- #1
Robin04
- 260
- 16
I've seen it on this forum when someone asked a philosophical question ant the moderator closed the thread saying that this does not concern physics. Why not accepting philosophy?
For one thing, we do not have Mentors on staff that can adequately Moderate threads that discuss philosophy.Robin04 said:I've seen it on this forum when someone asked a philosophical question ant the moderator closed the thread saying that this does not concern physics. Why not accepting philosophy?
When was the last time you actually saw philosophy? Maybe the question, but certainly not the answers. It is not fair to the scientific field of philosophy to call any thought about the world philosophy. We don't discuss flat Earth or circle squaring either. The way it appears on public forums, which are not specifically dedicated to the field, leads only to endless and meaningless discussions. There are actually philosophers on the internet, too, and I'm sure they can deal with these kind of questions way better than us.Robin04 said:Why not accepting philosophy?
Robin04 said:I've seen it on this forum when someone asked a philosophical question ant the moderator closed the thread saying that this does not concern physics. Why not accepting philosophy?
Mission Statement:
Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community. As our name suggests, our main focus is on physics, but we also have forums for most other academic areas including engineering, chemistry, biology, social sciences, etc.
We once had a philosophy forum which became overrun by "wild and woolly" ideas and discussions. One of the mentors, who had a lot of academic experience in philosophy (maybe even a degree, I don't remember now), "took over" that forum. She required that new threads must include some reference to a serious philosopher, a more explicit version of our requirement in the science forums that topics must be traceable to mainstream textbooks or journals even if you don't always have to give a specific reference. She also closed down discussions that started to go round in circles, similarly to the way we handle discussions about interpretations of quantum mechanics in the QM forum. This reduced the volume of discussion but improved the quality. Unfortunately, she left. We had no one who knew enough about philosophy to moderate that forum confidently, so we removed it.bhobba said:We at one time discussed philosophy here and it was banned for that exact reason - threads involving it just went on and on - going nowhere.
That is some interesting trivia.jtbell said:She required that new threads must include some reference to a serious philosopher, a more explicit version of our requirement in the science forums that topics must be traceable to mainstream textbooks or journals even if you don't always have to give a specific reference. She also closed down discussions that started to go round in circles, similarly to the way we handle discussions about interpretations of quantum mechanics in the QM forum. This reduced the volume of discussion but improved the quality. Unfortunately, she left. We had no one who knew enough about philosophy to moderate that forum confidently, so we removed it.
I feel very proud that you have sensibly found out the difference between the fields. Seldom have I seen a new member with opposing views understand and conclude his argument.Robin04 said:Thank you very much for your answers. I understand your point and it's really unarguable that philosophy is a very different field and its contribution to science is right to be questioned. I personally love both physics and philosophy and I believe that philosophy can actually help us get forward in a some way (maybe not the way we imagine or expect it), but as I'm very early in my career I still need a lot of time and work to form reasonable arguments and prove myself right or wrong on this point.
I think this depends on the case. E.g. I consider Kant as most important for our life as a social species, and with Plato, Macchiavelli, Hegel, Kant you get a pretty good basis in this field. Things change when it comes to physics and mathematics, which in my opinion have to be treated differently with respect to philosophy. In mathematics, the language becomes important, and Wittgenstein might be a good read. On the other hand are most mathematicians Platonists. Maybe also Russell should be mentioned here, as one of the time witnesses and forerunners of the big revolution in mathematics in the first half of the 20th century. Considering physics, there is a book from Popper - The Logic of Science - which I find is a perfect example, of how philosophy fails to actually contribute to science. I cannot recommend it. In my opinion the reader who is familiar with the scientific side, becomes quickly aware, that Popper was not. His constructions often miss the point and don't really apply to science, despite the title. As I've mentioned the mathematical revolution, there has been in parallel the big revolution in physics, too. I'm not aware of any philosophical convincing contribution, which e.g. would help us here, who deal on a daily basis with the various interpretations, i.e. would have shed some light on this mess. Thus the limits as to how far philosophy is applicable on scientific problems, is questionable, to say the least. Two of my favorite quotations, http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm, and Feynman on why questions which do not claim to be philosophical, are despite of it far more helpful than Popper's entire book is.Robin04 said:I personally love both physics and philosophy and I believe that philosophy can actually help us get forward in a some way (maybe not the way we imagine or expect it), but as I'm very early in my career I still need a lot of time and work to form reasonable arguments and prove myself right or wrong on this point.
Robin04 said:I personally love both physics and philosophy and I believe that philosophy can actually help us get forward in a some way
I know, I was just curious of opinions about the relationship between physics and philosophy and it seemed reasonable to ask this question here as well.anorlunda said:There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect both from the same web site. You can explore science here at PF and philosophy other places.
Robin04 said:[...]I personally love both physics and philosophy [...]
