/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8607746]

What is the point of philosophy if science will eventually explain everything conclusively?

[Anonymous No.8607757]

the LULZ

[Anonymous No.8607758]

swtg

[Anonymous No.8607764]

>>8607746
Yes but we want answers now.

[Anonymous No.8607790]

>>8607758
Cool meme picture fampaitachi. Are you denying that inevitably at some point human brain will be calculated and modeled down to a single subatomic particle? Every emotion, idea, desire, ideology, motive, everything will be expressed by a set of formulas. Would philosophers still write their delusional books about their ethics and claim intellectual superiority?

[Anonymous No.8607817]

>>8607790
I don't worry about empiricism/positivism (whatever you're going to call it) attack on something else, I worry about its own conclusions. Btw, the only reason you think philosophers think of themselves as 'intellectual superior' is because you never made any real effort to understand it beyond the common platitudes.

[Anonymous No.8607845]

>>8607746
At the moment there's still many things that the scientific method has been unable to make any sense of, even the very scientific fields.

Other than that, it seems that science has nothing to say about things such as ethics, aesthetics, politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtLjtL5vF3Q

[Anonymous No.8607849]

>>8607790
That would literally be a copy of the universe.

[Anonymous No.8607851]

>>8607746
is a pleb filter

[Anonymous No.8607853]

if

[Anonymous No.8607868]

>>8607746
All of science is just a subset of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8607871]

>>8607746

What's the point of computer science if AI will eventually be able to reprogram itself?

[Anonymous No.8607878]

>>8607790
You wont be calculating anything based on a single particle. There are thousands of functions that begin with, say, a syanpse beginning to transmit a message from the arm to brain. Decisions dont even start till they hit the frontal cortex.

[Anonymous No.8607922]

>>8607746
whats the point of explaining everything conclusively

[Anonymous No.8607927]

>>8607746
Actually it's impossible for science to explain reality ;)
Neither can philosophy tho

[Anonymous No.8607932]

>>8607746
>conclusively

Nice meme

[Anonymous No.8607941]

Science (more properly 'natural philosophy') is a subfield of philosophy. Other subfields of philosophy study topics that natural philosophy doesn't or can't.

[Anonymous No.8607942]

>>8607853

Laconic

[Anonymous No.8607948]

*tips microscope*

[Anonymous No.8607951]

>>8607746
The goal of science is to describe the world, the goal of philosophy is to understand it. Every scientist operates under some implicit philosophical framework, whether that be realism, falsificationism, relativism, etc. And most of the answers you'll get in this thread are people trying to justify philosophy without any real understanding of the philosophy of science or philosophy of physics, which is a very poor way to go about it. Science will not and does not even aim to explain everything 'conclusively'. It provides models that fit experimental data, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.8607988]

[Anonymous No.8608006]

Physics, too, is an interpretation.

[Anonymous No.8608011]

[Anonymous No.8608030]

>>8608011
sam looks like ben stiller here

[Anonymous No.8608041]

>>8608030
.
.
.

[Anonymous No.8608318]

>>8608011
Talentless hack.

[Anonymous No.8608331]

Philosphy is the study of wisdom, and includes reasoning and rationality which will always have their place in the minds of nescient humans. However, even God has a use for philosophy and he uses both deductive and inductive reasoning in his creation.

[Anonymous No.8608347]

>>8608030

Really? I'd think ben affleck. No? I mean come on just a little.

[Anonymous No.8608448]

>>8608011
>FAGtheism

*tips fedora*

Read The Bible you fat autist. This is what you look like btw.

[Anonymous No.8608456]

>>8607746
>b-but stem is shit
fuck /lit/. camus is a hack, and you are all too stupid to learn a science

except for maybe a few. ORGO shaped my perspective on the world.

[Anonymous No.8608460]

>>8608456
Camus? Is that best you can do? Bait harder.

[Anonymous No.8608466]

>>8608456
>too stupid to learn a science
no such thing. anyone with a 110+ IQ could easily get a PhD in hard science and become a lab monkey

[Anonymous No.8608474]

>>8607951
This. I got into philosophy because, when I started reading it, much of what I was reading either agreed with physics or kept itself out of the topic enough that it was unrelated, but many authors still have incredible insights into what we should do with our knowledge or lack thereof. Science could potentially prove, incontrovertibly, that death means oblivion, morals are entirely subjective, and everything is largely illusory. None of that information, necessary and useful though it may be, can tell us what to do with ourselves once we've figured all of that out.