Philosophy is the most basic form of reasoning/"science"

[Anonymous No.9613741]

Biology is subordinate to chemistry
Chemistry is subordinate to physics
Physics is subordinate to math
All of the above depend on philosophy

[Anonymous No.9613750]

>>9613741
Yes all math depends upon Nietzsche whining about Stoicism, Plato talking about a government where a philosopher is the king, Kierkegaard talking about how Christianity is the only way to remove your anxiety, and Foucault saying that social systems are based on an oppressive structure.

[Anonymous No.9613759]

>vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality.

Clap

[Anonymous No.9613773]

>>9613750
More specifically, basic epistemology. Assumptions like uniformity of nature and reliability of senses are fundamentally philosophical.

[Anonymous No.9613779]

>>9613750
>cherry picking that bad
How does such brainlet even exists.

[Anonymous No.9613790]

>>9613741

[Anonymous No.9613798]

While technically correct, philosophy is far too broad to be considered precursor in all its forms.

Logic, which is often considered a branch or type of philosophy, definitely precedes mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9613816]

>>9613741
Philosophy is different ways to think and perceive reality. The scientific method is a tool to perceive the realities that we can measure empirically. For the things that still can't measured, there's philosophy, and instill think it's important, because a lot of philosophical teachings help you become a better human.

[Anonymous No.9613856]

[Anonymous No.9613863]

>>9613790
>And God is just another way of saying money.
>t. economist

[Anonymous No.9613866]

>>9613863
Economics is closer to pure mathematics than any other science.

And no, you completely misunderstand the purpose of economics to state that

[Anonymous No.9613868]

>>9613866
wrong

[Anonymous No.9613870]

>>9613798
logic *is* mathematics

[Anonymous No.9613878]

>>9613868
That’s not an argument.

Here let me further my proposition.

Economics seeks to explain material phenomena utilizing the relations between two individuals or entities in an exchange. In order to understand all economic phenomena, in order to derive one variable, one must make sure he understands the exchange ratios for all consumers and commodities that exist and make sure this matrix of equations is discrete I.e. the number of unknowns match the number of equations.

How is this not unironically more pure than physics? Strictly speaking the analysis of ‘pure’ economics as some economists have referred to it like Léon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto is strikingly similar to analyzing physics in a vacuum. So much so, that Irving Fisher used vector-force analysis to analyze different economic relations, like you would with particle physics.

Fourth dimensional analysis is even utilized to comprehend relations between four different commodities in ‘Mathematical Investigations...’

[Anonymous No.9613880]

>>9613866

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJwwAVM1Auc&feature=youtu.be&t=30

[Anonymous No.9613881]

>>9613750
Kierkegaard, what a weird surname, imagine being called "cemetery".

[Anonymous No.9613891]

>>9613880
Just read the post above yours. I study mathematics. It’s not like I don’t even dip into the area of ‘scientific’ physics analysis as well with my studies.

Let’s be real here, Economics is definitely a science.

[Anonymous No.9613900]

>>9613878
economics is the study of money. money is god. god speaks in mathematics. economics is the purest field

[Anonymous No.9613902]

>>9613870
Mathematics is an axiomatic system that is wholly logical and abstract. But logic in and of itself is not necessarily mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9613906]

>>9613900
Money is not God. I denounce your ‘’’’’theory’’’’ of why Economics is a science as false.

This idea is sinful. The study of pure economics doesn’t even deal with a single commodity for money sometimes, fortunately.

[Anonymous No.9613916]

>>9613906
I rest my case

[Anonymous No.9613920]

>>9613870

Mathematics is the logic of quantity.

[Anonymous No.9613922]

>>9613916
Economics is physics applied to the realm of trade, I agree.

I do not agree that you should be concerned with ‘making money’ or ‘getting rich’ when analyzing economic systems. This is not what any intelligent economist is concerned with.

[Anonymous No.9613930]

>>9613741
Serious philosophy uses mathematics, physics, biology etc.

[Anonymous No.9613935]

>>9613750
Foucault, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche like all continental philosophers are just cheap sofists.

[Anonymous No.9613953]

>>9613930
In the past a good knowledge of set theory and logic would be enough to start studying philosophy. Nowadays category theory and model theory are also becoming pre-requisites.

[Anonymous No.9613955]

>>9613741
Math isn't real though.

