/lit/ - Literature

>>22536362
Philosophy of science addresses this.

>>22536375
can you expand on that?

>>22536362
Because they are seething wordcels.
Like everyone else, they believe that the stuff they do is valuable, even when this flies in the face of all evidence.
Being "into philosophy" is usually a consequence of failing at everything else, most of all math.

>>22536362
A lot of traditionalists and classicists see science and technology as a convenient strawman to blame for all societal ills. Science demands rigour which severly limits its scope of knowledge, hence the idea that science is "narrowminded" and averse of metaphysical/mystical affectations. Also christcuck larpers, these are just young adults who can't get laid and declare the West as having fallen.

>>22536362
This was not always the case. I suspect it's contrarianism, like many things these days, a reaction against the new atheist "le heckin science" crowd and their odious moralising. Which is certainly something to be critical of, but the contrarianism just pushes it into opposing all their views, including their misrepresentation of the scientific process, regardless of the reason. More a reflection on the absolute state of modern political and intellectual discourse than anything else.

>>22536362

A lot of great scientists appreciate and understand the role of philosophy. Like Einstein having inspo from Leibniz.

Since the rise of STEM in the populous there is less an emphasis on critical thinking but brute memorization which leads to grand assumptions. A lot of scientists today are fundamental materialists and expand science to past it's notions because they lack some fundamental understanding of its methodology. This is fine if you want to mass produce science.

Philosophy-heads who critique science like this are usually reacting to these sorta people; it is just counter-rage. Or else, you have some Foucault critique of science having cultural bias and not representing reality which is valid.

You can disagree with the fundamentals and philosophy of science, but it is not possible to disagree with its utility.

>>22536362
I used to be quite pro science but I mean the more you learn the more you realize how limited it is and how dogmatic it is too. Its so weird that such a limited thing is used by so many to make conclusive statements about things that it isn't even remotely equipped to handle measuring. And then theres the fact that it takes just as many liberties and assumption that cant be verified and not only cant be verified but also fall apart at times with creating a model of the universe.
scientist method is a limited tool wherein if you don't actually have a way to measure something then just shut up about it in any kind of scientific sense, its just inapplicable

>>22536415
>This was not always the case.
Oh?

Reminder that academic dogmatism simply replaced religious dogmatism in the west; going from churches using personal attacks to suppress new ideas to the universities using personal attacks to do the same thing. The latter has less excuse of ignorance because one would suppose a university board was comprised of people who had heard of the scientific method and understood that ad hominems are not valid refutations.

But I would blame the unwillingness to really gut religion back in the day that led to this dogmatism and consensus based pseudo-elitism carrying along.

>>22536430

I think you can agree though that universities are better than churches in the category of dogmatism. It is still there but less so, either way dogmatism is comfy.

Just wait.

>>22536429
>dogma
oh snap

I think really there's just too much personal ambition on the part of groups to declare things to be set in stone; only to have to admit that they were wrong later on, which they don't like to do or do very quietly and never apologize or learn lessons not to attack people like they did.

In that sense academia became a kind of priest-class for the secular society; carrying on the religious terminology like "professor, profession, professing; someone who verbally affirms a thing (in faith rather than proof)," and perhaps overall people are nervous to admit that there is plenty that hasn't been discovered yet and coupled with a strong desire to declare that things as yet unexplored are already fathomed, which is the appeal of religion: to defer to a white frocked person.

>>22536432
both are wrong and will cause errors in the society for the same reason; making them both pointless but making universities a bit more pointless because they're not tarnishing the name of a primitive deity but are tarnishing the name of all human inquiry.

>>22536362
That may just be your experiences here on 4chinz. Alot of users here are anti-science because they are creationist trad-larping, or because they are too stupid to understand it. This board is mostly humanities posters, and there is nothing wrong with that, with that said though they don't possess much scientific knowledge and the typical 4chinz knee-jerk reaction is to adopt a contrarian myopic opinion of something you don't understand. There are posters here who genuinely believe the earth is flat. Go to other places where philosophy is discussed and it's a completely different attitude in my experience.

>>22536439
>other places
such as

>>22536439
>Go to other places where philosophy is discussed
where would those places be?

>>22536438

You think of it as too black and white, they both have different scales of problems. Obviously universities still produce a ton of useful work, way more than the church, they don't cause errors at the same scale.

Religion are inherently dogmatic, but universities aren't.

>>22536446
>>22536447
Scienceforums.net might be interesting to you if you are interested in chatting about science as well as philosophy. They have boards for specific sciences, a philosophy board and a general discussion board.

It’s not that we hate science it’s that we hate scientists. There’s also the issue of science’s epistemological fealty to philosophy and science’s liaisons with ideology which opens it to attack from a socio-cultural perspective which unalterably takes the form of philosophical discourse but for 90% of the “science deniers” the disdain comes primarily from how insufferably cunty and condescending they are in their small little mathematically modeled world. They discovered a new force of nature at the Fermi lab this week: that’s cool, love to see it. Undoubtedly they’ll turn it into a chance to disparage the seeming lack of philosophical progression in measure to that accomplishment and bellyache about the lack of funding and whatever new political thing is hip to take shots at. In short, they’re the tools of power and they’re ostentatious about it.

>>22536415
i hate this smarmy puddlebrain so much

>>22536393
>Also christcuck larpers, these are just young adults who can't get laid and declare the West as having fallen.

