Why don't american scientists care about philosophy?

Because American """""""scientists""""""" are just popsci know-it-alls that grew to believe the lie they've told everyone: that they know everything.

A true genius realizes he dosen't know anything.

>>9039929
Shut up and calculate culture

>>9039929
Also note that the guys on the right are really just figureheads of science and scientific study, meanwhile the guys on the left are remembered because they actually did something.

Because it's useless outside of personal fun. Anyone who tries to use philosophy as if it means anything outside of your arm chair is an idiot.

>It's enough /his/ is butthurt episode
>>9039982
Richard Dawkins did do something you ignorant fuck.

>>9039929
>Richard Dawkins
>American
W-what?

>>9039982
True

>>9040033
>What is analytic philosophy or philosophy of science?
You're an effete dilettante.

>Butthurt philosophy tards make another thread
U CAN'T NO NUFFIN

>>9040046 see >>9040045 and eat a whole bucket of dicks.

>>9039929
Philosophy has been over-shallowed in the states, perhaps.

>>9040045
Philosophy of science doesn't actually effect science in the modern day.
>>9040047
Go back to /his/ Fedora faggot.

>>9040049
>Ignoring the one that employs logic and notation.
Fuck off, you cherrypicking retard.

>>9040055
You are clearly mad people are insulting your useless study. You saying it uses logic doesn't make it suddenly relevant. Tell me, when was the last time philosophy discovered something?

File: 1382425277399.png (271KB, 636x480px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 636x480px

>Studying philosophy
>Majoring in philosophy

>>9040057
Well, considering that science is applied natural philosophy.
Pretty recently.

>>9040065
I knew you were going to use that retarded argument. If you are going to say science is philosophy than that just means science is the only useful philosophy, all others are useless and have been for hundreds of years.
>inb4 math is a philosophy and breathing is a philosophy

>>9040065
Now explain what the study of philosophy outside of science or math has discovered, here's a hint, it's nothing.

File: the-age-of-philosophy-is-over-now-science-can-tell-17628300.png (197KB, 500x663px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 500x663px

>>9039929
they missed to point out pic related

File: 1492986314461.png (652KB, 940x960px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 940x960px

because science has to be PC, it can't be the objective scientific method-based field it once was. it's a huge transformation for science to make, and (((scientists))) will be resented because of their leading role.

>>9039929
>Bill Nye
>a scientist

>>9040074
>IQ
>Science
Yeah, that is how I know it's bullshit.

>>9040038
Yeah, but is that why people know him? No, they know him as the "hardcore" atheist that inspired a generation of fedora-tipping neckbeards.

>>9040067
>>9040071
Philosophy of science (foundational thought) and analytical philosophy (logical analysis of arguments) was important in the establishment of applied natural philosophy as more than a fringe hobby during the Enlightenment.
However, I will concede that mathematics and applied natural philosophy (science) are now Search Results
pre-eminent.
That still doesn't diminish the importance of the former though, even if it is semi-historic.

I think guys like Tim Mauldin and David Albert are legit, but the rest are complete memes. Eliezer Yudkowsky expounds on this topic.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/tg/against_modal_logics/

>>9040073
>"The Truth"
This is how you spot a retard, normally a christian or an arm chair philosopher going U CAN'T NO NUFFIN

File: 121972560223679.jpg (18KB, 307x352px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 307x352px

>>9040063
>Implying you have to major in philosphy to study it
You're a moron if you think you have to go to school for something to learn about it

>>9040081
>Hundreds of years
So you agree that philosophy has been useless for hundreds of years. Outside of fun there is no reason to study philosophy.

>>9040087
Never said this, just laughing at the faggots who do.

>>9040088
I'd say since the early 1900s, yes.
It still has useful application in analysis of arguments though.

>>9040092
I never said you said it, I said you implied it

>>9040094
But not for science. OP asked why modern scientists don't care about philosophy and the reason is because it is useless as far as science and discovery is concerned.

>>9039929
"Science" teaches us we can know everything.

Real science, a very advanced philosophy, shows us we can never know everything.

