/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10424756]

What does /sci/ think about "philosophy of science"? I haven't read much about it, mainly because I fucking despise philosophy, but I did listen to a random guy give a lecture on Discord one time about it and found it to be a bit different than your average philosophy bullshit. Anyone here have any opinions on it after some deeper study?

[Anonymous No.10424781]

>>10424756
It doesn't matter to you so nobody should answer you. Hit a wall.

[Anonymous No.10424786]

>>10424756
Read "Against Philosophy" by Steven Weinberg

[Anonymous No.10424797]

Very important. Philosophy of science asks questions about the nature and practice of science, about the meaning of scientific theories etc.. Every research ershould at least know the principal debates in philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.10424809]

>I fucking despise philosophy

[Anonymous No.10424834]

>>10424809
There wasn't a clear distinction between philosophy and science at that time.

[Anonymous No.10424839]

>>10424834
There are still no doubts that science is a biased philosophical paradigm

[Anonymous No.10424858]

>>10424834
What distinguishes science from natural philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10424896]

>>10424756
Read Popper's "Knowledge: Subjective versus Objective." It's short.

[Anonymous No.10424903]

>>10424858
Exactly. My point was to show that >fucking despising philosophy doesn't make you hate science as well especially if we're talking about a book from back when there wasn't even a difference between the two terms.

[Anonymous No.10424911]

>>10424834
There is still no clear distinction. Scientists just think their naive philosophizing is science because they don't understand their own methodology well enough.

[Anonymous No.10425061]

>>10424911

>"science" is a meme

There are many disciplines contained in what we call today "science". Each one has its own methodology, biases, insights and whole different paradigms of thought.

Put a brain scanner on a physicist and another on a chemist. Different species, seriously. Talk to these people. You will notice the difference.

[Anonymous No.10425122]

>>10424756
>because I fucking despise philosophy
Why?

[Anonymous No.10426329]

>>10424839
>>10424858
>>10424911
>it's another self-styled philosophers try to appropriate science to make up for their crippling inadequacy thread

[Anonymous No.10426341]

>>10424756
i think if you're a physics/math student or realperson, the better way to learn about philosophy of science is by reading a book or two by a reputable historian of science. historians do the work of digging up all the weird examples going way back and then present them from an objective "this is what so and so wrote in so and so year with so and so context", whereas philosophers often take POV and talk about "it should be" and fold in a healthy serving of meaningless gibberish, so you can't trust them

[Anonymous No.10426358]

>>10424834
there also wasn't a distinction between math and physics. thanks to mathematical logic, math is now completely self-contained and questions like "do imaginary numbers exist?" became meaningless. but whether this is the route we should be taking is a valid question and should be discussed imo.

[Anonymous No.10427696]

>>10424756
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science#Notable_scientists_on_Buddhism

>>10426329
>it's another self-styled scientists try to appropriate philosophy to make up for their crippling inadequacy thread.

Why is it that most STEMfags entirely dismiss philosophy? Granted there are some ideas espoused in philosophy that have been shown to be "wrong", counter-intuitive, etc. But, what is it about philosophy that triggers STEMfags so much? I mean has science clearly explained causality and infinity? Maybe its because STEMfags are only really exposed to a very narrow view of philosophy (Western philosophy) and have been given descriptions that already presuppose philosophy as a intellectual masturbation?

>if you can't falsify it, then its garbage!
Tell me, what happens after "death"?

Can science explain everything? I mean, specifically, can science find the absolute truth?

[Anonymous No.10427714]

>>10424756
>What does /sci/ think about "philosophy of science"?
Over run by idiots following popper's bullcrap who don't know the first thing about science.

[Anonymous No.10427719]

>>10424896
>unironically recommending Popper
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10427763]

>>10427719
what is wrong with popper? I am genuinely ignorant of his beliefs and have little patience to read whatever his beliefs are.

[Anonymous No.10427778]

>>10427763
He's the guy that originated the science is about falsifying meme.
He's also the guy that originated the "we will not tolerate intolerance" meme of SJWs.

Not to mention he never even studied freshman science before coming up with it.

[Anonymous No.10427864]

>>10427778
Okay, what is wrong with the belief of "science is about falsifying"? I mean, and I guess this might be my presuppositions, science is about finding objective facts, and to find something "objective" would require it to fall under a criteria that would allow for it to be falsifiable. That is, and this might be a very crude and misrepresentative example, when I think about falsifiable I think about the infinite coin toss example:
That is, probability tells us that flipping a coin an infinite number of times, there is a %100 percent chance it will land on both heads and tails atleast once. But it is still possible for the coin to land on only heads for an infinite number of tosses. And what I mean is, in my conceptualization of falsifiable, is that when we try to find an objective truth, all it takes is one instance of it showing the contrary to disprove the objectivity of it.
I might be parroting the exact same things Popper might have said, but again, this is just how I've conceptualized these ideas in my brain.

though i might be just retarded and misunderstanding everything.

I do believe that the current SJW movement is pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.10427920]

>>10427864
>Okay, what is wrong with the belief of "science is about falsifying"?
Practically everything in science is wrong. That doesn't mean some things aren't useful as a model.

