/sci/ - Science & Math

What has Carroll accomplished?

>>10047317
He's written the book that the guys who will solve the QC problem are likely to get started on.

>>10047299
good article.

as a philosophy hater i think that carroll is being too nice by only focusing on the “good philosophers”. i think it is good when philosophers do try to understand “how it all works” but too often they are lost in the abstract world of thoughts and “arguments” that are disconnected from reality. that’s the vast majority, so overall philosophers supply mostly non-productive stuff that outright denies or ignores science, and the world would be better without that kind of useless and wrong shit.

maybe what we need are higher standards for philosophers; some rule against “it’s all just your philosophical opinions” crap that allows all the BS to swirl endlessly

>>10047317
>>10047369

He’s written some shitty pop-sci books, essentially dumbed down Wald’s GR book, and was denied tenure at UChicago. He’s a glorified Research Scientist at Caltech now with a shitty ego.

>>10048487
You clearly have no idea what philosophy is.

Want to convince someone to fund science? That's philosophy. Want to increase spending on defense, or space exploration, or research and development at a hotdog stand? It's all philosophy.

Philosophy covers everything from economics to why we should care about feeding the poor, or not feeding the poor, or getting involved in foreign wars, or not.

Just because you don't understand philosophy doesn't mean other people don't, other people who will use their knowledge of philosophy to convince other people to their cause.

These people rule you.

>>10047299

Philosophy is the shit, if you can't do it you are probably an NPC (Non Philosophical Character) and no one seriously likes you.

>>10047299
>Carroll

Why the fuck are you listening to that autistic fedora?

>>10048528
This. People who've been brainwashed or naturally dislike philosophy are probably NPCs that should be used up for whatever they're worth and thrown away accordingly.

Though honestly it doesn't matter what should happen to them, because that's the world they're apt to create and preserve. So they get what they deserve by default.

Universe has its ways.

philosophy is fine just avoid epistemology at all costs.

>>10048561
I had fun with solipsism.

Also, science is built on a specific set of ontological and epistemological positions. So no.

>>10048487
>overall philosophers supply mostly non-productive stuff that outright denies or ignores science

Can you give some examples of this? How much of philosophy have you read? You shit on philosophers for not understanding science but it kinds of seems like you're a scientist who have no clue about philosophy.

>>10048563
There was a couple cool ideas like the gettier problem, but I remember my professors final word was that knowledge can't be formally quantified and you had to follow your intuition, which I felt like that was my view going into the course.

>>10048522
The things you are describing are subsets of salesmanship. Salespeople convince the govt to spend, salespeople convince your employer that it needs 500 new servers. Philosophy is bullshitting about sales as much as it is bullshitting about physics.

>>10048522
>haha bro everything is philosophy man
philosophically kill yourself pls

>>10048606
Convincing others to implement policies could be classified as politics/salesmanship, but the question of what policies we ought to implement is a question you need philosophy to answer.

It's also going to be hard to have an overarching understanding of reality without some sort of metaphysical position.

>>10047317
More than you.

>>10048606
>being this warped by capitalism

>>10048519
Pop sci is such a faggy zoomer buzzword

>>10048618
this is what you think an atom "looks like", isn't it?

>>10047299
So three strawmen arguments while claiming that philosophers are vaguely helpful to physicists but failing to name even one example. Yup, I totally agree.

>>10048606
>>10048612
As I said, just because you don't understand what philosophy is doesn't mean other people don't.

Case in point. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is right now running the United States

>>10048640
Totally, Rand loved nothing more than tariffs.

>>10048522
t. never read a philosophy journal
I have three degrees in philosophy and basically made it through as an "antiphilosopher." You will never run out of material telling these self-referential fucks that they are self referential.

>>10048640
Either you are being way meta by forcing me to use a "philosophical" argument to point out that you are using different senses of the word or you are a retard.

>>10047299
Based Carroll

>>10048487
>overall philosophers supply mostly non-productive stuff that outright denies science
Do you have any evidence to back this up?

>>10048672
>Do you have any evidence to back this up?

No he does not.

All science is at root, philosophy, anyway. This thread is brainlets gone wild

>>10048675
>so insecure that he has to pretend that everything is philosophy in order to validate his pointless field of study

>>10048672
I suppose he's talking about some general sentiments in the continental tradition were sometimes "science" is analyzed as just another social process with no more value than what we learn through different process.
>>10048675
>This meme again
Philosophers spout this fucking retarded "argument" all the time. Jesus christ, do you even have some basic historical recollection of what "philosophy" is? Every single academic subject was called "philosophy" back in the day and it wasn't until the 18th century that we started to see crystal clear divisions that are today present in academia. Philosophy became it's own subject that deals with some very specific subjects and has it's own structures, paradigms and views. Philosophy intersects with shit, but every single field intersects with any other field in academia, so that's not really saying much. And certainly, you are not going to really benefit in your work because you read Kant at some point. I think philosophers do a really shitty job at explaining exactly why that field is important.

>>10048684

All scientific reasoning ultimately collapses to logic and ultimately to a priori assumptions.

All scientific awards literally end up Ph+D, that is, Doctor (of) Philosophy, in the whatever (subgenre)

>>10047299
>>>/his/5427169

>>10047299
philosophers should stop saying silly things about science

>>10048695
>I think philosophers do a really shitty job at explaining exactly why that field is important.

Is this really true? Frankly something that might be pursued by a freshman philosophy professor or in the initial chapters of a philosophy textbook.

For me no explanation was necessary other than the etymology of the word, "Love of knowledge". What justification does this need?

>>10048706
Logic is not philosophy though. Philosophers study logic, usually badly and then have to have their messes cleaned up by mathematicians. Philosophers claim to study everything yet know nothing about anything. Logic, math, science, etc. are not logic, because they are not useless arbitrary opinions.

>All scientific awards literally end up Ph+D, that is, Doctor (of) Philosophy, in the whatever (subgenre)
All scientists have Bachelor degrees, therefore all scientists are bachelors. QED

You're right, this philosophy stuff really is useful.

>>10048706
Logic is not philosophy though. Philosophers study logic, usually badly and then have to have their messes cleaned up by mathematicians. Philosophers claim to study everything yet know nothing about anything. Logic, math, science, etc. are not philosophy, because they are not useless arbitrary opinions.

>All scientific awards literally end up Ph+D, that is, Doctor (of) Philosophy, in the whatever (subgenre)
All scientists have Bachelor degrees, therefore all scientists are bachelors. QED

You're right, this philosophy stuff really is useful.

>>10048726
unfortunately scientists and historians figured out how to settle on nie tube knowledge and boxed you guys out.

philosophers are relegated to the knowledge of opinions, subjective aesthetics, and judgement calls on ethics and morality. all of it is arbitrary BS and any freshman b-school cheerleader is just as qualified when it comes to arbitrary opinions

>>10048726
unfortunately scientists and historians figured out how to settle on objective knowledge and boxed you guys out.

philosophers are relegated to the knowledge of opinions, subjective aesthetics, and judgement calls on ethics and morality. all of it is arbitrary BS and any freshman b-school cheerleader is just as qualified when it comes to arbitrary opinions

>>10048706
Literally a cookie cutter response. The term comes from the literal interpretation of the term pihlosophy as someone who "loves knowledge".
>Ultimately collapses to logic
What logic? Do you mean theory of argumentation, or formal logic? Strikes me as odd that physics textbooks aren't written that way, and the debates within the community never reduce to pedantically attacking someone for using fallacies, and mathematical arguments are almost never considered (when solving issued with science, not the theories).
>>10048726
I mean with a clear response to the typical question of "Why do we need/study X"? I find that even in the weirdest and most abstract fields of math, there are answers that cover plenty of bases. I usually see from philosophers an arrogant response of "you are a pleb", or really convoluted or even fallacious arguments like "everything is philosophy" which is as reductionist and narrow minded as it gets. Now I've read more and I think I understand the benefit of philosophy, both personal, general, pragmatic, pure whatever.

The only value in studying any philosophy in 2018 AD is for the historical value of it, prove me wrong.

When u the only person in the thread who read kant

>>10048780
I'm so sorry you wasted your time doing so.

>>10048780
something something something axe something something profound something something

Why are stemtards so venomously hostile towards anyone who is not just an obsequious, gape mouthed groupie?

>>10048780
dude just be a good person lmao

>>10048788
Why are philosophers so insecure that they need to come to /sci/ and constantly ask why they aren't respected? No one thinks about you until you start whining.

>>10047299
kek

>>10048788
at least stemtards don’t need to sit through the philosophy BA prerequisite of listening to a “gender studies” prof ramble on and on about social justice and the evil western hegemony. not to mention spending a semester arguing about the ethics of euthanasia, sex changes, and eating meat

scitards just focus on facts, things that don’t seem to matter in those “fields” of “academia”

>>10048799
I just come here to poke you imbeciles and watch the fireworks desu

>>10048802
epic troll retard

>>10048561
do not listen to this anon

>>10048801
oh nonsense, I don't see Science and Nature speaking against muh SJW menace, you autistic contrarians are usually treated like lepers.

>>10048653
I am not using a different sense of the word. I suggest you take at least an entry level course on philosophy. You seem to have some very weird idea on what philosophy is.

>>10048788
They spend their life getting their truths from others. Whether it be entities, individuals, their worldview hinges on an overarching cultural narrative, progress, and authority.

Is it any surprise they're made very uncomfortable by anything that can't be solved by "looking it up", or other herd animal activities? They're just doing what they were made for.

>>10048810
wrong. look at any math or science textbook, and compare against any philosophy text.

math and science books are filled with problems at the end of every chapter; mind you they have clear and unambiguous answers; and you learn by doing the problems yourself

philosophy is MUCH WORSE in that regard because there is basically only 2-5% thinking involved and even then it’s just “synthesizing” things (i guess that’s a small step up from “regurgitating” things) you’ve already read, written my dead white european males

>>10048816
I don't read philosophy in anything other than a fragmentary sense. I hear about Plato's cave, read about it. Hear about Nietzsche's descent into the molten pit of human reality, read about it, so forth. I initially rejected the isms and ists, but eventually let them enter and structure my mind. In doing this, yes you're lacking the historical context and the broader framework the individual is crafting, but oh well. For various reasons I don't really care anymore and engaging with a dense text that requires re-evaluating a massive amount of information just isn't feasible at a time when there is great threat in change. The risk of change and sharp transitional periods is only manageable in the absence of constant demand.

Most of my philosophy is self created, and pulls from anything and anywhere. The biggest problem with self-identified STEM people is what I said above, someone says "philosopher" and you think "guy who reads books about philosophy and studies it, then accepts that truth because he was told what was true by the guy that read the book." You're showing my point.

>He hasn't yet realized that reality is a fabrication made by humanity

>>10048816
>muh puzzles
yeah i can do sudoku and crosswords too
most undergrad science is trivially easy, i was doing ochem when i was like 12

Seriously reading this thread.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE THINK PHILOSOPHY IS?

