/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.985613]

>Philosophy major

[Anonymous No.985633]

It's better than being a physicsfag and just making bullshit up. Talking about Quantum and particle crap here, not all physics.

[Anonymous No.985640]

>>985633

[Anonymous No.985644]

>>985633
>just making bullshit up.
That's philosophy
>It's better than being a physicsfag
>Talking about Quantum and particle crap
Can you here me all the way back in the 1920s?

[Anonymous No.985649]

>>985644
Quantum and particle stuff is new, not 1920s fagshitface.

[Anonymous No.985654]

>>985649

[Anonymous No.985657]

>>985644

I think you mean 1900 bro

1920 was way after the quantum revolution.

[Anonymous No.985661]

Has philosophy come up with anything new or relevant in the last hundred years?

[Anonymous No.985666]

>>985649
LOL. Not as new as you think it is obviously. Someone needs to learn some fucking science history.

[Anonymous No.985669]

>>985661

Linguistics

[Anonymous No.985673]

>>985666
Right, because they had quantum computers back then. Or maybe they were just so smart that could calculate numbers in the millions on paper.

[Anonymous No.985677]

>>985661

Popper. Case closed.

[Anonymous No.985679]

>>985673
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

[Anonymous No.985686]

>>985661

Can't help that philosophy is insanely hard. Take epistemology, the last 100 years has been awesome. Take Nozick and Kripke.

Of course, simpletons like yourself probably doesn't care about truths, and things like that.

[Anonymous No.985689]

>>985673

we don't have quantum computers now

and anyone could compute numbers in the millions on paper

[Anonymous No.985691]

>>985633

[Anonymous No.985698]

>>985686
>Philosophy is insanely hard.

Maybe for English or Liberal Arts majors...

[Anonymous No.985719]

>>985698

Ever seen a physicist try to do philosophy? Anyway, if it's so easy, how come there's apperently been so little progress?

[Anonymous No.985724]

>>985686
I'm a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.985727]

>>985719

Because there are no answers to most metaphysical questions. Almost all contemporary philosophers acknowledge this.

[Anonymous No.985729]

>>985661
> Has philosophy come up with anything new or relevant in the last 2000 years?

[Anonymous No.985740]

>>985729
> Has philosophy come up with anything new or relevant ever?

[Anonymous No.985741]

>>985729
what? methodological naturalism, empricism, inductive reasoning, logic etc

[Anonymous No.985761]

ITT we think philosophy = metaphysics

[Anonymous No.985762]

>>985741
>2000 years of work
>giving names to common sense concepts

[Anonymous No.985768]

>>985762
>implying they were common sense before philosophers revealed them

[Anonymous No.985775]

Aesthetics is FUCKING AWESOME

[Anonymous No.985787]

>>985768
>implying physicists wouldn't know what to do with data without philosophers there to hold their hands.
Pic related, it's what you think everyone except philosophers look like.

[Anonymous No.985788]

>>985768
>implying they weren't

[Anonymous No.985794]

>>985787
>implying the first scientist wasn't also the first western philosopher

[Anonymous No.985799]

>>985794
>implying that negates the point

[Anonymous No.985805]

>>985794
i wouldnt say 'western' but pretty much. the first person to make a method of inquiry into the natural world without invoking spirits or gods was using philosophy to counter philosophy (theology). its simply a different model. science is based off philosophy.

[Anonymous No.985809]

Hey guys, philosophers invented logic. Without philosophers we would all be incoherent babbling retards doing illogical things all the fucking time.

[Anonymous No.985811]

>High school and community college students who like science but are still too immature or just stupid to know what science and philosophy aim to accomplish

[Anonymous No.985813]

>>985799
>implying I implied that physicists wouldn't know what to do with data without philosophers there to hold their hands.

[Anonymous No.985814]

>>985677
That's it? Just Karl Popper?

[Anonymous No.985823]

Derr philosphy

[Anonymous No.985819]

>>985805
it doesn't even have to counter Theology, just the first person to test a problem and find a solution that actually works or sounds good.

[Anonymous No.985825]

>>985811
>Can't defend Philosophy
>Resort to name calling
"Ad Hominem". You Philosophers love your fallacies, don't you?

