Why does /sci/ think philosophy has no relation or use to science?

[Anonymous No.15389556]

The OGs certainly did not see this way.

[Anonymous No.15389567]

>>15389556
>"the ogs"
>throws a nigger in there
back to the archive chub

[Anonymous No.15389568]

>>15389556
because philosophers are only a small step above people obsessed with mbti. it's not a topic you have to study.

[Anonymous No.15389569]

/sci/ is a board that would overwhelming either get a vaccine with no testing because the government told them too, or unironically believe that the earth is flat with a dome. It's not very surprising that they also hate philosophy

[Anonymous No.15389572]

>>15389567
>couldn't even be bothered to read
Go back yourself. The ogs are on the left you moron.

[Anonymous No.15389582]

>>15389556
It's worthwhile to engage with the philosophical classics, but almost all philosophy majors are retards who sincerely believe any method is prone to fail because they prefer to see reality as a kind of bad dream. Once you practice science and you see that we have many methods that do in fact work, that delusion is put away for good. Philosophers are seldom interested in building anything. They only get off on critiquing things that work fine.

[Anonymous No.15389588]

I love philosophy. My favorite philosophers are Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.

[Anonymous No.15389600]

>>15389582
Any method is prone to fail given the right circumstances, including science.

[Anonymous No.15389614]

>>15389600
Science is the set of all working methods. Knowing when you can use a method is part of knowing the method.

[Anonymous No.15389635]

>>15389614
Then that's a completely vacuous definition that boils down to "the things that work are the things that work". A working definition of science that we can actually use in the real world is going to have flaws and fail to accomplish our goals given some circumstances.

Leave actual thinking about science itself to philosophers and go do some calculations instead.

[Anonymous No.15389738]

>>15389556
Tallking about what is something wont help us understand how something works. Only field usefull that i can see in philosophy when speaking off science is philosophy of science. Which spanks scientists if they wrongfully interprate the data. But that is all...
Philosophy only survives in such a matter by claiming it is discipline of metacognition.

[Anonymous No.15390015]

>>15389556
Niels Bohr:
>I felt ... that philosophers were very odd people who really were lost, because they have not the instinct that it is important to learn something and that we must be prepared really to learn something of very great importance. There are all kinds of people, but I think it would be reasonable to say that no man who is called a philosopher really understands what one means by the complementary description.

Paul Dirac:
>I tried to appreciate it, but I did not get very much success in trying to appreciate philosophy. I feel that philosophy will never lead to important discoveries. It’s just a way of talking about discoveries which have already been made.

Richard Feynman:
>I rapidly learned that philosophy, as far as I was concerned, the philosophers who were respected were really quite poor and rather stupid people — at least, from the modern point of view. It seems to me that there were trivial errors in logic which were obvious. Very poor, it seemed to me.

Steven Weinberg:
>After a few years' infatuation with philosophy as an undergraduate I became disenchanted.
>I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers.

Stephen Hawking:
>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge

[Anonymous No.15390023]

>>15389635
>Then that's a completely vacuous definition that boils down to "the things that work are the things that work"
Anon, you can't expect an empiricist to understand the problem here.

[Anonymous No.15390039]

>>15389556
The earth is flat with a dome. All of those globohomo puppets are liars of the highest order including Onestone fella.

https://odysee.com/@januszkowalskii1979:e/NASA---Going-Nowhere-Since-1958-(Full-Documentary):4

[Anonymous No.15390064]

Because philosophy is pointless and it has been replaced by the scientific method. It's the prime tool for pseuds who mainly focus on political theory nonsense anyway. Do you think the works of Nietzsche or Voltaire have any usefulness anywhere?

[Anonymous No.15390178]

>>15389635
Anon. Definitions are tautologies. If you're inquiring about the epistemological method of science then you are going to be disappointed. There is not one set method. That's just something we tell normies. There are several related competing methods, but the ultimate benchmark of something being good science is that it works.

[Anonymous No.15390242]

>>15390178
Anon while i agree with what you said, it is worth mentioning there are different types of definitions that are not tautologies. Wouldnt you agree?

[Anonymous No.15390256]

>>15390178
>but the ultimate benchmark of something being good science is that it works.

The problem is that there are certain things that we might want to do now that we fundamentally cannot tell if they 'work', via experiment alone. For instance, we cannot produce an experimental procedure that declares, to an outside observer, that a given subject is conscious, or in what way, instead we rely completely on the presumption that, given that other people (or animals) are similar to us, are created through similar causes, and behave in ways we relate to, that we can rely on their words and actions as evidence that they are experiencing the world in a way we might understand similarly.

