/sci/ - Science & Math

People are retarded. You should know that by now

People don't like feeling inferior, so they either attack what makes them feel as such or they attempt to twist their insecurities into some kind of boon.

I agree, and although im not very interested in other science subjects besides maths, i do admit that theres just more to talk about in them.

Philosophy is full of opinions and views that make good conversation, maths is very black and white.

Philosophy
>I think this
>Cool, but I don't agree really agree
>Oh well :3
>:3

Math
>I think this
>Well you're wrong.

Okay, I'm getting the expected responses, thanks guys. I thought my post may have a bit odd and worded bawwwwww and incorrectly.

Can it be more abstract. Not just 'math/science' vs 'philosophy/psychology'. Just logic and reason instead of ignorance in general. I understand some things are personal and such. But so much just seems little piles of insecurities and ignorance. Never openly admitting being wrong because it's weak. Never admitting someone's higher than you on whatever level because it's defeating apparently.

Isn't that kind of 'defeating' self reflection a good way to grow as a person and thinker? Instead of just being ignorant and 'I'm awesome, they're wrong, it's them not me' that so many people seem to adapt?

Oh look, another thread on /sci/ where no one understands what philosophy actually is.

>Yet it seems all everyone wants to talk about is Philosophy and Psychology, regurgitating some paper or textbook.

If this were true, that would be cool in my book. But "FEELINGS AND YOU DON'T GET ME" =/= philosophy and psychology. I fear most people are even more vapid and idiotic than you make them out to be.

>>2564677
Do you really think logic and reason aren't part of philosophy?

you can discuss philosophy using logic and math.
Math alone can't be discussed, it's not an opinion. It's just pure math. It's right, you can't express an opinion on something.

Philosophy is an opinion instead, and is a good topic to converse.

You are in the wrong here imho.

>>2564682
>>2564686
Not in normal day to day stuff. That's why I tried to shift it in my second post.

People think they're talking about them. But it's just bullshit circle logic and restating the same thing 100 times in different words, subtle ad hominem and attacking semantics rather than actually moving forward.

You can't use logic, proof and feelings in these DEEPLOL conversations. Because it offends people.

>>2564698

Mathematics and science were born from philosophers. Also, I'm not sure I really understand what's at issue here?

I simply think equating math/science with "logic and reason" and philosophy/psychology with "ignorance in general" is hopelessly misguided.

And some of the theoretical foundations for mathematics might be more contentious than you presume, although this rarely matters much.

Philosophy applies just as much reason and logic as mathematics, but you can't really "prove" philosophy in the same you can prove an equation or formula. I can state my stance on a particular philosophical topic, and back that claim up with mountains of evidence, but all it takes is a different world view or even just general disagreement to declare my stance invalid. In math, things are the way they are; no arguments.

>>2564707

This is a weak argument for Philosophy. In either case Philosophy and Science aren't well defined back then. So it's not that Philosophy created Science more like everyone was an ignorant shit so still studied Philosophy.

What has Philosophy done recently? Shit.

>>2564707

Evidence isn't logic. You either base it on logic or evidence, not both. Also, Mathematics has axioms, applying it to logic. Philosophy is just some dumb shits arguing about zeno paradox when that been solved by Mathematician two hundred years ago.

Philosophy is not logic or reasoning. It's masturbating over semantics and stupidity.

Philosophy is an humanities. Lol what a joke.

>>2564704
>I simply think equating math/science with "logic and reason" and philosophy/psychology with "ignorance in general" is hopelessly misguided.

It wasn't what I was trying to imply with my posting. Once again, why I tried to shift away from it.

However is it not kind of true that an ignorant and foolish man can feel content and 'right' in Philosophy and grey studies? Yet it seems math you need to be true and logical. I'm not trying to argue it... just promote discussion.

Isn't there some saying or such? That any good ancient Philosopher worth his salt would be an engineer, mathematician, or physicist in today's society?

>>2564707
>>2564718
In math, axioms are defined rather arbitrarily, although you can show that certain sets of axioms are equivalent to other sets of axioms and so on. The thing though is that math is basically "IF system(axioms) THEN results". Philosophy tends to discuss more general things, especially about potential axioms from which to derive things, however the problem is that in many cases it ties to subjective things within (or outside of) reality. Math itself is derived from philosophy, however that's only as far as its roots (and fundamentals) are concerned.

Since the axioms in math are usually defined and abstract, there's usually no arguing over them (except maybe if you find an equivalent set of axioms which you think fit better, in which case you prove it and be done with it). This makes math fairly abstract, but it also makes it very solid enough and allows for clear reasoning within that system.

