/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9709683]

Friendly reminder that you cannot escape philosophy. Without philosophy, you cannot actually do science (before you create science, you need to philosophise) and without philosophy science is pretty pointless.
Why do you want to do science? To create a better world? That's a philosophical proposition.
Do you want to do just do it for the fun of it? That's still in the realm of philosophy. You will never escape philosophy, it's always there. Time to accept it and stop being an infantile brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9709696]

>philosophy
not science or math

[Anonymous No.9709711]

>>9709696
It's meta-science and meta-math.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9709727]

>>9709696
>not science or math
It actually kinda is.

[Anonymous No.9709761]

So that'll be a teen burger without any pickles

[Anonymous No.9709768]

Someone post that image of real scientists talking about philosophy vs pop scientists.

[Anonymous No.9709770]

>>9709761
>acknowledging philosophy means studying at university
By the way, the idea of studying solely for economic or career gain (something which you have thoroughly internalized) is also a part of philosophy, broadly speaking.

[Anonymous No.9709777]

We know already

[Anonymous No.9709949]

>>9709761
Why do anti-philosophy cucks eat like amerimutts?

[Anonymous No.9709958]

That's a pretty bold statement considering how many PhDs publish quite a lot without having no formal training in philosophy. Philosophy is not just the study of thought, nor it has a monopoly on it. The result lf techniques used in a scientific practice is the millennial work of great minds, not just an application of what some thinkers wrote.

[Anonymous No.9709962]

>>9709949
Because they are almost always amerimutts. Murrimutts are obsessed with profit and efficiency, with being the best possible worker bees, so naturally they rail against anything they deem economically inefficient or unwarranted.
It goes back to the foundational ideologies of their socirty, and to ideologies that originated in Europe with the enlightenment and the hyper rationalism it created.

[Anonymous No.9709964]

>>9709958
You've missed the point entirely. OP is talking about the origin of science as a distinct thing.

[Anonymous No.9709971]

>>9709964
>Expecting anything from faggots who don't know about philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.9710003]

Well obviously. The scientific method is born from philosophical observation.

[Anonymous No.9710009]

can't philosophize if you don't know how shit works
science is more fundamental

[Anonymous No.9710010]

OP comes in short again. To begin with, science was an art tree within philosophy. And now science is a field within the tree. And it has it's roots all way up into it's mere beginning. Fuck i broke the answer. Tip of my tongue. Autistic bloody devil. It's so easy it's stupid. Nah question is so dumb stupid formulated that my mind blocks it totally. Lauryyy. I wanna go.

[Anonymous No.9710021]

>>9709964
>Without philosophical you can't do science/science is pretty pointless
>motives for doing something is philosophy

I'm not against philosophy, hell, I've spent a lot of time studying it, but this baseless handwavy remarks are the absolute worst way to try and motivate philosophy nor it implies what you are saying. Philosophy is it's own thing as a proper academic field and it's clear sign someone hasn't really gonr beyond the basics if he wants to expand the reach of philosophy to literally every thought process a human can have. Obviously there are retards like
>>9710009
And yea, we should try to bring philosophy more to the interest of the general population, in particular academics, but it's ignorant to make retarded reductionists claims about any subject and their relationship. If people can escape almost anything that involves academia, they obviously can escape philosophy, and that applies to science.

[Anonymous No.9710032]

>>9709683
What's with your autistic obessition with this? Why do you keep posting it again and again. You're almost as bad as the divide by zero retard.

[The Lord No.9710034]

>>9709971
>philosophy of science.
math

[Anonymous No.9710309]

>>9709768

[Anonymous No.9710313]

>>9709683
Friendly reminder that you cannot escape taking a shit. Without taking a shit, you cannot actually do science (before you create science, you need to shit) and without shitting science is pretty pointless.

[Anonymous No.9710320]

>>9710313
You see, what you did there is a fallacy. If you have studied philosophy you would know logic and wouldn't embarrass yourself like that :^)

[Anonymous No.9710347]

>>9709683
Yeah, as someone with an interest in mathematics I am very much aware of that, the Problem is that 99% of philosophy past the Greeks is pure worthless garbage.
It astonishes me how one group of people could be so absolutely right about so many things and then we get two thousand years of people absolutely wrong about nearly everything.

[Anonymous No.9710363]

>>9709696
Neither could exist without philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9710367]

>>9710347
Kant was right about everything m8, prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9710368]

>>9709683
>Without philosophy, you cannot actually do science
Weird, none of the scientific papers that I've ever read required philosophy. I wonder why that might be.

