>Friend has a master's degree in mathematics >We get

>>8094262
>eventually become the same thing at a high enough level

I don't think "high enough level" would be a correct way to put it. I think "fundamental level" would be better. i.e. When you are talking about Axiomatic systems, Logic, etc.

>>8094262
I have a master degree in math and I can tell your friend is a reddit tier pseudo-intellectual. Math doesn't need and doesn't involve philosophy. Of course you can jerk off over philosophy, but that's just your own decision to waste your time.

>>8094262
all academic disciplines are subsets of philosophy dumbass

>>8094281
only in the world view of a brainlet who needs overly simplified linear hierarchies

>>8094284
> he thinks he's too good for ven diagrams

>>8094262
>I can't contradict him because I don't have a master's in math

appeal to authority

>>8094308
> People with knowledge in a field don't know about their field

appeal to self

>>8094344
>masters degree
>knowledge of math
>implying
Your ignorance is showing. A masters degree is nothing. He's basically a math babby. Not even postdocs and professors know enough math to understand IUT.

>>8094353
>hurr durr no one nose nuffin

>>8094262
>mathematics and philosophy [...] eventually become the same thing at a high enough level
complete and utter bullshit.

Here's a reality check: in math you can prove/disprove stuff, in philosophy you cannot.

Thats why theres an abundance of different philosophical systems about the world, and every single one of them is as useless as any other, because 1) they are not grounded in any kind of formal logic and therefor cannot be proven/disproven (not maths), and 2) because they dont make predictions about reality and are therefor unfalsifiable (not science).

Inb4 butthurt wannabe philosophers protest while not addressing the points I actually made.

>>8094274
this use of "high" doesn't mean more advanced, it means more abstract/fundamental

>>8094364
Mathematics, much in the same way as philosophy, does not make predictions about reality, but can be applied to reality (as can some philosophy).

The parts of philosophy which cannot be proven or disproven are attempts to present and come to a clearer understanding of the limits of logic.

These limits to logic sometimes appear in maths as concepts such as infinity and 0/0.

>>8094280
>reddit tier pseudo-intellectual

top kek

>>8094281
Please learn the formal definition of a subset you retarded pseudo intellectual.

>Biology needs philosophy of science!
>THEREFORE BIOLOGY IS CONTAINED IN PHILOSOPHY, QED MOTHERFUCKERS

Fucking philosophers must be getting all the jobs, after all they must know biology, chemistry and physics to he PhD level only to get their BA in Philosophy.

>>8094444
Philosophy of science is also a subset of philosophy. Science is a separate subset though - we're agreed insofar as education in some areas of philosophy don't necessarily provide you with knowledge of other subsets.

>>8094459
>Philosophy of science is also a subset of philosophy

This is true.

> Science is a separate subset though

Please define what the fuck you mean by a separate subset.

A subset X of a set A implies that X is a part of A. In other words, X is an element of P(A)

In other words, X is contained in A. The formal definition of the contained relation is that if c is an element of X, that implies that c is an element of A.

Dissecting monkey ass is an element of biology, therefore dissecting monkey ass is an element of philosophy.

When do you take the dissecting monkey ass class? Before or after General Relativity?

Scientists shit on philosophy too much and it makes no sense because both disciplines are based on logic.

Philosophy has nothing to do with bath, the only similarities would be maybe the types of steps to take to disprove or to prove a point, but that's only similar because of the way the steps are taken, not the steps themselves.

>>8094469
>it makes no sense because both disciplines are based on logic.

But this is an oversimplification.

Science is based on empirical logic. If we observe a process now, it is valid to assume that the process will follow the same rules in the future and the past.

Mathematics is based on actual logic. You make up a system of objects and relations with truth values and then you deduce what other things will be true with your relations. Nothing is taken for granted.

Philosophy is based on what I will call argumentative logic. Some philosophers argue (vaguely) that god exists. Then other philosophers point (vague) flaws in the god argument with their own vague argument. The reason this is just an argument is because none of this has a solid grounding in reality or in logic. You cannot formally prove ANYTHING in philosophy (other than the obvious like if all men are mortal and socrates is a man that means socrates is mortal), you can at best argue about it.

