philosophy and science

[Anonymous No.10116554]

There are anons on this board RIGHT NOW who will defend philosotrash.
Why can't these tards stay in their containment board?

[Anonymous No.10116564]

>>10116554
Because the 1% philosophy that isn't crap is worth fighting for. Also for historical reasons.

[Anonymous No.10116567]

>>10116554
I'm uncircumcised.

[Anonymous No.10116574]

>>10116554
Science without philosophy is really boring. Who cares that particles follows certain laws when they move and interact. What is really interesting is what that means for the reality we live in.

[Anonymous No.10116579]

>>10116554
philosophy is not trash, just dead.

[Anonymous No.10116584]

>>10116554
Philosophy is part of the pseudointellectual trifecta (along with interpretations of quantum mechanics and classical music), so it's only natural that they come here.

[Anonymous No.10116608]

>>10116584
Explain your philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10116626]

>>10116564
>>10116574
t. philosophers trying to steal achievements of science

[Anonymous No.10116662]

>>10116554
I agree studying philosophy in school is a waste of time (just read the books on your own), but anyone who isn't retarded has a natural interest in philosophy

[Anonymous No.10116673]

>>10116567
Nufff said

[Anonymous No.10116726]

who chooses to study philosophy at university and isn’t rich af is definitely gay, but philosophy is interesting (I enjoy the Stoics and Nietzsche most). Also most scientists used to be also philosophers. Also everything in our world is through math and math through logic and logic through philosophy

[Anonymous No.10116747]

Pic related perfectly describes philosophy threads on /sci/
Prove me wrong, e.g. show you have a detailed and thorough knowledge of philosophy, then dismiss it for us

[Anonymous No.10116763]

>>10116726
>most [unremarkable] scientists used to be also philosophers
>math through logic
That effort failed long time ago.
>logic through philosophy
Wrong. There are many logics that have no origin in philosophy. If anything, it's philosophy that relies on logic.

[Anonymous No.10116777]

>>10116763
yeah the math through logic through philosophy wasn’t really meant serious, but „most [unremarkable] scientists used to be also philosophers“ has to be a joke too, I obviously mean older scientists pre 17th century

[Anonymous No.10116783]

>>10116554
dna = atoms = pencil = apple = human = paper = matter = shit
inb4 some plants have more/more complex dna than us
are we expendable anon? what`s wrong with cannibalism? killing nihilists should be a sport?, etc.

[Anonymous No.10116796]

>>10116777
>older scientists pre 17th century
So the 1% of remarkable scientists. Good to know.

[Anonymous No.10116798]

>>10116584
>classical music
Shit man what's that for.

[Anonymous No.10116801]

>>10116747
>show you have a detailed and thorough knowledge of homeopathy/creationism/theology/[other random non-scientific garbage], then dismiss it for us
>"you just haven't wasted your life studying gender studies for years like I did, how could you possibly judge it without also having studied it for years Im literally shaking right now"
Is this the best that human-garbage philosophy students can come up with to justify their existence?
I don't need to dissect a pile of shit or put it under an electron microscope to tell that it is shit. A cursory glance is enough for that realization. And even without looking at it at all can I tell that it stinks.

[Anonymous No.10116829]

>>10116554
>he doesn’t do science and read philosophy
>he’s generally unread outside of scientific literature

Philosophy is legitimately a collection of fun reads. People who call it pretentious trash have legitimately not read a single book past the edgy teenager “whoaOA man reality ain’t real”

[Anonymous No.10116830]

[Anonymous No.10116835]

>>10116830
Nobody said that good physicists can't be pretentious fucks

[Anonymous No.10116844]

What does /sci/ think of academic philosophers?

Do they deserve as much respect as scientists and engineers?

[Anonymous No.10116850]

>>10116801
No, but think about it like this:

You *can* comment about it, but nobody who actually knows what they’re talking about has to take it seriously, especially if the subfield is really technical. I think you’re searching for a very specific opponent here; most philosophy people care about philosophy more than science, and not a lot of them actually unironically claim science is just philosophy.

It’s foolish to think you’ve actually figured out the worth of a field through its hearsay or most accessible means. Physics regularly has big debates on what it actually means. They’re obsessed with finding the ontology of the mathematics of physics. Hell, most of it actually eludes the experts at a high level (any thing from meme theory, from your berating of quantum mechanics; the wavefunction on 3N doesn’t have a clear meaning past th behavior it describes.

Calculating and applying physics tends not to lead you to these questions. *Actually* doing physics (especially as a theorist) leads you to them really often

t. Physics grad

[Anonymous No.10116855]

>>10116798
To be fair that one was based off youtube comments but it's okay anon you aren't a pseud just because you like classical music.

>>10116844
Respect should be based on the quality and quantity of mathematics your profession invlolves.

