My son is taking a course in philosophy...

>ethics
>beauty
>thoughts
>reasoning
All shit. The only thing that exists is science.

STEMspergs and their dogmatic scientism are hilarious

God I hate stuff like this. Did he even realise Newton was a massive Christian and spent years working on theology, not to mention alchemy? Does he know that the scientific method was founded on the Biblical Fall?

>someone who devoted a life to the quantum actually believed this

Many physicists in the first half of the century, particularly on the continent, knew and appreciated philosophy. The general decline in the status of philosophy particularly in the last 50-60 years or so has affected physicists' perception of it just as much as the layman's.

This is dubious reasoning, observation of phenomenon is fairly useless without a body of theory in which to interpret it. For instance, there was a wealth of astronomical data before Newton that hadn't been put to a huge amount of use, but after Universal Gravitation it suddenly became hugely important.

No you fucking retards. Both have their uses. From theory we can make predictions. i.e. reasoning. But after you make a prediction in your theory, whether it is in ethics, economics, chemistry, cartography, etc. you have to confirm your prediction to see if your base reasoning is accurate. Feynman is complaining about how Spinoza' reasoning's goes nowhere, it doesn't lead to any predictions and much less have anyway to confirm if the reasoning are accurate.

Protestant culture

>you have to confirm your theory within my own theoretical ideological framework which is absolutely true and not to be questioned
>the world is knowable because I said so
Take dogma and replace "God" with "science" and suddenly you have a coherent system of thought

>you have to confirm your prediction to see if your base reasoning is accurate.

why do I have to do this? what if my theory regards totality which is unrepresentable and thus does not yield testable phenomena?

r u even trying kiddo?

Fairly useless? From the data comes regularities, patterns that people try to fit a model to. There's been countless models, representations, trying to explain astronomical data. Why the orbit of the planets goes in the opposite direction every once in a while. The earth centric model, the helio centric model, and so on are all theories that try to explain the data. Theories are then reworked or discarded on how accurate they are. The idea is that the phenomenon is held above all. You have to be rigorous in trying to fit the theory to the data. Bonus points if your theory makes predictions about data to which haven't been recorded and then now, through experimentation, seek out to confirm.

Not him, but are you fucking plebs? This is literally how science works and there's plenty of literature on it. Frameworks are crucial to interpretation of data.

Hmm seems like you're taking a bit of a leap of faith there

Sapir Whorf, same reason analytical philosophers are so autistic.

We just happen to be thinking in a stupid language, and have no idea what we are talking about when we criticize bad translations of continental philosophy.

>Fairly useless?
Well this may be an exaggeration. But the difference in how data is treated and how important it is before and after an event like the publication of the Principia is significant, and crucial to how science proceeds.

Mate it's simple fact. Have a look at eg Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most famous books in philosophy of science.

Meant the second reply to be to

>The idea is that the phenomenon is held above all. You have to be rigorous in trying to fit the theory to the data

You haven't addressed the question. Why does any theory have to have anything to do with phenomena in the first place?

wtf i hate philosophy now!!!!!

Then it's fucking worthless and bunch of word games. No one will take you seriously except a bunch of other pseudointellectuals.
No. "God" itself is a representation and once you use language you step inside the realm of representations and is susceptible to bullshit.
The opposite is raw engineering. Shit works or it doesn't. No theory no need for representations. A bird flies. A penguin swim. People eat food. Things exists.

You are hilariously spooked

>Then it's fucking worthless and bunch of word games. No one will take you seriously except a bunch of other pseudointellectuals.

Ah, I see. So you never had any interest in philosophy in the first place, and instead just read it to cherry pick a few concepts to support your naive and automatically digested worldview. cheers, cuck.

that image is interesting because its german speaking on the left and english speaking on the right.

the joke is that only germans and frenchmen can do philosophy and only germans and englishmen can do science

>tfw Germans really are the masterrace

That Einstien quote is great
>scientists really think they can be anything more than data collectors without understanding of philosophy, history, and art

Because otherwise a theory is nothing but words, doodles and sounds. Human beings are limited in what we can recognize, limited to what our five senses can detect. Representations is a way to which we can recognize, categorize, predict things that are beyond our senses. For example our understanding of a "galaxy" is shaped by the model, an image of a bunch of white spots in a spiral.

