/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12733609]

Have philosophers ever solved a single problem with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12733616]

Who cares

[Anonymous No.12733622]

>>12733609
Philosophy is not really a something. Is a how, a way of thinking, a commitment. Seeking conclusive answers is not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12733628]

>>12733609

no. Despite being praised all of the time, art and philosophy don't solve anything

[Anonymous No.12733632]

That is not what philosophy is for.

Philosophy is for discovering new grounds in conceptual thinking, and philosophy has been successful in those fronts that lead to benefiting humanity too.

Science is purely about physics and maths which are not everything in the universe. It is a limited study.

It cannot solve everything, only tell you what your water is made out of (for example tiny triangles with two electromagnetic poles).

[Anonymous No.12733670]

>>12733632
have they broken any new ground in the past 1000 years?

[Anonymous No.12733679]

>>12733670
Yeah, philosophy is all about creativity and questions.
>What if we are all being watched?
They were right about that.

[Anonymous No.12733680]

>>12733628
They are not meant to solve anything. Art and philosophy are the true manifeston of the human spirit

[Anonymous No.12733681]

>>12733609
Yeah they invented science and math and inspired countless constitutions.

[Anonymous No.12733684]

>>12733609
cogito ergo sum was a big breakthrough. But for the most part, philosophy makes little progress

[Anonymous No.12733697]

>>12733684
>cogito ergo sum

literally means nothing.

t. daniel dennett

[Anonymous No.12733726]

>>12733684
That wasn't even a breakthrough, it was an embarrassing failure. I echo the refute that Kierkegaard gave:
>I think, therefore I am
This is a fundamentally flawed statement.
>X exists
>I am that X
>X, which me, thinks
>therefore, I exist
The error comes from using 2 (I exist) to justify 4 (I exist). It's logical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12733736]

>>12733609
>what is economic and political philosophy
>what is labor theory

[Anonymous No.12733772]

>>12733609
>Cogito ergo sum
He literally proved that I exist before I was even born.
When was the last time a mere (emphasis on mere) mathematician did that?

[Anonymous No.12733775]

>>12733736
>what is labour theory
Commie cope that makes zero sense if you think about it for just a second.

[Anonymous No.12733795]

>>12733609
"John Locke, an 18th-century philosopher, speculated that if a blind person developed vision, he would not at first connect his idea of a shape with the sight of a shape. That is, if asked which was the cube and which was the sphere, he would not be able to do so, or even guess."

In recent years it has been possible to make people born blind see and of course they tested this argument too and confirmed it.

[Anonymous No.12733801]

>>12733609
>Natural Philosophers
>PhD i.e Doctor of Philosophy

Nope.

[Anonymous No.12733813]

>>12733697
>Daniel Dennett
>i.e. Retarded pseud who larps being a philosopher.
>>12733726
Failed disproof. What are you trying to show exactly? That it's a tautology?
It seems like a tautology because it rests on an axiom, namely that "I" am thinking, I have "thought", there is "thought" or experience.
Existence is only understood through experience and cognition, without cognition, no existence can be known. Descartes' proof is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.12733819]

>>12733795
Based, an actual example.
I'll have to check this though, do you have a link?
Not doubting, you're probably right.

[Anonymous No.12733822]

>>12733775
It's actually really helpful if you run a business.

[Anonymous No.12733831]

>>12733813
All Descartes proved was that cogitation leads to experience, or that thinking exists. He failed to prove that an agent is doing the thinking. He axiomatically assumed he existed, and then concluded he exists.

