[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 47 KB, 400x584, 1286313416936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1858782 No.1858782 [Reply] [Original]

Science VS Philosophy Thread GO

>> No.1858807

>>/sci/ uses IQ tests as an accurate scale to determine a person's intelligence
>>then immediately flip flop and say that psychology is not real/credited/scientific.

>> No.1858820

Science is a philosophy. There are many others.

>> No.1858827

Philosophy is science without proof

>> No.1858830

>>1858827

So, a hypothesis?

>> No.1858836

Philosophy is an underpinning of Science.
To discredit Philosophy is your philosophy. Get over it.

>> No.1858840

>>1858782
Science = evedence
Philosophy = implications with biases towards humans.

Guess which one i think is better.

>> No.1858846

Without philosophy, there would be no discoveries.

>> No.1858848

Philosophy is just as important as science. Science and philosophy go hand-in-hand and borrow from one another.

>> No.1858851

>>1858840
Scientific philosophy states that truths can be found by examining empirical data. It's just as much a philosophy as humanism, it's just a different one.

>> No.1858856

Science is the branch of philosophy that matters.

>> No.1858859

>>1858807
You are correct but your statement will be ignored. :/

Philosophy is needed as much as science is.

>> No.1858861
File: 63 KB, 274x345, nelson-mandela.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1858861

>>1858836
Ya know these logic loop arguments are all fake...

I'm only worried if there is observable science/philosophy. I observe their characteristics. >>1858840
see? not logic loop anymore.

>> No.1858864

>>1858840
Sure is ignorant teenager

>> No.1858881

>Using philosophy

Two objects in a vacuum will fall at the same rate regardless of weight.

>Using science

Let's drop two objects in a vacuum

Science needs philosophy for ideas and philosophy needs science for a structured proof.

>> No.1858900

>>1858881
Philosophy needs science for proof? What the fuck?

>> No.1858918

>>1858900
Yes. It's quite obvious, if you can't see that then you will never make it as a scientist

>> No.1858926
File: 3 KB, 92x130, Feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1858926

"Philosophy is a disease."

-Richard Feynman

>> No.1858945

>>1858926
Precisely why he's dead.

Science is split into thirds:
Philosophy: The idea
Maths: The theory
Evidence: The facts

>> No.1858948

It is a disease. It will kill the soul, the revelations and understandings it brings.

>> No.1858971
File: 15 KB, 212x254, alanwatts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1858971

How can philosophy be a science if it's just applied THC (a grass)?

>> No.1859010

>>1858948
Is philosophy a disease? Or maybe the origin of philosophy has been lost, it has not to do with science at all, it's simply looking at the human condition and recognizing it, improving it and, most importantly, questioning it.
Hardcore philosophygentlemen here, ask me some questions /sci/.

>> No.1859060

The fact is that some philosophy is science and some isn't. Some is outright garbage. It's difficult to speak of a subject that encompasses anything and everything and try to generalize with stupid one sentence answers such as the ones above. So philosophy wasn't relevant to Richard Feynman. Who gives a fuck. Some philosophy is useful.

>> No.1859061

bamp

>> No.1859075

>>1859010

I would love to do so, but I can't even begin to organize all of the thoughts I have.

>> No.1859083

Science and engineering are essential for technological development.
Philosophy is a useless hobby.

>> No.1859089

>>1859060
All philosophy is legitimate, people have different views and opinion, but I believe it's a mixture of nearly all philosophies to produce a society that is close to perfect.

>> No.1859097

>>1859075
Typically if you start to think of something you disliked or wanted to change, or even something you just feel passionately about, it will branch out to all of your beliefs.

>> No.1859106
File: 121 KB, 938x720, Philosophy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859106

>> No.1859118

>>1859089
All philosophies by technical terms are "legitimate" but they not necessarily usefu to the self--which is a more important consideration.

>> No.1859122

>>1859106
Contemplating is not a waste of your time, if you put it at the viewpoint that you present, all science is unimportant. We don't need it to survive, it makes our lives easier. Just as philosophy made the lives of people easier by, freeing slaves, making new forms of government, and inspiring people.

>> No.1859132

>>1859118
Check my statement here.
>>1859122

>> No.1859154

>>1859122
It doesn't necessarily make lives easier. Take Christianity for instance. What is the purpose of depriving yourself from all of the pleasures Christianity prohibits followers from partaking in? What is the use in pitying the weak? What is the point in faith? Christianity is a Philosophy and a very useless one.

