The Role of Philosophy in Science: Separating Fact from Fiction

[marlon]

And so am I..
(I don't know if we're going to get any solid facts out of these people, though)

And so am i...

marlon

 

[arildno]

A very interesting article written by a clearly knowledgeable man (Martin Gardner)
Thanks, Aquamarine.

 

[Fliption]

I have put out my challenge several days ago, and NO ONE took up on the offer. I asked for anyone to specifically point to me, in the case of the develoment (and still developing) of the discovery of high-Tc superconductors, where EXACTLY was and is the role of philosophy and philosphy of science in particular?

That's like asking what the role of a CEO is on his company's assembly line. The relationship is a bit more complex than this question makes it out to be.

And as in all cases like this, of course the answer is different depending on who you ask! If you ask a worker on the assembly line, he'll tell you the CEO does nothing to help them out. Yet an outside investor who understands all the relationships and the big picture would say the CEO does indeed have an impact.

 

[marlon]

That's like asking what the role of a CEO is on his company's assembly line. The relationship is a bit more complex than this question makes it out to be.

And as in all cases like this, of course the answer is different depending on who you ask! If you ask a worker on the assembly line, he'll tell you the CEO does nothing to help them out. Yet an outside investor who understands all the relationships and the big picture would say the CEO does indeed have an impact.

Fliption,

You are just trying to avoid the question here. Please, give some specific answers to Zz's question and stop phillibustering here...This is not at political thread...

marlon

 

[Fliption]

Fliption,

You are just trying to avoid the question here. Please, give some specific answers to Zz's question and stop phillibustering here...This is not at political thread...

marlon

There is no answer to the question you are intending to ask. Insisting on one shows a lack of understanding of the relationships involved. Just like the assembly line worker has no idea how anything works outside his own world.

 

[marlon]

There is no answer to that question. Insisting on one shows a lack of understanding of the relationships involved. Just like the assembly line worker has no idea how anything works outside his own world.

So basically what you say is that when one someone asks you "what is the role of philosophy of science into the development of science?", there is no answer ? I am sure your buddies cogito and LesSleeth are going to disagree.
Nevertheless if you cannot come up with anyhting good here, then what are you doing here? What are the statements you are defending, what is your point? Basically why do you post here ?

Don't take this the wrong way, but i am really wondering about these questions to which there certainly IS an answer, as there is an answer to Zz's question. Let me answer it for you : NONE WHAT SO EVER !

marlon

 

[arildno]

Fliption:
Just remember the following.
It is simply bad form to masturbate in public; neither is it productive.

 

[Fliption]

So basically what you say is that when one someone asks you "what is the role of philosophy of science into the development of science?", there is no answer ? I am sure your buddies cogito and LesSleeth are going to disagree.
Nevertheless if you cannot come up with anyhting good here, then what are you doing here? What are the statements you are defending, what is your point? Basically why do you post here ?

Don't take this the wrong way, but i am really wondering about these questions to which there certainly IS an answer, as there is an answer to Zz's question. Let me answer it for you : NONE WHAT SO EVER !

marlon

I figured you would misunderstand so I modified my words. Apparently not soon enough. I'm saying that the answer you seek does not exists. The true answer to the question would require you taking some courses in philosophy. You don't understand what you're asking if you actually expect someone to tell you in a thread on the internet the relationship between philosophy and science! My god this could fill a library.

 

[Fliption]

Fliption:
Just remember the following.
It is simply bad form to masturbate in public; neither is it productive.

I always appreciate it when people share their personal lessons learned with me. Thanks for the advice.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's like asking what the role of a CEO is on his company's assembly line. The relationship is a bit more complex than this question makes it out to be.

And as in all cases like this, of course the answer is different depending on who you ask! If you ask a worker on the assembly line, he'll tell you the CEO does nothing to help them out. Yet an outside investor who understands all the relationships and the big picture would say the CEO does indeed have an impact.

So, show me how that CEO makes an impact here, Mr. Outside Investor! All I have been getting are analogies, vague inference, esoteric generalization, etc. I'm trying to pin someone down to a specific case! Are philosphers who hold such idologies incapable of applying their principle to something that is REAL and can be verified to be true or false? Or are they only capable of upholding their point of view only on something that is waaaay back in history, can't be double-checked, and would be involved in a long, protracted discussion that sees no end?

I didn't pick some trivial, non-important example either. The mystery of high-Tc superconductors is one of the few phenomena that is generally listed as THE big mysteries in physics. Surely something as significant as that, if there were to be any coat-tailing by philosphers of science, THIS would be a very juicy one! So where are they?

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

I didn't pick some trivial, non-important example either. The mystery of high-Tc superconductors is one of the few phenomena that is generally listed as THE big mysteries in physics. Surely something as significant as that, if there were to be any coat-tailing by philosphers of science, THIS would be a very juicy one! So where are they?

Zz.

Since my analogy is not even close to being vague(Note how you correctly identified me as an outside investor ) then I think another one is in order. Actually, I see your point. I now no longer believe that ecomonics is worth studying. Economics is useless because it has no role in explaining the mystery in high-Tc superconductors!

Either I am correct about economics in this case, or I have no idea what economics is. Take your pick.

 

[Aquamarine]

I have put out my challenge several days ago, and NO ONE took up on the offer. I asked for anyone to specifically point to me, in the case of the develoment (and still developing) of the discovery of high-Tc superconductors, where EXACTLY was and is the role of philosophy and philosphy of science in particular?

I answered this but will make the answers even clearer. I will do this in spite of that I don't know the details of the theory (I am assuming there is a theory and not merely empirical observations).

Is Popper's rule of falsifiability the correct criterion for science? How do you respond to the common objections?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ (See critical evaluation)
So if falsification is not the answer, what did you use?

What is the answer to the problem of induction?
What your view on Bayesian inference? Quasi-empirical methods?
What is the justification for assuming that current physical laws will continue to function the same way in the future? Or that they will function in different place from where tested? How is the limits of generalization decided?
How do you know the theory will hold in the future and in other places?

What is your view on coherentism versus foundationalism? The regress argument?
What are the ultimate statements that provide justification for all other statements?

What is the role of Ockham's razor in science? What role do you see for algorithmic information theory?
Do you claim that there is no contradictory evidence at all against the major theories today? How do you explain away minor contradictions? When do they become large enough for the theory to fail?
Why is a theory ever abandoned, it is always possible to resurrect any theory by adding ad hoc exceptions?
Why was earlier theories discarded?

Probably the answer is gut feeling and majority opinion. I am not arguing that this gut feeling is wrong and cannot produce correct result. People can be trained to produce correct results without knowing any theory. Especially in similar situations. But if the situation changes to unfamiliar where prior experience will not help, theory will be useful.

So I am not arguing that the philosophy of science is particularly useful in this instance. It is possible to use instincts gained from experience in similar scientific situations before. But if the situation changes, for example to those questions studied in string theory, a knowledge of the philosophy of science might be very useful. It might ultimately be algorithmic information theory that decides if loop quantum theory or string theory is correct.

 

[Fliption]

"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) "

 

[ZapperZ]

Since my analogy is not even close to being vague(Note how you correctly identified me as an outside investor ) then I think another one is in order. Actually, I see your point. I now no longer believe that ecomonics is worth studying. Economics is useless because it has no role in explaining the mystery in high-Tc superconductors!

Either I am correct about economics in this case, or I have no idea what economics is. Take your pick.

You misinterpreted what I asked. Recall that you said

And as in all cases like this, of course the answer is different depending on who you ask! If you ask a worker on the assembly line, he'll tell you the CEO does nothing to help them out. Yet an outside investor who understands all the relationships and the big picture would say the CEO does indeed have an impact.

So then I want to know from whoever this "outside investor" is (it could be you, or anyone that fits into your analogy), to tell me exactly how the CEO plays his/her role! Or is the outside investor simply thinks the worker on the assembly line is simply beneath him to be able to understand the whole thing?

So show me the equivalent of the "outside investor" in the high-Tc superconductor case. Explain to me how this "CEO" is truly affecting the physics of superconductivity of these materials.

