• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What is philosophy to you?

Indeed. If I could do that, I would drive over to Princeton and slap Ed Witten in the face.
 
To me, philosophy is knowledge, or thirst for knowledge, in the pursuit of learning.

When I philosophize, I am reflecting on my own existence within the realm of my own understanding of what this existence entails and represents.
 
drug_mentor said:
I think it is interesting you identified language as the problem, I don't explicitly disagree, but I think there might be more to it than that, I would have to reflect on that a bit.

The point is there is knowledge humans are capable of having which can't be acquired through science. You can argue that the limitation derives from the language science is using, but ultimately science is still incapable of communicating this knowledge. Nobody is saying it is a problem which is unique to science, but it does undermine the view that science can teach us everything.



I am confused, do you think philosophy can't be based on empirical evidence? If not, then what is your objection to calling unfalsifiable theories philosophy of science? Do you have a coherent argument as to why it is more appropriately called science than philosophy of science? I feel like I have made a pretty strong case for my view, and nothing in your response has really undermined that case.



It would be nice if you could defend your viewpoint here, as opposed to just making an unqualified assertion that my view is "backwards". I advanced an argument in favour of my own position, it is intellectually dishonest to fail to engage with my argument at all and assert that I am wrong.

EDIT Somehow I missed this:


Would you care to tell me why it isn't true? You promised a response 4 months ago that I am still waiting on. It should be noted that I am specifically claiming some aspects of theoretical physics are more correctly called philosophy of science than science. Contemporary philosophy of science requires a serious amount of science literacy, I would expect anyone of influence in the field to hold a BSc or higher science qualification. For this reason your objection makes little sense.

Moreover, it seems that your reasons for rejecting my position are entirely sentimental. Please prove me wrong and actually engage with my argument, instead of simply declaring to other people that I am wrong.
Click to expand...



I actually didn't even see your post on it much less direct or assert that you're wrong. I just think that knowlege isn't any better than pursuit of knowledge. Just different.

Think of it this way, QM and Physics compete with eachother. If we took Physics, said it was better and that QM was useless (which you didn't say), what would be there to push eachother? Both are valuable, and without one the other loses its flavor. I'm really only half into this argument due to my skimming of the conversations (I didn't mean to respond to any of it tbh due to QM being out of my league).
 
Last edited:
Nixiam said:
I actually didn't even see your post on it much less direct or assert that you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I took you to be responding to my comments about unfalsifiable theories in physics. I am sure if you read my comments you will understand the confusion.

Nixiam said:
Think of it this way, QM and Physics compete with eachother. If we took Physics, said it was better and that QM was useless (which you didn't say), what would be there to push eachother? Both are valuable, and without one the other loses its flavor. I'm really only half into this argument due to my skimming of the conversations (I didn't mean to respond to any of it tbh due to QM being out of my league).
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify how a branch of physics (which is what QM is) could compete with physics as a wider discipline?
 
Last edited:
0TFtBaJ.jpg


Watch out d_m, Im calling in the big guns for this.
 
Even though it is a branch, I hardly consider it one. I picture it very, very seperate. In that bits have been said to break laws of physics, like matter not going faster than the speed of
light (atomic electron transition, i.e. quantum leap)


It can compete, but only in that it is the most revoked by physicists under the physics family. Other than that, physics is king. QM I'm sure in parts is falsifiable by physics, but more than likely because QM makes no sense. At all. It just doesn't. But I just don't think I would call a study early in its life false or inferior to that of its more logically proven counterparts (thermodynamics, etc). Especially calling it a philosophy.

But I (again) am out of my league here.




I cannot argue that it is better than physics, but since it seems to directly defy it in some sense I'd say that is its saving grace. I'm more or less bent on the idea that it shouldn't be called a philosophy.
 
This is consuming me. It's literally all Ive done today is think and read on this subject.

Falsifiability. Is this all that we need to say what science is? No, it clearly is not. We can talk of the predictivity of a theory being good science. Or that a major paradigm such as inflationary cosmology since it has become inextrictably linked to string theory as made up of many smaller units that do conform to the ideas of testability and falsification even if the whole paradigm as of yet lacks testability. Or that modern cosmology is an epestemic shift that allows science to set its own boundaries and ignore Popper or any philosophical notions of what science to be.

