Jobs for Philosophers: Explore Careers for Philosophy Majors

[DukeofDuke]

ok let's take this one step at a time. If you don't mind, I'm only going to address the parts I felt were intended for me or I felt I knew enough to comment on.

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.

uhhh...well ok, here's your empirical evidence. I have a friend named Bob, maybe its not Achilles, but close enough eh? And I have this slower friend named Andrew, closer to the tortoise than Bob is to Achilles. Every time Bob gets to where Andrew used to be, Andrew moves away. Does Bob ever catch up?

2nd grade recess says...yes. Why? Because the time it takes for bob to catch up after each repetition gets slower and slower, and eventually it converges into a single number. Which is also exactly what the math does. Can we move on?

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.

Trust me, a philosopher of science does not know more science than a scientist. An undergrad at my institution, a sophomore friend of mine, knows much more science than our professor, who liked philosophy of science and featured it in his lectures quite a bit.

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.

Ok, the universe does not speak English. It speaks math. No matter how much I read about Electricity and Magnetism, they didn't make a tenth of the amount of sense they made after we'd derived all of Maxwell's equations, even in the integral form. I can't take you seriously if you're going to tell me you can do science and understand the universe scientifically without math. In fact, I know you can't because you end up with dozens of different "views" of the world and have no way of proving them until physics comes along and kills them...which is exactly what happened in history. Case and point: Occasionalism.

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.

Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. I don't like it when people use the name brands of great scientists to back some views on other things, as if they can get the backing of science through the backing of scientists. That is not the case. Where Newton was right, he was brilliant, and where he was wrong, he was irrelevant. That's science for you

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.

Again, that's great. But its just an opinion, even if its one of a great man. Its not Science, and science is what Einstein is great for in the first place.

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.

Yeah, but Science is a process which perfects itself over time. It grows upwards, you could say, in series. Whereas philosophy oftentimes grows in parallel, always coming up with alternatives but rarely eliminating them, because its hard to do so! Its the nature of the field.

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?

Um. Humanity is not rational, aka logical. That is the statement I made. The statement you made was, a behavior of humanity is not rational, not logical. I think my statement agrees with, adds to, and explains your statement. I wasn't arguing on that one

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!

I'm not going to argue here because its a completely different topic. But cognition is more of the steering wheel. Emotion is the engine.

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 :)

No, you misunderstood my point. My point is that what is rational, reasonable, and sound is only so because we are exposed to it as a species. That is, in this macro universe, certain rules seem to be followed and that's ingrained into us as "axioms that make sense."

However, when we look at worlds outside of our paradigm, such as the very big or the very small or the very old or the very young, things don't "make sense" anymore. The mathematics is there, the mathematics can still describe it, but it doesn't make any intuitive logical sense. And since philosophers rely on intuitive, logical sense...you get my drift?

 

[kldickson]

The universe speaks math, physics, chemistry, and biology.

For goodness's sake, man, if you want to do something more productive than philosophizing and which will almost assuredly help you fill many of the questions you want to answer, become a member of the scientific community. We will welcome you here.

Deductive reasoning is for morons, anyway.

 

[kldickson]

Cripes. Most of the people giving advice on that CollegeConfidential site look like people who are on the lower rungs of the collegiate intelligence scale.

 

[Solombas]

I wouldn't have to respond as much if there weren't an equal amount of criticisms to respond to :)

uhhh...well ok, here's your empirical evidence. I have a friend named Bob, maybe its not Achilles, but close enough eh? And I have this slower friend named Andrew, closer to the tortoise than Bob is to Achilles. Every time Bob gets to where Andrew used to be, Andrew moves away. Does Bob ever catch up?

2nd grade recess says...yes. Why? Because the time it takes for bob to catch up after each repetition gets slower and slower, and eventually it converges into a single number. Which is also exactly what the math does. Can we move on?

Yes, in fact what you are arguing is the standard solution in maths to Zeno's paradoxes. It argues that a converging infinite series has a sum, given that an infinite series has a limiting value due to the different velocity of two objects (i.e. Bob & Andrew), which translates to, correct me if I am wrong:

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1 (as its sum)

However, there are still some problems with this:

1) There is an assumption here. We are assuming that the limiting value of a converging infinite series is the SUM of the series. However, summing the series require us to make an infinite amount of additions; and this seems rather implausible.

Bob and Andrew are infinite in distance apart. Just because Bob is faster doesn't mean he will ever reach Andrew if you sum up all their velocities.

2)Even if a converging infinite series has a sum (so Bob does catch up with Andrew), to what extent this mathematical concept is true in the physical world? Adding velocities with maths in a cosmological scale in the Special Theory of Relativity may not conform to reality. We have no experimental data or empirical evidence to know the extent of this mathematical solution of Z's paradoxes to the phyiscal world.

Trust me, a philosopher of science does not know more science than a scientist. An undergrad at my institution, a sophomore friend of mine, knows much more science than our professor, who liked philosophy of science and featured it in his lectures quite a bit.

And Hilary Putnam knows less maths than an undergrad mathematician even though he is a Professor in Maths. Why do I find this hard to believe? Niels Bohr, btw, was also a mathematician. There were many scientists who became philosophers. One of my lecturers in philosophy of science was a physicist. Most philosophers of science often were scientists.

Ok, the universe does not speak English. It speaks math. No matter how much I read about Electricity and Magnetism, they didn't make a tenth of the amount of sense they made after we'd derived all of Maxwell's equations, even in the integral form. I can't take you seriously if you're going to tell me you can do science and understand the universe scientifically without math. In fact, I know you can't because you end up with dozens of different "views" of the world and have no way of proving them until physics comes along and kills them...which is exactly what happened in history. Case and point: Occasionalism.

I'm sorry, but I think you are confused here. I certainly did NOT say that we don't need maths to understand the universe. I am arguing that we need maths AND words to understand the universe.

1)Trying to understand the universe without maths doesn't necessarily lead to occasionalism. Just because someone is ignorant of maths doesn't mean they believe in God. A Wiccan with no knowledge of maths, for instance.

2)Reading about Maxwell's queation's with no conceptual knowledge of Electricity or Magnetism is useless. If you have no conceptual framework about the universe maths is MEANINGLESS (I cannot stress this anymore).

F=ma. So what if you can't define F, m and a? We NEED words to define theories.

3) Maths cannot explain everything easily. Try working out the mathematical solution to cure autism or the mathematical formula for the brain development of a person. The universe is too complicated to be modeled just in maths.

Yeah, but Science is a process which perfects itself over time. It grows upwards, you could say, in series. Whereas philosophy oftentimes grows in parallel, always coming up with alternatives but rarely eliminating them, because its hard to do so! Its the nature of the field.

It doesn't mean philosophy is unproductive. One just has to pick the right theories to complement his work, whatever that may be. Philosophy and science together can still benefit from each other. The conclusion is not adequately refuted.[/QUOTE]

No, you misunderstood my point. My point is that what is rational, reasonable, and sound is only so because we are exposed to it as a species. That is, in this macro universe, certain rules seem to be followed and that's ingrained into us as "axioms that make sense."

However, when we look at worlds outside of our paradigm, such as the very big or the very small or the very old or the very young, things don't "make sense" anymore. The mathematics is there, the mathematics can still describe it, but it doesn't make any intuitive logical sense. And since philosophers rely on intuitive, logical sense...you get my drift?

And mathematics isn't an axiom biased to our nature? I would argue that it is. We created maths. It is a conceptual tool in which we have created to try and describe the universe.

Words are equivalent to numbers. Numbers are just simpler in their definition. It is easier to define the concept of one than to define the concept of brain.

Btw, philosophers do use formal logic, the same kind of logic mathematicians use.

 

[Solombas]

Cripes. Most of the people giving advice on that CollegeConfidential site look like people who are on the lower rungs of the collegiate intelligence scale.

The universe speaks math, physics, chemistry, and biology.

For goodness's sake, man, if you want to do something more productive than philosophizing and which will almost assuredly help you fill many of the questions you want to answer, become a member of the scientific community. We will welcome you here.

Deductive reasoning is for morons, anyway.

Oh really? Why don't you PROVE that the universe speaks only in maths physics chemistry and biology? Where are your reasoning behind this? You can't just make a statement and say it is true. You have to justify it.

And I suppose human language is not part of the universe then? It must be just some disentangled blob that exists in a giant slug's backside? :)

If deductive reasoning is for morons, then you must mean maths is also for morons. Great, I suppose there is no hope for humankind.

Btw, I am also a scientist. Thanks for the offer though.

If you want to insult someone, please at least take the effort to get your facts right. Thank you very much.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Deductive reasoning is for morons, anyway.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

 

[dx]

1)The problem of infinity.
Anyone who has done philosophy in paradox, time, space/physics would know these famous questions. There are many so I will illustrate a few basic questions. Since most of you are physicists here see if you can answer these famous philosophical questions :)

If the past is infinite, then how is it that we even reach the present at all? If there is an infinite past, we would never reach a present state because we must make an infinite steps to reach anywhere. This, essentially, seems illogical. So, does this show the universe must have a beginning?

If everything can be reduced to an infinite amount of particles, then how does something infinite in size make up something with apparently finite size like us? If not, how can you justify that there is a fundamental particle? So far, we have only found more and more smaller particles why can't it go on infinitely?

