Reminder that science is done best by people competent and respectful of philosophy...

Reminder that science is done best by people competent and respectful of philosophy, not by STEMlord autistic scientism positivists.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xuQNt45Cjkc
samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space/
amazon.com/Atomic-Physics-Human-Knowledge-Dover/dp/0486479285
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Funny how every pic on the left is in black and white

You couldn't find a modern scientist saying anything nice about philosophy?

I would, except the guys on the left set the paradigm everyone in color reads about. So they don't really have anyone to compare to ;-)

Should have posted Hawking on the right.

>At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believes that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".[284]

>Pioneers in the devlovment of modern physics
vs
>Le atheism science is awsome crew
Wow no shit.

>Bill Nye
>Scientist
If I put on a lab coat and start setting off baking soda volcanoes at children's birthday parties will I also be a scientist?

top left, what the hell does atoms, particles, etc have to do with Plato's theory of forms? there is no particle of chair-ness

What's wrong with the Bill Nye quote? Being sceptical of such a thing is entirely reasonable.

>The only thing in philosophy is Nye's misunderstanding of Descartes
Kill yourself right now

Where in the hell did I say that?

Also, why does no one ever bring up the part from that video where he said "philosophy is important and its questions are interesting."

These threads always baffle me. "HURFDURF, WHY ISN'T PHILOSOPHY MORE RELEVANT, LET'S ACT LIKE INDIGNANT APES ABOUT IT, SURELY PEOPLE WILL CARE WHEN THEY SEE HOW INDIGNANT WE CAN BE ABOUT IT."

it seems like most philosophy posters are just pseudointellectuals that need to feel superior

>caring about "philosophy of science"

lmao.

Haven't you people got anything better to do? Like watch porn f.e.?

Michio Kaku?

why not compromise and read philosophy of porn?

DESU I always meme'd Krauss hard because he is a weasley Jewish atheist marxist. But I didn't realize he was also fully retarded on Philosophy of Science.

Go figure the meme scientists hate philosophy becasue they can't understand it and the people who changed physics forever all understand it and what they do.

Honestly, Philosophy of Science was the the greatest courses I took in undergrad. Changed the way I think profoundly.

Good to know I have Bohr on myside specifically with that quote.

>I think you can see that Dawkins doesn't even understand the logic of the ontological argument, which moves from the logical possibility of God's existence to its actuality. A parody of the argument that moves from a logical impossibility to actuality is not parallel to the argument.

Dawkins chortles, "I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" (God Delusion, p. 84). This is just embarrassing. The ontological argument is an exercise in modal logic—the logic of the possible and the necessary. I can just imagine Dawkins making a nuisance of himself at this professional conference with his spurious parody, just as he similarly embarrassed himself at the Templeton Foundation conference in Cambridge where he describes his confronting sophisticated philosophers and theologians with his flyweight objection to the teleological argument!

youtube.com/watch?v=xuQNt45Cjkc

Back to undergrad you go

>Left
Men that'll be remembered in 500 years
>Right
Meme scientists

I think the main reason the New Atheists don't like philosophy is because of shit like post-modernism and happenings like the Sokal Affair.

Problem is that they assume all modern philosophy is like that, and think they have an informed opinion on the subject because of it.

how are they related at all? Plato's forms weren't in our plane of existence and matter was just shadows of the forms. the closest parallel I can think of is gold and gold atoms giving the "goldness", but this has nothing to do with goldness on other planes of existence or other forms such as that for cups, chairs, and other human inventions

Here's a good takedown of Tyson
>samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space/

One good modern scientist who doesn't fall into the trap of scientism and positivism is Stephen Barr, a physics professor at the University of Delaware. He's a super smart guy and is also a devout Catholic. Would recommend his works if anyone wants to read a nuanced perspective of the interplay between faith and science.

>>He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".
I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something like Freud was a very good psychoanalyst, but when he got outside of his field of expertise he started talking nonsense. That seems to be the case with so many scientists, at least popular ones today.

We don't have any great thinkers this generation

So, is scientism just "anyone who values science but doesn't believe in God" because your defining feature for that Barr fellow not being one seems to be that he's Catholic.

Well, that seems to confirm what I always suspected about these threads: they're a product of assmad theists.

>I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something like Freud was a very good psychoanalyst, but when he got outside of his field of expertise he started talking nonsense.
Kinda like when C.S. Lewis stepped outside his field of expertise in writing children's books

I think your misunderstanding actually stems from what Bohr's work is all about. Which is fine because most Physics professors, like Krauss in pic above, don't either.

