![NeilTysonOriginsA-Crop_400x400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9SzU4D7.jpg "NeilTysonOriginsA-Crop_400x400[1].jpg")
>Tyson has spoken about philosophy on numerous occasions. In March 2014, during an episode of the Nerdist Podcast, he stated that philosophy is "useless" and that a philosophy major "can really mess you up"
>Tyson has argued that many great historical scientists' belief in intelligent design limited their scientific inquiries, to the detriment of the advance of scientific knowledge
What is it with the smugness of guys like Tyson, Harris, and Dawkins? Why are they so sure that there is no god?
But anon getting a philosophy major really can mess you up
All them student loans and no way to pay them off
My old history professor once said that the only thing more useless than a history major is a philosophy major, can't really say he's wrong.
>>1118128
All philosophy did was make me doubt whether I am actually typing on this keyboard tbhfamilia
>>1118122
>God
>>1118122
He's right about a philosophy major messing up people because its puts them in a shit ton of student loans for a useless degree but he's wrong about philosophy being useless. Tyson along with Harris and Dawkins represent the intellectual regress of the field of science; it's one thing to find an answer it's another thing to ask the right questions.
>>1118610
This.
Tyson, Harris and Dawkins are pseudo-intellectuals.
>>1118122
Because they're manchildren
>>1118122
I think Tyson has identified himself as agnostic in that Saganian too-polite-to-say-'atheist' way.
My impression is that Philosophy departments are breeding-grounds for YEC and related heterodoxies. Not to suggest that most people in those departments subscribe to such views, only that many/most in academia who do subscribe to those views make their home in those departments.
But the correct response isn't outrage, it's to get empirical. Someone who's bothered doing it should maybe tweet some stats at him about outcomes for Phil grads. This came up during the Republican primary debates IIRC, Lil' Marco Rubio joshing about the earning power of a Phil grad versus a plumber and being spectacularly wrong.
>>1118610
>it's another thing to ask the right questions.
What are the right questions? A hypothesis is generated by earlier theories and produce a set of questions that may or may not be answerable, and some set of the answerable questions can be answered at a given level of development. What questions aside from these are "right, " and what progress has been made on answering them?
Questioning what "progress" really means is not a satisfying answer to the question.
A philosophy major is useless, you can't learn to question the world. Have to be born curious.
>>1119152
I question that.
>>1118128
Considering that Philosophy majors consistently out earn everyone else in the humanities, that is clearly bullshit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/philosophy-majors-out-earn-other-humanities/403555/
Not to mention consistently having higher scores on LSAT and GMAT exams than any other arts degree.
http://www.umsl.edu/~philo/Undergraduate%20Program/Pre-Law/
http://blogs.lmu.edu/philosophy/the-most-important-reason-to-study-philosophy/philosophy-majors-rule-the-tests/mean-gmat-scores-by-major/
>>1119163
yeah but how long are they in school for
what was their minor?
or did they pick up a sexcondary bachelors like myself
philosophy should be taught in higschool
college is for serious thinkers, not bullshit pop shit.
>>1119170
>philosophy should be taught in higschool
I agree.
>college is for serious thinkers, not bullshit pop shit.
And yet I feel as though you don't actually know what philosophy entails.
When you look at a lot of modern philosophy at the academic level and expect grand results like people in the hard sciences produce then of course you are going to say shit like this
>>1119163
>Considering that Philosophy majors consistently out earn everyone else in the humanities, that is clearly bullshit.
>consistently out earn everyone else in the humanities
>humanities
Congratulations on them having one lazy eye in the land of the blind
>>1119163
In other words, philosophy is useful as a means to an end, but not an end unto itself.
>>1119183
>X achieves Y
>"Ah, so you're saying that X certainly does not achieve Z"
This is the kind of lazy thinking that a course in Philosophy would knock right out of you m8.
I wish they'd just ban all humanities apart from History and Literature. Nothing of value would be lost.
What do their statements of philosophy have to do with not believing in God
Tyson hates philosophy because he has fucking assburgers and he just can't wrap his mind around it
Dawkins hates philosophy because he's an INCREDIBLY bitter fuck who views philosophy as "obstructionism" solely because philosophers tend to dismantle his shitty arguments in debates (which is all he cares about)
Harris doesn't hate philosophy and actively engages in it (or at least tries to), he's just helplessly naive in a way. I don't even wanna say he has an intellectual superiority complex, but it's like he has no awareness of when he embarrasses himself.
>>1119185
>certainly
I paraphrased you. If you have any evidence to prove that X achieves Z, by all means show me up.
>>1119187
>philosophers tend to dismantle his shitty arguments in debates
Such as?
>>1119194
his misunderstanding of aquinas
>>1119196
HAHAHAHAHAH OHOHOHO this is great.
Lad, a high schooler could dismantle Aquinas
>>1119190
>I paraphrased you.
Wrong on two counts.
>If you have any evidence to prove that X achieves Z, by all means show me up.
M8 I've shown you up by pointing out your total non-sequitur. It's already happened.
>>1119196
What does "misunderstanding" actually entail? Because "works within its own context" doesn't actually mean much if the context is mistaken.
>>1119199
inb4 you have to individually refute every sentence of summa theologica or you lose and jesus is magic
>>1119201
>philosophy is useful to avoid actually having to address arguments
Yes, I guess that is useful under a particular definition.
>>1119205
I just know he'll pull that shit.
You know it's funny, I think Aquinas is apex faggotry considering both christfundies and philfags revere him.
>>1119206
Most of /phil/ is just sophistry
>>1119206
You haven't made an argument. You have made a claim. I have demonstrated that the claim is based on faulty reasoning.
Again, your obvious confusion here could have been avoided had you received a solid grounding in good ol' philosophy.
