Once we get a better grip on an area, then, finding more proper definitions for its concepts, we branch it off as a subject of its own.
Also, any particular field you study has philosophical assumptions, like about the reliability of sense data. The reason modern science is so fabulously successful is the philosophers who established it got rid of the supernaturalist assumptions of previous science, and added the assumption that reality is mathematically describable.
What Smolin and Unger are saying is that the particular philosophical assumptions behind string theory and a lot of related physics are mistaken. This would seem to be at least possible.
Indeed, or the practice of asking questions about the nature of questions, ie. what questions are meaningful, well-formed, yield knowledge, etc. in any given subject.
When you understand the nature of the questions in a particular subject, then you're no longer practicing philosophy, you're gathering knowledge of that subject, ie. math, physics, chemistry, etc.
The word "scientist" was only invented in 1834. The scientist who coined it, William Whewell, also thought up "phycisist" and a whole bunch of other modern terms. [1] Interestingly enough, "naturalist" still survives as a legit term, as does "natural history".
[1] http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Wh...
> Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald disbelieved their existence. During the 1890s Boltzmann attempted to formulate a compromise position which would allow both atomists and anti-atomists to do physics without arguing over atoms. His solution was to use Hertz's theory that atoms were Bilder, that is, models or pictures. Atomists could think the pictures were the real atoms while the anti-atomists could think of the pictures as representing a useful but unreal model, but this did not fully satisfy either group. Furthermore, Ostwald and many defenders of "pure thermodynamics" were trying hard to refute the kinetic theory of gases and statistical mechanics because of Boltzmann's assumptions about atoms and molecules and especially statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.
> Around the turn of the century, Boltzmann's science was being threatened by another philosophical objection. Some physicists, including Mach's student, Gustav Jaumann, interpreted Hertz to mean that all electromagnetic behavior is continuous, as if there were no atoms and molecules, and likewise as if all physical behavior were ultimately electromagnetic. This movement around 1900 deeply depressed Boltzmann since it could mean the end of his kinetic theory and statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.
> After Mach's resignation in Vienna in 1901, Boltzmann returned there and decided to become a philosopher himself to refute philosophical objections to his physics, but he soon became discouraged again. In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section. Rather, he was stuck in a section called "applied mathematics", he violently attacked philosophy, especially on allegedly Darwinian grounds but actually in terms of Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics that people inherited bad philosophy from the past and that it was hard for scientists to overcome such inheritance.
> In 1905 Boltzmann corresponded extensively with the Austro-German philosopher Franz Brentano with the hope of gaining a better mastery of philosophy, apparently, so that he could better refute its relevancy in science, but he became discouraged about this approach as well.
> And since his work became the map used by generations of future explorers, he sent them off in the wrong direction as well.
Aristotle was highly specific and highly empirical. His ethics, for instance, is an elaborate study of the various ways individual go right or wrong in their decisions. His politics was based on extensive studies of the constitutions and political histories of nearly a hundred Greek states. And of course there was his biology, based on empirical studies of over a hundred different animal species.
And as for his physics, according to this astounding article by Carlo Rovelli (yes, that Carlo Rovelli), his physics is accurate for the phenomena he was studying. Rovelli even converts his ideas into equations.
That is a good example. I was trying to think of others since then. That was 500 years ago or so. What are some more recent ones for physics?
I imagine if logic is considered part of philosophy, perhaps boolean and propositional logic had a hand in helping computing...
Then if ecology or sociology is considered I can see how philosophical ideas about class, society, environment would be incorporated into practical fields or be used to start societal transformations (Marxism perhaps?).
But I can't think much for physics recently? I have read and seen known physicists dable in and use philosphy to explain what they accomplished or observed. Bohr, for example, was fond of Kierkegaard. It would be good to have examples of philosophers who changed the course of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#P...
So what's left in philosophy is the stuff that no one has gotten very far in solving in 3K years. Why is life worth living? What is a good life? What is the best beer?
Astronomy and medicine are two very obvious examples. Primitive cultures didn't need philosophical underpinnings to notice and record the patterns in the sky or to figure out which plants helped with fevers or how to set broken bones. Philosophy might have helped science in places with structural issues, but it's reaching too far to say that nothing would be around without philosophy.
