/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7919346
It's not rigorous.

Not liking philosophy and not liking philosophers is different. Philosophers are generally uneducated in the physical sciences and mathematics, yet they seem to have lots of ideas about the validity of our work.

Fucking undergrads always talking about Hume and dropping shit over and over again.

>>7919346
>that pic
>chuckled

>>7919346
>mathematician is a girl

Kek

>>7919368
But hume was the best philosopher

Is Kuhn philosophy? I mean, some of his more radical points can be refuted, but I think Kuhn was good.

>>7919380
>hurr durr we should just accept our shitty inherently faulty reasoning and not try to correct it because that's just the whimsical nature of man

no fuck that, hume a shit

>>7919380
I agree, but as the other guy said: undergrads are using Hume's work to shit on science/empiricism as invalid because "u cant no muffin" when science doesn't even aim to explain nature with 100% certainty because it is impossible to.

I like philosophy. It's part of cultural education. There are quite some good philosophers. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, ... However I dismiss the useless branches of philosophy, such as ethics and "philosophy of science". Those are just braindead fedoratard circlejerks.

>>7919409
don't forget metaphysics

>>7919346
I would say this >>7919409 is true for me as well, with philosophy of science not being useless but misused by fedoratards as a fellow anon said. That said, this >>7919368 is the main reason why "philosophy" is not liked by /sci/.

I'm a Chem bachelor, I did lots of Philosophy classes in High School.
I love philosophy, it so much fun, and makes you a better thinker, it really helped me with forming essays, arguments and discussions.

>>7919446
>and makes you a better thinker
Only if you were born with sub-par thinking skills.

>>7919453
>born
>skills

did your above-par thinking skills help you formulate that sentence

>>7919462
>brainlet doesn't know about genetics
I'm not surprised.

>>7919467
>implying genetics have greater effect on intellect than the out bringing
>implying to know shit about genetics

>>7919473
>implying intelligence isn't largely genetic
Brainlet, pls stop embarrassing yourself.

>Why doesn't /sci/ like philosophy?
Because the field of philosophy is really pathetically bad at filtering the good stuff from the nonsense. 90% of everything is crap, in all fields; but in science you can tell the crap apart from the valuable material by using experiments. In philosophy, finding nuggets of wisdom among the boatloads of crap out there is practically impossible. Which makes its very real contributions practically worthless.

>>7919488
Doesn't mean philosophy is bad, sure if full of Metaphysical meaningless stuff, but discussing this helps us think about things, form arguments, write essays about these discussions and consider ideas that are beyond knowing.
Philosophy is always useful, especially Ethics, that helps us see whats right and wrong and we can adapt these ideas we use in our lives to hypothetical thought experiments about Metaphysics or Logic, and helps us uncover why we chose to do what we do and live like we live.

Philosophy makes us better thinkers, writers, arguers, and helps us understand our lives.
There is also a lot of Philosophy underlying all fields, especially Science, Science is very Empiricist and Pragmatic as well as the chose of Axioms in the scientific method (which is Logic, which is Philosophy) and uses alot of Ethics, without ethics we would be in the dark with what we should and shouldn't do in Science.


Don't like the Metaphysical bullshit nonsense let you overlook the very important field that is Philosophy.

>>7919399
I do this.

Y'all are a bunch of Idiots.

>>7919526
no u

>shitting on metaphysics

Seems like someone's a little butt hurt they can't grasp the big picture.

>>7919531
Math and philosophy are the only 2 important fields.

Everything else is just a wank sesh for people who like thinking their smart.

>>7919543
>he thinks he graps the big picture

>>7919547
They're*

Caught myself before you.

>>7919547
>Math and philosophy
>Everything else is just a wank sesh for people who like thinking their smart.

This has to be bait right? It's too ironic not to be.

>>7919547
What about chemistry?

>>7919547
define "important"

>>7919380
You misspelled Rand m8

>>7919556
Yeah, its got to be. Maths (which is just Logic, a kind of Philosophy) and Philosophy are useful for shaping the rest of our world view but they aren't everything.
Can't cure Cancer or go to the Moon with just Maths and Philosophy i.e Logic alone.

>>7919572
>Math is just logic
>Logic is a kind (?!?!?!) of philosophy

you can't make it more clear that you're a teenager speculating and talking out of his ass. you never took a class in math foundations, philosophy or logic (high school doesn't count)

>>7919346
>Why doesn't /sci/ like philosophy?
>Why doesn't "math and science" like something that isn't either math or science, but lords it over both as though it invented the whole world?

I don't know, maybe because: "muh no absolute answers means I can never be wrong"

>>7919346
where should we put Computer Science on that pic, /sci/?

>>7919589
In the garbage can

>>7919583

only real twats actually thing that, and casting a blanket statement that every philosopher has this attitude puts you on the same order of thought as those you degrade.

>>7919580
I was over simplifying it a lot. But all things really boil down to is, Humans thinking.
And we think with Logic, everything is that is coherent is therefore logical and uses logic.

I'm not wrong, everything is Logic.

>>7919596

think*

>>7919473
>>implying genetics have greater effect on intellect than the out bringing
>we all could have been smart, if only our parents had loved us enough

>>7919597
>Saying something grotesquely wrong is just over simplifying
>Everything is logic because everything uses logic

Everything is physics because everything is particles
Everything is chemistry because everything is atoms
etc etc

You have no idea what you're talking about. I have no idea why you would try to pretend otherwise when this is an anonymous board. You gain absolutely nothing by bullshitting here, and even less by trying to save face when called out.

>>7919349
/thread
i love the idea of philosophy but 95% of the ideas of famous philosophers are fucking retarded .

take descartes for example , wanted to do epistemology like a proper math autist from the ground up , throw everything out and only believe what you can prove is true starting from your own existence , only then he went 'lmao the world is real cuz god'.essentially being an unapologetic hypocrite .
>how you want your epistemology senpai ?

the separation of philosophy and science is stupid , science is a branch of philosophy and should be viewed as one like it was from the start. the sorry state of philosophy these days is due to their refusal to treat philosophies with eh same rigor that you find in mathematical proof and their clinging to old retarded ideas because MUH ARISTOTLE .

ffs if changing all the parts of the ship keeps it the same ship is a matter of language and semantics not some fundamental metaphysical shit .

>>7919596
>only real twats actually thing that, and casting a blanket statement that every philosopher has this attitude puts you on the same order of thought as those you degrade.
>Wahhhh!!!!! wahhhh!!!!

