ITT: things you learned from reading the philosophy of science
I learned that science uses experiments and observations.
Thanks, philosophy. Without you I would of never know this.
Albert Einstein is the smartest man in the world who invented E=mc^2
>>8136716
This is fucking creepy
>>8136716
Well yes you don't need to read p.o.s. to know that but if you for some reason wanted the justification for experiments and observations you would have to.
I learned that experiments need to differentiate between different hypotheses. If an experiment gives the same result no matter what hypothesis might be true then it is useless.
>>8136718
No he is the smartest man in the world because he was tactically clever enough to do a couple of dog years at a patent office so he would make a good role model for other smarties in the future.
>>8136716
I'll just quote a couple things from Popper and Fleck and hope y'all maybe get something out of it. They might seem obvious at first, but they feel very powerful in the context of the lecture.
>"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take it as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."
>"It is simply a historical accident that a theory be refuted six hundred years after its creation, and not six years after or six months after."
>"A truly bad observer is he or she who does not realize that a conversation between two people often generates emotions and ideas that would not have surged had they been alone or in another company."
Anyway this is too little for all I've learned reading PoS. I know OP's post is a mockery, but I truly believe most scientist would find PoS fascinating and could actually learn a lot from it (including a couple of "not so useless things" that are such a rarity in the prejudice towards Philosophy).
I hope PoS was discussed more in /sci/ and people were open about it and towards it. After all, it's 100% related to what we scientists do.
>>8136780
Yep would become an investment to make him famous then.
>>8136761
>the justification for experiments and observations
Tell me, how does philosophy justify them?
>>8137103
We need them because how else are we going to create an accurate model of the world. You can't create a map without actually exploring the lands.
>>8137385
And where's the philosophy?
>>8136716
Science is based on hypothetico-inductive method,
Scientific statements that in principle cannot be proven wrong are not worthy of consideration.
Science advances in forms of paradigm shifts.
Scientists should not limit themselves only to what can be directly directly observed and measured.
Science and analytical philosophy are inseparable.
>>8136716
>I would of never know this
Why do people do this? "I would of [...]".
>>8137400
Literally every single one of those statements is wrong. Bait harder, idiot.
>>8137407
Prove it.
>>8137393
All I did was think about it. If thats not philosophy then what is? Whats with the hate-boner for philosophy that /sci/ has?
>>8136716
>I learned that science uses experiments and observations.
then you didn't learn shit, dumbass
there is much more to it than simply "experiments and observations"
>>8137403
It's supposedly some brain slip going from spoken language to writing. "Would of" sounds like "would 've" or "would have".
>>8137440
>my plebeian drivel is equivalent to real philosophy
pseudo-intellectual detected
>>8137440
Popscience has a hate-boner against philosophy. The few sensible people here consider philosophy quite important.
>>8137473
It's the opposite. Pop sci fags are the retards who believe the "philosophy of science" was meaningful or important. As someone who is educated and interested in STEM as well as philosophy, I can say that from both perspectives the "philosophy of science" is pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
>>8137440
In college there exist some views that "philosophical" subjects are "easy" and "lax" compared to technical or natural science. I think it's mostly banter and jargon though. Many engineers and mathematicians love philosophy (especially theoretic), but the jargon provides a social context which makes bonding easier. Which can be really important when you are a young adult in a new city at an age when you supposed to make lots of friends and aqua... argh how to spell that word. Well... people you know a bit but not quite friends.
>>8137484
>As someone who is educated and interested in STEM as well as philosophy
just wondering at what unis taught...
>>8137493
How unsurprising. As a typical pop sci fag you have a desperate need to cling to authorities. Like a good little materialistic roach you have to appeal to the fame or reputation of universities, and prefer to question other people's credentials or to insult the personally, rather than using actual arguments or evidence to support your (already lost) case.
>>8137491
>In college there exist some views that "philosophical" subjects are "easy" and "lax" compared to technical or natural science. I think it's mostly banter and jargon though.
You can give a philosophical text to a high schooler and he will be able to read, understand and even question it. Why? Because the only prerequisite for philosophy is basic literacy. On the other hand, even among people with 5+ years of specialized math education, not everyone will be able to understand a research paper in algebraic geometry. Why? Because - unlike philosophy - it requires a fuckload of knowledge.
>>8137504
You're cherry picking. I can grab 5 school math puzzles which most people can solve also, even if they can't read.
Mathematics would have gotten nowhere near building advanced theories like algebraic geometry without applying a lot of theoretical philosophy.
Where you think all those fuckloads of math-knowledge came from? Someone built them. Which axioms and theorems will lead to interesting stuff? Which ideas or concepts will we need to apply get further over here? Basically all concepts in higher mathematics originate in philosophy.
