/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10567958]

Philosophy is being replaced by science. Instead of abstract arguments we use methodical and empirical research to determine truth.

Historically, all the natural sciences were considered branches of philosophy, but now we have biology, chemistry etc.

More recently major aspects of metaphysics have been surpassed through psychological breakthroughs. Talking about the "Will" as a driving force seems almost silly when we have evolutionary psychology to explain consciousness and related topics.

Logic -> mathematics
Epistemology -> linguistics, neuroscience, physics
Politics -> economics, psychology
Ontology -> theoretical and nuclear physics, cosmology, biology

Is there such a thing as "pure philosophy", something that can only be reasoned with arguments and not data?

[Anonymous No.10567982]

>>10567958
Yes, symbolic logic is philosophy and an effective way of proving something and showing the preconceptions you've made under which that proof exists

[Anonymous No.10567986]

>>10567958
>politics->psychology
perhaps you mean sociology?

[Anonymous No.10567988]

>>10567958
Use science to tell me why I shouldn't kill myself. Bonus points if you can use science to find a reason why I should do anything.

[Anonymous No.10567994]

>>10567988
try breathing exercises combined with positive emotional training, you will get high naturally

[Anonymous No.10568000]

>>10567986
Yes, sociology and economics make up most of politics, the rest being law, and funnily enough law is in the general sense, essentially a study into ethics.

[Anonymous No.10568001]

>>10567958
You know what I've witnessed?

People will continue to try bad ideas, over and over and at great cost. They will refuse to try new things because they can't comprehend them. It doesn't occur to them to give up their "progress" and try a new approach. Philosophy is being eaten alive by this cancer.

[Anonymous No.10568004]

>>10567958
If we take things on a more personal level, science as an argument loses all value, emotional and ethical arguments have more impact.

[Anonymous No.10568006]

>>10567958
I know this is bait, but I will deconstruct anyway because people will actually believe you.


>Logic -> mathematics

This is a philosophical position about mathematics called logicism, and it is generally taken to have been defeated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

>Epistemology -> linguistics, neuroscience, physics

Linguistics is the study of the structur(ual) and evolution of human languages, neuroscience is the study of the brain, physics is the study of matter and energy. What, if anything, do these three lines of inquiry tell us about knowledge as such? Generally, these fields assume an epistemology and proceed from there. The scientific method is an epistemological method. It is not epistemology itself

Politics -> economics, psychology

Economics and psychology are certainly important in understanding politics, but the field of politics itself encompasses a broader range of political phenomenon, including its history, its theory, and sociology. But you don't specify what you mean by "politics". What of comparing normative political ideals? How can that practice be reduced in your mind?

>Ontology -> theoretical and nuclear physics, cosmology, biology

Certainly the most egregious of your claims and betrays a fundamental failure to understand science, how its practicitioners view their practice, and its relationship to ontology. No theoretical physicist is concerned with the problem of universals, modality, temporal ontology, or even the physical interpretation of their own models. See anything from Einstein's Hole Argument to his debates with Bohr over the EPR Paradox if you want a better grasp on how two of the three pillars of contemporary science divorced themselves from their foundations. Philosophy of physics exists, and it exists for good reason

[Anonymous No.10568012]

>>10567988
I can use science to explain to you why people generally don't kill themselves (natural selection). I can also use science to tell you why certain people might want to kill themselves (mental disorders). Why you should or shouldn't depends on the circumstances. Even philosophers themselves agree on this, Nietzsche says "he who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", which is often used as the basis for certain psychological therapies.

[Anonymous No.10568018]

>>10568006
Oh great, another "everything I disagree with is bait" post. Not even gonna read your shit because you've obviously got your panties in a bunch.

Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack.

[Anonymous No.10568027]

>>10568018
You asserted things that are outright false. In your own anger you've misled yourself into believing things that just aren't true. Maybe you'd recognize how much you don't know if you had a better attitude

[Anonymous No.10568030]

>>10568006
I skimmed this and all it does is state the definitions of the subjects used as examples without failing to recognise a trend towards to the use of the scientific methods. Who knows if in 200 years physics and computers will tell us more about consciousness and reality than all philosophy combined?

[Anonymous No.10568033]

>>10568030
Work on your reading comprehension and you might not be so confused

[Anonymous No.10568034]

>>10567958
I agree philosophy is redundant. It is fun to learn how some people used to think about the world, but with the emergence of a modern scientific method, it is clearly not the best tool to gain knowledge. Most of the philosophers were not even able to define morality for crying out loud. Descartes is good though...

[Anonymous No.10568039]

>Logic -> mathematics
That's not a science, you nigger.

But I know what you mean, and I don't care. Philosophy as a whole is not being replaced, I think, just certain philosophical lines of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.10568050]

>>10568033
Your post basically confirmed that the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science. Once science catches up, the philosophical arguments will seem ridiculous, just like Plato's forms. Until that time, we're stuck with having to listen to people argue about whether objects are things in themselves or not. DUDE WEED.

[Anonymous No.10568066]

>>10567988
>Use science to tell me why I shouldn't kill myself.
To be fair, you can't use philosophy for this either.

[Anonymous No.10568084]

Someone once told me when philosophers make a breakthrough, other subjects take credit for it. When philosophy developed logic, since it had applications in math, it was seen as a mathematical invention. Likewise achievements in aesthetics are classed under music, art and literature. And that's because they are, what's left of philosophy are things that have no application, and those can't really claim credit for anything because they're highly subjective.

[Anonymous No.10568109]

>>10568050
Different guy here. I do have a pretty practical use for philosophy, one that I admittedly didn't even discover until about a year ago. I think philosophical contemplation is the only means we have for revealing and understanding the limits of knowability and coherent reasoning.

[Anonymous No.10568112]

>>10567994
Yeah but why
>>10568012
>depends
nice science m8
>>10568066
Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.

[Anonymous No.10568117]

>>10568112
>nice science m8
Yes, pointing out that "whether or not X" depends on "whether or not Y" is indeed pretty scientific.

