Do you respect philosophy as a science or not?
Why?
>>7985214
Philosophy isnt a science and doesn't claim to be
would you be more open to discussion if I used the term "in your opinion" somewhere in there?
From Tractatus:"Frege says that any legitimately constructed proposition must have a sense. I say that any proposition is legitimately constructed". Laws of syntax are similar in form to ethical laws: thou shalt not (form such and such sentences). Wittgnstein's response in both cases is "and what if I do?" Frege attempted to justify syntactic rules ("laws of logic") by appealing to other laws of logic, so did Russell with his type theory to avoid contradictions of self-reference. Wittgnstein rejects this idea as "clearly" wrong.
Bearn explains:"If the combination of signs is nonsense then we don't need a law to tell us that we should not combine the signs in this way. What we need is a logical syntax that makes logical structure, which is already there, clear. Logic must take care of itself... According to Wittgenstein, the so-called laws of logic are built into unspeakable structure of logical space... They are manifest in the fact that some combinations of signs and not others make sense. Russell misconstrued the task of logic as the installation of rules obedience to which would keep our propositions within the realm of sense. The theory of types was of precisely this nature. Moralists make the same error. They attempt to construct a set of moral rules obedience to which will give our lives meaning." In other words, Wittgenstein favors unified logic that fuses language, meta-language, meta-meta-language, etc., and has a single set of "logical laws" that function synthetically, not formally, "one is enough". As Russell pointed out in another context, such view would make mathematical logic "impossible".
Here is Friedman's characterization of Tractatus more generally:"For Wittgenstein, there can be only one language the single interconnected system of propositions within which everything that can be said must ultimately find a place; and there is no way to get "outside" this system so as to state or describe its logical structure: there can be no syntactic metalanguage. Hence logic and all "formal concepts" must remain ineffable in the Tractatus... Of course, the Tractatus is itself quite clear on the restricted scope of its conception of logic and mathematics in comparison with Frege's (and Russell's) conception. Wittgenstein's response to this difficulty is also all too clear: so much the worse for classical mathematics and set theory".
As for Wittgenstein's relation to Gödel's incompleteness, there is a "notorious paragraph", which shows, depending on one's point of view, that he either misunderstood it, or concluded that it has nothing philosophically valuable to say. Either way he would not have been foreshadowing it. Essentially, he rejects a premise of Gödel's proofs, that "truth" can be interpreted as distinct from "provability", which renders completeness issues moot:"Just as we ask: “‘provable’ in what system?”, so we must also ask: “‘true’ in what system?” ‘True in Russell’s system’ means, as was said: proved in Russell’s system; and ‘false in Russell’s system’ means: the opposite has been proved in Russell’s system... If you assume that the proposition is provable in Russell’s system, that means it is true in the Russell sense, and the interpretation “P is not provable” again has to be given up.".
Philosophy is more respectable than some sciences (looking at you, sociology). It's about as commendable as physics, in my opinion; serious contributors to both have to have a good grasp on logic coupled with intense creativity. It is more an art of logic than a science.
It allows you to stay happy and still believe you're intellectually superior at the same time.
>>7986146
>philosophy allows you to stay happy
Even pessimist philosophy?
You don't know what you're talking about
>>7986152
You're happy in the knowledge that you know everything is bad unlike stupid normies who get sad and depressed without knowing why.
>>7986154
You're telling me Schopenhauer was happy?
Who are you to denounce all philosophy as arrogant?
>>7986187
It inherently is else they would've killed themselves already.
>>7985214
Just like evolution can't explain the beginning of life, phil can't explore the basics of reality. QM has shown that common sense arguments are powerless when exploring the extremes of nature.
>>7986198
That argument is ridiculous. Someone can be terribly sad and believe life has no purpose; and this is really even more incentive to prefer being alive to being dead.
Pessimism does not equal inclination toward suicide. If anything it could imbibe one with an even greater fear of death.
It is the optimist that does not fear death
>>7986203
>Just like evolution can't explain the beginning of life
wat
>>7986221
Fear of the inevitable is an irrational fear. A pessimist enjoys life since he believes there is no other option. An optimist enjoys life because he believes it is all enjoyable.
>>7985216
science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy
>>7985214
>Do you respect philosophy as a science or not?
Not.
>Why?
It's not a science and doesn't pretend to be. In science you actually have to test a theory. Philosophy is just people trying to convince each other what idea is best without ever needing to prove it in any meaningful way.
That's the only appeal of philosophy, if it can't be proven or disproven then they can never really be wrong. It's religion for people who think they're intellectuals.
>>7986235
It explains the mechanism from which species change throught time, but it doesn't explain from where the original lifeform came from.
>>7986251
How do you prove emotion then
It laks academic rigor
>>7986254
Prove emotion what?
>>7986247
By the assumption that a philosophy must lead either to happiness or suicide, there would be no unhappy people on earth.
There certainly are unhappy people.
>>7986264
That's because they can't rationalize their sadness with philosophy or the philosophy they chose. Or they're just fat, ugly fucks with shitty genetics.
>>7986257
so does your mum
Philosophy is for stoners (and my ex)
>>7986259
How do you prove someone is happy or sad or angry or apathetic
>>7986269
>sadness exists because people are unable to rationalize sadness
This is a paradox
>>7986252
Oh, ok. Thought you were implying that there no credible theories on how abiogenesis happened, (which is a different topic from evolution) because many people (especially creationists) lump everything they know about the timeline of living organisms in the word 'evolution'.
>>7986274
Study their brain.
>>7986297
Oh, so does that mean everyone's brain chemistry is completely the same for each emotion? Because that's essentially medieval tier humours bullshit.
>>7986285
They can't understand why they are being sad and simply dwell in it and don't move on.
>>7986248
doing science embraces empiricism and claiming that the only real knowledge is scientific is either positivism or scientism (in extreme cases)
t. philosophy 100 class
they used to call it natural philosophy for a reason :^)
>>7986302
>Oh, so does that mean everyone's brain chemistry is completely the same for each emotion?
I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth because my answer challenges you belief. Not all brains are the same, not all neurons are the same, not all brains contain the same chemicals, but physics works the same way in every brain.
>>7986374
Then how would you quantify emotion?
>>7986376
Your question doesn't follow in any sense, so you are either ignorant or shitposting loudly.
>>7986398
No you're just avoiding the question and attacking me because you don't have an answer.
>>7986401
>be angry
>lights blow up in some region in the brain
>qed
>>7986408
But do you act on it or show it?
>>7986376
Do you mean emotional response or the chemicals that can cause that emotion? Do you mean conscious or subconscious emotion?
It's just a waste of time trying to prove emotion in a controlled scenario since it's not applicable to real life.
>Do you respect philosophy
Yes
>as a Science
No
Its use as a tool is my personal favorite part about Science. Honestly, I think Philosophy isn't something someone should engage in until they're like 50+.
Science is a spook
>>7986486
It can be.
But that's not making a point.
>>7985214
Philosophy is more of a means or a tool to science than as a part of it.
>>7986251
>Philosophy is just people trying to convince each other what idea is best without ever needing to prove it in any meaningful way.
Philosophy isn't "muh feels".
>>7986257
>academic rigor
What do you define as academic rigor?
>>7986853
Standards that should prevent charlatans to be published.
>>7985214
it doesn't make any money.
i like my science to make money.
>>7985214
Philosophy isn't a science. The way I see it, philosophy is just a more primitive tool for finding truth. Maybe some day we'll have something that makes science look primitive ad antiquated, but science is a more advanced tool. The problem is that in order to really develop philosophy, you need to shift the burden of proof or just talk in hypotheticals.
>>7986855
But can a charlatan's work be rigorous ?
>>7985214
I do respect it but it's not a science. I respect it because when done in a non-retarded manner it's actually enjoyable and thought provoking.
>>7986875
What?
>>7986866
science does not give truth
>>7987140
Neither does philosophy.
>>7987145
philosophy is what you are doing when you reason about whether or not science produces knowledge (/"gives truth")
>>7986251
Philosophy is only take in mind the fact that the things, even the proven science, need to be taken in a more general context. Philosophy is a natural behaviour of the good scientist, the difference is that today some scientists can't define themself philosophers because some MEME spreaded about it, after the industrial revolution.
>>7985214
No. Because any cunt can sit and talk a complete and utter load of old wank and call it philosophy.
>>7988265
It still doesn't concretely proves anything.
