<p>I have deep interest in both physics and philosophy. The two disciplines, while seemingly unrelated nowadays, were practically synonymous in our early history. The great revolutions of physics were all with strongly philosophic men (Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr to name a few). Can we please discuss why the two have since parted ways and why physics professors chew out the "wacky" ideas of philosophy that will never be testable and why philosophers tend not to be rooted in a scientific background? In other words, will there ever be a happy medium between these two pillars of thought?</p>
<p>That’s actually a really good point. I think as a society on the whole we have become more specialized in different things, and being super good at one thing is perhaps preferable to being mediocre or slightly above average in most things. For example, in earlier times there weren’t so many people who went to college and majored in a specific area, where they learned a specific thing. Instead, there were a few smart people who were jacks of all trades and good in most of the subjects, rather than idiot savants.</p>
<p>Probs not, just because the two respective fields are too “specialized” nowadays for people to want to intetwine two complex fields. Would be lovely to do (I’m up for it 
), but I don’t know if scientists would want the whole philosophy spiel and vice versa. Scientists do think in a philosophical manner, but we seperate them to create jobs in more fields? IDK, but intersting thought! 
</p>
<p>@rchhay: Hey, you beat me to it! Darn it, I should have been faster! :D</p>
<p>Sorry big dreamer, but it’s good to see that we’re thinking along the same lines. :')</p>
<p>Great minds think alike I guess…
It’s okay, we all agree!</p>
<p>When it comes to physics
Aristotle was wrong</p>
<p>The real issue is that scientists and philosophers are now professionals. It’s their job to do one thing and one thing well. The people of the past were merely amateurs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t follow. People like Einstein and Bohr weren’t philosophers. Quotable as they may be (and I’ve never seen Niels Bohr quoted), they have absolutely no accomplishments in the field. Likewise, there are many scientists today that are “philosophical” but aren’t really philosophers. As for whether they’re more likely to “chew out” “untestable views,” I don’t think that’s accurate either. Most scientists regard real philosophy as a true academic subject because of its emphasis on logic and proof.</p>
<p>Well back in the middle ages, I believe, there were four kinds of degrees/fields: Law, Medicine, Theology and Philosophy (JD, MD, ThD and PhD) - physics was part of philosophy. I think it still is to some degree since people get PhD’s in physics and math and whatnot.</p>
<p>I guess the reason they “split” is multi-fold.</p>
<p>For starters, both fields became so diverse that it would be difficult to become an expert in each related field, that people started studying one or the other.</p>
<p>Secondly, physics studies the physical, but philosophy covers politics, the metaphysical, ethics and morals and stuff that is more broad than the physical. Some of the ancient Greeks, who theorized that the basic “stuff” of the universe was things like water or air were really doing physics. Philosophers don’t cover stuff like that, anymore, I believe, and leave that sort of inquiry to the Physicists who try to figure out the answer to that question.</p>
<p>I’m a math major but I believe philosophy should be taught at the center of our education. People should be encouraged to question the institutions and systems around them - and question what they’re learning. Nothing should be taught dogmatically in school and alternative viewpoints should always be taught along side each other. Most people in their disciplines are too cocky about what they think they know…</p>
<p>I guess the reael issue I have is that we seem to be going on a course where thinking about implications of things is no longer important. Many physicists don’t provide insight into deep issues, and some philosophers do not accept certain aspects of science. I want to somehow be a person who embodies these all-too-often hostile subjects of speculation and experiment.</p>
<p>And my issue is that you’re making a broad and often inaccurate generalization.</p>
<p>Well for one thing the idea of string theory puts alot of physicists off because they think it is nothing but philosophy masquerading as science. Another physics professor I know talked about how philosophers quibble about that which they do not understand when they discuss science-related issues (which is definitely true since philosophers do not have only the descriptive understanding of concepts, sometimes even mislead understanding). So what I’m saying is that I want to be the scientist that thinks deeply and the philosopher who is knowledgeable.</p>
