/sci/ - Science & Math

Why are philosophers such shitty scientists?

>>7082246
Because you can never know anything.

Sean Carroll.

>>7082246
This is actually a good point. I think there is a mutual lack of knowledge between both fields.

What does My Father Will Guide Me Up a Rope to the Sky by the band Swans have to do with this discussion OP?

>>7082272
Random pic, bro. It was the most science image I had at hand. Also, it's a beautiful fucking album cover, even if the album itself is underwhelming. They made up for it with the Seer and TBK, imo.

>>7082246
same poster. Just for keks here is what Baez wrote in his Physics books recommendations.

"Don't read: The Physicist's World, by Thomas Grissom. This book is included here as an example of a book that contains mostly incorrect physics. Grissom is a philosopher who has managed to publish a book about physics without knowing much physics, and it's a shame that he has taught the content of this book for some (many?) years to philosophy students, who must've gone out into the big world thinking that physicists must be incredibly dumb if they really believe the naïve concepts that Grissom thinks physics is all about. This book gets all the big tenets of the subject wrong: Grissom thinks that special relativity is all about what is seen with the eye, a mistake that only first-year students are expected to make; he thinks that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle concerns the limits of measurement of quantities that are otherwise perfectly well defined; he thinks that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an actual law that must be obeyed. And he apparently thinks that physicists spend a great deal of their time pondering the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks. All completely wrong."

To be fair Baez also points out good books regarding philosophical matters but I haven't read them and I think the majority of them were written by physicists.

Because philosophy is shit.
All it does is ponder questions you can't know answers to.
I've done a lot of philosophizing when I was younger, and I always kept hitting walls of the borders of our scientific knowledge.
It's better to just drop it and focus on hard sciences.

>>7082289
Yeah, but you didn't really see the complexities. Seriously, read the OP book. It will make you question. It's not contradicting science, by the way, if that's what you think it is.

This is by one of the greatest physicists ever. It puts into question all of modern science, while reaffirming it.

>>7082313
I question the reality of my existence every day, I don't need more of this shit.

>>7082281
>hey made up for it with the Seer and TBK
damn true

>>7082191
People like Heisenberg or Einstein were born in Germany at a time where a classical education was still obligatory, meaning they learned old greek, latin and the corresponding philosophy etc. Also religion was a much bigger topic back then and basically ubiquitous. These were the thoughts that greatly inspired all of science back in the days (inb4 hurrdurr religion/philosophy is stupid: Heisenberg, just as Einstein stated they were greatly inspired by philosophers, Plato and Mach).

Nowadays these parts of education are not valued any longer, mostly to make the system more efficient. I guess now the inspiration comes from science fiction mostly, which may work, but kinda lacks culture.

>>7082343
It's not just culture though. Heisenberg actually reflected on his work in a philosophical way, which was intimately connected to the epistemology and ontology of the science. This context has not changed.

>>7082191
because:

>hurr only scientific evidence is true
>why do you think that?
>my own empiric perception (building and testing a theory) is true, since it isn't proven wrong yet.
>so you use empiric knowledge to say that only empiric knowledge is true?

that fucking circular logic.

as an undergrad physics student myself, i hate that fucking circular argument of some /sci/entists. it just shows how they never attended a formal logic lecture.

>>7082246
excellent point. i think a symbiosis of science and philosophy is needed. especially in fields like theoretical physics or pure mathematics etc.

>>7082289
>>7082323
>Because philosophy is shit.
that is an philosophy in itself
>I question the reality of my existence every day, I don't need more of this shit.
now you just fucked up.

>>7082343
i think this is true. doing philosophy without science is just as stupid as doing science without philosophy, both is needed.

it about efficiency. our education system is just too narrow. the best example is: thinking for yourself. in most education systems this isn't appreciated in younger years. i even think that's the biggest problem for most students in hard STEM fields. most of them just don't fucking know how to gather and build good knowledge without external help and think for themselves. that's the reason most of them just fuck up and leave uni after 1 or 2 semesters.

that's the reason engineers have more job oppurtunities than real scientists. scientists have another way of thinking. more abstract, not that practical.

>>7082191
What nontrivial concepts in philosophy are important to scientists? Please, enlighten me, and don't say "Philosophy of Science", because most scientists I know don't know anything about it and it hasn't caused a problem for them.

>>7082400
Drug induced psychosis isn't fun.

