antiphilosophists B T F O

fuck forgot article link

http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/beauty-is-physics-secret-weapon

>>7785072
>http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/beauty-is-physics-secret-weapon
Would it be considered lazy of me to not read the article?

>>7785086
well it's not that long and cheapo polemicization potentials aside it's a solid article

>>7785072
>what philosophy is all about
Speculating about the utterly hypothetical with no way of ever verifying the validity of your thoughts? Congratulations, I guess. At least STEM makes tangible progress.

>>7785114
Yeah. What have philosophers ever achieved? I guess you could credit the Holocaust and the birth of Soviet Union to them.

>>7785121

The greatest achievement of philosophers is laying the foundation for modern science.

>>7785126
>implying philosophers didn't hold back the development of modern science for centuries by making up stupid memes like alchemy

>>7785072
Just replace the word philosophy with art, cooking, or poetry and you'll see how stupid this sounds to a scientist.

Science is a branch of philosophy. I'm sick of fags that make Science vs. Philosophy. I'm not even talking about "philosophy is useless" bullshit. We truly live in the age of philistine.

>>7785072
>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]

>>7785172
>Science is a branch of philosophy.
Bullshit. Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy, but not a science. If science was a branch of philosophy than "philosophy of science" would be redundant.

>>7785179
No, that's the foremost question in *philosophy of science*, not science. I understand you idiot armchair "philosophers" desperately want to be part of a respectable field, but that doesn't make you scientists.

Now let's answer your idiotic question.

>why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
Because that's how the universe works. If it didn't work that way then science wouldn't work the way it does. There is no why beyond that. The universe does not have intent and there is no reason why it is the way it is. The question is meaningless. Now give me my PhD in philosophy you fucking intellectual shitstains.

>>7785181
Don't even bother man. We must remember than these philosofags take first their 'Introduction to The Introduction of Logic' (their only formal logic class) and right afterwards they take their "You can't know nuffin" class, where they throw out all of their logic in favor of what they feel is correct.

Philosophers FEEL like they are as relevant and important to society as scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

Philosophers FEEL like they deserve respect from STEM.

Philosophers FEEL that they should be part of STEM

Philosophers FEEL that STEM is the product of Philosophy

And in their tiny little brains it computes like this: We can't know muffins so we better just focus on our feelings.

>>7785179
>the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict
Give me one good approach philosophy has to actually solving this problem. Science is a game humans can play; metaphysics aren't, since we lack even the conception of a tool that can deal with "fundamental" questions. It sure as hell isn't "reason".

>>7785191
Your micropenis showing, fuck off STEM fag.

>>7785114
>At least STEM makes tangible progress.

Define progress. It is a very subjective concept.

>>7785121
>I guess you could credit the Holocaust and the birth of Soviet Union to them.

Yes, but they also achieved the human rights, democracy...

>>7785172
Then why don't we see philosophers working in science labs? Why don't we see philosophers working any job at all?

>>7785191
When STEMfags like you talk about humanities my eyes bleed.

>He thinks that all branches of philosophy consist in "u can't know nuffin"

>Implying focus in our feelings and make estimations based on these feelings is bad.

>>7785287
Read Popper or Kuhn anon.

>>7785167
>implying that people who rejected these beliefs were considered as philosophers during the time

It was called natural philosophy for a reason anon. Modern science grew out of philosophy.

>>7785172
>We truly live in the age of philistine.

Of course. A age of dehumanization, the only important things now are muh progress, muh money.

>>7785412
That's not true, there are several philosophers working at my local Starbucks.

>>7785424
>Read Popper or Kuhn anon.
Name one insightful (non-trivial) thing he's supposed to learn from them.

>Modern science grew out of philosophy.
And modern chemistry grew out of alchemy. And modern astrophysics grew out of astrology. Science supersedes non-science. Philosophy became obsolete when science was born.

>>7785424
>implying that people who rejected these beliefs were considered as philosophers during the time
What the fuck? You can't even write a coherent sentence and yet you think you are defending philosophy?

Wouldn't it just be better if this thread was on /lit/ or /his/?

>>7785167

That's the whole point of science, you tard. You test it. At that time they didn't have the right understanding of physics or chemistry (later didn't even exist). From their level of knowledge at that time, it was plausible. How do dumb people like you get into STEM?

>le philosophy isn't a science
So what?

shouldn't I also be able to enjoy philosophy just like I enjoy art?
can't I enjoy the questions philosophy does just the same way I can discuss garbage like anime?
why do I need to have a result with philosophy in the same way science obtains results?
It's like asking to an artist to produce results.


>not being able to enjoy both humanities and science at the same time
lel

>they use the word brainlet when their tiny brains can't engage into reading of philosophies or humanities
lmao

t. literature student here who also read books about math and physics because math is fun.

lol

>>7785495
>So what?
First, it has no place here. It sucks when we are having a scientific discussion and some faggot storms in with the philosophical and ethical implications like if anyone fucking cared.

>shouldn't I also be able to enjoy philosophy just like I enjoy art?
You can enjoy philosopher as much as you would enjoy a circle jerk. If you are a raging homosexual, that is not my problem.

>can't I enjoy the questions philosophy does just the same way I can discuss garbage like anime?
Anime is art so by definition it is good. Philosophy is shit, so by definition it is shit. If you want to pretend like if Philosophers have any kind of intelligent commentary about things then go right ahead like the sheep you are and buy into their circlejerk then go right ahead.

Just by being a philosofag you are a brainlet. All time you spend thinking about philosophy you could have spent thinking about math.

>literature student

Brainlet by definition.

>>7785529
there's entire fields of philosophy like aesthetics that matter.

The entire political discussion and shit like laws is basically philosophy.

Ethics are extremelly important even when doing science, unless you wanna do illegal shit.

Discussions like if GMO are good or bad are philosophical in nature.

Discussions about the political system or even the entire field of politics is philosophical in nature.

Stuff like alllowing drugs to be legal are philosophical in nature.

How can you prove scientifically if abortion is something good or bad.

I just shake my head whenever I see you fags talking shit about philosophy.

>>7785550
>Ethics are extremelly important even when doing science, unless you wanna do illegal shit.
Philosophers don't have any authority on ethics. Not a single ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophers.

>>7785569
>Not a single ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophers.

Maybe ethical problems are impossible to solve definitely. We take philosophical positions that evolve in time.

>>7785595
Having an opinion on a "muh feelings" problem does not require any philosophy, and having read meme philosophers doesn't make you more qualified to hold an opinion.

