How do we save the humanities? we need to stop the potheads and STEMlords

Religiousposters. This board is infested with them

>"This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion..."

Exactly, that last one shits up any discussion it gets involved in

yes, which is why we're saying the humanities should get its own containment board so we can talk about history.

Philosophy isn't real. Anything that can't be explained by science or math is an opinion and no amount of debate and discussion will bring any answers.

finally someone says it. Philosofags can whine about tipping but in the end it's the truth. It's a fool's errand

Friendly reminder that Veeky Forumsfags need to fuck off and ruin their own threads

I think we all know who really runs the show.

nice opinion

Have your fedoras cut off circulation to your brains?

Autism speaks

>literally making philosophical statements

I actually agree with you, but you are samefagging hard, bro.

Religion is an intrinsic part of history and who we are, its our tradition, its our heritage, to disregard it and even spurn it is a great offense for anyone fancying themselves a scholar.
Just because you do or do not like it or agree with it or believe it is does not mean that you should sever one of the most important connections we have with the past.

Religion is in our DNA, its in mine and in yours.
There is no escaping it.
If Western Religion, Christianity is untrue, then religion and its study ought to be at the center of every intellectual pursuit as it has made the most traction throughout history against insurmountable odds.
If it is true, then it still ought to be at the center, for obvious reasons.

However you slice it religion is necessary when speaking of anything historical or really when speaking of anything about man kind.

>inb4 christcuck

Keep your fedoras on and harden up.

I only made one of those posts

your opinion is shit enough that multiple people have pointed out so

I have only one (You) there champ

Philosophy - "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline"

Knowledge = biology, neuroscience
Reality = physics
Existence = physics and biology

Philosophers = pseudo intellectuals who get enjoyment from arguing with each other.

Nearly cut myself on that fedora

>in this moment, i am euphoric
>not because of some phony concept of "das-ein", but because i am enlightened by my own intellect

>If [x] is [untrue / suboptimal], then [x] and its study ought to be at the center of every intellectual pursuit as it has made the most traction throughout history against insurmountable odds.

Try it out with something else. Clay pottery? If it isn't the best form of vessel, it at least ought to be at the center of every containment pursuit, as it did have a lot of traction for a while there.

To be fair, Bill Nye has shown to be more respectful towards philosophy recently

mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/nyregion/how-bill-nye-the-science-guy-spends-his-sundays.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

>I was legitimately criticized for an offhand remark about philosophy, so I’ve been reading books about philosophy, trying to catch up. The process of science, you could make a reasonable claim, is actually natural philosophy.

about time

Try building theories that are actually based on empirical observation instead of intellectual jeek off.

>The process of science, you could make a reasonable claim, is actually natural philosophy.

lol, of course it is...

This is the reason STEMlords should read philosophy.

Both science and philosophy are based on reason, and yet they imagine it's based on pure empiricism, because they are retarded.

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"

cute

the timestamps were less than a minute apart from each other retard

It's simple.

We kill the liberals.

Based Zizek.

For most purposes, you really don't nees it to do research.

You sound like you failed math and physics on hs bruh.

Humanities be rayciss, OP.

White people need to spend more time learning about how their ancestors were evil, rapacious monsters and listening to modern thinkers like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Tim Wise; we'll never become a progressive society free of hate as long as people are learning things from dead white men.

Seriously, though, just scrub identity politics, modernism, postmodernism and Marxism from everything that doesn't strictly require it and you're pretty much done.

>We need to stop STEM
>We need to try to take the small amount of objectivity out of the cancer filled teenage circle jerk

That quote by Krauss is really fucking dumb. The current scientific method is so good that we don't even need to evaluate it anymore? What a dogmatic retard.

>Science is Fedora
>No Philosophy is Fedora!
Anyone who uses Fedora as an insult on either side of the debate is a fucking retard. How is philosophy any less Fedora than science?

Purge the sjws and leftists

>Religion is an intrinsic part of history and who we are, its our tradition, its our heritage, to disregard it and even spurn it is a great offense for anyone fancying themselves a scholar.
>Just because you do or do not like it or agree with it or believe it is does not mean that you should sever one of the most important connections we have with the past.