>>9040098
Still though, they could make use of analytical philosophy, because they make some truly shitty arguments.

>>9040102
>A very advanced philosophy
So philosophy tards are retarded and people who study basic science are objectively more advanced then them?

>>9040085
The point being is how people utilise science, facts, and information are the only things needed for humanity to progress - forgetting that we, ourselves, are the one establishing concepts where we put the raw data into use.

Humanity in its own accord do not need a major in philosophy to philosphise - for humanity does it everyday.

>>9040106
Who? All modern scientists? You don't need a degree in philosophy to be able to test a hypothesis.

File: fucksciencexDD.png (473KB, 960x852px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 960x852px

>>9040078
>IQ is a shit metric guise
>correlation=/=causation xDDD
>but let's ban research into it just in case some goys wanna know

>>9040102
Science neither teaches that we can or cannot know everything. You are just bullshitting.

>>9040109
I'm not saying you need to study it formally.
When did I say that?
You can privately study and learn to improve your argumentation.
Why not? You're adding another tool to your toolbox.

>>9040110
Nice shitpost retard.
IQ isn't science just like myers briggs tests. It wasn't even originally designed to do anything more than detect learning disabilities in children.

Every person I've ever known that's done a philosophy degree is a useless, self-absorbed retard who pontificates out their own asshole and wastes their time dancing about their little thought experiments instead of actually doing something productive and meaningful with their lives. They're also no fun allowed smug losers.

>>9040107
The first philosophers were annoying assholes who asked questions about everything.
The first scientists were philosophers who learned to ask better questions.
But for all the advancements we've made, and we've certainly come far, science still can't answer the very basic questions those first few assholes kept asking.

>>9040117
Yeah but that doesn't disprove anything in the OP. Scientists don't take philosophy seriously because it has no effect on science and doesn't discover. That is what all of the quotes on the left are about.

>>9040115
Exactly. And yet what makes the men on the right so stupid is that's what they think anyway.

>>9040121
A lot of them were answered and the ones that weren't were generally because they were questions based on semantics or subjective opinion. Science isn't going to tell you the "meaning of life".

>>9040125
>Pulling shit out of your ass

>>9040129
So because you don't think a question can be answered, it's not even worth asking? Then why bother with science at all?

>>9040130
Where else would I pull shit out of, anon? Don't be foolish

>>9040123
No, the OP only applies to epistemology and somewhat to philosophy of science with Krauss.
Not analytic philosophy.

>>9040131
How do you answer a subjective question based on an opinion with science?

>>9040136
What makes a question subjective? The whole point is the answer will make it a little more objective.

>>9040133
It's called manure anon and you can buy it.

If science can't answer a question it's literally not worth asking. Sure you can have fun with philosophy I guess but there's really no practical application to it in the 21st century.

>>9040140
Why waste money on something I can make myself

>>9040136
Also, who said science is not subjective? Math is objective, science is based on theory and experimentation

>>9040147
>Theory
Supported by repeated experiments. If X increase Y and it is shown to over and over again it's not subjective to say X causes Y

>>9040038
>Richard Dawkins did do something you ignorant fuck.
wrote a popsci book on gene-centered evolution?

>>9039929
>we have this thread every other week
Anyway, might as well fucking take the bait. Philosophy of science is actually a reasonable way to understand how we should conduct a scientific practice. Kuhn has a great breakdown of the way science functions. Its good to know these things, because there are times of paradigm breakdown where a field seems incomplete and the discussion inevitably turns to the core of what the science is about, and what are acceptable or unacceptable problems and solutions, where a bit of knowledge of the philosophy helps.

>>9040149
>Repeated experimentation
So, still not objective fact. All I have to do is experiment and yield a different result a couple more times than the other was achieved and I've destroyed what was perviously considered an "objective" scientific fact.

>>9040158
I don't understand what the fuck you mean. Fuck off

>>9040161
No fuck you I'm right

>Experiment
>Get result
>This becomes an "objective" scientific "fact"

>Experiment again
>Get different result
>Suddenly somehow have a different "objective" scientific "fact"

How can two different things be objectively true at the same time?

