Has philosophy come up with any relevant questions or answer regarding science in 21th century?

all the "questions" you mentioned were already established before the 21st centry. and you didn't mention a single "answer". so the answer to OP's question is "no". the cringe part is where you keep trying to take credit for physicists work

Give some non-obvious examples.

Ok, but philosophy can answer none of those questions but empirical science can.

>next you're going to say: "but it's philosophy to ask those questions in the first place."

So was the Kopenhagen interpretation physics or philosophy to you?

Sematics, and only scientists are qualified to answer that.

Modern philosophy is mostly just circle jerking liberal arts with far and few between people who actually know a little bit about science.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh.

Science didn't "evolve from philosophy" you pretentious moron. Science was the best part of philosophy until it separated itself from the bullshit. Now the only things left are mostly purile horsecrap, much like your posts. Logic and epistemology are still useful and interesting, but that's about all.

I can tell by the way you write you're a pseud.

and yet still no one has given a decent answer to OP's question

They've constructed mathematically novel logics, but they are really only of interest to philosophers. If philosophers were answering scientific questions they would be scientists. With regards to philosophy *of* science, I think the new stuff surrounding constructive empiricism is interesting but I wouldn't actually know because I have no training in philosophy.

>relevant
>only of interest to philosophers

Century's young yet, though there's lots of philosophies centering around how to best set up meta-sciences where one attempts to take a holistic approach in cross-field efforts, which is becoming increasingly important as folks become more and more specialized, and thus blind to things happening outside their fields that are potentially relevant to them. This has lead to fields of study that help us better comprehend things like feedback systems that, in many cases, were classically considered isolated from one another. As well as various procedural philosophies aimed at creating policies to best avoid confirmation bias and other such empirical pitfalls.

...And I do wish more physicists would take a year or two of philosophy, and that Ph.D. stood for what it once did, as then we wouldn't get this crap where a hidden variable means "everything is random". Any first year phil student knows that fundamentally unpredictable does not mean fundamentally undetermined... as should any phys post-grad who understands basic block universe consequence of relativity, but alas, better to make things even more mysterious than they are. [/rant]

Some of them are sophisticated mathematical constructions, good analytically oriented philosophy departments don't fuck around with that stuff. Why should they be of interest to anyone else? Do you make the same demand on mathematicians or people in esoteric research areas in the empirical sciences?

>Why should they be of interest to anyone else?
Because otherwise they are pointless. Sure most math research is not of interest to non-mathematicians, but eventually something breaks through and gets used by others. This does not seem to happen in philosophy for decades now

>Do you make the same demand on mathematicians or people in esoteric research areas in the empirical sciences?
Yes.

Yes. Pedagogy and other transmission of knowledge

>Epistemology is cucked by Mathematical Logic
>Ethics and Metaphysics are cucked by Theology
>Natural Philosophy is cucked by Mathematics and its corollary sciences

Philosophy is dead.

How is the Kopenhagen interpretation only semantics?
It makes fundamental assumptions about the way the world works, such as nature being intrinsically random.
Of course, this was done mostly by scientists, but I think that's because at the time of its writing, the only ones that remotely knew what was going on were scientists. Now would be the time to elaborate further on the interpretation and possible other explanations (like Einstein was looking for) of QM

its 100 years old though. OP asked about 21st century

>engineering is like getting a fucking fleshlight
Fixed.

i could have done better
>engineering is like fucking a fleshlight and thinking you found yourself a pussy

Science literally is philosophy, but philosophy isn't a science.

In case you don't get it or think it's something 2deep, I'm saying science is a tool of philosophy.

Why is there the need to separate science from philosophy (it can't be separated, but whatever) I don't know.

Does people even know what "philosophy" means any more? I mean the literal sense of the word, the "friend of knowledge" thing? Fucking hell....

This right over here.

