Why do you guys mock philosophy so much?
Philosophy is a great pursuit, and I find people who are generally educated in philosophy more interesting and successful than people who think it's a joke.
>>8200610
In the words of my grandmother
"Oh, I love philosophy. It's a great hobby and only a hobby."
Useful to learn about oneself and how to organize thoughts and ideas. The people that study it though are generally pretentious even by /sci/ standards so there's a reflexive denial.
>>8200615
There are definitely alot of edgelords who study philosophy to try and be "le superior intellectuals". But everyone I know who's actually graduated with a philosophy degree or read enough over the years are fine. Is it because people only get exposed to philosophy on places like 4chan?
>>8200610
We don't mock philosophy. We mock postmodern philosophy and continental philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SUWK_pWrbw
>>8200637
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SUWK_pWrbw
Jesus, /sci/ is underage as fuck.
Because philosophy is not a science.
>>8200629
Those people you met, are they going into law or some other profession? Or are they trying to become professors of philosophy and get a Ph.D without real world experience?
>>8200637
That video is mocking the people who mock postmodern/continental philosophy though.
Are you really gonna tell me Nietzsche/Heidegger/Marx aren't worth taking a look at?
>>8200648
Both.
>>8200647
It certainly is.
Both philosophy and science is based on reason.
Are you going to tell me that you're still stuck in the 18th century, and you actually think that empiricism is correct?
If so, you're exceptionally uninformed.
>>8200662
The earlier are usually fine but the later is where the issue comes in. Philosophy is an exercise of the mind yes but without informed decision making through experience all you can do at the end of the day is metaphysics which is the mental equivalent of masturbation. I like philosophy, I respect those who study it as it is not an easy subject. However it is as a rule overpopulated by sheltered individuals who didactically try to impose their moral or mental framework without having actually tested it outside of their own mind.
>>8200610
I think it's mainly that the people who frequent /sci/ are pretentious aspies who can't stand the idea of a system without any hard and fast rules, as evidenced by this thread >>8198000
Not to say that rules are a bad thing.
They're what allows us to make sense of anything within a framework of thought.
But sometimes you have to take a step outside that framework and consider things that seem ridiculous and utterly "unscientific" at first glance, like quantum superposition.
All the men quoted above on the right are skeptics first, then scientists, men that think just because you can't immediately produce something tangible means it's a useless pursuit.
Though I must say, majoring in Philosophy is a stupid idea. There's no money in it.
>>8200659
They aren't
>Nietzsche
>muh Ubermensch
>Marx
>muh borderless production
>Heidegger
>muh moments
there, saved everyone very boring hours of anecdotes and long running explanations
>>8200740
Your whole post reeks of pretentious aspie, but you have the gall to call others that.
Hilarious.
>>8200743
forgot to mention they are all literally wrong and useless and only exist for the novelty of having been controversial in their time
>>8200744
Whatever, can't argue with dubs.
>>8200659
>Are you really gonna tell me Nietzsche/Heidegger/Marx aren't worth taking a look at?
Philosophy ended with Aquinas
>>8200610
This image really says it all as far as what's wrong with the face of modern science. It is ugly, shallow, disjointed, and delusional. There are too many facets to the core problem to list.
Though Einstein's statement references what Planck commented on a lot, and what you'd expect anyway. These are human problems, and have always been present, and in the way, within given fields. People not taking the time to really chip away at and control for their biases, and form an underlying naturally expansible framework of how things tie together. Rather than compartmentalizing.
>>8200713
You know that Hume is a complete hack, right ?
>>8200807
He wasn't a hack.
But the point is that his philosophy was criticizing the prevailing wisdoms of the day, and the power of organized religion over society.
Nobody with even a fleeting knowledge of philosophy or science thinks that empiricism is true.
>>8200713
>Both philosophy and science is based on reason.
Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, anon.
Unscientific philosophy is dead; science is all that remains of philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy is just science without the rigour.
>>8200818
How can we scientifically test wisdom?
>>8200818
>Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, anon.
I agree. But that doesn't mean philosophy is dead, any more than it means Newton's law of universal gravitation is dead simply because we now have QM.
>>8200610
>hilosophy was a great pursuit
... a thousand years ago,
but has been left FAR behind
by Science, get over it.
>>8200826
Scientifically prove that people have different personalities and what this consists of.
>>8200818
>falsifiable
Stop reading popsci shit and read some real textbooks for fuck's sake
>>8200820
>define wisdom
>>8200823
We still use Newton's laws.
I understand what you are trying to say though; philosophy is both a relic and in certain cases a necessary tool for education.
I would recommend that everyone study philosophy, in order to understand the history of intellectual development, however philosophy used for the enhancement of human understanding has been replaced by science.
Philosophy is the history of science, as science was born out of philosophy; we shouldn’t forget this, however we should also remember that it is no longer actively advancing human knowledge.
>>8200832
I'm currently reading papers by Szostak on non-enzymatic copying of nucleic acids.
Science is built upon falsifiable informally logical hypotheses, often incorporating formally logical models, which are then tested via experimentation; the mathematical analysis of empirical data then follows.
That’s the definition of science.
>>8200838
Everything in physics has been "falsified". No one gives a shit since that's not the point.
>>8200610
Inferiority complex
>>8200841
Science progresses through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses and theories.
That’s the entire point.
>Everything in physics has been "falsified".
This should be good; anon, what in physics has been falsified?
>>8200835
Prove a definition that is agreed upon.
>science was born out of philosophy
Therefore science is part of philosophy, unless you're talking about something as ephemeral as type of degree.
>>8200844
How was the definition agreed upon?
What is it built on?
>Therefore science is part of philosophy
You're thinking branch of a tree; it's actually more like the peak of a mountain.
>>8200852
Can it be agreed upon?
Life itself as we know it shares a common origin.
>>8200853
>Prove a definition that is agreed upon.
>Can it be agreed upon?
Great one.
>Life itself as we know it shares a common origin.
Fantastically irrelevant conclusion you have there, anon.
