/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14547542]

We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.

[Anonymous No.14547545]

>What is philosophy of science?

[Anonymous No.14547549]

>>14547545
the only part of Philosphy worth discussing, which might as well be rebranded as "metascience"

[Anonymous No.14547552]

>>14547542
Scientism is pseud shit for euphoric redditors. Godel BTFO it long ago.

[Anonymous No.14547555]

>>14547552
And I say this as someone who studies science exclusively.

[Anonymous No.14547557]

>>14547552
>Godel BTFO it long ago.
That's a nice logical fallacy of appealing to authority you've got there, would hate for someone to take it as valid

[Anonymous No.14547561]

>>14547549
>What is epistemology?
>What is logic?
>What is cognitive science?

[Anonymous No.14547567]

>>14547542
>We
So you speak for the entirety of humanity and you view yourself as having some sort omniscient overview of the whole so? Common delusion, your understanding of whats going on in your home town just barely scratches the surface, your attempt to claim insight into the whole ball of wax reeks of grandiosity and delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
> Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, super-intelligent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, pseudoscientific, science fictional, or supernatural theme.

[Anonymous No.14547572]

>>14547542
Jews love philosophy because it lets them speak a lot without saying anything

[Anonymous No.14547574]

>>14547561
>>What is epistemology?
the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.

>>What is logic?
part of the metascience framework

>>What is cognitive science?
science

[Anonymous No.14547585]

>>14547574
>What is philosophy of science?
>What is logic?
>What is epistemology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy
>What is cognitive science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
>Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of the mind and its processes with input from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, *philosophy*, computer science/artificial intelligence, and anthropology.

[Anonymous No.14547587]

>>14547557
Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone. This is a serious challenge to logical positivism.

You clearly have no understanding of what an "appeal to authority" even is and like your fellow redditors, think that reciting names of logical fallacies is a way to make arguments.

[Anonymous No.14547596]

>>14547587
>Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone
Why do retards love to namedrop shit they don't understand?

[Anonymous No.14547599]

sneed sneed sneed

[Anonymous No.14547706]

>>14547587
2+2=4 as 20+20=40

Nothing incomplete about it, just difficult to reach proportions due to energy and material and time and space constraints

[Anonymous No.14547717]

>>14547599
this

[Anonymous No.14547815]

>>14547542
Science can disprove things, but doesn't tell you what to do with that information. Philosophy does. Also philosophical thought is what leads to the creation of a hypothesis that you can test in the first place. Also logic is a philosophy, which is necessary for any mathematical field.

[Anonymous No.14547878]

>>14547542
Bitch you need philosophy to teach your ass to stop fudging results because corporations paid you to publish a bullshit study.

[Anonymous No.14547882]

>>14547542
>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
The irony is that's a philosophical statement.

[El Arcón No.14547889]

[Anonymous No.14547893]

>>14547542
It's more like we need philosophy to ask the right questions and we need science to answer many of them.

There are also many important questions that philosophy can approach that science just can't, our judicial system being a very obv case
of something we can't just do away with because there are no scientific answers as to what constitutes legal/illegal.

[Anonymous No.14547914]

>>14547545
We are doing philosophy of science right now with our light commentary on science
>>14547542
Most people need to learn to think like a scientist and basically rely more on facts, logic and less on reified ghosts

[Anonymous No.14548164]

>>14547545
"Philosophy of science" is a bunch of useless morons pretending to be smart for describing that which is trivial to anyone who actually does science. The scientific method is taught to every kid. There is no intellectual merit in describing it once again.

[Anonymous No.14548167]

>>14547561
>What is epistemology?
Dumbest word games. They endlessly drool over their own failure to define words like "knowledge" or "truth". From studying epistemology you gain no insights other than a deep contempt for these infantile bastards.
>What is logic?
A field of math.
>What is cognitive science?
Largely political narrative bullshit disguised as neuroscience. "Look at this picture of the brain. It proves that transwomen are real women."

[Anonymous No.14548170]

>>14547882
If every statement is automatically "philosophical", then "philosophy" is a meaningless, redundant and empty word and should be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.14548175]

>>14547542
You fucking burn, you think by being edgy on an edgy platform you have a point.
Philosophy is the only thing that will get your shit together so you don't crumble down in modern society.
Philosophy has nothing to do with politics fucking midwit,just a reminder in case your onions milk has affected your neurons.
So what is your next bait thread, arts are useless ? Liberal arts yes, arts in general. I hope you get torn apart by a giant bear and kept alive long enough to witness your balls being crushed under his teeth, one eye exploded under the sheer force of its Jaws, and your ear to hung like a fucking pendulum.