[Anonymous No.10116856]

>>10116855
That’s a fucking terrible metric. Physicists would lose that instantly

[Anonymous No.10116858]

>>10116856
As they should (except theoretical physics)

[Anonymous No.10116863]

>>10116830
t. butthurt Bill Nye fan

[Anonymous No.10116868]

>>10116858
Especially theoretical physics
Have you seen the mathematical garbage/pseudoscientific garbage that comes out of cosmology departments? Only people like susskind actually do really interesting research in those fields

I should probably add that I’m in theoretical physics

[Anonymous No.10116869]

>>10116863
Meant for
>>10116835

[Anonymous No.10116878]

>>10116868
Doesn't theoretical physics require a lot of math though (diff geometry, algebraic topology, functional analysis, representation theory, etc.)

[Anonymous No.10116883]

>>10116801
So Mount Stupid it is then. Are you even able to show why you think philosophy is garbage, or are you just going with your gut on this? It should be easy for a big clever science man like you to dismiss Kant for us, why don't you explain to all us sinners where he went wrong?

[Anonymous No.10116885]

>>10116878
You would be surprised at how many theoretical physicists don’t like it

Casual reminder that Bohr was nearly illiterate in mathematics and had to have his brother help him with the algebra that won him a nobel prize

Yes, physics has a lot of math, but nearly all STEM fields at the PhD have a lot of math, second to math its or

[Anonymous No.10116888]

>>10116850
>most philosophy people care about philosophy more than science, and not a lot of them actually unironically claim science is just philosophy
Same could be said about gender studies. Why is one unscientific useless garbage while the other magically isn't?

>Physics regularly has big debates on what it actually means
Wasted breath. Meaning is a subjective human experience, only a fool would try to transfuse a subjective experience into the objective (physical) world.
And as long as your "meaning" isn't something that can be tested for in an experiment, you're just doing theology/linguistic masturbation and need to go away.

[Anonymous No.10116903]

>>10116883
I read pants critic of pure reason (in its original german) when I was a pretentious teenager. It's extremely dry.and difficult logic/language masturbation. Just because it's difficult does not make it useful.
Chess is difficult.
Chess.is also not science and generally useless.

If.you want to tell me you like playing chess and that it's hard,. I wont argue that, but don't try to act as if you're doing any more than meaningless linguistic contortions.

[Anonymous No.10116905]

>>10116903
>I read pants critic of pure reason
I believe it

[Anonymous No.10116906]

”science” is just a fancy way of saying natural philopshy

[Anonymous No.10116907]

>>10116903
It's not that difficult, it's more that you are a moron. No counter argument to Kant then?

[Anonymous No.10116909]

>>10116905
That was autocorrect. Kants "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" ist der richtige Titel soweit ich mich erinnern kann. Besser?

[Anonymous No.10116910]

>>10116903
>Chess.is also not science and generally useless
It's fun though. Is fun not useful? If you want to while away an hour chess is very useful

[Anonymous No.10116914]

>>10116909
Ich fands halt lustig

[Anonymous No.10116916]

>>10116909
>OMG, he googled the original German title!

[Anonymous No.10116918]

>>10116907
>not that difficult
>counter argument to Kant
Now that is what I call trolling! Ich nehme an du hast es im deutschen Originaltext gelesen? :)

[Anonymous No.10116922]

>>10116888
Gender studies is a focused field and useless unless you go to grad school, wherein you can actually contribute to its academia. Whether that’s a valuable subfield is up to your discretion, but I’m willing to guess that since you’re here, you probably more than dislike it

>wasted breath
I wish it were that simple. Even in a tested experiment, observation apparati don’t come for free. Quantum is inherently non local. Bohr asserted that observation is among one of the large non local interactions. EPR asserted locality that Bell had to disprove, only to actually support bohm’s nonlocal yet deterministic theory.

All these arguments are important because they get to the core of talking about what physics actually cares about. Saying it’s all subjective as a platitude and not because you have an actual iota of evidence to say it’s always subjective is lazy science at best, and idiotic at worst

Even when you can test for “meaning,” the results are hard to analyze. Something tells me you’re fond of bohr’s “complimentary” bullshit

[Anonymous No.10116942]

academic philosophy is a joke. idiots whove taken at most a few courses in dumbed down logic for philosophy majors and whose knowledge of science is composed entirely of the contents of popsci books either try to figure out what the science “actually means” even though theyre hopelessly unqualified to do so, or they write minor variations on nonscientific arguments that have existed for centuries. there are a few scientists-turned-philosophers who are doing interesting work in the philosophy of physics, but thats where modern philosophy’s value ends. the fact that some philosophers earnestly think one must read primary sources, eg, kant’s critique, so that they can understand what kant really meant is evidence of the artificial complexity of philosophy; you would never see a physicist say “to understand newtonian mechanics, start with principia” or a biologist “you need to read the origin of species to get what evolution really means” and what’s more, many philosophers, upon reading the origin of species, will pretend they know everything important to know about evolution.

[Anonymous No.10116952]

>>10116567
/thread. We're actually encouraged to think

[Anonymous No.10116966]

>>10116554
Philosophy is absolutely necessary, especially in the age of hundreds of math models. It may happen that we are actually only approximating reality by abstract math objects without any physical equivalent in reality - those may be impossible to capture via human language.
All of the consequences of advanced quantum theories may only represent some idealization of underlying principles.
Philosophy is absolutely imperative.

[Anonymous No.10116981]

>>10116942
/thread

[Anonymous No.10116988]

>>10116966
>It may happen that we are actually only approximating reality by abstract math objects
That's literally the first thing you learn

[Anonymous No.10116997]

>>10116966
>All of the consequences of advanced quantum theories may only represent some idealization of underlying principles
Yes, and this is the subject of physics. Not philosophy...

[Anonymous No.10117013]

everything in this universe is subjective.
Good and bad don't exist in a grand universal way, instead we decide good and bad. We observe the universe and we decide what parts of it are important and what is meaningless. This is the practice and goal of philosophy.

So what happens to philosophy when it gets relegated to the category of being meaningless, and unimportant? It dies out entirely, and the task of assigning meaning and purpose to things is taken over by others. Most notably those who have power and control of you.

The assassination of philosophy is in essence a social engineering attempt.

After all, if someone were gifted in philosophy and changed the general consensus on what's important/meaningful in our society, it'd upset the status quo. It would force powerful men and politicians to change their game plans and strategies. Some of these strategies are very long term which they have a considerable investment in. It wouldn't be a simple matter for them to simply change directions now. In the digital age, the masses are more in their grip than they've ever been. Sacrificing philosophy is a small price to pay for them to retain that power.

[Anonymous No.10117015]

>>10116554
philosophy is like religion only depressing

[Anonymous No.10117055]

>>10116554
Philosophy is all about describing how a phenomenon works.

In that case, Science is similar to Philosophy. The main difference is that Science removed its prejudice with detailed experiments and mathematical assumptions.

But can you do Science without Philosophy?
In order to describe a thing, you need to have a high level view of how a thing might work. This is where philosophy comes in. By believing that the universe follows a very simple set of rules, Newton came up with the theory of motion and the concept of 'gravity'. By believing in the philosophy that the world is made up of indivisible material parts (atomism), we came up with chemistry. Today, we now know that the world is not made up of atoms but waves. But who cares? The most important thing is that we have done something very useful with our philosophy. The real problem is when a certain philosophy blocks your way to real understanding (examples are religion and even ethics).

[Anonymous No.10117059]

>>10116554
Yeah me too bro, math is total pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10117063]

>>10116554
>are
>on
>this
>now
>who
>will
>why
>in
welcome to philosophy

[Anonymous No.10117254]

>>10116903
>Just because it's difficult does not make it useful.
No one is praising Kant for making something dry and difficult though, he is generally praised for revolutionizing philosophy.

Maybe you'd realize how fallacious your argument was if you paid more attention to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10117278]

>>10116997
You can never discern the nature true of reality from science. Science is simply making models that fit data. Just because it is philosophy on a topic of physics does not make it physics, its still philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10117304]

>>10116903

If you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason then you would know why philosophy is extremely important in any scientific endeavour, especially epistemology. But of course, you haven't, because then you wouldn't be here talking the load of crap that you are spewing from your uneducated mouth.

This nonchalant dismissal of the philosophy of science is everything that is wrong with modern science and I think that Descartes, Hume, and Kant (in that order) should be required reading for every scientist that takes their profession seriously.

I can agree that there is a lot of wishy-washy shit that is perpetuated by modern philosophy departments in the west especially the postmodernists and the kind of people who read and take Michael Foccault seriously, but dismissing the classical philosophers and especially the classical epistemologists is a strong signal of scientific immaturity.

[Anonymous No.10117316]

>this entire thread
so this is the power of STEM

[Anonymous No.10117351]

Why are people arguing that reading philosophical works of people like Kant is important in science? It's not. If it were, it would have been part of the standard cirricula.

[Anonymous No.10117354]

>>10117351

It used to be. It isn't anymore. I think that says more about modern academia than it does about the applicability of Kant's ideas to science.

[Anonymous No.10117366]

>>10117354
>It used to be.
Proof? I doubt Feynman even knew who Kant was

[Anonymous No.10117382]

>>10117366

Einstein was famously a Kantian in his philosophy of science, although he disagreed with him on the topic of the synthetic a priori.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

[Anonymous No.10117384]

>>10117382
Newton - atomism, following Galileo's philosophy
Leibniz - "everything is force" original philosophy. Similar to Nietzsche's will to power.
Einstein - following Leibniz's philosophy. That's how he came up with e=mc^2.

[Anonymous No.10117399]

>>10117382
Einstein was probably familiar with his work because of his German roots. He was also more philosophically inclined than most other scientists. It also doesn't show that Kant was part of the cirriculum.

[Anonymous No.10117444]

>>10117366
All great scientists sometimes tend to act like philosophers and Feynman is not an exception.
He is the one who said that the more simple or subtle a thing, the more it becomes powerful. This philosophy has a very important role in the advancement of our technology like the Moore's law and the idea of nanotechnology.

The philosophy of simplicity already existed way back to the ancient Eastern philosophers. But no one anticipated (before Galileo and Newton) that converting it into science can be a very powerful thing.

[Anonymous No.10117457]

>>10117444
Sure everyone philosophizes at some point of their lives. What I'm questioning is the importance of its formal study in science.

[El Arcón No.10117469]

>>10116554
The only reason anyone nay-says philosophy is because they don't want a dollar which is budgeted today for someone who knows how to do math to be budgeted tomorrow for someone who does not know how. If it weren't for this money-grubbing behavior, everyone would openly agree that philosophy is cool.

