|
Italy12246 Posts
For my newest astrophysics blog I decided to translate and re-post something my thesis supervisor wrote in Italian; the website of the institute i worked in has these as a monthly feature, and i'm considering translating a few more. It's a bit different from what i wrote in the past because it's not purely about science, but it's a message I care deeply about anyway.
What is the point of research?
Sometimes, either during outreach seminars or even with my friends, people will ask me: are you useful for anything? "You" of course meaning "you astronomers", but the same question is asked to researchers in many other fields. The overall tone of the question can be different, and often it reveals the opinion of the person asking. You have the curious tone of one who is expecting a positive reply, the slightly more skeptical tone of someone who has already decided we are practically useless, and rarely there's also the fascinated tone of one who is inebriated by the mystery and by the immense, and wants to know if there's more beyond the amazement. In common they all have the same implied question, which sounds more or less like: "but does your research have any technological relevance?". You might ask what's weird about that? It's a legitimate, honest and sensible question after all. Instead, inside me, I always feel a huge amount of anger. Don't misunderstand me, it's never directed towards whoever asked that question, but towards our nonsensical world. Let me try to explain why…
Point one: let's get any misunderstanding out of the way. Research in astronomy and astrophysics has fantastic technological applications. Just think about the (more and more sophisticated) instruments we have to invent to look at the sky at every wavelength, that can just as easily be used to look at things here on Earth. Think about all the devices and tricks invented in our field to avoid the distortions caused by the atmosphere, so that we can have more precise images of the sources we look at. These inventions just so happen to also have "normal" uses. Plus, think about the GPS in your car. Without General Relativity itself, that little voice would drive you into a wall. I could very easily go on.
Point two: all these cute inventions are completely irrelevant compared to the true value of research in general, and of research in astrophysics in particular. The true value is knowledge. Period. And why is it so valuable? Because it produces pleasure. It's an evolutionary fact: among all animals, we are the only ones who find pleasure in discovery, even if at the time we really don't know what to do with that same discovery. Note that this pleasure doesn't only invest the discoverer, but also those who receive the information about the discovery. It's contagious.
Point three: it's easy to find an analogy with the arts. Try asking Dante what his Divine Comedy is good for, or Michelangelo what the use of the ceiling in the Sistina Chapel is, and I’m sure you can imagine the look on their face. You wouldn't be brave enough to do it, would you? Then how is it that so many people ask me what the point of knowing there was a Big Bang is?
Point four: the analogy between art and science, just like any analogy, has some limits. We aren't artists, we are scientists, and there's a big difference. That said, maybe the pleasure we feel in front of great art is the brother of the pleasure we feel in knowing, and both had an origin at the dawn of mankind's history. Human beings who were good at discovering certain patterns and anomalies in the surrounding world probably had a pretty good advantage over their neighbours, despite being called out as slackers while they spent hours during storms just staring at the thunder and lightning, only to understand that sometime one could set a tree on fire. Maybe they noticed that the breaking of symmetry in the grass announced the arrival of some dangerous animal. Those individuals who felt pleasure in discovering new things evidently had an advantage over their kin who spent all their time hunting and none of their time asking themselves any questions. And so, this characteristic was passed on as a winning trait.
Point five: what's the point of fashionable clothing? To feel part of the herd? And who is the leader of the herd? Does anyone still ask himself these questions? Does anyone ever wonder which pleasures are primary, and which ones are induced? True enough, I can buy the perfect cellphone case and be happy, that's pleasure too. However, that pleasure comes from satisfying something that is induced by someone else, and is not a primary need of mine. The right colour for my cellphone is not written in my genes.
Final point: so whenever someone asks me "are you useful for anything?" I reply with pride: I try to create pleasure, so that our lives are a little more enjoyable.
|
How can someone ask this? Astronomy is amazing.
|
I actually get this question a lot (which continues to surprise me, because most of my friends are from the more intelligent half of the populace and many of them get to meet scientists pretty often, yet they feel the need to ask this from time to time) and I have converged on a clear answer: no, explorative science (such as astronomy and elementary particle physics) is not useful for anything - sure, you can make up some marginally useful things that come out of it, but most of the obvious ones have been exhausted decades ago and I do not think that this really should be the point.
