Why is this allowed?
because philosophy is better, more sophisticated and harder than memorizing tables.
Deal with it stemkid ;)
>>7929928
Imagine it wasn't. The world would not be better off.
>>7929935
Okay, but being sophisticated or harder doesn't mean that it is of more value.
>>7930111
depends
if you define value as money, that´s true.
But as you see in the real world:
value for society != monetary value
example:
Nestle
>>7929935
philosophy is a social construct
>>7931062
just like science
>>7929928
>Hawking and Mlodinow, in the chapter of their book called “The Theory of Everything,” quote Albert Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” In response, Hawking and Mlodinow offer this crashing banality: “The universe is comprehensible because it is governed by scientific laws; that is to say, its behavior can be modeled.” Later, the authors invite us to give ourselves a collective pat on the back: “The fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” Great triumph or no, none of this addresses Einstein’s paradox, because no explanation is offered as to why our universe is “governed by scientific laws.”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
E. is right indeed. The gap has widened in a century. hawking is just like the dawkins of physics
people think that the foremost questions in science is what is space, time, temperature, quarks and so on. No, the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
[and also, why the humanity believes that to offer some mechanical model is knowledge about the world]
>>7929928
hawking is a showman, not a scientist.
He is saying that philosophers simply haven't been keeping up with developments in physics and so cannot really advance our understanding of the universe and our place in it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
On the question of why this is allowed, would you rather people who insult philosophy be killed?
Philosophy sounds cool until you hear a philosopher talk about science and math. Then you understand they are well read conman.
>>7929928
The problem with the question, why? is that it is fundamentally flawed, this question would require that there is purpose, that there is meaning to life and there really isn't any.
Hawking is getting edgy in his age. He's turning into a fedora antitheist faggot and an autist.
>>7931157
implying that he hasn't always been an edgy faggot
There are many fields on which philosophy lost its authority to science. But there is not a single field where science lost its authority to philosophy.
>>7931401
Authority to keep you an insecure virgin ntr'ed cuck. Congrats on your degree
>>7931420
>fedora philosophist
>projects his virgin cuckery onto others
Why am I not surprised?
>>7931097
Then how come we can make rocket and airplane and computer and shit with science and nothing with philosophy?
>>7931432
*engineering
>>7929935
>implying you even know anything
pleb detected
>>7931432
philosophy is the why, science is the what
philosophy determines whether or not there is a what
>>7932810
Can Philosophy be tested?
>>7929928
Because some people couldn't choose a good font to save their life
Philosophy has literally no value, it's just about making arguments based on technicalities and semantics rather than facts
>>7931100
Wtf? E himself found that claim about the world to be very difficult to reconcile with modern science (namely, mechanics). Now Hawkings avoiding the same difficulty but offering the same conclusion (that the goal of science is a robust model). Has he found a way to do what Einstein didn't? Or does he allow for his model to contain indeterminacy? If so, then he really hasn't contributed much in the way of epistemology. I don't think hes found a way to make a robust model work... since that'd be a unified theory. He's just operating off of an unproved premise (e.g. that one day we'll be 'Masters of the Universe' as he so eloquently puts it).
>>7931432
Cus science is philosophy. Philosophys just a way of understanding things. Science itself is just a reflection on how we think to understand the world. How you apply it is where it has value (engineering: making shit)... just like in how you apply philosophy you get science.
>>7932823
ya
"is it logical"
"does it contain contradictions"
no? cool
yes? sweet.
that's how shit like Russell's paradox and Godel's theorems advanced the fields.
Can someone please explain why physicists continue to talk about things they have little-to-no understanding of?
Einstein used to do it.
Sagan used to do it.
Hawking does it.
Black science guy does it.
Cox does it.
Are physicists the fedora philosophers of our time?
>>7933546
?
what things are you referring to about Einstein, since I was under the impression that he was an able philosopher.
>>7933559
Life, politics, social issues, history etc.