>>1119207
I never understood how you could believe Aquinas was right about anything unless your belief in god is a priori.
>>1119208
Honestly, I want to believe that modern philosophy can be fruitful. We owe a great deal to greek philosophy, regardless of the individual mistakes particular thinkers make. But nowadays people just seem content to be sophists while reaping the benefits of "impure" knowledge.
>>1119212
You can't and his arguments are literally childish as viewed through a modern lens.
>>1119211
You responded to someone saying that philosophy wasn't useless, because studying it could be profitable. You have shown that the study of philosophy can be useful, not that philosophy itself can be useful, and only within a specific context. Then you said essentially nothing, while claiming you had already been victorious. Disappointing but not unexpected.
>>1119203
>>1119199
Google "so you think you understand the cosmonological argument fesser" (I cant link blogs here)
He literally misrepresents what Aquinas states then refutes that. For instance Aquinas never stated that everything must have a cause, however Dawkins attributes that broken logic to him.
>>1119214
I agree. Philosophy should be about systems of value, morals and ethics, not about unquantifiable qualities like consciousness, being, or any other bullshit that /phil/ is peddling here.
What is worse is they are consistently berating real scientists like ebin nigger man and ebin science guy man, making the entire field look like a retard's secluded club where reality is shat on. A safe space if you will
>>1119170
>college is for serious thinkers, not bullshit pop shit.
So you've never actually done a Philosophy course I take it? Go enroll in a 4th year philosophy course and see how you do.
>>1119183
No, we were talking about "usefulness". To be useful is to be useful for something. Philosophy is a good in itself regardless of if you can make money or do well on tests that can lead to you making money, but it can have a derivative value as well, as demonstrated.
>>1119199
>High schooler's could understand Aquinas at a sufficient level to refute him.
And yet every time some fedora tries to refute Aquinas on this board they can't even get his arguments right and attack strawmen, or just completely embarrass themselves with logical fallacies.
Aquinas isn't infallible or anything, but he was a very good philosopher and was way smarter than 99% of his detractors. ( that 1% mostly being actual professors and famous philosophers). That, and Philosophy isn't that easy. If most grown (semi-educated) adults here on this board can't even touch Aquinas then I doubt that random 16 year olds could.
>>1119222
And yet his arguments are still stupid, no matter how hard you try to pain Dawkins as a moron.
>>1119222
>For instance Aquinas never stated that everything must have a cause,
What did he state?
>>1119231
That you shouldn't put pineapple on pizza, instead use mushrooms, that shit is cash
>>1119222
>implying medieval people didn't believe that all things worldly have a cause
You have to place these people in their /his/torical era anon, read between the lines :^)
>>1119221
>You responded to someone saying that philosophy wasn't useless, because studying it could be profitable.
Well again that wasn't me, but it doesn't matter.
>You have shown that the study of philosophy can be useful, not that philosophy itself can be useful, and only within a specific context.
Absolutely. You then took that statement and, as you put it, 'paraphrased' it into a positive claim that philosophy is definitely not useful in any other context. Literally, as I said in my first post to you:
>X achieves Y
>"Ah, so you're saying that X certainly does not achieve Z"
Or, if you need it phrased more accessibly, imagine you asked someone to tell you about a guy named Bill. If that person told you that Bill has a beard, would you conclude that Bill does not wear glasses? Of course not, but that's the same mistake you're making here.
>>1119231
I literally linked you a blog post discussing it but simply his premise was that "some" things are caused not all things
>>1119236
>That you shouldn't put pineapple on pizza
Pineapple is awesome on pizza, especially with anchovies, they work great together. Fuck this Aquinas lad if that's his deal.
>>1119231
Anything that is moved (changed) is moved by another.
and
Anything that is produced is produced by another.
Depending on which argument you look at.
>>1119249
>would you conclude that Bill does not wear glasses?
If someone refuted "Bill does not have anything on his face" with "he has a beard," I would ask them about his eyeglasses, yes, if the original question implied something on his face rather than a part of his face. And if they argued feverantly about whether or not a beard is on the face or a part of the face rather than addressing his glasses when they were brought up, that would be even more indication that the person in question has no ability to evaluate the state of glasses.
>>1119258
Which is kind of stupid isn't it?
>>1119258
I didn't ask you for a blog. I asked you.
What did Aquinas state?
>>1119268
>Which is kind of stupid isn't it?
You forgot your smug anime face
>>1119267
>If someone refuted "Bill does not have anything on his face" with "he has a beard," I would ask them about his eyeglasses, yes
But you didn't ask them about his eyeglasses. You 'paraphrased' the statement about his beard into a claim that he wears no glasses.
>>1119273
Fuck off n'wa
>>1119262
>Anything that is moved (changed) is moved by another
Refuted by the existence of radio-
active decay, which occurs independently and randomly.
>Anything that is produced is produced by another.
Invents a specific class of objects that are not produced, which is a neat trick but doesn't necessarily illuminate anything.
>>1119262
Also we should qualify that a part of one thing changing another part is not disbarred in the first claim, that principle was held with a qualification that it was talking about the exact same thing being both the changed and changer at the same time, in the same way, etc.
>>1119274
A statement that would be easily refutable if the speaker had any idea of what glasses were, but cannot.
If you say "philosophy has worth because it is a means to an end" and cannot show any intrinsic worth, I am forced to conclude you cannot show me any intrinsic worth.
>>1119280
>Refuted by the existence of radio-
>active decay, which occurs independently and randomly.
When you say that it occurs independently and randomly, do you mean that there is no reason for it to occur, or do you mean that it occurs because of properties possessed by the material decaying and occurs in individually unpredictable instances?
Because if you mean the latter then Tommy Boy doesn't sweat radioactive decay.
>>1119271
>The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.]
>>1119287
>do you mean that it occurs because of properties possessed by the material decaying and occurs in individually unpredictable instances?