>>8200858
Well in the end science and philosophy are both dependant on life.
>>8200859
Yes and bears shit in the woods.
>>8200843
>Science progresses through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses and theories.
No. Science is about modeling and refining those models. As long as those models are good enough, we don't give a damn if that's not exactly how the source code of the universe really is.
>This should be good; anon, what in physics has been falsified?
Everything deviates somewhere in physics.
>>8200863
agreed
>>8200865
>Science is about modeling and refining those models.
Through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses lad m8.
I'm an observational cosmology PhD student, by the way.
Just in case you fancy a physics fight; I'm game.
>>8200903
It's not about falsification, it's about models breaking down.
>>8200907
What are the models built on, anon?
>>8200908
maths
>>8200911
>muh incompleteness theorems.
>>8200911
What are the mathematical models built on, anon?
>>8200916
Sets
>>8200916
categories
>>8200918
>>8200919
Ok, if we keep going down this road we’ll just end up at 'structures with no intrinsic properties apart from the relations between abstract entities'.
I’m not asking you what mathematics is built upon, anon.
I’m asking what are physics based models built upon, in relation to science?
They are built upon experimental and observational evidence, which has been collected in reference to informally logical hypotheses that rely on formally logical mathematical models.
Sure, we do things a little differently in physics as we care more about whether the math works, as opposed to whether we have concrete grounding for drawing up a hypothesis, however we still rely on falsifiable hypotheses and experimentation in order to make progress.
>>8200659
Nietzsche and Heidegger?sure,but Marx?
Philosophy is cool and interesting. It's only the "philosophy of science" which is shit tier trash. You pseudo-intellectual pop sci failures don't get to tell a scientist what to do.
>>8200763
>>8200946
Do you have any idea how important his work is? Or are you just meming because you don't know any history of thought?
>>8201050
>>8201095
Claiming Marx was important is like claiming Marcus Aurelius was important. They were minor thinkers, at best, who popularized and parroted other thinkers without really adding anything.
>>8200610
>>8201102
Marx was pretty important, perhaps even the most influential person in the entire history of humanity so far. He was a mediocre thinker, but his writings inspired a century of large scale genocides, wars and social unrest.
>>8201102
Lol. Are you serious?
>>8200745
>literally wrong
Yet no-critic has disproved Nietzsche
>mfw Nietzsche BTFO metaphysics
kek
>useless
What do you mean? kek
>>8200930
Don't waste your time. Brainlets can't reach that level of comprehension.
>>8201102
Holy fuck my sides!
>>8201109
>large scale genocides, wars and social unrest
WTF?
>>8201121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
You Americans might not be aware of it, but there is a world outside of the USA. And it has a history.
All the best scientists and mathematicians were great writers, poets, artists or philosophers. Vice versa is true too.
The modern divide between STEM and Humanities is anti-intellectual tomfoolery.
>>8201127
>americans think World=USA
You made me remember that, kek.
>>8201127
It's just so opinionated and one-sided lol.
>>8201130
True.
>>8201143
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Philosophy_and_social_thought
?
>>8201143
That's true. As I said, he was a mediocre thinker and his work was mainly political agitation.
>>8201150
You can also find a shitton that Aurelius wrote and said about stoicism, but he didn't advance thought in any significant way.
It's kind of like someone saying NDT is an important astronomer because he's a popular figure.
>>8201159
If you don't like him it's your opinion, ok. But it's strange to decline his influence.
We still use his ideas when we talk about social/economic classes.
>>8200610
You'll note that on the right are not actually important scientists doing great works (hell, Nye isn't even a scientist).
>>8201165
thatwasthejoke.jpg
>>8201163
And that reflects his contributions to /philosophy/ how exactly?
Look, all those two did was mash up the works of a few philosophers, then used that jumble to justify an ideology. It's like you're trying to claim that someone who used the formula for determining compound interest to calculate interest advanced mathematics and influenced mathematics. Again, Marx and Engles did a lot of shit, are important to a lot of fields, but not to the field of philosophy. If you're learning say dialectic theory, you don't study Marx.
>>8201130
In many cases they were also crazy religious people with serious anti-social personality characteristics.
>Newton
>>8201102
>Claiming Marx was important is like claiming Marcus Aurelius was important. They were minor thinkers
>>8201143
>neither he nor Uncle Ingy are important philosophers
>>8201175
>how exactly?
Because it makes any sense only with Marx's theory of human nature.
>>8200610
that's pretty good rage material
>>8201143
Nietzsche literally BTFO every past metaphysics circlejerk. His work is almost invulnerable against critics.
He and Marx is the manifestation of Philosophy on society. KEK
>>8201176
Not sure about anti-social, more like unusual and extravagant. What so anti-social about Newton?
jesus christ stemfags truly are the most arrogant retards ive ever seen lol
>>8200610
After reading your quotes, it sounds like they are so convinced of one point of view, that they are actively disregarding anything that opposes that view without hard evidence even though they can't truly prove their point of view.
The fact that Bill Nye can't understand that what he considers reality may be nothing more than a VR simulator just shows that his mind is closed. Science itself proves that this is a possibility because we know that what we perceive as real is simply a matter of chemical reactions and if someone were advanced enough, they could easily manipulate these reactions to make us believe something that isn't true even though everything in our body would tell us it is true.
It's also hilarious that they think this way because almost all of law is based at least partially on philosophy.
>>8201099
>scientists should learn philosophy because of muh feels
Fuck off Einstein
>>8200610
Because people who are pro-philosophy make retarded images like yours.
Faggots just measure and measure, but doesn't even understand what for.
>>8201652
Why are you so easily upset?
>>8201718
I'm not actually upset. I like reading about philosophy.
It's just discussing it with you shitheads is stupid as fuck.
> muh qualia
> kant no nuthin
> empiricism is wrong
>>8201794
I like how you literally have to pretend you know what I believe to maintain this false posture
Go tip your fedora elsewhere
>>8201710
Pretty sure the retarded guy is the one who thinks philosophy and sociology are the same thing.
