/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6576299]

Never understood the science - philosophy “conflict”

[Anonymous No.6576307]

>>6576299
For the most point there isn't one, but there are a few philosophers that reject the idea of objective knowledge, which is clearly retarded. Unfortunately these people spoil the batch, but it's important to understand that science started as a branch of philosophy.

However on /sci/ you have an unfortunate combination of retards and 14 year olds which creates, to the uninitiated, the illusion of a conflict.

[Anonymous No.6576322]

>>6576299
>science - philosophy “conflict”
There isn't one.

The only problem is that a few scientists and a few philosophers don't know anything about each other's fields and still try to spew bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6576325]

Science:
>searches for objective truth
>is based on objective observation, logical reasoning and experiment
>can adjust and change its theories whenever necessary
>its results have many important implications and applications
>is so complex that it has to be studied for years before you can contribute to it

philosophy:
>subjective opinions
>not testable, not falsifiable, not provable
>no practical implications
>requires no qualifications other than a grasp of language every child should already have
>main tool is the excessive use of fallacies
>resorts to shit flinging when confronted with counterarguments

[Anonymous No.6576338]

There is not much of a conflict because philosophy is dead. It was simply superseded by science. There is as much a "science vs philosophy" conflict as there is a "chemistry vs alchemy" conflict.

[Anonymous No.6576344]

>>6576325
>>6576338

are prime examples of

>>6576322
>a few scientists and a few philosophers don't know anything about each other's fields and still try to spew bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6576347]

>>6576299
AI, data science, and mathematics struggle with philosophical issues (mostly epistemology but there are others) on a habitual basis

i can't speak for others' fields but i suspect it's the same

it is a pop culture meme that science and philosophy are at odds, largely it is based on the goofy "science wars" of the 90s

[Anonymous No.6576350]

>>6576347
>AI, data science, and mathematics struggle with philosophical issues

No, they don't. There problems are well-defined and have nothing to do with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6576353]

>>6576322
Pretty much this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism

[Anonymous No.6576355]

>>6576344
They're right though. Contemporary philosophy is dead. Everything that can be approached objectively has been incorporated into science. All that's left for philosophers is endless repetition of the same pointless metaphysical quarrel that has been going on for hundreds of years without any new arguments.

[Anonymous No.6576363]

>>6576350
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_artificial_intelligence
if you don't recognize the impact of dreyfus' arguments on the field then you haven't been paying attention, they're apparently important enough that norvig felt the need to debunk them in his introductory textbook

the chomsky-norvig debate was a much more recent example of this:
http://norvig.com/chomsky.html
this is a debate about scientific epistemology and has blossomed into a wider debate about ex-post-facto experimentation and the difference between cause and correlation (and thus to what extent 'big data' analysis is valid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29
knuth said in 2013 that he believes P = NP in formalist mathematics but != in constructivist so this kind of matters. obviously the validity of the axiom of the excluded middle is an epistemological debate

[Anonymous No.6576365]

>>6576355
God you're fucking retarded.

Contemporary philosophy has basically branched off into linguistic metalogic and analytic metalogic, both of which aren't easily understood unless you have a background in linguistics or computer science/statistics along with your philosophy background.

Check out this guy, you might like his stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hacking

[Anonymous No.6576369]

>>6576355
>Everything that can be approached objectively has been incorporated into science.

This statement alone shows you don't know what philosophy is, or for that matter what science is. That's not a knock against you - not everybody has to study philosophy. But don't talk about shit you're ignorant about.

[Anonymous No.6576370]

>>6576363
> if you don't recognize the impact of dreyfus' arguments
I don't because I've taken baby's first AI class and know he doesn't know shit.

[Anonymous No.6576376]

>>6576363
personally i became aware of the chomsky-norvig debate at a high-tier computer data science conference so these are not just wikipedia links, this is stuff research scientists actually talk about

[Anonymous No.6576378]

>>6576370
lol ok. sounds tight

you know whether you accept any of the arguments is irrespective of whether they're influential right

[Anonymous No.6576383]

>>6576363
⇒dreyfus' arguments
What arguments? And how is it philosophy? He only stated something obvious everyone with common sense could of seen.

