/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6282006]

Why does /sci/ hate philosophy when there have been so many mathematicians, philosophers and logicians who were also philosophers?

[Anonymous No.6282011]

Not all philosophy boils down to "you can't know nuffin" nonsense

[Anonymous No.6282012]

Because /sci/ is ignorant

[Anonymous No.6282014]

Or is this all just some /sci/ meme to hate philosophy?

[Anonymous No.6282020]

I mean, shit, mathematicians have been into philosophy for fucking millenia, and philosophers have likewise esteemed highly math and logic.

[Anonymous No.6282023]

You guys can't seriously just hate philosophy because of freshman idiots spouting ridiculous things

[Anonymous No.6282024]

A lot of people on /sci/ have a superiority complex. They just try and look down on everyone else to hide their own feelings of inferiority.

[Anonymous Professor No.6282028]

>>6282006
>when there have been so many philosophers who were also philosophers

...

[Anonymous No.6282031]

>>6282020
They're both pursuits of smart people. They go hand in hand, only autists stick to just math and science.

[Anonymous No.6282032]

>>6282024
It's kind of funny to try to do that by disparaging philosophy as a whole

>>6282028
A typo on my part, I meant mathematicians and scientists who were also philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6282033]

>>6282006
Because the only parts worth discussing are its Mathematical and Logical study.

[Anonymous No.6282040]

>>6282033
>discounting epistemology and ethics

[Anonymous No.6282041]

>>6282006
>Why does /sci/ hate philosophy

only few trolls do. philosophy is welcome here since it's at the root of science.

[Anonymous No.6282043]

>>6282032
It makes sense though, they constantly feel the need to prove they are better than everyone else intellectually because it's the one thing they have in their life to be proud of. That's why you get all the IQ circlejerking and one upsmanship. It's like when kids are mean to each other in school, it makes them feel better about themselves when they call the other kid names which shows they need to feel better about themselves for some reason.

[Anonymous No.6282045]

>>6282043
I thought IQ threads were pure trolling. At least I really hope it's mostly trolling.

[Anonymous No.6282056]

Knowledge of philosophy is also key to disarming nihilists and those who would try to destroy science.

[Anonymous No.6282440]

Philosophy is fine its when people forget that its 2014 and all that shit Kant wrote is dope as fuck but its 200 years old. All these philosophers would have completely different ideas if they knew a fraction of the shit we know today. And it is also irritating when the philosophy fuckers act like they have knowledge we don't in science. Like all their shit conjectures about consciousness for example.

[Anonymous No.6282443]

What /sci/ calls "philosophy" is an insult to the actual academic discipline of philosophy. Whatever pseudo-intellectual thought you had while taking a shit, it doesn't qualify as "philosophy". Every argument you bring up for or against free will or solipsism, it has been considered and refuted a million times before. Grow the fuck up and stop bothering /sci/ with your mental retardation.

[Anonymous No.6282448]

>bawwww /sci/ doesn't like my generic "lol so deep" kindergarten drivel

[Anonymous No.6282454]

>>6282056
>key to disarming nihilists

What's there to disarm? Just call them edgy.

[Anonymous No.6282490]

So much samefagging...

1) If you're arguing philosophy *isn't* just a massive, useless circlejerk, name ONE (literally, one) new thing philosophy has proven to be true about the real world in the last, say, 50 years. People still argue about whether Plato's (or whichever 3000-year-old-dead greek dude's) ideas were right or not. Philosophy adds nothing to science, because nothing it ever says can be proven or even tested.

2) Philosophers who were also scientists or mathematicians pretty much all lived before the job of "mathematician" was even a thing (i.e. mid/late 1700's or so). "Philosopher" was just the catch-all word for "someone who gets paid to sit around and be smart all day". The later ones like Russell etc. worked with foundational things - never areas with any real applications or impact outside themselves. Like any philosophical question, the question of what is the "true" foundation for mathematics is subjective and unanswerable, and is all but ignored by other mathematicians because the answer actually has next to zero impact on anything.

3) Giving philosophy credit for all of science because some guy who called himself a philosopher invented decimal notation 2500 years ago is like giving a caveman credit for inventing airplanes because he discovered fire. Even more pathetic is latching yourself on to such an unscientific mass of pseudointellectual masturbation and plastering posters of ancient dead guys over your bedroom walls to make yourself seem smart by association.

[Anonymous No.6282507]

>>6282490

Okay
1) The type of information philosophy produces and the process of verification for a good philosophies, follows from logic, but it is not subject to testing just as a mathematical proof would not be. That is, you can sit there all day and verify all cases of induction if you want to make sure its "scientifically" tested, but you'd look like a fucking idiot.

