/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10706920
Because they're not real scientists. Real science threatens the power structure. Real science is intrinsically linked with philosophy. That's why they had to separate science and philosophy, now we have sci-fi bullshit which is treated like a new age religion.

>>10706920
Philosophy is extinct and contributes nothing.

>>10706930
Can you validate this statement without using philosophy?

>>10706937
Yep. Pennicilin wasn’t made by philosophy. Neither were planes or spaceships.

>>10706943
yeah so?

>>10706926
Legit. E.g. >>10706930

>>10706944
So philosophy hasn’t contributed to human wellbeing significantly in recent history.

>>10706949
why is that bad?

>>10706943
This fails to prove the statement that "philosophy is extinct and contributes nothing".

Natural science and engineering operates using logic, which is a branch of philosophy. You cannot get away from it.

>>10706943
Nice utilitarian argument, care to restate that without philosophy?

>>10706926
>real science threatens the power structure.
anon...real science IS the power structure

>>10706955
Never said it was bad. Up to you to assign a value judgement.

>>10706958
Cool. The rest of philosophy can be discarded.

>>10707021
>real science IS the power structure
We are not taught real science. The government want it for themselves.

>>10707026
Why are you so afraid of philosophy?

>>10706958
You're confusing the study of thinking with the act of thinking itself. They are not the same thing. Do you think birds are concerned about ornithology? Just because we need to use concepts which philosophy has claimed as belonging to them, that doesn't validate philosophy itself as useful.
>but you're using logical and reasoning! Those are philosophy!
Only because philosophy wants to claim these pre-existing concepts since it's a useless field otherwise. Formal logic is more like math these days anyway.

I'll gladly admit that there was a time in history where philosophy was extremely important and gave birth to modern science, but at this point philosophy is like those pathetic parents whose children are good at sports or in beauty pageants, trying to achieve things vicariously through their much more successful children because the parents themselves are pathetic worthless failures. Philosophy gave us good stuff in the past, sure, but now it's old and rotten and absolutely useless trash.

>>10707041
Why are you resorting to ad hom?

>>10707052
>metaphysics is worthless
>epistemology is worthless
>recognizing the limits of science and working to develop alternative ways of knowing is worthless
just because philosophy doesn't give you more baubles to hang in your room doesn't make it useless. ideas can have value too, despite not being corporeal.

Philosophy should be taught in high school instead of English.

>>10707071
>metaphysics is worthless

Definitely.

>epistemology is worthless

Outside of its usefulness to science, yes.

>recognizing the limits of science and working to develop alternative ways of knowing is worthless

Alternative ways don’t exist. If something can not be observed, it can not be said to exist in a meaningful way.

>>10707029
>teach citizens wrong science
>hire them
>get the wrong result

>>10707052
>You're confusing the study of thinking with the act of thinking itself. They are not the same thing. Do you think birds are concerned about ornithology? Just because we need to use concepts which philosophy has claimed as belonging to them, that doesn't validate philosophy itself as useful.
We are natural philosophers, you cannot get away from it. Our intrinsic ability to "think" naturally leads to "philosophy" - you're basically claiming that thinking isn't useful.
>Only because philosophy wants to claim these pre-existing concepts since it's a useless field otherwise. Formal logic is more like math these days anyway.
Mathematics can't deal with the concepts we're talking about, instead it's used for illogical nonsense that props up your religion.
>I'll gladly admit that there was a time in history where philosophy was extremely important and gave birth to modern science, but at this point philosophy is like those pathetic parents whose children are good at sports or in beauty pageants, trying to achieve things vicariously through their much more successful children because the parents themselves are pathetic worthless failures. Philosophy gave us good stuff in the past, sure, but now it's old and rotten and absolutely useless trash.
You cannot separate "philosophy" from "science", that shows a complete misunderstanding of what philosophy is. This bizarre hatred and separation of philosophy and science is the reason why it's not progressing any more.

>>10706920
Counterpoint: why do idiots gravitate towards philosophy as a means to claim superiority over the people actually solving problems and learning shit?

>>10706920
Picture related, I assume.

>>10707123
we're people who did philosophy in the past idiots?

>>10707092
Oh boy this is a good one.
Can you point to air? What about electrons? Or— even better— evolution, numbers, math, logic. Do these entities not exist because you can't observe them? And if they didn't exist how could you think of them?

Anyways, here's a metaphysical proposition for you: the universe is composed of both mind and matter.
And here's its corresponding epistemological view: matter can be understood by science, mind cannot be. Therefore reductive physicalist theories (ie Science) cannot fully explain the universe. Therefore science is, by its nature, incomplete, and we need alternative routes to making the universe intelligible.

And to top it off, let me list three alternative routes to knowledge, agree or disagree with their truth-values (which, by the way, is epistemological):
1. revelation
2. induction (science is empirical and hence deductive, not inductive)
3. subjective first person experience (science is from a neutral viewpoint, any claim that is viewpoint-dependent is not scientific)

Of course since you're strictly anti-philosophical (and if you don't love knowledge, does that mean you embrace ignorance? important questions, here.), I would like a purely empirical argument for why science is superior to philosophy, if you would like to make a strong case. Any argument that requires on philosophy will be seen as self-defeating, and I will not be convinced by it.

>>10707099
Exactly, that's the point, keep the citizens in the dark.

Governments don't hire them, they have their own system.

>>10707052
While I would agree that a lot of contemporary shit in academic philosophy is complete horseshit, I do have to admit that I turned to it when I was at my lowest. During my undergrad years I suffered really bad bouts of depression and anxiety. A buddy of mine suggested reading some of the ancient stoics. At this point I had cursory knowledge of philosophy but branded it as garbage. I took to it. I posted this in another thread about how reading Epictetus, Seneca, and Aurelius helped me immensely in bettering myself. To say it's useless (something I would have agreed with you about years ago) I just can't commit to. Yes, I get that everybody who reads Stoic philosophy and is depressed may not have the same results as I did, but I guess I'm one example of how it was not only not useless, but probably the only useful thing that could have happened to me at that time. I am greatful for it and have since gained a new respect for (SOME) philosophy.

https://www.osho.com/highlights-of-oshos-world/osho-philosophy

>>10707131
No, and there are legitimate philosophers still doing work today. But anyone on 4chan who self-identifies as a 'philosopher' is an idiot without exception.

>>10707092
>Alternative ways don’t exist. If something can not be observed, it can not be said to exist in a meaningful way.

Do you not realize this is a premise that has to be defended - you guess it - in PHILOSOPHY of science. What you said is not just some fact science can pull out of its hat, it has to be justified outside of science. It's like you're trying to justify the rules of Chess with the rules of chess.

It's also wonderful how you first state that metaphysics is useless, and then proceed to make a metaphysical statement about what exists.

>>10707145
>Can you point to air?

Yes. In fact, I am pointing at air whenever I’m pointing unless I’m in a vacuum.

>What about electrons?

See above. Electrons are everpresent.

>Or— even better— evolution

Yes. Just watch any organism reproduce.

>numbers, math, logic

Everpresent yet again.

>Do these entities not exist because you can't observe them?

But I can.

>And if they didn't exist how could you think of them?

Conceiving of something makes it real in a sense.

>Anyways, here's a metaphysical proposition for you: the universe is composed of both mind and matter.

Citation needed.

>And here's its corresponding epistemological view: matter can be understood by science, mind cannot be.

Citation needed.

>Therefore science is, by its nature, incomplete, and we need alternative routes to making the universe intelligible.

They don’t exist.

>1. Schizophrenia
>2. Induction
Inductive reasoning is allowed in science, you’re just making stuff up.
>3. Science

You can perform science on your subjective experiences.

>Of course since you're strictly anti-philosophical

Not. More lies.

>I would like a purely empirical argument for why science is superior to philosophy

Scientific inquiry is superior at obtaining knowledge than sitting around making things up.

>>10707092
>>metaphysics is worthless
>Definitely.
Dude, science IS metaphysics.

>>10707123
>Counterpoint: why do idiots gravitate towards philosophy as a means to claim superiority over the people actually solving problems and learning shit?

It's hard not to feel superior when so many scientists say so much retarded shit about philosophy. I'm sure most if not all philosophers realize the good that science does, it's just frustrating when they step out of their lane and speak with authority on stuff they are clueless about. I mean just look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

>>10707216
It’s hard not to feel superior to philosophy when philosophy contributes nothing today.

>>10707193
Metaphysics is a wholly useless concept. What really /is/ doesn't matter if the only thing we can interact with is what we see/hear/observe indirectly.

I don't think modern philosophers are even that concerned with it - it's just the kind of thing that 4chan pseuds like to mull over since it gives them a convenient way to wedge their thought-experiment bullshit into actual conversations about science.

Do the results of the scientific process guarantee knowledge about what things actually /are/? No, but who cares? You won't get that knowledge from any other process.

>>10707216
>It's hard not to feel superior when so many scientists say so much retarded shit about philosophy.

Scientists are surprisingly ignorant about things outside of their specialized circle of knowledge. My take on philosophy is that it has huge value for ethics, which is obviously useful and translatable to science. I don't think most metaphysics and epistemology stuff is useful and I can't see how even a really smart person would make an 'advancement' in that field.

>>10707203
Pointing at something does not equate observing it (hence my original argument— I meant "point" in the sense of "point out where I can observe something." you are asserting these things exist and that you are pointing at them, without providing any sensual justification.)
Anyways, ignoring your inconsistent metaphysics because I don't want this argument to devolve into 50 million micro-details, lets move on to the main point. You claim that science is the only way of knowing things, correct?

Your arguments for 1 and 3 are closely tied together, so lets starts there. For a schizophrenic, their knowledge is first-person subjective. It is not, however, 3rd-person objective. So, your argument that 3 is science is inconsistent, given that you reject 1 as not-science. You need to either reject them both (as you understand them), or accept them both. If neither are science, then you would be saying that any personal experience is not a valid way of understanding the world. If you accept them both, you are extending beyond the definition of science (objective empiricism) into subjective experience, and your argument becomes semantically meaningless.

And no, you cannot perform science on your subjective experiences. You don't even know what "subjective experiences" means— its qualia, not "if i heat up an icecube it melts." Have you ever heard of the hard problem of consciousness? Qualia exist outside of science, and it is a fundamental problem that science cannot, by definition, solve.

