What does /sci/ think about philosophy?

Kant outknowledged relativity before Einstein so

>>8705790
No different from physics, engineering, or anything that is not mathematics.

>>8705793
This.
Quarks were introduced by Greeks to explain the hardon decay.

Hate how philosophers love to unnecessarily write in the most convoluted way.

>>8705825
That's because their working memory for text is bigger.
Then they have a better vocabulary and know a lot more chunks of English language.
My little brother is the brainlet. He studies philosophy and writes neverending periods.

>>8705793
>Kant outknowledged relativity before Einstein so

How so

And in which work

File: anthony-hopkins-composer-1323441714-hero-wide-0[1].jpg (28KB, 618x298px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 618x298px

>>8705790
am I the only one seeing this?

>>8705825
not many of them actually do, and actually need the complexity. for example, it's doubtful that Kant tried to actually complicate his ideas, but seems more like his ideas required his difficult writing style. Throughout history, most philosophers tried to convey things in as clear a manner possible, but the specificity required to elucidate their ideas requires a lot of convoluted writing. except for the French. fuck the french.

Science killed philosophy

>>8705790
Analytic philosophy: interesting
Continental philosophy: bullshit

>>8705850
The transcendental nature of space and time, The critique of pure reason

>>8705790
>philosophy
A lover of sophistry.
Biblio-phile. Book lover.
Sophist, sophisticated. Unsurprisingly, they have the same roots but one's seen as an insult; but the snobs want to be sophisticated.

Same as COP. Cop-out is a cop's-way-out. Cop-a-plea is making deals with criminals. Cop-a-feel...as it sounds. Cop defined is steal, take, screw and chew.
Funny how they babble and believe it means Constable On Patrol: even though every cop is called a COP. Funny, too, how we--and especially media--can insult them this way and they're too stupid to figure it out. No surprise here. Sometimes insulting someone is safer when they're retarded.

>>8705790
Philosophy is interesting.

>>8706038
>analytic/continental distinction

Cuck!

>>8706394
The distinction is real, and conties are retards.

>>8706395
The distinction doesn't exist to anyone who actually knows anything about the history of philosophy.

>>8706406
I know much of the history of philosophy, and denying a very real distinction is simply delusional. Continental philosophy is alchemy, analytic philosophy is chemistry. No contest.

>>8706406
The distinction clearly exists. That you think one is better than the other is the real problem because they aren't mutually exclusive.

>>8705825

More a problem of historian of philophy, than of philosophical works. >>8706406

>>8706412
>>8706413

Debunked, get out of high school

>>8706483
You're a moron.

>>8706015

>Implying science isn't the greatest ally to philosophy.

Philosophy

"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Science

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Outdated and redundant.

It is just history now.

>>8707358
>Philosophy
Lo these men who sit at the right hand of the father claiming falsehoods. They would take the place of the left hand path, knowing not true sacrifice.

>>8707358
OK so what have philosophers determined about knowledge, reality, and existence?

>>8707375
Logic is always a good contender. Many formal logical fallacies arose from philosophical study. You could say that from this, the rigorous study of math was born.

I don't know why philosophy is still a thing, at first it was kinda proto science, men were trying to figure out the rules ruling the world, they are father of scientists, original philosophy evolved into science and I don't know why people saying shit like can't kno nuffin are called philosophers

>>8707399
This seems to be a question on the mind of many people in STEM fields, and I suspect philosophy has very little impact on those fields. However, as a student in cognitive science, the impact of philosophy is very clear given how under-developed cognitive science truly is. We know so little about the brain and the mind that studying them requires a lot of high level conceptualization, which philosophers tend to be very good at. So as an example of a recent contribution of philosophy, the computational theory of mind, which compares the brain to a computer, was developed by contemporary philosopher Hilary Putnam and Jerry Fodor.

File: philolsophy.jpg (50KB, 400x534px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x534px

>>8705790
Without engineering, science and philosophy are essentially the same thing.

>>8707393
What has philosophy determined though? You just said its a study of certain things. So what do we know about knowledge and reality from philosophy specifically?

they first vigourusly learn the basics of fundamental logics and reason, after that they turn to writing completely cryptic meaningless content-free nonsense 90% of which does not follow from their premises or arguments.

Philosophy is education for the educated.
Those who don't like philosophy, can't grasp the level of language used by those who take joy in using speech , and thereby writing, as a toy. An instrument that can play the most perfect of harmonies.

what I don't understand is how so many scientists haven't even looked into the philosophy of science. like why are you going through all this if you haven't even looked at the fundamentals of what you think you're doing

>>8705790
Why is the final degree called "Doctor of Philosophy?"

>>8708443
Answering that properly would require far too long of an answer. Read this shit senpai.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy#History

>>8705790
It's only appreciated by real artisans, and scientism memers will never be talented.

>>8706015
Science without philosophy is like a ship without a rudder.

>>8708544
>ship without a rudder

I've seen this analogy so many times. Is it a meme among philosophers? Are they doing it as an inside joke?

>>8708220
Logic and reason are sub-branches of philosophy, kid.

i literally started today.
reading plato dialogues like euthyphro.

is socrates a jerk or is he patrician?

is bertrand russel a pleb?

where to go after plato?

