So we're all agreed?

I like atheism and just generally leading a secular life

So...philosophy is shit is what it's trying to say?

Bill Nye isn't a scientist and Schrodinger's quote has nothing to do with philosophy.

Also you're comparing science populizers with scientific leaders

It's not about philosophy not being shit or phisofags being idiots (both is irritably true to some degree). It's about the hard science folk with their heads in their asses sticking to the stupid materialistic, science=truth bullshit doesn't allow anything interesting to enter some public-space discussion.
Not that edgy conceptualizations Should be readily launched in the public space ("quantum mechanics/relativism explains x" crap), but the populistic blackmanscience stuff still finds its way to some actual, potentialy interesting discourse.

It castrates thought.

>this entire fucking post

In the big order of human intelect, it does very little.

Regardless how advanced the technology already is, science it's always several steps back from what it shoulds, mostly for the amount of time that takes explaing it, to people with a decreasing attention spam.

So you are saying two groups of people from two different time periods, each raised with different values and, different social norms believe different things? Woah like no way man.

Anyone else want to punch Lawrence Krauss in his dumb fucking acne scarred face? What noteworthy things has he ever done except lose debates on atheism?

>einstein was wrong about believing in full determinism
proofs?

it shows that the rejection of philosophy in science is mostly a recent phenomenon

How was he wrong about believing in determinism ?

Bohr's atom model is a pretty good introduction to nuclear physics and radiation.
Of course not for university students.

Veeky Forums idea of philosophy is the crap you find in self help books written by charlatans or in the best cases they talk about actual, but really crappy, philosophers like Nietzsche.

You faggots are no better than those you criticize. you talk about a topic you know jackshit about with the same authority than those faggots in the right.

It shows the difference between real scientists (left) who understand the importance of philosophy and pop sci faggots / science undergraduates like Veeky Forums who have zero clue about philosophy.

No it doesn't, it's just cherrypicked quotes. And so what if it's recent anyway?

The left side sounds like edgy freshman philosophy majors I took classes with.

>Some thing sounds somewhat like what someone else has said some other time, so it must be the same.

And you know what? You are the opposite version of that freshman philosophy guy.

You talk about philosophy with the authority of a nobel prize when all you know about philosophy is some garbage you read on the internet about Nietzsche.

Superposition
Quantum decoherence
Elementary particles are point particles

none of those have been proven as random
they still fit within the concept of determinism

>What noteworthy things has he ever done except lose debates on atheism?

He formulated a pretty creative theory on dark energy in the 90s, which was then absolutely BTFO by the mid 2000s. He's also a vocal skeptic on the existence of Higgs boson as theoretical physicists before reeling it back just in time to hop onto the experimentalist celebration bandwagon

Where did I claim or imply I have any authority in philosophy? Are philosofags really this bad at arguing?

Your Shitty anecdote proves nothing

*Something is as stupid and baseless as what a freshman would say which is why they are similar

That's not even an anecdote, moron.

Congratulations, you are the 5% of Veeky Forums

Now fuck off.

If you use harder to understand words it means you are smarter

My stance on philosophy is something I think everyone should pick up as a supplement to more rigorous and more useful subjects.

My own experience tells me that those who pursue philosophy primarily are not very intelligent and fall under the "those who can't" category, and as far I've seen its primarily been used as an excuse to not learn anything too difficult, and to not do anything.

And when it isn't that its just a bunch of sexually frustrated brainlets NEETS like those MGTOW guys, Kevin Solway, Thinking Ape, Coltaine, etc.

I remember going through a phase in high school where I would visit the kind of forums where philosophers would hang out and it would just be circle jerking hugbox, regurgitating same old bullshit, constantly claiming genius, and RP-ing Machiavelli / genius chessmasters.

Just suck it up and learn math.

Thanks for proving once again that you have zero experience with real philosophy and are just talking out of your ass.

All of these quotes are taken deliberately out of context, and the authors themselves have pointed this out.

There is a difference between Analytical Philosophy, which is Foundational Epistemology, which all Empirical science is based on...

...and sophist Rhetorical Philosophy, which uses fallacies, cognitive biases, loops and the infinite regress fallacy (paradox).