Take a motion of an object from A to B (e.g. our hand moving from place A to place B). Break this motion down into an infinite number of micro-distances. So, how can an infinite number of micro-distances apparently make up a finite distance that we can measure and see?

If this is really a true representation of what present-day philosophers worry about (which I don't believe), then the situation is worse than I thought. None of these 'philosophical questions' make sense, and the very act of considering them shows a deep misunderstanding of science.

In science, we represent physical situations by models. Then we use the language of the model to discuss the physical situation. An error that was common in the earlier periods of human thought was to confuse the representation of a physical situation with the physical situation itself, due to the fact that some of these models like our model of space (Euclidean geometry) were too deeply embedded in our intuition. It was thought that Euclidean geometry was a priori true. We now realize that nothing about the universe can be deduced by pure logic; there are no a priori truths. The real place of logic in understanding the world is now clearly recognized: logic is used to deduce consequences from our models. For example, one can prove in Euclidean geometry using logic a statement like 'the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is equal to 180 degrees. This is a statement within the model, using only words and concepts defined within the model. This is a consequence deduced by logic within the representation, and at this stage says nothing about the actual world. It becomes science, a statement about the world, only when we say how actual experiments involving measurement of lengths (etc.) are to be interpreted in this model, i.e. we must map our experience/experiment into this model to define a physical theory (a process that is largely done automatically and intuitively in the case of Euclidean geometry).

Any statement about the physical world must be expressed in the language of some particular model. A statement like 'the past is infinite' is always a statement about the model. In this particular case, it is a statement about our model of space-time, i.e. the set of possible events. Our representation (or model) of spacetime is a differentiable manifold. I'm not saying this just to use big mathematical words, but to emphasize that the model is a pretty precisely defined structure. Now, what does it mean to say the past is infinite? It means that the differentiable manifold that represents spacetime has a certain topological property. What does it mean to say that the universe had a beginning? Again, it is a statement that the manifold has a certain property.

Let's consider one of your arguments:

If the past is infinite, then how is it that we even reach the present at all? If there is an infinite past, we would never reach a present state because we must make an infinite steps to reach anywhere. This, essentially, seems illogical. So, does this show the universe must have a beginning?

'We' are represented in the spacetime manifold by a structure called timelike worldline. That one can divide this world line into an infinite number of pieces has nothing to do with it's capability to 'reach' any point in spacetime; the model imposes no such restrictions. In fact, the question of whether the past is finite or infinite has nothing to do with this, since even a finite segment can be divided into an infinite number of pieces. Basically, this is a nonsense argument based on ill defined words and the vague mental images suggested by these ill defined words. No such argument can show that "the universe must have a beginning", because the latter is a well-defined and meaningful statement in our model of spacetime, with experimental consequences.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Just for some flavour I'm going to post a couple of tidbits from the "letters to prospective grad student" of philosophy professors at my uni:

"My particular areas of research interest are feminist bioethics, philosophy of law, philosophy of religion, and environmental ethics. At present I'm trying to understand the concept of dignity and how it relates to issues in both health care and law. In health care, the concept of dignity arises most obviously in discourses about death; but I am more interested in how it relates to genetic and other technological interventions in the area of reproduction. Recently I've argued that prenatal testing for disability sends a message that persons with disabilities are unwelcome and of lesser worth, and I made a similar argument a decade ago about prenatal testing for fetal sex. Complexities arise when we ask what it is to send a message, how we determine the content of a non-linguistic message, and whether or how a message can alter someone's status. "

"y interests lie in three main (non-exclusive) areas: philosophy of time and space, the history of philosophy (primarily 17th C.), and the history and philosophy of math (primarily issues concerning the infinite and the infinitely small). All three interests come together in my studies of Gottfried Leibniz, the great German polymath who was Newton's arch-rival as top-dog in the intellectual world at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Apart from his invention of the differential calculus (independently of Newton's analogous methods), Leibniz is chiefly known for his (much misunderstood) doctrine of monads. I am currently writing a book on his interpretation of time, space, motion, atoms, substance, the infinite and infinitesimals, hoping at the same time to give a historically accurate assessment, and also to show the relevance of Leibniz's views to contemporary problems in philosophy. I am also working with an international group of other scholars, both physicists and philosophers, on trying to get straight on issues concerning time that are holding back modern physics, in particular the quest for a theory of quantum gravity. Finally, I am exploring a new approach to the philosophy of the infinite. "
(P.S. on this one. The leibniz/Newtonian construction of calculus and musings of the infinite were replaces over 150 years ago during the push for rigour. So perfect example of someone studying outdated theories)

