Is this correct? What is the role of philosophy now that we have science?
>>439636
But your example doesn't make them mutually exclusive. It just makes science to be philosophy with a flashlight.
>The Oatmeal
kill yourself OP
>>439636
No, it isn't correct. Science is incapable of clarifying philosophical ambiguities within their own theories without help from philosophers of physics/science/metaphysics. I can't think of one longstanding philosophical problem they've resolved on their own. Furthermore, science is predicated on metaphysical assumptions that are required if it is to operate in a functional manner. Science is good when it sticks to its own methods and aims, not when it tried to go beyond them.
>>439636
>implying philosophy, metaphysics, theology, and science are looking for the same thing
I want this meme to stop
>>439636
>What is the role of philosophy now that we have science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28philosophy%29
>>439636
> Science riding the metaphysical dick and somehow finds something that wasn't there.
Sounds about right.
>The Oatmeal
>>439636
>the oatmeal
You should feel bad for even having that picture saved
>Implying all four disciplines want to find the cat
>Implying theologians can't see in the dark
>>439636
>science
>not just a bland interpretation of the world
Science says that chemicals influence your thoughts, actions, and feelings. The irony of this is that the people who say this don't realize that, in such an event, they are listening to those chemicals too. This is where philosophy and religion (more poetic philosophy) come into play.
On another note, sciencefags lack the mental capacity to see the world from a non-worldly view. To them, everything is as it appears. There are no hidden meanings to them, there is no reason for life to them; life is simply a dull experience.
On the other hand, the philosophies are exciting and driven by purpose. You have a reason to live! Life is more than just some textbook bullshit! Whether your reason is to help others, help yourself, or conquer, you have reason and duty in life, even if that reason and duty is nonexistent. Philosophy also has figures from all parts and times of the world: Socrates, Nietzsche, Confucius, Tolstoy, Mishima, Evola, etc.
Philosophy explains human nature through reason and logic, while science says "muh chemicals and monkeys". Philosophy gives man purpose, while pure science removes any purpose.
Have you heard of any interesting scientists? Yes, you have. But guess what? They were motivated by philosophy to do their researches and findings, not by pure science.
>>439636
>The Oatmeal
Literally kill yourself
>>439735
Pretty much this f a m. the fetishization of math and science is life-denying, which is funny since they love leveling this accusation at religious people
>>439636
Science is just natural philosophy.
>>439636
I fucking hate scientism. It's the anti-intellectual trend of our time.
Psychology is like studying the human mind and behaviour by studying the human mind and behaviour.
Biology is like studying the human mind and behaviour by looking at ape's mind and behaviour.
Physics is like studying the human mind and behaviour by pretending it's a rock being thrown in a perfect half-circle with no air resistance.
Clearly, Psychology is the purest and most refined science on earth and everyone should keep sucking their dicks.
it all depends on your philosophy of science.
>>439692
>implying you didn't just open the door to a dark room with four men eating a cat
>>439735
I'm a philosophy major and I think this is a load of horse shit. You're making broad generalizations about scientists, which you then negate at the end by saying that every good scientist was inspired by philosophy. I don't think that last statement is factually accurate, for one thing; it seems like you're trying to beef up philosophy by giving it credit for every significant scientific advancement, which I have a hard to e believing is actually how it works. Rationality didn't even emege from philosophy, as a concept it already existed and as an element of consciousness it can't be a recently emergent quality, since humans haven't evolved *that* much in the 2300 or so years since the Axial Age began, or for several thousand years before the births of Confucius or Plato. Science is driven by purpose; the Manhattan Project had a clear purpose that had nothing to do with philosophy, and the Internet was a DoD project. Although information theory has applications in philosophy, it seems absolutely wrong to attribute the existence of atomic technology or the Internet to philosophy, and it also seems wrong to try to dismiss these products of superscience as irrelevant.
>life is simply a full experience for them
So you don't think Fedorafafs actually feel euphoria the way the memes say? There's a reason people love science, and it isn't just propaganda. Men, by their nature, desire to know.
it all depends on your philosophy of science
>>439636
>mfw some plebeian mongoloid thought he was being really clever by making this
Oh wait, it's the oatmeal, not that surprising
>Discordianism is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat without realizing that you are the black cat
>>439781
He's just saying the best scientists were ones who could ground their empirical knowledge in a broader, holistic understanding of the world and human life in general. Instead of just beep boop force vectors beep boop
Keeping the idealist science cultists in check is a must.
They wouldn't flinch at committing genocide if they were given the leeway.
>>439842
I'd like to know why he thinks that, though. It seems like he thinks the best scientists are just mediocre philosophers. A holistic understanding of human life isn't necessarily helpful in the advancement of knowledge.
>>439642
Implying this isn't accurate
>>439892
>I'd like to know why he thinks that, though.
Wanting to expand the areas of human knowledge is, I daresay, a yearn influenced by philosophy.
The ammount of fedoea tipping this picture has is off the chart
Philosophy is here to help us understand things that science cannot.
For instance, try understanding counsciousness with a fucking compas
>>439907
So? I still don't see why a connection between the two fields implies that being good at one is important in being good at the other. Why is a 'holistic' worldview, to use your word, necessarily good in science?
>>439892
>A holistic understanding of human life isn't necessarily helpful in the advancement of knowledge.
Everything is inter-connected. All fields of knowledge describe the same thing by virtue of the fact there is only one reality. A sunset is improved by both poetry and a scientific understanding of it, if you have the discernment.
Respect and appreciation for the aesthetic and philosophical spheres is not required for the advancement of knowledge, sure, but it's required for the ethical application of that knowledge. Only a intellectual midget would be so insecure as to assume any meaning reality could possess ends at a description of its physical properties.