>>7986248
So is carpentry and burgerflipping. Yet somehow, when we pay mathematicians, scientists, or carpenters, shit gets done. Maybe we need a new word for the subset of philosophers that don't contribute to society. Since the ones that do seem to have secondary names as well (philosophers working in science are called scientists, philosophers of television repair are called repairmen), I propose we use 'philosopher' to denote this subset.
>>798521It depends on how you look at it. Socrates laid the foundation of the scientific method. Also philosophy attempts to add rigor to logic. Overall I interpret philosophy as the foundation of mathematics. Sciences is applied philosophy/mathematics.
>>7986894
lol retard
DUDE WEED
>>7985214
nah, not since aristotle decided that the more useless the subject, the more noble it was to investigate
>>7989888
nice trips, but are you retarded?
aristotle was essentially the father of science, and cared a lot more about investigating the how of the world around him than his contemporaries. I mean hell he wrote a book on practically everything, physics, ethics, logic, rhetoric, politics, medicine, psychology, poetics. If anything, he considered no one pursuit more noble than another.
If you gonna bash anyone, maybe socrates, since he was mainly concerned with virtue and ethics?
>>7989925
>If anything, he considered no one pursuit more noble than another.
wel mr nubs, that's not what I've read
and science isn't philosophy
what are the three most important things philosophy has taught you?
>>7989933
those dub dubs, how do you do it?
Science definitely IS philosophy; everything is. It's not all meaningful or even useful but philosophy (to me at least) is taking a general look at something. You can delineate it so they are two separate things, but you can take the philosophy of anything, for example.
Philosophy of science? What can science prove? What do scientific findings say about the nature of this world/reality? Do scientific findings inform us of any purpose? What limits are there to scientific knowledge?
Philosophy of history? How is history made? How certain can we be of historical records?
The point is that philosophy is all about considering the general concepts and ideas; i.e. not the specific applications.
The three most important things are that there are many different ways of looking at things, how to argue/debate (and hand-wave, i luv it), and how to bullshit. A lot of philosophy can be considered bullshit or just not applicable to everyday life. But that's precisely why its fun to read about and ponder. It's something greater, something above the mundane.
Rambling, but I feel like if any here hold the belief of knowledge for knowledge's sake, philosophy is the purest means to satisfy
>>7986251
Lol, you know nothing about how formal philosophy works.
Protip: it isn't as simple as "I say so, so it is."
>>7989486
>he judges people through his personal notion of utility
how liberal are you exactly ?
>>7989970
you are an idiot rambling about things you never bothered to study
if you knew any philosophy, you would know philosophy isn't science. the demarcation of science for example is a big problem in philosophy
you're an idiotic memester
>>7989132
>MEME spreaded about it, after the industrial revolution
It's called positivism
>>7989486
>Maybe we need a new word for the subset of philosophers that don't contribute to society.
We already do!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2RYhNhBdw
>>7985214
>philosophy
>science
you're-going-to-need-some-bigger-bait.jpg
But I actually do like philosophy.
How essential is it to start with the greeks?
>>7985216
>doesn't claim to be
Philosophers claim to be the saviours of the universe and the reason why mankind have got anything done in any category.
They're completely delusional. In their eyes the field of Philosophy is what props up the modern world, and if they all were to die then the rest of the world would follow 20 minutes later.
In reality the absence of their """professional""" services would go completely unnoticed.
Scientists claim to be the saviours of the universe and the reason why mankind have got anything done in any category.
They're completely delusional. In their eyes the field of Science is what props up the modern world, and if they all were to die then the rest of the world would follow 20 minutes later.
In reality the absence of their """professional""" services would go completely unnoticed.
>>7985214
Philosophy is a hall of mirrors that attracts mental midgets who can't handle other disciplines. A failing attempt to apply the rough principles of the scientific method to arbitrary questions of conscience.
Smart people all typically have their own organic philosophy that they live by. They don't need to study it as a discipline.
>>7990561
>>7990540
Scientists are paid to make our life easier; more pleasures and less pains.
If scientists stop to exist, then we would still
-have pains
-have pleasures
-have love for pleasures
-have hate for pains
=>Scientists have no impact on human life.
>>7985214
Philosophy, to me, is the reason to learn science. It's the eval/apply recursive function of the mind. You evaluate with philosophy, and you apply the result to your life through science, then as you learn more from science, you evaluate it, and so on.
