Why do you guys mock philosophy so much?

The earlier are usually fine but the later is where the issue comes in. Philosophy is an exercise of the mind yes but without informed decision making through experience all you can do at the end of the day is metaphysics which is the mental equivalent of masturbation. I like philosophy, I respect those who study it as it is not an easy subject. However it is as a rule overpopulated by sheltered individuals who didactically try to impose their moral or mental framework without having actually tested it outside of their own mind.

I think it's mainly that the people who frequent Veeky Forums are pretentious aspies who can't stand the idea of a system without any hard and fast rules, as evidenced by this thread Not to say that rules are a bad thing.
They're what allows us to make sense of anything within a framework of thought.
But sometimes you have to take a step outside that framework and consider things that seem ridiculous and utterly "unscientific" at first glance, like quantum superposition.
All the men quoted above on the right are skeptics first, then scientists, men that think just because you can't immediately produce something tangible means it's a useless pursuit.

Though I must say, majoring in Philosophy is a stupid idea. There's no money in it.

They aren't
>Nietzsche
>muh Ubermensch
>Marx
>muh borderless production
>Heidegger
>muh moments

there, saved everyone very boring hours of anecdotes and long running explanations

Your whole post reeks of pretentious aspie, but you have the gall to call others that.

Hilarious.

forgot to mention they are all literally wrong and useless and only exist for the novelty of having been controversial in their time

Whatever, can't argue with dubs.

>Are you really gonna tell me Nietzsche/Heidegger/Marx aren't worth taking a look at?

Philosophy ended with Aquinas

This image really says it all as far as what's wrong with the face of modern science. It is ugly, shallow, disjointed, and delusional. There are too many facets to the core problem to list.

Though Einstein's statement references what Planck commented on a lot, and what you'd expect anyway. These are human problems, and have always been present, and in the way, within given fields. People not taking the time to really chip away at and control for their biases, and form an underlying naturally expansible framework of how things tie together. Rather than compartmentalizing.

You know that Hume is a complete hack, right ?

He wasn't a hack.

But the point is that his philosophy was criticizing the prevailing wisdoms of the day, and the power of organized religion over society.

Nobody with even a fleeting knowledge of philosophy or science thinks that empiricism is true.

>Both philosophy and science is based on reason.

Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, user.

Unscientific philosophy is dead; science is all that remains of philosophical inquiry.

Philosophy is just science without the rigour.

How can we scientifically test wisdom?

>Yes and experimentation conducted in reference to falsifiable logical hypothesis, is the only way we can test whether our reason corresponds to the external reality, user.

I agree. But that doesn't mean philosophy is dead, any more than it means Newton's law of universal gravitation is dead simply because we now have QM.

>hilosophy was a great pursuit
... a thousand years ago,
but has been left FAR behind
by Science, get over it.

Scientifically prove that people have different personalities and what this consists of.

>falsifiable

Stop reading popsci shit and read some real textbooks for fuck's sake

>define wisdom

We still use Newton's laws.

I understand what you are trying to say though; philosophy is both a relic and in certain cases a necessary tool for education.

I would recommend that everyone study philosophy, in order to understand the history of intellectual development, however philosophy used for the enhancement of human understanding has been replaced by science.

Philosophy is the history of science, as science was born out of philosophy; we shouldn’t forget this, however we should also remember that it is no longer actively advancing human knowledge.

I'm currently reading papers by Szostak on non-enzymatic copying of nucleic acids.

Science is built upon falsifiable informally logical hypotheses, often incorporating formally logical models, which are then tested via experimentation; the mathematical analysis of empirical data then follows.

That’s the definition of science.

Everything in physics has been "falsified". No one gives a shit since that's not the point.

Inferiority complex

Science progresses through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses and theories.

That’s the entire point.

>Everything in physics has been "falsified".

This should be good; user, what in physics has been falsified?

Prove a definition that is agreed upon.

>science was born out of philosophy

Therefore science is part of philosophy, unless you're talking about something as ephemeral as type of degree.

How was the definition agreed upon?

What is it built on?

>Therefore science is part of philosophy

You're thinking branch of a tree; it's actually more like the peak of a mountain.

Can it be agreed upon?

Life itself as we know it shares a common origin.

>Prove a definition that is agreed upon.
>Can it be agreed upon?

Great one.

>Life itself as we know it shares a common origin.

Fantastically irrelevant conclusion you have there, user.

Well in the end science and philosophy are both dependant on life.

Yes and bears shit in the woods.

>Science progresses through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses and theories.

No. Science is about modeling and refining those models. As long as those models are good enough, we don't give a damn if that's not exactly how the source code of the universe really is.

>This should be good; user, what in physics has been falsified?

Everything deviates somewhere in physics.

agreed

>Science is about modeling and refining those models.

Through the falsification of subsequent hypotheses lad m8.

I'm an observational cosmology PhD student, by the way.

Just in case you fancy a physics fight; I'm game.

It's not about falsification, it's about models breaking down.

What are the models built on, user?

maths

>muh incompleteness theorems.

What are the mathematical models built on, user?

Sets

categories

Ok, if we keep going down this road we’ll just end up at 'structures with no intrinsic properties apart from the relations between abstract entities'.

I’m not asking you what mathematics is built upon, user.

I’m asking what are physics based models built upon, in relation to science?

They are built upon experimental and observational evidence, which has been collected in reference to informally logical hypotheses that rely on formally logical mathematical models.

Sure, we do things a little differently in physics as we care more about whether the math works, as opposed to whether we have concrete grounding for drawing up a hypothesis, however we still rely on falsifiable hypotheses and experimentation in order to make progress.

