/sci/ - Science & Math

>Important for examination of ourselves, ethics, aesthetics

>Need it for making laws in our society

>Long outdated for getting close to the truth about the nature of matter- ancient philosophers had neither the instruments nor the math

>Bretty good but can be tryhard

You can't have without scientific method, which you can't have without philosophy of science, which you can't have without epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy.

Most philosophy is a bunch of shit though, because they fail to treat it like a science.

>because they fail to treat it like a science.

/sci/ pls

>>6485790
>Long outdated for getting close to the truth about the nature of matter- ancient philosophers had neither the instruments nor the math
>implying we already know everything

>>6485813

Not implying that. Note that I said "for getting close to the truth".

>>6485813
>>implying we already know everything

Evidence demonstrates that we have reached the bottom of the barrel. I'd like to know what future almanac you reference that says otherwise.

>>6485822
And that's how every "modern" try to philosophize is put down.

>>6485829

Because philosophy is just the glorified debate of semantics. Not facts.

>>6485831

That's a pretty narrow view you've got there, Anon.

>>6485831
>Not facts.
Just like the assumption we'd know everything.

>>6485838

Just because you would rather live in a universe where things cannot be understood doesn't make that the case.

>>6485843
If we would understand anything we would be able to predict anything. What's time then.

>>6485846

So reality cannot possibly be this way, because life would be boring.

Sorry? It is possible to know everything in the universe. It turns out it's not a whole lot.

So is there anybody who knows why Richard Feynman hated philosophy to death?

>>6485851
edgy. Also this >>6485854

>>6485851
>So is there anybody who knows why Richard Feynman hated philosophy to death?
Because he was a physics genius and a luddite in other fields.

>>6485851

Philosophy looks for questions. Science looks for answers.

He saw it for what it is. A pointless waste of time.

>>6485858
>Philosophy looks for questions. Science looks for answers.
You can't give answers if there are no questions.

An answer without a question is meaningless.
A question without an answer is pointless.

>>6485871
>An answer without a question is meaningless.

Said no one ever.

/sci/ doesn't understand philosophy. It assumes all of philosophy is a bunch of stoners sitting around trying to figure out the nature of the universe while lacking the discipline of learning a hard science to aid in figuring it out. Most philosophers worth their salt, ancient or modern, are well versed in the science of their time and understand the problems that faced contemporary scientists. They're not generally concerned with the mechanics of natural phenomena, but about the larger picture of the nature universe and existence (and also a pretty large tangent about the existence of God). Science is purely empirical, but empiricism is not the only legitimate form of inquiry and philosophy covers the rest of it. It's called 'meta'physics for a reason.

Basically, science tries to figure out what causes what, while philosophy tries to understand the nature of causation. If, as a scientist or an empiricist, the questions of philosophy don't interest you, that's fine, but that doesn't mean they're not legitimate.

>>6485878
I'll give you an answer without a question.

42.

This might be the most important number ever to discovering the theory of everything. But where does it fit?

>>6485884

42 isn't a question. Please stop using science fiction from a doctor who writer.

>>6485889
I said it was an answer, not a question.

>>6485890

>philosophy is not the debate of semantics

Sure seems to be from what you're saying. So it's not question or answer, it's context now?

This is just nonsense. It's a person needing a car taking credit for the invention of the gasoline engine.

>>6485899
Educate yourself
>>>/lit/

>>6485878
Example: lasers
totally meaningless, stil can't do anything with the shiny little fuckers

>>6485883
>It's called 'meta'physics for a reason.

"The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define. Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken. The word ‘metaphysics’ is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up “Aristotle's Metaphysics.” Aristotle himself did not know the word. (He had four names for the branch of philosophy that is the subject-matter of Metaphysics: ‘first philosophy’, ‘first science’, ‘wisdom’, and ‘theology’.) At least one hundred years after Aristotle's death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) entitled those fourteen books “Ta meta ta phusika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—, the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle's Physics." from SEP

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

>>6485889
illiterate

>>6485883
>>6485966
cont.

Consider: most of the Greek you know today is part of our academical language, but back in the days it was people's every day language.

And saying this as a phil-fag I have to partly agree with him >>6485831

BTW: captcha: doctrine

This discussion is philosophy

>>6485831
>Because philosophy is just the glorified debate of semantics. Not facts.

Even as a philosophyfag what you're saying there is more often than not true.

