Hi /sci
Philosophy has been for a very long time associated to "hard sciences".
Even now, in our time, scientists (from any fields) are debating on the nature of the world, which is clearly a metaphysical problem. I will not list the books or journals containing debates, but anyone who have an interest in sciences will know what I mean.
Which leads to my question : Are philosophy or metaphysics still relevant in sciences?
If yes, why did we almost banished philosophy from sciences education?
If no, why very good scientists would loose time in philosophical discussion that lead nowhere?
>>7679424
Science and philosophy had a falling out like science and magic.
>>7679433
They used to be such great buddies... What a shame.
>>7679424
It's not relevant past the epistemological premises' and a physicist has no use for it.
Alchemy might be a discredited field, but you can still practice alchemy as a discipline does not rely on being inherently true.
In the same way practicing physics only relies on fundamental postulates within the discipline itself.
>Even now, in our time, scientists (from any fields) are debating on the nature of the world, which is clearly a metaphysical problem. I will not list the books or journals containing debates, but anyone who have an interest in sciences will know what I mean.
The only thing I hate more than academics from the physics departments who publish in philosophy journals are philosophers who think they understand physics and try to bring retarded misinterpretations of QM and GR etc. into their arguments. All those publications and polemics making up the "debate" is the most pointlessly retarded and cyclical shit ever. I'm pretty sure most people doing it know they're wasting storage space, but hey publications help their career regardless so onwards.
>>7679433
No, it's not that simple. You are comparing philosophy to magic, but magic is clearly wrong for any decent scientist. While philosophical implication of scientific finding are a valid subject for debate, among scientist themselves.
You can see that in math, lot of mathematician are still concerned with the question of math being an universal truth or being a truth for mankind.
You will see that in biology, a simple example being the recognition of ethic rules in biology. These rules have nothing to do with science, they emerged from philosophy.
For physic, the debate between having understandable models and equation versus using non-understandable equation is far from being closed.
>>7679483
>You can see that in math, lot of mathematician are still concerned with the question of math being an universal truth or being a truth for mankind.
Yes, I agree fully that all Platonists should be hanged, drawn and quartered. However, once again when you're actually doing math within the discipline your work does not depend on either and the problem falls under philosophy not mathematics itself.
>>7679483
>magic is clearly wrong
Sure thing brah
>>7679424
Science and philosophy are opposites. Science is about objective facts while philosophy is denying logic and reality on the basis of unverifiable opinions.
Philosophy aka Logic is, still, containing all science and math.
Plebs get a wrong idea of things and don't know they are talking about.
>>7679537
>>7679538
Logic is a field of math, dingus.
>>7679452
I agree with you on philosopher being attracted to physic for publication. Clearly they over-simplify to be published.
But I think some physician at least are honest when publishing papers concerning the intelligibility of physic. When physic shows results that are valid but totally counter-intuitive, like with very small particles, it's hard to state that probabilistic equations are the very nature of the universe.
Maybe it's true but it goes against what was expected and against our perception of the human world.
I can imagine that these equations, which are very effective, still creates a problem.
I guess physician that have a hard time using these equations will try to explain the problem in philosophical terms.
>>7679538
you do realize that Physics has its foundations in non-mathematical concepts, right
>>7679550
I'm not sure if I should take you seriously after you've spelt physics wrong 5/5 times in one post.
Then again based on the fact that your entire post is nonsensical babble I'm just going to assume you're trolling and hit the sack.
>>7679483
>lot of mathematician are still concerned with the question of math being an universal truth or being a truth for mankind.
By "mathematicians" you mean high school kids who got a B in their calculus class? Because actual mathematicians prefer to do mathematical research instead of wasting time with infantile pseudo-intellectualism.
>>7679558
No I don't. I am a retard who based my entire world view on a xkcd webcomic strip and I should kill myself.
ok, philosophers have been around since ancient greece
can you tell what did they achieve and what they figured out?
>>7679558
Can you explain me what you are trying to say? I don't even know the relation of what you just said with my post.
>>7679567
>can you tell what did they achieve
They caused the genocide of approximately 100 million people. Political philosophy is the source of nazism, communism, islamic extremism and basically any radical totalitarian ideology. One can certainly say that philosophers killed more people than scientists ever did.
>>7679497
Not sure that hanging Platonist will help. The very question is more : Why math, a science that has nothing to do with the world, is so fucking effective in describing the world?