>>9040161
Not him, but experimentation is not necessarily objective. Why would it be? Are you objective in your perception of the world? The scientist is necessary in the experiment and he isn't objective, nor is the community. Objectivity is a lie, even maths isn't necessarily objective

>>9040168
go back to /lit/ you stupid brainlet

>>9040171
>Can't counter an argument
>"Uh ... g-go back to this other board, its you who's the brainlet"
wew

>>9040171
>Can't argue
>Resorts to name-calling
See that feeling you have right now? That feeling you get in your head were you actually have to think about something instead of assuming you already know the answer? That's what philosphy does to you, asshole. Try it sometime, you might actually learn something for yourself instead of having to be told it.

>>9040175
Little did you know I've been trolling you this whole time. Now go back to /lit/ you silly brainlet, you're obviously not bright enough to understand who badly you're getting played. lmao

>>9040182
>I-i was just pretending to be retarded
We're still laughing at you. Not with you.

File: n8umjWj.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>9040182

>>9040187
>>9040188
>getting so autisticly screeching at me for being a cuckold

Now that's what I call LEGEN..........................................................................................................WAIT FOR IT...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................DARY!!

>>9040195
I could use one more (you), thanks in advance

File: 1500175041539.jpg (12KB, 252x270px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 252x270px

>>9040199
>>9040188
>>9040187
*farts at you*

>>9040202
Sweet, thank you. Not any more tho, I'm full of (you)s, one more and I'll overload

File: IQstats.png (14KB, 610x403px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 610x403px

>>9040118
oil was never extracted to do anything more than supply households with lights

look at its value now

>>9039929
Probably because science has largely replaced philosophy for explaining the world, and philosophy is left pondering the subjective, something that our current "post-modern" society gets off to.

>>9040240
t. philosophically (and probably scientifically) illiterate individual

'Murikan scientists don't unnerstan' what
the "Ph" in their degree means, and don't care.

>>9040141
Not everything has to have a practical application to be worthwhile

>>9040168
>durr try experiment twice why not paradigm shift??? :(((

Yeah, retard, which is why the experiment is retried as much as possible, and full details are published so that others can try it also. Then, once everyone gets the same result within the parameters of the original experiment, do we get a scientific "fact".

>>9040737
philosotards got btfo

>>9039929
Shit...thanks God I'm just an engineer...

>>9040046
It's kinda crazy that people try to use that as a strawman against philosophy when modern philosophy commonly accepted it as a solved problem.

>>9040154
>Popsci
>Popsci
>Popsci
Yeah, you are a retarded newfag using a word you don't understand. The Selfish gene changed the way most biologists thought of genetics. You are a fucking retard.

>>9040158
That's not subjective you retard. It's an objective fact that X caused Y in those experiments. Sure there can be cases where X doesn't cause Y but it's not subjective that they did in those experiments.

>>9039929
Because it teaches how to think. Americans don't like that. Well, their masters don't want them to at least.

It's a very powerful indoctrination, a lot of "scientists" strongly reject thinking and instead focus solely on very abstract concepts that won't get you far ultimately

/sci/ used to make fun of philosophy fags daily. Anyone have those old MS paint comics?

>>9040248
Butthurt Fedora detected. Explain how philosophy can be used to explain the physical world around us.

>>9040996
Not a research paper.

If they were around to see the sheer retardation of today, they'd hate philosophy and spirituality too

>>9040994
>Strawman
Philosophy is useless. This is a fact.

>>9041017
I guess Darwin is popsci because his books weren't research papers.
Oh wait you are retarded and need to go back to /his/ like the rest of the philosophy tards who don't know shit.

File: 1487981034825.jpg (442KB, 1323x1000px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1323x1000px

>Philosophy hasn't done anything of importance in a hundred years
>WHY ARE PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL PRACTICAL SKILLS THAT SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS AND ANSWER REAL QUESTIONS NOT RESPECTING MY CIRCLE JERK OF STUPIDITY!
Anyone who describes themselves as a "philosopher" as their main attribute should be hung.