If individually truly unpredictable instances exist, then there is no need for an infinite regress into an uncaused first cause.
>>1119285
>If you say "philosophy has worth because it is a means to an end" and cannot show any intrinsic worth
You are begging the question that I cannot show this. Hint: I am showing it to you right now. You made a laughably elementary non-sequitur and dug your heels in trying to defend it. I submit that a solid grounding in philosophy would have given you the skills needed to avoid getting into such spots, or at a minimum, to recognise when you have done so and extricate yourself quickly and efficiently.
>>1119298
Okay, then show it. If it is truly so easy to prove me wrong, do so as easily as you proved the study of philosophy was fruitful. Surely you must also be able to show philosophy itself is useful.
>>1119280
To verify that that is even possible you would have to deal with Aristotle's three arguments against the possibility of self change though. If those argument's can't be dealt with then we have better reason to believe that something that we can't measure and quantify is causing it to change the way it does. Though IMO Duns Scotus did a good enough job refuting those arguments, so I don't have much attachment to the principle.
The second one of course doesn't do much on it's own, considering it is just one premise in a larger argument on its own. Though it is valid, something that doesn't exist can't do anything, let alone produce something.
Whether or not Aquinas was always right isn't the issue as much as most of his critics attacking strawmen is.
>>1118122
>philosophy is useless
>astronomer
>>1119305
Again, I already have. Really not inclined to repeat myself further, bro. You can take a horse to water and all that. Considerably less hinges on your opinion of philosophy than you seem to believe.
>>1119312
Satellites are legitimately useful.
We'll need astronomers to get a colonization program off the ground.
But you're right.
>Dawkinsfags
>>1119228
and once you graduate college you realize that those 4th year philosophy classes mean jack shit in the real world.
>>1119319
>starts with a meme scientist
>caps his own 0/10 pasta
Dropped
>>1119319
>white males
Stopped reading there.
>>1119315
Yes, you have desperately avoided proving philosophy is useful using philosophy. I have already acknowledged that such avoidance is useful, so I suppose you have indeed managed that.
>>1119295
>If individually truly unpredictable instances exist, then there is no need for an infinite regress into an uncaused first cause.
Well, there's no such thing as 'an infinite regress into an uncaused first cause', that doesn't make sense. It's one or the other.
But ignoring that, the individual instances are 'random' but they occur because of certain properties of the material, right? Those properties would be different assuming a different set of 'the laws of physics', wouldn't they? It's possible to imagine a universe in which radioactive decay doesn't occur. Thus, radioactive decay occurs because of certain facts about the universe.
>>1119326
>>1119330
That one can imagine certain facts about the universe to be different does not make then possible.
>>1119322
>those 4th year philosophy classes mean jack shit in the real world
kek. Tell me more about the school of hard knocks, you grizzled old salt-of-the-earth type. You know, I'm doing a Masters in Life Experience, I might be able to use you for qualitative data.
Is philosophy 90% just going off irrelevant tangents without touching on the subject at hand?
>>1119336
They don't need to be possible, that's just to demonstrate that radioactive decay occurs because of certain facts about reality and therefore does not represent uncaused change.
>>1119317
A satellite engineer is a long shot from an astronomer. You may use some applied classical physics, but you sure don't need to know what a pulsar is.
>>1119348
You need to know all about pulsars and other forms of possible interference to be able to construct a useful satellite in the first place, which is only possible with astronomical knowledge. You can argue that dedicated astronomers aren't as useful as engineers who also study astronomical principles, but someone else would argue just as hard that generalists aren't as useful to the system as specifists.
>>1119332
YOU'RE A WHITE MALE
>>1119344
But if those certain facts about reality could not actually be any different, we don't need to involve all these imaginary realities. The facts are the facts.
>>1119343
desu the moment you touch on the subject at hand is the moment it stops being philosophy
That's why the best philosophers were also natural or political scientists
>>1119373
>we don't need to involve all these imaginary realities
Why not?
>The facts are the facts.
Which facts?
>>1119348
>One person builds, launches, and maintains each satellite without support from other specialists
Oh boy
>>1119379
>Why not?
Because if those fundamental facts are actually fundamental, imagining realities in which they are different achieves nothing but illustrating impossible realities.
>Which facts?
Whichever facts are fundamental to existence. While currently they may not be explicitly defined, as we investigate deeper and deeper into the nature of reality certain constants will likely emerge. You could argue that there is no way to differentiate "constant in terms of human perception" and "actually constant", and I would likely agree with you, but that does not prove Aquinas correct.
>>1119391
>Because if those fundamental facts are actually fundamental, imagining realities in which they are different achieves nothing but illustrating impossible realities.
How do you formulate hypotheses about newly discovered phenomena if it doesn't involve speculation about possible worlds?
>Whichever facts are fundamental to existence.
Right, I'm asking you: which facts are those?
>that does not prove Aquinas correct
I didn't even realize this was about Aquinas.
>>1119340
so I take it you are still in college?
have fun making your home there
>>1119373
>But if those certain facts about reality could not actually be any different, we don't need to involve all these imaginary realities. The facts are the facts.
I'm not 'involving' the imaginary realities, I don't think you're understanding me. Pretend I didn't say anything about that if you must, the point is that these facts about reality contribute causally to the occurence of radiation decay, which means radiation decay is not an example of an uncaused change.
>>1118122
What pisses me off about these guys is their irrational hate towards philosophy, not their disbelief of God. Why do they think you have to get a major philosophy to see the point in philosophy. In philosophy is an art and it is easy to pursue it yourself. Philosophy is like the science of the mind and soul. Understanding the quantum physics isn't more important than understanding how you work.
