Who do I believe Veeky Forums?

Emberburn
Emberburn

Who do I believe Veeky Forums?

All urls found in this thread:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baзюлин,_Bиктop_Aлeкceeвич
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Flameblow
Flameblow

@Emberburn
I believe this is shitty bait

FastChef
FastChef

@Emberburn
Only correct answer is Jesus Christ.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@Emberburn
Advanced math and science is literally advanced philosophy.

Illusionz
Illusionz

@Emberburn
Old views vs new views
What's so controversial about this? Views change over time.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@Emberburn
Krauss is spot on on philosophy of science.

Dawkins is barely a scientist. Bill Nye is an engineer. NDT is a meme.

Left column are scientists who shaped science in the XX century.

If you want a real comparison put Hawking, Susskind, and maybe Kakuo (if you want meme power) in the right column.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

@Illusionz
Do they change for the better or for the worse, though?

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

both are wrong, don't fall for false dichotomies. the left row supports what essentially is idealism, pushing nature in the plane of metaphysics and reserving that study for idealist philosophers who are akin to theologicians. The right row is a sort of vulgar materialism, characteristic of highly specialized positivists. They both try to detach society and the material conditions in which society functions and evolves from the scientific method, hence both views are wrong. But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic, and the neoliberal establishment makes sure those don't exist in universities. So today's materialism only exists within the realm of stem, and detached from society. As for philosophy, history and economics, those fields get castrated so they cannot actually produce work with scientific methodology, but function simply as neoliberal apologia.

However, that image shouldn't group Einstein with religious conservative idealists, since they don't mean the same when they talk about philosophy and methodology

Firespawn
Firespawn

@Emberburn
the fact that philosophers are so desperate to prove that they aren't worthless should tell you everything. the bill nye quote simply says he is skeptical of something and that is enough to rustle your jimmies

SniperWish
SniperWish

@Burnblaze
But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic
Marx may have been right about the overall direction of capitalism, but he was a complete fool when he said that philosophy's job is to change the world rather than understand it, that was monstrously irresponsible of him.
There is nothing that prognosticates a worker's dictatorship after capitalism, it could be anything. I'm of the view that while it's true that the material conditions of a society determine its ideology, that ideology can take many, many forms.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Burnblaze
But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic

wrong

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@Burnblaze
But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic

Wtf is this load of shit?

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Burnblaze
You were an arts major werent you

viagrandad
viagrandad

Meme pop-sci celebrities vs actual scientists. Gee, I wonder.

hairygrape
hairygrape

Philosophy is a bunch of people sitting in a room competing who has the better argument with the information they have. Whether that information may be much, little, true or false has actually never mattered.

eGremlin
eGremlin

@Burnblaze
characteristic of highly specialized positivists. They both try to detach society and the material conditions in which society functions and evolves from the scientific method,

THIS IS NOT WHAT POSITIVISM IS

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@Emberburn
Basing you beliefs off of what other people believe and not through deep introspection Untermensch af

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@SniperWish
There is nothing that prognosticates a worker's dictatorship after capitalism, it could be anything.

You are wrong. The only class with a revolutionary potential is the one that's the most exploited in the current system, which is why only the proletariat can bring forth social change through a revolution. You should actually read Marx to understand his work, not his wikipedia article or random snippets you'll hear "socialists" in your college quoting. Marx's work is extremely complicated and represents a fundamental revolution in political economy and the study of history. Marx's dialectic is the forefront when it comes to those fields.

@JunkTop
not even close

@eGremlin
no, it's something positivists simply tend to do. they detach science from society, as if it functions in some separate bubble that's not subject to ruling class ideology. most of them unironically believe that "the world's problems would all be solved if we all just thought logically guyz!!!", especially the meme celebrity tier ones.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Philosophyfags sure are mad that they studied a useless form of mental masturbation.

Techpill
Techpill

Why do philosophyfags keep making threads on Veeky Forums? How insecure do they have to be?

Methshot
Methshot

@FastChef
this

Methnerd
Methnerd

@Sharpcharm
Liberals are like a cancer so I say for the worse.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@Fried_Sushi
science works, for sure
your political ideology might be garbage and you don't even know it

TechHater
TechHater

Philosophy is so great. I sure do love communism and fee fees over facts.

