/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10087828
so a proof by contradiction?

>>10087828
The moment some system of thinking becomes useful is the moment it is not philosophy. Therefore your argument fails.

>>10087917
But a system of thinking can also be harmful, without being philosophy. How do you tell the difference?

>>10087828
Nobody thinks philosophy is useless. Even still, it isn't as useful as (empirical) science.

>>10087917
>what is political philosophy

>>10087977
name 1(one) thing philosophy has done for the world

>>10088063
Make science.

>>10088063
Put that words in your mouth

>>10088073
>>10088075
>everything is philosophy

>>10088063
Nazism.

>>10087977
>implying science can exist without philosophy

>>10088081
nazism is the result of science, not philosophy

>>10088081
wtf? I love philosophy now!

>>10087828
*duckrabbits your path*

>>10088063
Told SJWs to gtfo.

>>10088061
Politics is useful, political philosophy is useless.

>>10087924
Irrelevant.

>>10088077
>no reading comprehension

>>10088063
The philosophy of skepticism lead to the development of the scientific method.

>>10088077
>epistemology is not philosophy

>>10088171
it's ironic that this comic, which criticizes wojak edits, is also a wojak edit

Philosophy was useful when philosophy encompassed Math, and all the sciences.

Philosophy in 2018 is pretty anti-intellectual save for the stuff involving ethics and logic. It used to be a science but now its an art masquerading as science.

>>10088193
It is. Science is still born from philosophy, doesn't mean everything is philosophy or philosophy is great.

>>10088221
That's like saying chemistry is born from alchemy. It's more like science made the philosophy It replaced obsolete.

>>10088231
a lot of important topics can't be solved by science.

ethical stuff, politics, a lot of economics, law, nationalism.

most of that shit can't be solved with science.

>>10088211
What if I told that quantum mechanics is incompatible with supernatural soul, would it be philosophy or science?

>>10088063
Saves from brainwashing.

>>10088063
Teaches higher level reasoning only available to the jews.

>>10088231
>chemistry is born from alchemy
No it isnt. Chemistry superseded alchemy. Science is a single branch of epstimology that just so happens to be more powerful than the rest of phil combined.

>>10087828
sometimes you need to fight fire with fire

>>10088237
>a lot of important topics can't be solved by science.
>ethical stuff, politics, a lot of economics, law, nationalism.
What you're forgetting is that they can't be solved by philosophy either. Philosophy doesn't solve anything. If you're thinking of it as a counterpart to science then you've already failed.

>>10088272
>No it isnt. Chemistry superseded alchemy. Science is a single branch of epstimology that just so happens to be more powerful than the rest of phil combined.
That's my point, philosophy has exactly the same amount of power as alchemy.

>>10087828
WOW you mean morons who don't know shit about philosophy are the only ones who talk shit about philosophy?

>>10088077
Yes, quite literally ALL FORMS OF EPISTEMOLOGY ARE PHILOSOPHY.
All other fields of knowledge are subcategories of philosophy. "science" is just Empiricism, which is philosophy.
You are practicing one subset of one subcategory of the superstructure that is Philosophy.

>>10088242
Well are you invoking the scientific method?

>>10087828
>Epistemology is cucked by Mathematical Logic
>Ethics and Metaphysics are cucked by Theology
>Natural Philosophy is cucked by Mathematics and its corollary sciences

Philosophy is dead.

>>10088547
You forgot
>Continental "Muh Feels" Philosophy is cucked by Women's Studies and Gender Studies

>>10088469
REEEEE EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY THEREFORE MY ARBITRARY OPINIONS HAVE MERIT REEEEEE

>>10088172
You must be over the age of 18 to post on this site

>>10088547
>that post
>that image

>>10088242
It would be garbage popsci like all other mentions of QM without math.

Philosophy isn't useless.

Spending 50k and 4 years on a degree in it is though.

