Einstein, Philosophy and [you guessed it!]

[RamiC]

It's possible that Einstein was wrong, but so far I tend to agree with him, which is why I've used his quote in my signature. It also happens to be the initial point of the Stanford article in my OP for this thread. It's also the cumulative conclusion I've come to through my own study of Philosophy and of Science.

I did say "only because it was an understatement, not because he was wrong. Sorry I did not make it clear, my post kind of goes back on itself.

I'm sure it's not that difficult where university curriculum designers are concerned. I can imagine some university out there requires at least a course (or two) in Philosophy for a Physics major, but I'd have to look to see which universities are actually including it.

I think we should get philosophy out more. I think it is the answer to a whole load of problems.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did say "only because it was an understatement, not because he was wrong. Sorry I did not make it clear, my post kind of goes back on itself.

Ok. I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.

I think we should get philosophy out more. I think it is the answer to a whole load of problems.

Yes, I think it would help too, but with one provision: the 'philosophy' people need to learn isn't the whole of scope of everything that flies under the general umbrella of that term, but rather specifically the skills of Critical Thinking that apply to being discerning in life. This specificity is especially important since there is a bunch of 'bad' philosophy and speculative philosophy that needs to be abated by 'good' philosophy.

In echoing what C.S. Lewis once said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."

 

[RamiC]

Ok. I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.


Yes, I think it would help too, but with one provision: the 'philosophy' people need to learn isn't the whole of scope of everything that flies under the general umbrella of that term, but rather specifically the skills of Critical Thinking that apply to being discerning in life. This specificity is especially important since there is a bunch of 'bad' philosophy and speculative philosophy that needs to be abated by 'good' philosophy.

In echoing what C.S. Lewis once said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."

More people even knowing that it exists and what it is would do as far as I am concerned.

Maybe difficult to get politicians to support widespread critical thinking, they usually don't like ideas that could get them voted out next election.

 

[Neogaia777]

What both science and philosophy and any fields of science/study need to learn most is the key to what made a lot of our past "greats" truly great, etc, and what it was that truly enabled them to do/discover/uncover/find out/publish what they truly did when they were around, and up to now, etc.

I know what it is, but do you? Because that is the question, etc. And I can tell you right now that it's even much more important than knowledge, or an education even, etc. So do you know what it is? It doesn't discriminate or show partiality or favoritism toward anyone, or any one group even, etc. And if you don't have it, then someone who maybe doesn't even know even a tenth of what you do will wind up doing/saying/publishing something truly great while you'll be just have been shown out to be just sitting around blowing smoke wondering just how in the heck that happened with them and not with you when you know you know 100 times more than them, etc, and it will always come down to just this one thing they had that you didn't, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc?

I'll give you just one small clue, when you truly have this, you'll never lose your ability to always be truly objective, etc. So, do you know what this is? It separates those regardless of just about anything else of those who are or will be/do something truly noteworthy or great from those who always just wanted to be always but could never quite attain, etc. Do you know what it is? Einstein had it, and wasn't afraid of it, so do you know what it is? It doesn't care about you being or not being, or knowing or not knowing anything, because it can always very, very quickly make up for what/where you are lacking if you only just have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it, etc. So, do you know what it/this is? You can start out lacking, or way, way behind many, many others, and just suddenly and almost overnight surpass all others if you just only have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it through all the surpassing ever, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? It's the key to everything if you want to be anything anywhere at all, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? You can sometimes think you have it without even realizing you just lost sight of it by thinking you for sure have it, etc. So, do you know what it is?

God Bless.

 

[RamiC]

So, do you know what it is?

Curiosity?

Although if anybody is told they got it right, I don't know how you are going prove it.

 

[SelfSim]

More people even knowing that it exists and what it is would do as far as I am concerned.

Maybe difficult to get politicians to support widespread critical thinking, they usually don't like ideas that could get them voted out next election.

That a curious phrase, ie: 'Knowing that it exists'?

