Stephen "I cant fly" Hawk-ing

[The chair hater No.5382095]

Let's start this tread. What's stephen problem with Philosophy? is he a jealous handycap? What /lit/ thinks about this hawk that cant fly or even move?

He said that on "The great Design"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5382113]

Philosophy is dead, you cretin. The collective body of philosophy is now a faint whisper against the orchestral magnificence of the scientific method, wheezing an almost silent "You can't have objectivity" from it's parched, irrelevant lips.

[Anonymous No.5382128]

Philosophy ended in the late 19th century. Science and math took over everything of value.

[Anonymous No.5382137]

he's right, popper was the last philosopher as every schoolkid knows

[Anonymous No.5382149]

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”

the new STEM age is here, embrace it or perish plebs

[Anonymous No.5382173]

>>5382128
Not quite true due to connection of philosophy with law.

[Anonymous No.5382183]

>>5382113
Somehow, I agree.

[Anonymous No.5382213]

when will you fags stop splattering your scientism diarrhea all over /lit/

[Anonymous No.5382268]

>>5382213
Oh look, here he comes with his philosophism.

[Anonymous No.5382281]

>>5382213
Everyday until you like it.

Then again for a while, then we stop.

[Anonymous No.5382340]

[Anonymous No.5382364]

>>5382113
If you actually studied science, instead of reading about it on reddit, you would understand how the process is philosophically enriching.
The process has nothing to do with the end of the day, when the discoveries lead to your ability to copy paste a wiki article, then jerk off to your waifu.

[Anonymous No.5382422]

>>5382268
>philosophism
Presumably this is supposed to be the equivalent of scientism, except for philosophy; that is: the belief that [philosophy] is the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that [philosophy] alone can yield true knowledge about man and society. Unfortunately for scientismists, their critics have not stated this belief nor made arguments to suggest so. This displays the insecurity of the scientismists faith, however, in that they attack criticism not on any argument or logic (or, as we should expect of them, using the scientific method) but by imagining their critics hold an identical belief, except with the wrong god at its head, from which they can draw divine justification.

To sum:
Students of philosophy: "Philosophy and science are two tools with which to learn what the truth is."
Scientismists: "Science is a singular object from which all facts are derived from."

[The chair hater No.5382431]

About Metaphysics i can agree, but about the other branches of philosophy physics can't replace them, as Antropological , Ethic and Aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.5382440]

>>5382431
Ethics is not a branch of philosophy. Everyone is equally entitled to hold "muh feelings" opinions. That's not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5382443]

>>5382095
Philosophy as a science is actually dead.

Philosopy became basically the study of opinions and ideology. Stephen Hawking was talking about Philosphy from the scientific point of view of course.

[Anonymous No.5382451]

>>5382422
Mikachu, get the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.5382454]

>>5382095
When anyone who is distinguished in any particular field begins to give their opinions on fields of study outside of their own, it's best not to take it too seriously.

[Anonymous No.5382457]

>>5382422
⇒Unfortunately for scientismists, their critics have not stated this belief nor made arguments to suggest so

You mean just like no scientist ever claimed that science was the "only" method of finding truth? Your "scientism" is a made up straw man and does not exist. Just because we acknowledge the death and the uselessness of philosophy, we don't deny the possibility of knowledge outside of science. Get rekt, illiterate.

[Anonymous No.5382467]

>>5382440
>Ethics is not a branch of philsophy.
lel

[Anonymous No.5382477]

>>5382213
Never.
Scientism is like a new religion, and there is plenty of fanatics trying to convert others to their fedora cult.

[Anonymous No.5382485]

>>5382467
Show me one ethical problem that has been solved by philosophy. Show me one ethical view that is unique to philosophers and isn't held by an unqualified layman.

[Anonymous No.5382491]

>>5382477
Yeah, all these fedoras already made Dawkins a multi-millionaire.

There's some kind of thing you can subscribe to where you pay $60 dollars per month to join his club and you get a discount on his merchandise. Depending on how many thousands you pay per month, you may eventually get to take Dawkins out to lunch.

