/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10512428]

What did they mean by this? I thought philosophy was useless.

[Anonymous No.10512466]

It will never not be funny how ass-smashed Christians and Muslims try to delegitimize Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.10512496]

>>10512428
Philosophy can only be useful to study in conjunction with other fields, since it gives deeper insight into the workings of logic, constructing arguments, how to think about knowledge, etc.

Studying philosophy by itself, however, is completely useless.

Think of any well known philosopher. Look them up and I can guarantee that they did other stuff in addition.

[Anonymous No.10512515]

>>10512428
Oh look, a nigger and a jew who engaged in sexual abuse against colleagues are telling me that philosophy is dumb, I guess I should listen to them!

[Anonymous No.10512534]

>>10512428
Bill Nye accomplishments:
>Bachelor's degree in Engineering
>TV show

WTF is he doing there? lol

[Anonymous No.10512552]

>>10512428
When Einstein says

> So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest.

it might be that he's talking about paradigms. Most see the smaller components of paradigms (trees), but most do not see the actual paradigms (forest) they are working within. Hence they cannot even begin to suggest new ones. And that is what Einstein did, he made a new paradigm.

[Anonymous No.10512610]

>>10512496

Sartre?

[Anonymous No.10512618]

>>10512496

Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.10512651]

>>10512428
Einstein had a spat with Karl Popper (philosopher) about empiricism and Einstein wouldn't budge.

Look up the philosophy discussions of the Vienna Circle meetings.

[Anonymous No.10512663]

>>10512651
What I mean is... don't confuse scientists who sound a little mystic with actual academic philosophers.

The latter group adds nothing to the scientific enterprise and no answer is good or final enough by definition (infinite regress).

[Anonymous No.10512699]

>>10512496
>Think of any well known philosopher. Look them up and I can guarantee that they did other stuff in addition.
They mostly did linguistics and math. I think you're talking out of your ass a bit here.

[Anonymous No.10512768]

>>10512428
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Steven-Weinberg-%E2%80%9CAgainst-Philosophy%E2%80%9D.pdf
tl;dr philosophy is for phags

[Anonymous No.10512779]

>>10512496
this, although i'd say pointless rather than useless

[Anonymous No.10512938]

>>10512496
Yup I agree with this anon too.

[Anonymous No.10512946]

>>10512515

be nice to "black science guy" if he left we wouldnt have token nog hustlin that he bez noinngs the science n all

[Anonymous No.10512968]

>>10512610
>>10512618
>Sartre
Wrote literature.
>Heidegger
>implying Heidegger is well known

[Anonymous No.10513179]

>>10512428
There is a liberty philosophy can provide in prowess of thought. I've seen a lot of pompus asshole philosophers go on to do nothing but smoke crack and work construction, but I've also met many scientists that don't understand the mental tools they use in constructing arguments and what it means to creat new models of reality. In essence, philosophy can provide a powerful tool to understand your science and aid you in developing new sciences, it can also be useless garbage, just like your engineering degree.

[Anonymous No.10513299]

>>10512428
It was made by a poltard so obviously it's total garbage which has no meaning

[Anonymous No.10513316]

>>10512968
heidegger is extremely well-known brainlet

[Anonymous No.10513341]

>>10512968
Heidegger is considered by many the most important philosopher of the 20 century you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.10513358]

>>10512534
The only one who remotely belongs on the right side is Krauss. It's a complete meme image.

[Anonymous No.10513416]

>>10513179
I like Stefan Molyneux

[Anonymous No.10513601]

>comparing Nobel prize winners and geniuses with TV personalities
the absolute state of the right's critique of modern science

[Anonymous No.10513675]

>>10512428
If you study deeply a bit of quantum physics and stuff like the EPR paradox and reality criterion...etc you'll know hat phylossophy plays a huge role.
and Kant's works has helped lots in explaining a bit of EPR paradox per example

now gimme some lieks

[Anonymous No.10513683]

>>10512768
>emil kierkegaard
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.10513708]

>>10513416
Manlet spotted

[Anonymous No.10514306]

>>10513179

On point

[Anonymous No.10514333]

>>10512428
Philosophy only look useless because everytime it advances, it generates new schools of scientific investigation.
Literally every single science, from physics to psychology, was born as a bunch of philosophers putting down the epistemological basis fro their respective disciplines.

