Bill Nye thinks Philosophy is stupid

He could say something objectively true and Veeky Forums wouldnt agree. This place is full of science hipsters who hate everything thats popular

What is TRUE philosophy then?

How are you ever going to get a complete scientific model of the universe if you can't question the framworks you're building it with?

Bill Nye is fucking retarded.
/thread. Philosophy is great but most undergraduates are le enlightened fuckwits.

This exactly (but you missed kuhn)

We wont and metaphysical scepticism wont help with anything. It is good for entertaining thought experiments at best

You can read "truth, language and logic" on true philo vs metaphysics

>This show is great, it is just the fanbase that is cancerous

holy fuck, get your shit together

What's TRUE science? The thing that follows logically and by experiment.
Same idea. "True" philosophy is just what follows logically from some question, the questions philosophers answer are simply different from the one scientists answer.
>implying undergraduates are good at anything
Nigger science as a field is great but undergrads are normie scum coming from "Cosmos". Are you going to dismiss a field because of the people who literally are still learning about it?

Tell me how it doesn't help.

Say you come across a discovery that you cannot explain. Who is going to be best suited for figuring out how it works?
>a. A scientist who thinks metaphysics is garbage and spends most of his time building on the foundations of the standard model.
>b. A scientist who constantly questions the framework of which we build our understanding.

Don't you think it's likely that person a will be worse off if the discovery isn't compatible with the foundations of the standard model which he refuses to deconstruct? Obviously there are more simple problems that he CAN solve, but you said won't help with ANYTHING.

I have read Kuhn but I didn't found it profound desu. His entire book can be summarised by "science is done within paradigms", which is blindingly obvious for anyone with the slightest knowledge of what science is. The rest of the book is intellectual wankery and putting clever sounding labels on other obvious things.

NO, not at all. I think it is extremely cringeworthy to even look at any field and think of some guys you thought were faggots. It reminds me of those kids with their console wars. It is overall a cancerous and shallow attitude and has no place in academia

A lot of philosophers had interest in math and science, alot of them in politics or society.
Emotions,linguistics,history, love, etc, the way people live, philosophy asks questions but doesn't answer them fully.

>he questions philosophers answer are simply different from the one scientists answer
Sure
But then why do people say Nye didnt talk about true philo? Isnt everything based on some philosop. question?

I say the person who questions his existence and if he even can know anything will be of no help.

>Philosophy
Not scientific.

Normies ask that and normies are stupid.
>Isnt everything based on some philosop. question?
I'm confused as to what that means. Philosophy isn't trying to answer any one question, or even one set of question. The lines aren't really bounded well, either, certain fields of philosophy are basically high-level math. Normies to make it out to be all "what is life, man" because that's all they can understand.
Ok wait which one was sarcasm?

...can you elaborate just a bit instead of just throwing 1 sentence extreme statements at me? Because it makes you look like you kind of don't know what you're talking about.

questions are answered differently.
If you fall in love a scientist would say its because of the chemicals or pheromone or some sort of neuron biological blah blah balh.

A philosopher, would say some shit about society, oh, you were raised this way under capitalism, so you are programmed to do this, and your parents beat you because you came from a low income family so you developed some sort of complex that makes you rebel against the globalist neolibral order and historically you came from a people who always rebelled and you use this sort of language which became very prevalent near the end of the cold war in late sage capitalism which cause you to be a masochist who loves women who put out cigarettes on your genitals.

>Philosophy isn't trying to answer any one question, or even one set of question
Yes exactly. I know. But then why is the stuff Nye is talking about not true philo?

philosophy =/= science

ffs

damn, i was going to argue with you but it seems your fucking safari google search answered all my questions

philosophy has been academiaized, you can become a professional philosopher and even get a piece of paper that says so.
In the old days anyone could be a philosopher.
Mostly bored rich kids.
You ever notice that, philosophers come from really high income families a lot.
if philosophy is the search for knowledge than it has closed itself off from anyone who cant afford it.

how can philosophers comment on science and vice versa ?

its apples and oranges

difference between soft and true sciences; one has a wrong answer

Fair enough, mate.
Scepticism itself is undoubtedly very important for science. It is always important to question the status quo and take a second look at something you thought was established.

But scepticism is only helpful within certain boundaries. Metaph.scept. (or even worse: universal scepticism) will just question everything you can perceive and the fact that you can obtain knowledge at all. Maybe you are just a brain in a tank, or in the matrix, or maybe the whole world is building up before your eyes as you move them.
Questioning thing that are very unspecific and trivial doesnt help at all in scientific questions. We have to accept a certain framework if there isnt a good reason not to, or we might as well throw all the scientific studies of the last millenia out of the window

>Ok wait which one was sarcasm?
none
what?

