how can a field like philosophy justify its existence in state funded universities ?
Clarify.
>completely unobjective field
>teaches moral conduct
>run by government
>>1129085
Can you name an 'objective' field?
>>1129092
STEM is all around objective because the matters it deals with allow for actually proving yourself being right.
>>1129092
gender studies
>>1129105
>he fell for the science can be proven right meme
>>1129105
To believe that results received from the scientific method prove the scientific method to be the pinnacle of achieving epistemological knowledge, is to say that the scientific method justifies the scientific method.
This is a circular reasoning.
>>1129074
the tax payer who funds the disciplines in the university should have some advantage created by the fields he funds
>>1129119
Define 'advantage'.
>>1129116
the scientific method continues to produce effective results and is therefore indirectly validated - planes fly, cars drive, computers compute
>>1129123
practical improvement of the quality of life like pills produced by medecine
>>1129116
Srsly tho has anyone actually tried to aruge this seriousally in the 20th/21st centuary?
>>1129125
Did you read my post you blithering buffoon?
You are essentially saying the scientific method proves itself, therefore you are using a fallacious circular reasoning.
Allow me to use an analogy;
I have a bucket of water in my hand, I throw it over someone's head, they get wet. I then declare, "I threw a bucket of water over somebody's head, they got wet therefore throwing a bucket of water over somebody's head is the best way to get someone wet!"
This is entirely fallacious.
>>1129133
no this is just philosophical sophistry nobody this deserves nothing but ridicule
>>1129074
>>1129092
>>1129116
>>1129137
go AWAY YOU NERD
>>1129071
Philosophy majors tend to score very high on the LSATs, so one could argue that a philosophy undergrad degree is good preparation for a career in law.
>>1129116
Yeah yeah I know that rhetorical figure of yours.
If chemical engineer finds a way of producing some substance more effectively(as in wasting less energy or materials in the process) he can easily prove it and it's likely that it'll spread in the industry across the globe regardless of whether the methodology he uses used circular logic or not by the quality of being actually *better*, therefore allowing for objectivity under given conditions various STEM fields are interested in.
Of course you can argue that Math and Physics aren't as objective as technical subjects(I wouldn't argue like that but you can) because while in the technical subjects your goal is to "do X more effectively" or "do X under given conditions" in case of Math and Physics we're dealing with "discover how exactly X works" which makes the whole process of determining the "better" mathematical or physical model much, much more complicated task.
Even then STEM follows given guidelines. Scientists and mathematicians are interested in figuring out the way world and math work, therefore the model that's "the best" is the model that's the most accurate, for engineers you have several categories depending on field and purpose(with efficiency and price being almost always somewhere there) all of which define the qualites of given product or process.
For philosophy you don't have any of those. Even the most retarded ideas can somewhat fly in the academia as long as it accepts hefty dose of solipsism, with the biggest problem being that you can't figure out what's really "better" in philosophy as long as all the considered stances and ideas aren't full of logical errors and outright lies(and assuming that you don't like solipsism like most other human beings). Even when the debate follows relatively provable subject like - historical determinism vs. great man theory you can't objectively determine which one is better or more accurate.
>how can a state funded university justify it's existence
This is the question you should have asked, because it can't.
>>1129198
>I don't know anything about philosophy: the post
>>1129204
Prove it.
>>1129198
No one argued against the fact science has seemingly achieved results.
My contention was with the use of the word 'objective'.
Your post is highly convoluted.
>>1129211
>I made lots of claims without evidence, and when someone calls me out on it, I ask them for proof
Wew lad
>>1129214
>Your post is highly convoluted.
It's pretty simple.
STEM - purpose-dependant qualities that are provable in reality.
Philosophy and humanities - vacuum between solipsism and other biases, no qualities other than internal coherency.
Which doesn't mean I agree with OP, but reasonably speaking - STEM is greater dose closer to objectivity than everything else, as long as you assume that you can actually be objective in the first place.
>>1129216
Point it all out anon.
>>1129198
>>1129125
>in my time we have found the true truth
Yeah, guys in the medieval ages could also give similair supporting arguments based on what their society thought was important you imbecile.
Lets put it that way, in the future it possible our goals and the scientific method would be laughed at in just the same way we are laughing at medieval argumentations.
>>1129256
i.e. stop thinking you are special and living in special times and look critically at everything, especially what is considered an untouchable holy grail.
