Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

Editor’s Note: Shortly before his death last August at the age of 79, the noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too. This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

more…

Good article.

>Thus, those who hold to a platonic view of reality are being disingenuous when they disparage philosophy. They are adopting the doctrine of one of the most influential philosophers of all time. That makes them philosophers, too.<

Exactly, philosophy can be useful in reminding scientists that models are models, not the stuff that they’re seeking to accurately describe. Physicists who are platonists (i.e., who mistake their models for “reality”) deserve derision when they pour scorn on philosophy, because they themselves are engaging in bad philosophy. And to understand this they have to address the epistomological basis of their thinking and justify their conclusions rationally, i.e., they have to try engaging in good philosophy.

Bubblecar said:

Good article.

>Thus, those who hold to a platonic view of reality are being disingenuous when they disparage philosophy. They are adopting the doctrine of one of the most influential philosophers of all time. That makes them philosophers, too.<

Exactly, philosophy can be useful in reminding scientists that models are models, not the stuff that they’re seeking to accurately describe. Physicists who are platonists (i.e., who mistake their models for “reality”) deserve derision when they pour scorn on philosophy, because they themselves are engaging in bad philosophy. And to understand this they have to address the epistomological basis of their thinking and justify their conclusions rationally, i.e., they have to try engaging in good philosophy.

I’d have thought a good physicist would acknowledge their models verge on philosophy, they have mathematics to describe them but no actual method to test them.

Cymek said:

I’d have thought a good physicist would acknowledge their models verge on philosophy, they have mathematics to describe them but no actual method to test them.

Most of science including most aspects of quantum mechanics and relativity have been successfully test.

Bubblecar said:

Good article.

>Thus, those who hold to a platonic view of reality are being disingenuous when they disparage philosophy. They are adopting the doctrine of one of the most influential philosophers of all time. That makes them philosophers, too.<

Exactly, philosophy can be useful in reminding scientists that models are models, not the stuff that they’re seeking to accurately describe. Physicists who are platonists (i.e., who mistake their models for “reality”) deserve derision when they pour scorn on philosophy, because they themselves are engaging in bad philosophy. And to understand this they have to address the epistomological basis of their thinking and justify their conclusions rationally, i.e., they have to try engaging in good philosophy.

Surely the vast majority of scientists understand that the models they develop are merely representative of the physical system they are trying to describe.

>I’d have thought a good physicist would acknowledge their models verge on philosophy, they have mathematics to describe them but no actual method to test them.

Actually accurate models are judged to be accurate because they correspond with observation. But that’s all that’s needed – they don’t have to claim that the mathematics represents some “deeper reality”, as the platonists do.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

I’d have thought a good physicist would acknowledge their models verge on philosophy, they have mathematics to describe them but no actual method to test them.

Most of science including most aspects of quantum mechanics and relativity have been successfully test.

I was thinking of String Theory it’s not currently testable is it

Cymek said:

I was thinking of String Theory it’s not currently testable is it

Not that I know it.

diddly-squat said:

Surely the vast majority of scientists understand that the models they develop are merely representative of the physical system they are trying to describe.

Apparently quite a few physicists are still inclined to platonism, i.e. the idea that “physical systems” are themselves illusions generated by a more abstract world that is described more “purely” by the mathematics. Even physicists who don’t go along with that idea can fall prey to elements of that metaphysical thinking, as Stenger explains in the article.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Not that I know it.

it = of

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

Surely the vast majority of scientists understand that the models they develop are merely representative of the physical system they are trying to describe.

Apparently quite a few physicists are still inclined to platonism, i.e. the idea that “physical systems” are themselves illusions generated by a more abstract world that is described more “purely” by the mathematics. Even physicists who don’t go along with that idea can fall prey to elements of that metaphysical thinking, as Stenger explains in the article.

I don’t buy it

While science aims to develop an understanding of the underlying mechanisms (and it’s this understanding that typically sets the tone for how the solution is formulated), it doesn’t aim to test if the underlying mechanism is true or false, only that the prediction matches observation.

diddly-squat said:

I don’t buy it

While science aims to develop an understanding of the underlying mechanisms (and it’s this understanding that typically sets the tone for how the solution is formulated), it doesn’t aim to test if the underlying mechanism is true or false, only that the prediction matches observation.

That’s one approach (instrumentalism), but many physicists have gone beyond that into more metaphysical realms in their interpretations of quantum mechanics etc., without necessarily admitting it :)

Read the article to get a better idea.

Bubblecar said:

That’s one approach (instrumentalism), but many physicists have gone beyond that into more metaphysical realms in their interpretations of quantum mechanics etc., without necessarily admitting it :)

Read the article to get a better idea.

Good point.

Many scientists speak as if there was a general consensus on these philosophical questions, but a look at what people actually say reveals that that is far from the truth.

>…metaphysical thinking…”

did you above use ‘metaphysical’ in a pejorative way, like a swear word, master car

transition said:

>…metaphysical thinking…”

did you above use ‘metaphysical’ in a pejorative way, like a swear word, master car

No, I used it to describe a philosophical approach to understanding the world that relies on untestable claims about the world (which is why we call it “metaphysics” rather than “physics”. It’s important for physicists to be aware of which aspects of their theories are not actually relevant to their predictive success).

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>…metaphysical thinking…”

did you above use ‘metaphysical’ in a pejorative way, like a swear word, master car

No, I used it to describe a philosophical approach to understanding the world that relies on untestable claims about the world (which is why we call it “metaphysics” rather than “physics”. It’s important for physicists to be aware of which aspects of their theories are not actually relevant to their predictive success).

ol’ thinks you were’n are, car

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

“Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:

1.What is ultimately there?
2.What is it like?
A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics, but this can be questioned.

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term “science” (Latin scientia) simply meant “knowledge”. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called “science” to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree”

>Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

This is the definition we’re using here. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with metaphysics, as long as you don’t confuse it with “knowledge”. And as long as you’re aware that you’re engaging in metaphysics when you are in fact engaging in metaphysics.

Bubblecar said:

>Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

This is the definition we’re using here. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with metaphysics, as long as you don’t confuse it with “knowledge”. And as long as you’re aware that you’re engaging in metaphysics when you are in fact engaging in metaphysics.

you should maybe say ‘non-empirical’ instead, then that suggestible little associative learning thing happening around the place won’t stealth-like sneak in where it ought not be

transition said:

you should maybe say ‘non-empirical’ instead, then that suggestible little associative learning thing happening around the place won’t stealth-like sneak in where it ought not be

I’m still not sure how I’ve allegedly offended.

In order to make ducks from scratch, you first need two ducks

Does the same work with universes?

dv said:

Does the same work with universes?

Nobody knows

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Does the same work with universes?

Nobody knows

Not even Brooke?

Would have thought philosophy, and metaphysics, for starters, in a general way, were firstly about ‘a space’ (call it ‘mental space’) for considering, bringing together, or imagining whatever, some of it’s shared, some social, some public, some is private.

It’s not a ‘space’ that is allocated, prescribed, or prescriptive. It’s a space that is not all, and perhaps something more (or less can be the view) than whatever formalisms might be involved. It’s not something rigidly maintained by formalisms.

Some of the core motivational drivers involved in philosophy no doubt involve consideration of human observation and representations that may be employed, what is injected by these into the things out there being observed or measured or whatever. It concerns itself with artifacts of conscious projection, and unconscious aspects. Errors and distortions too, finding them.

I’d more say philosophy and metaphysics are about ‘thought space’. Well, that’d be my philosophical view of philosophy and metaphysics.