>>7930183
>value for society
I guess this makes engineering the most sophisticated
philosophy is a system.
every system has to obey a set of rules.
rules are defined by mathematics
>>7929935
>>7933540
Philosophy just works for fundamental parts of science as a base to formalize how do we gain knowledge through this method and what things must we asume about the universe, but that doesn't mean a philosopher is also a scientist and that everyone should concern about it. The same with set/category theory and logic being the formalizm of math.
>>7933561
Einstien was usually right though?
And to answer your question it's ironically for the same reason why everyone on /sci/ thinks they are geniuses in that society seems to believes that being good at one thing = being good at everything.
nobody here knows anything about philosophy so why are you asking
>>7934081
I'm one of the few philosophically educated persons on /sci/ and I can tell you that "philosophy of science" is a shit tier branch of philosophy.
It can't be dead if it was never alive.
Why are those questions for philosophy?
>why are we here
Because evolution
>where do we come from
Evolution. The first life however is still a mystery (about where it came from).
>>7934720
What's a non-shit tier branch?
>>7931146
>Russel
>Popper
>Gould
U wot m8
And it's not like there's a whole legion of scientists who clumsily fuck up at philosophy like OP
>>7934044
mathematics a system.
every system has to obey a set of rules.
rules are defined by mathematics
stack overflow
>>7934866
probably branches with personal value or softer rules where mathematics cannot help, e.g. morality or values.
If you like to ponder there are also nice things like free will, consciousness, existence, death.
>>7936411
Have you read popper's section on PER-experiment in his book? It's painfully obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>7936454
Same with the chapters where he tries to set up probability in a rigorous manner.
Did you faggots know that there is a philosophy board on 4chan?
>>>/his/
Now FUCK OFF!
>>7931100
>hawking is just like the dawkins of physics
nice little meme there, retarded though it may be. Dawkins is well known as an educator and not known for his contributions to science or even his knowledge in it.
Hawkings on the other hand is lauded by scientists, including his own field, as one of the most intelligent theoretical physicists of our day who re-established the entire discipline of cosmology. Physicist after physicist are in awe of what's in this guy's head. We study him ad nausum. It's safe to say that there are not more than 20 people currently on this planet who understand the universe better than this guy. There is very good reason he's revered, it is by no means hype. To say so is the litmus test for one's ignorance in physics and cosmology.
But hey, let's listen to some faggot on /sci spew his shit.
>>7931100
you even think that science is still inductive knowledge, which means your philosophy is also shit.
>>7937936
>hawking
hawking was relevant a few decades ago. now he is just poorly doing philosophy of physics or science.
Physicists are poor philosophers, this is why they hate philosophy, which leads them to say that philosophy is crap.
Physicists should stay with the little mathematics that they know, instead of trying to pass for smarter than what they are.
Ok but there's /his/ thread for philosophy shit....
We're here as an amalgamous consequence of past action. We come from these consequences.
Philosophy's physics without numeracy, albeit more concerned with ethics, which's part solely of human, not so much universal, truth.
>>7937944
>colossal imbeciles
I bet you practice those words often lmao
[disclaimer: not who you responded to qtboi]
>>7929928
>Hawking
He did a couple semi-important things. However he is not nearly as important as the media makes him out to be.
I wonder how much philosophy, including philosophy of science, Hawking has actually read. Or Richard "Region specific" Dawkins for that matter. I do agree, and so do quite a few contemporary philosophers, that philosophy uses its own mechanisms (what's left of cartesianism, phenomenological reduction, orientation towards art and politics, focus on language and/or logic, etc.) to avoid the difficult task of studying science (which became effectively far too complex for the philosopher polymath of times long gone). Still, interdisciplinarity is the way of the future so I see no reason why philosophers couldn't contribute by specializing themselves (into epistemologists, ontologists of various kinds, etc.) and leave behind the broad, all-encompasing views that link fundamental elements to political movements and the like. Or, perhaps, this may in fact allow the creation of new views that go beyond individual synthesizers, so that we would talk about arepublican view of Being rather than a hegeian one, as silly as thats might sound. instance.
