/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3407975]

Philosophy is more important than science.

[Anonymous No.3407979]

Science is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3407984]

>>3407975
wat
>>3407979
wat


ITT:wat

[Anonymous No.3407997]

>>3407979

Ergo, being a subset, is not as important.

[OP No.3408017]

>>3407997
uh oh, now you've done it...

[Anonymous No.3408028]

>>3407997

Sure is retard logic.

[Deist No.3408035]

There are two real ways to measure import,

the intrinsic value of something - which is variable

The impact something has on the day to day life of people - which in principle can be broken down into statistics

Now, you say 'philosophy is more important than science', i'm going to modify what you said because

>science IS a branch of philosophy

specifically one based on
1) determinism
2) empiricism
The two foundational assumptions of science

which lead to accepting induction, and the methodology of science, IE the scientific method

'science' can refer to 3 things in general useage:
1) the philosophy of science, as briefly outlined
2) the methodology developed to understand the world
3) the body of knowledge that method has produced

each cascade into the other

anway, i'm modifying what you said to

"philosophy that is not science is more important than philosophy that is science or based on scientific principles'

if we use the first measure of value, some sort of intrinsic nature, then what you said might be valid. But its only valid TO YOU and you shouldnt expect the people here - a science board, to be on board with what you're proposing.

If you mean that second measure of import, how much it effects the day to day lives of people,

LOLOLOLOL

You are completely wrong, Science> philosophy

[Anonymous No.3408055]

>>3408035
Philosophy was the first science, therefore, philosophy create science. That's why it's greater than the others.

[OP No.3408056]

>>3408035
"Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have there given reins to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense, which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities."

[Deist No.3408067]

>>3408055

No.

>>3408056

See this post

>>3407975

And apply to it your own advice.

[Smiley No.3408070]

Philosophy is the observation of science, by which I mean it observes both the action and effect. Science (in my opinion) is greater as it actually explains these actions/effects and puts them into a format that can be relativistically manipulated

[Anonymous No.3408089]

>>3408035
>post-1926
>determinism
>foundational assumption of science
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

[Deist No.3408103]

>>3408089

>implying quantum mechanics is not a deterministic theory

/facepalm

Science is deterministic in principle.
Quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory. IT is not deterministic in measurement because we can not possibly know all initial conditions. Uncertainty principle and such.

does not mean the particles are not reacting in predictable manners according to conditions we dont know.

The foundational assumptions of science
1) determinism
2) empiricism

Not I also did not say these were necessarily correct, or that they are NECESSARILY still held. They ARE but they dont have to be for my post to be completely valid.

[OP No.3408107]

>>3408067
science will never answer you with anything more than a tautology, it is up to the individual armed with philosophy, to give the world and his life meaning. but i have a feeling you will rebuttal me this time too.

[Anonymous No.3408114]

>mfw I started a shitstorm by being right

[Anonymous No.3408118]

Philosophy gave birth to science. Philosophy without science is dumb. Science without philosophy is blind. Science is the blade, and philosophy the hand that guides it.

[Smiley No.3408122]

>>3408107
But philosophy is just a perception... in fact I would go as far to say that it is selfish. It is only applied to the individual (although it may cause someone else to have a similar view) where as science is a globally used concept which we use to communicate our understanding of the universe

[Deist No.3408123]

>>3408107

>science will never answer you with anything more than a tautology

What can give you absolute truth? Learn2Absurdism. Anyway, Science works (bitches), and is justified pragmatically. It does not claim to offer 'absolute truth' in the philosophical sense.

It says: "hey if we take these foundational assumptions that seem to make sense, and apply them in an intelligent manner, lets see if we can build a body of knowledge about the world around us"

So far it seems to have worked. Thats really what makes people separate science (previously, 'Natural philosophy) from the other philosophies: its success at improving the quality of life of human beings and explaining phenomena.

>it is up to the individual armed with philosophy, to give the world and his life meaning

Science is a philosophy, and you can derive as much meaning from science than any other philosophy. Also, plenty of people live lives largely ignorant of philosophy, and their lives are perfectly meaningful and happy. But yes its up to each individual person to choose what their personal meaning will be.

[Anonymous No.3408128]

>>3408114
Smug EK face is such a powerful reaction image. it really gets to me.

[Anonymous No.3408129]

>>3408103
>Quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory.
NOPE.jpg

>IT is not deterministic in measurement because we can not possibly know all initial conditions.
Given all the initial conditions that exist in the theory, the result of a measurement is still up to chance.

>does not mean the particles are not reacting in predictable manners according to conditions we dont know.
Yes, and there could be invisible unicorns, too, but they're not part of quantum mechanics. Therefore it is not correct to say quantum mechanics is a theory of invisible unicorns. Nor is it a deterministic theory.

[OP No.3408134]

>>3408123
i'd continue to talk to you, but i dont think you know much about philosophy. science probably, but philosophy, definitely not. you're smart though. honestly this was intended to just be a troll thread, this board gets really pissy when you start questioning the importance of science. and you're the prime example.

[Deist No.3408139]

>>3408129

>NOPE.jpg

Yep.jpg

if all you know of QM is popsci bullshit, maybe you hold this WRONG opinion. QM does not say that things dont react in a manner that is perfectly predictable given perfect knowledge of their previous conditions.

its an acknowledgment that due to measurement difficulties (see uncertainty principle) we cant possibly KNOW all initial conditions.

Learn your science PLEASE, before coming on here and commenting straight bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3408143]

Science is the philosophy of the natural world.

It just so happens to be of more immediate, obvious, verifiable and reliable use than any other branch of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3408147]

Philosophy explores what's necessary and possible.

Science explores what's both possible and true.

[Anonymous No.3408186]

>>3408139
>if all you know of QM is popsci bullshit, maybe you hold this WRONG opinion.
I'm a physics grad student. I know damn well what I'm talking about.

>QM does not say that things dont react in a manner that is perfectly predictable given perfect knowledge of their previous conditions.
That's true, because "things dont react in a manner that is perfectly predictable given perfect knowledge of their previous conditions" is philosophy. It requires that there be no invisible unicorns which determine the outcomes of measurement.

What QM does say, is that given a state vector, which is the quantum-mechanical description of the initial conditions, if you do a measurement, the outcome can be random.

This of course does not exclude that a better theory will come along which is deterministic. There are also undetectable extensions to QM (i.e. Bohmian mechanics) which are deterministic. And there's also the many-worlds interpretation, in which every possible outcome actually happens. But standard QM is not deterministic.

>its an acknowledgment that due to measurement difficulties (see uncertainty principle)

You see, this is how I know YOUR knowledge of QM is shallow. You think randomness comes from the "uncertainty principle," which is likely all you know of the theory. The uncertainty principle is a derived result. Go look up the Born rule; that's where randomness comes from in the theory.

[Anonymous No.3408267]

>>3408139
>>3408186
You fags do realize that 'determinism' has a different meaning to each of you right?

[Anonymous No.3408281]

>>3408267
I don't think so. If all determinism means is that we can't exclude invisible unicorns, then determinism is almost tautological (except for omniscient beings). If that's not what you meant, please explain.