Mar 4, 2021 09:05 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 4, 2021 09:07 PM by C C.)
How philosophy helps solve puzzles in chemistry
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/h...02.article
INTRO: We often think that the problems that scientists puzzle over are solved by doing more experiments, revising scientific theories or developing more powerful computational methods. While these are essential elements of scientific progress, philosophical analysis is also an important tool.
Hund’s paradox is one such scientific problem that has drawn the attention of philosophers. In 1927, Friedrich Hund showed that the quantum mechanical description of a chiral molecule predicts as its most stable state that of the superposition of its two chiral structures. This contrasts with empirical evidence, as chemists observe molecules to have one or the other chiral structure.
Since then, chemists and quantum chemists have offered various responses to this paradox. For example, some point out the need to take into account the effects of the environment when describing a molecule’s structure. Philosophers have also attempted to offer some insight. Some propose that the paradox is resolved if we adopt a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (called the Modal Hamiltonian Interpretation). Others make the more general claim that the paradox is a special case of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (made familiar by Schrodinger’s cat), and that as such Hund’s paradox should be examined through the perspective of existing solutions to the measurement problem.
As this example shows, the philosophical analysis of a scientific puzzle does not amount to merely evaluating existing scientific responses. Among other things, philosophers examine the meaning and historical development of the concepts that are involved in formulating a specific paradox, and look at how this paradox may relate to other scientific problems.
Another problem that continues to puzzle chemists concerns chemical bonds... (MORE)
What is reality? In a divided America, maybe philosophers can tell us
https://www.northjersey.com/story/entert...404417001/
EXCERPTS: "Reality is the idea that there is a world out there, independent of what we think of it," said Kevin Olbrys, assistant professor in the Philosophy and Religion Department at Bergen Community College in Paramus. Reality. There's a quaint idea. Especially in 2021 America — a country where half of us believe one person won the election, and the other half believe someone else did. And each has their own facts to back them up.
This sounds like a job for … Ontology Man. You know. Ontology. "The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being." Remember that? From Philosophy 101.
What — you never took a philosophy class? Not practical? Not relevant? The most useless major of all — not excepting English? Remember how you pitied the eggheads who spent good tuition money on a philosophy degree? "What did the philosophy major say?" you joked. Answer: "Want some fries with that?"
[...] Is reality just a matter of perception? And is what we collectively call "real" just a sort of agreement, for mutual convenience? If so, we are free to agree on anything we want — that the earth is flat, that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened, that lizard people control one of America's two political parties. This is the nightmare world that George Orwell foresaw in "Nineteen Eighty-Four."
"Nothing exists except through human consciousness," says O'Brien, the mouthpiece for the all-powerful dictator, Big Brother. "We control matter because we control the mind," he says. "Reality is inside the skull. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to."
Such thinking is actually pretty easy to discredit, says Peter Dlugos, also a professor of philosophy and religion at BCC. [...] "The problem is, if we think it's all just a matter of opinion, or all opinions are equal, then we have to make decisions on things, the success of which depend on the facts," Dlugos said. "Like COVID. Like those people on their deathbed saying, 'Oh, my God, I was so wrong.' "
[...] What's needed, says Pete Mandik, chair of the Philosophy Department of William Paterson University in Wayne, is more rigorous mental techniques for arriving at truth. "There is a kind of method," Mandik said. "The Carl Sagan version is, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If your neighbor tells you he saw Elvis at the CVS, he better have extraordinary evidence. It can't be just a guy with brunette hair from across the store."
Back in the 18th century, Scottish philosopher David Hume, author of "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," had his own version of this. "He asks: What should we make of claims about miraculous events?" Mandik said. "A man comes to you and says someone rose from the dead, or had their blindness cured. You have to ask yourself, what's more likely — that this claim is true, or that the person that's telling it is a deceiver? Or deceived?"
[...] Back around 450 B.C., in ancient Athens, they had their own problems with "alternative facts." True, they didn't have Twitter. But they did have sophists — from which we get the word "sophistry." These were philosophers who made themselves available, for a fee, to statesmen and nobility. Reality, they held, had no independent existence — it was whatever you could get people to believe. And they taught the rhetorical tools to persuade. Handy, then as now, for a political career.
That, Plato tell us, is something that his teacher Socrates had no patience with. "Plato writes this dialogue where [sophists] are cads, cocky, overconfident, and they employ this rhetorical technique," Olbrys said. "And the counterpoint is Socrates, who really wants them to slow down and care about the truth, rather than caring about convincing others of their narrative. It's a great moment in the history of philosophy. "Now we have the question: Is there objective reality? And how can we get to it, when it seems some people can use speech to pull us away from it?"