>>7990540
>Philosophers claim to be the saviours of the universe and the reason why mankind have got anything done in any category.
How is that philosophy claiming to be a science? Do you know what science is?
>>7986247
such madness are you really saying you can eather be a pessimist or an optimist and there are no shades of gray that is absolutely ridiculous considering we are human
>>7986251
prove evolution
>>7990664
also evolution is not adaptation adaptation=real evolution =theorised
>>7990540
What you are asking is how reasoning is justified. This is part of a more general problem about epistemological justification, but applied specifically to reasoning and logic. Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) published a paper called "What the Tortoise said to Achilles" to illustrate this problem. It shows that you cannot justify a simple logical rule like modus ponens using logic without circularity.
Broadly there are two classes of response, internalist and externalist. Internalists hold that justification must be internal to the cognitive agent. One form of this is a kind of psychologism in which what justifies reasoning is the fact that the agent perceives the reasoning as being intuitively obvious. Descartes appears to follow this route, in that he frequently speaks of "clear and distinct ideas". The problem is that all kinds of things seem intuitively obvious and subsequently turn out to be false. It seemed obvious to people for a long time that the postulates of euclidean geometry were indubitably true; it seems obvious at first that if the universe is unbounded it must be infinite; it seems obvious that if a system is determinate it must be predictable.
>>7990897
Externalists, by contrast, hold that reasoning is justified by reference to facts outside the cognitive agent. One form of this is reliabilism, which is roughly the idea that reasoning is justified by the fact that it works well in practice, or else we would have discarded it. This rather assumes that we are indeed good at reasoning, which is moot, given that we know humans are subject to all manner of cognitive biases and in particular are notoriously bad at reasoning with uncertain information. Another version is to say reasoning is justified as being a successful evolutionary adaptation, i.e. being able to reason more or less correctly is justified by its survival value. Again, this is problematic because our reasoning may be just a side effect of some primitive ability possessed by our pre-human ancestors that helped them to overcome the difficulties of surviving in Africa, but doesn't of itself provide us with any confidence that it is good for solving problems in higher mathematics.
>>7990606
>philosophy "" """""logic"""....
>computers can be used to do calculations and find information
>if there were no computers, we could still do calculations and find information
>>computers have no effect on human life
>>7990946
>being an undergraduate
>>7990947
>being a philosopher
>>7986251
>prove
>outside of maths
Triggered desu
>>7989970
>A lot of philosophy can be considered bullshit or just not applicable to everyday life. But that's precisely why its fun to read about and ponder.
top kek
you admit what I said
>>7990606
>Scientists are paid to make our life easiers
Do you really learn this at school? kek niggger get down of your soap box.
Philosophy isn't a science and it doesn't claim to be.
That being said, if you don't respect philosophy you are a retarded normie fuckface with no ideas beyond "science is cool xD xD".
>>7991954
Philosophy is sufficiently broad to be critical of many of its aspects. Read fashionable nonsense.
why did he live in the barrel /sci/?
Philosophy is not a science, but science IS a philosophy.
>>7991969
>critical of many of its aspects
If you don't like a particular area of philosophy, say you don't like a particular area of philosophy.
>>7992020
K then
>>7986248
if you wish to define it that way
>>7991978
Contrarian faggot
without computers we would have less porn
>>7990540
Science is a field of philosophy
Do you believe scientist shouldn't feel this way?
>>7985214
>Philosophy isnt a science and doesn't claim to be
nailed it right off, I read no more
itt:
People discuss how they think philosophy is having no serious exposure to it.
>>7991980
/thread.
>>7985224
>Essentially, he rejects a premise of Gödel's proofs, that "truth" can be interpreted as distinct from "provability", which renders completeness issues moot:"Just as we ask: “‘provable’ in what system?”, so we must also ask: “‘true’ in what system?” ‘True in Russell’s system’ means, as was said: proved in Russell’s system; and ‘false in Russell’s system’ means: the opposite has been proved in Russell’s system
>>7993114
except science is the ONLY philosophy that actually requires any rigor and not riddled with assumptions and subjective holes.
>>7994985
>not riddled with assumptions and subjective holes.
>>7986252
God did it
duhhh
>>7985214
It's not a science, or particularly interesting to me as a field of study. I'm not particularly interested in spending a lot of time with philosophy texts.
