>philosophy is dead
>philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
>scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge
Prove him wrong.
>>8127031
Prove him right first, then we'll talk.
>Scientism and the never-ending quest to pit philosophy and science against one another
>>8127077
upvoted my man, i cringed when i read those first few words of his book without anything to confirm it
>>8127031
Philosophy will never die, sorry
>>8127031
>hfw he realizes the scientific method is completely rested in metaphysics
>>8127031
He's basically a shitty pop philosopher of physics himself, so perhaps his rant is a projected form of self-loathing?
>philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
Impying that the questions that not-contemporany philosophers tried to solve are now solved and since philosophy has not kept up with modern advances (unjustified) they have no more questions to answer or formulate and therefore it's dead
>calmdownson.jpeg
>>8127031
>philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
?????????
>>8127129
>the questions that not-contemporany philosophers tried to solve
give some examples of some philisophical problems that haven't been solved, and are likely to be solved by philosophers rather than scientists
>>8127031
Ime pioneering scientists tend to say certain things under very specific conditions, then other scientists come along and interpret these very specific statements incredibly broadly. Then all of them whine that non scientists don't really understand what's going on and shouldn't comment.
Much of new science isn't ridiculously complicated, at least in conception. But it is overly mysticised both within and without.
And I think as with most things 99% of the things being said by 99% of the voices is stupid shit and should be ignored.
>>8127139
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, will it make a sound?
>>8127031
>philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
Except, no, philosophers are the only ones who HAVE kept up with modern physics and are actually trying to make sense of it.
>>8127147
objectively yes
>>8127147
> implying that is solveable by philosophers
>>8127147
Depends if by "no one" you are excluding the Supreme Intellect in which the world subsists. If the Supreme Intellect does not hear it, then it doesn't exist, no.
If anything, modern science has had far too much impact on philosophy.
>>8127180
hBuh Samarris sai da Science as sold all o dem things
>>8127147
Perfect example of an issue dividing physicists and philosophers. Physicists tend to answer "no" and philosophers tend to answer "yes".
>>8127139
The correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.
>>8127031
>Prove him wrong.
he ugly
>>8127180
Materialism is a metaphysical thesis about the nature of reality, you moron.
>>8127217
GOT HEEM
>>8127224
Yes, and from that point of view and the notion that science is able to explain every observable event, of course not only by sight, you get to his point
>>8127249
What?
>>8127153
niels bohr wouldn't agree
oh
Lmao
>>8127272
how
>>8127031
Science without philosophy can't be anything but a fuckin' waste of time.
I swear, modern science fags are getting more close minded and dogmatic than that medieval christian church they can't stop bitching about.
>>8127469
really makes you think
>>8127147
"Sound" is not something atomic, it consists of different facets. Sound is partly an experience, experienced by a being and partly waves moving through which is what causes this experience. If you have the cause of sound but not the experience of sound it makes a half-sound, the ghost of sound just like an hallucination which is the experience without the cause.
>>8127553
You're not getting it.
>>8127469
And Degrasse Tyson is probably one of the better ones.
I somewhat blame the media. They view the common man as plebs like themselves and assume no one wants anything vaguely intelligent or nuanced.
And remember that most of these guys have a similar understanding of science itself as the do of philosophy. Some respected scientists a few years back were saying embarrassingly stupid things about String Theory for example.
And that fucking open mind brain falls out shit really rustles my jimmies
>>8127031
>>philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics
he must be really pissed there's a metaphysics office at cern
>>8127469
damn, thats actually a neat picture
>>8127542
>modern science fags
stem plebs and popsci faggots
>>8127077
thats not how science works
>>8127590
According to who? Philosophers of (haha) Science????
>beep boop facts facts facts (that aren't actually facts, one new discovery and our objective truth ceases to be an objective truth)
>>8127161
>>8127204
>>8127553
fucking hell
this board gets stupider every day
>>8127590
>assumption made without any argument
>disprove it
ok
>>8127557
It's consistent, which is pretty much the same as it being true.
