Can someone explain this picture for me? I don't get it

define 'humanity' because it sounds like you're threatening humanity to me

>objectively useful
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

LAUGH AT THIS FAGGOT

>objectively useful to humanity.
Is it Walpurgis already?

> It doesn't matter what your epistemology is when the "laws" we've discovered are approximately true enough for the technology we created to work.

As a physicist... people that think like that are everything wrong with physics; I don't know how can people even draw an utilitarian point of view from the writings of Dirac, Feynman or Weyl. That post reeks of not-so-useful shit like "objectively useful to humanity" and "approximately true enough to work". If you're doing science as an utilitarian you can be sure your work is going to be very mediocre, and if you're not a scientist and think science can be done through utilitarianism, you're in for quite some disappointment. Thankfully people like Maxwell did not pretend to be studying because they wanted to invent portable image devices or some dumb shit like that.

a philosophy undergrad will most likely say the opposite of this pic, wth are u smoking

yeah but what if an evil demon is just tricking you into thinking that

>Meanwhile the physics major will go on to do things that are actually objectively useful to humanity.
Only if he's an applied physics major. In which case he's actually objectively retarded

i think the word know should be in italics instead of truth

Thankfully, demons don't exist, so that isn't the case.

What if a demon is just tricking you into thinking that while he fucks your wife

How will physicists ever recover?

Whoever made it is trying to pretend they know more about the nature of the universe than a Physicist despite never actually having studied the nature of the universe (physics) in any meaningful capacity.

Where did you get that idea?

I have a friend who majored in philosophy constantly trying to explain to me that causality doesn't real because "its impossible for us to know stuff, man".

>objectively useful
>throws life away and the lives of all colleges into the tremendous brain drain of string theory that has yielded no applications in applied physics or anything remotely non-theoretical

But there is one advantage in such transcendental inquiries which can be made comprehensible to even the dullest and most reluctant learner—this, namely, that the understanding which is occupied merely with empirical exercise, and does not reflect on the sources of its own cognition, may exercise its functions very well and very successfully, but is quite unable to do one things, and that of very great importance, to determine, namely, the bounds that limit its employment, and to know what lies within or without its own sphere.

t. Kant

He's kinda right. Do you observe causality in nature or is it just two things happening after each other? Or do you infer causality onto things itself? and so on and so on.

The euthanasia of Judaism is the pure moral religion

t. Kant

your friend btfo out of you and you didnt even comprehend. he's probably stuffing your mom. protip: adding a "man" or "dude" at the end of something you think is stereotypical of a certain group of people does not make it wrong. she probably squeals when he cums in her ass

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

...

A young, fresh and cherry STEM student walks into the halls of a sterile English department with his head held high. Stern and with a proud heave, he bellows through the cavern at the beanie-sporters scattered through the hall:

" WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER STUDY, HEATHENS? "

Seven fragrant dreadlocked beards spew coffee from their continental gullets. Free-range hens shuffle out a window somewhere.

" WORDS ON A PAGE OR THE FUCKING COSMOS? "

An emergency evacuation is called. Afghan clogs stuff the exit. Native tears are shed. A triad of cauldrons full to brim with boiling kamquat loose their bellies with a fever on the frantic patrons all around. The shelves are raided. Looters stuffing oriental knapsacks leave no kitsch untouched.

From the roaring depths of chaos in the halls, through sheets of stirring fire: calm and rigid comes up looming in the haze a stoic English professor, tailored suit to keen perfection, forty thousand pages full of Marx and further reading in an unstained palm.

Expressionless, with firm phenomenologic hold on mind and body, he whispers to the STEM student, currently engaged in evil laughter:

" What would you rather study, child? "

The student is hushed. Voiceless. The man has snared his subjectivity entirely.

" Nature - or the nature of nature? "

Of an instant all the place is silent. In the corner, captive underneath the groins of several existential theists, one brave soul begins to clap. Soon the place is flooded with cheer.

The next day, all sciences were cancelled nationwide. The shells of disenfranchised rockets sheltered lonely bohemians everywhere. All was well.

Neither, Causality is implied by the impartial nature of the laws of physics themselves. No matter what method you used to observe or describe them, the laws of physics remain constantly and universally true, implying anything that can be successfully derived from them is also constantly and universally true, implying causality.

Dude, he's a philosophy major. the only thing he's ever fucked is his chances of ever landing a job.

>this is what reddit actually believes

>virtually eliminating armed conflict between the industrialized world powers
>not useful

>namely

>objectively useful

>Anyone that goes into physics will do something useful for humanity
You don't actually believe this do you?

>HECK
the only people who unironically say "heck" are religious goons
now begone

why would you be friends with someone you clearly hate?

I dont hate him, he's a top bloke and I actually really enjoy our arguments over this very topic.

He does believe it because he's never been near an actual college in his life

ok what is it about his position that you find interesting then. You must find it interesting or at least partially convincing if you really enjoy it

pin this

oh yeah, so the model is (I think) that something existing for certain is impossible. The justification for this model is that (again, as I understand it) we, as individuals, can only truly perceive what we observe with our own senses, which may not be perfectly reliable. There's a specific example he brings up wherein all of reality exists either in the present as observed through out senses or as a possibly faulty memory.

