
Quantum Gravity Expert Says "Philosophical Superficiality" Has Harmed Physics - tomhoward
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/21/quantum-gravity-expert-says-philosophical-superficiality-has-harmed-physics/?-k
======
winterismute
I had the privilege of meeting Carlo Rovelli (who attended university in my
hometown, many years before me) in a public event targeting people that, like
me, were at the time finishing high school and had to choose what to do with
their lives. We showed up already bored, waiting for the usual adults who
would explain us why to study this and not that, what are the many possible
career paths achievable by that, which economic sectors were growing and how,
and so on. In fact, some of the speakers did mostly that. On the contrary,
Rovelli started to explain how he did not know what to do after school, and
that he went to university initially because his family would have forced him
to work as a plumber with his uncle if he decided not to go. He then advised
us to choose to do only what we feel passionate about, and to distrust
whoever, truth in hand, will explain us that by studying X we will be able to
enter sector Y and achieve great success in life. It can seem trivial stuff,
but when you are 18 and are being told those things by a humble but successful
person, it really empowers you. He is also fairly easy to "approach", he
himself came to speak to us after the event, joking about the fact we should
not cut our hair "just to get a job" (I haven't since then, and I am 28 and
working), hence I am not surprised he answers to people's comment on the
interview, or that he is active on physics.stackexchange, for example.

I have studied computer science and got interested in physics and philosophy
of science thanks to him, he kind of embodies my idea of science, and of civil
responsibility, and I must say I have been a bit disappointed to see that also
the academic world is full of "scientists" that underestimate the value of
philosophy or other related subjects, or that teach students not to question
"too much" what they are doing, preventing them to really see the "big
picture" behind knowledge.

------
cromwellian
There seems to be a contradiction of his bashing of super-string theorists
exploring "what if" theories disconnected from reality, and his elevation of
philosophers who do the same. If anything, the super-string theorists are more
like philosophers in the sense that they are working mainly with thought
experiments, which they then try and reconcile with reality. If you read stuff
written by cognitive philosophers on the mind, they do this all the time,
proposing postulates and thought experiments, and then trying to rationalize
them with the assumptions about the real world, often, with no reference to
actual neuroscience.

Krauss et al's statements on philosophy are simply that when you build a
particle accelerator, walk into a lab, or start working out mathematical
theories, you don't start with philosophy of science. That's a backwards
rationalization of how science is done, constructing it's
underpinnings/justification after the fact. Most scientists who conducted
experiments and proposed hypotheses throughout history did not start by first
making sure what they were doing aligned with the Philosophy of Science. And
indeed, children conduct scientific investigations all the time blissfully
unaware of the philosophical underpinnings justifying it.

I'll go one further and say that the idea that you never need to do "what if"
theories, but merely explore the existing ones to their ends, can lead to
local optima. It is certainly possible you will run into the limits of the
conceptual underpinning of the theory in which no iterative refinement can fix
it in a way that leads to superior understanding.

Philosophy is useful, in the same way that logic and mathematics are useful,
to explore formal systems, especially when the real world experiments are
impossible or unethical to conduct. But the limits of philosophy are also born
out in the assumptions used -- e.g. arguments about free will or
consciousness, debates are artificial definitions that do not measurably or
provably reflect the real nature of real things.