[Anonymous No.12733843]

>>12733609
that nothing matters, thats pretty much it

[Anonymous No.12733865]

>>12733819
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

>In 2003, Pawan Sinha, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, set up a program in the framework of the Project Prakash[8] and eventually had the opportunity to find five individuals who satisfied the requirements for an experiment aimed at answering Molyneux's question experimentally. Prior to treatment, the subjects (aged 8 to 17) were only able to discriminate between light and dark, with two of them also being able to determine the direction of a bright light. The surgical treatments took place between 2007 and 2010, and quickly brought the relevant subject from total congenital blindness to fully seeing. A carefully designed test was submitted to each subject within the next 48 hours. Based on its result, the experimenters concluded that the answer to Molyneux's problem is, in short, "no". Although after restoration of sight, the subjects could distinguish between objects visually almost as effectively as they would do by touch alone, they were unable to form the connection between an object perceived using the two different senses. The correlation was barely better than if the subjects had guessed. They had no innate ability to transfer their tactile shape knowledge to the visual domain. However, the experimenters could test three of the five subjects on later dates (5 days, 7 days, and 5 months after, respectively) and found that the performance in the touch-to-vision case improved significantly, reaching 80–90%.

[Anonymous No.12733884]

>>12733865
>>12733795
>When philosophy makes better predictions than psychology
Social science BTFO'd

[Anonymous No.12733933]

>>12733684
>cogito ergo sum
For brainlets. And its a step backward. The actual breakthrough was 2000 years prior to that with introduction of theory of NoSelf/Skanda (or in later revisited form, Bundle theory, Stirner's Creative Nothing, etc).

[Anonymous No.12733946]

>>12733775
>labour
Shut up britbong

[Anonymous No.12733951]

Yes, but they haven't received credit for it; Once a problem is solved in philosophy it ceases to be Philosophy; The answers are siphoned off into other subjects.... Philosophy teaches other disciplines HOW to think.

[Anonymous No.12733958]

Philosophy invents Ideas; Only intellectuals reap the benefits of IDEAS

[Anonymous No.12733969]

Philosophy is the proper task of Life. It is an end in itself. Materials don't get it

[Anonymous No.12734274]

>>12733609
The useful parts of philosophy get spun off into new disciplines (natural philosophy, logic etc.). What remains is worse than useless, it's dangerous (see 20th century).

[Anonymous No.12734339]

>>12733831
>He failed to prove that an agent is doing the thinking. He axiomatically assumed he existed,
A non existing thing cannot think pseud.

[Anonymous No.12734355]

>>12733609
Yes but people are too stupid / weak to apply them.

[Anonymous No.12734387]

>>12733822
No it's not. How could it be useful?
Value is ultimately subjective so arbitrarily putting labour at the centre of your conception of value as a /biz/iness man would only get in the way of a good price.
The price of something is an agreement between two individuals after all and is only constrained by supply, really.
Labour does confer some value on objects but to what extant isn't obvious and it's clear that it doesn't confer a concrete amount of positive value because value can always be manipulated, or scaled to take a term from maths, by the subjective judgments of an (or multiple) individuals. Supply, however, cannot.
I still checked your dubs of falsity though mate.
>>12733946
fuck off you thick fucking leftoid yank.

[Anonymous No.12734389]

>>12734339
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.12734395]

>>12733670
The entire US constitution and most democratic-led institutions over the old-school monarchy/divine right of kings is entirely from philosophy
You think the founding fathers came up with "inalieble rights, life liberty, happiness?" No, they just basically copy-pasted from Locke

[Anonymous No.12734401]

>>12734389
A requisite of thinking- doing anything- is existing.

[Anonymous No.12734411]

>>12734401
Then you can't use thinking to prove existence. So Descartes was just an idiot.
>I exist
>I think
>Therefore I exist

[Anonymous No.12734421]

>>12734395
What about marxism?

[Anonymous No.12734440]

>>12734411
Did you miss the point of Descartes doubting everything? He cannot doubt thinking because doing so is thinking itself.
To be able to think one must exist to do that, therefore cogito ergo sum.

[Anonymous No.12734470]

>>12734440
Based baited retard.

[Anonymous No.12734483]

>>12734470
cope

[Anonymous No.12736011]

>>12733684
What about Kaczynski?