>> No.1859161

Bumpin'. I feel like answering some questions, so much of /sci/ hates Philosophers, and I want to prove that we have something to contribute. Or I could start babbling about anything, if ya want me to.

>> No.1859162

>>1859122
Freeing slaves made lives more difficult for white folk. New forms of government are as shitty as the old ones. If this shit inspires you, anything will. Looks like philosophy is a useless hobby after all.

>> No.1859173

>>1859154
Christianity a useless philosophy? Yes it does have it's bad points, yet most focus on those and never pay any attention to all the amazing moral principles. "Do onto others, as they've done to you," "love thy enemy" just to name a few.

>> No.1859181

>>1859173
>love thy enemy
Aside from it being loser talk; if your enemy wants to kill you, what good is this love?

>> No.1859187

>>1859161
I don't understand how /sci/ can hate Philosophy.
All science roots in philosophy.

def. - "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

How is this different from science? Philosophy requires proof just as much as science because it is science. If you don't understand this then you don't understand the definition of philosophy or chose not to.

>> No.1859190

>>1859173
"Do onto others, as they've done to you"
How about no, I will not be a dick to everyone around me, as they are to each other. I will be selfless and caring as I can possibly bear, even if they don't deserve it.

Every single line in the bible has a flaw and incompleteness to it.

>> No.1859194

>>1859162
The major impact philosophy had on slavery was prebiblical times, there was no need to waste money on shipping Africans, because the initial reason of that was Natives of America were not immune to European diseases as Africans were. So they were freeing white people.
Getting to the rest of you.

>> No.1859205

>>1859181
If kill your enemy, but not in spite, but in shear need. Killing someone trying to kill you is justified. But if they love you, and you love them, no one dies.

>> No.1859208

>>1859190
If everyone was kind, they would be kind to each other, the only flaw in the bible related to this is that it depends on people actually being kind, for there are no legitimate reasons to start initial hatred.

>> No.1859212

>>1859173
>Christianity a useless philosophy? Yes it does have it's bad points, yet most focus on those and never pay any attention to all the amazing moral principles.
That's a generalization about Christians that holds absolutely no ground.
>"Do onto others, as they've done to you,"
Secondly, Christianity did not invent The Golden Rule.
>"love thy enemy"
Again, how many Christians actually follow this doctrine?

>> No.1859214

>>1859205
>implying housewives don't get beaten to death b/c thier husbands love them to the point of jealousy.

>> No.1859221

>>1859205
Let me reword that. Killing your enemy out of shear spite is not justified, only in self defense is it justified.

>> No.1859229

>>1859221
Killing is always justifiable. I wanted to, is a good start.

>> No.1859231

>>1858830

a geuss

>> No.1859239

>>1859212
It holds no ground, have you actually read the bible with the mindset of learning moral codes? It will often impact you differently then taking it literally.
I'm not knowing of older books that hold that rule, find them, and I'll believe you.
Finally, humans are naturally barbarous, greedy, lustful, and violent creatures. People would like to follow these principles, but they fail do to lack of self control, which is where philosophy is here to guide them.

>> No.1859246

>>1859229
Justice is the quality of being fair, if you take someones life for shear pleasure, it is not fair for the other, thus not justifiable.

>> No.1859254

>>1859214
If you really need me to explain that....Just wow....But if you're being serious and not just trollin', tell me and I'll answer that.

>> No.1859266

>>1859246
It is fair, they could defended themselves. Besides in reality fairness doesn't exist, it's a made up concept like the tooth-fairy.

>> No.1859267

Making a trip for future philosophy discussions.

>> No.1859271

>>1859181Aside from it being loser talk; if your enemy wants to kill you, what good is this love?

Tactical advantage. If you hate your enemy you're prone to underestimate him. The best exterminator is the one that loves ants so much he knows every one of their behaviors and every way to stop them.

>> No.1859289

>>1859221Killing your enemy out of shear spite is not justified, only in self defense is it justified.

What about the defense of a friend of yours? What if the threat isn't immediate but you're pretty sure they'll kill you next week if you don't kill them first? What about in defense of your property? Or to prevent them from taking over your country?

>> No.1859290

>>1859271
Love isn't necessary for knowledge. You can hate the ants and know just as much about them as the guy who loves them. In fact hate can motivate you to know more about them than love ever would.

>> No.1859293

>>1859266
Humans naturally have a moral system, which is why most people feel the greatest emotional impact on killing, not death. Now about fairness.
Free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming with established standards or rules;
That is the definition of fair, and if you deny that as existing, you are only lying to yourself.

