[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /sci/ - 591



File: 1483480740833.png (799.36 KB, 300x230, a6c.gif)

No.591

http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/?utm_source=qzfbarchive

Personally, even myself being a STEM masters student, I think this is a tragedy. Philosophy and human sciences are just as much needed for human progress as are natural sciences.

  No.592

File: 1483481354352.png (124.53 KB, 200x150, tumblr_lwzat9cDQo1qjc269o1_500.jpg)

For some strange reason, people have the tendency to divide himself into well defined groups. Knowledge is universal, we are exploring the same world, the same phenomena, and has no tags. We just use this tags to identify information. Weird how people found ways to create borders even in the mind.

  No.593

>>591
philosophy is a load of wank. It is the exact same as normal science except you pretend there isn't an answer to things and sit about drinking buckets of your own cum and smelling each others farts instead of doing experiments.

philosophy is homeopathy for the mind

opinion/rant sage

  No.595

>>593
What about the questions that involve morality? A question with almost no objective grounding. Not all of life is empirical and it would not make sense to measure what cannot be measured. There is a lot of bullsoykaf in philosophy, but questions regarding what should, instead of what is, can not be answered by empirical methods and it would not make much sense to try to answer them as such.

  No.596

File: 1483485451893.png (99 KB, 200x177, scientifically-verifiable.jpg)

>>593
Consider this picture.

  No.597

Most philosophy is mental masturbation plus noise depending on factors affecting the individual spouting the soykaf.

Instead of studying philosophy you can just force feed yourself the less wrong sequences ( warning some of them are soykaf ) and be done with that field.

  No.598

File: 1483486258135.png (535.33 KB, 158x200, ClipboardImage.png)

>>595
there are a few key reasons why your argument doesn't hold up

1-if some thing has no answer or it is some how not possible to come up with an answer, as you are suggesting with morals. Then trying to think of an answer is inherently a waste of time as even if you do come up with "the answer" you won't know you have

2- you make the assertion that thinking is some how different that any other "empirical method". Your brain might be a black box but at a fundamental level it is just shuffling particles and energy like any other computer.

3- just because you can't think of the method doesn't mean no one can

>>596
I feel you missed my point, understandable considering the low quality of my post. Regardless my point wasn't that science is perfect or that it can answer every thing. my point is this:

∞----- all things ----- | -----things science can prove ----| ---- things philosophy can prove ------ ||

  No.599

File: 1483487132283.png (22.18 KB, 196x200, karl-popper.jpg)

>mfw people suggest science and philosophy are distinct things

  No.600

I think generally people dislike philosophy for two reasons - first is the fact that they don't know what it really is about and assume it's much more narrow than it is. This mainly stems from the second reason - people who I'll kindly refer to as "wankers". It is possible, even likely, that you've met this type of wanker online, the person that you'd be talking about something, only for them to start asking "well, how do you know?" "how can you really know?" "can you trust your senses?" and other such things.

It's not that this isn't related to philosophy, but people who ask this type of question usually have no idea what they are talking about and have, at best, watched a few pop-philosophy videos on Youtube. It's called epistemology or just theory of knowledge(tok) and it deals with just that - questioning how we can know things and how to deal with knowledge in various contexts. What these wankers are missing is that it is a separate field that is there to examine trustworthiness of assumptions instead of being inserted into discussions about other things.

TOK is about TOK, and inserting it where it doesn't need to be helps nobody, because it should generally be used to examine the thought processes as a whole, instead of going for any specific issue. It is basically an evasion tactic and is thus really annoying and gives philosophy a bad rep, even though those who employ these tactics are rarely philosophers themselves.

There are also some people who are unwilling to explain their thoughts in more than a couple of sentences, and those are just about as annoying as the pretentious assholes who write paragraph after paragraph.

Phillosophy, kind of like math, as a thing to study, doesn't offer anything you couldn't infer from thought alone, but the thing is, we're not so good at getting too far. A basic understanding of math can help greatly with understanding how a lot of the world around works and why things happen as they are, and so can philosophy. We're born with some inherent philosophy, such as trusting our senses, and the more nuanced field is great for examining where our biases might be coming from and how to correctly combat them.

It has been the base for a lot of important things due to the refinement of how to think about [stuff]. There is a reason why physics used to be called natural philosophy. The scientific method is purely philosophical, and at the end of the day, the base for logic and how it can fail is in philosophy, so at least some understanding is necessary, but it's also unavoidable.

  No.601

>waaah waaaahh muh philosophy
>why dont people waste their time on it
>why do they waste time trying to find new cures to illnesses and soykaf

Thats you
thats how you sound

  No.603

>>591
I think it takes a good balance of empiricism, philosophy and revelation to make for a balanced person, each one of those counterbalancing the other.

For example with too much revelation you end up talking about argon energy and satanic worshippers and obsess over alligning your chakra and other nonesense all day and how lizards want to keep weed out of the common mans hands because lizards etc. Tulpas etc. But the value is it may lead you to abstract thinking and to make uncommon links that lead to beneficial discoveries and creations. People have come up with some very interesting stuff in a state of revelation. Revelation is how people manage to function through great philosophical and physical destruction because through an abstract of faith people often survive in places and times where the situation would logically call for suicide or be not initially worth the trouble.

I imagine too much empiricism in thought results in rigidly obeying the what-is of reality and suggesting nothing else can ever be because it's currently unproven - a bit like people who said that machine assisted flight was impossible for hundreds of years, and in their time they were not wrong, by observing strictly the current known laws of reality they were absolutely not wrong to say that but were wrong that they couldn't be proven wrong. With too much of this you don't dare to dream and that no other discipline is of worth but the one that coldly observes the physical structure of the universe, leaving no room for elaboration or discovery.

Too much philosophy likely has you going insane like good old freddie. Too much focus on the actual formation of thought to action and no actual action, dismantling and transforming the meaning of everything to the point it reaches meaninglessness or you enter into a labyrinth of never ending crossing considerations for other considerations. I think actions are the anchor of thought, like a checkpoint of concrete meaning you create between parts of your personal thoughts, so without enough of them we don't commit to any one thing and end up lost in meaning or lack of meaning, if you've dismantled everything.

I'm probably talking soykaf but this is just my general thoughts on this battle of the three disciplines.

  No.604

There's a saying I think applies more to philosophy than most disciplines. "The price of success is triviality." So much of the thinking that we now take for granted is the product of great philosophers. Looking back it's easy to say that Empiricism is the right answer but in ancient times that was very much up for debate. Same goes, more recently, for things like Methodological Skepticism or Absurdity. It's easy to see them as obvious now that they're part of our zeitgeist but it's important to remember that without them our zeitgeist would probably never have moved beyond religious dogma.

Some people also seem to think that philosophy is done but there are still some big open questions. For instance nobody has come up with a solid explanation for how it is that language conveys meaning.

There's also the fact that a lot of the complaints often reek of ignorance but I don't want to go arguing against strawmen.

>>592
Yep. The further back you look the less divided these concepts were as well, though I think that's because our knowledge of everything was a lot smaller. It's only in the past few centuries that the term science has been used rather than natural philosophy.

>>597
>Instead of studying philosophy you can just force feed yourself the less wrong sequences ( warning some of them are soykaf ) and be done with that field.
Those sequences are the product of millenia of philosophical investigation. Considering the scientific method was completely rewritten by Popper (a philosopher) only about a century ago it's arrogance to imagine that they're perfect and we're done.

>>598
>you make the assertion that thinking is some how different that any other "empirical method"
It is. Empirical means it comes from the senses. It has nothing to do with if it's a physical process or not. Abstract mathematics, for instance, isn't empirical (some would argue that without our senses we can't choose axioms but that's besides the point).

>just because you can't think of the method doesn't mean no one can

No but it is possible to prove that something is unproveable. In a similar vein Hume made some difficult to refute arguments about why you "can't get an ought from an is."

>my point is this:

I don't follow.

>>600
>Wankers
I think this ties back to my original point on becoming trivial. It's not that the wankers are wrong. It's just that it's trite and our thinking moved beyond it centuries ago and, like you say, bringing it up is usually annoying and irrelevant.

  No.605

>>601
Cure illnesses towards what end? Will living longer add value to my life? What will? While we're on the topic, what is beauty and what is justice?

  No.607

I think that article is the idiocy. I don't care about Bill Nye because I hate socialites, with their fundamental evil. But his ignorant disposition is aware philosophy is complete garbage. Scientists are often the only good philosophers. Science is what precedes philosophy. Metaphysic garbage does not deserve to be felt as fundamental to truth as science.

  No.609

>>605
Take some lsd and you will get better answers than studying memelosophy for a whole life.

  No.610

>>607
Except philosophy has deined the scientific method itself and even overwritten it anew many times.

  No.611

>>605
>Will living longer add value to my life?
>Will running longer add value to my run
>Will jumping higher add value to my jump
>Will farting louder add value to my fart
>Will Xing Y add Z to my X
define value

  No.612

>>610
Denial doesn't mean anything. In reality, philosophical denial of science is negating objectivity. People who believe science is strictly the scientific method are complete morons, since there are multiple objective approaches to testing, experimenting, and viewing reality. But simply asserting that "my mind is a simulation by God" according to a philosophy defaults you as an unobjective idiot.

  No.614

>>612
(continuation)
Either you can believe philosophy is human behavior or philosophy is answering questions objectively, which becomes a stupid, pointless semantic battle. I'll stick to the second one. And it should be apparent to you, unless you're going to lie, that human behavior which pretends no truth exists or denies science is false and idiotic. The weak nature of human reasoning is the only thing sh1tty metaphysics can point out. Our abilities are limited, and we aren't rock solid all the time. I can't really trace the root of my beliefs, and it's futile to try, and it's based on observation to conclude EVERY attempt fails. We are empirical animals, with brains functioning according to some logic.

  No.615

I have a cute little model that explains this phenomenon quite well. I think of intelligence as "raw systemic ability", and intelligent thing can abstract, find patterns, is complicated and can handle complexity. -Everything- else is irrelevant here. Linguistic ability, logic, maths, rational or irrational thinking, emotions, art, humor, etc. are all building upon intelligence, but are not required (even if some psychologist or scientist in some paper defines or categorizes it otherwise)

By this definition, intelligent things are capable, but not required to have any goal, or to be fit for any purpose. When you filter this pool of all intelligent possibilities with one or more goals/purposes in mind, you can divide it to useful intelligence and useless intelligence. Useful intelligence is what people call reason. For an artist that wants to make money, a piece of art that sells like candy is reasonable. For an artist only interested in self-expression, some profit-oriented pieces might be totally unreasonable. There might be art pieces that are very intelligent, only a few people ever get the idea, but they don't sell, don't express any of your feelings or thoughts, and get destroyed the first time it rains. Anything can be reasonable or devoid of reason, depending on your goals/purpose.