>>10088242
What if I told that quantum mechanics is proof of gender theory?
https://twitter.com/bbcideas/status/1046785560105250817

Philosophy just means pondering on things you know jack shit about and trying to piece together an explanation by pulling stuff out of your ass. When you start experimenting to prove your statements, it separates to form a science (e.g. physics). The reason why today's philosophy seems like a load of crap is that most experimentally verifiable topics have already branched out into their respective sciences and all that is left in philosophy is random pseudo scientific content, most of which is impossible to prove or refute.

>another thread were /sci/ furiously babbles about how much they hate philosophy despite knowing jackshit about it.

Holy shit, we get it, You idiots are undergrads who suffer from tunnel vision and know nothing about the subject at hand that isn't the misinformation your pop-sci idols have put in your brain. What's the point of having this shit thread every day? If philosophy is so "useless" then why do you faggot keep talking about it?

>>10088551
Yes, everything is philosophy.
If you actually knew ANYTHING about philsophy and epistemology you would know that arbitrary opinions DO NOT HAVE MERIT unless you can argue it.
That's literally what the fucking study of epistemology is - what opinions are valid and worth taking seriously, and what opinions aren't.
You're both stupid and ignorant.

>>10088584
Give me one (1) example of a problem philosophy solved.

>inb4 everything is philosophy

>>10088466
Shocker, I know.

Also, can any /sci/entist here enlighten me as to why none of the fucking Latex code I try on here works anymore? Was this disabled while I wasn’t looking?

>>10088588
So what opinions has philosophy determined are valid?

>>10088600
There are far too many things for me to write out.
All of current reproducible experimental data, though, is an example of the fruits of Empiricism, which is a subset of Epistemology.

>>10088595
Not him, but I don't think that's the right question to ask.
A lot of philosophical systems have been and still are really important. Applied Ethics come to mind, etc.
Utilitarism had a huge impact on economics, science, law and politics.
Philosophy of science has been really important or we would still be stuck in the positivism of the 19th century or worse.
I think philosophy gets memed too much. It's really important but ofc there are a lot of philosophic systems and concepts that are only valid in the academic bubble and will find no application outside of it. But that's just two sides of one coin imo.

>>10088553
You really showed him, anon!

>>10088553
Is it not true, though?

Funny note on philosophy and science:
Truth
> True facts, genuine depiction or statements of reality.
Fact
> An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of experts.

So, an alternative fact is an alternative consensus on a fundamental reality, and Liberals dismiss the concept of alternate fact because they confuse facts with truths.

>>10088595
>Give me one (1) example of a problem philosophy solved.

Virtually anything logicians have done, brainlet.

>>10088607
So as predicted, you can only point to science when asked for philosophy's alleged results. Pathetic.

>>10088609
Scientology is also "important," so what?

>>10087828
ITT: anons with intellectual dwarfism confusing all of philosophy with metaphorical philosophy in particular

>>10088626
All of mathematical results as a rationalist counterexample. Separate from (and superior to) empiricist results.
You, again, make the mistake of not understanding the structure of the knowledge. Yes, ALL scientific knowledge is just a branch of Empiricism which is a subcategory of epistemology. You being angry at this fact doesn't change the structure of the knowledge.

>>10088109
based
>The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.

>>10088623
Logic is math

>hurr everything is philosophy durr
So predictable.

>>10087828
ITT: anons with intellectual dwarfism confusing philosophy in general with metaphysical philosophy in particular

>>10088632
It's only "predictable" in the sense that the truth is predictable, brainlet.
Logic is a super-category over mathematics, and logic is a subcategory of epistemology, which is philosophy.

>>10088629
So as predicted, you can only claim the results of other fields as philosophy. Pathetic.

>>10088595
>Give me one (1) example

No, I am not falling for that again. I am tired of spoon-feeding idiots like you. I just came here to make that remark about you retards being obsessed with something you know nothing about and consider useless.

This is what happened last time I bothered answering one of you faggots
>>/sci/thread/S9969164#p9969896
(see idiot who asks me to give him one example of a philosophical problem)

Pic related is the type of imbecile I am replying to in this board. Even the 12 year old version of myself have a more sophisticated notion of ethics.

