/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10042580]

Is this the most retarded """science"""?

[Anonymous No.10042637]

How can a superset of science also be a subset of science?

[Anonymous No.10042669]

>>10042580
It's not a science. And after math and maybe physics is the field that requires the most intelligence (to be done right, of course)

[Anonymous No.10042752]

>>10042580
Philosophy isn't a science, it's something STEM graduates should get into as a pass time.

[Anonymous No.10042799]

>>10042580
It is the most complete system ever devised

[Anonymous No.10042869]

>>10042580
not a science, but requires a higher IQ than most /sci/entists have to understand/do well

[Anonymous No.10042876]

>>10042637
If the set is equal to science ;)

[Anonymous No.10042891]

>>10042580
Philosophy isn't a science, idiot

[Anonymous No.10042897]

>more right

[Anonymous No.10042971]

>>10042580
1/10 because im replying. All science is rooted in philosophy. Science would not exist without philosophy. OP is a fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.10043009]

>>10042637
>How can a superset of science also be a subset of science?
You mean supercategory/subcategory.

[Anonymous No.10043243]

[Anonymous No.10043367]

>>10043243
retard

[Anonymous No.10043733]

Yeah I remember seeing Philosophy majors scoring the highest I'm GMAT tests or something.

[Anonymous No.10043794]

>>10043243
>Philosophers argue through reducionism
But I thought that was one of your favorite buzzwords?

[Anonymous No.10043797]

>>10042637
Clicked on this to say this.
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10043816]

>>10043243
>logic isn't below or equal to metaphysics
>mathematics isn't present under logic
>aesthetics is under economics
>epistemology isn't under logic/metaphysics
>Ethics isn't immediately under either metaphysics or anthropology
>religion isn't under either metaphysics or anthropology
Bait post, and that is just from a philosophy perspective. A scientific one is going to be even more critical.

[Anonymous No.10043843]

>>10042580
It's not a science, it's a philosophy

[Anonymous No.10044105]

>>10043243
Completely retarded chart

[Anonymous No.10044127]

>>10042637
Fpbp
Why do so many pseudo not know this

[Anonymous No.10044148]

>>10042580
Nietzsche
1.strict religious upbringing
>hurr I hate you God
2. can't get laid
>durr all wamen are doggos
3. zero social skills due to autism
>ich bin ze' übermensch
4. lives in poverty in total seclusion
>only those who can climb the mountain to look into the abyss so the abyss can look into them are worthy enough of life
Philosophy is pure infantile cope.

[Anonymous No.10044152]

>>10044148
What about Plato's Cave?

[Anonymous No.10044216]

>>10044152
Plato
>impossible to tell when he was born
>several versions on how and when died
Ayy lmao that's a good start mate.
So apparently he was rich and well educated at a time when 95% of people were illiterate.
>hurr no one understands a me cuz da world is imperfect
So he funds a school only to be surprised that all the teachers and students are autistic af and can only think in shitty metaphors and within 1 subject since no one has spent his entire childhood learning as much as he did.
>da higher spheres of egzistunce hush yer slaves trembling at da shadows on di wall
Really like the parts when he condemns pedarasty but everyone writes of him he only fucked young boys and never had a kid himself.

[Anonymous No.10044221]

>>10042637
>superset of science

lmao

[Anonymous No.10044223]

>>10044216
I asked about the cave allegory.

[Anonymous No.10044237]

>>10044223
If it exists it applies only to you. Now you can feel special.

[Anonymous No.10044245]

>>10044237
>>10044216
>>10044148
Either bait or freshman stemfag

[Anonymous No.10044313]

>>10044245
name one contribution of modern philosophy to society

[Anonymous No.10044316]

>>10044237
If things are indeed so, then it will only be that I'm seeing it while others are not. Their response on my attempting to free them from their binds only further demonstrates.

[Anonymous No.10044321]

>>10044313

Feminism.

[Anonymous No.10044354]

>>10044316
Nope, no one's in the cave except for you my darling.

[Anonymous No.10044418]

>>10042637
It's not, obviously science is the superset because the empirical process is fundamental to learning, being practiced informally and unconsciously before language or any reasoning of concepts arises.

[Anonymous No.10044437]

>>10044216
>Really like the parts when he condemns pedarasty
???
absolutely bluepilled
pedarasty is the thinking man's pleasure

[Anonymous No.10044475]

>>10044313
Postmodernism

[Anonymous No.10044487]

>>10044418
>empirical process is fundamental to learning

Can you prove this empirically?

