/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10796216]

Why has there been a rift between philosophy and science in recent times? It is so cringe to see how many scientists are philisophically illiterate and how retarded they sound when they go outside their field.

[Sage No.10796252]

>>10796216
Two words: Logical positivism

[Anonymous No.10796259]

>>10796252
That has been BTFO'd though

[Sage No.10796336]

>>10796259
Yeah. But it's not like most scientists keep up to date with philosophical developments all the time tbqh.

[Anonymous No.10796342]

>>10796216
Al intellectual areas of study have grown apart from each other. Scholars have gotten too specialized in their own fields and are largely unaware and/or ignorant of what happens outside.

[Anonymous No.10796637]

Because most science became engineering which is a trade. Due to improved materials and knowledge, we can build many things once deemed implausible. Such, even the most philosophy-based scientist will require some sort of engineered device to test his theories. End result is dominance of engineers while scientists are reduced to a more technical, typically math-based theoretical concept role.

If you want to get ahead in science be an electrician. The borderline illiterate guy wiring up the machines has better career prospects any pay than the adjunct professor directing him. Someone who can test his own theories is able to do far more than someone who is strictly confined to computer simulations.

You can see the reverse problem too, science is now seen as entirely a math question so scientists lack both the intellectual rigor and technical ability to do their jobs.

[Anonymous No.10796656]

>>10796216
Who cares? Philosophy is not useful anymore.

[Anonymous No.10796790]

>>10796656

[Anonymous No.10796803]

>>10796790
Brilliant refutation.

Can you please cite one example of philosophy improving human welfare since 1900? Inb4 something political

[Anonymous No.10796832]

>>10796803
the greatest and most philosophical war humankind as ever seen was 80 years ago, literally deciding the fate of humanities endgame, a socialistl communist ideological state wrecked a civilization and starved 100 millions people untill 1990, a literal fucking Islamic caliphate exterminated hundreds of thousands of people existed for almost five years and has only recently been destroyed, and a fucking nutcase ideologue has nukes in north korea right now. Are you seriously arguing philosophy is irrelevant? If anything your immense ignorance only proves how ingrained and cemented our current ideals are into your mind.

[Anonymous No.10796853]

>>10796216
Every philosopher in academia is either A) leaving academia or B) a card-carrying marxist communist.

[Anonymous No.10796854]

>>10796216
(((modern))) education

[Anonymous No.10796856]

>>10796216
Philosophy isn't rigorous enough for modern science.

[Anonymous No.10796868]

>>10796832
Knew it. Politics.
I’ll happily concede that “political philosophy”, beliefs about how the state and society should be organized, remains very relevant, but we both know that’s not what I’m talking about.

[Anonymous No.10796891]

>>10796216
Before chips ware that efficient we programmed humans, now they are trash with high probability of solving certain puzzles with no real knowladge. Just autistic dudes with no power who served their job.

Welcom reality.

[Anonymous No.10796950]

>>10796637
this is pretty good.

my boss at my lasy job was iranian, and in iran you pick a specialty (trade, or field of study) at 14. he did math and auto mechanic (his dad made him do both). as a result he was extremely good at abstract reasoning and also knew how to fix and take apart everything. studying at the extremes enables you to figure out everything in the middle.

[Anonymous No.10796956]

>>10796259
Scientists don't care. Most modern scientists favor utilitarianism despite it bring a cringe meme ethic theory that even 13 year olds can refute.

[Anonymous No.10796985]

>>10796956
>Muh ethics theories

Retarded bullshit. I just do whatever I find emotionally most satisfying. That’s all “morality” is. Emotional pleasure.

[Anonymous No.10797144]

>>10796803
Charles Babbage, who created the first computer, was a philosopher. Not surprising considering computers are based on formal logic.

John Vincent Atanasoff, the creator of the first digital computer, graduated with a degree in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10797183]

>>10797144
>Charles Babbage, who created the first computer, was a philosopher. Not surprising considering computers are based on formal logic.

Pre 1900

>John Vincent Atanasoff, the creator of the first digital computer, graduated with a degree in philosophy.

