/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9507616]

>math degree
>without a philosophy degree

Why have all mathematicians since the 30s been shit?

[Anonymous No.9507621]

>>9507616
Implying that all Philosophers since the 30s are not shittiest people in academia.
Implying that all modern Philosophy isn't garbage.

[Anonymous No.9507637]

I wish philosophy was actually respectable. Instead of mulling over that is meaningful or delving into something new, modes philosophers just nitpick previous works over the specific words used.

[Anonymous No.9507695]

>>9507616
Most professors who actually care about their craft will insert philosophy into their courses. Be it the philosophical motivation for certain definitions, or the various philosophies of mathematics in general.

The difference is that we take highly technical courses and sprinkle them with bits of philosophy to enrich our education. Philosophy majors take only non-technical courses and insert philosophy just to see who likes the smell of their farts the most. That is why modern philosophers are garbage and no one respects you. Back to your containment board, you disgusting monkey.

[Anonymous No.9507767]

>>9507616
philosophy is outdated, a dead subject

[Anonymous No.9507772]

philosophy was ended by nietzsche
everybody after him has been just ridiculous in comparison

[Anonymous No.9508064]

>>9507772
What about Popper

[Anonymous No.9508071]

>>9507621

>I have a theory.
>Let's try to falsify it.

But that's how modern philosophy works.

[Anonymous No.9508094]

>>9508071
Not really before Popper

[Anonymous No.9508110]

>>9508071
And also how modern science doesn't work (any more).

Science was once great, it was driven by a philosophical method also known as the scientific method. Philosophy gives you the tools to do science meaningfully, it will arm you with critical thought and reasoning. This is why philosophy is commonly looked down upon as some useless pastime, because it scares those in high places who don't want critically thinking scientists, or critically thinking anyone.

[Anonymous No.9508267]

>>9507621
A proof that you have never studied philosophy even in high school. You're supposed to view everything with scientific glasses (that sounded awfully sociology-cuckholded of me) and be super critical. If someone has an idea you're not meant to go ''h-ha y-yeah man that sounds cool and I respect your opinion'' you tear their views down with logic ''but how can X be like this, how did you come to that insight and how does it explain Y?'' as a useless example. I don't know what kind of fucking philosophy they teach at colleges but this is what I've learned.

[Anonymous No.9508280]

>>9508110
How's your intro to philosophy class going faggot?

[Anonymous No.9508286]

>>9508267
You know how to pedantic, that has nothing to do with actual critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.9508333]

>>9508280

How's your mom going? She was doing pretty well last time I saw her after I gave her some of this philosodick.

[Anonymous No.9508393]

>>9508286

Pedantry in some fields is vital, it does require critical thinking, just applied to very minute details.

[Anonymous No.9508428]

>>9507616
>>"Philosophers have a great deal to say about what is absolutely necessary to science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."
>>"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
>>"Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists."

--Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

>>"Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."
--Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.9508446]

>>9508428
>Feynshit
Hawking is correct though, epistemology got screwed

[Anonymous No.9508464]

>>9508428
Richard feynman was just taking the piss and was pretty knowlledagble about philosophy. Hawckings isn't in any sense trained on those topics so why would I listen to him? Also, don't post like you want to impress your retarded friends in facebook or to get upvotes on reddit.
>>9508333
Ouch, guess I touched a nerve there you pseud.
>>9508393
Yes, but absolute pedantry is important in just a few fields, and the level of "rigor" in your arguments depends on the framework of truth you have accepted. And in paritcular, doing science is almost always done with many assumptions in mind so it can develop efficiently.

[Anonymous No.9508467]

>>9508393
That isn't technically true, but it varies if you are going with pettifoggery, sophistry, or something useful. I avoid pedantic behavior for a variety of reasons and the biggest one is I don't feel the need to convince others. I can tell you there are endless 'minute' details in any subject and most of them aren't important. Most fields don't rely on critical thinking because it is complicated and risky. If you were pedantic you would know that.

