/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8692303
>earth is sphere

>>8692303
obligatory post about philosophy

>your degree matters more than your connections, always go for a STEM major

>the universe is large so it's certain that there's other life

>>8692308
>Top kek

>P != NP

>>8692308
Bill Nye's quote is not really about philosophy in general though.

>I chose non-STEM because my writing skills are superior to my analytical skills

>>8692418
Pretty sure that quote is from a youtube vid of him answering a question on philosophy

>>8692303
>but the economy is more important than going green

>>8692475
It is you brainlet.

>>8692303
Well, problem being, it is nowadays. I'm studying philosophy, and we're just learning continental crap. Plus, noone listen to what we have to say, rhetorics works best to make people act.

>>8692320
Only if you have a better explanation of the origin of life than natural processes, because 99.999999% is pretty close to certain. And don't say God.

>>8692475
>>8692477
>he doesn't know going green is good for the economy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution
You are drinking the koolaid.

>maths

>>8692303
>0.999999... = 1

>>8692303
Nice bait

>>8692308
Do you think its a coincidence the people on the left side have black and white portraits?

>>8692493
You said more important. The benefit here still stands.

>>8692308
There's nothing wrong with either of Dawkins' quotes. Also with Nye, that's a legitimate position to take. it's called naive realism.

>>8692475
Climate change will barely affect first world nations, so why should you (provided you live in a developed country) or I care?

>>8692475
>create good economy
>prosperous enough to help the environment without fucking over the economy

or

>go green and treat the economy as though it's not nearly as important as saving polar bears
>society is crippled by shitty economy but at least we saved some polar bears :')

>>8692539
First world nations have lost the ability to defend their borders against the massive migrations of third world people that climate change would cause

>>8692483
>I'm studying philosophy, and we're just learning continental crap

Fellow philosopher here, and that is completely true.

If we could eradicate all that continental claptrap then the reputation of philosophy would skyrocket. Abandonment of Neoplatonism, scholasticism and logical positivism all were for good the reputation of philosophy, and there are few reasons to believe why abandonment of yet another pseudophilosophy will not do the same.

>>8692553
Or:
>Phase out fossil fuels powering the grid
>Switch to nuclear
>Use renewables on a local level
>Switch to electric vehicles

Really on the last one should be causing us any problems. There is absolutely no reason to still be using fossil fuels to power nations.

>>8692539
>Sea level rising
>Increased "extreme weather events"
>Increased food/water prices

There's probably more, but those are just off the top of my head.

>>8692553
>prosperous enough to help the environment without fucking over the economy
>implying we are helping at all

>>8692487
God.

>>8692519

No seriously you are a legit retard if you think that

>>8692528
Yes, because they hadn't been exposed to post-modernist horseshit

>>8692636
What did philosophy accomplish in the last decades? besides causing genetic research to brain drain to china because ethics nonsense.

>>8692640
Fuck me, I mean to say it's not a coincidence

>>8692303
>Philosophy is useless
Science made Philosophy so useless, Philosophy reacted so hard and became a post-modern den of appeals and pedantic circlejerks over semantics

>>8692560
I live in the United States. Sorry about Europe though.

Also, the refugee "crisis" could easily be dealt with if the EU would grow some balls.

>>8692435
Oh if it is then that's retarded.

>>8692641

Everyone dies philosophy, you included, whether you realize it or not

>>8692660

Fuck me *does philosophy*

>>8692303
>Mitochondrion is the power house of the cell

and

>Math is useless in biology/medicine! hurrdurr now how do i label an electron microscope image to diagnose disease???

>>8692660
>>8692670
Everybody creates art too but that doesnt mean you shouldnt be sterilized for picking an art major

>>8692682
Bad analogy. Philosophy is extremely fundamental and is more often than not the cradle of any given science.

>>8692685
Just because you define your field of study as every thought humans have it does not change the reality that philosophers are useless at best and detrimental at worst.

>>8692696

Again, EVERYONE does philosophy, many people poorly and it leads to many problems. Science is a description of the world, but it won't tell you what to do with that description

>>8692706
Again EVERYONE creates art so my art history degree is important and so is the tax payer / tuition money spent in the art department

>>8692696
It's not my field, nor do I define philosophy as 'every though humans have'. Read on the history of science, and you'll see just how strong the impact of philosophy has been on developing modern theories of science. Even today, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language are major players in the development of new research avenues, most especially within cognitive science. Your ignorance of philosophy's impact is in no way a convincing argument that it has none.

>'brainlet'

>>8692641
See this: >>8692660

By saying

"What did philosophy accomplish in the last decades? besides causing genetic research to brain drain to china because ethics nonsense."

You are making following philosophical points:

1) The value of something is measured by what it has accomplished - that is, by it's utility.

2) Brain research makes far too harsh ethical demands, what impedes scientific progress.

Philosophy is inevitable. Even by saying something as trivial as "Pegasus does not exist", you're making a philosophical point "There is no x for which it is true that it is a winged horse named Pegasus". Hence, the statement "Philosophy is worthless" is self-contradicting unless it is said dogmatically.

>>8692720
So nothing? gotcha

>>8692722
What, again, repeats your philosophical point "The value of something is measured by what it has accomplished - that is, by it's utility". There is no escaping philosophy.

>>8692722
You can have bad faith if you like, but you don't actually know much about philosophy. I wonder if you would have a computer were it not for the advances in logic made by philosophers such as Frege or Russell. But do you even know a thing about philosophy other than muh Nietzsche?

>>8692722

Just stop replying, brainlet. It's emberising

>>8692732
That's like your philosophical stance man

>>8692741
What, again, makes a philosophical point "philosophical stances are subjective".

