[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
>"Read philosophy anon, it will open...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 214
Thread images: 23
>"Read philosophy anon, it will open your mind"
>Even my professors at uni say I shoul
>Look at good intro to philosophy books
>Think by Simon Blackburn comes repeatedly
>Look at introduction, pic related
>mfw
>Into the trash it goes
They have no fucking clue /sci/.
>>
I don't see the problem.
>>
If you wade through all the insults to science, there are some interesting ideas in philosophy
>>
>>7747437
>>7747445
Someone should understand physics and cosmology before spouting shit.
>>
>>7747428
>there are some interesting ideas in philosophy

Everything interesting in philosophy was thought of by 1900. Now it's a circle jerk.
>>
>>7747448
>Someone should understand physics and cosmology before spouting shit.

Yes, OP, yes you should.
>>
>>7747453
Nice burn anon, but he clearly gave one of the weakest examples of philosophy in science. Every scientists who knows relativity understands that time is a fucking parameter.
>>
That's like getting into science by reading Sagan

Read Popper or Feyerabend you goddamn faggot.
>>
>brother changed majors from business to philosophy
>is now constantly spouting bullshit about "the state of our minds" and "the cause of the way we are" as if anything he is saying is empirical and not made-up bullshit
>>
File: topkekpleb.png (25 KB, 605x203) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
topkekpleb.png
25 KB, 605x203
it burns
>>
>>7747459
>>Nice burn anon, but he clearly gave one of the weakest examples of philosophy in science. Every scientists who knows relativity understands that time is a fucking parameter.

look for the strongest examples then, dummy.
>>
I remember looking at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia when I was a little kid. That's what I love about illusions; they're right up there in front of you but somehow you don't see them... until suddenly you do... and I saw that I lived in a world where the symbol was more important than the reality. Where the menu was supposed to taste better than the meal. They're bombing planet Hollywood... those terrorists know exactly where the power lies. None of it's real. Kennedy was a good man. Nixon was a bad man. Is that true or is that just what we've been told is true? Half of the stars in Hollywood are gay pretending to be straight... (Walt Disney) was a shit. The moon landings happened in a studio. The America I thought I lived in was a trick; I'd only ever really seen it on TV, in comic books and movies... especially movies. The Rosicrucians who built this country wouldn't know where they were if you brought them here, would they? Not until you showed them Independence Day. That night when I pissed down over Manhattan, I saw time. I saw time itself... America has been in a declared state of national emergency since March 9th, 1933, giving the president powers to suspend freedom of speech and take control away from all communications media at any time. Who cares? Bruce Willis is here to save us all. The more I looked, the less real America became. And the less real it became, the stronger it got. Planet Hollywood
>>
>>7747488
But that's a valid point you tard
>>
Just get into a school of philosophy that's actuallu useful and wasn't written by pseudo scientists.
Stoicism, for example.
>>
>>7747497
for a minute there I thought you wrote solipsism
>>
I've read some Marcus Aurelius before, not sure if that counts. I liked it a lot
>>
>>7747494
Causality is rigorous in physics and it has been studied extensively, you are lying if you think it has to do with philosophy.
>>
>>7747505
lol no.

causality definitely belongs in the realm of philosophy, it's the foundation of duality and order.
>>
>>7747505
Everything in physics has to do with philosophy, but that's beside the point.

Yes we observe causality to only work in one direction,but why is that so?
>>
>>7747505
>Causality is rigorous in physics
nope.jpeg
>>
>>7747448
likewise, someone should do the same before spouting shit about anything they have no clue about.
>>
File: lewd.jpg (60 KB, 468x402) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
lewd.jpg
60 KB, 468x402
>>7747510
Because the "male" energies of the snake are more powerful than the the "female" energies of the gate.

This world exists so that the snake may forever defile and desecrate boundaries it was not meant to trespass to better satiate Satan.

In other words because. like the Greeks said, this reality is all about rape.
>>
>>7747510
>>7747509
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
http://astro.kent.ac.uk/mds/Modules/1112/PH604/ph604-SR11-2.pdf
kek, even if its subject to philosophical thinking, physics has advanced the subject most than any other subject.
>>
>>7747521
*most than any other field.
>>
>>7747428
>They have no fucking clue /sci/.
I know. I've read several intro philosophy textbooks. The only good thing is the historicity and context to real philosophers, but modern philosophy writers are more like poor mans' physicists when it comes to their own naive ideas.
>>
>>7747521
>kek, even if its subject to philosophical thinking, physics has advanced the subject most than any other subject.