No, the point should be, that it is useless, but so is a vast selection of other jobs people do in the western societies - so what? Only a tiny part of the available workforce is actually needed to sustain us, so we have a lot of minds and hands to spare to do all sorts of things, so why not science? Some of my "capitalist" friends - mainly entrepreneurs, but in general people that make a lot of money - will then argue that the difference between a scientists and a "commercial" useless person is that the flow of the money towards the scientist is forced by the government, whereas people decide on their own to give money to the other people I consider useless. To that I say that it's not completely true, because many people who make money in business make it only because the society has set up rules that allow them to exist - take everyone in banking, investment and "big business" - those people often receive extraordinary amounts of money for being a part of the system that handles said money. It's a completely self-sustaining circle of wealth. I do not feel any more useless than someone who makes three orders of magnitude per months more by just playing the game of the capital market. And I do not feel the existence of my job is any more forced - sure, the "paid from taxes" route is more direct, but many seemingly "free market" money dumps are actually a tax on everyone imposed by keeping the system running as it does.
I could go on and on shitting on a wide range of occupations, but that's not the point - the point is that in the 21st century, there isn't really a big reason to look for any "practical use" of basic science. I honestly do it only because it is the least annoying job I could find - if during my lifetime people finally let go off the misguided mantra that people need to earn money by pretending to do something useful even though the work of all people is not needed and establish the universal basic income (and we already see first attempts), I will stop "working" immediately. As it hasn't happened yet, I happy to continue my "work" as a scientist, I will even reap the occasional happy thought when I give a public lecture or write and outreach article and get positive feedback from some commoners that enjoy having their taxes spent on what I do, but I will definitely not falsely flatter myself thinking that what I do is somewhat important to the humanity.
|
Italy12246 Posts
I strongly disagree with a lot of your post.
but most of the obvious ones have been exhausted decades ago and I do not think that this really should be the point.
The "obvious ones" are only obvious because they have already been developed or perfected. The Internet, GPS, CCDs all come to mind...can you really say that superconductors or nuclear fusion are not obvious things that will be amazing once we figure them out?
the point is that in the 21st century, there isn't really a big reason to look for any "practical use" of basic science.
This might be semantics but doing something for the pure enjoyment of it, not because you have to do it to get to the end of the month, is really not a practical use. The vast majority of us in academia do it because we love what we do, because when you finally get your stupid mcmc fit to converge to a reasonable corner of parameter space it's fucking awesome, etc. That is certainly not practical, but it just feels awesome to be the first to figure out how something in the Universe works, and that feeling really is contagious, and part of the best side of humanity.
I honestly do it only because it is the least annoying job I could find
This sounds incredibly strange to me. How do you deal with the constant job insecurity, shitty pay compared to pretty much any other profession, and immense competitiveness if you don't really like what you do?
|
On December 06 2016 05:21 Teoita wrote:
I strongly disagree with a lot of your post.
I am not surprised  I have written it in a rather disgruntled mood, so I might have been too direct in some formulations, but in principle, it is what I think about the subject. I apologize if I have spoiled the mood of your thread - I am just a party pooper by nature.
Show nested quote + but most of the obvious ones have been exhausted decades ago and I do not think that this really should be the point. The "obvious ones" are only obvious because they have already been developed or perfected. The Internet, GPS, CCDs all come to mind...can you really say that superconductors or nuclear fusion are not obvious things that will be amazing once we figure them out?
Fusion would be supercool, but it really isn't a problem of particle physics now - any discoveries made on LHC will be extremely unlikely to be relevant for any practical use for centuries, for example. Fusion is now mainly a problem of engineering and money. I am actually not sure whether the whole existence of LHC doesn't actually hurt the fusion research, because people see the fields as very similar (although they aren't) and thus they fight for funding.
