/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9506038]

Doesn't this imply that those who use empirical data are dirty, and those who use pure logic are clean? Is that a flawed way to think about the world? Or are universals still the best way to find truth?

[Anonymous No.9506041]

>>9506038

[Anonymous No.9506061]

>>9506041
10/10, philofags and fedoras ass ravaged.

[Anonymous No.9506065]

>>9506041
I really really like this image

[Anonymous No.9506069]

>>9506038
All it says is different fields can be reduced to applied versions of other fields and that if you trace this concept all the way you end up with mathematics as the most abstract field that everything else could be reduced to.

[Anonymous No.9506076]

>>9506041
The philosopher line always crack me up

[Anonymous No.9506080]

To be honest this is the correct one but people's egos are too overpowering to accept it.

[Anonymous No.9506085]

Do you HAVE to be a Mathematician in order to a Physicists?

[Anonymous No.9506122]

>>9506069
What about metaphysics? Is that more abstract than mathematics?

[Anonymous No.9506199]

[Anonymous No.9506204]

>>9506199
>>9506080
>>9506041
Man, XKCD has really dropped in quality

[Anonymous No.9506274]

>>9506122
No. Metaphysics is mostly handled with ordinary written language which itself drops it way below all the hard sciences in terms of how abstract it is.

[Anonymous No.9506348]

>>9506274
But that isn't true- metaphysics (or at least true metaphysics) is in line with the first principles. Those are the theoretical foundation for all science, or at least some of the causes are. They are about as abstract as one can get. Linguistics, on the other hand, are less abstract than many of the hard sciences.

[Anonymous No.9506355]

>>9506348
>But that isn't true
Yes, it is true. Metaphysics is covered through written language. People write about it. Therefore it's downstream from a whole lot of other disciplines because mathematics, physics, and chemistry for example are more abstract than ordinary written language. They're so fundamental you don't even approach them the way we're approaching this conversation by talking about it, whereas metaphysics is approached in exactly that way through ordinary everyday language. You discuss topics which you claim as fundamental, but you only do so through very non-fundamental approaches, and it's what you're actually doing with the discipline that matters, not what you say you're doing.

[Anonymous No.9506366]

>>9506038
also, I feel dirty when i use some oversimplified models. But they work.

[Anonymous No.9506372]

>>9506085
Yes, given that physics is nothing more than applied math.

[Anonymous No.9506380]

>>9506355
All logical concepts are understood through language, or the universal structure of language. Metaphysics is discussed with language, but the principles that are discussed are not language itself. When one defines principles of Beginnings, Causes, Elements, Natures, Qualities, Potentiates, and Genus/Race, they are using words, but the concepts themselves are not specific to language. When discussing what something is by virtue of "being," it can only be discussed by using variables, numbers, and language. For example, the laws of non-contradiction and identity are both discussed in metaphysical (abstract) logic using mathematics and language. Metaphysics goes hand in hand with theory, and is part of unseen abstract and universal principles.

[Anonymous No.9506382]

>>9506372
But, aren't we, like, all applied math...

[Anonymous No.9506398]

>>9506380
>All logical concepts are understood through language
Not all languages are equally abstract. The language of mathematics is way more abstract than common spoken language.
>the concepts themselves are not specific to language
Then describe something like your concept of "being" without common spoken language like you would with mathematics. I don't think you can. Because it is in fact a higher level language game, not an actual lower level abstraction like numbers. It just pretends to be lower level.

[Anonymous No.9506402]

>>9506038
Well empirical data is dirty, using it means you're immediately studying a special case instead of a general case, and you can't necessarily separate your theory from the special case you're working with.

[Anonymous No.9506409]

Mathematics is the question mark, naked reality with all human baggage stripped away is mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9506419]

>>9506409
What retard made this chart

[Anonymous No.9506422]

>>9506398
I said that it uses both. Besides, extremely abstract mathematics eventually reach the point that they become meta mathematics. You said that metaphysics is below the hard sciences. You are right only about mathematics, as metaphysics at this point is really only abstract physics. Modern society has surpassed metaphysics and is in the process of understanding the most abstract mathematics. I understand that basic human language is different than pure mathematics, but I would like for you to give me a good argument that it cannot be as abstract as mathematics (not saying that I don't believe you, I just want some logic behind your claim.)

[Anonymous No.9506428]

>>9506402
>he hasn't read Hume

[Anonymous No.9506438]

>>9506419
>>9506422
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

[Anonymous No.9506439]

>>9506438
thx, I'll read that later

[Anonymous No.9506445]

>>9506409
>Computer science -> psychology

[Anonymous No.9506453]

>>9506445
Human cognition is a subset of computation.

[Anonymous No.9506482]

>>9506445
Cognitive Science is a total failure of a discipline and they're back porting ML memes like NN to model the brain.

>In the land of the blind, the one eye'd man is king.

[Anonymous No.9506609]

>>9506038
But mathematics is arguably philosophy about the quantitative.

>>9506199
top kek. its true.

>>9506398
but mathematics is often spoken of using a formal language. mathematics has no room for ambiguity even though ambiguity exists as part of our reality. Mathematics can't explain everything so you need something more abstract which is what natural languages are for.

[Anonymous No.9506619]

>purity
gay

[Anonymous No.9506659]

>>9506609
>Mathematics can't explain everything
Pic related.
Also:
>you need something more abstract which is what natural languages are for
Natural language isn't more abstract. Just to go with one low hanging fruit argument there's the fact mathematics doesn't change just because you're in a different country.

[Anonymous No.9506665]

>>9506609
>mathematics has no room for ambiguity
Mathematics can be used to model probabilities.

[Anonymous No.9506672]

>>9506085
You definitely will use calculus in any STEM MSc/PhD at Graduate School (except in Biology)

[Anonymous No.9506673]

>>9506659
Right, mathematics is a formal language but what about Godel's incompleteness theorems?

Mathematics can't describe everything. You need something more meta.

[Anonymous No.9506685]

>>9506673
Philosophers:
>Welcome to McDick's
>you can't know nuffin
>can i take your order?
>>9506041

[Anonymous No.9506692]

>>9506673
>what about Godel's incompleteness theorems?
That just says any sufficiently expressive and consistent axiomatic system will be unable to prove certain true statements. Mathematics isn't just one axiomatic system. System A can't prove "this statement can't be proven true in System A" true, but System B can prove that.

[Anonymous No.9506704]

>>9506692
Brainlet here, but would it be accurate to say that at this point philosophy asks the abstract questions, and mathematics answers them?

[Anonymous No.9506705]

>>9506038
The use of logic is less dirty than the use of empirical data because empirical data contains imperfections and is never really precise.

[Anonymous No.9506729]

>>9506705
>empirical data contains imperfections and is never really precise.
you can't know nuffin

[Anonymous No.9506734]

>>9506685
But do you know that we can't know nuffin?

[Anonymous No.9506766]

>>9506729
How about providing a real counter argument rather than an absurd strawman?

[Anonymous No.9506770]

>>9506705
Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

[Anonymous No.9506771]

>>9506770
so?

[Anonymous No.9506787]

>>9506771
Well, whenever I think of that quote I'm reminded me of how we can't just sit back and pretend to Logic through everything. Because, until you dirty your hands, you don't know if you have all the information. The best we can do is use what we have available, and be willing to correct our methods when we meet something that contradicts previous understanding.

[Anonymous No.9506811]

>>9506787
Of course. I'm not trying to say that empiricism should be disregarded and that logic should replace all of it. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages; logic is more useful in the context of the abstract than empiricism, while empiricism has more use in the field of natural science than it does in the field of mathematics, for example

[Anonymous No.9506850]

>>9506080
Philosophy of ethics, aesthetics and all that other bullshit is above psychology but below biology. One the other hand, Physics < Metaphysics < Theologian < Mathematician < Logician is the truly redpilled version

[Anonymous No.9506874]

>>9506850
Support your claim. Keep in mind that ethics is considered by many to be founded in object natural truth, not limited to humanity or living beings.

[Anonymous No.9506877]

>>9506811
Ah okay, I understand. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9506886]

>>9506038
No.
This image only refers to mathematics usage, and even in that, it's kind of false. The fields are mostly comprised of their own unique content, separate from others.

