What do you think about epistemology and metaphysics(while still

>>8982908
>and philosophy in general
You need philosophy to know how to do science. You need philosophy to interpret the results of science.

Science itself doesn't make the laws and ethics and everything we need to continue a society, to continue science itself. Science is an incomplete system if you base for forming a basis of reality.

>>8982908
Wherever I go, the computers break. Is that what you mean?

>>8982908
>epistemology and metaphysics
Every scientist should at least read some Popper, Khun, and Heil.

>>8982926
>>8982941
>>8982999
holy shit /sci/ i've underestimated you

>>8982999
This

>>8982908
>Are they(and philosophy in general) a waste of time? Can you get anything practical out of them or are they just (maybe or maybe not)interesting but useless ideas?
well first off, any views as to what constitutes a waste of time are philosophical
secondly, the criterion that things should be practical is philosophical
thirdly, normative views about practice are philosophical

but anyway more importantly:
epistemology is the basis of science (what we call "science" was based on a methodological (hence epistemological) revolution in natural philosophy)
metaphysics is not only inevitable (since nobody can avoid views about what exists, what existence is, whether objects and properties and relations and events exist, etc.) but also inevitably prior to science, since the subject matter of physics (construed as the most fundamental science) necessarily depends on a purely metaphysical infrastructure (i.e. facts about the nature of physical objects and spacetime necessarily depend on facts about natures, objects, facts, etc.) -- that's why physicalist reductionism, which scientism always depends on, always depends on just ignoring a bunch of questions

>>8982908
Completely useless, arbitrary, and masturbatory.

>>8983053
explain

>>8982941
Probably because laws and ethics have no basis in reality, yet they could easily be defined scientifically. It's just the basis of them are largely dependent on personal opinion, you need a wealth of assumptions and some kind of goal(s) and truths to begin with. Though beyond that you could easily be very scientific in your approach.
For ethics, for example:
>I want society to collapse, to have freedom and a general free-for-all = very lenient ethics, orientated towards selfishness but with enough rules that humanity doesn't simply consist of wild animals
>I want no pain, no destruction, no death, etc. within a beautiful and idealistic society = macro stoicism type shit
>I want to advance exponentially in power and technology, collectively and do so efficiently, without care for the individual = very collectivist ethics, orientated away from the health and feelings of individuals, towards the efficiency and strength of the collective with the purpose of advancement. In this case extreme advancement at the expense of individuals is taken to be meaningful and desirable.

>>8982999
>no Quine

Also checked

science does have a philosophy but it's grounded in more logic Andy less conjecture
idk if you can even call logic philosophy

I do maths because I enjoy it... not because it's true.

File: 1495467652181.jpg (486KB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1716x1710px

>>8982908
The scientific method itself is a philosophical method.

>>8983053
t. Pure math major

>>8984179
The Dawkins and Nye quotes in that image are perfectly reasonable.

>>8984182
Pure math is to the entire field of math what philosophy is to science. If anything he's a physics major who watches too much Feynman

Bumping good thread

If it clicks, you don't get stuck quibbling about its abstractions/mired in academia, and you know how to apply it, the best philosophy can absolutely change your life for the better

bumpuroo

epistemology and metaphysics are idealist garbage

the only philosophy you need is materialist dialectics.

>>8982908
The fact that you think metaphysics as a branch of philosophy ever delves into the kind of "spiritual bs" peddled by Deepak and spotted in the occultist sections of local bookstores tells me you don't know much about the field at all. >>8983043 and >>8982999 are the only right answers in this thread

>>8983758
>Implying logic isn't a branch of philosophy