[Anonymous No.10044490]

>>10044418
Surely we need reason first to make sense of empirical data?

[Anonymous No.10044529]

>don't think about anything except what bill nye tells you to

[Anonymous No.10044543]

>>10042799
> fichte
> not hegel
Nice bait, idiot

[Anonymous No.10044550]

Tfw the old Wissenschaft is not a thing anymore

[Anonymous No.10044564]

>>10044490
>>10044487
Don't point brainlets to Kant. They will only blush when they see his MASSIVE intellect. Clearly the post hadn't considered what it was saying at all and there is no point in dwelling on misinformed comments.

[Anonymous No.10044713]

Results of science:
>people flying in planes to casually spend a week on another side of the planet, then going back home
>cures for previously incurable diseases
>vaccination for you to not even catch some of these diseases in the first place
>being able to access most of humanity's knowledge by typing a few words in a browser
>heating your home when it's freezing outside without you having to chop fucking wood beforehand
>your food doesn't go bad after like a fucking day, because you have a freezer and/or it comes prepacked and is vaccum sealed
>you don't have to go to a lake to wash your clothes - there is a machine doing that for you

Results of philosophy
>a lot of printed pages with words on them

[Anonymous No.10044933]

>>10042580
>Is this the most retarded """science"""?
You are the one that is retarded for assuming people even think that Philosophy is a science.
OP is a simpleton confirmed.

[Anonymous No.10045139]

>>10044713
>All right... all right... but apart from human rights and egalitarianism and ethics and aesthetics and epistemology and capitalism and democracy and freedom and the welfare state... what have the philosophers done for us?
Did you notice how a man with bigger fists than you didn't rob you today and rape your wife?

[Anonymous No.10045161]

>>10044543

>he fell for the hegel meme

lmaoing at ur life

[Anonymous No.10045220]

I really hope all the anons shitting on philosophy can link me to the properly peer-reviewed scientific research which backs up their claims, otherwise it would seem they are accepting knowledge not gained through the scientific method. Of course, they wouldn't do that, so I look forward to reading the studies.

[Anonymous No.10045243]

>>10045139

fuck off faggot,
that has nothing to do with philosophy unless you extend the term to mean all human attempts to live together

I'm pretty sure that even in the first human cultures that we know off (sumer, egypt) - people weren't willy nilly raping the wifes of others.

And if they were, they were being punished, probably more severly than today.

But go ahead, justify your mental masturbation habits all you want. We all like to waste time in some way. Just don't pretend that it does anything useful.

[Anonymous No.10045270]

>>10045243
>Just don't pretend that it does anything useful.
Where can I find the scientific research to show it's not useful? Or to define what is 'useful'? Can you point me in the right direction?

[Anonymous No.10045321]

>>10045270
>Can you point me in the right direction?

I can give you some food for thought.
Imagine all philosophers in this world stop doing whatever they do regarding philosophy.

What would change?

Would somebody be impacted at all? Apart from a few publishers maybe.

[Anonymous No.10045373]

>>10045321
Trying to argue that "philosophy" is useless is like a stand up comedian calling microphones useless while using a microphone.


>Imagine all philosophers in this world stop doing whatever they do regarding philosophy.
>What would change?
This is exactly the point. Philosophy isn't allowed to be done, science/math don't want to change, philosophy poses too much of a threat. Even though science and math are just branches of metaphysics and logic that are pretending to be their own distinct field and arbiter of truth.

[Anonymous No.10045389]

>>10045373
>philosophy poses too much of a threat

kek
being this delusional

[Anonymous No.10045404]

>>10045389
Why's that delusional?

[Anonymous No.10045426]

>>10045321
So you don't have any proper scientific research to back up your views? Just an unverifiable and unfalsifiable thought experiment? That doesn't seem very scientific anon, seems more like philosophy to me. But I'm sure you wouldn't do that, so I'll eagerly await the research you have based your findings on

[Anonymous No.10045476]

>>10045426

Oh shit, you got me.
Philosophy rulez all.

[Anonymous No.10045525]

>>10042799
>>10044543
Just wait till you read Peirce.

[Anonymous No.10045529]

>>10043816
>Logic bellow or equal to metaphysics.
But Anon, metaphysical first principles come from logic, if they are decent that is.

