Joke Collection Website - Joke collection - Why should modern physics get rid of philosophy?

Why should modern physics get rid of philosophy?

Since Hawking's grand design, philosophy has been almost sneered at. Indeed, in the eyes of physicists, compared with the rapid development of physics and its outstanding contribution to the real world, philosophy seems to have been stagnant, and even whether philosophy is a science has caused controversy among philosophers. Philosophy gives people the impression that there are many obscure terms, so people don't know what they are talking about. Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, said in this book: "The terminology in some books is simply incomprehensible. I think its purpose is to touch those who are confused and profound. "

I used to be addicted to Kant's philosophy, but when I learned about relativity, it meant giving up philosophy completely. Kant's understanding of time and space in Critique of Pure Reason completely bowed to Einstein's general theory of relativity. "In Kant's view, the greatest thing about Einstein is that it reduces space and time to the level of the ordinary role of the physical universe and becomes an ordinary role influenced by motion or gravity." The product of speculative philosophy, such as phlogiston theory, finally proved to be just people's imagination.

We always say that philosophy guides science, which is a joke to professional scientists. In Weinberg's view, the physicist's philosophy is only a kind of practical realism, and this philosophy only comes from physical practice and does not need the guidance of any philosopher. Weinberg further pointed out how positivism hindered the development of modern physics. Furthermore, under the guidance of strict positivism, string theory may not be born at all, because string theory has not been confirmed by experiments so far, but should we abandon string theory? Weinberg said no, if there is no theoretical guidance, we can't guide what to observe at all. The reason why we are instructed to do experiments is entirely because there is a theory that tells us to do so. No one will do physics experiments without knowing physics, because he has no idea what he is going to do.

In fact, what annoys the scientific community most is the so-called scientific critical theory, which is full of ignorance and incomprehension of science. For example, the so-called feminist science describes the current science as a man's science (I admit that I am a man. )。 Some people even say that it is difficult for women to understand these scientific knowledge because the curves in fluid mechanics are inconsistent with those in women's bodies. Oh, my God, what is this?

When scientists struggled to refute some fallacies, philosophers, especially French philosophers, began to portray scientists as the overlord of power, and scientists monopolized the right to speak. They are the last absolutists. Science is only a description of reality, and it should not monopolize the right to speak and refuse other explanations. I agree that science is only an explanation, not necessarily the ultimate truth, but it is ridiculous to apply the theory of political criticism to the scientific community and turn scientists into a group of despots. No wonder Weinberg said that fierce criticism of science has no effect on scientists. Also, scientists care about their papers, who will have the energy to discuss with philosophers what kind of pseudoscience feminist science is?

Judging from the process of modern philosophy, philosophy is almost useless to science, but many scientific achievements have promoted the renewal of philosophy.

Wittgenstein believes that philosophy is not science, but its purpose is to clarify ideas. In Weinberg's view, looking for the ultimate theory does not need the help of philosophy, but needs the help of mathematics. In Weinberg's words: "Mathematics is inexplicably useful, and philosophy is inexplicably useless!"