Who do I believe Veeky Forums?

Who do I believe Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baзюлин,_Bиктop_Aлeкceeвич
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вазюлин,_Виктор_Алексеевич
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I believe this is shitty bait

Only correct answer is Jesus Christ.

Advanced math and science is literally advanced philosophy.

>Old views vs new views
What's so controversial about this? Views change over time.

Krauss is spot on on philosophy of science.

Dawkins is barely a scientist. Bill Nye is an engineer. NDT is a meme.

Left column are scientists who shaped science in the XX century.

If you want a real comparison put Hawking, Susskind, and maybe Kakuo (if you want meme power) in the right column.

Do they change for the better or for the worse, though?

both are wrong, don't fall for false dichotomies. the left row supports what essentially is idealism, pushing nature in the plane of metaphysics and reserving that study for idealist philosophers who are akin to theologicians. The right row is a sort of vulgar materialism, characteristic of highly specialized positivists. They both try to detach society and the material conditions in which society functions and evolves from the scientific method, hence both views are wrong. But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic, and the neoliberal establishment makes sure those don't exist in universities. So today's materialism only exists within the realm of stem, and detached from society. As for philosophy, history and economics, those fields get castrated so they cannot actually produce work with scientific methodology, but function simply as neoliberal apologia.

However, that image shouldn't group Einstein with religious conservative idealists, since they don't mean the same when they talk about philosophy and methodology

the fact that philosophers are so desperate to prove that they aren't worthless should tell you everything. the bill nye quote simply says he is skeptical of something and that is enough to rustle your jimmies

>But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic
Marx may have been right about the overall direction of capitalism, but he was a complete fool when he said that philosophy's job is to change the world rather than understand it, that was monstrously irresponsible of him.
There is nothing that prognosticates a worker's dictatorship after capitalism, it could be anything. I'm of the view that while it's true that the material conditions of a society determine its ideology, that ideology can take many, many forms.

>But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic

wrong

>But to study history and sociology in a scientific way, one would have to be a marxist academic

Wtf is this load of shit?

You were an arts major werent you

Meme pop-sci celebrities vs actual scientists. Gee, I wonder.

Philosophy is a bunch of people sitting in a room competing who has the better argument with the information they have. Whether that information may be much, little, true or false has actually never mattered.

> characteristic of highly specialized positivists. They both try to detach society and the material conditions in which society functions and evolves from the scientific method,

THIS IS NOT WHAT POSITIVISM IS

>Basing you beliefs off of what other people believe and not through deep introspection Untermensch af

>There is nothing that prognosticates a worker's dictatorship after capitalism, it could be anything.

You are wrong. The only class with a revolutionary potential is the one that's the most exploited in the current system, which is why only the proletariat can bring forth social change through a revolution. You should actually read Marx to understand his work, not his wikipedia article or random snippets you'll hear "socialists" in your college quoting. Marx's work is extremely complicated and represents a fundamental revolution in political economy and the study of history. Marx's dialectic is the forefront when it comes to those fields.

not even close

no, it's something positivists simply tend to do. they detach science from society, as if it functions in some separate bubble that's not subject to ruling class ideology. most of them unironically believe that "the world's problems would all be solved if we all just thought logically guyz!!!", especially the meme celebrity tier ones.

Philosophyfags sure are mad that they studied a useless form of mental masturbation.

Why do philosophyfags keep making threads on Veeky Forums? How insecure do they have to be?

this

Liberals are like a cancer so I say for the worse.

science works, for sure
your political ideology might be garbage and you don't even know it

Philosophy is so great. I sure do love communism and fee fees over facts.

hahah XDDD someone with a certain political leaning is a "cancer"
go back to pol

marxism is science. it's literally the scientific approach to studying political economy and human history.

>shitposting
>pol boogeyman knee jerk reaction

way to go brainlet.

Liberals make up the vast majority of scientists user.

...

Thanks for proving that Dawkins is based.

telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

wheelchair man is projecting methinks

there is only scientist i trust, rick.

that cannot happen due to the internal contradictions of monopoly capitalism. as wealth accumulates in the hands of the few, cycles of austerity and stimulus are going to produce more unemployment and more financial crises like the 2008 one.

you are wrong, because you don't understand marxist methodology. don't throw terms like "dialectical materialism" as if you understand them when you haven't actually read marx or engels. it's as cringy as people who watch the big bang theory throwing physics buzzwords thinking they are physicists.

vaziulin's "logic of history"

>vaziulin's "logic of history"
link? can't find it online (which is telling)

doesn't exist in english.

>it's telling

of the fact that scientific methodology in the study of history and political economy has no place in neoliberal academia.

Did you just make that up

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baзюлин,_Bиктop_Aлeкceeвич

his books also exist in greek and german.

>tfw people who don't even speak 5 languages exist

sad desu

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вазюлин,_Виктор_Алексеевич

that link doesn't seem to work

>can you point me to some recent philosophy of science papers that are actually worth reading?
no one has done this yet

i did though, not my fault you only speak your native language pleb

Your comparing award winning, field changing scientist to a couple pop scientist.

That's exactly what the picture is comparing. Which column do you think have made more money from their philosophies(aka popularity)? And which do you think have more value?

Yes and no.

>Wikipedia does not have an article with this name.

Both into girls and not, shordingers dick :^)

try the 2nd link

>deriding philosophy and philosophers
>criticism of schools of thought, concepts and culture is philosophy
>what is epistemology?
>what is ontology?
>what is motherfucking LOGIC?

this is what happens when you stay in a yes-man bubble

your ego-consciousness gets elevated to a status higher than God and you turn into one of those fedoracores on the right

also if you think the problems of Being-in-the-world can be solved by empiricist rationality then motherfucking lol