/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 121 KB, 468x349, wtf_is_this_shit2_RE_73_Million_Sharks_Killed_Every_Year-s468x349-71815.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:39:39 2015 No.7371120 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw pop science argues against philosophy

All truth is based on a set of axioms and definitions. Philosophy attempts to locate the axioms and definitions which suit the real world best, through the use of intuition.

If you argue for the use of the scientific method, you're already in the realms of philosophy. It's funny how small minds (with virtually no publications) like Tyson speak out so arrogantly against philosophy, while still extensively using it, perhaps even more than many scientists. One could think that this is because of a lack of general knowledge, especially in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:40:38 2015 No.7371121 >>7371120 >philosophers >attempting to locate anything other than a job at Micky D's nice one OP

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:42:33 2015 No.7371127 >giving a shit about pop science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:44:29 2015 No.7371130 >>7371120 Maybe that's why Tyson has actually contributed little of note to science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:55:15 2015 No.7371144 >>7371121 >conflating the principles of philosophy and the corpus of serious philosophical work with the flimsy aspirations of delusional college kids declaring a major called "Philosophy"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 16:59:16 2015 No.7371150 >>7371144 I think you are making too big assumptions here considering you can't know that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:00:19 2015 No.7371154 >>7371120 >finally tyson says something we agree with

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:18:38 2015 No.7371175

>>7371120
philosophy is fucking stupid.
>i think, therefore i am
How the fuck has this contributed to anything?
>but muh self awareness
you really needed descartes needed to tell you you're self aware cause you think about shit? REALLY? WHY ISNT A ROCK SELF AWARE? IT DOESNT HAVE A BRAIN
/rant

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:32:49 2015 No.7371196 Please post this on /lit/, OP. I could use some lulz.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:35:21 2015 No.7371201 >>7371175 pleb detected >>7371120 Perhaps what Tyson was talking about was dumbasses saying "you can't know nuthin "

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:37:24 2015 No.7371206 >>7371201 explain to me what "i think, therefore i am" has done for society?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:38:54 2015 No.7371208 >>7371201 Perhaps he was or perhaps he wasn't We can't know that In fact we can't know if he is

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:45:12 2015 No.7371216 >>7371206 Explain what you have done for society besides being a massive faggot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:48:34 2015 No.7371223 >>7371120 Using philosophy doesn't mean you need to read 3000 years worth of mental jerkoff to use it properly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 17:50:37 2015 No.7371226 >>7371206 harakiri now pleb

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 18:33:15 2015 No.7371283 >>7371208 >Saying we can't know if he is >Hasn't even defined what it is to be lmaoing at you're life

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 19:16:57 2015 No.7371355

>>7371120
>It's funny how small minds (with virtually no publications) like Tyson speak out so arrogantly against philosophy, while still extensively using it, perhaps even more than many scientists.

I'm pretty sure he apologized for it, then elaborated by saying something like "all questioning is good, but there's a time and a place for everything," so in essence he's just telling the world to not shitpost.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 19:20:48 2015 No.7371361 >>7371120 >intuition NO NO DEDUCTIVE LOGIC IS NOT EQUIVALENT WITH INTUITION

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 19:23:49 2015 No.7371366 >>7371361 He was talking about philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:23:38 2015 No.7371523 >>7371366 SO AM I PHILOSOPHY IS NOT BASED ON FUCKING INTUITION

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:25:50 2015 No.7371527 File: 85 KB, 1420x642, 1434924442540.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Do I have to post it again?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:27:29 2015 No.7371529 >>7371527 Are you aware that the scientific method is actually a philosophical system that utilizes inductive reasoning and makes questionable assumptions about the nature of certain knowledge?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:27:45 2015 No.7371530 >>7371523 It's not based on deductive logic either. It's based on inductive logic, just like every other field that has brought anything of value to the human race, excluding mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:27:59 2015 No.7371531 >>7371361 >>7371523 Seconded. Proper philosophy is based on logic, not "intuition" and "muh feels"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:29:43 2015 No.7371535 >>7371529 The 'scientific method' does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:30:00 2015 No.7371536 >>7371529 I don't really have to care so long as they make good fries

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:31:42 2015 No.7371540 >>7371530 You are goddamn retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:32:19 2015 No.7371543 >>7371540 Rude. Name one useful thing that has come out of deductive logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:37:17 2015 No.7371557 File: 12 KB, 251x242, cryin pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7371120 8/8, r u ir8 m8?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:40:16 2015 No.7371565 >>7371540 >I cant win the argument so i call him a retawd summerfag