Saying that philosophy is worthless is as inconceivable as saying "I do not exist", since being able to doubt your existence means that there is a doubting subject - you. Or, it's like saying that "language is meaningless", since that exact idea is being communicated in language and is capable of being understood.

Equally, it is inconceivable to make a point that "philosophy is worthless", since that in itself is a philosophical point.

>>8692752
>Saying that philosophy is worthless is as inconceivable as saying "I do not exist", since being able to doubt your existence means that there is a doubting subject - you.
Says who

>>8692757

>>8692303

Philisophy isn't useless. But it sure has been appropriated and corrupted in western academia.

>>8692303
>[some field that isn't my own] is useless/stupid
Get out of my face with that superiority complex bullshit.

>>8692762
Woah nice appeal to authority, you should read more :^)

>>8692770
What are you, fucking gay? Go back to your safe space with your ridiculous notions of appropriation.

Can somebody explain to me what the use of philosophy is today?

How can it tell us anything that science can't?

Not even memeing

>>8692779
That's not what an appeal to authority means you mongoloid. An appeal to authority would be to say that there are four elements because Aristotle said so. Trusting the opinions of the informed is not the same thing. Is it an appeal to authority to trust engineers when they evaluate the design of your bridge? No, it's common sense.

You fucking retard, stop embarrassing yourself.

>>8692308
I think it's perfectly fine for modern scientists to adopt a very narrow, very naive form of realism. Musing about metaphysics too much has the downside of making you think you are more intelligent than you really are, and can mislead you into wasting your time.

There are plenty of concrete, specialized problems that can be addressed in a strictly evidence based fashion, without thinking philosophically too much about it.

That is not to say philosophy is useless. But philosophy is a philosopher's job, not a scientist's job.

>>8692784
You see by asking that question you are engaging in philosophy so that justifies millions of dollars being wasted into their department :^)))))))

>>8692788
>Common sense
Whoa wait a minute I think you need to slow down, how do you define common sense and why do you think it means anything?

>>8692306
It has some validity. It's an oblate spheroid

>>8692784
It can be applied to other fields, but I don't think it has a direct application. That goes pretty well with the fact that philosophy was considered as ghe endgoal of one's academic pursuit.

>>8692797
That's not what philosophers do. Like anyone, in their research, philosophers make assumptions. But don't listen to those who say 'oh you're doing philosophy right now''. Really, philosophers have some main problems on which they work, and these problems end up influencing other fields of study. Take AI for instance. AI is a very young field about which we know very little. This is why the field is filled with notions exported directly from philosophy, e.g. strong/weak AI, the Chinese room, etc. Philosophy is only ever the first step towards creating a new science.

>>8692808
>That's not what philosophers do
Are you implying I'm being deliverately obtuse, annoying and confrontative on purpose in an attemp to parody the behavior of philosophers?

>>8692815
Haha, yes. But in all truth, philosophy may seem completely detached from everything to most people, but so does mathematics. If you're asking for the practical value of philosophy, my response is simply that new sciences are very often born from philosophy, and there I assume you take science to be useful. New scientific disciplines don't pop into existence, their are many people working on their conceptualization, and these tend to be philosophers. AI is a good example, and the whole of cognitive science is as well. We don't understand very much about the mind, and it's important to have philosophers sketch out models and point out very fundamental problems with competing models.

>>8692641
Philosophy is practically inextricable from intelligence. It is the first intellectual pursuit, having begat mathematics and science. In fact, it is undoubtedly the most demanding subject of inquiry, as its specimens are the most elusive. Also see >>8692308

>>8692648
Even a large number of lousy practitioners does not a worthless discipline make.

>>8692648
>Philosophy reacted so hard and became a post-modern
That's really only Continental philosophy. It's a sad fact about philosophy that most laymen think that it's only what's done in France.

Indeed

>>8692824
Those fields didn't born out of pute philosophy. Philosophy aided into dealing with the basic questions those fields were generating. But it isn't really philosophers who are dealing wity such...

>>8692303
>i browse /sci/ therefor i'm smart

>>8692873
If I'm overestimating the importance of philosophy in those fields, I think you're underestimating it. Just think about the impact of philosophers like Searle, Fodor, Stalnaker, Davidson, Montague, Putnam (and the list goes on) on the various subfields of cognitive science.

>>8692303

>>8692528
My nigga

What's with everyone's obsession with being "useful"? Can't we do things for their own sake anymore. Not that I'm saying that philosophy is useless in anyway, just that it shouldn't matter whether or not it is, personally, the only reason I'm doing science is because I find it fun, and for me the most theoretical and impractical fields of it are the most fun.

>>8692916
Surrogate activities are a side-effect of living too comfortably

>>8692900
I'm saying that the actual development of those fields isn't done in philosophy departments. Philosophers can be really influencial and helpful, but it's a stretch to say that it was born from it.

>>8692921
Point taken that I may be going too far by stating that those sciences are born from philosophy. But I would argue that quite a few major developments are still done in the philosophy departments, although most are not. As an example, the computational theory of mind was largely developed by Putnam and his student Fodor.

>>8692916
In my country college is "free" which means people use my taxes to take courses to ponder if their eyes are real, when you use other people's money being asked what use you have is normal.

>>8692808
Please stop biting his bait

>>8692920
>>8692932
Sure, I mean, as a field or as a career, I wouldn't be able to tell you if philosophy is useful or not, but I think that it's absolutely essential as a means for self-improvement and development, which is why I'm bothered when scientist mock it, especially considering that philosophy was what started it all.

