Has “philosophical superficiality” harmed physics?

It's very sad. Their curiously nonsensical religion demands that they close their minds to the one dimension of human experience and thought that can help them out of the impasse they have, themselves, created: theism. On the other hand, they read Einstein's comments on intuition (and the inferior status of the analytical intelligence), beauty/elegance, simplicity, awe, etc, and try to co-opt them into their own methodology. However, perhaps, fittingly, with their atheist world-view, they evoke Evelyn Waugh's metaphor of a chimpanzee investigating a precious Sevres vase, and have as much chance of stumbling upon a new, major physical paradigm as that acknowledged cousin. Axel

Mung, you spotted it too. rotflol. KF kairosfocus

I suppose rather more consonant with atheism than not, but I was disappointed in his dismissal of the concept of mystery in science, contradicted as it was by the words that followed; but more especially, seemingly, despite the imponderable nature of the paradoxes that increasingly crop up in quantum mechanics. Would he not consider non-locality a mystery? Or the absolute nature of the proper reference-frame of light quanta? Or the mysterious, decidedly non-classical perspective to be taken on the double-slit experiment? Axel

"...the scientists that talk philosophy down are simply superficial: they have a philosophy (usually some ill-digested mixture of Popper and Kuhn) and think that this is the “true” philosophy, and do not realize that this has limitations." lol Mung

as to:

"they have a philosophy (usually some ill-digested mixture of Popper and Kuhn) and think that this is the “true” philosophy,"

Actually, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson, have a philosophical commitment to Naturalism first and foremost. Having a rigid falsification criteria, (as I believe Popper held), for a theory and having epistemological failure inherent within naturalism be damned! Naturalism is THE philosophy of science for these guys, no other philosophies need apply for the job! Even subtle distinctions of philosophy towards Popper and Kuhn are ignored if it interferes with their commitment, NAY devotion!, to Naturalism! A few Notes:

But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists - Denyse O'Leary January 2, 2014 Excerpt: Logic and reason are likewise irrelevant. Consider the multiverse claim that there are "infinite copies of you and your loved ones leading lives, up until this moment, that are absolutely identical to yours." Mathematician George F. R. Ellis notes that, if so, the deep mysteries of nature are too absurd to be explicable and that the proposed nine types of multiverse in one scheme are "mutually exclusive." True, but in a multiverse, "inexplicable" is okay. "Absurd" and "mutually exclusive" are meaningless concepts. It is equally meaningless to assert that one event is more probable than another. As David Berlinski puts it, "Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true? No need to ask. In another universe, it is not"(Devil's Delusion, p. 124).,,, Science writer John Horgan pointedly asks, "Is theorizing about parallel universes immoral?" "These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don't deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as "Popperazi" -- which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren't theories -- they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/but_who_needs_r080281.html BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html

Verse and Music:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Hurricane - Natalie Grant http://myktis.com/songs/hurricane/

bornagain77