So you are saying that evidence is relative, and can itself be an opinion?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
I propose that Weinberg is just plain wrong here. (or maybe not even that?) I don’t doubt that he is correct that he can’t think of any significant help, and he probably is crafty enough to define “help” in such a way that nobody else would be able to produce a name to gainsay his narrow opinion. My objection is against his entire premise that philosophy is somehow excluded (at least in any helpful way) from the professional work of the scientist.
If you disagree then you should be able to point to counterexamples. If you can’t think of a physicist in the postwar era that has been helped significantly by philosophy, then why do you think Weinberg is wrong?[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
As to whether physicists are languishing or thriving … the jury is apparently still out on that too.
That jury gave its verdict a long time ago, and the verdict is that it is thriving. Physicists 200 years ago would be absolutely stunned at what has occurred in the field over those 200 years. The knowledge gained just over the last 60 years is more than we learned in the previous 200,000 years.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
Those who are so inept outside of their own profession that they can’t even see or make connections between their work and a world of beauty and love and all manner of non-scientific yet thoroughly objectively existing treasures, then it seems to me that they may come up short of evidence for the “thriving” part of that.
Scientists see beauty as well, they just don’t confuse the subjective with the objective.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:173, topic:35961”]
They may turn out notable work (though that probably not for long in the absence of any broader good life), but in what direction did they help push the aim of the whole profession? Is their philosophy attempting to steer the profession into needless rivalry and conflict with all other humanities/philosophies/religions? Or do they have a more science-friendly philosophy that is helping push their profession toward science in whatever contexts it can be found?
I would say that the overall attitude among scientists is that the objective truth is what is important, no matter what beliefs or philosophies it may conflict with. There is even a cavalier attitude that scientists should ask the dangerous questions if it means discovering a truth.