/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6916662]

>Philosophy has developed (and actually drives) Science and Math, they said.

>Still waiting for someone to explain how people like Nietzsche, Aquinas and Evola contributed to improve Science and/ or Math...

[Anonymous No.6916665]

>>6916662
how can anyone do science if not philosophy to stop them from killing themselves.

[Anonymous No.6916673]

>OP thinks he'll ever improve science or math

[Anonymous No.6916676]

not every philosopher has had a focus in areas applicable to STEM. some for example, like my personal favorite kierkegaard, were more interested in the meaning of life and how best a man should live his life.

[Anonymous No.6916678]

>>6916662
Science is mostly grounded in mathematics. Mathematics is grounded in logic, that's why it works so well. Logic was developed by philosophers. By definition of transitivity property, QED.

[Anonymous No.6916681]

>>6916662

>Nietzsche
Killed God with his mustache. Read a history book will ya.

>Aquinas
Proved God like 8 times. Too bad Nietzsche killed him with his gay science.

>Evola
He's killing all those african buggers. That way we can spend more tax dollars on colliders and microscopes instead of food for hut people.

[Anonymous No.6916682]

>>6916676
i think op was talking about what people means with "philosophy" when they say that sci and math are creations of the philosophy.
which branch of philosophy was responsible for sci and math.

[Anonymous No.6916684]

>>6916682

Empiricism mostly. The scientific method was intiated into formalization by Bacon.

[Anonymous No.6916686]

>>6916684
The rest is useless?

For example: existencialism.

[Anonymous No.6916695]

>>6916686
It might not have obvious practical use but has use for finding one's self

[Anonymous No.6916698]

>>6916686

Epistemology and most of its subsets (like empiricism, rationalism and phenomalism) are pertinent not just to sci and math but too all knowledge. However other types of philo aren't pertinent to sci or math (like existentialism, ontology, ethics).

[Anonymous No.6916718]

>>6916681
>He's killing all those african buggers. That way we can spend more tax dollars on colliders and microscopes instead of food for hut people.
Lost it

[Anonymous No.6916730]

>>6916662
Only one branch of philosophy helped spawn modern science, and that's empiricism espoused by Francis Bacon.

Actually, rationalism has their worth as well, and it took Kant to iron both ends out.

[Anonymous No.6916793]

you math geeks are to stupid to see the bigger picture,
and all you can do in based on numbers, while numbers has nothing to do with nature, and only exist in the human brain. Most of you suck at relationships, while that is about the only thing nature 'cares' about.

Get a life! But don't count on it to be logical, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.6917080]

>>6916662
Didn't say that All of philosophy advanced science, just that Some did.

[Anonymous No.6917081]

>>6916686
No.. that one is useful to date intellectual girls.

[Anonymous No.6917083]

>>6916793
too* stupid

[Anonymous No.6917096]

>>6916793
You can do math on stuff like relationships too. Facebook can predict people breaking up and/or being gay et.c. Even better than human experts...

[Anonymous No.6917098]

who cares, most of philosophy is just arguing about what words mean.

>Is the shit the original ship or is it a diffrent ship?
Shut the fuck up, the idea of ships is something we invent so we don't have to model all the quarks that make them up.

>This sentence is false.
This just in, when you define a system for one purpose (getting people together to hunt) it gets weird when you apply it to things it was never intended for.

[Anonymous No.6917113]

>>6917098

>strawmaning this bad

[Anonymous No.6917265]

>>6916793
>get a life
>be a pseudo-intellectualist bookworm

[Anonymous No.6917342]

People who spout ignorant platitudes like "Science is just applied philosophy" or "You cannot do science without philosophy" usually have a very poor grasp of both science AND philosophy. They tend to be the kind of person who never touched a philosophy book and who thinks of themselves being highly intellectual for frequently mentioning the few names of famous philosophers they saw mentioned in footnotes in their high school history textbooks. It is a common misconception among these people that philosophy was "just a synonym for every usage of rational thought", a statement which might have been semi-acceptable 500 years ago. But nowadays philosophy is a very distinct academic discipline, separate from science and math. Scientists and mathematicians do not need to engage in any philosophical considerations.

[Anonymous No.6917367]

>>6916662

[Anonymous No.6917384]

>>6916662
1st assumption: Math/science were developed from philosophy.

Ops assumption: Math/science are the only fields inside philosophy.

Conclusion: Op is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.6917390]

>>6917342
>Scientists and mathematicians do not need to engage in any philosophical considerations.

but the greatest ones have

[Anonymous No.6917396]

>>6917390
Lmao, do you even Feynman?