The fact that you still think philosophy and physics are both competing to be the defining way of thought for a subject shows that you have barely a freshman understanding in either of these topics.
>>
>>7747518
just stick that toothbrush in your mouth like a dirty slut cause you need it.
>>
File: download (5).jpg (4 KB, 295x171) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
download (5).jpg
4 KB, 295x171
>>7747530
Fuck I love getting penetrated by needles at the doctors office.
>>
>>7747533
I fucking love shoving food in my mouth like I'm starving for it.
>>
>>7747529
Nah senpai, you are extrapolating my compliment with a strawman. I just stated that causuality has advanced more with physics than with philosophy.
>>
File: toilet_flushing_5.jpg (40 KB, 560x497) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
toilet_flushing_5.jpg
40 KB, 560x497
>>7747537
Then I get to share my pleasure with the toilets vagina when I flush down all my crap dildos.
>>
>>7747491
>The Rosicrucians who built this country
Goddammit I wish you foil tards would get your cults right. The free masons didn't use German magic, they had their own system.
>>
>>7747541
The point is cause is more "powerful" than effect because this reality is all about rape.
To please satan
>>
>>7747539
No, I'm exactly responding to what you say. You have zero grasp of what either of the fields are trying to accomplish.

Btw something like "causality has more advanced" is alsmot entirely nonsensical.
>>
>>7747542
You should be able to spot a pasta even if you haven't read it previously.
>>
>>7747542
The freemasons based a lot of their foundation ideas on the rosicurcians.
>>
>>7747547
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Nigger come on. Im talking about meanigfull results.
>>
>>7747529
>philosophy and physics are both competing to be the defining way of thought for a subject

That fact that you don't know that is literally what postmodernist scum believe tells me you've never read anything written in "modern" """philosophy""" textbooks.
>>
>>7747555
define meaning
>>
>>7747555
I have literally no idea what your point is.

I'm a physics grad student, I know the physics of relativity. This isn't about what the physics explicitely is.
>>
>>7747545
>>7747541
>>7747537
>>7747533
>>7747530

Post more, you're opening my eyes to a whole new fetish.
>>
>>7747561
Okey then faggot, just plain number of results published. Physics has more.
>>
>>7747564
here ya go you dirty slut.
>>
>>7747566
that does not imply that they are better in that they are more accurate or true.

quantity over quality

i'm trolling
>>
>>7747566
>physics has more published work about a subject that physics is designed to deal with

Oh wow, look at king tautology over here.
>>
>>7747563
That events and causality has advanced through relativity rather than philosophy. Saying that causality goes from past to future is naive as events and time depends on your reference frame.
>>
>>7747573
Yes, these faggots say is subject to philosophy.
>>
>>7747570
Hey kid, come penetrate this sock with your foot.
>>
File: red-garden-hose.jpg (17 KB, 445x298) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
red-garden-hose.jpg
17 KB, 445x298
>>7747577
All this talk about universal rape is turning me on.
>>
>>7747574
>That events and causality has advanced through relativity rather than philosophy
Shit man what do you even mean by 'advanced'?

>>7747576
Because physics IS philosophy. At the heart of physics is a philosophical understanding of reality and to do physics you need to define a philosophical understanding in the first place.
>>
>>7747587
>What fo you mean by advanced
That's just being a bitch with definition and purity of language faggot. You know exactly what I mean.
>Because physics IS philosophy.
This is my favorite meme. Studying the principles doesn't convert a whole subject into a more complex version of that same principles. Chemistry is not physics for example.
>>
File: key-lock-open-o.gif (374 KB, 320x180) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
key-lock-open-o.gif
374 KB, 320x180
>>7747588
laugh all you want but now that I have given you the red pill you will forever notice that EVERYTHING is having SEX all around you ALL the TIME.

because reality is all about rape to better serve, feed, and satisfy satan.
>>
>>7747594
>That's just being a bitch with definition and purity of language faggot. You know exactly what I mean.
I do not.
>Chemistry is not physics for example.
Yes, but physics is philosophy.
>>
File: Not_Listening.jpg (18 KB, 250x202) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Not_Listening.jpg
18 KB, 250x202
>>7747594
>This is my favorite meme.
Those memes penetrated your mind pussy and got it pregnant with new ideas.
>>
>>7747601
Don't you see?

You are all being raped by satan 24/7
>>
File: suck it.jpg (85 KB, 1600x760) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
suck it.jpg
85 KB, 1600x760
>>7747605
The whole universe has been raping you since you were born.
>>
>>7747609
You are all nothing but the universes cock slaves.
>>
>>7747609
>>7747518

Is this a new philosophy?
I think it should be called "rapism"
>>
>>7747428
How does it feel when philosophers know better what cosmology is than you do?
>>
>>7747621
I like the idea of being called a rapist :^)
>>
>>7747647
>b8
>>
>>7747449
>"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
>>
>all these philosophy apologists spouting "But physics is philosophy!" ITT
lel
I can't understand why you would take academic philosophy seriously at this point in time.
>>
>>7747448
So you think understanding physics doesn't entail contemplating what equations represent?
>>
>>7748293
No, fuck no. That has to do with physics if you are 15 and only study "equations".
>>
Quadruple nigger OP.

