/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9931813]

Why does /sci/ seem to dislike philosophy, i thought science orginated from philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9931919]

/sci/ isnt one person and "science originated from philosophy" is a trivial statement if you contextualize what philosophy actually meant historically

[Anonymous No.9931946]

>>9931813
I don't like it because it isn't verifiable, either experimentally or mathematically. It seems like bullshit

[Anonymous No.9931961]

Cause philosophy is purely about thinking, and thinking is hard for scientists, so scientists just keep doing what has already been done requiring the least amount of thinking. If philosophers are the personal chef to a king, scientists are burger flippers at mcdonalds. They just follow the instructions.

[Anonymous No.9931965]

>>9931961
Kys

[Anonymous No.9931974]

>>9931813
Philosophy: Decides what data to collect and how to interpret that data.
Science: Data collection
Engineering: Practical application of collected data.

[Anonymous No.9931992]

Too complicated, too creative, too interesting, too profound.

>muh spreadsheets
>muh college degree

[Anonymous No.9932001]

>>9931965
>t. burger flipper

[Anonymous No.9932008]

>>9931946
>mathematically
What the fuck are you talking about? Formal logic is lifted verbatim from philosophy. Analytical philosophy itself is about having a rigorous framework for making clear arguments.
Read http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Also read the non-number theoretic origins/construction of induction (i.e. the mathematical logic version of how it uses both a generating set and a construction sequence to prove that induction works from the top down and bottom up)

[Anonymous No.9932015]

>>9931974
Philosophy: concerned with structures, with classical schools of thought, and of the abstract
Science: concerned studying nature, relies on structures from classical schools of thought
Engineering: concerned with building by use of our studies in nature

All three are fine. Study what interests you, and study it hard because times are tough, and not even engineers are guaranteed a good salary.

[Anonymous No.9932026]

>>9932008
Will do. Thanks for the link rather than just calling me a faggot

[Anonymous No.9932061]

Science also gives us some tools to study the Scientists and their strange attitudes and activities and so it shouldn't be completely discounted before we can find a way to put a stop to it permanently.

[Anonymous No.9932065]

>haha like why is philosophy even a thing man like is reality even real dude weed lmao

[Anonymous No.9932068]

Philosophy is unrigorous mathematics

[Anonymous No.9932090]

>>9932068
Mathematics is unrigorous mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9932108]

Because philosophers can't accept that the emergent ideas taken by society are almost never influenced in a significant way by what some autists wrote.

[Anonymous No.9932138]

>>9931919
>>9931946
>seems like
>>9932068
>>9932108
>no proofs
>no data

[Anonymous No.9932147]

>>9931813

Philosophers have only tried to explain the world; the important thing is to change it.

[Anonymous No.9932152]

>>9931961
>Cause philosophy is purely about thinking, and thinking is hard for scientists
Actually, completely true. Of course the great scientists think as much as philosophers, but the average poo just keeps running experiments over and over and starts thinking he's enlightened for just possessing the physical to be able to do so, and feels threatened by actual thinkers.

[Anonymous No.9932155]

>>9931946
>I don't like it because it isn't verifiable, either experimentally or mathematically.
As if empirical and mathematical knowledge are the only kinds of knowledge. You're retarded, my guy

[Anonymous No.9932156]

>>9932152
*physical knowledge, my bad

[Anonymous No.9932164]

>>9931813
The reason it "seems" that /sci/ doesn't like philosophy is because the only mention of it on this board are by pop-sci shitters and pseuds who like to shit on it, everyone else either knows jack shit about it or likes it as a separate study, discussing it in other boards like /lit/ and /his/

[Anonymous No.9932165]

>>9932155
Only ones worthwhile to an autistic asshole like myself

[Anonymous No.9932168]

Obligatory. Any of you hive-minded popsci-reading asshats care to explain this?

[Anonymous No.9932170]

>>9932155
>empirical and mathematical knowledge are the only kinds of knowledge
This is true though.