>>7679533
Isn't it?
>>7679537
You should read some book.
>>7679538
It was true for a very long time. Modern logic however has nothing to do with Plato logic.
>>7679549
Yes true, but it took a loooong time for mathematician to dig further. I would say with the beginning of second order logic, so after Kant (1804).
>>7679567
We destroyed arbitrary paganism and relative morals. We placed arguments behind judgement, thus leading to good judgement. We fought sophistry with every breath, and gave birth fair rulers. From our works, men know what they should be and do. If you want a good book to start with, read Plato's The Republic. Often consider second hand information to be biased, and keep your own notes.
>>7679589
>You should read some book.
Nice reddit insult. I've read more books than you, and my post was factually true. Whatcha gonna do about it?
>>7679589
Why do you think there can be 2 Logics? You should read less and think more, I guess.
>>7679566
Mathematics does not contain physics in its entirety.
>>7679561
OK, I am french and we spell "physique", singular. You're not able to give a coherent answer so it's a good idea to stay out.
>>7679563
Not true, have a look at Alain Connes, hardly a school kid. He wrote number of papers on the philosophical implication of math.
>>7679558
No idea what you mean bro
>>7679579
Yes, it's a good summary of Greece philosophy. They were nazi-communist and ate babies. Now I think you should try to jump of the windows, if nothing happens, continue until new instructions.
Hey OP, let's make a formal slow dialectic discussion. Make some input on what you know about ancient philosophy for starters.
>>7679589
>isn't it?
The laws of nature are just magic that behave in consistent predictable ways that we have labeled.
>>7679611
>Now I think you should try to jump of the windows, if nothing happens, continue until new instructions.
Nice try, but I'm not a philosopher. Unlike them, I can think on my own, and I critically question everything other people tell me.
>>7679589
>Not sure that hanging Platonist will help.
It would certainly help to let me enjoy my morning coffee in peace...
>>7679424
>Are philosophy or metaphysics still relevant in sciences?
Yes but scientists are a combination of to ignorant and arrogant to take the numbers and put them into words
>why did we almost banished philosophy from sciences education?
Because more people would get involved in soft philosophy, eg: politics, and corrupt the circle jerk of the extremely wealthy
>why very good scientists would loose time in philosophical discussion that lead nowhere?
Because it's somewhere where you can be edgy and don't have to prove your arguements until someone makes a decently rational and followable train of thought, at which point it can be study'd
imo it's just unfortunate that nobody wants to make latices of the philosophy's out there to give cross sections of where the potentials of each physical realm can fall into and make grounds for a more orientatable fields with less orientation to the given fields
>>7679592
I am not sure your post was true. Science and philosophy were associated in books until 1700-1800. Opposition between them is quite recent, and we have no idea if this opposition will last.
>>7679597
There are no two logic. Although first order logic and second order logic are quite different. Second order logic can be applied in much more cases, and allows cool things like the construction of numbers from nothing.
>>7679601
I agree with that, math do not contains physics. But math is very effective to describe and solve physics problems
>>7679643
>it's just unfortunate that nobody wants to make latices of the philosophy's out there to give cross sections of where the potentials of each physical realm can fall into and make grounds for a more orientatable fields with less orientation to the given fields
Many do this, my friend. It's just rare. You are probably a candidate for such job.
>>7679647
Can I give you an advice? You say "but" too much. Your mind doesn't look the sanest to me. In this case, are you thinking this man doesn't know "math is very effective to describe physics"? It seems something weird to say, I don't get it.
>>7679637
Yes, Platonist are ruining morning coffee for sure. Maybe you should try tea?
>>7679626
Maybe, it's quite hard to be sure. But it could be and that would be sad.No?
>>7679625
It's quite hard to have dialectic discussion here. I know that Plato and Aristotle defined almost all important concept that we are using. I know that mathematics was considered a pure science, and that the first university was actually a Phythagorician school. I think Greek philosopher are still relevant, because sophists still exists.
>>7679643
You seems to have a very bad opinion on people motivations. Maybe you're right but for sure I hope you're not.
Can you develop your last sentence? I am not sure to get it, still seems interesting.
>>7679661
Thank you for advice. I will try to use it. In that case I was just pointing that while math obviously do not contain physics, math are awesomely effective to describe physics.
>>7679679
>I think Greek philosopher are still relevant, because sophists still exists.
What do you mean?
