>realist! >reductionist! >positivist! >determinist! >heard of epistemology before!? Philosophy students are hilarious. How is philosophy even slightly relevant in this day and age? And why is the answer no?

File: 43 KB, 476x594, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:47:53 2016 No.8219875 [Reply] [Original]

>realist!
>reductionist!
>positivist!
>determinist!
>heard of epistemology before!?

Philosophy students are hilarious.

How is philosophy even slightly relevant in this day and age?

And why is the answer no?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:52:38 2016 No.8219883 >>8219875 >How is philosophy even slightly relevant in this day and age? It isn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:53:15 2016 No.8219884 fuck off back to >>>/sci/ retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:55:06 2016 No.8219887 >>8219884 I loled.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:57:50 2016 No.8219894 >>8219875 Can't write epiSTEMology without STEM. Take that, philosotards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 10:58:13 2016 No.8219895 >>8219894 Ohhhhhhh snap!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:04:17 2016 No.8219901 >>8219875 Philosophy is to science, what blood letting is to modern medicine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:05:28 2016 No.8219905 Philosophy is to science, what ornithology is to bears

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:07:23 2016 No.8219908 >>8219901 >>8219905 Philosophy is to science, what energy is to brain function.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:18:13 2016 No.8219923 >>8219908 If by energy you mean gamma radiation, then I agree.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:18:47 2016 No.8219925

I can't understand why /sci/ has such an aversion to philosophy. Science is not the answer to everything. There are many questions that you can answer extremely effectively with the scientific method, and others which we can only make sense of with philosophy. This "lul philosophy" meme needs to die.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:19:14 2016 No.8219927 >>8219905 Science is to philosophy, what ornithology is to bears.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:20:10 2016 No.8219928 >>8219925 Science can solve some problems. Philosophy can solve none.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:20:36 2016 No.8219929 >>8219925 >others which we can only make sense of with philosophy Name one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:21:37 2016 No.8219931 >>8219928 This.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:25:37 2016 No.8219936 >>8219929 Logical problems for one.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:26:23 2016 No.8219937

I think there is a place for professional philosophers in the biological and medical sciences. Our Genetics department actually has a resident philosopher/ethicist and she does consulting with the NIH and publishes papers that influence which genetic diseases should be included on newborn screening panels. As long as they are scientifically literate enough to inform their opinions I think having ethicists in the decision-making process of certain areas of policy is helpful.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:28:19 2016 No.8219940

>>8219908
it is totally unnecessary to study philosophy to conduct cutting edge or breakthrough science.

what are the most important theorems from philosophy from the past 150 years?

Can you name any?

the fall back position with you people is always making the claim that any sensible problem solving thought process is philosophy, which is stupid not only because it defines hilosophy so broadly as to be meaningless but also because if the claim is true it is saying that you do not need to ever spend time studying philosophy in order to use it.

the continued full time study of philosophy is of very low utility to the human race.

logic is useful but the thing is that most philosophy students actually hate logic and try to avoid studying it as soon as they can so instead they can write waffly, opinion-laden essays about feminism and post-structuralism and other pointless, stupid shit resulting in there being many more mathematicians and computer scientists who know about formal systems and other topics in non-introductory logic than actual philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:28:36 2016 No.8219941 >>8219936 Which logical problems are you referring to?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:31:47 2016 No.8219943 >>8219929 Anything having to do with ethics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:31:48 2016 No.8219944 >>8219941 Whether it's possible to have a set of consistent axioms that describe all of mathematics. Russel tried to prove the basis of mathematics through logic, but later Gödel showed that it's impossible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:32:50 2016 No.8219946 >>8219929 Ethics

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:33:22 2016 No.8219951

>>8219937
what does someone who studied philosophy know better about medical ethics than a doctor?

All ethics is is deciding what your order of priorities is in your value system. Once you have decided on what you prioritise most highly the decision making process is trivial (the actual decision of what would be the best thing to do is likely not to be clear due to uncertainty in the information , but the process to arrive at that decision is trivial).

deciding the value system itself is totally arbitrary,

there .
that is all of ethics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:34:29 2016 No.8219952 >>8219943 that's false. I have never studied philosophy and I can solve any ethics problem.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:36:07 2016 No.8219955

>>8219940
Oh yeah, I don't support long-term study in the field of philosophy whatsoever, it most definitely is meme. But what I'm saying is that the field itself isn't a meme, philosophy led to the formation of modern day science, so a understanding of philosophy is commendable and has connotations in science but it should not be pursued as a field.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:36:54 2016 No.8219957 >>8219943 Science can address this. >>8219944 That's mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:37:24 2016 No.8219959 >>8219951 You make it sound a lot simpler than it actually is. Take self-driving cars for example, there are a number of ethical problems to solve before we can fully implement them in society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:38:56 2016 No.8219964 >>8219957 Logic is where mathematics and philosophy meet, you can't say that logic isn't philosophy. I suspect that by "philosophy" you actually mean "philosophy I disagree with"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:39:11 2016 No.8219965 >>8219952 >I have never studied philosophy and I can solve any ethics problem. That sentence alone tells me you are either trolling or dont understand ethics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:42:48 2016 No.8219971 >>8219964 You can't say that Focault is mathematics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:43:51 2016 No.8219972 >>8219965 Hahaha, tough luck kiddo, I am a Math Phd., thereby I can easily muster any topic that's below my subject.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:45:34 2016 No.8219977 >>8219971 All philosophers are Focault now?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:46:53 2016 No.8219980

>>8219964

Mathematics is symbolic logical reasoning.

It's a tool used to describe the world around us and enhance our reasoning abilities.

Science is the process of drawing up informally and formally logical - falsifiable - models of reality, which are then tested via experimentation and the gathering of observational evidence.

What is philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:48:03 2016 No.8219982 >>8219943 >>8219946 Which ethics problem has been solved by philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:49:21 2016 No.8219985 philosophy is great but belongs on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:49:26 2016 No.8219986 >>8219977 99% of philosophers are not mathematics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:56:23 2016 No.8219995 >>8219940 >what are the most important theorems from philosophy from the past 150 years? Not him but logical positivism is a pretty big one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:57:29 2016 No.8219998 >>8219965 try me. >>8219959 I can solve any problem relating to the ethics of self-driving cars. posean ethical problem to me and I will solve it without much difficulty.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 11:59:42 2016 No.8220000

>>8219964
the facts that there will be far more mathematicians and computer scientists who are familiar with formal systems and that most students studying philosophy do not pursue logic but actually hate logic because it reminds them of maths and so try to drop it as soon as possible tell us that while logic is part of philosophy, really its become the territory of maths.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:00:06 2016 No.8220002 >>8219995 It's called science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:01:32 2016 No.8220006 >>8219998 Here's an ethical problem: should we keep smallpox samples, or destroy them to be safe?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:02:46 2016 No.8220007 >>8220006 How is that an ethical problem? It's a probability problem. >what is more likely to cause a future inconvenience?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:04:22 2016 No.8220013 >>8220007 >cause a future inconvenience The inconvenience being people getting harmed. That's ethics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:05:13 2016 No.8220017 >>8219875 I have a minor in philosophy. Courses on logic and argument were fun. Didn't really enjoy the required Ancient and Modern philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:06:02 2016 No.8220019 >>8220013 >implying a philosopher knows how to calculate probabilities

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:08:24 2016 No.8220023 >>8220007 >>8220019 Well if it's such a trivial question you should be able to solve it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:11:03 2016 No.8220028 >>8219998 How about: should doctors disclose non-paternity (cuckolding) when it is an incidental finding in a medical genetic test?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:13:17 2016 No.8220032

>>8220006
the ethics of the problem is simple, the only possible principle involved is which course of action minises as much human suffering as possible and you do this by choosing whichever has the higher expected value in terms of utility.

calculating the expected value is as the other person said difficult because it is difficult to assess the probability of a lab accident, the probability of future research involving the samples being useful, etc.

the ethics part of the problem is straightforward, it is the practical considerations which are non-straightforward.

POWNED

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:16:49 2016 No.8220040 >>8220006 Yes, for virology research. >>8220028 No, it's irrelevant to the treatment. Doctors are there to treat medical problems, not interfere with the mating strategies of hairless apes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:17:50 2016 No.8220044 >>8220032 This.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:22:45 2016 No.8220051 File: 422 KB, 450x625, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I love this thread.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:22:50 2016 No.8220052

>>8220032
The ethics of microbiology aren't simple at all when you factor in the fact that even relatively benign research can be misused. Research that might help people by shedding light on the nature of infectious disease could also be applied to the creation of bioweapons. This is the problem a pot of people have with recent gain-of-function research on avian flu. In any case, risk is very difficult to assess properly in infectious disease scenarios because chance factors could mean the difference between a local epidemic and a global pandemic. In cases where there is a pot of uncertainty, the ethical dilemma becomes 'to what degree should we err on the side of caution, howuch research should be kept secret, and what constitutes 'acceptable risk'?' These questions aren't trivial at all.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:26:22 2016 No.8220058

>>8220028
depends on whether you value transparency on the one hand or the welfare of the people involved on the other hand.

the choice of value system is arbitrary, an ethical decision is only capable of being right or wrong once you have chosen your value system.

once you have chosen your value system you simply perform the expected value calculation for the possible decision and choose whichever decision maximises the things you value (as specified in your value system).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:26:53 2016 No.8220059 >>8220052 You just confirmed exactly what the other anon said. It's a matter of probabilities, which is the domain of mathematicians and more specifically statisticians. BTFO!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:28:08 2016 No.8220064 >it's a math autists can't into philosophy episode

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:30:56 2016 No.8220066 >>8220064 Nope. Philosophy tards can't accept the extinction of their discipline.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:32:14 2016 No.8220070

>>8220058

But this is why having an ethicist would be valuable, because they actually understand the differences between different ethical frameworks. Someone who has spent their entire career studying the nuances of consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, etc would be better able to point out some fallacy or oversight than a researcher or policymaker with only introductory knowledge of philosophy. Surely you can at least concede that they add some value.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:36:19 2016 No.8220076

>>8220052
in this case you must also choose in your value system specify your risk-aversion, which is another arbitrary part of the value system.

one investor might arbitrarily decide that he only wants to be exposed to a 5% chance of losing money but wants to do whatever is expected to maximise his money as long as the probability of him losing money under this scheme is less than or equal to 5%

another investor might arbitrarily decide he wants to do whatever maximises his expected returns no matter what the probability of him losing money is.

both of these are arbitrary value systems and no one can say that one is necessarily more right or moral in our case than the other.

it is only once you have decided on a value system that then it is possible to say that one course of action is worse than another

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:38:52 2016 No.8220078

OP here.

Philosophy is a relic, but some interesting points have been made.

Ethics.

Ethics committees around the world are made up of medical professionals and educated medical-lay people, many of who are professional ethicists.

So, is ethics the last bastion of philosophy?

Or should we just call it ethics and sat that philosophy is dead?

Science, maths and ethics; philosophy BTFO.

