/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16154343]

Do hypergeniuses on /sci/ agree with his statement? Is science and mathematics for plebeians who can't grasp the depth and complexity of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16154346]

>>16154343
Midwits are drawn to philosophy, since it's trivially easy to pretend to be sophisticated and profound by waving your hands, and nobody can really prove you wrong. Philosophy is to maths like contemporary art is to actual art.

[Anonymous No.16154347]

No. Philosophy has never contributed anything useful to the world, unlike math or science.

[Anonymous No.16154349]

>>16154343
You can't prove anything exists therefore I win the debate.

[Anonymous No.16154357]

>>16154343

[Anonymous No.16154368]

>>16154343
That's the kind of immaturity you expect from someone who allegedly skipped three grades. It is very unfortunate that cognitively gifted people tend to grow up in isolation and often have a delayed social development. Who in their right mind would consider it appropriate to answer a neutral question showing interest in their person with such a bitter and arrogant attack? He should avoid social media until he learns to interact in a polite manner.

[Anonymous No.16154383]

>>16154368
I don't think he's gifted in any sense of the word. I think he's a he giant pseud who LARPs on Discord and uses complex sounding words and phrases to woo us.

[Anonymous No.16154387]

>>16154383
you're right. no one who was actually smart would every call themselves a hypergenius.

[Anonymous No.16154388]

>>16154343
everything is easy anyway, the hardest task you will find to be the research of information. God's processor is incredibly fast.

[Anonymous No.16154389]

>>16154346
>nobody can really prove you wrong
Bad philosophy is actually quite trivial to prove wrong, and frequently scientists who decide to veer into philosophy without proper preparation or respect are quickly assfucked into becoming a laughing stock. See Sam Harris.

Science is actually the easier subject. Not in subject matter, but in validating your theories. Experiments are easy mode, good philosophy is hard and is why only a handful of philosophers across the whole of Humanity are given any respect.

[Anonymous No.16154395]

>>16154343
No. Not really. The hardest problems are all people oriented. Philosophy and math are pretty easy in the sense that you can study them in a vacuum.

You don't have to interact with real humans.

The hardest math problems I've had are associated with people. Organizational in nature. Mainly because you directly have to deal with them and no I don't mean studying, I mean taking action to improve human systems.

Literally hardest thing you will ever do.

[Anonymous No.16154398]

>>16154389
You can't validate philosophy. Validation of philosophy implies some type of experimentation. At most you can verify/determine adequacy

[Anonymous No.16154403]

>>16154398
>Validation of philosophy implies some type of experimentation
Okay, feel free to 'validate' whether or not you exist and aren't a philosophical zombie that's Chinese Rooming everyone. Oops, I guess we can't, looks like we're already into dumbfuck solipsism.
Empiricism cultists are no better than religious fundamentalists. Not all contents of the universe can be put under a microscope or tested.

[Anonymous No.16154417]

>>16154383
Philosophy and larping are in fact indistinguishable. Philosophy nowadays just means stringing together texts that create the illusion of deepity in shallow readers regardless of actual content. Lower versions of GPT already produced outputs flawlessly passing as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154418]

>>16154417
t. has never read any philosophy

[Anonymous No.16154419]

Engineers solved philosophy in 1700's and philosophers are still mad to this day

[Anonymous No.16154421]

>>16154419
>Engineers solved philosophy in 1700's and philosophers are still mad to this day
Interesting. How did they manage the Is-Ought Problem? Oh, and do tell me what engineering or even science has to do with concepts like Just War Theory, I'm sure we'd all love to know.
>ITT pseudo-intellectual fedora tippers

[Anonymous No.16154428]

>>16154418
I've read most of the great philosophers. That's why I added the word "nowadays", you projecting dipshit. Plato and Descartes were based. But any philosophy from the 18th century or newer is utter trash. Separating philosophy from science has killed philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154431]

>>16154428
Plato was an idiot with a terrible epistemology and an even worse theory of governance. You haven't read jack shit.