This is NOT A TRICK! I have already explained waaaay back when of a possible cultural difference in how physicists understands and comprehend principles and ideas, and how it appears philosophers on here convey their ideas. Since this is about science/physics, and about the practice of science/physics, most of us who are in this want to know in specific terms, how philosophical ideologies, principles, and what-not applies on what we do and how we do it. It is the surest way our limited and simplistic brain can comprehend something into a tangible idea, by seeing it in action first hand!

Zz.

 

[hypnagogue]

I think what Fliption is trying to say is that while a real link may exist between philosophy of science and the practice of science, trying to sort out the nature of this link may be intractable. I think that's a defensible claim.

Hopefully, we've already established that much productive scientific work can be done, and is done, without the explicitly considering issues of epistemological justification to the extent that philosophers of science do. In other words, there is typically no explicit or direct link between the practice of science, as done by scientists, and the philosophy of science, as propounded by philosophers. Scientists do not use a checklist of epistemic qualifications afforded to them philosophers, and their methods may come under legitimate scrutiny by philosophers, but nonetheless the practice goes on and continues to be viable and productive.

Does this imply that philosophy of science exerts no influence upon the practice of science? Not necessarily. Perhaps such an influence exists, but is so subtle and indirect or acts over such a long period of time that it appears to be non-existant, and is practically impossible to tease out of the complicated knot of societal interaction over time. Perhaps the mimetic zeitgeist of a Popper really has swayed things in some non-obvious way.

I say 'perhaps.' But is it really the case? I honestly don't know enough about philosophy of science or the changing epistemic trends in science over time to even make an educated guess. But the sheer complexity of the issue may make it impossible to say one way or the other even for an expert on these topics. In that sense, even if some sort of influence does exist or has existed between the two disciplines, it may be impossible to answer the questions of who, what, when, where, how, why.

 

[ZapperZ]

I answered this but will make the answers even clearer. I will do this in spite of that I don't know the details of the theory (I am assuming there is a theory and not merely empirical observations).

Is Popper's rule of falsifiability the correct criterion for science? How do you respond to the common objections?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ (See critical evaluation)
So if falsification is not the answer, what did you use?

I want to ask you this first. Why and how did Popper's falsifiability got into this? As far as I can remember, it was metacristi who were OBSESSIVELY presenting a thesis on such a thing. Why am I being made to answer to something we didn't bring up nor propose, nor espouse, nor pledge our allegance to? Can we get over this already?

Probably the answer is gut feeling and majority opinion. I am not arguing that this gut feeling is wrong and cannot produce correct result. People can be trained to produce correct results without knowing any theory. Especially in similar situations. But if the situation changes to unfamiliar where prior experience will not help, theory will be useful.

So I am not arguing that the philosophy of science is particularly useful in this instance. It is possible to use instincts gained from experience in similar scientific situations before. But if the situation changes, for example to those questions studied in string theory, a knowledge of the philosophy of science might be very useful. It might ultimately be algorithmic information theory that decides if loop quantum theory or string theory is correct.

"gut feeling" and "majority opinion"?? On high-Tc superconductors?! I'm sorry, but this is highly insulting. You picked a "generic" scenario and applied it to something which you yourself didn't hesitate to acknowledge you know nothing about. And we physicists get accused of yapping about things we don't know of when we "intruded" into philosophy?

And since when is the criteria of a theory or idea in physics being correct entirely based on "algorithmic information theory"? Can you point ONE single theory in physics, today, that is accepted to be correct that is just based on "algorithmic information theory"?

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

You misinterpreted what I asked. Recall that you said
So then I want to know from whoever this "outside investor" is (it could be you, or anyone that fits into your analogy), to tell me exactly how the CEO plays his/her role! Or is the outside investor simply thinks the worker on the assembly line is simply beneath him to be able to understand the whole thing?

I understand the question. My response to it is the same as my response to Marlon. You're asking for an explanation about the relationship between philosophy and science and you want a one page answer? This is impossible(for me at least). Hypnagogues response is a fair representation of what I feel about the subject. But when Hypnagogue ask the question "But Is it really the case?", I believe the answer is "yes". I provided a quote from a prominent historic scientist who claims that it is. If Einstein thinks philosophy of science helped him in his endeavers in physics then who are we to disagree?