Sounds good to me.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:39:46 2016 No.8220079

>>8220070
if you tell me a value system then I or any other sensible person can tell you what to do to go about finding out which decision is best.

deciding which value system is best is totally arbitrary, having spent your time studying philosophy does not change that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:41:51 2016 No.8220080 >>8219982 You realize that ethics is the SOLUTION I mean, you can't be that braindead can you? The existence of ethics is the solved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:42:10 2016 No.8220081 >>8220076 Cool, so you just pick a value system >some death is better than a lot of death >some risk is better than a lot of risk >some gain is not better than a lot of gain ethics seems easy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:43:01 2016 No.8220082 >>8220078 >the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. Philosophy can't die until all humans die.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:43:40 2016 No.8220085 >>8220081 any ethics problem has an ethics part which is easy and a practical part which is often not easy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:44:17 2016 No.8220086

ethical and political questions can only be fairly addressed by people who have studied a lot of human thought on the matters.

e.g. when the supreme court makes a ruling, it's not so much a question of the law itself in many cases as the discourse of philosophers who work with the constitution, its amendments and they're personal education on ethical and political matters which results in a weighted decision. this is a philosophical process.

e.g. when politicians formulate their basic concepts of society - conservative vs. progressive being the most simple and obvious of these concepts - they should (and in many cases, looking at a global scale) base their decisions in part on their philosophical education or their capabilities of philosophical reasoning. bipartisanship in particular acknowledges that different philosophies can try to reach the same goal, voting determines the weight each is given and decisions are made in cooperation, where the philosophy currently carrying more weight has greater say. (admittedly, this is currently and has also in the past decade not shown very much in the political process).

these are problems which can be addressed philosophically but not scientifically. that is not to say that science doesn't have its part; science needs to do the research to provide data so as to eliminate doubt, as in "is there evidence that this decision could have substantial negative effects" or "will the decision help reaching the goal it claims it is trying to reach". however, the basic groundwork needs to come from somewhere else.

e.g. science can tell you the economic effect social welfare has on a society and thus provide a corridor of freedom for policy to work within, but the tendency within this corridor needs to be addressed philosophically, that is, through debate and consensus.

(these are just a few examples. there is plenty more you fuckers have no clue about yet and since i assume quite the number of you to be autists, maybe never will.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:45:20 2016 No.8220089 >>8220085 and the practical part isn't solved by philosophers so what's the point of philosophers? the ethics "problems" are so simple that someone with no background in ethics could solve them

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:45:22 2016 No.8220090

>>8220079
Yeah but even if we say that value systems are totally arbitrary (though I'm not sure I entirely agree) an ethicist could help you understand just what options are on the table when it comes to building a coherent ethical framework and, if they have a good background in the history of medical ethics what the common pitfalls are in these scenarios.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:46:39 2016 No.8220092 >>8220082 Science has made all other approaches obsolete.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:48:50 2016 No.8220095

>>8220089
it is, though. philosophers are often involved in policy drafting and policy making. many more are journalists, which is part of the political process as well and needs to be guided by rules rooted in philosophy.

"Philosophy" is just a term, meaning "the art of analytical thinking" essentially. what's taught in universities is mostly just reasoning, debate, logic, formal writing, the theory behind it. the field itself, with many people contributing who have not studied the formal subject, treats many more subjects than that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:50:42 2016 No.8220101 Hello, can somebody sum up ethics for me?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:51:41 2016 No.8220103 >>8220101 The three main systems in the West are virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:51:45 2016 No.8220104 >>8220095 >philosophers are often bureaucrats >philosophers are reporters We could get by without you, you know?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 12:58:29 2016 No.8220117 [DELETED]

>>8220086

Anon, economically specialized human societies are based around the desires of the socially dominant.

Wealth and power disparity exists everywhere, the only thing that varies is the degree of severity.

We're social primates who live in socks hierarchies.

It's not that simple, but it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be.

Political philosophy is delusion, as whenever it's applied you end up with some variant of the same system that proceeded it and that will succeed it.

We're hairless apes and are not very dissimilar to our chimp and bonobo cousins.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:00:41 2016 No.8220120

>>8220086

Anon, economically specialized human societies are based around the desires of the socially dominant.

Wealth and power disparity exists everywhere, the only thing that varies is the degree of severity.

We're social primates that live in social hierarchies.

It's not that simple, but it's a lot simpler than it's made out to be.

Political philosophy is delusion, as whenever it's applied you end up with some variant of the same system that proceeded it and that will succeed it.

We're hairless apes and are not very dissimilar to our chimp and bonobo cousins.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:14:19 2016 No.8220147 >>8220103 So it's a load of bollocks then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:15:15 2016 No.8220148 File: 955 KB, 900x1000, 1469079635298.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220147

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:17:29 2016 No.8220152 nobody in here has a phd and you're getting trolled philosofags are so fucking easy to troll i swear to god you people need to stop caring so fucking much

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:18:33 2016 No.8220155

>>8220104
didn't say philosophers were bureaucrats.

if you think you could get by without bureaucrats, reporters, philosophers and the like, you probably also think taxation is theft, mind control through chemtrails is real and such nonsense. we're not animals, we live in a society.

>>8220120
in times like these, you don't see much of philosophic influence on policy, and political philosophy, since 1. the system is already working (fairly) okay and changes are rather minor tweaks to the whole shebang and 2. there really hasn't been a big change of philosophy since neoliberalism took over from the free deal. look up the history of neoliberal theory, all the think tanks and lobbyists etc were philosophers in great number. we would need a shift, something like the likes of Bernie Sanders are proposing, but the time isn't yet. it's coming, though; Trump (and similar movements worldwide) have shown it's coming.

if you think we have constitutions, value systems with humanist ethics, basically all the ground work required for our societies to work, despite and not because philosophy exists, you're delusional. philosophy is the reason our ruling systems and societies aren't based on fucking religion anymore.

(religion is also a philosophy, but it exists in such a 2000yrs ago and non-literal way that it's not suited to guide society any longer)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:20:04 2016 No.8220158 >>8220152 Are the people defending philosophy philosophy students, though? I've been arguing on the pro-philosophy side and I'm a genetics grad student.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:22:39 2016 No.8220161

>>8220152
i'm this guy:
>>8220086
>>8220155

compsci and theoretical physics, not philosophy

i also do agree that quite a number of things in philosophy is complete bollocks, but to dismiss the entire field is just plain stupid. also, there's plenty of bollocks in other fields as well, so yeah, there's that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:23:54 2016 No.8220162 >Ignoring the fact that a PhD is a graduation from scientist to philosopher

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:24:59 2016 No.8220164 >>8219925 Science is unironically the answer to every question worth asking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:27:12 2016 No.8220168 File: 20 KB, 306x306, tumblr_inline_nt0vm22PRG1spsojg_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >It's an 'undergrads dismiss entire fields of study that have been around for more centuries than years they've been alive' episode

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:27:26 2016 No.8220169 >>8219925 Dismissing the value of philosophy is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:28:19 2016 No.8220170 >>8220164 you don't even know what worth is, friendo.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:30:22 2016 No.8220171

>>8219875
>Philosophy students
I know what these terms means, and I'm not a student.

The problem with you people (which would be better off dead or doing grunt work in labor camps, in my opinion) is you're stuck in an education mentality. You think everything is about studying and sponging up "the material", the notion of self derived thought is lost to you. You've been made mindless sensors, which is akin to intellectual castration.

Complaining about philosophy means you don't understand what it is. This mentality has always existed but modern media culture has greatly overexpressed it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:32:51 2016 No.8220172 >>8220171 Found the NEET guys.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:33:51 2016 No.8220173 >>8220171 Not even close.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:34:11 2016 No.8220174 >>8220172 Found the undergrad!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:34:28 2016 No.8220176 >>8220172 Nope. Enjoy your colorless life my eunuch friend.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:35:55 2016 No.8220179

Science can't answer the big picture questions about the very reality it is grounded in, not to mention questions that quantitatively irreducible, questions that apply to one's consciousness and his relationship with other people in the world. "where is the pleasure center of the brain?" and "what makes me happy?" are completely different questions and only an autist thinks the latter can be answered with a few studies and a textbook.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:37:33 2016 No.8220180

>>8220173
The only part I've distinctly neglected to mention is that these people are employing philosophical thought and operating on philosophical principles (that have been defined) constantly, they're just not able, or willing, to be aware of it. Most of it is derived from an embedded stigma.

So they're not just intellectually castrated, they're slaves.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:39:50 2016 No.8220185
File: 305 KB, 184x219, 1467587738126.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which science presents for
our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home.
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving;
that his origin, his growth, his fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of
accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and
feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages,
all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are
destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temper of
Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins —
all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy
which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only
on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be
safely built.

Look at this trash and tell me STEMlords haven't made a God out of objectivity and projected the sterility and mechanism of their discipline onto everything.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:40:15 2016 No.8220186

>>8220155

Anon, neoliberalism is not in practice.

It's yet another delusion.

Government tax breaks, bonds, grants and bailouts are antithetical to neoliberalism, yet they dominate the economies of supposedly neoliberal societies.

Philosophies all you like about which societal system to implement; you'll just end up with the same thing.

>it exists in such a 2000yrs ago and non-literal way that it's not suited to guide society any longer

Top kek that's philosophy lad m8.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:41:31 2016 No.8220188 >>8220176 Black and white mangas are the best though...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:42:22 2016 No.8220191 >>8220188 It's all about contrast, anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:43:06 2016 No.8220192 >>8220180 Philosophy = informal + formal logic reasoning Science = informal and formal logic reasoning + falsifiability + experimentation + evidence. It's over anon, philosophy is dead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:43:43 2016 No.8220193 >>8220192 Science is a formalized subset of philosophy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:44:12 2016 No.8220195

>>8220086
>science can tell you the economic effect social welfare has on a society and thus provide a corridor of freedom for policy to work within, but the tendency within this corridor needs to be addressed philosophically, that is, through debate and consensus.

We've compartmentalized that form of thinking into the fields of political science and policymaking though. When people refer to philosophy in its current form, they're talking about epistemology, not constructive debate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:45:10 2016 No.8220199 >>8220192 philosophy = synthesis, holism, intuition, deduction science = analysis, autism, contingent, formulaic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:45:16 2016 No.8220200 >>8220193 Yes, anon. Science is the conclusion to millennia of philosophical pursuit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:46:18 2016 No.8220204 >>8220199 >synthesis, holism, intuition, deduction Please define each and every one of those terms.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:48:28 2016 No.8220211 >>8220199 >>8220192 you are both idiots for fighting over word soup /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:49:14 2016 No.8220213 >>8220200 Philosophy does not conclude until our machine minds have exhausted every single novel thought we can possibly think at a given interval of our evolution.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:50:39 2016 No.8220216 >>8220211 Nigger.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:51:39 2016 No.8220218

>>8220204
bringing together seemingly disparate information about reality and resolving it into an intuitive, organic whole

intuition is a flash of apprehension that comprehends phenomena as they are instead of what they are made of

deduction is the process by which one acquires knowledge of the foundational principles of existence and subsequently extrapolates specific examples

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:51:41 2016 No.8220219 >>8220213 Yes, science ends when humans do. Philosophy that is unscientific is already dead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:52:42 2016 No.8220221 >>8220218 So reckonings based on feels. Cool beans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:54:34 2016 No.8220222 >>8220221 More like assembling a beautiful statue piece by piece than having it all laid out on a table in complicated autismal fragments

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:57:12 2016 No.8220227 >>8220222 And then you test it. Oh look it's science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 13:59:11 2016 No.8220229 >>8220221 Where is the emotion in intuitively understanding one is not his thoughts, or that time is fundamentally change itself, or that one is just a part in an inter-dependent whole? You have no idea what you're saying or what's being said.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:00:31 2016 No.8220233 >>8220227 A tool does not own the truth it tests, especially if that truth was intuited knowledge in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:02:02 2016 No.8220234 >>8220229 >one is not his thoughts >time is fundamentally change itself >that one is just a part in an inter-dependent whole That's what science deals with babycakes. If it's not testable then it's just intellectual fappery.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:02:34 2016 No.8220236 >>8219875 Epistemology is the most sensible branch of philosophy. By being almost sensible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:02:55 2016 No.8220237 >>8220078 your retardation is beyond measure i guess you must be pretty shite at actual science, too (that is besides biochem and psychology, kek)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:03:05 2016 No.8220238 >>8220233 >if that truth was intuited knowledge in the first place It's a good thing science doesn't rely on intuition then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:04:26 2016 No.8220241 >>8220237 And nothing was said! Fluff and insults; insults and fluff. You fluffy grumpy bunny.

