Why are modern scientists such shit philosophers? I just read Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg and that guy was a genius in both science and its philosophical implications. Not to mention he knew his history of western philosophy to a fucking tee.
Who are some great scientist/philosophers out there these days?
Random pic, bro. It was the most science image I had at hand. Also, it's a beautiful fucking album cover, even if the album itself is underwhelming. They made up for it with the Seer and TBK, imo.
same poster. Just for keks here is what Baez wrote in his Physics books recommendations.
"Don't read: The Physicist's World, by Thomas Grissom. This book is included here as an example of a book that contains mostly incorrect physics. Grissom is a philosopher who has managed to publish a book about physics without knowing much physics, and it's a shame that he has taught the content of this book for some (many?) years to philosophy students, who must've gone out into the big world thinking that physicists must be incredibly dumb if they really believe the naïve concepts that Grissom thinks physics is all about. This book gets all the big tenets of the subject wrong: Grissom thinks that special relativity is all about what is seen with the eye, a mistake that only first-year students are expected to make; he thinks that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle concerns the limits of measurement of quantities that are otherwise perfectly well defined; he thinks that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an actual law that must be obeyed. And he apparently thinks that physicists spend a great deal of their time pondering the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks. All completely wrong."
To be fair Baez also points out good books regarding philosophical matters but I haven't read them and I think the majority of them were written by physicists.
Because philosophy is shit.
All it does is ponder questions you can't know answers to.
I've done a lot of philosophizing when I was younger, and I always kept hitting walls of the borders of our scientific knowledge.
It's better to just drop it and focus on hard sciences.
Yeah, but you didn't really see the complexities. Seriously, read the OP book. It will make you question. It's not contradicting science, by the way, if that's what you think it is.
This is by one of the greatest physicists ever. It puts into question all of modern science, while reaffirming it.
People like Heisenberg or Einstein were born in Germany at a time where a classical education was still obligatory, meaning they learned old greek, latin and the corresponding philosophy etc. Also religion was a much bigger topic back then and basically ubiquitous. These were the thoughts that greatly inspired all of science back in the days (inb4 hurrdurr religion/philosophy is stupid: Heisenberg, just as Einstein stated they were greatly inspired by philosophers, Plato and Mach).
Nowadays these parts of education are not valued any longer, mostly to make the system more efficient. I guess now the inspiration comes from science fiction mostly, which may work, but kinda lacks culture.
It's not just culture though. Heisenberg actually reflected on his work in a philosophical way, which was intimately connected to the epistemology and ontology of the science. This context has not changed.
>hurr only scientific evidence is true
>why do you think that?
>my own empiric perception (building and testing a theory) is true, since it isn't proven wrong yet.
>so you use empiric knowledge to say that only empiric knowledge is true?
that fucking circular logic.
as an undergrad physics student myself, i hate that fucking circular argument of some /sci/entists. it just shows how they never attended a formal logic lecture.
excellent point. i think a symbiosis of science and philosophy is needed. especially in fields like theoretical physics or pure mathematics etc.
>Because philosophy is shit.
that is an philosophy in itself
>I question the reality of my existence every day, I don't need more of this shit.
now you just fucked up.
i think this is true. doing philosophy without science is just as stupid as doing science without philosophy, both is needed.
it about efficiency. our education system is just too narrow. the best example is: thinking for yourself. in most education systems this isn't appreciated in younger years. i even think that's the biggest problem for most students in hard STEM fields. most of them just don't fucking know how to gather and build good knowledge without external help and think for themselves. that's the reason most of them just fuck up and leave uni after 1 or 2 semesters.
that's the reason engineers have more job oppurtunities than real scientists. scientists have another way of thinking. more abstract, not that practical.
What nontrivial concepts in philosophy are important to scientists? Please, enlighten me, and don't say "Philosophy of Science", because most scientists I know don't know anything about it and it hasn't caused a problem for them.