I agree on that.
I'm not enough into scientific philosophy to know of any more recent developments though (shame on me), which I am almost certain there are.

theres free access to the uni of Minnesota's philosophy of science 14 volume series. It's pretty good and worth reading if you have spare time.

i wouldn't be so certain

Then let's keep waiting, our century is still young :)

lol ok. i wouldn't hold your breath

>confuses laughter and cringing with making an arguments
Brainlets, when will they learn?

you guys keep talking shit but still no one has given an example of philosophy producing anything relevant in 21st century

1. We're only 17 years into the century.
2. No one's arguing that philosophy contributes at the same rate that STEM does.
3. Relax, buttermilk.

Whats the point of new problems in this century if we cannot solve problems from centuries ago. Hume's problem is the biggest criticism about science and scientist cannot argue it

>engineering is like thinking boy pussy is better than real pussy

you could go back 50 years and they still have not accomplished anything. please continue defending your circlejerk bullshit

>we wouldn't get this crap where a hidden variable means "everything is random".
>Any first year phil student knows that fundamentally unpredictable does not mean fundamentally undetermined
And I wish phiosophy students would learn the science they talk about before talking about it. Science doesn't make any statement contradicting your second point. It doesn't say the universe is probabilistic because thats the best we can do. It's the best we can do because the universe is probabilistic. there are no hidden variables unless you want to believe in some tinfoil-tier theories.
side note, the fact that you used that image clearly shows your ignorance in both philosophy, science, and general rhetoric.

>future is fixed
>fundamentally probabilistic
pick one.

the future is not fixed. please explain where you're getting this bullshit from. Didn't work for Einstein, I doubt you'll do much better.

>I don't understand the basic realities of relativity, the post
Google block universe. Counter the most fundamental precept in physical science, while still explaining why your GPS works, then come back to me.

Not that people aren't trying, but so far, no one's succeeded.

this is the arrogance of philosophers...You come up with random unsupported/irrelevant shit and act like everyone else should know it or take it seriously. Either make an argument or fuck off. I'm not going to read 100 pages and make your argument for you.

This is the arrogance of your typical undereducated Veeky Forums user who believes quantum-woo gives dogs souls.

This is high school level shit, fundamental laws of physics, supported thousand of times every day by undergraduate student training, and that we all use every day, unlike the unsupported/irrelevant shit you're alluding to. Philosophy doesn't enter into it. If yer not out of high school yet, or went to high school in the hood, and have no attention span, pick up any of the 10,0000 basic 10 minute pop-sci videos on the subject on Youtube that explain it to you.

>who believes quantum-woo gives dogs souls
I have no idea where you're getting that from. Are you traumatized from previous arguments?
>pick up any of the 10,0000 basic 10 minute pop-sci videos on the subject on Youtube that explain it to you.
that's the problem. all I see is a bunch of blogs and shit like this
youtube.com/watch?v=d17U0Bgj0lk
it is certainly not fundamental science.
You sound like any other philosophy undergrad child that thinks he's learning the secrets of the universe yet can't explain any of it and can only retort with "he hasn't read X". last chance, make an argument or go fuck yourself. or you could save your ego, not even try to support any statement you've said, and leave thinking I didn't accept your statements because i'm a in highschool or worse. I don't give a fuck.

>talking about Einstein believing that "god doesn't play dice"
>somehow this is related to relativity
You do know he was saying that about the Kopenhagen interpretation I referenced multiple times earlier above, right?

Not him, but the block universe, and the fixed future and past it demands, is a fundamental concept in relativity, and yeah, they covered that in High School when I was young as well. They still teach it in various educational programs for youngin's, such as:

youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks
youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
bbc.com/earth/story/20170206-physics-suggests-that-the-future-is-already-set-in-stone

There are other views, but so far as I know, they all either involve faster than light interactions or otherwise have not been brought in line with current observations. The lady you linked there, if you follow her videos, is actually part of the effort to disprove the fundamental fact, as she doesn't like its philosophical consequences.

