Einstein, Philosophy and [you guessed it!]

[2PhiloVoid]

As it so happens, Curt Jaimungal (alumni student of the University of Toronto) recently had science philosopher, Jacob Barandes (Prof. at Harvard) on his podcast show.

In the podcast video below, Barandes discussed the role philosophy can have in our engagement of science, however optional and unneeded many scientists feel that it may be. In reflecting upon one of Einsteins' most famous letters and his thoughts on the application of epistemology in science, Brandes briefly describes the ways he likewise feels that philosophy of science [and epistemology] can benefit science practitioners. For more on Einstein's view of the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology, see the Stanford article link below.

Here's "THE BEEF"! >>>

Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Einstein's Most Famous Letter on Philosophy Posited This...​

It's just something to read, listen to, or talk about for those so interested .................................................

 

[chevyontheriver]

As it so happens, Curt Jaimungal (alumni student of the University of Toronto) recently had science philosopher, Jacob Barandes (Prof. at Harvard) on his podcast show.

In the podcast video below, Barandes discussed the role philosophy can have in our engagement of science, however optional and unneeded many scientists feel that it may be. In reflecting upon one of Einsteins' most famous letters and his thoughts on the application of epistemology in science, Brandes briefly describes the ways he likewise feels that philosophy of science [and epistemology] can benefit science practitioners. For more on Einstein's view of the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology, see the Stanford article link below.

Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Einstein's Most Famous Letter on Philosophy Posited This...​

It's just something to read, listen to, or talk about for those so interested .................................................

I will try to listen to it soon. Thomistic philosophy considers philosophy to be ‘Queen of the Sciences’ and thus important for all the sciences.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm curious if he engages on the question of science's directions of enquiry, and definitions/parameters, being dependent on philosophy.

For a long time now, I can't help but be skeptical of a math drawn upon OUR speculations as valid. But I admit my ignorance, and besides not being wealthy in bandwidth and data limits, and not having the time available to me that I might wish for, I'm pretty sure the talk there will be over my head (as it usually is).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will try to listen to it soon. Thomistic philosophy considers philosophy to be ‘Queen of the Sciences’ and thus important for all the sciences.

Don't expect much in the video. It's really the Stanford article that has the 'meat' of the content. Barandes simply makes a 13 minute 'advo' for being open to considering the uses of Philosophy.

Since you mention Thomistic philosophy as well, I'm willing to do a shameless plug for him in saying that although he's not my first go to, or even my second, I do think he has some role to play in how we as Christians can ameliorate some (though not all) of the tensions which are felt or seen by us who hold the Bible (and the Church) in one hand and attempti to value the Sciences in some substantive way with the other hand.

So, I appreciate you bringing him up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm curious if he engages on the question of science's directions of enquiry, and definitions/parameters, being dependent on philosophy. For a long time now, I can't help but be skeptical of a math drawn upon OUR speculations as valid. But I admit my ignorance, and besides not being wealthy in bandwidth and data limits, and not having the time available to me that I might wish for, I'm pretty sure the talk there will be over my head (as it usually is).

Barandes simply gives a brief talk on his recommendations for allowing Philosophy to be an additional mode of input in how anyone who wants to better understand the epistemic tensions and tasks that are present in the modern sciences. As I mentioned above to Chevy, the meat of the philosophical and epistemological considerations that Einstein mulled over is in the Stanford article that I linked in the OP.

Peace!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Barandes simply gives a brief talk on his recommendations for allowing Philosophy to be an additional mode of input in how anyone who wants to better understand the epistemic tensions and tasks that are present in the modern sciences. As I mentioned above to Chevy, the meat of the philosophical and epistemological considerations that Einstein mulled over is in the Stanford article that I linked in the OP.

Peace!

I listened to some of it. I heard the prof. say something that I took as, "You can say, 'I follow your math, and had no problems with it, but now I hear your conclusion and, "whoa, there, not so fast!".'" I can understand that and sympathize, but to me, the conclusions are doubtful because the very terms within the math are speculative.

In the logical workings of our minds, we do that all the time, and throw out the mad, incoherent, retaining the reasonable for further work, but the whole time, (it seems to me —and again, I can't claim to know that this is applicable to true science instead of only to the noise I hear from the attention-grabbing media), when we call 'this', A, and 'that', B, without even knowing what this and that ARE, but only what we think we saw them do, we are inviting error.

This shows up in, for example, false equivalence arguments all the time in Religious debate, and it is not always visible to the ones engaging in the reasoning or debating. I also can't shake the feeling that doing math on probability invites, well, ok, I'm ignorant...

(But maybe I'm just on a tangential jag here. I don't mean to deviate from the OP)

 

[SelfSim]

As it so happens, Curt Jaimungal (alumni student of the University of Toronto) recently had science philosopher, Jacob Barandes (Prof. at Harvard) on his podcast show.

In the podcast video below, Barandes discussed the role philosophy can have in our engagement of science, however optional and unneeded many scientists feel that it may be. In reflecting upon one of Einsteins' most famous letters and his thoughts on the application of epistemology in science, Brandes briefly describes the ways he likewise feels that philosophy of science [and epistemology] can benefit science practitioners. For more on Einstein's view of the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology, see the Stanford article link below.