We cannot do that for a mechanic or cybernetic entity that doesn't share this origin, and at the same time we have no way of ruling out the possibility of such entities being conscious (i.e. if they somehow couldn't be, then what would it be that makes our brains conscious).

[Anonymous No.15391007]

>>15389556
Lol how did we get so fucking dumb lol

[Anonymous No.15391021]

>>15389556
>Why does /sci/ think philosophy has no relation or use to science?
We don't. Philosophy IS science. Only brainlets can't see the relationship between the two.

[Anonymous No.15391029]

>>15389556
lawrence krauss is a lying kike, he wants to turn science into a talmudic cult.
philosophy of science frees the individual from the risk of contagion by "religionization" of science.

[Anonymous No.15391130]

>>15391021
Science can be considered a philosophy but calling the entirety of philosophy equivalent to science is ridiculously retarded.

[Anonymous No.15391294]

>>15389556
Bill Nye's statement is not against philosophy. Also he's right to be skeptical (in fact that's the very minimum) towards pop sci simulation and other crackpot "theories".

[Anonymous No.15391302]

>>15391007
Its not stupidity, just ignorance.
There's a distinction. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They're insulated, institutionalized. Something like this was bound to happen. I think its healthy. I think the old maxims and cliches about the forest for the trees are racing back into the public consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15391341]

>>15390242
NTA, can you give an example?

[Anonymous No.15391350]

>>15391294
I agree. Nye's statement is the most sensible out of the four. Krauss's is the most stupid.

[Anonymous No.15391374]

>>15391294

Well, he is very likely wrong. Donald Hoffman has shown by evolutionary game theoretic simulations that organisms that percieve the truth of reality die and lose out to those who only percieve fitness payoffs in the environment.

[Anonymous No.15391377]

>>15391294
>>15391350
It sounds a little silly though, probably taken from a casual interview by a philosotard who wanted to depict modern academics as idiots who could never comprehend the profound philosophy that all famous nobel prize winners and early 20th century popsci celebrities on the left support

[Anonymous No.15391384]

>>15391374
schizobabble, reality is real

[Anonymous No.15391401]

>>15391384

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=G99fnUgAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=G99fnUgAAAAJ:FAceZFleit8C

You can read it for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15391406]

>>15391374
>Hoffman

[Anonymous No.15391408]

>>15391401
>Can't even put it in your own words
Surprising it isn't a youtube video

[Anonymous No.15391448]

>>15389556
For all practical purposes philosophy is useless, but a lot of non-intuitive results in both physics and foundational maths has prompted philosophical inquiry primarily from scientists themselves. However, even by Einstein's time philosophy was far removed from science, rather being the book-selling, humanities-oriented pseudo-intellectual activity we know today. Serious analytic philosophy is now regarded as either mathematics or linguistics.

[Anonymous No.15391449]

>>15391408

> can't even read

I already explained the main result.

[Anonymous No.15391478]

>>15391449
To other people it's nonsense, it only makes sense to you because you wrote it

[Anonymous No.15391497]

>>15391374
>Donald Hoffman
>cognitive psychologist
>has shown by evolutionary game theoretic simulations
Could you post it? I want to see what a proof looks like in the field of psychology.

[Anonymous No.15391511]

>>15391497
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/514

[Anonymous No.15391533]

>>15391511
Keep in mind many (most) physics theories that are mathematically sound have no basis in reality. I can't imagine cognitive psychology to have a better record.

[Anonymous No.15391666]

>>15391007
speaking of trees,
when the forest grows rank...

[Anonymous No.15391682]

>>15389556
Because it doesn’t have any place in science outside of Ethics discussions

[Anonymous No.15392444]

>>15391533

[Anonymous No.15392511]

>>15391341
Nwm, now that i am reading it secound time i see stupidity in what i have said.

[Anonymous No.15392598]

>>15391374
And what's the truth of reality apart from any filtering through perception supposed to be? If you "perceive" that truth is always somehow mediated.
Game theory is something built upon the logic of the perceived world. Causality, physics, the aim to preserve one's integrity under the given conditions of the environment - that can't be fake if the game theoretic results are taken as real.
In short, Donald Hoffman is a drooling pseud

[Anonymous No.15392600]

>>15391682
It doesn't have a place in ethics either. Philosophers aren't qualified to talk about ethics. No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15392605]

>>15392444
>dark matter is total BS guys!!!!
>muh MOND!!! muh QI!!!

[Anonymous No.15392837]

>>15389556
>The OGs certainly did not see this way.
argument from authority is a fallacy. besides, einstein is on record saying that when he reads phlosophy he feels like trying to chew and swallow something that isn't in his mouth.

[Anonymous No.15392841]

>>15390039
>The earth is flat with a dome. All of those globohomo puppets are liars of the highest order
ah, yes. finally philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15392842]

>>15392600
>No problem has ever been solved by philosophy.
fify.

