He actually, seriously, unironically, willingly dedicated time to studying philosophy

>he actually, seriously, unironically, willingly dedicated time to studying philosophy

>Why would scientists ever occupy themselves with the implications behind their findings or the way by which they come to their conclusions?

The scientific theory itself is a form of epistemology which presupposes formal logic (another field of philosophy). Those who deny the usefulness of philosophy, regardless of their field of specialization, eventually find themselves sawing through the branch they're sitting on.

He's right you know.

What about the science of philosophy?

G9 B9 M9

Everyone does philosophy, it's unavoidable. You can either do bad philosophy and not inspect the assumptions about the world that you have, or you can study philosophy and examine your own perceptions and thoughts about the world.

Philosophers just like most mathematicians don't really work for physicists or other empiricist plebs with 125 iqs though, abstracting stuff is an end on itself.

...

>ornithology isn't useful to birds
I mean yeah we could just not know how to keep stable bird populations and hunt them to extinction that be good.

>letting dirty-ass pigeons crawl on you

>Feynman said this whilst his entire method was based upon the philosophy of science and gave a series of lectures on falsification, literally a philosophical concept invented by a philosopher

JUST

That was my first thought as well.

>he actually thinks scientists do what philosotards say
You are delusional.

>DUDE EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY LMAO
Philosophical and scientific methods of investigation are different though

>who is Karl popper

Kill yourself

Someone who called put pseudoscience in his time by formulating what should scientists look for. He didn't tell how to investigate the properties of plasma, or how to model black holes.

Except he showed how to avoid falsities and therefore refining our processes which is now the bedrock of science.

Thought you said philosophers don't influence science??? Backtracking???

Fucking this
I took a philosophy class this semester and it's all wank
>dude, like, what if your green is my blue?
>you can't prove we don't live in the matrix, so how can you say what is real
>what if everyone on earth is a robot exception for you lamo

No, I said the actual lab methods have nothing to do with that. Scientist do their own thing abd philosophers do their own thi as well. And because there are some connections between the two fields that doesn't mean doing science reduces in any way to a problem of philosophy. It's that stupid reductionist view that makes scientist hate philosophers because it just comes out as lazy.

Thanks for your insight undergrad who got lost in literally philosphy 101.

Except it's now accepted that the majority of articles in science journals are most likely false.

Why? Because scientists think they can do their own thing with all that grant money they get and live their fat lives obsessing over how smart they are for memorising some equations, lol!

Why is it so hard for philosophers to accept the fact that science made them unnecessary?

That's basically the fault of shitty statistical manipulation in order to get results. Obviously fucktards at life sciences and psychology are getting things wrong if they can't solve shitty calculus probablems, which is something you clearly are at fault.

>Philosopher: After 20 years of study (i.e. reading some greek shit from 2500 years ago), I've written a paper that my mommy and maybe 5 other people will read
>Scientist: After 20 years of research, I've discovered a scientific breakthrough that will contribute greatly to humanity's well being and our understanding of the Universe
>Philosopher: WE'RE EQUALLY IMPORTANT IF FACT SCIENCE IS A SUBSET OF PHILOSOPHY SO IM ACTUALLY MORE IMPORTANT!

Retard

>equally important
Equality has nothing to do with it. A man who pursues what he wants fulfills his desires. A man who pursues what other wants only fills his desires if this is what he wants. The scientist is a collectivist cuckold. The philosopher is the self-actualized man.

>Its a "retarded STEMfag doesn't realize that everything from the form of government he uses to the morality and social norms he follows to the methodology used by scientists are all products of philosophy" episode

Even if the measure of a field of study was its ability to grant its practitioners power [and its not. That isn't what a scholar does, its what a sorcerer does] and product practical results, you are literally steeped in the accomplishments of philosophy.

Republican government? You're welcome

Scientific method? You're welcome

Civil rights? You're welcome

Whatever ass-backwards moral system you follow or were socialized to follow? You're fucking welcome.

Lack of knowledge of philosophy and introspection makes you a slave to your conditioning.

>Sidenote: Modern humanities departments are literally cancer.

fuckin burn

>Lack of knowledge of philosophy and introspection makes you a slave to your conditioning.
Or DOES IT?
Whoa dude thats a deep philosophical question. You know, we don't even know that know our knowledge by knowing the knowable!

>Or DOES IT?
Ignorance is bliss

2500 years of philosophical inquiry well spent

STEM-fags, try to explain why something you concluded with 'science' is true or anyway accurate in your perception of what it is, and the reasoning you use to 'prove' why it is, without using philosophy. Also prove how our knowledge of science became science ex nihilo without becoming a specialized form of philosophy that focuses on nature of things.

HINT: You can't

Science isn't concerned with ideas that cannot be falsified, retard.

teh interwebz werkz

What did he mean by this?

