Bill Nye BTFO of philosophy

That depends on your system dingo

Go ahead.....

Hey I'm not that guy

Who knows what his epistemological method is

That's what I was asking him.

Bill Nye isn't a scientist. He has a degree in mechanical engineering

No you were asking me.

You big queer.

Isn't he just saying
>If I'm reasonably well educated and questions about morality and existence don't keep me up at night, why should I care that much about philosophy?

I mean, face the facts. The reason why you study philosophy is because you've thought about these things and are interested in these things, not because there's a fundamental need to understand philosophy, just like for most people there's not a fundamental need to study quantum physics. I think people who study philosophy hide behind the uneducated because of an inferiority complex. Then again I didn't waste money getting a bachelor's in philosophy.

Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering

I used to hold similar views when i was an engineering student. It's actually quite a prevalent attitude among physicists and applied scientists in general. And they have their reasons, sensuous phenomena dominates our thinking more easily and that's why we still persue it and study it in more details, leaving out the fact that our capacities to perceive it is dependent on initial cognitive conditions that in need of revision and investigation always if our aim is to track the Truth (as i think science is).

>PHILOSOPHY IS FINISHED
>HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER
It'll recover sooner or later. For most of the things that people care about is not found in the applied sciences, but only the solutions can be administered in the form of technological tools after the problems understood well. why do we suffer, what's true and what's right..etc.
So it'll recover on global scale only when people start to think systematically about everyday problems (all problems) and not just react by what's available from technologies.

Plus science itself is based on a philosophy that's been accepted as reliable. Pic. related.

>you can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it's in my reality xddd am i right ? stupid philosophers
No you can however prove that the Earth is spinning and therefore it creates the illusion of the Sun coming up. Jesus Christ what an idiot stopped watching right there

[spoiler]Sorry.How can you prove that the Earth is spinning? [/spoiler]

>"I think therefore I am. Well what if I don't think about it do I not exist anymore?"

P --> Q
~P
Therefore ~Q

That is fallacy called negation of the antecedent and it is in fact one of the most common and basic formal fallacies to happen.

It is sad to see a "paladin" of science commit that kind of simplistic logical mistake but sadly, I am not surprised.

>Therefore ~Q
He didn't say this

>Well what if I don't think about it do I not exist anymore?

>Well what if I don't think about it
~P
>do I
-->
>not exist anymore?
?

P --> ?

There's an implication of ~Q, only because he is contrasting the possibility of ~Q in contrast to Q, and he has already taken Q as a premise, that is not contingent on P or ~P.

He is clearly implying ~Q as a conclusion in order to make the cogito look absurd.

>How can you prove that the Earth is spinning
By observing it you fucking retard?

He's implying the possibility of ~Q conflicts with the positivist world view where Q is a premise, and any model of thought that even has ~Q as a possibility is dismissable.

The point is that he is wrong if he considers the posibility of ~Q as a consequence of ~P, because he derives that as a cocludion from P --> Q.

Of course ~p --> ~q is a contingency but it is in no way a conclusion of the cogito, implying otherwise is formal fallacy.

Long story short "cogito ergo sum" in no way implies "quod non cogitat, non est". He pretends the cogito opens the gate to prove his own non existence, which is absolutely false and a mussunderstanding of both Descartes and basic propositional logic.

Q is not a premise of the argument. It is a consequent in a antecedent-consequent set, which is itself the premise.

p-->q doest imply p or q as premises.

>Q is not a premise of the argument.
Q is a premise for a positivist, since apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

>It is a consequent in a antecedent-consequent set, which is itself the premise.
A positivist doesn't understand why you would try to prove something taken as a premise.

>p-->q doest imply p or q as premises.
Q is a premise for a positivist. And as far as a positivist is concerned, Descartes is partaking in philosophical wankery, because he already knows Q is true, and there's no reason to prove Q.

This is pretty much how a positivist views the world
>Nye: Blah blah science blah because Q blah blah
>Descartes: But wait, what if ~Q?
>Nye: Give me a break, you know Q
>Descartes: But what if it isn't
>Nye: It is
>Descartes: I'm going to prove Q
>Nye: This is stupid
>Descartes: P --> Q QED Q
>Nye: You're being a retard, ~Q was never a possibility in the first place, and even if ~P, it would be ~P --> Q because Q is a premise, ~Q is absurd
>Descartes: But you can't prove ~P --> Q
>Nye: This is dumb, I just want to get back to my original point
>Descartes: I proved Q

Bill Nye isn't a real scientist.

This.

He's the John Green of science.

But Descartes would agree that ~q is absurd. He doesn't want to prove q, he want to prove that ~q is an impossibility.

The line of thought in the first and second meditations is not "maybe I don't exist, let's demonstrate that I exist". He tries to doubt everything and finally gets the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to doubt that he exists. Hence the question quoted in OP is not a consequence of Descartes' intuition.

