Yes, thank you for all the thoughtful replies maverick and duke but some of your statements are problematic. Let me explain why:
Thirdly, do you honestly think physicists haven't heard of the Zeno's paradox? You've essentially presented 3 variants of it. And this is another example of a millenia old problem which is considered solved by most through modern mathematics but there are still many philosophers who think it is unresolved (after all, they need to justify funding somehow) who then pratter on about it and the real kicker is that most of them have zero understanding of number theory or counting theory. They just toss vague word arguments back and forth without having a clue about the countability of the reals or dedekind cuts or any of the like.
1)Zeno's paradox is an empirical question. Resolving it in mathematics doesn't prove that the problems with time and space associated with infinity is resolved. Einstein didn't prove mass-energy equivalence simply with his equation E=MC^2. He proved it because the experiments that tested it were successful. So far there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Zeno's paradoxes are solved. Solving it requires evidence from empirical findings.
2)You are making fairly arrogant assumptions about what philosophers know and don't know here. If you had a look at that youtube video I posted earlier on about Philosophy of Science by Hilary Putnam you can see he is both a great philosopher and a great mathematician. How can you just assume that most philosophers who specialise in science and maths know nothing about maths? Have you studied philosophy of science intensively and know the philosophers in this area well? It is poor form especially for a scientist to make claims that are not backed up by evidence.
3)Words are not vague when you define them clearly just like you would define any number clearly. Take an apple, for example, we define it as one apple. If we take a bite of the apple is it still one apple? Maths is not a copy of reality and neither are words. Therefore, there is no justification to think that words cannot help solve Zeno's paradox.
Btw, I didn't say that I didn't think physicists don't know about Zeno's paradox. On the contrary, all the physicists I've met know about it when I ask them the question. It doesn't mean that I think that they have solved it. Further, I wanted to use less jargon to make it laymen-friendly.
And finally, I'm sure you've been told that philosophy is an "advisor" to science but you were grossly mis-informed (this is a fallacy akin to the "we learn history to better understand the future" schpeel that historians get/give). Yes, philosophy and science were once one but that was millenia ago and now-a-days when scientists look back at ideas like Aristotle's "Everything is made of earth, air, fire, water, love and strife" they see it as only having historical relevance. However, I would bet good money that if you toured your average philosophy department you'd find at least one philosopher that would be happy to espouse the great modern importance of this thought.
1)Again, you are making assumptions about what philosophers think here. I doubt that not even most laymen who finished high school would still believe that the world is made of Earth, Fire, Water and Air and certainly no philosopher of science, maths or physics. If they do then they are probably not philosophers of science and get away with it because in no way they would become advisors for science anyway.
2)Certain areas of study do witness a healthy interaction between philosophers and scientists. If you take a look at a lot of research endeavours these days in mind and consciousness you will see a multidisciplinary field involving psychology and philosophy. The neuroscience faculty in my uni, for example, require third years to take a topic in philosophy of mind.
3)Whether philosophy and science should serve as advisors to one another is humbly my own opinion. Certainly in many areas of both fields the practitioners rarely mix.
Physics has a long and noble history of ignoring philosophers. You tried to peg kant to Einstein but if you can show me a single example of Einstein's work that was inspired by Kant I'd concede the point. All Einstein's ever said was that he liked playing with philosophy when he was growing up, and who hasn't. I think you are under the impression that scientists don't know anything about philosophy. That is certainly not true. I for one have gone through everything from thales to nietzsche and very much enjoyed the ideas. However, it's a post-modern world and in my experience today's philosophers mostly just yap to each other (while ignored) about problems that have either been solved, have been shown to be unsolvable using their approach, or just completely irrelevant. And every "open" problem I've heard in philosophy that I actually thought was open would be best solved by either mathematicians or scientists. And no, mathematicians are not "philosophers". In the practical university department sense. People like Godel and Russell were mathematicians, they took lots and lots of math in their undergrads, people who get pure philosophy degrees are luck if they get a course on sentential logic.
Maybe it is true that most physicists ignored philosophy but why on Earth does that mean that physics cannot benefit from philosophy and v.v.?
1)The great Sir Isaac Newton, believe it or not, philosophised about the nature of space and time from scientific discoveries and came up with his notion of absolutism. Einstein was known for his interest in philosophising about the consequences of his theory of relativity to the external world. In fact, here are a few letters directly written by Einstein himself:
Quoted directly from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
"Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce "as much of the philosophy of science as possible" into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61-573).[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply:
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)
That Einstein meant what he said about the relevance of philosophy to physics is evidenced by the fact that he had been saying more or less the same thing for decades. Thus, in a 1916 memorial note for Ernst Mach, a physicist and philosopher to whom Einstein owed a special debt, he wrote:
"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." (Einstein 1916, 101)
You can see that Einstein thought philosophy was important. The evidence is in his own words. And we know how much his physics changed the world forever. It would be no surprise if his insights benefited from both philosophy and science.
