/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11795215]

Why did physics go so wrong?

[Anonymous No.11795220]

>>11795215
all of the physicists I talk to are actively interested in philosophy. it's hard to be a renaissance man anymore though, and since each field is specializing and separating so much there's less discussion between them.
if you find any physicist now I'll guarantee you they've read at least a few phil texts, but probably from the greeks or like the renaissance

[Anonymous No.11795221]

>>11795215
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO MY BULLSHIT OPINIONS NOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.11795233]

>>11795220
>tfw you don't care about bullshit humanities because you're a chad engineer

[Anonymous No.11795275]

>>11795215
scientistic stem babies are insufferable
I mostly blame the new atheist movement for cultivating these insufferable philistine manchildren

[Anonymous No.11795287]

>>11795215
is the joke supposed to be that all 3 people on the left rejected physics because of autistic philosophical prejudices?

[Anonymous No.11795301]

>>11795215
It got so complicated no one understands it anymore. Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantum mechanics because 'god doesn't play dice'. He failed.

[Anonymous No.11795325]

I like Physics, History, and Philosophy.
I assumed that people here are doing the same.

Learning Physics or any field really, makes you humble because the questions never end and makes you wonder how the other people in different fields are coping with the sheer existential dread that comes with the realization of insignificance.

If you don't, I would assume that you are a that pretentious guy who craves attention and validation to hide his insecurity

[Anonymous No.11795334]

Because it became filled with middling intelligence bootlickers that actively filter out geniuses because of futuee job security.

The only geniuses that make it through re the ones that have been marketed as genius, because then its good PR.

In other words, if you have a PhD you're either a beta cuck or not super smart.

[Anonymous No.11795341]

>>11795275
This

[Anonymous No.11795381]

>>11795325
based

[Anonymous No.11795399]

>>11795301
Didn’t he mean that it (the Copenhagen interpretation) is incomplete? I think that’s very obviously true.

[Caddler Thundercock No.11795413]

>>11795233
No you don't
>t. chad EE engineer into rennaisance

[Anonymous No.11795555]

everyone is dumber today (thank you dumbening consumerism) so everything is dumber, including the smartest profession, physics

[Anonymous No.11795608]

>>11795555

>everyone is dumber today
>more and more people are maxing out IQ charts like Terrence Tao and Christopher Hirata

[Anonymous No.11795639]

>>11795334
deep fried cope

[Anonymous No.11795676]

>>11795215
Every serious STEM student should ave, at least, a remedial understanding of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.11795693]

>>11795215
To dislike philosophy is embarrassing and a sign of being a brainlet, but equating liberal arts with philosophy is a huge misrepresentation. Sure, philosophy falls under it but its a huge umbrella. I have no interest in trying to talk philosophy with a bunch of undergrad journalism majors.

[Anonymous No.11795700]

>>11795693
Physics, and any natural science, is a liberal art.

[Anonymous No.11795704]

>>11795676
>>>/lit/ and don’t come back

[Anonymous No.11797380]

>>11795676
>last three
kek, made me laugh

[Anonymous No.11797393]

>>11795676
>Every serious STEM student should ave, at least, a remedial understanding of Plato (and all the forms of Platonism over the centuries inluding Academic Skeptcism, Neoplatonism and Middle Platoinism), Aristotle, the Stoics, Thomas Aquinas, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein

FTFY

[Anonymous No.11797521]

>>11795676
You forgot Ayn Rand, bud, you're welcome!

[Anonymous No.11797538]

>>11795399
It’s not obviously true, there still aren’t experiments to constrain the interpretations of QM and many epistemic interpretations like Copenhagen are still taken seriously by many physicists

[Anonymous No.11797668]

>>11795676
>>11797393
Thank you both for the excellent lists!

>FTFY
The first list is great and so is yours, you just have different interests, it would be hypocritical to complain that physicists are not universal enough and then prune down a list of what they ought to study. To be fair, studying the first list would be a more difficult task to accomplish at the same time as becoming a physicist.