So what the fuck are you trying to describe? Human interactions? Government policy? Economic policy? How resources are to be distributed? This crazy thing we call existence?

Feynman's caltech lectures are the greatest introduction to science I can think of, maybe had I seen them as a kid I would've joined STEMlords in the sun.

What the fuck are you talking about? I am greatly interested in philosophy. Science, Mathematics, language, Godel incompleteness, computer science, logic are all aspect of philosophy. As well as the root, the theory of human suffering.
It seems like you're the one limited in you're thinking.

lmao you stemfags are hilariously naive

So the only pure philosophy you know is Schopenhauer?

>Shit works or it doesn't. No theory no need for representations

laughing_zizek.jpg

Don't fucking bring Zizek into this.

>he lists his hobbies
>>he claims to know philosophy and science
>>>but he cant provide an argument

>empiricism is all philosophy

Thinkers like Zizek are marginalized by stemcucks precisely because his critique is so damaging to their ideology. But yeah, you're right, I shouldn't "fucking bring Zizek into this," because that would just be unfair lol.

I'm one of the people arguing against the stemfags btw, I just don't like Zizek.

my bad, but why?

Did you make this post knowing that the four scientists on the left are composed of two Protestants and two Jews?

Schrodinger and Heisenberg were fucking based. Both of them wrote some good books on philosophy too.
George Orwell has a good essay related to this topic titled "What is Science?"

Y'all epileptic monkeys. Call it "thinking." Dr. Pic included.

Except that it's not that simple, and if you took a cursory glance at Heidegger you would understand why.

First, a little disclosure: I've read a fair bit of continental stuff and I'm now actually trying to move over in the other direction. I'd like a little more STEMfag positivism in my life, b/c beyond a certain horizon continental thought really does only spin its wheels.

This is the point I want to raise: technology changes everything. You can't do advanced physics in your backyard anymore, as you know; this stuff requires powerful - and expensive - scientific equipment. And that stuff doesn't come for free.

This is exactly why questions about science themselves are invariably going to become questions of culture again. Everything costs money.

And that's before you even start to look around at stuff like paradigm shifts: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, etc. Once upon a time there was Newtonian science. Now there's Einsteinian science. But the theory of relativity would have been virtually impossible to deduce from the standard literature: it took a genius-sized *imagination* to ask if maybe things might actually work other than the way people generally thought they did.

Today you could make the argument that we maybe don't need to drive ourselves nuts anymore asking about paradigm shifts, and I might even be inclined to agree with you. But it's going to be very hard to avoid talking about capitalism, for instance, which is where things will always get complicated.

Space exploration, for instance, is going to be driven by economic forces, and these are in no ways rational. Asteroids are worth billions, trillions of dollars. Designing the equipment we will need to get there, as well as the impact this stuff is going to have on civilization, is all going to change the way we view the world, society, ourselves, all of it.

I will reiterate: as the Ghostbusters say, I'm ready to believe you. I'm basically good with continental philosophy at this point and I want to work on my positivism, because it's a good look to have both. But natural science and whatever it is we call philosophy are going to go hand in glove, for better or for worse, for a long time to come.

I dont care what he says about philosophers.

Now, if he spills mud on Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Tolstoy, then I will get triggered.

I would chalenge any scientist to try and beat the names above in their own fields. I bet they cant do even 20% of what they did, and even if they use all their mental-power.

Newton, Von Newmann, Bohr: none of them would be able, no matter how much they tried, to produce something like the great artists that I named did.

How can he say such bullshit? You can be a scientist and appreciate philosophy too.

He's saying that Spinoza's philosophy does not apply to the real world. It's off in a bubble of logic somewhere and while it may be a consistent system within itself, its premises are such that it has no relation to regular human experience.

But the study of birds is extremely useful to them and saves many of them from going extinct.

