/lit/ - Literature

I love Feyerabend

Read the 10 page blurb about him in Horton's book "The End of Science"

>destroys Karl Popper
>/his/ and leftists get mad forever
heh, nothing personnel

>>11152452
>autistic philosophers thinking anyone of outside of the humanities gives a shit about them

>>11152452
>nothing personel
>>11152753
>nothing personnel
Just another day on /lit/.

>>11153323
Summer sure started early this year.

Feyerabend of course has it easy if he chooses to be the opponent of engineer type scientists that just do their stuff and don't care about ontology. So he's just taking peoples ideas to an extreme and thinks well of himself. Okay. Yes, you should and can criticize the idea of many people (including e.g. physicists) that the process we conduct science doesn't lead to the kind of insight we naively might think we do. But hell, the way we do it still makes a lot of progress and now we have iphones and ai's that we didn't have 20 years ago - I'm not judging wether that's good or bad, just that from a production standpoint, everthing works well, ontology/epistemology give or take.
>nothing personel
The joke is exactly that edgelords like Feyerabend do it soley for personal gains and an inner aggression, not because they'd care to advance the subject at hand. He wants a fight and at best one he can't even lose because nobody cares countering - at least not people at places he'd be criticising.

>>11153323
Lol this dweeb isn't even schooled on the basics of meme history. What a loser.

>>11152452
huh what? ok sure whatever
*continues to invent the modern world*
you still here? the pop-thinking woo so deep department is over that way.

>>11153384
utility =\= truth

>>11153434
>>11153384
>>11153025
utility =\= truth

>>11153434
I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that a grown man with no scientific training sits down, writes a book criticizing the scientific method and honestly expects scientists to give a fuck about what he says.
There may be philosophers who consult science before working on a publication, but there are no scientists who consult philosophy of science before making an experiment.

>>11153521
I'd also say that holding production as the sole measure of "progress" (whatever that means) is a poor definition

>>11153529
So?

Maybe it was never about truth, but about finding clever ways to manipulate nature to our advantage. Also, as if being a follower of Feyerabend magically lead to truth.

If there’s one thing I learned it’s that philosophy doesn’t solve shit, it only creates new problems/questions.

>>11153534
>There may be philosophers who consult science before working on a publication, but there are no scientists who consult philosophy of science before making an experiment.
do you think this makes the latter superior to the former? if anything you prove the supremacy of philosophers, who subsume science (along with everything else) in their thinking while the scientists do their specialized work without considering philosophy, much like mailmen and shoemakers.

>>11153553
t. letzter mensch utilitarian bugman
the absolute state of /lit/

>>11153534
>There may be philosophers who consult science before working on a publication
yeah there probably aren't though
unless by "consult science" you mean check the bank accounts on their phones to see if their welfare payments have been credited yet

>>11153553
>the absolute state of the ""scientific"" mind
Sad!

>>11153561
>no we're SUPERIOR because we're irrelevant
keep telling yourself that

To bad Lakatos died before he could shut him down

>>11153534
>writes a book criticizing the scientific method and honestly expects scientists to give a fuck about what he says
That's exactly the opposite of what Feyerabend did, though. He was against retards who want to tell scientists how they should work. Maybe try reading him before criticizing a straw man pulled out of your anus, you absolute retard.

>>11153594
No, we're superior because we take for granted the grunt work done by inferior minds incapable of grasping the meaning of their own activity :^)

>>11153626
cope

>>11153594
literally nigger what
is you trolling
how can thought be "irrelevant" lmao. you sure you on the right board?
who's governed more by ressentiment -- people whose minds as an inextricable rule consider Everything, or the empiricists who outright refuse to consult or consider anything outside of themselves and their occupations? STEMfagging (without the requisite philosophical/occult/spiritual linking) is only a few gradations superior to shoemaking & emanates from the same utilitarian principles, and is unworthy of flanking even poetry as an exercise of genuine intellect.

>>11153564
>>11153582
>thinking philosophy leads to truth
It‘s you who are the retards

>>11153617
I was referring to Popper, not Feyerabend. Should’ve made myself clear, sorry.

>>11153666

>>11153666
thanks satan

>>11153529
utility > truth

>>11153670
>Holy shit, he came up with something I don‘t agree with but am to lazy to refute.
>Better call it bait
Thanks, now I see the superiority of philosophy. Just look at what an expert debater it made out of you

>>11153690
Refute what? "Philosophy doesn't lead to truth" isn't an argument, it's a claim. But if you want me to, here, I'll refute it: "It's wrong."

>>11153683
>>11153690
you gotta stop trolling dawg these times are too troubling for this sort of schiit mayne

>>11153553
lol the answer is "so". fucking cannot make this shit up. Enjoy the hellscape nothingness a scientific dystopian tyranny without morality and conscience brings. You all deserve it. It's gonna be great as a luddite hiding out in the comfort of nature.

I only read philosophy to come up with better arguments for conservation. All I want to do is research animals, they look cool and deserve a shot.
>>11154268
t.fucking dorko who's miserably unhappy and resolves to do nothing but run away

>>11153025
>There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves—details unknown—it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.) Since it is an abstract idea, we shall illustrate the meaning of it by an analogy.

>It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28”—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

Why should I care about anything Feynman said when he wasn't even interested in the physical meaning of his mathematics? I can play around with numbers too, but that doesn't tell me anything about what there is in the world. Science as an endeavor towards truth is a failure.

>>11152452
Take it to
>>>/sci/

>>11153644
These people are actually lower than a shoemaker, who has to ponder what he's doing. What the modern stemtard fails to realize is that his half-baked pragmatism can only end up turning him into a really expensive HP Calculator, and little else.
These are people who purposefully curb their creativity and sense of wonder in the name of obscure machinistic enlightenment fever dreams. The final degradation of the proletariat, they are cogs that will oil themselves with guilt when they can't bear the load thrown at them, last men, completely lacking any will.

>>11154582
really good post

>>11154582
Lawrence Krauss is a anti-semitic joke brought to life.

>>11154582
I don't think it's an accurate characterization of "stemtards" that they view everything in their life through the lens of half-baked pragmatical-positivistic machinations. It's more like they hold a vast separation between their work in their specialty - where they uphold these received dogmas - and the rest of their life, where their concerns might be of a different nature and they might act upon them in ways that have nothing to do with their being lab workers or scientists. This includes things like working conditions at a lab, funding, etc.

The stereotype of the STEMlord just seems to be like an internet thing, where mostly teenagers (but also pop-scientists like the ones in your pic who are pandering to this mentality) assert some totalizing worldview that they don't actually practice.