[Anonymous No.9613957]

>>9613953

[Anonymous No.9613959]

>>9613930
>Serious philosophy uses mathematics
That's just mathematical logic.
>physics
That gets into pseudoscientific bullshit.
>biology
Unless it's about bioethics, this also gets into pseudoscientific bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9613965]

>>9613955

[Anonymous No.9613967]

>>9613965
Math isn't real...
it's complex!

[Anonymous No.9613976]

>>9613741
The only "philosophy" worth studying is a subfield of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9613989]

>>9613959
Abstract Algebra, model theory, category theory etc. are becoming pre-requisites. It's not just set theory and mathematical logic anymore.

Philosophy of physics is more rigorous than most speculative theoretical physics. Nearly all philosophers of physics are mathematical physicists.

Bioethics is pseudoscience.
On the other hand, nearly all important questions in theoretical biology fall in the domain of philosophy of biology. For example: the nature of homology, units of selection, phylogeny vs. tokogeny, the use of axiomatic theories in biology etc.

[Anonymous No.9614005]

>>9613891

Economics is not repeatable. It is a study of systems deriving primarily from human actions. It is sociology. It just happens to be the most science-looking of the social studies. But it is no science.

[Anonymous No.9614008]

>>9613967
MAHZ

[Anonymous No.9614012]

>>9614005
>>9613900

[Anonymous No.9614020]

>>9614008
That's sort of mean, anon.

[Anonymous No.9614050]

>>9613863
>Thinking that money is anything other than a way to optimize trade
wow, were did you graduate?

[Anonymous No.9614058]

>>9613922
A economist is a scientist, so he will always be poorer than a "pure" high skill businessman. The former investigates and thinks about how things work, meanwhile the latter takes things "as is" and proceed to make profit from it.

[Anonymous No.9614157]

>>9614058

Economists aren't scientists. Please stop contributing to the devaluation of the word science.

[Anonymous No.9614163]

>>9613922
How is economics an application of physics? At most mathematical and statistical methods.

[Anonymous No.9614166]

>>9613976
All of math is a subset of philosophy, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.9614185]

>>9614166

Correct, and just like science has lost itself because it's tried to separate itself from philosophy, so has mathematics.

Mathematicians nowadays don't even know what numbers really are, nor do they understand the concept of infinity, it's become an illogical clusterfuck.

[Anonymous No.9614188]

>>9614185

I fear you don't actually know what you're talking about. Mathematicians are very much aware of what numbers are and mean. They also understand infinity. Set theorists have the best grasp, because they consider ideas related to infinite beyond the standard ZFC.

[Anonymous No.9614201]

>>9614166
False. You can't do philosophy without mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9614204]

>>9614185
>Mathematicians nowadays don't even know what numbers really are, nor do they understand the concept of infinity, it's become an illogical clusterfuck.

I really hope you are trolling.

[Anonymous No.9614205]

Modern philosophy have the same quality as modern art.
It's verbose word wankering with nothing meaningful said. Whatever is said is subjective feelings and hunches coated in logical fallacies.
It's an amateur show.

[Anonymous No.9614227]

>>9614058
A businessman is to an economist what an engineer is to a physicist

[Anonymous No.9614247]

>>9614185
Yes I'm sure Derrida knows what numbers "really" are.

[Anonymous No.9614255]

>>9614188
>>9614204

I'm sure you'd agree infinity doesn't end, but do you believe it also doesn't have a beginning?

[Anonymous No.9614259]

>>9614255
>this is what philosophy brainlets think number theory is

[Anonymous No.9614263]

>>9614205
This is continental sophistry. There is also science-based analytical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9614275]

>>9614005
>Economics is not repeatable.
Is geology "repeatable"? Is cosmology "repeatable"? Is evolutionary biology "repeatable"?

[Anonymous No.9614276]

>>9614259
>>9614263

It's a simple question brainlets, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.9614279]

>>9614255
>I'm sure you'd agree infinity doesn't end, but do you believe it also doesn't have a beginning?
It may or may not have a beginning. [math]\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}[/math] has a least element, but [math]\mathbb{R}_{>0}[/math] does not.

[Anonymous No.9614280]

>>9614255
infinity is the concept of something not having an ending
but we define the set aleph null as the smallest infinity, assigning a number to each object in a set we never find a largest number, there's always another object to count.
but you can start anywhere you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.9614283]

>>9614275

You're asking the right questions. They are not repeatable therefore they are not science no matter how much they think they are, they are a subset of metaphysics.