>>6485964
>totally meaningless, stil can't do anything with the shiny little fuckers

We can mount them on the heads of sharks. That makes them awesome.

Philosophers are just punsters in blue.

They need to dye.

>>6486088

>>6485851
he had a low iq

>>6485770
I'll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/tl4VD8uvgec

There's no math involved so it's shit.

>>6485831
Tell me a single thing that you can insure is true. Name me a "fact".

A scientific fact has the same value and truthfulness as a philosophical fact.

Science is based in axioms, which you cannot prove to be facts.

>>6486159

For a closed system, in any arbitrary process of interest that takes it from an initial to a final state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, the change of internal energy is the same as that for a reference adiabatic work process that links those two states. This is so regardless of the path of the process of interest, and regardless of whether it is an adiabatic or a non-adiabatic process. The reference adiabatic work process may be chosen arbitrarily from amongst the class of all such processes.

Go ahead and say that's wrong. The purpose of philosophy is to stick it to the people actually learning things.

>>6486161
Sure thing. That's how science works.

"Human rationality is infallible". Science is based on that. It's limited to our brain's rationality.

>>6486171

Actually science does everything possible to remove the human element. Can you demonstrate with mathematics how thermodynamics is wrong and then prove it with an experiment that produces infinite energy?


Oh, there i go again being infallible, i'm sure maths are just a human construct an that F=MA has no real grounding in the world, hoop qualia lol!

> What does /sci/ think of philosophy?

>>6486171
actually science has the humility to say that our understanding of the world can be changed and that we are fallible creatures. all it takes is major evidence going against a theory or hypothesis for it to be disproven.

>>6486177
Read Nietzsche

>>6486189
read a basic science textbook

see how we can both do that and nothing gets accomplished?

>>6486189

Happiness comes from power. You believe yourself superior to all of science and that makes you happy.

>>6486188
>all it takes is major evidence going against a theory or hypothesis for it to be disproven.
This doesn't work in practice because scientists are humans with ideologies. Old disproven theories die very hard.

>>6486180

>>6486189
phil-fag here, read Kant, read German Idealism, read Neo-Kantianism (e.g. Helmholtz) then you have a grasp of what Nietzsche was referring to in his time.

Furthermore, you have to consider that Nietzsche himself studied Classical Philology.

>>6485831
Lol actually modern philosophy has been all about demonstrating that meaningless arguments about semantics plague public discourse. Clearly you don't know very much about modern philosophy, otherwise you would know that it has a close relationship to the foundations of mathematics, theoretical computer science, linguistics and cognitive science. Take for example the work of Alfred Tarski. He's a philosopher, and his work essentially covers or relates to all 4 of these subjects. The Undefinability Theorem is one of the cornerstones of modern mathematical logic. Saul Kripke is another great example. His work is also relevant to all of these subjects. Kripke semantics and Kripke Set Theory were significant contributions to mathematics and logic.

>>6485770
/sci/ is an imageboad, how can it think of philosophy?

>>6486253
It is an imageboard, that is to say... a beehive image board fulfilled by its constituents

>>6486148
Math is applied logic, in turn applied philosophy. Philosophers look down on you like you look down on physicists.

>>6486269
You got it the wrong way round. Logic is a field of math. Ever since logic has been formalized in the late 19th century, research in logic requires a math degree. Philosophers don't understand logic. Most of them fail their mandatory logic class even though it is already dumbed down on below CS level (don't ask me how this is possible).

>>6486251
⇒modern philosophy has been all about demonstrating that meaningless arguments about semantics plague public discourse

Have you ever read contemporary "philosophy of the mind"? It's the worst semantic shit flinging one can imagine. They literally go "I define free will/consciousness/qualia like this because muh feelings and if you disagree your a poo poo head".

>>6486274
As opposed to "I define free will/consciousness/qualia as non-existent entities and never talk about them again because of all of my equally non-existent evidence"?

>>6485790
⇒>Important for examination of ourselves, ethics, aesthetics
Aesthetics are being researched scientifically in math and psychology. Ethics are not an argument in favor of philosophy. In all the millennia philosophy existed it has never ultimately solved even a single ethical problem. Philosophers talking about ethics are talking out of their ass just like everyone else talking about ethics and their arguments are no better than "muh feelings".

⇒>Need it for making laws in our society
Laws are made by politicians. They are based on economic interests and common sense.

>>6485851
Because it wastes time without producing results. It is consuming resources while holding back progress.

