Why so many smart people dismiss philosophy?

because philosophy is a garbage discipline based on MUH FEELS and make believe

lol they are so mad

someone tweet him the article

I can't read that thread, so full of fucking AUTISM.

>article written by a woman
yeah nah

Albert Einstein had it right: philosophy is the difference between a specialist and a man seeking the truth.

Because capitalism has become an epistemology by itself, and science is not excluded of it.

Nobody knows anything about philosophy because nobody NEEDS to know anything about philosophy. It's irrelevant knowledge.

Their norm of coherence with results in proposed probability is, however, much higher than in other fields.

i.e.: It would be reasonable to assume that the effect size from variable A on variable B having a value of 0.5 (as a significant result) is a strong indication for it being a factor, you would usually be dealing with values of, say, 0.95 in most STEM experiments. There you would have to assume you missed something big, while in psychology you simply gained information about how strong this factor is and/or how accurate your proposed metric is.
Many simply can't wrap their head around the fact that even partial causations are useful scientific discoveries.

Keep in mind we are talking about our friends over at Veeky Forums. You know, the dudes with the meme about desperately wanting to upload their brain to a computer to escape this horrible irrational mortal coil.

Nice bait.

Because they're tools in every sense of the word.

Why so many smart people dismiss science?

he's read the article lads, he's finding the light

" I was legitimately criticized (
qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/) for an offhand remark about philosophy, so I’ve been reading books about philosophy, trying to catch up. The process of science, you could make a reasonable claim, is actually natural philosophy." nytimes.com/2016/06/19/nyregion/how-bill-nye-the-science-guy-spends-his-sundays.html?_r=0

>no link to him saying that

This, although I hope he's reading the correct works and with an open mind and hopefully with secondary sources

Literally no smart person dismisses science

Oh wow

Bill Nye based?

read my post again, it's at the bottom

He's pretty based.
Fame went to his head, but usually he is a reasonable dude.

Terribly true. 10/10 reponse.

If they dismiss philosophy they aren't smart or don't know what philosophy actually is. Any person who isn't autistic but smart would study philosophy

>Any person who isn't autistic but smart would study philosophy
>implies he's not autistic with these opinions

I don't see how anyone who even had a decent introductory class on philosophy could dislike it.

But then again, not all STEM's act like this. It's just this vocal fucking minority of cunts who are either sperg to the core or actual psychopathic fuckheads like you have in every thread as soon as the poster count goes beyond 20.

Because being smart is an illusion. It works just like fishing: You're a small fish and when you take the specialization bait you leave the sea.

No implication I'm not autistic, I am....

There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

oh shit

>applet

WADDUP

...

...

>Logic-and-Reason baby's first attempt at satire

Heh...

>You know, the dudes with the meme about desperately wanting to upload their brain to a computer to escape this horrible irrational mortal coil.
Have they come up with a way to bring their fedoras too? Virtual fedoras? Customization too?

...

>read the user comments
>So... the author's arguments in support of philosophy include: text books full of ideas one might have while on LSD; respected members of the field who believe a giant wizard in the sky is constantly creating the world.
>Does that include all the current academic philosophers who swear by poststructuralist quackery?
It's like they didn't read the part where the author pointed out that mocking an argument isn't the same as refuting it. Sheesh.

Christ, this is unfunny.

Do you think he started with the Greeks?

...

Extreme academic division of labor does to a scientist or other kind of academic exactly what Adam Smith said it would do to a worker in industry, which is to "corrupt the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred."

Well the Sci dude has no idea what he's talking about either, "ptotoeomic synthesis" isn't something you DO and also not a way to do what he says he's trying to do. And also wouldn't be a stable compound and especially wouldn't do shot when it comes to breaking the BB

Science is about objectivity, whereas much of philosophy, especially postmodern/continental philosophy, is inherently subjective.

I think many of them wrongly assume that philosophy is a monolithic field with subjectivity as its basis.

Perhaps he entered with the Egyptians

youtu.be/rSNV5m-qOAg

Why would anyone do that?