>>7919612
descartes was obviously a retard. like many other fields, anything pre-1800 or so is unrigorous shit.

modern analytic philosophy is pretty cool though. good analytics philosophers are much more rigorous than most mathematicians (who tend to use hand-wavy arguments when dealing with strange objects that might not be sets)

>>7919607
Hey, If what I think is true is bullshit, I'm glad you're calling me out.
I didn't realize and can't realize how I'm wrong without looking like an ass and being corrected.
Please, how was I wrong? All knowledge is logical as it uses logic, so all of what we belief requires logic, which needs Philosophy to be it's best.

>>7919614
>completely rational response
>baby crying sounds

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8 anon must be ir8

>>7919612
>science is a branch of philosophy

>philosophy is really just "thinking"
>all schools of thought are children of philosophy
THAT'S why /sci/ hates philosophy,
because philosophy is a pretentious cunt.

>>7919615
>anything pre-1800 or so is unrigorous shit
It was refined by modern philosophers.

>>7919612
>language and semantics
that is a kind of philosophy, just because it's not metaphysics like it's mistaken to be.

>>7919620
>All knowledge is logical
>Beliefs are logic
>Logic needs philosophy to be it's best (???)

The problem here is you're trying to talk about a field you have never studied by making statements that you think are "common sense" and don't need justification. That's not how it works. To talk about something, you need to be qualified, and for doing that you need to study it.

I have very minimal exposure to philosophy and logic, but anyone with even the little exposure I have can realize you're just throwing words around. Am I wrong?

>do possible worlds really exist?
this is a question that philosophers literally take seriously

you just cannot make this shit up

>>7919572
>thinks All those "achievements" are important

Clearly you haven't taken Enough math or philosophy

>>7919627
but all of those things are true. everything is philosophy, but there does exist things that are just philosophy like, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics and logic.

>>7919612
>the separation of philosophy and science is stupid
>science is a branch of philosophy

instantly shows you don't know shit. the problem of demarcation of science was a very hot topic in philosophy of science, and has a lot of development. saying it's stupid because you don't know anything about it is retarded.

science is NOT a branch of philosophy at all by any reasonable definition of science

>>7919596
I think this.

Have an open mind, dingus.

All answers are right in their own way.

2+2=5 in certain frames of mind.

>>7919615
Give me an example of an object that can't be represented as a set

>>7919640
the "possible worlds" interpretation is a very rigorous formulation of much of modern analytic philosophy. the fact that it sounds so weird is obviously surprising for someone who doesn't know shit about philosophy like you.

>>7919643
>but all of those things are true. everything is philosophy
>i cannot into the difference between semantics and facts
>still make grandiose pronouncements about my over-arcing superiority
>why does everybody hate me?

>>7919633
I have done Philosophy classes in HS but you say their not valid, so I'll assume that means I've done no studying.
All I've said is that really, our language and beliefs use and create logic. So everything we do is mostly just logic and Philosophy, really just the practice of thinking over logic, refines your logic and makes you a better thinker.

You're probably not wrong with me throwing shit around, but that's all language is, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant. I could still be wrong but I don't see it.

>>7919346
all it takes is 1 mathematical transform from the mathematician and the philosopher is boxed in.

>>7919643
This is not his problem. His problem is that philosophy students try to make themselves feel better by claiming that everything is philosophy to trivialise science, even though them claiming everything is philosophy does more harm to them since it shows that philosophy in many of its forms is extremely trivial and intuitive to everyone as a mental task.

>>7919649
I'm not even going to go for nonsense objects like
S = {x / x does not contain itself}
because that's not how you define a set.

The simplest example is a proper class. An example of a proper class is the class of all ordinals, the class of all cardinals, the class of all vector spaces, etc, etc. These are, loosely speaking, "too big" to be sets.

>>7919650
yeah, its not really if "possible worlds" exists its "can possible worlds exist" which questions determinism and what it means to have a world that isnt the actual world, can that even make sense?

I only respect philosophers who double majored in applied physics or something

>>7919659
Well, everything can be philosophy is a better sentence, not everything is, as long as you're thinking about something critically and getting an idea of what you're thinking, it's probably philosophy, i cant think of something that wouldnt qualify.

Philosophy isnt trivial but all things that require thinking is philosophy, am I wrong?

>>7919654
>Our language and beliefs (sometimes) use logic
sure
>Our language and beliefs (sometimes) create logic
does this mean anything at all?
>So everything we do is mostly logic and Philosophy
how does this follow? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
>the practice of thinking over logic, refines your logic and makes you a better thinker
yes, you have to think about logic to learn about logic. yes, knowing basic applied logic will help prevent nonsensical thoughts and it makes you a better thinker.

Words tend to have very specific meanings. Throwing words around might be ok in normal conversation but when you're talking about language, philosophy or logic, they have very specific meanings and it's easy for something that looks acceptable to be poorly defined or even false.

>>7919671
math can't be philosophy, because it's not
science can't be philosophy, because it's not
both require thinking and are not philosophy
thinking about something critically is not philosophy. it's very likely that you're having thoughts that fall under philosophy of math / science while doing math and science, but that doesn't mean that the math and science you're doing are instantly philosophy

>>7919671
I did not argue that everything is NOT philosophy, I simply said what the motivation of philosophy students saying such a thing could be, and why this might agitate others, for a good reason in my opinion.

>>7919666
Thanks. That is me. And I rather call it Logic, instead of Philosophy

>>7919686
If you studied logic, call it logic.
If you studied philosophy, call it philosophy.
If you are looking for things that sound cool and you're a freshman, don't call it anything.

>>7919674
>Our language and beliefs (sometimes) create logic
does this mean anything at all?
What we allow to be true by definitions shapes our logic, if we let certain things be logically consistent, because that's all we're doing, choosing for something to be logical and if we can get a working model out of it, we keep that form of logic, so we use logic to refine logic. Our language, the meaning of out words that can so easily have more than one meaning making similar sound sentences in other contexts meaningless, like it appears I've been doing.

>So everything we do is mostly logic and Philosophy
how does this follow? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
I'm going to define my terms, I could be wrong but I use the word this way but, Philosophy is just thinking about things critically in a certain context (Epistemologically or Metaphysically) Is that wrong?
I was saying that since all humans do is think, everything where we aren't mindlessly thinking but applying our thoughts is Philosophy.

Everything is not logic.

This type of thinking is poisonous.

>>7919681
Ah ok, I can see this. What is Philosophy then?
Science may not then be Philosophy but it sure does use it (Im not saying that equivocates them)

>>7919701
This is something philosophers can't agree on.

>>7919685
Yeah ok, I know you weren't saying it was wrong, I was just adding more to what you said.
The scientifically focused can and rightfully find Philosophy annoying. I get that.

