/sci/ - Science & Math

i agree because its true; only science is useful quantifying and describing reality

>religion is fairy tales

I agree with everything, because science is the only one that explain things using arguments that actually make sense.

Philosophy is not a word game but something that led to science.
Philosophers taught us to use reason to understand things like Socrates and Rene Descartes.

So it is not a word game unless you are talking about modern philosophers.

>religion is fairy tales

This just sounds like herp derp atheist

>>2651006

Astrology also because astronomy, but that doesn't make astrology a science.

>>2650893
Become a post-human that access to better ways of describing reality than mathematics and science.

There's Wikipedia.

>>2651014
Science is all about reason. So since philosophy is about reason - it gets credit.

Astrology and astronomy has planets and orbits in common. Not the same.

philosophy is more a logic game than a word game.

>Philosophy is word games
>my face when I agree

>>2651036
>your face when you were gay and went to hell for being gay

>>2651043
>>2651036
Wittgenstein is bad and you should feel bad too.

>>2650893
Science is a philosophy.

What /sci/ largely thinks is that the only acceptable method, philosophy if you feel, to learn about observable phenomena is science. Anything else is shit.

>>2650893
Epistemology is philosophy
/thread

>>2651006
So you think that religion is more than fairy tales?
And what makes modern philosophers different from ancient ones?
If you need to read the words of dead men to understand that the only reason to believe something is because there's evidence supporting it you're in need of help.

>>2651047
>>2651043
>>2651036

Why is Wittgenstein bad? TLP is wrong for many reason but PI is great work.

>>2651054

They dont know what epistemology even is. There is so little knowledge about the actual philosophy of science within the sciences. It should be required for every single PhD in both the hard and soft science to take classes on the history and philosophy of science. It would increase the useful knowledge obtained by scientific investigation substantially, imho.

>>2651081
Let's not talk about objectively true math or shit, for the love of goodness, please.

Some people just have a different opinion of what is the philosophy of science. And then there are trolls like the OP.

>>2651072
Because he was gay and gay=bad.

>>2651056
Modern philosophers are playing word games like John Dewey, Klein, Mcdowell, etc

Ancient philosophers actually had a "love of wisdom" which is what philosophy means in greek.

>So you think that religion is more than fairy tales?
Perhaps.. I am just open to it. I don't want to be part of the atheist circle jerk here.

What dead men are you talking about? Are you high?

>>2651087

That is esoteric and non essential to nearly all scientific investigation. I am talking about plain research methodology and how stat really works. As well as lessens on rigorous experiment design in the social sciences.

>>2651103
Oh, in which case I fully support that. The /elementary/ school needs more critical thinking emphasis, which is the basis of science. Namely, how do you know something is true? How do you distinguish true things from false things? Ergo, "science!", at least for observable phenomena.

>>2651087

even with or without objectively true math there are plenty of blatant subjective errors in many funded and published scientific studies. Reading Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos could help assauge this significantly. Scientists should understand what gives science epistemological power and the limits of objectivity.

The bullshit you see in philosophy and religion is present in science in its own way. You're as much a partisan to 'science' as the people you criticize and philosophy/religion. You're very naive.

>>2651122
How so? Do explain.

>>2651081
>>2651103
I really don't see why you would need philosophy to decide what good research methodology is. If it's worked well consistently in the past it's probably good.

>>2651122
>>2651130
Yes, it is true that humans are susceptible to "group think", but at least science is better about it than religion when science says that the evidence trumps the group think. Science is the best we have. It's not perfect.

Next!

The problem with science as an end all and be all solution is that scientists are human, and therefore prone to mistakes and bias. You can prove anything you like using statistics and carefully adjusted experiments (e.g. acupuncture works in Japanese studies, but not in American ones).

Add the decline effect, and things get even more confusing.

>>2651137
>but at least science is better about it than religion when science says that the evidence trumps the group think

Nope, not at all. Scientists are hella biased. May have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of scientific studies is sponsored by someone, and if you want to get money, you better come to a conclusion that pleases this someone,

>>2651137
This. Totally agree. I would hope that those in science don't just agree because of "group think".

>>2651146
The fact that scientists are human and flawed makes science no better than religion? Seriously?

>>2651133

Logic is philosophy so is academic mathematics

inb4 everything is philosophy and op is a troll

>>2651180
Nope. inafter. See:
>>2651050

Go and read Logicomix

its a graphic novel about Bertrand Russell's search for the foundation of mathematics. It is great and really shows the need for philosophy in math and science in a manner that a non-logician or non-philosopher of science can easily grasp.

>>2651167
No, the fact that science is basically all bias makes it so.

I know you don't want to hear this, but it's true nonetheless.
1. Scientific studies are usually funded by someone, and the scientists want to please their employer or they'll live on the street.

2. The bias of individual researchers is almost hilarious. No matter on what subject, you can almost always find two studies that both seem valid, yet conclude the exact opposite of each other. It's all about which groups you choose for your experiment. I could easily "prove" that homeopathy works by selecting people who are especially susceptible to placebo effects, for example:

Group 1: Susceptible people, treated with homeopathy (will say it works even if it doesn't work)
Group 2: Hypochondriac people with chronic pain, treated with school medicine (will say they have pain even if they're on opiates)
Group 3: Internet skeptics, treated with placebos (will always say it doesn't work if it's a homeopathy study)

>>2651207
You have a rather warped view of how science is actually practiced.

You know, you're posting using a computer, right? Which was made with all sorts of inventions, largely funded by the private sector, right?

So what you gonna do when in 50000 years science has explained every little bit and humans have evolved to a point where it's natural to seek knowledge but since there is no more knowledge to seek and they lost the capability to be spiritual and philosophical over time they kill themselves. bam bum bidam.

>>2651219
It is not going to happen.

>>2651207
>>2651207

Wat. The "proof" you're talking about is actually rhetoric. Sure the priorities of scientific research are ever-shifting and in the main led around by politics and money, but that doesn't somehow invalidate sound methodology and hard data.

>>2651219
Problem solving/engineering.

I agree so far.

>>2651219
>>2651219
>spiritual and philosophical

lol

Science can only make models using the evidence that we have. This only works when you have specific variables and mathematical quantities. Everything else that isn't that and that claims to be science is bullshit.