Supercondutors, sure, but again, how is something like astronomy gonna help that? I think that the whole "real things" research (materials, layers, nanostructures) that goes on for example at my institute, is super useful, but I do not think it is fair to lump it under just "science" together with the "useless" astronomy and similar fields. CCDs were not invented for astronomy, in fact astronomy backported them from military development afaik. GPS is a fair point, but such things will be increasingly rarer.
Show nested quote +the point is that in the 21st century, there isn't really a big reason to look for any "practical use" of basic science. This might be semantics but doing something for the pure enjoyment of it, not because you have to do it to get to the end of the month, is really not a practical use. The vast majority of us in academia do it because we love what we do, because when you finally get your stupid mcmc fit to converge to a reasonable corner of parameter space it's fucking awesome, etc. That is certainly not practical, but it just feels awesome to be the first to figure out how something in the Universe works, and that feeling really is contagious, and part of the best side of humanity.
I agree with that, but I thought the point is how useful is science to other people but the scientists, so this is not really a point for discussion?
This sounds incredibly strange to me. How do you deal with the constant job insecurity, shitty pay compared to pretty much any other profession, and immense competitiveness if you don't really like what you do?
I am perfectly aware that this is the daily life of many people in science around the world, but honestly, this is just not my experience. I do not feel any "competitiveness" - I am not 100% sure if it is due to the field I work in - which is pretty fringe - or due to the country I work in - where the pay is much smaller than in western Europe and thus the competition is pretty much only local, but my life is totally different than all those tales of "draconic academia". I will probably face some issues in the near future, but in principle, I have a vague perspective for at least some employment at any time in the future. At least one project would probably go south pretty fast if they ditched me now.
I do not think that my job security is worse than if I were in commercial sphere - not with my attitude to work, which is spotty the say the least; I am not sure I would last a week in a business. The pay is not great, but I do not really care - life is really cheap both in Czech Republic and Poland and I have very small requirements when it comes to money. Again, I know your mileage varies and I have put in that sentence just as my personal point of view.
Don't get me wrong, I think that humanity should keep on sciencing - in nothing, that because of the "why not" part I have already explained. And I sorta like being a part of it - or at least I hate it less than anything can conceive. I even understand why pushing the "science is so cool, deep and important for the growth of humanity" narrative romance is useful to spread to get more funding - I am not just gonna pretend that I feel that way
|
Italy12246 Posts
Fusion would be supercool, but it really isn't a problem of particle physics now - any discoveries made on LHC will be extremely unlikely to be relevant for any practical use for centuries, for example. Fusion is now mainly a problem of engineering and money.
So is observing Hawking radiation, if we go with that argument. In fact, every instrumental problem in physics is a problem of engineering and money, and pushing for better instruments partially solves that.
Supercondutors, sure, but again, how is something like astronomy gonna help that?
Some detectors in astrophysics use superconductors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_edge_sensor; the most notable instrument using one is ALMA). The idea is that you have an energy gap like in a ccd silicon chip, but at much lower energies, which makes them very very good for sub-mm and far infrared wavelengths. Also, LHC was a huge step in the development of superconductors.
CDs were not invented for astronomy, in fact astronomy backported them from military development afaik.
CCDs were invented at Bell Labs which is a civilian company, but i can see them being developed closely with the military. Astronomy was still a huge push in developing them. They were first invented in the late 60s, and the first space telescope to fly with one was launched in 1976. We'd better not get stuck in cherry picking examples though 
Also im not sure how you can feel comfortable doing science in the Czech Republic to be specific. From what i know (mainly from a couple of colleagues and friends), the salary there is pretty much not enough to get to the end of the month on your own for both phds and postdocs, which is also my experience with Italy (at least for PhDs, we solved the postdoc salary problem by pretty much not having any -.-).
|
I don't doubt your experiences, but, frankly, in the modern intellectual and academic environment, I wouldn't be very surprised to hear someone say that literature or art were worthless. I think your experience is either one unique to astronomy, as a fairly niche science...or it just goes to show that no matter what pretences people put to appear intellectual or rational, most are fairly uncurious and only pursue knowledge for purely practical purposes.
|
On December 06 2016 06:56 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +Fusion would be supercool, but it really isn't a problem of particle physics now - any discoveries made on LHC will be extremely unlikely to be relevant for any practical use for centuries, for example. Fusion is now mainly a problem of engineering and money. So is observing Hawking radiation, if we go with that argument. In fact, every instrumental problem in physics is a problem of engineering and money, and pushing for better instruments partially solves that.
