Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

What kind of background needed for graduate work in philosophy of physics?

Brian Leiter

A recent college graduate writes:

By the end of my undergraduate career, I realized that, to pursue my philosophical interests in much more depth, it would help to have a deeper background in contemporary physics.  I took many excellent courses in the history of philosophy, metaphysics, logic, and philosophy of language from an incredible group of professors.  I'm still interested in these topics, but my focus has shifted to philosophy of science.

 

This puts me in a bit of a predicament (or, at least, it seems to): on the one hand, I could apply to programs that emphasize philosophy of science, with little chance of being admitted, due to the (relative) dearth of physics in my background (I took only one pure physics course as an undergraduate).  And, even if I were to be admitted, I might have to make an impossible push to catch up in scientific competence in the short years before I had to write a dissertation.  

 

On the other hand, I could try to get in to some other programs that have broader emphases.  But in that case, I would sacrifice my focus for a ticket of admission.  And I would still face the problem from before of making up lost time in studying science.

 

So, my question to the philosophers who read your blog: is there a good way for a student with a broad background in many of the traditional M/E subjects to switch to studying philosophy of science/physics?  I can think of several options:

 

(a) Just apply to a PhD program, and try to pick up as much as you can when you get there.

(b) Apply to a MA or MPhil program known for easing this transition. (Does such a place exist?)

(c) Take a year or two of physics and math courses back at an undergraduate institution before moving on. 

 

Also:  Are all three ok, but one a more rigorous path than the others?  And, can (b) and (c) be pursued without paying enormous amounts?

 

I realize that graduate school is long enough to accommodate some change in interests.  However, this change seems severe enough, and it seems to require enough technical background that my worry about preparation seems warranted. 

It would be helpful to hear from faculty at and graduates of (or current students at) programs strong in philosophy of science and especially philosophy of physics.  Submit your comment only once, they may take awhile to appear.

Leave a Reply to Grad Student Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

25 responses to “What kind of background needed for graduate work in philosophy of physics?”

  1. Paul

    You might consider contacting a few of the top philosophy MA programs and ask their director of graduate studies how they might accommodate someone in your position. Perhaps you could take some physics courses on the side while working on your thesis. I'm not sure that any programs have official policies about this, but it is my impression that MA programs look to be accommodating. (Then, of course, once you discover what your options are, you should probably ask some philosophers at PhD programs whether whatever the MA program offered would indeed help your chances of admission/success in a doctoral program).

    Reply
  2. mark lance

    Perhaps as a variant on your first option, inquire as to whether schools are willing to let you incorporate physics and math work into your degree program. (Probably meaning extending your coursework by a year or more.) I'm not in philosophy of science, but I'm quite sure that you need the background to do serious work these days, but many of us need additional background for our specific work and many places are flexible on this. Back in the dark ages when I was at Pitt, lots of HPS students took courses in science as part of their degree. (I took a grad topology course at Pitt, and sat in on several logic math-logic seminars at CMU as part of my degree.) I'm sure the degree of flexibility varies, and others here will have more to say about the specifics, but ask.

    Reply
  3. Jeremy

    Northern Illinois University might be worth a look. The terminal MA they offer is well respected. They recently hired Valia Allori, who works in philosophy of physics. David Buller is also strong in philosophy of science. They also have a strong physics department due to their proximity to Argonne and Fermi.

    Reply
  4. Michael

    First: You are correct that a serious understanding of the physics is required in this field.

    Second, on your options:

    (a) Many PhD programs will allow you to take courses outside of the department. In that case, you can take graduate courses in physics alongside your work in philosophy. This course of action will probably delay your degree by a year, but that's likely less delay than the others. Whether it is feasible depends on how prepared you are, or can become on your own, to take graduate courses in physics. In addition, some people can learn largely by reading books and self-teaching. Others need formal coursework. You need to decide for yourself whether self-teaching is feasible. If it is, then you could, again, consider going straight into a PhD program.

    (b) Many MA programs exist, and many are quite good. Many of them also require you to pay your own way, in whole or in part. of course, it would be important that the structure of the program allows you to learn some physics along the way — see above.

    (c) If you are patient, and can do this at low cost, then this option could work. But when I think about people in philosophy of physics who are successful, I don't see many who wouldn't have (and in most cases, didn't) succeed by following route (a) or (b).