>>439899
I'm amazed at at the butthurt autists in this thread. If anyone actual knew any kind of formal logic, you know, the kind philosophers use, the comic is depicting science as a subset, an extension, of philosophy, a tool to be used in the pursuit of philosophy. It's philosophy "using a fucking flashlight" (I assume he means a fleshlight)
It's metaphysics and theology that are mutually exclusive with philosophy, because the cat isn't there.
But no, you autists have to rant about scientism and strawman shit.
>>439927
Does a poem about a sunset tell us anything about the elements and forces that make it up? Does a poem about flowers really give us scientific knowledge of flowers? You're shifting goalposts here; my poj t isn't that holistic knowledge is useless to human beings, it's that a holistic understanding of the universe shouldn't be equated with good science.
>>439948
No, it's not. The black cat is supposed to be truth.
>lol look at philosophy, theology, and metaphysics, they're just bumbling around like retards
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
Also,
>metaphysics are mutually exclusive with philosophy
Confirmed for pleb status
>>439970
>No, it's not. The black cat is supposed to be truth.
Nice projecting
>Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Philosophy = "like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat"
Philosophy + "using a fucking flashlight" = "like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a fucking flashlight"
"like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a fucking flashlight" = Science
You are literally retarded and projecting your own insecurity on a perceived attack.
>>439735
>Philosophy is better because it makes me feel funny things
FUCK OFF
U
C
K
O
F
F
>>439636
>phil
Talking about looking for a black cat
>meta
Looking for a invisible flying black manbearpigcat
>theol
You can stop looking, this book says the cat was crucified for our sins 2000 years ago
>sci
Actually looking for the cat
>>439967
Science is a subset of this holistic knowledge. The fact that you'd think I'd read a poem about a sunset to "learn about the elements and forces that make it up" is the problem here.
We are not purely logical creatures, we do not exist as pure logic, reality does not appear to us as cold platonic mathematical symbols floating in the void. Knowledge about the emotional lives of my family and friends is not predicated on the scientific method. Knowledge of human relationships, human follies, cannot be learned in a lab, no matter how many brain scans you do. There is a level beyond discursive knowledge. The inability to describe some aspects of reality with language is not a limitation of reality.
>Phil
Why?
>Meta
What if?
>Theo
By who?
>Science
How?
I'm not even trying to say I'm 100% correct here, just want some opinions.
>>439999
>Science is a subset of this holistic knowledge.
Again, I don't see why a good scientist, insofar as he is a good scientist, also needs to be a great poet. Yes, insofar as a person who wants to understand the world is a person who wants to understand the world, he should try to incorporate all his knowledge into one body, but why should a good scientist have to be a good poet in order to be a good scientist?
>We are not purely logical creatures, we do not exist as pure logic, reality does not appear to us as cold platonic mathematical symbols floating in the void.
Okay, but what about when people use logic and do math? Should they quote Homer while they do equations if they want to be good mathematicians?
I'm not talking about worldviews, I'm talking about the advancement of sciencentific knowledge. I agree, practical applications of science usually involve ethical issues, but that doesn't mean somebody doing science has to wonder or even care about whether or not his research helps build a machine that kills people. You're demanding things of science that should be (and already are) demanded of poetry, philosophy, music, etc. They do t teach the quadrivium anymore for exactly this reason.
>>440009
>I ain't gonna sit here and fucking analyze an oatmeal comic of all things.
That that just proves you're only pretending to hoist the banner of philosophy, but with an attitude like that, you're probably just a filthy theologist, which he actually did attack, rather than a philosopher.
>>440009
>I don't want to analyze things, I just want to hang on to my presuppositions about what things mean
It seems pretty clear to me he's saying philosophy is the quandary, and science is the only one of the following 3 choices that actually helps solve the problem.
>>440009
Solid comeback
+ 3 internets
>>440024
You're misunderstanding. What that anon originally said was
>Have you heard of any interesting scientists? Yes, you have. But guess what? They were motivated by philosophy to do their researches and findings, not by pure science.
Of course he's not saying you need to know your Shakespeare if you're working on bacteria cultures. What he's saying is the greatest science popularizers were popularizers because they could relate dry models to a wider, cosmic understanding of the universe and our place in it. Look at Sagan. Even if he's talking about the history of astronomy it's only to make a larger point about how miraculous it is that such a young species stranded on a dot could learn so much about the greater universe.
That's what made guys like Sagan so popular. It was their passion for the shit. Their knowledge wasn't self-enclosed. It incorporated everything. Even gushing about numbers becomes interesting to people when you're waxing poetic about the miracle of the universe's comprehensibility, the elegance of mathematical structures, etc.
A scientist can do nothing but scientist and still be a scientist. But science needs the lifeblood of the arts if it must do more than just describe.
>>439636
If he meant to attack philosophy he would have said "is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat by sitting in an arm chair thinking about where it should be"
>>440055
>What he's saying is the greatest science popularizers were popularizers because they could relate dry models to a wider, cosmic understanding of the universe and our place in it. Look at Sagan
'Popular science popularizers' isn't the same set as 'good scientists.' If his point was about people like Sagan and Neil D-T, I'm even less convinced, since he isn't even talking about knowledge. This is a point about the ability to transmit opinions about discourses to large groups of people.
>>440055
>But science needs the lifeblood of the arts if it must do more than just describe.
But it musn't.
>>440065
I even quoted the line for you and you still don't get it. Dude, he said "interesting", not good. Come on already. You're arguing with a strawman
>>439636
Positivism is dead, most people just haven't realized it yet. Deeds take time.
