George Jones]

See also

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c.../does-philosophy-make-you-a-better-scientist/.

 

[humanino]

Newton's understanding of gravity was purely observational. He described a pattern. He had no interest in what makes it work.

No that it is certainly not accurate. He was not fully satisfied with the philosophy of his own work, he was quite a metaphysical type, but he could only accept the success of his own work.

once a scientist moves beyond simply recording data, into inductive reasoning, explanation, and justification; the philosophy of science does become important.

Yes, once a scientist moves beyond doing science. And they all do.

There is one point that I would also like to emphasize. Weinberg is not even discussing cosmology. He really refers to very high energy physics. What is philosophical in coming with string theory, LQG, non-commutative geometry, or twistor methods ? All those have technical motivations and developments. Scientists understand them technically better than philosophers, and only once scientists will tell philosophers "ok now this is this one theory you should seriously study" may we expect serious efforts to come up with something interesting to say from philosophers. By this time, scientists will study something else already. It is certainly not to say that there are not very distinct philosophical prejudices behind the different approaches quoted above.

It is amusing that you quote Einstein for instance. We may evaluate the value for researchers of a few short perfectly clear books Einstein has written versus several order of magnitudes more philosophers have written about relativity.

By the same token, I may read 50 pages from Alain Connes and understand quantum mechanics even better than by reading von Neumann and certainly better that by reading thousands of books about the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Those are not useless absolutely, they are useless for working scientists today.

 

[humanino]

Let me also note, after reading George Jones' link, that european philosophers before WWI in Europe were seriously educated in science. They did have something to say about science. That was a century ago.

 

[JoeDawg]

There is one point that I would also like to emphasize. Weinberg is not even discussing cosmology. He really refers to very high energy physics. What is philosophical in coming with string theory, LQG, non-commutative geometry, or twistor methods ?

Understanding what a valid scientific theory is, IS PHILOSOPHY.

It is amusing that you quote Einstein for instance. We may evaluate the value for researchers of a few short perfectly clear books Einstein has written versus several order of magnitudes more philosophers have written about relativity.

You are missing the point entirely.

What a philosopher thinks about the validity of relativity or any other individual theory is not what the philosophy of science is even about. The philosophy of science is about how science is done, and how one ought to do it. Not the value of any particular theory.

 

[humanino]

Understanding what a valid scientific theory is, IS PHILOSOPHY.

Yes and when I'm building my own philosophy it's much more efficient by reading the scientists who made them than by reading professional philosophers.

 

[humanino]

What a philosopher thinks about the validity of relativity or any other individual theory is not what the philosophy of science is even about.

I never said that. Thinking about the validity of a scientific theory is the profession of scientists by definition.

 

[JoeDawg]

I never said that. Thinking about the validity of a scientific theory is the profession of scientists by definition.

And what makes a scientific theory valid?

 

[humanino]

And what makes a scientific theory valid?

Experimental evidence.

 

[JoeDawg]

Experimental evidence.

Experimental evidence that supports, falsifies or verifies the theory?

 

[humanino]

Experimental evidence that supports, falsifies or verifies the theory?

What do you mean by "verify" ? There is no such thing. Verify means "to make true" (unfortunately for you argument, I originally speak french where the etymology is obvious). Unless you have a point, trying to discredit me will not make this thread go away.

 

[JoeDawg]

What do you mean by "verify" ? There is no such thing. Verify means "to make true" (unfortunately for you argument, I originally speak french where the etymology is obvious). Unless you have a point, trying to discredit me will not make this thread go away.

Verification has a very simple meaning. If I say, the ball is round, and then if I observe the ball is round, I have verified it is true. Unfortunately, many different theories can be supported by the same evidence, so verification, except on a very simple level is not always useful in science.

Falsifiability relies on the premise that a theory is valid if it could be shown to be false by observation. Many theories however are still considered valid even after being falsified, in many cases because there is no comparable theory that does the work the falsified theory does.

Apart from that, many accepted scientific theories have been based on logical deductions, mathematical relationships, and indirect observations, long before they were ever subjected to experiment.

 

[humanino]

This thread is about Weinberg's book on unification of fundamental laws, which deals with high energy physics.

Many theories however are still considered valid even after being falsified

Such as ?

 

[JoeDawg]

This thread is about Weinberg's book on unification of fundamental laws, which deals with high energy physics.

I gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you're evading the issue, and wasting my time.

 

[humanino]

I gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you're evading the issue, and wasting my time.

I did not ask for anything. I came here to clarify that all criticisms posted here about Weinberg are only based on misunderstanding. Your claim of "falsified theories still considered valid" is misinformed. I'm not evading anything as I'm addressing your own messages which from the beginning have brought nothing to the topic of this thread.

 

[apeiron]

This batting back and forth rather illustrates the problem. The relationship between current science and current philosophy is not very functional. And in the past, the two were part of the same intellectual exercise - getting to know the world better. So the interesting discussion is about what has happened and how to fix it.

The correct way to view this is as levels of modelling. You have the meta-level and then the application-level (with as many grades as you like inbetween). So some think and some think about thinking. And the levels should not be in conflict but productive interaction.

And it could be that one person works at several levels in their career. And also that there are academic divisions to enable specialism.

What has generally happened is that academic philosophy has spun off into its own little world, lost the prestige it has once had, and you get some reactions like the extremes of post-modernism. Science then needs to create its own philosophical grounding - set up the places and journals where meta- level stuff takes place. I've had a foot in both camps and I can see things are not functioning well. The good stuff exists but you have to go digging for it because the present cultural dynamics plays against it getting airtime. When you apparently have scientists saying philosophy is bunk and philosophers returning the compliment.

The kind of dialog that regularly breaks out here just perpetuates the unhelpful divide.

Perhaps if once in a while people cracked open a modern work of scientific philosophy and discusses some actual ideas...

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

[...]
Perhaps if once in a while people cracked open a modern work of scientific philosophy and discusses some actual ideas...

Didn't Weinberg say he tried that and that it didn't help.

 

[Civilized]

Yes and when I'm building my own philosophy it's much more efficient by reading the scientists who made them than by reading professional philosophers.

This statement is just as absurd to me as its image under the morphism {"philosophy" |-> "physics", "scientist" |-> "philosophers"}, viz:

Yes and when I'm building my own physics it's much more efficient by reading the philosophers who made them than by reading professional physicists.

Anyone who thinks they can make progress in a 2000 year old subject without building on the great thinkers who came before them, is arrogant and destind to fail inevitably.

Perhaps if once in a while people cracked open a modern work of scientific philosophy and discusses some actual ideas...

The problem is that the philosophically uneducated cannot jump straight into contemporary philosophy without getting frustrated and confused, this would be like studying modern differential geometry in terms of axiomatic category theory without learning calculus 1.