Enjoy:

amazon.com/Atomic-Physics-Human-Knowledge-Dover/dp/0486479285

>So, is scientism just "anyone who values science but doesn't believe in God"

I think it's more that people who are scientists have a tendency to overexaggerate the scientific method's ability to give satisfactory answers to every single thing that happens in reality.

It's like a fetish for empiricism.

His field of expertise was Medieval Literature.

Well, it is one of the most succesfull methods in the history of humanity, so there is a reason.

No.

you're right, I don't. I was just going off of his quote, which seems nonsensical to me. maybe I was just taking him too literally as actually supporting Plato's theory of forms when he was just making a parallel to the theory of forms in his work

*to his work

You're also thinking way too big. Bohr isn't talking about atoms her. He's talking about smaller, and smaller units. And when you get into those units, they stop behaving like objects as we know them.

Out of all the left hand quotes, Bill Nye's seems to be the least offending.


Still, I can never bring myself to hate yhe guy.

Are you really that stupid?
There's no reason to expect the scientific method to answer things beyond how the natural world works

Bill Nye is a fucking moron that get over hyped because he pretended to be a scientist on tv

you mean stuff like the double slit experiment with photons? stuff that that is utterly bizzare but don't see how that leads to Plato's forms existing in some true reality

*stuff like that

I never made that claim, I was just saying that the scientific method has given such a broad framework of ideas, that I can understand why people would think of it as a universal method. You fucking triggered philosotard piece of shit.

So, would a radical empiricist like Hume qualify? Because he sure wasn't philosophically uneducated.

>, I was just saying that the scientific method has given such a broad framework of ideas, that I can understand why people would think of it as a universal method

I don't think he meant to imply that. he seems to be agreeing with you in part to me and saying that the success of science has perhaps made scientists get a little cocky

>So, would a radical empiricist like Hume qualify?

Absolutely. This is the guy that said every book in a library that contained information that wasn't based on sensory experience should be thrown on a fire and burned.

Trigger much faggot?

I wouldn't call him a moron, but he is exaggerated into a paragon of scientific knowledge, which is wholly undeserved.

not an argument

So, your complaint isn't that these people aren't philosophically educated, but that they aren't philosophically educated in a fashion you like. Well, we get to the meat of the matter, you're not some idle searcher of truth upset that others aren't concerned with it as you are, but a vicious ideologue upset that others don't agree with you.

You're a cunt.

>Philosophy n Plato n shit
Lol Heisenberg literally says that.

I mean, it's not like most of the guys on the right are very good scientists.

The scientific method is only successful at science. It has hasn't and not-withstanding semantic arguments about what theoretical physics is, by definition cannot justify anything and there for cannot produce knowledge. By definition, justification and production of knowledge is epistemology.

A poster above me pretty much nailed it. Scientism is 'fetishized empiricism'. That's a good way of putting it. It's taking empiricism and induction in doctrinal form like a religion would.

modern scientists of the caliber like that of the men on the left are not public intellectuals today. they are busy doing real work, unlike the idiot hacks on the right.

well Bill Nye isn't a scientist so...

Some of them are philosophically uneducated, not all of them.

The ones who are uneducated, tend to use their scientific worldview as a justification for speaking on subjects they have literally no knowledge about, which is the point I am talking about.

don't recall making that implication. consider spending more time reading books.

>which is the point I am talking about.

But this is demonstrably wrong, since your description of these people includes Hume, who was an incredibly influential philosopher.

it's just a stretch to call him a hack. he's done a good job at getting kids interested in science and tearing down Ken Ham

Before spouting what everyone already knows, try to understand the point given. The scientific method and its approach to problems in the natural world has changed humanity both technologically and philosophically. It doen´t necesarilly produce conrecte knowledge, but well, it still is sufficient for us to trust many things backed up by its methodology and it seems to work and from many people that is enough.

And you also made a really fucking bold claim which just draws on your ignorance of the subject.
>It has hasn't and not-withstanding semantic arguments about what theoretical physics
If you knew philosophy of science you would be ashamed of that claim. But welp, keep telling me how philosophers are just too stupid to explain why science works.

Dawkins, Krauss, and Tyson have done legit scientific work. Dont know about bill, but hes an engineer isint he?

Also bringing science to the public in relateble ways is a great thing imo.

>mfw every single one in the right will most likely go to hell and there is nothing you can say and do that will steer them from this path

>who was an incredibly influential philosopher.

