>philosophers talking about science
>scientists talking about philosophy
>>506097
Before Galileo science and philosophy were the same thing
>>506097
Agreed.
I don't have the expertise needed to understand some of their specialized technical language and I accept this. On the other hand, Engineer's disease is fucking cancer.
>A Baby on the floor counts as food.
You've gone too fucking far this time, captcha.
>Wikipedia experts discussing medieval armour, weapons and tactics
>everyone in the world appreciates beautiful things and creative works
>scientists cant appreciate either creative works or beautiful things
Science is created by autists right?
>>506103
I agree.
We've lost the essence of discovery and replaced it with a cynical pragmatism. We believe we can do everything, that there is nothing left to be discovered.
>>506097
What's the problem, OP?
>>506105
every fucking time. it's just a contradictory clusterfuck and you can here the smug self assurance through the screen.
>>506097
> Natural scientists talking about social sciences
> Social sciences talking about natural sciences
Nothing good has ever came out of this. The only people qualified to talk about it are people in disciplines dealing with both, like epidemiology and geography, and then again they can't really talk about anything outside their own fields.
>>506097
Half of love is just 'lo', which is how I feel right now.
>>506097
Scientists kind of need scientific philosophy in order to be decent scientists.
>>506542
>shilling your own thread
yep, it's a tripfag
>>506522
My biggest issue is when Social Sciences treat their subjects as a natural science. Fuck legal positivism desu
>>506097
Math = Axioms.
Science = Scientific Method.
Humanities = muh feelings.
>>507640
Philoshopy = Axioms + Logic
Math = A sub-field of Philosophy
History = literal account of events
History + Philosophy are the most important fields in the Humanities
>>507640
>
>>507640
>Math = Axioms
You = Stoopid
>>507656
History and important don't go together.
>>507656
>History = literal account of events
yeah, I'm sure no biases ever exist in history. Our accounts are 100%, literal and accurate of real events in the past.
Usually when philosophers talk about science they talk about the scientific method by itself, not about the quality of some actual theory within this method. And I think they have every right to since the scientific method is a matter of philosophy, not science.
Never heard of a famous philosopher talking shit about geometric quantization or stuff like that.
Pop-scientists often dismiss philosophy as a whole, likely without ever opening a book about it.
>>507656
>Math = A sub-field of Philosophy
Yeah.. no
>>506097
>People aren't allowed to express opinions if they're not experts
Here, let me try:
>You
>Expressing any opinion
>>507711
>Science = Axioms + Logic
No
>>507719
It's one of those non-definitions.
>are you thinking? Hurr durr this is also philosophy le tricked you
>>507714
>Pop-scientists often dismiss philosophy as a whole, likely without ever opening a book about it.
People just have to keep in mind that scientists talking about philosophy is as legit as medical doctors denying global warming and used as a front to show the "divide in the scientific community".
>>506097
faggot
>>507714
Listening to pop-scientists to gauge the opinions of the scientific community at large is like listening to John Green to figure out what philosophers are like.
This is a bad thread
>>508517
I do agree that actual scientists probably don't have that opinion on philosophy as often, but pop-scientists are the gateway peasants use to get into science, so that opinion gets much more coverage.
Hell, le wheelchair science man said that philosophy is dead, while Lawrence Krauss iirc wrote a paper along those lines.
>atheists talking about theology
>theologians talking about atheists
>scholars talking about non-scholarly things
>non-scholarly morons talking about scholarly things
There is no winning.
>mfw scientists know nothing of the foundations of the scientific method and its metaphysical assumptions
>>506097
>not intersecting disciplines
>not understanding the mutual constitution of all truth
>implying philosophy functions without science or vice versa