[Anonymous No.15392874]

>>15390256
It's almost like science is an approach for a certain type of problem and not every facet of human existence

[Anonymous No.15392881]

>>15392511
No problem. For sake of pedagogy, could you explain the error you made previously?

[Anonymous No.15392887]

>>15392881
I ran into the question head one without stoping first.
I am still doubting tho, wouldnt a functional definition give something that is not stated in the term?

[Anonymous No.15392888]

>>15392887
Example:
computer as a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data

[Anonymous No.15392889]

>>15392887
Yes, the context in which the term is embedded. I don't think that's introducing something new though, it's making explicit what was implicit.

[Anonymous No.15392894]

>>15392888
In this example, that context is necessary to differentiate from the older definition "person who performed computations."

[Anonymous No.15393596]

Science is only a tool. It does not and cannot answer the big questions. All meaningful questions about the true nature of reality can only be explored through philosophy. Science can only tell us what we perceive of reality; it cannot speak of reality itself.

All the people disagreeing in this thread need to read and understand Kant. Or just think for yourself. It's not that hard.

[Anonymous No.15393613]

>>15393596
What big questions? Like why you forgot to take your meds again?

[Anonymous No.15393633]

>>15393613

Gee I don't know, like what is reality? What is the universe? What am I?

I know it's hard for you to do abstract thought, but try.

[Anonymous No.15393639]

>>15389556
Philosophy and sociology really changed their orientation towards the sciences between these eras. In the modern time, scientists had people like Heidegger gassing them up and theorizing the them as philosopher kings. After WW2, you get people like Latour and Foucault who offer profoundly cynical characterizations of the sciences as social/political entities. This kind of criticism became a routine we follow today.

I think what we see between these two eras is not a difference in scientific people, but an increasingly adversarial relationship between the sciences and the humanities. It's something these later 'science' representatives feel the need to defend themselves against.

[Anonymous No.15393643]

>>15393633
>like what is reality? What is the universe? What am I?
So I was right, got it. Hope your meds reach you in time

[Anonymous No.15393763]

>>15393643

Why does asking those questions necessitate medication? What medication and why?

[Anonymous No.15393956]

>>15391130
what is truth?

[Anonymous No.15394060]

>>15393596
Has philosophy ever answered questions about the "true nature of reality"?

>Or just think for yourself.
That's genuinely what smart people do, philosophy books are for midwits

[Anonymous No.15394069]

>>15393956
Confirmed facts: what has occurred, occurring, or will occur in the future. Instead of buying another pseud book buy a dictionary instead.

[Anonymous No.15394078]

>>15394060

>Has philosophy ever answered questions about the "true nature of reality"?

Yes, a few hundred years ago. Sciencetards are still splashing in the kiddie pool

[Anonymous No.15394092]

>>15394078
Do you have an example of a question about the true nature of reality and would you be able to post its answer with proof?

[Anonymous No.15394101]

>>15394092
Don't ask philosophers for a proof. They consider logic to be a white patriarchal instrument of oppression. They'll call you racist if you say 2+2=4.

[bodhi No.15394112]

/sci/ is a bunch of bitch ass psueds

[Anonymous No.15394117]

>>15394112
I guess that explains why you erroneously feel at home here.

[Anonymous No.15394122]

>>15394117
kek

[bodhi No.15394125]

>>15394117
>>15394122
bitch ass psueds

[Anonymous No.15394129]

>>15394125
Attention whore infographic reader

[bodhi No.15394131]

>>15394129
squealing midwit

[Anonymous No.15394133]

>>15394131
Post proof of the true nature of reality

[Anonymous No.15394140]

>>15394131
That's you

[bodhi No.15394144]

>>15394140
that's what you are

[Anonymous No.15394147]

>>15394144
Definitely you

[bodhi No.15394148]

>>15394133
you mouth breathing donkeys didnt shit about what is and isnt real until I came here and shit it directly into your empty brain case bitch ass psued

>>15394147
nope all you

[Anonymous No.15394151]

>>15394148
all you

[Anonymous No.15394153]

>>15394148
You contributed nothing to this thread, as you never do

[bodhi No.15394154]

>>15394151
you times 2

[Anonymous No.15394156]

>>15394154
nope you

[bodhi No.15394158]

>>15394153
My very presence on this board is a blessing you little peon bitch ass psued. I am like divine light shining on your black gorilla nigger ignorance pushing back the retardation of this entire board on my lonesome back to the depths redit where you should have stayed

[bodhi No.15394163]

>>15394156
360 degrees you

[Anonymous No.15394167]

>>15394163
720 degrees you

[Anonymous No.15394186]

I have never seen bodhi post any science or math content.

