Unifying Theoretical Physics: Kant & Ritter

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between theoretical physics and philosophy, particularly the assertion that theoretical physics has historically relied on philosophical and metaphysical foundations. Participants express skepticism about the relevance of philosophy to practical physics, with many arguing that it plays an insignificant role in their work. Richard Feynman's quote, likening the philosophy of science to ornithology for birds, is referenced to highlight this sentiment. Some contributors note that while philosophy may inform the creative process behind theories, it is rarely a concern during practical applications or data analysis. The conversation also touches on the historical context of physics as a branch of philosophy, suggesting that modern physicists often view philosophy as irrelevant to their scientific endeavors. Overall, the consensus leans toward the idea that while philosophical considerations may have shaped the development of physics, they do not significantly impact the day-to-day work of physicists today.
  • #51
so, what you're asking is, that, every written statement, such as this one, has to be accompanied by some kind of evidence to show that its valid?



(oh, never mind--that one, the above, was a question)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
rewebster said:
so, what you're asking is, that, every written statement, such as this one, has to be accompanied by some kind of evidence to show that its valid?

If you want to convince me, yes.

That's why I don't pay attention to political speeches. They are long on making claims, but devoid of any evidence that such claims are valid. A lot of people seem to think (or seem to not care) that simply being able to say something and making some apparent connection, doesn't make it valid.

Zz.
 
  • #53
Nusc said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#_note-16

Says the following: Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics; electromagnetism was unified this way.[20]

Reference:

20 ^ See, for example, the influence of Kant and Ritter on Oersted.


Does anyone know of any specific articles of where this can be found. (I would have put a question mark but my keyboard is messed up)

From what I've read lately is that Ørsted was into Kant, the age of reasoning philosophy, and ---"The connection made sense to Ørsted since he believed in the unity of nature, and, therefore, that a relationship must exist between most natural phenomena."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_Ørsted



Also:

"A thought experiment (from the German term Gedankenexperiment, coined by Hans Christian Ørsted) in the broadest sense is the use of a hypothetical scenario to help us understand the way things actually are."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment


Another key word in the OP quote--'historically'
 
  • #54
Then I'm surprised we're not talking about religion, folklore, mythology, etc. I mean, if we're going "historical", why not go all the way?

Zz.
 
  • #55
I think that wiki page references some of those---(if you click on the right links--and then follow more links)---


Wiki=the whole world at your finger tips!


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
rewebster said:
I think that wiki page references some of those---(if you click on the right links--and then follow more links)---


Wiki=the whole world at your finger tips!

Then it must be correct.

Zz.
 
  • #58
I think somewhere in the Netherlands (or thereabouts), there's a "ZapperZ" electronic/computer related stuff. That's more hilarious than this.

Zz.
 
  • #59
you could, and maybe should, always put a page on wiki to stop the confusion

(then, of course, all of us could edit it-- )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZapperZ
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Okay guys. I just found this thread. I forgotten I had posted it. However, I did not find an answer to my question. It seems as though the word 'philosophy' has spawned this vast debate which was completely useless to me and I'll refrain from using such a word in future posts.

Thanks for your concern anyway.
 
  • #61
Nusc said:
Okay guys. I just found this thread. I forgotten I had posted it. However, I did not find an answer to my question. It seems as though the word 'philosophy' has spawned this vast debate which was completely useless to me and I'll refrain from using such a word in future posts.

Thanks for your concern anyway.

see post 53
 
  • #62
I see. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
373
Replies
3
Views
596
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
52
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
6K
Back
Top