/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10029836]

Philosophy is nearly useless to the sciences.
The wave of butthurt newfag philosophers that infest /sci/ can't prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10029841]

ur phallus is nearly useless to u so there
huhuhuh8hu

[Anonymous No.10029842]

>>10029836
>Philosophy is nearly useless to the sciences
nearly. not completely.

[Anonymous No.10029860]

>>10029836

Philosophy is the exciting pursuit of direction and meaning. Science is boring research and crunching numbers.

I mean, I know philosophy is generally self-indulgent, but god damn. It's more interesting and exciting than pure science. But were it not for science, there would not be nearly as much resources and information available for self-indulgent philosofags like me to gain insight from.


I'm probably the worst. I love using the information scientists have uncovered to form new ideas in reference to the purpose and meaning behind reality to oscillate around in my head.


From a lazy self-indulgent layperson, I truly thank and appreciate all the hard work you scientists do. In the end, you contribute far more than philosofags.

[Anonymous No.10029874]

Too faceblind to draw one eh?

[Anonymous No.10029928]

>>10029836
I'll take "what is hypothetical possibility" for 400, "what is Logic" for 600, "probability calculus" for 200, and "novel scientific framework" for 0. Reminder that every scientist who posits a hypothesis or a new way to characterize a natural observation is actively participating in metaphysics or philosophy of science. Read Tahko's "In Defense of Aristotelian Metaphysics" and Quine's "On What There Is" for more details. This doesn't mean that Philosophy as a branch of study is safe, but certainly not everone who practices philosophy has a degree in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10029939]

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out.

It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to why STEMfags are dismissive of the humanities. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?

Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

[Anonymous No.10029949]

>>10029836
>Philosophy is nearly useless to the sciences
Philosophy has little to do with Science and vice versa, so you should strive to have a well-rounded understanding of both in order to do great things with either discipline. Otherwise, you're just another pop-sci faggot, pic related

[Anonymous No.10029991]

>>10029860
>Jerking myself off in stupid logic loops is more interesting to me than finding out how the universe works

[Anonymous No.10029992]

>>10029928
Yep, knew there would be the retarded
>Hurr durr everything is PHILOSOPHY
I guess Biology is actually the most important thing every because you can't do philosophy without a brain.

[Anonymous No.10029994]

>>10029949
>Richard Dawkins
>Popsci
>in the same category as Bill Nye
Guess how I know you don't even have a grad degree.

[Anonymous No.10029999]

>>10029836
>can't prove otherwise.
Says the lame nerd who can only parse sentences that are short enough to fit on the screen of his TI calculator

[Anonymous No.10030000]

>>10029836
v true

[Anonymous No.10030002]

>>10029991
>Science finds out how the universe works

the crystalline spheres of ancient and medieval astronomy;
the humoral theory of medicine;
the effluvial theory of static electricity;
'catastrophist' geology, with its commitment to a universal(Noachian) deluge;
the phlogiston theory of chemistry;
the caloric theory of heat;
the vibratory theory of heat;
the vital force theories of physiology;
the electromagnetic aether;
the optical aether;
the theory of circular inertia;
theories of spontaneous generation.

[Anonymous No.10030004]

>>10029836

If you aren't scared by lots of words, these posts contain such a proof otherwise.

https://samzdat.com/2018/05/19/science-under-high-modernism/
https://samzdat.com/2018/05/31/science-cannot-count-to-red-thats-probably-fine/

[Anonymous No.10030008]

>>10030002
>the crystalline spheres of ancient and medieval astronomy;
>the humoral theory of medicine;
>the effluvial theory of static electricity;
>'catastrophist' geology, with its commitment to a universal(Noachian) deluge;
>the phlogiston theory of chemistry;
>the caloric theory of heat;
>the vibratory theory of heat;
>the vital force theories of physiology;
>the electromagnetic aether;
>the optical aether;
>the theory of circular inertia;

naturwissenschaft confirmed to be stuck within the dialectic of perception(deception).

[Anonymous No.10030012]

>>10029841
the state of philosophy, folks

[Anonymous No.10030013]

>>10029994
Yeah I loved his last research paper, the one about whether these wasps were making logical fallacies, in Animal Behaviour (1980)

[Anonymous No.10030017]

>>10030002
Why are you posting disproven theories only proving how retarded philosophy is?

