>be a philosopher >make up a completely unfalsifiable but

>Pretend to be objective
>Bart philosophy
>really just dogmatically follow capitalist ideals of use, purpose, and value

Your pic: actually related.

>>1001370

>"How DARE you insult the philosophical GODS? Are you trying to make this board a CYBER NORTH KOREA?!"

Wew lad, philosophy will be seen as a sham (inb4 "but science iz philosophy"). And that's not me making a lofty claim. That's me refuting the much loftier claim that the common man cannot reason and has not reasoned and has not perfectly figured out everything that has passed through the journals of philosophy

>>1001370
Prove it

File: 1436061679456.gif (831KB, 1377x1782px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1377x1782px

>>1001361
>be a scientists
>feed the fantasy of ''empirical proof'' that liberals and libertarians need so much for their doctrine
>speculate and formalize your fantasies into toy models
>claim that it is possible that someday some stranger will ''verify empirically'' your formalized deliriums.
>get paid for it
>years later, hear that your theory is ''confirmed'' by some strangers, to a ''level of belief'' that other academics choose to find ''acceptable''
>be praised& paid even more

>>1001421
>be a philosopher in MMXVI
>starve

File: 1460827540434.jpg (83KB, 404x521px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 404x521px

>cunt makes fun of philosphy
>/his/panics answer by attacking scientific method
Why?

>>1001444
It's their religion trips. They immediately go full damage control and sperg the same unsubstantiated bullshit people have been ignoring for the past 100 years

>>1001444
Trips of wisdom.

>>1001361
If there was nothing to the world but facts of physics, such humorous possibilities as philosophical zombies could not be made up without contradiction.

File: 1457980523253.jpg (389KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1500x1125px

>>1001361
No one takes falsibility serious.


In the philosophical world it's seen as self-contradicting since it cannot falsify itself.

In the scientific world it creates an infinite regression. If you want to attempt to falsify germ theory than you must first know the microscope is true. This means trying to falsify the microscope. Since any test requires some assumptions it creates an infinite loop where the assumptions from the preceeding test must be falsified.

>STEMfags

File: images (1).jpg (34KB, 692x1080px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 692x1080px

>>1001361
i bet you read you faggot

>>1003663
you read this*

>>1003597
There's a considerable amount of debate over whether they're a coherent concept at all.

>>1003612
A philosophy fag demonstrates that he's scientifically illiterate. What a shock.

>>1003673
You're right I was making things a little simple there. Being imaginable and being coherent are indeed two different concepts. Nevertheless thought experiments in general are an useful tool in philosophy.

>>1003682
"Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto.”"

Quote from a prestigious physics professor, Sean M. Carroll


>STEAmfags showing they are both philosophically and scientifically illiterate

>>1003732
>Smart people can't hold dumb ideas.

Philosophy fag showing his natural subservience I see.

File: great.jpg (12KB, 232x231px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 232x231px

>>1003612
>you must first know the microscope is true

You literally can't make this shit up.

>>1003748
This is actually how the doctrine of falsfability works. You don't assume things are true, you try to disprove them, if you cannot do this than you must disregard them.

Falsfiability IS retarded

>>1003816
>Falsfiability IS retarded

It gets results. Just because you're so autistic that you can't distinguish between using tools and trying to support a theory doesn't change this.

>>1001380
>That's me refuting the much loftier claim that the common man cannot reason
Psychology and experimental philosophy have shown that the general population are absolutely horrible when it comes to logical reasoning.

>>1003831
Post proof

>>1003816
>you don't assume things are true
None of them? Like, how far does the rabbit hole go for you autists?

>>1003826
How you would attempt to falsify evolution?
Or the big bang?

If you started actually applying the idea of falsfability to science you don't get very far?

>>1003831
>>1003847
This would be a start: http://lesswrong.com/.

For a quickie on how human thought was never meant to mirror reality, look up the Monty Hall problem. This math problem will make you question your intuition.

>>1003847
Philosophers make assumptions. Falsibitionists don't (or else they're unscientific by their own standards).

