Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and their ilk were almost

>>8874720
Steven Weinberg, perhaps one of the most highly regarded and influential physicists of the twentieth century, is a philosopher. A lot of philosophers still do science and are thus, in a sense, scientists. I had a phil prof who did work in black hole theory

>>8874742
That's true, James Ladyman could also be called a physicist and he's a pretty hot topic in phil os sci right now. But I'm thinking specifically of physicists that have little or no formal training in philosophy.

>>8874720
Noam Chomsky has successful science career as well as success in writing political and philosophical works.

Fro whatever reason it seems to have become popular for scientists to disparage philosophy and consider it a subject lower than science proper, something not worth studying for its own sake and much less serious. Back then, fundamental questions about the nature of reality were more commonly relevant and contested.

>>8875284
Not the same kind of science, but yes. He fathered modern linguistics.

File: Stardust.(VOCALOID).full.2029445.jpg (682KB, 1008x1008px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1008x1008px

>>8874720
I've always thought that Schrodinger's epistemology had a natural affinity with thomism and scholasticism in general.
It's like the other side of the story, which wasn't available to St Thomas.
Likewise, the truths of St Thomas were not exactly available to schrodinger, in that he did not have the requisite mental habits to digest it.
But still, he knew that reality removed from experience (or perception) was really uniform (e.g "The plurality we perceive is not real"), since reality being so divorced from experience is also thereby divorced from the things which experience gives it, such as partition, differentiation, and magnitudes.
I think that the philosophy of St Thomas is "the other side" to this in that the divine love is the thing that is disturbing the quantum equilibrium and making things rise to existence in the reality of the mind.
Knowledge via connaturality or inclination, it's called.

>>8875857
>"the other side" to this in that the divine love is the thing that is disturbing the quantum equilibrium and making things rise to existence in the reality of the mind

I love how ridiculous this sounds out of context, despite that I get where you're coming from.

>>8875822
>Not the same kind of science, but yes. He fathered modern linguistics.
He didn't perform many experiments but he was instrumental in mapping out how people think and communicate. Without linguistics our society would be much different and Chomsky made it into a field of science.

I am a STEM major and also many consider me a new age Socrates.

I don't really know many of the people in OP's post but they aren't really important other than Einstein (E=mcsquare).

I read that Thomas Jefferson was alot like me, he loved learning about everything like architecture, books, science, he even was president and was good at economics and law.

I can tell my future is looking bright I learn lots every day!

>>8874720
A lot. The widespread misconception that physicists have made it a habit to denigrate philosophy comes from a couple of individuals with mass appeal and hot opinions that are actually wrong. The "New Atheists" and Feynman, while great scientists, are not great philosophers and their opinions are only taken to represent a cultural norm within STEM fields because of their popularity.

The fact of the matter is that there's a long and fruitful tradition of dialogue between philosophers and physics. Philosophers of physics like Albert, Maudlin, Shimony, Sklar, Wallace, Nerlich, Cartwright and others are doing and have done great work on the foundational questions that occupy the intersection between philosophy and physics. Less philosophically oriented physicists who wrote insightful texts on the philosophical implications of our best physical theories include John Bell, Bohm, Zeh, and many others

>>8876094
>and Feynman

Who was really good at intuitively understanding the philosophical foundations of science and criticizing those who made idiotic assumptions about what science 'ought' to do.

File: 1458863970495.jpg (33KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x550px

>>8875959
>and also many consider me a new age Socrates.

>>8876115
>really good at criticizing those who made idiotic assumptions about what science 'ought' to do.

Yes.

>Who was really good at intuitively understanding the philosophical foundations of science

Not so much. His oft-repeated conflation of "what" with "how" and dismissive attitude towards philosophy in general repeatedly blinded him to some philosophically significant results in the physical theories that he contributed most to. Just look at his lackadaisical and almost hostile reaction to Bell's theorem.

They're systematizers, and systematizing in philosophy is a joke.

The only scientist off the top of my head that wasn't basically autistic in his approach to philosophy was James.

Even the most agreeable scientist is still a systematizer. They're 21st century men working with what may as well be the framework of 17th century philosophy.

File: 1477757137493.jpg (19KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x640px

>>8876139
>my highest math class was geometry because I don't want to be a "systematizing", not because I am fucking retarded

>>8876679
He was talking about philosophy, not math. Learn to read.

File: 1473276804383.png (181KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 303x311px

>>8876688
nigga you aren't even trying are you?

>>8875888
I mean, he doesn't work in Natural Sciences.

I'm familiar with his work in phonology and other areas.

>>8875959
Special Snowflake: THE POST

>>8876139
Philosophy is FULL of systematizing whether you want to believe it or not.

That is why we have labels like Existentialism, Idealism, Ethics, Metaphysics, Logic, etc.

Even leading philosophers used these labels, and applied them to themselves and their philosophies.

Wake up, kiddo. Human beings systematize by nature.

>>8874742
Who's Phil and why is he so interested in Robin Quivers?

>>8875959
AREN'T IMPORTANT!?!?!?!

Get out. GET OUT YOU GODDAMN PSEUD!

(I fell for the bait)