I see critical thinking as just being what human minds do.
I know .. some politicians therfore may not actually be humans!

 

[SelfSim]

Curiosity?

Although if anybody is told they got it right, I don't know how you are going prove it.

Do we know that curiosity exists? How do we know that?
Interesting!

 

[Neogaia777]

Curiosity?

Although if anybody is told they got it right, I don't know how you are going prove it.

Curiosity is good, and might help, but that alone is probably not it, or probably isn't enough. I know some of the places it starts, and one of them is in the ability to be able to accurately separate 100% proven facts from what might not have been for 100% sure fully proven yet, and with having the right attitude when it comes to reconciling them even when maybe two solid proven facts might seem on the surface to directly contradict, etc. And without the right attitude, severely, severely frustrate, etc. This was one of the things/qualities Einstein had and was able to do that gave him the ability to do what he was able to show/prove/do, and his example is just one example of that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"...some private college in New England." Your humor never fails to amaze me, Hans. "....schhh!...schhh!"

By the way, do you have any comments on the contents of the article in OP? Maybe pick just one section of it and tell me your thoughts?

Um, I already did. I didn't think it was particularly interesting. As I recall:

Einstein (the titular "philospher" wrote a couple letters complaing about how chaotic discoveries were and how little we knew -- 80-90 years ago. Nothing memorable.

There was a section about doing work on the nature of QM. It was meh. The kind of complaints about the soulless minions of orthodoxy from those whose work is ignored that happen all the time.

The "physics seminar" versus "philosophy seminar" section was just dumb. For starters it souded like a description of a departmental colloquium in physics rather than a topical seminar. Then there is "5 minutes/1 question" nonsense. The typical timing is 50/10. Individual questions don't usually take 5 minutes to answer and many departments prioritize student questions. As for the "interjection questions" those are usually for clarification, not to challenge the speaker's life choices.

As for the "hour of discussion", that's not the point of the colloquium talk. The purpose is to provide a current result placed in the appropriate physical context, often for work that is not widely discussed in a department. Not everyone is up to speed on the fractional quantum Hall effect, or nuclear shell models, or the feeding habits of supermassive black holes, so the first half (roughly) is about setting the background. I've seen people complain about step 29 of a derivation/argument and it is not interesting (get a room) and is the work of the referee.

 

[SelfSim]

Curiosity is good, and might help, but that alone is probably not it, or probably isn't enough. I know some of the places it starts, and one of them is in the ability to be able to accurately separate 100% proven facts from what might not have been for 100% sure fully proven yet, and with having the right attitude when it comes to reconciling them even when maybe two solid proven facts might seem on the surface to directly contradict, etc. And without the right attitude, severely, severely frustrate, etc. This was one of the things/qualities Einstein had and was able to do that gave him the ability to do what he was able to show/prove/do, and his example is just one example of that.

You mean Einstein was an effective, disciplined practitioner of Physics, then?

 

[Neogaia777]

You mean Einstein was an effective, disciplined practitioner of Physics, then?

With his right attitude, probably to any area of inquiry that he would have sought to interest himself in, or apply himself towards/to, or after, etc.

But us human beings have way too short of lifespans to adequately apply ourselves to or towards everything in our very short time here, etc.

Take Care.

 

[RamiC]

That a curious phrase, ie: 'Knowing that it exists'?

I see critical thinking as just being what human minds do.
I know .. some politicians therfore may not actually be humans!

I meant knowing that philosophy exists.

And regarding politics it is the voters being able to use critical thinking that I think might get some politicians voted out, not the politicians. Although if they did take it up without the electorate following suit, they would probably lose their jobs that way too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What both science and philosophy and any fields of science/study need to learn most is the key to what made a lot of our past "greats" truly great, etc, and what it was that truly enabled them to do/discover/uncover/find out/publish what they truly did when they were around, and up to now, etc.

