philosophically speaking they're all faggots

I'm a STEMcel and I got alot out of the philosophy of science/engineering and social issues of engineering classes. Even though I had some disagreements with some of the written works presented in the course it was clear to me that the lecturer had some valuable insights and I didn't appreciate the horse blinders knee jerk elitist rejection that many other students seemed to have.

File: 1714167622045.jpg (15 KB, 306x306)

15 KB JPG

>philosophy class
>the professor rejects dualism and preaches materialism

Empirically prove that you're conscious or shut up and listen.

>>16147425
>look at this problem science can't solve
>no, philosophy can't solve it either
>but somehow that makes philosophy valid and important
What's the name of this fallacy?

>>16147354
The only good philosopher of science is one that effectively is also a scientist. Same with math.

>>16147433
>completely misses the point
Science is an answer to ''how do we know''. Philosophy teaches to ask the question and develop an answer yourself. Otherwise NPC's like you will spend their entire lives like a factory worker just inputting data on the conveyer belt of a prescribed method.

>>16147433
>look at this phenomenon that is obviously true philosophically but cant be proved using scientific epistemological methods

>hurr actually its not provable at all because im simply defining all knowledge as empirical knowledge
>therefore philosophy is useless because i defined it that way

im surprised your strand of thought still exists

>>16147425
This is exactly why everyone other than philosophers views philosophy as a worthless endeavor. Congratulations on another millennial of playing yourselves.

>>16147514
Avoiding what exactly?

Your specific skintone?

STEM students are literally midwits.

>>16147518
Midwits that can actually get jobs after they graduate

>>16147547
its true pure philosophy students have less job options than pure engineering students in an academic sense, but you're missing the point. Having philosophical knowledge makes it alot easier to understand people, society, and how the world works. Someone going into trades that has very good philosophical knowledge will 100% be more successful then a stembug engineer degree with zero percent philosophical knowledge.

>>16147509
>obviously true philosophically
i.e. you can't prove it either but you want to hand-wave it away with wordgames and stoner logic and pretend you're just as smart as the scientists anyway.

>>16147566
>smart as the scientists
scientists aren't smarter then any other demographic that deals with technical knowledge. I've seen car mechanics that know more about how a car works then scientists know about their respective field.

>you can't prove it either
that's just you playing word games with the word "prove". I can "prove" 2+2 = 4, but you changing the meaning of the symbol "2" doesn't mean anything about the actual intuition I have.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people have a strong intuition that other people are conscious and for various reasons we can know they are conscious because this intuition is reliable for knowledge.

You claim that the epistemological status of other people having conscious feelings is in the same bracket as not knowing if the Rieman hypothesis is true or other certain galaxies exist is silly.

>>16147509
>definition
Philosophy has no definitions or rigor, it's just bla bla bla blabbering. On par with complete meme "study objects" like theology or gender hot-topic political nonsense. That's why no progress is ever made there, because no one even knows what good philosophy is supposed to look like.

>>16147482
You sound like you have absolutely no idea what people in STEM classes actually do.

>>16147560
>*gives you the illusion that you understand people, society and how the world words a lot easier

Every scientist acts as a philosopher as soon as he attempts to interpret results, construct claims about the natural world, or make suggestions on any of the issues of metaphysics. Philosophy is the glue that holds all knowledge together. It's wisdom, the combination of intelligence and experience. STEM students who don't understand this are like fish who don't know what water is.

Friendly reminder that Philosophy is the #3 undergrad major for doctors.

>>16147609
To be honest, I think you're mixing up the academic aspect of science/philosophy, with Science/philosophy itself.

Science at its core is basically understanding the physical universe, while philosophy is just the systematic study of the fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, life etc. You seem to be very concerned with degrees and jobs so I think your critiques are more so targeted at university systems then actual Philosophy.

>>16147640
>while philosophy is just the systematic study of the fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, life etc
So brief on the progress which has been made in the last let's say 2500 years, so I grant you Aristotle and the Greeks.

>>16147609
Every time somebody tries to cage philosophy with some line of rigor, contradictions are found and extensive criticism is levied.
The same goes for science. I think it would be a stretch to say that science has "one" singular rigorous approach, it's just that the claims of science are (usually) falsifiable and pragmatic so it's not necessary.

