Why so many smart people dismiss philosophy?
http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/
philosophy has the same credibility and use as religion
now get the fuck out >>>/lit/
>>8151865
because its a sudo science
>>8151870
>sudo science
You don't have access to this file
Most PhDs are literal morons about most everything outside of their narrow field.
>>8151867
Ayy hol' up
>Tips procreative eyewear
So uhh
>Adjusts lab coat
Let me get this straight..
Everything is philosophy
>>8151889
Most people are morons in general except the few things they are good at.
>>8151893
Most intelligent people are well-rounded and dont talk shit about stuff they know nothing about
>unironically call yourself "smart"
>dismiss philosophy
Literally brainlets
>>8151865
>There’s no doubt that Bill Nye “the Science Guy” is extremely intelligent.
>....
>extremely intelligent
>only has B.Sc.
>pop science people
>smart
>>8151865
Because philosophy has been outdated and people who pride themselves in the intelligence that allowed them to succeed in technical fields despise philosophers who pride themselves for the same reason... but nothing to show for it.
Allow me to elaborate:
I study mathematics. To get where I am I have had to deeply question my own knowledge of my knowledge, but I did so with a purpose and in a concrete context.
When facing a problem in number theory you always need to know how much you know but you also need to have technical concrete knowledge that will allow you to prove an interesting proposition.
On the other hands philosophers just ask questions for the sake of asking questions. There is no purpose or context in what they do and yet they think themselves to be smart.
There are people who would not ever be able to even pass a calculus class because they are too stupid for it. But there is no one would not be able to pass a philosophy class. There is no technical knowledge needed for philosophy, you just memorize positions and arguments and then write corny essays with all the buzzwords your 'Philosophy Buzzwords 101' class taught you.
It is absolutely insane and I really hope society grows to see philosophers as the true anti intellectuals and retards they actually are.
>>8151902
>>There are people who would not ever be able to even pass a calculus class because they are too stupid for it. But there is no one would not be able to pass a philosophy class
That doesn't sound right
>>8151902
>philosophy has been outdated
>understanding has been outdated
i see... that's explain why modern science is a huge mess.
>>8151865
Philosophy isn't relevant anymore
>>8151909
In calculus you also need to be able to make arguments but if your brain is too simple to be able to do the most complex computations you will be left behind in your first test about derivatives.
For philosophy you only need to be able to write arguments, and that is why I consider it an inferior topic.
>>8151918
If you think that philosophy strictly equals understanding then you absolutely retarded.
I already explained how in technical fields you need to question your own understanding in the same way philosophers pretend they do. You do not have a monopoly in knowledge.
But you do have a monopoly in absolute bullshit.
>>8151923
>calculus
>complex computations
Oh my!
>>8151925
>Implying you never saw morons in your first year who could not even do implicit differentiation
I am just giving examples of how people fall short even at the most trivial topics in mathematics because you need much more than just "thinking deeply xD"
>>8151909
First of all, IQ is an outdated concept. Poor indicator of intelligence, worst indicator of scientific success.
>>8151902
I do agree with your point of view, but I don't agree with your dismissive argument about philosophy.
I think that philosophy was a great subject to study 400 years ago when science was not compartmentalized. In those days, philosophers were also physicists, mathematicians, and engineers so they had the technical knowledge to take those questions forward.
I also believe that questions about the reality are moot. As billy Nye said, question if what we feel is really real doesn't takes us anywhere. Doesn't improve scientific knowledge.
>>8151936
>IQ is an outdated concept
Replaced by what?
>>8151865
"Einstein discovered that there’s no such thing as absolute simultaneity, for example, while quantum physics shows that an object can be in two places at the same time. "
The author says that stem people don't know what they are talking about when the topic is philosophy and doesn't even take the time to fact check the simplest argument of modern physics.
>>8151936
>I do agree with your point of view, but I don't agree with your dismissive argument about philosophy.
Well obviously philosophy was useful back in the dark ages. Not anymore though.
The philososperg in the video was asking about philosophy TO AN ENGINEER. Engineers are people who pride themselves in how useful they are to society and how every small bit of their knowledge can be applied in the real world.
That is like asking a KKK member about how much he likes black people ffs.
Philosofags are just mad that they were outdated long ago.
In my opinion there is a fundamental flaw with philosophers when compared with STEM people:
STEM people want to be smart while philosophers want only to be seen as smart.
This is why no one who studies STEM will ever respect a philososperg. Not one bit.
>>8151937
Do you live in the 50's?
>>8151873
.
wrong password:
.
su@computer$
>>8151947
Answer the question or fuck off
>>8151948
$ rm -rf ~/
>>8151945
"STEM people want to be smart while philosophers want only to be seen as smart."
I can tell you about my own experience, I just want to earn money and do my projects in peace.
Of course I want to be respected by my peers, but this idea of who is smarter is so petty and senseless.
>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of maths in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning maths
>it's fucking tough
>get to the point where I can just barely understand higher order university-level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw I realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws imply, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>mfw it is actually staggering how stupid they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of maths really well
>mfw totally disillusioned
>mfw realising after all that work that maths isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots
>>8151956
>>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
Stopped reading right there. Back to /his/ you fucking autist.
>>8151949
I do not know what test substituted the IQ test. It is a consensus that IQ test don't reflect the potential of a person in live.
Sure, I'm not denying that people have - what you consider intelligence- more develop than others. Nor I am denying the existence of child geniuses.
What I'm saying is that none of this means anything. Einstein was a moron when he was a kid.
Most of the current scientist today do their research because of determination and curiosity not because they are smart than anyone. You don't get accepted anywhere because of your IQ test. Even your grades won't matter when you can't work with the professors of the department and don't know how to "play" their game.
I had a college that was the "smartest" guy I ever knew. While everybody were struggling to learn something he was questioning the professor about thing we didn't even knew existed. He graduated before everyone but he was an asshole. Really annoying and was a pain in the ass to work with. I think he believe to be smart than us and even the professors. Long story short, he was passed to a permanent position at the department while a few friends and myself (who was always a C student) got at due time our professorships.