But in thinking of all this, I realized these are just variations on a theme. We do not need philosophy to do science but to tell us what science is. It is unavoidable in the current landscape. I think the science may indeed outpace the philosophy in the future, but for now, I am fine with it, even if it only is to annoy the scientist to buckle down and refute it.

I was always aware of philosophy of science but never understood till today. So thanks b_d and d_m for ruining my whole worldview. Change is a needed part of life.

d_m,

A. All good scientific theory is falsifiable.
B. A is just a theory, too. :)
 
^Great post kc5

And in accordance to what I said previously, philosophy and science push each other, compete with each other, and define each other. Without one the other would move slower. But you can't get rid of philosophy, seeking explanation is a part of life and would just resurface in human beings naturally. Science can be slowed much easier (middle ages), but not stopped. With seeking explanation comes providing description.

That's the best part really.
 
drug_mentor said:
I am confused, do you think philosophy can't be based on empirical evidence? If not, then what is your objection to calling unfalsifiable theories philosophy of science? Do you have a coherent argument as to why it is more appropriately called science than philosophy of science? I feel like I have made a pretty strong case for my view, and nothing in your response has really undermined that case.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I see this arguing over definitions pretty senseless, personally. The reason being that the "science must be falsifiable" thing is not an absolute law of nature, it's a reasonable requirement proposed some time ago. At the time it satisfied the needs. However, contrary to popular belief, nature doesn't conform to science. It's the other way around, and we often have to adjust our principles in accordance to reality.

The science I'm in contact with is all classical and falsifiable, so this subject is somewhat distant to me. I don't have a good enough understanding of theoretical physics and the current literature, so I'm not in a position to judge whether it should be called science or not. The one thing I know is that I don't believe in black and white interpretations, such as "idea is unfalsifiable -> not science". A few defending points are in my previous comments.

In the end, I have to trust the peer-review on this subject.

E: also, philosophy of science deals more with the implications and validity of science as a phenomenon, does it not? Theoretical physics, like the rest of science, tries to model reality.
 
Kittycat5 said:
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/bab87246-c25e-4a4a-80b6-ea2bb82269a7
Click to expand...

Interesting read. Can't say I agree with a lot of it, but the general idea is what I also said. The principles of science should conform to reality, not try to shape up science according to principles taken as absolute.

Still, I think the authors are overenthusiastic about their suggestions. Accept string theory as truth, because it merely explains reality and is "cool"? Come on now.

I like the multiverse idea, but liking it is as far as I'm willing to go at this time.
 
Why are we discussing quantum mechanics in a way that implies it is not a discipline within the field of physics?

It might be highly theoretical, but it is still a branch of physics, specifically the branch that deals with subatomic matter/phenomena.
 
There are peer reviewed papers arguing against falsifiability as an absolute. I posted a review that really takes no stance but there are plenty.
 
Phil.McKeer said:
Why are we discussing quantum mechanics in a way that implies it is not a discipline within the field of physics?

It might be highly theoretical, but it is still a branch of physics, specifically the branch that deals with subatomic matter/phenomena.
Click to expand...

Nobody is. QM phenomena are as real as this post, it's not "highly theoretical". I think Nixiam was trying to say something else, not what it sounded like.

I'm surprised how many replies this thread has received. It's been interesting, and I'm looking forward to your response, drug_mentor (and Mr. Kittycatty). Thanks guys.
 
Just that QM seems to fall out of line with other laws, but doesn't make it theoretical. If it were theoretical, it'd be under "Theoretical Physics". But it's right on up there with Particle Physics and Classical Mechanics. Not any less real as a study.
 
Nixiam said:
Just that QM seems to fall out of line with other laws, but doesn't make it theoretical. If it were theoretical, it'd be under "Theoretical Physics". But it's right on up there with Particle Physics and Classical Mechanics. Not any less real as a study.
Click to expand...

The only thing that QM "falling out of line with other laws" means is that the "other laws" are incomplete and inaccurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top