How do we fix science?

If you, on a daily basis, define your being as a purely scientific series of chemical reactions and drives in reaction to stimuli, you have used philosophy without even knowing it.

IMO Everyone (especially academics) should have some exposure to Plato, Kant, and Wittgenstein.

No philosotard ever got a prize for babbling shit like "I think, therefore I am". Real world belongs to the scientists ;)

>how do I become happy?
ecstacy

Oh babe, you know Descartes gets me hot and bothered, don't you?

butt its true :B

Your picture could as well prove that philosophy went down the shitter in recent history.

Fund studies that test already studied things. We have way too many "cursory studies" that have interesting results that no one repeats because they aren't first and therefore they can't get any funding. I mean look at what happened when they redid landmark psychology experiments and discovered like 85% of them were bunk. No one funds those who double check and we need double, triple and quadruple checking.

thatwasthejoke.jpg

We're entering a new dark age this century. There's nothing to fix, nature will take it's course and higher learning will regain it's intrinsic value eventually.

Fuck me. I hate these goddamn edgy """"""scientists""""""" who take a giant shit on philosophy because they believe science can somehow answer all of our questions. These are the same type of people who visit /r/atheism unironically. Fucking rustles my jimmies.

by being smarter than the pop scientists
by not buying their shit
by thinking for yourself and debunking the crap they spew
but this will never happen because the majority are not too smart. Even if they were, we'd still have the same problem, albeit with more discoveries made.

>it is
gee, dunning krueger in full effect

>they believe science can somehow answer all of our questions
It can't?

I feel like a general "philosophy of science" class could work as a requirement for all science majors. Make it oriented toward writing/evaluating lab reports or something. Better that than forcing them to choose between shit like Nonwestern Religions and Comparative Cultural Studies for a writing credit.

>>how do I become happy?
>mfw

Not my first language, I can never remember if its it's or its.

I did come off as pompous with that claim but I won't refute it. Philosophy is a joke, the academic ecosystem supporting it is dying out due to lack of funding (ie. lack of value) which in turn is a sign of regressive times ahead, our sacking of Bayt al-Hikma, of the Library of Alexandria. Except our philosophers do not have a place to disseminate their wisdom, the whole discipline is as current as phrenology.

>How do we fix science?
How do we fix humans?*

Cogito ergo sum was not Descartes' ultimate answer, nor did he claim it reconciled the problem he was chipping away at.

Descartes separated real from the ideal

I think a lot of the criticism centres around a very specific branch of philosophy - that of postmodernism applied to science. I'm sure that Dawkins and crew would still see the value in other branches of philosophy, practical ethics etc

I don't think this is necessarily true. There are still giants in philosophy: Plantinga, Dennett, and Kripke are still alive. There is very interesting research being done in ontology and philosophy of mind. As the world becomes more technical, the chops emphasized in the analytic schools (especially mathematical logic) will become more important. There's also the fact that people are communicating now more than ever, and this necessitates people skilled in the art of rhetoric.

More 'artsy' philosophy is being disseminated at a ridiculous pace through the media, and this will fuel public interest in such forms of philosophy and represents cultural growth.

The biggest worry is that academic philosophy is becoming too technical and estranged from the pop-philosophy espoused by people like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and fucking Bill Nye (he's depressingly retarded).

>ancient philosophers were good
>this means modern philosophers are also good

who are the guys on the left? i recognize 1 of them. but on the right i know 2 of them are scientist one does space and the other is about bugs (bill nye)

sage'd

Well, thank you for that, very clearly stated. I should pull my head out of my ass and not get so frustrated with the "pop-philosphers" and their sludge. Pareto principle in effect? You made my day a bit brighter.

You don't belong on this board, sir.

Heisenberg was a businessman, he invented beer

Schrödinger was a biologist, he specialized on felines

Bohr invented the Nordic language that later developed into Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, etc.

wew lad

more math.
heavy math.
for everyone.
even for people in the humanities.

None of these quotes are incompatible, apart from the Bill Nye one.

The Dawkins quotes are unrelated and have been arranged as to imply a context which never existed.

Nobody ITT seems to understand philosophy or science, for that matter.

We stop consuming dross media like a goddamn fire hose.

No offense, but Veeky Forums falls under this category.

...

This.

Science isn't broken.

