[ 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: 27 KB, 458x475, noam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355185 No.3355185 [Reply] [Original]

World best philosopher-scientist?

>> No.3355195

>philosopher
>scientist

pick one.
also: space shuttle!!11!1

>> No.3355277

Science isn't science without physical evidence. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'philosopher-scientist'.

>> No.3355291

>>3355277
Implying mathematics is physical

>> No.3355298
File: 428 KB, 471x470, hive.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355298

Ok, Intellectual then

He is a philosopher and a scientists though. Just like Darwin

>> No.3355299

Newton
Einstein

>> No.3355316

>>3355291
math is an art

>> No.3355355

>>3355291
it's not. Maths is maths, science is science. There's a difference

>> No.3355377

>>3355355
Mathematics is the queen of science. Good luck doing science without her.
Mathematics is what science strives for but will never have, perfect truth.
Mathematics is the only science where you can be certain of truth,

>> No.3355380

>>3355355
even math and religion meet at a certain point

>> No.3355423

>>3355380
That is absolute bullshit, i have yet to see a proof by contradiction in the bible...

>> No.3355454

>>3355423
math -> physics
physics -> chemistry
chemistry -> biology
biology -> medicine
medicine -> psychology
psychology -> religion and fairy tails

it just get's too complex(chaotic system) but math is underneath all of it

>> No.3355468

>>3355454
100% right

At high levels Physics just merges into mathematics. Mathematics makes sense in an infinite number of worlds, physics in just our own.

>> No.3355474

>>3355195
The general public doesn't realize this, but /sci/ should know better: Scientist is just short for 'natural philosopher using scientific method'.

>>3355185
>chomsky

Nowadays he's more of a culture and political critic than anything else.

>> No.3355484
File: 13 KB, 230x260, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355484

>implying he doesn't exist

>> No.3355502
File: 13 KB, 200x217, chomsky_noam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355502

Chosmky is most important intellectual alive today

>> No.3355530
File: 35 KB, 480x640, tumblr_ksrhi743eo1qzb91ho1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355530

>>3355502

>> No.3355539
File: 19 KB, 400x382, wit1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355539

>>3355502
I disagree.

>> No.3355548

>>3355539
>Posts some anonymous faggot

lulz

>> No.3355566

>>3355377
>Good luck doing science without her

You can do science without math, you just can't do quantitative science, only qualitative shit like major parts of sociology and psychology.


>>3355454
>math is underneath all of it

Wrong. Math is analytic a priori, it tells you absolutely nothing of the synthetic a posteori world. Kant was wrong.

>>3355468
There is no 'high levels', there is only the distinction between theoretical and empirical theories. Beyond what is empirically observable, you go into the theoretical and abstract. And 'infinitely number of worlds' is somewhat misleading, 'possible worlds' is the better term.

>> No.3355593

>>3355566

You have a lot of progress to explain away before you can dispose of math as necessary for scientific progress.

Also stop counting things because the vulgar superstition of math can't say anything about the sensate world. Hume was a genius, but that genius was invested in sophistry.

>> No.3355639
File: 182 KB, 500x500, 848758670_2b3a76006f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355639

>>3355454
>science hierarchy
>2011
you don't really do this do you?

mfw /sci/ will never see the interdisciplinary fields of science
nanotech
biotech
bioengi
nanoengi

>> No.3355659

>>3355548
You clearly have never heard of gravity let alone string theory.
Its Edward Witten you dumb shit. Dumb fucks like you don't belong in sci.

>> No.3355666

>>3355566
Fag has never applied gauge theory.

>> No.3355688

Probably.

>> No.3355701

>>3355659
He didn't know edward witten is. Not a big deal.
His mistake was judging the guy before enquiring more about his identity. Your mistake was deliberately editing the filename to catch him out

>> No.3355719

>>3355701
>>3355659
>they had been working on this thing for years. so they came to me and said they couldn't figure it out. so i came back about a week later and told them that they really were that dumb and i had solved their homework problem.
that man is outrageously genius. if only i could be smart enough to be his footstool

>> No.3355736

>>3355277

>Science isn't science without physical evidence.

No. lrn2science

>Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'philosopher-scientist'.

No. Philosophical implications arise out of science. One such example is relativity and causality. You can be a philosopher-scientist.

>> No.3355733

>>3355701

wit1.jpg

That's a pretty plausible filename for a picture of him found on Google.

>> No.3355743

>>3355277

You have no idea what a philosopher is. Any scientist worth anything should - please leave.