>>8692930
Yea, I don't deny that, but for some people, because philosophy is so broad and fundamental, it will always be "above" every academic subject and everything in general. The thing is they fail to see that the work they consider menial or robotic it's as, or even more complex than philosophy. I suppose it's because they don't seem to understand that what we call "philosophy" nowdays is much more specialized than before, and that there's nothing wrong with that because that is truw for every field.

>>8692538
naive realism is fucking retarded

>>8692932
In Australia, African families survive by taking useless courses. It doesn't even matter if they fail, they still receive welfare as a student AND job seeker, their fees are nonexistent due to scholarships for being a minority, their housing is usually paid in full or majoriry and they receive bursary and other awards.

It's literally better to sign up to a course, receive whatever grants and support surround it then never show up to class but still claim money.

Thank you, (((free college)))

>>8692640
do you even know what you're talking about bud or do you just spew buzzwords whatever chance you get

>>8693005
The latter because I'm a Ph.D in philosophy

>>8692784

>Can anyone explain to me what the use of knowing how to live my life is

>>8692303
So stephen hawking is a brainlet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

>>8693211
A study of philiosphy will tell you never to trust a man who won't stand up to shake your hand

>>8693211

If he thinks that, yes

>>8692734
Not mentioning Bool...

> 1/12

>>8693309
> -1/12
Fix

>>8692784
Can you explain to me why I shouldn't eat you for sustenance?

Without using philosophy of course :^)

>>8693317
Why not?

>>8693317
Imagine going to college to study moral philosophy for years...

Jesus Christ. It takes someone that long to realise it's all subjective?

>>8693333

It's not subjective

Feminism is useless

>>8692303
.9999...=1

just sum the geometric series!

>God controls the climate

>>8693088
>implying theres such a thing as knowledge
>implying you can learn how to live your life

Studying philosophy at university is a waste of money imo but at least it would let you make better arguments.

>>8693350
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Hahahahhahahahahaha

>>8693350
You can't argue with quads

That's objective

>>8693421

Typical brainlet response

>>8692320
Was going to post this.

>>8693299
Bool is important too, but I was talking about the contributions of philosophers. Bool is more of a mathematician than anything, while Frege and Russell are both mathematicians and philosophers.

>>8692308
Wasn't Einstein's biggest fuck up focusing too much on philosophy.

God doesn't play dice or whatever

>>8693350
We'll see how objective morals are with a gun in your head :^)

>>8692808
I'm sure everyone is just waiting around for philosophers to tell them when its okay for self driving cars to kill their driver.

O wait, I don't give a fuck what philosophers think. I'm not stepping in a car that would sacrifice me for the greater good.

>>8694221
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the Chinese room argument is about.

>inb4 you're a brainlet
>inb4 you have never bothered to read any contemporary philosophy
>inb4 you worship Neil Degrasse Tyson

>>8694125
Nothing to do with philosophy. He was just saying he didn't take the quantum meme bait.

>>8694125
how is that quote relevant to philosophy? einstein still published multiple groundbreaking discoveries in physics regardless of what he said in philosophy, much more important than the entire collection on the right has done

>>8692303
>Science proves that god doesn't exist

>>8692515
This always bothers me. Does it also mean that 199.99999....=200?

>>8694463
yes
t. engineer

>>8694463
yes

>>8692539

Because first world nations wildly benefit from the existence of underdeveloped nations, you brainlet, you absolute moron.

>>8692571
>There is absolutely no reason to still be using fossil fuels to power nations


because it's cheap as fuck especially when you think about the cost of switching over everything to cater to electric cars, all the people who would be put out of jobs or have their training/experience made useless (mechanics), gas stations, etc

>I want X major because it will make me allot of money!

the philosophy university course is quite useless and slow, it's actually a "history of philosophy" degree.
While philosopher students are still dealing with syllogisms and aristotelian logic, math students deal with ZFC and logical quantifiers from the first few weeks.

Philosophy is like people on /g/ who brag about their riced out linux that can't actually do anything useful or meaningful that windows can't.

It's so they can look down on other people for not knowing some useless bullshit that isn't actually necessary to do anything.

>>8694563
You're in a courtroom arguing against the state of Nebraska that evolution should be taught in class but not creationism. You are told that both represent alternative explanations of the same phenomena, and thus both should be given equal precedence in classrooms.

How do you argue against that without some good philosophical arguments on what constitutes valid knowledge and what does not?

>>8694595
why do you think a philosophy degree is needed to make a sound argument for something? Besides attempts at fundamental justification of knowledge (Kant, Russell, Strawson) have failed, we're left with degrees of uncertainties and common sense.

>>8694641
I didn't say anything about a philosophy degree. I'm simply pointing out that arguments on what constitutes knowledge and what should be taught in school are philosophical arguments. This is simply a response to your comment which stated that philosophy was bullshit and meaningless. It's pretty evident that philosophy is also at the core of accepting or rejecting certain disciplines as scientific or not. Science does not define its own method. Its method is rather a prerequisite for science which is conceptualized outside of its practice. For someone to judge physics a science but psychoanalysis quackery is very much a matter of philosophy. I feel as though people tend to view philosophy as somehow alien to science, but science makes very many philosophical assumptions. Moreover, the philosophical assumptions made by science have changed quite a bit over the centuries.

>>8694700
>Hey I made this with my brain-
>THEN IT'S PHILOSOPHY

>>8692308
The Bill Nye quote makes no sense. Of course our senses and feel are not authentic.

According to our senses and feels, the Earth is flat, for starters.

>>8692784
Believe that you're "smart". That's it.

>>8692784
It has no direct use, which makes it all the more worthy and beautiful of studying.

It also asks things about technology : the environment, bioethics, reversing ageing... science can answer can we do it, philosophy can answer should we do it.

