/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10313797
>philosophy
No

>Whats does /sci/ think about philosophy?
not science or math

>>10313797
I like philosophy, especially mathematical logic.

Philosophy isn't as powerful as science but it is important for human beings

Questions like "what is worth sacrificing your life for" can't be answered by science and math

>>10313797
I think many of history's great philosophers are extremely interesting people with a lot to say. But "academic" philosophy is a complete meme and most professors in the field are pompous buffoons.

>>10313819
Basically. The typical published philosophy paper is absolutely loathful to read and mostly consists of cross referencing a bunch of shit a bunch of existing famous philosophers have said and offering a 'new perspective' on what x might have thought of y based on a comparative reading.

Now, this can actually be a useful tool if you do have something to say and want to reconcile a specific viewpoint with something else you're trying to establish, but the bulk of the time its pretty clear that they're just pushing paper as a social signalling function for the sake of funding.

>>10313817
>implying science isn't a subset of philosophy

Philosophy was good when math and philosophy was intertwined with it. After the industrial revolution then it became a breeding ground for humanities/social science where facts and rational went out the window and feelings were more important. It's no surprise the greatest philosophers were also mathematicians. Faggots from the Humanities keep talking about STEAM or making STEM majors take more of their classes but you never hear them say about more STEM classes for humanities majors. Reason why is that more classes for a STEM major means graduation date gets postponed while more STEM classes for a humanities major means no graduation at all.

>>10313797
>Professor, you say that Plato argues that forms have an independent existence right, like not physically?
>"Yes"
>And Jung says that stuff like 'the letter A' has a Jungian archetype, that there is like some essence of the letter A right?
>"Yes"
>Okay so if an archetype A exists, what font is it in?
>"Well, it wouldn't have a font. It would encapsulate the essence of A across any font."
>Okay, but what about the fonts? Does an archetype font exist? Or does an archetype Comic Sans exist?
>"Yes."
>And they exist independent of the letters?
>"Yes."

see how bullshit?

>>10315085
Jesus christ, if you want to get all semantic about it, the subset of fonts that exist, exist outside the essence of the letter A, because it is capable for that concept to exist without a font. If that's a real conversation, you're an autist.

Only absolute brainlets don't enjoy philosophy, especially the existential kind.

Things come in pairs. Black comes with white. Electron comes with positron. Science comes with philosophy. People in today's society are apparently so full of themselves they've forgotten about that simple fact.

philosophy is love of things we know (are true)

>>10315134
symbolism of wisdom

>>10315085
You disagree with a theory, but that doesn't imply philosophy is an inferior area of knowledge. Absolute brainlet physicist

>>10313797
Mostly bullshit except when done by scientists

>>10315162
science of philosophy is an appropriate term.

>>10314851
>more STEM classes for humanities majors means no graduation at all

>>10314851
>>10315184
Also meant to add that when I took a look at one of my dad's old philosophy textbooks from when he was in uni a while back, Ethics I think though it could have been Logic, the last chapter was on probability theory. Like not dealing with anything requiring calculus, but stuff like the addition and multiplication rules, Bayes Theorem, etc. It's basic algebra but it's more rigorous than modern textbooks from what I gather.

>>10313797
Philosophy is dead and capitalism, enlightenment killed it. It is going to resurrect itself once again when science starts losing its ground or when the first world societies crumble.

>>10314841
how are you posting here while living in the 17th century?

>>10315120
existentialism is a shitty waste of time and Heidegger would agree with me

>>10315208
But he was a philosopher therefore brainlet and useless parasite. Philosophy should be abolished.

>>10313797
>hurrr i scientist, i want no interference from dumb, low IQ, philosophers in ma dumb, unthought area of research durrrrrr

>>10313797

20th century failure of marxist society is what happens when you separate philosophy from science

There are a lot of philossophers full of shit due to a fact that a lot of "undereducated" people without proper reasoning are taking part in a discussions.

>>10315352
Beautiful.

>>10315092
>the subset of fonts that exist, exist outside the essence of the letter A

How? Clearly each transcendental font form would be intertwined with the 'A' form with regards to how 'A' would be written in it.

>because it is capable for that concept to exist without a font

Seriously explain how? How could a essence of 'A' exist independently of any fonts it might be written in, given fonts are needed to define its form and its relation to other letters in a given style? That is, unless you are simply claiming that the 'existence' (which I assume you mean conventional use by humans) of a given font is what you are talking about, and it is this that is independent of 'A's hypothetical Platonic form.

