/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2188636]

I'm looking for a diagram, looks something like this picture
I tried to recreate it best I could from memory. There are a lot more branches than I have drawn but I didn't see the point in trying to add them

so I'd be grateful if someone could post the original. Thanks

[Anonymous No.2188641]

Metaphysics isn't knowledge.

[Anonymous No.2188651]

>>2188641
I'm open for discussion once I found the original because I don't think I've given an accurate representation

Also, it definitely is

[Naggarothian No.2188653]

This is just wrong on so many levels.....

[Anonymous No.2188661]

>>2188651
Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.
— Rudolf Carnap

[Anonymous No.2188675]

>>2188661
So it is nonverifiable
Still it belongs on this diagram
As it states in that quote it's on a "higher" level than the sciences, which is exactly where I've put it

[Anonymous No.2188677]

Whatever diagram you come up with, Mathematics is always at the top of the tree.

Philosophy is just a combination of chaos with applied game theory.

[Anonymous No.2188682]

>>2188677
Beat me to it. Philosophy isn't on there because induction with arbitrary terms does not produce any real knowledge.

[Anonymous No.2188683]

>>2188675
Nonverifiable statements have no value. By putting them under 'knowledge', you imply they have.

[Anonymous No.2188684]

[Anonymous No.2188690]

>>2188677
I've seen this diagram before, but the one I'm looking for is arranged in the same way I've done it
and whilst I agree with your diagram, it still all comes under philosophy

[Anonymous No.2188695]

>>2188684

Oh man, the people in the Enlightenment were giant trolls.
Look at how they describe religion.

I hate it when people say that all of the thinkers back-in-the-days were religious.

[Anonymous No.2188694]

>>2188684
"Chemistry, properly said pyrotechnics, dyeing"

What is this, 17th century?

[Anonymous No.2188699]

>>2188695

Also, to define "communion" they said "see cannibalism"

[Naggarothian No.2188701]

>>2188684
MFW all of science is classified as philosophy

[Anonymous No.2188706]

(the foundations of) Mathematics cannot be verified and are thus are ruled out by the verifiability criterion.

Today, noone subscribes to the verifiability criterion. It is recognized that all pursuits of knowledge, be it in the empirical or the mathematical realm, takes some propositions for granted without justification (other than intuition)

[Anonymous No.2188707]

>>2188690
>it still all comes under philosophy
Sorry, only for field that can offer me proofs.

[Anonymous No.2188719]

>>2188706
True, but you have to admit, ZFC start only with the most acceptable of assumptions. Is anyone to deny a=a?

[Anonymous No.2188723]

>>2188707
could you rephrase that

[Anonymous No.2188738]

>>2188719
just to clarify
>Is anyone to deny a=a?
That's some nice philosophy bro

[Anonymous No.2188742]

>>2188682
>>2188677
Whats that you say?

[Anonymous No.2188776]

>mfw I saved that diagram like a boss

[Anonymous No.2188807]

>>2188776
like a boss indeed. That's the exact one. Thanks a lot bro

[Anonymous No.2188826]

there's a subversive implication in your hierarchies that a philosopher is capable of any of the things done by those in hierarchically lower levels. i think its pretty clear this is not true.

[Anonymous No.2188828]

>>2188719
ZFC makes more contentious assumptions than the law of identity.

Actually, the axioms of ZFC aren't even as intuitively true as some of the mathematics that follow from them.

[Anonymous No.2188829]

>>2188776

Moda logic and logic are separate disciplines, eh?

[Anonymous No.2188860]

>>2188826

No, the actual implication is that everyone on that chart is a philosopher. Ie, going by >>2188776 and Astrophysicist is a Physicist is a Scientist is an Epistomologist is a Philosopher.

However, as >>2188829 pointed out, according to that chart a Modal Logician is not a Logician. So that chart is bullshit for trying to impose a tree structure on what it tacitly assumed is a web.

[Anonymous No.2188861]

>>2188826
No, that's not what's implied at all. At least what is meant to be implied
It's just what disciplines can be traced back to
Are all physicists engineers? Are all biologists medics? Obviously not

[Anonymous No.2188869]

>>2188829
Yeah. Modal logic fucking blows and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as proper logic.

