Why cosmology without philosophy is like a ship without a hull

[phands]

I don't know whether this belongs here or in a philosophy forum, but it's a fascinating article...

What is it with the philosophy-haters in astrophysics and cosmology? From the late Stephen Hawking’s claim that ‘philosophy is dead’, to Steven Weinberg’s chapter-long jeremiad ‘Against Philosophy’ in Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), plenty of physicists and astrophysicists think that philosophy is useless, or at least useless to science. At the same time, Hawking and his co-author Leonard Mlodinow put forward an approach to scientific enquiry called ‘model-dependent realism’ in The Grand Design (2010), while Weinberg’s book argues passionately – and philosophically – against logical positivism and metaphysics. If it’s so useless, why have Hawking and Weinberg – and Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss and other anti-philosophites – so often engaged in philosophical discourse?
Despite what the haters might think, all areas of science confront questions that can’t be answered within the process of science itself. Whenever scientists examine the best way to test a theory, or wonder how scientific models relate to reality, they’re doing philosophy. But in its unique position as the study of the whole of existence, cosmology in particular is full of philosophical puzzles and positions.
In fact, there’s a philosophical belief hiding at the very heart of cosmology. The cosmological principle states that, on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous (looks the same at all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). For example, the view from a ship in the middle of the ocean would be isotropic but, when land is in sight, the view is not the same in all directions. The ocean surface itself is homogeneous, perhaps, until you get near the shore.

Much more of this fascinating piece here.....
Enjoy!

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophy is a catch phrase for a lot of areas. To say science needs philosophy says nothing. There are philosophers that some refer to like Descartes. There is no possible philosophy on how to do scince and apply science.

Science speculates using imagination, you could call that philosophy. Then it moves to a math based description.

Science and conceptual philosophy are both metaphysics, thought abstractions. Unlike philosophy science has unambiguous physical reference points to build upon. That is why philosophy rarely if ever leads to resolution.

Hawkings did great science, but he also ventured into wild ass speculation and fasntasy.

 

[untermensche]

Rational thought is philosophy.

The logic that creates mathematics is philosophy.

Science is a branch of philosophy. The scientific method is a product of philosophy.

Science is not something opposed to philosophy.

Some scientists on the other hand?

 

[bilby]

Science without philosophy is more like a building without a scaffold.

The scaffold is needed only where the building is incomplete, or in need of repair.

You cannot build without the scaffold, but you equally should not expect architects to want the scaffold pointed out to the public, who they feel should be concentrating on the building itself.

Scientists don't want a bunch of confusing and temporary supports to get in the way of the elegant permanent structure. And they see it as their job to replace scaffold with building wherever possible.

 

[steve_bank]

Rational thought is philosophy.

The logic that creates mathematics is philosophy.

Science is a branch of philosophy. The scientific method is a product of philosophy.

Science is not something opposed to philosophy.

Some scientists on the other hand?

All thought evolve. The singular term philosophy means nothing without qualification.

Everybody uses induction and deduction without being able to name it. It is learned by cultural immersion.

 

[rousseau]

Philosophy is kind of like theatre.

In centuries past theatre was grade A entertainment and an important part of popular culture. Similarly, because science was so unrefined in those days philosophy was about the best we had for rational discourse.

These days, however, the scientific method and scientific technology have completely eclipsed the relevance of philosophy proper, and the only people who are still spouting it's importance are those with a vested interest in it (ergo they want to sell books). Like theatre, philosophy might be a fun way to pass the time occasionally, but it has essentially no practical value, and the only people trying to convince the unwashed masses otherwise are those with philosophy degrees.

But philosophy fills in the blanks where science can't! Sure, but what makes a person uniquely qualified to do this? Do you need to to study philosophy to become accredited in filling in the blanks? No, you just need to be a well studied and smart person, which essentially makes 'philosophy' indistinguishable from the plain act of thinking through a problem.

If you doubt any of this just check out the philosophy stack exchange. The questions are a fucking jumbled mess, and people are consistently relying on philosophy for questions that science can explicitly answer. My account on there is among the top scores on the site and I've barely read any philosophy before.

These people are writing overtly complex paragraphs about nothing while Trump destabilizes the world with a bunch of lies and nonsense.

 

[bilby]

Philosophy is kind of like theatre.