>>8694716
>philosophy can answer should we do it
Or, you know, you can just think about it.

>>8694704
Not quite, but arguments on what constitutes a science have always been a major part of philosophy, and this for millennia. If anything, you're trying to redefine the bounds of philosophy, and I don't see in there anything more than intellectual dishonesty. You paint philosophy as something it is not and what's more, you deny from philosophy its subject matter.

>Hey I have this idea=-
>YOU'RE USING PHILOSOPHY MY YEARS OF READING AREN'T WORTHLESS
Goddammit, just shut up.
If it's interesting to you, fine, you can go for it. But don't come claiming to be as important OR EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than actual science.

>>8694724
>what constitutes a science have always been a major part of philosophy
Thank god that we still don't give a shit.

>>8694734
You can not care if you like. Most people don't give a shit about most research done in science and will claim it's useless. The opinions of the ill-informed are not particularly valuable.

>>8694738
By "we" I mean actual scientist, m8 :)

>>8694749
Great scientists have always cared about philosophy. By no means do you qualify as their spokesperson.

>>8694595
>>8694700
>>8694724
>>8694738
I wouldn't bother arguing with brainlets if I were you. They'll never learn.

>>8694776
You're probably right, but I'm pretty bored right now.

>>8694758
Well that's your opinion m8, and since everything is subjective then there's no point in you believing I'm not a secret AI from the government :^^^^^^^)

Or that I'm not right. Or that anything that you read about philosophy is actually worth it.

Man that was fun and SO useful...

All philosophy majors can do is desperately try to argue that you need philosophy to argue and that every argument has a set of assumptions. But go ahead and ask them to provide facts and "truths" and useful knowledge they've gained in 4 years of reading that is not related to metaphilosophy

>>8694719
Nice one

>>8694799
>BUT DUDE NOW I KNOW THAT NOTHING IS REAL AND THAT EVERYTHING IS USELESS AND WHAT SOME DRUNK FUCK GUY WROTE 100 YEARS AGO. THAT COUNTS FOR SOMETHING RIGHT?

Philosophy is just science without the rigour.

>>8692303
>Philosophy is useless
Without citing ancient Greek philosophers, and using only later ones can you explain how it isn't useless?

>>8694776
k, tell me about what some douche wrote about existence 200 years ago and how that was important to him and you think he was right but your opinion or his doesn't matter because reality doesn't exist so you wasted all your life. Oh wait.

>>8694811
Nope, is just mental circle jerk.

Philosophy asks the endgame questions.

Everything else is just a distraction, because most are simply unable or unwilling to even attempt to answer those questions.

>>8694819
>never even read a book in his life

>Biology, statistics, and related fields are memes/worthless/pseudoscience

>>8694882
Where the fuck is this even coming from?

>>8694884
/sci/

>>8694882
>biology

Stamp collecting.

>statistics

Guessing.

>>8694876
Absurdism is the only good answer to the "endgame question", for many cultures this is an unpalatable answer. This is where the dislike of philosophy comes from.

>>8694876
the "endgame questions" are distractions from the real world.
That's why people who don't work become depressed.

>>8694891
No, people dislike philosophy because they think the whole field is subsumed by existentialist philosophy.

>>8694890
lol

>>8694876
Oh yeah, we really get a lot from asking a bunch of question that have no answer or applicability. Really good invest of time.

>>8694818
Is it moral to clone a man and uses said clone as an organ factory ? What would be the consequences for our society ? Where will it leads ? Are these clones even humans ?

Philosophy, particularly ethics and epistemology asks itself those types of questions.

>>8694912
Oh so you're arguing that it's not worthwhile to pursue these questions because of limited time? What if we were all immortal? What then? :^)

>>8694879
Oh I do, but I only read for fun or for actual important knowledge and philosophy is as useful to read as sci-fi. But yeah enjoy your books about the meaning of existence, that (again) have no meaning because the ideas of that guy or your perception have no meaning.

>>8694918
>muh law and ethics
Fuck off.

ITT: OP uses philosophy to argue against the uses of philosophy

>>8694927
Nice argument here, truly convinced

>>8694882
The thing with biology is that it's basically organic chemistry. Since we had a lot of shit to study that the average guy going for chemistry doesn't actually need to learn then we made it a completely different field.

>>8694891
No, we dislike because it's useless, that's all.

>>8692303
>traps are gay
amazes me that people still think this

>>8694899
>That's why people who don't work become depressed.
And start to study philosophy, I may add. And after that: they're still unemployed and depressed.

>>8694918
>I'm asking myself questio-
>YOU'RE USING PHILOSOPHY THANK GOD THAT I READ 30 BOOKS OF SOME DRUNK TARD TALKING ABOUT THIS MATTER, MAN I'M SO SMART.

>>8694974
Most fields of study begin with some drunk tard writing 30 books, which are then carefully inspected over decades by incredibly knowledgeable people, and then translated so that your bitch ass can understand them.

>>8694922
>if
>But what if there was no time
>But what if there was no eyes
>But what if^1000000000000000000000
And that's all that philosophy can do, ladies and gentleman.
You can "pursue" (AKA not actually doing something useful) all you want, but as the secret government AI that I'm (and you can't prove otherwise) I can tell you that any answer that you can think of for those questions is not true or the question itself not exist at all. Good (and useful) talk.

>>8694930
Is not an argument, genius, is a request.

>>8694974
Asking yourself questions leads to search answers, lead to read books, lead to ask more questions, read more books and either make your own contribution or just reflect on what you've learned and/or constructed, combining your experiences, your beliefs and your lectures.