Read real philosophy, not pop philosophy, before you bash the whole study. Read some Plato, Aristotle, Aquinus, Heidegger, Hegel, and Sarte. Then you can accurately make statements about philosophy.

You're the equivalent of someone who reads "smoke degrass tyson" and assumes they know about physics. They've never studied the rigorous mathematical and physics textbooks required to have a useful opinion, and neither have you with philosophy.
>>
>>7747505
What are the units of causality?
What do you measure causality with?
By what "power" does one thing cause another?

My point is, you should kill yourself.
>>
>>7748302
>Plato
>Muh Forms

>Aristotle
>Muh logic

>Aquinas
>Muh God

>Heidegger
>Muh Fuhrer

>Sarte
>Muh radical freedom
>>
File: o8xXpn3.gif (2 MB, 460x246) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
o8xXpn3.gif
2 MB, 460x246
>>7748303
>>
>>7748310
>the autism meme will save me from the Hume beatdown
Nice try empiricist scum.
>>
>>7747428
>philosophy is overvalued sophistry
in other news doritos cool ranch is on the shelves
>>
/sci/ is just butthurt because Hume asked them to prove causality and they couldn't.

science confirmed for literally a religion
>>
>>7747428
Start with the Greeks you pleb, not this popsci tabloid bullshit.
>>
>>7748387
What, this >>7748303?
Kek, you totally destroyed an umbrella for differents theories.
>>
>>7748417
umbrella term*
>>
>>7747505
>>7747488
The question of the arrow of time is actually relevant in physics, and it's an open question really.
>>
>>7747537
>>7747533
>>7747530
>>7747564
>>7747570
I've had a pretty bad acid trip where shit like this was all I could think about
>>
>>7747505
Read Hume, retard.
>>
>>7747484
I know someone who did the same thing. He was in physics for a semester but changed because he sucked horribly at it. Then he said he was doing math but that ended in like 2 weeks. Then he went to finance for a year. Finally he changed to philosophy. He thinks being a philosophy major makes him a philosopher now. He doesn't even go to class or do read the assigned works. He only learns what he likes(which is only eastern philosophy). He just drinks constantly and pretends like he is enlightened and more aware than everyone around him. I really wish I could see what happens to him after he graduates.
>>
>2015
>Taking philosophy seriously
>Wasting time reading about something that isn't real and doesn't exist or have empirical truth to it.

Were you guys really that far down the rabbit hole of religious brainwashing that you had to look to people from over 1000 years ago who didn't understand even the basic ideas of how our universe worked for your understanding of life?
>>
>>7748284
There is still some philosophy being done, but they're just throwing shit at the wall at this point.
Just thinking about stuff with no empirical process can only get you so far mate
>>
>>7748544
He's not wrong. Your snide comment adds nothing to the conversation.
>>
>>7748539
>implying you could even define what empirical truth is
>>
>>7748934

Definition of empirical truth. : exact conformity as learned by observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally existent things in their actual status and relations —called also actual truth, contingent truth.

We're on the internet, dumbo
>>
>>7747479
Yes
>>
>>7748936
Then what is observation and what not? What input counts as valid experiment and what doesn't. Are dreams reality, since I'm able to consciusly observe them?
>>
File: 1450446086228.png (1 MB, 1500x7180) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450446086228.png
1 MB, 1500x7180
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
>>
>>7749017
You forgot to add (You) to the list, faggot.
>>
>>7749069
done
>>
>>7747428
Who the fuck is that guy?

Go read proper philosophy, the classics. A good historical path glvlng you the essentials would be e.g.
Plato
Aristotle
Marcus Aurelius
Medieval shitters like Thomas Aquinas
Spinoza
Hume
Kant
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Husserl/Heidegger
Sartre/Camus/Beauvoir
Wittgenstein/Russell

Bonus for science:
Karl Popper

Bonus for econ:
Adam Smith
Marx
Keynes
That Austrian school hipster guy

The last two lines are the most relevant ones for today's world and Wittgenstein, Russell and Popper are the ones most relevant to scientific practices we have today.
>>
>Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy
>Here at last is a coherent, unintimidating introduction to the challenging and fascinating landscape of Western philosophy. Written expressly for "anyone who believes there are big questions out there, but does not know how to
approach them,"

So OP you were curious about philosophy and instead of reading anything actually interesting and/or useful you went and chose a book that is basically a "babby's first big think"? Good job. I mean, what possibly could go wrong with trying to get anything intellectual or curious out of a book that is intentionally overly simplified and vague?
>>
>>7749084
Irrelevant shit
>>
>>7747505
So much stupidity in one post
>>
OP is a faggot.