[Anonymous No.10568124]

>>10568112
>Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.
You probably mean psychology.

[Anonymous No.10568125]

>>10568112
>Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.
If all you want are viewpoints on the matter, then you might as well cling to religion or art, or anything, really. You challenged "science" by demanding an *answer*, not a bucket of opinions, and this answer cannot be given by philosophy either.

I'm not saying this in defense of the OP's position, by the way. I just think your implication that philosophy can actually give you definitive "Oughts" is wrongheaded.

[Anonymous No.10568131]

>>10568050
>philosophy is being replaced by science
>the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science

[Anonymous No.10568139]

>>10567958
>methodical and empirical research to determine truth
lol. nice b8.

[Anonymous No.10568143]

>>10568139
What do you suggest instead?

[Anonymous No.10568147]

>>10568143
Nothing. Truth is a myth for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.10568163]

op, consider to learn the basics of epistemology

[Anonymous No.10568166]

>>10568143


Not that guy, but physicist here. To think that philosophy has no means of outdoing science (specially in ontology, wtf?) shows a grave misunderstanding of science. A misunderstanding that I won't take out on you because even many colleagues suffer from it.

What most people nowadays seem to hold belief into is a twisted empirical version of positivism where they believe somehow that data has inherent meaning that we simply have to find out. Apparently saying "Force is due to acceleration and acceleration is due to force" is no long a circular statement about relationship among elements (elements we can't even define in themselves) but are ontological expressions about the nature of both force and acceleration (protip it isn't).

Somewhere along the line people like Lawrence Krauss forgot their 101 courses where they learned that they can only know "hows" and "what happens to X if I change Y" and started believing that "Humanity is here so the universe can measure itself" are empirically backed statements in an ontological better position than "There is a man in the sky telling us to cut our children's foreskin". A sad state of affairs when the last batch of physicists who knew philosophy (e.g Dirac, Schroedinger) have left a huge chunk of hard philosophical problems to people who can do no better than look at molecule spectra popping in a PC screen and daydream about tenure. We need a revival of philosophy interest in physics, for all intents and purposes our collective group nowadays is no more than the most glorified and overspecialized technicians in the market.

[Anonymous No.10568172]

>>10568166
Disagree with your second paragraph (I don't think that any form of empirical positivism is really all that popular; people in general embrace and even celebrate science as a "truth factory" only for as long as said "truths" validate their preexisting beliefs and feelings; the moment someone talks about "lived experience", all empiricism flies out the window), but very much agree with your third.

[Anonymous No.10568180]

>>10568147
Then philosophizing over it is pointless. Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
>>10568166
I'm well aware that physicists used to be classically schooled and had a deeper interest in metaphysics. I also don't care for many of the expressions of toxic scientism. But this isn't really my area, so feel free to elaborate on the practical effects of reintegrating physics with philosophy, or maybe give some sources so I can read up on it.

[Anonymous No.10568181]

>>10568147
Then philosophizing over it is pointless. Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
>>10568166
I'm well aware that physicists used to be classically schooled and had a deeper interest in metaphysics. I also don't care for many of the expressions of toxic scientism. But this isn't really my area, so feel free to elaborate on the practical effects of reintegrating physics with philosophy, or maybe give some sources so I can read up on it.

[Anonymous No.10568185]

>>10567982
logi is only good for the structure of an argument.
logic does nothing to investigate the contents of ''p''


>More recently major aspects of metaphysics have been surpassed through psychological breakthroughs. Talking about the "Will" as a driving force seems almost silly when we have evolutionary psychology to explain consciousness and related topics.
yet people are still going on about weather we are living in a simulation or not, or living in a holographic universe or not.

Some people like to be told a story instead of looking at flowcharts.

>>10568001
the nature of choice and free will, is that yes, you must be aware of your choices in order to exercise your will properly.

though the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence still hold true.

How do you know we haven't tried everything physically capable of our minds to comprehend?

and additionaly how do you know theres something more?

I mean how do we know there isn't something more than just multiplication addition subtraction and division in arithmetic?


>>10568034
thought experiments and meditation are crucial to enlightenment and wisdom.
fuck off with your fascist stance on the scientific method.

>>10568050
>this guy assumes everything will eventually be explained away by science

faith has been around alot longer, and will probably persist much longer than the reliance on the scientific method.

>>10568084
philosophy is about refining questions
philosophy poses questions
comes up with some tools
then the students scholars and pupils take these questions and tools and run with them

[Anonymous No.10568193]

>>10568143
>Truth is a myth for pseuds.
>>10568181
>Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
Checkmate

[Anonymous No.10568195]

>science/philosophy divide
You know that isn't a thing, right guys?

[Anonymous No.10568213]

>>10568180
>>10568181
http://www.tau.ac.il/~quantum/Vaidman/IQM/BellAM.pdf

[Anonymous No.10568218]

>its a stemfag doesn't even understand his own field and thinks he "debunked" philosophy chapter
You are using (shitty) philosophy to create your dumb post anyways, everyone discussing it too. Science will never replace this, you like it or not philosophy is here to stay.

[Anonymous No.10568229]

>>10568181
>Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
Woah, this retarded argument has never been BTFO in the history of philosophy before!
Just start with the greeks and delete this thread

[Anonymous No.10568236]

>>10567958

This is a non-issue.
Science and Philosophy are both means.

There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

[Anonymous No.10568249]

>>10568193
>>10568229
Not an argument. Why are philosophy fags always so sensitive?

[Anonymous No.10568274]

>>10568249
Epic image!