>>11154653
I would say that this is a steorotype created on the internet by clueless morons on the basis of pop scientists and fedora atheists. Based on my experience in the field, I would say it's totally false (I still remember my first year mechanics professor telling us that "we actually don't know if the laws of physics are constant you guys" and my statistics professor who made a couple of references to Feyerabend in his notes). Furthermore, characterising having any sort of epistemological criteria as "dogma" is beyond retarded (imagine if I called phylosophy dogmatic because it follows logic).

>>11154653
Grounded subtle post desu.

>>11154690
Well, my experience is a bit more mixed than that. While I have seen many professors who retain a sense of 'wonder' or 'mysticality' with respect to nature and it filters through to their conception of what studying it means or is, there are also "pure pragmatists". Especially the ones in the labs. They would tell you not to waste time worrying about truth -"they've been doing that since Aristotle and nothing happened"- and instead focus on solving the problem at hand. Of course I'd say this is precisely the half-baked pragmatism the other guy was complaining about, but my point is this attitude does not dominate their lives. Only their lab work.

>>11154653
This is true. My gf is studies biology and her scientific thinking doesn't seem to go beyond her science, it's not really an integral part of her Weltanschauung. It's funny that when we discuss shit I, who study philosophy, tend to be the edgy fedora tipper.

>>11154653
I know not every STEM professional is like that, I have plenty of friends who don't, but there are definitely people, even people with academic credentials, serious ones, who are charicatural positivist STEMtards. If you speak portuguese I can even give you examples, there are people WILLINGLY calling themselves positivists these days.

>>11152452
Actually the current consensus on F. is that he simply detected the fact that scientists don't always follow a single epistemological method. Obviously that doesn't invalidate the search for a correct epistemological method (imagine if I said: well philosophy hasn't always followed logic, therefore any discourse on the possibility of logic is flawed). If we were to follow F's advice them we would, paradoxically, end up making a method out of not having a method.
Furthermore his book was more an attack on philosophy of science than actual science.

>>11154690

I will not make any claims about your own experience in whatever field you mean, but in condensed matter physics, where the bulk of physicists are, there is much room for such "totalizing" STEMlord attitude, and I'd say it's acutely painful to see it in peer reviewing. I work with Chinese and Pakistanis as well as the occasional generic European person and for the most part they are not even concerned about having any kind of consistent epistemology. It's basically a game of matching your spectroscopy measurements to previous literature and any kind of meaningful deviation (i.e showing someone was wrong or that a model was too simple to cover the hypothesis) is actually fought against in a not-so-scientific manner.

It's easier than it seems to make yourself appear to be doing science and harder than it seems to actually do so in our current cultural environment. Also, for the record, I had more or less the same great experiences with professors who were enthusiastic about their teaching during undergrad. But not many interesting developments (with notable exceptions) to be had with my colleagues that are more worried about publishing or perishing (won't blame them either, but keep in mind the stereotype does not come solely from pop-sci).

>>11154719
>They would tell you not to waste time worrying about truth -"they've been doing that since Aristotle and nothing happened"- and instead focus on solving the problem at hand.
Isn't this Feyerabend's position

>>11154745
No.

>>11154743
>most part they are not even concerned about having any kind of consistent epistemology
but isn't this Feyerabend's position

>>11154745
I don't know Feyerabend's position, but I believe that philosophers tend to care a lot about truth (among other things). The STEM lab worker however, is suspect of the concept. Or at least many of the ones I know.

I know that also clashes with the internet stereotypes that supposedly want to declare "STEM is the only truth" and other New Atheist style retards, but I don't think we should care about that. It's low-hanging fruit.

>>11154750
Still no.

>>11154749
>>11154758
How so? In AM he is explicitly concerned with the “epistemological anarchist” conclusion that there are no useful and exceptionless methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. Did he change stance in his later works?

>>11154774
Methodology and epistemology are two different things.

>>11154582
That first Dawkins quote is actually pretty funny and pithy

>>11154774
Stated like that it just seems trivially false. For example, you need evidence that supports your conclusions in order to claim science, no matter what field or to what person you are talking. No method that calls itself science in the modern sense allows for positions that are contradicted by data.

>>11154779
I'd say that in philosophy of science they are synonymous.

>>11153561
>who subsume science (along with everything else) in their thinking
top meme. philosophy is for people who are too dumb for science but still consider themselves very important

>>11153644
>philosophers think
>only philosophers think
double cringe

>>11154475
where does he say he wouldn't be interested in it?

>>11152452
To all philosotards ITT:

Name me ONE truthful philosophical statement that is unquestionably true.

If you retards think that you can arrive at truth with philosophy you‘re even dumber than I thought.

You fags should read more than wiki article because you are spouting nonsense. Feyerabend was not opposed to scientific method but wanted to serve as a reminder to not become close minded and proposed some interesting ideas like paying attention to geniuses who view science as art or use unorthodox methods because sometimes it leads to paradigm shifts. He just didnt want you to be brainded logical positivist. Also he was pretty much pushed into the role so any discussion about him wanting popularity or smugness is just ignorance. He was a philosopher not a scientist and presents some interesting ideas. That is all.

>>11153025
Umm

>>11155714
They are not referencing to philosophers of science though they’re referencing mostly to metaphysics. Believe me, none of those ever read Popper and said: this is how we have to do science.

>>11153025
Ah, yes, let's celebrate the boorishness and narrowness of today's scientists. Surely their unwillingness to take seriously questions raised by philosophers is a good thing. They couldn't possibly be vulnerable to blind spots.

>>11155630
I know that I don't know...

>>11155869
That‘s up for debate. You might want to look up the definition of „unquestionably“.

>>11155630
Have you not read any philosophy? You don't even seem to understand its purpose.

>>11155875
>looking up definitions
Retard, I just use words for whichever ends I want

>>11155766
Philosophy hinders progress. This might not be true for the Renaissance or Enlightenment period, but it sure is true today.

>>11155879
Look at my posts. I said from the very beginning that truth is not philosophy‘s purpose and idiots replied with: Yes, it is.

>>11155880
>I just use words for whichever ends I want
And yet you dare lecture me about truth. Go fuck yourself.

>>11155892
Oh, I missed that. Carry on.

>>11153025
I'd say ornithology is very useful to birds. If some highly intelligent species dominated over humans, then I'd hope to God they have knowledge about us.

