/sci/, do you dislike philosophy? If so, why? I like philosophy.

File: 27 KB, 375x450, aristotle_stone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:40:11 2011 No.2991338 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/, do you dislike philosophy? If so, why? I like philosophy.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Tue May 3 22:40:11 2011 No.2991341 File: 4 KB, 246x231, 1268441969356.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I don't dislike philosophy, I just dislike philosophers.

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:41:11 2011 No.2991347 File: 29 KB, 300x300, The Dude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2991341 Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:41:11 2011 No.2991349 Its like mathematics only without the math. useless.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:42:11 2011 No.2991353 File: 693 KB, 997x1406, Agrippa_pushkin_museum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because they don't know they aren't kings.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:43:11 2011 No.2991354 It's okay. I just hate stuff like painting.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Tue May 3 22:43:11 2011 No.2991358 File: 15 KB, 262x228, 1265471566453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2991347 Bunch of luddite postmodern nutjobs. Like my philosophy teacher, and this John Searle person. Biochauvinism, biochauvinism everywhere!

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:44:11 2011 No.2991361 >>2991349 Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. >mathematics only without the math >wat

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:44:11 2011 No.2991363 Pretentiously disregarding know shit to make themselves look like their full of something other than shit.

Anonymous Tue May 3 22:45:11 2011 No.2991367
File: 40 KB, 410x307, 1282365479969.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

engineering major, philosophy minor.

the detest between both disciplines is in the desired exclusiveness of deduction (logically, or scientifically).

i believe, through ethics, we must be interdisciplinary to fully understand the resulting responsibilities associated withour designs, and proceeding actions.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:45:11 2011 No.2991368 >>2991363 >known

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:46:11 2011 No.2991369 File: 203 KB, 400x304, Biochauvinism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2991358

>>	All science is philosophy Anonymous Tue May 3 22:46:11 2011 No.2991370 File: 46 KB, 512x442, idiot test.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >All science is philosophy You may not like it. But before it becomes science it is just a philosophy

Anonymous Tue May 3 22:47:11 2011 No.2991372

>>2991361
Mathematics is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason.
ergo philosophy is mathematics for people too stupid to do actual math.(why much more smart people are mathematicians than philosophers)

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:47:11 2011 No.2991373 >>2991370 This.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:48:11 2011 No.2991375 >>2991349 Math is the breadth of all ideas that stem from information all based on founding axioms or assumptions. Philosophy, and more generally, any science, is no different.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:49:11 2011 No.2991379 >>2991370 >All science is philosophy Until the faggotry is tossed aside. Then it gets its own name.

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:49:11 2011 No.2991381 >>2991372 I pretty much agree with you. But still, you are referring to philosophers, while my question concerned philosophy in itself.

Anonymous Tue May 3 22:50:11 2011 No.2991385

I don't care for it. While it is intriguing to think about it, it seems like to many philosophers develop and promote ideas because they can think of a way that it must necessarily be true. Once it hit me that we evolved, and evolved a system to understand reality (logic), I arrived at the conclusion that no amount of pure thought or reason can point to a necessary truth in external reality. To me only science can do that. Now analytical philosophy is different, but I feel most philosophers make comments and assertions about what reality is and isn't without first understanding science and its discoveries.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:52:11 2011 No.2991401 >>2991385 too* And I understand there's a bit of an oxymoron in my post, suffice to say I don't accept the existence of necessary truths built only on reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:57:11 2011 No.2991431 >>2991381 philosophy in itself is fine. It's just that it has it's limitations and after a certain point gets useless or obsolete as a means of deriving truths. That is when people start to rightfully make fun of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 22:58:11 2011 No.2991435 /sci/ should see more philosophy, it's the only board that can handle it.

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 22:59:11 2011 No.2991443 >>2991401 I see.

>>	The Dude !!06w3aA0XfTW Tue May 3 23:00:11 2011 No.2991451 >>2991431 I know what you mean. >hurr when we don't look at milk is it white or any other colour hur durrr

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:07:11 2011 No.2991481 In my college, in my country actually, every philosopher is a pothead. 99.9% no exceptions. Thats's why.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:13:11 2011 No.2991504 Neuroscience ruined it.

Anonymous Tue May 3 23:21:11 2011 No.2991541

the academia of philosophy is pretentious and unfocused. nothing is important anymore. i mean, pretty much everything has been talked about to death. after kant, after hegel, and after existentialism, i just don't see anywhere left for philosophy to go. also, the existence of a strong culture of philosophy requires a strong bourgeois class (and i think we are losing that mentality with the recession and all), because philosophy in and of itself obviously and utterly impractical

Anonymous Tue May 3 23:28:11 2011 No.2991577
File: 37 KB, 600x466, Ted_Bundy_in_court.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love philosophy, because it's the only way to fundamentally break down the problems inherent in mathematics and science. Of course, when I say philosophy I generally mean analytic philosophy, and Logic.

Scientists hate it because they're pragmatists, and end-users. It doesn't have obvious immediate utility.

Anonymous Tue May 3 23:39:11 2011 No.2991642
File: 20 KB, 268x265, 1282590093711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Philosophy is only useful to philosophers. Uni's are slowing starting to get rid of philosophy departments because hard sciences actually produce useful shit. I like philosophy to the extent that it helped establish a logical framework to conduct scientific research. But other than that, its fucking useless.

Anonymous Tue May 3 23:41:11 2011 No.2991653

i am obsessed with philosophy. the annoying thing about philosophy is that everyone thinks they know it. also there are no good looking girls in any philosophy classes ever. im a philosophy major. philosophy teaches you how to think critically and it teaches you how to argue logically, both of these skills can be learned by other means and without spending a college tuition.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:43:11 2011 No.2991662 >>2991653 Exactly. The practical applications of logic can be learned outside college.

Anonymous Tue May 3 23:51:11 2011 No.2991692
File: 28 KB, 640x480, Ted5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2991642
>>2991653
>>2991662
This is only true if you're trying to become an Engineer. If you're planning on doing any real theory, I hope you're prepared to be disappointed. Naive logic and naive set theory work fine if you're happy being naive.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:52:11 2011 No.2991709 >>2991692 >professes to know the truth You're so naive

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:58:11 2011 No.2991736 File: 625 KB, 1250x795, 1295305976255.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2991709 I think we all know the truth about Engineers around here.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 3 23:59:11 2011 No.2991744 philosophy gives you a more complete and better understanding of the world compared to engineering, but philosophers are less happy and poorer than engineers

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 00:00:11 2011 No.2991755 philosophy is slow and impedes action

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:03:11 2011 No.2991773

>>2991577
>...it's the only way to fundamentally break down the problems inherent in mathematics and science.
And by break down, you mean talk in circles and claim you've made progress. Spoken like a philosopher. Now get back to work - the french fries are burning.

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:07:11 2011 No.2991811

I dislike metaphysics (but like a true Wittgensteinian I see metaphysical statements as necessary to escape the bare bones world of meaningful logical statements). I dislike ethics, aesthetics, and moral philsophy. I think they are relative and investigation is probably better done by a coalition of anthropology and neuroscience.

I like the rest of Analytical and Continental philosophy. I am very interested in critical theory and the philosophy of science.

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:09:11 2011 No.2991824

>>2991773
We're not talking about philosophy majors, we're talking about philosophy. We're also not talking about all philosophy, e.g. postmodern masturbatory nonsense which is precisely the kind of useless bullshit that gives Philosophy the bad name it doesn't deserve.

And please let's not get started about talking in circles, because that's about all that's being done in major areas of physics and mathematics right now. Clarifying our philosophy (or more specifically our logic) is basically the only road out of that.

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:17:11 2011 No.2991868

>>2991824

You do not understand the post-modern critique. We know that objectivity is non existent. everything has a history and a milue. We also know that meaning is only made possible through association and group discourse.

Science needs critical theory in order to keep a check on experimentality and especially to keep it separated from neoliberal governmentality.

Do you not think that science is a discursive exercise? Do you not think it is situated in the social world? Are you a naieve platonist?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 00:35:11 2011 No.2991969 >>2991358 but Searle does into postmodernism you should also read Agamben if you like Searle Foucault is good for a laugh too :( just read the construction of social knowledge

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:44:11 2011 No.2992023

>>2991824
>We're not talking about philosophy majors, we're talking about philosophy.
Who said I'm not?
>We're also not talking about all philosophy
I don't recall OP saying that - why are you assuming this?
>let's not get started about talking in circles, because that's about all that's being done in major areas of physics and mathematics right now.
Are you confusing taking limits with talking in circles? Because those can almost always be solved numerically with a testable prediction, and demonstrated as proved or disproved. Whereas philosophy merely defining phrases, and occasionally (and increasingly rarely) applying logic to these definitions.