A decade ago it was the atheists who couldn’t get laid (fedoras, bad body odor, a dog-eared copy of the God Delusion in moms basement next to a vile piss jug) but I can hardly expect anyone to keep a consistent narrative, especially nowadays. So which one is it?

>>22536448
>Religion are inherently dogmatic, but universities aren't.

I’d say the later is as well. It’s nepotism.

>>22536448
>>22536474
It's not nepotism, it's literally Dogma; I'm not using that word as a metaphor. The idea that a group of humans can come together and all agree that up s down and punish others who disagree is the same cognitive failure that the religion came out of; it is 1) not a submission to the evidence on their part, 2) the consensus agreement when it is wrong has dire consequences as the society believes those people are supposed to know what they're talking about far moreso than the munchkin who takes a religious cleric seriously.

it's definitely worse but my point was that 'both' are inferior because they stem from the same mentality on the part of the people drawn to those 'professions'; if a closed-minded prick wished to gratify himself by posturing as an authority in 1400 he would join the church and use theology, if the same person wished the same today he would join a university and use some other 'ology'.

Its not inconsequential that universities came from and persist in the framework of the theocracy they came from, but this is totally understandable as to why and how they would end up the same as the theocrats and how modern pol, for instance, would resemble the schismatism of western religions: the institution is a brainwashing camp, replacing theocratic ideology with any other ideology is meaningless as the end product is the belligerent and stupid brainwashed person.

>>22536495
I see your point and agree, seriously should’ve have gutted all of the initial theology.

Just to restate though that I do believe there exists a university that can be not dogmatic.

Just as the university as it came out of the church shedded some of its dogmatism

>>22536362
>muh method

The accretion of facts is not knowledge as such.

What is even the use case for scientists? It's evident that the genuine innovation in science comes from a select few gifted individuals, who ironically synthesize philosophy and positivism in order to interpret material world in a new way, but 99% of scientists either waste everyone's time and money in education, or conduct worthless researches and gather data that will soon be supplemented by AI algorithms. At least as far as philosophers go, their candidacy can be suggested for subjective fields of human activity, from politics to economics, to psychology and morality, to ethics and judicial system. But seemingly even science-is-fucking-awesome crowd doesn't want a technocrat leader.

>>22536362
it's a reaction to the anti-philosophy of modern scientists, as exemplified by >>22536415
scientists started it.
historically there was no delineation between a scientist and a philosopher, you were both or none.

>>22536473
>So which one is it?
Both. The edgy atheists back then became the edgy tradlarpers of today.

>>22536362
First, what do you mean by "people who are into philosophy"? Do you mean midwit philosophy enthusiasts who like namedropping a bunch of French faggots to sound like they're educated? In that case >>22536384 is your answer.
If we're talking actual philosophers then there are many ways you can be considered "anti-science". Outlining what science is and what it's scope and limits are is one of the jobs of philosophy and often statements like "Science cannot do X" are quickly labelled "anti-science" by the heckin-love-science crowd. The mere suggestion that something might be outside the scope of science is sacrilege to them.
I don't think serious philosophers believe that there are better ways of understanding what matter is made of than doing physics and chemistry. (Sure, there are a few cranks out there like that feminist who claimed that the speed of light is a sexist concept, but that is more a case of the most absurd voices being amplified to drive some kind of agenda.) Especially when we're talking about fields outside of natural sciences that get the label science (economics, psychology, social "science") one should be critical given their shitty track records. Often enough, being referred to as The Science™ lends credibility to these fields where it isn't at all deserved.
Another issue is indeed arrogance and obtuseness of some scientists (even serious ones) when it comes to topics of philosophy. I am myself and ex-scientist but there is nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something like qualia and just getting a blank stare and "It's just neurons, duh!".

>>22536519
>but 99% of scientists either waste everyone's time and money in education, or conduct worthless researches and gather data that will soon be supplemented by AI algorithms
Great advances have to be adapted to all facets of living, which is rarely the work of the originator, there's an argument to be made that the academic systems shits out a lot of useless works soley to hand out degrees, but appart from social science of psychology a lot of scientific work is small time adapation of larger developments. And even dead end science has it's use if done correctly.

>>22536473
If you have an opinion at all you're a virgin. Normies don't think.

>>22536362
Imagine having a coherent worldview in relation to different topics. New age atheists have faith in a universe that created them accidently, yet propose that science is a great achievement. Incoherence. The fact that they are so low-level in their understanding of the world desppite their PhDs and fame is what people get bothered by.

Imagine thinking that explaining phenomena would be enough for people to find salvation and peace in this world. What do scientists promise me? That my life has no inherent value? Yet they pretty much all want fame in an accidental universe. They are incoherent.

>>22536519
>What is even the use case for scientists? It's evident that the genuine innovation in science comes from a select few gifted individuals, who ironically synthesize philosophy and positivism in order to interpret material world in a new way, but 99% of scientists either waste everyone's time and money in education, or conduct worthless researches and gather data that will soon be supplemented by AI algorithms.
You can make these kinds of pareto arguments for just about any academic subject. 99% of philosophers just regurgitate what has been said before by smarter people than them.
>But seemingly even science-is-fucking-awesome crowd doesn't want a technocrat leader.
I'd say being aware of your strengths and weaknesses is a good thing
>At least as far as philosophers go, their candidacy can be suggested for subjective fields of human activity, from politics to economics, to psychology and morality, to ethics and judicial system.
lol lmao

>>22536550
What you're describing is the job of inventors and engineers, who are kind of scientists, in the same sense as a footsoldier and general are both kind of warriors. Their aims are pragmatic rather than scientific, their only interest is transforming the technology from abstract into utility.

