Is this true, Veeky Forums?

le epic troll XD

Assuming you are not one of the trolls in the thread...
>Is this true, Veeky Forums?
Newton's razor.
>As an aside, do STEM graduates despise philosophy because the charm and eloquence of philosophers intimidate them?
I think for the most part it's because it's easy to pose as a fake philosopher. It's not everyone who can get a PhD in Math but anyone can become a PhD in Philosophy, like with any other humanities. Also it turned into complete shit in the last 40 years or so.

>I am not the only one who has a consciousness. I know you have one...

The fallacy of composition. How do you know I have a consciousness?

Listen, "high functioning autist", you're the only one in this thread whose angry! I didn't say I came here to piss off somebody to backtrack on something. Everything I've said here is my genuine belief or alternatively, it is fact.

>Even if you weren't just a sad, embarrassing attempt of a troll, people with high functioning autism and high functioning Asperger's are, on average, taller, have higher income, higher IQ, are more likely to be successful in general.

I'm saving this.

...

umad that everything of value has been discovered, pre 19th century, by people whose initial field was philosophy?
umad that all mathematicians do nowadays is jerk off to non-euclidian bullshit?
philosophers are the true chads boi

>I think for the most part it's because it's easy to pose as a fake philosopher. It's not everyone who can get a PhD in Math but anyone can become a PhD in Philosophy, like with any other humanities.

You'll never accomplish anything, but hey, at least you picked physics, right? People here are so proud of simply having picked a specific degree.

>How do you know I have a consciousness?
I said there is a tendency that you have a consciousness and, thus, it's relatively safe to assume you have one. Did you even read my whole comment? Do other philosophers also fail at reading comprehension or is it just you?
>>>Even if you weren't just a sad, embarrassing attempt of a troll, people with high functioning autism and high functioning Asperger's are, on average, taller, have higher income, higher IQ, are more likely to be successful in general.
>I'm saving this.
It is true though. Hence, they are also more likely to be accepted into STEM courses when neurotypicals have to stick with other stuff like Philosophy or History.
I know you're trolling, but, just to get the point across, using the scientific method and calling it Philosophy just because why not doesn't make it anymore Philosophy than you are a philosopher. And you aren't a philosopher. Don't expect me to give you anymore attention.
I'm not by the way.

>It's not everyone who can get a PhD in Math but anyone can become a PhD in Philosophy, like with any other humanities.

I think you should read some of the posts on this board, like and reconsider your statement.

>the musings of my oversized monkey brain surpass the study of systems and objects older than life itself
Fuck off, m80.

Computers, cars, the internet, industry, just to name a few inventions by people who graduated in Physics. Richard Stallman, Elon Musk and Ben Bernarke are three of some Physics undergrads you might have heard about.
How many inventions or contributions to humanity by philosophers? I will do as and stop feeding you, little troll. Try using better bait next time.

I'm talking about YOU. Why are you patting yourself on the back for what other people have done? You PICKED physics because of ego, we already know you're retarded.

Posting anime reaction images repeatedly just invalidate your points more and more.

I read your whole post. Having watched 's video, I see what Chomsky means about STEM people having their heads stuck too far into their own field or interests.

>I said there is a tendency that you have a consciousness and, thus, it's relatively safe to assume you have one.
English is my first language, I know what a tendency is. You have just never considered the limits of empiricism, or actually thought about matters relating to epistemology for that matter. I'm pretty sure you didn't bother to look up what the fallacy of composition is.

What you're discussing objective truth, it's never ok to make an assumption.

I saved your comment about high-functioning autism because I thought that it was a hilarious way of outing yourself as someone flittering about on the spectrum.

>I hate being human, I wish I could be an evolution!

>How many inventions or contributions to humanity by philosophers
kek this can't be serious.
how literally everything you kunt? philosophy is very broad you know? or don't they teach you that in high school anymore?

picked a dual major program in Physics and Math because it's challenging. My family is pretty wealthy, so I don't need some meme degree like Engineering because I won't ever have to work or wageslave (unlike you, it seems, sorry about that). I can just study interesting things for the sake of it, things that are hard, genuine knowledge, not just some useless mental masturbation, like Philosophy. People like you are too poor to study something just for the sake of it and too dumb to get into an engineering/comp. sci school, which leads you to meme degrees like Philosophy. So you take all of the insecurity that comes with this inevitable faith of your life - of being a loser - that you have to troll the science board of the edgy anime forum to cope with it. You're fucking pathetic. All of that is, of course, assuming you got into Philosophy. You could, even worse, got into History or just too retarded to make it into college.

This was my last (You), fuck off back to Veeky Forums where you can make your idiotic posts where you can pass as someone intelligent amidst the other idiots like yourself.

You're clearly not exceptionally bright and emotionally childish.