[Anonymous No.6917398]

>>6917396

>Feynman
>IQ 125

[Anonymous No.6917399]

>>6917396
>>6917390
Feynman was so fucking based.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

[Anonymous No.6917401]

>>6917390
Yes, and they do it without having to spend 4+ years getting a philosophy degree and/or working at starbucks

[Anonymous No.6917402]

>>6917396

Sure, but do you
>Copernicus
>Galileo
>Kepler
>Pascal
>Huygens
>Newton
>Orsted
>Ampère
>Ohm
>Dalton
>Joule
>Thomson
>Maxwell
>Darwin
>Fechner
>Mach
>Boltzmann
>Tesla
>Meitner
>Noether
>Heisenberg
>Einstein
>Schrödinger
>Bohr
>de Broglie
>Nath Bose
>Poincaré
>Cantor
>Alan Turing
>David Hilbert
>von Neumann
>Müller
>Lemaître

[Anonymous No.6917405]

>>6917399

he never read any philosophy which he admitted in his biographies so it hardly qualifies him to say anything about it.

[Anonymous No.6917406]

>>6917402
>Müller

The soccer player?

[Anonymous No.6917413]

>>6917401

Neither did the best philosophers. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.6917414]

>>6917405
And I never read any astrology or demonology book, yet I can tell you why it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6917417]

>>6917406

the physiologist

[Anonymous No.6917419]

>>6917390
This only shows that philosophy is of less intellectual merit than science. Scientists can do philosophy but the reverse direction of a philosopher doing science has never been observed. Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.6917420]

>>6917402
#rektkekt

[Anonymous No.6917423]

>>6917399
>>6917396

[Anonymous No.6917424]

>>6917402
Why are you listing random names, most of which are completely unrelated to the topic?

[Anonymous No.6917428]

>>6917424

What do you mean unrelated. Thess are all scientists and mathematicans which took serious interest in philosophic matters.

[Anonymous No.6917429]

>>6917413
>What's your point

I'm just here to take your coffee order sir. BTW: Would you like to hear about Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.6917431]

You can't know nuffin guys, just give up.

[Anonymous No.6917436]

>>6917431
>we can't know nothing

WUT? How do you know that?

[Anonymous No.6917438]

>>6917419
>>6917401


>having an interest in a subject = having a complete understanding of it

the few that actually dominated the subject, like Einstein, had been studying philosophy since they were children.

[Anonymous No.6917441]

>>6917428
Not all of them are scientists or mathematicians and only very few of them said anything about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6917444]

>>6917429

;) If it helps you sleep at night

[Anonymous No.6917450]

>>6917441

Which one isnt a scientist or mathematician?

[Anonymous No.6917451]

>>6916681
#rekt

[Anonymous No.6917453]

>>6917098
Either an ignorant highschooler or a one bad troll.

>>6917342
Those /sci/-/phi/ fags are usually edgy highschoolers or euphoric leddit fedora tippers that think Dawkin's the greatest philosopher ever. Your description perfectly fits almost all of reddit and a lot of /lit/.

However, it's just as bad, if not worse, when mathfags start shitting on philosophags or even scientists/mathematicians that enjoy a bit of philosophy here and there.

>>6917401
Read: >>6917413


>>6917419
>wat is Kant
>wat is Galileo
>wat is the other hundred philosophers that advanced science
So long as this thought makes you sleep at night, I'm happy for you.

>>6917414
b8 harder

>>6917424
He stated that the greatest scientists took great interest in philosophy. He is now proving himself against >>6917396, shitlord.

>>6917423
>www.rockpapercynic.com

>>6917429
>Nietzsche
You mean the ego-centric emo from the 19th century that got into a psychhouse then got his work changed by his sister to be pro-Nazi? Yeah, almost every person that has read any philosophy beyond wikipedia's summary knows that his ideologies are ego-centric and that only pleb middle schoolers and highschoolers that think they're superior to everyone adore him.

>>6917438
Thank you.

>>6917441
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6917455]

>>6917441

>implying science can solve that without an Is/Ought fallacy

[Anonymous No.6917456]

>>6917450
Darwin was a "natural theologian"
Tesla was an engineer.
Lemaitre was a priest.

[Anonymous No.6917459]

>>6917456
Darwin was a biologist, Tesla was a physicist and so was Lemaitre.

[Anonymous No.6917461]

>>6917453
>>wat is Kant
Literally everything he published turned out to be wrong.

>Nietzsche
>ego-centric
>pro-nazi
This has to be b8. Not even a wikipedia scholar would write something this ignorant.

>He stated that the greatest scientists took great interest in philosophy. He is now proving himself against
Then how about he lists "the greatest scientists" instead? So far he only posted names of people who appeared in his high school textbooks. I don't see what makes them "great".

[Anonymous No.6917465]

>>6917456

Darwin was a geologist
Engineering is technological field, technology is a branch of science
Lemaitre was an astronomer and astrophyscist

[Anonymous No.6917467]

>>6917455
There is no "is-ought fallacy" because there is no "ought", only an "is". There is no free will, so the question of whether you "should" do something is meaningless. Science can tell you what you "will" do and you have no control over it. Your body follows the laws of physics. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6917472]

>>6917461
>I don't see what makes them "great"

Are you serious? The men who made the most significant contributions to physics and math aren't great?