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:42:36 2015 No.7371572 >>7371543 Mathematics. >>7371565 There is no argument, newfag. Philosophy contains within it inductive systems, but the justification for their use is derived entirely from deductive reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:44:33 2015 No.7371575 >>7371572 see >>7371530, I already made an exception for mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:45:21 2015 No.7371581 lol look I found the newfag>>7371572

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:46:09 2015 No.7371583 >>7371572 >the justification for their use is derived entirely from deductive reasoning. [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:48:09 2015 No.7371590 >>7371575 I reject your exception on the grounds that you are a retard. >inb4 lol ad hominem

Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:51:53 2015 No.7371600

>>7371583

>I am philosophically illiterate

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

You have to institute a logical override to get over the problems of validity inherent in inductive reasoning. These problems of validity and their solutions are discovered via process of deduction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 3 20:58:19 2015 No.7371614 >>7371600 I'm philosophically literate my friend. I'm well aware of the problem of induction, the reason why it's a problem is because there is no deductive logical justification for the use of induction.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 04:04:50 2015 No.7372252

>>7371206
>explain to me what "i think, therefore i am" has done for society?

It's an application of deductive reasoning. You could as well ask what mathematical proofs have done to the society. Contemporary philosophy relies more and more on the axiomatic method - the same way mathematics does.

The truths derived are analytic, not synthetic. They don't add any knowledge. However, they demonstrate things which we couldn't otherwise grasp.

You could as well dismiss every single theorem of mathematics as useless.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 04:08:14 2015 No.7372253

>>7371531
And what do you base logic on? What do you base the axioms and primary definitions of a deductive system on?

With the failures of Russel, Hilbert, etc., I think it would be rational to assume that the view that intuition is crucial to deduction has won.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 04:44:12 2015 No.7372275 Intuition =/= feelings

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:04:30 2015 No.7372289

>>7372275
I can't say I'd agree. Mind explaining where you're drawing your delineation?

Bear in mind, I'm someone who's apt to reject the idea that "feelings", or intuition, are not valid in one's reasoning process. It also seems like what you're calling feelings is what I separate out as just "emotion".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 05:05:50 2015 No.7372290 >>7372289 (I'm also not the person you're responding to.)

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 06:22:36 2015 No.7372354

>>7371120
Philosophers throw around "Science depends on Philosophy" a lot, however it's slightly paradoxical you also say to those people. "You know nothing about Philosophy". How then, does it depend on Philosophy if you can do Science without knowing the first thing of it? A true example of a field "depending" on another is Physics depends on Math, you can't do Physics without knowing or admitting you're also doing Math. Compared to this, how could you argue anything depends on Philosophy at all? I personally, find it simply to be it's dying grasp trying to clutch to aspects of other fields permitting Philosophers to argue their relevance, despite contributing absolutely nothing to human knowledge since about 500 years ago. All Philosophy does is try to apply greater meaning to simple concepts, which upon further inspections are actually quite hollow. Believing "truth" and "logic" have these profound qualities, and then seeking to discover them, is what a Philosopher would call "Begging the question". This is the result of giving precedence to human experience, rather than inverting that view, and viewing us as nothing more than an arrangement of matter responding to other arrangements of matter. All of a sudden, 'truth and logic' bear little importance. The reality we can be most confident in is the former as it's been experimentally demonstrated time and time again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 06:36:57 2015 No.7372373 >>7372354 #RAILGUNDISCHARGED

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 06:59:56 2015 No.7372388 >>7372354 I said former, I meant latter*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:23:44 2015 No.7372404 >>7372354 To draw a line, a pure philosopher is analogous to a pure mathematician, both are done for the sakes of the field. The only catch is that pure math can become useful at a point. While philosophy is useless without a subject to grasp.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:30:38 2015 No.7372412 Lol who cares about philosophy, the measure of knowledge is how much money can be made from it - you mcdonalds fags mad that you got all that useless knowledge?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:31:45 2015 No.7372414 >>7372412 Enjoy your suppressed sense of emptiness and growing misery.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:33:51 2015 No.7372421 >>7372414 Least I'll be earning money fag, seriously why learn something if you can't get money from it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:34:58 2015 No.7372422 OP I'm a /lit/fag before I'm a /sci/fag and I kind of agree. But you have to admit that being in the philosophy department is a license to dabble in bullshit these days.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:36:49 2015 No.7372428

>>7372421
Why eat if you can't get money from it?
Why keep houseplants if you can't get money from it?
Why sleep if you don't truly have to and it'll cut into yu time making money?
Why have sex if you can't get any money out of it (usually)?

Etc. Your perception of value is highly skewed, and probably contradicts itself the more you reason it out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:50:37 2015 No.7372444 >>7372414 >>7372428 You are literally discussing a b8 or a 12 year old. God are all philosotards this pretencious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:53:22 2015 No.7372447 >>7372444 he's probably just working at mcdonalds due to his shitty non-moneymaking degree

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:54:23 2015 No.7372448 >>7372444 No. But I am sometimes extremely self centered. My interactions with this anon are probably more a proxy to achieve something else within myself. I feel lost and am having memory problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 07:59:20 2015 No.7372457 >>7371529 The scientific method is already in place, what use is a philosophist to me now, eh?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:00:53 2015 No.7372462 >>7372448 If shadow's and donte's baby was a mass murderer who once raped the wife of the guy he just murder and then had rape twins but one of them kills the other one in the womb, that twin could retale the story of your edges.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:02:25 2015 No.7372464 Almost all philosophy is based on whims, revelations, anything but reason. Basing science on contradiction of a mind is pretty fucking stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:05:55 2015 No.7372467 >>7372464 >what is logic

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:10:44 2015 No.7372475

>>7372464
>I use logic and reason everyday, but philosophy is invalid.
>Disregards natural philosophy.
You need to actually learn about something before making such broad statements. I've talked about this issue a lot, science, especially among younger people, has this strange stigma against philosophy. Philosophy is not some old world relic we've outgrown, even a position that it is, is essential, philosophical in nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:34:58 2015 No.7372493 >>7372467 >>7372475 I don't need to study philosophy to do math or science though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:38:00 2015 No.7372498 >>7372493 Nor do I need to be able to build a car to drive one. What's that got to do with your original point?

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:39:59 2015 No.7372500

>>7372493
Because you're doing philosophy on your own, all the time.

I was thinking about ontology and epistemology long before I knew these things had words. At first I rejected the terms fearing they would cripple my own endeavors, but unfortunately they slipped in being convenient for communication.

Studying philosophy, whether passively or formally, allows you to better learn from the thoughts of others and expand the way you yourself can think about all else. The questions you can ask, the lenses you can view through. It is no less an affordance than the results of an experiment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:40:32 2015 No.7372501 >>7372498 You said it is essential, I'm saying it is not, you are agreeing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:41:57 2015 No.7372505 >>7372501 I think you've got me confused with the other guy; I was just saying a whole branch of philosophy is based upon reasoning.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:44:20 2015 No.7372510

>>7372500
Learning to think critically is gained by so many activities, hobbies or projects. But studying philosophy as pure philosophy isn't one I'm afraid to tell you.

Studying physics or math per se doesn't make me a human calculator, nor it glows on my creativity, that shit is something you need to get on your own,

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:45:32 2015 No.7372513 >>7372505 Well now that you say that, soso. Basically continental philosophy which is something lit likes to jerk off about isn't that clear on that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:46:09 2015 No.7372514 >>7372510 >But studying philosophy as pure philosophy isn't one I'm afraid to tell you. Keeping something pure and in its own vacuum requires deliberate effort. Studying philosophy naturally interweaves with everything.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 08:55:55 2015 No.7372522

>>7371120
>implying you need to study philosophy to be an effective scientist or follow any of the main versions of the scientific method or experimental design

Philosophers so desperately want to be relevant again that they have to constantly attention whore and say "what about us?".

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:04:42 2015 No.7372534

>>7372514
To clarify, I mean that the skills you aquire by studying philosophy aren't unique or exponetiated because of the subject. Most of academia needs critical thinking, reasoning, communication etc. And that even scientists can grow to have this skills as sharp as any "master" of these.

I mean the few courses I took on philosophy was really closed because I didn't accept some of the notions. I mean we took on a medical ethics course and the proffesor told us that if it was ethical to get an organ from a black market to save your child or some shit like that. And that the organ came from "farmed" kids. I found it obvious to jump at it was unethical but I thought the proffesor was going to have some edgy shit about how it is right or IDK, but he only refered to kant and everyone like sheep agreed. I was shocked as this was the justification so I tried to do some actual philosophy, I asked, but to what point can we blame the parents for protecting their child? I mean evolutionary it is hardwired as fuck, so why we should just look down on a desperate situation? I said that a black and white world sounded terible because moraly ambiguous questions exist.