'A's form won't exist simply as an instance of A written in a specific font, for that would fail to define 'A' in any case outside of that specific font. However, 'A's form, if its exists, must somehow be abstractly tied to all possible ways of writing it, such that it might be perceived to be an instance of 'A' by some being who can read.

>>10315192
Sounds like logic. Logic from back in the day had a lot of what we'd now call "discrete math". Either that or Ethics has changed significantly because when I took ethics a few years ago it was a bunch of bullshit political arguments (abortion, guns, etc). That could've also been because I went to an (((Oregon state school))) though

>>10314841
Physics was bootstrapped off philosophy, and indeed it was once called Natural Philosophy.

Then Physics progressed but philosophy stagnated and later went off into the weeds. That is why TODAY we have no need for philosophy, and it is their own stupid fault. The post modernists have a lot to answer for.

>>10315443
Were it possible to reform the discipline as a whole into something useful, would you support practical philosophy through public funding or private charity? Or do you think such a question is meaningless because all the information which can be gained from philosophy has been discovered?

>>10315323
dumb, low-IQ self-styled philosopher eternally seething

>>10315482
*epic physicist comeback*

>>10315513
Cringe.

>>10313797
i do like political philosophy and philosophy of science

>>10313797
If you want to be a rigorous scientist, you can't ignore philosophy - if you want to be a rigorous philosopher, you can't ignore science. As simple as that.

>>10314851
>After the industrial revolution then it became a breeding ground for humanities/social science where facts and rational went out the window and feelings were more important.
You're talking about a very specific kind of "philosophy" which culminated in French postmodernism and unfortunately became pretty famous among laymen. If you ask a layman what philosophy is, he will think of all this bullshit.
But postmodernism is pretty much dead and the majority of recent philosophers are rather strict thinkers.
It's really sad a small bunch of drivelling idiots managed to ruin the reputation of a discipline as a whole.

>>10315324
Physishits should be all the way to the left in the dumpster behind the McDonald's.

>>10313797
Better than CS

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.

>>10317053
> t. triggered chemist

>>10313797
I would consider philosophy very close to a science. Both work in a similar way (present theory, attempt to disprove theory) except philosophy has no commonly accepted truths by design.

Philosophy is not a science. It is pseudery like psychology.

>>10317078
Are you paraphrasing the last page of Wittgensteins Tactatus on purpose? Or maybe it was even a direct quote.

Anyway, I have a PhD in physics and a lot of arguments with my philosophy gf where I'm on the STEM side but I still disagree quite harshly with you.

Pholosophical discourse renders culzural ideology, even when none of the words you say make sense. If you're a spooked neo-traditionalist, religious, wether you think immigants in the southern sea of Europe should be saved, wether you think there's a point at all to keeping biodiversity at the status quo, wether you think kids should learn to draw, what you think of how our elders should be trated.
Notions like "zeitgeist", "self", " property", "unconciousness", " capital", ... those entered our vocabulary through some battle of philosophy. Notions lile "nostalgia" or "generation conflict" are more simple to come up with, but still there are lots of notions and do and do never get coined and they color how we see our world.
What Kierkegaard makes of the Bible and how he redefines the values, and how Hegel comes to define progress, this is how our worldview gets shaped. Even pick up artistry comes with an ideology that lives off a context and takes him further.
It's completey true that a lot of profs and students get paid for publishing arbitrary bullshit, but it's also an ideological position to argue that research on graphene or homotopy theory is worth anything.
Surely, some stem types will elevate "scientific progress" and dream of a technocratic government of the world. Switch that with any other dogma.
The difference is that math and physics gives you and ipod and a weather report and all that, and das Kapital or economic treaties on what natual resource not to kill off, and the bill of human righta gives shapes some ideology. All self help is writen in one or another such context too
Philosophy doesn't have to produce mathematically verifyable content to be of value.

>>10313817
Wow, start with jaden smith is what I always say.

>>10317923
>Are you paraphrasing the last page of Wittgensteins Tactatus on purpose? Or maybe it was even a direct quote.
"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain in silence" is not the same as "To say nothing except what can be said"

>>10317968
you know it was written in German right?

>philosophy

>>10315443
Philosophy basically realized its impossible to answer the question of being and now just tries to doo cool tricks.

>>10315443
>muh pomo
Go back to watching Jordan Peterson comps on youtube

>>10315478
>Were it possible to reform the discipline as a whole into something useful,
At this stage it is unlikely. The rot has gone too far, it is better to take it out back and put it down.