>>440071
Again, I don't think 'interesting' is a useful criterion when trying to figure out whether or not a discourse can be used to access the kinds of things theology, philosophy, metaphysics, and science try to gain information about. I've clesrly wasted my time responding to a fool who doesn't understand the significance and stakes of the search for truth and the Absolute.
>>440079
>First, the sterility and agnosticism of positivistic, scientistic, and merely analytic schools, characteristically, if not always originally, Anglo-American, which have frequently denied the possibility of knowledge in metaphysical or ethical matters, and sometimes the possibility of constructive philosophical knowledge at all, with, according to Karl Popper, a "concentration upon minutiae (upon 'puzzles') and especially upon the meanings of words; in brief .... scholasticism." As Allan Bloom said, "Professors of these schools [i.e. positivism and ordinary language analysis] simply would not and could not talk about anything important, and they themselves do not represent a philosophic life for the students." Students and the intellectually curious looking for some concern, any concern, about the truths of being and value, the content of wisdom, or some humane purpose, found instead what has aptly been called a "valley of bones." Although continuing analytic philosophy sometimes appears as a small island of some sanity in a sea of increasing nonsense, as with John Searle, it retains almost all of its sterility, futility, and what could even be called a self-referential autism. The Proceedings still receives e-mail from people passionately advocating so miserable, impoverished, and incoherent a theory as Logical Positivism, or who argue that the concept of "order" is a subjective matter that is not part of science, despite its quantified and essential presence in thermodynamics.
BTFO
>>440090
>and what could even be called a self-referential autism
S A V A G E
>>440089
Actually interesting is a pretty good criterion because it shows the person has consolidated his knowledge into a coherent worldview, or maybe even a metaphysics.
I don't know how you can make the point that being "interesting" is dismissive of the earnest search for truth and then turn around and defend exactly the kind of desolate, joyless scientism the original anon was condemning. You're all over the place.
>>440108
I think 'accurate' is more important than 'interesting.' I'm talking about knowledge in general, here. If you think knowledge should aim at anything but truth, I'm not going to bother responding to you. Truth is absolutely novel and interesting, but not all novel and interesting concepts or propositions are true.
>>439760
I hate scientism too, but I like Bill Nye.
>>440048
reddit reply tбh sмh faм
>>440108
>>440111
And by the way, I'm not advocating scientism, I'm advocating treating SPTM (science, philosophy, metaphysics, theology) as the search for truth, against people advocating treating SPTM a search for novelty. I thought this was obvious, since every field of knowledge in the OP comic is in fact a field searching for knowledge about the world.
>>440111
Philosophy, metaphysics, religion, and science all have their own truths. Describing the same thing from different angles. Accurate and interesting aren't mutually exclusive.
A certain brand of philosopher sees a tree and he sees the Idea of the tree, a theist would see the handiwork of a divine principle, a metaphysician sees a reflection of higher realities, a scientist sees a plant organism composed of countless autonomous bits that contribute to the greater whole. None of these truths are mutually exclusive. Each contribute their color to the overall picture.
>>440006
Looks good to me tbhfam
>>440121
>Accurate and interesting aren't mutually exclusive.
And they shouldn't be treated as synonymous simply because they aren't mutually exclusive.
>None of these truths are mutually exclusive. Each contribute their color to the overall picture.
I haven't claimed that this isn't true. My claim is that these fields shouldn't be treated as if they exist primarily because of their novelty value.
>>439636
to justify science
>>439636
Everything this guy makes is bait. Stop giving him attention.
>>440006
>Phil
Why?
>Meta
What if?
>Theo
GAWD. now give us money
>Science
How?
>>440129
We don't really disagree on anything. Where science fails with scientism, philosophy can fail in obscurantist wank. Long as you don't draw the lines in the sand around your particular field of knowledge I don't care what you do. I get riled up at scientist fags not because it's so impoverishing to believe only guys in lab coats can tell us anything meaningful about reality. What an insult to this thing we call life
>>440148
>this peasant tier understanding of theology
>>439649
/thread
>>439735
>Science says that chemicals influence your thoughts, actions, and feelings. The irony of this is that the people who say this don't realize that, in such an event, they are listening to those chemicals too.
How does this make our thoughts, actions, and feelings not influenced by chemicals?
>To them, everything is as it appears. There are no hidden meanings to them, there is no reason for life to them; life is simply a dull experience.
I'm sorry that bothers you. That bothering you doesn't make them incorrect.
>Philosophy explains human nature through reason and logic, while science says "muh chemicals and monkeys".
Science observes reality and uses reason and logic to deduce "muh chemicals and monkeys".
I'm a philosophy major, and I think that philosophy is crucial for science to work, but that doesn't somehow make science incorrect because of your feels.
You're free to find your own meaning and values, but that doesn't mean that they're "hidden" in reality by some higher power. That's not to say that there necessarily ISN'T anything like that, but you're reaching pretty hard with this victim complex "science makes society boring and stuff and I hate it!" shit.
>>439735
>I want life to be interesting
>so I'm willing to shit on truth and reality because muh feelings n shit
What a sappy corny faggot you must be
>>439735
>wishful thinking: the post
Man I love philosophy but you are full of shit
>>440156
>I'm sorry that bothers you. That bothering you doesn't make them incorrect.
>my personal feeling life is just a dull experience trumps your personal feeling that it isn't... because of the scientific method... which cannot, by its very nature as simply an empirical methodology, make any value judgements... and is only applicable to the study and modeling physical phenomena... but somehow this confirms my nihilism
>reason and logic
bonjour reddit
>science claims it solved ethics
>according to science there's no such thing as ethics because consciousness isn't real
???
>>440177
Is 'reddit' literally your only response to people who call you out on your literal sophistry?
>>440177
>strawman
>muh boogeyman
So you had nothing at all to add to the conversation, but you bumped the thread anyway. Thanks I guess.
