Unifying Theoretical Physics: Kant & Ritter

[Nusc]

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)

 

[pam]

Another Wikipedia blind alley, since Maxwell unified E & M his way.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not only that, this particular quote was attributed to Richard Feynman:

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

But then again, who is Feynman anyway other than a brilliant theorist who never wrote a single Wikipedia entry.

Zz.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Aside from the criticisms above, a general caveat: you cannot trust Wikipedia.

If you know something about the field and want to find something general, it may be useful. There is a lot of either self-serving or testosterone-mediated behavior of posters on Wikipedia. Wiki has started to set up some barriers to the latter stupidity by marking pages like 'Evolution' as semi-protected against vandalism.

 

[arunma]

I've never heard Professor Feynman's quote before, but I seem to have independently derived the result. This so-called "philosophy of science," has never been of any use to me. As far as electrodynamics works, it seems to be set up the way it is because the current formulation makes it a lot easier to do problems and arrive at results. Granted, my only knowledge of philosophy is limited to theology, so I really don't know anything about metaphysics. But "who cares?" would probably be my response to the question as well.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've never heard Professor Feynman's quote before, but I seem to have independently derived the result. This so-called "philosophy of science," has never been of any use to me. As far as electrodynamics works, it seems to be set up the way it is because the current formulation makes it a lot easier to do problems and arrive at results. Granted, my only knowledge of philosophy is limited to theology, so I really don't know anything about metaphysics. But "who cares?" would probably be my response to the question as well.

It's natural to emerge from a Jackson-based course with a "Shut up and calculate!" mindset.

 

[mgb_phys]

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

That's a little unfair, Philosophy of science only has to be useful to philosophers of science!

 

[rewebster]

why is the 'word' "philosophy" so hated by physicists?

 

[ZapperZ]

That's a little unfair, Philosophy of science only has to be useful to philosophers of science!

.. and I didn't say it isn't!

But notice what the premise of the OP was, that somehow philosophy in fact is a necessary ingredients for theories. I've talked to many theorists. Never, at any given time, is there a question of actual philosophy issues behind what they're working on.

It is obvious that Feynman never paid any attention to it.

why is the 'word' "philosophy" so hated by physicists?

I don't know if physicists hate it, because mainly it is a non-issue and irrelevant in most, if not all, of the things they do. I don't ever recall it coming up at 2 am in the morning when I'm in the middle of collecting data, or when I'm analyzing them. I would bet that most physicists feel the same level of ambivalent towards it. It just plays an insignificant role in what we do.

So how does one hates something that doesn't even enter into the picture?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

I agree---a lot of 'physics' is analytical, but areas where there is a choice, the philosophical attitude of the person 'choosing' this or that comes into play.

Maybe, philosophy, as in the OP's post, is in the construction of the theory---not the application.

 

[arunma]

It's natural to emerge from a Jackson-based course with a "Shut up and calculate!" mindset.

LOL. Yeah, Jackson E&M really taught me to just shut up and solve the problem. I saw a few people not do as well in that class as they could have simply because they kept trying to understand the physics behind the problem, instead of just writing down the solution that the grader wanted to see.

But I think that part of it also had to do with my quantum professor this fall. First week of class he told a story about how he and a friend started grad school together. He went into theoretical CMP, and his friend did his thesis on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. He graduated in the regular five years; his friend spent twelve years working on his thesis, and then gave up. He also resolved my issue with the whole spooky action at a distance thing (you know, two particles with opposite spin go to opposite sides of the universe, etc.). His solution: "who cares? It's not like you can do anything with the information once you have it."

why is the 'word' "philosophy" so hated by physicists?

Well, it's not that we hate philosophy. In fact, I know more than one person who chose to double major in physics and philosophy for their undergrad work. When I was in undergrad, I did a second major in math, which to be honest is more like philosophy than it is like physics. It's just that philosophy doesn't have much of an application to physics. To use Zapper's analogy, scientific philosophy might be fun to debate, but when I'm up at 2 am working Jackson's E&M problems, all the philosophy in the world isn't going to get me any closer to solving for the potential. Though I admit that at such times I do ponder the philosophy of how best to punch Jackson in the face.

