/sci/ - Science & Math

Explaining why things work is part of explaining how things work.

Philosophy does nothing more than circle jerk whether or not the system in question even exists.

>>2246144
Do you believe science offers a better chance of finding the meaning of life, if such a meaning exists?

Science is 50% philosophy and 50% maths

>>2246144
>>2246150
You two probably have very different definitions of philosophy.

Science started with philosophy, i think so, maybe im just dumb.

I had a philosophy teacher that put it a good way: all the sciences and maths are derived from philosophy and logic. In my opinion, science and math are, and excuse the metaphor, the natural evolution of philosophy, therefore offering better answers for how the world works.

Of course, to answer your question about the why aspect, I'm not sure. Science and math don't explain why so much as how, which is, in my opinion, more important.

You could try looking into philosophy for the answer to why, but Jesus, it's all still just your choice on what you agree with. Philosophy isn't exactly on agreement with itself, obviously, since there are so many specific philosophies(s/p?).

>>2246159

Philosophers like to think so.

Scientists generally don't.

Since it's all just mincing words, anyone who tries to say science is/isn't a philosophy is probably trolling.

Still, even if you adopt the view that it is, it has certainly made more useful predictions than all of the other branches of philosophy, and deserves a special classification.

I think science is a good way to try and find the answers to life's greatest questions then just thinking, but there isn't a "meaning of life" field of science.

Philosophy isn't just the post-modernism faggotry most phil majors take today. It is any way of asking or answering any question about anything.

This is why the P in science phd stands for philosophy. Science is a method based on the application of the philosophical concepts of logic, naturalism, and empiricism.

>>2246147

The purpose of your life is to survive and reproduce. There is no higher purpose of existence.

>>2246159

The church was the main source of scientific and medical discovery during Darwin's time

Barbershops in the early 1900's used to do surgeries too

Things change greatly over time

I think science and philosophy are/ought to be related in this nature- Scientific idea-philosophical conclusions
philosophical idea-scientific evaluation of idea.

On that note, is nihilism the philosophy of science, or some kind of atheist existentialism? I hate to generalize, but the consensus seems to be that science shys away from theistic explanations.

>>2246177
Well that isn't a purpose, it's an instinct. I doubt that if I don't reproduce i'm not living correctly.

>>2246173

This is actually true

I always forget that university philosophy programs and philosophy majors are the worst of the worst.

We have so many first year philosophy majors here this is the reason philosophy gets curb stomped and intellectually sodomized so much on this board.

University philosophy is nothing more than a giant circle jerk infected with political correctness and a liberal bias.

I don't think anyone dislikes it in the classical sense, but the "SO DEEP, LIKE WHAT IF WE DON'T EVEN EXIST, STOP HOGGING THE WEED" makes other science majors hate them

>>2246180

nihilism, would be the equivalent of atheism over a religious point of view.

Now imagine a world where everyone is religious and there´s suddenly one atheist.

That is how the nihilism looks like in our days. Because we all, i think so, enjoy thinking and building toughts.

>>2246197
So basically existentialism is for faggots?

>>2246197
Including a solipsist in philosophical discussion is like including a flat earther in a discussion on geography. Sure they have an opinion on geography, but that opinion contradicts...well geography...

>>2246197

>other science majors
>other science
>implying philosophy is a science

After the evolution of science in the 20th century, the way philosophy used to work is outdated. Philosophers had the same interests as scientist: Leibniz or Descartes were both things.
I think that if you can study the structure of the atom, why sould you bother making up methaphysical speculations? Of course, philosophy is very diverse and wide but methaphysics are the most sterile area nowadays IMO.

I'm worried by how much utilitarianism is starting to influence scientists.

>>2246197

They are the dark to your light - their mind deals with abstractions, feelings, intuition, yours and others in the fields of science demand rigidity and that which is measurable and demonstrable.

Could a scientist produce great works of prose like Faulkner or Beckett? Probably not. Could Beckett or Faulker caluclate the orbit of a planet? Unlikely.

They complement one another - they find you just as irritating and nonsensical as you find them.

>>2246214

Don't just leave that there. Elaborate.

>>2246212
A philosopher would probably ask you why study atomic structures before asking if there is a purpose to doing so

>>2246217

We build their electronics and perform their life-saving surgeries.

