/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9763969]

>philosophy is bad
Are stemtists the biggest brainlets in our known history?

[Anonymous No.9763970]

>philosophy is good
Are philosophers the biggest brainlets in our known history?

[The Lord No.9763975]

Should people that don't treat other people the way they themselves would like to be treated be mercilessly exterminated?

[Anonymous No.9763989]

>>9763969
what's that gif about?

[Anonymous No.9763994]

>>9763969
wtf

[SAGE No.9763996]

>>9763989
NOT SCIENCE OR MATH SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS

[Anonymous No.9763999]

>>9763970
>thinking is bad
Typical stemtist

[Anonymous No.9764001]

>>9763989
Just a glimpse of the future YOU insist of living in.
>>9763996
>meta science
>not science
Stemtists are vegan tier mentally malnourished, and probably not only.

[Anonymous No.9764058]

>>9763996
>>9764001
not an answer. reported

>>9763996
it's not-Nor. learn to english

[Anonymous No.9764066]

>>9763969
>not realizing that epistemology is required for scientific understanding

[Anonymous No.9764074]

>>9763969
i need the sauce

[Anonymous No.9764088]

>>9764074
fuck off pedo.. nothing more happens.

[Anonymous No.9764095]

>>9763969
I have noticed throughout my years of study that most contemporary philosophers are lazy and without passion. They're content to very simply regurgitate past philosophy endlessly, negligibly, if at all, progressing the field. Or they develop their ideas and sit back, defending them for the rest of their careers; this is nothing other than holding a glorified opinion.

If my university is anything to go by, philosophy hasn't yet become a major that people choose simply because they don't know what else to do, unlike political science, business, or psychology. But it's slowly becoming that: I feel as if the lethargy of the professors is certainly rubbing off on the students. They complain about the length of the papers they have to write while skipping 60 percent of the assigned reading. They want their grades and their positions more than they want to contribute to philosophy. Perhaps all other fields within academia are similar, give or take, and that my experience is not uncommon. That still doesn't change the fact that philosophy is no longer what it was. There are far too many mediocre philosophers and they are unfortunately dictating the direction the field takes. All of this is very disillusioning to a serious and passionate student.

Modern philosophy has been kidnapped and it deserves the (serious) criticism it is subject to, unfortunately.

t. philosophy major

[Anonymous No.9764105]

>>9763969
all philosophy is mental masturbation
except dialectical materialism.

[Anonymous No.9764109]

>>9763969
Modern philosophy is tied to science and technological progress. The simulation hypothesis, concerns about AI, Genetic manipulated organism and synthetic biology; all these subject can best be understood and talked about if you have a good knowledge of the science behind it.
Modern day philosophy is practical philosophy, and it is best learned through science.

[Anonymous No.9764136]

>>9763969
I don't think anyone has said that about philosophy, let alone STEM majors who've graduated.

Everything has a place in this world, except for styrofoam, 5 manned pop boy bands, Green Jolly Ranchers, Koalas, and people who believe diversity means a group of minorities without Whites.

[Anonymous No.9764137]

[Anonymous No.9764138]

>>9764095
>They're content to very simply regurgitate past philosophy endlessly, negligibly, if at all, progressing the field. Or they develop their ideas and sit back, defending them for the rest of their careers; this is nothing other than holding a glorified opinion.
Says a person who clearly doesn't actually read any of the massive collection of contemporary philosophical works.

[Anonymous No.9764154]

>>9764138
I understand. I wasn't implying that philosophy is dead - that would be silly. I'm just alluding to what I recognize as systemic laziness within philosophy in academia.

[Anonymous No.9764164]

>>9764105
actually kys

[Anonymous No.9764174]

Most philosophy is so arbitrary that taking it seriously only leads to the worst outcomes.

[Anonymous No.9764192]

>>9763989
Indonesian birthday tradition.

[Anonymous No.9764199]

>>9764192
I thought you were kidding...

https://factsofindonesia.com/birthday-celebrations-in-indonesia

>4. Torture

>By ‘torture’ we did not mean any extreme physical activities and bully.
>Usually, the friends and families of the birthday girl or birthday boy will create a surprise for the birthday girl or birthday boy.
>Some of these surprises included as follow :

>Throwing floor.
>Throwing rotten eggs.
>Thrown into water or pool.
>Being dressed as clown.
>Being thrown coke or any soda drink.

[Anonymous No.9764202]

>>9764174
philosophy is knowledge systems based on logic.
there are 2 primary sources of knowledge: knowledge based on relations of qualities (logic, philosophy), and knowledge based on relations of quantities (math).

[Anonymous No.9764219]

>>9764137
Wow, this image really makes the fellas on the right seem like total jackasses.

[Anonymous No.9764223]

>>9764219
That is because they are

[Anonymous No.9764856]

>>9764202
>philosophy is knowledge systems based on logic.
That's only analytic philosophy, try again.

[Anonymous No.9764866]

>>9764202
>knowledge based on relations of qualities (logic, philosophy), and knowledge based on relations of quantities (math).
Propositional logic is mathematics. Mathematics is not only quantitative. Yet another "philosopher" talking out of his ass about something outside his field.

[Anonymous No.9764867]

>>9763969
Medical Schools hire primarily based on GPA rather than undergrad degree, you have a much better chance getting in with a 3.8 GPA in Spanish Literature or Philosophy than a 2.0 in Biochemistry or physics.

[Anonymous No.9765386]

weak pol bait thread.

[Anonymous No.9765392]

>>9764866
>Mathematics is not only quantitative
it's philosophy of mathematics then.

