> guygurari: What new thing did philosophy contribute to physics in the last 100 years?
> vacri: If it weren't for philosophy, you wouldn't have the scientific method in the first place.
That's arguing from history.
> There is no dichotomy.
Not in your mind there isn't, but obviously there is in the minds of a lot of scientists, including for example the author of the linked article, every scientist he mentions by name, and guygurari, the person to whom you responded. You can keep asserting it over and over but that doesn't mean it's true from all perspectives.
If you think that the way science is performed hasn't been significantly changed and refined in the past 100 years, the original timeframe suggested... I don't know what to say. Much of what we call the scientific method has been defined, refined, and expanded in this last 100 years.
dichotomy stuff
The things you're referring to are occupations. 'Philosophers' and 'physicists'. Not 'philosophy' and 'physics'.
The article author quite clearly states that physicists (the occupation) can make good use of philosophy(the realm of knowledge). The realms of physics and philosophy are not mutually exclusive - they are not two wholly separate things; not a dichotomy. And the scientists the article author is mentioning by name are people he's saying have this problem with the faulty perception of philosophy - it's the point of the article.
In any case, like I said at the end of my last comment - philosophy gives us robust techniques for doing science, just like maths does. How do these become 'stale', 'not valid', or 'not useful', just because there hasn't been a recent breakthrough? We don't demand the same of techniques from the realm of mathematics.
> If you think that the way science is performed hasn't been significantly changed and refined in the past 100 years, the original timeframe suggested... I don't know what to say. Much of what we call the scientific method has been defined, refined, and expanded in this last 100 years.
I'm not trolling; I would encourage you to come back to this exchange later and consider it from a different angle. You're committed to the primacy of philosophy, but that is not the only way to view the situation on the ground today.
Trolling or not, you're talking in short, low-context sentences, while avoiding responding to many of the points I raise. It's not really worth talking to someone doing that.
You're committed to the primacy of philosophy
Eh? Where did I say that philosophy is better than anything else? The whole idea that these things are in competition - or that one is 'better' than the other - is entirely within your head, not mine. Read my reply to mercer above.
> vacri: If it weren't for philosophy, you wouldn't have the scientific method in the first place.
That's arguing from history.
> There is no dichotomy.
Not in your mind there isn't, but obviously there is in the minds of a lot of scientists, including for example the author of the linked article, every scientist he mentions by name, and guygurari, the person to whom you responded. You can keep asserting it over and over but that doesn't mean it's true from all perspectives.