/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8318884
>Why do people talk about a field that they have no experience in?

Really makes you think.........

>>8316873
yes

>>8312147

Top jej

>>8311793
>>8311797
Left is in favour of philosophy, right is not.

>>8311800
Agnostic actually, raised in a Church of England family and went to a C of E school.

Discuss.

>>8205642
I'll just leave this here.

Why do you guys mock philosophy so much?

Philosophy is a great pursuit, and I find people who are generally educated in philosophy more interesting and successful than people who think it's a joke.

>>8164196
>>8164248
>>8164843
>>8164856
>>8164876

>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of maths in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning maths
>it's fucking tough
>get to the point where I can just barely understand higher order university-level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw I realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws imply, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>mfw it is actually staggering how stupid they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of maths really well
>mfw totally disillusioned
>mfw realising after all that work that maths isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots

>>8144481
"science tells us nothing about the structure of reality". Perhaps (your statement is questionable), but in order to talk about "structure of reality", you need to define what "reality" exactly is, and a dozen of other questions that are philosophical in nature. Science takes a narrow definition of reality and embraces materialism, but that really is just a philosophical assumption that is highly problematic if taken to mean "the totallity of all reality". I always cringe when science fetishists start to denounce philosophy, while they themselves are doing a lot of philosophy.

itt: gobbledygook

>>8109302
This is accurate. Anyone who thinks science gets at "the truth" in things is stupid, science just makes models that seem to work more often than others.

>if we have the power to get iron from ore then we should be able to get ore from iron!

Why is this guy even mildly respected? It's like he lacks everything that makes a person a scientist

Can we agree that, generally speaking, scientists who respect philosophy are better than those who don't?