>>7785550
>This faggots thinks that whenever ethical problems arise, every scientists says: HOLD UP! CALL THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Nobody gives a fucking shit about your pityful opinion. When these problems do come up, the only people that have any say are the lead scientists, the representatives of the laboratory and in really big matters, the government.

Nobody, specially in STEM, gives a single fuck about your opinions you fucking sperg.

>I have opinions
>Therefore I am important

That's no how it works. People will only care about your opinion when you have a reputation, status and a title that says 'I know what the fuck I am doing', like a PhD in Physics/Chem/Bio/Whatever science the ethical issue comes up.

>>7785432
I dont know how to greentext anon.

>ordinary experience gives you only a very partial view of reality
Glad he's shitting on physicists for using centuries refining a concept while he's still spewing shit Descartes was talking about 4 centuries ago. Fuck off.

Philosophy is deprecated by neuroscience and cognitive science, which are actual legitimate disciplines based in empirical reality.

File: kacz_024.jpg (96KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x381px

>>7785425
Go live in a cabin like the unabomber (philosophy's poster boy) if you hate >muh progress so much

Oh wait, you're still using the internet (a relic of scientific and technological progress) to argue like a faggot, so obviously you don't find it all that bad.

>>7785853
I enjoy technology and I think that technological progress is vital for human wellness. The motive of my post is to show that things that also make us humans (culture,art, literature) are ignored and despised in the modern times. We live in times of cultural sterility. These elements that I exposed build the difference between ourselves and fucking computers. I only desire to find a balance between STEM and humanities.

Don't be a STEM fanatic ( u can't see it therefore it's not real) or a philosophy fanatic ( u can know nuffin)

>>7786328
That's like saying you are trying to find a balance between cooking and science. There's no conflict between science and humanities. Culture simply has no place in determining the whats and hows of the universe. The "conflict" is manufactured by those who erroneously believe their beliefs, feelings, and hobbies are relevant to science.

>>7785072
First it is the lack of agreement among philosophers. Philosophers themselves are culpable that philosophy has become a byword for "that's just like, your opinion, man".

Secondly is metaphysics giving philosophy a bad name outright. Hey, let's ignore physics as we inquire as to what the world is 'really' "like".

>>7786359
I understand your point of view. It is coherent and I respect your position.

Actually you clearly don't have to give a shit about philosophy to do science, nevertheless in ancient times philosophy was the background and basis of science.

Now science by itself is autosufficient, science is a powerful tool, but the implications of research to our daily lifes are impregnated with value estimations.

A last thing: science explains the "how" but not the "why". Maybe this video will clarify my position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg

>""""philosphy: you cannot know nuffin""""
>entire field of epistemology dedicated to proving it wrong
>implying this isn't /sci/'s first time seeing the word 'epistemology'
>implying that there aren't people googling that word right now before rebutting me based off their half-digested understanding of the field.

>>7786514
>science explains the "how" but not the "why"
The only people who draw a distinction between these two are five-year-olds and philosophers, both of whom just ask "but why?" whenever you explain anything to them.

>>7785114
>with no way of ever verifying
Science is just observation. You can observe other aspects of life and human experience.

>>7785529

Why is philosophy shit and art good?You don't give any logical reason,instead you present your opinion as fact.

I believe both philosophy and science have a place in the world.It is quite ironic though that as philosophy was persecuted by the church(we make real progress guize) it is now attacked by science (which philosophy created).Every retard can have an opinion true philosophy is opinion and proof despite the number of retarded philosophers.The greatest minds havr been philosophers too but no fuck philosophy for giving us knowledge.

Philosophy is basically useless at this point. If it isn't, I'd like you to show a significant advancement within philosophy in the last 100 years.

Science is rooted in empiricism (school of thought in metaphysics).

Whether you like it or not, philosophy is relevant in deciding the assumptions behind every argument and claim.

Regarding the use of philosophy, it's more therapeutic nowadays (relating to social behavior). How do you live a 'good' life, and what for that matter does 'good' even mean?

>>7785529
I'm a physics student myself but your fucking micropenis is showing math sperglord.

Why are math fags so insecure?

>>7786556
Sadly this

>>7786556
*cringe*
There is not a single thing "epistemology" ever achieved. We continue to use the scientific method regardless of your "cannot know nuffin" interjections. Take your fedora back to reddit, you pseudo-intellectual child.

>>7787420
>You don't give any logical reason,instead you present your opinion as fact.
That's exactly what philosophers do.

>>7787443
>Science is rooted in empiricism (school of thought in metaphysics).
Wrong. Typical underaged fedora misconception. The "empiricism" in science only refers to the systematic use of observation. Science also embraces many different methods of gaining knowledge. It has nothing to do with the philosophical dogma of empiricism.

>>7787702
>*cringe*
>Take your fedora back to reddit, you pseudo-intellectual child.
The irony

>>7787722
Enjoy your lack of critical thinking. It's funny how you feel all deep and proud for mindlessly repeating the utterly trivial words coming out of some famous "philosophers" mouth without realizing their triviality.

>>7787706
This has to be b8

How can you claim all philosophers present their opinions as fact when you haven't read the works of all philosophers.There are stupid cunts presenting their opinion as fact but this happens in all fields even STEM.There are different schools of philosophy and witbout philosophy there would be no science,mathematics or any other art or field as mathematics amd science are both based on rules made by philosophers.Philosophy as Plutarch said is the art of life and in my opinion it is a tree with thousands of branches.To discard philosophy in my opinion means to discard all human knowledge,which could be said to have philosophy as a basis.

>>7787737
I'm not even the guy you responded to, my good sir *tips*

>>7787751
>mathematics amd science are both based on rules made by philosophers.
How can you seriously say something this stupid? Neither science nor math was invented by philosophers. Actually both were started by people who wanted to get shit done in reality without needing pointless pseudo-intellectual philosocrap.

>>7785406
>Define progress
>subjective

Althought, progress is composed by many elements from a STEM POV the main one should be:

>A process in which the refinement or optimization of techniques results in the construction of complex systems that can be; understood, maintained and duplicated by some entity.

Or if you prefer.

>In general, is the process of increasing the capability of a certain entity to better exploit the energy from nature.

Therefore; religion, philosphy, art and most social "sciences" are meaningless unless they contribute to one or both of these processes, since they don't produce any progress and as such don't benefit humanity.

>>7785495
>shouldn't I also be able to enjoy philosophy just like I enjoy art?

You can't enjoy wathever the fuck you want, but you can't tell me that they're anything else but another form of entertainment that can get more complex with time and dedication and thought, they can't be distinguished from more material and usefull fields.