[Anonymous No.11797691]

>>11795700
Liberal arts courses, in modern times, are usually chosen by people who would rather avoid science. I have an extracurricular interest in philosophy but in school, it's a struggle to learn enough about the subjects directly relevant to my career goals. I'm in the science program, which is the only way to study advanced math and physics, but that means no computer science whatsoever, so I'm attempting to self teach. I'd have to self teach even more career relevant subjects if I'd chosen a program like social sciences or liberal arts.

[Anonymous No.11797694]

>>11795215
Liberal arts back then WAS worth learning about. Liberal arts now is a societal cancer.

[Anonymous No.11797845]

>>11797668
Yeah that's what I'm saying for the most part. The first list is too expansive and encompasses more than what's possible for someone in a STEM program. Sure a philosophy student can cover all those philosophers, but I know Hegel is basically impossible to read just due to the way he writes and a lot of the postmodern guys suffer from the same ailment. I'm not really shitting on the guy I was replying to, but you have to factor things like that into who and what you want to read philosophically.

[Anonymous No.11797854]

>>11795215
Nothing big is really happening in physics today because the math isn't there. Current mathematics is a shitshow.

[Anonymous No.11797862]

>>11795220
>a few phil texts, but probably from the greeks or like the renaissance
That's like saying you read physics when you read Galileo. If you read philosophy you can skip the modern political bullshit but you have to at least read someone later than Kant

[Anonymous No.11797874]

>>11797862
I'm just getting started with philosophy and Plato is actually pretty mind opening for me. I'm gonna read some Nietzsche too but I find it nice to have a bit of a foundation.

[Anonymous No.11797882]

>>11795676
Why? Sure, if you're so infatuated with being an intellectual, broadening your horizons by being well read in subjects like philosophy is part of that image. If you like jerking yourself off, that's good for you I guess. I'm not pursing math to appear smart, for "enlightenment", or for any other bullshit reason people might come up with. I'm pursuing it because it has all the attributes of things I consider fun. For perspective, I'm midway through my PhD

[Anonymous No.11797884]

>>11795676
Heidegger and Sartre are hopelessly opague. Have you actually tried to read what they wrote or have you read a copy of Being and Time for Dummies? If you want a wordy existentialist/phenomenologist philosopher go with Husserl or Merleau-Ponty instead.

[Anonymous No.11797894]

>>11797874
Nietzche is all bark and no bite. You need to read something on epistemology. That is the foundation of modern philosophy. If you want something old and relatively easy to read go with David Hume, in my opinion

[Anonymous No.11797924]

>>11797874
Plato and knowledge of the Bible are all you really need for Nietzsche, but I would also recommend Kierkegaard; he’s interesting in his own right and along with Nietzsche, could be considered a proto-existentialist.

[Anonymous No.11797966]

>>11797538
It obviously is, retard. COPEnhagen doesn’t even say what counts as an “observer”, and where this purported mysterious boundary between “microscopic” and “macroscopic” lies.

[Anonymous No.11797975]

>>11795676
>Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hobbes, Kant
Based
>Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11797978]

>>11797975
(except maybe Heidegger)

[Anonymous No.11797988]

>>11797393
OK Christard.

[Anonymous No.11798020]

>>11797988
Based, my euphoric friend!

[Anonymous No.11798088]

>>11797894
I'm interested in Nietzsche's work after learning what it's about, so I want to go further than just watching youtube videos. That said, I looked up epistemology, and if I understood correctly it's the study of knowledge? (vaguely speaking) That sounds like something I'd want to learn about. Who are some good epistemologists to start with?

[Anonymous No.11798125]

>>11797521
>You forgot Ayn Rand
this

[Anonymous No.11798129]

>>11798020
Are you quoting Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.11798163]

>>11795676
>understanding of Hegel
How?
>Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze
Pseuds.

But most importantly!
>No Schopenhauer
Opinion Descarted.

[Anonymous No.11798178]

>>11797882
You bragging here about your PhD disproves your statement.
Also, maybe you should try reading a good philosophical text (try Plato / Kant /Schopenhauer based on what era of philosophy seems best now) and you will either see how interesting it is or find out you are retarded, autistic or ignorant.

[Anonymous No.11798204]

>>11798020
>Phoneposter
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.11798210]

>>11795215
>Any foolish boy can stamp on a beetle, but all the professors in the world cannot make a beetle.

