physicists are bad philosophers

Hume

Verified User
My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers. Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my colleagues — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what science should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of two twentieth-century philosophers: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

 
My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers. Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my colleagues — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what science should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of two twentieth-century philosophers: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

Why post threads about something that you don't understand????
 
It almost sounds like modern researchers are scrambling to find the next big "breakthrough" (thereby ensuring their career and legacy) and, like the flood of new papers that come out with each passing day to fulfill the "publish or perish" mandate, new hypotheses are puked out and tested.

I liked the author's comment that seldom have arbitrary hypotheses led to new discoveries, rather the need to explain new data has led the charge.

I don't doubt most physical scientists eschew philosophy at their peril, but as the author noted, their work is imbued with philosophy and logic so they can't get away too far.
 
Science is mostly philosophy to begin with, beginning with sets of definitions, and empiricism is a moral prerequisite for testing philosophical proposals. Theories and data are subsets.
 
Science is mostly philosophy to begin with, beginning with sets of definitions, and empiricism is a moral prerequisite for testing philosophical proposals. Theories and data are subsets.

They did used to be called "natural philosophers"! :)
 
My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers.
Science is not philosophy, Hugo, though it is defined by it.
You don't even know what philosophy is.
Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my colleagues — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what science should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of two twentieth-century philosophers: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

Philosophy is not a book, Hugo.
 
Science is mostly philosophy to begin with, beginning with sets of definitions, and empiricism is a moral prerequisite for testing philosophical proposals. Theories and data are subsets.
Science is not philosophy, Edwina.
Philosophy is not 'sets of definitions'.
Philosophy is not empiricism.
Philosophy is not morals.
Philosophy is not theories.
Philosophy is not data.
 
Science is not philosophy, Edwina.
Philosophy is not 'sets of definitions'.
Philosophy is not empiricism.
Philosophy is not morals.
Philosophy is not theories.
Philosophy is not data.

You meant to say you prefer making up your own definitions and ignoring anything else.
 
Science is not philosophy, Edwina.
Philosophy is not 'sets of definitions'.
Philosophy is not empiricism.
Philosophy is not morals.
Philosophy is not theories.
Philosophy is not data.

You really don't know anything about this topic. So why do you feel it important to show everyone all the time?
 
My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers.
Physicists are the best philosophers.

Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not
Science is not subjective and contains no opinions.

Karl Popper was not only spot on, his take on science and on testing are now the de facto norm throughout global industry and governments.
 
Back
Top