/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8181890]

Why so many smart people dismiss philosophy?

http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

>>>/sci/8151865

[Anonymous No.8182086]

>>8181890
Because they arent smart

[Anonymous No.8182134]

>>8181890
Because STEMfags work in fields where anything but (near) perfect prediction is probably bullshit. That and they usually always formulate their hypothesis' with very simple and well-understood metrics.

So they react especially allergic to fields that do not work that way. Which is why they seem so autistic, because while that way of thinking is certainly adequate for their field, it strongly distorts the value of generated theories of other fields.

i.e.:
Psychology (even barring psychoanalysis) is often absolutely disregarded by STEMautists, because to them phenomenon are not a valid metric and/or they spaz the fuck out because a lot of terminology is still being standardized or they think there are simply too many variables to make study possible.... Therefore i.e. clinical psychology is disregarded as quackery. Meanwhile, in the real world, we know that it does have very real and measurable use in application.

As for philosophy specifically, it is simply a natural reaction, since they emphasise the differences put out ever since natural philosophy separated itself from the rest.

[Anonymous No.8182140]

That's like asking why so many strong people are terrible at baseball. They don't play.

[Anonymous No.8182142]

>>8182134
>>Because STEMfags work in fields where anything but (near) perfect prediction is probably bullshit
Probability theory is the basis of a lot of STEM fields.

[Anonymous No.8182150]

>muh empiricism

[Anonymous No.8182159]

>>8182150
empiricism is a philosophy anon

[Anonymous No.8182162]

>>8182140
Good response

[Anonymous No.8182168]

>>8182159
Yes, but stemfags are often too dumb to realize that.

[Anonymous No.8182169]

>>8181890
Philosophy is a tool for a better life and the search for wisdom. A lot of smart people dismiss wisdom and life knowledge for literal facts and absolutes.

[Anonymous No.8182173]

>>8181890
because philosophy is a garbage discipline based on MUH FEELS and make believe

[Anonymous No.8182175]

>>8181890
lol they are so mad

[Anonymous No.8182181]

someone tweet him the article

[Anonymous No.8182182]

I can't read that thread, so full of fucking AUTISM.

[Anonymous No.8182188]

>article written by a woman
yeah nah

[Anonymous No.8182190]

>>8181890
Albert Einstein had it right: philosophy is the difference between a specialist and a man seeking the truth.

[Anonymous No.8182200]

Because capitalism has become an epistemology by itself, and science is not excluded of it.

[Anonymous No.8182204]

>>8181890

Nobody knows anything about philosophy because nobody NEEDS to know anything about philosophy. It's irrelevant knowledge.

[Anonymous No.8182211]

>>8182142
Their norm of coherence with results in proposed probability is, however, much higher than in other fields.

i.e.: It would be reasonable to assume that the effect size from variable A on variable B having a value of 0.5 (as a significant result) is a strong indication for it being a factor, you would usually be dealing with values of, say, 0.95 in most STEM experiments. There you would have to assume you missed something big, while in psychology you simply gained information about how strong this factor is and/or how accurate your proposed metric is.
Many simply can't wrap their head around the fact that even partial causations are useful scientific discoveries.

Keep in mind we are talking about our friends over at /sci/. You know, the dudes with the meme about desperately wanting to upload their brain to a computer to escape this horrible irrational mortal coil.

[Anonymous No.8182215]

>>8182204
Nice bait.

[Anonymous No.8182219]

Because they're tools in every sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.8182224]

Why so many smart people dismiss science?

[Anonymous No.8182257]

he's read the article lads, he's finding the light

" I was legitimately criticized (
http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/)) for an offhand remark about philosophy, so I’ve been reading books about philosophy, trying to catch up. The process of science, you could make a reasonable claim, is actually natural philosophy." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/nyregion/how-bill-nye-the-science-guy-spends-his-sundays.html?_r=0

[Anonymous No.8182271]

>>8182257
>no link to him saying that

[Anonymous No.8182272]

>>8182257
This, although I hope he's reading the correct works and with an open mind and hopefully with secondary sources

[Anonymous No.8182279]

>>8182224
Literally no smart person dismisses science

[Anonymous No.8182287]

>>8182257
Oh wow

Bill Nye based?

[Anonymous No.8182290]

>>8182271
read my post again, it's at the bottom

[Anonymous No.8182295]

>>8182287
He's pretty based.
Fame went to his head, but usually he is a reasonable dude.

[Anonymous No.8182304]

>>8182200
Terribly true. 10/10 reponse.

[Anonymous No.8182318]

If they dismiss philosophy they aren't smart or don't know what philosophy actually is. Any person who isn't autistic but smart would study philosophy

[Anonymous No.8182326]

>>8182318
>Any person who isn't autistic but smart would study philosophy
>implies he's not autistic with these opinions

[Anonymous No.8182329]

I don't see how anyone who even had a decent introductory class on philosophy could dislike it.

But then again, not all STEM's act like this. It's just this vocal fucking minority of cunts who are either sperg to the core or actual psychopathic fuckheads like you have in every thread as soon as the poster count goes beyond 20.

[Anonymous No.8182331]

>>8181890
Because being smart is an illusion. It works just like fishing: You're a small fish and when you take the specialization bait you leave the sea.

[Anonymous No.8182378]

>>8182326
No implication I'm not autistic, I am....

[Anonymous No.8182379]

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

[Anonymous No.8182381]

oh shit

[Anonymous No.8182384]

>>8182381
>applet

[Anonymous No.8182387]

>>8182381

WADDUP

[Anonymous No.8182394]

>>8182159

[Anonymous No.8182405]

[Anonymous No.8182419]

>>8182405

>Logic-and-Reason baby's first attempt at satire

Heh...

[Anonymous No.8182425]

>>8182211
>You know, the dudes with the meme about desperately wanting to upload their brain to a computer to escape this horrible irrational mortal coil.
Have they come up with a way to bring their fedoras too? Virtual fedoras? Customization too?

