>At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believes that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".[287]
What did he mean by this?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
sites.google.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
That Humanities majors are a bunch of salty fags who can't get over the fact some smart fella insulted their meme education.
He refers to the tendency of older philosophies to answer questions and categorize known and supposed information. That is to say they are running out of different names to call the same thing.
The sciences on the other hand have the luxury of assigning new names to new things, which keeps things fresh.
>literally saying &humanities was a mistake
Is he, dare I utter, /ourguy/?
I missed Veeky Forums shitposting desu
Probably that philosophers have become more detached from the sciences than they once were and have thus weakened their ability to effectively comment on the universe and our place within it. I don't think it's necessarily wrong.
He meant that unenlightened tool-pushers should be advanced to the top of the hierarchy.
Philosophers are usually skilled at both science and humanities.
"Questioning the status quo is wrong."
>lacan.jpg
tfw to smart for STEM
It's not about being too smart, it's about being able to look at what's offered.
Great, Science has cleared Philosophy out of the way. It now offers all moral, aesthetic, and political guidance.
And, not even /pol/ but what it provides is consumptionist hedonism, hollywood films and glass boxes, and Hillary Clinton, who can't even win an election.
Yeah, not, fuck that shit. Philosophy might be dead after a good 2300 stetch or so, but Scientism is dead on arrival.
Philosophy isn't dead! In fact many contemporary philosophers invented groundbreaking concepts... lile... um... Dawkind and his memes... and... that one other guy... um... forgot his name...
youtube.com
>ellipses
Consider ending your life.
>listening to what a cripple who can't even speak without a robot says
lol im pretty sure i could kick his ass. better watch his mouth, oh sorry, his robot voice modulator around me or i'll push him on his side
>a high level of discourse is expected.
Science is just applied philosophy
Easy here, edgy boy...
I hate how humanities nerds try to make Veeky Forums their own safe space where they can meme about spooks and whatnot.
This is a /stem/ board for people interested in the past and particularly the role of modern technology in studying it. Philosophy losers don't belong.
The autists that cannot connect with other people and are too closed off from the world outside their isolated experiments and defined rules don't believe in the importance of human interaction and don't believe in truth that can't be objectively verified? Color me shocked.
They can mask their social isolation and intellectual narcissism as objectivity all they want, but at the end of the day we're the ones who can feel and appreciate the things that really matter, so who really wins? It may have been objectivity that built the Sistine Chapel and got a man to the moon, but it was not objectivity that gave men the idea, the fire, and the drive to go to the moon or build the Sistine Chapel, or fill it with religion, or paint the ceiling. It was not objectivity that gave life its meaning - in fact it is the current supremacy of objectivity that is sapping life of its meaning. Every success they have in pushing away what people feel tears us apart from each other and pushes us farther and farther away from what is really important.
Academic philosophy is pretty STEM discipline as well, memer just ignore hard parts about cognition and such.
>saying this in a "What did he mean by this?" thread
shut up, nerd
>this is what humanitards believe
lmao.
>blah blah blah I am dumb dumb sistine chapel
True beauty is in mathematics and physics not the Sistine chapel.
.
> current supremacy of objectivity
>>>>>>Your stemfag containment board is that way.
There are no arguments anywhere near your posts, but that isn't odd coming from "people" who deal in numbers because you have a hard time with social situations and using your words. When you can count your friends on one hand (and Sonic the Hedgehog isn't your friend), you know Veeky Forums is the board for you.
Not an argument.
Well, actually there is an argument in my post as you need to be highly on crack to equal a current post modern culture to a supremacy of objectivity. Not my problem that you missed the hint, in truly autistic manner.
Humanities dweebs are ironically far too autistic to understand basic social queues.
Really made me think.
>is either the guy who posted "lmao" or a reddit-tier image in response to my initial argument
>expects an actual argument back
What you posted was not an argument, just a statement. What should have followed the statement was why true beauty is in mathematics and physics and also why it is not in the Sistine chapel.
But judging by the way you characterized my post "blah blah blah I am dumb dumb sistine chapel" and the way you put a period on the line below what you said in response to the greentext, and by the reddit spacing in your post, I doubt you have any arguments. You probably usually just rely on upboats from the other website that I'm sure you post on.
