Philosophy is the last resort for pseudo-intellectual teenagers who are too uneducated to talk about actual science and math where their baseless drivel would be objectively disproved.
Mr Computer Brain can't into philosophy. Go cry on /sci/ or something faggot. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
Yeah fuck you faggot
>>1314313
>positvism
>bet you never thought of THAT before. Checkmate!
>>1314313
And yet here you are, talking philosophy.
>>1314313
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"
>>1314313
This guy is probably too busy sucking his dad's dick to respond but he is getting btfo in this thread, this is an epic win for us.
Science is a small and weak part of philosophy. Its ok for determining things about the physical world. Its funny because most meme lord scientists can't even recognize science's obvious weaknesses.
Watching Dawkins and Harris squirm at arguments from philosophers that defeat their pea brained world views is particularly fascinating. They simply have no idea how logic actually works and dismiss philosophy entirely as irrelevant.
Its a great example of how the title 'evolutionary biologist' is simply sublime for normies and teenagers when in reality it caries very little weight in intellectual circles outside of biology.
>>1314313
>objectivism
lol
I hope you enjoyed your fucking ass rape OP now get out and don't come back.
>mfw OP starts talking shit about philosophy without understanding the fucking ass rape he is about to receive frome minds greater than his own
>>1314335
It would be best not to respond to what is either a retard or a bait thread. Or if you must do use sage
>>1314313
>a philosopher says "science should be taken with some scrutiny"
>"OH MY GOD WHAT A CLOSE MINDED RETARD WHO REJECTS EVERYTHING"
>a scientist says "philosophy is useless"
>"What an open minded and tolerant intellectual! He will lead us forward to a free future of critical thought."
>>1314351
Lol nice try OP we all know its you. Wash your dad's cum out of your butt before getting on the internet next time cuck.
>>1314343
Objectivism is a worthy ideology to be discussed within the bounds of philosophy.
>>1314313
Go to bed Popper.
>>1314313
I know this thread is retarded bait but the weird thing about this comic is how the philosopher is taking a skeptic position when most philosophy attempts to refute total skepticism.
Even Mr. You Can't Know Nuffin himself, Hume, thought you could know some things.
>You can't know something unless you know that you know it
This has been confusing me. Is this nonsensical bullshit or am I just a retard?
>>1314313
Dumb philosophy is equal to dumb science
Smart philosophy is equal to good science
Smart science is greater than smart philosophy
If you don't know about philosophy than it does become pseudo intellectual, but the field is so vast there is no need to shit on it as a whole.
Also consider what our greatest scientists have said about philosophy, and how many of our greatest philosophers helped set the foundations of science.
>>1314403
It's just a parsing problem. It shows up a lot in philosophy.
"Science" is generally for dehumanized people who lack fluidity in their thinking. They require reality to be compartmentalized into discrete objects in order to function. They are essentially lobotomized. They base their consciousness on dogmatic precepts which they inter-relate. This to them is called "objectivity". Context totally eludes them. They are the most narrow-sighted people imaginable.
People from [] are inherently inferior to me, even to the point of not being humans.
I can artificially dichotomise my area of interest with another broad area and use my tribalistic mentality to feel superior about myself.
I also imagine them being young, which just goes to show their lack of experience, wisdom and understanding, which are certainly below that of mine.
I am great.
>>1314313
You mean politics, brah.
Philosophy will always exist regardless of everything because we do it constantly. The academic part of it can be contested.
>>1314675
Is this the archetype of the /pol/ shitpost
>>1314783
It's a dismissive, modular narrative; as most are.
These arguments can be surprisingly similar to literary elements in how predictable (though still effective, maybe because they're predictable) they are.
>>1314332
2 Big Macs and small coke please.
>>1314900
haha epic bro upboated
Philosophy is not that hard
But civilization and the laws we live by are all dictated by philosophical schools of though. I would even say the torch bearers of civilization of humanity were philosophical assholes
>>1314313
Can science tell me where your lap goes when you stand up?
How about what everyone in the world did yesterday?
>>1315307
>Can science tell me where your lap goes when you stand up?
fugg
no srsly. where does it go?
>>1315317
Fun question, innit? Its even better if you ask a stemfag to point out the lap on an anatomical diagram of the human body (standing up, of course).
The second question also has an answer (and a non-scientific one at that). but I'll leave that to yall to work out for yourselves.
![0062eb39c340abf66732aafbf740a6415f7bf4918a7c7270110591470f620b60[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5CnmFuP.jpg "0062eb39c340abf66732aafbf740a6415f7bf4918a7c7270110591470f620b60[1].jpg")
>>1314313
You know that the scientific method itself is science of philosophy relating to epistemology, right? It is also entirely reliant on logic, which itself cannot be scientifically proven to exist but is an a priori assumption we must make before we can practice science. Same for mathematics, the foundation of all the hard sciences. We must assume mathematical truths as metaphysical and objective truths otherwise we must admit that what we're doing is based on pure convention.
Science and philosophy aren't two separate things, otherwise the philosophy of science would not exist as a field.
There is a reason why until very recently (and by very recently I mean until about Einstein) most scientists were also philosophers to a certain degree or another. The hamstringing of philosophy of science ironically leads to a new philosophy -or even a dogma- emerging: that of scientism.
You simply cannot get around philosophy, and there's a very good reason why it is called the mother of all sciences.
>>1315346
> We must assume mathematical truths as metaphysical and objective truths
You literally can't do that because there exist the tons of theories and if you assume them all to be true that would be absurd, math from one axioms would contradict the math from other axioms.
> we must admit that what we're doing is based on pure convention.
Yes it is based on pure convention. Mathematics is just a language to describe certain things. It is as metaphysical true as English grammar, which is also just a conventions used by people.
NOT
>>1314313
this
>>1315351
>You literally can't do that because there exist the tons of theories
Which only emphasizes the importance of philosophy, considering each of those views would greatly influence how we must view the results of our scientific research, with the extremes being "objective truth" and "pure convention". I'm not going to tell you that you're right or wrong (that's a discussion for another day), but I'm telling that the question does matter. It's not like what men like Dawkins and Kraus and other pop scientists believe, that the question itself is entirely irrelevant and it's even a waste of brainpower to ask it.
>Man is something to overcome.
PROOF? EVIDENCE?
>>1314313
You've missed the point son
>>1314900
Dubs speak truth
>>1314313
Philosophers attempt to falsify one another's arguments.
Study shit before talking shit about it.