>>7787792
>Therefore; religion, philosphy, art and most social "sciences" are meaningless

Culture determines the behavior of human groups. This behavior alters our "energy efficiency". That's the difference for the example between west Europe and sub saharan Africa.
Culture also makes us humans. Cockroaches adjust pretty well to your definition of progress, but culture is the differentiator element between ourselves and cockroaches.

>>7785072
>high profile physicists
>space nigger and others

those are high profile science communicators, not high profile physicists.

>>7787767

okay

find me someone who "invented" science or math

>>7785412
But they are. They're called scientist for these days.

Genuine poster here, aren't philosophists using logical thinking most of the time? So how come they are separated from science?

>>7788187

The problem with /sci/ is that they have a stereotype of a "muh feelings" philosophy major in mind when they think of philosophy. If you are reading actual philosophers who are important to the discipline, then yes, they almost exclusively use logical thinking.

However, many people on /sci/ will not think it's logical, because they don't understand that the philosopher is probably just operating under a different set of assumptions than they are.

To answer your question, logic itself and its applications are not the same as science, though the two share a lot in common.

>>7788207
What exactly makes science and logic two different subjects? Isn't logical thinking and its applications a 'scientific' method?

>>7786379
Metaphysics is not necessarily involved in bullshit things. You can see an appropriate form of metaphysic at Aristotle.

>>7787702
A typical scientist fag: If science can't explain it then it's useless/not exist/bullshit.

>>7788222
Science relies on empirical evidence and testing. Logic is then used to deduce theories from this evidence. Philosophy on the other hand assumes axioms and derives theories from these axioms. This is similar to the way math works but math is much more logically rigorous than philosophy, since philosophy deals in more nebulous concepts than mathematical axioms. Because of this, philosophy typically has more overlap with art than with scientific and mathematical though.

>>7788242
>If science can't explain it then it's useless/not exist/bullshit.
That's technically correct though. In the sense of physical existence, only science can determine factually whether something exists. Philosophy does not result in facts, it results in ways of thinking. But it can't distinguish between correct and incorrect ways of thinking.

I've never met a philosopher, including philosophy of science folks, who didn't come off as full of hot air.

I find it funny that the diction and grammar used in this thread is absolutely abysmal lol. It is almost as if I'm on a board for STEM majors.

>>7788243
I understand, philosophy relies on a less rigorous foundation hence the popular jokes.

>>7788222
The way logic works is making inference based on assumptions. Math or logic doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the external world. That physics is viewed as rigorously deductive is a consequence of a well established, agreed-upon and proven system on which inference can be made.

In philosophy, by contrast, even though something is well established, it is not necessarily agreed upon. There's limited opportunity for experiment and no system against which to vet claims apriori, meaning it's lierally all talk and every claim is open to consideration.

>>7788253
>Philosophy does not result in facts

Uncorrect. Why would philosophers deny empirical data? I think it's opposite, they seek it more than any other type of data, becasu it's more solid. But if you're doing philosophy of mind, or philosophy language -things like that- science alone can't help you enough to work in these fields.

>But it can't distinguish between correct and incorrect ways of thinking.

I didn't understand this.

>>7788304
>Uncorrect. Why would philosophers deny empirical data?
I think you need to read my post again. I'm not saying philosophers deny empirical data, I'm saying the results of the philosophical process are not facts.

>I didn't understand this.
Which philosophical axioms are correct and which are incorrect?

>>7788368
>I think you need to read my post again. I'm not saying philosophers deny empirical data, I'm saying the results of the philosophical process are not facts.

I misread. I see science as a branch of philosophy, becasu early nature philosopers used every available method to find and learn things. Emancipitation of science from philosophy was mainly born from pratical reasons. When we look at humanity's best of bests we'll see that they've many different field interest. Your science concepts differs from mine so I don't think we can have an agreement.

>Which philosophical axioms are correct and which are incorrect?

Truth value is field of logic. If you're meaning that is it based on fact or not, it's differs from philosopher to philosopher; because great philosopher have extreme tendency to find new systems and concepts that explain their object of curiosity. Some philosophers use quite bullshit axioms to form their world vision, some are not. First example: Karl Marx. Second example: Thomas Hobbes. In short: Yes, you can determinate it, if axiom is not metaphysical.

>>7788156
All the scientists and mathematicians who are contributing to the scientific and mathematical knowledge.

>>7788187
>aren't philosophists using logical thinking most of the time?
No, they are just cringeworthily pretending their opinions to be facts.

>>7788242
>If science can't explain it then it's useless/not exist/bullshit.
Nope. There are many important things that cannot be tackled scientifically. However philosophy cannot solve them either. In fact philosophy cannot solve or explain anything at all. Therefore philosophy is useless.

>>7788243
> Philosophy on the other hand assumes axioms and derives theories from these axioms
However, assuming opinions to be axioms doesn't make said opinions valid. This is the fundamental mistake of all philosophers.

>>7788256
English is my third language. I learned it to communicate content and not to write poetry.

>>7788256
second language nigga

>>7788896

>name someone who invented science or math
>w-well all the scientists and mathematicians

kek

File: truthful_frog.jpg (8KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 223x226px

What is light?

>>7788901
>there are many important things that cannot be tackled scientifically

could you first say what you think is important and then give some examples

>>7785073
>>7785072
In all honesty, please fuck off.
Just leave

This is the kind of shit that ruined /pol/, /int/, and /lit/.

Please just take your "LEL LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE BTFO" horse shit and shove it up your asshole you cretin. You worthless waste of space.

>>7789690
what IS?

>>7788089
>Stephen Hawking
>Lawrence Krauss
>not high-profile physicists
Are you high?

>>7785072
If there is something more than the technique can or could ever observe be sure that rambling like an idiot about it doesn't mean you actually got it.

>>7789703
what?

>>7789717
?

>>7786328
anime and and hentai doujins are all the art and literature i will ever need
culture? thats just a way of living, i think my country's culture works especially if i have been living in it for 19 years and ongoing

funny how so many STEMfags will argue for philosophy's irrelevance while in the same sentence proclaiming the primacy of a philosophical position, that being the position the science is valuable.

>>7788207
>>7788243
only good posts in the thread, everyone else either doesn't know shit about philosophy and thinks he can talk shit or is just one of those living stereotype of a STEM babby. Also that one artsfag who does the opposite.

if you got rid of all philosophy department at major universities and waited a decade i don't think you would see any noticeable difference. cant say the same for stem

>>7791578
life doesn't revolve around universities, as many here like to think. there's nothing stopping you on being knowledgable in more than one field, at the very least for knowing what you are criticizing.