[Anonymous No.6917474]

>>6917467

That's not what Is/Ought distinction/fallacy is, pleb. It has nothing to do with free will. Lol. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.6917475]

>>6917461
>Literally everything he published turned out to be wrong
[citation needed]

>>ego-centric
>Implying his ideology of the death of god and how a man can transcend to become a god isn't all just ego-centric bullshit affected by the fact his waifu got stolen and that he was dying

>pro-nazi
His sister changed his work to be pro-nazi after his death.

>Then how about he lists "the greatest scientists" instead? So far he only posted names of people who appeared in his high school textbooks. I don't see what makes them "great".
b8 harder, m8.

[Anonymous No.6917479]

>>6917467
Nice b8. Almost got me there.

[Anonymous No.6917481]

>>6917472
There are maybe two or three people on that list who might be considered "significant". The others surey aren't. The list is arbitrary and does not even support that faggot's point, because the majority of scientists on it had no interest in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6917484]

>>6917474
I just explained to you how the impossibility of free will eliminates the validity of the "ought" part and therefore destroys your fallacy. Read Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.6917487]

>>6917481
Obvious shitposter is obvious. Check the catalog, m8. Maybe there's some IQ thread for you to jerk to.

[Anonymous No.6917489]

>>6917481

They did, they're chosen exactly because they did. The majority of the latter half where considered philosophers as well.

[Anonymous No.6917492]

>>6917487
Your infantile tantrum does not affect me. The factual truth of my post remains untouched.

[Anonymous No.6917493]

>>6917484
kek'd

[Anonymous No.6917495]

>>6917492
b8 harder

[Anonymous No.6917496]

>>6917484

Harris is the major proponent of Is/Ought fallacy. Free will doesn't affect it at all.

[Anonymous No.6917498]

>>6917475
>[citation needed]
>>/sci/thread/S6915427#p6916257

>His sister changed his work to be pro-nazi after his death.
How is this an argument against Nietzsche? How do you think he could have prevented it after he died? Are you braindead?

>b8 harder, m8.
I don't need to b8 when I have facts instead.

[Anonymous No.6917503]

>>6917489
But that's completely wrong. Please stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.6917513]

>>6917496
The "ought" question becomes meaningless without free will

[Anonymous No.6917514]

>>6917503

Each one of those men expressed during their lifetime an explicit interest in philosophy (either for personal, or academic purposes). Just google each if you like. If you can find evidence for the opposite, post it.

[Anonymous No.6917517]

>>6917489
>majority of the latter half where considered philosophers

Yes, the majority of people are able to make their own coffee. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.6917518]

>>6917498
>>>/sci/thread/S6915427#p6916257
Linking to an archive of a /sci/ post that I cannot even view. Nice argument there.

>How is this an argument against Nietzsche?
I merely stated the facts. I also clearly stated that it was his sister that changed his work in my OP, but you are either blind or incapable of comprehension.

>I don't need to b8 when I have facts instead
>>6917503
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8 and i really do appreci8

[Anonymous No.6917520]

>>6917513

Do you even know what you're talking about? I'm serious. Explain in 1-3 sentences what you think is/ought is.

[Anonymous No.6917524]

>>6917517

;) you ever get tired of posting reddit memes?

[Anonymous No.6917530]

>>6917520
>What is is is?

DERPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

[Anonymous No.6917535]

>>6917514
You just called Lise Meitner and Emmy Noether "men". And I'd love to see their views on philosophy. The only encounter Emmy Noether had with philosophers was when the philosophical faculty objected her studying math at university because she was a woman. More evidence how philosophy held back scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.6917536]

>>6917520
>I'm cereal
>What is what is what when is what?

[Anonymous No.6917537]

>>6917518
>post that I cannot even view
Your inability to use a web browser is not my problem.

>I merely stated the facts
Stating facts irrelevant to your point is a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi.

[Anonymous No.6917541]

>>6917520
>Explain in 1-3 sentences what you think is/ought is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[Anonymous No.6917544]

>>6917535

Noether took interest in politcial philosophy (communism in particular).

[Anonymous No.6917545]

>>6917544
Holding a political opinion is a matter of philosophy now? I guess /pol/ must be full of the greatest philosophers then...

[Anonymous No.6917548]

>>6917530
>>6917535
>>6917536
>>6917537
>>6917541
Surely b8 because people can't honestly be this retarded

[Anonymous No.6917550]

>>6917530
>>6917536

Are you guys retarded?

[Anonymous No.6917554]

>>6917545
>Holding a political opinion is a matter of philosophy now?

>political philosophy = politics in general

[Anonymous No.6917559]

>>6917554
The so called "political philosophy" is a great example of how philosophy caused nothing but suffering and a great argument why philosophy should be forbidden. Communism, fascism, islamic terrorism etc are all products of "political philosophy". Philosophers and their unrealistic utopia fantasies caused genocides of hundreds of millions of people and poverty for billions. If you want to talk about this, then please go to >>>/pol/ as it is not topic of /sci/ anymore.

[Anonymous No.6917560]

>>6917550
>>6917548
Retarded what "ought"?