>>9040737
I'm not arguing that scientific opinions change. I'm arguing that to consider them "scientific fact" is downright moronic. We should treat them like they're mostly likely true, not like they're objectively true. Because otherwise we have a religion, not a science.

>>9041080
* Don't change

>>9040998
But it's still subject to change once new objective facts come into view.

It's the difference between a religion and a science. It might not seem like much but it's an important distinction

>This is my everyone loves a scientist but hates a philosopher

>>9041091
*Why not my

>>9039929
Same reason they don't care about poetry.

>>9041091
It's not. It's objective but that doesn't make it's implications a fact. An experiment is an objective way of supporting something. A theory isn't an objective fact but it is supported by objective facts.

>>9041114
I know it seems dumb but understand that this is how many people think. They hear "objective" and they assume "true" and not "based on objective fact."

Put simply, they treat science like a religion.

>>9041089

Don't you know Anon, tons of online philosophers have shown that vaccines cause Autism

>>9040110
what is this article about?

File: 1463280073654.jpg (48KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 403x403px

>>9039929
Great pic. Saved.

>>9041217
Kek, now the christfags have arrived.

This thread's so confusing. Have you never had the interest in why Philosophy, History, and cultural science play an important role in the stability of the cerebral cosmos? Philosophy is the logics of deciphering. One does not and only "philosophize", but rather uses philosophy to relate, ordinate, compare, and compute matter by using fundamental structure of thought and speak. It's just a very common thing to do when trying to build society for it creates meaning.

>>9041217
Yes, I much prefer this way of thinking. Eliminates the atheist sociopaths.

>>9039929
Because it's literally dead. All that could be said has been said or refuted.

Post-Modernism - The realization that abstract meaning doesn't matter, killed philosophy.

>>9041230
>I much prefer thinking non logically to thinking logically

>>9041230
>Atheist sociopaths
Considering atheists commit less crime it seems like the christcucks are the sociopaths.

File: bd996a487816e367ea6dd02ef3df646bfb2b3f532579ce410d316c057b3a360.jpg (46KB, 625x359px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 625x359px

>>9040038 >>9039929

>Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins's research is Literally a Meme.

Because He literally created/invented/defined the concept of Memes
He founded Memetic Science.

Then He literally became a Meme Himself.

>>9040040 >>9039929
And He is British, not American

>>9040996
The Selfish Gene is a popsci book. It's not pretending to be anything else. A good one, don't take me wrong. It's based on the works of biologists such as Bill Hamilton and George Williams.

>>9041234
Garbage thinking. So you've figured it all out, have you? Let's all bow down to the new God that is Post-Modernism. As soon as you've fallen into that hole, you've died. Abstraction is not a powerless concept. Just because science is also a powerful concept doesn't nullify that.

>>9041080
he doesn't understand objective vs universal vs subjective truths

>>9041266
>popsci
What does this term mean to you? It presented a well formed argument that changed how biologists think of genes the same way Charles Darwin made people think differently about evolution.

>>9041253
Logic feeds from myth and vice versa. You need abstract to build concrete. Concrete thoughts broaden and project structural societies. But the realizing thought process is destructive one for it happens in this particular order:

Metaphor - comparing similar things for ordinate necessity
Metonymy - Naming matter after metaphors i.e. Taxonomy
Synecdoche - Simulation in the physical world

And Irony - the realization that all this comes from a metaphor, therefore, the infinite pool of abstraction.

The world of idea is in constant correlation with the physical world. The whole building of civilization and humanity is based on the simple constructs of structural thoughts, the system of meaning, the reason to go on.

>>9040996
no, it didn't. the research it is based on did. that's like saying
>hurr steward's calculus changed the way most mathematicians think of analysis

>>9041025
>publications hundreds of years ago must follow the same format they do now!
kill yourself

>>9041290
It's a work meant at a general audience, with the intent to popularize its content. It did that well. People working in evolutionary biology were already aware of the material, but the average guy on the street did not go out of their way to read journals for papers like The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour.

