Scientist, philosopher, or scientific philosopher?

 PSI Blog 20220307 Scientist, philosopher, or scientific philosopher?

 

Jerry Harvey gets this week’s free book by asking:

 

“I find it interesting that you consider yourself more of a philosopher than a scientist (or maybe equal?). Why is that?  What seem their main differences to you?”

 

[GB: Actually, Jerry, I consider myself a “scientific philosopher.” This is significantly different from what is usually known as the “philosophy of science.” That discipline was a step in the right direction, although as a long-time member of the Philosophy of Science Association, I have not found that discipline to be of much value. The tenure-seeking members build their careers mostly studying the philosophies of scientists past and present. In my opinion, those endeavors have been colossal failures, as seen by the continued survival of regressive physics and its still-born offspring: cosmogony.

 

Remember that philosophy was born mostly from religious dreams and imaginings. That is why academic philosophy departments are often housed along with departments that study religions. Even my title of Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) harkens from bygone days when philosophy was taken seriously by scientists. My scientific training involved no course in philosophy whatsoever and I don’t know of a single “Ph.D.” who had one either. Unbeknownst to me, this was my particular salvation. I have since learned that philosophy, at least as taught in the US, is a mishmash of quasi-supernatural contradictions of little value to a real scientist. It was a good thing that I had stayed away from “philosophy” as long as I did.

 

As bench or field scientists we simply wanted to know the causes of effects (what is colliding with what, as it turns out). That involved no hocus pocus and no religion too, even though the sought-for colliders were not always readily evident (as in the case of gravitation). For the overly curious it is difficult to keep such belief under control. Within 16 years of becoming a scientist, I became increasingly disgusted by the silly proclamations being made in the fields of physics and cosmology. Those folks were using an entirely different logic than I was. I wanted to know how they could come up with such crazy stuff.

 

That is where “scientific philosophy” came in. I didn’t care so much what other scientists thought—I was more interested in what they should think. Kuhn[1] didn’t know either, but at least he understood that scientists tended to flock together under what he popularized as a paradigm (set of procedures, speculations, interpretations, assumptions, and theories used in a particular discipline). He implied that fundamental assumptions were necessary for a paradigm, but didn’t seem to know what they were or what they should be. Collingwood[2] was similar, giving great emphasis to fundamental assumptions, which were so fundamental that they could not be proven, but always had opposites that also could not be proven (a la Popper[3]).

 

I set about finding out what fundamental assumptions were being used by physicists and cosmologists. It turned out they sure weren’t “The Ten Assumptions of Science,[4]” which only would make sense by including a shocker: the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus was born “scientific philosophy,” which is based on those ten assumptions in complete opposition to what I have exposed as “the ten assumptions of religion” that Einstein subconsciously used in devising relativity.[5] The rest is history.]

 

“It looks as though you've written "tons" of scientific material! I might buy one of your books.  Which would you recommend? 

I look forward to hearing and learning more.”

 

[GB: Thanks for the recognition. All that scientific stuff was financial and, coincidentally, preparation for my attempt to overthrow the Big Bang Theory. Most “philosophers of science” are not scientists qualified to overthrow anything, much less a big deal like what amounts to the “last creation theory.” Regressive physicists and cosmogonists also are not qualified, nor are they particularly interested in overthrowing the baby that fed them so well for over a century.

 

Jerry, I suggest you first read "The Ten Assumptions of Science", which is free in pdf form, and then read “The Scientific Worldview” (which also contains most of "The Ten Assumptions of Science").  After that, “Infinite Universe Theory” and "Religious Roots of Relativity" will be easy even though the subjects are infinitely complex. Now, all you have to do is pick which one will be your free book!”]

---

[1] Kuhn, T.S., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 210 p.

[2] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p. 

[3] Popper, Karl, 2010, The logic of scientific discovery: London, Routledge

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfree ].

[5] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]