>>7785617
>People will only care about your opinion when you have a reputation, status and a title that says 'I know what the fuck I am doing', like a PhD in Physics/Chem/Bio/Whatever

I wish that was true. People with a PhD are not really more respected than people with other types of degrees, at least not by the general public. Most people think it's quite easy to get a PhD, even though they themselves have never tried to get one. In the eyes of the general public, the only people whose opinions really matter are those who appear in the media.

And in the eyes of academics, the only people who really matter are those whose papers have lots of citations.

>>7791639
Sounds like serious bullshit if you think about "most people say it is useful, then it must good" mistake.

File: 1450211521970.jpg (47KB, 483x611px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 483x611px

>>7791555
/thread

>>7785072
I think the sentiment these scientists have is justified, modern philosophy has no bearing on modern STEM. The philosophy used by Einstein to contemplate what it would be like to ride a light wave, induction,etc, is not whats being called into question. Philosophy in antiquity obviously played a huge role in stem, which is obvious by how many STEMers had philsophy backrounds ( Newtons prinicipia was actually called "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica"). However, STEM from antiquity is not STEM today. If philosophy played as large a role in STEM as some would claim, you should see modern philosophers be able to pick up a subject like quantum meachanics or pure math and say " Easy". But you don't, and thats because some of the findings in Science no one could have ever thought hard enough to arrive at, they come from experimentation. And as Schroedingers cat demonstrates, a simple thought experiment just isnt enough to lead to actual understanding of the concepts at hand, and most people would say Schroedingers cat actually muddies peoples understanding as opposed to adding to it. Finally, let us not forget the metaphysical non-sense pushed by post modernist philosophical hacks as showcased by the Sokal affair, which attempts to put itself at the same level as math and science without any of the rigour or demonstrable evidence.

>>7791699
>modern philosophy has no bearing on modern STEM. The philosophy used by Einstein to contemplate what it would be like to ride a light wave, induction,etc, is not whats being called into question. Philosophy in antiquity obviously played a huge role in stem, which is obvious by how many STEMers had philsophy backrounds ( Newtons prinicipia was actually called "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica"). However, STEM from antiquity is not STEM today.
this is true and I agree completely, however it does not justify dismissing all of philosophy as useless as many here do. if philosophy wants to have an actual sayin in science, then it has to develop, evolve or change on it's own from the stale thing that it is now. I do believe that it will one day, that there will probably be a new Descartes or Leibniz able to do it. As of right now, it is better to keep them separate.
However, trashing it just because you can't comprehend it or because it isn't useful right now is nonsense especially from scientists. If they cut alchemy's legs, it wouldn't have developed in chemistry, for example.

>>7791699
You're right but main problem is that some scientists implied or said philosophy is COMPLETELY useless, not just in STEM fields; which is also debatable.

>>7791687
Tell me what other use has humanities got other than trying to shut down and sensor science ?

>>7789699
For example the question of what I should eat today or the decision whether I should go to the gym or meet with my girlfriend. These are not answerable by science. But if you now seriously claim one needs to have read ancient Greek meme books in order to answer them, then you must be seriously redditarded.

>>7791555
>holding an opinion means being a philosopher
So every human being is a philosopher and the word "philosophy"becomes redundant and meaningless. Congratulations. Please continue to feel proud of having achieved literally nothing besides existing.

>>7791715
>some day astrology will be useful!
>pls don't dismiss it as trash

>>7791719
Name one problem solved by philosophy. Name one actual truth discovered by philosophy.

>>7791730
>>7791733
except philosophy has already been useful in the past, you know, being the base of our entire society and science itself

>>7791733
All of problems? Becasu doing philosophy is systematic thinking. Sadly if you read some philosophy of science you'd see mistake in your question.

File: 1423269112574.png (119KB, 421x404px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 421x404px

>>7785072
Philosophism: The belief that mindlessly worshipping ancient Greek mystics makes you smarter than any physicist, mathematician, chemist, biologist and engineer.

>>7791744
I prefer to think for myself. I don't need any "philosophical" dogma. Sorry dude, but quoting some meme writers of the past is not the same as "systematic thinking".

>>7791754
>I prefer to think for myself
that's philosophy right there.

>>7791738
Our society evolved naturally through the necessities of living together. Even though philosophers made several attempts to destroy society (e.g. with the philosophical dogmas of nazism, communism, religious fundamentalism, feminism and cuckoldism) we survived thanks to science, logic and rationality - the enemies of every philosopher.

>>7791760
>every act of thinking is philosophy
Great, so the word "philosophy" is useless, redundant and should be trashed.

>>7791746
>>7791768
>I don't know thing, but I will say it's shit anyway: the posts

>>7791774
I have a very broud educational background in philosophy, most likely I know more about it than you, Mr Redditfedora. And I concluded that it is useless bullshit. I challenge you to name one philosopher of your choice and convince me with facts and arguments that he is worth being taken seriously.

>>7791776
Unfortunately all of your "broud" education didn't help your feeble mind as I see. Let's start with Aristotle. Why he is useless?

>>7791797
>making fun of a typo
Uneducated redditard confirmed.

>Why is he useless?
Please read the instructions again. This question does not convince me.

>drowning yourself in tautologies is helpful

>>7791776
>Mr Redditfedora
doesn't reddit hate philosophy with all his heart and "fucking love science"?

>>7791812
But anon, haven't you realized yet how profoundly deep the idea of solipsism is?

>>7791821
Being liberals, most of reddit has some useless humanities degree

File: sgvsghd.jpg (389KB, 700x573px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 700x573px

>PhD
>Doctorate of Philosophy
>mfw

>>7791821
Reddit is full of pseudo-intellectuals. Philosophy fan boys are the epitome of pseudo-intellectualism. Therefore it is plausible that they would be redditors.

>>7791832
sounds to me reddit is full of [guy with opposite opinion]. last time, it was full of medfags, before that engineers and even before, console peasants.

>>7791808
So much for your "broud" education. I choose Aristotle becasu you must know why he is deemed a great philosopher as someone who had "broud" education in philosophy. You ask for arguments but yet you give non as owner of claim of "Philosophy is useless". I'm done with you philistine.

>>7791854
I accept your defeat, redditor. Thanks for admitting you have no arguments and no education.

>>7791854
>>7791859
seems to me no one has arguments here, but the other one is wrong anyway.

>>7791859
I might accept defeat, if there was a competator.

>>7791871
I am familiar with Aristotle's work and I dismiss him as an imbecile. Still waiting for any argument from your side.