>>7679688
Sophism was basically equivalent to the use of rhetoric. That is to say, to use discussion "tricks" to win debates without any consideration for actual truth.
Sophism is used widely in politic. For instance, to attack someone on his morality (ex. you cheated your wife) do not prove he is wrong, but will help you win a debate.
Sophism is a way to trick people, sophist uses everything (including irrelevant statement) to win a debate.
>>7679688
Continue
Greek philosophers were aware of sophism and provided some ways to not fall for sophist statement.
>>7679713
I cannot agree more. So you think philosophy is relevant because it defeats sophistry?
>>7679723
I think philosophy is a way to defeat sophistry.
I believe that philosophy could be relevant in sciences, but I have no fact to stand this position to be honest.
It's more that I hope philosophy will become relevant again. I think philosophy can provide a big picture that even non-scientist can understand.
>>7679679
> >>7679643
>You seems to have a very bad opinion on people motivations
I simply acknowledge that the majority of people are not inventors and would rather take the data path rather than the innovative one; ultimately such would be good for politics, I don't have an arguement that says other wise I'm just giving the reasons why such studies aren't promoted
>Can you develop your last sentence? I am not sure to get it, still seems interesting.
Well for example lets go with Kant (reason being the truer morality, eg; attachment should be left at superficial until conclusive conduction's are established)
and Nietzsche (Determinism is irrelevant as God the promoter of such is dead and everything that exists is negligible do to there no longer being purpose to any of it)
and cross section and apply them to Schrodinger's cat in a box analogy and we get the out of it {drumroll here}:
the cat not being subject to any subliminal effects of the potential of attachments and subatomic 'micro' vibrations, IE the thing we put in the box was not known to be of a standard of determination that an outside determiner would have any potential baring on, I'm just saying that kind of shit exists, it simply exist beyond our current availability to give light to how it operates, but never the less; when given permutation of Nietzsche's philosophy we understand that any attachment we might have had we're invalid and by such considered foolish simply by the conditions of the fact that everything has an expiration date and when it's beyond one's control then Kant rolls in and effectively says, to kind of play on the crypto philosophy here, the life that you know them more in is the life you will find them more in as you know that you have known them to the point of knowing what you wanted to know of them, until then the trigger mechanism of what you know of them is still in play, the bullet has not left the chamber, and the shot has not pierced it's target
>>7679756
>...the life that you know them more in is the life you will find them more in as you know that you have known them to the point of knowing what you wanted to know of them, until then the trigger mechanism of what you know of them is still in play, the bullet has not left the chamber, and the shot has not pierced it's target
This simply goes as far to say that the protagonist of the element in question is not the antagonist, but the reactor that is setting up the pulley's/levers/ etc
>>7679734
I think philosophy is a bridge between the non-scientist and science, and that it was blown so that no one can learn science or think rationally and do what must be done.
It was blown just like Socrates was killed without committing crimes, and this fact is what makes us call "Science" a corrupt, Lazy, Arrogant community of people instead of what it is. Why? Well, if philosophy defeats sophistry, sophists hate philosophy and seek to destroy it. And I can only assume some success in their goal.
Does this make sense to you?
>>7679768
It does make sense, yet I think Socrates live and death were honest according to Socrates. I think as well that sophist can be wrong and happy or unhappy and right, they will never be happy and right.
>>7679756
Sorry but you lost me using Kant and Nietzsche together in the Schrodinger paradox. Could you give an example involving only Kant?
>>7679756
I know Kant better, his definition of pure knowledge make sense to me.
I must admit Nietzsche is very hard to understand for me, I gave up reading Zarathustra. Maybe I should have started something else.
>>7679800
Mk, here's a reinteration
The collapse in question can be observed as an ignorance of the reactors potential to demonstrate a coordinate in the sequence being noted, in comes Neetzschi-latte with 'if it can't be determined then it is null to the point of ignorable', which goes as far to say if it's not understandable then a freewill of sorts is at play, this is an excerpt on the thought of when nothing is as tabulatable as a phasing existance then there is a balance that results in what we could consider free will.
