Why do STEM students have a hate boner against philosophy?

Physicsfag here. We don't hate it per se.... a lot of philosophy is good.

Where we get annoyed is that a lot of philosophy impinges on the domain of physics and they don't even know it. They throw around retarded, word based arguments and it's like - we did the math already and confirmed it by experiment. We already understand why this entire line of thinking doesn't even apply to our universe and can't because X. Then they have the nerve to try and say we're the ones that are wrong, when we've already used the science to build practical machines and all they've done is play word sudoku.

Then you get guys who try to use physics ideas in their philosophy and mangle it horribly because they can't even do basic calculus. William Lane Craig come to mind (not to pick on theiests, I've seen the opposite as well) as a prime example. All the guys doing philosophy about the beginning of the universe are bumbling around with things they don't understand at all. Not even close. That hasn't been the domain of philosophy for at least 100 years, yet they insist on trying anyway, telling us were the ones that don't get it, as they stumble around like blind fools playing with daddy's toys. It's honestly kind of embarrassing to watch.

I think it is psychology actually. Which is a shame, because the field has serious issues, such as being too much pop science, but it is also interesting.

>STEM love philosophy because they use it to BTFO of the Marxists

>Implying any Marxist with half a brain for philosophy can't btfo any liberal argument

But your intentional unawareness or unintentional biases along with no real guidance or background can create real problems.

Great philosophers are trained, dangerous wannabes do what you do.

He probably means sociology. Sociologists hate STEM.

Actually, you can calculate how likely a degree holder is to hate STEM graduates by how many women are in the class because STEM hatred is almost always borne from false prejudices and women are almost always more impressionable to prejudices and stereotypes. They're usually the bigots they're hating, it's text book projection.

Liberal as in classical liberal or liberal as in crypto-Marxist "think of the marginalized" liberals?

Marxism itself isn't very rational.

>But your intentional unawareness or unintentional biases along
Also, nice ad hominem. Try for a real argument next time please?

In general, STEM students don't care. It's only the "hurrr durrr fucking philosophy autists I'm gonna make $500K starting out of college and you'll serve my Mcdoggals fugging losers XDDD" kind of autists that everyone else hates that believe that shit. Everything else is trolling. You can study what you want, I'll study what I want.

>t. EE student

>confirmed it by experiment

lol the problem of induction invalidates your whole field

Can only speak for myself and my aquaitiances but there are two types of stem majors I have seen. The first and majority are those who really don't care too much about philosophy cause are too busy. And those who have a love bones for philosophy, albeit they usually have a simple understanding.

Myself I don't have a hate boner but most philosophy I have ever heard or read aboutare way too many assumption that are the basis of their arguments.

What about computer science majors?

Something tells me that the majority of people in it just for the money (and will likely switch majors), and those with zero or negative people skills, might gravitate greatly towards computer science. And this is the same demographic who might be derisive towards the liberal arts.

At my university all the Phil students and Computer Science students hang out together, probably because we all have the same logic requirements. Once STEM people actually do some philosophy they tend to appreciate it.

Not all philosopher's are hated, just ones that think they are somehow above the intelligence level of stem students with their "logical" thinking.

Because they're salty about having to take a degree in something they probably don't want, and hate people doing what they want.

>Great philosophers are trained.

This mentality is probably the reason we don't have to many grate people atound today.

Hume was wrong.

In the USA we're trying to eliminate and and all education that does not directly translate to a trade.

Seems to be a trend ever since we switched over to a for-profit education model.

The lack of grate people atound really is a problem.

EE with a passing interest in philosophy here. I think people online just attack eachother's life choices (ie what major they chose) because every one is terribly afraid they have made an awful mistake. I have seen the hate go all ways.

>confirmed it by experiment.
this is EXACTLY why you need philosophy

>HE THINKS HE KNOWS SOMETHING HE BETTER READ THIS BOOK TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE DON'T

why do philosophy students have such a hate boner for STEM? so tired of these threads. I fucking hate both sides of these debates

STEM majors have a bit of a hubris thing going on. They like to think their field is the most essential, true field in academia. Partly they are right, because science, technology, engineering and math do have palpable effects on the ambient standard of living in the world. But a wise STEM major would recognize the value philosophy minor adds to a STEM degree just from sheer argumentation, writing, and critical thinking skills.