>>9041256
You're associating crime with sociopathy rather than any other kind of mental illness.

The reason I pointed out atheist being sociopathic is because most of them really just don't give shits.

>>9039929
Just looking at the pics on the right is painful. What happened man? Is there cancer in our food and water? Or is it the fact that media and popsci messed them up?

>>9041303
Nice double standard there retard.
>Presenting evidence to support a new way of thinking is Popsci if it was done now but not in the past
You are retarded and you are trying too hard to fit in newkid.

>>9041315
>most of them don't give shits
That is very vague and likely untrue.
>>9041306
But that wasn't the scientific belief before then. The way Dawkins explained genes wasn't popular in biology before his book, he also literally created memes which became a subfield of psychology. His book literally revolutionized 2 different fields.

>>9041303
>Research
Doesn't mean anything without someone creating a theory or model that explains the research. Research and experiments exist without an implication until someone gives it one. You don't understand basic science.

>>9041332
It's because people know that philosophy is useless. Sorry not everyone is into retarded pretentious circle jerking.

>>9041354
But the gene-centered evolution theory was not created by Dawkins.

>>9041367
And the idea of evolution wasn't created by Darwin. Both are famous for putting the evidence together to make a strong argument for it and defined it well.

>>9041375
Natural selection is Darwin's.

>>9041382
Yeah but evolution wasn't. He defined it and supported it. Just like the gene centered view of evolution that was defined, expanded and supported by Dawkins and is why the gene centered view beat out the organism centered view that was popular during the same time.

File: 1496115780513.png (405KB, 657x624px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 657x624px

>>9040049
What? What about things like falsification principle, the main distinction between science and pseudoscience. It was thought out by Karl Popper in first half of 20th century, and we're talking about epistemologic principle which is integral to science in modern day.

Scientific methodology is based on epistemology and meta-physics, not to mention formal and sentential logic which is being developed to this day.
How can you assert that philosophy doesn't effect science in modern day, while not providing any evidence?

Seriously, eat a dick

>>9041402
>Science is based on metaphysics
Explain

>>9041402
>While not providing any evidence
You have to provide evidence that it does. Philosophy doesn't change the results I get when I conduct an experiment. I don't need to study philosophy to be a good scientist. Ever since you faggots from /his/ and /lit/ started invading now people can't make fun of philosophy fags without you niggers getting triggered.

>>9041349
>That is very vague and likely untrue.
Most of them are. Rejecting any form of abstract idea and the philosophy that places them into meaning for the matter of cold science is driving civilization to an end, or a 'dead time zone' and barbarism. Not even close to a sci-fi tech utopian world, for they all sort of believe in mythical force. They end up having no basic social structure, leaving them individual and powerless. They have, indeed, for majority, high intellects. But their lack of interest in handling abstraction makes them careless, or rather, alienated to their feeling of careness. Their only cultural assets are limited in the boundaries of pop/mass objets, and they usually get brittle at any higher knowledge of how culture works, and how is correlates with science.

>>9041436
Yeah, nice projection there.
>Cold science is driving civilization to an end
kek.

>>9041442
>greentexting part of the sentence that needed most context.

>>9041446
your "context" is nonsense rambling

>>9041451
I suppose you're not in the mood for typing.

>>9041446
>"Cold" science
This is bullshit and so are you. You idiots that something is cold if it is logical are idiotic.

>>9041480
Cold if logical? More like the resulted reasoning comes out from more than only logics. It's like you're not even trying to understand.

>>9041512
Why do you think scientists are cold? How is it cold to trust the scientific method?

>>9041523
I never said that I don't trust the scientific method. I simply believe Philosophy plays an important role in the making of reasoning, and that refusing this blocks one from several thinking paths. After all, I'm only following the subject of the thread.

>>9041523
Science has become sonething to be consumed. People beleive they can read a textbook and understand sciences and contribute to them, but these peiple will only end up making small innovations to a field. OP's point is that the scientuits who fundementally change a field fully understand what science is, how it develouped, why it's useful, and what it's limitations and assumptions are, while know-it-all fags like Dawkins and Tyson can only make tiny innovations and teach science as it exists today. They will never change a scientific field fundementally. Never.

