/sci/ - Science & Math

Science is strictly for answering empirical questions, it doesn't answer moral or aesthetics questions although it can inform them with facts. There is still plenty of use for philosophy.

>>2624336
But then, philosophy never gives conclusive answers to those questions, it merely asks them.

sage for un-/sci/-relatedness

>>2624341
implying science gives conclusive answers.
implying philosophy is just "asking" questions.

>>2624336
>it doesn't answer moral or aesthetics questions
Neither does Philosophy

>>2624336
This is more sci-related than 50% of the threads here.

>>2624315

Your arrogance astounds me.

If we'd said that at the beginning of the 19th century, we'd have no psychology. At the beginning of the 17th, no chemistry. At the beginning of the 14th, no biology.

Don't talk shit.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy

>>2624348 Neither does Philosophy
You know that Aesthetics and Morality are some of the largest fields of philosophy right?

Don't confuse philosophy with the herpa derp "Is this real life" post modernist garbage that many modern philosophers waste time on.

science is philosophy, philosophy is science.

>>2624351
None of those scientific fields came from Philosophy. Psychology was only possible because of the advancements in medicine and Chemistry emerged from Alchemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=1h2m50s

>>2624315

Science has no meaning without philosophy. I would rather live as a animal with meaning, than a robot with shackles.

"Philosophy is stupid," he says, as he walks into his work place like a slave.

>>2624443

are you high?

the meaning of science is to understand and gain control over the natural world. wtf does philosotardy have to do with that?

>>2624446
And from where does it inherit that meaning?

>>2624446 gain control over
That would be engineering.

>>2624336
"There is still plenty of use for philosophy."

Give us one application of philosophy, that couldn't be fulfilled by any other field, and is quantifiable beneficial for the human race.

Anyone can think of a use (mostly turning a degree course into a 4 year babysitting exercise) but give us something useful that only philosophy can provide.

>>2624443
true...but any philosophical insight beyond the most basic questions has been slowly exiting itself out of most of the world.

>>2624459
Evaluate which is more important: The life of a ten human children or the life of Steven Hawking.

>>2624449

from the basic need to stay alive in an every changing and increasingly harsh environment.

again, philosotardy has nothing to do with it.

>>2624451
for the purposes of arguing against philosotards, we can pretend science and engineering are the same...ssshhh

>>2624467

answered right here:
>>2624465

ask your self how many philosophy majors do we need to answer that question. furthermore, is a "philosopher" more qualified to answer it than a regular person?

>>2624467
>>2624467

????????

How does answering that question help anyone?
And who said that question even had an objective answer?
or any other answer?

Now, answer my previous question with a statement please.

>>2624315
No. With the rise of computer science, the field of logic lies, once again, completely open.

>>2624475
Never has it been claimed that philosophy is objective, that anything is truly or objective, or that something must be objective to have value.

Here is a more clear question:
You are in a burning building. You can save either a child, the Mona Lisa, or a brilliant physicist. After performing the action you must present a logical argument to justify your action or you will be accused of selfish action and this will lead to a war.

>>2624468
Basic needs require no science. I assume you are referring to basic civil needs. Yes, science is required for medical fields and all things resource related. Everything else science explores or understands in its own nihilistic way is not of any importance whatsoever. Philosophy addresses the "Why" we need need medical fields, etc. Without the "Why?" then having these fields is normal and never changing, as if 2011 years ago people were thinking about having things like it permanently rather than temporarily; which is incorrect. People were ill and people we confused, that is no longer so, and thus, if anything was to leave it would be science, for it is no longer required; well, the current self-proclaimed science that makes the world go round.

>>2624501

again, ask your self how many philosophy majors do we need to answer that question. furthermore, is a "philosopher" more qualified to answer it than a regular person?

what makes you think any average person couldn't answer that question? do think somebody is gonna just sit around in a burning building pondering logical arguments? they do what they think is right, then explain what they thought afterwards. any choice could be backed up by honest commonsense.

>>2624366
>You know that Aesthetics and Morality are some of the largest fields of philosophy right?
His point remains. Philosophy does not answer those questions.

>>2624506
this is dumber than fuck.

basic needs require no science? really? this might be true if you live like animals in the wilderness of equatorial jungles. anywhere else, you need science. and if you think a philosopher is required to understand why we need medicine, you're fucking higher than kite or have down's syndrome.