The question you should be asking is "How do we eliminate the scourge that is continental philosophy?"

Envy is not the worst of the Cardinal
Sins, but it is certainly the most ugly.

>The right isn't showing the actual research scientists, but popularizes of science.

Krauss is both

>don't have an argument
>greentext with ironic smiley

He's net stupid nonetheless.

I really hope people don't start overusing :^), I think it's pretty and derive entertainment from every post I suffix with it. Sometimes suffixing with multiple ironic smileys.

pretty funny*

>He's net stupid nonetheless.
How so?

Some scientists may be out of touch with philosophy (also lol @ the examples of present-day "scientists", find someone good at least, like Lee Smolin), but philosophers are even more hugely out of touch with advances in math that resolve many philosophical questions by making them more precise.

It's that strong urge to vomit I get every time i hear him speak

He's fond of pushing his shitty personal philosophy as hard, substantiated science. Ironically, he's a bad, self hating philosopher. It's a real shame, without his internal bias against philosophy (and certain theistic concepts, indirectly) he may be capable of generating something pretty solid and worthwhile.

I'm not even saying he needs to study any philosophical work or meaningfully engage engage with the works of the past whatsoever. He just needs to learn to let go.

kill celebrity scientists who think their opinion on a field not their own matters

Also, this:
The machinery of my mind generates a sensation of disgust when it receives and processes a good deal of his outputs. Especially when he gets together with Dawkins. That dynamic is just on another level.

Stoping forced medication to engeneers would help

Better to just pray the gay away?

What's the problem with Dawkins?

I understand that Krauss espousing his contradictory 'universe from nothing' spiel and talking about the zero energy universe hypothesis as though it were hard fact, is annoying.

Dawkins nets out as fine enough, it's more about their dynamic and what being around fellow anti-theists brings out of him. Making statements like "If On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating."

Come on Dawkins. Climb off for a moment, you're embarrassing yourself.

Reminder that we didn't get the LHC in the 90s because of religious nuts

Oh ok, well that's probably resultant of Krauss misinforming him.

I don't really understand the campaign against religion, especially by scientists.

Humans are equipped with a number of cognitive biases and heuristics that result in religious thinking being particularly appealing.

Developing good logical reasoning skills and gaining a thorough scientific education goes a long way to minimizing the effects of said biases, but not everybody is going to be able to do that.

For as long as people remain uneducated, there will be religion.

However, in an ideally educated world it's still likely that some form of theism would persist; due to the feels appeal.

Reminder that the US congress cut funding to construct an accelerator in Texas, after spending 2 billion, so they could divert the money to the space station.

Reminder that the US congress cut funding to Fermi, to waste most of it on foreign imperialism.

Reminder your comment is irrelevant to the topic at hand. No one is saying religion doesn't cause problems.

>Oh ok, well that's probably resultant of Krauss misinforming him.
Almost certainly, and he ate it up because it preyed on an embedded bias.

Otherwise my opinion on this is complex and tends to change over time, usually around how misanthropic I'm feeling. History is full of repeating patterns that make it clear just what the human species as a whole can be expected to handle, and what hierarchical and ideological control structures keep people who are otherwise incapable of thinking properly, in line. It also shows how and why those structures inevitably fail.

Too bad, so sad.

What exactly is wrong with his hypothesis?

(To be clear though, I do wish the human species could, and would, outgrow organized religion. With the right social and cultural structures, and the proper feedback loops, I don't think this is impossible. It's not theism itself that's the problem.)

>Almost certainly, and he ate it up because it preyed on an embedded bias

Indeed, which isn't really acceptable considering he is most definitely intelligent enough to check it out for himself.

Man it really must suck to be you. The only reason you're into science is insecurity.

Do you realize that all of the people on the left of OPs picture would very likely hate you?

The zero energy hypothesis?

Nothing, it's just that it isn't complete and hasn't been verified; therefore, it's not in the same realm as the theories (verified hypotheses) that he tacks it onto.

I like the zero energy universe hypothesis; it's elegant as fuck.

Anyway, the universe from nothing spiel?

A quantum vacuum isn't 'nothing', as he attempts to convince people and he surely knows this.

Not only that, but he is always going on about the energy of a vacuum and how amazing it is that when you remove everything from space it still weighs something.

its contradictory and plainly false.

Other than that, he's a great physicist.

