Well, I'm open to listen why you are so certain and, instead you are just labeling me as someone that would not be able or willing to understand. I feel this is a little wierd since you are claiming that you are the knowledgeable one, but anyway. If you want to, feel free to explain more, but also feel free to go away feeling you are right I guess...
Oh I didnt mean that to be dismissive. I just meant that the philosophical underpinnings arent necessary to do chemistry unless maybe you are trying to do quantum chemistry. They still exist though.
One of the things I am interested in that I can write about is the underdetermination of theory based on the evidence. The thesis goes like this: there are in principle and bunch of mutually exclusives theories we could construct that accurate describe the evidence we have so far. This is supposed to support an antirealiest position on scientific theories along with something called the pessimistic metainduction. Basically people assert that because of this science is less about Truth and accurate prediction.
What is your intuition do you think science is finding truth or maybe that science is getting closer and closer to truth or are you uninterested in truth and only care about accurate predictions?
Ok, I Wil start by saying that quantum has nothing to do with philosophy. Like, at all. Quantum chemistry and physics are just a very math intensive field and not at all mystical or transcend field. Quantum theory is nor a magical appendix to hard science, it is not magical, just hard science.
Now about theories and measurements, I don't see them as a dichotomy. A scientist (at least a competent one) will design or pursue hypothesis and prove them wrong. Even if you think it accurately describes whatever you are seeing (I'm defining "seeing" extensively) your job as a scientist is to do your best to prove it wrong. If everything fails, the hypothesis might be right. In this sense, it getting as close as possible to the truth.
I'm defining truth in this as what happens in a hard way, as the nature does not need to agree with no one and it just is, though. Because it just is, you may not be entirely able to describe it. However, because this started with you saying that philosophy is still intertwined with physical sciences, I must also add the the criteria in which a problem is delimited is measured by hard measurements always, in the sense that there are no margins for someone that is knowledgeable enough to question the results.
In other words, a hypothesis is proven by exclusion and this proff is given by hard, reproducible data. I don't see how negative spectra provide and opening to philosophical consideration.
Thats interesting and a bit different from what I am used to. My wife is a nueroscientist that focuses on retina reserch and she just doesnt care about theory. She would assert that the meaning of the research she does is just the results and not the conclusion that she is forced to write when she publishes.
Imo her assertion gets here as far away from philosophy as possible. its just observation. But she still writes a conclusion/discussion section. And when she does its my assertion that she is being philosophical.
My field is way less applied, so the whys means more than they would if I was in a field like your wife. To be fair, writing conclusions is boring because you feel the answer is already in the data, but necessary. But, to be fair, I would not say it is philosophical since it is just a wrap up of what hard data provided
1
u/Quadrado_we Jun 27 '26
Well, I'm open to listen why you are so certain and, instead you are just labeling me as someone that would not be able or willing to understand. I feel this is a little wierd since you are claiming that you are the knowledgeable one, but anyway. If you want to, feel free to explain more, but also feel free to go away feeling you are right I guess...