>>11155630
if
P-> Q
and
Q-> R
then
P -> R

>>11155897
>Truth is to be found in language
JUST

>>11155900
Look up logical pluralism

>>11155886
How does it hinder progress today? It has become virtually irrelevant, and to our collective misfortune. Even the big names in philosophy like Alasdair MacIntyre are obscure.

>>11155902
>tfw we wouldn’t even have a notion for „truth“ without language
I can’t imagine what it must feel like to be as unredeemingly retarded as you. Must suck desu

>>11155900
That is a bold claim. Can you prove it?
Is there even a mathematical proof for the consistency of logic?

>>11155921
In my country we still have discussions about euthanasia being moral when all that should be considered is: If it’s my life then I get to choose what to do with it. Period.

This is just one of the many ways philosophy hinders progress today.

STEMfag who hates technology and loves philosophy here, AMA

>>11155927
shut up nerd, go fap to the anime porn granted to you by your cum-covered logic machine. then go to confession for goodness sake

>>11155943
Are traps gay?

>>11155947
>go fap to the anime porn
I just did an hour or so ago.

>then go to confession
I hate the Church for its apathy and myself even more for my own weakness.
My sins won't be forgiven, I am a horrible human being and I deserve Hell.

Do you have an argument?

>>11155630
Truth exists

>>11155966
That's a bold claim.
Can you prove it?

>>11155931
To me that indicates a need for more philosophical literacy, not less.

>>11155966
That’s a pretty contested view actually.

>>11155990
I don’t need philosophy to know whether I can end my life or not. My body, my choice. Period.

>>11156040
life isn't reducible to your body.

>>11153670
Love seeing my OC still lingering around

>>11156056
MY life belongs to me alone. You don’t wanna die? Then don’t. I don’t decide for everybody else and neither should you.

>>11156097
My hand can grapple this knife and lunge into your chest. It's my hand; any motion with it is my choice.

>>11156110
Yes, but then you kill someone other than yourself without their consent. It‘s not the same. I don’t advocate murder ffs.

>>11155925
YHWH is truth fuckboy, everything else (especially human faculties) are the work of a demon

>>11156153
>YHWH is truth
Citation needed.

Also, you said language can’t express truth. Wanna retry saying „YHWH is truth“ without using language this time around?

>>11156145
>If it’s my life then I get to choose what to do with it.
You didn't say killing others wrong.

>>11156178
Stop using the quotation marks at the bottom of the fucking letter, you spic.

I did use language, but how do you know what I said was what I intended? How do I know you're not saying something else entirely. Am I say anything at all? No.

p̷̢̢̘̝̮̮͇̘̝̩̩̐̏͒̓̎̈̍̀͠r̵̨̢̙͎̣͖̝͈̮̰̳̖̤̔͑̎̈́́̒̇̓̍̂̚̚͝ȁ̸̡̦̯̖͙̯̠̞̎̄̈́̑̓́ͅi̶͖̜͈̖̺̠̙̩͙̟̩̫̎̒̈́ͅš̸̡̡̛͓̱͕̬̪̂̽̕͜͝ͅȩ̵̧̖̘̱͈̻̘͊̽͝ ̷͓̜̪̩͌̈́͂͆́̍͜͝b̸̢̛͔̜̼̖͈͖̟̙͍̮̘̑̍̄͆͛̈̊͛̎͒̎̕͝ͅȩ̴͖͎̫̘͍͆ ̸̯̗͖́́̏͊̓͆͆̃̀͛̇͜t̷̪̦̼̒̌ö̷̡̫̟̬̝̞̩̝͓̻̻͕́̏͒́͗̋͗̂͋̕͘͜ͅ ̷̧̘̟̦͇̱̫̪̗͖͓̄̃͆̄͛͋́̚g̶̨̛̛̙̤̐̎͌̌ô̸̧͙͔̬̎̇̃̓͆̑̈̿̄̒͐̆͝d̴̢̹̻̪̜̙͈͕̼̖͙̔̀͑̓̀́̆̃ͅ

>>11156040
>My body, my choice
What a terrible argument.
Should we stop the mentally ill from harming themselves?
Should we stop hurting criminals, when it is the only choice to stop them?
Face it, as long as you live as a part of a society your body isn't entirely your's.

>>11156179
I should have been more clear then. I specifically meant that I should have the right to end my own life in a dignified way should I choose to do so. Killing others without their consent is wrong.

>>11156197
Neither is yours. Go make me a sandwich and pay my bills while you’re at it. There are such things as personal rights. I should have the right to die, otherwise I would have a duty to live and that’s absurd.

>>11156184
>I did use language, but how do you know what I said was what I intended? How do I know you're not saying something else entirely. Am I say anything at all? No.
You‘re literally proving my point that there’s no such thing as truth and even if there was we couldn’t know it using language and thus by extension using philosophy

>>11156215
Is this person underage? It sounds like it

>>11152452
What? He just pointed out to other retarded philosophers and humanitiesfags that so-called 'science' isn't singular or monolithic (not in content, practice, or philosophy). It never was, because being so is incredibly inconvenient and repressive. Which is why you have this >>11153025
this is addressed to those removed from the practice and content. Who think petty generalism removed from reality and based in antiquated, overly-simplistic philosophising -- is sufficient.

>>11156215
>Neither is yours.
Yeah, obviously.
I thought that was self evident from my post.

>Go make me a sandwich and pay my bills while you’re at it.
That's now how that works.
Obviously as long as you are a part of society you have to give up certain rights in order to get the benefits of being a member of that society.

>There are such things as personal rights.
Obviously there are. But the existence of Personal rights doesn't guarantee that a specific person right has to be granted.

>I should have the right to die
You already do, go into store, buy a knife and thrust it into your guts and wait until you bleed out.
Obviously people will want to stop you, because society has to assume that people want to continue living, otherwise society would be doomed to death.

> otherwise I would have a duty to live
I would in fact argue that by becoming a member of society it IS your duty to live.

>>11156220
>proof of no truth
mfw you don't know what the fuck you are saying, let alone, implying.

>>11156227
>tfw when he can't come up with an argument and has to resort to “lol u underage bruh”
Victory is sweet.

>>11156239
That wasn't the me, the person you replied to, just an accurate observation by someone not part of our conversation.

>>11156232
>you have to give up certain rights in order to get the benefits of being a member of that society.
If I want to end my life I obviously don’t care about the benefits of being a member of that society if I’m not gonna be around anymore.

>I would in fact argue that by becoming a member of society it IS your duty to live.
>I would in fact argue
Hate to break it to you, bucko, but you’re not an authority on anything.