If you take it seriously.
I'm not a philosophy major, btw. I study engineering of metals and materials. And I unironically enjoy cock but that's not relevant

>>8695022
Convince me to fuck off with my law and ethics first.

>>8692303
I don't need to be book smart like you because I have street smarts.

>>8692320
This is a legitimate argument if it's worded correctly

>>8694987
Wow, someone got mad. And no, actual science is made by people that actually knows what they're doing. Nice try though.

>>8695007
Most physical and mathematical breakthroughs were based on thought experiences. Hell, mathematics itself were based on a philosophy that emphasises ideas and theorems rather than feelings and impressions. As an example, formal logical is firmly based on Aristotle/Plato's work on syllogisms, though there's more to it.

>>8695023
>Asking yourself questions leads to search answers
That you can't find.
>lead to read books
That are useless

>>8695028
Because I'm a secret AI from the government and your laws or ethics don't mean shit. Good talk

>>8695039
>actual science is made by people that actually knows what they're doing
t. community college undergrad thinking he's so smart because he aced Calc 1

"The goal of Science is to predict and not, as it was often said, to understand." Pierre Lecomte de Noüy

>>8695044
Go then, wallow in your ignorance. I thought curiosity was integral to the scientific spirit.

>>8695041
thought experiences=/=Philosophy
Because when people think they don't care about what you favorite drunk tard wrote 100 years ago, they just do it. And guess what? Their opinion has as much meaning as the one from any philosopher and at least they are actually useful for society.

>>8695007
That's why they're called endgame questions. They're questions you ask at the end, when there's nothing left. When only extremes are available. Too much of a brainlet to ask?

>useful

Go work in a factory if you want to be of use.

>>8692315
I should've joined a fucking frat.

>>8695054
Yeah, as I said they know what they're doing: predicting. Just as that guy knows that using science he's predicting, so he knows what he's doing. But anyway, go read the book about what actually understanding something means and after you end and have no answer to it come back to me with another quote that doesn't answer anything. Man philosophy is fun, sadly that's all there's to it.

>>8695076
What exactly is philosophy, anyway ? That's another great topic to start.

>Because when people think they don't care about what you favorite drunk tard wrote 100 years ago, they just do it.
Newton and the shoulders of giant don't real.

>Their opinion has as much meaning as the one from any philosopher and at least they are actually useful for society.
Define usefulness for society. And by way, isn't the concept of democracy useful for society ? Who dreamed up that ? Philosophers, that's who. As well as many other political concepts, and historiography, and scientific ethic, and the scientific method itself. Empiricism, rationalism their strengths, their weaknesses - those are core concepts in philosophy.

Philosophy is about asking yourself questions about the world you're in. Add rigour to it, and you need to read texts and write formally. And those questions might not have an answer - though the journey indubitably produces useful concepts.

You can ask yourself questions about the universe, ethics, metaphysics, while still being interested/majoring in science. Life isn't a RPG where you pick your class.

>>8695057
It's, but of questions that are actually useful.

>>8695091
Yeah I could, as I said anything like that is more useful than your "endgame" questions.

>>8695135
Instead you're shitposting on /sci/ about a topic that you have literally no understanding of. You're no better than those retards that say WHY DO WE EVEN NEED IMAGINARY NUMBERS?

>>8695119
The future of scientific experiments in bioethics matters so little to you ?

>>8695118
>What exactly is philosophy, anyway ? That's another great topic to start.
No it isn't, and that's basically the problem here. You ask stupid question with no answer and feel smart for doing so.

And again, your whole argument is that if someone is thinking that's philosophy and no, you can fuck off with that.

>>8695156
>You ask stupid question with no answer and feel smart for doing so.

Stupid by your own metric. I like to question what I hold for true, I like to have a critical spirit.

>if someone is thinking that's philosophy
And yet, it's true. Someone thinking rigorously, not taking things for granted, always seeking to go further into the questioning is a philosopher. But so is someone asking himself something as trivial (in appearance) as, "why do we elect a president instead of letting everybody living the way the live ?", and trying to answer it.

You're being awfully close-minded for a would-be scientist. I understand not being attracted by philosophy. I don't understand bashing it mindlessly without any effort to understand what it is.

>>8695144
I know that since you're unemployed you don't know what free time is but let me explain: You usually work an amount of hours and then go to do anything else that you may like. I for example shitpost here. Yet I don't make 30 books about "The art of shiposting and their repercussions in my fapping schedule" and feel smarter or compare that to actual useful stuff, that's what I mean. My encyclopedic knowledge of porn may be important for me, but that's all.

>>8695152
Oh no, it matters. But I don't need a drunk tard to tell why it's important or complicated.

>>8695195
Insult is the last refuge of the ignorant
Not him, but many scientists/engineers have a great interest in philosophy.

>>8695201
Then answer the questions. Should we clone people to make organs farms/sex slaves ?

>>8695195
But why shitpost? It's not of any use. :^) You could be working right now.

>>8695173
>Stupid by your own metric.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Since my opinion matters as much as yours or in fact doesn't because nothing is real. Because (again) "critical spirit" is not something that you learn from philosophy but instead something that every other person calls: doubt. But you give it other name, write some books about it and think you did something useful. Man, philosophy is so fun and easy.

>And yet, it's true.
Well that's my point, you tards do believe that, have fun then.
>Someone thinking rigorously, not taking things for granted, always seeking to go further into the questioning is a philosopher.
Then every person on earth is a philosopher an your studies are worthless because (as I said) their opinions are as valid as yours or anyone else. Just changing the word "thinking" for "philosophy" doesn't make it more important.

>>8695202
Because the guy that before me said "retard" wasn't insulting right? You may say that he's applying his philosophical knowledge right?