You sure? All I can find is a degree in electrical engineering and another in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10797191]

>>10796216
>scientists are philosophically illiterate
but the axioms I assume are the correct axioms! Otherwise, I'm not a special snowflake, weh weh weh

[Anonymous No.10797250]

Because modern 'scientists' are fedora tipping pseudointellectual retards on ego trips

[Anonymous No.10797321]

>>10797250
Based retard BTFOs eight years of university

[Anonymous No.10797555]

>>10797183
>You sure? All I can find is a degree in electrical engineering and another in mathematics.
From Colgate College: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_Zja6hoP4psC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=John+Vincent+Atanasoff++Colgate+College&source=bl&ots=6mfJKwXzva&sig=ACfU3U3922AxIrXlXxIpcPRenAOhFIw7xg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiO0vrN_qvjAhXHfMAKHWWXDgo4ChDoATACegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=John%20Vincent%20Atanasoff%20%20Colgate%20College&f=false

Funny how they hide this in his wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.10797576]

>>10797555
Oh, good for him. Your point is? Having a degree in philosophy doesn’t mean it helped him make digital computers.

[Anonymous No.10797579]

>>10797576
>imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.10797585]

I want to learn something about philosophy, where do I start? Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.10797597]

>>10797585
The problem of starting with the Greeks is that in reality very few original fragments survive. Of Thales of Miletus nothing survives, nor of Pythagoras; of Anaximenes and Anaximander just a dozen fragments; of Heraclitus less than two hundred but so short that many are useless; Only from Parmenides we have something substantial, but maybe it is not even half of his poem. This means that when you immerse yourself in the pre-Socratics, you are hearing not the ancient philosophers but the modern interpreters of the ancient philosophers.

For Plato, I would recommend that you start with the Theaetetus, then The Sophist and then the Parmenides. All three are delightful (but the Parmenides is hellishly difficult). I chose the dialogues of old age because that is where you find the most round and coherent Plato; the dialogues of youth and maturity are more tentative and provisional. Aristotle is much heavier to read, but you can start with Nicomachean ethics (after reading Plato).

I would recommend that before Plato you read the two volumes of "The Pre-Socratic Philosophers" by Jonathan Barnes (or some other such compilation) because that will give you an overview of the philosophical problems that Plato faced when he wrote his dialogues, but it is not strictly necessary.

[Anonymous No.10797598]

>>10797579
Oh damn I’ve been BTFOd by the most articulate of argumentative strategies. The ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.10797646]

>>10796637
>>10796950

In general "science", as traditionally conceived, has largely become vestigial in the grander scheme of things. The biggest problems of our era; fusion power and dark matter production, are both theoretically confirmed but merely lack a suitable investment in experiments. There's not much to do here except refine designs, a process that would be much faster with any working experiment. But nobody wants to finance experiments that are going to be outdated within 4-5 years of construction. This only exception is nuclear weapons development, and this is a very recent trend. Biology is still held back due to justified limits on experimentation, but even then neuroscience has ruined a lot of traditional psychology and will ruin more as examination equipment gets better.

So what's left? For a "pure" scientist there's just being obsessed with progress, which is hardly limited to the sciences. There's not much to do unless the government wants to build a fusion reactor then multiple reactors for a dark energy experiment... but even then what? We discover gravitons and engineers have a field day making antigravity devices. There's plenty to be learned examining other planets, but it's not philosophy; it's just testing new data against an existing formula.

Thus it's the worst of both worlds: scientists are restricted to purely theoretical navalgazing, while investment in science becomes strictly experiments to prove existing data.

[Anonymous No.10797658]

>>10797646
>fusion power and dark matter production
Damn, you drink a lot of popsci. Ever though about hitting a real book anon?

[Anonymous No.10797662]

>Why has there been a rift between philosophy and science in recent times?
I have a theory, that it's Nixon's fault.
I'm not old enough to have 1st hand witnessed the Nixon era but I'll explain.

Some time before Nixon scientists were philosophers. But then the 60's came and you were either a dirty hippie or a hard edge man of the government. Anyone who thought of things too hard was seen as a hippie, and the government had no use for them. It created a deep sigma that if you wanted to be a scientist and you needed to not appear as a hippie and not be a philosopher.

We're scratching our heads now because the generation that was born and raised during that time are our current generation of scientists. The timing fits well I think.

[Anonymous No.10797669]

>>10797662
also, if you want an idea of how strong the stigma was, it's a little bit like Tumpers and never Trumpers. The country was just as divided back then as it is now, and it's was because of the president in power that caused this divide. The parallels are remarkable between then and now.

[Anonymous No.10797677]

>>10796216
agree, scientists should at least be taught some epistemology

[Anonymous No.10797814]

>>10797321
if it takes you 8 years to graduate you're pretty damn retarded
t. took me 7 years

[Anonymous No.10798041]

>>10797598
fag

[Anonymous No.10798057]

>>10798041
>fag
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10798081]

>>10796656
>useful

[Anonymous No.10798197]

science and philosophy show the same truths. they are embedded.
those who cant see it are sleeepy.