>there can only be one anonymous poster disagreeing with me
Hmmm, yes.
he's just butthurt because muh british analytic philosophy became dominated by americans
>muh numbers
>they're beautiful
>reeeeeeeeee
>*posts chinese cartoons*
Stemfags, everybody.
> why true beauty is in mathematics and physics
It wasn't my counter point. My counter point is one about how there is no supremacy of objectivity in a modern world to suck meaning from lives.
To be honest, Sistine chapel wouldn't be possible without use of mathematics.
>makes a strawman in place of an argument
Humanities majors everyone
Where was that in your post then? If you mean to say something, use your words to express that.
There is a supremacy of objectivity. Is it not the prevailing feeling in society today to refuse to believe something until one sees it demonstrated to be correct? People are taught not to feel something is true, only to agree that something is true.
This does suck meaning from peoples' lives. It has been pursued to the nth degree. Experts now try to quantify everything, from advertising to economics. They attempt to break down aspects of things that are commercially successful, and attempt to recreate those things. What they construct is a mockery of the original and is not of any worth.
I said that before. Having acknowledged that, I said that the Sistine Chapel wouldn't have been even imagined without subjective feeling. It would not be a Chapel without religion. It would not have any form without architecture. It would not have any decoration without aesthetic art. Nobody would want to build it if they lacked creative spirit. All you would have with objectivity would be some lines on a page.
I invite you to look at the responses of my first post in this thread:
You will see that after typing out an argument I was met with nothing but asinine bullshit, and one of those is likely you.
You post cartoons and refuse to put together what you feel into an actual argument, and you still insist that I take you seriously? Have you thought about what that would look like? I post an argument, you post nothing but anime and bullshit, and I say "Oh good point, I really hadn't thought of that."
You must be insane to think that is a likely outcome of your shitposting.
philosophy is literally just some dude's opinion
science is FACT
But what if facts aren't real?
Yet human society can only be built upon on a dude's opinion about how human cooperation should work.
It can't be built on gravitation or strong particle interaction.
>le Scientism maymay
>My counter point is one about how there is no supremacy of objectivity in a modern world to suck meaning from lives.
Relativism sucks the meaning from lives far quicker and far more thoroughly than objectivity ever could. How can you determine meaning without a fixed point of reference to start from?
The only legacy your view leaves us is one of animalistic madness.
Simply not true, in all of the Australian meme battles more UK troops fought and more UK troops died.
A load of shit. If anything the last two decades have proven that science and technology not only can't make our lives better and solve our problems but in fact make us more miserable. Not only that but when you take ISIS and islam into account his statements just seem stupid. Technology and science do not equal genuine knowledge and wisdom. ISIS uses social media after all, don't they?
Iphones and knowing that star #346435 in the Virgo supercluster is "fascinating" doesn't help us or solve any problem. In fact technology today only amplifies all the worst aspects of humanity.
>science spawned Hilary Clinton and Hollywood films
dumbest post on the chan to be chonest
>Philosophers are usually skilled at both science and humanities.
"No."
Philosophy has just had to disguise itself as "comedy" because of the dominance of puritanical dialogue in the west. Comedy is really the last platform where you can say whatever you want as long as you lead into it with the right context and get people to think about what you're saying. And parody is really just a old school of philosophy based around cynicism and making people laugh at the norms in society for being absurdist.
>Scientists claiming Philosophy is useless when Science has literally just been BTFO by the EM DRIVE
AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
When did Natural Science and Philosophy become words for different things?
From ancient times through the renaissance a Philosopher understood Math and Physics to be parts of philosophy.
Is the STEM-Humanities divide an entirely modern thing?
I remember reading of Romans who would gloat over the functionality of the Roman aqueducts in comparison to the useless pyramids of the Egyptians, maybe that was evidence of the same attitudes.
When is the last time that a philosopher was relevant, at all? In contemporary times, philosophy is just a circlejerk that's only paid attention to philosophers. There's no breakthroughs, there's no new ways of thinking that upset established paradigms. It has no relevance to the real world.
paid attention to by philosophers*
In modern times there's plenty of real and relevant philosophy being done. It just doesn't go under the name "philosophy" any more, because the word has been co-opted by endlessly circlejerking university departments.
>Is the STEM-Humanities divide an entirely modern thing?
