You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Luke_A_Somers comments on [LINK] Why Talk to Philosophers: Physicist Sean Carroll Discusses "Common Misunderstandings" about Philosophy - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: shminux 23 June 2014 07:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (59)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 23 June 2014 08:00:34PM 5 points [-]

I don't have a problem with philosophers doing philosophy of science when they bother to do it right. I've had a number of conversations with philosophers who utterly mangle the science. Usually, this has to do with quantum mechanics, but sometimes it has to do with relativity. Sometimes it has to do with combining the two.

Comment author: shminux 23 June 2014 08:05:06PM 3 points [-]

Which philosophers do "philosophy of science" right?

Comment author: Stabilizer 23 June 2014 09:42:36PM *  11 points [-]

Some names come to mind: Ernest Nagel, Ian Hacking, Peter Galison, Alex Rosenberg, Samir Okasha, Tim Maudlin, David Albert, David Wallace, Massimo Pigliucci.

Actually, I haven't really encountered famous but shoddy philosophers of science. The reputed people seem to understand the problems they're thinking about very deeply, have deep domain knowledge and also write very clearly.

As a side note, I highly recommend Samir Okasha's A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. For philosophy of physics, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics has a great selection of topics.

Comment author: pragmatist 23 June 2014 10:22:52PM 10 points [-]

For philosophy of physics, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics has a great selection of topics.

I have a chapter in that handbook! Won't say which one, though.

Comment author: Manfred 24 June 2014 07:35:46PM *  6 points [-]

I have to admit I wasn't very impressed by A Very Short Introduction. The author used "façon-de-parler" when they could have used "figure of speech." They didn't mention or use probabilistic reasoning at any point, except to point out how mysterious (wiggles fingers) probabilities are. And they closed a section on the debate between Newton and Leibniz over whether absolute motion exists with the phrase "the controversy rages on."

Comment author: shminux 23 June 2014 10:14:03PM 2 points [-]

Thanks, will check out the last link.

Comment author: pragmatist 23 June 2014 09:40:37PM 5 points [-]

Wayne Myrvold is a good example. Others: Huw Price, John Earman, Philip Kitcher, Christopher Hitchcock, David Wallace, David Albert, Clark Glymour.

Comment author: DanielDeRossi 23 June 2014 11:37:17PM 3 points [-]

Tim Maudlin, R.J. Deltete, Robin Collins , John Earman