Meant to reply No but really. It's sad to see all of this insecurity.

what
said but also I mean, if you live in a liberal democracy then you really should be down on your knees sucking off people like Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, John Locke, etc

hahahaha i love visiting this board so much.

to any Veeky Forumsentists who see this, everyone on Veeky Forums loves you no matter how much you hate us :D

Yep, most ironic of all is "I can just study interesting things for the sake of it", which is exactly why philosophy is my hobby, he also got everything else wrong I'm a math major, middle-class and did well in highschool.

>people with high functioning autism and high functioning Asperger's are
Where the fuck do you think you are?

I'm not any of them, just landing on this thread. But all of what you are saying is ways to deny you're dumb. Same with the other people itt. STEM fields make contributions to humanity and the economy. I don't mean just famous ones, any STEM grad contributes to humanity on an individual level through his research or role in the private industry. People from STEM have higher average IQ and also much higher average income. Now tell me, how many users from Veeky Forums can recall, say, 10 high school level Physics formulas? They can't. The problem extends beyond the simple fact that people from humanities are just dumb and obnoxious. As already said, it's also generally easier to be an intruder and pass as someone from humanities, since humanities are generally more simple than STEM field, you can't fake being a Chemist or a Physician like you can fake being a Historian. So they're not just dumb, but also there are a lot of people who are so dumb they have to pretend they're dumb.

Please stop trying to deny that people from humanities are dumber, poorer and generally inferior than STEM people. There's no use in arguing this. And yet you do it anyway. It's not a surprise, since your whole world view is based on subjectivity and pseudo-science. This whole thread is just sad and pathetic. I don't know of a good reason you would neither troll nor seriously argue for the stupidity that you are shouting. Iirc, intra-board raids have been banned for years on Veeky Forums. Just stop, admit you're wrong, dumb and poor.

>anime reaction images
Anime in an anime website, what a surprise.
n a side note, it's funny to see how the harder the subject the more anime there is. I mean, take a look at threads like /mg/ and /pg/ (math and physics generals, in case you're an outsider). They have a lot of anime. On computer science and engineering threads there's a lot less (in the case you're an outsider, comp sci and engineering are looked down upon for being easy and irrelevant).

>wrong, dumb and poor.
Add "ugly" to that list.
veekyforums.com/thread/2200073/history/why-are-stem-majors-usually-way-more-attractive.html

No they despise philosophers because they

a. Believe they are creating knowledge when philosophy has never determined anything
b. Mistake esoteric opinions for profundity
c. Engage in a cult of personality

>As an aside, do STEM graduates despise philosophy because the charm and eloquence of philosophers intimidate them?
Don't STEM kiddies despise or disapprove of anything outside of STEM to begin with? They are pretty one-dimensional people and not well-read

I get the hate for philosophy, political science and meme studies degrees, but why stemlords also hate on people studying stuff like history or even worse, hating on people studying art.
History is fun desu

you're not being eloquent you autistic piece of shit.

How refreshing, I was just hoping for another one of these cancerous philosophy vs science threads. More people talking about things they do not know.

>History
Crazy liberals who think Egyptians were black, crazy /pol/tards who think the Holocaust wasn't real, fat neckbeards with a fetish for some particular part of History, people too dumb to get a real degree. Honestly, if you're not in Physics, Math, Comp Sci, Chemistry, Biology or Engineering, you might as well just go to a library, you won't have to spend the time nor the money of going to college and still learn the same thing. But then again, if you can't into STEM you probably can't also read a book for yourself, hence why you need to go to college. Figures.

I love how stemlords always use this argument of "you don't know anything about it". The only thing you can know is that something exists (Descartes). Quantum Relativity and that hard shit is just an illusion and it could even not exist.

I'm complaining about stemlords you retard, now stop misunderstanding the point of Descartes completely. The point of Descartes' cogito is not to promote skepticism about the sciences. To the contrary, it is to ground the sciences by performing the thought experiment of universal doubt and show that we can trust our senses.

There is no a division beetween philosophy and science. You are simply a simple minded, what is said in the left part of your image its philosophy too.

The thing is people conflate philosophy with skepticism, which is nothing but a fringe school of thought in the field. While there have been skeptics among philosophers, most of Western philosophy has sought to refute skepticism, not promote it.

Agree, and to be honest not even all skepticism is skeptic in the sense we say it. There is a good Skepticism, the true one, that say simply: there is no reason to doubt about everything only because we can't form a invincible dogma, we should do things as long they works without being trapped in a too strong faith in our knowledge.

Science can become dogmatic too, and expel some good thinkers for that. Philosophy, the study of human reason, and experimenting with that reason and abstracting with it, its an exercise good for all human knowledge. But I have to say more! Sometimes philosophy do some excess in abstracting, and this is the reason why exist skeptisism! Not to undermine science but to say "Ehi don't be vain and remember that you can know only the phenomena, so deal with them, work with them!"

