/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10615691
Science is a child of philosophy. A child cannot replace its father, it can only complement it.

>>10615691
No, and any fag that says otherwise is a brainlet. Science is reliant on observation. Philosophy is not

>>10615694
>Chemistry is a child of alchemy. A child cannot replace its father, it can only complement it.

>>10615691
That implies that philosophy was ever valid to begin with.

>>10615694
>Astronomy is a child of astrology. A child cannot replace its father, it can only complement it.

>>10615695
What is philosophy reliant on again? Oh that's right, arbitrary opinions.

>>10615700
No actually it’s reliant on my long cock sliding in and out of your mom’s stinky butthole

>>10615697
invalid comparison

What the fuck is philosophy? Is it a timekiller if you like spewing random shit on politics?

The way of philosophy does not go with truth at all. It is just rational gymnastics. So one philosopher can argue against another philosopher, and they go on arguing for centuries, but they have not come to agreement on a single point. Philosophy is the worst wastage of human intelligence that is possible.

>>10615697
>>10615699
Bad analogy, expected from someone who has no clue what Philosophy is.

>>10615691
>scientistsversuspopsci.jpg

>>10615697
>>10615699
Chemistry/Astronomy and alchemy/astrology operate on completely different domains. The only similarity they have is that they superficially deal with the same objects.
But when I wrote the comment above I did not expect brainlets to miss the point so badly.

>>10615694
Did you just assume philosophy's gender?

>>10615782
We all know, it's father and son.

>>10615727
This post itself is a philosophical assertion
You people are so fucking stupid, I hate what modernity and its deification of some nebulous “SCIENCE” has done to the beauty of the human spirit

>>10615707
>>10615751
Wow, I expected philosotards to be bad at arguing but I didn't expect them to be this dumb.

>>10615799
>hurr durr everything is philosophy
Literally the best argument philosotards can muster.

>>10615799
you're a retard.

>>10615782
It's not 2016 anymore.

>>10615799
>"SCIENCE"
When someone says this you just know they have brain damage. Stop talking about imaginary people

>>10615799
Based. I used to be a STEMfag but now I’m just becoming jaded. I find myself getting more interested now in history and philosophy just because I hate modern secular materialism so damn much.

Science: How can I know if something is true?
Philosophy: If it feels good, it must be true.
Math: Fuck your feelings, you must proved it.

>>10615694
based philofag

>>10615915
Brainlet. Philosophy is the basis of math

Today I will remind them

>>10615915
Philosophy: how can I know if something is true?
Science: here is what I have seen and some predictions about what I might see
You: clearly philosophy is irrelevant! Yay science!

>>10615932
Cringe retard. The basis of math are axioms that have no relation to your philosophy.

>>10615694
Basado y rojoempastillado

>>10615937
Why isn’t /ourguy/ Gödel included, he tried to provide evidence for god using modal logic and didn’t even explicitly fail

>>10615941
>he doesn't know

>>10615941
>math has no relation to philosophy
Imagine being this retarded

>>10615941
this nigga

>>10615961
>>10615968
>>10615973
samefag

>>10615938
Fuckin’ whacked him, anon

>>10615987

>>10615938
What a faggot. Real science is all about creating theories.
The rest of the science community are just willing slaves similar to code monkeys doing lab errands, paperwork, and statistics.

>>10615991
>everything is philosophy

>>10615987
>samefag
What does he mean by this

>>10615992
My point was that it is a mixture of predictions and observations
Philosophy is (in part) concerned with HOW we can know something and what can be known. Mathematics also occasionally does this (within its own borders) but the distinction between math and philosophy becomes too subtle for me to parse around then

Let's face the truth: Most working scientists (which includes the top ones) don't give a shit about philosophy because it's absolutely useless to their work.

>>10616011
Depends on the definition of philosophy. There are always theories, models etc. involved but after all only hard empirical data counts.

>>10616005
That doesn't prove anything.

>>10615987
The only samefag here is the IFUCKINGLOVESCIENCE undergrad who badmouths philosophy because his pop-sci idols told him it's dumb.