 

[ZapperZ]

I think what Fliption is trying to say is that while a real link may exist between philosophy of science and the practice of science, trying to sort out the nature of this link may be intractable. I think that's a defensible claim.

Hopefully, we've already established that much productive scientific work can be done, and is done, without the explicitly considering issues of epistemological justification to the extent that philosophers of science do. In other words, there is typically no explicit or direct link between the practice of science, as done by scientists, and the philosophy of science, as propounded by philosophers. Scientists do not use a checklist of epistemic qualifications afforded to them philosophers, and their methods may come under legitimate scrutiny by philosophers, but nonetheless the practice goes on and continues to be viable and productive.

Does this imply that philosophy of science exerts no influence upon the practice of science? Not necessarily. Perhaps such an influence exists, but is so subtle and indirect or acts over such a long period of time that it appears to be non-existant, and is practically impossible to tease out of the complicated knot of societal interaction over time. Perhaps the mimetic zeitgeist of a Popper really has swayed things in some non-obvious way.

I say 'perhaps.' But is it really the case? I honestly don't know enough about philosophy of science or the changing epistemic trends in science over time to even make an educated guess. But the sheer complexity of the issue may make it impossible to say one way or the other even for an expert on these topics. In that sense, even if some sort of influence does exist or has existed between the two disciplines, it may be impossible to answer the questions of who, what, when, where, how, why.

Strangely enough, I actually agree with most of what you said here! :)

<hiding from the rest of the physicists>

I would even go a step further by saying that careful attention to espistemiology is a great advantage in the TEACHING of physics. Students understand things a lot faster and clearer when there is a systematic explanation on why things are done certain way, and why it is a good idea to have a clear methodology in attacking and solving a certain problem.

However, in the real practice of physics (and how many here can truly say they are familiar in the day-to-day workings of physics?), I don't EVER remember us stopping and pondering the philosophical ideologies of so-and-so figure and then reacting to that in ways that affect our work. I know this is not what you are saying, but this is what some are implying. I just want to know, if they truly believe that, to show me specific example of where this actually happens ...... so that I can stop it! :) :)

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand the question. My response to it is the same as my response to Marlon. You're asking for an explanation about the relationship between philosophy and science and you want a one page answer? This is impossible(for me at least). Hypnagogues response is a fair representation of what I feel about the subject. But when Hypnagogue ask the question "But Is it really the case?", I believe the answer is "yes". I provided a quote from a prominent historic scientist who claims that it is. If Einstein thinks philosophy of science helped him in his endeavers in physics then who are we to disagree?

No, I do not want the "relationship between philosophy and science". I fully accept there is a "relationship"... in may instances, philosophy follows what science has to say! :) <ducking again>

I want to know where, exactly, in science, and in the specific example that I brought up, that philosphy AFFECTED the science. This is not for my own cultural benefit. This is to clarify the repeated claims that philosphy affects science and plays an important role in science. I want to know WHERE and HOW! I do not want pages and pages of answer. Just pick ONE specific way in which philosphy affected the discovery and development of our understanding of high-Tc superconductors.

Again, the reason why I picked this example is because we can DOUBLE-CHECK if so-and-so figure really meant it the way we are interpreting his or her quote! I can't double check with Einstein to see if his quote was taken out of context, the very same way his "Imagination is more important than knowledge" quote has been bastardized so often. Einstein is known to go by his "gut feeling" on a lot of things... he was right a lot of times (Special Relativity, General Relativity, Bose's theory, etc.) and he was also wrong a lot of times (cosmological constant, EPR paradox, etc.). So to make him a diety he isn't is simply naive.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

However, in the real practice of physics (and how many here can truly say they are familiar in the day-to-day workings of physics?), I don't EVER remember us stopping and pondering the philosophical ideologies of so-and-so figure and then reacting to that in ways that affect our work. I know this is not what you are saying, but this is what some are implying. I just want to know, if they truly believe that, to show me specific example of where this actually happens ...... so that I can stop it! :) :)