All of these quotes are about the latter, not the former.

OP is dishonest because OP has been corrected about this before and is simply trolling at this point.
Or OP is mentally ill.

Agreed, Phd stands for Doctorate in Philosophy (Epistemology).

OP is a troll.
Fact.

No him, but...
All studies are based on Epistemology.
All Science and Math are based on Epistemology.
Epistemology is the Philosophical Study of Knowledge and specifically the difference between knowledge (empirical and deductive conclusions void of fallacies) and beliefs (which pollute most studies).
This is actually a fact.
It is also a fact you refuse to learn, accept new information and grow.

>infinite regress
Why is it a fallacy?

Philosophy is harder than physics

...

>Philosophers actually say this

yeah that shit is a joke.

Also why is Bohr on this pic.

please stop being 12 year olds

I have minimal respect for mathematicians who cannot see past their nose, who think that mathematical models which only work on paper and are piss in the wind when applied to real life. Reiterating the same things their academic predecessors have been clinging on to.

My utmost respect goes to actual thinking mathematicians like Mandelbrot.

?idk people, why use knowledge? i mean, you read that earth rotates, but how can you tell that if youre dumb as fuck and cant understand it. thats my point. knowledge is pointless or maybe real knowledge comes from within, from understanding, but thats probably called wisdom or something like that. all in life is connected, everything is one... damn boy, everything is full of god, everything is alive, i see, theres atoms, moleclues that are made of atoms, and subatomic particles, they are all around us, u see a psychedelic trip, u see htat? if you see it must be true, because it gets to your brain, hallucinations is as real as dreams and @real life@, whatever that is. dude, im not even high right now.

>>Heisenberg was wrong about uncertainty principle; computers transcend such great barriers
Elaborate on this one please, I'm pretty sure the uncertainty principle is still a staple of QM

>this is what analyticucks believe

Basically everything you said was wrong. Let me rephrase:

>Heisenberg was NOT wrong about the uncertainty principle, except insofar as it is more a theorem than a principle (i.e. it is demonstrated, and not postulated). It exists in some form or other in every remotely precise theory of matter. Computers do not transcend shit.
>Einstein had a pretty staunched opinion about the credibility of Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and tried to disprove it using a physical counterargument which he overinterpreted to mean more than it did on a philosophical (i.e. not physical) level. It does still disprove Heisenberg's Interpretation, and determinism is still as plausible as the alternative.
>Schrödinger was not wrong about claiming the wave function is all there is to describing a particle. He actually discovered the Klein-Gordon Equation before the famed Schrödinger one, but the math enabling its precise interpretation in the frame of fields was not yet available... Because you'd have already needed 50 years worth of Quantum Mechanics perfecting the maths. However, he was aware that the generalization to Special Relativity was possible, inevitable, and would alter the conceptual framework of the theory. Also, technically, the wave function is still all you need, though it's the wave function of a field.
>Dude, Bohr pioneered that atom model at a time when quantization was a radically unexplored strategy. It had been used once, by Planck, like 10 years prior to that, and everybody was still pretty much freaked out about what it meant. I don't think he had any illusions as to the fact that the general theory incorporating that novel quantization scheme would probably lead to a more detailed model, but it is still a dope ass 1st order model.

Those are not "hurr durr" opinions. Those are defining moments, which all had a long lasting, profound impact on the way Physical theories became.

With a little bit of mathematical trickery and some computer simulations we can model quantum phenomena over the Heisenberg limit. See Yang-Mills theory (it's not proven though so take it with grain of salt)

Humans tend to make these "you cant do this" -statements, and they will ALWAYS fail.

Looking at you Gödel. Always. ALWAYS FAIL.

That's not true. Yang-Mills theory have a Heisenberg-type uncertainty theorem. The computer simulations you're thinking of may be founded on the de Broglie-Bohm formulations of Quantum Mechanics, but everything happening under the heisenberg limits is postulated, and unverifiable by any experimental means within the bound of the theory.

Philosophy isn't entirely garbage. My mind was formed by studying logic.

> no Carl sagan
it's a deadlock

This is out of the old SAT?