Efficiency is an important factor in communication of scientific research in a globalized community. Nobody in academia is gonna award you additional points if your publication contains an appendix of unnecessary subjective philosophical musings, no matter how poetic they sound. You're just wasting your own and other people's time. And time is money. I don't care what you do in your bedroom whilst normal people would be having sex, but please keep your quixotic extraneous quisquilious horsefeathers out of science.

>>7082400
>that pic
I didn't know old people could be this edgy

>>7082191
the old philosophers had low hanging fruit. philosophy is actually very limited.

I just love how you narrow-minded autists think that just doing math or physics or whatever is enough for science.
>But muh pure science
Quit your fucking bullshit. You need some fucking meta-explanation in order to understand what the fuck you are doing, because in the end, doing science is understanding the world around you and by doing that, you are bound for philosophical thinking.
Guess you aren't good at the non-equation part of science, so you keep pretending that it's below or you or something.
All great scientist were also great philosophers.
People like you disgust me, fucking plug-in equation nerds.

>>7082511
You seem to be under the impression that this "meta-explanation" as you call it must be profound philosophical shit. It really isn't. Of course scientists know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is just so trivial that we don't feel the need to talk about it explicitly. Your post reminds me of a preschooler with down syndrome who thinks he's deep and intellectual for pointing out something every normal child was expected to know a few years ealier.

>>7082526
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't mention that it has to be profound, I said that science without philosophy behind it isn't worth anything.
Philosophy =/= profound shit
Don't fight imaginary battles, try to comprehend what I wanted to say first.

>>7082535
Philosophy is a distinct academic discipline and science involves none of it. It isn't my fault you have no idea what you're talking about. You're not deep and you're not philosphical for spouting kindergarten platitudes like "hurr durr science explains the world". Of course it does and everyone knows this. You obviously know nothing about neither science nor philosophy. Please go back to /lit/ and stop dragging down the intellectual level of discourse on /sci/.

>>7082541
Are you kidding me?
Science doesn't involve philosophy?
I bet you are the guy who thinks he's deep because he is doing some complex math shit, but when you ask him about anything else, he doesn't know shit.
You need fucking philosophy in order to understand what the fuck are you doing.
But having rejected it, I can see that you have no fucking idea about how things work and I bet that you will be/are mediocre scientist at best.

>>7082541
>science involves none of it
science believes in empiricism and empiricism itself is a philosophy. get your facts straight m8.

>>7082526
holy christ that pic is retarded.

>>7082565
"Empiricism" in science means the systematic use of observation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical dogma of empiricism, which asserts that observation is the only valid epistemology. Of course science accepts and uses other methods of gaining knowledge, e.g. rational inquiry and logical deduction. Look up "quasi-empirical methods" on wikipedia for example. Don't use words you don't understand, you retarded piece of shit.

>>7082562
I'm not a "guy" and I am what people would call a polymath. I don't need philosophy because I have common sense. And to be honest there is really nothing deep about being aware of the historical and societal context of current scientific theories. You are so overly pseudo-intellectual that you actually turned anti-intellectual.

>>7082447
But science was born out of, and is based on philosophy. Namely natural philosophy, and epistemology.

>>7082191
Jean-Yves Girard has some great views on logic and epistemology, read The Blind Spot for example

>>7082526
A shame that math is derived fro logic, a discipline of philosophy. Seriously though, what's with the hatred of philosophy on this board? What's wrong with liking both science, and philosophy, they compliment each-other very well.

>>7082594
And chemistry came from alchemy and astrophysics came from astrology, so we better all start studying alchemy and astrology because they are so much more important than our modern scientific theories, amirite?

>>7082590
There are variants of empiricism within philosophy, if you knew what you were talking about, that would be clear. As for common sense, sure, that couldn't possibly be flawed.

>>7082590
A polymath who disregards philosophy. Is your head so deep inside your ass?
First thing smart people realize that there are other smart people who have more insight in certain areas. You are not aware of that, as you declared your common sense above philosophy.

Topest kek dude, get of /sci/ and ponder your stupidity.

>>7082612
Sure, learning the historical context of modern ideas is always good, even it involves learning about things that we clearly know are wrong, like alchemy.

>>7082609
most of /sci/ failed philosophy 101 and most of /lit/ have no idea of science. that's why. fucking plebs.

join hard science and philosophy übermensch masterrace.

>>7082612
Based =/= derived/came from

Know your shit first.

>>7082609
Can you be any more wrong?

1. Logic is not a field of philosophy but a field of math. It has been formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century and ever since that happened philosophers do not understand it anymore. Philosophy students are taught merely an extremely dumbed down version of first order logic at best. Every 20th century logician has been a mathematician, i.e. had a math degree.

