/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6133726]

ITT: Overcomplicating simple ideas so they can feel superior to people who live in reality

Of course everyone should read up on at least some philosophy but no one should take it any more seriously than a novel.

How does it feel that philosofags think that all /sci/enists do is plug in numbers into calculators? 99% of them have no respect for us. They actually think that they are smarter. That goes for liberal arts fags in general.

>inb4 science and math stem form philosophy
Ye and chemistry stems form alcamey, so what?

[Anonymous No.6133736]

OP is a fag. A fag with a liberal arts degree.

[Anonymous No.6133749]

>>6133726
>ITT: I said it on the Internet so it must be true!

All physics majors have an overwhelming sexual attraction to dogs. That goes for STEMfags in general.

How does it feel to be a dogfucker, STEMfag?

[Anonymous No.6133748]

>>6133726


fix'd

[Anonymous No.6133806]

The only kind of philosophers that annoy me are metaphysics philosophers (in general). 99.9% of metaphysics philosophers know less physics than a first year undergraduate. They then make crazy extrapolations about the universe from their limited understanding of it.

Jesus christ these guys are like 3rd century BC natural philosophers but worse because Aristotle didn't have textbooks on quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc. that he could just pick up and learn.

[Anonymous No.6133816]

Science is a philosophy.

What now fag?

[Anonymous No.6133818]

>>6133806
Don't forget about post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.6133836]

I find that a lot of people who are into pure mathematics also like philosophy but its not true for the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6133847]

>>6133806
I tied googling the Feynman lectures. I don't think they exist.

[Anonymous No.6133892]

>>6133847
>tied googling
>Doesn't think the feynman lectures exist

[Anonymous No.6133905]

>>6133749
>being this butthurt

[Anonymous No.6133941]

>>6133836

Hello!

I haven't encountered this. Most people that I know into pure mathematics don't care much--well, except some of the logicians.

Best!

[Anonymous No.6134700]

>>6133726
Totally agree, philosophy has attributed nothing of value to society, its just a bunch of abstract concepts that some people like to spend a lot of time trying to get some subjective meaning out of that adds zero value to their life.

[Anonymous No.6134704]

>>6133941
Are you trying to steal the cred of Best! guy?

[Anonymous No.6134708]

>>6133726

Philosophy is probably one of the last subjects that is seen as intellectual and doesn't require all the cold hard math that every other field has adapted for thousands of years.

>inb4 math is applied philosophy

[Anonymous No.6134717]

>>6134700
How clueless can a person be? Philosophy and it's vulgar version Religion have together shaped the entire western world.

[Anonymous No.6134716]

>>6134708
>that is seen as intellectual

Philosophy is not seen as intellectual. Only science and math are intellectual. Philosophy is pseudo-intellectual at best and if you go full "cannot know nuffin", then you are even anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.6134729]

>>6134717
Religion has had a great impact on society through history, yes, positive impact? Obviously not. Religion has been pretty anti scientific, and for a long time proposing theories that contradicted with religious views where enough reason to get killed for blasphemy, religion truly is a cancer. Kierkegaard and the likes of abstract pointless concepts of philosophy has shaped nothing. Oh and the obligatory pointless ad hominem attack; no you are clueless for proposing those views!

[sega No.6134730]

physicists have math autism and biologist have math indigestion

[Anonymous No.6134739]

>>6134700

Shut up kid

[Anonymous No.6134741]

Science cant say anything about morality, ethics, politics... and there are many philosophers with great insight in those topics that everyone should read.

[Anonymous No.6134744]

>>6134729
Yes, positive impact. It was Christianity which united all the different peoples of Europe and instilled in them values of piety, charity and cooperation instead of the default selfishness and violence of the barbarians, which allowed for a sophisticated society to develop and higher ideas to be pursued. It was neoplatonist philosophers which inspired the Renaissance patrons to invest in beauty and the pursuit of more understanding. It was protestant ethic which made Germanic peoples immerse themselves in materialism and develop Capitalism as it is today. It's easy to ignore everything that happened before you and pretend your values are "self evident", but your values have been determined by the philosophical developments that preceded your birth.

[Quantosucka No.6134752]

>>6134729
Lol Religion didn't have a positive impact, get out of here
Athiestfag

[Anonymous No.6134762]

>>6134741
>Science cant say anything about morality, ethics, politics
Morality is a religious bullshit concept.
Ethics is formalized by evolution and economics.
Political science is a social science formalizing politics without needing to resort to philosobabble.

Why are you so uneducated, philosotard?

[Anonymous No.6134769]

>>6133726
>They actually think that they are smarter.

I really don't care, you'll realize why after you've graduated, maybe sooner, actually I don't think I've heard the term "smart" being used to describe a person since first year.