Quite a few philosophy majors I'm aware of went on to become great programmers, for example. Partly because they spent so much time balls deep in symbolic logic.

...

>he thinks this was a clever post

It's not a hatred of philosophy, it's a lack of patience for "you can't know nuffin'," and its common partner in crime "and you're racist/sexist etc. for thinking you can."

>take entry philosophy to fill credits
>we put a ton of effort into papers
>lol worth 25% of what the test is worth
>said tests have me go through shit like "which philosopher in this list supported (vaguest way of describing concept possible), A, B, C, all, none
Philosophy definitely may have uses, but I certainly won't be gaining that many of them from my Uni.

>That hasn't been the domain of philosophy for at least 100 year
>In regards to ontology

This is just amazingly wrong. As in it is so wrong that it's obvious you don't know anything about philosophy. Metaphysics is one of the MAIN branches of philosophy. It's so wrong it would be like saying no advances were made in the last 100 years to geology. Science cannot deal with ontology. It is a subject of inquiry that is inherently untouchable by science.

>They throw around retarded, word based arguments and it's like - we did the math already and confirmed it by experiment.

Actually they throw about symbolic logic which is as rigorous as mathematics (and in fact they intersect heavily). Also you can't prove everything by experiment. Not everything is subject to the scientific method. Other subjects must be used for these pursuits. As stated before you have the mistaken idea that when philosophers do metaphysics they are doing something within the scope of science. This is not true. So tools outside of science are required for it's investigation. Whenever anyone serious does metaphysics they can use scientific data (and there are a subset of philosophers who are also highly educated scientists whose sole job it is is to be aware of the philosophic implications of advances in science) as a tool in aid of ontology but this doesn't' impinge at all on the science in use.

>we've already used the science to build practical machines and all they've done is play word sudoku.

This only shows you don't understand, at all what philosophy is meant to do, or perhaps you overestimate what the project and scope of science is. The goal of philosophy is not to create technology. You are literally the kind of person this thread is talking about.

Finance major here. I think STEM majors are ok, but not my cup of tea, but Philosophy majors are wasting their money unless they get a PHD and work for Google helping them give ethics to their self driving cars.

Seriously. I mean I'd love to have a History degree but what jobs could I do with it?

Work at a museum and that's about it.

What advances have there been in the past 100 years within ontology/metaphysics comparable to the advances in geology during that same timeframe? How, specifically, were they tangible improvements over what existed before (for example, how plate tectonics was a tangible improvement over geosynclinal theory)?

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

Stemfags and muh sciencefags think being able to memorize math makes them smart when in fact memory has nothing to do with intellect
Philosophy requires critical thinking which scares the bejezus outta Stemcucks because it threatens their psuedointellect

Theres are no philo sjws /pol/, go to uni and find out for yourself
Critical thinking and radical ideology doesnt fuckin mix
Same reason you hate College Professors over on /pol/

>we've already used the science to build practical machines and all they've done is play word sudoku.
This is an example the inherent underlying problem with STEM graduates when it comes to understanding philosophy. He thinks that building "practical machines" is objectively superior to playing sudoku. Ironic for one who speaks of evidence underlying claims. In my experience, it's generally an issue of grasping objectivity and logic based in phenomenology, and logic problem outside of mathematics.

Can you give one example of this ever occuring
Do you know what a "thought experiment" is

First year philosophy is literally just there to weed out everyone. At my uni philosophy in first year as classes that are 300 big. By the time you graduate it's more like 20 in your whole year. Philosophy is one of those subjects that people who don't know anything about it think it's interesting. That combined with people not really knowing what they want to do with there lives choose it to fill in time.

>you're supposed to go to college to find a job
when will this meme die

Would you rather live a world with no scientists/engineers or no philosophers.

I mean without engineers we wouldn't be having this conversation on the interwebs.

>le ebin enlightened physics man looking down at le dumb philosophomores

stop

But I know Philosophy majors working minimum wage jobs.

Does this remove all philosophers from history because that would set our STEM knowledge back by many years

If you are in a place where tuition is expensive and you won't be able to find a job with your degree, it is a pretty bad idea.

land of the free

home of the self-inflicted poor

Nah. Let's say in modern times. The government can only fund STEM or Philosophy research.

Which one will be funded?

Without philosophy we'd be scraping meat off of carcasses with rocks in small groups out in the wilderness. It's the narrow-minded STEMfags stereotype to not be able to break down logical sequences of events outside of the realm of numbers.

