Philosophy Now Forum

Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, is pretty dismissive when it come to the work of contemporary philosophers of science. Basically, he thinks that philosophers don't have sufficient knowledge of science in order to make philosophical claims about it. He is by no means alone in his thinking.

Is Weinberg right about the philosophy of science or does it have something meaning and informed to say about modern science?

I think he's wrong, but it's an interesting question. Jobbing scientists often don't understand what philosophers are trying to say, and because it doesn't speak to them they lose patience rather quickly and denounce it all as ill-informed nonsense. Which some of it no doubt is.

But consider one of the burning problems of the philosophy of science: "Is there a demarcation line which can be drawn and which we can agree on between science and pseudo-science?"

It's neither a pseudo-problem that scientists can brush aside, nor is it one that scientists can answer without going beyond their specialism and engaging in philosophical discourse.

Mick

I'm sure many scientists openly or tacitly subscribe to scientism and believe either that scientific method is infallible or that it is the best way to acquire knowledge. Your average philosopher of science is unlikely to take such a straightforward view.

Also most sceintific theories are both replete with and require very unscientific assumptions about reality. The philosopher will always be seeking to question these assumptions in a way that is quite frustrating to the scientist. The philosopher could quite easily become unpopular among those unconcerned about the nature of time, space and reality

From my expereience of working in a scientific community philosophy was viewed with some respect, although one hsould be careful not to get too 'bogged down' in it.

Nikolai

But consider one of the burning problems of the philosophy of science: "Is there a demarcation line which can be drawn and which we can agree on between science and pseudo-science?"

It's neither a pseudo-problem that scientists can brush aside, nor is it one that scientists can answer without going beyond their specialism and engaging in philosophical discourse.

Good point mick. This distinction is more important than ever given the ongoing debate over the scientific status of intelligent design.

Based on the (dozens of) books I have read, I have reached the conclusion that philosophers have given up the effort to form an approach with practical impacts. Many of them write books without having anything to say, just to show off their literary skills. Of course there are exceptions, but I think that that's why philosophers are frowned upon by scientists. Philosophy has become an endless chatter, while science is all about practical results.

Effie

Rortabend,

Perhaps you can expand on the problem Steven Weinberg has with philosophers of science. Is it that he doesn't like them asking ethical questions about what science is up to? Maybe Weinberg doesn't like to be questioned or second guessed.

I think there are two kinds of scientists, ones like Wienberg who are hard wired and ones like Einstein who are not. Hard wired scientists just think about science and nothing else. (It can be an advantage that people are so focused and not cluttering their minds with other things, like philosophy.) But scientists like Einstein are also philosophers because they like to think and they do thought experiments like Einstein did. Weinberg type scientists work in a more concrete manner. Einstein was more an abstract scientist and thinker. Interestingly, Einstein is the greater person.

It is not only scientists who are dismissive of other professions. Politicians have been dismissive of scientists because of the stance some of them take on the environment or on the subject of evolution. But where would scientists be without politicians or politics. Politics often greases the wheels of endeavor, like philosophy does.

I do not think philosophy and science could ever be separate. There is no clear line between them. They are a part of eachother. If you go to dictionary.com and view the definitions of philosophy, and then view the definitions of science; although not entirely complete in my opinion i think they are one and the same.

Philosophy is or can be a science in its own right, and uses scientific principles. And vice versa.

Furthermore, many think there is a category of applied philosophy. Personally, i think all philosophy is applied as there is no doubt everything we challenge and come upon in our mind is applied in one way or another. Either purposefully or not, it is applied. So imo, it is never a waste of time, even when it appears to be.

I view science in the same way.

And of course there are clearer, more successful examples of applied philosophy and science as well; often with greater impact.

And philofra, you said 'politicians have been dismissive of scientists,' and to me i view politics as a science. There is a reason its called 'poli-sci.'

thanks

bus2,

I bet Weinberg also disdains political scientists because they are dealing mainly in abstractions and loose concepts. Weinberg probably prides himself with working with tangibles and the 'real' world. And he probably doesn't believe in metaphysics or phenomenon.

philofra wrote:
I bet Weinberg also disdains political scientists because they are dealing mainly in abstractions and loose concepts.

but has Weinberg prooved this? If not, he's dealing just as much in 'abstraction and loose concepts.'


and truly, it would be a philosopher who would prove just exactly what an 'abstraction' or 'loose concept' is.

Just re-reading the original post it is possible that Weinberg thinks there is no such thing as science, only individual scientific questions. As these individual questions require high levels of specific knowledge, maybe he sees philosophers as missing the point and inventing questions for themselves.