Prove me wrong faggot. Oh wait, sorry. Those standards are too high for you. Please argue vaguely about why I may, could, probably, be wrong and then do not forget to use the longest words you can find in the dictionary you have sitting right next to you.

>>8094466
Yeah, dissection, or if you want to be more general, experimentation to gain knowledge of something is science, which itself is a field of philosophy. Philosophy is simply the search for knowledge, and science and mathematics are very important fields within it.

>>8094469
Scientists shit on philosophy because they understand none of it and act like they know everything.

ITT: Scientists BTFO!

>>8094486
>Yeah, dissection, or if you want to be more general, experimentation to gain knowledge of something is science, which itself is a field of philosophy. Philosophy is simply the search for knowledge, and science and mathematics are very important fields within it.

But then that is not a subset. You are simply saying that science and philosophy have an intersection that is not null. That is not a fucking subset or superset relation.

By your own flawed logic I could argue that actually, philosophy is a subset of science, because the intersection is not null!

Actually, philosophy is a subset of shit, because some philosophers sure talk a fuckton of shit, so the intersection is not null.

>ITT: Philosophers who claim to hold the best understanding of logic get BTFO by elementary Set Theory.

>>8094469
Knowing to look both ways when crossing the street is also logic so therefore physics is equal to crossing the street?

>>8094485
>Prove me wrong faggot. Oh wait, sorry. Those standards are too high for you. Please argue vaguely about why I may, could, probably, be wrong

Savage as fuck.

>>8094496
nigger, philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, and existence. The scientific method was developed to answer some of the questions pertaining to that. Science is then a field (notice I didn't say subset even though it's perfectly correct since you're somehow getting triggered over it) within philosophy.

>>8094466

Fucking laughed my ass off when I saw 'separate subset' too

>>8094262
Well hot Damn. Nice equation. But uh, see that there ground you're standing on? Yeah that's called epistemology. No please continue, this is an interdisciplinary conversation, not a dick measuring contest. But mine is bigger.

>>8094517
>philosophy is [metaphysical imprecise words]. scientific method is [related to metaphysics somehow i guess], so [what I want to be true]

you're a fucking idiot

>>8094579
Metaphysics is only one branch of philosophy dipshit

>>8094583
>philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality and existence

>thinking this is an actual definition and not metaphysical babble

>>8094583
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8094262
Dude, why did you make a thread about me?

He was. I thought philosophy useless too, precisely because it was inaccessible to me.

File: 1464030634688.jpg (37KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x960px

ITT math snobs taking 10th grade algebra act just as elitist as fedora tipping zizekfags they're trying to look down on

Real academic professionals contribute to one another's understanding. Just because you can develop definitely right or definitely wrong answers doesn't mean you develop meaningful answers. Math for math's sake is just as fucking stupid and abstract as anything else. It's ultimately the applications that matter, where ethical philosphers help develop law and solve complex social problems and mathematicians help build rocket ships and fucking awesome universities on the moon.

Play nice, do your fucking job, contribute to society, make friends and get pussy.

I don't understand /sci/ hostility to philosophy. Didn't you guys learn any history or look up for connection between science and philosophy?

>>8094590
> they're real words with concrete definitions that describe real things
> but i dont like philosophy cuz its all bullshit so ill say its bubble lol :^)

File: 2.png (146KB, 644x635px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 644x635px

>>8094280
>Math doesn't need and doesn't involve philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

>>8094616
>he's calling me out on not knowing shit!
>i'll assume he has a wrong position and call him out on it :^)

you're an idiot. where the fuck would you get the idea that I don't like philosophy? there's a huge difference between philosophy and metaphysical bullshit like your "definition"

>>8094629
Fucking thank you. From a philosophyfag.