[Anonymous No.5382505]

>>5382485
>"show me these things that would have no consequence as to whether or not ethics is a field of study in philosophy."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

[Anonymous No.5382513]

>>5382491
shit-tier sarcasm.

It seems the only thing you know about religion is the tithing.

[Anonymous No.5382522]

>>5382513
No, I'm serious.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/

>the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

[The chair hater No.5382524]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

for me this is a good example about how philosophy can work with science and still make a progress.

[Anonymous No.5382538]

>>5382505
This doesn't answer my question.

[Anonymous No.5382543]

>>5382522
holy shit!

[Anonymous No.5382544]

>>5382538
>"That peer reviewed academic resource encyclopedia of philosophy wasn't enough to convince me that ethics is a field of philosophical inquiry. pls play my silly games instead."
You didn't even ask a question.

[Anonymous No.5382554]

>>5382485
philosophical ethics is used everyday in medical ethical committees

[Anonymous No.5382570]

>>5382544
Please anwer >>5382485

>>5382554
No, they only appeal to emotions. No philosophy involved.

[Anonymous No.5382587]

>>5382570
why can't you appeal to emotion and still do philosophy? Ethical intuitionism exists

[Une pédale sentimentale !!6nFU3eckunS No.5382588]

Testing

[Anonymous No.5382590]

>>5382570
My ability to show you an ethical problem that has been solved by philosophy or "an ethical view that is unique to philosophers" has no bearing on whether or not ethics is an area of philosophical study.

This isn't even a topic of debate in academia, but among the teenagers on 4chan, it is.

[Anonymous No.5382594]

>>5382587
Every idiot on the street can appeal to emotions. What does this have to do with academic philosophy?

>>5382590
So you cannot answer my question?

[Anonymous No.5382603]

>>5382594
>So you cannot answer my question?
Again, kid, you didn't ask a question. The things you told me to show you have no bearing on whether or not ethics is a field of academic study. It's not even logical.

[Anonymous No.5382607]

>>5382594
>Every idiot on the street can appeal to emotions.
that's not true

[Anonymous No.5382626]

>>5382603
Answer me.

>>5382607
It's very true. Actually most idiots can do nothing other than appealing to emotions.

[Anonymous No.5382752]

>>5382457
Stephen hawking did you stupid cunt.

[Anonymous No.5382760]

>>5382752
No, he didn't.

[Anonymous No.5382764]

>>5382752
>intellecutals

[Anonymous No.5382774]

>What /lit/ thinks about this hawk that cant fly or even move?
lol

[Anonymous No.5382784]

>>5382522
It's almost as if they were worshiping him! Like a God, perhaps?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5382799]

>>5382522
any special revelations for those of inner cycles?

[Anonymous No.5382800]

>>5382095
>philosophy v science
Why don't you take this stupid shit to /sci/ or /b/? It isn't a topic of this board, retard.

[Anonymous No.5382821]

Philosophy doesn't require study or concrete knowledge. It doesn't directly build on itself the way science does, that's why a lot of scientists look down on it.

>>5382443
Also this.

[Anonymous No.5382828]

>>5382800
It's board culture.

[Anonymous No.5382842]

>>5382828
So you mean pure shitposting? Even more of a reason to take it elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.5382851]

>>5382522
>For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise
I'm laughing so much.

[Anonymous No.5382870]

>>5382842
The discussions in 'science vs philo' threads are always highest quality.

[Anonymous No.5382873]

>>5382113
>>5382457

That people can be so adamant about being unnecessarily incorrect astounds me. To claim philosophy is dead is to betray a base misunderstanding with the way of the world. Vicious machine-souls ye are, worshiping efficiency and embittered by the realization that vulnerability and suffering goes hand in hand.

Quotes for the deaf and damned with the steel-toed boots and the fearful gaze:

>“The main business of humanity is to do a good job of being human beings," said Paul, "not to serve as appendages to machines, institutions, and systems.”

