Physicists And Philosophy

[hungrywolf8u]

Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and the late Richard Feynman are dismissive of philosophy. Feynman attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Hawking said that philosophy as practiced nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space. Krauss said that philosophers have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't.

Why do you think that physicists have such low regard for philosophy and philosophers?

[bert_h]

Probably because they contradict each other - if not at the same time, then usually within a generation - and they never give separately-verifiable grounds for their conclusions.

[Jackdaw33]

I think it's because philosophers can think outside the box, physicists can't.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Hawking because he's arrogant. Krauss because (perhaps - and only in my opinion) he conflates philosophy with groundless speculation (i.e. theology).

[Peter Pedant]

because they're dildos ?

I thought - where is Jim360 ? - part of the issue of physics in the 1930s is that the scientists were not able to express themselves ( enter the philosophers )

The Maths course I applied to ( but was unable to take up ) they made all the students do the general studies/ philosophy course because they wouldnt other wise write any English for three years

[Hypognosis]

@Peter Pedant

I never understood why Mathematics isn't categorised as a language.

Just the notation on the advanced equations is indecipherable enough.

[Hypognosis]

@hungrywolf8u

Can philosophy predict any observable and measurable phenomena?

If the answer is "no", then that's why physicists would have no practical use for it.

I predict that philosophers could fill the air with words for an entire evening and licenced victuallers stand to make a packet from their gatherings so, in that sense, they are not a complete waste of space.

http://www.lyricsmania.com/the_philosophers_drinking_song_lyrics_monty_python.html



burrrrrpppp!

[Old_Geezer]

Wasn't aware there was animosity. I don't think any reasonable person has an issue with either subject.

[jim360]

Physicists are actually pretty good at thinking outside the box, if not better at it than many others -- partly because they've extended the boundaries of the box rather a lot further than they get credit for.

I'll reply properly some time tomorrow hopefully.

[Cloverjo]

It's surprising that the physicists mentioned have a low regard for philosophers, when their subjects are closely related by maths.
Perhaps it's the fact that philosophy is seen as an arts subject, and it's arts in general they have no time for. Are they as disparaging about e.g. the study of literature?

[jim360]

I guess it depends largely on what philosophy you're considering, as obviously it's far too rich a subject to be dismissed out of hand entirely. The problems probably stem from the point that often philosophers take aspects of physics that either they don't understand properly, or are already recognised as obsolete or not the complete picture, but then try to build a philosophical model of the Universe anyway. Inevitably, such philosophers are going to reach dodgy conclusions.

This perhaps explains why I'm dismissive of Jackdaw's "thinking outside the box" comment. Philosophers are probably better at this in theory than physicists are really, but the catch is that their "box" idea of the Universe is often rather a lot smaller than the physicists' one is. A philosopher's typical box, until recently at least, has been based on Newtonian-like physics, which is 300 years or so out of date. Our physical understanding of the Universe has moved on, and many philosophers have to do a lot of catch-up still. When they do, some of the philosophical result may well be useful.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought they ( philosophers ) were kind of introduced in 1925 when wave- particle duality was causing physicists heads to explode ( yeah like in "scanners" ).

de Broglie was correct but HIS idea was to have a surfer ( the particle ) surfing the wave - kinda cute even then but people were saying No you cant have that, as the surfer represents a certain centre and we know that there is uncertainty ....

so people thought de Broglie was right but his representation was clearly wrong.

Meanwhile Bohr with his model of hydrogen atom as a planet ( electron ) orbiting a sun ( proton ) couldnt be right because if an electron travelled in a circle then it MUST give off EM radiation .... even as Bohr commented: 'you have no idea.No one was interested in our model before the war....'