How do you refute this image, Veeky Forums? Face it: science is just a form of philosophy...

You were the one who brought up the issue of "true scientists" so don't get upset when someone points out you are almost certainly not as prolific or accomplished as he is.

Where are your publications, exactly? Since you're so convinced that philosophy makes you a better scientist :^)

Explain why falsifiability is desirable without resorting to philosophical (unfalsifiable) reasoning. I'll wait :^)

no need to get mad, buddy boyo
coursera has a pretty decent course on logical fallacies, you should look it up

philosophy is for fags who can't solve integrals

>muh logical fallacies
pseudo intellectual innumerate brainlet detected

go jerk yourself to sleep over wittgenstein or something

t. lacks the mental ability to contribute anything meaningful anywhere ever in his/her life
At least you can shitpost here

science is for fags who can't into dialectics

Can you give me a few examples of tenured professors who haven't published in 30 years?

>muh numbers

*hits you on the head with a hardcover copy of Critique of Pure Reason*
study philosophy, brainlet

i get how people that study hard sciences want to distance themselves or simply disregard philosophy,its obvious, they follow the scientific method and inductive thinking, the contrary of philosophic logic.
But how can mathematicians,even more, PURE MATHEMATICIANS,say they don't appreciate philosophy is beyond me,do they simply disregard mathematical logic? but if they did they would not be pure mathematicians. i really don't get it Veeky Forums

I wish we had an integral captcha so pseudo-intellectual wankers like OP wouldn't be able to post on this board.

Because the vast majority of philosophy is boring axiomatic reasoning that is laughably trivial to mathematicians.

>How do you refute this image, Veeky Forums?
There's nothing to refute, it's just an bunch of cherry-picked quotes.

I'm not a physicist or an Astrophysicist, but I do study evolutionary biology and can say that Dawkins is a real scientist but not a very good one. Not being a philosopher really shows in his work, mostly the parts where he is wrong because he can't perform the necessary abstract logic to get to the right answer.
Most scientists are also philosophers, Ph.d stands for philsophy Doctor. philosophy has been repressed in our social institutions by state-capitalist authorities because of its ideaogenic properties, especially after 60s counter culture shook the boat. Now young people asking questions and finding answers is avoided at all costs

BTFO

>Most scientists are also philosophers, Ph.d stands for philsophy Doctor. philosophy has been repressed in our social institutions by state-capitalist authorities because of its ideaogenic properties, especially after 60s counter culture shook the boat. Now young people asking questions and finding answers is avoided at all costs
Where do you get this garbage from? Are you parroting some head-crackpot I should know about, or does this just flow freely whenever you try to use a keyboard?

Wow, it's almost as if history's smartest people had wide ranges of intellectual interests and areas of study. How unexpected.

Without those axioms, you wouldn't have mathematics.

They are "my own" beliefs, but I'm going to say I'm parroting just for the convenience of having Noam Chomsky argue for me. It's not like I'm some credulous tied just repeating whatever I hear as gospel, it needs to be reasonable.

youtu.be/DdNAUJWJN08
The camera angles on this are cracking me up, with the old guy mouth smacking and everything it's like a Vic Berger edit

Veeky Forums is brainlet city
don't expect people here to understand the importance of philosophy

Because science only explains nature, and if nature comes up with an specific case where your theory doesn't work, it's deemed false

>this is what math undergrads actually believe

Intellectuals on the right side. Pseuds on the left.

I've never seen Schrodinger or Bohr have their own TV show. Heisenberg believed in """""""""""""""""""""""god"""""""""""""""""""""" but Dawkins believes in reason.

And I've never heard of this Krauss guy but he's probably smarter than some jewish guy.

This is your brain on S.T.E.

Based Bohr telling it like it is

Nicely memed friendo

wtf I love philosophy now?!
Unironically.

I suspect that opposition to philosophy on Veeky Forums is mostly coming from high schooler scientist wannabies that wanking over "lol philosophy is useless, check my slick integrals" mentality.". Becasu their arguments sucks and most of time they are not even relevant.

>I've never seen Schrodinger or Bohr have their own TV show
I would have watched it.

