Do you see Philosophy as necessary to science?

[Kerrie]

And if you do, why? Why is it not necessary?

 

[MacTech]

"I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy." --Max Born, Autobiography

of course it is necessary, how else will you explain without experimentation.

 

[Kerrie]

what some do not realize is that the initial flame of science starts with speculation (aka philosophy)...

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by Kerrie
what some do not realize is that the initial flame of science starts with speculation (aka philosophy)...

agreed.

btw city of roses, you are in portland, or?

 

[quantumdude]

Kerrie, it's like you're reading my mind or somethin'. I just found lecture notes on this, and I am eager to go through them with the rest of PF. I am a newbie to philosophy, so I confess I have no answer to the question you posed in the title of the thread, but I am looking forward to finding out.

 

[Sting]

Philosophy is, in itself, the method of asking, wondering, and knowing. Science is the inquiring of knowledge that seeks to answer the questions asked by philosophy.

Historically, many scientists (such as Newton, Liebniz, Descartes, etc.) were philosophers well so I can see where science ties in with philosophy.

 

[Kerrie]

i believe philosophy is quite necessary to science...philosophy is the point of speculation, of asking why, science is the vehicle that moves the question of why to how...

yes mactech, i am in NE portland, i see that you also have an email from portland state, which is a great college...

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by Kerrie

yes mactech, i am in NE portland, i see that you also have an email from portland state, which is a great college...

ah i c.. :) cool.

 

[ahrkron]

At some point, Einstein said that physicists tend to be bad philosophers (I think he did so in a lecture later printed as "physics and reality"), but that at some points during the historical development of physics, there is no way out, since experimental results can only be described by a theory that clearly contradicts philosophical positions (think about Copernicus and religion, or QM and reality).

IMO, both disciplines need a lot from each other. Both are incomplete if done without attention to the other side.

 

[Kerrie]

i completely agree with you ahrkron

 

[ahrkron]

Thanks Kerrie

Something else about their relationship: sometimes, while doing science, philosophical positions held by scientists may steer the kind of hypothesis explored. This can be useful sometimes, but it is also dangerous.

A clear example would be the precopernican astronomy, in which people developed extremely complicated arrangements of moving spheres because they assumed that every movement in the sky had to be based on such perfect solid. Even Copernicus' system was based on spheres!

When Kepler discovered that ellipses do the work much better, he was strongly disapointed; he even called the something like "ugly ovals".

 

[Phobos]

Philosophy is certainly tied into science. The scientific viewpoint is based on an objective reality (metaphysics)...that the universe does in fact exist and that it follows certain patterns that are understandable. The path to knowledge (epistemology) is set through direct and verifiable testing.

Things like "the universe exists" and "the universe follows certain understandable patterns" are somewhat unproveable axioms...a philosophical foundation.

If you believe that there is no universe outside of your own subjective mind (i.e., everything is a projection of your own thought and even your own body is not "real"), then you aren't going to get far in science.

 

[Sting]

I remember the Logic portion in my 10th grade Geometry class tying into the nature of mathematical proofs and such.

And Logic in itself is a philosophical study

 

[wuliheron]

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, while science is the pursuit of knowledge. Towards the scientific pursuit of knowledge philosophers devise a variety of metaphysics from which an assortment of appropriate logistical, mathematical, observational, experimental, and/or other rudamentary approaches to discovery can be construed. In addition, the philosophies of science are often influenced by the resulting discoveries of other philosophies and schools of thought, and the results of the various sciences and use these to update their metaphysics and approaches.

So, yes, science needs philosophy to at least provide an assortment of metaphysics. Hopefully they also manage to gleen a little wisdom in the process as well.

 

[Mentat]

Yes, I definitely think that Philosophy is necessary.

You know, sometimes the fact that Science evolved from Philosophy makes people think that Science is somehow "better" than Philosophy. But this is not true because (as has already been mentioned) there would be no experimentation without the original observation/guesswork.

In an old post (on the former PFs) I posted that Philosophy is basically the first two steps of the scientific method. I still believe that this is true.

 

[roeighty]

science stops, where light can no more bring any message, right..?
so science stops at our 'world-line' (light-horizon) defined by the speed of information by em-waves.

the whole, real, right-now world out there in space or in submicroscopic dimensions is thus not subject to exact science, is it?

[added:] ..i mean, what science gets as information from outer space is the more historic information the deeper we look. What happens out there right now is not actually topic to exact science, is it?

[added:] ..that is, far off galaxies out there (and nearer objects as much) should be 'there' right now, long before their light reaches earthern science.
so the mere existence of everything out there should not depend on information about it being sent .
('t should be the same with all other limits of light-information, e.g. black holes event-horizon, maybe uncertainty-boundaries of lights capacity of submitting information..)
so everything that takes place beyond scientific observation still is part of the 'whole world'..

[3/3/03 ..plain: ] philosophy only, not science is concerned with the whole world:
light* is to slow to tell us what is going on in major part of the universe RIGHT NOW.
(in numbers for e.g. the sun: 8½ mins to slow)
light* is to 'big' to tell us what is going on in subatomic dimensions.
we're living in a light-'bubble'.

