He wasn’t referring to that GIF. He was talking about the one in the New York Times article.
There are plenty of philosophers far more qualified than I am to address that question. Of course, I could speak to the philosophical foundations that make physics and the logic underlying it soundly rational but I realize that you are looking for more specific examples. So I will mention such a specific that one of my physics professors used to talk about. [She was an atheist, by the way. I mention that only to ward off any suspicions from anyone that either she or I have some sort of Young Earth Creationist agenda in this discussion. Also, she had tenure in that department of a major state university so I’m not talking about any private Christian university campus.] The lecture I best recall from a very long time ago where it first came up was on the topic of magnetic monopoles—though I also recall a reprise some months later about various aspects of string theory and the standard model. The professor talked about how the significance of symmetry (and asymmetry) was “a path always worth following” in scientific investigations and that philosophers had established that sound pursuit centuries before. You might be surprised just how many scientific methodologies and concepts have underpinnings in philosophy.
I still remember in very general terms her writing some equations on the board and showing how their symmetries gave her “strong suspicions that magnetic monopoles must exist.”
That said, are there any History & Philosophy of Science degree-holders on this forum?
(If I recall correctly, that professor had done grad work in philosophy—although it is possible that I’m confusing her background with that of the grad student who was her T.A. for the course.)
By the way, the T.A. for that course had the popular distinction of “drinking” liquid nitrogen so that he could do various “tricks”, such as blowing big vents of steam out of his mouth (and even appearing to come out of his ears) like in a “The Three Stooges” comedy short. Another T.A. in the department would blow a pipe whistle at the right moment to accompany his “old fashioned steam train whistle.” It was quite entertaining. (Of course, the trick was that he was careful to always swish around the liquid nitrogen in his mouth sufficiently rapidly that it basically wafted about on a protective layer of saliva. Because the heat capacity of the liquid was very low, he was safe as long as he kept it moving rapidly.
My mistake then.
I suppose he generated a comparable GIF for his article that would avoid copyright issues.
1 Like
Of course, I don’t know of anyone who claims that philosophers have provided specific detailed assistance for every scientific theory of the last century.
I do know that Daniel Dennett is one of many philosophers who have been quite annoyed at the anti-philosophy nonsense spewed by Richard Dawkins, Neil Degrasse Tyson, et al. Indeed, some of the most negative reviews of Dawkins’ The God Delusion have come from atheist philosophers appalled at his ignorance in recycling atrocious arguments which were dismissed by philosophers long ago. It brings to mind some of the complaints Potholer54 makes in one of his popular Youtube videos entitled something like “Being an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re rational.” (Clearly, whether theist or atheist, no one group has a monopoly on irrational arguments.)
1 Like
Uh-huh. And how can you tell from experiments that science works? Presumably you have a certain scientific theory and you derive predictions from it. (How do you know you’ve derived the predictions correctly?) Then you check the predictions against experimental results. (How do you know what the experimental results are saying? How do you even know what the experimental results are?) All of these “how do you know?” questions are questions of epistemology. Without epistemology, science just unreflectively presumes answers to these questions, which leaves the justification of science uncertain.
Even if you could answer all of these “how do you know?” questions, you then face the question: why is it that “it works” is sufficient to justify science? And then you have to face the question: do we actually learn about the fundamental nature of reality from science, or do we only learn how to make certain predictions? Without philosophy to explore questions like these, scientists end up making assertions which they think are based on science, but are actually largely based on unexamined presuppositions.
So then are Higgs bosons discrete, enumerable objects that have spatial locations, like cars and trees? Or am I taking the analogy too far? One view of existence is that to exist just is to instantiate properties. But isn’t it the case that quantum mechanical objects can’t have definite properties, only superpositions of properties? Clarifying questions like these are not wholly the purview of science, but also to a significant degree the philosophy of science.
Have you heard of the problem of induction?
Weinberg’s challenge misses the point: you can’t do science without doing philosophy. The only question is whether you do philosophy on purpose or by accident.
At some level, all humans do philosophy. You cannot be human and not do philosophy.
2 Likes
Reminded me of this post by a Physicist:
3 Likes
We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God.
No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking.
It flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust.
But there is a sense we live on, in our influence, and in the genes we pass to our children.
This is a simple and nice belief statement though (but I guess I’m not surprised it’s engendered so much controversy 
)
1 Like
I have watched excellent youtube histories on Hawkings and him on the SIMPSONS etc.