Next, 2: sorry I meant deductive, always fucking flip those two. Point stands. Science is empirical. Some forms of knowledge (namely math and logic) are not empirical. Hence they stand outside of science as ways of gaining understanding of the world.

Anyways, since you want to be an asshole, let me return the favor:
>Scientific inquiry is superior at obtaining knowledge than sitting around making things up.
Citation needed.

>>10707021
this but unironically, read foucault. that isn't even a bad thing btw

>>10707293
This is all a lot of words but here's the big picture question: why should anyone care about this? Sure, granted, there are problems that science can't solve, but there is also no combination of philosophical words that will prove how consciousness works, so why even cite that as an advantage of your discipline?

>>10707303
>prove
science can't prove anything either. in fact there are things philosophy can prove (you can disagree with the axioms of those proofs, but the logic is impeccable).
anyways, some theories of mind: epi-phenomenalism, dualism, monism, neutral monism, w/e you can google words instead of having me list them.

so the tl;dr is that there are ways of understanding the world that are not scientific, and conversely, science will not allow us to understand the entire universe. philosophy is one of those ways of understanding the world— hence philosophy has value (complementary to science, in fact).

>>10707310
>science can't prove anything either.

Yeah, yeah. Can't kno nuffin'. Shadows on a cave wall. Snore.

>anyways, some theories of mind: epi-phenomenalism, dualism, monism, neutral monism, w/e you can google words instead of having me list them.

Cite one specific thing that your discipline has 'proven' that doesn't require me to spend hours familiarizing myself with useless beard jargon.

>>10707315
no I mean quite literally that empiricism is, by definition, improvable, merely statistically likely.

I think therefore I am.

>>10707325
>no I mean quite literally that empiricism is, by definition, improvable, merely statistically likely.

This is true but also just semantics.

>I think therefore I am.

AXIOM: Things that aren't can sometimes think.

I think, therefore it's possible that I'm not.

Disagree with my axioms if you want, but the logic is impeccable.

>>10707331
Yes. That is correct. Just as correct as it is for me to say that, tomorrow, there is a non-zero chance that gravity will stop working and everyone will fly out into space. You showed absolutely nothing with that statement.

>>10707343
>Just as correct as it is for me to say that, tomorrow, there is a non-zero chance that gravity will stop working and everyone will fly out into space

Sounds like an interesting proposition. Do you plan to publish in The Journal of Cant Know Nuffin'?

>>10707348
Again. Point?

>>10707354
My point is that the only useful part of your discipline is the ability to indefinitely parrot this line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BowcXMcQWxI

>>10706949
Stating a concrete definition for human well-being is a philosophical statement

>>10707359
Okay? How so? Not all philosophy is skepticism, btw, and just because you can "construct" a theory doesn't mean its necessarily right. Deconstructing an argument is just as (if not more) important than constructing one, because it allows us to see the core assumptions behind something, and how far they can lead us towards achieving an understanding of the phenomenon at hand.

>>10707331
I’m not the philosophy fag but that’s retarded, your premise is a contradiction
Non-things don’t have qualities. As Russel said, all conclusions can be drawn from contradictions.

>>10707315
>yeah yeah, can’t know nuthin, shadows on a cave wall, snore
Keked

>>10707310
>some theories of mind
The hilarious thing about your shitty argument is that (non-epistemology) philosophy is so epistemically inept that they call hypotheses theories. Scientists also form hypotheses, they just also test them. You’re just describing shitty scientists.

>>10707375
>Non-things don’t have qualities.

AXIOM:
Non-things can have qualities.

I was surprised too, but it checks out logically. All you have to do is ignore the probability that my axioms are wrong, just like all the philosophical 'proofs' that somehow amount to a higher order of knowledge than natural laws.

If this seems strange or stupid to you, try growing the beard out another inch.

>>10707375
>The hilarious thing about your shitty argument is that (non-epistemology) philosophy is so epistemically inept that they call hypotheses theories. Scientists also form hypotheses, they just also test them. You’re just describing shitty scientists.
That's... semantics? And not everything can be tested. Empiricism is a great way of gaining understanding of the world, but its not absolute, and it doesn't cover everything. There are supplemental channels to knowledge, and logic is a big one.
Have any of the people advocating scientism ever read a non-meme philosophical argument before?

>>10706973

Not that guy but this line is too long and you should have noticed that by now. Also my fries are cold and I wish to speak with your manager, I understand you're busy.

>>10707407
>Also my fries are cold and I wish to speak with your manager, I understand you're busy.

AHAHAHAHHAHAH GOTTEM AHAHAHAHA OH WOW GOOD ONE STEMBRO HEHEHEHE

>>10707392
>Non-things can have qualities.
that's still a contradiction. they can't have qualities because they aren't. If it has a quality then it becomes. This isn't a difficult concept. Try to even conceive of a thing that is but has no qualities, or isn't but has qualities.

>>10707399
>and logic is big one
it's a big one because it's the only other one, and it only works in theoretical systems because the real world can always throw a premise you didn't consider that totally dismantles your conclusion.

>>10707605
> it only works in theoretical systems
let me qualify that
>it only works reliably in theoretical systems

If you can eliminate the possibility of premises that contradict your conclusion then you're literally performing the scientific method

>>10707590
Your all caps insecurity speaks volumes. Volumes, on the invalidity of the philosophical tradition. It is only a(n) historical process as opposed to an intellectual one (this is an important distinction).