>"And my husband says somebody’s just got to be maladjusted; that somebody’s got to be uncomfortable enough to wonder where people are, where they’re going, and why they’re going there.”

>“People are finding that, because of the way the machines are changing the world, more and more of their old values don't apply any more. People have no choice but to become second-rate machines themselves, or wards of the machines.”

>“If it weren't for the people, the god-damn people' said Finnerty, 'always getting tangled up in the machinery. If it weren't for them, the world would be an engineer's paradise.”

[Anonymous No.5382877]

>>5382870
>highest quality shitposting
No such thing exists.

[Anonymous No.5382887]

>>5382137
Popper is outdated.

[Anonymous No.5383471]

>>5382760
>"]P]hilosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."
Chapter fucking 1 of the Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.5383476]

>>5382149
what he said is very true tho

[Anonymous No.5383489]

>>5382477
>being intelligent and well-studied is a fedora cult
nah, some people just understand that its better to interpret things with logic than emotion, and that being well-studied and affluent isnt a bad thing

[Anonymous No.5383506]

>>5382095
Analytic and continental philosophy are both dead, but to say that philosophy is dead is to assume, for some reason, that analytic and continental philosophy are the only two possible approaches to philosophy that could be possible.

It's just a short-sighted view that assumes 20th century philosophy was somehow the culmination of all possible philosophy. It's like saying that because the shuttle program is dead, space exploration is dead.

[Anonymous No.5383510]

>>5382149
>hawking went on to claim that 'people like me are the best and we know better than everyone'

Well, that's not self-serving in any way at all.

[Anonymous No.5383533]

Life is better when you don't approach with this "science only!" mentality.

[Anonymous No.5383536]

>>5383533
That assertion is gonna need some proof.

[Anonymous No.5383553]

>>5383536
Was it not science that told us Earth was the center of the universe?

[Anonymous No.5383558]

>>5383553
No. It was not.

[Anonymous No.5383562]

>>5383553
science told us it was not

[Anonymous No.5383563]

>>5383558
The what was it?

[Anonymous No.5383567]

>>5383562
touché

I'll just go back to reading my book. You probably haven't heard of it. *sips tea*

[Anonymous No.5383588]

>>5383567
and i'll just go back to reading my book. You probably wouldnt understand it. *opens Dolan*

[Anonymous No.5383625]

If you dont believe that science has done more for answering philosophical questions than philosophy, then you are living a lie.

[Anonymous No.5383761]

Reminder that even metaphysics still exists, and that regular physics can't handle the examinations of what lies behind the visible universe.

Although of course regular physics can, at the very least, determine that there IS something behind the visible universe, which they have.

Read The Republic again.

[Anonymous No.5384021]

>>5382760
>>5383471
Get BTFO arrowcunt.

[Anonymous No.5384404]

>>5383471
You're really illiterate, aren't you? Reread my post. I told you that accepting the death of philosophy is not equivalent to claiming that science is the only source of knowledge. "Scientism" as you describe it does not exist.

[Anonymous No.5384430]

>>5383761
lel

[Anonymous No.5384449]

>>5383761
⇒regular physics can't handle the examinations of what lies behind the visible universe.

Neither can philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5384463]

clearly he realized that life's real questions can be answered with physics, and that all the 2deep4u mumbo jumbo is asinine. Like a paradox. It's fun to think about it for a little bit, but if you spend your life on it you're just dumb.

[Anonymous No.5384469]

>>5384463
Well he's basically right. Eventually science will give us the fundamental equation for being and philosophy can just argue over semantics until heat death.

[Anonymous No.5384798]

>>5383510
>hawking went on to claim that 'people like me are the best and we know better than everyone'

Good thing he never said that.

[Anonymous No.5384868]

>>5382440
> When plebs don't even start with Aristotle

[Anonymous No.5384874]

>>5382485
You don't solve problems in ethics like in math retard.
Something that ethics have solved? Try opening a constitution for starters. Philosophy right there mate.