[Anonymous No.9932172]

>>9932152
This.

[The Lord No.9932173]

Physicists tend to say that philosophy is stupid lest they lose budget allocations to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9932174]

>>9932170
>This is true though.
Can you verify this empirically or mathematically?

[Anonymous No.9932182]

>>9932170
Funnily enough, your views are literally carbon copy of Kant and Schelling. The problem with seeing knowledge as purely a priori or a posterior is that you run into a weird duality with subjective-objective dichotomy, and you have to work on defining the "I".
For every a priori identity A = A, there is an implicit "I" that assigns that identity. Schelling said that I = Nature, since he wanted to talk about how I was the visible mind of Nature, and that Nature was the invisible mind of the I, but ultimately, this ends up framing objective information as radically subjective, and while his school of thought stagnated, a posterior experiments dominated during his time.

This is all from a Springer book written by a famous physicist. Actually read philosophy before you're willing to criticize it
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-67369-1
or
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319673677

[Anonymous No.9932284]

>>9931813
I think that a lot of modern philosophy (especially Continental branches like Idealism and the French postmodernism of the sixties) is vague BS, but classical, Enlightenment, and analytic philosophy are more in line with the orderly world of science, or so do I see it.

[Anonymous No.9933014]

>>9931813

Yes. Science has its origins in natural philosophy and the observation of phenomena. But modern science is rooted in rational skepticism.

[Anonymous No.9933238]

>>9931813
Modern "philosophers" are not really philosophers at all, because if they were, they'd be logicians.

[Anonymous No.9933263]

>>9933238
>abstract formal systems are meaningful on their own
Scientists are almost all just glorified engineers with a mind like a damn EEPROM. It's truly freaky.

[Anonymous No.9933356]

>>9931813
back when it was tied up with mathematical investigation, it was probably one of the more worthwhile things to do in ancient greece
today though, it's completely and explicitly removed from real life

all the philosophy majors I met were unmotivated stoners and drunks

[Anonymous No.9933609]

>>9931919
Lol teen angst

[Anonymous No.9933752]

https://www.strawpoll.me/16259075
Do you dislike philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.9934538]

nobody dislikes philosophy; that's ridiculous.
People dislike when """"philosophers"""" get uppity and think they know more than the scientific fields they may be """"criticizing"""".
Philosophy thinks conceptually about thinking about thinking. It's very easy to make, whatever you're trying to talk about, absolutely pointless blather. Literally fighting phantoms with pointless blather. Phantoms that ultimately do not exist beyond the constructs of your minds.
Anything which exists in the world that can be accurately characterized through a mathematical model, we use. Everything else runs into problems of pointless blather.
In other words, go back to the humanities dept where you belong.

[Anonymous No.9934566]

>>9932284
Kripke is the true chad in the world of philosophy.
Him or Tarski.

[Anonymous No.9935004]

>>9932174

[Anonymous No.9935062]

Philosophy stopped being relevant the moment the scientific method was established.

[Anonymous No.9935080]

Philosophy is literally a bunch of opinions about the world and reality, and unverifiable ones at that.
> b-but muh logic
Only argument ever made in favour of philosophy is one that is strictly related to mathematics and seeing how most philosophy has nothing to do with the very low-level theory of logic (yes I know logic is used, but it's not what it's about) it cannot carry the subject as a whole.
You can study it and love it, just like people study and love cinema music and whatever they want, but for the love of Jesus don't act like an intellectual and more importantly don't try to shove it down people's throats as if it were necessary.

[Anonymous No.9935325]

>>9935080
>unverifiable ones at that
So you think there are verifiable opinions?
Nothing is objectively verifiable, we don't have certain knowledge of anything

[Anonymous No.9935333]

Because it's a huge waste of time to spend 3 or 4 years of your life studying philosophy at university.

the actually useful parts of philosophy have been swallowed by science, mathematics and computer science.