>>	OP Fri Jul 22 14:05:38 2016 No.8220243 >>8220078 >>8220237 That's not OP; I'm OP.

>>	Real OP Fri Jul 22 14:06:34 2016 No.8220247 >>8220243 No I'm OP.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:07:29 2016 No.8220249

>>8219875
Woman's Studies < Cultural Studies< Religion < Philosophy < Sociology < Government < Marketing < Psychology < Biology < Chemistry < Physics < Quantum Sciences and Mathematics

You have to give it to them, atleast they aren't on the bottom of the chain.
In the end they're just kids who want to be poets or the modern day Nietzche. A true philosopher will know who to look up to for inspiration and can form their own opinions (not implying Nietzche did that, just brought him up to show that the kiddos are edgy).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:08:32 2016 No.8220251 >>8219884 Heh, kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:08:53 2016 No.8220252 >>8220234 science is just confirming what ancient thinkers have been saying for thousands of years. >>8220238 lol

>>	The Real Slim OP Fri Jul 22 14:09:40 2016 No.8220253 >>8220247 I don't think so.

>>	Not Real OP Fri Jul 22 14:10:25 2016 No.8220254 >>8220253 Okay, you got me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:11:35 2016 No.8220256 File: 138 KB, 498x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220252 >science is just confirming what ancient thinkers have been saying for thousands of years Pic related.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:13:06 2016 No.8220258

>>8219951
The issue is that not all humans think logically, or even mostly logically. The people are absolutely stupid. You need someone who can get down to their level whilst maintaining communications and a relationship with distribution and manufacturing. A middle man per say.

>>	Double agent OP. Fri Jul 22 14:13:10 2016 No.8220259 >>8220254 Are you ready for your next assignment?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:13:58 2016 No.8220261 File: 38 KB, 499x338, 1468900493691.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220249 >It's an 'undergrad thinks the world of science reflects his undergrad major power rankings' episode

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:14:12 2016 No.8220262 >>8220258 Yeah, it's called a well educated scientist.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:17:32 2016 No.8220273

>>8220262
Watch a few episodes of the show House on Netflix. That is where you see the difference between a well educated scientist and philosophers and shit.
The shows a fucking meme in the medical world, but just watch like two episodes. You'll get what I'm trying to say.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:21:46 2016 No.8220281 File: 568 KB, 874x1760, consequentialism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220032 >utilitarian cuck What could possibly go wrong!

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:23:04 2016 No.8220284

>>8220256
>we've done it, we've finally realized the One Truth after thousands of years of everyone else getting it wrong, the next generation will never expand and/or modify our current understanding of reality like we did to the one passed down to us, we've done it, it's over

literally a child's understanding of history

you're a fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:40:07 2016 No.8220304 >>8220284 >the next generation will never expand and/or modify our current understanding of reality No that's the opposite of science. The opposite of what I'm saying. We just make better and better approximations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:41:09 2016 No.8220305 >>8220273 I've seen every episode of house at least five times. Yes, it's a meme in regard to medicine. What are you getting at?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:46:29 2016 No.8220317 >>8219943 This. I'm not a fan of the postmodern bullshit that is wrecking our universities, but that doesn't mean we should turn against philosophy in its entirety - some of it is valuable and necessary

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:47:12 2016 No.8220319

>>8220304
No. The fedora materialism you cucks are trying to peddle will change and go the way of the dodo. Science can do what it wants, but its pseudo-metaphysics of "le nothing matters" is bullshit.

There is a greater knowledge than knowledge of the sensible. If you think the first time someone debunked a hypothesis in a lab was the first time we ever truly learned anything, you've been swigging the kool aid too m8

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:56:52 2016 No.8220334 >>8220319 >There is a greater knowledge than knowledge of the sensible. What's that then m8?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 14:58:39 2016 No.8220341 >>8220334 Knowledge of the self. Knowledge of reality through consciousness instead of quantities and formulae

>>	OP Fri Jul 22 15:01:43 2016 No.8220351 >>8220319 >materialism Materialist! That's the one I forgot.

>>	OP Fri Jul 22 15:03:07 2016 No.8220354 >>8220341 >Subjective personal experience Ok Deepak.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:07:48 2016 No.8220362 >>8220354 ok kid

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:10:54 2016 No.8220368
File: 441 KB, 583x470, 1469210180118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8219875
>realism
Debunked by quantum mechanics.

>reductionism
Anti-scientific denial of emergent phenomena.

>positivism
This one is okay, if done right.

>determinism
Again debunked by quantum mechanics.

>epistemology
Solved by science and math.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:12:52 2016 No.8220370 >>8220368 >>epistemology >Solved by science and math. fucking lmao

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:13:31 2016 No.8220373

>>8220186
neoliberalism is very much in practice. government tax breaks (aka getting rid of taxes in favor of letting the markets rule) are at the heart of neoliberalism. bonds, grants and bailouts are antithetical to neoliberalism, but have been made necessary by it: the endless privatization of shit which shouldn't be handled by private company led to said companies being "too big to fail", which then results in the government having to step in to keep the economy from collapsing (hence, the failure of neoliberalism: the too big to fail was never a part of the theory, yet it should have been).

thus, we are in need of a new economic policy/philosophy. they all fail eventually, but we aren't currently replacing the old one because there is not alternative.

you're thinking in too big categories when saying "what societal system to implement", that's not what philosophies are for. philosophy is for answering questions such as "is medical treatment a human right?". not necessarily even that big.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:14:20 2016 No.8220374 >>8220259 No I'm not OP.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:15:13 2016 No.8220376 >>8220370 We know there are exactly two methods of gaining objective knowledge: The scientific method or mathematical proof.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:18:19 2016 No.8220380 >>8220376 >walk outside when it's raining >it's raining do i need to conduct a study to know this are you fucking high

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:18:48 2016 No.8220382 >>8220380 Observations are part of science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:18:51 2016 No.8220383 >>8219883 >>8219928 >>8219952 >>8220066 >>8220219 1. http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/useof.html 2. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2088/how-will-learning-about-philosophy-impact-real-life

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:21:23 2016 No.8220389 >>8220382 meaning most science/mathematical knowledge is just a formalization of what we already know intuitively you're a fucking clown

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:24:19 2016 No.8220394 >>8220382 That doesn't mean that anyone who is making empirical observations is using the scientific method, retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:37:36 2016 No.8220421 >>8220380 no but you do need to do a study to find out if it rains a different liquid where you live compared to somewhere else

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:42:26 2016 No.8220432 >>8220421 you're trolling, ok i get it

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:50:16 2016 No.8220450
File: 152 KB, 640x980, albert-einstein-1460637.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8219875
This board really is full of high-schoolers/undergrads circlejerking about college majors and starting salaries.

You "shut up and calculate" fags fail to realize that all these fields of study don't exist in a vacuum; they develop interdependently as new ideas and discoveries are made. Scientific discoveries can give rise to new philosophical implications, and conversely new philosophical ideas can direct toward new scientific findings (hell, modern science came directly out of empiricism and logical positivism). Believe it or not, it's possible to study more than just what's listed on your undergrad transcript. In fact, a good scientist should strive to think about the interpretations and implications of his results outside of just manipulating a string of equations someone else came up with.

Just because one field doesn't have as much abstruse mathematical symbology as another doesn't make it any less worthwhile.

t. STEM grad sick of the STEM meme

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 15:56:33 2016 No.8220463

>>8220450
>hell, modern science came directly out of empiricism and logical positivism
false

>a good scientist should strive to think about the interpretations and implications of his results
If the scientist himself can do this, then you only confirm that we don't need philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 16:01:44 2016 No.8220470 >>8220463 >false Where did it come from then? >If the scientist himself can do this, then you only confirm that we don't need philosophers. You're missing the whole point: that scientist IS a philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 16:07:34 2016 No.8220483 >>8220470 >Where did it come from then? I'm not your personal wikipedia. >You're missing the whole point: that scientist IS a philosopher. Just like he is an eater, breather or walker. Trivialities are not worth mentioning.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 17:15:24 2016 No.8220587
File: 265 KB, 620x531, sci meets logic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8220192
I hate how people use this kind of 'false science' as a way to escape philosophical arguments. Science is a polished form of empiricism based around certain principles and yet that does not exclude science from various other philosophical or moral problems. Since when does 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' invalidate intentionality and morality? You seem to think that neurology results in determinism or somehow colors things as 'objective' in a way when all it does it provides a basis to view what the act of making a conscious decision is like in the material realm without commenting on the ontological, epistemological, metaphysical or any other philosophical questions. If your 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' is proven to have causality that exists outside of man and outside of intetionality then you can have your pseudo-morality validated. Science only proves the possibility of a material context but a material context in no way infringes on the validity of the question of the problem of evil and other such issues. If you want to ally yourself with the idea of objectivism or perspectivism please don't use such embarrassing arguments as "neurons firing through biological infrastructure" or also "probabilistic quantum particles flying through space" which usually also disrespects the original science of the matter.

Your argument anyway, that because neurology shows that consciousness has a base connection to material reality means that its equivalent to natural phenomena, like natural disasters, is basically pseudo-Stoicism with a Scientism slant. Its like Aurelius' statement that man must conform to Nature except you're using it to justify perspectivism but I don't see the logical link between the two.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 17:23:33 2016 No.8220599 >>8220587 Cringetastic. Tell me when philosophy ever determines any thing about morality or justice. Until then shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 17:28:11 2016 No.8220606 >>8220599 My uncircumcised penis.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 17:28:36 2016 No.8220607
File: 48 KB, 311x475, 80449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8220599
>can't make a proper refutation
>resorts to insults
I bet this STEMtwat hasn't heard of pic related.
Read up on A Cooperative Species by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis when you can. You might learn a thing or two.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 18:10:38 2016 No.8220679 >>8220587 you're totally right but you should be telling the fedoras that

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 18:59:57 2016 No.8220758 >>8220599 Stupid undergrad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:03:40 2016 No.8220760 >>8220758 >projecting

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:05:32 2016 No.8220763

>>8220758
More like stupid gutter trash. This is what happens when you educate morons. You only get educated morons that run their mouth the same as regular morons, but in places where they shouldn't be.

He is among those who must be lynched in the street so we can start over.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:09:57 2016 No.8220769 >>8220763 How very philosophical of you. Your worldview could have been acquired on /pol/ in under a week for free instead at some 4-year for tens of thousands of dollars.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:11:48 2016 No.8220771 >>8220769 Stupid post by stupid poster.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:18:03 2016 No.8220779 >>8219980 Philosophy develops the rules for math and science using reason and logic.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:21:05 2016 No.8220783

>>8220373

>neoliberalism is very much in practice.

Certain aspects are in place; however, several other aspects of society are wholly antithetical to it.

>government tax breaks (aka getting rid of taxes in favor of letting the markets rule) are at the heart of neoliberalism.

No, neoliberalism would see taxes slashed across the board; tax breaks acting as government subsides being offered to corporations while the majority of the population are heavily taxed is antithetical to neoliberalism.

Not only that, but these tax exemptions typically allow corporations to escape paying a large amount of what little tax they actually have to pay when they are unable to exploit tax loopholes; ironically these loopholes are identified and navigated by private accountancy firms, who are the very same people brought in to advise the government of drafting tax legislation.

Essentially, the people writing our tax laws are informing their extremely wealthy clients how to navigate them.