>>1001361
>get paid for it
Who pays philosophers?

>>1003863
>If you started actually applying the idea of falsfability to science you don't get very far?

Actually, you get plenty of places, usually discrediting theories that the pursuit of which will get you nowhere. It's a way to help ensure you don't succumb to confirmation bias or waste time on scientific goose-chases.

>>1003847
>you don't assume things are true
None of them? Like, how far does the rabbit hole go for you autists?

I'm arguing AGAINST falsfability. And to answer your question, according to the doctrine you assume NOTHING is true with the retarded philosophy. You can only attempt something is true after you create an experiment which tries to disprove and the experiment fails.

So for instance under the retarded ideas of falsfiability you cannot say the big bang ever happened. There is no experiment you can do that would attempt to prove it didn't happen.

This is why falsiability is for autistic.

>>1003879
You seem to be dodging the question.

How does falsiability approach evolution or the big bang?

The simple fact is there is no way to have an experiment that attempts to falsify them. Even Karl Popper himself said evolution is not compatible with his theory.

>>1003891
Not him but it does not seem like he was even trying to answer the hard problems, just show that falsibiadubity has it's uses.

>>1003891
Ok. So the fact a methodology is not universally applicable does not discount its utility. For the record, I'm not the one in the OP criticizing philosophy for being unfalsifiable. I'm just calling you an idiot for saying that using a microscope means it's stupid.

>>1003876
Philosophers make money on book sales.

So OP is complaining that people are willing to buy books on subjects he personally disagrees with.

>>1003881
>against

So, nothing is false? What are you getting at?


>>1003868
The Monty Hall problem is still a stupid one, no matter how you put it.

>>1003898
>>1003913

It does have uses, just not very grand ones. It certainty wasn't the supreme answer to the problem of induction Popper wanted to be. Like all science it depends on unscientific assumptions in order to make it's case.

>>1003913
>philosophical claims are unfalsifiable

First things first: prove them. I'm not arguing against you, but everything must be proven first. I don't recall Kant proving shit

>>1003916
Oh, that's pretty dumb.

>>1003919
Your rebuttal is literally "well it's dumb" nice you sure showed him.

>>1003950
Explain it in plain simple terms to me. Explain why switching helps. Explain how you improve your chances from the 50% you had after the 1st door was opened to 66,6(etc)%.

>>1003958
Nothing has changed in regards to the first door, it is just as probable as it was before to contain treasure (33%). Whatever the truth behind the doors is, it just a triviliaty that either door 2 or door 3 has a goat behind it.

But now for the door that was opened we know for sure it there's a goat. So the chances of there being a treasure is 0%.

All probababilites must sum up to 100%. 100% -33% -0 = 66%

>>1003989
Man, if I hadn't watched so many videos explaining this I'd be calling you a retard right now.

>>1003958
I can't, which proves his original point that the average human mind isn't very good at reasoning.
>>1001380 s claim that the common man can reason and is able to understand all problems of philosophy is a dubious one. I personally think nobody can, and that the human mind just isn't capable of solving metaphysical problems. Hell, most humans can't even understand physical problems. I'm no astrophysicist.

>>1004017
> metaphysical problems
Like what?

>>1004027
I'll quote one straight from Wikipedia, rather than try to describe one myself.
"Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?"

File: thelasthumankarichristensen.jpg (343KB, 700x900px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 700x900px

Why are atheists so desperate to replace sapient beings with soulless machines that merely simulate sapience?

File: ergo n shiet.png (149KB, 380x480px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 380x480px

>>1004054
How about something at least vaguely tangential to the real world we live in and not some thought exercise?

>>1004057
Robots are cool anon

>>1004057
It's mankind's desire to create life, and thus be as God.

File: ghosting.png (2MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1040px

>>1004071
No anon, robots are fucking awesome.

>>1004069
Very well then. Replace being trapped in a room with being colorblind and then replace the leaving it with receiving cybernetic eyes, since you're such a fan of robots.

>>1004091
I said something tangentially related to reality. You just made the situation even more distant from IRL

>>1001421
Science is just a sect of philosophy.