    Reply
  5. Lucas

    I was in the exact same position. I recommend that you look at the MA in Philosophical Foundations of Physics with David Albert at Columbia. [ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/grad/main/phph/index.html ]. I took the MA there and was able to catch up on physics in the physics department and take philosophy of physics with Albert and Barry Loewer at Rutgers. I spread the degree over two years half-time so I could have more time to work on catching up on the physics. Now I'm studying at University of Maryland with Jeff Bub. The cost is a huge factor, though. Half-time is enough to defer you undergrad loans and to qualify for federal graduate loans. But you still end up pretty deep in the hole.

    Reply
  6. Christopher Lewis

    Maybe it would be worth checking out Columbia's M.A program in the philosophical foundations of physics. This is the only M.A program I know of where the requirements are split between physics and philosophy courses. I'm not sure how much background is required for the physics courses, though. Here is the link:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/grad/main/phph/index.html

    Reply
  7. Anon.

    UW-Madison, which has faculty strong in philosophy of science (though would probably not be your top choice for phil of physics), requires all grad students to have a "Ph.D. minor." That is, all grad students in the university must take courses in a department other than the one in which they get their degree.

    Other programs, even if they don't have a formal requirement of out-of-department coursework, may find it normal for philosophers to need to study whatever substantive area they want to specialize in (though I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if a reasonable number of philosophy grad students take cognitive science classes, for example).

    And I would think that a strong background in philosophy generally would get you admitted to a good program, regardless of whether you've had extensive background in physics yet.

    If I were you, given the cost of MA programs, I would apply to your top choice Ph.D. programs and plan to be able to get the physics background you need once there. It's possible that in your case, you should prioritize programs that guarantee or make it easier to get additional years of funding, since you may have a slower time to degree. But I think you can figure that out best when you see where you're accepted and can discuss your situation with their admissions directors from the position of being someone they've already decided they want to recruit.

    Reply
  8. Drew

    I agree with Jeremy's post above. NIU would definitely be worth looking at. Carl Gillett (Rutgers PhD) is also at NIU, and he does philosophy of science related stuff as well. The MA degree requires 30 credits, and you can take up to 6 credits outside the philosophy department (upon approval). You can take more than, but it won't count towards the degree. Hypothetically, I think it's possible to take up to 12 credits hours of science related courses and still complete the degree in two years (without ever taking an overload any semester). The course requirements are very flexible, partly to accommodate students in your kind of situation. Lastly, as many already know, NIU does offer graduate funding to a select number of incoming students. So it would defray the cost of extending your education, which is also a major plus.

    Reply
  9. Paul

    This always comes up when MA programs get discussed on this board, but it is worth repeating that not all MA programs in philosophy will leave you hopelessly in debt. Depending on the program, you might get free tuition, a fellowship, a TA-ship, etc. So the cost of an MA needn't be prohibitive.

    Reply
  10. Fritz Allhoff

    I'd look at WMU, too; we have a designated track in philosophy of science, and about half of our faculty work in various facets thereof (including physics). We've also had strong placement records to top HPS programs (inc. Pitt HPS and IU HPS). Since I'm director of graduate studies here, feel free to contact me directly!

    Reply
  11. Alan Nelson

    In terms of course work, a good dissertation in philosophy of physics typically requires as undergradulate-level background: physics through quantum mechanics (probably five semesters), calculus and differential equations (at least three semesters), linear algebra and math stats (two semesters) and perhaps some topology and differential geometry as well.
    Of course someone talented at math could do a lot of this on one's own.

    Reply
  12. Margaret Atherton

    The MA program at UWM has two faculty interested in Philosophy of Physics, Steve Leeds and Michael Liston and our program includes sufficient flexibility for you to work in physics as well. Most of our students get support–tuition remission,TA-ships etc. Programs with PhDs may look upon (frequently one-year) MA courses as a money maker, but that is not the case at programs like ours.

    Reply
  13. Ben

    As a grad student who has been studying philosophy of science for three years now, I'm a bit surprised that everyone is saying that to study philosophy of science, one needs to have a background in physics. There are plenty of areas of philosophy of science that don't require knowledge of physics at all: causation, explanation, reduction, etc. Thus, it seems strange to say the student in question would have "little chance of being admitted" to programs specializing in philosophy of science without a background in contemporary physics. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, it is not the philosophy of science part that requires additional knowledge; it is the philosophy of physics part.