[Anonymous No.10568286]

>>10568249
You are the one who got so hurt about people suggesting that maybe taking scientific data as objective truth brings a lot of problems
Start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.10568295]

>>10568018
>Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack
Take your own advice desu senpai

[Anonymous No.10568311]

>>10568274
Philfags always revert to this though, so the image is very accurate. They seek refuge in pointless word play or sterile thought experiments (''how do you KNOW you KNOW?'') etc. The scientist may say they're not in contact with some platonic form of truth, or they can't say for sure if this is all just part of a simulation, but a combustion engine still works because of x, y, z, this pill will make you happy because this chemical interacts with the brain in so and so ways. Philosophy majors are gutted over their chosen field's waning relevance when it comes to explaining the natural world, so like the pissant brainlets they are they lash out in a futile attempt at salvaging their own self image as le ebin intellectuals.

https://youtu.be/GmycXN-dAOw

>>10568286
''start with the greeks'' isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.10568340]

>>10568311
Y-you really cannot know nuthin, though.

[Anonymous No.10568386]

>>10568018
>Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack.
You don't see the irony here?

[Anonymous No.10568409]

>>10568218
>luddite angry at their dying medium

[Anonymous No.10568417]

OP the whole post is wrong and is also shit, but the field of LOGIC came from MATHEMATICS ok?

[Anonymous No.10568431]

>>10568311
I think any student of philosophy knows a certain law when it comes to philosophy
"for every theory there exists an equally sound theory that disagrees with it"
so this leaves alot of philosopher making up their own mind.

like I said in a previous post. Philosophy isn't about finding solutions to answers. Its about refining our questions so we know what solutions to look for.

Philososphy asks a bunch of questions, and science does its best to provide an empirical answer or solution to the problem through engineering.

and science can be accused of the same exact thing.
I mean you go down the philosophy rabbit hole to deep and youre going to find alot of wierd arguments, propositions, variables and terms.
much like science does when you do the "large amounts of energy in small amounts of time" things get really wierd.

Science can only go so far as well.
quit being so narrow minded.

[Anonymous No.10568436]

>>10568417
actually logic started with plato-- i think
existentials
for every x such that ...... was first.
has something to do with venn diagrams.

[Anonymous No.10568456]

>>10568436
>logic started with plato
rather with aristotle

[Anonymous No.10568467]

>>10568456
It actually started with Parmenides

[Anonymous No.10568474]

Philosophy is for people who have unique snowflake syndrome. Let me explain life to you. 'Consciousness' began with simple organisms and these organisms evolved through millions of years until they were able to think about their own consciousness. There's no such thing as the soul, you are simply the result of evolution and your actions are predetermined at an atomic level. The world around you is physical and you perceive it through the senses, also developed through evolution. There's nothing special about you.

You can ask yourself questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "what does it mean to be?" but your answers will be contrived because you're a piece of meat on a rock floating through space, there's no purpose or meaning to your life. Fuck your philosophy at least try to understand the world instead of asking dumbass questions nobody can answer.

[Anonymous No.10568485]

>>10568474
shut up snowflake

[Anonymous No.10568486]

>>10568431
>so this leaves alot of philosopher making up their own mind.
About things that eventually get proved scientifically. Leibniz and Hume spent years arguing about whether things existed outside of the observer, what a fucking waste of time that was.

[Anonymous No.10568491]

>>10568474
your philosophy is called scientism. yes it is philosophy. no it is not science

[Anonymous No.10568492]

>>10568409
You're using that word wrong. Also over 80% of anons in this threads are newfags we havent gotten a single logical positivism meme yet.

ITT: niggers who do not know ANY of the words theyre using lmao

[Anonymous No.10568498]

>>10568474
2012: 4/10 bait
2018: 50/10 bait you go lad

[Anonymous No.10568541]

Try to prove the following proposition empirically : the total energy of the Universe remains constant.

[Anonymous No.10568570]

>>10568486
why do you think this is a waste of time?

and considering what they were talking about in the historical context its not at all suprising, they were at least trying to move the dialogue beyond "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

[Anonymous No.10568590]

ethics, metaphysics, existentialism. besides, still a lot of questions that science cannot answer, Google it.

[Anonymous No.10568654]

>>10568498
Name one thing wrong in that post.
>>10568590
What has philosophy answered that science can't?

[Anonymous No.10568663]

>>10568050
>Your post basically confirmed that the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science.

Not him, but no shit. Philosophy exists to investigate the mysteries of life. If there were a better way to do it, we would do it. Science cannot solve all of our mysteries (currently, and perhaps never, though there is a chance it will be able to in the future). So ALL we have RIGHT NOW, is philosophy. There are no other options.

Or are you suggesting we collectively sit on our haunches and give up our musings because "science will eventually figure it out?"

[Anonymous No.10568684]

>>10568066
>To be fair, you can't use philosophy for this either.
Yes you absolutely can since a large portion of philosophy deals in ethics, morals, and life philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10568685]

>>10567958
>Philosophy is being replaced by science.
Science was only relatively recently delineated from philosophy. It isn't that it is replacing philosophy, but that it has evolved into its own distinct array of fields. Philosophers always tried to predicate their points based on evidence derived from external observations, logic, rationality, etc.

There is no conflict between the two.

[Anonymous No.10568717]

>>10568125
Religion uses specious reasoning, if that.

Art (there's a broad category) can be abstract in a subjective, feeling kind of way, which may not be conducive to "true" insight. On the other hand, it can be meaningful and steeped in philosophy, say as in literature.

Philosophy, in contrast to the latter elements, is structured and logical as relates to the human condition. You're more likely to get well-defined, reasonable answers using it than you would the other two.

[Anonymous No.10568764]

>>10568684
But it won't give you any definitive answers, and it probably never will. Plato is as much of an authority on morality as Ham Sarris, and that's the painful truth.

[Anonymous No.10568778]

>>10568654
Philosophy usually doesn't find definite answers, but science doesn't either. I recommend you read up on the philosophy and history of science. It's probably not as linear as you think.

Furthermore, who would you wager has a more comprehensive answer to this question: Is life inherently meaningless, and if so, what can be done about it?

A theoretical physicist, or an existential philosopher who's life work focuses on this very question?