>> No.1859298

>>1859293
It exists in our heads just like the tooth-fairy. Thank you for proving my point.

>> No.1859299

>>1859289
I only gave one example of killings justifications, in my own mindset, these are acceptable reasons as well.

>> No.1859309

>>1859298
Fairness is part of the natural moral code, so it exists. Not in the way a rock exists, but in the way love exists.

>> No.1859319
File: 26 KB, 418x270, img_girl_pointing_laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859319

>>1859309
>love exists


I hate to break it to you but, love is your mind playing a trick on you. It's nothing more than a physiological response which entails high levels of dopamine, epinephrine and oxytocin, and low levels of serotonin.

>> No.1859329

You don't understand the point I'm trying to make, do you? I'm trying to explain how, if you go right down to it, it's chemicals in our brains. This isn't biology, or anatomy, so I simply put how that effects us.

>> No.1859331

>>1859329
I do understand your point, I'm just mocking you because of the sheer stupidity of your point.

>> No.1859332

>>1859319
forgot to add these.
>>1859329

>> No.1859343

>>1859331
Someone has an inferiority complex, doesn't he? :) We just have different view points, perhaps you would like to exchange your views on modern societies problems? I would love to have a nice discussion.

>> No.1859359
File: 79 KB, 639x376, This is ridiculous.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859359

Dammit guys, these aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not going to bother reading the thread, just dropping off my two cents then leaving.

Philosophy is a way of thinking, a way of adopting logic and a method of imposed rules on human mental activity. Everything is derived from Philosophy of some kind. Modern Philosophy or moral Philosophy is nothing more than the study of methods of thought. I don't personally think it's worth getting a degree in, but I recognize the importance of the dialogue and would gladly listen to someone trained in philosophy tell me about the fascinating history of the human societal mind.

My point is Philosophy and Science are never at odds.

Also you are all faggots.

>> No.1859363

>>1859343
People like you are a great example of today's problems.

>> No.1859369

>>1859359
I see now why your MD didn't cross over when you changed form.

>> No.1859373
File: 8 KB, 200x149, 200px-Tipohat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859373

>>1859359

wow you've been making quality fucking posts all night long.

pic related.

>> No.1859377

>>1859359
>he doesn't know we got past this yet, try reading sometimes.
>>1859363
A claim with no proof, explain your reasoning.

>> No.1859386
File: 8 KB, 200x148, 200px-WagoFinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859386

>>1859359

>> No.1859421

Bumpin' I want some more topics to talk about guys.

>> No.1859459

Comon guys, I like to discuss, just give me a topic :P

>> No.1859467

>>1859459
Why didn't you pick a real major? What made you believe philosophy has anything to contribute to society in this day and age?

>> No.1859472

Nope.

>> No.1859494

>>1859472
Thanks for giving me a topic. :D
Why do people post with a sage? If they truly didn't enjoy or like a thread would they but ignore it? Adding the sage itself shows interest to an extent. Perhaps it's just in a desperate attempt at trolling? Doubtfully. The sage can be compared to a modern hippie protesting, sure people notice them, but it doesn't do anything.

>> No.1859502

>>1859494
It made you reply. You lose.

>> No.1859525

>>1859502
By making me reply it bumped my thread, is that not counter productive for the Sage's very existence? If you would have never posted, I would not have replied, so this thread would have died.

>> No.1859527

>>1859494
Philosophag lets talk about nothing and how the word is overused in every sense of it since nothing is the only thing humans can't experience, or if you want to go a bit broader lets discuss how Language is utterly limiting. Whichever you prefer

>> No.1859545

>>1859527
First topic is explained alot in this thread. Now about language. Language is only limitated on humans ability to learn and ability to create. We don't need to add words. We have a word for any situation and expression. (This is ignoring actions , such as genocide, that have yet to be done, or nouns.)

>> No.1859558

would i be ignorant to call neuroscience the combination of science and philosophy

>> No.1859568

You can tell /sci/ is full of engineers because engineers hate philosophy, while scientists love it.

>> No.1859570

>>1859545
What do you believe about our creation of words for the abstract though? I feel they often don't represent them well if enough, and only vaguely if it all. I propose that music is the ideal form of expression for abstract ideas which often have feelings and specific connotations to them that we associate them with. I mean, if we take the idea of a god as an example we think of something instead that is omniscient and all powerful, however it should more rightfully be a word to describe a power beyond human understanding that we instead must associate with ourselves and humanize in an attempt to better understand it and make it less abstract.

