tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9074529824943791718.post6895508762830774538..comments2010-02-21T12:05:55.292-05:00Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07379669532781325751noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9074529824943791718.post-19907634831692398652010-02-21T12:05:55.292-05:002010-02-21T12:05:55.292-05:00Hi Wolfgang -- I&#39;ve noticed physicists using the term &quot;philosophy&quot; in this way. But that&#39;s an incorrect use of the term. Philosophy of physics (when done well) is about the use of careful arguments, to clarify difficult concepts in the foundations of physics -- although one can also be more specific as to <a href="http://www.soulphysics.org/2008/09/what-is-interesting-in-philosophy-of.html" rel="nofollow">what good philosophy of physics involves</a>. Many physicists, on the other hand, seem to use &quot;philosophy&quot; as a synonym for &quot;speculation,&quot; or &quot;an inconclusive argument&quot; -- neither of which is representative of the word.Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07379669532781325751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9074529824943791718.post-47884477810123877742010-02-21T10:03:43.186-05:002010-02-21T10:03:43.186-05:00I am not sure &#39;philosophy of physics&#39; is the best name for it. <br />Instead it seems to me that every now and then physicists collectively decide that some stubborn problems are just not worthy of further consideration and declare them to belong to &#39;philosophy&#39;. (The &#39;interpretation problem&#39; of q.m. is an example and some issues around the 2nd law another).wolfganghttp://tsm2.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com