[Anonymous No.12736038]

>>12733609
yeah. Frequently. Originally astronomy was philosophy, then they figured a bunch of it out and it became its own discipline. Same with medicine, math, physics, etc.

[Anonymous No.12736046]

>>12734440
Cartesian skepticism is retarded (and so are you). Brainlet sophists think that shit is profound.

[Anonymous No.12736078]

>>12736038
Is the essence of philosophy just asking questions about subjects people haven't thought about before?

[Anonymous No.12736184]

Yes, faggot. It laid the groundwork for the methodology with scientists use.

[Anonymous No.12736309]

>>12733609
The entire field of philosophy consists solely of thought exercises.
None of the questions they ask actually have quantifiable solutions, so they eternally languish in theoreticals while sniffing their own farts.

[Anonymous No.12736312]

>>12733609
thesis antithesis synthesis

[Anonymous No.12737327]

>>12736312
nope

[Anonymous No.12737343]

>>12733681
Geniuses invented science and math, not philosophers.
>>12733684
Genius, not philosopher.
>>12736184
Geniuses did that, not philosophers.
The masses of philosophers we see today in academia have NOTHING to do with them. They share only the name.

[Anonymous No.12737355]

>>12737343
Are you genuinely retarded?

[Anonymous No.12737372]

>>12737355
By saying "philosophers achieved this" contemporary midwits are trying to give themselves credit for people they have nothing in common. They achieved those things not because they were philosophers, there are thousands of philosophers nowadays who will never do anything approaching what they did. They could achieve those things because they were geniuses. Geniuses are rare, midwit philosophers are a dime a dozen.
By pointing out it was geniuses who achieved those things I'm dispelling any illusions that philosophers are in any way interesting or productive people.

[Anonymous No.12737393]

>>12737372
We can say the same for scientists, mathematicians, engineers, et cetera, but that doesn't change the fact that people who paved the road for any modern progress were philosophers.
There were no mathematicians in the ancient times, only philosophers who did math. Was Pythagoras a philosopher? Yes. Was he a genius? Yes.
Was Kant a philosopher? Yes. Was the a genius? God-given.
We can go on. You can stay salty with sad 'arguments', but that doesn't change the fact that they were geniuses because they were philosophers.

[Anonymous No.12737407]

>>12737393
>We can say the same for scientists, mathematicians, engineers, et cetera
No we can't. The regular mathematician, engineer and scientist is much more likely to make actually important contributions, even if small and cumulative.
With philosophy, all you can say is what some geniuses did in the past.
>people who paved the road for any modern progress were philosophers
A lot of them were also mathematicians, scientists and engineers. Calling them philosophers is just obfuscation of the matter. They were geniuses who happened to work in philosophy.
>doesn't change the fact that they were geniuses because they were philosophers
This is absolutely false and retarded. Most philosophers are very far from being geniuses. Go to your local philosophy department and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.12737408]

>>12737393
>Hegel
After Jesus the single most destructive man who ever lived.

[Anonymous No.12737426]

>>12733609
>Have philosophers ever solved a single problem with philosophy?
>Philosophers
>solve problems

[Anonymous No.12737439]

>>12737343
>Geniuses
>not philosophers
ngmi

[Anonymous No.12737444]

>>12733609
Yes, we just arbitrarily decided to call it "science".

[Anonymous No.12737445]

>>12737393
You are fucking retarded if you think that philosophy ever achieved anything. All of you autists that always say that pythagoras was a philosopher and he was genius. No shit. But all impactful things he ever did were not in philosophy. Yeah, Kant was smart but he never did something that changed humanity. Philosophy isn't something you should do for a job, it's something you do to train yourself on how to think.

[Anonymous No.12737484]

>>12737445
>Yeah, Kant was smart but he never did something that changed humanity.