Does anybody ever get the feeling that you're involved in a huge debate and that everyone actually agrees? I thought most everyone had already acknowledeged that philosophy has no role in the day to day workings of a speciifc scientific endeaver. If anyone is arguing against this then they are doing a poor job. The responses I've seen from Metacrista and Aquamarine don't seem to be claiming this either. They are simply arguing that philosophy of science has a role to play in general. Not in a specific experiment. (Maybe I've misunderstood them.) It's easy to see why they would be so militant with this defensive view of philosophy in general given the title of this thread is not just a claim that philosphy has no role in high-Tc superconductors. It's claiming philosophy is pseudo-science. Perhaps Zapper and Marlon don't agree on this point?

 

[Fliption]

Again, the reason why I picked this example is because we can DOUBLE-CHECK if so-and-so figure really meant it the way we are interpreting his or her quote! I can't double check with Einstein to see if his quote was taken out of context, the very same way his "Imagination is more important than knowledge" quote has been bastardized so often. Einstein is known to go by his "gut feeling" on a lot of things... he was right a lot of times (Special Relativity, General Relativity, Bose's theory, etc.) and he was also wrong a lot of times (cosmological constant, EPR paradox, etc.). So to make him a diety he isn't is simply naive.

Zz.

In those instances where he guessed right, is this not your example of where philsophy impacted science? Or have you conveniently "bastardized" philosophy by labeling it a "guess"?

Also, for context, here is where the quote came from. You'll see this whole paper is about Einsteins emphasis on philosophy in science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#1

 

[ZapperZ]

Does anybody ever get the feeling that you're involved in a huge debate and that everyone actually agrees? I thought most everyone had already acknowledeged that philosophy has no role in the day to day workings of a speciifc scientific endeaver. If anyone is arguing against this then they are doing a poor job. The responses I've seen from Metacrista and Aquamarine don't seem to be claiming this either. They are simply arguing that philosophy of science has a role to play in general. Not in a specific experiment. (Maybe I've misunderstood them.) It's easy to see why they would be so militant with this defensive view of philosophy in general given the title of this thread is not just a claim that philosphy has no role in high-Tc superconductors. It's claiming philosophy is pseudo-science. Perhaps Zapper and Marlon don't agree on this point?

Fine, then we can stop this.

1. Philosophy has no role in the day to day working of a specific scientific endeaver

2. Philosophy of science has a role to play in general(?).

Who agrees with Point 1? I do.

Who agrees with Point 2? I don't know, since I have no idea what "in general" means... and I'm too scared to ask for an example of what it means since I might get dumped on a long dessertation on Popperian's falsificationism.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

Who agrees with Point 2? I don't know, since I have no idea what "in general" means... and I'm too scared to ask for an example of what it means since I might get dumped on a long dessertation on Popperian's falsificationism.

It simply means there isn't the direct relationship with specific experiments. Like a prof of physics that does nothing but teach. He isn't involved in any actual research but definitely has an effect on science in general.

Putting all the opinions of Einstein aside, considering that the very creation of the scientific method is a philosophical act, then I find it hard to disagree with number 2.

 

[ZapperZ]

In those instances where he guessed right, is this not your example of where philsophy impacted science? Or have you conveniently "bastardized" philosophy by labeling it a "guess"?

No I haven't, unless you are calling his "intuition" as his "philosophy", which would be strange since last time I checked, the ability to understand the problem with Maxwell equation not being covariant under galilean transformation is physics and not philosophy.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

No I haven't, unless you are calling his "intuition" as his "philosophy", which would be strange since last time I checked, the ability to understand the problem with Maxwell equation not being covariant under galilean transformation is physics and not philosophy.

Zz.

Then please follow the link and take it up with Einstein. Not me.

 

[quantumdude]

An example of philosophy impacting science: Relativity

There are two broad classes of conflicting ideas on the metaphysics of space and time: The absolutist theory and the relational theory.

One is that space exists independently of the things in it, and that space is a sort of container for physical objects. Time also exists independently of (moving) physical objects, according to this view. Take away all matter, and the container remains and the instants of time continue to flow. This is the absolutist theory of space and time, and it was the one held by Newton. Not coincidentally, the spacetime of Newtonian mechanics was of this type.