[Anonymous No.14548176]

>>14547587
This is not even what Gödel's incompleteness Theorems are about...

[Anonymous No.14548177]

>>14547889
Go fuck yourself Tooker.

[Anonymous No.14548184]

>>14548175
>arts are useless?
Art is alive and well!

[Anonymous No.14548190]

>>14548184
I pointed it out already. No for liberal arts. Yes for art that promotes beauty and divine talent.

[Anonymous No.14548191]

>>14548184
I can literally smell it for fuck's sake

[Anonymous No.14548195]

>>14548190
>Yes for art that promotes beauty and divine talent
You're just coping by saying "old thing is le good, new thing is le bad." Pic related promotes beauty and divine talent as well.

[Anonymous No.14548196]

>>14547587
>lmao at this midwit BTFO failing to understate the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorems

[Anonymous No.14548199]

>>14547893
This. You can't get to ethics (or epistemology) using the scientific method alone.

[Anonymous No.14548205]

>>14547574
>the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.
So you agree that epistemology is beyond the scientific method, and is also necessary to establish the scientific method? Wouldn't that make epistemology (i.e. philosophy) of importance to science?

[Anonymous No.14548210]

>>14548199
You can't get to astral projections esoterics (whatever /x/ shit) with scientific method either. This doesn't invalidate science, but on the contrary only shows how full of bullshit your field is if it cannot be put on a basis of logic and facts.

[Anonymous No.14548216]

>>14547893
>There are also many important questions that philosophy can approach
I'd like to see 1 (one) problem philosophy ever solved.

[Anonymous No.14548218]

>>14547542
Science is for understanding the mechanics of the world, philosophy is for determining meaning, values, and forms of economics and governmental systems.

Every discipline including science has roots in philosophy. It is the father of all sciences.

[Anonymous No.14548222]

>>14547567
Why is Narcissus so ugly in that photo? He was said to be the most beautiful of men, so much so that he fell in love with himself. That's not even reaching a 5 out of 10.

[Anonymous No.14548234]

>>14548218
> philosophy is for determining meaning, values
Where has philosophy ever done this? Show me a meaning or a value finally determined by philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14548239]

>>14548195
You have no soul. You are aware of that and yet you still want to be taken seriously. I know some underground artists, they have real talent. They never felt pressured to follow the trends or for their paintings and artworks to be political. They may not have the recognition they deserve right now. But your liberal works will be the first to be destroyed whenever it clicks and switch the business model. You are irrelevant. History will not remember them.

[Anonymous No.14548242]

>>14548234
Read Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.14548244]

>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
The absolute state of cattlebrained fuckwits.

[Anonymous No.14548245]

>>14548210
Stop projecting, the people bringing up Astral projection and other schizo shit are only the people who are into it. This smells the same spirit as self depricating repressed trannies. Just grow up.

[Anonymous No.14548248]

>>14548195
Bland, unoriginal, uninspired. Shit, a woman probably designed it.

[Anonymous No.14548250]

>>14548234
>finally determined
show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.

[Anonymous No.14548251]

>>14548239
There is evidence of a soul found by multiple doctors. You're just afraid of judgement. Your soul is located in your microtubules.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

https://lizroberta.com/2019/09/25/scientists-have-found-that-your-soul-goes-back-to-the-universe/

Many countless neuroscientists have found evidence of a soul.

[Anonymous No.14548255]

The worst part about this thread is the fake pro-philosophy NPCs who serve the sole function of bumping this thread and creating the false impression that subhumans like OP are real people that need to be argued with and proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.14548258]

>>14548210
Okay, even if (You) deny that ethics is possible because you're a soulless NPC, you still can't deny that epistemology is possible. Otherwise your fetishized "science" can't prove anything, since you don't even have a way of defining what counts as an "observation".

[Anonymous No.14548259]

>>14548242
>you must worship old white men
No. If you did actually read him and were convinced that he spoke universal truth, then you'd be able to present said truth independent of his person. You can't and you're probably just a larper who hasn't even read him. Kierkegaard was a religious cuck btw and has been debunked a lot.

[Anonymous No.14548267]

>>14548239
Have you ever been to a religious revival? You can just feel your spirit wrangling around inside you and the holy spirit flowing through you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2pxXYdJ2UY

[Anonymous No.14548272]

>>14548250
>show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
Evolution
>but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.
Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician, at least he attempts to be systematic in his theory of descriptions. But this attempt seems to be its only merit. Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.