Without feeling the need to make other people live the way we do(a philosophical stance, and the reason agriculture spread throughout the world), modern society would never have developed. And that's just one example.

Most of us don't, some don't even care to know what philosophy is let alone hate it.

Stop this meme about STEM being elitists.

Why would which organization a government might happen to choose decide which field is intrinsically more important to humanity? I don't understand.

Do you think social productivity is an objective, measurable thing that has a strict definition? cute.

Well from what I've seen the general attitude is
>Anything not in my STEM field is useless to me
>Liberal arts are a meme and useless
>It's beneath me
>All of the above

It seems though to also stem (ayy lmao) that they're incapable of perceiving things from a non-purely mathematical and analytical way.

I'll give you a single example, but that is only because I need to explain what the idea is which is not very easy. Actually I'm going to cheat and quote from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But I'm pretty sure you won't think it is a real advance because you don't know what it is an advance from, you probably won't understand the idea itself (since it necessitates a pretty reasonable understanding of philosophy already) and it doesn't impact on the world in the way of the creation of technology.

"One attractive strategy for answering these questions emphasizes the continuity of metaphysics with science. On this conception, metaphysics is primarily or exclusively concerned with developing generalizations from our best-confirmed scientific theories. For example, in the mid-twentieth century, Quine (1948) proposed that that the “old/intermediate” metaphysical debate over the status of abstract objects should be settled in this way. He observed that if our best scientific theories are recast in the “canonical notation of (first-order) quantification” (in sufficient depth that all the inferences that users of these theories will want to make are valid in first-order logic), then many of these theories, if not all of them, will have as a logical consequence the existential generalization on a predicate F such that F is satisfied only by abstract objects. It would seem, therefore, that our best scientific theories “carry ontological commitment” to objects whose existence is denied by nominalism. (These objects may not be universals in the classical sense. They may, for example, be sets.) Take for example the simple theory, ‘There are homogeneous objects, and the mass of a homogeneous object in grams is the product of its density in grams per cubic centimeter and its volume in cubic centimeters’. (cont)

A typical recasting of this theory in the canonical notation of quantification is (missing, Veeky Forums can't do symbolic logic)
That is: there exists at least one thing that is a product (at least one thing that, for some x
and some y is the product of x and y). And a product must be a number, for the operation “product of” applies only to numbers. Our little theory, at least if it is recast in the way shown above, is therefore, in a very obvious sense, “committed” to the existence of numbers. It would seem, therefore, that a nominalist cannot consistently affirm that theory. (In this example, the role played by ‘the predicate F’ in the abstract statement of Quine's “observation” is played by the predicate (more missing symbolic logic)

I also know a philosophy major who got a cushy, extremely well paid government job where his role is to advise and make decisions in regards to the ethical implications of government policies.

Governments love people with philosophy degrees.

So, basically, a statement that appears to be reasonable from some perspective when viewed externally may suffer from embedded assumptions that are actually incompatible with said perspective? In this case, a definition of the relationship between mass, density and volume compatible with nominalism assumes the "actual" existence of numbers, which nominalism rejects.

Or that is at least a reasonable-if-crude layman's approximation, similar to a reasonable-if-crude layman's approximation of plate tectonics involving big hunks of solid rock floating on melted rock and crashing into each other?

Because of this piece of shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber

No faggot. He is saying that philosophers are so full of themselves they don't care about deeply understanding what moder physics has to offer.

It's most certainly the other way around though.

It goes both ways. Though scientific literacy in the humanities departments is an issue while many PhDs in STEM have some degree of knowledge in them.

this, I was pretty neutral about grad/undergrad philosophy students, then they started to harass me about my metaphysical naivety and saying stupid shit like how combinatorics are false because they threw a coin 50 times in class and the result wasn't 25:25.

It's not that there's any problem with philosophy, the problem is allowing too many plebs to study it.

>they don't care about deeply understanding what moder physics has to offer.
Offer to what? Society? Why is that important? Why is what one field has to offer in terms of contributing to the amount of energy being used or the amount of people in existence the determining factor in universal importance? You just decided that for no reason. Do you have evidence that this definition of productivity is what humanity should strive for?

This is the basic issue STEMfags struggle with. They think their abstract subjective ideas of "productivity" are objective. This is why they need to understand philosophy.