2) Apparently the foundation of logical systems and their consequences NEVER see anything outside of it because the only logical system we ever use it classical logic, right?

3) I agree, giving credit for discoveries of science to philosophers is bullshit, but most people say that are either trolling or being hyperbolic because people like you don't understand what philosophy is and make wide claims. By snubbing philosophy, you shut down a whole area of in discourse that you make statements on whether you like it or not.

For an easy example, in logic if you just sit down and accept classical logical axioms then shut the door, no more discussions on logic. However, I know you guys like to think logic is mathematical, but its not (at least not ALL of it). Even if it is, then mathematics would be be in union with philosophy and necessarily depend on it (which is does anyway).

But for other examples, the moment you make a claim about existence or your scientific inquiry or the validity of experiential data, you've just done philosophy. If you want to shut down discussion on it, you can never come up with new structures of understanding which could inform how inquiries are made.

If you have a belief about whats right or wrong and you have a system to adhere to, you've done philosophy. If you dont want to justify it and just take it as fact, thereby shutting down discourse, go for it faggot.

Anything you've ever fucking said about this world or your experiences is anchored on a philosophical framework and if you want to choose one and not have to defend it, go ahead and do so...

[Anonymous No.6282510]

>>6282490


>>6282507

...you'll look like an arrogant prick. You dont just shut down discussion on these subjects, because and new and better understandings of how things that are fundamental like existence and truth, and knowledge could be available to us. By closing this area of study off, you close of a huge host of possibilities. Great Mathematicians and scientists have realized this well beyond 1700, if you want to sit around and suck their cock too make your feel better, you might wanna start respecting it too.


>>6282454
>>628205

> Thinking nihilism means only one form of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6282538]

>>6282040
Ethics is misguided and you don't even know what epistemology is.

[Anonymous No.6282542]

>>6282538

You know if you tried to back up your claim about ethics you'd be doing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6282617]

>>6282538

...I know what you did there

[Anonymous No.6282624]

/sci/ does not hate philosophy. And in real life, I have never seen a scientist who didn't know anything about philosophy. Scientists tend to be inquisitive people (unlike engineers). What a troll bait thread, lol.

[Anonymous No.6283490]

>>6282538
>>6282617

I don't know what the both of you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6283806]

>>6282538
10/10

[Anonymous No.6283828]

>>6282624
>unlike engineers
Take your gross oversimplification and grouping of people out of here.

[Anonymous No.6283832]

>>6282020
>Skepticism
I am interested in philosophy, but not so much the metaphysics you get on here. Ehh, I mean, it's ok for Roger Penrose to do it, but it's a bit daft on 4chan at times...

[Anonymous No.6283839]

>>6283832
Just read you some Bertrand Russell and it'll all be good.

[Anonymous No.6283872]

Because philosophy doesn't belong on /sci/ and retards like OP keep making philosophy threads here.

[Anonymous No.6283883]

>>6283839
Bu... bu... Principia looks just scary, and I'm a Cambridge mathmo. I may as well try and read Newton's alchemy whilst I'm at it, I'll have to try it out of my wits on Port or something

[Anonymous No.6283887]

>>6283872
So only troll threads and pseudoscience belong on /sci/. Am I right?

[Anonymous No.6283889]

>>6283872
philosophy is a science

[Anonymous No.6283892]

>>6283889
>dat bait
No, it's not. Neither is engineering, mathematics or biology a science.

[Anonymous No.6283897]

>>6283889
>philosophy is a science
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
No.

>>6283887
Only science and math belongs on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6283899]

>>6283897
>it hurts muh feelings so it mustn't be science
philosophy uses the scientific method

[Anonymous No.6283900]

>>6283892
>3edgy5me
ALso, I can't decide whether to be a physicist or pure mathematician. Both are super cool. I'll just do a Hilbert, it can't be that hard can it?!

[Anonymous No.6283902]

>>6283899
Not even true. Stop posting retarded baits, I'm 100% sure that >>6283897
>>6283899
are the same people

[Anonymous No.6283908]

>>6283892
>biology a science.

How is biology not a science? Aside from physics, it's quite possibly the quintessential example of science.

[Anonymous No.6283936]

>>6283908
It doesn't use any math.

[Anonymous No.6283941]

>>6283936
how does that not make it a science?

(it does use math btw)

[Anonymous No.6283942]

[Anonymous No.6283944]

>>6283936
Yeah it does. The biology class you took and failed in high school doesn't reflect modern research in the field.

[Anonymous No.6283952]

>>6283936
>math
>science
pick one

[Anonymous No.6283953]

>>6283942
summarizes /sci/'s knowledge of philosophy nicely

[Anonymous No.6283954]

>>6283942
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6283960]

>>6283953
Name one area of philosophy as useful at acquiring empirical evidence as science.