>would you support practical philosophy through public funding or private charity?
First we have to know what practical philosophy is. case in point: in Norway the universities require a preparatory course "Forberedende") which most often is Examen Philosophicum, or Ex. Phil for short. This involves studies in logic, ethics and scientific theory. The climate debate would have been an excellent arena to apply what thousands have had to learn, yet there is zero evidence of any such analysis. In summary: people study it, people immediately forget it, and never applies it in their life. This COULD have been practical but in practice it just falls down.

>Or do you think such a question is meaningless because all the information which can be gained from philosophy has been discovered?
As a principle I never assume all information or knowledge is ever obtained.

My issue is that what could have been of use does not seem to be possible to apply in real life circumstances. I did a PhD in Physics so I had to learn about logic and scientific theory and also had to apply it to get through. I have applied this a few other places too with great success but I was pretty much alone in this.

Oh and I applied ethics too. That cost me my job. Would do it again, though it was painful.

>>10317999
Why would that affect those statements meaning different things?

>>10314841
Philosophy is a special Science

>>10314520
>but the bulk of the time its pretty clear that they're just pushing paper as a social signalling function for the sake of funding

So just like all of academia?

>>10315443
You filthy empiricist.

>>10315443
>TODAY we have NO NEED FOR PHILOSOPHY
i'm going to cry why do you fucking robots want to reveal the world as a big fucking machine

>>10315324
I like this modified version, the horseshoe implication is subtle and hilarious.

>>10319697
What's more is they are sure going to need it when it's revealed that is the case.

It's okay but just about everything has been spoken about in philosphy now. Not a lot of room left for new ideas. It's just mostly slight takes on existing ideas and just endless bitching over which philosphy is superior to the other.

i think that all philosophy uni smells like marihuana

>>10313797

>>10315342
what a man, that he can make words meaningful. who needs em?
Philosophy is a great theory crafting tool but unless you have the reasons for it you may be trivializing existence as a way to live rather than describing nature. the most ordinary mode for this is simply reading and reciting but occlusion is a fault of the mind and not of the theory crafted itself.

>>10315434
shoot her!

>>10315085
>implying Jung was a philosopher.
kek

Analytic Psychology is the god-tier science. No-one with sub-150IQ has ever contributed to it.

>>10319822
We're at the point where philosophy can finally *begin* properly. It's only now that we can seriously investigate the workings of the mind and how thoughts might percolate through it.

>>10313797

>>10313797
it's fun, but pointless, but important, but not really, if you get what I mean.

Ultimately, it shares the same domain as religion, which I define to be (more or less) dichotomous to the scientific domain. The difference is a matter of faith vs the scientific method. I find the faith-based domain important when science doesn't offer can't offer us any answers.

Things like "why does the universe exist" may not be answerable by science, or ethical questions that may need the well being of life factored into account (think fight club explanation of the insurance equation and how fucked up and unnecessary that is, or any of a billion sci-fi stories of how science goes wrong).

I am not religious at all. But it's fun to philosophies about things that may not have an answer. Of course, science should always try to scrape away at the darkness, even if an answer is not obvious.

Is that satisfactory?

>>10319986
marry my sister

>>10319814
Literally no one ever NEEDED philosophers

>>10313797
I like wisdom, and I like the love of wisdom.

>>10313797
Philosophy is not science. But it is something all scientists should consider studying.
Not only because of logic, but also because of moral issues.

If it weren't for philosophy there would be nothing to stop scientists from committing WW2like atrocities, because like it or not these kind of atrocities are beneficial to science.

But logic is very important also. If a scientist learns to think philosophically it can help guide him in his research towards the right answer. Because our world is governed by logic and reason and philosophy can help a scientist identify the patterns more easily.

Imo these are the reasons that philosophy should be mandatory for everyone pursuing a Bachelor's in anything. Same goes for Math. I think these two subjects should be mandatory for all.

>>10320250
See >>10318537

>>10320250
Are you retarded? Philosophy can't give you answers regarding morality. They'll come up with moral axioms that they think are good, but they can't prove that these moral axioms are objectively true. Ethics are a spook. It's worth nothing

>>10315443
>The post modernists have a lot to answer for.
Back to Plebbit, Peterson.

>>10320882
you are pre supposing the idea that just because something cannot be objectively proven therefore it is worthless. its up to people to decided whether or not the philosophical moral Inquiry benefits humanity or not and I personally think it does quite a bit

>>10320921
What did anon mean by this?

>>10313797
"Some people fly rockets. Other people give them the reasons to." -Abraham Lincoln

>>10318537
>The rot has gone too far, it is better to take it out back and put it down.

