/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7174808]

Is philosophy dead as Hawking once implied?

If not, what value does philosophical inquiry present in 2015 and what is the operative distinction between a philosophical question and a scientific one?

[Anonymous No.7174841]

Man, /sci/ must not like to think about things very deeply.

[Anonymous No.7174898]

>>7174841
I like to think very deeply. That's why I do math. Philosophy is too shallow for me.

[Anonymous No.7174910]

>>7174898

How is math deeper than philosophy? How is philosophy not the foundation of all human inquiry. Define thinking "deeply".

[Anonymous No.7174920]

>>7174808
We really need a philosophy board. You tried posting on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.7174926]

>>7174808
Philosophy is a science.

[Anonymous No.7174928]

>>7174920

No I haven't.

I agree, we need a philosophy and one for social science because there's a lot of STEM bias on this board.

[Anonymous No.7174929]

>>7174910
Math requires actual thinking, rigorous as well as creative. Philosophy on the other hand is just some shallow babble. Every child can "do" philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7174931]

Hawkings is a retard. Hawking is literally a retard, I don't know why people call him a smart fellow without ever reading his shitbooks or comparing him to 1900's scientists or classic mathematicians. Hawkings is a fucking apeshit retard, you have no idea.

[Anonymous No.7174932]

>>7174926

Conversely, science is a philosophy. One that uses empiricism as its main claim to knowledge and methodology regarding the natural world.

[Anonymous No.7174934]

>>7174931
Care to explain?

[Anonymous No.7174935]

>>7174926
Philosophy is the opposite of science. Science uses facts and logic, while philosophy relies on untestable baseless assertions.

>>7174932
Science has nothing to do with philosophy. The "empiricism" in science is the systematic use of observation and not to be confused with the philosophical dogma of "empiricism".

[Anonymous No.7174941]

>>7174929

Modern and analytical philosophy use the rigor of logic and reasoning as it's foundation. It's easy to criticize something when you know nothing about it.

[Anonymous No.7174945]

>>7174928
Yeah, but I'm now actually hoping to see a good discussion here.

[Anonymous No.7174947]

>>7174929
Nobody in the world thus far has had the intelligence necessary to solve philosophy's biggest unsolved problems. Meanwhile computers have been capable of solving math problems and completing proofs for decades.

[Anonymous No.7174951]

>>7174910
>u can't kno u can't kno nuffin

Philosophy is babby tier. You never even have to challenge your beliefs against experimental evidence, it's all the equivalent of stoner conversations about if you'd rather be superman or batman.

[Anonymous No.7174952]

>>7174935
>>7174929
>>7174926
>>7174898
People obviously don't know what philosophy is. Philosophy is NOT a science, just as math is not. Most people associate all of philosophy with METAPHYSICAL philosophy, which is just as its name implies. I would bet that most people here who don't just dislike philosophy but HATE it have never once in their lives read any good philosophy books. There are tons of good philosophers. The only ones that get mainstream however are fucking nut jobs who do spirit science, metaphysical bullshit. Read a goddamn book.

[Anonymous No.7174954]

>>7174947
Philosophy is by definition incapable of solving any problems, "biggest" or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7174956]

>>7174935

That's because philosophy often asks questions that undermine the assumptions and tools of science like "how do we know what we know and is the scientific method a consistent method of deriving facts, etc." Philosophy uses logic, reasoning and though experiments.

The philosophy is science deals with these questions and I believe adds rigor to science.

[Anonymous No.7174957]

>>7174929
Here, in case you're interested:
https://youtu.be/16TegBGFTn8

[Anonymous No.7174961]

>>7174941
The so called "analytical" philosophy is nothing more than a cringeworthy fedora circlejerk. No, labeling your baseless beliefs "axioms" doesn't make them true. No, your high school tier misunderstanding of first order logic is not comparable to rigorous mathematical logic. No, you do not appear smart, you only appear autistic for desperately failing to find rigorous definitions of commonly used words every normal person uses and understands intuitively.

[Anonymous No.7174962]

>>7174954
>by definition
No it is not. Not yours, at least.

[Anonymous No.7174964]

>>7174954
>is by definition
Keep telling yourself that, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.7174966]

>>7174947
Free will? Disproved by science.
Origins of the universe? Found by science.
Morality? Explained by science.
Meaning of life? Soon to be found by science.

problems science has sovled: over 9000
problems philosophy has solved: 0

[Anonymous No.7174967]

>>7174952
I read more philosophical books than you and philosophy is still useless and dead. Deb8 me.

[Anonymous No.7174968]

>>7174962
>>7174964
Really. Then tell me what experiments "philosophers" perform in order to support their "conclusions".
>inb4 excuses

[Anonymous No.7174971]

>>7174956
Philosophy usually refrains from using logic. Not to mention that almost all philosophers don't know shit about logic beyond a shallow IQ test tier notion of first order quantifiers. And no, you are not deep for considering solipsism or any other "cannot know nuffin" shit every infant thinks about.

[Anonymous No.7174974]

I think some people are missing the fact that philosophy is more of a questioning process. A speculative thought experiment that can help solve problems by viewing them without the mental and physical limitations that we bind ourselves to, accurate as they might be.

[Anonymous No.7174976]

>>7174967
You're not even a subtle troll. I'm disappointed.

>>7174968
I posted a link to a video. Watch it. Not the whole thing if you don't want to, but you'll get the idea.

[Anonymous No.7174980]

>>7174976
>WATCH THIS 1 HOUR VIDEO BECAUSE I CAN'T FIGHT BY MYSELF

[Anonymous No.7174981]

>>7174976
>a woman talking about philosophy for an hour and a half

Troll harder, son. I'm not falling for such pathetic bait.

[Anonymous No.7174982]

>>7174976
>has to call me a "troll"

Thanks for giving up so quickly. Guess that's the only way you can safe yourself from further embarrassment. If you ever feel the need to get totally annihilated in a deb8, I'll still be here and am willing to use the full arsenal of my profound knowledge of science AND philosophy to kick your ignorant teenaged ass.

[Anonymous No.7174985]

>>7174968

Jesus Christ, you guys are dense.

>so what scientific experiments are philosophers using to prove their theories?

Philosophy relies on induction and deductive reasoning. The moment it becomes experimental or employs the scientific method it becomes science.

[Anonymous No.7174986]

>>7174808
>what is the operative distinction between a philosophical question and a scientific one?

A scientific question can be converted to the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Regardless of how you want to define what a philosophical question is, if it's not that then it's not science.

[Anonymous No.7174991]

>>7174967
Well, I'm sure that you will realize how useless it is to just state that you read more philosophy books than I do. That being said, I can definitely tell that philosophy is not being held in any regard by most in today's american society (if not all modern societies). But to say it is dead is not only unverifiable, but almost borderline dumb (at least by my understanding of what you mean when you say "dead"). Any time someone thinks about the right thing to do, where there's subjectivity involved, where science holds no weight, that is philosophy. It may be baby tier philosophy, because people are not trained to think critically about why they do things, but there it is. Before I continue any further and make myself look more like an ass, what do you mean when you say, "philosophy is dead?"

