why does /sci/ hate philosophy?
Just being tsun, anon-senpai.
>>7687269
Because Philosophy is dead
Because many people who deal in science love absolutes, and loathe subjectivity. Unfortunate as it is.
>>7687349
You better not ever open your dumb mouth about "mind uploading" or whatever trend roles around.
Go back to your little corner and keep your mouth shut. You have nothing to say, and you've admitted as much yourself.
>>7687396
Newsflash: your theories aren't grounded. Nothing is. Get into philosophy. Oh wait, you loathe it. Nvm, go do whatever it is that you. Probably engineering.
>>7687413
rolls*
>>7687269
Because sci is smart, but not smart enough to realise that its stupid.
>>7687413
Philosophy is dead. It died with Aristotle.
>>7687269
Not dead
>>7687269
a>b =/=b>a. Beginners propositional logic. I'm so cool.
>>7687424
He was wrong.
>>7687420
I'll beat you up anon.
>>7687430
Don't beat up Julie. Who are you Lato? nO LIFE, i no
>>7687269
Subjectivity vs. Absolution
Little does either side realise they are a part of the same thing. Life is weird yo
>>7687430
(Post)Modern philosophy is cancer.
>>7687441
mostly if not all yes, have to agree.
>>7687414
>Nothing is
Is that so? ;)
the present moment is the experience of memory formation
>>7687441
Most people have turned on it. It's only being clung to by art and gender studies.
>>7687428
He was not wrong. People say that but they are wrong.
>>7687459
Not necessarily.
>>7687467
He was. Read a book.
>>7687463
Have you not turned on the news or twitter recently?
>>7687417
Rolling
>>7687503
By "people" I mean actual people, not twitter twats.
>>7687513
twitter twats run the world now
>>7687521
Which world do you mean? Your small world of who you're going to fuck tomorrow or five years after you get tired of fucking the same person, and the small worlds of millions of automata like you, or the actual world?
>>7687538
the jews run the actual world
>>7687515
Fucking lol'd at the necessary connexions kick.
Fucking love Hume. I don't really care about who's necessarily "right" or "wrong" with philosophy, but who seems the most bro and Hume seems like a kindred spirit and we could all have a nice chat.
>>7687269
I could not help but notice your gif was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your gif.
Your gif is now optimized.
>>7687269
I could not help but notice your gif could be further optimized anon.
I have compressed your gif as a png.
Your gif is now optimized.
Heavy sci anons are just to in to the sci study to begin to understand phil.
Unless they double major. Then they kinda get it.
>>7687459
Ideas had are produced by ones given, numbers are no different. Sci be in the circle with Phil. Just on opposite sides for the moment
>>7687269
Because scientists always fall for the logical positivism meme. And they don't even realize it's a philosophical position with philosophical justifications....
They're pretty dumb to be honest. They have massive tunnel vision and because of that they don't realize their epistemic assumptions and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic, they think it's common sense. And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit...
They're simply very bad at thinking outside a scientific framework.
>>7688167
Put far more succinctly than I could.
Actually, we loathe philosophy as much as we loathe physics and math autists.
They tend to think their method of reasoning is the ultimate one.
That's why most philosophers avoid talking about Nietzsche, who despite had a polemic literature, he criticized the reasoning of the human being from the root: the language.
>>7687269
because it's boring shit nobody cares about
>>7688191
>This is what low IQplebs actually believe
>>7687414
>nothing is grounded
>go into philosophy
There's a philosopher for you all
>>7687269
Actually, it's not exactly that I hate philosophy. It's just that so many philosophers were full of crap, so they make all of their subject look bad. Plus philosophy comprehends fields such as ethics and similars, that obviously fail to find a deep objective foundation, and that I therefore do not judge worth the time dibating about.
> le nothing is objective
Yeah yeah I get it, it's just that we can all agree about the speed of light but we cannot all agree about whether an abortion is right or wrong. That's what I mean by objective.
Philosophy tends to be a guy screaming his opinion to your face believing it's the best one there is.
Same goes for scientific theories of course, but with the difference that scientific theories eventually find confirmation or denial, whereas philosophical ideas don't. This is due to the fact that philosophical ideas are merely based on men, while scientific theories deal with outer aspects of the world.