[Anonymous No.6917563]

>>6917548

[Anonymous No.6917566]

>>6917559

Yeah, cause it was communism, not Stalin and his administration that caused all those deaths. Gotcha.
Also
>changing the topic

[Anonymous No.6917568]

>>6917559
>. If you want to talk about this, then please go to >>>/pol/ as it is not topic of /sci/ anymore.

Also, what? You're the ones who asked "And I'd love to see their views on philosophy" so I told you. Holy shit, learn to keep an argument in one place.

[Anonymous No.6917569]

>>6917566
>stalin, mao, pol pot, kim il sung etc etc, the list goes on

But seriously, take it to >>>/pol/. Your anti-scientific ideology has no place here on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6917574]

>>6917568
Having an opinion of politics doesn't make you a philosopher, or else everyone on /pol/ would have to be a philosopher according to you.

[Anonymous No.6917575]

>>6917569

>Your anti-scientific ideology has no place here on /sci/.

Wtf, anon. I'm not a communist. Noether was. Do you have any notion of continuity?

[Anonymous No.6917576]

>>6917566
>promoting an ideology that strives to empower those social classes who despise intellectualism the most
>being surprised when said social classes start genociding intellectuals after the revolution

Just go back to /pol/ already. There you can circlejerk with equally ignorant individuals.

[Anonymous No.6917577]

>>6917574

having a philosophic view doesnt make you a philosopher either. No one said it did.

[Anonymous No.6917580]

>>6917576
>>6917574
>>6917559

Are you all retarded or you just didn't read the thread? The only people talking about politics and should go to /pol/ are you guys. I only pointed out Noether supported it. Which is part of the original discussion.

[Anonymous No.6917584]

>>6917575
>Do you have any notion of continuity?

Yes, I do but won't spoonfeed you. Do your math homework alone.

[Anonymous No.6917585]

>>6917584

Way to prove you're a retard

[Anonymous No.6917587]

>>6917580
Why do you post something irrelevant to the deb8? I asked how she can be called a philosopher and your response is "she had opinions on politics". Are you trolling or retarded?

[Anonymous No.6917589]

>>6916662
>they said.
Philosophy says a lot and always have, in terms of doing they never did and never will do anything.

Their modus operandi is to say nothing in as many words as necessary for them to stay employed.

[Anonymous No.6917590]

>>6917589
>Their modus operandi is to say nothing in as many words as necessary for them to stay employed.

THIS.

Also the /b/tard in pic related summed it up pretty nicely.

[Anonymous No.6917595]

>>6917587

No, you asked what were her philosophic views. The list has been countlessly referred as containing scientist and mathematicians interested in philosophy either personally or academicly.

[Anonymous No.6917597]

This is by far the worst board on 4chan.org.

[Anonymous No.6917601]

>>6917595
>No, you asked what were her philosophic views

And I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Anonymous No.6917602]

>>6917589
>Philosophy says a lot and always have, in terms of doing they never did and never will do anything.

Except create science, logic, law. While philosophers themselves contributed significantly to math, psychology and art.

[Anonymous No.6917609]

>>6917602
>Except create science, logic, law.
The scientific method was created by people who used their common sense to get shit done, and not by armchair fedoras who question their own existence. Logic was created and formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century. Law is made by politicians, not by philosophers. If you disagree, show me the philosopher who is responsible for speeding tickets. I'd love to punch that fucker in the face.

>While philosophers themselves contributed significantly to math, psychology and art.
I have yet to see a philosopher contribute to math.

[Anonymous No.6917612]

>>6917601

She aligned herself with Bolshevik views on society. She'd had to read some philosophy to reach such views.

[Anonymous No.6917615]

>>6917612
If she did some reading, she wouldn't have held such anti-intellectual views. Being influenced by propaganda doesn't make her a philosopher. Try again.

[Anonymous No.6917623]

>>6917609

The scientific method was first introduced by Alhazen who theorized philsophically. It was formalized in the west by Bacon, aslo philsophically.

>Logic was created and formalized by mathematicians in the 19th century.
It was created by Aristotles. Abd mathematically formalized by philsophers (most notably Frege, and Russell).

>Law is made by politicians, not by philosophers.
I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.

>I have yet to see a philosopher contribute to math.
Four easy ones, Descrates, Leibiniz, Whithead, Russell.

[Anonymous No.6917625]

>>6917615

Sure thing, anon. >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6917633]

>>6917623
>The scientific method was first introduced by Alhazen who theorized philsophically. It was formalized in the west by Bacon, aslo philsophically.
The scientific method as we use it today was not used earlier than the late 19th century and was only marginally influenced by historical negligibilities.

>It was created by Aristotles.
What Aristotle called "logic" has NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our modern notion of formal logic. Back in his time every use of language, every rhetorical fallacy, no matter how retarded, qualified as "logic".

>Abd mathematically formalized by philsophers (most notably Frege, and Russell).
Russell and Frege studied math, had a doctorate in math, published mathematical papers and worked as mathematicians. You are uneducated as fuck. Please at least read the wikipedia before lowering everyone's IQ on this board with your subhuman ignorance.