[Anonymous No.7174992]

>>7174985
>Philosophy relies on induction and deductive reasoning.

No, it relies on baseless opinions. Philosophy starts with subjectively unquestionable beliefs. A philosopher in ethics for example starts with "seeing animals getting rekt hurts muh feelings" and then cringeworthily tries to find pseudo-rationalizations and justifications for this subjective view. This whole kind of thought process is extremely childish and primitive.

[Anonymous No.7174993]

>>7174808
>implied
didn't he explicitly say this?

[Anonymous No.7174994]

>>7174980
>>7174982
You don't actually see how this gets tiresome, do you? In any case, I'm giving you material so you can actually start arguing about something you know about. You want me to fucking explain these points to you one by one? Special.

[Anonymous No.7174996]

>>7174808
I dont understand this thread at all, moral philosophy, 'ethics' is what /sci/ is all about..

Algorithm ethics: self drive cars, accident, steer into another car or the bus queue.
Financial trading algorithms hacking into each other, or designed solely to profit at the expense of maybe a poor nation.
Nuclear, gas, oil, fracking, ethics.
Space: Go there or feed the poor, genetically modify ourselves for space or not?

So so so many philosophical questions in science its untrue, I leave you with this,
We design (finally) an AI, we would (naturally) give it an ethical code, a sense of right and wrong, how is that ai going to deal with us humans with a 'variable' right/wrong sense... ?

[Anonymous No.7174997]

>>7174982
>annihilated in a debate
>against a philosopher

Let me guess, you're going to keep screaming "U CAN'T KNO NUFFIN" until everyone gets fed up with you and leaves, at which point you'll declare yourself the winner.

Philosophy literally isn't capable of anything else.

[Anonymous No.7175000]

>>7174992
I can tell you're still in high-school.

[Anonymous No.7175002]

Humans need more philosophers and less scientists.

[Anonymous No.7175004]

>>7174991
>Any time someone thinks about the right thing to do, where there's subjectivity involved, where science holds no weight, that is philosophy

Thanks for agreeing with the post you quoted. If your post can be summarized as "philosophy == holding opinions", then you admit that philosophy has no intellectual merit whatsoever. Literally every person holds opinions. Holding opinions requires no qualifications. Bragging about "knowledge" of philosophy or even thinking that philosophy is something intelligent is like saying that breathing or eating are your highest achievements in life. No, anon, if the only thing you as an adult can contribute to society is to eat and to breath, then you are effectively worthless.

[Anonymous No.7175005]

>>7175002
Yeah, progress sucks!

[Anonymous No.7175006]

>>7175000
Projecting much? I'm a math PhD student.

[Anonymous No.7175012]

>>7175004

Developing consisted moral basis and examining the philosophical implications associated with baseline beliefs is more intellectual has more merit then 99% of the shit /sci/ thinks is important.

[Anonymous No.7175013]

>>7174997
I'm the one arguing AGAINST philosophy. Learn to read, pleb.

[Anonymous No.7175014]

>>7175006
Not this again. Go away, you moron.

[Anonymous No.7175015]

>>7175005

Progress is a meaningless term without subjective interpretation and what ever meaning you give it provides no objective value.

[Anonymous No.7175019]

>>7174996
How do you think ethics should be coded into a robot? Some kind of system that assigns value to particular things and concepts and assesses right and wrong based on the relative values of different courses of action?

[Anonymous No.7175020]

>>7174994
I don't need to waste my time watching a shallow youtube introduction to the history of philosophy for high schoolers. I've read actual books about the topic. Have you in your fedora'd ignorance never considered that there might be people on /sci/ know know more than you?

>>7175012
Morality is just "muh feelings". The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will make progress. Philosophy is hindering progress by making people believe "morality" had any objective basis. Philosophy misleads people into a primitive and childish state of being unable to tell their feelings and facts apart.

[Anonymous No.7175021]

OP here:

I think most modern, relevant philosophical questions: such as the nature of free will and consciousness, the nature of self/ego (philosophy of mind) basically stand in a multidisciplinary area of obscurity where there is not yet a whole lot of conclusive scientific evidence. It is fed by and tangential to a few disperate facts of science but still in that grey area known as "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.7175025]

>>7175021
Free will contradicts the laws of nature and consciousness is a topic of neuroscience. No philosophy needed. Philosophy and its unqualified opinions contribute nothing to the debate.

[Anonymous No.7175026]

>>7175020

All rules are based on "muh feelings", are you daft?

[Anonymous No.7175027]

>>7175006
Post timestamped pics of your masters degree or it didn't happen faggot.

I know you won't.

[Anonymous No.7175029]

>>7174928
>there's a lot of STEM bias on this board
Because it's the goddamn Science & Math board, you toddler. Unless you seriously think philosophy is a science? If so, you don't have the understanding of philosophy that you seem to think you have.

[Anonymous No.7175032]

>>7175020
>Have you in your fedora'd ignorance never considered that there might be people on /sci/ know know more than you?
Gee, I never would have suspected that from you given the way you "argue". And make a goddamn decent enough point that's worth refuting already.

[Anonymous No.7175033]

>>7175029

Philosophy falls into the category as mathematics.

Anyone who disagrees with this doesn't understand one or the other.

[Anonymous No.7175035]

>>7174934
He said that we, "have no idea." Just like us, however, he also has no idea.

[Anonymous No.7175036]

>>7175027
Yeah, wait a moment. I'll just make sure to add my social security number and my credit card number to the pic.

[Anonymous No.7175038]

>>7174934
I am a mathematician myself, I will never shit on philosophy because I know the Definition of the word philosophy. My friend, Hawking couldn't write and read in school for a long time and would spend the whole day blaming on others, then he became a hack and attended the eight-year-old Hawking attended St Albans High School for Girls for a few months. Just open the wikipedia on him. Through later high school, Hawking was not successful academically. His family was the one rushing him, so he got at Uni by the 17 yo mark. The rowing trainer at the time noted that Hawking cultivated a daredevil image, steering his crew on risky courses that led to damaged boats. What a fucking retard. Hawking has estimated that he studied about a thousand hours during his 3 years at Oxford. These unimpressive study habits made sitting his finals a challenge, and he decided to answer only easy physics questions rather than those requiring mathematical deduction. Boom! Only easy questions now. Hawking's first year as a doctoral student was difficult, and he found his training in mathematics inadequate for work in general relativity and cosmology. He became popular by shitting on creative retards, Fred Hoyle and his indianfaced student Jayant Narlikar, pic related, and by getting credit for Sir Roger Penrose's theorem, a true mathematician. From this point on, all he did was pull shit out of his ass and call it theory instead of thesis and generally bait the world with bad word usage. No contributions, he is a retarded crazy faggot in the rich mental institution club. He isn't even good at math.

[Anonymous No.7175039]

>>7175026
Pretty sure he never even implied such.

[Anonymous No.7175040]

What the fuck do you mean value, if it had value you could earn money with it.
It's something people do as a hobby, because they wonder about random shit.