Now this in mind we go back to considering Kant and the ultimatum of reason being the only true outline of identifying correspondence, as opposed to coincidence or serendipity of a gathering of charges affecting another; as far as we know there is no absolute reason for this other than "how the fuck did that happen"
Then or Neetzschi-latte friend steps back in and turns the arguement into 'if there is such a thing as non-existing doesn't every single thing share bindings in such?', and we fall into a tree/bush/plant analogy that gives a pertaining clause that the wave collapse was that of a wind in the non-existent aether that only disturbed one leaf; now this implies that the tree that carried it (the function en mass of the tree's 'leaves') provided from {the function en mass} that the attributes that were allowing for a carrot on a stick of a triggering method to detect but ultimately, as Nietzsche implies with the continuance of truly negligible: the paradox
>>7679869
I think I get what you mean.
You're using Nietzsche predicates to conclude from Schrodinger that knowledge is essentially impossible.
The collapsing of the wave function being just an illustration of the nature of knowledge.
Kant can not help in that case because absolute reason is irrelevant to understand phenomena, while these phenomena are the true nature of being.
Nietzsche lead to an impossible paradox and Kant lead to nowhere, therefore they are useless to understand the nature of being defined in physics.
Please correct me if I misunderstood you.
It's crazy how so many people really think all philosophy is bullshit and that it's irrelevant today. /sci/ likes to think that the only conclusion the field has ever come to is "u can't know nuffin" when that's such an oversimplification (akin to the "popsci" crowd that they hate interpreting something like quantum mechanics) and isn't the only viewpoint at all.
>>7679634
>implying philosophers don't question literally everything
>>7679906
I agree with you,
but I'd like to point out that the inclination of what would be truly random is what the any given deterministic factor could not detect,
and by such vice is the essence of what it is to determine anything truly out of our grasp,
creating the paradox between Kant and Nietzsche that one is based on the determinable while the other is simply beyond what we should be controlling lest we subject ourselves to the fabric that, in my opinion, determines the fact that the past is not constant
and by such factoid make the potential for a potentially time shattering dilemma of would we risk creating determinable random at the risk of shattering that which holds up 'the past of the future' which we exist as
The last bit there is just based on some collider data that particles acquire functions of their future selves with before they fully achieve their deterrence from their 'course' outline
>>7679634
This has to be intentional.
>>7679424
To answer your questions OP,
NO
(If yes,) Because we're tired of crazy people who sit around and argue about the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics while we're trying to answer yes or no goddamn questions.
(If no,) Learn to speak goddamn English.
>>7679537
>Are philosophy and metaphysics still relevant to science?
How could you do science without accepting metaphysical and epistemological axioms (Law of Identity, Supremacy of Reason, etc)?
>>7679424
It seems to me most scientists/mathematicians really don't like to consider any of the philosophical implications of incompleteness.
They accept that its a valid theorem but most seem to just want to end the conversation there.
>>7679550
>Maybe it's true but it goes against what was expected and against our perception of the human world.
Yeah, kinda crazy how a brain that evolved to efficiently hunt and gather isn't all that good at intuitively grasping how things work at the Planck scale of things, isn't it?
>>7680001
>it's proven you can't know x and y
>well ok, lets focus on what we can know
Seems rational to me, what am I missing here?
>>7679976
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7680033
More like
>its proven you can't prove everything with formal logic
>well ok let's keep trying to prove everything with formal logic anyways
Saying we can't know x and y sounds more like your trying to summarize the uncertainty principal or something, I'm not talking about that.
>>7679980
Becaue we realized they are irrelevent and in many cases just plain wrong.
We just infer that because we observe the same thing over and over again that it most behave in that way.
>>7680054
I see what you're saying but it probably sounds to them like you're saying they should stop being a scientist/mathematician and become a wizard or something.
>prove everything
Prove certain things they've got some idea of how to prove.
>>7680229
I don't think we should stop science/math, I just wish more people realized that its actually proven that these logical systems will never yield absolute truth.
Even if scientists/mathematician's realize that they will never make a complete and consistent logical system lots of plebs don't and still look to scientists like they're gods that are going to solve everything.
>>7680001
>>It seems to me most scientists/mathematicians really don't like to consider any of the philosophical implications of incompleteness.
most mathematicians do not care about logic. they do not even know why they do math, and why should other people be interested in their work. they have no idea why they get up each morning.
same thing for logicians who do not know why they attempt to formalize the usual abstractions of our daily life.
same thing with the scientist who has no idea what he is doing besides asking money for running experiment. so far he is only able to tell us that his work permits a comfy life, because people are too hedonistic to live without computers and other technologies; but he fails to even prove once and for all that science is required to improve hedonism.
Ho's my CS program? First year.
