How do you guys view the relationship between science and philosophy?

>>7681771
Nobody's got any answers. But at least mathematical reasoning defines it's terms. It's what we've got so far. "Philosophers" just have to stop claiming conclusive data and start recognizing that what they've got is a more accessible terminology of description of the history of thought. They're on the cutting edge of nothing. Same with religion. It's perfectly fesable if somebody needs characters and magic to keep their attention and can systematically sift what is allegorical and let their understanding grow. But if you want to go around claiming proofs, that just won't cut it. You need maths, measurements, and less interchangeable terminology.

tldr: The big bang theory is also a miracle but it makes more sense than the bearded child getting all pissy because he sucks at omnipotence.

File: 1441231390425.jpg (247KB, 830x974px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 830x974px

>>7681771
Philosophy is useless and science doesn't need philosophy.

>>7681771
Feynman's stance isn't nihilistic, is skeptic.

>>7681780
Science needs philosophy.

There's been this massive trend in the last 100 years for science to attempt to sever itself from philosophy and for scientists to frown on metaphysics. That's now gotten to the point where any criticism of physicalist or materialist dogma is immediately shut-down, usually by caricaturing the critics as "superstitious".

Arseholes like Dawkins like to go on at length about how enamoured they are with science, whilst most of the physicists he worships would sneer at his own discipline as being hardly scientific. The idea that science is a human process, prone to human error and this not the ultimate arbiter of reality is anathema to those kind. Nietzsche was worried about exactly that: science replacing religion as a source of authority, and that's almost exactly where we're at now.

Next time you read a news story on wired, ars technica or even just a regular news site or zine, replace the words 'algorithm', 'neuroscience', 'DNA' or 'Higgs boson' with "God" and ask yourself if the meaning has really changed.

Science needs philosophy now more than ever in order to break through the walls of dogma that have been erected. Science in the last 400 years has proceeded based on a Baconian program of subjugation of nature and done so using a Galilean metaphysics based on mechanisation of systems under scrutiny. The social effects of this barely need stating, but aside from that, if we genuinely care about understanding the world, these foundational facets of science need re-evaluating and modernism

>>7681795
Do you think that what you just said and what I said conflict? They don't.

>>7681795
>read a news story on wired, ars technica or even just a regular news site or zine
Science doesn't happen on pleb tier news sites. It happens in labs and journals. Shows how uneducated you are.

>>7681800
sorry i meant to reply to >>7681787

>>7681801
Think about how much the average person understands about computer science, physicalism, bioinformatics or metaphysics. Even just basic things like statistics and calculus, most people only have a cursory familiarity with.

In that case, when you read science or tech headlines and you hear those jargon words, you basically have to take it on faith that the headlines means what you think it means and that the scientists have really proven/shown/discovered the thing that they are claiming to have. I claim this is no different from hearing the word "God" and basically just having to take on blind faith the assertions made.

I'm not making that criticism lightly, my PhD is in statistical mechanics (these days an intersection between theoretical physics and applied mathematics). I read so many papers every day where I'm basically forced to just accept that the central claims are true because I don't have time to verify everything myself. The general public are in an even worse position in that regard because they have the further complicating factors of not having any specialist knowledge, zines and articles that sensationalise scientific claims *all the time* and then on top of that, a society that fetishises technological and scientific methodology and achievements.

I love science, it's my career, but I think the power of science and the supposed infallibility and universal applicability of science and Dawkins' "rationalism" are hugely overstated.

>>7681804
Okay, I got it. You're mentally ill. When are you gonna go full Ted Kaczynski?

>>7681771
The akasha is the collective unconscious, is gaian mind, is siva, is yang, and the archetypes are platos shadows on the cave wall, is the logos, is god, is yin. It's literally all the same interchangeable imagery. You gots to add math.

>>7681795
you are ACTUALLY retarded

>>7681808
>>7681801

Contribute or get the fuck out. Trolling is a useless way to be a human.

>>7681808
What is an Ad hominem?

>>7681808
>I got kicked off the debate team for saying "Yeah well FUCK YOU"

>>7681816
>>7681818
>>7681822
>samefagging this hard
Shouldn't you be busy writing your manifesto? Or taking your antipsychotics? You're batshit insane with your incoherent babble about science being a conspiracy or whatever.

>>7681827
Nobody said that. Reading comprehension.
Also,
>>7681822
and>>7681816
were mine. The second being an attempt to be less aggressive in my argument. However, all of it still stands. You don't get to accuse people of being uneducated, insane, ect, when you're contributing nothing and your every argument is just personal insult.