[Anonymous No.8182426]

>>8182394

[Anonymous No.8182429]

>>8181890
>read the user comments
>So... the author's arguments in support of philosophy include: text books full of ideas one might have while on LSD; respected members of the field who believe a giant wizard in the sky is constantly creating the world.
>Does that include all the current academic philosophers who swear by poststructuralist quackery?
It's like they didn't read the part where the author pointed out that mocking an argument isn't the same as refuting it. Sheesh.

[Anonymous No.8182434]

>>8182405
Christ, this is unfunny.

[Anonymous No.8182441]

>>8182257
>>8182272
Do you think he started with the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.8182449]

>>8181900

[Anonymous No.8182473]

Extreme academic division of labor does to a scientist or other kind of academic exactly what Adam Smith said it would do to a worker in industry, which is to "corrupt the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred."

[Anonymous No.8182481]

>>8182405
Well the Sci dude has no idea what he's talking about either, "ptotoeomic synthesis" isn't something you DO and also not a way to do what he says he's trying to do. And also wouldn't be a stable compound and especially wouldn't do shot when it comes to breaking the BB

[Anonymous No.8182513]

>>8181890
Science is about objectivity, whereas much of philosophy, especially postmodern/continental philosophy, is inherently subjective.

I think many of them wrongly assume that philosophy is a monolithic field with subjectivity as its basis.

[Anonymous No.8182528]

>>8182441

Perhaps he entered with the Egyptians

https://youtu.be/rSNV5m-qOAg

[Anonymous No.8182535]

>>8182528
Why would anyone do that?

[Anonymous No.8182542]

When STEMfags have to think about a moral problem, or about which candidate to vote for in an election, do they just shut down? They can't resort to ethics or political philosophy because they don't want to use even a little bit of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8182550]

>>8182542
>When STEMfags have to think about a moral problem, or about which candidate to vote for in an election, do they just shut down?
>have to think about
It's simple: they don't. It's too lowly for their superior intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8182565]

>>8182272
It'll be Bertrand Russell won't it.

Tbh I'm not that bothered, the guy popularises science rather than is an actual scientist, he wasn't as bad in the video as that article leads you to believe, and even the worst part with the mischaracterisation of cogito ergo sum has a certain Heideggerian sophistication to it. Plus I grew up on Beakman's World and Paul Zaloom does shit like write stage plays based on Dante, so to me it's less of a problem

[Anonymous No.8182576]

>>8182542
It's a non-issue. Ethics and politics are man made concepts (unlike science) so they are not real. Besides, you can just do what our Lord and Saviour commands.

[Anonymous No.8182578]

>>8182542

I get what you are saying but it doesn't really matter any more, politics is not about different sides with well structured and consistent ideologies behind them, it's literally a popularity contest with no substance.

[Anonymous No.8182583]

>>8182481
They want to talk science not DO science

[Anonymous No.8182585]

>>8182513
>citing bill nye the science guy as a legitimate scientist who has never contributed any worthwhile research
he's an entertainer with a STEM degree more than anything. don't take him seriously.

>Science is about objectivity
nah. you couldn't be more wrong. the majority of science is subjective. that's why everything discovered is a "theory" or a "law" because at any point, some new theory or idea could come along which disproves it. what we know about science and the natural world are completely dependent on the era we are in (much like philosophy)

[Anonymous No.8182604]

>>8182583
Science is something you are, not something you do.

[Anonymous No.8182608]

>>8182604
But if you are a science then I could do you bb ;^)

[Anonymous No.8182610]

You fellas seem way more knowledgable than me about philosophy.
Here's the same thread in /sci/
>>>/sci/8151865
So a question that popped there is if there is an example of progress in philosophy solving a problem stated independently in some other field (this is common in science). Do you know of any?

[Anonymous No.8182631]

>>8182610
That's not really what philosophy is all about. It's not in the business of solving problems.

[Anonymous No.8182639]

>>8182585
Science isn't about objectivity in the sense that all scientific theories are objectively true; it's objective because scientists employ empiricism, unlike some philosophers.

Also, I wasn't citing Bill Nye as a legitimate scientist. He's not the only person who's said this. Stephen Hawking has been saying this for years.

[Anonymous No.8182647]

>>8182631
Pure math isn't interested in physics either, but it finds applications anyway (unreasonable effectiveness and all that), maybe something like that has sometimes happened with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.8182649]

>>8182610
I may not be the best guy to answer this but I see issues in the way you tackle the problem itself: you speak as philosophy is to be treated as a science, and I'm sure you don't mean to.

Philosophy is not about progress
Philosophy is not about solving problems

[Anonymous No.8182653]

Because post-50s philosophy has made philosophy a joke. I mostly blame France for that.

[Anonymous No.8182658]

>>8182649
hmm, then that would be the reason smart people are ignorant about philosophy, I don't see why anyone would study anything that solves nothing.

[Anonymous No.8182659]

>>8182653
The analytics are sealed off from that stuff though.

[Anonymous No.8182660]

>>8182647
>maybe something like that has sometimes happened with philosophy?

Many people throughout all of history use philosophy to guide their lives. For example, we always get threads here of people praising Aurelius's Meditations, saying it helped improve their outlook on life.

[Anonymous No.8182665]

>>8182649
Neither is science really. It's all about falsification so mostly shitting on each others ideas

[Anonymous No.8182667]

>>8182653
They're all just fucking materialists. All of them. And they're smug about it. I just wanted to learn how to make white friends.

[Anonymous No.8182672]

>>8182658
The ability to answer questions is not the only way something can have value. Art doesn't answer any questions either.

[Anonymous No.8182673]

>>8182659
They should be. But the general discredit post 50s philosophy brought to the field has spilled over. I think it will take decades to recover.

[Anonymous No.8182674]

Bill Nye defended abortion by talking about miscarriage. He's a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.8182679]

>>8182610
Pretty much every field of science falls under philosophy, so the question is pointless.

