conc

[mordi No.6286058]

How many ideas or "concepts" from philosophers have we today managed to proove scientific? Is philosophy really shit-tier, or is is it the beginning of "it all"? or is it the "poor/stupid mans mathematics"?

[Anonymous No.6286061]

Science is a branch of philosophy.

[mordi No.6286067]

>>6286061
So philosophy came "first" ? because surle we have philosophies coming from science as well?

[Anonymous No.6286090]

>>6286067
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Philosophies are often pruned by science, in that there are efforts to remove those assumptions which conflict with science. If non-scientific assumptions are made by a philosophy, they aren't part of the same branch. It may not always be possible to tell which assumptions aren't scientific.

[Anonymous No.6286126]

>>6286067
>So philosophy came "first" ? because surle we
have philosophies coming from science as well?

Yes and yes

[mordi No.6286178]

So people without deep knowledge in math are still able to think and maybe resolve big questions about life?
I am asking because im a fairly intelligent guy, just starting with my "studies", but "wasting" most of my life with partying and getting a kid "im now 32yrs old and a single dad) so im never gonna be a asbi, nor an autist, and the fedorathing is just not me. so what's up`? am i able to be a hardcore scientist? or should i just hang on to lighter studies like humaniora?

[Anonymous No.6286191]

>>6286178
A file with 128 bit encryption can be decrypted with 1 guess. Of course, the chance of eventually decrypting it increases with the number of guesses.

[Anonymous No.6286198]

OP, philosophers are the worst kind of scum. They will tell you things using jargon just to try to sound deep. If you call them out on their BS they will use the excuse of "omg you don't understand it because it's too deep".
If you spend time and learn about the world and why the scientific method was developed you will realize words and human concepts don't mean anything unless they are verified with experiments based on reality.
Therefore the only true knowledge philosophy has offered (if any) was because it was scientific in the first place. Otherwise, just philosophizing isn't a method that has been shown to work in making discoveries.
Reason is, nature doesn't owe it to humans to fir their imagination. This was proven by things such as quantum mechanics and relativity theory, which are counter-intuitive.
If you want proof of what I say, Richard Feynman talks about this in his Character of physical law lecture (on youtube old video from cornell university). especially in his first and last lecture. Relation between mathematics and physics and Finding new laws.
Maths is the language in which we can communicate with the universe, and no human words can describe it qualitatively since math is language + reasoning.

[mordi No.6286200]

>>6286191
So, math is guessing untill you get an answer that seems correct?

[Anonymous No.6286209]

Also, what I meant by philosophy is the typical mental masturbation drivel that all the philosophers have written, from Aristotle to the latest analytical-crap.
But if by philosophy you mean critical-thinking and asking questions then that is the most important thing in science and understanding the world around us. However, the problem comes when drawing a conclusion about reality based on thought, instead of supporting it with empirical evidence. In conclusion words alone don't mean shit.

[mordi No.6286212]

>>6286198
It seems you are talking about politicians and not philosophers. May be we are from different times and countries. Still my "wonders" and "Questions" stand.

[Anonymous No.6286220]

>>6286212
Politicians? I just said, all philosophers: Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre Heidegger, you name 'em.

Name one thing they have helped us in regards to understanding the natural world.

So the answer to the question "So people without deep knowledge in math are still able to think and maybe resolve big questions about life?"
IS NO. Because reality doesn't have to go by what you think and your 5 senses. That's why we have machines that measure things so we don't fool ourselves. So in the end doesn't matter what you think it's true. What is true is what measures to be true.

If this sounds too vague, learn how science works and how the scientific method was developed to deal with issues about human bias and confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.6286221]

>>6286200
Successive guesses are not independent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff_induction

[mordi No.6286230]

>>6286220
Dude, im not a scientist. at least not still, but i hope o be one day. Still, i feel i can deduct or reduce motherfuckings things and understand what is "right" or what is "idiotic" isnt this skill cool and scientific? or is it just "philosophy and humanioria, because i didnt prove it mathematically?"

[Anonymous No.6286236]

>>6286230
I agree with you like I said before "if by philosophy you mean critical-thinking and asking questions then that is the most important thing in science and understanding the world around us. However, the problem comes when drawing a conclusion about reality based on thought, instead of supporting it with empirical evidence. In conclusion words alone don't mean shit."

[Anonymous No.6286252]

>>6286220

>reality doesn't have to go by what you think and your 5 senses
>we have machines to measure things so we don't fool ourselves

might want to check that logic there friend

[Anonymous No.6286259]

>>6286252
There is no logic problem. Everyone knows that ultimately it does come to your senses, but for example you have machines that tell you the objective temperature rather than fooling yourself with your shitty temperature sensors which can be deceived.

[mordi No.6286261]

>>6286236
Well, lets say im supporting my conlucion based on thought beforehand because it was not able to support it with empirical evidence (before). clearly philosophy is evident needed in math and science, just like prodigy and nine inch nails is needed in music.

[Anonymous No.6286265]

>>6286259

I hate to go full "you can't no nuffin" on you, but viewing readings on a machine is just as fallible as your innate sense of temperature.

I mean, you can't claim that it's possible to fool yourself into thinking there's an elephant in your room, while it's not possible to fool yourself into thinking a machine is telling you there's an elephant in the room.

[Anonymous No.6286277]

>>6286265
Correct. That's why you don't rely on only one person doing the experiment. That's why you have many people do the same experiment in different parts of the world. Not just one person who might be under the influence of who knows what. And, yes, there is the posibility of all humans being deluded but that's what we have to work with and minimize our biases that might come from our sense as much as possible.

[mordi No.6286278]

>>6286220
You are saying philosophers didnt help us understand the world we know today??
Im not saying "philosophy is the way", im just curious as to if "thw really helped "us" to where we are or not

[mordi No.6286281]

>>6286220
You are saying phiylosophers didnt help us understand the world we know today??
Im not saying "philosophy is the way", im just curious as to if "thw really helped "us" to where we are or not

[Anonymous No.6286282]

>>6286261
If you are not supporting the conclusion with empirical evidence then it's just a hypothesis. Aristotle said things fall depending on how massive they are, or something like that. But Galileo, who actually did the experiment said things fall at the same rate. And that's why we see no Aristotle being used in science these days.

[Anonymous No.6286286]

>>6286277

Okay? I don't see how that discredits philosophy in any way.

Also to answer a previous question, philosophy has contributed many things to the world. The ancient Greek Atomists were certainly philosophers, and their work paved the way for Dalton(?) two millenniums later. Aristotle's natural philosophy was the basis for a lot of European and Islamic sciences. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were the precursors to Freud, who (even if a lot of his work was bunk) lead to psychology as it is today.

And that isn't even looking in to what the analytic philosophers did with empiricism and philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.6286292]

>>6286286
You clearly have no clue how science is done and if you think that someone's guess which happens to be true later, means he was doing science then I'm done.

[Anonymous No.6286294]

>>6286292

>"look at these good things philosophy has contributed"
>but that's not how you do SCIENCE

No. It's how you do philosophy. Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6286327]

>>6286294
"contributed"
Being this delusional.

[Anonymous No.6286335]

>>6286259
>>6286277
>>6286282
>>6286292

>using philosophical discussion to urge to the disregard of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6286369]

Philosophy = exploration of infinite possible systems of mechanics and propositions. A lot of them don't have any tool usage in our daily lives where we need every tool we can muster.

BAM, you've demystified the socio-linguistic faggotry surrounded "philosophy". Take what tools you need and discard the rest.

[Anonymous No.6286373]

>>6286369

"Buh-buh muh ethics and systems which let me know what tools I actually need"

That's what you find out in your mode of production. You are a historical energy vampire with limited time. Deal with it. Nerd.

[Anonymous No.6286406]

>>6286335
That's a rubbish argument. That's like saying "using English to talk about how poor a language English is" or "using mathematics to disprove a mathematical theorem".

[Anonymous No.6286416]

>using mathematics to disprove a mathematical theorem

Isn't that the normal case? How else would you uncover faulty reasoning?

[Anonymous No.6286490]

>>6286416
>Isn't that the normal case? How else would you uncover faulty reasoning?

That's the point I'm trying to make with the analogy in reply to
>>6286335

[Anonymous No.6286755]

>>6286406
More like "using language to convey the idea that language doesn't convey important ideas", or "using math to argue that math in general produces nothing of value". There's a difference between arguing against a specific language, equation, or philosophical system, and discrediting the disciplines such things exist within.