This brings us to the source of the problem. Philosophy is, as I know it, the closest as we can get to "unfiltered intelligent thinking". Almost all of human thought used to be "just philosophy". However, as they grew in corpus and gained their own goals and purpose, things like mathematics, theology, natural philosophy (science), linguistics slowly branched off. Thus, philosophy today is does not discuss (or not discuss in detail) many topics that have their own category and academic community. However, it is still the default place where intelligent thought that doesn't really belong anywhere else is categorized (that is, thought that does not have a clear purpose).
For a scientist who has specialized in say, physics since they left primary school, philosophy might seem like some mumbo-jumbo thing specializing in blah-blah, because
1) science has branched out now, so he assumes philosophy is a subset of the humanities (even though by the definition above, both science and humanities are a branch of philosophy)
2) might confuse philosophy with just "personal philosophy", which is an individual's or company's two cents.
3) he is a die-hard reasonable person who is terrified by, or at least highly uninterested in any form of thought that doesn't clearly serve a - or his - purpose. (the stereotypical grumpy, reasonable scientist)

Science always has a purpose. It wants to progress, evolve, know more or more precisely, explain, predict. Scientists also have their own purposes. Theoretical physicists are perhaps more inclined to care about philosophy, as it's not very different from what they do. Researchers may be less interested, and I can imagine engineers having a total lack of interest in anything that doesn't serve an immediate, visible purpose. Philosophy, more often than not, fails to produce things that are useful for this field's or that person's goals. Most philosophers aren't so "profit-oriented" anyway, they'd rather explore all the options instead of just the "useful ones" or the "best one" (these things probably don't even mean anything for them).
I think that when a scientist thinks about philosophy, he gets the same disgust as many high school students about maths when they say "I'm never gonna use that in life". Ironically, they still enjoy playing around with mathematics, just like a philosopher enjoys thought for its own sake.

  No.616

>>592
Weird indeed. However, it does make it easier to refer to things, like most tags do.
>>593
Funny!
>>596
Thank you! I almost forgot to mention that the scientific method is just a theory, of the same material as philosophy.
>>597
Some philosophers are quite judgmental indeed, but I think most of them are about as interested in any other field as in their own. They still have only one head though, so from the outside it might look like they don't care about your stuff.
>>598
(i'm not that anon)
1 - "waste of time" is always dependent on your goals
2 - isn't "shuffling particles and energy" just a model we made up and use to describe and predict the black box? just because a model/abstraction/method works almost all of the time doesn't mean it is equal to the reality it describes and predicts. telling someone that "nothing is impossible if you put all of yourself in it" might be a straight lie, but it works pretty well

consider this:
all things > ∞ > things science can falsify > 0 = things science can prove = things philosophy can prove
>>599
my condolences, papa popper
>>601
i wonder where the assumption that illnesses must be cured comes from. i really hope that humanity will never get rid of all illnesses, because that would mean one less reason to get out of bed in the morning.
>>604
I like how you point out that philosophy likes to explore every possible area, even the ones that are deemed useless by everyone else.
>>607
Nice philosophy, chummer.
>>609
Who cares about answers we didn't work out? Some people would prefer to keep doubting and rethinking stuff all life than sitting on the answers provided by the church, news, or sponge bob on acid.

Very few people in this thread seem to love lain.

  No.617

File: 1483540323875.png (80.59 KB, 200x132, blackscienceman.jpeg)

>>591
>Why do some scientists hate philosophy?
1. Science tests ideas against reality.
2. Philosophical ideas that can be tested against reality gets assimilated into science.
3. Whatever ideas are left in philosophy are unscientific.
4. Scientists don't like unscientific things.

  No.618

>>591
Bill Nye is more a science popularizer and events conductor than an actual scientist (as far as I know he never did research is basic sciences).

Anyway you can find a nice share of arrogance and sometimes incompetence in any field, STEM included. Just to give an example from many see the case of the discovery of quasi-crystals by Dan Shechtman, which won the noble prize for that. Initially he received very strong, partially unjustified, "opposition" to his discovery and was often plainly insulted. As notable example nobel laureate Pauling said something like "There is no such thing as quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists" during a conference about the matter.

So I'm not really surprised how some "science people" and often actual scientist denigrate other fields of study in the same way I'm not surprised, as a STEM student myself, to often meet or hear about people that just don't understand science but loves to (or fail to) argue about the antiscientific bullsoykaf trend of the moment.

In short, the problem is just ignorance with excessive confidence about arguments they don't know soykaf about.

  No.619

>>617
But that's not what philosophy is at all. Philosophy has been crucial in the way we created our scientific models, there is a reason why "philosophy of science" is a field. Besides, philosophy applies logic to everyday tasks which is useful for making your way of thinking about things higher in quality.

  No.620

Well since the scientific method is philosophy I have to assume the answer is just lack of understanding of what philosophy is.

  No.621

>>612
soykaf, I meant to say 'Philosophy defined science.' Not denied. I made a typo.

If you are not using any accepted scientific method or a variation on it, then you are just doing pseudo science. And you are doing more harm than good to science.
If you are trying to create a new scientific method
or a new variation, then yes you are doing 'philosophy of science'.

  No.622

File: 1483548087483.png (162.3 KB, 200x121, tibetanholyman.jpeg)

>>619
>But that's not what philosophy is at all. Philosophy has been crucial in the way we created our scientific models, there is a reason why "philosophy of science" is a field.
That's just like, your philosophy, man.

>Besides, philosophy applies logic to everyday tasks which is useful for making your way of thinking about things

Science has proven to be a much more reliable tool for dealing with everyday tasks than philosophy.

>higher in quality

*tibs febora*

  No.623

>>622
>Science has proven to be a much more reliable tool for dealing with everyday tasks than philosophy.

empirial observations do nothing to make my day better.

  No.624

>>622
>That's just like, your philosophy, man.
Outing yourself as having no clue what you're talking about.
gb2 4/sci/

  No.625

Coming from math, what I don't like about most people who talk philosophy is that they are used to a way of thinking that's "like normal thinking, but about complex things", while some (I'd say most) subjectss are best approached if you think like you do in logic, taking axioms, theorems, hypotheses and procedures for what they are throughout the discourse.

Another thing I feel in people who talk philosophy is something of an inferiority complex against hard sciences, a famous example outside philosophy would be Lacan explaining the psyche in (needlessly complicated) terms of optic, or economy people with their theorems and axioms with no logical method between them. With me personally, philosopers hurry to downtalk logic and math, mainly citing Russell's paradox. In these instances they show a lack of understanding of logic, but I feel like they have a need to know that logic isn't really "that perfect". I think that this inferiority complex is unjustified as these disciplines are just different.

>>600
>There are also some people who are unwilling to explain their thoughts in more than a couple of sentences
I've seen this in lots of famous philosophy books, they write them in the form of numbered sentences and short paragraphs with groundless assertions about very varied subjects. The reasoning that supports them is up to every single reader.

>>612
>People who believe science is strictly the scientific method are complete morons, since there are multiple objective approaches to testing, experimenting, and viewing reality
I agree with this. Popper didn't define science and its ways for future scientists, his goal was to find a way to develop a way to discern science from pseudo science, with after-the-fact scrutiny.

>We are empirical animals, with brains functioning according to some logic.

Luckily we can use logic, math and such procedures as rails for our trains of thought.

>>615
That's an interesting idea. I never liked the idea of philosophy being the "mother of all sciences", as it felt like any subset of science, taken back long enough in time, would reach a level of primitiveness that could be considered as part of philosophy. That way, for example, primitive physics would be natural philosophy.

But your model shines a different light over that, I like it because you put human thought as the root, then philosophy as one branch. I picture it as a "circular tree" where disciplines branch out from a centre (general human thought) and everytime a branch comes off of a discipline, it does so pointing in a different angle (meaning that some things this branch does (the horizontal component) will seem like unreasonable advance for its mother branch).

Very interesting, thanks for sharing it. One question, Would you say that human thought becomes/equates philosophy, or do you think that philosophy is one of many first-level branches of thought?

>might confuse philosophy with just "personal philosophy", which is an individual's or company's two cents.

Where can I read philosophy that's not personal?

>>617 couln't have been clearer and >>619 was the average response, minus the "logic only takes you so far and then you need philosophy" line.
>But that's not what philosophy is at all
I venture we all have a different conception of what it is, yet we talk about it. (this is meta for the actual discussion, I'm doing philosophy about it)
>Philosophy has been crucial in the way we created our scientific models
And they stay in philosophy as a way to philosophize about science. You can do science without the scientific model; you just need logical methods (logic, math, etc) to provide correct procedures that let you grow a certain body of knowledge from its axioms.
>philosophy applies logic to everyday tasks
What are you talking about? You made me remember that "question everything" pic with the guy staring at a stone. I really don't know what you mean.

  No.629

>>625
>Another thing I feel in people who talk philosophy is something of an inferiority complex against hard sciences, a famous example outside philosophy would be Lacan explaining the psyche in (needlessly complicated) terms of optic, or economy people with their theorems and axioms with no logical method between them.

I'm a staunch defender of philosophy, and I totally agree. It really boggles the mind how often people from different schools of thought take terms from other schools without any understanding of what they really mean.

>Where can I read philosophy that's not personal?


Hume, Kant, and most of the philosophical work on language are good examples of highly analytical and well-grounded philosophy.

>What are you talking about?

A good example is ethical theories. Rather than having arbitrary ideas of right and wrong, they at least try to systematize what makes something good or bad. That is directly applicable to everyday life.

  No.630

>A good example is ethical theories. Rather than having arbitrary ideas of right and wrong, they at least try to systematize what makes something good or bad. That is directly applicable to everyday life.
Okay, trying to systematize reasoning about things that fall outside the scope of science is good. I don't see how that's an argument against the lain you were replying to, still.

An afterthought: I think philosophy itself is hard to define, or its meaning as discipline is hard to understand as everyone will answer that definition question differently. People who like science might dislike how even asking for its definition is a non-reproducible experiment. With this, if you want to grok what it is, you'll have to read a bunch of books while in most hard sciences definitions are concise and don't vary from author to author ar from interpreter to interpreter. Maybe it becomes a very personal trait, being more comfortable working with carefully defined structures might make you prefer some sciences, exploring subjects such that they can be discussed and open for extensive debate will most likely send you towards philosophy, and you'll like parts of both if what you want is just to learn about various subjects without a strong preference for certain workflows.

  No.631

>>630
>>629
I forgot to quote.

  No.633

>>625
>Would you say that human thought becomes/equates philosophy, or do you think that philosophy is one of many first-level branches of thought?
I'd say philosophy does not equate human thought, it's rather one of the -few- first-level branches, and the default one at that, the branch in the middle. I'd put it there for two reasons:
- it's the most general/neutral position; I think of philosophers as people interested in all, and thus not opposed to any form of thinking (unlike e.g. science - religion); still some branches are closer or further from this middle, representing their mutual interest and also how much purpose they pack - the more theoretical things have vertical, thick branches sticking with the middle, while pragmatic, goal-oriented things have horizontal branches trying to get away from the middle in their respective directions.
- vague ideas could still belong to one big branch or the other; the ones that absolutely don't belong anywhere would default in the middle branch of philosophy, from where they can still go anywhere.

In every area there are careful, indecisive, or contemplative people who don't really further the cause or judge anything and are looked down for it; that's your typical philosopher sticking to the exact middle.
In a 'taxonomy' where things are categorized slowly and late, the middle-branch of philosophy is fat. In a fast-paced taxonomy where everything has to belong here or there, the middle branch is small, or completely missing.

