Modern Philosophy is a sham

i hate japan so much holy shit

such an awful, dirty looking country

what are you after in a city/country? I think that looks particularly comfy

>he thinks there are 'laws' in science
>he thinks mathematics isn't fallible
>he thinks modern day science isn't experiencing the same irrelevancy apart from micro-technology and AI

Those on the right are effectively making philosophical claims and they don't even realize it

less neon, for starters

that looks awful and nauseating to live in

I'm a sucker for old European cities and colonial architecture
Prague is beautiful and Olinda is absolutely gorgeous

But if you really want apratments there's always London, New York or even Beijing desu

I guess I prefeer prettier and cleaner buildings

So, no refutations?

This, of course, is not a surprise.

This is kinda nostalgic. We've been so overtaken by pol shitposting the old positivist continental bait threads haven't been seen for a while. Bump.

I bet you believe in objective "purpose" or inherent "value".

That has nothing to do with anything.

So what should we work on and why?

P.S. Any answer you give is philosphy. How is this not clear?

shit op why do we need medicine if we're going to die anyway
doctors are a sham
and so are pharmacies
and whomever's involved in that

>there are actually people who don't blend philosophical and scientific thinking to truly appreciate their own existence and the universe around them.

>no its not, every scientist would disagree you bait tramp.

Then every scientist is an idiot.

Your post begins with an (unsubstantiated) philosophical claim.

No, science is the evolution of philosophy after it had a very very useful prediction checking feature added

Philosophy: Hegel ruined everything

Science: Positivism and Scientism is bunk

>It seems clear science is going to eclipse philosophy in learning about the truth of the world.
Yes, but they are just going to inevitably encounter the same truths that philosophers have already known for millennia.

Philosophy is useless. Science can actually give you something, philosophy is just words words words with no real meaning.

>It seems clear science is going to eclipse philosophy in learning about the truth of the world.

I swear to God I have to tell people this EVERY WEEK. It's so easily an overlooked fact that I hear people spout this "science vs. philosophy" meme all the time.

Science IS A PHILOSOPHY.
It is a philosophy that focuses exclusively on the acquisition of knowledge. If you were to make a Venn Diagram for science and philosophy, science would be ENTIRELY INSIDE OF philosophy. That is not to say that philosophy can't be bullshit sometimes, it is simply to say that science is the crown jewel of epistemological philosophy. There are other philosophies. There are economic philosophies, there are religious philosophies, there are cultural philosophies, there are pedagogical philosophies. Science overlaps with some of these, particularly pedagogical and economic philosophies, but the truth is science is a philosophy that focuses on objective acquisition of knowledge. To speak of "science vs. philosophy" is to create a false dichotomy. Just as to speak of "religion vs. Ideology." There is categorical nesting and overlap.

That said, since science focuses exclusively on how to acquire knowledge, there are philosophical conundrums that fall outside of the purview of what science can tackle.

For example, how do we prioritize what knowledge we pursue with the scientific method? That is an economic/ethical philosophical dilemma, NOT a scientific one. People funding the science largely decide what knowledge science pursues.

Once you have acquired knowledge, what do you do with it? Make a drug? A weapon? These are ethical/economic concerns as well. There are non-scientific ways of looking at things that by the very scarcity of resources/time have to be utilized in real world situations. I am not performing traditional "science" for instance, when I call up a client and ask them what kind of spreadsheet they want their data in.

The difference imo is science concerns itself with the real world, philosophy is just about making up definitions and hairsplitting to get the conclusion you want, completely removed from everything else.

Not him. You only think that philosophy isn't concerned with the real world because there's been many frauds and delusions in philosophy over the centuries since its creation in ancient Greece. It is entirely concerned with the real world, however. In fact, that is exactly what marked its distinction as its own category from the Greek poets — Thales came around and made an ASSERTION about the origin of the world, the first Greek to do so, instead of simply poeticizing about it and making a suggestion like Hesiod and Homer did.

>t. I never read a book that is not on my High school's reading list

I'm the guy you're responding to.

Once again, there isn't a difference. There is a subset. Science is a subset of philosophy, and happens to be more useful than a lot of other philosophies. However, it can't exist in a vacuum. Science needs other philosophies, like economic and ethical philosophies, to even be relevant to the humans performing the science.

Philosophy in general concerns itself with the real world. Non-scientific philosophy (the philosophy that isn't charlatan bullshit) involves the prioritization, execution, and human concerns of performing tasks in the real world. Just look at the examples I gave. Science needs people paying for it. Science needs people performing it. Science needs people getting paid to do it. Science needs people getting raised and educated.

Getting all those prerequisites require non-scientific philosophies. They require ethical, political, and economic philosophies to govern the creation and maintenance of a society where science can even be performed.

To make an analogy to programming. Science is a "high level" language, in that it is dependent upon a huge architecture of things outside of itself to be possible. You need people making decisions before the data is in for science to be possible. You need people making arbitrary and sometimes unscientific decisions for science to be possible. There is no scientific method for deciding what to do with information or deciding what information is important to gather. Scientific method only covers HOW to gather information (observation, experimentation, suppression of bias). WHAT information to gather and WHY is covered by other philosophies.

I work at a teaching hospital and train scientists there. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Holy shit this is embarassing. Go back to /r/ifuckinglovescience you illiterate pleb. I cant understand why people who know fuckall about something feel the urge to voice their badly informed opinions 24/7. It is people like you who will bring the downfall of mankind.

American """intellectuals"""

I like your post

>why people who know fuckall about something feel the urge to voice their badly informed opinions 24/7

Actually it was pretty meaningful. Showed that OP has no erudition and is a fucking retard.