Philosophy is the drive of science. People without philosophy to drive them have no idea why they're even doing what they're doing.
>philosophy is all about dem big questions nobody can answer
>>8201918
Stop samefagging your shit thread. You're a retard, we've all called you out, so now take your insubstantial semantic arguments somewhere else.
>>8202173
Funny because that was the only post I made. I didn't even read the thread, I responded directly to OP.
>>8201860
Sorry. I wasn't referring to you, personally, but you shitheads as in all of /sci/.
There has not ever been a good philosophy thread on /sci/
>>8200610
>Why do you guys mock philosophy so much?
It's rarely used for practical applications and it doesn't tell us anything new. In other words, it's usually useless.
Not always though. Looking at you, Karl Popper.
>>8201050
>Philosophy is cool and interesting.
Why?
ITT: People who don't understand that philosophical reasoning is an important part of science
ITT: People who think philosophy is about asking "deep" questions.
>>8202332
philosophy ask QUESTION that the science not answer because they have the crappy empiricism which hides the hidden variables of life...
To all of fuckers who don't understand what philosophy is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ
>>8202355
>ITT: People who don't understand that philosophical reasoning is an important part of science
Philosophical reasoning in the context of science is just called 'science'. Philosophy with a capital 'P' refers to the whole solipsism/consciousness/determinism circlejerk.
>>8200718
Mathematical proofs are fun without understanding philosophy.
>>8202369
Math really is a philosophy though homie.
>>8202370
>Math really is a philosophy though homie.
But they're not the same thing, because people who study the philosophy of mathematics are largely mathematicians.
>>8202370
>He doesn't understand sarcasm
>>8200610
They're the kind of stupid Einstein's quote there is describing, just as most people have always been.
/thread
>>8202378
>They're not the same thing only in the sense that a dog and a mammal aren't the same thing. Philosophy is more general, math is more specific.
Correct, however, if we're speaking about a 'philosopher', the kind of philosophy they are doing usually has nothing to do with mathematics. Same goes for science as well, with the exception of certain specialists who exclusively study the philosophy of scientific reasoning.
So while it's true that there's tons of disciplines under the blanket of philosophy, you aren't any moreso a mathematician or a scientist just because you are a 'philosopher'.
>>8202380
>having a stroke in the middle of typing your post then /threading yourself
Friend, is half of your face drooping? If so, call 911/999 immediately. EVERY SECOND COUNTS
It bothers me how many people don't even know what philosophy entails. Most STEMfags seem to assume that philosophy is just vague 'everything is subjective' metaphysics
Simply put, philosophy is the art of thinking. Thinking about everything. Small things, big things, anything that is even remotely interesting or relevant to the mind, or the world. Examples of stuff to think about:
>How should people behave? How should one's thoughts influence their actions?
>Are killing or war ever justified? And if yes, when?
>What should an ideal society look like?
>Is language even a good way of describing things? Does language fool us?
>Do we have something like free will? Or consciousness? And how would those things even work? In what way are our subjective experiences in line with the way the physical world actually behaves?
>What gives meaning to a person's life? When can a man lead a happy life, and does this go hand in hand with having virtue?
>How the hell do we even do science? Where do we start, and what observations can we trust, and what can't we trust? And when we allowed to extrapolate observations to general statements?
All this stuff has been thought about for ages and ages, and basically the whole modern world is built on ideas that philosophers once formulated. Because already so much work has been done, it might seem that there is nothing more to do - philosophy has delegated lots of its branches of thought into different sciences, so it might not seem as broad or relevant as it used to be. But because mankind, science and everything else are constantly changing, it is important to have people that keep on thinking and reevaluating.
>>8202383
FAST, while a good heuristic, is very incomplete.
I also don't know what you're getting at. Normally I would have written "always have been", and I noticed this after posting, but it's still syntactically correct.
Why are you such a knob.
>>8202380
I can't parse this sentence.
Philosophy is very useful to learn and can make you a better thinker. Learning about different types of biases, fallacies, etc is helpful when you're applying logic or evaluate new data. It can make you a better scientist or a mathematician, computer scientist, etc.
Philosophy by itself is useless.
>>8202394
>Philosophy is very useful to learn and can make you a better thinker. Learning about different types of biases, fallacies, etc is helpful when you're applying logic or evaluate new data. It can make you a better scientist or a mathematician, computer scientist, etc.
>Philosophy by itself is useless.
gung-ho philosophy buffs, this is the closest you're gonna get to a fair defense of philosophy on this board
/thread
>>8202394
>Philosophy by itself is useless.
That's like saying eyes are useless when you're floating in an infinite dark void.
Obviously. No one complains about Atomism, despite it being an ancient philosophical idea.
>>8202411
>That's like saying eyes are useless when you're floating in an infinite dark void.
Flashy and unsubstantiated. Just like modern philosophy.
>No one complains about Atomism, despite it being an ancient philosophical idea.
You joking? It was a huge controversy until it gained a large base of supporting evidence.
>>8202411
But, they are. Also why many organisms living in caves evolved to lose their eyes.
>>8202411
The origin of an idea is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the idea is valid, and in this case we know through observation that it is. We'd have arrived at this conclusion even if philosophers hadn't come up with it.
If everybody learned the very basics of Epistemology in school, the world wouldn't be full of conspiratards, UFOlogists and woo meisters.
>>8202415
>Flashy and unsubstantiated. Just like modern philosophy.
I guess you ignored the second paragraph and just jumped to compartmentalize everything. Learn how to parse properly.
"Obviously", as in, it's a statement of the obvious. It's implicit.
>You joking? It was a huge controversy until it gained a large base of supporting evidence.
Last I checked we weren't in the late 1800's.
Get your shit together, moron. Don't ignore context.
>>8202422
You arrived at it -because- philosophers came up with it, you stupid fuck. The "why" and "what" behind science are inherently philosophical. Without the philosophy coming to exist, at some point, you wouldn't have any of it.
