In the article “A Little Philosophy Is A Dangerous Thing, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/02/04/133363055/a-little-philosophy-is-a-dangerous-thing
“, Alva Noë wrote, “... But notice, too, that it is not a problem that physics can
solve by simply doing more physics. It's a problem about physics, after all.
And this is the hallmark of philosophical problems, which
usually take the form of a distinctive and urgent puzzlement about what we take
for granted. Philosophical problems arise when we are not sure how to go on, or
not sure what we've been doing all along, and they arise in any domain
whatsoever (neuroscience, biology, religion, politics, morality, and, of
course, physics).
Can breakthroughs in physics solve the philosophical problem
of making sense of the meaning of physics itself? Do the "recent
discoveries" and "theoretical advances" of the last few decades
enable us to frame new approaches to the question of the apparent
incompatibility of common sense and modern physics,... ?”
Indeed, can breakthroughs in physics solve the philosophical
problem of making sense of the meaning of physics itself? Obviously, the author
did not think so.
“Philosophical problems arise when we are not sure how to go
on.” That is, if we know how to go on, then we do not need philosophy at all
for physics. Yet, can physics go on with only the gadget physics? The article “LHC,
the end of the old physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/lhc-end-of-old-physics-epistemology.html
“ discusses this issue in detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment