/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12716932]

Why does philosophy get so much shit from physics and math? Why is it considered lesser?

[Anonymous No.12716952]

>If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'
Mermin

[Anonymous No.12717019]

>>12716932
Because it has no method for determining whether theories are correct.

[Anonymous No.12717039]

>>12716932
modern philosophy is basically schizos pulling convoluted pataphysical theories straight out of their asses. and unlike math or physics, you cannot even use it to build stuff

[Anonymous No.12717051]

>>12717039
Any examples?

[Anonymous No.12717056]

>>12717051
>What is it Like to Be a Bat?
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf

[Anonymous No.12717447]

>>12716932
Mathematicians and physicists have made progress, philosophy hasn't.

[Anonymous No.12717462]

>>12717039
>>12717051

>>12717019
>And yet physicists use it extensively

[Anonymous No.12717553]

>>12717462
For every "bad" terminology that you point out in physics or math, I could easily find 10x that in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717572]

>>12717553
>I could easily find 10x that in philosophy
There is no "proper" or "accurate" way of learning how to die. Just as there is no way of explaining "how things exist" simply by counting/quantifying them.

[Anonymous No.12717580]

>>12716932
midwit over-specialization

[Anonymous No.12717597]

>>12717572
Lmao, how tf are you gonna use a strawman as someone who seems so interested in philosophy? Who tf mentioned dying? If you're so confident or care about it, maybe you should kys and find ouy? Post credentials w/ time stamp, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12717620]

>>12716932

/sci/ is full of midwits that cannot fully appreciate philosophy

[Anonymous No.12717651]

[Anonymous No.12717655]

>>12717620
Name me one philosopher in the 21st century that has made progress? I find a lot of christcucks use the term "midwit", you're not a christcuck, on a science board, are you anon?

[Anonymous No.12717684]

>>12717651
Instead of using pop-sci figures, how about you use actual people who have made progress in STEM? You do realise that people in STEM that have academic prestige despise those people, right? Like, I hope you realise the extent of progress that has been made compared to the 20th century and how it becomes more difficult and complex once you reach a certain stage?

[Anonymous No.12717691]

>>12717597
>Lmao, how tf are you gonna use a strawman as someone who seems so interested in philosophy? Who tf mentioned dying?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom and I will be the wisest in my life at my point of death (mental illness incurred along the way excluded). Ultimately everyone dies and is currently in the process of dying right now. They can learn how to live all they want, things ultimately change as age goes along. "Party, drugs, and staying up late" doesn't work well as a philosophy when you reach 65 and you inevitably have to wise up and accept that you are going to die at some point. "Do I have regrets?", "What more could I know?", "Is there a God/should I live by God word?" are all related to death because they are questions that only a mortal would ask themselves.
If one could live forever...and were never born then they wouldn't philosophize at all because they are "all knowing". They would see it all to know it all. Philosophy is for those who will die and won't get to see such wonders.

>If you're so confident or care about it, maybe you should kys and find ouy?
Everyone dies at some point, it would be unwise to hasten it for no reason. Also, yes that is a philosophy. The Japanese did it as a privilege.

[Anonymous No.12717724]

>>12717684
blah blah blah, the greatest minds of the 20th century knew their philosophy and metaphysics, now modern public science is dominated by retards. Name a single contemporary major breakthrough creating scientist who has openly commented on philosophical ideas in a manner that Einstein or Heinserberg did.

[Anonymous No.12717735]

>>12717056
This is a very good paper, this is not a good example of a flaw in the field of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717746]

>>12716932
philosophy was originally created to answer the fundemental questions of existence and nature, but those questions are fundementally scientific. In the beginning there was no difference between a philosopher and a scientist but today the only ones that even can begin to comtemplate or attempt to answer those original questions are physicists and mathematicians.

Philosophy at some point split and morphed away from it's original purpose and turned into psuedoscientific social science bullshit because the barrier to the original questions is extensive knowledge of science and mathematics which todays philosophers know nothing about. A modern philosopher can't even sit at the table in a discussion of the beginning of the universe.

"Philosophy" in it's modern form is obsolete and useless, get rid of it.

[Anonymous No.12717764]

>>12717651
when the left 4 talk about philosophy, they mean philosophy in it's original form which is apt because they would be the closest thing we have to actual modern philosophers. The right 4 are talking about the joke that is modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717768]

>>12717746
This entire post is completely wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of modern philosophy and philosophers.
For one, modern philosophers are usually very knowledgeable about mathematics and physics. So you're wrong right off the bat.

[Anonymous No.12717769]

>>12717764
You know nothing about modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717770]

>>12716932
Lmao, instead of arguing on /sci/, you should be a politician (that was a compliment if you couldn't tell). Once again, I didn't mention "wisdom", the scientific method is against it. If you were so clever and had an extensive range of philosophy, you could mention French Philosophers and theorists and go into detail as to why I was wrong, since they're so against wisdom and create their own semantics as to what we say is somehow is & isn't reality but assumed from history, but the combination of terms from various people/instutions. But you strike me as a rightoid. It's funny because you're asking the same questions that I ask myself every day when I wake up, but it isn't science, it's just juvenile thoughts. The point of this thread was why should philosophy have the same sincerity as math and physics, does this argument that we're having prove how pointless it is unless we put them to testable methods? We just end up speaking over each over and this convo shouldn't be on this board, especially science.

[Anonymous No.12717787]

>>12717746
>>12717764
>not seeing the obvious connection between science and philosophy and how syncretic mixing of the two is an ubermensch combo
Midwit, the 4 on the right are pants on head retarded and so are you

[Anonymous No.12717795]

My response
>>12717770
was meant for
>>12717691

[Anonymous No.12717796]

>>12717447
Scientific method and ethics were created by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.12717810]

>>12717796
Yeah, and it no longer is, which is the whole point of my fucking point, how bad is your reading comprehension?. Evolution was discovered by Darwin, do we use Darwin's work as a fucking bible?
How many people on this board are just /pol/ & /leftypol/?
Like Jesus Christ, do you think that Civil Engineers use Roman texts to acquire knowledge for bridges?

[Anonymous No.12717821]

>>12717810
>ARGHHHH HOW DARE YOU MENTION THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF MODERN SCIENCE, PLEASE LET ME HATE ON PHILOSOPHY FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT IM A RETARD
Fag

[Anonymous No.12717835]

>>12717821
I made a critique of your point, christcuck, refute the point. Anyone in the 21st century in math/physics doesn't need to have an understanding of the history of philosophy to progress in said field, why are you on this board?

[Anonymous No.12717845]

>>12717770
>you should be a politician (that was a compliment if you couldn't tell)
They made it so bad I can't tell if you're joking or not.

>Once again, I didn't mention "wisdom",
Well philosophy IS the love of wisdom and you are most wise when you die.

>If you were so clever and had an extensive range of philosophy, you could mention French Philosophers and theorists and go into detail as to why I was wrong,
>If you love philosophy you would be an absolute sophist.
Also how could you be "wrong"? All you did was ask me questions.

>It's funny because you're asking the same questions that I ask myself every day when I wake up, but it isn't science, it's just juvenile thoughts.
>Wisdom and seeking truth to things is juvenile

>The point of this thread was why should philosophy have the same sincerity as math and physics,

Philosophy, math and science are all different from another. Also asking a "why" question in the first place classifies a "philosophical" if you ask me so I guess it answers its own question.

>does this argument that we're having prove how pointless it is unless we put them to testable methods?
Why yes! That's why "science" exists. Now how are you going to "test" something when you have no clue what it is that your testing because you never bother to inquire about *said thing*. What is preventing you from doing nothing but "testing" shadows and then calling them "something real"? If it's semantics then it's not science or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717846]

>>12717835
>implying I’m the same poster you were responding to before
>implying either of us are Christians for some reason
>implying that blending of philosophical thought and history with modern scientific understanding isn’t an intellectual power combo
You’re seething for no good reason. Philosophy isn’t your enemy your stupid faggot. Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.12717848]

>>12717845
>>12717846
Like I've mentioned, name me ONE, ONE philosopher that has made progress? Honestly, the west deserves to have China take over.

[Anonymous No.12717855]

>>12717845
>>12717846

NAME A PHILOSOPHER THAT HAS MADE PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? DO YOU THINK THAT CHINA IS CONSULTING PHILOSOPHERS IF THEY SHOULD MAKE SUPER SOLDIERS, OR ARE THEY USING THEIR INTUITION, WHICH IS BIOLOGY?

[Anonymous No.12717868]

>>12717848
>Like I've mentioned, name me ONE, ONE philosopher that has made progress?
There are billions of people on the planet who live and die, each to their own accord. What is "progress" to you? As in "made a groupthink belief system that others follow"? If so then you have philosophy confused with "religion".

[Anonymous No.12717874]

>>12717848
>>12717855
>full seethe mode engaged
What’s wrong? Did Socrates ghost molest you or something last night? Classical philosophy paved the way for all scientific progress, that’s its grand achievement. Science as a process is entirely an empirical philosophical process. You’re a fag.

[Anonymous No.12717881]

I like philosophy a lot and at one point almost majored in an arts like a retard because I enjoyed it but the fact is that philosophy was solved a long time ago and after a certain point it becomes just schizobabble or midwit overanalyzing. Greeks were fine because its what philosophy is in its purest form and from it sprung mathematics and the sciences but as time went on it steadily became a study to talk about meaningless nonsense. It's why people who love reading it are seen as snobs and annoying autists since the beginning. Sciences have their issues too but at least its genuine study of the world and something comes from their autism, philosophy makes you annoying and depressed and Im glad I got out of it. If you dont believe me go on /lit/ for a while

[Anonymous No.12717882]

>>12717868
This is was happens when you start with the Greeks, you just use the Socratic method against anything you have no understanding of. when this time could have been spent learning math/physics, sad!

[Autolycus No.12717886]

>>12717655
Whitehead, Foucault, Deleuze..
>>12717735
Thank you, I was feeling dumb because I really liked it. I think the 'flaw in philosophy' being pointed out is that these are the very questions which philosophy asks. After reading 'What is it Like to Be a Bat?' one might hope to have a better answer than 'I don't know and I'm quite sure I never will.'

It's illuminating, but what has this wisdom brought me beyond a problem to love?

[Anonymous No.12717888]

>>12717874
And we've moved beyond that. NAME. ONE. PHILOSOPHER. OF. THE. 21ST. CENTURY.

[Anonymous No.12717892]

>>12717881
The only based reply in this thread.

[Anonymous No.12717897]

>>12717888
Nick Bostrom

[Anonymous No.12717904]

>>12717897
BTFO by /ourgirl/
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

[Anonymous No.12717906]

>>12717882
>This is was happens when you start with the Greeks, you just use the Socratic method against anything you have no understanding of.
This is what happens when you don't understand the difference between "what to think" vs "how to think".

>when this time could have been spent learning math
All "math" is is a language. How to describe in quantitative form. It can be learned as easy as any other language.

>physics
All "physics" is is a belief system that uses math to describe things that "theoretically could exist. Which is why when they try to explain how they work and how they exist it comes in the form of pants-on-head retarded, contradictory dualism to explain it.

[Anonymous No.12717907]

>>12717746
This, some early philosophers understood this and had love or at least an interest in mathematics, medicine, and anatomy. Like you said, they were just called philosophers because they had a love of all of this knowledge and put it together to come up with coherent answers to the world. I always beat myself up for being terrible at mathematics even if I was good at science, but as I got deeper into philosophy I noticed the basis it started with is completely gone

[Anonymous No.12717921]

>>12717904
Good job googling that up retard. Did you even read it? Even if we’re not in a simulation, that doesn’t mean the philosophical inquiry on the matter (which Bostrom is a leader in) is useless or irrelevant. Stop grasping at flaws to justify your anti-intellectual hatred for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12717925]

most people involved in the intellectual arts are not doing them out of curiosity or with the aim of discovery, they are doing them to gain status in society. industry wants people trained in STEM, and that is where the big paychecks are. the educational system adapts to this, making the STEM path the most rigorous and demanding in their curriculum so that only the most qualified and intelligent people get through.
people that graduate from a prestigious and selective STEM course have most likely done harder and more rigorous work than those that have a philosophy degree. most people have limited perspective and imagination and only see what is, not what is possible, therefore they see the elite students of the day gravitating towards this field, being handsomely rewarded for it, they begin to assume they are the smartest people on earth, how could it be any other way?
the opinions of man are fallible and capricious, but the truth is fundamental and eternal. the measurers and recorders of the world can think whatever they want of themselves, ultimately they are in the service of philosophers, working on answering questions posed to them by their betters.

[Anonymous No.12717928]

>>12717892
I only realized this because I was lucky and allowed myself to be fucking humbled, I only realized this recently too. Like that other anon said instead of mentally torturing myself over mindless questions I couldve learned something thats practical and can bring an actual skill to fruition. Ive changed and currently a dumbass pre-med but better than before. If anyone would get into philosophy I would only tell them to start with greeks, stay with the greeks, and then consider going past the greeks because if you're not careful you can seriously become the average /lit/ poster who's a depressed NEET or working a shit job

[Anonymous No.12717933]

>>12717921
Yeah which ISN'T science, and has no part in physics and math, which, was the original question, you fucking downs, the ONLY person that you managed to come up with was disapproved, just accept that you will serve burgers for the rest of your life. Yes, i'll have fry's with that

[Autolycus No.12718003]

>>12717886
Oh, 21st.. Uh. Zizek.. Baudrillard.. Yeah, aren't many contemporary figures who's work I find significant, and they really do reflect this bat-like nature. Useful for those who would find use in it, progresses schools of thought. But does it progress towards the general goods to which human reason tends? Not really.
>>12717882
They do progress my understanding of metaphysics, even my ways of understanding. But my purposes have always been solitary, ethical, and religious.