And that's where he is wrong, in that philosophy does enter into it, as when combined with the fact that it doesn't give you any additional predictive power from your own frame of reference, it begs the question as to how real things outside your light cone really are. Except that, well, it does come up at non-relativistic speeds and shorter distances, only the effect is so miniscule it can barely be measured.

No. Who cares? It's no more or less productive than most human endeavours, and it's interesting while also allowing for us to develop better ways of approaching abstract problems in an organised fashion

If only there were some debates going on as to the exact nature of life or something. I heard those actually count as philosophy.

>Not him, but the block universe, and the fixed future and past it demands, is a fundamental concept in relativity
Huh, never heard about it before and took both theoretical mechanics (with special relativity included) and general relativity.
The way I understand it is, everything in your light cone can be observed, anything outside it cannot, except for when you quantum entangle two particles, but even then the information cannot be transferred faster than light since they must have been in the same light cone at some point in order to be entangled in the first place.
How would one go about combining the probabilistic nature of QM which as far as i know has not ever been proven wrong, with a fully predetermined universe?

>epistemology
>useful and interesting
Anyone who says this is not qualified to speak.

Richard Dawkins is the only reputable one on there, but he isn't really saying philosophy is bad either. It's not fair to compare the other three to their leftward counterpart.

>implying engineers are smart enough to understand a universal truth like that

Philosophy gave us Rick and Morty.

see

I think this is the exact problem. People in this discussion have different definitions of philosophy

>How would one go about combining the probabilistic nature of QM which as far as i know has not ever been proven wrong, with a fully predetermined universe?
The way it was always waved away is that while the universe is predetermined, it isn't fully predictable from any single reference frame (I mean, hell, by QM, even the present isn't fully definable). The other hand wave I got was that it was one of the GUT issues, but, in addition to further examination kinda poo-poo'ing that, both pretty thoroughly proven, so that route does rather make one's head itch.

science alone could never determine how we live.

the way we live is, of course, influenced heavily by science, but also by poltical, cultural, religious thought and also by economic theory (not exactly a hard science).

even fluff like gender theory and poststructuralism has had consequences for the consciousness of west. meanwhile, many insights in theoretical physics and mathematics lack a proper application.

People saying philosophy is useless don't seem to understand what philosophy is. When the potential solutions to a problem are empirically falsifiable, then that problem is a scientific one. When potential solutions to a problem are not empirically falsifiable, all we can do is reason about it, and that's what philosophy is. Philosophy doesn't make progress in the same way that science does because it can't rule out wrong answers. This isn't because philosophy is worse than science, it's a product of the nature of the questions each field deals with. Philosophical problems are just epistemically more difficult than scientific problems.

Philosophy and the humanities kind of deconstructed themselves with their linguistic turn, postmodernism, poststructuralism and so forth making any metaphysic, clear value system or epistomology impossible.

>while the universe is predetermined, it isn't fully predictable from any single reference frame
No, it's not determinaba from any number of reference frames, since a measurement in any one of them will change your state significantly enough that the measurements in any other frames are also affected.

I´m the last in line as Dio said. Read my propaedeutics of science. And my work on the topic of psychosis that is groundbreaking. Both in the future to come.

The scientific method in ideal execution can lead us to know everything except for the validity of certain unfalsifiable axioms that it cannot itself address.

I should add, it relies on those axioms to function

there is a sphere of ultimate questions and answers which are unaddressable by science

Philosophy graduate here

I don't know because I didn't take philosophy of science, but I'm guessing the answer is "no"

Philosophy is just a fucking circlejerk to be hones

It is a circlejerk, but one with far-reaching consequences. Modern economics, politics, culture would be unthinkable without philosophy.

Same guy here, philosophy grad

Yes philosophy has historically been of huge importance - the ideas of the most famous philosophers (Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hobbes, [insert your favourite philosophers here]) have been hugely influential on all those areas you mention.

