Article Feynman + Three advances in philosophy that made science better

[C C]

Until now, I never fully realized how much Richard Feynman sounded like Ed Norton (Art Carney) of the "The Honymooners". At least back in the 1950s (or '60s?).
- - - - - - -

The limitations of "just up and calculate" and avoiding philosophical interpretations of what the quantitative relationships mean or correspond to in terms of actual existential situations.
https://youtu.be/NM-zWTU7X-k

VIDEO EXCERPT: . . . The Mayans were able to calculate with great precision the predictions, for example, of eclipses, and the position of the moon in the sky, a position of Venus, and so on. However, it was all done by arithmetic. You count certain numbers, you subtract some numbers, and so on.

There was no discussion of what the moon was. There wasn't even a discussion of the idea that it went around. There was only calculate the time when there would be an eclipse, or the time when it would rise, the full moon, and when it would rise, half moon and so on. Just calculate.

Only suppose that a young man went to the astronomer and said: "I have an idea. Maybe those things are going around and there are balls of rocks out. We could calculate how they move, in a completely different way, and just calculate what time they appear in the sky and so on."

So of course, the Mayan astronomer would say, "How accurate can you predict eclipses?"

You say: "I haven't developed this thing very far."

Mayan astronomer: "But we can calculate eclipses more accurately than you can with your model. And so you must not pay any attention, as far as which mathematical scheme would be better."

And there's a very strong tendency of people to speak against some idea if someone says: "Let's suppose the world is this way."

And you say to him: "Well, how would you get what would you get for the answer for such and such a problem?"

And he says: "I haven't developed it far enough."

And you say: "Well, we have already developed much further. We can get the answers very accurately."

So it is a problem, as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.

Richard Feynman: "Knowing versus Understanding"

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NM-zWTU7X-k

---

Three advances in philosophy that made science better
https://bigthink.com/thinking/three-adva...ce-better/

KEY POINTS: Philosophy is often ridiculed by scientists as being little more than armchair speculation. This is unfortunate because the scientific method itself is a product of philosophy. Here, we discuss three major philosophical insights that directly led to advances in how science is performed. These insights came from Francis Bacon, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, and Noam Chomsky.

INTRO: Philosophy is often ridiculed by scientists as being little more than armchair speculation. Stephen Hawking famously declared it “dead.” This is unfortunate because the scientific method itself is a manifestation of philosophical thought arising from the subdiscipline known as epistemology. Historically, science and philosophy have worked hand-in-glove to advance our understanding of the world. In fact, “science” went by the moniker “natural philosophy” for much of history.

Scientists perhaps should be a bit more grateful. Advances in social and political philosophy helped prevent some scientists who upset the established order from being executed — but that’s a discussion for another day. Here, we will examine three philosophical insights that directly led to advances in how science is performed... (MORE - details)

[confused2]

Back in the day people were expected to have a 'feel' for a subject. People going to university to study a subject would often have been 'at it' since (maybe) the age of five - they'd already have a fair amount of the 10,000 hours it takes to become competent in any field. The student who has picked a course from a menu is a different animal to the 'vocational' student. Probably there is good reason to stand back from the subject being taught. In engineering there are now computer programs to do just about everything - unfortunately they often produce very bad designs when considered overall. You might say the standing back bit is 'philosophy' if you wanted to sneak the word in to gain leverage for 'philosophy' but I wouldn't.
IMO physics is the only real science - the rest is just different degrees of fluffiness. I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure the entire body of knowledge we call physics can be summarized in two words - shit happens. People have spent the last hundred years looking at quantum mechanics without getting any closer to why or how. And the situation is getting worse almost by the day. Maybe a nice cup of tea and some philosophy would help - but I don't think so.

The "shut up and calculate" supposedly comes from Feynman teaching quantum mechanics - his own claim was that he never managed to do anything more than calculate.


Maybe nit-picking here.. Feyman in the OP

So it is a problem, as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.

In fairness the Mayans were probably perfectly happy with their "shut up and calculate" approach and the Moon going round the Earth was better - possibly at a time when (for example) the Earth going round the Sun defied religious beliefs even basic physics might be considered 'philosophical' - a contest between dogma and observation. Feynman uses the word 'philosophies' in that context but remove religious dogma and interpretations are just that - interpretations.