/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6527960]

>>6527938
>let me summarise with my own straw definitions, and claim intellectual victory!

>What truths has philosophy found so far? Science and math have found quite a few, but I don't know of any ethical or metaphysical problem a philospher ever solved objectively.
1) The search for truth is about the search as much as it is about the truths which come out - inspection of the process is not something which you can just "assume to be pointless", because it's trivially true that down that road lies compliance and dogma
2) Science hasn't found any "truths" either, and you more than anyone should know that, who claim so strongly that Falsificationism indeed solves the problem of induction

>the questions of science are well-defined
It's like your knowledge of quantum mechanics and field theory is limited entirely to taking the chapter in your engineering textbook as gospel authority. The discussion of interpretation of physical theory is NOT merely the realms of popscience drivel, but hotly contested on a monthly basis in almost every related peer-reviewed journal.

>sking something like "what if your blue is my red" or "what should I do" on the other hand requires no education whatsoever and has no meaningful answer.
Again, since you seem to think that this is the entirety that "philosophy" has to say, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. Because you think this, you're DESPERATE to ignore the fact that scientific inquiry is BY DEFINITION philosophical.

>>6527950
>why does anybody find philosophy interesting?
I KNOW RIGHT WE SHOULD ALL JUST MANIPULATE SYMBOLS ALL DAY EVERY DAY, NOTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS MEANINGFUL RIGHT GUISE XD
Since science *is* a subset of philosophy, I might as well ask you "Why does anyone find science interesting?".

[Anonymous No.6527963]

>>6527954
Wow, you sure showed us your "argumentative method" by yelling "retard" at a fact you disagree with. Is this what philosophy taught you?

[Anonymous No.6527966]

>>6527963
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.6527970]

>>6527966
the tripfag

[Anonymous No.6527972]

butthurt janitor doesn't want people to argue

[Anon No.6527981]

>>6527963
... so if I use ⇒ in a thread i don't like, it'll be deleted?

⇒

[Anonymous No.6527987]

>Asking ... "what should I do" on the other hand requires no education whatsoever and has no meaningful answer
Wow, just wow. That guy seriously thinks that absolutely any kinds of self-reflection are automatically meaningless? I get the funny feeling he's trying to overcompensate for something, probably his own inability to cope with some sort of emotional shit. It's depressing to think that there are people who reject out of hand the idea that there could be at least *some* value in actually thinking about how we should act, whether on a global or just personal level.

[Anonymous No.6527994]

>>6527972
The mods clearly think that any posts which blaspheme against their strongly held opinions on science count as "trolling", and are unwilling to even consider that the discussion could be legitimate or honest.

[Anonymous No.6528002]

>>6527960
⇒1) The search for truth is about the search
If you don't find any truths, then your method of search was obviously bullshit.

⇒2) Science hasn't found any "truths" either
Are you denying evolution? Are you denying quantum mechanics? Are you denying electrodymanics?

⇒The discussion of interpretation of physical theory
The math of quantum mechanics works out. It models what we want it to model. Its predictions are consistent with experiments. Science. Metaphysical "interpretatios" are not warranted and not wanted in science. Maybe once you attend your first high school physics class and learn about the mathematical formulation of QM (even though I highly doubt you'll understand it), you'll realize that there's actual science in it and not just empty youtube pop sci drivel about untestable and arbitrary "interpretations".

⇒scientific inquiry is BY DEFINITION philosophical.
Scientific inquiry is scientific and not philosophical. It is testable, objective, based in reality and has actual impact. Science and philosophy are opposites.

[Anonymous No.6528004]

It's funny that the => guy rejects "philosophy" on the grounds that it asks questions but provides no objective answers, but fails to realise that they can't then go on to claim that "science" is superior. Science is a subset of philosophy, so (clearly!) if philosophy cannot establish objective answers to its questions, science cannot claim to do so either (as that would necessarily require that the scientific method and its underlying philosophy was verified to be objectively true).

[Anonymous No.6528009]

>>6528002
>Are you denying evolution? Are you denying quantum mechanics? Are you denying electrodymanics?
So you're claiming them to be objectively true? Sounds like you yourself don't understand the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6528010]

>>6527972

[Anonymous No.6528013]

>>6528002
>The math of quantum mechanics works out. It models what we want it to model. Its predictions are consistent with experiments. Science. Metaphysical "interpretatios" are not warranted and not wanted in science. Maybe once you attend your first high school physics class and learn about the mathematical formulation of QM (even though I highly doubt you'll understand it), you'll realize that there's actual science in it and not just empty youtube pop sci drivel about untestable and arbitrary "interpretations".

Full retard. Do I seriously have to direct you to fucking every journal ever, in which these "popsci drivel arbitrary interpretations" are discussed heatedly and rigorously? It seems like it is YOU who does not appreciate what it is that you're talking about. Maybe it's time you got off of your thoroughly-beaten dead high-horse of claiming constantly that the people you're talking to are pre-HighSchool.

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6528015]

>>6527963
Do as I say not as I do. I never said I or you had to apply it correctly, I was simply telling him what philosophy teaches.

[Anonymous No.6528017]

>>6528002
>Science and philosophy are opposites.

>Philosophy hurt my feelings as a child, therefore I can personally define "science" to be outside philosophy, and expect everyone else to take me seriously!
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt. Repetition != fact.

[Anonymous No.6528020]

>>6527987
Reflecting and planning your own behaviour has nothing to do with philosophy. It is something that comes naturally somewhere between age 3 to 5 withing psychological childhood development.

>>6528004
Science is not a subset of philosophy. Philosophers can't into science because philosophy and science are opposites. Philosophy is about unjustifiable beliefs and opinions. Science is about explaining observed phenomena with logic and experimentally testable hypotheses. Science has made philosophy obsolete. Btw the fact that you still call me a "guy" says a lot about your (lack of) reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.6528024]

>>6528020
>my opinions are facts

>>>/out/ and take your reddit dogma and fedora with you