>>16147654
The concept of Truth, Materialism, Platonism, Idealism, Atheism, The vast majority of religious beliefs that people believe today were first formulated by philosophers, The scientific method, The modern concept of a republic, Marxism, determinism, dialectical materialism, judicial law, laws of logic, branches of government, the list goes on

the reason it seems so all over the place and gives you anxiety is because these are the fundamental ideas that we are forced to grapple with.

>>16147654
define "progress"

>>16147663
>Every time somebody tries to cage philosophy with some line of rigor, contradictions are found and extensive criticism is levied.
Nothing ever comes off it.
>it's just that the claims of science are (usually) falsifiable and pragmatic so it's not necessary.
Exactly.
>I think it would be a stretch to say that science has "one" singular rigorous approach
Agreed. Even though it's by far more rigorous than philosophy is.

>>16147685
People figured those out on their own.

>>16147687
Solving problems in the field.

>>16147704
We're concerned with more than just the immediately falsifiable and pragmatic. To even know what claims to make in the first place is philosophy. To interpret and derive meaning from the findings of empirical processes is philosophy. Without philosophy we'd be going in circles. It's very subtle and profound. Philosophy is rigorous because you have to navigate the fuzziness of being a human being. The foundationalism and reductionism that come with cliche "rigor" are insufficient

>>16147717
>We're concerned with more than just the immediately falsifiable and pragmatic.
>To even know what claims to make in the first place is philosophy.
Every human is. The only way in which you're "special" is that you think you're special for it.
> To interpret and derive meaning from the findings of empirical processes is philosophy.
Not really, it's none of your business. If you want to interpret findings in let's biology, you'd have to be a biologist. Let's be real.

So what is it:
>Philosophy is rigorous because you have to navigate the fuzziness of being a human being.
Rigorous or
>The foundationalism and reductionism that come with cliche "rigor" are insufficient
not rigorous.

Fags

>>16147735
You have poor reading comprehension and are resorting to personal attacks. You've already decided on what philosophy is because you've never actually engaged with it. You're also stuck on the idea of silo'ing fields, insisting that because one field is named "philosophy" and one is named "biology" that they have no overlap and it would be unthinkable for a biologist to do what philosophers do. Closing the thread now.

>>16147743
>You have poor reading comprehension and are resorting to personal attacks.
Brevity is soul of wit. We're on /sci/ - no blabbering policy. It's not arguable.
>you've never actually engaged with it
I did. It was unsatisfying.
>You're also stuck on the idea of silo'ing fields, insisting that because one field is named "philosophy" and one is named "biology" that they have no overlap and it would be unthinkable for a biologist to do what philosophers do.
You need years of training to interpret any of their data in any productive way.
>Closing the thread now.
rage quit, kek
back to >>>/lit/

How do you feel about the work of David Stove?

>>16147354
Im a high iq stemcel and the class about platon reading timaios was the hardest ass whooping I got during my studies.

>>16147421
then he is not a philosopher but a scientist

>>16147560
>omg I achieved understanding, I'm no longer an npc after 22 years of my life!
If you weren't conscious by 7 you were never gonna make it.

Something about living an unobserved life can do tremendous damage to a person. Those STEMtards probably only know video games, science, vacations with their lame-ass parents and the palm of their hand.

>>16147797
>what hobbies, profession and leisure time with your family? LOL how ridiculous and unfulfilling! Now excuse me, I'm reading Camus and want to imagine myself happy.

File: 1625891318464.png (221 KB, 640x480)

221 KB PNG

>>16147809
kek put that loser in the dirt

>>16147704
>People figured those out on their own.
because they were philosophizing

what is your vendetta against philosophy?

philosophers sure do like to posture about how it can help to "understand people, society, and how the world works", but they never explain what this understanding entails exactly. I don't doubt that this possible, but it does seem like many people who are into philosophy are putting on an act

It is a handy subject for coming up with words and phrases to describe concepts at least. Even if the vast majority is a bunch of mumbo jumbo which serves no purpose other than verbalising the 'philosophers' mental problems

how can philosophy get us out of the current mess science is in?

