/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11400528
it's pseudoscience

>>11400528
it's humanities

>>11400528
Science requires a pencil, paper, and wastebasket.
Philosophy requires a pen and paper.

>>11400528
its the precursor of science at least for old philosophers, they tried to understand the world and our place in it. the concept of alquimia is a precursor of chemistry... in modern times philosophy is more related to exploring our place in the universe

>>11400584
based

if you don't make testable predictions about the physical world, it's not science.

>is being unemployable science?

>>11400528
>is philosophy science?
No because philosophers do not use the scientific method.

Is being a bearded white man science?

>>11400528
Science is philosophy, but philosophy is not necessarily science.

>"The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary
results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crum-
bling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life-averitable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather
mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age;
and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate
catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?"

>>11400528
>is philosophy capable of generating predictive models of reality?
>no
>then it's not science

>>11400539
Philosophy is pseudoscience.
If a method is derived from a pseudoscience then it is also a pseudoscience.
Empirical science was derived via philosophy.
Therefore, science is pseudoscience.

>>11401309
Philosoph'd
>>11400539 btfo

>>11400528
No, but that doesn't mean it's not still important, or on-topic.

>>11401309
>If a method is derived from a pseudoscience then it is also a pseudoscience
Wrong.

>>11400528
No, science is a branch philosophy.

>>11400528
no. Philosophy is cope

>>11400528
Philosophy scares scientists because it can expose how full of shit they are.

>>11400528
No, but analytic philosophy in particular loves to flirt with Science. Philosophy has the closest relationship with Mathematics out the subjects this board covers, though.

>>11400528
If you assume logic is another word for science, and that logic is born from philosophy, then yes - philosophy is indeed science. Science is also born from philosophy, so there's that.

>>11401674
It's exactly the other way around lol

It's also the reason why all competent philosophers try to learn math/science, so they can tell other philosophers how full of shit they are.

Here are real professional philosophers' words:

>“Why shouldn’t philosophy be like science?” they asked. “Why can’t it also make genuine progress?”

>For a younger generation of thinkers, there was a stark contrast between the ever more murky terminology of speculative philosophy and the rising standards of clarity and rigor in mathematics.

>“How is it that mathematicians have a firm grip on concepts such as ‘infinity’ and ‘continuous function,’ while speculative philosophers continue talking in circles?” It was time, according to this new generation, to rethink the methods of philosophy as an academic discipline.

>>11400670
A philosophy BS is one of the most profitable degrees to get without any higher education.
>>11400673
>the scientific method
Not a real thing. Read Feyerabend.
>>11402049
>It's also the reason why all competent philosophers try to learn math/science,
The exact opposite is true, pop-söy. Learn your history.

>>11400528
Other way around; science is empirical philosophy.

The other way around, what people call nowadays science is a subset philosophy. If you read early Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Reid or whatever you'll notice they call stuff like physics or biology "natural philosophy".
"Science" is an umbrella term for empiricism, the scientific method etc. and as such it encompasses philosophy that actually works, i.e. is useful, as opposed to 99% of philosophy that is speculative unprovable schizo ramblings, which nowadays is called simply "philosophy"

>>11402049
Mathematics is not science tho, since it's not falsifiable. Especially modern mathematics is so abstract and detached from the physical world it barely useful for anything except generating cool topologies in n-dimensional spaces.

>>11402170
philosophers are always saying that "science is a subset of philosophy"

but the truth is that all of the useful pieces of what once was called "natural philosophy" simply became the modern sciences.

modern philosophy is essentially a withered husk, deplete of all its fruit-bearing trees.

the bilge-pump on the ship of Theseus is not the ship itself.

>>11402180
on the contrary, mathematics is the only truly falsifiable science.

science itself is only falsifiable 'to the nth degree'

>>11402188
That's what I was saying. What is nowadays called "science" simply means "philosophy that actuall works", what is nowadays called "philosophy" is "bad philosophy", i.e. schizo ramblings.
Although, sometimes pearls do come out of that dirtbag(i.e. you wouldn't have Google Translate without Chomsky and the philosophy of language) and is incorporated into "science".