Saying combinatorics are false based on probability theory being a load of horseshit is denying the antecedent, but probability theory is abstract, unfalsifiable, non-scientific garbage and you're wrong for defending it.

>man, I sure do wonder how the universe came to be
>but looking at what actually happened is so vulgar
>playing around with word problems will surely be more informative

My usual experience with philosophers is that they think they live in a club were all the critical thinking is done and everyone else is a midless robot just crunching numbers. It is cringe worthy and pathetic to see them rambaling about how they are enlightened and whatever when they cannot solve a simple math problem.

Philosophers were inspired by the elegance and purity of the mathematical argument which helped structure logical arguments presented in many famous philosophical texts. That's because there is a lot going on in this fields that goes much beyond simple and straightforwards process

Why on earth would you go on a stupid tangent when his point was much more concrete? You are rambaling about the philosophical discussion of productivity and pragmatism withouth even understanding his point. Modern physics can offer much needed insight to philosophers in many issues. Well, all stem has things to offer that are relevant in academic discussion. You smug fuck just want to repeat your bullshit analysis every time you see anything amounting to the worth utility even if you are shooting youself in the foot.

The definition of philosophy is to love knowledge, but you seem you want to reject a complete area of knowledge that has worked wonders with humans which makes you an utter pleb.

3/10 made me think of an answer.

You didn't respond with the answer because you're afraid it's wrong.

OKey then, why on earth would you say an area of mathematics is unfalsifiable? Are you that lost?

What do word problems have to do with this and why does looking at things that happened exclude philosophy?

If you're suggesting philosophy doesn't work because some people use word problems to try and argue points, that would be denying the antecedent. If you're suggesting I'm wrong because I use word problems to defend points when I don't, that would be a strawman fallacious argument. If you're suggesting philosophy doesn't attempt to understand things that have happened and incorporate that into an understanding of existence, you're just hilariously wrong.

I don't understand why STEMfags pretend to understand logic when they are bad at it. If something isn't made of numbers, it doesn't make sense to them.

>Modern physics can offer much needed insight to philosophers in many issues.
Such as?

>Well, all stem has things to offer that are relevant in academic discussion.
Why is this important?

>even if you are shooting youself in the foot.
How am I shooting myself in the foot? You aren't explaining anything, you're just stating claims with no evidence or arguments backing them up.

>The definition of philosophy is to love knowledge
No it isn't. That's part of the etymology of philosophy. That's not how people use the word today.

>you seem you want to reject a complete area of knowledge that has worked wonders with humans
What am I rejecting? When did I reject an area of knowledge? Are you making up that I have done this? Why?

STEMfags are awful at logic. It's incredible. They think logic is part of math and assume they are good at it. Yet logic problems exist without numbers. You have to learn how to deal with those problems.

>use an epistemological model to hugely improve the human experience
>"human experience is just a spook, fuck off with your model"

hhehehe

How can you repeat an experiment based on probability to reinforce probability theory? It's not science. It's the claim that you can maybe know things based off of maybes. That's silly.

When did I say human experience itself is an abstract social object? I didn't make that claim.

I'm strawmaning you, but as a person who posts japanese cartoon reaction images, you deserve it anyways :^)

>why does looking at things that happened exclude philosophy?
Looking at things that have happened involves induction, and thus is a vulgar, unreliable way of learning anything. The only way to gain Justified True Belief is to make up definitions to words and make deductions based on that, without reference to any external reality or actual existence.

It's the pinnacle of human discussion you swine.

no, it's just sad

Induction is not your only option when gaining knowledge from observing something that happens. That's a weird and random thing to believe.

>that happens
You can't know it happen"s". It is literally impossible.

Your own ignorance shows when you ask for evidence on how STEM can aid a philsophical career. Let's begin with an easy one so you don't hurt your head. Knowing about medicine, anatomy, neurology or psychology can give you a first insight on problems dealing emotion, knowledge, intuition, life, death and all that. Obviously if you reject this method as something that at least gives some sort of knowledge in the first place well you must be one cynical faggot.

Next one is mathematics. Mathematics is the art of expressing undeniable truths. It is an argument that goes beyond numbers which by saying it is, shows your lack of knowledge of the subject. Modern logic is researched by mathemathicians who want to formalize thought in mathematical structures (mostly algebraic or topological) which has dealth great insight about logic. It has also helped a lot with the theoretical aspects of language which is something of great philosophial discussión. Math also helps you structure your thoughts and understand what actually mean for something to follow which is of great importance for a philosopher.

