/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6328904]

Your face when you realized philosophy is more profound than science.

[Anonymous No.6328907]

>profound
meaningless wanker word

[Anonymous No.6328908]

My face when I realized philosophy is the lazy man's science.

[Anonymous No.6328918]

>>6328904
Science = Science
Philosophy = BS

[Anonymous No.6328965]

Philosophy is often inspired by the beauty of nature which is in turn explained by science.
If not for science Philosophers would still muse on lightning.

[Anonymous No.6329208]

Please show me one "profound" result of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6329226]

Every retard can "study" profound stuff when there is absolutely no requirement in formality and substance but just "sound" shit.
I can fantasize everyday about the universe being a simulation or not, but if i had to put some math and science on the table i wouldn't carry on for a long time.

[funny and dry citations No.6329264]

>>6329226
I'm not familiar with this school where they fantasize everyday about the universe being a simulation.

[Anonymous No.6329279]

>>6329226
Ever heard about something called "example"?
You might want to change that with "god's existence" or "conciousness" or some other "profound" thing philosophers might do, in case you couldn't figure that out by yourself.

[Anonymous No.6329281]

>>6329279
Meant to quote >>6329264

[Anonymous No.6329325]

The very modern distinction between science and philosophy is ridiculous. Most of the ancient "scientists" people talk about were philosophers and learned and progressed through natural philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy, not something separate.

[Anonymous No.6329335]

>>6328965
And if not for philosophy science wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6329348]

>>6329335
Just take seriously what you just said for a second: You are saying that if it wasn't for philosophers people wouldn't possibly realize that the procedure used by science (theory + experiment + feedback) would have been the right one to know reality? Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.6329357]

>>6329348
see
>>6329325

[Anonymous No.6329367]

>>6329357
It's the term branch that i don't like, because it's very easily misinterpreted.
Philosophy gives the right foundational ground to science, in this sense science is a branch of philosophy, not in the sense that philosophy is this broader super-profound field of knowledge where science is just focusing on a particular thing.
Giving the right foundation to something is different from being a generalization or a more profound version of that.
In the same sense, it's weird to say that differential geometry is just a "branch" of set theory.

[Anonymous No.6329384]

>What you all fail to realize, is my philosophy says you are all wrong.

[Anonymous No.6329550]

Philosophy has no more use. It's literally obsolete. It's an archaic mode of thought that does not illuminate.

I'll concede readily that philosophy led us to science as we know it today... but much like we abandoned the silly practice that was alchemy after chemistry superseded it, so should we abandon philosophy and focus on science, which is the bright beacon that shall lead us to the shores of truth, out of the dark waters of nescience.

[Anonymous No.6329591]

>>6329348
Philosophy gave birth to science.

[Anonymous No.6329594]

>>6329591
Alchemy gave birth to chemistry.

[Anonymous No.6329653]

>Studying Philosophy of Science right now at Uni
>Every lesson: "HURR DURR WE DON' KNOW NUTHIN'!!!"
>Wow such philosophy
>Much profound

[Anonymous No.6329685]

>>6329653

awww, is Bas van Fraassen too difficult for babby's first φιλοσοφια class?

[Anonymous No.6329832]

>>6329685
Hume, actually. I'm just profoundly irritated by this kind of intellectually lazy drivel trickling into every single damned conversation I have.
>Oh boy, justifying induction is tricky. Must mean that reason is bullshit and we could all turn into shrews for no reason.

[Anonymous No.6329840]

>>6329832
keep thinking

[Philosofag !DqHaTB4JOs No.6329868]

>>6329685

ksereis eleinika? aftos kai to malakies tous xaxaxa

>>6329832

oh dear my sides ~~~!!

[Philosofag !DqHaTB4JOs No.6329873]

>>6329550

your original and thought-provoking dialectical method is awe-inspiring and totz metaphilosophical, bruh

[Anonymous No.6329882]

>>6329208
Science.