[Anonymous No.7175041]

>>7175036
I knew you wouldn't because you aren't a Math PhD student. Keep up with the aspirational shitposting and Dunning-Kruger opining, you fucking tool.

in b4
>I don't need to prove anything to you, you can believe what you like!
no balls

[Anonymous No.7175043]

>>7175033
>implying
kek

[Anonymous No.7175044]

Cancer. Thoroughly malignant cancer.

[Anonymous No.7175046]

>>7175025

Yes but books on these topics (particularly on consciousness, self-association, etc.) are still relegated to the philosophy section of the bookstore because the brain is like the ocean, we've only skimmed the surface of understanding it thus we must rely on a lot of thought experiments and speculation to address the "big problems".

[Anonymous No.7175051]

>>7175041
>oh no, she can't be good at math because she hurt muh feelings

Your immaturity is hilarious. Keep entertaining us, kid.

[aasds No.7175053]

>>7174992
Look up different metaethical standings right now... They aren't trying to prove that your feelings get hurt when you see an animal in pain. What they are discussing is the various ways the we interpret morality. Do we see morality as something that is objective to us? that then persuadues us to act in certain ways that we can or cannot listen to? or is morality a reaction that occurswithin us that once we TRULey know a situation we will automatically react in that way? my cock is large so u better listen to me

[Anonymous No.7175055]

>>7175051
Post your masters degree bruh bruh.

[Anonymous No.7175057]

>>7175055
Oh wait you won't cause you don't have one lel.

[Anonymous No.7175063]

>>7175004
I'm the guy you responded to. If you read the rest of the post, I go on to say that this is of course baby tier philosophy, and that philosophy of any merit requires critical thinking. Also, even if i did admit philosophy holds no intellectual merit, how would that admit it being dead, which is what I'm trying to refute. Also, because I think that last sentence was aimed at me (if not i apologize), I'm a mathematics major, not just an advocate of the subject of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7175069]

>>7175002
I agree with the first part of your post but not your second. Why would we need less scientists?

[Anonymous No.7175072]

>>7175057
Are you not aware that one does not necessarily (and in the US, usually doesn't) have to have a master's to be in a phd program?

[Anonymous No.7175076]

>>7175053
>They aren't trying to prove that your feelings get hurt when you see an animal in pain

Learn to read, moron. The whole point of "ethics" is to avoid admitting that it's actually your subjective feelings. A philosopher will make up bullshit reasons why hurting animals is "objectively bad", all implicitly begging the question and already assuming that it's "bad". That's why it's pointless to debate them. They hide behind dogma to delude themselves into believing their own subjective feelings would be the axioms of reality and everyone had to obey them. Literally the kind of thinking you find in infants before they learned to socialize.

[Anonymous No.7175078]

>>7175051
Solving a high school trigonometry problem doesn't make you good at math you sad insecure neckbeard

[Anonymous No.7175081]

>>7175072
That the only proof available in teh wowd? *blink blink blink*

[Anonymous No.7175084]

>>7175072
He already said he had one in >>7175036

[Anonymous No.7175090]

>>7174808

Hawking has never read The Republic.

[Anonymous No.7175093]

>>7175090
Hawkeng also can't run.
Philosephy confermed master raec.

[Anonymous No.7175095]

>>7175076
Sure seems like you're just upset and in denial mode because some philosopher you emotionally dislike supported their arguments with legitimate substance and you can't refute them.

[Anonymous No.7175097]

>>7175020
>Philosophy is hindering progress by making people believe "morality" had any objective basis.

Except the philosophers who say there is no objective morality.

[Anonymous No.7175099]

>>7175090
I disagree on almost everything Plato came up with. Do you like The Republic?

[Anonymous No.7175100]

>>7175057
okay, here you go

[Anonymous No.7175103]

STEM fags are idiots...useful idiots

I saw a guy who invented a quantum supercomputer utilizing super position

it took him 7 years to make

Lil Wayne , Psychology BA, makes one track and gets $500k, he literally gets high, follows his psych engineered script and autotune and is pulling half a millon for a few hours work.

The guy making that computer won't get close to 1% of lil waynes net worth, and is probably poor.

Wayne has $50m + worth of cars alone.

also philosophy will die when psychology is finished mapping the human mind,

all except metaphysics will be solved.

inb4 STEM fags buttmad

>implying psychics can address metaphysics.

Game over autism.

[Anonymous No.7175104]

>>7175100
>5/4/15
But that's next month

[Anonymous No.7175107]

>>7175040
>>7175103
>muh money

[Anonymous No.7175110]

>>7175103
>implying metaphysics isn't implicit within physics
10/10

[Anonymous No.7175113]

>>7175110
>implying a theorum describing a closed system can address that which lies outside the system

plato would look down on you

[Anonymous No.7175115]

>>7175103

>also philosophy will die when psychology is finished mapping the human mind.

OP here: this is an interesting assertion that I might actually agree with.

[Anonymous No.7175120]

>>7175110

Define metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.7175122]

>>7175100
>implying it's may
kekked even harder
saved

[Anonymous No.7175140]

>>7175036
country? field of study, problem(s) you currently are working on?

[Anonymous No.7175157]

>>7175046
How can brain truly undersand itself? You can only observe how it works and describe it by simplified models.

[Anonymous No.7175158]

Does (1) have the same meaning as (2)?

(1) I suck dicks for meth money.
(2) 'I suck dicks for meth money' is true.

[Anonymous No.7175160]

>>7174808
It's only very recently that philosophers have made strong cases for moral realism. Philosophy is far from dead.

[Anonymous No.7175173]

>>7175120
from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond"
so it's the thoughts that come after physics... The bounds you accept create your metaphysics, hence implicit within physics

[Anonymous No.7175178]

>>7175158
No.
(2) implies that you can know something.
Obviously, you can't know nuffin.
Additionally, you can't kno u cant kno nuffin.

[Anonymous No.7175189]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-u-cant-know-nuffin/

[Anonymous No.7175296]

>>7175019
That would be about right, but I am not CS and we are decades away from it. That being said, the timescale does not devalue the argument, it has to be had at some point.

[Anonymous No.7175365]

>>7174966
>he believes you can solve problems
>he believes he knows stuff

Philosophy is getting okay with the fact that you're going to die knowing nothing.

[Anonymous No.7175385]

>>7175365
In order to assume that you
>know nothing
you need to know what "knowing x" means D:

[Anonymous No.7175388]

>>7174966
>i fucking loveeeee science xD

god I hate you faggots.

[Anonymous No.7175393]

>>7174966
you're the worst kind of person in these threads, mainly because you're actually serious and not trying to craft this bait

[Anonymous No.7175399]

>>7174947
Philsophical quandaries aren't usually open to closed form solution. Given two sets of axioms, two reasonable people can come to completely different conclusions on a philosophical background. In math, axioms aren't weighed down with political or religious bias. In philosophy, such assumptions become key, and, in the end, difficult to prove one way or another. As such, most philosophical problems prove intractable on a general scale.

A lot of people DO believe they've solved philosophical problems, but due to the personal nature of the assumptions, it's hard to see that any one of these arguments would appeal to to everyone.

[Anonymous No.7175443]

>>7175189
That quite is pretty stupid.

But what if he was instead badly arguing that your friend being murdered is inevitable, so lying is bad because it ultimately changes nothing of the final outcome?

