/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4680395]

What legitimate purpose can philosophy serve in todays culture?

[Anonymous No.4680396]

It will help us cure cancer and build god tier spaceships

[Anonymous No.4680404]

When the economy collapses, we'll have people who can found reasonable agrarian societies?

[Anonymous No.4680406]

>>4680395

it never had a legitimate purpose.
philosophy is just a type of entertainment.

[Anonymous No.4680407]

Create people who can laugh at your naiveness.

[Anonymous No.4680408]

no purpose
its no longer needed

[Anonymous No.4680410]

To help you not be a sheep.

Or help you become a sheep.

Depends on your philosophical preferences I suppose.

[Anonymous No.4680415]

>>4680410
>implying humans can shape shift

[Anonymous No.4680419]

What legitimate purpose can anything in society give? Corporations move materials around so that they have more pointless money with which to move materials around.

[Anonymous No.4680420]

>>4680415
>Implying they can't.

It's almost as if you never read animorphs.

[Anonymous No.4680421]

>>4680415
>Implying they can't

sssss... not one of usssss....

[Anonymous No.4680431]

>>4680419
Mmm, justifying philosophy with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4680435]

>>4680431
What purpose does engineering have? oh whoops, you used philosophy

[Anonymous No.4680437]

>>4680419
>everything is a useless as philosophy

lol no. materials provide a service, philosophy does not.

[Anonymous No.4680438]

To confuse ignorant engineers and human less minds.

[Anonymous No.4680441]

>>4680437

materials when given form provide service. philosophy allows the understanding of that concept

[Anonymous No.4680442]

Does it need a purpose.

[Anonymous No.4680448]

>implying nature can be right or wrong
>implying there aren't value judgments

[Anonymous No.4680451]

>>4680442
Why is it still taught?

[Anonymous No.4680456]

>>4680451
Because people find it fascinating and want to learn more about it.

[Anonymous No.4680457]

ITT: People not understanding that philosophy is a mixed bag, but without it we might as well be ants.

Ethics, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mathematics, logic, political and social philosophy, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism etc.

By the way I'm not a philosophy major, and I find a lot of philosophy to be retarded hand waving, but we can't ignore how crucial much of it is.

[Anonymous No.4680468]

>>4680457
If philosophy were in a band, it would be the bass guitar.

[Anonymous No.4680478]

>>4680457
yes in the past
but now we have scientific method, do we even need to talk philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4680485]

Fast food corporations prefer it if most night shift managers have a 4 year degree because it looks good for the company.

[Anonymous No.4680484]

Before there were physicists, biologists, and chemists, there were natural philosophers. They formed theories to describe microbiological processes and ecological trends before microscopes or genetics. Philosophers prime subjects before they're ready for quantitative study. It's the ultimate goal for any philosophical subject to eventually be categorized and swallowed up into a technical, specified field in which it may be better surveyed. For instance, philosophy of the mind and the study of consciousness is now being swallowed by neuroscience. Today, issues of morality and ethics are the main philosophical issues with obvious real world application.

[Anonymous No.4680490]

it's funny because science is just philosophy with structure. Instead of just saying "I believe this" you say "I believe this because this".

[Anonymous No.4680504]

>>4680478

Ethics, political theory, social philosophy to name a few.

The scientific method has nothing to do with ethics, and that's why they use ethics committees to approve experiments to make sure they are ethical.

If you can't see how social and political philosophy is important in the present you should watch/read the news more.

[Anonymous No.4680524]

None =)

Philosophy right now only survives because of a couple of blind spots in science.

But it has been dying during the last centuries, shortly after metaphysics died. It survived in the shadow of science on "themes" like bioethics, neuroscience and cultural commentary. It's mostly now a muddled way of using languag to approach questions which should be answered empirically.

[Anonymous No.4680531]

>>4680524
>implying empiricism isn't a philosophy

How dense are you? You are using philosophy every time you fucking do science.

[Anonymous No.4680534]

>>4680457
>but we can't ignore how crucial much of it is.
oh ya? watch me

[Anonymous No.4680537]

>>4680534

Good then don't follow the scientific method, see how far you get.

[Anonymous No.4680547]

Providing an easy route to law school.

