"The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending."
-Paul Feyerbrand
Fuck off.
~ Veeky Forums
I hope humanity doesn't continue on that route. I speak for my self, but I know there a few like me that still are philosophers at heart. Philosophy isn't pretty to most scientist because it doesn't result in clear "solutions".
a lot of modern day scientists are rain man types that are good at their specific puzzles but literally nothing else
several of us like philosophy and have at least a cursory understanding of analytic philosophy or classical topics in philosophy of science
that said, this isn't the place to argue about it, and I can guarantee with almost certainty that you don't know or care about philosophy anyway, just nonsense ramblings to feel smart
tldr Fuck off.
>Philosophy isn't pretty to most scientist because it doesn't result in clear "solutions".
Neither does science
Philosophy cant come to consensi as often tho because it doesnt have a strict methodology - which is a good thing because all methodologies have their limits and we need a field that can transcend those burdens
a lot of reddit popsci types are against anything a priori and think that the scientific method is the only way to get any knowledge period
I dont think anyone on Veeky Forums is that much of a brainlet tho
I have no idea of what you're trying to say. Are you saying something like "a priori knowledge exists"? this is really informal by any modern standards and needs to be qualified heavily before it can make any sense or can be talked about meaningfully.
please don't do it.
ok let me clear this up
A lot of a certain kind of people, who aren't really well-educated on anything including science, have simplistic and incoherent ideas of both science, philosophy, and a lot of other fields. They have a tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't hold to their ideals of science, even though that science in the real world isn't anything like what they think it is. This type of person often holds naive uber-empiricist views about knowledge and truth, and outright dismiss anything that doesn't fall into this. Generally this view to be a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of thing that they tend to teach you in American Middle Schools when they introduce the "scientific method" (tm).
These kinds of people are annoying and lead to people like OP making bait threads like this one.
Does this make sense to you or do I need to pull out the crayons?
I don't know mate all you're saying is "there's dumb people and they don't agree with me" and that's really useless. this thread is pointless.
You don't think that people with belligerent but uneducated and incoherent opinions are annoying?
Anyways "all knowledge MUST come from science and science alone" can't possibly be a true statement because there's no way science could ever confirm it.
it's hard to even define what knowledge is, let alone talk about it meaningfully
fact = a proposition that corresponds semantically with the world in some way
true belief = X endorses fact A
knowledge = properly justified true belief = X has true belief A and has sufficient and relevant reasons for holding that belief
this is why I asked you not to try to define your things. it's hard to do it and even thinking you can do it in 3 lines is ridiculous. please stop.
I don't hate philosophy but I think it's mostly a bullshit circlejerk, and you philosophyfags clearly are aware of this given how you constantly make threads desperately trying to defend yourselves
its easy to define these things if youre not trying to be rigorous and exact with it
since were on Veeky Forums theres no reason to make a perfect definition
>this is why I asked you not to try to define your things
dont tell me what to do nigger
>please stop
make me
well this is exactly the reason you end up shitposting against other people about pop philosophy. this really isn't good for anyone.
>awkward verbose shit
>no actual content
ok dude thanks for the reply
Because it's mostly shallow, useless fecal matter. At least in content. Epistemological anarchism, instrumentalism, and extreme scrutiny, are the only relevant concepts to science. Everything else (i.e, most of philosophy) is chains on progress. Formal ideology and childish language games actively hold science back.
>childish language games
you don't know what a "language game" is, do you?
>you philosophyfags clearly are aware of this given how you constantly make threads desperately trying to defend yourselves
I go both on here, Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums and I see MUCH more sciencefags making antiphilosophy threads on Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums than philosophyfag threads on here
i dont know about the other boards but the OPs in these threads are always the philosophyfags, usually with the same exact OP image with Dawkins/Nye/Strauss/Blackscienceman on the right and the older scientists on the left with a bunch of gay quotes
popsci nerds do the same shit on those other boards, just not here
its not the same thing because they go there to shit on philosophy, not to desperately defend science
What comes through clearly is that you have no understanding of science, scientific method, or the philosophy of science. Science depends much more on inductive reasoning and physical experimentation than you seem to think it does. It's not a religion. That would be math, ha ha.
care to elaborate?
never did I say that science doesnt depend on inductive reasoning and experimentation. that would be brainlet tier
HOWEVER, saying that science gets by with only using inductive reasoning and experimentation (which these types think) is equally brainlet tier
>Paul Feyerbrand
>Postmodernist
>Anarchist
>Philosopher of science without science degree
>Popper
>Death from brain tumor
he took 3 years of physics in college
thats more than you can say
>projecting
am i wrong?
>knowledge = justified true belief
kek
>properly
"maybe a vague weasel word will make me less obviously wrong"
What is this caustic style of smugposting called? Is it a female trait or just an underage b&ed trait?
>What is this caustic style of smugposting called? Is it a female trait or just an underage b&ed trait?
What's smug about it?
Because how mass works and how meaning works are different.
2 fields, concerned with the same thing just different aspects.
Philosophy is absolutely needed for society, people, and thought on nearly every level but holds 0 purpose in a scientific field as long as the nature of the concerns are different.
No one is shitting on philosophy but it doesn't belong on Veeky Forums, so politely fuck off back to