>>8708431
breadth of study is a legitimate issue with STEM education (and modern higher education in general). stop with the degree mills and bring back education for people who actually want to become knowledgeable or (gasp) wise

>>8707375
Nothing.

>>8708431
>why are you going through all this if you haven't even looked at the fundamentals of what you think you're doing

$

>>8708611
Read the Timaeus and the Theaetetus. Then start reading Aristotle's Organon. Try not to kill yourself while you do.

Bertrand Russell is a fucking monument.

>>8708652
Scientists don't have that great of career options though. If you're into dough, go into engineering, not science.

>>8708600
It's an accurate metaphor. Scientists cannot sweepingly dismiss philosophy without losing their direction and spewing worthless bullshit.

File: V8GNJSj.png (687KB, 1242x512px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1242x512px

>>8706038
>>8706395
>>8706412

>>8710184
There should be some bbc's and a lot of jews and french faggots plus aids on the continental part of that chart.

>>8710184
Continental philosophy is garbage for the intellectually lazy.

>>8710184
While the whole of cognitive science is indebted to analytic philosophy, the only thing we can credit continental philosophy for are the marxist SJWs who pollute academic campuses with their retardation. Keep reading your existentialist fiction and thinking you're doing philosophy.

philosophy is good for fucking dumb hot chicks in college, and that's about all it's good for.

Philosophers may not know precisely how scientists do what they do, but, scientists don't know WHY they do what they do.

>>8710534
But at least scientists do, lmao

>>8710538

Is doing good for its own sake?

>>8710542
Most of the time? Yes.
Much better than not doing.

>>8710543
Unqualified doing is better than doing nothing? Ergo at times doing the wrong thing is better than doing no thing?

>>8710546
Yes.
Adolf Hitler did a lot of wrong things, but if he didn't do what he did, we wouldn't have had the technology to land on the moon in the 60's.

So even if some doing is evil by intent, *most* of the times the simple act of doing leads to something useful, whether that be by intention or by product.

>>8710551

If we just kill enough jews, anything could be accomplished?

Your conclusion might lead some to wonder if science was not a complete mistake.

>>8710559
Your argument doesn't make sense.

Forget they Jews, they don't matter.
The only thing that matters is scientific progress, and I'll be a cock-nosed rooster if Germany didn't andvance science a LOT during the reign of Hitler.

>>8710566

What makes you think progressing science matters?

>>8710569
That is my belief.

If you believe otherwise, we will not come to an agreement on this topic.

Interesting... Did you arrive at that belief through some or another method? Was it conditioned in you? Were you born that way? Is it faith?

>>8710572
To clarify my post:

I'm not saying that my belief is true, only that at this point in my life it is a version of my own reality that I choose to subscribe to.

If you can also say that your own current belief is not true as well, we may have some fruitful conversation.

>>8710588

I don't propose a 'belief' here beyond philosophy asking why and science asking how. i am just asking questions, but, i think i've finished.

>>8707375
It hasn't determined jack shit. It's a bunch of self-obsessed, arrogant twats using logic, a tool grounded in pattern recognition and nature, to reach arbitrary conclusions to arbitrary starting conditions. A bunch of high verbal iq faggots who don't realize that patterns between concepts are embedded in how they are defined, and those definitions need to be grounded in observation to he meaningful.

>>8710627
Philosophy has made some very interesting observations about language. In linguistics at least, which hopes to develop a scientific account of language, philosophy of language has had a major impact.

>>8705793
explain more senpai

>>8710632
Is it really philosophy in the classical sense, or a logic-based science in its formative stages? All the sciences came from philosophy, but "pure philosophy" is just baseless running around in circles.

does philosophy have a single proof?

seems like astrology and homeopathy with words.

>>8710210
Got BBC's on the mind, do ya?

>>8710497
He says, having not read Heidegger ever.

>>8710518
Cognitive """science""" is a fucking joke. MRI scanning the brain and going "Look! This part of the brain fires up when you fart! Philosophy is worthless we get consciousness :-)" is not science, it's mysticism.

Also you're straight wrong, SJW liberalism is the cross of American analytic philosopher John Rawls, whereas continental philosophy's biggest star was a literal Nazi, and was so far right he got disgusted with the actual Nazis.

So you're wronger than wrong, you're that special delusional kind of wrong that's so wrong it's not self aware kind of wrong. I.E. stop posting and sharing opinions you uneducated fag.

>>8710566
Germany advanced science before Hitler, and America stole all of the talent.

>>8710627
>need to be grounded in observation :-)

How can you be sure of your observations if you don't investigate the medium they come in? It's like you're saying "you don't need to learn how microscopes work, those were solved ages ago by science, just use the damn thing" and then you get shitty blurry results.

The point of philosophy never has been to build a complete, perfect system. That's the delusion only an unsophisticated child can hold onto. The point is to attempt perfection, and then defeat each system, all while learning alot and gaining tons of wisdom at each step.

Like, you don't have any perspective on why your opinion is shit and you're irrelevant. It's actually kind of sad.

>>8710642
Whatever you think philosophy is, you're 100% dead wrong and should stop offering opinions.

>>8710681
Yeah, all philosophers unanimously agree that you're a retard.

