Is Philosophy Excluded from Science Forums?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbj
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the exclusion of philosophy from science forums, questioning why philosophical topics are not allowed alongside speculative scientific discussions like multiverses or string theory. Participants note that philosophy of physics and science, as well as philosophy of engineering, are legitimate fields that could enrich conversations in these forums. The closure of the philosophy sub-forum is attributed to difficulties in moderation and a preference for focusing on hard sciences. There is a sentiment that the historical context of philosophy, particularly its ties to comparative religion, has shifted away from speculative discussions. The overall consensus suggests a need for a more inclusive approach to philosophical discourse within scientific communities.
rbj
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
11
so "no philosophy" here?

really??

Re: this thread closed by Evo. i think it's as legit a question as one about Multiverses or String Theory, both being quite speculative.

no philosophy of physics nor philosphy of science? no philosophy floating around in the Cosmology forum? nor the Beyond the Standard Model forum?

why do they call those credentials a "PhD"?

i think there is even a philosophy of engineering.

just curious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
With the "demise" of MIH, there is nobody here to moderate a philosophy sub-forum. Some mentors seem quite disinclined to tolerate a trend back there, sticking to hard sciences instead. When I studied philosophy 40+ years ago, the course structure was almost completely "comparative religion", so the speculative edges of that field were replaced by religious history. I really enjoyed that area of study.
 
Sorry rbj, but due to the inability to keep "philosophy' under control, we finally had to make the decision to do away with the philosophy forum.

See one of the threads about it here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=671896
 
Last edited:
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
Back
Top