Another view is that space and time have no existence independent of moving matter, and that they are merely relationships between objects in various states of motion. An analogy might help clarify this. Take two brothers, the only children of their parents. A relationship exists between them called "brotherhood". But if one of brothers is killed, the other brother remains but the relationship of "brotherhood" no longer exists. Similarly, take away all matter from the universe, and the spatiotemporal relationships between the (now nonexistant) objects cease to exist. This is aptly named the relational theory of space and time, and it was held by Leibniz, and later by Mach, and then by Einstein. Now it is the case that it is possible to hold to both the absolutist theory of space/time and to special relativity, but general relativity puts the nail in its coffin. Space and time are relationships between physical objects.

Now you may argue that the relational view of space now belongs to science via GR, but the fact remains that it is doubtful that Newton or any of his followers could ever had arrived at GR with their deeply flawed spacetime metaphysics.

 

[Aquamarine]

"gut feeling" and "majority opinion"?? On high-Tc superconductors?! I'm sorry, but this is highly insulting. You picked a "generic" scenario and applied it to something which you yourself didn't hesitate to acknowledge you know nothing about. And we physicists get accused of yapping about things we don't know of when we "intruded" into philosophy?

And since when is the criteria of a theory or idea in physics being correct entirely based on "algorithmic information theory"? Can you point ONE single theory in physics, today, that is accepted to be correct that is just based on "algorithmic information theory"?

I know next to nothing about this field and theory and still have given many questions that you have not been able to answer. I do not doubt that these problems have been solved successfully, in this case, through intuition based on prior experiences without a deeper formal knowledge.

Regarding algorithmic information theory, it can been seen as a formal restatement of Ockham's razor. And Ockham's razor is of major importance. It not a screening tool or curious observation or a crutch. I would argue that Ockham's razor is the scientific method. All theories in physics are based on Ockham's razor. They have been accepted since they best fulfill this criteria. There is an infinite number of theories that can incorporate all empirical evidence. But there is only one theory that passes Ockham's razor.

So if algorithmic information theory is the correct formal restatement of Ockham's razor, and as is claimed precisely trades model complexity for goodness of fit, it is the foundation of all of science.

 

[jcsd]

The modern academic subject Philosophy especially metaphysics has very little to no impact on physics people like fliption and metacristi are more than anything else showing their ignornace. In fact the term 'metaphysics' is used as an insult more than anything else by physicsts, yet we are to believe that these philosophers who are viewed with derision by many physicists are infact directing and controlling the whole process!

 

[Fliption]

The modern academic subject Philosophy especially metaphysics has very little to no impact on physics people like fliption and metacristi are more than anything else showing their ignornace. In fact the term 'metaphysics' is used as an insult more than anything else by physicsts, yet we are to believe that these philosophers who are viewed with derision by many physicists are infact directing and controlling the whole process!

Directing and controlling the whole process? Who said this? I may be ignorant about many things but my club on this topic is a big one and, as I've shown, includes Einstein. Yours is a club that argues against an ill constructed strawman. The reason you can't argue against what has been suggested by many here(as opposed to this strawman you've presented) is because you don't understand it. But then why should you attempt to understand anything except science right?

And just because a group of poor philosophers all think metaphysics is an insult doesn't make it so.

 

[marlon]

I figured you would misunderstand so I modified my words. Apparently not soon enough.

Maybe you should have done a better job at writing down what you really meant. Besides i still don't see it.

I'm saying that the answer you seek does not exists. The true answer to the question would require you taking some courses in philosophy.

So you are unable to explain this to me? What the hell do you think all the real scientists are doing on this forum here when they are helping people out,hmmm?

I am beginning to wonder if you would even know what you are talking about...

You don't understand what you're asking if you actually expect someone to tell you in a thread on the internet the relationship between philosophy and science!

hahahah, ohh my god...you really believe this? You are going to have to do a lot better then this man...

My god this could fill a library.

Well in that case, i am sure you can provide me with at least three concrete examples and answers, wouldn't you say ?

marlon