This type of thinking is indicative of the failure of modern education where facts come from the textbook and anything else is out of the question.
>>
>what is philosophy of science
>>
yeah philosophy is gay and einstein was a gay retard for being interested in it
>>
>>7749084
>>7748416
This

>>7749451
All philosophy is when science is concerned.
>>
>>7749473
Can you actually show philosophical texts on causality? I've seen quite some topics regarding just physics but whatever.
>>
>>7749853
Are you the OP?

Like everyone has told you in this thread, go read David Hume.

Here's a link:

http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html

Read all of this today.

This will literally change your opinion and view on everything. Being serious.
>>
>>7749854
Go read fucking einstein you stupid fuck, his understanding of causality is obsolete.
>>
>>7747428
Please sign all your future posts t. Autist so I know not to read them
>>
>>7749860
*Sighs*

You haven't read it, have you?
>>
>>7749862
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
XD
>>
>>7749865
You haven't read it, have you?
>>
Physics graduate here (admittedly nuclear physics not cosmology), Think was pretty good I think you might just be an elitist and possibly on the autism spectrum.
>>
>>7749868
I'm saying its obsolete givinen that a linear understanding of time is now also obsolete you fuck.
>>
>>7749874
Explain further, I'm interested unlike the other guy meming.
>>
>>7749879
Fucking hell just watch the first popsci video about time being relative which in consecuence makes events do weird shit like http://astro.kent.ac.uk/mds/Modules/1112/PH604/ph604-SR11-2.pdf
>>
>>7749885
So what if time is relative?

How does that change anything about the point of causality not being understood?
>>
>>7749873
I've had """""""professional""""""" philodophers telling me that Nichi had a great insight on quantum mechanics and that Foucault made contributions to relativity.

I'm just responding to bullshit fa.m
>>
>>7749887
Its undersood, but not by fucking Hume, by frikinEeinstein the most popular physicist ever you twat.
>>
>>7749890
You just say it's understood without proving it is.

All you have told me is that time is relative and shown me proofs without answering the question of causality?
>>
>>7749888
Leon Foucalt measured the speed of light.
>>
>>7749892
I'm not going to give you a relativity course m8. Fuk off back to /lit/.
>>
>>7749895
I know, he meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
>>
>>7749898
Are you sure? Were you there?
>>
>>7749899
Do you know how to read?
>>
>>7749905
Just checking friend. No need to get all ornery.
>>
>>7749896
Ah, a true wikipedia connoisseur.
>>
>>7749908
Nice bants ;)
>>
I don't understand how you can have a modicum of knowledge of what philosophy actually is and still not acknowledge its importance.

It seems as though critiques of philosophy always proceed under the assumption that it's somehow "in competition" with science, when in reality it's complementary. Science figures out the hard facts, philosophy figures out the ethical and spiritual implications. If you have any sort of principles or moral code by which you live your life (and you do, whether you consciously realize it or not), then by default you acknowledge the importance and influence of philosophy every time you act.

The idea that philosophy can provide a superior approximation of the correct speed of light to physics or whatever the fuck is a ridiculous strawman that no professional or non-retarded amateur philosopher has ever advocated.
>>
>>7748539

>2015
>doing random science bullshit for the sake of intangibles like "curiosity" instead of just doing whatever will make you the most money
>>
>>7749929
>philosophy figures out the ethical and spiritual implications.
Philosophy also figures out what science is and what facts are and how we acquire them.
>>
>>7749934
The how come science has advanced without that?
>>
>>7749937
>The how come science has advanced without that?
It has not. The philosophy of science has always been at the heart of scientific discourse. Again, read Popper or Feyerabend
>>
>>7749939
Read any paper by Dirac, Bose, Von Neumann, Einstein, Feynman, Planck Hertz... There is literally no metion about the philosophical implications on their research.
>>
>>7747459
>weak example
>in the introduction
Then keep reading.
>>
>>7748297
???
A lot of great physicist have had to grapple with what time is and how it works. Considering how much general/special relativity changed our understanding of time it makes perfect sense to point out that it's something cosmologists have to think about.

I think in general, philosophy is pretty irrelevant to physics, but in the case of cosmology I could see a philosopher well versed in physics being an asset in some situations.
>>
>>7748302
Fuck Plato and Aristotle read someone actually intellectually rigorous like Hume.
>>
>>7749939
Philosophers have done nothing ever to help science or scientists.