⇒the chomsky-norvig debate
... has again nothing to do with philosophy

⇒knuth said in 2013 that he believes P = NP
Too bad math doesn't care about beliefs. Math only cares about objective proofs.

>>6576365
⇒aren't easily understood unless you have a background in linguistics or computer science/statistics
As I said: Every meaningful inquiry has been taken away from philosophy and has become subject of science instead. You're confirming my point.

[Anonymous No.6576384]

>>6576365
>background in linguistics or computer science/statistics
ah but you forget that /sci/ thinks computer science is just software engineering except when it's glorious pure mathematics

[Anonymous No.6576392]

>>6576383
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling and not just retarded

[Anonymous No.6576393]

>>6576369
I don't see any argument in your post. Please keep whiny insults and projections to yourself.

>>6576384
Obviously we're talking about the field of research now and not the undergrad curriculum.

[Anonymous No.6576394]

>>6576392
She's right though. What part of her post did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.6576397]

>>6576378
algorithms don't give a shit if it's about muh qualia

[Anonymous No.6576401]

>>6576383
>What arguments? And how is it philosophy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence#Dreyfus:_the_primacy_of_unconscious_skills
Part of a giant article on philosophy of AI featuring work by Turing etc.
put some work in christ
also "common sense" lol

>chomsky-norvig debate has nothing to do with philosophy
um maybe if you didn't read it and don't know anything about it
it's philosophy of science. it's about the validity of different scientific methods. norvig's citations for this article contain many books with "philosophy of science" in the title. he is a prolific writer on philosophy of AI as well. this is a huge topic area, see karl popper, etc. what do you think the epistemological basis for falsification is?

>Math only cares about objective proofs.
so are you a formalist or a constructionist i can't tell
cuz if you're a formalist i guess you're saying that P ?= NP with respect to the axiomatic system?
but if you're a constructionist only constructive proofs of P ?= NP are objective
idk what the fuck is an "objective proof" isn't that kind of entirely what's in question with different mathematical epistemologies?

[Anonymous No.6576404]

Anyone that purports to be a scientist and says that philosophy is useless either doesn't understand the basis of the field they're in, or would be better off being a faith healer.

[Anonymous No.6576408]

Science is simply another form of epistemological philosophy and as such is not immune to logical criticisms from other philosophers.

Granted, postpositivism has incorporated many of the criticisms made into the scientific method (and that's the current paradigm of science, too), and most contemporary philosophy has already moved past the silly "science wars" that happened in the 90s, and accepted points brought up by both scientists AND poststructuralists. It's mostly moved on to using ideas from both to accurately study logic, meta logic, and meta language, and their applications in epistemology.

[Anonymous No.6576409]

>>6576347
>goofy "science wars" of the 90s

Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.6576411]

>>6576401
>consciousness
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6576413]

>>6576409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

It was literally just scientists and philosophers talking past each other without actually bothering to look at each others work. Even still, some points to take into consideration were made on both sides.

[Anonymous No.6576421]

>>6576397
>algorithms don't give a shit if it's about muh qualia
not in general but certain ways of reasoning algorithmically about qualia might be computationally intractable and therefore neither realizable nor even true in a computationally constructive sense

like if you're just handling qualia by mapping to utility there's no guarantee that's tractable nor that it has grounded symbols. and you'll probably want to know something about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenstern_utility_theorem

[Anonymous No.6576422]

>>6576401
⇒a giant article on philosophy of AI
AI is about algorithms. The empty talk of philosophers does have no effect on the field.

⇒it's philosophy of science.
As I said, it has nothing to do with actual science. The only people who care about "philosophy of science" are philosophers of science. Scientists continue to use the scientific method, because it works irregardless of whether some scientifically illiterate philosophers say "u cannot know nuthin".

⇒so are you a formalist or a constructionist i can't tell
Neither. This nonsensical distinction is irrelevant to actual mathematics.

⇒idk what the fuck is an "objective proof"
Take a math class.

[Anonymous No.6576432]

>>6576422
>Scientists continue to use the scientific method
So they continue to use the philosophy of science is what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.6576439]

>>6576432
The scientific method does not involve any philosophy. There is no step in the scientific method saying "At this point your research stagnates because you realize that you truly cannot know nuthin."

