Why does philosophy reject science?

>guise i solved ethics
>it's just utilitarianism
>but-but SCIENCE!
>it's just "common sense" that you ought to desire pleasure over misery for other people!

>No wonder he's arguing to consider his imaginary bullshit just as real as anything observable.
if you believe so much in empirical evidence, you should know there is empirically no argument in your reply

>Philosophy is the pursuit of truth.

How many truths has philosophy actually caught up with?

The fact that you cannot know nuffin

The fun part is, everything you are trying to make fun of there is actually true.
So.. thanks for making it obvious you have no counterarguments of any substance.

Is this a bait or you're just utterly ignorant on the subject?

Atheist here. Philosophy is useful.

Science is a philosophy. Particularly, it's an empirical method for interpreting and logging carefully-collected information about material phenomena. It is a very useful philosophy, but not the only useful philosophy.

We also need philosophies of ethics, governance, and economic to decide what sort of information scientists should pursue, how well-funded the scientists should be, and how the information science collects should be applied.

Philosophies of economics, governance and ethics should use scientific results to make the best decisions possible, but at the end of the day, some decisions are separate from the information (for example, whether to apply physics to create an atom bomb is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method, because the scientific method only exists to gather objective statements about physical phenomena.)

Pic related. How could the scientific method, as useful as it is, ever address a statement like the one on the left? There is no means of proving or disproving it. It comes down to a philosophy of ethics.

"Philosophy" does not reject science. Some branches may, but not the whole of philosophy does. Not even a majority of it does, I would say.

I hate these STEM autists vs Philosophy druggies threads. Both have their place and are connected in many ways.

Look at the people in this thread

So zero then?

Philosophy doesn't "reject" science, that would mean rejecting a part of itself. It knows that it is a part of itself, that science is a subset of philosophy, and therefore does not have ALL the answers.

>religion isn't an even worse case of confirmation bias
You aren't doing your side any favors

>this fucking entry level thread

1. This kind of thread will draw out the retards.

2. This board hardly represents Philosophy as a discipline.

You might be talking about academical research. Thats not all of science.
Science is about anything that can be reliably confirmed as true, and the information collected by these methods.
Philosophy is about concepts, and how to meaningfully distinguish and talk about concepts.

"Should we build an atom bomb" depends on what net damage/profit it will bring to anything that can expirience damage/profit. Thats an objective measurement.
Since, in theory, we could simulate/predict the impact of developing an atom bomb, its a scientific question like any other.

>Philosophy is about concepts
Truth, logic, and value are concepts. Presuppositions, which science, like anything else, rests on, are based on the assumption of the existence of certain concepts, or on the faith of their inherent value — in science the presupposition is in thinking that truth is valuable to us and that logic is a viable means of understanding the world. All in all, this makes science a subset of philosophy.

Because of evolution.

Philosophy mostly deals with questions of how things should be, while science asks if those things are even possible. When the theory of evolution came around society started to be looked at as an organism that evolves. With it came the realization that it has a will of its own, so to speak, and that individuals cannot change the collective - that evolution will run its course and that there is nothing one can do to stop it. From a scientific point of view, this made philosophy a pointless task since it mostly dealt with things out of the realm of possibilities - e.g. the ideal state. And philosophy that dealt with things that were in fact possible and happening was integrated as social sciences, cultural studies and the like.

However philosophy did keep its function within society in the same way religion kept its function after the era of enlightenment. However since science destroyed the premise of philosophy (that things can be changed) in the same manner as the premise of religion (that there is a god), philosophy went on to reject science and evolution in the same way as religion does.

we were comparing philosophy and science.
Religion is on a different level. Religion is the pursuit of God. Christianity is God's pursuit of man.

A study of languages and words doesn't make languages and words subsets or offshoots of that study.

The other day in a thread about free will we had someone who actually studied biology in a university talking about neurons and anons just told him to read some 18th century philosophers

philosofags are clueless, kek

we were comparing philosophy and science.
Water Dowsing is on a different level. Water Dowsing is the pursuit of watery goodness. Dowsing Rods are Water's persuit of Man.

This is why STEMlords need to have Philosophy of Science in their curriculum.

Philosophy doesn't reject science. Philosophers reject science.

So many fags are just butthurt that everything has, is, or will be explainable physically if we follow the same trends that we have been for the last few centuries.

It's not philosophy that rejects science, because science is a subfield of philosophy. It's nuts to reject part of oneself. It's those in other fields, the people, who reject the notion that everything has a physical explanation.

Failure to consciously acknowledge the philosophical foundation of something doesn't detach it from its roots in philosophy. Science is essentially the "philosophy that truth is more valuable than untruth" in application — it does not consciously value it, it has ALREADY assumed its value, and is past the point of discussing these values. In this sense it is definitely a part of a subsection of philosophy.

>However beginning in the 19th century, the rise of the scientific method created a schism in academia. Modern philosophers often not only are ignorant of science but even openly oppose it. I'd like to know why. Why is philosophy dominated nowadays by people who have no interest in, or even contempt for science? Shouldn't philosophy be more productive if it embraced scientific results?

[c i t a t i o n n e e d e d]

Why do Dawkins and the lot reject philosophy?

I see that you have no argument besides your edginess. It does not matter how much you reject truth, you'll never change it

>questions of ethics, a construct created by philosophy, can only be answered by philosophy
yeah no shit science cant answer ethical questions. it doesnt want to nor does it need to

I don't think they reject it, they just misinterpret what some philosophers say about it. When someone like Nietzsche defends the usefulness and progressiveness of science while also exposing how it will lead us to the last man if not properly kept in check, because it has the tendency to create intellectual and philosophical bigotry, they for some reason think he is demonizing and shitting on the entire field of science.

>Science is essentially the "philosophy that truth is more valuable than untruth" in application
but thats wrong
science is the philosophy that some things are more true than others

>"Should we build an atom bomb" depends on what net damage/profit it will bring to anything that can expirience damage/profit. Thats an objective measurement.
>depends on what net damage/profit it will bring

Ah, yes. But the idea that we should be preventing damage and bringing in profit is itself a philosophical conclusion. A correct one, in my world view, but still.

You came to the conclusion that we should be preventing damage/ bringing in profit without the aid of science.

Truly objective statements, like "A is composed of B and C" is something that can be confirmed through scientific inquiry.

Statements like "We should build A because we stand to gain B and C" while able to be supported by scientific data, are not themselves scientific conclusions. They are informed by a philosophy of some sort, in which certain outcomes are rendered "desirable" and others "undesirable."

>>christianity
>>truth
lol

It's also that. But why be concerned about what's more true, like science is, if you don't also value truth over its opposite in the first place?

>omg Sam Harris wants to kill people, how can you agree with this immoral kuffar
>revolution is the only way to change a society for the better

What do you fags imagine a revolution to look like?

>the idea that science is in any way logical

irrelevant for the question of what science is

you can be a scientist and value untruth more than truth. where to put your values is an ideological question and does not define science

>you can be a scientist and value untruth more than truth
That would make the person a scientist and a philosopher then. The scientist alone, however, can't think that. It goes against the very first step of all scientific investigation and study.

im just following what you said and you said that science is a philosophy, which makes every scientist a philosopher by default

How does science deal with morality? Philosophy and Science exist in two completely different realms of discussion, and melding them these days is pretty silly.

Can we please stop propagating this meme. Krauss and Hawking were talking out of their ass on a subject out of their field and now we have this stupid notion that philosophy and science are somehow rivals.

Science is a subset of philosophy in that it rests on philosophical presuppositions but scientists don't philosophize in the same sense. Science =/= the scientists. Kind of like how politicians often put certain philosophies into application, but their act of politicizing under this application does not mean they are philosophizing. To philosophize means to create new values, not apply ones created by others.

>Sam Harris
See theres your problem.

>To philosophize means to create new values
who told you that?

Philosophy did. It started with the pre-Socratics, who each created their own value systems. All philosophers hitherto have done this.

My niggas

Positivism is terrible. If our knowledge is limited to our empirical perceptions, then that's all our knowledge is: A perception. The Heavens appear to be a massive universe that can be measured and charted with scientific tools, but what if this is merely an illusion? Not to mention that positivism rejects any possibility of a spiritual world. It's entirely materialistic and decadent.

youtu.be/Yh4lNGKEUfE

"Science—in the sense of real, positive and empirical knowledge—can only subsist in what is physical; and that in the non-physical there can be no science, so that the scientific method neglects it and abandons it, by lack of authority, to belief, to the dull and arbitrary abstractions of philosophy, or to the “exigencies” of sentiment and morality."

>still no argument
lol

It doesn't though. In fact, the only justifications for science can be achieved through philosophy.

...

philosophy is an outdated method of attempting to understand the world
however like any group of people finding themselves increasingly less relevant they do not go quietly and try any and all methods to perpetuate their existence up to and including unwarranted attacks on its replacement

reminder that ethics are an unfalsifiable concept just like the idea of god is and the question if something is good or evil is the same thing as asking if god has a beard or not

>we need philosophers because muh ethics
is literally the same thing as saying
>we need priests because muh god

and btw the question if something is good or evil can very easily be answered by science, namely by unveiling the structure of the categorization in the given societal context and its function

inb4 any fedora tipping

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, science is just a tool.

...

>implying you made an actual argument
lol

This image is the fucking definition of slander

Philosophy isn't a "method" and it certainly isn't outdated. A philosophy is a value system, and to philosophize means to create new values. So are you saying that we are beyond all valuing? Then we don't exist. To exist means to do valuing.

How can you know that then?

>why does philosophy reject science
Because there's gotta be examples of good vs bad philosophy if anyone is to know the difference.

Let me guess.... You were arguing philosophy with him?
It doesn't matter how absolute your own subjective paradigm seems, others will find it wanting no matter what.

The quote.
>I define reality as objectively empirical and logical though I can provide no evidence that this is the case I am still going to use this as a premise for everything I say and then decry you for not sharing this subjective idea

thank you for the basic bitch yellow bastard opinion

counter to what?
Counter a point that hasnt been made?
If the thesis is incoherent in its translation of its idea then the anti-thesis must be equally so of this nature.
probably.
>x is true
maybe, prove it
>x is true because x is true
now that's just redefining x
>NO, THATS NOT A COUNTER ARGUMENT!

>actually true
Read Dostoevsky
Not all men are as soft as you.
Besides, you want a refutation of utilitarianism?
There is no such thing as 'moral' utilitarianism.
It throws away morality in favor of subjective opinion. We can no longer hold eachother to laws beyond us. Rather it is all arbitrary.

I did actually, and you didn't. Stay mad.

>the premise of philosophy
>(that things can be changed)
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read in this board.

And that's saying something.

> issues like safety, equality, education, power are unimportant because some statements made about these things are unfalsifiable tripe.

Ok

Right.
Which means that when humans, for instance, discover a new vaccine, through science, deciding how to manufacture, transport, and distribute that vaccine are all ethical decisions that are still incredibly important, but not able to be dealt with by science.

Ergo, philsoophy is not useless.
That is what I set out to explain, as many people do not feel that way.

Reminder that Sam Harris BTFO'd Chomsky.

And Stephen Jay Gould said that the scientific method is ill-equipped to deal with the shit philosophy deals with.

Even shit tier philosopher like Foucalt dick slapped Chomsky.

>the question if something is good or evil can very easily be answered by science, namely by unveiling the structure of the categorization in the given societal context and its function
but that doesn't answer the question you stupid fuck.

Thats.. idiotic. And if you have a point to make, make it. "I can't talk good but this book exists so I'm clearly right" don't cut it.
Nothing about what harris said is arbitrary holy fuck.
Thats like saying "math is arbitrary, you can never say its REAL math, you just cadefien this as math, so all math is subjective!"

Whether a certain state of the universe is subjectively more, less or equally pleasurable for more people than another is still an objective statement.

I have yet to read something against harris that isn't meme-tier moronic horseshit like your post or If you think you have anything better than assertions, give it a go.

*define, not cadefien, jesus

personaly know a hydro engineering guy and hes rather a experienced proffesional with lots of major state projects behind him, and i could guarantee with a high degree of certainty thats not how he would ''choose to think about water''

in fact in his line of work the fact water has a certain molecular setup is next to meaningless, by necesity he must ''choose to think about water'' in completely different ways

certainly a fuckton of rational and educated people would be presented with a riddle if you ask them - how do you chose to think about water? - and apparently the only right answer turns out to be #H2O motherfucker!

some contemporary science, mostly in america, rejects philosophy, not realy the other way around, its more like some scientists today somehow deciding to call philosophy stupid cauze it cannot into whichever particular field of study they spent their lives working in, where its usualy about differences in oppinion on totaly meta shit like states of consciusness or free will, or theories of everything, that one scientist or another cant differ from scientific findings as such

and besides sam harris is somewhat of a moron

anyone who thinks science and philosophy are either in opposition or somehow make each other redundant simply does not have a understanding of what one or the other is about

its kind of like saying if you measure and analise a piece of wood you have no more ways or reasons to think about that wood

among other things philosophy is exactly about how to ''choose to think'' about something, and crude scientific fact, like the fact that water is two parts hydrogen one part oxigen, are not always even remotely meaningfull, which is why it is necesary to develop ways of thinking things, which are meaningfull in these or those contexts, and this is called philosophy, without this entire societies get stuck in mass intelectual autism and fail to percieve forms of bullshit so blatant it hurts to hear them spoken out loud

Is that chris-chan in the background?

In real life the Philosophy of Science is one of the most important subjects in most Philosophy departments in the western world. Plenty of modern philosophers not only embrace science, but have made contributions it with their theorizing.

>What do you fags imagine a revolution to look like?

>theres lots and lots of blood and bodies but this time around its the right ones

lots of people just realy dont like the fucker that rule them, lots of people have good reasons for this

but realy revolutions work in lots of ways, usualy the goals are missed and often the practicaly same fucks end up being in power

His h2o example is not about thinking about water in a completely different context or scale, its about saying its h2o, its just two hydrogen and three tiny red gnomes and some ether because your faith tells you it is so.
What you discribed is modelling water on a specific scale and a specific system, based on simplifications and abstractions of the h2o molecule interactions. Its not redefining h2o as something else. Its taking the implications of that fact and modeling just the needed parts, not denying them.
Its hard to imagine you actually misunderstood this, but I'll assume you have and are not just trolling.
>and besides sam harris is somewhat of a moron
Right. Could you specificly point to something harris said that is moronic.

If you think it's subjective you can shoot yourself in the head and see how subjective it is. People who don't accept reality on reality's terms are beyond conversation, not above it.

>People who don't accept reality on reality's terms are beyond conversation
What did he mean by this?

actualy youre wrong, if 'moral utilitarianism' is ever accepted what youd get is a kind of official '''''''scientificaly confirmed'''''' objective morality as the basis for everything, which means you might as well be living under religious law from that point on

He meant that muh solipsism morons should fuck off to the hole they came from and quit pestering people with their spooks.

You made no argument, you just said that you're right. That's not an argument, that's tiresome preaching of which we have numerous threads that have metic fucktons of it.

>Chomsky
>Philosopher
hes a fuckin linguist... he is as much philosopher as that hack Molyneux

And, for the record
>Foucoult
>Philosopher
hes a fckin maverick historian

IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT

If science has solved philosophy, why don't we harvest the mentally disabled for organs?

are you mentally retarded?

Contemporary philosophy is opposed to science as an *idol*, to justify values, morals, politics, and so on.

I'll spell it out in babby language for you, since you appear to dense.

We can measure the amount of pain a certain action inflicts. This is true. But philosophically, it is trivial. The problem with Harris is that he makes the jump to "and therefore we must adopt [value system or policy] that minimizes measured suffering."

That's not solving philosophy, it's just begging the question. It blindly assumes that some sort of low state of suffering or higher state of enjoyment across an arbitrarily defined group is always preferable. But that's just a subjective opinion.

TL; DR: science can tell us what happens, not whether we should want it to happen.

are u?

see, you dont get it

who cares what the molecule of water is made of, yes ofcourse its made of 2 hydrogen 1 oxigen, but what does that fact mean? what way is that to ''think about water'', whats the meaning of that? hydrolisis, hidrogen fuel, what?

its the same thing with most other such examples, whatever branch, neurology, biology, astrology, scientific knowledge about anything tells you loads of facts, logical conclusions can be derived from these facts, beyond that the rest of the human population now needs to deal with the thing that is described, they now have more knowledge available, practicaly this is a great thing, and helps them understand it technicaly, but cant tell them what or how to think of it, or what to do with it

in fact philosophy cant tell them that either, but thats the problem philosophy is about, ideas, knowledge, truth, interpretation, definitions, and so on, so it can definitely help around how to ''choose to think about'' and why

the moment either science or philosophy or any combination of the two start explicitly telling people these things its ideology

things like the notion of a viable scientificaly derived objective morality realy read a lot like ideology, and if harris cant see or accept that whole problematic that makes him kind of stupid