You can be a annoying retard and call all scientists philosophers but philosophy will still be a meme no one takes seriously because it's pure mental masturbation.
>>
>>7750014
>it's pure mental masturbation.
just like math and physics
>muh science gives us computers and planes
>>
>Hawking and Mlodinow, in the chapter of their book called “The Theory of Everything,” quote Albert Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” In response, Hawking and Mlodinow offer this crashing banality: “The universe is comprehensible because it is governed by scientific laws; that is to say, its behavior can be modeled.” Later, the authors invite us to give ourselves a collective pat on the back: “The fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” Great triumph or no, none of this addresses Einstein’s paradox, because no explanation is offered as to why our universe is “governed by scientific laws.”

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism


E. is right indeed. The gap has widened in a century. hawking is just like the dawkins of physics

people think that the foremost questions in science is what is space, time, temperature, quarks and so on. No, the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.

[and also, why the humanity believes that to offer some mechanical model is knowledge about the world]
>>
>>7750163
Do you think knowledge about the world exists at all?
>>
>>7749874
Just because absolute time does not exist does not mean there is nothing substantial to the experience of time, and that still says nothing about the nature of causality.
>>
>>7750211
Causality is governed by the laws of special relativity http://astro.kent.ac.uk/mds/Modules/1112/PH604/ph604-SR11-2.pdf
For fuck's sake.
>>7750162
>>muh science gives us computers and planes
Well it kind of does, so at least is mental masturbation with tangible results.
>>7750006
He (or you) said that cosmologist contemplain what equations "mean" not how time relates to our equations and the best way to model it. But in essence time is a parameter, we study the concescuences.
>>
>>7747428

>good intro to philosophy books
>Think by Simon Blackboob
>popphi book
>OP be disappoint

Whatdidyouexpect.jpg
>>
Hi OP,

Your allegation is that philosophers have no idea what they are talking about regarding science, and they should be disregarded.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding philosophy, and should be disregarded.

You went looking for particular instances in one introductory book that you think display the ignorance of philosophers. I am sure that you do not understand causality and time enough to make this criticism.

OP is just trying to reassure himself that humanities are all worthless, and he is superior because he can see straight through that bullshit.

Grow up lol
>>
>>7750250
>Your allegation is that philosophers have no idea what they are talking about regarding science, and they should be disregarded.

Yes, nice reading son.

>You have no idea what you're talking about regarding philosophy, and should be disregarded.

C-, I never said anything about philosophy, just said shit about physics, my major.

>You went looking for particular instances in one introductory book that you think display the ignorance of philosophers. I am sure that you do not understand causality and time enough to make this criticism.

I have the basic math skill needed to understand it, there is no "criticism" in something well founded and highly tested.

>OP is just trying to reassure himself that humanities are all worthless, and he is superior because he can see straight through that bullshit

Love anthro and history. Just have my doubts with philosophy

>Grow up lol

Well sir it appears YOU need to grow up :^)
>>
File: 9780679723004.jpg (12 KB, 254x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
9780679723004.jpg
12 KB, 254x400
>>7750260

Try reading this OP
>>
>>7750263
Seems even more popphil... what is it about?
>>
>>7750265
Metaphysics

http://terebess.hu/english/AlanWatts-On%20The%20Taboo%20Against%20Knowing%20Who%20You%20Are.pdf

If you want a deep confusing book, try Kant.
>>
>>7750162
Wrong math and physics and other sciences give us useful things(yes like planes). This makes them distinct from memes like philosophy.
>>
>>7747449

I'm not convinced that philosophy was all that relevant by 1900.

For what it's worth, my BS was in math with no declared minors but I did have the equivalent of minors in both physics and philosophy.

In my senior metaphysics class, we had to read a chapter on the subject of time. After we had our weekly quiz over the reading material, the prof asked for questions. My first question was "Are we supposed to take this seriously?" He was very surprised and said that it represented the leading thoughts on the philosophy of time.

The problem was that philosophers are apparently completely unfamiliar with developments in physics. Their entire "knowledge" about modern theories of time were the equivalent of reading a science fiction short story involving time and then sitting around discussing it like they knew what they were talking about.

I've lost all appreciation for philosophy.
>>
>>7747510
>Yes we observe causality to only work in one direction,but why is that so?

The answer will be found in physics, not philosophy.
>>
>philosophy
>not schopenhauer
Ayla Mao
>>
>>7750758
While your point is valid, formulating a question such as
>"Are we supposed to take this seriously?"
is infantile and gay. You can get better insight and discussion by choosing the correct questions.
>>
>>7750853

I tend to speak my mind.

There was nothing of value in the entire chapter.

Better isight? For that, you turn to physics, not philosophy.
>>
>>7748464
this
>>
>>7750762
>The answer will be found in physics, not philosophy.
physics does not discuss causality nor causation: there no definition, in this field, of these two concepts so far. so no, these two concepts belong to philosophy.
>>
>>7752425
Ups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
>>
>>7752425

I seem to remember reading a paper by Roger Penrose about causal and casual timelines in relativity.
>>
>>7750008
>Plato and Aristotle weren't intellectually rigorous

Have you actually read their works? Plato has some of the most downright rigorous conversation ever and Aristotle is one of the most scrupulous system-builders in history.