When STEMfags have to think about a moral problem, or about which candidate to vote for in an election, do they just shut down? They can't resort to ethics or political philosophy because they don't want to use even a little bit of philosophy.

>When STEMfags have to think about a moral problem, or about which candidate to vote for in an election, do they just shut down?
>have to think about
It's simple: they don't. It's too lowly for their superior intelligence.

It'll be Bertrand Russell won't it.

Tbh I'm not that bothered, the guy popularises science rather than is an actual scientist, he wasn't as bad in the video as that article leads you to believe, and even the worst part with the mischaracterisation of cogito ergo sum has a certain Heideggerian sophistication to it. Plus I grew up on Beakman's World and Paul Zaloom does shit like write stage plays based on Dante, so to me it's less of a problem

It's a non-issue. Ethics and politics are man made concepts (unlike science) so they are not real. Besides, you can just do what our Lord and Saviour commands.

I get what you are saying but it doesn't really matter any more, politics is not about different sides with well structured and consistent ideologies behind them, it's literally a popularity contest with no substance.

They want to talk science not DO science

>citing bill nye the science guy as a legitimate scientist who has never contributed any worthwhile research
he's an entertainer with a STEM degree more than anything. don't take him seriously.

>Science is about objectivity
nah. you couldn't be more wrong. the majority of science is subjective. that's why everything discovered is a "theory" or a "law" because at any point, some new theory or idea could come along which disproves it. what we know about science and the natural world are completely dependent on the era we are in (much like philosophy)

Science is something you are, not something you do.

But if you are a science then I could do you bb ;^)

You fellas seem way more knowledgable than me about philosophy.
Here's the same thread in Veeky Forums
So a question that popped there is if there is an example of progress in philosophy solving a problem stated independently in some other field (this is common in science). Do you know of any?

That's not really what philosophy is all about. It's not in the business of solving problems.

Science isn't about objectivity in the sense that all scientific theories are objectively true; it's objective because scientists employ empiricism, unlike some philosophers.

Also, I wasn't citing Bill Nye as a legitimate scientist. He's not the only person who's said this. Stephen Hawking has been saying this for years.

Pure math isn't interested in physics either, but it finds applications anyway (unreasonable effectiveness and all that), maybe something like that has sometimes happened with philosophy?

I may not be the best guy to answer this but I see issues in the way you tackle the problem itself: you speak as philosophy is to be treated as a science, and I'm sure you don't mean to.

Philosophy is not about progress
Philosophy is not about solving problems

Because post-50s philosophy has made philosophy a joke. I mostly blame France for that.

hmm, then that would be the reason smart people are ignorant about philosophy, I don't see why anyone would study anything that solves nothing.

The analytics are sealed off from that stuff though.

>maybe something like that has sometimes happened with philosophy?

Many people throughout all of history use philosophy to guide their lives. For example, we always get threads here of people praising Aurelius's Meditations, saying it helped improve their outlook on life.

Neither is science really. It's all about falsification so mostly shitting on each others ideas

They're all just fucking materialists. All of them. And they're smug about it. I just wanted to learn how to make white friends.

The ability to answer questions is not the only way something can have value. Art doesn't answer any questions either.

They should be. But the general discredit post 50s philosophy brought to the field has spilled over. I think it will take decades to recover.

Bill Nye defended abortion by talking about miscarriage. He's a fucking moron.

Pretty much every field of science falls under philosophy, so the question is pointless.

Philosophical methods of reasoning and debate are constantly used not only in science, but also in politics and other humanities.

Why?
Because Foucault showed that even sceintifical practice can be an exercise of power?
Because Deleuze tried to construct a metaphysics compatible with modern science without resorting to representetional thought?
Because Derrida was conviced that every idea is founded on its written iterability, that in the long run modifies the content of that idea?

I think this is probably the best answer. A lot of the great minds of the past have had some knowledge of philosophy, and as such it has aided them in whatever else they've spent their lives doing.