[Anonymous No.6329883]

>>6329208
law

[Anonymous No.6329895]

>>6329208
religion

[Anonymous No.6329897]

>>6329208

maths

[Anonymous No.6329904]

>>6329208
Timecube

[Anonymous No.6329905]

>the "scientific" shores of truth

Knows one dimension of knowledge out of the infinite shades it has. Thinks has abandoned "the dark waters of nescience".

And this is exactly why you need philosophy.

>silly practice that was alchemy

As if the goals of alchemy, considering the new techniques of particle physics, and medicine, wheren't an inspiration to edge scientists.

As if any of the ways early day philosophers thought, including natural philosophers, wasn't precisely what fuels discovery and knowledge.

As if preserving knowledgeable forms of intelligence, couldn't inspire new ways of facing problems.

I do not forget, and I will not forget where I come from.

[Anonymous No.6329913]

>>6329208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ztsIR6i0e4
>people actually believe this shit

[Anonymous No.6329917]

>>6329905
So... keep philosophy around as just one of an infinite sources of inspiration of scientists of the future? Yeah, why not.

In the end anything can be inspiration.

[Anonymous No.6329918]

>>6329208
Post-modernism.
Truly philosophy at its best.

[Anonymous No.6329924]

>>6329913
YOU ARE JUST MAD BECAUSE YOU ARENT ENLIGHTENED LIKE ME PEACE AND LOVE VIBES ALL THE WAY TO YOUR THIRD EYE YOU UNENLIGHTENED SAD SAD PERSON.

[Anonymous No.6329925]

Well, both ways achieve something and try to explain our universe. But you cant put philosophy and Science into a ranking, they're distinct ways of knowledge.

Btw, i'm a philosophy bachelor and i know Science have better results in our society. Philosophy it's a descritive knowledge, Science is a quantitative method of understanding of nature phenomena.

[Anonymous No.6329940]

>>6329917

I won't bother.

Forget about it. Never read it. Do it please. Focus on science.

Philosophy is not made for you.

[Anonymous No.6329947]

Philosohpy: from the greek philos (love, like), and sophia (knowledge).

Love has no limits.
Knowledge has no limits.

Philosophy IS every knowledge there is, including, science.

[Anonymous No.6329959]

>>6329947

More like, I am your father, your son, and your holy spirit.

[Anonymous No.6329962]

>>6329947
>Love has no limits.
Love doesn't exist.

>Knowledge has no limits.
How ironic that you say that as an argument for instead of against philosophy, when it is actually philosophers who always scream "u cannot know nuffin".

[Anonymous No.6329972]

>>6329962

[Anonymous No.6329973]

>>6329962

Precisely because knowledge has no limits...
Cfr. Gödel and Turtles, Hume and Swans...

On the love issue... Pffffffft

[Anonymous No.6329981]

>>6329947
>Love has no limits.

Where's your evidence for that claim?

[Anonymous No.6329983]

>>6329981

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vEqZhg11Y

[Anonymous No.6329988]

>>6329981

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrBDcQq2DM

[Anonymous No.6329992]

>>6329947
>>6329959
>>6329962
>>6329972
>>6329973
>>6329981
>>6329983
>>6329988
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6329994]

>>6329992

>>>/s4s/

[Anonymous No.6329996]

>>6328907
/thread ?

>>6328904
define profound in base terms

[Anonymous No.6330004]

>>6329996

Are you really trying to Maieutics?

[Anonymous No.6330005]

>>6330004
How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine, philosophag?

[Anonymous No.6330006]

>>6330005

Feels good. Means you understood the meaning of profound all "by yourself".

Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.6330014]

>>6330006
Hey so >>6330005 wasn't me (>>6329996).

But yeah, I was trying to use a philosophical debate to debunk your claim. I'll have it with myself though:

>profound: having deep insight
What's insight?
>the capacity to gain an accurate and deep intuitive understanding
Intuitive?
>using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning
So philosophy gives you more of a 'feeling' for the world than science? I can agree to that.

Science gives us the rational understanding of the world instead.