" have two broad research areas in philosophy; the focus of my expertise being in analytic metaphysics and mind. My philosophical worries concern the manifest image of action and experience, and whether it coheres ultimately with our possibly best explanations of that very image. Can we unify our self-conception as responsible rational animal agents, with the evident facts of material constitution and embodiment? Can we preserve our normative functional descriptions (the "design" stance) towards living systems? Are objects more than the sum of their parts? Are there emergent irreducible properties, such as consciousness? Much of my thinking and writing is directed towards the amorphous goal of not fearing determinism or materialism, while acknowledging the important revisions we may need to make in our self-understanding. "
(This guy just reminds me of the whole Alan Sokal affair. Which if you've never heard of you might want to look into Solombus)

 

[Solombas]

If this is really a true representation of what present-day philosophers worry about (which I don't believe), then the situation is worse than I thought. None of these 'philosophical questions' make sense, and the very act of considering them shows a deep misunderstanding of science.

No no, the questions I have presented are an oversimplification and represent a small aspect of the discussion in ontology. I wanted to keep things as basic as possible so most people can read it. Zeno's paradox is a very famous discussion amongst ontologists. If you open any up-to-date philosophy of space and time reader it would probably include Z's paradox, criticisms against Z's paradox and the standard mathematical solutions for it and criticisms against the math solutions. I have already illustrated one aspect of this in my latter posts (on converging infinite series).

In science, we represent physical situations by models. Then we use the language of the model to discuss the physical situation. An error that was common in the earlier periods of human thought was to confuse the representation of a physical situation with the physical situation itself, due to the fact that some of these models like our model of space (Euclidean geometry) were too deeply embedded in our intuition. It was thought that Euclidean geometry was a priori true. We now realize that nothing about the universe can be deduced by pure logic; there are no a priori truths. The real place of logic in understanding the world is now clearly recognized: logic is used to deduce consequences from our models. For example, one can prove in Euclidean geometry using logic a statement like 'the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is equal to 180 degrees. This is a statement within the model, using only words and concepts defined within the model. This is a consequence deduced by logic within the representation, and at this stage says nothing about the actual world. It becomes science, a statement about the world, only when we say how actual experiments involving measurement of lengths (etc.) are to be interpreted in this model, i.e. we must map our experience/experiment into this model to define a physical theory (a process that is largely done automatically and intuitively in the case of Euclidean geometry).

Yes, I agree with you that our language and reasoning is biased by our theories of the universe. Again I was trying to argue about this before that both mathematics and logical reasoning are not copies of reality and their validity is biased by the contribution of our minds. However, the principles of science is founded on a priori statements too. Science assumes a few things about the universe, for example, determinism (things are orderly as they have causes) and empiricism (we can objectively know things).


We can never perceive truth directly. Stimuli goes into our brain from child to adulthood and we process this and associate it with certain emotions and memories. The contribution of our mind, concept of self, culture (both time and place) all affect our perception of truth. Therefore, everything, and I mean this literally, everything *is* a theory because we don't perceive a copy of reality; we are actually perceiving the result of stimuli processed by our mind.

What science is really doing is measuring regularities in the universe. It is reliable and successful but both of this is not a function of validity. Truth cannot be validated by a reliable process. Finding about the universe with the scientific method is just like finding out about the best strategies to play a soccer game. You may figure out the most reliable and successful strategies for soccer but it doesn't mean that these strategies will still be valid when applied outside of soccer. It is the same with applying science to the universe. Can you see what I mean?

In saying all of this, I agree with you that science is necessary to find out truth given what we have except that I am arguing that the philosophy of science and science combined are better to achieve this than either alone. For some reason, some scientists in here think this is absurd.

Any statement about the physical world must be expressed in the language of some particular model. A statement like 'the past is infinite' is always a statement about the model. In this particular case, it is a statement about our model of space-time, i.e. the set of possible events. Our representation (or model) of spacetime is a differentiable manifold. I'm not saying this just to use big mathematical words, but to emphasize that the model is a pretty precisely defined structure. Now, what does it mean to say the past is infinite? It means that the differentiable manifold that represents spacetime has a certain topological property. What does it mean to say that the universe had a beginning? Again, it is a statement that the manifold has a certain property.

Let's consider one of your arguments:

'We' are represented in the spacetime manifold by a structure called timelike worldline. That one can divide this world line into an infinite number of pieces has nothing to do with it's capability to 'reach' any point in spacetime; the model imposes no such restrictions. In fact, the question of whether the past is finite or infinite has nothing to do with this, since even a finite segment can be divided into an infinite number of pieces. Basically, this is a nonsense argument based on ill defined words and the vague mental images suggested by these ill defined words. No such argument can show that "the universe must have a beginning", because the latter is a well-defined and meaningful statement in our model of spacetime, with experimental consequences.

