Why is philosophy looked down upon?

[Bishop556]

Now, I do not wish to make the generalization to all physicists as it is not true, but I have seen a general trend of philosophy being looked down upon by my peers and some professors. While it is a subjective subject, it stems from the same "tree" of reasoning: trying to understand what is currently not explainable by using logic. Is philosophy looked down upon because it falls within liberal arts and is subjective despite using logic to formulate arguments?

 

[phinds]

I think it's because STEM type folks prefer studies and discussions that lead to answers over ones that just lead to more arguments.

 

[Evo]

The reason "philosophy" doesn't work here is that we have non-scientists, spouting misinformation about subjects they don't know, but thinking it's ok to do so if they call it "Philosophy".

As Feynman put it

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.

Science and philosophy split a long time ago, IMO, with one branch pursuing actual science and the other just wondering about things.

 

[russ_watters]

Philosophy is fine for unknowable/illogical musings(what is love?), but whenever it delves into logic on topics that overlap with science it tends to do very poorly. Worse, many people use philosophy to improperly skirt the rules of science.

 

[Mhorton91]

Philosophy is fine for unknowable/illogical musings(what is love?), but whenever it delves into logic on topics that overlap with science it tends to do very poorly. Worse, many people use philosophy to improperly skirt the rules of science.

I agree with this. I personally enjoy both physics, and philosophy; but prefer to keep the topics of discussion/consideration fairly separate...

 

[dx]

I think its mainly because of the signal to noise ratio. Its not that philosophy is bad in itself, but just that a large percentage of what is called "philosophy" is nonsense.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Karl Popper answered the Problem of Demarcation of science from nonsense with falsificationism in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Unfortunately, much of modern "science" (scare-quotes) falls on the wrong side of that boundary.

 

[Mhorton91]

I think its mainly because of the signal to noise ratio. Its not that philosophy is bad in itself, but just that a large percentage of what is called "philosophy" is nonsense.

I feel like the signal to noise analogy could go both ways.

 

[dx]

That's definitely true. That's why we need moderators here, to keep the noise down. Although I think the problem is much bigger with philosophy, because there are no checks. There are no experiments.

 

[dx]

I think it essentially comes down to the fact that the really important problems and questions in philosophy are so difficult and elevated that the idea of a "professional philosopher" doesn't really make sense. There will only be a handful of people per century who really say anything important or new philosophically. Science is built on established principles and firmly laid down rules of logic, which enables incremental and "normal science" to go on and be kept on track.

 

[Mhorton91]

I would tend to agree, I think part of the problem comes from undergraduate level university classes with titles like "Philosophy of Science" that mislead people into thinking they are learning science, when they are actually learning philosophy... Although to philosophy's credit, logic, rationality, and critical thinking are all very important abilities (and are sadly growing ever more rare in society).

Interestingly, I saw a college (can't remember which one) that offered an undergraduate degree in "philosophical physics"... Nothing to say about that, just found it interesting.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Might philosophical physics be metaphysics?

 

[Mhorton91]

I think it essentially comes down to the fact that the really important problems and questions in philosophy are so difficult and elevated that the idea of a "professional philosopher" doesn't really make sense. There will only be a handful of people per century who really say anything important or new philosophically. Science is built on established principles and firmly laid down rules of logic, which enables incremental and "normal science" to go on and be kept on track.

Professional Philosopher in today's times would require a level of intellect that I personally have not witnessed (in my generation at least).

 

[symbolipoint]

Now, I do not wish to make the generalization to all physicists as it is not true, but I have seen a general trend of philosophy being looked down upon by my peers and some professors. While it is a subjective subject, it stems from the same "tree" of reasoning: trying to understand what is currently not explainable by using logic. Is philosophy looked down upon because it falls within liberal arts and is subjective despite using logic to formulate arguments?

Regarless of the fine statements made in this thread so far, one of my best Mathematics teacher earned his major degree in Philosophy and minored in Mathematics.

 

[Mhorton91]

Might philosophical physics be metaphysics?

That was my initial thought, but for some reason I feel like it was a degree dedicated to learning physics, without rigorous mathematics... I'm going to try to locate the university again.

 

[epenguin]

Science is built on established principles and firmly laid down rules of logic, which enables incremental and "normal science" to go on and be kept on track.

Which rules and principles are perfectly certain and may not be questioned or enquired into. And indeed it is perfectly certain and universally agreed what these principles actually are. How they are applied to every case and question is automatic and will never occasion any doubts or disagreements. As with other belief systems Scientists tend to proclaim these principles more especially out of their working hours, e.g. here in the evenings, or on Sundays. We need not wonder what they do on weekdays since, just as much as with other belief systems, their practice then must obviously and necessarily be totally what they proclaim on Sundays. Oh, and there is just one thing that is absolutely excluded by Science and Scientists - dogmatism and the pretentions of certainty that go with it.