>engineers
>having a single proof of anything

>chemists
>having a single proof of anything

Their science only "works" on the hopes and dreams of humans, proofs are for mathematicians.

>>8710740
im sorry?

philosophy is purely theoretical frameworks, just like mathematics...

engineers and chemists have a lot to show for themselves, bridges, airplanes, rockets, drugs, vaccines, fertilizer, plastics, lcd's, geez i could keep going forever.

Rather than namecalling, can you mention what philosophy has contributed outside of say civics, ethics, the stuff borrowed from 400BC Greece.

I'll give you the past 1000 years. In the past 1000 years what has Philosophy given the human race?

>>8710751
The works of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, all of which consitute massive insight and wisdom about all aspects of human life. I know you're really weak-minded and need to cling to the edifice of material wealth but there's more to life than manufactured products.

Also 99% of chemists couldn't even demonstrate that an atom exists, they're just dogmatically following rules told to them by someone else. Only the ones who really get into philosophy have any hope of not being wage slave cucks.

>>8710740
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1gT2f3Fe44

Since you mentioned mathematics, here is a simple 3 minute clip showing why mathematics is the most important tool humanity has.

Do you have anything at all to defend philosophy with?

>>8710763
To you, no, because whether you find philosophy important is 100% as irrelevant to me as you are. In the meantime, look up people like Einstein when they talk about philosophy, if that's not evidence well then, you don't trust science out of your irrational dogmatism against something you're too stupid to comprehend.

>>8710761
so basically I need to read about 5000-10000 pages of Philosophy before I can really get it?

So it's bullshit then. I can distill any real science down into one or two sentences to show it's merit to a layman, whether it's theoretical or applied. When someone asks what did Einstein ever do? We don't call them retards or tell them to read a dozen books on relativity, we can sum up his contributions neatly and give examples of where and how he was tested and even where he failed.


All you can do is throw a word salad of names at me (which we have all heard mate, everyone knows _of_ those people, and most everyone on this board can vaguely tell you what their main themes were) I'm saying it's all fucking bullshit. You have nothing to show for it.

And you do yourself an intellectual disservice by not mentioning Marx, who was a greater philosopher than the ones you mentioned. Since his philosophy was actually applied in the real world. I guess you guys distance yourself from all that unpleasantness though right? Let the economists claim him.

But then again, when dealing with people who hide behind words and do nothing, what should I expect, but misdirection and obfuscation.

>>8710727
Clearly, the one who talks out his ass is you given how you have no idea what cognitive science is and simply think it's neuroscience.

Also, Heidegger is clearly an aberration in continental philosophy. It's clear that SJW nonsense is rooted in Marxism.

>>8710763
falsifiability

>>8710774
>whether you find philosophy important is 100% as irrelevant to me as you are.

Your inability to defend it should matter to you, for the sake of intellectual honesty.

>you don't trust science out of your irrational dogmatism

I trust science because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.

>you're too stupid to comprehend

calling someone stupid for challenging spurious assertions shows both a lacking moral fibre and a deep insecurity in one's own chosen field. Just like the psychologists who remind you they're a science also because they use probability distributions and experimentation.


>look up people like Einstein when they talk about philosophy

what Einsteins personal opinion was about something is irrelevant to me. Science doesn't care about opinions, emotions or beliefs. We look at facts and data. I couldn't care if he believed in flying space monsters, again an appeal to authority is unsound, haven't you taken your logic course yet? that's 1st year shit....

>>8710761
>Hegel
>Schopenhauer
>Nietzsche
>Heidegger

Please don't quote these retards when defending philosophy. Continental philosophy is the BuzzFeed of the field.

Also, you clearly don't understand science, so stop pretending you're some sort of free thinker. You're simply ignorant.

>>8710778
*shrug* good shitpost

>>8710787
Calling philosophy worthless is literally on par with calling chemistry worthless. It's so obviously wrong it doesn't need defending.

>>8710779
It's only "obvious" if your sole source of education on philosophy is metapedia. To people with educations, you're a conspiracy theorist.

>>8710793
Continental philosophy is fine and the "divide" is amped up more by philosophical outsiders than insiders. The ignorant people shouting opinions about philosophy are a dime a dozen, people well-read are rare.

>>8710787
>I trust science because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.
I trust randomly guessing because I can show where it works and where it doesn't. It's useful, it's a useful thing humans do.

Until you can defend science as being more than a stream of lucky guesses (that's not what I truly believe, this is what's called rhetoric, just saying before you unleash your autism) I'm gonna laugh.

>>8710787
>calling someone stupid for challenging spurious assertions shows both a lacking moral fibre and a deep insecurity in one's own chosen field
Kek what a spurious assertion. I like how you took the specifics I said and framed them as a timeless truth. Disingenuous, wrong, shows a lack of moral fibre.

>>8710780
He didn't even mention popper in his name dropping list, anyway falsification is a bit of a red herring imo. Nothing can ever be proven true or false wholly, science is always in an approximate state of information, imperfect, incomplete. The only thing you can reliably predict is that you're probably wrong about a lot of things, but for practical purposes you keep what works and try to keep discovering.