2. Math is not derived from logic. Unless you're explicitly doing research in mathematical logic, you'll never ever need formal logic in math. Proofs are not written as deductions from axioms within a formal deductive systems in any branch of math other than logic. Working mathematicians do not need to know anything about logic other than basic notions of inference such as those tested in IQ tests.

>>7082629
Logic is a discipline of it's own, having been founded in Ancient Greece.
Math was formalized WITH logical concepts.
Yes, you need logic for Math. Are you even in STEM field, dare I say, college?

>>7082629
Nope, logic is more basic than math. And many philosophers are also mathematicians, Bertrand Russel ring any bells?

>>7082615
Nobody cares. The scientific method does not involve any philosophy.

>>7082618
Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy. If every high school student can write an essay challenging the view of a historical philosopher and being awarded an A for said essay if his argumentation is consistent, then there must be something wrong with the quality of results in philosophy.

>>7082620
I don't disagree, but please keep that fedora to yourself. Don't be a pseudo-intellectual fucktard like >>7082621 who brags about his superficial knowledge of nothing.

>>7082623
Congratulations, you changed a fallacious statement to a blatantly wrong statement.

>>7082629
>Math is not derived from logic.
holy shit. have you ever attended any basic algebra class? (almost) everything you do in math, are algebraic conversions. algebra itself is a theoretical construct build on formal logic.

"In its most general form algebra is the study of symbols and the rules for manipulating symbols and is a unifying thread of almost all of mathematics" (wikipedia)

mordern mathematics is just evolved algebra. that doesn't mean it is indipended from algebra, i.e. we are just evolved animals, that does not make us less of an animal.

>>7082645
>Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy.
show me one axiom ever proven by mathematics.

>>7082629
>Math is not derived from logic.
>Proofs are not written as deductions from axioms within a formal deductive systems in any branch of math other than logic.
Crack open your copy of Principia Mathematica and see how utterly wrong you are.

>>7082645
Well nothing can be absolutely proven, you should know science doesn't seek to proves things, but to justify them. One thing justified extensively by a philosopher, David Hume, is the problem of induction, which critiques the logic of inductive reasoning.

>>7082645
>The scientific method does not involve any philosophy.
The scientific method IS philosophy
>Show me one thing ever proven by philosophy.
philosophy never proves anything. btw neither does science, according to your precious method
>pseudo-intellectual fucktard
archetypical scholarly right here

>>7082629
there's not really a clear-cut boundary between logic an maths anymore. Furthermore, and here's the zinger, that question (of the boundary) is philosophical, for it's the question what counts as 'mere' or 'pure' rules of thinking and what is an assertion about the world/mathematical structures.

>>7082621
masterrace detected

>>7082637
Bertrand Russel was a mathematician. He obtain a degree in math, he got a PhD in math, he was employed in the math department and he published in mathematical journals. As I said, every logician of the 20th century was a mathematician.

>>7082634
I am obtaining a PhD and obviously I'm thinking a few levels above your head. I'm not talking about the "hurr durr if all X are Y and some Y are Z then ..." kind of logic that is used to test whether a child has down syndrome. I'm talking about mathematical logic. To a researcher for example in spatial statistics or in spectral geometry it is absolutely fucking irrelevant how you make use of sheaves and topoi in model theory.

>>7082672
He was also a philosopher, God just read his Wikipedia page. Her's him talking about the value of philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mI2OljCus

>>7082672
Aaah, so you are a troll.
Don't respond guys, nobody is this stupid.

>>7082672
>I am obtaining a PhD
In Wikipedianism? Cuz I really don't believe a real-world PhD student can be this ignorant about other disciplines. In my experience, the more one learns about any subject, in-depth, the humbler one gets and the more one realizes how little he know.

>>7082649
>>7082654
I'm not gonna waste my time with high schoolers who think writing down things formally means doing formal logic. I honestly have better things to do than explaining the basics. Now go on and call me a troll or whatever your immaturity demands.

>>7082682
He was also a breather and a walker I guess. Better write an essay about it.

>>7082694
Not all logic is formal logic. Mathematics is based on symbolic logic. As for Russel, are you serious? He wasn't a philosopher because he breathed and walked, or it doesn't matter that he was a philosopher because you say so?

>>7082656
"Hurr durr what if tomorrow the sun doesn't rise" is not a disproof of inductive reasoning. The scientific method accounts for the "problem of induction" by being upon to changing theories upon making contradicting observations. Please don't be simple-minded.