>>7785837
I work in a department with neuro and cog sci people and they desperately need philosophers. there is some ontologically wacko shit that goes on in cog sci in serious need of philosophical inspection. "cognitive load" etc. and even most of the "computational mind" is based off of wild speculation, which has gone unchecked because people in science self congratulate and feel that close inspection of what these metaphors mean is the job of philosophers, meanwhile closing off entire doors to research implicitly because of their assumptions.

What the fuck is cognitive load if not a humunculus with too many levers to pull? What do the Marr levels really mean and what's a "representation"? And why are representations inherently linked to computation? No one can really tell you definitively why these models are the most "real" other than the fact that they are the models people have tried, and there's an (incredibly vague) story to tell connecting these threads. And they keep trying variants on the same god damn models because they are bad philosophers.

Literally the worst example you could give of a science for disproving the relevancy of philosophy.

>>7785529
>philosophical and ethical implications like if anyone fucking cared.

So you support Unit 731 and human experimentation on the unwilling?

>>7791892
Why should a philosopher be qualified to "check" these theories? It's up to neuro / cog sci to prove or disprove them, or to come up with better theories. Philosophers have no authority on these issues. You might as well pay a random idiot from the street to take a look and state his opinion. Just as valuable as a philosopher's opinion.

>>7791898
In the same way that any scientist does in a review article. Get out of the ivory tower. Anyone with a brain can review literature, as long as you have the background.

Many philosophers take courses in our departments, including in cog and neuro, so that they understand the methodology, culture, and background.

The difference between a layman from the street and a philosopher, or even a scientist, is just experience with the materials. Philosophers who works specifically on the philosophy of a particular scientific field read tons of primary literature from the field if they are worth their salt. Most respected philosophers of science are not simply citing philosophy and remaining disengaged with the scientific literature.

The only thing that gives the scientists their authority is experience, which philosophers who are invested in their subject get as well.

>>7791898
also, while maybe it SHOULD be

>up to neuro / cog sci to prove or disprove them, or to come up with better theories

They don't. People are dogmatic. It's how we have a crumbling world economy. People want to believe they are right, and if they are giants they go unchallenged often until they are dead or the thing comes crashing down.

If philosophy wants to pick up the slack, which there is room for, especially since it is in their job description, then they should.

>>7791725

yep, in the same way that every human being who has ever figured anything practical out is a scientist

>>7791776
>I challenge you to name one philosopher of your choice and convince me with facts and arguments that he is worth being taken seriously.
John Searle and the idea of Chinese Room

>>7791892
You got it all wrong. That bullshit is the damage philosophy is currently doing to neuroscience and cognitive science. In order to become respectable scientific fields, they must separate themselves from philosophy. There are way too many philosophers who think they can publish shit about consciousness without having any scientific evidence for their "theories".

>>7791915
So you need someone who is qualified to understand the scientific literature. Why would a philosopher be better qualified than a scientist whose fucking job it is to be informed and to critically question theories?

>>7791919
>People are dogmatic.
And philosophers are the worst example of dogma. In particular in the philosophy of mind. They are NOT open to changing their views. They have their fixed opinions and will rather insult you than ever consider that you might have an argument against their bullshit. Don't let these idiots ruin your science.

>>7791938
They aren't.

>>7791922
A trivial - literally preschool tier - thought experiment that serves no purpose other than making reddit manchildren feel proud of being pseudo-intellectual.

>>7791931
In my experience, just no. The most unwilling to be introspective about their theory and its interpretation, not to mention reality, in a nondogmatic way, are the psychologists and neuroscientists of cog sci. I've seen dozens of talks by them, and asked many of them questions. The people spouting this shit are the scientists, and the only people calling them on it, if they don't play into it as well, are philosophers, or the philosophically-minded scientists.

A lot of psychologists just pull (philosophical) interpretations off the shelf, and test them as-is, without criticism (or just compare it to another off the shelf interpretation/theory). One of the most frustrating things is seeing grad students or visiting researchers grilled for what their results mean, and they either spout some ill-founded nonsense, or eventually cave and say "I'm not a philosopher, these are just the results, but I will continue to present them under this interpretation anyway, because that's what people in my department do, and I like this guy's philosophy."

Source: actually engaged with both the graduate philosophy and cog sci/neuro departments at my school, and I attend/organize a lot of talks and reading groups for both.

>>7791938
Because they are (often, not always) less blinded by the giants in the field they are researching.

The political climate at a lot of universities makes it hard to just say, "what if we have this all wrong, or these results don't mean what we've been saying they do?" People whose research checks come in to support a program that might be flawed are less likely to comment on it, even when they get reason to have serious doubts. I see it all the time. People fight to adjust their theories as little as possible, and that just makes for slow progress a lot of times.

>>7791940
Not saying I don't agree, but what's even worse is that scientists pick up these theories with even less inspection of them than the people who created them, and then often test strictly within those frameworks. Or expand on them arbitrarily due to scientific convenience without thought for what they are doing (to where theories become baroque collections of ad hoc corrections, but are never revised at a large scale to see why all these ad hoc corrections were needed).

DESU academia is a racket tho and its politicization ruins good ideas.

I'm not a particularly smart person, but I have noticed a trend through history right up to today:
>philosophers who study mathematics
>mathematicians who study philosophy
These two groups of people merge and make profound breakthroughs in 'science'.
The computer you're using is evidence of that.

As a sidenote, consider the statement:
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Anyone here familiar with John Locke?

>>7791970
>These two groups of people merge and make profound breakthroughs in 'science'.
>The computer you're using is evidence of that.
The development of the computer had nothing to do with philosophy. It was completely due to mathematicians.

>>7791970
>>philosophers who study mathematics
There is literally no example of this ever happening. Philosophers are too dumb for their introduction to propositional logic already. They study philosophy because they hate all STEM subjects.

>>mathematicians who study philosophy
These on the other hand are fairly well-known. Doing philosophy is as trivial as eating or breathing to a mathematician. See for example Gödel, Russell, Kripke.

>>7791986

>baiting this hard

I'll bite though. Descartes was first and foremost a philosopher. Russell is considered an analytic philosopher much more than he's considered a mathematician.

I really enjoy the thought of any of you anti-philosophy nerds trying to tell someone like John Searle he's the intellectual equivalent of a preschooler.

>>7791979
>>7791986
Gödel's life is an interesting story
well worth looking into. I can't say 'how' influential philosophy was on his theories, as one would have to ask the man personally, and I don't commune with the dead.
He definately didn't study mathematics in a bubble however. The effects of Nietsche's work were all around him when he fled Vienna, and he was studying Kant simultaneously with math through his teens. Who knows what he read after that.

