Dubious wrote:physicts prefer that philosophers mind their own back yard
Obvious Leo wrote:Philosophers of science are inclined to hold a similar opinion of physicists, as indeed are some physicists themselves, to their credit.
Physicists can only hope that's true but philosophers still can't help playing by their own rules even in disciplines that no-longer concern them. A philosopher of science who's also a physicist is not usually one who wants to cohabit with a philosopher of science who's only an academic.
Obvious Leo wrote:They have no authority to make metaphysical statements and should therefore refrain from doing so unless they're willing to allow them to be subjected to metaphysical scrutiny.
I don't know of any theories that make metaphysical statements but if they do how does it become metaphysical? Science usually goes wherever the data takes it. True there can be a number of ridiculous assumptions made in trying to decipher the info. Physicists even lampoon other physicists when they take the art of interpretation too far. Is this what you qualify as metaphysics? Also, what means
metaphysical scrutiny, which rightly considered amounts to an oxymoron? Can an absurdity, examine another of its kind for validity? Whether in philosophy or science, if its bullshit just donate it to the nearest mushroom farmer but that's one thing philosophy is incapable of, taking out its own garbage. All of it is still archived for future study in the hallowed halls of academia.
Dubious wrote: If you were introduced to two people without ever having met them before would you be able to tell who the philosopher and who the physicist?
Obvious Leo wrote:In a heartbeat.
Really? If you never met them and just doing small talk how could you possibly know!
Dubious wrote: For any current theory there had to be at least some reason for that theory to be acknowledged.
Obvious Leo wrote:For a theory to be held as true in physics all it has to to is yield predictions which can be confirmed.
It's only YOU who's saying this not physicists because this wouldn't even make sense in physics. It's not always easy determining to what extent a theory may be right or wrong. Part of it may adapt to known data but not everything in the theory adjusts so easily. If a theory consistently produces positive results according to observations and experiments that would give it a very high probability of being correct meaning it models the reality almost perfectly
but it cannot be the REALITY because the model is derived from it which, I'm sure is understood by physicists at least as much as by philosophers.
Dubious wrote:For any current theory there had to be at least some reason for that theory to be acknowledged.
Obvious Leo wrote:This means the Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology is just as true today as it's ever been.
A statement like this is TOTALLY incongruous coming from anyone who claims to have solved the problems of physics. A half intelligent 5th grader would realize there's something not right about this! Does it really have to be pointed out that what qualified as a “theory” two thousand years ago has absolutely no relation to the modern concept of one. It wasn't even a theory but a mathematical fix to describe the cyclical motion of the planets against a background of fixed stars...the so-called Celestial Sphere. Ptolemy was very ingenious in "designing" a predictive and refined mechanical model of the solar system but simply being predictive of naked eye observations does not require a supporting theory to uphold it.
Your analogue to Ptolemy's system in order to lampoon modern theories shows once again why science needs and must exclude most of philosophy and philosophers from its domain...they have nothing to contribute, the only problem being philosophers can't keep away from parties they were never invited to. At least on philosophy forums everyone is free to create their own editions of a universe.
Obvious Leo wrote:In fact no theory can be proven true but any dodgy theory can always be falsified. Spacetime physics has been falsified by quantum entanglement.
Who said its been falsified? There must be some reference to that if space-time were proven false or is this simply another assertion? According to the last confirmed prediction of GR, the rippling of space-time is mentioned EVERY time in the context of gravitational waves. Never once, even in the newest edition of articles, have I
ever read that space-time is dead! How can it be dead if we have NOTHING to replace it with and now even more established within the context of GR.