>>7919706
Hmm, that's annyoing. If Philosophers can't agree, then really there's nothing solid we can say it is and I'm not wrong in saying Philosophy is most things, if you can't define it otherwise.

That makes this discussion really hard.

I have always liked philosophy as a subject
but when it comes to unis teaching it, I don't feel that convinced. But I have respect for philosophers, more than liberal arts and psycos.

>>7919697
>we're choosing things to be logical
???
>working model
sounds like you're confusing science and logic, if you're talking about models that fit our observations

The rest of this sentence reads like filler, I've no idea what you're trying to say

>Philosophy is just thinking about things critically
Sure. But thinking about things critically is not always philosophy. That's why it doesn't follow.

>>7919701
Science does not use philosophy. Scientists use philosophy because they're people and they need to think about what things are and what things mean and all that shit. Science doesn't care.

>>7919714
It does mess things up. But isn't it beautiful in a way?

>>7919727
What I was saying was, we use language, language expressing logic, if we say X is logic but it doesn't work in usage, we change our model of logic so X is no longer logical.

I could be wrong in my definition but, if I use the word Philosophy to mean "thinking critically" then all instances of thinking critically is Philosophy. But yeah, that might be wrong, my definition seems to broad. If Philosophy is just a field where there is alot of critical thinking like, Epistemology, Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics and Atheistic then I guess, no Science isn't that but it must share qualities from the other ones, you're right that >Science doesn't care

>>7919751
Your definition is right, this is called Tautology. You are discussing with the shit tier kind of plebeian that infests this board and STEM in general.

>>7919751
Using wikipedia, a good definition from this paragraph
>Philosophy – study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Is, forming rational arguments that discuss ideas critically, such as existence, knowledge and language.

>>7919762
>a tautology is a kind of definition (or "right" definition)
>x is a shit tier kind of plebeian

top kek

>>7919727
>Science does not use philosophy.
I think Rene Descartes would have something to say about it. Like, a Discourse on Method, which was, essentially, the birth of modern science.

>>7919660
>S = {x / x does not contain itself}
you mean x is not a subset of x

>>7919346
Because it's not in the box.

>>7919346
As far as we know there are 4 aproches to knowledge, they are similar to language.

The first one is animist / illiterate were people describe things with feelings, because they have no words to describe them.
>the river brings joy to us.
Statement derived are totally random
>give children to the river

The second is the polytheism one. Where people describe things as things were people
>the sun is a man on a horse
This implies agency in all things
>the night the horse is resting

The third one is the pure language one.
>descartes shit
Where things must be consistent internally
>descartes shit

The last one known to us is the mathematical language, where things that cannot be described by mathematics are false or do bit not exist.

If it can be described by math is science she bit philosophy, if it cannot at best is irrelevant

>>7920030
Not instead of bit

>If it can be described by math, it is science and not philosophy. if it cannot, at best is irrelevant

>>7920037
i agreed with you until you said philosophy was irrelevant.

>>7919615
that's why reading about his shit really pissed me off , it was totally logically flawless and i totally agreed with him and thought this was going places and then he goes headfirst into an ocean of shit .
i honestly though this was some sort of cartesian trolling to get some point across or something but apparently not .

>>7919632
i agree but they often speak of words and semantics as more then words as semantics . they say that the beat is like some fundamental universal thing when its just a word we use for a bunch of things that kinda look like our personal experience of boats . the question shouldn't be 'is it still the same boat' but 'should we call it the same boat because you can go either way and be correct .

>>7919645
>philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
>science is the acquisition of knowledge about the universe .
isnt science part of the study of the general nature of reality ?

>>7920077
Well, maybe not yet, but sooner or later will be.

It's there a field of knowledge that did not belonged to philosophy? Yes
Is there a filed of knowledge that used to belong to philosophy that now belong to science? Yes
Is there a filed of science that now belong to philosophy? No

Maybe this process of appropriation will take forever but at the end only the empty fileds will stay with philosophy.

Maybe one day there will be another tool that will do the same to science

>>7919346
Instead of a box it should be a towering civilisation with power plants and sky scrapers and jetliners and all sorts of things that science gives us.

>>7920130
>he thinks civilizations can exist without philosophy, religion and the creation of values

>>7919346
fixed

>>7919380
>Hume
>Not Kant
So what did lead chips taste like as a child?

>>7919477
>implying you're not a raging homo

>>7919346
>Philosophy
Good, useful to society, must be part of a learned man's culture
>philosophy majors
420 DUDE WEED LMAO

>>7919346
Most thinkers do, though its not really useful outside of intellectual conversation. Its a lot of fun to design and synthesize catalysts for hydrogen fuel cells. It's not fun to consider implications of life itself all the time.

>>7920197
LOL

>>7919346
Science is a philosophy so I don't think that's the case.

>>7919477
I almost forgot sci is populated by undergrads.
Thanks for the reminder.

>>7920412
I'm a grad student though. Where's your ad hominem now?

>>7920197

fixed again

>>7920423
>grad student
>brainlet meme
You had a hard time with Calculus right?

>>7920450
I self-taught myself calculus when I was 13. Try again, brainlet.

>>7920443
>chemists
>profiting over the (none illegal) drugs they synthesize

HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 6 times out of 10, they get fired and can't legally get a new job being a chemist over a non-compete clause they signed when being hired.

>>7919380
Nietzsche? You forgot about the superman, bro.

>>7919615
>descartes was obviously a retard. like many other fields, anything pre-1800 or so is unrigorous shit.
rigour does not exist outside the few formal languages for deduction, which are invented to seek rigour and then nobody knows what to do with these formalizations.

=> clinging to rigour is for plebs and undergraduates.

>>7919572
>Can't cure Cancer or go to the Moon with just Maths and Philosophy i.e Logic alone

Geniuses usually care little about that if they're the kind to dedicate themselves to pursuits that require the most "intelligence" as a necessary condition (these pursuits largely being in mathematics). They are usually driven wild by the paradoxes and seemingly un-intuitive truths that are in maths and philosophy (the latter, usually in our use of language, which is why most genius-level philosophers such as Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein and other mathematicians who turned to philosophy mainly engage in the philosophy of language)

That being said it's important to separate analytic and theoretical philosophy from continental phil (which is likely what the common man thinks of when he thinks of "philosophy").

Most other sciences tend to have a degree of reality that your imagination has to "conform" to but it's hard to explain this to people who are not "gifted" (sorry for using the word, it was the easiest way to get my point across).

