/sci/ - Science & Math

yes, OP, it is indeed the most physics based sport.

>>15106832
geometry mainly but psychics play a role

>>15106832
>based
NOPE!

Pool is the best sport to demonstrate the butterfly effect. I bet you that even if the ball at the first shot had one nanometer different trajectory, the result would be visibly a different arrangement of balls.

Pool has nothing to do with physics.

>>15106886
>butterfly effext
Pseud and reddit moment.

Curling

>>15106895
>imagine being so paranoid about being a "pseud" on 4chan you deem all commonly known science to be "popsci" even when it's used in a valid context
nothing screams midwit more than this

>>15106832
every sport is equally physics based except maybe chess and other "sports" of that category

>>15106935
You mean mathematics based

>>15106954
no i mean physics based, mathematics may be the prefered language in physics but they still are and always will be distinct fields. and your reddit cope picture doesnt change that one bit

>>15106909
Yeah, that's a good pick.

Arguably baseball too, with the mechanics of different pitches

>>15106832
>>15106909
You confuse "physics" and "small physics frameworks that are easy to learn but already describe the sport"

Old MacDonald has a farm is not more music based than a Jazz piece by Coltrane just because it's easier to take apart and understand

All sports are physics based because they all abide by the natural laws of this universe, I hope this clears it up

>>15106954
>worshiping physicists and mathematicians
extremely reddit meme

>>15106954
logician philosophers are even further to the right

>>15106910
it's still extremely reddit
bonus points when the midwit doesn't realize that breathing and merely existing also counts

>>15107047
pic rel

>>15106954
You mean philosophy based

Sex is a more physics based sport. It involves fluid mechanics.

>>15107122
Retarded meme. Mathematics isn't subordinate to Philosophy in the same way that the sciences are, it only depends on logic, which in it's most pure form is in the realm of math. A more accurate pic would replace philosophers with logicians, because surely you wouldn't argue that math is just applied hermeneutics or any other such bohemian continental babble.

>>15106832
>most
All are physics-dependent, OP.

>>15107139
cope

>>15106832
darts

>>15107167
seethe

>>15107122
holy based! Kant would be proud.

>>15107011
Curling is basically pool with the physics of friction. Of course there is friction in pool as well but in curling it has to be especially paid attention to.

>>15106840
Fpbp

>>15107139
No. There’s a well-established philosophical sub-discipline that deals with questions to do with the ontological status of mathematical truths, objects, etc. There is EXTENSIVE literature on a range of technical issues surrounding this matter. Google “philosophy of mathematics”.
And even if philosophers weren’t the ones pressing the most important meta-mathematical inquires, logic is very much within the domain domain of philosophy. Logicians are well aware of contemporary discussions on modality, grounding, and other metaphysical debates that have consequences for logic as a field. Consider that even undergraduate philosophy students learn about the logicist project and the Vienna circle.
You’re just completely wrong.

>>15106832
Its mostly geometry, though knowing how elastic collisions work helps.

>>15108029
And none of that has any influence of mathematics, physics or any scientific discipline.
Stay in /his/ next time kid, then you won't have to justify your inferiority complex of not understanding science.

>>15108150
My point wasn’t that solving philosophical questions surrounding mathematics and empirical investigation is necessary for mathematicians and scientific researchers to do their jobs.
What I’m saying is that the truth of mathematical claims is in fact dependent on the truth of certain meta-mathematical (philosophical) views. The nature of mathematics as a system, and numbers themselves, determines in what sense mathematical claims are true. You were criticizing the meme because you disagreed that mathematics was relevantly subordinate, so I told you why it is.
Assuming I can’t know about more than one subject isn’t going to get you anywhere. I’d bet a lot that both my STEM and humanities credentials far outstrip yours.

>>15108192
>the truth of mathematical claims is in fact dependent on the truth of certain meta-mathematical (philosophical) views.
And which "meta-mathematical" truth is true?

>The nature of mathematics as a system, and numbers themselves, determines in what sense mathematical claims are true.
Nice smarty word play

>>15106886
Nanometer is not a measurement of angle

>>15108210
>what meta-mathematical views are true
I have no idea lmao
And I should have said “determines the sense in which mathematical claims are true”. I blame alcohol

>>15108210
>And which "meta-mathematical" truth is true?
FOL and model theory ?

>>15108223
So what has "philosophy of mathematics" contributed?
>>15108230
no

*laughs in Motorsport*

>>15108233
To mathematics, not much. Again, all I’m claiming is that the truth of mathematical claims, and the sense in which they are true, is subordinate to the truth/falsity of a litany of views within the domain of philosophy of mathematics.
Whether or not philosophy of mathematics can actually supply answers its own inquiries is beside the point.

>>15108249
So it is only the "philosophy of mathematics" that mathematics is subordinate to. I don't find that anyone who studies the "philosophy of mathematics" doesn't already have a good understanding, and often an actual qualification, in "regular" mathematics. So why, might I ask, is the umbrella term "philosophy" depicted as somehow superior to mathematics? This unmarked philosophy? This "philosophy", including every philosophy that exists, the easily accessibly Aristotle and German pseuds that every pretentious 16 year old has read?

It does almost seem to me, that >>15107122 was made by a coping midwit, who lacks the intellect to understand chemistry, physics and mathematics, and wants to pretend that "philosophy" is this grand, overarching field that everything is subordinate to, and is what truly reveals the truths of the universe. I also think, perhaps, you will agree with me.

>>15108261
I agree to an extent. Yes, social and political philosophy doesn’t tend to deal with the “fundamental” facets of nature, reality, existence, etc. And yes, some philosophers who people love to quote have written works that lack rigor or clarity.
But I don’t think anyone was claiming that philosophy as a discipline is superior to mathematics as a discipline, just that philosophy’s domain of enquiry has, within its scope, some sub-fields that address more fundamental features of nature than mathematics (particularly epistemology, metaphysics, and of course philosophy of mathematics). I agree that mathematics and the sciences are more successful than philosophy, but it cannot be said that they investigate more foundational questions, or explicate more foundational concepts than the aforementioned subfields.
And yeah, he could have been a midwit. But it’s just a picture with like 10 words on it meant to set people off who indiscriminately hate the humanities

>>15106832
>sport
its a fucking game
calling it a sport is just an excuse for kikes to make money off of overgrown manchildren playing games

>>15108222
I never mentioned angles. I mean if there was a nanometer difference between the points where the ball hits the triangle.

>>15108236
Motorsports could actually be the best answer. I watched the new smarter everyday video about a space rocket and the physical fenomena throughout the machinery was fascinating. Take it to an extreme and you're bound to find complex and interesting shit, I guess.

>>15108329
I can guarantee the average pool player is more achieved, intelligent and classy than yourself. But according to you no one's allowed to have fun because that makes you a manchild.

>>15108324
I propose a new word to replace philosophy when it's associated with actual intelligent scientists speculating on their field, the "philosophy of science".
>But I don’t think anyone was claiming that philosophy as a discipline is superior
I think that's exactly how it was intended, or I'm too assuming and retarded.

>to set people off who indiscriminately hate the humanities
I don't hate the humanities, I look down on useless "philosophers" who produce meaningless drivel and their worshipers.

>>15108336
congratulations. you've managed to completely misinterpret an ignore the point.
but good effort to sound so sophisticated and intelligent.

>>15108360
The point being?

>>15108354
The philosophy of science is already one of the most preeminent philosophical disciplines. And yes, many scientists do take an interest.
For instance, reason hypotheses are “falsified” as opposed to “verified” comes from philosophy of science that was done by Popper and falsificationists in the 20th century. Before that, it was the verificationists that informed science’s conception of itself as “verifying” hypothesis via testing. This view was supplanted for technical reasons pertaining to philosophical problems, not scientific ones.
The history of the relationship between philosophy of science and science itself is actually pretty interesting. I get that you have a low opinion of philosophy in general, but it’s not defined by a bunch of pretentious midwits in a community college phil101 class

>>15108376
>The philosophy of science is already one of the most preeminent philosophical disciplines.
I jocularly meant we ought to replace the word philosophy of science with something else so "philosophy" in a umbrella term can't be used to appropriate it to the accomplishments of useless ethic and nihilism philosophers.