My counterargument to this is based on my experience studying physics - particularly the practice of dimensional analysis (the details of which I wont bore you with here) to put it simply, a side affect of the use of dimensional analysis is its proof of the impartiality of the laws of physics, the fact that our physical laws behave the exact same way regardless who, what or how they are observed indicates that they are in fact universal. The universal applicability (or "truthiness" of these laws therefore implies the universal applicability of anything successfully derived from them, such as cars, or computers. In short, it doesn't actually matter how reliable your own perception of reality is, the universal nature of physics proves that it (and obviously therefore causality) will continue to exist exactly as it does regardless.

This doesn't seem to have convinced him, however, which means one or both of us aren't understanding something about the others argument and so it goes on as we each try to find the words to explain ourselves to each other.

You're talking about completely different topics

>"Hat would you rather study, child?"
>"Nature - or the nature of nature?"

But user this image is very clearly not unironic...

then please enlighten me on why so I might bring it up next time a catch up with philosophybro

Its not that what you think is wrong, its that how you think is wrong. How many types of thinking are there? What scientists who venture out of the nuts and bolts of science (pop culture figures, Dawkins/Tyson etc) seem to think is that there's only one way to think about any thing, ie 'the scientific method'. Which is clearly false. When you decide whether you prefer one piece of music over another, or book or film (or person for that matter), you're clearly thinking, but youre not doing hard science. Do you think Beethoven was thinking when he composed? Ok so now you agree there are many different types of thinking. Now just ask yourself is if your allusion to science are appropriate in a given context. Unless the context is explicitly physical reality I'd suggest it isn't.

you're getting your meme mixed up, fedora is STEMlords

an understandable point of view, but if the claimed model is that causality dont real then you are explicitly venturing into the realm of hard science and in the realm of hard science, there really is only one answer. Either causality does real, or it does not.

>Implying philosophy students can't be edgelords who think they've got everything figured out and everyone else is an idiot
What should we call this meme,then?

>implying peace has any social utility whatsoever compared to violence
>getting worked by carnival tricks

OP here, I just didn't know what epistemology meant, I didn't mean to start this fire

>Even if I generally believe that violence is morally wrong, we must do what we can to eliminate threats to society.
>Therefore it is morally permissable to shoot Nazis.
This is an actual arguments leftists make.

kek

Are you implying that the attempted take over of Europe wasn't a threat to society?

>IT WAS ALWAYS BURNING SINCE THE WORLDS BEEN TURNING!

Is this meme dichotomy really embraced by STEM and philosophy students these days? I remember times when students of both disciplines took interest in each other's fields and perennialism was at the heart of education.

Why is everyone wearing fedoras these days? Embrace God, materialism, positivism, whatever you like, but drop the motherfucking fedoras you cringy heathen faggots.

I fear that it has been, so many trends now for people to herd up

Why do philosofags always go after physicists?
You don't see them running up to engineers and yelling about how can they even know that bridge won't collapse when you can't know nothing anyway

It's scientism retardation

t. A person who watches rick and morty

You'll all be eating dick when we actually develop interstellar space travel n shit

Would the problem of causality not existing or no being able to be proven lie in that it's an inductive assumption we make about nature?

>two things happen in nature
>some sort of correlation between the too
>probably because of causality

Is that the basic idea?

Prove it

I don’t know much about physics, but doesn’t quantum uncertainty undermine its very foundation?

Because engineering is simply the industrial application of the bigger phenomenon.

Include me in the screencap

>My counterargument to this is based on my experience studying physics - particularly the practice of dimensional analysis (the details of which I wont bore you with here) to put it simply, a side affect of the use of dimensional analysis is its proof of the impartiality of the laws of physics, the fact that our physical laws behave the exact same way regardless who, what or how they are observed indicates that they are in fact universal.

Uhh what? How do you use dimensional analysis to prove the impartiality of the laws of physics? It's just an assertion of one thing you want to prove. Not to mention that your answer can be different by an arbitrary constant such that, even if your dimensional analysis is correct, your predicted value will differ from your measured value.

I'm a philosophy major.
I work for a major consulting firm in D.C.
I had lunch with a Senator just yesterday.
I'm writing this on the toilet.
Get your act together, faggot.

define proof in physics
define proof in mathematics
define proof in logic

Yeah, that's kinda the "typical" empiricist take on causality: for Hume, causality relies on induction, which is a process whose certainty cannot be proven rationally.

The funny thing is that Hume didn't want to disparage the scientific method with his insight, being himself a big fan of natural sciences. Mostly, he wanted to prove that reason alone could not solve any problem in an age where it was trendy to believe in its allmight.

>if it's not useful today it won't be useful tomorrow
isn't philosophy supposed to fix this kind of thing

you shouldve come to the meetup

your wife came, the causality is muh dick

heh no u

I was three years into a physics degree when I decided to switch majors. Posts like this always serve as a happy reminder that I made the right decision.