This tree image is still sort of problematic. I mean, things aren't that separate as a tree implies. Perhaps we could think of a big clew of thoughts, which has a shadow that's tree-like, for the purpose of tagging.
I'm much more rigid about reason being just a subset of intelligence, selected by purpose (preference). Reason would be concerned with the best, or good solutions and answers, while intelligence would be concerned with every solution and answer.

  No.634

>>625
>I venture we all have a different conception of what it is
Well, I just think that it's important to remember that epistemology is philosophy, but philosophy isn't epistemology. Same goes for ethics, metaphysics and logic and other, smaller branches. Philosophy is rarely a practical tool when thinking about the sitting and pondering way, but its main purpose is developing human thought, ways of reasoning about things and possible conclusions about the world.

>you just need logical methods

The logical methods come directly from philosophy.

The first response to that could be "we already got there, we don't need it anymore", which I think doesn't matter, because philosophy isn't as much about "advancing" itself by making further conclusions (which does happen, with the culture changing and the conclusions with it), but rather spreading itself to people for consideration and awareness.

>I really don't know what you mean.

The entire field of ethics is an example.

Whenever you do something in life, there is a reason for why you do it, why you think it's bad or not, and philosophy often gets involved in such things, either by considering the thought process that leads you there or the arguments made.

>they write them in the form of numbered sentences and short paragraphs

ayy

That bit was more of a joke about people in this thread unwilling to go in depth about the topic but still jumping to emotionally charged conclusions.

  No.635

I always thought that when writing a paper, the theoretical parts, especially the abstract and introduction are science that is closer to philosophy, while writing the practical parts are science that is closer to maths.

And when you combine them you have science. Each part alone is just abstract. Unless you are either a mathematician or a philosopher so you have to do a pure version of either.

  No.661

A lot of philosophy seems bent on answering nonsense questions. Is socrates a framster? Yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

A more useful example.

>If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Let's say the answer is yes, is the reality of the situation any different? You still expect the tree to fall, vibrate the air, etc.

Let's say the answer is no, is the reality of the situation any different? You still expect the tree to fall, vibrate the air, etc.

Your expectations are the same either way, the reality of the situation in completely unchanged.

What that example is *actually* about is the definition for sound. Does sound mean "vibrations in the air" or "the act of hearing as it takes place inside a human brain".

A lot of philosophy tries to answer that class of question, which is pretty useless as the reality of the situation is going to be the same no matter what happens.

The ship of Theseus is another example. We know the reality of the situation, but what we end up debating is how we should define "original".

So in my mind a lot of philosophy is asking stupid questions, and then trying and failing to answer them.

  No.662

File: 1483971823322.png (1.32 MB, 113x200, FIFACYKA.jpg)

>>661
I must say I agree, The answers found by philosophy indeed do not affect the reality of the situation, everything changes the same regardless of us thinking or defining it this way or that way. Philosophers are aware of this but do their stuff anyway.
And then we have science, which <insert long book on the scientific method, so I don't get comments about having a skewed outlook on science for not writing it all down>, in the end doesn't really change how reality works either. At best, it changes our understanding of reality (the same way as phil), and what we do in this unchanged reality with our time. It has an advantage in doing cool things, but a disadvantage in realizing that
>the reality of the situation is going to be the same no matter what happens.

In case someone wants to argue that science actually changes reality, by having tangible, real effects on society, technology, and producing the keyboard I'm typing on now, please provide some backing by showing how philosophy hasn't affected that same society in any way (we're in this thread after all).

>filename not related

  No.669

Philosophy is fun and all but it is generally outdated.
Sociology, neurosciences, biology, psychology, etc. deals with philosophical concepts in way broader and more reliable approach. In the end philosophy can only give us some rather superficial assumptions and generalizations that were already explained in depth by other scientific fields.

Philosophy is not dead yet, but it will be as soon as we will get at least some basic grasp of human consciousness.

  No.670

>>669
>Sociology, neurosciences, biology, psychology, etc. deals with philosophical concepts in way broader and more reliable approach.

so, all the fields which are basically subfields of philosophy?

  No.671

>>670
Not exactly. It is more like Aristotle philosophy of nature compared to todays physics, math, chemistry and other modern disciplines.

  No.678

File: 1484323978830.png (167.73 KB, 146x200, ClipboardImage.png)

You are not alone in this; most scientists and mathematicians regard philosophy as somewhere between sociology and literary criticism, both ranking well below, say, kissing slugs on the list of healthy activities in which one might indulge before dinner. Why is this? Are we not clever enough to understand it, too rigid in our thinking to find it stimulating? Too shallow to grasp fundamental issues? Or have we worked it all out and gone past it? I shall try to explain why scientists and mathematicians are inclined to be dismissive of the subject. And why we are in fact still doing it, and that the name has been changed, no doubt to protect the innocent.

When I was a child, of nine or ten years of age, a particularly sadistic schoolteacher posed the question: “What would happen if an irresistible force acted on an immovable object?” My first response was that if the force was irresistible, then the object must move. “Ah,” said the teacher, who had been here before, “but the object is immovable.”

I thought about this for three days with brief periods out for sleeping. Eventually I concluded that language was bigger than the universe, that it was possible to talk about things in the same sentence which could not both be found in the real world. The real world might conceivably contain some object which had never so far been moved, and it might contain a force that had never successfully been resisted, but the question of whether the object was really immovable could only be known if all possible forces had been tried on it and left it unmoved. So the matter could be resolved by trying out the hitherto irresistible force on the hitherto immovable object to see what happened. Either the object would move or it wouldn’t, which would tell us only that either the hitherto immovable object was not in fact immovable, or that the hitherto irresistible force was in fact resistible.

From which you will infer that even at an early age I was destined for Science and not for Philosophy.

The scientist’s perception of philosophy is that all too much of it is a variation on the above theme, that a philosophical analysis is a sterile word game played in a state of mental muddle. When you ask of a scientist if we have free will, or only think we have, he would ask in turn: “What measurements or observations would, in your view, settle the matter?” If your reply is “Thinking deeply about it”, he will smile pityingly and pass you by. He would be unwilling to join you in playing what he sees as a rather silly game.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sword

  No.679

>>670
Do you also consider chemistry a subfield of alchemy?

  No.680

ITT: people with a science hardon pretend that "why" isn't an important question.

  No.681

File: 1484383609010.png (736.69 KB, 200x200, 1467366508429.jpg)

>>678
I don't get this article, maybe because I don't know much about philosophy and science. Are there only Platonists and Newtonians? He claims to write about philosophy in general but the whole time he only really considers the Platonists.

In the example with multiple geometries he describes how mathematicians, from a set of axioms, found truth by pure reasoning alone. That sounds like a confirmation of the Platonist method, not a counterexample.

At the end he admits that his sword is pretty much useless for a wide range of questions and that its users are as boring as the philosophers, so I don't really get what he wanted to say with the whole thing, other than smugly claiming that modern scientists are superior to some guy who's been dead for more than two thousand years.

  No.684

>>600
I was one of those "can you trust your senses?" type of guy, except that I arrived at it independently and from quite an early age. I was quite obsessed with the idea of absolute truth and knowing that I could not prove that both my senses and my reasoning ability would be able to provide 100% percent certainty gave me headaches. Reading philosophy actually made me reach a much more empirical point of view.

  No.695

>>678
>what would happen if irresistible force acted on a immovable object?
If the force is irresistible then all objects it acts on are not immovable, but in the question an immovable object is given. This leads to a contradiction and hence the are no solutions to this system. That's it. You were given set of definitions and asked to find something, it turned out to be trivial to show that the set of solutions is empty.

Philosophers, however, are ignorant of this and choose to write essays on how "the language" is bigger than the universe, "think deeply" and then bugger everybody with their faulty conclusions.

  No.696

>>695
Philosophers indeed have the grave sin of lacking preference. They don't prefer efficiency, clarity, productivity, anything over their counterparts. On the contrary, experts of any field have either a job that needs to be done, or some measure of progress. That's why things like "better, optimal, useless, rational" make sense for them, and they feel able to judge things. They are only interested in the best, or the useful, the constructive, the funny, the profitable, etc; -some- ways of doing things. Philosophers on the other hand are interested in -all- ways of doing things, and whatever preference they might show for one method is usually temporary until they get the hang of it and move on to the next. Pragmatic people who believe in progress usually hate philosophers for this, for taking an interest in old, inefficient, or not immediately profitable things. They also hate philosophers because when their own 'best' pragmatic methods outlive their usefulness, it's always someone who takes an interest in far-fetched, unusual and seemingly useless ideas that comes up with a solution; This of course means our hard headed pragmatic has to suck up the new 'philosophy' as well, and a bunch of 'kids' already have the advantage. That's why philosophers are still around, to piss of people who'd want to judge things and know-it-all a century or two early.

  No.707

It's too muddy imo and has, is and will easily allow leeches and other junk into its system and even accept them. Reading "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker documents the changes the "field" has gone through and that one should stay far away from it.

  No.735

File: 1485530518052.png (185.93 KB, 193x200, aviators.png)

>>591
People here seem to be confused about what science and philosophy are.

This is probably because philosophy means something different depending on who you ask.

Philosophers in the past have used philosophy as a tool to make conclusions about reality. This kind of philosophy is a dead end because it provides no concrete system for disproving assertions. People either agree or they disagree and when you're trying to build a building, design a machine or formulate a new medicine that isn't enough.

The scientific method is however, a concrete system and any assertion made can be disproved. If an assertion has been rigorously tested and has not yet been disproved, it is safe to assume that the assertion is correct. If an assertion is considered correct the way that we think about reality must change to accommodate the assertion.

But what should we do with the knowledge we've gained?

This is where the other kind of philosophy comes in. Knowing what we do how should we behave? What should we do with our lives? Should I care about other people? Why should I care about other people?

This kind of philosophy is useful for asking questions about what we know. Is it possible to ever conclusively prove something? What does it mean for something to be true and something to be false?

This is what we consider philosophy today. Philosophy is essentially applying what we know to build models of thought. These models of thought may or may not be able to coexist with the scientific method but most of the popular models do with the exception of many organised religion. In this way philosophy is similar to engineering. The first steam engine was designed with the knowledge available in 1698. As our knowledge increased more efficient engines were built but, at no point in time has there ever been an engine which was better than any other engine in any given way such as it is with philosophical models of thought. It would also be possible to design an engine that is much more inefficient than other engines by designing the engine with an inferior knowledge in much the same way it would be possible to design or follow a school of thought that is ignorant of some general accepted truths such as the scientific method.

tl;dr "science" is a tool for gaining new knowledge whilst "modern philosophy" is a tool for applying that knowledge to "subjectively" answer certain questions that "science" was never supposed to be able to answer.

  No.736

>>696
This is exactly what the lain you responded to was talking about; you took five lines of text to say, "Philosophers don't care about doing anything useful." Taking five lines of text to refuse to be useful is why everybody hates them.

  No.738

>>736
the point that they were trying to make is, "usefulness" isn't the end-all be-all of human thought, and it really shouldn't be. Truth might not be useful.

  No.739

>>736
What is useful, then? Faster cars and smaller microchips? Useful to what end?