It’s a racket.

>bonds, grants and bailouts are antithetical to neoliberalism, but have been made necessary by it: the endless privatization of shit which shouldn't be handled by private company led to said companies being "too big to fail", which then results in the government having to step in to keep the economy from collapsing

>but have been made necessary by it
>the too big to fail was never a part of the theory, yet it should have been

It wasn’t made necessary by neoliberalism at all.

The ideology didn’t include too big to fail scenarios because while it called for the privatisation of every state asset, it also called for free market competition; it is vehemently opposed to state subsidised corporate monopolies and rackets.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:22:08 2016 No.8220786

>>8220783

> to keep the economy from collapsing

The economy collapsed due to unregulated high risk derivatives speculation and a complete lack of rationality on the part of bankers; this involved a widespread underestimation of risk and overvaluation of financial instruments, combined with plainly fraudulent behaviour on the part of ratings agencies, mortgage lenders and investment banks, that ultimately led to a global financial crisis.

In a capitalist economy, the banks and service providers that engage in such high risk and negligent behaviour would have been claimed by the self-regulatory nature of the market: engage in high risk derivatives speculation of this sort and you will go under; this sends a message to others not to follow suit.

This did not happen, however; the very institutions responsible for the crises were bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars globally.

Nobody of significance faced a criminal conviction and no legislation was drafted to limit the degree of risky speculation permitted by law.

The same people that caused the 2008 financial crisis were handed trillions of dollars and are currently engaging in the exact same form of high risk speculation that got us into the mess in the first place.

In addition to the bailout, quantitative easing was introduced which is essentially government sanction counterfeiting; this cash was used as a funding stream to flood the financial markets with liquidity.

The financially powerful were reinstated in their positions and thereafter given a safety net, in the form of a funding stream.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:23:10 2016 No.8220787

>>8220786

>thus, we are in need of a new economic policy/philosophy.
>>they all fail eventually, but we aren't currently replacing the old one because there is not alternative.

The eco-political system suits those with financial power just fine; hence the bailout went ahead and effectively decapitated capitalism by neutering the self-regulatory nature of the markets.

The revolving door policy operating between politics, big business and the media essentially guarantees that the system will continually be supported until it results in yet another depression.

It’s socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor, which is an anathema to anybody who identifies as a neoliberal; however, it suits the socially dominant just fine.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:24:06 2016 No.8220790

Science can't tell you what to do with its results. Hell, science itself is a result of philosophy.

Science is applied philosophy. Every scientists should have at least a grasp of philosophy to know why science works, otherwise they risk becoming a mindless sheep that does things because they're told it worked.

People who dismiss philosophy are just dumb. You can't even dismiss philosophy without using philosophy.

It seems easy to people to dismiss it as useless because the groundworks are already settled, but that doesn't mean that philosophy itself is useless. Maybe yeah, it isn't a viable way to spend your WHOLE major on, but you NEED to have studied at some point if you're on a scientific field.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:26:11 2016 No.8220792

>>8220383

>http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/useof.html

>This turns out to be interesting. It is the genesis of both science and philosophy, with science taking the more empirical road to understanding and philosophy the more conceptual.

Experimental science deals with the empirical, while theoretical sciences deal with the conceptual.

The only viable conceptual philosophy is theoretical science, as its conceptual models can be tested for accuracy.

>Well, why is anything valuable? It is a good question, isn’t it? It’s a philosophical question.

It's a scientific question; why do human beings attribute value or positive association to certain things?

>To think that one thing is more valuable than another is already to have presupposed answers to a range of questions, questions which most people scarcely raise for themselves

A more specific and conceptually relevant scientific question would be: to what degree does genetic and environmental programming contribute to the nature of this association?

>The question why understanding is valuable answers itself. Once you ask the question, any sound answer requires that you seek an understanding of what makes something valuable and what understanding is.

Cue cognitive science.

>It is because with a good education comes an enlarged capacity for understanding. A good education gives you the knowledge of what it is like to really understand something. It brings a wider and more acute perception of things generally. It provides a context for understanding the pattern of your own life which frees it from the parochialism of time and place.

What a fantastic description of science.

>it requires exercise of very advanced analytical skills, and very highly developed language skills, the sort mentioned above that are inseparable from being able to think well.

Oh look science again.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:27:14 2016 No.8220793

>>8220792

>http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2088/how-will-learning-about-philosophy-impact-real-life

>critical thinking skills and reasoning ability
>one of the skills that philosophy seems to emphasize most is critical thinking.

Science is entirely built upon informal and formal logical reasoning and abstract conceptualisation.

It takes informal, formal and symbolic forms of reasoning and creates models of reality, then tests their accuracy.

Science does philosophy in its sleep and then goes one step further.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:36:55 2016 No.8220800

>>8220587

>Science is a polished form of empiricism based around certain principles and yet that does not exclude science from various other philosophical or moral problems.

Every problem is a scientific problem; without science, we cannot discern anything to any degree of accuracy.

>Since when does 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' invalidate intentionality and morality?

I have no idea who you are replying to, as I didn’t even mention neurons once.

>You seem to think that neurology results in determinism or somehow colors things as 'objective' in a way when all it does it provides a basis to view what the act of making a conscious decision is like in the material realm without commenting on the ontological, epistemological, metaphysical or any other philosophical questions.

I still have no idea who you are replying to.

>If your 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' is proven to have causality that exists outside of man and outside of intetionality then you can have your pseudo-morality validated.

What pseudo-morality?

>Science only proves the possibility of a material context but a material context in no way infringes on the validity of the question of the problem of evil and other such issues.

Evil? Oh dear.

The notion of ‘evil’ is entirely explicable within science and is a little primitive, anon.

Define it and we’ll have a look at what we come up with.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:37:57 2016 No.8220801

>>8220800

>If you want to ally yourself with the idea of objectivism or perspectivism please don't use such embarrassing arguments as "neurons firing through biological infrastructure" or also "probabilistic quantum particles flying through space" which usually also disrespects the original science of the matter.

You brought up the neurones and now you’ve just introduced ‘quantum particles’ (as if there is any other kind of particle), without explaining anything.

>Your argument anyway, that because neurology shows that consciousness has a base connection to material reality means that its equivalent to natural phenomena, like natural disasters, is basically pseudo-Stoicism with a Scientism slant.

That’s your argument; you introduced it.

You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:46:50 2016 No.8220807

>>8220790

Science uses informal and formal logic to draw up falsifiable models of reality, then tests them.

Science developed out of positivist and empiricist philosophy.

Philosophy is the history of science; it’s dead now.

>Science can't tell you what to do with its results

It can tell you what to do based on what the desired outcome is.

It can also tell you why an outcome is desired.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:47:52 2016 No.8220808 >>8220800 >Define it and we’ll have a look at what we come up with. The problem of evil is mainly an aspect of theology. Evil is also not hard to define. Defining it universally as a thing that exists on its own, is likely not possible.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:50:53 2016 No.8220813

>>8220808

>The problem of evil is mainly an aspect of theology.

You're damn right it is and theology is nonsense.

>Evil is also not hard to define.

Quite right.

It is an abstract conceptualisation of the highest degree of negative association possible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 19:56:14 2016 No.8220819 >>8220813 >theology is nonsense Have you even studied theology? Many atheists may be born from studying theology, but even then said literate atheists would be hard-pressed to call theology "nonsense".

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 19:58:20 2016 No.8220821

Im doing monte-carlo simulations of nuclear decay to compare to experimental results.

These simulations are essentially applications of a series of equations to see if what Ive done experimentally makes sense in light of our understanding of these phenomena.

If the simulations don't match, I might go off on a complete tirade of a tangent and assume the entirety of our understanding of decay is wrong and we need to re-envision what decay is.

But more than likely I just fucked up in the simulation, or the program isnt vigorous enough to conform to the equations. Or maybe my detectors were not calibrated correctly in the experiment.

But who knows, maybe my data not matching the simulation leads to the addition of variables to the equation.

How does philosophy apply here?

And before you mention 'philosophy is how you apply the results of the experiment' it's directly applied to the study of cancer. Determining how it relates to cancer research might take some knowledge of the field, but doesnt involve much 'intuition of the self' or any knowledge not derived from experiment.

OP Fri Jul 22 19:58:33 2016 No.8220822
File: 135 KB, 584x896, 54544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This thread has been fucking amazing.

Not one viable argument was made by a philosophy tard; all they did was display their ignorance of science and we even had a few metaphysical wu wu devotees crawl out of the woodwork.

Thanks for the laughs; my sides have 0 potential energy right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:01:17 2016 No.8220826 >>8220819 Yes, I have. It's fucking full to the brim of idiocy. Please, do however introduce a theological topic and we'll discuss it in a civil manner. I promise.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:02:23 2016 No.8220828

>>8220821
>And before you mention 'philosophy is how you apply the results of the experiment' it's directly applied to the study of cancer.
Nah, you already answered the question yourself. Philosophy forms the underpinnings of how you give your results meaning, and figure their overall implication.

Just because you've never picked through the low level assumptions within your logical framework, doesn't mean there aren't any there.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:07:19 2016 No.8220840

>>8220828

>Philosophy forms the underpinnings of how you give your results meaning, and figure their overall implication.

No, science does.

The modern and refined form of positivist empiricist philosophy, which we refer to as science, is what forms the underpinnings of his analyses and conclusions.

The rest of philosophy is completely irrelevant.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:09:23 2016 No.8220843

I'd just like to say that I find philosophy to be piss easy and almost obvious.

I take it for granted because of how self-evident or nonsensical aspects of it are.

Science is the difficult part and it's where we actually get shit done; you know, like intergrated circuits and the internet.

>You're welcome
>t.the ghost of science

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:10:27 2016 No.8220844 >>8220383 >http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/useof.html Hahahahahaha, it's like a child with no understanding of science wrote this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:11:29 2016 No.8220846 File: 13 KB, 404x297, 432434423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:11:39 2016 No.8220847

The philosophy retards have yet to answer what problems they solved in the last 100 years. Even dumb disciplines like political science have done infinitely more than philosophy. Philosophy is the only one that can truly say that it's accomplished nothing.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:15:52 2016 No.8220852

>>8220840
>No, science does.
No, philosophy does. Science is a subset of philosophy. Science is simply a tool. At most it could be called a limited framework for reasoning. What uses the fruits it bears in the human machine, and it does so via philosophy.

>The modern and refined form of positivist empiricist philosophy, which we refer to as science, is what forms the underpinnings of his analyses and conclusions.
No. None of these things encompass complex error control (epistemology, indirectly), ontological principles (notions of being and capacity for becoming), or an idea of what is to be treated as truth. They are not usable in a standalone sense.

>The rest of philosophy is completely irrelevant.
Not knowing that something has been formalized and given a name, doesn't mean you aren't using it, and it doesn't mean you didn't create some form of it independently.

This is the problem you're having, you can't view philosophy as anything other than a field of study, and it leads to your self contradiction. By your definition, Ramanujan or whoever wasn't doing mathematics until he went to Britain. Clearly nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:17:55 2016 No.8220857 >>8220852 Nice word games.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:19:27 2016 No.8220858 >>8220852 Philosphy is just humans thinking, anon. That's what my views are. I think our disagreement is semantic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:20:14 2016 No.8220860 >>8220857 If you're not able to reason by mapping language with logic, it'd explain your issues with philosophy. :^)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:22:32 2016 No.8220864 Science is the only way we can know anything to any degree of accuracy; science is philosophy plus testability.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:25:02 2016 No.8220869

Science is applied philosophy.

I think the problems on /sci/ arise because those based in philosophy have learned how to think, but haven’t learned what others who are proficient at thinking have come up with; namely science.