Fuck this. I'm done. Enjoy your haze of confusion and degeneracy.
>>8202468
>He thinks we wouldn't have discovered atoms when we look at stuff under the microscope.
Philosophers also argue about the existence of God. Shall we ask scientists to waste their time looking for that as well?
>>8200610
I'm not sure why am complaining about that on a pedophile cartoon image board, but OP's pic is an argument from authority in very bad taste.
>>8202479
>He still doesn't understand
Take any given aspect of how you think the world is. Take any given part of your logical framework that guides further endeavor, and allows you to make predictions, assess data, and think about how things are and can be. What's that...? Oh! Look! Anon is philosophizing! Dahhh.... look at it.
Anyway. Fuck off, bud. To restate:
>Enjoy your haze of confusion and degeneracy.
And to add:
>And enjoy being a disjointed hackjob of unwitting self disgust.
And further:
>Among the grandest of ironies. The lowest of degeneracy. The most wanting of capacity for awareness.
Also, I'd love to bring Democritus into the modern era. Have him learn English and laugh at your folly.
>>8200610
it depends on who we're talking about. If it's Kant, then get outta my face. But the whole epistemiology thing is pretty important for the foundation of science; as in, before that people would actually mess up the experiments. Also for personal growth Nietsche, Zen Bhuddism, stoicism, Epicureism and the likes are definitely superior to any religion (or Kant or Heidegger) because they don't claim to give you objective morals, they're just ideas that it's good to understand.
>>8200774
I think the problem with modern science is that the people who actually make the discoveries aren't the ones that popularize them, so something is lost in translation; in particular, the actual scientist generally has a humble attitude because he knows from experience that nature is unpredictable and getting results is a matter of busting your ass for nothing until you get lucky that one time. Now all of this wouldn't be a problem if the actual scientists weren't a bunch of autists desu. I mean, they used to be generally cultured people, whereas nowadays you have no hope if you're not overspecialized.
>>8200610
"Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."
--- Stephen Hawking
>>8202501
Just curious, what do you have against Kant?
>>8201130
yeah but the problem is humanities refusing to learn the first thing about science. Then as soon as a scientist says something about a human subject, they get all defensive, fearing they might be made obsolete.
>>8202536
Philosophy of science is nice. If you're doing philosophy in your own corner, completely removed of the latest developments of natural science and particularly physics, then you can fuck off.
Physics used to be called natural philosophy. Likewise, Newton didn't call himself a physicist, but a natural philosopher. I still think this is true and the most practical and arguably useful/meaningful way of doing philosophy.
>>8202529
He just kant understand.
>>8202541
This. How they behave with biological systems is the absolute worst.
>Marx is unimportant
>entire countries and genocides based upon his economics
AHHHHHHHH!
The use of philosophy is to ask questions that could in principle be answered experimentally, but are feasably impractical/impossible. For example, what would the world be like if genetic engineering became accessible to all humans? Only way to actually test this is to do it, but of course it would be useful to think of the implications before trying it.
The use of philosophy is NOT to write indecipherable theses rigorously defining "morality" from first order logic or throwing a shit-fit about how quantum mechanics can't be true cause it doesn't fit some preconceived aesthetic.
>>8202553
Marx is only academically interesting as an effective piece of propaganda. The actual content is scientifically garbage. There are entire countries and genocides based on Islam too, but I don't see many people studying the Quran as a serious piece of academic literature.
>>8202529
My philosophy teacher in high school had a hard on for this guy. Basically she would use his ideas to justify her personal ethics as objective fact instead of opinion. Therefor I am under the impression that Kant saw ethics as objective, but hey I might be wrong.
>>8202569
I would say read him, but fuck Kant is so goddamn dry. Cliffnotes that shit.
>>8202567
>important means correct
IDIOT! AHHHHHHHHHHH!
>>8202541
One thing is being naive, the other is having a shitty attitude. A physicist may be naive by nature, but only the guys on the right column are that smug. The ones who know their shit know how hard it can get.
>>8202573
I had to do that in high school but I don't really see the point or the significance. The people who like Kant are most of the time the same people who believe in universal human rights. Ugh. I'd rather expend my efforts on something that doesn't make me a prisoner in an imaginary cage.
>>8202575
There is an infinite infinity of incorrect ideas possible. If you're studying incorrect ideas just because they're historically important, you're studying histroy, not philosophy or science. Physicists don't learn about Newton's alchemy endeavours just cause he was famous at the time.
>>8202586
No. Humans are machines of finite mind, there are not infinite possible ideas, nor is there infinite capacity for a given individual to experience novel context.
Infinity is a virus that must be kept in check.
>>8202567
People don't study marx because he's historically important. He made fundamentally important contributions to economics and philosophy, that are studied FAR more than his historical impact.
>>8202569
Most philosophers see ethics as objective. I personally don't, but reading their thoughts/arguments still kind of affects the way I think about ethics, which is important. This is actually the main reason I like reading philosophy sometimes when I have free time/am not doing math. It kind of trains your mind to think in certain ways, and you learn the right questions to ask when faced with certain problems. Of course, most academic philosophers think their pursuit is good for more than that--many even think they are actually definitively answering questions, which I don't buy as much from contemporary papers I've read.
>>8202589
How many integers are there oh enlightened one?
I mean, most of marx's philosophy is a direct response/offshoot to Hegel. Go into any European (nonanalytic) philosophy department and 100% of philosophers there will list him amongst the most influential PHILOSOPHERS of the 20th century. To not think so is to basically just go down an analytic vs continental philsoophy argument, which I don't wanna have (I fall strictly on the analytic side, mind you).
>>8200907
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>As long as those models are good enough, we don't give a damn if that's not exactly how the source code of the universe really is.
This is the very basis of falsifiability.
>>8202601
Start generating them in mind. If you were hooked to a machine that read them, (optionally removing duplicates if you didn't settle on a system), by the end of your lifespan you would have thought of finite integers.
If your lifespan was infinite, at any given point, you would have thought of finite integers.
