Richard Feynman’s Philosophy of Science

[Philosophy Now]

Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Ri ... of_Science

[A_Seagull]

Feynman "is noted .... for his dislike of philosophy"

This is nonsense. Feynman was fascinated by philosophy. What he could not tolerate was that which has been written about philosophy.

It is a common error which the author makes of conflating philosophy with what has been written about philosophy; when they are in fact quite distinct entities.

[Nick_A]

One of the most famous quotes attributed to Feynman, often requoted with relish by the British science presenter Brian Cox, is that “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” But although this has become a standard put-down by some scientists to those philosophers brave enough to opine on science, maybe this phrase can be lit under a different light? Firstly, whilst Feynman did nay-say philosophy quite a bit, it’s not clear that he actually said those words. And the saying itself points to something quite prescient within the philosophy and sociology of science – that there’s a fundamental difference between speaking or writing about a subject, and living or doing the subject.

There is an undercurrent of people capable of both spiritual and intellectual understanding who are introducing the potential for the unification of science and religion: the world of facts and the world of relative values, facts with meaning. It cannot be discussed now since it would quicky degenerate into blind denial. But for those interested in a similar perspective introduced by Simone Weil, I’ll link this article for anyone interested in this profound and necessary admission as to the limitations of science in the world of value. A bird is more than ornithology.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.

Who knows what the future will bring but one thing is sure – without a sufficient amount of people with developed minds and hearts necessary to unite values communicated through the essence of religion, we are doomed to be consumed or destroyed by technology developed through science.

[yiostheoy]

It is a fallacy to think or suggest that Religion, Philosophy, and/or Science can be unified.

They must be kept separate at all times or else one will corrupt the others.

[Nick_A]

yiostheoy wrote:

It is a fallacy to think or suggest that Religion, Philosophy, and/or Science can be unified.

They must be kept separate at all times or else one will corrupt the others.

I really cannot understand how so many refuse to see that a bird is more than ornothology. It's "meaning is more than measurements. Yet one thing I've learned while posting on this forum is that the dominant belief excludes any sort of objective value. Consequently a bird is only what is defined by ornothology.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Common sense would say this complimentary relationship between non-corrupt science and the essence of religion which eliminates psychological blindness and lameness is just obvious. The fact that it is considered absurd for so many is really frightening. It shows how far we have sunk into self justification at the expense of common sense and an open mind.

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy wrote:

It is a fallacy to think or suggest that Religion, Philosophy, and/or Science can be unified.

They must be kept separate at all times or else one will corrupt the others.

I really cannot understand how so many refuse to see that a bird is more than ornothology. It's "meaning is more than measurements. Yet one thing I've learned while posting on this forum is that the dominant belief excludes any sort of objective value. Consequently a bird is only what is defined by ornothology.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Common sense would say this complimentary relationship between non-corrupt science and the essence of religion which eliminates psychological blindness and lameness is just obvious. The fact that it is considered absurd for so many is really frightening. It shows how far we have sunk into self justification at the expense of common sense and an open mind.

Einstein was an atheist therefore your quote must be a plagiarism.

[Arising_uk]

Einstein was an atheist therefore your quote must be a plagiarism.

More bollocks from the theist philosophy-pseud. Apparently he thinks if one does not believe in his version of 'God' one is an atheist and to top it off he appears to not understand what "plagiarism" means.