[Anonymous No.10045552]

>>10045476
>he can't justify his claims
Pretty embarrassing for you anon. I mean, there you were making grand claims, but when challenged just a little bit you weren't able to defend them in any way.

[Anonymous No.10045578]

>>10045552

[Anonymous No.10045617]

>>10044713
Literally retarded

[Anonymous No.10045631]

>>10045404
>>10045373
>this is what philosophy majors unironically believe

nobody denies that philosophy back then had an impact on shaping what science and society is today retards(it was intertwined with science after all)

however now it's absolutely useless and all philosophers do is ponder about absolutely irrelevant shit

I'll ask once again: name even one fucking contribution of modern philosophy to society

[Anonymous No.10045642]

>>10045631
There are plenty. Anyways that doesn't matter because philsophy is not practical, it is not meant to have any practical application. Philsophy with practical applications is what we call bad philsophy.
Metaphysics is the foundation of all scientific theories btw.

[Anonymous No.10045644]

>>10045642
Same goes for science, a scientist doesn't want to solve a problem, that is a job for engineers. Science just wants to figure out the truth, independently of any practical application the knowledge gained will have.

[Anonymous No.10045647]

>>10045631
>however now it's absolutely useless

What's your reasoning for such an assertion and why do you believe all the progress made by philosophy to society has come to an end? Have we reached the end point or is there something further to strive for and if so why does 'philosophy' have no place in what that something is that we strive to?

[Anonymous No.10045651]

>>10045644
>Science just wants to figure out the truth

Science can't even validate itself through the scientific method though.

What 'truth' is really being sought?

[Anonymous No.10045674]

>>10045631
>however now it's absolutely useless and all philosophers do is ponder about absolutely irrelevant shit
Relevant philosophy threatens too much.
>I'll ask once again: name even one fucking contribution of modern philosophy to society
Formal logic used in computers.

Is "space-time" metaphysical, or actually physical?

[Anonymous No.10045682]

>>10042580

[Anonymous No.10045706]

[Anonymous No.10045728]

>>10045682
ive never met a single metaphysician who could do multivariable calculus of understand evolutionary theory much less dynamics and statics or even how a fucking combustion engine works

[Anonymous No.10045761]

>>10045631
Quine's ontological commitment
Meinong's sein and sosein
Russel's theory of descriptions

And that is just about hypothetical possibility and fictional discourse. AI research frequently takes cues from the philosophical branch of cognitive science in order to understand the mind. Theoretical modality (basic and temporal) assists with scientific methodology. Philosophy isn't going to "find" anything scientific because that isn't its goal. Philosophy of science is all about the methodology and framework of science itself. Bayesian analysis in connection with empirical research is still being assessed and altered by both philosophers and mathematicians. Plus, philosophers also do armchair theories that relate to things above where natural science is currently. Not to say that they are always accurate with the last aspect, however.

[Anonymous No.10045784]

>>10045706
reminder that there are people who exists that praise and follow every words of these people

[Anonymous No.10045790]

>>10042580
No. It's literally harder than every STEM field, including Math.

[Anonymous No.10045791]

>>10044313
formal logic

[Anonymous No.10045795]

>STEMfags getting absolutely BTFO
shows why /sci/ will always be shit compared to /lit/
this board is pretty bad on its own though, to be fair. too many undergrads.

[Anonymous No.10045814]

>>10045790
But not comp sci

[Anonymous No.10045818]

>>10045784
I agree with the point the image is trying to make, but at the same time I think some of the points that the right are trying to make are substantial (though perhaps I don't have proper context.) Some philosophies become so esoteric and distant that it is reasonable to ask if people are even understanding the point of origin of their ideas.

[Anonymous No.10045889]

>>10045728
Famous metaphysicians prove this wrong.

[Anonymous No.10045892]

Well according to

[Anonymous No.10045897]

>>10045651
Peirce who I was basically paraphrasing devolped the pragmatic theory of truth.

[Anonymous No.10045904]

>>10045791
Which orginated and diverged from philsophy. Philosophy is grounded in formal logic, especially modern and contemporary philsophy.