[Anonymous No.10030022]

>>10030013
The man is in his 70s and has done a lot of good shit

[Anonymous No.10030026]

>>10030017
Wow, what a surprise. STEMfag can't even write properly...

[Anonymous No.10030036]

>>10030026
>Argument doesn't make sense
>YEAH WELL YOU TYPE BAD
Notice how anytime Philosophers try to prove shit science disproves it later?

[Anonymous No.10030048]

>>10029949
>Philosophy has little to do with Science

Isn't that what the intelligent people on the left of your image are talking against though?

[Anonymous No.10030076]

>>10029949
This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

[Anonymous No.10030080]

>>10029992
Not only is that an ad hominem, but it appears like you didn't even consider anything that I had in in my post. Science is natural philosophy, if you had any historical knowledge then you would know that. I smell an undergrad.

[Anonymous No.10030081]

>>10029949
nigga, what is schrodongers cat

[Anonymous No.10030086]

>>10030080
Science WAS natural philosophy before it actually developed into science. Fuck off brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10030101]

You can't come up with any applications off the top of your head for anything scientific if you don't know any philosophy. Without it, you can only parrot hurr durr dyson sphere railguns genome

[Anonymous No.10030103]

>>10030101
That's funny because many great scientists haven't taken very many philosophy classes. It's almost as if studying philosophy is useless.

[Anonymous No.10030116]

>>10029860

>purpose and meaning behind reality

This is why you're considered retarded.

[Anonymous No.10030118]

>>10030080
If you had any historical knowledge, you would understand that philosophy was a term used for every fucking academic subject before there were concrete subdivisions. Modern academic philosophy is meant to be the study of such ancient subjects like, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics etc. What defines these subjects? It's obviously complicated and the boundaries are pretty gray with some subjects, but usually one can distinguish between questions, and problems that are of a philosophical nature even within another field (political philosophy, or philosophy of science for example).

[Anonymous No.10030119]

>>10029836
>falsify it

Kill yourself, leddit fag

[Anonymous No.10030120]

>>10030116
Behold, the intellectual eunuch.

[Anonymous No.10030122]

>>10029939

>STEMfags are dismissive of the humanities

I'm not dismissive of humanities. I'm dismissive of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10030126]

>>10029939
Humanities are shit and deserve to be laughed at. Same with anyone who goes to college to study them.

[Anonymous No.10030127]

>>10030119
>A classic /sci/ comic is reddit
The newfaggotry is off the charts

[Anonymous No.10030129]

>>10030103
Are you aware that applied and theoretical sciences are different things?

[Anonymous No.10030134]

>>10030129
No they aren't. You can easily learn a science and use it for applied and theoretical purposes. Also your post means nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.10030154]

>>10030122
What is philosophy in your view? Normally these threads descend into someone mentioning ethics or political theory, and other posters respond by posting >philosophy is everything
Before we can engage with your argument we need to know what you mean

[Anonymous No.10030163]

>>10030118
My point is that even though science has separated away from philosophy, it still uses philosophical methodology to ask questions, review possibility, and to connect other sciences. It still is natural philosophy, albeit that it is more focused on a combination of hypotheses and empirical understanding than on armchair, logical, and epistemic truths that philosophers try to find in the case of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. The end goal in many sciences is to find eternal universal truths, which is the same goal of academic philosophy. The introduction of concrete subdivisions does not make it any less philosophy, the only difference is that there is increased specificity per each particular field.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that academic philosophy is worthwhile or scientific, only that scientists use and modify a philosophical framework in order to find truths.

[Anonymous No.10030176]

>>10030127
>classic sci
>lelddit edit

No. The original was something along the lines of "lets find(examine) the implications". "Falsify" comes from retarded "philosophy of science" students who have never studied science.

[Anonymous No.10030178]

>>10030176
Medicine is a dirty whore.

[Anonymous No.10030186]

You talk big but I can see at least 2 threads full of posters here failing geometry and algebra problems for children

[Anonymous No.10030220]

Take the Higgs Boson for example.
Is it real?
Two separate teams found a bump in their data at the same point on the graph. One team found an additional bump which was regarded as a statistical fluke.
Is this sound reasoning, why or why not?

[Anonymous No.10030225]

How would you fuck your antimatter twin?

[Anonymous No.10030229]

>>10030176
>medicine
>am I killing you yet?

[Anonymous No.10030238]

>>10030176

top b8 m8

[Anonymous No.10030417]

>>10029836
You know nothing.

Disprove me.

