/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8473308
Its literally useless
Find me one good use, and I'll concede.

>>8473308
Because they don't understand it

>>8473308
Most scientists don't look down on it (then again I am at a liberal arts university)

>>8473308

Because it's fucking pointless.

It's easier for bullshitters, to bullshit using the linguistic forms in ever-spiraling markov chains, than for scientists to translate their experimental and theoretical work into a framework that satisfies non-technicians.

Philosophy is frowned upon because it lacks quality control for bullshit and is a carcass propped up by mopey academic vampires who wish the world would be Prussian forever.

I think it's a non-issue just perpetuated by undergrads who feel like they understand everything because they pass some retarded weed out courses. What I could say happened in the 20th century is that many people thought that the weird shit scientists were discovering was so unintuitive and esoteric, that every academic should be like that. So some people capitalized from those feelings and convinced a lot of people who knew no better of it (Lacan comes to mind). And it is also true that many scientists are not letting themselves read into philosophy and the like, so they just dismiss it as pure wankery.

>>8473308
Most actual scientists don't look down on it. It's generally undergrads and fedora-tipping science enthusiasts, who generally don't read or educate themselves in anything but pop-science and their prescribed university courses.

>>8473327

Not to mention that ever-increasing intelligence picks apart and develops ever more novel and explanatory aesthetic-moral systems.

The only sensible morality is the development and refinement of the qualities that constitute "intelligence", not the lies of priests and sick men of the spirit (past, present, and future).

Remember, humans would rather bullshit than solve problems. It's a pragmatic solution for keeping the demands of motivational systems within bodily energy production but it means humans beings would rather chat and fuck than do anything else.

Remember, we are but stupid faggot bridges to amazing complexes of moral and aesthetic judgements. A lot of people are failed megalomaniacs who don't realized how badly they've failed.

ITT: newfags have never heard of Kant

It's time to post that image again.

>>8473308
Philosophy's strongest selling point is "can't know nuffin" which is lazy as fuck and doesn't help anyone. Meanwhile science is the pursuit of understanding the world around us through empirical evidence which results in real world applications and the betterment of quality of life. They are completely incompatible with each other.

>>8473609

It's the other way around.

>>8473308
Because scientists are already the masters of this field because they know what they're talking about. Scientists hate vulgarization, except some that think that it is beneficial only so that people get interested in science, but making a whole field out of vulgarization is called bullshit.

>>8473308
Philosophy is not interested in falsifiable subjects and does not use the scientific method.

It's pure bullshit and has nothing to do with science

Philosophy is dead on its own but if you don't blend it with your scientific pursuits you can fully appreciate it all.

This thread is so embarassing. When you know nothing about something, why don't you rather say "I don't have a clear stance on this" rather than look like an ignorant fool?

Hey lads guess what also isn't a science. Protip, it's in the name of the board.

>>8473609
>>8473610

Positivism's current understanding of the World is null. Its phobia of causality, even in lower forms like Teleology, has forced it into the corner of radically divergent Reductionism where Phenomena is isolated from its neighboring Phenomena before being subjected to a futile ritual of Self-abnegation where all troublesome aspects are verbally purged, translated into the lowest Symbol (Number) and dumped in a prison-like model of nothing, nowhere, never, no one. Ontological taxidermy that is only used in bizarre Dadaist games for the pleasure of the sick.

Most Scientists even say that we cannot know nothing of our Selves. It's thinly-veiled Nihilism, the biggest Death cult there ever was. In sharp contrast to most Philosophy and Religion where our knowing, experience, Humanity, life, value, Consciousness is taken as basal and where a cornucopia of answers and utilitarian values have been cultivated since time immemorial.

>>8473308
due to human nature any philosophy contains a good bit of sophistry, i.e. art of convincing people you are right rather then search for truth

>>8473627
>falsifiable

get the fuck out with your popsci buzzwords

>>8473609
>t. brainlet that hadn't taken philosophy and knows nothing but memes and buzzwords

>>8473643
And if you suddenly say philosophy is exposition of math you get a shit ton of replies agreeing. Has happened at least 3 times that I've seen it.

No better way to see who's a brainlet than if he tries to shit on philosophy.

>>8473609
Let me guess. You think nihilism is something goths and emos do.

>>8473316


You could say the same thing about pure math, and many do. But why criticize others for thinking about something you don't like?

