Philosophy

File: 1499215789857.png (346KB, 1829x788px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1829x788px

>inb4

>>9111265
Philosophy is only good for subjective matters, and that's only because science can't work with subjectivity.

>>9111273
No, science is a way to explain how the world works, philosophy is a way to give meaning to that world. Science is the study of God's creation while philosophy tries to understand God himself.

>>9111282
you just said the same thing in different words and made it cringey

>>9111294
Analytic Philosophy is not subjective.

>>9111265
That book is useless.

>>9111302
can you recommend me something to read then?

>>9111310
Yes.
Start with whatever introductory book you can find on mathematical logic and then go through more rigorous textbooks.
You will encounter Goedel's proof and you'll know more than any brainlet who read that book.
You will have a solid grasp of Set Theory as well.

Then, learn to play an instrument.
You can start with a guitar.
Download files from Ultimate Guitar or 911 Tabs and open them with Guitar Pro.
Play on hour every day then you'll be closer to Bach that any other retard who takes pleasure by reading that garbage.

>>9111337
So you are saying that Schopenhauer was not only crazy but in reality he was thinking too hard?

>>9111341
Schopenhauer was not a good philosopher, Wittgenstein destroyed him.

>>9111341
What are you talking about?
>>9111347
>Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein was a poser.
He did not understand Goedel's work as you can read on Wikipedia or on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
If you cannot derive something of value like in logic, mathematics or physics, your philosophy is worthless.

>>9111265
>is there a scientific study.
Biosemiotics.
>is philosophy related to science
The foundation of science is philosophy
>>9111273
>philosophy is only good for subjective matters
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
pleb.

>>9111357
>The foundation of science is philosophy
Tell me how did they count eclipses using philosophy you useless piece of junk.

The foundation of science is the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>>9111385
>what is epistemology and logic
Better go back to school. Trade school.

>>9111357
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>pleb.
cool argument my guy, try refuting what i said tho

File: z (7).png (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>9111396
you provided no argument to refute, you just spewed a retarded illiterate claim and got butthurt when it was met with the laughter it had coming

File: IMG_0026.jpg (53KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 645x968px

>>9111389
>the foundation of science is the scientific method
You mean empiricism and rationality(sensu epistemology) to experiment? The scientific method is just how you test a hypothesis you absolute brainlet. Underagedb&

>>9111396
and what would any refutation matter if merely subjective, unless you're asking for an objective scientific argument for the supposed subjective nature of philosophical argument, to which I cite the earlier >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>pleb.

>>9111404
Philosophy is useful for STRICTLY subjective matters. Anything objective is better done with science.

Refute the claim, brainlet. Name a single philosophy that deals with objectivity better than science.

File: 1o3pkgo64u6z.jpg (75KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 539x960px

>>9111394
>>9111407
Epistemology is Philosophy but Philosophy is not Epistemology, thus they are not the same thing.
Saying that Philosophy is the foundation of Science is an overstatement.
The principles of the scientific method are somewhat loose and are those which make the scientific community agree on a certain subject.

The same goes for Logic.
Arithmetic and Geometry have existed long before mathematics was encoded by the rules of Logic and Set Theory.
Even today, the vast majority of mathematicians and physicists relies on Naive Set Theory.

>>9111408

>>9111409
Who can you determine what is objective without philosophy?
Objectivity is a philosophical concept you idiot. Science is subjective, it's hard to see what they are not teaching you kids in middle school.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
>name a
Logic and ontology. Empiricism does not deal with objectivity.
Descartes blew you people the fuck out like 300 years ago, you don't understand how science works lmao.
>>9111424
Stop being obtuse
The scientific method is not the foundation of science you mong.

File: 1501680099369.png (71KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 900x900px

>>9111441
>Science is subjective
Science is an assertion about reality, therefore it isn't subjetive since reality is objective xDDD

Philosophy is AT LEAST, the historical reason science exists, and at most science is nothing more than natural philosophy using the empirical method.
Google "The demarcation problem" if you don't want to be a stem virgin, and want to be a natural philosopher chad.

File: 14102669_1372338502781592_351644134855200563_n.jpg (14KB, 290x395px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 290x395px

>>9111466
Science is about consensus and approximations, not the truth whatever it may be. Any scientist doing science will tell you that.
You are being incredibly retarded pls stop.

>>9111472
>Science is about consensus and approximations, not the truth whatever it may be.
That's why science sucks, we need apriori shit.

