/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11982657
I'm not sure there's really any philosophers that scientist in particular should read. Thomas Kuhn I guess.
Aside from that the same rec's as anyone else who wants to read philosophy
Personally I think anything post-linguistic turn is most interesting without being irrelevant. ie. Wittgenstein, and anything from the field of meta-ethics

Refute this

>>8394688
I am attracted by sex. I want it but because of my depression can't get it. The funny thing is that I get along with people quite well. Once I was drinking with a female classmate in a pub and the conversation steered to the topic of relationships and sex. I found it very bizarre that she couldn't believe that I'm still a virgin. All in all if you hang out with people the conversation always goes to sex and sex ralated things and it's really weird if you have 0 experience.

>>8172490

>mfw OP also made a post on /his/ with the image being reversed and philosophy made to look bad

Pic related is the only real true version

>muh reality isn't real

Why do people always bring up this meme as if all philosophy does is debate over whether this chair exists or not. What fucking philosopher ever even talked about this aside from maybe Descartes?

>>8091524
>What will the millenium prize problems actually yield when solved?

Nothing. Most all math is completely useless in the real world and highly inaccurate. They only do this shit for mental masturbation and grant money.

>>8078256
Antimatter has never been proven to exist. Everything about it, like blackholes, are just theoretical physics made up from extrapolation. Even the "antiprotons" are not really "antimatter". They are another type of matter completely.

You popsci guys are all the same.

>>7758983
>>Stick to reddit, pal.

>>7724144
science is about taking abstractions seriously in a having faith that your speculations will turn out to be useful [= people will act according to them]

not a single scientist can tell you what to explain means, what a cause, what why means, what how means. but the scientists having never reflected on what they do, like feynman, they dare to use words that they do not understands.

>>7726312
>It very inefficient when mouse/rat models can achieve the same and faster.


>it is ethical to use animals for human research
>it is not ethical to use human for human research


hahahahahahahahhahahahaha.

How do we fix the problem of getting replaced by computers

>>7711485
it does not matter. math and logic are conventions that you can refute any time you want.