As a rule of thumb it's useful, but it barely plays any role in modern research. I don't have an underground supercollider to test and attempt to refute the LHC findings. There is a large degree of implicit trust and given the current state of ethics in the peer-review process probably naive and unwarranted trust put in people with financial interests closely tied to their unverifiable output.

All of the hard sciences are in a state of crisis, have been since the birth of modern computing allowed us to make larger more accurate telescopes and observe much of the universe is dark. But it will resolve itself because we keep what works.

My problem with philosophy is that someone like >>8710798
says this without any hint of sarcasm. When we both know how rigorous and mundane real philosophers get with their definitions and creating air tight arguments.

How about you actually defend it, coherently. See that way I can attack your defense, and expose the flaws in your thinking.

>>8710802
Except that I study philosophy in college. However, I am not of the opinion that the role of philosophy is to be culturally relevant. The role of philosophy has been from Antiquity to understand the world's phenomena, and only in the past 150 years have conties decided that this was no longer what they were doing. Continental philosophers simply want to write literature, and that is precisely all they do.

>>8710808
No, people within the field still very much dislike continental philosophy.

>>8710787
>what Einsteins personal opinion was about something is irrelevant to me. Science doesn't care about opinions, emotions or beliefs. We look at facts and data. I couldn't care if he believed in flying space monsters, again an appeal to authority is unsound, haven't you taken your logic course yet? that's 1st year shit....
Science absolutely cares about opinions, emotions, and beliefs, and if you cant see how blatantly emotional and petty sciencr is theyre youre blind and delusional. I think you have an improperly overblown view of science and your understanding of it is tautologically poor: simultaneously anything scientific thats false youd call science, and anything unscientific that works youd call science. You dont actually understand any method of truth-seeking or inquiry, youve simply defined post-hoc that anything useful is scientific.

>>8710817
>No, people within the field still very much dislike continental philosophy.
What a stupid generalization. Some departments do analytic, some do continental, some have no divide, some do. It's not easy to generalize and is a complicated subject, but don't let that cloud your pseudo-understanding.

>>8710831
It wasn't a generalization, I said that people in the field dislike continental philosophy, but I did not mean all people. This was a response to the claim that the continental/analytic divide was exaggerated and came mostly from outside philosophy.

>>8710816
I like how you admit science has serious flaws, and yet dismiss philosophy which is the literal tool you use to analyze science. Like you're doing philosophy in this post and are completely lacking self awareness.

>>8710835
That's true though, it's hugely exaggerated. Maybe at your university people cared more?

>>8710839
That's very possible. I used to go to a French language university where there did not seem to be much of a divide, but in the English speaking school I now attend, continental philosophy is very much on the back seat. I can tell you that for me, the courses I took in continental philosophy really drove me away from it, especially after studying Frege and Hegel. I find that these authors especially present little more than a work of fantasy and claim it's philosophy. I hear good things about Husserl though, so my hope would be to read him some time soon.

>>8710815
>>8710811
>>8710798
>>8710795
philosophy brainlets getting triggered because their art contributes nothing to the world.

>>8710817
Oh look someone who actually is honest about the bullshit it has become.

Modern philosophers are just amateur linguists and borderline illiterate theoreticians.

>>8710826
no that's humans, humans care about those things. I challenged you to name what is useful from philosophy, a guy mentioned Popper which contributed one of the underpinnings of the scientific method, that's almost conceding the point, by pointedly saying: "here a philosopher looked at what experimentalists were doing for thousands of years and codified it, bully, look at us, were the librarians of science, so useful!"


>improperly overblown view of science

I love beautiful paintings, I nor the painters pretend that what they are doing is science, why do modern philosophers feel the need to lump themselves into an indefensible position?

>>8710837
>literal tool you use to analyze science

could you name some contemporary work on the analysis of science by philosophers?

>you're doing philosophy in this

is this like a no true irishman? what level of warped potato ego is this

philosophy peaked a long time ago, and it has been treading water since, slowly getting pulled into a whirlpool of irrelevancy. Swim your way out, you won't, goodbye, into the astrology bin you go.

>>8710846
I meant Fichte, not Frege btw.

>>8710847
>no that's humans, humans care about those things. I challenged you to name what is useful from philosophy, a guy mentioned Popper which contributed one of the underpinnings of the scientific method, that's almost conceding the point, by pointedly saying: "here a philosopher looked at what experimentalists were doing for thousands of years and codified it, bully, look at us, were the librarians of science, so useful!"
Popper's a complete hack who contributed nothing but a faulty notion of metaphysical falsifiability because he dogmaticall hated Marxism and wanted to invent a way to discredit him. Quine destroyed his view pretty quickly with the obvious: you can't falsify falsifiability so it's completely worthless by its own measure. I'll nominate Nietzsche, who's views on the state of modern society encouraged me to act in different ways.


>I love beautiful paintings, I nor the painters pretend that what they are doing is science, why do modern philosophers feel the need to lump themselves into an indefensible position?
But science is in crisis, didn't you just say that or am I getting my dogmatists confused?

>could you name some contemporary work on the analysis of science by philosophers?
Just read the SEP on scientific anti-realism, just bring an inhaler becausr you'll likely freak out.