You guys are on some weird shit or something. Philosophy is not SJWs or Women's studies, or the ethics of masturbation or some weird fucking shit you people seem to be on about.

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reason, logic, and ethics. Should we put money toward scientific research or not? Should corporations be allowed to govern themselves or should we regulate them? How much money should we spend caring for the elderly, or in a defense budget, or on education? Should we vote for leaders that are socialists, or laissez faire capitalists, or anarchists? Should leaders make laws that are for the greatest good for the most people or should they make laws that are deontological? What about our judges? Our police? What do we do when governments go too far? Can they go too far? Who should be in charge, when?

This is all philosophy! JUST WHAT THE FUCKING HELL DO YOU PEOPLE THINK PHILOSOPHY IS?!??!?!

>>10048816
That's exactly why all the STEMfags will be thrown out as soon as computers replace them and take control over humanity, meanwhile all the philosophers will reason with the computers and justify why they should be left alive.

Checkmate sciencefags.

>>10047299
Sean's recent post about how the fine structure constant is really a function outed him as a shill IMO. However, yes, I do agree with Sean's much older post about philosophy. The only reason scientists talk shit about philosophy is because they are worried some budget director might reallocate a dollar of science funding for philosophy finding. If it wasn't for that, every scientist would agree that philosophy is valuable and important.

>>10048838
They're brainwashed groupies, even if they don't know it. For le Science Guy, a philosopher is just a worthless historical artifact and something less than a scientist. He's a pretentious dickhead who don't know nothin' & in the way of Progress(tm), etc. Or constellation of the aforementioned.

They just say it because they're in the culture, and have heard everyone else say it. It's what they're supposed to believe if they're going to be real scientists. Reject the Other group. It's tribalism bullshit. All day erry'day.

B-T-Dubs, you guys oughta be ashamed. You're now aware of your butthole, and it's subtly clenching in shame.

>>10048838
>EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY WHY WON'T ANYONE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>*dismantles your concept of causality*
Heh, nothin personnel kid

Don't you philosophers have better things to do than go screech on /sci/?

>>10048863
not really, no.

>>10048863
no
they think that their meaningless statements have intrinsic value

>>10048863
We're literally philosophizing here, are we not?

Math > Philosophy >>>>> Science

>>10048714
What silly things do philosophers say about science?

>>10048875
one example is this:
“science is totally cultural and only reinforces the biases of the hegemon western mode of thinking”

>>10048879
Explain how that statement is even slightly wrong.

>>10048879
>I'll just make something up
like clockwork
lazy, unscrupulous, territorial pissing from a two bit p-hacker
looks like science hasn't elevated us from our animal natures just yet

>>10048872
not exactly helping your case for the value of philosophy then

>>10048846
>Sean's recent post about how the fine structure constant is really a function outed him as a shill

A shill for what?

>>10048892
Not like this place makes science look very good either.

This is literally how dumb 80% of the people in this thread are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

>>10048908
how come John Baez doesn't get a flashy TED talk?

>>10048577
He is just a retard who is making generalizations out of his ass about Philosophy. Pretty much what everyone here does when they are not misinterpreting what Wittgenstein said.

>>10048910
baez is fucking based
impressed that someone in this trash thread would even mention our lord and savior

>>10048910
>how come John Baez doesn't get a flashy TED talk?
Probably the hair.

>>10048695
>>10048735
>>10048745
/thread

Philosophy has been dead for decades. Science is better.

*blocks your path*

when /soi/ anons come up with anything on par with LQG lmk

>>10048964
anhero sage

>>10048908
haha Bill Nye thinks the sun "comes up."

>>10048487
>as a philosophy hater
Cringed.
>maybe what we need are higher standards for philosophers; some rule against “it’s all just your philosophical opinions” crap that allows all the BS to swirl endlessly
What in the actual fuck are you going on about? Why do you think philosophers critique the works of others?

>>10048879
It's almost as if science as a discourse has been always been used to further the aims of white supremacy, heteronormativity and patriarchy at the expense of women, people of color and queer folk.
This is the point at which you play 'no true scotsman' so have fun with that

>The idea is apparently that developing a new technique for calculating a certain wave function is
>an honorable enterprise worthy of support, while trying to understand
>what wave functions actually are and how they capture reality is a boring waste of time.

I would say that historically the latter approach to understanding the world has historically constantly lead to false theories because some elegant structure was conceived from the known bits but in the end the universe works differently.
The more physicists learned to stick to what they actually know and work from there the more it became effective and correct.

>>10048487
>hurr durr all creative and abstract thinking is philosophy
Initially that was maybe true with greek philosophers (in the western world) starting the whole science thing but by now we have specialized fields. The tasks you listed are subject of rhetoric, politics, economy, physics, ethics etc.
If you want to use that definition of philosophy then yea Id say that all scientists are philosophers but what we call philosophers today are failed generalists who didnt specialize in a science and whose only merit might be in extremely minor contributions through being generalists, majorily they dont know shit about anything though.
They know less about morals than an ethicist, less about politics than a politician, less about the world than a physicist and less about logic than a mathematician.

>>10048522
>>10049226
meant to reply to him

>>10048487

Absolutely correct

>>10048616
okay this is based

>>10049188

>pretending to be a SJW on 4chan

are replys really that important to you anon?

>>10049243
>I can't dispute his point, so I'll call him an SJW and pretend he's trolling. Epic win!