File: 1394820429935.png (27KB, 775x387px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 775x387px

>>7791687


>we need the humanities to tell us that dinosaurs get huge and eat meat

>we need the humanities to tell us proper containment procedures

If the humanities were around at the dawn of history we'd never have utilized fire because 'lol it might burn down some trees'

>>7792626
It's really hilarious how the average philosophist assumes that scientists are brainless monkeys who can't think for themselves. Truly fascinating. These fedoratarded philosofags are seriously that deluded.

>>7792641
When you're trying that hard don't blame us brainless monkey.

File: hgTidbE.png (456KB, 396x446px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 396x446px

>>7792711

How about you tell us the last useful thing philosophy gave us in the past fifty years.

>>7787708

>Science also embraces many different methods of gaining knowledge

Do you even science? Sigma/chi squared/p-tests are all about the accuracy of our observations.

>thinking math is science
>"Typical underaged fedora misconception."
>Projecting this hard

>>7792722

See Feyerbend "Against method"

>>7792751

Lemme give you a five year old explanation.

Empiricism means sense data.
Rationalism means in your head.

Science works by systematic sense data.
Math works by in your head.

>>7792751
It's actually FeyerAbend. Abend as in evening.

>>7792751
Also Feyerabend's critique is against sticking with any particular systematic (work) method for uncovering knowledge, not against use of statistics as such.

>>7792795

Deduction and Induction were defeated by him? How is he not taught more?

>>7785072
>high profile physicists
>Neil DeGrasse Tyson
>have little value to the real wolrd of science
>Neil DeGrasse Tyson
why senpai

>>7785072

Philosophy isn't science. Go bitch about it in >>>/lit/

>>7792799
Induction is not systematic, else it would be just deduction.

>>7792712
>>7791744
see

As I understand your conception of science and philosophy are flawed. Thinking is not privilege of philosophers, we can agree on it. There is no absolute boundaries between science and philosophy When you're systematically reflect that's mean you're doing philosophy, subject dosen't matter. And don't forget, scientific method can be used by philosophers if they're not working on metaphysics (Most of them don't use it of course). So uselessness of philosophy and uselessness of philosophers are different matters.

>>7792819
>science and philosophy

>can we falsify this?
>lets test it

>can we falsify this
>SHOULD we falsify it?
>but could we try-
>SHOULD we be trying?
>can't we just test-
>what is a test, really

>>7792828
>>>can we falsify this?
>>lets test it
he literally thinks that a few one-time refutations are absolute refutation

>>7792799
He just said that sticking with the same method of work all the time will guarantee there are truths you won't be able to uncover. Induction and Deduction is independent of that.

>>7792909
In mathematics it's true; one counterexample is enough for a disproof. Not sure about the sciences.

>>7785072
By "high profile" you mean meme physicists, right?

>>7792819
>>7792828

Both of your insufficient examples in area of philosophy becasu you're asking question to find something. Can you ask questions without thinking?

>As I understand your conception of science and philosophy are flawed.

Thank you for proving my point anyway.

>>7792914
Mathematics deals with priori truth. Sciences are empirical. They're entirely different.

In the sciences the experiments have to be reproducible. It's always possible that the experimenter fucked something up in the experiment design or execution, it's always possible that there was some fluke, it's always possible that some data got mixed up somehow, etc.. Furthermore, it's possible that that single experiment isn't enough to falsify the thing you want to falsify (it might just be a very special case that shows everyone that their understanding of the big picture isn't complete).

Even if you're just trying to demonstrate a phenomena then you still need to collect lots of evidence. The experiments carried out at Cern and such collect so much positive evidence that it's pretty much statistically impossible that it could just be a coincidence. The Higgs boson was verified to sigma-5 meaning it was a about a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the observations were just a coincidence.

Single refutations don't mean dick to actual scientists. No one in science uses terms like "debunked". Only retards in the skeptic community and pop-sci retards who sit around trying to sound intelligent take these things seriously.

>>7792935
>Mathematics deals with priori truth
Hnnnnnnnnnnnng no it doesn't you fucking retard.

File: Ha!.png (13KB, 679x427px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 679x427px

>>7792939
Are you posting from the 1800s?

File: 1453121213248.png (4KB, 679x427px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 679x427px

>>7792944
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

Why all the Reddit hate up in here bras?

Anyway, Philosophy is useless. It's like looking for a cat in the dark and saying 'what is a cat', with science you use a fucking flashlight.

>>7792965
/g/ pls

>>7792771
Only an uneducated philosopleb could post such a cringeworthily incorrect oversimplification.

>>7785072
>philosophy is useless
that's probably why a lot of you guys are unhappy in life.

>>7793163
No, you fucking retard. The reason why I'm unhappy is because I was physically, emotionally and sexually abused throughout my childhood. Philosophy won't do shit to cure these wounds.

>>7793323
Maybe you're angry at philosophy becasu it didn't save you when you need it.

>>7793323
>Philosophy won't do shit to cure these wounds.

If you embrace existential nihilism, you won't even care that your uncle touched your bumhole.

>>7791848
Convenient boogeyman representing the "other". Pretty sure most posters here also post on reddit. This thread is sad.

File: sean_carroll.jpg (55KB, 679x679px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 679x679px

"Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy"

>>7793817
Only if philosophers stop saying silly things about science.

All scientists are also philosophers as they both use reason and logic as tools to reach conclusions.

It's all just a flurry of curiosity and imaginative interpretations of sensations communicated by invented symbolism.

>>7794123
>use reason and logic as tools to reach conclusions.
This is actually what distinguishes scientists from philosophers. Philosophers reject reason and logic.

>>7794127

How so?

File: Hegel - Navy Seal.jpg (139KB, 1386x194px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1386x194px

>>7794127

>>7785431
Therefor Philosophy lays the non-sciences for sciences to sprout out from.

>inb4 next field is the physical advancement of the human imagination (bio-technology of the brain) via artificially constructed lucid dreaming

As a computer science and philosophy double major, I can confirm that the advances made by philosophers in the area of modal logic has had a profound impact on artificial intelligence.

^ have had. My bad.

>>7785126
Aristotle and Archimedes may have been philosophers, but they were also learned men.

Science started when instead of just asking questions someone decided to search for an answer.

>>7792626
>we'd never have utilized fire because 'lol it might burn down some trees'

God.... philosophy isn't "muh feels", philosophy has many branches. A christian fag would say that, a nietzschean would say "just do it".