I know what it is, but do you? Because that is the question, etc. And I can tell you right now that it's even much more important than knowledge, or an education even, etc. So do you know what it is? It doesn't discriminate or show partiality or favoritism toward anyone, or any one group even, etc. And if you don't have it, then someone who maybe doesn't even know even a tenth of what you do will wind up doing/saying/publishing something truly great while you'll be just have been shown out to be just sitting around blowing smoke wondering just how in the heck that happened with them and not with you when you know you know 100 times more than them, etc, and it will always come down to just this one thing they had that you didn't, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc?

I'll give you just one small clue, when you truly have this, you'll never lose your ability to always be truly objective, etc. So, do you know what this is? It separates those regardless of just about anything else of those who are or will be/do something truly noteworthy or great from those who always just wanted to be always but could never quite attain, etc. Do you know what it is? Einstein had it, and wasn't afraid of it, so do you know what it is? It doesn't care about you being or not being, or knowing or not knowing anything, because it can always very, very quickly make up for what/where you are lacking if you only just have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it, etc. So, do you know what it/this is? You can start out lacking, or way, way behind many, many others, and just suddenly and almost overnight surpass all others if you just only have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it through all the surpassing ever, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? It's the key to everything if you want to be anything anywhere at all, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? You can sometimes think you have it without even realizing you just lost sight of it by thinking you for sure have it, etc. So, do you know what it is?

God Bless.

How would I know if I have "it," Neo? ... as it goes, I'm pretty sure that I don't have "it," or else I'd be publishing.

 

[SelfSim]

I meant knowing that philosophy exists.

I can see that the field of study of philosophy exists, but the content of philosphical notions are all about subjective viewpoints, no(?)

And regarding politics it is the voters being able to use critical thinking that I think might get some politicians voted out, not the politicians. Although if they did take it up without the electorate following suit, they would probably lose their jobs that way too.

Yep .. its the age-old dilemma there, eh?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Um, I already did. I didn't think it was particularly interesting. As I recall:

Einstein (the titular "philospher" wrote a couple letters complaing about how chaotic discoveries were and how little we knew -- 80-90 years ago. Nothing memorable.

There was a section about doing work on the nature of QM. It was meh. The kind of complaints about the soulless minions of orthodoxy from those whose work is ignored that happen all the time.

The linked article in my OP uses the expression "soulless minions of orthodoxy"? ... ok. I'll have to go back and re-read it I suppose. I seem to have missed that bit.

The "physics seminar" versus "philosophy seminar" section was just dumb. For starters it souded like a description of a departmental colloquium in physics rather than a topical seminar. Then there is "5 minutes/1 question" nonsense. The typical timing is 50/10. Individual questions don't usually take 5 minutes to answer and many departments prioritize student questions. As for the "interjection questions" those are usually for clarification, not to challenge the speaker's life choices.

Ok. That's interesting to know. I'm sure you know all about this and it's something I can only wonder about.

As for the "hour of discussion", that's not the point of the colloquium talk. The purpose is to provide a current result placed in the appropriate physical context, often for work that is not widely discussed in a department. Not everyone is up to speed on the fractional quantum Hall effect, or nuclear shell models, or the feeding habits of supermassive black holes, so the first half (roughly) is about setting the background. I've seen people complain about step 29 of a derivation/argument and it is not interesting (get a room) and is the work of the referee.

I'll keep all of that in mind as I trudge forward then.

 

[Neogaia777]

How would I know if I have "it," Neo? ... as it goes, I'm pretty sure that I don't have "it," or else I'd be publishing.

Truth be told, a lot of it has to do with being able to set yourself aside (and your own pride and ego) (and desire to be be right) and really look at the 100% truth (facts vs not facts) (or sometimes two already fully proven facts) and view it all 100% truly objectively (and being able to reconcile those without yourself being involved especially when it's two proven facts, etc) and realizing just how quickly and easily we can lose sight of that, etc. (You only need to seek to publish only if that's something you desire, etc). (All of it takes some time/energy/effort/work, etc).

