Fields by Purity

[Anonymous No.8580018]

What is the purest field?

Mathematics? What about Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.8580019]

Psychology

[Anonymous No.8580021]

philosophy (hard to say, very broad and varied, only builds on itself)

mathematics

physics

In that order, IIRC mathematics had to be invented to do certain physics re: quantam mechanics, but ignoring that math is based on math and philosophy is based on philosophy

everything else munroe was right-enough about

[Anonymous No.8580043]

I don't see how you can claim one science is purer than another. I'm not being a smart ass, you're welcome to try to explain it. The way I see it, all science rests on empirical evidence which is inherently impure. You cannot use science to prove anything. We know this thanks to philosophy. So maybe philosophy is purer.

Of course math is pure. In fact, one could claim that any conjecture without proof does not fit into the category of math at all.

[Anonymous No.8580044]

>>8580018
Mathematics is a branch of logic which is a branch of philosophy

Whether that makes philosophy more "pure" is arguable

[Anonymous No.8580047]

>>8580018
Philosophy is the purest of the humanities and mathematics is the purest of the sciences

[Anonymous No.8580051]

>>8580047
But philosophy is a necessary foundation for the sciences.

[Anonymous No.8580053]

>>8580051
Was

[Anonymous No.8580056]

>>8580051
That's debatable. Physics is the foundation of the sciences, which is in the world of appearances as philosophy would have it. Kant left room for science in his critique as I recall. Philosophy deals with the noumenal and the the world of appearances, but I don't know. I kind of see science as a separate field now.

[Anonymous No.8580057]

>>8580053
I think I know what you are saying and I think I agree, but could you clarify?

[Anonymous No.8580059]

>>8580056
You're right that it's debatable lol. I have a lot of students who think that scientists prove how the world works and that everything we know is tight and perfect. This also leads to them believing everything they read as pure truth (which is nice for me, but makes them sheep who can't think for themselves). It's worth it to explain some philosophy and draw them away from this line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.8580060]

>>8580019
Good one mate

[Anonymous No.8580063]

>>8580057
Just that philosophy had already made all the contributions it's ever going to

[Anonymous No.8580071]

>>8580059
Yeah best place to start would be with Descartes 'meditations and his methodological doubt. Philosophy does have an insane standard for truth though.
>Let's doubt everything that ever deluded me once

[Anonymous No.8580386]

>>8580051
Quine thought philosophy was continuous with science.

[Anonymous No.8580395]

>>8580018
Mathematics > CompE = EE > Physics

everything else is considered unpure and pursued by monkeys that want money and not purity of mathematics

[Anonymous No.8580430]

>>8580057
I'll expound for him


Logic is what brought us to an understanding that there are laws governing forces, which can be described by math. Logic was originally a philosophy in that it searched for truth, building on axioms and conclusions.

Philosophy that includes ethics, ontology, metaphysics, etc is not describing those laws.


One could make the case that logic is as pure as you get.

[Anonymous No.8580501]

>>8580430

The root of Logic is in fact: Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8580512]

Cognitive Science.

Whilst the physicists and mathematicians, etc, explore the world and discover new things, it is us -- concerned with how the brain functions -- who explore and discover how they are even able to do such things.

Since ours is a field of introspective science, we are therefore the most fundamental and also the purest scientific field with the most profound and promising impact on the human condition and progress.

[Anonymous No.8580523]

>>8580018
>the purest field?
Interdisciplinary approaches are much harder than hiding yourself in your ivory tower

[Anonymous No.8580527]

>>8580018
I mean considering physics is confined math, chemistry is confined physics, biology is confined chemistry etc. I will say maths

Philosophy imo is again, confined maths (ie logic) connected with all areas of knowledge

[Anonymous No.8580900]

>>8580018

First you have to believe in numbers before you can have math.

Philosophy majors are the purest acedemics.

[Anonymous No.8580932]

>>8580395
>money and not purity of mathematics
>money and not purity
>i like math cuz "muh purity" and it's definitly not for the 300k starting XDXDXD
Lmao, this is what /sci/lets believe in
kek'd

[Anonymous No.8581401]

Theism is the purist science because god is the purest thing in existence

[Anonymous No.8581408]

>>8580018
>Fixed

[Anonymous No.8581488]

>>8581408

Engineering is also applied physics

[Anonymous No.8581708]

>>8580044
>Mathematics is a branch of logic which is a branch of philosophy
ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.8581739]

>>8581408

Engineering is the least pure field, it's entirely about the application.

[Anonymous No.8581756]

>>8581488
>>8581408
engineering is in the y direction of this plot

[Anonymous No.8581792]

>>8580018

[Anonymous No.8581886]

>>8580021
math was based on it self for a long time. Basing math on formal logic was a more or less recent development wich propelled the field to even more greatness.

