/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10935365
>>10936134
>>10936148
I think leddit might be more to your speed

>/sci/ will sperg out over this

>>10552479
Unironic and uncritical science worship is everywhere, as NDT proves. The fact that you think academics have any authority is lamentable.

This has nothing to do with anon's post. It's ridiculous to claim that because of technological progress a person should never feel depressed.

Maybe because there's more to the question that just pointing out "Stop feeling depressed that you work at walmart, go play with your smartphone"

>>10081767
Thanks for having my back, /sci/ can sometimes be full of these pop-sci worshipping NPCs

What place do Philosophy and Metaphysics have in the realm of science?

>>10064685
You were saying, Anon?

>>10057838
/thread
Everyone who disagrees is a fedora-tipper.

>>9924339
Because civilization hasn't completely collapsed, yet.

>>9699190
"Unwanted pregnancy" ignores the fact the humans evolved to be monogamous because of infanticide. "Homosexual marriage" ignores the "gay uncle theory". "Global climate change" ignores the fact that there is no a global manifestation of a problem, just various local problems that people can and are adapting to. "Tribalism" ignores the fact that even in our most primitive hunter-gatherer societies, we are violent towards other tribes.

Is there an underlying theme to this? I think it's the corruption of science by anthropocentric thinking. In fact, when you dig down deep into it, there is actually not even a scientific theory that explains how humans are simultaneously "amoral animals" and "moral humans"--most of us just accept this premise without second thought. On the contrary, there is a scientific theory that supports my arguments: the evolution of ethics. The problem is, popsci is not interested in this stuff--they just want you to be herd animals. And we are not herd animals in our natural states. We are apex predators.

>>9670294
No, visa versa is pretty common. If anything, it's the norm, and increasingly so.

Very few philosophers have a degree in philosophy alone. Most are specialists in some other field, particularly true from the late 18th century onwards. Really hasn't been the norm to specialize entirely in philosophy since the days of the Roman Empire.

Albeit, today, it's in large part because pretty much the only way you can employ yourself with a philosophy degree alone is to teach it, and that only pays so well. (And even then, you need another degree in education.)

Scientists, while they once were required to learn philosophy to earn their Ph.D. (hence the name), are no longer required to. Further there's efforts to remove philosophy from the curriculum entirely, sometimes advocated by modern "scientists".

This is a place of knowledge, a place of solemn contemplation; teams and April fool's jokes have no place on this board. Colleagues, please remember to conduct yourselves in a manner that is consistent with that of a scientist.

The observable universe constitutes about 5% of the universe's total mass with the remaining ~95% being occupied by an invisible intangible substance called Dark Matter that we are expected to believe in because "wise men" have predicted its existence through mathematical formulas. Yet, according to atheists there is no good reason to believe in God because He cannot readily be detected by the naked eye.

Why is it considered appropriate to throw blind faith behind a mere theory while rejecting over 2000 years of Christian wisdom?

Do you guys believe in God?

>>9428212
This fight between theoretical physicists and philosophers is kike slide propaganda.
They all have to act against it because true philosophy teaches you how to think on a concrete low level. And not abstract bullshit with no core. And some people don't like that. Sounds like a conspiracy theory I know but it's true. (((People))) don't want us thinking rationally, but like us thinking arbitrary concepts and not believe in truth, only opinions

>>9398750
Well, you have to understand that Philosophy has sub-branches that study each discipline: for example, Philosophy of Biology, and Philosophy of Mathematics. Your question makes more sense restricted to one of these disciplines. I myself took a Philosophy of Biology course. It isn't studied in terms of "which worldview is correct", but rather, "for this particular aspect of the subject, which model more accurately explains what's really going on, will occur?". There are also obviously the ethical components.

But at the macro-level, where your question at face resides, the jury is still out. I can tell you what hasn't quite held up. Atomism was the belief that all matter was composed of tiny, indivisible elements, called atoms. Well, now contemporary physics knows that atoms themselves have subdivisions, like quarks. Another theory is realism, opposed to idealism, that says that reality exists independent of observation and the mind. But the behavior of quantum particles is such that what state they are in can change depending on whether or not those particles are being observed.

Rather than looking to the past, I would instead suggest trying to keep up with theories from 1900 and beyond, because they would be aware of nuances and facts than anyone living beforehand would have failed to account for in their comprehensive theories they devised. I mean, just try reading "The World as Will and Representation" and see how impotent past philosophies are in the 21st century.

>>9352024
>the self is fictional
enjoy being a slave to your desires
>anti-philosophical
which needs to change

According to Einstien's theory of relativity, FTL travel is the same a time travel, expressed with a Lorenzo transformation on a space-time diagram.

But if the universe if exponentially expanding, do those far off galaxies that move relative to us faster than light, travel through time somehow, breaking causality.

(btw i know they don't move through space ftl, but the space in between the MW and the example galaxy expands faster than light.)

>>9275648
Century's young yet, though there's lots of philosophies centering around how to best set up meta-sciences where one attempts to take a holistic approach in cross-field efforts, which is becoming increasingly important as folks become more and more specialized, and thus blind to things happening outside their fields that are potentially relevant to them. This has lead to fields of study that help us better comprehend things like feedback systems that, in many cases, were classically considered isolated from one another. As well as various procedural philosophies aimed at creating policies to best avoid confirmation bias and other such empirical pitfalls.

...And I do wish more physicists would take a year or two of philosophy, and that Ph.D. stood for what it once did, as then we wouldn't get this crap where a hidden variable means "everything is random". Any first year phil student knows that fundamentally unpredictable does not mean fundamentally undetermined... as should any phys post-grad who understands basic block universe consequence of relativity, but alas, better to make things even more mysterious than they are. [/rant]

>>9247836
>An intelligent person is by default a philosopher whether or not they acknowledge the title.
Intelligence != Wisdom.

Also, I can tell you've never taken a philosophy class. It's not about pondering unanswerable questions, as near every philosophy thread on this board might suggests. "The meaning of meaning" is not a question in modern philosophy anymore than "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's there to hear it..." is the totality of Buddhism. It's about training you to critically think, to strip the chaff from the wheat, to know truth from lies, self-induced or otherwise, to avoid mental traps and overcome those obstacles.

It's true, OP's proposition that we switch to philosophy alone is a dead end, as philosophy is not meant to be an end in itself. It's instead designed to inform all that you do so you don't fuck it up and endlessly build bridges down into a bottomless abysses.

In other words, it's specifically to prevent mental masterbation.

And these days, specialists, however intelligent they may be, often end up ignoring the basic reality of the world outside of their field, because they've not been rounded and armed with even the most basic tools of philosophy. It's the worst kind of mental masterbation - the kind that has consequences in the real world. That not only hampers research, in the case of cross-science efforts like AI, but is also wasteful and dangerous.