Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Physics major doesn't believe in empiricism

  1. Sep 14, 2007 #1
    i am he. what am i going to do? i'm seriously having a philosophical crisis here. i think i'm going to switch my major to math.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2007 #2

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    What problems are you having with empiricism? Maybe some of us can offer insight into your dilemma.


    Physics and all science is based on observations of the natural world. This brings with it the component of empiricism. Empirical data from experiment is essential in science and we really couldn't be scientists without it. Empirical data guides us in the formation of our models and theories. To describe the universe without empirical data would be equivalent to trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone you've never seen.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2007
  4. Sep 14, 2007 #3
    i have a problem with empiricism as a philosophy in that i don't think it's the right one
     
  5. Sep 14, 2007 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Sep 14, 2007 #5

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Yes. Please explain what you don't find correct about it. We can't offer our insight into your crisis if we don't know what the crisis is.
     
  7. Sep 14, 2007 #6
    that is the crisis.
    because its leads to inherently tautologous systems. yes the theories we create come from empirical phenomena and so they're "seeded" by something outside of themselves. but the predictions are based off of the axiomatic system we've created so if they're confirmed they're tautologically true.

    honestly this is all very murky in my mind right now so please no one get upset if i'm talkin bs.

    to be a little more specific

    when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. theres no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. whats a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2007
  8. Sep 14, 2007 #7

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, let me ask you this question:

    How would you go about finding out how nature works if not through science? (I am asking this seriously. If you think science isn't going about things correctly, how would you go about it if not through the scientific method?)
     
  9. Sep 14, 2007 #8
    i don't think you can find out how nature works.
     
  10. Sep 14, 2007 #9

    G01

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    We may not be able to find out EVERYTHING about nature, but saying that we can't know how nature works is a little absurd. There is a reason why the average human life span has doubled since the scientific revolution. There is a reason why we have automobiles, planes, space shuttles, telecommunications and electricity. It is because we understand those aspects of nature that we were able to make those advances. We may not understand them completely, but with every piece of evidence and every experiment done, we get closer and closer to the real truth. We may never know everything about how the universe works, but we can keep learning more and more. If you assume your never going to understand everything and say, why bother, of course your not going to understand anything.

    Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.
     
  11. Sep 15, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know how you feel!!! You are correct in that physics cannot provide the answers that you seek; nothing can. However, you will get as close to the essence as possible through physics. Mathematics doesn't even try to do that.

    My motives were much the same as yours in that I wanted to REALLY understand things at the most fundamental level, but I certainly don't regret sticking it out. Then again, as much as I enjoyed the subject, there is no way that I would have ever considered becoming a math major, so we are different in that regard. :biggrin:
     
  12. Sep 15, 2007 #11
    no offense but i don't think you've ever read about epistemology. i'm not a run of the mill crackpot and this isn't a run of the mill dilemma.

    technology and medical advances aren't good evidence of insight into the way the world works. take for example electricity; holes flowing from positive terminal to negative terminal or electrons flowing from negative terminal to positive are exactly the same thing, all the equations still say the same things. so which is it? does it matter which it is?

    most technology is not based off fundamental physics, it's based off of macroscopic phenomena. samething for medicine.
    yea i've seen you in my threads before, kindred spirits we would be if i believed in spirits.

    besides the fact that i don't think physics means anything, i think it would be completely unsatisfying to solve problems that have no real answers; because they're meaningless. I knnow someone will jump on me for this but i'm not using meaningless in the same sense as others. math atleast doesn't pretend to describe anything except itself so a solved problem in math is the truth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2007
  13. Sep 15, 2007 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even if we ignore the limitations, in the end, unless you are among the elite of the elite, people in physics get paid to do practical work.

    The only thing that got me through was a "fundamental" love of the subject; limitations and all. And I would have never worked so hard for something that I didn't love.
     
  14. Sep 15, 2007 #13
    another reason why maybe i won't continue
     
  15. Sep 15, 2007 #14
    ice109, why not perceive science as the attempt to discover nature's "axioms", or at least the attempt to discover whether or not nature has axioms? If the axioms we suggest lead to an inference that we can observe in nature, then it is supporting evidence. When there is a contradiction between nature and theory, we try to come up with a new set of axioms and go on from there. In mathematics we don't have to have a system of axioms confirm anything outside of themselves, science is the opposite. Empiricism is, after all, just the gathering of information that hints us towards the axioms we're looking for.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2007
  16. Sep 15, 2007 #15
    the attempt to discover nature's axioms is to imply that there are a priori truths which there are not.
     
  17. Sep 15, 2007 #16
    Physics is what it is: A model for making predictions out of phenomena that can be measured. Trying to extend it beyond that will no doubt leave you unsatisfied. Physics does not explain the "why" of things, and should not attempt to.

    The only reason mathematics is any different is because you are able to define your fundamental principles. That does not mean it has any more or less value as an expression of what is true.
     
  18. Sep 15, 2007 #17
    I do agree with you that empiricism has its flaws in that many times we cannot trust our senses (e.g. we can only see the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes)

    However, physics is worth studying because it lets us have accurate, though not 100% certain, ideas about how nature works. For example, gravity is an amazing phenomena about nature yet we cannot know for 100% certain how it works exactly. So in a sense, physics does indeed let us know about nature
     
  19. Sep 15, 2007 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is not a matter of why, it is a matter of the essence vs models.

    We have no reason to believe that mathematical models not rooted in physics have any basis in reality, but I have often wondered... And there are a few examples where purely mathematical models predicted real models.

    ice109, I'm not trying to discourage you, and definitely don't drop out of college [which I assume is not on your list of options], but I think it is very important to be true to one's self and to pursue a life that will make you happy.

    ...and it is possible that physics in its most fundamental form is [or will be] essential, we can just never know.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2007
  20. Sep 15, 2007 #19

    Defennder

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    ice109, I think you're confused about the nature and study of science. This is more of a philosophical problem than any scientific one. I can't quite judge from your replies what your exact position and philosophical conundrum is, but I'm guessing it's something to do with the empirical underdetermination of theories. This is more philo than anything else, so perhaps you'll like to ask this in the Philo forums instead. In a nutshell, and I hope I'm right about this, what this means is that by the Duhem-Quine thesis, every empirical confirmation of a theory requires interpretation that and every interpretation itself is theory-laden. Hence you can't claim the theory is validated simply because you have a positive result, as it may be that certain other hidden background assumptions are not proven as well. This ties in quite nicely with Goodman's riddle of induction, which questions why we should accept human intuition in formulating valid inductive hypotheses as opposed to completely arbitrary ones, which though does not contradict the results, are ridiculous enough for us to not consider them.

    As interesting as this philosophical theorizing may appear, bear in mind that if you were to examine the record of the cumulative works of philosophy and that of empirical science since their inception, I think you'll agree that science has definitely achieved a lot more. If you're interested, I advise that you check Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science and math. You appear to be stuck in a phase of thought loosely corresponding to the period of development of philosophy of science in when Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The philo of science have since moved on. Lakato's philosophy attempts a way out of this phase. Of course this says nothing about mathematics, but as an alternative to physics, why not go into engineering? It's probably the the closest thing to physics. After all, even if you can't discern and comprehend scientific truth, we can at least use them to our practical advantage to make things work, right?
     
  21. Sep 15, 2007 #20

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I remember taking some philosophy classes when I was in college too. Made me temporarily paralyzed with doubt and confusion also.

    A laser still works, though.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Physics major doesn't believe in empiricism
  1. Physics Majors (Replies: 6)

  2. Believe it or not? (Replies: 20)

Loading...