>>7991980
There is a philosophy behind science, but you dont actually need to believe it to do science
>>7995162
This
why is quantum mechanics and math even important???
>>7995408
It is important to us and that's all that matters.
>>7995408
it gives porn
>>7995162
>>There is a philosophy behind science, but you dont actually need to believe it to do science
as long as you are paid regularly...
if people stop believing the philosophy being science, then good luck doing science
>>7986198
That's were biology steps in people aren't robots and have a fundamental will to live
>>7989486
>So is carpentry and burgerflipping
what's the argument for this?
>>7985214
Science is a product of philosophy.
>>7995681
Yea, that's way scientific progress is currently stagnated. Get of yourself
>>7995780
people still have faith in science
>>7995785
>faith on science
Because it works? You must be pretty stupid to deny the power of scientific thought.
>>7995790
tell me its mighty powers then, make me laugh
>>7990579
>Philosophy is a hall of mirrors that attracts mental midgets who can't handle other disciplines.
how do you know?
>A failing attempt to apply the rough principles of the scientific method to arbitrary questions of conscience.
are you saying philosophy is an attempt to apply "the scientific method"? why would you say that?
what do you mean philosophical questions are "arbitrary", or "questions of conscience"?
>Smart people all typically have their own organic philosophy that they live by. They don't need to study it as a discipline.
what kind of science did you do to find this out?
what is an "organic philosophy"? how do you think those work?
specifically, what do you think it is about having an "organic philosophy" that makes you not need to study philosophy as a discipline? "not need" in what sense? is it a weak sense where it just makes philosophical study unnecessary for daily functioning? or is it a strong sense where philosophical study becomes somehow unnecessary for even justifying your philosophy or knowing that it's right?
>>7995794
Are you really so closed on your philosophical beliefs to deny what scientific inquiry has managed to accomplish? Even if say that all technological achievements are only valuable because muh hedonism, it changed humanity in such a way that history marked the scientific revolution as a landmark. It grants the power to verify your knowledge and create more.
No wonder we live in a society full of morons.
>>7985214
Science is studies of fact, not opinions.
>>7995818
>Even if say that all technological achievements are only valuable because muh hedonism,
so you agree that nothing has changed thanks to scientists
>it changed humanity in such a way that history marked the scientific revolution as a landmark
only people who have faith in the work of the scientists claim this
you know nothing about scientists and their models, just go back to your liberal art degree
>>7995822
what about sociologists and psychologists who study people's opinions?
>>7995837
>sociology
>science
>psychology
>science
n o t e v e n o n c e
>>7995828
>so yiu agree nothing has changed thanks to scientists
What? No you moron. What is modern medicine, electronics, transportation, communications networks, computers for you? Do you really don't understand how the world has changed thanks to this?
>only people who have faith in the work of science
And you must be pretty cynical, closed and retarded to deny the results of science.
>>7995162
which philosophy do you think that is? it can't be the philosophy that "we should do experiments and observations to see how things work with nature and people and things", right? so what is this philosophy such that 1) it is behind science but 2) you don't need to believe it to do science?
>>7995849
Just because some rational justification haooens to fall under "philosophy" doesn't mean you nees to study philosophy as a subject to use it.
>>7985214
Do you mean, "Do you respect science as a philosophy"? That's not exactly the case either, but it's... sort of close.
Science relies on the philosophical views that: objective reality and objective truth exist, reality is quantifiable, and objective truth is valuable. That's not a specific philosophy in itself but it majorly narrows things down.
>>7995852
who has ever said that if some rational justification falls under philosophy that means you need to study philosophy to use it? why didn't you just answer my question?
>>7985214
Bait thread, but here's an interesting tidbit about philosophy:
Pyrrho, the first skeptic, accompanied Alexander the Great to India, and Diogenes claims he acquires his outlook there by interaction with the Indian mystics.
>>7995859
I'm not him, I was just explaining what I think he meant.
>>7995837
Those are fields that nobody can tell if it is a disorder or a disease.
>>7995849
Logical Positivism, or empiricism in general
>>7995874
explain
>>7995879
Science is based on the idea that the world we observe and interact actually exists as we perceive it to. Therefore by justifying our beliefs based only on data gathered from the perceived universe we form accurate beliefs.
Thats the philosophy, but the observed universe doesnt have to actually exist for science to work, and you dont have to agree with those arguments to do science.