I think part of the problem might be that scientists see their theories and explanatory theories as being associated with practical technological advance - 'if a theory works then it must be true'.

There is however, no reason to believe that scientific theories have anything to do with practical progress. Theories might just be redundant linguistic overlays to knowledge that is held, and only ever need be held, at the tacit level.

Nikolai

mickthinks wrote:But consider one of the burning problems of the philosophy of science: "Is there a demarcation line which can be drawn and which we can agree on between science and pseudo-science?"

It's neither a pseudo-problem that scientists can brush aside, nor is it one that scientists can answer without going beyond their specialism and engaging in philosophical discourse.

Mick

I think Weinberg would say this is exactly what he is dismissing. The idea that there is a 'pseudo-science' would be nonsense to him, it would either be or not be Science.

It is true that Phil of Science is basically Epistemology but since Science has no current 'real', to them, epistemological problems, I'd understand Phil of Science to be an area occupied by those scientists who are mainly theorists, philosophers who like Logic and Maths and philosophers who 'like' science.

My opinion is that Philosophy of Science has not been done for a long while, as the Scientists have had no need to examine their axioms as they have not reached any major contradictions. The one that is in the offing is relativity and quantum mechanics as they have no current model, apart from mathematics, with which to describe these two positions and the unfortunate fact that both mathematics appear to hold. But they would not turn to philosophers for an answer because 1) we don't understand enough about what they are describing and 2) they have the epistemological methods to resolve the issue, its technology thats lagging behind.

If there is any 'pseudo-science' then its in Culture not Science and my understanding would be that philosophers of science could be useful in explaining to the 'general public' exactly how they could understand what they are hearing. As at present most appear to have no grasp of what a scientist does.
a_uk

effie wrote:Based on the (dozens of) books I have read, I have reached the conclusion that philosophers have given up the effort to form an approach with practical impacts. Many of them write books without having anything to say, just to show off their literary skills. Of course there are exceptions, but I think that that's why philosophers are frowned upon by scientists. Philosophy has become an endless chatter, while science is all about practical results.
Effie

Not all of us. Husserl, C.S. Pierce and Merleau-Ponty have shown the way forward for Philosophy to gain its 'basic truth', Phenomenology, the description of what its like to be a subjective thing, i.e. the description of the subjective experience of phenomena. Based upon the British Empiricists observation that nothing is in the Mind thats not got its source in the senses and when I 'look' 'inside' I 'see' no 'I' just lots of 'thoughts'.
a_uk
p.s. but I can understand why Philosophy is the ugly duckling at present as all people 'hear' is Metaphysics. I want them to hear Meataphysics.
a_uk

I think Weinberg would say this is exactly what he is dismissing.
You may be right, Kim, but I would suggest that is because he hasn't thought enough about the philosophy of science to understand the problem.

Pseudo-science (eg. astrology) isn't a third category that can be dismissed by scientists as unnecessary. It is a part of the second category; those non-scientific ideas whose believers claim are science. No scientific theory or laboratory experiment states or proves that astrologers are not engaged in science. If Weinberg thinks his expert opinion as a scientist is enough to settle the issue then he has a circular argument and a big problem.

Perhaps you can expand on the problem Steven Weinberg has with philosophers of science. Is it that he doesn't like them asking ethical questions about what science is up to?

I don't think his reason for rejecting P of S is ethical, but is rather pragmatic. He just doesn't think it adds anything interesting to scientific progress (Question: Why should it?)

I think there are two kinds of scientists, ones like Wienberg who are hard wired and ones like Einstein who are not. Hard wired scientists just think about science and nothing else. (It can be an advantage that people are so focused and not cluttering their minds with other things, like philosophy.) But scientists like Einstein are also philosophers because they like to think and they do thought experiments like Einstein did. Weinberg type scientists work in a more concrete manner. Einstein was more an abstract scientist and thinker. Interestingly, Einstein is the greater person.

I like this distinction philofra. Hard-wired scientists remind me of the logical positivists who proclaimed that metaphysics was nonsense. To say that philosophy has nothing to do with science is, of course, a philosophical statement. Weinberg has a Nobel prize so he thinks he can make pronouncements on whatever he likes without having the requisite understanding of the topic in question. As Psychonaut would tell us, this is a clear case of argument from authority.

I do not think philosophy and science could ever be separate. There is no clear line between them. They are a part of eachother.

Sounds like we have a naturalist in our ranks. This was Quine's view of the relationship between science and philosophy. It is also one I happen to share.