So you end up with people who are proficient at thinking, but scientifically ignorant.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:26:24 2016 No.8220871

>>8220860
That's the issue with philosophy: it has no concept of falsifiability, so it interprets everything literally without regard to whether or not its true, and then leads to faulty conclusions as a result. All you're doing is playing word games. It doesn't matter if you can form perplexing statements if the underlying logical assumptions are false.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:27:43 2016 No.8220873 >>8220852 >At most it could be called a limited framework for reasoning. It's the only framework for reasoning. If you disagree provide a counter example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:28:56 2016 No.8220875 >>8220168 >age is a meaningful determinator of validity lmao kill yourself philosotard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:32:37 2016 No.8220885 >>8220875 No, not age, level of education.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:32:48 2016 No.8220886

>>8220871
I went into this in depth the last few times this thread rolled around. Unfortunately I don't feel like doing it again, it's the kind of thing that has too much overhead to communicate in a short conversation. You need to give someone a relatively full logical framework to pick through on their own, else they just take each of your statements and contrast it with their preconceptions, then jump to one of the many ways they've built to nullify it.

You need to provide the means for the bigger picture, and I don't have the energy. Sorry. Start by tracing your chain of logic back as far as you possibly can about the claim philosophy is "playing word games". With every axiom, try to reduce it further until you end up at something that appears by nature, irreducible.

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 20:34:03 2016 No.8220888

>>8220828

Oh!
So Philosophy is to science what Perl is to the internet - a low level, archaic construct that almost nobody really codes in but uses daily?

My first language was Perl. Aside from the odd RegExp I dont use it anymore. It runs on the internet, though... Unless Python does.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:34:06 2016 No.8220889 >>8220852 >Science is a subset of philosophy. No. Science is modern philosophy. Any form of philosophy that is unscientific (unfalsifiable) is junk.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:36:09 2016 No.8220893 >>8220886 >provide the means for the bigger picture, and I don't have the energy. Anon povide it! I'm not that anon, and I will wait and read what you post patiently. I'm genuinely interested.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:37:10 2016 No.8220895 >>8220889 Stop copying my formatting >>8220893

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:37:45 2016 No.8220900 >>8220886 What you're describing is formal logic, a subset of mathematics, which sure as shit isn't the truisms found in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:38:14 2016 No.8220903 File: 28 KB, 394x391, Yesfgf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220895 No you.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:40:42 2016 No.8220909

>>8220893
I've eaten ~400 calories in the last 42 hours. The only food I have is either mainly protein, or just starch. It is nauseating and I have a headache.

I'll see if I can find the thread in the archive. The main premise is centered around that the the mind and the senses can ultimately only be proven in a circular and self referential way, and how this relates with the notion of having a "body", and arbitrary scale.

I'm not going to type it out otherwise. Just a shame people would reject something useful and interesting, then probably accept it under another name.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:42:52 2016 No.8220916 >>8220847 The most interesting thing that philosophy has given us over the last century is "How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:43:15 2016 No.8220917 >>8220909 Nah, I'm pretty sure it's long gone. Oh well. Enjoy philosophy vs science thread #1045342334998.999

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:47:17 2016 No.8220928

>>8220909

>the mind and the senses can ultimately only be proven in a circular and self referential way

Yes, we can never know anything for certain.

As, ultimately our powers of observation are restricted by our natural perceptive limitations, relative to individual cognitive ability, the senses and our inherent psychological arrow of time; the mere fact that we observe something, changes its form entirely.

But once that's out the way we can get on with the science, right?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:51:20 2016 No.8220934

>>8220928
>But once that's out the way we can get on with the science, right?
Yep. As long as every single individual has accepted and integrated the base truth that is inherent uncertainty, and formed their epistemological positions around it in a meaningful way, we can get on with doing the sciencing just fine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:57:38 2016 No.8220943 >>8220934 Well, if anyone hasn't done that then they are an unscientific jeb end in my book.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:58:39 2016 No.8220946 >>8220852 Chemistry is a subset of alchemy

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 20:59:02 2016 No.8220947

>>8220934
Here's the thing: if you can't observe something, can't interact with it, can't see it, can't use it, it can't influence anything else in the universe to make its presence known, and is totally invisible to all study, measurement, and interaction, then it effectively doesn't exist and you can't argue otherwise. Why? Because if something can exist without having any effect on the universe, then I can also make all kinds of bullshit claims about the magic penis lord that nobody can see who administrates the brains in vats. Since the magic penis lord is silly, and is equally valid as your claims that we can't trust our senses, then your claims that we can't trust our senses is also silly.

Therefore we really can no sumtin. QED

Now fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:00:49 2016 No.8220951 >>8220389 >meaning most science/mathematical knowledge is just a formalization of what we already know intuitively kek

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:02:05 2016 No.8220953

>>8220909
"Reject something useful and interesting"

Ill take the useful parts and reject everything else. Your statement before that is summarized as >>8220916

From what I understand, Science is a means of determining what is true or not.

Philosophy evaluates the basis on which Science operates, but seems too subjective to provide anything meaningful beyond stating that what we observe may not be real.

Thus we

>>8220934

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:03:37 2016 No.8220956 >>8220947 >Therefore we really can no sumtin. Sorry anon, but it just ain't so. Accepting this is part of what separates children from adults. There is no need to be afraid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:04:03 2016 No.8220957 >>8220947 Anon, you're being silly. We assume that we can trust our senses, based on our senses. We have no choice. But once we accept that little caveat, it's science all day long!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:04:17 2016 No.8220959 >>8220956 All hail the magic penis lord. Prove me wrong >protip: you can't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:05:33 2016 No.8220962 >>8220959 mai penne is bigur then urs hurr hurr urr durr :^)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:07:32 2016 No.8220968 File: 31 KB, 775x380, philososhit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:07:49 2016 No.8220969

>>8220957
You're right. While we perceive science in our simulated universe, we're actually all brains in vats inside the Magic Penis Lord's invisible castle. His Girthliness feeds our simulated brains false information that is only consistent with our made-up universe.

>>	OP Fri Jul 22 21:07:51 2016 No.8220970 >>8220959 Dude this is like basic logical reasoning, circa 350BC. >The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:09:50 2016 No.8220974 >>8220962 >>8220970 You can't argue for or against the MPL because he exists outside our simulated universe and you can't see him. And also our simulation is perfect so that we can never realize that it's a simulation. :^)

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:10:34 2016 No.8220976

>>8220969

Yes, we can't falsify the hypothesis about the Magic Penis Lord.

The point I am trying to get across is that we are forced to accept the valdiity of our senses by default.

We have no other choice.

This introduces an element of uncertainty.

Which science is just fine with.

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:11:23 2016 No.8220978

>>8220969
Y'know, given that paradigm humans would eventually develop enough technology to either break out of the simulation, or crash it.

Unless none of the rules of this universe about limits apply there, in which case discussing it is moot.

The Matrix was a cool movie. Too bad they never made a sequel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:11:41 2016 No.8220979 >>8220976 >Yes, we can't falsify the hypothesis about the Magic Penis Lord. No you can't because he doesn't exist in our universe and has created a perfect simulation that can't be recognized as such.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:11:48 2016 No.8220980 >>8220976 WOW BRAND NEW INFORMATION WOAHH mind = blown

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:11:52 2016 No.8220981 >>8220974 Neat. It's one of a wide spectrum of possibilities we can entertain as being logically possible, but cannot necessarily prove. Look anon, you're hypothesizing. You're philosophizing. You're ionizing and atomizing. :^)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:12:44 2016 No.8220984 >>8220978 Not if it's a perfect simulation. Which it is. :^)

>>	Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:13:27 2016 No.8220986 >>8220979 Philosophy: The Post

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:13:58 2016 No.8220987 >>8220984 :^) :^) :^) :^) ;^)

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:14:27 2016 No.8220990

>>8220979

>No you can't because he doesn't exist in our universe and has created a perfect simulation that can't be recognized as such.

Cool religion, anon.

Anyway, that's not the point I am getting at.

You have to accept the validity of your sensory perception and subsequent internal simulation, before you do anything else.

That's something you have to accept without testing, as testing it would be impossible.

We accept that and then get on with the science, so that we can make cool shit and discover how things work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:15:29 2016 No.8220992 >>8220980 It's not new at all. I just said it's circa 350BC.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:17:23 2016 No.8220997 Why do you retards always assume that people arguing in favor of philosophy are philosophy majors? Is it so inconceivable that a fellow STEMlord might actually think Philosophy isn't completely useless?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:17:50 2016 No.8220998

>>8220990
No, you're missing the point: if it can't interact with our perceived reality in any way then it effectively doesn't exist. Even a simulated reality could be observed to be a simulation. If it never interacts with what is real, then it isn't real.

Either that or you had better start making sperm offerings.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:19:18 2016 No.8221002 >>8220997 I said this earlier. It really shows their frame of life, and where their mind is at.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:20:17 2016 No.8221008

>>8220998

Mate, seriously.

>if it can't interact with our perceived reality in any way then it effectively doesn't exist. Even a simulated reality could be observed to be a simulation. If it never interacts with what is real, then it isn't real.

How did you come to any of those conclusions?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:20:33 2016 No.8221009 >>8220997 What is it useful for? Besides fun mental masturbation?

>>	OP Fri Jul 22 21:21:35 2016 No.8221012 File: 27 KB, 500x446, 3322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220997 >>8221002 >implying this thread is intended to be serious in any way

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:22:10 2016 No.8221013

>>8220997
I mean, show us an example where it's uniquely useful and not obsolete and we'll value it.

I saw an $80 oscilloscope at a thrift store but didnt buy it because it was old as fuck and didnt have BNC inputs. Doesnt mean some fellow nerd might like it for the novelty or nostolgia. Its still mostly useless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:23:55 2016 No.8221014 >>8221013 It's useful when it's applied, in the form of science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:24:42 2016 No.8221015 >>8221013 Like I already said, we use philosophy in the gain-of-function research debate....

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:25:53 2016 No.8221018 >>8221008 Think about it: what separates an idea from reality? If something is real and it exists, then it will interact with the universe in some way which we can observe to verify that it's real. If it's an idea it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:27:00 2016 No.8221020 >>8221014 >>8221015 Man... philosoplebs are sad as fuck

>>	Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:28:24 2016 No.8221023 >>8220852 "Science is a subset of philosophy" "You cant view philosophy as anything other than a field of study" So, what is Philosophy if its not a field of study? Im genuinely curious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:30:08 2016 No.8221026 >>8221023 Something that pseudointellectuals use to sound smart and impress their deadbeat friends.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:31:25 2016 No.8221028 >>8221020 I'm not a philosophy major, I'm a genetics grad student. I'm just sayin' that ethicists have a role to play in bio..

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:32:14 2016 No.8221032

>>8221014
Philosophy is useful when its not philosophy???

>>8221015
Gain of function research debate? What?

If I start speculating on the implications of my research its just that - speculation. It oughta lead to some experiments by myself or others to evaluate, but the speculation on science that you see on the news is just utter garbage I wish people would quit.