Nietzsche and Heidegger?sure,but Marx?

Philosophy is cool and interesting. It's only the "philosophy of science" which is shit tier trash. You pseudo-intellectual pop sci failures don't get to tell a scientist what to do.

...

Do you have any idea how important his work is? Or are you just meming because you don't know any history of thought?

...

Claiming Marx was important is like claiming Marcus Aurelius was important. They were minor thinkers, at best, who popularized and parroted other thinkers without really adding anything.

...

Marx was pretty important, perhaps even the most influential person in the entire history of humanity so far. He was a mediocre thinker, but his writings inspired a century of large scale genocides, wars and social unrest.

Lol. Are you serious?

>literally wrong
Yet no-critic has disproved Nietzsche
>mfw Nietzsche BTFO metaphysics
kek
>useless
What do you mean? kek
Don't waste your time. Brainlets can't reach that level of comprehension.
Holy fuck my sides!

>large scale genocides, wars and social unrest
WTF?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

You Americans might not be aware of it, but there is a world outside of the USA. And it has a history.

All the best scientists and mathematicians were great writers, poets, artists or philosophers. Vice versa is true too.

The modern divide between STEM and Humanities is anti-intellectual tomfoolery.

>americans think World=USA
You made me remember that, kek.

It's just so opinionated and one-sided lol.

I'm not claiming he's not an important historical figure, but that neither he nor Uncle Ingy are important philosophers. Neither one added, well anything of note to the world of ideas.

True.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Philosophy_and_social_thought
?

That's true. As I said, he was a mediocre thinker and his work was mainly political agitation.

You can also find a shitton that Aurelius wrote and said about stoicism, but he didn't advance thought in any significant way.

It's kind of like someone saying NDT is an important astronomer because he's a popular figure.

If you don't like him it's your opinion, ok. But it's strange to decline his influence.

We still use his ideas when we talk about social/economic classes.

You'll note that on the right are not actually important scientists doing great works (hell, Nye isn't even a scientist).

thatwasthejoke.jpg

And that reflects his contributions to /philosophy/ how exactly?

Look, all those two did was mash up the works of a few philosophers, then used that jumble to justify an ideology. It's like you're trying to claim that someone who used the formula for determining compound interest to calculate interest advanced mathematics and influenced mathematics. Again, Marx and Engles did a lot of shit, are important to a lot of fields, but not to the field of philosophy. If you're learning say dialectic theory, you don't study Marx.

In many cases they were also crazy religious people with serious anti-social personality characteristics.

>Newton

>Claiming Marx was important is like claiming Marcus Aurelius was important. They were minor thinkers
>neither he nor Uncle Ingy are important philosophers

>how exactly?
Because it makes any sense only with Marx's theory of human nature.

that's pretty good rage material

Nietzsche literally BTFO every past metaphysics circlejerk. His work is almost invulnerable against critics.

He and Marx is the manifestation of Philosophy on society. KEK

Not sure about anti-social, more like unusual and extravagant. What so anti-social about Newton?

jesus christ stemfags truly are the most arrogant retards ive ever seen lol

After reading your quotes, it sounds like they are so convinced of one point of view, that they are actively disregarding anything that opposes that view without hard evidence even though they can't truly prove their point of view.

The fact that Bill Nye can't understand that what he considers reality may be nothing more than a VR simulator just shows that his mind is closed. Science itself proves that this is a possibility because we know that what we perceive as real is simply a matter of chemical reactions and if someone were advanced enough, they could easily manipulate these reactions to make us believe something that isn't true even though everything in our body would tell us it is true.

It's also hilarious that they think this way because almost all of law is based at least partially on philosophy.

>scientists should learn philosophy because of muh feels
Fuck off Einstein

Because people who are pro-philosophy make retarded images like yours.

Faggots just measure and measure, but doesn't even understand what for.

You're a fucking retard. Marx is extremely important to the development of sociology and history.

Exactly.

Why are you so easily upset?

I'm not actually upset. I like reading about philosophy.
It's just discussing it with you shitheads is stupid as fuck.
> muh qualia
> kant no nuthin
> empiricism is wrong

I like how you literally have to pretend you know what I believe to maintain this false posture

Go tip your fedora elsewhere

Pretty sure the retarded guy is the one who thinks philosophy and sociology are the same thing.

Philosophy is the drive of science. People without philosophy to drive them have no idea why they're even doing what they're doing.

>philosophy is all about dem big questions nobody can answer

Stop samefagging your shit thread. You're a retard, we've all called you out, so now take your insubstantial semantic arguments somewhere else.

Funny because that was the only post I made. I didn't even read the thread, I responded directly to OP.

Sorry. I wasn't referring to you, personally, but you shitheads as in all of Veeky Forums.

There has not ever been a good philosophy thread on Veeky Forums

>Why do you guys mock philosophy so much?

It's rarely used for practical applications and it doesn't tell us anything new. In other words, it's usually useless.

Not always though. Looking at you, Karl Popper.

>Philosophy is cool and interesting.

Why?

ITT: People who don't understand that philosophical reasoning is an important part of science

ITT: People who think philosophy is about asking "deep" questions.

philosophy ask QUESTION that the science not answer because they have the crappy empiricism which hides the hidden variables of life...

To all of fuckers who don't understand what philosophy is
youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ

>ITT: People who don't understand that philosophical reasoning is an important part of science

Philosophical reasoning in the context of science is just called 'science'. Philosophy with a capital 'P' refers to the whole solipsism/consciousness/determinism circlejerk.