[Anonymous No.10514334]

>>10512428<div class="like-perk-cnt">&#x1F63E;</div>

[Anonymous No.10514434]

>>10512968

Heidegger is extremely well known you're just a brainlet and

>implying Sartre's literature was not philosophical in nature

God forbid an academic should ever write anything. Retard.

[Anonymous No.10514512]

>>10512651
>Popper
That nigger opposed naturalism, who cares what he thinks.

[Anonymous No.10514523]

>>10512534
It's a comparison between scientists and so called pop "scientists" you mong

[Anonymous No.10514537]

>>10513179
This, this and this

[Anonymous No.10515026]

>>10512466

By deligitmise do you mean discredit? Brainlets...

[Anonymous No.10515935]

>>10514333
>everything is philosophy
how convenient, unmployed subhuman

[Anonymous No.10515955]

>>10512428
>What did they mean by this?
I'll paraphrase:

>science moves forward, even if people do not.

[Anonymous No.10516030]

>>10515935
He's right though. The point is not that 'everything is philosophy', but that scientific enterprise is a direct result of philosophical inquiry, and philosophy is essentially a social and intellectual process that generate new forms of research, that then get spun off of it and become their own disciplines. I mean, do you seriously believe that Newton and Leibniz just decided to 'make physics' and BTFO of all those silly, backwards philosophizers?

[Anonymous No.10517571]

>>10512466
Dawkins is a low tier new atheism fag. He's awful at debate and should stick to biology. He refuses to debate top Christian philosophers because he doesn't know what he is talking about

[Anonymous No.10517597]

>>10512428
This is what decades of Copenhagen interpretation created. "Shut up and do math"

[Anonymous No.10517643]

>>10514512
Prove the metaphysical doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10517647]

>>10513316
>>10513341
Extremely well known by philosophers and people actually interested in philosophy you cunts.
I'd actually heard about Sartre back in philosophy classes at school.

[Anonymous No.10517870]

>>10517647

Heidegger is well known to anyone who has any fucking general knowledge of the twentieth century you thick cunt. He famously joined the nazi party. Clearly you went to a trash school and you yourself are also trash.

[Anonymous No.10517896]

>>10512496
Philosophy is top tier if you plan to go to law school.
Show up and make A's, and if you're not a dumbass ace your LSAT. You'll get into a tier 2/3 ez, and a top 10 if you're a nignog.

[Anonymous No.10518196]

Niggers gonna nig.

[Anonymous No.10518205]

>>10516030
>scientific enterprise is a direct result of philosophical inquiry
chemistry is a direct result of alchemy but no one thanks alchemy for it
>and philosophy is essentially a social and intellectual process that generate new forms of research, that then get spun off of it and become their own disciplines.
name one (1) new discipline that has spun off from philosophy in the last 100 years
>do you seriously believe that Newton and Leibniz just decided to 'make physics' and BTFO of all those silly, backwards philosophizers?
p. much

[Anonymous No.10518469]

>>10512610
Existentialism is pseudophilosophy and Sartre is mostly a fiction writer, that's why he's a shit philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10518476]

>>10512496
Not useless, that packs in purpose and normativity which is too complex to use so loosely, it's just that without the education and temperament of other disciplines you will spend your whole life making up delusions that are little more than shallow linguistic constructions. You will spend all your time 'thinking' and writing about essentially nothing.

