[ 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: 10 KB, 241x313, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5813501 No.5813501[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

ITT we discuss why philosophy is generally crap. I find it interesting, but rarely useful. Hume especially.

>> No.5813519
File: 75 KB, 300x360, 1347393421733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5813519

>mfw scientists get red in the face and scream shit about hume because they know they can't justify induction

>> No.5813530

>>5813519

Justify induction? How about the fact that it works? It's interesting that philosophers think the ought-is problem means anything. Let's see how much the problem actually stops you from figuring things out (pro-tip: it won't).

>> No.5813532

>>5813530
But that's shoddy reasoning.

>> No.5813535

Philosophy is the organic aspect of knowledge, it should be mixed with actual terms to bring the concept to greater clarity. Most people apply it wrong, or centralize on it.

>> No.5813536

>>5813501
>discuss why philosophy is generally crap
Isn't that... philosophy?

>> No.5813538

>>5813532
Are you saying it doesn't work?

I've been making bets that the sun will rise with philosophers for years and it put me through college.

>> No.5813540

i like atomism because it shows how worthless philosophy is even when it's right

>> No.5813541

>>5813532

How is that shoddy reasoning? No philosophical question has ever undone hundreds of years of scientific knowledge. The ought-is problem didn't stop us from calculating the physics of space and getting to the moon. I just don't see where it actually applies (besides our own heads).

>> No.5813545

uuh how is philosophy crap/useless, especially epistemology?

>> No.5813552

>>5813541
It's our insight into the purpose of the functions we work with and should be refined as we discover more. It will never be undone, just certain inaccurate claims dismissed.

>> No.5813559

>>5813545

I meant it in the broadest most generalizing sense. I think it is crap/useless when you try to apply certain ideas to the natural world. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that you can't derive an ought from an is, so you can't ever make any claims about anything.

So what would the point of knowledge be? How can you make the claim that taking a shit will relieve your bowels? Why bother doing it then? Why eat when you're hungry if you can't determine if it will make the hunger stop? How can you know that going to sleep will make you any less tired?

I think it's just a glitch in the human brain that these words make any sense to anyone.

>> No.5813563

>>5813538
No I'm not saying it doesn't usually work, just that it's not airtight. And that's generally fine for getting shit done in the real world.

But fuck no "it just werks" is not good reasoning.

>> No.5813583

>>5813563

Absolute certainty is a red herring.

Generally I like philosophy, but seeing the bullshit Christian apologists pull with it I'm inclined to say fuck it.

>> No.5813588

>>5813563
"It just works" is good enough reasoning to keep doing it.

>> No.5813592

>>5813583

Islamic apologists too. Really, religious apologists in general. I'm really sick of hearing how we can't interfere with other cultures even though they are clearly destructive and abusive to its own people.

>> No.5813597

>>5813592

YES. Fuck fundamentalist Islam AND fundamentalist Christianity. Expecially the former. At least Christianity has been moderated by secular values.

>> No.5813606

>Separating Science and philosophy.
>Not realizing that science is a subset of philosophy, which is a subset of logic.

Why do you insist on turning everything into a hierarchy? Science rests on the collected assumptions of thousands of years of history. You can't throw that all away without pulling the rug out from under yourself.