[Anonymous No.11798214]

>>11798210
>posting copinghaur
Stay incel

[Anonymous No.11798236]

>>11798214
Cope.
Schopenhauer is one of the greatest minds of all time and has only becoming increasingly relevant, not to mention he was very influential on many great scientific minds.

[Anonymous No.11798539]

>>11797966
>11797966
Based and redpilled. /sci/ needs to read about superdeterminism. There are local hidden variables theories that can explain the quantum world deterministically. Read Gerard T'Hooft. There is LITERALLY 0 need for Cuckenhagen interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.11798566]

>>11798178
How am I bragging? Anyone can get themselves into a PhD program, that's not something to brag about. That point was to provide context for my love of math. What point is that disproving anyway? That people with superiority complexes are full of shit? Either way, yes I find philosophy interesting, I never said to the contrary. Im a curious person so naturally I would. No, I haven't read that much of it because I have more interest in other things, outside of math too and only so much time.

[Anonymous No.11798583]

>>11795215
models
god damn models

[Anonymous No.11798658]

>>11795220
>separating so much there's less discussion between them.
this sounds to me like a bad thing

[Anonymous No.11798665]

>>11795325
i like you. knowledge is becoming more like an onion with infinite layers.

[Anonymous No.11798674]

>>11798088
the foundation of science is ontology and epistemology.

[Anonymous No.11798986]

>>11795676
> Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Derrida
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

>Wittgenstein
acceptable, and depending on what are your research fields, you may be encouraged to check him out.

> Deleuze

eeeeh. I suppose, barely

[Anonymous No.11799047]

>>11798566
>No, I haven't read that much of it because I have more interest in other things, outside of math too and only so much time.
Why not just read 30 pages for an hour each day?

[Anonymous No.11799058]

>>11795215
Since a lot of people here are obsessed with IQ score, I implore you to do a quick google search on average iq by college majors. Maybe then you guys will start respecting philosophy (and maybe economics). The rest of the liberal art subjects are still a joke though

[Anonymous No.11799064]

>>11799058
There's literally only 1 mention of IQ in this thread.
/sci/ itself holds very little concern over IQ threads

[Anonymous No.11799099]

>>11799058
>taking IQ seriously

[Anonymous No.11799118]

>>11799047
Because in practice I won't do that. I have the collection of 5 or 6 things I'm willing to do at least every other day. No matter how sincere my efforts, I just wont do more than that. Also, theres only so much reading I can take. Outside of reading papers (which i dont do enough of), I like reading fiction and have a never ending list of things I want to read. That is more important to me than reading up on philosophy. But even then, I cant just read all day, i need to exercise my creativity (like writing short stories (I make no claim theres any value to my stories, I'm probably a shit writer)) and do something which requires skill testing (like video games).

[Anonymous No.11799260]

>>11799058
Disliking philosophy is one of the biggest red flags for an absolute brainlet. It's something you'd expect to hear from a stereotypical reddit STEMlord.

[Anonymous No.11799278]

>>11797521
>>11798125
Absolutely not.

[Anonymous No.11799289]

the defining feature of milleniials/zoomers is to give up
success is characterized as "those who don't give up"
the future will be painted with those few who do not give up
not giving up must be applied to the seemingly intractable problem of "how do we get out of the universe"

[Anonymous No.11799296]

>>11797862

You don't have to read Kant. Just because someone is modern does not mean that they are more relevant. Plato heavily influenced the fields of Maths and Physics. Kant is primarily an ethicist and isn't of a concern.

[Anonymous No.11799300]

>>11799296
Kant is most definitely not primarily an ethicist. While he wrote about it he is best known and most influential for his epistemology. And I said "later than" Kant.

[Anonymous No.11799304]

I'll just leave this here.

[Anonymous No.11799308]

>>11799304
Without a philosophy you are just a robot for others to manipulate.

[Anonymous No.11799330]

>>11797975
your forgetting someone

[Anonymous No.11799335]

>>11799308
Philosophies are like assholes, everyone has them but no one wants to see them.

[Anonymous No.11799339]

>>11799335
Philosophies are like assholes, in that, if you don't assert them, you will get fucked in them by someone else's.