>>440180
>science is a single individual who can speak and make assertions
ok
>>440177
You made no point to refute him. Debating /phil/ is almost as bad as debating /pol/ I see. No wonder nobody worth 2 shits gives a fuck about it anymore
>>440183
>I want life to be meaningless
>implying literally anybody said that
Holy shit just fuck off
>>440183
>I want life to be meaningful
I can play this shit too faggot
>>440183
>If you think my understanding of philosophy and science is a little shaky, you're a nihilist who doesn't want to enjoy anything
Is this bait?
>>439735
Science isn't there to give you the "meaning of life" kid, science is there to have a better understanding of the physical world through the scientific method and that's where it ends, it's not about motivating mediocre people and comforting every one, maybe philosophy does that but not science.
>>440183
>I want life to be meaningless
Where the fuck did anyone say that? If you want to give meaning to your life by fucking denying decades of scientific progress, sure. You're intellectual snobbery ISIS in a nutshell. Fag,
>>440181
Hey fella, mind replying to the point that the scientific method can't comment on the presence or absence of objective meaning thanks
if whatever you disagree w- um, I mean sophistry, isn't allowed and we can only post in truth tables and sigmas and deltas, then please use the scientific method to prove the reliability of the scientific method. thanks
>>440202
>use the scientific method to prove the reliability of the scientific method
>although the advancements in science allowed you to shitpost this snobby faggotry on a Circassian Horsebreeding Board
>because Kant and Hegel and fucking Schopenhauer pushed human progress by talking shit about shit
Yeah, haha no. Nobody is gonna debate a snobbish fag like you.
>>440188
>made no point to refute him
>what are the limits of the scientific method
>what are the limits of empiricism
>what is the inability of the statement "only empiricism can lead us to truth" to empirically justify itself
all these buttblasted fedoras. you don't even know what you're arguing about. I mean you actually think science can comment on meaning. lmao
>>440202
>mind replying to the point that the scientific method can't comment on the presence or absence of objective meaning thanks
I've been doing that for most of this bad thread, I'm not going to repeat myself but you can read my posts. You've probably read the long, heated exchange I had with >>440149, if you've been in this thread for a while.
In summary, the scientific method doesn't try to do that, the people who make claims about the meaning of life and justify then with the scientific method are fools, and you're an even bigger one for thinking this kind of attitude is common among scientists or even connected to the use of the scientific method. You're literally criticizing science for not being the same thing as philosophy. It isn't a valid critique, it doesn't have any bearing on reality, and you should read a thing or two about the philosophy of science at some point.
>>440202
>talk about hard data
>nu-uh, I wanna talk about abstract concepts
/phil/ is literally /pol/-tier faggotry.
>>440216
Yeah, what are those things? I'm not sure what you think they are, could you explain them to me in your own words?
>>440209
Hahah okay, so logic and reason goes out the door when you have to use it to justify your claims, right.
Fucking memekid, next time you swear off WoW for a month give it a little time before trying to sit at the big boy table
>>440216
>meaning
Fuck off with this shit. You just pull shit out of some /phil/-book, present it as hard fact and act like science can into abstract concepts. And then you call the other guy a fedora. Wew lad
>>440222
You don't even know what those words mean
>>440222
At this point I'm just shitposting, seeing as you either can't or won't udnerstand what the fuck I'm on about.
>>440228
you're trying so hard to come off like this dark cool internet guy whose totally above it all.
you think meaning and wondering about the mystery of existence was invented this century by snooty cat ladies who teach gender studies or something. just lmao
>>440241
Guys, have we been rused? :/
>>440240
your post wasn't that deep, it was just retarded.
>>440241
>strawmanning this hard
Nigga, you are talking about abstractions. In what way can I make you understand that science does not deal in that and I do not give a fuck about something that people have been pondering for ages and never got an answer? Are you really braindead or are you just starving for attention?
>>440245
dude literally quoted and threw a shitfit over one word out of three actually legitimate arguments against scientism and you think I'm the one trolling
>>440246
It was not deep sure, but you still didn't get it. I'm starting to think you're b8ing at this point.
>>440248
If you actually knew what scientism is, you'd be embarrassed to have made most of your posts ITT.
>>440247
thanks for agreeing with my argument that science can't comment on abstract valuations then and that being smugly dismissive of anything that does is completely unwarranted and also betrays a fundamental ignorance of what science can and cannot do. we're done here.
>>440257
Your premise might not be completely false, but your argument is based on flawed understandings of literally every concept involved.
>>440257
>we're done here
Good. I will resume shitposting while you ponder about the meaning of life and all that jazz that never got anyone anywhere but pretentious fags like you spout at every given opportunity to everyone's dismay and disgust.
>>439907
Philosophy didn't "invent" curiosity
>>440278
The fags in this thread however sure seem to claim it did.
>>440283
Homosexuals aren't that dumb
>>440247
>>440253
>>440254
>>440261
Keep crying fedorafags. Saying I'm wrong isn't an argument, neither is being a 2cool4u logical science man. An argument is an argument
Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. It's a tool by which to search for the truth. The two are far from incompatible, they're extremely complimentary.
Which is what the OP image actually said, dontchaknow.
>>440292
Hellow newfriend. My suggestion is to lurk for a while longer, you might learn a thing or two. Read, understand and finally, when you feel your mind is prepared and your body is ready, you can try and post dank memes. You will fail at first, of course, but soon you'll become a sperging autistic faggot, just like all of us. Have fun!
>>440305
You
>>440305
>an argument is an argument
Nobel Prize right here. Post you e-mail address and a nude pic of your sister and I'll be the first one to call those fags in Stockholm.