>I mean, and I guess this might be my presuppositions, science is about finding objective facts,
Absolutely not. Getting any sort of nontrivial facts about the universe is impossible.

Facts are like delayering a chip to reverse engineer exactly how it works.
Science is like making an emulator based on the outputs you get on certain non-exhaustive inputs combinations.

>and to find something "objective" would require it to fall under a criteria that would allow for it to be falsifiable.
The only objective truths are in the mathematics department. Everything involving data or observation is up to interpretation and not objective by nature.

[Anonymous No.10427933]

>>10427920
>BRRAAAPPPP BRAPPP BRAPPPP PFFFT BRAPAPAPAPAAAPPPPPP
please die. pick your favorite physics or chemistry experiment. you do it, you get some result; i do the same experiment in the same way, it will have similar results. things like this exist. that is objectively true. go back to your humanities shithole and enjoy working ad McD's

[Anonymous No.10427988]

>>10427933
>confusing data with science
how embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.10428021]

>>10427988
how is that data. i stated a fact. there exist reproducible experiments. fact.

[Anonymous No.10428046]

>>10428021
>there exist reproducible experiments

The interpretation of which is purely subjective.

[Anonymous No.10428228]

>>10427696
I'm also often puzzled by STEMfags' revulsion towards philosophy. For me, philosophy is most important for its practical applications. Science is not going to show you how to find meaning in this desolate world or help you build frameworks through which to navigate to tragedy of the human condition.

[Anonymous No.10428230]

>>10428046
ohhhh so you admit i stated a fact. "can't know nuffin"tard BTFO

[Anonymous No.10428312]

>>10428228
>philosophy
>practical applications

[Anonymous No.10428512]

>>10428228
>Science is not going to show you how to find meaning in this desolate world
That's the problem, scientists want to find reasons for why things work or how to make something work, not "le meaning" of the universe or ask hypothetical questions about the human nature. Philosophy in it's practical uses is pretty much only good for morality and societal shit. Which even then, I feel like it'd probably be much better to just work out moral and societal issues with hard data and reasoning, rather than approaching it with philosophical bullshit which is based in simply thinking about something and not purely getting a result that works.

[Anonymous No.10428532]

>>10427696
>Why is it that most STEMfags entirely dismiss philosophy?
because it’s useless and its proponents are brainlets

[Anonymous No.10428541]

>>10428228
There isnt meaning to the universe you fucking idiot, it doesnt care that we’re here, and “meaning” is a human concept

If youve gotten this far in life and still think theres some point to it all, then im sorry to break it to you, but you just might be retarded

[Anonymous No.10428543]

>>10428230
The results are just data, the science is the interpretation.

[Anonymous No.10428550]

>>10428228
>practical applications
>find meaning in this desolate world or help you build frameworks through which to navigate to tragedy of the human condition

[Anonymous No.10428554]

>>10428550
>tragedy of the human condition
lmao cuck

[Anonymous No.10428584]

>>10428543
disagree. the science is "if you do (i.e. perform the given experiment) X then consequences include Y". the facts trump the theory, not the other way around.

one might interpret this as saying science can stand alone from philosophy, but i won't go that far. all i want us to agree on is that empirical truths exist. if so then we're done, since the only part of your argument i despise is the "can't know nuffin" crap you hear all too often

[Anonymous No.10428609]

>every /sci/ philosophy thread: niggas who think Socrates wrote books calling philosophy gay

[Anonymous No.10428638]

The philosophy of science basically a set of guidelines or rules for which to conduct oneself to obtain knowledge, knowledge being the ability to approximately model reality.

But the thing about the universe is that there are no rules, and organic computation does not bluescreen or kernel panic. So, you know, fuck it.

Everyone posting in this thread will die.

[Anonymous No.10428667]

>>10427933
>>10428046
>>10428584
You can't know that every time you run the experiment the results will be the same.

[Anonymous No.10428675]

>>10428667
you can't know it's true until you try it, many times, and it comes out true after many times. and once you verify with all your colleagues that it comes out the same all the time for them too. then you can know it.

[Anonymous No.10428679]

>>10428554
>*rips bong* why can't everyone, just, like, love each other bro

[Anonymous No.10428683]

>>10428667
>you can't really know anything dude
this is why philosophy is dogshit

[Anonymous No.10428688]

I think philosophy of science is much more focused on "Philosophy" itself rather than being science

[Anonymous No.10428703]

>>10428584
>empirical truths exist
No, empirical observations exist. The truth of what's going on is unknowable and can only be guessed at. Take for example the simple Leyden jar and the erroneous facts inferred by interpretation of the data.