>>9111472
>A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community but is no longer considered to be an adequate or complete description of reality, or is considered to be simply false. This label does not cover protoscientific or fringe science theories with limited support in the scientific community. Also, it does not mean theories that were never widely accepted. Some theories that were only supported under specific political authorities, such as Lysenkoism, may also be described as obsolete or superseded. All of Newtonian physics is so satisfactory for most purposes that it is more widely used except at velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, and simpler Newtonian but not relativistic mechanics is usually taught in schools. Another case is the theory that the earth is approximately flat; while it has for centuries been known to be wrong for long distances, considering part of the earth's surface as flat is usually sufficient for many maps covering areas that are not extremely large, and surveying.

>In some cases a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. In other cases an existing theory is replaced by a new theory that retains significant elements of the earlier theory; in these cases, the older theory is often still useful for many purposes, and may be more easily understood than the complete theory and lead to simpler calculations. An example of this is the use of Newtonian physics, which differs from the currently accepted relativistic physics by a factor that is negligibly small at velocities much lower than that of light.

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

>>9111441
Why don't you fucking read Kuhn you mongoloid negroid.

>>9111483
Why did you post this?

>>9111466
Wew lad
>>9111484
Why don't you have anything to say for yourself?

>>9111467
>Philosophy is AT LEAST, the historical reason science exists
No it isn't, you revisionist piece of shit.
Hopefully you will die in your sleep tonight.

PhD = Doctor of Philosophy

>>9111542
Ok then tell me:
1. What is science?
2. When did it start?
3. Who were the first scientists?

>>9111550
>PhD = Doctor of Philosophy
That's an irrefutable proof Sir.

>>9111561
>1. What is science?
Assertion of reality
>2. When did it start?
When the world was born 6k years ago
>3. Who were the first scientists?
Jesus and Newton

>>9111561
Lunar cycles, eclipses, calendars, etc... which deal with agriculture and religion.
Then you have geometry for architecture and arithmetic for accounting.
You see that most of these stem from practical problems and in very ancient times.
These methods historically refined themselves with Galileo and the scientific method.
Science has always had a course of its own, even if some famous scientists and mathematicians after Galileo and until the first part of the previous century have been eminent philosophers.

>>9111575
Jesus was a scientist? m8 wat

Now please articulate some of your own thoughts instead of smug replies.

>>9111575
Sure mate
>>9111576
>Lunar cycles, eclipses, calendars, agriculture, religion, geometry, architecture, arithmetic, accounting
That's a whole bunch of non science there mah boi.
>Galileo and the scientific method
Science didn't exist even as a word back then. You can't retroactively call someone a scientist because they had similar methodology.
They didn't call themselves scientists, because there was no science back then, there was natural philosophy and alchemy and shit. That was my entire point.

>>9111602
You are a clueless moron, out of touch with reality and who has never developed a thought of his own.

Consider the following. Simpler architecture is based on empirical observation and so was back then.
Walls too thin and high would crumble so standard heights and widths were established within a certain tribe.
Not only that, but methods, construction materials, rules for including windows and doors, etc...
All of these were refined through experience (read experiments) and the SAME RULES would yield the SAME RELIABLE HOUSINGS (to a certain extent).

We can make a similar argument for eclipse calculations.
I've read about this many years ago so I don't remember much.
Older methods were set aside on the grounds of actual observations; the Antikythera mechanism did not originate overnight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

A lot of findings, from the most ancient cultures to the middle ages, were dictated by common sense.
That is not to say that commons sense governed all of the activities of the past, as it does not today.
Nowadays we loosely codify that common sense in the scientific method.
The scientific method is not a set of axioms and varies based on historical period and context.
I will not provide a reference but I'm sure you will find a lot of useful links on Wikipedia.

>>9111634
Trial and error, and learning from experience does not equal science, if you're going by that logic you could say that the caveman that invented fire was a scientist. Or that Aristotle was a sociologist.
Did you know some early christian theologians were claiming Plato was some sort of proto christian, just that he didn't know it. You're doing the same thing, ignoring history either from ignorance or some sort of new age religion of science.
>>9111645
Again common sense isn't science. If anything science is opposed to common sense. It encourages skepticism and questioning common sense. What you probably meant was "reason" was codified in the scientific method. But that's debatable I'll give you that. It's the continental vs Anglo divide. By the way you reason i can 100% guarantee you're an Anglo.

In conclusion, you're wrong. Read a book.

>>9111577
yes he knows everything about reality