[Anonymous No.15394203]

>>15394092

Yes

[bodhi No.15394229]

>>15394186
the shit I post about is too high IQ for your tiny little brain untermensch

>>15394167
up your ass and around the corner you

>>15394092
bitch ass I solved that weak ass shit before you were born. I am past the nature of reality and moved on to what is outside the matrix and the nature of the creator.
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

[Anonymous No.15394242]

>>15394229
360 and walk away you

[Anonymous No.15394251]

>>15394229
>Do you have an example of a question about the true nature of reality and would you be able to post its answer with proof?
You didn't answer that properly

[Anonymous No.15394291]

>>15394251
Bodhi is a boring douche. He never answers questions, he only behaves rudely and impolitely.

[Anonymous No.15394294]

>>15394291
He doesn't seem to care about science or math nor his fellow posters. /sci/ is just his playground to attention whore on and indulge in his messiah complex. He should be on /x/.

[bodhi No.15394299]

>>15394291
>borng
Yah in the same way physics journals are boring to morons like you. Everything you are too stupid to understand is "boring" to you because you are a bitch ass psued

>>15394294
I am so far ahead of you pseuds this place is a joke. I may as well try and tutor water bears. I would see more progress with them than you ego maniac NPC twats. You feel threatened by actual intelligence because you are a bitch ass psued

[bodhi No.15394301]

Guess what the easiest way is to find a bitch ass psued /sci/

scream "bitch ass psued" and see who starts crying like a bitch ass psued. IF you werent a bitch ass psued you wouldnt have been insulted, you would have agreed with me

[Anonymous No.15394404]

>>15389556
I do wish more scientists got into statistics and the philosophy of science. Working in the cell bio field, a lot of my colleagues have a very basic grasp on what they are actually doing. The only thing they know is take a bunch of samples (3 is minimum which means 3 is fine right?) and do a t-test. Or maybe ANOVA. Or they get confused past paired t-tests/wilcoxin rank/whatever.
And then they get just enough knowledge to be dangerous: oh there's a test for normality! Better start using that before I use a t-test.
It's absolutely insane how in the dark they are about what they are actually assuming with each experiment and statistical decision. P-hacking is entirely rampant and its not even malicious, they just don't know better.
You tell them to try a Bayes approach, they have a goddamn heart attack about "subjectivity" and quickly retreat behind their "objective" t-tests. They seem to glass over when I tell them that they already made assumptions about the probability distribution given the test they chose, its just nicely hidden from them so they can pretend they aren't making assumptions. I see the fear of statistics/lack of understanding the philosophy of science constantly holding back fields who are deathly afraid of moving the Sacred P=0.05 because they literally don't know what that would mean in context. It's kinda nuts.
There are some very specific and difficult experiments, for example, which could be done and illuminate a cool mechanism of exosomes, and could easily be done if you calculated the effect size + power + n right (based on cost) and fixed an alpha based on that (which would be more relaxed that 0.05; closer to 0.1 or 0.15). The cost would no longer be prohibitive, but the PI I talked to absolutely could not get over the idea of P != 0.05, and thought it was some sort of cheating or falsification of results or something.
Statistical epistemology should be understood by all scientists.

[Monadas No.15394452]

>>15394404
How do I learn it? (How did you learn it?)
Literature recommendations (or youtube or whatever)?

[bodhi No.15394471]

>>15394404
This has always been known in STEM. At least since I was at uni 20 years ago. None of these clowns understand statistics which is literally like half the knowledge required to shows results for experiments. It truly is bizarre. Lots of them have to actually hire people to do the stats for them to be able to publish anything because they are clueless. Stats wasn't an easy class either. It was harder than cal 2 imo

[bodhi No.15394477]

>>15394404
btw I said all this before, more than once. Modern soicetists dont do science, they are glorified lab techs. As Ian Malcolm said 30 years ago "you were so concerned with if you could you never stopped to think if you should"

[Anonymous No.15394509]

>>15394452
My PhD had a comp sci/statistics component, and I took my grad school statistics class pretty seriously (most grad school classes are fluff. This one was noted for being very time consuming and difficult, and it was- helped me learn really quickly).
That said, I do have some recommendations:
If you do experiments, Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery is imo a must-read. I have a PDF permanently on my server for anyone who comes through the lab. It covers well the marriage between experimental design and how statistics are used (obviously).
For learning statistics as statistics, Introduction to Statistical Learning is a good one, and for me the intro two chapters of the book Statistical Rethinking are some of my favorite intro texts to the subject altogether. The book is great too, its just geared towards frequentists moving into bayesian territory (but it functions just fine as a statistics book). I've heard good things about Discovering Statistics using R, but I haven't gone through it myself.
Gelman's Bayesian Statistics is also a great read when you really want to sink your teeth into it.
R + Rstudio and don't look back. R-bloggers is a great resource to just mull around in when bored.
Self teaching will take some time for you to fully grasp everything, but stick with it; statistics is one of my favorite subjects. As a bonus, Jaynes Probability Theory: The Language of Science abso-fucking-lutely blew my mind the first time I read it and saw the connection to information theory.