[Anonymous No.16154432]

>>16154421
>How did they manage the Is-Ought Problem?
How did philosoplebs solve the is-ought problem, huh? If you want to make philosophy look legitimate, perhaps try to choose a subject where philosophy actually solved something instead of a question where it failed. Moron.

[Anonymous No.16154437]

>>16154431
>t. NPC who got filtered by the analogy of the line
Plato settled epistemology. All serious epistemology after his has just been small addenda to his work. What anglo "analytic" scum wrongly considers epistemology today is just infantile wordcels tripping over their own legs.

[Anonymous No.16154443]

>>16154432
>How did philosoplebs solve the is-ought problem, huh?
That's the point. It's not solvable. Hume wanted to prove that you could derive moral solutions from empirical data, but you flat out can't. That's why you'll never see Science resolve any moral problem, because no amount of experimentation or evidence seeking can tell you whether or not dropping an atomic bomb is 'justified' - unless you want to dodge the question with moral nihilism, which you'd be doing as a cope without evidence in defiance of your own standards of proof.
Philosophy actually offers solutions to these moral quandaries, it just doesn't concern itself with gathering data because that's not going to get anyone anywhere on these issues.
>>16154437
Oh, look at the 'smart boy' over here, with his Land of the Forms. Gonna fly up to fucking heaven to learn about math tonight?

[Anonymous No.16154447]

>>16154432
Also, terrible example with the trolley problem. It's not an unresolved problem, it's actually a thought experiment meant to PROVE the validity of utilitarianism - which if you buy into the idea that "killing one person is better than allowing the deaths of five" is perfectly valid, especially if looked at empirically. You'd have to use ANOTHER moral system like paleontology in order to argue against it.

[Anonymous No.16154448]

>>16154447
>paleontology
Deontology, autocorrected

[Anonymous No.16154449]

>>16154443
>Philosophy actually offers solutions to these moral quandaries
Show at least 3 moral quandaries objectively solved by philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154458]

>>16154443
>Gonna fly up to fucking heaven to learn about math tonight?
Unironically yes. Learning math is more satisfying than any drug. The enlightenment entering my body when connecting to the platonic realm is indescribable. Kinda sad that people like you will never experience this.

[Anonymous No.16154461]

>>16154449
>Just War Theory - theories on when wars are justified and what uses of force under those wars are justified, developed by St. Augustine
>"Rights" as a general concept, especially in constitutional law where governments operate under restricted powers
>Use of force in the Justice system, especially whether capital punishment actually deters crime or encourages more henious offenses to be committed during minor crimes (like turning a simple robbery into a robbery+murder since the punishment for theft is the same as the punishment for murder, hanging)

Bonus round:
>Anything to do with linguistics, as word usage is separate from literal meaning - yes, this falls under epistemology

[Anonymous No.16154462]

>>16154443
>Oh, look at the 'smart boy' over here, with his Land of the Forms. Gonna fly up to fucking heaven to learn about math tonight?
What the fuck is this retarded babble? I'm sure a bunch of philosophers would find that to be an epic insult and giggle about it like school girls. To normal humans, however, this is precisely the kind of bullshit that makes it clear how philosophers are nothing but intellectual wankers trying to maski their sophistry in prose.

[Anonymous No.16154465]

>>16154462
By that logic, Chemistry is retarded babble because Alchemy is retarded babble.

[Anonymous No.16154466]

>>16154461
>whether capital punishment actually deters crime
Yes, it does. It removes criminal elements on a genetic level. Yet another question answered by science and muddled by philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154467]

>>16154466
Okay, good luck with all the robbery-homicides, then.

[Anonymous No.16154469]

>>16154447
>>16154448
>muh deontology, muh utilitarianism
Those are not solutions to moral problems. Those are just empirical descriptive terms referring to shallow substitute moral systems used by NPCs. Anyone subscribing to these ideologies is in fact rejecting morality by appealing to an oversimplified shallow shortcut. The NPC wants to reduce morality to simplistic algorithmic execution of rules because he is incapable of individually evaluating a situation and making individual moral decisions based on his free will (which of course he as an NPC is lacking).