>>11156232
>otherwise society would be doomed to death.
And that’s bad because? The only ones who care about society are humans. Once they’re gone, there isn’t even anybody to give a shit.

>>11156240
I said there’s no proof for truth, not that there’s truth of no truth. There’s a difference.

>>11156243
Even if I was underage, so what? Are underage people automatically wrong?

And you consider yourselves philosophers. Pathetic.

>>11156258
>If I want to end my life I obviously don’t care about the benefits of being a member of that society if I’m not gonna be around anymore.
Whatever, don't you understand that is entirely irrelevant?
You ARE a part of society and unless you try your hardest society won't allow you to go away, that is the entire point of having a society.

>Hate to break it to you, bucko, but you’re not an authority on anything.
Okay, I never implied I was, I just stated my opinion.

Nothing stops you from killing yourself, if you put some thought into it even society won't be able to help you.

>>11156270
>And that’s bad because?
Because until that point you have benefit greatly from the society around you.
And all people who you might care about, or who care about you will suffer from soceity d

>The only ones who care about society are humans. Once they’re gone, there isn’t even anybody to give a shit.
What an observation, a truly revolutionary though.
Society are made up of humans? No fucking shit.

>>11156279
>Even if I was underage, so what?
You would not be allowed here.
This is an 18+ website.

> Are underage people automatically wrong?
I know that I was wrong on almost everything.

>And you consider yourselves philosophers.
The last thing in this entire world I consider myself as is a "philosopher".

>>11156279
Found the underager

>>11152452
>start reading one of his "revolutionary" papers
>like it
>suddenly "but what about astrology and spooky magic powers, that's not science"
wtf guys, are those the best examples he could find to make a point?

>>11156286
What do you even mean by society? Because there are developed first world countries where euthanasia is legal, and guess what, they’re doing just fine. Euthanasia is not universally considered morally wrong.

>And all people who you might care about, or who care about you will suffer from soceity d
Boo fucking hoo.

>I know that I was wrong on almost everything.
So everybody else needs to be too when he was your age.

>Society are made up of humans? No fucking shit.
So what is your problem in admitting that whether humanity continues living is of no real consequence? You said it yourself, society is made up of humans. No humans, no one who cares. So what?

>>11156318
>What do you even mean by society?
A group of people living and working together to further the interests of all members of that group.

>Because there are developed first world countries where euthanasia is legal, and guess what, they’re doing just fine
>Euthanasia is not universally considered morally wrong.
Yes and?
I just wanted to point your shitty argument "my body my choice", which is, as I demonstrated in length, a really bad argument.

>Boo fucking hoo.
What could I possibly say?
If you are underage, then I will tell you that you will grow out of it.
If you aren't, then I am terribly sorry for you and everyone around you.

>So everybody else needs to be too when he was your age.
No, concluding that from my statement is indeed a fallacy.

>So what is your problem in admitting that whether humanity continues living is of no real consequence?
I don't think I need to answer that, obviously it is of real consequence to ME.

>You said it yourself, society is made up of humans. No humans, no one who cares. So what?
Because for no humans to exist, humans would have to die out.
I am utterly convinced that life itself is worthy good that needs to be preserved.

stop derailing the thread with your stupid shit faggots

>>11153025
Philosophers have the highest average IQ of any field. They aren't stupid for using a wider variety of accurate and representative language.

>>11156332
Do you honestly think that a low level shitpost such as OP would end in a thread which is NOT derailed?

>>11156318
>Because there are developed first world countries where euthanasia is legal, and guess what, they’re doing just fine.
They are anything but 'doing just fine'.

>>11155630
Ur mom gay

>>11154653
No, maybe not stem as a whole, but computer science; most definitely.

>>11156340
>They are anything but 'doing just fine'.
If you don't care for the continued existence of these countries, as the guy seems to do, then they are doing fine.

>>11156279
>Are underage people automatically wrong?
Yes.

>>11155900
formal logic is pretty autistic bro

>>11156329
I think your biggest problem is that you think your opinions are the pinnacle of reason and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is either a retard or a troll.

No. There are very intelligent people who agree and there’s also some who disagree with you.

>My body my choice
Ok, if it makes you feel better I will concede that that is in fact a shitty argument. Just answer me this: To whom does my life belong?

>>11155900
Since when is logic valid?

>>11156340
Belgium for example is doing better than other countries who think euthanasia is illegal. So do the Netherlands. And even in good ol’ USA do some states accept euthanasia

>>11156362
>Belgium for example is doing better than other countries who think euthanasia is illegal. So do the Netherlands. And even in good ol’ USA do some states accept euthanasia
All these countries are literally dying out. Not going extinct is the first, most basic step of fitness. If your country can't even manage that, then it's a complete failed state.

>>11156373
I’m pretty sure they’re not dying out because some 80 year old dude diagnosed with incurable cancer decided to end it.

>>11156356
>you think your opinions are the pinnacle of reason
They certainly are not and I do not think they are.
The only thing that was an opinion in my last post was my belief in the fact that life is worth living, I know that there are smart (likely smarter then me) people who challenge this.

>everyone who doesn’t agree with you is either a retard or a troll.
Have I called you either?

>There are very intelligent people who agree and there’s also some who disagree with you.
Yeah, obviously.

>To whom does my life belong?
It should belong to you to the degree that it isn't necessary for the wellbeing of society.
If a war needs to be fought for the survival of the society(or society is under threat in another way), people will have to give up their bodies for the greater good.
In times of peace and flourishing it should belong to you basically in its entirety.

>>11156336

>Field that is predicated on problem solving is filled with people who are good at problem solving.

Imagine my shock.

>>11156395
*problem creating

>>11156373
hey brainlet, do you understand demographics? and population ageing?

>>11156399

That's the thing.

Both the STEM and Philosophy generate problems and solve them, but in that manner generate more problems.

Science and Philosophy could not exist as a praxis, without fist creating a problem.

>>11156415
Shit... Ignore those grammar/typo errors.

>>11153025
If birds were capable of understanding ornithology I’m sure it’d benefit them though

>>11156383
>that it isn't necessary for the wellbeing of society
Why is society such an end-all-be-all for you? You’re treating it like a god. If anything, society is there to protect the individual, not the individual society. That’s why human beings formed society in the first place, to achieve greater security for its individual members. I get that. But as long as I only take my own life, why should other people get to have a say in this? They don’t want to kill themselves? Good. Then don’t do it. But frankly, wanting someone to continue living just so you don’t have to feel sad is just as selfish as committing suicide, if not more so. Also, what does it say about a society when members of it would rather die than continue participating in it?