  No.740

>>736
Still I find it weird that people in love with science and hating on philosophy would engage in something that is worse than either of those. Why would they abandon their usual rigor, formalism, and mandatory [citations] for haphazard, unfinished, unfalsifiable statements based on assumptions about common grounds and in general, the world? They could just say they don't have a scientific opinion on the matter of why and how philosophy exists, and they do not wish to discuss the topic until they've got all the data and working theories about neurology, sociology, and whatever else is involved? Why would they behave worse than their own (rather skippy) perception of a philosopher?

  No.746

I read philosophical literature and feel it change my way of thinking/looking at the world. I suppose that if you can't feel that then it's simply beyond you and you will hate it.

Some say that science achieves physical results, but it's questionable whether this is really a good thing; it more concretely changes how we live, but blindly, sometimes in bad ways -- just look at our technological surveillance dystopia. To argue about what direction we take, what road science takes as it is utilized, is philosophy. So philosophy does have an impact, even in addition to a 'perception is reality' kind of way.

  No.749

File: 1485699527713.png (58.68 KB, 200x149, inspiration____by_aztaren-d37y7j5.jpg)

Daily reminder that quantum physics is deeply rooted in philosophy and that we will always have philosophy in science because of Planck's constant and therefore string theory and so on.

  No.750

I see many scientist talk about philosophy with the same attitude as towards religion; in most cases, they don't do actual research in either, at best they look around with the purpose of picking some cherries to make some points with. It's the same thing as religious people hating on technology, or esoteric potheads talking about how quantum physics proves that Buddha was an alien, and also God. The best anyone can get with this sort of disjoint rhetoric is winning the favor of crowds, and boosting their confidence. Nobody gets debunked or proved or anything in any camp. However, nobody wants to get a PhD or two in that other field he already hates just to prove it wrong and useless, either. To hurt any of the three camps, one most use their own tools and their own words against them - and not just scramble it or copy the aesthetics but do some actual pioneer work take their axioms or conclusions further, apply them with even more rigor, apply it to themselves etc until their system soykafs its pantkafs.
Something that they can't ignore because it's what they would have done eventually.
That means
- creating the revelations for religions and make them spell out that the religion is actually bullsoykaf
- proofs of impossibility for science, with an alternative method that gets the impossible done - you better be able to cast rainbow fireballs that melt steel beams; it's especially convincing if you can teach them how, but nobody knows why.
- a precise explanation of the entire universe that covers anything and everything ever. a theory is useless here, you must have all the data, tools and willingness to answer every question and demonstrate your answer in any requested way until everyone is convinced.

I think a lot of bad blood could be avoided, but people don't have time to check if the other person is currently lost in details working something out, trying to express an idea through intuition or just producing formal, but horribly sounding statements; whether it's just an inaccurate summary or some precise details, things like that. Some people are analytical readers, they read statement by statement, line by line, letter by letter, anything that is vague or not obvious tingles their allergy and then they refuse to read on. Others are a lot more intuitive and can read well between the lines, but my read too much there or simply don't have the focus to deal with 800 pages of humanish assembly. Some people follow a bottom-up pattern and never question their basic tools, be it reason or axioms or "it works"; others try top-down and their feet never seems to catch the ground.

I'd say that the current method of dismissing other groups as idiots and focusing on one's own thing mostly works, takes considerably lower energy. However, as long as one field cannot explain/beat all others on their own grounds, that one field is incomplete. People don't expect philosophy or religion to do that, so they go with science; I also need to notice though that what science "thinks" about itself, and how it does it, is basically philosophy. Science of science sounds like religion at best.

  No.751

>>750
You forgot science as a religion. Science, just like religion, is based on assertions we can't prove but believe to be true.
"It's a paradox" is science's "God of the gaps."
When viewed this way, bad blood makes perfect sense: people get furiously defensive when their world view is challenged even if the current political climate would have people believe scientists are freer thinkers than most.

  No.752

>>751
>You forgot science as a religion. Science, just like religion, is based on assertions we can't prove but believe to be true.

yeah that's bullsoykaf. Science never says that what it says is the unequivocal truth -- it just says that, as far as anyone can tell with rigorous experimentation, this is true. Very very different from religion.

  No.753

The answer is simple. There is very little money to be made in philosophy.

  No.754

>>751
I'm not sure that's the case. I mean, science doesn't even talk about itself; science is what happens when a howto, a sort of algorithm is being followed; a scientist does science when he's following the algorithm.
What I do now, and what people do when they talk about science, how or why it works and what exactly it is and how it differs from religion or philosophy, is indeed not science. People discussing science usually talk about their theories or beliefs about how it works, and often defend those fiercely because their worldview is dependent on it. Still, just because science works better than pagan rituals doesn't mean that whatever you believe about science is also a superior kind of belief; beliefs about science are not falsifiable, and even if they were that would just make people confused.
If there is a well articulated definition of science (as an algorithm/howto), the reasons why the algorithm was made like that, the "why" is still rooted in theory/philosophy. This doesn't mean that the algorithm is faulty (works pretty well), just that any claims/assertions about it are philosophical/religious in nature. Scientist understand science on a know-how level, and when they leave practice of the know-how to instead discuss it, they end up on the same footing as anyone else; they are like drivers who can drive the car but have no idea how it works. But unlike a car, this one wasn't built by engineers, it just happened to be, and nobody really knows why.

>>752
Indeed science never says that; or the opposite of that, or anything about itself. Science doesn't understand science. See above.
I mean, some people are kinda trying to do science of science, but that's like trying to run a vague recursive function and change it on the run, while also mingling with the wiring of the CPU using your bare hands. Ouch.

Overall I think that if scientists were aware of themselves passing from science into philosophy or even politics when science itself becomes the topic, they would have a much easier time understanding opposition, and would be saved lots of energy.

  No.755

>>750
>>754
Oh, I forgot to mention in both of these that everything I say is just ideas/theory. It may or may not correspond with reality, but I wanna pass them around for consideration anyway. Or not. I don't know; I don't even know if I know, or do I?

  No.756

>>752
>>754
For religion once believes there is a creator (or whatever it may be) and from that belief one can build a verifiable system on top.
Science in the same: there are core tenets which are unprovable but are taken as true and then used as the foundation. And the foundation shifts or a new one is laid every couple hundred years. "Paradoxes" are or aren't figured out but work is still around or on top of them.

>I mean, science doesn't even talk about itself

Exactly, because it can't prove itself true. Even mathematics works the same way yet many perceive math to be entirely logical instead of faith-based.

  No.757

>>756
>For religion once believes there is a creator (or whatever it may be) and from that belief one can build a verifiable system on top.

Taking Christianity as an example, the religion is *a lot* more than that one belief, it is a whole system of beliefs in things that are not only mutually unverifiable, but also sometimes contradictory. Maybe you should learn a thing or two about (the philosophy of) science and religion before you go spouting about how they're the same thing.

>And the foundation shifts or a new one is laid every couple hundred years.


classic fallacy: just because the best-fitting theory was wrong in the past doesn't mean it will be wrong in the future.

>Even mathematics works the same way yet many perceive math to be entirely logical instead of faith-based.


well, that's kind of true and not true. There are such things as self-proving axioms, they just have to be very weak.
But anyway, it's incorrect to say that math just *takes it on faith* that the axioms are correct. It's more like, for any particular problem a mathematician makes some assumptions that *sound reasonable*, and if you accept those assumptions then you must accept the proof. Whether the actual axioms are true is secondary.

  No.758

>>753
People don't study philosophy to make a living at it. There's less money or jobs in most scientific fields than you imagine too, which you will realize when you actually join the workforce. Lots of people get science degrees and end up working at something entirely unrelated to their study.

  No.759

>>757
> the religion is *a lot* more than that one belief, it is a whole system of beliefs
Yes, which is based on the singular belief of a God which *must* be believed before the 'whole system of beliefs' can even be understood.

>it's incorrect to say that math just *takes it on faith* that the axioms are correct.

Betrand Russel co-wrote Principia Mathematica to try and give us a singular base set of rules for which math could be proven. And still failed. Because mathematics cannot be proven in itself. There is a certain faith in that system.

  No.760

>>759
>Yes, which is based on the singular belief of a God which *must* be believed before the 'whole system of beliefs' can even be understood.

There are several seperate beliefs that one must believe to be a Christain, and like I said many of them contradict each other. God loves you unconditionally but he will send you to hell forever if you don't follow his rules, which are kind of vague and can be interpreted in a million different ways.

>Because mathematics cannot be proven in itself.


Certain theories can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-verifying_theories . Anyway, "mathematics" is a much wider field than any singular set of axioms, and in fact includes the study of axioms itself.

IMO, you're seriously mixing up the differences between stuff you *think but don't know* and stuff you *take on faith*. When you take something on faith, you a) usually take two inconsistent assumptions to be true and b) cannot be convinced otherwise. A mathematician doesn't think ZFC is the only way it could be, and a physicist is willing to listen if you find real evidence of FTL travel.

  No.761

>>760
> God loves you unconditionally but he will send you to hell forever if you don't follow his rules,

Maybe it hurts him more than it hurts you.
[trollface.png]

  No.762

>>760
>I said many of them contradict each other
Just the same as many rigorous mathematical and scientific theories.

>you're seriously mixing up the differences between stuff you *think but don't know* and stuff you *take on faith*

I don't think so. I think the mindset you're coming from is that religion cannot advance, is set in stone, and is un-moving which is simply not the case. Religion has the same advances as science does in that some person who is studying finds thing to extrapolate on, research, and understand further. There are schools for religious studies.
Besides the very obvious cases of science being wrong (and then corrected), there are principles right now that are unknown and used by faith. We do *know* that those principles work *right now* but do not know if they will change or are laws or really how they work. They are simply black-boxes.
I think it takes a bit of faith to use those black-boxes.

Moving back to Principia Mathematica, I understand it's a formal mathematical system, but it gives me something to lean on. It was a formal system written basically to prove all mathematical truths (even 1+1=2). It was written to get away from paradoxes (which are black-boxes as I talked about above). The problem with Principia Mathematica is that it was itself its own black-box. It boasted being able to prove mathematical truths but could not prove such statements like "This statement cannot be proven true."
This is a bit of a high-flying overview, but Godel ended up proving that all formal systems cannot prove themselves without being inconsistent, meaning there must exist edge cases or paradoxes.

Try then to understand how science may be able to be broken down into a formal system. Would it follow Godel's proof above? Was Godel right or does his proof simply only apply to "mathematical" formal systems?

Yes, I understand that "Science" isn't a formal system and even that all the sciences aren't a collection of formal systems, but that each science, be it biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. has gaps that aren't able to be proven in any rigorous fashion but are accepted. Work is done to understand those gaps, but they haven't been stricken from the record, so the speak.
You speak of the contradictions in religion, but science is absolutely full of them. And the only way to understand them may be to look in other places, like philosophy or religion or other sciences. But the first is to understand that science isn't capable of verifying truth anymore than religion can. But both can lead people down the right paths and faith is used to guide people on those paths.

Here's a quote from An Introduction to Cybernetics from Ashby (which I recommend all Lainons read):
>It has been found repeatedly in science that the discovery that two branches are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other. The result is often a markedly accelerated growth of both. The infinitesimal calculus and astronomy, the virus and the protein molecule, the chromosomes and heredity are examples that come to mind. Neither, of course, can give proofs about the laws of the other, but each can give suggestions that may be of the greatest assistance and fruitfulness.