[Anonymous No.14548279]

>>14548258
I do not need an autistic definition of natural language terms like "observation". The definition game is a futile exercise in infantile pseudointellectualism. We just DO science and it works.

[Anonymous No.14548289]

>>14547542
Is that a scientific statement?

[Anonymous No.14548290]

>if you stop talking and thinking about something, it magically disappears
The crux of the "anti-philosophy" agenda is to discourage rational reflection, so that the philosophy driving the modern world goes unnoticed and unchallenged; so that it becomes a matter of fact implicitly embedded in everything. Scientists will continue to do shitty, ad hoc philosophy every time they interpret empirical results, but never stop to contemplate where empiricism stops and their opinions begin, or where those opinions actually come from.

[Anonymous No.14548296]

>>14548272
>Evolution
Nope. 99.99% is not 100%. Try again.
>Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician
Kek, which somehow excludes him being a philosopher? Is Descartes not a philosopher either then?
>Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.
relevant to who exactly? according to you, ETHICS has no relevant implications. do you just mean "it has no relevant implications to soulless nihilistic goblins like myself"?
you still haven't addressed epistemology yet
I guess you get to decide what counts as an observation, and we'll all just follow along?

[Anonymous No.14548302]

>>14548290
>opinionated scientists are le bad, therefore opinionated philosophers are le good
Shitty self-contradictory strawman non sequitur. Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14548303]

>>14548279
>We just DO science and it works.
which is why scientists can ""conclude"" that race doesn't exist and that there's no such thing as women, right? It's just obvious what counts as a valid observation!! How dare you question it, you bigot!!

[Anonymous No.14548306]

>>14548302
You will never be human.

[Anonymous No.14548312]

>>14548303
What you're criticizing is that scientists in modern academia don't follow the scientific method anymore but instead promote philosophy. Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.

[Anonymous No.14548316]

With science you understand the world around you, with philosophy you understand the world inside you.

When I say philosophy, I'm not talking about specific philosophies such as stoicism or nihilism. The same way when I say science I'm not talking about specific field of science such as chemistry or physics.

Philosophy can teach you how to think, and react to events that can be either unpleasant or pleasant. It teaches you how to distinguish between what you have control over and what you don't have control over.

Philosophy is a school of thought. How we think affects our every day. In science thinking is the most fundamental thing.

Philosophy and science are intertwined, a good philosopher can become a better scientist and a good scientist can become a better philosopher.

Science and philosophy don't oppose each other, but complement each other.

[Anonymous No.14548320]

>>14548302
>Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.
So what? That's why you should study philosophy to learn how to separate the real people from the charlatans. Same with science.
>>14548312
which is why you need to study philosophy. you wouldn't be in this situation is you had known how to defend yourselves.

[Anonymous No.14548324]

>>14548316
>with philosophy you understand the world inside you.
Don't forget religion which is a form of philosophy written by a higher power.

[Anonymous No.14548328]

>>14548320
He will never be human, and you're a retard that needs to stop triggering his spam mechanism.

[Anonymous No.14548333]

>>14548312
>Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
Maybe it was a bad idea for you to specialize in a field that can't investigate first principles? If you don't supply the first principles, then somebody else will do it for you.

[Anonymous No.14548336]

>>14547542
>only

If you want to see the world through the discoveries and lenses of other people who died years ago then go ahead.

What a way to spend your life on the Earth, not learning in your own way.

[Anonymous No.14548359]

>>14548316
>Philosophy can teach you how to think
I can already think on my own. I don't need any ideologists to "teach me how to think". Because that's what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.14548363]

>>14548320
Why would I need philosophy for something I can trivially do with common sense? I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists. Because unlike you I'm not an NPC and hence don't need an epistemic authority to tell me how to think.

[Anonymous No.14548366]

>>14548333
>first principles
Meaningless pseudoreligious mysticism buzzword.

[Anonymous No.14548374]

>>14547542
>logical positivists be like

[Anonymous No.14548389]

>>14547557
That's a nice logical fallacy, the fallacy fallacy, by assuming that calling someone else's argument fallacious makes it invalid. Would hate for someone to think you actually know something.

[Anonymous No.14548403]

>anons can't think without philosophy
Lmao. Npc need to learn how to think lmao, can't so it naturally.

[Anonymous No.14548407]

>>14548366
Nah, denying that there are first principles is mysticism.

[Anonymous No.14548410]

>>14548403
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.14548417]

>>14548363
>I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists.
Sounds like we need you working in philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.14548420]

>>14548407
Show me a "first principle" then. Are these first principles in the room with us right now?

