Daily reminder that if you don't have a comprehensive understanding of Hume's ideas...

Daily reminder that if you don't have a comprehensive understanding of Hume's ideas, you have no right to dismiss philosophy and will never cut it as a revolutionary scientist.

Other urls found in this thread:

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2009/06/hume-science-and-religion.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Daily reminder that you will not get new insight from applying old methods.

Nobody knows how to proceed to get the next advance in physics OP.
Certainly not you.

>Hume
literally who? And why should I care? Because I don't. And I won't search him on Google.

Th-this is bait, right?

>Has never even heard of Hume
You are worse than an unruly 4th grader

>hur I'm ignorant
>ergo Hume is worthless

You really estimate value based on your own self-perception? Jesus Christ, you must be a worthless, antisocial person who has accomplished nothing.

It's only an old method if you've experienced it.

Most scientists do not even confront the tougher aspects of their discipline.

They are forever mediocre.

I don't dismiss philosophy, I'm just not very interested in mulling over subjective ideas that have already been beaten to death over the last couple millennia

You'd do well to be aware of what those ideas were. You can hardly build upon them if you are unaware of them

>he still believes in the objective/subjective dichotomy

>It's only an old method if you've experienced it.
Retarded sentence. No, it's old as long as other people have already applied it.

Thousand of physicists have come and gone who knew of Hume's philosophy. Some were inspired by it. That's it, they picked those fruits. It's done.
New insight requires new ideas.

So let's just abandon the scientific method and use homeopathic medicine. It's an old idea, ergo it's worthless and can be ignored.

Nice self contradiction. If you're gonna use "the" scientific method anyway, and since it's infallible according to you, why even bother learning philosophy? You'll still apply "the" scientific method.

Checkmate philosobrainlets.

Nice forced attempt at Socratism. I'm using rhetoric to advance a point, and you're deliberately misreading my posts.

You can't claim old ideas are of no worth while practicing a method that itself is old. That's your internal contradiction.

>"why even bother learning philosophy?"
- Veeky Forums's official opinion on philosophy

Philosophers and physicists are consistently the most intelligent people alive. Philosophers are hardly brainlets.

It just so happens that philosophy has less _utility_

Believe it or not, most of us have an interest in philosophy of science. We just don't like to draw an undeserved sense of superiority from it, unlike OP.

Especially because, once you hit the lab, you quickly realize there is a whole world between the speculative philosophy you read and applying it as a methodology.

Any other philosophers here who have an interest in physics? Why do physicists scorn us so?

>physics
>utility
Name one thing in the past 50 years that physicists have done that revolutionized anything.

For the most part, physicists are wanking off about irrelevant things like computational models of black holes, nothing at all remotely "useful" like even early 20th century physics.

I never claimed superiority.

Because you refuse to learn the language.

Giant magneto resistance? LEDs?
It's okay, we know brainlets are unappreciative of the advances in solid state physics.

>literally open a thread claiming you know a sine qua non condition for scientific advancement
yeah nah

I never said science can't advance without philosophy, "revolutionize" is a pretty important word that you neglected.

>Giant magneto resistance? LEDs?
Compared to the advancements made previously? Child's play.

Pedant distinction, we all know what you're talking about.
>literally open a thread claiming you know a sine qua non condition for scientific revolutions
go fuck yourself honestly

>hur I can't respond to what you actually said so let me insist you said something else

kek

>believing this
>being a brainlet
choose exactly two

which is why I reformulated
let me repaste it because I know you brainlets with intellectual envy are bad readers
>literally open a thread claiming you know a sine qua non condition for scientific revolutions
That's a clear display of your unjustified sense of superiority. Everybody else is confused as to how to reach the next stage. You think you know something about that because you have literally no perspective, caused by your superficial knowledge of philosophy, popsci knowledge of science, and inexistant knowledge of the history of science.

>LEDs
>child's play
I don't think you could talk any further out of your ass if you tried.

what's there to build? more hypothetical explanations for our existence?

oh the irony

>Name one thing in the past 50 years that physicists have done that revolutionized anything
Internet, you fucking dumbass

Philosophy doesn't attempt to offer any explanations for existence. Have you actually read any philosophy that isn't "lel Aristotle said earthquakes are the earth farting." Science is actually a branch of philosophy that operates on objects that have an objective measure.

david hume got btfo by edward feser

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2009/06/hume-science-and-religion.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Doesn't matter what you end up thinking about his philosophy.

true