Philosophical methods of reasoning and debate are constantly used not only in science, but also in politics and other humanities.

[Anonymous No.8182685]

>>8182653
Why?
Because Foucault showed that even sceintifical practice can be an exercise of power?
Because Deleuze tried to construct a metaphysics compatible with modern science without resorting to representetional thought?
Because Derrida was conviced that every idea is founded on its written iterability, that in the long run modifies the content of that idea?

[Anonymous No.8182686]

>>8182660
I think this is probably the best answer. A lot of the great minds of the past have had some knowledge of philosophy, and as such it has aided them in whatever else they've spent their lives doing.

[Anonymous No.8182689]

>>8182674
He's not even a scientist, he's got a BSc in Mechanical Engineering. It's Lego for grown ups.

[Anonymous No.8182696]

>>8182685
Are you OK? I just want to help you.

[Anonymous No.8182699]

>>8182685
No. Because they made philosophy -immediately- political and thus sullied the perception people had of it (or rather people influenced by them did).

[Anonymous No.8182704]

>>8182689
>>8182674

everyone you disagree with isn't stupid. i dont like him, but i'm not going to insult him because his stem major isn't prestigious enough for some stemlords.

[Anonymous No.8182713]

>>8182696
I'm fine. It's just that I'm pretty tired of people shitting on philosophers without any proper reason.

I'm guessing that it's analytical fags reading those undoubtely fashionable philosphers and not getting anything because they're not familiar with Hegel, Husserl or Heidegger.

>>8182699
Every philosopher is political, philosophy was born when politics arose. And anyway they were really (all three of them) not really hard-leftists (and they couldn't be if they were to be coherenu with their philosophical thoughts).
That is actually my main gripe with them since "their thought" is unproductive in a revolutionary sense,

[Anonymous No.8182714]

>>8182679
This is disingenuous. I guess that would make it ok to close the philosophy departments at universities (philosophy would still make be represented through science). I obviously meant those parts of philosophy that are not already covered by some other discipline.

[Anonymous No.8182720]

>>8182685

I like reading Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and all those other Frenchies, but let's not deny they're fucking enigmatic and that by insisting that philosophy was always Marxist in some shape or form has completely alienated it from most of society.
They excommunicate everyone who isn't revolutionary enough, or doesn't insist on revolution.

[Anonymous No.8182729]

>>8182704
>everyone you disagree with isn't stupid
That's true, but some are.

>his stem major isn't prestigious enough
To be called 'the science guy' and to be thought of as an authority by the public at large, not it isn't.

[Anonymous No.8182744]

>>8182720
None of them were Marxists (maybe save for Foucalt but a very unorthodox one in any sense of the word. Deleuze never even named Marx in his writing prior to his encounter with Guattari, and when Derrida did he was talking about Marxism without being a marxist. They studied him without any doubt, and they were materialists but that doesn't really make them "marxists".

As for the language used to write, it is a choice philosophically grounded, both Derrida and Deleuze follow Heidegger in avoiding a "what is" definition, which they saw as classical metaphysics. They are all radical nominalists. And this really just a epistemological radicalization of Nietzsche.

And anyway I prefer philospher who are outspoken about their politics, even if they don't suit me.

[Anonymous No.8182771]

>>8182713
>Every philosopher is political

That's why is said im-mediately.

[Anonymous No.8182798]

>>8182744
>And anyway I prefer philospher who are outspoken about their politics, even if they don't suit me.

Well this is a legitimate taste but the consequence has been a general alienation of people from philosophy. It used to be considered the domain of the wise by the populace now it's just perceived as that crazy sectarian university major for marxists only.

[Anonymous No.8182799]

>>8182215

Ok, I'll take your bait. Why does anyone need to know anything about philosophy?

Don't mention ethics or decision making. People don't need to know philosophy for those.

[Anonymous No.8182802]

>>8182134
Don't pretend psychology is itself innocent in this matter. They as a discipline did a witch-hunt and tried so hard to rebrand themselves as a hard science; which is retarded.

All because of some fears that in the grime dark future of academia: there is only stem...

It backfired, and now they carry this stigma of trying to hang out with the cool kids and being rejected.

You can't really engineer a discipline like that.

[Anonymous No.8182811]

>>8182729

being a pop scientist is more about being a good communicator than having the a prestigious degree or contribution to a field. he's definitely qualified enough to host a children's show on science.

no one should be seen as an authority on fields they haven't studied extensively themselves, but you didn't say that. you just demeaned his intelligence because of his major.

[Anonymous No.8182814]

>>8182729
he was called the science guy on his wacky show for children, mate.

[Anonymous No.8182820]

>>8182798
>consequence has been a general alienation of people from philosophy

people never gave a shit about philosophy in the first place, you know the story of thracian woman, do you? And if people can't ponder about ideas (even more so political ideas) which they do not agree with, then I don't think philosophy is for them anyway.

[Anonymous No.8182831]

>>8182134
People don't like psychology because it isn't replicable, it's just throwing shit at a wall until you see what sticks.
Even other fields disliked by pseuds such as anthropology and sociology are replicable.

[Anonymous No.8182834]

>>8182729
Leave Bill alone.

[Anonymous No.8182847]

>>8182820
I live in Europe so my perception might be different. Anyway before the 60s people didn't understand anything about philosophy but it was considered respectable if cryptic. Here (France) good marks in philosophy at school had high importance as they had a stronger importance in your overall results than anything else except for mathematics. Then post 50s philosophy happened and in the space of fifty years philosophy steadily lost prestige and became the realm of petty politicking.

[Anonymous No.8182857]

>>8182173

[Anonymous No.8182868]

>>8182847
How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.8182870]

>>8182542

[Anonymous No.8182876]

>>8182134
psychology=/=psychiatry

Even the most autistic of STEMers considers psychiatry a legitimate medical field and it certainly doesn't have perfect prediction.