>>6486159
Academic philosophers don't deny science or the factual existence of reality. You are not a philosohper, you're an uneducated teenager talking out of his ass without any knowledge of philosophy at all

>>6486284
This is literally straw philosophy.

>>6486269
Math is applied philosophy as birds are applied ornithology.
You don't need philosophy to do math, unless you define philosophy = thinking about stuff in a formal way.

>>6486278
⇒straw man

>>6486292
>⇒
You are literally the cancer killing this board. All your posts are shit.

ok, my view might be a little simple, but I've always thought philosophical work almost everytime tells more about the nature of the author than about the nature of the thing/phenomenon being described. It's always interpretation of one's observation. On the other hand, math/physics are trying to describe things within the framework devoid of anything 'human'.

Still, that doesn't mean math/physics are ultimate tools, describing things 'as they really are'. it's just best what we can do. I don't think there is a way to know whether we really see and describe the universe the way it really is.

>>6486292
It's not a straw man. It's literally the situation. There's no exaggeration.

I agree philosophy of mind is about asserting a bunch of shit without evidence, but that also goes for its critics who assert that philosophy of mind is pointless also without evidence.

>>6486289
That is literally what philosophy is you fucking faggot

why does everyone think that philosophy is just "muh ethics muh god"?

>>6486304
If all thinking is philosophy, then the word "philosophy" is redundant and meaningless. Protip: Your definition of philosophy is wrong and you're grasping at straws because you're uneducated as fuck. Philosophy is a very distinct academic discipline. Distinct from your uneducated teenager drivel and distinct from science.

>>6486308
"Thinking in a formal way" and "thinking" are different things, don't try to change what I said m8

>>6486308
>Distinct from your uneducated teenager drivel

Philosophy is literally nothing but uneducated teenager drivel.

>>6486315
le bait face

>>6486300
Saying that philosophy of mind is pointless is not the same as claiming that qualia etc are non-existent. The latter is a stance within philosophy of the mind and is known as eliminativism. Discussing such shit is truly pointless, for these questions are unanswerable, the beliefs untestable and the problems unsolvable. Keep metaphysics out of science.

>>6486292
⇒ad hominem
⇒projection

>>6486318
>problems are unsolvable because I say so
>all things I say are unsolvable should not be discussed
>my tacit metaphysical standpoint doesn't need to be questioned, and anyone pointing it out is "doing metaphysics" and should shut up, because I'm obviously just right
wow

>>6486319
It's the truth.

>>6486318
>the problems unsolvable
Gonna need a proof on that brah

>>6486321
Metaphysical problems are designed in such a way that they are unsolvable and unanswerable. If it was possible to solve them, then they wouldn't be metaphysical. Instead they would be topic of logic or science. And I did not take any metaphysical stance. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

>>6486324
Definitions are not theorems and therefore don't require proof. Metaphysics means it cannot be solved or answered logically or scientifically.

>>6486308
Its really just a means to an end and that end is organized philosophy. In the west it manifests as religion which can get quite radical, in the east more just a system of dialects and synthesis. A form of biological degeneracy that leads to stability in an unstable world. The height of intelligence is instinct, philosophy just mental masturbation usually by powerful men with too much time on their hands.

>>6486325
>more assertions
>im rite ur rong
nice evidence bro

>>6486330
It could be solved in a completely novel way that doesn't involve our current understanding of science or logic. Without opinions or emotions.

>>6486330
Metaphysical stances can be disproved logically if they're not internally consistent. And their purpose is not to "be right", but instead to encourage different kinds of thinking which lead to ideas about the physics which may or may not even be concievable otherwise. (e.g., the stance 'reality actually exists' is pretty much necessary in some form for someone to end up being motivated at all to decide to actually try to investigate reality) - metaphysical assertions like "reference frame shouldn't matter" led to new approaches to problems which were still tenable in the Lorentzian preferred-frame relativity, but had a differing underlying ontology.

You can't just define someone else's position and then assume dominance of the conversation.

>>6486318
>Saying that philosophy of mind is pointless is not the same as claiming that qualia etc are non-existent. The latter is a stance within philosophy of the mind and is known as eliminativism. Discussing such shit is truly pointless, for these questions are unanswerable, the beliefs untestable and the problems unsolvable. Keep metaphysics out of science.
Philosophy of mind is not science. That's why it isn't called science of mind. And eliminativism ironically teeters on metaphysics itself.