  No.763

File: 1485805825487.png (29.6 KB, 168x200, 2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)

>>762
You use many words, references and complex philosophy to construct and defend your mental gymnastics in the interest of prolonging the life of theism.

The comparison between science and religion is really quite simple.

Religion asserts without evidence and then promotes discourse over its assertions.

Science asks what is true and searches for evidence to support or contradict that hypothesis, then promotes discourse over the results and the next hypothesis. The scientific method is a formal system that keeps science honest and effective in all its fields of study, a feature which religion sorely lacks due to its useless and superstitious nature.

Ultimately, science flies you to the moon, and builds nuclear energy and weapons, while religion tries to take credit for its various imaginary friends and simultaneously flies you into buildings.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and that is exactly what some of us here on the internet are going to do until religion and its damned superstitions are in the dust where they belong.

Humanity can do better, and is doing better, there is no further use for the bunk imaginary friends of our ancestors, it is time to lay them to rest.

  No.765

>>763
Ultimately what I am saying is that your erected Theism that must be deconstructed is not dissimilar at all to 'science'. Regardless of whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any religion existing today is non-existent in N years, there will still exist faith because there will be things we do not understand yet will work with just as there are today.

>You use many words, references and complex philosophy to construct and defend your mental gymnastics

This is a funny way to say "you use references and philosophy to backup your opinions".

  No.766

>>763
Also, I forgot to make another point which is very delicate to my post here: >>762

If you consider the written texts of various religions (The Bible, Talmud, Koran, etc) to be the formal systems of morality of humanity at the time of writing, its contradictions make perfect sense given Godel's theorem.

  No.767

>>765

Science is fundamentally different from theism.
It differs by the scientific method. Given sufficient time, science improves in its ability to analyze phenomenon. Religion, perhaps correspondingly, improves in its ability to obscure the truth.

Faith may well continue to exist, but it will never be a virtue, and its elimination is at least as important as that of theism.

and yes, but the adjectives are used to describe the web of words you construct unnecessarily. You are being a pedant and I am calling you on it.

I do not consider religion to be even vaguely related to morality. religion is at most a tool of politics, and at least a collection of superstitions from millennia past.

  No.768

>>767
Science is politicized as well as religion.
Your unwavering conviction in Science and not religion is exactly the same as someone who has an unwavering conviction in Religion and not science.
>>751
>bad blood makes perfect sense: people get furiously defensive when their world view is challenged even if the current political climate would have people believe scientists are freer thinkers than most.

This is most likely why scientists of today have a hard time getting into philosophy. Science is regarded as truth. People don't see paradoxes as 'the unknown' but 'we something we don't understand *yet*'. The faith in science is really staggering. See yours and others responses to my post as quick examples: science isn't something that can be fallible, it is Truth, and if it is was wrong in the past, it fixed itself and there was no guarantee it will ever be wrong again.
Philosophy and science are so intermingled but only at the lowest levels so most don't even see the connection. Philosophy doesn't come up in chemistry labs. Despite students learning that philosophy was once the catch-all for all scientific pursuits for the longest time (Aristotle was doing philosophy, not science) philosophy is regarded as being extra-thought exercises for the students.
Philosophy also has deep foundations in religions of all kinds. This, too, I think has helped people figuratively shun philosophy over the pursuit of science.

  No.769

>>768
I don't think anyone in this thread is saying the science is infallible. If it were, we wouldn't have competing theories, as all but one of a set of mutually-contradictory theories must necessarily be false.

Science and religion are both ways to explain the world around us. The difference is that science adapts over time in the presence of verifiable evidence. Religion adapts over time in the presence of unverifiable dogma.

  No.770

>>762
I had a longwinded response but it failed to submit, so I'll try to condense what I said:

a) you're misinterpreting the incompleteness theorems, which is my biggest pet peeve. Basically, it says that unprovable statements(not paradoxes or inconsistencies) must exist if a set of statements(with certain properties) are all true. One of those unprovable statements is "all of the statemens used to prove this are true". Not a big deal, if you look at it from that perspective. What is a big deal is if you find an *inconsistency*, which is a fancy way of saying that not all of your axioms can be true at the same time. The incompleteness theorems don't say that *every system is inconsistent*, they say that *most systems have unprovable statements*, which doesn't say much about how math is "all a big black box don't you know Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!"

b) again, you're equating thinking you're right without proof(intuition) with knowing you're right without proof(faith). Mathematicians(the field I have the most experience with) know about the incompleteness theorems, they know that there is no way to prove that their various axioms are true. You could write every mathematical proof as "if you accept a, b, and c to be true, then you must accept x to be true,", which says nothing about the truth of a, b, c, or x, except that they're related. The mindset is like that as well: despite so many proofs that rely on the Reimann Hypothesis, if the RH was disproven every sane mathematician would consider those proofs false as well. In contrast, a faithful man says that x is true, because x is true. There is nothing that can shake this conviction. That is the difference between belief and faith.

  No.771

>>763
Your hypotheses about science and religion are cute. Please test them with an experiment. If you cannot test them with an experiment and prove them right, please stop speaking of them as fact. Thank you.

On a more serious note, you're doing exactly what I expressed some posts above: you speak your opinion on science and confuse it with a product of science on science. You did not come to this opinion in a scientific way, it rather seems to be just a quick guess based on assumptions or impressions. Please become an expert on 3-4 religions by practicing and studying each, and do the same with 3-4 scientific fields. When you did, I think you're set up to make a comparative theory and then experiments to prove it this or that way. Until then, please make sure to signal that your posts are opinion, or present a hypothesis. Rigor is important you know.

  No.772

>>767
I see that your religion includes a dogma that differentiates science from theism; this is helpful to build a sense of belonging which is a basic human need. I see that your religion makes certain statements about the existence and workings of the "scientific method", and you put great faith in the existence and relevance of this thing. I also see that you assume religions other than your own to be deceptive, trying to obscure truth.
If you wish to eliminate faith, which you find to be anything but a virtue, please eliminate your faith in the "scientific method" first, as it seems to be the dogma of your religion you put the most faith in.
Please provide some form of proof that the lainon you call out on being pedant is in fact pedant, and it is not you who does not understand the nuances in his post, or abstract away most of his points and then perceive your own lack of understanding as pedantry.
Interesting hypothesis. Please elaborate.

  No.774

>>770
>The incompleteness theorems don't say that *every system is inconsistent*
Yes, of course.
>they say that *most systems have unprovable statements*
Yes. And to prove those unprovable statements the system must become inconsistent.
>which doesn't say much about how math is a black box
My bringing up the incompleteness theorem was really just an aside to show that systems must have contradictions to prove all of itself -- in which proving itself is Truth. This is because if something can prove itself, then its apparent that it is correct. These things are usually small, so a system that can prove itself *must* be riddled with inconsistencies because there's no doubt some unprovable statements.
It can also be used to say that a system without contradictions *but with* unprovable statements can be proven through another system or means (read my quote from An Introduction to Cybernetics).
>you're misinterpreting the incompleteness theorems, which is my biggest pet peeve
This is what anyone says any time Godel is used philosophically that I've witnessed. A reminder that I'm using Godel in an abstract sense that he might have found some inherent property in all systems and not just recursive axiomatic systems with mechanical procedures.

I may have jumped-the-gun by using a charged word (faith), but it remains that even mathematicians use various parts of mathematics are are unproven and therefore, not wholly True. Even if after the mathematician's death those parts were proven, the mathematician still believed in and used it. That's what I meant by faith. It's not dissimilar to a religious man's faith in God.

  No.775

>>774
>systems must have contradictions to prove all of itself

another misinterpretation: some systems can prove themselves. They're just very weak. But they can be used to prove nontrivial things.

>so a system that can prove itself *must* be riddled with inconsistencies because there's no doubt some unprovable statements.


unprovable statements != inconsistencies.

>A reminder that I'm using Godel in an abstract sense that he might have found some inherent property in all systems and not just recursive axiomatic systems with mechanical procedures.


then you're talking out your ass.

>It's not dissimilar to a religious man's faith in God.


You're still missing what I'm saying. If someone found an inconsistency in ZFC, poof, there goes all the theories proved in it, and mathematicians would be just as sure of that that they're sure of anything else. If that new RF drive thingy is verified in space(from a reputable source, not China), you bet your ass there'd be some clamoring for reform in physics. If you find some strong evidence against the existence of god, poof.... it gets smoothed over with emotional, vague talk. Which of these things is not like the others?

  No.776

>>775
>>so a system that can prove itself *must* be riddled with inconsistencies because there's no doubt some unprovable statements.

>unprovable statements != inconsistencies.


I misread that part, pls ignore.

  No.777

>>775
> They're just very weak. But they can be used to prove nontrivial things.
Yes, I was going to clarify and say "sufficiently large systems" but I decided against it.
>then you're talking out your ass.
I don't think so. I don't see how you can compare my "formal systems" of religious texts, science, and all of mathematics and think I was speaking in a mathematical sense. Since mathematics exists, what good is it if it only speaks for mathematics? But I'll try and argue within the confines of mathematics for a moment:

If a formal system for all mathematical truths cannot prove all of it itself without contradictions, does not that imply some faith that math is truly consistent and True? Yes, for the most part, the unprovable statements aren't all that grand, most being "gotchas", but it *does* explain why there are different mathematical branches and why each usually has its own language (though with significant overlap).
I don't think that humanity will find something that will shake the foundations of mathematics any time soon, but its certainly possible and that's where our faith in mathematics is taken for granted. This is not unlike when the Greeks wrestled with the idea of 0.

>If someone found an inconsistency in ZFC, poof, there goes all the theories proved in it

I'm not sure how this goes against my argument. Isn't there faith that ZFC is correct when proving theories in it? Yes, it may be proven incorrect at a later date, but it's still taken as True here and now.
>If you find some strong evidence against the existence of god, poof.... it gets smoothed over with emotional, vague talk.
I'm not sure that this has ever happened other than the obvious that God has never shown himself to humanity. But that hasn't been downplayed (at least in Christianity).

  No.778

because they're so heavily based on semantics / unmeasurable abstracts that it's easy to fall into logical pitfalls.

  No.779

>>777
>I'm not sure how this goes against my argument. Isn't there faith that ZFC is correct when proving theories in it? Yes, it may be proven incorrect at a later date, but it's still taken as True here and now.

Mathematics is phrased like "If ZFC is true, then this is also true". All mathematicians know that ZFC is unprovable from within ZFC, they don't pretend to know it's true.

>But that hasn't been downplayed (at least in Christianity).


I was a christian for a good 10 years, it's downplayed as fuarrrk.

  No.780

>>779
I should note, it's not literally phrased that way, it's impliclitly understood. It would be a waste of space to list every axiom used in every proof.

  No.804

File: 1486210427907.png (43.48 KB, 200x150, 96381.jpg)

Philosophy is not very practical and it is too archaic. Also as everything actually interesting and worthy is in this subcategory called natural philosophy (aka science), modern philosophy tends to focus more on the humanities (and is also surpassed in that category by the newer arts and studies). As humans and their culture are mainly soykaf, anyone who wants to remain within reason tends to steer away from those. Of course it is the mother of every discipline, and if one is interested in history one might delve occasionally into it.