If Popper were alive today, he'd be a computer scientist.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 00:52:11 2011 No.2992089 >>2991692 Naive set theory is sufficient for all mathematics outside foundations. There is no such thing as naive logic. So pfft.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 00:53:11 2011 No.2992093 Philosophy is the only chance we have for thinking clearly about the things that matter most to us.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 00:54:11 2011 No.2992102 >>2991385 Most philosophy is analytic philosophy and has been for 50 years.

Anonymous Wed May 4 00:59:11 2011 No.2992137

Lots of scientists hate philosophy because they can't stand the idea of anyone figuring things out without doing experiments. And lots hate it because they can't stand the idea of anyone taking anything seriously that has to do with human beings. This is all because they're so socially awkward.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:01:11 2011 No.2992150 >>2992089 1st order logic is naive

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:03:11 2011 No.2992164 >>2992102 In the anglophone world. Just look at france, germany, the netherlands, eastern europe, and italy just try and tell me bruno latour does into analytics just try.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:03:11 2011 No.2992160

>>2991868
There is no postmodern critique.

>>2992023
I'm going to ignore the semantic stuff about the term philosophy, but I'll sum up what we would probably agree on. Academic philosophers argue in circles and go nowhere, postmodernists are nihilists who failed at elementary logic, and the rest of the professional discipline is equally shit. So, in a nutshell, professional philosophy is garbage.

The idea that modern science is still carefully empirical is nonsense. Physics has been a mess since QM, and even worse since M-Theory. I consider most of these problems to be foundational, and hence in need of clarification: a clarification that will ultimately be philosophical and logical.

So, yes, most serious philosophers today do other things. I can wholeheartedly agree with that.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:05:11 2011 No.2992175 >>2992150 I never heard that term. Maybe post a source if you can find one. But quantification over predicates is demonstrably equivalent to set theory, so who cares.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:06:11 2011 No.2992176 >>2991868 >objective knowledge is impossible >we know that proven to be not philosophy fag.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:06:11 2011 No.2992177 >>2992160 and the social world doesn't exist and science is performed by gods in a vacuum you my friend fail at philosophy read some fucking wittgenstein, feyerabend, or carnap then move onto latour and agamben

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:07:11 2011 No.2992187 >>2992164 Bruno Latour is not a philosopher, he doesn't even call himself one. He's a sociologist. And philosophy is much more popular in the anglophone world than on the continent. Just look at the journals. Oh wait, you don't read journals.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:07:11 2011 No.2992190 >>2992176 you use it climb then through away your ladder ;)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:09:11 2011 No.2992204 >>2992187 >Has not read We Have Never Been Modern Discipline means nothing

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:10:11 2011 No.2992207
File: 43 KB, 325x495, WVOQuine_sees_your_penis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992177
False bifurcations are fun, aren't they. People will begin to take you seriously when you notice minor issues like:
>>2992176

Read some Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Searle. You can burn your Latour and Agamben.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:11:11 2011 No.2992223 >>2992207 I got Searle and Wittgenstein right in front of me. They are compatible with my Latour and Agamben.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:12:11 2011 No.2992226 >>2992190 sure. different proposition: let's not throw the ladder away, acquire more knowledge and do whatever we want afterwards.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:15:11 2011 No.2992236

>>2992226

Latour would say the ladder constrains the thoughts and actions you take. It has agency over you. You can't escape your ladder and have been doomed by it. Why not study the how you got the ladder and what movements it constricts.

Why is this not a good approach?

>>	FUCK BITCHES GET MONEY !iILHznJ.V6 Wed May 4 01:16:11 2011 No.2992242 Ancient Philosophy is where it's at. Also like Montaigne, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Some good stuff there.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:16:11 2011 No.2992245
File: 38 KB, 351x450, Russell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992223
The minor technical issue of Searle being a very militant realist doesn't lead you into a crisis of cognitive dissonance? Your mind must be incredibly... flexible. I guess the benefits of theft over honest toil are, indeed, many.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:18:11 2011 No.2992255

>>2992236
The ladder having an agency and constricting the possible field of conclusions you can arrive at assumes that there is a disconnect between the things we know and reality.
Both as a language and a knowledge critique you can dismiss that, because all we say and all we mean is necessarily oriented towards solving practical problems. only if you take away this practical involvement with reality, the "ladder" would make any sense. You can't though without taking away meaning from everything we say.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:21:11 2011 No.2992273
File: 15 KB, 195x190, feyerabend1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992245

What is wrong with flexibility? I think that rigid dogmatism is worse. Plus I am much more a devote of Feyerabend. Perhaps that explains my academic promiscuity. Like any other graduate student in this sort of study I am perhaps a little mad...as was Russel

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:22:11 2011 No.2992286 >>2992255 my beetle perfoms qus not plus does yours?

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:27:11 2011 No.2992311

>>2992286
this is why philosophy is disregarded these days. you are probably quoting someone again and think you just said something smart.
Language is a communication tool. If you use it in a way that is not making sure that the target understands, you are not actually speaking.
Maybe thats the problem with you metaphysical fags: you guys see that your communication efforts don't have any effect and conclude that knowledge is unattainable because of that.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:31:11 2011 No.2992334
File: 51 KB, 366x349, Kripke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992311

Have you seriously not read Kripkes "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language"

But feel free to dismiss me and my field I am but a lowly historian historian of science and not a philosopher...its not like we contributed anything BUT FUCKING KUHN

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:35:11 2011 No.2992356
File: 9 KB, 192x262, Comrade_Joe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992273
Well, the problem to me seems to be that the possibility of carrying the philosophy to its end isn't really there. "Anything Goes"-style absolute freedom is only something you can implement locally. A lot of the rest of your day is being a lumbering meat-sack that wants to eat and sleep and engage in other behavior constrained by its own existence, and the Wild Body must always be appeased.

Reality is the first and ultimate tyranny. It is the hateful dogmatism into which every one of us is born, and no matter how appealing the idea that you can just wish yourself to total freedom is, the lie is never far from being exposed. The only credible way out of it, so far, has been science. The possibility of understanding the rules of the game from the inside and maybe, someday, gaming the system.

That doesn't mean you can't always step back and wonder what it is exactly you think you are doing, and that's where philosophy can be useful. Still, Feyerabend's radical skepticism definitely forced the issue more than the more tame Popperian criticisms, but the cottage industry in postmodern provocateurs that came after him is just a lot of howling at the moon.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:42:11 2011 No.2992384

>>2992334
wittgensteins beetle had a real application until brain mapping and imaging of single neurons was possible. He couldnt have know back then but these days if you want to use this analogy you have to prove that it has any application beyond criticizing unreflected common language.

Kuhn is a hack. He used paradigm shift in at least six different ways. The only thing he did was give people a shorthand for "this works better than before"

im not dismissing only your field but all humanities that dont rely on the scientific method. we only learn interpretation as a method of acquiring knowledge. but interpretation is subjective. hence we conclude that everything is. except we disregard popper.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:45:11 2011 No.2992400 File: 16 KB, 275x326, Pierre_Duhem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2992334 >>2992384 So if you average out the unfettered enthusiasm of the first one and the unrepentant disdain of the second one, you about get the correct answer.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:46:11 2011 No.2992402
File: 11 KB, 234x326, Lakatos_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992356

Though I don't agree with Lakatossian concepts of telos in science. I do see science as a useful tool. But I do not think it is independent of context or history and that greatly limits the truth claims of scientific explanations. I think that reality is inaccessible. Without telos how can you know reality? The history of science shows that there is likely no telos.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 01:50:11 2011 No.2992432 >>2992400 unfalsifiable statement. good work.

Anonymous Wed May 4 01:50:11 2011 No.2992433

>>2992384

GFP and brain imaging does not work in the manner you think it does. I may be a historian of science now but my academic background is in developmental neurobiology.

Also the scientific method does not work the way you think it does. It is not being implemented in a uniform fashion. Just look up the concept of experimentality. How can you not think the history of science is useful?

Anonymous Wed May 4 02:12:11 2011 No.2992531

>>2992433
> fallacy from authority.
Good work. I in fact are god and know all.

>academic background
Empty words. I for one also sat in a math course for econ majors. Is that my background now? Don't pretend you can keep up with a whole field while doing something else and that your way of perceiving this fields conclusions are the truth (remember, you dont believe in that) or that it is the way the field sees itself.

>does not work the way you think it does
Yes it does. The prediction is that the phenomena of the brain such as consciousness and with it things such as language and knowledge are emergent.
The assumption of "we cannot know X" always assumes that there is some unit that interacts with the system in a way we cannot measure. Up until a few month ago this smallest unit was the electrical output of a single neuron and its interaction with other neurons. This has been done with mice now.