<p>Wait, when you say “the scientist that thinks deeply,” do you mean one that thinks about how physics correlates to life and our place in it? Because as a general rule, physicists need to do a lot of thinking that goes way over the heads of the non-scientific community. </p>
<p>However, the job of a physicist is not to give opinions about humanity’s place in the cosmos. It is, at it’s simplest, to attempt to show us how the universe works. They work with facts, evidence, observations, and applicable mathematics. Opinions in the form of hypotheses may lead to discovery, but for it to be scientific it must be provable. Metaphysics can’t be included because the scientific method isn’t applicable. </p>
<p>Which partly explains the controversy behind string theory. A portion of the scientific community doesn’t believe it to be scientifically testable or falsifiable, and therefore proposes that it be considered for the time being a mathematical framework as opposed to true theory.</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me, that if you look at pretty much any highly educated person from ancient times (or even just a few hundred years ago) they weren’t specialized. Everyone used to be a polymath, because higher education had a different, perhaps more catholic, nature then. You can get that education if you want to, but it’s a lot more difficult and you sort of have to become a “professional student” as they are called, because the purpose of higher ed has changed as its accessibility has increased.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An admirable goal I suppose, but you should understand that one reason this is difficult is the depth of both fields. Most physicists lack adequate training in philosophy, and the inverse is probably to an even greater extent. The depth of these fields has grown exponentially since the days of Aristotle.</p>
<p>philosophy is a scam</p>
<p>Which branch?</p>
<p>It’s impossible to learn anywhere close to everything about even one subject. If you dilute your efforts trying to become an expert in multiple broadly defined fields, you might be a very interesting person to talk to, but I doubt you’d be making any groundbreaking contributions.</p>
<p>lockn,
Actually, I think overly rigid and narrow specialization becomes a problem in academia. There are many cases in which cross-pollination and synthesis between different fields ends up yielding the most valuable results. If you approach a problem with one viewpoint or paradigm, eventually, you’ll reach a dead end in the progress that you can make. Combining with another paradigm will allow further innovation. For example, in biology, the modern evolutionary synthesis resulted from combining Darwinian evolution, Mendelian genetics, and molecular biology.</p>
<p>Certain fields such as economics and ecology are fundamentally related (note the etymological connection). Economics and ecology were at one point (in the time of Malthus) not so distinct. Concepts such as niches, survival of the fittest easily lend themselves to application in both fields. With concerns of population and available resources, human impact on the environment etc., the line is blurred. In these cases, interdisciplinary work may thus be very fruitful.</p>
<p>With the advance of neuroscience, we may be able to explain human psychological processes biologically, thus unifying these disciplines. Advance in these fields may also answer philosophical questions about the mind.</p>
<p>In regards to the OP’s question,
One might say that physics has answers to some metaphysical problems, such as “What is the nature of space/time?” For example, the Ancient Greeks asked what matter was composed of as a philosophical question. Democritus said that matter was made of indivisible units called “atoms.” In Democritus’ time, such conjectures weren’t testable by any means, but with scientific progress, we now answer the question scientifically, with the discovery of atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, (possibly strings) etc.</p>
<p>Philosophy may be seen as a realm of questions that we are unsure how to approach or investigate empirically. But with the passing of time, portions of philosophy split off and become more empirically grounded fields such as physics.</p>
<p>The objection that a philosophical-minded philosopher might raise is that scientific knowledge about particles changes with time (i.e. whether there still is yet another more fundamental particle that we presently don’t know about). Thomas Kuhn pointed out that Einstein’s explanation of gravity overturned the Newtonian view, and science is subject to historical “paradigm shifts”–How do I know that present scientific understanding will not be later overturned by a different theory? Philosophy is supposed to be concerned with truths independent of the current time period, so that might be a problem. (Then again, you might not say that philosophy has such a great track record about this supposed tenet.)</p>
<p>Additionally, some matters such as, ethics and aesthetics, however might never be able to be subsumed by science, as statements of value cannot be derived from statements of fact.</p>