Creating a system that is technically infinite is not a sign that the system using it is capable of infinite states. Besides, with larger numbers you'd run out of working memory and technically would just be swapping in and out representations of sets of integers, while tracking how they relate with the whole. Mechanically this is more like duplicating ideas.
>>8200659
I mock postmodern and continental philosophy. I view Heidegger, Marx, and Nietzsche ALL worth looking at. After 1930s-40s there really is too much trash to wade through for me to put the effort into taking the field seriously, though.
>>8200826
This is ridiculously ignorant. The entirety of Western culture and way of life has been significantly affected by the ideas of philosophers in the past couple hundred years. I can think of philosophers who lived as recently as the early 20th century who hugely impacted the way everyone thinks--even you---because their ideas literally shaped entire cultures. Heidegger and Wittgenstein come to mind. And earlier than that Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer, all have been hugely influential on the way people think.
>>8202586
No. An incorrect idea can yield important insights on correct ideas. This is true in all academic fields. You don't have to study all incorrect ideas. But when one has obviously insightful content, it is fruitful to study. This is true in philosophy, science, and mathematics.
>>8200610
I find this is more true of scientists than mathematicians (I am a mathematicians). This is because most scientists have no idea how to actually think logically and precisely about a subject, and most of them think the only stuff worth thinking about is "lul muh understanding of the universe." Most mathematicians I know dont hate philosophy in principle. They hate how badly defined a lot of philosophical lingo seems. A lot of questions, definitions, etc. seem nonsensical and not precisely defined enough. But there certainly are a lot of 20th century philosophers that a lot of mathematicians I know respect (mostly analytic philosophers like Wittgenstein, and more recently Putnam, Kripke, etc.)
>>8202592
desu I think ethics are such a personal matter that it's... unethical to propose them as an objective truth. In my mind there is a big distinction between the philosophy that concerns itself with nature (epistemiology and the likes) and "philosophy" that concerns itself with humans. The latter is not about what is true, it's about what helps you as a person. I find that particular view on ethics to be the hallmark of a small mind of a small person who likes to think inside of a box. Other people may like it and that's fine. To me it's repulsive. I like stuff that makes me free and justifies my quest for greatness. I want to do cool stuff, not be devoured by remorse, desu. Basically for me it comes down to nihilism. Since nothing matters, I should enjoy myself. The idea is as old as epicureism, but back then it was interpreted in a rather shallow way. I prefer the view of Zen Buddhism; getting control of your mind, learning what is important and what should be let go, enjoying each moment, these ideas are old as fuck but they work great in life. Accept the nothingness so that you may actually appreciate the illusion of being.
>>8202635
>Since nothing matters
And yet:
>I should enjoy myself.
And therein you realize what ethics is really about. It's about creating the world as the machinery of your mind judges it -ought- to be, whether for yourself, others, or both (because they're intertwined). I have no particular dislike for nihilism and tend to be a bit nihilistic myself, but some people really do come to some nonsense conclusions about "meaning". If nothing matters then you wouldn't do anything, ever. It's hard to even make that logic work.
>>8200763
>talking shit about actual philosophers
>praises a fucking theologian
yeah get the fuck off /sci/ and back to your containment board
>>8200610
Its very simple. People here mock po mo phil because it annihilated positivism and dethrones scientific exploration from its OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE status.
It puts science back to its rightful place as a methodology to explore reality besides other methodology like historical methodologies, sociological methodologies, philosophical methodologies etc..
>>8202697
I mean its not like anything changed after the positivist era in philosophy. Philosophers didnt all get dumb all of a sudden. Claiming that post WW2 philosophy somehow got retarded is jusy silly and says more about the scientists claiming that then about philosophy or philosophers.
>>8202723
>buttblasted "scientist"
I want to study Philosophy in depth but I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Is there a roadmap I can follow, better yet, one with book recommendations that go through each subfield in a thought-out order?
I'm kinda thinking something along the lines of this for math: http://hbpms.blogspot.com/
Was gonna make a thread to ask this question but since this one's already here, I guess I might as well as here.
Also, I took all the Philosophy courses at my local community college already so I'm decently familiar with the subject but I want to be able to continue with self-study since I'm not in school anymore.
I was thinking of maybe starting with Logic and I've been working through the books recommended in the study guide here: http://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/
>>8202729
So do you have an overview of philosophy?
If you still feel insecure about the general themes watch these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybBwsldL0k4
>>8202697
This, more or less. Philosophy is all that stands in the way of the new religion, complete with a form of dogma, hierarchical control structures, higher authority, and faith. It's just a form of religious thought that happens to disjointedly reject faith, despite it being a central tenant for most individuals.
Philosophy is all that's keeping knobs from being knobs unopposed. Without philosophy, everything will only be knob. Everyone will be knob. Every waking moment will be spent being knobbed, because everyone is a knob. Few will not be knob, and therefore, they will be doing the knobbing.
>>8202729
Just think about your world. Unravel all of your assumptions back to the basics of what something is, why, and what it can be.
At first I rejected most terms other people ad come up with, because I feared losing sight of my own framework in favor of thinking in more rigid boxes. But they can be useful. I think it's best to start with these terms themselves. Look into things like "epistemology", "ontology", "determinism", "dualism", and their history. As well as the figures involved in their history.
With that as an overview and general framework, you could also read some of the works by Plato. Descartes' meditations. Any other figures you happen across.
Of particular interest might be the ancient Babylonian ideas that likely influenced Greece.
>>8202732
Its ok, let the autist have their delusions. We need them for the grunt work.
>>8202731
>>8202736
Ya I guess I'm pretty versed a bit beyond the basics. By the way, thanks for the link though, I enjoy videos like these.
I'm really looking to read the famous works except I want to read them in an order that builds only on previous works before it and also without touching on more than one subfield at a time if possible.
For example, start and finish with Logic, then maybe Metaphysics, then Ethics, ect. I'm just not sure what order I should study these in or how I should go about studying them if I weren't to separate them to subfields. Which books I should read first and in what order.