[Anonymous No.7175457]

>>7175443
It's a caricature of what Kant actually wrote. Kant's actually points are stupid too, but in a more sophisticated (i.e., not-so-obvious) way.

[Anonymous No.7175556]

>>7175457
>>It's a caricature of what Kant actually wrote
we all have to condense our understanding of the world into caricatures dont we?
>morality = muh feelings
>U CANT KNO NUFFIN!

[Anonymous No.7175589]

>>7174966
>freewill

Bullshit, I regularly do things against the grain of nature just to make sure I have freewill. Like fuck it imma do heroin today. That's making a decision that has nothing to do with cog in the machine, predetermined bullshit.

>mortality
Explain

>creation of the universe

You mean the big bang? That's not actually proven

[Anonymous No.7175594]

>>7175589
You were predetermined to have the nature that made you decide to do heroin for the purpose of demonstrating your free will. It's still an illusion.

[Anonymous No.7175601]

>>7175594
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.7175605]

>>7175594
You're a fucking illusion. No, it's a demonstration of the nature to have free will.

[Anonymous No.7175614]

>>7174971
Continental philosophy, perhaps. Not Analytic.

[Anonymous No.7175630]

>>7175103
My nigga

[Anonymous No.7175649]

>>7174996
The AI would kill us all. To live is to be evil, unless you're perfection incarnate which is literally impossible. You will always harm another by being alive. It's narcissistic and egotistical to live knowing your life is taking from another, therefore it should be purged.

[Anonymous No.7175679]

>>7175649
>>7174996

"Without understanding that the functionality of an AGI is qualitatively different from that of any other kind of computer program, one is working in an entirely different field. If one works towards programs whose "thinking" is constitutionally incapable of violating predetermined constraints, one is trying to engineer away the defining attribute of an intelligent being, of a person: namely creativity."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/03/philosophy-artificial-intelligence

Interesting article on the whole thing here.

[Anonymous No.7175687]

>>7175649
You obviously program the AI with the number 1 order not to harm humans, or something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.7175690]

>>7175594
Why would anyone have that nature is my point. The point you can just off and kill yourself at a whim for literally no reason, surely that kind of nature can't be pre determinate.

[Anonymous No.7175692]

>>7175687
What if it runs on some form of energy that humans also need? It will just shut itself down because by working it would be indirectly harming humans.

[Anonymous No.7175714]

>>7175687
It's just making a statement. Maybe the robot is right, are you truly being a good ENOUGH person? Probably not. It begs the question of "should we continue on?" It gives logical reasoning to self destruction. Thanatos.

[Anonymous No.7175751]

M Theory is philosophy so it's obviously not dead.

[Anonymous No.7175762]

>>7175690
Your brain chemistry determines how you think, what actions you tale. Your brain chemistry is constantly shifting in specific ways by every little interaction with the environment and also interacting with itself. All of this was ultimately shaped by your genes and other factors while you were developing and growing.

That's the paradigm of determinism shittily explained by me.

[Anonymous No.7175764]

>>7175751

oh snap rekt

[Anonymous No.7175769]

>>7175764
Now I am thinking of what those little branes could be made of. I have no data and I can make no observations. Yet science is aided by my thought. So philosophy and science in my opinion are a bit like electricity and magnetism. You need one to have the other.

[Anonymous No.7175777]

>>7175762
There is actual randomness in the universe. Doesn't prove there's free will but you can't just claim it's all predetermined.

[Anonymous No.7175797]

>Ctrl + f
>No Zizek
Are you guys even trying?

[Anonymous No.7175801]

>>7174808
It's not dead but its been slowed to a crawl

[Anonymous No.7175804]

>people actually think philosophers just go U CANT KNOW NUFFIN
top kek

[Anonymous No.7175827]

>>7174961
So the logical absolutes aren't true? Care to demonstrate?

In fact, in many way these axioms also form the basis of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.7175831]

Philosophy isn't dead but it has similar problems to most academic subjects i.e. not enough interest, >muh STEM means no one thinks it's useful even though they have no idea what it entails, lots of academics are publishing bullshit for the sake of publishing so they can cite all their friends and get cited in return.

[Anonymous No.7175966]

>>7175801
Why?

[Anonymous No.7176015]

>>7175589

>atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways
>our minds are made of atoms and particles
>our minds don't behave in probabilistic ways because I regularly do things against the grain of nature like be an edgelord

Holy shit anon, I'd really like to be a condescending prick right now, but frankly, you are such an idiot that expending another ounce of energy on a single keystroke is too much.

[Anonymous No.7176281]

>>7175679
>>7175679
>>7175687
Interesting Guardian article, notwithstanding that, I dont believe ai will ever achieve 'conciousness' in that tthe programming can only ever consist of extremely fine-tuned programming. (Personal belief that does not need arguing here).

The AI (agi) debate is intrinsic to the drive of this thread (not op btw) to show how philosophy permeates science and everyday life in the form of ethics i hate using 'what if' examples.

A household 'serving' robot is programmed not to hurt humans. It sees a person in the house chastising a child. Should it intervene?
There are a multitude of possible outcomes to this one simple question, all the way down to programmer/corporate liability and insurer responsibility.

Laws, arguably, are there to resolve ethical problems, science, by its nature works at the outer boundaries of laws and ethics (philosophy).

[Anonymous No.7176283]

>>7174898

Get laid and do some LSD some time, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.7176296]

you can't have science without math
can't have math without logic
can't have logic without rationalism

rationalism is a philosophy

the day philosophy dies is the day logic, science, and math are dead. it's funny because somewhere down the line our future generations are gonna say the same shit about science.

>why do we need this approximation driven garbage? it may as well be anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.7176307]

>>7176296
/thread

[Anonymous No.7176330]

>>7176296
So true.

Science and experimentation cannot be applied to everything possible concept. We need 'philosophy' to consider items outside the observable and testable. We need philosophy to create interpretations. Without interpretations, can you really have intelligent thought about the workings of the universe?

[Anonymous No.7176333]

>>7176330
The things experimentation can't be applied to, philosophy can never provide answers to.

Philosophy has never been able to provide legitimate answers to anything.

>inb4 more philosopher excuses

[Anonymous No.7176341]

>>7176333
Philosophy is not about providing answers, it's about critical thinking.

For example, there is no correct answer to subjective questions. But combining scientifically measurable phenomena and a philosophy, for example of maximal utility you can combine these 2 thing to come to a rational strategy. Whereas with only science you could only sit on your data, because there is no correct answer.

Philosophy also stimulates new hypotheses in science where there is no solution. This will always exist as there will always be an area about which science has nothing to say...yet.

[Anonymous No.7176344]

>>7176341
Everything you just said is mental masturbation.

It's like a test, where every fucking answer you give is just as legitimate as every other answer that everyone else gives.

Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.7176349]

>>7176344
Not really. You also have to know how to reason... You know what, you really need to read up on this.

[Anonymous No.7176352]

>>7176344
All things are not equal, much less critical thought.