[Anonymous No.10568785]

>>10568764
Not definitive no, but there are few definite things in life. You can still get meaningful answers that are imbued with the possibility of being false.

[Anonymous No.10568807]

>>10568778
>Philosophy usually doesn't find definite answers, but science doesn't either
As definitive as they need to be.
Science
>''Why does a rock fall to the ground if I drop it?''
>because gravity, son

Philosophy
>''why shouldn't I kill myself?''
>''uhh, well you see... because jesus... or *insert contrived social construct*, and *insert abstraction*, and because it gives bad feels and try putting your hand on a hot stove, it sucks doesn't it? Imagine if everyone did that.

>Furthermore, who would you wager has a more comprehensive answer to this question
The philosopher. Just like a hippie can tell me more about tarot cards and crystals.

[Anonymous No.10568820]

>>10567986
I was thinking about this recently. Both psychology and sociology will always be tied to politics more so than philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10568843]

>>10568486
But not everything can be proven scientifically. For example, consider the argument surrounding determinism and free will-there is no possible way to ensure absolute measurements can be taken for any cause-effect interaction within the universe, and thus we're left making presumptions about how the universe interacts at a base level, and one can choose either to believe in a model of determinism or free will.

Science, in fact, requires one to assume the world is deterministic in nature: that one certain action will definitely cause the same effect.

[Anonymous No.10568847]

>>10568807
If all that matters to you is the cold hard facts, then science is perfectly suitable.

But even the cold hard facts aren't cold hard facts. The history of science is riddled with mistakes as to the foundation of certain "facts" and will probably continue to be so. Like I said, read books like "The Scientific Revolution" by Shapin, and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn to learn more.

>The philosopher. Just like a hippie can tell me more about tarot cards and crystals.

This is terribly reductive and not a very good analogy, which makes me think you probably haven't really studied philosophy in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.10568857]

>>10568843
Also consider your pill example. You assume that the pill will definitely make a depressed person happy- but this doesn't cause the same effect in every depressed person. Science can't always invoke absolutes about how the world works.

[Anonymous No.10568901]

>>10568847
>This is terribly reductive and not a very good analogy, which makes me think you probably haven't really studied philosophy in any meaningful way
How so? What gives Plato greater weight than spirit science?

[Anonymous No.10568926]

>>10568901
You're implying, through that analogy, that philosophy is nothing more than unstructured, formless ideas, based on fanatical traditions and beliefs with no solid logical meaning behind them.

Any good philosophy is based on rationale, knowledge, and logic, very much unlike new-age bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10568951]

>>10568926
My point wasn't that it's always incoherent or invalid. Just that it's filled with unfalsifiable assertions.

[Anonymous No.10568953]

Did you pray to science today, anon?

[Anonymous No.10568975]

>>10568951

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

Of course philosophy is falsifiable. That's why we have so many different opinions and arguments within any given philosophical discipline.

[Anonymous No.10568989]

Scientist here (undergrad in mechanical engineering)

Have fun talking about 2000 year old books and god/the soul/your faith/whatever while I push humanity's knowledge forward

[Anonymous No.10568994]

>>10568989
>enginerds
>scientists
Hahaha

[Anonymous No.10568995]

>>10568989
>Scientist here (undergrad
kek
also i thought they taught them some philosophy of the science in the uni but apparently it's wasted on most of the people

[Anonymous No.10569000]

>Philosophy has no relevance to scie-

[Anonymous No.10569003]

>>10568989
4/10 bait

[Anonymous No.10569005]

>>10568975
Eh, a lot of it is just useless chatter. Consider Plato's theory of the soul. How do we test that? We can't. We can demonstrate the theory of relativity though.

[Anonymous No.10569008]

>>10569005
how could you possibly demonstrate empiricism??

[Anonymous No.10569014]

>>10568764
>But it won't give you any definitive answers, and it probably never will.
Nor will science. The scientific method uses a few assumptions at its base.
The amount of things we can know deductively is extremely small.

[Anonymous No.10569015]

>>10568995
Because STEMfags don't ponder the subjects in those classes
t. STEMfag

[Anonymous No.10569019]

>>10569005

If there's psychics envy; Should we also recognize envy to relevance of things said about the human condition?

[Anonymous No.10569020]

>>10569005
Philosophy exists outside of the ancient Greeks. Their thoughts of course are going to feel antiquated to our modern senses.

But there IS plenty of modern phil that has important implications for today's world. Both regarding the human condition, and our progress toward innovation. Again, I think the Philosophy of Science is extremely relevant here.

[Anonymous No.10569029]

Fuck off, STEMsperg.

[Anonymous No.10569034]

>>10568311
>becuz i sed so
please test my Draino by simulating my shitter pipes with your esophagus.

[Anonymous No.10569036]

>>10568926
>Any good philosophy is based on rationale, knowledge, and logic
Nope. Fuck off, STEMsperg.

[Anonymous No.10569038]

>>10568951
>Just that it's filled with unfalsifiable assertions.
Why is this bad?
Science is filled with far more, in addition to external axioms.

[Anonymous No.10569042]

>>10569036
I majored in philosophy you dumb fuck. I'm arguing FOR philosophy.

Unless, you're trolling me, in which case, well done.

[Anonymous No.10569044]

>>10569019
"the human condition" is that we're all a bunch of senseless chemical reactions that aimlessly evolved from monkeys and before that, fishes.
There is no meaning to the cosmos
There is no "purpose" to life
Human nature is just a collection of evolutionary adaptations
Consciousness is just something mankind made up to feel special
God doesn't exist

See science already solved that problem. You can stop reading now. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10569045]

>>10568684
As I said later on, you can't answer the question any more meaningfully than you can using religion, art, or even science itself:

>Why shouldn't I kill myself?
>Because as far as we can tell, killing yourself puts an end to any person's capability to experience sensations.
>Yeah, but why shouldn't I do that?
>Cue dogmatic break, infinite regress or circular reasoning.