*light or em-waves

 

[Mentat]

I don't understand your post, roeighty. Could you rephrase, so that I can understand what it is that you mean, please?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Kerrie
And if you do, why? Why is it not necessary?

Yes.

Philosophy has served as a vehicle to transfer some of the technilogical discoveries of certain very ancient civilizations to the present day. If one has read the Tao of Physics by Alan Watts one would see what I mean.

Throughout the philosophies of India and China there are references to many of the "newly" discovered properties we see today in higher physics. These philosophies are well over 8000 years old and reflect an even earlier understanding of certain laws of physics. This sort of preservation of scientific data is also seen in religions around the world. Much the same way religion preserves a history of events albeit somewhat scewed in favor of one or more families or cults.

I can't dig up any examples right now... but I believe this to be true.

It is also important to note that moral philosophy applies to science to keep it in check. If there was no moral philosophy associated with science then all the population of the Earth would be used as experimental subjects and the results would be disasterous to humankind.

Mind you... isn't that what we are witnessing today?

 

[Raavin]

I believe philosophy is vital in science. But I suppose it depends on what you mean. If you mean a doctrine then no, that can only narrow ones vision. If you mean an exploration for meaning or understanding then I don't see how you can explore science without it. I've read that pure mathematicians believe that there doesn't have to be any meaning or understanding in what they do. The search for patterns or phenomena is without any real purpose. They don'e care if it applies to real systems or not. If that is true, then for them philosophy doesn't mean much. As far as the physical sciences go though, there wouldn't seem to be any point in pursuing any of it without some sort of philosophical starting point. Not past practical application anyway.

Raavin

 

[morp]

Science is born as daughter of Philosophy . During more than 20 centuries science belonged to Philosophy.

The full title of Newton's "Principia" was "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" . The title of its English translation ( Motte, 1729) was "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"

It is no wonder this question arises now. Ancient philosophers said "The truth is but one" . Modern scientists say implicitely "The truth is many ". Logic is totally absent in modern science.

Morp

 

[LURCH]

Science is not possible without philosophy. Experimantation and observation alone do not constitute science. The observed results of an experiment reveal no scientific data until one reasons that a certain measurement leads to a certain conclusion. The moment we begin to use reason to assign meaning to a set of measurements, we engage in philosophy.

Logic is a philosophical discipline, and even pure mathematics is based on number theory, which is a philosophical understanding of how numbers work. How far can one's scientific investigations proceed without logic or mathematics?

This is why I find it so disturbing that many of today's most well- known scientists seem to have contempt for the philosophical disciplines, even though they cannot avoid the use of philosophical thought in every theory, hypothesis, and proof. As a friend of mine sometimes says, "Those who discount philosophy do not excuse themselves from using it; they merely condemn themselves to using it incorrectly."

 

[morp]

Lurch,

You are the first member of this PF I agree fully with.

I may remember some sayings of ancient philosophers:

"Our senses deceive us. Only our mind is reliable" (Parmenides)

"Conclusions from observations are unreliable, only the mind can come nearer to to the truth" (Anaxgoras)

"Truth is unattainable" (Plato)

Morp

 

[Kerrie]

morp...

great perspectives on the mind...

 

[quantumdude]

I can't agree that "the mind is reliable". Have you ever forgotten anything? Have you ever been *certain* of something that is wrong? Have you ever jumped to a wrong conclusion?

There's your disproof.

Back to the topic--which I'm glad Kerrie started, because it's free-flowing, whereas mine is sticking to the lecture notes--what place does philosophy have in science?

It seems to me (and I'm very new at this) that it is the task of philosophy to formally analyze (for validity) the methods of scientific inquiry. The hypothetico-deductive method is just such a valid formalism, and is practically the method used by scientists.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Tom
I can't agree that "the mind is reliable". Have you ever forgotten anything? Have you ever been *certain* of something that is wrong? Have you ever jumped to a wrong conclusion?

There's your disproof.

Back to the topic--which I'm glad Kerrie started, because it's free-flowing, whereas mine is sticking to the lecture notes--what place does philosophy have in science?

It seems to me (and I'm very new at this) that it is the task of philosophy to formally analyze (for validity) the methods of scientific inquiry. The hypothetico-deductive method is just such a valid formalism, and is practically the method used by scientists.

I see, Tom, so when we say "what if" we are philosophizing about a possiblity and this leads the way to scientific inquiry.

This is a great way to tie philosophy to science.

What also happens is that we witness an event in nature and, from this observation, we begin philosophizing about what the process is or how it relates to other processes.

That example is another "what if" example but it is triggered by an observation of an existing phenomenon rather than a purely philosophical idea... which is spawned soley by the mind... which, as you have pointed out, is often wrong about many things.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Several philosophical ideas have had a direct influence on the course of physics. Maupertuis invented the principle of least action under the influence of Leibniz's philosophy that this is "the best of all possible worlds", and that God takes the best way to accomplish His ends.