[Anonymous No.8182877]

>>8182542
Had some autistic guy I work with stumble into a conversation me and another guy were having about death. His addition was that he 'thinks about it logically, and that being sad is illogical so he just remembers the good times and doesn't need to cry' and he said he can't understand people who get sad about death because his grandparents died and he just 'remembers the good times.'

I said that grandparents are usually the first meaningful people face losing in life, but are also usually the most naturally accepted deaths, and that is he lost a child (hypothetically) he wouldn't necessarily be about to frame the death the same way. He said he didn't have kids (factually) and walked away.

Besides the fact that he massivly simplified the scope of the original conversation ( which was about living people's relation to the dead and the legacy of dead people, which he just took to be: death. Good or bad?) I was just dumbfounded by his total inability to engage with the idea that some kinds of death are different.

That being said he is a good programmer and a nice enough guy. But dat autistic science brain man, being around these types it feels like a sci-fi movie where a toddler had some latent psychic powers. They are capable in one small arena and functionality retarded everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.8182878]

>>8182831
I'm guessing you are one of the faggots who don't know the difference between the terms "psychiatry", "psychology" and "Psychoanalysis".
An example of psychology:
http://wagerlab.colorado.edu/files/papers/Wager_2004_Neuroimage.pdf

[Anonymous No.8182884]

>>8182876
And psychology =/= psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.8182888]

>>8182877
>He said he didn't have kids (factually) and walked away.
LOGIC'D

[Anonymous No.8182897]

>>8182868
I wanted to study how France moved from the "méthode syllabaire" to teach reading to the "méthode globale" and from that i got a broader view of how the schooling system evolved in the past half-century.

[Anonymous No.8182898]

>>8182802
I don't see any issue with a scientific field to test out how scientifically rigorous it can be.

And it didn't totally backfire. At least it purged most unis from those psychoanalysts, who somehow managed to get a seat at the table.

[Anonymous No.8182912]

>>8182169
>Philosophy is a tool for a better life and the search for wisdom.
>believes this
holy shit

[Anonymous No.8182913]

Is /sci/ normally that autistic?

How did I know there would be an IQ debate embedded?

[Anonymous No.8182927]

Reminder that there are plenty of people in math and physics who have an understanding of literature or philosophy that rivials what you you obtained from your BA program, but you rarely see academics in the humanities with even just a BS level understanding of math and physics.

That's because STEMlords are so intelligent that the fields you want to devote your lives to are mere hobbies to us.

[Anonymous No.8182932]

>>8182927
if i devote my life to literature, that doesn't make my life any less meaningful than yours, nor does it have any bearing on my intelligence.
dick.

[Anonymous No.8182961]

>>8182927

[Anonymous No.8182964]

>>8182877
This is now a STEMfags say the funniest things thread.

>In my bedroom, reading blessed Kierkegaard.
>STEMfag roommate walks in.
>"Watcha readin' anon."
> "Kierkegaard." I say.
>Roommate shows genuine interest so I explain a little bit of what I'm reading to him.
>Is completely on board with it until we get to the bready stuff.
>Asks me if I believe all this stuff.
>Try to explain that no one believes all of what an individual philosopher says, there's a lot taking different bits from different people and combining it into something personal to you.
>Roommate nods, contemplating what I've just said.
>"My philosophy is that life can form from any element."
>"What?" I reply.
>"There are lots of planets, so it's definitely a possibility."
>He leaves the room and I sit in stunned silence.

[Anonymous No.8182974]

''Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go.''
--Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.8182977]

>>8182964
>"My philosophy is that life can form from any element."

He was talking about the multiplicity of human condition and the infinity of possibilities that ultimately exists within our own void.

[Anonymous No.8182996]

>>8182977
I think what he was trying to say was:
>ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.8183008]

>>8182964
>life can form from any element

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8183013]

STEMspergs aren't intelligent.

They are essentially autistic.
>>8182224
>>8182279
Every smart person does, actually.

[Anonymous No.8183030]

>>8182974
>''Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next to go.''
This is Ayn Rand, not Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.8183045]

>>8183008
That life doesn't necessarily have to be carbon based.

But it is the most likely.

[Anonymous No.8183048]

>>8183030

Wrong.

[Anonymous No.8183049]

>>8182379
Five star post

[Anonymous No.8183057]

>>8183049
Savage

[Anonymous No.8183061]

Man the thread on /sci/ is awful.

I hate this board, but maybe it's not so bad after all.

[Anonymous No.8183092]

>>8182713
Do you study philosophy?

[Anonymous No.8183093]

>>8182287
he's way above Carl Sagan, Neil SmokeDeGrass Tyson and the rest of the popscience crew for sure

[Anonymous No.8183099]

>>8182704
https://youtu.be/4IPrw0NYkMg

Just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I think everyone I disagree with is stupid.

[Anonymous No.8183108]

>>8183092
Yes.

[Anonymous No.8183111]

>>8183093
What was bad about Sagan?

[Anonymous No.8183113]

>>8181890
I do not know.

I do know this:
Engineers may dismiss it and say it's not important... but honestly, it's the most important thing. It stops you from doing what's known as "OVERengineering" your thing.

Philosophy, thinking who/what/where/when/why your product will be used for and what that all implies.
A family sedan isn't going to need to withstand 300km/h air drag on it's windshield.

[Anonymous No.8183150]

>>8182932
>replying to a STEM memer

[Anonymous No.8183153]

>>8183113
Fuck off already with this meme. You don't need a degree in philosophy to think about basic as stuff shit

[Anonymous No.8183176]

>>8182897
Sweet study subject there

[Anonymous No.8183269]

The modern engineer is a tool for the continuation of a technical society the philosopher knows should not exist.

He mocks you as he designs the next Facebook interface or perfects the efficiency of the Ipad factory assembly line.

[Anonymous No.8183272]

>>8183061
>I hate this board, but maybe it's not so bad after all.
If you only knew the state of some of the other boards compared to /lit/.

[Anonymous No.8183279]

>>8183061

You occasionally get good threads in here.

