From: mk_thisisit
A debate between physicist Professor Andrzej Dragan and mathematician Professor Dawid Kielak from Oxford University explored the role of philosophy in science, particularly its influence on physics. Their discussion highlighted differing views on philosophy’s utility and the nature of scientific progress.
Philosophy’s Role in Physics
Professor Andrzej Dragan, a physicist, expressed a skeptical view regarding the practical contribution of philosophy to his field. He stated that he does not “see any help from philosophers” in his specific work [00:37:20]. For Dragan, philosophy offers “intellectual entertainment” [00:37:30], which can be pleasant and useful in general life, but not directly within science or physics [00:37:45]. He holds the impression that “philosophy is an interesting occupation” [00:38:04] and that the questions it asks are “extremely interesting and extremely important” [00:38:08]. However, he believes the “list of achievements of philosophy in the field of confirming or denying something is quite weak” [00:38:12], especially compared to science, where “there is some progress and that we are able to answer certain questions and we are able to resolve them” [00:38:20].
Philosophical Utility in AI
The host presented an example of philosophy’s utility in understanding artificial intelligence (AI), referencing Professor Michał Ostrowicki’s concept of AI as a “new zone of human existence” [00:40:33]. Dragan dismissed the idea of this being directly useful in physics, likening it to his enjoyment of snowboarding: “the fact that it is useful in life does not matter at all” for physics [00:40:12].
Dawid Kielak’s Nuanced Perspective
Professor Dawid Kielak acknowledged philosophy’s role in logic, noting that “Logic is attributed to philosophy and the development of logic which is still very dynamic and extremely interesting” [00:38:38] formally occurs in philosophy departments [00:38:46]. He admitted that these generalizations of classical logic may not have immediate “application in physics” [00:39:54], but see a connection with mathematics [00:38:59]. For Kielak, logic is simply “a part of mathematics” [00:39:27].
Philosophy’s Focus and Progress
Dragan observed that philosophers tend to be “very interested in that part of science which is at the moment lowly” [00:41:18], particularly in questions that are undecidable [00:41:35]. He contrasted this with scientists, who “do not waste time on it because we know that we do not have a chance in our lives to give even in a reasonable way to give an answer” [00:41:53]. Kielak agreed that philosophers have “an extraordinary ability to find those questions that are really interesting” [00:42:33], but reiterated his skepticism about “their ability to answer these questions” [00:42:47].
Ultimately, while both acknowledge philosophy’s ability to pose profound questions, Dragan and Kielak suggest that its methods may not lead to the tangible progress and answers characteristic of science. Dragan noted his shock at philosophical interactions where “one says something the other says the opposite and they don’t even know who is right” [00:43:35], implying a lack of definitive resolution.