Who is your favorite Physicist?

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Science is just the result of a very human activity called research that uses a combination of rationalism and empiricism, a combination theorized by philosophers mainly during the 17th century and called "the scientific approach".

So science is a product of philosophy, and a very human thing.

You have no evidence that there exist objective and eternal laws of nature, waiting for us to discover them. That idea in itself is philosophical. It's not a proven fact.

This is silly. It is a meaningless argument that is irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care about philosophy.

When we do scientific experiments, we get reproducible results that we can use to make predictions about how nature works. We can get into a big meaningless philosophical discussion about what "nature" and whether our understanding is a human experience or something about truth. But really... who cares? All of this discussion is rather useless.

I suppose there is a place for philosophy, quibbling over whether there are "objective and eternal laws of nature". These questions are meaningless to the practice of science.

If you want to build an airplane that will fly, there are certain rules that you must follow... constraints that are put on how matter, and energy (and steel and thrust and life). These aren't subject to ideology or prejudice. Get them wrong and your plane won't fly. Are "lift" and "gravity" and "thrust", human concepts? Somehow birds figured out these concepts long before the human mind evolved... but who even cares.

What all this means philosophically has zero value in making sure an airplane won't crash.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is silly. It is a meaningless argument that is irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care about philosophy.

When we do scientific experiments, we get reproducible results that we can use to make predictions about how nature works.

As usual, Max takes a very simplistic and narrow view. He equates "science" solely with the experimental branch (which includes the vast majority of practicing scientists), while ignoring the theoretical scientists (Einstein, for example).

Without the theorists, there would be no experimental scientists.

By necessity, theoretical science must incorporate a philosophical ontology, as Einstein, and most others, clearly acknowledge.

By analogy, theoretical scientists are the "Queen Bees" of scientific thought while experimental scientists are the "drones."

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

there is a place for philosophy, quibbling over whether there are "objective and eternal laws of nature". These questions are meaningless to the practice of science.

I totally agree with that. But it follows that this hypothesis (that there exist immutable objective laws of nature) is unnecessary, and does not define science. Science is a human practice, and as such it is not void of ideology. It's only human.

1 Reply

Tangent* warning:

Science can also be fun.

We found a very interesting unknown (then) cytokine, when not expecting such. Not me personally, though I was in on it and part of the resultant paper: it was completely fun, mixed with thrilling.

*This was in our immunology lab rooms, not rooms full of physicists.

0 Replies

@layman,

Gasp ! I never anticipated layman talking such sense, and especially citing Einstein !
(I think I need to lie down......)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Science is a human practice, and as such it is not void of ideology. It's only human.

I don't think this means anything.

Sure. Science is done by humans, and human have ideology and make mistakes. So what? The power of science is that ideas can be tested and that experiments can be repeated. And, modern science has developed institutions that bring together the work of a diverse group of scientists... of course the process isn't perfect, but the results are pretty phenomenal.

You read my signature, right? Science doesn't depend on philosophy, it advances just fine without answering empty philosophical questions.

1 Reply

@layman,

There is not the line between theoretical physics, and experimental physics that you are pretending (it is more of a job description than a philosophical distinction.)

Theoretical Physicists are just as beholden to experimental results as anyone else. If Experiments contradict the work of Theoretical Physicist, then the work is wrong. It is as simple as that. One of Einstein's biggest errors was his inability to accept the science of Quantum Mechanics. His famous quote "God does not play dice..." was a philosophical rejection to principles of Quantum Mechanics. And it turned out he was wrong (apparently God does play dice).

Science is ruled by experimental results. If the experimental results say you are wrong, then you are wrong. It doesn't matter if you have a great philosophy, or intuition, or ideology... a scientist whose ideas don't match the experimental results is wrong.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

His famous quote "God does not play dice..." was his rejection to principles of Quantum Mechanics. And it turned out he was wrong (apparently God does play dice).

This statement demonstrates your very shallow understanding of "science," Max. Your claim that Einstein was "wrong" evidences that. It also exposes YOUR philosophical stance, which you purport to dismiss as "irrelevant" and non-existent in your thought.

