/lit/ - Literature

>progress

OP is clinically retarded.

>>15449930
Philosophy is not a science.
Thread hidden.

>>15450123
math isn't a science either, but it made real progress because it contains real substance and rigor. philosophy is shallow word play.

>>15450144
math is a science. and philosophy has made progress. you would know had you read any

Philosophy includes logic, which has made progress. BTFO

>>15450149
maths doesnt feel like a science in the sense that the traditional scientific method isnt carried out, through experimentation, a method used in all 3 natural sciences.

>>15449930
>op
>has not made progress
why do you have the cognitive abilities of a child?

>>15450149
>math is a science

either way, whether or not math is a science doesn't change the fact that philosophy is a stagnant waste of time.

>>15450177
Philosophy is the science of all sciences.

>>15450193
Philosophy invented and refined the scientific method. Kuhn and Popper are obligatory reading if you want to be a scientist.

>philosophy hasn't progressed
???

>>15450200
Plato refuted your definition 2500 years ago.

>>15450200
this is the cope of all copes

>>15450201
no they aren't. all their points are self-evident to scientists, the only people who read them are philosocucks

>>15450205
you don't know any philosophy at all do you. some philosophers even argue that you shouldn't judge philosophy by progress as a cope.

>>15449930
WHY DO YOU FUCKS KEEP MAKING THE SAME SHITTY THREAD EVERY DAY.

>>15450200
Nope, philosophy is the science of morality

>>15450221
more like an evolution than a progress. philosophy is the long conversation.

>>15450144
That is a philosophical position numbnuts. Critique of purpose and logic is philosophy. A philosophical position is presupposes in science and other feilds. Tell me, what is the purpose of science? Because i want to? And what if someone wants something different? Sience is a process of producing means, philosophy is a process of producing ends.

>>15449930

>>15450186
i will grant you that. but any attempt to formulate what science is or isn't is doomed. the form of experimentation used within any field is different, and experiments in themselves presuppose the truth of a theory they are testing. how do you experimentally test natural selection? any evidence you may find will not falsify it, since it will be explainable using it. no matter how much we meme on social science, it is a science in its own right - it also exhibits research and analysis of data. and if you disqualify social science, economics, etc you end up with an idea of 'science' that only applies to a few specific fields, which is pretty useless.

>>15450201
Kuhn and Popper are a good starting point, but philosophy of science has progressed far beyond that. Especially Popper; his whole project rests on rejecting the acceptance of theories as true (and only corroboration/falsification), and yet his view of science justifies picking theories with how close they are to being 'true'. It is epistemologically contradictory. I recommend James Ladyman, or Van Fraassen if you want a tighter discussion of philosophy of science.

t. procrastinating philsci student

>>15449930

>Mathematics
>made clear progress
>Physics
>Deferred to Mathematicians
>Biology
>Deferred to Chemistry
>Social Sciences
>Assumed too much and deferred to Biology
>Cognitive Science
>Deferred to itself
>Philosophy
>???

>>15450283
epic. if biology is deferred to chemistry, which deferred to physics, which deferred to maths, why can't a mathematician explain why you're such a moron?

>>15450069
This but also ITT: What is history of philosophy? There's literally a subdiscipline that tracks this. You're a retard if you can't see a clear line from the ancients through to at least Kant.

>>15450200
>>15450243

Ethics is certainly one of the remaining fields of philosophy but what about the other, commonly acknowledged subfields: epistemology, aesthetics, and metaphysics?

Philosophy has, oddly enough, usually suffered from a bad reputation. Yesterday, it was the handmaiden to theology; today it serves woke culture or else revels in the gibberish of its credentialed practitioners.

But as long as there are questions that haven't been answered, there will be a place for it.

>>15450331
>epistemology
Definitely. When people are in different paradigms of thought and dont even know it, its like talking about colors to a blind man. Epistemology and ethics go hand and hand.

You can't determine progress until the end. Like an RTS game where you finally see your results. The changes in science now might be a regression for all we know.

>>15450304

Because Mathematicians defer to GOD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzbvcsNPEEE

>>15450243
>>15450331
I would describe it really as the science of virtue.

All of those fields used to be called 'natural philosophy'.

>>15450363
>Epistemology and ethics go hand in hand.
Can you elaborate on this?

>>15450479
fortunately they grew up

>>15450479
and with the introduction of real scientific rigor they left the confines of philosophy and actually became useful.

>>15450579
who came up with the idea of scientific rigor?

>>15450488
Sure. I get this alot today, especially online when people are arguing. It seems people argue to support or deny a specifc point rather than to understand a system, from the grounds up and create a position from that Paradigm. Then do the same for another. People too often assume that the other has the same basic conceptions of valid logic, scope, and methodology and conversations devolve into running around the bush. Like when a theist and non theist speaks. A libral and conservative. A mathematician and an artist.

The context of one perspective might be alien to another.

I am in a physics PhD program. Its a good program.

I know men who spend more time with their research than with their newborn sons.

Yay progress.

>>15449930
>progress

>>15450331

Bernard Lonergan

>>15449930
Based

>>15449930
>Correct. I do believe that progress without further qualification is the summum bonum and the best we can aspire to. Dedicating 12 hours a day of my life studying and working with chemical engineering has finally paid off, in that I have discovered a novel silicone coating that allows the company I work for to produce buttplugs 0.02% cheaper. How did you know this?

>>15451122
simp cuck bluepill cringe. beta virgin not redpill based. basedboy cope seethe dilate fag.

>>15449930
People are getting mad about progress being used but the point is philosophy has nothing like germ theory of heliocentrism to show for itself. You can make the same 2000 year old in an analytic metaphysics journal. There’s no semblance of consensus in philosophy which shows that if philosophical discoveries are even possible, every single philosopher has failed to communicate their ideas in such a way that allowed philosophy to “move forward”

>>15449930
MacIntyre addresses this problem in his book After Virtue. You should read it.

>>15450774
when you walk outside of your dumb laboratory and realize how vastly outnumbered you are by ethnic refuse from every corner of the world i want you to wonder whether your metric for progress is a good one

>>15449930
The results of science are compatible with multiple philosophical interpretations, so your point is idiotic. Wake us up when you find out what a cause is by experiments in your laboratory.

>>15450069
Just because you're a khv doesn't mean we haven't made great progress as a species

>>15451190
But that is his point. Philosophy doesn’t move forward, it just adds and more “interpretations” and formal tools to itself without ever resembling a real body of knowledge

>>15451173
Why are you posting about non-atheist philosophers friend

>>15451212
My point is that any interpretation of science presupposes the adoption of a philosophical framework

>>15451229
No it doesn’t. The questions philosophers ask about questions like “cause” “truth” etc are distinct from their everyday use, scientific or otherwise. You don’t need to know anything about the metaphysics of those categories to employ them accurately and intelligibly and that’s self evidence from the fact billions of people who have never touched a philosophical treatise do it everyday.

>>15451246
Sure but you can't have a full understanding of the world if you treat scientific claims just as a tool for making predictions. If you want to actually understand how the world works the findings of science have to be interpreted in a certain way. It is possible to agree with all of the findings of science and interpret them as afficient causes that work alongside teleological final causes. Or you can interpret them mechanically, where only efficient causes exist. Or you can interpret them in the Humean way where necessity doesn't exist and its all regular succession of events. Science can't tell you which interpretation is correct.

all of the science and math knowledge we have was started as philosophy though.