[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[brewer]

Are you sure he was being descriptive on this point? Falsification isn't an intuitive idea. And modern science is still not set up this way—you're insensitivised to discover something new not falsify something old.

[incentivized?]

I wonder if what Popper says should be thought of more like a recommendation -- how science would work best, or how it would work if it were behaving properly.

I'm no scientist, but I've read criticism from scientists about how research actually happens these days. Nearly all of it is sponsored by the Pentagon or for-profit corporations, which have their thumbs on the scale of what the results will be. Researchers are often employed on a publish-or-perish basis, which motivates them to do research that is more likely to get published in the journals, which are also for-profit and prefer to publish the more sexy results. 

Some say this has led to a crisis of reproducibility, with not enough people willing to do the unglamorous work of falsification.

If you don't that falsification matters and is not actively pursued take a look back at the covid pandemic again.

[polymath257]

Are you sure he was being descriptive on this point? Falsification isn't an intuitive idea. And modern science is still not set up this way—you're insensitivised to discover something new not falsify something old.

[incentivized?]

I wonder if what Popper says should be thought of more like a recommendation -- how science would work best, or how it would work if it were behaving properly.

I'm no scientist, but I've read criticism from scientists about how research actually happens these days. Nearly all of it is sponsored by the Pentagon or for-profit corporations, which have their thumbs on the scale of what the results will be. Researchers are often employed on a publish-or-perish basis, which motivates them to do research that is more likely to get published in the journals, which are also for-profit and prefer to publish the more sexy results. 

Some say this has led to a crisis of reproducibility, with not enough people willing to do the unglamorous work of falsification.

And don't forget the 'research' that is not done publicly, say in labs for various companies. Often such research is never published and never vetted by independent researchers. This is a large component of chemistry and medical research these days. It only gets published if it leads to a patent.

Yes, there are a LOT of problems with how universities have become for-profit companies and research is geared to paying the salaries of unnecessary administrators. Being able to get grant money is now the chief concern of many researchers, not actually doing the work of research. And, those wishing to be less than completely honest can do some p-hacking to get what might be considered a good paper.

[polymath257]

Considerations of these interpretations may have an impact on future findings, though.

Refer to the Aeon essay I posted earlier for an example of what you actually requested.

---

Once again, the discussion of these interpretations is primarily a philosophical exercise and has had essentially no impact on the science (as fun as it is). Plus, in practice, the physicists do the philosophy better than the philosophers because they actually understand the science and math.. So even as philosophers, the philosophers fail.

Depends on the specialty of the philosopher. Those who specialize in mathematics and in science are expected to be as good as physicists in understanding the science and math. It's part of their expertise ...

By the way, it's physicists (not mere philosophers) who came up with many of the interpretations for quantum mechanics. Ironically.

And I was asking for actual philosophical theories that turned into good scientific ones.

The story about Hume and Einstein actually exemplifies my point: philosophy is best when it looks at hidden assumptions and NOT when it is making grand theories. Hume noted that our assumptions about time may not be correct and Einstein actually came up with a scientific theory that gave a new way of looking at time.

And, your last point that physicists have been the ones making up the interpretations is also to my point: philosophy is getting to be too hard for the philosophers. The physicists are actually the ones pushing the philosophical envelope. But the physicists also acknowledge that the differences between the interpretations are not very relevant: they all give exactly the same answers concerning observations so *they are all actually the same theory*. Sort of like the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics. The point is that some perspectives suggest ways to actually do the calculations.

[Belacqua]

And I was asking for actual philosophical theories that turned into good scientific ones.

And I think your passionate belief that only science is worthwhile is causing you to ignore the fact that philosophy does other things -- ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc., which are not testable by science, but are valuable for human flourishing.

You hold your own metaphysical beliefs very adamantly: physicalism and nominalism. These are not testable by science. Yet you seem devoted to them.

It seems to me that if philosophy doesn't offer anything worthwhile, then your own confidently held philosophical beliefs are not worthwhile. If your philosophical beliefs are worthwhile, then philosophy is worthwhile.

