Physics Needs Philosophy. Philosophy Needs Physics
I&#x27;ve never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face. How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings?<p>Take scientific realism for example. Roughly, whether our theories have a 1-1 mapping to reality. Are the entities described by, say physics, really exist? Say an electron? Or is it just a concept or a tool we use to understand the world?<p>A common objection to scientific realism is Pessimistic Meta Induction. Roughly, we&#x27;ve been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we&#x27;re likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong).<p>I personally find Structural Realism to be a compelling argument -- it&#x27;s sort of a &quot;third way&quot;. Roughly, look, we&#x27;ve been wrong and theories change and evolve but the basic structure of our theories remains intact. Therefore the structure must map on to reality. Full discussion here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;structural-realism&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;structural-realism&#x2F;</a><p>That&#x27;s merely one example of meta questions about physics that physics itself cannot fully answer and only philosophy can help us understand. I think part of the reason we don&#x27;t have consesus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is because of this dismissal of philosophy by physicists.