File: elsa.jpg (19KB, 225x239px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 225x239px

>>1004111

File: quine.jpg (43KB, 325x495px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 325x495px

>>1004111
>implying philosophy isn't a science

>>1004069
>Reading books is a far-fetched idea

>>1004100
I'm not sure what you mean by "tangentially related to reality" at this point beyond it being an excuse to ignore metaphysical questions but perhaps you could explain it to me?

Do people really consider the Monty hall problem as some sort of proof that were incapable of logic. It's a brain teaser which pits intuition against math and for most people intuition is their go to. And in most cases math and intuition line up. Here they don't.

>>1004139
It's no proof of anything but it's an example of how our brains generally work off of illogical assumptions. Like, the existence of fallacies doesn't mean that logic doesn't exist but the fact that we tend to fall into fallacious reasoning means that we aren't inherently perfect at logical thinking.

>>1004134
It means something that could be feasibly answered and tested, or something that can at least fucking happen

say
>why is there a moon in the sky
>magnets how do they work


Not strenuous pointless brain exercises. Is there a point to the question you asked? I doubt there is

>>1004054
>hey man but if we, like, what if we could taste with our fingers maaaaan?

>>1004139
>>1004162
It's a piece of trivia, a cute story and that's about it

No one ever said the human brain was a perfect calculator, "human intuation" is about guesstimatation. If it were infallible we wouldn't bother inventing math in the first place.

>>1004180
If metaphysical questions could be tested like that they would be questions of physics, not metaphysics.

Knowledge argument can be simplified even more though. I'm pretty sure you're aware that blind people exist. Blind people can read books. Therefore blind people can know everything physics (and neuroscience and whathaveyou) teach us. But even then blind people would not know what red is. They can have certain knowledge about it, such as if they point light at certain wavelenght at someones eyes they can produce red sensations at the subject. But these poor blind people still would not know what red looks like.

>>1004216
and?

>>1004270
There's more to the world than what empirical sciences teaches us. Thus one should either say that mind and body are separate substances, or at least that theres just one substance (physical particles) but two different kinds of properties (physical and mental), neither of which can be reduced in the other.

>>1004297
No, that's just how our brain expresses the information. There's no reason to think that there's a "mind" substance. there is nothing inherent about the color red that leads people to see "red". some people are color blind. they still see red, they just don't see red expressed differently from some other colors by their brain

>>1004335
Processing information from photon with a certain wavelenght and having a red sensation are two different concepts. The former can be further analyzed and communicated. The latter can only be acquainted with by first-hand experience.

I love how triggered /his/ is over a factual observation. OP isn't wrong, a lot of philosophers fall into that category, that however doesnt mean their theories or speculations are wrong.

>>1004465
The thing is about says something correct but his conclusion ends up being incorrect.

It's a "gotcha" tactic. Where you thinks if he can find one thing wrong with a person, ideology, or institution it invalidates everything else.

It's like when evolution deniers point out times when a hoax happened (ie some charlaton produces a fake skull) and says it invalidates everything.

>>1004435
>Processing information from photon with a certain wavelenght and having a red sensation are two different concepts.
You are making an arbitrary distinction. You can see parts of the brain light up with activity when you introduce a stimulus like seeing a red object. What exactly do you think the brain is doing if not processing the information?

>>1004111
philosophy is just attempted science with outdated methods

philosophers have some funny claims about infinity, too

>>1003847

>Post proof

Reason and Argument by Feldman have several examples.

But imagine this:

There's a girl named Sarah. She has a bachelor degrees in economics and have just landed her first job after graduation. During the time she studied, she played an active part in a LGBT group at the university, and would join rallies telling cis people to stop oppressing her. Based on this story, which one of these two statement are more likely.

1:Sarah work as a banker
2:Sarah work as a banker and is a SJW

>>1003748

You are aware of course that "true" in this sense is another word for accurate, right?

He's probably french or something.

>>1003847

Have you even read Descartes?