I guess I am done here. If you take away anything from this, let it be this: Do not quote texts you have read. All of them have several problems and are not "true" as a whole. Only singular arguments can be checked for truths.
Make these singular arguments in a way your partner understands them and can relate to them. That is, if you want to have a conversation and not just show off that you read books.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 02:21:11 2011 No.2992571 >>2992384 I bet you think Los Alamos was a good idea as were eugenics and frontal lobotomies. Science needs historical evaluation

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 02:23:11 2011 No.2992579 >>2991338 > /sci/, do you dislike philosophy? If so, why? I like philosophy. I like philosophy. I dislike most philosophers for talking about worthless useless philosophy, and worse, nihilistic or anti-realism philosophy.

Anonymous Wed May 4 02:25:11 2011 No.2992588

>>2992531

hiho you were just a bit ago criticizing me for picking and choosing

you really dont know anything about neurobio and I did not just set in a class...lets just see if they can show how memory works...hint they wont be able to..any time soon....if at all

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 02:27:11 2011 No.2992596 I like philosophy because I feel like it is about putting all of the knowledge we gain through the scientific process into context. It's all about putting knowledge into a larger context based on logic and making it REAL knowledge.

Anonymous Wed May 4 02:55:11 2011 No.2992672

>>2992571
science needs moral evaluation. Nothing historical about it.

>>2992588
Yes, I can criticize you for every claim to knowledge you make as you are contradicting your claim that we cannot know anything.

>OH LAWD MEMORY IS BEYOND KNOWLEDGE
read: http://cogs200.pbworks.com/f/Eichenbaum%2099%20Hippocampus.pdf

also, very funny how you say "It's not possible YET". So you contradict yourself in one sentence. great.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 03:01:11 2011 No.2992691 File: 11 KB, 250x167, philosophers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Philosophy was the first science

Anonymous Wed May 4 03:06:11 2011 No.2992707
File: 44 KB, 500x667, philosofags.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ancient greek philosophy was cool because those guys pretty much invented scientific reasoning and applied it to the human condition to try to come up with new and practical ways to live and exist. today's philosophy is just like "lol waht if nothing exists and it's all a dream cuz that would be cool".

Anonymous Wed May 4 03:07:11 2011 No.2992709

>>2992672

Skepticism is should be reflexive as well. that is why I am not in the quagmire you think I am also your little pdf is just one part of a much larger discourse. way to try and cherry pick an article bro. Memory in its complete functionality is beyond us. I bet you think we can cure cancer too.

Anonymous Wed May 4 03:17:11 2011 No.2992736

>>2992709
You are not a skeptic, you are a relativist or constructivist. If you were a skeptic you would not make a claim to any knowledge. You claim though that "No true knowledge is possible because of X" is true.

>article
Your claim was "Knowing how memory works is impossible". I gave you a counter-example of something that probably leads into the right direction which waters down your claim to "We cannot know YET". And this, I can totally live with.

>cannot cure cancer
YET. Also, chemo.
depending on how you define "cure"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 03:35:11 2011 No.2992773 >>2991541 >after kant Pretty important, I guess. >after hegel Wat. >and after existentialism, >Implying that's more than pseudo-philosophy for teenage girls >laughingmen.jpg

Anonymous Wed May 4 03:40:11 2011 No.2992780

ITT /SCI/ SHOWS HOW AUTISTIC IT IS

Holy fuck guys, how can you

a) be so close-minded as to see that philosophy will likely spawn a new science at some point in the near future?

b) not appreciate what it has done for modern science?

You guys are fucking retards. I'm a fucking mathematician and I know this.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 03:47:11 2011 No.2992801 >>2992780 most people in here argue about philosophy. as far as i can tell only a few have discounted it's value completely. You sir are a mathematician with poor reading skills.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 03:51:11 2011 No.2992811 >>2992311 >Autismal as fuck

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 03:51:11 2011 No.2992812

>>2992780
>a) be so close-minded as to see that philosophy will likely spawn a new science at some point in the near future?

Lolno.

>b) not appreciate what it has done for modern science?

Recently? Lolno.

The Poetry of Science: Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ

1:02:45 - Philosophers and science

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 03:55:11 2011 No.2992822 >>2992812 >Two people that know nothing about philosophy speaking about philosophy proves that philosophy is dead Right.

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:02:11 2011 No.2992832

>>2992812

Have you totally missed that it spawned practically every new science ever? Give me a single one that was not begun by philosophy for the most part (inb4 computer science - read some Turing and Goedel).

You obviously know nothing of modern philosophy. Nice anecdotal evidence by the way, you're obviously not even a very good scientist.

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:02:11 2011 No.2992833

>>2992822

that tripfag alway and I mean always cites those two as if they were real productive scientists and truly educated mean with professional standing in all fields of knowledge. He fails to realize they are actors for all intents and purposes. They are not Einstein or Mach, they are not even Oppenheimer. Those men knew philosophy and science. Hell Donna fucking Haraway probably knows more useful science and philosophy than them.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:03:11 2011 No.2992834 >>2992780 ITT /sci/ does not know what philosophy is. FTFY

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:07:11 2011 No.2992845

>>2992833

I like Dawkins. He's a great biologist (my father has worked with him and proofread a lot of his books), but that's all he is. Anything he's written outside of biology he wasn't really qualified to write in my opinion.

inb4 underageb& - I'm 19.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:07:11 2011 No.2992846 >>2992832 General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. None of that involves armchair philosophy in the slightest.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:08:11 2011 No.2992848 >>2992833 >Implying that Dawkins isn't as good and influential a scientist as those people. Sorry, no.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:08:11 2011 No.2992850 >>2992846 >Implying armchair philosophy is actually philosophy? Is this meant to be a troll?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:09:11 2011 No.2992853 >>2992846 Are you honestly stating general relativity as though it is a modern scientific advancement? It was theorised almost 100 years ago. You are more ignorant than I thought.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:09:11 2011 No.2992855

>>2992832
>Nice anecdotal evidence by the way, you're obviously not even a very good scientist.
Nice strawman. Of course, I'm citing that as some sort of evidence. At least assert a proper fallacy which may apply, like argument from authority. Idiot.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:10:11 2011 No.2992857 I'm waiting for a new scientific advancement that was brought forth by a self proclaimed philosopher instead of a self proclaimed scientist working in the lab.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:13:11 2011 No.2992861 >>2992848 As a philosopher? Not even close. Please actually learn what philosophy is. Protip: Philosophy majors in your shit-tier college don't have the first clue either.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:14:11 2011 No.2992864 File: 25 KB, 370x450, Trololol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2992846

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:15:11 2011 No.2992869 >>2992857 Ever heard of Goedel, Russell, Feynman or Turing? Protip: most world-leading scientists are also philosophers. Go read some of their stuff.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:16:11 2011 No.2992872 >>2992869 And what point are you trying to make? That good scientists are also philosophers? Sure - whatever. Scientific advancements happen from research, not from philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:16:11 2011 No.2992873 >>2992855 It was anecdotal evidence AND an argument from authority. "OMG I just saw these two good scientists say philosophy is dead so it must be!"

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:16:11 2011 No.2992875

>>2992857
you probably mistake philosophy with people that think true knowledge comes from pure reason. Those are only a minority of philosophers.

At the fringes every science is part philosophy. Things like a scientist thinking about the flaws inherent in a system that give rise to certain effects. Or a scientist that cannot test for a certain thing, but assumes that it exists and derives new theories from that could be called philosophy too.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:22:11 2011 No.2992881 >>2992873 >It was anecdotal evidence No. It was me citing an argument and observation, not really evidence. I was hoping Neil would do a better job explaining it than I. Obviously you fixated on Dawkins, despite my intentions.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:24:11 2011 No.2992883 >>2992857 Why should PHILOSOPHY attempt to create SCIENCE? Tell me one medical advance made lawyer?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:26:11 2011 No.2992884 >>2992846 As if Schopenhauer did not influence Schroedinger....please please please look at the history of science a bit more

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:27:11 2011 No.2992885 >>2992846 So, you're saying that principles of verification and falsification have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics? Cool story, bro. Say hello to Karl Popper on the way out.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:27:11 2011 No.2992886

>>2992884
Whatever. Your claims are unfalsifiable. I really don't care.

The fact remains that science advances directly through evidence and research, not through what is nowadays known as "philosophers", as to distinguish them from scientists.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:27:11 2011 No.2992887 >>2992881 how can you even compare those talking head to einstein, oppenheimer, and mach. you are very faulty at differntiating between good science and utter schlok

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:28:11 2011 No.2992888 >>2992887 So, you are claiming that Dawkins didn't revolutionize, or at least greatly affect, the field of evolution with his book The Selfish Gene?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:28:11 2011 No.2992890 >>2992885 I think we're talking to different points, and different interpretations of the word "philosopher".

