Philosophy of Science Thread

[Anonymous No.4583987]

>'It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics, too, is only an interpretation and exegesis of the world (to suit us, if I may say so!) and not a world explanation; but insofar as it is based on a belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more—namely, as an explanation. Eyes and fingers speak in its favor, visual evidence and palpableness do, too: this strikes an age with fundamentally plebeian tastes as fascinating, persuasive, and convincing—after all, it follows instinctively the cannon of truth of the eternally popular sensualism. What is clear, what is “explained”? Only what can be seen and felt—every problem has to be pursued to that point. Conversely, the charm of the Platonic way of thinking, which was a noble way of thinking, consisted precisely in resistance to obvious sense-evidence—perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more demanding senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to find a higher triumph in remaining masters of their senses—and this by means of pale, cold, gray concept nets which they threw over the motley whirl of the senses—the mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an enjoyment different from that which the physicists of today offer us—and also the Darwinists and anti-teleologists among the workers in physiology, with their principle of the “smallest possible force” and the greatest possible stupidity. “Where man cannot find anything to see or to grasp, he has no further business”—that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may be the right imperative for a tough, industrious race of machinists and bridge-builders of the future, who have nothing but rough work to do.'

[Anonymous No.4583997]

IT BEGINS

[Anonymous No.4584005]

>mfw /sci/ can't understand anything that's not an equation or theorem

[Anonymous No.4584009]

>he whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

[Anonymous No.4584011]

>>4583987
I came

[Anonymous No.4584015]

>>4584011
>kandinsky's composition no.7
>art.jpg

>welcome to /sci/

[Anonymous No.4584027]

>>4584015
>Kandinsky
>draws a bunch of circles
>ARTISTIC JEENIUS

[Anonymous No.4584039]

>>4584027
did you even look at the picture

[Anonymous No.4584064]

>>4584011

[Anonymous No.4584124]

Philosophy of science is a defunct study.