[Anonymous No.5384883]

>>5383562
It told us both of those. You know, new information arises. It isn't a dogma.

[Anonymous No.5384887]

>>5384469
That can happen but claiming that with certainty? Really?

[Anonymous No.5385185]

>>5384868
See this is the problem. Aristotle is the only philosopher directly quoted in murrican history classes, and only as an example of how his scientific theories were silly and wrong. Its no wonder so many people that dont read on their own fall or scientism bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5385200]

>>5382431
We can study the mind and figure out scientifically what makes things aesthetically pleasing to humans. In fact, we already have.

[Anonymous No.5385205]

>>5385200
are you Sam Harris' less gifted brother?

[Anonymous No.5385207]

>>5384883
science never told us that the Earth was the center of the universe, thats just what people believed, and when people thought about it and made keen observations, then they realized they were wrong.

[Anonymous No.5385211]

>>5385205

Are you William Lane Craig's retarded cousin?

[Anonymous No.5385212]

>>5385207
>implying it's not relative

[Anonymous No.5385214]

>>5385207
>implying picking my penis as the global frame of reference is not as valid as any other frame of reference

[Anonymous No.5385241]

>>5382173
law is practially unchanged since the late 19th century

[Anonymous No.5385245]

>>5384874
Constitutions are written by politicians, not by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5385246]

anyone who actually knows some physics will acknowledge that Hawking's theories are so abstract they would count as philosophy before science. he theorizes mainly things that can not be proven nor busted atm so it's hardly above "let there be light, and there was light"

[Anonymous No.5385252]

>>5385245
>its not philosophy unless its explicitly written by a self-proclaimed philosopher

[Anonymous No.5385268]

>>5382095

He knows philosophy is the mother of science and only philosophy will handle the big questions that science can't touch. This makes him feel inferior, so he attacks it.

He would hatefuck his mom if he could move.

[Anonymous No.5385296]

>>5385268
>only philosophy will handle the big questions that science can't touch.
>this is what philosophers actually believe

Sorry, but the only thing you people will handle is my order at McDonalds

[Anonymous No.5385316]

>>5385296

Science can't do shit with questions like "Why are we here?"

Science is purely a tool. This is partly why we're going nowhere as a civilisation: the only elite left is scientists and these faggots can't make decisions based on anything because they don't deal in decisions, just observations.

We'd already be on Mars if we had chosen a reason to go there, a reason beyond curiosity.

[Anonymous No.5385333]

>>5385268
⇒only philosophy will handle the big questions that science can't touch

Philosophy can't even handle its own questions. Through thousands of years philosophy has not found a single objective answer to any question.

[Anonymous No.5385335]

>>5385316
science can answer anything except for some fundamental things like why everything exists, and even there they are getting close. philosophy is still busy discussing questions that became obsolete decades ago, only keeping them alive by (1) denying scientific evidence and (2) fiddling around with definitions.

philosphers remind me of that 8 year old who asks why we don't just print more money and solve poverty.

[Anonymous No.5385438]

>>5385333
>Philosophy can't even handle its own questions. Through thousands of years philosophy has not found a single objective answer to any question.

Are you for real? It found plenty of answers; one of the famous one was the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.5385442]

>>5385335

>philosophers deny scientific evidence

Just what?

Scientism is about assuming that the scope we have is all that exists: the most stupid assumption of all.

Science is about reducing your scope to empirical observation, that doesn't mean nothing happens beyond that. Have some humility, faggots.

[Anonymous No.5385455]

>>5383510
nice projection bruh

[Anonymous No.5385460]

>>5382340
Two can play this game

[Anonymous No.5385467]

>>5382422
This, philosophers have no delusions about their relevance and know the benefit of the scientific method today. However, they do, and very well should refuse to reject any knowledge outside of one that's empirically verifiable and subscribe to a narow school of thought.

[Anonymous No.5385511]

>>5385438
The scientific method has nothing to do with philosophy. It was invented by people who actually got shit done and not by some lazy armchair NEETs.