Your post leaves a feeling that you have unjustified expectations from philosophy. Popper said - we can not know what is valuable, but we can know what is trash. So let's bring out the trash and that will leave the room where valuable things can develop.fresh_42 said:I think this depends on the case. E.g. I consider Kant as most important for our life as a social species, and with Plato, Macchiavelli, Hegel, Kant you get a pretty good basis in this field. Things change when it comes to physics and mathematics, which in my opinion have to be treated differently with respect to philosophy. In mathematics, the language becomes important, and Wittgenstein might be a good read. On the other hand are most mathematicians Platonists. Maybe also Russell should be mentioned here, as one of the time witnesses and forerunners of the big revolution in mathematics in the first half of the 20th century. Considering physics, there is a book from Popper - The Logic of Science - which I find is a perfect example, of how philosophy fails to actually contribute to science. I cannot recommend it. In my opinion the reader who is familiar with the scientific side, becomes quickly aware, that Popper was not. His constructions often miss the point and don't really apply to science, despite the title. As I've mentioned the mathematical revolution, there has been in parallel the big revolution in physics, too. I'm not aware of any philosophical convincing contribution, which e.g. would help us here, who deal on a daily basis with the various interpretations, i.e. would have shed some light on this mess. Thus the limits as to how far philosophy is applicable on scientific problems, is questionable, to say the least. Two of my favorite quotations, http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm, and Feynman on why questions which do not claim to be philosophical, are despite of it far more helpful than Popper's entire book is.
Chronos said:Popper should be credited for clarifying the difference between science and philosophy - science is falsifiable, philosophy is not.
Can u pls provide an example to show that philosophy is not falsifiable?Chronos said:Popper should be credited for clarifying the difference between science and philosophy - science is falsifiable, philosophy is not.
Not trying to argue with the practicality of curtailing discussions where people end up changing their definitions or do not believe in a standard of logic in the beginning, but I would just like to say that science is a subfield of philosophy, in its origin and its mission.fresh_42 said:I'm not aware of any philosophical convincing contribution, which e.g. would help us here, who deal on a daily basis with the various interpretations
cwije said:Can u pls provide an example to show that philosophy is not falsifiable?
jk_er_gamma said:What is theoretical physics but a quest to define existence?
epenguin said:Frustratingly to some, including myself sometimes, some gatekeepers at this site have an attitude "philosophy is bunk".
The idea that experiment is a valid form of testing truth is a specific kind of philosophy, worked out in the ages when competing philosophies were rationalism and empiricism. Maybe the scientific method is something we take in through the science community, but it has philosophical underpinnings.bhobba said:Maybe its a quest to reconcile observation with theory
jk_er_gamma said:The idea that experiment is a valid form of testing truth is a specific kind of philosophy, worked out in the ages when competing philosophies were rationalism and empiricism. Maybe the scientific method is something we take in through the science community, but it has philosophical underpinnings.
Sorry, this was necro-posted to an almost 2 year old thread which was about forum policy. This is the feedback forum, it's not a debate forum. And with that cleared up, thread closed.cwije said:Can u pls provide an example to show that philosophy is not falsifiable?
Yes, when you first learn how to triage and practice it in exercises, it can be difficult to deal with psychologically. And having applied it in the real world multiple times, it always weighs on your psyche, but it definitely seems to be correct and important. Well, except for the time that I was physically dragged from one patient to another by an irate family member...BillTre said:In the medical field, triaging is an impactful and real world application of ethics (to optimize positive results).
Physics is a branch of science that focuses on understanding the fundamental laws and principles that govern the behavior of the physical world. It relies heavily on empirical evidence and mathematical models to explain natural phenomena. Philosophical theories, on the other hand, often deal with abstract and metaphysical concepts that are difficult to test and prove using scientific methods. Therefore, physicists tend to prioritize concrete and measurable explanations over philosophical speculations.
While physics and philosophy may seem like two distinct disciplines, there are areas where they intersect. For example, the study of quantum mechanics has led to philosophical debates about the nature of reality and the role of consciousness in shaping it. Additionally, the philosophy of science explores the underlying assumptions and implications of scientific theories, including those in physics. However, the methods and goals of these two fields are fundamentally different.
Physics strives to uncover objective truths about the physical world, independent of personal beliefs or biases. This is crucial for the development of reliable and accurate scientific theories. If physics were to incorporate philosophical ideas or values, it would undermine its ability to make objective observations and predictions. Therefore, maintaining a distance from philosophy allows physics to remain a rigorous and unbiased science.
While philosophical ideas may not have a direct impact on the development of physical theories, they can inspire new ways of thinking and approaching scientific problems. For example, the concept of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is often the correct one, has been influential in shaping the principles of scientific inquiry. Philosophical ideas can also help physicists reflect on the broader implications of their research and its ethical implications.
No, physicists do not reject all philosophical ideas. In fact, many scientists have an interest in philosophy and engage in philosophical discussions. However, they do not rely on philosophical arguments to support their scientific theories. Instead, they use empirical evidence and mathematical models to test and validate their ideas. This does not mean that philosophical ideas are irrelevant to physics, but rather that they serve different purposes and have different approaches to understanding the world.