Jump to content

Recommendation


Recommended Posts

I see three recommendation, not two. I assume you mean 1) Thermodynamics and Electrodynamics, and 2) Philosophy of physics? I am certainly against creating (2) for several reasons (unless someone finally implements the feature to put sub-forums on the ignore list, in which case I am much in favor of it). But what what interests me: Why thermo&Edyn as a common forum (assuming I understood the proposal correctly)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />I see three recommendation, not two. I assume you mean 1) Thermodynamics and Electrodynamics, and 2) Philosophy of physics? I am certainly against creating (2) for several reasons (unless someone finally implements the feature to put sub-forums on the ignore list, in which case I am much in favor of it). But what what interests me: Why thermo&amp;Edyn as a common forum (assuming I understood the proposal correctly)?<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Thermodynamics and Electrodyanmics were not intended by me to be put into one forum. When I created this thread I only had those two in mind. A little bit later I realized that Philosophy of physics should be a sub forum of Physics as well. We have a forum for Philosophy now but people only interesed in physics probably steer away from  it and avoid placing scientific topics in that foum for fear of nobody caring enough to read it. And it should be more popular because it's one of the most important thing a physicist should know. I.e. I'll base my argument on authority where I'll use Fritz Rohrlich as the authority. He's one of the most well known and most brightest person in physics today. <br /><br />Consider the first chapter of his text <b>Classical Charged Particles</b> by Fritz Rohrlich, 2006. The first chapter is entitled <i>Philosophy and  Logic of Physical Theory</i>. The author writes on page 1<br />
<br />...ignoring philosophy in physics means not understanding physics. <br />
<br />This is a supurb book for learning relativistic electrodynamics since it is a great arena to apply it.<br />Before judging that chapter I highly recommend reading it first. I also took a course in the Philosophy of Physics as an undergraduate. I'm very glad I did.<br /><br />I had this in mind because it's one of the most important parts of physics and I've enjoyed reading those topics along that line in the American Journal of Physics. The following example comes to mind<br />
<br /><i>Realism and/or physics</i>, Carl G. Adler, <i>Am. J. Phys.</i> 57(10), October 1989<br /><br /><b>Abstract</b> - A recent editorial [John S. Rigden, "...to see it as it is ... to know it as it isn't..., Am. J. Phys. 54 397 (1986)] has suggested that as it is physics as it is commonly practiced may be basically an antirealist science. At the same time, it can be observed that the practitioners of biology and chemistry are usually strongly realist in their orientation. A case study in support of the general position of the editorial is presented. In addition, ,a possible reason for the difference in the philosophical perspective of physics and biology/chemistry is also examined. <br />
<br />I recommend reading this. I can send it to you if you want.<br /><br />Personally - It would be a go forum to discuss the subject. It's of my favorite subjects and it'd be much more interesting to share it and discuss it with others. Althought I'm not sure how my blood pressure would hold up. LOL!  There is a text I got which is one of the most well known on the subject written by the most well known philosophers of science. It's called <b>The Logic of Scientific Discovery</b>. It was Karl Popper who made the concept of <i>falsifiability</i> popular. I.e. <br /><br /><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://en.wikipedia..../Falsifiability</a><br />
<br />The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable.<br />
<br /><br />Some physicists might not even know when their learning of using the philosophy of science. It'll increase awareness of this. Making it sub forum of Physics would draw the otherwise diinterested to take a look and perhaps raise interest in them and perhaps increase their logcial use of science in as much as they'll know what is and what isn't science and why.<br /><br />I could go on but I think I got my point across by now. Edited by pmb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />Thermodynamics and Electrodyanmics were not intended by me to be put into one forum. When I created this thread I only had those two in mind. A little bit later I realized that Philosophy of physics should be a sub forum of Physics as well. We have a forum for Philosophy now but people only interesed in physics probably steer away from  it and avoid placing scientific topics in that foum for fear of nobody caring enough to read it. And it should be more popular because it's one of the most important thing a physicist should know. I.e. I'll base my argument on authority where I'll use Fritz Rohrlich as the authority. He's one of the most well known and most brightest person in physics today. <br /><br />Consider the first chapter of his text <b>Classical Charged Particles</b> by Fritz Rohrlich, 2006. The first chapter is entitled <i>Philosophy and  Logic of Physical Theory</i>. The author writes on page 1<br /><br />This is a supurb book for learning relativistic electrodynamics since it is a great arena to apply it.<br />Before judging that chapter I highly recommend reading it first. I also took a course in the Philosophy of Physics as an undergraduate. I'm very glad I did.<br /><br />I had this in mind because it's one of the most important parts of physics and I've enjoyed reading those topics along that line in the American Journal of Physics. The following example comes to mind<br /><br />I recommend reading this. I can send it to you if you want.<br /><br />Personally - It would be a go forum to discuss the subject. It's of my favorite subjects and it'd be much more interesting to share it and discuss it with others. Althought I'm not sure how my blood pressure would hold up. LOL!  There is a text I got which is one of the most well known on the subject written by the most well known philosophers of science. It's called <b>The Logic of Scientific Discovery</b>. It was Karl Popper who made the concept of <i>falsifiability</i> popular. I.e. <br /><br /><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://en.wikipedia..../Falsifiability</a><br /><br /><br />Some physicists might not even know when their learning of using the philosophy of science. It'll increase awareness of this. Making it sub forum of Physics would draw the otherwise diinterested to take a look and perhaps raise interest in them and perhaps increase their logcial use of science in as much as they'll know what is and what isn't science and why.<br /><br />I could go on but I think I got my point across by now.<br />

 

There is such a form where I am a helper. It's at http://physicshelpforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.