[Anonymous No.6576444]

>>6576325
>searches for objective truth

idk about that. Hypotheses with a statistical basis, maybe, but objective truth?

[Anonymous No.6576446]

>>6576439
I haven't been on /sci/ for a while, in all seriousness, is this "cannot know nuthin" a new epic meme or something

Like that 300k math degree thing

[Anonymous No.6576447]

>>6576394
>She's right though
How do you know thus anon is a "she".
Are you her by any chance?

[Anonymous No.6576449]

>>6576322

This.

>>6576355
>Contemporary philosophy is dead

The only branch of philosophy that is dead is natural philosophy, because it has been replaced by science.

Branches such as ethics are still crucial to every single person alive today. In order to do science you need motivations/goals, and these are always philosophically founded.

The subjective nature of ethics still drives our objective framework. Heck the idea that knowledge is important and worth striving for is an arbitrary philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.6576455]

>>6576422
>The empty talk of Turing and Norvig "does have" no effect on the field.
ok

>"the scientific method"
lol ok

>This nonsensical distinction is irrelevant to actual mathematics.
uh it was pretty important to hilbert and godel, it's apparently important to knuth. i don't really feel like pulling together a list for you

>Take a math class.
this has gotten boring and dogmatic

[Anonymous No.6576459]

>>6576449
⇒ethics

Can you name one ethical problem that has been solved by philosophy? One ethical problem with a solution all philosophers agree upon? Please post it.

Ethics is subjective "muh feelings" arguments all day erry day and philosophers are just talking out of their ass like everyone else. Philosophers are not better qualified to talk about ethics than any idiot on the street.

[Anonymous No.6576464]

>>6576459
>Can you name one ethical problem that has been solved by philosophy?
>[spoiler]Ethics is subjective "muh feelings" arguments all day erry day and philosophers are just talking out of their ass like everyone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism#Expressivism

You just described Expressivist Moral Nihilism. Congrats.

[Anonymous No.6576468]

>>6576455
⇒uh it was pretty important to hilbert and godel, it's apparently important to knuth. i don't really feel like pulling together a list for you
Math is about proofs. Appeal to authority is not a valid method of proof.
>Great minds discuss ideas
>Average minds discuss events
>And small minds discuss people

⇒this has gotten boring and dogmatic
An introductory math class is "boring and dogmatic" to you? Top lel.

[Anonymous No.6576470]

>>6576446
>this "cannot know nuthin" a new epic meme or something
I'm ready for it.
Yeah that's not Kant, it's part of the joke.

I have the feeling it's too elaborate for /sci/.
Gonna post it on /lit/

[Anonymous No.6576478]

>>6576459
Hey, you.
You seem hardcore.
What's your position about the epistemic status of large cardinal?
I'm your most devoted zelaot.

[Anonymous No.6576483]

>>6576478
The large cardinal is a pretty big guy. I wouldn't want him on my plane.

[Anonymous No.6576489]

>>6576459

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Its a common ignorant argument i encounter on /sci/, just because it isn't a straight forward answer the approach is to bury the head into the sand and pretend it doesn't have influence.

As a scientist you have to hold many philosophical/ethical based assumptions in order to do any work.


The processes/methods we determine are needed for science are subjective, but we agree to hold them as necessary. We do have forms of objective ethics, in the sense that the law is objective from country to country.

[Anonymous No.6576492]

>>6576483
4U

[Anonymous No.6576496]

>>6576299

[Anonymous No.6576501]

>>6576489
⇒Just because something is subjective doesn't mean we should ignore it.

I never claimed we should. Are you illiterate? Reread my post. All I said is that "holding an emotional opinion" is not of any academic or intellectual merit.

[Anonymous No.6576502]

philosophy affects science when ethical principles are those that stops the stem cell research ?

[Anonymous No.6576516]

>>6576459
What are your views on GMOs, bioethics, cloning, mathematical finance, microeconomics...?

Even if you're the more abstract science guy, your workl is going to get used for applied applications? Don't you think you have to bear some responsability?

[Anonymous No.6576520]

>>6576501

And I'm saying your post holds zero weight, as although the problem is subjective it is still absolutely crucial.

