[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 106 KB, 765x638, 20120620_-_dapres_xkcd_435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041416 No.7041416[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How could science work without philosophers?

>> No.7041428
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041428

Just like it always works. By using the scientific method. We don't need and we don't want philosophy in science.

>> No.7041434

science works by a series of definitions and
answers through experimentation to those definitions.

you, for example, are not practicing good science. as both your question and topic are illy defined.

Im guessing your a liberal arts major in philosophy/psych?

>> No.7041437
File: 58 KB, 799x261, 1418933874427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041437

>>7041416
What exactly do philosophers bring to the scientific table in practice?
Foundations of science like epistemology are rarely of interest for a working scientist.

Also, define 'philosopher'.

>> No.7041442

>>7041434
>Im guessing your a liberal arts major in philosophy/psych?

I'm sure those would be sufficiently mature and humble not to make shit threads on /sci/. I'd rather guess OP is either a NEET or a soon-to-be NEET first semester math student who mistakenly believes his A- in calculus makes him polymath. Pretty much the quintessence of fedora.

>> No.7041446

>>7041428
But the scientific method is based in epistemology.

>> No.7041450

>>7041446
Math is also based on set theory but you don't need to perfectly understand the former to do research in, I don't know, Riemannian geometry.
Same thing for the vast majority of scientists, they don't need to understand any philosophy to do their job. Sure it may help but it's not necessary at all.

>> No.7041451

>>7041446
This is an extremely narrow-minded statement from you. The scientific method is "based in epistemology" as much as plumbing is "based in quantum mechanics". Sure the subatomic particles of the plumber's tools obey the laws of QM, but it doesn't affect his work.

>> No.7041460

>>7041416

We'd just eat something else than burgers

>> No.7041466

>tfw psych graduate

at least im not a sociologist, right?

>> No.7041506

the same way it works now, with the vast majority of important research being done by people who have never spent years of their lives studying philosophy.

>> No.7041517

>>7041446
"the scientific method"TM from the 18th century simply formalized what scientists had already been doing for 200 years.
Karl Popper made a useful addition with the criteria of falsifiability but as a species we had been successfully invedtigating and determining how the universe works long before him.

The thing is that even though philosophers can lay claim to the intellectual territory of almost anything and say "that's philosophy!!!" , the fact is that you absolutely do not need to spend years of your life studying philosophy in order to do science.

If all philosophy departments at univeristies suddenly closed it would make no difference at all to how the stock of human knowledge was increased over time, except the ethics debates in medicine and biology would be a bit different.

>> No.7041521

>>7041428
>ethics
>philosophy
Choose one.

>> No.7041526

>>7041521
That's the point. Ethics means just having subjective emotional preferences. It is extremely presumptuous of philosophers to claim they have a monopoly on talking about ethics. Even more so, given the fact that they fail to ultimately solve an ethical problem.

>> No.7041527

>>7041526
>It is extremely presumptuous of philosophers to claim they have a monopoly on talking about ethics
Philosophers don't claim dominion over ethics, morons do.

>> No.7041530
File: 42 KB, 578x416, NbAGE0l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041530

all scientists would be evil if it weren't for those pesky philosophers

>> No.7041543

>>7041530
What if "evil" actually means "good" and "good" is the real "evil"?

>> No.7041545

>>7041530
> all scientists would be evil if it weren't for those biologists

>> No.7041552

>>7041543
that's just semantics

>> No.7041553

>>7041552
What does that mean? Can you define semantics?

>> No.7041554

>>7041545
biologists are adorable. medical doctors are pure god-complex evil.

>> No.7041555

>>7041553
Define "define"

>> No.7041557
File: 73 KB, 620x436, 3204-620x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041557

>>7041553
I can, but that's just semantics.

>> No.7041558

>>7041553
prove that you can define semantics

>> No.7041563
File: 21 KB, 268x265, 1422634870554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041563

Prove reality exists!

>> No.7041570

>>7041563
if I tell you to do something and also predict the outcome of that situation, does that mean I can see into the future or am I aware of how reality works?

>> No.7041584

That rock the philosopher is sitting on looks very uncomfortable

>> No.7041592

The scientific method. That doesn't require philosophy.

>> No.7041622

>>7041526
>Ethics means just having subjective emotional preferences.

Get a load of this philosopher.

>>>/lit/