Skepticism its the defence of practical thinking! But for some reason we remember only some part of it.

Be careful here as the word 'skepticism' has different meanings. The critique of skepticism we've been giving concerns the original meaning of the term, namely the position that you cannot have any knowledge whatsoever. You are referring to a much more leveled view of skepticism.

>Is this true, Veeky Forums?
Obviously yes. Mathematics acts within a certain set of axioms. Outside of that it can not prove anything.
>As an aside, do STEM graduates despise philosophy because the charm and eloquence of philosophers intimidate them?
No. Just because they are laughable people. They essentially choose a degree with less employability then math together with a significant less meaningful content then math.
Philosophy is a joke subject which is essentially math without rigor and applications.

>mocks you in modal logic

The intersection of math and philosophy (things like logic) are pretty rigorous, due to the influence of mathematics.

But the rest of philosophy lacks this rigor, which makes it a completely worthless thing to study.

>knowing so little about what you are talking about

>Using adhominems instead of arguments to justify a shitty subject that did not produce anything useful in the last hundred years, but scammed kids out of their money.

What's the point, you haven't read any philosophy so how could I engage in anything constructive with you? Would you debate physics with someone who's never studied the subject? Or chemistry? Funny also how you mention ad hominems. I wonder where that notion comes from.

Fact: Most of steamfags that hate philosophy are pretentious engineers.

>Computers, cars, the internet, industry, just to name a few inventions by people who graduated in Physics. Richard Stallman, Elon Musk and Ben Bernarke are three of some Physics undergrads you might have heard about.

Thanks for the laughs.

If you can not explain to someone why he is wrong then you yourself have no clue about the subject.

Philosophy is constructed with words, right?
What if language is broken? (see image)
I think there is a mistake in my argument, so I would like to hear other opinions.

Not him but you're just being a smug retard
>If you can not explain quantum field theory to a lawyer then you have no clue about quantum field theory

Should I give you a course in philosophy? You claim the subject lacks rigor but know nothing about it. How am I supposed to prove you wrong without giving you a reading list? Go bait others, I'm done.

I completely agree, mainstream philosophy does have that affect on the field of study.

This is assuming there are no basic meanings grounded in non-linguistic conceptions of the mind, which is more than likely. When you think of a horse, you don't think of its parts. Rather, you think of the image of a horse. The word is defined based on that image.

A horse is an ordered collection of a finite number of atoms.
An image is an ordered collection of a finite number of pixel values. (your eye has only a finite number of rods and cones)

Not to the human mind, and language relies on the cognitive apparatus with which you are equipped. Whether or not a horse is in fact no more than a finite number of atoms (which is debatable if one considers biology as an emergent property), the mind does not treat stimuli in that way. That would be a terrible learning heuristic for any cognitive system, and language is precisely a cognitive system.

That is just misrepresenting me. I want an explanation why I am wrong not some part of philosophy explained to me.
And yes, a physicist should be able to give a short layman explanation about a certain subject in physics.

All you did was saying that I was wrong and I didn't knew anything.
Since you didn't even give a counterexample I guess that you have none.

So, If I were to generate every image possible at a finite resolution that you cannot discern the discrete pixels, and show them to your cognitive apparatus, and let it label these images either "horse" or "not horse", then use that labeling as the definition of what a horse is, isn't that a kind of "language"?

I'm just being Hebrew here :)

I think you are on to something with language being more than a textual construction. It is highly dependent on the environment it is immersed in.

This thread is genuinely upsetting. What posses you people to be so mean to each other? It's so senseless and awful, not to mention totally unnecessary and counterproductive. Did you all fall for the "smart people are cynical assholes" meme?

What is wrong with you?

Why do I have to play nice on the internet, when I can just say what I believe without sugar coating it?

Stating what you believe and debating with others =/= openly insulting and belittling other people

Being nice and being right is not mutually exclusive. In fact, being neutral and dispassionate is kind of a scientific plus if you ask me.

Ignorant and dumb people are always very opinionated and vocal.

I hope it is not myself that is coming off as mean for it is not my intent. I'm a mathematician by trade, and I have had my worldview shaken numerous times. Things like Axiom of Choice, Infinity, Different sizes of Infinities, Godel Incompleteness, and so on. I just want to hear peoples opinions and perhaps perturb them to explore what's outside of their "comfort zone" and have the same done to me.
Me

No user, you are not being mean. I am not advocating a safe space in which ideas cannot be questioned and people cannot be called out on their bad ideas. In fact, that is absolutely essential to any intellectual environment. However, I also believe a person shouldn't go out of their way to spew vitriol and pepper their arguments with insults and belittlement. There are many such examples in this thread. I don't even have to tag them because I wouldn't describe them as particularly subtle. People try to pass this off as banter, but then they still get worked up over it and the insulting escalates, which creates an unpleasant and toxic environment. All of this is utterly unnecessary in the realm of scientific inquiry. It just makes us look sophomoric and people are far less likely to come to any consensus in a discussion.