>>10616017
>everything is philosophy

>>10616018
>coping this hard
Just graduated from high school huh?

>>10616021
Stop talking about imaginary people

>>10616029
Not what I said. Not what I meant. First learn to understand basic sentences.

>>10615961
>>10615968
>>10615973

This is why you must precondition your mind with mathematics first before philosophy or you end up with like these retards with all delusions and no proof.

>>10616017
They don't actively use philosophy (i.e. refer to philosophers' works) while they build models or whatever. It's a mixture of knowledge, experience, context and trial-and-error that they use to build these models.

>>10616035
>theories, models
Obviously that's not what anon op or anyone
means with "philosophy" sophist

>>10616038
>proof
>how do you prove something
>literally philosophy

>>10616061 <-- retard, go here >>>/lit/

An axiom is a primitive truth. (doesn't need to be proven)
A theory is a set of axioms.
A theorem is an expression/proposition that follows a theory's axioms.
A conjecture is an expression/proposition that feels true but is not proven yet.

God /sci/ is becoming retarded by a minute.

>>10616083
I agree with an axiom being a primitive truth but how do you then justify that? How do you use These axioms to prove something?

>>10615691
>did science really make philosophy obsolete?
this is what pop-sci retards would say
the picture of the guy you posted on the right used philosophy half of the time, especially in trying to understand quantum physics

>>10616110
> How do you use These axioms to prove something?
You cannot prove something that doesn't belong to the domain of a certain theory.
You cannot prove God with number theory unless God is made of numbers.
Similarly, you cannot prove consciousness with Einstein's relativity or Newton's mechanics.
You need to create a consciousness theory to prove it.
This is the real job of the scientists, to create theories.

> Why not create a theory of everything?
A based philosopher named Bertrand Russel literally attempted to create a theory of everything but Godel proved this to be impossible using math.

In biology, the based scientists are those who designed the DNA theory. In science, the more seek the truth, the more you disregard the complexity of reality and the more you trust simplicity.

Science doesn't complement philosophy. Science is the inverse of philosophy.

Philosophy works on top-down approach.
Science works on bottom-up approach.

Philosophy's aesthetics is the *novel* truths.
Math/Science's aesthetics is the *simple* truths.

Philosophy wants to be comfy in God's creations.
Science wants to imitate Prometheus.

Philosophy wants to *find* the purpose of life.
Science wants to *create* a purpose of life.

Philosophy believes in everlasting life after death.
Science wants to create a solution to immortality.

Philosophy: Isn't it wonderful that we're conscious?
Science: Isn't it wonderful that we can do things like talk and walk and understand, without having the slightest idea of how it works?

>>10616247
Lol. Einstein doesn't believe in quantum physics. He's an atheist or at least a non-believer of a Christian-like god, He's also a clever politician who cares about his reputation so he likes to impress the masses by preaching how great God is.

>>10615876
>engineer believes in woo woo
What a fucking surprise.

>>10616083

axioms are not primitive truths. They are un provable assumptions.

>>10616329
The world’s greatest mathematicians would like to have a word with you

>>10616346
>not Leibniz

cringe

>>10616346
>godfag using argument from authority
like pottery

>>10616352
>seething over a shitpost

>>10616354
>"i was only pretending to be retarded"

>>10616362
you need to go back brainlet

>>10616374
Yeah no, retard

>>10616362
no u

>>10615774
You cant prove that.

The fields unify at high IQ

>>10616318
>Lol. Einstein doesn't believe in quantum physics. He's an atheist or at least a non-believer of a Christian-like god, He's also a clever politician who cares about his reputation so he likes to impress the masses by preaching how great God is.
you're either 16 years old or a CS retard
Einstein believed in Quantum physics and he helped in creating it, all he had problem with is the probabilities, that's why kind of preferred a hidden variable theory interpretation rather than the orthodox quantum interpretation, have you read the EPR article and his reality criterion or his philosophical approach to "experiment vs theory"...etc

stop being a fucking cunt and go back to Rebbit you ignorant prick

>>10615941
>imagine living believing this.

>>10616318
>Godel proved this to be impossible using math.