>>1003826
> It gets results.
> Implying this means anything
> Implying this is important or can be deemed important without having to justify it with some metaphysical mumbojumbo
Am I communicating with the ghost of William James?

>>1004553
different anon but I'll take a crack at this: I'd say #1 is more likely. SJW does seem likely though but it adds to #2 making it less likely

>>1004586
>which medicine works better for the flu?
>“how about the one that actually helps you get better from the flu?"
>well, results don't mean anything. you'll have to justify the effectiveness of your flu medicine using metaphysical proofs

>>1004553
The trouble with your example is that you have already told us that a certain thing is true. Than you ask us to repeat what you have already said and offer it as "proof".

In other words you completly avoided the problem of induction and ask us to take certain information as absolutly true. For instance, that Sarah exists, that she did get a degree, that she did join a certain group, that you are not lying.

>>1004635
Yes, and you reasoned correctly, however a lot of people (think it was a third) will argue that it's 2 since the story make both the fact that she's a banker and she being a SJW seem possible.

X alone, no matter what proposition it is, will always be more likely than X and Y together.

>>1004642
You're retarded.

File: lol.png (360KB, 2000x1499px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2000x1499px

>>1004685
>You're retarded.

>>1004504

You are being deliberately retarded as a facade.

>>1004698
nice argument

>>1004639

Why is curing the flu more important than something you deem to be less important?

>>1004707

Exactly the point. My man.

>>1004692
We're not having an argument, I'm making an observation.

>>1004716
I'll make an observation then: you're an ass

>>1004708
So that I don't fucking die?

>>1004813

Oh no heaven forbid.

Now tell me why life is important.

>this whole discussion
What matter's is that philosophy is useless and science isnt, that's all that matters. Science solves a lot of problems while philosophy just creates problems, luckily for us philosophy just creates fake/not real problems so no one cares anyway.

You could say that philosophy is a scam and no one would care because the entire thing is so useless, it very well might even be a scam.

>>1004819
Why is something's importance important?

>>1004918
>science isn't philosophy

lol what is empiricism

>philosophy just creates fake/not real problems so no one cares anyway.

Right off the top of my head of philosophers who have created massive IRL problems I can name Marx, Locke, Aristotle, Confucius, Paul of Tarsus, Russel.

>>1004959
>science is philosophy
Than why do they call themselves differently? Its almost like they want to distance themselves from the useless philosophers, no?

>philosophers
Pretty sure that was all about economy and politics, no one gives a shit about philosophy lmao, people were killing each other for stuff.

>>1004946

Why are important importance imports imported?

It's the terms of discussion moderated by the economics of abstract value maybe.

>>1004972
>Than why do they call themselves differently?

cause they want to be in the kool kidz klub.

Back in the day when a liberal arts education actually meant Trivium and Quadrivium you couldn't get away with calling yourself a scientist without a basic rational foundation.

But now plebs can go to college on daddy government's dime to major in gender studies and interpretative Bengali dance critique so academic rigor is too hard cause it drives away the free money.

>>1005023
kek, only hard science is considered science, who the hell considers philosophers, women studies, psychology and other bullshit science?? I do consider mathematicians scientists who, I have my reasons..

>>1004972
>Than why do they call themselves differently?
Because after a philosophical idea is developed enough it becomes a specialty with specialized people. Science is still philosophy it's just an extremely narrow branch that focuses almost entirely on empiricism.

>Its almost like they want to distance themselves from the useless philosophers, no?
Considering that science still involves philosophy and icons of science such as Bacon were also philosophers I'd say no. The only people that think "science has all the answers" and "philosophy is useless" tend to be people that are neither scientists nor philosophers.

>>1005044
All I am saying is, if suddenly all philosophers just magically died.. my life would be exactly the same. Meanwhile if all doctors, engineers, chemists, computer people, physicists etc all magically died, I would be basically going around throwing rocks at squirrels or something, trying to not starve and generally stay alive.

>but everything is philosophy!!!!
Yeah but still whatever. They can all die for all I care, more resources for the actually useful people.