[Anonymous No.9506890]

>>9506038
Math is like the grammar of science.
You cant really bitch about vocabulary
But you can always bitch about syntax.
I.e mathematicians are the grammar nazis of science.

[Anonymous No.9506897]

>>9506409
Kind of scary that "sci fags" reduce psychology to computer science and biology.
Like the field justifys turning people into robots. Which i dont think is the case IMHO.

[Anonymous No.9506908]

>>9506453
But you dont need to be aware to compute.
If you have been following trends in psychology you would know that mindfulness is a huge trend now, which is all about awareness/consiousness.

[Anonymous No.9507703]

>>9506908
>But you dont need to be aware to compute.
That doesn't mean cognition isn't a subset of computation.
You're confusing "you don't need to be aware to compute" with "you don't need to compute to be aware."
The latter would mean cognition isn't a subset of computation if true (which it isn't). The former doesn't say anything relevant. You're making the basic mistake of thinking all rectangles are squares because all squares are rectangles. It doesn't work both ways. All awareness is computation, but not all computation is awareness.

[Anonymous No.9507782]

>>9507703
I guess it my assumption that theres some sort of "automatic" nature to computation.
I think there are moments in human awaress that isnt computation (though to be fair that even when you are mindful theres still automatic "computation" going on like heart beat, breathing and digestion and some kinesiological stuff. ) These computation free states in the cognitive mind are similar to zen consiouness or satori or contemplating koans that are specifically ment to fuck with cognitive computation.
These states are one of the core elements to the mindfullness movement.

I also feel that computation is just a model for us to go off of so we can easily understand. Something compleley different could be going on. It seems like when we say the cell computew the amount of nutrient needed is really anthropomorphizing the cell.
For all we know that things really are predetermined and there was no computation involved. Just a script written by god on his own whims.

[Anonymous No.9507797]

>>9506038
>Is that a flawed way to think about the world?
It can be flawed depending on how you use this classification. The claims about the purity that the comic make are pretty good but it doesn't say anything about what to do with that ranking.
"Impure" fields tend to be designed to be as useful for practical use as possible. It can be argued that the "impure" fields are the most useful in real life but the "pure" fields provide the foundation upon which the "impure" fields are built.

tl;dr they're all good

[Anonymous No.9507801]

>>9506409
Psychology could be seen as coming from medicine though. Or maybe you could see psychology+medicine as one level more abstract than medicine.

[Anonymous No.9507805]

>>9507782
>For all we know that things really are predetermined and there was no computation involved. Just a script written by god on his own whims.
A predetermined script would be exactly what computation is.

[Anonymous No.9507812]

>>9507801
That'd be more psychiatry than psychology.

[Anonymous No.9507822]

>>9507805
I thought computation was exploring elements in a problem/situation to find a solution
Or translating one thing into another thing like how a computer takes your inputs turns it into binary or machine code and turns it into an output on screen.

"God's predetermined script" would just exist.

[Anonymous No.9507825]

>>9507812
>This is how normies delineate psychiatry and psychologyqZw

[Anonymous No.9507833]

>>9507812
Yeah that's true, I often forget to separate them.
Could psychology be to psychiatry what biology is too medicine then?

[Anonymous No.9507848]

>>9507822
>I thought computation was exploring elements in a problem/situation to find a solution
No, computation isn't exploration. It's the execution of scripted steps.
>"God's predetermined script" would just exist.
I don't see how that makes it not computation.
>>9507825
It's not wrong. Psychiatrists prescribe medicine for mental illness.

[Anonymous No.9507860]

>>9506080
>>9506041
Theology is on the same level as looking for truth in 4chan posts based on how many repeating digits the post number ends in. At best theology can be a useful tool in sociology and political science.

Theology isn't the study of the divine but rather the study of looking at stuff other humans had said. If God ever communicates with us then theology will be important.

[Anonymous No.9507884]

>>9506038
>Doesn't this imply that those who use empirical data are dirty, and those who use pure logic are clean?
Yeah it implies that but it doesn't have any arguments for the usefulness of every field.