I always respected him for his courage, spirit, to continue in life, enjoy it, and keep on with attempts at scientific discovery. He really was a strong man of character to persevere. A reflection on those who don’t with less problems. On me too with my complaints. i was disappointed when I heard he died. Its like losing someone you liked you know.
Yet I never understood why he was held in such scientific esteem??
What was his great discovery or patents??
Why was he famous? he did stuff on black holes etc but these seem chump change relative to the great discoveries in physics and other sciences.
i don’t see why he was held as a intellectual leader in thought in any way.
I think it was some old 60’s prejudice about physics mattering more and he caught their attention and was exalted out of proportion.
time will tell if his name remains with the list of the great. I never hear anyone say why he was exalted?
You hear it with all the old ones right away.
i suspect he will be put in a list that includes thousands of physic contributors. not the present top 100.
Hawking’s work in the 60s and 70s alone would be enough to categorize him as one of the most important gravity physicist born so far. A lot of his most important works are not known to the general public, but are extremely influential in physics.
2 Likes
It may be simple and nice, but it’s scarcely profound. Recycled Epicurus, no more, but rather less.
2 Likes
Things don’t always have to be so complicated–does everything have to be profound? Anyway that reinforces my point. It’s just a simple opinion on his part. Starting with the Friendly Atheist, not really a need to make anything more of it than that. But I guess the metaphysical views of some of these known thinkers gain a certain weight out of proportion to their real import.
Thanks, Robert, it’s always great to start the day with a hearty laugh.
2 Likes
Thomas Nagel Jumps the Shark, Part II
ETA: Philosophers are not trying to do science, they are doing philosophy. But philosophers of science do need to be well-informed of the science relevant to their philosophy. When it comes to philosophy of physics, many of the prominent philosophers have graduate degrees in physics.
Too bad scientists like Krauss don’t share that attitude to other academic disciplines. It seems he would particularly benefit froma study of ethics.
I am looking for something a bit more specific.
It would seem that the big philosophical battle happened centuries ago between the Rationalists and the Empiricists with the Empiricists winning the day. As a scientist I have not taken a single philosophy course related to science, and I don’t know of any scientists that have. We seem to do just fine without them, as Weinberg described in his book. The scientific method itself is pretty straightforward. When Nobel prizes are handed out they don’t wait for a philosopher to justify the results of experiments before they feel confident in awarding the prize.
You may think that philosophy is super important to science, but most scientists don’t seem to see it that way. Am I overly dismissive of philosophy? Perhaps. What it seems to come down to is utility, and philosophy has had very little utility in the day to day work of most scientists.
1 Like
I haven’t taken a philosophy course on epistemology nor have I read any books on the subject as it applies to science. I seem to figure these answers out just fine.
We determine these properties through experimentation, not sitting on some grassy hill and meditating on the meaning of the universe. As Weinberg states:
Your computer and the technology you use was derived through induction. Does it work?
He was a rock star within the physics community. This is why he held the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge which is a very prestigious position, a position once held by Isaac Newton.
Hawking did work that attempted to unite quantum mechanics and relativity which involved the study of singularities like black holes and the singularity that was present at the Big Bang. This is what earned him his prestige.
3 Likes
Most scientists do just fine leaving philosophy to philosophers. I find Dawkins’ books on science to be interesting, but I have never felt the need to read his screeds on religion or his philosophical rantings. I could be wrong, but I often get the feeling that Dawkins gets more attention from Christians and other theists than he does from atheists.
1 Like
He was a rockstar in physics before he did anything with quantum mechanics. His most influential monograph deals completely in classical general relativity sans anything quantum.
2 Likes
Why is “it works” a rational justification for inductive reasoning? (Or for the scientific method in general?) Inductive reasoning has worked in the past, yes. But using that fact as a justification for inductive reasoning is circular: you’re making an inductive argument to say that inductive arguments are rational. Hence, the problem of induction.
You seem to be dismissive of philosophy because you don’t see the practical use of it. You say you get along fine without it. That may be true, but without answering these kind of philosophical questions, the whole rationality of science is simply presumed instead of being demonstrated. (Pragmatic justification isn’t necessarily the same thing as rational justification - another philosophical question!)
Isn’t there value in carefully and thoroughly examining one’s presuppositions and the foundations of one’s knowledge? Perhaps the result will only be to confirm the answers that you arrived at via common sense - but even then, now you can trust those answers more securely.
And, on a practical level, I’ve found that learning a little philosophy is great for clarifying thinking and revealing implicit assumptions - the kind of assumptions that lead some to say “Adam and evolution are incompatible!” and others to realize “No, in fact, a historical Adam is not disproved by evolution.”