>>2624510
You're no different from the animals in the wild, and you don't see them wearing white coats studying the science of things. In fact, all beasts are purely philosophical, humans are the only worldly species with the ability to 'decay and renew' for scientific purposes. Anyway, I have a lesson to attend to. Remember, snake, I'm much smarter and wiser than you.

>>2624507
See
>>>>2624366 Don't confuse philosophy with the herpa derp "Is this real life" post modernist garbage that many modern philosophers waste time on.

I'm defending philosophy as a concept, not philosophers themselves or anything else. Of course any average person should be able to answer that question. The point is that philosophical questions like that cannot be answered with a field of science, and they frequently need to be answered.

>>2624513
>You're no different from the animals in the wild

This is where you are obviously wrong.

>>2624514
>The point is that philosophical questions like that cannot be answered with a field of science, and they frequently need to be answered.

Then why not just call them "ethical questions" and simply jump the whole philosophy term? Politicians keep answering these kinds of questions all the time as part of their job and they don't have a degree in philosophy.

>>2624518

>they don't have a degree in philosophy.

PPE is rather popular amongst most prominent politicians.

They don't have science degrees, that's for sure.

>>2624518
When someone attempts to answer a moral question what they are doing is called moral philosophy. Philosophy is "the study of problems". Professional philosophers spend their time on abstract problems like the meaning of life, but that does not mean basic mundane problems are not philosophical.

When someone with no art school experience plays with paint and paper what they are doing is art. When someone with no philosophy education entertains "philosophical" problems what they are doing is philosophy. Education is not relevant to the fundamental concept.

>>2624532
Most politicians only studied law actually.

>>2624534

They might have studied it at some point, but they did proper Law. IIRC, you need a degree in a related field to study Law in most western states. Like Obama, he did History, International Relations and Politics before doing Law.

Wikipedia:
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]"

I'd claim the 20th-21st centuries the most important to philosophy in the history of mankind.

>>2624559
I judge it by its predictive powers, which are nonexistent. The comparison to art is actually pretty good. Just like art, philosophy is something to entertain your mind with, but it's ultimately too subjective to have any universal merits.

>>2624568

Art fuels design and structure. Without Art, there wouldn't be any designers or architechts.

I agree. These people who take courses in art and think they can draw and paint are silly. People who take it seriously, study at good institutions and apply themselves well get enjoyment and a career out of it.

It's the same as someone taking a 1 year electrician course and calling themselves an Electronic Engineer.

>>2624568
>Art and philosophy have merits but are not universally accepted.

>>2624572
>Without Art, there wouldn't be any designers or architechts.
Design and architecture have uses way beyond artistic expression. There's a practical application for both, so even if we somehow got rid of art, we'd still have designers and architects, just out of necessity.

1: Scientific method is a philosophy.
2: We're not philosophical zombies, we're not robots, we're living feeling understanding sapient beings who dream and hope and love. Stop being soulless scrotes before you turn me into a solipsist.

>>2624579
I have no idea why you felt the need to rephrase what I said. The "not universally accepted" part was already implied when I said it was too subjective.

>>2624585
You don't know what the word subjective means.

A mad scientist threatens to destroy the universe if you don't rape your child. Do you rape your child? More importantly, am I a philosopher yet?

>>2624586
Don't even start with this shit. Present an argument, or shut up.

>>2624590
Datsum deep shit right there. I don't see why this couldn't be answered just as well on a purely scientific level, though.

>>2624467
That's easy, calculate the probable potential value of all the kids and compare with the present value of Hawking.

I think you will see that Hawking will have higher value.

>>2624580

>There's a practical application for both, so even if we somehow got rid of art, we'd still have designers and architects, just out of necessity.

Except if you got rid of art as a whole, the people who were that way inclined wouldn't go into design and architecture because they would have no art skills to base their study on.

Artists, musicians, philosophers and writers are the scum a modern society doesn't need. What we need are engineers, physicists, doctors, mathematicians and so on.
I don't fucking understand why people who daydream all the time are respected by society. All they do is producing some emotional touching shit and still they don't even contribute to the future of mankind. They think life is hard but they wouldn't want to learn handcraft because they think they're better than that.
People like them are as useless as priests and other faith supporting ''jobs''.
Nobody needs them. Everyone can live without them.

>>2624615

>>2624607
That's debatable, given that architecture is highly influenced by physics and geometry. But either way, I'm not denying that artistic interest is a *huge* motivational factor for people to become designers, etc. in the first place. I'm saying it's not the *only* factor, and if art as a whole were to disappear, we would still have people designing things, simply because our lives (or at the very least our conveniences) would depend on it.

>>2624585

"subjective" implies deviation from a universally accepted context. The rewording just gives everyone more options without imposing too much.

pomo philosophy marks the decline of society into decadence

anti-philosophy based around passive-aggression and self-pity used to justify the existence of gods and the state.

it's not what philosophy is or should be

freedomainradio.com

>>2624370
Except all modern science used to be philosophy until the scientific method was applied. Philosophy creates the fields of knowledge that later form into scientific disciples.

>>2624679
disciplines*

>>2624516
What's the matter? Too deep for you?

Philosophy was useless before the 20th century too.

>>2624768
Says the senseless robot insect.

Do we have to do this shit every goddamn hour?

I love irrational, ignorant, autistic /sci/fags that have nothing better than to demonstrate their ignorance.

I'm starting to suspect /sci/'s hate of philosophy is either a meme or a strawman for post-modernism.

>>2624772
Name on useful thing philosophy has done.

I don't hate Philosophy, but it is useless.

>>2624855
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

>>2624859
And we have a winner.

>Implying thinking that your life has meaning makes it true

>>2624859
> implying cavemen without any concept of philosophy didn't have logic
philosophy degrees are all indoctrination about why philosophy is something it isn't

>>2624886


Stop dumping your fap folder, bro.

>>2624873
>implying you don't use syllogisms in science
Logic isn't inherent, let alone the formal logic employed in academia.
10 quid says this guy is a first year economics student. Scientists usually aren't this stupid.

>>2624893
So where did philosophy hop in? And why doesn't studying something so fundamentally easy make you a retard

>>2624902
Your aggressiveness betrays your ignorance. It must suck not knowing how exactly you're ignorant; it must suck even more studying a scientific field without having a good grasp of advanced logic.

Read Bertrand Russell if you ever get your head out of your ass, he seems to appeal to science types.

>>2624891
You seem mad, snake.

>>2624908
Have you ever read said book. Why being unable to give examples doesnt make you a retard. Its time to Logic Up philosopher

>>2624913

>>2624917
Who said I was a philosopher? I'm in grad school studying gerontology, I studied biochem for my undergrad. Philosophy was my minor, but I'm a scientist through and through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell's_views_on_philosophy

Read this, kiddo, and stop making yourself look stupid.

>>2624923
Have you ever read said website. Why being unable to give examples doesnt make you a retard. Its time to Logic Up gerontologist. Not everybody is going to read that link so it leaves you looking retarded to observers

Philosophy subverts, challenges, and undermines the very assumptions that our society is based.

Philosophers are trouble makers in the formulation of ideas. they pose a threat to the status quo and lead us to question the common sense presumptions of our everyday practices. fr from being a bad thing, this is exactly why philosophy is valuable - because our seemingly simple language and actions also hide within them numerous contestable concepts and uses that reflect fundamental disagreements about the nature of how we live and work together.

So yes, you can concern yourself the purely practical activities of the day. You might even believe that this is morally superior and justifiable over and above philosophy because it is concerned with achieving certain ends and using certain methods. But I suggest you are neglecting something crucial. Just like the very nature of the words and phrases you use are polysemic, so to are these certain ends contestable. And even the methods by which we achieve those ends, how are these reached with consensus? So sure we can strive all our lives to carry out those practical means but only after we recognise the value for value of theory - that all practical endeavours have a theoretical basis - can we know that we will deliver those practical ends with vigour and fidelity.

>>2624930
Nope, haven't read your website. I've already given an example, which you've been unable to refute other than saying "well derp, everybody knows how to logic!" - which is probably the lulziest statement in this thread.

Might want to work on that grammar by the way, you sound like you're 14.

Philosophy is self-important shit. Case in point, see above.

