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
==…
Science merely describes the state of observable physical information, so look at stuff and say that’s what it is. It is a little more difficult to say what it is without the description itself being the what >it< is.
For example, a robot would look at a picture of the Mona Lisa, and see a woman’s face [which such descriptions to follow, eyes are brown etc]. A human will see a person and something enigmatic about the portrayal of the individual, and of the individual herself.
Philosophy has to define what ‘the Mona Lisa’ is, where science/robots make a simple description. Most important perhaps is that she shouldn’t be described, as that is not what she is – literally.
If equally we were to say what reality and life is and what it is for, then perhaps we miss the whole point of that and what philosophy is!
Philosophy is doing its job if it continues to make descriptions and add to our understanding of things [the philosophy of science and psychology for example], and if it continues to fail at making that mean what reality is.
define ‘it’, when it is not ‘it’?
Einstein was a garbage philosopher, it’s been said by David Quinn that he had the musings of a 16 year old girl. Now, someone of my musings are like a 16 year old girl, but not all. Never in my years would I say what he said about the cosmos. Now what he said I can’t remember. Oh well.
Mathematics complicates things. Language communicates. Mathematics makes things easier to understand, for machines, code, programs, etc. Genius is androgenous, hermaphroditic, a mix of everything male and female, including asexual. Machines are asexual, a lack of things except whatever is preprogrammed into it’s parameters.
I will show you how mathematics adds not much to understanding and makes scientific discoveries unprofound. Consider the experience of boiling something on a kettle. It can be represented by the equation of volume*surface area/barometric pressure+temperature(Kelvin)=value x. Now, do you understand how a kettle works? Now, can you see why food is so profound, and tastes so good, yes? Reality becomes so profound, through mathematics.