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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 67 KB, 500x645, dat mass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3326575 No.3326575 [Reply] [Original]

Why do engineers hate philosophy, yet theoretical scientists sincerely appreciate it and find it fun?

>based on my personal experience at Uni

All the great scientists, Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, Newton, Leibniz, Laplace, were very interested in philosophy and read most of the great works...Einstein was reading Kant at 15 I believe.

>> No.3326584

What have you read?

>> No.3326600

anyone who 'hates' philosophy simply has a wrong perception of it. I'm guessing the people you think of are those who say things along the lines of "lol enjoy your worthless paper degree learn to say 'would you like fries with that' xD so funneh"?

>> No.3326601

>>3326575

Why would engineers hate philosophy?
I'm an engineering student interested in mathematical logic, algebra and philosophy.

>> No.3326615

i don't hate philosophy, i just hate anyone who thinks it's science and gives it credit as such.

>> No.3326621

I enjoy a nice contrast of Science and Philosophy.

>> No.3326623

that's kinda funny consider Einstein's discoveries essentially destroyed Kant's work.

anyway, i think there may be a pattern, because engineers are by definition practical people, whereas scientists are concerned with uncovering reality. obviously the latter fits philosophy much better.

>> No.3326631

It's cool to think about morality and other philosophical things, but don't expect me to care, and don't expect to get paid for it. Philosophy has absolutely dick to do with my life or job.

>> No.3326632

>>3326623

relativity seems like a natural extension of kants metaphysics

what exactly did he overthrow?

>> No.3326638

>>3326575
Engineers hate philosophy because they like to work with tangible things; if they can't physically interact with something it doesn't matter to them. Theoretical scientists work with theory, something intangible, so philosophy isn't too far off their game.

>> No.3326920

>>3326632
kant's work was based on the premise that man has an a priori grasp on space and time and he went from there.

he got epically buttfucked by einstein who showed that not only do we not have a priori familiarity with those things, but our intuition is actually totally wrong.

turns out that the reason kant's work is so obscure and hard to read is because it's a pile of sophistic BS.

>> No.3326927

>>3326632
You fuck.

>> No.3327012

Don't hate it, but there are a lot of problems with it that I think make philosophy and philosophers extremely distastefu.

To start, a modern philosophy degree is a complete waste of money. Everything this degree offers can be achieved in the library for free, whereas a science degree can have an actual application.

It gives no specialized or general skills. It is also known as the stoner degree for people not smart enough for math/science, and think they're too good for an art degree. It's not a joke when everyone says that philosophy majors will be working in fast food.

The next major problem is that too much of the material is subjective. For something to be a science, it has to have tangible and observable properties that can identically be studied by anyone.

The vast majority of topics such as morality are essentially just big circle jerks of red team vs blue teams beliefs since no one can actually prove anything.

The next problem is that philosophers seem to think that they are the one's with the responsibility to direct science. As if all scientists are mad and will build dooms day devices unless the benevolent philosophers weigh in with their deep opinions, as if they and only they are the ethics committee.

>> No.3327050

Well philosophers and scientists are both similar in the sense that they both want to answer the big questions

>> No.3327076

>>3326575
We hate modern philosophic bullshit.

Hume, Kant, and the old classics are great.

The new shit that we have to put up with on 4chan about there being no reality, and how scientific facts are relative to the culture - that just pisses me off.

For example, reminds me of a great anecdote. This one guy was trolling a anthropology philosophy class of some kind. All the people in the class were asshats, including the teacher, except for the story teller. The teacher was talking about some shithole tribe, and how they thought that babies come from the great spirit or something, going through the penis, into her. They all said that it was just as "valid" as the modern sperm egg hypothesis. Our guy suggested that they give vasectomies to all of the tribesmen and see if they get anyone pregnant.

Science 1. Modern anti-reality philosophers, and cultural relativists, 0.

>> No.3327092

>>3326920

he didn't say that at all, he said that there are faculties of the mind that structure how we understand space and how we understand time.