Do not say (this simple authoritative "no" pre-empt is a helpful lift from Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations): "now you're doing philosophy, thus voiding your criticism of philosophy." No, all that I am doing is directly applying reason, a reductive practice often skipped in the philosophical process in favor of more long-winded prose setups (everyone), pseudo-logical demonstrations (Spinoza, Aquinas), or plain bullshit (the French, generally). I remain dissatisfied with the fries and I reiterate my wish to speak with a manager.

>>10707605
Your argument is incoherent, and your opaque use of words is precisely the reason why the linguistic turn was performed by the Vienna Circle in the past century. It is ironic you mention Russell in your previous comment, who frequently lamented past philosophers for their failure to clarify concepts such as "things", "facts", and so on. What "are" "qualities" in your ontology? What do you mean by "become"? What do you mean by "conceiving of a thing that has no qualities"? Is Meinong's golden mountain in my back yard, which I can describe to you in extreme detail, not a "thing" in your ontology? If it is not, why can I "conceive" of it? Does it have different "qualities" than the apple on my desk? "Non-existing" qualities, perhaps? But that does not work, because in your ontology I should not be able to conceive of "things" that do not have "qualities". Is it a non-thing that has no qualities? If so, then what "is" a "golden mountain"? Can we conceive of it because the qualities it consists of, i.e., "gold", "mountain", and so on, are familiar to us? Is it then also the case that we conceive of "ordinary objects" such as apples by abstracting from the qualities the apple consists of? Or do you consider any "thing" we conceive of to be the conglomeration of its qualities, which our brain "synthesizes" into the concept/phenomenon "apple"? I do not think so, and moreover, it should be obvious how this path leads to idealism. Perhaps by "conceive" you mean "perceive" or "being acquainted with" in an empirical sense? But that evidently creates the path towards materialism, which is inherently absurd if you allow a brain ("mind") to synthesize "qualities" into a concept, such that we "conceive" of the "thing" which has those "qualities". I do not know what you mean by "qualities" if *that* is not your use of the term. However, if that *is* your use "quality", how do you account for the difference between a golden mountain in my backyard and the apple on my desk?

>>10707021
SERN isn't real science. The power structure needs to be broken.

>>10706930
wholesome philosophy makes people better. if everyone became more like that, they would contribute a whole lot to making the world/human society a greater place. and it would make our technologies and sciences have greater impact and avoidance of side effects. the absolute state of the world comes from a lack of such philosophy. it could do more than hard science ever could.

Because scientists are scientists rather than the image of scientists you created for yourself. Modern philosophy is also the equivalent of a child saying "why" until the other person stops responding

/sci/ what are some important lifestyle choices?

CS & Math 2nd yr undergrad here
Reading, coding, writing, thinking, and I love all, but it's so sedentary.

I wouldn't care much, but I seem to be a terrible hypochondriac, and my other big interest is art (mostly sedentary painting)

Maybe this would have been a better /fit/ question, but they seem to be geared towards getting as big as possible and not much about study. I feel like I'm missing habits/mindset/"learn from the mistakes of others," that I should know?

I know some don't care, like how they always serve chips, soda and pizza at the math club meetings.
And then there's also the issue of maintaining a decent amount of social contact as to become disconnected.

Based on my 1st year at college, there are:
-naturally very intelligent and only minimally have to study (only person I knew like this was a depressed alcoholic)
-those who study in isolation all the time (there was a Korean who's got straight 100's, studying every day except on Sunday when they went to church)
-autistic, there are those who cashed in all their social skills to breathe in and out one subject.
-regular people who balanced social life/study well but at this point, most of them had less passion (i.e. binge watching GoTr instead of say competitive programming)

More of a discussion, I just want to see what thoughts/challenges/solutions you all have come across?

I'm not naturally as intelligent as many of you, but I love these subjects, they're so interesting and beautiful in some sense but I'm trying to find ways to do better. I already do most of the basics (stretch often, water, eating veggies yadda yadda) and some more "extreme" things like quitting video games and staying committed to never touching alcohol. I feel like I'm doing something wrong or inefficiently that can be done even better and want to avoid missing out on life without sacrificing studies.

>>10709676
ignore this, I'll a stupid and posted in the wrong tab

Reminder that complete lack of philosophical ontic and epistemic speculation is why so many brainlets refuse to acknowledge the cophenhagen interpretation, and instead put forward unironic garbage like many worlds and hidden variables.

This is what philosophers actually believe

>>10709831
"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense..."

- Schopenhauer

>>10709831
This is how females study

>>10706949
You're full of it if you think philosophy hasn't contributed to human existence.

>>10706943
Penicillin wasn't made by you. Neither were planes or spaceships. Therefore you are extinct and contribute nothing.

>>10709845
schopenhauer was just an incel butthurt that the chad hegel mogged him in everything

>>10709869
>Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.
- Wittgeinstein

>>10706920
Isn't philosophy just a person's deeply thought about opinions?

>>10709864
and what have you contributed to the larger field of philosophy?