[Anonymous No.9765412]

I dont think they say "philosophy is bad". The general concern or indiference comes from levels of practicality. There are obvious drones who can't think beyond what some text tells them, but I think that, while even some of the most abstract mathematics end up being influential directly or indirectly, I still haven't seen a concrete argument as to what philosophy has "acomplished" even in pure indirect ways. Here I put a clear distinction in what historically was called "philosophy" and what we refer nowdays as "Philosophy" as a proper academic field. With this I mean, that philosophy wasn't restricted to epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and all that and every thing academic was "philosophy" so the points of science being a subset of philosophy cannot be justified through a historical perspective. And yes, I find that I haven't really heard of a good insight modern "philosophy" has done on our thoughts in a clear sense.

[Anonymous No.9765414]

>>9764866
Try harder with your bait next time, 0/10

[SAGE No.9765415]

>>9764058
ENGLISH IS NOT SCIENCE OR MATH SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS

[Anonymous No.9765430]

>>9764105
>except dialectical materialism
This is bait

[Anonymous No.9765444]

>>9763999
>philosophy is thinking
typical philosophag

[Anonymous No.9765453]

>>9764105
>what if we convince the goyim that history is headed in a single direction and there is only one legitmate interpretation of the past?
>sounds good to me

[Anonymous No.9765458]

>>9764137
Forgot Dirac you turbo nigger.

[Anonymous No.9765480]

>be mathfag
>taking philosophy's department modal logic class as elective because GenEd
>prof is proving [math] p \rightarrow \diamond p [/math]
>"By axiom of necessity [math] \square ¬p \rightarrow ¬p [/math]"
>"By contrapositive [math] p \rightarrow ¬ \square ¬p [/math]
>"But why is that?" "I don't understand!" "What tautology are you using?" "It's not in my list!" "What happened to the ¬ in front of p?" "Isn't that an synthetic a priori judgement?"
>so this is the power of philosophy

[Anonymous No.9765486]

>>9765453
>jews against money
you should reconsider your boogeyman

[Anonymous No.9765684]

>>9764154
Most philosophers are bound to be Eudoxuses, very few will be Plato's. You're falling prey to a survivorship bias.

[Anonymous No.9765709]

>>9765486
Not him but both of those men were extremely wealthy, at least their parents were.

[Anonymous No.9765777]

>>9765444
btfo'd

[Anonymous No.9765959]

>>9765709
marx notoriously leeched off engels his entire life, that stupid goy

[Anonymous No.9766136]

>>9763969
>>9763989
that webm is a classic example of why white European culture is inferior to all others you fucking bigot.

[Anonymous No.9766144]

>>9764001
Have fun getting heart disease from eating rotting burnt corpses.

[Anonymous No.9766171]

>>9763969
I've yet to see an explanation behind that webm.

[Anonymous No.9766178]

>>9766171
Minorities that grow up in the ghettos are often not that great people and abuse their kin because of the culture of their surroundings.

[Anonymous No.9766203]

>>9766171
this could be it >>9764199

[Anonymous No.9766245]

>>9763969
>>>/pol/
saged, and saved

[Anonymous No.9766251]

>>9765430
no. you should read a book about dialectical materialism. this will open your eyes.
this is pretty good https://archive.org/details/MaterialismDialecticalMethod

[Anonymous No.9766330]

>>9765486
>commies aren’t inherently Jewish
nice try Moshe

[Anonymous No.9766431]

>>9765684
You make a good point; I suppose I cannot judge my professors completely confidently but I can contrast between them with respect to the effort that (I perceive) they put into their work. They're all successful philosophers (for they are all professors) yet Sturgeon's law still applies.

[Anonymous No.9766434]

>>9763969
More like
>philosophy is useless and uninteresting compared to stem
What's it like flipping burgers?

[Anonymous No.9766440]

>>9765480
>using double negation elimination
>not using intuitionistic logic
That's why.

[Anonymous No.9766557]

>>9763969
god I wish that were me

[Anonymous No.9766578]

>>9766434
>>philosophy is useless

[Anonymous No.9766612]

>>9766330
of course not. commies are atheists who represents working class.
can you at least do some research before parroting stupid shit from /pol/?

[Anonymous No.9766630]

>>9766612
>commies are atheists
lol
>who represents working class
double lol

[Anonymous No.9766638]

>>9766630
you surely have weird image of communism

[Anonymous No.9766649]

>>9766638
truth is stranger than fiction

[Anonymous No.9766655]

>>9763969
Enjoy unemployment you pretentious faggot

[Anonymous No.9767016]

>>9763969
Give me one example of a time when philosophy has given an insight that is in any way surprising or is inconsistent with common sense.

I think stemfags hate philosophy as a major rather than a concept because it doesn't take a four year course to be able to do something that is essentially just common sense and reasoning.

Philosophy as a subject has become particularly irrelevant as the study of reality and knowledge has outstripped what you can think of by just sitting around and pondering it.

The only thing that philosophy has left is to "solve" the question of existence, which is again is not really a question that can be proven definitively and when someone does prove it, it is always an unsurprising and common sense answer.

[Anonymous No.9767121]

>>9764199
birthdays must suck in Indonesia

[Anonymous No.9767312]

>>9766251
no one is going to read that because you linked it

[Anonymous No.9767333]

>>9766578
Philosophy can't install gentoo

[Anonymous No.9767337]

>we don't know nuffin dude
philosophy in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.9767389]

Modern philosophy is not about original thought, but either repeating obvious trivialities already said a million times before or shortsighted political activism.

[Anonymous No.9767412]

>>9764867
Which explains why medical care has gone from effective therapy to just prescribing addicting drugs for every single 'problem' that a person has which leads to their eventual demise. Basically, the medical field is quickly turning into something akin to the law field: full of self-centered scumbags that only care about themselves and their wallets.