>>8094629
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy tho. Maybe you should be more precise when you say that you like philosophy? I am also interested in philosophy, but in particular I like epistemology and science desu, what about you?

just btw I guess, I'm not really interested in metaphysics though since when I try to look at actual metaphysics, since I haven't got a grounding in it and have made no effort in learning about it, it all seems like mumbo jumbo to me. Perhaps that's not because metaphysics is jibberish but is more due to my lack of knowledge in it?
respond soon senpai

Philosophy has been pooled with retards and post modern bullshit which is why it has such a bad rep. At some point the people in charge of universities realized they could bait idiots who are to stupid to do actual science into getting useless degrees by decreasing the standards. You can still get a literature or philosophy degree in some places that is worth something but mostly it's a big kindergarten for people who can't work/have too much money/will marry a rich guy they met at university.

>>8094644
I know very little philosophy, basic philosophy of science, language and math
most metaphysics is gibberish, if it sounds like it, it probably is. philosophy is filled with continental garbage

>>8094657
Mandarin looks like gibberish to me because I don't know Mandarin. In fact that's not even what you're saying. Mandarin looks like gibberish to me so all languages are gibberish, except for English because English isn't a language.

That's exactly what you sound like when you say metaphysics is gibberish, so philosophy is gibberish even though you're ignoring that science is a field within philosophy.

>>8094668
>science is a field of philosophy
>how dare you say metaphysics is gibberish you clearly don't understand it etc

back to square one, you're fucking retarded.
science is not a field of philosophy and you would know if you "liked epistemology and philosophy of science" like you claim. you're a fucking liar.

>>8094668


That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

File: wat for tho.jpg (10KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 234x216px

>>8094685
What the fuck is this guy talking about

>>8094684
I don't understand why you keep bringing up metaphysics.
The scientific method is experimenting and drawing conclusions that we build knowledge on. Philosophy is an umbrella term for academic disciplines that deal with knowledge, reality and existence, of which science is included.

>>8094374
fundamental is the opposite of abstract you retard. It's the lowest possible level because it's the bedrock of all the rest

>>8094703
your kind fucking infuriates me
what the fuck are you even thinking when you try to pull this off?

>oh I guess this is "common sense", this thing I'm writing sounds good, it totally must be true. I'll just post it and people must agree with it because it sounds good, yeah. I'm so smart, I'm posting in a science board

LOLing at the "math is philosophy, science is philosophy" idea I'm seeing. Funny thing is, science employs the scientific method, which is a philosophical construct, but philosophers themselves do not use it. Why? Because most of the time they cannot. What does this cause? A lot of bullshit in a very unregulated field populated with drunk cranks. All of the useful philosophy has been documented for decades, and all of the useful philosophers have been dead for almost the same amount of time. Philosophy is most embarrassing "academic" discipline. The entirety of this field should be limited to a few 101 courses in college.

>>8094262
proper analytic philosophy\epistemology\logic is pretty based and and satisfies the same autism mathematics satisfies .
i recently read a book about buddhist philosophy and some of their arguments almost felt like algebraic structures , and that's relatively 'soft' 'hand wavy' philosophy .

basically abstract some serious fundamental philosophical discussion and you'll see the mathematical autism underneath .

>>8094376
you forgot

>0.9999...=1

File: tmp_9000-1463188782588-1022202763.png (126KB, 1079x2143px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1079x2143px

Fuck you math.

>>8094791
>Philo 129
>Math 130
Fuck who?

>>8094685
tips*

>>8094358

Although, reasoning with someone as stupid with you might requires a master's degree in special needs educational, I admit.

>>8094485
Sure! Of course I wasn't being comprehensive with my one line reply. I just am a chemist who really likes to study scientific ethics (in the philosophic sense of the word). Philosophy is really huge in discussions of how to research and use new technology, our university just had an ethics summit over AI and some biochemistry topics.

I think people in science think philosophy is all ancient and fuddy duddy stuff.

If anyone here wants interesting perspective on philosophy in science look up epistemological anarchism and Paul Feyerabend. Against Method is a fascinating read, Feyerabend hated that the scientific method left little room for intuition.

More classical work that is fascinating is that of Thomas Aquinas. He was truly brilliant and laid the foundation of the scientific method, but I think he was a tormented man.

>>8094712
I don't even understand what you're saying anymore.