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:29:11 2011 No.2992891 >>2992886 what just look at any biography of schroedinger and or read any of his metaphysics you can get that right from the horses mouth you dweeb...he wrote on philosophy as well as physics

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:30:11 2011 No.2992892

>>2992886

>Whatever. Your claims are unfalsifiable. I really don't care.

The arguments used to place falsificationism as the key component of scientific methodology are not falsifiable. Your epistemic views (as well as your views of the philosophy of science) are self defeating.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:30:11 2011 No.2992895 >>2992891 Yes, and? I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore. So meh.

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:31:11 2011 No.2992896

>>2992890

Yes, I'm using the action definition while you're pulling one of your ass and equivocating in order to maintain some semblance of a point.
If you believe Karl Popper was not a philosopher conducting philosopher, you are simply mistaken, lying, deluded or trolling.

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:32:11 2011 No.2992899

>>2992888

no he didnt do that. he is not a well regarded scientist and that theory is not influential. sociobiology is not well regarded either. he is not a nuessline volhardt or even a james watson or a sj gould fuck punctuated equilibria and spandrals are better thought of than a selfish gene. you should grab a genetics text or read a journal and see the actual impact of the people you have idealized...it is nill

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:38:11 2011 No.2992913
File: 12 KB, 240x332, Alfred_Tarski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm struggling to understand how people believe that J.L. Austin, John Searle, and C.S. Peirce (amongst a host of others) didn't materially contribute to Pragmatics and Linguistics, or that Dennett and Searle haven't made important contributions to Neuroscience and A.I.

The obstructions to progress on Quantum Gravity and unification is not a physics problem, it's a philosophical one. Something is amiss in the undertaking, and it needs clarification. And the clarification need not, necessarily, be empirical. It's more likely to be terminological, as Wittgenstein would have believed.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:38:11 2011 No.2992915 >>2992845 Creationist detected.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:42:11 2011 No.2992920

>>2992913
>The obstructions to progress on Quantum Gravity and unification is not a physics problem, it's a philosophical one. Something is amiss in the undertaking, and it needs clarification. And the clarification need not, necessarily, be empirical. It's more likely to be terminological, as Wittgenstein would have believed.
lolno. At least this I can laugh at.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:47:11 2011 No.2992931 >>2992920 are you drunk, stupid, or both?

Anonymous Wed May 4 04:47:11 2011 No.2992933
File: 31 KB, 400x406, Erdös.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992920
You're not very bright, then. Which I already suspected since you tend to bandy around the term "falsifiable" as if it absolves you of the necessity of maintaining coherent opinions.

It's cool, though, we can't all have a solid grasp of logic and semantics.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:49:11 2011 No.2992936

>>2992931
Asks the person who's not using proper capitalization.

Nope. I just believe that the fundamental problems in quantum physics and general relativity require more than just a renaming or invention of new terms. It requires lots of research, such as accelerators, and it requires lots of high level math research. It doesn't require someone to come along and pick out new names. It is largely a problem of lack of facts, and perhaps lack of ingenuity to discover some equations which have not yet been.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:52:11 2011 No.2992940 >>2992881 Anecdotal evidence is evidence that uses a single example. Yours is exactly that. In fact, they aren't even talking real philosophy, so it's not even worthy of that.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:53:11 2011 No.2992942 >>2992886 The claim that philosophy made science is unfalsifiable? What?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:54:11 2011 No.2992944 >>2992890 Yours is the wrong one.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:54:11 2011 No.2992945 >>2992942 I have no clue what you're talking about now.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:56:11 2011 No.2992949 >>2992944 Ok. Whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:58:11 2011 No.2992954 >>2992949 Any definition of the term 'philosophy' that doesn't include Karl Popper is simply mistaken in much the same way that any definition of the term 'scientist' that doesn't include Newton is simply mistaken.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:59:11 2011 No.2992957 >>2992936 and the socio-philosophical environment of individual researchers does't matter for squat? bro it determines the questions they are capable of even thinking of asking

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 04:59:11 2011 No.2992958

>>2992954
How I understood the debate was that science is somehow incomplete or flawed, and it requires non-science philosophy to make it work. That's what I found silly. Of course Popper's work is great. It's called philosophy of science for a reason.

This guy:
>>2992913
is full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 04:59:11 2011 No.2992959 >>2992945 Because you're talking shit. Please actually read up on what modern philosophy is actually about.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:00:11 2011 No.2992960 >>2992957 Oh dear, I think someone is about to deny realism, and bring in scientific relativism. I disagree.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:01:11 2011 No.2992961 >>2992936 You do realise that the ideas are theorised by philosophy and tested through science, right?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:01:11 2011 No.2992963 >>2992961 >You do realise that the ideas are theorised by philosophy lolno

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:01:11 2011 No.2992964 >>2992958 >It's called philosophy of science for a reason. Yes, because it's the PHILOSOPHY of SCIENCE in much the same way that the PHILOSOPHY of MATHEMATICS is NOT MATHEMATICS.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:02:11 2011 No.2992966

>>2992936
Oh well I was going to go into a long exposition about string theories, QM and observations as well as the issue with non-interactive particles, but instead I'll just note that all scientific interpretation is done through language and logical reasoning.

There are many foundational questions in both Logic and Mathematics that quite possibly have consequences that require careful examination and reformulation. I rather think that many of the issues can be resolved by this, or at least the investigation can be made progressive again.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:03:11 2011 No.2992967 >>2992961 not always...check up on experimentality...

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:03:11 2011 No.2992968 >>2992958 >and it requires non-science philosophy to make it work. Do Mathematicians not do this on a daily basis? Why would philosophers be different? Again, Karl Popper. Carnap, Frege, Russell, Searle... take your pick.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:03:11 2011 No.2992969 >>2992964 I disagree. Science without philosophy of science is no science at all. If that's what you mean, ok.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:03:11 2011 No.2992970 >>2992963 lolyes Your name isn't very fitting. You know nothing of how science is actually done. Do you really think M-Theory and all that is actually science at the moment and not just mathematical/physical philosophy?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:05:11 2011 No.2992973 >>2992968 I disagree with this nomenclature that differentiates between science and philosophy of science. They are one in the same. Perhaps that was my linguistic problem with this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:05:11 2011 No.2992975 >>2992960 and scientists exist in a vacuum without a history or societal milieu?

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:05:11 2011 No.2992978
File: 13 KB, 188x215, desty_nova1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992963
>>2992958
You should really read a book about Science history, you know. You sound extraordinarily ignorant when you imply that somehow Science is somehow not progressively changing.

Maybe you're just terrified that that leads immediately to relativism? Or just trolling?

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:06:11 2011 No.2992980

>>2992969

>Science without philosophy of science is no science at all.

And the philosophy of science is purely philosophy and not at all science. It is philosophy about science.
What exactly was your point again? Why exactly do you think that philosophy is dead?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:06:11 2011 No.2992983 >>2992969 >>2992968 So you're saying the only worthy philosophy is the philosophy of science? Ever heard of ethics or mathematical philosophy? Those tend to be pretty important I find.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:07:11 2011 No.2992985 >>2992980 it is epistemology before it is science

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:07:11 2011 No.2992986

>>2992970
Most physicists think that M-theory has been a huge failure. It's been 25 years and not a single falsifiable verifiable prediction has been forthcoming. Compare and contrast with General Relativity, which correctly calculated the precession of the perihelion of Mercury before it was even published.

Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that string theorists are philosophers first, and scientists second. I dislike this incorrect dichotomy. When they're playing with equations and math to meet evidence, they are being scientists. They could also be being philosophers, but they are trying to make falsifiable models that explain phenomena, and that is the work of a scientist.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:08:11 2011 No.2992990

>>2992973

The philosophy of science is in no way science, in much the same way that the philosophy of history is not history.
Principles of scientific methodology cannot be applied to the questions asked by the philosophy of science nor do people attempt to do so. They INFORM each other, but they are in no sense equivalent.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:09:11 2011 No.2992991

>>2992983
You're just putting words into my mouth now. I never said that.