>If a war needs to be fought for the survival of the society(or society is under threat in another way), people will have to give up their bodies for the greater good.
I’m a pacifist, so if I ever get conscripted I’d use the first opportunity I have to kill myself. I’d rather die than kill another human being without his consent.

>the greater good
Biggest meme there is.

>>11156424
But they aren’t so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If I was rich I wouldn’t have to work. If there were no problems life would be great. What the hell was your point?

>>11156383
>It should belong to you to the degree that it isn't necessary for the wellbeing of society.
>If a war needs to be fought for the survival of the society(or society is under threat in another way), people will have to give up their bodies for the greater good.
>In times of peace and flourishing it should belong to you basically in its entirety.

Why?--- to all of those propositions.

>>11156425
>Why is society such an end-all-be-all for you?
Because I am not an anarchist. I see the values that being together brings.

>If anything, society is there to protect the individual, not the individual society.
For society to protect the individuals, sometimes the individuals has to be sacrificed.
Sadly the world isn't a paradise and for freedom to exist and the individual to flourish, blood has to be spilled.

>But as long as I only take my own life, why should other people get to have a say in this?
I don't necessarily disagree that you should be able to take your own life.
The Problem is that for society to function all people have to assume that the other people actually want to live and reach happyness, else the whole project of having a society would have failed and continuing would be pointless.
Society should ALWAYS try to save you, that is the base assumption it is built upon.

>I’m a pacifist, so if I ever get conscripted I’d use the first opportunity I have to kill myself. I’d rather die than kill another human being without his consent.
I don't like war, but I would lie, kill, slaughter, rape and die for my society, if it was necessary.

>>11156430
>If there were no problems life would be great.

life is by necessity a problem. If there were no problems, there would not be life, i.e. biological life, and more so ontological experience.

Relating to that other anon's post:

Human are capable of self study. Is this useless to humans? Kind of sheds some light on this absurd STEM vs Philosophy dialectic ITT.

>>11156441
>>It should belong to you to the degree that it isn't necessary for the wellbeing of society.
The reason for that follows from the other two.

>>If a war needs to be fought for the survival of the society(or society is under threat in another way), people will have to give up their bodies for the greater good.
If nobody is willing to fight in the war and defend society inevitable life will get worse for every member of society.
Loosing a war was never a good thing for the looser, that is why winning a war (if one happens) requires sacrifice.
If you want a society you HAVE to defend it against others, else it will be very short lived.

>>In times of peace and flourishing it should belong to you basically in its entirety.
I am not entirely sure about that to be fair, but I believe that if you don't give people a high degree of personal freedom they will eventually revolt against their own society.
If you want a stable society where individuals can find their happiness you should be forcing people into a certain position (unless you do it really well, better then the people themselves could).

>>11156447
>Sadly the world isn't a paradise and for freedom to exist and the individual to flourish, blood has to be spilled.
Ok and why can’t that be my blood?

>The Problem is that for society to function all people have to assume that the other people actually want to live and reach happyness, else the whole project of having a society would have failed and continuing would be pointless.
You’re basically saying: “This evidence implies that society fails. But society can’t fail. Thus this evidence is invalid.”
No. We have to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And I know for fact that a sizable amount of people don’t want to live or reach happiness, because said “happiness” as defined by society would be unfulfilling for them.

>I don't like war, but I would lie, kill, slaughter, rape and die for my society, if it was necessary.
Explain to me how that is something one should be proud of, killing other people because they happen to be on the wrong team. And again, not everyone is like you.

>>11156447
>I don't like war
>but I would lie, kill, slaughter, rape and die for my society, if it was necessary.

If you don't like these things, why are you so slavishly prepared to traumatize yourself and possibly die for your society?

>if it was necessary.
What makes you think that your love for your society will be enough of a superseding interest to make you act out these absurd acts of debauchery. Sounds like a ''Just following orders'' morality.

>The Problem is that for society to function all people have to assume that the other people actually want to live and reach happyness

What makes you think that?

>>11156488
>Ok and why can’t that be my blood?
Because *someone* has to do it.
In all likelihood you would never need to spill your blood, there are people willing to die for you.

>This evidence implies that society fails
People wanting to kill themselves can not always be seen as the failure of society.
It isn't the fault of society that someone gets incurable cancer.
But in other cases it definitely is and I would even argue that in today's world, especially western Europe, there are societies which have completely failed.

>But society can’t fail.
I didn't say that it couldn't.
It obviously can, see every single criminal in history.

>And I know for fact that a sizable amount of people don’t want to live or reach happiness, because said “happiness” as defined by society would be unfulfilling for them.
Yes and what do you propose to do about it.
Give everyone a gun to shoot themselves? Or try to figure WHY these people aren't happy and change society to better accommodate these people?
One is very easy and the other hard, but I am certain that one outcome should be preferred over the other.

>Explain to me how that is something one should be proud of, killing other people because they happen to be on the wrong team
Where did I say I was proud of it?
I said that I would do it.

>And again, not everyone is like you.
Obviously not everyone can, or should be, a soldier.

>>11155630
You're a dumb faggot

>>11156475
>Loosing a war was never a good thing for the looser

That is debatable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany

>>11156505
>If you don't like these things, why are you so slavishly prepared to traumatize yourself and possibly die for your society?
Thousands of years of evolution.

>What makes you think that your love for your society will be enough of a superseding interest to make you act out these absurd acts of debauchery.
Thousands of years of evolution.

>Sounds like a ''Just following orders'' morality.
It absolutely it, "following orders" is what is necessary to win the war.
Although it can have horrible consequences if the people giving the orders are horrible people.

>What makes you think that?
It is what almost all our systems are based upon.
If you are on trial for murder, in all likelihood everyone involved will assume that the person you killed didn't want to be killed.
It is the same for all other mechanism we have today, from the police to all other emergency services, they all operate on the basis that you want to live, want to be physically healthy and don't want your house burnt down.

>>11156531
Firstly I was talking about DEFENDERS, if you loose in a war of aggression, then fuck you.
Most likely if you are attacked, it will end badly for you, see Poland during WW2.

>>11156511
>In all likelihood you would never need to spill your blood
But I want to. Why should I be held back from doing it?

>Or try to figure WHY these people aren't happy and change society to better accommodate these people
Please read what I post more carefully. I specifically said that for some people being happy isn’t enough or not the goal of life. Take me for instance. My goal in life is to be as self-sufficient as possible.