After that I was just looked as my mind was tainted by science even if what I said was a known fact. I'm not delegating any sort of ethics theory or watnot, I was just pondering about a bit. I mean I read the texts and everything and I couldn't help to get my scientific mind out of it simply because the world makes sense to me in that form and it has done to many people over many years and I don't think it is a closed perspective, just another fucking perspective.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 09:15:49 2015 No.7372545

>>7372534
What happened was you ran into fools. Whether you are in some field of science, philosophy, mathematics, it doesn't matter. What you observed is a human tendency, and likely, you've been observing it as an outsider most of your life. It's not unique to philosophy.

Either way. I won't convince you to investigate something you don't care, but I would advise going back and evaluating things on your own terms. You will alway have your own ideas and ways of viewing things, some of this, thematically, won't change much over your life in any real sense, some of it will. Contrary to science, when it comes to understanding the world, oneself, and your own existence, truth can only come from within. Which is why I never pursued any formal education in philosophy myself, and can't see myself doing so. I've been thinking about it my whole life, and I just don't need it like that.

As far as the organ idea, and how it relates to ethics, I don't see a problem either. It depends on a lot of context, but the organ has already been farmed. Unfortunately you could call it bystander mentality, but if not you, it will be someone else. The farming probably isn't heavily controlled and happens sporadically, not being driven by supply and demand much. This is a problem better solved in a primary sense, and there's too much to be said about what it is to engage in the whole thing either way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:33:49 2015 No.7372634 Husserl already disproved science go back to ur LAN parties fucking nerds

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 10:37:22 2015 No.7372637

>>7372252

Theoretical mathematics are pretty useless when you can create equations based on things you find. Shit, think about all the math purely based around material removal. The books I have seen on milling are dense and hard to read at times, and are akin to reading pure math books.

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:17:22 2015 No.7373141

>>7371175

yea but that's like saying that addition is impressive compared to the continuum hypothesis; philosophy is beautiful. I majored in mathematics and philosophy in college (yfw no jobs, dank memes, etc.)

Study the philosophy of mathematics and the logicians (based around the philosophy of language done by Russell and Wittgenstein) and science, like Camus.

Read about the problem of universals by Plato and understand nominalism as scientific materialism and be caught up with today's science and philosophy.

Science and philosophy are the same subject, if u pursue both to a high enough degree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:18:25 2015 No.7373144 >>7371120 Ayy my Nominalist nigga

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:19:57 2015 No.7373147 >>7371530 Mrw when these plebs don't even know inductive logic

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:26:18 2015 No.7373155

>>7372354

Then what is math? Why does it work? Is there a universal set of equations that exist in itself (Google Problem of Universals)?

What are the limits of nominalism and materialism if u reject the platonic approach?

How do u group mathematics if set theory has failed because of the axiom of choice?

You gotta realize the philosophy of mathematics (including metamath and nonmetamath) is really freakin important and connected all of the rest of science and philosophy

>>	PRF Sat Jul 4 16:26:52 2015 No.7373157 >>7371575 What? You need more examples than just mathematics?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:29:00 2015 No.7373164 >>7372545 Honestly this just shows the increase of anti-intellectualism across America and the world

PRF Sat Jul 4 16:34:19 2015 No.7373170

>>7373155
>Then what is math? Why does it work? Is there a universal set of equations that exist in itself (Google Problem of Universals)?
>What are the limits of nominalism and materialism if u reject the platonic approach?
>How do u group mathematics if set theory has failed because of the axiom of choice?
The fact that we do not know this proves that philosophy of mathematics is not "freakin important".
We can do science and mathematics perfectly fine without knowing any of this philosophical crap

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:34:30 2015 No.7373171 >>7373164 You mean my post, or the attitude the other poster was talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:35:20 2015 No.7373172 >>7373170 didn't mean to use that name

Anonymous Sat Jul 4 16:42:09 2015 No.7373179

>>7373170

thanks for wiping out most of higher level mathematics. a real mathematician or scientist would never complain about philosophy.

i suspect tyson was only referring to the kind of people that were really susceptible to bullshit like the skoal affair and stupid shit like that