>I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.
Read literally any country's constitution. At no point philosophers are mentioned as the law makers. Laws are made by parliaments, governments, kings or whoever rules the country. Laws are a matter of politics, not of philosophy. Adjust your fedora.

>Four easy ones, Descrates, Leibiniz, Whithead, Russell.
Descartes contributed nothing. He only gave the name to the most obvious and well-known coordinate system. The other three are MATHEMATICIANs and not philosophers. Read a book and go to school. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.6917651]

>>6917633
>was only marginally influenced by historical negligibilities.
You don't even buy that

>Russell and Frege studied math, had a doctorate in math, published mathematical papers and worked as mathematicians.
How does this invalidate them as philosophers?

>Read literally any country's constitution.
Every modern constitution is based on enlightment philosophy. Most notably the US's.

>The other three are MATHEMATICIANs and not philosophers.
Stop being a deliberate idiot. Leibiniz was a full blown philosopjer with his own metaphysical system. Whitehead and Russell academically studied philosophy and started their own philosophic schools.

[Anonymous No.6917655]

>>6917633
>Russell and Frege studied math, had a doctorate in math, published mathematical papers and worked as mathematicians
>The other three are MATHEMATICIANs and not philosophers
>Leibiniz
>Whitehead
>Russell
>not philosophers

What kind of troll is this?

[Anonymous No.6917661]

>>6917625
shut the FUCK up bitch, im sick of you idiots who don't want to engage in discussion and instead point people to /pol/

fucking manchild

[Anonymous No.6917662]

>>6917661
I wonder why you didn't respond the same thing to
>>6917576
>>6917569
>>6917568
They did the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6917666]

>>6917661
If you were too stupid to understand what I meant by >>6917662 I'm pointing out your thinly veiled bias.

[Anonymous No.6917669]

>>6917651
>You don't even buy that
Yes, I fucking do. Before the 19th century humans were neither technologically nor socio-politically sufficiently advanced to maintain a system of constant peer review and scientific rigor.

>How does this invalidate them as philosophers?
YOU tried to invalidate them as mathematicians. Of course mathematicians can also do philosophy, just like they can also eat, walk and breathe.

>Every modern constitution is based on enlightment philosophy. Most notably the US's.
Don't you get tired of constantly moving the goalposts? We were talking about laws and not constitutions. A constitution tells us how laws are being legitimated and this process does not involve any philosophy. It is purely a matter of politics.

>Leibiniz was a full blown philosopjer with his own metaphysical system. Whitehead and Russell academically studied philosophy and started their own philosophic schools.
Look at their fucking wikipedia articles, moron. They were mathematicians. They studied math, had math degrees, taught math, researched math etc etc.

>>6917655
>>>/wikipedia/

[Anonymous No.6917676]

>>6917669
>>6917669
>>>>/wikipedia/

[Anonymous No.6917679]

>>6917669
>>>>/wikipedia/

[Anonymous No.6917683]

>>6917669
>>>>/wikipedia/
Alfred North Whitehead, OM FRS (15 February 1861 – 30 December 1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher. He is best known as the defining figure of the philosophical school known as process philosophy,[43] which today has found application to a wide variety of disciplines, including ecology, theology, education, physics, biology, economics, and psychology, among other areas.

In his early career Whitehead wrote primarily on mathematics, logic, and physics. His most notable work in these fields is the three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910–13), which he co-wrote with former student Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematical logic, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[44]

Beginning in the late 1910s and early 1920s, Whitehead gradually turned his attention from mathematics to philosophy of science, and finally to metaphysics. He developed a comprehensive metaphysical system which radically departed from most of western philosophy. Whitehead argued that reality consists of events rather than matter, and that these events cannot be defined apart from their relations to other events, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.[28] Today Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly Process and Reality – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy.

Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us."[28] For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics

[Anonymous No.6917684]

>>6917669
>>>>/wikipedia

[Anonymous No.6917686]

is reality logically consistent?

[Anonymous No.6917688]

>>6917676
>>6917679
>>6917683
>>6917684
They studied math, had degrees in math, taught math and researched math. Tell me how that doesn't make them mathematicians. Your cherry picking is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6917694]

>>6917688

never said they weren't mathematicians, but you did say they weren't philosophers

[Anonymous No.6917698]

>>6917686
Meaningless question is meaningless.

>>6917694
They were mathematicians. Of course they can also do less intellectually demanding things like philosophy. But exclusively calling them philosophers is like calling them eaters, breathers or walkers.

[Anonymous No.6917702]

>>6917698

Sure thing, Gal. It's okay if you're too stupid for philosophy. The first step for rehabilitation is acceptance.

[Anonymous No.6917703]

>>6917686

No. isn't it obvious?

[Anonymous No.6917706]

>>6917702
I'm too intelligent for philosophy. That's why I do STEM instead.

[Anonymous No.6917707]

> implying continental "philosophy" is relevant

I would consider analytical philosophy justified. Not because it might or might not improve science, but because the autistical fun-game makes us think more clearly about "things". However, philosophers should stay the fuck out of science and science should stay the fuck out of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6917710]

>>6917707
>I would consider analytical philosophy justified.