Why would anyone hire a philosopher?

Seriously, what job does a philosopher do efficiently? What problems can they solve quickly with their formal training in philosophy?

All I ever see is them having written books. Is that how philosophers make a living?

>>7791733
I dunno maybe the non scientific idea that monarchies are a bad idea and that the common man should have a right to be something more than a peasant?

You guys take for granted the amount of rights and social progress that can be directly attributed to Philosophy.

>>7791768
I think you are talking about theology? If you actually read any philosophy you would know that they believe that logic and rationality are the only thing that matter.

Aristotle the founder of the scientific method was a student of Socrates the father of philosophy.

>>7794410
Philosophy majors usually become lawyers. My Philosophy professor made 100k last year doing talks about what is the correct way to help Africa.

>>7794505
Interesting. Do they also need to get training in law or is just philosophy sufficient to practice law?

Or do you mean that they are hired as advisers for lawyers?

>>7787442
Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, the entire fucking field of phenomenology.
You'v never even opened a fucking philosophy book, have you?

>>7794505
Law and Pre-med is what Philosophy undergrads do.

>>7794570
you don't go to law school till after undergrad. its usually a 5-6 year program from start till the time you take the bar.

>>7794583
>Heidegger
useless

>Sartre
useless

>Camus
useless

>phenomenology
Bullshit and useless

File: 1389798910285.jpg (11KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x247px

>>7788187

Yes. It's quite amusing to see people shoot themselves in the foot here over their own ego. I keep hearing how STEMfags are of superior intelligence, yet I can't imagine the average poster on /sci/ ever publishing in a peer-reviewed article. You can't just call string theory gay and smelly and expect to be taken seriously. No one here has said anything remotely wise with regards to this topic. Then again, scientists like Hawking and Black science man aren't very insightful to listen to compared to George Selgin or Israel Kirzner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

>Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογιkή, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.

>>7792641
>It's really hilarious how the average philosophist assumes that scientists are brainless monkeys who can't think for themselves. Truly fascinating.

When all we see are /b/ tier posts like yours then that is the logical conclusion to take.

>>7792939
>Hnnnnnnnnnnnng no it doesn't you fucking retard.

Wow. STEMfags everyone.

File: witty.jpg (164KB, 902x902px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 902x902px

>There are centuries of experience of wrestling with these problems and refining those concepts. It’s unwise and borderline silly to just write that off.

Except that's exactly what Wittgenstein did and he was right.

>>7794602
I read all of them. You are right

>>7794129
Not him but most of the things philosophers talk about is metaphysical mumbo jumbo and you can't prove either. That's the reason nothing happened since all these years in philosophy. You still don't know if this or that hypothesis is better (to make a moral decision for example), everybody has their own view.

That's the only thing that's happening:

>Philosopher1: world is like <that>
>philosopher2: no I don't like it, there is a logical fallacy in your argument which implies that world is like *that* not like <that>
>philosopher3: actually it's not like *that* it's like {that}
>...

This is going for years and nobody has made any progress. The only progress I know of is Nietzsche who stated to keep it easy: "stop with that metaphysical BS there is no empirical evidence for any of that stuff"

I study Physics and attended many philosophy lectures because it was interesting at first.

That's about it. It was interesting but philosophers ignore logic on a long run. All of them have to do basic logic in the first semesters but forget about that after a few years. It's just semantics (that's the second "accomplishment" Wittgenstein showed that most philosophy is useless to talk about because it just is semantics)

To keep it short: philosophers ignore the last century of physics and ignore the fact that metaphysics is obsolete (it's like in the past: every time you can't explain something it's "god", now it's metaphysics.)

Thus they ignore basic logic

>>7795483
Sorry but your understanding of philosophy is seems to me shallow, and some of your statements are false, like;

>most of the things philosophers talk about is metaphysical mumbo jumbo

There is many philosopher who don't use metaphysical form but sometimes you must use it if you want to offer a new understanding. For example, you can see high level of metaphysical writing in philosophy of history. It's really frustrating to read it. But when you try to do history of philosophy you understand that it's a necessity to use "metaphysical mumbo jumbo" to some degree; but of course if you don't see history itself unscientific, and therefore unrelated.

>nothing happened since all these years in philosophy

Philosophy don't progress like science and can't progress without science. Most of philosophers has his own world vision so progress in philosophy can't be observed if you only look to philosophical systems, becasu they're start and end with it's creator and his pupils. Philosophical progress is only attainable with science -a sub-branch of philosophy- becasu it's provide to us a solid ground put our concepts.

>philosophers ignore logic on a long run

That's an interesting statement, but I can say it's false becasu without logic you can't make argumentations and build philosophical systems, therefore they can't even do philosophy. If you mean that philosophers make poor use of logic, I can understand that.


>philosophers ignore the last century of physics and ignore the fact that metaphysics is obsolete

That's most of time false. For example, quantum physics and neuroscience attracts large amount of philosophers; but there is a bigger problem. Philosophers that talking about scientific shit they don't know about and make a mockery of it. If you mean that philosophers ignorant about scientific knowledge then you can be right. Metaphysics used most of time when science is not enough to explain related case.

... and the philosophy nerds have won the thread. Why? Because they have the better argument? Hell no. It's because having an argument is the end that they want. That's all philosophy in the modern age is... endless arguing with no chance of a conclusion nor any desire to find one. The longer you argue with them, the more they've "won". It's like wrestling a pig in mud. Why give them what they want?

>>7795900
To refute the philosophy you need to do philosophy. You STEMfags didn't had a chance to begin with. I posted in this thread for sharp my argumentation skill, nothing more. It's nice though.

>>7795900

You're only saying that because /sci/fags are no better than /pol/ shitposters when it comes to make cogent arguments.

>>7795900
Well, yes. An important aspect of philosophy is to open a dialogue.

Having conversations about the future of science and ethics with respect to the science we do is important.

>>7794220
>philosophers
>advances in modal logic
You mean mathematicians. Logic is a field of math. Kripke is a mathematician with a math PhD.

>>7794275
>Aristotle
>learned man
He was dumb as fuck. Did you even read his texts?

>>7794299
>philosophy isn't "muh feels", philosophy has many branches
Those branches that are not "muh feels" have already been swallowed by science and math.

>>7794483
>monarchies are a bad idea
>the common man should have a right to be something more than a peasant
Why?

>>7785617
The public at large looks towards philosophers opinions. Why else would socrates and Plato and countless of other philosophers be refered. Your micropenis is showing

>>7794488
>they believe that logic and rationality are the only thing that matter.
Then why don't they use them?