On the other hand, the rich man wants to make complicated systems simple and this is done through basically modelling and task lists. Critical thinking is necessary for the model, but not for applying it. Any moron with work ethic can carry out commands and find a place. This is ideal for obtaining large labor supplies.

[Anonymous No.9508476]

>>9508428

>I do not know—but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist—and as such as [sic] a very definite security risk. This man is, in my opinion, an extremely complex and dangerous person, a very dangerous person to have in a position of public trust ... In matters of intrigue Richard Feynman is, I believe immensely clever—indeed a genius—and he is, I further believe, completely ruthless, unhampered by morals, ethics, or religion—and will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve his ends. ~ Mary Louise Bell

Hawking didn't say that, he might as well be a robot. He's being used as a ventriloquist dummy to say stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.9508492]

>>9508467
Kinda disappointed how your post rambled into commie gobbily gook.

[Anonymous No.9508645]

>>9507616
>Turing

[Anonymous No.9510391]

>>9507616
why get a degree in it when you can just read it and write about it when not doing math?

[Anonymous No.9510725]

>>9507621
Which scientist's opinion are you parroting? Feynman's?

[Anonymous No.9511501]

>>9508094
Are you a Popperite?

[Anonymous No.9511829]

>>9507621
>being this much of a fedora

[Anonymous No.9512001]

>>9507616
>philosophy
>2012+6
Lol'd hard nigger.
>>9507621
This. Philosophy is pretty much just useless word games nowadays.
>>9507695
No they won't because professors have more useful shit to spend their time on that philosophy.
>>9507767
This is actually pretty much true. Of course, there's probably areas where philosophy is useful, such as ethics (where they can discuss about arbitrary bullshit to infinity), but in any area dealing with the natural world, human cognition etc. philosophy is actually counter-productive. Turns out you can't just sit and reason your way to enlightenment, you need to experiment and deal with counter intuitive facts and harsh truths.
>>9508064
What Popper did was basically calling out pseudoscientists, but nobody actually does science like Popper proposed.
>>9508110
>Philosophy gives you the tools to do science meaningfully, it will arm you with critical thought and reasoning
That's exactly what it doesn't do you pseudo-intellectual-in-denial. 2000 years of philosophical tradition and how many of them ever figured out free will is an illusion?
>>9508428
Philosophy of science is actually kind of decent because it provides the scientists with somewhat of a bird's eye perspective on his own craft. Makes you reflect more over what you do. A useful example of philosophy of science could be investigating types of errors on science for example. It's not /completely/ useless.

[Anonymous No.9512008]

>>9507621
>"Science" part of the image is clearly based on philosopher Popper's work
Rly made me think

[Anonymous No.9514005]

>>9507616
Philosophy is good.

But admitting you miscalculated may be better.

[Anonymous No.9514167]

Philosophy allows us to understand science on an intuitive level. Without it, science would be meaningless data.

[Anonymous No.9514179]

>>9514167
Also scientific endeavors are only carried on today because our actual philosophical zeitgeist says that we should. Without philosophy, science would not exist, and not just in an historical sense.

[Anonymous No.9514205]

>>9514179
>>9514167
Philosophy does not allow us to discover facts anymore, that job shifted to science, which it’s a subset of philosophy (you could call it natural philosophy).
Philosophy’s today job is to derive meaning from science, and that has as much importance as actual science, because otherwise, we would not care about it.

[Anonymous No.9515023]

>>9512001
>reason your way to enlightenment
>Enlightenment literally brought on hundreds of years ago by people sitting on their asses and intellectually shitting on the churches and monarchies.

[Anonymous No.9515629]

>>9507772
Philosophy was ended by Hume

[Anonymous No.9515632]

>>9507616
How do i learn about philosophy
Help

[Anonymous No.9515697]

Philosophy is ok as a Hobby or something.
Philosophy "degree" is a joke.