They produce [occasionally] interesting hypothetical situations.

It's not quite so down-the-middle in terms of importance.

>>2246220
That's the part of philosophy that never will be outdated ("what should I do?" = ethics). Also, epistemology ("what can I know?").

>>2246136

>Science explains how things work
it can also explain why (the appearance of)things behave like they do.
>do philosophy and science ever mix?
Philosophy is the highest form of knowledge to reality, It can doubt things that seem obvious in the first instance.
This agnostic way of thinking corrolates and can help with the implementation of sceince.

>>2246220

I guess he can stop using technologies produced by pure research, then.

No more GPS or optical storage, for starters.

>>2246222

>philosophy is the highest form of knowledge to reality

wat

>>2246218
Well generally when scientists look into morality they use utilitarianism. I understand that for many it's just a working definition of morality but the notion that what is moral is what promotes the well being of the most conscious creatures seems baseless.

>>2246180

Nihilism is the antithesis to existentialism - it is the result of the implausibility of old frameworks for ordering the world given the knowledge we've gained in the areas of science - theories began to emerge towards the end of the 18th and 19th centuries that suggested that the religious interpretation of reality was no longer a viable one - if we remove God form the equation, we must also rebuild that which crumbles without it as a foundation, namely the Western concepts of morality and meaning. From where do we derive meaning and learn to behave morally in a world without God?

That is the problem that existentialism attempts to solve.

Anybody who describes themselves as a nihilist has no idea what nihilism is.

>>2246235

Anyone who describes themselves as a nihilist didn't read your wall of text, either.

>>2246230

o_O

>>2246230

>>2246244
I read and enjoyed his wall of text. it seemed fairly intelligent.

>>2246230

O_o

:)

The only branch of philosophy that I really enjoy is logic.

>>2246221

I'm glad you've found a way to objectively measure what is and isn't important - I would be ever so delighted if you would share with us your great insights into absolutes.

If I had to choose between living in a world without great works of art, and living in a world without the potential for sophisticated technology, I would simply refuse to choose. Modern medicine is undeniably useful for prolonging one's life, but ask yourself, do you eat to live or live to eat?

>>2246248

I read it three times and didn't feel any better for the effort.

>>2246230
The thread has been derailed

>>2246255
It didn't really answer the question, just explained why he thinks nihilists are gay

>>2246244

>wall of text
>one paragraph

That's pretty funny.

>>2246253

Fucking simple. Eat to live, then live to eat if the coast is clear.

Similarly, the first thing any society needs is technically minded people and blue-collar workers. Only then do we need navel-gazers and poets.

Science is just applied philosophy.

The way /sci/ feels about engineers is how philosophy feels about science.

philosophy clarifies problems and questions by analyzing what we mean by certain words and how we reason to conclusions.

for instance, philosophers have been carving out the basics of consciousness for hundreds of years. it lays down the fundamentals, creates models and language games to use to describe Consciousness and its phenomena...eventually when we are done with the big questions, we'll give it to the scientists and engineers to figure out the trivial details.

>>2246259

I know, I was impressed. It's like a Someone Else's Problem field all rolled up into a hundred words.

>>2246253
Very good point. Importance is (apparently) completely subjective.

>>2246260
>implying you didn't miss the point of what he said

philosophy is the highest form of knowledge to reality

>>2246253
Sophisticated technology is an art.

>>2246279
>attempting to make the discussion "what is art"
NO

>>2246260

>Fucking simple.

If it were so simple you would not have anybody dispute that you have chosen the appropriate answer, an answer that will undeniably vary depending on who you ask. Personally I live to eat.

Besides, there are societies that exist without any sophisticated technology but still lead meaningful and existentially-fulfilled lives - most elegetarian societies don't have to worry about poverty or depression, although they are succeptible to eradicable diseases and do not possess any kind of acute understanding of the universe in mechanistic terms - but so what? Their societies have aspects that are to be admired, namely self-sustainbility and a deeper understanding of the self as a part of the whole, and so too do our societies - our technological acheievments are unriavled and we have been able to apply them to many problems and make our quality of living must better, but at what cost? The West has no conception of limited resources.

>>2246287
So it's subjective to say some things are worth more others, but art is supposed to be objective. Don't think so.