[polymath257]

And I was asking for actual philosophical theories that turned into good scientific ones.

And I think your passionate belief that only science is worthwhile is causing you to ignore the fact that philosophy does other things -- ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc., which are not testable by science, but are valuable for human flourishing.

You hold your own metaphysical beliefs very adamantly: physicalism and nominalism. These are not testable by science. Yet you seem devoted to them.

It seems to me that if philosophy doesn't offer anything worthwhile, then your own confidently held philosophical beliefs are not worthwhile. If your philosophical beliefs are worthwhile, then philosophy is worthwhile.

Ethics and aesthetics are very important. I just don't see them as areas of knowledge, as opposed to matters of opinion. Questions about diverting trains to alternative tracks, for example, helps us explore our moral biases and intuitions.

Metaphysics is mostly so outdated that it is currently useless. It needs to be redeveloped from the ground up.

As for physicalism, it is tested and has been tested since the rise of modern science. The simple fact that we undeniably know more about the universe than we did 400 years ago *because* of the use of the scientific method is the test.

And I did not say that philosophy does not offer anything worthwhile. It is very useful for having good discussions with friends. It is good for exploring our assumptions and forcing us to question our beliefs. That is a good thing.

But philosophy is bad when it thinks it actually gets answers as opposed to asking good questions.

I also want to note that some philosophers want to claim *all* organized thinking for philosophy. And that is simply silliness. The distinguishing nature of philosophy is that it works with no data and no testing. it explores our assumptions and use of language (and that is worthwhile). But it does NOT offer knowledge.

[GrandizerII]

The story about Hume and Einstein actually exemplifies my point: philosophy is best when it looks at hidden assumptions and NOT when it is making grand theories. Hume noted that our assumptions about time may not be correct and Einstein actually came up with a scientific theory that gave a new way of looking at time.

Exactly. When it comes to science, philosophy provides the direction, the framework, and science then does the rest.

Remember what I said earlier, that philosophy is not in competition with science, and yet you keep falling into that trap of thinking it's supposed to be (otherwise, in your mind, it's pointless when it comes to metaphysics and science).

And, your last point that physicists have been the ones making up the interpretations is also to my point: philosophy is getting to be too hard for the philosophers. The physicists are actually the ones pushing the philosophical envelope. But the physicists also acknowledge that the differences between the interpretations are not very relevant: they all give exactly the same answers concerning observations so *they are all actually the same theory*. Sort of like the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics. The point is that some perspectives suggest ways to actually do the calculations.

Unless you have a survey to prove your what you say here, this is your subjective take of what physicists think when it comes to philosophy and specifically metaphysics. I can think of a good number of physicists who favor certain interpretations of quantum mechanics over others and do not treat them all equally in terms of credibility. Furthermore, these interpretations do reveal significant theoretical differences. For example, under the MWI there is no wavefunction collapse but under the Copenhagen there is. Under the former, the world is deterministic, whereas under the latter, the world is random. These are significant differences, so to say these interpretations are all actually the same theory is misleading.

And it's great that some physicists out there are not averse to doing some metaphysics. Seems to take some guts these days to do.

[no one]

If it's worthwhile to the person studying it, fuck what anyone else has to say.

[GrandizerII]

polymath, here, have Sean Carroll, a physicist, tell you what he thinks of critiques of philosophy like the ones you raise.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo...hilosophy/

[Angrboda]

Considerations of these interpretations may have an impact on future findings, though.

Refer to the Aeon essay I posted earlier for an example of what you actually requested.

---

Depends on the specialty of the philosopher. Those who specialize in mathematics and in science are expected to be as good as physicists in understanding the science and math. It's part of their expertise ...

By the way, it's physicists (not mere philosophers) who came up with many of the interpretations for quantum mechanics. Ironically.

And I was asking for actual philosophical theories that turned into good scientific ones.

That's not what philosophy contributes to science. In the same vein, no mathematical theories have turned into good scientific ones. Yet you'd have to be an idiot to think math isn't essential to science.

[LadyForCamus]

How could one do science without philosophy?