>when you're talking to a STEMtard who hasn't studied the philosophy of science and he thinks he's the logical one
Dumb frogposter.
Eh, from my experience, history student can be very arrogant as well but again, so can everyone.
The only think I truly dislike in the majority of STEM students, is how far they'd go to try to justify their view as how human and social sciences are not sciences. At first it's funny, because they're clearly being ignorant, using double-standards and fallacies and the likes, but in the end it's just infuriating.
>>1157161
>whenever someone tells me science has "proven" something
>>1157182
Honestly the social sciences don't real crowd seems to have everyone not just STEM people. We're just loud because its banter. Look at how many people call economics a pseudoscience or sociology a complete waste.
Not to say that STEM people are right, they're wrong.
>>1157216
No, I agree it doesn't concern the STEM only, like you said, it's just that the STEM are louder.
On the other hand, you always have people in social sciences that would say mathematics are inherently uninteresting, that it is "too logical" or things like that ...
Empiricism is the most logical position as it has no loopholes.
>If it cant be observed or proven by relations of other observations it doesnt exist.
>>1157347
What if you can't trust your senses and memory though?
>>1157347
>But can you empirically prove empiricism?
>You don't have to prove empiricism, it's self-evident.
>>1157347
>Circular-reasoning
>>1157386
>calls it a position
>asks to prove it
Yet you call yourself logical?
>>1157405
You haven't been keeping up with the philosophical development of the 20th century, I suggest you read Quine.
>>1157418
The proof lies in the results. Mathematics and scientific theories, laws and rules of nature all prove empiricism.
>>1157428
I havent seen Quine in the Journals I read.
>>1157405
>If you cant trust them then nothing is real
Not necessarily, it just means that nothing might not be real.
itt: people who studied humanities think their unprovable "knowledge" is somehow better than STEM.
Even if you couldn't trust STEM by logical reasons, the fact that it vas never failed when done rigth is more than enough to trust it, you're just being retarded contrarians, just like Socrates or Plato
>>1157431
Allow me to explain:
To say that results made in technology or science prove the scientific method to be true is to say that the scientific method proves the scientific method.
This is circular reasoning.
Philosophy is interesting but not useful, history is interesting but very much guess work influnced by the current political climate and sociology turned into a cult. There's a reason why STEMfags think "soft" sciences are for crazy people.
>>1157444
>I think x will work based on y theory
>x works
>this means y is a correct theory
>>1157161
>when you're talking to a philosophy major who doesn't realize his entire discipline is pointless noodling and prevaricating
>don't give a shit about the problem of induction
>go ahead and build modern society anyway
>>1157444
Doesnt a theory have to be applied to prove itself in order to be correct?
>>1157455
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>>1157440
So do you trust or not trust your observations?
>>1157455
>>1157466
>it works therefore the theory is correct
LMAO
>>1157394
Isn't empiricism an approach rather than position?
>>1157347
Read Hume.
>>1157454
I didn't say that, I said:
>HUR DUR SO WHAT IF IT ISNT LOGICALLY CORRECT, IT WORKS ALWAYS AND HAVE ALWAYS WORKED!!
>>1157182
>The only think I truly dislike in the majority of STEM students, is how far they'd go to try to justify their view as how human and social sciences are not sciences.
they're literally not
the following disciplines are not science, or are, at best, cargo cult science:
1) sociology
2) psychology
3) economics
>>1157481
Read Hume.
>>1157490
Observe the past few centuries of development
>>1157484
>economis
STEMbabbies are mad that someone makes more money than them
>>1157494
Not an argument
>>1157495
Seriously, read Hume. He pretty much explains how wrong you are, but also explains why it doesn't matter.
>>1157500
if i cared about money i wouldn't have gone into STEM
economics is a thin veneer of 'science' used to justify ideology, riddled with shoddy mathematics and post hoc reasoning
>>1157506
If its wrong why does it just werk?
>>1157505
"Humans evolved from dogs"
"You've clearly never read books about the topic, here go read these"
"NOT AN ARGUMENT! I REFUSE TO LEARN ERGO YOU'RE WRONG"
>>1157509
Because the statistical probability is so high enough that we shouldn't concern ourselves.
Now, go and read Hume. As i said, he explains how you are wrong but also that it doesn't matter.
>>1157515
Maybe if you used the arguments of the books instead of saying:
>hur dur read these authors
people would take you seriusly
>>1157509
>I threw a bucket of water of someone's head, they got wet, therefore throwing a bucket of water over someone's head is the best way to get them wet!!!
>>1157515
Not an argument.
>>1157527
That's stupid and has nothing to do with how STEM works, kys
>>1157527
Until someone comes out with a better way. Thats scientific progress.
>>1157526
Would you rather read some rehashing of a 4chan poster or read the original?
Here's the link:
http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html
there are many more people to read after this
>>1157530
>*PUTS FINGERS IN EARS*
>"Thats stupid!!!!!"