>Aristotle the founder of the scientific method
0/10 shit tier bait

>>7794583
>the entire fucking field of phenomenology.
Show me one truth the field of "phenomenology" has ever produced. I'll give you this one chance to defend your /x/ mumbo-jumbo.

>>7794666
Logic is a branch of math nowadays, you pleb. Why are you so uneducated? Did you miss the last 200 years of scientific and cultural advancement?

>>7794681
>ad hominem projection

>>7796236
>Why else would socrates and Plato and countless of other philosophers be refered
They are only being referred to by their dogmatic followers. They are basically memes and nothing more than memes. Philosophy is literally religion tier. Learn to think for yourself. Oh wait, if you could do that, you'd study STEM instead.

>>7795853
>science -a sub-branch of philosophy
Science is also a sub-branch of eating, breathing and walking. Therefore everyone who can eat, breathe and walk is smarter than a scientist. This is your reasoning, right?

>>7795853
>without logic you can't make argumentations
Well, philosophers don't use arguments. They only make opinionated claims and defend them will fallacies and insults.

>>7795900
This. Philosophistry is just applied trolling. Fucking useless pseudo-intellectual manchild circlejerking.

>>7796117
>To refute the philosophy you need to do philosophy.
No, I only need rationality and logic.

>I posted in this thread for sharp my argumentation skill
Le tippy hat meme. No, my dear reddit friend, shitposting does not equate to argumentation.

>>7796245
>wikipedia article doesn't even agree with my opinions
>using educational status as an insult
oh the ironing

>>7796219
>An important aspect of philosophy is to open a dialogue.
Nah, that's science. Philosophers are way too dogmatic and closed-minded to be open to dialogue. They will never accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

>>7796262
>using wikipedia as a source
Non-scientist detected.

>>7796261
>shitposting does not equate to argumentation.

Yea, I can clearly see that from your post.

>>7796252
No, it's yours.

>>7796265
>wikipedia is bad because my undergrad writing class told me so!!1

>>7786379
Quantum Mechanics' huge meme of "not making sense" is almost entirely the fault of scientist, for refusing to educate themselves in Philosophy enough to be able to articulate how the entities in their mathematical models might be able to relate to (tentatively) proposed-to-be-real entities, and thus having nothing more than "read the maths!" and "it just works" as anaemic nutrition for students.

>>7796225
Look, if you want to call it mathematics that's fine. But just know, we're discussing the same material. It's seems like you're issue is really with philosophy that tries to adjudicate between the claims to knowledge made by other discilplines. If that's the case, then you and I agree. It can't. But you're going to far if you say philosophers are pseudo-intellectual or intellectually dishonest.

^ *your. Once again, my bad.

^ *too. Ffs, how do I grammar?

If you've got the time and want to hear more about the relationship between philosophy and science, check out the following videos

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAE3115E376516725

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHS1NraVsAc

>>7785121
So are philosophers massive liars then? Seeing as how both of those things managed to trick countless people.

>>7796610
Begin false dosen't make you a lair retard.

File: Step-4-benadrylbrownie.jpg (108KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 728x546px

>>7796245
>implying that commenting smugly on how hilarious something is constitutes an argument

>>7791829
underrated

We live in roma, the greeks already had his time with the philosophy

we live in a era of technical advances not in a era of cultural research, roma ate the greek states, and that's why your philosophy studies had degenerated into useless analytical philosophy, get done with it philosofags.

>>7796573
But they are.

Only scientists answer questions. Philosophers ask them and try to answer but in the end of the day they just create more and more structures but thats about it. They have as much knowledge of the real world as theologians which is: none.

>>7796545
But that's the whole point: it does not make sense in a natural sense. Even the (one of the most basic things in qm) uncertainty principle shows us how our concept of position is hard to grasp, Not just this: the statistical nature of QM is a big problem too.

It does not make sense.

Maybe it's because of the Kopenhagen interpretation that "natural logic" does not apply.

The problem is: you can't talk about qm without a knowledge of mathematics. I'm just in 3rd year of my physics degree and even I fear talking about that stuff. I just do not know enough.

Why are STEMfags so triggered by Philosophy?

>>7797867
It's the other way round: Philofags are triggered because they dropped out of STEM

I think this thread shows lack of imagination and lack of knowledge of what philosophy is all about. There is a lot about the world besides the laws of physics and physical phenomena. There are centuries of experience of wrestling with these problems and refining those concepts. It’s unwise and borderline silly to just write that off. As Einstein did, I’ve derived tremendous inspiration from the philosophical literature, from sharpening your mind against David Hume or Ernst Mach or Bertrand Russell.

>>7785072
Some philosophers have done first rate work, particularly the empiricists and those working in the foundations of math in the early 20th century but most stuff written since Quine has been irredeemable garbage, including 'gods' like Kripke and Putnam, for the most part.

>>7797913
>As Einstein did, I...

Yeah, yea. Keep slow-stroking your limp cock, you faggot.

Ironically enough, this is what all philosophers do. Jerk off all day to useless ideas and when they get together to discuss, it literally becomes a circlejerk.

>Oh sir, such a complex and deep idea you had!
>Oh thank you very much... yours too. So profound.
>Yeah, yeah, fuck yeah, Uhh... building upon Descartes ideas. So refined
>Of course, just like your most recent publications. I must admit I was pretty aroused

>>7797867
I'm a STEMfag philosopher, and I can say philosophy is very useful. What you can say about it faggot? There is a reason that STEMfags called autistics all the time, and that's the delusion of "Only I'm and my occupation is useful". This leads to disregard of every other practice of humankind as they're "useless". Even religiousfags are more open minded than you uncultured swines.

File: 1430506991018.jpg (29KB, 402x391px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 402x391px

>>7797930
>mfw people don't even read the OP anymore

>>7797687
What is pseudo-intellectual or intellectually dishonest about that?

>>7785072
I study philosophy and science, and I personally think that the notion that philosophy can have any meaningful impact in uncovering the world is ridiculous. It is merely a part of literature, like poetry or play-writing, and its pretty ideas should be thought of in the same manner as these are thought of: pretty nifty and cool, but not world-changing. The only real difference is the pedigree, which actually has laid the foundations for modern science.

>>7798386
I do as well. Like I said before, philosophy can't adjudicate between the claims to knowledge made by science. Surely though, it does have some impact. Take, for example, the gene selection model of evolution put forward by Richard Dawkins. Philosophers of Biology have raised a number of issues with Dawkin's account. This has led to the development of the group selection model. I think you're making a mistake if you put philosophy in the same corner as literature.