Is there objective reality? Plato thought so. But it can be arrived at only through epistemic inquiry. Epistemic: Another big word. From epistemology. The branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge and knowing. Such inquiry requires fearless commitment to truth... (MORE - details)
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/h...02.article
INTRO: We often think that the problems that scientists puzzle over are solved by doing more experiments, revising scientific theories or developing more powerful computational methods. While these are essential elements of scientific progress, philosophical analysis is also an important tool.
Hund’s paradox is one such scientific problem that has drawn the attention of philosophers. In 1927, Friedrich Hund showed that the quantum mechanical description of a chiral molecule predicts as its most stable state that of the superposition of its two chiral structures. This contrasts with empirical evidence, as chemists observe molecules to have one or the other chiral structure.
Since then, chemists and quantum chemists have offered various responses to this paradox. For example, some point out the need to take into account the effects of the environment when describing a molecule’s structure. Philosophers have also attempted to offer some insight. Some propose that the paradox is resolved if we adopt a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (called the Modal Hamiltonian Interpretation). Others make the more general claim that the paradox is a special case of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (made familiar by Schrodinger’s cat), and that as such Hund’s paradox should be examined through the perspective of existing solutions to the measurement problem.
As this example shows, the philosophical analysis of a scientific puzzle does not amount to merely evaluating existing scientific responses. Among other things, philosophers examine the meaning and historical development of the concepts that are involved in formulating a specific paradox, and look at how this paradox may relate to other scientific problems.
Another problem that continues to puzzle chemists concerns chemical bonds... (MORE)
What is reality? In a divided America, maybe philosophers can tell us
https://www.northjersey.com/story/entert...404417001/
EXCERPTS: "Reality is the idea that there is a world out there, independent of what we think of it," said Kevin Olbrys, assistant professor in the Philosophy and Religion Department at Bergen Community College in Paramus. Reality. There's a quaint idea. Especially in 2021 America — a country where half of us believe one person won the election, and the other half believe someone else did. And each has their own facts to back them up.
This sounds like a job for … Ontology Man. You know. Ontology. "The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being." Remember that? From Philosophy 101.
What — you never took a philosophy class? Not practical? Not relevant? The most useless major of all — not excepting English? Remember how you pitied the eggheads who spent good tuition money on a philosophy degree? "What did the philosophy major say?" you joked. Answer: "Want some fries with that?"
[...] Is reality just a matter of perception? And is what we collectively call "real" just a sort of agreement, for mutual convenience? If so, we are free to agree on anything we want — that the earth is flat, that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened, that lizard people control one of America's two political parties. This is the nightmare world that George Orwell foresaw in "Nineteen Eighty-Four."
"Nothing exists except through human consciousness," says O'Brien, the mouthpiece for the all-powerful dictator, Big Brother. "We control matter because we control the mind," he says. "Reality is inside the skull. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to."
Such thinking is actually pretty easy to discredit, says Peter Dlugos, also a professor of philosophy and religion at BCC. [...] "The problem is, if we think it's all just a matter of opinion, or all opinions are equal, then we have to make decisions on things, the success of which depend on the facts," Dlugos said. "Like COVID. Like those people on their deathbed saying, 'Oh, my God, I was so wrong.' "
[...] What's needed, says Pete Mandik, chair of the Philosophy Department of William Paterson University in Wayne, is more rigorous mental techniques for arriving at truth. "There is a kind of method," Mandik said. "The Carl Sagan version is, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If your neighbor tells you he saw Elvis at the CVS, he better have extraordinary evidence. It can't be just a guy with brunette hair from across the store."
Back in the 18th century, Scottish philosopher David Hume, author of "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," had his own version of this. "He asks: What should we make of claims about miraculous events?" Mandik said. "A man comes to you and says someone rose from the dead, or had their blindness cured. You have to ask yourself, what's more likely — that this claim is true, or that the person that's telling it is a deceiver? Or deceived?"
[...] Back around 450 B.C., in ancient Athens, they had their own problems with "alternative facts." True, they didn't have Twitter. But they did have sophists — from which we get the word "sophistry." These were philosophers who made themselves available, for a fee, to statesmen and nobility. Reality, they held, had no independent existence — it was whatever you could get people to believe. And they taught the rhetorical tools to persuade. Handy, then as now, for a political career.
That, Plato tell us, is something that his teacher Socrates had no patience with. "Plato writes this dialogue where [sophists] are cads, cocky, overconfident, and they employ this rhetorical technique," Olbrys said. "And the counterpoint is Socrates, who really wants them to slow down and care about the truth, rather than caring about convincing others of their narrative. It's a great moment in the history of philosophy. "Now we have the question: Is there objective reality? And how can we get to it, when it seems some people can use speech to pull us away from it?"
Is there objective reality? Plato thought so. But it can be arrived at only through epistemic inquiry. Epistemic: Another big word. From epistemology. The branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge and knowing. Such inquiry requires fearless commitment to truth... (MORE - details)