>>440305
If an argument isn't valid it can't be sound. I haven't seen you make a valid argument ITT. You're telling about scientism, but it's clear that you don't know anything about the philosophy of science.
>>440318
Please read the sentence previous "an argument is an argument". While keeping the meaning of that sentence in mind, it's time to read the original sentence. Congratulations! You're on your way to grade-school reading comprehension.
>>440339
This is so reddit I think you just made Joss Whedon nut.
>>440338
"science is only the study of physical quantities and their properties and cannot comment on metaphysics, ethics, God, religion, meaning etc." is a perfectly valid argument but you're too much of a fucking redditor to engage in any discourse even a hair above the intellectual level of "dank neil degrasse tyson memes"
>>439636
>Philosophy
What?
--->Metaphysics
---What is?
>Theology
Why?
>Science
How?
>>440361
Are you arguing with the right guy even? Like, that's not at all what he said you cretinous pile of feces. That's exactly what >>440305 didn't understand. If you are him, why bring this point up now only now?
>>439649
>implying philosophy and metaphysics are actually lookin in the right place and not just shitposting
>implying theology doesn't already have an answer
What?
>>440361
That isn't in a valid argument form. You should learn the difference between arguments and assertions.
>>440373
What the fuck are you even talking about
this is the line that set off this whole argument:
>To them, everything is as it appears. There are no hidden meanings to them, there is no reason for life to them; life is simply a dull experience.
>I'm sorry that bothers you. That bothering you doesn't make them incorrect.
I replied saying using scientific progress to justify nihilism is retarded. I said that a couple of times and supported it with arguments about the nature and purpose of the scientific method. That guy you're talking about said I didn't have any valid arguments. I re-stated my arguments. Now you're saying "I don't understand" what the discussion is when I started it in the first place.
Mother of fuck you faggots are soft
>>440379
>please post in syllogisms while the rest of us post dank memes and grossly mischaracterize 2000 years of philosophy, metaphysics, and theology
lol yeah ok
The same role philosophy has always had. Developing systems to develop ways to judge our existence. Science cannot do this. It can only explain, not advise. Nuclear physics exists. But Science doesn't tell anyone to use that to invent a bomb and drop it on thousands of people.
>>440381
Nobody justified nihilism you pedantic cunt. You just strawmanned so hard you're already joining a little girl and her dog to see the Wizard,
>>440381
>That guy you're talking about said I didn't have any valid arguments. I re-stated my arguments.
"That guy" here, you don't have valid arguments. Modus Ponens, modus tollens, etc. are valid argument forms. An argument not presented in such a form is not a valid argument.
Now, if you truly are the lover of philosophy you claim to be, you'll know that philosophers have recognized the importance of using valid argument forms since ancient times, and won't complain about scientism just because I'm asking you to do something that has been literally Philosophy 101-level stuff since the days of the Academy.
>>440379
>There are two which are especially significant. First, scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. It would, if adopted, compel us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge. Your friend admits this with regard to moral and aesthetic truths. On his view there is nothing good or evil, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. But is it plausible to think that there are no aesthetic or moral truths? On your friend’s view there’s nothing wrong with torturing a little girl to death. Why should we accept such a conclusion simply because of a epistemological restriction?
>And what about science itself? Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven, so that an epistemology of scientism would destroy science itself. For example, the principle of induction cannot be scientifically justified. Just because A has always been succeeded by B in the past provides no warrant for inferring that the next A will be followed by B. For we could be at the beginning of a chaotic series of As and Bs whose initial segment is ordered ABABAB. So trying to provide “a good inductive argument for scientism” is hopeless, since it must presuppose the validity of inductive reasoning.
>Secondly, scientism is self-refuting. Scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. But what about that very proposition itself? It cannot itself be scientifically proven. Therefore we should not believe it. Scientism thus defeats itself.
>>440397
I don't understand what your point is in relation to my post. I know people here like to act like logic is a meme (and often they make good points), but this is odd.
>>440401
I've responded to your points several times already, as have several other anons.
Your argument basically is:
>if you take a shit, your ass will stink
>but, how do we know that will happen every time?
>well, we can't
>oh, and you can't do this over and over to prove me wrong, because I say so
/phil/'s arguments are so fucking immature it's like arguing about Spiderman in first grade.
p sure we wouldnt have the hippocratic oath without philosophy
thats a big part of medical science
>>440411
Who are you responding to?
>>439636
>>440411
I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about here except that one mention of the problem of induction I quoted someone else on. I think you should tell your doctor about all those strawmen you're hallucinating
>>440416
>Apex faggotry 2bh pham.
Gotta agree with ya, friendo.
>>440419
You were literally debating against fucking logic and rationality to justify your special snowflake philosophical position. If you deny logic and reason yeah, sure, everything can be debated, except the fact that you are a fag.
>>439760
Freud put scientism among the other religions. it is full of dogmas, like all religion.
I'm not saying I hate science. it is just the blind faith in progress that I can't take
>>440431
Agree with you there, partly. But le ebin cocaine milf man is not a valid source for most of anything, except cocaine and fucking.
>>439882
>implying they didn't
>>440429
You're a fucking retard.
First post:
>>440177
>logic and rationality =/= epistomological boundaries of the scientific method
The responses:
>>440188
>>440190
>>440197
Such perfect argumentative form, such logical rigour.