Oh god, this again. He says philosophy is interesting and its questions are important, but you're not necessarily going to find answers within it that common sense wont give you. That's not an unreasonable statement.

>But Descartes would agree that ~q is absurd. He doesn't want to prove q, he want to prove that ~q is an impossibility.
Then Nye's response is even more valid

>Descartes: P --> Q QED Q
>Nye: ~P --> ~Q?
>Descartes: Of course not, ~P --> Q
>Nye: If ~P --> Q and P --> Q, what does that tell you about Q?

>He tries to doubt everything and finally gets the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to doubt that he exists.
That's the same as attempting to see if everything ~ is possible, including ~Q. Therefore, he is postulating
>maybe I don't exist or ~Q

>Hence the question quoted in OP is not a consequence of Descartes' intuition.
If ~P --> Q and P --> Q, what does that tell you about Q?

But Philosophy invented science

~p --> q is a contingency.

Science is kid who became big success and his dad is old and has Alzheimers.

Science has existed since the dawn of humanity. It has changed anf evolved through massive amounts of work. It surley wasn't invented when aristotle defined his method.

Define science.
If science is not a particular method, then what is it?

>~p --> q is a contingency.
Prove it.

Really, the only premises in play are
~Q --> ~P
P

Or if you're a positivist
Q

Natural philosophy

So mathematics didn't exist before it's foundations were properly defined?

Careful OP, Don't attack New Atheism or the mods will ban you.

I'm still waiting for your definition of science. Remember, it has to be broad enough to include (according to what you have said) both math and whatever the first ooga boogas did. But as I suppose, you don't want your definition to include philosophy, so please tell me, what is science?

Most scientists are painfully ignorant of philosophy and actual modal logic.

They don't understand it and dismiss it. Particularly painful to watch Bill and others defend verificationism.

The whole left column is basically a pseduoscience nonscience btw.

>Dawkins
4/10, reasonable common sense answer, but with some praise for people who defy common sense

>Krauss
2/10
Pure scientism, but he's right about people with philosophy degrees being worthless, so he gets a 2.

>Nye
6/10
Clever sidestepping of the issue without actually dismissing it. He's basically saying "your move"

>Tyson
3/10
It's a really shit answer, almost on par with Krauss. He gets an extra point for being an otherwise likeable presenter, and a slight benefit of the doubt because of "[Philosophy]" and "Yeah, yeah" implies that the quotes are likely taken out of context.

I could give you my definition but that isn't my point. The fact is that people being doing science and science-like activities since before aristotle or any other great philosopher tried to define it or to define a method on how to do it. You are asuming that because philosophy deals woth foundational aspects of science then philosophy gave birth to science or that philosophy IS science. However, if the definition has changed over time or wasn't even present at some point, should we discard all those activities as non-science? So for the sake of not letting out brilliant scientists of the bast as non-scientists because we changed the foundational definition of science, I think it is pertinent to say that science is the range of human activities which try to deduce the laws of nature by observing it.

You should also notice this in mathematics. Many theorems of the past or knowledge would be considered not rigorous enough for today's standards. And it's not some ooga booga shit, but theorems from the 18th century (Euler is a great example). So what then, because the foundation of mathematics wasn't seriously revised until the late 19th century, then everything elsedone wasn't real mathematics? That really would give a shit definition.

Also, if you had any experience on a lab, you would know that the methods proposed by many philosophers are impractical in many cases as they are and give little insight into how to perform a proppee experiment which is crucial.

I'm not saying that foundations aren't important, interesting or beautiful, but it's wrong to say the foundation of something must be the whole something.

Sorry on the phone.

>
I could give you my definition but that isn't my point. The fact is that people being doing science and science-like activities since before aristotle or any other great philosopher tried to define it or to define a method on how to do it.
Than the case for Philosophy is even better, because Scientists only stopped fucking around when philosophers taught them how to do their job.

I know I fucked up with some of my writing, but you are a complete moron.

A part of me agrees with Dawkins. Common sense would dictate that things around us exist, we can know and understand the world, and we can make choices. Common sense dispenses with these problems for most people, only philosophers agonize over them.

His understanding of philosophy in this video is no deeper than pop philosophy.

To be fair, current development in Philosophy is quite lacking. Sure the Greeks developed it a great deal in classical times, but really there is not any reason for philosophy to progress.

With Science and Engineering you can build modern society, but with Philosophy all you can do is debate whether something exists or not.

Don't get me started on qualia... Really does it matter if it really exists? I mean its great to get into a debate when you are high or something, but the concept of qualia dos not really impact people in their daily lives like science and engineering.

>With Science and Engineering you can build modern society, but with Philosophy all you can do is debate whether something exists or not.
So are people's perspectives no longer growing and changing? If the answer is yes, then you're right. If the answer is no, you're wrong.