Philosophy on the other hand talks about more abstract things such as what constitutes valid reasoning and why, possible systems and their implications and so on. It's a lot softer since it sometimes deals with issues which cannot possibly be known, are too basic in themselves or are subjective.

However, the fact that philosophy is softer, doesn't mean that it holds no value. There are a lot of interesting questions that may be pondered upon and philosophy helps shed some light on them. Math also has some fairly abstract, but interesting areas which will probably never be of any practical use outside of the ivory tower, however those questions are themselves of much interest to those asking them, just like those philosophy questions (except, in math, you can at least reason about things... unless you're asking wether PvsNP or something too ill defined).

But won't neuroscience and picking apart how the brain works eventually make Philosophy and such 'soft' things obsolete? Isn't Philosophy just grey like Religion? I suppose Philosophy has much less concrete this and that conclusions. You know what I mean though right? That grey. I'm happy you guys bring it up. People seem scared of it.

I've discussed it with people and often I get 'laziness' in why people don't like to talk on such things. Personally I feel it's much more lower and fear based. Just how people are scared of uncertainty and that grey. It's uncomfortable and unsettling. Doubt, insecurity, etc. People don't like to feel such things. So they pick their black and whites and be on with it.

>>2564739

Can you give an example of an Ivory Tower field of Maths. As for example, aesthetics is a piece of shit and crap and has no place in Science or Maths.

Yet a shit ton of Philosophy is that crap.

Also, Philosophy in most cases isn't Maths. They aren't taught proofs, they aren't taught Physics. Philosophy students know shit about QM or General relativity. There Maths skills are weak as shit.

Also, that's a misinterepretation of Maths. Firstly, you ignore meta mathematics, that gets around that problem. In metamaths you can speak about stuff that is true regardless of axioms. Secondly, Mathematics is not subjective in it's meaning.

So fuck off. Physicist think you are joke, Mathematicians think you are a joke. You don't belong in this forum. Fuck off to /lit/..

There is a reason why Philosophy students most of the time end up unemployed or working shitty jobs that pay shit. Because, they are fucking stupid and useless.

>>2564756

No, because philosophy impacts how people live their lives and how governments run themselves. Whether or not the human brain is mapped out will have no impact on whether democracy is a better form of government than socialism, for example.

>>2564771
>>2564718

ITT: autism

and poor writing skills

>>2564771
Well, the thing is that even if something does not have direct practical applications (it's just pure math), these parts of mathematics do improve the rest of math, so they are useful, just not in a practical sense.

But okay, let's take a quick look at some parts of math:
- Group theory -> Major improvements throughout other mathematical fields; pure applications: some crypto, impure applications: quantum mechanics.
- Abstract algebra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abstract_algebra_topics Not many direct applications, but again useful overall.
Most Calculus/Analysis has direct applications, as it was originally develope to help in Physics (Newton's fluxion calculus, although we don't really use that as Leibniz's is much nicer)
- Various topics within topology (although, some do have applications within theoretical physics).

Just go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mathematics_topics and look at applications listed.

I'd say math in general is pure and it only has applications when you find something similar enough to it in reality.

>>2564798

Nice ad hominem.

>>2564794

That would be like religion. A socialist state would be like a religion. So would be a heavily captalistic state.

In either case, political science has taken over that. So Philosophy is redudant here.

>>2564811

we're not engaging in an argument, i'm just calling you a faggot

>>2564812

Nice ad hominem again. a

You're wrong about at least one thing, OP.

Everyone is smart enough to do math or science.
You are correct in saying that it is a motivational problem.

>>2564811

In your original post, you grouped
>Philosophy and such 'soft' things
together.

In this post,
>>2564811
you distinguish between philosophy, and religion and political science, i.e. other 'soft' things.

Are we talking about the merits of philosophy as it's handled by institutions of higher education (which seems to be the way you're going with this, because this is probably just degenerating into another "my degree is better than yours" dick-waving contest), or the merits of 'soft' things, i.e. humanistic thought?

>>2564756

Haven't bothered reading this thread, but saw this on the front page;

> But won't neuroscience and picking apart how the brain works eventually make Philosophy and such 'soft' things obsolete?

There's something called "Psychologism" within ethics and epistemology, where they've been trying to take philosophical problems into the realm of psychology.

There's a lot of armature philosophers who has been trying to do it with ethics, but their arguments are so shallow and odd that they can't be taken seriously. Someone made a book named the moral landscape or something similar that's pretty recent. But get this; the guy majored in philosophy and later took a Ph.D in neuroscience, so he has a pretty good understanding of how the brain works and at some lesser philosophy. But his book is just really, really shitty philosophy, and has no substance whatsoever. He even admits this in an interview that he will look "the other way" from the counter-arguments to his book that was written before he was born, because he believes philosophy is to hard for him.