>try to explain why something you concluded with 'science' is true or anyway accurate in your perception of what it is, and the reasoning you use to 'prove' why it is, without using philosophy.
After you explain why any of the thousands of philosophical systems does the same thing better. At least science produces perceptible results in form of technology, while philosophy does nothing to justify its truthfulness
>Also prove how our knowledge of science became science ex nihilo without becoming a specialized form of philosophy that focuses on nature of things.
Hurr durr everything came from something. Brilliant, take a fucking cake. A scientist doesn't need be familiar with any philosophical school to practice science, unless you're going to claim that conventional wisdom and cultural osmosis also pertain to philosophy, which is pathetic.

The thread would have ended immediately if most of you weren't too dumb to see Feynman's remarks are subtly self-defeating.

He makes a stupid statement on the obvious level (science doesn't need philosophy). But then on the more subtle level he suggests that scientists like him make such self-satisfied stupid comments because they are as oblivious to higher thought as a bird is to the concerns of humans!

ornithology would be super useful to birds, were they capable of understanding it

It's not as if the methodology of science is above and beyond us, it is a concretely grounded method of acquiring knowledge with clear epistemological claims

What the fuck is the point of lambasting philosophy? Anybody who ever harbors some autistic vendetta against it, they never read about it or understand anybody beyond their hyper-specialized domain of knowledge. Why bother knowing anything at all if you fail to address the meta? It's like have a vast array of data rote memorized, but failing to derive any information and meaning from it all

He's making a fucking joke you faggots. He also has quotes about the importance of philosophy and whatnot, he just had a sense of humor and hated armchair intelectuals. And you call the stemfaggs autistic, Jesús.

yeah because you definitely don't make aesthetic or moral decisions in your daily life

kill yourself

Kek, even if these posts are bait, this is a big problem in academia. Too many STEM autists don't read literature or have any clue on how to formulate a proper and logical essay/argument and articulate their thoughts. On the flip side, humanities fags can't into basic calculus.
Why is this? Seemingly throughout history, there have been geniuses that were true polymaths, but it doesn't seem like that today.
Or was it always like this?

I am a fan of Feynman, but he is in the wrong here. Philosophy of science is to science as counting is to math, it is so basic that you take it for granted and don't see it as important. Occam's razor, scientific method, logic and standards of proof are already well understood so it is rarely a subject of research and debate, except with the more uneducated spooked citizens of our republic of course.

You could say the same about science and math literacy in the humanities. The thing is that unis think that it is impossible to have a well rounded education, but that's only because they think of that in the classical way. Nowadays, interdisciplinary work is of great importance in many fields, so they should try to give an education where you show the broad applications of your specialization into different fields and promote the work between fields. Obviously being a jack of all trades nowadays is impossible without being a master of non, but if you are going to specialize, it better if you get a rounded education with respect to that field.

It's obviously harder between STEM and humanities, but I have seen a lot of ideas in humanities that could be better. Analyzed and understood through abstract math, while scientist could defend their work better with the help of philosophy.

>DAE le STEM?????
>DUDE I MAJORED IN ENGINEERING BECAUSE IM AN INTELLECTUAL ATHIEST

reddit go home

People like that died out because it is no longer possible to learn even a fraction of one percent of the recorded knowledge of humanity in a lifetime. Also, note that the teams behind big scientific breakthroughs get bigger and bigger, to the point that it's creating Nobel issues (each discovery is only allowed to have a couple people linked to it by their terms, so a team of a hundred people gets shafted). We're at the limits of what a single expert can contribute without any outside help in most fields.

>thousands of philosophical systems does the same thing better
Because there's thousands of topics to be asked in our existence.
>At least science produces perceptible results in form of technology
If you consider Science not derived from Philosophy, then Technology isn't derived from Science but it's own independent entity.
>while philosophy does nothing to justify its truthfulness
Prove it
>A scientist doesn't need be familiar with any philosophical school to practice science
I didn't say anything about particular philosophical schools, friendo, but philosophy in general. If science isn't in anyway relevant to philosophy or uses it, then why don't we fully understand the Universe and know how to utilize it? Surely if anything proclaimed in the name of science is truth, and scientific inquiry is formally organize and always the same, there wouldn't be any roadblocks or misconceptions going on.

How do they know they're falsified, tho?

why does thinking about the world necessitate formal study of philosophy?

that and/or he goes to Retard U.

Hey, goy, stop trying to know about stuff, ok?

t. (((Feynman)))

What's the latest in philosophical discovery?

>>Scientist: After 20 years of research, I've discovered a scientific breakthrough that will contribute greatly to humanity's well being and our understanding of the Universe

>After 20 years of research, I've discovered a tiny piece of information that maybe will get cited in a more important paper, justify a new grant, or will be poached by a pharmaceutical company if I'm lucky

How to tell PopSci retards from people actually involved in scientific research

You actually know less than nothing but at the same time we know there are like 15 genders and everyone is gay.

It does'nt, but it does does wonders for helping you to think about the world rigorously.

If Plato was alive today, he'd call all of 18+ century philosophy meaningless sophistry and became a scientist.

If Plato was alive today he's be an /x/ posting queer.

What a shitty quote.

Meanwhile, Feynman wrote in his memoir that he became extremely depressed having had a hand in creating a nuclear weapon that was later used against Japanese civilians.

I guess, for him, the value of human life does not matter, as long as you can create nukes.