/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6532194
>science is somehow not philosophy
Thinking that ethics/morals philosophers are asshats doesn't change the fact that science is still a specific means for knowledge-seeking, and therefore by definition encompassed by "philosophy".

It's funny that the => guy rejects "philosophy" on the grounds that it asks questions but provides no objective answers, but fails to realise that they can't then go on to claim that "science" is superior. Science is a subset of philosophy, so (clearly!) if philosophy cannot establish objective answers to its questions, science cannot claim to do so either (as that would necessarily require that the scientific method and its underlying philosophy was verified to be objectively true).

>>6527899
>Philosophy died in the 19th century after the invention of science and the mathematization of logic.

>Philosophy died
>The study of ideas about knowledge or truth
>somehow "died"

>science is somehow not a subset of philosophy, being a specific manner of knowledge-seeking

>mathematics is somehow not a subset of philosophy, for same reasons

What the fuck am I reading?

>>6520989

>>6486478
>If philosophy was erased, everyone would be rational and logical.
WOW
FUCKING WOW

I'm done, g'night guys.

>>6444679
Must suck to be you.

>>6431665
Pic related.

I'm a "metaphysical naturalist". More or less. There are a few subtleties I'd probably have to clarify if compared to a textbook definition, but I can't think what other category I'd be in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

>Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling.

I place a high value on theory being ontologically grounded, and for such grounding to be clear and unambiguous.

I see empiricism as being too restrictive - strong empiricism has the habit of denying in principle an ontology where the 'real' elements are anything but absolutely conceptually identical to whatever properties are measurable <span class="math">currently[/spoiler] in experiment.

Empiricism (and positivism, etc.) sees no value in descriptions of reality which reduce to others in some limit, where experiment is <span class="math">currently[/spoiler] unable to explore outside said limit. That they will still reject these alternate approaches is odd, given that the <span class="math">current[/spoiler] approaches have their own demonstrable limits of validity.

>Yes, I'm talking about QM.