>>7688211
>muh IQ
Are /sci/'s IQfags and Philosofags the same people?
>>7688253
Wouldn't surprise me tbqh
>>7688240
You have a very ill formed definition of philosophy. Philosophy is a quest for objectivity just like science, that's why science was derived from philosophy. The philosophical method is much broader than the scientific one, applicable to human affairs and even to worlds that aren't actual, that's the power of introspection. You conclude that philosophical discourses are subjective and based on men because of your preconceived notion of sense data as the only source of objectivity, a notion derived from the philosophical method, after all you can't empirically verify that statement. But that assumption is what give scientific discourse the objective status, a assumption that every scientist in a lab makes even though they're not even aware of, the epistemic framework of science has a philosophical foundation.
If you want to criticize philosophers try to analyze their claims from a philosophical perspective, because if your definition of objectivity is sense data then of course you're gonna think they're bullshitting you. But they're not, they're trying to do the same thing a chemist does in a lab, the problem is that is a lot harder to have that objective ground in philosophical subjects, you can't really use the sense data assumption when dealing with mental states now can't you?
To be fair with you there's a lot of philosophies out there that are actually bullshit, because you don't really have a rigorous definition of objectivity like science does, then people go wild and claim they're telling the truth. But a scientist to deny the importance of philosophy is simply madness, science is permeated with philosophical assumptions, and being ignorant of them and philosophy in general may get you in epistemological troubles.
I don't hate it, it's just not very interesting most of the time.
>>7688331
>being ignorant of them and philosophy in general may get you in epistemological troubles
Will I be arrested by the epistemological police for not considering how can science be real if our eyes aren't real?
>>7688331
I think that only a negligible ercentage of scientists know much of anything about the philosophy of science. It dosen't affect their work in any way, as far as I can tell.
The "assumptions" permeating theories are obvious if you are not retarded.
>>7688331
well said anon
>>7688331
The issue is exactly the one you mentioned. Philosophy is generally based on introspection, but as we are all aware every individual is different from any other, and therefore philosophy cannot aim to achieve any rigorous, omni-valid statement.
As for the epistemological trouble you say may arise, those are trouble only a philosopher would care about and that are always present as well as never influencing the subject to which they apply. They are just silly questions that obviously have no answer but that do not really add or take away anything to a theory that works. An extremisation of these can be the "you can't kno nuffin" meme. Of course nothing is certain and nothing can be difinitely proven, but if a theory works and allows for accurate predictions of events one should be an idiot to toss it away because of said "epistemological" troubles.
>>7688365
>>>/b/
>>7688374
>The "assumptions" permeating theories are obvious if you are not retarded.
They might seem obvious to you since you're already in that scientific paradigm, but if you look at the logical justifications for believing in empirical evidence as an objective source of information they're actually quite sophisticated, with a lot of metaphysical discourse in ontology and epistemology.
And it's true that philosophy of science doesn't affect your everyday scientist in any shape or form, but once you're at the edge you maybe have to step back and take a look at those assumptions. Look at quantum mechanics or neuroscientists and consciousness. Of course if you're a biologist looking at chromossomes you wouldn't publish a paper about chromossomes and in the intro give the philosophical foundation for believing that you're actually seeing a chromossome, wouldn't be practical.
>>7688413
Most of the stuff published about "quantum foundations" is basically drivel resulting from excessive attachment to classical physics and a desire for the laws of physics to be "classical after all". See Bohmian mechanics or hidden variable theories for examples of this.
>>7688395
>The issue is exactly the one you mentioned. Philosophy is generally based on introspection, but as we are all aware every individual is different from any other, and therefore philosophy cannot aim to achieve any rigorous, omni-valid statement.
You seem to think that all content derived from introspection is subjective, i don't think that's true. Mathematics is as objective as one can get in my opinion, there are some discussions about that though.
>As for the epistemological trouble you say may arise, those are trouble only a philosopher would care about and that are always present as well as never influencing the subject to which they apply.
I don't think you're being fair here, if you look at the history of science you will se that some of those problems were actually significant.
>>7688440
How is mathematics derived from introspection?
Also, could you make an example of an episode in history when some of those troubles were significant? I really can't think of any
>>7688457
Because it is bro '_' Mathematics might be empirically inspired but definitely not empirically derived.