Sure, but there were times, when fusion was really a "basic science" problem - times when people realized that it's possible, that it's happening and studied how it worked, why, what are the parameters - that's what I call "basic research". Now it is really engineering - or "applied research" but the boundaries are very vague. Still can't see how it works as an argument for the usefullness of contemporary basic research in fields that are primarily focused on exploration of the universe, that is on scales that are not likely to affect the practical life - that is both astronomy (too large) and LHC-type elementary physics (too small). I do agree that a lot of observation issues are just engineering. The whole CTA project is almost nothing but engineering (and the fact that it is done largely by scientists in fact poses specific drawbacks).
Show nested quote +Supercondutors, sure, but again, how is something like astronomy gonna help that? Some detectors in astrophysics use superconductors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_edge_sensor; the most notable instrument using one is ALMA). The idea is that you have an energy gap like in a ccd silicon chip, but at much lower energies, which makes them very very good for sub-mm and far infrared wavelengths. Also, LHC was a huge step in the development of superconductors.
This is fair point, it is similar to what the space race did in terms of impact on technology development. But it is kinda weird if you think about it - do we really need to create to ourselves these sort of artificial challenges every time we want to advance some essentially practical, but exceedingly complex technology? Shouldn't we be advancing superconductors anyway?
Show nested quote +CDs were not invented for astronomy, in fact astronomy backported them from military development afaik. CCDs were invented at Bell Labs which is a civilian company, but i can see them being developed closely with the military. Astronomy was still a huge push in developing them. They were first invented in the late 60s, and the first space telescope to fly with one was launched in 1976. We'd better not get stuck in cherry picking examples though Also im not sure how you can feel comfortable doing science in the Czech Republic to be specific. From what i know (mainly from a couple of colleagues and friends), the salary there is pretty much not enough to get to the end of the month on your own for both phds and postdocs, which is also my experience with Italy (at least for PhDs, we solved the postdoc salary problem by pretty much not having any -.-).
I can¨tell you that my salary is perfectly good for me. I have to admit that I boost it a lot by the allowance I reap from all my foreigner travels, so I am not perfectly sure how much I actually earn (it is pretty hard to disentangle from the expenses) - but I think that many people would still consider it laughably low. Yet I have no problem with it, simply because I do not waste money on things other people "need" to have. A big part of the comfort is that we are not planning to have any children though.
|
Italy12246 Posts
I still dont get your argument regarding basic science. Where do you draw the line between what's too small and what isn't? By your standards, quantum mechanics would have been too small 100 years ago, and all modern electronics are based on it just to make an example. Kepler's laws probably seemed pretty useless at the time because the Solar System was unreachable, but now that we have space missions flying all over the place they come in pretty handy.
In general, who cares what is applied or isn't. If you don't know how something works, and people are trying to figure it out, that's research, by definition.
CTA might be nothing but engineering to you, but to me it's a huge opportunity to advance in my field (including the paper i sent you actually, but i'm not allowed to say any more about that  )
You can't advance stuff in a vacuum. Take superconductors: you can't just say "fuck yea let's make cool shit". You need goals, tests, specific applications, etc. Basic research gives you a perfect way to channel that. Same with sending spaceships in space - designing a telescope that could be serviced by the Shuttle (Hubble) was a major advancement in technology that we wouldn't have had if we astronomers hadn't been asking for a space telescope. You don't just put a cylinder with random electronics in space and fly a Shuttle there because you feel like doing cool things.