>>10709802
What's wrong with many worlds?

philosophy is a science of the mind with the only physical results being yielded in the mind of those that hear it

natural science it totally physical, what can be observed and measured

any scientist who believes that we don't need philosophy is a fool, any philosopher who believes they don't need science is an idiot

>>10710092
General Philosophy vs Technical (professional) Philosophy
but technical philosophy is not much use to the average person until it can be explained (translated) into laymens language.

>>10708281
I'm not familiar with Meinong, this is curious, i'll try to check him out after exams.
1. By becoming i meant a non-thing beginning to be a thing. This is a stupid sentence to say, seeing as non-things do not exist (in other words "are not"). A thing does not exist until it does, therefore a non-thing does not become a thing, rather a thing simply becomes from nothingness.
perhaps i'm not understanding what you mean by non-thing. Could you clarify what you mean, if my description of my understanding of it doesn't make sense to you?
2. I am in fact referring to a "thing" as merely "a set of qualities", because we cannot refer to a thing unless it has at least one quality.
3. By quality i mean a relation of a thing to an abstraction (e.g. golden), or a relation to another thing (in a yard).
4. By conceive I mean to be able to imagine a thing in in a way that is not just a set of words describing a thing. you might conceive of the sentence "a red green rabbit", but you couldn't conceive of the object itself without delineating the green-ness from the red-ness because they are exclusive (contradictory) properties. I'm proposing that contradictions are not conceivable without separating contradictory properties (in case of color for example: as patches of fur, as points in time, as angles of light).
5. "non-existing qualities" doesn't mean anything to me, could you perhaps clarify?
6. "we conceive of "ordinary objects" such as apples by abstracting from the qualities the apple consists of," yes, and it's not obvious to me how creating a mental object based on empirical properties leads to the conclusion that the world is merely in the mind, or even how that point is relevant to the discussion.

>>10708281
>>10710140
cont'd

I'm sorry for not being able to address your meinong specific points, as this post is distracting me from studying for exies. Either way i hope that clarifies what I meant. I like talking to you,keep it coming.

>>10706920
Because modern scientists pursue a truth that can't be reached with experiments. We need to make conclusions about society here and now because we only have one chance.

Name 1 (one) major publication in philosophy that has actually changed the game in the last 10 years.
Philosophy was figured out by the Greeks. Everything else is jacking off intellectually.

>>10711427
Okay, I get that the general consensus is that a lot of philosophy is crap, but what is legitimately good? I'm seeing that the ancient greeks/stoics are good but what else? What figures/books?

>>10706943
Can you explain to me the value of planes, spaceships and pennicilin without using philosophy?

>>10706937
>If I claim you have to use my value systems in order to assign value to something, ha that proves my value system is necessary!

>>10707092
>metaphysics is worthless
>then proceeds to use metaphysics to justify his opinion on philosophy
I doubt you have the slightest understanding of what metaphysics is

I got a suggestion for y'all egghead niggas that can't understand the bridge between philosophy and practical utility

Also see: Nietzche's 'ascetic planet'

>>10708281
>>10710140

>when your stupid analogy about non-things having qualities baits two people into writing a short-form essay about shit no one cares about

>>10707216
Lol, Bill Nye isn't even a scientist, and he's hardly an engineer at all either.

>>10711427
Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore John Kaczynski.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1WqtbyR57ms6yZH_3pwHTt0R4DgF_MZ9X

>>10706920
All the good philosophy has been thought of already, and today's philosophy is just rehashing previous thought, and coming up with idiotic ideas to seem original. Science is, and has always improved human wellbeing since the beginning of tribal teaching to today.

>>10712311
The main figures of the enlightenment and their books make good reading as well.

>>10707371
Biological

Unless you have a solid grasp on mathematics you don't have any business trying to dabble in philosophy on a serious level.

Understanding the world on a fundamental level - which is what philosophy is for - takes understanding fundamental structures and relationships. Which requires understanding mathematics to at least the level of calculus. At least.

Very few people are actually philosophers. Most people are just looking at other people who claim to be doing philosophy, and regurgitating their statements.

>>10706920
Based Langan:
"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible. "

FYI all of you are slaves to empiricism and academic institutions. Academia is a gang, your heads all look conformist which is why you come off as childish. Pic related

>>10712383
I think the problem is that philosophy doesn't take much these days. It's a liberal arts degree, and doesn't require the same level of critical thinking or intelligence than a science or math degree does.

If you made philosophy a harder branch to get into. By insisting on math classes, for example. You might yield a more interesting result.

Because you're right, 99% of philosophy majors just prattle on about abstract concepts with no application or regurgitate shit from some other philosopher with little ability to back up the actual claims being made.

When philosophers try to argue with scientists it's almost always pathetic.

>>10712434
Meaningless rambling.

>>10712325
A useless subject people read about when they’re unintelligent but desire to be.

>>10712415
there's a lot of that going around
https://youtu.be/Friv6u_3gJU

>>10712434
>I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory

I'm not convinced Muscleshirt Stacheman entirely understands what the word 'allegory' means.

>>10712437
untermensch tool

>>10712447
Cool.

>>10712442
Some of the spiritual talk there is a bit of a turn off for me. But his push towards mathematics is good.

