/sci/ - Science & Math

hawking is a gay

>>2261930
No, he didn't.

Source or GTFO!

>>2261941
First page, line 12.

If Hawkings is so smart how come he can't walk?

>>2261946
Nope, first page, line 12, says:
"OP IS A HUGE FAGGOTY TROLL"

http://www.peoplesworld.org/philosophy-is-dead-asserts-stephen-hawking-in-new-book/

>>2261952
Your move.

I'm wondering: how does Hawking take a shit?

>>2261961

>Phil hasn't kept up with physics, isn't the same shit as phil is dead

>>2261967
He piles it up, then publishes it as "scientific literature".

>>2261969
>Traditionally these are questions for philoshophy, but philosophy is dead.
>philosophy is dead
>philosophy
>is
>dead

>>2261967
Ask your mom

>>2261969
You must be either seriously dyslexic or a troll.

>>2261969
not me

>>2261969

yeah, we should've seen some kind of quantum philosophy or something..i guess hawkee there is just poking the body..
maybe she's sleeping?? ;_;

>>2261974
Wait, what? my mom isn't disabled and neither am I

Stephen Hawking is emo

>>2261930
ITT: Underage kids who don't know enough about phil, math, science, or physics, to have an educated opinion on the interplay or progress between them.

Ya'll flock to the views of a few pop scientistS, and practically worship them. Ya'll are just as fucking bad as creationists.

Hawking may have said phil is dead, just as chemists often say physics is dead. It is all opinion though. Any field that still has active research cannot really be considered dead in any concrete sense.

(Physics and Math grad by the way)

>>2261982
But she deals with shit alot, no?

>>2261994

HEY!......i'm not underage......

>>2261994
>No argument
Try again

good thing he goes back on every theory he comes up with

This is silly. He's just become so enamored by his field that he has developed this narrow viewpoint that's so prevalent in the world. I know you guys all love it, with your God tier, High tier, etc. crap. Anyway, I don't know the full context of it, whether there's more to it than the little bit I could find, but from what I did find it seems that Hawking is spouting such ignorant babble at this point that I, for one, see no reason to acknowledge him anymore.

Saying philosophy is dead is silly at best; realistically, it is the sign of an uneducated fool.

>>2262009
Why would I try and argue with someone who reads "pop hawking books"......LMAO.

The fact that you read that nonsense, instead of actual scientifc journals, proves you are not qualified for debate againist me.

Pop science = shit teir

You should just go back to watching the cosmos or some shit....HA HA

>Hawking stated it in no uncertain terms: Philosophy is dead.
Good riddance.

>>2262026
Not him, but the fact that you are spending your time posting shows you are willing to post something. Your lack of an argument therefore can only mean you have no argument.

>>2261994
>chemists often say physics is dead
no they don't most of the work chemists do is centred round the work of physicists and all of them know its all just physics

philosophy is different unlike chemistry it often asserts its self as superior to science because it can reflect on the concept of the scientific method
now with quantum mechanics, TOE's and neuroscience we can answer the questions once reserved philosophy with true merit
philosophy is dead its realm of questions which cannot be answered is shrinking at an exponential rate and now mostly consist of rhetorical nonsense and obscure ramblings thought up so they couldn't be disproved by science

>>2262053

These threads make me so sad. I will give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just trolling. If you seriously hold an opinion like this guy >>2262053 you need to sit down, shut up, and start thinking, because you haven't been doing a good job of it so far.

>>2262053
Actually they do.
Most chemists don't need to physics. Modern chemists don't even need much of Quantum Mechanics. All they need are the Molecular orbital thoeries and shit. They are all approximations, but they workd good enough for chemists.

>>2262070
wow with an argument like that no wonder people say your time is up
when will you people get it don't post here if all you gonna say is
"HERP you dnt get it"
it doesn't add anything to the discussion so just save yourself some time and fuck off
or respond properly with thoughtful input

>>2262053
I used to be 12 too. One day you will grow up.

>>2262087
umad he called you out on your horse shit?

>>2262087
Do you even understand why philosophy is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

>>2262084
>implying there is one kind of chemistry
>implying physical chemistry doesn't exist
>implying the various models used in chemistry weren't derived from models within physics.
Orbitals, hello. What are you? High?

>>2262084
you missed the point
yes most chemist don't use the Dirac or Schrödinger because they're too complex to the solved completely so they use approximations
but science isn't about watching chemical reactions and stamp collecting its about why without that you wouldn't get most of the innovations and deeper understanding we have today

and ask a chemistry professor how important is physics next time before you jump in

I'm still thinking.
Me 1-0 Steve

also, descartes>Hawking

>>2262099
>Implying you know wtf you are talking about

All you need to do is memorize a couple of orbital models in chemistry, you don't need to derive that shit (physics). Hence they don't need to know physics....DURRRR

>>2262099
Do you derive the volume of a sphere from basic Euclidean geometry everytime you need it it? Or do you just take it as a given?

Chemists can take a huge amount of shit as a given, and don't need to actually perform physics.

>>2262115
So mathematics is dead because physicists don't prove every mathematical theorem they use every time they use it? Are you high? Mathematicians don't even do that.