Philosophy has become more scientific than ever before. look at the popularity of analytic philosophy and it's logical and mathematical wankery and then consider people like Hegel and Rousseau centuries back.

I'd take consideration of Philosophy in it's individual areas when looking at it from a utilitarian viewpoint. Areas like Poltical Philosophy and Logic i believe are a lot more applicable to emprical fields of study and should stand out on their own in that regard.

>>10321206
Thank you for this

I’m in the part of a non relationship where she pretends to be wanting it back and then assuming many many former relationships again in order to trance you into safety zones where she breaks you out of your norms. i’m legit working on like rocket science, to me anyway and no homo, and her family tricks me into listening for my name here and there for them to harass me when i see them near me. it’s terrifying. this helps a lot.

>>10319996
>falsify it

Kill yourself

>>10321535
What's wrong with trying to falsify something?
Is it just wronglish or problem there is somewhat deeper?
Please explain, some of us are foreigners.

>>10321748
All of science is falsified. This mentality is from the "i fuckin love science" crowd that doesn't understand what science is trying to accomplish nor it's limitations.

>>10321760
is 2+2=4 falsified?
You're probably thinking of Big Bang Theory, which is not falsifed, it's purely false.
So is Copenhagen interpretation.
Please, give your own examples.

>>10321795

>>10321891
Hasn't Popper said exactly that science should be not only verifiable but also falsifiable?
(falsifiable, not falsified)

>>10313797
4channel.org/lit/

>>10321795
>t. high-school education

>>10321795
>doesnt know what is falsified yet replies

>>10321967
I already knew both of these meanings. Do you have a third one or you just didn't know the second one?
falsify
/ˈfɔːlsJfʌJ,ˈfɒlsJfʌJ/
verb
past tense: falsified; past participle: falsified

1.
alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
"a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results"
synonyms: forge, fake, counterfeit, fabricate, invent, alter, change, doctor, tamper with, fudge, manipulate, massage, adulterate, pervert, corrupt, debase, misrepresent, misreport, distort, warp, embellish, embroider, colour, put a spin on; rarevitiate
"she falsified the accounts"
2.
prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
"the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"
synonyms: disprove, show to be false, prove unsound, refute, rebut, deny, debunk, negate, invalidate, contradict, confound, be at odds with, demolish, discredit;

>>10321795
Too much in one post reveals your bait.
>>10321924
Popper isn't a scientist and his philosophy is total bs.

>>10322036
>Popper isn't a scientist and his philosophy is total bs.
popper hater? well then GTFO

>>10322039
You must be over the age of 18 to post here.

>>10322039
popper was partially btfo by kunt tho...
>>10322024
yeah i thought falsified was the word for falsifiable since english isnt my language.

>>10321795
>Please, give your own examples.

Newtonian mechanics (from the very beginning)
Electromagnetism
Quantum mechanics
Quantum field theory
General relativity

>You're probably thinking of Big Bang Theory, which is not falsifed, it's purely false.

>>>/reddit/

>>10322052
Ain't you by any chance talking of computational errors?
What is wrong with electromagnetism?
>>>/reddit/
NO U (whoever made this picture fucked up with Hoyle, but it doesn't change the main message of it. You've been fooled by media, there're way better cosmologies)

>>10322086
>science as the religion for atheists
cringe

>>10322101
For those who doesn't know how deep religion's hands are in academia. All the humanities are to be eradicated, and some of hard science is also corrupted.

>>10322086
Math is all that matters. Gut physical intuition has been secondary every since old quantum theory began.

>>10322115
This is probably true, but masses consume interpretations, and most of them are (probably intentionally) wrong.

>>10322115
Also if you spoke of Lemaitre, he produced exactly an interpretation (and an asinine one) of what was known before him.
You better chech this out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354

>>10322107
>everything I don't like in life or find dumb is somehow religion's fault
I can't believe how many delusional lelditers unironically think this.

Grow up and stop caring about religion.

>>10322154
Explain big bang hype and GOD mentioned over 100 times in hawking's short history of time. Explain hype of this cripple who met all three recent popes (just search images of hawking pope)

>>10322154
Do you want to tell us that leftists at reddit openly speak about kikes having subjugated european science due to justify their ancient myths?
Or you want to tell me they don't dare to do it there and come here to speak out?

>>10322167
>mentioned over 100 times in hawking's short history of time
>hawking's short history of time

You don't belong here.

>short history of time

>>10322167
>Explain hype of this cripple who met all three recent popes (just search images of hawking pope)

He also met with the former US Presidents, Nelson Mandela, and the Queen of England. So fucking what.