>>6486341
⇒Metaphysical stances can be disproved logically if they're not internally consistent.
"Muh beliefs are axioms" cannot be disproved. It appears you don't know much about formal logic.

⇒metaphysical assertions like "reference frame shouldn't matter"
That's a mathematical consequence of relativity and not a metaphysical assertion.

>>6486281
>philosophy has never solved a single ethical problem
you seriously sound like one of those people that claim evolution has never been proven and so it's all wrong. Philosophy doesn't strive to produce one single answer for every possible problem, it is supposed to introduce logic and critical thinking to allow one to make rational choices.

>laws are based on common sense
what does that even mean?
>support science
>use handwavy subjective terms that have no exact meaning of definition
pick one and only one. Right now you're deliberately arguing for "muh feels" over logic and reason.

>>6486281
I see you are still posting here...I see you're still the same wilful ignorant you have always been.

>>6486344
⇒Philosophy of mind is not science.
That's why it's not worth discussing.

⇒And eliminativism ironically teeters on metaphysics itself.
I never claimed the opposite. Eliminativism is just as bullshit as any other metaphysical stance. The only reasonable stance on metaphysics is to ignore it because it cannot be approached logically or scientifically.

>>6486348
The principle of relativity IS a metaphysical assertion. Did you not realise that you can get the Lorentz transform with or without preferred frames, and all that Einstein did for SR was to change around the axioms (making "c is actually constant in all frames, as opposed to is always measured to be constant" an axiom)?

>>6486372
>If it cannot solve problems and cannot answer questions, then it's useless.
Nice personal philosophy, mate. How about you follow your own advice and now fuck off to /x/?

>>6486357
⇒sound like one of those people that claim evolution has never been proven
You are comparing philosophical ethics to evolution? Tell me, what is the objective solution to the "trolley problem"? What objective solutions to ethical problems can all philosophers agree upon? Name one ethical problem that has been solved.

⇒Philosophy doesn't strive to produce one single answer for every possible problem
If it cannot solve problems and cannot answer questions, then it's useless.

⇒t is supposed to introduce logic and critical thinking to allow one to make rational choices.
Critical thinking is innate and comes naturally within normal psychosocial childhood development (unless you're intellectually disabled). Logic is a field of math and the ability to understand the most basic concepts of logic is again innate, as for example tested by IQ tests. Meaningless musings about metaphysics do not affect either.

⇒Right now you're deliberately arguing for "muh feels" over logic and reason.
Nope. I am defending science and logic against irrational emotional subjectivity.

>>6486372
>Critical thinking is innate and comes naturally within normal psychosocial childhood development (unless you're intellectually disabled). Logic is a field of math and the ability to understand the most basic concepts of logic is again innate, as for example tested by IQ tests. Meaningless musings about metaphysics do not affect either.
Ah yes, the familiar "I'm right, you're mentally impaired if you disagree" argument which you always shovel up. Why haven't you been permabanned yet?

>>6486370
Relativity is a mathematical model that makes testable predictions consistent with empirical observations. This is the exact opposite of metaphysics.

>>6486360
>That's why it's not worth discussing.
I feel like I've been over this ad nauseam, but philosophy is essential to ask the questions science answers.

If Darwin didn't have a philosophy about the origin of species, then the theory of natural selection would have never got off the ground.

>>6486375
Please learn to read. I presented some facts you cannot deny.

>>6486372
>implying all philosophy is metaphysical nonsense
>implying logic and reason weren't formalized in philosophy
>implying the scientific method isn't the product of empiricist philosophy
>implying implying implying
I would suggest reading up on the history of philosophy, as well as the scientific method and mathematics. And no, I don't mean the Wikipedia pages. I mean real textbooks. Hopefully it will help you to understand why you're wrong, and perhaps it might also help you construct an argument that doesn't rely on false assumptions.

>>6485770
Philosophy is boring as fuck.

>>6486380
⇒but philosophy is essential to ask the questions science answers.
Science answers scientific questions, not philosophical questions. In science hypotheses can be tested and substantiated with evidence. In philosophy every opinion is equally valid (or invalid) because nothing can be tested and everything relies on what you're willing to believe.

⇒If Darwin didn't have a philosophy about the origin of species, then the theory of natural selection would have never got off the ground.
Darwin was a theologist. His "philosophy" was pretty shit tier. Fortunately his evolution theory arose independent of philosophy. During his voyage he made observations and drew the obvious conclusions.