>>7082667
The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. That's why it works. Because it is objective and not subjective.

>>7082694
You are talking about subject that we actually study.
Either you are a troll or a high school student or a very very narrow minded and stupid person.
Considering the logical operators in the sentence before this, are you even able to comprehend it?

>>7082703
I never said it questioned the scientific method, another philosopher, Karl Popper explained as much. Hume himself loved science, he still determined the frailty of induction. Read before you criticise.

>>7082694
I salute you, fellow supreme gentlemen. Let those of lesser walks of life than ours wallow in their resentment. Only true intellectual superior humans such as us understand intuition and common sense always lead to correct conclusions, save in our field of course, wherein only highly specialized trained professionals can hope to catch a glimpse of the undiluted truth.

>>7082699
>Not all logic is formal logic. Mathematics is based on symbolic logic.
Why do you keep talking about a subject you know absolutely nothing about?

>As for Russel, are you serious?
For someone who has the intellectual capacities to do higher math, philosophy is trivial. Calling him a philosopher is like calling him a breather or a walker, because just like he can breathe and walk, he can do philosophy. Literally everyone is capable of holding subjective opinions, i.e. "doing philosophy", because it has no prerequisites other than being a functional human being.

>>7082705
>You are talking about subject that we actually study.

You study logic? Great, then please stop wasting time on 4chan and answer these questions, your fellow professor colleagues cannot answer:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/lo.logic

>>7082703
Philosophy isn't any more subjective than science. And how can science, indeed anything, ever be objective when it is performed by subjective agents? Science is inter-subjective, not objective.

>>7082703
for some people, seeing them 'think' is like seeing a retarded child being used as a hand-puppet

>>7082703
>The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. That's why it works. Because it is objective and not subjective.
So basically you're defining philosophy as necessarily subjective, thus excluding things philosophy has actually achieved, and then concluding from that that it's pointless because it hasn't achieved anything. Seems you've contrived your definition to fit what you already believe.

>>7082710
Do you even know what philosophy is?

>>7082708
Popper did not explain anything and did not add anything. The scientific method made use of falsification long before him. Or do you really think scientists used to continue believing in disproved theories?

>>7082723
Show me one thing philosophy ever achieved.

>>7082724
Fun fact: Philosophers themselves can't even define "philosophy".

>>7082727
Obviously not. What popper did was develop, in great detail, the idea of falsifiability in regard to science. It was a response, to other philosophers, the logical positivists, like Carnap.

>>7082739
As you said yourself, it stayed within philosophy. Because scientists don't give a shit whether some armchair fedoras who never took a science course fail to understand the scientific method. Philosophy of science is a useless circlejerk of philosophers outside of science and has no effect on science.

>>7082731
How do you know they can't define philosophy? Science as well has had a hard time being defined concretely, see the demarcation problem. Obviously what philosophy has achieved is the expansion of our knowledge, it also produced science.

>>7082731
>Show me one thing philosophy ever achieved.
As has already been said repeatedly, the scientific method.
>hurr but that can't be philosophy because philosophy is useless/subjective!
Do you really not see the circular reasoning here?

>>7082745
Actually Popper is taught to many science undergrads. Me, for example.

>>7082751
The scientific method was developed by people who used their intelligence to get shit done in reality, not by lazy and uneducated armchair fedoras. Philosophy is what happens in philosophy departments. There's a reason why philosophy departments and science departments are not merged. It is because their subject matter is too different. You seem to have missed a few hundred years of intellectual history. Please educate yourself.

>>7082754
Your school must be shit if it wastes time teaching trivialities and shallow pseudo-intellectual talk instead of teaching scientific contents.

>>7082760
You do know philosophy is millenia old, and it took a long time for science to become distinct from philosophy. Even in Newton's day it was called natural philosophy. And please do tell how you came to the conclusion that all philosophers are lazy, armchair, uneducated fedoras? Especially as many have also been scientists, and mathematicians.

>>7082766
Edinburgh?

>>7082760
>The scientific method was developed by people who used their intelligence to get shit done in reality, not by lazy and uneducated armchair fedoras.
This is pretty rare: an ad hominem that's not even a personal attack on the interlocutors — but a fallacy is a fallacy. Philosophers are not philosophy.
>Philosophy is what happens in philosophy departments.
Philosophy was around long before such things existed and will be around long after they are gone. You seem to have missed a few thousand years of intellectual history. Please educate yourself.
And again, you're just conveniently contriving definitions of philosophy so you can pigeonhole it as useless. A foregone conclusion.

