Philosophy is being replaced by science...

Philosophy is being replaced by science. Instead of abstract arguments we use methodical and empirical research to determine truth.

Historically, all the natural sciences were considered branches of philosophy, but now we have biology, chemistry etc.

More recently major aspects of metaphysics have been surpassed through psychological breakthroughs. Talking about the "Will" as a driving force seems almost silly when we have evolutionary psychology to explain consciousness and related topics.

Logic -> mathematics
Epistemology -> linguistics, neuroscience, physics
Politics -> economics, psychology
Ontology -> theoretical and nuclear physics, cosmology, biology

Is there such a thing as "pure philosophy", something that can only be reasoned with arguments and not data?

Other urls found in this thread:

tau.ac.il/~quantum/Vaidman/IQM/BellAM.pdf
youtu.be/GmycXN-dAOw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes, symbolic logic is philosophy and an effective way of proving something and showing the preconceptions you've made under which that proof exists

>politics->psychology
perhaps you mean sociology?

Use science to tell me why I shouldn't kill myself. Bonus points if you can use science to find a reason why I should do anything.

try breathing exercises combined with positive emotional training, you will get high naturally

Yes, sociology and economics make up most of politics, the rest being law, and funnily enough law is in the general sense, essentially a study into ethics.

You know what I've witnessed?

People will continue to try bad ideas, over and over and at great cost. They will refuse to try new things because they can't comprehend them. It doesn't occur to them to give up their "progress" and try a new approach. Philosophy is being eaten alive by this cancer.

If we take things on a more personal level, science as an argument loses all value, emotional and ethical arguments have more impact.

I know this is bait, but I will deconstruct anyway because people will actually believe you.


>Logic -> mathematics

This is a philosophical position about mathematics called logicism, and it is generally taken to have been defeated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

>Epistemology -> linguistics, neuroscience, physics

Linguistics is the study of the structur(ual) and evolution of human languages, neuroscience is the study of the brain, physics is the study of matter and energy. What, if anything, do these three lines of inquiry tell us about knowledge as such? Generally, these fields assume an epistemology and proceed from there. The scientific method is an epistemological method. It is not epistemology itself

Politics -> economics, psychology

Economics and psychology are certainly important in understanding politics, but the field of politics itself encompasses a broader range of political phenomenon, including its history, its theory, and sociology. But you don't specify what you mean by "politics". What of comparing normative political ideals? How can that practice be reduced in your mind?

>Ontology -> theoretical and nuclear physics, cosmology, biology

Certainly the most egregious of your claims and betrays a fundamental failure to understand science, how its practicitioners view their practice, and its relationship to ontology. No theoretical physicist is concerned with the problem of universals, modality, temporal ontology, or even the physical interpretation of their own models. See anything from Einstein's Hole Argument to his debates with Bohr over the EPR Paradox if you want a better grasp on how two of the three pillars of contemporary science divorced themselves from their foundations. Philosophy of physics exists, and it exists for good reason

I can use science to explain to you why people generally don't kill themselves (natural selection). I can also use science to tell you why certain people might want to kill themselves (mental disorders). Why you should or shouldn't depends on the circumstances. Even philosophers themselves agree on this, Nietzsche says "he who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", which is often used as the basis for certain psychological therapies.

Oh great, another "everything I disagree with is bait" post. Not even gonna read your shit because you've obviously got your panties in a bunch.

Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack.

You asserted things that are outright false. In your own anger you've misled yourself into believing things that just aren't true. Maybe you'd recognize how much you don't know if you had a better attitude

I skimmed this and all it does is state the definitions of the subjects used as examples without failing to recognise a trend towards to the use of the scientific methods. Who knows if in 200 years physics and computers will tell us more about consciousness and reality than all philosophy combined?

Work on your reading comprehension and you might not be so confused

I agree philosophy is redundant. It is fun to learn how some people used to think about the world, but with the emergence of a modern scientific method, it is clearly not the best tool to gain knowledge. Most of the philosophers were not even able to define morality for crying out loud. Descartes is good though...

>Logic -> mathematics
That's not a science, you nigger.