[Anonymous No.6283963]

>>6283942
Democracy, ethics, justice, morality, life purpose are all things that science cannot yet give an answer to. Why are trolls like you continually posting the same pics that are not even correct? Philosophy is not about "you cannot know nuthin".

[Anonymous No.6283964]

>>6283953
>Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Doesn't matter if we know anything about it or not. It doesn't belong here.

[Anonymous No.6283965]

>>6283960
>all there is to life is the scientific method
Do you also discount art and music as unnecessary?

[Anonymous No.6283967]

>>6283960
Philosophy is not a science.

[Anonymous No.6283969]

>>6283960
>acquiring empirical evidence
How is watching a binary star system through a telescope useful exactly?

[Anonymous No.6283970]

>>6283964
>science
Literally fucking means knowledge.
>reason, reality, knowledge, values
None of these apparently have a place in the scientific methodl I suppose.

[Anonymous No.6283971]

>>6283965
>Do you also discount art and music as unnecessary?

Never implied they were unnecessary. They're necessary for personal enjoyment and inspiration.

However, they do not help us acquire any new knowledge about the universe and its workings.

[Anonymous No.6283978]

>>6283970
>None of these apparently have a place in the scientific methodl I suppose.

red herring

[Anonymous No.6283979]

>>6283970
I like philosophy, but to say it's a science is just incorrect. Philosophy does not use the scientific method; therefore, it's not a science.

[Anonymous No.6283982]

>>6283970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Science/Categories_and_Main_topics

I don't see any philosophy there.

Go away.

[Anonymous No.6283987]

>>6283971
And how do you judge the merit of acquiring more knowledge and how to use it? Philosophy is entwined with science, like it or not.

>>6283979
I'm not saying that it is science, I am implying that philosophy, so to speak, enhances the value of science.

[Anonymous No.6283995]

>>6282510
>> Thinking nihilism means only one form of philosophy

Please take your esoteric terminology and shove it straight up your ass.

[Anonymous No.6283997]

>>6283963
>Democracy
was a bad idea

>ethics
is solved by common sense

>justice
jurisdiction is applied common sense

>morality
religious bullshit concept

>life purpose
is explained by biology/evolution

[Anonymous No.6283998]

>>6283987
>And how do you judge the merit of acquiring more knowledge and how to use it?

That's irrelevant to the argument. The goal of science is only to gain more knowledge about the universe not how that knowledge is used and whether or not we deem that knowledge "important" (for lack of a better word.

You seem to be of the opinion that because philosophy attempts to answer fundamental questions, that every can be reduced to philosophy. That is not the case.

>>6283987
>Philosophy is entwined with science, like it or not.

Just because philosophy gave rise to science does not mean they are still intertwined. They split when we decided that experimentation was the proper way to go about gaining new knowledge about the world, in comparison to simply trying to "reason" through everything (i.e. sitting in an armchair and pondering).

The one and perhaps only true criticism of philosophy is that it's still attempting to answer questions that have been around since the beginning of man.

>>6283987
>I'm not saying that it is science, I am implying that philosophy, so to speak, enhances the value of science.

How so?

[Anonymous No.6284002]

>>6283998
I'm sorry for all of the grammatical errors. Hopefully you can still understand the crux of my argument.

[Anonymous No.6284005]

>>6283997
>common sense
0/100

[Anonymous No.6284006]

>>6284005
>my sides when the only reason why philosotards endlessly dissect semantics is because they can't into common sense

[Anonymous No.6284009]

>>6284006
>street smarts and intuition are better than rational inquiry
anti-intellectual detected

[Anonymous No.6284012]

>>6284009
Einstein (the 3rd smartest scientist of all times) said all of science is nothing but formalization of common sense. Are you calling Einstein an anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.6284015]

>>6284012
>formalization

[Anonymous No.6284017]

>>6284012
>quoting out of context

[Anonymous No.6284021]

>>6284012
>the 3rd
1st and 2nd?

[Anonymous No.6284023]

>>6284012
muh appeals to authority

>>6284002
>>6283998
I understand.

We're of different mindsets on this one I suppose.

I'll give an example of ethics: why it's frowned upon to perform unwilling human experimentation.

Not everything can be reduced to philosophy, but everything can be looked at through different lenses.

Values are what guide the quest for better technology - people value efficiency, and what's currently in vogue is reducing impact on the ecosystems of the world. There are other values that drive the quest for knowledge in particular fields, and it's a large part of why people specialize in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6284027]

>>6284021
1st is me and 2nd is Jacob Barnett.

[Anonymous No.6284037]

>>6283936
Are you talking about HS regular biology? Isn't that a freshman course? I think it's safe to report you for being underaged.

[Anonymous No.6284048]

>>6283963
Those aren't even questions that science aims to answer.

[Anonymous No.6284069]

>>6283997
>purpose
>evolution
confirmed for not knowing shit about evolution

[Anonymous No.6284190]

>>6283899
can you tell me how discussing the nature of god with arguments taken from your ass,scientific?

[Anonymous No.6284204]

Because it is mostly just hot air. Either commonplace and nebulous, or academic and navel-gazing.
I don't hate philosophy. I wouldn't miss it either.

[Anonymous No.6284205]

any actual scientist deals with philosophical epistemology issues all the time it's a frequent problem in many fields just recently chomsky and norvig were debating correlation, causation, and the methodology of learning at an MIT AI conference

tepid rationalist positivism is like the surest sign that someone is an autodidactic teenage "scientist"

[Anonymous No.6284219]

>>6284205
I'm not exactly sure I'm up to snuff on all the terminology, but...
Even though our senses, ability to analyze our perceptions, memory and ability to communicate with others are quite flawed and just a reflection of reality, why would you go with anything else? I mean, just keeping in mind that not just science itself is a model of reality but that everyone has their own model of the model, but you have to operate with that shit it in day to day life.

I guess to me it's more of "hey that's kind of cool" thing but there are just much more pressing issues.

[Anonymous No.6284251]

>>6282006
>Why people hate humans when there have been so many people who were also human?

[Anonymous No.6284252]

>>6282490
>real world argument

Back to /b/

[Anonymous No.6284253]

>>6283997

What a mental midget.

[Anonymous No.6284275]

>>6284205
>tepid rationalist positivism is like the surest sign that someone is an autodidactic teenage "scientist"

This has nothing to do with the argument, but why is it everyone's first thought to use teenager as an insult? Granted, teenagers are not known for their extraordinary insight but it seems like a truly played out notion that can't possibly mean anything anymore.

Resorting to criticizing someone for their age shows how rather limited one's thinking must be if they can't come up with more fitting insults.

I just turned 21, by the way, in case you want to insult me by referring to my age.

[Anonymous No.6284361]

Read some Thomas Kuhn. A mathematician and philosopher who contributed to both fields. Just read up on 'paradigm shift' and how historical lock-ins have determined the boundaries of technology.

[Anonymous No.6284389]

>>6283997
>common sense

What is that?

[Anonymous No.6284393]

>>6284389
people like you piss me off. einstein said that first and now since then everyone has been reiterating him. if it wasnt for him saying that you would be high-end on believing that common sense is what gets you far logically. and if it weren't for him, anyone who would have originally said that today would have been scolded as "literally retarded"

fuck you.

everyone is predictable. everyone pisses me off so much

[Anonymous No.6284399]

>>6284393
woa.

Uh, I was just asking, I don't care who used the notion or not. It just sounds stupid to me (for now).

Because I don't see how you can refer to "a common sense" as if there was some <shared-truth> by everyone.
E.g., "common sense" in some countries is that homosexuality is a crime and that people need to be kill for that. In other countries, gays marry eachother.
"common sense" until Kopernik led to the "obvious" heliocentrism conception
And so one.


That's maybe (or for sure) because I don't exactly understand the meaning of that expression (non native speaker), but I expected more than insults.

[Anonymous No.6284423]

>>6282490

1) "proven to be true about real world" is a petty way to put logic out of the picture. While logicians have contributed to computer science consistently. Anyway, cognitive science started as a branch of philosophy and are today still strongly tied to it, particularly the parts most interested in mathematics.
Also, any statistics papers are often basically epistemology.

2) Are you really saying "foundational things" have no real application? It's like you're spitting on both pure mathematics and computer science. Get a grip on yourself.

3) You're mixing arguments and rants. If you want to appear smart, this is not a good way. Unless you're in a talk-show.
You're basing your preposterous rant on a stereotype that reflects only one of the many realities you can find in a Philosophy department. I've met more than a Robotics PhD student who had studied Philosophy as her undergraduate degree, and so people who do foundational research in Computer Science.

In general, the idea that science ALONE can make science itself progress is moronic. Goedel was inspired by Kant, many other mathematicians by the arts, and the reason many scientists make philosophy and vice versa (yes, today) is that both aim to start a rigorous discourse about a reality that by itself seems ineffable. Sharing this core objective, "philosophical advancements" give new perspectives, new frames, that science can then make stricter and work on. Science need the rest of culture as a source of ideas, propositions, goals, epistemological values, etc.

Note: I'm a neuroscientist, not a philosopher. Before some moron tries an ad personam argument.

[Anonymous No.6284426]

>>6284012


This guy is trolling. Stop feeding him. Morons.

[Anonymous No.6284427]

>>6284423

*in mathematical modeling, not "in mathematics", sorry.

