Science and Philosophy: different brains?

"Philosophical cognition is rational cognition from concepts, mathematical cognition that from the construction of concepts.5 But to construct a concept means to exhibit a priori the intuition corresponding to it. "
Critique of Pure Reason, B741/A713

"Philosophical cognition thus considers the particular only in the universal, but mathematical cognition considers the universal in the particular, indeed even in the individual, yet nonetheless a priori and by means of reason"
CPR, B742/A714

>"Philosophical cognition is rational cognition from concepts, mathematical cognition that from the construction of concepts.5 But to construct a concept means to exhibit a priori the intuition corresponding to it. "
>Critique of Pure Reason, B741/A713
dus

Philosophers think both concrete and abstract.
For example the whole logic is based on concrete premises and conclusions which are obiously true, after that they abstract from it and take not concrete terms, but abstractions like here is an x there is a b or something like that. The result is formal logic and with that they compare concrete premises and their conclusions with the logic form that fits, if they are equivalent then they are correct.

No, read more philosophy. A lot of the greatest philosophers conclude that Hegel is a meme. Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Socrates would have roasted the shit out of Hegel.

>philosophy is an art
Surely the mother of all science is an art. Philosphers think about methodology, logic, experience, but it´s art according to your postulate.

>it's completely subjective
So Schopenhauer was completly subjective when he wrote that time and space are the principium individuationis or Aristotle who wrote that all humans seek knowledge.

Noob.

No, but philosophers think in abstract ways more clearly than, say, mathematicians. Mathematicians who think as clearly as philosophers are usually themselves philosophers.

>Surely the mother of all science is an art
Semantics. Natural philosophy is an old term for actual science
If you want you can look at philosophy as an outdated way to do natural science
Also musicians think about methodology and experience
>time and space are the principium individuationis or Aristotle who wrote that all humans seek knowledge
these really aren't great insights

That's continental philosophy famalam.
You realise aspects of science, like the scientific method, are a branch of philosophy?

>time and space are the principium individuationis or Aristotle who wrote that all humans seek knowledge.
>these really aren't great insights.
Maybe they aren´t great, but they are important and true and objective premises. For example without knowing that all humans seek knowledge you would certainly don´t trust any human when they tell you an assertion, you would become crazy sooner or later, because of the lack of trust that would lead to everyone disbelieving each other and thus becoming paranoid. Imagine your gf saying that she doesn't cheat on you, and you would not believe her, because you would always think that she is lying, or a scientist who makes his result public that substance X is a poison, you would not believe him and maybe test this substance on yourself. Knowing such premises that seem unimpressive is indeed important, you should love them as common as they are.

jesus christ man you have no idea what you're talking about

Mathfag here, only scienceplebs and engiqueers think concretely. They can't imagine anything that isn't in front of them.

Anyone can learn math if they want to, but not everyone can independently grapple with deeper ineffable philosophical ideas.
People incapable of this are primarily found studying "college level" philosophy

Philosophers don't exist anymore. At least mathematicians are still around.

Many fields of mathematics are much more abstract than philosophy could ever be.

Philosophy must be tied back to reality in a somewhat direct way or else it fails to be philosophy. Mathematics is not constrained by this. Mathematical objects can be generalized and abstracted many times over until what is left is pretty far removed from anything concrete ( category theory, topos theory etc etc)

I'd say even a deeper understanding and appreciation for math is not accessible to someone who is uninterested in or incapable of thinking in terms of philosophy.

Its physics because more women get into philosophy because le ekzestential kriziz and thus lower the IQ

I'd say yes, because philosophy deals primarily with abstract concepts. The only real concrete thing about philosophy is the words the philosophers put on the paper. It's much easier to understand that two plus two equals four rather than to explain it.

physicspleb here.

aren't you disappointed that you can apply zero of what you "imagine" usefully to the reality we live in?

also, if you think man-made math contains more conceptual beauty than nature itself, well, I'd ask you to think again

>Philosophy must be tied back to reality in a somewhat direct way or else it fails to be philosophy.

Nope, just like mathematicians create math that doesnt make any sense in reality.

>reality
>nature
lol, what is it like to be a brainlet no better than an artsfag.

No. You need the concreteness to think abstractly and science/mathematics are still philosophy, far more abstract and specified. The usual canon "philosophy" is largely generalisations and relatively simple systems of ideas. Science/mathematics are far more complex and deriving from some of those "relatively simple systems of ideas".

In short, it's obviously not true as science/mathematics is significantly more abstract. There is no dichotomy or opposing.

>I mean surely the critique of pure reason is a greater intellectual achievement than say general relativity
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHA
no

triggered.
Scientists just got their methodolgy interpretation and background assumptions from the ether, right?

Philosophy used to be the main branch of universities and important schools, and science just a subcategory. Really, all are based on using our rational capacities, with science also using observations, whereas maths and philosophy tend to work purely on concepts.
Numbers themselves aren't natural, just a concept of the human mind

>If you want you can look at philosophy as an outdated way to do natural science.
Maybe you think that because you think of old philosophers, which are particularly outdated. Philosophers of our time are well aware of scientific progress and would never ignore that in their work.
>Also musicians think about methodology and experience.
Yes they do, but philosphers think about all methodology and experience not just the parts that are needed in music or other arts.

>The Greens function plays the role of propagator in QFT
Please give a philosophical statement as abstract as this one.

How is this a science board if there's no sources at all for the claims here?

science is just a method, a way of doing philosophy

holy shit is this post a joke?
(or is sci really filled with college kids who have no actual experience with science?)

OP, ignore this shithole. No one in Veeky Forums has a single idea of philosophy, and you should ask these shits in Veeky Forums.

Kant has the greatest mind of all time

>Believing that empirical knowledge is relevant to mathematics
Wow, how embarrassing for you.

Math is pretty meta-physical, math stemmed from philosophy. At the highest levels of math it's very meta-physical, even the low levels.

>This is what scienceplebs actually believe.
lol how can these people be so wrong