I suppose that science could be of some use to philosophers, as philosophers often love to draw philosophical conclusions from scientific results. The problem is that they all draw different conclusions. The Christian theologians will likely point to the Big Bang as evidence for God as first cause, the scientific rationalists will look to evolutionary biology to portray man as self-created. The bioethicists will have endless cloning debates. And for better or worse, PETA will probably tell us why the Maxwell Displacement Current says that we should all go vegan. At the end of the day, these things don't help me put error bars on my simulated blazar spectra. While science provides fodder for the philosophers, philosophy doesn't offer anything that I as a scientist can use (though as a first year grad student, maybe I just don't have the experience and wisdom to see its usefulness yet). So to me the real issue is: why do I as a physicist care about scientific philosophy? It doesn't give me any results, and I'm no less the physicist if I choose to ignore it.

I don't hate philosophy; on the contrary I can see why some people might enjoy studying it. I just don't have an use for it.

 

[mbrmbrg]

I am but a lowly undergrad, not yet a physicist. And yet, somehow I think what I have to say matters. Whatever. That's philosophy, already.

I don't hate philosophy. I just want to pull my hair out and scream when people go to a Physics Lecture for Laymen (which actually is philosophy with a teeny bit of physics for substance) and then think they know all about it, so they try to start talking phyiscs with me, but don't allow any equations to come up in the discussion --AAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!
Yes, sometimes I do give into the impulse to yank my hair out and scream. But that's psychology.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree---a lot of 'physics' is analytical, but areas where there is a choice, the philosophical attitude of the person 'choosing' this or that comes into play.

Maybe, philosophy, as in the OP's post, is in the construction of the theory---not the application.

There is a difference between "innate instinct" or "intuition" versus adopting a particular philosophical ideology. Einstein was motivated to work on something that led to SR not because he had a particular formal philosophy, but due to the puzzling non-covariant of classical E&M.

I'm making a guess here, but in defense of Feynman, I believe he was making a remark about the formal study of philosophy. That is why he was comparing it to a study of birds. Physicists, by training, are never required to study such things (at least not at most schools that I am aware of here in the US), and that in itself clearly tells you its lack of usefulness in the practice of physics.

Of course, we all have some set of "ideologies" that we tend to follow. I tend to put a lot of emphasis on empirical evidence, and some learned scholar would want to categorize me as being a "solipsist" or "materialist" or other "ist". But did I learned this out of some formal set of education, or did I simply acquire such ideology based on experience, knowledge, and a formed intuition? Those birds never went to school nor even realize that there is such an area of "study" on them and what they do.

I still want to know where such-and-such theory had "rested" on some formal philosophy and "metaphysical" foundation.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Well, if I remember right, physics was a subset/division under Philosophy up until the 17th century. Most of the early 'physicists' were either classified as Philosophers and/or philosophers a little later, too--and this may be more of a modern idea to classify them as 'physicists' by our own standards.

Newton was an alchemist too.
-------------------------------


Physics has become so diversified and specialized in the last couple hundred years, some parts of it have gotten away from its roots.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure. Science was called "Natural Philosophy" before it was called science. But the splintering off between what is now the field of study of "philosophy" and "science" appears to be a clean break. Scientists do not depend on needing to study philosophy to be scientists. I'm guessing that Philosopher do not need to study physics to be philosophers (unless they major in Philosophy of physics and go to good programs such as at Columbia that make those students take actual physics classes).

Now this doesn't imply that there's no cross-breeding between the two. I never make such claim, nor was Feynman making such claim. But I know that what Feynman said is accurate.

Zz.

 

[arunma]

I am but a lowly undergrad, not yet a physicist. And yet, somehow I think what I have to say matters. Whatever. That's philosophy, already.

I would say that it does matter. Not so surprisingly, physics undergrads are pretty good at physics. The ones who live underneath me (the physics club is literally two floors below our grad student offices) know what they're talking about when it comes to physics. Especially the seniors.

I don't hate philosophy. I just want to pull my hair out and scream when people go to a Physics Lecture for Laymen (which actually is philosophy with a teeny bit of physics for substance) and then think they know all about it, so they try to start talking phyiscs with me, but don't allow any equations to come up in the discussion --AAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!
Yes, sometimes I do give into the impulse to yank my hair out and scream. But that's psychology.