>>10049244
>I can't dispute his point, so I'll call him an SJW and pretend he's trolling. Epic win!

More like: My time is to faluable to dispute bullshit. I only have time for one-liners telling people they are idiots.

>>10049257

lol, valuable

>>10049244
There is nothing to dispute, as there is no evidence that his point is true in the first place. It is just an empty assertion of no value. Philosophers and social "scientists" arguing about how many angels fit on a pin as usual, while real sciences march on.

>>10048519
LOL, sure. Pretty much every top uni uses his book. Also good luck covering 1500 pages during a semester. The fuck you smoking?

>>10049226
if it's now impossible to be a generalist, how do you figure you know enough about these special topics to judge that?
>>10049267
>solving N dimensional rubik's cubes is more relevant to humanity than the perennial questions hard science only complicates

>>10049267
>as there is no evidence that his point is true in the first place
You don't think there is any evidence that science as a discourse has been used for oppressive ends? Are you just not looking very hard, or are you ignoring the last four hundred years of history?

Physicists should stop saying things. Period. I swear to God the ego on those fuckers is as big as the one on math undergrads.

>>10049287
Philosophy doesn't answer questions, you're making a false equivalence.

>>10048749

>Logic is not philosophy though.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

Did you think that logic proofs prove logic is true? That would be circular.

Everything derives from a priori assumptions which must be defended. As long as we are engaging in science we are assuming many things that the method cannot create a proof for. Philosophy has to make a case that rationality and reason are the best and only methods that self-correct and produce reproducible results- and that the oppositional disciplines, like spirituality and religion, are not reliable nor reproducible. The method cannot defend itself.

Philosophy is the moat that separates the method from chaotic attack by other prerogatives and agendas other than truth-seeking. When a scientist can't perform defense of the method competently (logically, or philosophically) it damages science's credibility with the masses, who are without discipline and respond to any form of sophistry.

Thus you have religions claiming quantum physics validates religion, an unborn fetus is a person, 0.9999999999 is 1, etc. This what you get when a scientist becomes addled, or otherwise compromised. Their reasoning resembles the common Man's impression that anything they don't understand might be possible. Right now the reputation of science is damaged most by some soft headed shit in the social sciences, a freight of unnecessary a priori assumptions that crossed the moat because of intellectual laziness.

The forces of unreason and chaos are far more powerful in societies that are hostile to philosophy.

>>10048779
>The only value in studying any philosophy in 2018 AD is for the historical value of it, prove me wrong.

The modes of attack by the forces of unreason are the exact same ones employed in 100 AD.

Lets take a moment to ponder the fact that the majority of people today, with all the fruits of science and technology about them, can't reason effectively enough to eliminate the possibility that a supernatural being created everything, spies on them 24/7, and intervenes in the physical world, and that they were who they are before they were born, and will be who they are after they die, that vaccines cause autism, etc.

The value of it is subjective, as always. Every day the religious community wakes up taking for granted that they can put their children in indoctrination centers, believe that global warming isn't real, and that the Imam has a special dispensation to to understanding what God's law should be and is every moment plotting for the day in which that mandate is spread out to dominate the planet.

If you go to work today, or the lab, or to school, thinking that your mission is to create more tech, more products, more profit, and that life on Earth will just automatically get better and stupid and evil ideas will simply evaporate, you're failing philosophy.

>>10049287
>solving N dimensional rubik's cubes is more relevant to humanity than the perennial questions hard science only complicates

Yes. Technological progress is the most relevant thing for the future of humanity. It will dictate politics and structure of society and greatly improve the human condition. Not philosophy.

>>10049931
>Did you think that logic proofs prove logic is true?
Logic defines what is true, so this is trivial.

>Everything derives from a priori assumptions which must be defended. As long as we are engaging in science we are assuming many things that the method cannot create a proof for. Science does not create proofs, it produces results. If the scientific method stopped producing results then it would not be considered science anymore. Yet again we see that philosophers don't understand what they claim to have sole understanding of.

>Philosophy has to make a case that rationality and reason are the best and only methods that self-correct and produce reproducible results- and that the oppositional disciplines, like spirituality and religion, are not reliable nor reproducible.
Philosophy can't do anything, period.

>Thus you have religions claiming quantum physics validates religion, an unborn fetus is a person, 0.9999999999 is 1, etc. This what you get when a scientist becomes addled, or otherwise compromised. Their reasoning resembles the common Man's impression that anything they don't understand might be possible.
This is pure projection, laughable.

>>10049956
>>10049635
>>10049984
You morons have a religious faith in man's salvation in technology and entertain Star Trek fantasies to cope with the cultural nihilism of the scientific epoch and you belligerently reject anything that uncomfortably complicates this picture. It's that simple. I couldn't give a rat's ass about academic philosophers that you seem to have an outsized chip on your shoulder about either.

real science accomplishes real things

the only thing philosophy does, is putting words on paper that nobody will ever read


try building something like the ISS with philosophy

>>10050866
Philosophy created science.

>>10050883
Philosophy was made obsolete by science you mean.

>>10050883

[citation needed]

>>10048879
>“science is totally cultural and only reinforces the biases of the hegemon western mode of thinking”
It HAS been used for that, though. Not a critique of science, but the people who conduct science.

>>10050866
>soulless geeks fetishize gadgets and alien constructs for their own sake
correct

>>10050892
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/

>>10050866
>real science accomplishes real things
That engineering.