Sorry kiddo, but your beliefs don't suddenly become "logical" just because you relabel them as "axioms".

[Anonymous No.6917716]

>>6917710

[Anonymous No.6917717]

isn't science really just an exploration of consciousness?

everything we do in science is limited in the same way, we can only imagine certain things and only understand certain things

some absolute materialists make the mistake of thinking that we are capable of understanding everything, even when they know the way the brain evolved
funny

[Anonymous No.6917732]

>>6917590
>maths the most objective
I get what he was saying. But math is unempirical. It can't by definition be objective. This use of "objective" is like people who use literally wrong. If anything math is about finding tautologies expressed by axioms and modern philosophy is just people finding meaning in the inherent ambiguity of ideas expressed with language.

[Anonymous No.6918499]

>>6917609
>Implying that philosophers don't get things done
They sell me a coffee cup 2 milk last week.

[Anonymous No.6920902]

Philosophy is always superior to Sciences and Math.

Scimonkeys are all positivists and materialists dumbfucks.

In my frat, we have a motto:
Philosophy is for all, but neither all people is for Philosophy.

You guys need to understand that there're thinks that they're incapable to understand and only philosophers can.

[Anonymous No.6921072]

>>6920902
Name one thing only philosophers can understand.

[Anonymous No.6921102]

>>6921072
We understand life itself in all senses. We know what is be human.

I challenge you to prove why science is in the same level of phi.

[Anonymous No.6921125]

>>6916662
>Nietzsche
eugenics

[Anonymous No.6921167]

>>6921072

Existence
checkmate, atheist

[Anonymous No.6921173]

>>6921167
What is the ontological status of existence itself?

[Anonymous No.6921176]

>>6921102
>science is in the same level of phi.
It is not

[Anonymous No.6921183]

>>6921173
The question runs nowhere. It's like asking what's the color of red.

[Anonymous No.6921192]

>>6917453
butthurt.txt

[Anonymous No.6921198]

>>6921176
So you assume that sci is at a lower level. Case closed.

[Anonymous No.6921199]

>>6921183
If such a simple question is too deep for you, then maybe philosophy isn't the right field for you.

[Anonymous No.6921212]

>>6917717
We're capable of understanding anything that we would have a reason to want to understand.

[Anonymous No.6921217]

>>6921199

It's impossible though. The ontological status of anythijg (like any kind of status) is a relative position depending on something which to be distinct from. Nothing lies from an existence of some form. What is existence to be distinct from?

[Anonymous No.6921226]

>>6921217
>Positivism intensifies

[Anonymous No.6921234]

>>6921226

>everything that exists has to have a physical concomitant

[Anonymous No.6921238]

>>6921167
The brain can physically measure existence so we just need to create a machine that replicates that ability.

[Anonymous No.6921245]

>>6921234
You know that it has flaws, right?

Google "why positivism is wrong"

[Anonymous No.6921251]

>>6921238
>The brain can physically measure existence

Lol. How?
Pro tip though: you can't even prove the brain exists or anythind by that matter without resorting to axioms. Let alone can you "measure" existence physically (whatever that means).
Even discarding that, how do you even measure existence?

[Anonymous No.6921254]

>>6921245

That's what I was implying, anon. Existence isn't narrowed down by physicality.

[Anonymous No.6921260]

>>6921245
But anon, there is literally nothing wrong with positivism. The only reason it was "rejected" was because it would have made philosophy redundant.

[Anonymous No.6921261]

>>6921251
How should I know how the brain works? All I know is that there is sensory information "existence", and subtracting that information results in zero sensory information.

[Anonymous No.6921269]

>>6921261

You're talking about perceptions though. Existence precedes perception. You could hypothetically remove perceptions from the brain, but not existence.

[Anonymous No.6921277]

>>6921269
And what practical methodologies arise from that line of though?

[Anonymous No.6921293]

>>6921277

For what?
We know we exist (it doesn't matter whether the world we live in is real or not, we exist somewhere as something regardless). Perceptions are just part of being, not being itself.

[Anonymous No.6921298]

>>6921293
Are you being solipsistic with me?

[Anonymous No.6921299]

>>6916662
>Still waiting for a philosopher to come up with a single piece of useful knowledge about the world

[Anonymous No.6921308]

Can someone tell me why /sci/ is so vehemently anti-philosophy to the point where they focus on character attacks as if to discredit it as a whole?

I've never studied a bit of philosophy in my life but I find this attitude disgusting and childish, and would expect from a community that considers themselves rational.

[Anonymous No.6921312]

>>6921298

No. Im telling you that solipsism changes nothing and that either way we exist regardless of our perceptions. I dont understand the question you asked.

>>6921299
maybe you should read one. Try a simple one like Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.6921314]

>>6921308
Because philosophers generally make claims they can't support. In other words, philosophy is unscientific. This should have been obvious to you from the start.

>>6921312
I've read most of Nietzsche's works, you assumptious little faggot.