>philosophy peaked a long time ago, and it has been treading water since, slowly getting pulled into a whirlpool of irrelevancy. Swim your way out, you won't, goodbye, into the astrology bin you go.

This is actually moreso true of science than it is of philosophy, science is less productive for more effort.

>>8710816
I wasn't the guy you were arguing with, i just gave an example.
To me, every field of "knowledge" is equally useless: Their use is only defined by us, none of them have inherent value. It only happens that hard science contriutes to technology, and technology is more generally appreciated than, say, the concept of "leap of faith", but it doesn't mean that computers are more valuable than this concept inherently, it just means that generally people prefer computers to it, but for *persons* the concept can be indefinitely more valuable than any technology.

>>8710847
>Modern philosophers are just amateur linguists and borderline illiterate theoreticians.
I study linguistics, and I can assure you that philosophers of language are a great source of input for semanticists. In any advanced course, the ideas of Frege, Russell, David Lewis, Kripke and many more are seen as very important to us.

>>8710857
hence the inherent problems with stem focusing too much on information technology.

money diverted away from energy and materials because it's hard and into data because it's easy and directly aligns with power interests is just the whirlpool growing. saying "hey you're slipping down our slope" is tantamount to agreeing with everything i've said. we're probably entering another dark age, irrelevant, because the discussion was

>does philosophy have a single proof?
>answer: no, we don't deal with proofs
>question: okay wtf do you do?
>answer: we can't tell you, but you're doing it right now hurdur read this garbage which half of our community disagrees with


>Nietzsche... encouraged me to act in different ways

so then a metaphysical religion and not a science, agreed?

>>8710858
that's the axiomatic problem you have in everything. understanding is valuable because it leads to better outcomes for persons. systems of thought filled with ill-defined abstract concepts are dangerous especially when they are an actual leap of faith. believing you gained understand is far worse than not understanding anything at all. when two opposing sides both think they are doing the correct thing and refuse to compromise you get intractability.

Word games are how you get bogged down in doing Philosophy to begin with.

You're ongoing, your body functions, intelligence gives curiosity and strategies to continue. Some strategies are dead ends.

>Just read the SEP on scientific anti-realism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

>"An intriguing question then emerges as to whether disputes surrounding realism and antirealism are resolvable in principle....or whether, these positions should be regarded as irreconcilable but nonetheless permissible... (Chakravartty 2007a, pp. 16–26)."

Nice work Chakravartty, you fucking said nothing. So far underwater you can't even swim back to the surface.

>>8710925
who *ever* said philosophy was a science -in the technical sense of the word-?

Are there any good list of based books by schools and movements of philosophy? Like "for understanding phenomenology you should read this and that".

>>8710925
Nietzsche is not a religion kek. You sound uneducated.

>>8710925
Scientific realism is a leap of faith you troglodyte. Proof again that you don't read, you're just a dogmatist here to spout memes to avoid an actual intellectual challenge. Typical of "scientists".

>>8710944
Also wondering, a kind of neutral must-read list would be really nice

philosophy is by far more important, and more difficult than science. science is the method of figuring out how to do something, but philosophy is the field of understanding what SHOULD be done, and WHY should it be done. science is useless - actually, dangerous - without philosophy to guide it. but philosophy is still crucial, even without science. it's the first inkling of a consistent internal and external reality that humans obtained when their consciousness became recursive and turned into sapience. it is the foundation upon which all correct, accurate, and skillful action stands upon. science can divulge to use techniques and knowledge which is incredibly powerful. but power in the hands of a person who does not understand how they should act and why, is like a rabid dog in the street.

>>8710944
>>8711111
What exactly are you interested in?

>>8710987

>muh dyonisian
>muh gay science
>muh will to power
>muh revaluation of all values

No, Nietzsche is just puerile poetry. A man who doesn't understand science hoping to reform science.

>>8705825
from the research page on my philosophy tutor's website:


"Here you can, should you be surprisingly so inclined, sample my distinctive brand of philosophical writing, which combines excessive length and airless grammatical complexity with an absence of philosophical imagination and novelty, a profound inability to see the bigger picture, and a nose for questions that many others have already written much better articles and books about. "

>>8708431
they do the degree because they're "supposed" to

>>8711256
Jesus, Thomas Sinclair really likes to undersell his abilities...

>>8711126
>should
>>>/x/

>>8711134
Philosophy in general, but I don't know where to start. Currently reading a German intro to theoretical philosophy book but after that I don't know where to continue to cover the most important things. Just start chronological with Sokrates and continue in this order?

>>8711272
So you think normativity is a paranormal phenomenon?

File: 7.4.jpg (122KB, 470x608px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 470x608px

Philosophy is a bunch of mental-wanking and is pathetic choice of degree. Most philosophers I've met have been easy to outwit.

>Math MA here.
I love deconstructing their little minds tho. When you believe nothing is real life can get a wittle confoosing.

>>8711277
I've not met many philosophy majors who follow universal skepticism. What university do you study at?

>>8711243
Wow great post, thanks for sharing those hot opinions gaylord.

>>8711270
did you just google the phrase or do you know him?
>tfw the second search result is the NHS page on concussion

and yeah, it's pretty funny. I'm actually a physics student but he chats to me about philosophy. insists I should talk to a philosopher of physics, as if they'd be interested in my incoherent undergrad ramblings.