[Anonymous No.9515754]

>>9508110
Philosophy exposes the limits of scientific method.

[Anonymous No.9515762]

>>9515754
the scientific method exposes the limits of philosophy

[Anonymous No.9515765]

>>9515697
Math is ok as a Hobby or something.
Math "degree" is a joke.

[Anonymous No.9516267]

>>9515765
N-no..

[Anonymous No.9516932]

>>9507772
What about Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.9516935]

>>9515765
You retarded?

[Anonymous No.9516942]

>>9507616
Is it gay to love traps?

[Anonymous No.9516949]

>>9515632
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

[Anonymous No.9516953]

>>9508071
That's where modern philosophy went wrong

[Anonymous No.9517578]

philosophylets are so pathetic

[Anonymous No.9517682]

>>9508071
Popperite detected.

[Anonymous No.9517752]

>>9507616
Because most of philosophy about science is made by people who are illiterate about science. They don't have any skill. And in math isis the worst.
In fact math is philosophy. It is real philosophy, where you put your hands into the engine for real instead of talking about it abstractly while discarding the operational details.

If you want to understand better the philosophy of math you'd better educate yourself in formal logic, computer science, the Curry -Howard correspondence.

[Anonymous No.9517759]

>>9517752
It's clear you miss the point of philosophy, however metaphysics specifically try to use things like qm as an excuse to derail into mysticism.

[Anonymous No.9517771]

>>9512001
>Turns out you can't just sit and reason your way to enlightenment

Imagine being this much of an idiot. This is literally what the people who we consider to be all time great luminaries did thousands of years ago, additionally this is also how humans constructed the entirety of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9518686]

Math is all about making up rules and definitions, then following them to their logical conclusions.
Math is an extremely simple language, so being rigorous about it is also very simple.
Spoken language is extremely complex, so being as rigorous with it as with math is incredibly difficult.
Philosophy as it is right now is equivalent in complexity to simple sums in math. Anything more complex that this is probably above human intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9518697]

>>9518686
Also math does not really tell us anything about the word. Math gives us logically sound tautologies, and then we brute force our intuitive (symbolic) understanding of the world into its models, hoping it has some utility. Most of the time it doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.9518726]

>>9518697
So in this sense you can see mathematics as metaphorical. For example math formulas would be some kind of equivalent to proverbs, but more universal, better defined and less ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.9518764]

>>9508267
To be fair his take isn't that unreasonable if your exposure to philosophy is from the kinds of idiots on /lit/ who talk about Kant and Hegel all day like it means something.

I can totally empathize with what Hawking, NDT, Lawrence Krauss and others are talking about when they criticize philosophy. I don't completely agree with them but their positions aren't entirely illegitimate either.

[Anonymous No.9518779]

>>9515632
In my experience the best kind of philosophy you can read is stuff that isn't really even philosophy in the normal sense. Nassim Taleb talking about complex systems and uncertainty is way more interesting and useful than listening to people arguing about Derrida and John Rawls and other inane crap.

For pure philosophy you can't go wrong with Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. If you want some good literary philosophy Umberto Eco is pretty fun.

[Anonymous No.9518804]

>>9518697
For example, take 1+1=2. This statement is true because it follows the axioms math gives itself. But per se it is a void statement, it doesn’t mean anything in a vacuum and it doesn’t tell us anything about the world.
Until we consolidate it with other “knowledge”, like the Platonist concept of forms. Take for example an apple. Why do we know that apple A is the same thing as apple B? (Which is something necessary if we want to count them and to apply 1+1=2 in the real world). They are just similar, but not the same. We think of them as both apples because of a mental image of the prototypical apple we have in our minds. In reality they are part of a universal soup of matter without boundaries, the discrimination of “apple” as different from its surrounding is a mental construct.
So math needs other make up “truths” apart of itself to have some utility in reality. If you consider it in isolation (1+1=2) is just a true as (^+#&mmm).