[Anonymous No.9767428]

>>9766245
>muh /pol/ boogeyman!

[Anonymous No.9767432]

>>9763969
philosophy is kind of an outdated method of inquiry now that we have the scientific method

[Anonymous No.9767494]

>>9767312
it seems that being a eternal fool is your choice. OK.

>>9767432
that's not what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.9767509]

>>9766440
>rejecting the principle of the excluded middle
Have fun with your useless field.

[Anonymous No.9767516]

>>9763969
>>9764074
>>9764199
Video with audio in article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5737031/Indonesian-birthday-boy-drenched-egg-yolk-cutting-cake.html

[Anonymous No.9767532]

>>9765392
No, it's math. Propositional logic is math, not retards who think math is quantitative pretending that they know anything about math. That's "philosophy of mathematics."

[Anonymous No.9767533]

>>9765414
>B-b-bait
You got BTFO

[Anonymous No.9767579]

>>9767016
I think I agree with you.

But one thing philosophers have figured out is that morality is objective, which is surprising and defies common sense. However, what I do is I simply dismiss it as bullshit because it's obviously wrong or at least it has so many qualifiers that the statement has absolutely no meaning or becomes a tautology. Maybe you do the same thing, and ignore philosophical "truths" that make no sense, and as a result you don't recognize the knowledge that is there.

[Anonymous No.9767628]

>>9767016
>Philosophy as a subject has become particularly irrelevant as the study of reality and knowledge has outstripped what you can think of by just sitting around and pondering it.
Completely disagree, that's exactly what theoretical science has become. Theoretical science is a broken branch of metaphysics that uses mathematics instead of formal logic, therefore the axioms (premises) do not have to be logically sound to be used in a theory. As soon as you break away from philosophy like science has done, you end up with illogical nonsense that leads nowhere.

Philosophy doesn't want to take over science or replace it, it's simply a tool to improve science by keeping it logically consistent. Not just science, but pretty much every other pursuit you can think of. No government wants that.

[Anonymous No.9767632]

>>9767628
it's obvious you don't even know what theoretical science is beyond some popsci like everyone else

[Anonymous No.9767639]

>>9767632
How long are you willing to accept "dark matter" for before you call bullshit? Dark matter spits in the face of science and logic.

[Anonymous No.9767643]

>>9767639
>We don’t know what it is therefore it’s not real

You’re a troll.

[Anonymous No.9767648]

>>9767639
>Dark matter spits in the face of science and logic.

[Anonymous No.9767650]

>>9767628
>It is impossible for the universe to behave in ways I think make no sense haha

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9767660]

>>9767643
>We don’t know what it is therefore it’s not real
And this is the fundamental problem with theoretical science. Instead of accepting the theory is wrong and going back to the drawing board, theoretical science will stare the problem in the face for eternity because it's too fucking stubborn and lacking in awareness/logic not to.

So my question still stands, how long are you willing to accept dark matter for until you call bullshit?

[Anonymous No.9767663]

>>9767648
There's this mass, right, that is invisible, it doesn't actually have any of the properties of mass, but it is mass, just, kinda, dark. Anyway, we know it's there because we can't prove it's there, so something must be there. Give us a few thousand years and we will crack it, I promise.

[Anonymous No.9767666]

>>9767663
>What is gravity

“it doesn't actually have any of the properties of mass”

Except, you know, the most important property of mass, gravity.
>>9767660
>We don’t know what it is therefore it’s not real

This is the problem with “philosophy”.

[Anonymous No.9767668]

>>9767663
>it is literally inconceivable to me that there could be mass in the universe that we don't know how to directly detect yet
sorry about your brain damage

[Anonymous No.9767670]

>>9767668
Apparently causing gravity isn’t a property of mass. There should be a special containment board for pseudos where they can argue whether or not reality is real.

[Anonymous No.9767672]

>>9767670
>There should be a special containment board for pseudos where they can argue whether or not reality is real.
agreed, it would get rid of you at least
>dark matter doesn't cause gravity
behold, the power of philosophy

[Anonymous No.9767676]

>>9767672
I think you may be talking to the wrong person and interpreting my statements wrong. I am >>9767666
, not >>9767660

[Anonymous No.9767679]

>>9767676
sorry for being a retard sempai

[Anonymous No.9767682]

>>9767679
“Apparently causing gravity isn’t a property of mass” was a statement made in mockery of >>9767663 “ it doesn't actually have any of the properties of mass,”

Apparently, according to them, being massive is not a trait of mass. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9767695]

>>9767639
The movement of the galaxy doesn't match up with the predicted effects of the visible distribution of matter. Attempts at making long range modifications to the law of gravity don't tend to work (I am not an astrophysicist, so I'm not too familiar with the details), whereas we know beforehand that there exist many objects that do not emit detectable electromagnetic radiation such as cool planets (WIMPS) or many species of particles (MACHOS), but would still participate in gravitational interactions. We can even observe the effects of gravitational lensing on various stars by bodies that are not visible to us.

What about this seems unscientific to you? We observe phenomenon and attempt to find explanations for them.

[Anonymous No.9767705]

>>9767695
sorry, mixed up WIMPs and MACHOS, flip those

[Anonymous No.9767716]

>>9767695
What about dyson shells and matryoshka brains?

[Anonymous No.9767722]

>>9767695
>We observe
What you "observe" is greatly influenced by what are you expecting to see.
Modern "science" is full of shit, because scientists can't into philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9767727]

>>9767722
Nope. Our expectations don’t magically alter the behavior of scientific instruments, and we didn’t “expect” to find dark matter you brainlet.

>Modern "science" is full of shit, because scientists can't into philosophy.

Modern philosophy is full of shit, because “philosophers” can’t into science. See how easy it is to just make assertions?