>>1157524
Refute me then using his argument against it.
>>1157534
I'm just not going to bother reading a book about many things and with many arguments against what I said while other anon could just point out fast why I am wrong and also tell me about differents authors if I'm interested in more
>>1157536
The guy after me pointed out why it was wrong, I just expected you not to be a retard, but basicly.
I throw a bucket on someone and they get wet.
I look for why they get wet.
Find it out.
Knowing this, I can figure the best way to get people wet.
>>1157547
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section1.rhtml
Read the first several section summaries
this is sparknotes btw
>>1157565
And how do you find the best way to figure out the best scientific method :^)
>>1157442
I'm in STEM.
Science works and models. It doesn't prove
>>1157571
I think either I have misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me as I think Hume is rigth and was arguing in hiw favour.
ITT: philosophy freshmen so desperately trying to get at their STEM contemporaries.
Look niggers, it's okay to study the physical world using more than induction and common sense. It's okay.
>>1157538
>against it
Again, read Hume. He doesn't necessarily disagree with it.
"David Hume took empiricism to the skeptical extreme; among his positions was that there is no logical necessity that the future should resemble the past, thus we are unable to justify inductive reasoning itself by appealing to its past success."
The scientific model, for example, is based on a logical fallacy. Period. Even science itself accept this, and scientist often try point this out. Science does not deal with absolute certainty. The scientific method is based on statistical probability, and this probability is so high that we as humans should not concern ourselves. Something like 99,99999996%.
>>1157481
"The theory proves the theory is true" is no better than "The author of the books says it is true, so it is true."
It's circular reasoning, plain and simple.
>>1157500
Economics largely make less money than STEM. The top bunch of them that actually work as analytics, bankers, entrepreneurs etc. do, the gross majority of them are burger flippers though.
The reason behind the hostility is, in general is caused by the way STEM and humanity majors build their future.
If you're studying humanities and DON'T socialise with varied range of people(often doing voluntary work etc. etc.) you're not very likely to work in your field after graduating. In humanities soft skills>>>hard skills.
STEM on the other hand is the direct opposite. You may be autistic shitheap hated by everybody but if you're the second coming of Bob Widlar you're going to have successful career which creates the image of STEM being more merit-oriented.
I studied philosophy in undergrad and sorta regret not doing a STEM-related thing but on the other hand I do like to enjoy myself and have fun so... anyway, I think science and technology is "better" at accounting for natural phenomena and also better at helping us understand our own subjectivity t b h. Philosophy is is basically irrelevant outside of understanding the history of various political ideas
>>1157576
You try to lower the number of steps you have to do and make sure it still works, this was done centuries ago.
It's a system that may seem stupid, but it works.
>>1157647
And how do you find the best way to figure out the best way to figure out the scientific method :^)
>>1157653
By kys
>>1157661
Thanks for conceding :^)
>>1157620
Good post.
>>1157644
Economics largely make less money than STEM. The top bunch of them that actually work as analytics, bankers, entrepreneurs etc. do, the gross majority of them are burger flippers though.
Eh, not really.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/an-overview-of-employment.htm
STEM is just much larger with more variance.
>>1157663
Ur welcome :^)
>>1157472
I don't trust them, but I act like I do because whether they are true or not, they are what I perceive and the only thing I can react to, even if sometimes I'm processing the information incorrectly or making shit up.
>this one chick I know is a STEMfag
>she's studying to be a doctor
>walk up to her
>"prove to me that this table exists, you positivist cuntbag"
>"who are you and why are you talking to me"
>logically prove that empiricism is wrong
>"i don't know who you are and i need to get to my class"
>tip my fedora
>"oh my little maiden, how ignorant you are of the humanities"
>hand her a philisophical essay I made critiquing empiricism
>she's too ignorant to even take it
>she walks away
tell me your experiences dealing with STEMfags, /his/
Stem that has a deep appreciation for history here. You monochrome faggots are both retarded
>>1158041
Same.
Everything is good for something.
As always it's just a matter of definitions. What is known as science, a collection of facts that make sense through the usage of logic via mathematics and natural language isn't supposed to have absolute certainty, nor do all types of what you call science have the same degree of certainty. Mathematics might have an absolute degree of certainty, maybe, but because the mathematics in physics use observed, empirical data as variable, physics do not. A statement about the behaviour of a group of badgers isn't as rigorous as a statement about gravity, despite both being considered "science". In the same way a statement that belongs to sociology or whatever usually won't be as trustworthy as a "scientific" statement, that doesn't mean it's useless, though. Obviously, none of these are absolutely certain statements either.
