Should scientists also study philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10048087]

[Anonymous No.10048096]

No. It makes no difference, really. You either have a good theory or not.

You might then explain the theory from many perspectives and think of it in many ways but either it predicts the outcome or it does not.

[Anonymous No.10048110]

>>10048087
Most philosophers are too up their own asses to correctly interact with scientific concepts. Better to shut up and calculate or have higher order ideas grow from the data then to fill your head with a bunch of arbitrary speculation.

[Anonymous No.10048126]

No surprise all the brainlets are on the right

[Anonymous No.10048179]

Scientists who are ignorant and hate philosophy should simply shut the fuck up. As you can see the retards on the right can't help themselves to have some intellectual integrity.

Same goes for this board, you guys hate philosophy but oh boy you sure love having lots of garbage threads where you spout your 8 years old philosophical views to each other.

[Anonymous No.10048221]

>>10048087
if you're a scientist and you're not already studying philosophy on your own then you fucked up.

[Anonymous No.10048904]

everyone should have a little bit of philosophy.
but not everyone should be a philosopher, and people get angry at philosophers because most of them are dingdongs.

As far as I'm concerned, philosophers helped to teach me how to think. But whenever they got into the realm of what to think, like the nature of existence or consciousness etc, it's basically always stupid bullshit. For trying to figure out the world I'll stick with science, and I'll appreciate philosophy helped me to figure out the limitations of what science gives me

[Anonymous No.10048906]

Scientists should study the philosophy of science. If you don't know how your tools work, you might as well be a monkey banging rocks together.

[Anonymous No.10048909]

>>10048096
/thread

[Anonymous No.10048912]

Take people who say smart thing
Cherrypick people who don't say smart thing
Wow look my side people say smart thing your side say dumb thing look lol how dumb you look unless you agree with me

Just fucking kill yourself already.

[Anonymous No.10048921]

>>10048912
dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.10048922]

You need philosophy and the humanities to better appreciate STEM but probably not if you just want to understand STEM from the start.

[Anonymous No.10048928]

>>10048221
Yeah, I agree. Even if you aren't a scientist desu, just study it, read books on philosophy, come up with your own set of consistent morals and test them with reality. It's really interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.10048933]

>>10048912
The left hand side is popular people associated with science in history, the right side is popular people associated with science from now. I think it's more of an issue of who's being allowed media attention because of the internet, and what effect that has on who becomes popular.

Also I'm not OP, but don't be a cunt.

[Anonymous No.10048934]

most scientists aren't intelligent enough to understand philosophy

[Anonymous No.10048969]

>>10048126
Despite potentially being the most brainlet of the people on the right side there's actually nothing wrong with Nye's quote. Arguments of solipsism are generally looked down on in philosophy too.

[Anonymous No.10049088]

>>10048934
This. I want to see all the /sci/ posters who shit on philosophy trying to read Phenomenology of Spirit, just to brutally show them they aren't as smart as they think

[Anonymous No.10049089]

>>10048087
The modern scientist is an intellectual eunuch. Thoroughly castrated at every turn of his education and every waking moment of his professional life. You can say he was castrated the moment he walked through the college door.

[Anonymous No.10049092]

>>10048933
what does popularity have to do with whether or not philosophy is still relevant? and i'm not him, but you are the cunt, because you're missing the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.10049096]

>>10048906
This.

[Anonymous No.10049097]

>>10048906
>>10049096
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10049129]

>>10048087
But how would they study Philosophy when they can't even read? Scientists are infamous for their atrocious reading skills and especially reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10049209]

>>10049129
This is so accurate. Literally every video of Thunderf00t contains a spelling error.

[Anonymous No.10049227]

>>10048179
Finally somebody that still has their brain intact on this board!

[Anonymous No.10049301]

Phisolosophy is science without math, so it's incomplete and erroneous.
A true scientist it's also a true philosopher because he understands that our life should be nothing but exploring our universe and our mind, improving our lives and common health, and all political and religious ideologies must be extinct.

[Anonymous No.10049316]

Science is just applied philosophy, so having a basic knowledge of metaphysics and the theory of knowledge seems fundamental for a scientist as science is based on metaphysical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10049319]

>>10048087
One is based upon physics the other is just opinion

Incomparable directly though both may lead the other

[Anonymous No.10049575]

>>10049301
>>10049316
>>10049319
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Anonymous No.10049633]

>>10048126
>>10048087
I'm pretty sure modern meaning of philosophy has changed. They are talking about different things.

Discussing methodology, Plato, reducing unambiguousness is not the same thing as introductions unambiguousness by asking pointless questions that base just in semantics.

>>10048934
Imagine world where scientists are actually intelligent to do all the discoveries and advance our society. We wouldn't have to rely on nonscientists philosophers to do all the work.

>>10049316
If anything, science is applied math.
You can't apply philosophy, because it lacks replicable results and falsifiability.

[Anonymous No.10049809]

>>10049092
Popularity has everything to do with the picture, retard. And popularity has everything to do with relevance. If philosophy is popular, then philosophy is relevant. If philosophers are popular, then philosophers are relevant.. you see the connection there or do I have to take 5 more steps to get the information on this text through your cunt eyes to your downy brain?

[`sage No.10050754]

sage goes in all fields