Am I the only one who finds whatever a physicist or mathematician

>>8262949
>Why you should not extrapolate based on the first few terms of a sequence
>Proceeds to give example in which extrapolating gives you the right answer within 1 part in a few billion
wew lad

>>8262949
What are you on about?
Most of the well known philosophers are also scientist.

Who is your favorite philosopher who wasn't a scientist, OP? I'm curious.

>>8262949

1. Until modern times where the content of most fields became so involved that you need many years just to become familiar with one area of study most 'philosophers' WERE scientists, mathematicians, chemists and many other things.
2. quantitative understanding is more vital to an effective philosophical framework than whatever it is sociologists do in their white guilt classes

Wow OP. Great thread.

The English word "equivalence" doesn't mean what you think it means.

>some fields are superior
and I thought this thread had a chance

>>8263119
Before around 1700 that's a tautology, and after it's not true.

>>8263135
Wow reddit. Nice passive-aggressive style.

>>8263151
Some fields *are* superior. Do you even know what field means?

Protip: it's not the subject being studied, but the people studying it, their methods and customs.

>>8262949
What is this sequence called again?

Psychology and philosophy shouldn't be taught as independent subjects in universities desu. They should be regarded as hobbies, something people read about and discuss when they have free time.

>>8262949
>Am I the only one who finds whatever a physicist or mathematician has to say about philosophy more interesting than what philosophers say?

I would agree with that.

Many of the issues that philosophers talk about can be easily resolved by applying mathematical distinctions. Christopher Langan and category theorists like John Baez have done a lot in this direction.

However it's important to keep in mind that many philosophical problems haven't yet found a "home" in rigorous mathematical thinking, so it's an ongoing process. The dumber forms of scientism (as espoused by Dawkins, Tyson, etc) seem to be based on the idea that the only things worth talking about are the ones that science has already figured out how to talk about.

>>8262949
Is there any particular reason the sequence changes at that specific point? What's the next term?

>>8264219

The integrals (and associated equations) of OP's post are Borwein integrals. They have a decent wiki, which contains this English language link:

http://schmid-werren.ch/hanspeter/publications/2014elemath.pdf

One only needs to skim the above to get the basic idea: there is such-and-such a geometric argument which can be used to quickly "see" /why/ the pattern fails as it does. If you're outside/inside such-and-such a radius, then the thing breaks and behaves differently, which is not immediatley obvious simply by looking at the integrals themselves as rendered in OP's image.

>>8264232

What do you call it when a person has a particular worldview, or a foundational set of principles that actually guide their daily decisions?

Surely it is reasonable to say that it is quite important to understand the principles and motivations that humans have. Particularly if those humans are leaders, or in positions of power over you, say, that you will in some way participate in allowing them - say, by an election.

That Very Big Important departments of Very Big Important organizations actively seek to influence how you think and what you believe would suggest that the above two disciplines are rather foundational of the human experience, in a sense. It's almost as if there is more to life and power than having a little pile of money. But I was nineteen once too.