But I know what you mean, and I don't care. Philosophy as a whole is not being replaced, I think, just certain philosophical lines of reasoning.

Your post basically confirmed that the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science. Once science catches up, the philosophical arguments will seem ridiculous, just like Plato's forms. Until that time, we're stuck with having to listen to people argue about whether objects are things in themselves or not. DUDE WEED.

>Use science to tell me why I shouldn't kill myself.
To be fair, you can't use philosophy for this either.

Someone once told me when philosophers make a breakthrough, other subjects take credit for it. When philosophy developed logic, since it had applications in math, it was seen as a mathematical invention. Likewise achievements in aesthetics are classed under music, art and literature. And that's because they are, what's left of philosophy are things that have no application, and those can't really claim credit for anything because they're highly subjective.

Different guy here. I do have a pretty practical use for philosophy, one that I admittedly didn't even discover until about a year ago. I think philosophical contemplation is the only means we have for revealing and understanding the limits of knowability and coherent reasoning.

Yeah but why
>depends
nice science m8
Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.

>nice science m8
Yes, pointing out that "whether or not X" depends on "whether or not Y" is indeed pretty scientific.

>Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.
You probably mean psychology.

>Philosophy got me more on the matter than science ever did.
If all you want are viewpoints on the matter, then you might as well cling to religion or art, or anything, really. You challenged "science" by demanding an *answer*, not a bucket of opinions, and this answer cannot be given by philosophy either.

I'm not saying this in defense of the OP's position, by the way. I just think your implication that philosophy can actually give you definitive "Oughts" is wrongheaded.

>philosophy is being replaced by science
>the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science

>methodical and empirical research to determine truth
lol. nice b8.

What do you suggest instead?

Nothing. Truth is a myth for pseuds.

op, consider to learn the basics of epistemology

Not that guy, but physicist here. To think that philosophy has no means of outdoing science (specially in ontology, wtf?) shows a grave misunderstanding of science. A misunderstanding that I won't take out on you because even many colleagues suffer from it.

What most people nowadays seem to hold belief into is a twisted empirical version of positivism where they believe somehow that data has inherent meaning that we simply have to find out. Apparently saying "Force is due to acceleration and acceleration is due to force" is no long a circular statement about relationship among elements (elements we can't even define in themselves) but are ontological expressions about the nature of both force and acceleration (protip it isn't).

Somewhere along the line people like Lawrence Krauss forgot their 101 courses where they learned that they can only know "hows" and "what happens to X if I change Y" and started believing that "Humanity is here so the universe can measure itself" are empirically backed statements in an ontological better position than "There is a man in the sky telling us to cut our children's foreskin". A sad state of affairs when the last batch of physicists who knew philosophy (e.g Dirac, Schroedinger) have left a huge chunk of hard philosophical problems to people who can do no better than look at molecule spectra popping in a PC screen and daydream about tenure. We need a revival of philosophy interest in physics, for all intents and purposes our collective group nowadays is no more than the most glorified and overspecialized technicians in the market.

Disagree with your second paragraph (I don't think that any form of empirical positivism is really all that popular; people in general embrace and even celebrate science as a "truth factory" only for as long as said "truths" validate their preexisting beliefs and feelings; the moment someone talks about "lived experience", all empiricism flies out the window), but very much agree with your third.

Then philosophizing over it is pointless. Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
I'm well aware that physicists used to be classically schooled and had a deeper interest in metaphysics. I also don't care for many of the expressions of toxic scientism. But this isn't really my area, so feel free to elaborate on the practical effects of reintegrating physics with philosophy, or maybe give some sources so I can read up on it.

Then philosophizing over it is pointless. Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
I'm well aware that physicists used to be classically schooled and had a deeper interest in metaphysics. I also don't care for many of the expressions of toxic scientism. But this isn't really my area, so feel free to elaborate on the practical effects of reintegrating physics with philosophy, or maybe give some sources so I can read up on it.

logi is only good for the structure of an argument.
logic does nothing to investigate the contents of ''p''


>More recently major aspects of metaphysics have been surpassed through psychological breakthroughs. Talking about the "Will" as a driving force seems almost silly when we have evolutionary psychology to explain consciousness and related topics.
yet people are still going on about weather we are living in a simulation or not, or living in a holographic universe or not.