Before we are able to perceive distance there has to be some sort of mental algorithm in place that constructs distance, and same goes for time.

He reasoned that because of this we don't actually have access to space-itself or time-itself, or any object-itself, instead we have access to how our mind renders those objects to us.

Nothing Einstein or anyone can figure out empirically can contradict Kant, not because he was automatically right, but because his questions are much more fundamental than empirical matters...he might be wrong, but empirical theories can't contradict him, only logic can.

>> No.3327128

>>3327076

>implying ranting scifags = modern day philosophers

Who are these anti-reality philosophers and bullshit relativists you speak of?

Whenever I read Searle, Rorty, Dennet, Waltzer, Pierce, Feyerabend, Zizek, etc they all seem really pragmatic and very relevant.

I don't know wtf you guys have been reading other than troll-threads which you construe to be the epitome of modern philosophy.

>> No.3327158

>>3327128
Yes. I was implying modern philosophers = ranting idiot sci-fags. At least, that is true in the context of the OP's question.

You would not believe the number of times asshats misquote Kuhn into saying that reality depends on your culture, and there is no way to objectively test scientific claims.

>> No.3327197

>>3327076
If something is old it does not make them correct. Old shit is still shit.

Kant was an idiot who could not understand contemporary physics and used it to justify his ideas of morality as universal. He was wrong. He was wrong in an artistic way. But he was wrong. Don't defend him just because you want to earn brownie points with people.

>> No.3327200

>>3327092
so... we have a priori knowledge... of stuff which is incorrect?

>>3327076
been reading too much ayn rand.
there is no increasing endemic culture of solipsism. stop being a paranoid whiner. most people, especially those in scientific educations, are down to earth and don't talk shit like that. you haven't even met a single person like this, you had to resort to some 'ancedote'. insane people on american tv don't count.

>> No.3327210

>>3327197
I admit I haven't read Kant. I did mean what I said about Hume, and others like Mill, Locke.

And new philosophers like Dennett. (Oh I'm sure I'm about to receive a lot of flack over this one.)

>> No.3327224

>>3327200
The OP asked why /sci/ looks down on philosophy. The answer is the only kind of philosophy which gets large exposure here is the shitty anti-reality kind, or the shitty /new/ kind.

>> No.3327247
File: 72 KB, 200x200, Engineer TF2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3327247

Because engineers would rather get shit done than waste their time on idle musings and talk.

>> No.3327279

>>3327210

why the fook did you say 'kant is great' if you have no clue what kant stands for. most obvious pseudointellectualism evar?

hume was great but had nothing to do with kant. :/

>>3327247
> thinks modern electronics would even exist if physicists hadn't done all kinds of crazy shit to come up with quantum physics.

the above analogy applies to everything ever.

>> No.3327290

Don't insult engineers. We make the world go around.

>> No.3327305

>>3327279
>why the fook did you say 'kant is great' if you have no clue what kant stands for.

I was being generous.

>most obvious pseudointellectualism evar?

That I doubt.

>> No.3327327

>>3327290

Only when they're not sucking dick, I'm afraid.

>> No.3327345

>>3327290
> doesn't realise the world goes round because of angular momentum

>> No.3327373

Because Anal.

>> No.3327380

>>3327247

Einstein on the importance of epistemology (philosophy) and its obvious relevance to science:

>How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this. (Einstein 1916, 101)

>my ablest students have a vigorous interest in epistemology
>one should not be surprised by this

>> No.3327389

>>3326575 engineers hate philosophy

False premise is false.

>> No.3327395

>>3327380
Tesla thought Einstein and friends were closer to metaphysicists than scientists.

>> No.3327436

Wittgenstein started off as a mechanical engineer. He was doing some innovative work which required him to understand more mathematics, and he became interested in mathematical philosophy, especially Russell and Frege. He started to study under Russell who was convinced he was a philosophical genius. The he moved to Norway, lived the life of a hermit and put out the Tractatus. He fought in World War I, came back, passed up a family fortune and re-thought everything he wrote in the tractatus. Fascinating guy but I digress.