>>1119413
No, this isn't the way at all. Tell me about the 'real world' and how I 'don't have a clue' and all that. Swearing is good, too, swearing proves that you've 'been around a bit' and so on. Earthy metaphors are all to the good, also. Anything goes.
>>1119437
You're a cool fucking person and you should be proud to be so fucking good
>>1119437
i take it that inflated sense of ego and the use of sarcasm are just one of the few tools given to you by the gods of wisdom.
let me know how that works out for you when you apply for a job that doesn't involve a college administration.
>>1119528
Like, that's not terrible, but constructions like "I take it" are a little too airy-fairy. You're not one of those fancy-boys, are you? Then why talk like one?
Ideally, you should be laconic, delivering pithy put-downs in between drags on your (ideally hand-rolled) cigarette (I mean I've been picturing you smoking, just roll with it). And you need to start telling me about how hard you had it when you "were a lad" and so on. Sent down the coal-mines on your ninth birthday and so forth.
>>1119571
>a philosopher telling me what to do
the world never changes does it sempai
>>1119579
No, I've got to put my foot down here. Japanese loan-words are right the fuck out. I'm beginning to question the entire basis of our relationship here. I'm even starting to wonder how a hard-headed, no-nonsense pragmatic type like yourself even came to be posting on the humanities board of an Etruscan bone-tatto board.
>>1119587
This thread has taught me that studying Philosophy increases ones shitposting-capabilities drastically. I plan on changing my major from Physics to something else anyway and now it might just be to glorious "the love of shitpo- wisdom" Philosophy.
>>1119587
for someone so vested in philosophy
it is absolutely astounding how single minded you are
your perspective must be so great that you don't have any room for anyone elses.
ironic since you get your most valuable experience reading something that some old white dead guy wrote.
I want to say your living your live vicariously through the past.
but you'd just make a joke about tool or something.
also funny how you need to prove yourself by throwing yourself head on into one of the most common fallacies.
Given its only informal, but since you have a limited understanding about my character I'd still say its fallacious in your use of it.
>>1119631
Are you seriously whinging about your 'perspective' not being afforded enough respect? I'm starting to think if I pulled that greasy macintosh off you, there'd be a ballgown underneath. Are you wearing fucking fishnet tights or something? Sipping on a frappucino with a dildo up your arse? What kind of poncey shit is this 'perspectives' bollocksology?
YOU SIR, have clearly been radically over-stating your 'real-world' credentials and are in fact a milquetoast of the first order.
>>1119672
>>1119672
Would you mind going into detail about how exactly wearing fishnet tights and taking dildos up the ass relates to weakness?
>>1119686
Yes.
>>1119672
No man its just you painting everything as a charicature.
and its you overstating my credentials if yo haven't noticed.
I think we are both butt hurt.
you coming to the realization that shit posting is really all that good for a philosophy degree.
and me having a shitposter getting the better of me..
>>1119702
Okay.
>>1118122
>What is it with the smugness of guys like Tyson, Harris, and Dawkins? Why are they so sure that there is no god?
they are arrogant fucks and are not true scientists
a true scientist wouldn't say that god doesn't exist surely if he had not found any evidence of his non existence
>>1118122
Philosophy is the birth mother of psycology & now its own child wants it dead.
If a nations leader consulted his philosophical advisor before he went to war & was told he might go down im history as a tyrant would he still do it.
>>1118122
It's not their belief in a god or diety it's their ignorance of metaphysics and the low degree of their aesthetic appreciation.
>>1119819
>metaphysics
Faggotry
>aesthetic appreciation
Apex faggotry
>>1119170
>>1119172
>philosophy should be taught in high school
No child under the age of fifteen should receive instruction in subjects which may possibly be the vehicle of serious error, such as philosophy, religion, or any other branch of knowledge where it is necessary to take large views; because wrong notions imbibed early can seldom be rooted out, and of all the intellectual faculties, judgment is the last to arrive at maturity. The child should give its attention either to subjects where no error is possible at all, such as mathematics, or to those in which there is no particular danger in making a mistake, such as languages, natural science, history and so on. And in general, the branches of knowledge which are to be studied at any period of life should be such as the mind is equal to at that period and can perfectly understand. Childhood and youth form the time for collecting materials, for getting a special and thorough knowledge of the individual and particular things. In those years it is too early to form views on a large scale; and ultimate explanations must be put off to a later date. The faculty of judgment, which cannot come into play without mature experience, should be left to itself; and care should be taken not to anticipate its action by inculcating prejudice, which will paralyze it for ever.
>>1119839
>No error is possible in mathematics
You should tell that to the students I tutor.
>>1119839
Times change schopenhauer.
As well as the nature and understanding of learning.
>At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believes that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".[283]
[robotic laugh]
>>1119839
Bring back the Trivium!
>>1119859
>>1119863
Take outside influences out of the equation and throw kids into a think tank for 15 years of their lives; force feeding them things we can prove to be real and the proof and then once the mind is more fully developed at the age of 20 or so we release them into the world to create their own ethical values and beliefs, but atleast they will know how to the facts of the natural world around them which will preserve the furtherance if the species.
>>1119280
That is caused by the atomic structure being unstable and shitting out positrons and neutrons as the structure desires t go to a lower energy state
T. Chem major
>>1119897
yes that would just work wonders
>>1119925
Can you predict ahead of time which particular component will decay compared to its otherwise-identical neighbours ?
>>1119975
The one closer to your mom's rotten pussy
>>1118122
Because they don't want to admit something else is in control simple as that
>>1118122
>Why are they so sure that there is no god?
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It may not be entirely fair to theism, but at the same time after witnessing the apologists on this board and the things they consider to be arguments I am far more sympathetic to the standard edgy atheist then I was before.
Philosophy and theology majors are the most useless groups of people around.
>People butthurt at Dawkins
I love it because you know they focus on the fact that he is an atheist and not his great works in biology.