Mind you, these guys were writing 2,400 fucking years ago.
>>
>>7750758
Obviously we've eschewed metaphysics in favor of physics these days. What you were reading was indeed what you described-- academic "philosophers" writing armchair thoughts about ontology and metaphysics.

However, you're straw-manning philosophy as a whole to call it irrelevant. Philosophy is essential for things like ethics, politics, law, etc.-- things admittedly out of the purview of science-- but also valuable to the sciences through the shared interest in logic and possibility.
>>
>>7748448
>The question of the arrow of time is actually relevant in physics, and it's an open question really.
Odd, while they never explained it one of my physics teachers used to tell me that it could be proved from the fact that heat travels from hot to cold, rather than cold to hot. He never went into detail though, can anyone enlighten me?
>>
>>7752434#
>>7753103#
yes causality is causation mixed with time. so we still have no idea what causation is, what causality is, since causality is just ''the cause precedes in time the effect''. physicists have various models for time, but still have no clue about causes, effects and therefore about their mixing with the various models of time.
>>
Hi everyone, could someone do me a solid and bump my thread?
>>>7753835
I ask because I'm paranoid the 4chan mods have flagged the threads I make and archive them without letting people bump them, my bumps don't work.
>>
>>7753860
No, you just think that because you have no fucking idea of physics m8.
>>7753865
nah senpai
>>
>>7754658
>No, you just think that because you have no fucking idea of physics m8.
tell us what a cause is then.
>>
>>7754677
>tell us what a cause is then
Something that precedes an event? That is not what causality is about.

Causaility is based on how special relativity deals with events happing "simultaneously" given different relative velocities.
>>
>>7747428
Just because you never stopped mindlessly calculating stuff long enough to actually wonder about stuff like this doesn't mean it's not a serious line of academic inquiry.
>>
>>7754790
>mindlessly calculating stuff
Wow, philosopers don't have a fucking clue.
>>
>>7747428
Philosophy gives you farts and adults chasing each others ass in a circle.
Science gave me computer, mobile phone, medicine, higher quality of life and a tsunami of answers for questions I didn't even ask but that I'm more than satisfied with.
>>
File: kant.png (95 KB, 382x524) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
kant.png
95 KB, 382x524
>empirical time is time in itself

ayyyy

seriously you retards belong in stem, there's no need for complex thought
>>
>Causaility is based on how special relativity deals with events happing "simultaneously" given different relative velocities.
lel okay

tell us explicitly what is causation in GR, SR, in Galilean relativity.

then tell us explicitly what is causality in GR, SR, in Galilean relativity.

or, easier, you can admit that you know nothing about those models, since you are an undergrad.
>>
>>7747428
Skip reading philosophy and just do some drugs: cannabis, lsd, dmt, shrooms, etc. They will give you enough stimuli to question the things you thought normal and unquestionable before.

That is all philosophy really is: humans finding ways to alter their perceptions and understandings. Keep a level head, always seek truth through the scientific approach, and you'll be fine.
>>
>>7747428
That's literally true. You have to ask yourself what you mean when introducing time into an equation. You almost invariably mean "the interval of time between some fixed time [math]t_0[/math] and now" but you could mean "the total time that has existed since the beginning of the universe"
>>
in science, there is
-no perfect consensus on anything, not even in pure math [which logic to choose, what field is more important]

-the research is geared towards what scientist like and avoids what scientist dislike [say if you want to do research on perpetual movement, you cannot]

-science is hardly communicable [most people do not care, the few people who care cannot into science, and then the few who remain always fight on what model is right and what model is wrong]

-scientist and general population rely on faith towards other scientists who claim that such or such part of such or such model is ''verified'' in their laboratory

-then scientists say ''if we can claim that it hold a few times in our laboratory, then it hold everywhere, every time]

-there is no consensus on how to rank models/theories
which means that there is no consensus on what is true [in positing that science gives what is true]

-plenty of scientists say that predictions matter, but scientists cannot say why why predictions matter.
[and predictions are always flawed by their proper essence: to stem from an inductive process over initial abstractions[concepts] which are generalized through space and time]

they say that this question is for ''philosophers'' [which they despise, because philosophy does not give ''computers, cars, more pleasures, less pains''.
why do scientists get up in the morning ? nobody knows
why must we finance their activities ? nobody knows
yet scientists do not hesitate to ask for money again and again.


to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.

-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.

-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as you said: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.
>>
>>7757348
-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.

