Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?

[krash661]

This was sent through an email.
any thoughts on this ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


don't be an idiot without the philosopher that creates or proposes a theory the physicist would not have the ability to create the mathematics and formulas to prove it. Some physicist do both but not the majority, especially in the times of aristotle, and plato.

The main subjects of ancient philosophy are: understanding the fundamental causes and principles of the universe; explaining it in an economical way; the epistemological problem of reconciling the diversity and change of the natural universe, with the possibility of obtaining fixed and certain knowledge about it; questions about things that cannot be perceived by the senses, such as numbers,elements, universals, and gods. Socrates is said to have been the initiator of more focused study upon the human things including the analysis of patterns of reasoning and argument and the nature ofthe good life and the importance of understanding and knowledge in order to pursue it; the explication of the concept of justice, and its relation to various political systems.[26]

In this period the crucial features of the Western philosophical method were established: a critical approach to received or established views, and the appeal to reason and argumentation. This includes Socrate's dialectic method of inquiry, known as the Socratic method or method of "elenchus", which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice. To solve a problem, it would be broken down into a series of questions, the answers to which gradually distill the answer a person would seek. The influence of this approach is most strongly felt today in the use of the scientific method, in which hypothesis is the first stage.

You see what is says the influence of Socrate's approach is most strongly felt today in use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

NOW WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific knowledge is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be considered completely certain, since new evidence falsifying it might be discovered. If such evidence is found, a new theory may be proposed, or (more commonly) it is found that minor modifications to the previous theory are sufficient to explain the new evidence. The strength of a theory is related to how long it has persisted without falsification of its core principles.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[2]
In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is an unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.
The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[3] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.

DON'T BE AN IDIOT BECAUSE YOU ARE INTO THIS PHYSICS SITE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE IS A GOOD THING BUT YOU ARE LETTING IT CLOUD YOUR PERCEPTION OF ESSENCE. PHILOSOPHERS USE METHODS TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE QUESTIONS OF UNIVERSE THEY ATTEMPT TO LOGICALLY EXPLAIN A SPECIFIC PHENOMENON. PHYSICIST USE MATHEMATICS AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC TEST TO TRY TO CONFIRM A SPECIFIC THEORY ABOUT A PHENOMENON THAT WAS LOGICALLY DERIVED. PHYSICIST RELY ON EMPIRICAL DATA WHICH IS DERIVED FROM PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC AND THEN THEY APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF CREATING HYPOTHESIS, A PREDICTION, PERFORM TEST, FORMULATE A PREDICTION. AND THIS METHOD WAS AGAIN DERIVED FROM PHILOSOPHY.

PHILOSOPHERS WILL GIVE LOGICAL REASONS, ANSWERS, OR PREDICTIONS FOR THE QUESTIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.

PHYSICIST WILL USE MATHEMATICS AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC METHODS IN ATTEMPT TO CONFIRM THE LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS AND CREATE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.
A scientific theory can also be thought of as a book that captures the fundamental information about the world, a book that must be researched, written, and shared. In 1623, Galileo Galilei wrote:
Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.

NOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT WAS CREATED BY A PHYSICIST IS MORE LIKELY TO BE FACTUAL OR REAL IN REGARD TO A HYPOTHESIS OR A LOGICALLY DERIVED THEORY ABOUT A PHENOMENON BECAUSE THEY HAVE APPLIED SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND MATHEMATICS WITHIN THEIR PREDICTIONS. AS COMPARED TO PHILOSOPHERS THAT USE DIFFERENT FORMS OF LOGIC, REASONING, AND THINKING TO FORMULATE THEIR PREDICTIONS.
BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE AN NOT THE OTHER. THEY GO HAND IN HAND THE PHYSICIST WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE A ROAD MAP TO GO ABOUT CREATING A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IF IT WEREN'T FOR PHILOSOPHY. YOU GET IT.

 

[Evo]

Seems like a pointless rant. We do science here. Science replaced philosophy as a means of actually producing results.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-m-krauss/the-consolation-of-philosophy_b_1460372.html

What I find common and so stimulating about the philosophical efforts of these intellectual colleagues is the way they thoughtfully reflect on human knowledge, amassed from empirical explorations in areas ranging from science to history, to clarify issues that are relevant to making decisions about how to function more effectively and happily as an individual, and as a member of a society.

As a practicing physicist however, the situation is somewhat different. There, I, and most of the colleagues with whom I have discussed this matter, have found that philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in my field. Even in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful. For example, on the nature of science and the scientific method, I have found the insights offered by scientists who have chosen to write concretely about their experience and reflections, from Jacob Bronowski, to Richard Feynman, to Francis Crick, to Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, and Sir James Jeans, to have provided me with a better practical guide than the work of even the most significant philosophical writers of whom I am aware, such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. I admit that this could primarily reflect of my own philosophical limitations, but I suspect this experience is more common than not among my scientific colleagues.
.
.
.
.
So, to those philosophers I may have unjustly offended by seemingly blanket statements about the field, I apologize. I value your intelligent conversation and the insights of anyone who thinks carefully about our universe and who is willing to guide their thinking based on the evidence of reality. To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.

And let's not forget the infamous Feymann's quote:

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

Etc...

Note that if Philosophy is that important to science, it should have received plenty of NSF/DOE research funds. Has it? Or if it is that crucial, how come it landed at #4 on the Kiplinger's http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/college/T012-S001-worst-college-majors-for-your-career/index.html?cid=32?

As scientists, we go by EVIDENCE, not just assertion. Look at the "rant" that you received. How many of those are assertions and how many of those are actual evidence? Think about it.

Zz.