[Anonymous No.9935336]

>>9935325

Who cares about "objective Truth" ? We all act according to the reality we share and believe in. We all act based on the assumption the sun will rise tomorrow. And yes, for all intents and purposes, i do KNOW it will.

[Anonymous No.9935361]

>>9935336
>We all act according to the reality we share and believe in.
Ah, so you're a postmodernist?

[Anonymous No.9935367]

>>9935361

Not necessarily in the sense you might think about postmodernism. Do i think we are somehow dominated by illegitimate Institutions? No. Do I think Lyotard was onto something with his theory of the big narrations? Yes. Do I think we humans could possibly have any way to find absolute truth (i.e. solve the problem of hard solipsism) ? Nope , that would be silly. Yet I still believe we all exist in at least a somewhat shared reality. And this one is all I care about and everyone else I've ever met cares about.

[Anonymous No.9935369]

>>9931813
>/sci/ seem to dislike philosophy
Who said that?

[Anonymous No.9935372]

>>9931813
would you rather smell a rose, or the pos it grew out from?

[Anonymous No.9935407]

>>9931974
>>9932015
This.

[Anonymous No.9935457]

>>9935367
>Yet I still believe we all exist in at least a somewhat shared reality. And this one is all I care about and everyone else I've ever met cares about.
So reality and truth are socially constructed? I'm putting you in the postmodernism box

[Anonymous No.9935469]

I think science and academia in general has turned away from philosophy because academia has turned into a place who's only job is to prepare people for labor. There are no paid jobs in philosophy. This isn't due to them being useful but due to the nature of the philosopher. They're too busy why's and how's we should be doing things that they give no thought to the hows or whys of monetizing what they do. I mean the product of philosophy is pure thought. You can't patent or trademark an idea.

>>9933238
>they'd be logicians.
funny, I started studying CS and since I've realized I have more interest in philosophy and logic. Maybe when AI take over the world they'll have more appreciation for it and actually pay philosophers/logicians for their work.

[Anonymous No.9935700]

>we can't know nuffin man

[Anonymous No.9936084]

>>9935700
>philosophy = skepticism

[Anonymous No.9936213]

>>9935700
>>9936084
The ancient core of philosophy is epistemology whose core problem is skepticism. Critical reflection on whether and how we can know is the engine of all Western intellectual achievement, including science which was a methodological revolution in natural philosophy.
Look at the Bohr and Schrödinger quotes here >>9935369. They're literally expressing variants of skepticism.

[Anonymous No.9936220]

>>9931813
Because science took all the good parts of philosophy and whatever was left was shit.

[Anonymous No.9936263]

>>9932168
If I was German I would be smart too. Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.9936276]

>>9936213
Epistemology is certainly one of the most ancient domains of philosophical thought, but the rest of philosophy isn't founded on it. The first Greek philosophers, namely the Milesians, were concerned with the first principles of material things, not the limitations of knowledge.
>whose core problem is skepticism
Skepticism isn't the defining problem of epistemology.

[Anonymous No.9936949]

>>9936276
Skepticism was central for Socrates and the sophists. There's a reason we divide ancient philosophy into "pre-Socratics" and everything else. There had been ontological and ethical speculation before, even going back thousands of years in Egypt, which the Greeks knew about. What's distinctive about philosophy is an epistemological focus which is not just a neutral investigation into knowledge but a genuine problematization of it, i.e. skepticism.

[Anonymous No.9938104]

>>9932170
You're right but only because you think of knowledge as information about the world, and not knowledge as the skill of thinking up new perspectives and how to prove the unproven

[Anonymous No.9938222]

>>9931813
Many philosophers say if some process takes more than three steps, it must be 'irreducible.' Nothing is irreducible. It's just that we're not [yet] smart enough [to know how] to reduce it.

[Anonymous No.9938970]

>>9932152
Great post.