[Anonymous No.8183284]

>>8182799
Nobody "needs" to know anything. What do you specifically base the word "need" upon in this argument?

[Anonymous No.8183291]

>>8183284
This was what I thought of immediately when I read it but I figured it was moot because
>come on people it's the current year we need science to even stay alive like hellooo

[Anonymous No.8183297]

philosophers just write down stuff that everyone thinks anyway.
they just give names to things everyone has already thought about and decided not to bother writing down.

[Anonymous No.8183300]

>>8183297
Just like inventors and scientists do everything everyone else has already thought of but simply didn't have the time to create.

[Anonymous No.8183302]

>>8183030
Did you google it or did you recognize it at first sight? It's actually a quote Ayn Rand stole from Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.8183303]

>>8183302
>It's actually a quote Ayn Rand stole from Nietzsche.
Source?

[Anonymous No.8183312]

>>8183300
no because not every bum ass dude can build a tv but everyone has thought dumb shit like stirner. by the age of 14.

[Anonymous No.8183325]

>>8183312

Please stop

[Anonymous No.8183329]

>>8183312
Yeah, you have to have a PhD to work for $10/hour in a TV factory.

[Anonymous No.8183335]

>>8183329
Why are you on a god dang literature board when you can't god dang read a doggone single sentence.
it beggars belief!

[Anonymous No.8183341]

>>8183312
Thanks for the reply and thanks for making yourself look like an even bigger ass. Stick to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.8183350]

>>8183341
i don't go on /sci/ i just think its funny that you have to read a book to think about stuff that already occurred to everyone else...you must be one slow on the up take hombre, hombre.

maybe i put a little description of myself kicking yourselves up in the ass in a book and you get the idea...

[Anonymous No.8183355]

>>8183329
That's why all the factories are in Asia.

[Anonymous No.8183366]

>>8183350
>pssh.... yea right... keeed.......
Is all I read.

[Anonymous No.8183389]

>>8183366
ya'll won't see truth less its written in a leather bound book! ya'll thinkin all crooked like a sonsofabitches

>wheres my copy of postin on an image board for dummies i need to git that philosopholizin in my brain so i can be one big old god dang try hard on the lit board.
who am i quotin? YOU

[Anonymous No.8183401]

Can someone explain to me the difference between early Wittgenstein and late Wittgenstein and also the crux of his worldview?

It's got to do with language being a fallacy in itself, right? About how our expressions inadvertently lead to truth being devalued to the point of outright falsity and furthermore how flawed expressing ideas through regular discussion method, even dialectics doesn't produce results that can be deemed truthful.

Like seeing sophistry everywhere? I'm too lazy to read him now.

[Anonymous No.8183402]

>>8182140
underrated response

[Anonymous No.8183432]

>>8183401
>Can someone explain to me the difference between early Wittgenstein and late Wittgenstein
He started off pretty smooth and by the end there he was pretty damn wrinkly.

[Anonymous No.8183435]

>>8183389
>ya'll

[Anonymous No.8183443]

Philosophy is largely illogical. And dividing between "science" and "philosophy" is the work of inferior minds since there isn't even a "scientific method" to speak of (read "Against Method" by Feyerabend).

In this universe there is really only math/energy/space/bits (the substrate of all existence), objects, which are everything with dimension and mass up to and including biology, and mental phenomena/linguistics. Philosophers have sort of grasped the meta-levels of existence but otherwise pose illogical questions that are the result of not understanding why their minds look different to them than the rest of the world. Engineers are likewise an inferior form of life.

[Anonymous No.8183459]

>>8183443

[Anonymous No.8183467]

>>8183111

Nothing, he's just easy for people to lump in with black science man

Sagan was more based than Nye

[Anonymous No.8183486]

>>8182802
>They as a discipline did a witch-hunt and tried so hard to rebrand themselves as a hard science
can you blame them after the phallic jew and his french discipline?

[Anonymous No.8183487]

>>8183459

here I'll throw you another bone:

mathematical universe theory is really rather obviously correct, and "physicality" is just... first-person mathematics. You are a theorem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.8183495]

>>8183443
philosophy invented the scientific method honey

[Anonymous No.8183506]

>>8182190
is this a real quote or just lit being lit?

[Anonymous No.8183523]

>>8183487

[Anonymous No.8183532]

>>8183459
>>8183523
Go back to >>>/v/ you disgusting crossboarder

[Anonymous No.8183568]

>>8183487
>mathematical universe theory is really rather obviously correct

oh gosh if only someone had thought of that before a few millenia ago

what's the point of rebranding platonism to make it sound lame?

[Anonymous No.8183571]

>>8183284

Wow, a cowardly retreat into word games where you pretend you don't know what I'm talking about so you don't have to admit your discipline is utterly useless. I totally didn't expect this at all.

I get it, I'm not smart enough to understand why we need philosophy for ??????????? This is only something a fry cook/clerk could understand.

[Anonymous No.8183583]

>>8183532

[Anonymous No.8183584]

>>8183291
Someone with a med degree will not be able to solve the issue of when a living organism can be considered "alive" in the sense that it is an ethical subject.
Someone working in AI will not be able to determine the categories his program will have to meet, in order to be considered a sentient being.
When evident that there is a significant difference between cognitive faculties between two demographics, a politician will not be the one to come up with a reason why this doesn't matter.
When doing research in decision making, a neuropsychologist will not be able to come up with categories which would qualify as "free will".

Unless they studied philosophy.

The point is that philosophers learn previously made arguments and know the kind of logic and axioms behind them. (And previous errors.) A good philosopher will help you figure out what kind of premises are within any given statement/assertion, see if it fits the rest and help you avoid errors.
Specialized scientists rarely have the education or the brains to do this.

In new fields, it is not uncommon to invite philosophers as consultant.
Mainly to catch common errors in reasoning and provide alternative ideas.
Also philosophers tend to be able to think quick on their feet, because they are trained to think without being overly married to any particular idea.

[Anonymous No.8183598]

>>8183443
>guys, I've read this mind blowing book!: The Post
You are making an ass of yourself.

