The only time I really think hard about philosophy is when I play the Wikipedia Philosophy Game.
Yeah, 'cause the jocks dragging their knuckles are so interesting to engage.
Yes, Krauss’ was one of the names I had in mind when I wrote about physicists embarrassing themselves when talking about foundational issues due to their philosophical naivety. Basically, if he believes what he says about creation from nothing, he’s just not engaging the same question most people are interested in—he has a great account of how a universe might develop from a specific quantum field theoretic state in which matter is absent, but that’s just not the right notion of nothing. Talking about nothing is, contrary to appearances, really difficult: as soon as you say ‘nothing is x’, you’re not talking about nothing anymore, but about something that is nothing and has property x, i.e. you’re not really making sense. Krauss seems untouched by the realization of such difficulties. But I’ve expounded on this elsewhere.
More, perhaps, to the point of this thread, I think there’s good reason for the present hostility between philosophy and physics. First of all, lest I come across as fouling my own nest way too much, sometimes philosophers insufficiently familiar with the topic do say some outrageous things about physics. But contrary to most physicists, I don’t think that’s the norm, though of course these are the sorts of things that more easily make the rounds in physics departments.
But for the larger context, I think the Kuhnian notion of science as progressing through periods of normal science interspersed with paradigm shifts can shed some light. Basically, we’ve been doing normal science for quite some time now, and philosophy doesn’t have much of an input there—the paradigm within which the scientists were educated continues to hold, and they can simply continue to do their work the way they ‘always’ did it.
However, in times of paradigm shifts, things are different. Consider the scientists who ushered in the quantum revolution—Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc., all were engaged in deep philosophical disputes, and all were very capable of holding them. They struggled to find a new paradigm within which to account for the new physics, and produced some of their finest work in direct reaction to attacking philosophical problems.
Afterwards, with the dust (somewhat) settled, came the generation of, in Paul Feyerabend’s words, ‘savages’ who had nothing but disdain for philosophy—the generation of Feynman, Schwinger, etc. Feynman, while certainly a brilliant physicist, was especially egregious when it comes to his philosophical naivety, saying about Spinoza:
This is the very same Spinoza about whom Einstein wrote poems (albeit not terribly great ones), exclaiming how much he loved this ‘noble man’! (Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann, translation further down.)
In a way, normal science is a closed system that can’t look beyond its own borders, which to a certain extent explains the various scientists’ ignorance of/disdain for philosophy. In normal science, all the prior issues are already decided, and we can take the way they have been decided as gospel. But when a change of paradigm is needed, as it may nowadays be again, I think we physicists do well to look beyond these borders, which I think necessitates a serious engagement with philosophy.
Plus, there’s the fact that even today, many great discoveries in physics come from serious engagement with the philosophical underpinning of scientific theory. In my own field, quantum information theory, these would be things like quantum entanglement, first highlighted by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their quest to show that quantum mechanics was not a complete theory of nature, which rose to prominence thanks to John Bell’s work on the ontology of quantum mechanics—he was working on the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of QM—, culminating in the discovery of the famous Bell inequalities, which are in one way or another at the heart of almost every application in quantum information. Or decoherence theory, which grew out of H. D. Zeh’s attempt to understand the measurement process, and is now one of the largest subfields of QIT (and Zeh’s paper was rejected by several journals for being ‘too philosophical’). Or of course quantum computing: the first quantum algorithm that exceeded the performance of any classical one was found by David Deutsch, in an attempt to substantiat the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. And so on.
Right. Because there are only two types of people in this world. :rolleyes:
I did a double degree program, pure mathematics and philosophy with a focus on logic and the philosophy of science. Not a dual major, but thanks to a quirk of my campus, it meant getting degrees from both Purdue and IU. I don’t consider myself a philosopher (nor a mathematician), though.
I came to the combination by accident; a fellow math student recommended that I take a math logic course next at some point, and the next semester blindly enrolled in “Introduction to Logic,” not noticing it was a philosophy course. Impressed the professor who asked me to become the supplemental instructor for the course, and continued with logic courses. My math degree required a secondary concentration outside of math, and a few more philosophy courses fulfilled that requirement. Then I realized that put me a few courses away from a minor, and then I compared the requirements for majors between the two, discovering that I could get two degrees without extending my time at school. My mentor/professor dangled the carrot of scholarships, as the philosophy department was awash in money with too few students qualifying for them. I ended up actually turning a profit by the time I graduated.
- Have you had any significant contact with philosophy? Of what kind?
Quite a bit, mostly concentrated in the fields of logic (inductive/deductive, symbolic, etc.), philosophy of science, modern western philosophy. Never took introductory courses outside of logic, jumped immediately into senior/grad-level courses. I’m still pretty dense when it comes to terminology and basic concepts, and I don’t have much grounding in individual thinkers or anything.
1a. If so, and if the question applies, what made you want to have contact with philosophy? What attracted you to it?
Wanted something open-ended/“liberal” to pursue to balance my pursuit of mathematics. The idea that I could pursue a seemingly naive “what if?” type question (could it be possible for an effect to precede its cause?) or critically examine things I hold dear appealed to me. It especially appealed to me when I found that I wouldn’t have to deal much with the classical philosophers, that it’s a broad enough field that I could specialize in what interested me.