I guess what I'm looking for is a roadmap. I don't care if it starts with beginner subjects, I just need guidance and order when it gets to more complex topics.
>>8202732
What do you mean?
>>8200610
I mock philosophy because it's bullshit that ignores the scientific method. Plus, I know there will always be idiots like you around the cherry pick pro-philosophy quotes from some of the world's greatest minds while ignoring anything negative (and doing the opposite with pop-'scientists').
>>8202763
Assuming you mean the second paragraph, I more or less mean if a given culture has embedded ideologies and social feedback loops to downregulate philosophical thought, inquiry, and history, it leaves a given population able to be readily engineered and directed by controllers (media, authority figures, boards, entities, whatever) that actually know or care about anything.
Rational thought and curiosity net dies out in that kind of environment, and the results, while not necessarily outright malevolent, are apt to be suboptimal at best. We're already seeing the beginnings of this faith and pseudo-collectivism structured society, though some populations have a large subset that are pushing back and rejecting it. Not sure how it pans out. History is full of cycles like this.
>>8202767
>that actually know or care about anything.
(or not. Most everyone might be delusional.)
>>8202468
>I guess you ignored the second paragraph and just jumped to compartmentalize everything. Learn how to parse properly.
What second paragraph? Your post was two sentences long, and I addressed both of them.
>Last I checked we weren't in the late 1800's.
What? The reason why atomic theory isn't controversial is because there's a huge body of empirical, scientific evidence supporting it. Philosophers had pretty much no hand in resolving that conflict.
Science is incomplete and forever shall remain incomplete. All knowledge we will ever achieve is approximate.
Is that not a philosophical position? Does any opposing position not have a basis in philosophy?
These are sincere questions. How can anybody honestly talk about the meta practice of science itself without talking through philosophy of science?
>>8202794
>What second paragraph?
Maybe you're on some mobile platform that alters post formatting and drops new line characters. Otherwise:
These are two sentences:
>A sentence. Another sentence.
Notice there are no line breaks, and two strings of words delimited by punctuation (ie ; . ! or ?).
This is two paragraphs each containing one sentence:
>A sentence.
>[blank line or obvious linebreak]
>Another sentence.
Notice the space between the two.
>The reason why atomic theory isn't controversial is because there's a huge body of empirical, scientific evidence supporting it.
Right. And it's not the late 1800's. It's become interwoven with modern cultural ethos.
Atomism goes back more than 1500 years. This was stated in relation to you saying "philosophy on its own is useless", and me responding that philosophy is never in a vacuum. The Greeks were already beginning to build complex machinery. Their ideas about what the universe and "reality" or "actuality" was, was based on something.
More or less what you said was hollow fluff. Hence the comparison with judging the value of sight in an endless void.
>>8202805
>1500 years
Wow. I knew I wasn't feeling too grand today, but my arithmetic was all fugged up.
Make that 2500*.
>>8200842
I'm sorry guys, but
/thread
>>8200865
>As long as those models are good enough, we don't give a damn if that's not exactly how the source code of the universe really is.
If scientists want to define good models, it's because they want them to be as unbiased as possible. If they want them to be unbiased, it's because they want the models to be close to the truth they propose, by investigating all the possibilities found by their experience and analyzing them rationally.
The reason for the fervor for having good models, is the desire for getting an approximation to knowledge that is as close as possible to reality.
To say that scientists only care for models and not actual truth is similar to saying that chefs only care for their recipes but don't give a shit about the resulting food. Sounds retarded, right? Exactly.
>>8202541
Man, xkcd is so overrated...
>>8202876
I miss xkcdsucks.
Science is a branch of Philosophy and good philosophers take new data into account. The scientific method itself is developed by philosophers.
>>8202881
>Science is a branch of Philosophy
good job showing you don't know either philosophy or science
>>8200610
For comparison of dick size while dicking around on an imageboard, rather than doing something actually worthy of pride; hypocrisy noted.
Modern philosophy hasn't published anything meaningful compared to science.
>>8202884
And then there's this idiot.
>>8202939
Science isn't really a branch of philosophy. By definition, philosophy is so broad that any academic field branched out of philosophy. Though good luck finding a modern philosopher without a degree on STEM that does actual research in these topics.
>>8202944
Science is Philosophy with data.
Scientific papers make a philosophical case for explaining/modeling new data.
Peer-review is philosophical argument.
>>8202947
Oh, and a PhD in science makes you a doctor of philosophy.
>>8202929
How Do We Know Philosophy Is Modern If Clocks Aren't Real?
>>8200809
>Nobody with even a fleeting knowledge of philosophy or science thinks that empiricism is true.
Has nobody called this out yet because it's patently low-quality bait?
I would be surprised if most scientists did not consider themselves empiricists. I don't know enough philosophers to comment about them.
>>8202947
That doesn't mean anything because many PhDs in STEM don't have a degree in philosophy or are well versed in the subject. You are being pedantic.
>>8202970
Many are well versed without a degree.
Science requires philosophy.
Science is a philosophy:
- Induction
- Deduction
- Abduction
- Due Process/Methodology
- Questioning
- Positing
- Empiricism
- Epistemology
- Coherency/Consistency
Why do you keep using the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum while pairing it with argument from stone and argument from circular logic?
I mean you post this ever 12 hours, 365 days a week as if you believe if you keep repeating it and ignoring the facts, then you've forced a new reality in the current realities place.
Science requires philosophy.
It's an absolute.
Evidence is above.
/FIN
ITT: People using shit philosophy to discredit the whole field and quoting scientists to validate the whole field.
>>8200610
because this is a science and Math board.
philosophy is neither
>>8202991
One number off, if only it was 23.
>>8203011
Both*
checked
>>8203017
i did get Both* 1s. thanks for noticing.
>>8202694
There's nothing wrong with theologians.