Physics deals with finding methods to explain and predict what we observe about nature. It deals with a lot of discussion and if you want to try and deal with things like scientific realism, the quantum realm, determinism and the like you need to first understand exactly what are theoretical physicists claiming. Knowing about natural phenomena will also give you a power to make better calims about reality because you have an aresenal of palpable evidence at your disposition to cut, in some manner, with many human doubts about the universe.

Obviously you could say that physics and medicine are empirical and because you think the hume destroyed science you may not e inclined to accept them, but you must be a seriously stupid fuck if you don´t understand why mathematics is of great importance and aid. You know jack shit about logic or about anything.

Pathetic.

Fancy claim you've got there. Shame it doesn't have any evidence whereas my claim does.

Holding an apple is phenomenological evidence that you can hold apples, bro. You're balancing on the edge of a munchhausen trilemma argument, which is stillborn as it asserts the inability to know as knowledge.

Regardless of whether or not it makes sense, however, you're arguing a philosophical stance. Not really sure how you can argue against the interpretation of happenings as under the umbrella of philosophy.

>Holding an apple is phenomenological evidence that you can hold apples, bro.
You assume you "can hold apples" because once you thought you held an apple? Does that mean you believe that you could now hold an apple?

How ridiculous. A past ability to hold an apple, assuming it wasn't simulated, is not at all evidence that an apple may be held in the present or the future, or even really that apples can be held. No, that "you can hold an apple" does not fit the criteria for being a Justified True Belief, and yout argument is completely invalidated.

...

>Your own ignorance shows when you ask for evidence on how STEM can aid a philsophical career.
I never asked for this. The key word here is "career". I couldn't give too flying fucks about whatever a career is or means and I would ever ask questions assuming that a career in a related field is important.

All you've done is listed a bunch of abstract categories of knowledge as supporting a "job" in the philosophy field. Why is this important?

Literally everything you just said stops mattering the moment you realize that the pinnacle of philosophical insight is not to make money from it. Why would you assume this? You haven't even given me a proper reason to acquire knowledge in these fields, you just assumed that a "career" is what's objectively most important when it comes to philosophical understanding.

>You know jack shit about logic or about anything.
Where have I made an error in logic? You will be able to use quotations if I have.

Are you 15?

Why are you claiming to know that you cannot know? It's contradictory.

No. What does my age have to do with anything?

>Why are you claiming to know that you cannot know?
Because STEM people claim it is possible to know things like "you can hold apples" and it is my burden to educate them about how mistaken they are. That is one of the many fruits of philosophy.

But you're wrong because you're claiming that you know you cannot have knowledge. According to you it's your burden to teach people things that are wrong.

Don't worry, I have an elaborate justification for why it's okay when I do it but other people are always wrong when they claim to know something.

You have mental gymnastics and wikipedia friend.

I mean if that's the game you want to play I have no intention to try and stop you, but you can do much more interesting things than that if you're just going to lie to people and be okay with it. Work on a decent sounding argument to convince people that they're fake or something.

STEM and maths in particular are a type of philosophy. And from my experience it's always the humanities students (sociology, political science) who throw a hissyfit about STEM and spout their "u cant kno!!!!" meme. I assume they have a massive inferiority complex because STEM has in the last 200 years provided people with jobs, wealth and comfort while philosophers stay in their ivory towers and are desperate to prove they produce something of value. I enjoy philosophy myself but the typical philosopher these days is an angsty relativist bore.

>while philosophers stay in their ivory towers and are desperate to prove they produce something of value.
I sometimes wonder if they wouldn't be so hostile to the idea of actually solving a practical problem if communism hadn't failed so spectacularly.

>sciencefags think being able to memorize math makes them smart when in fact memory has nothing to do with intellect
>Philosophy requires critical thinking which scares the bejezus outta Stemcucks because it threatens their psuedointellect
Fuck you are dumb. Math requires lots of critical thinking. Stop projecting your insecurities

>Without philosophy we'd be scraping meat off of carcasses with rocks in small groups out in the wilderness

>Governments love people with philosophy degrees.
Then philosophy is crap. The goverment is evil