Meanwhile, in philosophy:
>Why shouldn't I kill myself?
>Because, for one thing, pure reason dictates that one ought not to instrumentalise oneself as a means to an end.
>Yeah, but how can I know that pure reason reveals actual truth, and even if so, *why* should I care at all about its imperatives?
>Cue dogmatic break, infinite regress or circular reasoning.


I guess my point is, get fucked with your oughtistic shit.

[Anonymous No.10569053]

>>10569045
>le regress argument meme

[Anonymous No.10569055]

>>10569014
Science will tell me why it rains, why volcanoes erupt, or the effects of cyanide on the human body.

Philosophyfags will ask me how I know that I know that I know that I know etc. Ad infinitum.

There's a reason why one is valued over the other. Why STEMfags are considered heroes and philfags no longer are. Because pointless navel gazing and aggressive autism about semantics doesn't accomplish shit.

inb4 pointless is a value judgment

[Anonymous No.10569060]

>>10569053
>le le le elelelele
Good point.

[Anonymous No.10569061]

>>10569045
>I guess my point is, get fucked with your oughtistic shit.

Indeed, Have fun living your life in ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10569067]

>>10569044
Wow ur so deep

[Anonymous No.10569068]

>>10569061
When you're done with the vapid posturing, you're more than welcome to address my point.

[Anonymous No.10569070]

>>10569055
you haven't read much philosophy, have you?

[Anonymous No.10569069]

>>10569042
You're arguing for STEMsperged philosophy. You majored in bad philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10569071]

>>10569055
It doesn't tell you that.
Stop trolling, we all know that you're just upset that you failed philosophy 101.

[Anonymous No.10569074]

>>10569069
>bad philosophy
lol like r/badphilosophy! I recognized this reference, fellow redditor!!

haha, when does the narwhal bacon?

[Anonymous No.10569080]

>>10569068
Nah, I'm good. I have more important things to do than to try to convince you of the value of philosophy when you're clearly not going to listen.

[Anonymous No.10569081]

>>10569008
How do you demonstrate the effects of me pissing in your mouth?

[Anonymous No.10569083]

>>10569074
Just look at what this board has become.

[Anonymous No.10569085]

>>10569069
wtf are you talking about you urchin

[Anonymous No.10569086]

>It's a hail scientism thread

[Anonymous No.10569091]

>>10569086
>113 replies
wow what a surpise

[Anonymous No.10569099]

>>10569086
LOL

[Anonymous No.10569104]

>>10569080
You evidently didn't read my earlier post where I said that I wasn't arguing against the "value of philosophy". I simply dislike people like you who frame philosophy as a "Value Machine" when attempting to defend it. We have no means of determining definitive Oughts, not in science, not in philosophy, not in any field. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.10569107]

>>10569034
Not an argument.

>>10569038
Need an ontological floor of some sort, axioms from which to proceed. After that, we look at the results. Can science explain and predict natural phenomena? If yes, then what is it you're hoping to achieve with this post?

In ethics, it's more about desperatily trying to justify our feefees post hoc, anchor them to something greater to us to provide meaning, comfort yada yada.

[Anonymous No.10569110]

>>10568663
You could try to advance science instead of arguing about its limitations.

[Anonymous No.10569111]

>>10569107
>Can science explain and predict natural phenomena?
predict: yes
explain: no
next...

[Anonymous No.10569114]

>Why? He doesn't care how the tides work, tell him why they work. Why is the moon at the right distance to provide a gentle tide, and exert a stabilizing effect on earth's axis of rotation, thus protecting life here? Why does gravity work the way it does? Why does anything at all exist rather than not exist? O'Reilly is correct that these questions can only be addressed by mythmaking, religion or philosophy, not by science.

[Anonymous No.10569115]

>>10569086
>Someone disagreed with my harebrained conception of philosophy; this must be that scientism Buzzfeed was talking about

[Anonymous No.10569117]

>>10569107
>In ethics, it's more about desperatily trying to justify our feefees post hoc
not really no but okay

[Anonymous No.10569120]

>>10569053
Not an argument.
>>10569070
Tell me why I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.10569126]

>>10569117
THEN FUCKING FORMULATE A COUNTER ARGUMENT, YOU GARBAGE HUMAN

[Anonymous No.10569128]

>>10567958
Science is philosophy. Science should still be considered a form of philosophy.
It is dependent upon a patron class, be they the taxpayers or rich individuals. It is dependent upon people with high levels of specialized education. It is dependent upon funding. It is dependent upon economic philosophies. It is dependent upon a society willing to host it.

That being said it is highly effective at getting specific answers. Too bad many scientists are brainlets who decry philosophy while unknowingly depending on it.

We must put an end to the STEM/Humanities false dichotomy

[Anonymous No.10569131]

>>10569120
uh name a philosopher that actually pulled out the "you can't know anything you can't even know that you know anything" completely unironically

Pyrrho and Descartes don't count because this isn't what they were doing.

[Anonymous No.10569133]

>>10568857
This is probably the worst post in the thread.
>You assume that the pill will definitely make a depressed person happy
No I don't. We know about side effects and success rates. Just because the medicine don't work 100% doesn't it's science's fault, it's our fault for developing bad medicine.

>Science can't always invoke absolutes about how the world works.
And how does philosophy improve on this?

[Anonymous No.10569134]

>>10569128
>We must put an end to the STEM/Humanities false dichotomy
It's not like this didn't form naturally.

[Anonymous No.10569137]

>>10569126
how can I argue against a non-argument?

Anyways, there's tons of non-moral "ought" statements that we'd accept. Prudence, epistemic norms, etc. Denying these would be absurd and self-defeating. There's no clear distinction, in my opinion, between those and morality. Therefore we should accept moral statements.

[Anonymous No.10569139]

>>10569117
It is though. Morality is just a social construct, based on intuitions that grew out of evolution.

[Anonymous No.10569141]

>>10569134
yes obviously Gottlob Frege just wrote a bunch of random shit on his feelings and had no further influence in mathematics, computer science and the like

[Anonymous No.10569143]

>>10569139
Morality is just the answer to the question "what ought we do". Seems like something you could answer objectively.