>>8202865
>close to the truth they propose
You don't understand what science is.
http://theweek.com/articles/443656/how-botched-understanding-science-ruins-everything
>>8203047
There's tons of things wrong with theologians, starting with the fact that they have their "conclusion" and then play with definitions and premises to arrive at their preconceived conclusion. If you think there is nothing then you need to get the fuck off /sci/
>>8200818
>Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, anon.
>Unscientific philosophy is dead; science is all that remains of philosophical inquiry.
Let me j u s t - d e s c r i b e - y o u r - p o s t
>Philosophic but unscientific statement backed by no evidence
followed by:
>Unscientific philosophy is dead; science is all that remains of philosophical inquiry.
Good job Anon you sure showed us that science is the only thing that remains.
>>8200610
It depends.
There is plenty of useful philosophy. Philosophy that helps you clarify what it is that you want in life, which can be useful for a lot of people. Philosophy that helps to understand how to properly reason and creates the foundation for all of the methodology in science.
However, much of philosophy nonsense. Many philosophers essentially just play a word game. They tailor their axioms with the intent of validating their beliefs.
Some philosophy stems from a serious attempt to learn something. The rest really is a joke.
>>8202955
I'm pretty sure it's just bait.
I haven't seen any criticism of Hume that doesn't stem from a misunderstanding of what he actually said.
>>8203117
>There's tons of things wrong with atheists, starting with the fact that they have their "conclusion" and then play with definitions and premises to arrive at their preconceived conclusion. If you think there is nothing then you need to get the fuck off /sci/
>>8203152
I don't get how people think it's unreasonable to default to "it probably doesn't exist" as their position regarding something which isn't actually known to exist.
>>8203152
Rejecting a theologian's conclusion isn't a conclusion by itself. It's simply points out that their premise is faulty.
>>8203158
I don't get how people think it's reasonable to default to "it probably isn't true and everyone else is retarded" as their position regarding something which isn't actually known to them.
>>8200610
You do realize, that image is basically cherry-picked quotes?
Fuck right off with your bait.
>>8203169
This.
He basically put all the God-deniers on the right side.
>>8203175
Heisenberg, Einstein, Schrödinger and Bohr are god-deniers too
>>8203168
> mfw the spanish enquisition
> mfw the palestinean genocide
> mfw the islamic conquers
wow, religion surely promotes joy, peace and love.
>>8203179
They often spoke about a philosophical "God".
>>8203182
I really enjoyed the cherries you picked today.
>>8203129
You really have no idea what you're talking about, anon.
>>8203168
>I don't get how people think it's reasonable to default to "it probably isn't true and everyone else is retarded" as their position regarding something which isn't actually known to them.
Popular opinion is not necessarily fact. People believe in all kinds of superstitions. This is not an uncommon behavior in people.
>that image
If you can identify those behaviors as good without believing in God, then you don't need God. If you cannot identify those behaviors as good without God, then the argument doesn't make sense in the first place.
>>8201106
Answer me, where did the idea of falsification being an important criteria originate.
>>8202876
People claiming that xkcd is overrated is so old hat.
>>8203168
The "Christ" variant of this image is just as stupid as the "Global Warming" variant.
It's not "create a better world." It is "force other people to spend their time and energy to create a world I think is better."
I'll analyse the top line only; "Climate/Energy Independence" and "Christ/Joy."
==========================
"Energy Independence" means "Pay more for electricity than we otherwise would have, because if 'energy independence' was the cheap option, we would already be doing it."
>But that's just money
Correct, you brilliant thinker. But if it's a big hoax, that's money we could have used to feed the poor instead of using it to build expensive solar power plants that turned out to be unnecessary, but I'm sure the wealthy contracting companies that built the power plants needed the money more than poor people, Unless you're saving the world from climate change, you're actually just ruining things.
==========================
"Joy" means "Being forced to do things you don't want to do because otherwise you'd already be doing them."
>But people don't understand what's good for them
Correct, you brilliant thinker. But if it's a big hoax, why would we expect the hoaxster to know what's good for me, and do that? Your conception of "joy" is not mine. Unless you save me from hell, you're actually just ruining my life.
==========================
You can do the same analysis for basically all the other lines.
IT TURNS OUT: If the reason you're doing something is a hoax, the thing you thought was worth doing may stop being worth doing. If you lie about the benefits, I might do them anyway but the costs didn't go away so you're actually just making me pay for something that turned out not to be worth it. Everything has costs, which is why we're not doing them.
>>8203191
Falsification is the key part of how science is done, dipshit. It's how we can make sure we're not just falling victim to biases.
If this needs to be explained to you, you're too stupid for science anyway.
>>8203129
>Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, anon.
Hypothesis: if experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis allows us to test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, then we should see a great deal of logical agreement between our models and empirical data.
Results: we see a great deal of agreement.
Conclusion: experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis allows us to test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality.
Question: are there any other methods that allow for this?
Answer: not that we are aware of.
Conclusion: experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only method that we are aware of, which can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality.
There you go, an alteration for you: I changed ‘the only way’ to ‘the only method that we are aware of’, in order to be more accurate.
>Philosophic but unscientific statement backed by no evidence
Based on the aforementioned hypothesis, every single piece of methodologically sound and systematically reviewed positive data is evidence of the efficacy of the scientific method.
>>8203195
And it originated as a commonly valued criteria through Karl Popper's insistence. Do you not get the irony of what you are saying?
>>8203200
No, anon.
It's based on the probability of achieving logical agreement between your model and the empirical data being ridiculously low.
So we can say, we know to 99.999% accuracy that X = Y in physics for example, or perhaps 86% in something like medicine.
>>8203183
everybody does that
>>8203205
>probability
>99.999%
[measure theory triggering intensifies]
>>8203197
>Basing your epistemology in circular reasoning
>Shiggery Diggery Doo.
>>8203257
>Implying epistemology doesn't resolve to self referential truths that must be taken on faith
>Shiggery Diggery Don't.
>>8203271
>Taking things on faith with no evidence
>Claiming philosophy is dead and isn't involved in deciding what things to take on faith
>Shiggery Diggery Ok I admit "Don't" was a masterpiece I can't top that.