[Anonymous No.985830]

>>985819
true dat.

however i suppose a case could be made by making a distinction between using the methods and analyzing the methods

[Anonymous No.985835]

>Somebody thinks up something
>"He's a Philosopher!"
>Thousands of worthless college students now justified
Amazing.

[Anonymous No.985842]

>i'm a philosopher
>everything can be tackled and explained from a common sense human point of view (classical)
>quantum mechanics comes along and explains stuff
>this is bullshit I can't understand this logically, I mean, I INVENTED logic
>time to release my hatred on internet image boards

[Anonymous No.985853]

>>985825

naw, they like phalluses

[Anonymous No.985858]

>>985835
ill admit that modern philosophy seems to be pretty useless but saying philosophy never contributed anything is EXTREMELY far fetched. remember that the vast vast majority of what went into the declaration and constitution was based on the works of many philosophers

[Anonymous No.985861]

>>985842
>implying quantum mechanics explains what actually goes on at the quantum level

[Anonymous No.985874]

>>985686
>Take Nozick and Kripke.
>lolberterian
>semantic masturbation
Is /new/ leaking?

[Anonymous No.985877]

>>985858
It's a useless catchall term that says everything society has ever done is thanks to it. Those who study it go on to do nothing but teach philosophy to the next generation (ie it is useless). They are glorified historians that don't realize they are historians.

[Anonymous No.985880]

>>985861
>implying it doesn't

[Anonymous No.985887]

>>985877

most of the original philosophers did more than just sit around and philosophize, if thats what you are thinking.

[Anonymous No.985903]

>>985880
>implying it doesn't use statistics to make up for our inability to observe electrons

[Anonymous No.985906]

>>985887
>implying philosophy implies more than just philosophizing.

[Anonymous No.985919]

>>985887
If they weren't philosophizing then their accomplishments weren't due to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.985924]

>>985903
>implying using statistics to accurately predict past and future phenomenon is not an explanation of what happens

[Anonymous No.985927]

>>985903
Nigger, it has nothing to do with our INABILITY. The events themselves are probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.985937]

>>985919

now you are just grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.985938]

>>985903
>I've never taken a QM course

[Anonymous No.985953]

FUCKING NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.985956]

>>985937
WTF are you talking about? I said philosophy hasn't contributed what philosophers say it has contributed. You say not all philosophers simply philosophize (the actions of contributing to philosophy). I then point out if they are not contributing to philosophy than it shouldn't be credited to philosophy the same way if a physicist writes an awesome song that song shouldn't be credited to physics.

[Anonymous No.985968]

>>985956
no, you made it seem that all philosophers did was sit around and claim ownership of what society accomplished, and never did anything, which is patently false.

many philosophers contributed to science and politics, while doing many other things.

this whole idea that philosophers have never did anything is getting old.

[Anonymous No.985978]

>>985968
Philosophy has never contributed anything to society that was not already implicitly implied.
Philosophers have contributed things to society, but not because they were philosophers. They contributed to other fields, therefore no contribution on behalf of philosophy.
Conclusion? Philosophy has still never contributed anything.

[Anonymous No.985981]

>>985938
>>985927
>>985924

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163

QM is a theory that gives predictions on probabilities for different outcomes of measurements.
But this is not a privileged property of QM, classical statistical mechanics also
does this. Nevertheless, there is an important difference between QM and classical statistical
mechanics. The latter is known to be an effective approximative theory useful when
not all fundamental degrees of freedom are under experimental or theoretical control,
while the underlying more fundamental classical dynamics is completely deterministic.
On the other hand, the usual form of QM does not say anything about actual deterministic
causes that lie behind the probabilistic quantum phenomena. This fact is often
used to claim that QM implies that nature is fundamentally random. Of course, if the
usual form of QM is really the ultimate truth, then it is true that nature is fundamentally
random. But who says that the usual form of QM really is the ultimate truth? (A serious
scientist will never claim that for any current theory.) A priori, one cannot exclude the
existence of some hidden variables (not described by the usual form of QM) that provide
a deterministic cause for all seemingly random quantum phenomena.