Then we got this dumb faggot who thinks you can only give life meaning if you deny decades of scientific progress, lmao I wish I was making this shit up:
>>440200
Then you got this clown who completely dodges the question and thinks "progress" is a measure of truth value without logically justifying shit:
>>440209
Then we got this mook who thinks I'm talking about all scientists in the world and not just the obvious faggots I'm obviously responding to:
>>440217
Then we got some more blistering, well-reasoned arguments from the imperturbable scientists of /his/:
>>440228
>>440219
>>440232
>>440240
>>440245
>>440253
This guy whose so fucking dumb he actually agrees with me without even knowing it:
>>440247
And finally this doof who thinks I should start posting in truth tables after that shitshow of an "argument" for my points to be valid:
>>440339
And finally you, whose so primed to rage-shart like pavlov's fedora whenever someone besmirches the holy name of "reason and logic" you think I'm arguing against the utility of logic and not just reminding everyone about its limitations in regards to value judgments.
Fuck off back to reddit, all of you. Fucking embarrassing
>>440469
>If I call every person in the thread a faggot and a scientismicist I won't look like as much of a retard
>>440469
>took the time to find every post that butthurt him so bad he'll be shitting blood for a month
>but not to make an argument
>>439636
>I have no idea what metaphysics means, the picture
I'm so angry. I'm so angry at those stupid threads and the stupid niggers that post in it.
>>439636
Science's success is not due to it answering philosophical questions, it is about scientists asking new questions and carving out their own niche.
Newton and motion is a great example. For pretty much all of the history of philosophy people questioned what the general metaphysics that accounted for motion were- what grounds the possibility of motion. Newton came in, and rather than giving an explanation of why motion existed and what features of reality motion arose from, instead gave a mathematical formula that described certain facts about motion itself ( that a mobile will continue until stopped). This never explained what ontologically gave rise to motion, rather it just explained what exactly was happening with motion itself through mathematical language. But a mathematical abstraction does nothing to actually explain the phenomena it is abstracted from, because it is that phenomena that gives credence to the mathematical abstraction- not the other way around. Newton never solved the problem of motion, he asked a new question instead and got some great results.
The problem with this meme is A- that it is a meme being posted on board that is supposed to be based on high quality content, and B- its creator thinks that Science, Theology and Philosophy are always looking for the same answers. The three overlap on some questions- but on most questions they are distinct. Most people who can't figure this out aren't actually engaged in any of the three disciplines.
>>440527
It isn't an argument and I don't feel very BTFO
>>440607
Sure it isn't
>>440519
>a meme being posted on board that is supposed to be based on high quality content
>high quality content
are you lost friend?
>>440519
before learning why (or if there is even a why) you first need to understand how.
>>439735
>philosophy is important because it makes me feel good inside and appeases my worries
literally the exact opposite purpose of philosophy. You couldnt have a worst reason to like philosophy.
>>440672
>you need a degree in physics to understand the truth
>scifags will defend this
>>440687
>i'm too much of a spineless faggot to get anything life-affirming out of pessimistic philosophies, furthermore
not my problem
>>440718
>nuh-uh, that's not an argument! *sucks thumb*
>>440722
>le life is emptiness and despair maymay
>philosophy told me so!!!
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. this board's fucking clueless. isn't it a school night?
>>440727
>tfw you're in a screencap
feels good man
>>440090
>philosophy academics calling others autists before we did it
wewlad
>>440727
>M'logic
>sips tea
>adjust bowtie
For real, never let an Anglo near """"""logic"""""
>>440090
>self-referential autism
My fucking keks
>>440710
Philosophy isn't about reconfirming your own biases and beliefs, you fucking faggot
>>440732
>le life is emptiness and despair maymay
>philosophy told me so!!!
but that is not what I was saying at all you gigantic sperg.
Philosophy exists to constantly question your supposed ontological certainties. Its there to force you to think about what you held as certain and to allow to more accurately form your worldview through extensive questioning.
Never did I defended some cliché idea of nihilism (which is completely wrong about nihilism btw). I criticized this conflating of ideas of philosophy as some sort of pseudo intellectual defense of ones worldview and beliefs without any actual deep questioning.
Thats why the whole philosophy vs Science makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and its certainly not surprising that its scientism and religious autists who keep spouting this idea of philosophy and science as separate competing fields.
They complement eachother all the time. One tries to interpret how the reality we perceive works and the other both criticizes the methods and the results of this enquiries as well interprets them and gives them more coherence
>>440732
you're the one who went nuh-uh nigga
>>439636
Only if the flash light emits x-rays, and you don't have an x-ray viewer, and the cat is in the philosopher's cave, and you give your own children cancer with the x-ray flashlight.
>>439636
This is the most dipshitted, close-minded, and unfounded thing I've read in like a week. These are the kind of fucking people the american school system is churning out nowadays, nothing but haughty engineers with a terrible sense of self-awareness and an abundance of ignorance in anything that doesn't involve the most basic IT skills.
Go ahead and ask one of these morons what morality is. Watch them try to puzzle out anything that can't just be googled for an empirical answer.
>>440773
the fact that you shat a brick because someone uses philosophy to affirm the value of life speaks volumes about you really meant. don't give me that sissy why can't we all just get along bullshit now. you're not wrong but only someone already biased to the materialism paradigm gets that fucking mad cause they find meaning in philosophy.
>>440772
neither is science. practice what you preach faggot. not my problem you're dead inside and pump gas for a living, don't project your barren inner life on the rest of us cause you read the god delusion in one sitting.
>>440785
i made an argument that's been made thousands of times before by people smarter than both me and you combined and the positivist keyboard warrior brigade still thinks it did anything more than just flail like autists off their meds
>>440811
>neither is science
I never said it was. You should commit suicide in the most painful way you can think of. Your butt would stop hurting then.
My state has self-service gas stations by the way.
>>440811
>Anyone who disagrees with me is a logical positivist, a nihilistic brigand!
>>440815
I didn't necessarily say you did, but I think you can see that was my whole point in this thread. All of these niggas rashing on that one guy for having the gall to find meaning through philosophy and then turning around and justifying the meaninglessness of THEIR lives with science. Fuckin' embarrassing.