>>7921847

Math requires belief in an axiom. It's really just the same as religion in terms of purity.

>>7922014
No, religion claim that it can tell you something about the real world. Math does not. It's not the same thing

>>7922016
So it's the same as kids playing, you are making a great case for it, mate.

>>7922014
You don't "believe" in axioms you utter tard.

>>7922035
As far as I know, it could be

>>7922036
Well don't you need to accept them in order to utilize them? Just as the religious must accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior?

>>7922045
No, it's completely different.

You either pick axioms because they look cool, and that is pure intellectual work. Or you pick axioms because they reflect well a physical problem. And that makes the math you are working on subordinate to phisic

>>7921847
At what level? When I was 13 I was trying to teach myself "precalc" (primarily just solving limits algebraically along with some trig) and didn't bother with any calc until I was around 15 years old. Calculus is what got me interested in math though despite being considered a baby tier subject.

>>7922051
So physics would be the purest form of science then? Since it isn't interchangeable and derives its starting point from something that is not man made, but rather something that just is?

Math is basically just philosophy of calculation thus making it a field of philosophy.

Math helps us explain physics just as the knife helps the chef cook. Mathematicians are glorified engineers, making tools for the real scientist to use.

>>7922065
Clearly everything is either useful to science or it's not. Religion and philosophy are not, while math is.

That's enough to place them in 2 completely different boxes.

>>7919346

Philosophy is to math as alternative medicine is to medicine. If it was useful it would be math

>>7922071
It was all an elaborate ruse.

Religion is dumb as fuck, philosophy is useful for the purposes of living well, not science. But seriously though, mathematicians take themselves way too seriously.

>>7919346
/sci/ is part of philosophy. There is no science without it, therefore you can't dislike it. This question is dumb, this board is a mess. Please, fuck off

>>7922079
Well, is it? I honestly cannot think of a society that started living better because of regular philosophy.(I'm excluding religions) Yeah sure, you can say that the French revolution was based on pylosophy, but that is political philosophy, which no state before 1500 really used. And that is the only example.

99% of human life improvements, since the start of humanity, are engineering one.

Philosophy may be interesting and all, but the claim that it improves life is not obvious. In the sense way that claiming that religion improve life is not obvious.

On the other extreme, engineering and science do

>>7919346
Because most people on this board are too autistic to be able to connect with anything that can't be quantified with numbers or requires some level of human connection.

-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like ? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))

if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-realist).

Why do people crave the deductive reasonings and its various formalizations ?
Because deductions are seen as ''falling form the sky''.
deductions are seen as necessary. deductions are seen as ''impossible to refute, because they ar enot perosnal, but are external therefore leading you to objectivity, universality, truths, reality''

Why do people cling to objectivity, universality, truths, reality ?
Because they do not know how to live without these fantasies which bring them comfort and a sense of control.

>>7922079
>>Religion is dumb as fuck,
religion is coping mechanism, just like other rationalisms, your faith in the scientific method included.
>>7922065
>>So physics would be the purest form of science then? Since it isn't interchangeable and derives its starting point from something that is not man made, but rather something that just is?


-first step is inductive; with what you see, what you feel, you fix a system, then, by association and differentiation, you discriminate between systems which behave like your system, and systems which do not behave like you system [the definition of a system is bogus of course, since the system is literally putting, at least, spatial and temporal boundaries to get an ''event'' (people love to take seriously space and time, they cannot think outside space and time)+ giving this event other qualities that the system is supposed to bear]
induction serves, at the very least, to tie things/events/phenomena together through the concept of identity (or its opposite, of difference). instead of induction here, you can talk about abstractions, but they are the same things : to group things together and/or to differentiate between things.

-you continue your induction/abstraction (and frankly, you cannot even do anything else in your life; it is too difficult to stop having faith in your inductions), in saying that, since two systems behave the same so far, they must have a few qualities which are the same

>>7922126

-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities [which ties things together, which create the system] above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want it to leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)


-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like ? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))


if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-realist).

Why do people crave the deductive reasonings and its various formalizations ?
Because deductions are seen as ''falling form the sky''.
deductions are seen as necessary. deductions are seen as ''impossible to refute, because they are not perosnal, but are external therefore leading you to objectivity, universality, truths, reality''

Fun fact: philosophy majors have the highest IQ's on average out of any university field.

>>7922128

Why do people cling to objectivity, universality, truths, reality ?
Because they do not know how to live without these fantasies which bring them comfort and a sense of control.

people dislike and pains and the typical reaction when your life sucks is to ask ''why me? why my life sucks and others seem to manage well?''. In one word, you see the existence as a bunch of necessary events and a bunch of contingent events, then you choose to have these contingencies.
What the fantasy of control brings you ? it brings you faith, by induction, that you life will stop sucking if you think for a bit.

You want your life to improve, so you cling to the fantasy of having abstractions which will bring you sustained pleasures. like explained here >>7922097

of course, it fails sooner or later. hedonism is not a doctrine which brings happiness. Your unhappiness is precisely stemming from your faith that hedonism works, that you can tame what is external to you, once and for all, to the point of having continuous pleasures if you are smart enough.

what brings you down is nothing but your faith in finding permanence and personality in pleasures, which are sustained by clever tricks, by inductions ,over time and space, that your tricks will always work.

>>7922136
>then you choose to have these contingencies.
then you choose to hate these contingencies.

>>7922133
if you're talking about that chart

>projected from SAT scores and ***intended major***

they're still dumb and math is, and always will be, on top.

>>7922164
Ok, but does it get the ladies wet?

>>7919349
you ignorant fuck

>>7919409
> Dawkins
> philosopher
> yep, now I understand why you don't like ""philosophy of science""

>>7919615
agreed

>>7921904
someone, finally

Philosophy is necessary for science. Consider the importance of ethics to research.

>>7922441
problem is many researchers arent aware of the implications of their work. the workload is distributed to many researchers and they all study very sterile parts of a whole, and cant leverage an opinion on whether their work is ethical or not. it comes down to scientists allowing a paycheck to be satisfactory compensation for their work

>>7922441
And not to mention scientific method

>>7919346
psycology aplied biology
who says that shit?
sociology and psycology are not science

>>7922441
>Consider the importance of ethics to research.

a priori it is not important at all

>>7919346
Personally I like it. Talk with the liberal arts people on campus about it often enough too.
That being said if a scientist doesn't have some sort of philosophy that they run on, then they are doing a disservice to the entire field they study in.

>>7919615
>Ancient Greek philosophy = shit
lmao you're a fukken idiot.

>>7919660
>what is an infinite set: the post

>>7922511
It is. It's some of the earliest philosophy and some of the most misguided.