[Anonymous No.10518488]

>>10513179
You’re tight

[Anonymous No.10518518]

>>10512428
Only psuedointellectuals and brainlets disregard the importance that philosophy has had on the evolution of human understanding

[Anonymous No.10518522]

Not a suprise that philosophers aren't very popular when the normal person is incredible stupid and doesn't read at all. Being a popular philosopher is almost a bad sign, just look at the hack, sartre

[Anonymous No.10518554]

>>10517571
>He refuses to debate top Christian philosophers because he doesn't know what he is talking about
>he doesn't want to go on some Christcuck's youtube channel and get yelled at
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10518559]

>>10512496
hegel

[Anonymous No.10518569]

>>10513601
it's good to critique these immensely popular science educators. what they say is affecting young researchers, whether you like it or not.

plus, the bullying got through to Bill Nye:
https://qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/


something else, which I imagine is true, and am wondering what other anons think:
there are so many philosophers (widespread college degrees, so many universities, many professors) that philosophy couldn't help but become very masturbatory and circular, so that's what the guys on the right side of the image are reacting to

[Anonymous No.10518571]

>>10512428
>Heisenberg believed in Plato's forms
lol

[Anonymous No.10518629]

>>10518205
>chemistry is a direct result of alchemy but no one thanks alchemy for it
They do though?
>name one (1) new discipline that has spun off from philosophy in the last 100 years
Economics, psychology, sociology, neuroscience...

[Anonymous No.10518652]

>>10517647
Heidegger's being and time is among the most important philosophical texts of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.10518658]

>>10517571
>christian
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.10518663]

Lmao at these college graduates here. Not interested in knowledge, but the social status and prestige of a STEM degree. New age atheists with science as their god. Always keep questioning, but never question science and the scientific method, amirite?I love how these people immediately classify any question not answerable by the scientific method to be useless. Scientists observe nature to try and understand it's uniformity, while already presupposing the uniformity of nature. The scientific method is NOT perfect, you will never gain objective reality because you cannot perceive the universe objectively. While any question which cannot be shoehorned into the experiment observation hypothesis dogma is immediately disregarded? What makes a good life, what is good? Useless semantic questions that "true" science shouldn't bother with. When answering these questions are central to the human experience.

The people on the left are the true scientists, who studied not for a degree so they could get a job, shit, fart, have sex, do drugs and then die. They studied because they had a genuine curiosity about the world. Unlike these posters who just want to prove how smart they are for validation from equally retarded posters who keep reaffirming their naive and frankly wrong beliefs. I've had it with these people.... I'm going to contemplate the validity of contemplative theuegy in a metaethical sense while you can jerk off to another IQ thread.

[Anonymous No.10518668]

>>10518522
Why all the hate on Sartre?

His works are easily accessible to the layman, as casual philosophical literature. It's not at all braindead.

[Anonymous No.10518669]

>>10518668
It's easy, thats why it's popular. Hegel will never be popular among the masses, but his ideas are immensely influential. They directly influenced Marxism.

[Anonymous No.10518776]

>>10518663
Based

[Anonymous No.10518803]

>>10512428
>>10512496
>useless
I have an MA in philosophy and got a nice comfy job that pays the same as a CS student, I once emailed my boss a essay on how best to help the company grow and how it'd be best to open another office in a specific area on a whim, at first I thought I was going to get yelled at like no other when I was sent to his office but he actually loved my ideas and pursued them, now I'm the supervisor of the office we moved into and Im making way more money than before, also studying logic has helped
me btfo tons of people irl.

I don't understand how people say studying philosophy is useless or pointless the real world implications are limitless

[Anonymous No.10518805]

>>10518663
Not all hope is lost for this place.

[Anonymous No.10518846]

>>10518803
Nice larp, 8/10

[SAGE No.10518864]

Lmao at all the SEETHING philosophy-tards itt

[Anonymous No.10518866]

>>10512428
Bill Nye's highest degree is a Bachelor's degree in.....engineering. Hardly a qualified scientist as he makes himself to be.

[Anonymous No.10518871]

>>10518864
>lol look at these non-STEMfags and their $11/year. My superior 150 IQ brain thing makes $50.000 million/year and I don't even try.
>What do you mean science is not about the economic viability of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.10518943]

>>10518571
Every smart person is a Platonist

[Anonymous No.10518953]

>>10517643
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[Anonymous No.10518985]

>>10518663
B-based!

