/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1416689]

my friend insists that philosophy isn't a valid area of thought since it can't be verified, like science.

i say he's already chosen a philosophical position, since you can't empirically verify empiricism (infinite loop headsplosion).

that said, i am not spiting science in the least - i just don't think it renders philosophy obsolete.

/adv/ told me to gtfo, and idk wtf is going on with /sci/, so..../lit/'s thoughts on science and philosophy?

[Koroviev !!bFY778Jwu68 No.1416698]

>logic isn't verifiable
>science didn't come from philosophy
>analytics never existed
wat

[Anonymous No.1416700]

>>1416689
your friend looks like Lev Tolstoy

[Anonymous No.1416708]

Tell your friend that science is a form of philosophy, so by saying philosophy is not valid, science by default is not as well. Watch is brains explode over the ceiling.

[Anonymous No.1416706]

I'm a scientist who has looked at some philosophy but really not too much so my opinion isn't too valid.

But I feel that after studying a lot of science a lot of philosophy just comes off as completely ridiculous. Like some guy just talking out of his ass.

However I have found analytical philosophy, ie bertrand russell, to be pretty interesting.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1416716]

>implying ur intuitive understanding of urself is correct

this is what philosophy is for, since humans are highly fallible in their natural "philosophy."

[Anonymous No.1416717]

>>1416689
Philosophy is just the irrelevant leftovers from the sciences.
All philosophies fear the day they're pwned by hard fact.

[Goldfish !!NU5uJMgJyrv No.1416719]

>>1416708
>Assuming his friend won't retort with some bullshit comment.

[Anonymous No.1416729]

philosophy is a source of science, metascience

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416730]

>>1416716
so oniondingaling when's the last time your instincts failed you

>inb4 you conflate conscious interpretation of your instincts with instincts in order to formulate a counter-example

[Anonymous No.1416732]

>>1416698
Yes your position is the classic indictment against the Vienna circle and logical positivism in general. Ultimately science is a fundamentally pragmatic language game, but should not be treated as giving metaphysical truth about the universe, but instead seen for what it is. The generalizing of a certain range of data into a functional model. It is justified by induction to use the model for predictions within range of available data, but beyond that we need more data. It cannot tell us of cause and effect at its basic level or tell us ultimately why the universe is like it is, neither can philosophy mind you, but many scientists seem to think their discipline actually says something about the nature of the universe itself.

Science has in recent years begun to think too highly of itself, that it can do its own philosophizing, which has resulted in over valuing quantum mechanical interpretations and attempts to use the math itself to legislate nature, which is the state string theory and its derivatives are at currently.

That being said, I majored in physics in college and am now pursuing a PhD in Materials Science. Science is great, but its not magic. Philosophy's main role these days at least, is too keep us grounded from taking these grand metaphysical leaps of foolishness. Science needs philosophy, but most scientists refuse to admit it, because they don't want to look into the epistemology itself, and prefer to think their language game is truth itself, but in doing so they miss out on the greater part of human experience.

[Anonymous No.1416733]

>>1416717
this is bassackwards.

[Anonymous No.1416735]

Studying philosophy is really just memorising someone else's thoughts and world-view.

Fall too much into it, and you'll be come a regurgitating parrot who couldn't be an individual or have an original thought if their mind depended upon it. Ex: see Derp+Faggy

[Anonymous No.1416736]

another thing i find interesting is richard dawkin's assertion that philosophy somehow stems from science, as though the "why" is a function of the "how", when "how" can only be sufficiently explained by science. once we learned "how" we got here, then we can start discussing "why"

not saying i agree with him, it's just interesting is all.

[Anonymous No.1416740]

>>1416732
bravo.

[Anonymous No.1416741]

>>1416736
PROTIP: there is no why

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416744]

>>1416735
never heard that one before

[xtabyr No.1416745]

mental masturbation unless you make a famous book/idea. yeah so everyone is just doing it as a time-sink or to feel superior to others.

[Anonymous No.1416753]

>philosophy
>relevant
>useful
>not self-congratulating horseshit for poofs and wankers

[Anonymous No.1416771]

>>1416732
i'm saving this shit for future reference

[Anonymous No.1416773]

>>1416745
>mental masturbation unless you make a famous book/idea
Yeah, srsly, unless your first philosophy paper is an earth-changing, populist hit, you should really just throw in the towel. That's what all those famous thinkers did.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416775]

They are both nauseating self-indulgent chimeras

[Anonymous No.1416777]

>>1416732
Pure genius. That D.Phil's in the bag.

[xtabyr No.1416782]

>>1416771
samefag

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1416781]

>>1416730
learn2read please.
>intuitive understanding of self
>intuitive/natural "philosophy"
are not intuition, not that intuition is without conceptual content.

[Anonymous No.1416779]

>>1416775
"Takes one to know one," she smiles.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416791]

>>1416781
Reducible to intuitions probably

yr gonna have 2 tell me yr view on conceptual structures sometime chandlerbing

>>1416779
;eyeroll;

[Anonymous No.1416792]

tell your friend to lrn2pyrronhism in fact you should read some sextus empiricus and fuck his shit up.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1416796]

>>1416791
>reducible to intuition
>doesn't understand the whole natural language/folk psychology discussion
i see u haven't gotten to that part of ur curriculum.

[Anonymous No.1416799]

>>1416777
>>1416771
>>1416740
Awww, you guys are so sweet, I love /lit/ the 4chan board of love, unless you're a tripfag.

[Anonymous No.1416804]

>>1416792
>implying wisdom of the ancients
hahaha_oh_wow.tar.gz

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416806]

>>1416796
It was briefly discussed in one of my philmind freshman classes, I don't remember it. This is probably because it was incredibly insignificant. All I really took from it was behaviourism, eliminativism and functionalism theories.

[xtabyr No.1416820]

>>1416796
what year is he in?

[Anonymous No.1416839]

>>1416820
1700s

[Anonymous No.1416865]

Science can't be definitively proven, it's theorizing based on experimentation. Philosophy is theorizing based on experience and society. I see little difference.

[Anonymous No.1416872]

>>1416865
That's because you're a tard.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416874]

>>1416865
>I see little difference.

Science can't tell you how to live ur life.

[Anonymous No.1416876]

Visual arts fag here.

This image preety much sums up this entire discussion.

[Anonymous No.1416885]

>>1416874
Why not just go the whole way and follow a religion?
Sure is free thought in here.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1416909]

>>1416885
>Why not just go the whole way and follow a religion?
because that would be something along the lines of a slippery slope fallacy

[Anonymous No.1416918]

>>1416885
>>1416885

Religion you say?

[Anonymous No.1416938]

>>1416918
Aha
Scientist, Philosopher, Religious nutjob.
How are the mighty fallen...

[Anonymous No.1416991]

>>1416732
This is an absolutely stellar post, and all the more refreshing since it comes from someone involved in the scientific field. It's always interesting to ponder, for all the questions science claims to answer, what the answer would be to a question outside of the capabilities of science.

[Anonymous No.1418044]

blump

[Anonymous No.1418056]

language games are played by humans, so how humans work is still the more fundamental question. also, ordinary language philosophy tried to take language games as a basis of analysis but look how that turned out.

[oblimo !DSzvku.lzI No.1418074]

>>1416732 Science is great, but its not magic.

Hehehehe.

[Anonymous No.1418123]

>>1416732
Too Long; Can't Understand
seriously man, most of us here are dumbfags, and others just fake their intelligence.