If you want to divorse science from philopshy, you must divrose science from engeering

>>10050891
well true in the sense that it's irrelevant to the vast contraption the nerds are diligently putting together that will be sloughing off anything recognizably human in the near future

>>10048522
>You clearly have no idea what philosophy is.
in the current year its something brainlets think makes up for their complete lack of useful knowledge

>>10050908
don't bother these poor guys with history, they can barely handle getting through their textbooks which present the latest findings in the most condensed format.
>>10050924
>science is hard
for you maybe
pure math is actually difficult but 99% of it will never have any use for anyone

>>10050908

seems to me that aristotle tried to be a scientist

can't really see how this proves that philosophy created science

>>10050949
>can't really see how this proves that philosophy created science

Science didn't "create" philosophy, science is philosophy.

>>10050955
>Science didn't "create" philosophy, science is philosophy.

this just shows that you have no clue what science is

>>10050967
>this just shows that you have no clue what science is

Or you don't know what Philosophy is.

>>10048522
>Want to convince someone to fund science? That's philosophy. Want to increase spending on defense, or space exploration, or research and development at a hotdog stand? It's all philosophy.
no that's rhetoric you fucking tard

>>10050970
>Or you don't know what Philosophy is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So, how do you test your hypothesis in philosophy?

>>10050972
>no that's rhetoric you fucking tard
Rhetoric is part of Philosophy

>>10050989
are you baiting?

reminder philosophers have the highest average IQ just negligibly under mathematicians and physicists
so much further above self loathing c"""s""" choademonkey larpers it's no wonder all they can do is lash out

>>10050924
science is hard ≠ philosophy isn't useful
since you're a philosopher i would have thought you'd know that.

>>10050931
oops meant >>10051021 for you

>>10051021
I'm not a philosopher, I'm just capable of understanding both it and science's failure points, such as when the physicists you spasmodically jerk off gambled on setting the atmosphere on fire when building nukes. Can you consider what a Faustian bargain is, or are you truly satisfied with remaining as one dimensional and shallow as the rest?

>>10048863
>not enjoying the embrace of both science and philosophy in a search for truth
Don't you have better things to do than criticize people for just trying to figure shit out?

>>10051003
Funny then that CS is by far the most valuable and useful field of those.

Daily reminder that at the base of every logical framework is the assumption that the faculties of the mind and the senses are accurate or meaningful. Such things are therefore left to prove themselves, circular reasoning.

>>10048714
>Philosophers should stop saying silly things
Better.

>>10051150
how about
>Philosophers should stop saying things

>>10047299
I was given his book by a scientist friend and stopped early on because he kept saying stupid stuff about philosophy and theology. Maybe this represents growth?

>>10051045
I quote Berke Breathed in Bloom County: "Research physicists need Porsches too."

>>10050921
>this is your brain on "philosophy"

>>10051150
>>10051157

>scientists have never done nor tried to advance an agenda that was completely reprehensible or outright mistaken from the good faith they had in science - it is not possible!

>>10051288
>because he kept saying stupid stuff about philosophy and theology

>>10051518
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia
>Alexithymia frequently co-occurs with other disorders. Research indicates that alexithymia overlaps with autism spectrum disorders (ASD).
>Some individuals working for organizations in which control of emotions is the norm might show alexithymic-like behavior but not be alexithymic. However, over time the lack of self-expressions can become routine and they may find it harder to identify with others.[50]
Oh dear, it looks like science is onto you too...

>>10051045
That's one creepy-looking reptilian.

Everyone here is foretting Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap.

Of course physicists think philosophers are idiots. The most visible to them are the idiots who will dig through QM to find some half-quotable idea that seems to support their latest pet theory, without ever understanding any of the physics behind it. Chopra-level philosophy, really.

And of course philosophers will think physicists are idiots. All they see is self-important jocks who are lost so far up their own ass they think writing down a Langrangian means studying the literal truth of the universe. Blind and ignorant of all the hidden assumptions and philosophical underpinnings the very idea of a Lagrangian is built upon.

Science works fine without philosophy, but you need philosophy to figure out why it works. Likewise, philosophy works fine without science, but you need science to weed out ideas that have empirically been shown to be false.

>>10048672
Just because set theory is the basis of maths, doesn’t mean we need to pay lip service every second day

>all these stemtard positivists with their naive belief in the value of technology and 'progress'
The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>10048801
> listening to a “gender studies” prof ramble on and on about social justice and the evil western hegemony. not to mention spending a semester arguing about the ethics of euthanasia, sex changes, and eating meat
If you think this is philosophy, or a major part of it, i think can understand your hostility.

>>10048863
Dont you have some better things to do then criticise philosophers? Like solving equations and number crunching?

>>10048801
>“gender studies” prof ramble on and on about social justice and the evil western hegemony.
Das rite. Those uppity minorities and women (who belong in the kitchen amirite) should be silent and let us straight white men decide everything for them, and they certainly shouldn't be interrogating power structures

>>10051613
>empirically been shown to be false.
the concept of empirical proof is an oxymoron imagined by morons

>>10051695
"You cannot do X."
- "We have done X."
=> X is possible, it has been demonstrated.

>>10051613
>Science works fine without philosophy, but you need philosophy to figure out why it works.

Science works because it uses math and rigorous methodology.

Here, solved it for you. No need for philosophy anymore.

>>10050997

no I'm not

explain to me, how do you test whether your assumtions are false in philosophy?

Oh, right. I forgot. You don't do that in philosophy. You just talk (or write) until your opponents are too tired of your bullshit to even reply. Which of course shows that you "won" and your argument has more merit.