In centuries past theatre was grade A entertainment and an important part of popular culture. Similarly, because science was so unrefined in those days philosophy was about the best we had for rational discourse.

These days, however, the scientific method and scientific technology have completely eclipsed the relevance of philosophy proper, and the only people who are still spouting it's importance are those with a vested interest in it (ergo they want to sell books). Like theatre, philosophy might be a fun way to pass the time occasionally, but it has essentially no practical value, and the only people trying to convince the unwashed masses otherwise are those with philosophy degrees.

But philosophy fills in the blanks where science can't! Sure, but what makes a person uniquely qualified to do this? Do you need to to study philosophy to become accredited in filling in the blanks? No, you just need to be a well studied and smart person, which essentially makes 'philosophy' indistinguishable from the plain act of thinking through a problem.

If you doubt any of this just check out the philosophy stack exchange. The questions are a fucking jumbled mess, and people are consistently relying on philosophy for questions that science can explicitly answer. My account on there is among the top scores on the site and I've barely read any philosophy before.

These people are writing overtly complex paragraphs about nothing while Trump destabilizes the world with a bunch of lies and nonsense.

Philosophy is important and valuable in providing guidance to science in determining what should be studied next, and underpins science in many ways.

But most of what people call 'philosophy' either isn't philosophy at all, or is woefully outdated - If the Chemistry Stack Exchange was full of discussions on the properties of phlogiston and caloric fluid, then that would indicate that many people had an outdated understanding of chemistry, but would not indicate that the study of chemistry was valueless.

 

[rousseau]

Philosophy is kind of like theatre.

In centuries past theatre was grade A entertainment and an important part of popular culture. Similarly, because science was so unrefined in those days philosophy was about the best we had for rational discourse.

These days, however, the scientific method and scientific technology have completely eclipsed the relevance of philosophy proper, and the only people who are still spouting it's importance are those with a vested interest in it (ergo they want to sell books). Like theatre, philosophy might be a fun way to pass the time occasionally, but it has essentially no practical value, and the only people trying to convince the unwashed masses otherwise are those with philosophy degrees.

But philosophy fills in the blanks where science can't! Sure, but what makes a person uniquely qualified to do this? Do you need to to study philosophy to become accredited in filling in the blanks? No, you just need to be a well studied and smart person, which essentially makes 'philosophy' indistinguishable from the plain act of thinking through a problem.

If you doubt any of this just check out the philosophy stack exchange. The questions are a fucking jumbled mess, and people are consistently relying on philosophy for questions that science can explicitly answer. My account on there is among the top scores on the site and I've barely read any philosophy before.

These people are writing overtly complex paragraphs about nothing while Trump destabilizes the world with a bunch of lies and nonsense.

Philosophy is important and valuable in providing guidance to science in determining what should be studied next, and underpins science in many ways.

But most of what people call 'philosophy' either isn't philosophy at all, or is woefully outdated - If the Chemistry Stack Exchange was full of discussions on the properties of phlogiston and caloric fluid, then that would indicate that many people had an outdated understanding of chemistry, but would not indicate that the study of chemistry was valueless.

Honestly, I keep hearing this and yet I'm not really seeing the evidence of it. That could just be ignorance on my part but if it is the case I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[bilby]

Philosophy is kind of like theatre.

In centuries past theatre was grade A entertainment and an important part of popular culture. Similarly, because science was so unrefined in those days philosophy was about the best we had for rational discourse.

These days, however, the scientific method and scientific technology have completely eclipsed the relevance of philosophy proper, and the only people who are still spouting it's importance are those with a vested interest in it (ergo they want to sell books). Like theatre, philosophy might be a fun way to pass the time occasionally, but it has essentially no practical value, and the only people trying to convince the unwashed masses otherwise are those with philosophy degrees.

But philosophy fills in the blanks where science can't! Sure, but what makes a person uniquely qualified to do this? Do you need to to study philosophy to become accredited in filling in the blanks? No, you just need to be a well studied and smart person, which essentially makes 'philosophy' indistinguishable from the plain act of thinking through a problem.

If you doubt any of this just check out the philosophy stack exchange. The questions are a fucking jumbled mess, and people are consistently relying on philosophy for questions that science can explicitly answer. My account on there is among the top scores on the site and I've barely read any philosophy before.

These people are writing overtly complex paragraphs about nothing while Trump destabilizes the world with a bunch of lies and nonsense.