I still don't know if arrow girl is trolling or just retarded

>>7082672
>every logician of the 20th century was a mathematician.
Quine, Kripke, Priest, Łukasiewicz, etc. were all mathematicians? Are you ignorant?

>>7083256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine
>He received his B.A. in mathematics from Oberlin College in 1930

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke
>Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics

http://grahampriest.net/cv/#1
>Ph.D. (mathematics), 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81ukasiewicz
>Jan Łukasiewicz (1878–1956), a Polish mathematician


You are a retarded piece of shit. Please kill yourself.

>>7083269
I was going to ask you if you're an idiot, but the more pertinent question is how much of an idiot you are. Having a bachelor's degree in a discipline doesn't make you a practitioner of that discipline. Sorry, but your undergraduate degree doesn't qualify you to call yourself a mathematician or a scientist or whatever.

>>7083277
All logicians of the 20th century were mathematicians. They needed a math degree because without a solid math background they would have had no chance even to understand formal logic beyond a dumbed down IQ test tier level. I already explained this explicitly at least twice ITT, but you are so fucking dumb, there's really no point in trying to educate you. Your illiteracy is painful to watch and your attitude of being smug about your own inability to use your brain makes me cringe.

>>7083291
I don't think you realize how close philosophy and mathematics are, it seems to me after reading this thread that you think all philosophy is continental...

>>7083291
>They needed a math degree because without a solid math background they would have had no chance even to understand formal logic beyond a dumbed down IQ test tier level.
Even if true, this wouldn't imply that all 20th century logicians were mathematicians. It would only imply that all 20th century logicians had training in math.

Your inability to reason undermines your pretensions to being an authority on the subject of logic. But if you want a chance to redeem yourself, you should be able to demonstrate some basic knowledge of logic and anwer a few questions Hell, I'll even make them questions from *mathematical* logic, so that when you refuse to answer the questions it'll be all the sweeter:

1. How many computable models of Peano arithmetic are there, up to isomorphism?

2. If $x^\sharp$ exists for every real $x$, how much determinacy can be proven to hold?

3. Prove the compactness theorem for $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$.

4. Is the theory of dense linear order without endpoints complete?

>>7083298
Math does not involve any philosophy and philosophy does not involve any math. The so called "analytic" philosophers are really nothing more than autists who trick themselves into believing their subjective beliefs somehow become objective when they disguise them behind pseudo-logical platitudes. Nothing but childish fallacious rhetorics without substance.

>>7083308
>The so called "analytic" philosophers are really nothing more than autists who trick themselves into believing their subjective beliefs somehow become objective when they disguise them behind pseudo-logical platitudes

Your description fits mathematicians as well, which is no surprise, after all they're very related.

>>7083307
That's quite a long preparation for an ad hominem fallacy. You could have just called me a faggot instead of compiling a collection of questions I sure as hell won't answer. I honestly can't be arsed to do them. I never claimed to be an expert on logic anyway. I've been a TA in a logic course some years ago, so I know what the field looks like, but it really doesn't interest me that much. If you have sufficient background to answer your own questions, then I'd be genuinely curious what motivates you to continue shitposting. There is no way you believe that a philosopher without math degree would be able to come even remotely close to understanding the questions, so after all you only underlined that logic is indeed a field of math, just in case any of the truly ignorant posters ITT weren't sure about it.

We're only taught grammar and the most insignificant, miniscule, shoddy amount of argumentation from the trivium of the 7 classic liberal arts which all the scientists of old were educated by. Logic is completely ripped out except if you count math as being logic, which it's not in the classical sense. Logic was related to dialectic, but now it's probably related to arithmetic (beginning of the quadrivium), geometry (also quadrivium) and algebra. The structure of that education was really coherent but destroyed now, and I feel that explains a gap continuum which we can observe when it comes to contemporary scientists (and others) being some real vain, materialist assholes, complete tools, or shit for brains sometimes. Some might even argue this is by design, but the scale of that argument is beyond grasp of those affected by this educational gap.

I'd even add to this that kids should learn how to work before they learn how to study. Studying is suppose to help us move towards alleviating ourselves of work: e.g. "work smarter not harder". Without knowing the drudgery and necessity of work (i.e. pay) simultaneously then we can't fully appreciate studying and learning on that fundamental, almost spiritual level which intrinsically breeds the initiative and motivation necessary for innovation on the individual scale.