[Anonymous No.8183629]

>>8182802
>They as a discipline did a witch-hunt and tried so hard to rebrand themselves as a hard science; which is retarded.
Didn't this happen with pretty much all disciplines?

[Anonymous No.8183645]

>>8181890
They do? If they do, it seems likely to me that their reasons may vary a lot.

[Anonymous No.8183654]

>>8182659
>>8182673

stemfags in disguise

[Anonymous No.8183717]

>>8183443
>mfw someone tries to grasp a dharma near me

[Anonymous No.8183852]

>>8181890
>bachelors degree in engineering
>considered an authority on anything

most people in their 20s are more educated than Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.8184112]

>>8183583
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.8184118]

>>8182964
He just misunderstood philosophy for theory

[Anonymous No.8184188]

>>8182159

empiricism is an epistemology

[Anonymous No.8184298]

>>8181890
Because 90% of philosophy is shit.

[Anonymous No.8184532]

Science is solely concerned with empirical analysis of the material world.

Philosophy comprises analysis of immaterial concepts such as morality, knowledge, reason and language.

A scientist can study the body and create, for example, a means for aborting fetuses. A philosopher can investigate whether this is right or wrong, advantageous to society or disadvantageous. Science can tell you how the brain functions, but philosophy is needed to tell you why that knowledge is important.

Art, literature, politics, economics and science itself are ultimately derived from philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8184534]

>>8182379
>STEM people don't even fucking exist.
best post
please make it a banner

[Anonymous No.8184551]

>>8182927
This is a result of the division of modern Western post-war academia into different funding and professionalization categories and has hardly anything to do with the superior intelligence of who chooses what.

[Anonymous No.8184601]

>>8182653
is not Foucault's fault, stop this meme
he was a brilliant guy

[Anonymous No.8184622]

>>8182379
>Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form.

[Anonymous No.8184627]

>>8182379
this is the best thing ever posted here

[Anonymous No.8184630]

>>8182927
fuck you

[Anonymous No.8184663]

>>8182200
Elaborate pls.

[Anonymous No.8184799]

As a STEMfag I have to say that I've found most things said about STEMfags in this thread to be right. Everyone I work with seems to evaluate everything in life in terms of literal, practical value. Even those who read regularly seem to do it just to rank things. Everything is either right or wrong. There's no discussion, there's nothing. To most of them, anything that doesn't serve a practical purpose is worthless (in this case entertainment is also"practical"). So obviously philosophy "isn't practical" therefore it's useless to them.

This isn't speculation or libel, this is experience speaking

[Anonymous No.8184806]

>>8184799
interesting.
what do they read?

[Anonymous No.8184815]

>>8184806
The most well read person I've talked to has mentioned he's read Dickens and Joyce, but most of what I've heard him talk about is which Wheel of Time book is better and which Dune book is better.

[Anonymous No.8184958]

>>8183584
>>Someone with a med degree will not be able to solve the issue of when a living organism can be considered "alive" in the sense that it is an ethical subject.
>Someone working in AI will not be able to determine the categories his program will have to meet, in order to be considered a sentient being.
That's just because there's no correct answer, dipshit. Someone who studied philosophy can take a shitty guess at answering this, and so can someone who didn't. Turing test wasn't designed by a philosopher

[Anonymous No.8184975]

>>8183584
>>The point is that philosophers learn previously made arguments and know the kind of logic and axioms behind them. (And previous errors.)
I can do that in a day for any argument using the internet. Your valuable knowledge is in fact worthless

[Anonymous No.8184981]

Who cares. It's just quotes and "deep thoughts" and arguments about whether we should progress or not.

[Anonymous No.8184982]

>>8182169
the people who believe this whole "philosophy as self-help" bullshit are honestly worse than STEMfags who just deny the whole field.

[Anonymous No.8184983]

>>8184981
philosophy is some of the spookiest shit possible, super dumb waste of time

[Anonymous No.8185093]

>>8182379

kek

>>8182204
>>8183571

>I'm not smart enough to understand why we need philosophy for ???????????

Based on your line of reasoning, you legitimately are not.

>>8182653
>>8182699
>>8182720
>>8182798

>It doesn't have mass appeal.
>Therefore, it has less "value".

You are better than this, /lit/. Who cares if it alienates people? It's not philosophy's role to reinforce peoples pre-conceived ideas about the world. Foucault is the man.

>>8182927

>muh unsupported claims
>muh weasel words

I knew many exceptionally bright "STEMlords", as you elegantly put it, in college. Without exception, they did not read for pleasure and could barely string two sentences together of written english.

[Anonymous No.8185130]

The day /lit/ eagerly displayed just as much autism as any /sci/ thread.
Must be lonely being so much smarter than everyone else.

[Anonymous No.8185177]

>>8183401

>It's got to do with language being a fallacy in itself, right?

That doesn't make any sense.

>About how our expressions inadvertently lead to truth being devalued to the point of outright falsity

No. What?

>furthermore how flawed expressing ideas through regular discussion method

What

>even dialectics doesn't produce results that can be deemed truthful.

are you

>Like seeing sophistry everywhere?

talking about?

[Anonymous No.8185182]

>>8181890

that thread

[Anonymous No.8185203]

>>8185130
>Must be lonely being so much smarter than everyone else.
It is

[Anonymous No.8185224]

>>8184958
The Turing test has been criticised through the Chinese room argument. And there's rarely ever a "correct answer", like everyone else they just have to try to be right enough

[Anonymous No.8185238]

>>8182542
most stems i've met have proudly proclaimed themselves to be annoying libertarians, spouting stuff such as "as long as you keep it to yourself i don't care what you do!", "why should _i_ pay for some bum's hospital stay?" and orwell's rifle on the wall quote; you get the picture. it's the easiest and most convenient superiority lifestyle/worldview you can get your hands on, so of course that's what they pick

so present them with a problem and the answer you get is quite simple: "not my problem"

[Anonymous No.8185260]

>>8182647
No actually it is. There has been major crossovers from math to physics and back again particularly since the middle of last century (I forget the actual term for this but most introductory books for stuff in the standard model like Yang Mills have a little explanation about it).