>>8695202
>have a great interest in philosophy
And I have a great interest in porn, guess why they studied something actually worth it first.

>>8695204
Nope.

>>8695205
Yeah I could, as you could instead of wasting your time with philosophy. See? That's what I mean. Your philosophy studies have as much importance as my fapping or shitposting time. Thanks for realizing that.

>>8694811

What does science say about living a good life?

Love when philosophags try to claim ownership of logical reasoning.

>>8695289

Logic is part of philosophy you retard

>>8695294
no it's not

I made a chart to help the brainlets understand

>>8695294
Philosophy is logic's inbred shameful bastard.

>>8695286
Quite a lot actually.

>>8695289
Yeah, and they will defend it to dead. Thank god no one cares of their shit.

>>8695298

You sure showed me

>>8695294
>Logic is part of philosophy you retard
Sure m8

>>8695304

How do science quantify good?

>>8692303

Philosophy is a way of act, a way of the good scientist, doctor, etc...

But in Academia, philosophy suffer.

>>8695300
I do believe this "chart" was made by a "philosopher" if that's what you mean.

>>8695314
Looks like it was made by a grownup to me.

>>8695300
In fact best thing about this chart is that it shows that you can have zero (or negative?) intelligence while still having interest in philosophy. That part is quite accurate.

The point is that philosophy is part of a debate in society to made possible important discoveries or wanting to discoverer. Culture is important, and philosophy is the humus, because not everyone can be a scientist, but we need the force of everyone. We have to remember that for millenia we were hunter\gatherer, so doing abstract and complex things is not given. A philosophical debate is useful to maintain the right dose of abstraction in our societies, even if sometimes this is exxagerated.

Actually a great problem of our society is that humanities are given up, so are lead by shit heads.

>>8695313
That's just thinking.

>>8695319
Possible, there are some rare philosophers that made it to their fifties without killing themselves from knowing how useless they were.

>>8695335

There is all kinds of bad thinking out there, how do you sort the good from the bad? Oh, and this is a philosophical question btw

>>8695331
Why is so fucking difficult for you guys to understand that that shit that you call "philosophy" is just THINKING, THAT'S ALL THERE'S TO IT.

>>8692720
>I'll pretend every possible idea is philosophy so I can pretend philosophy is important
k

>>8695349
>how do you sort the good from the bad?
By thinking more, that was hard right?

>>8695364
This desu
/thread

>>8695368

How do you know when bad thinking turns to good?

>>8695371

Human knowledge is philosophy. So yes, it is important

>>8695376
Because I try to THINK about it first.

>>8695379
>Human knowledge is philosophy
Oh boy...

>>8695387

Got a point?

>>8695379
This is going to sound like an attack, but I'm honestly just asking because I really want to know:

How old are you?

>>8695383
You should always think about it first.

>>8695406

27

>>8695403
That again, you simply claim that philosophy is actually important things to make it look worth it, and it isn't. That's all.

>>8695411
Yeah, as most people do. Because that's normal. And that's why philosophy is a waste of time.

>>8692308

STEMtards btfo

Good luck ever revolutionizing any field of science without a solid foundation in philosophy

>>8695430
I suppose you might have a point there.

>>8695423

It's worth is self evident. Science is nested to philosophy. Philosophy is good tool to help you live a better, more fulfilled life.

>>8695444
I do.

>mfw stem brainlets cannot into Immanuel Kant

Do you fuckwits even thing in itself?

>>8695445
>Philosophy is good tool to help you live a better, more fulfilled life.
Ah nope, plenty of people have one without ever reading anything about philosophy, again because what you are trying to call philosophy is just normal human thinking. But good try.

>>8695462
Don't be mad dude, I was also working in a fast food restaurant when I was 16.

I don't know what all the fuss is about.
Philosophy & Math are basically the same thing.

>>8695486
Yeah, I'm leaving.

>>8695472

>Ah nope, plenty of people have one without ever reading anything about philosophy

You're such a brainlet you can't into a basic argument. I didn't say "Philosophy is the only way to live a good life" only that "philosophy is a good tool to live a better more fulfilled life" ,so your response is completely pointless. But even still, how do you know those people who lives that better life didn't tap into philosophy of some kind, even when they didn't realize it? It seems like you, a smart 4chan STEM major have a murky understanding of the subject, how would your average normie understand any better?

I honestly don't understand the resistance to philosophy on /sci/ i TOTALLY understand hating oh philosophy majors, but why philosophy itself? Unless, that is, you're a brainlet who doesn't understand what philosophy is, in its entirety

>>8695472

>philosophy is just normal human thinking

Philosophy is formalized human thinking

>>8695486

>Being this fucking ignorant.

>>8695521

hmmmm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

>>8695482

>working
>2017

Lol no

>>8695509
No, math is formalized human thinking.
Philosophy is pseudo-formalized thinking.

>>8695598

Nobody thinks in math

mathematics is the philosophy of languages

>>8695608
No, but you can model what you are thinking with math, which makes it formalized.

>>8695615

Model justice

>>8695620
I don't see any reason why you couldn't.

>>8695320
Note that it also shows that intelligence has an upper bound. This seems like it would be accurate, too, since our brains have a finite number of neurons.

>>8692303
more like
>Idiots: Philosophy is useless
>Bare above average IQ brainlets: Philosophy is important
>Geniuses: Philosophy is useless

ITT: Idiots on both sides of the issue who hardly know any science or any philosophy

Brainlet autists getting BTFO ITT

>>8692656
>>8692435
>>8692418
Keep in mind that Bill Nye is a guy with a single tech school degree to his name (all his other degrees are honorary), who hosted a kids show for years, and is now regularly entering public debates on evolution and cosmology.

