Physics and philosophy have a complicated relationship. Public communicators of physics sometimes issue grand pronouncements that philosophy is dead. At the same time, the public image of physics is inextricably linked with Paul Gauguin’s grandiose philosophical questions: “What are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?,” and those same popular expositors exploit that link liberally. Physics and philosophy courses are popular undergraduate offerings in physics departments, but their presence in those same departments is not universally welcomed. Notable physicists have declared philosophers of science unhelpful or irrelevant to scientific practice, even in the more speculative reaches of physics, such as string theory, quantum gravity, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, but others have argued that by engaging with the work of philosophers of science, even in a dismissive fashion, these critics themselves undertake the philosophy of science, thus negating their own arguments.
In summary, the boundaries and intersections between physics and philosophy remain contested, both within academia and among wider publics. To understand these contentions and to work toward resolving them, it is important to ask how we arrived at a place where a considerable proportion of the physics community rejects philosophy and those who practice it. Is this, as some might claim, an internal issue within physics, to be arbitrated with reference to physical considerations? Or is this boundary-setting more about the legitimization of certain kinds of knowledge over others, deeply intertwined with societal questions of funding, influence, and power? Examining these issues from a historical perspective may be able to provide some light.
In this issue of Physics in Perspective, Flavio Del Santo and Emanuel Schwarzhans trace wider cultural influences that shaped the relationship between physics and philosophy in Vienna during the twentieth century. For them, the position of Vienna as an important centre for the foundations of quantum mechanics, an intimately philosophical topic, cannot be adequately explained by the efforts of a few key individuals. They paint a picture of a vibrant multicultural scene in Vienna that nurtured philosophical discussions within physics prior to World War II. That conflict, as well as the militarism of Cold War tensions that followed it, diminished the vibrancy of Vienna’s foundations of physics tradition and encouraged a hyper-pragmatic attitude in physics that was mostly devoid of philosophical wanderings, encapsulated in the slogan “shut up and calculate!” Nevertheless, Del Santo and Schwarzhans argue that the flame of Vienna’s pre-war “philosophysics” was never extinguished, allowing foundations of quantum mechanics to thrive again under the stewardship of Reinhold Bertlmann, John S. Bell, Anton Zeilinger, and others in the latter part of the century, enabling the development of new empirical research.
Del Santo and Schwarzhans invite us to reflect upon how wider goings-on in society influence the boundary work between physics and philosophy, and, perhaps, the reciprocal influences this boundary work has on society. They inspire us to ask, cui bono? Who benefits from the denigration of philosophy and the prevalence of a “shut up and calculate” attitude? What happens when physicists decide not to consider the wider motivations and contexts for their work? Does shutting up and calculating render philosophy irrelevant, or might it undermine the potential of physicists to influence society? At a time when the world is rocked by a new war in Europe and renewed geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed states, these questions seem more relevant than ever.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naylor, R.L., Martin, J.D. & Staley, R. Physics and Philosophy—Uneasy Bedfellows?. Phys. Perspect. 24, 97–98 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-022-00292-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-022-00292-w