Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Last entry before lunch: phenomenology. Physics…
It might pay to note somewhere that the term ’phenomenology’ has slightly different connotations to philosophers of physics versus high-energy physicists. I mean, ultimately the HEP definition falls under the more general PoP definition, but HEP guys tend to use it in a very specific way (at least the ones I know - maybe QFT guys use it differently?).
Word phenomenology in philosophy is a specific technical word in the school of pragmatism in America. That one is not about philosophy of physics specifically, but a general term in pragmatism. In the entry I was not talking only about HEP but also cosmology, condensed matter etc.
Not that I qualify as an expert, but I am not sure what you are talking about (Zoran) when you associate phenomenology in philosophy with a technical meaning in American-style philosophical pragmatism (as exemplified by writers such as C.S. Peirce, Royce, William James, Dewey, and others). Can you point me to a reference?
I associate phenomenology in philosophy much more with the movement initiated by Husserl (and developed by others such as Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty); the basic subject matter there is the structures of consciousness from a philosophic perspective.
Some months ago I read a fantastic exposition on phenomenology, Introduction to Phenomenology by Robert Sokolowski. I highly recommend it.
You are absolutely right, philosophical phenomenology is due Husserl. In a philosophy course which I studied in hi-school we studied American pragmatists along with Husserl, in passing, as they belong to roughly the same period in philosphy, and there was some interaction (they in fact criticised Husserl), so I have given them a wrong attrubute. Sorry for creating confusion. Please correct.
Harry, I absolutely do not approve senseless distractions. We are very busy stealing minutes from our regular work to do nlab and please respect that.
There’s a golden rule about this here, but nobody is perfect. For example, I started a little linguistic subthread recently that in no way supports the nLab and may be (actually, was) distracting to some.
Harry made a silly joke, as he likes to do. I sometimes do that too. But when the silly jokes get out of hand (as in the case of someone with initials JA), then it’s a real bother, and it’s probably a good idea not to be too self-indulgent about one’s (self-perceived) wittiness.
I think it’s better to precise that this is about phenomenology in physics and not the philosophical concept which certainly came before and is maybe what the word phenomenology refers firstly to. On Wikipedia there is the page « phenomenology (physics) » and « phenomenology ». I think we could do « phenomenology (physics) » and « phenomenolgy (philosophy) » to be more neutral.
1 to 10 of 10