My point is not all engineers are like that. The people on here are probably undergrads in more career-oriented programs than serious scholars focused on theory and research. They just want to dick around and build shit. It's just trolling, ignore it.

>> No.3327452

>>3327436

The perplexing thing about Wittgenstein was that he remained gay even after he stopped being an engineer.

You can't explain it.

>> No.3327462

Guys. There is no conflict between Philosophy and Science. Science IS the part of philosophy optimized for a single purpose: Validation. If someone makes a claim he is supposed to justify it by a method which philosophy called scientific method. Science is a part of every VALID philosophy.

What happens is usually philosophy is confused with spiritualism and psychology or their shitty mixes. During modernist and post-modernist era such kind of idiotic thoughts were given validity in form of mass appeal. This does not make them any more correct. The true dispute if at all is between Shitty philosophers and Scientists.

Stop claiming that Einstein somehow said that Philosophy is somehow superior to science. Science IS philosophy.

>> No.3327497

>theoretical scientists sincerely appreciate it and find it fun

1. Nobody thinks it's 'fun'.
2. Feynman loathed the philosophers at Princeton as well.

>> No.3327515

>>3327497

because he was essentially an engineer who couldn't think outside the box

he said the same thing about artists and then changed his position saying anyone who is really skilled at something is interesting and valuable

>> No.3327524

>>3327515
Shut the fuck up about psychoanalyzing Feynman. You aren't 1 billionth the man he was and will never be.

>> No.3327528

>>3327524

Feynman also made fun of mathematicians because they would talk about dividing space up infinitely--which he thought was silly and uninformed..

he was an aspie through and through

>> No.3327532

Engineers are fucking idiots without any perspective at all, I thought this was the one place on the internet that knew that

>> No.3327533

I don't hate philosophy. Students of philosophy (and retarded kids after philosophy 101) on the other hand will be the first against the wall when I am king.

>> No.3327539

Engineering is about getting shit done. It's goal-based. That is the only manly philosophy in existence.

>> No.3327544

One thing is to hate on specific philosophers, criticize specific methods and so on. The other is to hate philosophy or any genuine field of knowledge and creation.

I believe that true scientists, regardless of their interests, respect and admire anyone that is trying to understand things, challenging pre conceived ideas and avoiding alienation.

Sure at a meeting you'll have to deal with pricks and idiots from all areas, so when you attack someone of another area it will look as if you are attacking the area itself. Although, of course, some idiots will indeed be attacking the area, but nevermind them.

sage for shitty thread

>> No.3327569

I think there are two kinds of engineers who hate philosophy:

1) Those who have no experience of is save for the stereotypical first year phil student who comes across as a pretentious wanker. They then generalise that to the discipline proper.

2) Those who have some experience of it but found it to be difficult to understand. Since engineers are the single most arrogant group of people at universities, this is the fault of the discipline, not them personally. You know, because knowing some math means they should understand absolutely everything.

>> No.3327578

Engineers rarely deal with philosophy in their field. Physicists don't NEED to think about philosophy, but the nature of the field at this point in time makes it pretty hard for them to avoid some philosophical thought about their work. Physicists work with the universe in a way where empirical evidence doesn't provide all the answers all the time. For the most part, engineers don't have to worry about that.

It's not that engineers dislike philosophy. It's just that they never think about it because it's barely connected to the subject, so any curiosity for philosophy is based on their personal interest alone. It's sort of like saying "Why do high school dropouts dislike philosophy while physicists appreciate it?" The high school dropouts have no reason to be interested aside from personal curiosity, so the vast majority will never learn anything about it.

>> No.3327587

>>3327578
>>3327578

There's a difference between 'not caring' and 'outright hostility'

>> No.3327600

>>3327587
And there's a difference between an accurate statement and a broad generalization pulled out of thin air. Guess which one "engineers are hostile towards philosophy" is.

>> No.3327603

>>3327600

How is 'engineers don't care' any less a generalisation than 'engineers feel hostility'?