I tend to have the same issues with these guys. It's really tough to talk about physics with someone who doesn't actually know the formalism. At some level, you just can't understand the phenomenon without having some basic knowledge of the formalism that's used to model it. When I was in undergrad, I and a friend of mine had issues with these Buddhist guys who said that quantum mechanics validated their philosophical suppositions. My friend told me to ask these people (and I think this applies to all armchair philosophers of physics) if they know what an eigenvalue is. If they say no, then they probably shouldn't be talking about quantum physics, especially given that Schrodinger's seminal paper on the subject was titled "An Eigenvalue Problem." It's always funny to throw some math at these guys and see what they do.

 

[mbrmbrg]

My friend told me to ask these people (and I think this applies to all armchair philosophers of physics) if they know what an eigenvalue is.

That'll show 'em!

Though "egenvalue" still looks funny to me. I'm taking linear this semester, and I participated in class but didn't use the book too much. I was studying for the final yesterday, and tried to look up "Eigen Value" -- then interruped my roommate's Organic Chemistry studying to tell her how funny eigenvalue and eigenvector look. (I don't think she really appreciated the humor of the situation.)

 

[rewebster]

I don't know about a 'clean break'---I think the two will be intwined forever. If you're talking about "Pure Philosophy" and/or "Pure Science", or "Pure Math", it may tend to be more separate, but that's getting away from the topic.

"Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics;" is in OP's post, and to me 'theoretical' is the key word--distinguishing the subject from the broader 'physics' or science.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know about a 'clean break'---I think the two will be intwined forever. If you're talking about "Pure Philosophy" and/or "Pure Science", or "Pure Math", it may tend to be more separate, but that's getting away from the topic.

"Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics;" is in OP's post, and to me 'theoretical' is the key word--distinguishing the subject from the broader 'physics' or science.

But that is what I want illustrated. I want to see exactly where this "resting" occurs. Pick any theory. I'll suggest the BCS theory, but I'll settle for something else. The OP seems to think that stating it as it is sufficient "proof" of its validity. Of course, all of us here on PF know that this is not the case.

Zz.

 

[Bladibla]

I don't know about a 'clean break'---I think the two will be intwined forever. If you're talking about "Pure Philosophy" and/or "Pure Science", or "Pure Math", it may tend to be more separate, but that's getting away from the topic.

"Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics;" is in OP's post, and to me 'theoretical' is the key word--distinguishing the subject from the broader 'physics' or science.

I have to disagree with you when you claim there cannot be a 'clean break' - I'm guessing a lot of people (most of the general public) have the skewed concept that philosophy has to do with how productive a physicist can be due to its 'correlation' of how some geat physicists (Einstein, Newton and Galileo, although I'm not entirely sure about the latter two)

Just what part of philosophy is there in a equation? If any? An equation is just to work out something. Thats it. There isn't a fundamental deep reason as to why the equation works; through logical step-by-step analysis of the relevant data patterns emerge, and thus to correlate these with the data an equation is required. We don't know ''why'' it works, and more importantly, we don't *need* to for us to take the important information out of the equation.

Physics has become so diversified and specialized in the last couple hundred years, some parts of it have gotten away from its roots.

Kepler was called a Astrologer in his time and day, although his most important works were actually in astronomy. As you can see, the 'roots' aren't as important as you think it is, nor even actually required, but only as a formality, as in this case. So being called a natural philosopher does not mean that the 'roots' of the persons talent in physics lies within his knowledge of physics, and in the modern day, where physics is becoming more and more specialised (and less generalized as with philosophy) there is no decline in the number of physicists who have shown brilliance in their respective subject - further proving that philosophy is neither a requirement nor shown to have any influence in a persons ability to do physics.

 

[rewebster]

I am somewhat surprized about the strong aversion by 'physicists' to 'philosophy'----

so Z, you're not going to be donating to wikipedia?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think there's a substantial foundation of philosophy in science in general but it's the philosophy that everybody uses anyways at this point in history - logic, empiricism, etc.

 

[ZapperZ]

I am somewhat surprized about the strong aversion by 'physicists' to 'philosophy'----

so Z, you're not going to be donating to wikipedia?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en

Nope! Wikipedia gives me more trouble than it is worth. I think people who accept what they read there deserve what they get. One can only do so much to help people. At some point, they should not be saved from themselves.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Nope! Wikipedia gives me more trouble than it is worth. I think people who accept what they read there deserve what they get. One can only do so much to help people. At some point, they should not be saved from themselves.

