Scientists 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. They conclude that philosophical discourses are nonsensical because of their 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 as a scientist 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?
And just to be fair, 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.
>>7737551
>Philosophy is a quest for objectivity just like science
Science is not a quest for objectivity. Science is phenomenological.
>nd just to be fair, there's a lot of philosophies out there that are actually bullshit,
the problem is there is no clear way to tell what is valuable insight and what is meaningless sophistry. Philosophy lacks a mechanism for self-correction, this is why science pays it no heed. Being right isn't what matters, only being able to PROVE you are right does.
>>7737562
>Science is not a quest for objectivity. Science is phenomenological.
I agree, but do you think scientists know that? I don't think so. As far as i can tell, scientists do not only think science is a quest for objectivity but it is also the only source of objective knowledge.
>>7737568
No scientist thinks that. Philosophers are just full of themselves.
>>7737587
>No scientist thinks that
Philosophy students really are desperate to be considered relevant aren't they?
>>7737600
Just because scientists use the worth truth that doesn´t mean they are not aware of the limitations of scientific knowledge. They are just not catering to some stupid philosophy undergrad that just spams the problem of induction feeling deep and profound.
>>7737551
>“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
>William Thomson aka Lord Kelvin
Go to the philosophy subreddit and read some of the comments there if you want to understand why most of the public thinks philosophers are out of touch assholes. And it's not just a reddit thing, they're like that in pretty much every discussion realm. Philosophers like to hear themselves talk and have very little interest in other humans beyond desiring external validation from them. This makes them very unpleasant to be around.
everything is philosophy, and nothing is philosophy. meaningless empty words.
>>7737551
>Philosophy is a quest for objectivity just like science
Stopped reading there.
No I didn't, but you take your view of philosophy there and imply you have the right to make it the rule.
Would you say Camus goal is to find objectivity or even some sort of truth?
>>7737587
>No scientist thinks that.
Most do, I'd say.
Most scientist have a Feynman'ian "I read into it for 30 minutes and it sounds like bullshit, I'm not gonna bother with 'Philosophy' again" way of thinking.
>>7737551
Philosophy is not a quest for objectivity.
>>7737640
>Engineering
>Science
>Implying they are separate
I bet you expect to make 300k starting too, hm?
>>7737824
>Most scientist have a Feynman'ian "I read into it for 30 minutes and it sounds like bullshit, I'm not gonna bother with 'Philosophy' again" way of thinking.
you mean, most scientists in the US, probably. the US is well known for anti-intellectualism, so that's not surprising...
>>7737551
There's a tremendous jump from the correct "there's rigorous analytic philosophy out there" to the idiotic "my shitposts that look like pop continental philosophy buzzwords are actually objective"
>>7738656
>rigorous
>analytic philosophy
Choose only one.
>>7737551
>Philosophy is a quest for objectivity
The Continentals would like to talk to you.