On December 06 2016 07:05 Jerubaal wrote:
I don't doubt your experiences, but, frankly, in the modern intellectual and academic environment, I wouldn't be very surprised to hear someone say that literature or art were worthless. I think your experience is either one unique to astronomy, as a fairly niche science...or it just goes to show that no matter what pretences people put to appear intellectual or rational, most are fairly uncurious and only pursue knowledge for purely practical purposes.
Interesting, maybe it's just astrophysics/astronomy but i've never had that impression at all, at least not from researchers. I got that a few times from 20 year old college students, but that really isn't comparable imo.
I'm fully willing to admit that i have a very romantic view of science though!
|
On December 06 2016 07:30 Teoita wrote:
I still dont get your argument regarding basic science. Where do you draw the line between what's too small and what isn't? By your standards, quantum mechanics would have been too small 100 years ago, and all modern electronics are based on it just to make an example. Kepler's laws probably seemed pretty useless at the time because the Solar System was unreachable, but now that we have space missions flying all over the place they come in pretty handy.
Maybe I am the one being too romantic here actually? Because I think that the major advancement we made in the last century is that now we moreorless know what's out there and we can say what is useless. I just don't think there will be any more breakthroughs and revolutions soon because we know pretty darn well how the world on size/energy scales at least remotely comparable with our bodies/planet works - and that is what I think is the main limit why the exploration gets less and less practical the more advanced it gets,
In general, who cares what is applied or isn't. If you don't know how something works, and people are trying to figure it out, that's research, by definition.
People do care. In Czech Republic for example, there is big pressure to shift more to applied research - to research that produces tangible benefits and for which those benefits can be planned from the start. I would be surprised if it isn't the same in Italy, so I'd say that you should care too. Sure, one approach is to insist on lumping research together, in particular when you do non-applied research yourself (as is the case for both of us), but I think it is not sustainable (and also hypocritical). If you pose the question "what is research for", the answer should be very different when talking about researching cancer treatment, carbon nanotubes and elliptical galaxies.
CTA might be nothing but engineering to you, but to me it's a huge opportunity to advance in my field (including the paper i sent you actually, but i'm not allowed to say any more about that )
Sure, but I see the "science" in people like you - who will use the data produced by the engineering and study them. The telescopes itself are really just engineered, but it is kinda weirdly done also by scientists - and there are many such similar examples.
You can't advance stuff in a vacuum. Take superconductors: you can't just say "fuck yea let's make cool shit". You need goals, tests, specific applications, etc. Basic research gives you a perfect way to channel that. Same with sending spaceships in space - designing a telescope that could be serviced by the Shuttle (Hubble) was a major advancement in technology that we wouldn't have had if we astronomers hadn't been asking for a space telescope. You don't just put a cylinder with random electronics in space and fly a Shuttle there because you feel like doing cool things.
I think you are right in you assessment of how things work here, but that doesn't change my opinion that this is how things should not work. I am not criticizing you, but the rest of humanity here
Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 07:05 Jerubaal wrote:
I don't doubt your experiences, but, frankly, in the modern intellectual and academic environment, I wouldn't be very surprised to hear someone say that literature or art were worthless. I think your experience is either one unique to astronomy, as a fairly niche science...or it just goes to show that no matter what pretences people put to appear intellectual or rational, most are fairly uncurious and only pursue knowledge for purely practical purposes. Interesting, maybe it's just astrophysics/astronomy but i've never had that impression at all, at least not from researchers. I got that a few times from 20 year old college students, but that really isn't comparable imo. I'm fully willing to admit that i have a very romantic view of science though!