>>22536563
>What you're describing is the job of inventors and engineers, who are kind of scientists
Not kind of, they're scientists, how would you define science that an inventor or engineer would only "kind of" partake in it? There might be a grey zone when it comes to inventors coming up with shit like scrub daddy, but on principle it's part of that process
>their only interest is transforming the technology from abstract into utility
Also a scientific process. To make the abstract work in utility is a progress of discovery and refinment, which has happend throughout the scientific disciplines. Or are you saying pragmatism and scientific thought are opposites?

>>22536577
>Or are you saying pragmatism and scientific thought are opposites?
No I'm saying they're irrelevant to each other. A scientist shouldn't care if his research will be useful to humanity. If we can describe the chemical composition of a distant galaxy we'll draw fuckall utility from it, but it will be nonetheless an incredible scientific feat. The idea of "utility" itself is vague. Are nuclear bombs useful, or just terrible? Is it worth it to shove untested vaccines on the population in case of a pandemic? If we create a true AI should it be given human rights? Whoa it's almost like there's a necessity for some sort of wisdom-based type of knowledge to decide these things...

>>22536495
Words, words, words. Religion is prior to everything. Natural law or its conception henceforth is what united humans before the discovery of race. Only thing prior to that is language and if your tribe cannot agree on a common consensus for grammar and syntax then no laws, celestial or otherwise, can develop. Furthermore, what can basic science teach us about ethics or morals that isn’t ultimately bound up in mathematics?

>>22536599
>No I'm saying they're irrelevant to each other. A scientist shouldn't care if his research will be useful to humanity
Pragmatic thought is by definition goal oriented not utilitarian, you still need to be pragmatic to devise a process to study the chemical composition of a distant galaxy, the process and tools to do this aren't conjured up from thing air.
And what's your point? I've disagreed with your original point that a few selected invidiuals are enough to drive scientific progress, when you actually need thousands of middle man adapting their knowledge for it to be usefull for society and further scientific research. The implications of whether or not scientific progress is valuable or good didn't come into play. You just have an odd definition of what science or scientists are

In my experience it is scientists who are anti-philosophy.

>>22536555
Obliviously that’s why they need science or religion to guide them. An aside though, women don’t have opinions at all and acquiring sex is quite easy for them. The conclusion seems to be if you want to have sex, be stupid.

>>22536625
>Religion is prior to everything.
The earliest priests were literally weather forecasters who used astrology to predict storms and crop seasons, they were doing science. Religion based on the fantasy or book of fables is a degeneration 'away' from the primal sciences.

>numbers, numbers, numbers
I think that's as much of a reductio absurdum / infinitum as when the religion pretends to have the total scoop on ethics and says "god says this so this is moral," which is considerably more stupid but at least the person measuring a thing and arriving at numeracy is aiming for accuracy of the thing he's measuring; it's less resembling the egotism of conforming to local dogma anyway.

>>22536510
si bueno

>>22536362
>Bad use of a parenthetical in opening question
Opinion discarded.

A friend of mine with a physics PhD once told me philosophy was pointless because Bertrand Russell had 'solved all that stuff'

>>22536362
They’re not. Just go on /sci/ the people who shitpost about hating science are all religious zealots. Also science doesn’t explain everything anyway so philosophy is still useful imo.

>>22536678
>logicians
gotta hate em

>>22536362
Those are people into religion, not philosophy.

>>22536362
Empirical worldview provides just an additional layer of illusion. As if there weren't enough already.

>>22536380
Not him but I can explain the philosophy of science. Most people totally misunderstand what science is and how it works. They don't understand the philosophy of science, which says that you cannot "prove" a theory. You can only test a hypothesis and observe the results. Even if the tests go as expected, this does not mean the theory is proven. Because science is based on doubt (as it should be), you cannot say for sure that the next time you test the hypothesis, the same thing will happen. You can be pretty sure, but you cannot "know", and therefore you can't technically prove any theories.

There's a saying that if you asked a room full of scientists whether the sun will come up tomorrow morning, they wouldn't be able to reach consensus. That is true scientific skepticism, not the reddit skepticism of people like Neil Degrasse Tyson or whoever is a popular atheist these days. Theirs is a misguided and unscientific skepticism.

For example, considering that we are aware of how little of the universe is beyond our understanding (dark matter, dark energy and such), how unscientific would it be to mock people for believing in angels and demons? That would be unscientific and unskeptical to close one's mind to those possibilities, yet atheism is wrongly equated with science. Therefore people who think science is at odds with religion really just don't understand science at all, and they are in fact treating science as a religion. For more, read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions

>>22536795
yeah bro science totally says there's a magical man in the sky

>>22536810
Learn to read

>>22536810
His name's Davis and wears a yellow raincoat, unironically the weight of 10,000 galaxies is on his shoulders and if ungrateful people wonder why he's so slack it's because he's making his way from planet to planet with a long list of people and is answering them in the order received.

>>22536744
Checked

my favourite part about science is that it tells us that different races have different IQs

The more philosophically literate you become the more tired you become of scientism, the philosophical view, widely held among scientists and many young people, which pretends to be "just science, bro", but is actually a scientifically unverifiable reductive materialism which is incapable of explaining a shocking number of basic components of reality (first-person perspectivalness, conscious experience, intentionality, teleology, free will, logical reasoning, the nature of phenomenal properties in general (colour, sound, touch, etc), the nature and existence of what are referred to nowadays as the "laws of nature", the existence of the material world, etc. What really grinds a lot of people's gears is how arrogant and dismissive of alternative views these people tend to be, despite the fundamental weakness of their own position.

>>22536900
>first-person perspectivalness, conscious experience, intentionality, teleology, free will, logical reasoning, the nature of phenomenal properties in general (colour, sound, touch, etc), the nature and existence
That all sounds like hippie bullshit bro.

>>22536810
Iliterate

>>22536900
"science cannot yet explain XYZ therefore the religion i grew up in is just absolutely true, bro!"

>>22536902
Only because you're philosophically illiterate. If I try to talk to my local car mechanic about the literary value of the work of Thomas Pynchon he will probably have something similar to say in response.

>>22536424
>You can disagree with the fundamentals and philosophy of science, but it is not possible to disagree with its utility.
I can because most discoveries are not made with the conscious application of the scientific method. science just likes to take credit for them.

>>22536915
Honest question: Why even bother to type something as stupid as that out?

>>22536916
Okay Frasier

is it safe to say that almost everything which science cannot explain, simply hasn't received enough attention and time for science to decipher?

>>22536920
because it's where your motivation is coming from and is obvious to everyone but yourself and your fellow cult shack members. Honest content.

>>22536673
why is it a bad use?

>>22536971
No. Not everything can be examined objectively.

>>22536975
like what?

>>22536973
Again: Why even bother wasting your own valuable time by typing such crap?

>>22536975
Why do you think there are things science can't explain? Maybe it just can't explain them yet.
And if you think they're not, like they're impossible to examine objectively (it's impossible to know this, but whatever), what would you use to explain them then? And wouldn't those explanations just be subjective gut feelings on the matter rather than an actual explanation?

>>22536981
2 replies from you w/ no refutation to my counter-argument

>>22536997
Hilarious of you to assume your posts deserve a "refutation".

>>22536900
>first-person perspectivalness, conscious experience, intentionality, teleology, free will, logical reasoning, the nature of phenomenal properties in general (colour, sound, touch, etc), the nature and existence of what are referred to nowadays as the "laws of nature", the existence of the material world
To be fair, philosophers cannot explain any of these things either, mostly they just give fancy names to them things and then act superior. Lots of unwarranted arrogance on both sides of this retarded debate.

>>22537047
The point is there is nothing superior about reductive materialism, as a philosophy, as compared to say dualism (substance-, property-, etc), idealism (absolute or otherwise), theism, neo-platonism, etc.

Everyone should respect the capacity of the scientific method to investigate the causal relations between instrumentally measurable objective phenomena. But all that gives you is accurate ways of describing such objective phenomena in essentially instrumentally verifiable terms. It does not give you a metaphysical or ontological account of anything. It is not a world-view. It's just an experimental methodology. It doesn't say anything beyond the limits of its measurable domain. The people who try to pretend it does are just ideologue, who are damaging the ability of science as a socially beneficial institution to function properly.

>>22536362
Often times people who say things like "science doesn't have all the answers" are seen as anti science. When really meany will laud science as a very useful and effective method of inquiry into reality. Its just not the only game in town and has several blind spots while also having a community (honestly probably a minority but a loud one) of people that will claim it has all the answers and everything else is bunk, putting philosophers in conversation in a defensive position. Couple that misunderstanding with the minority of those who actually do hate science for the reason that >>22536393
mentioned at you get an added guilt by association.

>>22537159
*meany should be many.

>>22537140
>The point is there is nothing superior about reductive materialism, as a philosophy, as compared to say dualism (substance-, property-, etc), idealism (absolute or otherwise), theism, neo-platonism, etc.
what are the major flaws with reductive materialism?

>>22537201
Read the fucking thread, dude.

>>22537201
NTA but I can point out one, that it reduces without then effectively building back to the complexity that it reduced from. It claims that it has the answers while simultaneously admitting that it only works on idealized, simplified models, which reality is not.

>>22537213
>that it reduces without then effectively building back to the complexity that it reduced from.
isn't that the point of understanding?

>>22537222
The point of understanding is to not actually understand?

>>22537227
that is not at all what you said
can you explain to me what is missing from reductive materialism? in as much concise detail as you can
please try to avoid generalized vague statements without examples

>>22537222
No. I think you are confusing simplifying something into something that isnt the full picture and getting the full picture and finding that it is simple.

>>22537240
so in what way does reductive materialism "only work on idealized, simplified models" in that case?
how much of the full picture do you have to include for it to count as something that's worth talking about?

>>22537244
Didn't say it wasn't worth talking about. Its an incomplete model with flaws. see >>22537159

>>22536362
Its not allways like that. Philosophy actually brought me closer to science. But there are people who still operate on "secret engredients" or "deep truth" levels so they often come into clash with science which often gives information contrary to postulations of such people.

>>22537252
okay

>>22537238
No. Stop being a lazy faggot, read through the thread, and if there is something you find confusing or don't understand, ask a specific question about it.

>>22536900
>first-person perspectivalness, conscious experience, intentionality, teleology, free will, logical reasoning, the nature of phenomenal properties in general (colour, sound, touch, etc), the nature and existence of what are referred to nowadays as the "laws of nature"

Because it is not concerned with "why are things way they are" anon. Not to mention half of the things you wrote are questionable even inside philosophy (there is more then one view on the object matter).
You can even ltrly make distinction between soi boi science and reall science by looking at what article is doing. If it is going into "why are the things way they are" instead of "how are things working" its basically pop-sci theory. Basicaly pjilosophy propetulated by scientific discoveries and interpretations of them. So not even a science honestly.

>>22536424
>A lot of great scientists appreciate and understand the role of philosophy. Like Einstein having inspo from Leibniz.
Leibniz was a brilliant mathematician, unlike XIX and XX century "philosophers"

Not anti‐science but anti‐scientism shilled by pseuds like Harris, Dawkins, Degrass Tyrone. Studying philosophy helped me it's scope and limitations and led to me appreciating it for what it actually is.

>>22537289
Are you under the impression you are contradicting anything I said?

>>22537159
Good post
>>22537140
Coming from neuroscience I've always found it a bit curious how little thought people gave to these kinds of questions. I would say calling their position reductive materialism would be a bit too generous because it implies that they've actually taken some time and thought about it. I'd rather call it refusialism, a kind off knee-jerk leaving the room response once anybody brings up consciousness.
It's also a bit understandable because there are plenty of crackpot mystics around who will eagerly provide you their nonsensical rambling "explanation" and you quickly learn to avoid these people.
I've never met anybody in science who acknowledged that the hard problem of consciousness is something interesting to think about while also not going full schizo about it.

>>22537297
In a sense I don't really mind this attitude among scientists, to the extent that philosophising is literally not part of their job description - it's not what they're getting paid to do, and reflecting on the hard problem will not enable them to do better neuroscience. But you are right, it is a refusal to think about certain things, and while that might be understandable and excusable, it is not something to be respected or admired.

>>22537296
No i am under impression of adding info.

>>22537319
Ok fair enough.

>>22537333
Nice trips
>checked

>>22537318
Philosophizing is a bit in their job description though because the scientific method is a philosophical method. Making hypothesis, coming up with sound experiments to gather data and interpreting the data afterward so that it can be built off of is all philosophy, the only part that really isn't is the setting up and performance of experiment. Now if you want to call yourself a technician, data analyst or theorist, you can focus on only parts of the scientific method in your day to day. But I think that if you want to call yourself a scientist philosophizing is definitely in your job description.

>>22536971
Maybe. But I think the field of science has become so unscientific that it would limit itself. Imagine for a moment that empirical evidence emerges suggesting the existence of a soul and an afterlife. Seeing that the field of science has become so dogmatic and unscientific in its approach to religion, we can imagine people like Sam Harris denying the new scientific findings in the name of science itself

I see dialectical materialism as the combination of science and philosophy. Engels wrote a lot about how philosophy should come from our observations of nature. I can't really summarize it that well but I am currently learning more about it in Anti-Duhring and it is pretty intriguing.

>>22537379
Thank God (pun intended) that scientific method does not care for personal opinion.

>>22537382
Well that makes sense since philosophy tallks about nature... and it allways did.
Ancient greeks didnt speak about something that is not.

>>22537384
Yes. But unfortunately scientists are still often unable to separate their opinions from the methods, and this is where science becomes dogmatic.

>>22537371
I don't agree. Coming up with testable hypotheses concerning entities which are functionally defined in terms of their causal powers (e.g. electrons defined in terms of size, mass, charge, etc), designing instrumental experiments to test the hypotheses via controllable quantitative variables, and interpreting the gathered data statistically for its inductive significance against control values, requires a backdrop of interrelated scientific theories within which the hypotheses and the gathered data can mean anything at all (this is the confirmation holism of the Duhem–Quine thesis), but all of this operates at a theoretical level independent of philosophy. All of this can be done without assuming any metaphysical (what kinds of things there really are) or ontological (what the fundamental nature of those things is) account of reality whatsoever, because the entities and properties of science are all functionally defined relative to the causal effects of their behaviour on empirical instruments. Everything in science is ultimately grounded in an instrumentalism that is inherently pre-philosophical.

>>22537391
Not him, but theorizing operates on an abstract, conceptual level, does it not? It is only on the hypothesis level that the theoretical concepts are operationalized. Wouldn't you say theorizing about abstract concepts is a philosophical activity? It's the whole reason that science used be called natural philosophy

>>22536415
>but the contrarianism just pushes it into opposing all their views
Yes.
Fuck science.
Fuck religion.
Embrace the primordial truth.

>>22536971
>is it safe to say that almost everything which science cannot explain
No. Science cannot explain immaterial things.
I'm still waiting for you niggers to empirically prove that 2+2=4.

Natural science is a subset of philosophy in that it is composed of reasoned statements about objective reality intended to be accepted by others. Modern "science" usually refers to materialistic measurement fetishism that presupposes the world is an empty immanent plane of meaningless shapes, yet also makes all kinds of hidden assumptions about transcendent norms ("laws" of nature) and entities ("space," "time") in order for the immanent plane to function. And when you ask them about the nature of their transcendent terms, they treat them AS immanent to the immanent plane, which is not only retarded, it's exactly the kind of retardation that philosophy is supposed to help with. But then they say "oh I don't do philosophy, I just do 'science'. Anyway, the spacetime continuum is a thing within the spacetime continuum."

>>22537403

>>22537027
3rd reply w/ no refutation,

i take this as your conscious awareness that your position is indefensible

>>22537403
>No. Science cannot explain immaterial things.
>I'm still waiting for you niggers to empirically prove that 2+2=4.
now this is hilarious, do you see the pits of insanity that absurdity begets when you're so in love with a religion that material reality and logic itself no longer phases you. dangerous.

>>22537379
This is just retarded strawmanning. Do you actually think Sam Harris is some kind of representative for the scientific community? In that case, he really did a number on yoy.

>>22536362
Metaphysics (philosophy) is the purest science.

>>22537440
>empirical proof
>none to be found

>>22536362
Science is bullshit, philosophy is bullshit. Most people just go through their grass is greener on the other side period.

>>22537447
Prove to me empirically that you exist lil nigga otherwise shut the fuck illusory lil nigga

>>22536447
>>22536446
r/askphilosophy has a pretty heavy naturalist/scientist bias, lesswrong as well.

>>22537443
He's just an easy example I used to illustrate my point, but you don't know the history of science if you think he's the only dogmatist. That's what happens every few decades in science: a consensus is developed, someone finds out that there's a major error, everybody calls him a retard, but then eventually there is a paradigm shift.

>>22537398
>Wouldn't you say theorizing about abstract concepts is a philosophical activity?
I think we might be starting to argue about semantics here. To me the paradigm case of "a philosophy" is something like Platonism, Kant's transcendental idealism, Hegel's absolute idealism, the Churchlands' eliminative materialism, etc. The crucial thing about scientific theories is that they are consistent with any one of these philosophical theories, because the level of interpretation these philosophical theories apply to the world operates above the level of interpretation science applies. As in, current scientific theoretical consensus interprets empirical quantitative data in terms of the activity of organisms, cells, compounds, atoms, subatomic atoms, quarks, etc, according to their properties of size, mass, charge, speed, energy, etc. But, being defined functionally relative to their instrumental effects, philosophical interpretation acts *on top of* these entities and properties, because it gives an interpretation of the nature of the instrumental procedure itself. As in, various competing philosophical theories will give competing, contradictory interpretations of what any given instrumental measurement actually *means*, or *represents*, in a metaphysical context.

>>22536362
You can write a big paragraph like >>22536795
or you can just understand that science does a lot of can kicking that isn't obvious to the casual pop sci consumer.

When it comes to things like correctly identifying true mechanisms of action, or why things are the way they are, science still has a lot of work to do.

A classic example is in trying to explain why electromagnetism, exists. Science is very good at describing magnetism, but not all that good at explaining what it actually is.
>oh its to do with spin
okay so what actually is spin?
>ehrm...well...you see... if you'd just examine these maths

Dido for gravity but on a much larger scale. And especially true of the horseshit that is dark matter and dark energy, which really makes the whole thing very transparent.

what do we think of carl sagan?

>>22537458
its no fun talking to people who agree with you all the time though lol

>>22537447
Baldrick, if I have four beans on the table and I put one more bean onto the table, how many beans do I have on the table?

Father McGuire, this miniature cow in my hand is 'small', the cow in the distance outside the window is 'far away'.

Small, Far Away.

>>22537399
>inb4 but that's your philosophy

Both are cringe desu

>>22537473
>Baldrick, if I have four beans on the table and I put one more bean onto the table, how many beans do I have on the table?
top kek

>>22537435
Take it however you want.

>>22536661
>The earliest priests were literally weather forecasters who used astrology to predict storms and crop seasons, they were doing science. Religion based on the fantasy or book of fables is a degeneration 'away' from the primal sciences.
If you're saying this, then I don't think you realize how many of the rituals of these religions (especially Judaism) were just ways to dress up sterilization, disaster prevention, disease prevention, and so on. The religion "based on fantasy or book of fables" IS the religion of "weather forecasters". They aren't separate. The Book of Numbers in the Torah is a perfect example of this, with people being considered ritually unclean for seven days after touching a dead body, or a woman being considered unclean during her period or for seven days after giving birth.

>>22537517
I kind of agree with you, but there's still a difference between literal religions and "allegorical" religions; a dumb person may do something because they think god approves of it, so all religions can't be so easily and cleanly resolved... although it would be nice if they could be you will find that the devotees will fight til the death about it, so why bother

>>22537471
reddit

>>22537517
although in the same breath "science is pagan" because it observes nature and considers nature as being the holy thing, whereas monotheism does not and observes a man-made book as being their thing .... again it goes back to dogma vs.evidence

I remember in the islamic golden age they decided that science wasn't worth bothering with anymore because god could change reality as he saw fit, so it did no good to study anything outside of the koran. worked out well for them. turning their backs on the true divinity of nature. heh.

>>22537517
3/3
and this argument did happen in the very very early christian times, plotinus pointed out the idiocy of making up a god who was removed from the natural world as it could lead to no insight about anything.

>>22536362
people who are into philosophy are not anti-science. if you don't understand that gravity is literally just a theory, then you fundamentally don't know what science is. most people worship science like a religion and that's the actual problem.
the reality is that the institution of science is corrupt beyond redemption and very little science is being done by the academia. there's nothing wrong with science itself, though.

>>22537391
The idea of causal effects is an ontological one. Things presupposed don't vanish. Thats a smaller point though. To say something is completely within the framework of science is to say that it is in a philosophical framework. The only way out of that is to put it purely in the realm of math, which would just be data sets with no interpretation. Any interpretation of data or the universe is philosophy. To put it in better terms science is a subset of philosophy, it is probing reality with using the scientific method that was formalized and proved to have credence by philosophers. It doesn't have to make ontological statements about the world to be philosophy. The statements it makes about the world are scientific, never the less also philosophy. Just like Ontologists (if that is even a thing) make ontological statements, never the less also philosophy.

>>22537471
based. >>22537573 try to retcon him but he was philosophical and open to the idea of aliens whereas ledditors sperg out
>nooo aliens are le impossible

>>22536795
>people who think science is at odds with religion really just don't understand science at all, and they are in fact treating science as a religion
That's probably why it looks like tribalism. It isn't actual open-mindedness, it's just a new religion. Kinda reminds me of a scene from Clouds by Aristophanes.

>>22537469
It seems like you want to pigeon hole philosophy into one of its specialized subsets in order to make science outside of it. Like saying that physics isn't a part of science because the things that it makes claims about aren't chemical or cellular.

>>22537469
nta but you're a retarded nigger.

>argue about semantics here.
yes, that's exactly what happens when people discuss the philosophy of knowledge.
it goes from science to metaphysics to semantics.
when your understanding of physics fails, you have to question how knowledge is obtained in the first place. and upon that failing as well, you have to question the very language you use to process information. if you actually go down the rabit hole of linguistics you will realize that plato was right all along and we're all just cavemen.

>current scientific theoretical consensus
not science

>interprets empirical quantitative data in terms of the activity of organisms, cells, compounds, atoms, subatomic atoms, quarks, etc
all of these things are abstractions and you can't prove any of this exists without philosophy.

>according to their properties of size, mass, charge, speed, energy, etc
more abstractions

>philosophical interpretation acts *on top of* these entities
no, you absolute moron. philosophy is the foundation.


did you make an AI generate this crap for you? the amount of buzzword per sentence is triggering my radar.

>>22537630
>The idea of causal effects is an ontological one
You're begging the question there. The bare scientific notion of causation is entirely statistical. I will accept that at a minimum the scientific method is committed to the inductive method, but again that is just a methodology, in itself it does not contain any particular ontological theory of causation (it is for example entirely consistent with a Humean reduction of causation).

I don't agree with anything else you said, but my reasons for disagreeing are already in my previous posts.

>>22537651
It's more that, as chemistry isn't physics just because physics provides a mereological analysis of the entities of chemistry, so science isn't philosophy just because philosophy provides an interpretation of the entities of science.

>>22537666
>no, you absolute moron. philosophy is the foundation.
But as we've already discussed in this thread, many scientists happily carry on with their science without ever reflecting on the philosophical interpretation of what they are doing, e.g. whether they are reductive materialists, dualists, panpsychists, etc. What kind of "foundation" is it when you don't actually need it to use the house?
The way you've phrased the rest of your post gives me the impression you're just a child, so I have no interest in discussing things with you further.

>>22537683
>the entities of science =/= the entities of philosophy
What? How? How can entity even be separate from philosophy? Entity is a philosophical concept.
>You're begging the question there.
Im really not. Im stating that when a system takes something as a given it is still making statements about that given, even of it doesn't explicitly say it. Its a result of science having its foundations in philosophy.

>>22537703
As has been stated early on those "scientists" are really data analysts and engineers. If you want to call yourself a scientist you use the scientific method in your work, and that requires theory and interpretation, which is philosophy.

>>22537703
>many scientists happily carry on with their science without ever reflecting on the philosophical interpretation of what they are doing
that's exactly what's wrong with "science" today. thanks for helping my case.
you can drive a car without knowing how the engine works. this doesn't make the engine redundant. and you're also going to be in serious trouble when the engine needs maintenance.

>>22536362
>anti-science
The term science is a fucking chimera. People come up with innovations vastly different from scientific method and yet they also get lumped together with muh heckin science. Science is the monopoly of few autists who want to take credit for humanity's achievements which were achieved through the greatest method know to man, "fuck around and find out".

Like old scientific theories current "scientific" theories will be throw into trash after 2000 years.

>>22537725
Data analyst should be data entry technician. my bad.

>>22537733
based, lmao. reminds me of
>the difference between science and fooling around is documenting the results.

>>22537725
>>22537736
I feel like it is also worth stating to this point that theorists are also not scientists if they don't do the experiment and gather data.

>>22537716
>How can entity even be separate from philosophy? Entity is a philosophical concept
I've already given my answer to this. It's clear we don't agree, but I don't see how to continue the conversation any further. I'm repeating myself, but the entities of science are separate from philosophy because they are defined relative to their instruments of empirical measurement - the whole of scientific theory is a functional apparatus, so to speak, a machine for making instrumentally defined predictions, but such instrumental relativity makes those scientific entities relative to any theory that gives an *analysis* of the instrumental process itself, and it's just a paradigmatic feature of philosophical theories that they do have something to say about the nature of that interface.

At any rate, this is an auxilliary discussion to the one that actually started this thread, i.e. why there is a tension between philosophers and scientists and, contrary to what some other anon was saying, I do think it is somewhat unedifyingly semantic.

>>22537750
Yeah I think this got off the rails a little bit and I can just agree to disagree about since its a pretty minor point. Though I have some things to say in response its fine to just let this one go.

It’s because you don’t know the difference between science and scientism and they are lazy when it comes to differentiating between the two.

>>22537994
i know scientism is a word used by faggot christcucks

>>22538270
And christcuck is a word used by retarded faggots

>>22536974
A parenthetical should not provide vital information. The "who are into philosophy" seems vital to the discussion you want to have.

