Why are /sci/fags are so obsessed with science while dismissing philosophy? Without philosophy, science wouldn't be called 'science' and plenty of elements(epistemology, ontology, etc) are literally what science is all about.
>>16864380Because the West is in decline and everyone is racing to the bottom.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyMGuCkmo7s
A argument is only as valid as the effort to make it.As such, the generic is meaningless, and that is why its not discussed. And as such, the fact you are not itching for Aristoteles or Nietzsche, means you are a midwit
>Me to the leftThe predesecor of science that led to eventually led to the disasters of modern society, philosophy is bad. But the worst thing is unironically science that completely kickstarted the industrial revolution
>>16864380Because general philosophy is more about vocabulary flexing than anything insightful or useful. Metaphysics is where it's at now
>>16864380Show us on the doll where the /sci/entist touched you.
>>16864428>>Vocabulary flexing>t.midwit
>>16864390>>An argument is only as valid as the effort to make it.Depends on what you derive from the efforts themselves.>>The generic is meaningless.Science is generic too. Read Kuhn
>>16864380philosophy is the mental masturbation of the brainlet
>>16864380noScience is an extension of formal logic which itself is a sub branch of epistemology.Science is an extension of philosophy--any other definition turns it into a religion.
>>16864380Because while a lot of people worship science. They don't respect it.It is both god and sex slave for this people. Why would I have to learn the hobbies of science , I am just supposed to give money to that whore.
>>16865498and what is philosophy an extension of?, or philosophy in itself a religion?
WW2 Military psyop to get young scientists to do physics/biology/chemistry without thinking about the implications beyond the possible applications of their work.
>>16864380Philosophy is okay. I understand the point of tempering the natural with moral or metaphysical understanding to reach a coherent vantage point or instruction manual. However, if I had to do it all over again, I would have focused on non-speculative physical sciences (such as medicine or electrical engineering). It is what it is.
>>16864390>the labor theory of validityholy fucking pseud, that's a new lowlollmao even
>>16866308NTAI think it's reasonable to argue that anyone making prescriptive claims about morality and society are "doing religiosity" in some broad sense.So, yes, some philosophy is only notionally different to religion.
It's like saying Astrology is a predecessor of Astronomy
>>16866431It literally is. The only reason people gave a shit about astronomy long enough for modern astronomy to develop was because they were using that data for horoscopes.
>>16866308This just tells my you don't know what formal logic or epistemology are.>>16866410Religion is the introduction of god into a persistent philosophical construct.When you inject "god" into reason you get neither god nor reason you get religion.This is why atheists are still religious nutters--because they wont shut up about their beliefs on god and pretend science is a scripture... eg. anyone who doesn't understand that science is an extension of philosophy is turning it into a religion.
Chimpanzees are predecessors to humans
>>16866431But you can do Astronomy while knowing nothing about Astrology.You can't do science while knowing nothing about philosophy.
>>16864380Don't cast pearls before swine anon, you'll end up wasting your life. These hairless ape will never learn.....
>>16864380Science at its essence deals with identifying and modeling reproducible patterns that currently exist within our reality. Nothing in philosophy can possibly contribute to this work. All philosophy does is attempting to interpret the result after the scientific work has been done. Philosophy isn't useless, but it is for science.
>>16864380>Why are /sci/fags are so obsessed with science while dismissing philosophy?Because philosophy does nasty things like pointing out the limits of knowledge, poking holes in the scientific method, asking significant but scientifically unanswerable questions that only it can grapple with etc. Nu-science types are suffering from an inferiority complex. It really is that simple. They want their enterprise to be the ultimate authority on everything and it makes them foam with rage to be reminded they will always be confined to a small corner of a much bigger picture.
>>16867173>Science at its essence deals with identifying and modeling reproducible patterns that currently exist within our reality. Nothing in philosophy can possibly contribute to this work.I like how you're so golemized you didn't even read the OP which directly refutes this drivel and preempts you.
>>16866740Nah open your mind.Even astrology has hints of truths.I am NOT saying you should believe the quacks that pose for astrologers today.But celestial bodies influence a lot of things...Why not humans as well?You think the ancients were morons?No they were much closer to nature and much closer to the subconscious.Jung would agree that there is value in these methods, even if they are false, at the very least in aiding you come into contact with the subconscious.
>>16867207>Even astrology has hints of truths.I didn't say anything about that either way, it's irrelevant to what I was saying.You don't need to understand astrology to model the motions of the planets or stars like astronomers do.If we talk about the history of how we calculate an orbit we might mention astrology as something that lead to the current methods but we don't need to know anything about astrology to actually calculate the orbit.This is different from math for example. Math is one of the things that lead to our current methods but it's also needed to be actually understood to calculate an orbit.This is an example of a logical structure, math is the foundation of the structure behind calculating an orbit and you can't remove the math part without destroying the whole, analogous to a physical structure that can't exist without physical foundations holding it up.Philosophy is foundational to the structure of science. Doing science with no philosophical knowledge is like calculating orbits without having glanced at any math. These people are very easy to detect and they're everywhere, undermining the scientific method so they can feel better about being retarded.
