Hey there /sci/, /lit/ here.
Can you produce an example of one relevant scientific problem that wasn't based fundamental philosophical assumptions?
Thanks.
>>7756850
no we can't, why do you ask?
>>7756850
Nah
How is a problem based philosophical assumptions?
>>7756850
Literally every single one of them.
>>7756850
Who is this semen demon?
>>7756850
Post source of loli
>>7756850
Are you implying that science is not - at its base - philosophy?
>>7756850
The best way to sort a data set
one of my colleagues is working with some weird ass quantum field theory or some shit and he's working with topoi which "forget" the law of excluded middle, which is fundamental to philosophy
maybe you could start there?
>>7756850
>can you come up with science that doesn't use empiricism or a perspective I can force upon it?
wat
What is the flash point of methyl ethyl ketone?
>>7756850
Science is the only way to figure anything out. People like to pretend philosophy matters because it contains science but everything else in philosophy consists of making things up and made up things.
So the reality is philosophy needs science if it wants to be takin seriously while science doesn't give a fuck about philosophy. Because philosophy is fucking useless and has never done anything that matters.
There was a time "science" was called "natural philosophy."
Science gives us much more applicable knowledge in the modern era, but it is based in philosophy and it's a mistake to call philosophy useless just because it is not as useful. There's just a lot more grunt work in science and there's really little need for people to be full time philosophers when a career in philosophy is very compatible with doing something tangible alongside.
>>7757242
>methyl ethyl ketone
>not butanone
Drug cook confirmed.
With advances in Science, philosophers have lost their relevance to the real world.
Some philosophers accept this, but other philosophers are becoming increasingly desperate to try to return to a position of relevance.
>>7756951
Natural Philosophy
>>7756850
All of them.
No scientific discipline relies on being inherently true. You state your axioms and postulates and you develop the field. Whether the postulates is true or not is neither relevant nor important to practicing in the field.
I know this is difficult for /lit/ to understand because they have no ordered discipline and their entire major is one long disjointedness history lesson.
>>7756850
Metabolic signalling networks, and how basically chemical metabolites and enzymes and why deep down at the core of biology shit starts resembling network theory or other boring nerdtier science.
>>7759788
>horse blood can't smelt iron gates
>>7759804
That's philosophy though.