>What's TRUE science? The thing that follows logically and by experiment.
topkek
how little do you know about epistemology?

bump

It is, but he's dismissing ALL of philosophy based on that one little thing, which he's also completely misinterpreting.
I wasn't really trying to give a hard and fast definition, just a general idea. You can agree that "the thing that follows logically" is a pretty good definition of how to think in science and philosophy, at least under most circumstances?
My mistake, misread the first comment.

because is thought exercise 2000 years old philosophy. Like concepts of math that don't really apply to the real world. A philosopher may be skeptical about reality but that doesn't mean he thinks we live in ping pong ball. It's a questioning on the properties of knowledge.

>You can agree that "the thing that follows logically" is a pretty good definition of how to think in science and philosophy, at least under most circumstances?
No it's fucking terrible.
Nothing follows logically from an experiment unless you're a 3000 years old greek.

So if his examples are shit, could you recommend a pleb some good philosophy?
Can you give me a really interesting philosophical question?

Explain? I think you're misinterpreting what I said.

refer to, it's not metaphysical. By the way the is scientifical skepticism, how do you feel about them? the brain in a tank, boltzmann etc

Philosophy is boring.

>>Veeky Forums
Also
>Can you give me a really interesting philosophical question?
Wrong attitude.

>refer to
???
That doesnt change my view in the slightest. That doesnt make the specific type of scepticism any more helpful. It actually seems to agree with a previous point i made
>It is good for entertaining thought experiments at best

Science hasn't proceded by logical deduction from experiments for a few centuries friendo..

Why Veeky Forums? I'm in a thread talking about philosophy right now. A lot of people claim they know something about it, so this is a good place.

>Wrong attitude
Why? People bitch about Nye. So how do it better?
Someone itt said
> "True" philosophy is just what follows logically from some question, the questions philosophers answer are simply different from the one scientists answer.
So there must be some examples for this.
I think you know as much about philosophy as me (or less) and just wanted to be snarky

What are you talking about?

FUCK

i knew i was forgetting someone

you have to keep in mind the historical context
>science is performed in paradigms susceptible to human bias
is old hat now but it was genuinely revolutionary at the time

fuck, the whole reason you understand what i mean by the phrase "paradigm shift" is because of kuhn

Nigger what

>but you should know the gist of their positions
why?

what the hell are you talking about?

>you are babbling literal nonsense

Science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy.

Declaring philosophy as useless means you're tossing out all of science as well.

you also forgot Popper and Mohammud

Philosophy is a subset of science, actually

get a load of socrates over here

Poppers in there. What mohammud?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (/ˈvJtɡənˌstaJn/;[6] German: [ˈvJtgənˌʃtaJn]; 26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[7] From 1929 to 1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge.[8] During his lifetime he published just one slim book, the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), one article, one book review and a children's dictionary.[9] His voluminous manuscripts were edited and published posthumously. Philosophical Investigations appeared as a book in 1953, and has since come to be recognised as one of the most important works of philosophy in the twentieth century.[10] His teacher Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating."[11]

Your a cheeky little cunt, I'll give you that mate

Veeky Forums is good for philosophy. I was just trying to be helpful.
It's the wrong attitude because "questions" are almost always just vehicles to express some concept. I wasn't trying to be snarky, sorry.
If you want a place to start, I started by getting hooked on trolley problems (one man here, five men, there, a train, and a lever). Note that "what would you do" is a pretty pointless exercise, as is "what's the right thing to do". These questions are easy and will produce nothing fun. The question to ask is "why is this the right thing to do?", then counter-exampling yourself to show that the reason you thought wasn't the right reason. It's really fun and it'll introduce you to a lot of important concepts.

So that you know the limits of what science can and cannot explain and you can better understand how scientists reason about their discoveries.

For example - a common, naive view of science is that a single contradictory result means the whole theory is invalid. In practice, (paraphrasing Kuhn heavily) contradictory results are recorded as anomalies in the field for later study, and if enough anomalies build up or they remain intractable for long enough, a new theory should be considered. Or, maybe the contradictory results are bunk to begin with, and everyone throws them out.

This is something that someone may gain an intuitive understanding of just by observing how scientists work and by being in the field, but it's easier and quicker to just read the observations themselves as written by the people who first described them.

No, I remembered Popper.

samefagging won't make you have more of a point
Like, have you literally ever opened a book of philosophy of science, or science at all?
Do you know what a model is?

Thanks
Yeah you are right, asking for a single question was really naive.
I actually know the trolley problem. Really interesting. Was actually looking for more like this.
Never posted on Veeky Forums, but I am going to ask over there too if thats a good place for philosophy

>But scepticism is only helpful within certain boundaries. Metaph.scept. (or even worse: universal scepticism) will just question everything you can perceive and the fact that you can obtain knowledge at all. Maybe you are just a brain in a tank, or in the matrix, or maybe the whole world is building up before your eyes as you move them.
You can question the helpfulness of each of those questions individually, and maybe some of them are pointless in terms of contributing to the scientific process, but that doesn't make metaphysics useless. In my example about encountering something unexplainable, the scientific way of dealing with it tends to be to force it to fit into the standard model by either ignoring it or making assumptions. I can agree with you that it can be good enough to trust the framework as long as it's not a good reason not to. But the more we enforce frameworks that might not be correct in every way, the harder it is to find that good reason, the same way it's hard for people to change the way they think about anything they've had a strong opinion on for a long time. I think metaphysics is a good tool to keep science in check in that specific regard.