[Anonymous No.9767738]

>>9767716
I think those have some properties that make them not very relevant as explanations, but I'm not in astrophysics.

>>9767722
Astrophysics isn't a social science you retard

[Anonymous No.9767740]

>>9767666
>Except, you know, the most important property of mass, gravity.
I think you'll find the most important property of mass is actually... being mass. Like a religion, you refuse to accept that the theory of gravity could be wrong, you just can't allow it.

[Anonymous No.9767745]

>>9767740
Cavendish experiment proves you wrong, sorry. You should insert some more coins and try again in a different way.

[Anonymous No.9767747]

>>9767740
It’s not even a theory, by the way. May want to stop doing drugs m8.

[Anonymous No.9767748]

>>9767668
>it is literally inconceivable to me that theoretical science could be wrong wrong about gravity

[Anonymous No.9767752]

>>9767748
Gravity is simple fact, not “theoretical science”. Mass attracts mass.

[Anonymous No.9767763]

>>9767727
>Our expectations don’t magically alter the behavior of scientific instruments, and we didn’t “expect” to find dark matter you brainlet.
The only observable behavior are spectrograms that don't look like they "expected" to look.
The whole myth of cosmos creation, bing bang and dark matter based on this.

[Anonymous No.9767786]

>>9767763
Give up your troll act.

[Anonymous No.9767787]

>>9767722
>What you "observe" is greatly influenced by what are you expecting to see.
cringe

[Anonymous No.9768039]

>>9766251
IQ fags BTFO.
you are nothing but filthy metaphysicians.

[Anonymous No.9768152]

>>9766440
>Brainlet thinks that saying something isn't false doesn't mean it's true
Why do intuitionists like to sabotage themselves?

[Anonymous No.9768162]

>>9763969
What the fuck did that kid do? Why are they treating him like that?

inb4
>because they're a bunch of savage curryniggers

[Anonymous No.9768169]

>>9767532
Maths: Playing games with symbols.
Philosophy: Inventing the rules of that game.

[Anonymous No.9768193]

>>9768169
philosophy is joining a game, then insist everyone play by your rules regardless of how effective or efficient they are
then when nobody else does it, still keep playing by your own rules

[Anonymous No.9768199]

Science cannot give us access to absolute truth because science is empirical. Philosophy is about the absolute. Many people who say they're philosophers have lost sight of this and that is the problem with philosophy today.

[Anonymous No.9768417]

>>9768169
Nope. Math was made up by ancient people to assist with state management.

>>9768199
Philosophy is being a pseudo intellectual and masturbating to questions like “R trees reel???”.

[Anonymous No.9768849]

>>9764138
>massive collection of contemporary philosophical works.
post modern dripple isnt philosophy, but go read Simulacra and Simulation again you dork

[Anonymous No.9768870]

>>9767428
read the filename, retard

[Anonymous No.9768880]

>>9768417
math was invented for accounting. the mother of all sciences and knowledge today is chad's business administration

[Anonymous No.9768895]

>>9764109
Yet, science is based on philosophical concepts and is merely an attempt of drawing connections between the few phenomena we can perceive

Philosophical ideas > scientifical evidence > new philosophical ideas > ..

[Anonymous No.9769016]

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out.

It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to why STEMfags are dismissive of the humanities. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?

Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

[Anonymous No.9769029]

>>9769016
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.9769065]

>>9769029

[Anonymous No.9769115]

>>9769065
This has the potential to be quality bait but
>You should always concede your point if tlking to someone more intellectually privileged than yourself.
just gives it away too easily.

[Anonymous No.9769124]

>>9769029
>>9769115
>I have a point

????????????????????????

[Anonymous No.9769156]

>>9769124
Not really commenting on your point, just lamenting wasted potential.

[Anonymous No.9769466]

[Anonymous No.9769481]

>>9763969
LOL mr birthday boy got fucking BTFO

[Anonymous No.9769486]

>>9768162
because they're a bunch of savage curryniggers you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.9769647]

>>9768417
yeah, and all music is masturbation because most people are shit at singing. fuck off

[Anonymous No.9769675]

>>9769466
this picture was already posted itt, mini-mind

[Anonymous No.9769808]

>>9768162
>>9769486
>Indonesians
>Eating curry

Sub 90 IQ subhumans are allowed on this board?

[Anonymous No.9770005]

Philosophy is alright but don't act like it's the most important shit in existence
It doesn't exactly have many applications

[Anonymous No.9770161]

>>9763969
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out.

It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to why STEMfags are dismissive of the humanities. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?

Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

[Anonymous No.9771863]

>>9763969
Pic related

[Anonymous No.9771892]

>>9769065
>It is poor form to argue against scientific fact.
While still withholding how this experiment was conducted, and assuming it's completely unbiased.
This is very good bait.
I'd rate it at around 7/8.

[Anonymous No.9771903]

>>9763969
Philosophy is mental masturbation and circle-jerking, science basically is everything useful from it. Now go make me my large fries mcdonalds cuck

[Anonymous No.9771910]

>>9766578
Philosophy and natural science undergrads are only useful for flipping burgers how does it feel to be btfo'd by a CS undergrad?

[Anonymous No.9771916]

>>9771910
You don't have to be a Philosophy major to implement it in your daily life.

[Anonymous No.9771919]

>>9771903
>hates philosophy
>uses it to make their argument

[Anonymous No.9771929]

>>9763969
make that little faggot think twice about getting older, the son of a bitch.
Oh you want a cake. Oh its YOUR special day is it. Fuck you little nigger.