[Anonymous No.985986]

>>985968
>this whole idea that philosophers have never did anything is getting old.
I'm not saying that, but if they aren't philosophizing than their actions such as using their engineering degree to build a bridge or their physics degree to discover a better superconductor shouldn't be credited to philosophy. Therefor your argument is not defending philosophy. You are only saying philosophers have free time which they use to do actually useful things instead of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.985990]

>>985978
>implicitly implied.
>Implying implicit implications.

[Anonymous No.985991]

why all this interdisciplinary hostility?

[Anonymous No.985993]

>>985978
>Philosophy has never contributed anything to society that was not already implicitly implied.

what the fuck does that even mean? the reason why the philosophers are famous is BECAUSE they brought out attention to those ideas. the idea of natural law was brought about by MANY philosophers, despite prevailing cultural views against that idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

not only did they contribute these ideas to politics and science, but they also were actively engaged in actual politics and scientific research.

jesus fuck, learn some god damn history

[Anonymous No.985996]

>>985990
>implying implicitly that implications are always implied by implicit implications.

[Anonymous No.986001]

>>985968
They were not Philosophers. YOU labeled them Philosophers, and now your academic program is justified because of their accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.986004]

>>985986
you are missing what im talking about. many of the ideas they brought about impacted society, but they ALSO contributed in other areas outside of philosophy alone.

[Anonymous No.986005]

>>985981
Hidden variable/EPR crack-pottery.

[Anonymous No.986006]

>>985991

They haven't realized that mathematics is the underlying truth to everything in the universe.

[Anonymous No.986011]

>>985993
>but they also were actively engaged in actual politics and scientific research
I'm a nuclear physicist, in my spare time I am also a musician. I don't actually do any nuclear physics I just like to say that, but I do write music. Therefore the music that I write can be attributed to the fact that I am a nuclear physicist.

[Anonymous No.986012]

>>986001
>They were not Philosophers.

[Anonymous No.986015]

>>986006
>implying that isn't the central aspect of Pythagorean philosophy and later Platonic philosophy

[Anonymous No.986017]

I DO NOT GET THIS


WHY IS EVERYONE SO FUCKING BUTTHURT ABOUT PHILOSOPHERS? WHAT DID THEY EVER DO TO YOU? STEAL YOUR GIRLFRIEND?

IF IT WASN'T DUE TO PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRESS, WE WOULD STILL BE LOOKING AT THE STARTS TO GUESS HOW THE SUN WOULD TRAVLE. FUCK SAKE, SCIENCE IS JUST A BY-PRODUCT OF PHILOSOPHY. A FUCKING BY-PRODUCT.

[Anonymous No.986018]

>>986011

[Anonymous No.986026]

>>986012
Did they call themselves philosophers? Did they have degrees in philosophy?!

THE ONLY TRUE SUBJECT IS MATH!

[Anonymous No.986027]

>>986015

That is the point. It is the science/philosophy of truth.

[Anonymous No.986030]

>>986017
>WHY IS EVERYONE SO FUCKING BUTTHURT ABOUT PHILOSOPHERS? WHAT DID THEY EVER DO TO YOU?
Sit around and smoke weed.
Contribute nothing to society.
Claim all advancements are only possible because they have already pointed out the obvious.

[Anonymous No.986031]

>>986026
>implying you have to have a degree in a subject to contribute to that subject

[Anonymous No.986038]

>>986017
>LOOKING AT THE STARTS TO GUESS HOW THE SUN WOULD TRAVLE. FUCK SAKE, SCIENCE IS JUST A BY-PRODUCT OF PHILOSOPHY. A FUCKING BY-PRODUCT.
Just remember that "Venti" is bigger than "Grande".

[Anonymous No.986042]

>>986004
>many of the ideas they brought about impacted society, but they ALSO contributed in other areas outside of philosophy alone.
You are missing what I'm talking about. If a philosopher contributes to an area outside of philosophy than it has nothing to do with his or her philosphy degree and thus can't be said to be because of philosophy the same way a physicist musicians song can't be attributed to physics.

[Anonymous No.986047]

>>986038

buuurn.com

[Anonymous No.986052]

>>986042
i think weve gotten confused. what im talking about is only about in response to the idea that philosophers dont do anything OTHER than philosophy. im not saying their additional contributions to other fields is because of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.986066]

>>986052

Then you just proved the other Anon's point that philosophers don't contribute anything to society in the sense that their philosophizing persona is not responsible for their achievements in other fields of study.

[Anonymous No.986075]

>>986052
Well sure. Of course philosophers can do other things besides philosophizing. I agree with you on that. Hell, I didn't realize that was even up for debate!

[Anonymous No.986079]

>>986052
If you're so concerned with OTHER fields, WHY DID YOU STUDY PHILOSOPHY?!

Wishful thinking will not save you. Changing your major might, but you sound beyond help.

[Anonymous No.986086]

>>986066
shut up

>>986075
yeah a couple of anon have been trying to say that. that all these great people were just 'leaching' of society or something

>>986079
im not studying it, i just recognize the contributions that some philosophers have had on history

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.986102]

>>986075
I'm him.

>>986086
> i just recognize the contributions that some philosophers have had on history
Right there. What you said implies their contributions were due to their philosophy education. No wonder others were getting confused.

[Anonymous No.986108]

Further study of Philosophy, or any subject outside of Science/Engineering, is no longer warranted.

They're utterly useless.

[Anonymous No.986115]

>>986102
its disingenuous to call them 'philosophers' when they had a lot of other contributions in other fields. but when many of them did add to philosophy, and those contributions were incorporated into society and had benefits, its important to acknowledge that.

and ffs, this was before any great education! i mean, a lot of these people CREATED whats taught in the multitude of fields now.

[Anonymous No.986117]

>>986102

It is a well known fact that most philosophers did not have degrees in philosophy.

The most influential philosopher of the past century was an engineer for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.986118]

>>986026
elitist mathfag detected

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.986119]

>>986117
Educations need not be FORMAL educations.

[Anonymous No.986126]

>>986117
Wittgenstein was an engineer now?

[Anonymous No.986128]

>>986117
LOL, you don't need a degree in philosophy to contribute, and philosophers wonder why they aren't taken seriously. Give me an example of the last time a layman contributed seriously to astrophysics.

[Anonymous No.986133]

>>986128
einstein was a patent clerk.

[Anonymous No.986134]

>>986128
>Give me an example of the last time a layman contributed seriously to astrophysics.
Don't go there man. Remember the Bell lab technicians? Those weren't astrophysicists, and they discovered the CMB.

[Anonymous No.986139]

>>986126

Yes. He was a doctoral student in mechanical engineering before he went to study logic under Russell. I'm not sure if he actually finished the degree, but he was a trained engineer.

[Anonymous No.986141]

>>986133
He had a doctorate.

[Anonymous No.986146]

>>986139
Only philosophers understand sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.986156]

>>986134
More like stumbled upon and didn't know wtf they were looking at until a group of physicists told them.

[Anonymous No.986158]

>>986141
a 4 year degree is a doctorate? well, he was einstein i guess....

[Anonymous No.986162]

>>986156
Hey, they got the Nobel prize didn't they?

[Anonymous No.986175]

>>986133
Albert Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14, 1879. Six weeks later the family moved to Munich, where he later on began his schooling at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree.

During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin.

obviously just a layman with no training in the field

[Anonymous No.986181]

>>986162
Yes, which was obviously a huge fuck up.

[Anonymous No.986190]

>>986181
You're just butthurt some random technicians got there before the astronomers got their boots on.

[Anonymous No.986203]

>>986175
theres always Michael Faraday, Walter Pitts, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Moshe Feldenkrais, George Green etc

[Anonymous No.986230]

Philosophy has only been separated from the science in recent human history. The separation of the natural science and humanities has been the biggest problem of the newtonian paradigm (see Husserl "Crisis of the Science") Some of the greatest scientific mind have delved also into philosophy include the Pre-socratics, Socrates, Fredrick Nietzsche, Thomas Kuhn, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, Robert Oppenheimer, Stephan Hawking, Albert Einstein, David Suzuki, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Anonymous No.986237]

>>986230
>Bill Nye
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.986242]

>>986230
>mentioning pop sci faggots with pioneers in scientific disciplines/philosopy

[Anonymous No.986258]

>>986242
>>986237
notthepoint.gif

[Anonymous No.986381]

>>986030

No, seriously, why the butthurt?

[Anonymous No.986403]

Any modern degree of education is valuable and should be respected as the next. Only the outdated ones that have no room in this todays modern day world should be considered useless.