Science is OK, but they don't compare to philosophical "truth" from 3th Century BCE pedophile greeks that lived at a time of extreme slavery rates and superstitions beliefs.

Increased prevalence of vaccinations

>>9041277
>So you've figured it all out, have you?

Yep. Phisilophy has always been essentially refusing to admit the phrase "i don't know" and inventing the answer.

It was useful when we genuinely had no idea how the world worked. Now we know much more and can explain and refute all the most common philosophical assumptions sans a couple questions that allow a degree of uncertainity ie: we may never be able explain the origin of everything, leaving a possible answer being "God did it"

Check out almost all philosophy on human nature. All of it a product of it's time and all the topics of analisis it touched ie: the nature of the human mind, perception, emotion, etc, are now explained by anthropologists and sociologists.

I love philosophy, but I won't pretend modern philosophy is uttery pointless.

Philosophy is the bedrock on which modern science is built, though it is not really necessary for scientists to deeply study philosophy in order to understand science, so long as they have a working understanding of the scientific method. However, having an understanding of philosophy, in particular metaphysics, logic, and ethics, can broaden a scientist's understanding of what science is rooted in. Expanding that understanding is never a bad thing.

I will say though, that as science and technology become more integral to our society, scientists should become more and more concerned with ethics. Every scientific breakthrough has consequences that rebound throughout society, and while the primary job of scientists is not to make ethical decisions, scientific breakthroughs can be the root cause of some very important moral dilemmas. The more scientists understand the ways in which their profession impacts society and the world at large, the better the world will be.

>>9041253
"You're not thinking, you're just being logical" - Bohr

>>9041572
This, actual scientists just play on the actual framework of thought but will never dare to touch the fundamental beliefs that build positivism

>>9039929
More like—how do people still manage to get triggered from such low-quality bait?

File: 6399163019502.jpg (43KB, 400x424px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x424px

>tfw your bait thread is a success

Never change /sci/

>>9041806
Christfagging isn't logical

>>9041831
baiting in sci is like shooting fish in a barrel. Most of us are so autistic we cannot STAND a printed mistake to the point where we have to correct it. being proud of this thread is like being proud you remembered to breathe this morning

>>9041848
This. I go on an autistic fit when people use the word theory when they should mean hypothesis.

Philosophy isn't useful to science any more or finding the truth about our universe outside of subjective opinions. Why would scientists respect it? Why should they?

>>9040110
WHY POPULAR SCIENCE!?!? I LOVED HOW THEY DID NOT USED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE POLITICAL FUCKSHIT THAT IS BINARY OR OTHER HORSE SHIT RELATED TO THAT!!!!

An important and practical application of philosophy (of science) is in the interpretation of scientific and mathematical results. Scientific and mathematical results should be interpreted because it helps everyone, even the scientists and mathematicians experimenting and calculating on the ground floor, to understand their results. This passage on quantum physics says it well.

"It was with the phase of the physical interpretations that the novelty of the logical form of quantum mechanics was realized. Something had been achieved in this new theory which was contrary to traditional concepts of knowledge and reality. It was not easy, however, to say* what had happened. i.e., to proceed to the philosophical* interpretation of the theory. Based on the physical interpretations given, a philosophy for common use was developed by the physicist which spoke of the relation of subject and object, of pictures of reality which must remain vague and unsatisfactory, of operationalism which is satisfied when observational predictions are correctly made, and renounces interpretations as unnecessary ballast. Such concepts may appear useful for the purpose of carrying on the merely technical work of the physicist. But it seems to us that the physicist, whenever he tried to be conscious of what he did, could not help feeling a little uneasy with this philosophy."

He goes on to say that a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics should not be in the vague terms of speculative philosophy, nor hide behind operationalism which evades interpretation altogether. Free from metaphysics, and "...yet allows us to consider quantum mechanical results as statements about an atomic world as real as the ordinary physical world." Such a project is the work philosophers of science concern themselves with.

