Why do scientists hate philosophy?

I think "hate" is the wrong word...

most scientists don't "hate" philosophy, but find it boring, uninteresting or not important to their direct field

scientists also don't like it when philosophers tell them how to do science

>>9048063
I'm just frustrated how many involved in the science community try to evade the fact that nobody's got an answer for why we even exist. The Big Bang theory doesn't answer all the questions, and there's no reason to pretend that it does.

>>9048067
dude what?
you sound like someone who's annoyed with historians for depicting how world war 2 started, saying it doesn't answer all questions as to why mcdonalds is such a flourishing business.

you may draw some conclusions from it, but of course it doesnt explain everything on it's own.

>>9048067
Big bang sort of does answer that question, in the sense that it shows our existence is purely incidental and has no deeper meaning.

>>9048067
I've never heard a good scientist say that it does give all the answers. They say it's a good picture of how things started, but never claim to know what happened to cause it. They give us hypothesises as to how they think it may have happened, but never claim these to be a solid theory.

File: 1500086899423.png (181KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 625x626px

>>9048067

I thought this was actually going to be a relevant thread on the role of logic and philosophy in science. But no, we get philosopher of the gaps...

>>9048056
Not true. Um a scientist and I admit Philosophy are very relevant.

File: image_4.jpg (542KB, 595x842px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 595x842px

>>9048083
>Big bang sort of does answer that question, in the sense that it shows our existence is purely incidental and has no deeper meaning.
Is there evidence that the big bang happened completely by accident?

And also, science is unable to prove anything, it can only provide evidence. Thus, it can never provide a definitive answer to life's important questions. Only the Bible, inspired by our Creator, can.

>>9048067
Philosophers don't pretend to answer this question either, they work on very specific problems such as the mind-body problem or the hard problem of consciousness. If you want people to give you answers to these questions join a religious organization.

>>9048056
Philosophy is a hobby, not something to go $100k in debt and spend years of your life directly studying which will result in being unemployable but now with $100k in debt.

They like to talk about things they don't understand e.g. Quantum Mechanics

>>9048056
I dislike philosophers because they attempt to fool other people into thinking they are intellectuals by simply having opinions.

An opinion does not make you an intellectual, it makes you a commentator. To be an intellectual you must have facts and the only ones who have facts are scientists are mathematicians.

>>9048167
this most philosophers have a childish or elementary understanding of quantum mechanics, and physics in general

>>9048056
Modern philosophy is all a load of bullshit. Aristotle made the last meaningful contributions to philosophy at a foundational level.

I hold the opposite view as the elitist idiot above me, he is probably from /lit/. I've found some contemporary philosophy which actually tries to be useful to science. Now what I absolutely dislike is the constant masturbating of classical philosophy.
Somehow thousands of people think that these works are incredibly insightful. And I am not arguing they do not have something insightful, but please for the love of God, put the insightful stuff in textbooks and ignore the rest. And those who want to know more can read the original.

But can we please stop with the masturbating over reading original philosophical works? There is a lot of insightful science which actually incorporates philosophy or debunks them, let's move forward from there.

>>9048056
Because if preserving your opinion means refusing to subject it to mathematical scrutiny, your opinion is probably worthless.

>>9048197
this so much

>>9048319
Post-post, I think this post >>9048197 better articulated what I meant to say
Though what I said is still how I think about it, just wish I had put it better in words

>>9048330
Binary thinking is a sign of an immature mind.

>>9048067
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

File: IMG_1773.png (115KB, 246x238px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 246x238px

>>9048056
I don't entirely believe that scientists hate philosophy.

The thing about philosophy is that it is subjective and is often regarded as very important by those who follow it. Thus, philosophy can undertake a sort of doctrine for life and limits thought. Philosophy aims to combine human reasoning, human emotions, and somewhat common views of the world into a theory that cannot be proven other than by convincing yourself it's right. It's an acquired thought, and because of its lack scrutiny it is nothing more than an opinion.

Whereas science and math attempt to find the most impartial theory of the world around us. It may or may not be rational. It is a search for an unbiased truth. And because of the lack of bias I think scientists prefer science over philosophy. It is more practical for all to have a system where everyone can be heard and proved right or wrong rather than a system where rules are followed without much question.

Though I'm sure given the chance, some scientists would entertain the idea of philosophy for a while, if not indefinitely, we are humans after all ( I assume most of us are ) and have a tendency to have opinions. But I think the power of science has lead many to believe that man is above all and has the power to do anything. This leads to many atheist scientists, which I think mimics what we have now in society. Which is why most theories assume life is just a consequence of the Big Bang.

Neither philosophy nor theory will ever perfectly describe everything just as a sculptor will never match its muse, but we can get closer each time. We can never know anything fully, godel proved it and Descartes hinted at it.

>>9048056
Scientists don't hate philosophy. I studied philosophy before going into science.

If anything, I'm just bored of would-be philosophers thinking they know everything purely by logic and without knowledge pertaining to what they're talking about.
Basically this guy >>9048197 knows what's up. There's this flawed notion that so long as you don't accidentally contradict yourself, you actually know everything and are above everyone else, and it's just so sadly misguided that these people are just fucking miserable to be around.

"Logic is the -beginning- of wisdom" is a Spock quote that comes to mind.

Only autistic cucks hate philosophy.

Science may as well be a branch of philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

>>9048482
I dont hate philosophy as a subject, I hate people who use philosophy improperly. Same with science. and hell yes i get to define what "proper use" is, in my reality

>>9048067
>I'm just frustrated how many involved in the science community try to evade the fact that nobody's got an answer for why we even exist.
That's because there is no reason. The "why" is an animal thing, there is no "why" in the functions of nature outside of animals projecting. The universe is as it is, ultimately there is no purpose to it's inception.

>>9048056
no one hates philosophy as an action

no one hates thorough philosophy relevant to science and other applications

many hate philosophy as in retarded language and conceptual games masquerading as insightful and/or as the secrets of the universe

>>9048083
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
: ^ )

>>9048056
Science is "how", philosophy is "why". If your job was to know how machines work you arent all that concerned with why the machine is there in the first place.

>>9048067
The Big Bang is just a mechanism and nobody can really claim its the answer to everything in life. The point of it is that its the starting point of our physical universe as we can observe it, and it has absolutely no relation to WHY we exist. If you care so much about existential questions you should read deeper into the field of philosophy itself instead of depending on a fundamentally different field thats not even focused on the questions you want answered.

Scientists don't hate philosophy. Autists like >>9048197 hate philosophy because they cannot into basic epistemology.

I'm a scientist and I like philosophy. Other scientists I know like philosophy too.

>>9048085
the scienctific method can never definitively PROVE anything, it can only DISPROVE the hypotheses set forth. by disproving the null hypothesis one can infer that the alternative hypothesis presented is true; however, there's always the possibility that the alternative hypothesis presented isn't taking something into account, either because it wasn't considered or isn't even yet known.

just because we want to find all of the answers, it doesn't mean that the evidence to prove it is within our reach as of this point. and any scientist who tried to conjure up an explanation for why we exist without the evidence to back up their claim would be purely guessing