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

Discussion in 'General Science' started by socratus, Dec 26, 2015.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    About philosophy of science. 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

    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/
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2015