[Anonymous No.10117621]

>>10117457
Well there are different kinds of philosophy, there are philosophy about showing the ignorance of people (Socrates), organizing society (Plato), how the mind works (Aristotle) and also tricky philosophies that tries to answer everything and everyone who tries to oppose it is doomed (Religion). But the philosophy that I want to tackle is the philosophy of the "structure of everything", a philosophy that invites criticism and the use of logic.

Philosophy is just a "framework" or a "paradigm" that we follow for our own benefits/aesthetics/needs. And to answer your question, science needs a framework/paradigm in order not to get lost in a vast wilderness of complexity. Many scientists have wandered in this wilderness, some even waste their whole life in it.

If you're a programmer, you should know that most programmers follow a paradigm which is analogous to a philosophy. There are group of programmers saying that "everything is a function" while the other group is saying "everything is an object". Both of these paradigms have pros and cons, and there might be no absolute answer. But the main point is that they make our lives easier. The programmers who don't follow any kind of paradigm will find themselves get lost in sea of complexity and will may conclude programming anything useful at all is just impossible.

[Anonymous No.10117624]

>>10117621
Mathematics have this as well, like the set theory, type theory, ring theory, etc. In order to simplify and understand everything down to mathematical equations, the philosopher Bertrand Russell invented the Type theory. Set theory has become the standard of mathematics right now but there are flaws in it (see Russell's paradox). Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is one of the most mind-blowing mathematical artifact that was written out of philosophical needs. Simplifying everything down to a simple set of mathematical axioms is just awe-inspiring (but this idea was denied by Gödel's incompleteness theorems).

And of course, there are misinterpreted scientists/thinkers who bash philosophy. They mostly are talking about existentialism, ethics & morality, happiness theory, religion, etc. These types of philosophy can make one entertained, but treating them seriously prevents one from thinking and force one to get stuck (which is the core enemy of science).

[Anonymous No.10117626]

Philosophy helped me understand science really well. Critical thinking skills i believe

[Anonymous No.10117630]

>>10116554
>not realizing that epistemology is required for science

[Anonymous No.10117635]

>>10116942
What do people here think about formal logic? Seems like its just brainlet grunt work for CS and a pathetic attempt at pretending to be mathematicians to me desu.

[Anonymous No.10117649]

>>10116763
> le epic "the logist project and the entire foundation of mathematocs utterly FAILED because of Russell and Godel" meme.

Set theory and logic are still going strong, my friend. If anything, Godel and Tarski's work has only stregthened our interest in logic and the foundations of math.

[Anonymous No.10117701]

>>10117351
>reading philosophical works of people like Kant is important in science?
Is it? Or is the point that other fields exist which are as important as science if you want to be a rounded intellectual? The undergraduate positivism on display in this thread is a case in point

[Anonymous No.10117763]

>>10117649
>Set theory and logic are still going strong
Not quite. There is *some* activity and they are both interesting fields. They failed as rigorous foundations though, as most proofs from higher mathematics might not be translatable down to it (we assume they are).
>Godel and Tarski's work has only stregthened our interest in logic and the foundations of math
If anything, Grothendieck was the one who reincarnated the interest in developing proper foundations of mathematics. Voevodsky tried his whole life to improve the situation.

[Anonymous No.10117778]

>>10116922
In classic /sci/ fashion, whoever was having a conversation with you didn't reply once the argument extended past the buzzwords

Never change /sci/

[Anonymous No.10117783]

laughing at the buttmad philosophy majors in this thread asserting that science needs philosophy because science is "all about epistemology" without any actual explanation of how formal study of philosophy would help. also laughing at the philosophy majors who think the only reason philosophy has a bad rep is because it's associated with self-help philosophers like nietzsche, as if the vast majority of analytic philosophy isn't equally useless. the truth is, most scientists do have an understanding of topics in philosophy of science: questions about model selection and interpretations of probabilities show up frequently in scientific work. the question to ask, regarding philosophy itself, isn't whether these questions are important or not: they are. it's whether we should care what philosophers have to say about them. the vast majority of modern philosophers suck at science. a famous example: john searle admitted that his only exposure to actual science is having read undergraduate textbooks on topics that interested him. most philosophers do not even go that far. what qualifications do they have to answer questions about philosophy of science that actual scientists who confront these questions each day don't? do they have something most scientists don't have, due to having read kant? do you retards actually think scientists don't know about analytic/synthetic?

also lmao @ the guy who said scientists need to pay attention to philosophy of science, then stated they need to read kant/hume/descartes rather than someone actually relevant like popper or hempel

[Anonymous No.10117839]

>>10117783
>also lmao @ the guy who said scientists need to pay attention to philosophy of science, then stated they need to read kant/hume/descartes rather than someone actually relevant like popper or hempel

[Anonymous No.10117869]

>>10117635
The symbolic stuff that formal logic uses actually predates the algebra that we know today. I think it's a good way to actually teach people how to think. Way too many people are thruat into scientific fields without knowing how to think critically.