Efficiency is an important factor in communication of scientific research in a globalized community. Nobody in academia is gonna award you additional points if your publication contains an appendix of unnecessary subjective philosophical musings, no matter how poetic they sound. You're just wasting your own and other people's time. And time is money. I don't care what you do in your bedroom whilst normal people would be having sex, but please keep your quixotic extraneous quisquilious horsefeathers out of science.
I just love how you narrow-minded autists think that just doing math or physics or whatever is enough for science.
>But muh pure science
Quit your fucking bullshit. You need some fucking meta-explanation in order to understand what the fuck you are doing, because in the end, doing science is understanding the world around you and by doing that, you are bound for philosophical thinking.
Guess you aren't good at the non-equation part of science, so you keep pretending that it's below or you or something.
All great scientist were also great philosophers.
People like you disgust me, fucking plug-in equation nerds.
You seem to be under the impression that this "meta-explanation" as you call it must be profound philosophical shit. It really isn't. Of course scientists know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is just so trivial that we don't feel the need to talk about it explicitly. Your post reminds me of a preschooler with down syndrome who thinks he's deep and intellectual for pointing out something every normal child was expected to know a few years ealier.
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't mention that it has to be profound, I said that science without philosophy behind it isn't worth anything.
Philosophy =/= profound shit
Don't fight imaginary battles, try to comprehend what I wanted to say first.
Philosophy is a distinct academic discipline and science involves none of it. It isn't my fault you have no idea what you're talking about. You're not deep and you're not philosphical for spouting kindergarten platitudes like "hurr durr science explains the world". Of course it does and everyone knows this. You obviously know nothing about neither science nor philosophy. Please go back to /lit/ and stop dragging down the intellectual level of discourse on /sci/.
Are you kidding me?
Science doesn't involve philosophy?
I bet you are the guy who thinks he's deep because he is doing some complex math shit, but when you ask him about anything else, he doesn't know shit.
You need fucking philosophy in order to understand what the fuck are you doing.
But having rejected it, I can see that you have no fucking idea about how things work and I bet that you will be/are mediocre scientist at best.
"Empiricism" in science means the systematic use of observation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical dogma of empiricism, which asserts that observation is the only valid epistemology. Of course science accepts and uses other methods of gaining knowledge, e.g. rational inquiry and logical deduction. Look up "quasi-empirical methods" on wikipedia for example. Don't use words you don't understand, you retarded piece of shit.
I'm not a "guy" and I am what people would call a polymath. I don't need philosophy because I have common sense. And to be honest there is really nothing deep about being aware of the historical and societal context of current scientific theories. You are so overly pseudo-intellectual that you actually turned anti-intellectual.
A shame that math is derived fro logic, a discipline of philosophy. Seriously though, what's with the hatred of philosophy on this board? What's wrong with liking both science, and philosophy, they compliment each-other very well.
And chemistry came from alchemy and astrophysics came from astrology, so we better all start studying alchemy and astrology because they are so much more important than our modern scientific theories, amirite?
A polymath who disregards philosophy. Is your head so deep inside your ass?
First thing smart people realize that there are other smart people who have more insight in certain areas. You are not aware of that, as you declared your common sense above philosophy.
Topest kek dude, get of /sci/ and ponder your stupidity.
most of /sci/ failed philosophy 101 and most of /lit/ have no idea of science. that's why. fucking plebs.
join hard science and philosophy übermensch masterrace.
Can you be any more wrong?
1. Logic is not a field of philosophy but a field of math. It has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century and ever since that happened philosophers do not understand it anymore. Philosophy students are taught merely an extremely dumbed down version of first order logic at best. Every 20th century logician has been a mathematician, i.e. had a math degree.
2. Math is not derived from logic. Unless you're explicitly doing research in mathematical logic, you'll never ever need formal logic in math. Proofs are not written as deductions from axioms within a formal deductive systems in any branch of math other than logic. Working mathematicians do not need to know anything about logic other than basic notions of inference such as those tested in IQ tests.
