/sci/ - Science & Math

Show me a philosophical argument that couldn't be conceived by a 6 year old.

I'll take it, you had an abnormal childhood and you are unaware of normal developmental psychology. Asking questions about reality, existence etc is natural in preschool and elementary school children. Every normal child has these "deep" thoughts and later, when growing up, realizes how irrelevant and immature they were.

I'm starting to suspect that the ⇒ poster is actually a janitor or a mod or something, because every single time they get blown the fuck out, the thread gets mysteriously deleted. The threads themselves remain civil, and mostly well-reasoned and intellectual - but still disappear. Very suspicious.

>>6527876
Meaningless arguing thread as teh actual discussion has been dilluded by greeentext quotes to ad hominems, strawmen, etc...

>>6527882
Where did she get "blown the fuck out"? Can you link to the post in the archive? I cannot remember it ever happening.

>>6527881
Your repeated insistence that the works of history's great thinkers is "childish" does not constitute evidence for the claim. It is a point of fact that the overwhelming majority of philosophical work has been written by adults.

Feel free to believe that "only children" think of deep things, and stop doing so when they "grow up", but this is simply not what actually happens.

>>6527888
They definitely start to get frustrated that the conversation no longer goes unanimously their way. I'd dig through the archives for examples, but since this thread's gonna disappear in a few seconds anyway I don't see the point.

>>6527882
no it's just an attentionwhore

and as usual the mods selectively ban and protect people they like/dislike while ignoring rules such as "Do not use avatars or attach signatures to your posts."

>>6527889
Philosophical works have been written before we had science. Philosophy died in the 19th century after the invention of science and the mathematization of logic. Humanity as a whole has become smarter and more educated. We don't need philosophy anymore, and looking back at the "great thinkers" of the past we can see how primitive they actually were.

>>6527896
It's just like I'm posting on PhysicsForums.com ! What a shithole.

>>6527899
>Philosophy died in the 19th century after the invention of science and the mathematization of logic. Humanity as a whole has become smarter and more educated. We don't need philosophy anymore

>>6527899
>Philosophy died in the 19th century after the invention of science and the mathematization of logic.

>Philosophy died
>The study of ideas about knowledge or truth
>somehow "died"

>science is somehow not a subset of philosophy, being a specific manner of knowledge-seeking

>mathematics is somehow not a subset of philosophy, for same reasons

What the fuck am I reading?

>>6527900
Pic saved. Pefect.

>>6527911
Math and science are the opposite of philosophy. Objectivity, logic and facts are incompatible with subjectivity, baseless opinions and beliefs.

>>6527911
Still can't tell if all the people saying philosophy is useless are being satirical and expecting/trying to teach everyone to know better than to take them serious or if they are actually pants on head retarded.

>>6527915
>subjectivity, baseless opinions and beliefs.
It's not my fault that you have convinced yourself that philosophy is in entirety "discussion of ethics and feelings", nor is it my responsibility for you to bother to understand what it is you're talking about.

>>6527915
>I don't know what subjective means

>>6527917
>>6527902
When a philosopher is defeated in a a debate, he resorts to baseless insults. "Oh no, it's not that my position is bulllshit. It's the others being ignorant and retarded." Then he pretends that this puerility qualifies as an argument.

pic related, a monkey doing philosophy

>>6527915
You are so fucking dumb it hurts.

>>6527918
>no argument

>>6527921
What a great timing. Right after >>6527920 was posted.

>>6527917
Most people these days across all of 4chan seem to be dumb normalfags or underage fedora-tipping redditors anyway, so it's not exactly much of a stretch to think that they actually believe this shit.

>>6527920
How ironic that in claiming what philosophers do, you have yourself done exactly what you claim they would.

Pic related, it's the point you ended up making.

>>6527923
>>no argument
How about you at least look up the definition of philosophy, rather than attacking a "straw-philosophy" of your own misconceived construction?

>>6527917
Either way, at this point it's clear that there is pretty much absolutely no-where on the Internet where one can have genuine discussion about Philosophy of Science, because you either get the r/atheism neckbeards going Full Scientism neo-positivist naive-instrumentalism on everyone (usually the ones who end up being Moderators on forums with persistent identities due to le circlejerk authoritywhoring), or the intelligent-but-bored trolls who deliberately sabotage the discussion at every turn.

>>6527926
Too bad there is no definition of philosophy. Philosophers cannot even agree on what their field actually means.

Let me summarize some of the most common "definitions":

⇒the love of wisdom
Wow, an etymological fallacy. I guess you also believe "melancholia" means to have a black gall bladder. And what about the "philosophers" like Socrates who believe "wisdom" cannot exist ("scio me nihil scire")?

⇒all thinking is philosophy
So every human being with a functional brain is a philosopher? What a pointless, redundant and meaningless definition.

⇒the search for truth
What truths has philosophy found so far? Science and math have found quite a few, but I don't know of any ethical or metaphysical problem a philospher ever solved objectively.

⇒asking questions
Who doesn't ask questions? Every child can ask questions. The art of asking precise and relevant questions requires STEM education. While the questions of philosophy are unanswerable, subjective and without impact, the questions of science are well-defined and their answers have consequences for our understanding of nature and for technological advancement. Asking something like "what if your blue is my red" or "what should I do" on the other hand requires no education whatsoever and has no meaningful answer.

>>6527934
What the hell do you want to discuss? Science works. The scientific method works. The problem of induction has been addressed by the scientific method. What is that you want to discuss in the "philosophy of science"? Do you seriously think you're deep for circlejerking over "u cannot know nuthin"?

>>6527934
I'm not sure if it was always this bad or if people are legitimately getting stupider or if maybe it's just the ones who like to hang around science-disqussing places on the net who are getting stupider. I blame the media in any case. And fucking wikipedia.

>>6527919
>>6527918

In a certain sense, it's correct though. Of course, philosophers try to form valid arguments, and try to make the case that their particular arguments for position X are valid. However, almost always a philosopher will favor some position because it is his or her "favorite position", often to the point where no amount of contrary evidence will dissuade that their thinking is wrong. It's like William Lane Craig. He gives some deductive argument for the existence of God, and thinks that no amount of evidence could ever confute his syllogistic argument. That's pretty much how all philosophers reason, by appealing to arguments based on intuition. The problem is intuition often wrong, especially when reasoning about the universe.

>>6527938
It;s good for moral conundrums in a practical sense. At best its; good for shooting the shit with friends.


>>6527923
No I was straight up telling you the Truth.

why does anybody find philosophy interesting?

>>6527950
When doing philosophy with people you build up an ability to discuss "properly" or use the argumentative method, as in not using logical fallaciesa and such.

>>6527947
⇒moral conundrums

Ethics and morality are subjective and based on emotional opinions. How is a philospher more qualified to have opinions on a matter of "muh feelings"? What ethical problems has philosophy ever solved? Can you tell me the objective solution to the trolley problem? No, you can't. When giving an ethical problem to professional philosophers and to random people on the street, who will produce a more insightful response? Protip: Using words like "deontology" or "normative" doesn't make your feelings more important than those of others.

>>6527915
Am I do?