- #141
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 2,432
- 1,880
Many physicist do not need philosophy. Physics does. Thus some physicist do.
So do mathematicians.Demystifier said:Most physicists doing science have a PhD, which means Doctor of Philosophy.
Hm, posing in front of a black board filled with math/phys and no philosophy whatsoever!Demystifier said:"Physicists face stagnation if they continue to treat the philosophy of science as a joke."
https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics...XGid8xNnR4F74f3DDEvUHa7-jNugLnlFOmyiunfy1vGEE
I would put it differently.gleem said:Many physicist do not need philosophy. Physics does. Thus some physicist do.
That is not logically valid. Change "philosophy" with something else and you get:Demystifier said:I would put it differently.
Many physicists do not need philosophy. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
Blackboards are not very useful for discussing philosophy. If you search for youtube lectures on math, physics and philosophy, only the ones on math and physics will often be on blackboards.martinbn said:Hm, posing in front of a black board filled with math/phys and no philosophy whatsoever!
Now you got me.martinbn said:That is not logically valid. Change "philosophy" with something else and you get:
Many physicists do not need [insert something]. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
I don't get it. 50 years have past and some problems are still not solved, so? Why is that a problem? Look at all the conjectures in mathematics that took more than 50 years, or are still not resolved.Demystifier said:"Physicists face stagnation if they continue to treat the philosophy of science as a joke."
https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics...XGid8xNnR4F74f3DDEvUHa7-jNugLnlFOmyiunfy1vGEE
True, but for an article like this why pose in front of that board (or choose that picture if it wasn't taken for the ocasion). Why not a board with the word philosophy! Or an empty boardDemystifier said:Blackboards are not very useful for discussing philosophy. If you search for youtube lectures on math, physics and philosophy, only the ones on math and physics will often be on blackboards.
No. The solved problems of philosophy have matured into solved problems of sciences.martinbn said:Philosophy has been around for more than 2000 years and none of its problems are resolved.
Not true. Today some philosophers, for instance, work on the measurement problem in QM. Of course, I'm talking about philosophers with good knowledge of QM.martinbn said:Philosophers argue over the same things as they always have.
Not true. The editors and reviewers in mainstream journals often reject papers because they use some philosophical arguments.martinbn said:Also, no one stops physicists to use philosophy
She is, see e.g. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462martinbn said:Why is the author not using philosophy to solve some of the problems? Or is she, and which problems has she cracked?
Like what? Which problems do you have in mind?A. Neumaier said:No. The solved problems of philosophy have matured into sciences.
That's why philosophy is called the mother of all sciences. As long as concepts are ambiguous or mixed up philosophy is essential.
Only where the foundational problems are solved it is no longer needed.
You are right. There new problems the philosophers argue about. But none of them is solved. My point was that it is just lexical analysis with no progress. (And adding new topics.)Demystifier said:Not true. Today some philosophers, for instance, work on the measurement problem in QM. Of course, I'm talking about philosophers with good knowledge of QM.
But do any of those papers actually solve any problems?Not true. The editors and reviewers in mainstream journals often reject papers because they use some philosophical arguments.
There is very little in this paper, and it isn't new. It also doesn't solve the problem, or does it?She is, see e.g. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462
Mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, pharmacy, ...martinbn said:Like what? Which problems do you have in mind?
You said that the solved problems of philosophy matured into sciences. My question wasn't which sciences. It was which problems? And to clarify this, which problems were solved by philosophy to become sciences?A. Neumaier said:Mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, pharmacy, ...
All started as part of philosophy and matured into separate disciplines that, on the whole, can stand on their own. But the foundations of quantum physics has not yet reached that stage.
I should have been more precise. let me rephrase:martinbn said:You said that the solved problems of philosophy matured into sciences. My question wasn't which sciences. It was which problems? And to clarify this, which problems were solved by philosophy to become sciences?
This is consistent with what I wrote. I said that philosophy cannot solve problems. You are saying that some problems couldn't be solved by philosophy, and new methods for solving problems were invented (the corresponding sciences).A. Neumaier said:I should have been more precise. let me rephrase:
The parts of philosophy whose problems were solved by making the corresponding concepts and methods of investigation precise enough matured and became sciences.
Problems like: what are numbers? what is length? what is motion? what is permanent? what is change? what causes motion? what are elements?
No, you put your words into my mouth, making them sound very differently.martinbn said:This is consistent with what I wrote. I said that philosophy cannot solve problems. You are saying that some problems couldn't be solved by philosophy, and new methods for solving problems were invented (the corresponding sciences).