>>8711274
I'd read an intro/survey book and then figure out who you like, then read around that philosopher to get an idea of their thought more deeply. Plato can be boring and you might tire of it before you finish, but if you find someone compelling you'll stick with it longer.

Is the scientific method philosophical?

>>8711277
gr8 b8 m8

>>8711300
Haha, I just googled it. I thought it was a very funny way to introduce oneself.

>>8711309
There's really good evidence that there is no scientific method at all. Science can be viewed as simple trial and error in repetition.

The only real innovation is being more cautious about accepting things as fact.

>>8711307
Probably true, thank you

>>8711299
I'll let you go back to transcending good and evil and reshaping our culture into that good old dyonisian spirit of tragedy. I bet you miss class all the time at your high school! So Übermensch!

File: intelligence .jpg (40KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 350x350px

>>8711277
>Most philosophers I've met have been easy to outwit

>>8705793
is there any evidence that Kant understood general relativity before Einstein?

>>8711335
No, I have no idea why this person wrote that.

Popper is a must-read for any scientist working to extend human knowledge. It's a philosophy of problem-solving which has a practical effect on every man who grasps it.

Bryan Magee has written a very short, very excellent book which summarizes the main lines of Popper's thinking. Popper himself said the account of his views in that book is accurate.

If anybody is curious about Popper but you don't know where to start or you find Popper too difficult to read, start here:

https://www.docdroid.net/KflQzSx/philosophy-and-the-real-world-an-introduction-to-karl-popper-bryan-magee.pdf.html

>>8711300
philosophers are like faggots, they think everyone is a philosopher.

>>8705790
I'm not sure I care about what /sci/ thinks anymore.

>>8711295
Really?? Every single one I've met has except a lady who was also studying law. It's pathetic.

>>8711311
Keep telling yourself that wankstain

>>8711328
The only thing I have in common with that guy is I too am a male human with blue eyes.
>Nice use of memes to unintentionally indicate your lack original thought.

>>8711396
to be fair I do have a rather large interest in philosophy

is Derrida more intelligent than Einstein

his work is more complex than what Einstein did?

>>8711404
>Really?? Every single one I've met has except a lady who was also studying law. It's pathetic
That's curious. I guess it all depends on the department of philosophy, but from my experience philosophers tend to be very attracted to the natural sciences and mathematics and aren't particularly keen on dismissing them. There has been a long tradition for the past century or so in philosophy to try to make the discipline as consistent as possible with science.

>>8711424
Shit b8 m8. Try harder famalam.

>>8711327
Lol good joke m8, brned rl hard

>>8711328
This x10000

>>8711328
who dat alpha male?

>>8711437
Thanks, but in all honesty, there is no difficulty in burning someone who unironically likes Nietzsche. All you need is to mention some of that idiot's ridiculous ideas.

>>8711404
>>8711429
I study/have studied philosophy. Fancy that: I like the natural sciences too.

>>8711469
Eh.

>>8711469

i safely assume that your ideas of what his ideas are are a pop mcbastardization you gathered from people's attitudes, whom also had no idea what they're talking about.

in terms of predictive ability, nieztche has surpassed basically all of historiography and science by 110 years or so. he was dead nuts on the money on exactly what was going to happen to the western soul in about a century.

he was able to make such a shockingly long call because he was brilliant, and his idea's are actually pretty fucking down to earth, if you don't let his imaginatively proposed courses of action to distract you.

nieztche was wholeheartedly one of the greatest minds earth has ever known.

and no, he was not a fucking nihilist. in all likelihood YOU are to a degree you may not be aware of, because the plague is endemic. nieztche STUDIED nihilism and attempted to develop strategies to TREAT it.

>>8711490
Congrats you're not the standard philosophy moron!

>>8711429
That sounds excellent. Unfortunately that is not at all how it is done in my uni, it's a popular course too.

>>8711469
Keep it up mate, the amount of damage youre doing to yourself is awesome

>>8711735

in performance on standardized exams, and in post-graduate outcomes, people with philosophy majors and minors blow basically everyone else out of the water.

>>8711735
Says the standard scientist moron.

>>8711748
Because people who study philosophy can actually thinkm

File: 99.999.jpg (34KB, 418x475px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 418x475px

>>8711756
Not a scientist retard.
>Think he's so smart
>Can't even fucking read

>>8711748
>Prove it
I'm actually a cat, you can take my word for it
>Posting a claim on /sci/, having no evidence to back it up

>>8711765
Most philofags are sheep who a) can't figure out things for themselves and b) don't know how to use google and instead pay thousands for a degree nobody wants.

...

ITT: A big circle-jerk of morons
>As morons always do

>>8711745
I cannot possibly hurt an Ubermensch like you. I must bow before your hyperborean will to power.

>>8711733
I have read many books by Nietzsche, maybe 6 or 7, and I in fact was very keen on his thoughts when younger. But in retrospect, it all seems pretty juvenile.

Also, one's notoriety is by no means indicative of the quality of his work, and claiming so is an appeal to popularity.

Finally, I never used the word nihilism once, because I'm very aware that Nietzsche was not a nihilist. I can dislike Nietzsche's work without being ignorant of it.

