>pic rel single handedly discovers a primitive form of quantificational logicBut /sci/ told me philosophers haven't contributed anything practical... wtf?
>>17048695well he obviously did
He was also a scientist (or proto-scientist if you prefer).
>>17048695I don't get where the philosophy hate here comes from? Physicists?
>>17048695In the past, the entire realm of human knowledge was small enough that it was feasible for geniuses to be masters of literally all of the knowledge that their civilization had access to. The great philosophers of Greece were also great mathematicians, great naturalists, great athletes, great artists, great historians, etc. That's why they were able to come up with actually useful ideas despite being philosophers. For the past few hundred years, though, philosophers have just been people hemming and hawing about irrelevant crap, like rabbit holes of refining the definitions of made up words. Completely worthless bunk. Unfortunately the renaissance man died with the renaissance, and there has literally not been one single philosopher who wasn't just a time wasting jabbering retard born after 1700 AD
>>17048836Because if youve ever taken a basic non catholic philosophy 101 it goes past the very basic shit he sets out, as valuable as it is, before the first test. Catholics however view his identities, which aren't exactly lightweight but comprise less than half of all obvious logical identities, are it. If you're catholic you're literally arguing with half the set because the pope thinks Aristotle is as much a God as the virgin mary. And I wish that was a joke.
>>17048842Modern philosophers refined Aristotle's logic to give us modern first order logic... Term logic is the direct predecessor to quantificational logic. The Stoics also discovered a primitive form of propositional logic.
>>17048695Scientist and Philosopher were the same job before modern academia.
>>17048849>less than half>with half the setwhich is it?, and also what is missing?
>>17049582Yes: thisOP. Are you going to claim /sci/ lied?
>>17048842>In the past, the entire realm of human knowledge was small enough that it was feasible for geniuses to be masters of literally all of the knowledge that their civilization had access to.It's not necessarily about scope of human knowledge. In the modern world, there are practical, social, and legal barriers that would obstruct any renegade philosopher from engaging in truly omni-disciplinary research.A smart person could theoretically self-teach anything, but would not be legally authorized to perform certain experiments, nor receive funding, nor be taken seriously by the scientific establishment under ordinary circumstances.Academia doesn't have any mechanism for polymaths to quickly attain PhDs that are not honorary. By the time you had attained all the bureaucratic credentials 'required' to publish omni-disciplinary research in mainstream journals, you'd be dead.>For the past few hundred years, though, philosophers have just been people hemming and hawing about irrelevant crap, like rabbit holes of refining the definitions of made up words.Modern philosophers are mostly the people who have recognized that 21st century science has acquired crippling technical debt that borders on irreparable, and consequently care more about maintaining those foundations than building shaky structures on top of them.If you only care about the speed of new technological developments, with no regard to the long-term viability of science as a method for examining reality, then trying to refine the scientific method itself without regard to any particular field of research would seem stupid and even irrelevant.>Unfortunately the renaissance man died with the renaissanceThis seems like a variant on the whole "great men of history never existed" narrative to me. The human spirit never died. Over-specialization seems to be enforced by our culture, and IMO has led to a loss of cohesion and reliability in science. See: the replication crisis.
>>17048836It's Karl Popper's fault.
>>17048836Physicists are a very small proportion of the general population and don't make up a large proportion of STEM degrees, so my first assumption probably wouldn't be Physicists
>>17048836Pretty much.