>>7082264
I'd second that. Krauss seems to be maturing as well in the philosophical department.

Math is philosophy, retards

>>7082191
How to mindfuck a scientist:

>every statement is true. All theories simply express the same universal truth through different terminologies.

>dominant theories are those which are more concise, adaptable to our cognitive limitations and convenient to the economic and political needs of the dominant class

>e.g. you could advance a geocentric theory of astronomy, but you will need to use a way more complex mathematical and physical basis

>so it is only for our convenience that we say that the earth orbits the sun.

>Falsity exists only in language and cognition

>Imagine an alien being that evolved a radically different cognitive structure. For him a square is always a circle, A≠A, and 2+2=5.

>He may think it is us who are wrong

>and he may just be right

>>7083328
I should have added, kids of course do chores, but they don't necessarily get paid for that, or really learn how to please an employer or customer with their labor, so it's a complete communist shitfest. Why should they learn to take pride in their work at that level unless they're a fucking saint?

>>7083332
No. Wrong.

>>7083324
See, you dumb fuck, logic sits in the space between mathematics, philosphy, and computer science. That some work in logic is very mathematical does not imply that all work in logic is mathematical.

Anyway, I enjoyed that, as I predicted, you refused to answer my questions. You faggot.

>>7083333
>you cant know nuffin

You're the reason people make fun of philosophers. Nice quads tho

>>7083334
shut up
you "bring back the classics" fags are all literal queers, pedos, or just academic hipster dumbasses

>>7083344
Logic comes before mathematics classically and essentially, and both are part of the metaphysics (predication without reification or subjection to the senses).
see >>7083328

>>7083350
ok, but what do you have to offer? Your humor is a little bit lackluster.

>>7083347
>you cant know nuffin
You already know everything.

Every statement contains all possible meanings All statements are simply different ways of describing the Absolute.

>>7083353
>Logic comes before mathematics
This is so fucking wrong. Logic was formalized by math and is a strict subset of math, as proved by Gödel. Math cannot be completely axiomatized logically and most math is done without referring to logic.

>and both are part of the metaphysics
Even dumber than your first mistake. Science and math are the opposite of metaphysics. They have structure, they are objective. Metaphysics on the other hand is pure subjective belief without basis in reality.

>>7083353
the status quo, it keeps kids from getting butt raped by people like you

>>7083353
>Logic comes before mathematics classically and essentially,
I'm not talking about whether logic is epistemically prior to mathematics, but rather about the lines we draw between disciplines. (Modern) logic as a discipline, by which I refer to the collection of people who actively pursue research in logic, is not prior to mathematics as a discipline.

>>7083359
>Logic was formalized by math and is a strict subset of math, as proved by Gödel.
Gödel proved no such thing.

>>7083342
prove I'm wrong

>>7083372
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>The two results are widely interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.

Why are you so dumb? Why do you talk about things you don't understand?

>>7083368
An epidemiological argument is a weak argument, and the one for essence a strong one. If we're committed to teaching arithmetic at a young age we should try to give or develop methods of error checking alongside it. Students should learn that 1+1=2 just as much as they should learn that 1+1=/=3 or anything else other than 2. Also, I'm sure teaching them about venn diagrams and logic gates couldn't be hard at all.

>>7083379
I'm well aware of the incompleteness theorems and their claimed impact on Hilbert's program. What I responded to was
>Logic was formalized by math and is a strict subset of math, as proved by Gödel.
The incompleteness theorems establish neither of those things.

>>7083380
>An epidemiological argument
Do you not understand the difference between epidemiology and epistemology?
>If we're committed to teaching arithmetic at a young age we should try to give or develop methods of error checking alongside it. Students should learn that 1+1=2 just as much as they should learn that 1+1=/=3 or anything else other than 2. Also, I'm sure teaching them about venn diagrams and logic gates couldn't be hard at all.
Do you not understand the difference between epistemology and pedagogy?

>>7083368
oh yeah, if you want a more elaborate or practical example of arithmetic error checking check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_out_nines
kids could easily be taught this during their arithmetic phase. But this method or general notion towards education would be strongly condemned by 'technologists' to such a point that the democracy of the affair might come into account I would imagine.

>>7083385
sorry I meant to type epistemology
>epistemology and pedagogy
umm, yeah, I don't know what you mean though

>>7083382
Logic being formalized by math is a simple historical fact. Hence logic is a field of math. Gödel proved that math can never be completely reduced to logic. Therefore logic is a strict subset of math. Is this too hard for you? Are you mentally impaired?