>>8706015

Science doesn't answer a single moral question

>>8711850
This is somewhat of a weak argument, since in truth, neither does philosophy. Really, philosophy has never even come close to settling on an answer for any normative question whatsoever.

>>8710520

Yeah chicks really drop their panties for dudes who know phenomenology

>>8711850
What moral questions has philosophy answered?

>>8711867

At least it fucking tries, science can't by default

>>8711869

Every one that's been posited, you may not like any of the answers

>>8711868
hey phenomenology is a precursor of the study of the hard question in neurology, so it's useful for tracing western thoughts on consciousness

>>8711871
It can in some sense. Science isn't as rigid as you may think. But I understand that already diving to the question with an empirical perspective on mind is too many assumptions already.
>>8711873
I may not like the answers and many philosophers as well. That's why there are big schools of philosophy which are in complete disagreement.

>>8711880

What moral question can science answer?

>>8711735
Am I a non-standard philosophy moron, or not a moron... ? It doesn't matter either way to me, I just don't know what to make of the register in this reply.

>>8711898
>>8711898
If you look it from a psychological/neurological perspective, you can get a lot of insight on why and how humans act. I know you are already assuming science works as a representation of reality, but I think there are arguments in favour of scientific realism.

>>8711932
Right, but a quote is not really an argument though. You can think for yourself and come up with an actual attack against philosophy. This is just a bold claim by one scientist.

>>8705790

life requires context

philosophy provides it

>>8711948

yep.

science is over-rated honestly. what has it done for us? given us an extra 30 (mostly worthless) years? meanwhile, the world has been stripped of the sacred, and man has become just a cog in their devilish machinations. they say that perhaps they can save us from extinction at some ultimate end. but, we know that all things end, and they can only prolong the inevitable, while draining life of its color.

any jungle nigger shaman who is capable of arousing or quelling emotions in their tribe is more wise and powerful than a scientist.

>>8712106
Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

>>8712128

i'm only half serious.

>>8712130
Then you are half a moron.

File: truth.png (637KB, 1032x1116px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1032x1116px

>>8712133

that's just your opinion.

science has given us a lot, but also cost us a lot. in the emotional, eschatological, and psychological realms, the west has been wounded by science: it has become in many circles synonymous with 'not being a moron' that you reject the insubstantials of life, and the entire question of faith. but these are absolutely necessary. science is a tool - have we become the tool of science?

has science created more moral humans? more passionate humans? humans with greater intensity of spirit? humans that are more sincere and well adjusted? no. and understand when i say science, i am not condemning the child who is trying to understand why the water in the tub goes up when they get into it. i'm not condemning the people who came to science only after they had the wisdom to master another small piece of physical existence.

but i AM condemning those, who intelligent enough that they should know better, substitute for all things of spirit their sickly reductionist nihilism. They are not in this capacity scientists, they merely represent science as inquisitors, who do not grasp the origin of their own motives, who are driven by an emptiness that science can not fill. science exists successfully only when it is able to give power. if i can create an engine with your science, you are a true scientist. if i can only create neuroses with your conclusions, you are worse than useless.

we must remind science that it serves man, and that 'scientific progress' at the cost of human spirit or happiness or fulfillment is a cancerous ideal.

>>8706487

>personal attack fallacy

why don't people learn about fallacies? that would be nice and is philosophy

>>8712150
It's funny how philosophers have no idea of what science is.

>>8712178
Some do, that guy doesn't.>>8712150

>>8712172
What are you, fucking gay???

>>8712172

actually, since people have started learning about "formal logic an debate fallacies" more and more have become insufferable nitwits who cry fallacy fallaciously and only muddy the water. i'd rather that they be ignorant of the idea of 'fallacy' and argue the merit of their ideas with a little more creativity.

>>8712178
>>8712187

science pursues knowledge of how the physical world works.

any definition more complex then that is just people trying to define it in whatever way they think will endorse themselves.

on another note, has the scientific method been proven to work?

>>8712214
>has the scientific method been proven to work?
If you are a pragmatist, then yes. Otherwise, nothing will ever satisfy your greed.

>>8712216

hmmm.

do you think people can know something is true, before it's proven? IS a thing true, before it is proven? have there been people who knew a thing was true, before it was proven? could there be means of extrapolating knowledge that are not inherently rational? is a person capable of predicting the behavior of an aspect of nature through the use of their imagination?

>>8712232
That question is irrelevant to what I've said. If you are a pragmatist, the scientific method is clearly proven to work. I'm not sure how familiar you are with pragmaticism, but if you aren't, read about it.

>>8712232
>hmmm
Why would you be a smug retard on 4chan? You will not impress anyone here with your philosophy 101 shit.

>>8712241

the scientific method, ostensibly, lies behind the scientific achievements that have given us powers over the human body, and by facilitating new applications of engineering techniques.

but, if there were a superior method, or if improvements could be made, would the scientific method still be pragmatically true? or would it remain pragmatic, but not "as" pragmatic?

specifically, what exactly goes on during the construction of a hypothesis? can a person be taught to construct good hypotheses?

>>8712242

i wasn't being smug. i'm just asking questions.