[Anonymous No.6576544]

>>6576516
⇒What are your views on GMOs, bioethics, cloning, mathematical finance, microeconomics...?
red herring fallacy with unrelated buzzwords

⇒Don't you think you have to bear some responsability?
Where do I bear responsibility?

[Anonymous No.6576554]

>>6576520
I agree, It's very crucial. That's why it should become subject of science. Because philosophy fails to solve it.

[Anonymous No.6576563]

>>6576544
>red herring fallacy

>argument about ethics
>ethical issues
>somehow irrelevant

[Anonymous No.6576572]

>>6576554
>That's why it should become subject of science

This only further demonstrates your ignorance about the subject.

Science=Descriptive
Ethics=Evaluative

You cannot derive evaluative claims from descriptive facts. A classic example is the natural fallacy.


And before you shit the bed and throw Sam Harris's name around, he didn't do anything but speculate something, and even that was completely refuted...

[Anonymous No.6576576]

>>6576572
How do you propose to solve the problem of ethics? Obviously philosophers can't contribute more than opinions. If we wanted opinions, we could ask random strangers. No philosophy degree needed. So who is actually qualified to do solve ethics?

[Anonymous No.6576578]

>>6576544
>he hasn't looked into the massive ethical debates of the Cold War dealing with the scientist's moral culpability for criminal/inhumane/distasteful uses of their research
>he hasn't read the debates dealing with a scientist's individual agency to perform experiments and the individual researcher's rights to use/release their data/work as they see fit

[Anonymous No.6576595]

>>6576576
>Obviously philosophers can't contribute more than opinions. If we wanted opinions, we could ask random strangers. No philosophy degree needed.

You keep saying this, as if it holds some value. Having an education and training in philosophy/ethics allows you to have a far more informed opinion on the matter.
Its why i can so effortlessly bash your silly ideas out.

I have a a bachelors degree in ethics, but i also study science, currently doing post-grad in biological engineering.

>How do you propose to solve the problem of ethics?
Through deliberation and compromise, like the legal system, some type of social contract.

[Anonymous No.6576596]

>>6576576
The reason we ask philosophers about ethics is because they have been exposed to an enormous range of ethical positions and arguments and thus they can make better informed decisions with a large number of alternative viewpoints already having been taken under consideration.
Its the same reason a veteran researcher doesn't ask a high school student for advice on what experiment to do next. Or why politicians have advisory councils made out of experts, whose only duty is to give their informed opinion, and not a council of people picked off the street.

[Anonymous No.6576613]

>>6576576
>If we wanted opinions, we could ask random strangers. No philosophy degree needed.

I see, so when we want to determine the philosophical method and justification lets go and ask people on the street yeah? No understanding of science or philosophy needed.

[Anonymous No.6576621]

>>6576576
>Obviously philosophers can't contribute more than opinions. If we wanted opinions, we could ask random strangers. No philosophy degree needed

>If we wanted opinions, we could ask random strangers. No philosophy degree needed.

I see, so when we want to determine and justify the scientific method we should go and ask people on the street yeah? No understanding of science or philosophy needed.

[Anonymous No.6576635]

There is none, but the squabbles between scientists and philosophers can be entertaining anyway.

> Philosophy of science has historically been met with mixed response from the scientific community. Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited; a popular quote attributed to physicist Richard Feynman goes, “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
> In response, some philosophers…have pointed out that it is likely that ornithological knowledge would be of great benefit to birds, were it possible for them to possess it.

[Anonymous No.6576650]

>>6576635
Feynmann's bromance with that artist and their argumens/discussions were GOAT

[Anonymous No.6576656]

>>6576635
>have pointed out that it is likely that ornithological knowledge would be of great benefit to birds, were it possible for them to possess it.

#rekt

[Anonymous No.6576658]

>>6576596
I've had the opportunity to discuss some topics both in philosophy seminars and among craftsmen (programmers to be precise). The philosophers had largely no knowledge of the subject matter but still came up with the odd interesting question, the programmers did know what they were talking about but the discussion quickly derailed into a discussion about the merits of Javascript. Each group has their strengths and weaknesses, you have to know who to ask and what to expect.