Very much in the earlier part of last century and before there was a similar relationship between philosophy and mathematics that eventually gave rise to and analytic schools and the Vienna circle and both main bits of set theory and Wittgenstein and Gödel and so on. You also get get a bit of philosophy crossover with quantum theory because because a whole set of new ideas that involve including the experimenter/observer in there had to be developed.

On that last part btw, whether these guys realise it or not, is where they're getting the idea that philosophy is dead or at least removed from the practice of physics. A lot of people involved in developing QM prematurely thought they'd killed off metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.8185283]

>>8183443
Many many in the stem establishment worship at the altar of Quine and don't know who Feyerabend is. I also get the feeling some of them think Quine wasn't hard line enough.

[Anonymous No.8185306]

>>8184975
>stemfag thinks his critical faculties are impeachable because the internet

so what you're saying here is that you skim read articles online and then delude yourself into thinking you've gained the same level of knowledge as the thinkers who have been attacking the subject for centuries?

[Anonymous No.8185307]

>>8183153
It doesn't hurt and it isn't basic shit. In lean management he's talking about a role often called product owner, and they ideally should have something like like a background in philosophy and a couple of decades working with customers/consumers

[Anonymous No.8185382]

>>8182405
>somebody screencapped this

[Anonymous No.8185389]

>>8182405

>/sci/ tries to emulate comedy

It's like a turing test for autists.

[Anonymous No.8185392]

>>8184601
>was
Fuck, is Foucault dead?

[Anonymous No.8185401]

>>8182481
I'd add as well that it's probably more 5htp you'd be looking at and I assume the scitard thinks he's making a clever reference to.

[Anonymous No.8185405]

>>8185392
He died of the AIDS before it was really a thing.

[Anonymous No.8185410]

>>8185405
Bullshit. He was not a gay man.

[Anonymous No.8185412]

Are philosophers and scientists like the jets and sharks of academia?

[Anonymous No.8185422]

>>8182964
>"bready"

english is not my first language, what does this mean?

[Anonymous No.8185424]

>>8185412
No.
The Jets and the Sharks are cool.

[Anonymous No.8185429]

The best part is when STEMlords identify with positivism

[Anonymous No.8185432]

>>8185422
It's a pun on "meaty," meaning heavy, hearty, of thick substance.

[Anonymous No.8185433]

>>8185412
It's a fucking musical theatre copy of Romeo and Juliet. At least use a lit reference m8

[Anonymous No.8185562]

>>8182610
Developments in formal logic (Frege) and set-theory (Russell, Dana Scott, Zermelo), metalogical results (Gödel, Henkin). Philosophy isn't, in it's most common form, an empirical enterprise (x-phi claims to be unconventional in this regard) and doesn't endeavour to make predictions about what laws hold in the natural world. If you want a fair comparison between the character of progress in philosophy with some other field, I'd suggest an a priori science such as mathematics, and not physics.

[Anonymous No.8185590]

I'm genuinely jealous of anyone who understands math, but at the same time these people just don't get "it."

[Anonymous No.8185718]

>>8185590
Even mathematicians don't understand math these days, just look at interuniversal Teichmüller theory.

[Anonymous No.8185719]

>>8181890
Dismissing and ignoring are two different concepts entirely. Someone can be intelligent and ignore philosophy as being a wasteful enterprise to sink their time into and instead focus entirely on tangible science and pure numbers and observations and such, it wouldn't be my style but some people just don't like to get into philosophy. To dismiss philosophy though is for the intellectually bankrupt, to completely dismiss a discipline of thinking and the school of thought of thought itself is deliberately wearing blinders. Any intellectual shouldn't completely disregard somethING and throw it to the side they should study all that they can that improve thought processes. And if it's about Bill Nye he's the postage stamp figure of science just like Neil Blackfoot or whatever his name is

[Anonymous No.8185722]

>>8185719
>Neil Blackfoot or whatever his name is
Neil "Dat Weed's Tight Son"

[Anonymous No.8185723]

>>8185718
Based Mochizuki, /sci/'s God

[Anonymous No.8185727]

>>8185718
Not understanding and knowing their is more are two entirely different things. Also you should at least learn what the teichmuller theory actually is and what it entails first. It's fascinating but to say mathematicians don't understand math isn't anywhere close to being accurate.

[Anonymous No.8185729]

>>8185433
Are philosophers and scientists like the Capulets and Montagues academia?

[Anonymous No.8185802]

>>8184958
And a philosopher will know all answers available and may be able to make new ones.
Someone uneducated in the field is likely to make gross errors in judgement and overlook shit.

Turing test is a shit. And philosophers pointed it out.
>>8184975
And I can learn everything in STEM fields over the internet.
The point is that nobody does this, because of specialization.

[Anonymous No.8185811]

>>8185727
>teichmuller theory
I'm not clear on the relationship between IUT and so I'm not able to say why it's different and why people don't understand it, but Teichmüller theory is just linear algebra made non linear (often put forward as a mix between algebra (with polynomials and that) and linear algebra). Nobody can verify IUT and some of the things it happens to prove because no one understands it, and the only reason he's not written off as a crackpot is he has a lot of prestige in his career as a mathematician already.

>>8185723
I do find it fascinating as a whole thing desu

[Anonymous No.8185886]

>>8185811
You have no clue what IUT is in the slightest or its impact on the field of mathematics, what maths have you taken up to calculus or so? It's much more complicated then that and would take a year or so studying entirely theoretical maths to begin to truly understand unless you're a prodigy in which case you'd probably just say fuck it until it's better studied

[Anonymous No.8185893]

>>8185886
Teichmüller theory is very different to IUT bro. You seem to be confusing or confounding or confabulating the two. If you understand IUT please post about it and explain it for everyone.