[Anonymous No.2188877]

>>2188860
There are some grey areas, as with the Modal logic thing you've pointed out. Medicine involves a lot of chemistry for example. Literature is based on Language. Don't renounce it because of a minor issue

[Anonymous No.2188888]

>>2188877

It's not a minor issue. Assuming a tree structure exists is like assuming we have perfect information and an infinite number of firms: meaningless.

[Anonymous No.2188898]

>>2188888
cool quintuple get by the way
And I don't take this web as gospel. It's just a representation of what certain studies can be boiled down to. Stop looking at it so critically

[Anonymous No.2188909]

philosophy is more wisdom than knowledge isn't it

[Anonymous No.2188915]

>>2188661
That's just an obnoxious way of saying that metaphysics isn't a subset of science. Saying it's not part of the wider field of knowledge is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.2188925]

>>2188677
That is incredibly wrong. OP is right. Mathematics is a subset of logic, which is a field of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2188933]

>>2188683
>Nonverifiable statements have no value.
That is a subjective judgment which 99% of humanity would recognize as incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2188984]

>>2188776
I totally approve of that chart. I have no problem with separating out modal logic under metaphysics from the rest of logic under epistemology. Although a chemical engineer might object to engineering only being under physics, and not chemistry... but what is usually understood by the term "engineer" is applied physics, so that's fine.

[Anonymous No.2189206]

>>2188683
You should check out the logical positivists, they agree with you. Although their movement died out some 80 years ago, when everybody realized, verification is impossible. At least as far as empirical statements go.
Because you see, If i say that every swan is white, you can't verify that, unless you check out every swan, that is, or was, or will be in existence. Even if you say, every currently living swan is white, you'd still have to find every living swan, which you can't realistically do. So, there could always still be a black swan.
Then there is confirmation, which is basically that when you make a statement, like all swans are white, every time you see a white swan, it is confirmed. And the more confirmation, the more true your statement (=hypothesis in science) is.
That also fails, because confirmation is incredibly easy to get, which is why stuff like talking to dead people in front of an audience (there's probably a name for this practice, but it escapes me) is still around. Every time that person (psychic?) gets a bit of information right, it's confirmation for the idea that she/he can actually talk to dead people.
That's why science now has turned to falsification, based on ideas of Karl Popper. Falsification means actively trying to find things that disprove your hypothesis. If you really can't find anything, that gives great credibility to it, although never certainty, which is what the logical positivists with their criterium of verification were after. Certainty is an idea whe have had to give up, but we can get pretty close, for instance the Heliocentrical theory of our solar system, is very close.
Falsification also means that things which cannot possibly be falsified, such as 'Last Thursdayism', are not science, since they cannot be scientifically studied, i.e. through falsification.

[Anonymous No.2189231]

n the case of statements which deal, not with universal truths (ALL swans are white), but with particular truths (THIS swan is white), claiming 100% certainty goes a bit far (you have to consider the fallibility of your senses, for instance), but ignoring such things, you might indeed be said to be able to verify such statements. However, a world view that allows only statements about particular facts, seems a bit limited. You'd have to throw out all laws of nature, for instance. We could not possibly have made all the technological advances we have made that way.

[Anonymous No.2189238]

continuing my previous two posts
>>2189206
>>2189231

There is, of course, also the possibility that you meant all statements which are not in principle verifiable are meaningless. But there are also problems with this. The statement: 'Nothing can go faster then the speed of light' is not in principle verifiable. You could not possibly check this for all objects, you'd have to take every object that ever was, is, or will be, and accelerate it to, and perhaps beyond, the speed of light. Yet this statement is the basis of Einsteins theory of relativity, which brought us many things (atom bombs, proper launching of satellites and thus cellphones, etc.)

[Anonymous No.2189242]

last bit:
>>2189206
>>2189231
>>2189238

Verification is thus a criterium, that is impossible to reach, for any statement, with the possible exclusion of particular statements. If we used only this criterium, we would get nowhere.

You might still say that non-verifiable statements are meaningless and provide no knowledge. However this would imply that we have no knowledge. Which might very well be true, in fact i might agree with you, as long as you mean 100% certain knowledge. Still, science as we know it is the best substitute for that and I choose to trust in it.