>>7985214
No, because it's not a science.
Ex-philosopher here.
>>7986309
>they used to call it natural philosophy for a reason :^)
They used to call chemistry alchemy too, but the old method of sitting on your ass and thinking real hard about nature fell out of fashion when experimentation came around.
I wouldn't say that philosophy is a science just because science is a philosophy. Squares are rectangles, but not vice versa.
>claiming that the only real knowledge is scientific is either positivism or scientism
I don't think scientists claim this. There are plenty of things that we derive knowledge from that are not scientific. For instance, mathematics.
I also don't buy into this idea that 'philosophers' are necessary anymore. Writing about politics, society, and other abstract topics is fine, but when you start calling it 'philosophy', you inevitably fall down the rabbit hole of boiling everything down to you-can't-know-nuthin.
>>7995854
the act of doing science has no relation whatsoever to the assumption of objective truth and reality (which belong to philosophy, not science)
>>7995911
scientific experiments and tests and theories and observations are pointless unless you believe there's truth behind them
>>7996953
science only tests that theories go in accordance with what we observe. whether what the observe is objective truth, just an illusion or completely made up is irrelevant. It's not a concern for science and technology working, only for philosophers (who actually look for "truth")
>>7986376
Psychoactive drugs target specified brain regions and affect your emotional-cognitive state in relatively predictable ways.
What suggests that your emotional-cognitive states are determined by the interactions between neuronal systems.
No shit the hundreds of billions of neurons in each of our brain's have developed differently, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the same physical principles are observed everywhere.
This means that in principle our emotional states are indeed quantifiable. Get over it.
>>7997226
I defy you to find someone who engages in science that doesn't believe they're uncovering the truth. I mean, there have been a lot of times when the details were different than what we thought (such as quantum mechanics) or they weren't immediately found out (such as Einstein giving a better model of astrophysics than Newton), but the broader truths (such as the basic way that macro-scale gravity works) are rarely overturned, and are instead supported by more and more experiments and observations
>>7997427
Jumping from "supported by more and more observations" to "they are fundamental truths" is a philosophical exercise. The science begins and ends before such considerations are relevant.
The personal beliefs of the scientists are irrelevant to their science. Again, if a scientist believes science uncovers the truth of the world, then that is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
>>7997427
>are instead supported by more and more experiments and observations
the notion of ''being supported by experiments'' is a philosophical stance, so yes, scientists think they are right, more right than anybody else. Of course, they fail to prove that their methods lead to objectivity, and they are upset about this, this is why they invent the concept of inter-subjectivity where ''scientists are right, because their models works because these people improve the life of the population'' like some anon explained earlier.
>>7997969
>the notion of ''being supported by experiments'' is a philosophical stance
No, it's just logic. Logic is more primordial than philosophy.
>>7997974
>No, it's just logic
no the concept of ''experimental poof'' is not found explicitly in deductive logic.
In fact, nobody knows what ''experimental poof'' is.
>>7985214
Useless drivel.
>>7998094
The process of doing science doesn't really care about the concept of proof. That's a philosophical stance that often gets attached to science to the point many think it's indistinguishable from the method.
By the way I'm not saying science is not a philosophy or that it is unrelated. In fact, in my original post >>7995911 I implycitly acknowledge that science does rely on the idea that reality is quantifiable, and broadly science relies on the idea that knowledge is generalizable and assumes induction is a valid procedure. But none of this is related to objective truth or reality existing in the way some philosophies try to argue it does.
>>7998100
>That's a philosophical stance that often gets attached to science to the point many think it's indistinguishable from the method.
yes it more the philosopher of science who do this task.
Scientists do cling to the view that their mathematical models model their posited reality, or even that the models are their posited reality. This is manifest when they communicate among themselves or towards the public.
The conferences for the higgs boson show this. The scientists insisted that their measures were relevant for the model of the higgs, and claimed that they had therefore a proof of the truth of this model.
>>7998110
Scientists are people. People can have views. I'm saying the science itself and the results it produces, which is something that outlives any particular scientist involved with it, is apart from all these discussions.
>>7990540
The weird thing is that you seem to actually be describing how scientists sometimes talk about science.
>>7998130
Well a fairly significant aspects of the modern world do hinge on technology that gets increasingly out of reach of common people's minds.
