/sci/ - Science & Math

Philosophy is for fleshing out consistency, but is incomplete for finding truth.

Philosophy does not provide additional knowledge, it only helps bring flesh out assumptions that already exist. This is why philosophies about morality or the proof of God's existence are always going to fail.

We base our philosophies on assumptions that we already hold, and cannot discern truth until we compare it to external data. But to reach a conclusion like, "This is morally right" requires the moral rightness to be implicit in the assumptions.

The same with proving God's existence. The only way to prove it with certainty is to assume his existence, and so without some sort of external verification, it becomes pointless.

In general, I think philosophy is best at the armchair level. Great for talking with friends, and challenging assumptions, but it our assumptions are deeply ingrained and only will change with experience.

>>15049451
As a method to search for the truth, it is outdated and replaced by science and math

The immaterial does not contradict the material so you can believe whatever crazy shit you want as long as you use science to understand the material in its own terms.

It's great for wasting your time by using big words to argue about literal non-things.

>>15049549
Is it though? In my very humble opinion, we are witnessing a growing disconnect between innate human behavior and the tools and systems we've created. No one seems to be contemplating the ethical dilemmas -- which are immaterial and unscientific -- and instead are pursuing this path of invention with reckless abandon. It's a very real possibility we could destroy ourselves.

>>15049562
Please explain to me (scientifically) how to live a good life (using facts and reason).

>>15049451
Not Aristotle = trash
That includes the American atheists that follow Russell
Both christcuck platonists and atheists will seethe at the truth

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pYq5IItUvFM

/Sci/ btfo by philosophy

>>15049577
Atheism is not about following russell or whoever. It's about not believing in insane fairy tales.

>>15049582
The source of truth is the hidden message of the fairy tales.

>>15049570
Philosophers couldn't give less of a fuck about solving ethical dilemmas. All they wanna do is to wordsturbate with each other about arguments and non-arguments for what valid principles for universal ethical systems could or could not be. People who have a highly theoretical knowledge of a subject are the ones who are least likely to carry out their beliefs in real life, since they have intellectualized their positions so much that they can almost recite them off memory without ever feeling any pangs of compassion, empathy, or respect for living human beings other than themselves.

Y'know, much in the same way mathematicians hate doing calculations by hand or in the way physicists hate working with power tools and wrenches.

>>15049583
Incoherent response

>>15049582
I sure hope that you painstakingly verify through direct, repeated, first-hand experimention everything that you know, because every piece of second-hand information that you receive is as good as a fairy tale.

>>15049576
Sorry, big Dave already proved that you can't pull out an "is" from an "ought". It's pointless to discuss ethics from any perspective.

>>15049577
One day you'll find out that Aristotle was a platonist and the christcucks just copied the bits of platonism that don't contradict the bible to justify their little cult.

>>15049584
>Philosophers couldn't give less of a fuck about solving ethical dilemmas.
I'm guessing that's why many famous philosophers have pieces of works called "Ethics". Must not care too much about the subject.

>>15049592
If you seriously think that taking someone's word about what they ate for breakfast at face value is the same as believing in a religious fairy tale, I don't know what to tell you

>>15049606
I'm not a christcuck so I don't think that.

>>15049606
You could explain why certain unknown events are more likely than others. That would be a start.

>>15049604
Aristotle salvaged what was good in platonism by anchoring it in reality and christcucks are naturally attracted to it because it is completely detached from the real world

>>15049600
>>15049600
If you ever find yourself in court you can explain to the judge that the law -- which is essentially a form of ethics -- isn't important because it's pointless to discuss ethics.

>>15049605
There's a huge difference between being interested in ethics from a cold, theoretical perspective, and wanting to be a good person. Ethicists tend to either assume that all people ought to act the same way or that all humans are actually good and seek for virtue and moderation. They more often than not imagine themselves to be at the helm of society, telling people how to act, what to do, in what way to live. They tuck it all away under assumptions of a priori rationality or innate instinct, making no effort to consider the possibility that individuals have their own preferences and criteria for what might be good or pleasant. They more often than not reduce all ethical choices to either an optimum state possessing certain qualities or the least harmful outcome, as if all choices could be split up that way.
In real life, ethicists like Jean Jacques Rousseau and Arthur Schopenhauer tend to have misanthropic tendencies, hating their fellow man and believing themselves to be at the heart of a conspiracy to bring them to ruin. They have a deep feeling of love of this poetic image of Man they conjure themselves, but they hate their mothers, their neighbors, their "friends", and everyone else whom they come across.

>>15049630
Law is law. Ethics is ethics. What appears in law books is law. What people believe to be good, right is ethics.

>>15049451
>Truth isn’t outside power, or lacking in power. . . . Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of
multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its régime of truth, its
‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourses which it accepts and makes function as true; the
mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each
is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those
who are charged with saying what counts as true

Science is an activity that humans in engage and as such is susceptible to all the common trappings of humanity such as greed, lust, and vengeance. Scientists hate philosophers because good philosophers understand this.

>>15049648
The underlying premise of every law is ethical

>>15049716
>The underlying premise of every law is ethical
This is false. Many laws simply exist for the sake of allowing the government to regulate some industries more, or to tax random stuff so that governments can feel like they've got power over little guys. Zoning restrictions and pollution regulations are often set up in such a way as to allow for many commercial activities to remain unaffected while providing disadvantages to both workers and large company owners. Pollution regulations are simultaneously lax enough so as to allow large industries to fill up the air with toxic smoke and to dump noticeable amounts of waste into rivers and landfills, and strict enough as to not permit working class people to set up factories or small-scale industries in their own backyards. Import tariffs harm consumers who rely on imported goods such as milk and fruits that come from neighboring countries, and harm companies that rely on raw materials brought over from next door countries, providing only a small benefit to nationally-based manufacturers and goods sellers/distributors.
Weapons sales laws only benefit schizophrenics who believe that the government should allow everyone to have mass murder weapons and weapons-manufacturing corporations.

Ethical concerns are only excuses given for the sake of promoting laws as "good". People obey laws not because they're good, but because they live in fear of the consequences of breaking them.

Archippus and Philonides and their companions have come to me with the letter you gave them and have brought me news of you. Their mission to the city they accomplished with no difficulty, since it was not a burdensome matter. But as to you, they reported that you think it a heavy trial not to be able to get free from the cares of public life. It is indeed one of the sweetest things in life to follow one's own interests, especially when they are such as you have chosen; practically everyone would agree. But this also you must bear in mind, that none of us is born for himself alone; a part of our existence belongs to our country, a part to our parents, a part to our other friends, and a large part is given to the circumstances that command our lives. When our country calls us to public service it would, I think, be unnatural to refuse; especially since this means giving place to unworthy men, who enter public life for motives other than the best.

I hear from Dion that you are one of his most trusted followers and have been so from the beginning, manifesting the most philosophical of the philosophical virtues; for to be steadfast, loyal, and dependable—this, I say, is true philosophy; whereas all other learning, and all cleverness directed to any other end than this, I call—and I think rightly—mere ornaments. Farewell; hold fast to these virtues that you have thus far manifested.

>>15049734
>Weapons sales laws only benefit schizophrenics who believe that the government should allow everyone to have mass murder weapons and weapons-manufacturing corporations.

>>15049768
t. industrial-military complex shill who grooms children into mass murdering trannies through Killcord

>>15049577
This. The only philosophy I've ever read that I felt was actually applicable to my life was Aristotle.

>>15049734
>This is false. Many laws simply exist for the sake of allowing the government to regulate some industries more, or to tax random stuff so that governments can feel like they've got power over little guys

Already discussed. You should really read The Republic.

>>15049840
>You should really read The Republic.
Gorgias btfo'd Socrates in his eponymous dialogue.

>>15049709
We-live-in-a-society-tier banality.

What kind of fucking nigger would make a thread on 4chan of all places just for the sake of telling people who give their opinion on a subject "Oh, no, it's already been written about so no point in discussing it", or "Oh, the topic is settled because some guy wrote a book about it"?
If you're just gonna go around telling to read some thick-ass old book instead of actually engaging people in a conversation, then what the hell do you need your own thread for on 4chan? Just make a shitty tweet or whatever the hell you wanna do if you really think there's nothing to discuss and that you only want people to think you're right simply because you're namedropping some big guys.

ever since mathematics and physics separated themselves from philosophy, philosophy has been >>>/x/ tier ghost stories with zero predictive power, a magnet for pseuds, midwits and retards who will never be smart but want to feel like it
its an academic cargo cult, just like those primitives were building airplanes out of sticks and leaves, philosophy is publishing academic papers trying to emulate scientific papers

you have to be an absolute fucking retard to touch philosophy in the 21st century

>>15050003
>ever since mathematics and physics separated themselves from philosophy, philosophy has been >>>/x/ tier
Ever since mathematics, physics, and philosophy separated, mathematics, physics and philosophy have been >>>/x/ tier.
Mathematicians believe in abstract infinity skydaddies, physicists have disproved the real world, philosophers showed that meaning is not meaningful, actually.
Compartmentalization is the cancer that killed academia. The Renaissance was brought forth by the intellectual homo universalis against the cushy unchallenging academic (née priest).

>>15049451
STEM graduates who lack the basics of philosophy are extremely easy to manipulate. This is why all this fake science bullshit is being produced lately.

>>15050003
>you have to be an absolute fucking retard to touch philosophy in the 21st century
You are an absolute retard if you DON'T touch philosophy (the real kind, not the currently pozzed shit), you become a disposable gear in the machine, just look at the hordes of pajeets who are dumb as bricks.
You need BOTH STEM and philosophy to succeed.

>>15049549
Science is in the the philosophic category of epistemology.
>Philosophy is for fleshing out consistency, but is incomplete for finding truth
It's the only way of finding truth, be it from metaphysical deduction or abductive/inductive inference such as that of the scientific method, which is an epistemologic pursuit and falls in the philosophic category of epistemology. You COULD appeal to divine revelation as another method, but in terms of secular ways, they all fall under the philosophic category of epistemology. Science was called philosophy/natural philosophy until relatively recently. If you read people like newton's writing he called science philosophy, not science. All the greats like descartes, leibnitz, newton and even up to heisenberg, planck, and the QM founders were also deeply immersed in philosophy. All secular knowledge was considered philosophy, hence why PHD stands for doctor of philosophy.