[Anonymous No.11799342]

>>11799335
Based.

[Anonymous No.11799353]

People like Einstein were pretty shitty Philosophers as anyone would be outside their field. Philosophy doesn’t seem that useful. Definitely for the vast majority of researchers and other people. Maybe logic aspects of it of course can be useful but vast majority of it is pretty useless.

[Anonymous No.11799354]

>>11799342
even though it may be unpleasant, philosophy is unavoidable
i think that's what he was trying to say

[Anonymous No.11799358]

>>11799353
Philosophy may not be "useful" but we are stuck with it if we want to question anything outside of what we already know. Only retarded children think philosophy is "useless". It is the only path for science to progress beyond stamp-collecting.

[Anonymous No.11799369]

>>11799354
Depends on what you mean by 'unpleasant'. Aside from mathematics, I find philosophy the most interesting field to study. Out of all the degrees that I see STEM people shit on, I'll never understand why philosophy seems to get so much ire. Philosophy is almost inseparable from these fields.

[Anonymous No.11799370]

>>11799358
yes. philosophy can be useful and and be useless. for example a big part of current philosophy is ethic based shit. ethic based shit isnt really useful. logic aspects of philosophy can be. honestly only a really small portion of philosophy is actually "useful".

[Anonymous No.11799372]

>>11799358
>Philosophy may not be "useful"
>Only retarded children think philosophy is "useless"
hmmmm

[Anonymous No.11799373]

>>11799369
>I'll never understand why philosophy seems to get so much ire. Philosophy is almost inseparable from these fields.
you answered your own question. philosocucks try to make a whole degree out of doing something that every respectable degree already has as a side feature. it’s like if someone spent their whole life studying arithmetic

[Anonymous No.11799376]

>>11799369
i just feel that most of the people who study stem are neutered idiot savants who abhor adventure and therefore hate philosophy. all they want to do is regurgitate memorized factoids and cannot think for themselves whatsoever. this is why philosophy is so abhorrent to them.

[Anonymous No.11799377]

>>11798539
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11799383]

>>11797884
filtered

[Anonymous No.11799389]

>>11799376
Obviously anecdotal, but I feel like this is mostly found in the E part of STEM. I often see engineers described as 'the dumbest smart people you'll ever meet' and I'm inclined to agree. I'm not saying everyone needs to have a love for philosophy, but writing it off as a waste of time seems incredibly ignorant to me, when some of the most brilliant minds of the past hundred or so years have been philosophers whose ideas have definitely had an impact on the world.

[Anonymous No.11799478]

>>11795608
and what have they done ??

[Anonymous No.11799671]

>>11799353
Philosophy is the only way to create useful science for humanity, if you don't study philosophy, how is it that any scientific discovery you make could also be useful? The act of farting is in many ways scientific, it doesn't contribute anything to humanity though. There are an infinite number of useless scientific facts, every blunder in chess is scientific, but very few moves are 'good' or 'smart'. If your every scientific discovery is useless but perfectly 'sciency', what's the point?

[Anonymous No.11799977]

>>11799370
>ethic based shit isnt really useful
Bruh, they literally canned an experiment on organ pigs because they realized that the tech would cause wide spread doubts over how we define a human

Long story short:
>STEM experiments wanted to grow pigs whose organs have human DNA and can be transferred to a patient
Results were expected to cost just 1/3 of donor organs
Shit was canned because
>what if it grew with a human brain?
>what if it grew 51% human organs?
>is it still just a pig?

[Anonymous No.11799993]

>>11799300
>Expecting a philosophylet to be able to read

[Anonymous No.11800010]

>>11799977
>philosocucks fucked over scientific progress in the name of their autistic thought experiments
so what you’re saying is ethics shit is less than useless

[Anonymous No.11800015]

>>11800010
Philosophers have saved science.

[Anonymous No.11800018]

>>11800015
name one time

[Anonymous No.11800024]

>>11800018
Wittgenstein's logical positivism.