>>1118683
Have you ever read any of his books?
He is actually a calm and funny guy.
Of course you wouldn't know since his hobby is making retards buttmad.
>In October 2001, Neil Degrass Tyson met with the families of 9/11 victims. After a brief interview in which he expressed his condolences and hope for closure, he reportedly burst out laughing and made airplane noises and mimicked two planes crashing. He then picked up the child of a deceased victim and whispered into her ear "Your dad's dead, bitch", and proceeded to put on a pair of sunglasses and unleash a barrage of martial arts attack on the small child. She was rushed to the hospital where she was pronounced dead due to extreme trauma. When asked later about the incident, Tyson became visibly sexually aroused and repeated the same attack on the reporter.
>>1119172
If you seriously believe philosophy requires "Serious thinkers" Then you need to change majors and see what actual learning is like.
>>1119839
Philosophy's customary for everyone here (France) in our last year of high school, the idea being that we're soon going to vote and democracy only works if people are educated, able to disprove fallacies, are familiar with concepts and their history, and so on. I think we had something like 4-5 hours a week, so it's not taken so lightly either (by the educationnal system at least; by the students it's different of course).
>>1119869
>new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".
What's wrong about this?
>>1118122
Literally who cares if there's a god or not.
What matters is that he's right about philosophy.
>>1120070
And yet I can't escape this lingering feeling that you're talking through your arse.
>>1119975
Yes actually
Its a complicated process but its a problem we use when working with radioactive elements.
For the most part it depends on their age which we can measure through mass of material, because as it decays it loses mass. Once we do we can make a timeframe of its next few energy states. Which is only really needed for super radioactive material since most the time that material will take decades to reach its next energy state
Its all physics at this point but its integral to chemstry so we learn it well
>>1119132
The right questions are ones that spawn more questions, the search for knowledge is an endless labor and without philosophy to teach logic the results are often dead ends and false conclusions. We see this now with the state of science where academics pursue projects and paths "just because"
>>1119332
where's immunity cat when u need one
>>1120152
When was this data compiled?
And further more as a ratio of majors who take the gre vs majors who dont.
Also implying IQ and GRE scores mean anything other than how well you take tests.
More so in taking multiple choice tests.
Also consider that most philosophy programs at university actually encourage you to take a consentration
You know what the most common consentrations are for philosophy?
Why you only need to look to the majors above philosophy
Physics and math.
A person who just takes philosophy classes is probably worse than a lit major becuase philosophy majors need their answers spoon fed to them and god help them if they cant use truth trees.
>>1120152
>120 weighted average
Why would anyone take this seriously?
>>1120623
>Why you only need to look to the majors above philosophy
>Physics and math.
I'll ignore the rest of your fumbled blustering, which is just well-poisoning designed to dismiss the notion that an objective assessment is even possible (a hastily-undertaken project embarked upon the second you learned such data as do exist explicitly contradict your lazy, ill-informed guesses). Yes, Phil students are only No. 3. This nevertheless effectively dispels the fiction that Philosophy is an 'easy' subject that only mediocre minds pursue.
I am certain that you will, of course, immediately alter your position. It would be uncharitable of me to assume that your attitude towards philosophy has heretofore consisted of nothing more than regurgitations of received wisdom in furtherance of shoring up your own flagging sense of self-worth. No doubt it was the most honest of mistakes.
>>1120660
Major in philosophy
Master the art of cherry picking.
Maybe they are easy subjects to physicists and mathematicians becuase they would rather be spoon fed answers than be arsed to give an original interpretation of a piece of art.
Maybe its an easy subject exceptional minds pursue.
Philosophy still hasnt taught me how to build thesius ship, it just asks wether it exists.
>>1118122
I find Hitchens to be the least smug (and he was still quite a smug dick himself) when it came to his atheistic views and debates. He pretty much said he didn't like the idea of religious types wanting to bring an end to life itself, those who thought death and the apocalypse were necessary. He said it was a very negative view of life. Guys like Dawkins are just asshole bullies in the vain of "KEK YOU ARE A MORON!"
>>1118122
I'm just here for the history, keep hating on the ones not controlled by your cults
>>1120733
>maybe
>maybe
>maybe
The erosion of spurious certainty is the first step, grasshopper.
>>1118122
Why are theists so sure that there is a god?
>>1120066
Why has no body responded to this? Post more tyson/dawkins copypasta.
>>1119185
philosophy has nothing to do with rational thinking m8
>>1119869
He's absolutely right though. Read Sam Harris's book the moral landscape to understand how science can determine morality. Read about neuroscience to answer those questions regarding consciousness. Philosophy is an interesting mental exercise but it's regressed into memery and circle jerking with no relevance in the modern world.
Also if you needed any more confirmation that modern philosophy is junk, check out 'fashionable nonsense'. Some scientists bluffed their way into some leading French philosophy journals by writing complete rubbish. I read the book and it's hilarious the kind of crap that's written in journals these days.
>>1120774
You clearly haven't read any of his books and are just looking at his Twitter feed.
>>1124170
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hX7t5NMhsQ
>>1119170
I did philosophy in highschool. My favourite subject in year 11 since my teacher was a chill as fuck hippy and we pretty much just talked shit and got introduced to the various philosophical disciplines.
In year 12 it was kind of hard since we actually had to analyse and critique the work of great philosophers. Most of the kids in the class got mediocre marks except this one qt 3.14 lesbian who turned me down one time.
Year 12 was alot less enjoyable, but in hindsight it did help prepare me for uni. Probably would've done it in Uni if it was offered, but did religious studies as an elective which was pretty dope.
>>1123849
The crudely-drawn cartoon image of 'philosophy' that exists in your mind presumably doesn't. The actual discipline literally invented the concept.