[Anonymous No.16154474]

>>16154467
What part of "removes criminal elements on a genetic level" did you find hard to understand, Mr. philosophy-man?

[Anonymous No.16154479]

>>16154461
None of this is philosophy. Holding political opinions is not philosophy. Any /pol/tard can post his views on these topics and make valid or invalid arguments without ever having studied philosophy. Philosophers are not more qualified to talk about these topics. You are grasping at straws. Next you're gonna tell me that cooking or choosing the right fashion to wear is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154481]

>>16154469
Contrarianism will get you nowhere, the fact is that the Trolley Problem IS a utilitarian argument and the kneejerk solution IS a deontological one (that being 'by turning the switch and killing one person, you are taking a conscious act to murder and thus acting immorally by violating a no-murder rule'). You can come up with some other criticism, nobody is stopping you, but you cannot just wish away these categories.

>>16154474
The part where by hanging people who steal bread because they are starving you encourage them to become murderers to remove witnesses and instead you should sentence them to a lesser punishment than hanging that will serve the same negative reinforcement purpose without increasing the severity of the crime.

[Anonymous No.16154483]

>>16154479
>political and moral philosophy isn't philosophy
Cope. But please, tell me how St. Augustine wasn't a philosopher! I'd love to hear it!

[Anonymous No.16154485]

>>16154479
>Philosophers are not more qualified to talk about these topics
No, but philosophers should be able to come up with a more thorough and in-depth explanation of why it is that they've come up with their opinion.

[Anonymous No.16154491]

>>16154403
they, can you just gawta use magic anon

[Anonymous No.16154493]

>>16154481
>The part where
Oh I see. You found the part involving logic difficult to understand. If only you had studied that subject.

[Anonymous No.16154498]

>>16154493
Yeah, what were those classes in Criminal Justice for?

[Anonymous No.16154499]

>>16154485
>philosophers should be able to produce words, words and more words
We have LLMs for that now.

[Anonymous No.16154501]

>>16154499
And they're being put to their best use - writing papers for peer reviewed science journals.

[Anonymous No.16154505]

>>16154483
Show me the demarcation line between qualified "moral and political philosophy" and merely discussing opinions on politics and ethics.

[Anonymous No.16154507]

>>16154498
For writing nonsensical prose that has nothing do with the real world?

[Anonymous No.16154508]

>>16154501
>And they're being put to their best use - writing papers for peer reviewed science journals.
In defense, there's no way AI could do anything other than improve upon the quality of peer reviewed papers. After all, most people are unable to program or even understand language models, yet it's so easy to pressure your underlings into coming up with the data you want because else a private donor would withdraw funds from your department which you don't want to happen.

[Anonymous No.16154509]

to all philososhits itt: it's not over yet, you can still learn physics and math
Suffer through undergrad material, learn quantum field theory asap.

For undergrad physics. Just read these Schutz's GR book for SR, shankar's QM, sakurai's QM, lahiri and pal's QFT, peskin and schroeder's QFT + all Landau & Lifshitz books. After that, both of the Deligne books on QFT + ST

For math, read baez-gauge fields, bertlmann-anomalies in qft, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02031 , schlichenmaier-riemann surfaces, http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf
http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf & Kato's "Heart of Cohomology" for intuition
(encyclopedia of mathematical sciences) Algebra I–X
(encyclopedia of mathematical sciences) Algebraic Geometry I–IV
This book is the most friendly serious book to start

https://www.claymath.org/library/monographs/cmim01c.pdf

https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr3740_17/grbook.pdf

Then after you're finally at what mathematicians and physicists actually care about when they talk about rigorous physics.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields4.pdf

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+field+theory

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/search?query=quantum+field+theory

[Anonymous No.16154516]

>>16154501
In science AI generated output like this is easily recognizable. Now consider how much AI trash gets published in philosophy and goes unnoticed.