[Anonymous No.9771944]

>>9771919
>hate philosophy
>admit to the fact that science has a connection to it

[Anonymous No.9771954]

>>9771944
Kek

[Anonymous No.9772106]

>>9768417
>>9768199
>>9767579
>>9767432
>>9767389
>>9767016
>>9764202
>>9764174
>>9763970
Very dumb takes, but potentially salvageable. Desperately need to read Wittgenstein.

>>9763969
>>9767628
>>9767639
>>9767660
>>9767722
>>9767740
>>9769016
So dumb there's probably no saving these anons

[Anonymous No.9772150]

>>9772106
>So dumb there's probably no saving these anons
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.9772158]

>>9772150
It's an observation, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.9772159]

>>9772158
You have arrived at a conclusion that the anons are dumb, what led you to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.9772180]

>>9772159
Misunderstands science, particularly the role of theory. Needs better grounding in mathematics and physics, agnostic of presuppositions on philosophy of science. Probably should also read Wittgenstein more closely.

[Anonymous No.9772181]

>>9768870
Fuck off idiot

[Anonymous No.9772185]

>>9769016
That was one of the most cringest and poorly written descriptions I have read in a while. All for the STEM people are autistic xd.

[Anonymous No.9772191]

>>9772180
Still only seeing conclusions, where are the arguments?

[Anonymous No.9772196]

>>9772191
Again, no arguments. Argumentation is a performance. Observation is preferable.

[Anonymous No.9772197]

>>9772196
Trolling is a performance.

[Anonymous No.9772209]

>>9772197
Now you are understanding. Trolling is performative and self-aware. Getting into bickering debates where participants are largely unaware of things they critique and unaccepting of the limits of their ability to forge logic from language is one of the worst kinds of performances, and early self aware.

Need to begin with Rubin's Real and Complex Analysis and move onto Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Jaynes' Probability Theory. That will provide a plausible foundation to learn.

[Anonymous No.9772232]

>>9772209
This is a great way of pretending opinions are the same as facts.

[Anonymous No.9772347]

>>9772232
The is no binary construct of fact vs opinion. We can even recast that nonsensical assertion of yours back to Jaynesian probability: a fact is that which has a plausibility value of one, a logical impossibility is that with a plausibility of 0, and all other information evaluated to some plausibility between 0 and 1 that is necessarily rooted in some subjective prior.

[Anonymous No.9772393]

>>9772347
>Getting into bickering debates where participants are largely unaware of things they critique and unaccepting of the limits of their ability to forge logic from language is one of the worst kinds of performances, and early self aware.
Is this a fact or an opinion?

[Anonymous No.9772402]

>>9772393
It's a subjective statement. There is no binary construct of fact or opinion.

[Anonymous No.9772407]

>>9772402
>It's a subjective statement.
Can an opinion have the plausibility value of 0?

[Anonymous No.9772418]

>>9772407
If we are going back to the Jaynesian use of "plausibility" as a Bayesian way, obviously it can because a probability measure {\displaystyle P} is a function {\displaystyle P:{\mathcal {F}}\rightarrow [0,1]} P:{\mathcal {F}}\rightarrow [0,1]... you can see that 0 is in the measure.

[Anonymous No.9772421]

>>9772418
Therefore an opinion can be a binary construct of a fact?

[Anonymous No.9772424]

>>9772418
too bad I'm not sure how to get math equations to show, it's supposed to be the measure P is a function P:F-->[0,1] where F is a sigma-algebra

[Anonymous No.9772430]

>>9772421
>Therefore an opinion can be a binary construct of a fact?
lol therefore that does not follow from what I wrote. The right end point of a measure is not a binary construct of its left end point. The end points are arbitrary and can be scaled. You need to take measure theory as well.

[Anonymous No.9772440]

>>9772430
What's the plausibility value of dark matter?

[Anonymous No.9772449]

>>9772440
Depends on the prior. I don't study astrophysics in any way so I would have a very diffuse prior. You need to study probability anon, you have a very stupid line of questioning that is conceptually ridiculous within its context. The whole point of having Bayesian plausibility is to have a distribution not a value (though the MAP can be given as the "main" value).

[Anonymous No.9772457]

>>9772449
Do you consider current theoretical science as being logical?

[Anonymous No.9772460]

>>9772457
Don't know what that means. Logical as in it uses maths derived from axioms? Probably, though that would depend on the specific theory. Logical as in rhetorical logic? That's not really relevant, you need to read Wittgenstein anon.

[Anonymous No.9772465]

>>9772460
I've read Wittgenstein and his language games.

Logic as in formal logic.

[Anonymous No.9772471]

Just scrubs that can't into inductive logic.

[Anonymous No.9772473]

what exactly was his fucking problem?

[Anonymous No.9772479]

>>9772465
Using formal logic as a tool to evaluate rhetorical claims is flawed, you would know this if you understood Wittgenstein. Not just the language games either, also his collection On Certainty.

Again, formal logic is relevant only as it maps to maths. Jaynesian probability extends Aristotelian logic to probability/plausibility as we discussed above, so it could be a useful framework of evaluation of claims using logic.

[Anonymous No.9772488]

>>9772479
Mathematics isn't flawed? Do you consider 0 as a number?

[Anonymous No.9772493]

>>9772488
>Mathematics isn't flawed? Do you consider 0 as a number?
This is a stupid question. You need to study real/complex analysis anon.

[Anonymous No.9772497]

>>9772493
Why's it a stupid question?

[Anonymous No.9772503]

>>9772497
Because 0 is the additive identity of a field or ring that contains the addition operation. It is literally a axiomatic part of real numbers.

[Anonymous No.9772512]

>>9769065

[Anonymous No.9772518]

>>9772503
Is 0 the binary opposite to infinity?

