I'm posting this in both /sci/ and /his/ for a wide range

Coming straight off the positivist train the hottest shit in the land is Scientism. This is a meme, it will die.

At the same time however. Scientists get a lot of good press and you have people who are full on "science communicators" like le black science man, Dawkins, and Sagan. There's a few philosophy youtube channels and existentialcomics I guess and that's about it when it comes to communicating what philosophy is about to laymen.

This might just be a case of American education but I legitimately didn't know what philosophy was until I got out of high school. I knew the word, I knew philosophers thought about stuff, I knew Plato and Aristotle were philosophers. But the current state of philosophy and how it's done was never taught to me.

>>624223
It is perceived as useless, baseless, and unmarketable. But perhaps worst of all, it is seen as a competitor to science or religion.

Pay them no regard anon. Pearls before swine.

File: expert (2).jpg (124KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1280x720px

>>624223
During the 20th century we had the logical positivist movement, which basically amounted to, "Only things explained by math or science are meaningful". The entire rest of philosophy seemed superfluous and superstitious. It became very popular but later went out of favor. It was discarded by its own creators and deemed false. Of course, the rest of the public and the scientific community are going to be slower to catch up with philosophy. Although logical positivism has done serious damage to intellectual discourse and there's a chance it will never recover. Scientism is the anti-intellectualism of our era.

>>624248

>I legitimately didn't know what philosophy was until I got out of high school.

Same. I read some Nietzsche and Descartes for fun in high school (well, Nietzsche just because it was "edgy and cool"), but I didn't have a good understanding of what philosophy is until I got to college.

>>624223
Are you American?

Lots of philosophers get respected. Neuroscientists are all up on philosophy of mind.

It's just that scientist don't like continental philosophy so much.

And classical and medieval philosophers have cult-like followings that don't open themselves to revision and are often antagonistic against most modern and postmodern ways of thinking, which mingle more with Science.

>>624223
>Why is philosophy in general seen as the subject of ridicule for those in scientific fields?
because the modern philosophy which most of those who mock follow focuses on practical things, not about knowledge
>Why is it so common to see philosophy improperly represented by those in scientific fields, and pop culture in general?
You ever heard "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Having little knowledge about a subject makes it impossible for the subject to be represented correctly. Besides, the nature of the basic aspects of philosophy (how to live a good life, etc) are such that it can be practiced by anybody (ignoring the fact that they have erroneous conclusions), as opposed to the more abstract ideas one finds in physics or math (philosophy deals with more abstract things, sure, but most people arent aware of them). There's also the fact that a big chunk of philosophers that are known by the layman often buy into the "science killed philosophy" memebag and try to "explain" most aspects of philosophy using scientistic babble.

So yeah, I might be wrong, it might be that philosophy is seen as too difficult for someone to get interested in it while staying a normalfag, but who knows, really

>>624270
And to follow up on pop culture, most people are not interested in philosophy because it requires a capacity for logic, abstraction, concentration, and the ability to question very fundamental things. Most people operate on common sense, even science does, seeing what common sense is now. To be a philosopher it helps to have no common sense, aka be a huge nerd.

>>624223
>Why is philosophy in general seen as the subject of ridicule for those in scientific fields?
Because it is ridiculous. Wasting your energy and resources on questions that simply cannot be answered, is practically asking for this banter. Those fields like psychology and biology do research with control groups to infer conclusions. Accusing them of lacking support for their claims...from a philosopher, this is high-quality comedy, man. What does philosophy give? Nothing but speculations and defeatism. "You cannot know nothing" or extremely shaky guesses. It also does not help that this field shows no progress whatsoever the last few hundred years. Dualism which has always been the assumption of metaphysics has been proven plain wrong; it just does not work, Popper conjuring up connection areas in the cortex does not salvage your field from real neuroscience. It only renders philosophy, once again, ridiculous. Those professors that joke on your field are aware of this and find it amusing.
>Why is it so common to see philosophy improperly represented by those in scientific fields, and pop culture in general?
Poor communication ksills on the side of philosophers?

>>624223
Low barriers for entry?
Anybody can claim to be a "philosopher" and spout some existential shit, the field just gets flooded with conjecture. Scientists generally require years of training, expensive equipment, and stringent peer review (at least in theory)

>>624288
Probably a troll, or you don't understand philosophy properly, but your statements about dualism and neuroscience irked me. +1 response.

>>624294

I don't think that's the case. Philosophical journals such as Mind are still common and are extremely hard to get published in. Sure, there's books like the pop culture and philosophy ones, but even those are filled with Ph.D.s, not just random people with no training.

>>624311
> Philosophy is great or you just do not undertand it!
Gl finding a scientist endorsing dualism. It only exists a mental construct in philosopher's minds. Outside of philosophy nobody even bothers with dualism.