[Anonymous No.10117882]

>>10117304
>dismissing Foucault
So you just accept your submissive place in the gay BDSM dungeon of modern capitalism?

[Anonymous No.10117925]

>>10117635
>formal logic
>brainlet grunt work for CS
what are you smoking? Have you actually checked out logic research in mathematics departments?

If you think it's just modus ponens and basic bitch first order logic, I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.10117949]

>>10117635
Check this larping undergrad,never heard about model theory or topoi, KEK.

[Anonymous No.10117952]

>>10117635
“I’m a scientist guys, and i know what math is meaningful AND useful”

Your anti intellectualism and ignorance are out of this world

[Anonymous No.10117956]

>>10117925
>>10117949
>>10117952
you stupid niggers, I'm asking what non-philosophers think; specifically mathematicians, what is it used for, why are they not considered mathematicians, and why would any physicist, biologist, chemist or engineer care? Logic is not required for any of the aforementioned STEM degrees, why is that? What do they do that is useful to the endeavor of scientific research? That you all reflexively respond with vitriol is telling.

[Anonymous No.10117988]

>>10117956
Mathematical logic is one of the big branches of mathematics. They are considered mathematicians. Modal theory is important in making sure that we’re not spouting out inconsistent nonsense and for analyzing the relationships among the fields of math. The axiom of choice leads to a lot of notions of ordering on the numbers we use, and subsequently fucks up a lot of our theory. It’s not until you examine the foundations that you get to understand how it has long running effects in some arguments like 1 = 0.99..., etc. both practical and impractical.

Undergrad physics and engineering students generally use basic ODE/PDE’s and calculus for ease of calculation, but the rabbit hole goes way deeper. The use of algebras, categories, complexity, etc inform the study of physics.

Regardless, mathematical research exists for its own sake outside of scientific gain, whether it’s analysis or logic. The vitriol comes from being so incredibly clueless yet so snide.

[Anonymous No.10118493]

>>10117882
>anon deploys memes
>it's super effective

[Anonymous No.10118743]

>>10116835
Anyone who legitimately likes Bill Nye is a fucking autist who posts on reddit "FUCK YEAH, SCIENCE!"
He barely has a degree, if even that and hes heralded as the scientific mind of our time.
Hes a celebrity, at best he knows grade 10 science. It's somehow worse than learning from /sci/

[Anonymous No.10118746]

Philosophy defines our ethics, without it you will have unadulterated science with no leash.

[Anonymous No.10118757]

>>10118743
Nice strawman. So this is the power of philotards.

[Anonymous No.10118761]

>>10117988
>mathematical logic
sounds like an oxymoron
>pivots to analysis when we’re talking about logic
I never said math wasn’t useful, im acutely aware that differential geometry, abstract algebra and analysis are important for physics. My question was why anyone in physics or biology should care about logic.
>snide
towards logicians yes, not mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.10118762]

>>10118746
Yeah, thank god I read that random book on philosophy or else I'd be doing human experimentation right now. But that book said it's a no-no, so I'm not doing it.

[Anonymous No.10118767]

>>10118757
>strawman
Hes an admitted sjw, acts in the name of science while having the most minimal degree possible.
The man has a cult following, he polarizes peoples minds into garbage pseudo-science because hes bought out.

This has nothing to do with philosophy, you will get better science from a few days of google than you will this guy.

[Anonymous No.10118771]

>>10118767
>still strawmanning
Oh, so you're retarded. I'm sorry that I replied.

[Anonymous No.10118774]

>actually defending bill nye
Go back to plebbit, they'll accept you there sheep.

[Anonymous No.10118781]

>>10118774
Show me the post where I did that. You're so retarded you don't even get what I'm talking about. Instead you continue your retarded strawman argument.

[Anonymous No.10118788]

>>10118781
Called me a philotard for shitting on bill nye. If you took offense, it was because I touched a fucking nerve with you.

[Anonymous No.10118790]

>>10118788
Different fucker. Go shit on bill somewhere else. This shit was hell of interesting to read and you f it up. Fuck nye! You win

[Anonymous No.10118792]

>>10117013
Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.10118799]

>>10118788
>he still doesn't get it
Who said philotards were smart again?

[Anonymous No.10118801]

Holy shit, this site really did downgrade.
This place is like grade 12 high school science, not quite at the grade 9/10 of rejit, but it's getting there.

[Anonymous No.10118805]

A little late but ITT: STEM undergrads who know little about philosophy say it is irrelevant and Phil undergrads who know little about STEM give philosophy an esoteric role above science. Excluding the most well read people in this thread, here is some advice: Don't spout a stupid opinion unless you have either taken more than three philosophy and science courses or have spent at least 100 hours studying both. Granted, these requirements are arbitrary so take them with a grain of salt, but it's easy to tell when you don't know what the FUCK you are talking about in both science or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10118811]

>>10118493
>he's a willing slave of the power discourses
Goes for most of this thread desu, jump through the hoops we tell you to sluts

[Anonymous No.10118966]

>>10118761
>why anyone in [...] biology should care about logic
For instance so that they don't jump to ridiculous conclusions when hunting for correlations.
>towards logicians yes
No such thing anymore. All people studying logic have to be mathematicians, pretty good at that. A big chunk of what you call logicians do HoTT these days, some study higher topoi which is about as accessible to average mathematician as anabelian arithmetic geometry is, some still do model theory which also requires you to be a good mathematician.