[Anonymous No.10030463]

>>10030176
medicine is probably the worst in the list after philosophy

[Anonymous No.10030468]

>>10030220
>Is this sound reasoning
yes
why or why not?
math
philosophy btfo again

[Anonymous No.10030475]

/sci/ is full of unenlightened pretentious physics undergrads.

[Anonymous No.10030769]

>>10030176
>Posts an edit of pic related thinking it makes him not a retarded newfag

[Anonymous No.10030960]

>>10030475
Philosophy of the epitome of pretentious

[Anonymous No.10031004]

I’m a pure math fag, and I don’t see why we have to have this discussion. /sci/ will fellate math all day long for being beautiful, pure, and without application because it’s been pushed to them that math can be enjoyed for its own sake (which it can and should be, even when applied). In the same way, philosophers are free to study what they want. I mean, that’s why people do academia, right? The beauty of science is the passion that curiosity inspires.

Things like the mind-body problem that suggest that the mind isn’t necessarily physically reducible but has some associated correspondence with the body is legitimately interesting reading.

[Anonymous No.10031028]

t. npc

[Anonymous No.10031037]

>>10030769
The point is that it's been edited to hell and back

[Anonymous No.10031171]

>>10029836
>Science = Natural Philosophy
The pursuit of getting as close to objective physical behaviour as possible using our collective subjective experience of physical reality.

>Theoretical science = Metaphysics
For the construction of concepts that are then applied to physical substances. These concepts must be logically coherent and are analysed using formal logic. Current theoretical science uses mathematical axioms which are not scrutinised with formal logic and are therefore highly likely to be wrong.

>Mathematics = Metaphysical Quantity
Mathematics is used to give metaphysical quantity to metaphysical concepts. It should not be mistaken for the concept it is applying the quantity to, nor should it operate with assumptive axioms. It needs to stick with what it is good at, that's where its power lies.

Philosophy is not separate to these things nor against them in any way. This false idea that science/mathematics have separated themselves from philosophy has been deliberately manufactured.

This animosity towards philosophy has been programmed into us, people into philosophy are regarded as pretentious hippies and philosophy majors are seen as stoners who will end up working in fast food (which then becomes a reality for some). Philosophy that is taught in schools/university ranges from the completely useless to the same old same old. It's not being allowed to progress in any meaningful way in society.

So the question is, why? Because philosophy is the very thing being used against us for the benefit of a few. Instead of using our own natural philosophical ability to work things out, we are told how things (supposedly) work instead through government education, media, and celebrity "intellectuals". Freedom of thought and natural inquisitiveness are discouraged and mocked. This is how the system is, and yes it may have many flaws, but it's the best we've got (supposedly).

[Anonymous No.10031284]

>>10031171
Reasonably accurate, intelligence agencies have had an active interest in promoting braindead philosophies they like in universities too. The belligerent stemfag attitude is just mind poison for hyperspecialized autists to keep them straying too far outside of the parameters set for them, which is also centralized through the grant system, publishing houses and so on - issues they themselves are familiar with to be fair. If you'll notice none seem to have even a cursory wikipedia level grasp of the topics they dismiss wholesale which is strange and inexcusable for people who routinely deal with crackpots professionally. In effect they become an extension of the technical apparatus configured to solve highly domain specific problems more akin to engineers, and when they do do philosophy, automatically and without realizing, it's predictably a complete mess riddled with basic errors. An extreme example of this philosophy without philosophy is Langan's CTMU, but they're all guilty of Langanism to some extent.

[Anonymous No.10031344]

>>10030960
t. engineer who hasn't read a single philosophy book in his life

[Anonymous No.10031376]

>>10031284
Yes exactly. Creating a culture that produces a certain kind of person is very interesting. It doesn't seem far-fetched to think that video games have always had an ulterior motive involving the forming of autists for future problem solving. Video games have such clear, logical behaviour, with constant problems, reactions, and solutions that also provide a dopamine hit. No lateral thinking required, no need to stray, no need to think too deeply.

Once it comes time to go through the "educational" system and then job market, you will look for something that mimics what you've grown up with. And there's plenty of that about nowadays. Philosophy at this point will appear to have no impact in your life, and if you do look into it, it will annoy you because you've never really had the chance to let the mind think philosophically and it will only threaten your current world view which has been constructed for you, rather than by you.

[Anonymous No.10031383]

>>10029999
The Principia Mathematica failed in its goal though?