My only claim in this thread pretty much is that scientific advancements happen during the process of science by scientists, who can also be philosophers. Contrast with this post, which I think is clearly wrong.
>>2992913

Also, so much hostility. I've been rather cordial I think.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:10:11 2011 No.2992997 >>2992991 science is non-teological broseph there is no advancement between paradigms

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:11:11 2011 No.2992999

>>2992990
>The philosophy of science is in no way science
That's a rather odd way of looking at it. So, the methods of science shall be considered distinct from science, and people who talk about the practice of science shall not be called scientists? I disagree. That is a disingenuous way of talking about things. Philosophy of science, such as Popper's falsifiability, is part of the broad discipline called science.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:11:11 2011 No.2993001

>>2992991

>who can also be philosophers

Scientists can also be mathematicians. Does that mean that we shouldn't have mathematicians? Does that mean that the areas of mathematics which have little or not utility or application in science should not be pursued? If not, why is philosophy and why are philosophers any different?
Why is scientific advancement the only measure?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:11:11 2011 No.2993002

>>2992997
What do you mean there's no advancement between paradigm shifts? Of course there is. Every time someone makes a new discovery in the lab for a new manufacturing process, or someone makes some other non-paradigm-shift worthy discovery, that is advancement.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:12:11 2011 No.2993003
File: 33 KB, 320x240, jim_jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992973
Ok so this has just been you playing "No True Scotsman" with philosophers and mathematicians. Cherry picking the ones you like and making them scientists, while rejecting the others. Good to know. (Not to mention making M-Theory, "Not true Science"). Actually, have you considered a career as a string theorist, you have the methodology down?

What we've learned in this thread is that Scientists, Mathematicians, and Philosophers are all important to the progress of human knowledge.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:12:11 2011 No.2993004 >>2993001 What are you talking about? That wasn't my point at all. My point is that scientific advancements happen largely from the work of scientists doing science, not from non-scientist philosophers doing non-science philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:13:11 2011 No.2993006 >>2993002 prove it >babbys first steps into metaphysics

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:14:11 2011 No.2993009

>>2992986

Most physicists meaning you and a lot of armchair physicists who can't bare that something might actually be untestable at the moment. You people don't know physics past 2nd year undergraduates for the most part. I doubt you could do much past high school. You do realise that general relativity was not considered true until 1959, a full 40 years after its conceptualisation.

I bet you do not even understand the first thing about M-Theory, so who are you to even comment on its likelihood?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:14:11 2011 No.2993011

>>2993003
No, you see, it's not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman is the fallacy of continually redefining the term to avoid a rebuttal.

Science's heart is falsifiability, as so many others have noted. As the various string theories, aka M-theory, have no falsifiability, they're just conjectures. Of course, they're the most interesting direction of conjectures currently known, but it's not an advancement until they actually predict something novel and that is verified.

Hence, it's not No True Scotsman because I haven't been redefining terms. It's always been about falsifiability.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:14:11 2011 No.2993013

>>2992999

>That's a rather odd way of looking at it.

It's actually a perfectly normal way of looking at it, given the plain meaning of words.

>So, the methods of science shall be considered distinct from science

The methods of science have resulted from a non-scientific investigation, based on rational argument and logical deduction in an almost purely a priori manner.

There is no similarity in the manner of investigation between the philosopher of science and the scientist, nor are they investigating the same thing. To investigate science is not to investigate the subject matter of science, namely, the natural world.
Again, is the philosophy of history an investigation of the past, or an investigation of the abstract processes of the subject 'history'?

How can you say that something which shares neither the subject matter nor the methodology of science is part of science?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:15:12 2011 No.2993015

>>2993009
>You do realise that general relativity was not considered true until 1959, a full 40 years after its conceptualisation.
This is correct. In fact, from what we know, the observations during that one eclipse were likely fudged, meaning good verification happened much later still.

>I bet you do not even understand the first thing about M-Theory, so who are you to even comment on its likelihood?
I understand that General Relativity makes falsifiable predictions now, and M-theory does not.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:15:12 2011 No.2993017 >>2992991 >Scientific advancement happens due to scientists. NO SHIT BRO There are other advancements to society other than scientific ones, however.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:16:12 2011 No.2993019 >>2993006 I refuse to play your childish game that there are no scientific discoveries except paradigm shift worthy ones.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:17:12 2011 No.2993020 >>2993002 Read Hawkings new book and then come back to talk about models. Until then you're full of shit.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:18:12 2011 No.2993022

>>2993004

I responded directly to something you said. I even quoted it...

Why do you think that 'science is mostly done by scientist' is a remarkable or even relevant thing to say? The phrase 'no shit, Sherlock' comes to mind.
It implies that you think that direct scientific advancement (as opposed to examinations of methodology and their refinement in order to aid further advancement, as with falsification) is even being ATTEMPTED by non-scientists, and therefore they're somehow failing.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:18:12 2011 No.2993023

>>2993017
I agree. I never insinuated otherwise. I'm sorry that you incorrectly read me to imply otherwise.

>>2993013
Whatever. I'm not sure what we're arguing anymore. I think the only point that I've been trying to make in this entire thread is that this post:
>>2992913
is full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:18:12 2011 No.2993024 >>2993019 missing my and Kuhn's point. there are advancements in a similar manner to evolution. They are only advancements as far as their own historical moment is concerned. They are not Telos with a capital T.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:18:12 2011 No.2993026

>>2993022
>Why do you think that 'science is mostly done by scientist' is a remarkable or even relevant thing to say? The phrase 'no shit, Sherlock' comes to mind.

Then I suggest you read this post, which disagrees AFAIK.
>>2992913
I've just been trying to call bullshit on that post. Nothing more, nothing less, in this entire thread.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:19:12 2011 No.2993027
File: 8 KB, 160x205, Boltzmann_chfa_01_img0129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2992999
Popper wasn't a scientist, he never conducted a single experiment in his entire life. He was vehemently opposed to "Scientism". So is he or is he not a true Scotsman?

>>2992991
Well that's easy enough to handle. Do you think wave-particle duality and the early part of interpreting QM was a purely empirical (a word I'll use to indicate your apparent fascination for data in a meaning vacuum) endeavor?

Planck's original realization that energy was quantized resulted from a terminological shift he was forced into by employing Boltzmann's statistical formalisms. The picture shifted, the words changed. That's a philosophical process, not an empirical one.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:20:12 2011 No.2993031 >>2993024 Are you moving the goalpost now? Can we agree that there are advancements in science that do not involve paradigm shifts?

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:20:12 2011 No.2993032

>>2993023

Without a framework scientists wouldn't be able to make those advancements.

You keep going on about how scientific advancements can only be done by scientists, which is self-evidently true, yet you continue to say that philosophy is useless because it does not create scientific advancement. That is why I said there are others outside of science, because you do not appear to realise this.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:23:12 2011 No.2993037 >>2993031 I am saying there is not advancement in a real sense. Science does not peel back layers of mystery and reveal the universe in its true sense.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:25:12 2011 No.2993041

>>2993027
The shift was driven by evidence in order to explain the evidence. If that's not science, then I don't know what is.

As you so clearly put it, it involved thinking outside the box so to speak, to question assumptions, and to rethink old ideas. Let me try and paraphrase Den Miller when he said:
>Science is built around theories which are strongly supported by factual evidence. /Everything/ in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

That is science. When he started using new terms to describe models that are a paradigm shift from the old models, that is science. I find it stupifying that you assert that it is not. To repeat, if that's not science, then nothing is.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:25:12 2011 No.2993042 >>2992999 No, they are related elements of philosophy. You obviously don't even know your definitions.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:25:12 2011 No.2993043

>>2993037
>I am saying there is not advancement in a real sense. Science does not peel back layers of mystery and reveal the universe in its true sense.
That's a difference of opinion.

And please don't cite Kuhn to make this argument. You would be misciting him. He didn't say that at all, although it's a common misunderstanding.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:26:12 2011 No.2993044 >>2993032 >yet you continue to say that philosophy is useless because it does not create scientific advancement. Only in your imagination bro. I've never said anything like that in here.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:28:12 2011 No.2993047 >>2993041 The guy you are debating with is talking utter shit. I just realised when he posted >>2993037 However, for you to assert that philosophy is useless and that the philosophy of science IS science is also bullshit.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:28:12 2011 No.2993049

>>2993044

>I'm waiting for a new scientific advancement that was brought forth by a self proclaimed philosopher instead of a self proclaimed scientist working in the lab.

If you don't believe that implies it, then you're either dishonest or have no grasp on the English language.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:30:12 2011 No.2993051 Philosophy is the art of endlessly debating over delusions and misconceptions.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:30:12 2011 No.2993052

>>2993047
>However, for you to assert that philosophy is useless
I never said that. At least I never meant to really say that.

>and that the philosophy of science IS science is also bullshit.
Meh. I don't care enough to talk about this one. It's a definitional issue, which almost always leads to more heat than light, actually no light. Such arguments are always the worst.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:31:12 2011 No.2993054 >>2993052 >It's a definitional issue No, it's an issue of fact and the actual definitions of words, rather than your invented meanings of words.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:31:12 2011 No.2993057
File: 12 KB, 152x194, quine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2993011
No, it's quite simple really. "No True Scotsman" means that whenever you are confronted with a counterexample which doesn't fit a general criterion you wish to apply you treat it as a special exception to the rule. Which is basically what you've been doing from both sides. There are no philosophers useful to science because every time we produce one they instantly become a scientist to preserve your claim. Again, logic isn't your strong point.