An the axioms are generally put forward by mathematician... Not every thing is babbyd first order logic.

Because unfalsifiable hypotheses are less likely to accurately reflect reality, and less likely to give accurate predictions and explanations

This itself could be falsified by an unfalsifiable hypothesis /theory making very accurate predictions

Without sticks, you wouldn't have nukes

MY SUPERPOSITION JUNK IS SO OH OH

This is based on the strictly Philosophical, and half-baked, idea that there is anything in essence, existence, and all permutations thereof that did not come into being and is not maintained exclusively by Consciousness, Human or otherwise.

It's also perfectly ironic that most Classical Rational world models, that STEMlords scoff at, are more successful in arguing in favor of such a thing as Objectivity. Whereas Scientism can't even define Matter, let alone anything else.

>How do you refute this image, Veeky Forums?
I dont. I think it accurately describes who is a real scientist and who isnt.

So am i supposed to have my world view formed by what is said by people on the right or on the left?

I feel this image doesn't concern the most important aspect of philosophy of science:

How it directly affects the performance of science.

It doesn't matter if the guys on the right are all correct. What matters is the people funding them are part of the political/military/industrial complex. They have never in history behaved rationally yet they are the ones who get to decide what science gets performed, why, when, and how that science will be applied.

Those who fail to recognize this assume science to be a benign institution simply because it's methodology is benign. But until the irrational actors who control the world's resources are defeated, converted, or removed, science will never fulfill its own methodological potential. It will fall prey continually to the interests of the political/military/industrial complex.

Furthermore there is so much to learn but so little time to learn it. Philosophy of science is necessary to even decide what you should experiment on next and how. Time is of the essence. Resources are limited. Scientists fall ill and die and new generations of scientists have to be trained. Until these factors are overcome (which likely they will never be) the scientific method will not be enough to get science done. You will need to decide what to experiment on, why, and what to apply the results to. When you do that you are doing PHILOSOPHY.

The men in the right column are all engaging in philosophical statements. They are less concerned with this than they are with dismissing some of the most complex and difficult decisions which have to be made about the info we gather from nature.

>This is based on the strictly Philosophical, and half-baked, idea that there is anything in essence, existence, and all permutations thereof that did not come into being and is not maintained exclusively by Consciousness, Human or otherwise.
What a cringy, unqualified and unfounded statement

>It's also perfectly ironic that most Classical Rational world models, that STEMlords scoff at, are more successful in arguing in favor of such a thing as Objectivity. Whereas Scientism can't even define Matter, let alone anything else.

Matter is a structural component of the universe with mass and volume. Go away

You can't really refute it. Philosophy is what informs us on our observations and how to interpret them.

As a mathematician this is obvious, there's been multiple rifts in the field of mathematics when it came to fundamentals and the meaning of certain constructs. Hell, I don't agree with them but I think the foundations of intuitionism and the work it produces has merit. I think the phobia of mathematics that I see many people studying sciences express, is to blame for this culture of deriding philosophy as useless.

MUH INTEGRALS

you're doing algebra with some special rules kiddo
If you think you're smart for that you should drink bleach

I fucking hate pop-sci, and I don't think it's something good for mainstream media.

We don't need more scientists, we just need more money. Give a great physicist a great lab, and he'll give you a nobel prize.

There's a shitton world-class physicists here in Brazil, but they have no labs or funds. Masters students here are obliged to focus only on the research (they can't work outside of it) and they make something around ~300 dollars a month, which is barely enough to pay a fucking rent.

FUCKING POLITICIANS HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO DO SCIENCE RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>they make something around ~300 dollars a month, which is barely enough to pay a fucking rent.

FUCKING POLITICIANS HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO DO SCIENCE RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

iunno u goys are the smart ppl figure it out

Well, it's true philosophy of science didn't catch up with commercial science yet.
>How it directly affects the performance of science.
When people leave it tired of salesman job.

>dialectics
Why respond with unintelligent drivel

Colleges work non stop ti veer students away from philosophically access their environment.

>when stemshits attempt to actually think beyond their preconceptions
cute desu

The origin of mathematics is rooted in philosophy is it not?