[Anonymous No.10119113]

Some of the most intelligent humans who ever lived where philosophers. Trying to pretend you aren’t a human being that can’t benefit from thousands of years of human wisdom is a bit pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10119153]

>>10117621
Well, programmers don't study Kant so that they can understand functional/OOP. The philosophical prerequisites for a course/subject, if any, are usually covered in a single section of the course textbook.

>Many scientists have wandered in this wilderness, some even waste their whole life in it.
Surely this is hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.10119161]

>>10118762
>implying you have ever been free of the Text

[Anonymous No.10119275]

>>10116801
History of philosophy is very tiny course, you won't spend years on it. And it's enough to give you a cursory glance.

[Anonymous No.10119312]

>>10116922
Bell disproved hidden variables, not locality, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10119327]

>>10116554
Philosophy is higher order reasoning for red pill.
>oy vey, don't think, goy, trust me
You see, what jews try to do? Your reason to shit on philosophy is based entirely on brainwashing. How do you defend this?

[Anonymous No.10119331]

>>10119312
Maybe they meant local realism

[Anonymous No.10119362]

>>10116554
"What's your epistemology?" is short for "By what rules do you decide which claims about the world you consider true/trustworthy/plausible/...?"
For a long time I thought philosophy is useless, until life forced me to realize that I have an epistemology and ask myself what it's like, how I want it to be like, and how it relates to the epistemologies of other people.

[Anonymous No.10119374]

>>10117351
It's not part of the curriculum only if you learn applied science.

[Anonymous No.10119377]

>>10119374
False. I've never taken a philosophy course and I'm a math major.

[Anonymous No.10119382]

>>10116830
I hate this pic because Dawkins was actually being quite reasonable

[Anonymous No.10119396]

>>10116554
Ethics. The study of how to live a good life. Your misplaced arrogance tells me that you need it.

[Anonymous No.10119422]

>>10116830

[Anonymous No.10119424]

>>10119331
Bell considered only hidden variables model, that's what the result applies to.

[Anonymous No.10119429]

>>10119424
Local hidden variables

[Anonymous No.10119432]

>>10119377
Math is not science.

[Anonymous No.10119435]

>>10119312
No he didn’t. This is the major misconception that he himself wrote about.

Hidden variables were a consequence of the locality that EPR was trying to prove. Bell himself thought that EPR was wrong as a claim to a correct hidden variable theory, but he considered Bohmian mechanics (and seeing as how it’s evolution leads to the same conclusions as Copenhagen) to be the realization of a correct hidden variable theory.

This is the big misconception you get when physics professors pay lip service to bohr’s complimentarity. I suggest taking a graduate qm course or a mathematical physics course

[Anonymous No.10119436]

>>10119312
Also if you want to read about this, he talks about it in his collection of essays, “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”

[Anonymous No.10119445]

>>10119422

EXPLORING: Inventing reasons to think of yourself as wrong in order to maintain a dead wizard's diary entries as dogma.

TOURISM: Not inventing reasons to think of yourself as wrong in order to maintain a dead wizard's diary entries as dogma.

So THIS is the power of Science.

[Anonymous No.10119446]

>>10119312
In bell’s argument, he took two assumptions:

correctness of the orthodox theory’s ability to make predictions + locality
-> hidden variables exist (the EPR argument)

correctness of the orthodox theory’s ability to make predictions
-> no hidden variables exist

He then used his inequality to show that EPR’s assumptions were wrong. Copenhagen gave experimentally correct predictions, so locality was the culprit. This means that a correct quantum mechanical theory is nonlocal (due to the wavefunction being on configuration space, nonlocal to physical space).

The hidden variables were just a consequence of the EPR argument but they aren’t really contingent on it being right. It was just to Einstein’s disapproval that more fundamentally, quantum mechanics was fundamentally nonlocal.

Whether there are hidden variables or not depends on your preference of ontology, as >>10119435 states, bohm’s theory produces equivalent results by considering that particles actually exist prior to observation and are guided by the wavefunction.

[Anonymous No.10119465]

>>10119445
>mfw the people who deny themselves and their own alleged principles of empiricism so much so that they claim MOST of the matter they ascertain cannot actually be observed are the people who most frantically deny being under a spell

[Anonymous No.10119510]

>>10119446
>Copenhagen gave experimentally correct predictions, so locality was the culprit.
If copenhagen model is correct, then there's no locality of course. But unconditional lack of locality doesn't follow from it.

[Anonymous No.10119540]

>>10119510
Of course, relativistic quantum mechanics is an active research field. It’s just that as the wavefunction was debated then, the quantum mechanics that concerned the conversation in the 50s brought in a discussion of inescapable nonlocality

[Anonymous No.10119558]

>>10117783

>popper

and scientists suck dick at philosophy, we know.

[Anonymous No.10119565]

Science is a philosophy, useless OP.

