Why don't scientists know philosophy?

>Current state of scientists
Christ have mercy

The shere idiocy of comments like these depresses me more than most things. You are literally making a philosophical claim you complete retard.

Philosophy != retarded person having a daydream

triggered
God doesn't exist.
Absolutely no reason to think that the first cause is sentient.

Oh, it's b8

Not bait. Inflammatory language because I don't like you, but not bait.

Kk, well you actually are retarded. I'd suggest thinking through things and checking the integrity of your claims before posting. Also, the moment you get angry at someone over the internet, you've lost. (anger always stems from fear or pain, most people know this intuitively and will discredit the validity of anyone who appears angry.—academically speaking, at least)

No one was discussing God's existence. It's almost as if you're trying to conform to a certain stereotype.

Veeky Forums likes to shit on philosophers and engineers

engineers dont feel the need to defend themselves, but philosophers do

i wonder why, maybe because deep down they know they are useless

Okay Yoda.

Rick and Morty fans.

But engineers do defend themselves by mentioning "muh jobs".

>e.g. Hawking, Dawkins

You are now aware that having an "awk" in your name predisposes you to scientific greatness, but for some reason many scientists hide this from the public.

>Max Plawk
>Awkemides
>Francis Crawk
>Tawko Brahe
>Paul Dirawk

this is a particularly amusing debate during which dawkins is informed about epistemology by the archbishop of canterbury
youtube.com/watch?v=jzqa6VMI0UQ

>learning our fields
Scientists all assume epistemology and realism/instrumentalism without even knowing it. It's part of their field, they should know it.

because science is popularly accepted as what "smart" people pursue,even though scientists don't actually invent anything and just piggy back off of engineers

philosophy requires self analysis and critique of ones own intelligence, and most scientists rather avoid concepts that interfere with their materialist world view.

Philosophy: The love of wisdom
>can't pass peer review
>physicists don't like philosophy any more

>scientists don't actually invent anything and just piggy back off of engineers
Engineers apply scientific knowledge to projects. They do nothing but use the work of scientists. They invent nothing. If you wanted to improve microprocessors, you would be a physicist or chemist (as all who have created/improved them have been) not any kind of engineer, indeed if you had engineer education and did so, then you would be scientist by action anyway.

>philo requires self analysis and critique of ones own intelligence
Except it doesn't. It's mostly about dick-sucking dead people and projecting convoluted, intentionally elitist, shallow rhetoric onto simplistic statements. It is extremely regressive and most of its body of work offers nothing but inconsistent fiction, little of it does anything for the mind except to become good at unraveling the meaningless, convoluted knots of pet fiction. As exercise for the brain, it function nicely but gives little more. About 1% of that body is useful and should be read by all, the rest should be dismissed as lower than our posts. As they are lower.

>scientists rather avoid concepts that interfere with their materialist world view
What world-view isn't materialistic? It is the default assumption, anything else is baseless fiction and unconscious desire. You can't have a world-view of the nonexistent. Other concepts arise out of lack of fortitude and virtue to explore aspects of the material, explaining them away with controllable fiction. Materialism is the natural and unavoidable state of mind, one unmarred by fictitious religion and culture. To go beyond it is to make an unfounded leap of faith. Not even of assumption, as assumption requires some base or indication to derive from. Non-materialism has none, so it is pure faith.

So you would rather be dead, brain-dead or a small unformed child? It is not "cooler", it's shallow and trite in comparison to actually looking at the universe. It is pure escapism.

What's the 1% that you consider useful? Personally, philosophy is useful to me for understanding the underlying assumptions that mould our language and assumptions - the scaffolding of our thinking, so to speak.

Here is the truth: Sciece is just modern Philosophy. We're still trying to answer the same questions as always. What are we? Where do we come from? Why are things the way they are? Except that now these questions are much more complex and involve a lot of more things, as Philosophy has evolved. Those who clinge to "Philosophy" are actually just too stupid to understand current Philosophy so they study the Philosophy from hundreds of thousands of years ago, what those people study isn't really "Philosophy". It would be the equivalent of teaching a college student Aristotelean Physics and say that's a high level understanding of Physics.

>that mould our language and assumptions
*that mould our language and thinking
fix'd

The difference is that everybody needs philosophy, but not everybody needs algebraic geometry.

Veeky Forums has a very noticeable circlejerk of math students that think everyone is inferior to them

chemists, engineers, physicists, all get along.

>didn't take philosophy in college, thereby limited to default input/output settings.

doesn't realize consciousness is multidimensional

How or Why? Is it useful? Be humble. You will change. Learn from others like your already have. Sorry im kinda drunk

This is exactly what I was thinking

Get yourself together man