Logic is a discipline of it's own, having been founded in Ancient Greece.
Math was formalized WITH logical concepts.
Yes, you need logic for Math. Are you even in STEM field, dare I say, college?
Nobody cares. The scientific method does not involve any philosophy.
Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy. If every high school student can write an essay challenging the view of a historical philosopher and being awarded an A for said essay if his argumentation is consistent, then there must be something wrong with the quality of results in philosophy.
I don't disagree, but please keep that fedora to yourself. Don't be a pseudo-intellectual fucktard like >>7082621 who brags about his superficial knowledge of nothing.
Congratulations, you changed a fallacious statement to a blatantly wrong statement.
>Math is not derived from logic.
holy shit. have you ever attended any basic algebra class? (almost) everything you do in math, are algebraic conversions. algebra itself is a theoretical construct build on formal logic.
"In its most general form algebra is the study of symbols and the rules for manipulating symbols and is a unifying thread of almost all of mathematics" (wikipedia)
mordern mathematics is just evolved algebra. that doesn't mean it is indipended from algebra, i.e. we are just evolved animals, that does not make us less of an animal.
>Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy.
show me one axiom ever proven by mathematics.
>Math is not derived from logic.
>Proofs are not written as deductions from axioms within a formal deductive systems in any branch of math other than logic.
Crack open your copy of Principia Mathematica and see how utterly wrong you are.
Well nothing can be absolutely proven, you should know science doesn't seek to proves things, but to justify them. One thing justified extensively by a philosopher, David Hume, is the problem of induction, which critiques the logic of inductive reasoning.
>The scientific method does not involve any philosophy.
The scientific method IS philosophy
>Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy.
philosophy never proves anything. btw neither does science, according to your precious method
archetypical scholarly right here
there's not really a clear-cut boundary between logic an maths anymore. Furthermore, and here's the zinger, that question (of the boundary) is philosophical, for it's the question what counts as 'mere' or 'pure' rules of thinking and what is an assertion about the world/mathematical structures.
Bertrand Russel was a mathematician. He obtain a degree in math, he got a PhD in math, he was employed in the math department and he published in mathematical journals. As I said, every logician of the 20th century was a mathematician.
I am obtaining a PhD and obviously I'm thinking a few levels above your head. I'm not talking about the "hurr durr if all X are Y and some Y are Z then ..." kind of logic that is used to test whether a child has down syndrome. I'm talking about mathematical logic. To a researcher for example in spatial statistics or in spectral geometry it is absolutely fucking irrelevant how you make use of sheaves and topoi in model theory.
>I am obtaining a PhD
In Wikipedianism? Cuz I really don't believe a real-world PhD student can be this ignorant about other disciplines. In my experience, the more one learns about any subject, in-depth, the humbler one gets and the more one realizes how little he know.
I'm not gonna waste my time with high schoolers who think writing down things formally means doing formal logic. I honestly have better things to do than explaining the basics. Now go on and call me a troll or whatever your immaturity demands.
He was also a breather and a walker I guess. Better write an essay about it.
Not all logic is formal logic. Mathematics is based on symbolic logic. As for Russel, are you serious? He wasn't a philosopher because he breathed and walked, or it doesn't matter that he was a philosopher because you say so?
"Hurr durr what if tomorrow the sun doesn't rise" is not a disproof of inductive reasoning. The scientific method accounts for the "problem of induction" by being upon to changing theories upon making contradicting observations. Please don't be simple-minded.
The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. That's why it works. Because it is objective and not subjective.
You are talking about subject that we actually study.
Either you are a troll or a high school student or a very very narrow minded and stupid person.
Considering the logical operators in the sentence before this, are you even able to comprehend it?
I never said it questioned the scientific method, another philosopher, Karl Popper explained as much. Hume himself loved science, he still determined the frailty of induction. Read before you criticise.