>>8473609
Holy fuck you are so ignorant about philosophy. Read some kant, wittgenstein, russell and others of their schools of thought. All academic philosophy is not at all what you describe, its only you to blame for only having heard about pop philosophy

>>8473627
>he doesn't know that falsifiability came to be regarded as a necessary criterion of science thanks to philosopher of science Karl Popper

the STEMlords itt are cringeworthy.
if philosophy of science isnt important, how come most great scientists had something to do with it at some point? look at Russell, Hilbert and the entire shit that went on at the beginning of the 20th century.
You don't realise that we have to take a lot of stuff for granted to make science, that's what phy of science looks at.

>>8473799
Are you implying you are unable to find one good use of pure maths?

>>8473316
was it literally useless when descartes put forth the idea of materialism oevr idealism and practically invented the whole deductive scientific method which can be trusted and repeated?

>>8473609
>ebin filosofers can't no nuffin maymay
Pretty sure scientists are the ones that can't rule anything out with 100% certainty

>>8473308
Modern french philosophy is horrible. German and Russian philosophy is sometimes brilliant.

> It doesn't matter if he had a tough childhood, in the end every asshole is just an asshole.

I heard this from a philosopher in a German TV show about a person running amok.

It has led us astray too many times to count. Science is always the one to right the ship.

>>8473961
You shouldn't use logicians as your example bruh. That shit was completely changed by mathematicians into something no philosophy major ever discusses.

>>8473609
>Philosophy's strongest selling point is "can't know nuffin"

That's not the only philosophical thought. Read something before show your ignorance.

“Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know. "
Bertrand Russell

>>8474083
Rlly maeks you think

>>8473627
Riddle me this. Where do you think humans got the idea of "falsifiability," and how do you think we proved to other people that falsifiability leads to a better model of the world?

Actually, you're so fucking ignorant that I'll just answer for you instead. Philosophers defined falsifiability and determined that it was the best way to gain knowledge of the world, and philosophers spread this knowledge.

Why don't you pick up a fucking book. You're no better than people who conspire about vaccines and autism.

>>8474162
>the meme equivalent of "blabla i can't hear you!"
How's elementary school?

>>8473609
I know this has been covered, but philosophy isn't a monolith, and not all of it is speculation over whether or not there is an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun.

For example, the concept of empiricism was heavily influenced and popularized by Popper.

On the higher ends of Physics, there is a growing need to denote what is/n't knowable, detectable, and testable. Look into some Mach.

>>8474353
Its one of his worse quotes you pleb considering he completely misinterpreted science. Also, not an argument.

Friendly Reminder

>>8473308
Philosophy is frowned upon by most scientists for good reasons.
Philosophy of science isn't and is actually an integral part of what science is all about.
Don't confuse the two for the similar name, they share almost nothing.

>>8473316
Its actually pretty useful... Understanding philosophy I think is an essential part of learning and applying things. I feel philosophy like skepticism and wacky meta theories isnt useful but I think ontology and the way that the arguments are structured are useful. Philosophy taught me at least how to structure things and ways to figure out the relation between a system and its parts easier.

>>8474850
Nobody takes meme scientists seriously.

>>8473644
underrated

>>8473308
What will scientists do when all of the ethical experiments have already been done?
> Shift the goalposts?

>>8473644
>mfw had to google 70% of words
>mfw i have no face

>>8473308
>Why is philosophy frowned on by so many scientists nowadays?
If your theory isn't positivist, you don't actually have a theory.
Not everything necessarily can be understood via a positivist framework, but on any matter which can it is strictly preferable, and on any other matter there can be no objective preference.
Magical thinking is a major component of science denialism and woo of all sorts, while bad philosophy has long since taken root, infested, and crippled the social "sciences" for their lack of adequate safeguards. Both present a very real existential threat to our work and worldview. Reaction against "philosophy" is in actuality a reaction against specific, bad, and highly compromising assumptions and argumentation styles, particularly those of postmodernism http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf - just as reaction against "social justice" and "feminism" is against that of a specific clique, and not (in general) against womens' suffrage nor the rights of gays to not be thrown off buildings nor a right to prosperity, in some form.

It doesn't take reductionist or materialist views, or indeed anything stricter than a utilitarian notion of truth. Obviously there will be some antipathy between those who see rejecting this as "an honest difference of opinion, maaan" and the people who built this world for them, or hold claim to that legacy.

"I agree with you, you have a remarkable point. However, I like to present to you another viewpoint." - Philosopher Chad, in a café, scoring freshman pussy every semester

"HURR PHilosophy so useless check my Arduino it controls my experimental quantum hall setup" - smelly 30 year old engineer manlet

You decide why it's frowned upon...

>>8475802
>Philosopher Chad, in a café
The peak of a philosopher's career is hardly something to brag about.