Yes. Specialization cause autism.
When he says this, I think he refers mostly the "Can't know nuffin" brand of philosopher; to which this is 100% true. Science has totally eclipsed all else in regards to epistemology. These contemporary epistemological thinkers are backed into a corner where they've no choice but to reject the validity of science.
>When is the last time that a philosopher was relevant, at all?
If we're talking about science, I think the best example is John Searle. He have been shitting up computer science for almost 50 years now, and his view on consciousness is more or less getting accepted in contemporary neuroscience after a few decades of catching up.
Then we've political philosophers but that goes without saying they've influence.
Had he read all of em?
Here is viable french writer, if you ask me.
sites.google.com
It's because knowledge is becoming so specialized that it's very, very, very difficult for a philosopher to be skilled in both his own practice and any scientific field, much less multiple of them like philosophers of yore. Most modern scientists pick a specific subfield of their branch of science and stick to it for life, devoting their lives to pushing that specific subfield harder.
>It's because knowledge is becoming so specialized that it's very, very, very difficult for a philosopher to be skilled in both his own practice and any scientific field
This goes both way. Most good philosophy is done in cross-disciplinary sciences because you've the best of the best from several scientific branches trying to work out whatever they're working out, and a philosophical meta-narrative provided from all sides to form a decent discussion is necessary to validate whatever research you're doing.
Just another ignorant scientist who thinks measuring light somehow means philosophy doesn't matter.
All scientists basically assume science is this new religion of truth and don't understand what it really is or its limitaitons.
>Its a "theoretical wheel chair man is authority on all subjects because he's a pop-scientist" thread.
Most Philosophy is so abstract and academic that it might as well be useless for the common man.
Very few philosophers tackle practical problems (IE, how to be happy) because they're much harder.
One could argue that the philosophy vs science divide occurred when Philosophers stopped trying to understand or even acknowledge reality ("Post-Truth", "Post-Modernism", "Critique", etc). This gives philosophy the same issue religion has: Science, by its very nature, will be more useful than anything that says "facts are bad".
If Philosophers want to be more useful, they should become far more interdisciplinary and focus on "What is Justice", "How can people be happy", "What is the ideal form of conflict resolution" rather than "Transphobic themes in Plato" and the like.
He's right, philosophy used to be at the center of life, now we've relegated it to, well, philosophy (as a subject)
Scientists have not taken up the torch, in fact they've set it down.
The thing about official scientists is they always become more official and less scientific.
I have never seen a scientific theory answer the question of why logical arguments can be made in a linear fashion.
>muh human machine
This still wouldn't answer why we see an objective correlation with the universe and this principle of linear argument.
This is to say the universe is intelligible in a specific way rather than any other way.
Science can only say, this is how it is. It can not deduce anything beyond the premises, this is entirely up to the philosophers.
>the universe and our place in it
>implying accidents have a place anywhere
>implying the if the universe could talk it wouldn't want us dead since its tried to kill us off already
and didn't he get cucked by a pastor?
>sciences
"sciences"
>science is monolithic
Science is probably the most divided field in the world today with everyone arguing theories and data.
It's stagnant for the most part. If human progression abides by an evolutionary principle, we ought not be where we be.
But they haven't.
The view of the universe is unchanged....
Hawking will just go into greater detail about this to make it appear as if something else occurs when it doesn't.
>The universe is
>the universe was some time ago
>the universe will probably be
This is the ancient and religious view, this is also 100% accurate regarding the scientific view
>Most Philosophy is so abstract and academic that it might as well be useless for the common man.
t. someone who doesn't understand philosophy
Philosophy is ideally principals you apply to your life in order to improve yourself. The following is meaningful philosophy for the common man
1. Stoicism (code to live by)
2. Christianity (religion to live by)
3. Epicureanism (Hedonistic code to live by)
These 3 things are easily applicable to everyday life with improvements observable over a period of time.
The following isn't applicable
Utilitarianism (greatest good for greatest number of people is unobtainable and lofty, as well as needlessly sacrificial)
This
the state of science is literally someone saying "god doesn't exist" at a university or ted talk and because of this they think they are top authorities
Simply philosophy broke off from science. And now they are throwing a tantrum.
An example is the belief that we are not special and all part of the universe.
