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

About philosophy. 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
#2  Top Rated Post
By definition, "the love of wisdom", or Philosophy, would seem to me to be less of an exercise of the mouth, and more of an exercise of the ears.
One way to analyse science is to think about model.
String model.
Where did string-particle come from: from guitar or from violin?

Whatever happens it must happen in a space/time/matter/
" Physicists build philosophical castles in the air;
philosophers move in; government pay the rent. "
It is happened in our earthly space/time//matter/
Scientists discover new facts and laws in nature and give them
different interpretations. Today they come to conclusion that
the Universe was begun from “Big Bang”. But “big bang”
cannot be the origin of nature because “big bang” doesn’t give
answer to the question: “ Where did the masses for big bang
come from?” Somebody can think that God created these masses.
And if Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it is also because the beginning
of creation was chosen wrong.
Therefor philosophers must explain physicists, astronomers, . . .etc
to understand this fact and help them to find another source of
creation of the Universe. But philosophers haven’t done their job.
Question: Where did masses come from?
Answer: maybe from “big bang”, maybe from chaos,
maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions , maybe . . . . . .
Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem?
Quote: Originally Posted by socratusView Post

Question: Where did masses come from?
Answer: maybe from “big bang”, maybe from chaos,
maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions , maybe . . . . . .
Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem?

Where did mass come from? That's a difficult question to think about. I was taught that there is one universe and it is infinite. So wondering where the mass comes from in the infinity of that universe ensures frustration. Why not ask how big is infinite? How long would it take to explore half the infinite universe? What fraction of the infinite universe does the earth represent? Where do numbers end?

Similar Threads

Two epochs: Planck's and Weinberg's.
by socratus | Oct 13th, 2014
Steven King's new book sucked.
by Sassylassie | Apr 19th, 2006
Steven Harper
by Hank C Cheyenne | Oct 26th, 2005
no new posts