Methnerd
Methnerd

@Methnerd
hahah XDDD someone with a certain political leaning is a "cancer"
go back to pol

RavySnake
RavySnake

@PackManBrainlure
marxism is science. it's literally the scientific approach to studying political economy and human history.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Methnerd
shitposting
pol boogeyman knee jerk reaction

way to go brainlet.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@Methnerd
Liberals make up the vast majority of scientists user.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@TreeEater
Thanks for proving that Dawkins is based.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@TreeEater
is there anything schrodinger can't do?

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

@Fried_Sushi
The only class with a revolutionary potential is the one that's the most exploited in the current system, which is why only the proletariat can bring forth social change through a revolution.
What if there's simply no revolution?

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@hairygrape

Susskind seems like a cool dude to drink a beer with.

Booteefool
Booteefool

@RavySnake
It parades itself as such and is certainly more of a science than anything else political/economic/societal/social. But even in Marx's time it didn't hold up to scientific standards, today those standards are far stricter. Which results in it amounting to psuedoscience (that's not to say it is wrong or invalid, that's simply its scientific status). It also has a lot of cringy shit that immediately restricts it from being a science, such as dialectical materialism.

cum2soon
cum2soon

Philosophy translates to "love of wisdom". It's clear that the left side loves to learn and grow. They don't spend so much time making nonsense attacks on different fields and disciplines. They enjoy bridging connections and shining the light of knowledge as far and as deeply as possible. They do what they do out of love.

The right does not seem to have this "love". In fact, most of what they say seems to come out as overly defensive. This whole "I have to justify my life's decisions by ridiculing those of others" is nonsense. If you don't love Philosophy, Art, Linguistics, History, Music, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and everything in between, you're a cunt.

massdebater
massdebater

@Emberburn
Who do I believe Veeky Forums?
Not an internet infographic, I hope.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@TreeEater
Homosexual
The only smart people who aren't jews are fags.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@cum2soon
But what has philosophy actually accomplished in the last 50 years? Going off the Krauss quote, can you point me to some recent philosophy of science papers that are actually worth reading?

RumChicken
RumChicken

@TreeEater
Schrödinger was bigamist LOL

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@TreeEater
so...Krauss, Dawkins, Heisenberg and Bohr are /our guys/. sounds about right

TechHater
TechHater

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@TechHater
wheelchair man is projecting methinks

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Emberburn
there is only scientist i trust, rick.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@BunnyJinx
that cannot happen due to the internal contradictions of monopoly capitalism. as wealth accumulates in the hands of the few, cycles of austerity and stimulus are going to produce more unemployment and more financial crises like the 2008 one.

@Booteefool
you are wrong, because you don't understand marxist methodology. don't throw terms like "dialectical materialism" as if you understand them when you haven't actually read marx or engels. it's as cringy as people who watch the big bang theory throwing physics buzzwords thinking they are physicists.

w8t4u
w8t4u

@PackManBrainlure
vaziulin's "logic of history"

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@w8t4u
vaziulin's "logic of history"
link? can't find it online (which is telling)

RumChicken
RumChicken

@TalkBomber
doesn't exist in english.

it's telling

of the fact that scientific methodology in the study of history and political economy has no place in neoliberal academia.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@w8t4u
Did you just make that up

whereismyname
whereismyname

@CodeBuns
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baзюлин,_Bиктop_Aлeкceeвич

his books also exist in greek and german.

tfw people who don't even speak 5 languages exist

sad desu

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@whereismyname
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

that link doesn't seem to work

hairygrape
hairygrape

@PackManBrainlure
can you point me to some recent philosophy of science papers that are actually worth reading?
no one has done this yet

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@hairygrape
i did though, not my fault you only speak your native language pleb

Evilember
Evilember

Your comparing award winning, field changing scientist to a couple pop scientist.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Evilember
That's exactly what the picture is comparing. Which column do you think have made more money from their philosophies(aka popularity)? And which do you think have more value?

King_Martha
King_Martha

@StonedTime
Yes and no.

Booteefool
Booteefool

@whereismyname
Wikipedia does not have an article with this name.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@TreeEater
Both into girls and not, shordingers dick :^)

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@Booteefool
try the 2nd link

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@Emberburn

deriding philosophy and philosophers
criticism of schools of thought, concepts and culture is philosophy
what is epistemology?
what is ontology?
what is motherfucking LOGIC?

this is what happens when you stay in a yes-man bubble

your ego-consciousness gets elevated to a status higher than God and you turn into one of those fedoracores on the right

also if you think the problems of Being-in-the-world can be solved by empiricist rationality then motherfucking lol

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page