<p>All of what you guys have said is very enlightening. The vast amount of information stored up in the history of human existence and the potential for future discovery amazes me. It makes me wonder just what I’ll decide to do. The problem with me is that I feel I must know about everything (even if it is just at a basic level of understanding) while at the same time follow my interests in particular fields. There’s just so much out there that it would be a pity if I didn’t explore it all. How will I see the world? How will I choose to live? I think I have a good ideas about these things but in the grand scheme of things everything just seems surreal. Like if you really take just a second to think about the implications of a person standing in front of you talking, you get this indescribable rush of feeling or awareness. Then you lose it and it takes a while for you to capture it again. I don’t know how adequately physics will provide what I seek, or philosophy, or anything for that matter. I’m just hoping that I can oneday stand firm in something and be for it completely. Maybe a rounded approach to education and thinking will give me a better understanding of things, but maybe the truths of a specific mode of thinking will be what I find. But realizing the enormity of decisions and beliefs makes me question the certainty of anything.</p>
<p>Philosophy+Physics=Theoretical Physicist.</p>
<p>But then at the same time I think I want to understand why the theories we have take the forms they do. Like when string theorists use the phrase “cosmic symphony of vibrating strings” is that really reality, or is this merely an idea that satisfies the way our brain is programmed to see order? For instance, can we say cause-effect is an objective part of the universe, or is it only natural to us because we are meant to see it? Also, we think we can tell the story of the universe like it truly is, but could a cat do the same? What if we are all like cats (in fact we are no different than any other animal we say is beneath our level of understanding)? We can’t conceive of what the cat might see, and thinking we can by articulating what they should see is actually us making suppostions, biased statements that are not objective and pass through our brains and fed out as human comprehension. What makes us so privileged to think that we are the only things receptive to the true reality? Indeed, why should the world create something to be receptive of it? Think about it. If there is no ultimate goal in the universe, then what exactly are we seeing? We started as a cell just trying to survive. We are now humans and do survive, but I have trouble understanding how it is we can perceive the universe as it was when didn’t exist/is if we don’t exist. And again, the history of the universe that we say is for the most part correct could just be our history as we know it to be. For any other kind of animal it may not see the same history, but that does not invalidate its understanding of it. I guess I am assuming something conscious as we know conscious to be on the receiving of the animal, so maybe this doesn’t work out. However, the problem humans have with anything is the problem of consciousness. Is it what I feel it must be; that is, my self being able to exist outside of my body? Or is it a mental construction: take away the brain you take away consciousness and any notion of my self? Everything in modern physics (especially quantum mechanics) is about the conscious observer being able to understand all the situations of a certain phenomena. To us, everything works. But doesn’t that make sense? How can something not make sense to us? Even if we say it doesn’t, we’ve agreed that it makes sense that something doesn’t make sense. We seem to think we have this central vision of the universe, and of course how can we have it otherwise? Everything that can be perceived by us constitutes the universe. If there is something outside of us, we can’t begin to know what it is, because the moment we say we can describe it it has become part of our universe. That doesn’t mean there isn’t something that is completely unknown to us that will never be perceived. This sort of keeps our central view of the universe but gives it a twist by saying we are just one of many indescribable other viewpoints. We hold our picture of things, and to us that constitutes everything. But it is not truly everything. Then again, how can I even reach this conclusion definitively? Does making a statement about anything coincide with what I talked about? I am making a statement that supposedly describes the true nature of our limited perspective, but by making it I am giving a perspective that provides insight into what we don’t and cannot know, which is not allowed since it doing so requires the highest knowledge of where we stand. I don’t know. I’ll stop for now. What’s difficult for me is reconciling this deeper side of thought while also thinking I can be a scientist and believe that nature is as we can figure out it can be.</p>