>>2993041
So unsurprisingly your entire point has been exactly the same "No True Scotsman" approach this whole time. You're keen to appropriate the honestly philosophical changes in the progress of science as if they were somehow empirical, presumably because you don't want anyone who isn't a practicing scientist to make any "adjustments." My example of Planck stands (and you could throw in countless other ones, ones which Kuhn cited as examples like Dalton and Copernicus): There was nothing empirical about his investigation at all aside from the fact that the theories he was working in had been built on the history of empirical inquiry in science. He was doing mathematics, and his picture didn't match up, so he changed the terms. The rest is history... and science.

Also, to be clear I'm not a philosopher, incidentally, I'm a mathematician.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:31:12 2011 No.2993058

>>2993049
Perhaps I'm just really stupid. Can you give me an example please? Someone who identifies himself as not a scientist, and as a philosopher. I realized that I just subtly changed my claim, and I apologize for the original imprecise claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:33:12 2011 No.2993064 >>2993057 Planck's ideas are nowhere near related to philosophy. It is called an hypothesis, until proven enough then it is a theory. No such things in philosophy.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:33:12 2011 No.2993065

>>2993057
>No, it's quite simple really. "No True Scotsman" means that whenever you are confronted with a counterexample which doesn't fit a general criterion you wish to apply you treat it as a special exception to the rule.
Which special exception is that? I argue there is not. Of course, if we want to say that philosophy of science shouldn't count under the large paradigm of science, then fine, non-science philosophy does contribute largely to scientific endeavors.

Scientific discoveries do not happen from non-scientific philosophy, at least they haven't in great frequency for a long long time.

>Which is basically what you've been doing from both sides. There are no philosophers useful to science because every time we produce one they instantly become a scientist to preserve your claim. Again, logic isn't your strong point.
Well, yes. That's how the claim works. If they make models with falsifiable claims supported by evidence, then they're being scientists. That's not a special exception. That's the definition of the word.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:35:12 2011 No.2993069

>>2993054
Are you implying that there's one true definition of the words? And from a philosopher no less.

I'm sorry that I'm potentially ignorant of the "correct" usage of the terms. Again, I admit proudly that philosophy of science is hugely important to the domain of knowledge and practice that is science.

Also, you have been exceedingly hostile, and I think unrightly so. It is not becoming.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:35:12 2011 No.2993070 >>2993058 Russell, Aristotle and Goedel. None were scientists, yet all have had profound influences on it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:37:12 2011 No.2993071 >>2993065 >Scientific discoveries do not happen from non-scientific philosophy. By definition this is true. What's your point?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:37:12 2011 No.2993072

>>2993070
Can you name me any discoveries or theories which they made? My claim was about scientific discoveries, not important contributions to science. Totally different things bro. I again agree proudly that non-science philosophers have made and continue to make important contributions to science. They do not make scientific discoveries.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:38:12 2011 No.2993073 >>2993071 That someone disagrees with this point, such as: >>2993057 >>2992913 So, that's my point, that scientific discoveries occur during the practice of scientific philosophy, contrary AFAIK to what this other anon is saying.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:39:12 2011 No.2993076 >>2993072 Your point is true by definition. Only scientists have made scientific discoveries. We are NOT trying to refute this! What we ARE saying is that they've had important effects ON science as a whole, which is different.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:39:12 2011 No.2993078

>>2993069

>Are you implying that there's one true definition of the words?

No, I'm implying that the process of definition is not "let's pull this out of my ass and use it in the face of its generally used meaning without telling anybody and expect my point to get across!"
Language evolves organically; that doesn't allow you to make shit up and expect your sentences to make sense.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:40:12 2011 No.2993081

>>2993076
Then I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the following posts:
>>2993057
>>2992913
When they claim that scientists making paradigm shifting theories are not practicing science. That's what he's saying. Reread those posts closely and realize that. That's my problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:41:12 2011 No.2993084 >>2993072 See this post here (the part about methodology in brackets): >>2993022 You're missing the point. 'Why aren't biological researchers saving lives in the hospital?!' is the question you're asking.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:41:12 2011 No.2993086

>>2993065
Dennet and Searle haven't made any falsifiable claims, to my knowledge, but they've certainly had a significant impact on the development of Neuroscience by clarifying terms and giving a "philosophical framework" in which to ask questions. Church invented the lambda calculus which has become central to provability and computer science, in fact most theoretical computer science is purely constructive and philosophical. I highly doubt those areas aren't contributing to Scientific progress.

The physical sciences (at the edge) certainly may see progress from such clarifications as well, or the development of abstract techniques and principles, or even merely clarification of the role of empiricism and some heuristics for choosing between theories. All eminently philosophical problems with no empirical interference.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:42:12 2011 No.2993088

>>2993084
No. I'm not. I'm not asking a question. I'm making a claim. You don't seem to understand how I view this debate, and what one other anon is most clearly stating.

He's saying when Planck made the discovery of the quantized unit of energy and such, he was not practicing science. That one anon claimed that Planck was doing something other than science. That is simply wrong. That has been, and remains, my only contention in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:43:12 2011 No.2993090 >>2993081 I think you're both agreeing, sort of. I think the truth is that they theorised a good idea that was later proven true by science.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:44:12 2011 No.2993092

>>2993086
And I would hazard a guess, actually I would make a strong claim, that they were not doing their work in a vacuum. They were doing their work specifically because of the available evidence, and they were attempting to give models and/or explanations for it.

Lambda calculus was not meant to be inapplicable. He was developing it precisely to be applicable to the real world via science. This is especially true of Dennett, who I love.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 05:45:12 2011 No.2993093 >>2993086 read >>2993072 He's talking about direct scientific discoveries. That's all.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:45:12 2011 No.2993095

>>2993090
And unfortunately this discussion is one largely over definition. He's trying to argue that Planck when he was doing his work on quantum theory, he was not doing science. As I said, if that's not doing science, then nothing is doing science. Planck's work must be doing science.

Anonymous Wed May 4 05:54:12 2011 No.2993109
File: 7 KB, 193x262, Duhem1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2993081
Good lord, maybe you should re-read them. My first post indicated that modern physics is stagnant at the edge, and that I personally hold the conviction that it is largely a foundational problem (most likely in set theory and/or logic) or in some of the foundations of mathematics where the correlation to physical reality is not precise.

THUS, the remedy will be to make changes to the way we do things (I mean, read about Brouwer's intuitionist logic as a possible alternative [not the one I'm suggesting, mind you]). That's not empirical, that's back at the beginning, that's philosophy.

>>2993095
There's a reason I changed terms to make the distinction clearer (since after all you keep changing your mind about what you're arguing). Planck's work on the Black-Body problem was rooted in the science he was working in at the moment, and the terminological shift arose from his implementation of Boltzmann's mathematical formalism. The necessity of shifting interpretations was not made based on empirical evidence, and it was not some kind of falsifiable claim he was making. He just changed the picture because otherwise it made no sense to him. This is perfectly, and satisfactorily science. I have never suggested anything to the contrary, but it is not strictly empirical. It was, if anything, a stylistic or cognitive necessity. The problem of how you justify that 'paradigm shift' to the clamoring relativists I leave as an exercise to the reader.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 05:59:12 2011 No.2993116

>>2993109
>The necessity of shifting interpretations was not made based on empirical evidence, and it was not some kind of falsifiable claim he was making. He just changed the picture because otherwise it made no sense to him. This is perfectly, and satisfactorily science. I have never suggested anything to the contrary, but it is not strictly empirical. It was, if anything, a stylistic or cognitive necessity. The problem of how you justify that 'paradigm shift' to the clamoring relativists I leave as an exercise to the reader.

Ok... I'm starting to see your point more clearly. Two things.

First, so, when someone makes the next big breakthrough, the work that will have led to that breakthrough will likely be scientific work, right? I mean, it will be someone looking at the data, and trying to find out something to match the data.

Second, you still have a curious way with words. He picked a new set of terms and new abstraction precisely because the current terms and abstractions were not suited for the current evidence. Remind me how this isn't empirical?

I agree that the choosing of the new terms, and the choosing of any hypothesis in general, cannot be naively algorithmic based solely on evidence. It requires a certain amount of "intuition" and creativity. However, the entire process is driven by a desire to make a model that fits that data, so I happily call it empirical.

Of course, again, a disagreement over definition, so whatever. As long as we're agreeing that the work, investigation, choosing of new abstraction, etc., by Planck is properly called scientific work.

