Where does this naive conviction that 'we don't need

>>532742
We don't need philosophy. The only problems that philosophy "solves" are the ones it invents. If we did need philosophers there would be demand for them and they would make a lot of money.

>>532757
Without philosophy you wouldn't even be able to interpret the results from quantum mechanics. You'd just end up content with a bunch of equation that turn out right and 'make prediction' without being none the wiser what actually happens in the real world. This utilitarianism destroys physics as classically defined.

It's the fault of their brains.

>>532742

Why should scientists worry about the meaning of meaning. It never gets anyone anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3v2m4_NHhA

>>532776
>You'd just end up content with a bunch of equation that turn out right and 'make prediction' without being none the wiser what actually happens in the real world

The prediction happens in the real world.

Also, you're conflating the entire field of philosophy with theoretical physics.

File: Socrates, Death of.jpg (121KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x673px

>>532742
Philosophy transcends the basic view of the world.

Philosophy states that there is a reason why humans interact the way they do, and offers ideas on how we should act. Philosophy states that materials don't bring happiness; only spiritual enlightenment can. Philosophy encourages you to question.

Modern sciences want you to see a dull, lifeless view of the world. According to "pop sci", humans are just an evolutionary mistake. To them, we are simply automatons. Morals, ethics, virtue, and will is all nonexistent to them. Rather, they tell us that all emotions and desires are the result of chemicals in our brains that control our lives.

What happens if you question this? They say you are stuck in the past. You are holding back progress. After all, who can question the all supreme science man who constantly asks for money?

Basically, philosophy encourages you to question existence. Then, it encourages you to do something with your existence. However, questioning poses a threat to the status quo of our materialistic world. This is why le black science man and richard dawkins have filled the void left by Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. These men inspire you to think and question, while le black science man encourages you to not question and jsut listen.

TL;DR modern science is perfect for shutting up the masses

>>532757
Science isn't the basis for functioning societies. Philosophies, sometime non-empirical, sometime irrational ideas that are transmitted through culture are. Without these, no amount of technology will be able to order complex systems of humans of varying mental and physical capacities.

>>532796
I'd advice you to read on the discussion between Hawking and Roger Penrose on what actually collapses the wave function. It has all the outliers of everything that is wrong about the scientific thinking on today.

>>532757
There's no demand for philosophers because people are too ignorant. I'm not even a fan of him, but the average person probably has no idea who Nietzsche is. Same goes for all the other philosophers whose historical value is being killed.

Also, philosophy doesn't exactly provide answers. Instead, it provides suggestions. Philosophers analyze existence, humans, and life. Then, they share their findings and leave the listener to decide what to do.

>"Woah what?? You mean I can think for myself, instead of being an automaton who never questions anything about life because I have been forced to see through dull lenses?

Philosophy is there for people who have the mental capacity to think for themselves.

>>532796
>The prediction happens in the real world.

And does it happen by Many World interpretation or Copenhagen interpretation of the philosophy of science?

Who thinks philosophy is unneeded?

>>532808

Philosophies are memes. One day maybe Memetics will explain them.

File: 1450642838806.jpg (88KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 900x900px

>>532742
We don't need it anymore, since we found something better, the Scientific Method.

File: Aristotle.jpg (122KB, 800x1071px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x1071px

>>532858
>Scientific Method
Created by a philosopher.

>>532838
I agree that there is no demand for philosophers. I do not think every university it the world need a department of researchers supposedly doing "real work" in philosophy. Philosophy does not historically seem to require or benefit from that environment the way that science and technology do.

Philosophy is broad, varied, and difficult enough that universities would do best to focus on simply teaching it effectively to students, rather than maintaining a pretense that professors are actually going to make worthwhile contributions to the field. Also, the idea of ever-changing, ever-advancing progress in philosophy is a nearly uniquely western conceit--China has followed the same philosophies for millennia.

So I certainly don't agree with people who try to draw parity in importance between scientific advancement and philosophical advancement, but that does not mean we should not have a prerogative of teaching existing philosophies.

>>532855
Knowing what a meme is, understanding group psychology, and organically ordering a society on them without extraordinary coercion are different things. It's the same old is/ought problem. Also, philosophy is not anti-empirical (empiricism itself is philosophy), so you use philosophy to decide how to apply ones empirical understanding of memetics.

File: trash.jpg (78KB, 832x584px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 832x584px

>>532858
>the oatmeal

Is science just applied philosophy? It relies on a concept created by a philosopher and builds upon epistemological frameworks to get results.

>>532858
How does the scientific method provide any kind of insight into morality?

File: 51O-+vFIVBL.jpg (38KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 333x500px

>>532898
Easy!

File: cover.hi-contrast.lores.jpg (194KB, 1875x2850px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1875x2850px

>>532905
>>532884
If you read this, you will understand why Harris' constructions are incomplete, and are actually anti-empirical with respect to actual data driven human psychology.

>>532917

Harris never claimed his constructions are complete.

At the end of the day the Universe is all that we know that there is and if you aren't going to base morality on the wellbeing of the concious beings that percieve the Universe then what are you going to base it on?

>>532742
It comes from the ideology of scientism. Imho we would do better if scientist continued to understand themselves as natural philosophers.

>>532905
Except Harris''s entire fucking argument hinges on Unitarianism philosophy. He just axiomatically assumes Unitarianism to be true which is why his book is complete trash.

>>533281
I kind of appreciate his audacity to venture into this subject with 0 background knowledge in Ethics.

The problem is that you don't gain pretty much anything materialistic with philosophy. It doesn't fit in a capitalist system.

Actually,philosophy is seen as complete waste of time to some because of unnecessary complexity and lack of understanding because each philosopher builds upon another.

>>532796
No he isn't. Even the physicists acknowledge that interpretive questions are philosophical questions. Read more

>>533194
It is incomplete based on facts we ALREADY KNOW about human moral psychology, not just incomplete in the sense that all science is incomplete because there's always something new to learn.

You would really do yourself a favor to read the book. It's not mere opinion. It's interesting research.

>>532742
I met this guy in a bar in Prague, he was hitting on some young blondes who were ignoring him. I don't even make this up.

>>532898
Yea. You remove unnecesery parts. There, science saved the day again.

>>533945
epic

>>532742
philosophy gives you opinions while science gives you answers

>>532799
>Science makes the world dull
When will this meme end?

Because philosophers don't contribute anything to society whereas every single scientist (Or rather, STEM graduate) does.

Philosophy has cuckoled itself into a corner through the dogmatic belief that observation of reality is not necessary to understand it. Marxism is the perfect example of this as it's adherents will gladly proclaim that if reality and Marxism do not agree then reality is clearly wrong.

When philosophers stop treating academia as a way to further their own arbitrary political causes and return to actually trying to understand the world, you'll see an end to the "philosophy is useless" meme.

Philosophy is to understanding as the Austrian school is to economics.

If you think this is a bad thing for either the Austrian school or philosophy you don't understand enough of either.

>>532799
That is horseshit. Morality is a science like any other, its just not properly developed yet. Mostly because of idiots like you claiming its not part of science but some woowoo garbage.

"Philosophy states that there is a reason why humans interact the way they do" No it doesn't.

" le black science man encourages you to not question and jsut listen." No he doesn't.