>It was initially believed that the charge was stored in the water in early Leyden jars. In the 1700s American statesman and scientist Benjamin Franklin performed extensive investigations of both water-filled and foil Leyden jars, which led him to conclude that the charge was stored in the glass, not in the water. A popular experiment, due to Franklin, which seems to demonstrate this involves taking a jar apart after it has been charged and showing that little charge can be found on the metal plates, and therefore it must be in the dielectric. The jar is constructed out of a glass cup nested between two fairly snugly fitting metal cups. When the jar is charged with a high voltage and carefully dismantled, it is discovered that all the parts may be freely handled without discharging the jar. If the pieces are re-assembled, a large spark may still be obtained from it.
>This demonstration appears to suggest that capacitors store their charge inside their dielectric. This theory was taught throughout the 1800s. However, this phenomenon is a special effect caused by the high voltage on the Leyden jar. In the dissectible Leyden jar, charge is transferred to the surface of the glass cup by corona discharge when the jar is disassembled; this is the source of the residual charge after the jar is reassembled. Handling the cup while disassembled does not provide enough contact to remove all the surface charge. Soda glass is hygroscopic and forms a partially conductive coating on its surface, which holds the charge. Addenbrooke (1922) found that in a dissectible jar made of paraffin wax, or glass baked to remove moisture, the charge remained on the metal plates. Zeleny (1944) confirmed these results and observed the corona charge transfer

[Anonymous No.10428727]

>>10428584
>the science is "if you do (i.e. perform the given experiment) X then consequences include Y". the facts trump the theory

Science isn't blind recipe collection like alchemy was. It's all about understanding the underlining mechanisms like chemistry.

>[I] despise is the "can't know nuffin"

It's absolutely true though. You can't know anything for sure because to know of it, you would have to speak with certainty as if you had access to its source code (which nobody does). All we can say is what we can infer based on what we have observed so far. Nothing more or less.

You sound like one of those people that can't tell the difference between their strongly held opinions and objective truths. Stop reading popsci and start actually studying science.

[Anonymous No.10428731]

>>10428675
>muh scientific method
That's not how science works pass elementary school dude.

[Anonymous No.10428758]

>>10428683
Not with pure empirical evidence, no. Sorry, you actually have to use your brain abstractly to solve questions that science can't answer. Questions like "what is love" and "what is the first principle of things" is not something that can be answered by simply testing things.

>>10424756
>I haven't read much about it, mainly because I fucking despise philosophy,

>I fucking despise the love of knowledge

Lets start by asking OP what he thinks "philosophy" is.

[Anonymous No.10428765]

>>10428758
>Questions like "what is love" and "what is the first principle of things" is not something that can be answered by simply testing things.
Questions like "what is love" and "what is the first principle of things" is not something that can be answered.

fixed
and its why philosophy is a fucking waste, at least science can make predictions

[Anonymous No.10428770]

>>10428765
this sums it up

[Anonymous No.10428786]

>>10428765
>and its why philosophy is a fucking waste, at least science can make predictions

>We don't know shit, but we'll mislead you into believing we're right by reifying shadows.

Sure whatever, just don't start preaching it as truth at my front doorstep on Saturday morning.

[Anonymous No.10428799]

>>10428786
eat dick you dumb waste of space

[Anonymous No.10428819]

>>10428758
That anon you quoted was OP. That should tell you what I think philosophy is. Literally you respond with "what is love." That's a useless fucking question when you use philosophy to answer it, it's not some philosophical riddle, it's a complicated chain of fucking chemical reactions and hormones and a bunch of other shit that has the goal of reproduction.

[Anonymous No.10428824]

>>10428819
that's not OP

[Anonymous No.10428828]

Can't blame you for "fucking despising philosophy", or rather what passes as "philosophy" nowadays. Most academics in the humanities and social sciences are quacks but there are a few decent people.

Philosophy of science started, roughly, with the demarcation problem (what makes science different from "non-science"?), as well as what makes scientific knowledge reliable and how can we obtain it. The Wikipedia article summarizes it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Since the 1960s most theories of scientific rationality have incorporated some aspect of historicity or at least have acknowledged that "science" as a human phenomenon is subject to social factors, thus giving it a historical development. This article will explain it far better than I can: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/

The philosophy of mathematics on other hand is an entirely different beast, due to how fundamentally different it is from the rest of the sciences. There's a reason why Platonist thought lingers to this day, whether you agree with it or not (I don't). The SEP offers an excellent article on this as well: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

[Anonymous No.10428868]

>>10428799
Why do you folks always ride bicycles and wear suits?

>>10428819
I'm basically saying that if OP doesn't even know what philosophy is and is simply taking someone's word for it, then it's a really big mistake to just despise it. How do you despise what you don't even know?

>That's a useless fucking question when you use philosophy to answer it

>it's a complicated chain of fucking chemical reactions and hormones and a bunch of other shit that has the goal of reproduction.
>goal of reproduction
Yet there are those who love and never think of reproducing. You have not explained what causes love, you described it. Congrats, this is what happens when you use nothing but empirical evidence and "science" to figure shit out.

[Anonymous No.10428965]

>>10426341
> reputable historian of science
This. Historians of Science are true patrician tier. Most good historians of science will probably mix some intellectual history in their works as well, which will cover underlying philosophies far better than philosophers ever will.