And it's full retard in the epistemology section; there's people who want to say "No, we don't take a philosophical position, we're doing psychology", and when asked how I can have knowledge of that I've an apple in front of me, they'll say "It's because the apple caused my senses so sense an apple", something that's an okey answer when you're dealing with perception psychology, but retarded when calling it epistemology since you're begging the question/based on circular reasoning, it's already called non-fundamentalism and are a philosophical position, and have loads of counter-arguments terminating the position.

Also, let's clear up a few misconceptions floating around in here.
Math is not science. It is used in science. It is extraordinarily helpful for science, but it is not science. It is mathematics. Does this make it not as good? Fuck no it doesn't.

So what is science? Well, it's a process for understanding the natural world based on evidence and the resultant body of knowledge.
Physics, chemistry, biology, and yes, even psychology qualify as science.
Engineering is not a science (but maybe I'm mistaken because I am not as familiar with what is specifically required in that field. As far as I can tell...) it is the application of science. It uses and relies heavily on science. I am not saying that it is bad or not good, or less than science, the same way I said about math.

Scientology and Christian Science are not science, and I think we both knew that. You can't just slap "ology" or "science" onto something and say it is scientific.

Philosophy doesn't qualify as science. Again, this doesn't make it bad and evil or less than science. It just means it isn't science. It considers more than the natural world, bases the conclusions on logic phrases, but not necessarily on any evidence.

I wish people would stop getting so huffy when things aren't considered science. Most of the time, I do not think people mean those statements in a bad way.

Also, whoever said something about using logic or evidence, but not both, in science, is wrong. Science is based on evidence, and inferences made upon that evidence. How do you think those inferences are constructed? In a logic-based format. "If X then Y."

>>2564840

The only reason these position exist is because some people, for some reason, seems to have some kind of fucked-up agenda about trying to terminate philosophy as a subject. Not that I really mind, it's always important to incorporate and consider ideas you haven't heard before, but they would probably make more use outside the philosophy department and at their own fields. Let people who know what they're doing. You wouldn't let a plumber fix your car, would you?

> Philosophy
> Soft

Soft sciences is riddled with variables. Harder sciences has fewer. Philosophy is probably as hard as you can get.

Anyway, philosophy will never be obsolete because there will alway be needed people who understand how science works, what there is to say about logic, and how rational thinking works.

the important thing is that you found a way to feel superiors to others
oh and speaking of logic and sense, your post doesn't make any
>arguments eventually derail from logic and turn into FEELINGS AND YOU DON'T GET ME
see your post
>Philosophy..Not thinking just spewing out shit
you share a lot with the people you describe
>It is a the root of someone many things
nigga please

>>2564847
>to feel superiors to others
>to feel superiors
>superiors

>>2564809

Did you know that binary algebra was done by a guy just for shits and giggles long before computers were an inkling of possibility?
So then, when we started using vacuum tubes and dealing with binary systems, some guys were like, "SHIT! We don't have to figure out all of this algebra! Fucking awesome."
So, even if a particular subject in math doesn't currently have a practical application, it may in the future.

>>2564844

>be needed people who understand how science works

Those people are called scientists. And I believe the general population should also understand at least the basics of the nature of science.

>>2564844
>Philosophy is probably as hard as you can get.

Ohh wow...LMFAO

>>2564816
Maybe if you paid attention to philosophy you would know the difference between an ad hominem ARGUMENT and plain abuse. Ad h: you are wrong because you are an ignorant blowhard. Abuse: you are an ignorant blowhard and that's why you should hate yourself you disgusting piece of shit.

captcha: herforea Turing

you know, Turing loved philosophy, and he's as much responsible for the invention of the computer as anyone else. so fuck you.

>>2564840
I would add, "psychologism" applies to mathematics equally well to mathematics as to philosophy (see Frege vs. Husserl), which is to say, psychology fails to substitute for philosophy as much as it fails to substitute for math.

This thread is derailing into a shitstorm.

Too bad. =/

But I need to stop wasting time here anyway.

>>2564771
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20012034
Why don't you try knowing something about what you're talking about? It might help you avoid sounding foolish.

>>2564858

But most people majoring in, say, physics, don't get an education in scientific theory/philosophy of science. And knowing that, that's the difference between someone studying science and someone doing it. If it wasn't for that study, we would still be going believing Freud was a good psychologist and that modern physicists saying "nothingness is inherently unstable" should be taken seriously.

Imagine it as the difference between artists and art critics, where the former just do their thing, while the later knows on what grounds to judge their work.