Re: Physics & Philosophy

From: Rich Grise (richardgrise_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: 14 Jun 2004 16:27:58 -0700

Bart Van Hove <bartvanhove@skynet.be> wrote...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:55:43 +0200, willi wrote:
> > dans l'article 9gWxc.4538$eu.2263@attbi_s02, Robert J. Kolker à
> > robert_kolker@hotmail.com a écrit le 10/06/04 11:57 :
> >> jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
> >>> Bart Van Hove <bartvanhove@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> My question is how philosophy relates to physics and science in general:
> >>> It doesn't.
> >> Not true. There are several good epistemological theses which describe
> >> how scientific theories differ from non-scientific theories.
> > Perhaps one should precise :"how GOOD philosophy relates to GOOD physics".
> > But you have then to define good !...
> > I would sum up :
> > 1) the scientific discoveries put limits on theories, even in philosophy.
> > 2) philosophy is welcomed in science if it brings creative ideas but should
> > be put aside when it pretends to impose concepts or limits.
> > 3) hidden presuppositions in science should be tracked down.
> I agree with that, still: having put these limits on the use of
> philosophy, doesn't it boil down to plain creative thinking? Ofcourse this
> is a step in the scientific process of explaining some occuring effect.
> Some philosophy-enthousiasts I know claim it's the source of science, I'm
> not eager to give philosophy that much credit (I agree with Uncle Al that
> "real" in-depth philosophy doesn't produce any actual results).

I don't know as I'd go so far as to say it's the _source_ of science,
but I'd definitely argue both involve some brain activity, having
something to do with wanting to know something. Like, "I wonder
what that yellow crackling stuff is that hurts and turns trees
black and small and crumbly?" The wrath of God? Or a forest fire?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
    -- Arthur C. Clarke

I wonder what the people that say '"real" in-depth philosophy doesn't
produce any actual results' require for something to be an "actual
result." And so what? Is that its job? That's what "science" is for,
isn't it? Philosophy produces questions that might or might not
be intriguing enough to prompt further investigation, no? So I'd
say philosophy has a definite purpose, and I'd say almost as
"important" as the hard sciences. Now, if you want plain flim-
flammery, check out statistics and epidemiology! There's some
real howlers over in that neck of the woods!

Cheers!
Rich

Relevant Pages

  • Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >>>agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the ... a philosophy of science course of this sort will be ... >>>taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution. ... proposing originally. ...
    (talk.origins)