Then again...
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1487816345159.webm

Not that real scientists don't sometimes have a disdain for philosophy, despite the discipline being born from said. While I don't think one should work from philosophy alone, it would be nice to go back having Ph.D. actually mean what it stands for. All scientists should at least have enough philosophy under their belts to detect and avoid the pitfalls of induction.

>>8695745

Teach us, oh wise one

>>8695759
Fucking Bill Nye is almost as much of a brainlet as NDT.

Philosophy is important and useful but indirectly. You can't make a car or a sandwich or a predictive physical model with philosophy but it forces you to think deeply and rigorously. Philosophy is a complementary subject; it augments any course of study.

Someone who has studied and done philosophy will approach the world with a more discerning mind than if they had not. Now if you're intelligent this will be the case regardless but philosophical training conditions you to constantly ask 'why' which is a skill in itself.

>>8695828
But philosophy is not rigorous at all.

>>8695834
Dude, read some fucking philosophy for Christ sake, and I'm not talking about fucking French existentialism. Philosophy is not asking questions about existence.

>>8695828

>Now if you're intelligent this will be the case regardless

No its not. Intelligent people are perfectly susceptible to poor thinking if not MORE susceptible to poor thinking, take a look at MENSA for example. All intelligence and no wisdom, which is a bad combination. Intelligence without wisdom can lead to arrogance(which is a problem in this thread). People in this thread seem to think that Philosophy ended with Greek Metaphysics but that simply isn't the case. Philosophy is a good tool to help you live your life more fruitfully and productively. In what time frame should you peruse happiness? Should you live for now? Next week? Next year? 10 years from now? How much trust should you put in your friends? Should you get married and have children? What's an acceptable level of confidence? These are all questions that science has problems with, because its hard to quality any of the variables and they're extremely complicated

/sci/ is obsessed with descriptions of the world and has a bone to pick with philosophy because 2,5000 years ago some dude thought that everything in the universe derives its substance from ideas but that's hardly a good discretion of all of philosophy. Some entire schools of philosophy revolved around "what you should do, given the facts'.

>>8695834

Explain.

>>8695834
Not rigorous. Kek.

http://www.semantic-qube.com/quantifiedmodallogic.htm

>>8695834

>>8695854
>muh int vs wis
I fucking hate your analogy. Its /v/edditor tier.
>>8695858
Logic is now more math thab philosophy.

>>8695357
Thinking is a sub-branch of philosophy.

>>8695870

>I fucking hate your analogy. Its /v/edditor tier.

Care to explain how it's wrong then?

>>8695870
>Logic is now more math than philosophy.
Only philosophers and linguists use modal logic, and it was developed by philosophers.

>>8695868
This is exactly why philosophy is useless.
Why are you proud of developing a system to prove something even dumb animals know?
You might as well be clapping yourself on the back for proving people need food and water to live.

Come back when you prove something novel. And I mean actually prove -something- rather than a mere idea, prove something you can point to in reality that everyone else was missing.

>>8695885
>I don't know shit about logic and I don't understand how computers work
Are you fucking retarded dude? This Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, it's one of the most seminal works in logic. It was a major step in the development of modern logic, and you probably wouldn't have a computer today were it not for this book.

>>8695834

You're an idiot, of course it is. It's easier to be illogical in philosophy than in math because mathematical statements sort of hold your feet to the fire by their very nature while philosophy is done in comparatively messy natural language but the whole point of philosophy is learning to be rigorous in natural language given a set of assumptions.

Yes it's hard and non trivial, that's why you need to be very smart to do it well.

>>8695898
>while philosophy is done in comparatively messy natural language
Hence why it is not rigorous.

>learning to be rigorous in natural language
Our natural language is not rigorously defined, and so any statement in natural language can not be rigorous by definition.

>>8695894
>Computers wouldn't exist if not for some philosopher proving to the ignorant world that yes, 1+1 indeed equals 2
Alright philosotard. As long as you feel good about yourself.

>>8695874
Because the general idea of intelligence is rooted heavily in one's cognitive ability which is expressed through intellectual prowess. So someone who has done great things for philosophy should be considered intelligent. Saying he is "wise" sounds either that you are thinking of humans as an RPG, or that you want to give the philosopher a cool and mystical sounding. The reason many people you consider intelligent may not act intelligent in every single way, is because it's impossible to master every single thing. If someone is intelligent and likes philosophy, well he probably will be a good one. What someone lack when he says philosophy is retarded is simply philosophical knowledge.
>>8695875
You'd be surprised. There are many abstract ways of looking at modal logic that involves some pretty heavy math. I'm talking abput topological spaces n shit.
>>8695868
You are a moron

>>8695906
So you think programming arithmetic in a computer is trivial? BTFO brainlet.

>>8695908
>You'd be surprised. There are many abstract ways of looking at modal logic that involves some pretty heavy math. I'm talking abput topological spaces n shit.
Huh, that is surprising, but not impossible. You have any example?

>>8695912
It must be considering any autist can make a calculator in fucking minecraft.

>>8695908

>Because the general idea of intelligence is rooted heavily in one's cognitive ability which is expressed through intellectual prowess

Right, but it's perfectly reasonable to schematize human cognitive products into two different camps. One is purely factual, a description of the world and the way it works, the other is what to do with that description. Attack the word itself, fine, but i think its perfectly coherent to think about it that way.