>>6486372
>if it cannot solve problems and cannot answer questions, then it's useless.
The scientific method is actually a product of philosophical thinkers. I always thought the scientific method was pretty useful for solving problems, that's interesting that you think otherwise.

>>6486376
The equations of special relativity are a mathematical model. The interpretation of them is metaphysics.

>>6486384
>>6486389
I love how you pseudo-intellectual high schoolers always mention that the scientific method was a product of philosophy. As if that made all unscientific philosophy valid. You fail so hard at basic logic, it's ridiculous. Yes, philosophical thought lead to the scientific method. This does not validate philosophy. Philosophy died after inventing science. All meaningful inquiries were incorporated into science and math. All that's left to philosophy is kindergarten tier metaphysics and "muh feelings" ethics. Both can be persued by literally anyone who's willing to waste time, since both require no qualifications and rely solely on beliefs and opinions. Philosophy as an academic discipline is dead. Deal with it.

>>6486387
>Science answers scientific questions, not philosophical questions.
Scientific questions are philosophical you fucking idiot, do you not even know what the word "Philosophy" means?

Janitors, please, can you boot out this colossal, persistent troll?

>>6486387
>Science answers scientific questions, not philosophical questions. In science hypotheses can be tested and substantiated with evidence. In philosophy every opinion is equally valid (or invalid) because nothing can be tested and everything relies on what you're willing to believe.
This is still based on the assumption that philosophy exclusively deals with things that are absolutely unfalsifiable. If that were the case then all of the philosophies written a long time ago that assumed certain facts about science would still be relevant since they couldn't be falsified. Except they have now been falsified.

A scientific question is only considered such in hindsight. When Epicurus asked "what is the world made of?" that was a philosophical question, even though the answer turned out to be scientific: atoms.

>During his voyage he made observations and drew the obvious conclusions.
It's only obvious in hindsight, idiot. But I guess to a smug high IQ claimant like yourself obtaining knowledge is so easy when somebody else did the hard work by discovering it.

>>6486377
>im rite ur rong
amazing

>>6486395
>As if that made all unscientific philosophy valid.
This was never the claim you strawmanning faggot. No-one is saying that because science is philosophical, that therefore ALL philosophy is right.

>philosophy died after inventing science
yeah because science has always been 100% unambiguous and not at all subject to interpretation or confusion

OH FUCKING WAIT QUANTUM MECHANICS

>>6485850
Maybe in the fiel;d of particle physics, but mark my words, exobiology will be huge once we get out into space.

>>6486395
how would you recommend making laws?
>inb4 common sense
"common" sense varies wildly from person to person.

>>6486406
No, but you see, for him his opinions are unquestionable facts, and disagreeing with him makes you mentally ill. Daring to point out that he does in fact make tacit assumptions hurts his precious, precious feelings, and causes him to respond with stronger authoritative zeal. He posts in these threads all the day, and his song never changes.

>>6486395
>ignoring every single argument but the one you know how to deal with
>all these strawmen
that's quite literally what a small child would do when confronted with something that clashed with his stubborn world beliefs.

>>6486392
The interpretations are part of the model. If I call position of a particle "x" and later after some computations get a value for "x", then it isn't metaphysical to predict that we will find the particle there. Do you even know what a mathematical model is? Have you ever taken a physics class?

>>6486394
I already discarded your opinion after seeing you avatarfagging. But just to humor you: The word "philosophy" denotes certain areas of non-scientific thought. Philosophy is distinct from science. I explained this in another post of mine. Read the thread.

>>6485770
Define philosophy

>>6486414
Just ignore him, he's singing the song that trolls the Earth.

>>6486411
>The interpretations are part of the model.
How can it be a part of the model when two different sets of ontology/interpretation give the same mathematics and same empirical predictions?

>>6486397
⇒This is still based on the assumption that philosophy exclusively deals with things that are absolutely unfalsifiable
That's not an assumption but a defining property of philosophy.

⇒A scientific question is only considered such in hindsight
Bullshit. Please learn the scientific method.

⇒When Epicurus asked
The scientific method wasn't yet invented in ancient greece.

⇒the answer turned out to be scientific: atoms.
That's not the answer. I see your education never went beyond 8th grade chemistry.

⇒It's only obvious in hindsight, idiot
Given the observations Darwin made, he would of had to be a colossal retard if he didn't draw the obvious conclusions.