A scientist saying that literature and art are worthless would be such a great piece of irony that someone would make them subject of literature and art pretty fast
|
As a Particle Physicist myself, working on ATLAS, I have to say - I'm in complete agreement with Teoita here :D
I'm constantly asked the question, "what use does the LHC have?", in relation to every day life, and I have to be frank - very little. For now. As Teoita said; quantum mechanics was once deemed arcane, too obtuse to have any application in the real world, a handy mathematical tool to make predictions. And now the vast majority of our technology, and the next wave of technology to come, relies on QM to work. Who knows what the future might hold - knowing the precise quark content (a.k.a. the Parton Density Function) of the proton, for example, might drive some hitherto unknown technology that revolutionises the world. I'm not as familiar with potential applications for astrophysics, but you'd be foolish to think that the research being done couldn't be useful at some point, even if that use is not immediately obvious.
Ignoring the research being done explicitly in the field, the technology and development required to do that research is driving an innumerable number of current applications. MRI technology, and Proton Radiation Therapy, and other next-generation medical technologies are being invented, improved and developed by particle physicists, using the knowledge they gained from working on the LHC, the Tevatron, and other high-energy colliders. CCD and CMOS chips are constantly being improved thanks to the need for ever-better/faster/more precise/more radiation-hard chips in particle detectors like ATLAS (can confirm, have worked in the labs in my university), and on giant telescopes like Planck, BICEP and CTA around the world. The LHC had to almost completely reinvent the superconductor production industry just to get cheap enough and powerful enough magnets to bend their beam, and we're seeing the application of that now, from the medical industry to super computers and quantum computers to ever more powerful and faster lasers used in data transmission. Hell, the internet itself was invented by a particle physicist working on the LEP experiment to be able to send their data to other physicists around the world, and look at how that turned out!
And this is all ignoring the fact that, why can't we have research for knowledge's sake? Whatever happened to wanting to explore, to find out what's there, and how it works? If all research has to be justified by how it could affect the world right there and then, then technology will never improve - incrementally, perhaps, but research will shift to making small improvements on existing ideas, rather than looking to the long term, trying concepts and theories. Imagine if Steve Jobs, when first entering the mobile market, had thought - current phones, with small screens and large keypads, have always sold well; might as well make a good one of those! We'd never have had the iPhone, which say what you want about it, really popularised the idea of touchscreen phones and brought that technology to the forefront.
Its all about the future - without scientists being free to develop ideas, free from the need to justify immediate impact, the world will never progress. Leave the incremental changes to industry R&D teams.
|
Shame I didn't see this blog earlier!
I work close to fusion science, and the most advanced project so far (ITER and co.) is still impossible to conclude, no matter how much money is put on the table, as said by theoretical and numerical physics. This part is not yet a matter of engineering, but still fundamental plasma physics.
Also, even if in France researcher working for the government (and in hot plasmas it's the vast majority of them) they have a position for life, several of those I spoke to just keep working on their subject 'by default'. They usually don't want to bother changing, even though they say that what they are doing will lead nowhere (and may not even be satisfying nor 'beautiful').
And... (I wrote 3 different paragraphs to try to say my next idea, by all three failed to mean anything, so I quit here  )
To summarise, I find the comparison with art quite fitting: some results might be quite useless, but very beautiful (either by themselves, or by the method applied). And in return, some results can simply be dull (while also being 'useless').
I am (trying to?) doing research in fundamental plasma physics, so I am not here for the end result either. The way of working and the context of research are what made me leave some much better paid work in the private sector to come here.
|
Really impressive to see such discussion from people way smarter than a mere tech writer like me.
I thought for quite a while that researchers seem to display an exceptional level of symmetry/balance in their dedication to their work
But it's interesting to read the kind of discussions and arguments arise particularly how the place(country) of work is so closely tied with your field...with all the factors thrown in like salary and how much value the government sees it.
I'd always thought a field like astrophysics is necessary, and that it's not the least "useless" in tangible benefits.Fields that cross paths with each other should be moving forward in the spirit of collaboration and not...competition?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
fuck u teo fashion is important
|
Science is pretty useless if you just want to maintain the world at its current technology standard and not bother with improving it.
Anyway funny story: when I was a kid someone gifted me a new book on astronomy which had been translated from Italian, you could tell because halfway through all the diagrams and captions reverted to being written in Italian. I thought that was pretty slack on the part of the publisher! But it didn't matter in the end as I could understand it perfectly, science is pretty much written in Latin already.