[Anonymous No.10119567]

>>10119565
>>10119558
t. tourists

[Anonymous No.10119640]

Is philosophy necessary to be able to conduct science? Not really, no, a well-trained monkey could do that.
Is philosophy necessary to be a conscious human who is cognizant of the world and their place in it? Yes, absolutely.
What /sci/ also fails to grasp is that as technology advances a lot of serious ethical questions are going to start creeping up. There are scientific problems out there you can't quantify, and denying it or stammering about game theory as a cop-out is not the solution. I'm saying this as a physicist, not a fucking interpretive gender dance major.

[Anonymous No.10119699]

>>10119640
>serious ethical questions are going to start creeping up. There are scientific problems out there you can't quantify, and denying it or stammering about game theory
Positivists who deny any spiritual or emotional truths are the perfect little foot soldiers of capitalism. Once you start believing everything can be empirically quantified you are playing a game with only one winner, as seen in the inability of the modern progressive movement to mount any serious critique of consumerism

[Anonymous No.10119780]

>>10116567
based

[Anonymous No.10119800]

Never too late to accept that god is real folks

[Anonymous No.10119803]

>>10119699
oh fuck off, religious commies are literally the last thing humanity needs right now, a real double whammy of idiocy would that be

[Anonymous No.10119806]

>>10119803
>religious
>communist
based retard

[Anonymous No.10119813]

>>10119800
t. CTMU cuck

[Anonymous No.10119816]

>>10119803
I would argue we need religion more than ever right now...

[Anonymous No.10119820]

>>10119803
>religious commies
Where have you got that from? Are you so mentally cucked that whenever someone even mentions critiquing capitalism you panic about communists in a sort of mental reflex action? Also, way to prove my point I guess

[Anonymous No.10119823]

>>10119813
Disprove CTMU

[Anonymous No.10119831]

>>10119823

In one of the videos on Youtube about Chris Langan, Langan claim that reality is based on binary logic "Yes and No" or "0 and 1".

I don't think this is correct for a fairly simple reason.

Implying there is a mind-body isomorphism, in order for said isomorphism to work to its fullest extent (i.e. a symmetry between nœmic/epistemological matter and material matter) would require tertiary logic, or the allowance of an entity to exist in superposition.

This is because, say (using a slightly dubious example), if two individuals were to fullheartedly believe and the other disbelieve in the existence of an imaginary cat at precise co-ordinates, the cat would not be able to exist in binary logic as there is a conflict in nœmic matter between two individuals, and therefore could only exist in a state of superposition, which would require tertiary logic (1 and 0 simultaneously) in order to exist.

Same applies to heaven- One individual can 100% believe in a gilded realm above the clouds where one goes after death whilst another person may simultaneously disbelieve in the exact same concept. Thus, metaphysically, heaven would exist in a state of superposition and would require tertiary logic as opposed to binary logic.

[Anonymous No.10119833]

>>10119803
>Mentioning anything non-empirical or critiquing the current capitalist system means you're an idiot
I, too, fucking LOVE science

[Anonymous No.10119840]

>>10119833
>Mentioning anything non-empirical or critiquing the current capitalist system means you're an idiot

Well, there is certainly a strong correlation with both of those and idiocy.

[Anonymous No.10119842]

>>10119831
>uses binary logic to claim binary logic is false

[Anonymous No.10119844]

>>10119840
There’s a strong correlation with being so tribalist you assume any criticism of capitalism means someone hates it and being stupid

[Anonymous No.10119849]

>>10119842
Holy shit I guess god is real now praise jesus

[Anonymous No.10119854]

>>10119849
Great argument faggot

[Anonymous No.10119860]

>>10119844
You can criticize specific policies or specific hings but criticizing "capitalism" as a whole is a sure sign of a lesser mind being present in our midst.

[Anonymous No.10119872]

>>10119860
>policies
Oh so you want me to go through each individual states laws and economic strategy in my posts? Don’t be ridiculous. It is completely valid to use capitalism and consumerism in criticsm and totally reductionist and stupid to avoid using those words. It is genuinely a sign of low intelligence if you sperg out calling people communists because people point out negative aspects of capitalism, which do exist. You literally sound like a retard from /v/ after the new nintendo game got criticised

[Anonymous No.10119886]

>>10119872
Yes, I want you to be a lot more specific in your criticism for it to have any merit at all. Capitalism has no negative aspects because there is no alternative to capitalism, one that would not be worse in every way. "Critique of capitalism" and similar rhetoric is just an empty dog whistle for them commies.

[Anonymous No.10119889]

>>10119860
>criticizing "capitalism" as a whole is a sure sign of a lesser mind being present in our midst.
Are you for real? If you didn't exist, they would love to invent you. A perfect subject

[Anonymous No.10119893]

>>10119886
At this point I think you're the guy who originally posted doing a strawman to prove his point

[Anonymous No.10119904]

>>10119886
So our bodies are faultless even though they can get cancer because there is no alternative to having one?

[Anonymous No.10119905]

>>10119860
>a lesser mind being present in our midst
Mmmm yes quite, only some sort of rube would question the emanant wisdom of The Invisible Hand
>>10119886
>Capitalism has no negative aspects
Hahaha holy shit

[Anonymous No.10119913]

God isn’t real and communism doesn’t work.

