/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4708148
> Did you suffer from traumas or bullying at school?

Nah, I'm Swedish

>>4708157

Sounds like a good explanation, I've had a few rough years so I've probably not seen the anger sneak up on me. Thanks sci!

>>4219936

mah nigger. Is there any books or guidelines for when natural sciences do qualitative research? I'm a social scientist myself and are familiar with a few methods (grounded theory, hermeneutics) for qualitative research, but awful interested in scientific theory in general and taken a few courses on the subject. And I'm not really the "hurr durr it's all relative" kind of asshole social science student either.

And I've learned that wikipedia tend to be, well, shit if you want to learn about something new without getting the bastard version of it.

> Best Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche

Dohoho, I sure see a troll thread when I see it.

>>2639871

> Write this
> See everyone raging
> Wonder why
> Reread my post
> mfw

English ain't my first language,and I tried to make it as simple as possible. Anywhere, have a Wikipedia article about why it simply doesn't work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism#Criticism_and_replies

>>2564756

Haven't bothered reading this thread, but saw this on the front page;

> But won't neuroscience and picking apart how the brain works eventually make Philosophy and such 'soft' things obsolete?

There's something called "Psychologism" within ethics and epistemology, where they've been trying to take philosophical problems into the realm of psychology.

There's a lot of armature philosophers who has been trying to do it with ethics, but their arguments are so shallow and odd that they can't be taken seriously. Someone made a book named the moral landscape or something similar that's pretty recent. But get this; the guy majored in philosophy and later took a Ph.D in neuroscience, so he has a pretty good understanding of how the brain works and at some lesser philosophy. But his book is just really, really shitty philosophy, and has no substance whatsoever. He even admits this in an interview that he will look "the other way" from the counter-arguments to his book that was written before he was born, because he believes philosophy is to hard for him.

And it's full retard in the epistemology section; there's people who want to say "No, we don't take a philosophical position, we're doing psychology", and when asked how I can have knowledge of that I've an apple in front of me, they'll say "It's because the apple caused my senses so sense an apple", something that's an okey answer when you're dealing with perception psychology, but retarded when calling it epistemology since you're begging the question/based on circular reasoning, it's already called non-fundamentalism and are a philosophical position, and have loads of counter-arguments terminating the position.