How can you even begin to make such a comparison?

None of them could create such a massive cathedral of advanced, novel, perspective changing math as Grothendieck did. But Grothendieck couldn't write a symphony like Beethoven did. So what?

>Sapir Whorf, same reason analytical philosophers are so autistic.
Sapir Whorf is such an autistic theory. Not to mention you're trying to claim all Englisjh speakers are autistic.

Bro, just accept your fucking autism without having to drag everyone else in there too.

I think he's claiming that because we can only think of the continental works in terms of the English translation, we can't understand the works as they are understood by native speakers who read the originals.

(I have no opinion on his claim, I just think you misinterpreted it)

>autistic calculator people never stop and think about life because it's not in their calculator programming
Really made me think guys

Sapir Whorf is not about translations beyond "If I translate each word individually and forget about grammar then I can pretend other people think funny".

I also have to point out the Einstein wouldn't have read Spinoza in the original language.

Just stating that supreme geniuses of science are not superior to supreme geniuses in the arts

Post priori models of understanding the world cannot be used to understand a priori questions. This is philosophy 101. This isn't the 1700 hundreds anymore. We don't live in a time of struggle between the empiricists and rationalists. We live in a post Kant world.

Feynman? You mean the guy who brainwashed a generation of young physicists into buying his "shut and calculate" mantra? The guy who admitted on paper that instrumental considerations are the ONLY considerations of science? You'll get no ontological elucidations from science and science has always been upfront about this fact. It's the pop-stemweenies who still naively think of fermions as point particles that are responsible for pushing this damaging divide between science and philosophy.

Based Feynman said it like it was.
Shame the philosophers here will dispute what one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century said about scientific practice.

Bohr was danish though

>Shame the philosophers here will dispute what one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century said about scientific practice
>greatest scientists of the 20th century said about scientific practice
This isn't the part people are complaining about. People are complaining that he's criticising philosophy for not using science's methods for understanding the world when those methods make no sense for a field like philosophy. What always struck me as strange about this is he loves maths, except this subject operates a lot like philosophy and almost nothing like science. So he tacitly agrees that not everything should be judged by the standards of science but hypocritically applies it to philosophy.

>Post priori models

'post priori' would mean something like 'after before'. You mean a posteriori, or 'empirical', I think.

>Jews
>German

Philosophy cant' help you understand the world.
Feynman didn't really enjoy pure mathematics for its own sake (if I recall correctly he disparaged mathematicians using cohomology and claimed he intuition trumped formal proof).
Mathematics is a formal science, it doesn't make any assumptions about the world.

>>Mathematics is a formal science, it doesn't make any assumptions about the world.
you have never ever done math

>What are axioms

Care to elaborate on that?

Scientific theories are just abstractions to help us make predictions about the physical world. STEMfags who think that science has anything to do with "discovering the truth" fell for the scientism meme hard.

>axioms are assumptions about the world
No. They are assumptions about abstract objects, purely formal, nothing to do with reality.
It turns out however, we use axioms that allow us to derive certain theorems, and these have grate utility in explaining the world, I don't dispute that. The problem is you think the axioms gain epistemological status from that application, which is not the case.
Sometimes I forget imam on Veeky Forums talking to kids who have taken basic philosophy at omen state school, never having actually read Russell .

>Russell
shiggy diggy doo

As opposed to the abstractions in philosophy and religion which don't predict anything about the world?

underrated

>joint smoking philosophy major
>"Dude lmao mathematics 8i necessary to understand physics"
>therefore mathematics must make assumptions about the world,"
Russell was just an example, quine , Putnam even witty would agree.

>implying I'm the poster you responded to
But seriously stop polluting your mind with analytic garbage

>pics on left in black and white
>pics on right in color
Not biased "at all" with the pics you chose

>What exactly did he mean by this?

It sounds like a shameful confession. This was his way of letting his readers out there know that he was a pleb.