I am not a physicists or a mathematician, but if I get it right I take it you are using the block universe model here. In the block universe context, the past, present and future exist simultaneously. I agree that Zeno's paradox is probably not much of a problem in a block universe. However, the block universe theory aka eternalism is still not a theory with overwhelming evidence, if I am correct. We do not know for sure whether time moves forward or goes everywhere simultaneously or only the present exists (presentism). In the case that time moves forward linearly then I am arguing Zeno's paradox is still problematic (see my latter criticisms for the standard mathemathetical solutions).

 

[DukeofDuke]

However, summing the series require us to make an infinite amount of additions; and this seems rather implausible.

I guess you're right, and there is no such thing as an integral.
Once again, philosophy disproves...just about everything invented in the 1800's and up.

Bob and Andrew are infinite in distance apart. Just because Bob is faster doesn't mean he will ever reach Andrew if you sum up all their velocities.

Actually I think you are right on this one. It depends on what kind of infinite distance separates them. That would determine if the series converges or not. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

And Hilary Putnam knows less maths than an undergrad mathematician even though he is a Professor in Maths. Why do I find this hard to believe? Niels Bohr, btw, was also a mathematician. There were many scientists who became philosophers. One of my lecturers in philosophy of science was a physicist. Most philosophers of science often were scientists.

I'm guessing Putnam was trained as a mathematician. I'm guessing you have the causality wrong in your last sentence, many scientists became philosophers of science, not the other way around. My point is that the typical philosophy PhD leaves one with a knowledge of physics perhaps equivalent to that of a bright sophomore undergrad, and probably less because people outside of physics inexplicably jump to Relativity and QM without taking 10 seconds to learn Mechanics and, much more critically, E&M. Considering relativity falls out of Maxwell's equations, this is clearly a mistake.

To understand the physics, you really do need to devote a LOT of time and thought too it, and get yourself a LOT of formal training. That's very hard for a professional in another field.

I don't really know what Bohr has to do with it. Are you implying Bohr was a philosopher, who was also well versed in mathematics? Like Putnam? Then I'm sorry, because I didn't even know he was anything more than an armchair philosopher. He's a physicist first and foremost, by a lot, so I don't really know why you mentioned his expertise in math. A lot of great physicists were also very good at math, they had to be.

I'm sorry, but I think you are confused here. I certainly did NOT say that we don't need maths to understand the universe. I am arguing that we need maths AND words to understand the universe.

Oh, I agree. Because we can't talk to each other without words. We can't communicate and build upon our discoveries. But to take it a step further, you have to have either the concepts or the math, and in my experience the concepts can only be understood by understanding the math.

1)Trying to understand the universe without maths doesn't necessarily lead to occasionalism. Just because someone is ignorant of maths doesn't mean they believe in God. A Wiccan with no knowledge of maths, for instance.

I was just using Occasionalism as an example of a stupid philosophy

2)Reading about Maxwell's queation's with no conceptual knowledge of Electricity or Magnetism is useless. If you have no conceptual framework about the universe maths is MEANINGLESS (I cannot stress this anymore).

Well, if you just look at the symbols, then its just as bad as words. My point is, the math is the only thing that can CONVEY the conceptual knowledge. English is not adequate. You can't "understand" it without the math, and once you go through the math properly, you understand it. The conceptual knowledge IS the math, and English has nothing to do with it. Its hard to explain. But the light goes off in my head once I understand the math, not before, and the math leads me to further revelations. The equations speak to you, essentially. The negative in Faraday's Law BECOMES Lenz's law, it tells you what and why its there and what it all means.

3) Maths cannot explain everything easily. Try working out the mathematical solution to cure autism or the mathematical formula for the brain development of a person. The universe is too complicated to be modeled just in maths.

Not quite sure what your point is. First of all, maths is the language of the universe, but its not the universe. That's why we need physics...and yes, you can do all those things with physics if you're willing to sit around and sum it up 10^alot of times. But that's hard, so we invent chemistry and biology and all that.

And mathematics isn't an axiom biased to our nature? I would argue that it is. We created maths. It is a conceptual tool in which we have created to try and describe the universe.

the funny thing about maths is that at first it makes sense but it always implies something deeper, and you just have to follow the thread. Combine it with the physics, and eventually you get to models with electron spins which you can't really imagine (I still can't anyways) or weird wavefunctions that imply things you thought were impossible. The mere fact that nobody has ever gotten even close to that kind of thing with just words, well, I think it speaks for itself.

Btw, philosophers do use formal logic, the same kind of logic mathematicians use.