>>1005033

All science is philosophy, but not all philosophy is science.

Or do I have to spoon feed you rudimentary grammar?

>>1005066
>all science is philosophy
>therefore you have to appreciate actually useful stuff and complete and utter useless bullshit equally

Fine, 99.9% of philosophy is utter pointless crap, and that remaining 0.01% doesnt go around calling itself philosophy anyway.

>>1005061
If all the philosophers magically died than their ideas would be preserved in books.

If all the (insert technical proffession here) died their ideas would also be preserved in books. And the books would essentially contain applied philosophy. For instance empiricism in the scientific books and Aristotelian logic in the programming books. This is because science is a derivative of philosophy.

>>1005061
>if suddenly all philosophers who ever lived never existed, my life would be exactly the same

kill yourself you insufferable autist.

If more braindead retards like you had their way 95 percent of us would still be literally scrounging in the dirt for our sustenance because that's what useful people do.

>>1005087
"Even though my central premise was defeated and I've shown I know nothing about science or philosophy I'm pretty sure philosophy is still poopoo and magic science is the best"

File: leel.jpg (290KB, 6672x2832px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 6672x2832px

>>1005101
"I wanna feel smart but cant handle actual academic rigor, cant handle having to seriously explain, test and prove everything I do in a lab like environment and get consistent enough results, so I picked a useless, unemployable, no jobs "academic" bullshit so I have something to talk about with other people who serve fries or clean floors and I cant handle opinions outside of my circlejerk hugbox echo chamber."

why do people have to have such a absolute view of things. Do you always have to be right?

>>1005301
Being wrong is pretty shitty m8.

Philosophy has just branched out into every field we know today. The best people to make a philosophical claim are those who are at the top of their respective field. That's why taking philosophy alone is retarded.

>>1003916
If you earn money by selling your books, you're most likely not a philosopher, sorry.

>>1005061
most philosophers are already dead

i mean academic philosophers are called philosophers but they're really not worthy of the title in the vast majority of cases

>>1005415
This is correct. Philosophy is a field where a handful of people in history make all the real breakthroughs and the rest of the field just interpreters and applies their work.

>>1005675
What is considered a philosophical breakthrough?

>>1005690
breakthroughs are spooks

>>1005690
Something that sounds nice enough for many people to accept.

Where does studying language (semiotics, phonology, syntax, etc.) fall in with you guys?

To me that seems crucial to philosophy, or is that considered science?

It can have pretty significant real world applications in contracts and laws and other documents.

>>1005815
That's why linguistics it's its own subject.

>>1005819
But does /his/ or /sci/ consider it philosophy or science?

I just want to know where and how to shitpost most effectively for maximum jimmie rustling.

>>1005815
Linguistics is not a science. It's a curiosity with implications for philosophy.

>>1005819
Philosophy of language is its own thing. Generally concerning how we use language, how we interpret meaning, and how it relates to reality.

>>1005831
Linguistics is usually considered part of the humanities and not a 'hard science'.

>>1005831
I consider it science and I'm a guy who usually laughs at social """sciences""" like sociology and psychology. Linguistics actually utilize some hard scientific rigor.

>>1005690
Descartes and Bacon providing the epistemological foundation for everything.

Spinoza single-handly divorcing metaphysics and pretty much everything else from religion.

Hume destroying rationilizing with Is-Ought

Nietzsche's revalation of morality as a human invention based on a pyramid of values. His invention of perspective as a form of epistemology.

Enlightment/Humanist ideas about government and human nature paving the way for democracy and "rights".

Machavilli, modern/consequentialist politics.

Plato basically inventing idealism

>>1005831
Most recent research has done great work into formalizing languages and finding laws. Many death languages have been completely rebuilt. But it's in tyat awkward stage like psychology.

>>1005876
Those seems like really interesting ideas, but I wouldn't understand how there isn't an opposing view just as valid.

>>1005976
It's essentially how well you can substantiate them. You can say that Hume was wrong and that you can in fact derive an ought from an is but where's your reasoning? What arguments do you have? If you can establish that we could work out whether or not it's a valid challenge.