[Anonymous No.10119939]

>>10119904
not faultless, however you dont go to a doctor to hear from him how human body is shit and you should just kill yourself, or any other nebulous "critique" of a human body in general

you go there to get a specific solution for your particular health issue, while very much hoping to keep the body as intact as possible

similar train of thought applies to the economy, brain bull economists discuss impacts of specific policies within the framework of capitalism, brainlet "marxist philosophers" are writing pointless "critiques of capitalism"

[Anonymous No.10119946]

When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

[Anonymous No.10119947]

>>10119939
Massive strawman yet again. I never said capitalism didn’t work. There is things to criticise about it however, as there is with everything since nothing is perfect. Especially when there is blatant faults with capitalism like the banks having to be fished out by the taxpayer once every 50 years. You are the brainlet. Literally /pol/ tier tribal scizho thinking where if I criticise something it means I am automatically in the “enemy” camp and against it. I don’t hate capitalism and I’m not a communist, I merely agreed with the other guy that, ironically, capitalism allows places like university to be privately owned and push a socialist agenda. Retard. I’m not saying get rid of it or have a revolution

[Anonymous No.10119952]

>>10119946
Thinking, facts and faith can all interconnect though. I mean thinking creates the other two.

[Anonymous No.10119965]

>>10119952
Two and two the mathematician continues to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five. — James McNeill Whistler

[Anonymous No.10119980]

>>10119965
Maths literally comes from human thought
It is not natural, it’s a way to describe things that occur in nature

[Anonymous No.10120002]

>>10119980
That's a philosophical opinion

[Anonymous No.10120014]

>>10119946
Wow, all philosophical and religious traditions going back thousands of years eternally btfo by this genius tweet, how will they ever recover
I'd be shocked if this wasn't already superimposed on an inspirational picture of black science man

[Anonymous No.10120023]

>>10120002
It’s both philosophy and math. It’s literally a fact that humans invented mathematics to describe nature. Therefore math was a result of humans questioning the world around us and was born of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10120025]

>>10120023
>It’s literally a fact that humans invented mathematics to describe nature
I can say humans discovered math just as easily.

[Anonymous No.10120030]

>>10120025
No you can’t. What is present in nature, math is a way to describe. It doesn’t make sense the other way around. There is no inherent meaning in nature.

[Anonymous No.10120031]

>>10120030
Look, anon, you aren't going to prove constructivism in a few posts on a Sumerian pottery making website.

[Anonymous No.10120034]

>>10120031
I can prove that math is literally a man made concept by the fact that math is literally a man made concept

[Anonymous No.10120040]

>>10120034
Better get that published then ASAP

[Anonymous No.10120043]

>>10120030
>>10120034
And here we see why assuming philosophy is trivially simple is a mistake
Read a book nigger

[Anonymous No.10120047]

>>10116554
Am I okay if i think old philosophy is worth it? I mean socrates and that stuff

[Anonymous No.10120049]

>>10116574
That is still science faggot

[Anonymous No.10120050]

>>10120043
>>10120040
Imagine disagreeing with someone and getting so salty you have to samefag like this
This is why nobody took this thread seriously

[Anonymous No.10120060]

>>10120050
Are you this confident about everything you say?

[Anonymous No.10120066]

>>10120060
Why should I be more confident about what you have to say?

[Anonymous No.10120084]

>>10120049
>faggot
>>10120050
>samefag
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10120090]

>>10120084
Epic bait

[Anonymous No.10120116]

>>10116554
>>10116584
>>10116626
>>10116662
>>10116726
>>10116763
>>10116777
>>10116801
>>10116888
>>10116903
>>10116942
>>10117351
>>10117783
>>10118757
>SEETHING scientists absolutely BUTTHURT by the fact that philosophers are smarter than most of them
Lmao.

>>10116906
>>10117254
>>10117304
>>10117316
>>10117626
>>10117630
>>10117649
>>10117869
>>10117925
>>10117988
>>10118767
>>10119113
>>10119565
>>10120047
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.10120124]

nooo religious people are stupid they don’t listen to facts!!! Epic black science man said so

[Anonymous No.10120127]

>>10120124
Based image but philosophy and theology aren’t the same

[Anonymous No.10120134]

>containment board
and which one is that? /lit/ is filled with nazis and /his/ is filled with christians

[Anonymous No.10120138]

>>10116554
If you are in STEM and aren’t at least somewhat studious in philosophy, you are basically the lifting equivalent of a curlbro.

[Anonymous No.10120145]

>>10120134
So nazis are pseuds and boring people are christian
Makes sense

[Anonymous No.10120223]

>>10120138
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.10120325]

[Anonymous No.10120367]

>>10116554
Advances in reproductive health and market forces that incentivize people reproduce later, homosexual family units, and mindless consumption paint a very scary picture of the decades to come.
Science can say what will happen, but only philosophy can express how fucked you really are.

[Anonymous No.10120560]

>>10119312
>call someone a brainlet
>actually doesn’t understand what Bell asserted

Physics deserves better students. For every good one out there, there are two of your type shitting up the undergrad body I have to teach.

[Anonymous No.10120920]

>>10120325

T O P

I

E

R