The academic philosophy that is produced these days though is basically just circlejerking - I mean it is sort of interesting I guess, like it is interesting to try and make a watertight argument to say that "knowledge" = "justified true belief", but it's not really of any importance to anyone or anything. There are no perfect definitions, so such arguments are just fucking stupid.

But I do think studying a philosophy degree has value because it's difficult and it shows you're somebody who isn't stupid. Philosophy graduates are always ranked pretty highly for IQ and mathematical/verbal aptitude.

HOWEVER I would advise anybody thinking of studying philosophy to do something that is more practical, probably. Do STEM because there's tons of jobs in that shit. Although I guess if you like humanities and you want to become something like a journalist, then philosophy is one of the best humanities - I mean I'm biased so I'll probably say it's the best.

>science in twenty-firth century?

>Philosophy is just a fucking circlejerk
As a fellow philosophy graduate, I feel I am justified in telling you to go fuck yourself. If all you took out of a degree in philosophy was "circlejerk," you have failed to grasp the entire point and you have wasted your money and time. The reason the field's reputation has gone to shit is because most of its graduates are morons like yourself who only majored in it because they didn't know what else to pick and figured philosophy would be the easiest option. All the courses/expectations/requirements are becoming easier as time passes because of brainlets like yourself not understanding what the fuck the whole point of philosophy is and making the professors feel like they're too tough on you when you graduate with a 2.7. Fuck you.

Interaction of the century 10/10

Can you tell more about the value of philosophy?

It's a hard question to answer, not because the answer is difficult to explain but because if you have to ask the question, odds are you are not going to find the answer satisfactory. People who actually understand and have a passion for philosophy do it for the same reason mathematicians do theoretical math. The vast majority of mathematics used/discussed in academics is completely useless to the outside world (that's why there's an entire field known as applied mathematics). In the same way, the vast majority of philosophy is also completely useless to the rest of the world (perhaps to a greater extent than math, but that's besides the point). If you ask an actual philosopher/mathematician why they do philosophy/math when, odds are, none of their efforts will reflect in tangible, real-world value, they're not going to know how to answer your question and any attempt they make at doing so will ultimately prove unsatisfactory to yourself and others who do not share in the fields' appreciation.

could you comment the sentiment that philosophy dug its own grave with the "linguistic turn", after which all of philosophy turned into a fruitless analysis of itself (the use of language)?

I wouldn't say philosophy "dug its own grave." I think the differences between analytic and continental philosophy are lessening as time passes, as is evidenced by the advent of many philosophers today who do not identify with any specific category. The rise in the 70s and 80s was mainly due to American philosophers wanting to distance themselves from the study of the history of philosophy and align more with the mathematics and logic behind it, but I believe that sentiment has largely subsided.

Whether or not analytic philosophy is still predominantly favored today, I cannot confidently say, but I do know that philosophers all over the world don't really give a fuck about each other and they're not going to stop researching what interests them just because the "philosophy atmosphere" has shifted.

thanks. so we simply have two separate schools now, wherein one obsesses with creating an exact language (analytic) and the other embraces the constructionist notion of language always being arbitrary (continental)?

what are some figures you regard to be the most important contemporary (!) philosophers?

Too long didn't read

He's the typical stuck up wanker that you meet on any philosophy course

He's the kind of cunt I used to bully

The problem is that the only people who can actually appreciate the interpretations of quantum mechanics and make statements about said interpretation are people trained in QM disqualifying basically all modern philosophers

>simply have two separate schools now
Not to the degree there used to be, say, 40 years ago, but yes.

>always being arbitrary
I wouldn't call it arbitrary, just structuralist. I don't think any philosophers would argue that the genealogy of language is ultimately arbitrary. They just don't assume it's ubiquitous.

>what are some figures you regard to be the most important contemporary (!) philosophers?
I think philosophy today is in the weakest state it has ever been in a long time (partly because of complete faggots like ) but its future is quite promising. I can't give you a top three of my favorite philosophers but I can tell you that if you check the departments in the Leiter 10, you'll find a bunch of rising stars.

