Can we agree that, generally speaking, scientists who respect philosophy are better than those who don't?

>science progresses and philosophy doesn't

Exactly. Science 'progresses' to eventually reach the same conclusion that philosophy already has years ago.

thing is, the popsci guys aren't even wrong. In its current state philosophy of science is pretty shit and truly is rarely read outside the people in its field. But that's fixable so not very good point. But even speaking of it as a field, the advances in philosophy of science at this point will rarely have an effect on the study of physics. That's what krauss is saying, that philosophy of science is useless to the work physicist do, but are most other things i.e. History. Doesn't mean either subject is useless or that they can't be used together in a meaningful way, just that the work is not directly related.
dawkins and the black guy are just saying that the method of thinking required in philosophy is not useful in science, and they're right. bill nye is just stating a rather reasonable opinion, not dismissing anything.
>Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
you're cherry picking people who you think others will respect and quoting stuff that might agree with you. You're quoting other scientists who you dislike and misconstruing their quotes. Krauss is probably the only one who is actively dismissive of philosophy although he has said many times that he's just being purposely provocative. Seriously, that bill nye quote is an incredible reach.

>at least choose working scientists, not talking heads who spout their nonsense
OP's pointing out that working scientists (left side of pic) are better than talking heads (right side of pic). The working scientists respect philosophy for what it is, a conversation of knowledge, whereas the right side scientists embrace memes to their very core, including the meme that philosophy is shit tier. Philosophers at least try to think deeply and advance knowledge, the right side meme scientists are nothing more than entertainers.

There's the "philosophy of science is about as useful to a scientist as ornithology is to birds" quote, and he also said "Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong" which somewhat shows a disdain for philosophers. Finally check out youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo. You can argue he is just being funny here and just takes a light jab at philosophers to entertain his audience, but it seems like a general attitude.
But I admit it might be fairer to say he is more opposed to professional philosophers rather than philosophy as such.

the left side are not working scientists, they're dead.
It's an important distinction, because scientific discoveries today are very different than before. Research today is much more esoteric, focusing on the very specific things whereas Einstein had the opportunity to discover a whole field. A much more important distinction is that discovery is done through teams nowadays, so there are not so many people single people to consider great. Even in that picture, krauss for example was involved in the discovery that empty space contains energy but obviously no one says he discovered it. I think he may have been involved during the discovery of the higgs boson but i'm not sure. Both are significant, but the discovery is a team effort so no one scientist is deified.

a think one interesting thing to not is that older scientist seem to at least not dismiss philosophy, while modern scientists seem to share a loathing for it. maybe philosophy is becoming shit.

>maybe philosophy is becoming shit.
Or those modern scientists did not have the opportunities to study it like the old ones, or they chose not to, or...

>scientists who respect philosophy are better than those who don't?
Jesus OP, what's your deal?
You've stared a shitload of science vs philosophy threads in the last day or two.
It can't be a coincidence, we all know it's one philosotard.
Just be comfortable with the path you've chosen, even if it is the intellectual equivalent of masturbation.

there's nothing to indicate that the scientists who support philosophy knew it any better than the scientists that didn't specially considering knowledge generally grows with time.

I am a postdoc and in my exprience this split is actually VERY noticeable. Very few scientists are actually hardcore into philosophy, but there is a huge, very obvious difference between those that have at least thought about the philosophy of science beyond, say, popper/kuhn, and those who don't think at all. None of the "distinguished," big name professors fall in the latter camp.

>maybe philosophy is becoming shit.
Contemporary Continental philosophy like Derrida, deconstructionism, and all the SJW bullshit it spawns in academe is a cesspool.

Ancient philosophy like Aristotle and Analytic philosophy is true philosophy. The Analytic philosopher Russell created the foundations of modern formal logic, and indeed computer science, with the Principia Mathematica.

Also, "I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense as an answer." Isn't an unfavorable view of philosophy, as it says in the quote, regardless of what he actually meant.

Well, the vast majority of philosophy departments in the US are heavily analytic in tradition. The Derrida continental tripe is much more of a Continental European and US Humanities department thing.

wouldn't be out of character for him to dismiss philosophy (and many other things)

It depends on the specific philosophy. Like art, there is legit stuff, then there is postmodern/ pretentious rubbish.

>popsci writers
>scientists

pick one

dawkins was a very respectable scientist before he became a god for the atheist movement. krauss has done and is still doing interesting work in physics and has been honored by the american institute of physics, the american physics society, and the american association of physics teachers, some of the largests physics organizations in the U.S with the APS being the world's largest. I don't know much about tyson, but he seems as good a scientist as anyone.
They've all certainly done more for science than you ever will.

>Seriously, that bill nye quote is an incredible reach.
It's from youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

In context, it's not misleading, wrong or inaccurate.

even though everyone can probably agree i have to say feynman was such a fucking G

Fair enough, I wouldn't say he was fond of philosophy.

in context, it's obvious how misleading it was. he even starts by telling the guy that other scientist aren't dismissing it, not something he'd probably do if he was going to dismiss it. He also says it's important to be aware of philosophy. in no way is he being dismissive of it (other than as a choice for college).
What he actually says is that for practical matters the standard of proof doesn't have to be as high as it is for philosophy.

>in no way is he being dismissive of it
except in all the ways he is. he thinks philosophy is nothing but stupid thought experiments.

>i think that he thinks philosophy is nothing but stupid thought experiments, based on other words he said.

so is autism and bullshitting your forte?