[Anonymous No.12737552]

>>12733609
Deleuze invented the rhizome

[Anonymous No.12737650]

All this thread sustains on a misunderstanding. Not uncommon for philosophical discussions

[Anonymous No.12737670]

>>12733609
the scientific method is a philosophical invention.

[Anonymous No.12739156]

>>12737670
Yes, but so is sliced bread.

[Anonymous No.12739351]

>>12737670
>Galileo was a philosopher

[Anonymous No.12739383]

>>12739351
He was though faggot.
Please tell me you aren't actually this retarded...

[Anonymous No.12739397]

>>12739383
He was also an astrologer, faggot. Your point?

[Anonymous No.12739467]

everyone in this thread is a fucktard

[Anonymous No.12739489]

>>12739467
I wish I were a fucktard, but I rarely ever have sex and I am, hence, just a tard.

[Anonymous No.12739541]

>>12733609
Socrates' final moments involved a solution.

[Anonymous No.12740149]

Some of them make contributions to logic and AI systems.
They also helped develop the scientific method to it's current form.

[Anonymous No.12740238]

>>12733609
Philosophy is a "science" for individual, not for society. It does not advance us as a species, but helps you to cope with living.
Personally stoicism and its teachings helped me to cope with 12.5 hour working days for several months.

[Anonymous No.12740246]

>>12733609
General relativity and newtonian force

[Anonymous No.12740253]

Literally every problem ever was

[Anonymous No.12740268]

>>12737327
Are you retarded? Hegal didn't even come up with the concept of thesis antithesis synthesis.

[Anonymous No.12740276]

>>12733609
no, they don't get paid enough for that
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M9HgzXVVo6E

[Anonymous No.12740296]

>>12733609
They solved the problem of "who is the most pretentious and useless group of cunts on the planet?"

[Anonymous No.12741049]

>>12740268
Hegel has nothing to do with thesis-antithesis-synthesis, that's literally my point, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.12741055]

>>12733609
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy is the basis of science.

[Anonymous No.12741075]

>>12741055
Science is the basis of science.

[Professor WTFZ (Philosophical (...) No.12741082]

>>12733609
No, because from the philosophical perspective the only problem worth solving is the self; which ultimately is an eternal process of improvement, distribution, and expression.

[Anonymous No.12741133]

>>12733632
>>Philosophy is for discovering new grounds in conceptual thinking, and philosophy has been successful in those fronts that lead to benefiting humanity too.
philosophy is for subhuman gurus to still managed to get paid and have careerist from the tax payers and their gullible audience

[Anonymous No.12741142]

>>12733628
18 and on 4chan

[Anonymous No.12741152]

>>12737343
>>12736309
>>12733628
>>12733622
>>12733670

the scientific method is literally a philosophy.

/thread you retarded niggerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.12741153]

>>12733632
>Science is purely about physics and maths
Wrong. Biology, Sociology and Economics are sciences too, among many others that deviate from the typical ones like maths and physics

[Anonymous No.12741161]

>>12733609
Nope, it's all just pointless circlejerks.

[Anonymous No.12741163]

>>12734421
OH boy

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/phindex.htm

[Anonymous No.12741176]

>>12741152
beat me to it anon

[Anonymous No.12741177]

>>12737343
>Geniuses invented science and math, not philosophers.

Holy fucking shit how absolutely retardedly ignorant can you be.

[Anonymous No.12741181]

Yes but the main issue people make is defining philosophy as a subset of just purely literary thought. Chomsky argues that language is a modality of expressing beauty, and thus, an obfuscation of the truth. It's important to consider all means of communications for philosophy, outside of written word.

[Anonymous No.12741187]

You can't solve philosophical problems with philosophy. That's the basis for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12741189]

>>12733951
>>12734274
You've correctly identified the problem, in that most modern philosophy concerns itself with problems that either:

a) Are too hard to be systematically approached at this point (how and why physical structures are connected with consciousness and the experience of qualia)
b) Are vague or simple to grapple with that other subjects aren't bothering with them


The best topic in modern academic philosophy is aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.12741263]

>>12733609
they created science, yeah

[Anonymous No.12741267]

>>12737343
what a retard you are

[Anonymous No.12741273]

>>12733609
Sure, Ayn Rand solved all of philosophy with Objectivism.