[Anonymous No.9772825]

>>9772488
I can understand that an apple may exist or a bunch of apples, few apples or many apples, but a (((mathematician))) wants to me attach his mystical labels to my apples (and probably steal them while I am confused by his talk). Suddenly, there are no longer lots of apples, there are 13 apples or 25 apples. If you have a basket with lots of apples and you put lots of apples into it, you still have lots of apples, but a (((mathematician))) says there were 13 apples, you added 25 apples and now you have 38 apples.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that numbers exist. They exist in no less than the realm of ideas, mind, and soul. But apples are material. Apples are out there and you can touch them. But 38 apples? Where is this strange realm of intersecting material and ideal worlds? This is pure unscientific nonsense. You can't empirically prove that you can assign a number to an apple, to make a strange eternal aeonian connection between the realm of matter and the realm of ideas, as if every number corresponds to every apple and their configuration in the world.

You can keep putting apples in a basket and perform your magic spell of counting "one, two, three, four...", but how do you know you will end up with one, two three and four apples? You don't and you can't prove scientifically that you do.

[Anonymous No.9773341]

>>9765480
>mathfag can't into logic
wew lad

[Anonymous No.9773351]

>philosophy don't be good becuz muh progress XDDDD
Funny how the intention of philosophy was never to advance society technologically as science does.

This board is utter garbage

[Anonymous No.9773352]

>>9772825
I think you're trying to sound scientific and educated by using these words, but honestly you sound more like a well dressed caveman.

[Anonymous No.9773354]

The problem with philosophy is that it's aided and limited by the language. Language is a collection of arbitrary symbols that change over time. Yes, it may produce more original and true thoughts. However, it also produces more confused and removed from the reality. For example, the peak of this confusion can be found in the philosophy of mind debate right now. People who defend the mind unironically believe in magical stuff that cannot ever be detected.

The science is meant to analyze and understand the reality. Now, philosophers will object and say that, what if the reality isn't all it is! But, it's trending and looking like that it actually is... Once you remove all of the magical thinking, the empirical monist materialist methodology that we call science is indeed the best method to understand the reality itself and will swallow the "philosophy" whole.

[Anonymous No.9773363]

>>9773354
Finally. This anon almost understands Wittgenstein. The second part of this ironically grounds itself too heavily on the empiricism tradition which is a shame because you had just grasped the limitations and contextuality of language, only to root your second part far too much on some notion tied to the word "reality". But you are close.

[Anonymous No.9773383]

>>9773363
What do you suggest then? I don't see any better method than using empiricism to understand the existence, reality, or whatever that you call it.

I'm sure that you're just some continental faggot who will ramble on noumena or some bullshit tho. Please do try to surprise me though.

[Anonymous No.9773396]

>>9773354
The problem with most scientifically-minded people is that they think that if something can't be proven empirically, it's not even worth considering or thinking about. Many take this to the extreme of believing that most such things will one day be addressed by science. I cannot even begin to express how deluded that view is. Newton himself said that, in science, we are merely playing with a few pebbles on the shore of a vast ocean. Most of what we don't know is so vast as to be almost certainly unknowable. Therefore, it's unwise to completely ignore truths of which we will only ever be able to see faint outlines, in favor of only those truths which are experimentally demonstrable.

[Anonymous No.9773409]

>>9773363

Brainlet reporting in. New to intellectual discussion. Please forgive and help me correct any forthcoming incoherence:

The language can evolve, though. The way that language (math) can describe reality through approximations is only a limit in the context of time. Over time, perhaps language can deal with the seeming contradictions between what can be expressed abstractly and what can be modeled and predicted to the degree of orbiting celestial bodies and fluid mechanics. These contradictions, I hypothesize, can be solved by context-based ontological flexibility, to the point of inversion (in some cases). Answers derived from these ontological/metaphysical systems usually seem quite obvious in hindsight. Consider Galileo.

Right? Or am I misinterpreting what you said. Trying my best to not pull a muscle, here.

[Anonymous No.9773430]

>>9773383
Empiricism is a wonderful tool for understand the natural world before us. I'll hesitate with "reality" because it depends on how one interprets that term, but "natural world" should be ok.

Other aspects of our existence (experience might be a better word) are not in an empirical domain (empiricism does not cover ontology). However, the limits of language bound our ability to explain and communicate fundamental ontology. You seem to get this in your post, whether from reading or just personal intuition.

So empiricism is useful for the natural world (the ontic world). But there is more to existence. And what's more is that that which is not empirical/ontic (that which is ontological or ontotheological) can only be contextual, bounded by ambiguities of language. Ultimately, the ontic is also bounded by these as well, but empiricism is a really useful heuristic for understanding it, so whatever. And finally, *every* philosophy that creates an ontological structure is flawed, and that basically condemns the bulk of Western philosophy until the mid-twentieth century.

[Anonymous No.9773434]

>>9773396
I don't necessarily disagree about scienticism that you posed as science's fall. However, what I take offense to is a more insidious idea: antirealism. There is an overall trend of actually making progress in the understanding of the universe. To say that we cannot ever understand everything is a cop out and deny the nature of reality. If there is a reality, then we can interact with it! The sheer volume of the understanding is not a valid excuse for antirealism.

Wrt scienticism part of your idea- I do agree that scientists may dismiss speculations far too easily. However, most of the speculations are artifacts of language and so on. Falisability is a necessity to create an enterprise so that we can actually work towards truths.
For example, religious people might be right about the God. However, they are almost certainly wrong about everything else. Yes, there would be a benefit in knowing that God is true, but we wouldn't understand WHY it is true. Science is necessary to answer this question.

[Anonymous No.9773476]

>>9773409
I come from a background in math (probably more common here) so it might be helpful to conceptualize the limitations of language by analogizing in an abusive way to math: language is a map between discrete structures (words, sentences, hand signals etc) to some space of "meaning". The problem is this space of meaning is infinitely dimensional (if we allow such an abusive notion) and unknowable in full, and it changes through time and perspective.