>> No.1859593

>>1859570
Music is reflection of self, so given that we can safely assure it is more pure then words to express ourselves. We can indeed express our beliefs with words, but we cannot express our beliefs with music, so they are do different mediums to achieve two different expressions of human condition.

>> No.1860027

>>1859558
Yes, you would. Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. What the FLYING FUCK would that have to do with philosophy.

>> No.1860042

science is philosophy applied to empiricism

>> No.1860045

>>1860042
empiricism is a branch of philosophy, so why don't you do the world a favor and take those words and shove them back up your asshole?

>> No.1860092

>>1859568

great example of how everyone in this thread is overgeneralizing. not all engineers, scientists or philosophers are the same.

>> No.1860109

My main interests in philosophy are thoughts on the self and what it means to be, i.e. metaphysics.

I end up with existential dilemmas all the time that make me lose sleep for lack of an answer to them.

Also, I consider myself an existentialist of Sarte's type. I read his stuff and find myself agreeing with basically everything he writes after some thought.

>> No.1860118

>>1858782

what is this a picture of?

>> No.1860177

One scary thought that is supported by scientific evidence is that 90+% of your mass is comprised of empty space.

>> No.1860203

>>1860177
u mad?

>> No.1860218
File: 22 KB, 234x269, laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1860218

inb4 150 posts and 23 image replies omitted.

>> No.1860328

>>1858807
Because clearly everyone boasting about their IQ in IQ threads then turns around and attacks psychology.

Great job at understanding an anonymous imageboard.

>> No.1860450
File: 84 KB, 454x340, Aether.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1860450

I made this thread and this is my 1st reply to it.

Psychology is false because we are word-fiends. So everyones insane. I guess psychology is just being a good judge of character (to the book).

I wouldn't say 'thinking back' is a disease, you can't forget your past, unless you don't give a shit; and that is what is destroying the planet.

In my opinion philosophy is science, it's a greater version, you just need to interpret the past correctly, and that can be done by using your own mind -- this type of philosophy is tagged as: pseudoscience.

>> No.1860462 [DELETED] 

>>1858782
kike

>> No.1860466

>>1859214
>love them to the point of jealousy
answers questions psychology philosophy
science
cancer
naturally naturalism unnecessary unnecessary

unnecesasrry

unecesary unnecessary
lolwat

>> No.1860510

>>1860109
Another philosofag here.

I'd doubting you have studied philosophy in any academic sense, existentialism is laughed off these days.

>> No.1860519
File: 54 KB, 375x502, sciphil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1860519

Pretty much sums it up, right here.

>> No.1860527

Science - for postulating and theorising all that can be tested

Philosophy - for postulating and theorising about anything that is or isn't... but can we even decide?

>> No.1861293
File: 85 KB, 642x372, Rasslor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861293

I'm back, apparently I was rebuked for not reading the thread earlier. So let's see what we've got here:
A bunch of people making rash and uneducated assumptions about the nature of philosophy and comparing it to their idea of 'science'.
*scroll down scroll down*
>>1859154
Oh boy, here we go.
Fifty posts of Science vs. Religion (goddammit, /sci/)
>>1859293
This is the guy what rebuked me earlier, let's see what he has to say: Humans are born with a moral code developed outside of society? Fairness is unbiased, yet based on societal norms? Umm...[citation needed]?
>>1859329
I could see it for amorous or reproductive purposes, hell I could even see it for social tendencies. But an inborn concept of fairness? What research paper did you crib that from?
>>1859343
Don't feed the trolls, lad. And if he's not a troll, don't make him one by insulting him.
>>1859494
Welcome to 4chan, you must be new here.
>>1859545
There are two problems here: 1. the discussion in this thread never came to consensus. 2. Cultural Linguistics carries implications in art, music, culture and society running deeper than than the words themselves. The soul and feel of a text written in one language will be fundamentally different from the same text revised into another language. Try reading Anton Chekhov in Russian then translated into English.

Sorry I'm picking on you Philosofag. No hard feelings, I just disagree with some of your notions.

>> No.1861316

>>1858782
>Science VS Philosophy
why so versus?
How about science VS theology?

>> No.1861322

>>1861316
Or better yet,
Science and Philosophy vs. Theology

>> No.1861325
File: 36 KB, 375x502, eng.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861325

>>1860519
FTFY

>> No.1861333

Philosophy lead to the creation of the scientific method

T/F

>> No.1861377

The objective performance of science is just a place to start. Once you have data, you need to decide what to do with it.

That involves a lot more personal philosophy than the process of science.