>>440819
>boy it sure is easy deflecting someone's arguments by strawmanning with le maymay arrows maymay, wish 4chan would allow upvotes
>>439636
>that image
Hurr durr durr
>>440795
posters like me and you are few and far in between my brother
>>440811
>you're not wrong but only someone already biased to the materialism paradigm gets that fucking mad cause they find meaning in philosophy
Good job completely missing the point.
And you know fuck all about me. And no, my problem is not in people who find value and meaning to his life in any philosophical work at all, my problem is with people who use philosophy to justify their preconceived notions and beliefs, refuse to question any of what they held true and then go around acting all high and mighty as they know everything
>wrong but only someone already biased to the materialism paradigm gets that fucking mad cause they find meaning in philosophy
nice projecting. I'm not biased to any materialist paradigm at all
>i made an argument that's been made thousands of times before by people smarter than both me and you combined and the positivist keyboard warrior brigade still thinks it did anything more than just flail like autists off their meds
I wasnt the guy who was originally answering to you, but you sure didnt had much of an argument left, and you did answer like an immature kid.
Now you're just strawmaning because thats all you have left.
Now tell me, what is your own worldview, so we can have an actual discussion.
>>440837
Oh please. "Science can't comment on metaphysics, meaning, law, ethics, aesthetics etc." isn't "much of an argument" when it's exactly the issue at hand itt. Give it a rest
>>440843
>"Science can't comment on metaphysics, meaning, law, ethics, aesthetics etc."
If thats what you were defending, then I can agree with you at a basic level completely.
The way you were wording it didnt sound like that at all.
Mind you, I find OP's pic completely retarded too, it just felt like you were defending this same position but for completely different reasons.
Lets leave it at that, I guess.
>>440825
I don't think you've understood a single one of the posts you're talking about. Nobody is claiming science can give life meaning where philosophy can't. You're putting words in everyones else's mouths. There was one retard who thought that the purpose of philosophy is to affirm the values associated with life, which is categorically incorrect.
>>440861
I know it's an anonymous image board but yeah, that's what I was defending from the start.
this is me: >>440177
>>440873
and there was also the other retard who implied if you don't think life is a "dull experience", you're also categorically incorrect because something something SCIENCE something something. that's what I was replying to. that's what I was trying to say. that the scientific method can't say shit about what life is "supposed" to be, it can only describe it. it's just the best way to produce verifiable hypotheses and data. it does what it does incredibly well and I don't think it can ever be improved on, but basing an assertion that life is empty, or dull, or meaningless, or whatever, on science/reason/logic is fucking autistic beyond belief
>>440899
The person you were responding to in >>440177 literally said that they were a philosophy major, so I don't understand what you were taking issue with there. I think you see somebody defend the value of scientific inquiry and immediately assume they're a logical positivist. There was nothing Reddit about the post you replied to.
>>440921
the post that guy was replying to was an attack on the typical redditor attitude of, "science has shown us what x is made of and how it works, therefore it's meaningless heh". he was railing against the typical STEMfag attitude (at least on these boards) that life is a dull and empty affair and somehow science has definitely proven this.
he wasn't attacking science's methodology, its philosophical foundations, or the veracity of its data. he was only attacking the erroneous views it seems to engender in its most ardent (read: autistic) supporters.
then the guy replies and somehow manages to take offense at this. I mean he really thinks if you don't think life is empty you're claiming science is "incorrect". Jesus fucking Christ.
>To them, everything is as it appears. There are no hidden meanings to them, there is no reason for life to them; life is simply a dull experience.
>I'm sorry that bothers you. That bothering you doesn't make them incorrect.
Incorrect about what? That science can not only comment on meaning, but can verify for the rest of us sheeple it doesn't exist? Lmao.
scifags need to get this: no one is denying we're not matter, and our emotions aren't chemicals. it's the shitty and dismissive know-it-all attitude that it seems to support that we hate.
>>440944
>I'm sorry that bothers you. That bothering you doesn't make them incorrect.
Well, as someone said in response to your initial post, you didn't try to refute the claim at all, you just greentexted and told somebody to go back to Reddit.
>>440990
You're fucking baiting right?
>my personal feeling life is just a dull experience trumps your personal feeling that it isn't... because of the scientific method... which cannot, by its very nature as simply an empirical methodology, make any value judgements... and is only applicable to the study and modeling physical phenomena... but somehow this confirms my nihilism
Yeah, that's definitely an argument, if not an outright refutation. Learn to fucking read
>>441012
I really am not sure why you think what you're doing resembles argumentation more than what the guy you initially replied to was doing. I'm too tired for this shit. Fuck you, have a bad night.
>>439636
How do you derive purpose from science? How do you live your life by it?
>>441024
I don't, what the fuck? Why should be expected to whip out the formal proofs for dawkins-lite over here? it's a perfectly simple point that is totally comprehensible. How fucking autistic are you? Every single debate I've had with scifaggots, they literally cannot respond to the most straightforward arguments like "science explains the how, not the why" and "meaning is not the domain of the scientific method" without whipping out the dank memes and maymay arrows. I can take some ballbusting but at least respond to the points being fucking made. Fuck off, go have a wet dream about dawkins sucking you off
>>441043
Faggot, I've responded to these arguments at least 5 times ITT, I'm not going to bother linking to all my posts because it would take too long. I'm not a 'scifag,' I'm majoring in history and philosophy.
>they literally cannot respond to the most straightforward arguments like "science explains the how, not the why" and "meaning is not the domain of the scientific method" without whipping out the dank memes and maymay arrows.
