/lit/ - Literature

>>13001083

BECAUSE: (1) «DARK MATTER» IS A SPURIOUS CONCEPT FABRICATED BY PSEUDOSCIENTISTS, AND (2) «DARK MATTER» IS A CONCEPT THAT PERTAINS TO SCIENTISM, AND TO SOPHISTRY, NOT TO SCIENCE, AND NOR TO PHILOSOPHY.

>>13001099
90% of philosophy is never ending self jerking rants of pseudoscience

>>13001112

YOU IGNORE WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY.

>>13001083
Because that has nothing to do with philosophy?

>>13001083
Scientists are encouraged to 'shut up and calculate' because meandering speculation can become trendy and ruin the fidelity of scientific research, as it already has. Those that write philosophy are usually hacks, some do delve into it very tentatively and reasonably though. And philosophers don't understand physics let alone something that current.

Philosophy kind of stopped doing metaphysics in a serious way, and especially in connection with science, in the 19th century. Around 1790-1800 and for a few decades afterward, German Naturphilosophie tried really hard to metaphysically integrate contemporary science and to resist the tendencies to reduce all of nature to Newtonian mechanism. But it overreached in a lot of ways, and fell out of favour with rising experimental, practical, technical, and mathematical methods in science, which tended to reinforce mechanistic conceptions. By 1850, but especially by the late 19th century, mainstream philosophy had shifted its focus to issues of language, culture, and consciousness rather than nature.

A few have attempted to deal with cosmology, like Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty. And there are always kinda quackish philosophers floating around (and who knows, maybe the real geniuses are in this group but undiscovered). But I think there's nothing really like what you're looking for. Philosophy just doesn't engage with science in that way anymore - if our observations and hypotheses about dark matter/energy had occurred around 1800-1830, I think Schelling and the other Naturphilosophie-inspired scientists would have been all over that shit, but nowadays not so much. Fundamentally, the mechanistic world-picture of the modern physical sciences won out, and although it was more questionable and subtle pre-1900, it's now so taken for granted that even thinking about it reflexively is difficult.

Quantum theory is a realm for philosophers, not scientists, because it proves nothing and allow for everything. There should be quantum philosophers and quantum metaphysics, because the physicists have utterly failed us in this regard.

>>13001173
gathering data doesn't mean you're best equipped to interpret said data, that should be left to the philosophers to discuss.

>>13001083
There is an entire fucking field called philosophy of science, and its greatest fucking portion is philosophy of physics. The whole realism/anti-realism debate with regard to theories is directly relevant to what is at stake in dark matter. Here is a brilliant philosopher talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbE9Xgoxl4

I love how the replies to this thread are so clueless.

>>13001196
this is basic phil of sci 101 shit, the intro methods class they give to every STEM student

also she entirely talks about ca. 1950s postpositivism very basic stuff, no mention of ontology or theory-laden perception at all

>>13001263
Oh so you know the field exists?

I linked the video because it was one of the top results on google after typing "dark matter philosophy".

But she has great work on perspectival realism, which is a bit deeper if you are actually capable of sitting down and researching things rather than saying "philosophers have ignored science since the 19th century".

The authors she is talking about in the video, like Kuhn, and the thesis of 'underdetermination of theory by evidence' (AKA Duhem-Quine thesis) is basically all about theory-laden perception. The realism debate is an ontological debate. Saying reality is perspectival is, from my understanding, bringing in epistemology.

Why are you complaining about her video when it is in fact very self consciously phil of sci 101 shit, to get people lacking any knowledge started on phil of sci?

>>13001285
>(cont.)
One more thing, we all start learning about Dark Matter/Energy as these two make up 70-80% of all reality, but might not exist. This is what physicists themselves say. I am not a scientist and I have a very shallow understanding of it, but that this is a very interesting point about the relation between scientific theories and reality is obvious and way too much has already been said about it, even if not by explicit reference to dark matter/energy. Hell you can even read Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction as being about theory/reality in science.

>>13001196
>woman
Insta dropped

>>13001329
insta go fuck yourself

>>13001353

Dark matter is physics' God of the gaps

>>13001329
based

>>13001196
Not real philosophy

>>13001188
OK retard

Interpret this data on the effects of this laser plasma accelerator test run

>>13001178
hahahaha SO WRONG!!!

>>13002930
>Not real philosophy
>Real philosophy has never been tried!!1ONE
Fucking idiot

You actually believe in that shit?

>>13003086
Literally what? Real philosophy exists, this isnt real philosophy.

>>13001083
Philosophy is simply not equipped to deal with these questions. The majority of philosophers have no clue about physics and it has been shown (by Sokal for example) that philosophers routinely misuse and misunderstand scientific data and terminology. One cannot doubt the role of philosophy in important subjects like socioeconomics and ethics but it becomes dangerous and cringeworthy as soon as it ventures beyond its fief.

>>13001083
Philosophical cosmology has existed for a long time. But the philosophy of cosmology as the study of fundamental issues in the physical science of cosmology is a very recent development. Check out pic related, which includes some papers on the epistemological and ontological issues surrounding dark energy/matter.