Talking about religions in a historical sense and / or academic sense is totally different to putting up with American Protestants screeching about demons and magic and ickle baby Jeebus.

Typical thread about consciousness:
>yeah dude I think like it's like totally metaphysical and shit like whoa dude
>the most accepted scientific answer is that it's just many pathway permutations being explored at once
>dude like no way that shit is actually tangible it's totally metaphysical. It's too complex. Physics is just run by metaphysics I'm like right
>You're retarded. You honestly think that it's an exception to physicality just because it's complex?
>bruh yeah
>okay

I would be okay with rewriting history to remove religion entirely.

>Anything that can't be explained by science or math is an opinion

>consciousness
>thought
>dreams
>morality
>language
>art
>music
>information
>symbol
>divinity
>these are just opinions, man algorithmed his way through history, black science man told me so

>Muh STEMlords
If you actually enforced good academic practices like in STEM you might not have to worry about their butthurt.

The problem is that many universities' humanities departments have become the equivalent to a sewer where you deposit all the retardation and daddy's boys/girls.

Even law will teach you more about philosophy nowadays in some universities, which is fucking pathetic.

>If you actually enforced good academic practices like in STEM you might not have to worry about their butthurt.

I don't disagree, but lots of STEM people insist "if you're not doing it in this super precise way I was taught you're doing it wrong and you're probably stupid" which is fucking maddening. I've met too many STEM people taught to be a hammer trying to treat everything as a nail and insisting nothing outside their field is worthwhile.

>These can't be explained by science
You mean to say "we haven't arrived at a definitive conclusion through proper means, therefore we clearly just need to make idiotic guesses and assumptions".

I would be ok with rewriting history to remove you entirely

>Even law will teach you more about philosophy nowadays
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, just because they have latin phrases that sound cool doesn't mean it's some pragmatic use of a philosophical concepts. Law is bastardization of philosophy.

While that is true, my main problem is that the new students lack method.
Older fellows usually have an approach that makes sense, while many of the nee generation just pretend it's all bullshit and go in blind shooting at every direction without even trying to make sense of what they are doing (not saying all, some).

So it does lead to butthurt, even mine own since I have a foot at each door.

Anyway, I won't pretend I know how to solve it, but maybe the whole structure needs to be harsher on certain folks (personal experience, they've created some new rules around here were essentially you are free to laze about and get a degree even if you have abysmal track record and no conditions to graduate).

>This is the reason STEMlords should read philosophy.
Nobody got time for that shit man.

I don't know about you but philosophy is actually a requirement for law students here. Plus the actual philosophy major is a decayed shithole, unlike some of our betters who actually have it pretty good.

Actually, fuck me but next time I go around the campus I'll take a detour to the philosophy institute and take some pics.
Veeky Forums will probably enter a murderous rampage.

What I take away from that image is that philosophy took a bad turn in the later half of the 20th century.

The rise of Scientism, the new religion of the euphoric.

Positivism is not new at all.

how do we end positivism?

>Seriously, though, just scrub identity politics, modernism, postmodernism and Marxism from everything that doesn't strictly require it and you're pretty much done.

...

Fucking kek.
God of the gaps is a shit argument. Years ago you could've added rain, disease, and suffocation to that list.

Most STEMshits have no clue about scientific theory, they should start there before thinking about philosophy.
Just take Dawkins who actually thinks an appeal to common sense is a valid argument.
STEMlords get trained to be tools of capitalism and of course they are going against everything that rejects their ideology.

All of these get explained by social science, which may not count as REAL or HARD science, but they are doing science nonetheless.

I have no idea why humanities were included in his. All they do is shit up every fucking thread.

I have no idea why history was included in this. All they do is shit up every fucking thread.

case in point

STEMtard genocide when?

Joke's on you I'm STEM.

Meanwhile in the civilized parts of the world like scandinavia, religion is such a non-factor for the natives that it might aswell not exist at all. Only time you ever hear about religion/organized belief systems is when some guy blows himself up or you're unfortunate enough to stumble over some US "politics" in the news.

What's wrong with the Nye quote? Absolutely nothing, besides being slightly dismissive and ignorant.

Tyson's quote is a little more ignorant, but he does have a point about what is more pragmatic.