Daily reminder that badmouthing about philosophy is just /sci/ culture, and that spouting this antiphilosophical garbage in real life in ANY academic field would get you a one way ticket to being pushed straight out of the window.

>>6486401
Your evidence for science being open to interpretation is quantum mechanics? Can you go back to your popsci websites and never speak about QM again?

>>6486242
...and none of then are as accurate as the laws of thermodynamics.

>>6486411
>redefining philosophy to suit your argument against it
philosophy means love of knowledge. Claiming it is something else is called a straw man fallacy, where one presents the opposing argument in a fashion that makes it easier to shoot down. This is bad though, because it doesn't actually disprove the opposing argument, it only makes the speaker feel better about themselves. I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but this is like the 10th time you've made that logical fallacy so here you go. Hopefully you won't do it again.

>>6486425
I can give other examples, but since you're being such a caustic asshole I won't. Fuck you.

QM interpretation is one example, and one example is sufficient to demonstrate my point. QM interpretation is NOT a solved, closed problem.

>>6486426
He won't listen, have you even seen him in prior threads? This must be his entire life, shitposting in these threads.

>>6486401
⇒This was never the claim you strawmanning faggot
It's the topic of discussion. Read the thread, moron.

⇒yeah because science has always been 100% unambiguous
Cool straw man. Science is always willing to change its theories upon new observations. Because unlike philosophy science values factual correctness and objectivity higher than "muh feelings" and "muh beliefs".

⇒OH FUCKING WAIT QUANTUM MECHANICS
Do you even know what QM is?

>>6486429
I said unambiguous. You misread it as "wrong". Try again.

>>6486406
Look up how your countries government makes laws. It's written somewhere in the constitution and I'm 100% sure the constitution doesn't mention that philosophers have to be involved in legislation.

>>6486414
What arguments? You didn't make any.

>>6486437
He said "something", not "argument". Learn to read before continuing to shitpost, pls.

>>6486423
>That's not an assumption but a defining property of philosophy.
Yeah okay m8.

>Bullshit. Please learn the scientific method.
The (philosophical) hypothesis is not subject to the scientific method itself otherwise this would create a ridiculous endless loop.

>The scientific method wasn't yet invented in ancient greece.
Yeah, the philosophers hadn't come up with it yet.

>That's not the answer. I see your education never went beyond 8th grade chemistry.
And I see your education never involved learning about Epicurus.

>Given the observations Darwin made, he would of had to be a colossal retard if he didn't draw the obvious conclusions.
I think it says a lot about you to think Darwin's primary accomplishment could have been performed by a retard instead of an outstanding intellect

>>6486424
Metaphysics, god and philosophy belong on /x/.

>>6486439
If philosophy belongs on /x/ so does science. If metaphysics belongs on /x/, so does anyone claiming that reality objectively exists.

>>6486430
>I can give other examples, but I won't.
You can't, because you're using popsci bullshit and getting your ass torn the fuck up by scientists.

You're lazy. They work. Eat shit.

>>6486420
You are making no sense. A mathematical model doesn't involve any "ontology". All the variables are clearly defined. As long as computations are done correctly, the outcome is a testable prediction. See? No philosophy in science.

>>6486424
What actually gets you fired is not doing your job. If you're a research scientist and instead of doing research you're sitting apathetically in the corner contemplating solipsism, subjectivity and the metaphysical nature of reality, then I'm pretty sure you're gonna get kicked out rather quickly.

all one needs to think is, if all dedicated philosophy books and academics disappeared overnight, would we really care?

>>6486442
Science needs reproducible results. You don't.

Go to /x/.

>>6486426
⇒philosophy means love of knowledge
Etymological fallacy. The historical origin of a word does not always reflect its usage.

>>6486430
Philosophical interpretations are not science. The mathematical models of QM are. The theory works out. It makes predictions consistent with experiments. Nobody needs metaphysical interpretations in research. All we need are facts.

>>6486445
>the outcome is a testable prediction
Saying that that number you get at the end of the calculation is an "outcome" and ought correspond in some way to "reality" (and therefore can be "tested" to see if the number is the same) IS either an ontology or an epistemology. It's only not an ontology if you're the kind of scientist who says "REALITY DOESNT EXIST AT ALL UNTIL I LOOK AT MY APPARATUS READOUT". If you do acknowledge that reality exists even before your apparatus, then you are implicitly saying that SOME ontology exists, even if you don't explicitly specify what.

