From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 01:57:51 MDT
Colin Hales wrote:
> Spudboy100@aol.com wrote........
> I've often heard scientists call philosophical attention to their field
> irrelevant at best, and confusing and destructive at worst. Indeed, many
> scientists advise that philosophy should be avoided altogether. Steven
> Weinberg, for example, named a chapter in his book Dreams of a Final Theory
> "Against the philosophers". Murray Gell-Mann, meanwhile, has remarked that
> philosophy "muddies the waters and obscures [the theoretical physicist's]
> principal task, which is to find a coherent structure that works". He then
> added that having a philosophical bias may cause a physicist "to reject a
> good idea".
>
> I tend to agree that (academic) Philosophy is a form of intellectual
> masturbation that scientists would do well to avoid. One philosopher
> invents a word then the rest of them sit around arguing what it means.
> Philosophical analysis is so sterile and long-winded that it sucks any
> energy out of a new idea or concept.
Sigh. Never mind that science is firmly based on certain
philosophical near-axioms and conclusions. Does anyone taking
the above position know enough about philosophy to understand
that making statements about what constitutes knowledge, what
sorts of knowledge are possible in what conditions, and how to
verify knowledge ARE philosophical positions?
Or are our geeky blinders on way too tight?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:24 MST