explain to me how science doesn't render the entirety of literature irrelevant
No one needs poetry or another 800 pages of self-indulgent prose
People do need to actually understand and explain the world in which they exist
pic related. someone who contributed way more to the world than any humanities major ever will
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
telegraph.co.uk
medium.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I can 100% guarantee you Stephen Hawking would vehemently disagree with you.
This is now a stephen hawking remembrance thread. There will be no debate on the topic referenced by the OP.
op pic is op physically
>People do need to actually understand and explain the world in which they exist
no they don't. No one today is any happier or more fulfilled than people in the Bronze Age. They're healthier thanks to medicine, which no one needs to understand to use, in other respects they're likely less satisfied with life given the rise of nihilism, consumerism, and the breakdown of social life.
But he’s dead…………………………
What a talented author
A scientist would've never written Don Quixote. Laboratorial autism only gets you so far.
>Like a Doctor Who adventure
My sides! This was the best quote they could find?
Are any of his books good?
>less satisfied
So why haven't you humanities faggots made people happier and more fulfilled? I mean that's your only benefit, right?
MUH HOOTEELEETY
op done told ya, literature is irrelevant
t. utilitarian
Because one's first purpose is making himself happy, humanities buffs are usually self conscious due to the philosophy they grapple with and they struggle with making themselves happy first. Man is egoistic by nature.
Dear STEMfag, your Illuminist crusade is retarded.
It's not even a competition, you underage retard. Maybe look into some Science to understand why.
Hawking would unironically call you a brainlet.
I've been sort of plagued by this idea for a while now, and what it comes down to is literally in the name the 'humanities'
What good is a life made biologically perfect/long via medicine and technology?
Sure it's sensually delightful, but a large part of life is 'art' which is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with 'humanities'
Yes humanities do 'teach you how to live,' but they are also a point of relation for people.
Basically unless you are literally a completely autistic person obsessed with one task, you need to relate to people and humanities accomplish this in a variety of different ways.
To continue with one thing I forgot:
when technology reaches its apex, what will we have left? The humanities
it renders literature painfully relevant by providing escapism once you realize the material hell we exist in
if you're too stupid to have realize that before you asked this question, you're probably not much of a science type in the first place
If not b8, you're a sad pragmatic utilitarian. I bet Stephen cherishes the finer moments of life. I know damn well he never forget his youthful days of playing football or reading his favorite story and that he always cherished those "worthless" hobbies that did not serve nor contribute any practical advancement.
Fiction provides subjective answers, because life is a subjective experience.
And math.
Does math have no 'logical conclusion' like science?
Serious question-- extremely high level math makes no fucking sense to me
I see that math transcends the physical world, language of God if you will.
But pure math seems impractical when first discovered—shouldn't fucking matter if it performs as a utility or not. I don't see pseuds cursing sports or music for their lack of practical, applicable value in survival or whatever end goal is desired by saying "why does this even matter??? How does it help people???".
I digress. Given pure math seems highly impractical at first, many times over, like a span of a few years, physicists or some other science—mostly physicists—find an application for it. ex) mathematicians learns a lot about prime numbers. Years later, programmers use prime numbers and the study of them to create strong forms of encrypting code.
>Does math have no 'logical conclusion' like science?
Yes. It's pure logic.
>ex)
P1: 2 is even.
P2: A prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself(this is the easy definition, there's a formulaic one).
P3: 2 is prime.
C: 2 is the only even prime number, because if another prime number were even, it would not be prime.
random example, but that is a clear logical conclusion.
Why live if there's no art nor entertainment?
Name one thing Stephen Hawking added to the stock of practical human knowledge.
I'll wait...
Hawkin's own "model-theoretic realism" precludes any "understanding" of the world you might glean from physical theories. You will find no causal explanations for the world in the formalism of special relativity or quantum mechanics. It always comes down to (philosophical) interpretation
Art and Entertainment are mathematical formulas and not unique or subjective in any way :^)
He uhh... Well he.... Uhh... Brief History of Time dude, read it sometime.
Reminder to atheists:
youtube.com
Kek. Fucking burgers, you can't tell if they are trolling or just stupid.
It's a tool for escapism and philosophy.
It's a way to relieve stress.
And most of all, it's entertaining you no-fun faggot.
Hawking liked to watch French art films. It's not literature, but it's target of the same criticism you level at the humanities by some autists in STEM
it'll be hundreds or maybe thousands of years before the consequences of hawking's work are understood. assuming humanity survives that long
but the biggest impact of great scientists is that they inspire other scientists. it's likely that if hawking wasn't so well known, you and i wouldn't be able to trade shitposts with each other on the web.
You fuckin' pseud
>If not b8, you're a sad pragmatic utilitarian.
Nah, even utilitarians tend to understand the value of art.
>explain to me how science doesn't render the entirety of literature irrelevant
Humanities were never relevant, except for the professions like law.
>5,000 years of written history of philosophy
>in that time, have made absolutely zero conclusions about anything
It's almost as if it was all wasted time.
Your thoughts are shallow. I envy you. If i were you, i would abstain from read anything important. Study science and be happy! If you encounter something in life that is not comprehensible through science, apply more science to it, or leave it as irrelevant to your existence.
A Brief History of Time is pretty good imo, better than the average popsci book due to his humor and way of explaining things. I read it several years ago so I sadly can't tell you much more but I do remember enjoying reading it (and it was basically one of the few turning points in my life that made me study physics). Hope that helps, user.
In my humble opinion, a combination of mathematics and philosophy is something that physics should strive to be; higher mathematics is pure logic - add reason to that and you're on your way of explaining the universe.
How about two things?
>Hawking radiation
>Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem(s)
Because if you don't read literature or learn how to write good English, you'll never be able to write informed scientific literature to help inform the public, persuade them on the awesomeness of science, or present your own information for the benefit of society and the body of scientific knowledge.
You dumb shit.
I'll ask my question again since you obviously didn't read it properly: what did he add to the stock of practical human knowledge.
And no, his speculations about black holes do not carry practical weight for human beings although they certainly are "interesting" to subeducated people who desperately want to parade their (superficial) interest in the latest discoveries of science.
>People do need to actually understand and explain the world in which they exist
animals prove that wrong.
ITT: Retards who have not practiced any field at a high enough level to realize only pseuds unironically argue for dominance over other disciplines post freshman year uni.
You think Peter and Mary Grant actually give a shit if their work is perceived as "more valuable" than the novels of Joyce or the works of Saul Kripke lmao.
Isnt this the guy they based Microsoft Sams voice on?
you need to go back
Scientific writing ages like milk unless it’s something basic that can last. Do you see people reading Newton? Meanwhile people still read plays by greek pedos thousands of years later.
S L A V E
L
A
V
E
*dies of tuberculosis at 20*
Yes? I’m going to be reading Ptolemys Almagest very soon and ancient mathematics and science has a lot of crossover. Apollonius’ On Conics is still true, and still enjoyable to read
Why is he called a philosopher by google
Have you read Being and Time?
Has anyone other than me who browses Veeky Forums considerably read or bought ANY scientific literature?
You know, like Ptolemy, or Ibn Al-Haytham?
Yes I've read Being and Time why does that matter
no
Why are people celebrating this patriarchal misogynist who mansplained science to women like he knew it better than they did?
>Do you see people reading Newton?
yeah because nobody ever talks about gravity or calculus or anything
you dolt. newton is one of the most influential scientists ever to have lived
he has a ton of stuff named after him
I know entire families of academics. The way academia works is kind of like a dynasty. But usually the kids choose way different fields than the parents and they're encouraged to go for a PhD in something different. Family networks then become multidisciplinary knowledge networks.
And this meant I understood black holes, hawking radiation, and the basics of cosmology when I was 12. I see no issue.
Literature inspires people intellectually in a way no other artform can. Sure, you can be driven to discover the universe by looking to the skies, but how many scientists have fallen in love with books like Diskworld, War of the worlds, or Dune? Or innovating technology without books like Brave New World and Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy?
As for non fiction, how can you possibly underestimate the influence of philosophy on the minds outside academia? Where would economics be without Adam Smith? Or Science without Descartes?
His contribution to popular science is in some ways greater than his scientific works. History of time and Universe in a Nutshell made science accessible and fascinating to the layman, which is so critical. He had a real sense of humor and made science fun. Hawking was someone who brought people into STEM.
So yes, his books are must reads IMO for laymen looking to understand physics. For the authentic experience, get the audio book.
Math is beautiful because it is knowledge and logic and law in its purest form. It dictates literally everything, from waves, to light, to social phenomenon, fucking everything. Even philosophers totally dedicated to the humanities value and revere math.
Ah yes, indeed practical discoveries. New, real-world applications of this knowledge are found everyday!
Observable scientific discoveries are always made through the advancement of technology and, much more importantly, the philosophy behind the technology is used.
Hence why The Sand-Reckoner by Archimedes is impressive, because it mentions a heliocentric universe, and a geocentric one, but the explanation overall utilizes just a simple instrument to measure proportionate stadia over the horizon, and try to determine the diameter of the Earth. The technology was impressive, but it was the idea behind it that was the most impressive thing about the work.
>Is anyone other than me who browses Veeky Forums considerably a megapseud like me?
No, sorry kid. I have yet to browse "I Fucking Love Science!" Facebook pages as extensively as yourself.
i bet people said shit like this when einstein died too
now we have gps etc
What on earth are you talking about? No one, absolutely no one, is a bigger pseud than someone who denounces either philosophy or science. Just look ITT it's people talking about scientific LITERATURE.
How in the world can consumerism make someone less satisfied with life?
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.
telegraph.co.uk
talking about gravity means you have actually read newton??
some apple product being named after him means a lot of people read his work??
are you fucking stupid
But we don't exist in the world. The world exists in us
That. Is the stupidest thing in this whole thread.
have you ever read a single piece of philosophy in your life senpai
>explain to me how science doesn't render the entirety of literature irrelevant
Because literature inspires the roadmap that science takes.
medium.com
hey retard, without the humanities you wouldn't know jack shit about your soul. You're welcome.
>poet solves Olber's Paradox
op btfo like the cuckalo he is.
Literature includes scientific journals and science textbooks. Idiot
>no one needs poetry
hmmmmmm
>judge somebody using the same metric they used
>you must be utilitarian
c'mon son
Top brainlet
>"How in the world can consumerism make someone less satisfied with life?"
he asked unironically
This, but not in a brainlet self-help Western Buddhism kind of way.
This is funny.
alright just try living with absolutely no form of art whatsoever you god damn soulless robot
>We aren't happier than we used to be for reason, reason, and reason
>Whoah man, rosy retrospection!
Shaking my head
Art provides questions. Science provides answers. Only bad fiction provides answers, like I dunno, Spielberg movies.
It's like video games but for adults.
Exactly
what?
>science is the answer for everything
why user, that was dumb
the more powerful technology and science there is, the more we need philosophy, especially in the subjects of ethic, and in term of, how could be actually these technology beneficial to us
have you ever wonder why the modern men are mostly depressed, lonely, and unhappy?
I think the recent breakthrough like in Quantum Mechanics, and (not yet provable) String Theory will definitely need some philosophical dissection and treatment from the actual philosopher, (especially if String Theory proven to be true)
too many advancement and scientific discovery will only do shit to humanity and civilization in general if we just 'let it took it course' instead of managing it ethically to the benefit of humankind around the globe.
technology and scientific discovery are no solution to the betterness of mankind
what is the use being so advance but so many people around the globe hate each other, and in some part of the group just literally killing themselves
your theoretical physicist cannot decide what to do, what is the best for humankind, even with all proven hypotheses, data, and facts were now on his hand. he is just a middle man that somehow - using scientific technique - these yadda-yadda theories proven to be a fact. he is just a middle man, and society had no use for it.
of course he got no use for these facts, with the exception of able to use these new information to develop new technology/and feeding the shits - turned it into an industry and so on - but that's it. that is not an advancement that will improve people live.
with the megaverse size of the universe, we hardly able to know it all, or have every explanation of everything that happened on molecular, atomic, nano-size level. (even if we did, we still don't know shit what to do with those information)
>the truth
and no matter how advance the technology and scientific discovery is, there is always question left unanswered because human intelligence have its limit and not all scientific theory can be tested.
these questions, unanswered questions need philosophy
>why?
why we need philosophy? because human being are so fucked up. we need rational arguments, original thinking, and ethic to prevent us from living the harmless, and/or meaningless life.
i think we need philosophy as much as we need art, and as much as we need each other
we need each other to validify our self worth and our ego.
>without each other, to just to live alone would be quite unfulfilled life, resort to meaninglessness
imagine if the world finally resorts to nuclear war and (You) happened to be the only survivor.
for an individual to live alone on this earth, post-civilization era, he will lost his sense of identity, existentially ones ego need others, to preserve and validify ones meaning for life.
Most scientists will be invalidated or forgotten except for a select few geniuses like your Einsteins or Newtons who can bring together everything in game changing ways. On the other hand people will be remembering the poetry of a weird sermonist who believed in the Trinity like John Donne 500 years from now because his love poetry applies to relationships even if humanity migrates to different planets.
If you ask me who will have a real impact on humanity, artists and creatives will always win against the void.
I agree about humanities majors though.
>have you ever wonder why the modern men are mostly depressed, lonely, and unhappy?
But they aren't
Holy crap what a bunch of morons. Every piece of mathematics and physics from the last 50 years has somehow found its way into our daily lives; it may not be immediately obvious but it always happens. Like another user said, Einstein's General Relativity is far from being accessible to the average Joe but it's used for GPS which is used everywhere today. Same for these things, they have to do with Topology and will most probably find some practical use in the near future.