...but that's literally my position. I don't know why you're criticizing greentexters when your first post ITT consists almost exclusively of meme arrows and memes.
Bait thread.
>>440696
The "how" is also covered by philosophy. Physics gives us mathematical abstractions that allow us to quantify the "what" and utilize it in experiments. It's questionable if we really need the "what" quantified in that way ( especially since it removes important features from that "what" so to quantify it) in order to understand the "how" or "why". Having that knowledge certainly doesn't hurt, and may grant us some extra insights, so as long as we don't mistake physics for something that it is not.
Induction
Philosophy lets one know that there is a black cat worth looking for and tells one a flashlight might be the best way to find it.
Science then creates and uses the flashlight to find the black cat
without philosophy science would not know what to look for or how to find it
>>441503
>to find the black cat
so far, there is no justification that science finds anything.
>>441503
Science is looking for a completely different cat though.
>>441532
science doesnt necessarily find the cat yet it still uses the flashlight in order to try and find it.
>>441543
if it isnt the same cat then perhaps you could say that philosophy reveals that there is A cat to find. metaphysics, theology, science may all be searching for different cats, but philosophy recognizes the fact that they are all searching for a cat. each discipline is merely a different method towards finding a cat and philosophy evaluates that method.
>>441575
>yet it still uses the flashlight in order to try and find it.
not at all. not a single scientist can tell you that math/logic/scientific method are tools to reach whatever they desire to reach [without knowing why they want to reach anything].
in fact, most scientist explicitly do not bother to wonder what they are looking for. there is no longer a purpose for them.
some remain explicitly realist in their discourse, but they still cannot prove that what they do are relevant to reach their fantasy of reality.
>>439636
>What is the role of philosophy now that we have science?
To weed out people who think they're smart form the people who are actually smart.
>>441623
I find that hard to believe, that scientists lack purpose or something to look for. if this was the case then wouldnt all scientific inquiry cease? no experiments would be conducted, no new technology created, or no new medicine? unless you mean scientists have lost sight of some kind of grander, more universal end or purpose to strive for since there seems to always be some kind of immediate end towards which science reaches via math/logic/scientific method.
>>441623
I don't understand your point. If anything the opposite happened, the whole idea of "logos for logos' sake" seems to have completely disappeared from the scientific practice. Every new published paper feels the need to justify its existence by mentioning some applications and consequences of the research submitted, those applications being either for another field of research or for engineering purposes.
>>441686
>>441673
to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.
-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.
-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as you said: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.
-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.
the conclusion is that:
-science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] have clearly failed.
at best, the rationalist falls back, from his faith in the concept of objectivity, on the faith in the concept of ''inter-subjectivity'' which is roughly the faith in the concept of ''objective criterion to rank personal choices, once that a person wishes to solve some problem'' [this is the normative reason by kant]
[ex: how to rank films ?
the rationalist will claim that, if you think that dialogues matter, then there are objective ways to order the dialogues, but ''thinking that dialogues matter'' remains a personal choice.
of course, in this illustration, you can apply the inter-subjectivity to the level up: ''if you think that films matter and you want to order them, then surely, it is rational, it is objectively appropriate, to say that dialogues are important and good films have good dialogues''. But to claim that ''films matters'' remains a personal choice]. inter-subjectivity is just rephrasing objectivity.
>>441838
-even without applications, pure predictions are nothing but a concept and having faith in it shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
>>439636
This is my far the most stupid shit the Oatmeal has ever produced.
>>439636
This is fucking stupid.
You can use philosophy as a way of dealing with the human issues in life, like the practical aspects of stoicism for example.
This is an issue of conflating physics with human philosophy.
>>441838
>''because easing the life of the humans matters''.
and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters''., there is no answer too.
>>439735
I want you to kill yourself. I won't miss you.
>>442214
Buzzwording 101 and literally new age-tier bullshit.
>>442214
Are you proud to have made this garbage comic?
>>439899
He's right. Philosophy = thinking about shit while knowing fuck all
science = thinking about shit about what you know (your senses, IE, whereof one can speak of)
>>439735
>On the other hand, the philosophies are exciting and driven by purpose. You have a reason to live!
No.
>>440411
>if you take a shit
this is Hume's entire body of work desu
>>442675
Your definition of science seems way too broad, when the heart of science is (arguably) the careful documentation of repeatable observations, and speculating about them seems more in the realm of philosophy. Although, science does involve extrapolation, the important bit is that it be empirically testable. Just having a hypothesis isn't exactly science.
>>439636
This is looks like written by some pop-sci kid.
>>440183
I disagree with you but damn if that post didn't make me laugh
>>442521
Yeah. I love garbage.
>>440795
This desu
>>440795
>what morality is
A social construct.
>>442899
just like science and math
>>443238
No, not at all.
>>442675
>whereof one can speak of
>>443243
found the undergrad
>>443276
>>443359
>posting this unironically
>>443449
Prove me wrong
>>443800
Well, the statement isn't scientific in the first place. There's no way to verify or falsify what Penn says about the inevitable nonemergence of an identical system of belief to the destroyed one.
ok
Toasting an epic loaf of bread
>>439636
Literally nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron.
>>439735
>"I need to feel nice thoughts because I don't see beauty in day to day life, I should kill myself"
- You, 2015
>>439636
>is this correct
Lemme boil down what this meme man is saying
>Philosophy is ineffective and stupid
>Metaphysics is even stupider than that
>lol theology is for fundeMENTAList retards
>SCIENCE!!! BACON TESLA YAAAAS
When you break it down like that, it's pretty obvious that no one should take this picture seriously at all
>>446253
>projecting
>>446272
>implying he's wrong
literally go back to fucking reddit
>>439636
Fixed