[Anonymous No.5385522]

>>5385511
>The scientific method has nothing to do with philosophy.

You may want to think twice before you speak. It has everything to do with philosophy.

You take too much for granted and don't realise how people thought before today.

The idea that we should only infer based on empirical data is straight from philosophy. Other philosophers assumed you could know what was right by simply using logic, instead of observation. Thanks philosophy for that.

Remember that early philosophers and later ones too had actual jobs too. Early Skeptics were doctors and focused heavily on symbiotic and signs. Understanding symptoms was like understanding words and making sense of it all, whether for an illness or the meaning of life.

[Anonymous No.5385535]

>>5385522
⇒It has everything to do with philosophy.
The scientific method does not involve any subjective beliefs. Only facts and logic.

⇒The idea that we should only infer based on empirical data is straight from philosophy
1. If you don't know the difference between science and philosophical empiricism, you are in no position to talk.
2. The idea of working with observational facts is trivially obvious to anyone with common sense.

[Anonymous No.5385543]

>>5385535
>Only facts and logic

>logic
>not a tool of philosophy

[Anonymous No.5385547]

>>5385535
>The idea of working with observational facts is trivially obvious to anyone with common sense.

It's common sense now, after that way of thinking has been ingrained in our culture. The ancients would vehemently disagree. How do you not see this? It is not universal. Empiricism didn't appear out of thin air.

[Anonymous No.5385551]

>>5385543
logic is not about philosophy, logic is about computers and being a white male

[Anonymous No.5385552]

>>5385535
>The scientific method does not involve any subjective beliefs. Only facts and logic.

Was it not a philosophical decision based on philosophical reasonings? Yes, it was.

"Logic" was defined by philosophy. You take it all for granted, but that only shows your ignorance. Logic was refined by philosophers. They laid the ground work for science, and they were the first scientists too.

>2. The idea of working with observational facts is trivially obvious to anyone with common sense.

In 2014, yes, but you should consider history, cunt.

[Anonymous No.5385557]

>>5385535
>The idea of working with observational facts

Nobody in the ancient world would even think of it. Ask Plato. Ask Aristotles. See if "facts" even mean anything to them.

You're just showing everyone you're completely selfocentric and have never understood other cultures of other times.

You are literally ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5385559]

Why won't arrowfag fuck off? Literally the only reason he comes here is to shitpost troll in off-topic philosophy threads.

pure cancer

[Anonymous No.5385579]

>>5382095
lol love these threads.

[Anonymous No.5385597]

>>5385579
I browse and reply to them every single time though I already know how the discussion will go. It's a damn disease

[Anonymous No.5385658]

>>5385543
Logic is a field of math.

>>5385547
⇒The ancients would vehemently disagree.
The ancients had a significantly lower IQ. Look up the Flynn effect. Except for the usage of language your Plato and Aristotle weren't smarter than an average modern monkey. If a modern gorilla could talk, he'd probably produce a more reasonable and less flawed picture of reality than your unnecessarily romanticized greek heros.

[Anonymous No.5385662]

>>5385552
⇒Was it not a philosophical decision based on philosophical reasonings? Yes, it was.
Nope. The scientific method was invented by people who did science. It arose out of common sense and not out of fedora'd armchair talk.

⇒"Logic" was defined by philosophy.
Logic was formalized by mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.5385666]

>>5385658
>logic is a field of math

No, math is a type of symbolic logic.

[Anonymous No.5385674]

>>5385442

>muh scientism
>if I repeat this strawman long enough, it'll become true

And this is why philosophy is dead

[Anonymous No.5385682]

>>5385666
Logic is a strict subset of math. Look up Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

[Anonymous No.5385703]

>>5385241
No. That's so not true. I don't even know where to begin.

[Anonymous No.5385719]

>>5385245
Sort of. They often are written by prominent people who may not yet be considered politicians. They incorporate language and ideas of philosophers as well as of developed legal principles.