>>8151961
>I had a college that was the "smartest" guy I ever knew. While everybody were struggling to learn something he was questioning the professor about thing we didn't even knew existed. He graduated before everyone but he was an asshole. Really annoying and was a pain in the ass to work with. I think he believe to be smart than us and even the professors. Long story short, he was passed to a permanent position at the department while a few friends and myself (who was always a C student) got at due time our professorships.
>a few friends and myself (who was always a C student) got at due time our professorships.
Repeating things that you read somewhere else thread?
>>8151961
>who was always a C student
what?
if you don't indulge yourself in both, you're a brainlet, no exceptions
>>8151949
Fuck off, sea lion.
>>8151969
What am I supposed to do if this is the reality of academia?
>>8151936
>First of all, IQ is an outdated concept. Poor indicator of intelligence, worst indicator of scientific success.
I know /sci/ isn't a hivemind, but sometimes I get the feeling people in here change their opinion on this whenever it suits their need. E.g. suddenly pretending IQ is legit when you can use it to your advantage in an IQ dickwaving contest.
Similar to how people shit on biology but defend it and evolution whenever they can't resist debating creationists.
Most of the criticism of philosophy that I read has to do with philosophy not contributing to science or not making progress like science or not employing as rigorous a methodology as science. People making this kind of criticism have no idea what the purpose of philosophy is. Philosophy, in one sentence, is the attempt to solve problems that are not amenable to empirical investigation. When you can't use empirical observation to solve a problem, the only tool you have left is reason. It is because of this that philosophy progresses differently to science. Philosophy can't prove things wrong with experimentation, so it progresses by amassing new arguments and new reasons about topics.
I'm a STEMfag and I am always astounded by the amount of hubris shown by many of my peers. I love science as much as anyone but I am willing to accept that a large number of philosophical assumptions have to be made before you can start any scientific endeavour.
The example Bill Nye the developmentally disabled guy gives is that philosophy questions the nature of reality so undermines science. He fails to recognise that even if reality is an illusion, there is still value in studying it.
empiricism is philosophy
>>8151999
>rogresses by amassing new arguments and new reasons about topics.
Give some examples that happened in the last 20 years
Feyerabend is love, Feyerabend is life.
>>8152007
brainlet confirmed
Benatar, David (2006). Better Never to Have Been. Oxford University Press, USA.
>>8152014
>brainlet confirmed cause I don't follow the literature progress in a field unrelated to my interests
I'm not gonna read a whole book, what's the progress?
>>8152007
David Chalmers is a philosopher I like who has done a lot of work on consciousness. Here's a link to his papers:
http://consc.net/papers.html
>>8152016
Can you summarise some of the advancements that he pushed?
Sam Harris solved philosophy.
>>8151956
Add Feynman to the right side of that pic if you don't want to make it too obvious that you are cherrypicking.
>>8152015
>I'm not gonna read A WHOLE BOOK
brainlet confirmed 2.0
are you asking me whether an arguement has been advanced or not in the last 20 years?
brainlet confirmed 2.1
>>8152020
kek
>>8152015
The progress is in the form of new ideas and perspectives and conceptual tools. Each individual has to make up their own mind concerning philosophical topics because without observation nothing can be proven wrong. But the more perspectives we have at our disposal the better we'll be able to make up our own minds.
>>8152022
Feynman didn't dismiss philosophy, though.
>>8152027
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
There also his "philosophy of science is as useful to as scientist as ornithology is to birds" quote, him calling philosophy "baloney" etc.
And to quote Feyerabend:
>The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending
But to be fair, maybe he was more dismissive towards professional philosophers than philosophy itself.
>>8152018
He developed and explicitly stated the "hard problem" of consciousness. He makes a distinction between the "easy" problems, like explaining how the brain can produce certain behaviors, and the hard problem of explaining how physical stuff can give rise to first person experience.
>>8152020
Science cannot answer moral questions.
>>8152026
I have literally NEVER ONCE EVER referenced A SINGLE THING in philosophy EVER in undergrad, grad, or post grad.
It is totally and completely irrelevant to everything in the academic world outside of itself. "New ideas and perspectives and conceptual tools" means exactly jack fucking shit if nobody in the whole world outside of your field ever uses them.
>>8152035
Morality is a human made up concept. Ask a crocodile tearing up an innocent zebra about what right and wrong means.
Philosophy is the exploration of the most fundamental questions. It is the most meta discipline. A physicist asks what we know about the universe, and a philosopher asks what knowledge even is. A mathematician asks what is true of numbers and other mathematical objects, while a philosopher asks what mathematical objects are and what is their relationship to physical reality.
>>8152036
You mean the same way that an electrician doesn't reference scientific papers after fitting light fixtures?
>>8152040
>Ask a crocodile tearing up an innocent zebra about what right and wrong means.
I'm not a fucking animal which lives purely on instincts.
/sci/ is not the right place to ask this question, just like it is not the best idea ask a physicist or engineer or anyone without formal studies in philosophy about it.
I'll give my opinion as a guy who majored in both philosophy and mathematics, but now studies cognitive neuroscience. I think I'm familiar enough with both sides.
1. Philosophy is in the very same position that has always been. Pushing questions in order to show the premises implicit in different disciplines, and I think, often showing successfully that the reasons given are not enough to hold certain viewpoint - ethical, political, or even scientific or logical. It is to expect an experts will not be happy when a philosopher push questions to him which he is unable to answer about the grounds of his discipline. This has been going on since ancient greek, just remember Socrates death and the very close death of Aristotle due to similar reasons. Across history we will find many examples of the same behaviour towards philosophy, so there is new about recent criticism about it - in more than 2000 years of criticism against philosophy is hard to heard anything new. It's also unlikely it will stop, unless philosophy stop asking question, in such case, philosophy will be dead.
2. Philosophy has changed like most humanities and sciences. I don't think I would be extremely wrong if I say that philosophy has become a collection meta-theories about different disciplines. Is it needed? Maybe not. But it is hard to dismiss it with the raise of an eyebrow since, again, this is how philosophy has always been treated, and when looking back at history it has proved to be not useless. Even for scientific progress, if you wish, philosophical inquiries the precisely close to scientific ones have pushed new scientific concepts. Michael Friedman, has shown some interesting aspects of that in Kant and The Exact Sciences, and in Kant Construction of Nature (for example, Kant's answer to the Newton-Leibniz about space)
>>8151993
Or simply you're talking with different people.
As a guy who studies philosophy now and is studying science for fun in my spare time I have to disagree.
Whilst the majority of philosophy students are actual idiots, incapable of arguing without committing fallacious arguments, there are some of us who are not. The most famous philosophers, the ones considered the best or smartest, often had interests in and studied other fields.
Philosophy utilises logic and reason in an open discourse in an effort to find truth and ideas about the universe. Whilst unlike maths or physics it will not produce any equations or evidence of the objective universe, philosophy primarily focuses on the questions that concern morality and humanity.
Any claim that a subject has importance also requires a subjective reason. Maths or physics is no more important than philosophy. Nothing objectively matters, since reason as we know it is a consequence of how we see the world.
The claim that anyone can pass a philosophy exam is also wrong. It requires an extensive knowledge of the field and ideas. Any argument that is not concrete will be ripped to shreds by all those around you. Philosophy relies on logic and reason.
That all being said, I fucking hate most people on my course since they know little about philosophy and far less about most other subjects. They are mostly all communists, Marxists, or socialists.
>>8152040
Cars are a made up human concept. Ask a zebra running what the difference between a Chevy and a Ford is.
>>8152044
TIL electricians are academics.
Ever notice how every academic field overlaps and shares information EXCEPT for philosophy?
For example: Biophysics, Biochemistry, Chemical Physics, Chemical Engineering, Engineering Physics?
How come there isn't Philosophical Engineering? Why can't I get a degree in Philosophysics?
Because Philosophy has NOTHING of use to say in any of the real scientific fields.
>philosophy and science are rivals
>one can replace the other
>mfw
>>8152046
Yes you are. "Morality" is just what we evolved to think because cooperation is beneficial, and those groups of humans that couldn't cooperate were out competed. There's no deeper meaning than that.
>>8152054
>electricians are academics
9/10 people who aren't sparky shocks spaz monkeys disagree.
>>8152036
I think that philosophy can have a positive effect on the progress of scientific disciplines, at least hypothetically. Take quantum mechanics for example. The philosophical interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics to produce a "quantum worldview" might make the quantum world more intuitive and hence aid in further discoveries and insights.
Philosophy, at least as it relates to science, is about understanding our understanding. And for the most part this is not immediately beneficial to scientific progress. If you're not interested in having a meta-awareness of our understanding of scientific disciplines then there's nothing I can say to make you interested.
>>8152056
>All human behaviours work in the best interests of their continued survival.
Not a biologist, are you?
>>8152058
Electricians are tradesmen you dope. If you can't even understand the basic difference between a tradesman and an academic, please self ban yourself from this forum.
>>8152056
Literal autism.
>>8152060
>The philosophical interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics to produce a "quantum worldview" might make the quantum world more intuitive and hence aid in further discoveries and insights.
> might make the quantum world more intuitive and hence aid in further discoveries and insights.
> might make the quantum world more intuitive
>might make
>might
>might
So after all this time and progress that physicists have made studying quantum mechanics, philosophers are STILL sitting here with their thumbs up their asses saying they "might" make a contribution in the future????????
>>8152056
Yes I'm sure playing video games is about evolution.
>>8152068
TIL you have to be a biologist to understand something so incredibly simple. You think there's a metaphysical "morality" that exists outside the physical world?
Philosophy is like an axiom. Without it you wouldn't be able to prove theorems, i.e. do science, but the most interesting insights come from the theorems.
>>8152020
How?
>>8152056
There might be a deeper meaning if there is something in the universe that is intrinsically valuable. Ethics is the study of what constitutes the right ways to act and why. If there is something that is valuable, the right way to act is whatever way increases what is valuable.
There is a difference between the scientific explanation of how we developed altruism and social rules on one hand, and what may be objectively true about ethical action on the other.
>>8152047
(comment too long, cont'd)
3. Progress in philosophy. This question has been often dismissed by philosophers just like a scientists would do if someone ask him about the progress of science.
I think Pigliucci, who has done work both in biology and philosophy wrote an excellent series of entries in his blog, that I'd rather leave there instead of leaving my much worse opinion on the matter.
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/progress-in-philosophy-i/
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/progress-in-philosophy-ii/
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/progress-in-philosophy-iii/
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/progress-in-philosophy-iv/
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/progress-in-philosophy-v/
5. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because there isn't a serious discussion going on. Science vs Philosophy ramblings are leaded by the very same people who spend their time debating creationists. It appeals to the laymen, but the arguments are straightforward and nothing that has not been said before.
Bill Nye & friends are people, and they are entitled to have and give any opinion they are asked to give. We have often see physicists talking about politics on tv, and the show considerable ignorance on the topics. Their opinions are not to be taken seriously when they talk about something they clearly know nothing.
Nobody in the academia take those people too seriously, often, not even in their own disciplines, let alone others they do not know.
>>8151936
>IQ is an outdated concept. Poor indicator of intelligence, worst indicator of scientific success.
is this even true? any books disputing IQ that i should read?
>>8152000
>The example Bill Nye the developmentally disabled guy
This made me laugh really hard at work and everyone is staring
>>8152080
the fuck is TIL
science and philosophy are irreversibly intertwined, they build on each other, to discredit the respective other would indicate a very poor comprehension
>>8152076
Again, the purpose of philosophy is not to make scientific progress. Philosophy answers questions not open to empirical observation, science answers problems that are open to empirical observation. Your argument reduces to "philosophy isn't science, therefore philosophy is bad".
>>8152084
The thing that is "valuable" is called persistence. Organisms that assign value to having their genes persist in the universe are naturally more likely to be found simply because they try to propagate their genes. Populations which behave in a way more likely to increase the propagation of their genes (cooperation) are still more likely to persist.
"Morality" comes from cooperation. There is no "intrinsic right or wrong" in the universe.
>>8152087
How old are you? It's ok if you don't want to answer, but it's not a troll question. Nice detailed post by the way, it's not often that we come across those here on sci.
>>8151951
Oh no, not your home directory!
>>8151953
Not the anon you're replying to, but I interpreted him saying "smart" more as "having useful knowledge" i.e. STEM people want to have knowledge while philosophers only want to be considered to have knowledge.
I still disagree with this idea though. I think that both genuinely desire to have knowledge, however philosophers pursue that goal entirely wrong.
>>8151936
>Poor indicator of intelligence, worst indicator of scientific success.
IQ is nowadays considered the most accurate measure of intelligence.
Success is a completely different matter, and bears no relation with has has been said at
>>8151902
For the record, philosophers who specialize in logic, philosophy of logic/mathematics or philosophy of science, need to take courses in those areas and study them thoroughly. No need to say that it's a different matter if someone specialize in ethics or a different branch...
>>8152094
Explain how science is built by philosophy.
>>8152080
TIL autists cannot grasp irony, at all.
So you believe that morality is a subjective phenomenon that needs to be discussed. If only there was a field that tackled that.
>>8152095
>Philosophy answers questions not open to empirical observation
>Religion answers questions not open to empirical observation
ftfy
>>8152106
How come so young and you've studied all of those things?
>>8152099
You haven't read any of the philosophy on this topic.
>>8152107
>So you believe that morality is a subjective phenomenon that needs to be discussed.
I actually said the exact opposite of that. Apparently they don't teach you how to read in philosophy course work.
>>8152108
Religion relies on the noting of faith and revelation, philosophy uses reason.
>>8152107
>that needs to be discussed.
>anon called it "incredibly simple"
>>8152114
> philosophy uses reason.
Ever fucking been to church dude? Because plenty of people there use perfectly good reasoning on a daily basis. The problem is their starting point is all fucked up, which leads them to ridiculous conclusions. If philosophy isn't using empiricism, they're no better than religion. You have no way to check your starting point to see if your shit's all fucked up
>>8152124
What starting points are you thinking of that may be fucked up?
>>8151961
>He graduated before everyone but he was an asshole.
sup
>>8152122
>you can't know nuthin' meme
It's interesting it tries to reflect the skeptical position, but most of the philosophical tradition has been against the skeptics.
>>8152105
by discourse. scientists practice philosophy through interpretation of results and advance by metaphysical contemplation
>>8152124
The starting point of religion is not reason. There are problems that cannot be answered empirically. These are not undefined or non-existent problems because of this.
>>8152128
Everything not based upon empiricism is potentially false.
But how would philosofags even know?
>>8152138
>free will
>>8152134
And we know the starting point of philosophy is reason....how?
I thought you guys didn't use empiricism. How do you check yourself?
The value today of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the
value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small exaggeration
to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the chief service of
nation-states was to protect their peoples from other nation-states. The
insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally
in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other
philosophers.
................
It may seem to the reader (especially if the reader is a professional
philosopher) that a scientist who is as out of tune with the philosophy of
science as I am should tiptoe gracefully past the subject and leave it to
experts. I know how philosophers feel about attempts by scientists at amateur
philosophy. But I do not aim here to play the role of a philosopher, but rather
that of a specimen, an unregenerate working scientist who finds no help in
professional philosophy. I am not alone in this; I know of no one who has
participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose
research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers. I raised in
the previous chapter the problem of what Wigner calls the "unreasonable
effectiveness" of mathematics; here I want to take up another equally puzzling
phenomenon, the unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy.
>>8152138
>science is for asspies
Wait, this isn't true?
Personally I like Philosophy for its purity. Same with math.
Both so pure
so pure
*moans*
>>8152138
Ghosts may not be real but spooks are.
>>8152000
>He fails to recognise that even if reality is an illusion, there is still value in studying it.
Are you brain-dead? Nye is saying exactly that. He doesn't care if reality is real or not, whatever that means, BECAUSE there is still value in studying it. Questions that don't have an impact on the outcome are worthless questions.
>>8152157
Utilitarians are always autists.
>>8152147
Stirner, please go away.
>>8152138
>prove reality exists
Thus we see that if we take solipsism seriously — if we assume that it is true and that all valid explanations must scrupulously conform to it — it self-destructs. How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its common-sense rival, realism? The difference is based on no more than a renaming scheme. Solipsism insists on referring to objectively different things (such as external reality and my unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like the 'outer part of myself'. But no such extra explanations would be necessary without its insistence on an inexplicable renaming scheme. Solipsism must also postulate the existence of an additional class of processes — invisible, inexplicable processes which give the mind the illusion of living in an external reality. The solipsist, who believes that nothing exists other than the contents of one mind, must also believe that that mind is a phenomenon of greater multiplicity than is normally supposed. It contains other-people-like thoughts, planet-like thoughts and laws-of-physics-like thoughts. Those thoughts are real. They develop in a complex way (or pretend to), and they have enough autonomy to surprise, disappoint, enlighten or thwart that other class of thoughts which call themselves 'I'. Thus the solipsist's explanation of the world is in terms of interacting thoughts rather than interacting objects. But those thoughts are real, and interact according to the same rules that the realist says govern the interaction of objects. Thus solipsism, far from being a world-view stripped to its essentials, is actually just realism disguised and weighed down by additional unnecessary assumptions — worthless baggage, introduced only to be explained away.
>>8152157
>die in poverty
so be it
>>8152141
*crickets*
>>8152157
>die in poverty
so what, am I supposed to be sad because I don't need useless materialist shit to be happy?
pretty dank collection there, how many more do you have?
>>8152142
This is a good point.
Has progress in philosophy ever helped solve a problem in some other discipline? (a problem stated independently, mind you)
>>8152165
>>prove reality exists
The very activity of doubting reality implies the existence of a rule (in order to know the difference between doubt and not-doubt) that can only exist in community of people (or other beings whatsoever).
If there were no reality, you would not be able to think, people there would be no language. Both your language and the practice of doubt are given by the rules of a language-game.
That follows Wittgenstein's arguments in On Certainty.
>>8152165
f understanding in general be defined as the faculty of laws or rules, the faculty of judgement may be termed the faculty of subsumption under these rules; that is, of distinguishing whether this or that does or does not stand under a given rule (casus datae legis). General logic contains no directions or precepts for the faculty of judgement, nor can it contain any such. For as it makes abstraction of all content of cognition, no duty is left for it, except that of exposing analytically the mere form of cognition in conceptions, judgements, and conclusions, and of thereby establishing formal rules for all exercise of the understanding. Now if this logic wished to give some general direction how we should subsume under these rules, that is, how we should distinguish whether this or that did or did not stand under them, this again could not be done otherwise than by means of a rule. But this rule, precisely because it is a rule, requires for itself direction from the faculty of judgement. Thus, it is evident that the understanding is capable of being instructed by rules, but that the judgement is a peculiar talent, which does not, and cannot require tuition, but only exercise. This faculty is therefore the specific quality of the so-called mother wit, the want of which no scholastic discipline can compensate.
For although education may furnish, and, as it were, engraft upon a limited understanding rules borrowed from other minds, yet the power of employing these rules correctly must belong to the pupil himself; and no rule which we can prescribe to him with this purpose is, in the absence or deficiency of this gift of nature, secure from misuse.*
>>8152173
I didn't really understand the question. I don't know how to answer the first part. Philosophy doesn't take anything as true based on faith or revelation, it only uses reason.
The second part again has to do with philosophy being a different field with slightly different goals to science. Philosophy checks itself with reason when it can, insofar as some reasons are better than other reasons. But mainly philosophy just doesn't progress in the same way as science because outside of logic it can't prove itself wrong. It can just amass more and more ideas and reasoning and it's largely up to the individual to make up their own minds after exploring these reasons.
>>8152176
More money is better than less money because empiricism.
>>8152183
cont:
A physician therefore, a judge or a statesman, may have in his head many admirable pathological, juridical, or political rules, in a degree that may enable him to be a profound teacher in his particular science, and yet in the application of these rules he may very possibly blunder--either because he is wanting in natural judgement (though not in understanding) and, whilst he can comprehend the general in abstracto, cannot distinguish whether a particular case in concreto ought to rank under the former; or because his faculty of judgement has not been sufficiently exercised by examples and real practice. Indeed, the grand and only use of examples, is to sharpen the judgement. For as regards the correctness and precision of the insight of the understanding, examples are commonly injurious rather than otherwise, because, as casus in terminis they seldom adequately fulfil the conditions of the rule. Besides, they often weaken the power of our understanding to apprehend rules or laws in their universality, independently of particular circumstances of experience; and hence, accustom us to employ them more as formulae than as principles. Examples are thus the go-cart of the judgement, which he who is naturally deficient in that faculty cannot afford to dispense with.
[*Footnote: Deficiency in judgement is properly that which is called stupidity; and for such a failing we know no remedy. A dull or narrow-minded person, to whom nothing is wanting but a proper degree of understanding, may be improved by tuition, even so far as to deserve the epithet of learned. But as such persons frequently labour under a deficiency in the faculty of judgement, it is not uncommon to find men extremely learned who in the application of their science betray a lamentable degree this irremediable want.]
>>8152054
>Philosophysics
Was it morally justifiable for the apple to have struck Newton in the head when it detached from the tree?
>>8152184
So let me sum this up.
1) The entire field of philosophy may in fact have a completely arbitrary/incorrect starting point
2) Philosophy doesn't use empiricism, therefore no fact checking can be done
3) Philosophy attempts to answer questions "outside" of the material world, i.e. not covered by a scientific discipline
4) Philosophers can't name a single scientific problem after 1500 AD that they contributed to solving, but still claim that "science and philosophy are intertwined"
I don't know man, but that sounds 100% exactly like what religions say/do
>>8152105
The epistemological assumptions of any era are established and developed discursively, like the other guy said, and they manifest pretty obviously (especially with enough hindsight) in just about everything, including science, but culture as well. The Darwinian "episteme" or "paradigm" is a pretty interesting example, which dominated a lot of different sciences but also many artforms, politics, etc. Similar to the Comtean and post-Comtean positivisms, or Herderian (for lack of a better word) organistic thinking. Maybe an even clearer example is the kind of paradigm shift (in the specific sense of the introduction of a new way of doing or seeing things) introduced by Faraday's field concept, or the shift from Newtonian and mechanism to Einsteinian models.
The problem with the conflict between philosophy and science is that philosophy has inflated to become an industry based on repeating itself, mostly staffed by functionaries who spend 40 years reading one page of Foucault, and science has inflated to become an industry built on building better consumer products, mostly staffed by functionaries who spend 40 years doing one kind of calculus.
The philosophy vs. science debate made a lot more sense back when most scientists were super well-read philosophy guys and most philosophy guys were fascinated by natural science, and probably better at it than any modern STEM major. And in general, when both camps were mostly filled with brilliant guys who had the leisure to be scholars and intellectuals, instead of ten trillion engineers and philosophy undergrads. Surprise, most engineers are shit at science, and most philosophy students are shit at philosophy, so it's no wonder they're shit at the stuff OUTSIDE their field too.
>>8152191
If it was between a consenting adult and a consenting fruit then it is fine.
>>8151867
What is credibility? The very criteria that defines someone as credible could only have been developed through philosophical study.
Even when you attempt to deny the importance of the subject, you still use intellectual artifacts that philosophy gave you.
Idiots who decry philosophy truly have their head up their ass. In all honesty, they shouldn't even be voting. They clearly lack the ability to think deeply about any concept.
>>8152197
>Implying religious philosophy is invalid.
Triggered.
>>8152198
This reads like it was copy and pasted straight out of one of those faggy "Journals of Metaphysics"
>>8152197
1) The starting point is problems that we don't understand. "Is there a right way to act?" "What does it mean to know something?" etc. Of course it's possible to ask questions that don't make sense, but that doesn't mean that the only questions that do make sense are the ones open to empirical observation.
2) This is mainly true, a byproduct of the kinds of problems philosophy deals with.
3) Philosophical problems are not "outside" the material world. They are meta-questions. For example, you could ask whether the concepts we use in physics actually exist or if they are just ideas that map onto reality.
4) Philosophy and science are intertwined in that philosophy is just the use of reason to solve problems. Insofar as scientists use reason to interpret observation they are doing philosophy.