>>624341

Why would I care what scientists say about something that they don't study or understand?
Why would the support of the majority, a minority, or even a single person mean anything when it comes to philosophy? It's all about finding true conclusions from true premises, regardless of whether or not it's accepted.
Dualism isn't widely accepted in philosophy, either. You'll rarely find a philosophy professor today who is a dualist. But it is still the subject of argument, and there are good points for and against it.

The only reasons that you would say philosophy isn't a good thing is that you hate taking part in rational discussion, or you don't understand what philosophy is, or you care more about what is "useful" than what is "true". In the first case, I don't see any point in anyone talking to you, ever. In the second, you owe it to yourself to study it (otherwise, how could you provide good criticism of it?). In the third, I feel sorry for you and hope that you someday change your mind.

>>624223
>Why is philosophy in general seen as the subject of ridicule for those in scientific fields?
because scientific fields make progress and philosophy doesn't

Most professors you get in actual sciences will probably want you to have a philosophical understanding of your/their work. Engineering probably not so much. Philosophy itself isn't looked down upon, philosophy as an academic field is.

>>624432
Philosophy is a field where you would question what "progress" even is.

what is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher
[spoiler]nothing[/spoiler]

File: unclenietzsche.jpg (14KB, 220x298px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x298px

The christian god is dead. Now the new religion is called science. Of course, science is useful but scientists don't understand that they are merely developing approximate models to describe reality.

>>624530
Nietzsche's critique of science was that scientists still adhered to a belief in a sort of heaven (the realm of truth).

>>624447
hence science's problem with it

>>624530
>science is useful but scientists don't understand that they are merely developing approximate models to describe reality.
>scientists don't understand that they are merely developing approximate models

Teenagers who watch neil degrasse tyson don't understand that, but actual scientists do. Scientists who actually think about what they're doing see it as "the best form of gambling" in the sense that nothing seems provably assured. The problem is that if you feed that kind of explanation to the public of say, America, people are going to act like it's just as low as religion when it observably yields much more gains. Hence why people like N Dg T take the stage to talk about "COOL BLACK HOLE FACTS".

I'm in STEM and I've never heard any teacher mention any other science let alone some other completely different field. This might just be because of where you're studying.

>>624248

Same here. We didn't learn anything. Philosophy was sort of this murky subject that was constantly referred to. We learned some Sartre and Camus when reading the stranger. Nothing else.

It's a shame.

>>624742
Also, just to throw in my opinion.

The reason philosophy became less popular is because it's easy to ignore. Philosophy deals with things that are inconsequential in daily life. People turn to culture for morality and to science for the prediction of the future.

I'm saying that if someone came up with a completely unbeatable theory on how we should all kill ourselves next friday, people still wouldn't do it whether as if next day someone gave us a source of pollution-free infinite energy source, the entire world would change in weeks.

>>624223
because those fields ARE philosophy m8.

remember that it used to be a catch all term for sciences in general

greek philosophers knew math first, had hot opinions seconds.

modern philosophy only has hot opinions.

>>624288

You're participating in philosophy by ridiculing it.

File: 1398633262887.jpg (22KB, 269x343px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 269x343px

>>624270
>Although logical positivism has done serious damage to intellectual discourse and there's a chance it will never recover. Scientism is the anti-intellectualism of our era.
>"back up your claims" is anti-intellectual

>>624223
>Why is philosophy in general seen as the subject of ridicule for those in scientific fields?
Philosophy is seen the same way as alchemy is. It was a useful stepping stone to get to where we are now, but modern practitioners are a little embarrassing now that we know better.

>>624799
I am not disparaging science but scientism, the idea that science is all that is necessary to discover and explain everything

>>624288

>Dualism which has always been the assumption of metaphysics has been proven plain wrong.

Either troll or someone with an outlandish understanding of metaphysics.

>>624341

Look, you fucking moron, metaphysics are not insinuated by dualism. Dualism insinuates an exclusivity to 'mind' and 'body'. This is a physical claim, not a metaphysical claim.

I'm really hoping you're a troll or Redditor.

>Why is philosophy in general seen as the subject of ridicule for those in scientific fields?

Because philosophy of the 20th century is very easy (and arguably worthy) to ridicule. When philosophy regains its academic rigour and gets out of obfuscation, semantics and insular nature it will start to be treated better.

Although its inability to produce the same kind of tangible results as people working in the scientific field or wealth as other fields will always leave it on the outside.

Compare the impact of developments in say electronics and programing to say the developments in metaphysics and epistimology.

>>624835
Dualism of the mind/body implies the mind is somehow separate from the physical brain, which implies a sort of metaphysics to explain where this mind is and how it operates.

>>624223
Even if your individual professors don't say anything about science, the post-modernist movement has done such damage to scientists' perception of the validity of philosophy that they feel the need to make a statement immediately to nip things in the bud. Sort of like a geologist having to say they aren't going with the 6000 year timescale upfront.