>>7922523
If you are so straightforward then sure, the world is not made out of 4 elements. There's a shitload of wrong stuff looking at it from today's context, but there are great ideas in pre-1800 philosophy. To dismiss it all is a sin to mankind.

>>7922511
Have you even read Plato or Socrates? A lot of their arguments are semantics.

They make arguments like "a man who votes is a good man, and a good man would not murder, so nobody who votes can be a murderer". The Republic was nothing but an endless stream of stupid crap.

everything right made before analytic philosophy, it's right by accident

>>7922553
There are great ideas smeared in shit on the side of a nuthouse. As a whole the greeks were wrong more than they were right. Pretty definitively.

I salute them for being some of the first and best (for their time), but we've moved past them.

>>7922553
wait, it has clearly an historical importance.
but that is totally irrelevant when one is trying to decide if current philosophy is relevant, if it's using the right methods

>>7922563

That argument is sound if you accept the premises.

>>7922563
>>7922588
Got it. Nobody should bother studying Greek philosophy.

>>7922602
People should bother studying, but not blindly accepting ideas that have fallen out of favor (for good reason) hundreds of years ago. This is the only place where I've legit seen people who think there just might be something to classical elements.

>>7922602
i suppose that if they teach you how to detect bad reasoning, you would end up with the same knowledge.

anyway that is not what people are saying.
if you are interested in history of philosophy, yeah sure, study it. But please don't quote the Panta Rhei idea to a computer engineering professor when asking why variables assume a defined value.

>>7922614
>>7922616
I'm not saying people should take things to the extreme. It's just I feel if one wants to be knowledgeable in philosophy one has to be familiar with the old philosophy as well.

>>7922656
Clearly of you want to be knowledgeable in philosophy you must be knowledgeable in philosophy, but, again, that tells you nothing about the current state of the subject

>>7922014
Math doesn't need axioms.

>>7922672
Math IS axioms, everything else is just derivations of them.

>>7922678
Nope, try again. I'm a mathematician and I never used an axiom.

>>7922664
I know. Best thing is is to get familiar with all ages.

>>7922684
>muh assembly and C are useless, I never used them.
Clearly if you are at the top level you don't use them, but they are thing that allow you to stay at the top level

>>7922684
>I never used an axiom
Have you also never used an oxygen molecule in the process of breathing?

>i just breath in and breath out bro

>>7922678
no, this is mathematics seen form logics.

plenty of mathematicians refuse the axiomatization of maths.

what do you think about the undergraduate degree maths and philosophy?
I've been interested and received a few offers in the UK but also applying math in France.

I like both, just wondering which one - maths&phil or just maths - is better regarded in the academic environment

>>7919377

>maybe if we represent them more in media it will fix the gender disparity. Right guys? Right?

>>7919409
>fedoratard
>posting reaction image of Elliot Rodgers

>>7922694
I agree completely

>150 posts deep
>no instance of "CANT KNOW NUFFIN" used yet
well done /sci/, i'm impressed

I had a language teacher in high school. One time she was talking about how science says that "time is relative", which proved that "there is no absolute truth". So I put my hands up and I asked "so is it absolute that there is no absolute truth?" The entire class did an "OOOHHHHH" sound and the teacher admitted that absolutes do exist, but she didn't mean to say that literally.

In short, I don't "hate" philosophy, I just hate it when its topics are touched by people who have no clue of what they're talking about.

>>7924495
>the entire bus clapped

TOTALLY HAPPENED

>>7924507
I don't need to prove my coolness to anyone.

>>7924495
Bertrand Russell, is that you?

>>7919381

the scientific revolutions guy?

yeah i'd call him a philosopher.

>>7919648

wait wait wait.

you think there are "no absolute answers, therefore you're never wrong", and then tell me to have an open mind?

what the fuck

>all answers are right in their own way?
>2+2=5 in certain frames of mind?

maybe high on PCP, sure. You give philosophers a bad name, and /sci/jerkers ammo against them.

see >>>7924453

>>7920116
>isnt science part of the study of the general nature of reality ?
pretty sure his answer would be philosophy isnt study of reality, more discourse about what reality might be.

>>7923329
[citation almost certainly forthcoming]

>>7922051
>You either pick axioms because they look cool, and that is pure intellectual work. Or you pick axioms because they reflect well a physical problem.

>>7919380
>not kierkegaard

hello philistine

>>7919589
above chemistry

>>7919346
Philosophy isn't bad, but it has to be based off of your own experiences, not some degree from college.

Why learn from books about philosophy when getting real experiences or learning from self-reflection and observation of the world around you is far more effective.

>>7919346
Great pic

>>7919612
Descartes lived in a time when you could be killed for questioning the church.

>>7924838
alain connes

>>7922045
>Well don't you need to accept them in order to utilize them?
You don't need to "believe" in the rules of chess to play the game.

>>7922523
Fuck off, Plato. You fucked it all up.

>>7924122
Where did you apply ?

>nice box you folks you got yourself into, down there

Implying he isn't in that white box with the rest of them

>>7927530
Just sayin

>>7927535

>>7921904
>That being said it's important to separate analytic and theoretical philosophy from continental phil (which is likely what the common man thinks of when he thinks of "philosophy").
Holy fucking shit, finally someone here knows his shit.

>>7927562
The statement you quoted is repulsively ignorant though.

>>7922091
>/sci/ is part of philosophy
Isn't it the other way around though? Philosophy is the original science, but that doesn't make it any less of a part of science as a whole.

>>7927569
I mean, I'm not going full positivist and arguing that continental philosophy is useless, but the mental image most people have of philosophical academia is precisely that of the continental tradition.

Science is merely a spook, when will you lads understand?

>>7927579
Wrong.

>>7919346
I just dislike Blacks.

>>7924126
Pretty sure I read somewhere that mathematics was the subject that had the smallest gender disparity.

>>7919409
You Sir, are a master baiter. You might have gotten away with it but for including Dawkins as a philosopher. Good try.

>>7919653
Fuck. Things you do once in your life, then never again.

>>7921904
>>7927562
this; analytical phislophy is so sterile that there is no results from them.
The pinnacle of analytical philosophy was ''logical empiricism'' who failed miserably. HAHAHAHAHHHA.

This thread is both awful and quite refreshing.

>>7919377
>>7924126
See this
>>7927650

You guys do understand how probability works yes?

>>7927600
We all dislike niggers

>>7919648
The sentence "2+2=5" is true if in that frame of mind either
(a) the symbol "5" refers to what we commonly refer to with "4", while the rest remains unchanged
(b) the symbol "2" refers to what we commonly refer to with "2,5", while the rest remains unchanged
(c) the symbol "2" refers to what we commonly refer to to with "10", the symbol "+" refers to what we commonly refer to with "-", while the rest remains unchanged
(d) or any logically sound way to switch the meanings of the symbols is applied

In other words, the sentences "2+2=5" or "two plus two equals five" are true only under the condition that whoever says or thinks them refers with them to the same proposition to which people who use language in a normal way refer to with "2+2=4" or "two plus two equals four". But why would anyone want to go against the linguistic norms of his peers in such a way?

Anyway, what I meant to say is that you should think more about how language is used and how it relates to things and ideas, before you mix up the fact that it's possible to communicate the same meaning in a practically infinite number of ways with proof for epistemological relativity.

Also: sorry for the monotounous and autistic stye of this post.

>>7930063
*epistemological relativism

>>7928872
YOU certainly don't.

>>7919547
Universities love math and philosophy departments because they're so cheap to run.

The mathematicians just ask for paper, pencils and waste bins.

The philosophers don't even need the bins!

>>7919346
post modernism

>>7931595
rather post positivism

>>7931601
Wow that's similarly bad. I didn't even know about that faggotry, fuck philosophy even harder.

Don't mind me son

>>7920443

delet this

>>7931610
wow you're a retard

part of post-positivism is the idea of falsificationism and the rejection of verifiability

>>7931616
Well nevermind then

>>7931611
Not advocating for any side here, but SAT actually tends to be a really biased metric for measuring intelligence. It is really heavily correlated with school funding, particularly in the quant. People are much more likely to go into STEM fields if they come from a wealthy background; wealthier schools have drastically better tools for teaching the subject matter.

>>7931640

this DESU, any self respectable, rational person will understand this is, even intuitively. However, this is 4chan so I'll take my own assumption with a grain of salt.

With exception to the outliers, if you think Jamal in inner city Chicago will do as well as Brian from Nantucket on the SATs, you're sadly mistaken. They may have, my genetics, the capacity for equal competition, however due to to the demographics of the region, access to affluent educational systems, and family bonding/reinforcement, Brian is obviously going to score higher because he comes from an area that will A, train and educate him to to better, and B, can provide the necessary environment for a 16-17 year old to WANT to do well in the first place.

>>7931652

by genetics*

>>7931652
Assuming everyone fulfills their potentials, some fields of study just have a higher potential to fulfill

A student of physics is going to be doing more thinking than a student of social work

>>7931657

>>7931657

I agree with this. However, I still think it is important to point out that nobody can fulfill their potential by the time its time to take the SATs. After all, that is what this and the cited post is about.

It is inherent that people from affluent backgrounds will tend to populate STEM fields, because they are educated in regions that have the resources to provide the necessary demonstrations and such to make these kids even want to science in the first place.

>>7931669
I don't necessarily disagree

>>7931671

To further agree with your point, I think you're correct in stating that say, in general, a Ph.D in Social Work will have a lower IQ than a Ph.D in Physics, assuming that we label Ph.D as the highest standard marker of potential fulfillment. That itself is difficult to define though so I'll leave it at that.

sociologist: gross nigger that wants money for her 'hood' ; white ones sell your
data to facebook
psycholgist: makes up cute 'jump to conclusion' diagnoses based on philology and antique ideas that have no place in something irrational like real insanity
biologist: girls who think working with animals is cute, but found out they can't actually get paid for hugging cats/dogs
chemist: faps way to hard over algebra. very uncreative. a few of them are dry enough to do p-chem and forever wallow in fortran
physicists: TOPOLOGY MAN FUCKIN TOPOLOGY LIKE BITCH I OWN YOU FUCKING ESCHER KNOTS REK'D SON
mathematicians: i came from a soviet-bloc country where my only toys as a child were stalin medals, and math. even in later years, country had no jobs, so i sit at desk and do math. for what purpose? i have no idea. such is communist ideology.
philosopher: derp guise muh strawmans, muh implication symbols. meme-arrows are not real symbols, i win this argument. what argument. top kek false pretense xD

girls also go into chemistry for beauty creams

>>7920443
Love the mathematician one thanks anon

>>7927596
Not really, that's also why many plebs get baited into it because they think is all muh feelings and shit because math is for nerds

Math is for undergraduates who NEED rules to think, because they cannot think outside of the rules of classical logic.

Math is for undergraduates who NEED rules to think, because they cannot think outside of the rules of classical logic.

>>7919377
about half of young mathematicians are girls you fag

>>7933494
0/0 gtfo

>>7919655
THIS

(Have you read that book about lion hunting and math my friend?)

>>7919346
Scientific method

>>7933524
Well only the good mathematicians are men

>>7919346
A lot of /sci/ doesn't understand philosophy or it's fields of study. But I have seen some competent phil people here. Sam Harris usually gets called out, for example.
>>7920130
Politics, ethics, etc.
>>7919349
Read current analytic phil.
>>7919368
Popscientists do the exact same shit in the oppossite direction. I feel you, though.
>>7919409
>Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins
I'm happy that people called out Dawkins, but noone called out Stiller, really?
>>7919612
>i love the idea of philosophy but 95% of the ideas of famous philosophers are fucking retarded .
Read something new, christ. I don't go calling out scientists for humor theory or whatever.

And current thought is that phil "invented" science and can see it's faults, but science ain't phil.

ok well

>>7934150
>>Read current analytic phil.
there is no results from analytic phil.

>>7934194
What do you mean?

>>7934150
>Politics, ethics, etc.

More work in utility maximization is being done by computer scientists now, and philosophy's only contribution is the claim that political systems shouldn't attempt to maximize utility.

>>7934216
Have the computer scientists realized that objective and utilitarian ethics are retarded garbage?

>>7934217
If you aren't trying to maximize utility, what are you trying to maximize? The only defense philosophers have is their adherence to fringe political ideology.

>>7934216
>More work in utility maximization is being done by computer scientists now
They are applying it, then. The knowledge itself comes from phil.
>and philosophy's only contribution is the claim that political systems shouldn't attempt to maximize utility.
Are you seriously saying that the only contribution philosphers have done to consequentialism is that?
>>7934220
>If you aren't trying to maximize utility, what are you trying to maximize?
Welcome to ethics

>>7919346

Because you can't put philosophy into a forumula

>>7934221
Philosophy has done significant work in the past, but current philosophy is done with. If you want to do work in game theory or ethics, study computer science.

>>7934226
>If you want to do work in game theory or ethics, study computer science.
How would that help me research ethics in any way? I could program a malfunctioning car to kill the passagers over a higher number of pedestrians or whatever, but so what?

>>7934226
Please explain your understanding of ethics.

>>7934226
>If you want to do work in game theory or ethics, study computer science.
This is the most retarded shit I've read in a while now.

>>7934223
the only reason you think philosophy and science adhere to different codes is because you think that only math can

shit is above most of us here, we're really squabling about words when all the real polymaths who wrote our equations are revered philosophers.
Back then, they didn't try to turn each branch of thought into linear hierarchical categories like we do with our pedagogical ideas and markets, they argued heuristics and used compasses in wartime.

if you don't think heuristics predominates mathematics, then badabingbadaboom I've got no space 4u.

>>7927545
and that's how god created the universe.

>>7919377
welcome to xkcd where girls are smart

>>7919377
Actually I think it's Cedric Villani

>>7919583
>muh no absolute answers means I can never be wrong

Holy shit you're retarded

>>7919572
>maths is just logic
this is quite a controversial philosophical position. It's called Logicism, and lots of people who spend a lot of time thinking about maths believe that it's not true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logicism/

>>7919612
no contemporary philosopher uncritically accepts Descartes' views or arguments. He made lots of arguments in 'Meditations', some good and influential and some unsound and confused. Philosophy isn't about the endorsement of the all views of all the famous philosophers of the past

>>7920197
Kek

>>7934402
He looks better with his gold coin IMO.

>>7919346
>Why doesn't /sci/ like philosophy?

Analytical Philosophy is logic, mathematics is central to the subject.

Most of /sci/ understand this.

What research done by philosophers has trascended human knowledge into a new paradigm?

>>7934943
I was there for that thread. Nice meme.

>>7934950
socrates for example

>>7934950

All good scientists are/were philosophers. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, is the first step any researcher or curious mind takes.

Theres a difference though.

Philosophy ends, where it starts; science starts what philosophy ends and ends what philosophy starts.

>>7934964
>/phil
Phil: [Start] I think the universe is made, up of souls. [End]
>/SCI
[Start] Wheres your proof? HUR DUR WE WILL RESEARCH IT NOW [end sometime*** later]


>/sci
Phil: [start] I believe the world is made up of.............
Sci: Possibly something smaller than the higgs boson! But we are still looking. But bbbut but thats our answer for now. [End]

>/phil
BUT if its not the higgs boson,

then it doesnt MATTER.

>Thats why sci hates phil

>>7934964
>meaningless deepities, the post

>>7919346
Because people fail to distinguish the retarded philosophers from the intellectual ones.

>>7934984
Mind doing so right now?

>>7934984
How many philosophers who are doing useful work do you believe are alive today?

>>7934994
Name any productivr scientist.
Thats my answer.

See
>>7934964

>>7934963
He sure gave good advice on critical thought and reviewing your own knowledge but he surely didn't change paradigms.
>>7934973
>I think the universe is made up of souls
You neither gained or lost knowledge by saying this. It was completely useless and only gave scientific inquiry to study the structure and composition of the universe

Also, no philosopher understandd what is the Higgs boson and hasn't got a single clue about what particle physics and quantum mechanics actually is.

>>7933736
Nope, there are plenty of females who are top. Stop pretending that you know shit on this subject

>>7935018

You are wrong.

>>7935004
How do you know that?
For all we know "souls" really could be the very building block of everything.
Ex.

(Pic related) We continue to find smaller and smaller particles. Lets name them
>higgs blossom
>coco jumbo
>jumbo mumbo
>mumbo momo
>momo
>mimo mi
>itty
>itty bitty
>bitty

Ah. Finally found the smallest possible thing. What do we name it?

>souls

(You): Mfw....

>>7935004
>He sure gave good advice on critical thought and reviewing your own knowledge but he surely didn't change paradigms.
lol read a book

socrates stands among the ancient jews and jesus christ when it comes to changing paradigms
there's a reason why the term pre-socratic exists

>>7935022
Souls are by definition immaterial you nigger. Stop making retarded pot smoking claims. If we find evidence for something truly fundamental and then we call it souls and then say philosophers deserve the nob is nostradamus tier predictions.

>>7935028

Incorrect.

>>7935024
Well, but in philosophy and its development. They sure were of great importance, but had little impact on most human lifes after that. I would say Aristotle far more reach.

>>7935033
Noice m8

>>7935004
And yes, You may have not lost or gained knowledge, but that does not mean the philosopher did or didnt.

Assume I speak no modern language, but I am fully human, of good intelegience.
I imagine a fruit of a random taste and think about it, my brain will release a specific pattern or charges between neurons and yada yada. Basically my brain will run "Fruit53862.exe" in my head, in which I imagine a red round fruit with a little thing on top that falls off trees and it has a taste that I made up.

Assume you are you, no changes.
You find an apple. You eat it. Yum.
You remember the apple. The round shape, the color, the stem, and how it fell off a tree. Your brain fires the exact same pattern as my "Fruit53862.exe".

Who was wrong? Neither.
I, the philosopher, just had no fucking clue that I was actually right and such a fruit was possible and existed and can be reexperienced over and over.
You, the scientist, just needed the external confirmation.

If philosophy is useless because its creations cant be physically applied to reach a predetermined outcome, then that means that everytime science runs an experiment that fails the hypotheses, it is useless.

Hell, philosophy IS the hypotheses.
We didnt build a LHC because why the fuck not do that with these random materials and metals around us. We build a LHC because we THOUGHT... hmmm... is there something ________ .

>>7934239
GBS was born in Wales.

>>7935036
lol what the fuck do you think philosophy does but influence the world
you think doing a reevaluation of values upon greek society, directly influencing plato, slightly less directly influencing aristotle, which were incredibly important in medieval european and arabic thought for a thousand years, also having great effect on the renaissance and enlightenment, and we all know what this board has to thank those time periods

sure you might say that it's not all socrates but the impact of greco-roman philosophy and culture is incredibly huge no matter how you look at it

but sure they didn't invent telegraphs and refrigerators, because only utilitarian objects you can sell to improve the lives of soccer moms are what's important right

>>7935028
Thats the joke you nigger faggot.
The philosophers claim was "everything is MADE of souls".
Science thus names the smallest building block of material things "soul" as to support the philosophers claim.

See >>7935054

Langauge doesnt always HAVE to mean what the majority believes it to mean. Language is merely an agreement of terms associated to thoughts. The philosopher did not MEAN "immaterial poofy ghosts" by "souls". He just said "souls" for lack of a better term and was to lazy to "show your work" as to how he reached the conclusion.