[Anonymous No.6134772]

>>6133749
Some dog breeds are pretty damn sexy, not the best looking mammals of course, but not bad at all, feels meh

[Anonymous No.6134774]

>>6134708
>>6134716
Well, I'd rather say that people abuse certain words and schools of though to justify anti-intellectual behaviour under the guise of "philosophy" when they don't fully understand the concept nor have really thought about it in depth, leading to retarded facebook-and-it's-ilk posts in your newsfeed.

The sincere study of Philosophy in itself in intellectual.

[Anonymous No.6134776]

>>6134762
>Morality is a religious bullshit concept.

[Anonymous No.6134779]

>>6134762
Nothing which you proposed has anything do with science. Science is a method not a position. Your position which you take to be self evident because your limited perspective is Materialism. Maybe some day you will stop to reflect about it and come to the conclusion that it is a mediocre unsatisfying world view.

[Anonymous No.6134777]

>>6134774
itself is*

[Anonymous No.6134781]

>>6134730
>sega
This is good, I'm going to start using it after this post

[Anonymous No.6134784]

>>6134741
>morality,
Evolutionary biology
>ethics,
Evolutionary biology, Environmental Science
>politics
Economics (Applied Math), Social Engineering, Poli Sci

^All progress in these fields since pre-dark ages has been made by people with a background in a practical field.

[Anonymous No.6134786]

>>6134744
>Yes, positive impact. It was Christianity which united all the different peoples of Europe and instilled in them values of piety, charity and cooperation instead of the default selfishness and violence of the barbarians, which allowed for a sophisticated society to develop and higher ideas to be pursued.
Before Christianity: Roman Civilization
After Christianity: Chaos, "kingdoms", stagnation

[Anonymous No.6134788]

>>6134786
Are you of germanic descent?

[Anonymous No.6134796]

I know solipsism doesn't jive well with science, because the assumptions needed to partake in scientific investigation are very agreeable to most people, but it does remain in the back of my mind throughout my life.

[Anonymous No.6134798]

>>6134788
Rome was dying long before the Barbarians sacked the Capital, thank (the gods) the Germans were there to pick up the pieces, and from the ashes rose the greatest civilization the world will ever know. Of course for various reasons including religious ideas spreading to the German kings, it took some time before the Renaissance would restore free thought to Europe.

It is apt that the rebirth was named after the rediscovery of pre-Christian Hellenic and Latin ideas by the Germanics who embraced it over the shackles of Catholicism, which finally restored humanity on its progressive track, meanwhile the Byzantines stagnated under the Orthodoxy and fell to a people under another disparaging Abrahamic religious belief.

Who care's though, in a few years we won't even have this argument, the youth is embracing increasingly secular thought.

[Anonymous No.6134799]

>>6134798
>the youth is embracing increasingly secular thought.
do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.6134807]

>>6134798
A "yes" would have sufficed, thank you. Can't argue against delusion and nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6134809]

>>6134741
And... that is hardly philosophy of science, these are application of science.
Scientific method = ( guess -> physical experiment -> good guess )
Science is a set of good guesses, and some calls them scientific theories.

We were once all happy with this definition and now that those who dislike facts and doubts strike back on us, they write lots of things about science which no one understands, they call it philosophy of science. That's why real top-notch scientists like Richard Feynman tells you that philosophy of science is a waste of time, not because it is not philosophical, but because it is fucking well-defined!
If you want something new, "paradigm shift" or something, then go play something else, like, philosophy of truth, philosophy of truth..etc.

[Anonymous No.6134819]

>>6134799
>do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
More people will tend to embrace science and reason, but there will also be moral degradation and nihilism if religious ethics aren't replaced with progressive, Humanist thought. Education, especially at an early age, is more important than ever today.

>>6134807
You can't argue against truth and facts, don't worry, I can't either. Don't feel bad about not being part of the Germanic master race, you don't need emotional thinking and lies to feel better about your lesser heritage, Germanics brought this idea of tolerance and equality into the world ensuring you have a place in the post-colonial world. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed.

[Anonymous No.6134918]

>>6134729
Funny you should mention Kierkegaard since he dealt explicitly with the individual. At least he didn't screw up like Heidegger.

It's not the philosophers fault really. Not the dead ones at least. It's the fault of the living philosophers who do nothing but analyze their predecessors and are blissfully unaware of Darwin's work.

[Anonymous No.6134994]

>>6133736
>implying philosophy isn't liberal arts tier

[Anonymous No.6135014]

>>6134741
>Philosophy has never demonstrated/discovered anything and has never postulated a single non-trivial idea.
FTFY

[Anonymous No.6135111]

ITT:

Butthurt OP and friends crying over the epic troll they endured from a post-modernist philosopher in a previous thread.

Still doesn't realize it was all facetious/ironic because he's too autistic/doesn't get post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.6136541]

>>6133726
>non-stem
>relevant

[Anonymous No.6136559]

>>6134784
lol@thinking a descriptive theory can be prescriptive

[Anonymous No.6136608]

Sorry OP, but I'm a math major, and I enjoy taking logic classes in the philosophy department.

I suggest anyone doing any rigorous mathematics to take entry-level symbolic logic. It'll help immensely with writing proofs, since all the valid rules of natural deduction are spelled out neatly, with justification.

[Anonymous No.6136645]

But /sci/ I think Diogenes is a pretty funny guy. What do you have agaisnt that?

[Anonymous No.6136671]

>>6133806
>99.9% of metaphysics philosophers know less physics than a first year undergraduate.
hahaha holy shit you have no idea what metaphysics even is.

I'll start by saying metaphysics has nothing to do with physics. It's only called that because in Aristotle's work on being and understanding came after (meta-) a text about nature (physics).

[Anonymous No.6136678]

>>6134776

fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.6136729]

Incidentally, last week I watched a bunch of short videos from MIT philosophy department on a bunch of interesting topics… and holy shit, it was like OP's pic: you can't know nuffin! They were talking out of their ass and pulling a bunch of convoluted logical paradoxes as a way to prove their point. I gave up after watching 4 videos... last one I watched was about god and how god exists.

Philosophers, please, just kill yourselves. You must lead miserable fucking lives when you're tasked to come up with various mind tricks and bullshit to justify your existence.

[Anonymous No.6136746]

>>6136729

Sounds like radical relativism. Could you give links to those videos?

[Anonymous No.6136810]

>>6136746
i didn't post the link on purpose because that shit will make any rational & science person mad. don't waste your time. go watch OCW vids instead.

[Anonymous No.6137049]

>>6136608
It worked because what you've learned from now is all good old basics, but it also opens a useless topic called mathematical logic and that's where you feel like stabbing your eyes.

[Anonymous No.6137052]

>>6136729
well, philosophy starting form first principles is mostly just "you can't know muffins" but there are a lot of interesting implications to that in fact it's not so simple.

[Anonymous No.6137055]

>>6133726

Haha, this is such a naive impression of science.

Find QM and let it take your innocence.

[Anonymous No.6137084]

>>6137055
>QM
Some of it is actually understandable to people who are studying physics at a low level, such as absorption and emission.
It's not all complicated bs.

[Anonymous No.6137109]

>>6137084

You find QM complicated? Haha. No. That is not what was meant.

QM is very simple to understand, even to somebody with no physics background; simply interpret Feynman diagrams, they were designed with that purpose in mind.

It is not the mathematics behind practical QM that needs to be appreciated, it is the nature of QM: fundamentally probabilistic even when all hidden variables could possibly be known.

We advance QM by working on theories that we have no means of falsifying. The marriage of SUSY and String is one example.

Gone are the days of classical Newtonian certainty. Where we are now with Physics we are not very much different from Philosophy. Both fields advance now by epistemic reasoning.

"You cannot know nuthing". It ought to be a class for both physics and philo majors in sem 1.

[Anonymous No.6137165]

>>6137109
It's not like I'm the only one who finds it complicated.
Sure enough things can be explained so that they seem easy enough to comprehend, like a 5 year old understanding gravity, but you can't make the same 5 year old study it and use it for anything, which is the same with QM except the 5 year old is replaced with 7/10 students. It's shit.

[Anonymous No.6137204]

>>6137165

I would advise 7/10 students to confer with Feynman diagrams then.

Its not complicated, at all. The maths may be, granted; but you dont really need to know the math to appreciate the concepts and their implications.

Im just going to take an example from Wikipedia (pic related) and heres an abstract:

>In theoretical physics, Feynman diagrams are pictorial representations of the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles. The scheme is named for its inventor, Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Richard Feynman, and was first introduced in 1948. The interaction of sub-atomic particles can be complex and difficult to understand intuitively, and the Feynman diagrams allow for a simple visualization of what would otherwise be a rather arcane and abstract formula. As David Kaiser writes, "since the middle of the 20th century, theoretical physicists have increasingly turned to this tool to help them undertake critical calculations," and as such "Feynman diagrams have revolutionized nearly every aspect of theoretical physics".[1] While the diagrams are applied primarily to quantum field theory, they can also be used in other fields, such as solid-state theory.

For example in the diagram, something so simple like seeing an e+ and qbar having a forward direction in reverse to the time-axis introduces you to the concept of retrocausality. It is madness to a classical physicist or engineer but is just everyday life when discussing the nature of antiparticles in physics. At the post-doc level, QM is more philosophy than actual math. Let the phenomenologists do the math and the experimentalists explain it to the engineers.

[Anonymous No.6137211]

Hmm before you read the wrong wikipedia article on phenomenology, I'd better direct you to the kind of phenomenologist I was referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)

[Anonymous No.6137213]

>>6137204
>I would advise 7/10 students to confer with Feynman diagrams then.
QM doesn't stop at scattering.
Please stop speaking and actually open a QM book.

[Anonymous No.6137215]

>>6137213

Fight me, little bitch.

[Anonymous No.6137251]

>>6137204
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.6137372]

>>6137204
But antiparticles don't lead to rectrocausality. How are those related?

[Anonymous No.6137375]

>>6137204

>post-doc QM is more philosophy than math.

I can tell you're not a post-doc

[Anonymous No.6137410]

>>6136729
>Watches continental philosophers
>thinks all philosophy is shirt

I could quote this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.6137412]

>>6137410
Clearly should be shit, on a smartphone.

[Anonymous No.6137414]

Like >>6133818 said, post-modernism is the source of the generally bad attitude current philosophy and liberal arts have towards science.

[Anonymous No.6137445]

>That goes for liberal arts fags in general
Hey, I love science and have a great deal of respect for you guys. I just love making fun and beautiful things more so I do that instead. There is enough room for both in this world (thank goodness)

[Anonymous No.6137448]

>>6134708
>doesn't require all the cold hard math
You have never met a logician have you.
I bet you think that linguist is easy fluff too.

[Anonymous No.6137457]

>>6136810
Wait, you don't want normally rational people to rage out for lolz? Are you sure you are on the right site?

[Anonymous No.6137482]

>>6137448
it is

[Anonymous No.6137507]

ITT: people who don't know shit about philosophy and treat postmodernism like fundies treat evolution. go and read a book ffs

[Anonymous No.6137520]

>>6137507
>ITT: people who don't know shit about philosophy and treat postmodernism like fun dies treat evolution. go and read a book ffs

>go and read a book ffs

and make sure it's not a philosophy book because 99% of philosophy is useless nonsense.
Also, since philosophy is not science, shouldn’t this thread be in /r9k/?

[Anonymous No.6137570]

>>6137520
>/r9k/
10/10, i laughed out loudly

[Anonymous No.6137601]

>>6136559
Idiot.

[Anonymous No.6137605]

>>6137445
>I just love making fun and beautiful things

Then why didn't you study Engineering?

[Anonymous No.6137613]

>>6133726

Hey, OP. I really think it'd be best to take a step back and think "what exactly is philosophy and what exactly am I upset about?" Words are really strange things, OP. The meanings of different words may seem really intuitive to us most of the time, but when we try to actually define words, it can be really tough. What I'd like to propose, that I'd doubt you disagree with, is that it's important to have clearly defined definitions for words. This would really make communication easier for everyone, and reduce any conflicts that might arise because of miscommunication.
Think of philosophy as the field that tries make words clearer, make language understandable when it's not. As it turns out, philosophers can often sound pretty silly, because a lot of their arguments can be really convoluted. I want you to think about it for a second though, is this their fault? Are they just trying to seem intelligent, or is there a genuine issue when it comes to understanding the meanings of certain words? Why is meaning so elusive when it comes to semantics?
In math, it's really easy to define just what our axioms are: we have logical axioms, rules of inference, and some extra axiomatic features of our system. It's pretty clear-cut what we mean in math because we're defining things in such a small little world: the world of logic. If we try to extend semantics to the real world, we encounter a lot of problems. There are more variables, there's a lot to consider. The philosopher isn't trying to make things complicated when he tries to clear up language, things are already complicated. In the last century, a lot of progress has been made in philosophy to clear up thought - this was due to the analytic school. If you pick up a philosophy paper of this school today, you'll find that there's very little jargon and it's pretty clear to read - no one's trying to intentionally obfuscate anyone else. Arguments are made, and they can be numbered.

[Anonymous No.6137622]

>>6137613

the premises are clear, the conclusions are stated outright. Philosophers want to make strong arguments to defend beliefs. Many say "there's no right or wrong" in philosophy, but there is. The strongest argument is right as long as its the strongest argument of which we can conceive. And this argument is really the guy that keeps words solid in times when it's difficult to say. The arguments philosophers throw around aren't for sounding pretentious, they're for figuring out just what we're trying to say when we say something.

[Anonymous No.6137626]

>>6136671
metaphysics ain't science, period. why are we talking about it on this board