Adam's Opticks: What is the relationship between science and philosophy?

[@alexmeyer7986]

Wolpert: "Philosophy has nothing interesting to say about science!" (Proceeds to say something about the nature of science, which on any reasonable account of philosophy would count as philosophy...)

[@ViniciusRodrigues534]

Keep publishing videos like these! I really appreciate that because I'm from Brazil and I don't have so much of this here. I came here because I'm starting my studies on philosophy of science. Greetings from Brazil!

[@joeboswellphilosophy]

+Vinicius Rodrigues Cheers Vinicius! Make sure you check out the blog: www.adamsopticks.wordpress.com.

[@ViniciusRodrigues534]

@@joeboswellphilosophy Wow! I came again just to have a new look at this video. I didn't remember commenting 5 years ago. Now I'm doing my master in philosophy and I have one published paper in philosophy of science. Time flies.

[@borninvincible]

@@ViniciusRodrigues534congrats !

[@HamidSain]

scientists rejecting philosophy in academia is like Industry rejecting Agriculture in economics.....absolutely nonsensical

[@ken4975]

Surely, a good philosopher is practical?

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

Not necessarily. It's not the business of philosophy to be practical, but to be logical and rational. Science is more concerned with practicality (and not entirely at that), but philosophy doesn't have to be like science, and doesn't have to be like science to be valid.

[@robertflynn6686]

David Deutsch puts prime emphasis on knowing or knowledge versus science. The study of theoretic knowledge and the study of practical knowledge are 2 comparables that can overlap or not. Science is also testable knowledge!! 3 types. Its objective. Philosophy to me is study of any knowledge not practical or theoretic and, not testable! Science is limited to objective knowledge for me. But someday subjective knowledge may be more objective( like the mind itself) but differ. Nothing practical about philosophy. Nothing as of now, scientific about philosophy.. its thus maybe an 'anti science ' frame of mind. Things we can't make into science like the consciousness. Someday not so, and philosophy will cease to exist. Maybe philosophy is about mystery of reality. Science is about its nonmystery. Therefore, Science is the opposite of philosophy on knowledge!! Philosophy exist until consciousness is fully scientific. One could even compare the darkness and the light.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

David Deutsch is actually an admirer of Popper. You can see videos about him making discussions about Popper and his relevance from his scientific writings and to physics. Idk about Wolpert opinions but it is pretty clear that he doesn't reflect enough about science and the nature of scientific inquiry.

[@owlnyc666]

Science stract? Philosophy abstract? 😉😀

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Academic philosophy is wayy different than would common people and non-philosophers specialists understand it as only that. Wolpert is a very smart person, charismatic and generally practical person, however that doesn't mean his not reflective as you can see literally from his "philosophy of science" book that he written just later in his life. Which obviously not also means his right nor wise nevertheless that is not my point. My point is, that, reading a scientist turn philosophers like Max Born or philosopher-scientist like Bohr, Einstein, David Bohm and the logical positivists and all the Vienna Circle members. You can trace their writings from prominent academic publisher like Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge and Springer as very technical kind of philosophy. The logical positivists talk about the conceptual analysis and the foundations of physics, mathematics and the social sciences or even biology as rare from their writings well at least from their time. Most philosopher of science took physics and math as their role models for building the foundations of science since you can derive all other physical sciences from physics to mathematics and vice versa. Therefore, the rise of symbolic logic or mathematcal logic have given them the opportunity to analysize it and every concepts painstakingly. There's also a lot of interpretations from physics and most genius individuals from physics are generally reflective from their own discoveries and written about it but leading from different perspectives without clear common grounds but that changes throughout years.

[@modvs1]

Go Wolpert!

[@Ozrictentacle]

+modvs1 It strikes me as sad that after watching this very interesting video you concluded that Wolpert was right.

[@modvs1]

+Ozrictentacle I find it a non-sequitur that that by saying "Go Wolpert" that I believe he was right. I find his balls-out dismissive condemnation quite humorous.

[@Ozrictentacle]

+modvs1 Apologies for failing to grasp subtle irony. You're right, his condemnation is humorous (and potentially dangerous too).

[@modvs1]

+Ozrictentacle There good consensus on the issue of dismantling philosophy- the problem being that you have to engage in it to do it. Wolpert's take is hopelessly unphilosophical, thus making it a non starter.

[@joeboswellphilosophy]

+modvs1 +Ozrictentacle - I hope you folks saw my full conversation with Wolpert. Think I won him round on a couple of points: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3a0YaJpfaeCpbc x