>>16867195What are you even talking about?You think a caveman who just figured out how to start a camp fire or hunt knows anything philosophy?Figuring out how to reproduce fire or successfully take down prey through observation and experimentation is doing science. No philosophy or epistemology is needed. Philosophizing about about things is a luxury that comes after once you are full.
>>16867341>What are you even talking about?That OP points out correctly science is derived from and depends on philosophical fields like epistemology and yeah, even ontology (although many academic wagies in lab coats lack the self-awareness to reflect on the myriad ontological assumptions of their field).
>>16864380Philosophy is still very much part of science, but as a general discipline it hit the wall after the analytic philosophers of the 20th century were rebuffed in favour of pomo gits who rejected commonsense and logic for the kind of destabilizing blither-blather that brought them popularity. In the end, I think that epistemology and ontology are a dialectical trap that only Nagarjuna ever saw the way around, and that we still just talk in circles: thesis, antithesis, and a new, transcendent thesis that demands a new transcendent antithesis and the game goes on forever, generating an unwarranted sense of progress. Such is the view from the infinitely small and stubbornly Euclidian point on the manifold we precariously occupy.Of course, that's just my philosophy, which is likewise subject to the objections listed above.
>>16867351Why should I care. If I poke the universe it does this. If I keep poking it the same way it keeps doing the same shit. I record how you poke it and what the universe does in return. I don't need to read mount of books containing conflicting artificial terminology by wordcels to do this work. It contributes absolutely nothing to the process.
>>16867369>Why should I care.I didn't say you should care. I just said you're a dumb golem who can't even read a post before he attempting to reply with the standardized golem dogma, which ended up with you making a worthless point that was preemptively refuted in the same post you replied to.
>>16867374>Philosophy is a predecessor of scienceThat's the title of your OP. That's what I'm refuting. And that's what got refuted.The caveman didn't need philosophy to do his science. I don't need your philosophy to do mine. Have some dignity and stop groveling for STEM bucks and go find a rich patron or something like philosophers did in the old days.
>>16867379>That's what I'm refuting.You're not "refuting" anything, you inbred, brown monkey. You're just getting filtered by the very concept of science.
>>16867369The ape was reactive and poked things semi randomly until he got rewards like sugar.The caveman put together a worldview that includes a concept of poking and its associated power in revealing the world, especially where there's sugar.The formal version is the beginning of philosophy. The ape can't do science, only the caveman can.
>>16867384>The ape can't do scienceReproducibility. That's the one word end-all be-all definition and standard of science. So long as said ape is able to somehow develop a reliable method to repeatedly find sugar, then the ape just did science in its own way.Human concepts are not the standard of science. Reproducible results are. If hypothetically our conceptual facility somehow cannot produce reproducible results, then we wouldn't be doing science with concepts. Concepts and theories are used in science because reality so far for whatever reason move in patterns that can be fruitfully modelled by these things.>claiming ownership of human thoughtsSure, if you going to define anybody using their brain as using philosophy. But let's face reality, nobody need to read volume of philosophical treatise to be able to think with their head to understand theories and generate reproducible results, or discover new things. It's simply not needed.
alchemy is the father of sciencephilosophy is a bunch of grifters who failed to overthrow religionmight as well join an actual cult
>>16864380Are there still people on this board who actually science? Sci used to house good minds...occasionally...but it seems more like an amateur cage fight now. I keep wondering if I'm in /pol....
>>16867409>the ape just did scienceNo, the subversive retard subverted language to make more confusing in every way what is actually being referenced.>if you going to define anybody using their brain as using philosophyI made a very clear distinction.>But let's face reality, nobody need to read volume of philosophical treatise to be able to think with their head to understand theories and generate reproducible results, or discover new things. It's simply not needed.That's exactly what the discovery of science was. It simply is needed and whatever you're doing is not science. To actually do science you need a million philosophical ideas most people now take for granted, like the idea that your direct senses are not telling the whole story of whatever phenomena you're observing. As a conditioned media golem you're simply not aware of how foundational things like Plato's cave are to even your own statements. You don't actually reason out your thoughts, you just react to conditioning from inputs like the ape except now the input is mass media and academic indoctrination which tells you "science good" so you parrot that but you have no clue what science even is.
>>16864380Because basedentists are scared of idealism in science. Physicists care about the interactions of elementary particles. Engineers care about uncertainty and tolerances. Medicine cares about treating diseases and patients. All of these are materialist and that's what's wrong with them. They rely on empiricism but the world is imperfect and therefore cannot be trusted to be measured. You don't need to actually build a bridge or cure a patient. You can construct a solution to every problem from first principles using your mind. The world is made of mind. Matter is malleable via the dialectic.