Philosophy is important and valuable in providing guidance to science in determining what should be studied next, and underpins science in many ways.

But most of what people call 'philosophy' either isn't philosophy at all, or is woefully outdated - If the Chemistry Stack Exchange was full of discussions on the properties of phlogiston and caloric fluid, then that would indicate that many people had an outdated understanding of chemistry, but would not indicate that the study of chemistry was valueless.

Honestly, I keep hearing this and yet I'm not really seeing the evidence of it. That could just be ignorance on my part but if it is the case I just haven't seen it yet.

The scientific method is an example of philosophy - specifically of epistemology.

The foundations of a building may be out of view, and/or rather uninteresting to the inhabitants of the building, who need not concern themselves with such things - but that doesn't make them any less necessary or important, and without them, the whole structure is unreliable and at risk of collapse.

And at the cutting edge of science, philosophical debate, founded on the current state of the art, is essential to moving forward. Ideas like the various interpretations of QM are (or at least start out as) philosophical, rather than scientific. The generation of hypotheses based on philosophical musings provides the fuel for the next round of scientific examination of reality.

 

[rousseau]

Honestly, I keep hearing this and yet I'm not really seeing the evidence of it. That could just be ignorance on my part but if it is the case I just haven't seen it yet.

The scientific method is an example of philosophy - specifically of epistemology.

The foundations of a building may be out of view, and/or rather uninteresting to the inhabitants of the building, who need not concern themselves with such things - but that doesn't make them any less necessary or important, and without them, the whole structure is unreliable and at risk of collapse.

And at the cutting edge of science, philosophical debate, founded on the current state of the art, is essential to moving forward. Ideas like the various interpretations of QM are (or at least start out as) philosophical, rather than scientific. The generation of hypotheses based on philosophical musings provides the fuel for the next round of scientific examination of reality.

My problem with this line of thinking is what delineates a 'philosopher' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem'.

If someone spent 10 years studying philosophy, as written by philosophers, would they be any more informed than someone studying the natural sciences, as well as a range of other fields that build toward a comprehensive understanding of how things work? I think the answer there would be a firm no.

Rather, the field these days has a lot of inertia due to it's long history, but there isn't much that a 'philosopher' can do that someone with solid logical skills and a few years of study can't. Which means 'philosophizing' is really just an adjunct to science, and a part of science itself. Sure, maybe science is an outgrowth of natural philosophy, but that doesn't mean conjecturing about reality without evidence and testability is somehow more important than the scientific method itself.

You'll have to forgive me.. I find philosophy really annoying.

 

[bilby]

Honestly, I keep hearing this and yet I'm not really seeing the evidence of it. That could just be ignorance on my part but if it is the case I just haven't seen it yet.

The scientific method is an example of philosophy - specifically of epistemology.

The foundations of a building may be out of view, and/or rather uninteresting to the inhabitants of the building, who need not concern themselves with such things - but that doesn't make them any less necessary or important, and without them, the whole structure is unreliable and at risk of collapse.

And at the cutting edge of science, philosophical debate, founded on the current state of the art, is essential to moving forward. Ideas like the various interpretations of QM are (or at least start out as) philosophical, rather than scientific. The generation of hypotheses based on philosophical musings provides the fuel for the next round of scientific examination of reality.

My problem with this line of thinking is what delineates a 'philosopher' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem'.

I don't think anything does, or should.

Comes to that, I don't think there is any hard line separating a 'scientist' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem using the scientific method, and/or the existing body of scientific knowledge'

If someone spent 10 years studying philosophy, as written by philosophers, would they be any more informed than someone studying the natural sciences, as well as a range of other fields that build toward a comprehensive understanding of how things work? I think the answer there would be a firm no.

You are probably right. But the idea that only the person studying 'pure' philosophy is a philosopher is, I think, flawed. Science can reasonably be considered a subset of philosophy - so in your examples, both individuals are philosophers.

Rather, the field these days has a lot of inertia due to it's long history, but there isn't much that a 'philosopher' can do that someone with solid logical skills and a few years of study can't. Which means 'philosophizing' is really just an adjunct to science, and a part of science itself.

So we are in agreement.

Sure, maybe science is an outgrowth of natural philosophy, but that doesn't mean conjecturing about reality without evidence and testability is somehow more important than the scientific method itself.

