What I hate is that when philosophers ask questions like "What happened before Big Bang?", "What is consiciousness?"...

What I hate is that when philosophers ask questions like "What happened before Big Bang?", "What is consiciousness?", "Does objective reality exist?", "Does past and future exist? What is time?" and so forth

what they very very extremely very often forget is that

ALL these questions are fundamentally answered by PHYSICS. Like, there actually is or IS NOT ""empirical""" evidence to answer these questions.

When you ask a question like "What is time" you are unevitably talking about physical things. The answer will be found in PHYSICS. The answer will really be a real existing thing in PHYSICAL realm.

Like there is no other ways to ANSWER any questions. Questions are ANSWERED by finding physical correspondence in reality.

Of course you can identify answer as anything. I could say right now that "time is a yellow" but thats not an ANSWER thats just garbage OPINION.

Like the ANSWER actually is a thing. It is an actual fist that demolishes your skull and rapes your children and wife. ANSWER is not a phantasmal imaginary ghost spirit boohoo spooky.

>What I hate is that when philosophers ask questions like "What happened before Big Bang?"
>ALL these questions are fundamentally answered by PHYSICS.
so what's the answer?

nibba physics dont answer nuffin it just measure shit ye heard you run ur fkn greek mowf like that one more time and im gna fkn jump you

Yo what is physics?

Physics is not true, at a fundamental level physics is false. Physics is simply a tool. A tool which allows us to make predictions about the world we live in on a bunch of different levels of analysis.

But as far as philosophical truth goes, physics is false.

>has literally never contributed a clear or useful answer to any situation in history
>still feels it has the authority to declare false a discipline which has profoundly changed the world

This. For a long time while I was studying math and physics I was under the impression that our world IS math, it IS physics. Finally I came to an important revelation. An electron is something which actually exists. Physics and math only exist on paper. The actual material existence of things is very different than the models we use to describe their behavior

Honestly I find philosophy interesting sometimes but then I remember this sentiment

It's basically the definition of philosophy that it studies questions that there might not be a definite answer to. If there becomes a more rigorous methodology for studying these questions, then it branches off into its own field (see: physics, economics, linguistics, etc.). Taking issue with philosophy because it doesn't give concrete answers is like taking issue with physics because it doesn't tell you how to do your taxes.

Science is philosophy, it's a rational way of studying the physical world.

Note I say physical, which makes the the name physics quite ironic. Physics has become metaphysical, it is conceptual, non-physical.

>I can measure time so I know what time is
Kill yourself my man.

Philosophy had it's place during ancient times, but science has basically made philosophy obsolete

t.brainlet

Can you explain the difference between philosophy and science?

>I don't understand the simple fact that some questions are beyond physics.
We can tell.

A degree in science can feed a family of four?

>god created the universe
Who created god?

>Can you explain the difference between philosophy and science?
philosophers gave birth to the scientific method, but scientists are the ones who came up with scientific theories like gravity, climate change, etc.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and information.

Philosophy is what places value on that knowledge and information and gives it meaning.

Only if you do the "right" science.

So philosophers came up with the scientific method, but they aren't scientists? I fail to see how they are different.

>Science is the pursuit of knowledge and information.

Philosophy isn't?

>So philosophers came up with the scientific method, but they aren't scientists? I fail to see how they are different.
Because they don't use the scientific method, the people who do are the scientists

Similarly, people who manufacture drugs at drug companies don't usually use the drug themself

The division is very simple. I'll use global warming as an example I genuinely hope it doesn't derail the thread.

>Is the globe warming?
>Are humans a contributor?
>How much does the global temp change?
>How often does global temp change?
These are questions answered by scientists.
These are questions that can be answered as empirical facts.

>Does it even matter that global warming is happening?
>Should humans change global temperature?
>Should we even care if the temperature goes up if it'll happen after we're dead?
>If (insert anything here) causes global warming, should we limit it or stop it even tho it'll make (insert previous noun here) suffer as a result?
These are philosophical questions.
These questions are impossible to answer empirically and must be debated to find the answers to.

How did they come up with it if they didn't use it? The scientific method is just logic, you could call it a philosophical method too.

>Similarly, people who manufacture drugs at drug companies don't usually use the drug themself

Not sure I get the analogy.

>How did they come up with it if they didn't use it?
I can write down a recipe for cookies without needing to use the recipe

>Not sure I get the analogy.
What do you not get? I don't know how else to put it, the people at a car factory don't have to be the ones who drive the cars, the person who makes the hammer doesn't have to be a carpenter, etc...