>every fucking answer you give is just as legitimate as every other answer that everyone else gives.
You are demonstrable lacking the application of critical thinking needed to ascertain the benefits of philosophy if you can't tell the benefits it has entailed, and clearly not very versed in history if you aren't aware of the benefits it's provided in historical context.

[Anonymous No.7176356]

>>7176349
No, what you are quite literally referring to is pre-scientific era bullshit, where people actually believed they could sit around and philosophize about how things worked without needing to perform the most simplistic experiment to double check their beliefs.

That sort of anti-progress is literally what you're arguing in favor for. You're disgusting.

[Anonymous No.7176358]

>>7176352
>muh history

You may as well be arguing in favor of labotomy with such a shit argument.

[Anonymous No.7176360]

>>7176356
You have an oddly limited understanding of what thinking is.

Read through this and see if you can tell what is not based in philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

You have some catching up to do.

[Anonymous No.7176361]

>>7176358
I would be in favor of your lobotomy, so that you could forget everything you've learned and start again.

I recommend that you start with the english dictionary, so you can speak the same language.

[Anonymous No.7176374]

philosophy relies on lgoic ofounded our civilaaaaaaajititigt you dujmb bitxhwes fwht sont u shutttt tthe fucckc up 4vvv i ;ojunch u rin the 4fafvgccxw wnffn hururururuduudududu muhuhuhuhuhuh mattthththt u wofulnt have shit wwwww/ll huhuhuuh p;jhhhhidolaoorigaoophpphphphpnpphphphphpphphphpph yakr eot bithxhwhws BSDF SSTDF Sim agogfnsd fo amokw uie euy w5guhujr 55gquq uqq q3n ir ru 5hihkj n4guqqq 1

[Anonymous No.7176389]

This is getting fucking pathetic.
>hurt durr, alchemy came before chemistry, therefore alchemy gets credit for everything chemists have ever done

No.

Your time is over, and your field is useless.

If you disagree, get a bunch of philosophers to land a rover on Mars.

In the meantime, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.7176403]

>>7176389
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."- Some historical dude

[Anonymous No.7176441]

>this whole thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E

put some Putnam in you

[Anonymous No.7176479]

Could have potential as a tool in applied neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.7176489]

science doesn't deal with the question of why something happens. philosophy does exactly that

[Anonymous No.7176510]

>>7176403
Most giants are complete retards that discovered by chance things anyone could have.

[Anonymous No.7176579]

>>7174808
Implying philosophy was ever alive.

It is only given importance based on peoples perception of the things being said. If the words you strung together to describe your thoughts provoke people to change their way of thinking, or question their ways of thinking, then your a philosopher, or at least quoting a philosopher. It isn't anything special, and to treat the study of it as anything more than a hobby is a fools errand.

[Anonymous No.7176614]

>>7174808
>>7176579
OP confirmed as a top-troll from /lit/
Philosophy is just words
You got butt-fucked /sci/

[Anonymous No.7177496]

>>7174898
try reading Hegel and Heidegger and then come back and say that

Also, as that other guy said, take some psychedelics. You seen extremely arrogant.

[Anonymous No.7177508]

>>7176489
Well not exactly, you're talking about metaphysics not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7177529]

>>7176330
So would you consider the mathematical prediction of the Higgs to be a philosophy too?

[Anonymous No.7177546]

>>7174974
When you put it that way anon, philosophy sounds a lot like the scientific method, but without a lot of the cold hard evidence in developing a hypothesis and a theory.

[Anonymous No.7177577]

Science is a highly specialised form of natural philosophy, so scientists ARE philosophers. Other kinds of philosophy just try to learn about things that are harder to measure. Also, most kinds of philosophy use logic the same way, so it's a great practice for scientists.

[Anonymous No.7177602]

>>7177577
Your idea of what philosophy is or how it is practiced is very naive and has nothing to do with reality. Please don't talk about topics you don't know anything about.

[Anonymous No.7177614]

>>7174808
Hell no. It's just getting started. One thing we'll see in the future is a greater recognition of social "illnesses" and how they're holding us all back. Education about philosophy and a greater understanding of it among the masses will be the cure.

[Anonymous No.7177621]

>>7174928
There is no need for a separate board. Simply post philosophy related topics, and respond to threads you see about it in a reasonable manner.

If STEMfags shitpost in your thread you simply don't respond.

It's a lesson this new generation has forgotten.

[Anonymous No.7177625]

>>7177621
The /sci/ board is dedicated to science and math. Anything else is off-topic.

[Anonymous No.7177629]

Science is value-free, therefore philosophy and religion and such shit serve to explain "why" rather than "how". Best "why": There isnt one. Why? Faith.

[Anonymous No.7177646]

>>7177625
Philosophy is a topic directly related to science.

[Anonymous No.7177663]

>>7177646
No, your ignorance is not equivalent to scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.7177744]

>>7177663
Science -> Knowledge -> Awareness -> Conscious -> Consciousness -> Quality -> Philosophy

[Anonymous No.7177754]

>>7176510
Hahaha. Haha.

[Anonymous No.7177761]

>>7177744
you forgot one step

quality --> low quality --> philosophy

[Anonymous No.7177762]

>>7176341
>>7176330
>>7176296
>>7175804
>>7175769
>>7175365
>>7175103
You are coming here, claiming we don't know what philosophy is, and you then you display your obvious lack of understanding as to what science is. Science aims to build models with predictive power that are validated by experimental data. You seem to think that scientists just collect data, when in fact the "philosophy is the art of reasoning" stance you are assuming is a tenet of the scientific method. You're just a failed, second-year humanities dropout that can do nothing but flip burgers and try to validate your shitty life decisions on a Moroccan snake charming advice forum. Fuck right back to /lit/, spergs.

[Anonymous No.7177765]

>>7177761
The page "Low quality" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

[Anonymous No.7177853]

>>7174898

How math is not theoretical philosophy.
(And today I can't understand why math was teach without its historical background that often is totally philosophical )

[Anonymous No.7177883]

Also philosophy is an approach to thing, is how humans work on their abstractions, and abstractions are what an human can do different from other animals.

Humans live with abstractions, language is an abstraction, institutions are an abstractions, science is an abstractions.

Becouse physics is not the nature, but a language to talk about nature, that can be improved more and more.

Also philosophy as approach is about many things, and there are rival position in philosophy

Example You have political philosophy, that probably is the reason you are not licking the boots of a king, and this philosophy is often build with the same logic of a mathematical abstraction

Simply people here don't know what philosophy is or rapresent, simply if you here are all curious, with good abstraction abilities, and you want to build things without fault, you all are philosophers, maybe bad philosophers, bad faggots, but all philosophers

Read Wittgenstein of god sake, and all implications is "babble" have, and tell me how you man of science can't be full of joy for the facts you all are philosophers.

[Anonymous No.7177935]

acttually there two type of scientist, te first r worshipping the science totem, they say "science biatch!" and are sheeps of the current theories, their armies are composed by fedoras. after there the true scientist, are philosophers and know is not a shame be named in ths way. So there is here the answer was asked to the thread

[Anonymous No.7177963]

philosophy and mathematics are heavily intertwined...

