Cover Page

Cite item


Contrary to claims about the irrelevance of philosophy for science, I argue that philosophy has had, and still has, far more influence on physics than is commonly assumed. I maintain that the current anti-philosophical ideology has had damaging effects on the fertility of science. I also suggest that recent important empirical results, such as the detection of the Higgs particle and gravitational waves, and the failure to detect supersymmetry where many expected to find it, question the validity of certain philosophical assumptions common among theoretical physicists, inviting us to engage in a clearer philosophical reflection on scientific method.

About the authors

C. Rovelli

Aix-Marseille University

Marseille, 13007, France

I. A Rybakova

Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences

12, bld 1, Goncharnaya St, Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation


  1. Weinberg Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. Chapter VII. Vintage, 1994.
  2. Hawking Stephen. The Grand Design. Bantam, 2012.
  3. URL: (accessed: 17.05.2021).
  4. Isocrates quoted in Iamblichus, Protrepticus, VI 37.22-39.8 (de Gruyter 1996).
  5. Rovelli C. Aristotle's Physics: A Physicist's look // Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 2015. 1. 23-40, arXiv:1312.4057.
  6. Heisenberg W. Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen // Zeitschrift fur Physik. 1925. No. 1, 33. P. 879-893.
  7. Howard D. A Peek behind the Veil of Maya: Einstein, Schopenhauer, and the Historical Background of the Conception of Space as a Ground for the Individuation of Physical Systems // The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration / John Earmanand, John D. Norton, eds. Pittsburgh-Konstanz Series in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 6. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997; Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 87-150.
  8. Howard D. A kind of vessel in which the struggle for eternal truth is played out. Albert Einstein and the Role of Personality in Science // The Natural History of Paradigms: Science and the Process of Intellectual Evolution / John H. Langdon and Mary E. McGann, eds. Indianapolis: University of Indianapolis Press, 1994. P. 111-138.
  9. Einstein A. Letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574, in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986-present).
  10. Carnap R. Überwindungder Metaphysik durch Logische Analyse der Sprache // Erkenntnis. 1932. Vol. 2: English translation: The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language / Sarkar, Sahotra, ed. // Logical empiricism at its peak: Schlick, Carnap, and Neurath. New York: Garland Pub., 1996. P. 10-31.
  11. Quine W. V. O. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2015.
  12. Kepler Johannes. Astronomia Nova / translated by William H. Donahue. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1992.
  13. Abbott B.P.; et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Virgo Collaboration) GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral // Physical Review Letters. 2017. 119 (16).
  14. Abbott B.P. Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger // The Astrophysical Journal. 2017. 848 (2).
  15. The worst episode of this misunderstanding is the confusion between the (strong) commonsense notion of `confirmation’ and the (weak) Bayesian notion of `confirmation’ that has driven the controversy over Richard Dawid's work on non-empirical confirmation [Dawid R. String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge University Press, 2013.] An attempt to study the actual source of (possibly unjustified) confidence in a theory has been re-trumpeted by scientists as a proof of validity.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies