Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IAloneTheyEverywhere t1_j3dpqk5 wrote

I’ve never understood why so many wannabe philosophers of science refuse to actually study and understand science. I think we should ban phil majors from ever referring to quantum mechanics unless they have taken more than 1 undergrad physics course.

Edit: this is directed at the author of this article, not Lakatos.

48

SnowingSilently t1_j3ejntp wrote

This is the hilarious thing about this sub. I don't understand or even study QM so I won't comment on whether the commentors are right, but it does seem that every time some philosophy article comes out referring to QM hordes of people are quick to point out how utterly clueless the author is.

22

Zanderax t1_j3enuab wrote

The people that associate non-determinism in QM with free will in humans are the ones that get my goat. Even if QM shows non-determinism there is no evidence of any mechanism that allows humans to control that non-determinism through some kind of soul to make free choices.

25

[deleted] t1_j3eqhov wrote

[deleted]

14

ghostxxhile t1_j3er1og wrote

I mean, even the fathers of Quantum Mechanics linked Vedanta philosophy with QM

−5

VitriolicViolet t1_j3itq9w wrote

and? Newton killed himself by eating mercury ffs.

coming up with one good idea in no way means the rest are worth shit.

2

raptormeat t1_j3eph7c wrote

Speaking of that, this is a bit of a digression but have you ever heard of the Sokal Affair? I learned of it years ago, but only just found out recently that not only was the journal Social Text pranked with a nonsense paper about QM, but even after it was revealed as utter nonsense the editors at the journal still defended it as valuable commentary!!!

In fact, the wiki quotes their response as saying Sokal's announcement merely "represented a change of heart, or a folding of his intellectual resolve".

THAT is impressive! Unfortunately it is very telling (my girlfriend just said "talk about the Death of the Author!"), but I think QM is just too juicy and fun of a concept for the less-rigorous (to be charitable) to leave it alone.

8

QuantumSupremacist t1_j3dse22 wrote

Some think of science like the original, Latin root scientia, which generally means knowledge. The modern common use is that it means physics, chemistry, and biology, with some suspicion about what mathematicians are up to! General knowledge, rather than a discipline, emphasizes methodology, which anyone in any discipline can use. Scientific method, therefore, underlies the precepts, pay attention, be intelligent, and responsibly act. In other words, collect data, interpret meaning, verify (or falsify!) fact or knowledge in judgment. In that regard, we can avoid some confusion if we begin by saying what we mean when we use the term science.

4

Diogenic_Seer t1_j3eusru wrote

Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.

I really despise how undergrad classes can’t be easily avoided by taking a large test or writing a large thesis. It’s a lot easier to avoid classes at every other level of education. It genuinely find it authoritarian.

Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding. Naive discovery does happen. There were a lot of individuals that mused on continental drift before hard evidence was found. You could describe those early papers as more philosophical than scientific. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/step2012/participant/PlateTectonicHistory-1.pptx

You don’t need deep geological understanding to sort out that the continents kind of look like puzzle pieces.

That said, almost all philosophy of quantum science papers I have read have been utter bullshit.

4

sticklebat t1_j3gv6ns wrote

> Yes and no. Classes are one of many ways to learn.

And yet I’ve never once met a person who has self-taught themselves in QM whose comprehension wasn’t riddled with misconceptions and glaring holes. Not all fields lend themselves to independent study, and I think QM is especially difficult to learn well without deliberate guidance and feedback. I suppose it is technically possible to get that outside of taking classes, but I think uncommonly enough to be safely neglected.

> Just spending at least 100-200 hours familiarizing with the materials of a field can be enough if time to find a genuine hole in scientific understanding.

That depends greatly on the field, though, and I think tends to become less and less true over time as scientific knowledge and understanding grows.

2

Diogenic_Seer t1_j3iizc9 wrote

I don’t disagree. Outside of maybe the standard model, or Dirac’s equation, I don’t pretend I understand Quantum Mechanics. I tend to use visual models as a crutch when performing mathematics.

I’d just rather we not narrow learning paths. Workshops and essays still give a way to communicate with a teacher. As does interning. My own disdain for classes comes more from not wanting to deal with other students.

The 100-200 hours mark was meant to be ‘loose.’

Old knowledge can apply to newly researched fields. Pottery skills can translate to sculpting skills.

The soft sciences are still filled with holes. Holes that will not be filled for centuries.

I wouldn’t say it’s impossible for a neuroscientist to successfully breakdown a psychology theory with very little research placed in the field of psychology.

2

IAloneTheyEverywhere t1_j3g6fw9 wrote

I agree that undergrad course aren’t enough, and I was being a bit hyperbolic given how complex high level science is. I agree that spending time studying these subjects is extraordinary- 200 plus hours as you said. I definitely agree that that vast majority of QM Phil is quite bad. I guess I was just angry about most QM phil which led to such a harsh response.

1

Diogenic_Seer t1_j3im5i7 wrote

No. It makes general sense. I wasn’t calling you out specifically

It’s more just a sweeping annoyance for class structures.

It’s not a particularly popular annoyance to have with higher education.

1

Nameless1995 t1_j3dr4x3 wrote

The author is a not a philosopher of science. His website claims that he is a pop-science writer with a PhD in chemical physics: http://www.jimbaggott.com/.

> so many wannabe philosophers of science

Example?

1

tiredstars t1_j3gbb7h wrote

Funny that /u/IAloneTheyEverywhere suggests the author should do some science classes but hasn't done the simple research to support this hypothesis.

0

IAloneTheyEverywhere t1_j3gng18 wrote

What hypothesis? What about your hypothesis? Prove it? Whatever that is.

−1

Nameless1995 t1_j3gw6tx wrote

(1) Your comment suggests (even if you didn't explicitly state it) that the author hasn't taken more than 1 undergrad physics course. However, the author has a doctorate in chemical physics, and have written textbooks on physics that are published by Oxford university press. It's highly unlikely that he haven't taken any class in physics.

(2) If you didn't meant to suggest that the author is just a "wanna be philosopher of science" with no science education, then the sudden call for (even if hyperbolic) ban on phil majors has no relevance to OP.

(3) Moreover your comment also suggest that phil. majors are somehow the problem in some unique sense (why not ask for banning anyone who haven't taken a QM course from talking about QM). But you provided no example whatsoever of phil. majors in general (discounting one or two possible exceptions) causing ruckus spreading misinformation on QM. So it's not clear if you are even thinking of phil. majors or just random people in internet who engage in philosophy and QM (without being educated in either).

Your comment, thus, seems like either making unwarranted suggestions (that could have been easily fact-checked as /u/tiredstars suggested) or completely orthogonal to the OP article and its author.

3