[Anonymous No.6284447]

>>6284219
well in terms of perception and "map is not the territory" the chomsky v. norvig debate reflects more general, ancient debates between camps such as the rationalists (deduction, A != not-A and such) and empiricists, and then there are different camps of empiricists which is important because it affects methodology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

but i think what you are asking is more like "why would anyone be an existentialist/nihilist or whatever and cast doubt on everything?" and i am an existentialist scientist so i can answer that

it's a common misconception that existentialists don't believe in the desert of the real or w/e and if you use your imagination sartre says you can turn into a dragon. that's not true, the concept is called "facticity" and it's the "being" in Being and Nothingness. existentialism is much more about the appropriate response to the absurdity of the fundamental problem of knowing anything

i think the way i read this and the good practice it encourages is the ability to hold multiple competing perspectives as simultaneously true. this is an important ability if you want to enter into any scientific debate and actually get something out of it. scientists who really believe in truth become fucking insufferable once they think they have found it. whereas an existentialist is never surprised when all of our assumptions turn out to be false, since actually that's what's expected

[Anonymous No.6284452]

re: 1. (name one thing philosophy has proven true)
i can't name one thing anyone has proven true since that's literally impossible the way i understand everything (thanks to scientific epistemology, thanks philosophy)

but if you want one useful contribution to science that philosophy has made, what about karl popper's enormously influential views on falsification?

[Anonymous No.6284458]

also just throwing this out there but this artificial dichotomy was largely invented by pop science assholes in the goofy ass "science wars" of the 90s and has more to do with academics being assholes to each other about journal publishing standards which is funny because all journals are shit now

[Anonymous No.6284460]

>>6284458
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

[Anonymous No.6284492]

Not philosophy, just philosophers with no scientific education.

[Anonymous No.6284506]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9x_oa--KAc

[Anonymous No.6284508]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14JavH4Rk7k

[Anonymous No.6284523]

>>6284508
the answer is simple:
Knowledge is what you can prove, or demonstrate to be true, with evidence.

There are two tiers of knowledge: Primary, or Personal Knowledge, which is knowledge acquired from direct observation of evidence.

And Second-Hand Knowledge, which is knowledge acquired from the observations of others being related to you.

Beliefs are what you think is probably true, Disbeliefs are what you think are probably untrue.

That takes care of epistemology, now for ethics.

I don't think that our moral values, or even anything else we consider to be significant, transcends the human perspective, but I do think that human nature gives us a certain basis for how we should act.

1. We are social animals, our primary advantage is in our teamwork in large numbers, our intelligence, hands, and speech only serve to build upon the foundational advantage of this niche of ours, the larger our numbers, the better we function, thus any rule must ideally consider the human species as a whole, which is the largest possible grouping of humans.

2. We are also given by our natures, the universal carrot of mental and physical pleasure, and the life instinct, which tells us what we should ideally pursue, and the stick of mental and physical suffering, and instinctual aversion to death, which tells us what to ideally avoid.

3. Taken together, we arrive at a simple rule for moral action: we must ideally seek through our actions, a result that maximizes the net pleasure and life among all humans, and minimizes the net suffering and death among all humans. Conveniently this can be expressed in a nice little ratio form.

4. While not strictly required by this rule, care for other species and our environment tend to have additional benefits to the human species as natural by products, so while it is a secondary priority, we should also care for other species and our environment.

[Anonymous No.6284533]

>>6282011
>prove it

[newt !!0dmHNcYVQZT No.6284537]

>>6282006
Those people are mathematicians who decided to dabble in philosophy.


Studying philosophy in itself is a worthless thing to do.

[Anonymous No.6284541]

>>6284533
Will do faggot

[Anonymous No.6284552]

>>6284523
1.
>the larger our numbers, the better we function

That is not strictly true.

Also

1. and 2. can only be used in conjunction if we assume that ones pleasure never directly oppose another's. In such an event you need to restrict 1. to a sub-population.

This means 1. is not the human species anymore but a group of people whose pleasure do not mutually oppose eachother's while maximizing the total net contribution.

[Anonymous No.6284569]

>>6284537
Not true at all. It all depends on where you get your education. http://tsj.io/2013/07/05/meet-the-philosopher-kings-of-silicon-valley/

[Anonymous No.6284570]

>>6284537

Why, though?

[Anonymous No.6284578]

For me, it's mainly because there are no paradigms in philosophy. Given any philosopher, there are at least six philosophers who disagree with him on key issues. The field of philosophy consists solely of people who know convoluted ways of writing their opinions down. And that's not very interesting to me.

[Anonymous No.6284585]

>>6284578
>convoluted
ha, idiot.

[Anonymous No.6284589]

>>6284585
Ow, my feelings.

[Anonymous No.6284604]

>>6284393
>>6284399
no?

This time, you piss me off.

[Anonymous No.6284606]

>>6284578
>Given any philosopher, there are at least six philosophers who disagree with him on key issues.
Citation needed.

By reading your post I can say that you have most likely never read philosophy in your life. Philosophy does not comprise only postmodernism. Some things science cannot give an answer to, eg. democracy, ethics, justice, morality, responsibility, life purpose, aesthetics, etc.
I'm a biomedical scientist by the way.

[Anonymous No.6284753]

>>6284606
>democracy, ethics, justice, morality, life purpose
See >>6283997

>responsibility
is obvious by common sense

>aesthetics
follow mathematical laws which can and will be discovered by means of science

[Anonymous No.6284801]

>>6284606
>By reading your post I can say that you have most likely never read philosophy in your life. Philosophy does not comprise only postmodernism. Some things science cannot give an answer to, eg. democracy, ethics, justice, morality, responsibility, life purpose, aesthetics, etc.

I haven't read a lot of philosophy, just Russell's history of it, Popper's book on science, and (only partially) Camus' myth of Sisyphus. I'm not saying science gives an answer to those things. I'm just saying philosophy doesn't give answers either. It just gives opinions. Like I said. No paradigms.

>I'm a biomedical scientist by the way.
That's entirely relevant, and I'm a US senator.
And for the record, I'm a US senator.

[Anonymous No.6284804]

>>6284606
>Some things science cannot give an answer to

None of the things you listed requires an answer because none of them is a question. How the fuck is there supposed to be an answer to "democracy"? Are you mentally challenged? Do you even know what these words mean?

[Anonymous No.6284807]

>>6284804
Hey, show a little respect! That guy told us he's a scientist, so it must be true. He knows his shit. I can tell from the way he told us he's a scientist.

[Anonymous No.6284809]

>>6284804
>How the fuck is there supposed to be an answer to "democracy"
English is not my first language. I thought that 'giving an answer to' was an expression that should not be taken literally.
>None of the things you listed requires an answer because none of them is a question.
Of course there are many questions regarding the things I mentioned.

[Anonymous No.6284812]

>>6284809
>English is not my first language.
It isn't mine either. That's no excuse for being an illiterate fuckwit.

>Of course there are many questions regarding the things I mentioned.
And all of them are answered by science and math. You want to study the implications of democracy? That's political SCIENCE. You want to study the laws of aesthetics? That's psychology and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6284826]

>>6284812
>It isn't mine either. That's no excuse for being an illiterate fuckwit.
Well, then I was probably being right. I'm sure that "giving an answer to - problems -" is a correct expression". No reason to be arrogant.

>And all of them are answered by science and math. You want to study the implications of democracy? That's political SCIENCE. You want to study the laws of aesthetics? That's psychology and mathematics.
I agree with you that in the end, philosophy will become completely obsolete. But you must know that science is not that advanced yet in things related to what humans value and how we value things. The only science that will make philosophy utterly obsolete is neuroscience, but for this to happen, more funds would need to go towards the neurosciences. The nature of ethics, human worth, emotions, etc will be be answered with neuroscience. But until then, philosophy still has its uses. Science is rife with uncertainty, we know very little of how our brains work. If you actually worked in a scientific discipline, you would know that.

[Anonymous No.6284839]

>>6284826
>I'm sure that "giving an answer to - problems -" is a correct expression
You didn't post any "problems". None of the items in your list is a problem.

>I agree with you that in the end, philosophy will become completely obsolete.
It did already happen.

>But you must know that science is not that advanced yet in things related to what humans value and how we value things.
This is answered by economics, biology and psychology.

>The only science that will make philosophy utterly obsolete is neuroscience
Every branch of science makes philosophy obsolete. There is nothing special about neuroscience.

>The nature of ethics, human worth, emotions, etc will be be answered with neuroscience.
Ethics is a matter of common sense. Emotions have been explained biochemically.

>But until then, philosophy still has its uses.
No, it doesn't. It fails to produce any tangible results and serves no purpose other than pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

>If you actually worked in a scientific discipline, you would know that.
I work in a harder science than you.

[Anonymous No.6284844]

>>6284839
Oh, you are that 'common sense' guy.

>You didn't post any "problems". None of the items in your list is a problem.
Wow... The things I mentioned entail certain problems and questions. You have never questioned the workings of those things? Or will 'common sense' solve it all.

http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/communicating-science-the-difference-between-science-and-common-sense/

[Anonymous No.6284848]

>>6284844
>Oh, you are that 'common sense' guy.
I am not a guy.

>The things I mentioned entail certain problems and questions
Those are answered by science and math. Philosophy is verbal onanism and doesn't answer anything.

>Or will 'common sense' solve it all.
"All of science is nothing more but the refinement of everyday thinking." - Einstein

>linking a shitty r/atheism tier blog for pseudo-intellectual teenagers
And now we know you don't have any real science education at all.

[Anonymous No.6284849]

>>6284839
>Emotions have been explained biochemically.
Not completely. They are still doing research on that. That's why I said that we still know very little. You could say philosophy fills the void or the darkness that science has not cleared up yet.

[Anonymous No.6284856]

>>6284849
>You could say philosophy fills the void or the darkness that science has not cleared up yet.

It doesn't. Philosophy fails to produce answers. You could make the same fallacious argument in favor of religion and it would be just as wrong. Just because science hasn't explained everything yet, that doesn't mean you can fill the holes with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

[Anonymous No.6284859]

>>6284848
How can science, in the state it's now, answer things such as aesthetics, ethics, values, morals and concepts such as responsibility? The natural and social sciences have not reached that level yet.

[Anonymous No.6284863]

>>6284856
If I had to choose between analytical philosophy and religion to fill the void, I would definitely choose the former, since the former actually uses reason and logic to come to its answers.

[Anonymous No.6284864]

science:
>hey guys, let's try to explain this observation and test our explanatory hypothesis

philosophy:
>I want to believe untestable bullshit because I want to believe and if you disagree I will all the fallacies hurr durr

[Anonymous No.6284871]

>>6284859
>How can science, in the state it's now, answer things such as aesthetics
The laws of aesthetics can be found by observation and experiment. Observe what people statistically consider aesthetic, make a testable hypothesis and refine your theoretical model after conducting the experiment. Typical application of the scientific method.

>ethics
common sense

>values
Values are subject of economics.

>morals
religious bullshittery without basis in reality

>and concepts such as responsibility
Cause and effect. The deterministic laws of nature are revealed by physics.

>The natural and social sciences have not reached that level yet.
Of course they do. Do you even scientific method?

[Anonymous No.6284878]

>>6284863
Philosophy's use of "reason and logic" is no different from religion. Every argument in philosophy boils down to "either you believe my baseless assumptions or I will use fallacies against you". Philosphy has no objective basis and is solely a matter of opinions. Not science, not logical, not reasonable.

[Anonymous No.6284881]

>>6284871
>social science
>science
lewl

[Anonymous No.6284897]

>>6284871
Look, I agree with everything you say. But you overestimate what science is capable of doing now.

>Cause and effect. The deterministic laws of nature are revealed by physics.
OK, but this doesn't tell us how people should or should not be held responsible. But you could indeed say that it's something for political science to do.

I still think that philosophy has its uses, even if it were only useful for inciting people to act in a certain manner or see the world in a different way (Ayn Rand being a notorious example).

[Anonymous No.6284962]

>>6284604

You're right foreignbro, "common sense" is a misnomer that people like to use in place of "having the same values as me" because it sounds less arrogant. The concept is without real meaning, as what people consider "sense" tends to very a fair bit between individuals, to say nothing of how greatly it varies between communities, cultures and nations, as you rightly pointed out.

A more coherent position for him to take would be something like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or it's alternate, "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you". That is a pretty broadly-held belief that might be characterized as "common sense" and provides a succinct, straightforward ethical guideline.

[Anonymous No.6284977]

>>6282006
Why do people hate slavery when there are so many people in history who were also slave owners.

[Anonymous No.6284982]

Even better

>>6282006
>>6284977

>Why does /sci/ hate religion when there have been so many mathematicians, philosophers and logicians who were also religious?

[Anonymous No.6285041]

>>6284801

Well, you do seem about as educated as many US Senators are.

[Anonymous No.6285045]

>>6284848
>responding to a question with a quote that has already made you appear to be an ass

[Anonymous No.6285048]

>>6284871
aesthetics vary in time and place and are a completely artificial construct outside of a hardwirded response to what babies look like.

[Anonymous No.6285073]

>>6284848
>I am not a guy.
Indeed, you're an autistic robot with some retarded functionnalities.

>"All of science is nothing more but the refinement of everyday thinking." - Einstein
"Today, my poop was so beautiful" - Einstein
Ok so we should have it exposed in Ney-York, London or Paris. We missed that, too bad.

>>6284839
>I work in a harder science than you.
Impressive. Which one, if I may ?

FYI, it's my first post in this thread, don't take it badly, your answers just sound fun.

And IMHO, this thread is going nowhere. Ok, science is better than everything if you want. And? What will we do when we'll have solved all the problems. Music, maybe. Or we will have sex. Or anything.

I mean, I don't care, you're not even trying to have a debate here, everyone is just remaining unyelding. What is your point, you all?
Blllll, I'm gonna play a flash game and then smoke and fap. It's ridiculous and useless, but I don't care.
Have a nice day.

I like this pic I found here.

[Anonymous No.6285078]

Ok, I'm a bit late onto this thread-----------------------------

Interesting discussion, I love both science and philosophy. But I want to throw an idea out there: Aren't there certain metaphysical questions within philosophy that science will never be able to solve? I'm not even talking about ethics, or free will, or any of that.

Something like qualia: Things with physical characteristics, yet inexplicable and cannot be investigated by any empirical means. Forget what is the nature of qualia, take /where/ is qualia, even. Things with physical characteristics yet unable to be pinned down to a particular location in space-time (unlike everything else). How will science possibly get closer to explaining such phenomena within our subjective consciousness? (Even if it explains all the 'components' of consciousness, what Dan Dennet would consider case closed.

[Anonymous No.6285082]

>>6284871
and a lot of other posts

>common sense

Could you develop what you mean by this in regard of >>6284962 ?

[Anonymous No.6285091]

>>6285073
>Indeed, you're an autistic robot with some retarded functionnalities.
Infantile insult and incorrect. I am not autistic and my IQ very high.

>"Today, my poop was so beautiful" - Einstein
This thread is not about defecation. Although you might argue that philosophy is the mental equivalent of diarrhea.

>Impressive. Which one, if I may ?
All of them. I'm a polymath.

>Ok, science is better than everything if you want.
Then what are you even arguing?

>Or we will have sex
YOU certainly won't.

[Anonymous No.6285099]

>>6285082
You are seriously asking what is common sense? What happened in your dysfunctional childhood that you never developed common sense? I don't even mean to insult you, but are you diagnosed with a disability?

[Anonymous No.6285230]

>>6283969
> Hurr Durr The knowledge we just gained doesn't instantly have any instantaneous material applications , so we should stop making discoveries

[Anonymous No.6285288]

>>6283963
>Democracy
What do you mean with 'science cannot yet give an answer'? Democracy is a well defined form of government, not a question you idiot.

>ethics, justice, morality
They are nothing but invented subjective perceptions.

>life purpose
There is none. Why should there be one? Do you not feel special enough?


I once took an optional philosophy course. The only important thing I learned was that philosophy is a gigantic load of bullshit, my disappointment was gigantic.

I expected fruitful discussions based on rational thinking, instead the philosophy professor constantly bashed the scientific method, claiming that the very foundation of empirism is flawed and wrong. I expected debates about how to improve society, instead I got that good and evil are absolute and that I am apparently evil because I do not want to suck the irrelevant cock of people long since dead but instead want to think on my own. He also made dozens of simple mistakes during the lecture about syllogisms and other tools of logic.

Every philosopher I talked with in my entire life has been an arrogant idiot, incapable of logical thinking and glorifying the opinions of people who lived centuries or millennia ago.

Philosophy has lost all my respect. It and its supporters are all useless scum who are too busy circlejerking to contribute even one single useful thing to society in all of its existence.

[Anonymous No.6285330]

>>6284804
>>6284812
>>6284839
>>6285091
I like you. Your replies are good, concise, cute and hilarious, you even mentioned your IQ and insulted his sex life. Complete obliteration.

[Anonymous No.6285356]

>>6285099
Top kek

[Anonymous No.6285374]

OP here, I've learned my place and to never again bring up philosophy on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6285400]

>>6285374
Thanks. It's a bit like bringing up mlp on /mu/, you're in the wrong board.

[Anonymous No.6285613]

>>6282006
>philosphers who were also philosophers

[Anonymous No.6285619]

>>6285613
>math, science \subseteq philosophy
Let's call your definition of philosophy philosophy', and let's reserve philosophy for the usual meaning of the word.

[Anonymous No.6285622]

Metaphysical naturalism can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous No.6285713]

>>6285400
>It's a bit like bringing up mlp on /mu/, you're in the wrong board.
Yes, you are. But not because you want to talk about mlp outside of /mlp/ but because /mu/ is such a shitty board.

[Anonymous No.6286480]

>>6285330
seconded. This anon is hilarious.

When he appears in a thread, I let the tab open with auto-update.

And I come back several hours later, with a mug filled of hot coffee and I begin to read. And I laugh a lot.

[Anonymous No.6287814]

>>6283942
The fact that non-trolls use this comic so often actually gets me mad. Mostly because they try to seem so smug without realizing that falsificationism is a fucking product of philosophy. Before Karl Popper (Philosopher of Science) the focus was wrongly on verifiability.

Its just the "criticism from a point of willful ignorance" that gets me

[Anonymous No.6287822]

>>6283997
>ethics
>is solved by common sense

k