>>7083389
>umm, yeah, I don't know what you mean though
You're talking about the process of teaching mathematics as if it's relevant to the issue at hand. It's not.

>>7083391
Hence logic is a field of math.
That does not follow, you dumb motherfucker.
>Gödel proved that math can never be completely reduced to logic.
No he didn't. He proved that certain theories cannot be complete. You may then take his theorems and wildly run off with your philosophical interpretations of them, but that doesn't make your flights of fantasy reality.

>>7083392
No, I'm talking about how logic can be taught in parallel with mathematics if it's not explicitly taught beforehand.

>>7083400
Sure, but that's not related to the issue at hand.

>>7082645
Nothing has been proven by science you fucking troll, go back to Reddit you child.
>>7082703
>science is objective
Do your algebra homework.

>>7083402
Sure, but that's not related to the issue at hand.
I'm not sure I follow you. I thought you were responding to me? As far as philosophy goes, the premise is that scientists are bad at philosophy because that lack a good foundation in logic which I'm relating to more coherrent or more sound pedagogical alternatives.

>>7083391
>Gödel proved that math can never be completely reduced to logic. Therefore logic is a strict subset of math.

Oh boy, that conclusion totally does not extrapolate the premise

>thread ruined by people replying to arrowbitch
Disappointing

>>7082590
>rational inquiry and logical deduction
=
philosophy

Are we being raided by /lit/ again?

>>7085411
how do we know you're really /sci/ though?

>>7082191
Physics major who minored in philosophy here. Initially I took classes in both fields to double major, but the more philosophy classes I took the more I realized how BS it all was, so settled with a minor.
Almost every single philosophical "conclusion" I've ever been presented and explained, in the Western tradition or elsewhere, has been either based on a faulty initial or intermediary assumption or by a fault in the logic (A therefore B, even though one does not truly follow the other). All of the classical Greek philosophers were guilty of this, Kant was, Nietzsche, every writer of a paper or books on ethics, etc...
I can't take the works of any major philosopher seriously. I feel like I'm reading "Let's reasonably assume that blue is red (this should be self evident). Therefore, cheese is good"

>>7085350
when is philosophy ever rational or logical?

>>7085718
>implying philosophy isn't founded upon formal logic
are you being for realiously?

fucking aristotle (The philosopher) is credited with inventing formal logic

>>7085718

When it gave birth to mathematics and science, perhaps?

>>7085718

But that's the mere definition of philosophy, anon.

>>7082191
Because modern STEM is full of autistic philistine retards who don't know what philosophy really is and form their opinion of the subject based on shitposts from 4chan.

>>7085737
well.. only if you accredit science to descartes or aristotle (or epicurus)

if you accredit it to al hathyam (or whatever that mudslimes name was) or sir francis bacon then...
not so much

>>7085724
I've never found any of the classical Greek philosophers' arguments convincing.
>>7085744
Then the entirety of every university's philosophy curriculum is not teaching philosophy.

>>7085816

You've no idea what the Universities are teaching because despite of all this gas, you've not a clue what you're talking about.

>>7085816

>I've never found any of the classical Greek philosophers' arguments convincing.

Assuming you've even read the Greeks, have you considered that that's 2500 year old philosophy?

>>7085827
I'll admit that generalizing my philosophy minor to everything taught at every university was a bit more than slight exaggeration.
What I'm referring to I suppose is the works of well-known and often-studied philosophers, like Aristotle, Plato, Kant, among many others, who make scores of irrational assumptions

>>7085840
I've read them extensively, and I realize that it is very old. I mainly referred to them because anon mentioned Aristotle, but I remain unconvinced of many of more modern Western philosophers' arguments

>>7085853
>>7085846

I think you are forgetting the context in which most of that stuff was written.

A lot of things which may seem self-evident, or absurd to you right now, weren't as obvious 20 centuries ago.

For instance, it may not be hard to find tons of flaws concerning Plato's cosmology on the 21st century, but it was pretty groundbreaking 2400 years ago. It was so important, that it gave shape to the early christian church centuries later.

>>7085846
>I've never found any of the classical Greek philosophers' arguments convincing.

Most likely caused by an abundance of the black bile, may I recommend the vaginal specula?

because in the last twenty to thirty years there has been a shift in the purpose of higher education from intellectual to vocational

most grad students these days treat their education like a job, not like they're supposed to be learning things

>>7085458
That's reasonable, but it hardly justifies throwing out the whole subject. Sure, major philosophers failed to adequately answer lots of questions, but that doesn't mean you should throw up your hands and dismiss the questions. Point out the flaws in the arguments, refute them, try to reason out better answers with better reasoning and a closer understanding — that's the whole point of philosophy.