>>6486447
>arguing the man instead of the point
Nice intellectual honesty, bro. Rather than actually address his point you'd rather claim that he's "a popsci teenager", and that somehow his actual point is no longer valid.

>>>/b/

>>6486452
>Nobody needs metaphysical interpretations in research. All we need are facts.
Blinkhard experimentalist please go back to the engineering department where you belong, and leave physics to the physicists.

>>6486449
Well, we'd lose the comedy of philosophy-fags pretending they know something.

>>6486452
>Etymological fallacy. The historical origin of a word does not always reflect its usage.
Ah, so basically, the dictionary is wrong, and your personal definition of "philosophy" is actually right.

Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.

>>6486454
If we erased philosophy from human history, all of us here would suddenly find ourselves in a cave holding a club going "UNGA BUNGA".

>>6486438
⇒And I see your education never involved learning about Epicurus.
It did. But this has nothing to do with science.

⇒I think it says a lot about you to think Darwin's primary accomplishment could have been performed by a retard instead of an outstanding intellect
Darwin was not a genius. He was a man who traveled a lot and made observations others didn't make before him. He drew the obvious conclusions any non-retard would have drawn. And btw evolutionary thought wasn't completely new. He was only the first one to apply it to the entirety of life on earth.

>>6486440
He said "argument" in his greentext, you illiterate moron.

>>6486442
Science is distinct from philosophy.

>>6486430
You're really fucking stupid. Don't call yourself a student of science until you know something about it beyond your disgusting stupid ass popsci shit.

>>6486451
>Saying that that number you get at the end of the calculation
...says the dipshit cumguzzler that doesn't know what an an experiment is.

>>6486463
How can you say that you've "tested" your model against reality until you've defined what part of reality should be compared against what numerical output of the model?

>>6486461
...says the dipshit cumguzzler that doesn't know what art or humanity is.

>>6486451
Do you seriously not understand what a mathematical model is? All variables are clearly defined. Did you fail every single one of your science classes?

>>6486456
Cool projection. I'm pretty sure I know more physics than you.

>>6486460
Please learn how language works.

>>6486466
>keeps repeating "popsci"
>has no argument
Maybe you're the "popsci shit", since you seem to think that QM interpretation/foundations is only the domain of popsci
>>>/b/

>>6486472
nice arrogance, I'll bet you have lots of friends

>>6486452
lol, you should definitely recognize fallacies, you've made about a bajillion

>>6486461
If philosophy was erased, everyone would be rational and logical. The only thing philosophy has brought to us was fallacies and unnecessary shit flinging over semantics.

>>6486472
...are you STILL allowed to post here?

>>6486478
>If philosophy was erased, everyone would be rational and logical.
WOW
FUCKING WOW

I'm done, g'night guys.

>>6486467
Anyone can perform the tests, and get the same results. If you are not getting the results everyone else gets, there is something wrong with you.

There IS something wrong with you.

>>6486481
You can't just claim that philosophy is uninvolved in thought by just repeatedly insisting that things are "obvious". It's like saying that an algorithm is "random" because you deliberately reject the idea of examining it.

>>6486467
By doing an experiment. How's that even a question?

>>6486476
I do.

>>6486479
Why shouldn't I?

>>6486478
>If philosophy was erased, everyone would be rational and logical.
Like rationality isn't a philosophy. In any case, what you're describing would amount to a robot society.

>>6486470
Considering your arguments are based on macro-scaled sub-atomic quantum functions, you are the b-tard.

>>6486482
fixed that picture for you

>>6486482
I'm done too. Bye guys. I legitimately don't believe that somebody could possibly be so stubborn against the truth just for the sake of winning an argument. I hope he's a troll.

>>6486487
We are robots, biological robots.

>>6486492
>We are robots, biological robots.
Justify this opinion without resorting to philosophy of mind.

OH WAIT

>>6486492
That we should then therefore act like them is just committing an is-ought fallacy. Us being "biological robots" is completely irrelevant to the issue of how our society should be.

>>6486487
⇒what you're describing would amount to a robot society.
How so? Emotions and psychological reactions are just biology. They are natural and have nothing to do with philosophy.

>>6486488
Philosophy is not involved in making measurements or observations. Philosophy is not involved in forming a hypothesis or designing a mathematical model. Philosophy is not involved in conducting an experiment. It simply doesn't belong in the scientific method.