>>10051699
X is an artificial concept created by the scientist and not any real part of the holistic universe. Unless it is vague by definition to the point of uselessness, it is impossible to test for or prove its existence.

>>10051707
>science
>rigorous methodology
>mfw stemfags actually believe this

>>10051712
In some cases it's impossible true, but this has to do with the limits of reason.
You're plainly not interested in reason however, but in using sophistry to try persuade people not to use it. Why is that?

>>10048487
>unironically being this retarded

>>10051613
>physics is the only branch of science
>>10051688
>>10051695
>>10051699
>>10051757
>>10051770
Holy shit, shut the fuck up.

>>10051688
yes, exactly

>>10048640
you really need to kill your self. you’re hopelessly naive and retarded and your existence is a waste

>>10051878
Sorry butthurt STEMfag, maybe if you understood philosophy you'd already have accepted those things and known how to proceed rationally in spite of them instead of lashing out.

>>10051939
No, you're the reason we had to make real philosophy so obscure.

>>10051757
It is possible to send a message to another person over the internet. This has now been empirically verified.

>>10051939
>maybe if you understood philosophy

you sure that you do?

philosophy is just a concept in your head - how can you really understand it?

unless it can transfer into something in the real world, it's just your brain jerking itself off

>>10051972
>empirically verified
What? Can you provide a little more detail about this process?

>>10051994
bro just look at stuff and pretend there's a causal link between whatever you want lmao, fuck yeah science

>>10052040
>he can't solve the problem of induction

>>10052052
the only solution is faith, not blind faith, but faith nonetheless

>>10051994

what exactly are you replying to, if you didn't read and understood the message?

and that was the whole point - if that doesn't satisfy you somehow, explain why

>>10052074
You think there is some connection between posts on this site and other posts appearing? How have you proven this?

>>10052081

again:
what are you replying to?

Yeah, maybe none of us exists REALLY, but that's not an assumption you can base any decision on. So even if it was true, it's worthless. Just like your posts.

>>10052096
Why do you assume I'm replying to anyone? Come on, an important thing like cause and effect should be easy for a clever science man like you to prove. All you have to do is show us the necessary conections

>>10052102

well, since you reference what I say in your posts I assume that you reply to them
also you literally "reply to my posts" as far as 4chan is concerned, because you click on the the number of my post

Do you even have an idea what you are argueing for or agains?
I highly doubt it. It seems to me that you just spout semantical memes.

You are like those religious idiots who constantly repeat:
>Why is there something rather than nothing?

Just because you can pose a question in the english language, doesn't mean that the question makes sense.

>why is a mountain?

>>10051150
>Philosophers should stop saying silly things
So you basically want the whole field gone.

>>10052345
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

>>10051757
>you can't know nuffin
Who fucking cares?
The information i have gathered to the best of my ability with all the potential flaws and biases tells me that X is most likely true. Unless i am provided with a more accurate form of gathering information i am going to believe X is most likely true.
You can pat yourself on the back all day long for figuring out that you can't be conclusively sure about X but that's useless and doesn't get you anywhere.

>>10051655
Honestly yes, /sci/ is made a shithole by the efforts of bait posters (including this group) and pol so there is actually very little reason to be here.

>>10052367
>RFM is perhaps most (in)famous for Wittgenstein’s (RFM App. III) treatment of “true but unprovable” mathematical propositions. Early reviewers said that “[t]he arguments are wild” (Kreisel 1958: 153), that the passages “on Gödel’s theorem… are of poor quality or contain definite errors” (Dummett 1959: 324), and that (RFM App. III) “throws no light on Gödel’s work” (Goodstein 1957: 551). “Wittgenstein seems to want to legislate [[q]uestions about completeness] out of existence”, Anderson said, (1958: 486–87) when, in fact, he certainly cannot dispose of Gödel’s demonstrations “by confusing truth with provability”. Additionally, Bernays, Anderson (1958: 486), and Kreisel (1958: 153–54) claimed that Wittgenstein failed to appreciate “Gödel’s quite explicit premiss of the consistency of the considered formal system” (Bernays 1959: 15), thereby failing to appreciate the conditional nature of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem. On the reading of these four early expert reviewers, Wittgenstein failed to understand Gödel’s Theorem because he failed to understand the mechanics of Gödel’s proof and he erroneously thought he could refute or undermine Gödel’s proof simply by identifying “true in PM” (i.e., Principia Mathematica) with “proved/provable in PM”.
hmmm, seem to me you are quoting a brainlet

>>10052426
consider that the eternal stemfag is so easy to bait because you tend to combine genuinely astonishing fucking stupidity with unwarranted arrogance

>>10052424
why do you fucking care what's likely true. You'll do better for your well being by believing what's good for you, you deluded nerd.

>>10052482
>thinking any "academics" ever understood Wittgenstein
>thinking any of you smoothbrains could ever even hope to understand Wittgenstein
lol

>>10052565
cope

>>10052537
most people in the sciences are basically trained to try and correct whenever they find something wrong since that's the best way to advance science- unfortunately, it wasn't designed for productivity when conversing with bait

>>10052424
>he doesn't accept that there is no reason to believe in a world outside of his mind and retreat completely into solipsism
lmao fucking nerd

>>10052578
Isn't science about proving theories wrong, rather than seeing it is wrong and then trying to pretend it is still correct and coming up with bullshit like "dark matter"?

>>10052549
I am curious about the truth and about life. And I don't care about my well being insofar as it doesn't interfere with my ability to satiate my curiosity.