>>7681771
Philosophy = religion: something invented to explain things you can't explain yet
to pu it short, it's retarded and uneeded

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-26 at 12.26.36 pm.png (13KB, 176x70px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 176x70px

>>7681827
If you can't understand the argument and are unable to add any original ideas or refutations and then resort to attacks, you should be castrated. :)

>>7681834
see>>7681780

/thread.

>>7681833
>>7681836
Schizophrenic ramblings are not an argument. If you believe science is a conspiracy, you are delusional. Take your pills.

>>7681842
>No idea what schizophrenia is
>Still nothing to contribute.

Kill yourself you worthless pathetic excuse for a human. Just actively trying to piss people off for no goddamn reason at all. It's pitiful

>>7681842
Reading comprehension retard.
Nobody said that.

>>7681847
Rage harder, schizo. Science will remain objectively true, regardless of your delusional beliefs.

>>7681834
Which field of philosophy are you refering to?

>>7681842
>>7681851
you sound more schizophrenic than anyone else in this thread m8

File: 1420190889561.jpg (63KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x626px

>>7681795

>>7681851
"Science" is a collection of methods and theories that have yet to be unified conclusively. And therefore as a whole, is not "objectively true"
Again, you're misusing "Schizo"
You're contributing nothing other than personal attacks
Nobody expressed any delusional beliefs.
There is however a human limitation on scientific potentiality.
And you're arguing with at least two people.

Again, kill yourself. You're worthless. And every second you spend repeating this same retardation further shows it.

>>7681857
Tell us again how you believe science is a destructive dogma. I could need a good laugh.

PS: fuck off to >>>/x/

>>7681859
>>7681857
samefag

nice try schizo, you can't fool me!

>>7681859
Again, you're arguing with several people. And nobody said that either.
Jesus fucking christ. You know what I said? what my contribution was? It was this:>>7681780

Nice and goddamn reasonable. And yet over and over you have to be told that 4chan isn't made up of one person. You're arguing insults and emptiness and repeating one guy's words to another and getting them wrong repeatedly. Every breath you take is a further demonstration of just how hopelessly unprepared you are to even be here, on this shitty site, of all places. Go fuck off and die, or study art.

>>7681869
>>7681862
>>7681859
>>7681856
>>7681855
>>7681854
>>7681851
>>7681849
>>7681847
Maybe i typed all of this and i'm the schizo

>On the other side theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman's view was that ultimately why questions aren't useful at all in explaining the world
this ƒam. otherwise you're overthinking.

>>7682053
i should add that i don't think that what you paraphrased from nietzsche and feynman exclude each other at all. you're looking at different topologies ;)

>>7681771
>no reason; nihilistic
I don't see how that's ironic at all...
There can be a deterministic universe without purpose; in fact, I believe the idea of purpose ( along with I'm sure the majority of existentialist ) doesn't exist. I mean how can you even decide on its objective definition? Its insensible - there's no way it can.

>>7681804
I like you anon. It is unfortunate that humans need to understand each other to cooperate. I wish people were more blindly following like the baby boomers.

>>7682080
is it ironic that i have no idea what you're trying to say?

>>7682086
Are you who I'm responding to, or are you the idiot shitposting the rest of the threadspace?

>>7682091
>Are you who I'm responding to
how do you figure?

>>7682093
so you're the shitposting troll
regardless i think my sentiment is self-evident, and until the labor becomes essentially valueless (soon) there's no chance most humans will be able to 'understand' without subscribing to 'dogma/godhood/the big other'. The reality is we take everything for granted everyday, without proof or explanation. We can't witness the happenings everywhere, or acknowledge the build up to all the events we partake of ( like how the bus was built that we are standing on ). Bad example but I'm trying to insinuate that the machination that creates endpoints/outcomes in the world isn't knowable in part and parcel, it has to be subsumed into our vague generalizations/rationalizations. With implants and extensions and downloadable knowledge maybe most humans can reach a general knowingness where everything 'makes sense' and is rationally explainable, but as regular humans? Seriously no chance refer to the original post >>7681804
Even in a tiny subsection of knowledge assumptions are nearly unbounded for a single human being. Believing in each other is a key part of being a human.

That's why all the shitposting, antiscience shit, fearmongering, polshit, is sad as fuck. Its all animal tears to me.

>>7682102
Lololol okay. Now read that last exchange again carefully.