[Anonymous No.10519099]

>>10518663
>you losers go jerk off to your IQ thread while I jerk off to the smell of my own farts

[Anonymous No.10519103]

>>10518629
>Economics, psychology, sociology, neuroscience...
wrong.

[Anonymous No.10519127]

>>10519103
>This, boys, is what we call "not an argument"

[beard No.10519377]

>>10519103
>>10519127
You are both operating on an IQ below 140

[Anonymous No.10519450]

>>10519377
>this instead is an ad hominem
>or a sneaky bump, irrelevant either case

[Anonymous No.10519469]

>>10518205
>name one (1) new discipline that has spun off from philosophy in the last 100 years
Literally all the science, and not just the last 100 years, but all the time the science exists.

Doubting this would be analogous to accepting only one paradigm of perceiving the world while rejecting the others, which implies the inconsistency of the scientific inquiry as the most important idea of (the philosophy of) science.

[Anonymous No.10519495]

>>10519469
I specified 100 years for a reason silly brainlet

[Anonymous No.10519763]

>>10518629
>>10519495

[Anonymous No.10520100]

>>10512496
A large part of Philosophy is about “how to live” so yes, it does have a purpose by itself

[Anonymous No.10520108]

>>10518205
>chemistry is a direct result of alchemy but no one thanks alchemy for it
I do, but only because I’m not ignorant

[Anonymous No.10520164]

>>10518205
(1) all of empricial/rigorous economics that exists today: e.g. via social choice theory; rational choice theory and decision thwory; game theory; judgement aggregation and collective choice; coalitional logic

(2) Theoretical computer science: e.g. via the theory of formal languages as developed by Chomsky and Bar-Hillel; automata, as developed by Dana Scott; more general models of computation like Turing Machine and abacus machines (George Boolos, obviously Alan Turing); the development and application of type theory in general, particularly the typed lambda calculus (Bertrand Russell, Alonzo Church, Richard Montague); the development of categorial grammars (Joachim Lambek, Bar-Hillel), type-logical grammar (e.g. Montague, David Dowty); non-classical and modal logics, e.g. modal logics, temporal logics, intensional logics, neighborhood models for logics (C I Lewis, Saul Kripke, David Kellogg Lewis, Johann van Bentham).

(3) Cognitive Science/Linguistics: generative grammar, phenomenology, connectionism, cybernetics, embodied cognition. The first empirically accurate and mathematically rigorous thepries of human mental processes. The list here is really endless, and to a large extent was the primary concern and development of 20th century philosophy. Just to list a few name: Chomsky, Fodor, Dennet, Putnam, Jerrold Katz, Thomas Metzinger, Wittgenstein, Alva Noe, David Chalmers, Paul Smolensky. Essential the entirety of the MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford linguistics departments.

(4) Math and logic: foundations of mathematics (Russell, Skolem, Post, Church, Godel, Whitehead, Brouwer, Rosser, Haskell Curry, Hilbert). Homotopy Type Theory (Steve Awodey, Per Martin-Lof), Proof Theory, a decent amount of model theory. Algebraic Logic and Lindenbaum-Tarski algebras. Heyting algebras. Interior algebras.

Yes, you truly are a brainlet my friend. Dont worry though, you will never contribute the science, math, OR philosophy, so none of this really matters to you.

[Anonymous No.10520397]

>>10512496
Marx? Nietzsche? Most very famous modern philosophers were basically NEETs or professors

[Anonymous No.10520729]

>>10518663
>strawman: the post
>inb4 you are using philosophy
keep projecting, nigger

[Anonymous No.10520732]

>>10520397
Marx had to work all his life, as a journalist. Engels helped him, but he did not pay for everything, only for rent and stuff like that, he was well off but not that wealthy and also had to work in his father's company.

Neither of them has ever been a professor or lived off the state (unless in the 1800s Germany offered some kind financial help to university students, which I doubt).

