/lit/ - Literature

OP is not a scientist, obviously.

That question is retarded.

>>9243204
>>9243208

Philosophy already blown out. Come on, gang. There must be someone? ;)

[laughs like Richard Dawkins]

>>9243179
Modern science is a branch of philosophy you dingo.

Also, possibly every formal system we devise is inherently limited. Enter philosophy.

>>9243228

>enter people who sit down and ""think"" and ""make arguments"" wew, lad, now thats what i call a skill! ho-ho-ho!

>>9243257
If you have a different basis for formal logic and axiomatic systems, beyond "thinking" and "making arguments," I'd love to hear it.

>>9243179
t. pseud who doesn't know what a category error is
>inb4 he rattles a definition off wikipedia

>>9243179
Well, that notion implies that philosophy wasn't redundant to begin with.

Science can't study metaphysics. At least, not yet.

>ethics
>political philosophy
>aesthetics
>philosophy of the mind (science has made some progress on this, but not enough desu)

So far science has done nothing to actually improve life.

>>9243179
Saying philosophy is useless is a philisophical statement.

>>9245053

that would mean studying its own history, or roots. science has and always been fundamentally and etymologically philosophy, and the origins of knowledge are divine. the disdain for philosophy/religion in science is recent, against all that is natural and divine.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Metaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Physical_Science

>>9243179
Modern science isn't monolithic. It's twelve million guys running experiments and sometimes getting lucky, sometimes creating paradigm shifts, the same way philosophy is done.

Philosophy + computers is going to lead to cool stuff. Refutation is for weenies. Collaboration is where it's at.

>>9243179
i'll just link this:

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf

>>9243179
every time this question gets asked I'm going to point people to this book.

>>9243179
>What compelling argument do you have to refute the notion that modern science has made all philosophy redundant?

The question your asking can't be answered by science. It's a question of epistemology. "How is one form of knowledge better than another form of knowledge?", "What is the best way to acquire knowledge?"

You can't do science to answer these questions.

>>9245125
good post

>>9245132
good post

the hivemind is wise and gracious today, it pleases this tiny frog

>>9245107
We got ourselves a fuckin' cowboy here

>>9243179
Why?

Philosophy made science and philosophy redundant a long time ago.
>>9245060

>>9243179
What is knowledge? Is knowledge real? Can knowledge be real if science is based on the assumption that previous knowledge can be modified/updated or outright removed from this pool of "knowledge". If removed or modified, was it knowledge in the first place.. etc...

Science's aim is to modify and master the temporal world, nothing else.

Restricts analysis to rationality. We must search irrationally as well and delve into our subjective perspective.

>>9243179
this question is so ignorant that its not worth engaging with.

>Why do we speak English when we could just speak math??

>>9243179

Contemporary scientific conjecture methinks is only little discrepant from the heretofore mentioned "philosophy"... It is of a relevant topical nature to illustrate the binary attributes of this provocative investigation. There are two distinct idiosyncrasies at work here, methinks; Reasoning, and Faith. Reasoning is agnate to philosophy, id est the inductive explanation of the natural world via reasoning. Faith is agnate to religion, a term which to elucidate would be gratuitous.

One now arrives to the essence of the inquiry anon, the substance of science. The scientific method fundamentally arises at the intersections of the heretofore mentioned Faith and Reasoning... sans Reasoning or sans Faith the Scientific method conclusively devolves to madness