[Anonymous No.16154537]

>>16154347
Math and Science are both subfields of philosophy, math by way of logic and the scientific method is a literal method of philosophical inquiry.

[Anonymous No.16154539]

>>16154349
How can "you" win when nobody can even prove "you" exists?

[Anonymous No.16154540]

>>16154387
They also wouldn't imply that they can only be stimulated by the most bare simplistic fundamentals since they don't have the attention span for detailed methodology.

[Anonymous No.16154546]

>>16154537
Wrong. Philosophy is a subfield of math and science. Without knowing math and science you are unqualified to talk about philosophy. Philosophy separated from math and science is no better than chatgpt creating syntactically correct but semantically void nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16154547]

>>16154537
>these actually useful things are really just subsets of my thing
>therefore, my thing is also useful
Peak philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16154553]

>>16154546
No, the scientific method is a method of philosophical inquiry and math is arithmetic logic and logic requires philosophical underpinnings such as identity and inequality.

[Anonymous No.16154555]

>>16154547
Yes if a thing produced something that is useful, it is also useful by definition because it was used to produce useful tools.

[Anonymous No.16154558]

>>16154343
philosophy spawned a cult that we have been suffering the existence of for over a century, so i'd say philosophy is shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfwMpxhrCYE

[Anonymous No.16154561]

>>16154558
Theology has been going on and on and making people suffer for far longer than a century.

[Anonymous No.16154562]

>>16154555
You can't possibly hope to compare what science offered in the last 100 years with what philosophy managed to achieve. Philosophers are still high on thousands of years old farts. Though I agree, some(!) of them are somewhat fundamental.

[Anonymous No.16154565]

>>16154562
Science is a method of philosophical inquiry which makes it a type of philosophy, you are not arguing that philosophy itself is bad, you are arguing that your preferred philosophy is superior to other constructs and methodologies.

[Anonymous No.16154567]

>>16154565
It is less about the philosophy and more about the philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16154570]

>>16154567
Not when you are literally arguing methods and haven't mentioned a philosopher, but keep name dropping the scientific method of philosophical inquiry instead.

[Anonymous No.16154571]

In the end we are just survivalists on some big rock in infinite void trying to understand it. Humans were not created for truth but for survival. Everything is cope, all philoshopy and theology is cope. The closest is perhaps Buddhism because in the end you obliberiste yourself in order to achieve nirvana which is state of being and not being. Beatiful paradox

[Anonymous No.16154574]

>>16154570
Philosophers have been bitch slapped into dualism and the ones who didn't got flack for it. Between science and philosophy there is another pulling strings. Less with science lately, tho they are constantly seething about it

[Anonymous No.16154583]

>>16154561
not that one which arose from philosophy

[Anonymous No.16154585]

>>16154347
>Philosophy has never contributed anything useful to the world, unlike math or science.
>that's why the most recognized and influential scientists advocate that philosophy is essential for science
The only people who have ever dissed philosophy and praised science are people who have no understanding of either

[Anonymous No.16154593]

>>16154574
>durr all philosophers believe in the exact same philosophy hurr

[Anonymous No.16154636]

>>16154583
They all did since theology is the philosophy of religious speculation.

[Anonymous No.16154723]

>>16154555
My Bullshit consists of science, engineering, and me playing video games. Since science and engineering are amazingly useful, and since they are both a part of My Bullshit, me playing video games is also amazingly useful. QED.

[Anonymous No.16154726]

>>16154547

Yes. Moreover, utility itself is pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.16154736]

>>16154723
Yes if that is what is what inspired you to engineer useful things, then it was useful to your engineering career.

[bodhi No.16154769]

>>16154343
midwits tend to be drawn to STEM because it doesnt require them to have original thoughts or ask questions, they just learn algorithms like automatons. Philosophy actually requires you to be able to think for yourself.