*italicized in text

>>9041217
He's referring to pantheist beliefs. Which are virtually identical to being a materialist atheist, except you approach the beliefs and look upon them in a different way. A way that is more conducive to productivity and meaning, as opposed to nihilism.

>>9039929
Bill Nye forgot that people like him for his old TV show, not for his scientific knowledge

Because philosophy is fucking [math]\mathcal{gay}[/math]

>>9041217
Reminder that Heisenberg most likely never said this.

>>9041420
>>9041416
Metaphysics and ontology are the study of the very mechanisms that let you interpret and understand the result of an experiment and come to conclusions based off that. It's by studying these things that one have a better understanding of how we judge things to be true or worthy of being called so. Any good scientist who wants his work and reasoning to have substance should ultimately think about the questions that arise from fields like these.

Sure, you don't need to know or study them if you want to be some lab-dweller with little intellectual value as a human being apart from the technical knowledge of your field that no-one who isn't in it gives a fuck about.

>>9039929
Germans (and Danes) are autistic, who knew?

>>9041420

Can you provide evidence that there has been an invasion of /his/ and /lit/?

File: hobbes.jpg (89KB, 729x768px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 729x768px

>>9039929
Philosophy graduate here. Philosophy is useful if you want to become a politician or a journalist. That's about it. If you want to do law then you should do a law degree - don't waste time/money doing philosophy first.

STEM is much more lucrative and I wish to God I had done it.

Philosophy is interesting, but just fucking unnecessary for 99% of people.

Anyway, picture related is one of my favourite philosophers - political philosophy in this case of course. I think political philosophy is one of the best branches, because it has an actual practical application.

>>9040067
>>9040071
>Only science and mathematics are useful and make discoveries, (the rest of) philosophy doesn't
1. Math and science don't have the same methods, in fact math is much closer to classical philosophy methodologically, so this supposed exclusive category of "useful & fruitful" disciplines is disunified and incohesive.
2. Astronomy, history, medicine, the studies of engineering and architecture, geography, meteorology, biology, psychology, logic, literary theory, grammar, and rhetoric (plus other disciplines) were established in ancient times, long before the "scientific revolution" invented "the scientific method," so either (a) they were somehow already sciences ages before the scientific revolution, or (b) they had no use and made no discoveries before the scientific revolution, or (c) non-sciences can be useful and make discoveries.
3. All of the canonical sciences were discovered by philosophy, including their basic methods and concepts. (The stereotypical scientific method grew out of two separate movements in epistemology and natural philosophy in the early modern period, the quantitative and experimentalist movements. And all foundational, methodological, conceptual, metadisciplinary, and taxonomical inquiries about all sciences are still philosophical.)
4. All views and arguments as to the value of science or philosophy belong to the disciplines known as philosophy of science and metaphilosophy. So the view that science is valuable and philosophy is not is a piece of philosophy and hence logically self-defeating.

>>9041303
Kek the top response made ms laugh more than it should have I think I have autism

>>9043165
while studying philosophy on university may be unnecessary, knowing major philosophical ideas should actually be very important for everyone, and especially scientist and lawyers

>>9041262
Actually he's Kenyan

>>9043340
For lawyers, it is certainly directly relevant, BUT, like I said, I would definitely recommend to somebody thinking of law that they do a law degree. Rather than do a philosophy degree first and then do a law conversion (that's what we have to do in the UK - I think the US might be slightly different).

As for a scientist, would it really benefit them? How so? All of the "science" that philosophers used to do under the name of "natural philosophy" is incredibly old and not really at all relevant to modern science.

I think I just have a jaded view. My philosophy degree made me much better at arguing than before, but that's about it. And it doesn't directly lead to a career. Although I sometimes think about maybe getting into journalism or something like that, and I definitely do think philosophy is directly relevant to that. Since journalism requires writing at length, and weighing up arguments, and writing persuasively.

>>9043419
what abour philosophy of science and epistemology? both are definitely important for science

>>9043424
I never actually did philosophy of science although I talked to people who did it - yes I guess you're probably right on that one actually. I remember them saying they got into quantum stuff. Can't remember exactly what. But it sounded pretty in-depth.

