/lit/ - Literature

[Dorkulus No.16620245]

John Locke
>Philosophy is the handmaiden of science

Stephen Hawking:
>...philosophy is dead...Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.

How cucked is analytic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16620256]

>>16620245
>How cucked is analytic philosophy?

By a man in a wheelchair who likes abusive femdom and has no scholarly capacity to comment?

About as "cucked" as the working class are by a pathetic linguist who can't think coherently about praxis.

[Anonymous No.16620259]

>Philosophy is dead
>expected to believe in the existence of invisible "dark" matter which makes up 80% of the universe as mental gymnastics so some wheelchair cucks equations work

[Anonymous No.16620267]

>>16620245
Scientists tend to overestimate how much they actually know. In reality their expertise doesn't go beyond whatever their PhD dissertation was about, you can pretty much disregard anything they say outside of that.

[Dorkulus No.16620313]

>>16620267
I think you're missing the point. It's not that scientists know philosophy, its that modern philosophers pretend to somehow assist science, even though oftentimes their ideas are inapplicable.

[Anonymous No.16620321]

>>16620259
>believe in dark matter

[Anonymous No.16620330]

>>16620313
Vast majority of modern philosophers don't give a shit about science and are working on problems that are unrelated to science. Even philosophers of science are more concerned with the scientific method itself and epistemological problems rather than actually contributing to some particular field of science.

[Anonymous No.16620333]

>>16620259
I once read a very long Reddit post(no really) that convinced me that dark matter actually does make sense, but for the life of me I can't remember what the arguments were and have no idea how to find the post. I have always thought it was a giant cope too but this post was so persuasive. Maybe some /sci/ anon can tell us how it works

[Dorkulus No.16620348]

>>16620330
Name ONE modern philosopher

[Anonymous No.16620353]

>>16620313
Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, <spoiler>Feyerabend.</spoiler>

[Anonymous No.16620361]

>>16620245
>that """neuroscientist""" youtube guy that/pol/ used to like and is obsessed with retarded genetic reductionism that always brags about how he has a PhD
>literally thinks Idealism is Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum
>literally misunderstood something as simple as Chalmers' p-zombie argument
People need to realize that most of these specialized scientists believe what they believe, not because of the things they know, but rather because of the things they don't know. They are handed a ready-made metaphysics which affirms them to be the ultimate authority and so of course they just uncritically run with it.
You get the rare cases of physicists (mathematicians are much better at this) who are actually philosophically competent, but then they usually end up like Wolfgang Smith and start throwing out such ridiculous claims that I begin to suspect they are on the CIA payrole in order to discredit any legitimate dissenters of mainstream scientific consensus.

[Dorkulus No.16620363]

>>16620353
you LITERALLY put Karl "The Zit" Popper in your list, a man KNOWn for FELATTING the corpus of scientific thought?

[Anonymous No.16620367]

>>16620245

Hawking's criticism is so disconnected from reality that practically every philosopher on earth correctly just ignored him.

[Anonymous No.16620370]

>>16620330
kinda this desu. They are kinda seperate feilds that dont impact each other much. as Science kinda just uses the basic emperical logic for probabilities and concrete goal oriented tasks or measurement and consolidation, while philosophy tends to be more reflective topics like you said. Like what should we do (ethics) how to interpretate data into meaning, and basic logic.

[Anonymous No.16620372]

>>16620348
Saul Kripke

[Anonymous No.16620374]

>>16620313

The funny thing is that most scientists have a pretty rudimentary grasp of the philosophy of science, adhere to some shit they learned when they were 19 and in full on /lit-mode. If you look at big important scientists though they tend to be more sensitive to the issues.

[Anonymous No.16620376]

>>16620348
N Sinhababu https://philpapers.org/archive/sinpg

[Anonymous No.16620383]

>>16620363
Yes, because it is a HPS/STS list, and Popper is seminal in the field. Notice how the list involves the sublation of prior antagonisms? Almost as if K

[Anonymous No.16620391]

>>16620374
>If you look at big important scientists though they tend to be more sensitive to the issues.
Depends on how far back you go. Feynman, for example, was a philistine, but he lived in a time where the only things getting funding were areas that could yield practical results.

[Dorkulus No.16620400]

>>16620383
what is HPS/STS? Sounds like some anglo shit

[Anonymous No.16620445]

>>16620400
History and Philosophy of Science / Science and Technology Studies. The major names the discipline of humanities and social science analysis of science as a human practice has been conducted under.

If you're going to piss in the pool, you might want to read the seminal texts first. Particularly in the order I listed them in terms of philosophy of science, so when you get to Feyerabend's against method and start examining the actual sociology of science as practiced you don't parrot shite in public.

[Anonymous No.16620456]

>>16620259
Dark matter is the phlogiston of the modern age

[Dorkulus No.16620530]

>>16620445
I'm not really extremely interested in philosophy of science because I'm currently taking a class on a archaeology, which heavily employs both and makes the idea of studying one for the purpose of understanding the other seem misguided. It appears that a method of thought that necessarily excludes itself from its subject matter must not be very useful to it, whereas one that doesn't care if its employed in one way or not cannot be criticized for its use in any case.

[Anonymous No.16621721]

>>16620259
Nice anon, fuck those scientism retard.