>>8475839
What else do you want in life desu?

>>8475843
How do you expect the coffee machines to work without science? Sounds like you're piggybacking off the hard work of others.

>>8473308
Is it really?
If it is, I would assume it's because they don't understand it, which is pretty frustrating.
>>8473609
You ate the memes, my friend.
>>8473627
>Philosophy is not interested in falsifiable subjects
Not true, some philosophers are interested in scientific advancements and how they affect philosophy.
>does not use the scientific method.
No it doesn't. So? It also more or less spawned it.
>has nothing to do with science
Stuff like epistemology has nothing to do with science, really?

>>8475863
I think he means "categorically"
As in, not all philosophy is necessarily interested in falsifiable subjects and subjected to the scientific method

>>8475846
Welcome to modern society, glad you now know your place in it.

>>8475746

What's up with STEMlords being bad at Language? I thought this was a meme but I see it everywhere, people calling 5th grade words purple prose. Are we being real?

>>8475910
>I thought this was a meme
It is.
And the guy was using jargon. I understood it, but that's because I have that sort of specialized/uncommon background knowledge as well.
You'd probably be more likely to find a STEM guy comfortable with it than a libarts fag, choosing at random

>>8475107
>Its actually pretty useful...
>proceeds to post no uses whatsoever
you tried I guess.

>>8473627
Lel this retardedness is almost too good to be true. It like anon has no idea how ironic his statement is.

Neither extreme is good. Why in the fuck is this board filled with people who can't grasp that. Don't be a pedantic fuck who responds with the "you can't really ever know anything forsure" when asked if you want fries with that order. At the same time, when I say that a car is red don't tell me that colors aren't real and are really just different frequencies of light. I know both of those are true. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't be a fucking aspie.

Because scientists and the world's best philosophers still haven't refuted this guy.

>>8476552
>"you can't really ever know anything forsure"
If we define knowledge as justified true belief and use the utilitarian concept of truth then you sure can. There are always ways to choose your definitions and assumptions such that you arrive at other-than-trivial conclusions while preserving a strong argument structure. It's just most armchair philosophers care less about that and more about the veneer and aesthetic of intellectualism.

>>8476593
Marx refuted Stirner you dolt

>>8476875

Fucking kek. Marx never refuted Stirner, he wrote a 500 page dange control essay that amounted to nothing more than "muh Saint Stirner". At the end of the day he was jelous Engles was hanging around with Stirner and drew pictures of him, and its only thanks to Engles we know what Mad Max looked like. Marx got boy-cucked by Max.

>>8476875
>If we define knowledge as justified true belief
Then you get fucked by Gettier problems.

>>8473857
That's a common misconception among uneducated pop sci retards. But it's actually wrong.

>>8476882
die Deutsche Ideologie is required reading, leftlet
I bet you voted for Sanders

Philosophy of science is unnecessary bullshit. We have the scientific method and it simply works, regardless of whether philosotards understand it or not. There are some fields of philosophy which are fun to think about, but ultimately philosophy is just a form of recreational entertainment without any practical applications.

>>8476893

Its a last minute attempt to protect themselves from something dangerous, but true.

>sanders

I'm not American but I wouldn't have anyway since it has no benefit for me. I would've voted Trump. In reality, voting is exponetially weaker to obtaining your goals than joining a lobbying group. If I really want to obtain power, I won't vote for politicians, I'll join a lobby group or think tank, since they have the most influence over politicians.

>>8473316
Philosophy is literally just science without labcoats. Why do you think lawyers minor in philosophy? It's about thinking and using evidence. It's good shit.

Everyone frowns on it just because pursuing a DEGREE in philosophy is generally not very productive, because it's supposed to give you a foundation in logic and ethics, not give you a career.

>>8473982
ya

>>8473308
I don't know but this thread is really fucking different if you read the posts in Stephen Hawking's computer voice.

>>8477028
>Philosophy is literally just science without labcoats.

>>8476899
Too bad pragmatism is unnecessary bullshit as well

>>8473308
They don't realize science is a division of philosophy. It's a very grounded division, to be sure, and that makes it different from most, but there is a distinct philosophical viewpoint that goes with engaging in the sciences. It's a philosophical viewpoint that is in fact older than science as we know it.

It's the premise that we can learn almost everything from observing things and applying deduction and induction to our observations.

The point that many people miss is that it's not necessarily assumed to be everything there is, or even everything worth knowing. The other point that's missed is that this viewpoint does not, in and of itself, exclude things that cannot be derived from observation; instead it's simply silent on the matter.

>>8473308
Philosophy used o include natural philosophy (science).