>Also, could you make an example of an episode in history when some of those troubles were significant? I really can't think of any
The one that is most significant to me because i know a lot about it is neuroscientists in the second half of the last century equating mental states with physical states of the brain, they assumed the mental phenomena is equal with what they could empirically measure( brain states). And i guess you can see why, scientists tend to tunnel vision a lot in empirical phenomena.
>>7688473
Mathematics are based on real life. You may say that there are aspects of it that we don't find immediately mirrored in reality, but it's not derived from introspection on the part of humans. I'm feeling like we're not on the same page on this "introspection" term.
As for your example, I don't quite see how philosophy comes into play. More specifically, I understand that philosophers may be mad at said scientists because of the implications of their theory, but that's just a theory. It's proven right or wrong, and then we stay on it or move on according to the results, no philosophy required.
I don't hate Philosophy. I hate Philosophy majors, and a good chunk of /lit/'s users.
>>7688496
>but it's not derived from introspection on the part of humans
I don't know what you mean by this.
>As for your example, I don't quite see how philosophy comes into play. More specifically, I understand that philosophers may be mad at said scientists because of the implications of their theory, but that's just a theory. It's proven right or wrong, and then we stay on it or move on according to the results, no philosophy required.
But philosophy was required, scientists were making statements about ontology that were factually wrong, philosophers showed them their mistake and now it's a lot better.
>>7688506
How could philosophers prove them wrong by means of a theoretical subject? It is not such a farfetched idea that mental pathologies could have some physical evidence, and there is no means to prove the opposite other than by conducting experiments. How is this an ontological matter?
A well-rounded engineer or scientist should have at least a cursory understanding of philosophy if for no other reason than ethical accountability.
Science > Philosophy
philosophy lacks the 'test the hypothesis' in its method where as science does not.
Science uses math, where as philosophy does not.
>>7688559
pleb detected
>>7688573
It's time for you to get off the computer.
>>7688525
>How could philosophers prove them wrong by means of a theoretical subject?
It's not really that difficult, if you think about it you will reach the same conclusion. Take for examples the mental phenomena you experience while reading this sentence, now it is true that your mental state while reading the sentence has a physical correlate, but are they actually the same thing? Is the ontologically subjective (mental events) equal to the ontologically objective (brain states)? I think if they were you couldn't really distinguish one from another, don't you think?
That's why this is still a problem, we haven't reduced mental phenomena to physical phenomena yet, given their ontologies is very difficult. How would you go about and make the inherently subjective reducible to objective empirically measurable phenomena?
>>7688530
>ethical
Stopped reading there.
>>7688559
Philosophy uses formal logic which is highly related to mathematics. There are many important philosophers who also studied mathematics.
>>7687500
>which book?
>>7688592
Then the only word you missed was "accountability". What do you have against ethics, exactly, Dr. Moreau?
>>7688597
that's only a small subset of mathematics.
>>7688604
And it's the most important one.
>>7688183
>That's why most philosophers avoid talking about Nietzsche
have you talked to most philosophers???
Philosophy is the last resort for pseudo-intellectual teenagers who are too uneducated to talk about actual science and math where their baseless drivel would be objectively disproved.
Hi Maybe An Hiro will finally one day bless this site with the philosophy imageboard. Then we can actually talk about science without having to worry about these repetitive threads where people rarely ever contribute to, you know, actual science.
>u cant no nuffin
>>7688639
>Hi
I hate these phones, man. Can't wait till I get back to my PC.
http://strawpoll.me/6135415
We don't.
We do distrust things that aren't empirical. Because we're scientists.
>>7688644
So is mathematics a lot of nonsense since it isn't empirical?
I think the main problem /sci/ has with philosophy is they perceive philosophy as being un-rigorous, hand-wavy, and highly opinionated. In reality, modern analytic philosophy is very precise and rigorous, one of the main beliefs held by analytic philosophers is that scientific method is the best path to knowledge about the world.
/sci/ is clearly ignorant in philosophy and humanities. You think that It is based in "Muh feels" and "u can know nuffing".
>>7688653
Exactly. Just the same way people on humanities are ignorant about STEM. People should focus more on developing themselves intelectually, instead of just autistically pursuing one field and believing that that will make them superior.