>inb4 she mistakes axioms or a priori knowledge for first principles

[Anonymous No.14548421]

>>14547542
/sci/ regularly gets btfo on the topic of consciousness. there is no scientific way to approach or describe it.

[Anonymous No.14548422]

>>14548420
What is the first principle of the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.14548425]

>>14548417
I don't waste my time with such trivialities. I rather prefer to engage in intellectual activities such as posting on 4channel.

[Anonymous No.14548432]

>>14548422
>What is the first principle of the scientific method?
First principle: Do not talk about the scientific method.
Second principle: Do NOT talk about the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.14548438]

>>14548422
to accept the unprovable idea that logic itself is correct as true. you know, like a religion.

[Anonymous No.14548449]

>>14548438
My hypothesis is that logic is correct, and all the empirical evidence confirms this hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.14548459]

>>14548422
I asked you, dumbass. You made the claim.

[Anonymous No.14548465]

Observation.

[Anonymous No.14548470]

>>14548438
How can logic itself be true if truth is only defined within logic?

[Anonymous No.14548472]

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

[Anonymous No.14548490]

>>14548470
>philosophical bullshitting
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.14548491]

>>14548470
truth is what describes reality, and the idea that a way of thinking that achieves this must be logical in nature is the unprovable hypothesis that i was talking about.

[Anonymous No.14548502]

>>14548491
>truth is what describes reality
Which reality? Yours or mine?

[Anonymous No.14548511]

>>14548502
me experiencing 1 (one) reality leaves the hypothesis that there allegedly is more than one up to you to prove.

[Anonymous No.14548720]

>>14548216
Well for starters the scientific method is something people arrived at thru enlightenment and renaissance epistemology. And humanitarianism alone has arguably solved quite a number of problems for a lot of people anon.

You dismiss philosophy outright you are either uneducated about history of thought or a complete edgelord.

[Anonymous No.14548734]

>>14548296
i'll be devil's advocate: evolution is, I think, proofed beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, you can say that the mechanisms on how it functions are not, but a misunderstasnding of the mechanisms doesn't make evolution itself wrong.

Especially if you define it in the most basic terms: descent with modification.

[Anonymous No.14548766]

>>14548720
The """enlightenment""" and """humanitarianism""" spawned the cancer currently destroying not just every human value, but the essence of humanity itself, in addition to causing the extinction of every higher organism on the planet. I'm not opposed to philsophy, but you've just provided an argument for why everyone would be better off if every philsopher was shot.

[Anonymous No.14548772]

>>14547878
that's common sense

[Anonymous No.14548838]

>>14547545
>Ornithologists teaching birds how to fly

[Anonymous No.14548840]

>>14548720
You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers. The victory of the scientific method began in the late 18th century when alchemy became chemistry. For practical and pragmatic reasons the early chemists wanted to achieve reproducibility and predictability of their experiments. And they would have done the exact same, irregardless of whether some ivory tower aristocrats jerked off over their treatises on empiricism vs rationalism.

[Anonymous No.14548848]

>You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers.
Imagine being this mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.14548865]

>>14548251
>Muh quantum vibrations supports immaterial souls.

Cope.

You fear death so desperately seek to confirm an afterlife may exist.

[Anonymous No.14548873]

Cmon science yourself out of a hungry mountain lion encounter or your son or Youssef out of watching a screen all day, redditor

[Anonymous No.14548877]

>>14548848
Try suppressing your knee-jerk reaction for long enough to read more than just the first sentence. You might actually learn something.

[Anonymous No.14548884]

ITT: anons retroactively refuted by picrel

[Anonymous No.14548890]

>>14548772
And where does common sense originate from?

[Anonymous No.14548891]

>You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers.
Imagine being this mentally ill and having an irrational kneejerk reaction whenever you hear the word "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.14548914]

>>14548766
Enlightenment dethroned Catholicism, are you saying the world was better off when philosophies’ retarded cousin theology was ruling the roost?

[Anonymous No.14548915]

>>14548884
What paradigm shifts have occurred because of Kuhn? Seems science already went through the revolutions before he made the observation.

[Anonymous No.14548917]

>>14548914
By all objective metrics it was.

[Anonymous No.14548922]

>>14548917
>fag confuses objective and subjective
Like pottery.

[Anonymous No.14548927]

>>14548890
Natural philosophy :^)

[Anonymous No.14548930]

>>14547572
I disagree, quite a lot gets said for those who've got ears to listen.