Zz.

Well, first, I'll say Wiki is a great starting point for many looking for basic information. If the person reading an article in it has more interest in the subject, they can always dig farther into the subject if they want. You, having a lot more knowledge in a specific area, will see that 'some' of its articles aren't complete or as thorough as they can be.

This also, I agree, is the 'fault' of some posters--but the 'fault' may be due to age, casual interest in a subject, or enthusiasm to post 'something' without them investigating further on their own, etc.

And as far as "Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics;", if one looks at the definitions:

Metaphysics:

"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

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


Theoretical physics:

"The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena."

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


Philosophy:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

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


So , to me, the statement in the OP represents the intial search for 'genuine knowledge' whose "goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena" by investigating "principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

And yes, I agree with you

I don't know if physicists hate it, because mainly it is a non-issue and irrelevant in most, if not all, of the things they do. I don't ever recall it coming up at 2 am in the morning when I'm in the middle of collecting data, or when I'm analyzing them. I would bet that most physicists feel the same level of ambivalent towards it. It just plays an insignificant role in what we do.
Zz.

and arunma

Well, it's not that we hate philosophy. In fact, I know more than one person who chose to double major in physics and philosophy for their undergrad work. When I was in undergrad, I did a second major in math, which to be honest is more like philosophy than it is like physics. It's just that philosophy doesn't have much of an application to physics. To use Zapper's analogy, scientific philosophy might be fun to debate, but when I'm up at 2 am working Jackson's E&M problems, all the philosophy in the world isn't going to get me any closer to solving for the potential. Though I admit that at such times I do ponder the philosophy of how best to punch Jackson in the face.

I suppose that science could be of some use to philosophers, as philosophers often love to draw philosophical conclusions from scientific results. The problem is that they all draw different conclusions. The Christian theologians will likely point to the Big Bang as evidence for God as first cause, the scientific rationalists will look to evolutionary biology to portray man as self-created. The bioethicists will have endless cloning debates. And for better or worse, PETA will probably tell us why the Maxwell Displacement Current says that we should all go vegan. At the end of the day, these things don't help me put error bars on my simulated blazar spectra. While science provides fodder for the philosophers, philosophy doesn't offer anything that I as a scientist can use (though as a first year grad student, maybe I just don't have the experience and wisdom to see its usefulness yet). So to me the real issue is: why do I as a physicist care about scientific philosophy? It doesn't give me any results, and I'm no less the physicist if I choose to ignore it.

I don't hate philosophy; on the contrary I can see why some people might enjoy studying it. I just don't have an use for it.

and Bladibla

I have to disagree with you when you claim there cannot be a 'clean break' - I'm guessing a lot of people (most of the general public) have the skewed concept that philosophy has to do with how productive a physicist can be due to its 'correlation' of how some geat physicists (Einstein, Newton and Galileo, although I'm not entirely sure about the latter two)

Just what part of philosophy is there in a equation? If any? An equation is just to work out something. Thats it. There isn't a fundamental deep reason as to why the equation works; through logical step-by-step analysis of the relevant data patterns emerge, and thus to correlate these with the data an equation is required. We don't know ''why'' it works, and more importantly, we don't *need* to for us to take the important information out of the equation.



Kepler was called a Astrologer in his time and day, although his most important works were actually in astronomy. As you can see, the 'roots' aren't as important as you think it is, nor even actually required, but only as a formality, as in this case. So being called a natural philosopher does not mean that the 'roots' of the persons talent in physics lies within his knowledge of physics, and in the modern day, where physics is becoming more and more specialised (and less generalized as with philosophy) there is no decline in the number of physicists who have shown brilliance in their respective subject - further proving that philosophy is neither a requirement nor shown to have any influence in a persons ability to do physics.

These are comments dealing with AFTER the theory has been made, and using the theory (applied physics)--analysis, using the equations, etc. from the theory--not the creative process of formulating what the theory is based on ("rested on"--OP's quote)--the creation process.

under 'research':

"The culture of physics research differs from most sciences in the separation of theory and experiment. Since the twentieth century, most individual physicists have specialized in either theoretical physics or experimental physics."