[Anonymous No.11800029]

>>11800024
lol no

[Anonymous No.11800032]

>>11800029
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11800033]

>>11800032
nope

[Anonymous No.11800043]

>>11800010
Ahh, yes.
I'm sure that pursuing that experiment would not result into major cultural upheaval and revisions in the constitutions of the entire world over what is a man

You saw in history how easy it is for us to dehumanize our enemies.
But in this case, we are not just domesticating animals, we are literally making a race of subhumans for our own benefit.

But since you are a brainlet, let me summarize it all in 1 single word
[math]Orks[/math]

[Anonymous No.11800045]

>>11800018
The whole reason we have natural science in the first place is due to the Pre-Socratics questioning what the fundamental principle of the world is. Aristotle had a rudimentary empirical system of learning about the world and came up with biological studies that are still true to this day like the relation between the time between gestation and the mass of a mammal (although a lot of his theories are bunk) and Roger Bacon further formalized the scientific method into what we have today. In terms of mathematics, Godel BTFO'd both Bertrand Russel and Hilbert while other logicians like Alonzo Church and Turing paved the way for the modern computer and computer science as a whole. Face it, philosophy is the reason we even have science as a discipline in the first place instead of Greek myths where Zeus is cucking all of humanity to death is the reason why we have thunderstorms or something like that.

[Anonymous No.11800061]

>>11800043
>nooooo you can't just do science that hurts my heckin feelings!!!
it was a cultural upheaval when it turned out geocentrism was wrong too retard, you're just a fag
>>11800045
yeah science used to be philosophy back before we took all the retarded parts out, i knew that already

[Anonymous No.11800065]

>>11800045
Godel was a mathematician not a philosopher and Russel was a philosopher not a mathematician. You have it backwards.

[Anonymous No.11800074]

>>11797862
Why would recency matter at all?

[Anonymous No.11800076]

>>11800061
Tell me, do you understand why we gave rights to animals?
Why we have laws in war?
Why we are protecting the environment?

Ethics is a guideline that keeps our civilization progressing without losing our humanity.
A society that lost its soul would fall to decadence and eventually eat itself.

But I guess you are too stupid to even understand the essentials of life

[Anonymous No.11800083]

>>11800076
>nooooooooo my heckin humaniterinoooooooooo
listen retard you're literally just a sensitive crybaby faggot who wants science to stop because its potential results make you uncomfortable about your place in the world, so selfish that you'd prefer people live in squalor if it means your feefees get protected. you're the lowest, most contemptible kind of person that exists

[Anonymous No.11800084]

>>11800074
What a strange question. Do you think philosophy hasn't developed since the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.11800091]

>>11800084
Name one development.

[Anonymous No.11800095]

>>11800083
Watch your mouth.
I'm neither the ones who did the experiment nor the one who cancelled it

I'm just glad that the reigns of society falls at the hands of good people

[Anonymous No.11800098]

>>11795676
Better take
Every scientist should be educated in historiography and intellectual history

[Anonymous No.11800105]

>>11800095
>I'm neither the ones who did the experiment nor the one who cancelled it
indeed, you're too weak to do even that, but you're glad it happened. i'm 100% sure there were people like you 500 years ago too
>noooooooo we can't let them know that the earth isn't the center of the universe!!! civilization will collapse!! we'll lose our humanity!!!!!!!
back then cooler heads prevailed, but maybe times are changing

[Anonymous No.11800106]

>>11798566
>Either way, yes I find philosophy interesting, I never said to the contrary.
I understood that you think that people interested in philosophy only do it to seem smart. What I replied is that some people read philosophers to make sense of their lives without ever bragging about it.
If you find it interesting, you probably shouldn't have bashed it that way.

[Anonymous No.11800108]

>>11800091
The whole idea of skepticism which began with Descartes is the foundation of philosophy and there is nothing like that in the Greeks. Kant was more sophisticated than Descartes and later philosophers like Husserl were more sophisticated than Kant. To explain exactly why would take a long time for me to explain. But suffice it to say that the later philosophers read and understood the earlier philosophers

[Anonymous No.11800115]

>>11800105
We are not changing 10,000 years worth of ideas just because it hurts your feelings

Cry us a river, brainlet

[Anonymous No.11800117]

>>11800108
>Skepticism
>began with Descartes
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11800118]

>>11800117
Enlighten me

[Anonymous No.11800119]

>>11800115
>we
you have no power over anything as you've already admitted. if the US won't do it, china will, it's just a matter of who has the balls.