The philosophy of information is a great example of where it's incredibly important [1]. I seriously, seriously doubt that information theory would have come about without many of the philosophical underpinnings that came before it. It's not just about structure.
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/
edit: interestingly enough, some of the posts in your blog would be considered "philosophy". ;)
PS: The two most widely used and useful parts of math where completely unknown to the anchent Greeks. Aribic numerals are the first example of useful information theory after writing.
When I talk about information theory, I'm talking more about the more generalized forms of it (Shannon, etc), not necessarily something that could generally be described as 'information' in a more classical definition. Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Commu....
(this is a subject I'm actively learning over time, so please correct me if I'm wrong!)
Shannon was more an outgrowth of having already abstracted information and looking for ways to encode that for transmission. I don't want to downplay the value, but in historical context it's very different from how you learn about such things after the fact.
It is, and as I said sometimes doing that is _good_ despite the derogatory connotations of calling it as such.
There's a point I'm trying to make which is not coming across, and I'm not sure I'll be able to.
That doesn't make it any less worthy of study of course.
They are both human endeavors to better get at and understand the truth about ourselves, the universe, reality, etc. Philosophy often extends further into realms such as art, morality & ethics, dignity, aesthetics, the role of society, and human nature. Philosophy even takes a meta-view of science, asking how we are justified to even claim to know something to be true at all (epistemology). And for the most part, these questions are answered in terms of and in concert with our scientific understanding.
Moreover, evidence-based science itself is to some degree an outgrowth of Descartes' "method of doubt" and rationalism, then the empiricist philosophical movement, and on and on. It's no wonder that throughout history often the leading scientists/mathematicians and the leading philosophers were the same people.
Concepts such as natural rights, liberty, free will, social justice, etc. all originated in philosophical works, and have indeed "solved problems" by influencing people who are say, in the process of forming secular governments after a political revolution. You can draw a fairly straight line from Plato to Descartes to Hobbes to Locke to the Constitution. When we talk about a "bill of rights" -- where is this concept of a natural human "right" even from? Philosophical theories such as utilitarianism, the meaning of good vs. evil, are used every day in our legal system, economics, politics, and foreign policy.
Moreover, often a breakthrough in science or development in society may have very practical consequences which FORCE people to face unavoidable philosophical questions. Should scientists be legally permitted to clone humans? Should a Tesla kill its own driver to avoid plowing through kids crossing the street? Should there be a minimum wage? Should pharmaceutical companies make life-saving drugs free? When should abortion or infanticide be permitted?
These questions must be answered reasonably-- I'd much rather have them discussed through the lens of rational philosophical discussion rather than religious or purely emotional "go with the gut".
So philosophy has served as an on-ramp to science. But among its benefits, it also helps us move from the descriptive study of the universe to the prescriptive-- to paraphrase the great philosopher Dr. Ian Malcolm-- there's a benefit to moving from the scientific question of if we could to consider the philosophical one of if we should.
Just like there's a "God of the gap"-- a notion that a need for God pushed back as our scientific knowledge expands, so it seems there is a "philosophy of the gap"-- some people seem to redefine "philosophy" to mean useless mental spaghetti that goes nowhere. Do you judge science by the same criteria? Does every "failed" experiment constitute a failure of science?
Given its usefulness, especially as an alternative to religious methods where "science" doesn't offer a clear answer about how people and societies "should" behave, I think damning philosophy too hard is kind of unfair.
Alchemy. But that's no reason to still respect alchemists.
It turned out to not be the case, time after time.
There's no inherent meaning in how substances interact. There are laws, they're consistent but devoid of any meaning, on human level.
That's why I'm deeply scetical towards any New Age-style ideas.
What "philosophers" are we talking about here? Lakatos? Chomsky? Newton? Logicians? Or do we have some composite postmodern blowhard in mind? (Like any industry's products, philosophy's product quality varies with factors like producer. So specifics are important.)
There's a bias in physics culture against philosophy. (It's no doubt elsewhere too, but very apparent in physics.) But fortunately, there's many exceptions who like to take a step back and think about what they're doing.