>>8127031
nigga u can't even walk what are u doing telling me philosophy is dead don't make pull the ak out my nigga. I'll shoot a cripple! I'll do it my dudes
>>8127031
The AI has taken over his chair and voice synthesiser
>>8127031
>Prove him wrong.
Science is based on methods derived from philosophy of science and philosophical logic.
Furthermore, contemporary analytical philosophy is essentially based on nothing but references to natural science.
>>8127686
Derp.
>>8127907
>>>/reddit/
>>8127031
Science is rooted in philosophy, so the death of philosophy would be the death of science.
>>8127939
Here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/
You little fucking SJW shitbag.
>>8127978
>still using sjw as an insult
:)
>>8127994
>astronomy "is rooted" in astrology
>>8127994
Bullshit.
>>8127560
I actually kind of agree with the Dawkins one. I think he was still well-meaning back then. He's just saying don't rush off to become a nihilist or relativist.
Trust me, the other side can be just as bad. For every naive STEM faggot you see, there is a Kristeva-reading faggot on the other side, who only cares about how numbers are phallic and knowledge is impossible.
Realism and nominalism are BOTH important, and BOTH camps have their fucking cultish wankers.
>>8128007
>i don't know the history of astronomy
>>8128050
Science is more rooted in philosophy than astronomy was ever rooted in astrology. What argument are you trying to make. It doesn't matter, one exists in toto and the other does not.
>>8127978
huh? i dont even know what you're talking about, derp!!!!x D
>>8128055
Your argument doesn't make sense. You're working to compare the relationship of Science to Philosophy with the relationship between Astronomy and Astrology; when the two aren't comparable at all. Theyy exist in comparisons of some bizarre "old v new" argument you're trying to make.
There shouldn't even be a reason why we're talking about Astronomy.
>>8128050
You're a fucking moron, dude. Blow your brains out.
>>8127994
>implying NASA isn't just a bunch of gypsies and voodoo witchdoctors who use magick to send things to space
how ignorant are u?
>>8128058
Time to end your life - SJW-loving bitch boy. Fucking faggot.
>>8127469
This is like one of those "my country vs your country" cherrypicking shitposts that gets posted on /pol/
It's the sort of thing that someone would post who thinks Einstein actually meant a real god when he talked about "knowing the mind of god"
Do you think Peter Higgs gives a flying fuck about philosophy? or Shuji Nakamura? Or McDonald and Kajita? Yeah I bet they spend all their time staring at their navels thinking deep thoughts about Plato rather than doing experiments and stuff.
Jesus fuck this board is full of pseudointellectual retards. Stick to your fucking bandana suicide boy memes and leave the thinking to grown ups.
>>8128126
Your post is incoherent nonsense.
>>8128126
>Do you think Peter Higgs gives a flying fuck about philosophy? or Shuji Nakamura? Or McDonald and Kajita? Yeah I bet they spend all their time staring at their navels thinking deep thoughts about Plato rather than doing experiments and stuff.
This isn't specific at all, you name specifics in physics, but can't be bothered to name any other than Plato. These people are working to stereotype entire branches of philosophy. They could overlap, and they could be seperate, and in fact like you say, most of the time they don't share interests.
Which is why I find the criticism of philosophy by contemporary Pop-Sci figures baffling. It doesn't effect them at all.
>>8128136
>incoherent
Apparently basic English reading comprehension is beyond you
>nonsense.
no u r
>>8128126
You are so utterly clueless, it's breathtaking. Anyone doing theoretical physics leans heavily on philosophy for, e.g., the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and field theory ontologies. Don't post if you're really that ignorant.
>>8128126
Your analogy is godawful, as is your post.
It isn't cherrypicking because neither Dawkins, nor Krauss nor the rest of the four shitlord horsemen value philosophy: in contrast to the "my country vs your country" cherrypicking, where there obviously ARE counterexamples to both, you don't have them here.
>Do you think Peter Higgs gives a flying fuck about philosophy? or Shuji Nakamura? Or McDonald and Kajita? Yeah I bet they spend all their time staring at their navels thinking deep thoughts about Plato rather than doing experiments and stuff.