[Anonymous No.10569145]

>>10569139
maybe trivially.

Anyways by your logic I can say that all your beliefs are just social constructs based on evolutionary intuition and then you're going to have to turn to God and Alvin Plantinga to save yourself

[Anonymous No.10569146]

>>10569143
What we ought to do depends on what you want to achieve, and that's all subjective.

[Anonymous No.10569147]

>>10567988
Science is geared towards answering "How" questions not "Why" questions.

For "Who," "What," "When" and "Where" questions we are still, as a species, highly dependent upon our host society's power hierarchies, which are political nightmares, more often than not. Science is also dependent upon social hierarchy and arbitrary symbolic resolution of physiological phenomena. There's a reason we use sanskrit numerals instead of Roman numerals, for instance, but that doesn't mean Sanskrit numerals are necessarily the best or the most clear way to do math. We use Newton's conventions of notation in calculus, even though they are difficult to type in word processors, and so forth. Science is incredibly culturally entrenched and only big dummies imagine otherwise. Our tonal musical notation is based less on the raw pitch of actual sounds and more on the liturgical conventions of medieval monks who dug pythagoras a little too much.

[Anonymous No.10569155]

>>10569134
Things form naturally, yes, but it is not as though they are our best option, and better options eventually form naturally, too. Our musical notation formed naturally, but so did our vibrational understanding of pitch later on, once the tuning fork was invented. Read the Relativity of Wrong by Asimov.

[Anonymous No.10569159]

>>10569128
>semantics
I think you know full well what we're talking about. It's not about whether something is labelled scientific or philosophical, but the method by which we arrive at conclusions. In science, we observe, measure, analyse, and predict. In philosophy, we sit in a room and theorise. The latter is something that should be reserved for questions like "how do I know something exists?" but philosophy students genuinely think we can figure out the world that way. No, it's just introspection, you won't achieve anything worthwhile that way, just produce another worthless opinion.

[Anonymous No.10569163]

>>10569146
What we ought to do = what we want to achieve?

That doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.10569167]

>>10569137
The idea of morality can serve a purpose, but it's not something we can know like why the tide comes in and goes out. If the purpose of morality is just to ensure a well-organized society, you might as well let mathematicians do it.

[Anonymous No.10569168]

science
>inductive
Math
>fucking incomplete

need better b8 m8, not gr8, 0/8

[Anonymous No.10569171]

>>10569146
I really, really, REALLY hate when people use the words "objective" and "subjective." I've never heard a clear definition for them. More often then not, when people use the word "objective" it means "my opinions" and literally nothing else.

There's also no reason why morality can't depend in some sense on what you want to achieve (it's part of how can't built his system). Ethics isn't just about thinking the ten commandments back into existence, maybe you would realize this if you read every once in a while.

[Anonymous No.10569174]

>>10569145
Not interested in saving myself. I readily admit life is chaotic and meaningless.
>>10569163
Fair enough, that doesn't encompass all conceptions of morality. Point is it's still as subjective as what the best ice cream flavour is.

[Anonymous No.10569175]

>>10569167
yeah but what do you mean by a "well-organized society??" That's a pretty substantial ethical question right there and you haven't put any thought into it.

Jesus christ any time these nerds talk about how science can "solve" philosophy, their argument is "well let's just imagine my particular philosophical position is the undisputed truth for some reason and then science can pick up from there"

[Anonymous No.10569178]

>>10569174
>Point is it's still as subjective as what the best ice cream flavour is.
tell me exactly what the fuck you mean by subjective and then we'll go from there

[Anonymous No.10569180]

>>10569167
Already exists. It's called utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.10569194]

Can a philosophy person explain this shit. In ancient Greece they opened eggs at different periods before hatching to figure out how chicks grew. Once they figured it out, they no longer had to philosophise, they'd just invented biology. Then they started fucking around with numbers, and math became a thing. Little by little people didn't have to figure things out by debating with other people, we found actual proof. What reason do you have to believe that we won't find evidence for other questions that currently belong in philosophy? Can your simple mind not comprehend that generations after ours will be more intelligent than us?

[Anonymous No.10569203]

>>10569137
>"ought" statements that we'd accept.
What do you mean "we'd accept"? The issue is one of *justification*, not of popular acceptance or even of (practical) necessity. Yes, we accept and act in accordance with a wide variety of "oughts", even moral ones, but that doesn't justify them, nor does it make any attempted justification, be it, for example, religious or philosophical, superior to the other.

>There's no clear distinction, in my opinion, between those and morality.
Haven't considered this, but I'd intuitively agree.

>Therefore we should accept moral statements.
Again, this was never about whether we should or shouldn't *accept* anything, but about whether or not philosophy can produce definitively bivalent moral propositions.

It can not. Nothing can. Stop selling philosophy as the "Morals Assembly Line".

[Anonymous No.10569205]

>>10569044
And the ideas dismissed here aren't evolutionary adaptations?

>There is no speech, only sounds

[Anonymous No.10569208]

>>10569174
That's called moral relativism, a philosophy.

The best ice cream taste is the ice cream taste that fulfills the purpose of ice cream tastes the best. This is becuase the quality of being an ice cream taste can only be judge by the reason for it being an ice cream taste, which is known is pleasing humans. The best ice cream taste is thus the ice cream taste that pleases the most humans as that is the purpose of being an ice cream taste.

That seems pretty objective.

[Anonymous No.10569210]

>>10569143
>Seems like something you could answer objectively.
Yes, that's a very wrong assumption. Read more... anything, really.

[Anonymous No.10569214]

>>10568492
dis. just superficially scrolling thru i see people using "argument" alot lol

[Anonymous No.10569215]

>>10567958
If philosophy was useful companies and shit would be fighting over Phil majors. As it stands it's a circlejerk of well read DUDE WEED LMAO faggots who pine for the long gone relevance of the field and are endlessly butthurt by the fact that no one serious gives a shit about them.