>he doesn't know about late Godel

>>10616460
Only good post in this thread.

>>10616318
What a dumb post. Are you an engineer?

>>10616333
> axioms are not primitive truths
You don't even know what primitive means. Please learn math and not just rely on philosophy.

Axioms are the foundation of a theory! They're too primitive and simple that they are their own proof and description.
(e.g., Euclidean axioms like lines and points, and the set from set theory).

This is why mathematics is hard and doesn't make sense at the beginning!
Mathematical ideas are not linear, they work in parallel.
You can't explain the basics without ending up running in circles.

Let me give you an example:
What is a point? What is a straight line? What is a number? What is a set?

A point is a point[1].
A straight line is a line[2] that is straight[3].
A number is a measure of quantity[4].
A set is a collection[5] of objects.

1. But what is a point?
2. What is a line?
3. What is a 'straight'?
4. What is a 'quantity'?
5. What is a 'collection'?

You see when we try to answer those questions again we're just running in circles.

When an abstraction is too primitive or too complex, *strict* logic is helpless.
This is why AI is hard. The mind uses a different technique other than logic. It's as if it ceases to be solved.

>>10615691
There are questions that science can never realistically answer, due to these questions philosophy must exist in order to ponder such things

>>10616478
This place is full of pretentious and misbehaved retards like you.
This website has received an estimated 14,367,000 unique visitors over the last 30 days.
So stop acting like you're fucking unique. All of you faggots here have the same opinions.

> you're either 16 years old or a CS retard
I've seen generic replies like this on this shitty board. You're a boring person. Boring people are dumb.

> Einstein believed in Quantum physics and he helped in creating it
Murray Gell-Mann said Einstein doesn't believe in what he's doing.
But nah, you're more correct than the guy who invented the theory of 'elementary particles' right?
I bet you didn't even know who's Gell-Mann is.

Because you're a retard!

>>10616636
cringe

oh /sci/
how low have you fallen?

>>10616642
> cringe
cringe

>>10616657
I want to punch you in the face.

pop sci/computer science/modern science number crunching retards: scientism

actual smart and enlightened people: philosophy + science

>>10616668
why resort to violence?

>>10615695
>Science is reliant on observation. Philosophy is not

Thought is co-emergent with language and language and logic originate from information gleaned through, primarily, the ocular function. To say philosophy is not reliant on "observation" is misinformed.

>>10616704
>Thought is co-emergent with language and language and logic originate from information gleaned through, primarily, the ocular function
Anon where is your observational evidence to support this.

>>10615694
Lol no, just because back in the day it was called natural philosophy, it doesn't mean it's fair to say it's a child. Trivially all academic subjects are a "child" of philosophy since everything intellectual or academic was called "philosophy" back then. What is true is that what we understand for modern academic philosophy is it's whole area that it's imposible to put as an application of another subject or as the source of every intellectual ordeals. I.e. just because you study philosophy doesn't mean you are the only one who can think that that you need philosophy in order to practice other subjects that require thinking. I.e. you are a fucking faggot who writtes ambiguously because you don't know proper academic philosophy.

>>10616679
I'm just disappointed.
I just want an intelligent philosopher to shitpost with and make ridiculous rebuttals.
But I only got boring responses (low-quality insults) from dumb people.

The only use of philosophy is to get new ideas to play with.
Philosophers who fell in love with their ideas become lazy thinkers, their followers are even worse.

The people who follow Nietzsche blindly are no different from the retards who believe in Christianity.

>>10616716
Nowhere did I say that that example or instantiation of meaning assembled and depicted through language was itself - the particular idea - directly derivative of observational functions. Every single sentence ever written across history does not require its own personal "observational epistemology" proof. Rather that the words themselves, the narrative structure of logic in sentences and the impulse of origin from which they were created (ie, the first time language or communication was necessitated was through the interaction of two people in the world first, mostly, visually recognizing each other) are shaped in large part from sensuous information coming from the ocular faculty.