[The Lord No.9614284]

>>9614255
Seems like something starts at the end of countable infinity that extends to uncountable infinity.

For instance, consider the primary electronic energy levels in Hydrogen as diagonal entries in a Hermitian Hamiltonian matrix. Starting with the Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund levels, the matrix is infinite but only countably infinite as the energy levels climb to the Rydberg excitations near the ionization energy. There are countably infinite integer labeled energy shells in the atom. However, what happens to the diagonal entries of Hamiltonian operator for energies above the ionization energy? They say "the entries become delta functions" but that leaves a little more to be desired with regards to understanding the transition of the structure precisely at the ionizing energy. That is the energy where the spectrum of available eigenstates transitions from a discrete spectrum to a continuous one at the [math]n=\infty[/math] atomic energy level.

[Anonymous No.9614289]

>>9614283
>evolution isn't real
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9614291]

>>9614279

Ah, but is zero a number, or the lack of one?

>>9614280

If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point, it's logically impossible to have one without the other.

[Anonymous No.9614296]

>>9614275
>>9614283
You're both dumb. Science has to do with natural reality. Economics has to do with social systems. Economics is just applied math. Not a science.

[Anonymous No.9614300]

>>9614296
>social systems have nothing to do with reality

[Anonymous No.9614302]

>>9614291
explain why its logically impossible to have a start point but no end point

[Anonymous No.9614304]

>>9614291
>Ah, but is zero a number, or the lack of one?
>If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point, it's logically impossible to have one without the other.
Please tell me this is bait.

[Anonymous No.9614309]

>>9614284
>countable infinity
>uncountable infinity

Infinity is infinity. The property of being countable or uncountable cannot apply to it.

[Anonymous No.9614310]

>>9614291
>If you have a starting point, you must then have an end point
Wrong. The natural numbers have a starting point but no ending point.

[Anonymous No.9614313]

>>9614300
Put on your reading glasses or get something for your dyslexia.

[Anonymous No.9614316]

>>9614302
>>9614304

It's logically impossible in the same way you cannot have up without down, the existence of one is contingent on the existence of the other, they cannot exist without each other.

[Anonymous No.9614318]

>>9614316
Is this the power of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9614319]

>>9614313
>I don't know what I'm talking about

[Anonymous No.9614322]

>>9614313
Economics has to do with social systems. Social systems are a part of reality. Science has to do with natural reality. Therefore economics is a science. QED.

[Anonymous No.9614323]

>>9614310

The "starting" point being zero? What properties does zero have that makes it a number?

[Anonymous No.9614329]

>>9614322
>>9614319
Are you guys purposefully being deceitful. NATURAL reality, not reality. The social systems developed by humans were constructed. They weren't principles of how the universe works like physics or chemistry, or how life works like biology.

[Anonymous No.9614330]

>>9614318

What's your argument?

[Anonymous No.9614331]

>>9614316
you've just said the exact same thing.
tell me why this is the case.

[Anonymous No.9614338]

>>9614329
>humans are above the nature and the universe not a part of it

[Anonymous No.9614341]

>>9614338
Humans are not above nature. Human physiology is a science. Human anatomy is a science. Studying the social systems constructed by humans is a "social science", which is not real science.

[Anonymous No.9614343]

>>9614341
>humans bear the uncanny ability to magically create non-natural realities

[Anonymous No.9614347]

>>9614331

It's the binary nature of things, nothing could exist without it.

[Anonymous No.9614348]

>>9614347
/thread

[Anonymous No.9614349]

>>9613920
>>9613798
>>9613816
Good posts, have (You)s

[Anonymous No.9614371]

>>9614255

I don't agree infinity doesn't end. Infinite doesn't have an imposed order until you add more relations and operations.

[Anonymous No.9614391]

>>9614289
Why /pol/? Most creationists nowadays are leftists.

[Anonymous No.9614400]

>>9614371
>I don't agree infinity doesn't end.

So would you then conclude that infinity can have a beginning and an end?

[Anonymous No.9614409]

>>9613856
Agreed

[Anonymous No.9614423]

>>9613856
>>9614409
lmao epistemology says nothing of use

[Anonymous No.9614433]

>>9614400

Again, if the right kind of order relation is imposed. Consider the set of elements in the closed interval [0, 1]. One might argue that 0 is the beginning of this interval, being the lowest term.