[Anonymous No.10428966]

>>10428868
>You have not explained what causes love, you described it.
and youre retarded

the brain releases hormones *because* it helps with the goal of reproduction.
that doesnt mean its guaranteed to cause reproduction you 2 bit moron.
do some of the god damn leg work on your own for once and learn to think more than 2 steps ahead

[Anonymous No.10428990]

>>10428786
And you wonder why employers don't jump out of their seats with excitement when they read "philosophy major" on your resume

[Anonymous No.10429062]

>>10428966
>the brain releases hormones *because* it helps with the goal of reproduction.
No it doesn't. Our brain releases hormones because individuals that released more hormones relative to their population tended to have better reproductive success. Nice teleological implication that the brain decided to independently release hormones to aid in it's reproductive success, Lamarck.

[Anonymous No.10429108]

>>10429062
>the brain releases hormones *because* it helps with the goal of reproduction.
>No it doesn't. Our brain releases hormones because individuals that released more hormones relative to their population tended to have better reproductive success.
you are actually the stupidest fucking person on this board

[Anonymous No.10429130]

>>10429108
You're the one angry of Descartes. Read a fucking book you popsci dumbo.

[Anonymous No.10429138]

>>10429130
you literally just rewrote what i fucking posted
youre disagreeing with your own position

[Anonymous No.10429145]

>>10428679
nice projection söiboy

[Anonymous No.10429147]

>>10429130
>advocates for rationalism
>tells someone to read a book
the irony

[Anonymous No.10429153]

>>10429138
>you literally just rewrote what i fucking posted
Not even who you were arguing with, faggot. You implied the brain did something to aid in reproduction (i.e. an organ modifying to "reproduce"). You are arguing philosophy is useless but don't even know how evolution works.

[Anonymous No.10429156]

>>10424756
If you can't into philosophy you'll never be all that good at science

[Anonymous No.10429159]

>>10429145
>whines about the tragedy of the human condition
>calling anyone an onions boy
Just for the record, I could kill you with my bare hands in under 2 minutes. 1 if you're not allowed to run.

[Anonymous No.10429161]

>>10428828
>There's a reason why Platonist thought lingers to this day, whether you agree with it or not (I don't)
>I don't

Get out and never return

[Anonymous No.10429162]

>>10429156
t. seething philosotard

[Anonymous No.10429163]

>>10429153
>You implied the brain did something to aid in reproduction
it fucking does you triple nigger

[Anonymous No.10429167]

>>10429156
yeah I agree the key is being good at thinking philosophy but not wasting your time on it

>>10429153
Not the guy you're arguing with either, he literally just fucking rewrote what he posted but with "btw this is how evolution works, i am very smart"

Dude is a total fucking idiot it doesn't matter your view in the discussion you're gonna look like a retard by defending him either way.

[Anonymous No.10429166]

>>10429159
i'm the one mocking the söylet faggot crying about the human condition you illiterate retard, end your life

[Anonymous No.10429178]

>>10429166
>i'm the one mocking the söylet faggot crying about the human condition
No, I'm the one doing that. Maybe if you read the chain before replying you would have realized I was quoting someone. But you didn't, because you're a jackass.

[Anonymous No.10429182]

>>10429166
>illiterate
now this is irony

[Anonymous No.10429183]

>>10429178
>actually being illiterate
maybe if you kill yourself you'll stop wasting my time

[Anonymous No.10429200]

>>10424786
>a politician might read Derrida, decide quarks are racist social constructs and cut our funding!
Lazy, sloppy treatment that boiled down to this.

[Anonymous No.10429212]

>>10429183
Sorry I think I'll just stick around as a testament to your immense stupidity

[Anonymous No.10429263]

>>10428966
>and youre retarded

>Continues to describe the thing I asked the cause to

"What causes love?"
>the brain releases hormones *because* it helps with the goal of reproduction.

I am asking for the cause of it and saying "brain chemicals and hormones" is not specific not indicative to the actual cause of it. How do you differentiate if from hate then? Both are just brain hormones right? Is Love is hate now? Reproduction causes it? No, it's a byproduct of it. By proxy of creating a new human that will "love" in the future I suppose you could say it *causes* love, but that's still not specific as it also *causes* the other irrational emotions we have.

>>10428990
Wouldn't it depend on what job your applying to? Typically most philosophical types I know of have their own philosophy and are self-employed. There is no greater freedom than not having to listen to others circle jerking about shit that doesn't matter to me. Also:

>philosophy major
>Paying and appealing to authorities to learn philosophy.

I seriously hope you future sophists don't do this.

[Anonymous No.10429276]

>philosophy never produces anything, science gave us all this great technology
Yep, only six centuries from Copernicus to impending ecological collapse, 9000+ IQ Terminators and other unimaginable horrors.
>t-that wasn't our fault!

[Anonymous No.10429277]

>>10429263
>Typically most philosophical types I know of have their own philosophy and leech off their parents
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10429286]

>>10429263
kys

[Anonymous No.10429293]

>>10429277
>>10429286
The paranoia strikes deep. I'm not talking about "here and now" Barnes and Nobel philosophy just so you know.