Since then it has diverged to thinking about dumbshit questions, like "why are we here?" to which scientists go: "because for some reason, life evolved on earth, evolved further to a sentient being which for some various reasons has the brain capacity to consider dumb questions like that"
to which the philosophers go ; "but, why? "

- Because you are, by default, here to ask the question. if you weren't then you wouldn't be, which by extension means that every event that needs to take place in order for you to be here has taken place. There is no particular reason for you specially to be here, you just happen to be here, which your Hume stated earlier "I think therefore I am" referring to the basic assumption that is the crux of all your meandering philosophy; You Think, which means you exist, which by default means that every event that needs to take place for you to be here has taken place.

To this philosophers go a completely new direction and state some bullshit "new" philosophy like post-modernism, and every espoused bag of bollocks since, "nothing matters".

For curious people; Buddha stated that shit over 2000 years ago, and also came to the conclusions that all we do is make up reasons/meaning for ourselves. There is no meaning inherit in the universe, but you as a human being have a need to identify meanings.
After all, that's what your brain is programmed biologically to do, proof in the pudding of the reality we create around ourselves.

Ultimately, you do shit in order to satisfy whatever monkey you let dwell on your shoulder, which whispers "meaning" to you. And ultimately, as Buddha stated, you are free to live without one, or choose one of your own picking to keep that monkey satisfied.

Beyond this; philosophy could be mathematical, and if it ended at that; no issue.

Beyond that, philosophy rarely asks truly interesting questions.

>>8476907
>last minute attempt
It's literally part of the young Marx lmao
He was like 28

>>8476899

See:

>>8473644

>>8473308
"philosophy is dead" is probably the dumbest thing Hawking ever said

too comfortable with his numbers

>>8477751
The guy doesn't know shit. In fact, the only thing he does know is that his research on black holes (fucking racist cuck) was a failure. So, he basically knows that he don't know shit.

Philosophy been saying that shit for years. Fuck science is so outdated.

>>8477145
>>8477736

Materialism/Positivism processes Phenomena like a prison processes Humans. The lives of prisoners have a cell - a state of nullification - as their foundation, and even the most basic form of coalescence - that of a classical machine - is allowed as long as it fits within the very tight parameters of activities sanctioned by the warden and staff. This is perfectly analogous to the minimal Ontological pursuit in Materialist/Positivist Literature. Anything that is not single file and keeps going after lights out is a "dumbshit pursuit".

>>8473644

absolute wank.

>>8473644
You need to go back

>>8477849
>>8477866

Rebuttals worthy of the top echelons of Science.

>>8473987
Time is a linear concept anon. We live in the present and not in the past.

Nobody said it wasn't useful at some point in the past.

>>8477879
When your post is pure polemic, you should not be surprised when so too are the replies it garners.
And I dunno man, have you even fucking read Hegel?

>>8477905

My post isn't polemic, neither are the replies.

>>8473644

>>8477946

>I am functionally illiterate
>TAKE THAT!

>>8477958
>I got accused of obfuscating a weak idea to make it seem more valid and impressive
>Obviously this really means he just can't understand what I said

>>8473308
Black science man injecting his hateboner for philosophy/soft science into popular culture.

>>8473308
it's frowned down not by scientists but by pop-scientists from the media. The reason is that media doesn't want you to think independently, especially if you're predisposed to.

>>8476593
>le the go
>le the self

JUST

>>8478062

Yes. Although the above-reddit word choice has little to do with it, your relation to Language itself seems to be very crude. Also, using children's cartoon characters to critique Philosophy - both making them and posting them as replies - is deliciously ironic.

>>8478068
I saw Neil Tyson at a grocery store in Los Angeles yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

WHOA WHAT I GOT GOLD FOR THIS XXDDDP

>>8473316
Philosophy exercises critical thinking, which is always good. For a scientist to denounce critical thinking, especially when it's critical thinking about science, is throughly unscientific.


However with that said there are a lot of pseudo-philosophers who just echo "deep thought" they read somewhere on the internet. These people aren't even thinking let along using critical thinking. Those people deserve to be throughly bitch slapped and BTFO.

>>8478196
the material world can be manipulated by the collective effect of the consciousness of every human being by making the wavefunction take on different values upon observation

>>8478107
LOL

>>8478217
That's not even philosophy. It's an unprovable (or nearly unprovable) hypothesis about metaphysics.

Not discouraging you tho. Please try again.

>>8478226
please post a picture of your ceiling

>>8473308
Because, due to their autism, they prefer to be mindless calculators rather than actual thinkers.