[Anonymous No.10045910]

>>10045889
But not hegel or highdeger
:^}

[Anonymous No.10045936]

well, sure, thinking about words beyond the level of a XKCD stick figure is too hard but at least you can do symbol manipulations at a quintillionth the speed of a CAS

[Anonymous No.10045944]

>>10045889
Nope.
>>10045904
formal logic is retarded, its extrapolated applications in CS are meaningless for its purported grounding in reality
>>10045936
Cope

[Anonymous No.10045954]

>>10045944
>formal logic is retarded, its extrapolated applications in CS are meaningless for its purported grounding in reality
Good god, it truly was a mistake to make the university accessible to the 110 range.

[Anonymous No.10045959]

>>10045954
lol are u mad?

[Anonymous No.10045961]

>>10045944
>Nope
Try CS Peirce, that's someone I think every scientist who wants to be worth a shit should read. I'll name a few more names Lebniz, Husserl, Whitehead, Delueze, most analytic and contemporary philsophers

>formal logic is retarded
Cringe
>extrapolated applications in CS are meaningless for its purported grounding in reality
Pointing you to Peirce again.

[Anonymous No.10045962]

>>10045959
Yes, I am. Toilet paper participation trophy degrees these days like yours if you even get that far are polluting all public discourse.

[Anonymous No.10045967]

>>10045961
Charles Sanders Pierce is irrelevant to any hard science, why would a Physicist or Chemist care what he thought or any nerdic effeminate annelid who doesn’t want to do research or contribute to the established models of the universe? Why is it even interesting? CS is filled with superfluous faggotry and people who aren’t curious about reality at all. So, what’s the point?
>>10045962
I sense that you’re upset that your anti-human CS-Phil double major is being called into question. Is there a way i can help alleviate the inflammation in your rectum? Would you like a topical analgesic?

[Anonymous No.10045978]

>>10045967
Peirce is increasingly being cited in and applied to theoretical physics. He worked as a chemist for like 30 years and made contributions to many fields. He is of major interest in theorhetical biology, the emerging field of biosemiotics is mostly based on Peirce work. He is a huge deal in artificial life and AI research as well as in philsophy. You obviously didn't take any time to even read Wikipedia. You aren't an epic troll, you are a low effort juvenile shit poster and I don't know why you bother. Fuck off and pick up a book.

[Anonymous No.10045980]

>>10045978
I have read Pierce’s essays before anon, how is his work relevant to physics? Are we going to discover a subatomic particle of thirdness? is truth “out there” as an object in space? is it a fundamental force? why would i care at all what anyone in formal logic thinks? You never actually said anything substative and made the claim that his work is important for scientists.

[Anonymous No.10045982]

>>10045967
>anti-human
Bold buzzword coming from the likes of you.
Look at PBS Space Time, the man is an astrophysicist which is far further than you'll ever get in life, and he was saying: the "Plank" time is the smallest time. It has Harry Potter and MLP references while blithely (look it up if it's not in your 10,000 max vocab) explaining we're dissipatory phenomena gradually winding down into sludge.
Youtube presenter of this calibre is the best case scenario for you and you wouldn't have an iota (again, google it) the charisma or intellect to pull that off.

[Anonymous No.10046004]

>>10045982
>look it up
I see you’ve yet to calm down, the inferiority complex I’ve agitated into a tempest of pure malignant spite against anyone who might not find you interesting is unattractive and unimpressivez. You know that don’t you anon? CS is anti-human precisely because it gives birth to the breed of humanity you’re so agitated about, the scarab beetle science explainer who rolls up balls of fecal knowledge from the real thinkers I guess you suppose yourself to be in league with, and which you bizarrely are charging me with being close in kind to (I think?). Could we just get an answer from you as to why formal logic is directly pertinent to the study of the physical universe?

[Anonymous No.10046032]

>>10046004
It's an interesting question to be sure, but an entirely philosophical one. I don't see where your prolix pseudo-psychoanalytic blandishments have accomplished the requisite doxographical excision.

[Anonymous No.10046034]

>>10045980
>Discover a subatomic particle of thirdness.
You clearly weren't clever enough to understand Peirce's catagories. If you don't understand how his catagories, tychism and synechism intersect with physics you are either a poor analyst or ignorant of Peirce, my guess is both.
Physics isn't something is study yet, here is something. Maybe you should use Google scholar. Also Peirce isn't a big deal in physics, butheis definitely cited and highly regarded.

