[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 220x311, Richard_Feynman_Nobel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13514344 No.13514344 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ here, what is the point of philosophy? it all seems like a bunch of unfalsifiable opinions that philosophers pulled out of thin air and each one of them contradicting each other while in Science/Maths it's a huge collaboration effort based on hard facts working off each other. Are there any philosophers at all that worked off an objective base like numbers?
Not trying to be offensive to liberal arts students here, just trying to understand the point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

>> No.13514362

>>13514344
"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else". - Erwin Schrödinger

"The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things". - Werner Heisenberg

Take the words of your scientists and fuck off

>> No.13514364

Based, and you are unironically right. Philosophy is a waste of time.

>> No.13514365

>>13514364
Physics and mathematics would not even exist without philosophy retard

>> No.13514369

>>13514344
A lot of philosophy is responses to other philosophers or their work so I'm not sure where you're getting the anti-collaboration charge.

Philosophy gives you tools to understand how individuals and societies function, in the broadest sense. Having a good grasp of philosophy is essential for a scientist because it gives you a framework from which to interrogate your experimental data and hypothoses.

>> No.13514371
File: 359 KB, 1920x1231, Bayes' Theorem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13514371

>>13514344
>implying epistemology isn't required for science to make any sense

>> No.13514372

>>13514362
>I worship a group of people and take everything they say without looking at it critically so everyone else must too
Spotted the /lit/izen.

>> No.13514383

math is a descriptive language, and therefore does not explain how something works.
science is a process of obtaining repeatable results under certain constraints, and does not explain how something works either.

philosophy is higher than both of them, because if it is done correctly, it will accurately explain how something works, which is more difficult and more necessary than being able to repeat the same thing over and over, or use mathematics to get to a "correct" answer.

what you're looking for is observable results that come from science and math, but it's ironic that you post feynman. his dumb little particles have never been the input or output of any real experiment in history, and only exist to make things like the magical photon equation work. you might as well say that each photon is actually a tiny unicorn with the same properties as what we know now, and you'd still be just as correct

>> No.13514385

>>13514365
It would most definitely exist without 99% of the philosophy. Philosophy has changed in the last 2000 years, you know?

>> No.13514397
File: 133 KB, 258x258, the world.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13514397

>>13514344
>it all seems like a bunch of unfalsifiable opinions that philosophers pulled out of thin air and each one of them contradicting each other while in Science/Maths it's a huge collaboration effort based on hard facts working off each other.

>> No.13514407

>>13514344
You use the word "unfalsifiable" in your post, OP.

The concept of falsifiability was introduced by the philosopher Karl Popper: opper, Karl (1989). "Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]". In Seiffert, H.; Radnitzky, G. (eds.). Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie [Dictionary of epistemology] (in German) (1992 ed.). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. ISBN 3-423-04586-8.

There you go.

>> No.13514416

>>13514365
science is science is science. it doesn't need philosophy to exist.

>> No.13514427

>>13514407
this, whether you think it's directly applicable or not it had lots of influence seeped into our world.

>> No.13514458

>>13514416
Prove it.

>> No.13514471

>>13514365
Mathematics is older than philosophy. They were already nonphilosopher mathematicians in ancient Greece.
The epirical sciences are an offshoot of philosohy however.

>>13514369
The dynamic is not the same at all. Scientists write most of their stuff together and try to reach consensus. Philosophers spend a lot of their time one-upping each others and true collaboration (books written by several authors) are pretty rare.

>> No.13514530

>>13514344
You will understand the point once you start paying close attention to how a scientists speaks about society and politics and how a social and political theorist speaks about it.

So my answer is, read more.

>> No.13514549

>>13514344
>Assumes popperian epistemology
>Has political opinion which are based on ethics
>"Philosophy is gay bro lol"
Okay buddy

>> No.13514553

back to your containment board

>> No.13514656

Science can never in a million years define what it means to be a decent human being.

Philosophy can, or at least it tries to.

>> No.13514698

>>13514344
If you don’t yet realize that the scientific method itself cannot consistently be verified by empirical means you have a very naïve epistemology indeed

>> No.13514723

>>13514656
and yet somehow most of the people on this board are cunts

>> No.13514777

>>13514723
That's why we spend so much time reading philosophy

>> No.13514836

>>13514371
Bro true shit is just true

>> No.13515533

>>13514344
>unfalsifiable
you wouldn't have this term at your disposal if it weren't for philosophers of science.

>> No.13515790

>>13514344
> I'm gonna disprove philosophy and reveal it to be just a bunch of unfalsifiable nonsense by sticking to hard scientific facts. What? The questions of what philosophy is and what its purpose might be, as well as the questions of how can we know what is true as well, is a philosophical one? lol, BTFO.

Tell me anon, have you read the Greeks?