[Anonymous No.10520768]

>>10516030
Do you seriously believe anyone just decide to do philosophy? Claiming that everything is philosophy is just a oportunistic shit for intellectual vultures. In nature a plenty of things are happening without a will/consciousness behind it or anyone labeling it or anyone see it, therefore philosophy isn't involved. And dont give that shit tha if we create reality from our language

[Anonymous No.10520796]

>>10520164
Fuckin kek, why do you left behind physics, chemistry and biology? Its cause in nature shit happen without a will/conciousness/mind behind it, therefore philosphy is jackshit in the natural world. The same to you, you will never going to contibute anything, specially if you keep riding the tired bitch of philosophy. Nature laughs at philosophy and their "intellectuals"

[Anonymous No.10520812]

>>10520796
Ok bro. Go back home, I bet your family thinks you are smart and you do too, lol.

[Anonymous No.10520817]

>>10518663
Fucking based.

[Anonymous No.10520825]

>>10520732
>"only" had to pay rent
what else was there then? utilities? Marx was a hypocritical parasite who never set foot on a factory floor and is a stunning mirror-image of the modern day trust-fund babies who like to LARP as the poor and spout about how "the niggas got so much soul"

[Anonymous No.10520861]

>>10520825
I dunno... food, transportation, water, gas, the trips that he did for his job as a journalist, the data collection and empirical testing that he made to validate his hypotheses while writing Capital...

Also Engels' help was not continuative, he helped when Marx could not do it on his own. The image of Marx living on his expense is quite false (we leftist don't help much with that, since we do enjoy to joke about it as much as the right wing idiots that take those same jokes seriously), especially considering that eventually Engels abandoned his job as manufacturer and joined Marx as a writer and journalist full time.

>hypocritical parasite who never set foot on a factory floor and is a stunning mirror-image of the modern day trust-fund babies who like to LARP as the poor and spout about how "the niggas got so much soul"
Oh you mean liberals? What do they have to do with Marx?

[Anonymous No.10521227]

>>10518663
God tier post

[Anonymous No.10521378]

>>10520796
you sound like your parents

[Anonymous No.10521443]

>>10518663
Based humanities poster

[Anonymous No.10521918]

>>10518663
basiert und rotpilled

[Anonymous No.10521985]

>>10518953
Naturalists claim that the material world is all there is. They claim what they themselves cannot prove.

[Anonymous No.10521992]

>>10520164
>economics
not science
>comp sci
lmao
>linguistics
double lmao
>math
I said last 100 years retard

[Anonymous No.10521994]

>>10518554
So he's afraid of being yelled at? If he were so confident in his arguements he should easily display that right?

>>10518658
Lennox, Craig, Aquinas

[Anonymous No.10521997]

>>10521994
>why don’t you want to waste time getting shouted down by drooling retards? hmmm must just be scared of being wrong lol

[Anonymous No.10522251]

>>10521997
Even Sam Harris couldn't match with William Lane Craig. He even admitted most atheist debaters are afraid of Craig

[Anonymous No.10522259]

>>10522251
>Even Sam Harris
lol

[Anonymous No.10522302]

>>10522251
>Sam Harris
A fucking muppet could beat San Harris.

[Anonymous No.10522499]

>>10522259
>>10522302
To suggest Dawkins could be Harris is laughable

[Anonymous No.10522561]

>>10518663

Based and Kantpilled.

[Anonymous No.10522574]

>>10518658
>top

[Anonymous No.10522579]

>>10520729
you are using philosophy

[Anonymous No.10522593]

>>10522579
>>10520729
You are using philosophy on a computer
There, we are all frens now

[Anonymous No.10522615]

he said this i swear

[Anonymous No.10523159]

Read G.K. Chesterton

[Anonymous No.10523163]

[Anonymous No.10523472]

>>10522499
>Harris is laughable

Yep. I mean, I don't think all that highly of Dawkins, but Sam is just a nothing riding on his parent's money and connections.

[Anonymous No.10523485]

>>10522615
I can't ever read what he said, because most of the letters he purportedly uttered are the same tone as his skin.

[Anonymous No.10523638]

>>10520812
>>10521378
philosophy intellectuals everyone, lmao at you and your peers subhuman faggot

[Anonymous No.10523640]

>>10522579
yes and?