I saw a paper on cancer cell lines becoming stem-like from radiation dose. Doesnt mean Im gonna go off the wild end and tell patients not to get radiaton therapy because it gives them supercancer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:33:15 2016 No.8221038 >>8221028 Ethics is sociology. Philosophy is you can't no nuffin.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:35:11 2016 No.8221041

>>8221032

By gain-of-function research debate I mean the debate surrounding whether we should do research on gain-of-function mutations in pathogens that could lead to more dangerous diseases.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41263/title/Moratorium-on-Gain-of-Function-Research/

It's a very active debate with smart people on both sides.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:36:18 2016 No.8221043 >>8221041 Sociology

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:36:39 2016 No.8221045 >>8221038 Ethics definitely falls within the purview of the conundrums of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:37:23 2016 No.8221047 >>8221045 Not in an empirical sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:37:56 2016 No.8221048 >>8221020 >>8221032 What do you think science is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:38:40 2016 No.8221050 >>8221045 >>8221047 I should also add, that human ethics are a result of our culture and genetic heritage, and can be studied empirically.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:39:46 2016 No.8221053 >>8221048 WE WUZ DESCARTES N SHEIT

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:40:07 2016 No.8221055

>>8221023
Unfortunately I can't give a direct answer for that. Whether or not it's treated as a formalized field of study or not is entirely up to an individual. Just like any other field.

To me philosophy has always been mostly personal and forms a two way interplay with anything else I study. I independently (re)created a lot of the base ideas that the human species had already thought, recorded, and debated. A lot of what I made had already been defined and given names.

Etc. I can't think of how to convey it right now. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what philosophy is, how it's used, and why it must be that way whether you like it or not. You will derive greater utility by learning to use it, and you will harvest information from your environment much more efficiently.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:41:42 2016 No.8221059 >>8221055 Are you that NEET that never went to college but "studies philosophy on their own?" The one that keeps spamming retarded consciousness threads?

>>	Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:42:03 2016 No.8221060 >>8221041 Sounds like an engineering problem more than a philosophical one. "Can we contain it?" No "Then dont do it."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:42:06 2016 No.8221061 >>8221050 Right, the study and classification of different ethical systems falls within the realm of sociology and anthropology. But the actual resolution of ethical problems is the domain of ethical philosophy. These are two different things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:43:38 2016 No.8221064 >>8221059 No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:43:41 2016 No.8221065 >>8221060 The engineering problem is 'how can we contain it'. The ethical problem is 'is this research worth the risk?' Surely you can tell the difference between the two questions.

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:45:43 2016 No.8221067

>>8221048
Im not sure. Havent gotten a straight answer as to what it is in my opinion.

Look, I dont know where you are or what you do, but Im a bioengineering major doing cancer research. If what Im doing can be called "philosophy", then please change my title from "Scientist" to "Philosopher". I work with 7 post-grads, with degrees varying from chemistry to electrical engineering to physics. None of them have a Philosophy minor as an undergrad - I checked. They never needed one.

Are we all secretly philosophers?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:46:08 2016 No.8221069 >>8221065 He means ascertaining the magnitude of the risk in order to make an informed decision. If benefits outweigh risks, then do it. No amount of navel gazing will you a satisfying answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:47:09 2016 No.8221072 >>8221067 >Are we all secretly philosophers? Yes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:49:03 2016 No.8221075 >>8221072 Just like we're all English majors for knowing how to read and write, correct? Philosophy is so devoid of content that it's trying to package up basic human behavior and claim it as its own.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:50:18 2016 No.8221079 >>8221048 Philosophy is alchemy Science is chemistry Philosophy is cave painting Science is Mona lisa

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:50:53 2016 No.8221081 >>8221075 >majors Still not getting it. You're stuck in education-land.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:51:42 2016 No.8221083

>>8221067

Yes, of course.

Philosophy is just humans thinking.

It's using formal and informal logical reasoning to draw up concepts/models.

Science is the addition of testability to those models.

Which is great and has allowed us to progress massively.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:51:56 2016 No.8221084

>Its a Philosophy is dead thread
Jeez you guys can't stop your mindless bantering about this topic. Philosophy doesn't answer questions it asked them. Science answers them. The moment the question is answered it becomes another field of study. If you guys actually attend college especially at the graduate level then you'll understand why its still relevant. Also the whole consciousness debate has been hijacked by neuroscience and mathematics. They started taking this debate seriously when medicine got to the point where we can test the brain in real time. Sometime philosophy starts a debate when science cannot answer teh question due to the lack of technology. Look at the germ theory debate. I am not a philosophy major. I have a masters in mechanical engineering.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:52:24 2016 No.8221086 >>8221081 There isn't a good demonym for person who is a connoisseur of English. You know what I mean, stop trying to evade the point.

Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:52:43 2016 No.8221088

>>8221055
"Whether or not its treated as a formalized field of study or not is entirely up to an individual. Just like any other field."

Physics, chemistry, math are pretty solidly in the realm of "Fields of study". Not sure how else one might categorize them.

Engineering is typically viewed as the kinda field where you build shit, and is less focused on "studying" new things so much as it is about applying them.

Social Science and Economics focus on the development of models of behavior and thought that (ideally) can be verified and are generally thought of as a field of study. There are jobs primarily in its application. I guess thats where things get fuzzy.

"Youre fundamentally misunderstanding what philosophy is"

Yeah, I am. I suppose its frustrating since the links posted here dont seem to give a clear picture of its definition and application. Is it undefinable?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:52:53 2016 No.8221090

>>8221069

Right, from a utilitarian perspective, we should minimize the harm and maximize the benefit, but philosophy tells us when this heuristic is appropriate or not. Surely most people would agree that killing one person to harvest their organs to save 5 people is bad, and medical ethics is filled with these sorts of dilemmas where strict consequentialist utilitarianism is unsatisfying. Medical ethicists help us by exploring the nuances of human morality.

>>	Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 21:55:54 2016 No.8221093 >>8221065 Look, either we contain it or we don't. If its possible for joe fuckup to walk into the facility without getting kicked out and it results in everything burning it's not contained. Is the risk worth it? If we can contain it, yep.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:56:21 2016 No.8221095 >>8221090 People dying would be an obvious case where risks outweigh benefits. A more likely tradeoff would be people becoming ill but not dying. Philosophy just tries to make things seem less clear and more nuanced than they actually are.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:58:42 2016 No.8221100

>>8221086
It's not about education, majoring, minoring, any of it. It's not even about engaging with historical material, it's simply asking yourself how things are, how they work, and what they're capable of being.

When you attempt to define where your body begins and where it ends, that is philosophy. When you make the broader connection that the earth as a whole is a grand machine able to be viewed as composed of smaller machines arbitrarily, that is philosophy. This is how lateral thinking works. You take a general piece of data, observation, notion of how the world works, and abstract it to a general case. This is why philosophy forms the underpinnings of all else within your reasoning. Being aware of these threads is useful.

Google reductionism, then look up Atomism. Really look into it. You will understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 21:59:32 2016 No.8221102 >>8221090 Lucky for us, humans are born with an objective sense of morality. In fact, we consider it a disease when people don't have objective morality: sociopathy

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:01:19 2016 No.8221107

>>8221100
>When you attempt to define where your body begins and where it ends, that is philosophy. When you make the broader connection that the earth as a whole is a grand machine able to be viewed as composed of smaller machines arbitrarily, that is philosophy. This is how lateral thinking works. You take a general piece of data, observation, notion of how the world works, and abstract it to a general case.
So now we're back where we started: definitions and word games.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:02:32 2016 No.8221110 >>8221102 Yeah, and humans are also born with the sense of sight. Just like humans must use the scientific method to channel their sight, they must use philosophy to channel their moral sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:09:11 2016 No.8221119 >>8221110 That's why ethics falls under sociology :^)

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:09:54 2016 No.8221121
File: 91 KB, 708x547, gre-scores-power-of-philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Someone already mentioned it, but philosophy informs science just as science informs philosophy. They're not contrary they're supplementary. Every scientist deals with philosophy. Why? Because they're fucking humans. Everyone has to deal with philosophy.

Philosophy is important because:
>It informs us of what is the moral thing to do
>It informs about what morality is
>It helps us understand what it means to know something is true or false
>It helps us consider what it means to live a good life
>It shapes the underpinnings of law and society
>It discusses the reasons to live and not commit suicide
>It asks us what the nature of beauty is
>It answers questions where quantified knowledge cannot be obtained (ie what is the expected value of doing X)
>It asks what the nature of being is
>Studying philosophy cultivates (or at the very least signals) a love of knowledge.
>And other things mentioned in the thread

And finally, you are literally retarded if you don't study philosophy. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:11:32 2016 No.8221124 >>8221119 Except it doesn't. They're different fields. Jeez, I don't even know why I bother. you're obviously trolling. I'm not even a philosophy major, I don't even care.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:12:25 2016 No.8221125 >>8221124 >I don't even care I bet God doesn't even care about you either :)

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:14:31 2016 No.8221128

>>8221088
>Physics, chemistry, math are pretty solidly in the realm of "Fields of study". Not sure how else one might categorize them.
However you want.

>Yeah, I am. I suppose its frustrating since the links posted here dont seem to give a clear picture of its definition and application. Is it undefinable?
I am also experiencing frustration. One day I'll finally crack it and trace a reliable path through it all, a template to readily communicate what people are missing in the typical case.

I guess it doesn't really matter though. I view it as destructive and quite a waste, but oh well, ya know? I've got what I needed. I've seen what I've seen. I've built some tools and know how to use them myself. No reason to afford anyone else the means.

I mainly think visually / spatially anyway. My inclination towards philosophy was a large component of what kept me alive at one point. That's at the core of why I fool myself into helping others see something neat. You know it takes a delusional, miserable human being to bitch about philosophy.

Like this know nothin' here:
>>8221107
He clearly isn't aware of what he's saying and its implications. How frustrating.

I'm gonna go.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:15:09 2016 No.8221129 >>8221125 Yeah, epic troll bro. Please go back to /r/4chan

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:16:04 2016 No.8221133 >>8221129 >implying he's me

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:16:12 2016 No.8221135 >>8221129 You wish, keep looking, I doubt you'll go insane

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:17:40 2016 No.8221137

>>8219875
It's funny that the most popular kind of threads on /sci/ are about philosophy. We have people arguing for this long about something they don't know nor understand - although I must admit that it is easier to talk about something you know nothing than something you have studied.

tl:dr this board is full of undergrads...
sage this thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:18:00 2016 No.8221138 >>8221133 Well, you undergrad STEM memers are all the same.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:21:15 2016 No.8221142
File: 139 KB, 684x840, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8221137
>Wooooooo, look at me: I'm all deep and insightful unlike you commoners because I appreciate philosophy
Yeah, nice try. The real problem with it is that the field's proponents are only concerned with appearing smart. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:22:53 2016 No.8221143 >>8221142 Both sides in this debate are concerned with appearing smart/superior, it's all so stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:23:59 2016 No.8221144 File: 63 KB, 797x443, 2311225849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8221142

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:24:55 2016 No.8221145 >>8221143 No, we're collectively tired of the inane shitposting about consciousness being caused by magic spooky skeletons and the you can't no nuffin posters.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:26:04 2016 No.8221146 >>8221145 That's a mis-characterization of the posters in this thread. We have mostly been talking about ethics, not consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:26:41 2016 No.8221147 >>8221146 That's why this thread was created, and that's why we're here arguing with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:29:28 2016 No.8221150 >>8221147 But I'm not a philosophy major...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:32:24 2016 No.8221154 >>8221150 But you've sided with the retarded philosophyposters by defending them, so now we're going to argue.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:34:18 2016 No.8221157 >>8221154 But ethics has a place in medicine and biotech.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:35:19 2016 No.8221158 >>8221121 >verbal and writing skills can be measured objectively Quantitative is the only test that matters.