This is what hawking believes in 2010, after his career in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
Model-dependent realism asserts that all we can know about "reality" consists of networks of world pictures that explain observations by connecting them by rules to concepts defined in models. Will an ultimate theory of everything be found? Hawking/Mlodinow suggest it is unclear:
In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modern quantum theories. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon? We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question...[4]
—Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p.8
A world picture consists of the combination of a set of observations accompanied by a conceptual model and by rules connecting the model concepts to the observations. Different world pictures that describe particular data equally well all have equal claims to be valid. There is no requirement that a world picture be unique, or even that the data selected include all available observations. The universe of all observations at present is covered by a network of overlapping world pictures and, where overlap occurs; multiple, equally valid, world pictures exist. At present, science requires multiple models to encompass existing observations:
Like the overlapping maps in a Mercator projection, where the ranges of different versions overlap, they predict the same phenomena. But just as there is no flat map that is a good representation of the earth's entire surface, there is no single theory that is a good representation of observations in all situations[5]
—Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p.9
Where several models are found for the same phenomena, no single model is preferable to the others within that domain of overlap.
While not rejecting the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", model-dependent realism suggests that we cannot know "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", but only an approximation of it provided by the intermediary of models. The view of models in model-dependent realism also is related to the instrumentalist approach to modern science, that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality (a matter possibly impossible to establish). A model is a good model if it:[6]
Is elegant
Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
Agrees with and explains all existing observations
Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
"If the modifications needed to accommodate new observations become too baroque, it signals the need for a new model." [7] Of course, an assessment like that is subjective, as are the other criteria.[8] According to Hawking and Mlodinow, even very successful models in use today do not satisfy all these criteria, which are aspirational in nature.[9]
So yeah, it took a while for the scientists to understand that science is not about truth, connection to reality and what not, but to predict with the least deductions possible. And why do we want to predict ? Why do we pay people to produce models after models? No scientist answers this.
>>7929935
Basically this. Philosophy is objectively more complicated and deeper than learning formulas and memorizing stuff. If you're a stemcuck, you're a deskmonkey trying to arrange readymade formulas and equations given to you and trying to do operations where a calculator can do the same thing 1000 times faster.
>>7937950
Not really, they ar at most, indifferent to it. But if some Marxist feminist shill comes to my lab and says my results are modern superstition, I'm gonna get pretty pissed. A not so extreme example was this professor at uni that came to lecture us on how "science" created nuclear weapons.
>>7938009
Stop samfaging retard.
>>7929935
>implying mathematics isn't philosophy
>implying mathematics isn't a science
Because once upon a time he was regarded as a great thinker in his field and he's riding that reputation well into his senility and far outside his field.
>>7938009
I hate to whip out this high school "philosophy" but..
>the calculator is only as smart as the person using it
You can only use a calculator to quickly do operations within problems you should solve logically. They only people in stem who memorize are engineers and biofags. Although you do need more mathematical logic for engineering it's all still infinitely more useful than philosophy.
>>7932810
There is a what regardless of what neckbeard philosophers reason from their basement and we fucking observed it modeled it mathematically and used it to take us to the moon, allow for wireless communication, and in fact you are able to put your bullshit on this site as a result.
>>7934081
Nobody in the world knows anything about philosophy
Anything useful anyways
Any sci shitlord has furthered the collective understanding as much as any modern "respected" philosopher
>>7937950
Kek
>>7938009
> has no idea what physicists actually do
Maybe the case for cuck "theoretical" physicists
>>7938278
Implying philosophy isn't a subfield of applied logic
>>7938565
>implying philosocucks can into logic
They are already struggling with babby's first order logic.
>>7938568
I didn't say that they were good at it
>>7929928
>>7938568
not sure you need logic to reflect
you do understand that formal logics are quite sterile and remain toys so far ?
>>7937991
it's not the fucking media that glorifies him, it's literally every current renowned physicist.
>>7937946
you're a butthurt idiot. If you can't even get something as obvious as this right, you should just give up man.
>>7931432
>nothing with philosophy
except for the Greatest Country on Earth (USA)
Hawking the kukold
how old is he ?
>philosophy is useless
That's your philosophy, dumbnut
>>7933561
einstein was a socialist and a pretty decent one at that
so the undergraduates are butthurt that their idol is so great.