> you're argument makes sense so I'm gonna say it makes sense in greentext, that'll be a good enough argument

>>8094757
But since you said the scientific method is a philosophical construct, shouldn't the people who use it be philosophers? Scientists are philosophers.

>>8094262
>going to 4chan
>looking for an intelligent answer
pick exactly one

Was Bertrand Russell an influential Mathematician?

>>8094308
He doesn't agree with him because his friend has a degree, he says he can't argue with him because he lacks the knowlegde.

Now remind me.. what is the name of the fallacy you just made?

File: darkknightrisesbane2.jpg (89KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 320x240px

>>8094262
Your friend is wrong anon.

>>8094846
>look up (...) Paul Feyerabend.
>Feyerabend hated that the scientific method left little room for intuition.

Wut?

>>8095043
It's a feeling I got from his works, he was a weird guy.

>>8095050
I think that intuition has no valuable place in science, found it strange that some one thought that science needed it.

>>8095055
That wasn't the point of his writing, just a motif in his writing. I thought he wrote an interesting perspective on scientific codes.

File: Yazdandaste.jpg (5KB, 260x173px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 260x173px

>>8095010
>Was Bertrand Russell an influential Mathematician?

Set theory is indispensable to modern probability theory and mathematical analysis, so most academics would say so.

>>8095050
>he was a weird guy
also big.

>>8094622
It doesn't. It is rooted in logic. Philosophy is also rooted in logic. They are not co dependent. You can talk about the philisophy of mathematics (which is obviously very important) but math is not dependent on this.

>>8094308
Fallacy fallacy. Try again.

>>8094262
No, that really isn't true. Mathematics may be logic with numbers, and philosophy may employ logic, but frequently philosophy will lose sight of logic and and make very big assumptions just because philosophy would be relatively trivial if you just took a purely logical approach.

>>8095153

To be fair mathematics does the same thing, like it or not. From choice of axioms, to the noncontradiction principle(law of excluded middle).

Math involving logic/proof theory and philosophy have cross over.

>>8094444
quads of truth

>>8095153
>Mathematics may be logic with numbers
No, mathematics is logic with and without numbers.

>>8095010
a dude who existed in a weird time when mathematicians were also philosophers. credited with set theory, type theory, and logic. he also believed that you could reduce philosophical problems into logical atoms, and with that he wanted to train a bunch of mathematicians who could solve philosophical problems. one of his most famous students was was wittgenstein who went on to write a book that nobody understood, not even frege or russell themselves.

>>8095160
No, they really don't do the same things. Assuming the axiom of choice is not the same as assuming that there is a real basis for morality (as an example).

>>8095163
Semantics, but whatever floats your boat.

>>8095160
>>8095425
I also forgot, mathematics would be true regardless of the real world applications. We assign numbers to represent concepts, but mathematics itself is just logic. Philosophy, however, cannot be grounded like this.

>>8094364
It depends on whether you consider logic to be its own subject or a part of philosophy. I think as a mathematician, fundamental logical questions are impmortant, and a lot of people who work on that stuff come from both math and philosophy departments.

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=sacred%20geometry&sm=1

>>8094262
Also, a Masters degree in math is not even better than a bachelors degree... They either went to a shit school or got kicked out of a PhD program, or went to one of the rare schools that grants terminal masters degrees.

>>8094485

i dont see how philosophy is different from mathematics by these descriptions

in philosophy you do the same thing you define a system of objects and relations with truth values and then deduce things from them

we'll take your example of religious arguments, those arguments usually make an assumption, for instance the problem of evil would assume that God = omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent, then they make further assumptions about omnipotence, omniscience etc, then they deduce a contradiction, and declare that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent etc

i think the philosophical mistake many people make is to take those assumptions that resonate with them personally and forget that these proof are still just relative to their assumptions

i think the difference, therefore, with math and philosophy, is related to these assumptions

science only makes assumptions that are useful for experimentation, and thats what makes it so much more immediately useful than typical philosophical investigations, it deals with things we can share and reproduce for ourselves

math seems to be doing the same thing by restricting its assumptions to the basics of logic such that everything we prove from it will be applicable to anything that uses basic logic, which is to say almost everything

i think the reason many people see academic philosophy as useless compared to math and science is that it often deals with assumptions that arent immediately useful in terms of what theories are normally useful for: manipulating physical objects for a purpose, as in engineering

when you see this really specific weird philosophy stuff like feminist philosophy, or christian apologetic philosophy, it feels like those people have some sort of tunnel vision going on.

i still think its somewhat accurate to call science and math subsets of philosophy, its just at odds with the practical study of those subjects.