>>16147860
>understand people, society, and how the world works
>they never explain what this understanding entails exactly
it means you understand how other people think, what you believe a priori, and how to progress with knowledge

>It is a handy subject for coming up with words and phrases to describe concepts at least
thats the point, it represents the domain where new ideas are formulated at the horizon of fields of knowledge. If you dont understand the philosophical motivations behind general relativity for example, you sound like an idiot when you explain it.

>>16147863
easy. read evola, heidegger, spengler and nietzsche

>>16147864
>it means you understand how other people think, what you believe a priori, and how to progress with knowledge
Again, this is too vague to get anything from. If I were to point a gun to your head and ask you to explain what knowledge *exactly* you have gained then you would likely state things that everyone knows and thinks, at which point the philosophical posturing is pretty useless here

>If you dont understand the philosophical motivations behind general relativity for example, you sound like an idiot when you explain it.
General relativity requires no academic style philosophical explanations, if by philosophy though you are just referring to common sense explanations for abstract concepts, then philosophy just returns back to posturing again

>>16147865
try briggs and stove

>>16147881
>If I were to point a gun to your head and ask you to explain what knowledge *exactly* you have gained then you would likely state things that everyone knows and thinks
...... thats kinda the point

When I was a kid i didn't think anybody actually believed in Necessitarianism. Now that I am educated in philosophy I understand people do and why people believe this, and can anticipate their other beliefs and behaviors based on this. I think there are dozens of good arguments against Necessitarianism, and therefore when I see a scientist presuppose necessitarianism, I know he is talking out his ass about something he dosent understand.

>>16147889
>...... thats kinda the point
In which case then - with respect to all other humans - your statement towards a heightened knowledge through philosophy are moot

>and therefore when I see a scientist presuppose necessitarianism, I know he is talking out his ass about something he dosent understand.
You are getting into nonsense territory here, why do you assume he doesn't understand it? Why do you dogmatically fix his stance onto an adjacent philosophical word - which likely isn't even his position to begin with

>>16147894
>You are getting into nonsense territory here, why do you assume he doesn't understand it?
I assume he doesn't understand it if he has no arguments or evidence or reasons for his beliefs. And I think it is immoral to claim you have knowledge, especially deep philosophical knowledge without any sort of evidence or reason.

>Why do you dogmatically fix his stance onto an adjacent philosophical word - which likely isn't even his position to begin with
It usually is, empirically speaking, most of the time the conversation of asking why a scientist is a necessitarian results in him saying its not a philosophical position and they dont want to discuss. But the point is, this is even the case when I repeat back their own belief to them in the most good-faith fashion. Alot of people simply dont care to put in the work to explain to others what they believe, and being educated in philosophy would prevent this.

It’s because they’re arrogant and don’t care about what they don’t understand, believing that only what they do understand matters. This is is the essence of narcissism.

>>16147899
>I assume he doesn't understand it if he has no arguments or evidence or reasons for his beliefs
Reality itself is the grounding for scientific inquiry to proceed. Reality should be the primary domain for philosophy too however at some point most of it got side tracked and went into weird and rather fanciful avenues

>results in him saying its not a philosophical position and they dont want to discuss
Almost every scientist would be more than happy to have a conversation about that
>But the point is, this is even the case when I repeat back their own belief to them in the most good-faith fashion
Perhaps you weren't as good-faith as you claim
>Alot of people simply dont care to put in the work to explain to others what they believe, and being educated in philosophy would prevent this.
Again most scientists are more than happy to get into that, if someone is truly just asking in a curious fashion. If you are trying to trip them up then they are likely to be more guarded. Being educated in philosophical terms would indeed help with regards to communication, but let's not get mixed up and act like knowing a specific word is a substitute for real knowledge

Philosophy should use science to peer into the yet unknown, and probe various seemingly possible paths, and work out their implications at individual and group level.

>>16148120
Then it'd just be science. Science is a branch of philosophy, not the other way around.

>>16148124
It's not just science, philosophers should be the architects of humanity's destiny.