>>10052592
If that's what you think, you can continue to live like you are now. I have the same curiosity, but you will know that you are a human someday. I'm very sorry.

>>10052578
>correct whenever they find something wrong
>truth
>existing in science in any form
haha ok dumb stemnerd, whatever makes you feel good

>>10052589
unfortunately, modified theories of gravity haven't proved very successful as models, whereas we know for fact that there exists types of matter which do not interact via the electromagnetic force, like neutrinos.

>>10052607
>we know for fact that there exists types of matter which do not interact via the electromagnetic force, like neutrinos
Who is "we"?
>In February 1965, the first neutrino found in nature was identified in one of South Africa's gold mines by a group which included Friedel Sellschop. The experiment was performed in a specially prepared chamber at a depth of 3 km in the ERPM mine near Boksburg. A plaque in the main building commemorates the discovery.
You believe that do you? They found one neutrino in a gold mine? There's no chance they're just making shit up for fame and fortune? Funny how they chose a gold mine...

>>10052656
I guess it was a little silly of me to talk about bait and immediately fall for it. You win, I'll go back to working now.

>>10052699
It's not bait, they are genuine questions.

>>10052537
>genuinely astonishing fucking stupidity
philosophers btfo

>>10052656
>I barely know enough about neutrinos to be able to spell the name correctly, but I'm pretty confident that every expert on the subject is either wrong or faking it because I want to feel smug.

it's actually pretty frightening that most ""scientists"" probably don't know anything about and completely dismiss phil of science, especially if these people are in charge of significant projects

>>10053008
>only response is an appeal to authority

>>10053018
Recognition of the (lack of) expertise that is necessary to talk sensibly on a topic is not appeal to authority, it is a necessity for coherent communication. You think you've made a point, but you have only demonstrated that you do not know enough to even recognize when a point has been made or not.

>>10053033
>Socrates was right all along

Many philosophers pointed out that giving the fruit of science and technology to a population of knuckle-dragging troglodytes would turn out badly but did science listen? No, as usual. And here we are.

>>10052578
yeah that's the party line, unfortunately the vast majority of published research is false as a matter of well established scientific fact.
you will react to this by saying that's mostly concentrated in soft science, while in the next breath insisting the data still answers all human questions.
as we can see in this thread and every like it, against an informed adversary scientism has no arguments, only sophistical rhetoric.

>>10053572
>while in the next breath insisting the data still answers all human questions.
explain

>>10053590
scientism can manifests itself tacitly, not least of which because researchers tend to compartmentalize their work from their every day way of being, which is why you see many religious scientists even though the claims of traditional religion have been long refuted. full consistent scientific realism is madness, no one can actually psychologically do it. this is why nietzsche and I have sperged out so hard.

Philosophers and Physicists both search for truth. But Philosophers consider truth only valuable when it is perfect. Physicists have accepted that no quest for truth will ever be perfect, and instead stick to what seems to be true enough, updating as they go along. This is why Physicists have made real progress, leaving Philosophers stuck in the mud of their own autism.

>>10052338
Now this is a nigga who doesn't understand the problem of induction and why it poses a problem for conventional understandings of causality.
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Just because you aren't capable of answering a question, doesn't mean the question doesn't make sense. The question is very understandable and makes perfect sense, but instead of engaging you are flouncing away pretending you don't understand.

>>10053605
>me and neetch can’t do it so no one can
lol brainlet

>>10049257
Lol, too

>>10054294
You're lying to yourself, it's called compartmentalization. I suppose some psychopaths could manage it but they rarely bother with geekdom.
>>10054187
>physics is the only science and a strawman that actually describes mathematics
fascinating.

would love to appreciate philosophists but they keep pulling the retard card of
>omg like u think in philosophy so anything and everything that requires thinking is fundamentally philosophy

>>10057016
>The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
That's the dictionary definition, so it is a broad canvas. People seem to define it as 'when someone I don't like does some thinking and comes up with ideas I don't like'
What do you think philosophy is or is not?

>>10057016
you need a very high intelligence to do it well and understand the subtleties of a statement like that. it's unsurprising why it makes certain egotistical brainlets so mad (engineer cubicle monkeys, physics undergrads, and the like), it confuses them which gives them the vertiginous sensation that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. so they come up with intellectually dishonest confabulations

>>10057072
>gives them the vertiginous sensation that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. so they come up with intellectually dishonest confabulations
Pretty much. It's not like they've read and understood Phenomenonolgy Of Spirit and come to the considered conclusion that Hegel is a waste of time.

>>10051288
Was it his GR book "Spacetime and Geometry" or one of the garbage popsci books?

>because he kept saying stupid stuff about philosophy and theology

Was it as cringy as when he tried to thermodynamically disprove immortal souls on his blog?

'Dude the universe IS literally math'-Brian Greene.

I think most philosophers of physics are more ontologically modest than physicists.

>>10057098
I'm deeply sorry you had to read one whole book you didn't like anon, did it take all year?
Seriously though Hegel is one of the most contentious thinker. Many philosophers since his day from Schopenhauer to his close colleague Schelling have rejected him more or less entirely. You'd be disingenuous to suggest Hegelianism is equivalent to philosophy, similarly to implying it's all about constructing an elaborate alternative universe in the mind (which doesn't even really apply to Plato). These are nothing more than convenient polemical myths (lies) designed to push a certain school of philosophy which doesn't like to call itself one.

