Veeky Forums: 1

>implying it's a choice between either feelings or empiricism
>what is rationalism

I build many things with the use of my rational faculties that have an influence or effect on the material world.

does anyone actually take scientism seriously? i think you would need to be really autistic to do so

whoever made that image is a retard

He's also not saying that, he's saying that philosophy is a niche field and it's scope is as big as they claim. It's fallacious to think that when you deal with the absolute mpsr fundamental shit, that necessarily means you are getting insight into the field as whole. A good example would be logic and math. Except in the cases were it's relevant, even higher level stuff like topology can start with a naive form set theory and work from there because they are confident the details will not have a such and impact with the things topolgists actually deal with. That doesn't mean there can't be investigation between the fundamenteal and the higher level stuff, but it would be foolish to think thay knowing about fundamentals means everything else is trivial or just a consequence of your work. Many scientists don't trust then many philosophers because they talk about shit they don't have any knowledge about. It may be primarily ubdergrad faggots, but there are a lot of people who denouce science and is against many discoveries without understanding the process and the ideas behind them. Obviously it's a retarded fight, but it seems it's only undergard shitflinging.

>continental philosophy
lmao

>scientism
fuck off

Nah, you're just plugging your own views here. The text only relates the limits of empiricism, and makes no reference to the scope of philosophy.

Also, the number of people who attack philosophy are far greater than those who attack science. The popularity of science is at an all time high, and scientism is unconsciously taken as a given by the majority of people. Attacks on science are relegated to obscure ironic memers and religious extremists. Conversely, the popularity and prevalence of philosophy is at an all time low, and popular scientists like Bill Bye have openly derided the entire field.

I agree that the fight between the two fields is ridiculous though.

Most people take scientism as a given, and share Bill Nye's retarded understanding of philosophy.

cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/bill-nye-philosophy-shy-science-didnt-just-happen

No philosopher is as ignorant about science as even the most studied scientists are about philosophy.

Oh but they are. Also, no one in academia seriously thinks of bill nye as a scientist.

Post an example of a philosopher making a statement about science that is comparable to Bill Nye's comments regarding philosophy.

What comments? He just said some stupid shit in a big think question and he didn't completely said it was useless but there are things that scientists are goign to asssume that aren't that hard to see. He has almost no opinion on philosophy besides that. Hell I think he tweeted that he was starting to read more philosophy and he foubd it fascinating. But more importantly why the fuck do you think Bill Nye, a fucking engineer who has spent most of his life with science education represents what an average PhD/tenuered professor knows about philosophy? Hell, the modt I've heard were some jokes from them, but everyone thinks philosophy has it's merit. And even If I don't think your question is fair, I can tell you that Lacab did said some stupid shit which many people today buy. I've seen also some shit like Nietzschean thermodinamics, and feminist science that is jaw dropping. But I'm not really that dense to extrapolate from that and say ALL philosopheres arw hacks. Though there aren't a lot who really understand science.

>what comments?

Read the article I linked.

>In Nye’s rambling response, he characterizes philosophy as a curiosity—a field that raises “cool” but mostly trivial questions like whether the universe is real and whether we can know we exist. Philosophy is “important for a while,” he says, but can quickly devolve into “arguing in a circle.” And unlike science, philosophy rarely gives “an answer that’s surprising.”

This is akin to claiming that science is about looking at things through a microscope and playing with test tubes.

You claimed that philosophers are ignorant about science. Provide some proof for that claim.

nye is not a scientist

He's a science educator.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

>assigned at birth
It hurt to read

Well yea, Bill nye says retarded shit. That's also the case with Tyson Dawkings and all those scienc3 educators. You cab read about the sokal afair to see a bundle of people also misguiding a flock with retatded pseudoscience. My point still holds, no one in academia cares about Bill Nye besides just finding nice to have somone to present scientific theories and defend climate change.

>does anyone actually take scientism seriously?
First year phd student here: observing my peer's reaction to the "philosphy of science" classes we had in the first semester, I'd say that the most common reaction to the things we were tasked to research (like logical positivism, limits of falsifiability, Feyerabend's views, etc) was "oh, that's very interesting and all, but how does that relate to what I'm doing right now?", and go back to being a glorified lab monkey. Myself, unfortunately, included.

"stop laughing at me for believing in bullshit"

You aren't kidding anyone that the majority of actual scientists don't share his view of philosophy.

Your point was that philosophers were ignorant about science, and you've yet to produce a single example to prove that point.

THE SOKAL AFAIR YOU MORON. And that wasn't my point. You asked me that. My point is that it's retarded to brand scientists based ln what fucking bill nye thinks.

What philosopher was implicated in that affair?

Even if a philosopher were fooled by the hoax article, that would only be proof that philosophers can be deceived, not proof that they are ignorant about science in general, which is what you claimed.

Post an example of a philosopher making ignorant comments about the field of science, or admit you were just talking out of your ass.

Read this. It has a lot of examples and he presents quite cearly he isn't attacking things that don't explicitly mention scien5ific principles.

what im getting at is scientism is practically religious zealotry. i think most actual scientists are closer to being positivists.