[Anonymous No.12718040]

>>12717933
Nothing was disproved! Simulation hypothesis is nothing but a hypothesis framed in a philosophical manner. Sabine was autistic on this one. Simulation hypothesis is a modern potential answer to the cosmological question of What is reality? Why is it here? Is there a ground floor(information/code)? Scientific processes can’t even answer these questions yet, and they thusly are kept in the realm of philosophy. This is a key relationship between science and philosophy, philosophy can ask questions that science can either answer or it can’t, and sometimes when it can’t it’s just an issue of current understanding and methodology. Teamed together they are a power duo. Philosophy should guide scientific endeavors, you high school faggot.

[Anonymous No.12718075]

>>12717735
In what way is this shit good ? It's pure trash that could be written by a middle schooler.

[Anonymous No.12718227]

>>12718040
Yeah, it. is. not. testable. Cba arguing with you religious faggots. Xi, if you're reading this, hurry up

[Anonymous No.12718246]

>>12718227
Just because it’s not testable now doesn’t mean in the future thanks to new breakthroughs and advancements in cosmology and methods that it won’t be. Philosophical inquiring like this should guide the path science takes. As Van Braun said, it’s a challenge for science to build itself up to the point where it can finally answer the big questions. You being a small minded faggot doesn’t mean or change anything.

[Anonymous No.12718249]

>>12717462
>>And yet physicists use it extensively
No.

[Anonymous No.12718254]

>>12717796
LOL no, philosophers merely tried and failed to describe both. They are both pre- existing phenomena. It's like saying physics created the world.

[Anonymous No.12718384]

>>12718249
My bad, I thought >>12717019 was referring to "math".

[Anonymous No.12718563]

>>12717796
>Scientific method
Did anyone really need the method to be codified?
It really just serves to restrict the scope of the questions asked to things that might be answerable (this serves to keep the meta-physicists and snake oil out).
The testing part is obvious and the rejecting part is obvious. People have been doing some form of this for as long as trade has existed in order to avoid getting scammed.
I do worry that the rejection part might be too stringent which results in the strangling of fruitful ideas in the crib before they reach functional potential.
In the space of all possible models of a phenomenon, the scientific method is like gradient ascent.
Most improvements in our predictive power are done by making a small modification to the currently best model.
The slightly improved model becomes the new high water mark that defines what a subsequent good/bad modification will be measured against.
Now suppose our gradient ascent has stranded us on a hill leading to a local (but not global) maximum.
To find a higher hill, one must necessarily travel down through a less optimal valley but our method would reject such a path since it will necessarily be less than our current best for a duration of time.
The only way to avoid the valley is to make the leap to another hill in one step which is highly unlikely and even more unlikely for anyone stuck in the publish-or-perish rat race. There are examples of leaps like this happening in mathematics (Wiles, Perelman) but they were notable for working in secret or outside academia.
I don't think there will be the equivalent in physics or other sciences because the cost is too prohibitive to do things alone or outside academia.
>Ethics
My dogs don't try to kill each other. They must be enlightened.

[Anonymous No.12719271]

>>12717768
>>12717769
seeth more metaphysical cuck retards. everything i said was correct. you could bulldoze the entire philosophy department and absolutely nobody would notice. the only true philosophers you will find in this day and age are in the physics and mathematics departments.

[Anonymous No.12719315]

Stemfags are retarded. Trust me they are way less intelligent than they think they are. I've seen more rigour and intellectual curiosity from philfags than from stembros.

t. stemfag

[Anonymous No.12719321]

>>12717848
Whitehead, now shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.12719332]

>>12719271
t. Illiterate cuck retard ignorant of transcendental and process philosophy

[Anonymous No.12719341]

Philosophy is a must when doing math or physics. Mathfags and physfags are masters/doctors of philophy here (or only candidates to natural sciences like imbesil me).

Nothing is less. When trying to battle to gain natures secrets, one needs to master all three.

>>12716952
>If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'

Ah my thoughts excatly. When teached about QM we rushed to the integrals. I know integral but the theoury parts was the problem. So many wild axioms, nothing solid.

[Anonymous No.12719355]

>>12717056
This is a good fucking question. Scientist have figured out all neurons and their connections of this specific worm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWorm

How our brains work? We dunno, but if we figure out this worm, we maybe later know our brains main() function.

[Anonymous No.12719410]

>>12717821
>AHHHHHH DON'T CALL ME A RETARD FOR BEING A RETARD LET ME GO OFF ON A TANGENT TO SOOTHE MY WOUNDED EGO
kys