About philosophy of science. Book “Facing Up”, by Steven Weinberg.

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Sadovnik Socratus

unread,
Dec 29, 2015, 12:28:22 PM12/29/15
to Epistemology
About philosophy of science. Book “Facing Up”, by Steven Weinberg.
=..
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions 
about scientific knowledge)  as part of their job description to help
 scientists in their research. . . .   . why this should be? Why should 
the philosophy of science not be of more help to scientists? I raise 
this question here not in order to attack the philosophy of science,
 but because I think it is an interesting question – perhaps even
 philosophically interesting,”
 / page 84 /
“ . . . it’s not the job of physicists or other scientists to define truth;
 that is the job of philosophers. If they haven’t done that job, too bad
 for them”
 / page 104 /
“My point is rather that no sense can be made of the notion of reality
 as it has ordinarily functioned in the philosophy of science”
 /page 205/ 
“Fortunately we need not allow philosophers to dictate how
 philosophical arguments are to be applied in the history 
 of science, or in scientific research itself,  . . . .”
 /page 205/
“Certainly philosophers can do us a great service in their attempts
 to clarify what we mean by truth and reality,” 
/page 206/
=====…
 My opinion.
  We know that “truth” and “reality” mean in our everyday life 
(for example we have no trouble to use these words in a supermarket). 
But can we explain “truth” and “reality” in science / physics on
the logical “supermarket” level? Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr  and 
other physicists were sure that it is possible. 
===…
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity 
   and confusion of things.” 
     / Isaac Newton /
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
                                / Albert Einstein. /
"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
     / Ernest Rutherford /
“It is often claimed that knowledge multiplies so rapidly that
nobody can follow it. I believe this is incorrect. At least 
in science it is not true.  The main purpose of science is simplicity 
and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler. 
This, of course, goes contrary to what everyone accepts.” 
   / Edward Teller /
==..
My conclusion. 
   It seems that philosophers haven’t done their job.
==…
Best  wishes.
Israel Socratus  
==..

Dr Garshagu MV Atovigba

unread,
Nov 24, 2018, 6:31:17 PM11/24/18
to Epistemology
Socrates, you may not be far away from Immanuel Kant who notes that philosophy has never solved society's problems; if it did society should not be having problems again. Kant says children should be taught how to philosophize rather than being historico-philosophical. We should keep on probing existence of objects and their behaviours. This is what science seems to be doing. I think that makes science to still be dwelling in the belly of philosophy!
Atovigba.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages