Philosophy vs Philosopher
Thanks to Robert for weighing in on the topic so eloquently after having
offered us "please god no!" earlier on. It validates that this is a
worthy thread of discussion, even for those who might prefer more
concrete topics.
I personally never thought this thread was about trying to prove that
Philosophers "did science", but rather the modes of thought and methods
of Philosophy were key in Scientific Progress. I believe that Robert
has helped to make that point quite well. I agree with him that few of
the thinkers (Mathematician/Scientists) referenced would be primarily
described as Philosophers... but I doubt that many if any would insist
that they were disinterested or disengaged completely from Philosophy.
I'm sure the topic is far from put to rest, but I hear in the last few
mailings a *lot* of progress toward this point of view. During my
fourth year of undergrad Physics, I took a special topics class with
about 6 of my peers and one of my more progressive Physics profs. The
other students took on various specific hard-physics topics which I was
very fascinated and informed by. I took on the question of "how
philosophy informs physics". The rest of the class responded like
Robert with "Please God No!" but my professor gave me some very low key
encouragement and I proceeded.
By the end of the semester (we each gave reports to the rest of the
class as we progressed), I think every other student "got it"... and by
this, I mean that they understood that Philosophy wasn't (just) a bunch
of dead white guys arguing over how many angels could dance on the head
of a pin. They seemed to understand that the way one approaches
knowledge and language and perception, really does matter in how you
interpret the physical world and the rules it apparently operates by.
I myself learned a lot. I had started the project with a bit of a flip
attitude, wanting mostly to make the point that not everything to be
understood in the world was strictly empirical.
The most persuasive arguement (I think) for this bunch of 21 year olds
was my reviewing Einstein's many GedankenExperiments... they had all
been plenty exposed to this during their earlier coursework, but had
somehow never connected that a "thought experiment" was essentially an
exercise in Philosophy. The fact that Einstein was so famous for this,
and so well respected turned out to be very persuasive. Abruptly,
those who had tried to scoff at Zeno and who really didn't get the
import of Godel (none had any CS training) were taking a more careful
second look at the many "abstract thinkers" who had so helped to
form/shape their chosen field.
When it comes to paradigms for structuring our understanding of the
Universe, it is very difficult (in my experience) to think outside the
paradigm you have been raised in, or trained in. Philosophers do not
necessarily think outside of their own boxes, but it is part of their
territory to try, or at least to risk it. Most other thinkers are, by
definition, confined to making their life's work, the elaboration of the
interior of their boxes without ever noticing the context of those
boxes. Or that there even IS a context for said box.
carry on,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