    I mention this point because this blog post may have induced unnecessary panic in those who are applying to philosophy of science programs and who do not have a background in physics. But please, correct me if I'm wrong!

    Reply
  14. Anon Grad Student

    Ben,

    It sounds like the original question was about someone interested in making "the switch to studying philosophy of science/physics" and not just philosophy of science. I agree with you that physics is neither necessary nor sufficient for studying philosophy of science, but I'm also of the opinion that one should have at least some background in SOME special science in order to do philosophy of science well.

    That said, I'm nth-ing the recommendation for Columbia's Philosophical Foundations of Physics MA program. For someone looking to make the transition to the philosophy of physics, it is ideal. Also, this website put together by Hans Halvorson may be helpful:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/teaching/philphysics.html

    Reply
  15. Christopher Hitchcock

    You need to have a strong background in physics to do good work in philosophy of physics. Most work in philosophy of physics focuses on philosophy of quantum mechanics, or philosophy of spacetime physics, which requires a background in general relativity. But I think there are examples of excellent work in philosophy of physics that only requires the classical physics one would get in a good second-year physics course: e.g. Mathias Frisch's book on classical E & M, Marc Lange's Introduction to Philosophy of Physics (excluding the last two chapters), and a number of papers by Sheldon Smith. (I'm not saying they don't know more physics; only that if you're a good philosopher, you can do good philosophy of physics without going into quantum mechanics or general relativity). Also, philosophy of physics/general philosophy of science is not an absolute divide. For example, a lot of Sheldon Smith's work focuses on issues in causation and laws of nature, which are usually considered issues in general philosophy of science, but approaches these issues from the framework of classical physics.

    If you have a strong philosophy background, I don't think that lack of a physics background would be a barrier to entry to a good graduate program. (Although you might have to hedge your bets in your application, and say that philosophy of physics is one of your interests.)

    When I was a grad student at Pittsburgh in the late 80's and early 90's, they had a policy of giving one year of extra funding to a student who pursued an M.A. in another field. I did an M.A. in math while I was there (it required 8 courses plus an oral comprehensive exam), and also took courses in physics. I assume they still have that policy, and other schools may as well. This would have the advantage that you would be funded as Ph.D. student in philosophy while doing the course work in physics. You could also intersperse your course work in philosophy and physics.

    Reply
  16. Anonymous

    I'm a grad student who does philosophy of physics. Much depends on how well you learn math and physics on your own. If you are fast, (a) is a feasible option. Furthermore, many PhD programs strong in philosophy of physics will be highly supportive of your concurrently completing a Masters in physics or math. The only issue is that you'd have to juggle the formal coursework in math or physics in addition to whatever is expected of you in your program. I would suggest trying right now (if you aren't already) to learn some physics from textbooks by yourself. This should give you some indication of whether you can do (a) or need to do (b) or (c).

    Also, it is often the case that taking math courses like differential geometry and algebra is more helpful than taking physics courses, which tend to have a very heavy emphasis on calculation and less on the underlying abstract mathematical structure of physics theories. But there are also some areas of philosophy of physics (e.g. condensed matter) where there is less emphasis on abstract math.

    You might also want to consider if the grad programs you are applying to have a critical mass of students interested in philosophy of physics. It's really helpful when this is the case, as you can learn a lot through reading groups with other students. It's harder to do this when there are few students in your program who are interested in or know any physics.

    Reply
  17. Carl Seaquist

    As an alum of the UWM program, I'll second what Margaret Atherton said. It's a strong program with a good placement record, which I'd wholeheartedly recommend.

    I'll also add that when I was at Pitt a lot of the grad students in phil of physics had either a bachelor's or a master's in physics (or whatever science they concentrated on). I took a number of courses in HPS with minimal math/physics background — 3 semesters of physics and 4 semesters of calc — and while I could handle the coursework I was pushing my limits and would have had a lot of trouble managing a dissertation in HPS. Your innate math skills might be a lot better than mine, and you might be better at learning on your own, but if not, getting more background before starting a PhD might be the best course. Not having a background in the sciences may limit the topics you can select and the quality of the work you'll be able to do.

