Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whither philosophy?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 192 posts

Re: Whither philosophy?

#161

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #156
dventimi wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "book" whoever wrote it, is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

Not at all, quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle's ideas. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is proposed ad hoc solely to explain one observed phenomenon and not connected to the rest of the theory. It's similar to Aristotle's postulate that stars are made of aether which naturally tends to move in circles around the heavens, this nicely explains motion of stars in geocentric model, and is postulated just for…

Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#162

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #155
dventimi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Among other things I'm claiming Newton, for instance, would typically be classified by modern standards not as a philosopher but as a physicist. I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a professional physicist. Moreover,…

>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. There are many things in modern philosophy. You don't make claims based on ignorance, do you? How modern physics is different from such a modern philosophic idea as compatibilism? >This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a p…

Name one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that branch of physics, philosophy classes are a required part of the graduate curriculum.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#163

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #153
dventimi wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet today the branch of physics that bears his name and still embodies his ideas and methods is typically taught within the physics department but not the philosophy department.

Previously laws of motion were proposed by Aristotle, Newton only did better quantitative analysis of observation and proposed more precise laws.

You forgot about Galileo, whose laws of motion superseded Aristotle's and did more to inform Newton. You also forgot about Copernicus and Kepler. Meanwhile, Newton formulated laws of motion that are still used today, a law of gravitation that is still used today, a theory of optics that is still used today, and a branch of mathematics that is still used today. Naturally, he had help in these triumphs, as all giants do. Nevertheless, I consider your use of the diminishing word "only" to be grossly unfair to Newton and his accomplishments.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#164

Post by dventimi »

fastaguy88 wrote: post #157
dventimi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification. At least with math, or physics, or engineering, there are some fairly standard means for independent verification (tests, job interviews, work product, etc.)

I don't think I said that philosophy taught me things that the "rest of us" find useful. I said it taught me things that I found useful. And I'm happy to argue that many non-technical subjects that I might not consider useful are useful to people in other disciplines (including disciplines that measure success by income levels).

I don't know you personally, so I'm not interested in what you personally find useful about what you know. If I'm interested in anything you know, it's only in those things that are recognized to be useful to other people in the society we both live in: medicine, law, art, agriculture, engineering, science, etc. If you find someone else personally enriching for you, that's great and I'm happy for you, but it's got nothing to do with anyone who doesn't know you personally.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#165

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #152
dventimi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification. At least with math, or physics, or engineering, there are some fairly standard means for independent verification (tests, job interviews, work product, etc.)

That doesn't look like an independent verification: it's done by humans engrossed in math. If math was verified by someone who doesn't believe in math, that would be independent. But such things don't happen, naturally stuff are verified by people already interested in the topic. If you don't believe in math, you won't bother to verify it.

Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#166

Post by dventimi »

defrost wrote: post #154
dventimi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Among other things I'm claiming Newton, for instance, would typically be classified by modern standards not as a philosopher but as a physicist. I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a professional physicist. Moreover,…

The argument I advanced was that physics is an offshoot, a product, of philosophy. You haven't negated that claim in any form that I recognise. > As for Godel, Turing, and Church, ... Interestinglly I have a degree in mathematics, I was present when Tao met Erdős in Australia, and while I studied Group Theory, Functional Analysis, and other such things as part of the mathematics curriculum I had to go to the Philosop…

> The argument I advanced was that physics is an offshoot, a product, of philosophy. You haven't negated that claim in any form that I recognise.

I haven't tried to since I don't find the question that argument addresses very interesting.

> Sadly I only have my own personal experience of the world

Not only that, but also ONLY you have your own personal experience. No one else does, including me. That's why when you tell me the biographical detail as you did earlier, "Myself and a number of others who have studied and work in physics|mathematics" as if to somehow strengthen your argument, I'm here to tell you that I'm no more interested in your biography than I would expect you to be in mine, which is not at all, because they don't strengthen our arguments.

> Why on earth would you want to do that, these things are all intertwined.

Why would I want to evaluate philosophy in isolation from physics? I dunno. Maybe because that's "analysis", whose definitions according to Webster's includes "suggests separating or distinguishing the component parts of something (such as a substance, a process, a situation) so as to discover its true nature or inner relationships." After all, perhaps physics and philosophy AREN'T so intertwined. You haven't established that they are anyway. If they aren't and they can be teased apart from one another, then that helps us reason about and understand each better in isolation and with respect to each other.

> We should then also reject papers on black holes by physicists that also studied philosophy?

No, that's a non-sequitur. That doesn't follow from "we would be helped by examples of laudable contributions from people who were ONLY philosophers." "We" refers to us here in this Hacker News thread on the subject "Wither philosophy?" in general, and on the subject of distinguishing philosophy from physics in order to understand both, in particular.

> I fear you're advancing your own private Idaho by means of a True Scotsman Philosopher whom I've not personally met.

I have no idea what this means.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#167

Post by dventimi »

fastaguy88 wrote: post #127
djoldman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off?

Modern methods of scientific enquiry. Most scientists no longer look to the bible or tea leaves.

How did you establish that was a philosophical notion?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#168

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dventimi wrote: post #165
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't look like an independent verification: it's done by humans engrossed in math. If math was verified by someone who doesn't believe in math, that would be independent. But such things don't happen, naturally stuff are verified by people already interested in the topic. If you don't believe in math, you won't bother to verify it.

Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?

That's trust based on belief that qualification checking is supposed to work. Again layman here can't be bothered to verify anything, belief is enough.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#169

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dventimi wrote: post #161
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle's ideas. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is proposed ad hoc solely to explain one observed phenomenon and not connected to the rest of the theory. It's similar to Aristotle's postulate that stars are made of aether which naturally tends to move in circles around the heavens, this nicely explains motion of stars in geocentric model, and is postulated just for…

Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. Some even argue you don't need anything better, as Popper commanded. Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers.

Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".

Re: Whither philosophy?

#170

Post by dventimi »

paul_funyun wrote: post #93
djoldman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off?

Human rights. It's a metaphysical spook with no grounding in the natural world, but the idea catching on is a net positive.

Consider John Locke. He didn't create the idea of "human rights" any more than any one individual can be solely credited with any accomplishment in history, but I think it's fair to say he contributed a lot to the idea and is suitably emblematic of it. Locke trained as a physician, not as a philosopher. He worked largely as a physician and a bureaucrat. If he was a philosopher, he was an empiricist who wrote more about politics and economics than about metaphysics (to which he was somewhat indisposed). And, he was largely ignored until his writings became useful to American revolutionaries who arguably were again occupied more by the grubby business of politics than by the airy theories of metaphysics. Based on this one example, I would argue that Locke was as much if not more-so a political theorist than he was any kind of metaphysical philosopher and that therefore the claim that human rights is a metaphysical notion rather than a political idea, is weakened.
Post reply on HN