>Obviously not everyone can, or should be, a soldier.
The thing is not even every soldier is like you. You said you would even rape for your society. I’m German and even when we were Nazis, there were plenty of soldiers who refused to rape people. And how could the specific instance of rape ever be “necessary”?

>>11156535
Nazis at Nuremberg used the “I was just following orders” defense. Spoiler alert: It didn’t end well for them. And if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, that shit wouldn’t fly with him either because his orders take precedence over the orders of men.

>>11156552
>if you loose in a war of aggression, then fuck you.

why?

>Most likely if you are attacked, it will end badly for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Gaul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

That is really debatable.

>>11156556
>>11156535
>>11156511
>>11156505
>>11156488
>>11156475
>>11156447
>>11156425
>>11156383

>>11156556
>Why should I be held back from doing it?
Your own you mean?
Sorry, I might have misunderstood you.
Yeah, sure go ahead, do it.

>I specifically said that for some people being happy isn’t enough or not the goal of life.
When I talk about happiness, it is the same as your ultimate goal in life, Aristotle has spoken similarity about that.
What else could you possibly call "happiness", then achieving your goals in life.

>My goal in life is to be as self-sufficient as possible.
Then obviously you are more happy if you are more self-sufficient.

>I’m German
Yeah, so am I.

>And how could the specific instance of rape ever be “necessary”?
I don't know and it doesn't matter if I could come up with a scenario.

>>11156535
>from the police to all other emergency services, they all operate on the basis that you want to live, want to be physically healthy and don't want your house burnt down.
They’re projecting their own principles onto people they don’t even know. How can you not see that?

>>11153025
It is generally accepted that ornithologists are smarter than birds.

>>11156571
>Nazis at Nuremberg used the “I was just following orders” defense.
Yeah, obviously.
And I addressed that in my post.
Just like most nazis followed their orders, so did the most British.

>And if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God
I don't.

>>11155959
yes and it can be proven in both ways

>>11156578
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Gaul
Cesar estimates a million dead Gauls, even if it were significantly less, this was a HORRIBLE thing for all Gauls who cared about "being Gauls".
The society which Gauls formed was completely destroyed and replaced, whether that was a good thing in the long run is debatable...

>>11156588
>They’re projecting their own principles onto people they don’t even know. How can you not see that?
I already said that they did exactly that, why don't you read my posts?

>>11156535
>Thousands of years of evolution.
Did knowledge of this convince you to believe these things?

>It absolutely it, "following orders" is what is necessary to win the war.
Although it can have horrible consequences if the people giving the orders are horrible people.

So you are willing to die for a society as long as that societies rule/rulers pleases you? Why are you then using the society as a proxy for your self-interest in the gestalt of a moral arbiter?

>It is what almost all our systems are based upon.
If you are on trial for murder, in all likelihood everyone involved will assume that the person you killed didn't want to be killed.
It is the same for all other mechanism we have today, from the police to all other emergency services, they all operate on the basis that you want to live, want to be physically healthy and don't want your house burnt down.

alright

>>11156585
>Then obviously you are more happy if you are more self-sufficient.
You’re projecting. I want to do it out of principle, not because it would make me happy. “But following your principles makes you happy” Not necessarily. There’s such a thing as “biting the bullet” and sticking to one’s principles even when it’s detrimental for you.

>What else could you possibly call "happiness", then achieving your goals in life.
What if killing oneself is one’s goal in life? :^)
Also, since everybody eventually dies, you could make the argument that death is the goal of life. So why not just hasten it?

>>11156617
>Did knowledge of this convince you to believe these things?
I don't think so.

>So you are willing to die for a society as long as that societies rule/rulers pleases you?
No, where did I even suggest that?
I just said that bad orders have horrible consequences.

>>11156622
So you would die for a society which does not please you?

>>11156590
>so did most British
Yeah, and they ended up winning and thus could prosecute the Nazis. People like you only think “might is right” as long as it’s your side that’s winning.

>>11156620
>You’re projecting. I want to do it out of principle, not because it would make me happy. “But following your principles makes you happy” Not necessarily. There’s such a thing as “biting the bullet” and sticking to one’s principles even when it’s detrimental for you.
See how I defined happiness.

>What if killing oneself is one’s goal in life? :^)
Then.
JUST DO IT.

I don't even think the smiley is necessary here.

> you could make the argument that death is the goal of life
It really isn't.
Since very few people are actively seeking death, this is unlikely.

>So why not just hasten it?
Because I want to live.

>>11156622
What would you do if someone gave you “a bad order”?

>>11156631
>So you would die for a society which does not please you?
Yes, obviously that is a requirement for dying for society, since I don't wan't to die, but might have to.

>>11156650
>What would you do if someone gave you “a bad order”?
That entirely depends on the "bad order".
This honestly is an extremely difficult question and I don't have a better answer.

>>11156607

>this was a HORRIBLE thing for all Gauls who cared about "being Gauls".

yes.

Context is important, Roman Britain would be a good example.

>>11156641
>See how I defined happiness
You don’t get to define happiness for anybody other than yourself.

>it really isn’t
Pic related is the word “goal” as defined by Merriem Webster. Biological life always ends in death, and if it would be ever demonstrated that life is PROGRAMMED to die, well, that just gives the argument more weight.

>>11156677
Forgot pic

>>11156677
>You don’t get to define happiness for anybody other than yourself.
heh

>>11156677
>You don’t get to define happiness for anybody other than yourself.
That word has to mean something, you might also want to look into Aristotle, who had a similar definition to what I gave.
A definition which I find pretty accurate, that definition also doesn't imply specifically what happiness is for you.

>Pic related is the word “goal” as defined by Merriem Webster.

Definition of goal
1 : the end toward which effort is directed : aim The goal is high-speed rail travel.

TOWARD WHICH EFFORT IS DIRECTED
EFFORT IS DIRECTED
EFFORT

I am NOT putting any effort into dying, in fact I am doing the opposite by eating healthy and working out.

>>11154582
I love this picture so much.

>>11156686
Even he doesn’t get to. What authority does he have to do so?

>>11156697
You may not be putting an effort into dying, but the biological mechanisms present in your cells surely do.

>>11155900
Is this what Wittgenstein refutes?

>>11156707
>You may not be putting an effort into dying, but the biological mechanisms present in your cells surely do.
Yes, but I am separate from these individual cells.
The goal of each cell, might be to die, but the consciousness that I am surely isn't, in fact I am putting effort into the opposite.