[Anonymous No.11800123]

>>11800118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

[Anonymous No.11800133]

>>11795215
modern philosophy is infected with the same disease as all the liberal arts: postmodernism. modern philosophers are typically highly uneducated about other fields. philosophy of science is written by people who are woefully unqualified.
>>11799304
krauss is right. the others are idiots.

[Anonymous No.11800141]

>>11795215
To even understand any tiny slice of modern physics you need years and years of research. The average Bachelor student can understand any pre-1950s physics concept within a semester of learning.

The low hanging fruit are fucking taken.

[Anonymous No.11800147]

>>11800123
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt

This is what I am talking about if you want to be pedantic about terminology

[Anonymous No.11800158]

>>11800119
Balls to commit social and moral breakdown?

Oh wait, it IS happening in China hence why it's a dystopia

[Anonymous No.11800165]

>>11800141
The average Bachelor student can understand any pre-1950s physics concept within a semester of learning
that's really not true

[Anonymous No.11800168]

>>11800118
There's the Academic Skeptics (of which Cicero was one) and the Pyhrronists for one.

[Anonymous No.11800226]

>>11800158
>nooooooooo not the heckin moral breakdownerinoooooooooooooo
philosocuck seething that he can't turn the chinese into scared luddite cattle. your feelings will never be as safe as you'd like

[Anonymous No.11800252]

>>11800226
You have recieved +5 in your social credit score
We thank you for continued servitude to the Chinese Communist Party

[Anonymous No.11800262]

>>11800252
learn to read you 90 IQ mongoloid, i'm not shilling for china (it's a shithole) i'm giving them as an example of people resistant to the philosocuck mind virus trying to destroy science

[Anonymous No.11800276]

>>11800262
And you are correct.
China is the finest example of what happens to a society that abandoned ethics and morals for the sake of progress

Maybe point out North Korea too?
Those Chads have camps of people ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of science. With a little persuasion of course

[Anonymous No.11800308]

>>11800276
>China is bad because they do science there
lmao cope

[Anonymous No.11800312]

>>11800308
They are an inspiration to us all
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China

[Anonymous No.11800333]

>>11795233
I'm an engineer and I love humanities. You're just an uncultured faggot.

[Anonymous No.11800400]

>>11800312
i too justify my hatred of countries i arbitrarily hate by citing literal cults

[Anonymous No.11800423]

>>11795413
based fellow EE chad

[Anonymous No.11800426]

>>11800133
>krauss is right
At prestigious universities, those who research philosophy of science tend to be math/science phds, so saying that only philosophers of science read philosophy of science texts makes little sense, as there is a huge overlap with 'real scientists'.
Also, research not being used isn't a problem in philosophy as a field only. Let's be honest, PhDs all around the world are shitting loads of research that is never read after being published. You could delegitimize physics, mathematics or any other field the same way really.
I don't think what Krauss says has much value.

[Anonymous No.11800481]

>>11800400
>i-it was not the CCP. I-it's a cult.
heh
Shouldn't you be proud that there is a country that does not pussy around ethical bs and just straight up harvest the organs of inconvenient people?

Finally getting a clue, huh

[Anonymous No.11800556]

I'm gonna inprison all of you inside of a cave

[Anonymous No.11800570]

>>11800556
So we can see the imperfect projections of the forms?

[Anonymous No.11800898]

>>11797975
I think it's good to have a working knoweldge of both the based and cringe philosophers.
Know your enemy, etc.

[Anonymous No.11800929]

I fucking love science.

[Anonymous No.11801214]

>>11800481
>i-it was not the CCP. I-it's a cult.
Yes.
>waaaaaaah if you do science it’ll lead inevitably to organ harvesting
Cope.