>>1157161
>when you're talking to an English major who things he will get a job while you have oil companies head hunting you
We aren't logical because we have studied STEM fields or have the ability to study STEM fields
We are logical because we chose STEM over other joke majors like you chuckle nuts did
>>1158026
>not telling her to read Hume
Jesus anon
It's all different facets of Understanding only a fool vibrates on one frequency
>When you ask a STEMtard if the science is in on whether or not the transgender community is mentally ill and they refuse to consider the hypothesis and shut down the debate
>When a STEMfag reveals go you that his political philosophy isn't based on anything but a childish desire for everyone to be accepted by everyone in a creepily utopian sort of way
>When you realize just how big the gap between your /pol/ self and all the Democratic Socialists around you really is
>>1157161
>getting a degree in a completely unmarketable and worthless skill.
I'm amazed there are people on this earth who had their parents pay 100k+ or took out loans to that effect so that they could go get a college education and learn about fucking philosophy.
It is like the male equivalent of majoring in Women's Studies.
Can't wait for there to be so many people with STEM degrees that the market totally dries up and the STEM fags are the one languishing in their mother's basement.
Not because I'm philosophy major or anything, but just because I like when smug cunts get their due.
>>1157161
>going to college
>not learning a trade
>>1158623
>going to college
>learning a trade
It's almost like what universities were has been totally forgotten as it's just lame, expensive vocational schools where learning is optional as long as you get a good job.
>>1158595
The money argument has always been worthless. There's more to life than money.
>>>/sci/8081757
>When you get BTFO on /sci/ and run crying to /his/
>>1159328
>thinking I made that cringey thread
Both the OP and scientists in that thread are retards.
[spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]
>>1159305
>has always been worthless
then don't complain about paying back your student loans over the rest of your life
>>1157530
Okay, sam harris time to stop posting.
Philosophyfags proper (science is a field of philosophy) are just butthurt that people found a way around "cant no nuffin" via extreme statistical probability and have actually applied it to the world around us. What they're so butthurt about today is that it's being to the great questions that have stumped them for years such as consciousness and qualia and it's heading down a path pointing to humans not being special snowflakes.
>>1159328
Hahaha holy shit OP, you got utterly BTFO there. Did you have to go to your priest to help you cope with you being triggered?
>>1157161
>>1157182
>>1157216
>There are people who actually believe this shit. Holy hell, I thought you people were a meme or just being ironic, but you actually believe in this crap.
Social "sciences", aren't actual sciences because they can't be quantified, unlike real science which is based on observation and has an honest to good method and process to it. I mean, I'm willing to give economics the benefit of the doubt, but psychology and sociology are a load of shit made by lefties so that they can keep jobs and pretend to be smart.
>>1159328
Holy god that cuck got btfo.
>>1160315
Eh behaviorism and cognitive can be observed but humanistic and especially psychoanalysis are definitely just memes.
>>1160315
You forgot to add in some bullshit about "special snowflakes"
>>1157347
so electrons disn't exist before they were discovered? if you think that something doesn't exist becuase you can't see or theorize it yet, you're denying everything that is currently observable, as it once was unobservable, while we don't know what can be observed in the future, you can't say that something doesn't exist
>>1158297
>oil
good luck.
>muh scientific realism
>>1161938
>that is currently observable
by whom?
>>1161938
> directly observing electrons
>>1157161
STEM is far more useful to society than shit like philosophy though.
>>1162461
There is no science without phiolosophy
>>1162473
In certain sense maybe but tell me who still uses philosophy in their daily lives ?
While STEM is all around us.
>>1162500
Nowadays we need philosophy more than ever. Moral values and ways of understanding the world are being tested daily and social progress or rather evolution is going too fast for philosophy to catch up. Don't you ever feel like people in the past were happier or at least weren't as sad or empty as most of us do in a day to day basis?
Of course, in true human progress we need STEM, sciences, technology, etc... but we can't left philosophy behind, that's what brought us here in the begining and we would be dumb to turn our backs to it now. We need it as much as we need scientific progress.
>>1162500
People appeal to spooks and un-analyzed concepts all the fucking time when making any higher level decisions or judgments than "what should I eat today". With even a little philosophical training we'd be better off.
Seriously just a class in critical thinking for your senior year of high school would be a massive improvement.
>>1162521
But there are no new philosophical concepts being introduced everyone is just looking back at earlier introduceded ideas.
>>1162539
Building on previous concepts/ideas is basically the history of any human endeavor.
>>1162539
That's not entirely right. But I think that most philosophies branch out out of existing ones or take from ancient schools of thought.
>>1162538
>High school seniors
>critical thinking
Hardy chuckle/10.
>>1162539
Every bit of development in quantum mechanics can be seen as variation of what some old greek fart said sometime ago with enough mental gymnastics, it's all a matter of degree. People didn't discuss rigid designators, moral error theory, modal metaphysics, structural realism or mathematical formalism when Kant was around for instance.
STEM makes you better at philosophy, in fact I think with an uneducated mind philosophy is useless.
>>1164771
That explains /his/ and /lit/