>> No.3355758

>>3355468

95% right. Math doesn't lead to physics. Physics uses mathematics to explain natural and physical phenomenon. Same with the other branches of science. It is the language of all science.

>> No.3355766

>>3355355

Not even going to contribute to this thread.

...DAMMIT!

>Master troll

>> No.3355779

>>3355291
Implying maths is a science

>> No.3355787

>>3355766

It's true - I consider mathematics an art. It's just one that happens to be useful to science. Another one is photography, for example.

>> No.3355788

>>3355758

Mathematics is a series of logical manipulations. Without physics, chemistry, etc., mathematics would have no context in science. Mathematics and science are interdependent, but it doesnt necessarily mean one leads to the other. In terms of explaining the universe however, the most fundamental science is physics. Chemistry is a simplified (or more complex, depending on how you see it) version of that, so on and so forth.

>> No.3355794

It's threads like these that remind me that /sci/ is comprised mostly of neckbearded basement dwellers that have no hope of every obtaining a graduate degree in anything.

Most probably can't get into community college.

Sitting around with your stoner, GED educated friends discussing string theory apparently makes you a scientist and worthy enough to criticize the root of all science - philosophy.

>> No.3355799

>>3355788
It's basically a chaotic system, everything can be explained by physics(meaning the nature of the field, rather than our current knowledge). It's just that we need to separate it because there is much too much information to process

>> No.3355802

>>3355291

Mathematics is not "physical" correct, but it is rooted in the universe. Many argue that mathematics is a human invention, and in some contexts it is true. Tell me, is the circumference of a circle always a factor of pi? Whether a perfect circle actually exists or not is irrelevant. The circumference of a circle is always a factor of the same number. It will never change as long as the laws of this universe are held constant. Mathematics is rooted in the laws of the universe. It IS naturally occurring. "Physical" is a context

>> No.3355814

>>3355794

>proves he isn't a neckbeard living in his mom's basement
>proves none of us have advanced degrees

Troll harder son

>> No.3355841

I would say all accomplished scientists develop some kind of philosophy along the line. At the end of the day, one must contemplate what all your work means in the grand scheme of the universe or human existence.

Wasn't much of a philosopher, but I'm a big fan of Feynman

>> No.3355853

>>3355841
+1 Feynmann was awesome.
Also, Bertrand Russell has some nice books

>> No.3355878

>>3355853
Feynman hated philosophy haha, i think that is where sci gets its ideas from.

As for Bertrand Russell, that man is a genius, he was a philosopher, economist and pure mathematician. Dawkins has taken up the role he filled as the worlds leading atheist.
Some christians claimed Russell perverted the youth (like socrates) because young women were attracted to him. Makes me lol. Silly christians.

>> No.3355989
File: 15 KB, 200x250, hmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3355989

who can name this man?

>> No.3356014

>>3355989

bump for name

>> No.3356025

>>3355989
wasn't he already posted (a few times)?

>> No.3356310
File: 21 KB, 311x400, jesus-facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356310

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

>> No.3356323

>>3356310

I rest my case.

>> No.3356463
File: 17 KB, 250x250, costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356463

>>3356025

>> No.3356600
File: 35 KB, 707x700, lolpolitcal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356600

Chomsky confirmed for god

>> No.3356611
File: 2 KB, 450x300, 450px-Anarchist_flagsvg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356611

>>3356310
Both sciences

lolol

>> No.3356614

>>3355502
>not Zizek
lol

>> No.3356624

>>3356614
Yeah Zizek is good also, but chomsky was voted #1 intellectual in the world. He dominates his field and politically he is unassailable.

>> No.3356634

Looks like the commies are recruiting for their anarchists state however that works. Yeah lets steal all the money from the people that create the things we need I;m sure nothing bad will happen.

>> No.3356646
File: 24 KB, 250x317, dawkins laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3356646

>>3356634
Hurr durr, enjoy your private dictatorship you get when you attack democracy. Enjoy private security raping your ass by mistake then getting away with it.

Strong democracy puts people over private tyrrany.

>> No.3356902

I guess I would have to vote Chomsky, but he hasn't done any "notable" scientific stuff in a while, even if he spurred the cognitive revolution, which was scientifically invaluable.

But, when it comes to his economic views, I don't think he looks at the evidence of how incentives work. He analyzes everything in terms of class conflict and corporate/state power, which are important, but not the only factors.