[Anonymous No.11801660]

>>11801214
Ctrl+F on the page
Cult
0 results

lul

[Anonymous No.11801674]

>>11801660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
literally 90 IQ lol

[Anonymous No.11801679]

>>11801674
They are the VICTIMS. You idiot

[Anonymous No.11801684]

>>11801679
5 points have been deposited in your social credit account

[Anonymous No.11801695]

>>11801684
You're the one defending China
Got told of their crimes against humanity
And now you're in denial

Get out

[El Arcón No.11801697]

>Why did physics go so wrong?
They started thinking too much about matrix algebra and not enough about ontological realism.

[Anonymous No.11801714]

>>11801684
Are you a literal retard?

[Anonymous No.11801823]

>>11800061
Name those "retarded parts"

[Anonymous No.11801831]

>>11799278
t. pantifa basedcuck

[Anonymous No.11802087]

>>11795233

All the sciences and engineering are made FOR humans and BY humans. Not understanding humans while attempting to do this would be stupid, to say the least.

[Anonymous No.11802243]

>>11795215
Physics was a rather understandable field around a hundred years ago, then discoveries pushed it into an area where understanding is a lot harder to come by.

[Anonymous No.11802246]

>>11795233
Get back to pulling wires in my basement Miguel, or I'm deducting it from your pay.

[Anonymous No.11802352]

>>11795676
>Sartre, Camus,, Derrida, and Deleuze.
No

[Anonymous No.11802355]

>>11800098
At least.

[Anonymous No.11802380]

>>11799335
That's why you should be the philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11802402]

>>11801684
lmao on the state of philosohaters

[Anonymous No.11802436]

>>11802243
> (((discoveries)))
the word you're looking for is jews-coveries.
(discoveries make it more clear, not more obscure)

[Anonymous No.11802469]

>>11801697
Ontological realism has been falsified

[Anonymous No.11802478]

>>11795676
>A true scientist should have consoomed this media.
Yeah how about no

[Anonymous No.11803717]

>>11799330
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11803723]

>>11797862
So, Hegel and Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.11803731]

>>11795676
How in the fuck could you leave Hume out of this list?

[Anonymous No.11803741]

>>11801697
linear algebra is sublime truth

literally all of the results are rigorously provable and that's the fucking point, Tooker you brainlet

[Anonymous No.11803777]

>>11803723
From what I've read about him Hegel isn't my taste really. I've never actually read him though.

But yeah those are the kind of philosophers I meant by later than Kant. Kierkegaard > Nietzsche in my opinion for what it's worth

>>11803731
Hume > Hegel and Nietzsche in my opinion

[Anonymous No.11803899]

>>11795215
so you fucked up /lit/ and now you're trying to fuck up /sci/
they made a containment board for you navel gazing mouthbreathers, so fuck off to it
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.11803957]

Well I disagree that we've gone wrong, but the highly focused specialization of modern physicists can be explained:

1.) All the ez shit is done.

2.) Human lifespan has not greatly increased.

[Anonymous No.11803989]

>>11795233
Cringe

t. engineer

[Anonymous No.11804018]

>>11797380
100% based

[Anonymous No.11804104]

>>11795233
Hurrr durrrr I use ruler

[Anonymous No.11804159]

>>11800165
You might be right. Let me amend the statement.

The average Bachelor mathematics student can understand any pre-1950s physics concept within a semester of learning.

[Anonymous No.11804268]

>>11802087
Imagine thinking schools need to teach you about people. No you learn that by having friends and going outside and having sex. You're not a virgin, right? (Tip: you still are if you lost it past 20)

[Anonymous No.11804496]

.

[Anonymous No.11804512]

>The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.

>So long as we represent technology as an instrument, we remain held fast in the will to master it.

>The question concerning technology is the question concerning the constellation in which revealing and concealing, in which the coming to presence of truth, comes to pass.

[Anonymous No.11804999]

>>11803957
This isn't about specialization, it's about looking for insight as physics has always done. Specialization is just a cope for small-minded people.

[Anonymous No.11806977]

>>11795215
Because it got out of touch with reality.

[Anonymous No.11806984]

>>11804512
i don't get it

[Anonymous No.11807047]

>>11806984
He's saying that the increased focus on technology is bringing about our decline by narrowly constricting how we experience things because we increasingly view every through the lens of technology. Heidegger argued that the best way to embrace technology was to openly acknowledge the dangers that it would bring to us.