Comparing STEMcels to Philosopchads is like comparing a cook to chef. STEMcels cant create the recipes, they can only bake the cake

[Anonymous No.16154775]

>>16154343
sounds like a pseud
the "methodology" can get arbitrarily complex, so thats not an argument
philosophy contributes fuck all

[Anonymous No.16154777]

>>16154769
philosophy is a subset of shitposting

[bodhi No.16154782]

>>16154777
>the only thing I know is that I know nothing
shitposters are the master race

[Anonymous No.16154784]

>>16154769
>t. someone who never had an original thought

[bodhi No.16154785]

>>16154558
I love lindsay's lectures. tks for posting bro

[bodhi No.16154786]

>>16154784
interesting inversion considering the only original ideas that have EVER been discussed on this board in the last 10 years came directly from my mind

[Anonymous No.16154788]

>>16154769
Science and math are full of original thoughts. New branches of math and new frameworks of theoretical physics have been booming in the 20th century. Meanwhile in philosophy the last time someone said something original was 400 years ago.

[bodhi No.16154791]

>>16154788
Philosophy solved all the interesting questions scientists will never be able to answer. They arent even allowed to ask the questions

[Anonymous No.16154794]

>>16154786
>I said something so immensely retarded that no retard before me has ever gone to such a level of retardation as I did
>therefore my thoughts are original
Funny guy.

[bodhi No.16154795]

>>16154794
>this level of cope and delusion

[Anonymous No.16154796]

>>16154791
Not even a single question has ever been solved by philosophy. You will not show me an example. You will deflect and cope.

[bodhi No.16154797]

>>16154796
what rock have you lived under for the last decade? I have spent 10 years giving you incels the answers to questions yo werent smart enough to know even needed to be asked

[Anonymous No.16154798]

>>16154797
You fuck SEA prostitutes and feel the need to brag about it on /sci/. You're in no position to call a married man and father an incel.

[bodhi No.16154799]

>>16154796
I have destroyed every illusion you psueds have lived your entire lives under just for lulz

[Anonymous No.16154800]

>>16154343
Yes, the sentiment is correct. He is wrong about math though. He probably only thinks of math in the simple terms of elementary to calculus, where it is a simple listing of rules and their combinations.
I can't imagine how any hyper genius wouldn't immediately see the excitement in geometry, but maybe he is one of those fee fee geniuses.

[bodhi No.16154802]

>>16154798
your mom is a SEA prostitute? First I have heard of this. I am your Dad, surprise son

[Anonymous No.16154808]

>>16154802
How many times have you used this "ur mom" line on /sci/? Sure that may be a great retort among 12 y.o. kids. But you're how old? 40 something? And still don't have enough confidence to deal with someone contradicting your bullshit on a science board?

[Anonymous No.16154810]

No but philosophy is a worthwhile field even if it doesn't produce definite "results" like math and science. For example today all serious people are materialists. Materialism is mainly based on our scientific findings throughout centuries. However we needed british philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries to crystallize this collective body of knowledge into a modern sensible worldview.

[bodhi No.16154812]

>>16154808
lol didnt read


your mom might

[Anonymous No.16154817]

Science has lead to this horrific monstrosity of a world. Philosophy elevates, science traps us in "the grid".

[Anonymous No.16154825]

>>16154810
>today all serious people are materialists
More like SÖYrious people. The dogma of materialism has already been destroyed by quantum mechanics. The only reason this hasn't reached the average pop sci moron yet is because they're lacking the IQ to understand the math.

[Anonymous No.16154827]

>>16154810
>very serious people think everything's matter from within a demonstrably immaterial mind
Right. Everyone's fucking retarded now, there's no serious people.

[bodhi No.16154829]

>>16154825

[Anonymous No.16154880]

NDEs obviate both philosophy and religion. This world is a dream, the real world is where you wake up when you die here. That's it.