Perhaps a better commentary here:
[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/accommoda...](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/accommodationism-
from-a-physicist/)

~~~
trevelyan
I'm not sure you're on solid ground assuming that there is a "real nature of
real things" beyond known time and space and sub-light speeds. As a passage in
a recent piece I read on Schopenhauer pointed out:

    
    
            Thus, for  anything  to be empirically  real, it
            must  be spatial, temporal, and causal.  Yet  space,
            time,  and  causality   cannot   be  proven   to  be
            empirically  real themselves! If space is thought of
            as an empirical entity, the insoluble problem arises
            whether it is finite or infinite. In the first case,
            there would have to be something 'outside'  space, a
            metaspace, which  is an absurd  notion;  but  in the
            second  case  it could  never  be differentiated  of
            anything  and would therefore  have no identity.  If
            time  is finite, there  would  have  to be something
            'before' and 'after' it, which again is absurd;  but
            if  it is infinite, it would  take  an  eternity  to
            arrive at the present moment, which therefore  could
            never come about.  Finite causality would enhance an
            unimaginable  'first  cause'  of all  events  in the
            universe, while  infinite  causality  poses, mutatis
            mutandis, the same problem as infinite time.
    

Given that the very foundations of causal logic (cause --> event) assume our
ability to differentiate in time and space, it does seem as if the most
interesting aspects of physics are operating in areas where open-mindedness
helps.

~~~
jblow
Wow, this Schopenhauer quote is really painful to read. Given basic
contemporary abstract thinking, it reads as completely naive.

This is not unique; I often feel this way when reading philosophy.

So I kind of understand where Hawking / Tyson / et al are coming from. I do
think it is a mistake to single-handedly dismiss all of philosophy, and I
agree with the sentiment in this article that physicists are following an
implicit philosophy that they do not understand, so there's a contradiction
there. At the same time, most philosophy is honestly pretty bad.

~~~
why-el
That quote is anything but naive. Its basically a rephrasing of the findings
of Kurl Godel, and I am not sure anyone would call that naive.

~~~
jblow
Which findings of Kurt Godel? Care to explain? Because for example this seems
like it has nothing to do with the incompleteness theorems unless one doesn't
understand the incompleteness theorems at all and is just hand-waving.

~~~
why-el
No one is hand-waving.

"Yet space, time, and causality cannot be proven to be empirically real
themselves". This is akin to mathematical axioms that escape proof within a
formal system. Of course one can debate whether the analogy applies for space
and time as it does in arithmetic, but this is beside the point. My point was
that Schopenhauer's quote was not even remotely close to being naive,
especially considering _when_ it was said (i.e. years before Godel and others
proved similar conclusions).

~~~
marcosdumay
You can use Godel's proof to show that a physics model based on space, time
and causality can not exmplain those. And that if there is one that explains
those, it must be based on some other set of concepts, that it can not
explain.

Yet, realism is in a completely different level. You can not reason about it
using mathematical constructs. (Too bad that's the only tool we have.)

~~~
apalmer
Can you really? Incompleteness doesn't necessarily say this. It makes certain
statements about certain types of contradictions in certain types of systems.
There is still a lot of work left to be done before you can apply it here.

You may be saying this has already been done elsewhere but without references
u can't just throw this out there as a given.

------
Elrac
OK, "Critical views of science in the news" is probably a useful avenue of
"hard looking" and quality control for science. But I think it behooves us to
be a little more critical in our choice of critics.

This struck me when the author, in his introduction, mentioned a previous Q&A
with telepathy proponent Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake only gets a brief mention
in this piece as a critic of science, and I hasten to add that I don't have
any beef with the article from that point on.

For anyone who doesn't know, Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince
people that telepathy is real. To this end, he's done a series of experiments
which had the kind of inconclusive results you'd expect, yet in spite of a
dearth of convincing, published results, in spite of a global failure to
replicate his results, he keeps badgering science to take him seriously.
Having been met with apathy and mild derision, he now blames science on his
failure to be taken seriously.

So yes, Sheldrake is a "science critic." So are many of the purveyors of
homeopathy, of miracle cancer cures, of coffee enemas, of dowsing and of
Intelligent Design. Science is empirical, and people without evidence like to
call this a shortcoming of science.

So my question is: how much debunking, how much finger pointing and pantsless
emperors is required before we can in good conscience exclude certain groups
of people from discussions about the philosophy of science? Those discussions
are important, no doubt - and this is why I think we should be wary of
allowing them to be bogged down by the contributions of frauds and crackpots.