Yeah but only after making up a lot of bs.
"I clearly and distinctly perceive God. Now suck it" ~Descartes

 

[DukeofDuke]

What science is really doing is measuring regularities in the universe. It is reliable and successful but both of this is not a function of validity. Truth cannot be validated by a reliable process.

I think I will use a philosopher to "disprove" you here, to demonstrate how philosophy cannot reach the truth either since it cannot be validated and move forward and progress.

David Hume's new science of human nature explicitly states that knowledge can only be acquired through a process of verification, where the number of similar outcomes in the past determine what trust one should put in a similar outcome in the future. For Hume, there is no other way to ascertain truth, except through repetitive experience.

Truth can only be validated by a reliable process. At least, that's philosophy

 

[marmot]

It is true a lot of traditional philosophy is silly but its also silly to dismiss the whole endeavour, and I suspect a lot of the physics folks who do this are the kindof people who cannot write a paper to save their lives.

The only wortwhile aspect of philosophy is its ability to clarify arguments - because as Wittgenstein points out, it is impossible for it to bring knowledge - that is the task of science. However, this clarification is very important for someone who takes seriously his task of learning. I see so many science students thinking that the math they write in a piece of paper is equivalent to nature as if spacetime manifolds and electric field grads spanned acrossed the universe. A scientist might be able to predict succesifully certain phenomena, but the interpretation they do sometimes is problematic. For example, does it make sense to think of the photon as really a "particle" as in little hard balls, or it makes more sense to treat it as a mathematical tool that might or may not meaningfully exist? Does space and time really curve or is it just mathematics?

Does it make sense to speak of atoms? After all atoms are density functions in hilbert space. What older generations thought of atoms - little hard balls, looses any sense in current scientific discourse. etc

And arguing because they offer predictive power they are true is senseless. phlogiston theory and ptolemys epycicles had predictive power too. what if quantum mechanics are just the equivalent of ptolemaic epycicles?


Without discussing this sort of "clarification", we sooner or later find barriers. For example, the mechanical worldview of Newton made it hard for people to accept the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics. Or for example, today, we have a whole lot of people scribbling numbers, like string theorists, but without any sort of empirical imput, etc.

 

[DukeofDuke]

I'm perfectly happy to lump the string theorists in with the philosophers

 

[AUMathTutor]

I disagree that philosophy cannot bring knowledge. It cannot lead to certain kinds of knowledge, perhaps, but that is certainly not all the knowledge there is.

Science and mathematics are not infinite in their capacity to answer all questions about human life. Where they leave off, philosophy picks up. When philosophy contradics science or mathematics on scientific or mathematical manners, then the philosophy should be given a thorough looking over. On the other hand, when science and mathematics contradict philosophy in philosophical matters, they deserve a thorough looking over as well. In fact, this is where paradoxes of mathematics and science come from; when they disagree with philosophical principles. Often, the philosophy must be revised because it turns out science and mathematics are correct; sometimes, the mathematics and science must be revised because the philosophy was on unshakeable ground.

Of the following branches of philosophy, which are worthless?
- Metaphysics
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Politics
- Esthetics

How do science or mathematics address any of these?

 

[DukeofDuke]

Well, I'd say its the metaphysics that manages to make me cry the most. In that the class I was complaining about primarily focused on various philosophers "views" on metaphysics. Metaphysical views are a dime a dozen and there's no good way to sort them out, to render one false and the other true.

yay for epistemology and ethics.

Politics...you mean game theory?

Aesthetics, well the philosophy of beauty just isn't my cup of tea but it doesn't seem to make me mad. Neither does underwater basket weaving of course (another popular major for pre-law students I hear).I do agree though, that the "human" aspect (what we *should* do) is just as hard to describe with maths as the physical version (what there *is*) is to describe with philosophical persuasions.

 

[Dembadon]

Of the following branches of philosophy, which are worthless?
- Metaphysics
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Politics
- Esthetics

How do science or mathematics address any of these?

While I do not personally feel that any of those areas of study are worthless, I would argue that the sciences contain areas of study which address those topics quite well. I would also argue that with the exception of metaphysics, all of the above topics have something to do with human behavior and how we resond to and/or make decisions about things in life. I believe that the biological sciences do an excellent job explaining why our bodies respond to things the way they do.

-Robert

 

[AUMathTutor]

Well, I agree that things like biology and pscyhology can address certain questions of human behavior, but I feel that the way in which it addresses these questions is fundamentally different to the way philosophy does. I feel that the two are concerned with primarily different, though related, areas.

Not to say that the two areas can't becombined in interdisciplinary studies, and not to say that the one can't and shouldn't influence the other, but it's my firm belief that the subjects are entities unto themselves, and when biologists start addressing philosophical questions, they become philosophers, regardless of the biological evidence they use.