[Anonymous No.16154885]

>>16154810
>For example today all serious people are materialists

[bodhi No.16154926]

>>16154558
how could you watch this and say philosophy is shit? was this not fascinating and enlightening? Most of the people are too stupid to understand any of this (beleivie me I know I have tried to spoonfeed it to them for many years) do you not want to be a participant in the way reality is being shaped rather than a passive observer with shit falling out of the sky on your head that you cant make sense of? That is what these clowns are, passive observers watching a television screen, seeing a movie they dont understand with drool dripping out of their face. You actually understand what this movie is about, what the characters motivations are and why the plot proceeds in the direction it does. You dont think this has value?

[Anonymous No.16154931]

>>16154343
philoshopy questions are the hardest and probably impossible to answer. because philosophy has been unsolvable and no progress has been made for almost 3000 of years, smarter people moved to sciences as an alternative way to get answer for some easier questions because sciences actually create immediately useful things.
all that is left in the philosophy are midwit or semi retard pretending to be deep and complex thinkers. occasionally, you'll get great philosophers which mog all the comtemporary scientists but they're very rare.

[Anonymous No.16154955]

Science and math:
>rigorous methodology
>provide evidence or logical proof for their claims
>establish objective truth
>expand our knowledge
>aim to make complicated mechanisms more accessible

Philosophy:
>no methodology at all, any retard can claim to be a philosopher
>never justify their bullshit, expect you to believe it dogmatically
>deny and attack the notion of truth itself
>proud of spreading ignorance ("I know that I know nothing")
>introduces illusionary linguistic complexity to trivial statements in order to appear pseudointellectual

[bodhi No.16154959]

>>16154955
>t. knows nothing

[Anonymous No.16154962]

>>16154825
>>16154827
>>16154885
all xitter chuds who believe in evola BASED magick to revolt against the modern world and BTFO the redditors

[bodhi No.16154968]

>>16154962
based evola, dunking on troons from the grave

[Anonymous No.16155018]

>>16154955
>rigorous methodology...of political funding

[Anonymous No.16155066]

Hello friends, philosopher here. My focus is stem, specifically artificial intelligence, deep learning and quantum computing along with other future sciences and developments. I hold a bachelors in both philosophy and mathematics. I have my masters in military studies and I’m currently working in research regarding human technologies and the human mind. Part of my research involves browsing this site and engaging with anons and lurking, trying to understand internet culture. I have to say, so far…this thread alone is partly why this along with /tv are the shittiest of boards. The fact that this question is asked and there’s retards arguing over it disregarding philosophy is comical. ALL science and mathematics is a sub field of philosophy. Philosophy is the study of wisdom and knowledge. All science and mathematics was derived from observation and philosophy. All problem solving, logic and critical thinking is derived from philosophy and philosophical inquiry first and foremost. But hey, whatever..this is why I know the secrets of the universe and I’m leading research that will change the world, while the rest of you will just fade away into academia and shitposting.

[Anonymous No.16155131]

Philosophy is about as relevant to the functioning of the modern sciences as early hominids are to modern homo sapiens.

[Anonymous No.16155138]

Philosophy is for social rejects.

Being socially rejected forces you to cope, by yourself, which phl is great at. Being socially rejected also destabilizes you emotionally, and emotional stability is necessary to maintain the kind of long-term work ethic required for math and science. Additionally, philosophical thinking is empowered by idleness, so you have even less reason to obtain a strong work ethic. A Lazy-but-smart attitude is a guaranteed midwit generator without any additional inputs

[Anonymous No.16155352]

>>16154593
Clearly not, it's about who had the power to push the ones holding the "correct" philosophical views and shit on those who didn't, maybe even label their views as dangerous.
This kind of behavior absolutely affects what ideas philosophers explore. And this is true in science as well. If you hold certain beliefs and you know some others are punished then you will absolutely avoid exploring certain subjects.

[Anonymous No.16155386]

The problem with science is it only helps us with the tiny sliver of the overall reality amenable to it. Philosophy tends to point to more, so dogmatic materialists who are obsessed with this minuscule fraction and consider it "Everything" (or multiply their entities by infinity to get a "multiverse" consisting of much the same), react with spiteful vitriol against it. Sadly human.