Rasha Shraim had taken an undergrad degree in biology and philosophy:
… my study of formal logic turned out to be very helpful in my transition from a wet-lab undergraduate scientist to a computational scientist on my master’s programme as I learnt coding languages, which involve elements such as logical operators and if-then reasoning. It also helped me to understand inference, the process of arriving at conclusions from evidence and reasoning. None of my science classes has formally taught the difference between induction (these frogs are all from this pond and they are all green: therefore all of the frogs in the pond are green) and deduction (all frogs in this pond are green and this frog is from this pond: therefore this frog is green), nor have any of them taught how to methodically evaluate arguments. Reading, studying and evaluating philosophical arguments as premises and conclusions has shaped my ability to scrutinize evidence and conclusions in research reports.
Rasha Shraim, “How philosophy is making me a better scientist” at Nature (April 23, 2021)
This is a far cry from Stephen Hawking’s famous denunciation of philosophy in 2011 as “dead” because it was out of step with theoretical physics. From Cardiff U philosopher Christopher Norris at Philosophy Now:
This brings us back to the point likely to provoke the most resistance from those scientists – chiefly theoretical physicists – who actually have the most to gain from any assertion of philosophy’s claim to a hearing in such matters. It is that scientists tend to go astray when they start to speculate on issues that exceed not only the current-best observational evidence but even the scope of what is presently conceivable in terms of testability. To speak plainly: one useful job for the philosopher of science is to sort out the errors and confusions that scientists – especially theoretical physicists – sometimes fall into when they give free rein to a speculative turn of mind. My book Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism found numerous cases to illustrate the point in the statements of quantum theorists all the way from Niels Bohr – a pioneering figure but a leading source of metaphysical mystification – to the current advocates (Hawking among them) of a many-worlds or ‘multiverse’ theory. To adapt the economist Keynes’ famous saying: those scientists who claim to have no use for philosophy are most likely in the grip of a bad old philosophy or an insufficiently thought-out new one that they don’t fully acknowledge. (2011)
Yes. Most of the denunciators could have used some philosophy themselves.
What’s sad is that not only is philosophy rarely taught, it’s rarely taught *well*. I went to a school that had a large “western civ” component, and even had extra philosophy classes because of my theology major. However, most of them were glorified history of thought classes, focusing on each philosopher’s most speculative ideas, not classes on how to do critical reasoning. Even with history of philosophy, showing how the *undisputed* parts of philosophy grew through history would be helpful, both in understanding them and understanding the important role of philosophy through history.
Programming is definitely good exercise for the logic muscles. You have to find the essential question and formalize it precisely.
Maybe I’m luckier than the author…. my dad taught me the basics of reasoning and scientific method through parables and jokes and observation; then a 9th grade science teacher taught the same things in a more verbal way. When I took physics in college I was disappointed and frustrated, because there wasn’t any emphasis on reasoning or experimentation. Just math. Here’s a formula. Find the answer.
Philosophy is about deep thoughts, which does not exist in nature. Only humans have the ability to philosophize, since it comes from the mind rather than the brain. It is one of many instances that show humans are something more than animals.
If one doesn’t possess at least some basic philosophies, one is just going to be confused.
Andrew
What do we mean by philosophy?
One important aspect is logic or right thinking or truth. Is there really anything else?
There are definitely lots of other concepts to discuss. Some important ones are justice, equality, morality, happiness, and existence. But are all these topics just problems of definition and then applying logic to the topic.
Should all students be taught logic in grade school? It was part of the Trivium.
Yes, I highly recommend programming for everyone as part of a grade school education.
Aside: when I was introduced to geometry in high school I was taken aback by the proofs used. I finished the course book on my own by October not because of the subject matter but because of the logic used.
It appears that Christopher Norris needs to go back to the philosophical drawing board and reexamine his own philosophical presuppositions before he comments on the virtues of proper philosophical reasoning.
In looking at reviews of his book, “Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism”, it appears that Christopher Norris, despite direct experimental evidence that has falsified realism, is philosophically committed to a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Which is to say that Christopher Norris has a philosophical commitment to atheistic naturalism no matter what the evidence may say to the contrary.
Might is be too obvious to point out the fact that if your atheistic philosophy forces you to constantly ignore, and/or rationalize away, scientific evidence that directly contradicts your atheistic philosophy, just so that you may be able to maintain your belief in your atheistic philosophy, then your atheistic philosophy can’t possibly be correct?
Of supplemental note:
Verse:
Philosophy is probably the most corrupt field of study of all. Like psychology, people go study philosophy, because they are terrible at it, and they need help. So then you get a lot of the insane taking over the asylum types of scenario’s.
It’s philosophy that holds the concept of choice hostage, in the free will problem. The central concept in intelligent design theory and creationism.
So now in philosophy to make a choice is understood to mean, to be forced. As like a chesscomputer calclulating a move, in a forced way. Obviously impossible to do any intelligent design science with that concept of choice.
People studying philosophy, I see them on facebook all the time accusing others of a logical fallacy, without every actually demonstrating the fallacy.
What’s more important is that people pay dedicated attention to subjective issues, as in a bona fide religion. That they pray to God over getting good personal opinions on issues. If they don’t do something like that, then really their reasoning is going to be worthless.
Physics isn’t the only science that runs into confusion and error, “when they give free rein to a speculative turn of mind”. Darwinists presenting evolutionary ideas is another such area, with widespread speculation, just so stories, and presumptive interpretations of facts.
Stephen Meyer is a philosopher of science who totally destroys modern Darwinism in his books, videos, interviews, articles and debates. So yes, philosophy has a key underlying role in good science practice.