[Anonymous No.14548933]

>>14548915
Check any academic journal. Paradigm shifts occur regularly at every scale.

[Anonymous No.14548934]

>>14548922
You are outright mentally ill. There is no other possible explanation for your incoherent reply. I wonder what the strawman in your head said to trigger it.

[Anonymous No.14548935]

>>14548914
The so called enlightenment was not driven by philosotards but by financial institutions. The main theme is the transition of power from the church to economic elites. Philosophical propaganda porn was merely a massively overrated byproduct of the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.14548941]

>>14548933
My favorite paradigm shift is the one where science made philosophy obsolete.

[Anonymous No.14548948]

>>14547542
>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
Pretty sure everything humans do is meaningless garbage.

[Anonymous No.14548950]

>>14548933
Again, did that not already occur before Kuhn?

Electromagnetism was discovered more than a century before Kuhn. Quantum mechanics and relativity in the early 1900s.

[Anonymous No.14548952]

>>14548934
>all objective metrics
List them. All of them.
What’s that, you can’t without admitting you were wrong?
Lol, go back to sucking priest dick faggot.

[Anonymous No.14548959]

>>14548950
And are you claiming that there have been no new discoveries since the early 1900s? Either paradigms occur or science is a solved game. Just because there isn't some popsci article about some massive shift in science, doesn't mean that paradigm shifts don't happen regularly.

[Anonymous No.14548964]

>>14548959
I'm saying Kuhn had nothing to do with it. People had already been using their creativity to come up with wild ideas. Science was how we figured which ideas were more likely to be true.

[Anonymous No.14548969]

>>14547542
Science is never conclusive
You can't understand shit with it

[Anonymous No.14548970]

>>14548312
>forced upon us
while you were sucking your thumbs in a corner and hoping the paychecks will keep coming?

[Anonymous No.14548980]

>>14548952
You and your likes are literally a dysfunctional organisms. Nevermind that you are dysfunctional as humans in terms of social and spiritual behaviors. You are dysfunctional even on the lizard level: you don't want to reproduce, you don't want to move, you don't even want to survive.

[Anonymous No.14548985]

There's no clear definition of what science even is. It's just a set of conventions. The scientific method is one such convention and is hardly even used today. Most of what is called science today involves creating mathematical models to fit data and statistically analyzing data to make certain inferences. It yields no deep knowledge about reality except that which can be gleaned from the math when the models are accurate.

The problem is that science cannot prove anything. All it can do it produce theories that are either approximations or simulacra of the truth. We have no way of knowing, and the conventions of science will never lead us to absolute truth.

[Anonymous No.14548994]

>>14548964
And Kuhn's model of scientific revolutions is a closer fit model than the logical empiricist notion that "science is a linear progression of ideas". Have you even read the book?

[Anonymous No.14548995]

>>14548980
>deflects from the Objective because he knows he can’t possibly defend it
F A G G O T
A
G
G
O
T

[Anonymous No.14549007]

>>14548995
Why are you lying? I've literally just explained to you how to determine objectively when an organism isn't getting what it needs: it starts to behave abnormally, and modern humans behave abnormally to the extent that they don't even want to reproduce or live. Goylems like you are deeply confused: material measures of "welfare" may be objectively measurable, but the idea that such metrics determine an animal's overall wellbeing is a subjective idea that borders on the insane.

[Anonymous No.14549014]

>>14549007
Abnormal is a subjective measure, not an objective one.
The fuck are you even doing here when your IQ is so flagrantly lacking?

[Anonymous No.14549017]

>>14549014
Spoken like a real 85 IQ subhuman drone.

[Anonymous No.14549027]

>>14549017
OK you had nothing, have nothing, can’t concede when obviously wrong.
Neat trolling dude, sure showed your betters how clever you are.
Kys, no more (you)s for your retardation, bye bye subhuman.

[Anonymous No.14549032]

>>14549027
Please tell me how chopping off your dick and pumping yourself isn't abnormal because it can't be objectively determined what the normal patterns of behavior for an organism are, 80 IQ postmodernist troon.

[Anonymous No.14549040]

>>14549027
Please tell me more about how chopping off your dick and pumping yourself full of estrogen isn't abnormal. Tell me more about how I can't objectively determine what the normal patterns of behavior of an organism are, you 80 IQ postmodernist troon. I wonder how your buddies will square your impending suicide with their "objective" wellbeing metrics.

[Anonymous No.14549757]

>>14548195
Ah yes, the feminist talking point of...bifurcated forearms.

[Anonymous No.14549777]

>>14549757