>>10088637
I study pure math, not philosophy. I just respect the field because I'm not stupid.
Again, see >>10088635

>>10088632
>hurrr nothing is philosophy durrr
So predictable.

Logic is and always has been core to philosophy which is, in a nutshell, how to think correctly. Also:

>“Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times)”

>>10088627
?
What is your point? Are you just baiting? I've wrote about how philosophy was able to provide a rational foundations for a lot of different fields and that it's important because of that.
Your whole counterargument is just pointing to scientology?
:thinking:

>>10088632
>asks retarded question
>gets proven wrong
>starts to argue about semantics

>>10088635
It should be very easy, if philosophy had any merit, to just give me one result of philosophy that is by philosophers in a field of philosophy, not some other field. But you can't, proving my point. It's your fault you get no respect.

>>10088647
the golden rule?
>hey fuck you brah, i'd never do that to you

>>10088634
That's actually on point
It's kinda sad how many (pretended smart) anons attack something they don't really know or understand.

>>10088632
This attitude is incredibly retarded. So whenever philosophy spawned entire new fields (logic, linguistics, psychology, ...) those suddenly ceases to be philosophy? What kind of dumb-ass reasoning is that?

At this point I will just elect to believe that this anon and any like him aren’t actually this mentally challenged and instead simply baiting so here is one last (You), fool.

>>10088547
Reading your post is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat, and the dark room is your own ass and the cat is an original thought

>>10087828
natural philosophy is useful, academic philosophy is not.

>>10088655
Depends on your definition of “useful”, I suppose.

>>10088655
I think that's a terrible distinction.

>>10088640
>No I refuse to show that there is any knowledge in philosophy at all because of some thread
I guess logic really isn't a part of philosophy.

>>10088642
Apparently philosophers don't practice philosophy, only scientists and mathematicians practice philosophy.

>>10088662
Sounds like it, judging by the braying of the laymen in here.

>>10088642
That's informal logic, which is basically rhetoric. Formal logic is and always has been math.

>>10088643
>I've wrote about how philosophy was able to provide a rational foundations for a lot of different fields and that it's important because of that.
It hasn't though. Scientists and mathematicians pay zero attention to philosophers and have created their own foundations.

>Your whole counterargument is just pointing to scientology?
Your argument is literally just religious apologism.

>>10088645
>asksaimple question about philosophy
>the only answer is not about philosophy
I thought at least philosophy apologists could argue. Guess I was wrong.

>>10088673
>It hasn't though. Scientists and mathematicians pay zero attention to philosophers and have created their own foundations.
>what is falsifiability

>>10088649
Great, now show me how philosophy determinef the golden rule should be followed.

>>10088678
philosopher:
>puff
>bro, what if i were you and you were me?
>then like, you wouldn't want me to kill you right, cuz i don't want you to kill me right?
>fuuuuuck
>*puff*

>>10088652
You mean systems of thinking became sufficiently advanced to replace arbitrary speculation? Yes. And if you don't understand this, ask yourself why "philosophy of science" is a thing if science is already philosophy.

>>10088673
>created their own foundations
Those foundations are partly based on philosophic insight though. The problem of induction comes to mind.
Either you are baiting or you are just really small minded.

>>10088677
>what is induction?

>>10088686
You have it completely backwards. The theories of philosophy of science are based on how scientists behave. Not the other way around. Popper is a good example since by focusing only on falsification he ignored the role of induction and failed to fully describe science.

>>10088682
>if science is already philosophy
Where do you think I said that?

>why "philosophy of science" is a thing
Because analyzing a thing is not the same as the thing itself? I don’t even get what you think your point here is. All I am saying is that philosophy has and continues to offer valuable insights and the only way to deny that is to arbitrarily declare fields of philosophy as somehow not part of philosophy anymore because >muh reasons.

>You mean systems of thinking became sufficiently advanced to replace arbitrary speculation?
Nothing was replaced. Early logic is still as valid now as it was then. And if you think all philosophy is just “arbitrary speculation” then your power level is too high and I’m afraid you are beyond help, anon.