~~~
alphydan
> Sheldrake has for years been trying to convince people that telepathy is
> real. To this end, he's done a series of experiments which had the kind of
> inconclusive results you'd expect.

Do you have a reference? The dog experiment seems statistically significant
([http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-
that-s...](http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-
to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-
observations), shows ANOVA, F-value (df 2,22)=20.46; p<0.0001). ). What
_exactly_ about that experiment is inconclusive?

Note that I'm not saying telepathy exists. I'm discussing an experiment for
which I have no sensible explanation. Is there some data/papers/methods I'm
missing?

~~~
Elrac
I am the one missing papers. Why didn't Sheldrake get this published under
peer review? I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis, so it
would be that much more interesting to read about reactions from scientists
who are.

By the rules of the game, if he's not participating in this exercise he's not
doing science.

~~~
alphydan
The paper _was_ published under peer review.
[http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldr...](http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_2_sheldrake.pdf)

If you look at the editorial board in
[http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/](http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/)
there are PhDs from a lot of prestigious institutions (Princeton, Sorbone,
John Hopkins, Cornell) which of course is no warranty or rigor, but it may be
an indication. The submission conditions show that the papers are peer-
reviewed
([http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_...](http://www.scientificexploration.org/documents/instructions_for_authors.pdf)).

> I don't feel qualified to judge his setup or analysis

then we should suspend our judgement about the validity of the results, not
discredit them by principle.

~~~
Elrac
Thank you for pointing out that this paper of Sheldrake's was indeed peer
reviewed. That paper also mentions that three independent scientists were
invited to attempt to replicate Sheldrake's work.

In this paper by one of those scientists
[http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf](http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/psychicdogreply.pdf)
one of the scientists (Wiseman) reports that they were in fact not able to
confirm Sheldrake's findings, that Sheldrake had criticized their criteria for
measurement _after_ they had led to failure, and badgered them into
arbitrarily establishing other criteria for success.

Wiseman also complains that he and his colleagues were badly misrepresented in
Sheldrake's paper, and that Sheldrake tried to present excuses for the failed
trials.

This post hoc selection of evaluation criteria is one way in which crackpots
massage experimental data to substantiate their claims. Honest scientists
usually do their best to avoid it.

In conclusion, in the one instance where an attempt was made to verify
Sheldrake's strongest results, he was seen to be acting in a manner
suspiciously characteristic of trying to introduce a bias in the direction he
preferred.

Even if he isn't intentionally dishonest, this man is almost certainly a
crackpot.

~~~
alphydan
Thanks for the reference. I was unaware of Wiseman's replication. Here is
Wiseman's peer reviewed paper,
[http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf](http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf)
with most of the data at the end. Some data is missing like the time of
departure, which could reveal other correlations. However, I would say, that
with the information available in that paper it seems pretty random and
doesn't suggest any unexplained phenomenon.

------
aluhut
What is this "recent bashing by Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Neil
deGrasse Tyson"?

~~~
3rd3
Stephen Hawking: _Philosophy is dead._

Lawrence Krauss: _Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then
'natural philosophy' became physics, and physics has only continued to make
inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas
that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then
you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers._

Neil Tyson DeGrasse: _Up until early 20th century philosophers had material
contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum
mechanics, remember the philosopher is the would be scientist but without a
laboratory, right? And so what happens is, the 1920s come in, we learn about
the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics,
each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that
the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to
the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and
that point, and I have yet to see a contribution — this will get me in trouble
with all manner of philosophers — but call me later and correct me if you
think I’ve missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways
from the frontier of the physical sciences, when there was a day when they
were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word
physicist didn’t even exist in any important way back then. So, I’m
disappointed because there is a lot of brainpower there, that might have
otherwise contributed mightily, but today simply does not. It’s not that there
can’t be other philosophical subjects, there is religious philosophy, and
ethical philosophy, and political philosophy, plenty of stuff for the
philosophers to do, but the frontier of the physical sciences does not appear
to be among them._

~~~
tim333
>Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make
to the physical sciences

I think what changed was physics became much harder to understand. Pre
Einstein it was fairly easy for someone without much physics training to grasp
Newtonian stuff. With the advent of general relativity and quantum mechanics
it became hard to understand without years of study of physics which most
philosophers do not have which led to their work being not very useful to the
physicists. However philosophical insights by people who do understand the
physics can be good in my opinion.