[Anonymous No.6921317]

>>6921314
>In other words, philosophy is unscientific.

your belief that only science has merit over knowledge is unscientific.

>I've read most of Nietzsche's work
Really? What's the metaphysical subject?

[Anonymous No.6921322]

>>6921312
Well then, I'm saying that we can somehow know existence anyway. The existence within our perception precedes the rest of our perception.

>>6921308
Because on so many occasions somebody comes in here with their "you can never know nuffin" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6921324]

>>6921317
>your belief that only science has merit over knowledge is unscientific.
That's gibberish.

Science is verifiable. Science produces facts. Philosophy is not and does not. It's really that simple.

>What's the metaphysical subject?
Are you referring to substantiality?

[Anonymous No.6921329]

>>6921322
>The existence within our perception

Are you saying that our notion of existence is a result of perception? Because if so, I disagree. A mind would understand its existence regardless of perception. As far as your methodology question goes, it's possible to talk about existence without referring to perception by talking about things when they're not being perceived or can't be. Like Kant's noumenon.

[Anonymous No.6921333]

>>6921324
>That's gibberish.

It's not. You can't apply the scientific method to qualitive statements like "that which is unscientific is worthless". Therefore making that statement unscientific, it's both unfalsifiable and unempirical.

>Are you referring to substantiality?
No the metaphysical subject is a concept central to Nietzsche's moral philosophy. If you read him, tell what it is.

[Anonymous No.6921351]

>>6921329
>our notion of existence
>A mind would understand its existence regardless of perception.
What are you saying with these phrases?

[Anonymous No.6921356]

>>6921329
>A mind would understand its existence regardless of perception

Bullshit on so many levels im not even gonna try

[Anonymous No.6921366]

>>6921351
>>our notion of existence
Notion = conception of or belief about something
>>A mind would understand its existence regardless of perception.

this is as I can as say it. Another way of saying is that knowing we exist isn't something we derive from experience.

[Anonymous No.6921367]

>>6921333
>You can't apply the scientific method to qualitive statements like "that which is unscientific is worthless".
I never that which is unscientific is worthless, I said that which is unscientific is unscientific. But please, do keep trying. It's entertaining.

>No the metaphysical subject is a concept central to Nietzsche's moral philosophy. If you read him, tell what it is.
I don't remember Nietzsche ever using the term "metaphysical subject". He does talking about the "subject" as an illusionary concept of self that claims substantiality though.

[Anonymous No.6921372]

>>6921366
>this is as I can as say it
ugh, this is as simply as I can say it*

[Anonymous No.6921375]

>>6921366
We experience existence, so knowledge of existence is something that comes from experience.

[Anonymous No.6921377]

>>6921367
>I never that which is...

i think you a word

[Anonymous No.6921380]

>>6921377
I'm drinking beer. I tend to skip words when I'm drinking.

[Anonymous No.6921382]

>>6921377
And the missing word is "said."

[Anonymous No.6921385]

>>6921375

How do experience existence, anon? Existence isn't an emotion, an impression, an act or event. We come to the conclusion that we exist only inductive.

[Anonymous No.6921390]

>>6921385
>How do experience existence, anon?

For fucks sake, why people in this thread are skipping words, is everyone drinking?

[Anonymous No.6921391]

>>6921367
>I never that which is unscientific is worthless, I said that which is unscientific is unscientific
>Still waiting for a philosopher to come up with a single piece of useful knowledge about the world
You might have not meant to say it, but you made that interpretation easy.

>I don't remember Nietzsche ever using the term "metaphysical subject". He does talking about the "subject" as an illusionary concept of self that claims substantiality though.
He never uses the word, he uses the concept since it's an ancient concept. But with him, it means something specific, you're close though. So props. I'll ask you, what do you consider useful knowledge?

[Anonymous No.6921393]

>>6921390

How do you* experience existence, anon?

it's really common in 4chan. we don't pursue gramatical mistakes like leddit does.

[Anonymous No.6921394]

>>6921385
I already said I don't know how the brain is able to do it, I just know the experience is "existence itself" because it is omnipresent, constant, and precedent.

[Anonymous No.6921397]

>>6917396

this is why math was developed. By philosophers.

Scientists are fantastically stupid.

[Anonymous No.6921398]

>>6921391
>You might have not meant to say it, but you made that interpretation easy.
In other words, you misinterpreted what I said. Congratulations.

>He never uses the word, he uses the concept since it's an ancient concept.
He uses the concept of subject. Calling it metaphysical subject as if that is a concept of Nietzsche's is just misleading. Did you read Will to Power or just someone's summary of it?

>I'll ask you, what do you consider useful knowledge?
Factual, verifiable, falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6921404]

>>6921398
>Factual, verifiable, falsifiable

There goes half of mathematics

[Anonymous No.6921408]

>>6921404
More like almost all of mathematics. I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics, and I understand that it is useless until some scientific application is found and and enters the realm of science. However that doesn't mean I think it's worthless, in fact I'm a great fan of mathematics and I enjoy practicing it. And I think most mathematicians are of the fictionalist perspective and would agree with me.