>>13001173
You're just about completely wrong as to the motivation for the tendency to embrace the spirit of "shut up and calculate". It emerged in the three decades between the EPR paper and John Bell publishing his no-go theorem and was pushed by certain practitioners of physics who subscribed to Niels Bohr's conception of physics as instrumental and not particularly interested in unveiling the structure of reality. This view has weakened since Bell defied that consensus. Physicists are now more inclined to discuss interpretational issues in their field.

>>13001178
>Philosophy kind of stopped doing metaphysics in a serious way, and especially in connection with science, in the 19th century

Completely wrong, see analytic metaphysics and the entire field of philosophy of science. The faux-competition between the two is mostly an artifact of public intellectuals who don't understand their field. In reality physicists and philosophers collaborate on edited volumes, attend each others' conferences, and generally maintain a healthy dialogue.

>>13001186
it's called philosophy of physics

>>13003146
Can you please tell me what you think real philosophy is?

>>13001285
because while that's all very nice, it doesn't differ very much from any social sciences methods course where they talk about the natural limitations of data and abstract models in being "adequate" to findings, it's essentially a methodological and not a philosophical issue.

this is especially evident in the dark matter case, because you will get ten thousand people arguing like this about whether "dark matter is real" or "dark matter is not real," when what they mean implicitly is "dark matter is or is not a sort of matter that is adequate to the observational data," that is, still intuitively presupposing whole nested series of ontological frameworks within ontological frameworks defining what constitutes a phenomenon, what constitutes matter, measurement, adequacy, etc. it's not that these things aren't locally important in the context of specific studies or experiments, but that is methodology like i said, not genuinely epistemological.

you can find reams of shitty analytics talking about whether we have "justified true beliefs" about ptolemaic vs. copernican astronomy but that is misguided, spurious meta-theory or meta-philosophy. real philosophy is always "meta," because it's always grammatical (in wittgenstein's sense) and always seeks to exceed the given or tautological conceptions by examining them dialectically (in the platonic sense). analytics and the vast majority of philosophers of science don't do this, they do "logic," and as wittgenstein said logic is just grammar made tautological.

ea burtt is a good philosopher of science, yet another cliffordian "but can an inference ever really be 'justified'??? I will prove that P-->X when P[X]/\P!" idiot is not a good philosopher of science

>>13003177
>see analytic metaphysics
contradiction in terms

>In reality physicists and philosophers collaborate on edited volumes, attend each others' conferences, and generally maintain a healthy dialogue.
if by that you mean reifying abstractions and arguing over insoluble linguistic puzzles like nominalism vs. platonism without ever seeking metanoia, then sure.

>>13001083
Dark matter is literally "we measure the rotation speed of the distant galaxies and it doesn't come up with the gravity laws, so there must be additional shit in there". Dark energy is literally "let's add a constant into the basic gravity equation to fit the observed rates of universe expansion". Both concepts are kinda wacky but still a perfectly good science as far as hypothetical knowledge go, blame laymen and journalists for making some sort of cosmic mystery out of it. None of them is within the scope of philosophy, though.

>>13001120
in pre-ww2 times philosophers frequently made commentaries on new developments of physics

>>13004221
I’m not the anon you’re replying to, but would you recommend reading Wittgenstein? You seem knowledgeable on the subject.
I was thinking of starting with Philosophical Investigations.

>>13004221
>contradiction in terms

You can either reckon with what philosophers like David Lewis, Ted Sider, Armstrong, Hawthorne and others did/are doing, or you can erase them from your personal history of philosophy. Luckily, choosing the latter does not excise them from reality.

>seeking metanoia

Ah, so we come to your actual issue, which is the issue that afflicts almost everybody on this board. Your personal definition of philosophy is narrowly confined to whatever it is you're interested in and believe is worthwhile to explore. Someone might find great satisfaction in contributing to the platonist/nominalist debate. Someone might even find ethical import in establishing the reality of possible worlds. Philosophy is expansive and intersects with almost every specialized discipline imaginable, whether you want to acknowledge it or not

>>13001083
The Gay Science

>>13004221
While that's all very nice, you're more full of shit than Wittgenstein's metaphilosophy, and don't get me wrong I love and appreciate Wittgenstein; I would, however, like to put him into use. The other anon is right about analytic metaphysics; there is even Carnappian metaphysics today, and analytic philosophers from Quine onward did work on ontology. Metaphysics need not be understood in such a limited manner. With regards to methodology, I think it is necessarily philosophical. I doubt we will really reach an agreement on this - I think philosophy ought to be useful for humanity, you think it ought to either deal with irresolvable issues or be something like self-help.
>>13004326
Philosophy is not radically distinct from natural science and is continuous with it.
>>13004338
They still do

>>13001112
Got a philosophy degree because I was retarded enough to not study something professionally viable and I have to say that is actually 100% of it.
Don't commit my mistake, study something useful.

>>13001083
Dark Matter is a hypothetical construct made because scientific theories on gravity don't adequately account for mass in galactic halos.

Either our theory of gravity is incomplete (see MOND) or Dark Matter is a real, yet invisible particle (see MACHOs and WIMPs)

>>13001196
>when analytic philosophy want to be phenomenology

>>13006924
What makes you say that? What makes that phenomenology?

>>13001083
Because those are dumb make believe theories invented by autistic kids with no philosophical relevance.

>>13005251
>>13004221
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpOmFTRcwUM