/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15195641
I only hate "analytic" philosophy. Continental is fine.

"Analytic" philosophy is even worse than continental. I can only express disgust for their idiotic pointless language games and their cringeworthy low IQ abuse of logic outside of its intended scope.

>>15195641
Analytic philosophers are failed mathematicians

>>15195683
>>15195688
>>15195746

COPE, go back to /lit/ you worldcels midwits.

>>15195641
How can you prove philosophy? It's entirely interpretative. There is no physical representation.

>>15195683
>t. can’t pass high school math

>>15195774
Do you know that many of your physical laws and stuff are open to interpretation too, right?

>>15195782
That why we have the term 'schizophrenia.'

I like humble people. I don't like people who think that they understand stuff better than others.

>>15195786
>T. Never heard about philosophy of science

NIGGER.

osr or gtfo

>>15195816
philosophers are the same people who will argue that eating ze bugs is bad for you. or that vaccines have negative side effects. ridiculous unscientific nonsense

>>15195774

All you can do give convincing arguments. The same is with science. There is no absolute proof except consciousness.

I really like philosophy. Mainly analytic.

Yeah continental philosophy is pretty goofy, but there are a few winners in continental philosophy. Like Heidegger.

>>15195774
It doesn't seem entirely interpretive to me. Like here are some random philosophical questions off the top of my head:
1. If something is true is it necessarily true?
2. Are there more truth values than just "true" and "false"?
3. If you know something, do you therefore know that you know it?

The possible answers to those are not subjective or open to interpretation. They are hard reasoned arguments.

Well /sci/, which side are you going to listen to regarding this issue?

>>15195746
>>15195683
>>15195688
>Analytic philosophers are failed mathematicians
all the modern math was builded by philosophers
>>15195774
>How can you prove philosophy?
retarded, not all the things need to be proved, the cogito ergo sum is wrong, first sum, then cogito, just like that

>>15195752
Analytics are the worst wordcel midwits. Endlessly caught in cringe language games but too dumb to realize the futility of what they're doing.

>>15195816
There is no such thing as "philosophy of science". Science just works. Any pseud talk about social and economic context of science is utterly trivial.

>>15195641
>/sci/ is well known for being critical of philosophy
You mean the frogposter who loses his minds about philosophy in every thread and the samefag poster who usually shows up shortly afterwards to updoot his post?

>>15195823
Philosophers are the kind of people who demand vaxx mandates, bug eating mandates, pod living mandates and owning nothing mandates. The WEF is shilling for philosophy because philosophy is the basis of ideology, the polar opposite of Science which is based on Facts and Logic.

>>15196436
>this post
This is what untreated mental illness looks like.

>>15196188
>1. If something is true is it necessarily true?
Meaningless gibberish. The concept of "necessarily true" is only appealing to shallow midwits.
>2. Are there more truth values than just "true" and "false"?
Not philosophy. Non-standard logics have been researched by mathematicians, computer scientists and quantum physicists.
>3. If you know something, do you therefore know that you know it?
Yes, trivially.
>The possible answers to those are not subjective or open to interpretation. They are hard reasoned arguments.
Thanks for admitting they're not philosophy. Philosophy with its arbitrary subjectiveness is useless and never able to answer any question conclusively.

>>15196188
>The possible answers to those are not subjective or open to interpretation. They are hard reasoned arguments.
Low IQ take. The answers to all of those questions are down to how you model reality.

>>15195774
>How can you prove philosophy? It's entirely interpretative.
You can prove that some positions lack internal consistency, or that they logically lead to absurdities. You can also prove some things logically in the context of agreed-upon premises.

>>15196442
>>15196436
>>15196434
>>15196432
>>15196430
>>15196445

hegel nlab etc etc

>>15196432
>Social and economic context of science
>Philosophy of science

Dumb ass NIGGER, don't even now what philosophy of science talks about.

>>15197351

>>15197443
analytic philosophy would be like the left, only continental philosophy is like the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8

Why is it that every time scientists try debating philosophers on anything they come up looking like complete idiots? Krauss is like a child compared to Dennett and Pigliucci during this entire convo.

/sci/ is well known for undergrads who don’t know their ass from their elbow.

>>15197443
>t. Doesn't know how real serious philosophy works

Really NIGGER? Can you actual read a book or you just crunch number like a retarded computer?

>>15197512
>Dennett

Your so-called rigour does not reflect the inherently chaotic reality we were born into. As borne out by all QM research for a century now. This is why all philosophy, no matter the variety or flavor or style, is now bunk.

>>15197499
>>15197518
Show me the real serious philosophy. I could need a good laugh.

>>15197553
normative concerns are concerns of your brain
you don’t know who your brain is
it is just a slug with a calculator on top

>>15195641
I wish philosophers would stay in their domain of writing fiction and opinion pieces. Pretending their fiction and opinion pieces are remotely adjacent to actual math, actual science, and actual reality, is laughable at best. They need to stay in their lane.
Analytic philosophy is for idiots/midwits too dumb for actual math and science. Continental philosophy is for idiots/midwits too dumb for even grade school math and science.

The young people in this thread have no idea how much knowledge philosophers have amassed over the millennia. And now they are ready to discard all that knowledge. Just because engineers can reach the moon. Tell me. What wisdom did the engineers find on the moon?

>>15197616
engineers aren't the problem, theorists claiming access to infallible truths are

the epistemological view of what an engineer does is constantly test theory while being unrecognized by the problematic theorists who are embarrassed at their lack of real contribution and lash out at anyone who doubts them (which includes every true scientist, because science is the application of doubt)

>>15197616
I have yet to see any evidence of this alleged "knowledge" of the philosophers. Science has answered countless questions in the last 200 years. Philosophy hasn't found a single conclusive answer or produced any useful result in over 2400 years. Show me that "wisdom".

>>15197553
so the basic form of a hegelian dialectic is
>P is true
>not-P is true
>ackshually both P and not-P are true
complete nonsense, right? now review the proof of gödel's first incompleteness theorem.
>G is provable
>not-G is provable
>G is true in the intended model and false in other models

>>15197718
Except that you don't need Hegelian nonsense when you instead go straight into logic (a field of math).

>>15197734
if you'd actually gone into logic it wouldn't be nonsense