Krauss is just wrong, but I don't even know what he's saying.

Dawkins in that quote is not unreasonable and he's complimenting them for being skeptical of common sense. He just wants to be grounded in what he perceives as reality.

>in the civilized parts of the world like scandinavia
Oh you mean where they have the highest rates of mental illness, suicide, and sadness?

Bill Nye's statement seems perfectly reasonable.

>What's wrong with the Nye quote?
>Bill Nye's statement seems perfectly reasonable.
It's not "wrong," it's just sort of funny that he says he's "skeptical" of "the idea that reality is not real," when in fact that very idea he's deriding is the basis of scientific skepticism itself. Descartes, for instance, did a thought experiment in which he doubted the existence of the external world and his own body and all other bodies in order to determine some un-doubtable truth about being. Not to say Descartes had it all figured out or anything but Cartesian or Humean skepticism is like one of the foundational concepts of what would become the scientific method.

>What's wrong with the Nye quote?

It's a pointless tautology.

>when in fact that very idea he's deriding is the basis of scientific skepticism itself
Not really. Not every man can be skeptical about every issue from every side of the issue. People don't repeat Descartes thought experiment, they just read it as part of the accumulated mass of knowledge and consider his argument.

And his argument might be intellectually stimulating for some, but ultimately inconsequential, except for the fact that one can now say he has considered the issue.

>It's a pointless tautology.
Just like a lot of philosophy.

>People don't repeat Descartes thought experiment
That's not the point at all. If people thought of philosophy as the history of ideas rather than "the search for truth" or whatever you would understand this better. Regardless of your opinion about the usefulness of Descartes, it literally happened in historical time that philosophers like Hume and Descartes articulated ideas, like radical skepticism, that became the scientific method we still use today.

When you stop needing insulin, computers, or massive bridges

make it an old boys club again, They created most of it.

More like science.

>Reality is real man... just see here. It's real, because it's real you know?

>That's not the point at all. If people thought of philosophy as the history of ideas rather than "the search for truth" or whatever you would understand this better.
Then why are you criticizing Nye's skepticism if that's not what it's about?

>Regardless of your opinion about the usefulness of Descartes, it literally happened in historical time that philosophers like Hume and Descartes articulated ideas, like radical skepticism, that became the scientific method we still use today.
He's not undermining the skepticism as you claim though. He didn't say it was wrong for Descartes to be skeptical of reality. Nye based his personal opinion on personal experience and the body of knowledge left by skepticism, including Descartes. It's his personal opinion and judgement based on his human and limited understanding of the historical body of knowledge that came before. He's literally doing nothing wrong.

You're implying that he is saying that it was wrong for Descartes to be skeptical of reality in the historical context of Descartes, and therefore undermining skepticism. If Nye said he was skeptical of Descartes' mind body dichotomy would you get triggered, or realize this is perfectly reasonable and doesn't undermine skepticism, irrelevant of whatever Descartes' historical context was.

There's nothing ironic about it except being butthurt at STEMfags.

No, it's real because it's tied to actual consequences, unlike most of philosophy, which offers consequence-free word games

Yeah, and scientific theory isn't philosophy apparently, and is conveniently left out of this whole equation.

It's a branch natural philosophy though.

A natural philosopher could just as well make the statement that he thinks the worldly is more important than metaphysics.

>Yeah, and scientific theory isn't philosophy apparently

No, not the useful ones at least

Epistemology, science and scientific theory in general is not based on utility moron.

Not in the universities maybe, but outside of them, they kind of are

I don't know jack shit about Dawkins but his quote in the OP is literally against appealing to common sense.

Science = inductive reasoning
Philosophy = deductive reasoning
Science & Philosophy; two sides of the same coin.

>Veeky Forums will probably enter a murderous rampage.
sounds like fun senpai

Throw meme scientists in prison, throw stereotypical STEMlords (aka HURRRR HOOMANItiES IS USELESS LE CANCER DEGREE I MAKE $300K OUT OF COLLEGE XDDDD) in prison.

>t. STEMbabby

trips confirm

>I'm not like the other STEM students xD ^^

>not throwing potheads humanities degenerates into a volcano