A scientist on philosophy of science
Recently, as part of some odd intellectual kick I’ve been on, I’ve been reading a fair bit in the literature of philosophy of science. I thought I’d share a few thoughts with my readers, even though I’m admittedly not an expert in such topics. Indeed, dense philosophy papers consistently make my head hurt, confirming my earlier impression that I’m just not smart enough to be a philosopher. Still, here are two casual observations.
First, it’s extremely odd to read people theorizing about stuff that I do everyday. It’s a bit like a celibate monk writing an essay on what sex feels like. They may very well know the mechanics of the act, but their description of the experience of the act, what it’s like to do it, is apt to be totally off.
There’s also a rather severe focus on examples from physics in the philosophy of science literature. Physicists might pompously claim this to be truth that they are the only true scientific endeavor. As someone who spends the bulk of his time researching the natural environment, I would strenuously disagree! On the contrary, I might jokingly argue that physics is the only science simple enough to be philosophical about, in that its theories have fairly clear-cut interpretations. I have no idea, for example, how the concept of “sustainable development” could ever be that concretely defined. The sad part of the physics-centric approach of philosophers of science is that it ignores most other sciences. In particular, it doesn’t shed much light on the fields of science most in need of methodological clarification, like political science or economics or ecology.
First, it’s extremely odd to read people theorizing about stuff that I do everyday. It’s a bit like a celibate monk writing an essay on what sex feels like. They may very well know the mechanics of the act, but their description of the experience of the act, what it’s like to do it, is apt to be totally off.
There’s also a rather severe focus on examples from physics in the philosophy of science literature. Physicists might pompously claim this to be truth that they are the only true scientific endeavor. As someone who spends the bulk of his time researching the natural environment, I would strenuously disagree! On the contrary, I might jokingly argue that physics is the only science simple enough to be philosophical about, in that its theories have fairly clear-cut interpretations. I have no idea, for example, how the concept of “sustainable development” could ever be that concretely defined. The sad part of the physics-centric approach of philosophers of science is that it ignores most other sciences. In particular, it doesn’t shed much light on the fields of science most in need of methodological clarification, like political science or economics or ecology.
