Is the philosophy of science useful for acutal scientists ?

is the philosophy of science useful for acutal scientists ?

Nope, but it makes philosophy kids feel like they're important because they actually think that without them morality wouldn't exist.

It may structure your thoughts, but it ain't gonna do shit in the lab.

What do you think?

i havent build a solid opinion on that topic yet, just heard several scientists like weinberg feynman, krauss and others that its useless, thats why im curious

any scientist at a high enough level of expertise and abstraction in their respective field will always be dealing with the philosophy of science

It's probably something you should know, whether or not you find it to be "useful."

Of course. Every scientist should be aware that science is only a white patriarchal construct and holds no factual value.

does this imply the neccesity if actually studying the philosophy of science, or do you mean it in the sense that scientists use for example falsificationism so they technically touch the PoS but dont have to study it ?

Depends on what you think is important - before Popper inductivism was the method scientists used to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Today, we prefer falsifiability which has come to be a well familiar term in science. If direct realism is false scientist are basically studying the shadows in Plato's cave. Whether this is a problem depends on why you do science...

by virtue of using the scientific method to verify something makes itself a philosophical statement - mainly that the scientific method is a reliable way of knowing truth, empirical data can be trusted, and that the universe follows laws and patterns which can be observed. these statements deal with fields such as epistemology and metaphysics.

on a side note, popperian falsificationism is a rarely used idea nowadays due to how lacking it is. sep has good writings on it

>Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
philosophers btfo?

Scientists subconsciously participate in the philosopht of science whether they know it or not just as birds flock to other birds of the same species and thus organizing themselves.

Oh it runs so much deeper than that. No matter if the shadows on the wall are real or fabricated stuff must still be accepted for publication to be considered scientific. And being a reviewer is something you can put on your CV, effectively making the whole system a "prove your worth to us (the guys with the money) by making good filtering decisions" masquerade.

I would say it does, at least on a basic level in small doses.

There have been many absolutely baffling leaps of logic in various fields which could pollute them for decades afterwards (e.g. the concept of prokaryote monophyly).

You can have papers with clear and impeccable methodology drawing fallacious conclusions written by people who apparently don't understand how syllogisms work. Then you have hundreds of people citing said paper, few of which go back to verify the validity of the earlier work, and most of those who do focus on the methodology and results not the problem of whether the conclusions actually follow from the results.

This is a question that can be answered by experiment. As a mathematician, I am partial to proofs, but ultimately they have no bearing on reality, so most posts in this thread are garbage.

I know pseudo-intelectuals can be actually annoying and arrogant, but go circlejerk about your complains on reddit. They will welcome you with open arms.

You're an idiot.

Yes, inasmuch as it should serve to keep scientists humble. That is, we have to remember that we don't have all the answers. Hell, we probably don't even have a statistically significant amount of the answers we need to form a complete picture of the universe.

if you're not too clear on the difference between verifying scientific theories and falsifying scientific theories, then you may need to seek philosophy of science to rid yourself of philosophical confusion

there's also other scientists that have hold the opposite opinion.

>mfw applied maths
and i don't give fuck

The study of philosophy has a very hazy definition. Nowadays, philosophy only serves to answer metaphysical questions that science cannot answer, however in the days of Ancient Greece and even Rome, philosophy was used to answer questions that people believed that science could never answer. The truth was that science couldn't answer those questions relative to their time period. Newton likely thought that science could never explain gravity and attributed it to God. I predict that the science of the future will be able to explain questions that we currently deem as "metaphysical" or inexplicable by means of science.

>i haven't read any philosophy: the post

Yep.
I can understand the sentiment of philosophy sometimes being hypothesis for things that we don't know how to empirically test sometimes, but saying it is just that is silly

You can't empirically test the method for confirming empirical data. Not all knowledge is empirically obtained user and saying so has vey drastic implications such as the denying the existence of everything other than empirical data.

Scientism is a dogmatic belief user that is anti-intellectual at its core and disgustingly reductionist.

my mistake meant for

Despite what Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums thinks, philosophy of anything hasn't been useful in over 100 years.

useful meaning what?

For conducting science

Philosophy is a tool

stupid scientimist

>denying the truth of science

Philosophy of science isn't the only kind of philosophy, or the only kind of philosophy that has affected the world in the past 100 years.

you're doing the satire thing right
i'm not good at Veeky Forums culture