Thoughts?

...

xkcd is overrated

so's your face

>Fixed

>being this close-minded

Correct version

>>being this close-minded
>close-minded

You get an F in your philosophy 101 for that kid of dumb speech. Don't you know anything?

Narrow-minded, obstinate, shortsighted and unpersuadable make you sound way smarter! Open a thesaurus once in your life, you illiterate. How are you supposed to be a philosopher IF YOU DON'T SOUND SMART?

t. has never done philosophy and is just sprouting memes.

If I had to write a paper, I would use other words, for sure. When I tried to explain concepts, I always use simple words, follow a deductive logic and try to use examples people will know.

And English is not my first language anyways.

I've never done philosophy but I have read some of their bullshit. Anyone could notice that the faggots use the most complicated type of speech in the hope that someone will fall for it and think they are smart, when in reality they are dumb as rocks.

And while stories like youtube.com/watch?v=LZCRxxb_rwY show that this problem is present in the humanities in general, philosophers are the main culprits of it. Fuck em.

>xckd

Hah, what a loser!

>Anyone could notice that the faggots use the most complicated type of speech in the hope that someone will fall for it and think they are smart, when in reality they are dumb as rocks.

The same could be said about math and their obsession with formal language, "proof", rigor, and many other things.

If I said :
>Why do you need a rigorous definition of continuity ? Just say it's when you can trace the function without lifting your pen !
You would call me a stupid retard and you would be right.

When you say :
>this problem is present in the humanities in general, philosophers are the main culprits of it. Fuck em.
You're also a stupid retard.

Philosophers tend to like big words because you need to be extremely precise. It's the same in law, the defendant and the defender are not the same at all. Philosophy developed its own lexicon according to its need. "Epistemology" is just "History and philosophy of sciences" but it sounds better.

There's also the question of elegance. Much like a good proof in math is beautiful, tends to omit trivial elements, and can rebuke the untrainred, a good philosophy book should be nice to read and employ some language subtlety to make it easier to memorise and understand.

It also shows you've never done philosophy. Most philosophy books uses an almost mathematical reasoning with axioms-proof-conclusion.

>>Why do you need a rigorous definition of continuity ? Just say it's when you can trace the function without lifting your pen !

Imagine if instead of "continuity" the same concept was called "Intravel-interval limit defined-ness".

That is how a philosopher would name it. Look at how smart it sounds!

>The same could be said about math and their obsession with formal language, "proof", rigor, and many other things.

No because proofs are actual work. We are talking about words used to describe things. The point is, the philosofags choose long words.

>Philosophers tend to like big words because you need to be extremely precise.

Yes but it is different. In philosophy you could name any concept "Oranges" and it would work because you would then only need to read what the definition of "Oranges" is in your philosophy dictionary and you are done.

In mathematics, the reason we have abstract and formal language (the logic notation + set notation + whatever other notation used in the topic) is there because the things spelled out in those symbols are complex machinery that you can do stuff with.

You can take a logical statement in mathematics and scrutinize it, break it smart, etc. You can take a set definition and then explore it, see what elements it contains , etc.

The symbols have practical meaning. Just like the symbol '+' invokes the PROCESS of addition.

Philosophers just like long words. Philosophers don't prove anything. Philosophers simply like words as long as the cocks they suck.

>That is how a philosopher would name it. Look at how smart it sounds!
Textbook bad faith and argument from ignorance. Tss.

>No because proofs are actual work. We are talking about words used to describe things. The point is, the philosofags choose long words.
Because greek roots tend to form long words. By the way, what about words like epimorphism or things like that ? K-Algebraic theory ?

>In philosophy you could name any concept "Oranges" and it would work because you would then only need to read what the definition of "Oranges" is in your philosophy dictionary and you are done.
Objectively wrong.

Read a book. Anyone, but Plato should be a great start.

It's stupid, just garbage. For example biology is not simply applied chemistry, it contains elements of applied math, applied physics, and various other disciplines. Psychology is not just applied biology either, as many studies have nothing to do with bio. I could go on but I think you can see why this image is flawed.

>epimorphism

That's pretty short.

>K-Algebraic theory

K-Algebraic is also short. Adding "theory" at the end is a bit deceptive because no one will say "Now lets work with K-Algebraic Theories", they will say "Now lets work with K-Algebras".

>Read a book. Anyone, but Plato should be a great start.

Ew.

Philosophy should be even further to the right

...

Reminds me of flat earth theory.

kind of like time, a flat circle.

Found the butthurt biologist

>psychology is just applied biology

If only it were true. If only. The world would be so much better

...

Fixed that for you

How are you defining purity? If it's by how well you can derive the other sciences then physics stands on top (this should be obvious. You can't start at pure maths and derive anything physical). If by pure you mean slowly eeking out everything useful/physical/relevant to real life then sure Maths is up too, along with philosophy and applied psychology.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Math by its nature is purely theoretical.

found the philosopher

The more I read Philosophy the more I realize how dumb Veeky Forums is

kek

Mythmatics is as corrupt as any human endeavour. It's best left to the delusional and vain until it regains its senses.

all

Absolute truth.
t. physicist

>People are willing to pay millions of dollars to find high prime numbers

I literally don't understand the point of that challenge.

>calculating power
totally unrelated to mathematics

Ur a hero

Contributin

My trips confirm it

Fuggg

I don't think you understood the comic

>compsci
>not just applied math

>mathematics
>not just instantiations of P(A), A being the set of writable programs for Turing Machines and P(A) its powerset

lol check out this fag

>math
>not just abstracted applied philosophy