>>2262099
>>2261930
>implying there is one kind of philosophy
>implying philosophy of physics doesn't exist
>implying the various models used in science weren't derived from models within philosophy.

Scientific Method, hello. What are you? high?

>>2262123
>Failed to understand the point

Hang in there bro, maybe one day you will grasp basic logic and reasoning.

>>2261930
Not a minute too soon. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. But like a motherland, it's been surpassed by its colonies.

So why should we guess and partake i word games when we can study the subjects first-hand?

Pic related, Thomas Metzinger. A natural philosopher, studying the mind.

>>2262128
There are more than one other posters in this thread anon. You must think that there is only one because you seem to be assuming some other posts are mine. The post you linked to implies none of the things you suggest.

>>2262138
nicely said

>>2262138

I will say this as clearly as I can:

You. Don't. Fucking. Know. What. Philosophy. Is.

>>2262115
But what are they dependent on when using those approximations? How are they able to use those approximations? Would they have "given shit" if it weren't for physicists?

>>2262157
butthurt much

>>2262137
That post applies perfectly to both arguments.
It retorts the OP silly understanding of shit, and shows >>2262099 the logical fallacy you run into if you assume phil is dead.

Saying Phil is dead, is just as nonsensical as saying physics is dead. However, you could make arguments for both, if you wanted to.

U trolling? Are just really really stupid?

>>2262160
Your first few questions need to be worded better to make sense.

>Would they have "given shit" if it weren't for physicists?

Actually yes, alot of those models were developed by chemists, as a way of bypassing physics models (and the huge amount of calculation required)

Would we have the scientific method if it wasn't for philosophy? Would be know geometry is it wasn't for mathematics?

I don't understand you fucking point? Do you even have one?

So does /sci/ see Philosophy as a science. I say it could and should be

Lol I swear you're all autistic.
If it was dead there would be no active research in the field, phil isn't dead it has just been shot in each foot. Useless, but theories from all fields will continue to be used in scientific advancements.

>>2262196
Nope

But this thread is probably the closest thing 4chan has.

>>2262207
there's still alchemists and druids but those fields are well and truly dead

I give up. You're all fucking morons.

>>2262237
>there's still alchemists

WTF? is there some well known journal of alchemist research I am unaware of?

>>2262247
It's called string theory now. Both require things to be made up of vibrations and both have 10 spatial dimensions

>>2262247
not well known no that's one of the reasons its dead but there are still people who research it there is the International Alchemy Guild (IAG) who have a journal

this little godless cripple gets way too much credit for his hypotheses

>>2262017
agreed, with the following change: "overeducated fool"

>>2262260
>not well known

Well thats a shame, cause to do reputable science you need validation by your peers. It is kinda one of the basic tenents of modern research. Without proper peer review, published material is meaningless.

You can't just make up nonsense, with you friends and publish a small pamplet every year....LOL

>>2262273
and therein lies the peer pressure trap; you agree with my conclusions, i agree with yours, we both get funded, everyone wins.

except the actual truth.

>>2262273
and that's my point the per review process in philosophy is highly subjective and not nearly scrutinised enough

>>2262271

I guess I should have clarified that a little. I wouldn't say over-educated though. To me, education is comprehensive. What I should have said, I suppose, is that it is the sign of "a undereducated, overspecialized fool." Maybe that's a little closer to what I'm aiming at.

>>2262278
The exact reason tenure does the opposite of what it's meant for

>>2262260
>Implying you have ever read an philosophical journal, or know WTF you are talking about

LMAO

>>2262288
>Aspie scum detected

Try that next time

>>2262296
>implying philosophical journals are worth reading instead of abrasiveley removing the excrement remains from my anus.
>implying there isn't a wealth of fantasy fiction that I have not read because i have no interest in readin make believe rubbish

>>2262311
>He has no imagination
>He will never accomplish anything of importance

I don't give a damn about what he says, Philosophy is still alive.

There's your fucking disscusion.

>>2262317
>implying important accomplishments are acheived only through reading irrelevant and unneccesary forms of literature.

>>2262288
oh, i quite understand your point; in this particular fellow's case, however, i believe he has educated himself to the point where he is now an unaware fool, spouting nonsense about universes creating themselves via gravity and attempting to mirror Nietsche's "God is dead" statement that so shocked people in the last century.

Come to think of it, equating philosophy with God is foolish, as philosophy is necessarily limited to human understanding, whereas God is not.

>>2262311
>Implying you havent fucking proved my point

You and OP assume that phil has to be held to the standards of science. Just as Hawking does.

It fucking doesn't though. Their review systems don't have to be a quantitive as science. CAUSE IT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE.

You cannot hold every discipline up to the standards of science, when some don't even take science as a given.

I wish the people who publish that stupid fucking fairytale book every year (the bible), fact checked that shit with legit historians. That shit is unaccurate as fuck, yet they say it is true. Why? (They have much lower standards)

>>2262369

>>2262356
You can have ideas/thoughts, that are not limited to human understanding?

I think you fail at basic logic bro.

>>2262387
>Doesn't understand what 'mad' means?

If you think that is 'mad' you need to lurk more.

OP's brain is dead

>>2262388
Where can I get one?