[Anonymous No.7178165]

>all these hemlock chugging faggots trying to defend their stupid hobby

[Anonymous No.7178180]

>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of maths in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning maths
>it's fucking tough
>get to the point where I can just barely understand higher order university-level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw I realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws imply, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>mfw it is actually staggering how stupid they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of maths really well
>mfw totally disillusioned
>mfw realising after all that work that maths isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots

[Anonymous No.7178183]

>>7178180
>being this patrician
must be hard for you eh

[Anonymous No.7178185]

>>7178183
not really, this thread just proves my point even more.

[Anonymous No.7178190]

>>7175051
>she
stuff something in your vag and take a picture of it and post it here

[Anonymous No.7178420]

>>7177935
After reading your post nobody wants to be associated with "philosophy" anymore. Thanks for ruining it for all of us.

[Anonymous No.7178466]

>>7177663
>falsification
>not philosophy

well meme'd

[Anonymous No.7178482]

>>7174928
>STEM bias
>on a science and math board
who knew

[Anonymous No.7178513]

>>7177602
Even if you were right (I read some books about philosophy, but no formal education) all I said was that philosophy has at least historical value - it is the origin of science. We probably can use it now as well, but it's more for fun discussions than anything practical. Philosophy is still practiced and it's good but it doesn't change our lifes.

[Anonymous No.7178526]

Reminder that the only non-bullshit part of philosophy is logic(and maybe epistemology too)

Metaphysics is the bullshittiest of the bullshittiest

[Anonymous No.7178585]

>>7178180
>>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>implying anyone studying a real subject has time for non-essential reading

[Anonymous No.7178586]

>>7178420

false flag..

[Anonymous No.7178600]

Philosophy is to science as alchemy is to chemistry.

[Anonymous No.7178620]

>>7178600
you're full of shit

[Anonymous No.7178854]

>>7178620
Great post. Really shows how philosophy taught you to construct convincing arguments.

[Anonymous No.7178949]

>/sci/ doesn't even know all of it's math comes from guys who were also philosophers.

Seriously, some of your guys ideas about philosophy is babby's intro to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7178977]

>>7178949
>all of it's[sic] math comes from guys who were also philosophers
You're foolish and uninformed. Just because perhaps 15% of the great mathematicians in past three-hundred years were philosophers does not mean that mathematics is founded in philosophy. I am a researcher in a field of pure mathematics, and I can tell you that the most philosophy we find in the field are the classical laws of thought. I study mathematical logic. We don't give a flying fuck how our formal systems are tied to "reality," because reality can't even be objectively defined. You are full of shit, and you like to preach about things you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.7179034]

Why can't philosophers define anything objectively?

[Anonymous No.7179038]

>>7179034
Because then they wouldn't be philosophers; they would then be mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.7179186]

>>7175762
>>7175594
>>7176015
Nice mindset! I'm sure it makes you happy!

Whether or not we have free will, it's more beneficial to act as if we have it. Unless you want to be a sad cunt.

[Anonymous No.7179213]

>>7179186
To have free will doesnt that mean that we need to think about what we're thinking about before we think it?

[Anonymous No.7179218]

>>7179213
Consciences

[Anonymous No.7179234]

>>7179218
But the thought that make up your "conscience" are emerging from consciousness. We don't willingly control what they are.

[Anonymous No.7179272]

>>7179186
it's not that there's another person making choices for everybody, it's the environment that does

[Anonymous No.7179578]

>>7179186

Knowing that I don't have control in my decisions doesn't make me sad, it's incredibly liberating. People like you, hung up on moral quandary, exert a ton of energy on matters I no longer give thought to. I exclusively do the things I want to with no moral boundary to consider. It's all pointless, I make the most of it before it ends and without worrying about the arbitrary rules humanity has deemed moral.

[Anonymous No.7179951]

>>7174808

harkings is retard

[Anonymous No.7179953]

>>7175115
>mind contains ideas
>some of those ideas are philosophic knowledge
>these are going to get 'mapped' out
this pseudo-science is possible right now.

[Anonymous No.7179957]

>>7175178
fuck this stupid meme and the idiots propogating it. you cant have justified true knowledge. so what. try learning fallibility and how it's possible to still go about creating knowledge despite this problem.

[Anonymous No.7179963]

>>7177762
>your obvious lack of understanding as to what science is.
>Science aims to build models
>models
>validated
>your obvious lack of understanding

[Anonymous No.7179978]

>>7175399
>assumptions become key, and, in the end, difficult to prove one way or another
i found your problem. you don't prove fucking philosophic knowledge.
>due to the personal nature of the assumptions, it's hard to see that any one of these arguments would appeal to to everyone.
ya when you think it's a matter of personal assumptions no shit. your own assumptions here have blinded you to any new way of thinking about the issue.

[Anonymous No.7180003]

>>7178513
>Philosophy is still practiced and it's good but it doesn't change our lifes.
this is the most ignorant thing i've seen so far in 2015. and the post is pretty bad, too.

a mind is required to even have a life. ideas and thinking is the only method of changing your life in a non-reactionary way. and that requires philosophy. the very argument you're making is philosophic (albeit bad and dangerous).

[Anonymous No.7180010]

>>7180003
>and that requires philosophy

No, it fucking doesn't. Having a functioning brain does not require philosophy. You'd know this if you had one.

[Anonymous No.7180011]

>>7177663
>falsification
>tool born of philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Anonymous No.7180015]

>>7180003
>hurr durr
>philosophy is only a synonym for thinking

Your ignorance is offensive.

[Anonymous No.7180019]

>>7178180
i know this feel. generalist is the best fucking thing for perspective.

[Anonymous No.7180021]

every time I go on /sci/ there is a front page post by some shit kiddy undergraduates who have some sort of STEM major (I have a degree in math, fyi) and are hell-bent on rejecting the entire field of philosophy because they think they have everything figured out. The funny thing is that the majority of you, at most, have only taken an applied ethics class, which is shit-tier philosophy, and called it a day. That's like me rolling into gen physics and generalizing about the whole academic field; gen physics is for shills, I mean, have you seen those models? We assume there's no air resistance! Fucking plebs! Physics has no rigorous models and it blows shit. Something something ad hom.

There isn't some stupid dichotomy between science and philosophy; they are intertwined, believe it or not. There isn't a scientific method without deductive reasoning and axiomatic logic. The world isn't black and white. Philosophy has real value, whether or not you like it or agree with it. It just goes to show the average age and level of maturity of this shit tier board.

[Anonymous No.7180022]

>>7179963
Were you trying to make a point...? Any time now, thanks.

[Anonymous No.7180028]

>>7180011
Falsification was NOT born from philosophy, you imbecilic cretin. Falsification is absolutely natural in human thinking. People dismiss theories after they have been falsified. Do you seriously belief everyone before the 1940's (i.e. before Popper wrote his irrelevant books) kept trusting experimentally disproved hypotheses? You are so dumb, it should be physically painful for you to live.

[Anonymous No.7180035]

>>7178600
>>7178854
you wont get a quality argument if you offer such a low quality one yourself. what you're saying ignores over a millenia of some of the best mind's work. in one catchy fuckoff of a sentence.