Unfalsifiable ? That's a standard developed by a philosopher named Popper. Not the final word on the demarcation question, but it's nice to see such respect for philosophy, and the philosophy of science.

>>1001361
>be a philosopher
>get accepted to law school
>be a lawyer
That was easy.

>>1006047
or medical school. Philosophy majors can also get jobs as programmers, given their background in logic.

>>1006056
What?

>>1006059
Logic is a major part of philosophy, which is valued by many people looking for coders.

>>1005976
Well like I said the conflict between opposing views and the current standard is done through decades of normal philosophers comparing and resolving conflicts between the big names.

It took decades for people to decide Nietzche's views were top tier, this consisted of a lot of attempts to have opposing ideas weighed against his or attempts to find flaws in his or contradictions in his arguments.

Spinoza's ideas actually took centuries for anyone to take seriously. But by the fruits of his work you can see why they were the best ones. For instance he was the first person to propose reading "holy texts" critically, to see them as written by people with agendas, who may not have fully been understood the world around him. This approach has gotten some great results with the study of history.

I can't really give you the complete answer for why the big philosophers are considered solid and well developed but it's not something that was done over-night. Contrary to what college classes would like to tell you philosophy isn't about just saying whatever you want. Modern philosophy is about continueing the tradition of the big players: checking for flaws in their arguement, finding ways to make their ideas relevent to the modern world, and finding common ground between them. All future innovations build on previous sucess. For instance Spinoza built on some Avicenna, Nietzsche on Schopenhauer: fixing their mistakes and expanding on their success.

>>1006064
You know that the logic interested by philosophers isn´t the same one interested by CS people and mathematicians.

Regardless of anything, you will only get a job as a programmer if you can do whatever your stupid boss asks you to do.

>>1006064
Yeah but you need real programming experience for anyone to hire you. A philosopher might be good at programming, just like a mathematician would be, but neither are qualified right out of college with a Bachelor's degree in their field.

In other words, the mundane task of programming a login page is going to require computer science.

>>1006073
Philosophy can be thought of as the supporting school of thought that helps the other schools.

Computer programs operate on strict logic. This requires a philosophical development. Leibniz's logic is built into the core of a lot of programs despite the man being dead before the computer was ever invented.

You don't need to hire a philosopher because the information is already available in books.

What a philosopher would do is develop new logic, if he finds something good he publishes a paper. This would also generate fame for the university he teaches at which helps them economically. If I recall the analytic philosophers have helped computer coding once or twice.

>>1006081
That is some real pop-philosophy right there fa-m

>>1006072
Logic is logic. Philosophy majors often get hired in computer-related careers, regardless of what you may think. Learning some random coding-language is easy-sauce. The ability to think in logical and creative terms is something to be desired.

>>1006090
But that is not true at all.

hey I think the confusion comes from schematic identification of logicism with realism, intuitionism with conceptualism, and formalism with nominalism, referencing positions in the old debate on the nature of universals. This is mostly right, but not quite: Hilbert is a nominalist about mathematical objects, but he is a conceptualist (Kantian) about mathematical symbols and their manipulation. "The subject matter of mathematics is... the concrete symbols themselves, whose structure is immediately clear and recognizable". The difference with intuitionists like Brouwer is that they were conceptualists about mathematical objects, not just symbols.

In fact, this was Hilbert's original innovation. He considered (idealized) mathematical symbols as objects of a priori perception in a way similar to Kant's view of arithmetic as a priori synthesis in time (hence their agreement against Frege, to whom arithmetic was analytic), and geometry as a priori synthesis in space. But Hilbert extends this to formulas of algebra, formal logic, etc., by merging both space and time into a joint medium of syntheses. These are the "logical concrete objects that are intuitively present as immediate experience prior to all thought", "a condition for the use of logical inferences and the performance of logical operations". A condition of the possibility of certain knowledge, also very Kantian. But Hilbert's extension of Kant gives much more: we can have synthetic a priori knowledge of logical consequences of all our axiomatic theories. Indeed, their proofs are analogous to Euclidean constructions in geometry, they are a priori syntheses of imagination, but based on symbols rather than figures.