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


I personally think a lot of the problem about the term 'philosophy' as it relates to 'physics' deals with those who 'create it' (the original theory) and those who 'use it' (data analysis, equations, etc.). When I going through and reading posts, I'd say over 50% of the posts deal with the 'philosophy' (metaphysics, epistemology, logic) of the subject.

 

[arunma]

These are comments dealing with AFTER the theory has been made, and using the theory (applied physics)--analysis, using the equations, etc. from the theory--not the creative process of formulating what the theory is based on ("rested on"--OP's quote)--the creation process.

I think I see what you're saying. But then the issue is as to whether Wikipedia's statement has any practical use. Sure, maybe theoretical physicists are informed by their personal philosophies as they create a physical model. However, this is probably true of all people who formulate models or ideas of some kind. Are you suggesting that perhaps most theoretical physicists favor some specific kind of philosophy?

 

[rewebster]

I think I see what you're saying. But then the issue is as to whether Wikipedia's statement has any practical use. Sure, maybe theoretical physicists are informed by their personal philosophies as they create a physical model. However, this is probably true of all people who formulate models or ideas of some kind. Are you suggesting that perhaps most theoretical physicists favor some specific kind of philosophy?

maybe--or it could be that their own philosophy (nature/nurture) guides them toward a certain region that that want to specialize. Someone who likes details and organization will differ from someone who thinks more abstract---and I would think that helps guide them from an early age.


practical use?-----I think its looking at the 'creative process' and the thinking that it involves of gathering info.---hypothesis to creation of the theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

And as far as "Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics;", if one looks at the definitions:

Metaphysics:

"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

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


Theoretical physics:

"The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena."

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


Philosophy:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

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


So , to me, the statement in the OP represents the intial search for 'genuine knowledge' whose "goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena" by investigating "principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology."

And yes, I agree with you


and arunma



and Bladibla



These are comments dealing with AFTER the theory has been made, and using the theory (applied physics)--analysis, using the equations, etc. from the theory--not the creative process of formulating what the theory is based on ("rested on"--OP's quote)--the creation process.

under 'research':

"The culture of physics research differs from most sciences in the separation of theory and experiment. Since the twentieth century, most individual physicists have specialized in either theoretical physics or experimental physics."

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


I personally think a lot of the problem about the term 'philosophy' as it relates to 'physics' deals with those who 'create it' (the original theory) and those who 'use it' (data analysis, equations, etc.). When I going through and reading posts, I'd say over 50% of the posts deal with the 'philosophy' (metaphysics, epistemology, logic) of the subject.

But this is what I had addressed already:

There is a difference between "innate instinct" or "intuition" versus adopting a particular philosophical ideology. Einstein was motivated to work on something that led to SR not because he had a particular formal philosophy, but due to the puzzling non-covariant of classical E&M.

I'm making a guess here, but in defense of Feynman, I believe he was making a remark about the formal study of philosophy. That is why he was comparing it to a study of birds. Physicists, by training, are never required to study such things (at least not at most schools that I am aware of here in the US), and that in itself clearly tells you its lack of usefulness in the practice of physics.

Of course, we all have some set of "ideologies" that we tend to follow. I tend to put a lot of emphasis on empirical evidence, and some learned scholar would want to categorize me as being a "solipsist" or "materialist" or other "ist". But did I learned this out of some formal set of education, or did I simply acquire such ideology based on experience, knowledge, and a formed intuition? Those birds never went to school nor even realize that there is such an area of "study" on them and what they do.

Using your logic, we could also argue that all scientists make use of "social science" knowledge, etc. in their work. The unconscious usage of something that evolved out of some knowledge and instinct does not mean that the formal study of that something was the source. Again, if the subject of philosophy were to go away today, physicists would hardly notice the impact in their work. That, to me, is the most tangible evidence I can offer.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

But this is what I had addressed already:



Using your logic, we could also argue that all scientists make use of "social science" knowledge, etc. in their work.

"Using your logic, we could also agree that all scientists make use of "social science" knowledge, etc. in their work."

The unconscious usage of something that evolved out of some knowledge and instinct does not mean that the formal study of that something was the source. Again, if the subject of philosophy were to go away today, physicists would hardly notice the impact in their work. That, to me, is the most tangible evidence I can offer.

Zz.

well, everyone uses philosophy and physics everyday--some more than others-----but I think having an appreciation for philosophy (and the understanding beyond the unconscious usage of it) helps the scientific process for initiating the creative process for new theories. If we didn't have philosophy, we may just be re-using the same technology and not create new areas.