>>7688664
You are right. In the same way that stemlords think that philosophy is "muh feels", people on humanities think that stem is "muh big salary" .
>>7688582
But what you are describing is a scientific problem. We still have to find out what physical states correlate to certain mental states. Even if by chance there was no correlation whatsoever, there is no way in which philosophy could help, since what we need to discover has to be based on data that we may only acquire by means of empirical experiments.
>>7688530
>caring about ethics
>>7688782
>But what you are describing is a scientific problem
Well yeah, there is debate over that but i believe it is. But sometimes scientists don't do their jobs properly and philosophers come in and help them define their terms correctly, don't fuck up the ontology etc.
>there is no way in which philosophy could help
I just gave you a case where philosophers actually helped scientists. I'm not sure what you're not understanding... I think at this point you're just defining philosophy as all that is useless and science as all that is useful, it's the only explanation of how you could have ignored everything i said...
>>7688857
Maybe it's just me not understanding. What did philosophers do aside for saying " we think that 'mental states' and 'physical states' are two different things"?
Thinking that that was all they did, I believed they didn't quite solve much, but if I misunderstood please correct me.
>>7688871
Well, that's not all they did, if you put it like that it sounds trivial, but it's actually a pretty complex subject. But if you really wanted to super summarize it i guess you could put that way. And it was a big deal, can't you see how equating mental states with physical states could make up a pretty fucked up theory of consciousness?
I don't think philosophers alone will solve the problem, any theory of consciousness i would subscribe to would have to be a scientific one, with empirical data and all of it. But it's quite obvious that at least in this subject scientists without philosophers are blind.
>>7688167
>>7688240
There's actual people in my faculty right now who make money doing ethics crap like this. What is this bullshit? The new clergy?
>>7688647
>modern analytic philosophy is very precise and rigorous
Absolute bullshit. Just fedoratardedly claiming to be "logical" doesn't mean they are actually logical. "Analytic philosophy" is a cringeworthy farce and not comparable to science, let alone math at all.
>>7688644
Science as a whole is a subset of philosophy.
Metascience is one of the most interesting philosophical fields right now.
Why do you think is it called a PHD?
>>7688961
There's a lot more to it than what was covered in your philosophy 101 course little boy
>>7688991
>your philosophy 101 course
I don't need a course. I don't need indocrination with "muh feelings" crap. I can think on my own and I came to my conclusions by reading enough philosophical bullshit to conclude it actually is bullshit.
>little boy
But I'm a girl....
>>7688997
What have you read? :)
>>7689012
wikipedia
>>7688997
I'll give you a 2/10. You actually got me to respond to this pathetic bait.
>>7689012
>>7689017
>philosotards going full ad hom after being BTFO by STEM again
You never fail to amuse me.
>>7689021
>what have you read?
>ad hom
You see arrowcunt, if you studied some philosophy you wouldn't make this mistake
>>7689021
>This reductio ad absurdum
I hope you don't ever dare to call yourself a scientist. You have to be smart in order to be one, you know?
>>7689049
Jokes on you. I have a triple digit IQ.
>>7689049
I dare to call myself a mathematician, which means I'm definitely smarter than you.
>>7689060
You also have a 8 inch dick and you are posting from your yatch while a titty supermodel gives you a blowjob, amirite?
>>7689128
No, I don't have a dick.
>>7689137
But you certainly are posting from your yatch
Pretentiousness, and that goes for sociologists too.
Everyone has at least a bit of a problem with someone who claims to understand how they think, regardless of whether or not it's true.
>>7688530
Yeah, that's the thing, a well-rounded anything could probably "philosophize" real fucking well, just from virtue of life experience and a strong sense of logical consistency.
>>7687269
In the millenia math has been around, mathematicians have developed a language that alloes us to express even the most complex mathematical ideas in sequences of bite-size, extremely simple sentences. Philosophy has arguably been around for longer, but a large part of it is still so absurdly unintelligibly phrased that we have a word for it: obscurantism. This leads one to the conclusion that these philosophers are either incompetent, or maliciously obfuscating their ideas to prevent others from learning them.
As an academic, your tasks essentially all boil down to the following two: learn new things, and teach these things to the world. If you fail to do one of these, you are of no use to anyone, and should therefore be fired.
>dismissing the work of Godel, Wittenstein, and Kant
This is how we spot uneducated plebs on /sci/.