[Anonymous No.10031390]

>>10030176
>More like:
>A: I have a disease.
>B: Let's treat the symptoms and not cure it so that I can keep your symptoms at bay and rake in the cash.

[Anonymous No.10031411]

>>10031376
Well true generalism has long been impossible, which is part of it. Attempts to be generalist since a while ago can come off as pretentious or pseudoscientific, when on the flip side you see certain groups of philosophers pathetically groveling for morsels at the feet of the science departments in an effort to keep their own careers afloat against the ruthless scythe of economic efficiency calculations, and it's hard to respect this behavior either. Factor in the often dogmatic politicization of the more artsy characters involved, and the fact they look up to guys like Feynman who might have been frustrated by brainlet philosophers who couldn't into the high difficulty of modern physics, and you can empathize with the stemfag's dismissiveness. It's an extremely complex confluence of phenomena, perhaps beyond all of us but territorial shit flinging which I am guilty of for keks is a childish and counterproductive approach

[Anonymous No.10031489]

>>10031037
A meme... edited?!?! No fuckin' way! Everyone knows that real memes are never changed and making a change to a meme is only something reddit does.

[Anonymous No.10031673]

if you hate philosophy then you have nothing to do on this board and should go back where the fuck you came from

[Anonymous No.10031893]

>>10029860
>purpose and meaning behind reality
Meaning is a white hole. The closer you get to it, the more energy you must expend to approach further. The only way to evolve your mind is to let go of the desire for meaning and let this force propel you onward, rather than swim against it. Your life does not require meaning to be fulfilling.

[Anonymous No.10031914]

>>10031893
ur mum is a white hole. huhuhuh is funy cuz sek!!

Also, Nietzsche's commentary about those who descend into the molten pit of human reality is more apt than ever. They are eventually driven back by its heat, and emerge "only" as burnt children. In derivatives their eyes are burnt by the light of truth, and they are left only to know eternal darkness.

Meaning is a word for many different things. I do not believe a life devoid of meaning is possible or rewarding. Even a stripped down husk of a human being left to sleepwalk through the rest of its miserable life forms some sort of model by which it derives meaning. It must, else the automaton stops.

No. Buddhism had it right. Life is like carnival stings, something something, too tight and it is paralyzed or snaps, too loose and it's flat and directionless. Maintaining balance and the middle ground is the ideal for something that desires fulfillment and life, with a degree of intelligently managed deviation to either side.

[Anonymous No.10031935]

>>10031914
>life devoid of meaning
That's not what I said.

[Anonymous No.10031953]

>>10031489
The point is OP version came from reddit.

[Anonymous No.10032881]

>>10030036
read kuhn you absolute faggot

[Anonymous No.10032899]

>>10029836
Every day my expectations for the intelligence of 4chan sink lower and lower. I'm surprised the current wave of retarded pseudo-intellectual philosopher parroting faggots can even wipe their own asses. Well, I don't actually know that they can but I assume they can, probably erroneously.

[Anonymous No.10033082]

>>10031411
Yes they do not want academic fields working closely together, to have a unifying philosophical framework. Everything is about separation and specialisation, taking years to earn a piece of paper and putting you in debt in the process with no guarantee of a job afterwards.

Celebrity "intellectuals" are not in the spotlight for being intelligent, they're in the spotlight because they're good at pretending to be intelligent, and doing it in a quirky or charismatic way. They're all part of the same fellowships and societies, and are working for a hidden agenda. This also means that their public feuds or debates with other "intellectuals" are also staged, but serve the purpose of generating sides that people then join, creating division between the population as well.

[Anonymous No.10033111]

>>10031390
Found the murican

[Anonymous No.10033217]

>>10030081
from now on I will be calling him Erwin schrodonger

[Anonymous No.10033396]

>>10029836
Yes, nearly useless. Because nearly all philosophers are in fields outside of the philosophy of science. You'd understand how bad your argument is if you read some philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10033411]

>>10030036
Those were all scientific theories. The distinction between philosophy and natural philosophy goes back before many of them. The fact individuals engaged in both kinds of philosophy does not change that, nor does it negate the development of the scientific method based on their work. Try having an actual argument instead of being caught up on the word philosophy and what it means to you. You're ignorant of history, philosophy, and science.

[Anonymous No.10033413]

>>10030176
No, you have that backward. Most people who misuse falsifiability are neckbeard STEM fans who don't know any philosophy of science.