However, we are still humans and there might come time where one wishes to develop more the humane kind of thinking. And as most people never seem to really learn from history, one might try to counter this and actually learn philosophy, from the ancients to modern day. That is almost guaranteed to give food for thought and soul, maybe enough to even form one's own worldview and paradigm. It also gives the groundworks to then grab almost any branch of study/arts, e.g. literature, aesthetics, politics or psychology and understand the context in them better.

At least I am seriously considering reading some philosophy. Learning mathematics, IT and natural sciences is great, but I guess one cannot infinitely escape human behind numbers. Sometimes I even think that it could be interesting to know why are humans so soykafty and imperfect, why have they been different kinds of soykafty, and how to make the most in midst of them. Philosophy is fundamental to understanding civilization. I guess I'm becoming old.

  No.806

reminder that existential comics is an excellent resource for becoming conversant in philosophers and philosophical concepts.

existentialcomics.com

  No.826

Because people they don't like are interested in Philosophy.

  No.831

>>806
Not even kidding, I think this is a great introduction into philosophy in a more fun kind of way. The jokes aren't extreme surface level dullness found in most other philosophical joke places, and the content referenced varies nicely.

  No.832

fam read hiedegger, and it is a tragedy. Also celeb scientists are scum.

physics student.

>>593

all science is based on metaphysical assumptions.

  No.833

>>806
hes also hilarious and glorious-senpai who spreads communist propaganda on the internet <3

iwanttomeethim (totally not yandere-tier).

  No.835

I used to have a very high opinion of philosophy until i learned how philosophy courses actually operate. The concept behind philosophy is awesome, the way its taught and discussed in the modern day is a joke.

  No.836

>>835

I think that's true of *all* subjects, I mean while math in uni is properly taught its abysmal in HS. Also analytic philosophy which dominates American unis is a soykaf.

  No.837

File: 1487252519061.png (17.92 KB, 135x200, 4bb06141b8dac3d9afb26d74ccaa0803.jpg)

Most social sciences and humanities are absolutely worthless and just provide grist for someone better's mill.

The way philosophy is taught in the contemporary academy is a joke.

Most contemporary philosophy, especially in North America, is pointless. Most philosophers in history have been junk as well.

Read more Nietzsche.

  No.838

>>837

always read more nietzsche.

  No.839

>>835
>The concept behind philosophy is awesome
My dude, there is no such thing as a concept behind philosophy. Concepts are the topic of philosophy.

>>837
The thing I like most about philosophy is that it doesn't really dismiss things as junk, ever. You can be the most unwanted homeless of an idea that every field refuses to discuss, and still find philosophers who gives you the benefit of doubt.
That said, you show some clear signs of only having read Nietzsche.

Based on the last few ten or so posts, I'm starting to get a vibe that either everything that needs to be said have been said and anti-philosophy posters gave up, or that they are trying to make the thread look bad with short and hasty posts.

  No.840

>>837
When you say "read more Nietzsche" and don't add any substantial arguments of your own it sounds like we're supposed to respect him like, y'no just because he's Nietzsche. I don't think that's what the man himself intended. He wanted to inspire you to THINK

  No.841

>>840

i think he was just best-philosopher posting. And analytic philosophy is kinda a soykaf. Though he absolutely destroyed empiricism in his own way, the section on the stoic view of life is relevant in beyond good and evil.

  No.842

File: 1487269253094.png (117.09 KB, 200x200, titan-green.jpg)

>>839
>That said, you show some clear signs of only having read Nietzsche.
Assume whatever biographical traits you please. You show clear signs of still being in an undergraduate daze of uncritical respect for the canon and whatever breathes and speaks.

>>840
Either read more Nietzsche because he inspires you to think, read more Nietzsche because he can force you to think if you aren't already, or read more Nietzsche exactly how he would not intend and continue to be a sloppy idiot. Makes no difference, and don't "respect" anyone just because they're x. Read more Nietzsche.

  No.843

>>842
I like how you jump, but I love how you're not even wrong.
As soon as you're out of the undergraduate daze of uncritical respect for the canon and whatever breathes and speaks, you ceased being a student; you're a big grown up person that can decide how things are for himself, you're responsible and can work jobs of responsibility, but lose your ability to take in anything alien to your framework, unless you reduce it to terms that can be derived from your 'axioms'. Hopefully these dogmas are interesting ones.

  No.844

File: 1487310042831.png (34.4 KB, 200x101, AboRt5H.png)


  No.845

>>601
Rather old post, but I think I'll tackle this.

It's clear that you seem to think that curing illnesses is good. Why is that? I assume because it relieves suffering and death from the world and those are bad.

Now, what if we could do other things to relieve suffering and death form the world? Such as maybe, feed the hungry? Great right? Well now instead of dying those would-be hungry people are now fuarrrking and having sex, requiring even more food. Eventually the population soars to 7 trillion with no end in sight because of this loop. Despite all of this helping there are still people starving to death.
Eventually, we run into a problem, nothing grows forever and so eventually our ability to produce food will reach maximum output with no way to increase it further. At this point there will still be people starving to death. We will have solved nothing and actually have made the problem worse, because the proportion of not-starving to starving people will remain the same. More not-starving people, more starving people.
This is the current situation of the planet, with most of the growth coming from Asia and Africa and only one of those groups able to take care of themselves.

Possibly, in the future Europeans will not be able to feed Africans. Already, most European countries have negative population growth (if you look only at Europeans) presumably that means we will have less people to contribute to feeding africans and thus more will die. Maybe some major event, such as an invasion into European countries by people from Africa, will happen that will make us unable to feed them abruptly and Africa will get littered with corpses.

An ideology, forged by philosophy is what got us into this situation. We thought we could end hunger and all we ended up doing was vastly increasing the amount of the starving.


Also, science is empiricism in practice, so the cure for illnesses ultimately relied on philosophy.


To answer the OP, why not just ask some scientists? That would be the best thing to do.
Could just be a love of hard numbers and clear objectivity. Philosophy lacks both of those.

  No.846

>>835
Why would you allow a soykafty course to shape your opinion on a subject?

Go find a relevant book that interests you and read it. I'm sure you could ask for suggestions here.

  No.849

File: 1487496773101.png (118.19 KB, 200x113, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>593
The problem is that scientific method be it quantitative or qualitative or any mix is based upon epistemological arguments which is based on ontology. The building blocks are 100% philosophy based and there is nothing we can do about it really. If scientists wont care about it then they will find out they are just verifying their own method even though they abolished verificationism in positivist movement some time ago.

We use logic and math as tools to construct these huge theories but there are still so many viewpoints that would lead to different methods of gathering data and interpretating it and they conflict each other but still somehow can be replicable in reality and hold value.

The whole science is a philosophy of science construct. Philosophers of science and methodology are more useful than a lot of scientists these days because a alot of scientists think they got the method figured out and that it accurately represent the reality (see positivism and how it transformed to postpositivist - falsification of Popper and such to see the arrogance here).

  No.851

>>777
>I'm not sure that this has ever happened other than the obvious that God has never shown himself to humanity. But that hasn't been downplayed (at least in Christianity).

Except religious figures never keep interesting promises. For instance, Jesus, who promised to return from heaven during the lives of his first followers, is currently 2000 years late. I'm pretty sure all of those people are dead by now.

  No.858

>>679
Chemistry IS alchemy, there is no hierarchy in this example.

  No.859

>>858
Alchemy is based around very different principles than alchemy.

  No.860

>>859
*Chemistry is based around very different principles than alchemy.
:p

  No.861

>>849
In practice most scientists seem to apply their scientific method in a very Feyerabendian way or something. But if confronted on how they 'do science' won't really have much of an answer since they haven't thought over it or read much in analytic philosophy and would likely refer to someone like Popper or Kant and leave it at that.

  No.862

>>844
>but I think that the far more insidious problem is the growing group of middle class STEM-majoring pseudo-intellectuals who arrogantly think that they completely understand ethics, public policy, and morality. Fun fact: you need to actually take an ethics class before you can claim to understand it.
>you need to actually take an ethics class before you can claim to understand it.

This is why some people (STEM or not) hate the people who study and work in the Humanities. It's because they set themselves up as a new clergy. "You work out how to make faster computers or a more efficient selfie-stick or whatever, we'll decide what's good and what's bad, what should be done and what should be derezzed. After all, that's our field of study."
The scientific community sometimes gets things wrong. Semmelweis saved lives and got laughed at for it. But ultimately, science is based on reality, on what experimentation supports or proves false. Philosophy isn't, so it has a far greater chance of turning into a insider trade where everybody just spouts whatever happens to be fashionable. If a scientist says something, he'll have to back it with evidence, data that supports his hypothesis. A philosopher doesn't have to (and can't) do that. For somebody who normally has to back up what they say with hard evidence, to see somebody else rely on sophistry and appeals to authority might be a little annoying. To see the latter put on airs and say that they get to decide what is moral or not, well, that's not so annoying as it is alarming.

Mind you, a lot of people in this thread are disparaging the field of Philosophy as a whole. I consider it very important, but it's a thousand times easier to be a charlatan there than in science, or pretty much any non-humanities field. Hostility towards the people who currently dominate the field of Philosophy might be perfectly justified, hostility towards philosophy in its entirety is completely misguided.

  No.864

>>844
lol, good troll.

>>849
science is based on logic and reality. science doesn't question the existence of these two because scientists aren't morons. it is not based on philosophy, regardless of the fact people argue philosophically for it.

  No.865

>>862
I think a lot of the hostility you mention comes from valid pokes at scientists falling for the same things they preach against. (I suppose some people already have an answer to my post after this very first sentence, and while reading the rest they will just look for ways to reinforce it. That would be sad.)
I'm sure we agree that scientists are humans. A scientist is always a human, and a human is not always a scientist. Further than that, a scientist is not always full-on science either. They navigate through a bunch of schools and grow up, and if things go well they get to participate in science. Science itself is sort of like a guestbook, in that people take a long journey to get there, then do various research, record it in the book, and then leave. Proper science is just a chunk of a person's life. They are not doing science when they scream "baby you are the best" during sex. They are not doing science when they tell the chef that his steak is like kicking dead whales down the beach. They are not doing science when discussing football in the pub. Obviously they are also not doing science when calling philosophy, humanities, religion, and similar things soykaf.
This last one is key to my point. Scientists often engage in informal conversation about anything, like all humans do. They don't write papers and cite stuff when they just say their opinion, and they have good reason, as it would be a waste of time, it would look weird, there is a chance that the other party is just trolling or beyond help, whatever. However, some scientists fail to draw a line, or in a heated argument fail to enforce the line between their scientific work and method, and the quick, easy, emotional thinking that produces their opinion.
It is science when and only when produced by the scientific method. You could be Heisenberg, but your preference in tea, tea cookies, government, and your farts are still not science. It is not hard to notice when someone assumes the authority of his scientific work, or 'transfers' the qualities of science, to his opinion. Still they get mad or dismissive if this is pointed out. See >>864 for example. He says
>science is based on logic and reality
which is all okay, but then assumes that these qualities apply to the rest of his soykafpost that he produced without being scientific in any way. Situations like this happen all the time, and build the image of scientists as people who achieve great thing in the company of peers and engineers, yet are often wrong, opinionated and even arrogant (as any other layman, philosopher, etc) in matters that fall outside of their expertise. This image leads to some imprecise hostility towards the scientific community (targeting all of it, not just failing to draw the opinion/science line), and so they just flame back even harder; hence the hostility towards philosophy, religion, and basically anyone not in the boat.
Luckily though, there are many in either camps who see this and realize that the only way to keep your boots clean is to not step in the mud. Posts that supposedly 'represent' science and attack other stuff are almost exclusively of the same material rooted in anything but rigor, logic or reality; and that is a kind, fat assumption - that the points they make are still true.