You are confusing philosophy with ethics.

Both divisions use philosophy. They require the philosophical concepts of objectiveness and subjectiveness.

Also scientists aren't robots, they are motivated by their subjective ideas about what's important and what's interesting to them. You cannot be a scientist without also being a philosopher.

That's because ethics is a subset of philosophy.

>I can write down a recipe for cookies without needing to use the recipe

Why do you think philosophers created the scientific method? Don't you think it was out of a desire to understand the physical world?

>What do you not get? I don't know how else to put it, the people at a car factory don't have to be the ones who drive the cars, the person who makes the hammer doesn't have to be a carpenter, etc...

Philosophers have created philosophical tools for other philosophers to use (they just call themselves scientists while sneering at philosophy at the same time).

>They require the philosophical concepts of objectiveness
YES! Science requires objectivity. The parameters of what is objective are defined by philosophy. This is why philosophers invented the scientific method.

And yes, scientists do practice philosophy sometimes to put ideas into context and give them purpose. Otherwise science is just a bunch of facts and numbers that nobody cares about. For example, Carl Sagan is a great scientist but also a great philosopher.

The two are needed for any meaningful advancement. They leapfrog off each other in turns to advance both science and philosophy. They're are connected, but two very different things.

No measurement or abstraction is 100% accurate. Physics provides an accurate and useful but not truthful description of the world and how it works.

Science is literally applied philosophy.

>Why do you think philosophers created the scientific method? Don't you think it was out of a desire to understand the physical world?
>Philosophers have created philosophical tools for other philosophers to use (they just call themselves scientists while sneering at philosophy at the same time)
There's certainly an intersection between the set of philosophers and set of scientists, but to not see the differences between the two requires some very esoteric interpretations. It's obviously not easy to give precise definitions to some terms but even Russell's definition of philosophy is specifically reasoning that is outside of theology and science.

>russell

Not all philosophers are scientists and not all scientists are philosophers. Which part of this is confusing?

What if the universe isn't isomorphic to some mathematical structure? You might not be able to adequately deal with all questions by reducing them to the interactions of some basic component parts. Weird things are happening all the time and you will never understand them because your to autistic to even poise the right questions.

>Otherwise science is just a bunch of facts and numbers that nobody cares about.

That's a very accurate description of what it's become now, although it's mainly theories rather than fact. Facts cannot change, theories do, all the time.

>Carl Sagan is a great scientist but also a great philosopher.

He's nicer to listen to than most "scientists", but his ideas are still dogmatic because he spreads theory as if it was fact.

>The two are needed for any meaningful advancement. They leapfrog off each other in turns to advance both science and philosophy. They're are connected, but two very different things

Science is just a philosophy that thinks it isn't one. It's created its own reality based on mathematics rather than observation - the best scientific theories are those that can be observed, tested and repeated on using reality itself by anyone who wishes to attempt it, not ones consisting of extremely convoluted formulas that don't actually mean anything.

>philosophy is specifically reasoning that is outside of theology and science.

What other reasoning is there?

So you hate faux-philosophers. Why are you telling us this? Go somewhere else, you waste of space-time.

>What other reasoning is there?
Reasoning about ethics, metaphysics, etc.

He doesn't have one. He just hates it when his obviously shaky and non-factually based worldview is challenged.

Stop making so much sense

Holy fuck I want to throw up after reading that

science builds machines and techniques
philosophy builds culture

Ethics = Theology
Metaphysics = Science

based on those two equalities I'm getting the impression you don't know what any of those four terms mean

Ethics come from an intrinsic desire to do the "right" thing, either for a God, or for yourself, they are ultimately the same thing.

Metaphysics is no different to mainstream physics, so it's not really science, you're correct there.

Why do you hate women, user?

Can't tell if you're trolling or not, but it's kind of arrogant to assume that physics is the answer to everything. Philosophy brings up great questions physics can't necessarily answer. However, physics does provide a framework for our understanding of the finite universe, albeit incomplete.

>it's another thread where a bunch of STEM majors can't differentiate between utility ideal philosophical truth

The universe may not be explained 100% through numbers and observation, yet it will bring us closer no less. Combining natural and theoretical sciences will allow us to see the bigger picture. But from our current view, aren't numbers the most unbiased and objective things we rely on?