Do you believe philosophy is necessary for scientific or mathematical discoveries/insights? Or is philosophy merely some mental jizzation?
>>7758874
Philosophy is not just unnecessary, it is even harmful to science and math. Philosophical dogma leads to rejection and suppression of certain ways of thinking. Philosophers and their followers in general are close-minded and refuse to ever accept the possibility of being wrong. This sentiment is diametrically opposed to the scientific method which demands that we critically question everything.
Could we just like try to be a little more specific about what type of philosophy we're talking about? Philosophy can be pretty much anything and there's very little similarity between stuff like positivism and postmodernism.
>>7758884
>. Philosophical dogma leads to rejection and suppression of certain ways of thinking. Philosophers and their followers in general are close-minded and refuse to ever accept the possibility of being wrong.
Why do you think that? Have you read at least one philosophy book?
It is a constant fight between different ways of thinking.
>>7758884
>critically question everything
Lol /sci/
>>7758884
This is correct. The advent of psychology as a scientific and quantifiable discipline has marked the beginning of the end for philosophy.
Think about it this way - for centuries, philosophers have sought to explain human behaviour via unsubstantiated, 'logical' arguments: dialectics, moralities, etc.
Psychology has sought to explain human behaviour in terms of conditioning, in terms of biology and in terms of evolutionary adaptations.
It has rendered philosophy, or at least, non-epistemological philosophy useless.
>>7758884
> being this deluded
if you think philosophy is dogmatic, then I think you've only read theology. science was once called natural philosophy, you know.
>>7758903
>It is a constant fight between different ways of thinking.
This is exactly the problem with philosophy. It's constantly divided by the fight of different dogmas, none of which is willing to make any concessions. Philosophers autistically insist that their own view must be the only correct one. There is no open dialogue from which everyone could learn or out of which we could form a compromise. It's just infantile shitflinging under the pretense of using uncommon vocabulary.
>asking /sci/ about philosophy
lel
>>7758917
Ironically, theology appears to be one of the least dogmatic branches of philosophy. Have YOU ever read a philosophy book? As a person with STEM education, it is impossible to read that garbage without cringing hard.
>>7758918
this is batshit retarded. "Philosophers autistically insist that their own view must be the only correct one" -- which is not at all what you're doing?
Philosophy is hard to defend because there IS a lot of stupid shit in it. Science does not suffer from this, because in order to be science at all, it must first be falsifiable, i.e. testable. The good philosophers explicitly state what they're doing; why they believe it is correct to do it; and what they believe necessarily follows should their starting points be accepted/proven as/to be correct, Only bad philosophers argue dogmatically, and this really only pertains to ethics (which, mind you, are a bunch of hogwash--i'll give you that).
there's some gr8 philosophy out there m8, and a lot of it paved the way for modern scientific models (Einstein ADORED schopenhauer, who is the GOAT philosopher)
>>7758884
What is a paradigm shift
>muh omnipotent science
>>7758927
I've read countless philosophy texts, and I'm also a person with STEM education. the philosophy of mathematics you might find really interesting!
>>7758931
>Only bad philosophers argue dogmatically,
Okay. Let's restrict my criticism to the so called "analytic philosophy". Usually that's what the philosophy shitposters on 4chan mean when they talk about "philosophy". Schopenhauer might be alright. At least his points about women are spot on.
>>7758933
>the philosophy of mathematics you might find really interesting!
How so? What insights can I gain from reading about it? I already have a math degree.
>>7758938
analytic philosophy? What parts, specifically? I thought those with STEM education would appreciate analytic philosophy--assuming we mean Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, etc. I've yet to read the analytic-canon, and desu wouldn't be able to list all the important names, but so far as I'm aware, the philosophers I just mentioned were analytics. Have you read any of those? or are you familiar? Frege has done some really cool work with the philosophy of math, and Russell's done a decent bit for set theory
>>7758942
>What parts, specifically?
Ethics, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, political philosophy ... they are literally trash tier
>Frege, Russell
Those were mathematicians - the only reason why their contributions to philosophy are non-retarded.
>Wittgenstein
overrated autist
>>7758940
It's not that you'll gain anything to aid you in your mathematical endeavors, it'll just either convince or dissuade you that what you've been doing is either correct or merely obeying the restrictions of a given system. Even just being able to answer the question: what, fundamentally, IS a number? Can sets contain themselves? Was godel justified in using a statement that references itself to conclude as he did? just questions like that, which may interest you is all m8. read it if you want, don't if you don't--im just saying, if you ever want to learn a bit more about the justifications underlying the mechanics of mathematical calculations, the philosophy of mathematics may have something for you
>>7758931
Thank you for your post.. Are there any other recommendations? I've read Plato and Socrates and some Marcus Aurelius, whom from reading all seemed to be generally openly minded and willing to accept other beliefs givin substantial explanation to justification. I personally believe that in order to begin with scientific beliefs or pursuits one must first form a sort of Philo insight.
>>7758946
>Ethics, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, political philosophy ... they are literally trash tier
dead inside STEMfag autist detected
>>7758948
>I've read Plato and Socrates
And what did you learn?
>>7758946
ethics are def trash
philosophy of mind I have yet to really tackle
metaphysics are important to those who arent automatons -- don't you worry if god exists? if we have free will? while I concede, their questions are inherently unanswerable, in the sense that we cannot confirm/deny, concretely, any statements divined therein. However, there are still very strong arguments for a lot of positions which I find are indisputable.
and > "I didnt understand WIttgenstein"
>>7758950
Epic projection, famalam. It is those "analytic" philosophers who are dead inside and who mindlessly follow their own dogma. I cringe at their kindergarten bullshit. I'm thinking too much and in particular reflecting too much, so I could never hold such an immature position as they do.