>>10057144
Show me on the doll where the Hegelian touched you

>>10050793
I like this guy

>>10057156
>but *I'm* a Hegelian
well good luck with that

>>10057173
>>but *I'm* a Hegelian
Aren't we all? Within the absolute dialectic of denying you are a Hegelian is contained the negation of non-Hegelianness

>>10048898
point taken

>>10057195
No, but I do like how ass damaged he made everyone for two centuries now.

>>10057207
Yeah, his commitment to pretending to be retarded was impressive (for its time, anyway). Hilarious that some people took it seriously.

>>10057213
well I do think he made some good points, if you're a fan of autism look at this: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic

Philosophy is just analysis of analysis. Academic philosophers create conceptual tools to make second order analysis more systematic (e.g., tools like supervenience, temporally extended objects, empirical adequacy), these tools may or may not be useful.

But scientists already engage in philosophy, particularly on the frontiers and controversial areas of their fields. Scientists can benefit from knowing academic philosophy because it can avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel or misleading their readers.

Physicists come up with autist-tier philosophy like
>uh solidity doesn't exist xD
>Well ACKSHUALLY time doesn't exist
and I think it's fine for philosophers to tell these physicists that their dumb arguments are horseshit.

>>10047299
Yes. Shut up and calculate if you can't think.

>>10048487
>“arguments” that are disconnected from reality
If you didn't learn history of science doesn't mean scientists didn't use erroneous arguments even for results that still hold like Kepler laws and Maxwell equations.

>>10051627
This desu

>>10048487
haven't read rest of the thread yet but lemme guess
>everything is philosophy, so hating philosophy is hating science
Does that capture the gist of all the butthurt that this post probably evoked

>>10058674
It's more
>I ain't unnersanning this Kant sonnabitch so I holler at him a spell till he quit

>>10058674
Philosophy, like math, is the sort of enquiry which one would expect to have universal application. But you're busy building up the strawman of a logically stronger claim that "everything is philosophy" so you can knock it down. I doubt many academic philosophers of science would endorse that "everything is philosophy" (although any topic CAN be subjected to philosophical discourse)

Philosophers know that scientists are capable of good philosophy. The quantum physicist John Bell's essay "Against 'measurement'" is a good example. In the essay he discusses the semantics of terms like "measurement" in QM and how lack of precise language could pose problems with experimental validity. Contemporary philosophers of physics work on almost exactly the same issues.

I suspect that people like you face the majority of butthurt: you do the daily grind of experimental work on some theory only to learn years later that a more rigorous thinker (like JS Bell) showed that your approach wasn't as robust or valid as you thought it was.

>>10048735
>Logic is not philosophy though. Philosophers study logic, usually badly and then have to have their messes cleaned up by mathematicians

This is backwards though. Logic was developed by philosophers like Aristotle and Pierce as a means of capturing the intuition behind human reason and subsequently forms of logical algebra were employed in the foundations of mathematics. You are ignorant of what you claim to know.

>>10052589
This issue is basically the whole point of philosophy of science.

>>10052589
it's more about probabilities than proving things right/wrong

>>10059933
>all that shit
>"no u"
the power of a philosophy major

>it's another stemtards talking about philosophy thread

>>10050892
you need to be in college in order to post on this board

Science is an amazing tool and it would be an inmense absurdity, considering its great sucess, to try to debunk it. But there is a problem, when you, scientists, regard humanities and philosophy as minor meaningless fields. The essence of reality is an unattainable knowledge: reality can be descomposed to its fundamental bits and yet at that point we can only say "reality is reality, matter is matter". That way, there is always an intrinsic ineffable element constituting reality. We, humans, give value to this void substance through poetry that brings meaning. With poetry I refer to things like art, language and even science. You can't believe that fields, vectors or energy are real things: they are just metaphors (poetry) of the ineffable. With this I don't pretend to stablish impossible goals (explain the essence of reality) nor despise science (the power brought by the understanding of causal processes can't be ignored). I'm just making a call for humility, scientists are not touched by the hand of god, science has its limits.
Ignore this fact is a big problem of modern western society. We don't see science as tool but as the very foundation of reality. Some guys here believe that science will bring universal peace, that in the future our lives will be like the live of some Star Trek character and that the progress is inevitable ( these guys can't think on some greater value than "progress" ), while in fact, modern society is totally alienated and the progress race is a race toward self destruction.

"A man is a philosopher of genius only when he succeeds in transmuting the primitive and merely natural vision into an abstract idea belonging to the common stock of consciousness."

"
Thus fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can originate, must be sought in the existential analysis of Dasein.
Dasein accordingly takes priority in several ways over all other beings. The first priority is an ontological one: on the basis of its determination as existence Dasein is in itself “ontological.” But just as originally Dasein possesses—in a manner constitutive of its understanding of existence—an understanding of the being of all beings unlike itself. Dasein therefore has its third priority as the ontic-ontological condition of the possibility of all ontologies. Dasein has proven itself to be that which, before all other beings, is ontological the primary being to be interrogated.
"

I know most of the thread will not understand but at least try to use the hard problem of consciousness as a reference. "External description" vs "experience rooted by human concerns i.e. natural law (eating sleeping fucking)". Language exists for this purpose to create rules of thumb in terms of what is an ontic-ontological necessity, what can we take from the a priori to do things better than the conclusions based on sense perceptions could, and how do we make those things accessible?

>>10059933
>one would expect to have universal application
Philosophic question: do you have evidence that universal application is attainable?

they're all retarded, every one of them

philosophy literally means love of knowledge
if you don't love knowledge you are a brainlet
therefore if you don't care about philosophy you are a brainlet
Q.E.D.

how do u defend them if they're a priori LOL