[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.93 MB, 1716x1710, 1464053908559.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8260152 No.8260152[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Discuss.

>> No.8260155

>>8260152
/sci/ is getting really efficient at making these threads.

>> No.8260168

>>8260155
Does that bother you, brother?

>> No.8260192

>>8260152
All those fags on the right annoy the shit out of me.

>> No.8260204

>>8260192
Do you read and care about philosophy? If you dont you are probably in some way like them.

>> No.8260208

>>8260204
Not the anon you're responding to, but I have some curiosity but really don't know much. I just have this feeling that it's important and that I should pay attention to it if I want to be a more skilled seeker of the truth.

I don't know how to go on about doing it, though.

>> No.8260211

>>8260208
start with the greeks

>> No.8260217

>>8260152

No one searches for the truth anymore.

It's not about the truth.

It's about how much money you can make.

>> No.8260222

Philosophy is a decoy for retarded people who want to seem smart. It's an erratic and histrionic field that other pseudo intellectuals love to laud while they titter and make obstreperous remarks.

>> No.8260224

>>8260222
Your post sounds pretty obstreperous to me.

>> No.8260231
File: 83 KB, 500x579, 1470259337547.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8260231

>>8260217
see pic
>>8260222
nice philosophical statement :^)

>> No.8260237

>>8260231
I don't understand your pic.

>> No.8260245

>>8260152

The only incompatible statement is Nye's.

The Dawkins quotes are unrelated and have therefore been placed in a false context.

Krauss doesn't quite understand philosophy and science, as he seemingly unknowingly moves between the two when discussing theism; however his statement isn't wholly inaccurate, it's just poorly framed.

>> No.8260274

>>8260152
Well, first, let's acknowledge the general similarities and differences.

First, the left consists of old people. Science moved on after they died, and while they are smart and impactful men, they don't represent the current state of science.

That said, neither does the left. Dawkins is a biologist, Nye is a geologist who spends 100% of his time teaching or speaking, I'm not sure if Tyson has done any real research in a while, because he's basically just a spokesperson at this point. Krauss I hadnt heard of before. He seems like he is an actual scientist, on par with the ones on the left.

I consider all these statements true, personally, save Krauss'. Philosophy is important because it can give you insight into logical thinking and how the universe works, and thus can further your understanding of science. That said, it can not be used to replace science. Physics tells us how the universe works, philosophy attempts to tell us why, but it is only an attempt and can rarely be proven empirically. Everyone on the left was a scientist first and foremost, they understood this. Science generates progress, philosophy can't.

Is philosophy useful? Is it interesting? Is it important? Yes.
Is philosophy necessary for rational thought? Can it ever be more reliable than empirical observation? Can it be used as a substitution for the scientific method? No.

>> No.8260416
File: 52 KB, 850x400, 1470447721818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8260416

>> No.8260424
File: 55 KB, 625x626, bait even trying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8260424

>>8260152

jesus fuck this is the 7th fucking time this thread has been posted on /sci/ in the last week. Fucking stop already

>> No.8260428

>>8260416
This claim is wrong.

The thing with ornithology and birds is that ornithology is studied by superior beings that could never be understood by a mere bird.

This is implying that philosophers are superior beings that would never be understood by a mere scientist.

The fixed quote would be:

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as astrology is to critical thinkers.

The implication there is clearly that philosophers are retarded and scientists are superior beings who are beyond all the made up bullshit other people come up with.

And you know, philosophers being retarded is pretty much a given fact. An axiom in the sense that it need not be discussed or debated, simply accepted without proof because it is evident.

>> No.8260431

>>8260192
Neil and Richard are ok.

>> No.8260434

>>8260211
Giordano Bruno:

>I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority. Let us begin anew, by doubting everything we assume has been proven.

>> No.8260437

>>8260152
Let me give you a hint, faggot.

You know why everyone on the left is black and white and everyone on the right is in color?

Because in modern society philosophy is already outdated while maybe back in the 1950s it was just in the process of dying so not even our brightest could predict it was so shit.

I mean, if you are born into a world where philosophers are seen as great thinkers then who are you to doubt that?

Nowadays philosophy has lost steam because the miracles of actual science are so apparent to everyone that nobody needs the philosoconmen anymore to tell them that everything will be alright.

>> No.8260441

>>8260222
Although your post is obstreperous while claiming that retarded people ( philosophers ) make obstreperous remarks - I have to share this opinion with you people:

Philosophytards > Religious tards and are better discussion partners.

>> No.8260442

>>8260245
>Krauss doesn't quite understand science

He's a scientist, what's your problem with his works - have you reduced them trough garbage by your mathematical understanding of the field?

>> No.8260447

>>8260274
>Is philosophy useful? Is it interesting? Is it important? Yes.
>Is philosophy necessary for rational thought? Can it ever be more reliable than empirical observation? Can it be used as a substitution for the scientific method? No.

This here should be used as a copy-paste response to most threads like this, it's accurate.

>> No.8260456

>>8260447
No because he is wrong.

The answer is that philosophy is for retards.

>> No.8260463 [DELETED] 

Join the new sci IRC channel

##sci on webchat.freenode.net

Need new folks!

Mostly math peeps now :D

>> No.8260473

FWIW, Bill Nye is nothing more than an entertainer. He has a BS in ME, but his only claim to fame is a TV show that many are nostalgic for.

>> No.8260499

>>8260211
fuck this guy, start with ancient Chinese philosophy

>> No.8261179

>>8260168
have we started the fire?

>> No.8261193

>>8260434
Knowing someone's opinion ≠ agreeing with it, fampai.

>> No.8261489

>>8260152
guys on the right side are simply ignorant about philosophy
they're making a "man asking autistic questions about nature of the world" strawman to confront it with their popsci opinions

>> No.8261497

>>8260152
You'd need to see some of these quotes in context to judge properly. Take Nyes' quote it looks like he's advocating for some form of naive realism, a fairly untenable position. However it could be that he's in fact defending the reality of our experience, ie. the would we perceive is "real" even if how we perceive the world isn't necessarily how it is.

>> No.8261557

>>8261489
>muh true philosophy that tells me that nothing is real

Please stop leeching money off uni departments. You guys give the neo leftists "intellectual" "ammunition"