He was basically a more salient Kaczynski. The Question Concerning Technology contains most of his thoughts on the matter.

[Anonymous No.11807069]

>>11807047
sounds lame

[Anonymous No.11807072]

>>11807069
How so?

[Anonymous No.11807383]

>>11795676
>all white people

[Anonymous No.11807388]

>>11795215
literally me on the right

[Anonymous No.11807404]

>>11795676
None of these will help you with modern physics research. This board is so fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.11807415]

>>11807383

[Anonymous No.11807419]

stem sciences requires a bunch of low to middling level grunts to do their grinding and keep their heads down.

[Anonymous No.11807424]

>>11807383
hello chang

[Anonymous No.11807442]

>>11795334
Sure, man, sure. Define 'genius'

[Anonymous No.11807453]

>>11799478
you wouldn't understand

[Anonymous No.11808202]

>>11807442
Leibniz

[Anonymous No.11808235]

>>11795676
unequivocally based

[Anonymous No.11808240]

>>11808235
Based and Foucaultpilled.

[Anonymous No.11808241]

>>11800010
There is no such thing as "scientific progress"

[Anonymous No.11808245]

>>11800061
You sound like an engineer. Gross

[Anonymous No.11808262]

>>11800262
You literally have no ability to argue well.
Probably because you don't read philosophy lmfao.
Neck yourself, pseud.

[Anonymous No.11808267]

>>11795233
Why do you need to emotionally care? You end up building useful things for them anyway.

A normal person can do both though.

[Anonymous No.11808268]

>>11808235
'cause bald
there's some something on baldness

[Anonymous No.11808271]

>>11795215
Science is full of dorks who think they are clever because science has a culture of looking smart.

It really comes down to observation and experimental discovery.

Not everyone needs to or can be assed doing that.

So scientists are essentially boring bastards that to make up for being a boring bastard happen to find something useful once in a while.

[Anonymous No.11808298]

He's right, you know.

[Anonymous No.11808495]

>>11802087
Imagine thinking a university professor can teach you anything about the lives of common people.

[Anonymous No.11808500]

>>11808262
>>>/lit
>>11808241
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11808510]

>>11795676
>Sartre, Camus, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze.
No.

[Anonymous No.11808513]

>>11808495
I don't have to imagine because that's exactly what they do.

[Anonymous No.11808517]

>>11808513
So far up their ivory towers, the common people look like ants. No man with tenure can ever hope to relate to somebody struggling to find work just to survive.

[Anonymous No.11808519]

>>11808500
/lit/ and /sci/ are the highest IQ boards. Anyone who doesn't browse both is only doing themselves an active disservice.

[Anonymous No.11808533]

>>11808519
>/lit/ and /sci/ are the highest IQ boards.
possibly true
>Anyone who doesn't browse both is only doing themselves an active disservice.
definitely false

[Anonymous No.11808549]

>>11808517
Are you implying no professor ever had to struggle to find work?

[Anonymous No.11808557]

>>11808549
They've lost touch with whatever struggles they may have had; their experiences as a college professor disqualify them from being able to relate to people who've never had the same kind of opportunities.

You cannot learn everything there is to learn in school. I know this is /sci/, but you should grow up.

[Anonymous No.11809882]

>>11795215
Ay lads,

I'm a classics major and I've come for a question for all of you. What scientific subjects would suit me best for not only research, but for teaching those in the 21st century. I'd like to broaden my horizons and ensure that I'm well rounded in all subjects, not just linguistics, philosophy and history.
But, I often think to myself that dedicating my entire life to all the scientific subjects would be far too difficult considering I'm still learning every day within humanities.

[Anonymous No.11810054]

>>11795287
no.

[Anonymous No.11810058]

>>11797380
why would it make you laugh

[Anonymous No.11810096]

>>11810054
i don’t get it then

[Anonymous No.11810102]

>>11810096
That's because you're the exact type of redditor the image is making fun of.

[Anonymous No.11810692]

>>11795676
>>11808235
>>11808240
Foucault is a real nigga. Time to deconstruct.

[Anonymous No.11811296]

>>11810692
Kek
Never realized how much Strong looks like Foucault.