So what? Does being influential mean you must be correct?

This is not the thread to bring up religion in. It has nothing to do with it.

just sharing my thoughts

go worship the demiurge somewhere else

It doesn't mean he's correct, it just means that his position wasn't one outside of his area of knowledge. Your complaint here isn't these people speaking outside of their area of knowledge, but them speaking in a fashion that displeases you. My point is that you're a pissed off ideologue, no different from a raving fedora.

only reddit doesn't like postmodernism
muh leftist academia cultural Marxism go back basically

Bill is a TV personality who has become a science spokesman in recent years because of people's nostalgia for his show. Hasn't done any serious work in the field but he doesn't claim to.

>but them speaking in a fashion that displeases you.

Sure it displeases me, because it's autistic and retarded to say something doesn't real simply because there is no empirical evidence at that time, or that you can reduce everything in reality down to a mathematical equation.

These people literally don't know why they have the ideology they have even. I mean have you listened to Dawkins talk about politics, or even Bertrand Russell for that matter, which is an even better example of a person who thought that his social justice-tier liberal politics had a direct link to his mathematical and scientific ability.

But this isn't about them. This about figures like Hume, who I'm sure was well aware of why he believed what he believed.

Would it please you if Dawkins read more Hume and then said similar?

Again, these threads reek of someone butthurt that there are people who believe differently than they believe, which is laughably pathetic.

>Again, these threads reek of someone butthurt that there are people who believe differently than they believe

Which is literally the source of every conflict ever you faggot.

So why aren't you into science?

Many philosophers hate postmodernist who rely on heavy overuse of Hedel theorems or quantum whatever. This is even more cancerous than any Scientism could even hope to be.

>it's autistic and retarded to say something doesn't real simply because there is no empirical evidence at that time
But even Russell didn't think this. Just think of his example with the teapot. I can easily come up with an explanation that some aliens made teapots and sent one into space. of course just because we don't have evidence for the teapot it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

When it was centered around matters of ideology, rather than materialistic concerns, it was just as pathetic then.

>G-Guys philosophy is useful
>Sure it hasn't accomplished anything in 300 years but it totally isn't useless
>GUYS MY DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY ISN'T USELESS

Now explain why they aren't good scientists

>"Muh utility" screams the overweight STEMfag as he has been without sex for the last 16 years

So they are like philosophers except philosophers talk nonsense in their field of expertise.

Do you think the overweight NEET philosophyfag has had more sex?

I actually just got laid today user.
Amazing that you bring up the
>Hurr durr you are fat le virgin
Why not come up with a real argument? Of course you can't, you are a philosophy fag probably with a useless degree.

>acomplishment is the same as utility
Arn´t u supozed to v ggd at rhetorik

This is amazingly ironic since anyone who calls themselves a philosopher these days is a fat neckbeard.

Doesn't mean it's not a waste of time.

> I don't like it therefore its autistic and retarded!
Being able to reduce everything in the world into mathematical equation is a viable idea. It wasn't even new one in philosophy. Mathematics is no more than another language. If you can say that world can be described by words, it isn't a great autism to say the same for other formal system which are numbers and mathematical operators.

I like all these (You)s.

Of course older scientists wouldn't be as critical of philosophy, its only now in the modern era we can see how useless it is thanks to everything science has done.

>I was only pretending to be retarded
Whatever you say user.

More like I enjoy all of you being triggered by the truth.

Name one thing philosophy has accomplished in the last 50 years.
In fact the Humanities in general are shit.

Nice argument. I see you came here to troll.
Well, nice bait. See you user.

>triggered by the truth
but all you did was make a bait response without any substantive argument

It's bait 101 user
>Say something retarded
>People make fun of you
>You are just mad at the truth lol

>without any substantive argument

Oh, you mean like thisI mean, I just responded with the same coin.

>Dude like did you know that the earth is actually round and that a light year is actually a unit of distance and not time xD
That's the kind of "science" these faggots bring to the public
Shit everyone already knows

But that is an argument.
Philosophy hasn't accomplished anything in years.

I know, I'm just terrible at not taking bait

>I don't know anything about any of these people
user, why do you post shit?

>Shit everyone already knows
Flat Earthers and other assorted conspiratards exist.

>i'm gonna ignore the actual science each of these people have done because i'm an ignorant fuck and only think in memes and what other people tell me to think

I didn't you dumb nigger

Dawkins invented memes.