Do you really think that the only questions that have meaning are the ones amenable to empirical observation?
What do today's STEMfags feel about STEMfags in the future laughing at them and calling them retards because none of the objective truths of today will be objectively true then.
>>8152181
1.Kant solution to Newton-Leibniz dispute referred above, it gave the basis for the future electromagnetic theory. The problem about the nature of space was treated in philosophical terms.
2. Kant's Theory of Heavens is also very much phillosophical, but attempts too get ride of Newton's theological explanations regarding the formation of galaxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Natural_History_and_Theory_of_Heaven
2. Frege & Russell attempted to prove Kant wrong about the nature of mathematics. Kant argued for thy synthetic nature of mathematics. This gave place to logic as we know it nowadays, and to the very much criticized book Principia Mathematica. It ended shortly after Gödel's incompletitude theorem.
3. Philosophers took part in the discussion of "religious science" back in the 90's. An attempt of religious organization to introduce religious teachings back in schools, with readings of holy texts in a 'scientific' way. Eventually it was dismissed, and such 'science' what out of most schools.
4. Foucault's embraces Nietzsche's considerations about history in a very accurate way: not learning history for the sake of history, but use it as a mean of something else. His 'archaeological' method works looking back at history in order to cast light upon the present. As a postmodernist shares the criticism to the idea of 'progress', but does it in unexpected way that were considerably influential in political and social studies (consider for example History of Madness and Punish and Discipline).
Those are some examples that come to my mind. I suppose I could write a few more if needed?
>>8152233
delete this right now
>>8152035
Neither can philosophy.
>>8152235
Most of those seem like originating in philosophy, but about this one:
>2. Frege & Russell attempted to prove Kant wrong about the nature of mathematics
I'm not sure this is right, the motivation for mathematical logic was usually mathematic itself (at least historically), ZFC was made to legitimize the well ordering theorem (not because of russell paradox, as is sometimes thought), and the work of Gödel was directed at the question by Hilbert (proving the completeness of mathematics).
>>8152251
>the motivation for mathematical logic was usually mathematic itself (at least historically),
It was, because it's the subject they talk about. But the analytic-synthetic distinction was a problem at the time.
>Frege objects to any account of mathematics based on psychologism, that is the view that math and numbers are relative to the subjective thoughts of the people who think of them. According to Frege, psychological accounts appeal to what is subjective, while mathematics is purely objective: mathematics are completely independent from human thought. Mathematical entities, according to Frege, have objective properties regardless of humans thinking of them: it is not possible to think of mathematical statements as something which evolved naturally through human history and evolution. He sees a fundamental distinction between logic (and its extension, according to Frege, math) and psychology. Logic explains necessary facts the order of ideas, whereas psychology studies certain thought processes in individual minds.
>Frege greatly appreciates the work of Immanuel Kant. He criticizes him mainly on the grounds that numerical statements are not synthetic-a priori, but rather analytic-a priori. Kant claims that 7+5=12 is a synthetic statement. We must arrive at the idea of 12 by application to objects in the intuition. Kant points out that this becomes all the more clear with bigger numbers. Frege, on this point precisely, argues towards the opposite direction. Kant wrongly assumes that in a proposition containing "big" numbers we must count points or some such thing to assert their truth value. Frege argues that without ever having any intuition toward any of the numbers in the following equation: 654,768+436,382=1,091,150 we nevertheless can assert it is true. This is provided as evidence that such a proposition is analytic. While Frege agrees that geometry is indeed synthetic a priori, arithmetic must be analytic.
I have a math degree and I tend to be interested in philosophy. I highly appreciate philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Otto Weininger or Elliot Rodger. I also like philosophy of mind, in particular the hard problem of consciousness. However the so called "philosophy of science" is nothing but pseudo-intellectual bullshit. It's basically the next stage of pop sci retardation. Those are people who are too dumb to understand science, let alone contribute to it, but still want to feel deep for talking about science on a meta level. It's a complete waste of time because everything the "philosophers of science" discover is already trivially known to every scientist. I see literally no difference between "philosophers of science" and pop sci children who erroneously believe to be "scientific' just because they watch Neil Tyson videos on youtube.
>>8152251
And 2., the question regarding the formation of galaxies doesn't seem to originate of what we now call philosophy.
But ok, nvm.
>>8152035
:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrc_PsuY6bU
>>8152263
You're making Popper sad
>>8152264
I'm really unfamiliar with that, but it seems to originate from a time were the scientific method wasn't well established, so distinctions are harder to make (there is no way a theological argument is part of science).
>>8152035
> moral questions
It only question about what I want and about what you want, and how we compete for the realization of our desires.
>>8152276
Popper is the worst.
>>8152274
My sides, they've transcended to a higher plane of consciousness.
>>8152274
>>8152259
>It was, because it's the subject they talk about
I don't buy this. The motivation of knot theory was physics, for example, but knot theory is pure mathematics. This is not the case for mathematical logic as far as I know.
I've heard about Frege, though he doesn't seem to have made any mathematics contribution that's still used today. But I do agree he seems like the closest there is to a philosopher doing math.
>>8152030
> maybe he was more dismissive towards professional philosophers than philosophy itself
Many philosophers were. Including everyone's favorite maymay, Nietzsche. It's definitely not the same thing as dismissing philosophy.
>>8151895
The phrase "well-rounded" is meaningless.
It amounts to knowing a little bit more than a kindergartener about every topic.
ITT: bla bla bla bla
OP's article is clearly bullshit.
most of what has been commented is clearly bullshit.
at the end of the day, humans run around applying their brain and time to stuff they find interesting. some do science, which is perfectly fine and solves problems some humans seem to have. some do philosophy and give helpful answers to questions other humans have. there is no "which is better", "is one right and one wrong", there is only problem solving, question answering. if you're not doing either, it's all blablablabla.
philosophy: gave us a concept of society, democraty, morality beyond religion, general framework of values (yes, this may be in human nature, but some more powerful brains put it in clear writing for less powerful brains, so why not)
science: pretty much everything else
literature & art: branches of philosophy made by people who do not like the outlet of formal philosophy
economics: branch of science made for people who don't actually like science (mostly)
This thread is definitive proof that there should be no mixing of boards.