I feel like there's a lot of mistrust of modern philosophy. A lot of this seems to stem from the fact that some kinds of philosophy aren't empirically verifiable. But this is silly to me; you'll throw out some kinds of philosophy because another kind (empiricism) seems to require more of them than they can offer? Empiricism is not the only way of getting truth. It's one way, and it has been successful, sure, but that doesn't mean all others should be abandoned.

I still say philosophy is a lot like mathematics. People come up with theories and techniques and terminologies that are useful for addressing certain kinds of problems. You start with postulates and use logic to expand the system. Different areas of mathematics are certainly allowed to disagree on certain questions, provided that their axioms differ and both are coherent. In philosophy, some people see this as the whole thing being arbitrary; in mathematics, the same people would see it as being a trivial objection.

For instance, answer the following question, and see whether or not your answer depends on the axioms you start with: find y if sqrt(y) = -1.

 

[Solombas]

Thanks for replies :) What marmot and mathtutor were saying were generally what I have been trying to say about philosophy and science throughout this whole discussion.

I guess you're right, and there is no such thing as an integral.
Once again, philosophy disproves...just about everything invented in the 1800's and up.

That is the nature of the field, my friend. The beauty about philosophy is that it questions and criticises everything to the limits of human logic. And that includes science and the nature of logic itself which is the foundation of philosophy. The beauty of science, however, is that it verifies whether our theories reliably predict and explain the objective universe perceived by all of us.

Together they are the best methodologies we have so far, no matter how imperfect.

I'm guessing Putnam was trained as a mathematician. I'm guessing you have the causality wrong in your last sentence, many scientists became philosophers of science, not the other way around.

Yes, that was what I mean. I apologise if I didn't make that clear. However, it is just my speculation. I haven't reviewed or conducted any survey to see whether this is true or not.

My point is that the typical philosophy PhD leaves one with a knowledge of physics perhaps equivalent to that of a bright sophomore undergrad, and probably less because people outside of physics inexplicably jump to Relativity and QM without taking 10 seconds to learn Mechanics and, much more critically, E&M. Considering relativity falls out of Maxwell's equations, this is clearly a mistake.

Well, how knowledgeable a PhD philosopher in physics is a function of how successful she is with her research in physics and its philosophy, isn't it? But yes, PhD philosophers probably don't get much education it the methodology and maths behind physics. They are more concerned with the philosophical implications of a concept in physics GIVEN it is true. For example, given that the heat death theory of the universe is true, what does this imply about the meaning of life? Etc..

I don't really know what Bohr has to do with it. Are you implying Bohr was a philosopher, who was also well versed in mathematics? Like Putnam? Then I'm sorry, because I didn't even know he was anything more than an armchair philosopher. He's a physicist first and foremost, by a lot, so I don't really know why you mentioned his expertise in math. A lot of great physicists were also very good at math, they had to be.

Oh no, Bohr wasn't like Putnam he wasn't a professor in maths. But he was also a mathematician as well as a physicist but he was best known as a physicist especially for his work on atomic structure. He also wrote about the philosophical implications of his work. See for example his writings on atomic physics and human knowledge:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0918024528/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The point I was trying to make was that many successful scientists thought that both philosophy and science were important and clearly they applied both fields to their endeavors.

Oh, I agree. Because we can't talk to each other without words. We can't communicate and build upon our discoveries. But to take it a step further, you have to have either the concepts or the math, and in my experience the concepts can only be understood by understanding the math.

Well, if you just look at the symbols, then its just as bad as words. My point is, the math is the only thing that can CONVEY the conceptual knowledge. English is not adequate. You can't "understand" it without the math, and once you go through the math properly, you understand it. The conceptual knowledge IS the math, and English has nothing to do with it. Its hard to explain. But the light goes off in my head once I understand the math, not before, and the math leads me to further revelations. The equations speak to you, essentially. The negative in Faraday's Law BECOMES Lenz's law, it tells you what and why its there and what it all means.

Not quite sure what your point is. First of all, maths is the language of the universe, but its not the universe. That's why we need physics...and yes, you can do all those things with physics if you're willing to sit around and sum it up 10^alot of times. But that's hard, so we invent chemistry and biology and all that.

I'm not sure about maths being the language of the universe. But one thing I can ask is this. How can maths explain, for example, the correlation between brain activations and mental experiences - the old mind-body problem? Even if you can reduce all the physiology and mathematical framework of consciousness to their most fundamental basis; how do you explain why these fundamental units of consciousness give rise to experience at all? How do you explain the leap between the maths of something to the experience of the actual thing itself?

Maybe maths can explain this maybe not. I don't expect an answer this is a notoriously difficult question.

