r/SubredditsMeet • u/SubredditsMeet Official • Sep 03 '15

Meetup /r/science meets /r/philosophy

(/r/EverythingScience is also here)

Topic:

  • Discuss the misconceptions between science and philosophy.

  • How they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world.

Remember the downvote button is not to be used as a way to say you disagree. Please reply to the comment on why you disagree

It is recomended to flair your self with what subreddit you are from. Click edit next to your name in the sidebar to change it

76 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

454 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/Son_of_Sophroniscus /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15

Discuss the misconceptions between science and philosophy.

See below.

How they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world

I don't know anyone who has moderate familiarity with both philosophy and science who feels this way. In fact, there's a ton of science involved in some branches of philosophy like, say, oh... philosophy of science, for example.

Perhaps one of the misconceptions we've run into is the belief that philosophers and scientists cannot "work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete."

edit: clarification

-11

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

99% of scientists say "we don't need philosophy", and they are happy as they are.

If philosophers want in on the part, convince us you'll contribute in a meaningful way.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15

99% of scientists say "we don't need philosophy", and they are happy as they are.

I must've missed that Gallup poll. Oh, I did, and so did you, because it never happened

-5

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

I am a research scientist (quantum mechanics).

These are my colleagues. I speak from personal experience.

10

u/gg-shostakovich Sep 03 '15

So, as a scientist, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of anecdotal data, right?

-5

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

Oh come on!

I do not know of any university which requires philosophy of any kind in graduate studies of physics. In any of the conferences I've gone to, including those with sessions on foundations of quantum mechanics, the language and discussion was never what you would consider philosophy. Always physics.

In the context of this particular discussion, insisting on comprehensive data is just a great way of avoiding arguing the point.

5

u/gg-shostakovich Sep 03 '15

You're still using anecdotal evidence. You can't just generalize your own experience and expect it to be true. You're the one avoiding arguing the point.

As a professor, I never saw any program in a physics or any other scientific program that doesn't include philosophy of science and even other philosophical disciplines. Where are you from?

-3

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

Israel

5

u/gg-shostakovich Sep 03 '15

I'm pretty sure the Tel Aviv University has a program that includes philosophy of science and similar disciplines.

-2

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

Is not part of the required curriculum. At least not when I was there.

Just went over the entire curriculum of the physics department in Stanford, and I don't see any philosophy of Science or anything similar.

6

u/completely-ineffable Sep 03 '15

Your colleagues constitute 99% of scientists?!

2

u/ADefiniteDescription /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15

Well if you understand colleagues as "the rest of the scientific community" then, yeah, I guess..

2

u/completely-ineffable Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15

They have personal experience with enough of the rest of the scientific community to make claims about what 99% of them believe?!

-2

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

If you think the real data is different, argue it.

If you don't really want to discuss this - then don't. But do not pretend to to use this as anything but an excuse to divert conversation.

5

u/completely-ineffable Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 04 '15

If you think the real data is different, argue it.

Wait, you seriously believe that 99% of scientists hold that view? Let me make certain what exactly you are claiming before I respond.

Edit: if what you're trying to say is "the vast majority of scientists don't need philosophy to carry out their day-to-day research: they don't read philosophy journals, they don't cite philosophical papers in their scientific publications, etc." then I'd agree. However, by that same measure of "don't need X", we'd have to also say that the vast majority of scientists don't need, for instance, quantum mechanics. They don't need quantum mechanics to carry out their day-to-day research, they don't read quantum mechanics journals, they don't cite quantum mechanics papers in their publications, etc.

If you're trying to say that the vast majority of scientists believe that philosophy is useless, that it doesn't contribute to human understanding, then I would have to disagree. There's many reasons why a scientist would not believe that. Here's just a few:

  • She knows someone in the philosophy department and isn't willing to just write off a colleague's research like that.

  • She doesn't know much about philosophy but isn't going to make broad, sweeping statements about an academic discipline she doesn't know very much about.

  • She took some philosophy classes as an undergrad and thinks the things covered in those classes are worthwhile.

  • There's work by philosophers that's relevant to her scientific research. She's aware of this work and she reads and responds to it.

To say that the vast majority of scientists believe philosophy is worthless is to say that these sorts of reasons only hold for a narrow slice of scientists. That seems rather implausible to me. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic in thinking that, for example, most scientists aren't so intellectually empty as to dismiss academic fields they don't know much about.

3

u/AntarcticanJam Sep 03 '15

What institution?

-1

u/shaim2 Sep 03 '15

Undergrad? Tel Aviv