[Anonymous No.9507887]

>>9506199
Statistics is just a form of applied mathematics. (but still obviously useful)

[Anonymous No.9507895]

>>9507860
Since repeating digits predicted Trump becoming President.
Meme magic is perhaps more reliable than Theology.

>>9506080 >>9506041
Theology also contradicts Science.

While Meme magic is arguably based on Math's Probability, Statistics & "Number" Theory (Numerology of Repeating Digits)

[Anonymous No.9507897]

>>9507848
> Computationis any type ofcalculation[1][2]that includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-definedmodelunderstood and described as, for example, analgorithm

What you are implying is something called pancomputationalism
> Some argue that extant models of digital physics violate various postulates ofquantum physics.[35]For example, if these models are not grounded inHilbert spacesand probabilities, they belong to the class of theories with localhidden variablesthat have so far been ruled out experimentally usingBell's theorem.

[Anonymous No.9507901]

>>9507848
And im sure you realize that medicine in pill form came after "the talking cure" which was started by one of the most prominent physicians.

[Anonymous No.9507903]

>>9507897
Not sure what your point is here.

[Anonymous No.9507904]

>>9507895
My gut tells me you're retarded and the post numbers have nothing to do with the message of the post and it's effects on real life.

There seem to have to enough apparent meme magic to question my instincts though, it would be interesting to see someone using statistics to really examine meme magic.

[Anonymous No.9507906]

>>9507901
You're making the same mistake as the metaphysics guy earlier in this thread and focusing on what people say or think about a discipline instead of what people actually do with a discipline. In terms of actually prescribing medicine, that's psychiatry.

[Anonymous No.9507908]

>>9507895
Pepe's Meme magic is based on Math (Gambling Digits)

Probability, Statistics, Game Theory, Data Science, Stochastics, Number Theory

And also Chaos Theory because Kek is the God of Chaos.

Meme Magic predicts the future.
While Theology can't predict anything

[Anonymous No.9507918]

>>9506076
You and the rest of us. It's honestly the best part of the image.

Also, where would economics be? Around sociology? Or psychology?

Or around mathematics, considering some economists use heavy amounts of mathematical proofs to prove their concepts?

[Anonymous No.9507921]

>>9506409
This is made by a person very proficient in math but very superficial in all other fields.

He understand his world in relation to math.

[Anonymous No.9507926]

>>9507903
Computation is calculation. Not recitation or "wrote memory"

And i think you disagree becuase you take the philosphical view that is still conrroversial that all things are computation.

[Anonymous No.9507928]

>>9507918
It could be seen as the study of civilization and all human activities. It's kind of related to sociology then.
I'd guess econometrics is more like statistics applied to economics.

[Anonymous No.9507930]

>>9507926
>wrote memory
It's rote memory, dummy.

[Anonymous No.9507934]

>>9507928
Now where do you draw the line. Many fields like logic, linguistics, and economics, all benefit philosophically from mathematics, or by being able to express the philosophies mathematically in more depth. But it's not to say said fields are mathematical inherently.

[Anonymous No.9507935]

>>9507926
>that all things are computation.
I don't see how you could get that out of what I wrote unless you somehow believe cognition is "all things."

[Anonymous No.9507943]

>>9507906
I am taking issue with the fact that
The computational model of pstchology didnt even come about till the sixties and timothy learys 8 circut model of the mind.
If anything observations of human behavior and thinking produced computer science and not thr other way around.
Psychology came more from existenialusm and literature than any hard science.
Neurology is the product of comp. Sci. and biology than psychology. Considering its neurology that produces psychopharmacology and more applicable to what psychiatrists do.

[Anonymous No.9507945]

>>9507926
>he thinks rote is spelled 'wrote'

Everyone point at him. Point at him and laugh.

[Anonymous No.9507952]

>ITT: brainlets too dumb to realize that science itself depends on philosophical assumptions
It's like trying to explain zoology to animals.

[Anonymous No.9507954]

>>9507935
Did you not say that computation is the execution of scripted steps?

What doesnt execute scripted steps?