>>2624933
Can you name a philosopher who has done that

>>2624939
inb4 marx wasn't an economist

>>2624939


Not that guy but I heard of a Philosopher who demanded we treat animals like equals, including prosecuting them for crimes. Recent, too.

>>2624939
Marx
Aristotle
Socrates
Russell
Bentham

Wait, why am I responding seriously?

>>2624459
Human rights.

Anyway. Science is a kind of philosophy.

Philosophers and scientists basically ask the same questions : How is the universe ? Why is it like this ?

The only difference is the way of answering it : scientists only use facts.

>>2624939
Aristotle
Plato
Roger Bacon
Sir Francis Bacon
Rene Descartes
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
George Berkeley
Bertrand Russell

- and that's excluding many scientists that also wrote on philosophy, which would include Newton, Galileo, and even some of Einstein's papers.


No self-respecting scientist rejects philosophy, in fact, many of them contributed to the development of philosophy.

>>2624315

No.

Philosophy withdrew into it's own academic shell, this was a catastrophe on a few levels:

- It is no longer respected because people don't understand it (nor try to, ignorance makes things simpler)
- It is no longer respected because it is no longer tied to Science, no longer furthered by the tyranny of science
- Modern Scientists grow up knowing nothing of philosophy, they are barbarians in a modern world

Feyerabend bitches!

>>2624939
St Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Pierre Bourdieu, Jerome Bruner, John Dewey, Michel Foucault, Paulo Freire, John Holt, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Maria Montessori, Alexander Neill, John Henry Newman, Robert Owen, Richard StanleyPeters, Jean Piaget, Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rudolf Steiner, Lev Vygotsky, and Mary Wollstonecraft

>>2624960

>scientists only use facts.

Not always.

Just because science "proves" something using its own laws doesn't make it true.

>>2624971
>>2624962
>>2624950

Status:TOLD

>>2624987
define truth?

>>2624998

I don't have to if I'm not the one presenting something as truth.

Most scientists actually do very little. Only a dozen or so have actually achieved anything, the rest is just copying and arguing

good job throwing out a ton of names none of which show you are correct

>>2624998
If you're attempting to debate someone that accuses science's assertions of being false, that's probably the wrong tack.

>>2625010
then you didnt understand >>2624933

>>2625008
Confirmed for a troll, almost every single one of those philosophers match the criteria in >>2624933.

All you can do at this point is argue from ignorance, because you're too much of a dumbass to wiki-fu a name or two.

Sage this thread, he's no science major.

>>2624987
If the theory they used is only based on facts then whatever they prove is truth.

The problem is that there is no science only based on facts : they all use axioms.

>>2625014
I don't think it's me that misunderstand that post if you think it means "blindly disagree with everything even if you're arguing against yourself".

Contrarian != subversive

>>2625018
again unable to give an example instead of hiding behind links

>>2625033

All of those philosophers did exactly what you said they didn't.

You're a complete retard.

>>2625041
eg marx did not. he set out goals and had economics deliver a solution and used books to gain popularity. where is your philosophy now.

>>2625033
Aristotle proposed empiricism.
Roger Bacon created the background of the scientific method
Sir Francis Bacon fathered empiricism
Descartes revolutionized rationalism, extremely important philosopher in the development of science, wrote on mathematics, disagreed with the necessity of a God

I could go on, but honestly, it's not worth my time. If you've even graduated high school, you must have taken the science class that covered the development of the scientific method by various philosophers.

philosophy lies behind everything that is said or done. To deny that is assert that these actions have no relevant temporal or spatial context in their creation. And to assert that is to undermine the very same practical efforts that you claim to valuable without philosophy.

>>2625066
You are arguing for the usefulness of philosophy by attributing steps any retard could have taken to it. Good job on logic.

Nothing wrong with philosophy.

Philosophers on the other hand

>>2625078
0/10

>>2625051
The value of marxist contribution to any discussion isn't what they explicitly propose - communitarian living or whatever else - but in how they questioned the way in which we live and organise our societies.

>>2625078
Both hold science up as a lofty, almost divine concept, and call its development "retarded"?

Bravo my good man, you really know how to push /sci/'s buttons. I would have said you're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I'm now aware that you were merely pretending to be the dumbest person on 4chan.