 

[jim mcnamara]

...<snip> Never, at any given time, is there a question of actual philosophy issues behind what they're working on.
<snip>
I don't know if physicists hate it, because mainly it is a non-issue and irrelevant in most, if not all, of the things they do. I don't ever recall it coming up at 2 am in the morning when I'm in the middle of collecting data, or when I'm analyzing them. I would bet that most physicists feel the same level of ambivalent towards it. It just plays an insignificant role in what we do.
So how does one hates something that doesn't even enter into the picture?

Zz.

IMO. The data and analysis your present in a pre-print or a paper is subject to logical analysis by reviewers and yourself, of course. True? So what is the basis of the logic for the analysis? For example, can you ever fully disprove a hypothesis?

The answer: logic as originally developed in philosophic discourse.

Therefore, while you may not give a darn about it, you must have learned the rules of logic everyone agrees upon in order to logically discuss research results, for example. It's a tool you cannot be without. So I totally disagree that it fails to be important. I do agree that you may never have thought of philosophy in the context of your research, you simply learned "the rules" without having been taught how they came to be used. You have to speak to that.

 

[jim mcnamara]

oops. Apologies - I didn't see that rewbster already took Zz to task on his comment.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Science and Philosophy fall into different spectrums. Science deals with "physical phenomena" while Philosophy deals with "social phenomena" and "abstract thought."

 

[rewebster]

Yes---and the "abstract thought" is where new physics theories are derived.

One of my more favorite ones in that vein is the 'what would I see if I were riding a beam of light?'

 

[ZapperZ]

well, everyone uses philosophy and physics everyday--some more than others-----but I think having an appreciation for philosophy (and the understanding beyond the unconscious usage of it) helps the scientific process for initiating the creative process for new theories. If we didn't have philosophy, we may just be re-using the same technology and not create new areas.

But that is just speculation, don't you think? I mean, considering the fact that many physicists right now didn't have any formal training in philosophy, and yet, they still can function pretty well (would you like to argue with them that they can be better?) clearly shows that you have no evidence to support your argument. In fact, there are plenty of contrary evidence.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

IMO. The data and analysis your present in a pre-print or a paper is subject to logical analysis by reviewers and yourself, of course. True? So what is the basis of the logic for the analysis? For example, can you ever fully disprove a hypothesis?

The answer: logic as originally developed in philosophic discourse.

Therefore, while you may not give a darn about it, you must have learned the rules of logic everyone agrees upon in order to logically discuss research results, for example. It's a tool you cannot be without. So I totally disagree that it fails to be important. I do agree that you may never have thought of philosophy in the context of your research, you simply learned "the rules" without having been taught how they came to be used. You have to speak to that.

But how much of these things are learned innately? I learned how to do many things without having any formal training in them. I also learned how to carefully reasoned things out, not because I took a class in philosophy, was aware of philosophical ideas, but rather out of learning things myself and thinking things through. And yes, I have spoken on that already in the previous post.

I think people missed the profound idea in that Feynman's quote. These are rules that the birds learned because it is in their nature, and not because someone has formalized a set of knowledge for them. Scientists eventually learned how to do science, not because they are taught to do so (as if such skills can be taught), but because they acquire them by repeated process until they learned what to do.

Again, the study of philosophy could go away tomorrow, and I don't think any of us here at the lab would notice, nor would our training of new physicists would be affected. Until someone can challenge the validity of that statement, I do not see how that original quote by Feynman isn't accurate.

Zz.

 

[arunma]

Yes---and the "abstract thought" is where new physics theories are derived.

One of my more favorite ones in that vein is the 'what would I see if I were riding a beam of light?'

Well...that doesn't seem much like philosophy to me. It's true that Einstein derived special relativity by asking questions like the above, and its true that these questions are highly abstract and require a great degree of physical intuition. But does this really constitute philosophical thought? Abstract and intuitive thought doesn't cause something to fall in the realm of philosophy. After all, at the end of the day, SR had to be testable, even at the theoretical level (i.e. it had to be consistent with Maxwell's Equations). Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't submit to definitions such as "right" and "wrong," and needn't be tested. For this reason, I'm not sure that Einstein's thought process shold be classified as philosophy.