Why More Philosophy Should be Introduced as Core to a Modern Physics Degree
At the University of Leeds, there is this thing called “Curriculum Redefined”. Basically, it’s an initiative where academics have been given the authority and support from university management to shake up the curriculum to our hearts desire. It is clear to me that this is partially for financial reasons1; nevertheless, we have the ability to make real change. I’d like to spend a few pages convincing you that the introduction of philosophy to the core undergraduate physics curriculum is something we should aim to implement over the next ten years.
First, consider that in Western society today, physicists have usurped philosophers and religious leaders as the authority on both ethics and spirituality. Emerging from his idea of “will to power”, Friedrich Nietzsche noted the similarity in societal structure between post-enlightenment science and theology(Nietzsche, 1994). It is likely that this displacement of theology by science is due to the sheer progression of scientific knowledge (and destructive power) over the last few centuries providing the required level of awe and fear, and general public inaccessibility providing the requirement for authorities in the field. Together, this gives modern physicists a similar status in a secular society as priests have in a theological one. Prophets even; we are in the business of predicting the future, after all.
1To make university appear as though it’s worth £10k a year to students
Figure 1
The highly qualitative Dunning-Kruger graph. Where are our students? Hopefully somewhere up the slope of enlightenment. Can we give help them to continue the journey without us?
Let me be clear, I am not blaming anyone for this, I’m just noting that the structure exists. None of us asked for it, and yet we physicists probably all have family members and friends who ask us insanely deep philosophical and ethical questions as though we will have “the” answer. This is not particularly good for society, as just like any particular religion, physics is not the be all and end all. Academics likely realise this now that we are at the far end of the Dunning-Kruger curve in Figure 1. While we may be able to say a few things about how the universe works mechanically, we have no (academic) right to say how we humans ought to behave towards one another at any level. Abstractly, physicists might even be able to say how much societal free energy human civilisation as a whole has in order to make systemic change, but we cannot say how humanity should use it.
Yet still, the most Holy Professor Brian Cox is invited to talk on political and philosophical topics well beyond his remit. Bill Nye the Science Guy debates creationists and has a TV show called “Bill Nye saves the World”. Darwinism, a qualitative scientific model, is implemented as an ethical framework by Nazis to this very day. This is the world in which our physics graduates enter, a progressively more secular world of humans needing guidance and looking to us to give it. And some of us believe we can provide it. We’ve all seen some of our physics undergraduates lording it around as though they have access to sacred knowledge. I was guilty of this myself back in the day, as my parents will tell you! Still, through dedicated study physics students do indeed gain access to a pseudo-mystical knowledge beyond that of the general public, and this is similar to the sacred, forbidden knowledge held by the priests and imams of antiquity who could read the scriptures when the rest of society could not. Again, I emphasise that the power of science, combined with its general incomprehensibility to the public, gives us the status of pseudo-religious leaders to the public, and whether we like it or not, there are responsibilities that come with that. I do not think our physics students are currently prepared for those responsibilities.
When someone speaks of spirituality, or of a god, a physicist like Sean Carroll might say an equation and “drop the mic”, so to speak, as though the knowledge of universal “laws” elevate science above every other form of enquiry. Related to this, with the advent of virtual reality, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is no longer a thought experiment. In fact, it may be more relevant than ever, with fake news and centralised data collection being so powerful that our actual perceived reality may very well be a constructed fiction(Baudrillard, 1994). Yet physics and spirituality are not incompatible, as many would have us believe (and this can be proven). Metaphysics is not dead, and it is extremely important that our students recognise this when they engage with the public and their families and friends on these topics. It takes a knowledge of the philosophy of science itself, and wider epistemology, to understand this.
When someone speaks of nuclear weapons, it is physicists who are called up to national media outlets to talk about how and whether they should be used, as though knowledge of how something works qualifies someone to talk about if they should be used. It was a mathematician came up with mutually assured destruction, after all, a reductionist form of ethical understanding which dismisses the idea of autonomous and “irrational” friendship and cooperation. Physics graduates are also going into finance and software development more than anything else, two institutions which have already had severe negative impacts on society. Many university (STEM) departments also have collaborations with weapons manufacturers, oil companies and other questionable firms. Just because we can build these things does not mean we should, and it takes a strong will to be able to do something and choose not to. It takes a knowledge of ethics and moral philosophy to understand these issues and be able to make informed choices.
It is no longer the stuff of science fiction that humanity may soon give birth to a new form of life; artificial life. While computer scientists will be the ones to create the fundamental logical structures these beings use to think, it will be physicists who create the physical mechanisms with which to support them. It takes a knowledge of basically all aspects of philosophy to understand these issues.
I will state it again, I do not believe physicists should have this societal power. Knowledge should never be treated as sacred, it should be available to all for as little effort as possible. Nevertheless, we physicists do have that power. To that effect, I believe it to be vital that our physics students are taught at least the fundamentals of ethics, morality and the philosophy of knowledge as a core part of the physics curriculum; to make them ready to enter a world which requires more than a knowledge of physics from physics graduates.
Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1994). On the Genealogy of Morality (R. C. Holub (ed.)). Penguin Classics.