[Anonymous No.6330015]

>>6328904
History of Science was here, pure philosophy a shit

[Anonymous No.6330023]

>>6330014

... There is no spoon, kiddo.

>>6329947

[Anonymous No.6330034]

>>6330023
>>6329947

Love may not have limits but it has local minimums and maximums. Also knowledge by definition has a limit in a finite universe.

All joking aside, those two statements have no basis in reality. What was just said was "two concepts invented by humans aren't perceivable to have a finite range... also by humans."

If you are going to defend philosophy please do it properly and don't hinge your arguments on semantics. Philosophy is a useful exercise and you make it seem like it isn't.

[Anonymous No.6330049]

>>6330034

I am... just doing it in several boards at once.

>>>/b/530633798

>knowledge by definition has a limit in a finite universe

But I don't think there's a finite universe. I think there is infinite universes in the large scale, and the small one.

Therefore a transversal knowledge, that participates of all the sets of universes, and who is also called philosophy, is infinite by definition.

QED

I agree on the love issue, but I prefer it to be my jump to the world, rather than god, as Descartes.

[Anonymous No.6330087]

>>6328904
Physics students averaged 2 IQ points higher, therefor it isnt

[Anonymous No.6330114]

[spoiler]>>6329996
(of a state, quality, or emotion) very great or intense.

Don't feel bad, pleb, most people don't use a dictionary 2014 when there are over 500 custom extensions with every definition to every word in existence ready to be defined with two clicks.

[Anonymous No.6330136]

>>6330014
I think one will find that science is also based on intuitions albeit more basic ones.

For example, I think most scientist would agree that if a is true (that gravity exists) and "if a then b" (if gravity exists things will accelerate towards the earth) and b IS NOT observed (things DONT accelerate towards earth [not considering any other forces]) then A is not true

In other words... if a then b....NOT B
Therefore not A
basically reductio ad absurdum

This modal of thinking is used CONSTANTLY as the base of experimentation and falsifying theories or hypotheses

But at its heart, it is a very basic intuition (which i believe is the basis of formal logic - a branch of philosophy)

Tell me what you think about what I just said

for the sake of open disclosure, I am a philosophy major but I have also taken chem bio & physics

[Anonymous No.6330331]

>>6329208
PENIS

[Anonymous No.6330348]

>TFW I have to take one one of those "science in society" classes to get my degree

[Anonymous No.6330377]

>>6328904
Isn't that the guy who is okay with killing newborn babies?

[Anonymous No.6330694]

>profound

I think you misspeled "bullshit".

[funny and dry citations No.6330859]

>>6329279
But it's not much of an example if it's just not true. Then it seems to be more of a staw man.

I think your 'example' shows you have a very limited view of what philosophy is about. I won't defend its practical use or its truth values, but it's simple not true that all that philosophy is, is thinking about claims that cannot be proven, like whether we live in a simulation or whether god exists.

A great deal of philosophy is actually trying to understand why you think the way you do or trying to see the ways in which, for example, hisotry and language have for a great deal shaped the way you interact with your world.

Also, >>6329832
the irony

[Anonymous No.6330861]

>>6330348
me too, this shit sucks. could be worse though: a friend of mine has to take and pass "feminism and equality" for his engineering degree. not kidding.

[Anonymous No.6330890]

>>6330859
You didn't get my example.
What i was trying to say is that the fact that something is more "profound" or, if you want, more fundamental, like for example 'understand why you think the way you do', can be merely a consequence of the level of substance required to study the subject, and not because of presumed superiority or generality.
To say it in another way, you can go as profound as you want with a subject as far as you simplify the rules of the game, by which i mean, for example, not using math and pure logical deduction.

I'm not discarding philosophy as a foundation of knowledge, i'm discarding it as a form of "profound" knowledge.

[Anonymous No.6331078]

>>6330890
yeah well I would have to agree that philosophy is not more or less profound then science, certainly not in the way you defined is (i.e. more fundamental). If I would have to say, I think a lot of modern day philosophy is less profound in terms of fundamental, because modern science (and almost every aspect of the modern world) is 'emancipated' from philosophy in such a high degree that almost never present day scientists ask philosophers for good fundamentals of their field. It's simple not needed, because the last justification in science has become its ability to control nature.

But I still think that there could be a possibility that there's something for philosophy to say. But the things that philosophy will then be about are rather different then the things science will be about. For example, you could ask yourself the question whether empirical facts (and relations of idea) are the only possible forms of knowledge, leading to science and mathematics. If you would say yes, then you could back up this claim with philosophy in the tradition of Hume. If you would say no, then you could, for example, ask whether there are questions that fall outside the scope of science because of a different kind of knowledge or understanding. Perhaps a form of understanding that doesn't have a traditional truth value, but is still to a high degree important for the ways in which you experience the world. An important possible candidate in this line of reasoning is language: the idea that certain words (or sometimes 'memes') can lay open certain semantic possibilities and close others. As an example, have a look at the way the term 'profound' has played itt, without anybody asking what it means, but already dividing two possible stances (philosophy is profound yes/no).
cont..

[Anonymous No.6331085]

>>6331078
But of course, asking these questions and thinking this way lead to less rigidity, because the nature of this thinking seems to not allow rigidity. But don’t forget that the rigidity of modern math is eventually rooted, if not conceptually, then historically, in philosophical notions. You need some ‘non-rigidity’ to get rigidity up and running in the first place. As an example, formal logic, which is the starting point of set theory, which is used as a fundament of math, needs itself some intuitive notions about natural numbers and even mathematical induction to get up and running.
Last point is that the testing of these kinds of knowledge, for example the philosophical questions about semantics, but also the ‘non-rigidity’ to get rigidity, are not tested like scientific theories, because that can’t be done. You can’t design a intuition-accelerator like you can do with particles. Rather, the testing is said to go on in the evolution and destruction of these lines of thinking: Christianity is, in the end, not gone because it has been refuted, but because it has collapsed (in the developed world).

[Anonymous No.6331366]

You can't deny.

[Anonymous No.6331370]

>>6331366
What's that supposed to mean? The philosopher is a homeless bum because he excludes himself from basic social conventions?

[Anonymous No.6331396]

>>6331366
>what philosophy fags actually think.
There are logical systems not based on philosophy and lots of other foundations nowadays. While that may have been true in the later 1800s, it's no longer the case.

[Anonymous No.6331405]

>>6330377
No, he said the life of a newborn is worth less than that of a mentally functioning adult, or something to that effect. Basically "don't kill babies, but if you ever have to choose between the life of a newborn and the life of an adult, save the adult." I don't know if I agree with it, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.6331419]

>>6331396
That doesn't change the fact what what philosophy deals with is higher and more abstract then mathematics, if admittedly less pure.

[Anonymous No.6331427]

>>6329348
>the procedure used by science (theory + experiment + feedback)
Which philosophers realise is inadequate as a total method of 'doing science' and that actual science is a hodgepodge of various different methods of understanding that happened to be given a single label.

[Anonymous No.6331462]

>>6329348
>doesn't even know the most basic fucking history of science
Natural philosophy. Google it, shitlord.

[Anonymous No.6331468]

>>6331462
>muh appeal to tradition

[Anonymous No.6331487]

Modern philo = trying to understand the universe... but minus anything that could actually be used practically.

I understand the appeal, but not where the idea of philosophy being wise or profound comes from.

[Anonymous No.6331503]

>>6331468
>vaguely referring to a logical fallacy in lieu of an actual retort
>doesn't even apply in this situation

[Anonymous No.6331508]

>>6329226
>watches the matrix
>"i think I get what philosophy is all about now"
>"time to go post on /sci/"

[Anonymous No.6331525]

>>6331508
>in charge of reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.6332180]

>Implying science isn't just a language game

[Anonymous No.6332206]

>implying science didn't destroyed the mythopoetic tradition and actively damn all of mankind

[Anonymous No.6332218]

>implying science is grounded in truth and isn't just a political institution

[Anonymous No.6332245]

>Implying humans are reasonable enough to even use science

[Anonymous No.6332269]

>implying science isn't just a function of generalized grammar and isn't profoundly limited in it's analytical ability

[Anonymous No.6332277]

Oh look, a shitposting thread!

[Anonymous No.6332283]

>>6332180
dis aspy. his works are pretty intriguing, though.

[Anonymous No.6332288]

>implying science isn't just a function of generalized grammar and isn't profoundly limited in its analytical ability

[Anonymous No.6334734]

>>6331396
name one

[Anonymous No.6334753]

>>6332180
what's good, lud

[Anonymous No.6334758]

>>6332288
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information is, apparently, determined by problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. It appears that the systematic use of complex symbols is not to be considered in determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. On our assumptions, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not subject to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort cannot be arbitrary in a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Notice, incidentally, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial raises serious doubts about the traditional practice of grammarians.

[Anonymous No.6334775]

>>6328904
I am completely unsatisfied with your argument.

[Anonymous No.6334778]

2 THINGS, PHILOSOPHY DIDN'T INVENT DRUGS OR THE INTERNET, SCIENCE DID.
YOUR CURRENT PHILOSOPHY DEPENDS ON BOTH. OR YOU CAN GO MAKE CAVE PAINTINGS WITH YOUR FECES, THAT WOULD BE PRETTY PROFOUND TO SHOW YOUR INBRED, MALNOURISHED, DISEASED CHILDREN.

ACHIEVEMENTS:
SCIENCE - ATOMIC POWER, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION, LITERALLY TOO MANY PHYSICAL REALITIES TO NAME IN THE SPACE OF A SENTENCE.

PHILOSOPHY - PETULANT CLAIMS OF PROFOUNDNESS

[Anonymous No.6334797]

Science has proven that we are not unique and all our intellectual inventions are useless if they do nothing to advance our physical reality. Sorry to dismiss the notion of a soul from which all profound things emanate in the classical tradition, or that AI will soon be a reality, thus dismissing the question of unique sentience? Philosophy was broken by the Roman Catholics a long time ago, so go take your degree and brainwash some high school kids dumb enough to believe.

[Anonymous No.6334798]

>>6331366
funnily enough if you were to do the practicality/usefullness i'd say it forms a normal curve (only with the assumption that math isn't very useful when not applied to a science).
With chemistry top, bio and physics high, psychology and pure maths middle, and sociology and philosophy at the bottom.
Of course this is with my bias towards chemistry, although seeing as most forms engineering would come under physics i'd say it deserves top tier as well, but muh autism needs the symmetry.

[Anonymous No.6334842]

>>6334778
>>6334797
>science invents
>Science has proven
you're just doing the language dance, dogs

[Anonymous No.6335615]

>>6334842
Is language too hard for you? Is this why you constantly need to question definitions of words every child knows?

[Anonymous No.6335960]

>>6334778
SIR, YES SIR !!!

[Anonymous No.6335981]

>>6332245
>>6332218
>>6332206
>>6332180
Is this what philosophers actually believe? This is just a petty little game of semantics and baseless assertions to try to make up for the fact that science has replaced philosophy as the lead force of accumulating knowledge and has done a much better job.

[Anonymous No.6336002]

>'profound' pfffft who cares about emotional stuff like that, surely not my intellectual self

also >>6329924 without irony

[Anonymous No.6336151]

>>6335981
This is a troll. Real philosophy is unattainable to people who aren't scientists or mathematicians. If done right, philosophy defines scientific questions. There is still philosophy for existentialism and politics and so on but those still rely on scientific discoveries and the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6336169]

>>6328907
>>6328908
>>6328918
>>6329208
Oh look

/lit/ here

Sci seems to still circle-jerk that Philosophy isn't a Science

[Anonymous No.6336595]

>>6336169
You should have stayed on /lit/. Endless circlejerks over Infinite Jest or Tao Lin seem to be more to your liking.

[Anonymous No.6336644]

I remember this one guy who had studied philosophy who kept bugging me about my uncultured self in the subject, so he gave me a bunch of low-level stuff to read(Plato and Descartes).

I concluded after having read the books that the philosophers of the modern world were the scientists and that the people who called themselves philosophers were basically philosophically well read English majors, and that they were as much philosophers as an ornithologist is a bird.

The guy wasn't pleased with my conclusion which was that modern philosophers were like Christians who call themselves that but follow none of the teachings.

[Anonymous No.6336693]

Isn't it true that the soft sciences like psychology and philosophy tell us how we should live, because the hard sciences tell us only what is? Isn't that why we fight against social darwinism, because we need more than that?
That's at least how I always understood it.

[Anonymous No.6336702]

>>6336169
As long as they're working in symbolic logic I'm fine

[Anonymous No.6337597]

>>6336644
you tell storys like an eight year old

[Anonymous No.6337739]

"Philosophy"? That a funny word for "semantics".

[Anonymous No.6337754]

>>6337597
His story was fine.
You just spell like an eight year old.

*stories, fucker

[Anonymous No.6337837]

Philosophy is important because it deals with the metaphysics of our world. Philosophy deals with phenomena that cant be easily dealt with science alone.

[Anonymous No.6337845]

>>6337837
Philosophy fails at answering these questions. Philosophy can endlessly dwell in pseudo-intellectual fantasies, but when it comes to producing tangible results, philosohpy has nothing to offer. Therefore we should just ignore the metaphysical as long as it isn't scientifically researchable. A philosophical approach adds nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.6337850]

>>6337845
You sound pretty close minded.

Science is not everything.

[Anonymous No.6338281]

>>6337845
Not a pro-philo or a pro-science, but why the fuck do you want "results" ?

It's like art. You can argue it's useless but it's still pretty cool.
Same for philo.

Of course, reagrding to concept like comfort, health improvement, better technology, science wins without a doubt. (But there is also the muh-<dark side>)

Most of the papers published nowadays in math will remain completely useless for my whole life.
Should I fall in love for fishermen and farmers instead of science guys, then? They make me live.

[Anonymous No.6339991]

>more profound than science

[Anonymous No.6340017]

>>6337837
Metaphysics are worthless though, they aren't reducible to anything useful. Kant was right when he said that for any abstract concept to be meaningful it must conform to an object. The Ideal must conform to the Real.

Science is the only thing that has been proven to work, its done more in 200 years than philosophy has done with a thousand.

[Anonymous No.6341048]

What is philosophy?

[Anonymous No.6341061]

Does this thread really need to happen every single day?

[Anonymous No.6343087]

>>6341061
yes

[Carbon No.6343600]

>>6328904
>using arbitrary and subjective statements without any support
You must've just gotten a PhD, Dr. Phil.

[Anonymous No.6343602]

>>6339991
It kind of is, seeing as philosophy is able to discuss literally anything, while science is limited by this boring thing called "reality"

[Carbon No.6343604]

>>6341061
We need a fucking philosophy/psychology/religion board
Too bad m00t doesn't give a fuck about /sci/

[Anonymous No.6343620]

So do you /sci/fags like art or anything that's not 100% science?

[Anonymous No.6343626]

>>6329992
>>6329994

>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.6343703]

philosophy is nothing but a bunch of pompous old men fillating each other

[Anonymous No.6343758]

>>6343602
You might be interested in this http://www.truthcontest.com/
Or you could absolutely hate it still either way.

[Anonymous No.6345196]

>>6343604
>We need a fucking philosophy/psychology/religion board

Psychology is science. Religion is not a real discussion topic but only ever used as troll bait. Philosophy has its own board >>>/s4s/.

Problem solved. Please go be a newfag somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.6346667]

[Anonymous No.6346697]

>mfw philosophy invented science
Suck it, scifags.

[Anonymous No.6346711]

>>6328965
>has no fucking clue what philosophy is

[Anonymous No.6346727]

>>6328904
>mfw philosophy's just math; sans rigor, sense, and practicality