[Anonymous No.10569218]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ

[Anonymous No.10569219]

>>10569159
>I think you know full well what we're talking about.
I'm not engaging in semantics, btw. I'm just talking about the way society is currently structured, as opposed to the way it maybe ought to be structured. I am not some Theist brainlet trying to refute "scientism" or anything, just a person pointing out that the performance of science is dependent upon a politically welcoming environment, which is both difficult to form and maintain, and cannot be formed and maintained through analytical philsophy alone. As long as people play power games it doesn't matter who is logically right. There has to be dickheads willing to make ideological power plays independent of scientific thought in order to even create a society/environment where science can be funded and scientists can be trained. Science does not happen in a vacuum is all I am saying. I am pointing out that science has not yet accumulated enough political power, and the general population is not yet scientifically literate enough that for science to be the sole way we make important decisions, EVEN IF THAT SHOULD BE THE CASE.

>In science, we observe, measure, analyse, and predict.
Correct.
>In philosophy, we sit in a room and theorise.
A rhetorical oversimplification.
Science is a philosophy.
Some people sat down in a room and theorized that we ought to arrive at our conclusions only once we have "observed, measured, analysed, and predicted." Incidentally those people were logically correct, however reality imposes upon us time constraints, political threats, disease, bad weather, and innumerable other variables that actually make it difficult to perform science in a timely fashion. Science does not say what we should do or when, it only says how we ought to arrive at material truths. Science can discover a piece of information not previously known, but what the economic and political elites who funded the science decide to do with that information is wholly independent of the scientific process itself. Science is an EMPIRICAL PHILSOPHY which means it only decides HOW we gather knowledge, not WHY. WHY is still an incredibly important question that drives everything. Like "Why bother doing science at all?" Why is the ideological fuel that drives human behavior. The answer is obviously to educate ourselves about the surrounding world and increase our standard of living, but people do not arrive at the idea that this is a good or useful thing to do without some heavy philosophical imprinting that is independent of the scientific method. For this you need economic hierarchies, systems of pedagogy, and a source of revenue to make it keep working. The fact that I receive so much resistance to this simple idea astounds me.

[Anonymous No.10569224]

>>10569174
>Point is it's still as subjective as what the best ice cream flavour is.
maybe there's no definitive answer to what the best ice cream flavor is

but I think we can agree that "bat feces fudge," "nail gelatto," and "tide pod mint" ice cream are not the best

[Anonymous No.10569233]

>>10569203
>Stop selling philosophy as the "Morals Assembly Line".
I agree on this part, I'm not the one doing this.

But I don't think that being able to produce "definitive answers," in the Cartesian sense, is a possibility anywhere else in philosophy too. I don't think it's a possibility anywhere, either. Doesn't mean that subjects are not exploring

[Anonymous No.10569237]

>>10569215
>philosophy
>companies
im embarassed for you anon

[Anonymous No.10569240]

>>10569215
a ton of CEO's, investors, judges, entrepreneurs and politicians were philosophy majors

[Anonymous No.10569243]

>>10569219
dont take the bait this hard anon. Just call him a nigger and refer him to logical positivism.

[Anonymous No.10569246]

>>10569237
Enjoy unemployment cocksuck. You are utterly useless

[Anonymous No.10569248]

>>10569171
>Ethics isn't just about thinking the ten commandments back into existence, maybe you would realize this if you read every once in a while.
I didn't argue that. Stop straw manning.
>>10569175
The particulars of that is actually not important, as I'm not positing one system of ethics as being superior to another. Just saying that if you justify accepting moral statements out of convenience, then the field of ethics as such is superfluous.
>>10569178
Use a dictionary. Another good word is arbitrary, even if they're not synonymous.

[Anonymous No.10569252]

>>10569246
Life is far too short to adopt this narrow mindset you have desu.

[Anonymous No.10569255]

>>10569248
>arguing with philfags

The always manage to muddle it into some bullshit about semantics, because that's what it has always been: I am le very smart gentlemen arguing about semantics.

[Anonymous No.10569262]

>>10569248
>Use a dictionary. Another good word is arbitrary, even if they're not synonymous.
Bro. I "know" what subjective means intuitively, but I can't come up with a clear enough definition that would warrant dismissing an entire field as "subjective."

>Just saying that if you justify accepting moral statements out of convenience
dude justification lmao. Foundationalist nonsense really needs to die.

[Anonymous No.10569264]

>>10569255
>"semantics"
Again, i reiterate, no one in this whole thread knows ANY OF THE WORDS THEYRE USING LOL

[Anonymous No.10569266]

>>10569255
take the Wittgensteinpill and you'll realize that all of human discourse is about semantics

[Anonymous No.10569268]

>>10569208
>the best ice cream is the best ice cream

[Anonymous No.10569272]

>>10569268
well i'm glad we settled that one!

Science: 2349823792
Philosophy: 1 (praise Sam Harris)

[Anonymous No.10569274]

>>10569133
>No I don't. We know about side effects and success rates. Just because the medicine don't work 100% doesn't it's science's fault, it's our fault for developing bad medicine.
Fair enough. Admittedly, we don't really know enough about neurology yet to make fail-safe medicine.

>and how does philosophy improve on this?
It doesn't. But philosophy acknowledges, at least, that these absolutes aren't present, so we are able to further understand the world by correcting our mistakes in observation. This is actually the philosophy that science is based off of-we make constant observations of the universe, and correct incorrect observations. At the same time, we assume cause-effect relationships while we move forward in our observations. Just keep this in mind: science is based off of a deterministic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10569281]

>>10569086

Dawkins and Nye aren't that bad in that pic. Krauss is definitely an autistic megafaggot, Tyson just seems confused but very sure in himself, a combination I find endearing in him specifically. Probably has something to do with the fact that he looks like a bit like a teddy bear baked out of his mind.