  No.868

>>865
I didn't make an assumption. And I didn't claim I was being scientific. I was expressing a very unpopular philosophical view that rejects philosophy preceding science.

  No.869

>>868
Then the unpopular philosophical view made an assumption. You indeed didn't claim that, or much of anything. Do you like low effort posts? (This is not an assumption).
I really like the self-attacking attribute in that view by the way; I just wonder when science will be able to finally do that, not in the ritualistic way it does now, but the ballsy way where it actually guts itself.

  No.870

Let philosophers be the mathematicians and scientists be the physicists in this situation:
Physicists be like dy/dx is a fraction.
Mathematicians say you can't then later show why it works like that anyway.

  No.871

>>862

The purpose of classes of ethnics and philosophy is not to make the student discover what is true (i.e. what is good and bad), its too give the student food for thought basically. Classes like this are a time you have to be presented with different and controversial idea, that unlike your claim, are also based on reality because if they were not, how could they be expressed at all?

So you listen to this, you can think it is bullsoykaf or whatever, but the situation in the class makes it so that you have to argue your point against what are, most often, very specific statement about ethics. This is the whole point of the exercise, and I think of going to school in general. Life and short and truth, as an absolute, is far away, but the humanities, like the more rigorous sciences, can expose us to well thought out logical statements that open us up for new ideas and help us make seemingly creative decisions.

You say that the people who study the softer sciences and the humanities make themselves as a clergy. I say that you are free to fight their pretended expertise on their level if you like, but that dismissing their statements and discoveries without any appropriate argument will certainly neither bother the truly dedicated students like me, nor help you in your, as you say, work based on reality, whatever you mean by that.

  No.872

And scientists don't bother defining the premises of their research designs like "logic" and "reality" because they're too smart?

When taking a decision, I feel like the best is to try and weight the good and the bad, and to try to understand what my motivations are. It is scary to think that certain scientists would be so proud of their personal convictions about reality and logic to think of not defining these terms as a symbol of intelligence.

  No.873

>>872
If you're replying to 864 that was never asserted. Your argument is a flat strawman.

  No.874

>>870
so, you're saying that philosophy and science are inseperable, like math and physics are?

  No.875

>>874
>inseperable, like math and physics
You may not be able to do physics without math, but you can certainly do math without physics.

  No.876

>>870
ah jacobi formalisms <3

  No.877

>>873

Yes, I was replying to 864, sorry for the misunderstanding

  No.883

You can't really beat empirical research and algorithms. Then again, philosophy and a bit of empathy will protect you from becoming a corporate meatpuppet and doing creepy experiments, or ending up as an anti-intellectual stormie who complains about certain authors without knowing what the hell they actually wrote about.

Even when you're smart, you can get stuck in the details and lose sight of a what a creepy asshole your boss really is. When you're a brilliant statistician, but you're helping Target to predict whether or not a customer is pregnant, there is something wrong. This is not an example I just pulled of my ass, by the way. Target has algorithms in place to predict when your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter gets pregnant so they can start brainwashing her at just the right time when her life is at its most chaotic and fragile, and do it before any other company. Does that sound like progress to you? Sounds like creepy douchebaggery to me. That statistician is being an obedient drone for corporate douchebags and you know it.

  No.890

>>875
Damn it feels good to be pure math master race

Personally I think that philosophy and the humanities are important to us as individuals, for living our daily lives, but the natural sciences are what truly drive progress. No matter how good you are at analyzing Shakespeare, or debating Kant, that won't mean soykaf when you are trying to optimize and improve a supply chain to feed, house, and clothe the world's masses. Or to defend your country by designing a capable weapons defense system.

I think that everyone should be taught to read and instilled with a passion for art, but for the most part formal education should be limited to the natural sciences, and the humanities should be taken up in the free time.

I am currently in University and am studying both Mathematics and Russian Literature, along with having taken a multitude of necessary humanities classes. Often the humanities classes are nothing but ideologically driven drivel, and look at everything through the extremely foggy lenses of neoliberalism and humanism rather than being objective. The math classes on the other hand are practically as objective as you can get, and if I think something is incorrect, then all I have to simply do is disprove or prove that theorem.

  No.891

>>890
Would you say that natural science will be able to answer "why live" questions? Not explain them, like it does all things, not create a better and better model at how things work, how they are related, but like this.
Hey Science, why should I live?
Sup Joe, because it's a spoiler don't you understand? why do you even check?.

  No.892

My uni offers a course in mathematics and philosophy, so there must be some people who like it.

  No.893

File: 1488435140383.png (56.14 KB, 200x117, zoroaster_astrologer.jpg)

>>891
I think the world is split up into two main parts, as is our life- esoteric and exoteric, physical and spiritual. I think that the physical reason to live is to pass on your genes, to reproduce, and I believe that science has already shown this through the theories of Darwin and Dawkins. Spiritually I think that there is no answer to "why live", everyone makes their own meaning. To some it is to help others, often they become doctors; to some it is to gain power, often they become politicians, bankers, or CEOs; to some it is to explore the spiritual realm of life, often they become monks.

I believe that most people are spiritually stunted because of the overemphasis that western culture has on materialism, and is partially a reason as to why so many people have midlife crises- once they have children and have fulfilled their physical objective, they have no other meaning. This also relates to my theory as to the role between the number 1, and the idea of infinity as it applies to human life. I believe the number 1 to represent the physical realm, because like in statistics where all the probabilities must add up to 1 in order to maintain balance, the physical realm's mass (materialistic component of the universe) must obey the laws of conversation of energy in order to maintain balance. The spiritual realm has no such balancing act. Human spirits and ideas (which I consider to makes up the spiritual realm among other esoteric things) are potentially infinite in number. We went from having 0 human spirits on this earth to 7 billion, obviously with no balancing whatsoever, and whenever you have a brand new idea or thought, there is no idea that must be lost to make space for your new one, it is simply added to the total collective set of human ideas, of which the size grows to infinity.

In short, I believe science has answered the physical reason to live- to pass on our genes through reproduction, but that the spiritual/mental reason to live is simply unanswerable, much like an unprovable theorem in mathematics, since there is no answer that fits all cases (no universal spiritual meaning of life for all human beings)

  No.894

File: 1488473995720.png (153.24 KB, 189x200, father_am_sonsappoint.png)

>>890
>the lenses I study fiction with are the objective ones in my opinion

  No.895

File: 1488480871453.png (33.39 KB, 200x142, MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png)

>>894
Where did I say it was fiction that I was studying? Not all of humanities is compromised of fictional literature. The main example I had in my head as I was writing was in a linguistics class where we were going over the difference between Macedonian and Bulgarian and rather than objectively analyze the components of both languages to determine the similarity of them and whether they were the same language or not we were instead told that because of political reasons they are different. In my anthropology class we were told that all cultures are equal, which is obviously fuarrrking bullsoykaf, and if you were to claim that they are not equal, you would be mocked and laughed at at best, or maybe even kicked out of school at worst (I go to an extremely liberal university where almost half the people are minorities). In my opinion the objective way to analyze cultures would be to average the level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for all citizens, along with adjusting for the prevalence of negative and positive human universals (i.e. how much murder occurs, how much hunger there is, etc). I'm not claiming that this IS the objective way to analyze cultures, and it almost certainly isn't since I came up with it in a fairly short amount of time, but it already much better than the blanket statement "All cultures are equal", and with more time the theory could be expanded upon to account for more and more factors.

As an example I will compare Germany and Zimbabwe. In Germany most people are quite past worrying about their Safety or Physiological needs, and I'd say the majority of people are striving for love and self actualization, along with the country having a low crime rate, and almost no major hunger. On the contrary, Zimbabwe is currently at a "Serious" level of food security, 63% of people live below the poverty line, and 4 million people are food insecure. According to my method, this would put Zimbabwe at a much lower level than Germany, while my anthropology professor would simple say that they are just "different".

  No.896

I've come across two types of biologists in my time in academia. One type is very interested in the philosophy of what they do, they read all the history (Kuhn, etc.), and they actively develop and discuss the philosophy that underlies what they do.
The rest of the people are people whose work is primarily observational, and they are mainly focused on describing patterns and aren't as interested with mechanisms. They view the philosophy-involved biologists as people who make up new words that they are skeptical of. Discussions of cutting edge paradigms often start with "Do we need another word for this?".
Just my two cents.

  No.898

>>895
>I am currently in University and am studying both Mathematics and Russian Literature
>inb4 meant non-fiction Russian literature, which wouldn't really use the word literature typically

Now you're talking about sciences. Linguistics and to a lesser extent Sociology.
Your university sounds cancerous so I can partly see why you might conflate humanities with social sciences when combating their bullsoykaf.

  No.899

>>898
The classes that I was giving examples from were mainly not part of the Russian Literature program besides a linguistics class I took, from which the Bulgarian and Macedonian example comes from. Other than that I'm drawing from humanities classes I've taken outside the program to fulfill General Education requirements. Also I thought that social sciences were a subset of the humanities?

And yeah my University is cancer I hate it and want to get out as soon as I can at this point and go work in IT, I already work in IT anyway so this degree will for the most part be useless.

  No.901

>>893
>I think that the physical reason to live is to pass on your genes, to reproduce, and I believe that science has already shown this through the theories of Darwin and Dawkins.

It's a mistake to think that the theory of evolution actually makes any kind of prescriptive "ought". It merely describes how life behaves, not how it should behave.

>We went from having 0 human spirits on this earth to 7 billion, obviously with no balancing whatsoever, and whenever you have a brand new idea or thought, there is no idea that must be lost to make space for your new one, it is simply added to the total collective set of human ideas, of which the size grows to infinity.


Something only "grows to infinity" if for any N, there is some x where f(x) > N. Eventually, the universe will be too entropic to support human cognition. We can assume this will happen at time t. Then, if we let N = ideas(t)+1, and there is no x where ideas(x) > N. Therefore the set of human ideas is and always will be finite.

>>895
"better" is meaningless unless there is some desired quality. your preference(and the preference of most people) happens to be physical prosperity, but someone could just as easily consider poverty a virtue.

Also, culture comparison is very different from economic/political comparison, which is what you're doing.

  No.976

File: 1490251426729.png (476.71 KB, 200x200, VuDPh7y.jpg)

pic related. it's this kind of soykaf that is turning STEM kids into petite-bourgeois drones.

  No.977

I recently had an argument with someone who majored in philosophy about the theory of evolution which I studied a lot on my own a few months ago due to the fact that I wanted to get into evolutionary psychology.

