> which in no way negates the claim [about physics and philosophy]

Whether that claim is true or not depends on the meanings people assign to the terms "physics" and "philosophy." Newton may have called himself a philosopher but we're not obliged to follow suit. If the fruits of his labor today are taught as physics but not as philosophy, that supports the argument that today we should regard him as a physicist by today's standards and not a philosopher.

Are you claiming that modern physics is not a branch of past philosophy?

Myself and a number of others who have studied and work in physics|mathematics regard it as such and thus regard physics as an example of something worthwhile that arose from philosophy.

Similarly one can regard modern 20th century logical philosophy in the same light and embarce the work of Russell, Godel, Turing, Church, et al as worthwhile developments of philosophy.

No. Among other things I'm claiming Newton, for instance, would by typically be classified by modern standards not as a philosopher but as a physicist. I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a professional physicist. Moreover, I make these claims and arguments without reference to our personal biographies, yours or mine, which I regard as irrelevant. After all, you don't know what my experience with physics is anymore than I know what yours is.

As for Godel, Turing, and Church, if they were philosophers they were also mathematicians, which means we can't rule out the possibility that their contributions owe more to the latter than the former. It doesn't help us evaluate philosophy in isolation, as distinct from math, physics, or computing. To do that, we would be helped by examples of laudable contributions from people who were ONLY philosophers.

The argument I advanced was that physics is an offshoot, a product, of philosophy.

You haven't negated that claim in any form that I recognise.

> As for Godel, Turing, and Church, ...

Interestinglly I have a degree in mathematics, I was present when Tao met Erdős in Australia, and while I studied Group Theory, Functional Analysis, and other such things as part of the mathematics curriculum I had to go to the Philosophy department to study 20th Century Logical Philosophy under Graham Priest alongside fellow students one who now heads a Physics Department, another who heads a Philosophy Department (and, incidently also studied undergraduate mathematics alongside myself and the physicist).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest

> Moreover, I make these claims and arguments without reference to our personal biographies, yours or mine

Sadly I only have my own personal experience of the world, informed to a degree by the thoughts of those I've met and worked with.

> It doesn't help us evaluate philosophy in isolation, as distinct from math, physics, or computing.

Why on earth would you want to do that, these things are all intertwined.

> To do that, we would be helped by examples of laudable contributions from people who were ONLY philosophers.

We should then also reject papers on black holes by physicists that also studied philosophy?

I fear you're advancing your own private Idaho by means of a True Scotsman Philosopher whom I've not personally met.

> The argument I advanced was that physics is an offshoot, a product, of philosophy. You haven't negated that claim in any form that I recognise.

I haven't tried to since I don't find the question that argument addresses very interesting.

> Sadly I only have my own personal experience of the world

Not only that, but also ONLY you have your own personal experience. No one else does, including me. That's why when you tell me the biographical detail as you did earlier, "Myself and a number of others who have studied and work in physics|mathematics" as if to somehow strengthen your argument, I'm here to tell you that I'm no more interested in your biography than I would expect you to be in mine, which is not at all, because they don't strengthen our arguments.

> Why on earth would you want to do that, these things are all intertwined.

Why would I want to evaluate philosophy in isolation from physics? I dunno. Maybe because that's "analysis", whose definitions according to Webster's includes "suggests separating or distinguishing the component parts of something (such as a substance, a process, a situation) so as to discover its true nature or inner relationships." After all, perhaps physics and philosophy AREN'T so intertwined. You haven't established that they are anyway. If they aren't and they can be teased apart from one another, then that helps us reason about and understand each better in isolation and with respect to each other.

> We should then also reject papers on black holes by physicists that also studied philosophy?

No, that's a non-sequitur. That doesn't follow from "we would be helped by examples of laudable contributions from people who were ONLY philosophers." "We" refers to us here in this Hacker News thread on the subject "Wither philosophy?" in general, and on the subject of distinguishing philosophy from physics in order to understand both, in particular.

> I fear you're advancing your own private Idaho by means of a True Scotsman Philosopher whom I've not personally met.

I have no idea what this means.

>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy.

There are many things in modern philosophy. You don't make claims based on ignorance, do you? How modern physics is different from such a modern philosophic idea as compatibilism?

>This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a professional physicist.

There are many kinds of professional physicists too. Some can live without philosophy, some can live without much math too: the computer will do math for them. Arguably philosophic ignorance delays development of fundamental physics.

Name one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that branch of physics, philosophy classes are a required part of the graduate curriculum.

That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem. Insurance against it IRL is polymorphism: some people won't be ignorant, but you suggest uniform ignorance.

> That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem.

I choose to believe that if you could name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy, you would have named it. Therefore, I take your comment to mean that you can't name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy. That's consistent with the possibility that no such branch exists. Put another way, philosophy is utterly useless for physics, which is something I wrote elsewhere in this thread

Answering here because there's a thread depth limit:

> That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem.

I choose to believe that if you could name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy, you would have named it. Therefore, I take your comment to mean that you can't name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy. That's consistent with the possibility that no such branch exists. Put another way, philosophy is utterly useless for physics, which is something I wrote elsewhere in this thread.