"Philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor, says Bill Nye the Science Guy, though the answers it offers are frequently limited by human rationality. Science, on the other hand, surprises us!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM
So apparently philosophy is pretty much obsolete now guys.. what do i do now?
>>795485
Science is literally a philosophy. For a man chooses to believe science. Positivists need to stop.
>>795485
Fucking science cucks
>>795521
How do you know that the results of science are "true'?
What is truth?
>>795485
That's a really shitty and colloquial way for him to phrase his claim, but he's talking to the american public, so of course he has to go out of his way to sound like a colossal faggot. Popsci is cancer, but it has to be to keep an audience.
I think what he's getting at is that the most abstract of philosophical claims, even if true, aren't necessarily applicable in day to day life, whereas science gets you "new toys" that it seems you can actually play with. Shallow as he may be, I'd say he has a point. Science might only deal with the observable world, but at least my observation says it looks good.
>>795496
>For a man chooses to believe science.
Choosing to make use of it and choosing to believe it offers ultimate truth are not the same thing.
>>795553
Oh fuck off already. You can go sit in your corner and jerk off to your thoughts, but please leave the products of science behind, because they're obviously not true.
People know the results of science are true because it gets shit done, unlike philosophy.
>>795521
Science was created by philosophers.
>>795556
Believing in science is ultimately making use of it.
>>795496
>For a man chooses to believe science
Dear lord..
>>795592
Aristotle sucked at science. Things like guessing about the number of teeth in a woman's mouth when he could have just fucking checked.
>>795592
Chemistry was made by alchemists, but if you're looking for the Elixir of Life in this day and age by messing around with solvents you fucked up.
Am I the only one who is starting to think that people just use philosophy as an excuse to believe in whatever insanity makes them feel good? Hiding behind the impossibility of objective experience to deny the world around them as a means of avoiding genuine examination of their beliefs.
>>795556
well im gonna give a retarded example here but still; how is knowing how a black hole or gravity works more important - or applicaple to daily life - than thinking philosophically about stuff? And secondly this guy shouldnt be talking about philosophy, which he's clearly uninformed about, because its damaging to its image
>>795606
What do you consider "objective experience"?
>>795601
>Aristotle sucked at science.
Do you enjoy having the Scientific Method?
>>795609
Seeing reality as it is with no faults in our perceptions or distortions due to bias.
>>795601
Honestly, he gets a much worse reputation than he deserves for isolated statements out of context like this. For example, wisdom teeth may or may not erupt for a number of reasons and it would be easy to ascribe a "lack" of teeth to gender if theirs preferentially erupted less often due to other factors.
>>795560
Gets shit done? Like what? The horror of the atomic bomb? The degradation of human beings via industrialization? The pollution of the planet? Do you stand by these things, these products of science?
>>795485
>the answers it offers are frequently limited by human rationality
>limited by human rationality
Oh heaven forbid!
What the fuck is the alternative?
>>795617
Surely, then, you couldn't trust science, because science posits things about our experience that cannot be known except through faith? How do you know that the laws of motion hold true through pure experience? Can you say that gravity follows a universal law? Have you seen it?
>>795624
Please refrain from using whichever device it is you are using to shitpost here, it is the product of engineering using applied principles discovered by the scientific method. Not only is the device not true, if it were true it would clearly be evil.
>>795624
The atomic bomb has basically caused warfare between major powers to cease. Humanity has no degraded due to industrialization, if anything it is slowly coming into its potential as something greater. The pollution of the planet is an unfortunate, but not irreversible situation.
Yes, I stand by them, and I stand by them over your masturbatory naval-gazing that would still see us staring at fire in a cave and wondering if the fire is indeed hot.
>>795640
I wasn't saying there isn't a leap of logic present, but it's a much smaller leap (or more correctly, fewer leaps) to believe in science than to believe in whatever useless woowoo you propose.
>>795642
No man, you don't get it. The fire isn't hot, it is merely the projection of the true Form of Hotness that exists outside the Cave! What a useful observation.
>>795650
I propose nothing. The empirical standpoint must believe in nothing, beyond it's own sensations. Why do you consider it just to make any move beyond it's bounds, and chide others for doing the same?
>>795601
Most of his zoological work was based on thorough observation or dissection
>>795641
Do you have firsthand knowledge that I'm even using a device to post here? How unempirical of you.
