home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rutgers!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!ruhets.rutgers.edu!bweiner
- From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
- Message-ID: <Aug.28.14.08.10.1992.14230@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
- Date: 28 Aug 92 18:08:10 GMT
- References: <1992Aug28.083903.10804@u.washington.edu> <1992Aug28.135758.8497@math.ucla.edu>
- Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
- Lines: 24
-
- Barry Merriman writes:
- >Oh my god, what have we done!
- >
- >But, I'd think that if you learned anything from the survey, it
- >would have been that this mushy, warm fuzzy [F. Capraesque :-)]
- >philosphy is not the way to understand nature.
-
- >Why not become a _real_ scientist, instead of an intellectual gadfly.
-
- No fair, Barry, it seems to me that _was_ what Shoshana Billik deduced
- from the survey. There's nothing too disrespectable about metaphysics
- (or even intellectual gadflies), why shouldn't people major in
- philosophy if they want to.
-
- Like many of us, I imagine, I am sometimes quizzed about the Tao of
- Physics and other such silliness, or about, say whether Einstein
- proved that everything is relative. Rather than dismiss the questioner
- as a fuzzy-head or someone with a hidden New-Age agenda, I try to
- carefully explain why I don't agree with that kind of stuff, and
- to explain what the science really is, and emphasize the limitations
- of it: you can't use physics to justify a moral/philosophical stance
- like "everything is relative," etc. Sometimes it works. If
- scientists want their public image to improve they have to spend more
- time explaining what they do - otherwise Fritjof Capra will do it for us.
-