[Anonymous No.9614437]

>>9614433

Aren't the brackets the beginning and end?

[Anonymous No.9614451]

>>9614409
>>9613856

Epistemology depends on biology. Things are not arranged in these naive hierarchies.

[Anonymous No.9614469]

>>9614437

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

[Anonymous No.9614478]

>>9614296
You could say natural reality is reflective of the decisions and choices made by various individuals. Von Neumann wrote an economics work.

There was someone asking how physics can be applied to economics. They are the same thing... taken from the penultimate chapter of Fisher’s Mathematical Investigations...

A particle corresponds to an individual. Space corresponds to commodity. Force corresponds to marginal (dis)utility. Work corresponds to disutility. Energy corresponds to utility.

Work or Energy = force x space
Disutility or utility = marginal utility x commodity

Force is a vector (directed in space)
Marginal utility is a vector (directed in commodity)

Forces are added by vector addition (parallelogram of forces)
Marginal utility are added by vector addition (parallelogram of marginal utility)

Work and Energy are scalars
Disutility and utility are scalars.

It goes on and on in the similarities, that’s just an excerpt

[Anonymous No.9614482]

>>9614469

What are the brackets for?

[Anonymous No.9614484]

>>9614482

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

[Anonymous No.9614491]

>>9614322
I agree. Here is an interesting post in an Alt-Right blog defending the mainstream academic economics.
http://www.socialmatter.net/2018/01/05/in-defense-of-academic-economics/

[Anonymous No.9614495]

>>9613856
>Epistemology
Without fail, any time you see someone arguing from an epistemological position here it will always amount to "muh uncorroborated experience is primary, science can't know nuffin!"

[Anonymous No.9614504]

>>9614484

Would [0,1 or 0,1] work?

[Anonymous No.9614505]

>>9614491
Almost any genuinely valuable Economics is not biased.
See
>>9614478

Not biased.

Unfortunately, when you read economists like Ludwig Von Mises there is literally a chapter at the end of the book intended to be a political polemic full of invectives against the left. It’s sad, really, what Austrian ‘’’’’economists’’’’’’ have done to economics.

You’d want at the very LEAST Keynesian economics, and if you really want to get mathematical, then you’d be interested in Neoclassical.

[Anonymous No.9614507]

>>9614504

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)

[Anonymous No.9614515]

>>9614495
Not Naturalized Epistemology, which is based on neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous No.9614529]

>>9614507

>dodging the question

[Anonymous No.9614545]

>>9614529

Dodging the answer. Read and learn. Math is built on notation. If you don't understand the notation, you can't effectively communicate in math.

[Anonymous No.9614556]

>>9614545

I know what the answer is, but I want to see if you do.

[Anonymous No.9614566]

>>9614556

It doesn't seem like you do, since almost any high school student who has seen any sort of function course knows how interval notation works.

[Anonymous No.9614585]

>>9614566

Dodging again. I'll try a different approach. Is the first bracket the beginning of the set, and the second one the end?

[Anonymous No.9614595]

>>9613741
Does this mean that to be a proper Biologist you need to understand Philosophy, Math, Physics and Chemistry on top of the knowledge base of your subject?

Because I agree. And I am proud of all my Biologybros who succeed in synthesizing all this understanding to achieve meaningful outcomes for humanity.

[Anonymous No.9614596]

>>9614585

I've already answered your question. You just don't want to think and learn. Very sad.

[Anonymous No.9614606]

>>9614505
No one takes most of the second wave and on of the Austrian school seriously (Hayek is the only salvageable one) except for lolbertarians and other free market cultists, it's more economic/political thought or philosophy, if we want to be generous, than real economics. It's strange because the first wave was nothing like this and played an important role in the marginalist revolution (most of the current day Austrian fanboys couldn't even name them) so I don't understand what happened after that.

[Anonymous No.9614629]

>>9614606
Carl Menger is absolutely fascinating. You’re right, I’m sure economists like Léon Walras and Carl Menger would have agreed on many different things but it seems these days they are really politicized. Tis a shame, that’s for certain.

I loved Carl Menger’s theories of natural monopolies. You don’t see much talk of that kind of thing in economics, usually the State is referred to as the only originator of monopolies. But they naturally occur and companies tend to separate into stepped income ranges when they market the goods in a burgeoning industry. It’s all very well thought out.

[Anonymous No.9614882]

>>9614585
No you dumbfuck, it's just a set, as in unordered