>>10088687
Not even biologists are trying to prove their hypothesis by induction.
A friend of mine is in his first semester and even they are just trying to disprove their hypotheses. "Ants will always take the route which has more pheromone" -> They don't, hypothesis disproved.

>>10088690
>The theories of philosophy of science are based on how scientists behave
Well, yeah. Popper even explains that he knows that scientists don't behave like he explained but his wish is to prepare a guideline how a proper scientist should be behaving.
Kuhn's whole theory was based on the assumption that Popper's theory don't describe how science actually works.
Kuhn tried to describe how scientists work, Popper explained how they should be working. (he gave examples of "proper" scientists though. He said Einstein is an example of a good scientist).
Even though Popper's guidelines are respected by every field, saying that falsifiability isn't used in sciences would be an outright lie.

>>10088701
*aren't respected

I am out of here though. Gotta wake up in 4 hours

>>10088691
>Where do you think I said that?
I confused you with the other apologist, my mistake.

>Because analyzing a thing is not the same as the thing itself?
That's exactly my point.

>All I am saying is that philosophy has and continues to offer valuable insights and the only way to deny that is to arbitrarily declare fields of philosophy as somehow not part of philosophy anymore because >muh reasons.
What fields of philosophy?

>Nothing was replaced. Early logic is still as valid now as it was then.
Informal logic is still as weak as it was then.

>>10088694
>prove
>disprove
Haha, please stop pretending you understand science.

>>10088708
I am sorry, my English isn't on the strong side. I meant prove like "substantiate" or smth. I have no idea what the correct term would be desu.

Also just explain yourself instead of memeing you neckbeard.

>>10088701
>Popper even explains that he knows that scientists don't behave like he explained but his wish is to prepare a guideline how a proper scientist should be behaving.
That doesn't respond to the point. Popper did not invent falsifiability, he invented an arbitrary philosophy based on an observed behavior.

>>10088713
Substantiation is inherently inductive.

>>10088704
>What fields of philosophy?
I already mentioned a couple previously: Logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and so on.

>Informal logic is still as weak as it was then.
What are you on about?

>>10087977
That's because the instant empirical data enters the equation we consider it to no longer be philosophy.

It's like philosophy is a person that everyone ignores until they put their science hat on and then they're all like "fuck yeah science I missed you buddy where'd you come from how've you been".
The general paradigms of science, flaws and all, are founded entirely in philosophy. The only difference now is that we've demanded that philosophy be considered a separate discipline. In the past you had characters like Leibniz and Descartes who actively contributed to math, physics, and various natural sciences, while being considered by history to be philosophers, because in the historical perspective the pursuit knowledge isn't a matter of social competition.

Denying philosophy's access to empirical substance is an arbitrary restriction that will obviously work against its credit. The irony is that the converse - denying science's use of philosophy - inhibits science as well.

Philosophy is rational inquiry. It seeks to find truths and root out untruths through force of thought - the same thought that underlies any progress in any logical discipline. In other words, philosophy is literally the purified version of the force that drives the progress of math and science. Observation is nothing without reflection, and experimentation depends on the creative conception of the experiment.

So with the modern manipulation of its ontology, philosophy is utterly barred from contributing anything to the world unless it channels it through a science. However, it contributes a lot to the mind of the individual, and I think it would be a significant improvement to the scientist to learn philosophy. The same problem does not exist for the philosopher - we already learn math and science, because our goal is purer and it leads us to take interest in every available source of knowledge that could contribute to the general framework of understanding.

hey guys, why are there so many philosophers lurking /sci/? i post in supersymmetry threads with some deep sheit and 0 replies; OTOH if a douche makes a philosophy thread, it blows up with 100 posts like this one

what the fuck? is /sci/ really the lurkstation for philosophags? are there that many philosopy anons and that few science/math anons?

maybe it's true that philosophers have nothing to do but "think" all day == lurk /sci/ and try to steal something from the few actual scientists who lurk here.

fuck, maybe i should just give in and get a twitter and a facebook so i can interact with actual smart people.... did the "fuck facebook" movement really turn into a bunch of retard 4chan philosophers with nobody else except for me, the one poor particle physicist?