>>22537293
Not only Leibniz. Einstein famously idolized Schopenhauer, too. He even held a picture of him in his workplace along with pictures of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. He was very much into philosophy

>>22536547
>Especially when we're talking about fields outside of natural sciences that get the label science (economics, psychology, social "science") one should be critical given their shitty track records
they're still more factual fields of inquiry than any metaphysical speculation or mysticism, as the ones you mentioned at least try to apply scientific methodology

>>22537640
>open to the idea of aliens

Thats the most basic thing to be open about. Almost every redditor and le scientist has the same answer to being asked about aliens..

>>22538845
those are commas, fren

>>22536795
>There's a saying that if you asked a room full of scientists whether the sun will come up tomorrow morning, they wouldn't be able to reach consensus.
Ok but that's surely not true.

>>22539569
It is an extreme example but the general point that anon laid out is true. You cannot prove that a light switch will go on just because it did in the past, the same goes for the sun and all other observable things. Science cannot in reality prove anything. This is why we ought to be Pragmatists in regards to science, meaning if something works then it is "true" for the time being and that should be good enough for us. Then we should use our trust, reason and judgement to make decision in our day to day lives.

>>22539553
Indeed when you circumscribe a section of text with commas in that fashion, the text is considered a parenthetical phrase. You don't need parentheses to construct a parenthetical.

The construction of the parenthetical phrase is in poor judgement. Taken as it is, the phrase is supposedly telling us something about people in general (i.e. that all people are into philosophy). Really OP wishes to specifically single out people who are into philosophy. As such, he should just write: "Why are people who are into philosophy so anti-science?"

>>22539623
OP here
i type almost exactly as i talk and i'm a slow talker

>>22539676
You should adhere to grammatical conventions; flouting them makes you look stupid at best, and at worst it undermines the very vessel in which the written word is carried.

>>22539711
yep

>>22537201
It does not have a coherent explanation for what constitutes ontological reality and fundamentality.

>>22539569
How do you know that some unknown astronomical event won't occur causing the sun not to come up? It would be unscientific to be absolutely sure the sun will come up every morning

>>22538282
you've adopted christuck as a synonym for 'retard' lol - well that 'is' the meaning of the word 'christian; in french i suppose

>>22536795
I feel like this is extremely obvious if your not retarded. Are a good amount people really arguing against a straw man of science? I don’t think you see this irl so it must be a schizo internet thing

>>22540033
>Are a good amount people really arguing against a straw man of science? I don’t think you see this irl so it must be a schizo internet thing
>antiscience
It's literally the christian and muslim view of the natural world, if you havent heard people saying these things irl you don't get outside enough.

>>22537379
Do you really think every single scientist is some kind of extreme atheist materialist type figure? Are you retarded and completely stuck in your own head?

>>22539894
the sun doesn't come up in the first place, we revolve around it and so it gives the impression that it comes up; it will never not "come up" even in spite of the flawed metric by which you determine that it comes up,

i.e.
any explanation will do to explain how a thing appears to work but it may not be the complete model.
lat. sciens (prediction) is about determining the complete model

>>22540041
trapped in the dogma of the kultur wars
they sit and they fret
behind closed doors
PASTOR ON THE TELEVISION TELLS THEM BAD NEWS
like jesus did
to the jews
THE WORLD WILL END IF WE INVENT CHEESE
EVERYBODY GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES

>>22539894
actually if the sun did not "come up" the earth would prrrrrobably be exploded for having been wrenched out of its revolution momentum and shattered, but the sun would still "come up" on the floating debris.

>>22536900
>The more philosophically literate you become the more tired you become of scientism
Define scientism.

>>22536362


Those who are into —occupied with— philosophy know that it is a human science; those who are only on about it —going nowhere fast— are sophists, and/or odiosophers; sometimes, logicians makebelieve themselves to be philosophers.

>>22536362
Science is a part of philosophy

>>22540115
Finish reading the post

>>22537411
Good post

>>22536362
>sciencelets
They are all like that.
>not technically understanding things fully
Certain things are beyond the scope of science, but if you are considering technique, then it is the scope of science. It does remove the 'mystery and mystique' surrounding a subject, however it gives us reproducible results, how cool is that?

>>22540311
>>22537411
good post, my foot.

Alright, how do you tell the difference between this:
>natural science: reasoned statements about objective reality
and this:
>Modern "science": materialistic measurement fetishism that presupposes the world is an empty immanent plane of meaningless shapes, yet also makes all kinds of hidden assumptions about transcendent norms ("laws" of nature) and entities ("space," "time") in order for the immanent plane to function

I mean that 'any' observation is an observation of material things, be it directly or indirectly, and that nothing can be derived from something that is not 'material'. Silly word right there which leads you to a dumb concept of some kind of separation between science and the necessary proofs that the science comes from.

.... of course what (your position) is really annoyed by is dogmatism; where the word 'science' is used to lend authority to things that have not really been derived from unbiased inquiry; a corporation pays a professor to do a study on acne he submits it the the various journals and it creates a market for the corporations new acne gel, etc., which is the modern equivalent of theologians writing theology.

>>22540182
The post is sloppy. You've used "which" when you should've used "that" (and no I won't tell you which "which" should be a "that;" this is left as an exercise for the reader). You've left out a right parenthesis. You overindulge in the passive voice, the sort of thing a coward does when even he must distance himself from what he's said. Your "definition" of scientism (scientifically unverifiable reductive materialism) relies upon an understanding of what "scientifically" signifies. It's a lazily constructed definition and I wanted to give you the chance to do a bit better. As it stands, you've flung words together to give the illusion that you've said something.