>>15049549
whoops, part of this post
>>15050192
was directed at your post
>Philosophy is for fleshing out consistency, but is incomplete for finding truth
It's the only way of finding truth, be it from metaphysical deduction or abductive/inductive inference such as that of the scientific method, which is an epistemologic pursuit and falls in the philosophic category of epistemology. You COULD appeal to divine revelation as another method, but in terms of secular ways, they all fall under the philosophic category of epistemology. Science was called philosophy/natural philosophy until relatively recently. If you read people like newton's writing he called science philosophy, not science. All the greats like descartes, leibnitz, newton and even up to heisenberg, planck, and the QM founders were also deeply immersed in philosophy. All secular knowledge was considered philosophy, hence why PHD stands for doctor of philosophy.
>>15050003
Physics didn't separate itself from philosophy. Physics has no volition. Maybe you mean some physicists tried to separate physics, which is a branch of science and the scientific pursuit, which is itself a branch of epistemology, tried to separate the two.

Philosophy is an optional advanced learning method, it helps us better understand what we already know by telling us if something, is, or is not true. Philosophy NEVER discovers anything.

>>15050003
here
>>15050196
that is to say, physics is itself philosophy, specifically, it is in the philosophic category of epistemology.

>>15049451
A necessary field of understanding that helps us further our knowledge as a species.

>>15049583
Fairy Tales hide actual truths. Storytelling was a way to pass on information from generation to generation. Would make sense the game of telephone gets muddied after a few repeats. My personal opinion is that telling the grandiose tales gets people to remember it better. But over time that could turn into just straight bullshit.

>>15049582
The Bible is irrelevant to the debate of whether God exists, idiot.

>>15049451
It's good for testing yourself to see if you have any real convictions or are just a brainless parrot in awe of supposedly smart men

>>15050192
>>15050196
It depends on how you define philosophy. If you put all science, mathematics, logic, or other kinds of knowledge-seeking endeavors, then sure, philosophy is the only thing you *can* do with regards to knowledge, other than ignoring it. In such a case, it's trivial that Philosophy is useful.

The manner of philosophy which I was speaking of is that which most people think of. When you take a class under Philosophy in University, you aren't taking a physics class, or a biology class. It isn't even a math class.

No, rather, it is a philosophy class, under a separate scheme of classes than the rest. I suppose one could think of this as "pure" philosophy. There is clearly some distinction between the grand umbrella of philosophy that includes science, and this smaller branch philosophy that merely produces logical inferences.

My post was not to say that "pure" Philosophy has no role, but rather it's role is limited. It requires verification beyond the individual to confirm truth.

Newton also dabbled in the occult and alchemy. Heisenberg believed in the consciousness's role in wave-function collapse of QM was tantamount, which has been taken as pseudo-science in the modern day. Just because these individuals are smart individuals, does not mean that each of their hobbies are fruitful.

This is not to say that those things should not be studied. It just does not suddenly make mental assumptions alone a way to confirm external reality.

Philosophy has never produced anything useful to humanity or discovered any physical laws of reality.

>>15049451
>Philosophy
This word is near meaningless

>>15049558
*cough* oops

>>15050192
The fact that philosophy still admits "divine revelation" is exactly one of the reasons why it's outdated. It's also an indication that you don't really understand science at all.

>>15050378
The US constitution was based on the groundwork from Locke. Weath of Nations? Both could be argued as philosophical works.

"Pure" science is going to eventually have us all plugged into machines with zero agency because "the science indicates that this is best for the population and the economy".

>>15049615
Occam's razor.

>>15050541
That's nice. (: Thank you for giving input.

The problem is that Occam's Razor's definition of what is "simple". When measuring two competing theories that both explain an event, how does one determine going about which one is simpler?

It's easy in some cases, but more difficult in many other cases. For example, take gravitational waves alone versus gravitons in Physics. Which mediates the Gravitational Forces? Both have different levels of evidence in support of their idea. Which one seems more likely? By Occam's Razor, which one should we accept? How should we weigh the evidence? Neither is explicitly right or wrong under current experiment.

We've discovered Gravitational Waves. We know they exist. But, General Relativity cannot be renormalized and so cannot work is a Quantum Theory, thus making it incompatible with the Hypothetical Graviton. And yet, quantum theory suggests that a graviton that would function as a mediator for a force like Gravity is theoretically possible, and would fit well within the Standard Model.

How would one going about finding the "simpler" theory?

>>15050663
Gravitational wave detection can't be used as direct evidence of whether or not gravitons exist for the same reason that light waves can't be used as evidence of photons. Your example is all wrong

Philosophy threads always expose /sci/ as being overran by soulless, miseducated bugmen.

>>15050694
I'm saying that Gravitational Waves alone is simpler than Gravitons existing by GR, but Gravitons lack evidence. Gravitational Waves don't rule out Gravitons, but if we take Occam's Razor considering physical evidence, then there is no reason to postulate Gravitons.

However, if we take theoretical QM into account, it gives us a possible method to quantize GR, including the already discovered Gravitational Waves. But renormalization is another obstacle here, and may not be possible.

So, based on evidence, no Gravitons is simpler. Based on theory, Gravitons is one of the best candidates we have to "unify" physics.

Should we abandon the Graviton idea due to simplicity? Or, is the way that it explains certain things sufficient to offset the simplicity?

>>15050701
Philosophy is for pseuds and midwits

>>15049451
One of the most thrilling intellectual pursuits. Unbelievably satisfying to understand.
At the same time it is completely useless for understanding how to live your life (like some people ITT have tried to argue), or for shedding light on the nature of reality or knowledge or existence. Thousands of years of western philosophy and quite literally nothing to show for it. It's really more of the study of language and how to stretch it to its limits as a tool than a real investigative effort into ethics or metaphysics. You cannot use verbal logic and language constructs alone to discuss these things

>>15049577
Aristotle was the biggest namefag in history. I can't think of anyone else who is cited so much for being so wrong. Euclid and Archimedes did math and engineering and got provably correct results. Aristotle did none of that. All he did was bloviate. His model of the cosmos was wrong. His biological classification scheme was wrong. His theory of the four elements was wrong. He argued against Democritus that matter was infinitely divisible, and was wrong (granted, they were both arguing from first principles and neither had any evidence to prove his case, but Aristotle still guessed wrong). Aristotle's greatest accomplishment was that everything he said about the natural world was wrong.

In general, all of the Greek philosophers are greatly overrated and it was justice when Rome rolled in and conquered them because the Romans were far more impressive in their works of engineering and in their statecraft.

>>15049451
philosophy of science is the guiding discipline of every scientific endeavour.

>>15050718
whoever hates philosophy has definitely sub-midwit IQ.

>>15050779
It is completely pointless and often meaningless and written by and for midwits who can't actually achieve anything.
This is the board for the scientific model.

>>15050713
There are plenty of physical reasons to consider GR as incomplete. On one side of the Einstein field equations, you have a stress energy tensor which corresponds to the energy of things like light (photons), ordinary matter, etc. That part of the equation is known to be quantum mechanical, so the other side of the Einstein equation (the spacetime geometry side) can't completely ignore quantum effects and only works when the quantum effects of the light, matter, etc. can be ignored, which is the case for most of cosmology. There is also evidence of quantum effects in the early universe such as the CMB radiation. This is why GR is not a complete theory and trying to use it to rule out gravitons is just non-scientific.

Also, I was not the one who said "Occam's razor" but even the anon that said it never implied that Occam's razor is the single criterion to decide what things to hypothesize in Science, so you're just attacking a strawman you made up. It was given as a criterion to decide whether your neighbor being a furry is more unbelievable than the existence of superpowered beings thousands of years ago. Obviously, no scientist will take Occam's razor as the final word when considering any theory, but it might be useful in some cases.

>>15050748
>Russellfag seethe
Aristotle was mostly RIGHT about everything that he said. Especially his Physics.
Russell could only muster cherry picked attacks against him about "MUH WOMYNS TEETH" because that's all that he had. Good thing that he got assfucked by Gödel with his "Principia". He will never be the Newton of logic and his name is synonymous with failure.

https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2017/09/aristotles-errors.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4057.pdf

Most modern philosophers are just government shills committing philosophical suicide on purpose to rid the world of a serious understood philosophy.

Philosophy is good for growth, not today's butt fuddling philosophy but proper philosophy would filter our known information and help us find new stuff.

>>15050748
Aristotlebros...

>>15050791
Hating Russell won't make your gods and superstitions any more believable anon...

>>15050806
I'm agnostic. Russell is a certified midwit, I'm very gnostic of that.

people who an overdeveloped ability for the english/french/german language. its literal masturbation and useless. the only application of philosophy today is providing direction to insecure white incels

Philosophy is two things, firstly it is excersize for your brain just in the same way that reading fiction is excersize for your imagination. Philosophy is a slow burn that can take years or decades but it leads to places that science and math can't show you, because they are confined in comparison

Secondly it is the collective history of knowledge, by studying philosophy you are studying the history of great thought and by this means you are standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't be so quick to dismiss the older knowledge, as I grew older technical things impressed me less and less, and esoteric knowledge was my go to for excesizing my brain

>>15049600
Opinions exist which are so called because they are either less certain, less provable, or more controversial than fact. You hold opinions do you not? Do you not think opinions about how to live a good life are valuable? If they are valuable, shouldn't they be studied?

>>15049549
If you had ever read Plato seriously, which it's clear you haven't, you'd discover quite quickly that the process Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Longinus, whoever, you'd discover quite quickly that their process for discovering truth in the human soul is quite scientific: By that I mean they are going about their philosophic process by means of a series of inferences based on observed facts, which is all any 'science' is in the end.

Early scienticts all had very strong basis in philosophical thought. Most Ivy leagues and elite polytechnic schools (Cal Tech, MIT, etc) used to require students to take a few semesters of philosophy of antiquity. Not sure if they still do or not, however. The point is, there is no disagreement or opposition between the sciences and Philosophy. On the contrary: Philosophy is the ultimate science, from which all other sciences flow.

pic related: Your average philosophy enjoyer.

>>15050927
I see a lot of the typical mindless regurgitation and cope by philosophers in your post but no actual understanding of science. Try again.

>>15050934
Read like 200 pages of plato and come back. If you can't do that you're not fit to have this discussion

>>15050927
>Average soilosophy fan is an inhuman looking steroided monster no one but homosexual men and hispanic incels find attractive

>>15050791
>Russell
Science began with Galileo and William Gilbert

>In the discovery of hidden things and the investigation of hidden causes, stronger reasons are obtained from sure experiments and demonstrated arguments than from probable conjectures and the opinions of philosophical speculators of the common sort...
— William Gilbert
De Magnete (1600). In William Gilbert and P. Fleury Mottelay (trans.), William Gilbert of Colchester, physician of London: On the load stone and magnetic bodies (1893), xlvii.

What Greek philosophers did for almost 1000 years was to bullshit their way from first principles about how the world should work and to completely ignore empirical evidence unless it helped their argument from first principles. What you're actually supposed to do is to look at the evidence first and then formulate your argument based on that, and "scientists" did not do that until the 1500s. (Engineers and architects, on the other hand, did have to respect the real world because they had to make shit work).

>>15050945
>plato
This is a science board. >>>/lit/ >>>/x/

>>15050953
That is an argument in favor of pruning this thread, but its not an argument in favor of permitting your ignorance in this discussion

>>15050960
You're unreasonable - to every argument you will respond saying that they don't know enough about the subject. Like all pseuds.

>>15050969
Haha. Reading 200 pages of one of the founders of western thought is not an unreasonable expectation. The reason you couldnt understand OP's post is because you dont know what plato wrote.

>>15050960
I'm sorry but there is nothing so important that in plato's writings that a scientist or mathematician would have to go through 200 pages to learn. This is commonly accepted knowledge among scientific circles. Science boards are not the place for you

>>15050976
citation needed

>>15050973
>I have read 200 pages
>I've still read more than you and so much more smart so you're still wrong

>>15050977
It's common knowledge. Talk to some actual scientists instead of schizos on /lit/

>>15050979
Sorry maybe im a bit slow, or maybe your sentence structure is shit.

>>15050981
If you're so obsessed with 200 being too many, what would be an acceptable number? 50? 10? Or is a wikipedia article the only thing you'd be willing to read?

>>15050983
It's what i think would happen if I tell you I had read 200 pages. First line is me, second line is you.

>>15050985
A wikipedia article or similar would be the most I'm willing to read, unironically. Like I said, I am certain that there is nothing non-trivial in there that is so worthy of reading.

>>15050791
>Aristotle was mostly RIGHT about everything that he said. Especially his Physics.
Aristotle's Physics reads like a high school student bullshitting his way through a report. It's fucking word salad that says nothing at all.

>>15049451
I once asked a dude into Hegel to tell me what he considered Hegel's most significant idea. He had a meltdown.
I never have this problem when I talk with STEM dudes.

>>15050950
Galileo was Aristotelian. Aristotle was a respectable empiricist. Galileo attacked the christcucks calling themselves Aristotelians that held his word as unalterable truth, as they do.

What Greeks had way back then in the ways of physics:
A relatively accurate model of earthly dynamics (Aristotle's, pdf here >>15050791)
Buoyancy (Archimedes' principle, also pdf here >>15050791)
A heliocentric model (Aristarchus of Samos)
Atomism (Democritus)
Geometry (Euclid)
Calculus (Archimedes again, method of exhaustion)
Continuum (Eudoxus)

Your "100 years of bullshit" that end with the 1500's coincide with the 1000 years of bullshit and bad logic used to justify christianity. The 1500's was the century when we decided to read the Greeks, rather than what christcucks had to say about the Greeks.

As I said, christcucks AND atheists will seethe at the truth.

>>15050994
If you are certain then I should waste no time in persuading you otherwise

>>15050999
You read like a bitch ass nigger who can barely communicate. You wish you had a millionth the skill of Aristotle. You are not better than him because you can read a modern textbook.

>>15051004
Yes, and I also advise you to go back to >>>/lit/ or wherever you're from

The older I get the more I understand the importance of the classical liberal arts education and our deficiencies pertaining to its subject matter. Our institutions are literally just glorified white-collar trade schools now and it has transformed our population into highly skilled but directionless workers.

>>15050976
Philosophy is the basis of science, though. Philosophy takes our nature in the world and tries to make sense of it through shared experience of the human condition. If you don't think this influences scientific study in any other fields, there is no other explination other than you are stupid. I've already pointed out that schools like Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Cal Tech, colleges and universities that have produced some of the brightest scientists on earth, REQUIRED the study of antiquities and philosophies for all students, regardless of major or discipline. Similarly, schools like Oxford and Cambridge required it as well.

Again, all any science claims to be is a series of inferences based on observed facts, that we then use to create models of predictability. I'm going to assume you're larping as a 'science' idiot, since you keep throwing that word around without any real definition or understanding of it. The philosophical discourse that takes place in, say, a Plato's Republic is highly 'scientific': They define all the terms in which they are debating at the outset, and through a series of inferences and reasonings, come to conclusions. In other words: It is highly scientific, which is why that anon is asking you to read 200 pages of Plato. If you had, you'd realize in like the first 10 pages how scientific Plato is. It's obvious you have never read him, though, since you don't realize that.

Here, I'll link Plato's Republic from the MIT WEBSITE. Yes, MIT has a classics section for free for all it's students:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

Pic related: Your average Plato enjoyer

>>15051020
Sigh. See >>15050934. Your advertising of plato isn't really effective for scientists since your posts demonstrate that you lack a scientific mindset.

>>15051034
That's not a very empirical argument. What is this scientific mindset and how is it that you are able to observe it.

>>15051034
On the contrary: I have demonstrated I understand the 'scientific mindset'. It's you who have yet to demonstrate that you understand what that means. You are simply refusing to listen to or understand anyone else but your own preconceived, ignorant notions. Maybe one day, you'll understand.

>>15051040
You can see how that post lacks scientific understanding by looking at how he types
>They define all the terms in which they are debating at the outset, and through a series of inferences and reasonings, come to conclusions. In other words: It is highly scientific
Anyone educated in science would call this axiomatic and not scientific
>I'll link Plato's Republic from the MIT WEBSITE. Yes, MIT has a classics section for free for all it's students:
This just sounds like some stupid salesperson statement. Of course MIT has a philosophy department. Is that supposed to be an argument?
>Philosophy takes our nature in the world and tries to make sense of it through shared experience of the human condition. If you don't think this influences scientific study in any other fields, there is no other explination other than you are stupid.
Once again, naive and an oversimplified/wrong understanding of what science is
> I've already pointed out that schools like Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Cal Tech, colleges and universities that have produced some of the brightest scientists on earth, REQUIRED the study of antiquities and philosophies
Once again, not important since that is mainly due to historical reasons. No one is required to take a philosophy these days and that's for a good reason - it's outdated for the purposes of actual science.

Internet armchair philosophers should realize how stupid they sound when they make these naive comments about science on science forums but they never seem to learn.

>>15051077
>Internet armchair philosophers
And also many real philosophers I should add

>>15051008
You know why none of Aristotle's writing about nature is worth anything? Because it makes no predictions.

A modern textbook will tell you in one equation that the distance a stone travels when dropped is proportional to the square of the time it takes. This is a specific and testable claim. What does Aristotle say? "Nature is like, things changing, man. Whoaaah, far out"

>>15051086
But then he also says
Thus
This is what I think about it
His thoughts
Possibly controversial and guiding

How stupid are you handmath illusions of non intellect

>>15051086
Wrong nigger cope. You stand on his shoulders and add no height.

>>15051077
I think most of your points are getting at a difference between scientific and philosophical methodology. OP used the word scientific, you use the word axiomatic, i use the word rational. That is, philosophical arguments are based on syllogismsany here conclusions are logically drawn based on accepted premises.
Insofar as science draws conclusions about our reality, rather than simply describe it, i.e. the theory of gravity vs. the measurement of gravitational acceleration on an object, then science is fundamentally rational. A solely empirical scientific method would not have any theories, because they cannot be confirmed by an experiment.

>>15051103
based on syllogisms where**

>>15051103
I think most of your posts belong in

>>/trash/

ge' off mah sci

>>15049549
Philosophy isn't method.

>>15049600
No he didn't prove that, retard. He said often philosophers will go from an is to an ought without explaining why they can do that. Read the original passage.

>>15050003
There is more to reality than pure formalisms and basic physical rules.

>>15051077
>They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; --it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, of the nature and origin of justice.

This is a line from Plato's Republic, where Glaucon define's the source of the legal term 'justice'. It is a highly scientific definition: It takes an abstract concept and simplifies it's origin and history based on shared, collective human experience in their dealings with one another. They define this before they begin in the Republic, since the Republic is essentially a scientific experiment in which they craft the perfect 'state', as a means to examine justice and injustice in the human soul and condition.

By the way, you still haven't defined what you mean when you say 'science'. All of us have, except you, the irony of course being that until you define your terms, you are not acting as a true 'scientist', yet you continue to make the claim you are of a more scientific mind than anyone. Until you define what you mean by science, no true conversation can take place.

>>15050003
>you have to be an absolute fucking retard to touch philosophy in the 21st century

the structure and function of Computing logic, aka computer science, is based entirely on the theories and predictive reasonings of Philosophers.

>>15051103
I never advocated for a 'solely empirical' scientific method did I? I don't even know what that would mean or look like. Theorizing is a crucial part of science and the modern and well-tested way to do it is to use mathematics combined with observations, not to refer to aristotle's metaphysics page 34 or whatever.

I have been studying philosophy in my spare time (CS master degree graduate) and while I can see how useful and dare I say even powerful it is, it has the side effect of shutting down all paths that lead to a blissfully ignorant life. If I can't find a path that leads to a successful life now I'm stuck with knowledge that makes me both aware and unhappy.
I can't unlearn what I have already learned and I'm not chickening out, I want to know more. Hopefully I can find the right path for me.

>>15050003
>zero predictive power
Really?
Everyone with half a brain knew what the covid circus was going to lead to from day 1.
That includes every single philosophy graduate, but strangely not many STEM ones. Why is that?

>>15051142
Yeah you don't know how much of that IS philosophy midwit.

>>15049451
Glad I studied computer science instead desu

>>15051146
>Read philosophy
>Want to kill yourself
Many such cases

>>15051153
>That includes every single philosophy graduate, but strangely not many STEM ones.
Do you have a source for this?

>>15051146
Your philosophic mind is not useless. On the contrary: It should lead you to live your life more passionately. It depends on which philosophers you're reading: Which ones are they?

>>15051166
This entire fucking website for starters.
All other sources have been brutally censored for obvious reasons.
You know why "consipracy theorists" got many things right? Not all of them, but many.
Because they, unlike the MSM-approved, critical theory-approved and politically correct algorithms that a pajeet freshman could write completely failed to take into account many human variables such as:
>people would violate the lockdowns because they need social contact, or simply have material necessities
>every single politician, celebrity and healthcare "professional" who was advocating for masks and vax and distancing and all that shit caught covid
>masks have been repeatedly proven to be useless
>covid cases go up and seasonal flu mysteriously disappears at the same time
>all the extremely obvious synchronized political and economic maneauvers
>all the incessant propaganda and censorship war
>vast majority of people who died had a foot in the grave anyway. People don't suddenly stop of dying from old age so they can die from covid instead
>still was a memeflu and the vax probably did more damage than the virus itself

When you throw away all human nature out of your model the result is one that isn't faithful to reality and it deliberately misleads people.
"Conspiracy theorists" simply applied the basics of philosophy, if in a flawed way, and got more accurate results than mindless nu-science.

>>15051095
Want to give a reason as to why Aristotle is so great instead of just calling me a nigger? As I said, Euclid discovered provable mathematical relations and Archimedes made many impressive inventions. Aristotle collected a bunch of trivial observations in a book and called it philosophy.

The four causes is a good example of such: (i) a thing is made of stuff, (ii) someone or something made it, (iii) it has a form (or "essence"), and (iv) a function. For example, (i) a bed is made of wood, cloth and down, (ii) by a furniture maker, (iii) into a square shaped thing on a pedestal, (iv) on which you can sleep. What is Aristotle's revelation here? That you can group all of these related ideas under the heading of "cause." That's it. That's his revelation. IT"S A WORD GAME. It makes you say, "So what," not, "Wow!"

Basically all of his Physics is this. Shit you intuitively know but didn't bother writing down because it would have been pointless to do so.

>>15050003
>zero predictive power
This is the key. Until you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, your philosophical treatise is nothing but the material cause of a future cardboard box. Someone who doubles his money in the stock market (honestly, and not through market manipulation) is more impressive than any philosopher.

>>15051167
Mainly Socrates and Machiavelli. I have the feeling that more modern ones are inherently politically-charged so I'm developing a stronger mind before tackling them.

>>15051202
A lot of words to say "no".

>>15051202
I don't agree with everything you wrote, but i think you raise a very powerful point - science is not equipped to answer questions about how humans should behave or be governed, and good scientists are ready to admit that. Covid demonstrates that it is the unscrupulous scientist who makes recommendations that goes beyond his scientific research. Science is unable to even consider the question of how humans should be governed, much less answer it. What do you enlightened scientists offer to help us theorize about how to lead a good life or how to govern ourselves if not philosophy.

>>15051225
>put money into index fund
>10 years later it doubles
I'm glad you think so highly of me anon

>>15051225
Philosophy predicts that people who focus their life on attaining pleasure will be unsatisfied and unhappy. Is that not a good prediction?

>>15049451
IQtards like /sci/ use this like brainlets and midwits use religion and science, a collection of cookie cutter escapism ideologies because they can't establish their own morals and way to live their own lives.
Stop wasting your time living by other people's arbitrary standards, and live how you deem it worth living.

>>15050924
>Secondly it is the collective history of knowledge, by studying philosophy you are studying the history of great thought and by this means you are standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't be so quick to dismiss the older knowledge, as I grew older technical things impressed me less and less, and esoteric knowledge was my go to for excesizing my brain

Finally an adult in the room.

>>15051225
Here's another prediction that anyone with a barebones knowledge of philosophy and history saw coming from a mile away: that there would be a war after covid.
All the covid fiasco accomplished was generating negative feelings all across the globe and those are easily exploited for igniting a war.

>>15051239
>Science is unable to even consider the question of how humans should be governed, much less answer it.
No "philosophy" would ever lead to it actually being properly enforced so the question is pointless. My answer is national socialism, anyway.

>>15051214
The scientific method is a trivial observation by your standard. Just get an idea and see if it's true. Riveting. Yet you still have retards TODAY who believe in divine revelation and appeal to authority (ipse dixit for the Pythagoreans).

Aristotle introduced the distinction between natural/forced motion that would become the basis of Newtonian physics.
Aristotle introduced the four causes that allowed for anyone to understand what the fuck both the atomist turboautists and platonist schizos were on about in a single framework. It's so robust a framework that even after they formally rejected teleology after christcucks warped it into incoherent "muh god" verbal diarrhea, scientists today must smuggle final causes back into their orthodoxy through convergent evolution and attractors.

>>15049451
Philosophy is the set of general principles that are necessary in order to form hypotheses, i.e. the use of logical inferences, observation, and the use of language to ask questions. These are necessary skills for conceptual analysis and the synthesis of knowledge. It is the general blueprint, or system of rational cognition that is then filled in by the physical and empirical sciences. That is why fields like epistemology, logic and metaphysics have arisen from doing philosophy. Knowledge and reality itself have to be clarified and investigated from a general point of view if we want to fill in our system of knowledge with greater certainty. Physics and biology can then be placed on a strong foundation within a system of knowledge.

Because Mathematics can be reduced to logic, Maths is the language of our arguments about things that are. Math does not tell us anything about the world, but rather allows us to describe hypotheses about the world in a language. But the ontological status of abstract entities in Maths becomes another problem for philosophy.

>>15051252
>So too is it with the vir-
tues; by abstaining from pleasures we become temperate, and it is when
we have become so that we are most able to abstain from them; and
similarly too in the case of courage; for by being habituated to despise
things that are terrible and to stand our ground against them we become
brave, and it is when we have become so that we shall be most able to
stand our ground against them.
3
We must take as a sign of states of character the pleasure or pain that
ensues on acts; for the man who abstains from bodily pleasures and
delights in this very fact is temperate, while the man who is annoyed at
it is self-indulgent, and he who stands his ground against things that are
terrible and delights in this or at least is not pained is brave, while the
man who is pained is a coward. For moral excellence is concerned with
pleasures and pains; it is on account of the pleasure that we do bad
things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones.
Hence we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our
very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained by the
things that we ought; for this is the right education.
Again, if the virtues are concerned with actions and passions, and
every passion and every action is accompanied by pleasure and pain,
for this reason also virtue will be concerned with pleasures and pains.
This is indicated also by the fact that punishment is inflicted by these
means; for it is a kind of cure, and it is the nature of cures to be effected
by contraries.
Again, as we said but lately, every state of soul has a nature relative
to and concerned with the kind of things by which it tends to be made
worse or better; but it is by reason of pleasures and pains that men
become bad, by pursuing and avoiding these—either the pleasures and
pains they ought not or when they ought not or as they ought not, or by
going wrong in one of the other similar ways that may be distinguished.

I can only express my utmost contempt for the so called philosophers of science. Everything about them is quintessentially cringe. They describe a trivial and well-known process, yet the way they describe it shows how they failed to understand it. With unwarranted arrogance they proclaim to know more than scientists while their writing resembles the ramblings of a 5 year old child who "explains" the world to his father based on his very limited level of knowledge. Except that these philosophers are grown up adults and allegedly educated, so we'd expect more from them than only childish platitudes. Philosophy of science is trivial at best, cringeworthy and outright anti-intellectual at worst. A complete disgrace for the historical tradition of philosophy as a pursuit of deeper knowledge.

>>15051226
No point in reading beyond the greeks: They are the heigh of philosophy. Moderns are inferiors in every way, by comparison. Read Plato, Xenophon, Longinus, and Aristotles. The rest aren't really worth reading, as, again, they are lessers of these 4.

>>15051325
Come at me bro

Philosophy is a protocol for advancing learning that upgrades into psychology; we do philosophy to teach ourselves into certain ways of thinking that benefit other fields. When we are apt enough, this is traded for practice of optimum philosophy called psychology.

If we didn't have philosophy and a lot of what you do during other field work is philosophy, there'd be no progression passed the present understanding of the world.

>>15051327
Will do. Thank you anon.

>>15051214
Aristotle has 8 books on physics, and none of his obersvations are as base and trivial as you've illustrated here. One of his primary goals in Physics is to make distinctions between natural cause (as occurs naturally in nature) and artificial creation (made for a specific cause or purpose, from elements of nature), and if you can't see the huge importance these distinctions would have in the physical world, and to all the sciences, you are, again, just stupid.

>Shit you intuitively know but didn't bother writing down because it would have been pointless to do so.

It's not stuff you know innately and just haven't written down: If that were so, if that's all Aristotle was, he would not have won the applause, reverance, and admiration of men throughout all ages, throughout all disciplines, and throught all vocations. If that were the case, students at Harvard, MIT, etc would not have to read Aristotle no matter what their major was. Try again

>>15051336
Philosophy is deeper than psychology. Philosophy deals directly with ontology, ie nature of metaphysical being, which presusposes psychology and influences it. If you don't understand this, you're stupid.

>>15051351
You're fucking stupid.

Philosophy comes before psychology which is your optimum philosophy put into practice.

Course' it's deeper but it's not more advanced than say, having philosophical codes and practicing them, contrary to forming philosophical codes.

Just suck my ball beard and stfu

Alright, philosotrannies, fill in the blanks:

"In science I encountered ______ but ONLY thanks to my philosophy education I realized that _______."

>>15051327
So allow me an observation. Are you suggesting these 4 because the future ones are basically reinterpretations of what humanity had known for centuries, the whole "history repeats" thing? Thus their redundancy.

>>15051358
OP
OP is a retard

>>15051358
>"In science I encountered ______
eugenics
>but ONLY thanks to my philosophy education I realized that _______."
they're fucking based

>>15051356
>frequently curses and resorts to ad hominem

And you wonder why no one with an adult mind is taking you seriously in this thread. Btw, me calling you stupid isn't an insult to your character: We have explained in multiple ways how science and philosophy are highly compatible. Ignorance is not knowing and thinking you know. Stupidity is refusing to accept truth from someone who has taken great pains to explain it to you from multiple angles. Since you refuse to aknowledge what we've said, and have largely ignored the rest, from this aspect, you are stupid.

>>15051367
Yeah keep floating over what I said until you calm a little and pop there goes your actual response to it and it wavers and you feel stupid for saying it and realize all this time it was your ignorance that was the problem.

herf derf
merf
merf
Merf!
Merf!
MURF
MURF
MURF
MURF MURF MURF MURF MURF HERP HURR

>What is actually read by these other posters here

So here's a perfect example of how philosophy has become pozzed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7blyii/cmv_hard_times_create_strong_men_strong_men/

Basically the whole strong men/weak men cycle that is well known around here and that it's gradually going from meme status to mainstream because the writing is on the wall for history illiterates, let alone those who actually know something about history.
On this Reddit topic they apply many of the tools philosophy gives us, while still failing to address the simple fact that they're biased towards wanting to keep the status quo as well.
Yet the core philosophical principles from the ancient Greeks condemn many, MANY of the school of thought society endorses today and not once have those principles failed throughout history so the burden of proof that, yes, this time things WILL work out for the best rests on those who endorse the current status quo, not their critics.

>>15051359
Yes. If you read no one but Plato, he covers everything you will ever need to know from a Philosophical aspect. Xenophon is an extension on platonist principles, especially his Symposium (which was inspired by Plato's symposium), and his Memorebilla: defense of Socrates character. Longinus is a literary and performance arts scholar who examines literature and theater through the platonist lense. Aristotle, a student of Plato, examines the sciences through a Platonist Philosophical lense. These 3 cover all your bases.

Socrates never wrote anything himself, rather Plato and Xenophon dictated what he said in the form of discourses and conversations they were present for. For all intents and purposes, Socrates 'is' Plato.

>Feyerabend: Science is just arbitrary dogma.
>Me: Philosophy is just arbitrary dogma.
>Feyerabend *choking on his onions milk*: NOOO, HOW DARE YOU? YOU CAN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE ... UHM YOU JUST CAN'T, OKAY? PHILOSOPHY IS LE HECKIN VALID BECAUSE I SAY SO.

>>15051392
Tardlet detected. Science is a process, not a conglomerate. Science doesn't, doesn't give a fuck, science doesn't do, we do science. The most that can be rounded too is a robot was made and it doesn't give a fuck, but other than that join the unending queue of retards who are mad that they got btfo by king aether.

>>15051392
>Science doesn't give a fuck about your feelings
You can tell someone is a huge manchild if they present themselves as intellectual but use vulgar language in that manner

>>15051358
>In science I encountered ______
Moore's law
>but ONLY thanks to my philosophy education I realized that _______
Religion is inherent to humanity and will always exist

>>15051401
>>15051409
The greatest contemporary intellectual disagrees with you.

>>15051415
What is "science"? Does he just mean reality when he says this? It doesn't make any sense.

>>15051415
The good thing about the process science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

LOL even Neil degrass Tyson is a mid tier tardderp

>>15051415
God this statment makes no sense. Everything is true or false regardless of belief, that is the definition of truth/falsehood.
The length atheists will go to antagonize religion

>>15049646
I don't even know why Rousseau is still quoted by so many people. The fact that he abandoned all his kids to a certain death against the will of their mother is enough to prove that he was not a good man. And his ramblings about "the good savage" are ridiculous.

>>15051415
So I guess instead of
>if you believe it hard enough it becomes true!
the problem the supporters of "science" face today is
>if it's true hard enough you believe it!
Well they have a rough way ahead of them then.

>>15051415
"Science" today for most people is Wikipedia.
And you what is its biggest problem?
It often gets vandalized.

>>15051347
>One of his primary goals in Physics is to make distinctions between natural cause (as occurs naturally in nature) and artificial creation (made for a specific cause or purpose, from elements of nature), and if you can't see the huge importance these distinctions would have in the physical world, and to all the sciences, you are, again, just stupid.
>If you can't see why this is important I'm not going to tell you.
a child can understand the difference between a tree growing and a builder making a house. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is infinitely more impressive an observation than 8 books of "dude motion lmao"

> and none of his obersvations are as base and trivial as you've illustrated here.
Bullshit. The few intelligible claims you can get out of his word soup is trivial. His four causes are not profound in any way. Making a shore-mounted death ray that you can aim at an incoming fleet, on the other hand, is bad-ass. Pic related is an actual accomplishment. "Philosophers" have always been losers. The further you get from practicality, the bigger nothing you are.

>>15051415
Science is absolutely true by definition.
The problem is not the concept of science, but WHO says WHAT science is.
It's being effectively treated like a religion today, without truly grasping what it really is.
And there are a lot of parallels between the two:
"Experts"/priests
"Therapy"/confessionals
Government-enforced right-violating act/sacrament (this is what the vax truly is)
Social fragmentation/schism (men/women/POCs/LGBT/etc vs Catholics/Protestants)

It's incredibly obvious to those who have the right cognitive tools.

The recent posts in this thread did pic related

>>15051441
Why do science students at Harvard and MIT have to read Aristotle, then? It sounds to me like you've never read them seriously and without bias, and therefor you have no frame of reference. The irony of course is you are continuing to act like you have any idea what you are talking about. I am not saying science inferior to Philsophy. I'm just trying to put each in their proper context, and explain to you how both influence and inspire eachother:

>The next step we must take is to see in how many senses one thing is said to be 'in' another.

>(1) As the finger is 'in' the hand and generally the part 'in' the whole.

>(2) As the whole is 'in' the parts: for there is no whole over and above the parts.

>(3) As man is 'in' animal and generally species 'in' genus.
>(4) As the genus is 'in' the species and generally the part of the specific form 'in' the definition of the specific form.

>(5) As health is 'in' the hot and the cold and generally the form 'in' the matter.

>(6) As the affairs of Greece centre 'in' the king, and generally events centre 'in' their primary motive agent.

>(7) As the existence of a thing centres 'in its good and generally 'in' its end, i.e. in 'that for the sake of which' it exists.

>(8) In the strictest sense of all, as a thing is 'in' a vessel, and generally 'in' place.

Everything I've green texted for you is from one small passage in Physics. If the process by which he is deducing abstract scientific reasoning here isn't scientific, or is, in your view, worthless, there is no hope for your understanding of this subject. I feel bad for you.

>>15051519
>Why do science students at Harvard and MIT have to read Aristotle, then?
They don't, you're hallucinating

>>15051564
They do, though. My highschool classmate was required to take two antiquities courses and two philosophy courses at Harvard, Class of 2023. His specialization was Economics and Computer Science and he still had to take them. He said his Antiquities class on the Chinese Ode's and his Philosophy class on Greek Oratory were his two favorite classes he took at Harvard, by far. He also said they greatly influenced his computer science thinking and reasoning, but what would he know? He only got into the most prestigious College in North America, while we're arguing anonymously on the internet.

>>15051627
You don't have to take the word of your classmate. You can look it up yourself
See https://oue.fas.harvard.edu/files/oue/files/harvard_college_education.pdf
https://handbook.college.harvard.edu/files/collegehandbook/files/harvard_college_student_handbook2223.pdf
They are required to take 12 "filler" courses but nowhere is "Greek oratory" listed as a required course.
>but what would he know?
Yeah, computer science and economics aren't real sciences

>>15051519
damn,
i thought his definition of "cause" was something
but he out did himself with "in"

>>15051020
Posting pictures of muscly men does not add to the substance of your argument. On the contrary, you should know that there is nothing to be gained in the strength of an argument by appealing to either famous writers (which is, as you should know, an "argumentum ab auctoritate") or to aesthetic concerns.
Either something is by itself true and recognizable as such by the means of observation subjected to the highest level of logical scrutiny or it is merely hogwash promoted simply due to socio-culturally influenced personal preferences.
Plato is one of the people whom the Western philosophical tradition started with, but you will hardly find anyone who will call themselves an orthodox Platonist, or a true believer in the theories of metempsychosis or anything of that sort even in Continental philosophy departments which have a high focus on philology and the Classics. Plato is just one thinker among many in the Western tradition, just like Aristotle, Berkeley, Hume, Smith, Schopenhauer, Husserl, Derrida, etc. Aristotle's rules of inference are just about the only stuff that no person, be it a philosopher, a lawyer, or a mathematician, or a physicist, would ever dare to dispute from his work. Everything else is subject to doubt.
The scientific method itself has undergone many reforms, with people shifting in paradigms throughout the ages from rationalism to empiricism, then over to compromises between the two advocating for the primacy of rational arguments backed by extensive amounts of empirical evidence to others giving priority to great masses of empirical evidence, with all models merely being guesses at best and lies at worst.
Over time, there have been changes in morality, in beliefs regarding human regards, regarding how power structures ought to exist, what kind of people ought to be in command, whether all people deserve to be treated as equals, etc., and none of it is necessarily "truer" than other beliefs.

>>15050198
This.

>>15050198
It's not optional. Science and philosophy are like notebook and pen, car and fuel, appliance and power socket. They complement each other.
>>15052409
Critical theory is not valid. Hence science is stagnant or even regressive these days because the current zeitgeist is not useful for the interests of humanity.

who is /sci/'s favorite philosopher?

>>15049451
extremely based
>don't say you love the anime if you haven't read the manga

>>15052774
King Aether of sci

>>15052774
Schopenhauer and Spinoza

>>15051519
It's useless bro, modern STEMfags can't even see the point in taking an idea and dissecting it to its first principles.
They have all the answers given to them in muh textbook. Scientific inquiry for them is to find what page to read from the index.

>>15049538
Philosophy is trying to answer hard questions and actually it's main goal is to challenge assumptions we already hold. It's opposite to what you are saying. For example you use word truth. But what is truth? That kind of questions philosophers think about.

>>15049451
Its very important and good but quite seriously lost its footing somewhere with the germans. Before it was something men of all manners of life could understand and engage in to learn something from, and sometimes that still happens but now its about having your head up your ass, speaking words nobody knows or cares about and being utterly pretentious

>>15052774
Viruses don't exist

>>15050437
>The fact that philosophy still admits "divine revelation" is exactly one of the reasons why it's outdated
I didn't say that. Re-read the post. I said
>It's the only way of finding truth, be it from metaphysical deduction or abductive/inductive inference such as that of the scientific method, which is an epistemilogic pursuit and falls in the philosophic category of epistemology
I said you could APPEAL to divine revelation, but this would be a personal and subjective thing and would be a belief. And if you don't understand that the scientific pursuit and it's revealed content are epistemological in nature and therefore part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, then you don't understand what either philosophy OR science are. Science was called natural philosophy from time immemorial (picrel) until, because of political reasons, it was changed to 'science'. Some people, such as the vienna school jews and their predecessors wanted to separate meta-physics from the epistemic practice of empirical investigation.

>>15050976
75% of mathematicians identify as platonists

>>15053271
95% of mathematicians don't care about philosophy of mathematics and 99.99% of mathematicians would never read a philosopher.
t. mathematician

>>15053211
You still don't understand. The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science. Not even a god believer like Newton would try to convince his peers using "divine revelation" and if he did, everyone would rightfully make fun of him.

>>15049451
The science of all sciences.

>>15053324
>95% of mathematicians don't care about philosophy of mathematics and 99.99% of mathematicians would never read a philosopher.
>t. mathematician
Yea, no. All of the dozens of mathematicians I know like philosophy and discuss it all the time. Perhaps lower tier mathematicians like yourself don't, but in the upper echelons this is not the case.

>>15053328
Lol. Having hallucinatory fantasies about your imagined mathematicians is not good for you.

>>15053331
Nothing imaginary in my post. Sorry bud but you're neither a good mathematician nor a good scientist or philosopher.

>>15053335
I'm a real mathematician and you're a schizo having hallucinations. That's the bottom line.

Pick your fighter. Are you a Chad or virgin?

>>15053324
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science.
All disciplines are toolboxes, you use what is useful and ignore the rest depending on the task.
Divine revelation irrelevant in mathematics? Ignore it. That doesn't mean that the rest is all invalid.

>>15053370
>all the globohomo ones reject philosophy
Really makes you think.
Truth is they don't reject it, they want the masses to do that.

>>15053324
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science
>You still don't understand
I understand that YOU don't understand.
> The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy
I didn't say that it was 'allowed in'. Religion is one of the subjects that can be studied philosophically, as is the natural/physical world. You don't have to 'admit' as you said or 'affirm' anything about it. You can consider it's claims in terms in terms of epistemic justification and empirically testable assertions or in terms of logical deductivity.
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science
What do you mean 'allowed'? You can consider, philosophically, the content and claims of religion just as you can consider any testable claims with the scientific method. So, does the fact that you can apply the scientific method to religious claims mean that science 'allows in' religion or necessarily 'admits' or affirms anything about religion. The scientific pursuit and scientific knowledge ARE both under the branch of philosophy called epistemology. There IS a separate meta-category called the philosophy of science, but science in general is a for of epistemic justification related to empiricism and induction/abduction of the content of the data/information stream appearing in minds, called the physical world. The picrel and link might be a good start for understanding.
http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf

>>15053324
>>other anon says "I said you could APPEAL to divine revelation, but this would be a personal and subjective thing and would be a belief."
>You still don't understand. The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy [...]
>t. mathematician
How good a mathematician can you be if you can't even follow basic logic? What a disgrace.

>>15053324
>Not even a god believer like Newton would try to convince his peers using "divine revelation" and if he did, everyone would rightfully make fun of him
You are just repeating what I myself said. Go back here
>>15050192
>You COULD appeal to divine revelation as another method, but in terms of secular ways, they all fall under the philosophic category of epistemology
I said you could APPEAL to a divine revelation. I didn't say philosophy 'admits' or affirms religious claims. Religious claims can be CONSIDERED philosophically, such as with regard to epistemic justification, using various epistemological (philosophic) methods, such as empirical or metaphysical deductive methods. If you take part in logical pursuits, like induction, abduction, deduction, you are engaging in metaphysical pursuits right off the bat. Metaphysics, like epistemology, is a branch of philosophy. So science is doubly philosophical. Causation, the capacity of one variable to influence another, is also a metaphysical (philosophic) concept which is important in physical science.

I respect it for the value it has but often am frustrated by how seemingly separated it is from scientific thought despite the two being fundamentally linked at the hip.

/sci/ has an autistic superiority complex over everything that isn't purely mathematical or at least close in purity to mathematics. It is natural that this board would then despise philosophy.

>be le me
>read philosophy, expecting deep intellectual insights
>turns out it's trivial bullshit I already thought of when I was in elementary school
>literally nothing of value
>every philosophical argument seems cringeworthy since I can already debunk it with my own arguments before I finish reading
Why is this retard shit hyped so much? Are people really that dumb?

>>15053381
>>15053430
>So, does the fact that you can apply the scientific method to religious claims mean that science 'allows in' religion or necessarily 'admits' or affirms anything about religion
In science, the (tentative) truth of a claim is decided based on experimental verification. So science can take a claim made by a religious person and either conclusively debunk it or tentatively confirm it using experimentation. It never decides the truth of the statement based on whether or not the person says he received it from god or whether or not the person is a religious figure.

You, and the author of that paper for high schoolers, claim that science is just one epistemological approach out of several. However, regarding learning truths about the real world, it is the only one which has ever worked so in calling it "just one approach", you are explicitly rejecting all evidence and that is an antiscientific position.

>>15053424
X allows Z. Y doesn't allow Z. Therefore X and Z are not compatible. That wasn't very hard was it.

>>15053490
*X and Y are not compatible

>philosophy of mind
Made no progress beyond Descartes. The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved.
>ontology
After more than 3000 years of philosophical discourse they still can't define existence.
>logic
Is a field of math nowadays, not understood anymore by philosotards.
>ethics
Literally just unqualified subjective opinions. Any wagie on the street can have a stance on ethics and it's just as valid and qualified as a philosophy professor's stance.
>metaphysics
Basically solved by CTMU (written by a non-philosopher). Beyond that it's no better than religion.
>epistemology
Cannot define knowledge, cannot define truth. Autists endlessly caught in the definition game without even being able to name the subject they're allegedly researching.
>philosophy of science
Low IQ morons falsely deluding themselves into illusions of intellectualisms over describing a process which is literally trivial to anyone who actually studied science.

>>15053490
>ZF allows for Choice
>ZF allows for not Choice
>therefore ZF is incompatible with itself

If you fail so hard at basic modal logic, I wonder what other mistakes hide in your mathematical work

>>15050773
Not really. Most scientists know little of the philosophy of science beyond what is immediately intuitive to them and they still get science done.

>>15053537
They "get it done" as in mandating draconian measures for a stupid flu and forcing a worthless or even harmful vaccine on the world popuklation? As having every piece of software full of bugs and memory leaks? As having utterly inaccurate economic models?

>>15053544
Just FYI I'm not reading that

>>15053490
>In science, the (tentative) truth of a claim is decided based on experimental verification. So science can take a claim made by a religious person and either conclusively debunk it or tentatively confirm it using experimentation. It never decides the truth of the statement based on whether or not the person says he received it from god or whether or not the person is a religious figure.
What are you even talking about at this point? Where did I ever say that philosophy 'decides the truth of the statement based on whether or not the person says he received it from god or whether or not the person is a religious figure'. Here are my posts itt
>>15050192
>>15053211
>>15053381
>>15053430
So where are you getting this from? Also, scientific inquiry IS PHILOSOPHIC INQUIRY. It falls under epistemology, see pic rel here
>>15053381
Science and epistemology both mean the same thing etymologically, namely they both deal with KNOWLEDGE
science
>From Middle English science, scyence, borrowed from Old French science, escience, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”), from sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“to know”).
Epistemology
>From Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē, “science, knowledge”), from ἐπίσταμαι (epístamai, “I know”) + -λογία (-logía, “discourse”), from λέγω (légō, “I speak”)
And science in german is Wissenschaft. Science and scientific enquiry ARE part of philosophy. If you reject all of philosophy you reject science.
See picrel for a working definition of philosophy. It seems like you don't even know what the word means.

>>15053532
Unlike in your moronic analogy, Science + divine revelation is inconsistent, which is not the same as Science + no divine revelation being consistent.

>>15053554
>Where did I ever say that philosophy
Where did I say you said that? You asked me a question and I answered that question.

>>15053566
>Where did I say you said that?
here
>>15053490
you said
> It never decides the truth of the statement based on whether or not the person says he received it from god or whether or not the person is a religious figure
What does this have to do with anything I have claimed? Why are you posting this as a response to me based on my posts, which are here
>>15050192
>>15053211
>>15053381
>>15053430
?

>>15053637
I don't know if you're just pretending to be unable to read.
See your post >>15053381
You asked me the question:
>What do you mean 'allowed'? So, does the fact that you can apply the scientific method to religious claims mean that science 'allows in' religion or necessarily 'admits' or affirms anything about religion.
And I answered your question by telling you how science doesn't allow divine revelation while still being able to test religious claims. That was the first line in my post >>15053490. The next line was directed at the general content of your posts not related to the question you asked me

ITT walls

>>15051153
>Not many STEM ones
My dude, the fact that china bought off several people to spread bullshit doesn't mean that there weren't people seeing past it.

>>15051358
Video games
Video games

>>15049451
fun and gives some neat insight and perspective :)

>>15053566
>Unlike in your moronic analogy, Science + divine revelation is inconsistent, which is not the same as Science + no divine revelation being consistent.
You keep digging your own grave here, mate. Just give up. You don't understand logic nor what philosophy OR science are about.

>>15053695
Why? Looks like you were unable to understand why your analogy was stupid even after I explained it to you

Awakening is akin to the Sunrise.

Sometimes you feel groggy and competitive for thought, like the Sun as it sits behind the clouds.

Sometimes you'll experience a striking woke feeling like the Sun in clear blue sky.

Sometimes you'll feel sad and weak like rainfall.

>After proposing this a philosopher may conclude....

Then there is a similarity between Solar Phenomenon and Humanity, and their life-forms.

>After forming this code a psychologist may propose...

Don't annoy this person when they've just woke up and they look groggy as it may cause them to snap.

Anatomy is code-mass.
Philosophy is forming codes.
Psychology is using codes.

>>15053710
>X allows Z. Y doesn't allow Z. Therefore X and Y are not compatible.
>give counterexample
>"I don't like it ;("
Science is built upon philosophy. X = P+A, Y = P+B.

>>15053490
>You, and the author of that paper for high schoolers, claim that science is just one epistemological approach out of several
Ah, so now you are admitting that science is included in the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Good, then we are in agreement.
>However, regarding learning truths about the real world, it is the only one which has ever worked so in calling it "just one approach", you are explicitly rejecting all evidence and that is an antiscientific position.
Wait, be more specific about what 'the 'real' world is. Have you ever been hungry? Did you need science or the scientific method to gain that knowledge? Ever stub your toe? Did you need to form a hypothesis to know it hurt? What about mathematical knowledge? Can you use the scientific method and sense data prove by observation that infinite series exist? Logical deductive knowledge, is the scientific method to be credited for that? do you have identity over time? That is to say, are you the same experiencer that you were when you were a were born? Are you the same 'I' that experienced your childhood? If yes, how do you get this knowledge? Science? No. Science studies the behavior of the content of sensory data streams we call the physical world and makes inductive and abductive inferences about these data streams. It's one way of gaining knowledge in terms of making predictions in terms of quantification about one subset of reality. It says nothing of QUALITIES. Qualities don't even exist in the data stream called physicality, quantities do.

>>15049584
>Dedicates life to how to act when seeing violence on the street and stop it
>Sees violence on street
>I already know what to do in this situation, I'm too smart for this boring tedious work. I'm not doing this.

>>15053657
>And I answered your question by telling you how science doesn't allow divine revelation while still being able to test religious claims
No, you didn't. What do you mean philosophy 'allows' or science 'allows'? Are you implying philosophy and science have volition and 'allows' people to make claims? To allow means
>give (someone) permission to do something.
Philosophy is
>the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
And so religion and it's claims are one of the things it considers, as is the physical world. You are acting as if there are some set of tenets that philosophy holds and the affirmation or legitimacy of claimed divine truths is one of those tenets.

Poooooooooo
Poo poo poo poo poo pu pu pu pu pu poopidy poop

/Thread

You're gay

>>15050468
what kind of pseud retard thinks we need philosophers to tell us that it is preferable to live a normal life rather than be put to eternal sleep in some pod

like, that isn't even a question. it's nothing to think about because your scenario is so stupid.

>>15053746
>he still doesn't understand
ZF + no choice being consistent is not the same as ZF + choice being inconsistent. "Science doesn't allow divine revelation" is more like the second statement rather than the first, so your analogy is stupid. I see that you're attempting to make a new stupid argument in this post of yours but I won't bother addressing it.

>>15053748
>so now you are admitting that science is included in the branch of philosophy called epistemology.
I said that you and the author claimed that. I really don't understand why you're having so much trouble reading.

You've listed some more questions in this post but I'm not interested in most of them since they're very vague or irrelevant. I'll just address
>What about mathematical knowledge? Can you use the scientific method and sense data prove by observation that infinite series exist?
All "mathematical knowledge" is ultimately knowledge about the behavior of physical systems, which can include the behavior of your own brain which behaves approximately as a turing machine at least when you're in the process of verifying a mathematical proof so that you can call it mathematical knowledge. So yes it is an instance of knowledge about the real world.

>>15053544
none of this has anything to do with philosophy, you're just proving that philosophy fans are dumbass midwits
>muh vacc
politicians like exerting power especially under the cover of protecting people
>muh software bugs
matter of money
>muh economic models
what are you even on to here? are you saying that philosophers have figured out more accurate models? obviously they didn't.

>>15051263
he's a coomer, that means he's braindead.

>>15053844
I'll admit that it's a bit of a slippery slope but 100 years ago people would have called you insane if you stated that people would voluntarily carry a tracking device (phones) and allow devices into their homes that listen to everything they say (smart TVs, Alexa, etc) yet here we are.

>inb4 I don't have any of those
Well tough shit because most people do and they vote en masse and create problems for the rest of us.

>>15053897
>doesn't like tits
It means he's alpha, nerd

>>15053856
>I said that you and the author claimed that. I really don't understand why you're having so much trouble reading.
And so is it or isn't it? If it is a way to gain knowledge, then science is philosophy, which was my claim. Scientific inquiry it self is a philosophic pursuit. It's in the category of epistemology.
>You've listed some more questions in this post but I'm not interested in most of them since they're very vague or irrelevant
They are not vague or irrelevant. You made a claim that science was the only way to gain knowledge. I asked questions about how particular knowledge was gained. I am not surprised you don't want to address questions which have answers which disprove your claim.
>All "mathematical knowledge" is ultimately knowledge about the behavior of physical systems
No it's not. Much of it is about ideal things which don't exist in the physical world and could never be verified in the natural world.
>which can include the behavior of your own brain which behaves approximately as a turing machine at least when you're in the process of verifying a mathematical proof so that you can call it mathematical knowledge. So yes it is an instance of knowledge about the real world.
Irrelevant. I think you are appealing to a physicalist theory of mind, (specifically the computational theory of mind), which is no theory of mind at all, see the hard problem of consciousness.

>>15054134
Dude if you was near me irl I'd punch you to the ground, people's elbow you and then teabag you

Quit it.

>>15049451
A good way to pass time, nothing more and nothing less. /lit/ will seethe

>>15053856
ZF = Philosophy
C = Scientific method
Not C = Divine revelation (Not Science)

C + Not C is contradictory
Scientific method + Divine revelation is contradictory

Philosophy allows Scientific method
Philosophy allows Divine revelation
>>15053324
>The fact that divine revelation is allowed at all in your philosophy makes it incompatible with science.
"Therefore Philosophy is incompatible with science"

ZF allows C
ZF allows Not C
"Therefore ZF is incompatible with Choice"

You're a clown.

>>15054238
Look here, retard. I was the one who made the statement about incompatibility here >>15053490.
>X allows Z. Y doesn't allow Z. Therefore X and Y are not compatible.
Clearly, I meant X = philosophy, Y = Science, Z = divine revelation and 'Y doesn't allow Z' to be Science + divine revelation being inconsistent. If you, like a total moron, misinterpret X, Y, Z as something completely different from what I said despite being told why your misunderstanding is stupid multiple times, that's not my problem. I am baffled by how inhumanly dull-headed you are.

forms are just topological particles instead of atoms. Like little light structures the size of quarks.

>>15051133
I don't get it. Why is injustic by nature good? Why would man be a fool to accept justice?

>>15049600
You can just take your values, objectives or principles to be axiomatic. Then it's just as objective as math.

>>15050003
t. never heard of logic

>>15054628
Logic is math. Philosotards fail to understand logic. You outed yourself as an ignoramus.

>>15051415

Regarding science, philosophy does a good job at asking questions and proving theories wrong a priori via inconsistencies and fallacies before scientific effort is expended. Also it is the starting ground for formal logic, which is mathematics. It's responsible for the scientific method, falsifiability, and the paradigm theory of scientific inquiry. The first scientists were philosophers, as were the creators of algebra, geometry, and calculus. Yes it's true that philosophy is not generally used to expose a truth, but it does a damn good job at exposing falsehoods.

>0 ethical problems solved
>0 metaphysical problems solved
>0 epistemological problems solved
Philosophy bros, what have we been doing the last 3000 years?

>>15055066
formal logic is math
there is more to logic than just formal logic

>>15049451
One of the most exquisite fruit this existence has to offer, philosophers on the other hand...

>>15049451
the verbal equivalent of mathematics
only pseuds disagree, makes me feel superior to lawyer fags
t. phd in mathematical physics who works as an executive in a big engineering company

>>15049549
Physics and mathematics have limitations but the answers they provide are high resolution and are less open to interpretations. Whereas philosophy is low resolution but it's bigger in scope and since we have no other tools to deal with morality, epistemology or what have you we are stuck with this imprecise instrument.

Philosophy is the foundation physics and maths are built up on anyway so really they are no better in a deeper sense.

>>15055884
>the verbal equivalent of mathematics
False. Philosophy is the polar opposite of math. Math establishes objective truth by logical proof. Philosotards spout irrational subjective opinions and spread ignorance.

>>15055914
>Math establishes objective truth by logical proof.
lol what a limited worldview. Perhaps reading some philosophy might show you how wrong you are

>>15055884
>I need to tell everyone about my career even though it's completely unrelated to my factually wrong statement
Sorry sweaty, you're not an epistemic authority.

>>15055918
I've read all of it and it's trash.

>>15055922
>epistemic authority
Epistemology by itself categorizes different way of knowledge procurement, and as such there's no single authority. Therefore, this statement is a misnomer.

>>15055930
You're not a language authority either. I don't care what your autistic mind considers a misnomer.

>>15055935
>I'm way out my depth intellectually, therefore you're autistic
ok, lad, swim back to the shore.

>>15055942
>muh depth
Your trash bin may be deep, but it's still filled with trash.

>>15049451
It goes hand to hand with mathematics. It's the contemplation of logic.

>open Categories
>full of unintelligible statements like "speech is a quantity"
>throw in trash

>open Principia Philosophiae by Descartes
>"God is perfect because... he just is, okay?"
>into the trash it goes

Eratosthenes calculating the radius of the Earth is useful because it gives us a clearer picture of the world we inhabit. A bunch of namefags arguing over whether water or earth is the base element is worthless.

Redpill me on social sciences

>>15049709
foucault is a fag

/sci/ is too low IQ

Does /sci/ really think philosophy is about two dudes sitting in a room debating whether or not magic is real while science does all the pragmatic heavy-lifting? Philosophy is about understanding what makes something moral, how do we derive fundamental knowledge, how does language relate to meaning in the real world, what makes something logically true, etc. None of these things can be solved with science. If you don't have a strong philosophical foundation then you're gonna be a shit scientist. It's no coincidence that practically every Nobel Prize winner in physics is interested in philosophy. The amount of nu-atheist scientism fags itt is embarrassing.

>>15049451
Philosophy which further developed into science is glorious and awesome.
Philosophy which further developed into religion (like your plato crap) is infamous and gross.

>>15057423
>Philosophy is about understanding what makes something moral, how do we derive fundamental knowledge, how does language relate to meaning in the real world, what makes something logically true, etc.
Useless. Completely and utterly useless. Answering this will lead nowhere. Thank you for further affirming that "philosophy" is useless mental masturbation for midwits and pseuds alike.
And may I ask, do we have a proven answer to these questions? I think we both know the answer to that. "Philosophers" can't even answer their useless debates. They just have their stupid debates and read their stupid books to show everyone how smart they are. I have more respect for popsci Neil de Grasse Tyson fans than you.

>>15057423
>Philosophy is about understanding what makes something moral, how do we derive fundamental knowledge, how does language relate to meaning in the real world, what makes something logically true, etc.
None of these questions has ever been answered by philosophy. Anyone can shit out their ideas on these topics and any shitpost would be equally valid as a philosophy professor's opinion.

> If you don't have a strong philosophical foundation then you're gonna be a shit scientist.
Go on and answer >>15051358 then.

>>15054149
Midwit, kys.

>>15057438
Science is a subset of philosophy. All the sciences were born because philosophers were raising and trying to answer hard questions. Including math. I am pretty sure some brainded dimwit like yourself was laughing about philosophers Pythagoras why is he solving non existent problems with these triangles. Any science you can name has philosophical foundations when philosophers were trying to answer hard questions. When the question is really hard but there is way forward a new science is born. E.g what is truth? For dimwit like you it might be simple question and simple answer, but it's not.

>>15057805
>3000 years ago philosophers invented science therefore you have to respect me and my pseudointellect
Fuck off, moron

Pythagoras was a mathematician, too. He didn't discover the theorem (it was already discovered before that, maybe even by a non-philosopher plebeian like me!) through debates about morality.

>>15057805
> Science is a subset of philosophy.
This is already wrong, retard. Science and math existed independently before philosophy. Philosophy has always been a waste of time only dealing with useless pseud nonsense.

Honestly....

People disagreeing with philosophy...

Get the fuck off mah sci or else

>>15057825
>noooooo, you are not allowed to disagree!!!!
>philosophy is to be blindly followed without le questioning it!!
>because uhm ... it just is, okay?

>>15057827
It's not just something you disagree with, it's a field of knowledge. You disagree with some philosophers that's it.

Anatomy is code mass.
Philosophy is making codes.
Psychology is using codes.

Is it to do with science? No. However it is complementary, it has use. Philosophy will help us dissect vast amounts of new discoveries to help form suitable thinking.

>>15057834
>it has use
No, it doesn't.

>Philosophy will help us dissect vast amounts of new discoveries
No, it won't and it can't. AI and data science will though.

>>15057842
Derp

>>15057423
"Philosophy" that says something about human behaviour has value because it is at least based on empirical observations of people and it can make useful predictions. Discussion on morality falls into this category, so long as you accept that morality is created by people and that it serves a purpose. The Prince, for example, could be considered a work that falls into this category, because it is a bit like an instruction manual for a ruler.

Shit that is about "how do we derive fundamental knowledge, how does language relate to meaning in the real world, what makes something logically true," and such is totally worthless. You just automatically and intuitively know all of these things. "I think because I am" doesn't tell you anything. It's just language wankery.

>>15051358
Neuroscience
That neuroscience can not even in principle solve the hard problem of consciousness

>>15049451
Useful to understand human world and its behaviour. Also useful to make decisions.
Not so much for understanding the physical world

>>15057818
>Science and math existed independently before philosophy.

>>15057815
>Pythagoras was a mathematician
There were no matematicians then only people thinking about interesting questions and trying to solve interesting problems. They were called philosophers. After a while when it became clear that there are more and more questions and answers and that it is possible to create some kind of a system math was born. Same with any other subject - logic, physics, political science, economics even psychology where you can say one of the biggest inspiration for it was Nietchze. Anyway you are so sure of your "truth" that you come up as incredibly unbelievably stupid, there is no saving for you. Go solve some stupid math problem, who cares, its completely useless. You are not going to find any breakthroughs anyway at best you can solve proffesor's exercises that are already solved countless times.

>>15057827
>I am disagreeing with all the questions and answers and thinking that smartest humans had done since the dawn of time

>>15058670
The smartest humans have always been mathematicians and scientists. Philosoplebs are just pseuds who want to larp as smart.

>>15049451
It means "love of wisdom" in the literal translation and it's something people who love wisdom would be into in the non-literal translation. Either way, it's pretty cool. That's why I wanted to get a Doctor of Philosophy degree before Helene and her friends intervened to rob me of nine years I had invested in getting it and then ruin my life such that another 11 years have been burned now.

>>15059463
There would be no scientists and science without philosophy you brain dead retard

>>15059702
This is false. Scientific methodology is older than philosophy and continues to be based irregardless of whether philosoplebs fail to understand it. Why do you post fake news?

>>15049592
The difference there is that I'm aware that the person I'm listening to is fallible or can lie.

>>15059702
imagine believing this
there would be engineering, architecture and medicine without science, and there would be science without philosophy
actually doing practical shit in the real world is at the bottom of the pyramid. theorizing about existence is at the very top

>>15049538
You speak about old Philosophy.

From what i understand, we have new ones that does the same for modern science that ones did to antic science

Read about Wittgenstein, Kripke... and other analitic philo.

>>15058659
>There were no matematicians then only people thinking about interesting questions and trying to solve interesting problems
Absolute retardation. Aristotle explains in thorough detail the distinction between physics, mathematics, and the philosophy of first principles (called theology in his day, and metaphysics or ontology in our days) in part 1 of book VI of his Metaphysics. Even back in those days, there were some people who were interested only in mathematical or geometrical knowledge, some who were interested in physical phenomena, some who were interested in the natural sciences, and some who were interested in purely theoretical treatments of the first, most abstract essences of things, such as logic and metaphysics. Some people were interested in astronomy without ever bringing up topics like Being or the Gods, and some were interested in the discussion of virtue and ethics without ever giving even a single thought to problems of area, fitting, quadrature, or any other issue dealt with by geometers of the day. Even though all of these areas of interest were "epistemai" ("knowledges"), they were not all disciplines that followed one same set of analytic procedures and methods of discovery. Just as Homer was no expert in the art of warfare or the art of navigation despite having composed many lines of his poems in reference to them, then so were Plato and Aristotle not mathematicians despite having mentioned mathematical arguments that were commonplace knowledge in their times in their own works.
For if medics are known to have existed, as seen from the cult of Asclepius, well before the birth of Thales of Miletus, then so may we assume that every single arithmetic reckoning and estimation done that may be found in ancient Babylonian clay tablets and Egyptian papyri were not a product of philosophical enquiry starting from first principles, but rather grappling with numbers for the sake of finding magnitudes of use for solving specific problems.

>>15060733
Yes it was not historically precise, but the point is not when math exactly became math it's that it did not appear out of thin air and some thinking was needed to "discover" it first. That what philosophy is - deep abstract thinking about complicated questions. Then later if subject analysis become systematic and there is practical use of it a new science might be born and more specialized and practical thinking about it takes over. The way retards talk here about science seems like we already know everything and there is no need to inquire into anything more. Total brainlet take.

>>15059715
Yeah it just appeared without anyone thinking about it beforehand...

>>15060203
You seem to be opposed to some certain small part of philosophy. Actually your stance is some kind of philosophy in itself. Probably you would like something like logical positivism. Of course your stance is not a real philosophy because you are retard and didnt really deeply think it through so you are more like some brainless zealot. If you would be interested in philosophy you could think or read what others are saying and how they are critisizing your stance and maybe even change your mind or at least see errors in their ways. For example https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/the-parable-of-alien-chess/

>>15061609
You seem to be uneducated and immature.

>>15061615
Great argument you showed me now I see my errors. You are really mature it seems.

Choose.
the correct choice is constructive empiricism
Also take note that having a stance here doesn't affect
>that your car will start
>the kind of nourishment you'll get from the food you eat
>the speed and accuracy at which your computer stores, retrieves, and transforms information
>funding for research projects
>your ability to become gainfully employed
>a woman's willingness to let you touch her
>anything

>>15062560
This infographic pretends that those positions are somehow a spectrum and in conflict with each other. In reality they are not. I can be a naive realist, a constructive empiricist and a relativist simultaneously without contradiction.

>>15062569
>the natural world is (ontologically) real
>the natural is not (ontologically) real
How?

>>15058251
To be fair, most respected neuroscientists don't even begin to claim this.

>>15062575
The natural world being real is not a controversial question but a simple fact. This has nothing to do with the epistemological and metaphysical limits of science or the social construction of truth though.

>>15062585
>it is a simple fact that the natural world is real
This is exactly the sort of proposition anti realists argue against. It is squarely within (or without as many argue) the epistemological limits of science to be able to establish the truth of claims like that. That's what the chart is showing. A spectrum of views about the metaphysical claims science can make.

>>15062649
The fact that the natural world is real is neither an epistemological nor a scientific claim. It doesn't need science to realize this trivial fact, and science can't prove it since it is already a prerequisite for science.

>>15062656
But it is metaphysical claim.
>simple fact
Dood. Where is the simple fact repository? Could I invite? Perhaps we're getting hung up on the choice of example (the world)
Are electrons real? Says who and why? Scientists probably have something to say about electrons, and your commitment to the objective reality of electrons lands you somewhere on that spectrum in the image. Are electrons real? Or are our theories about them merely empirically adequate? What do you believe is within the power of science to give us an answer to this dilemma?

>>15062690
*do you believe it is within the power of science to give us an answer to this dilemma

>>15062690
Let's start with something bigger than electrons. The house you're currently sitting in. Can you reasonably deny that it's real?

>>15062778
>No bro. I can taste it, smell it, feel it, touch it, and hear it. But it's not REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL. MAAAAAAAAAAAN. It's all in my mind.
Greentext related is basically all of Descartes' "philosophy" and if you find anything deep about that, or any philosophical "work" like it, then you are a retard. A rational person would consider such a claim for a few minutes, accept that reality must be perceived through the senses, but then also claim that there is no way around this, and do debate about what exists beyond perception is a waste of time because it is unexaminable. People who write entire treatises on such subjects are just wankers.

>>15062778
Define real. Is house in some video game real? What if we live in some kind of simulation?

>>15062918
>Define real.
shut up, fag

>>15049451
Useful in keeping societies stable.

Much more maleable than religion.

>>15049538
>>15052905
>>15049549
Yeah you use the words truth and knowledge but challenging or examining assumptions about those is what philosophy is about. What you propose is simply unexamined faith and tradition that will never be able to go beyond itself. This is very clear if you've ever studied a science. They desperately need some philosophy to improve it because they are otherwise stuck in their generally erroneous , inconsistent, or misapplied faiths.

>>15063022
based Machiavellian poster

i like it.
it is important for foundations of maths

>>15064989
No, it's not. Math is self-contained and builds upon the a priori notions of naive set theory.

>>15049451
I don't see the point too it, been into philosophy for a whole year and still feel unfulfilled and meaningless than I ever was. I thought I was important to the world or some type of main character but i'm just some retard who got lucky due to genetics and evolution. All of the "lessons" you learn from plato and shit is outdated and no one really gives a shit. It doesn't make you better or clever, you still have to wagecuck and be a drone like everyone else. Science taught me a lot about the world that I didn't know was true when I was blinded by religion from my parents. I'm grateful to learn about science and math.

>>15062778
Okay. No, I cannot reasonably deny houses are real, or anything measurable by the 5 senses with minimal assistance. But that's because I'm a constructive empiricist. So okay, I think I get your point about the reality of the world being a simple fact. I agree with that insofar as by the world we mean a world of experience as far down as macro scale phenomena.
Now what do you think about the electron? A naive realist says yeah, they're real. I say our theories using them are empirically adequate, but we can't make any metaphysical claims about their reality. In keeping with philosophers like van fraasen and Hackett, it's because electrons are "observable" only through deliberate intervention, and only by measuring instruments' representation.