-and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters'', there is no answer again.

the conclusion is that:
-science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] have clearly failed.

at best, the rationalist falls back, from his faith in the concept of objectivity, on the faith in the concept of ''inter-subjectivity'' which is roughly the faith in the concept of ''objective criterion to rank personal choices, once that a person wishes to solve some problem''

-even without applications, pure predictions are nothing but a concept and having faith in it shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
=> thanks scientists for making humanity better hedonists.

any rationalist doctrine is based on the faith in the imagination [meaning induction, connecting abstractions between them] which would produce concepts, abstractions, fantasies and some of them connect back, according to the rationalist, to the empirical world.
>the question is then what deliriums connect back to the empirical world.
>>
>>7757349

any rationalist doctrine which is not solipsism also refute solipsism [which is a rationalist doctrine, since it stems from the imagination of a self, and a self more alive than something else, after taking the imagination seriously] which also brings problems since there is the question of faith in speeches by ''other humans''.
solipsism is not destroyed by solipsism nor any other rationalist doctrines since the notion of refutation of a rationalist doctrine is itself an abstraction.


the sole question of interest is why do you take your imagination seriously, knowing that, since you have so much faith in induction through space and time, people have been doing it for millenia and still have no clue on how to connect back their speculation/abstraction/delirium/fantasy back to empirical events, nor do they even know why they want to take seriously their speculation.
>>
>>7747542
All of it comes from Egypt.
>>
>>7757348
>>7757349
>>7757350
How many times have you posted this drivel on /sci/? Just go back to fucking /lit/ already, you'd be in good company with the retards there.

Basically every question you pose indicates either total ignorance of how research in science or mathematics is carried out in practice, or is a rehash of "You cannot know nuffin", or is an idiotic criticism of the motives of scientists - would you really prefer it if science was never invented because it has "made us better hedonists"? It's empty contrarianism that you'd expect from a /lit/tard, you're probably a Christposter too.
>>
>>7747488
You're so fucking retarded.

I hope you at least realize it.
>>
reminder that hedonism is
-the belief in some self
-the existence of the self goes at least into
-- the desires
---of aversion towards pains
---of avidity towards pleasures
--the experiences of pains and pleasures themselves

sex is the foremost activity in which hedonists identify themselves, then comes other pleasures such as foods, travels, music, cars, the various cravings of avoiding pains through accommodation, medicines...

as soon as you leave hedonism, you embrace a doctrine which explicitly deals with the desires. the most famous doctrines hold the principle of equanimity/equipoise/ataraxia as one of the highest principle: this is what the liberals who are more hedonistic than anything else will never understand and this is why the liberals mock the christian [=those who meditate and contemplate] in thinking that the christians denigrate pleasures [which means sex] since liberals cannot into anything else than mundane hedonism.
>>
>>7750014
Most engineers think that pure math and science is mental masturbation, by your logic engineers are superior.
>>
>>7757404
Not the poster, but this seems like a valid criticism of science. At least it resonates with some of the unstructured thoughts about science I had and I thank the poster for conveying those thoughts clearly.
>>
>>7748448
Einstein was a part of a philosophy group with 2 of his friends. The idea that time could be a dilated for keeping the maxwell equations consistent in all frame of references was actually born out of philosophy.
>>
>>7753566
You mean the same Aristotle who came up with geocentric theory?
>>
Question for people on who are pro and anti philosphy: Whats the example of philosophy that comes into your mind when you think about philosophy? Also state what side you are on.
>>
>>7758996
Bad philosophy: Metaphysics
Good philosophy: Epistemology
>>
File: 1450434725439.gif (58 KB, 748x818) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450434725439.gif
58 KB, 748x818
>>7758996
>>
>>7757493
>was actually born out of philosophy
how did that quote go
philosophy is where you turn when looking for hypothesis or some shit
>>
File: 1442217893356.jpg (420 KB, 1439x953) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1442217893356.jpg
420 KB, 1439x953
>>7757404
>Basically every question you pose indicates either total ignorance of how research in science or mathematics is carried out in practice, or is a rehash of "You cannot know nuffin", or is an idiotic criticism of the motives of scientists - would you really prefer it if science was never invented because it has "made us better hedonists"? It's empty contrarianism that you'd expect from a /lit/tard, you're probably a Christposter too.
so much butthurt, it is is quite entertaining.

I bet that you think you are better than Quine, Khun and Lakatos.
>>
>>7759144
what's the point of posting that picture
>>
>>7759156
conflict brings excitement to an otherwise dull existence
>>
>>7754797
That's why they're in philo, and not a real major.
>>
File: wordplay.png (116 KB, 1366x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wordplay.png
116 KB, 1366x768
>>7747428
Not all philosophers are like this. Kripke and Putnam, the two living philosophers with the most name recognition, have both taught graduate level courses in mathematics (Kripke could do multi-variable calculus in elementary school, he was offered a position at MIT when he was 17) and know a shitload of physics. Its pretty uncommon for (analytic) philosophers to write something with the lack of rigor displayed in OP's pic.