Some people like to be told a story instead of looking at flowcharts.

the nature of choice and free will, is that yes, you must be aware of your choices in order to exercise your will properly.

though the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence still hold true.

How do you know we haven't tried everything physically capable of our minds to comprehend?

and additionaly how do you know theres something more?

I mean how do we know there isn't something more than just multiplication addition subtraction and division in arithmetic?


thought experiments and meditation are crucial to enlightenment and wisdom.
fuck off with your fascist stance on the scientific method.

>this guy assumes everything will eventually be explained away by science

faith has been around alot longer, and will probably persist much longer than the reliance on the scientific method.

philosophy is about refining questions
philosophy poses questions
comes up with some tools
then the students scholars and pupils take these questions and tools and run with them

>Truth is a myth for [u]pseuds[/u].
>Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
Checkmate

>science/philosophy divide
You know that isn't a thing, right guys?

tau.ac.il/~quantum/Vaidman/IQM/BellAM.pdf

>its a stemfag doesn't even understand his own field and thinks he "debunked" philosophy chapter
You are using (shitty) philosophy to create your dumb post anyways, everyone discussing it too. Science will never replace this, you like it or not philosophy is here to stay.

>Science still has predictive power, which serves as truth in a practical manner.
Woah, this retarded argument has never been BTFO in the history of philosophy before!
Just start with the greeks and delete this thread

This is a non-issue.
Science and Philosophy are both means.

There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

Not an argument. Why are philosophy fags always so sensitive?

Epic image!

You are the one who got so hurt about people suggesting that maybe taking scientific data as objective truth brings a lot of problems
Start with the greeks

>Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack
Take your own advice desu senpai

Philfags always revert to this though, so the image is very accurate. They seek refuge in pointless word play or sterile thought experiments (''how do you KNOW you KNOW?'') etc. The scientist may say they're not in contact with some platonic form of truth, or they can't say for sure if this is all just part of a simulation, but a combustion engine still works because of x, y, z, this pill will make you happy because this chemical interacts with the brain in so and so ways. Philosophy majors are gutted over their chosen field's waning relevance when it comes to explaining the natural world, so like the pissant brainlets they are they lash out in a futile attempt at salvaging their own self image as le ebin intellectuals.

youtu.be/GmycXN-dAOw

''start with the greeks'' isn't an argument.

Y-you really cannot know nuthin, though.

>Next time, try reading a post without getting angry and seeing everything as an attack.
You don't see the irony here?

>luddite angry at their dying medium

OP the whole post is wrong and is also shit, but the field of LOGIC came from MATHEMATICS ok?

I think any student of philosophy knows a certain law when it comes to philosophy
"for every theory there exists an equally sound theory that disagrees with it"
so this leaves alot of philosopher making up their own mind.

like I said in a previous post. Philosophy isn't about finding solutions to answers. Its about refining our questions so we know what solutions to look for.

Philososphy asks a bunch of questions, and science does its best to provide an empirical answer or solution to the problem through engineering.

and science can be accused of the same exact thing.
I mean you go down the philosophy rabbit hole to deep and youre going to find alot of wierd arguments, propositions, variables and terms.
much like science does when you do the "large amounts of energy in small amounts of time" things get really wierd.

Science can only go so far as well.
quit being so narrow minded.

actually logic started with plato-- i think
existentials
for every x such that ...... was first.
has something to do with venn diagrams.

>logic started with plato
rather with aristotle

It actually started with Parmenides

Philosophy is for people who have unique snowflake syndrome. Let me explain life to you. 'Consciousness' began with simple organisms and these organisms evolved through millions of years until they were able to think about their own consciousness. There's no such thing as the soul, you are simply the result of evolution and your actions are predetermined at an atomic level. The world around you is physical and you perceive it through the senses, also developed through evolution. There's nothing special about you.

