Eric,
By way of example, philosophy appears to show up big time in quantum
mechanics. Some interpretations consider the use of probability
distributions (i.e. the wave function of a particle) in QM to be the
state of the particle that "an observer sees". This it treats as
epistemology (knowing). On the other hand, when a measurement is taken
in order to detect the current state of the particle (and the wave
function "collapses"), this is apparently treated as ontology (actual
being). Some of these QM interpretations (Copenhagen?) seem to take
pains in distinguishing between the "ontic" and the "epistemic" in this
regard.
I'm not a physicist, so I'm only reporting what I read in certain QM
books and articles.
Maybe someone else can weigh in on whether this is a case of philosophy
being a significant consideration in physics.
Grant
On 11/8/14, 12:44 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
Doesn't the phrasing of these question indicate a misunderstanding of
what philosophy brings to the table in the context of science?
If we use the term "philosophers" very loosely, surely many
individuals who would call themselves "philosophers" have contributed
insights into biology, and every other field... but that probably
isn't the question. The question is probably something like: Why
should I give a shit what philosophers say about MY science, the one I
am busy practicing?
If THAT is the question, then the answer is that it depends on what
the philosophers are doing.
On the one hand, if the philosophers claim to be answering scientific
(i.e., empirical) questions, from their arm chairs, then it might be
fine to ignore them. Though surely they will sometimes come up with
interesting ideas that turn out to be right, they might not do so with
unusual consistency.
On the other hand, if the philosophers are familiar with large swaths
of your field, and are pointing out inconsistencies, or pulling
together conclusions, at a larger-scale than is likely to be possible
for researchers stuck in small silos, then they might well contribute
to very important advances.
So, do you trust that philosophers can "solve" scientific problems...
probably not. Do you trust that some number of philosophers in a field
will help you to identify and clarify issues, and thereby improve the
pace of progress... probably yes, if you can get philosophers who
understand that to be their role.
-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Lab Manager
Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190
email: echar...@american.edu <mailto:echar...@american.edu>
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <vbur...@shaw.ca
<mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca>> wrote:
To Roger and Nick,
That idea has been on the backburner of Biology for 5 decades or more.
The greatest problem in the 70's and later was Statistics which
tended to dismiss anything outside of a curve.
It started after the second war when an unusual coincidence of
scientific minds started talking.
Soviets and Americans when strange Tick-Borne plagues started
emerging in the middle east, Russia, Crimea
and parts of Africa.
I was just a kid doing my first MSc when I met
Harry Hoogstraal at an Acarology Workshop at OSU. What did I know,
nothing. What the hell. He was
Jimmy Carter's science advisor, I was told later . And the de
facto head of the NAMRU facility outside Cairo.
Anyway he was checking on students in the lab one night I was the
only nightowl and we chatted over microscopes.
He asked me what I thought happened to all the parasites of the
Woolly Rhino when it died out, it was a big source of blood in an
Arctic Landscape? ( I was working on Moose Ticks at the time)
What he was after was an answer to the stream of life question,
did they die or simply find new real estate?
I returned to Canada and only brought it up a few times usually
when very drunk, spoiling for a fight or a real argument.
Bits and pieces accumulated over time spared from the
statisticians. Then totally ignored during all the subsequent eras
of utter confusion and money grubbing.
Mostly entomologists were the first to notice something did not
fit the consensus narrative. Then microbiologists who were asked
to help out and they saw the same principals with better tools.
Evo-Devo made a great set of contributions not mentioned directly
in the paper.
This is a disturbing topic when examined carefully. Philosophers
rarely examine parasites on carcasses of the dead, let alone
count them. They see only what they expect.
They were always averse to the smell of science. So my answer is
No not usually. Since it stinks.
The bias appears to originate in our simple minds that can not
cope with more than 3 dimensions . A living system need not be so
limited for that matter neither is mathematics (see Snarks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snark_(graph_theory
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snark_%28graph_theory> ).
Darwin is now a relic fought over by fools. I count Dawkins among
the fools, he started out well but soon degenerated into a strange
demented warrior against Theists.
I love the discussions and even though I can not always respond I
look forward to reading.
vib
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson
*Sent:* October-25-14 12:21 AM
*To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Does philosophy have a heuristic value
Nice paper, roger. I posted it to the thread. Any chance I will
see you next Friday? N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
*Roger Critchlow
*Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 11:48 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Does philosophy have a heuristic value
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ptb;view=text;rgn=main;idno=6959004.0001.003
Most biologists are philosophically and biologically incoherent on
this subject.
-- rec --
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Nick Thompson
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
wrote:
Dear Friammers,
Often in FRIAM I have been called upon to defend philosophy as
an important part of the scientific enterprise Recently, on
research gate, somebody posed the following question:
* */Has the philosophical analysis contributed to solve any
biological conceptual problems?/*
*/Of course the first question would be how many
conceptual/empirical problems, of philosophy's interest
the biology has? How many of those problems has been solved?/*
*/Just in case of any extremist response, what would you
say to a biology scientists who thinks that the philosophy
cannot solve anything?/*
The discussion (such as it is) can be found at :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_philosophical_analysis_contributed_to_solve_any_biological_conceptual_problems#544a6a0ad685cc4d678b4654
It seemed only to confirm the questioner's fears that
philosophers of science are neither the generals who set the
battle nor the diplomats that make the peace, but are merely
the scavengers that bicker over the spoils of war. . .
N
I think we can do better.
See you next week.
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