File: 10738120.jpg (38KB, 978x602px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 978x602px

>>8705790
Barely anyone here knows fuckall about philosophy
It's sad, and sometimes hilarious

File: 1482273125837.jpg (1MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1716x1710px

>>8711932
One scientist who has done nothing truly important said a dumb thing. Wow, great fucking argument.

>inb4 memers will tell me theorhetical physics matters

>>8711843
NICE FALLACY

U FALLACIED SO UR ALL WRONG

I AM GOOD ARGUMENT :-)

>>8711869
>>8711867
Eating meat is absolutely wrong and it's been proved. You're allowed to ignore that all you want but it's true.

>>8705790
philosophy does a much better job at explaining things than science

>>8712420
Krauss has changed his mind a fair bit, fortunately. Still an ass but you know.

Also there are dumber quotes for the people on the right

>>8711932
Science has eaten up a lot of what was traditionally Philosophy's purview. That said I still think philosophy has its place, there's a lot of conceptual stuff that the scientific method can never really even address let alone resolve, like ethics.

File: 1481567476563.png (54KB, 470x698px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 470x698px

>>8711880
>It can in some sense. Science isn't as rigid as you may think.
Yet another 4channer goes full retard.

>>8712150
>science has given us a lot, but also cost us a lot. in the emotional, eschatological, and psychological realms, the west has been wounded by science: it has become in many circles synonymous with 'not being a moron' that you reject the insubstantials of life, and the entire question of faith. but these are absolutely necessary. science is a tool - have we become the tool of science?
This. If you pay attention, the debate today isn't "are we in a dystopia", it's "what kind of dystopia are we in", and undeniably technology is a cause of misery. it's ideology to claim otherwise.

>>8712178
It's funny how scientists have no idea what science is. You're searching in the dark with no lights.

>>8712216
>If you are a pragmatist, then yes. Otherwise, nothing will ever satisfy your greed.
Pragmatists don't even believe in truth in the conventional sense. Oh wait, you weren't actually referring to pragmatism, you were just abusing a word. Typical of an uneducated retard to not know what a word actually means.

>>8712241
The scientific method doesn't even exist. It's always just been people guessing and sometimes getting things sort of right. "Scientific" is just an honorific we give to things that work, it has absolutely zero meaning besides that.

File: einstein-scientism-2.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>8712363
Seriously, you'd think people interested in science would realize all of the best scientists, and the ones who reject it are memes like Stephen Hawking, and Feynman is the exception that proves the rule.

>>8711930
How humans act is not ethics, and even if you could map out the brain perfectly it wouldn't allow you to construct a better theory of ethics other than "Hurting people causes pain which negatively affects the brain and the mental state of the individual, so don't do that"

>>8711930
is isn't ought

>>8712425
There's no fallacy in what you responded to.

>>8712463
I was mocking him.

>>8712444
>the exception that proves the rule
I don't understand this. It doesn't make sense. It should be "the exception to the rule".
This is like "could care less" but a thousand times worse.

>>8712585
It's not supposed to be literal, it just means that a few exceptions don't deny a general trend; it doesn't matter that Feynman said stupid things about philosophy because overwhelmingly smart physicists think it's good.

>>8712585
>>8712685
you guys have almost the same post number

>>8711341
Einstein was a Jew after all. Is it really that far fetched that he stole someone else's work?

>>8713776
*tips fedora*

Absurdism > Hedonism > Nihilism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else

>>8713776
>>>/pol/

File: 1488040034355.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>8705818
>hardon decay

>>8713776
Whole world knows he's a plagiarist and a disgusting racist. Jew or not he's an embarrassment who stole from poincare, lorentz and many other physicists.

>>8706038
Look, I like Russell as much as the next guy, but no.

File: tips_fedora.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>8713813

>>8713868
> racist
Now I know for sure you are just a troll please just leave go to poll or some retarded backward Jew hating looser riddled forum, perhaps stormfront. For the love of god just leave and stop spreading lies or at least try harder to be deceive full

>>8713896
>you hate racists?
>you belong to a board that loves racism
No you do you disgusting racist. We do not tolerate racism in any form no matter who commits racism.

File: 09909808388382.jpg (6KB, 219x338px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 219x338px

>>8713917

When things were getting interesting, they get derailed by /pol/ fags

>>8705790
Cause' you know...
Philosophers get all that theoretical pucci.

>>8714083
back to >>>/r/eddit you shitposting SJWtard. you're the only one derailing shit here.

File: 1487568284672.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>>8705818
My hardon never decays

>>8711126
>dude everybody is obligated to listen to philosophers lmao

>>8715074
Carlos!!!!

>>8711277
That's a truth.
Destroyer of all that dwell on the right hand.

>>8710778
Not the guy you were arguing with, but one can actually sum up the works of these people, even though their conclusions might seem hard to justify without going into more detail: E.g: Wittgenstein dispelled the idea that language has to represent reality in any way for words to get their meanings and mounted strong attacks against the idea that all of us have some internal private language, that we translate into whenever speaking with other people. Sadly dont have the time right now to elaborate on that, maybe in a few hours.

>>8711277
>>8711328
this tbn farn

>>8705790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

>>8716120
tbn

>>8716212
He also wrote FARN.
Just getting past the filter