>>8094622
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/.

>>8094613
What's the point of 4chan then?

>>8095456
The fuck are you talking about you retard?

What is with the fucking pure mathematician glorification in this board? A Masters degree is an specialization made specifically to enter a niche job market. Nothing wrong with getting a Masters degree in some field of math and then doing interesting stuff with it. In Europe you wouldn't even enter PhD programs without a masters.

>>8094262
They are very similar

Both deal in abstracts
Both have limited use in the real world
Graduates from both generally have a high opinion of themselves

>>8095705
Phds from both are autists.

>>8095396
>. one of his most famous students was was wittgenstein who went on to write a book that nobody understood, not even frege or russell themselves.

Now I don't feel like a retarded loser, not much at least.

> abstract logical thought is different from abstract mathematical thought

>>8094485
Your strawman scientific method is really bad and doesn't really have anything to do with the actual scientific method.

Read about Karl Popper and the problem of induction.

>>8094469
Logic is just a feild of math.

>>8094613
>ethical philosphers help develop law and solve complex social problems
That's a good joke. Got any more?

>>8095964
Philosophy is the dennial of logic though.

>>8095949
>>Now I don't feel like a retarded loser, not much at least.
think again
>you'll never come from a wealthy family
>you'll never study mathematical foundations under russell and seen by him as a respected peer in mathematics and philosophy
>you'll never be a professor of cambridge and have students like alan turing show up and discuss the foundations of mathematics with you
>you'll never discuss matters with john maynard keynes, g.e. moore, or karl popper.

>>8096213
>Philosophy is the dennial of logic though.

Yeah sure, when Aristotle was formalizing logic in the Posterior Analytics he was totally denying...

Philosophy can lay the groundwork for the means to acquire knowledge, but science and math actually go about acquiring it. There is significant overlap since logical systems can be described mathematically (often algebraically) and scientific discoveries can inform philosophy. Yes, without question, there is a lot of bullshit philosophy out there, and a lot of it is just people spouting off nonsense. However, there is value to the field itself, at least when it comes to epistemology.

>>8094485
>Science is based on empirical logic
>empirical logic

What in the actual fuck...

>>8096213
Proposition:
>Philosophy is the dennial of logic
Proof:
>implying

>>8097893
>artistotle
>formalizing anything

anon is wrong but you don't know shit

>>8096213
Logic is a subfield of philosophy assbasket

>>8094262
Was getting caught part of your plan?

>Philosophy is not religion
>Philosophy is not denial
>Philosophy is not about pretending
>Philosophy is not about nothing

>Philosophy is about logic
>Philosophy is about rules
>Philosophy is about consistency & coherency
>Philosophy is about empiricism
>Philosophy is about testing
>Philosophy is about questioning
>Philosophy is about observing

Saying that philosophy is the father of the sciences is the WE WUZ KANGS of the academics world.

Modern philosophy shares a similar relationship with astrology if anything; Both of them were legitimate fields long ago, and it was necessary to rely on them. Astrology, for instance, was used to predict solar events and seasons.

Then geo centrism was rejected (or in philosophy's case, materialism became dominant) and a schism was created that created a distinction between the sciences and philosophy, similar to the distinction between astrology and astronomy. While astronomy went on to expand on gravity and planetary observation, astrology was left with nothing but the zodiac. Philosophy's fate is that it's left pondering the fat and gristle that doesn't fit in with the natural sciences anymore.

Modern philosophy is a pile of horseshit.

>>8094832
Fuck N REHKT!!!

POST NUDES

>>8098052
What the hell are you talking about?
You just makes claims about comparing it to pseudoscience but you don't show what is wrong with Philosophy.