>>7689178
>Godel [sic]
Why include him, and forget about Einstein, Witten, Wiles, and the philosopher Perelman, who solved one of the millennium prize problems?
>>7689185
There are more and I'm not dismissing thier work. Also Perelmen is a god. Wittenstein should be /sci/ favorite person because he was an engineer.
>>7689187
Of course it's silly to restrict to philosophers of math and physics. One should also include philosophers of biology, like borlaug, philosophers of music, like Coltrane, and of course philosophers of politics, like George W Bush.
>>7689225
>philosophers of politics, like George W Bush.
Toppest of keks
>>7687441
The social sciences that arose out of it are cancer.
>>7689331
I like the traditional social sciences. At least they're sane compare to the post-modern SS.
>>7689187
>wittgenstein
>after his opinion on set theory
yeah no.
I was on /his/ just a few minutes ago. They're having the exact same conversation about STEM vs liberal arts.
>>7688641
while this poll only has 22 votes and probably isn't too accurate, i am surprised at how many people here actually at least somewhat appreciate philosophy. I guess the people yelling "u cant know nuffin" are just an obnoxious minority.
Philosophy roughly translates to a love of wisdom. With every methodology, science included, there is a philosophical foundation. Now that we have science, does that make philosophy useless?
No. Philosophy helps us establish new ways of thinking and find new problems to solve. Computer science, neuroscience, economics, and linguistics are all fields that were practically established by philosophers. Linguistics in particular had its largest contributions made by the philosopher J. L. Austin.
It's easy to dismiss philosophy as useless because the doesn't brandish any results. And it doesn't. But it has led humanity to attain a much better understanding of the world and how it functions by paving the way for others to understand the underlying problems we face when trying to understand the world.
A good scientist should understand philosophy, and a good philosopher should understand science. A scientist without philosophy is just an autist who can solve equations. A philosopher without science (or technical knowledge) is just an autist who can only serve frappuccinos
>Plato - "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
>Pythagoras - was a philosopher in addition to being a mathematician
Aristotle - invented the first formal logical system & was very interested in science (natural philosophy)
Descarte - father of modern philosophy and father of analytical geometry
Leibniz - invented algebraic logic, calculus, was one of the first to think of space being relative.
>Peirce - father of pragmatism but was educated and employed as a chemist for much of his life
>Ernst Mach - philosopher and physicist who made contributions to fluid dynamics and whom Einstein named a principle after
>Poincare - a famous mathematician and physicist who was greatly interested in philosophy and mathematical foundations
>Duhem - known for his contributions to physics and was interested in the philosophy of science, also famous for his books on the history of science.
Einstein - made significant contributions to the philosophy of science
Russell - made significant contributions to the foundations of mathematics, thought of mathematics as being an extension of logic, a major proponent of analytic philosophy
Gödel - well known logician/mathematician because of his incompleteness theorems and was greatly interested in philosophy of science and mathematics
Whitehead - worked as a mathematician when he was younger but later made important contributions to philosophy of science and metaphysics
>Hillary Putnam - a central figure in analytic philosophy and contributed to the solution of Hilbert's 10th problem
>Quine - known for his indispensability argument and for his contributions to philosophy but got his undergraduate degree in mathematics
>>7689548
>Einstein - made significant contributions to the philosophy of science
Einstein's contributions to the philosophy of science were complete shit.
>>7689553
well you are probably right, but i guess the major point of including him was to show that one of the greatest scientists of all time took great interest in philosophy. might convince people who consider themselves scientists to at least take a look at philosophy of science.
>tfw studying physics and philosophy at Oxford
vulgar empiricists hate philosophy like a son hates his father he could never fill the shoes of
>>7689178
> kant
Good luck being schooled and not having ideas of your own anon
>>7689545
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7689626
>arguing against logic
why are you on /sci/?
>>7687269
>Stupid meta-philosophy threads still getting 100s of replies on /sci/
>We now have /lil/ AND /his/ for this shit
The real answer is that science and philosophy fundamentally oppose each other. Philosophy has plenty of valid concerns about science (problem of induction etc). Science has to use imperfect logic and reasoning to get around these and actually be productive.
It's pointless thinking about philosophy if you're a scientist (it will only make things harder) and it's pointless thinking about science if you're a philosopher (scientists will just ignore you and keep doing their work).
