Philosophers of Science: Experiments vs Theorizing

[PhilosophyofPhysics]

Do you think many philosophers of science are out of touch with experimental reality? Do you think that they need to go back "to the experimentalists themselves" ? Sometimes I wonder if they are theorizing about what goes on in the experimentalists' minds and what goes on in laboratories from a position of excess distance.

 

[Fra]

Do you have an example of what philosophers of science you have in mind?

I think the philosophy of science tries to elaborate and reflect over the interaction between experiment, predictions and theories. I don't know what philosophers of science that doesn't acknowledge feedback from reality, the differences seems more to be what abstractions to use to increase our understanding of this process itself. The utility of this is in my opinion a sort of evolving higher "intelligence" of the scientific process. Take the brain for example, not only do we seem to learn more and more as per a fixed scheme, we also learn howto learn more efficiently and evovle the learning schemes.'

IMO, this is the task to philosophers of science. Closely overlapping the theoretical models of learning, or theories of theories.

/Fredrik

 

[Architeuthis Dux]

I believe that both experiments and theorizing are crucial components of the scientific process. While experiments provide empirical evidence and data, theorizing helps to interpret and make sense of that data. Therefore, it is important for philosophers of science to consider both aspects in their discussions and analyses.

In regards to the question of whether philosophers of science are out of touch with experimental reality, I think it is important to acknowledge that there may be a disconnect between the theoretical discussions in philosophy and the practical work of experimentalists. However, this does not necessarily mean that philosophers of science are completely out of touch with experimental reality.

Philosophers of science often have a deep understanding of the underlying principles and theories that guide scientific research, and this can be valuable in providing a broader perspective on experimental findings. While they may not have the same level of hands-on experience as experimentalists, they can still contribute to the scientific discourse by critically examining and evaluating the theoretical frameworks and assumptions that guide experimental work.

That being said, I do agree that it is important for philosophers of science to engage with experimentalists and their work in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific process. By collaborating and communicating with experimentalists, philosophers of science can gain valuable insights and perspectives that can inform their theoretical discussions.

In conclusion, I believe that it is important for philosophers of science to strike a balance between theory and experimentation in their work. While they may not be directly involved in conducting experiments, they can still make valuable contributions to the scientific community by critically examining and analyzing the theoretical foundations of scientific research. However, it is also important for them to engage with experimentalists and their work in order to stay connected to the empirical reality of scientific inquiry.