Tell me /sci/. How can you get excited about physics and math

>>8327058
You can't. Philosophy and science go hand in hand and mathematical philosophy is the most interesting philosophy there is.

>ask in another thread if anybody has any example of philosophy actually enlightening physics research
>some faggot mentions Witten because of the philosophic underpinning of his math
>turns out Witten DGAF about philosophy either
wew
philosophers are useless

>>8327091
Bell

File: 1469433662031.jpg (582KB, 1100x733px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1100x733px

Only similarity between math and philosophy is logic, and even that is slightly different between the fields.

In math we prove complex propositional/predicative stuff, whereas in philosophy it's retarded babby-level stuff like "All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore Socrates is a man".

t. Someone who took a logic course both in math and philosophy

>>8327091
I have no idea what you're talking about, you have the wrong guy man.

>>8327097
I think you misunderstood me. I meant how can you be awed at the implications of, for example said complex proofs, without using philosophical thinking.

>>8327098
>as a brainlet
Found the problem fampai

File: him.jpg (17KB, 520x362px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 520x362px

>>8327098
>read a text written by a famous old philosopher
>already a few lines in I don't agree with his arguments and the rest of his text builds upon them
happens all the time

>"atheists are so dumb they don't understand the brilliance of Thomas Aquinas"
>think I'll see what it's all about
>read the Suma Teologica
>"we see that some things are good and some are less good"
>"if we can put things on a scale like that, it implies there is somewhere something that is the highest degree of good, therefore God"
WEW LAD

File: ZKBZxPV.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>8327098
>>8327122
Im not talking about all philosphy or even what 'philosophers' are doing. See
>>8327113

>>8327128
>>8327113
I'm not sure I get you, if you mean that "in some way math is all philosophy" or "we all do philosophy when we thing deeply about a subject" then I won't fight you on that, but that doesn't do much to rehabilitate the people who are actually called philosophers.

>>8327133
Yeah that's exactly what I meant. And I totally agree with you, I was not trying to defend philosophers but I see now how you could think that. I just sometimes see stuff like 'philosophy is a waste of time' and have this idea.

I sometimes have a hard time expressing myself, even moreso in english.

>>8327133
>>8327156

We need some new word for this, like "mathematical philosophy."

File: Karl Popper.jpg (222KB, 1024x844px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1024x844px

>>8327091
You're looking for theoretical physicists. See, von Neumann, Feynman, Deutsch.

Pure philosopher that touches physics and politics using the same reasoning? Popper.

File: feynman.jpg (172KB, 701x936px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 701x936px

>>8327236
>Feynman
Are you jesting me right now?
He hated philosophers and the methods of philosophy with a passion.

File: LEAVE ART TO ME.jpg (232KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 600x400px

>>8327260
>He hated philosophers and the methods of philosophy with a passion.
That because almost all at that time (even majority now I think) believe/use the wrong way to create scientific knowledge i.e. empiricism and induction. Which has been disproved by Popper.

You can see what Feynman's method here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Not convinced? See David Deutch's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A

We all hated philosophers that use fancier words than needed too, anon. Unless it's poetry or literature I guess.

>>8327205
I'd vouch for that.

I like philosophy. The problem is that most of it is wank.

I think this captures it very well: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Looks like it's from the same Feynman lecture as >>8327289

>>8327375
Yes, it is. Give man a fish vs teaching him how to fish.

Another talk. This one's hilarious. Hawkings & Spaceship Earth BTFO. Or is it?? kek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQliI_WGaGk

I have read the words of Jesus Christ CATTIEwayenelover1

ALL THE WORDS 2060 TIMES

>>8327058
Only PopSci retards (of which /sci/ is largely composed) can't appreciate the epistemology that defines and justifies scientific thinking

File: 1472105973270.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>8327484
Falsificationism is very nice and all but all it's worth can fit in a single page.
There is no justification for philosophy as an actual academic endeavour, it's all pure wank.

>>8327058
>excited about physics and math
aircraft fly, cellphone works, etcetera
>respect for philosophy
meh

>>8327058
its all quite simple really.

back in the day when the real scientific progress was made by people spending hours and hours looking at a leaf, or a waterfall
or speeding countless hours reading and researching and doing experiments in their garage, like tesla, edison, ford, etc...

now a days, research and scientific progress is made by multi million dollar companies, or multinational firms, or entire governments.

so its not that important or could even be a hindrance if you were give give a cog in a machine the ability to rationally and critically think in a more philosophical paradigm instead of using physics, math, and chemistry to solve a problem his boss told him to fix
without asking questions like
is it right to fix the problem
what is the best way to fix this problem and do I have the right "tools" to fix it.


so its better to compartmentalize knowledge and expertise for the "greater good"

>>8327058
There used to be no such thing as "philosophy" retard. People were scientists, writers, poets etc. first, philosophers second. Only recently do people consider themselves "philosophers" without actually excelling in some discipline.

Honestly the arrogance of "philosophy" students is what irks me the most. It's like people who call themselves photographers because they own a camera.

>>8327097
>whereas in philosophy it's retarded babby-level stuff like "All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore Socrates is a man".
No

>>8327122
I am a diehard christfag, but that proof is stupid. In a natural evolutionary stance our ideas of morality would merely be an adaptation to help our societies develop. Essentially morality would just be an illusion.

>>8327058
You can't. People have been trained to be against philosophy without knowing what it is.

>>8327530
>>8327539
>>8327555
See >>8327128 and the reply thread.

File: my head is full of fall.jpg (112KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x675px

Don't fall in love with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science

>>8327521
That's just-splaining, anon. What you just did is called verificationism.
Part of philosophy that's self-defeating. So, bad.

>>8327530
Scientific theory is simply falsifiable hard-to-vary theory. You test is to see if it's wrong or temporarily true.
If it's untestable then it's philosophy, aesthetic, psychology, etc.

>>8327539
You're talking about testing a theory with like LHC or applying scientific knowledge? That still needs critical and rational minds. Unlimited money alone can't get you there.
Well, unlimited money alone can give you more tech and services. We call that automation. Like your clothes. But you have to know how to be efficient to produce it, hence, more researching.

Big Short movie is a good example of the always needed researcher.

>>8327555
That's revisionism, part of philosophy. lel

>>8327571
Morality is simply a problem of what to do next.

because the yoneda lemma is true even if you let the trolley kill 5 people instead of 1

>>8327637
Yes, yes, we get it, you like Popper, I like Popper.
It doesn't take years of study to get falsificationism, none of that is actual university level philosophy.

>>8327637
History of science isn't philosophy of science.

File: yoneda mndatshardcore.jpg (212KB, 506x632px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 506x632px

>>8327647

>>8327671
Lol is university level that bad? Lemme guess, solipsism, moral relativism, ought-is bullshitism?
Though, you can study all the past & present bad philosophies. It'll be good to see how they fail or not being refuted properly, etc.

>>8327676
You're right. Empiricism almost killed quantum mechanics.