/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15597236
Yes it is remarkable. Call me a schizo if you want.

>>15598312
>>15598312
Materialism and modwit retards. Name a more iconic duo.

daily reminder

>>10342361
The CHAD Philosopher vs pop/sci/ virgin

Guys on the right
>sexual offenders or promoters of it
>ugly
>arrogant
>have stupid opinions

Guys on the left
>healthy sexual lives, beautiful wifes
>handsome
>humble, they don't go around spouting nonsense about other fields

I guess all the retards on the right side of this image now have another thing in common!

>another thread were /sci/ furiously babbles about how much they hate philosophy despite knowing jackshit about it.

Holy shit, we get it, You idiots are undergrads who suffer from tunnel vision and know nothing about the subject at hand that isn't the misinformation your pop-sci idols have put in your brain. What's the point of having this shit thread every day? If philosophy is so "useless" then why do you faggot keep talking about it?

>>10077130
>they will have to have some rational religion.

Gee I wonder who the pseudointellectuals who reprent that "rational" religion are?

>>10029836
>Philosophy is nearly useless to the sciences
Philosophy has little to do with Science and vice versa, so you should strive to have a well-rounded understanding of both in order to do great things with either discipline. Otherwise, you're just another pop-sci faggot, pic related

Another dumb kike who got to ride the nepotism train.

>>9991683
>contemporary versions of god are unfalsifiable
>still a fairytale
>my atheism is also unfalsifiable
>but my atheism is right
Okay.

>invisible unicorn atheist does not require belief in the non-existence of invisible unicorns.
What.

>>9968213
>that Reddit tier picture

Fucking numale and your cringe "I fucking love science" shit

Obligatory. Any of you hive-minded popsci-reading asshats care to explain this?

DO NOT QUESTION SCIENCE

Will the pain ever go away?

>>9902782
>t. Lawrence Krauss

What's the point of these threads?

You are asking a philosophical question to a bunch of science undergrads who have a deformed idea of what philosophy is product of the stupidity of their popsci idols. You will get a bunch of garbage answers and then a few days later /sci/ will complain about how dumb philosophy is.

>>9709768

>>9189757
>Computed calculations other people told her to compute using methods other people discovered
>Computed calculations other people told her to compute
>Computed calculations

So she's basically the equivalent of an applied math grad student, but a long time ago

kys OP

What went wrong?

>>8649432
Posting this day in and day out, you pseudo-intellectual pleb. There are plenty of scientists who care about the philosophy of science and plenty who don't.
>>8649221
Yes, but that doesn't devalue it in any way. The scientific method is built on assumptions of empiricism, that either the most effective or only way to come to knowledge is our own sensory experience. Of course, then through these empirical methods we're subject to things like the problem of induction, but I think any empiricist would argue that this problem is nothing compared to the problems that other epistemological frameworks would give way to.

I think the key thing to keep in mind when discussing something is the distinction between "describing reality" and "modeling reality." Science does not truly make claims about "what is", it makes claims about "what is observable." Personally, I think this is exactly where science gets its value and why it's so useful, but as someone who has more of a liking for math than science I edge more towards rationalism than empiricism.