>>2625078
Okay so, accepting this, philosophers = any retard.


that's true to an extent. Anyone can engage with philosophy when they start to ask the right questions. Not just how things works, or what purpose it serves . but why it came to be that we've accepted it, especially over alternatives.

that's why most if not every philosopher you come across will have a 2nd 3rd or 4th occupation. - social reformer, politician, educator, mechanic, physicist, novelist, etc etc

thought experiments are the methodology of philosophy.

and theory of knowledge/epistemology? try having AI without it.

also for you mathfags hating on philosophy, this man would like to have a word with you.

>>2625310
not a mathfag here, who is zat?

>>2625336

kurt godel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

>>2625310

in modern times the computer scientist and mathematician know way more about logic than most philosophers do.


philosophy is important, i agree on that one. however i would prefer for scientists,mathematicians, lawyers etc. to also be philosopher than having people who only study philosophy at uni.

>>2625500

its true, and i agree. philosophy on its own is fucking useless. the lack of rigor in the field is disgusting and disturbing. too many kids spouting vacuous bullshit about value and ethical systems.

i, however, am attempting to counteract this apparently inevitable plague i would be otherwise bound to catch by studying both phil and pure math.

Karl Popper disagrees

Without philosophy we would not have logic, ethics, science, or laws.

Our society would crumble into an anarchic state of brutality and oppression.

>>2625113
>>2625078
samefag

>>2625825
>>2625113
samefag

>>2627619 Eh, no, you didn't. You presented piss poor fallacies and then fucked off, when people called you out on them. You're a dumb, delusional, science-hating motherfucker.

So some guy thinks that support of the concept of philosophy is anti-science.

You want to finish this debate?

>mfw George Berkley
>mfw universal perceiver
>mfw 'cogito ERGO sum'
>mfw most any half shit philosophy idea

>>2624347
there is inconclusive questions

>>2627647
What "debate", you pompous fuck? Your position was that science is for answering empirical questions, while philosophy is for answering moral or aesthetic questions. When people pointed out that philosophy doesn't actually *answer* any such questions, you kinda stopped presenting arguments.

U WANNA FINISH THIS DEBAET?? Fuck off.

argumentation comes from philosophy.

>the thread is closed for today.

philosophy is the Austrian economics of thinking

>>2627675 . When people pointed out that philosophy doesn't actually *answer* any such questions, you kinda stopped presenting arguments.

I didn't post arguments against this because it was too stupid to take seriously. You neither understand what science or philosophy are. Philosophy is the study of problems. This is a process which leads to systems for answering them.

Obvious example: What is and is not science? Answers have been provided by philosophers Popper and Kuhn.

When a philosophy test is multiple choice, there are no wrong answers.

>>2627733
Spoken like someone who has never actually taken a philosophy test. There are plenty of wrong answers in philosophy. It's figuring out what answer even has the possibility of being right that's the trick.

"The influence of mathematics on philosophy has been both profound and unfortunate." (Or something along those lines) - Bertrand Russell

You can't have science without philosophy, as that is where the ideas, the big questions, come from.

>>2627713
thats not an answer tho. Theres more than one definition of what Science is and no ways to prove which one is good. Philosophy can't answer any question, its fucking retarded. Go to hell faggot.

>>2629870
The facts which science discovers are as close to objective as possible, but science itself is a purely human (philosophical) construct. As such all definitions of what science is are human constructs. The definition of Science is not like the mass of an atom which you can empirically verify, all you can do is come to a consensus.

The lack of objective verification of philosophical concepts does not make them useless. Even man made concepts need to be defined and debated. When someone argues that creationism is a science which should be taught in classrooms you just shove the definition of science in their face.

Philosophy major here;

>Science
>Philosophy

I see nothing about either of those that makes them mutually exclusive.

Now, that self-indulgent, useless crap like what is the meaning of knowledge or what happens when an immovable object is hit by an unstoppable force is useless, but it's not like any credible philosophers are running around saying that life must be put on hold until we find the answers (in fact, David Hume stated (whether explicitly or not, and where, I don't know) that, despite his take on Empiricism and causality in "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" we should not go around applying his understanding of causality to the real world)

I'd like to see how people who agree with OP reconcile the philosophical problems of various methods of constitutional interpretation by using the scientific method.