>>1124166
>He's absolutely right though. Read Sam Harris's book the moral landscape to understand how science can determine morality.
Well baited, my property
>>1118124
>living in the US
>>1119132
The right answers are the ones that allow us to answer them and improve our lives or at least solve the day's problems.
Not thinking broadly, not using philosophy, will not allow us to think of the right questions to find answers for, instead we will be going in circles.
>>1118124
So can getting a degree in Chemistry. In fact, people with a degree in chemistry is generally worse of than people with a degree in sociology.
>Dawkins
>>1119319
Source on him at the philosophy conference?
>>1124809
>not having rich parents
>not alternatively going into business and paying it off in 3 years and living in the lap of luxury for the rest of your life
>>1120070
>facts
>thinking
>same thing
wow, nice
![1394981688137[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1y0gKcw.jpg "1394981688137[1].jpg")
>>1118122
If you watch him and the other celebrity scientists talk about their fields, the answer is obvious as to the smugness: They feel, or at least convey a feeling of, some kind of mystical attachment to their fields of science, and have coalesced around each other to buoy each other's fixation.
Tyson literally cries in an episode of his Cosmos relaunch when he goes to visit a castle where the discoverer of spectrographs worked. It was genuinely akin to those people who burst into tears during Easter Mass in the Vatican. Whether they're genuine in their quasi-reverence for science or just do it to sell fedoras we may never know.
Carl Sagan was patient zero for their attitude, but I think he was far more genuine and far more high. Dawkins, Tyson, and even Hawking and Kaku to a lesser extent sell the same kind of feel-good self-assuredness any other ideologues sell to their audiences, just dolled up by their understanding of a segment of the harder sciences.
>>1120064
Read the God Delusion. Most of it was senseless bitching at religious people outside of a scientific context.
>>1127919
The God Delusion is by far the most anomalous of his books, yet seems to be the only thing people talk about.
>>1120070
You sound as if you failed out of a philosophy course, once. . .
What is:
>real learning
What is:
>serious thinking"
Is that like the memorization practices of regurgitating terms on paper tests like in biology. Or, is that like the solving of mathematical problems using a memorized formula and steps, on a paper test?
Is that filling out 'a','b','c', or 'd' on a scannable testing metric, or filling in some answers in the POLISCI,MATHLAB,PSYLAB,ENGINEERINGLAB, phyisics lab programs?
Or, is real learning about reading an entire fucking book, three books every course , for four or five classes a semester. . . amounting to an accumulated library of great works, and a subsequent book of your own creation with all the papers you had to write perfectly.
-no bull shit 'labs', secondary text book manufacturing websites online learning programs, no multi-choice, formula dependent, regurgitation of terms.
Not onlyhe above, but my philosophy bachelors cost less than my other two. As text book companies dont rape you, there are no lab fees, and your workstation is a pen and paper or 10cent per page printer paper perfectly formatted.
Philosophy is real learning. The term means lover of knowledge for fuck sake. Learning how to learn, and what is important in the learning and understanding process is what philosophy unravels in general degree programs. In the end, learning that philosphy is basically a progression of concepts and how to manage concepts, and explain them.
>>1125754
THERE IS NO SOURCE
I've tried to search for this event but couldn't find anything. The guy who wrote that post is probably thinking of the time philosophers lambasted 'The God Delusion' for being philosophically unsophisticated.
>>1127985
>The guy who wrote that post is probably thinking of the time philosophers lambasted 'The God Delusion' for being philosophically unsophisticated.
Dawkins long ago wore out any inclination I have to defend him, but that's really a silly criticism. TGD definitely is philosophically unsophisticated, but it's a work of popular apologetics. It would actually be kind of weird if it was sophisticated. Maybe it's good for yuks given his silly remarks about philosophy, though.
>>1128005
I would agree actually. It's a similar thing to "Not Is Not Great" which is mostly Hitchen's own personal tirade against religion and his evidence is mostly anecdote. That doesn't mean it's not a fun read and that it's worthless because it doesn't live up to rigor expected of a philosophy paper on the subject.
>>1128014
>Not Is Not Great
God, obviously, fuck me
>>1127974
Why does every philosophy major has a highschool understanding of science and math?
>>1127974
>biology and math just memorization
>multiple choice can't assess critical thinking
>labs are bad, books are for cool guys
wew anon, nice bait.
>>1128026
I think you need to ask that question out loud a few times.
![1368667879236[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WUmcN1c.jpg "1368667879236[1].jpg")
>>1128014
>>1128005
Why can't modern philosophers be like the Enlightenment ones?
Honest, scientific, reasonable, and trying to actually do something productive rather than fling shit for profit.
Or maybe I'm just thinking of Descartes' philosophical work. After reading just how venomous Nietzsche was, seeing in Descartes' Meditations how he was totally open to criticism and simply wants to find truth was so pleasant.
>>1128034
>After reading just how venomous Nietzsche was
Man that's like the best fucking thing about Nietzsche, that he's got jokes.
>Kant asks how it is that synthetic a priori judgements are possible, and answers that it is by means of a faculty, though lamentably not in five words.
Fritz coming HARD with the snaps. Ya burnt, Kant.
>>1128026
kek why does every STEM major have a middleschool understanding of grammar and spelling?
>>1128042
Oh he's funny, and typically on point, but he's also kind of the turning point from when philosophers carried themselves like scientists and drove at solving problems in a collaborative way to philosophers basically being in pissing contests and more verbose versions of online shitposts where they just fling citations at each other and talk about how every other school is filled with retards.
>>1128032
Good post
>>1128054
I don't know about that. Nietzsche is one of the main reasons "analytic philosophy" is a thing and those guys are scientist dickriders who wanted philosophy to be as dispassionate and objective as possible.