Yeah but only after making up a lot of bs.
"I clearly and distinctly perceive God. Now suck it" ~Descartes

Yes, but you see theories like this that are untestable that yield weak/no explanatory or predictive power also get discarded in philosophy even though we may still learn about them in philosophy textbooks. For example, most philosophers of mind today would find substance dualism (mind is nonphysical and brain is physical) a weak theory due to its many problems.

I think I will use a philosopher to "disprove" you here, to demonstrate how philosophy cannot reach the truth either since it cannot be validated and move forward and progress.

David Hume's new science of human nature explicitly states that knowledge can only be acquired through a process of verification, where the number of similar outcomes in the past determine what trust one should put in a similar outcome in the future. For Hume, there is no other way to ascertain truth, except through repetitive experience.

Truth can only be validated by a reliable process. At least, that's philosophy

What if the it turns out that there can be many different kinds of universe with different kinds of physical laws if the initial conditions of the universe were altered differently? The regularities you find in one universe would not apply to the other. What is true for one universe would no longer be true for another.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Hey, thanks for sticking with me for so long. Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this its a good challenge, good for the mind.

So the stuff about the integral...an integral is just the limit of a riemann sum. So, maybe its the whole concept of limits that you're questioning and I'm not. Because besides "the limit as divisions go to infinity" that definition of the integral is pretty well centered in the finite.

They are more concerned with the philosophical implications of a concept in physics GIVEN it is true. For example, given that the heat death theory of the universe is true, what does this imply about the meaning of life? Etc..

But while heat death is a more simple concept to draw conclusions from...I see a lot of "implications of quantum physics" books by pseudo-philosophers. That type of thing I can't agree with, because some concepts are too complex to draw conclusions from without really understanding them at a level abstract thinking doesn't reach. Our brains just can't grasp some things except in a roundabout (mathematical, not visual) way.

The point I was trying to make was that many successful scientists thought that both philosophy and science were important and clearly they applied both fields to their endeavors.

Pretty much all great men developed their own philosophies. That, however, is a testament to the nature of great men, not to the nature of philosophy or science. We should judge both fields without looking at the men that inhabit them, or at least that's my opinion.

I'm not sure about maths being the language of the universe. But one thing I can ask is this. How can maths explain, for example, the correlation between brain activations and mental experiences - the old mind-body problem? Even if you can reduce all the physiology and mathematical framework of consciousness to their most fundamental basis; how do you explain why these fundamental units of consciousness give rise to experience at all? How do you explain the leap between the maths of something to the experience of the actual thing itself?

Well you can't very well expect 300 years of calculus to explain all the mysteries of a 300 million year old species can you? But yes, the math describes the physics, and the physics summed gives the chemistry and the chemistry summed gives the biology and I believe its biology that can answer those questions. Of course, the techniques used in chem and bio are not derived from physics but from their own scientific observations, but their validity does eventually go back to physics. We might notice that drug A kills bacteria B, and market that as biology, but if you look far enough there are chemical processes at work based on physical processes at work based on mathematical models...

Yes, but you see theories like this that are untestable that yield weak/no explanatory or predictive power also get discarded in philosophy even though we may still learn about them in philosophy textbooks. For example, most philosophers of mind today would find substance dualism (mind is nonphysical and brain is physical) a weak theory due to its many problems.

But was it discarded for philosophical or biological reasons? Would philosophy ever have logically ruled it out, had not experiment and biology not done so?
If you say yes, then you'd probably also say that physics needs only the mathematical theorists, and not the experimentalists. But Feynman said "
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. " and his word is law. :!)
Does philosophy have any inbuilt "lie detector" to weed out the bad theories? Or if biology and psychology weren't around would we still be debating the question of dualism?
If physics weren't around would there still be 4 elements because it "made sense"?
[/QUOTE]

What if the it turns out that there can be many different kinds of universe with different kinds of physical laws if the initial conditions of the universe were altered differently? The regularities you find in one universe would not apply to the other. What is true for one universe would no longer be true for another.

I think Hume would still say whatever prior experience we have in that universe would determine what we know about that universe (and if you tampered with the notions of causality, I think Hume would be screwed).

 

[flyzeggs]

I've seen papers written by Philosophers in reputable Physics journals.

Why not try the Physics and Philosophy majors (offered by many schools in the UK and I think Brown in the US or the foundations of physics grad program at Columbia), they're quite good.

I think it's a bit unfortunate that many Physics majors underestimate the importance of philosophy in their field. Philosophy is a very interesting field, and many philosophy majors move on to work in the sciences. Like math, it really does help you think better.

 

[Entropee]

Write books! Either textbooks or popularizations - start early and be persistent.

thats a really good idea, if you write a good book you could end up making tons of money off it.