Here's "THE BEEF"! >>>

Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Einstein's Most Famous Letter on Philosophy Posited This...​

It's just something to read, listen to, or talk about for those so interested .................................................

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

What scientist cares what Einstein's philosophical views were, (when that scientist is going about their business?)

 

[SelfSim]

I listened to some of it. I heard the prof. say something that I took as, "You can say, 'I follow your math, and had no problems with it, but now I hear your conclusion and, "whoa, there, not so fast!".'" I can understand that and sympathize, but to me, the conclusions are doubtful because the very terms within the math are speculative.

In the logical workings of our minds, we do that all the time, and throw out the mad, incoherent, retaining the reasonable for further work, but the whole time, (it seems to me —and again, I can't claim to know that this is applicable to true science instead of only to the noise I hear from the attention-grabbing media), when we call 'this', A, and 'that', B, without even knowing what this and that ARE, but only what we think we saw them do, we are inviting error.

'This' and 'that', along with: 'A' and 'B', must be operationally defined, otherwise it ain't science that's going on there.
The only errors there, are related to measurements and observations and their deviations from their expected mean values.

This shows up in, for example, false equivalence arguments all the time in Religious debate, and it is not always visible to the ones engaging in the reasoning or debating. I also can't shake the feeling that doing math on probability invites, well, ok, I'm ignorant...

(But maybe I'm just on a tangential jag here. I don't mean to deviate from the OP)

Perhaps you may just be on an uninformed 'jag', there, then(?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I listened to some of it. I heard the prof. say something that I took as, "You can say, 'I follow your math, and had no problems with it, but now I hear your conclusion and, "whoa, there, not so fast!".'" I can understand that and sympathize, but to me, the conclusions are doubtful because the very terms within the math are speculative.

In the logical workings of our minds, we do that all the time, and throw out the mad, incoherent, retaining the reasonable for further work, but the whole time, (it seems to me —and again, I can't claim to know that this is applicable to true science instead of only to the noise I hear from the attention-grabbing media), when we call 'this', A, and 'that', B, without even knowing what this and that ARE, but only what we think we saw them do, we are inviting error.

This shows up in, for example, false equivalence arguments all the time in Religious debate, and it is not always visible to the ones engaging in the reasoning or debating. I also can't shake the feeling that doing math on probability invites, well, ok, I'm ignorant...

(But maybe I'm just on a tangential jag here. I don't mean to deviate from the OP)

You're comments here are welcome, with whatever direction they take us (a tangent here or a tangent there). I think the main thing that Barandes is getting at is that Philosophy can help a person to become better aware of where they may need to tighten the specificity of their language, especially within the realms of science.

But like I said, in the OP video, Barandes doesn't go deeply in the 13 minutes span of the talk and I'm sort of thinking there may be another segment of this same talk at some point in the near future. I'll be on the lookout for it. I'd like to here more of what Barandes has to say since he's a new voice I've come across lately.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

What scientist cares what Einstein's philosophical views were, (when that scientist is going about their business?)

Do you have any specific comments about what is said in either the OP article, or about what Barandes states in the OP video?

Feel free to go in and take an ax to everything stated in the article if you wish. In fact, I'd like to hear your critiques of it, and if you have an ax to grind with it----let loose!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I skimmed your thread. I'm going to guess: [religion]

 

[Mark Quayle]

'This' and 'that', along with: 'A' and 'B', must be operationally defined, otherwise it ain't science that's going on there.
The only errors there, are related to measurements and observations and their deviations from their expected mean values.

Not exactly —or rather, it should be, but is not always, in practice. When calculations were (and are) done, for example, according to the periodic table, they only worked so far. Further definition was necessary, and will be, and the calculations are only useful as far as they work for us. Our assignments of the variables in the equations are still inexact. The conclusions are not universally reliable.

Perhaps you may just be on an uninformed 'jag', there, then(?)

I will happily give you that. My hope is that someone can convince me that I'm wrong, without baffling me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I listened to some of it. I heard the prof. say something that I took as, "You can say, 'I follow your math, and had no problems with it, but now I hear your conclusion and, "whoa, there, not so fast!".'" I can understand that and sympathize, but to me, the conclusions are doubtful because the very terms within the math are speculative.

In the logical workings of our minds, we do that all the time, and throw out the mad, incoherent, retaining the reasonable for further work, but the whole time, (it seems to me —and again, I can't claim to know that this is applicable to true science instead of only to the noise I hear from the attention-grabbing media), when we call 'this', A, and 'that', B, without even knowing what this and that ARE, but only what we think we saw them do, we are inviting error.

This shows up in, for example, false equivalence arguments all the time in Religious debate, and it is not always visible to the ones engaging in the reasoning or debating. I also can't shake the feeling that doing math on probability invites, well, ok, I'm ignorant...