>understanding of just by observing how scientists work and by being in the field
thats what I thought, but you might have a point. Will look into Kuhn, thanks

i use models daily

>what is stage based modelling
>meta-thought does not help me predict future populations under differing scenarios
>use conclusions inferred from actual experiments
>i am doing science
>you are doing thought exercises

problem famalam ?

Can your statistician brainlet understand the difference between "science is deduction" and "science is about making predictions using models"?

fucking kek

/phil/ wanting to be included due to knowing about thinking

cmon man

>but as long as philosophy is acting like a big circle jerk with the typical tunnel vision it has, it is really kind of stupid.

>t.someone_who_knows_nothing_about_the_current_state_of_philosophy

>it's a Veeky Forums pretends it has even read any philosophy ever
You're all troglodytes and Bill "BSc in Engineering" Nye most of all. Stick to debating fundies with your 5ct knowledge.

who the fuck cares about an undergrad's opinion? fuck off and take that idiot with you

You're the one who tried to define science with a definition that has literally nothing with it.
If you had studied hard science you'd know scientists are mostly positivists. You make models and the one that fits experimental data the best is preffered.
Thinking that science is "doing experiment and taking what logically follows" just shows you have the understanding of a caveman.

oh the irony

>be philosopher of science
>be unable to make any actual scientific contributions
>write book about science telling people things they already know aboiut the practice of science
>become famous
>lit-tards use your work to lecture practicing scientists
lel

I kind of agree with you. Just for the record, I never claimed metaphysics were useless. I was specifically refering to certain branches of scepticism

>telling people things they already know
thats not always the case tho

no fool, its the field i happen to work in

you mentioned models, so i responded with a good example where science and philosophy are two absolutely, fundamentally different beasts

>mfw philosophy lord doesnt understand anything tangible, but understands everything in theory

kek

/thread

>its the field i happen to work in
what do you mean, what field? "Modelisation" isn't a field idiot.

>so i responded with a good example where science and philosophy are two absolutely, fundamentally different beasts
Nigger what has that got to do with the fact that your definition of science is trash?

your definition doesn't matter

what matters is reality, and your definition doesn't match reality, so it's a bad definition

i wasnt defining science you fucking spastic, i was explaining the fact that i practice while you preach

lol

modelling is an integral part of chemistry, biology, and bitch sciences like sociology and psychology too

>Bill Nye thinks

>i wasnt defining science you fucking spastic
>What's TRUE science? The thing that follows logically and by experiment.
Nice to know you're just too fucking stupid to hold a conversation.

>t.someone_who_knows_nothing_about_the_current_state_of_philosophy
And how do you think that happened? In the other fields I have some understanding at what is going on.

I've even asked the philosophers on Reddit. The best they could come up with was David Chalmers.

Whenever I look at r/philosophy I see them living in their own world constantly ancestor worshiping. Perhaps that gives me a distorted view, but I have yet to find counter evidence.

I've been asked on Veeky Forums if I could name some philosophers who ignored other scientific fields when I complained and I did. But they never gave me philosophers who didn't.

I've been looking for philosophy and reading books but my views haven't been changed.

The only philosopher I can think of that takes notice from other scientific fields is Nassim Taleb and I doubt many philosophers or Veeky Forums likes Taleb because he likes to insult academics.

I bet there are some respectable philosophers that I have yet to find out about but I think in general the field is in deep shit.

classic avoidance

stimulate me, so far you've looked like nothing but an utter fool

also those weren't both my posts if you were wondering user..................

nigga still gotta go before an ethics committe before conducting experiments

he's just got issues with idealism, and the Humean critique of the principle of the uniformity of nature. Which is understandable since he's a scientist so I'd expect him to be matierialst and empiricist.

but nigga still care about phenomenology, ethics, logic, and maybe existentialism. He's stylish as fuck so I bet he's also down with aesthetics.

Bill Nye is a scientific nobody, his intellectual clout is equal to that of an average /sci poster. His opinions on anything whatsoever are instantly discardable.

then why are you replying you fucking mongo?

Also "model" doesn't mean "numerical model" you fucking engineer.

am i the only one who is happy nye, tyson and the like are even getting science into mainstream discussions ?

call me an optomist but this is important

your country is borderline electing donald trump, so im going to say a pleb level of scientific understanding within your society should be high on the list atm

A broken clock strikes once a day or something....

>inb4 philbro posts a flowchart of the standard model

tell me more about what i learnt in first year m8

Literally what's even your point now? Like, what are you arguing? You're just excited because you got your first lab engineer job and you wanted to post here?

fucking kek user

ad hominem

>Not knowing the philosophical basis for the scientific method makes you little more than a monkey with a hammer.
4U. Stop with these stupid memes.

*tips fedora* Thanks for the entertainment, Phil!

Daniel Dennet