>>7998133
fairly significant amount of aspects*
>>7997435
I didn't say that belief was a scientific thing, I said it's necessary to science. No one would drop different weights at different heights a dozen times if they thought it meant nothing (unless they were doing some kind of dadaist performance art or something). The philosophy behind science is its own thing, yes, and scientists often take it for granted, but it's integral to the existence and prominence of science.
>>7986309
yeah, and they used to call fire "phlogiston"
READY, AIM, PHLOGISTON doesn't have the same ring.
>>7990561
Do you like your fucking iPhone?
>>7998260
great example of engineering and marketing
>>7998268
yeah except it's not a bridge, the engineering that created the iphone is 100% lenient on modern science.
the era where engineering carried itself independently ended about 500 years ago son.
>>7998260
>>7998268
>>7998269
My point isn't the iPhone. I hate Apple.
It's discovery of principles that allowed for modern engineering. Science enabled this, and without it we'd probably suffer from a deficite of many things philosophy could not do by itself.
Thanks to science, we have medicine, modern engineering, and a better understanding of why and how we perceive the world.
>>7998285
>Thanks to science,
this is not thanks to science. there is no difference between willing to have more medicine, like you say, and constructing scientific models.
Science is just engineering+claim that engineering give truths, objectivity and the secret of the universe...
You can say that scientists try to think of themselves as better engineers, more than engineers.
Too bad that the claim of objectivity through scientific models is dubious...
What is left thus is just engineering and all the perpetual craving for a better life.
>>7998285
>Thanks to science, we have medicine, modern engineering
engineer here. we don't work for you, you work for us. industry funds science, and engineers are industry.
why do you think publish or perish is a thing?
>>7998331
Self-respecting scientists don't claim objective truth. That's usually the engineers and the ones who lack perspective.
Science itself definitely doesn't imply objective truth anywhere within its own method.
I'm really tired of humanityfags trying to put themselves on the same level by resorting to postmodernist fluff like "hey man its all opinions!!!!!!!"
>>7998341
>>Self-respecting scientists don't claim objective truth.
go to conferences for scientists and conferences for the general public and analyze their vocabulary.
>>7998353
>analyze their vocabulary
Are you autistic? Obviously they are not going to stop every fucking time and remember everyone that this is still a model and not absolute truth about the universe.
>>7998354
as if you must make an effort to say the word model, lel.
see we finally hit the nerve... and you think you are rigorous and legitimate about your whining over muh humanityfags (which I am not, nice projection by the way).
hahahhahahahaa.
>>7998362
What nerve? If you think science isn't rigorous as opposed to humanities then I don't know what to say.
You read drunk.
> I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. I discuss various implications of the ERH and MUH, ranging from standard physics topics like symmetries, irreducible representations, units, free parameters, randomness and initial conditions to broader issues like consciousness, parallel universes and Godel incompleteness. I hypothesize that only computable and decidable (in Godel's sense) structures exist, which alleviates the cosmological measure problem and help explain why our physical laws appear so simple. I also comment on the intimate relation between mathematical structures, computations, simulations and physical systems.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
People are paid for this.
>>7990681
?
>>7990664
what do you mean prove evolution?
evolution - the change of species over time - is a fact. there are species now that didn't exist some time ago, and there were species some time ago that do not exist now.
there are plenty of models to explain how that happened, but i'm curious as to what proof you even want
>>7995030
Here's the only assumption. The universe we experience is relatively constant, enough so to be studied. This is the assumption that you need to EXIST.
>>7998358
Littering your whole mode of conversation with the word in the interest of those who are unable to grasp the concept of "context" is, in fact, burdensome and hardly necessary.
faggots
>>7991978
because pain and suffering builds you into a better person sometimes MAYBE
depends on how the rest of your life is going >.>
>>7998645
>BUT WHAT IS A PEOPLE?
Featherless bipeds.
>>7985214
Philosophy is not a scientific field.
All science is philosophy, but most "pure" philosophy is not a science.
>>7986866
>The way I see it, philosophy is just a more primitive tool for finding truth.
Philosophy is so much more than that.
It's a way to find tools to find truth, among other things.
>The problem is that in order to really develop philosophy, you need to shift the burden of proof or just talk in hypotheticals.