File: 1713965951032645.png (2 MB, 1716x1710)

2 MB PNG

>>16147354
>not an argument
retard

>>16148129
it's like, each of them has ideas related to their own narrow field of study.
a philosopher understands all of their points of view and draws more general lines. science geniuses are tools for philosophers for probing reality

>>16147612
But I did attend STEM classes. General relativity be like: 5 minutes of star wars jokes and history after which the teacher chalks the blackboard full of equations that you can barely follow so you're encouraged to practice equations at home like you did in high school.

There are also statistics classes that are like: here are some fallacies in method design like regression to the mean, here is a program, these are the buttons you need to push in these cases and this is how you interpreted the output. Also funny are the ''evidence-based medicine'' classes with a short history lessons after which a ranking system for study designs is explained.

Now tell me where in all these examples does a STEM student learn to think for himself?

>>16148249
"Thinking for yourself" is how pseudoscience happens. You need to learn to tell your inner voice to shut up in order to be able to listen properly.

>>16148252
If one is by default too dumb to discern what is valid and reliable then how does one know that the authority he listens to is valid and reliable and has one's best interest at heart?

>>16148258
Authorities are reliable by definition, that's why they're authorities.
>inb4 some rant about climate denialism, abiotic oil, creationism, flat earth, etc etc

>>16147354
Philosophers in general have a deep-seated hatred of the natural sciences because it invalidates all of "epistemology" i.e. pseudoscientific theories of how humans "think and learn".

>>16148262
>it invalidates all of "epistemology"
Epistemology would be ANY explanation for how knowledge functions. This can be as fantastical as Plato's Land of the Forms, or as mundane as "information is stored in neurons and communicated via a neural network". It's all epistemology.

>>16148264
>This can be as fantastical as Plato's Land of the Forms, or as mundane as "information is stored in neurons and communicated via a neural network". It's all epistemology.
Yes, so they're both pseudoscientific. For the first one it's obvious; for the second one, it's because it uses pseudoscientific concepts like "information"

>>16148261
>Authorities are reliable by definition
And how is that established? By the same people and methods educated by authority. So it's a self-perpetuating scheme. Don't get me wrong: I don't doubt the validity or reliability of authority so much as the frame. For example: I don't doubt that humans are defined as bipedal and without feathers. That's true. But humans are not naked chickens. That's the danger of authorityative narratives: they are true but not completely true leading to a false frame of the truth.

>>16148249
No way you actually (mindfully) attended a GR class. Yes, you're encouraged to solve problems on your own, which is when you're awoken from the classroom coma and have to get creative yourself. It's not about plugging in numbers into equations, as you put it.

File: 1714218260643.png (11 KB, 804x743)

11 KB PNG

>>16148249
Classes and lectures in general are just bullshit humiliation rituals. Their purpose is to test your obedience and the reward is a piece of paper that allows you to be a wage slave at some other place. If you desire intellectual satisfaction then university is the wrong place. Smart people figure this out on your own. The fact that you didn't, shows that you are not worthy.

>>16148332
>humiliation rituals
Le epic buzzword of the year. Back to >>>/tv/, retard

>>16148337
>Ritual humiliation in traditional societies can serve to enforce a particular social order, or, as with hazing rituals, to emphasize that the group takes precedence over its individual members.
he used it correctly

>>16148270
>for the second one, it's because it uses pseudoscientific concepts like "information"
You must be one of those special kinds of contrarians who don't think Humans are sentient.

File: Achilles and a turtle.jpg (30 KB, 516x475)

30 KB JPG

>OH MY GOD IS THAT A LIMITING BEHAVIOUR AAAAAAH I'M GOING INSANEEE SAVE ME CAUCHYMAN

>>16148338
Complete non-sequitur

File: 1714220249091.jpg (111 KB, 800x906)

111 KB JPG

The so called "philosophy of science" is a gross misnomer. Any class or book on that topic boils down to merely an extremely superficial and reductionist sociology of science. There are in fact many interesting intersections of science and math with epistemological and metaphysical questions. None of them are ever touched by the "philosophy of science" because instead the student is forced to regurgitate the repulsively shallow platitudes by unqualified midwit trash like Russell, Popper or Feyerabend. Once again dimwitted Anglo "analytic" garbage has ruined philosophy by turning it into forced conformity with NPC midwitism.