[Anonymous No.9938984]

>>9931961
I like Philosophy.
Your post is flawed logically.
Rethink.

[Anonymous No.9938985]

>>9932108
Not directly but indirectly.
The people influencing society are influenced by what some autist wrote.

[Anonymous No.9940719]

>>9935080
Philosophy is simply just asking questions to unanswered problems. People develop a conceptual framework in order to try to answer fundemental questions and understand the world they percieve. Since this framework is never perfect they are always refining it and trying to come out with the 2.0 version of their system. Hence thinking about why that system is failing and why is reasoning outside the system and hence is metaphysics. That's exactly how metaphysics was named as well. It was the series of scrolls after Aristotle's scrolls on physics and literally means after or beyond physics.

[Anonymous No.9940782]

>>9940719
You haven't denied what I said though

[Anonymous No.9940809]

Imagine shitting on all the forefathers and greats of your own grand old philosophical institution just because deep down in your bitter, spiteful little black heart you know the sum of any possible trifling contribution you could ever manage to add to the tower of human knowledge will always be absolutely eclipsed into negligible nothingness by comparison to the True Greats and architects of our world, who these insipid nobodies and odious twerps see fit to defile in their impudent scorn and vile, profane ignorance.

[Anonymous No.9940851]

>>9940809

[Anonymous No.9940992]

>>9940782
Most of what we believe is unverifiable ultimately, and hence relies upon some philosophy. We adot axioms in our system because they seem to make sense. Philosophers like Kant even believed that the only way that synthetic a priori knowledge could be known is that they are the tautologies of our own mind, and betray their shaping element. He refered to this as the manifold. This was his explanation of things like 5+2=7. Or that the sum of all triangles angles =180 degrees. Certainly you haven't checked every triangle.

Whether he is right or wrong it's going to rely on our on philosophic beliefs about what can be known.

[Anonymous No.9941246]

>>9938984
Then you obviuosly have flawed logick.

Rethink then reply.

[Anonymous No.9941271]

>>9931813

Its just like we engineers dont care about virgin scientists

[Anonymous No.9941493]

>>9940851
>implying I Fucking LOVE Science isn't just Reddit in its purest form

[Anonymous No.9941496]

>>9940851
>its not reddit to think science the best and every other field is pointless trash

[Anonymous No.9941503]

>>9940992
>We adot axioms in our system because they seem to make sense.

they make sense because they are useful. and they are useful because they help us model or understand the world around us. if they weren't somehow representative of our reality they wouldn't "make sense" in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9941908]

>>9941493
Nobody implied it's not

>>9941496
Nobody was talking about every other field

[Anonymous No.9941954]

>>9941908
it really irked you bad huh

[Anonymous No.9942032]

>>9935700
Top fucking kek

[Anonymous No.9942119]

>>9935700
/thread

[Anonymous No.9942250]

>>9931813
Because daddy did a bad touch.

;-;

[Anonymous No.9942384]

>>9931813
low verbal IQ

[Anonymous No.9942389]

>>9931813
>Why do chemists seem to dislike alchemy. I thought chemistry originated from alchemy?

[Anonymous No.9942395]

>>9936263
oh wait what?

[Anonymous No.9942401]

>>9931813
dont care much for contemplating the nature of existence

[Anonymous No.9942575]

>>9941503
1. Sure. Kant referred to much of his philosphy as practical reason.
2. The second claim here isn't as obvious as you think. Way back when, someone once argued that if you realized a proposition is true, it would cascade through your belief system and cancel out inconsistent beliefs, or put in another way, our minds couldn't realize something in one regard, but ignore it in another. That is what our minds do though. We isolate and silo ourselves in sections. That's why someone could be brilliant at calculus and then start talking about Noahs ark 10 minutes later. Many of the terrorist that knew civil engineering and calculus also thought that murdering people would get them laid in the afterlife. Hence they could,be technically brilliant in one area and borderline autistic in another.