Rationally Speaking #127 - Elise Crull on Philosophy of Physics

Rationally Speaking Podcast

New York City Skeptics

Society & Culture, Skepticism, Science, Philosophy

4.6 • 787 Ratings

🗓️ 8 February 2015

⏱️ 50 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Feynman famously said that a philosopher of science is as much use to scientists as an ornithologist is to birds. This episode of Rationally Speaking features philosopher of physics Elise Crull, who explains why Feynman is misguided, and what philosophers have to say about important issues in physics -- like quantum mechanics, physical laws, and whether anything "really" exists at all.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Rationally speaking is a presentation of New York City skeptics dedicated to promoting critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, and science education.
0:22.6	For more information, please visit us at NYCCEceptics.org.
0:30.9	Welcome to rationally speaking, the podcast where we explore the borderlands between reason and nonsense.
0:40.7	I'm your host, Massimo Pilucci, and with me as always is my co-host, Julia Galev.
0:45.0	Julia, what are we going to talk about today?
0:47.4	Well, Massimo, today we welcome special guest Professor Elise Krull, who is a professor of philosophy at the City College of New York.
0:55.7	Oh, I know that place. Yeah, what a coincidence.
1:00.0	Elise specializes in philosophy of science, and in particular, the philosophy of physics,
1:04.9	which is going to be the main focus of our show today. Elise, welcome to rationally speaking.
1:09.4	Thank you. Very happy to be here.
1:11.7	So I, if it's okay with you, Massimo, would love to start with just a brief definition of
1:17.7	philosophy of physics because I suspect a lot of our listeners aren't quite clear on what the
1:22.1	purpose of philosophy of physics is, whether it's trying to answer questions about physics, or like questions about the physical
1:29.7	universe or questions about how physicists do their work or both. Maybe at least you could give
1:34.7	us, you know, an off-the-cuff definition. Sure. Well, both of the things you suggest are part
1:40.8	of how I would define philosophy of science. It's extraordinarily broad in scope.
1:45.1	But the easiest way to explain it and how I explain it to undergrad sometimes is to say that philosophy of science,
1:50.9	instead of taking other philosophy as my input and then thinking critically about that philosophy,
1:56.7	I take physics as my input and then think philosophically about theories, what they purport to explain, what they say about reality, how theories are constructed, what labs look like, how money is allocated, all sorts of questions.
2:11.6	And yeah, so it's, that's how I'd explain it, I guess.
2:16.6	Well, in speaking on which, I'm going to read you a quote, and you tell me to what,
2:22.2	to what extent you actually agree with this.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from New York City Skeptics, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of New York City Skeptics and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.