>>8695920
But what evidence is there to support that? Maybe there are some autistic savants who literally are only good at doing one particular thing but are retatded in everything else, but generally we are pretty much alike. My beef is the "multiple" intelligence perspectives which I think only groups people and prevents them from opening their intellectual curiosity. If you are in STEM then the humanities are shit and vice-versa (and all academics hate artists lel). I understand your point, but I would argue that we should convince more with why it's generally good to try and maximize your knowledge.

>>8695916
https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~btencate/esslli08course/esslli-fri2.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjevbPLpqXSAhUC6WMKHcsYD20QFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNEYE6hgx1kk2VeZXEPW2Rcv5gU-dw&sig2=87b1Zm5dZpgcXAoDb1RWcw

>>8695934
Thanks! That looks pretty cool.

>to go green all we need to do is go renewable and stop using fossil fuels

>>8692831
So that makes philosophy only justifiable through philosophy. We should let you fuckers keep at it so long as you don't breed. Do the same to your genes as you're doing with your minds.

>>8695300
That chart should be made better somehow.

>>8696734
why does something needs to be "justified"?

Chart fixed for good

>complaining about positivism

>>8697391
>why does something needs to be "justified"?

So it doesn't time, money, and resources like all the garbage philosophy that has come of a result of expanding the University system. Now every retard can come out with their unverifiable paper that rehashes a bunch of older philosophical theories with relation to modern context, and call it 'academic research.'

>>8697673
*drain

>>8697673
did a philo guy take your scholarship?

>>8693317
Because, assuming your scenario takes place in a western society, the social and legal risks are not worth it considering how easy you can feed yourself without resorting to cannibalism, besides the challenge of killing and harvesting a human being for food implies a greater effort and, as I've already said, risk compared to getting "normal" food. That's just the first reasons that came to my mind, I'm sure you can find more, for or against, reasons depending on general variables like time, place, culture, necessity, but in the end it all comes down to the mental process of each person, weather you care or not about this, if you even are aware of this, etc...
But in the end if I cared and had more information about you I could tell you if there is or isn't an actual reason for that you "should" or "shouldn't" eat another human being for sustenance. Now did I, or would I, use "philosophy" to come to this comclusions? or is it just logical mental process? am I not just "thinking" about it plain and simple? Isn't "philosophy" just another way of saying "thinking"? If this is isn't the case could you tell me the difference between "thinking" and making "philosophy"?

Is this a philosophycal post? Considering I have never taken a class of philosophy. If it is, am I therefore a philosopher? Doesn't seem too hard if you ask me, it's just simply thinking...

>>8697746
Not him, but you did use logic, thus you used philosophy, so I guess you failed.

Can't reason with the unreasonable.

>>8697768
do computer philosophize? they use logic after all.

>>8697768
So I'm a philosopher? woah and I didn't need to take 6 years or uni to achieve it, now that I think about it, I've been making logical reasonings since I was born so I guess unless you are retard everyone is born a philosopher, nice.

>Psychology is a science

>>8692303
>the formula for velocity is just an integral

t. me 20 minutes ago

>>8692308
I fully agree with Lawrence Krauss (whoever that is)

And partly agree with Einstien and Dawkins.

"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates un-barred and unguarded" - Blood Ravens Librarian

So there you have it. PROOF.

>>8697808
"An open mind is like something open"
t. Anon

>>8692475
We need both noodle-brain.

>>8692303
here:
>>8697794

>>8697812
>"An open mind is like something open"
>t. Anon

The worst part of all about of this post. Is that your missing the forest for the trees just like Einstein said. Thereby proving the antithesis of my point right; that some people do need philosophy.

Or is this some elaborate /sci/ troll?

>>8692315
Fucking this, if you are an autist you are basically fucked

>>8692303
I think the people who are truly acting like brainlets in /sci/ are the people who have to reply angrily to every single thing they read that they disagree with.

They're usually the ones throwing the word 'brainlet' around.

>>8697896
>t.Brainlet

>>8697803

>Psychology
>A protoscience
>Never heard about that
>Brainlet

>>8698161
^

And theeeere they are!

>>8697860

>Kek

>>8692308
Left is Right

>>8692487
Everyone that has invested a considerable amount into pondering the nature of existence and being considers God a not unlikely answer.

>>8698664
The heck do you base that on? There are tons of people who have invested their lives to pondering the nature of existence and being who believe in God.

Besides all the western thinkers, you know, you're basically saying that the entire country of history of India doesn't exist.

>>8698664
My apologies you worded that wierdly so I didn't catch you saying 'not unlikely' I thought you just said 'an unlikely'.

I take back my response here >>8698734 since you said the opposite.

>>8698664
>Everyone that has invested a considerable amount into pondering the nature of existence and being considers God a not unlikely answer.

>>8697788
They certainly wouldn't exist without the advent of the field. Boiling down concepts to logical symbols was a basic concept of dialectic and aristotelian logic.

>>8697794
We all really are, or least, not so much born, as trained to it... If you look back at what little written history there is, pre-antiquity, you begin to realize we were a chaotic emotional mess wandering about for the longest time, not so much reasoning as reacting and screaming at each other. There's a reason we had all the elements for civilization (fire, agriculture, shelter building, and social hierarchy) for nearly 100,000 years before we started settling down into cities, and it wasn't just climate change. It wasn't until after that, when so many of us had our bellies full and stayed in one place for a long time, that we really starting systematically thinking things through, which lead to philosophy, and a linguistic and cultural revolution.

We didn't really try to reason with each other before, we just made decrees through strength.

But come the sophists and on, and similar such elsewhere, debate became a structured art form. People quickly discovered that you could justify anything, right or wrong, with logic. And now, anyone trying make a case for anything, uses some level of dialectic reasoning, however flawed. Like many other things, it's become second nature to everyone living in civilized society, to the point where we often no longer recognize its origins.