>>10616773
ok

>>10616678
Good post

>>10616755
>The only use of philosophy is to get new ideas to play with.
A long time ago, when man asked himself about the explanation for some events, like for example, rain, the most common answer was an emotional explanation, this is the so called myth, but things began to change when the men known as philosophers tried to answer these questions using reason, the most notorious were Plato and Aristotle, Plato had a idealistic philosophy while Aristotle had a materialistic one, Aristotle approach is the foundation of science, science is a way to predict and explain phenomena, science doesn't concern itself with emotion, and, if it does, it's not science, but a flawed imitation
Time has changed, and science outweighs philosophy in many aspects, but there are aspects that will never be explained by science, aspects such as morality, ethics, aesthetics, logic, metaphysics. Philosophy can help us a lot today, with all the changes we are living we are seeing things that no generation has seen before, things such as clonation, intentional mutations, robots, AI. Sure, Science is the main protagonist here, no one is denying that, but science cannot answer everything surrounding these topics.
>Philosophers who fell in love with their ideas become lazy thinkers, their followers are even worse.
Such man is not a philosopher, but a fool, and so are the followers, a core point of both science and philosophy is that one should not cling emotionally to an idea.
>The people who follow Nietzsche blindly are no different from the retards who believe in Christianity.
In the light of ignorance this is true, but there used to exist intelligent Christians

>>10615691
>did science really make philosophy obsolete?
No, but Dialectical Materialism did.

I see we are being serious tonight.
Philosophy and Science are intertwined. They improve each other.

bump

Philosophy -> Math -> Science

>>10615774
Philosophy and science operate on completely different domains. The only similarity they have is that they superficially deal with the same objects.

>>10617467
Philosophy is fundamentally the art of developing frameworks to describe and comprehend reality, as well as verification of these assumptions, science is the practical application and verification of said frameworks.

>>10615691

science is the application of philosophy bro, you can't have good science without ideas.

>>10616678
De Maistre already BTFO of the scientific method. Science is a fucking meme, the basic guideline is obvious and existed forever before Bacon.

>>10615937

>Postmodernity: the philosophy that killed philosophy

This is shitty bait. Even actual brainbank math popularizers like Penrose discuss the indelible relationship between philosophy and mathematics.

>>10615691
>complimentary
Fucking kill yourself you stupid fuck. Can’t even spell properly.

>>10615812
Its not 2017 anymore

>>10616636
>im so special and unique
>im not like the other posters
>let me insult you to prove it
Retard detected

>>10615691
Science is a part of philosophy.
Like a good child inside a warm house
You can enhance your house but not replace it.
Science left alone is like a bright child abandoned in snowstorm.

>>10615876
Not all STEMfags make circuits for dildoes and VR porn. Some of us are improving human health and wellbeing.

>>10617467
Astrology is fundamentally the art of developing frameworks to describe and comprehend reality, as well as verification of these assumptions, astronomy is the practical application and verification of said frameworks.

>>10617473
Astrology is fundamentally the art of developing frameworks to describe and comprehend reality through the stars, as well as verification of these assumptions, astronomy is the practical application of tracking those stars and verification of said frameworks.

>>10615941
The absolute state of STEMfaggotry

>>10616636
>All of you faggots here have the same opinions.
Because you're wrong you stupid special snow flake

>>10615703
found the defensive philosophag

>>10615799
>You people are so fucking stupid
no U

>>10615876
>I used to be a STEMfag but I flunked my coursework, so now I'm in history and philosophy
FTFY

>>10616017
>Depends on the definition of philosophy.
No, it depends upon the definition of "definition". Get to work, philosophag.

>>10615691
There is a room for philosophy but there is also something satisfying about "reals" based arguments that "feels" just can't ever tap into. And science is like as "reals" as it can get.