[Anonymous No.7180036]

>>7180021
To continue, philosophy also has reliance on a lot of scientific outcomes. For example, in my undergraduate, I took a philosophy of mind course. No, we didn't sit around and jerk off to Descartes all semester and talked about our feelings. We read a bunch of papers from computer scientists and mathematicians who all had empirical models which had entirely different sets of claims, and we had to organize and weigh which sets of reasoning seemed to fit the picture of how the brain relates to the mind. So no, you don't pick either philosophy or science and call it a day.

[Anonymous No.7180038]

Nothing wrong with philosophy but there are plenty wrong with modern "philosophers"/philosophy majors. Philosophers used to be good at math, physics and logic

[Anonymous No.7180044]

>>7179034
try it yourself and see why.

[Anonymous No.7180045]

>>7180035
If these "best minds" wasted their time pondering infantile nonsense and failing to find an objective answer, then why should I respect them? Every "argument" of theirs can be conceived and refuted by a toddler. They produced literally nothing of value. Science on the other hand has countless useful and impressive non-trivial results.

[Anonymous No.7180049]

>>7180036
>and we had to organize and weigh which sets of reasoning seemed to fit the picture of how the brain relates to the mind.
based on your feelings about which one feels the most right to you.
Philosophy is still useless.

[Anonymous No.7180050]

>>7180021
I'm a math PhD student and you're full of shit. You're the epitome of pseudo-intellectualism. No, you're not deep for spouting teenaged platitudes about "inductive and deductive reasoning". And no, philosophy has absolutely no relevance to science or math. No working scientist or mathematician needs to deal with philosophical nonsense in their research.

[Anonymous No.7180054]

>>7180010
>reads post
>doesnt think at all
>doesnt question his own ideas
>goes straight to the adhom
why even reply? you aren't learning shit

[Anonymous No.7180055]

>>7180036
>We read a bunch of papers from computer scientists and mathematicians

What does this have to do with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7180057]

>>7180049
See, this is where you start to eat shit like a retard. No, it wasn't based on feelings. Have you ever constructed an argument before? Premise, justification, conclusion. You seem to be implying that you can make anything a true argument just because muh feelz; that isn't that case, you fuckwit. If you're wrong, you're fucking wrong. Maybe your experience in your shit-tier 101 phil. class sucked because your professor didn't call out your classmates for being retarded and spouting dribble, but that doesn't fucking mean that academic philosophical arguments aren't rigorous and don't follow logic and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.7180058]

>>7180055
Uh, the outcomes of the papers determine heavily the picture of how the mind functions in relation to the brain, which is useful if you want to even begin to understand consciousness.

[Anonymous No.7180059]

>>7180054
I am criticizing your post because unlike you I can use my brain. I use my critical thinking to question philosophy and I came to the conclusion that it is useless. Have you ever even read a philosophy book? Why do you talk about a topic you know nothing about?

[Anonymous No.7180062]

>>7180058
And what does that have to do with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7180066]

>>7180057
I hate to break it to you, but every toddler who barely learned to speak can construct arguments. If you think "learning" how to construct an argument is a great achievement, and if you had to take special classes to learn it, then you are suffering from delayed intellectual development. I know you will not understand this post of mine, so all that's left for me is to pity your sad existence.

[Anonymous No.7180070]

>>7180062
what does philosophy of mind have to do with philosophy? gee, I don't know

you're really making your case clear. maybe you'd benefit from taking a class that teaches you how to actually construct valid arguments... hmm...

[Anonymous No.7180071]

>>7180070
Understanding consciousness is a topic of neuroscience and does not need any philosophy. Philosophy is an outdated way of thinking, just like astrology or alchemy.

[Anonymous No.7180077]

>>7180066
Toddlers can construct arguments. They can also look through a telescope and see stars; are we going to shit on astronomy now?

There are valid arguments, truthful arguments, arguments that contain both, arguments that contain none. You don't just fucking make a word sandwich and collect your grade, you idiot, you state your point clearly and justify your reasoning. And because you seem to be having trouble grasping this simple concept, maybe you're the one who is a fucking retard? The fact that you exist and breathe air scares the fuck out of me.

[Anonymous No.7180079]

>>7180015
>>philosophy is only a synonym for thinking
let's see if you can follow me on this. let me know where you disagree.
>thinking requires dealing with ideas
>ideas have to be evaluated
>to evaluate an idea you need some kind of system, whether it's given to you by your religion, a philosophic system, or just plain arbitrary irrationality.
>these are all philosophic acts
>which is why thinking is a philosophic act

[Anonymous No.7180087]

>>7180077
Every normal adult knows how to formulate arguments. It is sad that you are lacking this skill, but please don't blame others for your ineptitude.

[Anonymous No.7180094]

>>7180071
Cool it only took you two posts to actually get to your post. What you said, however, is patently false. Neuroscience can give empirics, which is great, but what those results mean with relation to consciousness are entirely a different topic. Furthermore, philosophy seems to be more efficient, insofar as it can predict the "boundaries" of the implications that take place from results in neuroscience, before neuroscience even has the results, because science is a slow fucking field. You can quote Hitchens all you want but it doesn't make you any more right, you fucking buffoon.

[Anonymous No.7180095]

>>7180079
>>to evaluate an idea you need some kind of system, whether it's given to you by your religion, a philosophic system, or just plain arbitrary irrationality.
no

>>these are all philosophic acts
no

Simple example: Someone says he has an apple in his hand. You evaluate the idea by looking at his hand and seeing the apple. Tell me in detail please how much philosophy is involved in this act. Please waste your whole night telling me how "hurr durr reality exists" is a deep philosophical assumption, you pseudo-intellectual piece of manchild shit.

[Anonymous No.7180098]

>>7180028
nothing about thinking comes naturally to people. unless you count the natural tendency to flow towards mysticism and irrationality. and ya, people to this day believe whatever the fuck they want and build up their own world views to reinterpret FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

please stop adhom. it isnt helping your argument.

[Anonymous No.7180100]

>>7180098
>nothing about thinking comes naturally to people

Are you literally mentally handicapped? Thinking is the most natural thing to humans.

[Anonymous No.7180105]

>>7180098
>people to this day believe whatever the fuck they want
yeah, for example there are people who still believe philosophy is relevant even though they cannot find a single argument to back up that factually incorrect claim

[Anonymous No.7180108]

>>7180045
no one is telling you to respect them. there is merely a small handful of philosophers that accomplished anything worthwhile. and of that set an even smaller amount were overall good positive effects on the world. but those are the ones you would benefit from by reading about. but i dont think you will. you're so far deluded by convention anything i say truth or not falls completely deaf to you. that is how arrogant you are. and your life is almost guaranteed to fail the way you handle new ideas.

[Anonymous No.7180109]

>>7180094
Philosophy has literally never solved a problem, never objectively answered a question. It has never furthered our understanding.

[Anonymous No.7180112]

>>7180108
I read enough philosophy books. Keep your projections to yourself, kid.

[Anonymous No.7180117]

>>7180071
do you know either neuroscience or philosophy? like holy fuck you sound stupid.

[Anonymous No.7180122]

>>7180117
Whoa dude, are you trying to hurt my feelings? Calm down and come back when you have an argument.