>>11156660
Go kill at least 100 children in that village and rapes as many little girls as you can, for they are enemies of our people.

Would you do it, yes or no?

>>11156716
your consciousness ≠ life

I was specifically talking about the goal of life,

>>11156720
>Would you do it, yes or no?
Comfortably sitting at my table, I would hope the answer is "No".

Realistically, yes.

>>11156727
WHAT?

>your consciousness ≠ life
I mean, maybe?
But certainly these things are somehow linked...

>>11156730
>Realistically, yes

That’s all I need to know. You‘ve successfully turned me from being a pacifist. I‘m now seething with appetite to merciless kill you and anyone like you.

>>11156730
We are reaching levels of pragmatism previously thought to be impossible.

>>11156747
>I‘m now seething with appetite to merciless kill you and anyone like you.
Glad to hear that, even to stop wars you need to spill blood.

>>11156755
Welcome to anglo "thought"

>>11156763
>Welcome to anglo "thought"
What about >>11156730 indicates anglo thought?
Or am I misunderstanding you.

>>11156759
spilling blood of child rapists > spilling blood of innocent children

>>11156775
Did I argue otherwise?

>>11156707

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

But, in regards to humans. It is safe to say that the vast majority of people have a *desire* to live. Hell, the oldest known epic is all about a guy trying to become immortal.

There are of course people who desire to die. But often they desire to die because they can not attain their goals, or suffer too much in some way, as to live.

Your teleology is a bit odd and.

>>11156730

I get you anon. we need to whack babies on trees for the greater good of the angkar.

>>11156607
That reminds me, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was almost absolutely beneficial for the people.

>>11156769
You don't even consider trying to resist, you just try to turn it into some autistic equation (>>11156775) to justify your absolute lack of spine and incapacity to feel passion. Like my main man Fred said "Mankind does not strive for happiness, only the englishman does".

>>11156834
>You don't even consider trying to resist
Wouldn't that be rather German?

>to justify your absolute lack of spine and incapacity to feel passion
I don't think anyone could rape a child without feeling a lot of passion and having a lot of very dark and twisted spine.

>(>>11156775)
That wasn't me though, I wrote >>11156730 (You) .

>>11154582
Note the nationalities of those on the left and those on the right

>>11156973
>Germans vs. Anglos
seems about right. If you wanna argue all the germans are also jews, well, there are retarded positivists jews too, there is one in that very picture

>>11155739
Philosophy of science is necessary to STEMtards to realise that science isn't "superior" to philosophy, that the very way of making this comparison is retarded. Other than, it's mostly useless (as Feynman notes), but believe me, this realisation is invaluable.
t. STEMtard who had Philosophy of Science in grad school and is really grateful about that

There's good found in both areas but I don't think promoting for a society to be ignorant in either one is very good. It's important to grapple with the physical world for our wellbeing and others while also grappling with the immaterial and abstract that would also help ourselves and others while trying to bring order to questions that brings us wonder, not necessarily completely 100% answered but enough so for a satisfying of it.

>>11157012
>STEMtards to realise that science isn't "superior" to philosophy
so just regular tards

>>11155931
>If it’s my life then I get to choose what to do with it. Period.

Hahahha, this is truly delicious. You are aware that the individualism you're espousing as common sense is a historical product grounded, to a certain extent, in philosophy (see: modernity, Enlightenment)? Your seeming incapacity to acknowledge the historical and philosophical background of your assertion is a sad testament to contemporary education. I hope you're just too young or baiting.

>>11156336
>Philosophers have the highest average IQ of any field
Wrong.

I'm getting real tired of supposedly literate people dismissing STEM people using the facile justification that we just have one-track minds and don't care about the hummanities.

www.dukeinspire.org

I'm part of a club for grad studenyts and post docs where we get together every other week for beers and discuss philosophy of science, the place of the scientist in society, and the importance of having an appreciation for the history and purpose of our profession, among other things. Our meetings are well-attended and we get a loot of support from our professors who care about philosophy and ethics. Most of my colleagues are well-read and most have some sort of creative hobby such as painting, singing, or writing. It's clear that those of you who call us myopic and cloistered haven't taken the smallest effort to actually engage with scientists. You're posers.

>>11156314
Things like spooky magic powers and astrology are the beginning of scientific inquiry, though. Do you think that the so called "scientific method" just sprung out of the earth or came down from the heavens one day? It's amazing (well, not really: it's understandable given their usual complete ignorance of the history of their own fields) how ahistorical (and thus, unscientific) "scientific" minds are when it comes to their own discipline and way of thinking.

>>11157195
I don't know. A lot, maybe even most, of the scientists I know are very interested in the history of science's epistemology. Look at Stephen Jay Gould.

>>11157139
fuck off with your spam
mODs

>>11157195
>Things like spooky magic powers and astrology are the beginning of scientific inquiry
How?
>Do you think blabla
Invented by Galileo

>>11157139
>Most of my colleagues are well-read and most have some sort of creative hobby such as painting, singing, or writing.
Sounds nice, of course, but I know enough scientists to understand what it really means. Science in modern world is careeristic to the core, almost as soul-draining as the IT. Having lost its ideals and its strive for the truth, it now faithfully serves the global capital. 9 out of 10 times any "creative hobby" these types hold would be either a disgusting, shallow bourgeois game, or sometimes a desperate, yet fruitless, attempt at retrieving their soul back from the system that swallowed it.

>>11157212
>How?
In a nutshell: they are early attempts at explanation. Lévi-Strauss argues at length in "The Savage Mind" that "primitive thought" is not really qualitatively different from "scientific thought" (which makes sense because if they are two vastly different modes of thinking you can't explain how the latter came to be from the former).

>Invented by Galileo
Topkek. This is the explanation that an allegedly rational mind gives to the emergence of the scientific method: the pure, unconditioned invention of a genius. Sounds very... unscientific.

>>11155124
He doesn't. He's giving an accurate picture of what our understanding of what the nature of 'energy' is, in contrast to people who prematurely act like it is some definitely defined thing apart from the invariants that make it meaningful.

>>11156834
I don’t strive to be happy, either and I said as much.

>>11157260
>Levi Strauss
Ah well

>>11157012
„Stemtards“ don‘t care which is superior, they just go on inventing and discovering stuff whereas philosotards spend their time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while never reaching a conclusion.

>>11157484
>they just go on inventing and discovering stuff
Kek, this isn't even true of the majority of actual scientists. All that most of them produce is useless papers in a frenzied attempt to advance their careers.