The scientists on the left were educated in the liberal arts their whole life. That included history, philosophy, math and I forgot the other field. Music that's the one. In the second half of the twentieth century education took a nose dive and started cutting the liberal arts for the "vocational" skills. In Europe this is education is still active and scientists and engineers are educated in the liberal arts with their education in science/engineering. A lot of the European engineers I've met are very knowledgeable in philosophy and history. Americans on the other hand only know their little niche. This include the top tier students at the best schools in America. Those who don't read philosophy will never understand the big questions in life. That's how you get inspiration for your research.

It's a real shame when someone working in particle physics doesn't even know who Democritus was, nor the arguments about motion and void that led to it.

Google the Vienna circle.

I never read his work and I might do so now. But too many people don't read anything about the works of their predecessors in philosophy and their field. This lead to research stagnation.

The majority of his works were lost aside from a few pieces here and there, and most of his life was reconstructed from writings of others.

If you read about him, make sure to also read about atomism. Both the east and west created a variant of it, somewhat independently. Buddhists thought reality was composed of granular units that transferred energy, though the associated meaning of most of those things was much different in their cultural context.

Sadly this is like all Greek philosophers. Most of their work was lost. I see his atomism work. He pretty much created the field of atomic theory 2.2k years before the scientists in the 20s started doing experimental work.

>Keeps posting copypasta that has been debunked
>Religiously believes in appeal to authority instead of appeal to objectively varied methodology
>Refuses to stand corrected and improve, which ironically is one of the things that Science itself does

Yep. And unfortunately a large number of people don't realize the mere notion of "atoms", even in a modern context, is a philosophical proposition (as is quantum field theory). They also fail to realize without having an idea to begin with, you can't go about experimentally verifying it while converging on an accurate model.

We can't never see atoms. We just think of the idea of it and hope this is what it is.

good image, thx

kill the popsci cancer.

Michio and Black Science Man were cool until they started being the popular go to scientist for all sciencey questions.

Celebrate scientists for their actual work.

They were pretty far from inferring or confirming any properties atoms back then, desu.

>We can't never see atoms. We just think of the idea of it and hope this is what it is.
Is this 2003?

Eliminate humanity

There is a great bit DeGrasse talks about. He expressed concern himself that he was the go-to person for any science question, especially when it was not anything in his field. He actually refuses to comment and will redirect journalists to proper scientists of that field to ask questions.

Shit got pretty hardcore, user.

Force scientists to read David Hume and respond to him.

>outgrow organized religion
>With the right social and cultural structures
you have a very narrow understanding of religion

No, I don't. I have a useful definition of religion.

In the past I used a very broad and abstract definition of religion similar to the one you're operating on, but abandoned it in all functional senses. The data and opinion is still there, it's just not framed as religion.

>flying cars

I hate this nonsense. What are they expecting that isn't already what a helicopter is?

What is science?

Oops, philosophical question.

Yeah, that's right. Get out of here you philosophizing liberal arts major, pseudointellectual, pretentious, fucking gutter TRASH. I prefer self referential truths. SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. PERIOD.

Relax, you could use some Stoicism. Just saying...

>there is only the physical and the rhetorical

whoever made this meme image is a fucking jokester

No, absolutely not. Most of my life has been lived with stoicism, and still is whether I like it or not.

I'll provide over the top parody of broken degenerates all I want. Short of beating their head in or rounding them up and using them for grunt work in labor camps, it's the least I must do. Pitiable and not worth wasting effort salvaging. They are to be used or ignored, and I must look at their outputs, I am to use them for my entertainment.

>using the word debunked unironically

what, is this a chemtrail video on youtube?

This. Debunkers are braindead degenerate trash who need a good smashin' around.

Hume and scientific anti-realists need to be read by anyone seriously engaging with science.

I heavily agree, people think western culture is "too present" when in most regards it's not present enough. Some good classes on empiricism, scientific anti-realism and the counter-arguments, naturalism, etc. would go well with science majors.

"Postmodernism" is a spook uneducated twats use to disparage something they don't get.

Continental philosophy says stuff which matters, analytic philosophy is sterile manchildry.

That isn't a proof. That's a shadow of what we believe is an atom.

That's true. Sad to see each and every pop scientist going so far from his competency. But at the same time people expect bright fairy tales and not science. No one cares about science.

Dumb shit