>>7758947
>what, fundamentally, IS a number? Can sets contain themselves?
I've read enough /sci/ shitposting threads. I'm really not interested in such nonsense.
>>7758884
This seems like a rejection and suppression of a certain way of thinking.
daily reminder that ALL philosophy except epistemology is useless and outdated
>>7758951
That was my days of going to class burnt out of my mind so not much. Also was a philosophy of love and sex so a lot of it had to do with that. Not entirely relevant to what I'm interested in now which is more of why we exist... So existentialism I guess however I have yet to read shit about that
>>7758956
>don't you worry if god exists? if we have free will?
I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm too mature to waste my time with unanswerable masturbatory pseudo-intellectualism. We've had these shitposting threads so many times. There are no new insights and no new solutions.
>>7758964
>posting this on 4chan
>>7758948
No sweat m8! I'll list for you some philosophical texts which you might find interesting!
If you like STEM (which, I'd imagine you do, considering where we are), you might enjoy Francis Bacon's works. Try the New Organon--in it, he explains what he believes to be the best scientific method, and how to appropriately apply it.
Also, if you like Bacon (who is classified as an empiricist), you may also like some other empiricists, such as:
-Thomas Hobbes. His Leviathan is thought by most to be a political work, and while that is certainly true, the first book (~150 pages) deals with the world, and how we come to know it/what is permissible in it
- John Locke. His famous 'Essay concerning human understanding' outlines, similar to Hobbes, theories concerning the outer world, how we come to know it, and discusses motion/energy/matter--a lot which has very direct and obvious STEM relevance
-George Berkeley. This guy will blow your mind. He argues that matter (which was the foundation for Hobbes and Locke) cannot be argued as existing. A lot of people dont understand his argument, and regard it as hogwash, but in his work 'Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous', if your reading is up to par and you understand it, it's actually a very, VERY hard argument to refute, and is so far the only convincing proof I've seen for god.
- David Hume. I've yet to read much of him, but if you've read the others I've listed, you really should also read him. He responds to Berkeley, but I've yet to read that yet.
- Arthur Schopenhauer. Was also an idealist (like Berkeley--in opposition to Locke/Hobbes/Bacon), and was EINSTEIN'S favorite philosopher. His arguments concerning the world are actually brilliant, and I would say he's the most underrated philosopher.
>>7758964
if you're not interested in learning, then you're right--philosophy is not for you.
>>7758970
>implying there is anything to learn from reading the same inane and baseless "arguments" over and over again
>>7758972
>inane and baseless
Provide evidence. You scifags love shrieking about evidence all the other time
>>7758970
If you actually think you learn something from discussing the existence or non-existence of god or free will for the thousandth time, then you are wrong in STEM. You lack the critical thinking skills.
>>7758968
Thank you good sir.
>>7758874
Philosophy is dead.
>Epistemology is cucked by Mathematical Logic
>Ethics and Metaphysics are cucked by Theology
>Natural Philosophy is cucked by Mathematics
>>7758980
>Ethics and Metaphysics are cucked by Theology
Stick to reddit, pal.
>>7758983
>being a nihilist
>>7758983
>>Stick to reddit, pal.
>>7758980
>theology
>>>/trash/
>>7758884
Philosophy is a so large term that I don't think so, Philosopy is qualitative and Science is quantitative, Philosophy still exist in science when you do a theoretical talk on your results, Science can be the basis of a philosophical position. Use both the ways is the human way of thinking. The problem today is only on terms, with some people calling science everything even if can be called philosophy, and calling instead philosophy all the other things.
Many people there use the term philosophy as a container of disciplines, more to talk about history of philosophy. Philosophy, even if you don't call it with this name, is what you use for example to do a deconstruction of people that take science as dogma, doing the same errors of philosophy they are accounting to philosophy, but calling it with a different name.
>>7759123
And this is Science.
>>7758874
Philosophy is completely useless to science. No philosopher has ever contributed anything meaningful to science or humanity as a whole. Some stupid memers like to pretend philosophy matters because they can claim science falls under philosophy. The truth however is science is the only way of figuring anything out. Every other part of "philosophy" is stupid faggots making things up.
Think about this, if their idea is demonstrably wrong, it doesn't even matter to them because they don't subscribe to the philosophy of science where proving something wrong makes it wrong. Fucking useless retarded philosophers, we should purge them all. Every so called "philosophy" that isn't science is literally completely mad up bullshit, should be called religion.
>>7758874
Yes, science is a philosophy.
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.
>>7759134
>Science is the only way of figuring anything out.
A broken clock can tell the right time twice a day.
>>7759134
you've made a bunch of great claims, but im afraid that there's always some moneyed parents who will buy their kids a philosophy education.
>>7759134
bait
>>7758884
Ethics.
>>7758907
Saying psychology makes philosophy obsolete is like saying apples make oranges obsolete.
Philosophy and psychology ask different questions, use different methods, and focus on different levels of analysis. They are, ultimately, for different purposes.
>>7758958
>projection
>doesn't realize that this concept originated from Freud philosophy
Freud is pretty garbage when it comes to psychology, but do you not realize the irony in this statement?
>>7758959
>godel
>nonsense
wew