[Anonymous No.9507956]

>>9507943
>The computational model of pstchology didnt even come about till the sixties
That's irrelevant because it's not about history, it's about what mental processes actually are. It wouldn't matter if this was discovered in the 1960s, the 1760s, or 10,000 years further into the future, it's meant to be a map about what's believed to be true and truth is independent from the historical happenstances of varying discoveries about the truth. Whether it actually is the truth is debatable, but the point is it's meant to be based on reality rather than on cultural history.

[Anonymous No.9507957]

>>9507934
I don't know where to draw the lines.
I guess in economics, making the models might be a very statistical task.
Much of simple economics is described in a way that's based on mathematical logics.

[Anonymous No.9507960]

>>9507952
That's been brought up and debated already, read the thread before posting next time.

[Anonymous No.9507967]

>>9507935
>>that all things are computation.
If reality is a Simulation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTKTTt47WE

[Anonymous No.9507971]

>>9507954
>What doesnt execute scripted steps?
Most phenomena in the world don't unless you take a really extreme interpretation of "executing steps" to refer to any sort of physical movement involving cause and effect relationships.

[Anonymous No.9507973]

>>9507957
No it completely depends on the person writing the economic analysis. For instance, marginal utility is described by both Carl Menger and Leon Walras.

One of them uses only arithmetic, the other uses mathematical proofs and calculus. But they both describe the same concept. Is the science necessarily mathematical? No. But can it benefit from a mathematical analysis? Yes.

Many fields are not like that, but for those that are, like Logic or Economics, what do you think is the purpose of mathematics? Simply to understand, to explain concepts sometimes.

[Anonymous No.9507976]

>>9507971
I feel you are moving the goal post but whatevs.

Tell me what you think "executing steps" is really supposed to ential.

[Anonymous No.9507986]

>>9507956
Still i feel it should be neurology.

Psychology should be removed from that thing entirely.
Or they should find a place to put literature and existenialism in there.
And now that im thinking about it.
Whats the djfference between math and computer science .
Sounds like computer science is just typed out on a keyboard while math is written down on paper.

[Anonymous No.9507993]

>>9507976
Probably the most straightforward definition I can give you for what you're asking about which is itself a definition of yet another term we've already discussed (and I'm going with simple here because otherwise we're going to end up endlessly defining definitions of definitions of definitions) is to just point you to a computer and say "that." Or if you wrote a recipe for a meal and someone followed it, that'd basically be the same sort of idea of computation and executing scripted steps.
What I claimed earlier which you've been responding to is that cognition is a subset of computation. As in the various different processes the brain supports that we consider "thinking" are ultimately a comparable sort of thing to what a computer does (and before I get a million responses saying "bad analogy," yes, I'm aware it's popular now to point out brains and computers aren't really the same thing, and yes, it's true they aren't the same thing, but despite this I'm arguing at a very high level what brains do is ultimately computation despite the particular mechanisms of computation being radically different).

[Anonymous No.9507998]

>>9507986
>Still i feel it should be neurology.
That map doesn't conflict with it following neurology. Neurology isn't on that map which means its location is inside the Biology node, and the Biology node is one of the nodes that are parents to the Psychology node.
Really I think you and the others commenting about this chart are way overthinking it. It's not meant to be an ultra- high fidelity mapping of the relationship between disciplines, it's just meant to establish the general point that there is a progression from less abstract to more abstract that you can roughly outline with the conclusion being there might be one most abstract source node at the top which you could identify and effectively make the basis of a "theory of everything." Whether psychology goes one node to the left or two nodes higher doesn't have much impact at all on that point.

[Anonymous No.9508027]

>>9507993
Not the guy, but the steps in the "recipe" you mention consists of algorithmic problem solving, right? Set order to solve a problem?

[Anonymous No.9508054]

>>9507887
Oh yeah most definitely.

[Anonymous No.9509501]

>>9506038
That’s like saying Parkinson’s being Kreutzfeldt Jacob scientifically but medically it is just Parkinson’s. Par-kin-sons (12 sons of Jacob) and Park In, Son (Turning to park in private driveway). Scientific (logical) vs Medical (Legal).

[Anonymous No.9509506]

>>9509501
Now if I show you a person that has aids and another person that has Parkinsons who’d you run away from first?