Then my question remains. Which problems? Give me a specific example.A. Neumaier said:No, you put your words into my mouth, making them sound very differently.
Some problems were solved by philosophy, and each time, upon gradually recognizing the power of the resulting methods, a corresponding part of philosophy gradually separated from philosophy and turned into a new science. This can be checked in every case.
It is very different from the claim that a new science arrived from nowhere and produced new methods for solving problems.
I gave several in post #158.martinbn said:Then my question remains. Which problems? Give me a specific example.
Yes. For instance, the Bell's famous paper on Bell inequalities was considered philosophy at that time and was published in a rather obscure journal.martinbn said:But do any of those papers actually solve any problems?
E.g. Newton's philosophical insight that motion of planets along ellipses can be reduced to a certain differential equation (that now bears his name).martinbn said:Which problems? Give me a specific example.
I think you have a wrong impression of what philosophy is. Do you, for instance, know what is analytical philosophy?martinbn said:My point was that it is just lexical analysis with no progress.
Demystifier said:Not true. The editors and reviewers in mainstream journals often reject papers because they use some philosophical arguments.
Ideas don't just appear out of nowhere.A. Neumaier said:It is very different from the claim that a new science arrived from nowhere and produced new methods for solving problems.
To be a bit more descriptive: unification, i.e. dissolving dichotomies, as occurring in the history of theoretical physics is a completely philosophical method: unification is to make into a logically consistent unity which are separate concepts based on a philosophical analysis of what is necessary and what is contingent; when a unification occurs successfully, the new concept often automatically fulfills certain uniqueness and existence criteria, i.e. is automatically an application of some theory in pure mathematics, whether that field of pure mathematics has already been discovered or not.martinbn said:Then my question remains. Which problems? Give me a specific example.
Well said, an experiment is a brilliant supplier of data, but why do an experiment in the first place without some idea seeking an answer? We need not wonder with science, data is what it is- a cold hard fact.Auto-Didact said:The philosophical conceptualization has to occur before the mathematization; this is because if one starts with mathematics and then tries to conceptualize, there are literally an infinite amount of roads that can be taken, while given some concept it is much easier to then mathematicize
No, I've no clue what all this has to do with physics. Physics is a down-to-earth (in the literal sense) natural science with the modest goal to find a description of observable facts about Nature. As it has turned out since Kepler, Galilei, and Newton one can find astonishingly accurate mathematical descriptions based on very few quite simple fundamental laws ("geometry" of spacetime, symmetry principles underlying the description of interactions). That itself is an amazing empirical fact, not more but also not less.Auto-Didact said:@vanhees71 I hope that the above post gives you some elucidation why foundational problems (such as the measurement problem in QM) are not only actual problems in physics, but literally the most important problems in physics regardless of any empirical impetus from the experimenters. The science apologist's often given justification for theoretical physics is a fallacy: advancing the state of experiment or of technology is not the main goal of physics! As Feynman said: 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.'
The irony is that Feynman was also against philosophy in physics, precisely because it doesn't give practical results.Auto-Didact said:As Feynman said: 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.'
I think the fact that many physicists, or scientists generally, have a tendency to start mistaking what is conventional knowledge for what is a logically simple notion, purely as a result of being overly familiar with the conventional description. In effect, their haven gotten used to such a description then leads them to take it for granted; adopting such a pragmatic purely instrumental attitude w.r.t. a complicated or even illogical notion directly causes the genesis of a conventional tradition and then with time also a resistance to reconsidering that convention and reformulating it into a more coherent i.e. a logically simpler notion, e.g. by fitting it to a more accurate mathematical framework. Both Newton and Poincaré wrote extensively on this, but alas, no one seems to read them.Julius Ceasar said:Well said, an experiment is a brilliant supplier of data, but why do an experiment in the first place without some idea seeking an answer? We need not wonder with science, data is what it is- a cold hard fact.
I wonder about these vital facts therefore I philosophize.
I see that I still haven't quite gotten the message across since you are still focussing on the trees instead of the forest, i.e. focussing on contingencies instead of on necessities; perhaps it is my fault for not being brief enough, I am writing to be understood. In any case, I will try to rephrase the main points.vanhees71 said:No, I've no clue what all this has to do with physics. Physics is a down-to-earth (in the literal sense) natural science with the modest goal to find a description of observable facts about Nature. As it has turned out since Kepler, Galilei, and Newton one can find astonishingly accurate mathematical descriptions based on very few quite simple fundamental laws ("geometry" of spacetime, symmetry principles underlying the description of interactions). That itself is an amazing empirical fact, not more but also not less.