1. We are a community of readers. Join us!

    Readup is a social reading platform. No ads. No distractions. No liking or upvotes. We help you pay attention to what matters: reading.

    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • deephdave
      Top reader this weekReading streakScout
      3 months ago

      "When I write a paper now, my rule is that if at the end it has more than 2 equations in it I send it to a physics journal, and if it has less than 2, I send it to a philosophy journal, and there not much more of distinction than that." -David Albert

    • jeff
      Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
      3 months ago

      Well-written, well-reasoned article. It's interesting that the author seems to be arguing for a more liberal view on the methodology of science (keeping an open mind as to how science is practiced) and a more conservative view on what theories should be tested (looking to build off discoveries of the past versus focusing on discontinuity and incommensurability). Makes a lot of sense to me!

      Also love the little digs here and there:

      When viewed as an ensemble of pseudo-statements, words that resemble statements but have no proper meaning, of the kind recurrent for instance in the way Neil de Grasse Tyson mocks philosophy...

      Thus, when Weinberg and Hawking state that philosophy is useless, they are actually stating their adhesion to a particular philosophy of science.

      In principle, there's nothing wrong with that; but the problem is that it is not a very good philosophy of science.

    • Ruchita_Ganurkar
      3 months ago

      This 24min article reminded so many theories. Fascinating read!

      Because philosophy provides methods leading to novel perspectives and critical thinking. Philosophers have tools and skills that physics needs, but do not belong to the physicists training: conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, the accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations It is sometimes said that scientists do not do anything unless they first get permission from philosophy. I think we physicists need to discuss with philosophers because I think we need help in making sense of all this.