/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9078115
Too busy learning our fields

>Why don't philosophers know algebraic geometry ffs, such brainlets

>>9078115
the engineer is to a scientist what a scientist is to a philosopher

What about people like Leibniz and Bertrand Russell?

>>9078131
>>9078135
/thread

I personally prefer philosophy to science. Scientific world-view is much more limited than a free-thinking one, because science creates restrictions of how things could be.

For instance, if I believed in science, I would be unable to believe that I could fly if I waved my arms fast enough. However, if I throw science into rubbish bin and instead only apply my imagination, then I can live in a world where I can fly by just waving my arms. And such a world would be much cooler than the boring one perpetuated by science.

>>9078187
You're fucking retarded, and a rationalist, sarcastic pseudo-i tellectual. The pure epitome of postmodern thought. Disgusting.

>>9078187
You are retarded.

Science is actually useful for the real world. Philosophy is cool and all but it's about as useful as playing videogames or jacking off

>a man is a featherless biped!
yeah, that's real great philosophers. Thanks for the input.

>>9078131
For the life of me I can't recall an instance where a mathematically illiterate philosopher dismissed the need for mathemetics or science. I can recall plenty of philosophically illiterate mathemetitians and scientists doing so for philosophy.

I feel this is the essence of the thread. This widespread notion in STEM that there isn't a need for philosophy. There seems to be a willful ignorance of the topic, which seems bizarre to me. Philosophy provides the context within which mathematical and scientific endevours provide meaningful, relatable results.

>>9078187
>Current state of scientists
Christ have mercy

>>9078301
The shere idiocy of comments like these depresses me more than most things. You are literally making a philosophical claim you complete retard.

>>9078187
Philosophy != retarded person having a daydream

>>9078203
>>9078285
>>9078318
>>9078344
triggered
God doesn't exist.
Absolutely no reason to think that the first cause is sentient.

>>9078356
Oh, it's b8

>>9078361
Not bait. Inflammatory language because I don't like you, but not bait.

>>9078380
Kk, well you actually are retarded. I'd suggest thinking through things and checking the integrity of your claims before posting. Also, the moment you get angry at someone over the internet, you've lost. (anger always stems from fear or pain, most people know this intuitively and will discredit the validity of anyone who appears angry.—academically speaking, at least)

>>9078356
No one was discussing God's existence. It's almost as if you're trying to conform to a certain stereotype.

/sci/ likes to shit on philosophers and engineers

engineers dont feel the need to defend themselves, but philosophers do

i wonder why, maybe because deep down they know they are useless

>>9078412
Okay Yoda.

>>9078421
Rick and Morty fans.

>>9078438
But engineers do defend themselves by mentioning "muh jobs".

>>9078115
>e.g. Hawking, Dawkins

You are now aware that having an "awk" in your name predisposes you to scientific greatness, but for some reason many scientists hide this from the public.

>Max Plawk
>Awkemides
>Francis Crawk
>Tawko Brahe
>Paul Dirawk

this is a particularly amusing debate during which dawkins is informed about epistemology by the archbishop of canterbury
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqa6VMI0UQ

>>9078131
>learning our fields
Scientists all assume epistemology and realism/instrumentalism without even knowing it. It's part of their field, they should know it.

>>9078115
because science is popularly accepted as what "smart" people pursue,even though scientists don't actually invent anything and just piggy back off of engineers

philosophy requires self analysis and critique of ones own intelligence, and most scientists rather avoid concepts that interfere with their materialist world view.

>>9078187

Philosophy: The love of wisdom
>can't pass peer review
>physicists don't like philosophy any more

>>9079340
>scientists don't actually invent anything and just piggy back off of engineers
Engineers apply scientific knowledge to projects. They do nothing but use the work of scientists. They invent nothing. If you wanted to improve microprocessors, you would be a physicist or chemist (as all who have created/improved them have been) not any kind of engineer, indeed if you had engineer education and did so, then you would be scientist by action anyway.

>philo requires self analysis and critique of ones own intelligence
Except it doesn't. It's mostly about dick-sucking dead people and projecting convoluted, intentionally elitist, shallow rhetoric onto simplistic statements. It is extremely regressive and most of its body of work offers nothing but inconsistent fiction, little of it does anything for the mind except to become good at unraveling the meaningless, convoluted knots of pet fiction. As exercise for the brain, it function nicely but gives little more. About 1% of that body is useful and should be read by all, the rest should be dismissed as lower than our posts. As they are lower.

>scientists rather avoid concepts that interfere with their materialist world view
What world-view isn't materialistic? It is the default assumption, anything else is baseless fiction and unconscious desire. You can't have a world-view of the nonexistent. Other concepts arise out of lack of fortitude and virtue to explore aspects of the material, explaining them away with controllable fiction. Materialism is the natural and unavoidable state of mind, one unmarred by fictitious religion and culture. To go beyond it is to make an unfounded leap of faith. Not even of assumption, as assumption requires some base or indication to derive from. Non-materialism has none, so it is pure faith.

>>9078187
So you would rather be dead, brain-dead or a small unformed child? It is not "cooler", it's shallow and trite in comparison to actually looking at the universe. It is pure escapism.

>>9079429
What's the 1% that you consider useful? Personally, philosophy is useful to me for understanding the underlying assumptions that mould our language and assumptions - the scaffolding of our thinking, so to speak.

Here is the truth: Sciece is just modern Philosophy. We're still trying to answer the same questions as always. What are we? Where do we come from? Why are things the way they are? Except that now these questions are much more complex and involve a lot of more things, as Philosophy has evolved. Those who clinge to "Philosophy" are actually just too stupid to understand current Philosophy so they study the Philosophy from hundreds of thousands of years ago, what those people study isn't really "Philosophy". It would be the equivalent of teaching a college student Aristotelean Physics and say that's a high level understanding of Physics.

>>9079445
>that mould our language and assumptions
*that mould our language and thinking
fix'd

>>9078131
The difference is that everybody needs philosophy, but not everybody needs algebraic geometry.

>>9078438
/sci/ has a very noticeable circlejerk of math students that think everyone is inferior to them

chemists, engineers, physicists, all get along.

>>9079429
>didn't take philosophy in college, thereby limited to default input/output settings.

doesn't realize consciousness is multidimensional

How or Why? Is it useful? Be humble. You will change. Learn from others like your already have. Sorry im kinda drunk

This is exactly what I was thinking >>9078344

>>9079516

Get yourself together man