The burden of proof does not serve any purpose, it makes finding truth harder and only exists to create a sort of competition.
Hypotheticals are not bad, thought experiments are a very useful tool.
Without philosophy we wouldn't have axioms, and then we wouldn't even have any math, let alone science.
Without philosophy we would have nothing
>>8000492
Formal math is very recent.
>>7998669
so a chimpanzee sometimes when it feels like it
Philosophy is "scientific" in the sense of the (superior) German word, Wissenschaft. It seeks systematic, true understanding of various things. There are other senses in which it is scientific as well.
Modern scientism is just a religion to convince Reddit plebs to work in cubicles for the rest of their lives.
>>8000520
>modern scientism
Is this the new epic buzzword thag philosophers use to sound hip and cool?
>>8000520
>work in cubicles
Philosophers are literally only employable in academia and the only reason they bare that sort of environment is because they like the subject.
All your snobbish attitude and painfully cringy remarks comes from the fact that in highschool you were to stupid to ponder on the things philosophy is concerned about in a proper manner and now you think you are enlightened and everyone is a cave-dwellin retard. There's a reason why we laugh at you.
>>8000524
Nah it's old.
>>8000538
>they bare
>to stupid
>>7985214
I respect science as a philosophy.
>>8000545
What knowledge have we gained from pure philosophical methods? It seems that there is less controversy on general relativity than on political theory.
>>8000573
I was just trolling, but if you're actually not trolling, jesus christ. You have a childlike understanding of the history of Western thought.
>>8000580
>I was just trolling
Epic m8
>>8000538
you can be a philosopher and do other things than think. lots of philosophers have done other things than think.
>>8000573
to me, the implications are stark.
no god. but I am an idiot and it doesnt matter anyways, unless people take the god thing a bit too seriously..
>_______________>
>>8000634
Most of them took law, history, political theory as majors. Pure philosophy is mostly worthless.
>>8000671
and what if everyone willingly practiced philosophy? it surely would not just be lawyers, historians, and politicians practicing it.
what if everyone saw themselves as equals, in terms of morality? what are the implications? what if we really are just cave dwelling retards and nothing else really matters except staying warm, dried, fed and watered?
makes me wonder EHEHEHE
>>8000686
oh, throw "love" in there. whatever that wacky shit is lol
>>8000686
What?
>>8000573
scientific method is purest philosophical method
>>8000699
give me your definition of philosophy please.
what is science. but the observation of trial and error till you come up with a result...
what is philosophy,..but the same thing....
>>8000712
tell that to autist mathematicians and prepare to get your head chopped off. literally.
>>7985214
I respect science, and science is a philosophy.
>>8000712
the only diff.. is the application on witch it is applied.
there ego chops off there own head leaving them stuck with no room to grow.
>>8000716
I respect you bro. I respect you.
c'mere and gimmie a hug dude.
>>8000722
your not getting my last beer Johnny...
>>8000721
unless they also practice other things :)
can an engineer also practice philosophy? can a cop? can a soldier?
>>8000729
>Samfaging at it's worst.
Lol. The oldest tripfag in /sci/ has no need to samefag. This name is big enough for all of my arrogant condescending asshole-ish-ness.
>>8000727
of course... sorry to classify all... just making the point.. when something is FACT. it no longer has room to grow. no longer up for interpretation. no longer subject to change. when the only thing inevitable in life is change.
>>8000732
>tripfaggs actually believe this
>>8000729
>I hate this argument specially as philosophers seem to think they can have a proper opinion on any scientific field without the proper training.
so you need a book to tell you what is AYE..?
i dropped out of school at 16. i don't need TRAINING to tell me life. life tells me that just fine.
>>8000734
the times they are ah changinnnnn
time to abandon religion folks. find something else to bring people together. shit will be better all around. maybe a single, united nation or some shit.
dumb ass out.
>>8000742
>united nation or some shit.
Obama is already running for head of the UN btw...running/pulling strings.
>>8000747
I hope he handles the Russians and China well.
>>7992032
t. Philosophiae Doctorae in a scientific subject
>>7985214
The entire /sci/ forum is devoted to philosophy. Just look at the topics.
>>7995738
He is an idiot, he doesn't even understand that talking about the singular is not any different than refering to the whole
>>7986251
Sounds like you need to take a philosophy class, as you are completely clueless about the scientific method.