The principle of least action was taken up by Euler and developed into the calculus of variations. Lagrange then adopted that and in his Mechanique Analytique introduced his Action- Lagrangean method based on it. Hamilton modified Lagrange's method into his own Hamiltonian method, and these two methods are everywhere in modern physics.

Emmy Noether proved that every symmetry of the Lagrangean induces a conserved quantity in the equations of motion. Maupertuis would have been delighted by that, and seen it as a confirmation of God's benevolence.

 

[morp]

Kerrie and Tom,

The sentences I gave are not mine.
Here is a another saying from Parmenides that could concern both of you.

"Mortals without wisdom will say : "It is and is not"."

He says also " What is not is impossible, it is even impossible to think of what is not".

May I consider as "Mortals without wisdom" those who give qualities to what is not? (Mortals who speak about c, photons etc. while denying the existence of an ether)

About the power of the mind: "Only those things exist in reality the existence of which the mind has concluded to"..

Anyway, I think science without some logic does not make sense. And that logic must not be adapted to circumstances. When I hear some people think of science without philosophy I feel the breath of QM in my neck..

Morp

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Kerrie
And if you do, why? Why is it not necessary?

A favorite definition of mine is that philosophy is "thinking about thinking." If one considers the guts of science to be empiricism, then that is where one finds the philosophical or "thinking" basis of science; e.g., how does one hypothesize with the best chance of observation eventually resulting, how does one set up experiments with the proper controls, how does one interpret observations correctly, and so on.

However, philosophy also addresses broader issues such as ethics and knowing, and so once empirical investigation has revealed something, or its discoveries are to be used, that's when those sorts of philosophical considerations arise.

A knowing concern I've expressed, for example, is how the successes of science has encouraged many scientists to philosophize about things beyond the limits of what's been proven. Linking philosophical speculation to proven facts is a powerful and relatively new variety of philosophy (compared to philosophy's rationalistic past). It is so compelling in fact, that I worry those good at it might lose sight of how much people are taking what they say as established fact. Hopefully ethics will win out and encourage someone representing science to make it perfectly clear what they are saying is still unproven.

Yet I wonder if ethical and knowing questions are really about science because I can see how the same issues apply to humans in any discipline. So beyond the "thinking" of empiricism needed to do science, maybe the other philosophical matters are most important to being human.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by morp
The sentences I gave are not mine.

Well, golly-gee-willickers. A famous philosopher said it. I guess that makes my objections bubble-headed and vacuous.

Please, Morp. Quotes from scriptures and authorities in place of arguments belong in the Religion forum.

I stand by what I said.

Here is a another saying from Parmenides that could concern both of you.

"Mortals without wisdom will say : "It is and is not"."

Why would that 'concern' me? Of course, the compound statement 'X and NOT X' is analytically false.

What's your point?

He says also " What is not is impossible, it is even impossible to think of what is not".

I agree with the first part, but the second is plainly false. Right now, I am thinking of a 10-headed goat.

Do 10-headed goats exist? No? Well then Parmenides is wrong again.

Here is one from me to you:

"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
--Galileo Galilei

I say, the same goes for philosophy. When statements are demonstrably false, then I don't care if it was Parmenides who said it. If I find that it is wrong, then stamping the quote with the authority of his name is not going to change my mind.

May I consider as "Mortals without wisdom" those who give qualities to what is not? (Mortals who speak about c, photons etc. while denying the existence of an ether)

Of course you may. You are free to make any straw man argument you wish. You don't need my permission.

About the power of the mind: "Only those things exist in reality the existence of which the mind has concluded to"..

Morp, complete this sentence:

Tom, I find that your objections to Parmindes' quote is wrong because ____________________ .

Anyway, I think science without some logic does not make sense. And that logic must not be adapted to circumstances. When I hear some people think of science without philosophy I feel the breath of QM in my neck..

Oh, come on.

Morp, this thread is about the role of philosophy in science. It is not for your silly railings against modern physics. I tried to get this thread on the track of the hypothetico-deductive method, which is The Scientific Method, and it is also a product of philosophical thinking.

Can we please stick to the subject?

 

[morp]

Tom,
Clearly "Philosophy" and " Logic" have different meanings for you and for me. You reject the old "masters" of Philisophy. O.K. As I see also every other "master" is disavowed. Newton is corrected by Einstein, Maxwell is rejected, the original papers of Planck, Einstein, De Broglie, Schrödinger etc. are rejected as "old versions", "strawman versions" etc.

Lastly I started a search on my computer for "Quantum Mechanics". He replied he had 371000 links. You may try it for yourself.
I read the texts of the first 100 links. Some were similar,some different. In any case I found more than 10 fundamentally different QM theories.
Therefore, any argument can be countered by "old version", "Wrong version", "strawman version" etc. See PF1.

Now my question is: what is the "Philosophy" of all this.?
To me, a scientific theory is a structure, with a backbone, that stands upright. To you a theory is similar to a heap old screws and nails etc. where you can always find what you need, but formless without any structure..
If you do not agree, please indicate which one of those 370000 sites on Internet gives a "true" version of QM.

Morp