>>10088762
You can always go to math general

>>10088844
I wonder if >>>>10088888 is gonna go to waste.

>>10088762
Shush, brainlet. That’s enough whining for one day.

>>10088762
Philosophy is by nature more conducive to discussion than most subjects, and the philosophically inclined are always looking for a place to scratch the itch.

>lurk /sci/ and try to steal something from the few actual scientists who lurk here
haha no

>>10088063
Philosophy is the reason we have the most refined moral system, unlike the primitive people of africa and america, or the chinese.

>>10088677
>>what is falsifiability
Kill yourself, popsci faggot.

>>10088595
Organized my life.

>>10088701
Popper was never a scientist nor has he ever studied science. His falsification nonsense is pure garbage.

>Kuhn tried to describe how scientists work, Popper explained how they should be working.

Which is utterly absurd. Even more so by the fact he completely misunderstands the point of science, presuming that it is about discovering objective truths rather than modeling reality which ironically is based on many unfalsifiable assumptions. Not to mention the many models that have measured error (ie have been falsified) but are still widely used and taught (such as Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell equations, Schrodinger equation, Relativity, etc) because they are convenient, useful, or have no better replacements.

>saying that falsifiability isn't used in sciences would be an outright lie.

It isn't, Popper and falsifiability is only ever brought up in "philosophy of science" circles, popular science, and skeptic subreddits. You'll never see it mentioned in a physics textbook nor a professor mentioning it.

>>10088762
Philosofags get in here through an underground railroad of /his/lit/ -> Phil -> Analytic Phil -> Phil of Math -> Logic -> Math -> Science -> /sci/

>>10089007

>>10088077
no, but everything that's smart is

>>10088221
>doesn't mean everything is philosophy or philosophy is great.
lol wtf you can say that about anything

>>10088231
except alchemy is obsolete because it operates on invalid presumptions and philosophy is literally the opposite of that, that's a manipulative comparison.

>>10089025
kek’d

Philosophy placement isn’t sensible given the axis though.

Educated guesses/hypotheses are by definition philosophy. No scientist can ever claim never to have been a philosopher.

>>10089287
It is with postmodern and modern post-ironic philosophy.

>>10089393
That is not the whole of philosophy though ...

Logicians, philosophers of language and so on belong next to mathematicians if anything.

>>10088077
Optimized.

>>10088171
Optimized.

>>10088172
Optimized.

Modern philosophy is dedicated to generating as many shoulder shrugs as possible to a short list of questions unanswerable in strictly philosophical language. And then categorizing the shoulder shrugs.

>>10088193
Optimized.

>>10088547
Optimized.

>>10088562
Optimized.

>>10089468
Are you still the same person who started optimizing almost 3 years ago?

>>10088584
Optimized.

>>10088640
Optimized.

>>10089025
Optimized.

>>10089501
>>10088962


>>10089025
Optimized.

>>10089489
Anon I could not help but notice your png was not optimized.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

>>10089506
based optimizer, I love you.

>>10088158
Politic systems have their basis in political philosophies, idiot

>>10088718
Ye, but the whole point ist that people aren't trying to "prove" scientific theories by induction anymore except in high school chemistry classes.
That was different 100 years ago and before. The Philosophy of science had an impact there.

>>10088962
>You'll never see it mentioned in a physics textbook nor a professor mentioning it.
Well, physics isn't the only field in science.

>>10088962
>presuming that it is about discovering objective truths rather than modeling reality which ironically is based on many unfalsifiable assumptions
This is true.