    You might also look at MA programs in physics, or math. Often terminal MAs provide financial support, and will allow people to take some background coursework after matriculating. (Many math programs will allow you to take some coursework in physics, and then you're more likely to graduate in two years with the skills to take physics courses during your PhD.) If you want to follow your option (c), it would be good to look at terminal MA programs anyway, to get an idea of what you'd need if you tried to pick up an MA concurrently or just take physics coursework on the side during your PhD program in philosophy.

    Reply
  18. David Wallace

    I'm not sure what's the best choice from a financial or career perspective (not least because I don't really know the US system). But in terms of doing good work in the longer term, I think it's hugely advantageous early in your career to take at least a few actual taught physics courses, rather than just trying to pick it up on your own. There isn't really any substitute for actually learning how physics is done (and yes, even how to do some calculations) – you *can* self-teach later but you can end up with a very mathematical focus and be quite disconnected from scientific practice. (Some excellent work has been done from this perspective, to be fair.)

    Reply
  19. Iain Martel

    I would advise anyone against specializing in core philosophy of physics (foundations of QM, relativity, etc.) unless they a) have a very strong natural ability in mathematics; b) are able to get into the top tier of grad schools; and c) are able to work with one of the top names in the field. Philosophy of physics is possibly the most technically demanding of fields in philosophy (more so, I would argue, even than logic, as it requires talent along several different axes). There are extremely few jobs in the field, and they are almost all at top ranked departments. The field also seems highly insular: I once overheard two senior profs at an APA lamenting that there was "no-one" on the job market that year in philosophy of physics, but that Prof X had a student coming on the market next year. So, unless you are an exceptional candidate, philosophy of physics is a very risky career move.

    On the other hand, more general philosophy of science (including topics like causation, explanation, etc., mentioned by others in this thread) requires a much lower level of expertise in any particular science. There are even still those who think you can do philosophy of science with no special training in science. While I disagree with this view, it is certainly not necessary to be adept at advanced differential calculus to do well in this field. A few courses taken on the side while in grad school would probably be quite sufficient – especially if combined with history of science.

    Finally, it should be noted that recent fashion has been to move away from physics as the model for all work in philosophy of science. I don't know if this is still the case, but a few years ago, philosophy of biology was a much more marketable specialization.

    Reply
  20. Grad Student

    I'm a student in Northern Illinois' MA program, and I'd second Jeremy's above recommendation. The program allows for two of your courses to be taken outside of the philosophy department, and that number can increase with a petition approved by (I think) the department chair or the graduate program chair. There are at least two students just this term who are taking physics courses alongside their philosophy courses.

    Additionally, graduate level philosophy courses (aside from independent research) are not offered in the summer, but since several physics courses are, and since, with a graduate assistantship, you are allowed to take any course offered at NIU free of charge, you could definitely use your two summers to build your physics resume.

    Reply
  21. Carl Gillett

    Thanks to the folks explaining the situation here at NIU, but let me start by reiterating Margeret Atherton's point: Most of the top MA program routinely admit 5-7 TA's each year with full tuition remission as well as a stipend. Combining NIU, UWM, WMU, Georgia State, Tufts, and others noted in the Leiter report, that is a lot of fully funded places at great MA programs. As I note below, there are also often other opportunities on campus to help offset costs as well.

    To take our situation, NIU's stipdend is around $10,000 and each year we admit 7 students with TA's (with full tuition remission as well as the stipend), 3 others with tuition remission, and 5 other students — though I should note that a number of those other students get TA's in other departments on cmapus lacking grad programs. (Our students have an increasing reputation on campus as great TA's given their very high-quality). The University also has some admirable programs for funding minority graduate students and our students have also recently done well in securing these competitive awards.

    As to philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, at NIU, Valia Allori does both, and David Buller and I both do philosophy of science. Harold Brown, an emeritus colleague who is a well-known philosopher of science, also occasially teaches classes.

    It was correctly noted above that we presently have a graduate student completing the second half of a two semester long class in Quantum Mechanics in the Physics Department, someone else will take Astronomy in the spring. As grad director, I routinely give permission to classes in Physics, Linguistics, Latin, and more, to count against our overall requirement of ten graduate level classes (up to a limit of two, though students take further classes since they are free). Physics is indeed very strong, and in my experience very friendly. Its faculty are often cross-appointed (Denny Hastert was a friend of NIU…) with Argonne National Labs.

