/lit/ - Literature

STEM master-race. reading is for nerds XD

Your description of science is wrong. Philosophy is anything goes.

Mathematics I have no idea about.

Since mathematical objects don't exist isn't all mathematics bullshit anyway?

>>6296594
Philosophy is anything goes until you get publicly knifed for fucking up. The knife fight has ornate rules. Sometimes challenging the rules scores points itself.

It is a social practice, just like science. Some undergraduates feel hurt or threatened by it and react defensively like OP. It is probably because a Philosopher sexually molested them when they were young, because it is unlikely (given their repeated and not defensive at all claims about IQ, or the meaningfulness of a concept of general intelligence) that they feel incapable of comprehending it.

>>6296594
That's not the full definition but I left out the rest for points of comparison. The rest is: if you can't produce any testable results marginalize the theory, if the results contradict observed data discard the theory

>>6296579
Philosophy has next to no prerequisites for any topic compared to STEM fields. I could read the most advanced topic in a field of philosophy with a few hours preparation (in fact I did read a paper that was heralded as "advanced" in philosophy a few days ago with no prerequisites). Can you guess what this implies?

It'd take you at least 3 years+ to get the prerequisites to read through one of the books on my table.

>>6296569
Science and math are great for determining the function of things that can be measured. Is it really a bad thing that we have a field dedicated to the things that can't? Is science going to tell you how to be ethical? Is math going to tell you why you have conscious experience, or what to do with it? Not that both science and math can't help provide insight to questions with infinite variables, by informing us of patterns within them, but you will never figure out what the universe is by measuring and labeling tiny pieces of it. There are infinite variables to The Question; What is existence? There is all sorts of shit going on that we can't even perceive, forms of energy we have no way to measure because we have no way of even knowing they exist. If you want to knock philosophy because it asks questions that literally cannot be answered in full, that's fine. I understand it's easier to see the value of math and science, but that's because it's discoveries are so relatively small that we can actually understand them by giving them labels.

>>6296608
You read it but your understanding was no doubt flawed. I could read through one of your books like you read that one, I just wouldn't understand it.

>>6296608
>That's not the full definition but I left out the rest for points of comparison. The rest is: if you can't produce any testable results marginalize the theory, if the results contradict observed data discard the theory
Which isn't the practice of science. Try reading Kuhn.

>>6296608
>(in fact I did read a paper that was heralded as "advanced" in philosophy a few days ago with no prerequisites). Can you guess what this implies?
>It'd take you at least 3 years+ to get the prerequisites to read through one of the books on my table.

That your field is surrounded by an impenetrable and obscuritanist jargon, whereas philosophy serves the day to day needs of the population with work that is demonstrably put to immediate use by real people.

Thanks!

>>6296614
>Is math going to tell you why you have conscious experience, or what to do with it?
No, that's for science.

>>6296625
>Equating mechanism and purpose

>>6296627
The purpose of what, the mechanism?

>>6296630
The purpose of consciousness, which is separate from the mechanism that gives rise to consciousness and that mechanism's purpose.

>>6296635
>The purpose of consciousness
I don't think it needs one.

>>6296616
>You read it but your understanding was no doubt flawed

>>6296618
I'm actually a scientist, I know how science is done.
>Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm
>Kuhn never knew about classical limits, expectation values and low field approximations
Into the trash it goes.

>>6296619
>impenetrable and obscuritanist jargon
Its called concise notation and it allows mathematics and science papers to hold a information density that philosophy could never obtain.

>philosophy serves the day to day needs of the population with work that is demonstrably put to immediate use by real people
oookkkkk

>>6296635
>this sentence was uttered by someone under the influence of philosophy
>not even once

>>>6296635
>The purpose of consciousness
I don't think it needs one. It is an end in itself.

>>6296638
>I'm actually a scientist, I know how science is done.

I'm a body in space, I know physics.

>>6296569


yall niggas need probability theory in your life.

all you in the dawkins thread too.

>>6296569
Mathmaticians make up systems according to specific rules. They deduce everything possible within a system. Also they try to cut number of rules needed to make said system work. Every system that follows same rules is identical by its structure.

Scientists observe date and use fitting system made up the mathematicans to reproduce what they have observed.