>>1128057
What you mean by "objetive" mostly refers to academic standards. You will probably see more charlatans in continetal philosophy than in analytic given the nature of the subfield.
>>1128057
I like dispassionate and objective.
Dispassionate and objective tends to be a productive attitude.
There's room for bantsmasters too, but it seems like they killed the stuffier fuckers who actually wanted to be civil and try to drive at answering things definitively.
>>1128051
OK, asking it out loud hasn't worked. Maybe re-wording it will achieve something:
>Why does every student whose science and math education finished in high school have a high-school understanding of science and math?
>>1128057
>Nietzsche is one of the main reasons "analytic philosophy" is a thing
Is he?
>>1128081
Yes, he triggered Russel which is why his entry in Russel's history of philosophy is nothing more than a personal attack.
>>1128089
Yeah, I dunno if that's the best-fit reading of the history there. Granted the Nitch entry in his book is risible.
>>1128092
I'm playing fast and loose with the history here because it's /his/ but I see the initial analytic movement as a rejection of European idealists and people like Nietzsche, who began to doubt the foundation of truth-seeking in the first place.
>>1128026
If you were a philosophy major, you would understand the need to explain your argument.
Ad homonem till then, pleb-tier faggot.
Am i wrong? You guys read books and write papers explaining concepts, rather than just plugging in information into an online lab, or circling letters on a multi-choice test? What is it that makes my understanding 'high school'?
>high school, was 15 years ago, and three degrees later for me.
Im pretty sure my understanding of other American course fields and practices are correct, as I fucked a chick from every field, from nursing to art, to polisci and mathematics. Listening to their bitching about how 'hard' everything is for them, and seeing their 'highschool 2' like grading metrics n' such.
It seems that nursing majors have it the hardest, next to the autism found in engineering/Comp sci schools.
P.S. if you have a philosophy degree, you can pretty much bullshit any girl into fucking you. provided you have a pair of balls enough to talk to them. You have access to every abstract concept thought about through history as part of your degree program; love, lust, honor, justice, ect.
But, I bet you get laid just as much talking math and engineering, right?
The reason philosophy majors make so much relative their peers and other degree holders, is they communicate better, pass the Bar more often, and can network and bullshit for better jobs. But, I bet you could not unravel that social mystery with a formula and calculator. . .
>>1128076
They would understand the concepts they used if they studied how concepts work. Till then, you're essentially talking to cave men trying to practice language.
>enter the need for philosophy.
>>1128076
My point was more along the academic depth of philosophy and the actual pursuit of knowledge of people from this field, and not a retarded tautology. In many STEM courses, they offer history of science/math, philosophy of science/math, scientific models in the social sciences and the like. I also know that many people in STEM like to read a lot and seem well acquainted with many subjects in the humanities.
However, phil majors tend to avoid learning basic concepts, ideas and process behind science or math; particularly math. There is an active culture that seeks to expose art, history, language and politics, but science and math are chores that only that weird faggot should do. And you may think people are acting autistic when someone complains on someone saying some scientific misconception, but oh boy let me tell you that it is really some proper bullshit what most people say. And considering that philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge, why then, you should be so adamant on those subjects which have brought us so much knowledge, methods and ways to manipulate our surroundings? I understand there are some annoying faggots on reddit, but scientific literacy is still a much more relevant problem than some groups on the internet who are tipping their fedora 24/7.
Why can I find a mathematician who has studied Wittgenstein and Kant, but every phil major panics with some first order logics proof? Why can a physicist make some points about the metaphysics of relativity and ontological principles in QM, but a phil major starts spouting bullshit about thermodynamics or quantum mysticism when trying to form an idea of the subject? By no means I´m saying STEM faggs are experts in philosophy nor that philosophers need to be complete experts in STEM subjects to form an opinion, but it reeks bullshit when they call and ethics expert on a medical panel when he hasn´t had any previous experience with medicine or biology.
>>1128128
>You guys read books and write papers explaining concepts
Wow, you must be a massive faggot if you actually think STEM faggs don't do this. Also you sound like a bitter, egocentrical virgin.
>>1120660
I think i got smart just reading this post.
This was beautifully written
>pic semi related
>>1118122
>why are scientists reductionist?
next time you'll ask me why do mathfags have huge tendency to be crazy
>>1128155
Godel was a picture of sanity.
Anyway, does Black Science Man know more about philosophy than he does gun violence stats or immigration?
>>1119152
Interesting point desu
>>1128158
>Godel was a picture of sanity.
I've said - tendency. You can find enormous amount of examples of completely sane mathematicians but while most other people range from somewhere completely sane to little bit eccentric, mathfags range from completely normal to Ted Kaczynski.
>Anyway, does Black Science Man know more about philosophy than he does gun violence stats or immigration?
He's modern reductionist, he doesn't give a fuck about philosophy.
>>1128141
>Why can I find a mathematician who has studied Wittgenstein and Kant, but every phil major panics with some first order logics proof?
It is standard for analytic philosophy departments to require that students get a good grade in formal logic. My entire 4th year metaphysics course was us engaging with metaphysical schemas about "Laws of Nature" and seeing how well they work or do not work with certain scientific theories and the actual "Laws of Nature" posited in Relativistic Physics and Quantum Mechanics. I also was required to do a logic course that delved into Turing Machines and Set Theory, among other Math related things, so to graduate with distinctions.
Is your judgement here actually informed by dealing with a real philosophy department ? Because my experience in philosophy completely contradicts yours. My university isn't even a top 20 or anything like that mind you, and compared to some other universities in my country we go a bit light on philosophy of math and science.
I've known way more STEM people talking about philosophy ( disparagingly) while being completely ignorant about it than the converse. Philosophy majors usually will at least admit when they aren't qualified to speak about subject. Mind you, all the really excellent STEM students I've been friends with were not like this.