[Anonymous No.9518811]

>>9518804
For anyone interested, this is why I suggested Umberto Eco as a good read. His book The Name of the Rose is posits the opposite position of Shakespeare's a rose by any other name is still a rose. It's a good introduction to realism vs nominalism in a way that isn't dry and academic.

[Anonymous No.9519144]

>>9515023
>>9517771
Butthurt philosophags detected. Keep telling yourself this while modern physics, biology etc. is light years ahead of you lmao.

[Anonymous No.9519296]

>>9517771

Philosophers Useless Contributions:

Socrates
>You cannot know nothing, Annoying Rhetorical Questions.
Kant
>Criticizes Reason saying that You cannot know nothing
Plato
>Internal Feelings, Emotions, Intuition and Illusions are superior to Scientific Observation of Reality.
Aristotle
>Pseudoscience bullshit like Flat Earth Theory and 4 elements.
Hegel
>Karl Marx's Senpai. Conflict generates Progress (instead of Chaos).

Now compare it with Science:

Newton
>Creates Calculus & Classical Mechanics. Allowing UK becoming center of Industrial Revolution, then turning UK into a Super powerful Empire.
Darwin
>Origin of Species. Father of modern Biology
Maxwell, Volta, Ampere, Tesla, Edison, Turing, Marconi, Graham Bell.
>Allowed Modern Electronic Gadgets
Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac, Bohr etc.
>Modern Physics a step for Modern Technology.

[Anonymous No.9519336]

Philosophy is the basis of all knowledge, the baseline of reasoning. As it progresses it splits and specializes, all the sciences being branches of it. So “pure philosophy” becomes obsolete pretty fast in most cases. But when a problem is too complex to be reduced to a single or a group of branches, or when you discuss the basic foundations of any of them, you need to return to pure philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9519350]

>>9507616
fuck off back to >>/lit/ humanities soyboy

[Anonymous No.9519353]

>>9507616 >>9519336 >>9517771 >>9515629


>>9517287

[Anonymous No.9520254]

>you now realize that science, maths, economics, psychology, history, english, and every other subject ever is simply applied philosophy

[Anonymous No.9520266]

>>9519296
I guarantee you all of those scientists you listed read Plato and Socrates. They pioneered the process that people like Newton used

[Anonymous No.9520271]

>>9520254
Well, if philosophy is "love of wisdom", then any pursuit which requires any thought or intelligence is applied philosophy. So... yeah, no shit

[Anonymous No.9520301]

I came to check out sci after almost 7 years of inactivity and literally nothing has changed, amazing

[Anonymous No.9520305]

>getting a philosophy degree
>not getting appointed a professor with no formal training like Wittgenstein did
spotted the loser

[Anonymous No.9520308]

how do you tell if a philosopher is even doing anything ? they could just be tripping fat balls

[Anonymous No.9520422]

>>9520308
Literally the same argument holds for any sufficiently-differentiated area of science. Only experts can tell and it's largely consensus based.

Just as in philosophy

Something tells me that people here not only don't know shit about philosophy (understandable I guess), but are also probably just STEM undergrads with little understanding of actual science either

[Anonymous No.9520767]

[Anonymous No.9521115]

>>9520305
>no formal training
>was going towards phd in mechanical engineering

[Anonymous No.9521119]

>>9520271
>learning to play instruments is philosophy
>learning to sing is philosophy
>bodybuilding is philosophy

[Anonymous No.9522666]

>>9521119
If you want to be good at any of these, it requires foundational thought. The methods are dictated by knowledge of what is the best.

[Anonymous No.9522766]

>>9522666
None of it is philosophy until it becomes judged, either by yourself or others

[Anonymous No.9522771]

>>9520422
no u
what now? you literally never been inside a lab or read a real paper bitch

[Anonymous No.9522785]

>>9507616
wrong you forget about kazinsky >:(

[Anonymous No.9523127]

>>9512001
>Free Will is an illusion
Since when?