[Anonymous No.10798687]

>>10796803
This is the sort of illiteracy op is referring to.
Evidence and refutation, purpose of philosophy and value of human welfare all being to nonscientific branches of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10798710]

>>10797585
I don't understand why the Greeks are so popular. There's 3000 years of developments since. It's like trying to learn physics by reading Archimedes. I'd say pick a topic and whatever the Greeks said that is still relevant will come through.

[Anonymous No.10798736]

>>10798687
Nope, no philosophy to “valuing human welfare”.
Improving the wellbeing of sentient beings gives me emotional pleasure, generally speaking, so I do it. That’s all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.10799785]

>>10798736
Why ask the anon for examples of philosophy doing it then? May as well ask for philosophy that tastes like chocolate because you like that too.

[Anonymous No.10799805]

>>10796216
Because the wibwob snigglepeep flambs the vichnik walangzafreet.

Have no idea what the fuck I'm saying? Simple wibwobs are self-actualized anal dildos of the subconscious psyche and snigglepeeps wibwob the flamb of the soul, "vichniking" the aesthetics of natural walangzafreets which of course in aboriginal culture is the concept of futility in excellence.

Still don't understand?

2deep4u

[Sage No.10801016]

>>10797669
> it's was because of the president in power that caused this divide
Honestly, there have been very few times where the US WASN'T divided on some political or social issue. That's pretty much a constant throughout American history and it only bubbled up into actual violence twice: The Civil War and the 60s/70s. The only time America was actually united against something in living memory was WW2 and that was because the Japanese clear as fucking day attacked the US with no aggression on the US' part beforehand.

[Anonymous No.10801027]

Let the scientists make themselves look retarded. It's been clear for the past 2 decades that a shit ton of the scientists recieving grants to "study problems", which are usually the ones making those philosophical shit spews, don't want to fix the problem even if they found a way to, or else no more grant money.

[Sage No.10801029]

>>10798710

Because the history of philosophy is a series of responses to previous philosophical arguments. You can't understand Cartesian dualism unless you understand it was a response to Thomas Aquinas' psychology and you can't understand him without understanding his opposition to Averroism and the reintroduction of Aristotle to Christendom. People start with the Greeks pretty much because they form the first philosophical arguments (like Paramenides, Anaximander, Anaxagoras,Empedocles, etc.) and the first responses to them (Plato/Socrates, Aristotle, Zeno of Citium,etc.). It's like learning Classical mechanics before learning electrodynamics or thermodynamics or studying arithmetic before you do real analysis or algebra: It gives you a basis to see where all the arguments and all the assertions are coming from.

[Anonymous No.10801038]

>>10796216
What do you mean rift? They are two different fields to begin with. Only philosophy cucks are desperate to try and link the two because of science's success.

[Anonymous No.10801042]

>>10796216
Because the philosophy courses for non-philosophy majors are like
>dude, what if the entire universe is a complex hallucination made by you?
>dude, what if we assign dollar values for every action we do?
>dude, torturing a child can lead to a perfect society
>dude, read this philosophical perspective that I obviously hate so we can bash it together

It makes philosophy come across as pointles, ditzy, and not concerned with practical matters. That last point is damning for most scientists and engineers, and thus they're lead to believe that philosophy is pointless. However it's due to their courses being lackluster rather than an issue with philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.10801045]

>>10796216
any examples?

[Anonymous No.10801059]

>>10796832
So it's wrong for North Korea to have nukes, but USA can have enough nukes to destroy the entire world?
Fuckink yanquis
Also, USA create ISIS

[Anonymous No.10801069]

it's ok, maybe we will rediscover the ol' philosophy and brand it our own.

[Anonymous No.10801134]

>>10801016
You have to remember, hippies came right after the mccarthy era. They were basically viewed a communists and were all but outright accused of sedition. If you were a hippie you couldn't work for the government. If you couldn't work for the government you couldn't be a scientist.

Imagine being fired and blackballed cause you grew a beard.
Or had an independent philosophical thought that wasn't sanctioned by the church. You might say the 60/70s were a cold civil war. We're still feeling the effects, but much of us are too young to remember what were the cause of those effects. Hence OPs question, and the existence of this thread.

[Anonymous No.10801232]

>>10801045
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