[Anonymous No.15394530]

>>15394509
>Probability Theory: The Language of Science
The Logic* of Science, misremembered.
>>15394477
> they are glorified lab techs
I think its partially this. Definitely describes some scientists I knew, and its the thing I point to when people ask "why is philosophy important?!". I will say modern science also demands a lot more knowledge than in the past. Classic mol. bio/cell bio papers did basically no stats, just pulled some experiments, eyeballed some obvious huge effect size, and said "look!". All the low-hanging fruit has been picked and so people are diving into these super-narrow niche effects which nobody should ever care about (deleting this gene caused a population of neurons to grow, on average, only 98.7% as long as control [n=2000, significant!], and is therefore an important regulator of cell growth!). It requires a lot of complicated analysis for them to see these effects, and is a skill which wasn't much needed in the past. I blame the absolute garbage dump of bad paper people publish to finish their PhD requirement (mine was sorta similar sadly, but since then I've contributed some good shit to the literature so I don't feel as bad).

[bodhi No.15394562]

>>15394530
>>15394530
>I blame the absolute garbage dump of bad paper people publish to finish their PhD requirement
Well to be fair it seriously is not easy. I graduated with a 3.6 or 3.7 or something, had all A's and one or 2 B's I forget and the only class I ever dropped my entire time at Uni was stats. It was required for all STEM degrees at my school, I don't think this is the case everywhere. I was taking 18 hours though my senior year because I didnt want to have to do another entire semester just for 2 courses and I just didnt have the time. I feel behind and dropped it so it wouldnt affect my GPA. The irony is instead of having to do an entire semester for 2 classes now I had to an entire semester for 1! kek

But yeah this was discussed even then, how clueless most STEM cells were about stats and how it basically invalidated anything they thought they were doing. I see in this shithole all the time how the psueds don't understand statistical significance. I was shocked a few years ago in some thread some anon made about flipping coins or roulette or some shit that 95% of the people in the thread didnt understand the gambler's fallacy and some autist halfwit here always says something is 50/50 and is dead serious when he posts it. Facepalm levels goofy shit.

[Monadas No.15394570]

>>15394509
Thanks a lot :)

Good luck with proving the exosomes and whatever... And if you want to help me make a dragon, go take a look into the other thread :D

[Anonymous No.15394588]

I want to get into Philosophy as a STEMchad. I'm interested in Nick Land specifically. Should I just jump right into his works?

[Anonymous No.15394602]

>>15394570
NP, and I will take a look, sounds...interesting lol.

[Anonymous No.15395626]

>>15394294
>>15394291
Lmao seething kikes

[Anonymous No.15395679]

>>15389556
Science viewed itself as above philosophy, with good reason too, given how it allowed us to peer behind the curtain and state things to a exact certainty unavailable to philosophy.
The subject will start to come back in a big way now tho that we're in the process of building minds and exploring the limits of the inner/mental universe.

A lot of people will need to get a strong handle on epistemology, emergence and all kinds of thinking about purely psychological phenomena and linguistics.
Knowing your Derrida and Chomsky will be required reading for anyone working at the sort of things that will displace a lot of scientist and mathematicians soon.

[Anonymous No.15395690]

>>15395679
Based anon, agreed.
Transhumanism and PoMind allready pushed that a bit.

[Anonymous No.15395774]

>>15395679
Hegel is the future, actually

[Anonymous No.15395849]

>>15395774
How come?

[Anonymous No.15395980]

>>15394291
>>15394294
Show your post history against his

[Anonymous No.15396000]

>>15389556
It has a use and shit was figured out sometime ago.

[Anonymous No.15396011]

>>15395849
He tried to understand the action of consciousness from first principles, as far as language itself allows such a cmdog-chasing-its-tail kind of project. But much of today's cognitive science still has a more naive, non-critical use of language than Hegel, and doesn't approach the threshold of abstraction that we will need to cross to really make sense of cognition.
The basics of an information-theoretic viewpoint are also in there, just in a non-mathematical formulation attempted before its time.

[Anonymous No.15396420]

>>15395679
I get the impression that we are so obsessed with growth that few are actually considering the "should I?" question.

[Anonymous No.15396717]

>>15389556
Why mix two different subjects that have nothing to do with each other? Just so you can make pseudo scientific ignorant statements about life?