Moreover language is only meaningful if it communicates our attempted mapping to another entity. In order for something to be ontologically universal, it would have to communicate the exact same mapping of the discrete words to the same region of the underlying unknowable space of meaning through all time, for each perspective. Even with this largely silly analogy to math structures, hopefully you can see the notion of using language to communicate the complexities of ontology might lead to some issues.

Discussion as to why math is not bound be these issues in this way is beyond the scope of this post for now, but if you studied set theory, category theory, etc you will be familiar with this.

[The Lord No.9773482]

"Philosophy is bad" is to STEM as "Laurel" is to Laurel vs Yanny.

No one hears Laurel, but some say they do, for some reason.

[The Lord No.9773501]

I think the thing in that loud minority of mostly media-affiliated STEM pundits hating philosophers is, "A lot of philosophers are not well trained in mathematics, and have a poor understanding of the rigorous rudiments of field theory." Having that knowledge is important if one is ever to extend an argument beyond words. Therefore, the criticism is, "If any new idea ever goes all the way and makes it into the physical canon, it won't be from a philosopher," because they use "philosopher" defined as someone who cannot make mathematical demonstrations which are the true finesse of STEM. However, that is not the real definition of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9773587]

>>9773430
How can there more to than there is in a naturalistic phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.9773610]

>>9763970
Except most achievements in math came from philosophers

[The Lord No.9773615]

>>9773610

[Anonymous No.9773697]

I find it hilarious how many -if not most- of the stemists that have this irrational hatred for philosophy are just bandwagoning and repeating what they have heard others say. Most likely they have never ever touched a book in philosophy and never will because they 2 le smart 4 that

[Anonymous No.9773801]

Modern philosophy is pretty bland. Neitchze was the last engaging philosophy. Now it all about social justice. It's bad because no one does it well.

[Anonymous No.9773821]

>>9773801
>Neitchze was the last engaging philosophy. Now it all about social justice.
Wrong. Desperately need to read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.9773839]

>>9763969
>welcome to the juden dystopia.webm

[Anonymous No.9773846]

>>9773801
t. has only read summaries of philosophy probably from Wikipedia or 4chan

[Anonymous No.9773857]

>this analytic cuck desperately shilling Wittgenstein
Nobody cares about your little train set child

[The Lord No.9773858]

>>9773697
>irrational hatred for philosophy are just bandwagoning and repeating what they have heard others say.
number one problem behavior for brainlets

[Anonymous No.9773879]

>>9773857
>he thinks wittgenstein is analytic
My word anon, you poor thing. You *really* need to read Wittgenstein.

He and Monsieur Derrida share very much in common in opposition to positivism and structuralism and a turn toward viewing the inescapable context of language/ideas as opposing any necessarily universal structure: https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Lang/LangOrba.htm

[Anonymous No.9773914]

>stemtards shit talking philosophy when they can't even refute the cosmological argument

[Anonymous No.9773920]

>>9773879
You've obviously never read Wittgenstein *or* Derrida, and are hoping the science majors on /sci/ won't notice. Consider yourself called out. Now please trouble us no longer

[Anonymous No.9773955]

>>9773920
Sorry anon, that's just a poor attempt to save face. Late wittgenstein is not analytic, and that is the wittgenstein that is being talked about. you've gotten a poor concept of wittgenstein's philosophy if you are only aware of his analytic tractatus when he was a naive young man. It's pretty embarrassing how you've outed yourself while trying to sound like you had the upper hand desu. Luckily for you, you can atone by reading the Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" three times and his "Remarks on the philosophy of psychology" once in order to understand the error in your ways.

[Anonymous No.9773978]

>>9773955
>gets called out
>decides to double down and hope for the best
Don't get embarrassed, we're all anonymous here.
One tip I would give is tone down your florid style of writing. It projects immaturity, and makes it obvious how hard you're trying.

[Anonymous No.9773982]

>>9773978
lmao that's not florid unless you're a fucking peasant

[Anonymous No.9773983]

>>9773396
I'm sure everyone has thought about nonempirical ideas before, the problem is that they do not have real answers.

[Anonymous No.9774347]

Philosophy is just glorified opinions, or a way to pretend your opinions are objectively true, and any time you discover an inconsistency you can always do some hairsplitting so it's still okay.
It's really stupid as a field.

[Anonymous No.9774402]

>>9764137
What Veda crystal analogy is Schrodinger referring to

[Anonymous No.9774453]

>>9768417
>Math was made up by ancient people to assist with state management.
This is not math but calculating. Math consists of "playing" with symbols (whether it's an actual symbol, proposition or whatever). Following rules that somebody somehow found out to describe factual things is definitely not math in a meaningful sense.

One could argue that finding rules by playing the symbol game is math. However the discussion about the connection between those rules and reality is philosophy - whether it's just a naive form of it or an elaborated one.

[Anonymous No.9774880]

>>9767722
Just end your life humanities nigger

[Anonymous No.9774918]

>>9774880
>uncertainty
>superposition
>entanglement
>teleportation
these metaphysical concepts are result of a certain philosophical view.
different philosophical view can result in different interpretations of the same phenomena.

[Anonymous No.9775154]

>>9774918
Thank you. STEM education is full of shit because of people neglecting philosophical reflection.

>muh intederminism of quantum objects
>refuse acknowledging the actual content of Copenhagen interpretation
>ignore different positions because never heard of it

[Anonymous No.9775275]

>>9773341
>reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.9775440]

>>9763969
Ever joined a fraternity?
Remember the hazing?