>>10617530
What's your point

I've been reading Heidegger's treatment of Nietzsche and this coincidentally comes up in the second book:

>True, the sciences must make use of a particular notion of force, motion, space, and time are; they cannot *ask* what such things are as long as they remain sciences and avoid trespassing into the realm of philosophy. The fact that every science as such, being the specific science it is, gains no access to its fundamental concepts and to what those concepts grasp, goes hand in hand with the fact that no science can assert something about itself with the help of its own scientific resources. What mathematics is can never be determined mathematically, what philology is can never be discussed philologically; what biology is can never be uttered biologically. To ask what a science is, is *to ask a question* that is no longer a *scientific* question. The moment he or she poses a question with regard to science in general, and that always means a question concerning specific possible sciences, the inquirer steps into a new realm, a realm with evidentiary claims and forms of proof that are quite different from those that are customary in the sciences. *This is the realm of philosophy.* It is not affixed to the sciences or piled on top of them. It lies hidden in the innermost domain of science, so much so that it would be true to say that mere science is only scientific - that is to say, partaking of genuine knowledge, above and beyond being a repertory of certain techniques - to the extent that it is philosophical. From this we can gather the alarming proportions of nonsense and absurdity in all ostensible efforts to renew the "sciences" and simultaneously abolish philosophy.

>>10618910
>True, the sciences must make use of a particular notion of force, motion, space, and time are; they cannot *ask* what such things are as long as they remain sciences and avoid trespassing into the realm of philosophy.


Sorry I flubbed this. I'm literally transcribing from a book. This is how it should read:

True, the sciences must make use of a particular notion of force, motion, space, and time; but they can never say what force, motion, space and time are; they cannot *ask* what such things are as long as they remain sciences and avoid trespassing into the realm of philosophy.

>>10618910
>Reading Heidegger in English

Never going to make it.

>>10618910
>haha stupid scientists don’t you know only philosophers like me are equipped to tell you what your silly results ACKSHYUALLY mean?
cringe

>>10618956
>results

You missed the point entirely. In fact, that your statement still supposes that "results" of science are what is truly in question here suggests that you are likely still trapped in the dogmatism of the sciences as "ultimate" and "final."
I don't think any philosopher is at all interested in what "results" of any scientific procedure represent. Scientific "results" are mostly beside the point.

"Results," as stated earlier in the thread, are merely points on a timeline of infinite scientific possibility. While the timeline, and all the points accruing along the way, is crucially important, it still says nothing of the deeper questions of the matter. In fact, does science even ask questions? Really, all science does is make a set of propositions that appear as questions, firstly, and then, if science is done right, eliminate the *need* for questions within the domain of the proposition first introduced. It doesn't answer, nor ask, any questions in regards to a true larger elementality.

>>10616678
I study CS and I don't like scientism, so no.

>>10618990
>Scientific "results" are mostly beside the point
k then how about you retards stop shitting up the science board

>>10619005
lol umad

>>10616827
Actual smart person here.

>>10619009
no u

>>10615700
Yes ofcoarse the best why to get your viewpoint defended in the world of disagreement that is Philosophy is by just stating it as your opinion .

this idea seems to be gaining a foothold in the transabled community

>>10615727
Why should they have to agree ? It's conceivable that the truth is such that no human can agree on it and so maybe the philosophers are the truthful ones . There is no correlation between agreeing on something and being truthful . Plus just for your information philosophers do change their opinions and agree at certain times though I agree it's rare. For example Mackie was convinced by plantinga that the problem of evil is not sound and German idealism was almost ended by Russel .

>>10615915
Where do you get the Philosophy quote ? Any philosopher that says that would get btfod in the academic world and wouldn't even get published .

>>10615941
Snap*

>>10615954
Godel is a top notch nigga could include Descartes aswell since he had slightly less success in maths but had incredible success in philosophy . practically everybody in his time took his side until hume came and ruined things

>>10616001
Everything about gaining knowledge is a form of epistimology which is a part of Philosophy . So yes it's true

>>10616017
>Still being empiricist in 2k19

>>10616083
To prove something you need to have logical connections between axioms and or proven truths . These connections are part of logic and logic is a part of you guessed it Philosophy.

>>10616352
> First makes argument against someone by insulting their profession
> Someone responds with a an obvious meme reply which could actually be a valid syllogism but poster didn't bother
> Lol why so illogical


Do you punch someone at a bar and then when they call you a faggot scream ad hominem ?

