David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Footnote: My thanks to Zvi Biener and Balazs Gyenis for comments. 1. What is the relationship between philosophy and physics? What should the relationship be? To someone who does not work in philosophy of physics, it can be hard to distinguish what a theoretical physicist does from what a philosopher of physics does. The differences lie in two areas: their goals and their methods. The highest goal of theoretical physicists is to find the next theory. That profoundly colors the way they approach foundational ideas. Any idea that aids in finding the next theory is deemed useful. Sometimes the most suggestive ideas are so because they are on the edge of plausibility. However if they show promise of opening new pathways, physicists are quite willing to suspend critical scrutiny. There is no point abandoning a goose about to lay a golden egg because you suspect it may be a turkey! Gold is gold. As a result they may put up with what seems like patent nonsense to a philosopher. For philosophers of physics, the goal is different. The basic questions remain those asked by philosophers for milennia: What is the nature of space? What is the nature of time? What is the nature of matter? How are things in the world connected? And so on. They seek answers from our best understanding of space, time and matter -modern physics. There is no room for tolerance of fringe thinking for that would compromise the project. They ask: What is our understanding now on the basis of our best science? Philosophy of physics also differs from physics in its method. Philosopher of physics bring the sensibilities of philosophy to physics. To those outside physics, philosophy is synonymous with gazing in wonder at intractable mysteries. To the professional philosopher, the project is just the reverse. It is to take things that are conceptually puzzling and, through rigorous analysis, render them simple and transparent so that the original sense of mystery evaporates. Their method looks to the traditional demands of philosophy that theses must be clearly enunciated and defended by clear and cogent argumentation; and that these demands cannot be compromised..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard Noakes (2008). The 'World of the Infinitely Little': Connecting Physical and Psychical Realities Circa 1900. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (3):323-334.
R. I. G. Hughes (2009). The Theoretical Practices of Physics: Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.
A. Zee (1986). Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton University Press.
Hans Reichenbach (2006). Defending Einstein: Hans Reichenbach's Writings on Space, Time, and Motion. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Kosso (1998). Appearance and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics. Oxford University Press.
Bernard D' Espagnat (1989). Reality and the Physicist: Knowledge, Duration, and the Quantum World. Cambridge University Press.
Robert DiSalle (2006). Understanding Space-Time: The Philosophical Development of Physics From Newton to Einstein. Cambridge University Press.
D. G. B. J. Dieks (2011). E. W. Beth as a Philosopher of Physics. Synthese 179 (2):271 - 284.
Added to index2010-05-05
Total downloads23 ( #181,003 of 2,072,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,263 of 2,072,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?