>except in all the ways he is.
so none then?
>he thinks philosophy is nothing but stupid thought experiments.
no he doesn't. he thinks that at after a certain point it can become that. There's a big difference between me saying ferraris are useless and saying cars are useless. You're reaching SJW levels of victimhood now.

Then he's entirely wrong and ignorant about philosophy and has no clue what he's talking about. Since he's ignorant, and since he only has a bachelor's and has done nothing of importance his whole life, I feel no qualms about dismissing him and everything he says about this stuff.

>I feel no qualms about dismissing him and everything he says about this stuff.
that's fine. you're still wrong about what he was saying though and given your level of comprehension and the fact that you're now just shitposting on an african undergrad history major help forum i feel no qualms about dismissing you and everything you have to say about anything.

>you're still wrong about what he was saying though
except I'm not, and many people have pointed this out, so go wank off to your childhood hero and twist everyone's words to mean whatever you want, nobody will be caring.

there's that scenario everywhere though

How is what you're doing any different from the user you're responding to? you believe something to be the case because you interpreted his language to mean something for you and the other user interpreted it in a different way because of the language he used. This is funny because you're basing your decision on what Nye is saying on philosophical modes of interpretation. Basically you're both misunderstanding how the language Nye is using is providing a correspondence between what he actually means, and this is just one part of philosophy. Now a philosopher would just bring forth arguments based on what Nye actually defines the words he says to mean and see if they logically follow from the basic premise-definitions, whether or not the conclusion that he's dismissing philosophy would follow.

>a philosopher would play semantics
big fucking surprise. I'll have the number 5 please.

Yes

Especially given that science is based on philosophy

>science
>the meaning of meaning

XD

NO....
NO HAHAHAHAHA
THIS CANT BE REAL...
MY EYES ARENT REAL...
SAVE ME JADEN!!!!

A lot of modern scientists are in it to fuel their own ego. Any decent person doesn't go around pinning value to shit like that. And if they do, they probably live an extremely sheltered life and have been sucking on academia's tit so much that they don't even bother to realize there's a world outside of what they're studying.

Anyone who goes as far as saying scientists are better than philosophy is an asshole or any x is better than y because I say so and I need to justify my life's decisions and pretend I'm worth a shit. I like and am skillful and knowledgeable in both, but I love manual labor better than either yet that makes me less than others. Fucking ego shit heads, man.

>can we say that scientists that know a lot about intellectual subjects and are likely to be classical trained are smarter than those that are not

Of course.

Just look around. Most of the "novel" ideas people push, and pursue, are thousands of years old and were already evaluated by philosophers, and rehashed endlessly in the era of good sci-fi. Little has changed. But the great scientists always understood and accepted the ideas of the past, this is why they made the great connections and iterated the way they did.

There's a stigma against philosophy that's in part supported by a lack of understanding about what philosophy actually is, and its overall scope (if you even want to give it one). There are a number of reasons why I think it so sharply became this way, but people looking at philosophy as ivory tower bullshit really is nothing new.

>I don't know much about tyson, but he seems as good a scientist as anyone.

You're right.
You don't know much about Tyson.
Most would be hard-pressed to even consider him a scientist at all.

hey stephen hawking says that philosophy sucks ass and he pretty much invented the universe

>invented the universe
10/10 kek

>Universe invents something to invent itself
Makes sense.

I want to swipe a block of cheese over these teeth and see what happens.

Devil in disguise guise

...

Science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy.

A scientist who disrespects philosophy without specifying the sub-domain is disrespecting their own profession.

>There are a number of reasons why I think it so sharply became this way
Care to elaborate?

Two different ways for solving the same things for different people,however one solves what cant be seen yet, the other solves what is already there to be seen.

Philosophy as it is practiced now is garbage as there is little to no universal agreement on anything in the field.

On the right side some decent fellows, on the left some overhyped fucktards used to cloud the issue so kids don't make an atomic bomb at home.
When someone praises plato, he only wants to say he loves cock. It is sort of encoded message of some kind.

>>Show me where he's dismissive of philosoph
you fucking serious ? there is afamous quote about spinoza

>muh universal agreement.

found the pleb

hey look guys, I cherry-picked some data: the post

Philosophy is obsolete, it's been replaced by science/mathematics. That said, philosophy is only like one step above straight pseudoscence like phrenology.

>Logic
>Intentionality as an inherent property of mental states
>Cartesian cogito

Just off the top of my head... all of the above are universally agreed in philosophy.

ebin trolls guys, you really rustled some jimmies ;-)

>however one solves what cant be seen yet
it doesn't solve anything. it ponders it forever but never comes to a conclusion, only conjecture. Logic has its limits.

>Logic has its limits.

Logic is not used as a mode of discovery you dumbfuck

> it ponders it forever but never comes to a conclusion, only conjecture.

Sounds like high level mathematics to me :^)

philosophy comes to conclusions all of the fucking time, it's just people disagree with them.

The complement of philosophy is common sense according to Dawkins. Surely there is a sense of multiverse in the fact there are multiple objects and relative time/causality. Meaning has an interaction, such that it can be contained within where Einstein says the methodology and history is significant. Of course. That's seeking truth. The quantum world is infinite, and that's what we're realizing here. There is no singularity, and yet there is. Perhaps it is the multi-space of intuition, and it's fields and own spaces/universe and authentic rationality of skepticism, along with it's molecular/phenomenological interaction with the physical world. So perhaps there is a calculus/algebra/topology and an exchange rate of mental meaning and geometric space-time. But certainly there is commonsense sentiments in the OPs pic, such as science progresses, survive, what is topological geo-erosion/, and philosophy being liberating.