(But maybe I'm just on a tangential jag here. I don't mean to deviate from the OP)

I watched the first half before dinner. I liked it. The part about philosophy seminars vs physics seminars was interesting. I've been to Biochemistry seminars and Pathology seminars but never Philosophy or Physics seminars. I did go to two theology seminars, one by the late Raymond E. Brown. He was ready to confront bear. But the question I asked revealed that he dismissed a lot out of hand. Oh well. I have never thought that seminars were about truth as much as being about getting your ideas out there. Only as a secondary benefit they are about figuring out how to defend the theses. Anyhow, I have seldom seen (or never seen) a rip roaring challenge to a Biochemistry or Pathology seminar presenter.

Now slightly different: A lot of philosophy is considered to be hoo-haw. And maybe a chunk of it is. I say this knowing that the eternal questions keep being asked and to a degree the answers keep being refined. A lot of it, though, reads like pre-Socratic Sophistry so I see how Philosophy can be criticized and dismissed by lots of people. The big problem is culturally we are inordinately skeptical. Skepticism can be good but within some basis in reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I skimmed your thread. I'm going to guess: [religion]

Always ready with the comical aside, aren't you, Hans?

But no. Guess again.

 

[SelfSim]

Not exactly —or rather, it should be, but is not always, in practice. When calculations were (and are) done, for example, according to the periodic table, they only worked so far. Further definition was necessary, and will be, and the calculations are only useful as far as they work for us. Our assignments of the variables in the equations are still inexact. The conclusions are not universally reliable.

Errr .. huh? The periodic table, as in Chemistry? What calculations do you mean?
(I don't have a clue what you mean there, sorry ..)

I will happily give you that. My hope is that someone can convince me that I'm wrong, without baffling me.

You'd surely have to get informed for that to happen(?) .. I think(?)
Come to think of it .. I'm not sure myself ... ohh .. I think I've bafffled myself there?
Now .. what were we talking about there, again?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I watched the first half before dinner. I liked it. The part about philosophy seminars vs physics seminars was interesting. I've been to Biochemistry seminars and Pathology seminars but never Philosophy or Physics seminars. I did go to two theology seminars, one by the late Raymond E. Brown. He was ready to confront bear. But the question I asked revealed that he dismissed a lot out of hand. Oh well. I have never thought that seminars were about truth as much as being about getting your ideas out there. Only as a secondary benefit they are about figuring out how to defend the theses. Anyhow, I have seldom seen (or never seen) a rip roaring challenge to a Biochemistry or Pathology seminar presenter.

Now slightly different: A lot of philosophy is considered to be hoo-haw. And maybe a chunk of it is. I say this knowing that the eternal questions keep being asked and to a degree the answers keep being refined. A lot of it, though, reads like pre-Socratic Sophistry so I see how Philosophy can be criticized and dismissed by lots of people. The big problem is culturally we are inordinately skeptical. Skepticism can be good but within some basis in reality.

There is a lot of historical attitude-shift that goes into the perspective from which people philosophize (even the common man does, whether he knows it or not). Generally, I like to think that formal philosophy tries to avoid that as much as possible, but it cannot. Nor, I'm afraid, can physical science, as I think the better scientists would agree.

The question is a little comical to me, or ironic. The principle of scientific observation, that the observer affects the subject of observation, is there in the big picture. Nobody is altogether an individual in this; we all have an effect on each other. (No, don't ask me to back up that statement! I can't, really.) What we think is in reaction to what we see and hear and suppose. I can post this reply, and the ripple effect may produce a chaos at some tipover point. (Yeah, I'm rambling).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Errr .. huh? The periodic table, as in Chemistry? What calculations do you mean?
(I don't have a clue what you mean there, sorry ..)

You'd surely have to get informed for that to happen(?) .. I think(?)
Come to think of it .. I'm not sure myself ... ohh .. I think I've bafffled myself there?
Now .. what were we talking about there, again?

I'm not either, anymore.

Maybe what I'm saying is that education can mislead. No, that's not it, though there may be something to that. Avenues of learning can. No, that's a side-issue. Hmmm. Something about not altogether trusting human terminology.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is a lot of historical attitude-shift that goes into the perspective from which people philosophize (even the common man does, whether he knows it or not). Generally, I like to think that formal philosophy tries to avoid that as much as possible, but it cannot. Nor, I'm afraid, can physical science, as I think the better scientists would agree.

The question is a little comical to me, or ironic. The principle of scientific observation, that the observer affects the subject of observation, is there in the big picture. Nobody is altogether an individual in this; we all have an effect on each other. (No, don't ask me to back up that statement! I can't, really.) What we think is in reaction to what we see and hear and suppose. I can post this reply, and the ripple effect may produce a chaos at some tipover point. (Yeah, I'm rambling).

Tipover point reached. Falling off the cliff.

But seriously, observing something changes the universe. We aren't living in the same place we were ten minutes ago.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm not either, anymore.

Maybe what I'm saying is that education can mislead. No, that's not it, though there may be something to that. Avenues of learning can. No, that's a side-issue. Hmmm. Something about not altogether trusting human terminology.

It's all in Aquinas.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Always ready with the comical aside, aren't you, Hans?

But no. Guess again.

I'm busy watching TV right now. That looked like a talky video, so not exactly something I can watch at the same time as TV.