>so I was looking at some stuff my son had chosen to study and it was sooo childish! I was all like "aren't you a little old for BABY BOOKS lmao!!" Anyway, we were laughing at that stupid shit, or at least I was laughing, who cares about that stupid faggot.
>*plays bongo solo*

why are analytics generally more intelligent though

i mean there isn't a continental philosopher of the 20th century that had the intellect that Kripke or Putnam had

>pics on left of old philosophers
>pics on right of new philosophers
>hurr why no color
u 1 dum fagit

wew

ummm Kripke is undoubtedly a genius..

You say that only because Kripke had an award at a young age. his Wittgenstein shit is practically fanfic.

Kripke literally changed the face of analytical philosophy..

he is probably the most important american philosopher of all time after Quine?

Because analytic philosophers are failed mathematicians and physicists.
Continental philosophers are failed schizophrenics.

he notes in the preface that it isn't an attempt at exegesis, rather it's riffing off Wittgenstein's ideas and saying what Kripke think Wittgenstein should have said; it's fan fiction in the sense that its aim is creative and not expository

when arguing against the claim that analytics are smarter than continentals,'Kripke is not a genius' is not the tack you want to take

>saying what Kripke think Wittgenstein should have said; it's fan fiction
Much better comment when we cut out all the apologetics.

For some he changed it. And did he change it for the better?

95% of STEMfags dont believe this at all. Most of them a philosophically impartial or ambivalent.

yes

Actually no. Einstein's relativity was a result of observation. There were a alot of experiments trying to find what it is that light travel through, i.e. the outdated ether theory. From the experimentation they found a that light is constant no matter if you are going away from it or going towards it (Michelson–Morley). This is a pattern that was found. Light is constant. Einstein took this experimental results that was published and use it as an axiom in his theory with the result of time dilation.

A paradigm shift is the same as model replacement. Its about the competition between two models to see which is more accurate. Again it goes back to the phenomenon since it is the phenomenon that determines which theory gets replaced. Newtonian mechanics was unable to explain the time difference of the orbits of the moons of Jupiter when Jupiter was close to earth and when it was far away. Einstein's representation was able to explain it and so Newtonian was replaced.

>philosophers shouldn't build upon great works

lol

It's not really building upon anything, it's more trying to co-opt a great name for a sense of prestige genealogy to some vaguely related idea.

oop, sounds like someone has read neither the investigations nor kripkenstein

in any case, naming and necessity and a puzzle about belief would suffice to ground his status as a genius, if it was ever in question, and it never was

>oop, sounds like someone has read neither the investigations nor kripkenstein
>he isn't aware that Kripkenstein is used to take the piss

I was introduced to the term 'Kripkenstein' by a friend of Kripke's who went to Princeton while Kripke was teaching there, and who holds Kripke's "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language" in high regard; it isn't a term of mockery or of praise -- it's just what people call Kripke's Wittgenstein

Kripke is a savant. Pitiable, really. Not something to be proud of.

Throwing Putnam's name around is kinda baffling to me. He changes his mind every five years about first principles. If there's an example of the recursively omphaloskeptic nature of 'analytical' philosophy, he is it.

>(((Spinoza)))
how d'ya do, fellow dutch people?

>He changes
>he is it

user...

>it's just what people call Kripke's Wittgenstein
It's not even that, it's a bunch of ideas that happened to come to Kripke while reading PI, the vast majority of which (p much all but 1) are not in there (and even the 1 is debatable). It's true that KW is equivalent to Kripkenstein, but it's not as neutral a term as Kripke's buddy would have you believe, it really exists because it's far from being Wittgenstein.

>it's far from being Wittgenstein

as he notes in his preface

Kripke is a philosophical savant in the same sense as Bach is a musical savant -- he's just really good at it. He also reads widely. How could you take this as a denial of his genius?

The question was why analytic philosophers are smarter than continentals -- Kit Fine, Derek Parfit, Kripke, Wittgenstein, David Kaplan, Gareth Evans, etc, etc, etc -- and it's been neither answered nor undermined.

I think I've spotted some autism here.

>people in fields we're not good at are autistic savants with calulator souls
don't be so predictable, Veeky Forums