Richard's paradox

Yes, Cantor diagonal arguments relate to sizes of infinities. I've gotten to the point that I do not think infinity really exists, even though it can sometimes be brought to finite terms (think Riemann sphere or Zeno's paradox). What is the smallest number strictly greater than zero? (any number you put forth as an example can be halved)

I've pretty much gotten to things like Gentzen's sequent calculus that I'm O.K. with (despite his Nazi-ism)

I wonder if there will be a new branch of mathematics that tries to taxonomize paradoxes themselves...

How about proof by contradiction.

To prove a statement S is true, show that the negation of S leads to absurdity.

But what if S is a paradox in disguise because your formal system used to construct S is inherently inconsistent? Both S and its negation will lead to absurdity.

>Chumpsky

I had to...
My opinion of Chomsky is that he should stick to linguistics

see this. They're about as far away from being intellectual as possible, because they refuse to consider value in anything outside of science. The greatest scientists tend to have a huge amount of respect for philosophy and other humanities because they're not automatons.

I'd love to listen to people on this board trying to discuss politics, epistemology, historiography, etc.

>They are laughable people
>Philosophers are laughable people
>Pic related, it's a Veeky Forumsentist

>They choose a degree with less employability then math together with a significantly less meaningful content
>Cannot into English

Yep, definitely less eloquent and certainly lacking in charm. I don't really see why conceptual reasoning, being highly articulate, reasonably good at maths, etc makes you unemployable.

Philosophy includes epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, logic as well as social and political philosophy. This is only the beginning of it.

I'm going to point you in the direction of Noam Chomsky's opinion of philosophy, and I'd encourage you to consider the fact that it tends to be the case that the greatest scientists lack disrespect for the humanities, and in particular philosophy.

Sure but the point is:

Skepticism is a complex thing and Skepcticism its not all philosophy. Philosophy usually is dedicated against what we call absolute skepticism.

Skepsis mean: research without ending, you can interpret it as "we can't know anything" or as "we should be not dogmatic"

Yes, that's an earlier point I made myself.

philosophers never produced any knowledge
they know how to produce reasonably-sounding essays but nothing more, it's all so vague that they will never 'prove' anything, sooner or later there comes another philosopher with his point of view and arguments
it's just a game with words

>Philosophers never produced any knowledge

what

see philosophy is about wisdom and knowledge. It's just a knowledge that is separate from science but is sometimes intertwined.

>what is science
clearly not philosophy
>what is government and social construct
you might have a point here
>what is literally any form of morality that you adhere to
clearly not any kind of knowledge; morality varies greatly from person to person and is based on feelings not rational thinking
philosophers give their opinions, often eloquent and reasonable, but they will never come to a definite conclusion about anything

>do STEM graduates despise philosophy
>because they arent real scientists

science is built on philosophy you complete idiot

I think I found a disproof to my own argument.

Think about recursion.

Let n be a non-negative integer.
Define factorial(n) = 1 if n=0, = n*factorial(n-1) otherwise.

factorial is defined in terms of itself an can be proven to eventually terminate once it gets to the axiomatic definition factorial(0)=1. (Well-ordering with the fact each layer of the recursion decrements the input by 1)

What are the axioms of human language?

How do you prove that chasing definitions (even allowing repeated uses of words) eventually terminates at one of the language axioms?

>What is science

got that one for me

>you might have a point here (government and social contract
I know I have a point here. Rousseau, John Locke, Karl Marx, Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, Aristotle, Voltaire, and Laozi among other philosophers have each in their own way done more to shape human history than Albert Einstein ever did.

Individuals on the list can be subject to criticism.

>Ethicism is not knowledge
>morality varies greatly from person to person and is based on feelings not rational thinking
philosophers give their opinions,

So you believe in moral relativism, or alternatively just emotivism? A lot of philosophers would agree with you and a lot definitely wouldn't.

Making an argument in favour of the emotivist approach to morality (which you didn't) is seeking knowledge in and of itself.

>have each in their own way done more to shape human history than Albert Einstein ever did.
You started out well, but now you're venturing beyond what you actually know. Good effort.

>Individuals on the list can be subject to criticism.

criticise the individuals, please. I'd get rid of Voltaire but I'm comfortable with everyone else being on the list.

>Now tell me, how many users from Veeky Forums can recall, say, 10 high school level Physics formulas?
for what purpose
anyone could make a list of 10 things you would have no idea about

I'm not interested in criticizing them. I'm simply pointing out that you seriously undervalue Einstein's monumental contribution.