Common sense also dictates that heavier objects fall faster.

>professional mental masturbators get triggered when actual intellectual and useful people make fun of their career.
"y-y-you are ignorant of philosophy" not an argument, I'm ignorant of zodiac signs, witchcraft, gender studies, etc and yet I can dismiss them as bollocks without wasting my life reading their literature.

How does he keep doing it?

>There is no fundamental need to study physics
The advancement of the human race is not enough need?

Unless you are equating ideology with philosophy, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

People do not influence society's perspectives with philosophy anymore. People write books on it, but its got nothing on ideology.

Personally, I don't think either of us want to label an ideologue in the same category of a philosopher.

But really, ideologue's are the only real important out of the two.

Or at least the only one who can change people's perspectives.

That said. Does it really matter what people think about the universe? It exists regardless of what you think about it.

>People do not influence society's perspectives with philosophy anymore. People write books on it, but its got nothing on ideology.
I think you're underestimating philosophy's impact today, and overestimating it's impact in the past.

Despite the picture historians paint for us, philosophy was never some widespread, massively impacting field on the world. It has always influenced individuals, not bodies of people, and often behind the scenes, in the shadows.

Much of even the modern world is still created by, maintained by, and directed by unknown people behind the scenes. These people read philosophy. Pop culture icons and celebrities are just distractions and most have never actually held a book on any subject. Always will be like that.

Well how do you differentiate between an ideologue and a philosopher?

I mean was Karl Marx a philosopher or an ideologue?

Hey, can you help my little brother with his math homework? BAZOOPER!

The only impact that philosophy has today is bioethics, which is why the science community hates philosophers since you took the role the pope used to have during the enlightment.
You are worse than useless, you're detrimental and indirectly helping China take over the avant garde.

>i don't know what philosophy is
kys - especially if your skin is as brown as your pic, disgusting

There is a strong and well known philosophical canon that begins with the ancient Greeks. Spend enough time studying this canon, and most of the "idealogues" become easy to notice. Also, the manner of which they communicate and their behavior / societal role is often a tell-tale sign.

Both. Depends on what of Marx's writings your reading.

sounds like a pretty heated philosophical position :^)

Is English your native language?

Hey, don't be too harsh on him.

He's since changed his views.

>implying he is stating it as fact and not asking a question

checkmate philosofaggot

>lol philosophy invented opinions so everything you argue justifies me spending 4 years of my young adult life jerking off with other directionless losers by default
: ^) eric argument, its always present in these threads
Shart in mart.

>People ITT unironically think Bill Nye is a scientist

He's a pleb tier homo engineer

>but what's the point of studying philosophy
sounds like a pretty heated philosophical position :^)

You could had studied medicine, law , anything but at least now you can shitpost.

Science has always been natural philosophy. That's one of the reasons why "philosophy" has such a bad reputation. It became a blanket statement for all the bullshit philosophy that wasn't science, especially metaphysics. It's also polluted with theological metaphysics.

>muh working class
I know you resent that the average BA in philosophy isn't as rigorous as any STEM education, but why? Most phil majors who don't already come from rich-as-fuck families will have to go to (a very good) law school/grad school to make decent money or stand a chance at something resembling a decent contribution to society.

The USA may be the only country in the world where philosophy students are dumb rich kids instead of dumb stoners and marxists.

So, yeah.
>muh working class

I studied philosophy, am studying law, and am also shitposting. STEM brainlets btfo

Physics truly is the master race

Did you notice physics and math above you?

I don't disagree. I just don't like when the engineers and chemists get all uppity.
t. humanities

>have to cuck the TE out of STEM just to compete with philosophy
STEMfags as usual displaying how they only feel good when they put others down

>STEMfags as usual displaying how they only feel good when they put others down
That's why S&M are left.

...

Bill is a meme "scientist" anyways

Tips fedora

they literally do

>American """""scientists"""""

...

>BA in engineering.

I've no interest in defending Bill Nye, I'm not American so I wouldn't even have heard of him if it wasn't for the chanz.

However I saw your post scrolling the front page and couldn't help laughing at you.

Scientists are usually fantastically ignorant of philosophy and the same vica versa. The idea that they somehow compete with each other is ridiculous.

This is pretty much the American school of tought.

I wish the U.S would just cease to exist.The world would be bettter without it.

Communism is pseudoscience? Cool.

Communism isn't a pseudoscience because it isn't even science.

Marxism however claims to be scientific, which it isn't, so Marxism is indeed pseudoscience.

Marx literally said that communists are scientists of history, hence pseudoscience

>denying the antecedent

Guess they don't teach introductory logic at mechanical engineering school.

I'm also embarrassed that apparently no one else in this thread noticed this incredibly basic inferential fallacy.

No wonder discussion on Veeky Forums is so terrible.