[Anonymous No.10429294]

wow op, i used to think philosophy was pretty neat, but now I know its actually not neat at all and pretty gay. Thanks >>10429263

[Anonymous No.10429304]

>>10429263
>Typically most philosophical types I know of have their own philosophy and are self-employed
now this is mega cope
>>10429276
>science btfos the world in a few centuries while philosocucks stand by mewling helplessly
guess philosophy was worthless all along

[Anonymous No.10429319]

>>10429304
>now this is mega cope
How? It's one thing to say you "have a philosophy" and another to actually practice it.

[Anonymous No.10429329]

So the meaning of life is harvesting the maximum energy possible from the environment, and everything else is an elaborate cope?

[Anonymous No.10429336]

>>10429304
>philosophers never rekt anything

[Anonymous No.10429347]

>>10429329
meaning is not something that can be applied to an abstract concept such as life

what's the meaning of the number 8?

[Anonymous No.10429363]

>>10429319
>dude all the philosophytards i know are ackshyually self-employed freespirited chads
>h-how is that cope

[Anonymous No.10429364]

>>10427864
>science is about finding objective facts
So this the power of self-styled STEMfags. Let me guess, undergraduate mechanical engineer?

[Anonymous No.10429385]

>>10429347
>abstract concepts are all meaningless
Seriously? And 8 is well defined, just construct it with sets.

[Anonymous No.10429395]

>>10429364
>I mean, and I guess this might be my presuppositions, science is about finding objective facts

this is the first part of the quote you quote-mined
glad to see people who use the term "STEMfags" are just as dishonest as always

[Anonymous No.10429404]

>>10429385
>hurr u can construct it
yes, but what does it MEAN?

[Anonymous No.10429426]

>>10429404
meaning is meaningless
nothing has meaning
at best there are definitions

[Anonymous No.10429433]

>>10429426
philosophy is a meme holy shit

[Anonymous No.10429437]

>>10429426
glad we agree philosophy is worthless :)

[Anonymous No.10429443]

sorry, should have prefaced
(Me) >>10429426
is an unrelated anon

[Anonymous No.10429452]

>>10429385
meaning in this context is synonymous with purpose, not with definition.

purpose implies creation. And whether you think our instance of life was created or not makes no difference, the fact is that 8, life, and any other abstract concept was not created.

Sure, you can use 8 in an equation. But only then does YOUR use of 8 have meaning, you would hardly go around saying "the meaning of 8 is to be the half life in this word problem I had to do!"

[Anonymous No.10429481]

>>10429404
It means that many objects, "object" here meaning absolutely anything at all. This is at the highest level of abstraction and generality, whereas life is your everyday experience and you're directly acquainted with it whether or not you've even acquired language. For you to say that living is totally devoid of meaning, to treat it as an empty formal linguistic construct, vividly illustrates the nihilism of a purely scientific worldview.

[Anonymous No.10429493]

>>10429481
>dude 8 means 8 lmao
utterly based, teach me your wisdom O philosopher-king

[Anonymous No.10429499]

>>10429493
philosophy grads are absolute brainlets, I've met a couple of them and they are all full of shit and don't have any real ideas of their own on anything

[Anonymous No.10429501]

>>10429481
>For you to say that living is totally devoid of meaning, to treat it as an empty formal linguistic construct
You literally just did that with 8 tho, lmao

[Anonymous No.10429517]

>>10429481
>to treat it as an empty formal linguistic construct, vividly illustrates the nihilism of a purely scientific worldview.
you two are talking about philosophy, its literally all empty formal linguistic concepts, thats just how it works

[Anonymous No.10429525]

>>10429452
Definitions are purposes if meaning is use.
>>10429501
>>10429493
8 is meaningful to me in the context of each of my uses of it. Solving math problems is meaningful to me in the sense of advancing my life goals.

Who cares about this basic shit? What I want to know is what is the worth and value of human activity in general or doing anything in particular if it's all ultimately just fancy far from equilibrium thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10429554]

>>10429525
>it has meaning because it matters to me :D
2500 years of bickering and all you've managed is truisms fit for the most banal of instathots.

[Anonymous No.10429558]

>>10427778
>science is about falsifying meme

The idea that Popper thinks that science is 'about falsifying' is a meme. The point of falsification is to solve the 'demarcation problem', i.e. to find a way of distinguishing science from non-science, and he tries to achieve this by the criteria of whether or not, in principle, it would be possible to show that a given theory is capable of making predictions that are potentially wrong. He is not claiming that simply finding some particular evidence that goes against a theory instantly shows that it is wrong and should be discarded, or that this is how science ought to operate, rather he is primarily criticizing theoretical apparatuses like Freudian psychoanalysis which effectively don't try to rule out anything at all.

[Anonymous No.10429562]

>>10429363
>all these people that are philosophically inclined not to act like an emotional chimp are successful because they actually believe in not acting like a base feral animal born in the woods.
Let me ask you something. Without actually believing in something greater, how would we have left those woods and become what we are today?
You alsohave people on the opposite end of the spectrum who are so devoid of faith in anything that they become suicidal wrecks. They actually believe they are more worthless from the standpoint of a feral animal in the woods. How is that not some sort of "philosophy"? How can you not have some sort of philosophy? Do you believe in nothing? From nothing comes nothing.