I think you're confusing Philosophy which French Nihilism and Critical Theory, both of which are rejected by Epistemologists, which follow modern philosophy.

Secondly, philosophy only makes these claims:
- Coherency
- Consistency
- Logic
- Empiricism
- Socraticism
- Epistemological Axioms

Modern Philosophy doesn't make claims, it's accepts Epistemological Empiricism and rejects unproven statements.

I don't think you've studied any of it at all, because you don't even address it.

>>8098052
You make no criticisms of philosophy, you just criticized something else, and they said "fuck philosophy, they're like this too, and I don't have to show my work!"

1.) Show your work.
2.) Philosophy is the foundation on which Math and Science are founded. Without Logic, Math and Science don't exist.

I would compare philosophy more to the Neanderthal ancestor of science or proto-science than the 'father of science'. Not to say that it's worthless, just, you know outdated.

>>8094798
if you look at it the math avg sat is also higher, kek.

>>8098144
>Empiricism and logic are outdated
>I can make this statement without knowing what epistemology and logical fallacies are
This is what sci-posers actually believe
Next tell me you don't "get" what the burden of proof is about

>>8098435
>Next tell me you don't "get" what the burden of proof is about
I think the biggest problem with "the burden of proof" is that people use it to reject an idea at the same time as implicitly making an equally unsubstantiated counter-claim.

Most people talking about the burden of proof don't actually know the underpinnings of their own beliefs.

>>8098447
This so fucking much. I'm so fucking tired of
>well you can't prove it which allows me to feel justified in defaulting to my nice-sounding explanation as objective truth.

>>8098447
Ah, the "omniscient argument from ignorance" fallacy... slightly different from the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

No.

All claims are not "neutrally fair until proven otherwise".
If there is no evidence, proof or reason, then it is completely fair to reject the claim.
And rejecting a claim doesn't mean that there is a counter-claim or that a counter-claim is wrong.

That's ludicrous thinking you have their.
Flying spaghetti Monster Much?

I understand that you basically describing the false dilemma fallacy, but you're committing an additional litany of fallacies when you claim rejecting claims implies a number of other things.
Rejection does not equal implication.
It doesn't.

>>8098457
You're talking in general terms, I'm talking in practical real world specifics.

What I have described is a typical feature of human reasoning whether you like it or not. Whining about "give me what I think constitutes proof!" rather than using one's own reason, is commonplace. The idea that you can grasp absolute truth is delusion.

>>8098465
>Immediately uses Bulverism
No idiot, I'm taking in Epistemological terms.
And you are making completely unsubstantiated claims.
You must prove all claims.
>The idea that you can grasp absolute truth is delusion.
French Existentialism and Frankfurt Philosophy are rejected as Sophism by academia for a reason.
Philosophy, Epistemology and Science are about skepticism and proof, not conjecture and declaring truth is unreachable.
Philosophy, Epistemology and Science are grounded in pragmatic empiricism.
Is pragmatic empiricism perfect?
No. But if you are claiming there is a reason to doubt, then you must prove it or at least reason it.
Circular logic per nihilism is nihilistic non grata.

>>8098481
Define what these "claims" are, and tell me how they may be substantiated.

To "prove all claims" you need to identify all relevant factors of a given context as well as every element in your supporting chains, ie, framework, of reasoning. It cannot be done, and it cannot be proven to have been done. It may only appear to have been done. This appearance has no inherent connection to truth.

Knowledge is a framework of relative truths, wherein all elements are weighted by probability while controlling for known sources of error, limitations, and known possible unknowns. This is the best it gets.

It is unfortunate that for some what constitutes a supported claim is sadly wanting and typically ignores the whole of the available evidence in favor of an initial position one has anchored to, which itself is being shown to be faulty. But they can't let go. Planck said scientific progress is a series of funerals, and he wasn't talking about the death of high level theories. There is a reason for this.

>>8098501
>Define what these "claims" are, and tell me how they may be substantiated.
They're your claims.
You have to substantiate them by Scientific Empirical Proof and Epistemological Reason.
Are you mentally ill?