And that's why they are inferior to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. -- they can't appreciate the value of both. The arrogance of physicists post-Feynmann is amusing at best and self-refuting at worst (do I really need to go into the fact that your fucking beloved experiments carry a shitload of background theory that rests on certain logico-ontological assumptions?).
>>8128154
You've never studied physics, so it's not surprising how fucking uninformed you are.
>>8128150
>This isn't specific at all, you name specifics in physics, but can't be bothered to name any other than Plato.
I'm a busy man, anon. I named four living contemporary physicists. If you want, you can add the names of three philosophers to the end of my sentence. Its meaning will almost certainly be unchanged.
>Pop-Sci
I don't know much about Bill Nye, he's not especially well known here, but selfish gene theory is very relevant to modern biology and Krauss was one of the people who came up with dark energy which is a field with a lot of research going on
>>8128126
Koch never shuts up about philosophy (he's p decent tho) and Higgs criticised Dawkins for going on about religion.
>>8128186
>I named four living contemporary physicists.
Too bad they all love philosophy and regard it as crucial.
But nice try, trollboy.
>>8128186
>selfish gene theory is very relevant to modern biology
It's influential but it's already been criticised enough and is somewhat irrelevant.
>>8128186
>I'm a busy man, anon
Let's be honest here.
>>8128182
>You've never studied physics
Actually I have, and I could point you to some stuff I coauthored, but I don't think you'd understand it.
Stick to
>woooo muh deep thoughts
>>8128218
>Higgs criticised Dawkins for going on about religion.
Yes, he did. Peter Higgs is a very nice polite old man- I've heard him speak- and criticised Dawkins mainly for his style, not his content. Higgs is himself an atheist.
Anyway goodnight children. Stay blinkered.
Why Physics Needs Philosophy (Tim Maudlin):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy (Sean Carroll):
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/
Physicists Are Philosophers, Too (Victor Stenger):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/
>>8128264
>Actually I have
No you haven't.
>>8128239
>it's already been criticised enough
Yes, mainly by people who have themselves been largely dismissed
Criticism is how science works, anon. Things that can withstand criticism tend to stick around. The Selfish Gene is 40 years old this year.
>and is somewhat irrelevant.
Nope
>>8128276
>I have
>No you haven't
Is this the level of philosophical argument that you are trying to win people over to, anon?
OK, I'll bite. You're a faggot, fuck you. Happy now?
>>8128292
>>8128292
>Is this the level of philosophical argument that you are trying to win people over to, anon?
Yes. I don't believe you've ever been "in physics" because you don't know how stupid criticizing entire fields of academics is you aren't associated with, and cannot say much about. Someone that "understands physics", understands that understanding physics isn't understanding things outside of physics and make them legitimate.
This is simple.
>>8128264
Oh I get it, you're just trolling. After all. nobody can be that fucking ignorant.
>Actually I have, and I could point you to some stuff I coauthored, but I don't think you'd understand it.
I have an M.S. in Physics, shitstain. I'm sure your "deep thoughts" are not actually that deep.
>criticised Dawkins mainly for his style, not his content. Higgs is himself an atheist.
As if atheism had anything to do with this. Almost every living philosopher is an atheist, materialist, and scientific realist. You simply have no clue what philosophers do. I don't have a problem with Dawkins, but he is essentially a pop philosopher - why he is speaking out against his own occupation I'll never understand.
>>8128126
>rather than doing experiments and stuff.
Lost it.
>>8128279
>Yes, mainly by people who have themselves been largely dismissed
But have not returned the Selfish Gene into prominence or w/e. It's old and was never a kind of seminal work. And my point is Dawkins hasn't been relevant since the 70's.
The guy in interview often spews 70's nonsense now, he's a relic trapped in a time bubble.
>>8127031
the only thing I see that's dead here is the uncanny and lifeless expression of a man with a degenerative disorder, a countenance which surely belies the turmoil in his heart's mind even as his mind's mind deigns to acknowledge it amirite?