Feynman seemed good, for example. Simple stuff

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_wh...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_why_questions/)

a bit more subtle, philosophical at the beginning:

[http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html)

Feynman and philosophy:

[https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Richard_Feynman_Accident...](https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Richard_Feynman_Accidental_Philosopher)

~~~
toufka
And on that point, there are philosophers who do get the physics, and who are
making material contributions. However they are significantly marginalized by
their predecessors and often must directly compete with those who do not
understand that physics for grant money, university resources and students.
They are an unheard minority, quite unfortunately.

------
ExpiredLink
> _You see: the scientists that talk philosophy down are simply superficial:
> they have a philosophy (usually some ill-digested mixture of Popper and
> Kuhn) and think that this is the “true” philosophy, and do not realize that
> this has limitations._

So true.

~~~
protonfish
Hardly. What definition of "philosophy" is in use here? It sounds like he just
means "beliefs" which, of course, everyone has. If "philosophy" means ideas
that do not need facts, reason, or testability then it is just nonsense.
Philosophy that requires these qualities is called "science."

~~~
lutusp
> If "philosophy" means ideas that do not need facts, reason, or testability
> then it is just nonsense.

That's philosophy's territory, now that we have science. Philosophers don't
have to, and feel no need to, reality-test their speculations. And I see I may
be reflecting your views on this topic.

------
QuantumChaos
I really liked this article. The author gave real substantive answers to
almost all the questions.

I would have liked to have more detail on his critique of the "guess and
check" approach to science. My own opinion is that there is a very good reason
why scientific progress follows the pattern he describes, of new theories
being based on either new experiments, or in depth analysis of existing
theories.

The reason is that science relies on belief in objective reality, and yet we
don't know what objective reality is. So in order to reason about what the
universe _really_ is, the best and only starting point is our current model(s)
of physics.

The moment we make an assumption about what reality is that isn't based in
physical theory, we are liable to be wrong. For example, Newton was criticized
for his theory of gravity, because people _knew_ that reality was composed of
little machine-like objects, interacting at a microscopic scale. There was no
room in this worldview for Newton's "occult" force of gravity which acted at a
distance.

------
mparr4
I studied physics at the University of Maryland, one of the better (top 20)
physics programs in the US. I was surprised at how often questions were
answered with "that's for the philosophers to think about."

Granted, there's a lot of material to cover, I don't think that's an
appropriate response–especially when delivered with contempt, as it typically
was.

~~~
bkcooper
What are some examples of the questions that got this answer?

~~~
Balgair
"So wait, if QM says you can be everywhere at once, are you?"

"If GR means all the laws are related to the reference frame, does that mean
all the things in it are relative too, like religion?"

"What if Dark matter really is more than just stuff that falls down. What if
there are intelligent clouds there? What are their ethics like?"

"No but really, what is the definition of life?"

"Ok, so fetal stem cells, but what if we took a blood sem cell and then back
tracked that into a fetal one. Is that wrong?"

All of these can take the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' given to undergrads. The
Copenhagen Interpretation states: Shut up and calculate.

------
ekm2
This reminds me of a quote by Richard Feynman:

 _Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to
birds_

~~~
acornax
Kind of a bad quote. Ornithology would be useful to birds if they could
understand it.

~~~
trhway
primary example of birds benefiting from ornithology :)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/06/vladimir-
putin-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/06/vladimir-putin-cranes-
hang-glider)

If only some philosopher of science could lead the scientists the same way (
to the former USSR citizens - "poruchik, molchat!" :)