[Anonymous No.12741626]

>>12740238
only for several months? what did you use in place of stoicism beyond that point, heroin?

[Anonymous No.12741741]

Philosophy made science, and you need to understand some philosophy to understand science.
However metaphysics is for the most part a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.12741746]

>>12741152
>>12741176
beat me to saying that he beat me to it. OP is a moron.

[Anonymous No.12741867]

>>12733933
Descartes was a mathematician as well (ever heard of the cartesian plane?)

[Anonymous No.12741878]

>>12733632
>Science is purely about physics and maths which are not everything in the universe
Yes they are

[Anonymous No.12741879]

>>12733609
>philosophy
>science
back to >>>/his/

[El Arcón No.12741886]

PhD means "Doctor of philosophy." The answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.12742200]

>>12741886
Wrong, otherwise it would be a D[o]Ph

[Anonymous No.12742686]

>>12733609
Yes and sometimes centuries before the natural sciences can give their stamp of approval.

[Anonymous No.12742695]

>>12741152
God OP is such a faggot

[Anonymous No.12742709]

Is that a hemlock joke?

[Anonymous No.12743804]

>>12742200
>what is Latin

[Anonymous No.12744317]

bump

[Anonymous No.12744340]

>>12734387
>Value is ultimately subjective so arbitrarily putting labour at the centre of your conception of value as a /biz/iness man would only get in the way of a good price.
>The price of something is an agreement between two individuals after all and is only constrained by supply, really.
So in the most simple terms possible when it comes to a paper business: a piece of paper costs 1 penny. If I wanted to sell you a piece of paper, it would cost a penny. Now, a worker turns the piece of paper into a paper crane that is now $1 (one dollar). Therefore, the labor was worth $0.99 cents. However, since you put forth the costs of the materials (paper) and risked your capital (initial investment of the paper) then you are able to set the wage (let's say, 10 cents for the worker per crane) and receive the surplus value (the remaining 90 cents the worker didn't get).

Now, in your example you emphasize on the agreement of the cost of labor between two individuals, which is true. However, with field testing you can calculate the minimum amount to pay workers and leave them satisfied, with you keeping the surplus value of their labor.

>Labour does confer some value on objects but to what extant isn't obvious and it's clear that it doesn't confer a concrete amount of positive value because value can always be manipulated, or scaled to take a term from maths, by the subjective judgments of an (or multiple) individuals. Supply, however, cannot.
Just because it isn't "obvious" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because the supply cannot be manipulated doesn't mean the capitalist doesn't take the surplus value of your labor. And I do agree on your assessment on the value of labor can be manipulated, but it's on the capitalists who dictate what the workers get paid out of the surplus profit, not the workers.

I literally use labor value to manage a multi million dollar painting business.

[Anonymous No.12745217]

>>12737343
>did any philosopher do anything of value? no lol
>what, some philosopher did? that is not a philosopher then, that is a "genius"

[Anonymous No.12747015]

>>12733681
Made for BBC.

[Anonymous No.12747026]

>>12733609
Yes. But that isn’t the point. The point of philosophy is to elucidate errors in arguments, not to present solutions.

[Anonymous No.12747034]

>>12741741
Logical axioms are a series of metaphysical objects. If you disagree, you must point me to the physical embodiment of a syllogism.

[Anonymous No.12747039]

>>12747015
Cope harder zhang

[Anonymous No.12747092]

Obviously brainlet engineers who "fucking love science bro!" wouldn't really understand what drives the pursuit of Truth.

[Anonymous No.12747113]

>>12747092
>yeah yeah exactly exactly