No, nothing new happens. It just happens to new people.

...

After the early Greeks, after the Romans, after all the teeming multitudes of insightful Christian philosophers, then after EVERYTHING ELSE THAT STILL FOLLOWED, in the very field that is most dependent on the thinker's mental aptitudes and only on the merit of ideas, after all this untold line of thinking in terms of length and density AND the works of those who have compressed and synthesized as much of it as they can, you are surprised that philosophy isn't encountering any great ideas these days? Such a question only reveals one thing, nothing about philosophy, but the lack of knowledge with the former on the part of the questioner.

As for the value of philosophy, it is twofold: A) in allowing one to think deeply about the complexities of life that all of us have to choose to deal with in one way or another, and B) revealing the truths about human nature, society, and the universe.

see

I never said I was surprised. You are the stupid one for assuming that I was. It's hilarious that you needed a degree to learn common sense

The iver to prolong into the evident. Sorry for maybe lacking fully conception. But you fouls are lacking some validity. What about analytical philosophy. Analytical empericism. This is what is called pure logic. Not just what's observed. It is what it tells you analyse and reason with knowlege. To achieve hard truth. You can also get low truths. They talk about this phenomenon in buddhism aswell. Not only in western cult. I dunno if this answers for OP or thread so far. The truth is eternal here. Because you cannot question the truth to be wrong. Until evidently we get new forms for understandings that turns everything we know on the head. But that's for low truths mostly. Basically that's philosophy orderly given. It's like proving someone that the potato is unedible because with dirt on it could aswell be a shit. And that shit were banned for over a decade. See where im going. That became truth. So the collectically knowlege must be right to. What if we are somehow wrong then. I mean people are still beliving in Jesus. And the bible. So the truth is not always the truth when delusional character may arrogantly and ignorantly alter the very nature of what's begiven, reasonable and sensible. Pristine is the truth over all truths. The righteous touch of things we understand, and things we don't is the key to the realm of enlightment. Hope i didn't go way overboard again.

Type theory, which has major applications in CS, was originally developed by an analytic philosopher.

Godel's incompleteness theorem was a response to Whitehead & Russel, both philosophers.

A lot of post-1940 investigations into sex and gender had to break away from science to show that a narrow, biological view of gender fails to capture all the nuance we see in society.

Questions about Epistemology and Metaphysics will always be impossible for science to answer, but have profound implications for science.

Philosophy of the Mind is full of debates that science can't (currently) answer.

OP here. Yea, but I'm interested to know if philosophy has contributed to hard science in any way in the 21st century.

To which field and how?

Or even in the last 30 years.

philosophy of science has moved away from the view that scientific explanations must appeal to laws of nature and have moved towards a view that scientific explanations rely on representing the mechanisms that create phenomenon. this new mechanist position has somewhat undermined the notion of there being hard and soft sciences, has led to discussions of whether or not mechanist explanations are ontic or epistemic, and has largely been ignored by the scientific community (which always happens with new developments in philosophy of science, they'll pick up on it in a couple decades)

it hasn't. this thread has proved it

Not only do we no longer teach Philosophy in school - we apparently no longer teach literacy.

you are the illiterate one for thinking any of those posts gave an example to OP's question

>Yea, but I'm interested to know if philosophy has contributed to hard science in any way in the 21st century.
>Or even in the last 30 years.
Yeah, if radically changing the way science is done, the way fields communicate with one another, as well as redefining standards for empiricism itself, as those posts imply, doesn't count as contributing, then yeah.

Otherwise, you're just plugging your ears while blindfolded, or asking philosophy to do things that, if it had done them, would be considered science.

>philosophy in 21st century
>radically changing the way science is done, the way fields communicate with one another, as well as redefining standards for empiricism itself
fucking lol this is getting sad

I didn't ask for a wall of explanatory jargon.
Give me a name and a work by that name if there is one.