/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11221414]

is this accurate?

[Anonymous No.11221416]

>>11221414
yes

[Anonymous No.11221492]

Math and Philosophy's foundations are equally grounded. From them, science became what it is.

[Anonymous No.11221522]

No, it's a one of the biggest fallacies philtards keep spouting. The word "philosophy" historicaly was used as an umbrella term for what was deemed in some sense as academic topics. Basically to become (taking some liberties with the actual meaning during different periods) an "academic" you were required to become proficient in a number of topics that are nowdays considered fields of their own. Now some of these fields, for some reason, were identified as what we know call "philosophy" I believe about the time the scientific revolution happened. This fields obviously are related to the other fields in really important ways, but they arw not in any sense a direct product of these.

[Anonymous No.11221524]

No. Stop watching cartoons and stop building heroes out of poetical and otherwise fictional characters.

[El Arcón No.11221530]

>is this accurate?
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.11221544]

>>11221522
Why do you ignore the evidence of Plato, Socrates, et al.

[Anonymous No.11221555]

SEETHING

[Anonymous No.11221571]

>>11221544
What evidence?

[Anonymous No.11221574]

>>11221571
That they existed and did philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11221619]

>>11221574
I don't want to be smug because I know my writing skills are pretty shit, but I have no fucking clue how you got that from my post. My point was that the term has changed it's meaning, not that they never did "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.11221664]

>>11221414
Yes. Philosophy ultimately contributes very little to our knowledge today or to human wellbeing.

[Anonymous No.11221692]

>>11221664
>human wellbeing
It provides explanations for the meaning of life and it provides solutions to moral problems

[Anonymous No.11221698]

>>11221692
>It provides explanations for the meaning of life

No, it doesn’t. Life doesn’t have a meaning.

>and it provides solutions to moral problems

Doesn’t do that either. Moral problems are solved by emotional intuition, which is primal and has nothing to do with philosophy. Moral truths aren’t real.

[Anonymous No.11221765]

>>11221414
Yea

[Anonymous No.11221770]

>>11221698
Both your two assertions are philosophical positions that are not ontologically more valid than their inverses
The statement "life doesn't have a meaning" is not true
The statement "moral truths aren't real" is also not true.

[Anonymous No.11221774]

>>11221414
No

[Anonymous No.11221783]

>>11221414
NO.

[Anonymous No.11221836]

>>11221770
>Both your two assertions are philosophical positions that are not ontologically more valid than their inverses

Wrong.

> The statement "life doesn't have a meaning" is not true

It is.

> The statement "moral truths aren't real" is also not true.

It is. David Hume disproved them.

[Anonymous No.11222512]

>>11221524
>Stop watching cartoons
It's a metaphor. The medium used is not relevant.

[Anonymous No.11222520]

>>11221783
How the fuck is physics applied math lmao? You cannot construct physics like you do math, you have a bunch of other constraints, and presuppositions. Even the most fundamental bit of math, provable statements are true, is not true in physics.

They use math, but the subject isn't math. It can't be reduced to just "the math" of it.

[Anonymous No.11222536]

>>11222520
>expecting biologists to understand the nuance between physics and maths

[Anonymous No.11222694]

>>11221414

I literally tear'd a bit at seeing this.