[Anonymous No.15396801]

>>15396420
Many are asking that question, the problem is that unless a critical mass asks that question and is enable to enforce any sort of 'no' that doesn't matter. So it's like; full speed ahead while let's all hope this is not the solution to the Fermi paradox.

[Anonymous No.15396855]

>>15389569
> /sci is not filled with glowies, commies and trolls.
LMAO
>>15389588
/thread

[Anonymous No.15397097]

Was Socrates a sigma male?

[Anonymous No.15397135]

>>15397097
Socrates was an alpha. Plato was a beta. Diogenes was a sigma. The whole Greek alphabet social hierarchy thing is kinda gay.

[Anonymous No.15397166]

>>15389556
ok i agree with this message, but i want to add that the bill nye quote was not really comparable to the other shit quotes

[Anonymous No.15397168]

>>15396717
>duh duh why mix epistemology with science dur

[Anonymous No.15398397]

>>15396011
>The basics of an information-theoretic viewpoint are also in there, just in a non-mathematical formulation attempted before its time.

Hegelfags say this about basically everything. They can't point to specific passages that would lead to anything that this stuff could be derived from, but they assert that his framework allowed the birth of absolutely everything intellectually important subsequently, but it's not clear how this would have actually affected history in any specific way outside of Marx not having the academic position he did.

[Anonymous No.15398601]

>>15398397
NTA and my understanding of Hegel comes mostly from SEP articles and a few lectures ages ago. I freely admit I have never read more than a few brief excerpts of translations of Hegel, so I may not qualify as a Hegelfag since the absolute heighth of Hegelfaggotry is talking about reading Hegel. Nonetheless:
>can't point to specific passages
Hegel's description of the three logical moments (Abstract/Dialectical/Speculative, beginning at EL 79) is more commonly known today as the DIKW pyramid.
>it's not clear how this would have actually affected history in any specific way
Depends on what you consider historically significant. Pretty much all formal logic today originates in Frege's work, which was a refutation of Hegel's (and/or the beginning of the Dialectical moment to Hegel's Abstract moment). Without modern formal logic we probably wouldn't have an internet to shitposted on.

[Anonymous No.15398727]

>>15389567
>Least retarded materialist

[Anonymous No.15398736]

Because science in 2023 has no moral compass and is driven entirely by profit. No need for philosophy because
>money=good
>do bad thing=money
>bad=good
>????
>profit

[bodhi No.15399441]

>>15397097
he was a smegma male

[Anonymous No.15399465]

I took a philosophy class to fill my humanities requirements and it had a lot of overlap with my discrete math class. Kinda seemed like it was all math but using words

[Anonymous No.15399531]

>>15399465
Except for the difference that proofs in math are based on objective truth while "proofs" in philosophy rely on dishonest word games.

[Anonymous No.15399532]

>>15389556

[Anonymous No.15399678]

>>15399531
Are you one of the "logic isn't philosophy, all logic is math" zealots, or one of the "logic doesn't even matter just calculate" normies?

[Anonymous No.15399813]

>>15399532
Hawking and Feynman were completely ignorant about philosophy. Dirac was an unironic autist who could not appreciate anything that didn’t have to do with numbers

[Anonymous No.15399832]

>>15389556
You just put four pseuds up against the greatest minds of the 20th century. Many people still think this way, you just don't see it on your "Science is fucking cool" facebook group, ergo science is dead.

[Anonymous No.15399904]

>>15399832
Most scientists rightfully have a very low opinion of philosophy as >>15399532
>>15390015
>>15389556
suggest. You sound like a clueless pseud

[Anonymous No.15400558]

>>15394117
lel

[Anonymous No.15400850]

>>15391021
Philosophy has become a branch of history. You do not get a degree in philosophy by having an original insight, but ONLY by cataloging the biography and bibliography of prior thinkers of philosophers. You don't even have to understand or agree with the philosopher you are writing the history of. Having original insights is considered the hallmark of a kook and crank in todays philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15400910]

>>15399531
>proofs in math are based on objective truth

[Anonymous No.15400926]

>>15399465

Yeah...you're getting it now. Math is a language. What is language? Representation of ideas. You're getting it. Keep going.

[Anonymous No.15400934]

What do we think of Schopenhauerian metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.15400935]

>>15400910
>muh 2+2=5
Go away, /pol/ troll.

[Anonymous No.15400966]

>>15400935
Math is a language, it makes no sense to say it's true.

[Anonymous No.15401201]

>>15400966
Can't expect empiricists to understand Tarski.

[Anonymous No.15401242]

>>15400934
Refuted by Kant (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.15401246]

>>15400966
Math is a language created to formalize a priori truth.