You can ask yourself questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "what does it mean to be?" but your answers will be contrived because you're a piece of meat on a rock floating through space, there's no purpose or meaning to your life. Fuck your philosophy at least try to understand the world instead of asking dumbass questions nobody can answer.

shut up snowflake

>so this leaves alot of philosopher making up their own mind.
About things that eventually get proved scientifically. Leibniz and Hume spent years arguing about whether things existed outside of the observer, what a fucking waste of time that was.

your philosophy is called scientism. yes it is philosophy. no it is not science

You're using that word wrong. Also over 80% of anons in this threads are newfags we havent gotten a single logical positivism meme yet.

ITT: niggers who do not know ANY of the words theyre using lmao

2012: 4/10 bait
2018: 50/10 bait you go lad

Try to prove the following proposition empirically : the total energy of the Universe remains constant.

why do you think this is a waste of time?

and considering what they were talking about in the historical context its not at all suprising, they were at least trying to move the dialogue beyond "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

ethics, metaphysics, existentialism. besides, still a lot of questions that science cannot answer, Google it.

Name one thing wrong in that post.
What has philosophy answered that science can't?

>Your post basically confirmed that the only thing philosophy exists for is stuff that we can't reliably investigate using science.

Not him, but no shit. Philosophy exists to investigate the mysteries of life. If there were a better way to do it, we would do it. Science cannot solve all of our mysteries (currently, and perhaps never, though there is a chance it will be able to in the future). So ALL we have RIGHT NOW, is philosophy. There are no other options.

Or are you suggesting we collectively sit on our haunches and give up our musings because "science will eventually figure it out?"

>To be fair, you can't use philosophy for this either.
Yes you absolutely can since a large portion of philosophy deals in ethics, morals, and life philosophy.

>Philosophy is being replaced by science.
Science was only relatively recently delineated from philosophy. It isn't that it is replacing philosophy, but that it has evolved into its own distinct array of fields. Philosophers always tried to predicate their points based on evidence derived from external observations, logic, rationality, etc.

There is no conflict between the two.

Religion uses specious reasoning, if that.

Art (there's a broad category) can be abstract in a subjective, feeling kind of way, which may not be conducive to "true" insight. On the other hand, it can be meaningful and steeped in philosophy, say as in literature.

Philosophy, in contrast to the latter elements, is structured and logical as relates to the human condition. You're more likely to get well-defined, reasonable answers using it than you would the other two.

But it won't give you any definitive answers, and it probably never will. Plato is as much of an authority on morality as Ham Sarris, and that's the painful truth.

Philosophy usually doesn't find definite answers, but science doesn't either. I recommend you read up on the philosophy and history of science. It's probably not as linear as you think.

Furthermore, who would you wager has a more comprehensive answer to this question: Is life inherently meaningless, and if so, what can be done about it?

A theoretical physicist, or an existential philosopher who's life work focuses on this very question?

Not definitive no, but there are few definite things in life. You can still get meaningful answers that are imbued with the possibility of being false.

>Philosophy usually doesn't find definite answers, but science doesn't either
As definitive as they need to be.
Science
>''Why does a rock fall to the ground if I drop it?''
>because gravity, son

Philosophy
>''why shouldn't I kill myself?''
>''uhh, well you see... because jesus... or *insert contrived social construct*, and *insert abstraction*, and because it gives bad feels and try putting your hand on a hot stove, it sucks doesn't it? Imagine if everyone did that.

>Furthermore, who would you wager has a more comprehensive answer to this question
The philosopher. Just like a hippie can tell me more about tarot cards and crystals.

I was thinking about this recently. Both psychology and sociology will always be tied to politics more so than philosophy.

But not everything can be proven scientifically. For example, consider the argument surrounding determinism and free will-there is no possible way to ensure absolute measurements can be taken for any cause-effect interaction within the universe, and thus we're left making presumptions about how the universe interacts at a base level, and one can choose either to believe in a model of determinism or free will.

Science, in fact, requires one to assume the world is deterministic in nature: that one certain action will definitely cause the same effect.

If all that matters to you is the cold hard facts, then science is perfectly suitable.

But even the cold hard facts aren't cold hard facts. The history of science is riddled with mistakes as to the foundation of certain "facts" and will probably continue to be so. Like I said, read books like "The Scientific Revolution" by Shapin, and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn to learn more.

