/sci/ - Science & Math

Magic is science

>>6531910
*snort* *snort*

Friendship is magic.

> dat feel

>>6531910
Science is ideology.

>>6531910
science is NO FAT CHICKS

Science is miracles.

>>6531926

There seems to be a lot of shitposting today.

>>6532043
just hide it

haven't used sage in a long time

>>6532043
just hide it

>>6532043
>today

It's still better than philosophy.

>>6532194
>science is somehow not philosophy
Thinking that ethics/morals philosophers are asshats doesn't change the fact that science is still a specific means for knowledge-seeking, and therefore by definition encompassed by "philosophy".

>>6532200
Philosophy and science are polar opposites. Science creates testable hypotheses to exlain objective observations. Philosophy makes up intentionally unanswerable problems without basis in reality and then fights over subjective opinions.

>>6532201
>my personal opinion about a field defines that field
Go back to /b/ if you want to simply insist on your correctness without an actual argument.

>>6532203
The facts have been posted. Denial is futile.

>>6532207
>I've regurgitated my opinions, expecting me to be reasonable is futile.
FTFY

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/12/attacks-on-philosophy-by-scientists/

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/philosophy
>The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
>A particular system of philosophical thought
>The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
>The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Science is a subset of philosophy, irrespective of how strongly you've convinced yourself that your imagined straw-Philosophy of ethicists/theologians constitutes the entirely of the concept.

>>6532214
The only people who care about "philosophy of science" are philosophers of science. Scientists don't care what some anti-intellectual morons who don't even understand science past elementary school level have to say. Scientists continue to use the scientific method and it fucking works. Science and philosophy couldn't be more polar opposites. Science makes objective observations and creates rigorous hypotheses with testable predictions. Philosophy on the other hand consists of shit flinging over untestable beliefs and opinions on unanswerable and vaguely or even inconsistently defined made up problems without any impact.

>>6532214
>citing rationalwiki
lol

>>6532220
>Newton
>Einstein
>Bohr
>Heisenberg
>Popper
>Kuhn

>anti-intellectual morons who don't understand science past elementary school level

It's time you paid attention to the fact that the quality of discussion is extremely important to this community, and that flaming and trolling outside /b/ are prohibited.

>>6532220
The only one shit flinging is you, anon, who isn't even willing to own up to his categorisation error.

>>6532220
>>6532207
>>6532201

>What upsets many of these “critics” (I scare quote this because real criticism involves reasoning, not merely the restatement of prejudicial beliefs) is that some philosophers, like Ruse, do not assert that the sole method and mode of rationality is to deride, exclude or a priori reject religious credibility. Ruse, an avowed atheist, does not attack religion at every turn, and instead seems to think that religious views have a social role and place even if he disagrees with them. This is not enough for the absolutists. One must not only disagree, one must strive mightily to eliminate. The old Enlightenment principle of the right of every person to believe as they will and play a role in society, under which it became possible to be a public atheist at all, is now to be abandoned.

>The way to achieve this Utopian vision is, of course, to mock and deride any person, profession or technique that does not arrive at the preferred conclusion which we all knew, really, was true before we began. Philosophy, which must take seriously views that we dispute (so long as they are not factually false; only a few metaphysicians might accept that one could hold those views reasonably, and then only for the purposes of argument), is stupid. Useless. A waste of time and brains. Blah, blah, blah.

>Can you say “special pleading“, children? I knew you could. Can you say “fallacy of affirming the consequent“? Can you say “circular reasoning“? A bit of philosophical training might have helped Perakh a bit, before he dismissed an entire profession for the simple reason that it is not what he, personally, likes.

Einstein:

>I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

>Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem].

In my experience, when people of scientific background reject philosophy, the whole notion of "philosophy" that they are talking about is a bit of an ambiguous mess. Reading their arguments, what they seem to oppose are specific schools or strains of philosophy rather than the totality of the thing, whatever it is. I mean, it’s not surprising that scientists would outright reject positions that lead to strong constructionism, when science relies on there being facts and data at the bottom of it all; but I doubt they would have the same reservations about, say, Carnap's dismissal of Heidegger, or Sokal's attack on postmodernist cultural studies.

I would suspect there are interesting reasons, worth investigation, behind why philosophy is so often perceived by non-philosophers as one big lump. Invariably, people who think they reject philosophy are really just rejecting specific positions, and making philosophical points in doing so.

>>6532220
Oh great, it's the fuckstick that thinks etymology is worthless

>>6532548
>etymology
Did you mean "epistemology"?

On the surface, we perceive science as some holy monolith representing truth, certainty, and fairness.

But since science is yet another human institution, it's output of truth, certainty, and fairness depends highly upon how hard we try to continue being skeptical, day after day.

>>6532565
no, philosophy is literally translated as "love of knowledge", the whole argument surrounding what is philosophy is pretty moot.

>>6532301
this is good.

Scientists as a social community are too smart and responsible to reject outright the proposition for a meaningful philosophy to both their work and also for the institutions to which they belong.

>>6532548
Do you even know what "etymology" means, you dimwitted straw man?

>>6532570
And "melancholia" is literally translated as "black bile", so I guess it cannot mean anything else, right? You are fucking retarded with your etymological fallacies.

>>6533647
>it doesn't make sense in this one case so all others must be invalid!
The only fallacy here is you not addressing the point. The etymological definition of philosophy is enough unless you can stop shit-flinging and maturely convince.

>>6533767
The etymological definition of philosophy is bullshit. It doesn't account for the separation of fields and the specialization that occurred during the last 2000 years. But even if we restricted ourselves to the primitiv world views of ancient greece, "love of wisdoem" would still be an insufficient definition. What is "wisdom"? You cannot even define it. And then there's people like Socrates and some other sophists who are considered philosophers even though they explicitly reject the notions of wisdom and knowledge ("scio me nihil scire"). Come up with a real definition and stop talking out of your ass, kid.

>>6533806
It's "love of wisdom", not "wisdom". Clearly, philosophy means being a fanboy of people you think are wise.

Philosophers are people who do things like hang posters of King Solomon on their walls, and have shelves full of books of wisdom (such as "Chicken Soup For The Soul") that they take out an look at, but never really read.

>>6532220
What do you get from this?

?

How many more years will you post this here?

>>6533806
Maybe it was general for a reason? Wisdom should not be defined because it incites semantical, subjective discussions that stem from the egotistical objective of separating yourself from contemporary "philosophers" when that is at some level impossible.

>>6533825
⇒because it incites semantical, subjective discussions

Isn't that what philosophy is all about?

>>6533829
Sure but personally there's no beauty to be found in this fork