Using a tool without understanding how it works makes you a monkey, not a human.

The scientific method is a powerful tool, but it is not without flaws. So many people treat the scientific method as the only true route to knowledge, as the be-all end-all of rational inquiry, when it's trivial to look into the literature to find examples of failures of the scientific method.

Knowing the philosophy of science doesn't mean you dislike or distrust science - it means you are aware of its limitations and can more effectively use it to produce trustable conclusions.

>>7085881
isaac newton thought you could turn feces into gold (despite what you hear, many, including newton, thought the prima materia was feces, not lead)
therefore all of science is wrong.

just like they said on always sunny

>>7085865
>A lot of things which may seem self-evident, or absurd to you right now, weren't as obvious 20 centuries ago.
It's the opposite problem I have. What seems self-evident to the philosophers in their assumptions seems unreasonable to me.

I'll admit that the level of criticism I'm giving to major philosophers is largely unwarranted to the classical Greeks, but I still have the same problems with major philosophers from the 19th century onward

>>7085881
>Point out the flaws in the arguments, refute them, try to reason out better answers with better reasoning and a closer understanding
Yes, this is precisely how I managed to stand going through with even a minor. Every paper I wrote refuted and argued against every erroneous argument and assumption I could find in whatever philosophic works were being covered.
It still managed to be frustrating though because my professors would dismiss my arguments with something like an "ehhh, I still think this major philosopher made a perfectly reasonable assumption"

>>7085865
This is essentially why the history of philosophy is taught as it is essentially the history of ideas. It's also why it's useful to be able to step outside of today's popular assumptions and see stuff with a fresh eye.

One thing that irks me today is that strong emergence is seen to be the default position. I think that's a product of the zeitgeist; comp.sci has so much influence that the most popular view among the learned is that algorithms can have subjective experience regardless of the substrate in which they exist. The idea that information itself generates consciousness could only be a believable narrative in the information age.

>>7085891

I think it's stupid to call it the scientific method.

That's just how 20th century positivists called the "hipotetico-deductive model", they call it scientific because they think that's the actual way to make "science". And with science I mean actual knowledge (epistemos), not what one would normally understand as "scientific".

In reality, there are other methods which could be called "scientific method". The historic method, the sociological method, linguistical analysis, etc.

>>7085899

As a philosophy student I empathize with the frustration of studying what feels like useless old nonsense. But you learn to appreciate the significance of these works within their historical context and understand their foundational value for more current ideas.

Most notably, perhaps, when it comes to science, which the roots of philosophy run right through the middle of. As >>7085891 gets at, you cannot really understand the precise value and nature of scientific data without understanding the epistemology that shaped scientific methodology.

>>7085458
What about Francis Bacon?

>>7085911
eh, i argue that the hipotetico-deductive model is a too-simplistic model of how any real scientists actually practice real science

everyone has an implicit understanding of the limitations of their measurement methods and understandings of the material

you can find an apparent falsification in the literature for every major theory science follows - but we still have accepted "truths"

>>7085925
I don't quite have an idea of philosophy of "useless old nonsense", I was just rather annoyed that many aspects of accepted philosophical arguments are over and over again stressed as being "right" with little to no convincing support, leading my arguments against them being seemingly ignored.

While I still feel this way about major philosophical works into the 20th century, I'll admit that I'm not well versed in contemporary philosophy so perhaps my qualms would not apply there

>>7085891
>makes you a monkey
monkeys have tails, biologist.

and homo sapiens are already apes, by any reasonably taxonomic definition

>>7082703
>>7082710
>>7082731
>>7082727
>>7082760
>>7083269
>>7083291
>>7083308

nice samefag and or double samefag baiting and derailing

I love /sci/

>>7083391
how much of a dumb faggot do you have to be to believe this. It's patently obvious you know nothing about either Godel's incompleteness theorems or set theory. Go to school today and then afterwards, kindly exit life.

>>7085891
If you are too dumb to understand the basic foundations of science then you should probably go to a philosophy class. Scientists take these for granted as any middleschooler with some common sense understand the limitations of an empirical model, and the scientific method without an intro to philosophy.

>>7083358
Like all quantities can have "x1" added at the end and be the same quantity meaning that everything is precisely one of that thing?
Eh. Boring.