>> No.3327627

>>3327603
Engineers have no reason to be interested in philosophy. It doesn't effect them in any way, shape or form. They never learn anything about philosophy in school. It doesn't effect anything in their subjects. Suggesting that they don't care about something that doesn't effect them is not a very bold statement and is probably a fair generalization. Suggesting that they show hostility towards it without giving any reasons explaining this hostility or showing any examples displaying this hostility is a little bit different, no?

>> No.3327641

>>3327627
I should point out that when I say "It doesn't effect them in any way, shape or form", I'm referring to engineers specifically viewed from their field. Obviously philosophy effects them in various ways, but none of those are related to their actual field.

>> No.3327651

>>3326575
I am an engineer and I love philosophy. All my humanity and free electives are in philosophy in fact.

>> No.3327654

>>3327627

Fine,

Engineers feel hostility towards phil because of x y and z. You reply with 'no they don't'. I reply with 'yes they do'. There I just saved us ten useless minutes of not convincing either other of anything.

>> No.3327663

>>3327076

Don't live in a shitty country then; I'm assuming you're talking about continental philosophers (Focault, Derrida, Baurdillard and whatever, deconstruction, postmodernism and so on), while I've heard they actual talk about those at some countries, you should know that the anglo-saxon world and scandinavia deals with analytic philosophy.

I'd say that it's more important than ever to study philosophy (if we're looking on the fields development) since there's so much going on in pretty much all fields it's silly.

Since Gettier posted that paper people have went batshit insane over epistemology, consequentialism is no longer a given answer in ethics, political philosophy have had a revive during the last 30 years after they finally parter it from ethics, philosophy of the mind is a field where everything from computer scientists to people from neurobiology meet to talk about consciousness, Kripke has showed hos metaphysics is well and alive even today, and if you study scientific theory there's an open discussion if we ought to view our theories as something closer to a map over a city, or the map in the metro station, if it's something that's scaled or merely a simplification. To name a few things.

>> No.3327680

>>3327389
This.

>> No.3327682

>>3327654
That's a cool summary, except you're missing the x, y and z. The majority of this thread suggests that engineers don't hate philosophy at all. I don't see a whole lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

>> No.3327683

>>3327663

Do you think continental is just obscurantism?

>> No.3327689

>>3327452
EPIC WIN!

>> No.3327711

Wait, both Turing AND Wittgenstein were gay? Man, I bet those lectures on the foundations of mathematics were punctuated with some massive sexual tension

>> No.3327782

>>3327683

No. But a lot of it is just bad thinking and vagueness, or built upon false premises.

Have a look at the difference between Derrida and Searle, who philosophers from different traditions, yet interested in language. Searle contronted Derrida on what he meant by "there's nothing outside of the text", making some people to believe that everything is a social construct. After some time Derrida said he simply meant that there's nothing outside the context.

But who has ever ever protest against that things are outside some kind of context? You're just saying "there's stuff, but there's also stuff around said stuff".

Great philosophers aren't great because they're hard to understand, they're great despite they're hard to understand.

>> No.3327803

>>3327782

I ask because I read that continental progressed along completely different lines due to Hegel and Heidegger, but as yet I have been completely unable to understand anything about what they are talking about.

>> No.3327820

>>3327782
aside: searle is a fucking moron.

>> No.3327889

i don't think they do. but does that mean I'm going to be a GENIUS some day? fck i hope not.

>> No.3327903

Engineering student here.
Logic > Philosophy.
Just sayin'.

>> No.3327991

>>3327820

>searle, fucken moron
>rhodes scholarship
nope.

>> No.3330181

Because back then we didn't have as much information as we have now, philosophy was useful. In fact, science started out as a branch of philosophy. Fortunately at some point science decided empiricism was more consistent and practical.

>> No.3330184

>>3326575
Basing things on personal experience isn't very scientific.

>> No.3330413

>>3327903
>implying logic is not a consideration of philosophy

Unless you're implying that logic is the ONLY important consideration of philosophy, in which case... I may agree, in a fashion.