Per ardua ad astra and all that.
|
On December 07 2016 12:21 lichter wrote:
fuck u teo fashion is important
omg it's lichter the legendary newb! I've read so much about you!
|
You feel frustrated at the public perception of Astronomers?
Try the evermore disparaged perception of Philosophy! The nuScience and NewAtheist movement has done plenty to advance the cause of scientism to the point where they claim "reason" is their own and philosophy has no say in our reality. Put downs toward all of philosophy from prominent science popularizers have been thrown around at an alarming rate lately...
And I'm just an amateur philosophy hobbyist, I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people actively working in philosophy.
|
On December 09 2016 07:52 Aberu wrote:
You feel frustrated at the public perception of Astronomers?
Try the evermore disparaged perception of Philosophy! The nuScience and NewAtheist movement has done plenty to advance the cause of scientism to the point where they claim "reason" is their own and philosophy has no say in our reality. Put downs toward all of philosophy from prominent science popularizers have been thrown around at an alarming rate lately...
And I'm just an amateur philosophy hobbyist, I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people actively working in philosophy.
Philosophy used be every science right? And then all the various sub-fields split off into their own things, now the bits that are left over, that were too difficult to categorise, are called philosophy.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On December 09 2016 11:04 Korakys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 07:52 Aberu wrote:
You feel frustrated at the public perception of Astronomers?
Try the evermore disparaged perception of Philosophy! The nuScience and NewAtheist movement has done plenty to advance the cause of scientism to the point where they claim "reason" is their own and philosophy has no say in our reality. Put downs toward all of philosophy from prominent science popularizers have been thrown around at an alarming rate lately...
And I'm just an amateur philosophy hobbyist, I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people actively working in philosophy. Philosophy used be every science right? And then all the various sub-fields split off into their own things, now the bits that are left over, that were too difficult to categorise, are called philosophy.
It's not about categorizing, it's about using completely different methods. There isn't an experimental/observational side to philosophy, just like there isn't one for math.
That said, the scientific method was discovered through philosophy, so in a sense you're right.
|
On December 09 2016 11:04 Korakys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 07:52 Aberu wrote:
You feel frustrated at the public perception of Astronomers?
Try the evermore disparaged perception of Philosophy! The nuScience and NewAtheist movement has done plenty to advance the cause of scientism to the point where they claim "reason" is their own and philosophy has no say in our reality. Put downs toward all of philosophy from prominent science popularizers have been thrown around at an alarming rate lately...
And I'm just an amateur philosophy hobbyist, I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people actively working in philosophy. Philosophy used be every science right? And then all the various sub-fields split off into their own things, now the bits that are left over, that were too difficult to categorise, are called philosophy.
Modern Natural Science, formerly known as Natural Philosophy, forgoes any pretense to actual knowledge in favor of immediate practicality. Read my blog for more detail. ;p
On December 09 2016 18:01 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:04 Korakys wrote:On December 09 2016 07:52 Aberu wrote:
You feel frustrated at the public perception of Astronomers?
Try the evermore disparaged perception of Philosophy! The nuScience and NewAtheist movement has done plenty to advance the cause of scientism to the point where they claim "reason" is their own and philosophy has no say in our reality. Put downs toward all of philosophy from prominent science popularizers have been thrown around at an alarming rate lately...
And I'm just an amateur philosophy hobbyist, I can't imagine how frustrating it is for people actively working in philosophy. Philosophy used be every science right? And then all the various sub-fields split off into their own things, now the bits that are left over, that were too difficult to categorise, are called philosophy. It's not about categorizing, it's about using completely different methods. There isn't an experimental/observational side to philosophy, just like there isn't one for math. That said, the scientific method was discovered through philosophy, so in a sense you're right.
Sure there is. We use reason as much as we can, but we are still observing a particular world. We likely would not be contemplating pure shapes if we did not see them in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