Ive already mentioned biosemiotics

I had a bunch of links for youbutgot cucked by the spam filter
Not to mention his in pretty much every field of philsophy, logic, semiotics, scientific methodology and philsophy of science.
If you have honestly read Peirce it's worse than I thought. Pick up a book or commit to being stupid somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.10046081]

>>10046032
this is the grandest pseudery I have ever seen outside of /lit/. Also, the ugliest attempt at a high verbal retort I’ve been met with on this site in quite some time.
>>10046034
Pierce made important contributions to metronomics and logic in the late 19th century which were elaborated upon by smarter people decades later. Its a shame his personal problems held him back. I was more concerned about how formal logic applied to the study of the physical universe not the tangent you went on, anon.

[Anonymous No.10046090]

>>10046081
*metrology, my deepest apologies sperg

[Anonymous No.10046094]

>>10043243
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10046115]

>>10043243

[Anonymous No.10046125]

>>10046115
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.10046134]

Science is a branch of philosophy, the same way logic is a branch of philosophy and math a branch of logic. Just because you guys like to suck your own dicks and say philosophy is “crazy” or whatever you idiots believe, doesn’t change the fact that the ability to make any scientific conclusions relies entirely on philosophical work.

[Anonymous No.10046137]

>>10046081
glad you enjoyed it ;^}
anyway if you're genuinely interested there's an incredibly vast literature on the topic spanning a multitude of perspectives, it's a conversation as old as philosophy and not just Western, discussed by nearly every major thinker, although some believe the Aristotlean-Scholastic formal logic like that discussed in Kant and Leibniz and so on is no longer relevant since the Fregean revolution I would disagree. But to me it's certainly not limited to just the formal symbolic metamathematical systems of the analytic logicians and does have more links to the foundations of physics such as orthocomplemented lattices of von Neumann's axiomatization of QM than the informationalist fad which you seem to find so distasteful.

[Anonymous No.10046218]

>>10046137
Holy fuck you’re a sophist if I’ve ever seen one.

[Anonymous No.10046244]

How old are you guys?
I'm feeling dumb itt

[Anonymous No.10046247]

>>10046218
>Mathematics is a part of physics. It is a
part of physics where experiments are
cheap. [..] In the middle of the 20th
century there were attempts to separate
mathematics from physics. The results
turned to be catastrophic.
-Vladimir Arnold
but I'm sure your contributions will eclipse the gomboc.

[Anonymous No.10046290]

>>10045728
My favorite philosophy professor at my uni is focused in inductive logic, probability, and statistics and their relation to judgement. A lot of Bayesian analysis.

[Anonymous No.10046405]

>>10046290
>>My favorite philosophy professor at my uni is focused in inductive logic, probability, and statistics and their relation to judgement. A lot of Bayesian analysis.
Dunno if that stuff makes him a metaphysician. The only people who comes into mind for me are Leibniz, Husserl, and a lot of the analytic people like Bertrand Russel

[Anonymous No.10046417]

>>10044713
>Results of philosophy
>>science
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10046428]

>>10046405
>I can only understand elementary philosophy; those philosophers smarter than me don't exist.

[Anonymous No.10046436]

>>10046405
First reply wasn't me. The professor in question does a lot of work with the methodology of metaphysics and how it relates to empirical science. As a matter of fact, other than the logic courses that I have taken with him, I have also taken a metaphysics course taught by him- one that tries to combine metaphysics with logic (though at least in this case the logic is mostly deductive, not inductive.)

[Anonymous No.10046442]

>>10046417
>Results of modern philosophy
>

[Anonymous No.10046506]

>>10046290
Bayesians are collectively retarded. Their claims are totally baseless, they just get away with it in philosophy departments because philosophers see math and get scared.

[Anonymous No.10046510]

>>10046506
How is Bayes Theorem retarded?

[Anonymous No.10046513]

>>10046442
The entire political discourse of the modern west is rooted in post structuralism and the critiques of power and meta-narratives it provides

[Anonymous No.10046516]

>>10046510
It's not retarded, but they have a tendency to make silly claims like it solves the problem of induction

[Anonymous No.10046527]

>>10046516
At any rate, my professor certainly thinks that logic is a many part puzzle. Bayesian probability isn't his only tool.

[Anonymous No.10046646]

>>10045161
Terrible post, looks like you have read neither

[Anonymous No.10046647]

>>10045525
Pill me

[Anonymous No.10047305]

>>10046506
>Bayesians are collectively retarded. Their claims are totally baseless

But are their claims bayeseless?

[Anonymous No.10048104]

[Anonymous No.10048887]

I don't consider it a science either. My opinion seems to agree with a fairly group of individuals here.