[Anonymous No.6576660]

>>6576576
I raise your
>hur durh everything byt science is opinions and useless bullshit
with the more radical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias#Gorgias:_the_Nihilist

Science is for deluded people tolo

[Anonymous No.6576661]

>>6576650
Link? I think we have different sources here.

[Anonymous No.6576662]

Science deals with things that can be defined objectively, whilst philosophy deals with fields where science is debatably inapplicable, such as politics, morality, psychology, etc.
That's what philosphy does, but I don't think studying for 15 years is required to be essentially a philospher.

[Anonymous No.6576669]

>>6576660

I've been thinking something similar though.

We are stone aged minds, we aren't evolved mentally or physically to live in a modern world, so why do people keep thinking technological advancement is 'better'?


We have benefits of longevity, through medicine and agriculture developments. But we have largely lost the modes by which we derived meaning, such as our small groups guided by some superstition.

[Anonymous No.6576671]

>>6576299
Science does not exist without Philosophy.

Philosophy: 1
Science: 0

[Anonymous No.6576673]

>>6576661

It is different sources, but it is similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jirayr_Zorthian


The convo you probably recognize:
Jirayr: Science doesn't add any beauty to this flower
Richard: Yes it does, i can picture the microorganisms and organelles, the design etc etc
Jirayr: Okay bad example, how about womens breasts, a woman with exposed large breasts walking towards you, does science add beauty to that?

[Anonymous No.6576676]

>>6576673
>Zorthian is known among physicists for his friendship with Richard Phillips Feynman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. They met at a party where Feynman played bongos: Zorthian removed his shirt and made funny designs on his own chest with available materials

[Anonymous No.6576677]

>>6576671

Master bait.

[GloriaTheCutlass !h5wR/Rb85c No.6576685]

>>6576671
This is true.
Science arose as a philosophical way to approach understanding the world around us.
Science IS inherently a philosophy, anyone who argues it is not is either trolling or retarded.
That said, when I graduated with my degree in physics, it was fucking annoying being next to the philosophy guys. Some of them even commented "hey, we're pretty much like the same thing". We soon turned our back on them and stuck to ourselves

[Anonymous No.6576688]

>>6576299

Both are just fake Mathematicians arguing about shit they don't understand, Mathematics is the only objective truth

[Anonymous No.6576691]

>>6576299

[Anonymous No.6576701]

>>6576691
>CAN'T SEE IT; ISN'T THERE

Shit nigga.
You don't get how science works.
Gtfo /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6576704]

>>6576701

[Anonymous No.6576706]

>>6576701
The comic is referring to the reddit fedoras immediately dismissing things as "opinion" or "metaphysics" as soon as they are actually required to understand something.

[Anonymous No.6576708]

>>6576489
>Just because something is subjective doesn't mean we should ignore it.

thanks for proving the point that philosophers are just "muh subjective feelings" retards

[Anonymous No.6576709]

>>6576701
>Shit nigga.
>Gtfo
>how science werks

You need to be over 18 to browse this site

[Anonymous No.6576716]

>>6576709

Cool argument.
Hope somebody actually cares about requisite age.

[Anonymous No.6576722]

>>6576716

upvoted :^)

[Anonymous No.6576730]

>>6576708

>believes in objectivity outside of human fabricated objectivity

How is jesus m8?

[Anonymous No.6576745]

>>6576468
big jesus you've been recked so hard. I think I've seen you before, debating on the basis of the same high-school notion of math as one deductively closed system as you are doing now. There's more than triple integrals you know.

My advise to you is, follow the leads in the responses you have gotten. There is some real math here that is mind-boggling and indeed leads to many philosophical question, as can easily be seen from the past.

[Anonymous No.6576752]

>>6576501
you talking so hard out of your ass right now. You really think scientists are all autistic robots filling in test tubes and crunching numbers?

Do you even know what emotions are? Look up the origin of that word, just for shits and giggles.

[Anonymous No.6576767]

>>6576660
gorgias :)

[Anonymous No.6577649]

It's not wise to conflate some troll's misunderstanding of philosophy with what actually happens in an academic environment, anon.