>>1006094
Oh, but it is. Wait 'til some philosophy major gets your job. Then you'll be proper bitter.

>>1006101
Pajeet is already doing that. You are the delusional here.

>>1006081
Ok so yeah a professor might be able to make some very abstract contributions to computer science but I was under the impression you were talking about jobs you can get right out of college with a 4 year degree.

Like I said a philosopher might have an aptitude for programming if he underwent the labor of learning a language but philosophy training alone isn't going to get you shit in the tech sector. Maybe there's some really obscure job that tech companies like to employ philosophers in but I doubt it.

>>1006101
>hahaha i'm gonna be able to slave away for my corporate masters instead of you
>wagecuck logic

>>1006105
Maybe I am "the delusional". But good for Pajeet.

>>1006114
>neet logic

>>1004111
Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.

mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.

Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.


Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].

Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

>>1006113
Employment for philosophy is pretty shitty. It's mostly teaching positions.

Historically though philosophy has been something for the rich. If you are already well off you can spend your time writing and researching this type of stuff.

Plato was a millionaire, Nietzsche did all his serious philosophy when he was retired on pension, Voltaire was also filthy rich, Confucius was an aristocrat. When there are lower class philosophers such as Spinoza or Kirkeegaard they do not get cash from philosophy but live modest lives working on books that take aren't even well received until after they die.

Frankly you don't even need the degree to do philosophy. The whole point of the classes is to have the professor mentor you and aid you in learning.

>>1004586
Yes, yes, we have to take a leap in assuming value. But unless we basically utterly subvert all of our instincts, we can assume that some things are generally pretty fucking useful. I'm not sure why philosophical sorts like to retreat to this line of reasoning. Do you enjoy the benefits of a technological society? Then stop shitting on the means we use to get there.

We have to take leaps in logic all over the place, indeed the fact that the external world exists at all and that our senses aren't giving us false information is a leap in logic, but that doesn't mean we can't still value shit or that you're being profound for pointing out that we're taking a leap in logic.

>>1006100
thanks for the real ass contribootin

>>1006124
dude i am trying to follow this

>>1004819
>why is remaining alive important
Postmodernism is why no one takes philosophy seriously anymore

>>1008168
Trying to define why life has value isn't "post-modern" you can find these ideas expressed in people as old as Socrates.

The point is that all values about literally anything will eventually be trace back to asking what innate value life has. If there is none to it you can't say any sort of discovery has meaning. The point the annon was getting at is science will be eternally dependent on philosophy because science cannot do value judgements. Human motivation rests on non-empirically derived values.

Investigating assumptions and values, as I repeat is not "post-modernism" it's the most basic to not be a complete sheep. Something you have admitted yourself that you "don't take seriously"

>>1008327
>because science cannot do value judgements.
Neither can philosophy.

>>1008327

>Investigating assumptions and values, as I repeat is not "post-modernism" it's the most basic to not be a complete sheep.

Even what you've said there is an assumption or a value. Also these aren't "derived" lol. Axioms are taken out of thin air and then everything is deduced. Any grey areas require more specific definitions for terms and / or more axioms. See the munchhausen trilemma. See Hume pointing this out.

OP here. This topic turned to shit and I was right. The Munchhausen trilemma is the eternal bane of the pseudo intellectuals who think they are doing non trivial things.

Also to the people talking about philosophical breakthroughs: LOL.

>>1004918
This is real autism

>>1004918
I can almost assume about 99% certainty that you have autism.

>>1008168

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's a basic question, no deconstruction and talking about how words don't mean nothing involved here.

>>1006072
>the logic interested by philosophers isn´t the same one interested by CS people and mathematicians.

Do you even know what symbolic logic is?

>>1003863
Falsify evolution by showing there is no genetic trait carrier that can mutate each time it copied.Darwin didnt know about DNA he expected that there must be something that carries information to offspring
Falsify big bang by showing that cosmic microwave background doesnt exist or can be explained away

>>1009061
>showing that cosmic microwave background doesnt exist

Well I mean just turn on your television and look at the static, it's right there.