[Anonymous No.8185911]

>>8185893
IUT is the application of it to a different field, geometric models which can't be normally quantified and shown to exist in 3 dimensions but do indeed exist in 3 dimensions, sort of

[Anonymous No.8185919]

>>8185723
>>8185727
>>8185811
>>8185886
>>8185893
>>8185911
nerds

[Anonymous No.8185945]

>>8182140
This

[Anonymous No.8185963]

>>8185911
I thought it was about applying it to Galois groups, and that's really what intrigues me about it.

>>8185919

[Anonymous No.8185974]

>>8185893
I majored in math and chemistry math isn't my main discipline at all didn't go into graduate work with maths and it's a hobby of mine I know the basics of it though and the basics of it alone would be like telling a blind person to put together a jigsaw puzzle unless you've been studying math for a long ass time

[Anonymous No.8185984]

>>8185429
>Wittgenstein created "here is one hand" argument
That was G. E. Moore

[Anonymous No.8185987]

>>8185974
These are graduate areas bro.

[Anonymous No.8185993]

>>8185963
OK good nvm you know much of the start the galois groups have no discernable location in any form like unplayable and indefinable, sort of in their nature but still even more but then applying different curves of three dimensions and obtaining a discernible output on a number line... two different intangible and non existing geometrical models coming together and getting outputs that normally would seem completely impossible it's really really weird but yes it's fascinating, since you know the application of galois groups some weekend hole yourself in with some stimulants of your choice and excess amounts of alcohol and go balls deep, that's my method at least lol

[Anonymous No.8186001]

>>8185987
I know, I didn'tget any graduate work done in university in math but I've always studied it, no point in going further university wise in it maybe when I'm old and decide to lecture but I'm still under 30 and have other things I want to do

[Anonymous No.8186010]

>>8185993
>it's really really weird but yes it's fascinating, since you know the application of galois groups some weekend hole yourself in with some stimulants of your choice and excess amounts of alcohol and go balls deep, that's my method at least lol
I'm slowly going though the Teichmüller stuff. I read a fair amount about abstract algebra and complex analysis pre uni, then it turned out engineering degrees focus on lots of linear algebra and multivariate calculus and so on.

[Anonymous No.8186013]

Why do we have two threads with the same topic up?

[Anonymous No.8186034]

>>8186010
Yeah that was my dilemma too I love studying math got my undergrad in it and Chem but went into the Chem field but it deals in "real" maths like physics as well vs the imaginable. IUT in a way is like taking two bags of abstract maths and throwing them against a stretchrd piece of paper like a football game thing and instead of piercings through the paper the two bags collapsed into each other and a cold can of beer is laying where they fell

[Anonymous No.8186058]

>>8186034
>but it deals in "real" maths like physics as well vs the imaginable
I know right. I really hope it's something substantial so we can get the cool math in more normal shit iykwim.

[Anonymous No.8186081]

>>8183584
P.I.C.E.R.A.S, look it up
>inb4 but what makes something TRULY alive? is an AI considered alive? what about viruses xd

[Anonymous No.8186161]

>>8181890
>Why so many smart people dismiss philosophy?
Mostly because the vast majority of philosophy fags they'll come into contact with are figurative retards.
College breads a special kind of retard philosophy major who seems to think that just because they've been shown what reason is that every thought that comes from their head is rational.

>>8182639
>Stephen Hawking has been saying this for years.
Stephen hawking is a meme.

[Anonymous No.8186169]

>>8182379

[Anonymous No.8186292]

>>8185238
They're right. It's not their problem. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8186315]

The IMPOSSIBLE challange

Find ONE post in >>>/sci/8151865 of someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.8186561]

>>8186292
>what is society?
Think long and hard.

Pro-Tip:
Unless you are a survivalist or a hobo, you can go fuck right off with that kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.8186582]

>>8186315
8151956 seems about right-

[Anonymous No.8186645]

>>8186081
PICERAS gives no indication about "alive as an ethical subject" and has nothing to do with sentience.

[Anonymous No.8186691]

>>8181890
The first response in that thread is that "philosophy has the same credibility and use as religion"
We just work differently than them.

[Anonymous No.8186701]

>>8185389
LOL

[Anonymous No.8186739]

>>8182140
Then why does the strong person take a shit on baseball?

[Anonymous No.8186880]

Bill Nye is a cunt and an engineer with a bachelor's degree. He is no more a scientist than some kid making a baking soda volcano eruption.

He is only popular because his child audience grew up to be manchildren today and since he was an "authority figure" for them when their teachers were disgustingly lazy, he is an "expert" now. Pop science is disgusting.

[Anonymous No.8187281]

>>8181890
Because philosophy is just logic applied to zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.8187311]

>>8186691
they arent humans
they need to be exterminated

[Anonymous No.8187449]

Why are so many people who are smart in x so stupid in y?

[Anonymous No.8187508]

>>8182379

Its the current form of American pragmatism. Nothing matters but what is "functional" or what "works". Of course those terms are never well defined, but SHHHH SHHHHH, don't say that.

>STEMfags don't even fucking exist

lol

[Anonymous No.8187543]

>>8182405
>I'm in a position to subdue him

[Anonymous No.8187583]

>>8182405
i found it rather funny

[Anonymous No.8187610]

>>8186561
Nobody owns you, nobody owes you, fuckboy.

[Anonymous No.8187775]

>>8182086
/thread

[Anonymous No.8187811]

>>8182173
Because philosophy understands how make believe your so-called reality is, stem-fag

[Anonymous No.8188859]

>>8185238
Wow, you're a colossal faggot. I understand some of the hate some of us STEMtards get, but you're just a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8188928]

>>8186561
>what is society?
Something that chains down the egoist.

[Anonymous No.8189082]

>>8182576
Yeah because actually it was frogs who invented science.
Oh God what a retard.

[Anonymous No.8189704]

>>8181890
There is the exact same worth to this question as to asking why there are some (if not many) smart people who don't. >>>/his/