establishing mathematics and science as discplines?
More a case of Greek thinkers engaging in several fields of endevour; philosophy, maths, science, geometry, astronomy, etc. Pure science, observation and testing, has no real need for philosophy. Philosophy is useful in relation to discovering the social and ethical implications of scientific discovery. Scientists generally do not consult philosophers when setting up experiments, or analyzing the results.
More a case of Greek thinkers engaging in several fields of endevour; philosophy, maths, science, geometry, astronomy, etc. Pure science, observation and testing, has no real need for philosophy. Philosophy is useful in relation to discovering the social and ethical implications of scientific discovery. Scientists generally do not consult philosophers when setting up experiments, or analyzing the results.
They did at my old lab.
My university also, for certain sciences and mathematics, made philosophy a compulsory subject. If you can't pass a basic philosophy module, you can't graduate. They did the same with statistics. The idea was to stop producing scientists who didn't understand the meaning of the statistics sections of their own papers, or who produced basic errors of logic in their reasoning.
Pure observation doesn't need philosophy. But then empirical testing isn't about pure observation, it's about constructing a logical hypothesis, and testing it through observation.
The construction of the hypothesis and the conclusions you can reach from it are very little to do with the process of observing, and very much to do with logic and reason and understanding the statistical significance of the results.
They did at my old lab.
Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?
My university also, for certain sciences and mathematics, made philosophy a compulsory subject. If you can't pass a basic philosophy module, you can't graduate. They did the same with statistics. The idea was to stop producing scientists who didn't understand the meaning of the statistics sections of their own papers, or who produced basic errors of logic in their reasoning.
logic and reason is not exclusive to philosophy. Logic and reason can, and should, be applied to practically every aspect of life.
Pure observation doesn't need philosophy. But then empirical testing isn't about pure observation, it's about constructing a logical hypothesis, and testing it through observation.
There are several factors at work here:
1- Observation
2- acquiring information
3- correlating information
3 - testing information
Observation comes first. Information is gathered and sorted. Experiments are designed, constructed and carried out, and the experiment is observed. More information on the subject matter is gathered....and the process continues.
''Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.'' - Wiki.
Exactly.The Greek tradition established reason as the best basis for decisions, as opposed to revelation.
I'd call that important.
The first thing that comes to mind is the study of logic, which was founded by Aristotle. Without logic, no computers. That's pretty significant I'd say.
Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?
Setting up experiments and analysing the results. Just as you said.
Sure, but the study of the principles of logic is philosophy. You're welcome to argue with the university if you think they're doing it wrong.
Observation doesn't always come first, because you can construct an experiment to test almost any hypothesis, even one that wasn't previously based on observation.
You can test whether personality traits are correlated with star signs, without first having any useful observations about whether they are connected. Similarly, you can design experiments to test conditions on the surface of Mars, despite never having been there. Depending on what you're studying, the construction of your theory and the design of your experiment may proceed any observations in the field. Hypothesis construction and testing is an important part of the process, as is integrating your results with those of others. Observation is central, of course, but it's not the only step in the process.
Pythagoras is familiar to us in the context of the mathematics of a triangle, but his work wasn't initially incorporated into a broader logic system, but kept as the basis of secret society or cult, based in what is now Siciliy. This group kept his discoveries secret as knowledge about the fundamentals of the universe - particularly because the analysis of certain Pythagorean triads can be demonstrated to produce a surd - an amount that can not expressed in numeric form because the decimals keep going on forever. They went as far as to assassinate people who threatened to reveal their secrets. It was only later, by philosophers in Ancient Greece, that his discoveries were incorporated into a more general system of mathematics.
Setting up experiments and analysing the results. Just as you said.
Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.
Can you describe what you were referring to?
Sure, but the study of the principles of logic is philosophy. You're welcome to argue with the university if you think they're doing it wrong.
Logic and reason is...logic and reason. A problem solved through the means of reason may have nothing to do ''philosophy'' - it may be just be mechanical problem that needs a practical solution. That is not Philosophy.
Observation doesn't always come first, because you can construct an experiment to test almost any hypothesis, even one that wasn't previously based on observation.
You can test whether personality traits are correlated with star signs, without first having any useful observations about whether they are connected. Similarly, you can design experiments to test conditions on the surface of Mars, despite never having been there. Depending on what you're studying, the construction of your theory and the design of your experiment may proceed any observations in the field. Hypothesis construction and testing is an important part of the process, as is integrating your results with those of others. Observation is central, of course, but it's not the only step in the process.
All of your examples have initial observations as the starting point. The planet Mars must first be observed before any ideas about ''Mars'' can be formed. Personality traits must first be observed before they are correlated with star signs (for whatever reason)...star formations must first be observed before the idea of 'star signs' is formed, etc, etc....
Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.
Can you describe what you were referring to?
As I said, it was a common practice. Say a researcher is faced with some unusual results, and has a mass of measurements. He brings in a statistician to work out what is and isn't a genuinely statistically significant result as opposed to the result of noise. And he brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data, and make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions, and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.
You only need to do this kind of thing if the relationship between your data and what you're trying to demonstrate is complicated.
Sure, and physicists don't need mathematicians, because all they're doing is running through a well-established statistical test, and adding up isn't really maths. If the problem is simple, you're right. If it's not, you're not.
Again, it's university policy. Whether you agree with their reasoning isn't really the point, simply that it is done and it does happen.
Only in the trivial sense that someone is aware of them.
But that's not what makes science special. What makes science special is systematic observation and testing of hypotheses. That comes later. The systemic part is the experimental design, and the experiment is designed before the observations that are part of that experiment begins. The reason I make the distinction is to separate happening to see stuff from empirical testing. Science is made from the latter. The former is doubtless present, but isn't any more important in science than in any other human activity.
As I said, it was a common practice. Say a researcher is faced with some unusual results, and has a mass of measurements. He brings in a statistician to work out what is and isn't a genuinely statistically significant result as opposed to the result of noise. And he brings in a philosopher to have a look at his data, and make sure that the points he's seeing line up in a straight line actually mean something from the point of view of his original design assumptions, and to check the claims he's making on the back of it.
You only need to do this kind of thing if the relationship between your data and what you're trying to demonstrate is complicated.
What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?
Nontheless, it happens. If you want to believe that these scientists were stupid, or that such universities are wrong for encouraging this, that's your business.Sure, and physicists don't need mathematicians, because all they're doing is running through a well-established statistical test, and adding up isn't really maths. If the problem is simple, you're right. If it's not, you're not.
Again, it's university policy. Whether you agree with their reasoning isn't really the point, simply that it is done and it does happen.
University policy or not, you haven't yet explained the practical role of a philosopher in a science lab.
What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?
You don't (see above). You bring in a philosopher to check your reasoning.
Again, it's university policy. Whether you agree with their reasoning isn't really the point, simply that it is done and it does happen.
Nontheless, it happens. If you want to believe that these scientists were stupid, or that such universities are wrong for encouraging this, that's your business.
You don't (see above). You bring in a philosopher to check your reasoning.
Scientists being so poorly trained at reasoning when it comes to their own field of scientific endevour, and their experiments and results?
Again, it's university policy. Whether you agree with their reasoning isn't really the point, simply that it is done and it does happen.
Nontheless, it happens. If you want to believe that these scientists were stupid, or that such universities are wrong for encouraging this, that's your business.
You still haven't given any details or examples for a need for scientists to consult philosophers in the course of their work.
I haven't argued that it's necessary. I've merely reported that it happens. Again, you're welcome to believe that it's silly and unnecessary, and I feel no obligation to try and convince you otherwise.