DukeofDuke said:
My problem is not just that its unproductive. That unproductivity is a result of the absolute lack of answers philosophy provides- instead, it provides an endless number of alternatives. Every famous philosopher has his own "worldview" that's completely separate from all the others. They sit in their room and deduce the world works like this. However, its obviously not purely deductive, because they all come up with different answers! Some explain carefully that the world does not exist at all, we're basically in the matrix except in the spirit realm. Others explain that physics is utterly useless and its actually God physically moving everything, because of a trick of wordplay involving "first cause". Still others tell you you're incorrect not because of any fallacy in your logic but because you fail to clearly and distinctly perceive the existence of God...the fault lies not in my arguments, my friend, but in your impaired faculties!
1)There are plenty of debate and disagreement in the sciences too. Scientists have different views about the nature of the universe and human behaviour. Philosophers are probably more extreme in the discrepancy of their views of reality but it doesn't mean that there aren't any good philosophical theories. And certainly philosophical theories can become more successful when it is consistent with empirical findings. Einstein's theory of relativistic space and time, for example, is successful both scientifically and philosophically.
2)Just because there are many philosophers in the world giving different opinions about the reality does not mean that philosophy is unproductive. Just as there are a lot of discrepant views in science doesn't make science unproductive. For example, if you review the cognitive neuroscience/psychology/cognitive science literature on working memory you will see many, many theories. It is up to the critical consumer of research to judge for themselves which view is most likely to be valid in light of the scientific and philosophical evidence.
I think this also answers your nature/nurture criticism. Just because some philosophers like Locke believe in tabula rasa doesn't mean that philosophy is unproductive. There are a lot of philosophers who doesn't believe that human development is tabula rasa.
You know, that paragraph about the NF, you sound exactly like my bio/philosophy prof
I liked that class a lot, and we did talk about death. We concluded pretty early on though that humans are not rational, because, well, that's biologically obvious. Don't really need much philosophy for that...By the way, doing anything at all is illogical. There is absolutely no logical reason to type that reply. Why did you do it? EMOTIONS. Emotions provide the "why" to any situation, they are the driving force behind action, the way our genetics control our rational mind to perform the appropriate computations. And there's a helluva lot of study behind that.And its all very fascinating because it relies on BIOLOGY! NEUROBIOLOGY too! Here I like the "philosophy" mainly because it sets up the question that the biology we studied answers.
1)In no way I was arguing whether humans are rational or irrational. I only said that it is illogical to fear death simply because we are biologically hard-wired to fear death due to the naturalistic fallacy. It is an example of a confusion between is/ought statements. Where did human rationality come into it?
2)Yes, emotions are part of what drives behaviour BUT it isn't the only factor. Cognition also drive behaviour. If I start telling things about physics that isn't true and you believe that this misinformation would do harm to unsuspecting high school students seeking advise for a career choice; what would would you do if you had the time; given that you believe what you say would make a difference? Debunk it!
DukeofDuke said:
HAH! This reminded me of my other great distrust of philosophy! Its done in languages other than math!
What seems "logical" to the philosopher is actually not logical at all, because you can't just sit around and come up with right answers! Here's why, our notions of reason and logic are derived from some basic axioms that come about in an inductive, evolutionary fashion. That is, they exist because they work. if object A is here, then it cannot be there. There is no "reason" for this except it seems patently obvious...because in the size frame of the world we evolved in this is for all intents and purposes true. We don't see things being in two places at once, so it has become ingrained into our minds as an axiom.
There are things which we have no exposure to. For example, our exposure to the concepts of infinity is minimal. Our exposure to natural laws at different orders of magnitude of size are minimal, which is why not even the bigshot physicists really understand QM.
Our axioms don't work AT ALL when we go back to "the beginning of time" or "the planet of the electron". This is why sitting around thinking about it is almost completely useless, because the things that seem to us patently obvious, the axioms we use to build up, are actually not true at all, are only approximations that work with our biological machinery!
This is exactly why 100 different philosophers could give you 100 different accounts of existence, and there'd be absolutely no way to tell which one was right.
The fact is, we've reached beyond the point where words are useful mediums for knowledge. Mathematics can explain how that photon seems to be in two places at once, even if we have a hard time understanding it. But I've never seen someone make word sense out of it.
1)And what do you think you are doing when you use mathematics to understand the universe? You are using the similar reasoning processes you use to analyse philosophical arguments. We cannot escape our biology - it will always filter our judgment. This is why we can never be certain that anything is true. No scientific theory, mathematical, philosophical or otherwise can prove anything definitely. There is always the uncertainty due to the contribution of the mind. Again, see Hilary Putnam's good discussion on the philosophy of science. Don't worry, he's a mathematician :)
2)Again, maths is NOT a copy of reality. It is as much a construct of the mind as words. They mean something only to the extent of the definitions we give them. What will E=MC^2 mean without words? E must mean energy, and we must define energy. We must also define c, and m. Without these definitions our maths is MEANINGLESS. So no, words are also important to understand the universe BECAUSE we can define them like numbers.
maybe we should all just agree to disagree, because I'm laughing too hard right now for all this serious stuff.