Now immagine being Hazed by everyone from the moment you are born untill you are strong enough to defeat your peers and dish out some damage yourself.

That is what being black is about.

[Anonymous No.9775448]

>>9768193
this is pretty accurate.

[Anonymous No.9775457]

>>9775154
t. Mcdonalds employee

[Anonymous No.9775486]

>>9764137
Dawkins ones are obviously just jokes and there is literally nothing wrong with what nye said.

[Anonymous No.9775507]

>>9775457
Studying STEM actually but acknowledging the douchbaggery of intellectual filth.

[Anonymous No.9775512]

>>9775457
Because of reflecting conditions and implications of one's own research? Are you functionally retarded or something?

[Anonymous No.9775539]

>>9765453
>a literal nazi conspiracy theory

[Anonymous No.9775564]

>>9769016
>phenomenologically bracket
(((Dinkelberg)))

[Anonymous No.9775586]

>>9763969
Most people in stem have a basic understanding of philosophy as it relates to science and appreciate philosophy in that sense, I don't get what you're bitching about

[Anonymous No.9775990]

>>9773434
>Falisability is a necessity to create an enterprise so that we can actually work towards truths.
Get out, Popper

[Anonymous No.9776073]

>>9772518
that's negative infinity

[Anonymous No.9776473]

>>9767745
>Cavendish experiment
>doing anything but proving 'gravity' is not at all what modern science perceives and teaches

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbjLbVuqoZ4

Thank me later and pass it on

[Anonymous No.9776873]

>>9774402
Seconding

[Anonymous No.9776891]

>>9774402
Oh you know, some new-age brainlet ancient wisdom shiet, like the oneness of consciousness and the eternal flow of time

[Anonymous No.9776900]

>>9765412
Philosophy is about improve thinking. Don't you want to think better?
Philosophy is an activity, like (current) science is an activity and is done in community. You need some scientists and society, government, institutions, academia, engineers , inventors and people with boring jobs. But philosophy is more likely to be something just for you.

You own philosophy. You can argue (you are arguing), you are asking questions to yourself, you are not just swallowing what people says.

You don't need to read philosophers. You can read the bible, Principia, greek mythology, Richard Feynman. Watch Matrix, play BioShock, read the newspaper, go to walk to the park and hear conversations, etc.

I viscerally know what philosophy is, but is hard to put it into words. Doesn't that happen with science?

[Anonymous No.9776906]

>>9766612
Judaism is the most dangerous atheism

[Anonymous No.9776969]

>>9764219
They are total jackasses, very successful jackasses but jackasses all the same.

[Anonymous No.9777995]

"Philosophy" is a blanket term for weakly related subjects like epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. It's obviously not "bad" on itself, it's just often done poorly by philosophers

[Anonymous No.9778007]

>>9763969
literally monkeys

[Anonymous No.9778012]

>>9767722
go home deepak you’re drunk

[Anonymous No.9778023]

>>9763969
Holy shit this fucking gif

[Anonymous No.9778048]

>>9764137
>Hey I think my sense very often correlate strongly with what is truly happening
>reality is like a crystal

[Anonymous No.9778404]

>>9773476
The Pythagorean theorem has always been interpreted in the same way as it is now. We've made some simple changes, but even Pythagoras would agree to these changes if he were to be alive today.
Anyone who tries to claim math reasoning somehow holds obfuscation are literal humanities majors who failed their calc courses.

[Anonymous No.9778835]

>>9763989
Except the kid gets another cake, plot twist you are the philistine.

[Anonymous No.9778854]

>>9772825
6/10 bait

[Anonymous No.9778863]

>>9775154
>claims scientists neglect philosophical reflection
>then cites one of many interpretations of QM, all of them philosophical
>Is mad because the consensus interpretation doesnt fit his
Youre undergrad is showing.

[Anonymous No.9778867]

>>9769065
All these years of seeing this image and I still don't know what is meant by "Weishaupt's Plateau"

[Anonymous No.9779193]

>>9764199
>>Throwing floor.
>>Throwing rotten eggs.
>>Thrown into water or pool.
>>Being dressed as clown.
>>Being thrown coke or any soda drink.
In Argentina we do this to people who had just graduated

[Anonymous No.9779259]

>>9778863
>cites one of many interpretations of QM, all of them philosophical

Obviously you can't even comprehend the meaning of the previous statement and the thread as a whole. This illustrates what's wrong with many (not all!) STEMtist nowadays: Either the will or the ability for literature comprehension is lacking.

[Anonymous No.9780203]

>>9774402
that quote comes form his book "My View of the World"
link
https://libgen.pw/download/book/5a1f059a3a044650f512df76
pic very related

[Anonymous No.9780610]

>>9779193
dirty savages. no wonder they had to take the falklands/malvinas away from you.

[Anonymous No.9780715]

>>9780610
They didn't. We never had it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9781170]

>>9780715
then why invade.

[Anonymous No.9781212]

2+2=5 because I said so. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9781227]

Пиздa

[Anonymous No.9781230]

>>9781212
>2+2=5
not by the current accepted axioms of mathematics

[Anonymous No.9781243]

>>9781230
And for what reason would those axioms pertain to my claim?

[Anonymous No.9781536]

>>9781170
Because we didn't have it. If you want something you don't possess you take it by force. Also, we were under a right-wing dictatorship on the verge of being overthrown and they figured that getting the islands would give them their popularity back. Of course, sending 18-year-olds with no training and summer uniforms to a frozen desolate island and then never supply the troops is not very good if you want results, generally. They did invest a ton into air force and navy to show our new toys and intimidate Chile, our enemies at the time. Once the ARA Belgrano was sunken, panic ensued in the upper echelons and they surrendered. Less than a year later, the government was overthrown and democracy reinstalled.