Everytime you type a claim... THAT'S A CLAIM.
You make dozens of claims in every post.
You're not even self-aware when you're making a claim
Here is a clue: When you state something, all statements are claims.

>>8098127
>2.) Philosophy is the foundation on which Math and Science are founded. Without Logic, Math and Science don't exist.
Rather, I would say that logic, math, and science are all particular philosophies. It's not like they stop being philosophy as soon as you call it "logic", "math", or "science".

>>8094846
>interesting perspective
>epistemological anarchism and Paul Feyerabend
This is not interesting. Radical epistemological relativists, aka nihilists(?), are not welcome here. Hell, they're not even welcome on /x/. What do I even say to someone who doesn't believe that they're typing on a computer right now, or that the fact that they're typing on a computer is just a cultural construct that is just as valid as the "truth" that I'm a god.

There is nothing intelligent that can be said to that position, because it's the denial of - well - more or less everything.

>>8098525
Empirical Foundationalism
Epistemological Axioms.
Do you understand them?
Yes. Or. No.
?

And the
>Everything is a cultural construct!
Is both a fallacy and a meme.
What about:
Empirical Foundationalism
Epistemological Axioms.

>>8094706
This.


OP, math is the logic that deals with quantities. Is "logic" the same as "philosophy" as a discipline? I don't know. If it is, then sure, math is something of a subfield of philosophy, kind of, because it deals with objects that must be defined rigorously in logical terms, which is the foundation for philosophy.

So I would say the ORIGIN of mathematics is rooted in philosophy. But modern mathematics is considered its own field which relies on logic and deals with algebraic and topological objects which have been defined within the field.

Basically I'm trying to say it depends how you define philosophy, logic, and mathematics.

When you deal with axiomatic logic, is that considered math to you?
That kind of question is important to answering your question.

>>8098539
I might understand them, but not by that name.

Feyerabend is an idiot who endorses radical skepticism, aka radical epistemological relativism. Don't bring up Feyerabend except to point and laugh.

>>8098515
I'll just ask again. Define these claims, and how they may be substantiated. You can do the former easily enough, the latter you likely cannot. That's why you avoid it.

>You make dozens of claims in every post.
The difference is, I realize there are multiple types of claims, you cram them all into one category.

eg:
>You're not even self-aware when you're making a claim
That's a claim. I know it's relative to a given observer though, so I don't process it as a claim about any objective matter. I know it's relative to the machinery of your mind, and what you've chosen to output. Whether or not it's truly true, I can of course judge on my own, so I don't ask you for anything.

and
>Here is a clue: When you state something, all statements are claims.
This substantiates that my opinion is largely accurate. You don't want to think much, you only want to think about thought that's already been done for you.

>>8094262
>I call philosophy useless
for you

>>8098541
/thread, nicely put.

>>8094613
pls tell me who she is

>>8094440
>>8094280
Same fag.
> reddit tier pseudo-intellectual
>Of course you can jerk off over philosophy, but that's just your own decision to waste your time.
Oh the irony

>>8094262
Philosophy can be useful to try and come up with and "explain" mathematical concepts with words. But philosophy as a field is really broad. There's practical philosophy which is much more about ethics and stuff and there is theoretical philosophy spanning anything from maths and sciences to metaphysics.

>>8101192
Oh forgot, I have a masters in engineering if it is important. So not as much theoretical math as a pure math degree would be but still some.

>>8094280
Philosophy highly influenced Weyl and Mac Lane, and they both wrote quite a bit of it themselves. Working mathematicians like JL Bell have also written significantly on philosophy, and use question from philosophy to guide mathematical inquiry.

>>8094262
He's not right or wrong, but it IS wrong to say that math and philosophy are independent. But not all people practicing either do the other, obviously.

>>8095160

Also thinking that philosophy->logic->math is way oversimplifying the relationship between math and philosophy. There is much of philosophy that is not logic and same with math, and even in this terrain they overlap.

I mean, quite a bit of math is about conceiving of different notions of space, form/structure, ontology, identity and difference, etc. While some of these can partially be described by logic, you would be ignoring a lot to say that these aspects of philosophy are "the same thing as" logic.