[Anonymous No.10569302]

>>10568409
>stemfag doesn't know how to read
Epic

[Anonymous No.10569303]

ITT: Faggots who have absolutely no clue about the history of philosophy (in the sense of the subtopic itself), praxis, or Kant.

Like nah dude the last 4000+ years of thought or whatever has all been a vain effort to like "uncover truths" (whatever that means certaintly thats what all this thinking is about) lmao

[Anonymous No.10569307]

>>10569262
Subjective in the way ice cream flavours are. ''Stealing is wrong'' is the same as ''chocolate tastes good.''

[Anonymous No.10569317]

>>10569307
explain yourself. Like I said, I "understand" what you mean intuitively, but beyond my intuition I can't make any sense of a word you're saying. You're going to have to do better if you want to make an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.10569320]

>>10569243
No
I'm turned on by my own hyper sincerity and ineffectual rambling

[Anonymous No.10569336]

>>10569107
>Need an ontological floor of some sort, axioms from which to proceed. After that, we look at the results
Why? Because you said so?

[Anonymous No.10569339]

>>10569128
Fuck off, STEMsperg

[Anonymous No.10569341]

>>10568764

That is the one of the largest and biggest missconceptions of philosophy and religion.

While natural sciences are supposed to give finite answers because they are researching particular things religion would for example sketch a map for you on the questions what am i doing and why, for how long and when.

Roughly speaking, religion and philosophical truths are revealing layers of metamap of life in this form:

1.Does what are you doing right is meaningful for you?
2. Will the consequences benefit you?
(if not go to first step again)
3. If yes, next layer is does it benefit your family now?
4. Will it benefit you for and your family for 5 hours, 5 days, 3 years?
(if not go back to step one)
5. If it does benefit you family and you then you are ready to find and do things that will benefit you, your family and your society.

On the other hand if we were to discover all possible truths of all natural sciences you wouldn't have an answer on any single life problems/questions. Not even close.

[Anonymous No.10569342]

>>10569139
Evolution doesn't happen. Fuck off, STEMsperg.

[Anonymous No.10569350]

If the scientific method is just one epistemic method out of infinitely many, and science is merely a subset of philosophy, then why do non-scientist philosophers completely evacuate any field that scientists are directly involved with? Surely they have a lot to contribute? Philosophy is more than just science.

So for example, philosophers love talking about the brain and consciousness but they are suspiciously quiet about how cars work. Why is this? Why isn't the Harvard faculty trying to work it out, when cars are such an important part of our society? The engineering / scientific school has merely done it through the scientific method yet there are still so many more methods to be used!

It seems the main function of philosophers is to spin ever more elaborate and unfalsifiable chains of reasoning about subject areas that haven't yet been colonised by scientists or mathematicians and desecrated with maths at a higher than secondary school level. But that's just my ignorant cynicism, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.10569351]

>>10569341
>1.Does what are you doing right is meaningful for you?
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10569356]

>>10569215
This is what cappies actually think
Fuck off, STEMsperg.

[Anonymous No.10569357]

>strawman: the thread
Why can't mods do their job for once?
At least post a sexy woman when making a shitty thread instead of that sub-human

[Anonymous No.10569364]

>>10569350
Fuck off, STEMsperg.

[Anonymous No.10569370]

>I hate philosophy because I don't understand it
>I hate STEM because I'm too dumb to get a useful degree
Pick one. Or two.

[Anonymous No.10569372]

>>10569357
Fine

[Anonymous No.10569383]

>>10569372
angela white is top tier.

[Anonymous No.10569385]

>>10569370
People don't hate philosophy, they just have disdain for it.

[Anonymous No.10569388]

>>10569194
>In ancient Greece they opened eggs at different periods before hatching to figure out how chicks grew
Because they discussed amongst themselves what could be a suitable method to study what would later be called embryology. Now we need embryology as well as genetics and proteomics and biochemistry today, because the answer to the question: "How do chicks grow?" wasn't given to ye olden Greeks. The Greeks were wrong, they didn't figure that one out. Had they accomplished such a feat we'd still be using and teaching this "embryology" of the Greeks, let us take a moment to bless the Great Fedora that we have better philosophers of science than you, otherwise we'd be stuck with Aristotle. By the way, the answer wasn't given to us either, as all we could ever claim to have are provisional answers
>they no longer had to philosophise, they'd just invented biology
The philosophy of biology has only become more complex since them
>Then they started fucking around with numbers, and math became a thing
So did the philosophy of mathematics
>people didn't have to figure things out by debating with other people
No, what we get is never-ending arguing over the method, see replication crisis, we need to argue how to figure things out, more
>we found actual proof
Evidence and proof are two different things
>What reason do you have to believe that we won't find evidence for other questions that currently belong in philosophy?
Because the number of questions does nothing but increase with scientific and technological progress, as entire new fields of philosophy, such as neurophilosophy and the philosophy of information, appear. That is because new discoveries increase the specialization of philosophers and curiosity in human beings, and exciting new ways of doing philosophy come to us - with the exception of science theologians such as you, that fool themselves into thinking they can find or found a special kind of knowledge not subject to revision

[Anonymous No.10569398]

>>10568125
>what is logic

[Anonymous No.10569400]

>>10569317
Your intuition is enough in this case. There's no difference between saying what we ought to do and what ice cream flavour we ought to buy. Though I think the former is more arbitrary, since ice cream flavours are real and not just an abstraction.

>10569336
All of us have said so. By trusting that science can reliably tell us something about the world you implicitly accept its axioms. Unless it's all just a simulation yada yada.

>>10569342
What do you mean by that?

>>10569357
Here.

[Anonymous No.10569403]

>>10569339
STEMspergs tell me to fuckoff and brainlet theists tell me to fuck off.

Both seem to hate the idea of science being philosophy for some reason.

[Anonymous No.10569406]

>>10569342
Educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.10569449]

>>10569115
I bud my bepis in a bapingo :-DDDD