>>8137504
Same thing applies to philosophy too. Only thing you prove that you don't know much about philosophy thats for sure.
>>8137525
Never go full retard. Math was built by mathematicians and does not involve philosophy. Every field of math was initially inspired by real world applications and then went on to more sophisticated abstractions. At no point was a philosopher needed. You're so pseudo-intellectual that you became anti-intellectual.
>>8137537
Philosophy always remains on the same superficial level. Every text in philosophy is trivial and can be questioned by anyone who bothers to read it.
>>8136716
Delete your account.
>>8137504
>prerequisite for philosophy is basic literacy
I think you mean very high levels of literacy. Philosophical texts are extraordinarily difficult to read. A good background in history, foreign languages and other philosophical works is also necessary
>>8137548
I don't think category theory had anything to do with real world applications.
>>8136716
Taking this class next semester to satisfy a gen ed requirement. Will I be able to make it through the lectures without breaking out laughing?
>>8137548
>>Never go full retard. Math was built by mathematicians and does not involve philosophy. Every field of math was initially inspired by real world applications and then went on to more sophisticated abstractions. At no point was a philosopher needed. You're so pseudo-intellectual that you became anti-intellectual.
Russell is rolling in his grave right now.
>>8137752
> principia mathematica
> not shit
>>8137548
Mathematics would be counting-integers-with-your-fingers level without philosophy.
>>8137676
>PHIL209: Quantum Mechanics Woo
Sounds hilarious, be ready to take pictures of the board for us.
>>8138150
Philosophy makes even counting-integers-with-your-fingers difficult.
>>8137504
Are you kidding me? Do you have a mental retardation or something? The amount of knowledge you need to understand the context of a philosophical problem is beyond the grasp of your feeble mind. As with any field of study you need to know the technical terms and philosophy as a lot of them, more so than any other subject matter. You need to know logic, set theory, modal logic and so on in order to understand the informal arguments that are being made in philosophy. Proof theory, model theory, set theory et cetera can all be said to be very philosophical in nature.
>>8137676
What's wrong with it? I would take it
Without Philosophy you can never rule of fallacies, aka incorrect presumptions.
Without weeding out fallacies, science isn't science, it's religion.
This is an infallible fact.
It seems to me that you're a teenager that keeps hearing about the philosophy of science but you don't comprehend it.
You probably have also been told philosophy is crap, when it's not... usually when people are told this by someone with no education what so ever (and even by people with an education) it's because they're referring to postmodern philosophy, sophism or marxist critical theory.
So you're throwing down straw man arguments while laughing hysterically because you don't even know what straw man arguments are...
...because you have no idea what fallacies are and why they're important.
I'm willing to bet you think circular logic is the best form of logic there is.
/thread
>>8137499
No, that's not how you make this point:
>As someone who is educated and interested in STEM as well as philosophy, I can say that from both perspectives the "philosophy of science" is pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
This is even less of an argument. You are not even an authority and could pull shit out of your ass for all you care. Your unis cannot do that as easily and if they are full of shit, chances are we'd know.
>>8137499
I've never been a pop sci fag. in fact, I didn't care much about science when I was a kid, and I mostly care about its applications these days.
but seriously, you keep showing your ignorance, you tell us that you are "educated and interested in STEM as well as philosophy", and then vomit this bullshit: >>8137504
>>8137580
>Philosophical texts are extraordinarily difficult to read
Most of it is just vacuous buzzwords and trivialities. In a math or physics paper on the other hand every sentence contains meaningful information.
>>8137674
Read my post again. Category theory was an obvious abstraction, given all the other tools we had at that time.
>>8137752
Russell was a mathematician. What's your point? You wanna show off your ignorance?
>>8138183
Epic satire m8.
10/10
>>8138212
>hurr durr u r a teanager
>hurf durf u dunno shit bout fylosoffy
Epic strawmen. Is this what "philosophy" taught you? To insult others, to twist and intentionally misinterpret everything they say, as soon as they disagree with you?
I have a MSc degree in mathematics and I've read a shitload of philosophy. I consider philosophy to be interesting and I admit its role in history. However the so called "philosophy of science" is nothing but a cringeworthy criclejerk on pop sci level, spouting nothing but trivialities and having no effects at all. It's reddit autism incarnate. Talking about science on a meta-level because you are too incompetent to talk about its actual contents, let alone contribute to them. And then you have the audacity to claim that your superficial talking was superior to the research actual scientists are conducting.
>>8137445
But it makes absolutely zero sense. The impression of nonsensical, faulty language is obvious, overpowering and immediate. I can't imagine ever making this mistake, and can't comprehend those that do.