Philosophy has same roots as mathematical thinking, but has mostly become shitposting since the Greeks. Today you have to know traditional arguments made by philosphers and add twisted minded thoughts and shitposting to be respected as philosopher. It has become sophisticated meme-spouting

>>6296746
Indeed. Well meme'd my friend.

>>6296679
You have a decent grasp of kinematics yes, your analogy doesn't extend further than that.

>>6296746
>It has become sophisticated meme-spouting
and that's why we love it

>>6296746
Math is nothing but number games. Scientists haven't done anything except make the life of the common man more complicated with their autistic numbers shenanigans. They all ought to be shot.

>>6296756
And your analogy regarding philosophy of science is equally valid.

>>6296796
You can always go away and live in a forest. No science bothering you there.

>>6296619
That jargon is called math. It's pretty impenetrable for plebs though.

>>6296808
I'm glad you're accepting that science does absolutely nothing for the common man, that it is impenetrable due to its jargon, and has no use.

Feel free to ornately back pedal as much as you like, you'll just be giving handjobs to engineers, like normal.

>>6296817
>science is useless
>uses science achievments to shitpost

We both know saying that science has no uses is pure trolling. It doesn't bother me though - personally I'm an astrophysicist and my work has 0 practical aplication and won't have any for next 300 years at least. Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

>>6296824
The point here is that I have extended a metaphor of ignorance exactly modelling that of the original poster's mode of argumentation, in order to prove the absurdity of the method of argument to you, by using a context with which you are so intimately familiar that you will recognise the absurdity of the argument.

Also we're not using a "science achievement" to post. This is the inheritor of marketing, missile engineering, and a lot of dicking around by engineers. The whole argument by applications usually rests of the belittlement of engineering and the inflation of a small number of "discoveries" that were part of a field of research so widely spread that some bastard somewhere was going to make homologous observations or theories within the next 40 years.

>label, labels
Didn't I obliterate your ignorant ass in that other thread?

>mathematicians think up structures
Mathematicians do not "think up" structures; that would suggest laying things down by fiat. Research mathematicians produce corollaries, lemmas, theorems, and most important --- proofs. Some few lucky ones (if you think in that way) get to lay down axioms for a fresh new theory; fresh new PhDs can then work by churning out wffs of that theory.

>label them within a deductive system
*Within* a deductive system? Now that's a radical claim, but as in that other thread of yours, it's obscure. But I'll work with what I have. Structures are given *for* formal languages, they do not "label" nor are they located *within* a deductive system. You are conflating proof theory with model theory: a rookie mistake.

>then use deduction
Well, no. "Deduction" is a concept; what they use is certain rules of inference.

>scientists observe data
They do not, though. They observe the world either directly or indirectly; data is then extrapolated by means of thoughtful interpretation and articulation.

>think up structures that model it
That's cute, but you can't have your structures without the syntax. Don't get ahead of yourself.

>label them within a deductive system then use deduction on them to produce results
First part: a clear and a resounding "no" — I have already rebutted that. Second part: the Popper-Hempel model of deduction is wholly outdated: few scientists use deductive means, in contrast to, inductive ones, these days.

>philosophers pick labels and use deduction to find their structure
Not even close. The entire process is more or less similar to that of the logician. In fact, a good fraction of them are hybrid philosophers-logicians.

>Can anyone guess which method is flawed?
Since you blatantly misrepresent them all: all of them.

More importantly, I see you still haven't looked at a single contemporary paper of Analytic Philosophy, yet you are confident as ever in belittling and construing blatant strawman versions of what contemporary philosophers actually do. I'm starting to think you're not too bright for understanding Philosophy. Is that where all the anger is coming from? Time and again, you have also shown that you not only have a delusional view of philosophers but of mathematicians and scientists too. Shame.

In any case, please do stick to your "label, labels" shtick, so that you are easier recognized. Schooling you brings me unsurpassed satisfaction.

This is always the dumbest thread.

>>6296850
Also: since you are keen on trolling /lit/, you could have at least brushed up on your shaky foundations of mathematical logic; at least give me a challenge. Naturally, when you do troll again, I — infinitely more knowledgeable than you will ever be — will be waiting for you.

>>6296861
>word space em-dash space word

As ignorant of typography as of everything else.

>>6296863
Yeah, because *typography* is all too relevant to this abomination of a thread.

Suffocate yourself.

Philosophy is for those enamored with being a "thinker" but who can't do math and don't like biology.

It hasn't been relevant in forever but you best leave them to their little circlejerk cause nothing good ever comes from arguing with them.

Genetics screwed you, just move on and pick a respectable occupation.

>>6296872
Not punctuating correctly is generally a sign of deep seated ignorance, but in your case we can rely on other factors like the plain meaning of your words.

>>6296849
Sadly engineers never discover anything really new, they just "dick around" with stuff that was already known and find a way to use it. It goes this way -
Scientists find out something something funny -> they make theories and models and experiments to figure shit up -> they describe the phenomenon, sometimes build laser or shit to show how cool their theory is -> 20 years later engineers pick up laser and start using it for technical aplications.

>>6296877
>nothing good ever comes from arguing with them
...because you get outargued each and every time, I imagine.

>>6296894
Why are you still breathing; didn't I tell you to suffocate yourself already?

>>6296897
>Sadly engineers never discover anything really new
And just how much True Scotsman are you putting on the word "really" here? Care to actually fucking define your expressions before hiding behind them?

>>6296905
Care to actually fucking define "define"?
kek

Engineers find aplictions for stuff scientists discover. Engineer built a lightbulb, but scientist discovered electricity. Engineer built a plane, but scientist created Bernoulli equation. Engineer built your laptop, but a scientist built first transistor.

>>6296824
Do you know that a PC isn't a product of science?

>>6296916
>aplictions
>Engineer built a lightbulb, but scientist discovered electricity.

Cogent. Well expressed. You wasted your money on those English courses.

Impoverished Chinese workers built my laptop btw.

>>6296918
Electricity was discovered and described by scientists, just to start with. Unless you run your browser on mechanical computer you should reconsider.

>>6296861
>Naturally, when you do troll again, I — infinitely more knowledgeable than you will ever be — will be waiting for you.

The fedora is strong with this one.

>>6296928
So it came to at persona arguments.
gg l2p i won m8

PS. U stink

>>6296932
Better have a strong fedora than a weak one.

>>6296934
If you can't meet the minimum standards of discourse, your position in the discourse must be represented by another—or perhaps nobody.

>>6296931
>Electricity was discovered and described by scientists
Name them. Then tell me about static electricity and human observation of lightning.

Guess how much of the models of electricity, which you're not going to be able to explicate (nor attest to who discovered what when, because you're going to fall into "inventor" fallacies), are actually relevant to the delivery of electricity supply.

Tesla was an engineer by the way.
And Edison was a capitalist.

Neither were "scientists" as you fantasise them.

>>6296954
I'm just trying to match your level. For now your most convincing argument was that I typed application with one p. Pro tip - less word games, more content.

>>6296956
Of course they were engineers. Electricity is an old idea, scientists abandoned interest in it before Tesla. Electricity network is a work of engineering, but it would never be possible without works of Ampere, Franklin, Ohm, Maxwell or Faraday.

>>6296976
>but it would never be possible without works of Ampere, Franklin, Ohm, Maxwell or Faraday.
Are you suggesting that the underlying phenomena did not exist without Ampere, Franklin (!!?), Ohm, Maxwell or Faraday?

Because you've just asserted that electrical engineering would not be possible, and never be possible, without their specific work.

This amounts to suggesting that the underlying phenomena did not, and would not have existed without those specific humans.

Please, put on your robe and wizard hat if you're going to fuck us.

So did arrowcunt come back or did he have disciples?

>>6296991
>implying electrical engineering doesn't require prior knowledge about electrical currents to even emerge
>implying ideas for electrical devices are send by electric fairies

>Franklin (!!?)
Franklin the Turtle bro, don't you know him?
Benjamin Franklin you dumbass

>>6296639
Would you care to prove that?

>>6297003
Arrowfag, alleged SCIENTIST and MATHEMATICIAN & co still getting demolished in mathematical knowledge by humanities majors

What irony.

>>6297023
Would you care to prove that you are not a cammel?
What is the purpose of a stone?

>>6297023
>I think
How is he going to prove an opinion?

>>6297032
I've never seen evidence that camels are able to post on 4chan, but I suppose I may be wrong, so I guess I can't prove anything.
That depends on the stone. A stone that nobody ever sees won't have the same purpose as a stone uses in the foundation of a building.

>>6297038
>foundation of a building.
But it's a purpose you gave it. If you want to give your consciousness a prurpose go on, but it doesn't mean it has a purpose on its own.

>>6296569
>scientists observe data, think up structures that model it, label them within a deductive system then use deduction on them to produce results
OP I have bad news for you

>>6296608
>I could read the most advanced topic in a field of philosophy with a few hours preparation
Very unlikely unless you're reading baby philosophy.

>>6297178
>muh philosophy so hard
Meanwhile you need to study for 3+years to even understand symbols in an average physics paper.
My mathematicaly impaired friends, didn't it ever occur to you that you don't understand math because you are stupid and all this philosophy you so furiously masturbate with is actually pretty simple for other, smarter people?

>>6297254
>muh physics so hard
Meanwhile you need to study for 3+years to even understand symbols in an average philosophy paper.
My philosophically impaired friends, didn't it ever occur to you that you don't understand philosophy because you are stupid and all this physics you so furiously masturbate with is actually pretty simple for other, smarter people?

>mfw STEM majors are this insecure

>>6296600
>since numbers don't exist aren't measurement instruments bullshit anyway ?

>>6297313
kek

I wonder if phil goes to sci to bitch about science like they do it here

>>6297254
>My mathematicaly impaired friends
>implying that philosophers are matematically impaired

The majority of the philosophers in my university finished a science degree before doing philosophy (studied physics before doing phil. of science, math before logic and phil of math, etc).

>>6296991

Holy shit I can't even grasp how much retardation do you have. I think High School has the answer to that question m8

>>6297333
Where do you study?most people at my class are terrified at math, they can't even calculate bayesian probabilities

>>6297365
some black and white guy with funny hair once said "you shouldn't judge a fish by its ability to climb trees." your posts just reminded me of that quote.

>>6297396
Well, it's part of the philosophy of science syllabus

None of those analyses you just gave are particularly meaningful, and could arguably be switched around without anyone being the wiser. We could say of philosophy what you said of mathematics, and we could say of mathematics what you said of philosophy. We can also apply what you said of science to either philosophy or mathematics, if we operate under a sufficiently broad definition of "observation." Perhaps we could even finagle it so that the analyses of mathematics or philosophy with which you've provided us could apply to science.

Allow me, OP, to interrupt your self-congratulatory vagueness with a little philosophical tool that might help you out here (you are, after all, here attempting to do philosophy, despite your disdain for it. Indeed, that is the fatal flaw of arguments against the practice of philosophy: you must practice philosophy in order to produce them). The tool is simple: if two purportedly philosophical and apparently plausible claims contradict eachother, assume that they have not been articulated properly, and reject them both on account of vagueness. An extension of this tool would be this: if two apparently plausible philosophical claims do not actually contradict, but are posed in the form of a disjunction, assume that they are both basically correct and are merely two different ways of looking at the same thing. We can apply this sort of rule to your purported analyses of the different fields:

Presumably you present us with this proposition: Either philosophers pick labels and use deduction to find their structure, or they think up structures, label them within a deductive system, and then "use deduction on them" (not the scare-quotes for that very sloppy phrase) to produce results. Conversely, you say the same thing of mathematicians. Now, you claim that philosophers do one thing (that is, pick labels and use deduction to find their structure), and that mathematicians do the other (that is, think up structures, label them within a deductive system, and then "use deduction on them" to "produce results"). But I see no particularly good reason why I should be led to believe this. After all, numbers and mathematical operations and functions are arguably merely labels for what we can observe in physical reality. And similarly, we might say that, actually, philosophers first see (or, as you prefer, "think up") structures, and then pursue their logical conclusions. So I see no particularly good reason to accept the disjunction between the two analyses: as such, I will simply posit that both analyses are correct of both disciplines, and are merely two different ways of looking at the same thing.

Now isn't philosophy fun, OP?

>>6297429

Oh, and I should add that neither of those two ways are particularly profound or meaningful. That is, we might say the same two things of both philosophy and mathematics, but it is not very interesting to do so, since neither analysis is precise enough to give us any helpful insight into either discipline. Sorry, OP!

>>6296569
It's difficult to find someone who understand how different are math and science.

I don't know what are you trying with your post, but congratz for knowing that.

For me, the flawed one is the scientific method

>>6296569
>scientists observe data, think up structures that model it, label them within a deductive system then use deduction on them to produce results
But that's wrong you faggot. Go read some Popper

>>6297482

Where to start with Popper?

>>6297487
Starting with Popper would be like starting with Aristotelian physics

>>6297289
Doesn't work this way. I understand philosophy, plebs like you don't understand physics.
>>6297333
And those I respect most. You need both math and humanities to be truly patrician.

>>6297493

Are you saying he's outdated? He seems to be generally thought of as the authority in philosophy of science.

>>6297499
>I understand philosophy

>>6297499
>And those I respect most. You need both math and humanities to be truly patrician.

Kek
>some random would-be philosophy student chimes in, names-drops here and there, and suddenly he RESPECTS philosophers

Another thread where undergraduates argue about who has the best major. Yay!

>>6297429
>>6297433
>mfw OP/the other sciencites in the thread (that's the term I've come up with to designate followers of scientism, since "scientismists" is just retarded) specifically avoid replying to my posts
You know not how this tickles me.

>>6297506
Keep declining your plebness.
>>6297508
Yes, I respect Plato-style philosophers, people with wide horizons. I laugh on /lit/-style philosophers with their muh Stirner muh Hume!

>>6297576
B-But Hume is one of the prime role-models for a really quality philosopher. And you do realize almost nobody here actually thinks Stirner is worth anything, right? He is a meme-philosopher in the truest sense.

>>6297576
>I respect Plato-style philosophers,people with wide horizons
There are a lot than you may think, I'd say that's normal for the average philosopher.
If your references are pop-philosophers or a few bad academics that you know you probably are quite far of what philosophers do, it'd be like taking what Tyson of Dawkins say about philosophy or mythology seriously.


http://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/index.html

I'm back (OP), did you miss me /lit/fags?
>>6296796
obvious troll
>>6296807
No it's not. I do use the entire concept of science all the time therefore I know how science is done. You move about all the time (at least within the confines of your mums basement) therefore you know how moving about works. You don't ever do electrodynamics, so you don't know how that works. What's so complicated about this?

>>6296850
>Didn't I obliterate your ignorant ass in that other thread?
Judging by this post I doubt that.

>Mathematicians do not "think up" structures
Bahahaha. You've got no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever read a mathematical paper ever? Pic related, I didn't think up the structures in these two definitions? Are you out of your mind?

>*Within* a deductive system? Now that's a radical claim, but as in that other thread of yours, it's obscure. But I'll work with what I have. Structures are given *for* formal languages, they do not "label" nor are they located *within* a deductive system. You are conflating proof theory with model theory: a rookie mistake.
No body cares that you have a rudimentary grasp of first order logic, there are more foundations for mathematics than just first order logic.

>They do not, though. They observe the world either directly or indirectly; data is then extrapolated by means of thoughtful interpretation and articulation
>being this autistic

>can't have your structures without the syntax
Clearly you have an internal syntax in your brain.
>hurr durr he doesn't know any formal syntax to describe a point, line therefore he can't have an intuitive idea of what a triangle is in his head

>more or less similar to that of the logician
Even if this were true, then you've just condemned yourself to philosophy being a less rigorous or less predictive version of mathematical logic. I'll reiterate the point again, because you never got it last time. When you ask "what is knowledge?", "what is beauty?" without first defining knowledge or beauty you are essentially picking meaningless terms and trying to deduce what structure they have. You may have a good idea of what knowledge and beauty are in the back of your head (a partial muddled definition) but you should be honest about it which no philosopher ever is. The philosophers refusal to admit that we can't argue over which labels apply to which definitions is why they never make any predictions.

>single contemporary paper of Analytic Philosophy
I've actually read 5 of them now.

>>6297254
this

>>6297482
I have read Popper faggot. I just typed out the first part of Popper's scientific method for the sake of easy comparison. See >>6296608

Math is not a science.

Math is the research of abstract concepts that can be modeled axiomatically.

They complement each other -- Science applies math to model experimental data into theories which yield measurable predictions which merit further experimentation, while the process of constructing such models often involves developing new math. But they are not the same thing.

It is convenient to cluster it with computer science and real sciences as there is a lot of interaction between them (so you'd want to place them in the same faculty, etc.). But they are completely distinct.

pic unrelated

>>6297927
You're like the cousin of Arrowfag: just as naive to believe that his impoverished knowledge of Math. Logic will not be seen as such. It only takes a few seconds to dissect and construe your utterly confused stuttering.

Time and again, humanities majors have shown a desperate-for-attention stemmie that his knowledge is inadequate.

>>6296594
The mathematics one is decent enough for a single perspective description of a complicated discipline.
Source: Studied mathematics at respectable university.

>>6298025
>humanities majors

Ugh. The whole premise of this shit is so ridiculous, it's like two-party US politics. Humanities vs stemmies. Top yawn.

How about well rounded? How about someone who can write mathematical proofs as well as they can write and reason about analytic philosophy as well as they can write about and discuss literature?

Get on my renaissance man level you fucking ideologue.

>>6298653
Fully agreed, you can't consider yourself educated man if you can't do this. There is a reason why math is one of the liberal arts.
Yet faggots here gonna argue that they read Kant so they are uber patrician and science is retarded cause "it's not easily accesible and muh jargon".
Top kek

>>6298025
>lol ur tard gg i fukd you're mom
That's the level of humanities majors those days... O tempora o mores...
It's latin if you didn't get it

i dont get this fucking argument of stem vs lit it seems.

why not study both its ridiculous to be all stem or all philosophy

>>6298855
Mostly because some people are too dumb to understand science, but everyone can read a book.

>>6297003
Why's he/she/it called that?

Can /lit/ solve the aforementioned problem?

A hat contains five P's, two L's, three E's and six B's. You draw four letters from the hat one by one. What is the probability of the letters forming the word "PLEB" in order of withdrawal?

>>6298951
>aforementioned
you might want to look that up, bro

>>6298960

Man, the translator I used messed up it seems.

>>6298971
>using a translator
>wants to troll /lit/ with their ebin problem to feel superior
Kek.
Still u tried.

>>6298867
i agree with you to a point, but the more and more I work and experience the world I see there is stock in all types of intelligence not just stem intelligence. And while yes everyone can can read a book, to truly understand it or have it help shape your mind is a different thing

>>6298974

I didn't want to troll, I was just interested if /lit/ could solve this simple high school math problem.

>>6296569
If you STEMfags are so good, then why always make threads about it?
Even this pseudoscientist knows why you do it.

>>6298985
Sure thing fag. I've heard that problem like a hundred of times, and it's funny because on every internet forum I've gone it's always this same prolem.
Can you trolls change your tactic?

>>6298951
3/728
Now fuck off.

>>6298951
Assuming you're not replacing letters, .004
>I didn't want to troll, I was just interested if /lit/ could solve this simple high school math problem.
yeah, okay

>>6298951
5/16 + 2/15 + 3/15 + 6/14

>>6298999

So if you've heard it like a hundred times can you solve it?

>>6298951
The free market will solve it.

>>6299008
Seems that it was already solved, faggot.
Now back to /sci/, a good board but with shit crossposters.

>>6299019

Jesus, why are you so angry? Chill out dude, no need to be so insecure... I'm sure at least your mother respects your choice of becoming a literary genius.

>>6299022
Yeah, nice trolling. You sure got me.
>insecure
It's the other way round, you are insecure. /sci/ crossposters make threads like this all day because they are better than those philosopy students. Then why bother? Sorry, but you are insecure.

>>6298951
5/11 x 2/10 x 3/9 x 6/8 = 180/7920 = 1/44

>>6299028

Man, all I asked was a simple question and you get this butthurt about it.

>>6299030
You have it confused with odds. The odds of getting P first are 5:11 since there are 5 you want and 11 you don't, but the probability is the ones you want out of all of them, so it's 5/(5+11) or 5/16

>>6299005
Ha ha ha, this anon is pleb!

>>6299030
>being this pleb

>>6298975
You don't need a book to shape your mind to shitpost on /lit/, you only need to read it's wikipedia page.
Also there is only one type of inteligence.

>>6299040
3/728 then

>>6299056
According to whom?

>>6299069
According to me

>>6299078
Are you an authority on such matters?

>>6298951
3/728

Another philosophy vs science thread... goddamit.

Science and philosophy describe different things; they have different purposes and bounds. Arguing about which one is better or more worthwhile is totally missing the point. Arguing about one's applicability over the other's is totally missing the point. In general, science gives us specific knowledge about things and philosophy develops theories explaining the larger implications of these things. This is why there are things like philosophy of mind, science, biology, chemistry etc. Philosophy also dabbles in the realm of coming to conclusions about things that no science can even in principle tell us anything worthwhile about, like how to be a good person, what is just etc.

Philosophy can get very abstract and seemingly nonsensical, but science is just incomplete in the grand scheme of humanity. Hey cool, geneticists have some reasons why my hair is a certain color whoopy! Science has lead to cleaner forms of energy, that's great. But it will never answer any of those deep existential questions that philosophy tries to answer. Folks who don't think this is a problem are just putting up their blinders.

>>6299005
Anon, you multiply probabilities, not add

>>6299056
what is the one type then?

if you only value one type of intelligence then you are fucked sry mate

>>6299117
And, more importantly, what scientific evidence does he have for his assertions?

>>6299117
Scoring high on IQ tests, of course!

>>6299084
>depending on authorities
>not thinking for yourself
Philosophers of the world are ashamed of you anon

>>6299117
Inteligence is the ability to learn, think in abstract terms and apply knowledge. All those bullshit terms like "emotional inteligence" or "visual inteligence" are word plays, redefinitions - it's empathy and talent, not types of inteligence. How insane do you need to be to coin such a term as "movement inteligence"?

Actually I don't value inteligence all that high, there are more important qualities in people like resourcefulness or integrity. There is a saying that everybody thinks he has enough of two things - inteligence and sense ow humour. For some retarded reason everybody wants to think that they are inteligent and they think it's better if they have "emotional inteligence" than if they are "empathic". Does our culture really favor inteligence that much?

Does anybody have that image of the STEMfag shitting on humanities majors? I think it's relevant to this discussion.

>>6299202
they are not wordplay or redefinitions i think, its more of categorizing. There is such thing as movement intelligence, I am not sure if you have danced or know anyone who does it professionally but its a different type of intelligence. Your definition of intelligence does not include creativity.

Just to make sure you don't make a strawman out of me I am a engineering major

>>6299345
I practice judo, pretty much same as dancing. It's not movement inteligence, it's coordination. Would you call someone with natural talent to dance extraordinary intelligent cause of that?

It may not be a perfect definition, it's rather crude. I'd say inteligence and creativity are separate things though.

>>6299218

>>6299415
>mfw I can't verify a paradigm

>>6299218

>>6299398
thats a fair statement, but i guess maybe using the word skilled is more accurate? I am not sure though. Say for example rhetoric used by the Romans to gain some power in the senate, the command of the language seems to be a different form of intelligence then say solving a math problem

>>6299218
And more generally, the mindset of a stemmie

I don't get it. Who are behind this trolls?
Undergrads who are in CS or EE?
Students who drop out in their philosophy class because they didn't like latin?
/b/ trolls?

Because if OP is actually serious, he's a retard because of the need of showing that he's superior to non-STEM fags. If he was superior, then he shouldn't be doing this.

>>6299433
what the hell do you mean?? paradigms in general?

>>6299467
Possibly. It's propably a mix of both.

>rhetoric used by the Romans
IMO charisma, some rhetorical skill they learned + inteligence to know how to apply it

>>6299544
hmm i still believe in my original argument but this talk has got me thinking it could be wrong

>>6299513
Just shitposting pepe pictures

>>6296698

This should be all y'alls' bible brothers