>>16148356
academic study is absolutely a ritual.
>A ceremony in which the actions and wording follow a prescribed form and order.
>The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship or by an organization.
>A set of actions that are conducted routinely in the same manner.
so if only the humiliation part is in question I point to my previous reply
>>Ritual humiliation in traditional societies can serve to enforce a particular social order, or, as with hazing rituals, to emphasize that the group takes precedence over its individual members.
considering you are largely ignored if you want to contribute but haven't gone through the ritual it kind of speaks for itself. unless you respect the order imposed by the humiliation ritual your opinion is usually discarded

>>16147418
>alot
you should forget about philosophy classes, as you need to retake your english classes.

You can see why people think philosophy as taught, especially in Anglo countries, is laughable. To get anywhere you have to unlearn a lot of what the university teaches. Then you see it does absolutely vital work and people who stick to just being "scientifically trained" are (very dangerously for humanity) completely blinkered.

>>16149539
Retarded dunning-krugers like you are why stemchads laugh at philosophers. Tone down the delusions and maybe you'll not be so worthless

>>16149541
Dunning Kruger was proven to be a statistical artefact. You don't even understand science, you're a moron.

>>16149544
>science
>proven
Retard

>>16149552
That was mathematical analysis, in which proof is possible.

>>16149566
>confusing the real world for mathematics
Keep digging that hole

>>16149576
You scientism geeks are the ones who insist the entire reality is fundamentally mathematical.

>>16147354
I enrolled for a specialized philosophy class for an mandatory elective. I was only STEM student in that group. I found 3/4 of the material interesting, as it was about modern philosophy (20th century at least), topics explored included foundations of logic and scientific methods (Tarski etc) . I felt too much removed from it and haven’t spoken up during the classes. However we had written assignments week by week. At the end I received an A+ with an e mail from the professor literally praising my works - stating that he was shocked by my ability to express my arguments, especially given that my main subject of study is different. What it implies I think is that humanities are not the best fit for philosophy as it gets more analytical (motivated STEM majors can do better?) OR I was just an outlier.

>>16149604
Higher level philosophy involves a lot of logic use, and guess what is applicable to STEM?

File: 1714297444381.jpg (49 KB, 770x600)

49 KB JPG

Alright guys, what's better?

A STEM pilled philosophy maxxer or a philosophy pilled STEM maxxer?

>>16149638
Lol kys

philosocucks better update their boomer cope

>>16147418
Not sure STEMcel will catch on

Just deconstructing the words here but does philosophy just mean philo sophia or liking wisdom?

>>16150012
no that's retarded. it means you desperately search for ideas that validate your insanity, and cling to them for dear life. anything else and you're doing it wrong. what philosopher in their right mind reads for the sake of gaining knowledge?

>>16150012
Etymological fallacy

>>16147354
Science is a branch of philosophy
All you niggas hating on philosophy are probably just hating on metaphysics and epistemology. A just act, let me be clear. Logic and ethics are bae and essential to a credible scientist

>>16151455
>Science is a branch of philosophy
You got it wrong. Philosophy is a branch of science. Only a scientist has the necessary knowledge to talk about metaphysics and epistemology. Talking about philosophy without knowing science just means baselessly talking out of your ass.

>>16151472
>Talking about philosophy without knowing science just means...
...making decisions based on a superior form of knowledge that science has yet to discover. For example:
>philosophically speaking I think I should buy some fresh plants and meats at the grocery store today because that seems more evolutionarily appropriate for the body
Meanwhile millions of scientists, billions of dollars, gorillions of studies are detailing molecular processes to come to the same conclusion. Don't you feel any shame?

>>16151472
Science is just a bloated form of philosophy.

>>16148261
>Just trust your leaders goy, they have good intentions when they ass fuck you

File: 1700651185838003.png (4 KB, 505x572)

4 KB PNG

>>16151515
>>16151504

>>16151521
Philosophy is an important lesson for self control and to become self supporting or to self learn. Otherwise you're just like one of these academic drones who are like cannibals, laughing at teachers in their own system to set an example to possibly smart people who don't take part at all.