>can be explained away

By what maybe?

>>1009083
Any state of being that doesnt require a fast expantion and a hot soup of plasma can explain it away.But we dont know any.I was telling that anon how all theories can be falsified

>>1009061
your english is garbled. I know you've been advised to go back on your medication but it seems that the dosage you've been proscribed is too high

File: wojak-crying.jpg (90KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 645x773px

>>1009111
Its just that I am on a phone and that I must type with my fat fingers...
You are being rude anon.

>>1008739
>implying the scientific method isn't a philosophical breakthrough
>implying there is a fundamental difference between science and philosophy

>>1009061
These do not meet the requirement of falsifiability as outlined by the doctrine. Part of the doctrine is that the entire burden of proof is on the one making the claim something is true, one would come up with a way to disprove every alternative possibility empirically (which would more or less require recreating the big bang). The guy who fucking invented the theory even admitted it couldn't work with things like evolution or cosmology.

This isn't to say that the big bang or evolution never happened by that falfiability is not a sufficient epistemology for very many things. The problem of induction still exists.

Some of your ideas are also literally impossible. You cannot prove a negative.

I fucking hate how philosophy is pretentious and about one upping about 'but X says!' 'according to Y ....'. Who the fuck cares? Go read a novel or watch a soap if you care so much about who wrote what and who responded how. Talk about the concepts and premises you fucking twits.

>>1010349
You can't separate concepts from the people behind them. Some of the important refutations involve pointing out WHY an incorrect is formed, this involves figuring the motive of the thinker and what makes them tick. This is owed due to the is-ought fallacy which shows us that many key ideas cannot be understood entirely through rationalization but rather as an extension of will and desire.

>>1010349
It's not pretension; it's the same thing as saying "according to Euler's formula" or whatever. You're giving credit and providing a reference for further study. Also, your interpretation of one philosopher may be flawed so naming him helps with identifying that.

>>1010320
Popper also changed his views when he learned what modern evolution and Cosmology is about. There are a lot of falsifiabile cornerstones in those subjects.

>>1001421
What a faggot science is real my nigga, what are you posting on a fucking potato? God damn what a retarded idiot.

File: disk-dark-matter.jpg (73KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x540px

>>be a phisycist
>>make up a completely unfalsifiable but humorous possibility
>>get paid for it

>>1003876
Restaurant owners.

>>1010687
Limitations on technology doesn't mean that shit isn't falsifiable.

>>1001361

> Be philosopher
> Have cool conversations about the philosophical implications of infinity with mathematicians
> Have cool conversations about the nature of political sovereignty with political scientists.
> Have cool conversations with scientists about the implications of quantum mechanics on logic.
> Have cool conversations with priests about arguments for the existence of God, and how to get around the problem of evil.
> Work on theorizing about the fundamental nature of reality itself - working on subjects that simultaneously apply to all fields of knowledge, while going beyond all of them.
> Sustain myself doing what I love
> My students and colleagues keep me sharp and give me a reason to wake up every day with a smile.
>Live a fulfilling life
>Feels good.

>>1010786
>be philosopher
>think your conversations aren't but misconceptions of well known results
>get laughed out of academia
>shitpost about how scientists are brainlets who can't even know that induction blah blah

>>1010687
>implying you can't empirically measure something you can't explain

Nice comic sans, faggot.

>Philosophy is useless!
>ethics is useless!

This is what I'm hearing sciencefam. Let's stop being hotheads for a minute and recognize some facts.

Science is a useful tool for manipulating the environment and creating technology. It forfeited its claim to producing knowledge when it presupposed that knowledge is empirical and induction-based. It's circular. It's not meant to produce knowledge because it has a doctrine.

Philosophy is literally what human thought and intelligence fundamentally is.

>>1011028
>Philosophy is literally what human thought and intelligence fundamentally is.
It doesn't make it useful.