Castrol !fxPOl/bn4E Wed May 4 06:03:12 2011 No.2993125

Philosophy is a soft science in that it doesn't explain how something happens but rather why people make decisions. Decisions do not follow any format of laws like hard sciences of chemistry, physics or it's pure brother mathematics. The next step below chemistry is biology, and this is when matter is influenced by external decisions and can no longer be held as an absolute truth.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:04:12 2011 No.2993128

>>2993116
> Of course, again, a disagreement over definition, so whatever. As long as we're agreeing that the work, investigation, choosing of new abstraction, etc., by Planck is properly called scientific work.

That is to say that we didn't need this "non-science" philosophy to make the breakthrough. Planck didn't. He needed creativity, insight, a stroke of luck, etc., in order to see that this new model would work. In one sense of the term, he was creating new philosophy and language as he went along, and that would eventually become "science" (quote unquote) as it was supported by evidence.

My key point is that the the entire endeavor is classic science. This is the hallmark of a good scientist, questioning his known models in face of contradictory evidence, and coming up with a new model that explains all of the known evidence. This must be called science if the word science is to have any meaning at all. It's silly to say that a poster child of scientific advancement, when someone was trying to model new evidence, didn't result from non-scientific work and practices.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:05:12 2011 No.2993131 >>2993128 >It's silly to say that a poster child of scientific advancement, when someone was trying to model new evidence, resulted from non-scientific work and practices. Fixed. My bad.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:09:12 2011 No.2993138

>>2993116
Yeah, I was never implying that Science is going to just stop caring about empirical data. I just mean that there are a fair number of ways to clarify the questions we ask and the way we answer them.

I think M-Theory has shown that there are bad ways to do Science that are very tantalizing and may be hard to avoid if we don't think carefully about them beforehand.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:15:12 2011 No.2993148
File: 13 KB, 130x152, Lakatos_Ocean.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2993128
Ah, I'll have to disagree with that statement I'm afraid.

What constitutes good Science isn't fixed. Empiricism is at it's foundations, but we're always changing our understanding of how to work with the ideas and how to interpret them. Those questions are not necessarily the kinds of questions scientists can answer for themselves, either.

I mean it would be ridiculous to talk about doing science without mathematics, and I think it's clear that the role of philosophy can be similar to that of mathematics in relation to empirical endeavors. It may simply end up that scientists have to become philosophers of science, who knows.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:17:12 2011 No.2993151

>>2993148
>It may simply end up that scientists have to become philosophers of science, who knows.
But that makes no sense. By your preferred definitions, scientists /already/ have to be philosophers of science. They have to know about the scientific method, falsifiability, and so on, to even practice science.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:21:12 2011 No.2993160

>>2993151

Different person here,

>They have to know about the scientific method, falsifiability, and so on, to even practice science.

Those are the conclusions of the philosophy of science. To know part of the subject matter is not to truly partake in the subject.
A clear analogy is mathematics. Physicists must know a great deal about mathematics, and some of them may even become great mathematicians, but that does not make all physicists mathematicians.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:22:12 2011 No.2993163 >>2993160 Meh? Again, we're getting way too pedantic, and I don't want to argue something lest someone misinterprets what I have to say, which is rather common in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 06:24:12 2011 No.2993166 >>2993163 That's not at all pedantic. You said that scientists are supposedly ALREADY philosophers of science, and I think I showed quite clearly that they are not.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:25:12 2011 No.2993172

>>2993166
If you want to define "philosopher of science" as someone who writes books and such about philosophy of science, then fine. I don't have such a narrow definition of philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and so on.

Whatever. I don't care to argue this point. I accede.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:30:12 2011 No.2993177

>>2993151
I don't recall implying that anywhere, although I'm loathe to check all the posts in the thread. I think quite a few people who would be considered scientists don't have much concern for matters of that sort, since they consider the matter largely settled, and I don't think that automatically discounts the work they do from being science/scientific/empirical or somehow suspect.

I am concerned, however, that some of the problems with M-Theory (to use an easy example) are indicative of a certain naive approach to the practice of science, which is understandable in a world where empirical truth and scientific practice are increasingly under attack.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:32:12 2011 No.2993181

>>2993177
Sorry... I'm just so lost now. Little disheartened from the viciousness of the other anon(s?) attacking me. It's just making me like philosophers less and less - funny thing that.

I'm not sure what you think I said. At this point, nevermind. Ignore it. I don't care anymore.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 06:34:12 2011 No.2993184 >>2993177 >*or makes it somehow suspect Negations across disjunctions are apparently my Achilles' Heel.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:36:12 2011 No.2993188

>>2993181
Looking back over this, this conversation went nowhere fast. I was making perhaps less than crystal clear claims, which were misconstrued by some, and attacked by others. In the end, I'm not even sure if I got my point across.

God damn this was a worthless thread, moreso than even most religion vs science threads that I see.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 06:43:12 2011 No.2993200 >>2993181 >Implying ANYBODY here is a philosopher.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:45:12 2011 No.2993202

>>2993200
But they are. Just like everyone is a scientist. Science is merely not doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result from the previous experiments.

Similarly, most people have a framework of morality, and so they are moral philosophers.

Are they "good" philosophers or scientists? Maybe not. Are they professional philosophers or scientists? No. But this is one of the problems I have with science in our modern culture, that it's something "scientists" do, which doesn't include you. It's not something that only people in white coats in labs do.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:49:12 2011 No.2993215

>>2993202

Those definitions are so vague as to describe nothing.

Both philosophy and science generally refer to rather specific activities that are highly unusual. Scientific methodology is not how the majority of people approach questions which come under the rubric of the natural sciences.

>Similarly, most people have a framework of morality, and so they are moral philosophers.

They have 'folk' moralities, shall we say--derived from tradition or notions of taboo. Philosophy is at the very least a process of rigorous reasoning. As they do not do this, they are not philosophers. That is the classical distinction between "ethics" and "morality."

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:52:12 2011 No.2993222

>>2993215
>Scientific methodology is not how the majority of people approach questions which come under the rubric of the natural sciences.
That's wrong. They don't use the highly formalized nature of science, such as peer review, but they do practice science.

When you start to trust someone, that trust is an accumulation of evidence. Everyone approaches almost everything with a scientific mindset. Anyone who doesn't is usually what we might call clinically insane. Again, one simple definition of science is anyone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results. No one does that short of literal insane people.

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:53:12 2011 No.2993224

>>2993202

>But this is one of the problems I have with science in our modern culture, that it's something "scientists" do, which doesn't include you. It's not something that only people in white coats in labs do.

It's always been that way. Intellectual activity of all kinds has ALWAYS been almost exclusively a bourgeois, aristocratic of gentrified past-time. It's not a problem of 'modern culture.'

Anonymous Wed May 4 06:54:12 2011 No.2993236

>>2993222

>Again, one simple definition of science is anyone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results.

Actually, that's not a definition of science that's ever been used by anybody but you. It's a rather clever reversal of the definition of insanity, I'll give you that, but if something is so vague as to include almost EVERYTHING human beings do, then what use is the term?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:57:12 2011 No.2993245

>>2993224
>It's not a problem of 'modern culture.'
That's one possible reading of my English, but it's not the only claim. I simply claimed this is a problem with modern culture. One might read an insinuation that this is specific to modern culture, and didn't exist in the past. I did not state that, nor even reasonably imply that. That reading is all of your own.

I also did not mean to. I apologize for your incorrect reading. I was merely stating that I was unsatisfied with my current environment. I used "modern culture" to mean "my culture" as opposed to "culture" in a much more general sense. It would be silly to say that science is seen as elitist in all cultures. I needed some way to signify /my/ culture.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 06:59:12 2011 No.2993253

>>2993236
What's the use the term "universe" to describe everything that exists? Because that's what the term means.

Ditto for the definition of science. One quick, and mostly accurate, definition is that science is the practice and way of learning by inductive reasoning on evidence. No more - no less.

Anonymous Wed May 4 07:03:12 2011 No.2993273

>>2993253

No, the USE of the word 'universe' is directly to imply 'everything that exists'. It is not an attempt to break up different parts of human intellectual activity, as in the case of the words 'science', 'humanities', 'philosophy', 'history', etc. They are designed to drag distinctions and divisions, to demarcate territory.
As your definition does not do that, it is a failure. You may as well use the term 'think' or 'believe' in place of science if you want to define it like that.

Apples and oranges.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:04:12 2011 No.2993278 >>2993253 >>2993253 >One quick, and mostly accurate, definition is that science is the practice and way of learning by inductive reasoning on evidence. No more - no less. Then astrology is science.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:05:12 2011 No.2993280

>>2993273
You are wrong on so many levels.

Philosophy in its general sense is not science. It is not the art and practice of learning by inductive reasoning based on evidence. Same for the other subjects you've cited.