>>10322183
It's a bestseller popular science. And it's one of the most prominent promoters of the big bang. It's the science as public sees it. Have any scientists spoke out against it? No. Have any of your kind spoke out against oppression of James Watson? Also no.
I gave you an arxiv link above, but you will not read it.

>>10322188
Just a coincidence.

>>10321924
Actually, the conclusion science isn't verifiable at all - and can (and should) only be falsibiable - ís a consequence of the so-called Problem of Induction (which is as old as mankind itself but was made popular again by Hume).
Since you can't verify a theory due to the problem of induction the only test criteria for it is its falsifiability. If you can't falsify a theory (or say it's not false in any yet known circumstances), there's no criteria left to say it's true.

>>10322046
>popper was partially btfo by kunt tho
Depends on if you agree with Cunt's underlying assumptions. Kant pretty much said: everything you can tell about a thing truthfully is the stuff you put into it beforehand. Which means: everything you can recognize about a thing aren't attributes of the thing in itself but consequences of the categories of the human mind which are applied to the thing and constitute its entire idea.
This conception relies entirely and ultimately on the assumption space and time aren't "real" (attributes of the outer world / the world in itself) but are conceptions a priory (something the human mind "puts into things" beforehand).

>>10322208
>If you can't falsify a theory (or say it's not false in any yet known circumstances), there's no criteria left to say it's true.
Infalsifiability is impossibility of any experiment to prove that theory wrong (as with god, for example)
What you just said is "if theory is not falsified, it's wrong", which is so wrong that you probably by now know it yourself.

>>10321957
>4channel.org/lit/

Please don't send anyone form here over there. /lit/ contains people who actually understand and appreciate philosophy and it would be nice to not flood it with /sci/ trash who can't deal with phenomenology, aesthetics and the transcendental.

>>10313804
It's the first science you dork

>>10315085
There's a Platonic form of fonts, asshole, it's called Times New Roman

>>10315324
right of theology would be history then, since the purified study of theology would be the history around the development and teachings of a theology, plus it's evolution from inception to today.

>>10321795
sometimes like when things out of existence are squared into ir when it’s applied on a basis of falsifying integral degrees without cohesion. it’s a natural state of curiosity but the planet won’t warp into time for us, it needs to be managed like extension and be ridiculed for it. ridiculed meaning made fun of but not meaning feelings gutted. okay hurted is wrong. i mean just like that.

You need philosophy to have meaning in life. You saying you don't need philosophy is your philosophy.

>>10315120
But philosophers of science are annoying, superiority-complex twats so fuck philosophy in general.

>>10313797
It used to be an exciting field before the humanities were coopted by feminists and socialists and turned into an extension of gender and sympathy studies.

>>10315324
theologians and philosophers would be really close to each other, and on the right side with the mathematicians desu famalamadingdongs

>>10313797
they dont think

>>10322190
>Have any scientists spoke out against it? No.
Plenty have, we all hate it.
>It's the science as public sees it
It's the science as the pretentious public sees it but really most of them buy it and put it up on their bookshelf unread.

>>10322208
>Actually, the conclusion science isn't verifiable at all - and can (and should) only be falsibiable - ís a consequence of the so-called Problem of Induction (which is as old as mankind itself but was made popular again by Hume).
>Since you can't verify a theory due to the problem of induction the only test criteria for it is its falsifiability. If you can't falsify a theory (or say it's not false in any yet known circumstances), there's no criteria left to say it's true.

This is garbage spouted by non-scientists who mistakenly believe science has something to do with truth. Counter examples are not a death sentence in scientific theories and are totally normal. Models are still useful even if they don't work 100% of the time in all circumstances.

>>10322229
>Infalsifiability is impossibility of any experiment to prove that theory wrong (as with god, for example)

... or as with anything in human history, for example. Or anything observational for that matter. Monopoles are either observed to exist or their existence is still inconclusive but not falsified. Same thing with Bigfoot or any animal thought to be extinct. "Infalsifiability" is never actually brought up in science textbooks because it isn't used. The only time it's brought up is with fedoras who want to appropriate science into their autism instead of growing up and ceasing to care about religion.

The closest science gets is "not even wrong", which is more to do with speculation outside of the domain of science (metaphysical, multiverses) or models so mathematically intractable you can't get any useful information out of it (vortex theory, string theory).

>>10319986
I hope this be true

>>10320004
I think philosophy is a good bridge between science and religion

>>10313797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zJvKNYv2c