>>8152326
>economics: branch of science made for people who don't actually like science (mostly)
>>8152304
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not saying Feynman was like "Schopenhauer is a total hack" but rather "we don't need people sitting around all day philosophizing, that's just baloney."
Maybe Feynman has engaged in what one would call philosophy, like asking questions aong the lines of "are magnetic and electric field lines 'real' things," or "what do we need to do in order to successfully do science," but I don't think you would have caught him admitting this is philosophy. He would have probably dismissed it as "that is more or less obvious to a physicist (scientist)" as >>8152263 for example does.
He was just not know being very fond of philosophy, see the rest of my previous post.
>>8152041
this
>>8151930
Yeah, no.
No one ever does bad is something trivial as 90% of math for lack of intelligence, it's almost always that they lack the prerequisite knowledge to engage with it. For instance, most who have difficulty with calculus just don't remember algebra or trig well enough.
Some scientist just doesn't like philosophy because they here about stupid bullshit about dualism or some stupid bullshit argument about God existence
>>8152224
> that doesn't mean that the only questions that do make sense are the ones open to empirical observation.
What the fuck?
>you could ask whether the concepts we use in physics actually exist or if they are just ideas that map onto reality.
Totally irrelevant. It doesn't change anything at all. Doesn't matter if you subscribe to one world view or the other, you'll still reach the same conclusions via the scientific method. If that's the best philosophy can do, then it's irrelevant at best and totally worthless at worst.
>Do you really think that the only questions that have meaning are the ones amenable to empirical observation?
If you're asking me if questions like "what are the moral implications of blue" or "is reality real" have any value, then my answer is most definitely no.
>>8152371
"scientism" is a term made up by religious folk in a weak attempt to deflect the exposing of their beliefs as unfounded.
>>8152384
The sky is still blue regardless of Hitler being the first to saw so.
>>8152384
Scientism is a term used for when science is invoked to answer questions outside of its capabilities.
>>8151865
>Bill Nye
>expert in science
Kek
>>8152393
Like what?
>>8152393
What are the capabilities of science? Seem a pretty complicated question besides some stupid metaphysical self-defeating questions.
>>8152398
>How does one fully describe the activation of the immune system in one theory ?
>>8152410
?????????????????????????????
Why is science limited to "one theory"?
Why is describing the immune system "outside science's capabilities"?
Is this what philosophers actually believe?
>>8152041
An exploration would imply that things are discovered. Physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers all ask questions. The difference is that only the first two actually come up with answers.
>>8151865
Because philosophy a shit. Take your esoteric garbage elsewhere.
>>8152425
Maybe you should tell us what the "limits" of science are, then?
>>8152294
His main contribution was to logic. Pretty much everything he did in matter of formal logic is still used today, except his notation.
Science is solely concerned with empirical analysis of the material world.
Philosophy comprises analysis of immaterial concepts such as morality, knowledge, reason and language.
A scientist can study the body and create, for example, a means for aborting fetuses. A philosopher can investigate whether this is right or wrong, advantageous to society or disadvantageous. Science can tell you how the brain functions, but philosophy is needed to tell you why that knowledge is important.
Art, literature, politics, economics and science itself are ultimately derived from philosophy.
>>8151980
Average grade of a C. I know who an engineering prof who consistently got C's and he's one of the leading researchers at a top 10 engineering school.
>>8152449
>A philosopher can investigate whether this is right or wrong, advantageous to society or disadvantageous.
OK, prove abortion is right or wrong using philosophy.
>> 8152035
Morality is a human made up concept. There is no impartial answer.
In theory, we can reconstruct the structure of neuron of each person, and everyone will assume that rip off the skin of left-handers, it's moral. And there is no way to prove that it is not moral.
Ofc we have some of the general principles of morality which have a basis in biological evolution (altruism, empathy, westermarck effect, maternal bond, parochial altruism). Under the influence of the culture, way how they are expressed can vary and may change in just a few years. Predict culture evolution is almost impossible for science today. Yesterday keep blacks in the zoo was ok, judge people for homosexuality was ok. Today if you do not like when a parade of naked men walking around the city and "you yourself go to jail". And it's just because someone made a beautiful speech and changed how people thinking ..... reprogram them.
I hope it's readable ....
http://www.logic.cmu.edu/
Joint program between Math, Computer Science, and Philosophy departments, b-but philosopher's don't do any relevant research.
>>8152455
Prove that classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are reconcilable.
It's a difficult question and there is not a consensus within the discipline.
>>8152455
Morality is normative. Try again.
>>8152462
Tell one question that philosophy has solved
>>8152465
Philosophical questions by their very nature cannot be answered objectively as there is no empirical evidence that could support them. The answers are often personal to the individual. It's like asking what's the most important field in science or why should I pursue a career in science? Different people have different, subjective but stills legitimate answers.
>>8152465
Tell me why anything science has ever accomplished matters, objectively.
Henri Bergson - a philosopher - prevented Einstein from winning the Nobel Prize for the Theory of Relativity.
>>8152477
Sounds like a religion.
>>8152465
http://qz.com/709969/2300-years-later-platos-theory-of-consciousness-is-being-backed-up-by-neuroscience/
>>8152486
It matters because it has completely changed the way humans live interact and think. Whether thats good or bad really doesn´t matter.
>>8152489
I have to agree that both subjects suffer from terrible clickbate.
>>8152488
So does every subjective choice anyone ever makes.
>>8152490
> it has completely changed the way humans live interact and think.
And? Why is that important?
>>8152489
>qz.com
-99/10
It helps you analyze things in life more clearly. without a philosophy you are just a lamb of the system.
>>8152499
Define important faggot.
>>8152487
Link:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10445.pdf
>>8152496
Every choice everyone ever makes is religion?
What?
>>8152490
None of that objectively matters at all.
And it certainly isn't inherently good.
>>8152502
There, now your talking philosophy. That wasn't so hard, was it?
>>8152515
Neither did it took a complete academic review.
>>8152499
>A child runs home from school clutching a piece of paper tightly in her hand.
>She goes to her father and hands the sheet of paper over to him.