>>	Biased Undergrad Fri Jul 22 22:37:57 2016 No.8221159 >>8221128 What tools? This is the thing thats so frustrating.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:48:26 2016 No.8221173 >>8220002 logical positivism =/= science at all

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:51:56 2016 No.8221177 >>8220871 The only reason you even care about falsifiability is due to 20th century philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:54:00 2016 No.8221179 File: 68 KB, 630x400, ll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] All stemweenies should be required to take courses in ontology and epistemology

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:54:56 2016 No.8221180
File: 2.64 MB, 435x244, GrippingIckyConey-size_restricted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8221143
>>8221145
>>8221146
>>8221147
>>8221150
>>8221154
>But you've sided with the retarded philosophyposters by defending them, so now we're going to argue.
how's high school going?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:55:06 2016 No.8221181

>>8221013
Without the philosophy of science, people probably would have accepted intelligent design in schools because it is a "POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE LUL." Many of the most compelling arguments given in the Dover court case were originally created by philosophers.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:57:08 2016 No.8221183
File: 39 KB, 467x190, m.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>lol who cares if our models have no bearing on the real world
>lol who cares about interpreting the results of our experiments
>just shut up and calculate guys

Why do we do physics again?

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 22:59:33 2016 No.8221187

>>8221179
Oh really? Please enlighten us.

>>8221179
>hurr make my special snowflake bullshit get more attention

>>8221180
Pretty good, apparently. Prepping my research for publication. :^)

>>8221183
>here, let me misinterpret an old quote and simultaneously ignore advances in particle physics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:01:16 2016 No.8221189 File: 110 KB, 500x365, on-the-internet-nobody-knows-youre-a-dog-meme-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8221187 >Prepping my research for publication. :^)

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:01:18 2016 No.8221190

>>8221159
Use that name the next time this thread rolls around. Maybe I'll be around to elaborate.

This is an aspect of a greater, multifaceted whole:
>>8213192

Philosophy, by nature, and by force, strips and disallows compartmentalization. You will more readily be able to make broader connections between macro topics, in a fluid and very efficient way.

An understanding of scale is also useful. For example, ask yourself, what "is" your "body"? What delineates body from not? Where does it begin, where does it end? More or less, it's arbitrary. You can form some system and trace for hard edges and say oh this oxygen atom here isn't me at this interval in time, or this higher amplitude excitation in an underlying field here falls under my established metric, and this micro-organism that comprises skin ecology doesn't, or whatever. But it's still arbitrary. At such a point you might ask, if the heart is to be considered your organ, why not eg the sun as well? You're a machine. A self sustaining particle system only capable of operating under a range of conditions. Heart failure causes you to fizzle out. Absence of the sun, under most conditions, causes you to fizzle out as well. By such a perspective, a wood stove in the winter could be viewed as part of your body as long as you're reliant on it.

I remember watching Ghost in the Shell when I was ~15. I had and still have trigeminal neuralgia, and myriad other health problems. I was in some manner of pain or physical misery and felt like I would wither away into nothing. The notion of body relative to self experience was something I thought a lot about. Once you have the mental structures built, and the underlying framework to connect them, there is a very wide spectrum of possibilities. Only a fool would have so little experience with his own mind that he fails to see how such things find their way to use.

Now this shit thread can die. Enjoy the next one too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:01:52 2016 No.8221191 >>8221059 I'm that guy. Stay mad mental midget

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:03:19 2016 No.8221194 >>8221187 What do advances in particle physics have to do with how to interpret the notion of a field? Please demonstrate that there is something more to fields than a convenient device we use to calculate charges in particular areas

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:06:13 2016 No.8221200

>>8221189
Lucky for you I don't want to get beaten to publishing so I can't show you the state of the art MINLP optimization algorithm that I made.

>>8221191
Lel, how's it going? Come to any new philosophical realizations between eating doritos and fapping to anime?

>>8221194
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory
>inb4 it's just a "theory"
Yeah, and gravity is just a theory too

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:08:23 2016 No.8221203

all of your worldviews were shaped significantly by the work of philosophers...your ethical, political views, your idea of what "science" even means (what the scientific method is, how it works/how to apply it, why it seems to work), All developed by philosophers. All governments in the world were based on people who were inspired by philosophers (almost no existing developed government was just people organically getting together, they were all developed intentionally with certain philosophies in mind).

I honestly don't get where all this philosophy hate comes from. I get the impression that you guys are all undergrads who just hate philosophy majors because they think their subject is better than yours, and that's infuriating. I work in a math department (postdoc) and I honestly have never met another mathematician who thinks philosophy is useless. Perhaps because we pure mathematicians see value in stuff that's fun to think about, and most scientists only care about getting answers about the real world? idk.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:08:30 2016 No.8221204 >>8221200 its going good dipshit, any fedora sales lately?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:09:32 2016 No.8221205 >>8221179 This is why most american universities require a course on philosophy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:09:44 2016 No.8221206

>>8221200
Yeah, that IS just a theory. Let's not forget that there are several competing theories of mechanisms that would produce gravitation. As Newton so succinctly put it: hypotheses non fingo. Your pithy examples resolve nothing. Theories aren't ontology. Physics may as well be about nothing at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:10:14 2016 No.8221207 >>8221200 >fapping to anime? >He's never had a philosophical fap In retrospect most of my masturbation sessions have an intellectual component.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:11:57 2016 No.8221211 >>8221200 /sci/ confirmed high schoolers and undergrads.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:14:28 2016 No.8221215

>>8221204
I wouldn't know: I've been too busy lifting and working on my research.

>>8221203
Philosophy is to science as alchemy is to chemistry.

>>8221206
>hurr you can't no nuffin
Oh golly gee, I guess they built the nine billion dollar Large Hadron Collider to validate gauge theory for nothing then.

>>8221211
Lel, stay bitter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:18:22 2016 No.8221223 >>8221215 >Philosophy is to science as alchemy is to chemistry. lel cringey faggot. keep talking about me m8 it's not obsessive or anything

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:19:30 2016 No.8221227

>>8221215
Oh golly gee, I guess they built the nine billion dollar Large Hadron Collider to validate gauge theory for nothing then.

And how's that coming along? Any validation of gauge theory will still require an interpretation, just as any other physical theory. If physicists choose to ignore such a vital obligation, as they often do, then that's on them and more fuel for philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:21:24 2016 No.8221231 >>8221227 >Any validation of gauge theory will still require an interpretation, just as any other physical theory. >Oh wow, here's this particle that we predicted would be here based on our calculations and prior observations That sure was hard!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:22:43 2016 No.8221234 File: 28 KB, 182x209, Searle_(2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8219875 itt: confusion between analytic philosophy and continental "philosophy".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:23:28 2016 No.8221235 >>8221223 I just remembered you because I found your NEET status amusing and probably characteristic of a lot of philosoNEETS.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:25:19 2016 No.8221236

>>8221231
That's not an interpretation, that's an observation. What does gauge theory say about the world? What foundational or conceptual issues does it help resolve, if any? What conceptual issues does it raise itself? Any interpretation of a theory must grapple with these issues and more.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:28:19 2016 No.8221239

>>8221236
The experiment validated that the theory is correct. That is the interpretation of the experiment, which was your original question.

You see, in science you can't leap to false conclusions because, unlike philosophy, it's about more than word games. It's about being correct.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:37:14 2016 No.8221249

>>8221239
See, this is why dumb stem people shouldn't talk shit about philosophy when they know nothing about it, because then you get retards like yourself who run themselves in circles confusing formalism for ontology.

>The experiment validated that the theory is correct. That is the interpretation of the experiment

Again, that is not an interpretation. If I perform a double-slit experiment and I get the results as predicted by the formalism, have I interpreted what is actually going on? Have I arrived at any conclusion about what entities exist in the world? About the nature of the objects postulated by the theory? This isn't even mentioning the fact that in the example you provided (or any), a particle can only be observed through indirect means. What have I established about the reality of postulated entities when I can simply be an instrumentalist about it, throw up my hands and say "well that's just how it works!" there's no need to explain things in terms of how or what they actually are.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:44:01 2016 No.8221257

>>8221249
The model is the interpretation. The experiment proved the model. You can form new hypotheses from the experiment, but you can't go off on a tangent and make all kinds of claims that might not be true.

To do any differently would be a violation of the scientific method, which brought you previous hits such as
>disease is a result of bad humors in the blood
>the sun orbits the earth because that consistent with our interpretation of the universe

You don't seem to understand the primitivistic nature of your line of thinking.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:44:48 2016 No.8221258

Without philosophical scaffolding how would science even function?

You all seem to be saying science gives us truths about the world, but the nature or truth and the nature of reality/ontology is firmly in the realm of philosophy

Basically science is a predictive tool that exploits the regularity and correlations of our experiences/observations. Anything more than that is philosophy

Take just simple things like scientific unobservables, atoms etc, science itself can't answer what their nature actually is, that's the job of philosophy. Do atoms actually exist in an external world? What is the nature between this external world and human experience? How do we know ? "Atom" is linguistic, what is the nature if the relationship between language and the world? Does the actual existence or not of atoms make any difference to the scientific results? If not, do unobservables not fall to I cams razor?

Does science give us truths about an external world? Or does science merely function as human tool embedded within daseins world experience of meaning?

What does it even mean to speak of an external world when external world is a human disco real concept, embedded within our conversations and concepts? Are we even referring to anything outside human experience? How does reference even work? Words magically fly into the noumenal realm and highlight thre thing we are discussing

Basically the point is that science ALREADY is propped up by philosophical scaffolding, every time you talk if unobsrvvables which includes the past , dinosaurs evolution etc, YOU are doing philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:46:38 2016 No.8221259 >>8221257 Your model is some description of a state of affairs that correspond to reality you fucking dumb faggot

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:48:24 2016 No.8221265

>>8221257
Models aren't interpretation, which is exactly what Feynman was saying in that picture. They may provide a framework through which we arrive at the results of an experiment, which is fine, but the reality of these models are another question entirely.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:49:05 2016 No.8221266

>>8221258
>Without philosophical scaffolding how would science even function?
Like it does right now. You make a guess and then you measure something to see if that guess is true or not. No wankery necessary.

And all of those things you described are backed by evidence.

In fact, this whole discussion is starting to bear more than a passing resemblance to talking to reality-denying creationists. I guess philosophy is the new mysticism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:49:43 2016 No.8221268 >>8221239 >You see, in science you can't leap to false conclusions Yes you can.

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:55:11 2016 No.8221277

>>8221259
>>8221265
The model (not literally a mathematical model, but a broader conceptual one) allows you to make predictions about reality, which you continue to test. That is the interpretation. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that for you NEET's.

>>8221268
Can't as in you're not supposed to, not can't as in it's impossible. In philosophy you just play around with words without regard for whether or not the bullshit is experimentally true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:55:21 2016 No.8221279 >>8221266 >the nature of atoms is the evidence for atoms holy shit you are too autistic for words

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:56:45 2016 No.8221281 >>8221279 >muh semantic arguments >muh interpreting everything literally Do you have to pass some kind of minimum autism level test before they let you study philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:56:45 2016 No.8221282 >>8221277 a conceptual model is a philosophical model you're either trolling or legitimately handicapped

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:57:49 2016 No.8221283 >>8221281 your reply was a fucking non sequitor compared to what he was actually saying you dumb fucking mong

Anonymous Fri Jul 22 23:59:39 2016 No.8221287

>>8221277
You seem to be very confused. The mathematical model is the model that allows you to make experimental predictions. The conceptual model that you build around that is the philosophical interpretation ie. what that theory says about the world, what is actually going on in the experiment, and so on. I hope that clears things up for you.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:02:07 2016 No.8221292

>>8221282
>a conceptual model is a philosophical model
Not when it's backed by facts. Philosophers don't collect data, and when people do they're called scientists. Go eat some cheetos until your anger passes, philosoNEET

>>8221283
No, he's playing the usual philosophical word games, conveniently arranged in strawman form. Neither of you are apparently capable of wrapping your head around this.