That and doing science, since you didn't specify a particular branch/area of interest within philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4680548]

>>4680531
How is reading statistical data on some phenomenon reflective of a philosophy? It's using a formal language to represent a fact of nature in a neutral way. It doesn't imply any "philosophy" at all, it could even be done by a machine which doesn't think. The process itself of collecting data, based on measurements and representing it in a formalised language doesn't represent any particular worldview. It's neutral to both nature and the reader.
The only link between a "subject" and scientific data is the linguistic conventions based on which this operation is done, that's all.

[Anonymous No.4680573]

>>4680524
>=)
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4680577]

Science is an understanding of that which already exists and is true.

Philosophy is a perception of that which may or may not exist.

Feel free to decide which one is useless bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4680582]

>>4680577
None. Both are crucial for the advance of society.

[Anonymous No.4680589]

>Mfw using a philosophical question to question philosophy

It helps us determine what is useful. You just proved that.

[Anonymous No.4680605]

>>4680582
Culture change comes from a necessity in the advancement of technology.

[Anonymous No.4680613]

Pic realated

[Anonymous No.4680645]

>>4680577
>state terrible (see:false) definitions of both science and philosophy
>act like you know anything

Engineer detected

[Anonymous No.4680655]

"In all demonstrative sciences the rules are certain and infallible; but
when we apply them, our fallible said uncertain faculties are very apt
to depart from them, and fall into error. We must, therefore, in every
reasoning form a new judgment, as a check or controul on our first
judgment or belief; and must enlarge our view to comprehend a kind of
history of all the instances, wherein our understanding has deceived us,
compared with those, wherein its testimony was just and true. Our reason
must be considered as a kind of cause, of which truth is the natural
effect; but such-a-one as by the irruption of other causes, and by the
inconstancy of our mental powers, may frequently be prevented. By this
means all knowledge degenerates into probability; and this probability
is greater or less, according to our experience of the veracity or
deceitfulness of our understanding, and according to the simplicity or
intricacy of the question.

There is no Algebraist nor Mathematician so expert in his science, as to
place entire confidence in any truth immediately upon his discovery of
it, or regard it as any thing, but a were probability. Every time he
runs over his proofs, his confidence encreases; but still more by the
approbation of his friends; and is raised to its utmost perfection by
the universal assent and applauses of the learned world. Now it is
evident, that this gradual encrease of assurance is nothing but the
addition of new probabilities, and is derived from the constant union of
causes and effects, according to past experience and observation."

[Anonymous No.4680659]

>>4680573
=)

You know it's true

>cap: OUTRAGES igMeer

[Anonymous No.4680676]

>>4680655

[Anonymous No.4680680]

>>4680645
I'm not an engineer nor am I a college student.
But it makes me happy to hear you call me one.
Stay rustled.

[Anonymous No.4680681]

>>4680655
Implying "truth" isn't a matter of belief...
That includes his own reading into this.

[Anonymous No.4680682]

>>4680395
Isn't this question philosophical in nature?

Didn't you just answer your own question?

[Anonymous No.4680686]

Philosophers are needed because we need future generations to understand philosophy. If the population of philosophers dies down, there will be no immediate downsides, but we will lose an important part of human history. Think of them as backup batteries in case all shit hits the fan.

Plus, although science can carry itself on pretty well, philosophers have the job of making sure things in humanities are logically sound. They should have the duty of revising articles written in various fields and restraining thinkers from making up bullshit conclusions. This can also work in a different way when applied to science- act as an external guiding hand to sway scientists away from stubborn theories or fads/schools of thought. All of this isn't what philosophy is about, but it's a practical job that philosophers can do well.

[Anonymous No.4680695]

>>4680681
>Implying "truth" isn't belief

What? It explicitly states "all knowledge degenerates into probability". This eradicates the notion of certainty and truth, and implies that truth requires faith (i.e. confidence/certainty).

>That includes his own reading into this.

Indeed it does. Hume was a skeptic for some time until he had a nervous breakdown from perceiving truth as an impossibility, and the paradox that follows:
The only thing that is certain is uncertainty, but if uncertainty is certain, then certainty does exist

[Anonymous No.4680704]

>>4680681

Comments like this illustrate perfectly why people should study philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4680717]

>>4680686
Yeah but, the question was precisely about whether there is any usefulness for philosophy to exist, and you answered it by saying there should be philosophers so that philosophy (from the past) would still be understood. You dodged the question, basically.

And then you go on to say they should be something like cultural proof-readers. That shows exactly what role philosophy can actually play today – cultural proofreading.

[Anonymous No.4680725]

>>4680695
Lol. He just didn't understand how his mind works. That formulation shows exactly this (how the faculty of understanding works).

And there's nothing wrong with knowledge "degenerating" into probabilities, as long as probabilities can be narrowed down to the point of making nature reveal itself in the data.

[Anonymous No.4680766]

How are we defining philosophy?

Much of "philosophy" since the mid-19th century has been increasingly involved in the social studies that were emerging at the time with figures like Karl Marx or Max Weber being considered some of the founders of sociology.

The 20th century is a time where what's deemed as philosophy sees a great deal of overlap with anthropology, linguistics, economics, psychology and other fields. That's why in a lot of circles that read "philosophy" from the last century that those involved refer to it as "Theory."

[Anonymous No.4680768]

>>4680725
I meant he didn't know why he would think there is «uncertainty» relative to a previous certainty. Could that be a problem which today can be answered empirically or not? I think it is.

[Anonymous No.4680773]

>lol philosofags

[Anonymous No.4680784]

>>4680548

You do understand that you are using the belief that induction can prove that something is true, i.e. repeated results lends credibility to a theory. You are following the scientific method (which is using philosophy) and you are also using logic and reason to find truth (also philosophy).

It seems to me that you think philosophy must be some esoteric collection of inane ideas, what that's just false

[Anonymous No.4680804]

Step 1: "Body of Inquiry" (bunch of related questions; caveman mode)
Why do we never see bears in the winter?
Where do the birds fly to during winter?
Why do the trees sleep but the grass dies in winter?
Step 2: A branch of Philosophy
"Living things have strategies and adaptations that allow them to survive changing seasons
.
Step 3: a soft science. an organized body of knowledge about a subject that is not fully understood. Documentation and categorization of hibernation/migration/other means of coping with changing seasons.
Step 4Hard science: full understanding of a subject and all related phenomena.

I used life sciences as an example because we are between stages 3 and for.
1,000 years ago Physics was stage 2.

We need philsophy because there are still new sciences to be birthed from it. Of course I don't know what they are.

[Anonymous No.4680815]

So many Wittgenstein wannabe there...

[Anonymous No.4680817]

>>4680804
>Step 4Hard science: full understanding of a subject and all related phenomena.

That's patently false, physics is a hard science and we do not have a full understanding of it.

In fact we do not have a full understanding of any science.

[Anonymous No.4680839]

>>4680817
Of course, thank you. I got rushed and sloppy. Unacceptable even for 4chan.
Our understanding of the hard sciences is great enough that we have a firm enough handle on the fundamental principles that we can proceed with logical and meaningful thought experiments. We can even recognize anomalies or apparent exceptions and explain them (You might have convinced a proto-physicist that helium had anti-mass.)

[Anonymous No.4680844]

Philosophy is just critical thinking which is one of the most basic and useful skills.

[Anonymous No.4680859]

>>4680844
How can you "truly" know that?

[Anonymous No.4681050]

>>4680784
No. Philosophy gave birth to many fields of scientific enquiry, but these fields have evolved beyond the initial purposes set out by philosophical themes. So now, it's irrelevant which came first, since philosophy itself was born out of reasoning through cultural diversity of myths and religious beliefs. Would you say philosophy is actually determined by its mythological roots? If so, then science is too...

What I was claiming was that science, in the present form, has evolved beyond the metaphysical framework of questions which defined philosophy when philosophy influenced sciences. Really, defining a hypothesis and gathering data to test it has not much to do with philosophy's concerns (like biomedical research). That's why philosophy has taken refuge in more obscure places, which cannot yet be elucidated by empirical study, such as "ethics", debates on "free will" and such, because philosophy itself thrives on obscurity, as it did for centuries of metaphysical babbling on such nonsense as "ens inquantum ens" or "the-thing-in-itself".