[Anonymous No.6921413]

>>6921394

If we can conclude that we exist from experience itself, without existence being an experience in-itself, then our minds must be able to understand its existence independent of perceptions, but we can say, it relies on them to articulate it.

Im actually very tired right now. Im not willing to go on. Reply if you want, I wont be in my computer till nightime tomorrow. I say this so you don't think i bailed.

[Anonymous No.6921428]

>>6921398

Nietzsche never release Will to Power, it was a compilation made by some else after his death. Never read it though. I read GoM and TSZ and BG&E. The metaphysical concept is essential for GoM. He doesnt meed to refer it by name, everyone who has read him knows what it is without hesitation. Again, good night. Reply if you want.

[Anonymous No.6921441]

>>6921428
Yeah, he talks about illusionary subjects in GoM as a justification for morality against the nature of behavior, but I wouldn't call it essential to the entire book.

[Anonymous No.6921452]

>>6921413
>then our minds must be able to understand its existence independent of perceptions
Not who you are talking to. But this is why I don't like talking about this kind of stuff with philosophers. What you said is not something that can be logically deduced, it's an empirical statement about the world. Definitions and logic don't tell us anything about the world, they only tell us about definitions and logic.

How can you claim to be able to "logicate" knowledge about the world if you don't know the world? You'll never deduce anything outside of the scope of what you're taking for granted and you'll never gain knowledge because you're deducing and not investigating.

Newton was wrong about time but he had good reasons to think what he thought about it. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms governing consciousness and here you are making absolute claims about perception acting as if logic in and of itself was enough to know whether it's true.

[Anonymous No.6921464]

>>6921452
>Definitions and logic don't tell us anything about the world

no

[Anonymous No.6921479]

>>6921413
Whether it has any or what dependencies it has on perception are unknown because the operation of the brain is unknown. But the brain loses functionality when deprived of senses, so I'm going to say that there ARE dependencies.

Another mystery is what does feeling "existence itself" even do? You are accessing the "set which contains all other sets" so it should let you know anything.

[Anonymous No.6921491]

>>6916662
>Philosophy

/x/ please go

[Anonymous No.6921502]

>>6921491
Are you being 100% serious with that statement? /x/ is worlds worse than even the shittiest thread on /sci/. This is a /lit/ troll thread with slightly more shitposting, and /lit/ is better than /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6921507]

>>6921464
yes

[Anonymous No.6921510]

>>6921491
>/lit/ is better than /sci/

[Anonymous No.6921541]

>>6916662
Nietzsche diversified science with the Gay Science you homophobe.
>>6917453
>four mentions of -schooler
Looks like you're underage.
>>6917732
Empiricism is cancer.

[Anonymous No.6921543]

>>6921398
>Factual, verifiable
So not science?

[Anonymous No.6921857]

>>6921333
>You can't apply the scientific method to qualitive statements like "that which is unscientific is worthless".

I don't need to apply the scientific method when the statement is obvious to anyone with common sense.

[Anonymous No.6921889]

>>6921543
No, science.

[Anonymous No.6921942]

Nietzsche loved science.
Why does science hate him

[Anonymous No.6921959]

>>6921541
>Nietzsche diversified science with the Gay Science you homophobe
go be a hypersensitive faggot somewhere else

>Empiricism is cancer
SJWIDF detected

[Anonymous No.6921983]

>>6921942
Early on he was dismissive of scientists but later changed his mind. He did fail math at school but I guess he got over it.

[Anonymous No.6922005]

>>6921857

>common sense

The most unscientific thing there is. Common sense used to dicdate that the earth was flat, that the basic elements of life are water, fire, earth and air, that there are four humours, that the earth is the center of the universe, that we have souls and that God is undeniable.

[Anonymous No.6923065]

>>6916662
>being this much of a turboautist
>not realizing that philosophy is the foundation of science and how we live our lives
Your quantum mechanics won't save you from killing yourself. Nietzsche might give you a reason not to do it.

[Anonymous No.6923094]

>>6917414
>tfw can't tell if it's bait or not

[Anonymous No.6923490]

>>6921314
>Because philosophers generally make claims they can't support

What philosophy have you been reading?

>tfw all of /sci/'s experience with philosophy is probably pleb tier philosophy

The fact that this thread has gone on this long without a single mention of neurophilosophy is telling.

[Anonymous No.6923494]

>>6921857
>>6922005
>arguing in a philosophy thread
>bringing up common sense
>neither of these faggots know the Aristotelian idea of common sense, instead talking in pleb
shiggy

[Anonymous No.6923851]

why nietzsche was so edgy?

[Anonymous No.6924395]

>>6922005
>implying

[Anonymous No.6924399]

>>6923851
Nietzsche invented nihilism, supported eugenics ("the Übermensch") and was a militant atheist ("god is dead"). There is literally no philosopher more edgy than him.

[Anonymous No.6924419]

>>6924399
And ended his life as a complete retarded