>>8203277
What I mean is any available evidence is relative, and ultimately has to be built using axioms that are self referential truths, ie, the "mind" and the senses. You must use these things to evaluate any other relative truth in a logical framework, so of course when you come to evaluate the validity of these base axioms themselves, you're stuck.
They're therefore irreducible and self referential. Every logical framework, every chain of reasoning, can ultimately be traced to the same core thing. The machinery of the mind, and the senses.
>>8203281
I don't disagree with any of that, and I appreciate the Scientific Method. I get that it is """incoherent""" when I trust induction because "it has always worked before" but I still trust induction.
I just get really really salty with people who claim philosophy is dead and has no insights.
>>8203294
>I just get really really salty with people who claim philosophy is dead and has no insights.
I didn't do that though...
>>8203304
Eh, somebody upthread did. If you replied without clarifying that you were a different anon then fair, but I shall claim my confusion was permissible.
>>8203308
I would agree.
I'm thinking about writing a piece of software that performs prose analysis, and could potentially identify all posts by a given poster across threads. It could iterate as necessary and narrow things down.
Probably won't get around to it though.
>>8203200
Philosophy is retarded. Learning to win arguments using buzzwords and gotcha statements isn't helpful unless you're a creationist or Deepak Chopra. Bringing it up on a science board makes me think you're trolling.
Science relies on facts and proof. Your ability to use fancy words won't help you because other scientists also know those words and you can't fool them all.
>>8203372
Remove penne.
>>8203376
All of it. And grapes.
>>8203060
You can blabble about muh dualism and whatever else that may be beyond empirical reach to justify that science doesn't actually seek "truth", but let's be honest: humans are, by nature, inclined to empiricism. It's through perception how we get to know anything, survive, learn about what our experience lets us perceive, make tools to improve our lives, and unsurprisingly, it works really well. Thus it's rational to consider useful, well analyzed empirical knowledge as actual truth, and our instinct is willing to take that for granted, being the empirical creatures that we are.
Scientists aren't robots. Humans have always cared about knowledge and universal truths beyond of what their experience shows them. To say that scientists don't give a damn about universal truth is fucking retarded, especially considering the researching nature of their career. Perhaps you meant to say that they don't consider any of their models to be necessarily true, which would be far more logical than saying they don't care about truth itself.
No scientist should be retarded enough to say that they only seek to "make good models according to the scientific method". If your motivation isn't a search for truth and/or at least wanting to improve people's lives with useful data, then why are you even a scientist?
>>8200610
I like philosophy. Especially the courses like "Topics in Logic".
Minoring in math for what it's worth
>>8200610
>t. Philosophy major
Fuck off its not our fault you made a terrible life decision.
>>8202332
Because it really makes you think. Of course STEM makes you think as well, but STEM focuses on facts. Philosophy makes you question and refine your own opinions. This might sound trivial, but you actually gotta take your time to think consciously about it.
>>8203200
It existed long before Popper. Popper is a retarded piece of shit and nobody takes him seriously, not even in philosophy. And in science he's unknown because he didn't contribute anything to it.
>>8203869
>t.Froid
>>8203917
>Froid
Come on, man!
>>8203921
* Freud lel sorry, though it is true
>>8202729
Start with the Greeks
>Science majors convincing people to take up philosophy so that the job market isn't saturated for themselves and can get paid due to shortage of scientists and engineers
>Falling for the philosphy meme and staying unemployed
>>8204216
Only rich people should study philosophy. If you need a job, go into STEM.
>>8203168
>man rose from the dead after 3 days 2000 years ago
of course the reasonable position is to default to "this is bullshit"
fuck off to /x/
>>8203168
They think that's what it is to be skeptical. Ironically it makes them a slave to the familiar.
This makes me think of that time I was taking a gap year after getting a master in math and physics and I was talking with another freshly graduated physicist (though experimental) about Feyerabend's "Against Method", which I read when I was in college (flash poll: how many of you have read it?).
It happens that I love that book, and even though I am not an ardent supporter of it, I must admit that I ardently respect it. So, I may have been overly enthusiastic when explaining it to that 'colleague' of mine.
That being said, it turns out that the guy didn't particularly like PKF's ideas, and he deemedet it necessary to reject them with utmost vigour.
Now, the way he thus replied to me, his aping of some Popperian buzzwords, his babbling of misunderstood falsificationist notions, his overly incendiary rebuttal of what in his words was 'just random-ass bullshit good for pseudointellectuals' was for sure one of the reasons why I realized that there is no place for me (well, at least intellectually speaking) in science, let alone physics. Which is why I chose to get a PhD in math and call it a quarter century.
You must admit, then, that there is at least some good in philosophy, namely, that it cleanses your science from useless pseudointellectuals like me.
Philosophy must be present in everything, but you shouldn't get paid for it. It is a necessity, it is priceless in both ways, too mucha and too little
>>8204216
Not everyone is a uber retarded shitlord borned after a 1000 generations of inbreeding and needs to be a wagecuck like you...
Philosophy is really only for the elite, i'm sorry for the circumstances in which you were borned.
Science was born and fostered through philosophy - it's great.
>>8200818
Not really. The most valuable part of philosophy always was to steer people's thoughts. For long periods of civilization, any scientific progress was secondary to that. Just remember Galileo and Copernicus. They were clearly right, but the powers that were thought controlling people was so much more valuable than whatever scientific progress those eccentrics had made possible.
>>8200610
It's just banter. It isn't serious. I find that many people in my math department are into philosophy and humanities.
What we do mock seriously are first-year philosophy students and a good chunk of philosophy undergrads.
Engineers get mocked way more, on here.
>>8205253
But how do you explain the attitude of people like Stephen Hawking? They look pretty serious about that
You can always tell when OP is under the age of 30, because they always post the dumbest things and try to use appeal to authority while memeing lolololololololol
It's nice to know that OP rejects science though.
I mean, rejecting empiricism and the scientific method?
Takes balls to admit to being that uneducated.