>>7689638
> kant
> logic
This is what is illogical
>>7689667
>It's pointless thinking about philosophy if you're a scientist (it will only make things harder)
This is right and wrong.
>and it's pointless thinking about science if you're a philosopher.
This is wrong.
Read the thread. I'm tempted to say "post less, think more" but this one of the rare cases where sharing your (honestly stupid) opinion can benefit you.
>>7689674
Let me guess you're this guy: >>7688331
I've studied both philosophy and a field of science. If you're using a wide definition of what philosophy is you will always be able to find some philosophical thinking in science. Philosophers of course are allowed to think about science and write on it, but they shouldn't expect anything they say to have any impact on the field. That's why it's pointless especially to talk about it on a science image board. Call it stupid or naive but I decided to focus on physics and not metaphysics for a reason.
>>7688629
>falsification is not a philosophical concept
>>7689748
What ISN'T a philosophical concept? Your reply is in no way a valid criticism.
It's analogous to saying that I can't criticize the English language because I'm writing in it.
>>7689686
>If you're using a wide definition of what philosophy is you will always be able to find some philosophical thinking in science
You don't need to use a wide definition of philosophy to connect philosophy with science, as it stands all scientific discourse pressuposes a particular philosophical framework(empiricism). All justifications for empiricism is philosophical, not scientific, it's the ground on which the scientific project arises. No philosophy will result in no science.
>Philosophers of course are allowed to think about science and write on it, but they shouldn't expect anything they say to have any impact on the field.
Just factually wrong... Take a look at the history of your field for fucks sake(physics)...
>That's why it's pointless especially to talk about it on a science image board.
Yep, that's fine by me. It's not like you guys know what the fuck you're saying, half of this board is IQ threads anyways...
>>7690045
>Just factually wrong... Take a look at the history of your field for fucks sake(physics)...
Oh please. Give me an example of when philosophy was pivotal to a physical discovery. And don't mention any bogus philosophical interpretations of the "implications" of quantum mechanics for consciousness.
>>7690061
Godel wrote a proof for GR that states time travel is possible and Einstein couldn't counter argue it.
>>7690670
Gödel was a mathematician though. He studied math, obtained a degree in math and published in math journals. Nice try though, Mr Reddit.
>>7690677
He was a logician.
>>7690683
And logic is a field of math.
>>7690677
>being this autistic
>>7690692
Yeah, almost as bad as an analytic philosopher.
>>7690689
Its actually a field of philosophy.
>>7690677
Gödel did philosophy too, related mainly with philosophy of logic and mathematics. Among other thinks, he wrote in defense of the platonist view of mathematics and how the knowledge by sensible entities (us) of non-sensible entitites (mathematical) is possible.
>>7690722
Go home Jaden, you're high.
>>7690689
Logic is its own field.
>>7690061
>Give me an example of when philosophy was pivotal to a physical discovery.
1. The development of artificial intelligence, and other that make use of non-classical logic was possible once the classical logic was reject, which happened after the re-appropriation of Hegelian philosophy by the British idealism.
2. Frege's formalization of logic had a philosophical aim in mind: prove that mathematics is analytical against the Kantian tradition (who instead argues on the synthetic character of mathematics).
3. Kant as a philosopher wrote a fair amount of natural philosophy, like the nebular hypothesis or the theory of winds.
4. The consideration of undefined concepts in Newton's natural philosophy lead Kant to consider solids as solids because of rejection of opposite forces, as it later came to be taken by the electromagnetic theory. The core concepts of electromagnetism appear in then Kantian natural philosophy, as he tries to show that the apparently opposed Newtonian and Leibnizian space can be reconciled (Kant account uses monads as point-like centers surrounded by an sphere of activity where the activity of forces takes place).
5. Von Laue (physicist) gave the first interpretation of the special relativity after consulting to Schlick (philosopher) and coming to the conclusion that, by means principles developed by empiricism, special relativity was to be preferred against ether theory.
I have those on the top of my minds right now, I can think of more if you want me to.
This said, overall I agree with you, philosophy of science is not concerned with making scientific discoveries possibles, but it has happened a few times.
>>7689021
1, ad hom
Def. A fancy word for insult according to stem.