>>1128128
>people get laid with philosophy
LOL, no. Most of us are as nerdy and autistic as stem majors are.
>>1128141
Two questions, and although the premise sounds good, it's not accurate to what I have noticed of philosophy majors.
Primarily because, no one gets just a philosophy degree. I have never meet one of the hundred other philosophy degree earners in my college days who did not also study:
Psychology, math, or English.
Most people in philosophy courses are getting minors in philosophy, simply due to an interest in it.
So, seeing as how everyone I knew studied some other science (except the English majors), I dont see how they could not be also be accustomed to basic STEM understandings.
And English majors go on to be lawyers. . .
Also:
> phil major panics with some first order logics proof?
wtf are you talking about. Logic 101 is lower predicate calculus. http://www.britannica.com/topic/lower-predicate-calculus
likewise, who has not been forced to take a math course as part of their degree plan? I had Algeria 1, 2, stats, and stats for psych.
The fact people tremble in regard to math is that some people dont like math. Who the fuck does math for fun? Math is a chore for most people. Weirdies, who have poor social lives generally do the odd math puzzles as 'relaxation' time. Math, for most, is a means to some end, made necessary in bills, prices, pay checks, ect.
Also:
Does a doctor have an advanced understanding of ethics because he practices medicine?
>no
So, why would he do the job of adhering to medical boards and review when his training is in performing procedures that have nothing to do with ethics.
>It's called a job.
The medical ethics expert exists because a lawyer with a philosophy degree exists someplace, and when the doctor fucks up - which is common - compensation and a case of professionalism by the ethic board must be made.
In short, these positions exists because other positions exist relative to it, and they exists because - as you made claim - no one can be an expert at all things; nor, should they be expected. also, COIs
>>1128144
name calling still. Pleb-tier name calling faggot till you formulate an argument, stem-tard
>>1128175
Well, obviously some bias about each other´s field will arise but look at what >>1128179
posted as the standard curriculum
>lower predicate calculus, algebra 1,2 and stats
This is the equivalent of saying you know philosphy because you read the banquent and the stranger.
Also
>math is a chore
This preception is the equivalent, you could say, of STEMfaggs saying the philosophy is just mental masturbation. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, engeeniring isn´t a chore driven by purley pragmatic means, it is a challenging and rewarding experience that requires pasion, dedication and creativity; not some mindless robot shit.
My beef doesn´t come with the actual pursuit in the academic discipline of philosophy, but rather this strande divorce bewtween the subjects in some dickwaving competition. And from my completley biased and personal perspective, it seems that because we have made math and science education a fucking joke, more and more people got away fo the pleasure of doing math and being challenged in such ways. And from what I´ve read, there are respected philosophers who make some of the most retarded mistakes concerning physics or math but still try to make some weird ass mental system around it. Yea, probably you could refute with something along the lines on how socially we are so fixiated wit pure positivist thoughts and most people aslo consider science as a fact-checker for everything, but at least science has given a reason for people to create that ilusion, so there is some truth around that point.
Philosopher here
Do not take philosophy classes. If you are passionate about the field, teach yourself as best you can. You will never contribute anything worthwhile with an academic background in philosophy. University philosophy is poison.
>>1128216
Discussion is an integral part of philosophy.
>>1128179
>be me
>be philosophy and computer science double major
everything this man says is true.
>>1128128
>If you were a philosophy major, you would understand the need to explain your argument.
>Ad homonem till then
Jesus you're bad at this.
>>1128243
Thanks for telling me man!
>>1118683
>you are a manchild if you don't believe in imaginary friends
>>1128174
>I've said - tendency.
kek
You should read about Goedel. The guy starved to death after his wife died because he refused to eat, thought people were trying to poison him.
Why do people even get degrees in philosophy?
They have to know it's the most useless thing you can study and in no way can they give the world anything meaningful or concrete.
There is a reason many scientists are talking about the uselessness of philosophy "Professionals".
Every 12 year old is a philosopher and there philosophy is pretty much no less valid than the shit you hear idiots who wasted 6 years of their life studying it for. Both cases neither of them will produce anything worth shit.
>>1118122
They replace the part of the mind that people use for spirituality with scientific method, and place their faith in the collective progression of human smarts
>>1128212
What Philosophy courses are Physics and Mathematics Majors required to take? We may only be required the absolute basics, but isn't that more than STEM majors are required to learn ?
>And from what I´ve read, there are respected philosophers who make some of the most retarded mistakes concerning physics or math but still try to make some weird ass mental system around it.
French Post Modern Philosophy is guilty of this in some cases. Allot of it is just using scientific sounding terms for their theories to give them legitimacy because they don't actually have any logic backing them up. But that has very little to do with most philosophy departments, and those philosophers are equally scorned by most philosophers. On the other hand we have plenty of Philosophy of Math and Science guys who know exactly what they are talking about and have actively influenced their respected fields.
Philosophers obviously don't know math and science better than mathematicians and scientists do. But I think that the good ones have about as much knowledge on those subjects as good theoretical physcists or mathematicians know about philosophy. I've known a few 4.0 GPA Pure Mathematics students who I met in my philosophy courses, who were extremely interested in Philosophy. But I also know really smart Philosophy students who go in and do pure math courses, Or at least the higher level logic courses that straddle the line between philosophy and math. Alternately they do projects that directly involve certain fields of the sciences, and are reading both sets of literature. I personally find Mathematical proofs beautiful and enticing just as I would a good rigorous "knock down" argument from a paper on Metaphysics or a modal logic proof. My own department co sponsers talks on mathematics when it has philosophical import to it and has a heavy focus on Philosophy of Science. I don't think that these anecdotes are uncommon at all either.
>>1128221
bullshit
I commune directly with the greatest minds in history. I have no need of the tiresome humbug propounded by living windbags