>>16867379>>16867341>>The cavemen didnt need philosophy to do his scienceWhat is the subject of cause and effect? what inquires about the nature of existence and its properties? Which field is concerned about how and from what you derive those data from? The fact that fire reproduction is done through observation and experimentation further proves my point since those very phenomenas are based on seemingly irrefutable fundamental features(like cause and effect, ontological features, properties etc). You are a midwit
>>16867477>you are doing science wrong, you need me to show youNope, sorry, no STEM bucks for you. Good luck at your new home though. I hear they let you read Kant during breaktimes.
>>16867435The age of discovery where you could find out something undocumented at the comfort of your own toe jam is largely dead.
>>16867495I got all the stembucks with none of the academic conditioning or wageslaving which is empirical evidence that I'm the superior stemlord. Predicting things pays very well if you understand the philosophy well enough to apply it across domains. If you just follow the formulas you can be replaced by a robot, you're not the thinking agent exerting his will, you're the tool being used by some other will.
>>16867490>scared of idealism in scienceReproducibility is all. Nobody is scared of anything. You start demonstrating reproducible mind-over-matter magick that can be objectively quantified textbooks will be re-written overnight regarding consciousness and matter.Also even if hypothetically Idealism turns out to be true modern philosophy will still be in the same shithole it is now. People don't need to read volume of philosophic text to do physical science won't need them either to meditate for enlightenment.
>>16867490Plato figured this all out centuries ago but the truth has been systematically censored and ridiculed by the science and technology crowd, to the point where even philosophers are afraid to go against the materialist religion these days
>>16864380philosophy is just reasoning ability it doesnt test other external perceived nomenclature of actualities that in totality bring innovation forward by playing with mathematical syntax lmao
>>16864380Because science is a replacement for God. Look at peer review. It’s socially enforced dogma. The fundamental root of philosophy is logic. Literally everything is built on that. Humanities win again…
>>16867799>>Bunch of IQlet assumptions which hardly make senseScience is not replacement for God. You can perfectly do science whilst simultaneously having belief in God. >>The fundamental root of philosophy is logic. Literally everything is built on that.Another double digit IQ assumption. Philosophy goes beyond logic. How we derive those logical assumptions, how do we question them, what are the building blocks of reality and so on is not subject of logic but of philosophy.
>>16868183>Science is not replacement for God. You can perfectly do science whilst simultaneously having belief in God.NTA but it's easy to see what he means: the scientific establishment is being positioned as a priestly authority class, while science itself is used to deny God and promote materialistic nihilism, in a way that leans into transhumanism and the delusion of Man becoming a technological god who creates and destroys his own world and meaning on a whim.>Another double digit IQ assumption.Another double-digit IQ response that doesn't actually refute what he wrote.
>>16868218>>Noo man w-will uhh.. become technological g-god and will destroy the future. You sound retarded. You must be consuming youtube slop a little too much.
>>16868279>i'm a mentally ill retard and i consume too much slopOk.
>>16864388great video
>>16867369I like this, but it is still useful to systematize corollaries of that in a symbol of some sort.
>>16867369Yeah that’s it. If you’re interested read “Against Method” by Feyerabend. But yeah, philosophical foundations don’t affect the results.
>>16868183>You can perfectly do science while simultaneously believing in the Jesus zombie apocalypse fairytaleRetard lol
>>16868817>read “Against Method” by Feyerabend. >philosophical foundations don’t affect the results.So why should he read Feyerabend? That's philosophy. Philosophy doesn't affect how you do science. And even if it did, how you do science doesn't affect """the results""" and how you interpret those """results""". Feyerabend wrote about nothing. He should go poke his asshole repeatedly with a finger and then put that finger in your nose each time and record your reactions. That would be some good science.
>>16868828Threadly reminder that the foundations of science in general, even modern science specifically, were laid mostly by people who believed in God.
>>16868830You've exposed yourself as dumb as shit. Definitely not a scientist, unless you got through on affirmative action. You might be a little silly on /pol, but here you're a few sticks short of a faggot and too uncivil to be humoured. kek.
>>16868854>zero counter-argumentsAbout what was expected from a reddit-spacing inbred who writes a post with barely two lines in it and still manages to make one undermine the other.
>>16868852Threadly reminder that the foundations of God were laid out by mentally retarded cavemen who fucked goats
>>16868878I like how you immediately devolve into incoherent psychosis. Imagine being this mindbroken by basic historical facts.
>>16868880Stating facts is psychotic? Okay, goatfucker.
>>16868882See >>16868880Also notice how your illness forces you to reply again, even though I am now closing this 80 IQ thread. You're basically performing for the voices.
>>16868883Sure, close the thread and get back to fucking your goat.
