/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6417634
WTF? Does everything have to be a search for truth?

master trole 2014 XD

I agree with him, which is why we should do away with the Copenhagen interpretation

>>6417644
Are you a Mathematician?

⇒philosotards getting told

Why is Dawkins so BASED?

>>6417647
No? I study analytic philosophy. But i still think that continential philosophy has something to offer us.

>>6417657
>I study analytic philosophy.

That isn't his twitter account.

Also philosophy doesn't search for truth or seeks knowledge, it examines the concept of 'truth'.

>>6417657
⇒I study analytic philosophy.

In other words: you shitpost on anonymous internet forums by making excessive use of rhetorical fallacies

>>6417662
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but there is no post you could have made that would have more quickly demonstrated how little you know about the subject. Analytic philosophers are people like Bertrand Russel, Gottlob Frege, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Guys that were mathematicians and logicians. Most of them were logical positivists, aka the biggest champions of science outside of a lab room.

But you probably just read the word "philosophy" and chuckled at how that must mean you're smarter than them because you are half way through your first year as an engineering major, right?

>>6417684
⇒ad hominem

And here we observe the great argumentative skills of a self-proclaimed "analytic philosopher". Instead of bringing forward a rational and well-thought-out point, he resorts to infantile shit flinging. Why use arguments when you can just call the opponent "ignorant" or an "engineer"?

Great job, dumbfuck. If it was your goal to make philosophers look like socially inept drooling manchildren, you succeeded.

>>6417684
Haha, im the guy. Thanks for fighting my battle.

>>6417644

Now if you work in law, marketing, or PR.

>>6417674
In other words its a load of horseshit

>>6417696
Since youre obviously the smartest guy here, can you explain to us with a rational and well-thought-out point why philosophy is stupid?

>>6417644

Not if you work in law, marketing, or PR.

>>6417696
Well, first off, I'm not a philosophy student, nor do I plan on ever being one. That said, we're on 4chan, do you seriously expect the rigor of academic debate? If someone's being a faggot, I'll call him a faggot even if its independent (or even detrimental) to the line of thought I'm drawing.

And if you're going to be pedantic, there were multiple times you resorted to ad hominems in your own response. In fact, that seems to be the bulk of your argument. That is proper use of a logical fallacy, basing one's position around it. Used to complement a point and it is just a communication tool, because the argument survives without its assistance.

But if you want to actually have a conversation on the merits of the analytic philosophers, which I have no training in beyond what I pickup in browsing, I'm open to that.

>>6417674
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/334656775196393473

Its verified

>>6417707
⇒Since youre obviously the smartest guy here
I'm the smartest person here, but not the smartest "guy".

⇒can you explain to us with a rational and well-thought-out point why philosophy is stupid?
Philosophy is dead. It's obsolete. It died in the 19th century. Every meaningful inquiry is done by science and math. All that's left to philosophers is empty talk. But empty talk requires not qualifications.

>Continental Geography?
>What nonsense!

>>6417730
⇒even if its independent (or even detrimental) to the line of thought I'm drawing.
And that's why you suck at debating.

⇒there were multiple times you resorted to ad hominems in your own response
Cool story, Captain Obvious. Tell me more about how you didn't understand my sarcastic imitation of your rhetorical ineptitude.

>>6417749
We have a mad fedora here, tsk, tsk, tsk.

>>6417748
>hills in africa are somehow different from hills in asia or europe or SA or NA

>>6417739
>Philosophy is dead. It's obsolete. It died in the 19th century. Every meaningful inquiry is done by science and math. All that's left to philosophers is empty talk. But empty talk requires not qualifications.

We know you're a troll, but I'm curious as to what's your criteria for meaningfulness?

>>6417730
Don't bother. You're not getting a rational response out of him, he's a troll making these philosophy threads.

>>6417818
How am I a "troll"? Because I'm posting something you dislike for emotional reasons?

⇒but I'm curious as to what's your criteria for meaningfulness?
Only questions which can be settled by experiment or logical proof are meaningful. That means scientific questions are meaningful and metaphysical garbage is not meaningful. Why do I even need to explain this to you?

I'm a neuroscientist, and I can tell you philosophy has its place.

People like Graham Priest, for example raise very good points defending dialetheism.