You'll have to forgive me.. I find philosophy really annoying.

Well as far as I can see, we have different definitions of what it is, and your definition is rather narrower than mine - For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you that much of 'pure' philosophy is bunk.

 

[steve_bank]

Honestly, I keep hearing this and yet I'm not really seeing the evidence of it. That could just be ignorance on my part but if it is the case I just haven't seen it yet.

The scientific method is an example of philosophy - specifically of epistemology.

The foundations of a building may be out of view, and/or rather uninteresting to the inhabitants of the building, who need not concern themselves with such things - but that doesn't make them any less necessary or important, and without them, the whole structure is unreliable and at risk of collapse.

And at the cutting edge of science, philosophical debate, founded on the current state of the art, is essential to moving forward. Ideas like the various interpretations of QM are (or at least start out as) philosophical, rather than scientific. The generation of hypotheses based on philosophical musings provides the fuel for the next round of scientific examination of reality.

My problem with this line of thinking is what delineates a 'philosopher' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem'.

If someone spent 10 years studying philosophy, as written by philosophers, would they be any more informed than someone studying the natural sciences, as well as a range of other fields that build toward a comprehensive understanding of how things work? I think the answer there would be a firm no.

Rather, the field these days has a lot of inertia due to it's long history, but there isn't much that a 'philosopher' can do that someone with solid logical skills and a few years of study can't. Which means 'philosophizing' is really just an adjunct to science, and a part of science itself. Sure, maybe science is an outgrowth of natural philosophy, but that doesn't mean conjecturing about reality without evidence and testability is somehow more important than the scientific method itself.

You'll have to forgive me.. I find philosophy really annoying.

You hit the nail on the head. Science needs philosophy comes up periodically but no one can elaborate. Actually learning to do science is done through experience with personal trial and error like anything else. It is as simple as that. Like leaning improvisational jazz, my favorite metaphor for this. People philosophize on science looking from the outside in.

Conceptually it reduces to 'the method'

1, Form a hypothesis.
2. Test hypothesis.
3. Accept hypothesis and you are done or.
4. Reject hypothesis and you are done or
5. Modify hypothesis and go to 2.

There are science philosophers that people read for insight. Popper, Mach, Descartes and others but there is no science bible. It is far too complex to reduce to a detailed philosophy. Science broke from Natural Philosophy in the 19th century because philosophy and metaphysics became unable to adequately model and describe observation.

 

[steve_bank]

Descartes classic book is free online. Why not read what has been written on science?

Ignore the religion, he was educated by Jesuits. 16th century.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25830/

The intro.

A DISCOURSE OF A METHOD, For the wel-guiding of Reason; AND The
discovery of Truth in the SCIENCE

If this Discourse seem too long to be read at once, it may be divided
into six parts. In the first, are divers Considerations touching the
Sciences. In the second, the principall Rules of that Method which the
Author hath studyed. In the third, some of those in morality, which he
hath drawn from this Method. In the fourth, the reasons whereby the
existence of God and of the humane Soul is proved; which are the
grounds of his Metaphysicks. In the fift, the order of these Physicall
questions, which he hath examined, and particularly the explication of
the hearts motion; with some other difficulties relating to Physick; as
also the difference between our Souls and those of beasts. In the last,
what he conceives requisit to make a further inquiry into Nature, then
hath hitherto been made. And what reasons induc'd him to write._

Neither is it my design to teach a Method which every Man ought to
follow, for the good conduct of his reason; but only to shew after what
manner I have endevoured to order mine own. Those who undertake to give
precepts, ought to esteem themselves more able, then those to whom they
give them, and are blame-worthy, if they fail in the least. But
proposing this but as a History, or if you will have it so, but as a
Fable; wherein amongst other examples, which may be imitated, we may
perhaps find divers others which we may have reason to decline: I hope
it will be profitable to some, without being hurtfull to any; and that
the liberty I take will be gratefull to all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes#Mathematical_legacy

 

[rousseau]

My problem with this line of thinking is what delineates a 'philosopher' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem'.

I don't think anything does, or should.

That's about the crux of my argument. If philosophy as a discipline doesn't lend itself to any particular specialist skills that aren't available to anyone who learns cursory logic, then why speak of 'philosophy' as a field at all. Essentially it's just people talking about stuff, with the presumption that their views are informed.