He basically dennied the scientific method and the core of theory of evolution that resisted through time by saying that all humans see patterns in nature and I should feel bad if I think I know the truth.

Then I went along and pretty much explained to him all that soykaf about reproduction fitness, gene distribution, what conditions evolution needs, how it's not smart in choosing what genes are predominant eventually, etc

And he says that he doesn't believe that, he believes that there is a force of life in each of us (he used something in latin vitae something) and a will to have sex that gets transmitted everytime we have children.

It was like having an argument with an edgy theist while having all my retorts unnanswered.
>How did you come to this conclusion ?
>What about organism that multiply in a non-sexual way ?
>How does the transmission of your so called will work ?

Philosophy these days is just a tool used by retards to reinforce their already wrong beliefs.There is no value in it.
It just lets people feel good about themselves.
>ohh I'm a depressed fuarrrk, what do I do ? Ahh nihilism, ahh Cioran

  No.978

>>977
Simply stop talking to people who cannot into reason. I went a step further and actively try to avoid talking about touchy subjects. Think about it, some things in life you can't touch on without pesky emotions getting involved and that's normally the point when any reason goes downhill. Prime examples of topics to avoid are religion and politics. Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean everyone has to hear it.

Also E.M. Cioran is great.

  No.979

>>977
do you know which branches of philosophy he specialized in? i wouldn't expect a botanist to know anything about rocket ships... or for a database specialist to know how to write networking servers & clients

  No.980

>>978
Heck I didn't even go to college. Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it's right. If he took a closer look at just one of my questions he would have realised his model doesn't make any sense. He even told me I'm more of a believer than him and that he's more open minded. That conversation grinded me up to wall so much.

I wasn't even saying that the theory of evolution is the best. I was saying it got modified and only the core principles resisted through time and if something that makes more sense empirically and experimentally I'll say it's wrong to follow a worse model.

Most philosophers I've met have this sort of mentality:
>You just can't know for sure bro, try reading the thoughts of this person who lived like xxx years ago whose writing are important becaus e they are the product of their medium and their genes.
>I just put my hands on my shoulder and say nature is above us bro and that makes me feel better.
Not one wants to take out his dick and put it on the table and they always say stupid soykaf from their cache memory.
>>979
It's just Faculty of Philosophy.
>i wouldn't expect a botanist to know anything about rocket ships... or for a database specialist to know how to write networking servers & clients
What if you encounter a botanist that says rocket ships work like plants ?
What if you encounter a db specialist that wants to keep plain txt client logs inside a database ?

  No.981

>>977
>>980
>if something that makes more sense empirically and experimentally I'll say it's wrong to follow a worse model.
This right here is why philosophers are still around, and will stick around. Science has a general preference: fast, efficient, rigorous, objective, etc. It has a chosen direction, of progress, of going forward, of producing more precise models, etc. While willing to take some turns left or right, the general direction is forward. When science hits a dead end, they sweat it, and try hard to break through, somehow get over the problem
Meanwhile, philosophers or researchers with a more philosophical / theoretical (less rational, less pragmatic) way of thinking simply lack such a preference or direction, and they are willing to go in any direction and study anything, whether it makes sense or not, is well-received or not, is funded or not. While the pragmatics keep hitting the same wall over and over, they take blind shots and go on little trips in every direction. Eventually one of them finds something, and the pragmatic bunch suddenly takes an interest in the method they previously deemed uninteresting and wrong to follow.
It's that one simple judgment in the quoted sentence; basically outsourcing some of the work to outside science.

>Philosophy these days is just a tool used by retards to reinforce their already wrong beliefs.There is no value in it.

Are you using retards as a tool to reinforce your already wrong beliefs about philosophy? By this line of thought, I could argue that science is a tool used by occultists to explain their spiritual bullsoykaf. Or that guns are inherently bad because some people use it for morally questionable purposes. They also drink water.
Instead of dismissing the entire field (sometimes based on an oversimplified perception of what it is about), try dismissing the invalid points and simply refuse to judge the field itself. It is a common mistake to confuse one's personal opinion and scientific work - unless the opinion is produced with the scientific method, published in papers with citations, peer-reviewed etc. it's no better and probably produced in the same way as opposing opinions it criticizes. Piggybacking authority does not work. Keep in mind that your methods, and model of how reason works may or may not be correct.

Another thing I noticed is that you are, based on your account, fixated on facts and details. I was not present and might be wrong, but I find it plausible that your acquaintance was more interested in expressing an idea than exchanging dry facts, and you may have failed to realize this. I also find it plausible that evolution was not the object of the discussion (for him), but rather just a tool or example for expressing the idea.

>Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it's right

Apply this to your own reasoning and see what happens. No, really do it; that's empirical.

>Most philosophers I've met have this sort of mentality: [...]

That's your impression. A more scientific approach would be doing a couple of different PhD's in philosophy and carefully documenting the process. I can understand if that isn't worth the effort for you; but it is exactly what makes science great. Unless you do it, your impression of philosophy is of the same quality as your acquaintance's impression of evolution.

  No.984

>>977
Just sounds like someone who tries to make up for a lack of knowledge by declaring the knowledge of others to be futile. I highly doubt that people like that are anything resembling a majority, it's just that they are the easiest to remember because of their teribleness.

  No.985

>>591
inductive reasoning rotted their brains.. plus a culture of disdain for theism. if a scientist found out that reality isn't objective and he's been living in a dream world, whose laws of physics etc are totally different from ours, what would the point of all his inductive reasoning be? the things he was making his observations on weren't real

  No.987

>>981
>This right here is why philosophers are still around, and will stick around.
This is also why religions are still around.
>Science has a general preference: fast, efficient, rigorous, objective, etc. It has a chosen direction, of progress, of going forward, of producing more precise models, etc. While willing to take some turns left or right, the general direction is forward. When science hits a dead end, they sweat it, and try hard to break through, somehow get over the problem
Meanwhile, philosophers or researchers with a more philosophical / theoretical (less rational, less pragmatic) way of thinking simply lack such a preference or direction,
And that's why we have a replication criris.
>and they are willing to go in any direction and study anything, whether it makes sense or not, is well-received or not, is funded or not.
This applies to every type of proper research. Philosophy has nothing to do with this. You're probably talking about hypothsis testing which also when done properly has no nothing to do with philosophy or politics.
>While the pragmatics keep hitting the same wall over and over, they take blind shots and go on little trips in every direction.
Slowly but surely.
>Eventually one of them finds something, and the pragmatic bunch suddenly takes an interest in the method they previously deemed uninteresting and wrong to follow.
Can you please give me one specific example where a known philosopher changes the accepted theory in a scientific field ? Spewing random stuff with no basis and having one of those things be similar to what people look into later doesn't count.
>It's that one simple judgment in the quoted sentence; basically outsourcing some of the work to outside science.
I don't understand this.

  No.988

>Are you using retards as a tool to reinforce your already wrong beliefs about philosophy?
Are you using this phrase to make me question my belief regarding philosophic though process ? It's just fuarrrking ad hominen on a imageboard.
>By this line of thought, I could argue that science is a tool used by occultists to explain their spiritual bullsoykaf.
Except you can use it to test that occultist spiritual bullsoykaf. If you can replicate it, then it means the spiritual bullsoykaf is true for both you and the occultists.
>Or that guns are inherently bad because some people use it for morally questionable purposes. They also drink water.
Stalin also thought 2+2=4
Instead of dismissing the entire field (sometimes based on an oversimplified perception of what it is about), try dismissing the invalid points and simply refuse to judge the field itself.
The only parts of philosophy worth anything are modern rationality.
>It is a common mistake to confuse one's personal opinion and scientific work - unless the opinion is produced with the scientific method, published in papers with citations, peer-reviewed etc. it's no better and probably prod
uced in the same way as opposing opinions it criticizes. Piggybacking authority does not work. Keep in mind that your methods, and model of how reason works may or may not be correct.
What a grandiose thing to say. When is the last time you tested to see if the earth is not flat ?
>Apply this to your own reasoning and see what happens. No, really do it; that's empirical.
Literally what.
>That's your impression. A more scientific approach would be doing a couple of different PhD's in philosophy and carefully documenting the process. I can understand if that isn't worth the effort for you; but it is exactly wha
t makes science great. Unless you do it, your impression of philosophy is of the same quality as your acquaintance's impression of evolution.
While you're right this is the worse possible way you could go at this.

>>984
>Just sounds like someone who tries to make up for a lack of knowledge by declaring the knowledge of others to be futile. I highly doubt that people like that are anything resembling a majority, it's just that they are the eas
iest to remember because of their teribleness.
I know. And then I see this thread.

  No.990

>>987
Not the op but read Thomas Kuhn if you cannot understand why philosophy is important. Being a philosopher does not mean you cant be a scientist or vice versa. Its a meaningless label. Your diploma does not dictate if you are this or that.

Whether you like it or not scientific method is philosophical construct that is constantly being changed, molded. There is always some epistemology/worldview/philosophy behind the scientific method you use. For example if you are using the natural scientific methodology (the quantitative most often called) you are probably (not always) participating in postpositivist view of reality.

You can understand this more easily if you read something about history of science or philosophy of science. Or just take a look into social sciences and how many variables there are. Those fields cant even manage 60% probability in their experiments because there are too many variables. Whether they are just too young to have their own methodology or not there are many fields that use different approaches to science than quantitative. For example in psychology you got qualitative methodology that have different approach to understanding and gathering data. A lot of these methodologists take social constructivist viewpoint instead of positivist. You could read philosophy and arguments for both of them if you want.

I am by no means a scientist or a philosopher so I am not proclaiming Im right I just want to show you that it is a lot more complicated than just philosophy vs science which is a huge simplification.

  No.991

>Not the op but read Thomas Kuhn if you cannot understand why philosophy is important.
Great stuff.

  No.995

>>678
>If your reply is “Thinking deeply about it”, he will smile pityingly and pass you by
But theoretical science and mathematics are still fine right? If there wasn't anyone to sit and think deeply then our scientific efforts would consist of routinely testing the next on a list of as yet untested phenomena until something interesting happens.

  No.996

>>599
I still am amazed why we treat it like that modernly, many centuries ago, for example during the Islamic Golden Age philosophy was under the umbrella of natural science, which encompassed other sciences as well, which I find a likeable idea. (I believe this also existed towards the later time period of the Greeks) The is sort of merged line was also prominent during the time of Western philosophy's start. How and where it ended is beyond me, but I suspect it had to deal with geo-political factors possible WWII or something of the like.

>>669
The idea that scientific fields out mode philosophy is nonsensical. Should not it not be made that if philosophy can be replaced with other scientific fields, that mathematics can replace all other science fields?

There are limitations in science that philosophy is not limited to, just as there are limitations in physics that is not in mathematics. They are all interdependent on each other, it makes no sense that out would ever out mode the other.

A more concrete example would be the Entscheidungsproblem, three people did the mathematics the same, first Church, then Gödel, and finally Turing. Gödel was not satisfied at first with Church's mathematics, and so Church asked him to think up his own definition, when Gödel came back with his own definition, Church proved it was equal to his own definition. Gödel exclaimed then that he was wrong. A little bit later in walks Turing, doing the same exact mathematics but handling the philosophy differently then, and only then did Gödel finally accept it.