Even if science included them all, that doesn't change the definition of science in common use, which is no more and no less than applying inductive reasoning on evidence to make models that give falsifiable predictions.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:06:12 2011 No.2993281 >>2993278 Last I checked astrology isn't based on inductive reasoning based on evidence in the slightest. Unless of course you have some evidence of which I'm unaware.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:16:12 2011 No.2993312 >>2993281 It's based directly on observation of the solar system. Their foundations are wrong, but it contains highly accurate observations of the motions of the heavens (weird ones).

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:18:12 2011 No.2993318

>>2993312
If you could be less intellectually dishonest in the future, that would help facilitate meaningful discussions. It is not honest to say "astrology" and mean "the motions of the planets". Unqualified astrology means horoscopes and such.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:22:12 2011 No.2993333 >>2993318 Horoscopes are still based upon their twisted view of their observations.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:24:12 2011 No.2993336

>>2993333
You seem to not understand the terms in use. Horoscopes are predictions. They are falsifiable predictions. There is no evidence that these predictions are anything less than pure bullshit. Thus, astrology is not based upon inductive reasoning on evidence - /by definition/.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:25:12 2011 No.2993338

>>2993336
To be more clear, they could have accumulated evidence that shows that horoscopes are actually accurate. No one has done so. Because no one has done so, the models of astrology, which give falsifiable predictions, were not made based on inductive reasoning on evidence. And thus it is not science.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:28:12 2011 No.2993348 >>2993336 >They are falsifiable predictions. And at that point you have immediately stepped outside of induction and proven the limitations of your definition.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:29:12 2011 No.2993353 >>2993348 Come again? What are you talking about?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:30:12 2011 No.2993357

>>2993353
If you're being a pain in the ass, I gave a slightly fuller definition earlier, namely:
>the definition of science in common use, which is no more and no less than applying inductive reasoning on evidence to make models that give falsifiable predictions.
Which in my mind has largely the same meaning as the first one I gave:
>One quick, and mostly accurate, definition is that science is the practice and way of learning by inductive reasoning on evidence. No more - no less.

If you're not making falsifiable predictions, then you're not learning by inductive reasoning based on evidence.

Anonymous Wed May 4 07:33:12 2011 No.2993363

>>2993353

Your definition:

>science is the practice and way of learning by inductive reasoning on evidence. No more - no less.

Astrologers are attempting to derive knowledge from induction. They make observations and draw conclusions.
We both agree that it is not science. When pressed, you say that it is because their claims are not falsifiable.
Falsification is a deductive process with inductive premises, a modus tollens.
As such, you have had to go beyond your limited definition to a more specific one in order to prove something elementary--that astrology is bullshit and not science because it does not conform to scientific methodology.

P.S. You never said it had to be GOOD at drawing conclusions from inductions, only that it had to try.

Anonymous Wed May 4 07:35:12 2011 No.2993371

>>2993357

Those two definitions of science are entirely different. The addition of falsification is not a minor change, but a revolutionary one. And in doing so, you have correctly labelled science as the rare and unusual activity that it is, which is what you denied before.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:35:12 2011 No.2993372

>>2993363
I don't think you understand the word "inductive". An inductive argument is of the form:
"That duck is black. That second duck is black. That third duck is black. Thus all ducks are black."

There is no such argument presented for horoscopes. It would have to be of the form:
"This one horoscope was true. That other horoscope that day was true. Oh, that third horoscope was true. Thus, all horoscopes are true."

Such arguments can be made, but we can easily refute them with other, stronger, inductive arguments, namely confirmation bias, too small of a sample size, and so on.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:36:12 2011 No.2993378 >>2993371 What? Inductive reasoning on evidence logically entails falsification. You cannot have inductive reasoning on evidence without falsification.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:37:12 2011 No.2993382 >>2993378 Yes you can. Notions of falsification are a modern phenomena.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:37:12 2011 No.2993383 >>2993378 Ack, falsifiability**

Anonymous Wed May 4 07:38:12 2011 No.2993386
File: 132 KB, 357x500, Lakatos_Tree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the fuck? I thought this thread died, so I left. Are we really going to go through the entire philosophy of science after Popper in this thread now?

I think I may stay out of this one, you guys can have it out.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:39:12 2011 No.2993390

>>2993382
So what? So what if the word is new. That doesn't make an argument. An inductive argument on evidence necessarily leads to conclusions that can be proven wrong with more evidence. It's part of the definition of inductive reasoning. If your argument rests only on the number of samples which agree with you, then as soon as you have more samples in the opposite direction, then you inductive reasoning breaks down, and you support a new conclusion with inductive reasoning. That is falsifiability.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:39:12 2011 No.2993391 >>2993372 But that is precisely how astrology behaves. Vague predictions are made and then, through confirmation bias and retrospective reflection are deemed to have taken place.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:41:12 2011 No.2993400

>>2993391
And then someone can come along with a stronger inductive argument and destroy them.

In the sense that astrology is supported by weak evidence, it is a science. It is a very bad science. It's also a disproven science because we've amassed enough evidence to disprove the inductive reasoning of the smaller sample sizes.

Inductive reasoning necessarily means that if you have lots more evidence that disproves an earlier assertion, then the new evidence stands, and the old assertion is thrown out. This is a necessary part of inductive reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:41:12 2011 No.2993401 >>2993382 Lulz. "I predict A, B starts happening, A can't be right." This is a modern invention? Only naming it explicitly, and assigning this much value to it, is modern

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:42:12 2011 No.2993403 >>2993390 The WORD isn't the new part, the entire CONCEPT is the new part. We're flipping between such different definitions of falsifiability constantly, which makes this discussion confused.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:43:12 2011 No.2993410

>>2993403
It's simple. Astrology is a science by those with confirmation bias. It is. They're approaching it scientifically. They're being very, very informal about it, and they're doing it very badly. They're failing to take into account confirmation bias and various other biases, and they're sample size of evidence is incredibly small.

Still, the reasoning at its heart is inherently scientific. It's the idea that it worked yesterday, and thus it will work today. That is inductive reasoning, and that is science.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:44:12 2011 No.2993412 >>2993410 Mother fucker. their.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:44:12 2011 No.2993416 >>2993403 >concept of falsifiability >new read >>2993401

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Wed May 4 07:49:12 2011 No.2993426

>do you dislike philosophy?
Yes
> If so, why?
This:
>239 posts and 29 image replies omitted.
>99% insensible BS.

That said, philosophy as a humanist subject is bullshit, it's a perpetual regurgitation and hairsplitting about which old dead guy was most right.

Philosophy as you using your own fucking brain to argue and reason is a lesser evil provided you can reason in a reasonable way.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 07:50:12 2011 No.2993437 >>2993426 How funny. I think I called it right at the very start: >>2992579 >I like philosophy. I dislike most philosophers for talking about worthless useless philosophy, and worse, nihilistic or anti-realism philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 4 07:52:12 2011 No.2993446 >>2993426 >mfw this is real philosphy: >>2993364

aether Wed May 4 08:05:12 2011 No.2993484
File: 33 KB, 600x480, 222275_1833965662358_1636923215_1722935_4257022_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2993426
>That said, philosophy as a humanist subject is bullshit, it's a perpetual regurgitation and hairsplitting about which old dead guy was most right.

Where as you believe that it is the new smart guys we should be worrying about. The deadness of the old guys averts power to the people. With the new guys, it averts power to themselves. Now seeing as Philosophy is mostly a 'Why?' subject, it is generally aimed at the past - things that were before - thus, again averting power to the people rather than to the individual. It is thee humanist subject. You're just a retard with a word-virus who cant hack actuality, and you've substituted it for your own plastic life. It's disgusting, half the people reading this wont know how evil and wrong you are - they don't have a clue what you're doing to their minds, how much confusion you're bringing to the table or what kind of things you really support. This is not survival of the fittest, it is evil power abuse, you're like a dog with a dog mentality. You aren't doing this to survive, you're doing this for fun and thrills - to help your own pleasure.

tl;dr CUNT

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 4 08:07:12 2011 No.2993485 >>2993484 Ok, that's it. Aether's here. I'm off to bed guys. Sorry for pissing off anyone besides Aether and that one dude who said that Planck wasn't practicing science. Night /sci/.

aether Wed May 4 08:20:12 2011 No.2993514

>>2993485
Sleep well. Maybe, ponder about the lives of others before the life of that invisible one you worship. 90% of the people who live in my town are coke addicts, they do drugs daily, there are fights every week - many people are forced into depression due to their crappy social lives. And, who can they turn to? Psychologists who will patronize them and diagnose them with "crazy" - on television they are told how insignificant they are, and they are chased by debt. Their lives are not lived, ever, at all. They believe that they are not smart, they cannot be smart. Reality is supposedly awesome - for a percentage. Probability right? Judaism? It's a cruel world, I think we all know by now - so it needs to be fixed. Your not a scientist, you're a jew.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math