Is this a philosophic statement? Modern society seems sadistic to encourage a wild and free abandonment, automobiles with the capabilities to accommodate inebriated drivers, an engineered safety threshold of 50 KPH, road signs allowing 100 KPH, engines and speedometers that allow speeds over 200 KPH, and the neglect of obsolete road surfaces.
Thank you, Trooper, I really appreciate that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The second paragraph you quoted describes my position perfectly. I especially like his statement, "And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't." That's exactly the way I see it too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is this a philosophic statement?: The distinction between "the observer" and "observation" is not a resolved issue for Science. Is not "the observer" still entirely the realm of Philosophy?
It's quite wrong to claim that philosophy doesn't progress. Once again, consider moral arguments. To take one example, the issue of animal rights only really started to be seriously examined after about 1980.
As I plainly said before, I'll grant that it has value in the moral area. But you are simply too fond of philosophy in general to recognize the simple fact that it IS totally useless/worthless in over 90% of the fields it attempts to touch on. For the most part, it's just philosophers talking to philosophers - hardly ANYONE else give a hoot. :shrug:
Philosophy?: "The physical sciences end at the culmination of a G.U.T. and thereafter could be referred to as a...'technical field'?"
Philosophy?: The highest level of intellectual communication between the highest levels of intellect has, and will always remain, a discrete panacea for the lowly masses, whether those masses approve, deny, or are even aware of the passing process?
Historically, what we call "science" used to be called "natural philosophy". (I believe that a few European universities still call it that.) It was only in the 17'th century and subsequently that the study of physical matter developed to the extent that it acquired its own specialized techniques, set of problems, body of established results and professional organizations, and students began to specialize in it specifically. So first off, it's probably a mistake by overemphasize a supposedly clear 'demarcation' line between philosophy and science. Philosophy and science are historically and intellectually continuous and science is still very much natural philosophy at its heart. Whether scientists want to acknowledge it or not, they are deeply engaged with philosophical questions in much of the work they do. There's the whole question of whether there's a "scientific method", whether there's one of these methods or many of them, whether talk about methods is descriptive or prescriptive, and about how (or if) these methods can be expanded or adapted to new applications. Those questions draw heavily upon philosophical logic, which seeks to make sense of the concepts central to rational thought, such as reference, predication, truth, negation, necessity, definition and entailment. This in turn generates theories of reference, theories of meaning, theories of truth, theories of modality and theories of implication. That delivers us to the philosophies of language and mathematics. It also raises ontological questions about how it is that logic, mathematics and statistics apply so well to physical phenomena, to say nothing of how it is that human beings know about the principles of logic in the first place. There are questions about the nature and the scope of scientific laws. There are questions about how causality should be understood. There are questions about the status of theoretical entities. There's a whole eruption of questions about interpeting quantum mechanics, about realism vs instrumentalism on the micro-scale, and about qm's implications for determinism. In biology there are questions about functional and teleological explanations, about natural selection and about what the units of selection are. There are questions about taxonomies and cladistics. There are information theoretical questions about genomes. There's chaotic dynamics and fractals. Then there's the whole crazy can-of-worms that's cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. At its heart, philosophy is simply intelligent curiosity, applied to all imaginable aspects of the world and experience. It's what happens when, like Socrates, we attend to even the most familiar concepts that everyone's inclined to simply take for granted, and then ask deeply unsettling questions such as -- 'what's that?' and 'why?'
Thank you. It's now clear that a veneer of philosophy was being used to prevent learning. Twice in one post the posted quoted "the map is not the territory" and I think I was able to demonstrate that in original (1931) context the author of that term would reject his claims that "shape" is a native term not capable of being defined in a relativistic invariant manner. So to be clear, I hate the abuse of philosophy to derail scientific education, and it's clear this fellow needs an education. I believe he asserted his high IQ score gives him some sort of unique right to "question authority." Tsk, tsk. Sorry to post while upset over here.
Philosophy is not without logic. Science grows upon this logic . As far as logic is concerned , both Philosophy and Science are on the same side . They dont contradict each other rather complement each other to form the pyramid-structure of knowledge , where Philosophy is at the base and Science is at the tip . Newton published his Science in a book and named the book as " Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy " . So , Science started from Philosophy only .
Damn it, Read, he apologized. I really enjoyed his wisecracks, as well. I guess, if you have a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, such as David Z. Albert, then you are entitled to your philosophy of science. Oh well, Krauss always saves the best for last, doesn’t he? RP’s use of “veneer of philosophy” wasn't too shabby, either. “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. ” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos
Logic (the philosophical study of valid reasoning) is a subset of philosophy. If you hate philosophy, logical deduction is that you hate logic.
Right. Scientists can't avoid making philosophical assumptions in their work, ranging from logical and methodological assumptions to assumptions about the nature of the objects of their inquiries. A flat and sneering dismissal of philosophy simply means that those assumptions will remain unstated and unexamined. That's what often happens unless experimental results become too starkly counter-intuitive. Like everyone else, scientists simply take their presuppositions for granted until their noses get rubbed in some seeming inconsistencies. And then some of the smarter scientists may step back a bit and take a new look at things. They might even philosophize a bit about what it is that they've been doing, as Bohr, Heisenberg and Einstein did.
I did not say that , I hate logic or I hate philosophy . I was only saying that Science and Philosophy , both follow logic and they complement each other . That way Science is also subset of Philosophy .
Right. During philosophy, you study logic but you not study a specific science. In studying a particular science not includes the study of logic. (except math, for example Boolean algebra) I would not say that science is a subset of philosophy, while logic is a subset of philosophy.
The guy didn't "missuse" philosophy and it seems he knew the effects of his words to some extent. Bringing up the effects of speed itself as the reason for the clock being different. He just failed to realize that in making a time absolute (such as making time on earth the same. Like it being five o clock in California as well as Australia) you would come up with the same equations we use today to explain speed and time.
Er, how do you derive \(\mathrm{d}\tau = \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\sqrt{1 - v^{2}/c^{2}\) by assuming time is absolute? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