I salute you, fellow supreme gentlemen. Let those of lesser walks of life than ours wallow in their resentment. Only true intellectual superior humans such as us understand intuition and common sense always lead to correct conclusions, save in our field of course, wherein only highly specialized trained professionals can hope to catch a glimpse of the undiluted truth.
>Not all logic is formal logic. Mathematics is based on symbolic logic.
Why do you keep talking about a subject you know absolutely nothing about?
>As for Russel, are you serious?
For someone who has the intellectual capacities to do higher math, philosophy is trivial. Calling him a philosopher is like calling him a breather or a walker, because just like he can breathe and walk, he can do philosophy. Literally everyone is capable of holding subjective opinions, i.e. "doing philosophy", because it has no prerequisites other than being a functional human being.
>You are talking about subject that we actually study.
You study logic? Great, then please stop wasting time on 4chan and answer these questions, your fellow professor colleagues cannot answer:
Philosophy isn't any more subjective than science. And how can science, indeed anything, ever be objective when it is performed by subjective agents? Science is inter-subjective, not objective.
>The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. That's why it works. Because it is objective and not subjective.
So basically you're defining philosophy as necessarily subjective, thus excluding things philosophy has actually achieved, and then concluding from that that it's pointless because it hasn't achieved anything. Seems you've contrived your definition to fit what you already believe.
Popper did not explain anything and did not add anything. The scientific method made use of falsification long before him. Or do you really think scientists used to continue believing in disproved theories?
Obviously not. What popper did was develop, in great detail, the idea of falsifiability in regard to science. It was a response, to other philosophers, the logical positivists, like Carnap.
As you said yourself, it stayed within philosophy. Because scientists don't give a shit whether some armchair fedoras who never took a science course fail to understand the scientific method. Philosophy of science is a useless circlejerk of philosophers outside of science and has no effect on science.
How do you know they can't define philosophy? Science as well has had a hard time being defined concretely, see the demarcation problem. Obviously what philosophy has achieved is the expansion of our knowledge, it also produced science.
>Show me one thing philosophy ever achieved.
As has already been said repeatedly, the scientific method.
>hurr but that can't be philosophy because philosophy is useless/subjective!
Do you really not see the circular reasoning here?
The scientific method was developed by people who used their intelligence to get shit done in reality, not by lazy and uneducated armchair fedoras. Philosophy is what happens in philosophy departments. There's a reason why philosophy departments and science departments are not merged. It is because their subject matter is too different. You seem to have missed a few hundred years of intellectual history. Please educate yourself.
You do know philosophy is millenia old, and it took a long time for science to become distinct from philosophy. Even in Newton's day it was called natural philosophy. And please do tell how you came to the conclusion that all philosophers are lazy, armchair, uneducated fedoras? Especially as many have also been scientists, and mathematicians.
>The scientific method was developed by people who used their intelligence to get shit done in reality, not by lazy and uneducated armchair fedoras.
This is pretty rare: an ad hominem that's not even a personal attack on the interlocutors — but a fallacy is a fallacy. Philosophers are not philosophy.
>Philosophy is what happens in philosophy departments.
Philosophy was around long before such things existed and will be around long after they are gone. You seem to have missed a few thousand years of intellectual history. Please educate yourself.
And again, you're just conveniently contriving definitions of philosophy so you can pigeonhole it as useless. A foregone conclusion.
>He received his B.A. in mathematics from Oberlin College in 1930
>Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics
>Ph.D. (mathematics), 1974
>Jan Łukasiewicz (1878–1956), a Polish mathematician
You are a retarded piece of shit. Please kill yourself.
I was going to ask you if you're an idiot, but the more pertinent question is how much of an idiot you are. Having a bachelor's degree in a discipline doesn't make you a practitioner of that discipline. Sorry, but your undergraduate degree doesn't qualify you to call yourself a mathematician or a scientist or whatever.