He's not even a scientist, he's got a BSc in Mechanical Engineering. It's Lego for grown ups.

Are you OK? I just want to help you.

No. Because they made philosophy -immediately- political and thus sullied the perception people had of it (or rather people influenced by them did).

everyone you disagree with isn't stupid. i dont like him, but i'm not going to insult him because his stem major isn't prestigious enough for some stemlords.

I'm fine. It's just that I'm pretty tired of people shitting on philosophers without any proper reason.

I'm guessing that it's analytical fags reading those undoubtely fashionable philosphers and not getting anything because they're not familiar with Hegel, Husserl or Heidegger.

Every philosopher is political, philosophy was born when politics arose. And anyway they were really (all three of them) not really hard-leftists (and they couldn't be if they were to be coherenu with their philosophical thoughts).
That is actually my main gripe with them since "their thought" is unproductive in a revolutionary sense,

This is disingenuous. I guess that would make it ok to close the philosophy departments at universities (philosophy would still make be represented through science). I obviously meant those parts of philosophy that are not already covered by some other discipline.

I like reading Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and all those other Frenchies, but let's not deny they're fucking enigmatic and that by insisting that philosophy was always Marxist in some shape or form has completely alienated it from most of society.
They excommunicate everyone who isn't revolutionary enough, or doesn't insist on revolution.

>everyone you disagree with isn't stupid
That's true, but some are.

>his stem major isn't prestigious enough
To be called 'the science guy' and to be thought of as an authority by the public at large, not it isn't.

None of them were Marxists (maybe save for Foucalt but a very unorthodox one in any sense of the word. Deleuze never even named Marx in his writing prior to his encounter with Guattari, and when Derrida did he was talking about Marxism without being a marxist. They studied him without any doubt, and they were materialists but that doesn't really make them "marxists".

As for the language used to write, it is a choice philosophically grounded, both Derrida and Deleuze follow Heidegger in avoiding a "what is" definition, which they saw as classical metaphysics. They are all radical nominalists. And this really just a epistemological radicalization of Nietzsche.

And anyway I prefer philospher who are outspoken about their politics, even if they don't suit me.

>Every philosopher is political

That's why is said im-mediately.

>And anyway I prefer philospher who are outspoken about their politics, even if they don't suit me.

Well this is a legitimate taste but the consequence has been a general alienation of people from philosophy. It used to be considered the domain of the wise by the populace now it's just perceived as that crazy sectarian university major for marxists only.

Ok, I'll take your bait. Why does anyone need to know anything about philosophy?

Don't mention ethics or decision making. People don't need to know philosophy for those.

Don't pretend psychology is itself innocent in this matter. They as a discipline did a witch-hunt and tried so hard to rebrand themselves as a hard science; which is retarded.

All because of some fears that in the grime dark future of academia: there is only stem...

It backfired, and now they carry this stigma of trying to hang out with the cool kids and being rejected.

You can't really engineer a discipline like that.

being a pop scientist is more about being a good communicator than having the a prestigious degree or contribution to a field. he's definitely qualified enough to host a children's show on science.

no one should be seen as an authority on fields they haven't studied extensively themselves, but you didn't say that. you just demeaned his intelligence because of his major.

he was called the science guy on his wacky show for children, mate.

>consequence has been a general alienation of people from philosophy

people never gave a shit about philosophy in the first place, you know the story of thracian woman, do you? And if people can't ponder about ideas (even more so political ideas) which they do not agree with, then I don't think philosophy is for them anyway.

People don't like psychology because it isn't replicable, it's just throwing shit at a wall until you see what sticks.
Even other fields disliked by pseuds such as anthropology and sociology are replicable.

Leave Bill alone.

I live in Europe so my perception might be different. Anyway before the 60s people didn't understand anything about philosophy but it was considered respectable if cryptic. Here (France) good marks in philosophy at school had high importance as they had a stronger importance in your overall results than anything else except for mathematics. Then post 50s philosophy happened and in the space of fifty years philosophy steadily lost prestige and became the realm of petty politicking.

...

How do you know this?