>>11400528
Science is philosophy

>THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD CANNOT PROVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

>>11400528
Yes.
First off, science requires metaphysics & epistemology to truly prove/disprove facts, laws, theories, and hypotheses. Evidence means nothing to a mere idealist and reason means nothing to a mere materialist.
Second, I propose that axiology is a science, that aesthetics and ethics are not matters of opinion but are intersubjectively inherent.
So then the only hindrance to philosophy being entirely realized as science is with empowered idiots and bad actors who have been poisoning the well.

>>11402142

>actual quotes from top philosophers
>the opposite is true
>pop-söy

How about you Learn your philosophy you brainlet

>>11400528
Science is a part of philosophy

>>11402196
You're a tard if you think mathematics is a science. It's derived from logical philosophy. Mathematics is in the same realm as semantics as both are unfalsifiable.

>>11400753
Is it you Guenon /lit/ poster? How far do your efforts go?

>>11400528
no but science is philosophy

>>11402180
The point of my post was not about whether mathematics is a science. However the other anon was right, mathematical propositions are easily falsifiable, it's called a counterexample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
Popper was trying to emulate this when he proposed falsifiablity as a criteria. That criteria was used to make science more similar to mathematics, and filter out metaphysics nonsense. The other anon was also correct when he said only mathematics is truly falsifiable, due to underdetermination,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
you cannot really falsify any statement of science in isolation, unlike math.

>>11402203
I'm the first to admit that the applications of modern Philosophy are extremely limited, but I disagree that you can label all works in contemporary philosophy as 'schizo ramblings'. Certainly, there are contemporary Philosophers who's writings can feel that way at times, Foucault for example, but there are still plenty who write in a logical and relatively easy to follow manner. For example, I think it'd be silly to dismiss the writings of people like Derek Parfit, John Searle, Daniel Dennett or Peter Singer as just being schizo ramblings.

>>11402540
How about you learn your science. And learn a little respect for your ancestors.

>>11400528
does it matter?

>>11400528
Yes they are the same thing, the application of analytical reasoning. In the case of so called "science," it is the application of analytical reasoning, mainly mathematics, to observations of the physical world. In the case of philosophy, it is the use of analytical reasoning to make statements about the nature of knowledge, beauty, ethics, and several other areas. The difference is that science is easier because it involves sense experience, which can be easily quantified and analyzed using mathematics, the branch of analytical reasoning concerned with numbers etc.

>>11402776
based

>>11400528
no, but you practice philosophy whether you know it or not so you might as well get familiar.

>>11402761

If you believe those freshmen intro philosophy of science quotes say anything to refute the two facts that:
- Philosophers often use science to refute other philosophers.
- No scientist can ever use philosophy to refute other scientists.
...then your inability to keep track of a simple philosophical argument are exactly the type of muddled thinking often seen in today's philosophy students (and future philosophers/burger flippers), maybe that's why `you cant know nuthin`

>>11402781
>The difference is that science is easier because it involves sense experience which can be easily quantified and analyzed

lol so writing Isekai Neet power fantasy or furry fanfiction are harder than doing physics or mathematics

sorry but what you wrote is simply retarded.

>>11403854
>lol so writing Isekai Neet power fantasy or furry fanfiction are harder than doing physics or mathematics
Let's be fair here, the writing of an Isekai Neet power fantasy/furry fanfiction which makes heavy/exclusive use of some sort of analytic reasoning would be a sight to behold.

>>11403931

Have you read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky?

It's basically furry fanfic with heavy use of analytical thinking. And I don't think it is harder to write than doing science.

>>11403969
No, I've never even heard of it. I'm somewhat curious about what it's exactly about, but ultimately furry fanfiction is not for me.
Also, I do agree that the sort of analytical thinking done in Philosophy isn't harder to do than science (personally I'd peg it as easier), just making the point that creative writing doesn't necessarily require its use.

>>11400528

philosophy is the true brainlet filter.

>>11404153

That pic is just a proof that scientists do better philosophy than philosophers.

Read about how all the philosophers seethed at Einstein for proposing simultaneity is relative and time is relative. Then few decades later they start rebuilding philosophy to align more with relativity lmao. Philosophy is not a filter, it's more of a janitor going after science to clean up conceptual framework for next generation scientists, and most of the time they dont even do this job well as the scientists just end up having to create their own philosophy, so the philosophers are in constant state of trying to catch up.