[Anonymous No.10429586]

>>10429525
You can extract meaning from context. When people have this conversation, they're talking about intrinsic meaning.

>What I want to know is what is the worth and value of human activity in general or doing anything in particular if it's all ultimately just fancy far from equilibrium thermodynamics.
Worth and value are subjective,
>>10429554
put it best

[Anonymous No.10429597]

>>10429554
I said it was basic. You're all evading the actual question.
>>10429586
>it's, like, subjective
What does this actually mean, scientifically?

[Anonymous No.10429610]

>>10429562
What the fuck is wrong with you? What condition is this?

[Anonymous No.10429624]

>>10424756
The problem is that philosophers are too stupid to philosophize about science

[Anonymous No.10429632]

>>10429562
>hurr how could you not be a waste of space if you don't believe in something
idk just don't be a piece of shit waste of space?

I take a look around at the world, and I think "Hard work? Seems good" with a thumbs up to match. But no I guess everyone must have the same unmotivated perspective as you do.

>>10429597
>it's, like, subjective
>What does this actually mean, scientifically?
>subjective
>scientific
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10429675]

>>10429632
Yeah, subjective is not exactly a scientific term. So your "anti-philosophical" stance is really just a lazy, incurious philosophy, as it always is. So why the arrogant defamation of those who give a shit?

[Anonymous No.10429702]

>>10429632
>idk just don't be a piece of shit waste of space?
Why? Tell me faggot. That is literally philosophy. You have to have a *reason* why you believe that. Something greater than "oh just do it because other humans do". Yeah well why do they do it?

>I take a look around at the world, and I think "Hard work? Seems good" with a thumbs up to match.
Yeah, you take a look at something greater than yourself and imitate it. Congratulations, you just proved you have a philosophy that practice. You could work out the "why" a little more, but we all start somewhere.

>But no I guess everyone must have the same unmotivated perspective as you do.

Did you even read what I said?

>>10429610
>What condition is this?

The human condition.

[Anonymous No.10429704]

>>10429675
Probably because you're trying to give objective answers to subjective questions? Not a single philosophical argument is objective. I proved this to myself in high school and haven't wasted time on philosophy since. I guess some are slower to the punch though.

[Anonymous No.10429723]

>>10429702
>Why?
Why not?

[Anonymous No.10429727]

>>10429704
>i stopped thinking in high school
And it shows.

[Anonymous No.10429735]

>>10429704

[Anonymous No.10429759]

>this thread
wowzers
>>10429704
>objective subjective
congratulations you're using technical vocabulary from philosophy you dumbass 18 year old

>Coming to the realization that our society is sentient, trying to reach an end without having any grasp on what that end is. Realizing that left/right wing politics are meaningless jabs that ignore the restriction of freedom that is being set upon us, in a subtle way that few will even recognize. That Ted was right, we are being enslaved by the very technology that we built to serve us. That unseen entities control out beliefs in such a way that we know too little to criticize them. The "values" that we believe in either have no real bearing on reality, or they don't even exist, either way being productions not of us, but of others. What little originality we have is ignored in favor of groupthink and mob mentality. We seek to push back against chaos, when that chaos is the only thing that preserves us. The academics over analyze to the point of resound agreement in transparent principles. We look in the details instead of looking at the bigger picture. We are in endgame, and only sacrifice will give us the agency we require.

[Anonymous No.10429778]

>>10429727
when are you going to start?

[Anonymous No.10429801]

>>10429759
Schizoposter has entered the thread. I repeat, schizoposter has entered the thread.

[Anonymous No.10429818]

>>10429759
>s-stop using my words
>le epic holden caufield rant

[Anonymous No.10429835]

>>10429818
No one's telling you to stop dude, you're embarrassing yourself and those like you just fine.

[Anonymous No.10429866]

>>10429835
Wait so "you used the word subjective" is actually your best argument? That's it?

We wuz newton and shiit, ROFL

[Anonymous No.10429927]

>>10429866
Is scientism all just a cope for low verbal IQ? We can actually test this...

[Anonymous No.10429968]

>scientists claim philosophers are impotent
>scientists also claim world will literally end soon if they aren't listened to
>no one listens
kinda like you're tools, rather than bosses,

[Anonymous No.10429977]

>>10429927
>muh scientism boogeyman
Yeah dude, believing many questions are subjective is the same as believing every question can be answered by science. That's not a contradiction at all.
What a total fucking retard lmao

[Anonymous No.10429990]

ok philosocucks, riddle me this
If i fuck a mans wife, but i must kiss his penis in a non homosexual respectful way, who is the cuck here?

[Anonymous No.10430024]

>>10429977
You're not a boogeyman yourself, it's more the aggregate, cumulative effects of your shitty attitude across many dumbfucks that has results in the noxious effect on the well-being of our species. But keep stroking yourself off to your proud ignorance if that helps you sleep at night I guess.