[Anonymous No.7180123]

>>7180038
i know of at least one modern philosopher that is good at all of those things. also programming and gaming. http://www.curi.us/

[Anonymous No.7180129]

>>7180117
>philosopher is confronted with scientific facts
>replies with insults

how predictable ...

[Anonymous No.7180132]

>>7180109
See, once again, that's just wrong. It furthers our understanding of things in many ways; just because you have a blind eye to the field and haven't had your understanding of some topics "furthered," it doesn't mean it doesn't work, you fucking nitwit. For someone who seems to stick to his guns on "empirics," your arguments seriously are not empirical. A lot of scientific fields began as philosophical question; philosophy has provided frameworks in which science can be meaningfully used. But go ahead and keep repeating the same trope over and over again, yea, it really works.

[Anonymous No.7180137]

>>7180132
>philosophy has provided frameworks in which science can be meaningfully used

Scientists already know by themselves where to use science. We don't need an ignorant philosopher to tell us what to do. You know, there's a reason why a science degree takes up to 5 years. Please don't be a ridiculous fool by pretending you know more about science than the professionals, only because you spent a few hours "thinking" about a pop sci youtube video.

[Anonymous No.7180144]

>>7180059
your critical thinking is shit if you need to adhom. what specifically did you read to come to your insightfully ignorant conclusion of philosophy? did you share your conclusions with anyone who knows fucking anything about philosophy first before writing it off? maybe you read the wrong thing. maybe you got the wrong idea. maybe you're just really bad at philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7180151]

>>7180144
How can I be "bad" at philosophy? How do you objectively quantify how "good" someone is at philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7180157]

>>7180087
this 'adult' doesnt know shit about formulating GOOD AND VALID arguments.

[Anonymous No.7180158]

>>7180137
oh, I didn't know that the length of a weak undergraduate degree (all undergraduate degrees are fucking soft fyi, and I had math for my undergrad) determined whether or not a field is useful. Keep using reasoning like that man and you'll get into all the good academic journals. Do you honestly believe you and everyone else here arguing against philosophy is a professional? The majority of you are a bunch of dumbshit undergraduates who watched too much Lawrence Krauss and now you get a boner when you see the oh-so-special acronyms. I'll repeat myself because apparently you have a comprehension issue: the world isn't fucking black and white, both the fields have multiple reliance and intersections of one another. Leave your fucking cave dude, life isn't just your intro chemistry class

[Anonymous No.7180163]

>>7180157
>Definition: An argument is "good" if it agrees with me.

Cool story, kid.

[Anonymous No.7180166]

>>7180095
>no
no
>no
no

your apple example is straightforward empiricism which is refuted. but i dont think you care. i dont know why you even bothered to respond. are you looking to learn what i have to say or just scream into my face over the internet until i go away with my scary new ideas.

[Anonymous No.7180169]

>>7180151
the merit of their arguments, the assumptions made, whether or not the propositions follow the assumptions, and whether the conclusion is valid given all of the above. a lot of arguments can be reduced down to symbolic reasoning, but that's not the fucking point; the point is that there's a rhyme and reason. Any argument can be demonstrated to either be untrue, or invalid. It's not like you just walk in and say whatever the fuck you want, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.7180170]

>>7180100
enacting memes is not generally considered a form of thinking. inb4 you have no idea what i'm talking about and strawman yourself out of orbit.

[Anonymous No.7180171]

>>7180158
>the length of a weak undergraduate degree
I wasn't talking about "undergrad". With 5 years I meant the time from entering university as an undergrad until leaving with a PhD.

>Do you honestly believe you and everyone else here arguing against philosophy is a professional?
I am working on my PhD thesis right now and I already have published smaller papers.

>The majority of you are a bunch of dumbshit undergraduates who watched too much Lawrence Krauss
The projection is strong in this one.

>the world isn't fucking black and white
Then why do you continue to draw it black and white by deluding yourself into thinking you are "le only knowledgable supreme gentleman" while everyone else must be "dumb undergrads"? Your attitude reeks of autism and insecurity. For fucks sake, grow up.

[Anonymous No.7180174]

>>7180169
in addition to this, it's fucking hilarious that you are essentially using logic and reasoning while pretty much trying to reject it. you fucking realize that your argument isn't quantifiable either, right? that doesn't make it wrong you fuckwit. you can't pick and choose you delusional retard

[Anonymous No.7180178]

>>7180166
Solipsism is such a scary new idea. You must be very smart. Please tell us more. It's not like you have anything better to do anyway.

[Anonymous No.7180181]

>>7180171
only 5 years from your undergraduate to getting your PhD? What?

everything else you say is dribble and doesn't invalidate what I say. of course though you can't possible know unless you had an instrument that measured my argument.

[Anonymous No.7180183]

>>7180169
>It's not like you just walk in and say whatever the fuck you want

But that's precisely what you are doing. You come here and pretend your reasoning is the only correct reasoning and every other reasoning must be wrong. You give no justification whatsoever. Basically the definition of dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.7180184]

>>7180071
just like morphogenetic fields, quantum microtubules, fractal brain theory, etc

[Anonymous No.7180186]

>>7180178
>Solipsism
what are you talking about? bro, we're on page 8.

[Anonymous No.7180189]

>>7180174
>you are essentially using logic and reasoning while pretty much trying to reject it

Where am I trying to reject it? The only thing I reject is philosophy, precisely because I prefer to use logic and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.7180193]

>>7180181
Whatever you say, autist. Clearly all those "dumb scientists" are too intellectually limited to understand your superior metaphysical insights of how "reality doesn't real" and how "u cannot know nuffin". Don't you get tired of talking to people who are so dumb that they need logic and facts instead of blindly agreeing with you? You should really go talk to more enlightened individuals on your own level, for example on /s4s/.

[Anonymous No.7180199]

why do humans think they can decipher anything about death or life, and why do we think that life has to be any more complicated than

>you have a baby and you raise it so it can one day have it's own baby.

[Anonymous No.7180207]

>>7180193
>mfw i'm not a philosopher or a philosophy major
>mfw you still can't justify any reasoning and can only fling shit

[Anonymous No.7180302]

hahahaha just came here for the first time to see if there was anything redeeming on /sci/. I guess not. Listen guys, you shouldn't let yourself study one side of the 'wall' while completely ignoring the other. STEM is important. Humanities are important. Any well rounded, self respecting person should embrace both. Source: math and philosophy major going to present philosophy work at Duke this summer and doing math research starting next fall. I'll come back to this board next year and see if it's still bullshit like this thread.

[Anonymous No.7180318]

>>7180003
And why does life change have to be non-reactionary?

Moreover, any self-drawn conclusions are in essence a reaction to the environment around you because you do not know anything you have not experienced.

Really, just go talk about shit on >>>/lit/ they will be much more accommodating

[Anonymous No.7180475]

>>7180302
>Humanities are important.

Is this a pasta, or do people actually believe shit like this?

[Anonymous No.7180736]

>>7180318
>Moreover, any self-drawn conclusions are in essence a reaction to the environment around you because you do not know anything you have not experienced.
this implies no new knowledge can ever be created.