[Anonymous No.8581890]

>>8581792

Which automatically makes linguists purer to the right of theologans

[Anonymous No.8581897]

>>8581408
>>8581792
engineering and computer science (not talking about muh ruby on rails, more automata theory, computer language theory, formal verification, that kind of stuff) should be switched.

that, however, says nothing about which of these is the hardest. i think in terms of how hard it is it goes

physics
mathematics
computer science & engineering
rest

even though i know physicists and mathematicians who are shit compuer scientists or engineers because they don't value the craft these disciplines bring, but that's a different discussion altogether.

[Anonymous No.8581899]

>>8581890
>>8581890
Mathematics is the ultimate language you tard. Nothing is more fundamental than it

[Anonymous No.8581900]

>>8580018

[Anonymous No.8581904]

>>8581899

Then prove that mathematics is the ultimate language with mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8581905]

>>8580018
Define purity

How is circlejerking around a math conjecture (((p u r e)))?

[Anonymous No.8581908]

>>8580018
Define 'purity'.

[Anonymous No.8581909]

>>8580018
Philosophy tries to reason about reality. Math works regardless of reality.

[Anonymous No.8581942]

>>8581899
>he doesn't know about Gödel

[Anonymous No.8582005]

>>8581909
Well yeah music works regardless of reality, does that make it pure as well?

[Anonymous No.8582197]

>>8580527
what

[Anonymous No.8582244]

>>8582005
>music works regardless of reality

does it?

[Anonymous No.8582253]

>>8581909
Philosophy also works regardless of reality. Whichever reality exists has its own internal logic which can be philosophized about, so philosophy, regardless of what rules any given reality has, works for that reality.

[Anonymous No.8582275]

>>8581909
You are x to the nth power retarded friendo

[Anonymous No.8582387]

>>8582244

Music is only applied Mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8582397]

>>8580018
purity is not well defined.

If you mean a field that relies only on itself then math.

[Anonymous No.8582415]

>>8582387
i wonder how far the study of music in non-air fluids has got

[Anonymous No.8582445]

>>8580018
I would argue that the purest "field" is art.

Math is the base of all numerical communication.
Art is the base of all other communication.
Art came before language, all other languages that exist today are sub-divisions of a previous language. Just about every word has an origin in another language. All words originated from art and gestures, before language existed.

[Anonymous No.8582458]

>>8580018
why do you idiots equate purity with godliness? you're not smarter or more useful because your field of study is more pure than something else. it makes no sense. a physicist can't do a biologists or psychologists job as well as them. you can fiddle with the field next to yours, but you won't touch the person that actually studied it. the logic is fleeting.

[Anonymous No.8582463]

>>8582458
This.
Such a large quantity of this.

[Anonymous No.8582471]

>>8582458
If anything, the more diverse your knowledge is, the more "unpure" you would be, however, you would also be a lot more useful.

[Anonymous No.8582475]

>>8580018
"Pure" is an ill-defined term. Depending on your definition, any one of several fields could be considered the most "pure".
If you mean logical purity, then math is the one. If you mean axiomatic purity, then philosophy is the one. If you mean truth as purity, the physics is the one. If you mean purity as the source of understanding and deduction , then i suppose neuroscience or neuroinformatics.

[Anonymous No.8582481]

>>8582458
I'd like to have a greater and broader understanding of myself and the universe. This means I should study physics and math, and possibly neuroscience. It means I have greater insights into the workings of the universe than someone who doesn't study it. It means I have a more enlightened look on things. Who honestly gives a shit if I can't help some pedo or junkie get over their problems?

[Anonymous No.8582482]

>>8582445
Math is the purest form of art.

[Anonymous No.8582485]

>>8581708

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from. However (most) of mathmatics can be reduced to logic. As a pragmatist, its fair to say Math=>Logic=>Philosophy.

You could also say the same about Physics not being reduable to mathmatics. Or chem not being reducable to physics.

Cant prove the consistency of 2nd order system with a 1st order system, from entirely within that 1st order system. I think I got that mostly correct, I havent studied phil in years.

[Anonymous No.8582488]

>>8582481
why do you think studying physics, math and neuroscience would give you "a greater and broader understanding of myself and the universe"

you probably can't explain this because you only want to do it because you think it sounds cool and smart.

[Anonymous No.8582498]

>>8582488
Physics is literally the study of the universe. Math is essential to physics and to understand myself, I'd need to study th ehuman brain: neuroscience.
It sounds smart because it is.