If anything, I've seen philosophy proper obfuscate issues more than it actually resolves them. Often it raises questions and issues that seem important in of themselves, but which are nonsensical or irrelevant in a wider context.

Comes to that, I don't think there is any hard line separating a 'scientist' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem using the scientific method, and/or the existing body of scientific knowledge'

Would have to disagree here.

A scientific researcher is usually a specialist with niche, hard skills and broad knowledge in a field. A philosopher is someone who's read a lot of philosophy. That knowledge of philosophy is tangible, just not materially tangible, imo. The only real outcome I've seen from philosophy in the past century is the Soviet Union, and we all know how that went.

 

[bilby]

That's about the crux of my argument. If philosophy as a discipline doesn't lend itself to any particular specialist skills that aren't available to anyone who learns cursory logic, then why speak of 'philosophy' as a field at all. Essentially it's just people talking about stuff, with the presumption that their views are informed.

If anything, I've seen philosophy proper obfuscate issues more than it actually resolves them. Often it raises questions and issues that seem important in of themselves, but which are nonsensical or irrelevant in a wider context.

Comes to that, I don't think there is any hard line separating a 'scientist' from a 'well informed person making sense of a problem using the scientific method, and/or the existing body of scientific knowledge'

Would have to disagree here.

A scientific researcher is usually a specialist with niche, hard skills and broad knowledge in a field. A philosopher is someone who's read a lot of philosophy. That knowledge of philosophy is tangible, just not materially tangible, imo. The only real outcome I've seen from philosophy in the past century is the Soviet Union, and we all know how that went.

I didn't say 'scientific researcher'; I said 'scientist'. And while specialists with niche, hard skills and broad knowledge in a field are the norm, science depends for many of its greatest advances on broad knowledge OUTSIDE the field. It's all of a piece, and often solutions in one field turn out to be highly applicable in apparently unrelated areas. The philosopher who knows almost nothing about pretty much everything, is no more (or less) useless than the scientist who is so focused that he knows everything about pretty much nothing.

 

[Peez]

Thanks bilby and rousseau, interesting exchange.

Peez

 

[Jobar]

If we ever manage to produce a bona-fide Theory of Everything, which coherently and consistently explains all physical phenomena, from alpha to omega, beginning to end- then maybe we can safely claim that philosophy is a closed subject. But then, so will science be.

I agree that philosophy has explored any number of dead end paths, beautiful but erroneous ideas. I also agree that there are plenty of people who go haring off down one of those paths proclaiming it to be the Way, the Truth, and the Light; and when they reach the end of it, run right into the bottomless hole or brick wall that others knew very well was there. Philosophy isn't a cure for stupidity. But that's not to say that philosophy is in and of itself stupid.

 

[steve_bank]

On the show that was done on String Theory some scientists consider it philosophy, no way to test it at least at the time.

Philosophy and science are both metaphysics, thought forms. Science is based on unambiguous reference points in SI, philosophy is not. To me that is the difference.Bohm made a case for an Uncertainty Principle of the mind. The harder you try narrow philosophy the more dispersed it becomes.


Lord Kelvin

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

 

[BH]

If philosophy is so great why can't you find a cure for AIDS or cancer using philosophy alone? I'll give a box filled with a thing to a philosopher and give another box with the same thing to a scientist. The philosopher can try to figure out what it is using philosophy but cannot open the box. The scientist can open the box look at what is inside, touch it, ect to find out what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me but what is 'SI"?

 

[Jobar]

If philosophy is so great why can't you find a cure for AIDS or cancer using philosophy alone? I'll give a box filled with a thing to a philosopher and give another box with the same thing to a scientist. The philosopher can try to figure out what it is using philosophy but cannot open the box. The scientist can open the box look at what is inside, touch it, ect to find out what it is.

That's scarcely a fair way of looking at the difference between the two. Often what philosophers study are intangibles, such as morality or beauty.

My own view is that science is one branch of the tree of philosophy. A very large branch, certainly, and a strong, productive one. But IMO it's still quite accurate to define science as 'natural philosophy'. True, it has the great advantage over all other sorts of philosophy that it can refine the answers to its questions, because it can always use the real world to hone away any imprecisions or errors produced by earlier investigations. But it's impossible to cut the whole of science away from its philosophical roots.