>>10712444
Chris Langan is better at math than you will ever be or any of your ancestors could have ever been or any of your progeny ever will be. Read like 1 page of CTMU. Have you ever heard of John A. Wheeler? How about Aristotle? There's a reason it's a common trope among great scientific minds to bridge into the philosophical. Science is a conceptual tool, a frame of mind- when you measure something, there is *no way to know* that what you have observed is what is true... so you build a range of tolerance for error and there you have it; a measurement. Science is a system of well thought out guesses about the nature of reality. Don't be a tool.

>>10712315
Philosophy isn't just "thinking about stuff" it's an actual field of study that seeks to understand fundamental concepts, values, etc.

Whether or not that's useful at this point I think is somewhat up for debate. But you dont need to be an expert in philosophy to say "penicillin is good".

And actually creating penicillin is a hell of a lot more valuable than writing some paper on "why something like penicillin is good".

>>10712415
>>10712466
You're trapped in academia's inertial cave. Universities and """"liberal arts"""" degrees unfortunately are now nothing more than profiteering enterprises and indoctrination certifications. Additionally, Paul Budnik, the creator of the video, is a mathematician. He even sells his own math education software.

>>10706943
No, they were made by Capitalism, a system created out of the idea that we are integrated, and live a systematic view of existence.

OP is right, /sci/fags are no match for /lit/chads

>>10712505
He gets to be a philosopher. Philosophy degrees are liberal arts degrees and are 100% indoctrination stations.

Therefore nearly all "philosophers" are people prattling on about concepts they don't actually understand.

Philosophy could be cool if it was more rigorous. But at this point it isn't.

>>10706943
Pennicilin was accidentally discovered but put to use and mass produced because of the philosophy of human benevolence.

>>10712535
You aren't looking in the right places. It's an 'if you cared you'd know' kind of thing-
Undergrad credit requirements and the little faggot neomarxist basedboys universities shit out are not the place to look. I actually pity that this is your conception of philosophy.
There are many more people alive now than there have been in any era past, and the number of people engaged in serious, rigorous, and limitbreaking study of reality is greater than ever. In fact, just that there are so many people who know basic functional computing concepts right now bodes very well for the future of philosophy.

>>10712413
Mass extinction also falls under the umbrella of biology, but a preference for the preservation of well-being and life is philosophical.

>>10712556
Being nice isn’t philosophy, sorry.

>>10712522
Inaccurate description of both capitalism and the development of all three things.

>>10712571
Actually, "being nice" is a behavior system based entirely in philosophy so you're a fucking retard.

>>10712576
Nope. It’s a behavior based in biology.

>>10707153
we have a 2 tiered society and it infuriates me. I thought the west fought for and stood for freedom and justice.

>>10712586
No such thing as the “west”. Just say ‘white people” like you really mean.

>>10712484
I have read CTMU, it's nothing but quackery of purposely redefined words and there isn't a single mathematical equation in it.

>>10712577
I'm guessing it is your philosophy that humans are valuable and therefore penicillin and things are more valuable? Can you prove to me that human life, and, therefore, penicillin has value using science? If you can't, or if it doesn't, or if you haven't assigned any value to human life, or penicillin, then your entire position is irrelevant. It's the same as if I said "mass rape and murder wasn't made by philosophy". It's an absolutely meaningless statement, devoid of meaning, with absolutely no way of justifying, proving, or substantiating without invoking philosophy.

>>10712635
>I'm guessing it is your philosophy that humans are valuable and therefore penicillin and things are more valuable?

Nope.

>Can you prove to me that human life, and, therefore, penicillin has value using science?

Can’t be proven by any means.

>It's an absolutely meaningless statement, devoid of meaning, with absolutely no way of justifying, proving, or substantiating without invoking philosophy.

There is absolutely no way of justifying, proving, or substantiating any moral claim WITH philosophy.

who gets more pussy? obfuscatory frenchie postmodernists with bad hygiene, or autistic stemfag wasps with lanyards and a video game addiction?

>>10712694
>Protestants in STEM

Lol

>>10712723
You'd be surprised.

>>10706920
Because philosophy is infantile, positivism (the only philosophy related to science) is just the precautionary principle made pseudointellectual. Entirely unnecessary. Science is God, the end the beginning, everything.

Science is more important than philosophy, but we cannot let science outpace our understanding of the world. Stem cell/fetal research, genetic modification, go ahead. But there are issues with just letting science go wild.

>>10712903
No there aren’t. Every barrier must be broken.

>>10706930
Anon..

>>10712635
What the fuck did you get from reading his statement? Did you never take biology in high school? The benefits of altruism and being social, to a species and its preservation of DNA can be quantified. Hence 'nice' is a natural behavior that simply helps humans survive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

>>10712694
The frenchie postmodernists. There are less women in stem than in humanities (except for bio).

>>10713021
read
>>10712568

>>10713031
Doing what makes you feel the best is now philosophy. Amazing.

>>10713034
Prove to me that human life has value, scientifically, right now.

>>10713040
>Prove to me that human life has value, scientifically, right now.

I never claimed it had value, and your query is impossible with philosophy as well, so what was the intention of your post?

>>10713031
Still biological. Wellbeing allows more reproduction and fitness for survival. And likewise with longevity.

>>10713055
Raping is a behavior based in biology. What's your point?

>>10713059
Yes it is, and? Rape would make me less happy so I don’t do it.

>>10713061
Okay, good for you. I still don't see your point.