>The philosopher. Just like a hippie can tell me more about tarot cards and crystals.

This is terribly reductive and not a very good analogy, which makes me think you probably haven't really studied philosophy in any meaningful way.

Also consider your pill example. You assume that the pill will definitely make a depressed person happy- but this doesn't cause the same effect in every depressed person. Science can't always invoke absolutes about how the world works.

>This is terribly reductive and not a very good analogy, which makes me think you probably haven't really studied philosophy in any meaningful way
How so? What gives Plato greater weight than spirit science?

You're implying, through that analogy, that philosophy is nothing more than unstructured, formless ideas, based on fanatical traditions and beliefs with no solid logical meaning behind them.

Any good philosophy is based on rationale, knowledge, and logic, very much unlike new-age bullshit.

My point wasn't that it's always incoherent or invalid. Just that it's filled with unfalsifiable assertions.

Did you pray to science today, user?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Of course philosophy is falsifiable. That's why we have so many different opinions and arguments within any given philosophical discipline.

Scientist here (undergrad in mechanical engineering)

Have fun talking about 2000 year old books and god/the soul/your faith/whatever while I push humanity's knowledge forward

>enginerds
>scientists
Hahaha

>Scientist here (undergrad
kek
also i thought they taught them some philosophy of the science in the uni but apparently it's wasted on most of the people

>Philosophy has no relevance to scie-

4/10 bait

Eh, a lot of it is just useless chatter. Consider Plato's theory of the soul. How do we test that? We can't. We can demonstrate the theory of relativity though.

how could you possibly demonstrate empiricism??

>But it won't give you any definitive answers, and it probably never will.
Nor will science. The scientific method uses a few assumptions at its base.
The amount of things we can know deductively is extremely small.

Because STEMfags don't ponder the subjects in those classes
t. STEMfag

If there's psychics envy; Should we also recognize envy to relevance of things said about the human condition?

Philosophy exists outside of the ancient Greeks. Their thoughts of course are going to feel antiquated to our modern senses.

But there IS plenty of modern phil that has important implications for today's world. Both regarding the human condition, and our progress toward innovation. Again, I think the Philosophy of Science is extremely relevant here.

Fuck off, STEMsperg.

>becuz i sed so
please test my Draino by simulating my shitter pipes with your esophagus.

>Any good philosophy is based on rationale, knowledge, and logic
Nope. Fuck off, STEMsperg.

>Just that it's filled with unfalsifiable assertions.
Why is this bad?
Science is filled with far more, in addition to external axioms.

I majored in philosophy you dumb fuck. I'm arguing FOR philosophy.

Unless, you're trolling me, in which case, well done.

"the human condition" is that we're all a bunch of senseless chemical reactions that aimlessly evolved from monkeys and before that, fishes.
There is no meaning to the cosmos
There is no "purpose" to life
Human nature is just a collection of evolutionary adaptations
Consciousness is just something mankind made up to feel special
God doesn't exist

See science already solved that problem. You can stop reading now. Thanks.

As I said later on, you can't answer the question any more meaningfully than you can using religion, art, or even science itself:

>Why shouldn't I kill myself?
>Because as far as we can tell, killing yourself puts an end to any person's capability to experience sensations.
>Yeah, but why shouldn't I do that?
>Cue dogmatic break, infinite regress or circular reasoning.

Meanwhile, in philosophy:
>Why shouldn't I kill myself?
>Because, for one thing, pure reason dictates that one ought not to instrumentalise oneself as a means to an end.
>Yeah, but how can I know that pure reason reveals actual truth, and even if so, *why* should I care at all about its imperatives?
>Cue dogmatic break, infinite regress or circular reasoning.


I guess my point is, get fucked with your oughtistic shit.

>le regress argument meme

Science will tell me why it rains, why volcanoes erupt, or the effects of cyanide on the human body.

Philosophyfags will ask me how I know that I know that I know that I know etc. Ad infinitum.

There's a reason why one is valued over the other. Why STEMfags are considered heroes and philfags no longer are. Because pointless navel gazing and aggressive autism about semantics doesn't accomplish shit.

inb4 pointless is a value judgment