[Anonymous No.5385726]

>>5385662

>common sense

Ah!

Nah, seriously, people who were into maths were also into philosophy. It was the same stuff originally and the same people gave a fuck about all of it.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5385743]

>>5385662
>It arose out of common sense
bullshit
scientific method fundamentally contradicts the common sense (which is just a bunch of contemporary beliefs) and right now it basically shapes the common sense

[Anonymous No.5385761]

>>5385743
Exactly, the idea that nature can be controlled and studied by humans goes completely against common sense, it's the product of civilization and centuries of contemplation. Such weak beings, controlling the earth's resources? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5385772]

>>5385658
>IQ=intelligence
>implying IQ tests existed in that time
Top lel

[Anonymous No.5385811]

>>5384404
>You're really illiterate, aren't you?
Let me walk you through it, babycakes.

>>5382422
>Unfortunately for scientismists, their critics have not stated this belief nor made arguments to suggest so.
Original statement.
>>5382457
>You mean just like no scientist ever claimed that science was the "only" method of finding truth? Your "scientism" is a made up straw man and does not exist.
You attempted to turn the accusation around with a claim.
>>5382752
>Stephen hawking [claimed that] you stupid cunt.
Claim is challenged.
>>5382760
>No, he didn't.
Counter-challenge.
>>5383471
>>"]P]hilosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."
>Chapter fucking 1 of the Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking
Factual evidence proving your claim " no scientist ever claimed that science was the 'only' method of finding truth".

No one gives a fuck that you think there is knowledge outside of science but not from philosophy (although that makes an interesting problem for you), you don't figure in the conversation. Before you try to squirm out of it, Hawking did not "not really mean it".

[Anonymous No.5385820]

>>5384469
>Eventually science will give us the fundamental equation for being
>Everyone clap your hands and say "I believe!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.5385891]

>>5385811
>proving...

Did you mean disproving here?

[Anonymous No.5385948]

>>5385891
Yes, I did.

[Anonymous No.5385954]

>>5385246
Except that he uses mathematics and already proven theories to justify his theories. Philosophy is nothing more than opinions.

[Anonymous No.5385962]

>>5385954
>If I keep saying it, it'll be true one day

[Anonymous No.5385970]

I wouldn't think /lit/ would act this silly.

How can you fully bind yourself to empiricism? We all know our senses are extremely limited, and yet that is all you're willing to live on? The proof and repeatability of things?

Let's also remember that most of scientific inquiry starts as philosophy, and then gets moved into the realm of science for testing. Why must we be at odds? Does it really come down to how "profitable" the degree is?

Why can't we accept that Science and Philosophy need each other? Why can't we accept that both are trying to paint an accurate portrait of reality and the meaning behind it?

[Anonymous No.5385980]

>>5385962
>I'll just keep saying he's wrong, maybe that'll end the argument

[Anonymous No.5385989]

>>5385970
>Why can't we accept that both are trying to paint an accurate portrait of reality
Because they aren't?

[Anonymous No.5385991]

>>5385989

Look, poppet, I masturbate to Kant because it's fun.

[Anonymous No.5385993]

>>5385980
>I'll just keep saying he's wrong, maybe that'll end the argument

[Anonymous No.5386021]

>>5385993
A+

[Anonymous No.5386041]

eh
the universe is material and contingent
eventually scientists like hawking will have discovered all the universe can show

then what?
if we knew all material then we would try to learn the immaterial, so metaphysics would be the next step

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5386055]

>>5386041
>the universe is material and contingent
implying

[Anonymous No.5386067]

>>5385993
>>5386021
Stop making the board shittier and just make out. Or at least sage along the way.

[Anonymous No.5386084]

>>5385811
You didn't understand Hawking's analogy. He said science is the most prominent method of gaining knowledge. He didn't say it's the only one.

[Anonymous No.5386440]

>>5386055
then what is univers

[Anonymous No.5386510]

>>5385658
>Being this retarded

I'm impressed