>"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
>Into the trash it goes
They have no fucking clue /sci/.
>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
>>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
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.
>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.
>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.
just stick that toothbrush in your mouth like a dirty slut cause you need it.
Fuck I love getting penetrated by needles at the doctors office.
I fucking love shoving food in my mouth like I'm starving for it.
Then I get to share my pleasure with the toilets vagina when I flush down all my crap dildos.
The point is cause is more "powerful" than effect because this reality is all about rape.
To please satan
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.
>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.
here ya go you dirty slut.
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.
Hey kid, come penetrate this sock with your foot.
All this talk about universal rape is turning me on.
>That events and causality has advanced through relativity rather than philosophy
Shit man what do you even mean by 'advanced'?
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>This is my favorite meme.
Those memes penetrated your mind pussy and got it pregnant with new ideas.
The whole universe has been raping you since you were born.
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.
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.
>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?
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
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
Who the fuck is that guy?
Go read proper philosophy, the classics. A good historical path glvlng you the essentials would be e.g.
Medieval shitters like Thomas Aquinas
Bonus for science:
Bonus for econ:
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
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?
yeah philosophy is gay and einstein was a gay retard for being interested in it
Are you the OP?
Like everyone has told you in this thread, go read David Hume.
Here's a link:
Read all of this today.
This will literally change your opinion and view on everything. Being serious.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
>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.”
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]
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.
>>muh science gives us computers and planes
Well it kind of does, so at least is mental masturbation with tangible results.
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.
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
>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 :^)
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
>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?
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?
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.
>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.
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.
>empirical time is time in itself
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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,
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.
>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.
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.
>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?