Tfw scifaggots talk shit about philosophy

Then why did you claim it does in the OP you sniveling retard?

you're putting words in my mouth.

I claimed science can't answer the why.

You claimed science can't answer why as if philosophy can. Why mention it if you are trying to defend philosophy? Clearly you are backtracking. This thread is over. I hoped to learned something.

I already told you, the answers can't be given in a definitive answer, how would you define ethics in a way like physics?

how would you define by example which is the best political way to govern a nation?

even neoliberalism which was though to be the definitive failed hard in 2008.

then it's not better than science because neither can answer those questions.
>BURRHBH SCIENCE CAN SOLVE THIS LOL TALKIN SHIT ABOUT PHILOSOPHY
>can philosophy solve it?
>N--NN-N--NNO.. URRGHGHHHH I EAT SHIT

because I'm mocking your own views stemtard.

I wouldn't.

now you understand why philosophy can't give the same results as science.

No you seem to have failed completely at that. Why should we care that science can't answer such questions?

i know, and i'm telling you that's not how you talk shit. you can't walk around and call someone a manlet if you're shorter than them. aren't you supposed to give examples of what philosophers do that scientists fail at?

I never said anything to the contrary, moron, you did.

they're still important questions.

philosophy and science aren't a dichotomy.
all nobel winners had to deal with the philosophy of their domains.

t. butthurt undergrad.

You haven't answered the question. You lose.

Are you trying to bait the stemfags or the philosofags?

there's not a proper answer, it depends on the historical context.

Guys, I think we've just been baited really hard. Well played.

I'm sad that OP couldn't mount a proper defense of philosophy and even sadder that he is so ignorant as to believe that a blind distaste of science somehow makes him superior. What's even worse is that you frame the distinction between the two incorrectly, but that's a mistake that most people who aren't well versed in either tend to make so I can't fault you. I bet you're a continental faggot who hasn't touched analytic philosophy in your entire life. For shame.

Science answers the "how", or, identifies the formal and efficient causes of things. Primary and final causes remain in the realm of philosophy. Science doesn't do ontology, it's not their job and those idealists who believed it to be have been chastised by the twin revolutions in physics at the beginning of last century. Ontology remains firmly in the realm of philosophy and with this comes a responsibility of the philosopher to interpret the physical theories constructed by scientists. Interdisciplinary communication is frequent, despite what the college contest dick waving STEM-Humanities divide meme would have you believe.

You're just as much a part of the problem you faggot. GO read a book

Yeah, okay bud. Just give me a #2 with a medium Barq's Root Beer.

>how do you prove with science what's the point of living?
Go ask a neuroscientist to define the base directive of human organisms or use google you science-denying brainlet.

>and abortion is good or bad?
Define good, define bad...
Since I'm a generous person we assume the definition of good is "allowing the things people believe in to continue".
So the answer is: It depends on the culture. If people in your community think you're carrying the anti-christ, it's a good thing to abort it. If people perceive abortion to be equivalent to murder, then it's bad to do it. Pretty simple.

>and what is beauty?
Oh, you're 12. Use google, kiddo.

Have you even read philosophy? It's not about 'the why' as you claim. Philosophy deals with its own specific set of problems. These include things like the Gettier problem, where it seems possible to have justified true belief that isn't knowledge.

As much as I enjoy reading philosophy, this is shitty bait. Philosophy has nothing to do with 'the why'. It has to do with foundational problems concerning how one acquires knowledge or what reality is made of.

>Go ask a neuroscientist to define the base directive of human organisms or use google you science-denying brainlet
That's one of the most naive things I've ever read.

\thread

Your picture is very human-centrist and you should apologize. The right term is still science, for it covers knowledge of all living beings, whom holds the right to free thought and feelings.

>the why
doesn't exist
therefor not important outside of personal searching, the world is built on science. Everything you see throughout any point in time, required science and mathematics to create.

> science works its ass off to pull off the impossible
> humanities can only tell you trivialities