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 4 18:03:52 2015 No.7373309 >>7373170 >We can do science and mathematics perfectly fine without knowing any of this philosophical crap The very notion of natural numbers and their symbolic representation would not exist without philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 02:45:29 2015 No.7373924 >>7373179 >a real mathematician or scientist no true scotsman

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 05:46:33 2015 No.7374031 >>7371527 Elitist as fuck >Implying the field defines purity and not the methods used

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 05:47:50 2015 No.7374033 >>7371535 Yes it does

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 05:48:52 2015 No.7374035 File: 275 KB, 998x1000, 1430082118983.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7371536 >nice meme Could maybe try not being a massive faggot?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 05:50:53 2015 No.7374038 >>7371614 Just a quick question for you as a philosopher, is it really necessary to shake the fries half-way through or can you just leave them in the oil? What is the difference?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 06:52:21 2015 No.7374064 >>7374038 >fields of knowledge are measured by the money earnt from them Wageslave get ye gone

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:20:34 2015 No.7374108 >>7374064 Fuck you pig, because 99.5% of humanity are work for wage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:23:51 2015 No.7374110 >>7374108 So?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 08:58:54 2015 No.7374135 File: 711 KB, 1013x1224, 1432028622567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7374110 Gnob.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 09:18:33 2015 No.7374148 > sci vs phil thread Every. God. Damn. Week.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 09:47:28 2015 No.7374167 >>7371120 >It's funny how small minds (with virtually no publications) like Tyson speak out so arrogantly against philosophy Huh? When did he do that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 10:03:32 2015 No.7374175 >>7374167 He said philosophy abd theology are based on mysticism and imagination rather than objective thought and logic like science

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 13:06:26 2015 No.7374369 File: 859 KB, 2314x6548, to predict and to know.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7373170 >We can do science and mathematics perfectly fine without knowing any of this philosophical crap undergrad detected

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 13:14:34 2015 No.7374377

>>7371130

I hate how pop scientists who contribute absolutely nothing to humanity are... well popular. They are using science to get popular and rich instead of trying to use science to find out the truths of the universe. I just hate people like that Nigger so fucking much. Literally Big Bang Theory if BBT was a person

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 13:18:15 2015 No.7374383 >>7374369 Whyd I need to know all that to get a job from my maths degree lol

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 15:56:40 2015 No.7374585

>>7373924
>>7373309

The very notion of set theory relies on symbolic logic and philosophy, as does category theory, group theory most of advanced algebra, and topology has a huge relationship to them as well.

See ZFC theory, axiom of choice, etc.

pls Anon stop wit ur uneducated faggotry

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:06:17 2015 No.7374593

>>7374383

Cuz I majored in a math/Phil dual degree and now I'm in grad school and everything that u study has immense philosophical implications.

U guys are the type of scientist Kuhn would describe ad being content to do "normal science" without understand paradigms and metaphysics, at least consciously.

The great scientists of the past were philosophers: philosophy and physics were at first organically interconnected, particularly in the work of Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz Lomonosov, Mendeleyev and Einstein are just some. John Nash was pretty committed to symbolic logic in his later years in addition to his work in a lot of other areas of mathematics.

Thinking more about physics, Bohm was a philosopher off the top of my head, hell, pretty much all of physicists on ontology of QM as well as GR.

tl;dr science is actually the offspring of philosophy in many ways

Anonymous Sun Jul 5 16:26:10 2015 No.7374613

>>7374585
>The very notion of set theory relies on philosophy

No it doesn't. Set theory was formulated to give mathematicians a basic theory to express their proofs in, and nothing more. Every time someone points to something like the axiom of choice as some area where you need philosophy, they ignore the fact that mathematicians just treat ZF and ZFC as two different set theories and don't comment on the correctness of either, just their power in proving theorems.

The philosopher has to demonstrate that you can meaningfully argue between ZF and ZFC, about something other than what theorems one proves versus the other. But that debate has gone nowhere, and mathematicians aren't at fault if they don't take an interest.

>pls Anon stop wit ur uneducated faggotry

Not him, but why is it that it's always the philosophy posters that include include insults in their posts?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 5 17:01:14 2015 No.7374654 >>7374613 My point is more fundamental in terms of the historical origin of set theory, as a response to Hilbert's program, which had strong philosophical influences. The last post was kinda vague sorry

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]