If anyone is interested, this is how the abstract to a phil of science paper usually reads. http://www.philosophersannual.org/
>>
>>7759400
>http://www.philosophersannual.org/
Sorry, I was being an idiot. This is the link I meant to post.
http://www.pgrim.org/philosophersannual/pawebarts/halclif.pdf
>>
>>7757404
I'm aware of that. I'm saying you're face blind autists who don't understand reason.

It's really hilarious that you guys have created this false reality that the sciences mean what you want them to mean. It's actually taken as fact here even though it's completely fabricated nonsense. This is why you ban /pol/, /lit/, /his/ subhumans on sight instead of allowing them to turn the culture of a place into a real life version of Idiocracy.
>>
>>7757348
Almost complete bullshit.
>>
It's incredible to watch grade-D physics fags ridicule Philosophy while demonstrating how badly they could do with it to understand how their criticisms are nonsensical.

Pro-tip: All science requires non-empirical epistemological beliefs to make any sense, physics rests upon metaphysical premises, most of the great historical physicists were great metaphysicists by proxy.
>>
>>7748302

Sartre does not belong on that list.
>>
By the way, if any stemfag who is wailing ITT is a least willing to give some proper academic reading a shot, these are the ones:

Popper > Kuhn > Lakatos > Feyrbrand
>>
>>7753720
Entropy increases when the heat flows, and there are more ways to arrange the particles in one state than another. Physical chemistry or thermodynamics will explain it to you in rigid detail
>>
>>7759824
The things that most philosophers of science have to say about science are rather obvious to most actual scientists. Their work is basically irrelevant to scientific practice.
>>
>>7759956
It is because modern analytical philosophy of science wants to formulate in a clear manner what science does.
>>
>>7759956
>>7759962

but it works both way. Yesterday I read a long interview with leader physicist from my country. As long as he talked about his work, it was very interesting. But in the middle of interview he started to talk about God, metaphysics and his philosophical views and it was utter nonsense,
>>
>>7759968
>But in the middle of interview he started to talk about God, metaphysics and his philosophical views and it was utter nonsense,
What views were those
>>
>>7757447
wrong retard my logic is useful things are good useless things are not, it doesn't matter what some stupid whore thinks. Math, science, and engineering are useful and contribute to humanity, they are useful and good. And no most engineers don't think that, only stupid memeing undergrads on 4chan.

Typical bullshit lying sophistry all philosophers love so much.
>>
>>7759956
There was a study where they asked scientists phil of sci questions and their answers were pretty outdated or flatout wrong
The usefulness of the discipline is up to debate but it definitely isn't obvious to most scientist
>>7750014
What an ignorant statement
>>
>>7759956

>Their work is basically irrelevant to scientific practice.

This is fine.

>The things that most philosophers of science have to say about science are rather obvious to most actual scientists.

This is very wrong.
>>
>>7759979
>it doesn't matter what some stupid whore thinks.
Who hurt you, anon?
>>
>>7760014

link to study?
>>
>>7760042
I'm trying to find it, I think I had it bookmarked but I bookmark way too much shit
>>
>>7760043

Would appreciate it.
>>
>>7759973
hardline catholic.
>>
>>7760044
Can't find it on my bookmarks, and my google-fu is weak. Sorry anon.
It had to do with Popper and how many scientists believe in his (generally outdated) models
>>
>>7747428
You have a closed as fuck mind, nothing you've highlighted is an "insult to science". It's not there to tell you physics is wrong or that you're wasting your time studying physics, studying philosophy helps you think more clearly, and expands your ability to think in different ways. Also some forms of is, like metaphysics, helps you become a better person, more disciplined, etc. nobody who tells you to read philosophy is saying "omg more important than physics, if you don't kno philosophy ur dumb science meme man mental masterbation only" studying a bit of philosophy on the side is really good for you and it makes you a more well rounded academic.
>>
>>7747428
Physicists who dismiss philosophy of science are tactically accepting a philosophy of science from 60 years ago
>>
>>7759843
>Entropy increases when the heat flows, and there are more ways to arrange the particles in one state than another. Physical chemistry or thermodynamics will explain it to you in rigid detail
I know enough about entropy to understand what you've said, but as I'm currently a maths undergrad I won't learn any more of the stuff you've mentioned, how does this relate to time?
>>
>>7760049
taste the whip
>>
>>7760086
?
>>
>>7761815
I assume he means Popper and stuff
>>
>>7760049
*tips fedora*

Christians deserve your RESPECT.
Thread replies: 214
Thread images: 23
Thread DB ID: 361386



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.