>"Papa Anon," she says, "I drew this picture for you in school today."
Her father looks at the picture and then down at her soft, smiling face.
>"And why is that important?"
>"It's not even science you stupid bitch."
>That evening a child cries herself to sleep.
>Another victory for science.
>>8152488
I don't think that's an accurate comparison.
Religion pushes notions based on faith and divine revelation, while philosophy uses reason and logic.
You may agree or not with the reasoning of some philosophical work, the same way you can with a scientific theory that's still unproven by experimentation. There's no certainty but it's not like it's a blind belief either.
>>8152521
Of course there's reason and logic in religion. Most of their ideas and customs were logically derived given their source material.
It just turns out that the source material was wrong.
Meanwhile you have philosofags saying shit like "philosophy answers questions about things outside the material universe" and "philosophy can't be explained with empiricism" and you're honestly telling me that doesn't reek of religious sentiment?
And now you're admitting that philosophy also lacks a fact checking mechanism the same as religion?
Well what the fuck then
>>8152515
Checkmate.
Haven't read any other posts (yet) but I bet people are saying things like:
>meaningless
>no progress
>useless
>self-serving
These are all true, but it's not philosophy's fault. The short answer is that people/society suck/s.
>>8152518
>"Dad, I drew this Feynman diagram for you in school today"
>>"How plebian. Science is just trivial application of philosophy. Come back when you can recite Plato's dialogue with Strawmanius"
>>8152532
But you are arguing for naturalism; which is a philosophical system. Do you not sense the irony? Science and the scientific method DO have philosophical underpinnings, and to justify science at some point you have to delve into philosophy. That's certainly not religious.
>>8151870
It's "pseudo" bud.
>>8152265
Like?
>>8152486
We can cure tuberculosis now anon. Any definition of objective proof of usefulness that excludes that example reeks of sophism.
>>8152556
>Implying a cure for TB is objectively good.
>>8152562
>implying it's not
I didn't expect more than cherry picking, generalizations and tribalistic rhetoric.
Spoiler Alert: I was right.
>>8152449
Hey, this was pretty good.
>>8152556
>We can cure tuberculosis now anon
And soon the bacteria will be resistant to all antibiotics.
1781 Kant said"The geometry can ONLY be euclidean"
1799 Gauss said "I guess I must shut the fuck up my discoverie not to be trolled by philosophers"
1826 Lobachevsky said "I have discovered non-euclidean geometry" but nobody cares until 1855
1855-2016 two century of science and techniques. philosophy decay. Maths and science free at last and not opressed by philosophical stupid opinions. THIS is why smart people dismiss philosophy
Logicians often are superior to scientists. Take Godel for example, who gave a proof on why time travel is possible both ways. Even though relativity says time only goes forward. Einstein read this proof and he could not disprove it and died knowing that his theory of relativity had a flaw. Most philosophy fields are shit and out of date but some are still useful. Logic and ethics are still fields that scientists must take but ignore. Political philosophy is what everyone talks about but misinterprets to the point wars are fought over these ideals.
>>8152566
>Inferring that I thought it was not.
>>8152569
Not to mention plain ignorance which would be fine if it wasn't accompanied by arrogance and close-mindedness.
>>8152576
Gödel was a mathematician though.
>>8151909
daily reminder that this isn't actually measured, but extrapolated from SAT data from """"INTENDED MAJOR""""
kek
I think I can clear this up for you.
>>8152556
And?
>>8152602
Gives an example of something science did that clearly matters, objectively, exactly as asked for.
>>8152598
>Inferring that he wasn't being ironic.
>>8152593
Dear Sam,
Please help us to traverse this moral landscape.
>>8152607
oops, guess that's Poe's law then, my apologies.
>>8152586
Yes he was, but he always refer to himself as a logician. Most logicians are trained in advanced mathematics but high level math is just applied logic in certain cases. His theories are being tested in labs these days and a in few years we will know more about his theories in practice.
>>8152550
Hurr hurr philosophy = everything
therefore everything good and correct is because of philosophy hurr
>>8152605
I suspect you do not know the definition of the word "objective," or failing that what it actually implies.
>>8152613
Logician as in the branch of math called logic. This is just ambiguity in english language, anon.
>>8152615
>Hurr hurr philosophy = everything
Great argument, good job
>>8152617
I don't care then. As I said any definition of objective that excludes that example is useless.
>>8152464
Then philosophy doesn't investigate whether something is right or wrong, it simply parrots norms. Try again.
>>8152615
I'm not claiming that everything good is philosophy. I'm claiming that philosophical arguments are used to justify the scientific method and naturalism.
>>8152628
Funny how philosophers are quite stupid at doing it.
>>8152630
Doing what? What does the "it" in your sentence refer to?
>>8151865
Because it doesn't validate their atheism and their seething butthurt causes them to furiously hate anything perceived as being allied with religion.
>>8152638
Justifying the scientific method and naturalism
>>8152646
Philosophy is about as useful as religion confirmed
>>8152646
>philosophy doesn't validate atheism
Fuck off christfag, majority of philosophers are atheists.
>>8152648
There is no objective justification for it to be had, their values are entirely subjective.
>>8152648
Ah well, actually there are many philosopher's that have done a good job of that. W.V.O Quine wrote many influential papers defending naturalism and pragmatism, C.S. Pierce wrote a lot about the scientific method (and arguably created it), Bertrand Russell wrote "Why I Am Not A Christian" which was a scathing critique of religion. Also, many newer philosopher's have continued and modified their arguments, and to understand the arguments of the philosophers I previously mentioned it helps to know some of the arguments from earlier phlilosophers.
>>8152573
>1781 Kant said"The geometry can ONLY be euclidean"
Do you have a citation?
The claim is nowhere to be found in Kant's philosophy since never said that geometry needs to be Euclidean, but that our perception of space is Euclidean and that that perception is a synthetic a priori, this is, a characteristic that belongs to mind's cognitive apparatus.
>Le Science Vs Philosophy maymay debate
This is why I miss this board. I don't see this a lot in real life. Just a bunch of hugbox bullshit.
>>8152667
What's wrong with hugboxes IRL?
