Philosophy is a k word that means "love of wisdom."

>>8925865
>and no respectable scientist could have any soft spot in his heart for philosophy.
reality disagrees with you...

>>8925882
inb4 someone posts the image of cherry picked quotes comparing scientists from vastly different time periods talking about completely different eras of philosophy

File: 1473737545471.png (84KB, 712x260px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 712x260px

>>8925865
Define truth in mathematics.
Define truth in science.
Define truth in logic.

File: Kaiya.jpg (65KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 320x240px

>>8925902
Does this mean that everyone who says my early work was garbage but somehow I got lucky along the way with may later stuff will have to acknowledge that the current research product is exactly what was described in the first manuscript?

>>8925902
this is where people use this thinking to justify pseudoscience

>>8925865
>>So... why do you hate philosophy?

I don't like philosophy because it's practitioners engage in incomprehensible bullshit like this
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/u/ulsmanuscripts/pdf/31735061846600.pdf

>>8927313
Same can be said of math and IUTT.

>>8925865
>it's another edgy thread by ignorant underage faggot
>>8925865
Why can't you keep to your containment boards?

>>8927319
IUTT is perfectly comprehensible if you're a top mathematician. Modern philosophy is just bullshit all the way through.

>>8928591
If I may ask, how do you know this? I sincerely doubt that you have a truly rational reason for believing that. (As long as you are not a top mathematician and/or philosopher)

>>8925899
>>8928533

Bingo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Bunge

>>8927319
>Same can be said of math and IUTT.
But IUTT has real world applications, it was built to solve an important theorem in number theory.

It is like arguing that because building a very tall building is extremely complicated and nothing what most people understand then it has no value.

>>8925865
The only problem with philosophers, really, is that they try to dictate how one should act, or try to deduce some fact about the world, which are both areas that science covers better than pure logic (through the likes of things like probability theory, decision theory, game theory, etc.)

If philosophers would just stick to considering the relative nature of things, they'd instantly become less squares.

>>8928611
Top mathematicians demonstrated the comprehensibility of IUTT. Thus it is comprehensible for top mathematicians. Philosophy repeatedly demonstrates inconsistencies as demonstrated by the vast amount of contradicting philosophers. Math is consistent with itself, philosophy is not.

>>8928715
Science in no way dictates how one should act, since it doesn't cover morality.

>>8928716
Philosophers disagreeeing with each other doesn't imply that many different paths of philosophy are not self-consistent, it might just mean that they argue over certain premises.

>>8928738
(You)

>"philosophers can't ever agree about anything regarding empiricism"
>this is being completely unaware of anything about philosophy

>>8925865
Science is just philosophy applied to the real world.

I hate thought experiments though because most of the times it goes from being grounded in science to "dude what if someone had the same life and matter makeup as you would they be you lmao"