[Anonymous No.10430052]

>>10430024
You bore me, it might be time to pull the ol' "ask the philosofags to offer some actual insightful or useful information and watch them go quiet"

[Anonymous No.10430058]

>>10430052
Are you actually 15 or are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10430113]

>>10430058
>>10430058
put up or shut up faggot

[Anonymous No.10430142]

>>10430113
*scratches nuts*
Um, "no"

[Anonymous No.10430199]

>>10430113
>ha I called him 15, got him! nvm the fact I can only shitfling when put in the spotlight

[Anonymous No.10430267]

>>10424756
but the philosophy is built some shitty analytic/statistic mathmatical model which is bullshit if u done the experiments

[Anonymous No.10430299]

>>10428675
>many times
lmao

[Anonymous No.10430306]

>>10428819
>goal of reproduction
The absolute state of popsci STEMfags. Literally kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10430335]

I studied philosphy a lot ealier but I realized it benefited me so LITTLE in my life compared to other things like friends, family, university and company

I used to have hundreds of pages of notes. I remember how I felt like when (for the thousandth time) I finally got it! and started writing and writing until midnight. I remember how my brain used to be filled with circulating thoughts and how I used to see "more" in ordinary processes and objects through my philosophical thinking.

But none of that had any consequences. I completed my degree, married my girlfriend and got a job in product development (I'm chemical engineer). Those notes I uses to pour my soul into now lay forgotten in my boxes and mostly in garbage. Only rarely I recall some old conclusion which gives me minor joy, like completing a game of sudoku.

[Anonymous No.10430359]

>>10430306
If the goal is not reproduction then what is it? There's obviously more complex environmental, societal, and context related factors to look at if you want to more accurately describe how "love" is going to end up. Just because everyone who falls in love doesn't desire sex or want to have a kid doesn't mean that isn't the reason those hormones and chemical reactions evolved to be the way they are in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10430363]

>>10430359
more accurately, the brain evolved*

[Anonymous No.10430950]

>>10429968
>scientists are impotent
>philosophers are even more impotent
how embarassasing for you

[Anonymous No.10431312]

>>10430335
Exactly, philospohy is just a puzzle game for the most part. The world is man’s for the taking and we shouldn’t spend our time getting too caught up in thought loops that lead nowhere.

[Anonymous No.10431446]

>>10424756
Most "philosophers of science" aren't smart enough to complete undergrad level work in the fields they philosophize about so why should I care about them? Furthermore modern philosophy is basically just advocacy for soft Communism, gay bathhouses, and third-world nationalism. Not a great period for Western philosophy, really.

[Anonymous No.10431476]

>>10428965
>true patrician tier.
Indeed, my fine gentleman! Splendid to meet fellows of such refined tastes among these philistines, the opinions of whomst shan’t be considered anything but jejune. Good day!

[Anonymous No.10431511]

The main use of philosophy is to tell you whether you're smart or not. Once you have that down, then you have to go out and do things. I think Einstein said something to the effect that reading books is good in your youth, but there comes a point where you're well-read enough. That's the time to stop and focus on action. And the only way to act upon the world is through science.

[Anonymous No.10431520]

>>10431446
>Furthermore modern philosophy is basically just advocacy for soft Communism, gay bathhouses, and third-world nationalism. Not a great period for Western philosophy, really.
Why do you feel the need to make assertions about things you apparently know nothing about?

[Anonymous No.10431527]

>>10431520
name one prominent modern philosopher that would oppose any of those things

[Anonymous No.10431824]

>>10427696
> I mean has science clearly explained causality and infinity?
Has philosophy?

>Tell me, what happens after "death"?
What happens to what?

>Can science explain everything?
Can philosophy explain anything?

LOL.

[medfag No.10431850]

>>10424756
my favorite course as a physics major was philosophy of physics

[Anonymous No.10431872]

>>10429329
>kinetic energy is a vector
kys

[Anonymous No.10431878]

>>10431824
Einstein thought about those things you mentioned. Why is it suddenly illegal to have any thoughts on these matters just because they are not based in evidence? This shows a lack of intelligence on your part.

[Anonymous No.10431930]

>>10429108
> t. engineering undergrad
Stop putting shitty teleology in science. For as much as you pseuds whine about philosophy, you unwittingly regurgitate your own garbage pop philosophy and masquerade it as science.

[Anonymous No.10431934]

>>10431878
>utterly buttflustered by a harmless response
>unnecessarily emotional, accusatory language
>shameless and desperate appeal to muh einstein
yup, it’s a philosotard.

[Anonymous No.10431967]

>>10430359
> evolution
> goal
Unironically kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10432003]

>>10429200
he’s right though

[Anonymous No.10432045]

>>Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental concerns such as existence, knowledge, matter, values, reason, mind, and language.

The hatred for philosophy within the scientific world is literally a hatred against cohesion, logic and sheer free thinking. We're forced into abstract concepts that heavily narrows our minds. Philosophy is literally learning how to think

[Anonymous No.10432068]

>>10432045
>haha dude look at this 2500 year old definition with no bearing on the modern state of affairs stemtards btfo lmao
C O P E

[Anonymous No.10432079]

>>10432068
The state of (you)

[Anonymous No.10432085]

>>10432079
>I can’t be wrong, the dictionary says so
literally laughing out loud in real life at you

[Anonymous No.10432102]

>>10432085
>anti-philosopher rejects authority on the basis that it disagrees with him
I could drop a barbell on my face and still not be hit with as much irony.