[Anonymous No.9710373]

>>9710367
> Nun scheint es zwar natürlich, daß, so bald man den Boden der Erfahrung verlassen hat, man doch nicht mit Erkenntnissen, die man besitzt, ohne zu wissen woher, und auf den Kredit der Grundsätze, deren Ursprung man nicht kennt, so fort ein Gebäude errichten werde, ohne der Grundlegung desselben durch sorgfältige Untersuchungen vorher versichert zu sein, daß man also die Frage vorlängst werde aufgeworfen haben, wie denn der Verstand zu allen diesen Erkenntnissen a priori kommen könne, und welchen Umfang, Gültigkeit und Wert sie haben mögen.
This is a random sentence from Kritik der reinen Vernunft. I can tell you it is proper German, but I can not tell you what the content is and I am a native speaker.
He might be right or wrong, I don't know, but certainly if you can't say something in a manner in which is understandable, I will assume that you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.9710402]

>>9710373
>I don't understand it
>Therefore it's wrong

Perfect reasoning, you will be a great mathematician...

[Anonymous No.9710411]

>>9710402
>>I don't understand it
It isn't just that. It is evidently not written to be understood.
It is a mess of words, not seeming like a logical sequence of thoughts but of an entire ocean of wildly incoherent snips of arguments pulling you in a thousand different directions.

>Perfect reasoning, you will be a great mathematician...
Thanks.
But being able to write clear and concise is an important mathematical trait.

[Anonymous No.9710437]

>>9710411
There are a lot of scientific papers I don't understand. Not only that, it is evidently not written to be understood.
It is a mess of words and symbols, not seeming like a logical sequence of thoughts but of an entire ocean of wildly incoherent snips of arguments pulling you in a thousand different directions.

I guess you're right, they're all wrong...

Post literally any passage from the first Critique and I will explain it to you like you're five. But tomorrow, now I'm going to bed. Cya.

[Anonymous No.9710445]

>>9710437
>There are a lot of scientific papers I don't understand.
Yeah, it is the same for me.

> Not only that, it is evidently not written to be understood.
What? All scientific papers *SHOULD* be written to be understood.

>It is a mess of words and symbols, not seeming like a logical sequence of thoughts but of an entire ocean of wildly incoherent snips of arguments pulling you in a thousand different directions.
I have read papers about mathematics and although they often were difficult to understand they always tried to lay out a path and make a coherent sequential argument, where they motivated theorems and when relevant gave examples.

[Anonymous No.9710462]

>>9709683
I don't care.
I do science without caring about philosophy and it simply works.
Neither learning philosophy nor escaping philosophy was never in scope of my work, I have problems to solve and I solve them using science. Whenever I use philosophy or not during the process is irrelevant, all I care about is to solve problems I want to solve.

[Anonymous No.9710472]

>>9710347
>It astonishes me how one group of people could be so absolutely right about so many things and then we get two thousand years of people absolutely wrong about nearly everything.

You obviously didn't read the Socrates. How can you be sure they're wrong?

[Anonymous No.9710797]

>>9710313
>Without taking a shit, you cannot actually do science
You can.

>>9710368
Where do you think the epistemological tools used in the scientific method come from?

[Anonymous No.9710800]

>>9709696
>>9709761
>>9709958
>>9710368
Is this trolling or does /sci/ really have so many brainlets?

[Anonymous No.9710805]

>>9709696
>philosophy
>not science or math

[Anonymous No.9710814]

>>9710347
>the Greeks is pure worthless garbage.
It sounds like your historical knowledge of the Greeks is pure worthless garbage.

[Anonymous No.9712756]

>>9709683

[Anonymous No.9712931]

>>9710814
Why do you quote me in a manner that contradicts what I said?
>philosophy past the Greeks is pure worthless garbage

>>9710472
>You obviously didn't read the Socrates.
Sure the Greeks got memed into a couple of stupid Ideas, because they lacked the methods, in physics and chemistry, we have.
Aristotle assuming species to be eternal was one such mistake, the whole "5 elements" thing another.

>How can you be sure they're wrong?
Because modern philosophers get into absolutely ridiculous debates about topics which are entirely irrelevant to everything.
Sure there are exception to these and some modern philosophers manage to talk about modern topics in an interesting manner, but the Greeks understood so much already.