[Anonymous No.15401501]

>>15400934
He was an Idealist, so I tend to agree with him.

[Anonymous No.15401618]

>>15401242

Uhh how

[Anonymous No.15401630]

>>15401246

Holy shit someone here is actually smart

[Anonymous No.15401792]

>>15393596
>It does not and cannot answer the big questions.
Why am I here?
We all know that basic bitch question, sex. Philosophy is for midwits who enjoy talking for hours instead of doing maths.

[Anonymous No.15403406]

heh

[Anonymous No.15403412]

Science is knowledge. Philosophy is ignorance. Knowledge is better than ignorance. /thread

[Anonymous No.15403509]

>>15403412
>Science is knowledge
That's a philosophical claim.

[Anonymous No.15405096]

bump

[Anonymous No.15405522]

>>15389556
Science is founded on philosophy. Logic is philosophy. Epistemology is philosophy. It's impossible to be a good scientist without being a good philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15407240]

>>15403412
what a fucking retard psued

[Anonymous No.15408534]

>>15390015
>the philosophers who were respected were really quite poor and rather stupid people
What a retarded comment

[Anonymous No.15408561]

>>15405522
>Science is founded on philosophy.
False. Science is founded on repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. Both have been conducted long before some armchair pseuds considered themselves enlightened for the groundbreaking discovery that you might gain knowledge by looking at things.

>Logic is philosophy.
Logic has been formalized by mathematicians, is taught and researched by mathematicians.

>Epistemology is philosophy.
Epistemology is settled by science and math. Everything else is either trivial or wrong.

>It's impossible to be a good scientist without being a good philosopher.
It's impossible for a philosopleb to be a scientist.

[Anonymous No.15408745]

>>15408561
This is a really retarded post, though I guess you know that.

[Anonymous No.15408794]

>>15389556
Every intelligent person I know is interested in both science and philosophy. There is no science vs philosophy thing anyone but on this board of pseud midwits and science denying poltards

[Anonymous No.15408801]

>>15408794
Show me one nontrivial result of philosophy. I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.15408805]

>>15408801
Proving that mind transfer is not possible regardless of technological procedure

[Anonymous No.15408807]

>>15408805
That's not philosophy. The no-cloning theorem is a mathematical result in quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.15408810]

>>15408807
You don't need to argue that you need to perfectly copy the quantum state to prove that you can't do mind transfer.
Also applying the no cloning theorem to a thought experiment about copying your mind is not science, it's philosophy

For another one, "on computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem" is a work of philosophy and the Church-Turing thesis is a philosophical thesis about compatability. You can think of it as an empirical hypothesis I guess, but in any case the entire field of compatability theory and computer science is based on a philosophy of considering a machine which can manipulate symbols as a human does

But it's also clear that you're a midwit shit for brains, just another side of the coin from the science denying anti-vaxx poltard schizos. All of you need to get the fuck off /sci/

[Anonymous No.15408825]

>>15408810
The Church-Turing hypothesis is wrong though. Why do philosoplebs lack so much education that they perpetuate theories that have been debunked long time ago?

[Anonymous No.15408832]

>>15408810
Computability theory is pure math. Why do philosotards always resort to such aggressive cultural appropriation and have no respect for intellectual property rights?

[Anonymous No.15408836]

>>15408825
Church Turing thesis has not been violated
Give an model of computation stronger than a Turing machine
Also my undergrad was in pure mathematics and comp. Sci and my Ph.D is in molecular biology and genetics.

[Anonymous No.15408839]

>>15408832
>Computability theory is pure math.
The thought experiment that Turing used to conceptualize the Turing machine was pure philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15408841]

>>15389635
No. It is saying:

"Things that work only work when applied within their defined constraints"

The point is not that philosophy is useless. The point is that philosophy is useless unless you can also do science. In other words,

A scientist that does philosophy can uncover insights.

A philosopher that does philosophy is useless.

[Anonymous No.15408842]

>>15397135
Is it pronounced Sinop or Sinope?

[Anonymous No.15408845]

>>15389556
I used to think philosophy was useless until I learned over 70% of them are atheists.
So there must be something there.

[Anonymous No.15408852]

>>15389556

Geez - If scientists think philosophers are stupid, what word do you use to describe a theologian?

[Anonymous No.15408857]

>>15408852
Braindead

[Anonymous No.15408858]

>>15408836
>Give an model of computation stronger than a Turing machine
I'll give you three.
1. Turing machine in Malament-Hogarth spacetime allowing for infinite computations in one reference frame to be evaluated in finite time in another reference frame
2. Oracle machine for any set of uncomputable problems
3. Free will

>Also my undergrad was in pure mathematics and comp. Sci and my Ph.D is in molecular biology and genetics.
Nobody gives a shit about your credentialism. This isn't reddit and in today's acadummia any idiot can get a PhD.