>Not to mention the many models that have measured error (ie have been falsified) but are still widely used and taught (such as Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell equations, Schrodinger equation, Relativity, etc) because they are convenient, useful, or have no better replacements.
Popper writes about that though. He literally says that even falsified theories should be kept if they don't have a better replacement. If a theory get's falsified (by something that isn't for example just a error in measurement) you should modify it if it still complies with some criteria (which includes the amount of information that is lost by the modification, and some other stuff I don't remember). You can try to falsify theories so you can compare competing theories.
His point wasn't as strong as you make it to be. "Try your best to disprove scientific theories and work with them if you can't". But honestly you even might be right; young Popper and older Popper differ in some things and he wasn't always consistent.
He ironically valued induction btw. It's a huge flaw for his philosophic concept (because he already rebuked the value of induction before) but he said that theories that keep performing (which is determined by induction) are to be looked at more favourably than similiar theories which were tried less often.

>>10089592
There's literally nothing wrong with induction. The best you can ever do is draw reasonable conclusions with the information given to you. Only fedoras get butthurt that these conclusions aren't always "truth" because it then means they can't claim their "reals over feels" mantra is science.

>>10088962
>it is about discovering objective truths rather than modeling reality
But a model has to be falsifiable to be useful. Take astrology. The model in astrology applies to anybody due to how loosely it is set up. The astrologer cannot go from my personality to my "sign", because all "signs" are so vaguely defined that they can apply to anybody. Or, take intersectional feminists theory of Patriarchy. Women are more likely to be living in poverty? Patriarchy. Women are less likely to be homeless? Patriarchy. It has no predictive power, and any statistical occurrence can be described in a manner that is consistent with a "Patriarchy". It is useless as a model of reality.

>>10089614
You would make a good politician. Never actually answers or addresses the point they're presented, just goes into a slightly different direction that's still close enough to seem like you're still on topic.

>>10090885

ad hominems signal incel nologics

>>10090267

strawmen signal incel nologics

>Get gud gentlemen

>>10090889
I'm not actually the poster you were arguing with, I just felt like calling you out on your shit. Also, I didn't attack you per se, I merely pointed out your own fallacy.

>>10090267
>But a model has to be falsifiable to be useful
No.
>Or, take intersectional feminists theory of Patriarchy.
Not science so it's irrelevant.
>Women are more likely to be living in poverty? Patriarchy. Women are less likely to be homeless? Patriarchy.
Nothing to do with "muh falsifiable" and everything to do with jumping to premature conclusions.
> It has no predictive power
Predicting everything is the Penis Illuminati aka Patriarchy's fault is "predictive power". Bad models are still models.
>It is useless as a model of reality.
Very useful for the Women's Studies PhDs that have successfully lobbied many companies to have Chief Diversity Officers positions with generously sized staff under them and get 7~9 figure salaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_diversity_officer

Success breeds jealousy :^)

>>10088753
Based.

>>10090897
>I merely pointed out your own fallacy.
But it offended him. Therefore, it is an insult.

>>10087828
Everything is a subset of philosophy. One cannot live without being philosophically minded.

>>10087828
Axioms are philosophy

>>10088762
you sound like an NPC

>>10088550
well put

>>10088231
>Science replaced all of philosophy and not just natural philosophy

>>10088237
You forgot the problem of consciousness.
>inb4 muh neuroscience

>The scientific method is a myth
What now, /sci/?

>>10092095
>You forgot the problem of consciousness
God hacked it in.

>inB4 NPCs claim everyone is a NPC

>>10092097
It is. Theoretic Physics doesn't do experiments, Experimental Physics doesn't do theorizing.

>>10088086
I think it has basis in both.

>>10088595
The purpose of φιλοσοφία is not solving problems, it's asking questions. Φιλοσοφία will never give you answers and results, it is all up to you to find them. Unlike science, φιλοσοφία is unbiased because it does not rely on the "factual evidence" as a source of knowledge.

Philotards really want to feel important, huh?

>>10092165
Not really. Just want my mom to stop telling me to do SCI YANCe when she couldn't even pass her honours in "applied science"

>>10088083
It sort of can't.
Philosophy is the art of discovering parameters which are helpful to discovering more practical answers to a question.

Imagine thinking of yourself as intelligent, yet not understanding something this basic.