>>7935028
there is a concept of material soul

>>7935562
Then we should detect it.

>>7919346
I like philosophy

Human experience cannot be quantified.

Continental Philosophy is relevant to the human condition because it addresses questions of experience. It also shoots holes in cherished ideas, such as A=A.

>>7935777
Neurobiology sure is trying and has ccome up with pretty good models

>>7935586
in what model ?

>>7934950
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?
>>7934964
>All good scientists are/were philosophers.
No, that's not true. Science is a epistemological position on how best acquire empiric knowledge, but that's it.
>>7934986
Harris vs Dennett is the pairing that comes to mind.
>>7935976
>Neurobiology
Not him but neurobiology can't really answer the problems phil presents

>>7935777
>continental philosophy
>relevant to anything
kek, enjoy your unrigorous bullshit

>>7919346
I remember thinking about this in freshman year of high school even before I discovered the meme. I came to the same conclusion except I put philosophy behind sociology. Philosophy is such garbage.

>>7919346
Philosophy is frowned upon by the scientific community at large for the same reasons as teenagers are rebellious to parents and other authorities. It's a procedure of individualisation.
Philosophy is also frowned upon by hardboiled adherents to any other academical discipline than philosophy itself because it's the one discipline with the power to undo the others.
The epistemological construct which establishes all other disciplines belongs to, and is to be revised by, philosophy.

>>7936597
>the one discipline with the power to undo the others.

>THIS IS WHAT THE FAGGOTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

Top fucking kek you retarded piece of shit. You know what? Go right the fuck ahead. I'd like to see you dismantle empirical science and pure mathematics.

Kill me now /sci/, kill me before I die of laughter.

>>7935020
aww poor little misogynist

>>7924845
nice this is the exact pic i cropped. u saved it?!

>>7919346
And then at the top we have engineers

They actually make shit

>>7920443
hahahaha

>>7919473
Empirically, yes. Genetics has been shown to be the greatest factor.

>>7936355
>he clings to rigor
>he has never done science

>>7936105
Well a material model of the world were there are things we could never detect is pretty useless and this things would be basically immaterial.
>>7936354
>Neurobiology can't answer problems phil presents
Well, it is still has advanced a whole lot into understanding fundamental problems of our thoughts, memories and feelings. It has shown the weakness of our rationalization in many cases.

>>7936597
Shit, is this what teachers say to philosophy majors to make them feel special? You stupid nigger know that foundations!=the field in question? Well, it's morw embarrassing considering they believe they can talk about science at its core without knowing jack shit about it. Best philowophers are the ones who didn't study philosophy.

>>7937562
>science
>rigorous
only formal "sciences" are rigorous. mathematics, logic, analytic philosophy.
i don't care for logic or philosophy though

>>7937648
Rigor means to be thorough, critical and analytical. If you think science is literally looking at some points and doing a regression in excel you are a moron.

>>7919346
The default explanation for consciousness is still "Oh it's definitely some sort of extraplanar magic god stuff" whereas people like Dan Dennett going "There's no reason to believe it's not just the brain" are outliers.

Philosophy is fucking dogshit. Theology in denial.

>>7937652
rigor, in the "math" sense, means drawing conclusions and results based on watertight, undeniable arguments. saying an experimental science is rigorous in this sense is very weird, since all you're doing is creating models that you hope work and you can't show to fail.

>>7937664
Yea, but the interesting is that we do more than hope considering hoe powerful these models are and that if we agree on certain laws, many theoretical frameworks could be considered and derived from these laws. Well, basically all experimental physics has becomed confirmation of previously predicted phenomena.

>>7937675
yes, it's cool that once you model something, you can borrow tools from formal sciences to get stuff that just works.

no, I wouldn't call this "rigor"

Reminder, science wouldn't exist without natural philosophy.

>>7937697
>Remainder science wouldn't exist without science

>>7919409
not sure if you're memeing but if not...

>Schopenhauer

>>7936597

>OP's face when

>>7919346
>not posting the only correct version

>>7938913
Correct

>>7938913
Nice, but that chart looks like a psychology-tier one now.

>>7931577

>The mathematicians just ask for paper, pencils and waste bins.

>The philosophers don't even need the bins!

I can't tell if this is an utterly wasted setup or a perfectly executed Philosophy belongs in the trash joke

>>7939198
Outside observer here:
the latter.

>>7939198
>>7939314
Moo.

>>7931577
>The mathematicians just ask for paper, pencils and waste bins.
This.
Mathematicians cannot think outside their rules of classical logic.

>>7937648
you do understand that there is nothing rigorous about the axioms and the various formalizations of the various reasonings ?

>>7937373
>citation needed

>>7919346
I can't help but imagining the philosopher is like the king of Pointland in this image. No one even knows he's there. Least of all himself.

>>7936597
This.

The "divide" is complicated by the fact that it's just plain fun to individuate yourself and your discipline. It's fun to be part of a camp, the camp of the Cool Guys, and to shit on opposing camps full of uncool fags.

I study science and math for fun, but on some fundamental level (not least being that it's my job), I consider myself a "philosopher." On some deep level, I feel like I'm part of the Philosophy Camp. And if I'm in that camp, it MUST be the Cool Rad Dudes camp, because I am clearly cool as fuck. That's no problem when I'm sitting in my room admiring the shit out of scientists and mathematicians for how brilliant they are. It's not even a problem when I have actual methodological or philosophical objections or qualifications to some of their conclusions, frameworks, ideas, assumptions, etc. They're unbelievably smart fuckers, we're both individuals and human beings, and we have both spent our entire lives reading different intellectual traditions - it's only natural we're going to have disagreements, including fundamental ones.

But somehow if I go to /sci/ and see some well-meaning first year Physics undergrad who got a 75 on his Calculus midterm, and he's saying philosophy seems dumb, I have to find him IRL and rape his mom. PHILOSOPHY IS KING, MATH IS SHIT AND GAY, BEHEAD ALL ENGINEERS

It's just natural territorialism.

Though I will say: Science people underestimate philosophy a bit more than the reverse. Philosophy types tend to see science as a juggernaut that may be misguided, but science people tend to look at philosophy as (a) niche and parochial, (b) go-nowhere, and (c) circlejerk. (b) and (c) might be true, but (a) is much less true than science dudes think. Just saying.

Speaking of science and philosophy, does anyone have a pdf of the feminist glaciology article now that it's been paywalled? Sorry to bring it up again.

>>7937767
Schopenhauer is one of the most based philosniggers, but

>Nietzsche

Anon can't compensate for that one.