[Anonymous No.15408869]

>>15408858
>I'll give you three.
>1. Turing machine in Malament-Hogarth spacetime allowing for infinite computations in one reference frame to be evaluated in finite time in another reference frame
>2. Oracle machine for any set of uncomputable problems
>3. Free will
LMFAOOOO
I shouldn't have expected anything else

[Anonymous No.15408872]

>>15408869
>ask question
>receive answer
What else did you expect, pseud?

[Anonymous No.15408881]

Philosophers hate science since it debunks their stupid questions like the question of free will or the mind body problem and so on

[Anonymous No.15408884]

Philosophers hate science since it debunks their stupid ideologies like determinism or eliminativism and so on

[Anonymous No.15408886]

>>15408884
Cringe philosotard

[Anonymous No.15408893]

>>15408886
Determinism is scientifically falsified. The universe does not evolve deterministically
Ironically only some philosophers still cling to determinism

[Anonymous No.15408908]

>>15408893
Determinism is not a theory so it can't be falsified, you retard

[Anonymous No.15408926]

>>15391401
This is a good paper - it actually justifies science.
It is showing that our senses are subjective and you MUST use objective observations and science to make progress.
What you "believe" is real is not. What is real is what can be objectively measured.

[Anonymous No.15408929]

>>15392605
God this chart so explains modern Republicans.

[Anonymous No.15408933]

>>15393596
> explored through philosophy

"explored" but NOT "answered".
Huge difference.

[Anonymous No.15408939]

>>15393633

WHAT: Science
WHERE: Science
WHEN: Science
HOW: Science

WHY: Subjective purpose

"Why" is subjective. There is only "why" within your consciousness. Your "why" is not my "why".
Philosophy does not answer "why".
Philosophy is nothing more than the attempt to justify a "why" answer internally and then standardize "why" answers across multiple individuals.

[Anonymous No.15408967]

>>15394229
>too high IQ for your tiny little brain

Your belief in a conscious creator when it is not required shows your intelligence.

It is not radical to claim there must be "something" rather than nothing. This is actually the predominant view.
There is zero justification for then jumping to the conclusion that this "something" - whatever it is - requires a "creator".

For example, let's say "Math" is the something that <always> exists. You don;t need a creator. Math just IS. If you want to call that "God" to satisfy your weak, limited mind that fears death and the unknown, go ahead. But the rest of us don't need your crutch. Sorry, dude.

[Anonymous No.15408981]

>>15408858
>I'll give you three.
>1. Turing machine in Malament-Hogarth spacetime allowing for infinite computations in one reference frame to be evaluated in finite time in another reference frame
Theoretical

>2. Oracle machine for any set of uncomputable problems
Fiction

>3. Free will
Fiction

[Anonymous No.15408986]

>>15408881
>Philosophers hate science since it debunks their stupid questions like the question of free will or the mind body problem and so on

Yes. But I wouldn't call the questions stupid. Philosophers can predict answers, scientists get answers.
Philosophy has a place. Whenever a scientist creates a theory, he/she is doing philosophy. When they validate that theory, they are doing science.

[Anonymous No.15409029]

>>15408561
> math isn't a subset of science
Give me an example of something that is mathematical and not scientific.

[Anonymous No.15409032]

>>15408986
>Whenever a scientist creates a theory, he/she is doing philosophy
No, if the theory is a scientific theory i.e. it is intended to solve or reframe a scientific issue, then they're doing science.

[Anonymous No.15409327]

>>15408981
The first two are theoretical. The poster asked for computational models after all, not for existing devices. Free will though is obviously real and suffices to destroy the Church-Turing hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.15409332]

>>15409029
Gödel's incompleteness theorem

[Anonymous No.15409342]

>>15408986
>Philosophers can predict answer
Show me a philosophical prediction.

>Philosophy has a place. Whenever a scientist creates a theory, he/she is doing philosophy.
If any scientist without education in philosophy can already trivially do philosophy then philosophy seems to be quite a weak and cucked field. If it has absolutely no intellectual prerequisites then how can you give philosophy any value higher than toilet cleaning?

[Anonymous No.15409367]

>>15389556
autism

[Anonymous No.15409436]

>>15408841
But what makes something useless? You realize that's a normative question right? One person's useless is going to be someone else's useful.

[Anonymous No.15409441]

The problem is that the good philosophy is wrong speecherino nowadays

[bodhi No.15409582]

>>15408929
Ahh yes, it is the troons who dont know what gender they are that is the intelligentsia. You people are psychotic and delusional.