 

[brainpushups]

I can understand the frustration expressed by Evo

The reason "philosophy" doesn't work here is that we have non-scientists, spouting misinformation about subjects they don't know, but thinking it's ok to do so if they call it "Philosophy".

But I don't think the problem here lies with philosophy. I think the problem lies with people ignorant of the details of both philosophy and science asking questions to those who have a better understanding.

I think that anyone studying physics should have a background in philosophy. Not a formal background necessarily, but one fluent in the sciences should at least be semiliterate about ancient Greek philosophy and the philosophy of the Enlightenment (and it wouldn't hurt to have also read Popper and Kuhn at the very least). I echo the sentiments expressed by CP Snow that one who chooses the humanities exclusively over science or vise versa is 'self-impoverished.'

I doubt anybody here would downplay the historical significance of the connection between science and philosophy, but I would also respectfully disagree with the sentiment that

Science and philosophy split a long time ago, IMO

Certainly there are some fundamental scientific values that have not changed since the Enlightenment. For example, Newton's 'rules for reasoning in natural philosophy' align well with current practice but these rules were disputed by other greats around the same time, perhaps most notably Descartes. Now I realize that this is perhaps 'a long time ago' so a famous, more recent example would be Mach's rejection of Newton's conception of absolute space and time as defined at the beginning of the Principia. You are probably aware that it was Einstein's reading of Mach that led him to develop his theory of relativity.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing examples of how philosophical principles have aided in the development of physics is Maupertuis principle of least action. Maupertuis conception of the principle of least action was metaphysically motivated and, although it has undergone significant revision, this is arguably the most important and far-reaching principle in all of physics.

 

[Evo]

I can understand the frustration expressed by Evo
But I don't think the problem here lies with philosophy. I think the problem lies with people ignorant of the details of both philosophy and science asking questions to those who have a better understanding.

I think that anyone studying physics should have a background in philosophy. Not a formal background necessarily, but one fluent in the sciences should at least be semiliterate about ancient Greek philosophy and the philosophy of the Enlightenment (and it wouldn't hurt to have also read Popper and Kuhn at the very least). I echo the sentiments expressed by CP Snow that one who chooses the humanities exclusively over science or vise versa is 'self-impoverished.'

I doubt anybody here would downplay the historical significance of the connection between science and philosophy, but I would also respectfully disagree with the sentiment that
Certainly there are some fundamental scientific values that have not changed since the Enlightenment. For example, Newton's 'rules for reasoning in natural philosophy' align well with current practice but these rules were disputed by other greats around the same time, perhaps most notably Descartes. Now I realize that this is perhaps 'a long time ago' so a famous, more recent example would be Mach's rejection of Newton's conception of absolute space and time as defined at the beginning of the Principia. You are probably aware that it was Einstein's reading of Mach that led him to develop his theory of relativity.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing examples of how philosophical principles have aided in the development of physics is Maupertuis principle of least action. Maupertuis conception of the principle of least action was metaphysically motivated and, although it has undergone significant revision, this is arguably the most important and far-reaching principle in all of physics.

This supposrts what I said, *philosophy* split off at least a few hundred years ago, one branch became science, the other stayed philosophy. We do science here, not philosophy.

Hawking on philosophy.

Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

If you want to shoot the breeze, philosophy is fine, if you want to discuss real science, then philosophy is not appropriate. People tend to feel that not knowing a subject is ok as long as you pretend it's "philosophy", uhm, no, you need to know the science. There is no excuse for "discussing" the science if you don't actually know it.

 

[epenguin]

This supposrts what I said, *philosophy* split off at least a few hundred years ago, one branch became science, the other stayed philosophy. We do science here, not philosophy.

Hawking on philosophy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

If you want to shoot the breeze, philosophy is fine, if you want to discuss real science, then philosophy is not appropriate. People tend to feel that not knowing a subject is ok as long as you pretend it's "philosophy", uhm, no, you need to know the science. There is no excuse for "discussing" the science if you don't actually know it.

This thread might benefit if contributors stated what they have read or studied of philosophy (In the eminent cases of Hawking and Feynman, it seems safe to say, very little) and then compare that with the amount of knowledge of Science they would require a philosopher to have before they would admit him qualified to make any pronouncements on Science.

 

[Evo]

This thread might benefit if contributors stated what they have read or studied of philosophy (In the eminent cases of Hawking and Feynman, it seems safe to say, very little) and then compare that with the amount of knowledge of Science they would require a philosopher to have before they would admit him qualified to make any pronouncements on Science.