>>11157270
He's conceding that we don't know what energy is and implicitly recognizing that the goal of physics is not even discerning the "what", but "how". Funny how the anti-philosopher ends up making room for ontology by diminishing the aims of science

>>11157259
>but I know enough people subcribed to r/IFuckingLoveScience to understand what it really means
let’s not mince words

>>11157260
>Lévi-Strauss argues at length in "The Savage Mind" that "primitive thought"
what a retard lmao

The fedora tipping in this thread mostly seems to be done by the people defending philosophy.

What you don't seem to understand is that for 90% of us in STEM it's just a job, a job I happen to find more interesting than most others, but still just a job.
I will read (a little) philosophy in my spare time sometimes but I would never dream of opening a paper on non-linear optimization for fun.

All this pretentious nonsense and still no one has cut to the chase and explained how philosophy of science is remotely useful to scientists.

I have experience with pretentious philosophy types before who call themselves civilized and cultured, and others soulless machines. They consider themselves creative despite not using their imagination and creativity to advance the frontiers of human civilization like scientists do. They also do not know an ounce about scientific disciplines, but are somehow very good at misusing buzzwords like linear or quantum, which does not raise my estimation of them since I am trained in spotting quack bullshit. I cringe whenever they name drop Godel as the end of all truth. I will need more reasons before investing my time into the philosophy of science than just mental masturbation.

>>11157138
It's not strictly correct, but they are top 3-5.

>>11153025
This. The absolute arrogance of philosophyfags thinking they can "destroy" anything with their autistic screeching is laughable. Meanwhile the world keeps turning and nobody gives a shit.

>>11155714
There's literally nothing wrong with what Dawkins is saying.

>>11158060
But then you're an Engineer and not a Scientist. I take a book on Algebraic Geometry/Stochastic Calculus/whatever on every beach vacation. (I'm a physicist, PhD)

>>11158323
my dude if you had read the thread you would know for example that judging philosophy (or any type of knowledge) for it's usefulness is itself ahistorical and restrictive of scientific endeavor, for example. But you won't accept this because the very prospect of you not knowing about something causes you to shiver.

>>11158323
utility is not the only measure of value you dolt

Lets not kid ourselves. Thomas Kuhn was right, and through him Hegel's dialectics was also proven to exist in science.

so how you people measure what is useful and what is not?

Is it useful if it brings profits to your boss overlord?

>>11158419
Yes, although i will technically hold a 'science of engineering' degree once i finish my masters thesis.

However the one truly brilliant physicist (tenured professor) i know will skip work in order to listen to the symphonic orchestra practice. In my experience the few truly brilliant people i know are really far from being fedora tippers.

I will say this: Biology is an awfully dry science because of the shadow of atheism beneath it. I say this as someone who teaches Biology. There is so much that is laughably absurd if you actually start to think of the implications of certain statements that "modern" biology makes and assumes. The very dogma of Biology is a mindfuck. You have a language that carries information, that is understood by molecules, which of themselves, have no consciousness. Yet, all of life depends on this. Somehow, people are to believe this self-understanding system rose by chance and that Nature has that power, knowledge, etc. Basically, scientisits refuse to say God created this system, so they ascribe the divine attributes to Nature, and call themselves atheists.

I'll post one of my thoughts on how Biology and Human health contradicts the atheistic position, fundamentally.

>>11158646
oh Ideology my old friend.
Modernism comes chained with capitalism, positivism, and secularization of everything.

Ignoring the chemical imbalances associated with the phenomena, depression can be linked to a lack of meaning, or the inability to ascribe meaning to personal experiences. If you expand on that, depressed individual carry forms of suicidal thoughts, as if the human body is revealing a very fundamental reality of this universe - what has no meaning has no reason to exist. From this, you can see how things in this universe do not exist without a function, a meaning attached to it.

Atheists will tell you this universe has no intrinsic meaning, yet everything within it has a reason to exist. There's no such thing as an enzyme that has no purpose, no cell or organelle that serves no function, etc. One must wonder, why do atheists delude themselves by giving a meaning to their life if, fundamentally, they believe there is none? How would a purposeless universe create, by chance, an entity capable of questioning his own purpose??

>>11152452
who is this even? no scientists I know read "philosophers of science", it has no effect on their ability to discover new results. the entire field seems to be an attempt at one-upsmanship by literary types whose field has been reduced to Communist activism.

>philosophers create problems
>scientists solve them
Why can't we all just get along?

>>11156040
>I don't need philosophy
>*makes philosophical claim that can and has been disagreed with many times in the past*
>*acts as if this is just true and common sense*
Every fucking time, read a fucking book

>>11157260
>the pure, unconditioned invention of a genius
Trying to sound smug doesn't make it less true. Galileo certainly didn't came up with a "scientific method" but he did come up with new things. At some point, something comes simply from the invention, and in spite of endless maymays about it, only individuals think so it will be the invention of a given particular genius. If not, there would be no innovation at all.
>>11157259
How did you manage to bring muh global capital into this? Be very afraid, the big bad bourgeois is coming to get you.

>>11155714
Cherrypicking and Dawkins isnt even saying anything blatantly false , even if I agree with the sentiment this is trash

>>11155739
>They are not referencing to philosophers of science
>Einstein: I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science
?

>>11158323
"philosophy of science" is just a meme name for a weird mixture of epistemology, metaphysics and institutional/cultural analysis.

Galileo was doing "philosophy of science" when he claimed mathematics was the language of nature. Anyone who engaged in interpretations of QM was doing "philosophy of physics", from Bohr and his anti-realism to Einstein's refusal to accept it to Schrodinger's esoteric shit to Dirac's refusal to consider any of it relevant.

>>11156329
>A group of people living and working together to further the interests of all members of that group.
>to further the interests of all members of that group.

you're as dumb as a cow, do you consider yourself part of a society? have you ever met anyone???????? do all of them implicitly or explicitly try to "further the interests of all members of that group"?

>>11156344
>computer """science"""

sorry, that anon was talking about actual researchers, not code monkeys

>>11161692
And? It doesn't matter, you know what Hawking said about philosophy right?

>>11161718
He exposed himself as a pleb.

>>11153323
I'd like to tell this poster to kill themselves but they've probably closed the tab. That makes me a little sad. Not being able to insult someone's unaware stupidity. What are some books for this feel?

>>11161692

is this an edgy version of khun's structure of the ind rev?

>pic unrel

>>11162227
>What are some books for this feel?

The absolute state of this board.