    However, I should stress that the real reason to consider to NIU is its strengths in the core areas of contemporary philosophy: anayltic metaphysics, analytic epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and ethics. But take a look at the other great MA programs as well. To reiterate, these programs offer a serious option for starting a graduate education.

    Reply
  22. Eric Schliesser

    One nitpicky point: taking graduate classes in physics (or most of the other sciences) is not the same as learning how physics is 'done' (in the lab or theoretically). Whatever else one may think of Kuhn, he got that right a long time ago.

    Reply
  23. Daniel Parker

    One should also include Virginia Tech as a top MA programme with a good placement record (in both HPS and top philosophy schools) and specialties in the philosophy of science, including physics.

    Regarding the amount of physics required to enter into philosophy of physics, I think it's simply untrue that you need a strong physics background (in terms of physics degrees or physics courses taken) to do philosophy of physics. To be sure, to be a successful philosopher of physics, you need to know a lot about physics, but not necessarily the sorts of things you might learn in physics classes. Too much of physics classes is spent learning how to solve various problems using various methods (of the kind Kuhn famously points to), and these don't translate into the skills one really needs to do philosophy of physics. Indeed, the reason why you might want 5(!) courses in QM to do philosophy of QM is because most of what you learn in those courses will be completely useless for foundational work.

    Obviously, a strong background in physics is great if you want to study in philosophy of physics, but I think you might be better off with a strong math background, or at least if you are the kind of person that can learn math on your own. Most of what's relevant to philosophy of physics (beyond the philosophy) is a good grasp of the abstract mathematical structure of various physical theories; and this has more to do with being unfazed by the math than with the sorts of things one learns in a physics curriculum.

    Reply
  24. Balazs

    As many people suggested before, the answer really depends on the particular program you are aiming at. I'm currently pursuing my phd at Pitt HPS and had no official physics background before joining the program (as a mathematical economist I had some math, though). Many students in our department take courses over the physics department – we are encouraged and supported to do so -, and I also ended up getting a physics MSc by taking sufficient number of physics phd classes (never needed to pay a dime). Honestly I feel that I learned more (relevant) physics by preparing for the philosophy of physics classes Pitt offers. But at any rate the upshot is that it seems to be possible, depending on the program, to pick up the required background knowledge and even a degree as you go on. Several successful examples seem to suggest that.

    From a career perspective I'm not sure what to recommend, though. What getting an MSc physics degree gives you is a broad but not too deep overview of several field in physics (the basics, really), and it mostly focuses on developing the ability to deal with messy calculus and to come up with right guesses at solutions of standard problems. I always hoped that in the long run it is going to be important, from a philphys point of view as well, to be more acquainted with what the physicist-physicist care about (as opposed to what the mathematical physicists and many theoretically minded philosophers of physics do), to get a better feel of how the math hooks up with actual experiments, and in general that it is good to force yourself to learn also parts of physics which seemingly doesn't have direct philosophical relevance. Learning more science is never "lost time". Unfortunately I'm not sure how good generic graduate physics courses are in all this (unless you are on the experimentalist lane, another story); but maybe I just had unsatisfying experiences.

    On the other hand on the short run what seems to me the successful career path (at least on the basis of hiring patterns – no normative tone is intended) is to quickly narrow your focus to one well-defined subfield of physics, preferably treated in a precise and abstract mathematical framework (GR, AQFT, as opposed to more messy fields such as regular stat.mech.), learn impeccably the required math, get in contact and start to work together with the leading philphys experts in the field (there are not too many of them, and they are really nice most of the time), and start to develop and relentlessly pursue a narrow research topic in that field under the guidance of one of them. If you have some mathematical affinity you can certainly pick up the technology needed on your own, and with some determination you can proceed to become an expert relatively quickly. If this is the path you take then you should try to selectively pick math and mathematical physics courses, and there is no need to aim for a degree. Acquaintance with other parts of physics / philosophy of physics is going to come with osmosis anyway as you attend courses/conferences. Besides, the physics you are not using you are likely to quickly forget anyway.

    Reply
  25. Geremia

    What about people considering transitioning, at the graduate level, from physics to philosophy? For those who become more interested in the philosophy than the physics, what is your advise? Thanks

    Reply

Designed with WordPress