>>8221287
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee muh definitions

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:03:55 2016 No.8221295 >>8221292 >it's all semantics man!!! Not an argument.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:04:01 2016 No.8221296

Hurr durr philosophy is un falsifiable but muh science is!!!

Lol but falsifying something, proving it's not true clearly involves philosophy. The nature of truth and knowledge being one of its biggest fundamentals

This three is just Richard Dawkins going lol evolution n shit fuck philosophy not even grasping that he's doing philosophy by positing the actual realism of the evolutionary past . He thinks dinosaurs and shit actually existed as if the theory of evolution functions as a secular creation story

You guys aren't grasping just how much philosophical scaffolding yourre assuming in your science, you're not even aware you're doing ontology and epistemology and metaphysics lmao

Science stripped of philosophy is nothing more than a predictive tool based on the regularity and structure of our conscious experience, so for example we see dark clouds in the distance, and we predict rain will fall because that is the correlation observed in the past. That's science, the rest is philosophy, the theories of condensation and weather systems and meteorology all these scientific unobsrvvables posited for explanatory and predictive value is philosophy, it becomes philaopsophy when you start actually thinking rain is caused by condensing water/ whatever he duck the theory is, anything beyond noticing the correlation between visual experience of dark clouds and then feeling raindrops is philosophy , the moment you take the explanatory theory to have any truth value whatsoever

If you think rain is caused by condensing water etc., then you have taken a philosophical position on the nature of scientific. Theories and the nature of scientific unobservables, you are doing philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:06:49 2016 No.8221300 >>8221292 you're retarded my man

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:11:25 2016 No.8221309 >>8221266 >true or not This is philosophy not science you're an idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:13:58 2016 No.8221312 >>8221296 Who are you even talking to? >>8221300 >>8221309 Wow, good ones guys, you sure showed me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:16:18 2016 No.8221319 >>8221312 Physicists collect date, philosophers interpret the data. What are you having trouble comprehending?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:19:52 2016 No.8221323 >>8221319 No they don't or else our NEET friend here would be employed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:21:53 2016 No.8221327 >>8221323 good one laddie. Come back when you have something to say

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:25:44 2016 No.8221331 >>8221319 physicist collect medjool date philosopher eat medjool date philosopher generate product

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:30:18 2016 No.8221336 >>8221327 I don't think I've ever heard of a philosopher employed in industry like you suggest. Probably because they're irrelevant wankers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:38:14 2016 No.8221346 >>8221336 More overspecialization field-oriented stupidity. You wouldn't readily recognize a philosophy inclined individual in industry, as such. You remind me of a sleeper agent. Brainwashed to sleepwalk through life. Please stop trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:38:50 2016 No.8221347 >>8221336 They're called philosophers of physics. Believe it or not philosophy and science are not in direct competition

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 00:41:41 2016 No.8221349 >>8221347 B-But my tribalism!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 01:17:37 2016 No.8221390 File: 30 KB, 483x635, ee9f6aaa-0d07-4e3f-84a9-33b92415b015..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8220857

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 02:17:18 2016 No.8221439 File: 1.45 MB, 288x198, jesus christ.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8221346 >>8221347 >>8221390 >this is what philosoNEETS actually >>>/lit/

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 23 02:47:38 2016 No.8221472

>>8219875
If you want an example of a worthwhile paper in philosophy, specifically philosophy of science, that is very relevant in today's world, and which ought to have large impact on how science is done, see here:
https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 02:59:51 2016 No.8221505 >>8220032 >implying that human suffering is the only basis for morality and ethics. >implying that you could calculate or in any way determine the long term consequences of any action on total human suffering.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 23 03:01:59 2016 No.8221510 >>8221505 >implying that you could calculate or in any way determine the long term consequences of any action on total human suffering. We do that all the time right now, with varying degrees of success and accuracy. It's called planning.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 03:21:55 2016 No.8221554

>>8221510
Long term. Everything you do literally change the entire course of history. The changes of reducing the total amount of suffering of conscious creatures are basically 50%. Speaking about objective morality that is based on reducing suffering when you have a 50% probability of reducing suffering no matter what you do is unreasonable.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 23 03:25:57 2016 No.8221565 >>8221554 >The changes of reducing the total amount of suffering of conscious creatures are basically 50%. I fail to see how you reach such an absurd conclusion.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 03:52:44 2016 No.8221634

>>8221565
Lets say i stick my hand out holding a knife. First the knife hits a person killing him while making the person suffer. That is the first indirect consequence of the action.The pain caused by the first indirect consequence of the action could be represented by a droplet in a swimming pool. Then i walk to my friends house and speak to him. This will make him ejaculate into his future wife at a different time changing the genetic makeup of every one of his ancestors. All the pain and suffering caused by the ancestors would not have happened if it where not for the fact that i stuck my arm out. But that is not the only consequence. Every guy that my friend talks with is also going to have ancestors with a different genetic makeup. Resulting in enormous amount of suffering that would not have happened if it where not for my action of sticking my hand out.
The pain caused by the other indirect consequences could be represented by the swimming pool filling up with water.

Now imagine that you are able to undo the act of sticking your hand out. This will results in another swimming pool of suffering that would not have happened if i stuck my hand out. What are the changes of the first swimming pool being fuller than the other? I would say pretty close to 50%.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 04:04:58 2016 No.8221666 >>8221634 >here, let me invent this fictional scenario that in no way resembles real life Typical philosoNEET

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 04:13:18 2016 No.8221679 >>8221666 This. So much this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 04:27:51 2016 No.8221698 >>8221666 In what way does it not resemble real life?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 04:28:01 2016 No.8221699 >>8220470 I think he meant that modern scientific method is more based on falsificationism (though in its pure form it's as dead as logical positivism)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 04:38:07 2016 No.8221723 >>8221699 How is it dead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 05:16:31 2016 No.8221794 >>8219957 >science can adress ethics Fuck off, Harris. >>8219925 They literally don't understand it. Not even being a cunt about it, this board in general doesn't understand anything about philosophy. Literally Dawkins/Nye/Tyson level idiocy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 05:30:25 2016 No.8221809 >>8221723 http://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/ See the "criticism" section. Still, I said about the "pure" form, as stated by Popper.. The idea of falsifiability still permeats the entirety of science today and we're not getting away from it any time soon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 05:30:41 2016 No.8221811 >>8221067 >Havent gotten a straight answer as to what it is in my opinion. Demarcation is a bitch. Also philosophy. >Are we all secretly philosophers? No, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 05:32:50 2016 No.8221817 >>8219925 The same reason why it's full of "my major is better than yours!" shit. It's full of freshmen who think they understand everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 06:05:48 2016 No.8221885 >>8221215 >Philosophy is to science as alchemy is to chemistry. Philosophy sucked dick when it tried to answer empirical question via non empirical methods, if that's what you mean. Otherwise you don't know shit.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 07:17:49 2016 No.8221953

>>8221809

Ok, it's becoming clear that philosophers of science do not understand science; including Popperites.

Science provides approximations of reality to varying degrees of accuracy.

If two different theories have supporting evidence, then they are both scientifically valid.

This will no doubt inspire scientists to hypothesise, in order to combine both theories into a larger and more comprehensive framework.

Science is not the truth; it is the process of attempting to draw ever more accurate approximations.

Where many naïve philosophy devotees and certain religious individuals seem to go wrong, is that they seem to think that because science cannot prove something to be 100% accurate, then everything has an equal probability of being true.

This is where people seem to get lost.

Even Popper said that…

Wait a minute. We determine the accuracy of a scientific result by employing statistical analysis and probability theory.

Those mathematical tools are based on axioms.

Are there inductive premises for those axioms!?

Oh shit.

Guys I'm having a crisis.

Somebody help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 07:28:23 2016 No.8221966 Science is the study of perceived reality, through the employment of logical reasoning.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 23 07:28:34 2016 No.8221967

>>8221953
See:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/epistemological-end-game.html

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~bergmann/klein.htm

PS: I don't agree with everything that Richard Carrier says (I don't agree with the pedantics of his description of morality as ethical egoism), but he has the right general idea.

In particular, all proper epistemologies are foundationalist. Also, the foundation is often circular, aka coherentism. This combination is sometimes known as foundherentism.

Also, the foundation is itself values. Science is a value framework. Scientific /facts/ can only exist inside a particular value framework, the value framework of science. Sam Harris makes much the same point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 07:32:39 2016 No.8221977 >>8221967 What is the value framework of science?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:11:14 2016 No.8222022

>>8220807
>It can tell you what to do based on what the desired outcome is.

Desired outcome of WHAT? Say I do a psych. experiment and I find out that people without mothers are 30% more likely to commit suicide. How does science tell me what to do with this?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:15:08 2016 No.8222030

>>8220847
>The philosophy retards have yet to answer what problems they solved in the last 100 years. Even dumb disciplines like political science have done infinitely more than philosophy. Philosophy is the only one that can truly say that it's accomplished nothing.

>Using science's success to measure philosophy's success.

topkek

Philosophy doesn't necessarily "solve" problems, it plants them so they can be solved. It's very unfair to ask how effective philosophy is while measuring with what science does. It's like saying "when was the last time that music made the next technological advance?"

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:19:03 2016 No.8222034

>>8220889
>Any form of philosophy that is unscientific (unfalsifiable) is junk.

>philosophy using falsafiability

kek. This is your problem. You disregard anything that is not science. I bet you wouldn't let your son study music because it isn't scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:19:23 2016 No.8222035 >>8222022 >How does science tell me what to do with this? It doesn't; genetic and environmental programming will dictate what you do with it. You don't have a choice in the matter.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:20:29 2016 No.8222037

>>8220934
>Yep. As long as every single individual has accepted and integrated the base truth that is inherent uncertainty, and formed their epistemological positions around it in a meaningful way, we can get on with doing the sciencing just fine.

>As long as everybody keeps doing philosophy we can do science right.

Nice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:21:14 2016 No.8222039 >>8222034 My son can do whatever the fuck he wants, a.k.a is programmed to do. I listen to music but I don't read literature or any form of fiction. So you guessed right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:22:17 2016 No.8222044 >>8220953 >From what I understand, Science is a means of determining what is true or not. >Science is a means of determining what is true or not /facepalm >implying science will ever give you absolute truth

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:27:41 2016 No.8222057 >>8221093 >If its possible for joe fuckup to walk into the facility without getting kicked out and it results in everything burning it's not contained. How can science define whether the risk is worth it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 08:31:11 2016 No.8222062 >>8221158 >That's why this thread was created, and that's why we're here arguing with you. >being this ignorant See? Qualitative info doesn't matter then? There's no use in doing a qualitative study?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Sat Jul 23 08:57:29 2016 No.8222083

>>8221977
One example axiomatic value:
I should conform my beliefs to the evidence.

Another:
I should use proper empirical (e.g. Bayesian) reasoning to analyze hypotheses based on the available evidence.

Another:
I should strive towards logically consistent beliefs.

Another:
I can (and should) use the normal rules of deductive logic.

Another:
Basic curiosity. I should be curious and want to learn about the world around me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 09:12:54 2016 No.8222101 >>8222083 Well, that's where you meet the regress of epistemology. What makes you stop being skeptical at those axioms?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 09:51:44 2016 No.8222155 >>8222101 >not understanding what an axiom is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 10:20:08 2016 No.8222197 >>8222155 >I should conform my beliefs to the evidence. That's not self evident. Why should you do that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 15:28:16 2016 No.8222842 >>8222197 Because there's thing called "being wrong," which apparently you don't care about since you're continuing to spew philosophical falsehoods.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 15:34:03 2016 No.8222851 >>8222197 epistemic oughts exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:05:59 2016 No.8223310 So philosophy friends, what philosophers do?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math