Is epistemology really that relevant for science? Maybe I guess... not exactly necessary though. I guess it can be quite interesting though. E.g. Hume's problem of induction.

My favourite bit of epistemology that I studied would be Gettier's paper if you're familiar with it, although it wouldn't be incredibly relevant to scientists. Just quite amusing really. That this guy managed to destroy a 2,000 year old definition of knowledge in just three pages.

>>9039929

>why doesn't a materialist state care about philosophy

Gee I wonder why.

>>9043447
Materialism is a position in philosophy though. The position I usually ended up taking.

>>9041420
This is actually the first time i committed such blatant fallacy as shifting the burden of proof, i woul like to apologize for that.

But my previous points stand, and i showed evidence that it does. Philosophy of science is to this day important for developing and enhancing scientific method.
>Rudolf Carnap
>Willard Van Orman Quine
>Karl Popper
All of these guys were important for development in scientific method and logic.

I agree that not every philosophy is usefull, but to throw all of it under the bus just isn't fair.

>>9041402
> argument about epistemioloty and meta-physics
> end with "Seriously, eat a dick"
I love 4chan

>>9042956
That's not remotely true. You will never learn in a metaphysics or ontology course how to conduct scientific studies and how to interpret them and expand over them. If you are interested in analyzing if science describes and explains reality, or if it's just models fit for humans or whatever, then philosophy is the way to go. But seriously, your point is equivalent of me saying you can't learn logic without math, because mathematical logic exists and draws fr a lot of complex math that is not taught in any philosophy course (I mean topology and analysis). What I do with my intellectual pursuits is my thing, and If i prefer learning more mathematics or other subjects instead of philosophy is perfectly fine and will have no serious impact to my main body of work, while I also agree everyone here who thinks le science le solves anything XD are the retards who give science a bad name, though I know a lot of brilliant scientist who think this way.

>>9039929
>american (((scientists)))
none of them contributed anything to any scientific field.

>>9043712
you can learn logic without math, but can you really learn good math without logic?
Science is build upon philosophy, not the other way around..
That said you can learn science without philosophy, but knowing philosophical principles behind science help quite a bit.

>>9042633
He did and many of the leading quantum physicists, were convinced that their discoveries put an end to a mechanical and material understanding of the cosmos. Most of them believed in pantheism or panpsychism of some sort.

>>9043906
>Can you learn good math without logic
Absolutely. You obviously need your basic logic to understand most proof techniques, but in no sense you need to have a proper course as this can be thought in algebra.

And no, this meme need to end, science is absolutely not built upon philosphy. I can't comprehend how is that philosphers have such a poor understanding of the history of their field. A classical philosopher was someone who, after years of studying, managed to obtain a proper perspective on life based on proper rational methods. This meant mastering a wide range of subjects which inclued math a ndnatural philosophy. Yea, to Plato's concern, most philosophy majors or Grads aren't philosophers (because most of them leave their HS math knowledge in HS).

This "natural philosophy" was just trying to understand rationally how the world works which is a subject that has existed since humanity tried to make sense of the universe around us. It's called philosophy, because back then you really didn't had specialized individuals, but at most individualsw who shinned in a particular field. Natural philosophy evolved and became what we called science, but I don't get how this implies that science is built upon philosphy when philosphy as we know nowdays really has only exited since the 19 hundreds. Philosophy changed from a term coined to represent knowledge and wisdom in general, to represent a particular academic field composed of various subjects, just as science did. Academic philosophy is a completely different concept and deals with much more niche things that doesn't have this all encompassing grasp people claim it has. It deals with more fundamental things, for sure, but that doesn't imply anything like I said about logic and set theory in math.

And yea, I know that learning whatever academic subject you can aids massively in your understanding of the world, but I don't get why philosophers act as everyone is a cave dwelling retard without it.

>>9040110
So, where is this ban on research you are talking about? I hope you're not talking about clickbait headlines, that would make me really doubt your intelligence