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

More people even knowing that it exists and what it is would do as far as I am concerned.

Maybe difficult to get politicians to support widespread critical thinking, they usually don't like ideas that could get them voted out next election.

I think you're right to some extent. Philosophers throughout time haven't always enjoyed the best public reputations. They've been not infrequently seen as nuisances to be bumped to the side so that the practical work of the politicians can have way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What both science and philosophy and any fields of science/study need to learn most is the key to what made a lot of our past "greats" truly great, etc, and what it was that truly enabled them to do/discover/uncover/find out/publish what they truly did when they were around, and up to now, etc.

I know what it is, but do you? Because that is the question, etc. And I can tell you right now that it's even much more important than knowledge, or an education even, etc. So do you know what it is? It doesn't discriminate or show partiality or favoritism toward anyone, or any one group even, etc. And if you don't have it, then someone who maybe doesn't even know even a tenth of what you do will wind up doing/saying/publishing something truly great while you'll be just have been shown out to be just sitting around blowing smoke wondering just how in the heck that happened with them and not with you when you know you know 100 times more than them, etc, and it will always come down to just this one thing they had that you didn't, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc?

I'll give you just one small clue, when you truly have this, you'll never lose your ability to always be truly objective, etc. So, do you know what this is? It separates those regardless of just about anything else of those who are or will be/do something truly noteworthy or great from those who always just wanted to be always but could never quite attain, etc. Do you know what it is? Einstein had it, and wasn't afraid of it, so do you know what it is? It doesn't care about you being or not being, or knowing or not knowing anything, because it can always very, very quickly make up for what/where you are lacking if you only just have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it, etc. So, do you know what it/this is? You can start out lacking, or way, way behind many, many others, and just suddenly and almost overnight surpass all others if you just only have this one quality/thing and don't ever lose sight of it through all the surpassing ever, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? It's the key to everything if you want to be anything anywhere at all, etc. So, do you know what it is, etc? You can sometimes think you have it without even realizing you just lost sight of it by thinking you for sure have it, etc. So, do you know what it is?

God Bless.

speaking of smoke, I've been in fog banks that were more transparent than this wall of short words, pronouns, and vaguery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Truth be told, a lot of it has to do with being able to set yourself aside (and your own pride and ego) (and desire to be be right) and really look at the 100% truth (facts vs not facts) (or sometimes two already fully proven facts) and view it all 100% truly objectively (and being able to reconcile those without yourself being involved especially when it's two proven facts, etc) and realizing just how quickly and easily we can lose sight of that, etc. (You only need to seek to publish only if that's something you desire, etc). (All of it takes some time/energy/effort/work, etc).

God Bless.

If we can really look at the 100% objective truth, I would agree with you that such an endeavor would truly be valuable.

How do you think we do that, Neo? I'm just asking because you seem to wisely suggest we should work to do so.

 

[Neogaia777]

If we can really look at the 100% objective truth, I would agree with you that such an endeavor would truly be valuable.

How do you think we do that, Neo? I'm just asking because you seem to wisely suggest we should work to do so.

Keeping ourselves in check, followed up by more keeping ourselves in check, followed up by more and more and more continual checking to keep ourselves in check, etc, etc, etc. Watch those egos very, very closely, and continually, etc.

A smart person with a big ego can talk a lot, and seem pretty knowledgeable about some things, etc, but when you really get down to really getting to know them, if you discover and over-inflated ego, you may be very shocked and surprised to find out that they're actually pretty stupid, etc. And you don't want to become one of those people in your endeavors, etc.

This is not true of all smart people however, so don't ever underestimate a smart person until you've gotten a chance to truly get to know them, or you'll be the one who winds up looking stupid, etc. And in fact, there are actually a lot of smart people who actually don't have over-inflated egos believe it or not, and it's part of how they became smart, so don't ever underestimate them. I'm just mainly saying that there are some that are, or do have a problem with their own egos, etc, and it makes those ones actually stupid, etc.

God Bless.