>>10616678
Philosophy plus chemfag checking in

>>10619170
Don't you touch Billy !! He was good in his prime but is now too old . Some take age well like Swinburne but he got Alot worse .

Are you guys retarded? Science and philosophy answer different questions.

Economics, to try and use the methods of hardscience to explain the questions of a soft science.

>>10619219
this
These threads always devolve into a ""discussion"" on whether science/math is philosophy, which is just retarded semantics.

i dont know guys seems sketchy to me, i mean what are the fuckin odds that the moon perfectly covers the sun during eclipse? and that it happens to be seen on a planet that harbors life in this huge lifeless gay universe

>>10615691
Yes

>>10619325
No, because the questions are different, like someone wrote it earlier : >>10619219
One says "How?", the other says "Why?"

>>10616318
God, what a retard.

>>10615694
A child cannot replace it's father...? Umm, that's EXACTLY what children do. You have a child, then die, and it takes your place. haha fuck

philosophy as a subject is nothing. In reality philosophy is just a synonym for curiosity. for a posit.

anyone who thinks philosophy is it's own "science" is a self indulgent POS. seriously, get a real job instead of just "what if"ing your whole fucking life

>>10615799 this
what a terrible board

>>10615799
>This post itself is a philosophical assertion
You just proved philosophy to be worthless. Good job.

>>10615691
Yes, philosophy is just people throwing shit together until they believe it, while science proves shit.
It's more or less alchemy vs chemistry.

>>10615806
>>10620213

Its a good argument. Maybe we should devise methods of exploring which assertions have value for whom and in some particular context.

Sounds like a good way of figuring out what is what in this reality we find ourselves in.

>>10615694

Based

>>10615697

Retard

>>10618953
>Reading Heidegger

Never going to make it.

>>10615954
his assumptions are kinda whack tho

>>10616460
aww thanks, anon. now i feel better about myself

You guys act like science isn't full of people who are willingly being paid to push a agenda. Like everything being published is pure and accurate.

In this day and age we can educate wisdom, but not all wisdom has been discovered. So science has not but can one day make philosophy void.

Mathematics can void science, when we need not discover but rather exist sustainably.

Philosophers use experience to discover wisdom (fundamental knowledge; i.e. Human experience; how science is done, etc).

Scientist use wisdom to discover knowledge (i.e. What are things( from the perspective of a human )? How can( we ; where philosophy is accounted)make things? etc).

Mathematicians use knowledge (all science) and wisdom (all philosophy) to exist goodly (i.e. How is knowledge and wisdom applied by me?).

>>10620370
cringe

>>10615941
>

>>10617612
To be honest, he is probably an enginigger and not a physics or math student. (a-at least I hope so).

So this is like one of my first posts on this board and I had heard that the average IQ here is really high, but based on what I have read so far (in this thread and some other ones), the average IQ doesn't seem to be much higher than that of /his/. What gives?

>>10620839
This is board has prolly the lowest IQ besides the porn boards . This is all because everyone has a "shut up and calculate" attitude so everyone is advanced in their own fields but any thing outside their field they hiss on . Like Philosophy

name me one philosopher that even comes close to approaching this man in terms of raw intellect

>>10621208
IDK if Newton is considered to be a philosopher but he should give Von Neumann some legit competition.

>>10621208
> raw intellect
What's that?

>>10615751
>post on sci that philosophy is useless
>butthurt philo fags come out of the wood work crying about their field getting absolutely dicked
>reee thats a bad comparison u dun kno wut ur talking aboot

fucking weak and pathetic

OP made this post as bait and you all fell for it

fucking philosophers

>>10621208
Liebniz nigga. EZPZ

>>10620536
>Reading

Never going to make it.

>>10621208
just because a philosopher didn't focus on math doesn't mean they weren't just as smart as someone like him

t. mathfag tired of highschoolers on this board

>uncle philosophy
jsut ask with one is ironic
and with one is coincidental

and soio forth litrally every philiusophical debate can be awnsered with this knowledge of believe

>>10621863
can’t name one huh

>>10621863
You gotta understand, mathfags believe that learning math gives them superpowers. This isn't about potential intellect, it's about actual intellect.