[Anonymous No.9510966]

>>9509506
Now if I say AIDS is not caused by HIV but a radical Prion enveloping protein in blood cells and caused by KJD. Except it has found some resistance and slowly progresses via a preferred vector. Once you’ve slept with a person that is around someone that has it you have it as well under certain panels. It spreads exactly like KJD. How does it feel? What would you do?

[Anonymous No.9510988]

>>9510966
Now if I say there are two doctors. Ones that have to work under legal terms because they are insurance doctors so are trained by other doctors to follow legal norms. And all cash doctors that do not have to follow laws governing insurance boards and are trained by other cash only doctors. Who’s worse off?

[Anonymous No.9511190]

>>9510988
Then, if there are priestly-classes of pathogens. Those that over-see/over-ride function. Are these priestly classes not prions that pry open functional cells...

[Anonymous No.9511288]

Mathematics is a subset of CS.

[Anonymous No.9512056]

>>9506704
philosophy is a meme nowadays

the only way to understand our universe is by observing and thinking rationally

aka "Science"

math provides us with the mental tools to achieve this goal

[Anonymous No.9512082]

Computer Science is objectively the right answer for most abstract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes
>The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is structured around ten main classes covering the entire world of knowledge; each main class is further structured into ten hierarchical divisions, each having ten sections of increasing specificity.
>Class 000 – Computer science, information & general works

[Anonymous No.9512087]

>>9511288
Mathematics and CS are the same, they just generally focus on different issues. You can completely formalize each using the other. See: curry-howard correspondence, the relationship between Godel's incompleteness theorem and the Curch-Turing Thesis, and even just the first two major formalizations of computer science, lambda calculus and Turing machines.

Computer Science and mathematics are different ways to look at the same problems. I'd argue it'd make more sense to call them but "mathematics" than both "computer science", since it's generally uglier to try to solve things like number theory problems from a computer science perspective than it is to solve computer science problems from a mathematics perspective.

[Anonymous No.9512214]

>>9512087
>it's generally uglier to try to solve things like number theory problems from a computer science perspective than it is to solve computer science problems from a mathematics perspective.
I don't know, Lambda Calculus seems pretty aesthetic to me. Is there a more elegant way to construct natural numbers and arithmetic from scratch than Church Encoding that you prefer?
I did the work of writing a programming language (an interpreter in C++, not a compiler) once (the hard way, not with one of those prefab tools that spits one out for a grammar you feed it), and that was one particular moment I remember really feeling like things started to come alive and make sense when I started realizing once I had the basic structure of a stack based function going (I began with the way an RPN calculator works and went from there) that I could reinvent fundamental things like numbers and arithmetic from there (albeit in a horribly inefficient way using recursion because it was a pet project and not done very intelligently in retrospect).

[Anonymous No.9512234]

>>9506038
I am dirty either using empirical data or not, so i dont know what to say

[Anonymous No.9512243]

>>9506038
I actually have never noticed that xkcd put hit toxic sjwism even here, showing mathematician(and chemist, tho this is less triggerig) as a girl.

[Anonymous No.9512295]

>>9512243
Of course he did. I can't imagine him doing anything different. As soon as you do a comic that A) involves both male and female characters and B) involves a ranking system of some sort, you're pretty much obligated to make the #1 position female or else people will read into it and accuse you of being a misogynist or whatever. Which you might not care about if you're based like the Dilbert guy, but you'll definitely make this intentional female substitution if you're an insecure pandering liberal like the xkcd guy.

[Anonymous No.9512337]

>>9506199

[Anonymous No.9512839]

>>9512214
Number theory was really the wrong thing to say and was probably the worst of all branches of mathematics I could have picked. You're right that number theory in particular transfers very easily.

[Anonymous No.9513299]

>>9511288
Green Is My Pepper

[Anonymous No.9513319]

>>9507860
>looking for truth in 4chan posts based on how many repeating digits the post number ends in
But that's theology, anon. Your digits are sickly and weak.

[Anonymous No.9513321]

>>9513299
>Green Is My Pepper
Digits Checked


>>9513319
>But that's theology, anon.
Yeah...kinda...