[Anonymous No.8582505]

>>8582498
it sounds like you're trying to seem smart to other people because your reasoning is weird. Learning about quarks is really what you want? That's doubtful. you just want to seem godly, but you'll die and rot in a ditch like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.8582547]

>>8582505

>Thread turning depressive

[Anonymous No.8582561]

>>8580018
"Philosophy" is basically "Opinion". Especially old timey philosophy which mixes in religion and such nonsense.

Math is the purest, but math is to science what masturbation is to sex. Without application it is pointless.

[Anonymous No.8582562]

>>8582505
That's what I get for trying to explain it to normies. I should have learned by now. It's called being curious, and wanting to know. It's not about seeming smart. My reasoning is anything but weird. I absolutely love studying physics, it holds more truth than anything else the human race has ever conceived. It's hard to believe we've gotten far enough to stumble upon it. But as usual, there are droves of people who fail to understand what it really is, and hence put shitty things like psychology and sociology on the same level as it. The only thing that comes close is mathematics.
It's just happenstance that more ignorant people view scientists as "godly", because they never got off their asses and learned it for themselves. I too have a good deal of distain for people who hold up scientists in such a light.

[Anonymous No.8582564]

>>8582547
i'm just trying to see why someone would even say something like

>I'd like to have a greater and broader understanding of myself and the universe. This means I should study physics and math, and possibly neuroscience. It means I have greater insights into the workings of the universe than someone who doesn't study it. It means I have a more enlightened look on things. Who honestly gives a shit if I can't help some pedo or junkie get over their problems?

you think you're going to be enlightened because you know what a meson is or you know what the lingual gyrus is? it's just a weird idea. do you think physicists are enlightened, or that you're going to unlock some secrets of the universe or some shit because you studied physics? life isn't so dramatic. you'll probably work as a professor and try to get funding for some research and die wishing you did something more impactful instead of trying to have this image of being really smart your entire life.

people who say things like this come off as insecure. you don't just want to study the universe. that's so vague and uneducated and makes me think the person who said it is some 18 year old idiot that isn't even in college and reads memes on /sci/ all day.

[Anonymous No.8582567]

>>8582561
>"Philosophy" is basically "Opinion".

Continental philosophy detected.

[Anonymous No.8582568]

>>8582562
are you having fun playing pretend genius on 4chan today

[Anonymous No.8582573]

>>8582568
>pretend genius
Nah, I'm far from it. But when you make shitty sarcastic comments, it's easy to downplay anything. Pretty sure you know what I said is true.

[Anonymous No.8582578]

no offense but, all stupid people should be gassed

i am just saying facts

[Anonymous No.8582581]

>>8582564
I'm not that guy, but the whole reason physics and the other sciences exist is because someone looked at the universe and asked "Why?".

Wanting to "study the universe" is a valid reason to go into physics. Just because we now know enough to look at the minutiae of the cosmos doesn't mean we can't be enlightened

I'd say "enlightened" is vague. There are no truths in the universe except when it comes to the laws of nature. As such, physics and other "hard sciences" are the only fields that can lead to something called enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.8582584]

>>8582573
what you're saying is a lot of garble and you're assuming that everyone is applauding your opinion and that i'm some outlier when in reality it's just you pretending to be above people because they don't agree with your dumb general statements.

[Anonymous No.8582592]

>>8582584
>they don't agree with your dumb general statements.
which is a dumb general statement.
Do you study anything science or math related?

[Anonymous No.8582593]

All I know is that the most intelligent people alive or who have ever lived were either physicists or philosophers.

[Anonymous No.8582598]

>>8582581
what the other person says is elitist crap. they want to do it because it makes them seem smart, not because they actually give a shit.

who in history would you even say is enlightened and why?

[Anonymous No.8582621]

>>8582598
As I said, "enlightened" is pretty vague. I just know how good it feels when I manage to grasp some fundamental law of nature. I imagine anyone who has a general whole-picture-grasp of natural laws and can push the edge of our knowledge just a bit further can be called enlightened

[Anonymous No.8584299]

>>8580018
Bump

[Anonymous No.8584596]

>>8580043
Chemistry is less pure than physics since you can explain everything from chemistry with physics. You cant explain everything from physics with chemistry making physics more pure. Chemistry is like OOP. It simplifies shit a lot and give you a clean interface to work with. If you were to do chem stuff only with physics you would need to individually calculate the forces, compare them and so on.

[Anonymous No.8584614]

>>8582253
Agreed.
>>OP
Math is based on logic. Logic can be explained through philosophy. Philosophy is pretty pure when you don't spend the entire lesson talking about which philosophers were presocratic and why it is better to be a dissatissfied Socrates than a satisfied pig.

[kek No.8584619]

>>8582397
Math relies on logic