I think empirical science is impotent when it's used as anything but a tool. It's function isn't to derive metaphysical conjectures. The Platonic need for "Truth" needs to be do away with, since many things are simultaneously both true and false.

>>6417828
I'm neither a "he" nor a "troll" and I'm not OP.

I'm a neuroscientist, and I can tell you philosophy has its place.

People like Graham Priest, for example, raise very good points defending dialetheism.

I think empirical science is impotent when it's used as anything but a tool. Its function isn't to derive metaphysical conjectures. The Platonic need for "Truth" needs to be do away with, since many things are simultaneously both true and false.

>>6417841
Nobody needs "metaphysical conjectures".

>>6417831
>philosophy
>not logical proof

>>6417843

Many scientists make implicit metaphysical claims when enumerating their experimental findings. Such things are good to avoid.

Neuroethics, for example, is a growing field. It's something I'm not involved in, but I see the value in it.

You need to stop with the "me vs. you" mentality.

>>6417843
Nobody needs "Quantum Field Theory".

Nobody needs "Calculus".

Nobody needs anything that isn't hunting, gathering, finding caves, or sex.

>>6417749
I'm pretty good at debating actually, but no one here is trying to do that (except perhaps you, an if that's the case , you aren't that good yourself). This is an anonymous image board. We're discussing.

>I was just imitating
K. Not the stuff of formal debate, which was the charge you lodged against me in the first place

>>6417849
Philosophers deny logic.

>>6417854
Why so anti-intellectual, anon?

>>6417856
Nobody cares about your dilettantish meta-analysis. Post an argument or GTFO.

>>6417857
Metaphysical claims don't belong in science.

>>6417868
>Why so anti-intellectual, anon?
I was exaggerating the stance I disagree with in order to illustrate my own actual stance.

>>6417872
You failed to do so. You made yourself look like a fool while not providing any argument.

>>6417868
>Philosophers deny logic.
All the work in philosophy was made in order to assign logic to the surrounding world, people and so on.
Educate yourself.

>>6417868
>Philosophers deny logic.

>>6417868
>Metaphysical claims don't belong in science.
Whoops, looks like you just made a metaphysical claim!

>>6417831
>Only questions which can be settled by experiment or logical proof are meaningful. That means scientific questions are meaningful and metaphysical garbage is not meaningful.

So your position is just that of a logical positivist?

You do realize logical positivism is a philosophical school right? You do realize any talk of criteria of 'meaningfulness' falls into the purview of philosophy right?

Finally, you do realize logical positivism has been discredited since the middle of the last century right?

/checkmate

>Why do I even need to explain this to you?

Because Socratic method. By having you give your position you expose yourself to attacks.

>>6417875
The argument was a combination of
>people benefit from a lot of things they don't realise they need
and
>humanity's understanding shouldn't end where your ignorance and laziness begins

>>6417873
There is no logic in metaphysics. There is no logic in ethics. Only empty talk and "muh feelings".

>>6417878
No, I didn't. I posted a fact.

>>6417880
>philosophy is only ethics
Go back to troll boot camp, you failed miserably here.
>>>/b/

>>6417880
>No, I didn't. I posted a fact.
>he doesn't realise that making claims about what Physics /is/, is to take part in metaphysics
I pity you.

>>6417883
You're probably wasting your time. People like him will respond with the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, screaming
>can't see it, isn't there
and then claiming intellectual superiority over you for doing so.

>>6417831
see
>>6417432

>>6417868
Global rule violation: no shitposting outside /b/

>>6417881
"Muh feelings" is not an argument. Try again.

>>6417883
I don't give a shit about your straw men buzzwords. Address the point I made or GTFO.

>>6417885
I made no claim. I posted a fact.

>>6417886
Of course ethics isn't philosophy. Philosophers fail to solve ethical problems and whenever they talk about ethics they talk out of their ass just like everyone else who talks about ethics.

>>6417892
You didn't even bother reading the thread.

>>6417901
>I'm right you're wrong la la la

>>6417901
You are the reason we can't talk about philosophy on 4chan, even if it had its own board. Idiots who think they understand everything, parading all their claims as facts, and everyone else's arguments as "trolls" or "bullshit".

>>6417904
⇒posting a reaction image instead of an argument

Go back to >>>/b/

>>6417909
>using the wrong quoting symbol
>>>/somethingawful/

>>6417909
>posting a load of arrogant drivel instead of an argument through the entire thread