>>624845

Yeah, I'm not arguing on behalf of dualism, which is a primitive and specious (though brilliant for its time) philosophy predicated on (all bullshit aside) the ineffable existence of God. Descartes wasn't willing to go full Atomist.

Still, to say 'there is a mind separate from the body' implies metaphysics in the same way any physical claim implies metaphysics.

"Let's build a car." vs. "Let's build a truck."

What is a car? What is a truck? Where is the distinction made?

Nevertheless, these 'things' are metaphysically separate to us. There really are no 'things,' which are handy metaphysical units we organize to categorize and parse the physical world around us.

tl;dr All physical claims imply their metaphysical counterparts.

>>624810
science is not a "thing", it's a tool. a process.

for things to have validity they need to be evaluated properly. Science is right now man's highest quality process of evaluation.

Philosophy can be scientific.

>>624841

This guy gets it. When Slavoj Zizek is making people tons of cash you better believe your professors will be wearing Aristotle themed ties to class.

Always follow the money.

File: fields.png (70KB, 1938x434px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1938x434px

>>624870
I never said it wasn't a tool or method. The scientific method is a method born of philosophy. I'm not sure how one would conduct scientific philosophy since they deal with different subject matter.

>>624870

Not the guy you're responding to, but I'd argue that Art and Science are the principal human enterprises that reflect and validate various philosophies.

Art can inform Science just as Science informs Art, but Philosophical inquest is the genesis of any Artistic/Scientific endeavour.

>>624714
You have reason, scientists isn't the correct word, they understand their shit. the general public considers science as the new god.

>>624895
How can art inform science? Art is not an inquiry. It is done to tingle our aesthetic sense.

>>624841
>>624841
>>624841

>>624909
Art is the most basic expression of human creativity. To produce a revolutionary hypothesisthat reinterpret the existing data in a way that supports new data that overturned previous understanding IS an act of art.

>>624909

Good art is a tremendous inquiry in much the same way science is.

Bad art 'tingles our aesthetic senses' and doesn't tend to do much more. Disposable and forgettable as the ephemeral details with which the people can relate to it rot away with time.

>>624909

i.e. Jeff Dunham vs. Ovid's Metamorphosis.

>>624925
Sure, those both involve creativity, but they result in different products.

>>624942

So what are you saying?

>>624932
>>624938
I suppose art explores features of human experience. It may allow us to personally come to a new understanding. But it's not going to bring anything fundamentally new to the table. It looks at what already is and examines it, puts a new spin on it, rearranges it, romanticizes it, stretches it this way and that, but it does not produce any new concepts like philosophy or science.

>>624223
Scientism is empiricism with a massive fucking superiority complex that comes from positivism. STEMfags are plebs. The only way to deal with them is to deconstruct their reality with Kierkegaard words.

>>624223
If you want to actually work and get shit done in a scientific field, you just want to learn practical procedures and perform them with a good work ethic.

That's why these academics don't care about philosophy, it never comes up in their daily routine. Simply using basic logic doesn't really make you a Philosopher, thats just part of doing work.

>>624942
Art expands minds and pushes the bounds of creativity. The brain's of scientists exist within their cultural context, which is primarily shaped by art. Data and creativity combine to form hypothesis.

>>624960

What's fundamentally new and what is the table?

>>624961

Lol'd

>>624977
Table = human knowledge
Fundamentally new = a revolutionary thought, a paradigm shift

Science has a creative process but the result is an understanding of the universe within philosophy. Art has a creative process and examines human experience at a non-meta level.

philosophy -> science -> art

>>624994

I disagree, I think there have been tremendous paradigm shifts in the arts, particularly over the last century.

Also, I don't really understand your ranking system at the bottom. Why is philosophy 'better' than science or art? What constitutes better?

>>624902
If you're going to have a large mass of stupid people, better they overvalue science than overspeculate it. Do I think Neil is a great person to listen to if you actually want to learn things? Not on the boob tube I don't. However, I certainly like him more than the "the earth is flat" rapper guy he's evidently been arguing with.

>>625010
>ranking system
I think he's merely saying each one is derived from the prior

File: philosophy.png (106KB, 765x638px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 765x638px

>>625010
It's not a ranking system, but a way of ordering these enterprises in terms of metaness.

Art: "What emotions and subjective experiences do I and other people go through everyday in concrete experience?"

Science: "How does a person think about their experience? Under what physical conditions is life possible?"

Philosophy: "What is experience?" "What is physical?"

>>625029

Oh okay, yes I agree.

I'd say art primarily nourishes and transubstantiates the metaphysical world into the physical world by making 'works' which are appreciable in context of space and time, and of course the observer.

I'd say science primarily nourishes and transubstantiates the physical world into the metaphysical by making 'works' which are appreciable and understandable in the context of our swirly, random-access minds.

Both nourish and benefit life. Sadly, in recent years, the arts have been approached with an awful emphasis on 'expression of the individual' over 'expression as a relative function of the whole.'

Hopefully this improves.