>>16151521
Here's how the hierarchy works
>Philosophy, in general - which includes the parts you don't like
>Empiricism
>Science, as a general concept and rubric
>Science, as a discipline
>Pop Science, as "hurr Science = Knowledge", like what you're trying to peddle

>>16151472
Nah u need to read more. Science is basically an extension of our senses at its root. Thus fundamentally flawed. A positivistic worldview will always fail to see the complete picture

>>16147778
not the guy you replied to, but you're supposed to already have a natural gravitation towards certain memes, ways of thinking, etc... philosophy helps you get that in order, to experience and explain in words, what you cannot throughout years, even decades. That's also what literature is for. It saves you time and helps you become a better version of yourself.

>>16149638
the later one i'd say, although im sure the former has some interesting stuff to bring to the table

>>16151530
Isn't Science as a whole basically Empiricism?

>>16151498
>knowledge that science has yet to discover.
like hegel's retarded cult that has brought humanity the greatest suffering that any idea has?, go pound sand, you retard of the land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfwMpxhrCYE

>>16151562
not if it's hegel's science >>16151564

>>16151564
>like hegel's retarded cult that has brought humanity the greatest suffering that any idea has?,
yes, suffering builds character and moves us in the right direction. What do you have against Hegel? His dialectic makes perfect sense.

>>16151568
why not?

Philos°yphy.

>>16151564
You're just evading the point that at least in some areas science has diverted a tremendous amount of resources without making a significant contribution to human wellbeing. Once again you confirm the recurrent theme that the self-correct button of science is broken.

>>16151548
>le positivism strawtransman
>le science is just le empiricism
Way to tell us that you know neither science nor philosophy. The entire philosophy of science deals with the task of absolutely destroying your ignorant misconception of science. Which is quite a big task because your view is so utterly idiotic that it can be deconstructed, refuted and ridiculed on a dozen different levels.

>>16151641
Because of philosophy, I can spot s°yence. Can you spot s°yence with science? Yes you can, and it's more accurate, but that doesn't void understanding s°y profoundly by registering empirical logics through philosophy.

Some empirical logics can only be understood by understanding everything because you would need to be able to sense these logics in the universe, thus allowing you to see all the empirical logic. This is philosophy.

File: 71C2075HvuL._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (129 KB, 629x1000)

129 KB JPG

>>16151641
>cope the post
Face it champ, u got got by an 'idiot'

>>16151649
You are the soiboi here. You are not willing to engage with the subject on an intellectual level. You merely seek a confirmation of your very narrow world view. In Plato's words you're not a philosopher, you're a philodox.

File: 1714084047662226.jpg (57 KB, 635x734)

57 KB JPG

>>16151822

>>16147482
Fuck you, rather be a factory worker than some numbnuts suck up for a little higher pay but still forced to slave like a cow. I make by and live comfortably and small, never needing to go through the humiliation rituals.

>>16151562
No. Empiricism, in general, can include something like Geocentricism. Why? Because observational evidence does in fact point to the stars, sun, and planets revolving around the Earth - just look at the night sky. And if you really want to die various hills, you advocate all sorts of other evidence and observation based claims that are totally bogus. None of those positions are "Scientific" automatically just because they are empirically based.

>>16151653
No, philosophy can include subjects like theology (regardless of whether you believe in it), epistemology (so how we know things, both in terms of where knowledge comes from as well as how we organize our knowledge and talk about it), and morality (which cannot be scientifically or empirically determiend due to the is-ought problem; which no you can not jump over so easily, the closest I've gotten is a 'is-use-should-ought' bridge that goes from objective knowledge to conceptual to practical to moral, which still isn't a perfect solution).

Empiricism is just low hanging fruit. Easy to prove, relatively speaking. The harder philosophical subjects are more difficult to talk about in a disciplined manner.

>>16152966
>can include something like Geocentricism.
Even worse: empiricism can't include any kind of induction at all or you're a hypocrite. An empiricist can't even use words that don't point to an object. It's a mental handicap. A child that doesn't develop and rely on imagination becomes an officially certified retard.

>>16147547
who's going to tell him?