[Anonymous No.6578317]

>>6576322
>>6576322
this

[Anonymous No.6578356]

>>6576299
If you want a strong understanding of the conflict, I recommend reading Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. His main beef was with how philosophers considered induction a valid approach to science, but it extends to more than that. This is, at its heart, a science vs. philosophy book.

This book is very dry, but it is a vastly influential book; it's a must read if you are interested in the mentality of the scientific world.

[Anonymous No.6578377]

>>6576325
>main tool is the excessive use of fallacies

Can you name a few?

[Anonymous No.6578384]

>>6578377
Marxism.

[Anonymous No.6578389]

>>6576363
>the chomsky
Chomsky is a drooling retard who pretends to be an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.6578390]

>>6576411
>consciousness doesn't exist
top lel

[noko No.6578405]

There's no real conflict. What happens is that shit-tier majors (philosophy, English, history, etc.) are butthurt that they're useless, so they say that science needs them to stop it from being evil. The problem is that any scientist can do ethics and science, whereas an ethicist can only do ethics, and so can everybody else.

[Anonymous No.6578428]

You're right. If you just ignore philosophy there is nothing be rustled about. That's what I do and life goes on.

[Anonymous No.6578443]

>>6578405
>The problem is that any scientist can do ethics and science

Using the theoretical and ethical frameworks developed by philosophers and historians. As well as assuming that the scientist has actually exposed themselves to a large enough range of ethical arguments such that they are not particularly biased to a single mode of thought.

But truly, anyone that isn't heavily invested in both a scientific field and a humanity is truly pleb tier with absolutely no room to call others shit.

[Anonymous No.6578522]

>>6578384
I heard they do a lot of category errors as well

[Anonymous No.6578529]

>>6578522
A LOT.

[Anonymous No.6579190]

>>6576325
>resorts to shit flinging when confronted with counterarguments
That describes the scientific community too

[Anonymous No.6579365]

>>6576422
>⇒idk what the fuck is an "objective proof"
>Take a math class.

>missing the actual point

[Anonymous No.6579541]

imo, philosophers who actually know shit about the fields they're talking about do contribute. but philosophy alone? I took a couple philosophy courses, and while the study of logic is interesting, mathematicians have kind of owned it by this point. It seems that whenever philosophers come up with something interesting or useful, it ceases to be philosophy. Economics used to be philosophy, too, until people realized you could graph some of the arguments, and if you could do that, you could add some math, then game theory and statistics came along...

But perhaps some of you forget that the grounding of mathematics into a set of axioms derivable by simpler operations of logic was the introduction of the philosophers of mathematics. Or that the term 'falsifiability' to differentiate good science from bad was from Popper, a philosopher of science.

The scientific method itself as its own thing is really from the foundational work done by people like Kant and Spinoza. But, yeah, it helps if you actually know your shit about a subject and there aren't a lot of subjects unique to philosophy. The sheer amount of bullshit that gets tolerated in philosophy is overwhelming, though.

[Anonymous No.6580786]

>>6579541
Mostly this, but how and where did Kant do philosophy of science?

[Anonymous No.6580816]

All of science is based on the presupposition that a phenomenon called "cause" exists. If you push something and it moves, it does not prove that things move when you push them. There is no way to prove that it hasn't just been coincidentally happening that way every time we've pushed something in the past. The scientific method only works if we take for granted that there is such a thing as "cause and effect" and that certain actions always effect the physical universe in the same way.

[Anonymous No.6580874]

>>6580816
>All of science is based on the presupposition that a phenomenon called "cause" exists
not the case in math though.

[Anonymous No.6580934]

>>6580816
What's the difference between a world in which the ball moves because of a hand pushing it vs a world where it always moves 'incidentally with the movements of the hand'?
They apparently look and behave identically.

Just semantics.

[Anonymous No.6580952]

In actual higher level discourse there really is none. Anglo philosophers have for the most part abandoned the empiricist project and stick to ethics, political philosophy, and what amounts to cognitive science. They are basically modern day Aristotle/empiricists.

Then there are philosophers who are more concerned with aesthetics, subjectivity, history, genealogies of ethics, knowledge, identity, morals, language beyond ordinary use, and so on.

The modern sciences aren't particularly well equipped to deal with the latter and they work in cooperation with the former when applicable.