- Independently of (1), what do you think about philosophy as a degree? Do you think it’s useless to have it as a degree? If so, why? What have you heard or read about its usefulness? Do you think it is easy/hard? Why?
It’s been a boon to me, though more as a “booster shot” to my math degree. The math degree gets my foot in the door, the philosophy degree demonstrates that I (presumably) have the ability to question, critique, analyze, and possibly communicate well. My last job offer came from that combination; they wanted math/computer science folks, but the philosophy degree impressed upon them that I was probably going to be a well-rounded and capable employee.
- What do you think about the usefulness of philosophy in general? Again, do you think it is a waste of time? Why? Should it get any funding? Why?
I wish that introductory logic was a requirement at the high school level in the US, or a requirement for university freshmen. I’m sure writing/composition professors would appreciate it if students had a grounding in argument structure and analysis before they had to churn out papers. Ethics are also good, but IMO basic ethics courses aren’t of much use for non-philosophy-minded students. I think it’d be more useful to have field-specific ethics courses for declared majors; medical ethics, scientific ethics, etc. Beyond that, I think the utility of philosophy varies; I found it valuable for personal growth, but completely understand those who would find it useless for themselves.
- What is your concept of philosophy? What do philosophers do, and how do they do it?
I don’t really have a specific concept as such. I’ve worked with such a wide variety that it really doesn’t seem to be a unified field. My professor of symbolic logic was for all intents and purposes a computer science researcher, the professor of eastern philosophy was a Buddhist monk who got shoehorned into the philosophy department, and so on. Seems to be a “it’s what you want it to be” kind of thing.
He’s “doing” a degree. No doubt it’s greater than 90.
It’s easily the best preparation for law school. Philosophy majors score higher on the LSAT than any other majors. I’ve produced more lawyers than I’m comfortable admitting, and I used to teach the LSAT for PR before I went off to grad school to get a PhD in philosophy.
Do all philosophers have an s in them?
Hal David wrote the lyrics.
Waiter! This conversation isn’t very good.
I can’t link the curricula, but here’s their website . There’s a couple of short videos on that site, and I think one or both show some classroom sessions.
There are many types of people in the world.
You listed one type as uninteresting and I listed an antithetical type as less interesting.
Your response does not follow.
I’ve indicated my admiration of philosophy upthread. Here’s a question: “Don’t philosophers spend an inordinate amount of time on intellectual dead-ends?” If you are constructing an elaborate set of if then statements pace Half Man Half Wit, that might make some sense. But I’ve never seen a presentation in that format, one that could fit in nicely (if cringingly) into a Powerpoint demonstration.
Is philosophy better taught as a series of topics (done in many introductory textbooks) or is direct study of the sometimes obsolete, or at least pre-scientific, ideas of dead philosophers indispensable?
Given that you haven’t gone to college I would suggest holding off on the idea that you want a PhD in Philosophy. Go to the best, most prestigious school you can possibly get into, have some fun, take a broad array of courses. If you want to go to grad school in Philosophy I suggest trying to get into Brandeis, Princeton, Harvard, etc. Forget public universities.
I would also suggest talking to some graduate students in Philosophy that are working on their PhD. Find out how many graduate students enter the program every year, and then how many PhDs from that program get permanent, tenure-track jobs every year. You may be surprised to find out that for every job announcement there are dozens if not more than 100 applicants.
The OP is in his third year at Cambridge, which is one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
mmm…don’t think so
Why suggest those schools? One’s goal is to get into the best department that fits with one’s expected research project. The prestige of the university as a whole is not all that relevant. Harvard is a more prestigious university than are Rutgers or the University of Michigan, yet the philosophy PhD programs at these schools are “better” than the philosophy PhD program at Harvard. A program that emphasizes ancient philosophy is not well suited for someone who wants to study philosophy of science, regardless of the prestige of the university as a whole or even the strength of the programs under consideration.
Furthermore, whether a university is public or private is irrelevant. I graduated from a private liberal arts college, and received my PhD from a private university, but I teach at a public university that currently has a higher-rated philosophy department than does the program that conferred my PhD on me. Hell, the University of California alone has three first-rate philosophy programs, although they tend to have different emphases.
In other words, the OP should consult his philosophy profs for advice, not the SDMB.
There’s always Brian Leiter and his vanity project to consult: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp
The goal should be to find gainful employment as a philosopher. Yes, when choosing a grad program, connect with a professor in that program that would be interesting to work with, and more importantly, whose recommendation for employment will be valued by the committee looking at the application.
Let’s look at this empirically for a moment. Go to the gourmet report (the report undergrads look to for choosing a grad program) and take the top ten colleges. Now, where did the professors at those schools obtain their PhDs, their BAs? It’s a fairly tight circle. Just like the weight of the recommendation for employment is dependent on who is writing it, the same holds for getting into grad school.
Yes, it is theoretically possible to go to any podunk university, write a masterpiece, and obtain a position at a college somewhere that is OK to live (near), but the reality is different from theory.
Did you even read my post?