They would need to have degrees in the science they wish to discuss, then it wouldn't be philosophy, it would be discussion of the actual science.

 

[dx]

Which rules and principles are perfectly certain and may not be questioned or enquired into. And indeed it is perfectly certain and universally agreed what these principles actually are. How they are applied to every case and question is automatic and will never occasion any doubts or disagreements. As with other belief systems Scientists tend to proclaim these principles more especially out of their working hours, e.g. here in the evenings, or on Sundays. We need not wonder what they do on weekdays since, just as much as with other belief systems, their practice then must obviously and necessarily be totally what they proclaim on Sundays. Oh, and there is just one thing that is absolutely excluded by Science and Scientists - dogmatism and the pretentions of certainty that go with it.

It is a common misconception that theories which have been shown to be in accordance with experiments are necessarily overthrown by new theories. Newton's mechanics was not overthrown by Einstein's relativity. The relativistic viewpoint is simply a further elucidation of the classical theories as part of a larger framework, which tells us the scope of Newton's mechanics and the precise sense in which they are limited.

Physicists are very much aware of the possible limitations of current principles and ideas, much more than philosophers, just like that fact that only the person wearing the shoe will have a sense of whether the shoe is too big or too small.

 

[brainpushups]

This supposrts what I said, *philosophy* split off at least a few hundred years ago, one branch became science, the other stayed philosophy. We do science here, not philosophy.

I must not have made my point very clearly. I was trying to say that the core values of science are philosophical. Furthermore, the principles upon which scientific theories are based (absolute vs. relative time for example) are also philosophical. True that there have not been any scientific revolutions (in the Kuhnian sense) in the past 100 years, but the paradigm shift from the Newtonian world view to the Einsteinian world view was a philosophical shift. Of course, if observation did not support relativity the theory would not have been added the scientific canon. If another paradigm shift happens it would likely be caused by questioning fundamental principles which have a philosophical basis.

I'm not suggesting that scientists be well-versed in all aspects of philosophy but I think that a rudimentary understanding of metaphysics and epistemology would enrich one's scientific views.

 

[Evo]

I must not have made my point very clearly. I was trying to say that the core values of science are philosophical. Furthermore, the principles upon which scientific theories are based (absolute vs. relative time for example) are also philosophical. True that there have not been any scientific revolutions (in the Kuhnian sense) in the past 100 years, but the paradigm shift from the Newtonian world view to the Einsteinian world view was a philosophical shift. Of course, if observation did not support relativity the theory would not have been added the scientific canon. If another paradigm shift happens it would likely be caused by questioning fundamental principles which have a philosophical basis.

I'm not suggesting that scientists be well-versed in all aspects of philosophy but I think that a rudimentary understanding of metaphysics and epistemology would enrich one's scientific views.

I have to disagree, philosophy simply is not needed in modern science. You seem to be equating questioning and thinking with philosophy, that just isn't the case and philosophy doesn't meet the criteria for modern science.

People that see philosophy as a part of modern science are stuck in the past.

Ever since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the Westduring the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably,[3]:p.3 and until the 19th century natural philosophy(which is today called "natural science") was considered a branch of philosophy.[4]

In modern usage however, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[5] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology

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

For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 11][46][n 12] it is expected to be:

• Consistent
• Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
• Progressive (refines previous theories)
• Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Philosophy doesn't meet these criteria.

 

[epenguin]

They would need to have degrees in the science they wish to discuss, then it wouldn't be philosophy, it would be discussion of the actual science.

In this thread they are pronouncing on philosophy (as well as on history of Science in #23) so what they know of that is relevant.

 

[rootone]

I don't think philosophy is frowned upon.
Philosophy is after all the art of applying reason of some kind in order to understand things, and I don't think anyone frowns upon that.
Science however, could be said to be a subset of philosophy (reasoning), which is used in order to establish objective truth.
It has rules which are defined as the scientific method.
Philosophy which is not compatible with those rules is not science, but I don't think anyone will be fined or imprisoned for having unscientific ideas.

(They might get scalded in this forum though)

 

[Evo]

In this thread they are pronouncing on philosophy so what they know of that is relevant.

That's what we are saying, we ONLY want the science, not philosophy, not ancient history about how people used to think before science was split off. There are many, many places on the internet for philosophy, this is not one of them, we focus on the mainstream known science, that is our niche.

This is going nowhere. Please read our rules about our goals and mission to only discuss mainstream known science.

Philosophy is perfectly fine as a subject to study and participate in. However, it does not meet our criteria for discussions of mainstream known science. Please, let's keep philosophy and mainstream science separate.