Science turns around and says "muh intelligence, muh consciousness, hur dur I'm a spechial snowflake".
hmmmmmmm should i listen to science, where people teach us how to create new technologies for the betterment of society or should i listen to philosophy, where existence isn't real
tough choice
Listen to whatever you want fucko that's why ignorant bliss exists, philosophy says you need both science and philosophy for a grounded society without one everyone panders all day and nothing is done, without the other no one questions life and we turn into mindless machines fully giving into the turtles race from the maternity ward to the crematorium.
>everyone panders all day and nothing is done
you just describe philosophy
can philosophers name a single beneficial thing that society would no longer have if philosophy departments were totally defunded and left as a hobby pursuit?
Not even trolling.
genuinely tell me why philosophy needs funding.
>not realizing I used the stereotypes on philosophicals and non-philosophicals to try and explain it better but you still shined through with your stupidity.
But what is is, you fedora cuck?
I understand you are happy with going to work everyday and just living your life till your 60 wondering what you have done with it going to bed every night praying it isn't your last, but I prefer understanding the complexity of life and not just going along with it, because we all die friendo, that's a fact, and I can't wait because I wouldn't want to live forever, I dare you to sit down one day and just think about death for a solid hour. Philosophy exists because some people don't want to just blindly go through life, fearing the day it ends.
You indolent cretins, the goal of philosophy never was the pursuit of happiness nor it's practical application, but the pursuit of Truth itself and establishment of its existence to begin with.
>Philosophy is ideally principals you apply to your life in order to improve yourself
At this moment, you deserve the dumbest post award on the entire Veeky Forums.
Kant has had an impact on mathematics with his 'synthetical judgments' quote from Critique.
He's also apparently had an impact on quantum physics.
Physics was/is derived from a scientific approach to the philosophy of astronomy.
Agreed
Disagreed. Sounds like some bullshit definition. philosophy was originally about an applicable code to life. That's why they had philosophy schools. It was about action, not "muh truth"
If you want truth, look into metaphysics.
go to bed plato
To expand upon this, some philosophies emphases truth more than others, but to say philosophy is solely about truth, or that every philosophies goal is discovering ultimate truth is blatantly false.
Every single philosophy originated with an imposed question, be that question "Why" , "How" or else. It's an intrinsic aspect of the human nature to question, to perceive the full scale of a certain picture. This pursuit lies in the core of philosophy itself and is its original call, despite of the digressions and stray paths it took.
No, but it offers no alternative to it. Really what profound insights does Le Black Science Man or Bill Nye offer us, other than "Republicans are bad for Science?" What bold aesthetic alternatives do they offer.
They have none, because Scientism is an attempt to form a new basis of legitimacy for the status quo.
>Every single philosophy originated with an imposed question, be that question "Why"
{citation needed}
>I'm a drooling retard who hasn't heard of deduction: The Post
Why? :^)
But that's backwards. Many "unenlightened" people are totally okay with death and lack of meaning. They just want to be in a good mood most of the time.
It's philosophers who are totally neurotic. They started with the false assumption that there is anything more to be said about life, and are constantly disappointed.
Meant for
>I don't have anything to back up my retarded statement: The Post.
>It's stagnant for the most part. If human progression abides by an evolutionary principle, we ought not be where we be.
wrong, evolution doesn't predict outcomes, only game theory does that.
Science IS philosophy, Hawking, you crippled retarded faggot.
Scientists are literally the most ironically retarded people when it comes to basic logic.
>global warms hit
"Hmm, the models prediction doesn't match the observed metrics."
>alters the data
"THE PREDICTION WAS RIGHT GUYS!"
literal scumbags.
You really want to get into the philosophy of temperature? Temperature either goes up or down. If you can change this paradigm with some stunning insight, please do tell.
My thermostat has mental states.
Donald Hoffman is trying to derive quantum mechanics and eventually all physical laws from consciousness. (By trying to mathematically define consciousness)
youtube.com
So at the moment: yeah, no, maybe
No no no, not at all user! You see, the temperatures that were recorded were actually wrong, which is why they didn't match up with the models. Of course every scientist knows that when the hypothesis does not match the data, it's the data that's wrong. It must be corrected. If you alter the data, you prove the hypothesis. Fuck off user, this is our consensus and that's why it's an indisputably factual theory.