>>795682
Every single example of someone posting on the Internet has used a device of some sort, thus through induction I assume you are using a device. However, you do have a point that induction cannot provide us with any Truth, thus I will "reason" that you must be using some kind of mind magic that directly causes posts to appear from the ether.
Wow, your "reason" is great for learning more about Truth. It's such a shame that science has displaced it so such in modern times.
>>795642
Your obsession with "progress" leads you to ignore basic facts about your own experience.
The toys that you play with have distracted you from learning anything at all about yourself.
>>795709
How does science exist outside of empiricism or rationality? What is the mode of knowledge derivation that causes its truth to appear?
stop shitposting god damnit this is not about science vs philosophy or any of that retarded crap, its about the fact that public intellectuals like bill nye dont seem to understand philosophy, and the fact that by making these kinds of videos they're corrupting its stature
>>795709
>strawmanning this hard
>>795709
Wait, do you seriously believe in extreme scientism? Do you realize how autistic that is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>>795521
I'd argue that science is not a belief system, but a methodology.
I'd also agree that science is a philosophy. Bear with me.
(I'm not that "Positivists need to stop" guy, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, or the way he words it.)
Science is categorically an empirical philosophy, that is it is a philosophy primarily concerned with optimizing how we collect information from and about the physical world.
The concern of this philosophy is I think, constant, and integral to its definition (that is, nobody can walk up and say "well science used to be concerned with that, but now it's concerned with this instead" and truly be talking about science (instead they'd be talking about some other philosophy/ideology, but dressing it up as science, this unfortunately happens a lot).
This is not to say scientific methods can't be performed independently of science (indeed one can follow one of the ten commandments and not be religious in any sense.) or that various sciences evolved out of historical pseudosciences with less defined/standardized methodologies, it is merely to say that science as a method will always be what it is, a philosophy about how knowledge ought to be objectively gathered.
It is an incredibly effective and helpful philosophy but still a philosophy nonetheless.
As for the contention that science is all one needs, keep in mind that science merely dictates how information ought to be collected, not what to do with it. For that, there is still ethics. To use some objectively gathered information to create a new medicine where that same information could have been used to create a weapon is not a scientific consideration, but a political and ethical consideration, and to say that such considerations are not worth philosophizing about simply because we have science is, it seems to me, misguided.
>>795592
It's similar to Ion in Plato's dialogue. Aristotle was both philosopher and scientist but the observations he made didn't really cross fields.
>>795750
Yes, but it keeps their retarded fan bases from flooding into the field, so it's unintentionally good.
>>795794
Science cannot tell us about certain problems the way other fields might. If you try to use strictly scientific methods to learn about Minoan religion, you aren't going to get far. That's a question for historians. However, if a historian were to find a papyrus proporting to be a record from the Minoan era that actually carbon-dated to the early Roman Empire, they would probably treat that date as legitimate rather than the one the document itself claims. A historian who rejected that date because "science can't tell you anything, maan" would probably not be taken very seriously.
However, for whatever reason many philosophers seem to be happy to take that exact position. They are historians who value their pet theories over what can actually be verified scientifically. That's probably why when these arguments come up, philosophers who do actual real-world work like political philosophers mostly keep quiet. They're probably sick of being associated with sophists and mystics.
>though the answers it offers are frequently limited by human rationality.
Like science?
The fact that you have a scientific method means you have an observable, rational Universe on which you can make repeatable experiments.
>Science, on the other hand, surprises us!
So....?
>>795560
>People know the results of science are true because it gets shit done, unlike philosophy.
Literally the "but i have money" of answers.
Also, how is your driverless car going on?
Found the science about how many people it should kill yet?
>>796042
It was a big surprise in early XX century that people aren't equal and different races exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hYaPnkGTLM
/thread
Is this YouTube scientist implying that science is superior to philosophy because according to him science can be irrational?
Wtf
I suppose he meant counter intuitive and was talking about relativity or quantum theory. Otherwise yes, a colossal faggot.
I don't understand. Why there is conflict between science and philosophy if philosophy itself is very foundation of scientific knowledge?
>>796085
He's saying science can do things like tell you that "solids" are actually mostly empty space, whereas of you are sitting on a char with your head resting on your fist and authoring your model of how the world works you probably won't figure that out. And even if you get that by luck, you won't get all the hundreds of other counter-intuitive facts.