Newsflash: Any statement claiming that philosophy is "meaningless" (or insert any other perjorative adjective, such as useless, irrelevant, etc.) is ITSELF a philosophical claim.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There is not the line between theoretical physics, and experimental physics that you are pretending (it is more of a job description than a philosophical distinction.)

You presume to be an expert on, and a strong advocate of, the "scientific method," yet you seem to be completely unaware of what the very first step in this "method" is.

1 Reply

I'm not sure if this thread has turned into a pissing contest, or whether it has been all along.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I've been thinking similarly. Pass me the tea kettle and a china cup.

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't believe you read maxdancona's post very well. It seems like you have something personal against him as well. Maybe you're not able 2 know?

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

I'm not sure if this thread has turned into a pissing contest, or whether it has been all along.

So any legitimate debate, which, by definition, involves the discussion of differing viewpoints, is, ipso facto, a "pissing contest," that it, Centrox?

Some people seem to be so adverse to honest "conflict" and "confrontation" that they find any whiff of it to be "inappropriate." Thankfully, that attitude is not particularly prevalent in society.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

What good are a tea kettle and a china cup in a pissing contest, Osso?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What good are a tea kettle and a china cup in a pissing contest, Osso?

Tea can be a diuretic. I found that out using a "scientific method".

0 Replies

@emmett grogan,

emmett grogan wrote:

I don't believe you read maxdancona's post very well. It seems like you have something personal against him as well. Maybe you're not able 2 know?

May be.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me about how to read Max's post "well," eh, Emmet.

1 Reply

@layman,

For the record, I am happy that Layman is here, and I have no problem with his opinions. He and I disagree, but it would be rather boring here if everyone agreed with me.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I agree the results are phenomenal. But it does not follow that the process or its results are a-ideological.

Replicable experiments are possible in some sciences, and very powerful, but they are not possible in sciences studying the past. You can't replicate a supernova, the evolution from dinosaurs to birds, the subduction of tectonic plates or the assassination of Julius Ceasar. It doesn't follow that astronomy, paleontology, geology or history cannot be scientific disciplines.

Science is a human attempt to describe, understand and/or predict nature through (human) observation and (human) reason. It works by positing causal relationships between events that are supposed to work a certain way. The way causal relations opare conceptualise to work is called the theory. The only requisite conditions for this theory-explaining-facts attempt to qualify as science, as we currently practice it, are: the need for the theory to be logical and internally coherent (rationalism), and that this theory be testable ie falsifiable by empirical evidence (empiricism).

Historical facts cannot be replicated in labs, but historical sciences are falsifiable by empirical evidence nevertheless. They satisfy the criterion of empiricism. New observations are made everyday by archeologists, archive exploreurs, geologists and paleontologists, and recorded as such in a scientifically adequate way, ie observed by more than one person, by using a documented and accepted methodology etc.

And IF they ever find a rabbit bone in a precambrian strata, or the blueprint for a cellphone in a bona fide Egyptian hieroglypic papyrus, there're quite a few SCIENTISTS who will try very hard to come up with a rational explanation for these new observations because their old theory will be proven wrong. By facts.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

You presume to be an expert on, and a strong advocate of, the "scientific method," yet you seem to be completely unaware of what the very first step in this "method" is.

There seems to be a presumption on your part regarding your own expertise. What is your expertise to judge the expertise or lack thereof of mazdancona's grasp of "scientific method".

Also: why do you choose to make what seems like a personal attack on his possesion of "expertise" as opposed to an argument regarding his points on Einstein????

2 Replies

@emmett grogan,

Quote:

There seems to be a presumption on your part regarding your own expertise. What is your expertise to judge the expertise or lack thereof of mazdancona's grasp of "scientific method".

Read up on the "scientific method" and it should be readily apparent. It is not a matter of *my* expertise, but rather a matter of (relatively) common knowledge.

I deem it to be pretty unsophisticated to claim that the difference between theoretical and practical science is merely a matter of "job description."

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know