>>10713063
That altruism isn’t philosophical in nature, it’s biological.

>>10713059
Raping is an antisocial behavior that allows propagation of the genes of an individual (good for individual) at the cost of lacking mating selection (good for society). Hence antisocial behaviors are at an equilibrium where they are only possessed by a smaller proportion of society, since any more would result in instability and detriment to the wider population.

>>10713066
okay, and?

>>10713070
So taking moral positions isn’t necessarily philosophical, and the point is moot.

>>10713075
Right, lots of Africans take the moral position that raping babies is good. I still don't see what you're getting at. Just because someone performs an action doesn't mean therefore it's "good" or it's "nice".

>>10713082
Why do you think I’m “getting at” something, retard?

>>10712324
>value systems
>argumentation
That sure sounds philosophical. Blow me, stemmie

>>10713118
Wow, rats are doing philosophy when they decide to carry a larger seed back to the nest instead of a smaller one.

>>10712365
>unironically thinking that your posts on a mongolian yurt forum serve an audience
I replied because I thought it was interesting, faggot.

>>10712576
>based entirely in philosophy
>being this unaware of evolutionary pressures on a science forum
>implying that philosophical theories aren't just logical justifications of biological inclinations

>>10706920
>Why do all scientists seem like children intellectually once you start reading philosophy?

I'm sure you can be more general with your assertion than just to single out scientists.

>>10713034
The only thing which biology imbues is an instinct to the social, which (although this is a very ***philosophical*** terrirory) does not qualify the whole range of human social behavior as biologically compelled. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's popular right about now to hate your own race if you are white and advocate its extinction. Anything can be baited with hedonia, and you can generate feedback loops that are ultimately suicidal. The mouse chooses the cocaine over the food until it dies.

Because the focus of philosophy is to make you believe you're smarter than you actually are. That's why all philosophy books are written in a contrived and confusing manner.

>>10706920
>Why do all scientists seem like children intellectually once you start reading philosophy?
Because you are probably reading garbage. Philosophy, epistemology specifically, should teach you why we do science the way we do it and what science even is.

>>10714254
It wasn't an attack on science itself, but scientists. If scientists purely see science as a tool to make future predictions, then all good, but more often scientists overstep their epistemic limits and make sloppy metaphysical claims about what the world is and that science tells you the fundamental nature of reality, etc. And you can make those claims, but then you have to accept that you're going into philosophy, not science, and are playing by different rules.

>>10714284
Depends on what you define as metaphysical questions. Any statement about an observable object that can be tested is a scientific question. Things that arent observable and untestable arent relevant to science and any sensible scientist will not treat it seriously.

>>10714296
Right, but just because we're talking about an observable object doesn't mean science can tell you about the underlying nature of that object, it can only get at behavioral patterns learned from observing it. Any claim about what the object fundamentally is, is a metaphysical claim. Claims like "chairs are made of particles" doesn't have to be metaphysical as long as you only see particles as a useful way to model the table, but often you get scientists making much stronger claims than that.

>>10706920
because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You read some irrelevant shit, and suddenly you think you are an expert.

>>10706920
>grug like big words big words make grug smart

>>10714296
Right, but just because we're talking about an observable object doesn't mean science can tell you about the underlying nature of that object, it can only get at behavioral patterns learned from observing it. Any claim about what the object fundamentally is, is a metaphysical claim. Claims like "chairs are made of particles" doesn't have to be metaphysical as long as you only see particles as a useful way to model chairs, but often you get scientists making much stronger claims than that.

>>10706920
Because your dunning-kruger is so big.

>>10714304
Well, you should listen to some actual scientists on this. Richard Feynman explicitly warned us that questions of the form "Why" are inherently nonscientific for example and thus irrelevant to them or irrelevant in general.
>but often you get scientists making much stronger claims than that.
They will make the stronger claim of such questions being irrelevant in general instead of being irrelevant to science. There is no consensus about them being right or wrong on this stronger claim, so have fun studying epistemology and trying to arrive at your own conclusions, that in the end will end up being irrelevant to your financial, mental or physical well being anyway.

>>10707071
Epistemology and other branches of philosophy might not be worthless, but we don't need another person to explore the limits of human reason the way Immanuel Kant did in his Critique of Pure Reason.
We don't need more people to do metaphysical speculation the way the Pre-Socratics and the people who wrote the Upanishads did.
Philosophy is limited by human imagination, and is only concerned with general or universal statements, whereas the natural sciences depend upon rigorous empirical classifications and showing the relationships between particular objects, which is why they can be endlessly expanding.

>>10713783
>The only thing which biology imbues is an instinct to the social

Wrong.

>I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's popular right about now to hate your own race if you are white and advocate its extinction.

And conversation ended.

>>10709859
>contributed to human existence
He wrote "wellbeing", not existence.
>You're full of it
no U
...as are all philosophags

>>10706920
Cause they are

Great scientists are also great philosophers

Mediocre scientists hate philosophy because they're too dumb to do anything but do lab work and write useless papers based on other people's ideas

>>10706930
philosophy, my dear imbecile, is the very core of any science. It answers whether we can actually learn anything, or that our senses are reliable.
Now, you may think it's all obvious until you realize that most modern science is based on statistics, confidence intervals and stuff like that.
Not too mention trouble with the interpretation of every single result our models produce. Without philosophy we have no actual basis to even think that all those things make any sense at all.
Math and philosophy connect with each other at the root. You'll be surprised how many problems we have when we try to define axioms which math is built upon. It sounds like madness.