>>795592
>Believing in science is ultimately making use of it.
I'm the guy you responded to; I think what you technically mean to say is:
>Making use of science is ultimately the same as believing in it.
The issue here is with the word "ultimately". To a scientist who doesn't think their way through deep philosophy, yeah, they'll say "this is true" like >>795560
did and go back to other matters. However, they're attributing a completely different meaning to the word "true" than someone who's actually considering ultimate truth. Going off of the philosopher's "truth," choosing to make use of science and choosing to believe it offers "ultimate truth" are not the same thing. By it's own nature it just uses repeated testing to identify trends that are worth betting on.
>>795608
>how is knowing how a black hole or gravity works more important - or applicable to daily life - than thinking philosophically about stuff?
And to that science says "it'll eventually bear fruit," as empty as that claim may seem. It's just going to coast off of it's rep system.
>And secondly this guy shouldnt be talking about philosophy, which he's clearly uninformed about, because its damaging to its image
It's only damaging the image philosophers have of him. The american public is definitely not comprised of a bunch of philosophers. Sure, there's a christian majority, but half of them treat religion as a hobby at this point. He's appealing to the layman because he feels rather morally obligated to do so. Over-elaboration is only going to make him and his field even more questioned than they already are.
>>796096
This. Why do people not realize this?
>>796096
There's no real conflict, I don't think. Most smart academics recognize that. But 4chan is for arguing and shitflinging
>>796096
The existences of most religions have always been upward spikes followed by long downward spirals. Christianity used to basically be the law, but now church just a weekly arts and crafts center by comparison. The more your surroundings are observed, the less attractive dogmas become; the political power of science is inversely proportional to the political power of religion, they're inevitably going to clash and often directly contradict eachother.
When you add on the fact that the average Joe thinks philosophy is "that religion thing, right?" and the fact that their media outlets don't correct them due to a rational fear of the public's own unwillingness to learn, philosophy itself becomes a target.
>>796268
so there's another faggy video and it's about art this time: 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8IYUk_tx'
A quote: 'However, science has affected our society dramatically.' (in contrast to art)
Jesus christ... is this guy literally retarded?
>>796042
Philosophy won't tell us how many people the car should kill either. This is a matter of opinion, and you can have many arguments in different directions. And you will always make assumptions based on nothing.
>>795722
That's a completely baseless assertion. Not only am I not obsessed with progress, I am also quite capable of introspection. I'm just smart enough to realize that I probably wouldn't be alive were it not for science, and so don't dismiss it out of hand like a fucking fool
>>795485
>"Science, on the other hand, surprises us!"
Was Bill Nye expecting matter to not exist?
>>795560
People know the results of Juche are true, because it gets shit done.
>>798114
Yeah OK. Says the guy on the device built with science.
>>796722
This. You get Stirner and Marx arguing over how many and who the car should kill, and you'll get two very different opinions.
Philosophy is outdated and many problems are a result of our poor language.
Wolfgang Smith wrote a book on basing science on thomist metaphysics.
Telle something about philosophy that isn't trivial. I started with kant and while it wasn't the easiest shit to read, nothing surprised me.
>>798231
That's because most of Kant has already been incorporated into your worldview.
Also, because you haven't read Hume.
>>798231
Read some 20th or 21st centuary stuff.
The thing about old philosophy is it's ideas that were already folded into society.
It's like reading a history book and saying "nothing surprised me", philosophy is an active thing that decides where the rivers of society will flow. The only reason Kant's theory of peace through democracy didn't surprise you is because it's a policy that has already been tried.
>>798119
The Great Leader and the Dear Leader both emphasized the importance of science and technical development. So the creation of a computer is, again, demonstration of the truth of Juche.
>>798119
Actually our contemporary computing ability owes allot to the work of the 20th century logicians- who were philosophers.
>>798421
Most logicians became mathematicians.
>>798494
They were still philosophers, and pretty much every philosophy department teaches courses that sit at the intersection of Philosophy and Mathematics in regards to 20th century logic and Philosophy of Mathematics. It isn't that they jumped ship to a different discipline, it is that the disciplines are very interconnected.
>>798582
All modern logic is done by mathematicians. Stop Grasping straws.
>>795614
That has nothing to do with him
>>795485
>mfw this thread
What is it about philosophy that makes STEMfags so butthurt?
>>798652
>who is Wittgenstein
>what is a truth table
