[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 575 KB, 1746x970, Jadhon-Philosophy-Photo-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10042580 No.10042580 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

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

>> No.10042637

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

>> No.10042669

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)

>> No.10042752

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

>> No.10042799
File: 39 KB, 299x475, 24581195[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It is the most complete system ever devised

>> No.10042869

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

>> No.10042876

If the set is equal to science ;)

>> No.10042891

Philosophy isn't a science, idiot

>> No.10042897
File: 30 KB, 344x500, c17df8c80132a26a55efa8aeaad1a737-g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>more right

>> No.10042971

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

>> No.10043009

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

>> No.10043243
File: 47 KB, 400x1366, philosophyflow.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.10043367


>> No.10043733

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

>> No.10043794

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

>> No.10043797

Clicked on this to say this.

>> No.10043816

>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.

>> No.10043843

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

>> No.10044105

Completely retarded chart

>> No.10044127
File: 11 KB, 497x296, 1538398355437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why do so many pseudo not know this

>> No.10044148
File: 787 KB, 480x480, chlomo.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.10044152

What about Plato's Cave?

>> No.10044216
File: 719 KB, 500x281, WmEN.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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.

>> No.10044221

>superset of science


>> No.10044223

I asked about the cave allegory.

>> No.10044237

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

>> No.10044245

Either bait or freshman stemfag

>> No.10044313

name one contribution of modern philosophy to society

>> No.10044316

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.

>> No.10044321



>> No.10044354

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

>> No.10044418

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.

>> No.10044437

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

>> No.10044475


>> No.10044487

>empirical process is fundamental to learning

Can you prove this empirically?

>> No.10044490

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

>> No.10044529

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

>> No.10044543

> fichte
> not hegel
Nice bait, idiot

>> No.10044550

Tfw the old Wissenschaft is not a thing anymore

>> No.10044564

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.

>> No.10044713
File: 1.70 MB, 400x300, enough.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.10044933

>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.

>> No.10045139

>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?

>> No.10045161


>he fell for the hegel meme

lmaoing at ur life

>> 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.

>> No.10045243


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.

>> No.10045270

>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?

>> No.10045321

>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.

>> No.10045373

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.

>> No.10045389

>philosophy poses too much of a threat

being this delusional

>> No.10045404

Why's that delusional?

>> No.10045426

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

>> No.10045476


Oh shit, you got me.
Philosophy rulez all.

>> No.10045525

Just wait till you read Peirce.

>> No.10045529

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

>> No.10045552
File: 124 KB, 1200x943, d_32092_girls-women-laughing-secret.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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.

>> No.10045578
File: 21 KB, 315x450, bored-man-is-bored.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10045617

Literally retarded

>> No.10045631

>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

>> No.10045642

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.

>> No.10045644

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.

>> No.10045647

>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?

>> No.10045651

>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?

>> No.10045674

>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?

>> No.10045682
File: 168 KB, 1280x720, omynmy6iw5411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10045706
File: 167 KB, 960x956, DoIEPRaVAAEqii3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.10045728

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

>> No.10045761

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.

>> No.10045784

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

>> No.10045790

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

>> No.10045791

formal logic

>> 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.

>> No.10045814

But not comp sci

>> No.10045818

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.

>> No.10045889

Famous metaphysicians prove this wrong.

>> No.10045892

Well according to

>> No.10045897

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

>> No.10045904

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

>> No.10045910

But not hegel or highdeger

>> No.10045936
File: 60 KB, 400x397, Wizard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.10045944

formal logic is retarded, its extrapolated applications in CS are meaningless for its purported grounding in reality

>> No.10045954

>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.

>> No.10045959

lol are u mad?

>> No.10045961

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
>extrapolated applications in CS are meaningless for its purported grounding in reality
Pointing you to Peirce again.

>> No.10045962

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

>> No.10045967

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?
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?

>> No.10045978

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.

>> No.10045980

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.

>> No.10045982

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.

>> No.10046004

>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?

>> No.10046032

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.

>> No.10046034

>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.

>> No.10046081

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.
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.

>> No.10046090

*metrology, my deepest apologies sperg

>> No.10046094

Kill yourself

>> No.10046115
File: 166 KB, 945x261, x k c d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10046125

based and redpilled

>> 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.

>> No.10046137

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.

>> No.10046218

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

>> No.10046244

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

>> No.10046247
File: 331 KB, 75x75, Gömböc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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.

>> No.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.

>> No.10046405

>>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

>> No.10046417

>Results of philosophy

>> No.10046428

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

>> No.10046436

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.)

>> No.10046442

>Results of modern philosophy

>> No.10046506

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.

>> No.10046510

How is Bayes Theorem retarded?

>> No.10046513

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

>> No.10046516

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

>> No.10046527

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

>> No.10046646

Terrible post, looks like you have read neither

>> No.10046647

Pill me

>> No.10047305

>Bayesians are collectively retarded. Their claims are totally baseless

But are their claims bayeseless?

>> No.10048104
File: 13 KB, 250x232, 1526259312401.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.10048887

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

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.