>>10714296
Did those sensible scientists eat breakfast this morning?

>>10707157
I had a similar experience. Stoicism saved my life.

tl;dr Philosophy is almost exclusively blatant sophistry

>>10707157
I can attest to this. Stoicism saved me. After Stoicism I dabbled in German idealism, existentialism, and epistemology.

I think the value of philosophy in the modern world is mainly in practical, existential philosophy for individuals (helping people find meaning) and in epistemology. Without a shared ideology which by default prescribes meaning to our lives, we are forced to create meaning for ourselves through philosophy. Epistemology is important to explore the limits of our current relationship with knowledge and logical methods of understanding. It is important to explore the possibility of pushing past the current paradigm to develop better methods of knowledge acquisition and perception.

>>10714701

You're referring to "human cognition", not "philosophy". The misunderstanding which privileges "philosophy" as prior to science is a massive cope which is currently fashionable among /lit/ users and non-scientists (such as mathematicians) in order to avoid ego death.

>>10712311
Everything contained in Copleston's History of Philosophy

If we live in such a supposedly advanced society, why is anyone required by law to learn anything? Is it not counterproductive to learning to force feed narrow perspectives onto the youth rather than to let them explore the world of knowledge at their own pace? Couldn't be any worst than the products of today's system, namely "common core," which as many long-time respected teachers have testified, removed any existing semblance of education from the school system.

>>10715419
I just ordered the entire 11 volume set for $180. How'd I do? How long would it take to get through all 11 volumes?

>>10715418
"human cognition" as if those words change anything regarding philosophy.
Philosophy makes you actually ask the question 'am I going anywhere with my science?' We know that modern physics is based on math hard to interpret. For example, as many physicists point out, some or even most math objects are not literal representations of real world objects. Heck, we don't even know if those exist.
So, even the most naturalistic scientist has to take into account the possibility that his equations are just some kind of a human representation of reality, not real things. It's all fine and dandy until the models get more and more crazy and when you basically cannot really say which one is the right one as all of them at least predict already measured values. Everything seems out of touch.

>>10706930
based, brainlets seething itt

>>10706920
because they are
proof : look at thread

>>10715991
>he thinks scientists post on sci
Lmoa

>>10710120
>>10712378

>good posts itt
????

>>10715419
you fucking pseud didn't even read it.
>>10715828
It's nice to put it on your shelf really, if you want to read about history of philosophy there are shorter works, also I suggest to read philosophy instead and if needed a book that gives you context for the time period of whichever author you're reading.

Start with the greeks.

>>10716008
>you fucking pseud didn't even read it.

My library has the entire set to check out. Made it to Volume 4. Ended on Leibniz. Really good overview but I burned out. Too much to take in. Will probably start it up again this summer.

>>10715897
>"human cognition" as if those words change anything
Lrn2language fgt pls

Imagine if Langan actually has 200 IQ and he's wasted his entire life being a fucking retarded snowflake instead of actually contributing to the world.

>>10707153
governments aren't comprised and run by citizens?

>>10718090
nah they're run by deepstate jew alien demon lizardmen and Donald trump who isn't one of them but don't ask me how that one works

>>10706926
ai lmo

Philosophy saved me from psychological and existential crisis. It gives me perspective and fulfillment. It is engaging, stimulating, difficult, personal, entertaining, and enlightening.

My mechanical engineering degree got me a semiconductor job in a cubicle under incadescent lighting 40 hrs a week for the same salary as a teacher.

And I'm allergic to penicillin, so fuck science.

>>10719616

>complaining about incandescent light

Guess how I know you're double-stupid.

>>10719616
>under incadescent lighting 40 hrs a week
Did you mean fluorescent lights, or are you posting from 1956?

>>10719616
is it worth reading existentialists like camus and sartre?

>>10706930
Philosophy lays the foundation for further inquiry.

>>10706930
>contributes nothing
>i-i-if it's not engineering i-it contributes n-nothing!!!

>>10712596
>No such thing as the “west”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

>>10706930
>Philosophy is extinct
I think there's been entire books written about this philosophical quandary which I recently settled in about half a page.
>On Relativity and Absolutism in Morality
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0194

>>10706943
based pragmatism brainlet

>>10707092
The truth of your claim cannot be observed, so it is false.

>>10706943
Oh lol but philosophy is responsible for the various forms of the scientific method even if the inventor was not necessarily a scientist when they engaged in the creation of the method, they were philosophizing. Moreover, philosophy invented science, so in terms of importance, philosophy has come up with the most significant discoveries even if it's unable to arrive at truths except perhaps in the case of Wittgenstein and other philosophers that dissolve more than solve

>>10707220
based pragmatism brainlet

Philosophers didn't cure my cancer

>>10722075
Science can't always save you from cancer, but philosophy can teach you how to die from it.

>>10706926
mega cringe

>>10720773
Cool, so scientists can use and apply philosophy without even doing so consciously. Guess we don't need people to study philosophy itself then, when people can apply it correctly without even bothering.