[Anonymous No.10432193]

>>10432102
>the dictionary is an “authority”
i get it now, you’re trying to make me laugh until I suffocate
you should try the barbell experiment just to be safe

[Anonymous No.10432211]

>>10431967
I won't even bother explaining what I meant by goal. Good job, anon, you get an A for effort!

[Anonymous No.10432251]

>>10428541
you're a shit philosopher

[Anonymous No.10432338]

>>10432211
Love is not "for" the purpose of reproduction at all. People who love naturally have more kids, but you're slapping an Aristotlian final cause on something and then claiming you've found "meaning"

The number one sign of a pseud is someone who sees science through a teleological lenses. Good luck finishing your computer science degree, though!

[Anonymous No.10432478]

>>10432338
Do you have some type of severe down syndrome, anon? Let me break it down for you: Evolution is a natural process, and guess what, this natural process can cause different biological functions, traits, habits, etc to arise! Now it is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING OBVIOUS that the things that arise from evolution do not have a literal "meaning" as you claim I am giving them, BUT that doesn't mean the things that arise from evolution cannot have a purpose. The main purpose of "love" is for reproductive/mating purposes, this literally is obvious to anyone who understands at least somewhat what love is doing in your brain. If humans didn't develop love, we could have gone extinct because we wouldn't have been the same stick together hunter gatherers as we turned out to be. Obviously, we could have evolved in a different direction, but we didn't. As for why people can love without wanting just sex? I'm not entirely sure of this myself if I am entirely honest, but I would much quicker accept the idea of societal evolution and the passing of language, information, ideas, traditions, etc than I would accept shitty philosophical concepts that are based in someone having a good thought about some shit and no actual data or experiments to figure something out. Just to continue on my societal evolution point, a lot of the shit we do romantically in this day and time was passed on through literature and other cultural arts that we retain and develop trends out of and spread.

[Anonymous No.10432505]

>>10432478
evolution doesn’t have a telos. you are low IQ

[Anonymous No.10432514]

>>10428541
t. Somebody who can't draw conclusions from scientific results

This is why scientists are underpaid, you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. Nothing more.

[Anonymous No.10432528]

This thread is hereby reward one YIKE for it's efforts

Thank you and please endorse our donors

[Anonymous No.10432529]

>>10432505
*facepalm*
I really feel like you're just trying to bait me at this point, so I'm not even going to explain why that wasn't my point. Just know there can be a reasoning behind something evolving in a species, and it doesn't mean it was an "ultimate goal" or anything of that matter, it's literally just something that happened to arise from natural selection or separation. If you don't understand how that works then you should actually stick to philosophy because I don't think science is something you can handle.

[Anonymous No.10432536]

>>10432529
you are low iq and should definitely stick to popsci dreck

[Anonymous No.10432752]

>>10432478
>>10432529
Holy hell you are so dumb. You don't even understand the objections we're making.
I'm not saying "don't say a proboscis is for eating, that's teleology tehe!" That would be dumb.
I'm responding to you when you said that love is "for" procreation, or the "purpose" of love is reproduction. The reason this is different from my proboscis example is because you used this as a reply to someone asking about the subjective worth of love. You using the argument, "love is for procreation" to unconsciously jump from the objective fact "the feeling love is a biological process developed through evolution" to the subjective statement "love is just good for procreation, it's meaningless, evolution is all it was 'meant for,' blah blah"
I'm responding to you because you sound like a retard for using shitty philosophy to jump from a random objective fact to a dumb subjective conclusion. You probably also think "Wow, the Earth is so small compared to the rest of the universe, must mean everything we do is not important" or "All our feelings are caused by biochemical reactions? Guess they're worthless."

[Anonymous No.10433961]

>>10432752
Let me just quote something I said earlier.
>If the goal is not reproduction then what is it?
If the path that led to us developing love was not for reproductive purposes, what the fuck was it? You cant just act like we developed love for no reason, there obviously wasn't a literal reason, but the fact that we evolved to have it has an effect, and that effect was allowing humans to reproduce, and stay together longer, likely leading to us forming "packs" and eventually society.
Also,
>"Wow, the Earth is so small compared to the rest of the universe, must mean everything we do is not important" or "All our feelings are caused by biochemical reactions? Guess they're worthless."
Yes, everything we do is technically not important, because there is literally no meaning to the universe from a scientific standpoint. And yes, our feelings are technically worthless, because from a scientific standpoint they are not some type of spiritual thing that has true meaning. Are you the type of person when met with this reality you cant handle it? Maybe that's why you like philosophy, it's too much for you to handle that everything in the universe is technically meaningless when looked at scientifically, therefore you need philosophy to fucking calm your nerves. Please, fucking leave /sci/, you're one of the people that makes this place more cancerous than it needs to be.