Doesn't this imply that those who use empirical data are dirty, and those who use pure logic are clean...

Man, XKCD has really dropped in quality

No. Metaphysics is mostly handled with ordinary written language which itself drops it way below all the hard sciences in terms of how abstract it is.

But that isn't true- metaphysics (or at least true metaphysics) is in line with the first principles. Those are the theoretical foundation for all science, or at least some of the causes are. They are about as abstract as one can get. Linguistics, on the other hand, are less abstract than many of the hard sciences.

>But that isn't true
Yes, it is true. Metaphysics is covered through written language. People write about it. Therefore it's downstream from a whole lot of other disciplines because mathematics, physics, and chemistry for example are more abstract than ordinary written language. They're so fundamental you don't even approach them the way we're approaching this conversation by talking about it, whereas metaphysics is approached in exactly that way through ordinary everyday language. You discuss topics which you claim as fundamental, but you only do so through very non-fundamental approaches, and it's what you're actually doing with the discipline that matters, not what you say you're doing.

also, I feel dirty when i use some oversimplified models. But they work.

Yes, given that physics is nothing more than applied math.

All logical concepts are understood through language, or the universal structure of language. Metaphysics is discussed with language, but the principles that are discussed are not language itself. When one defines principles of Beginnings, Causes, Elements, Natures, Qualities, Potentiates, and Genus/Race, they are using words, but the concepts themselves are not specific to language. When discussing what something is by virtue of "being," it can only be discussed by using variables, numbers, and language. For example, the laws of non-contradiction and identity are both discussed in metaphysical (abstract) logic using mathematics and language. Metaphysics goes hand in hand with theory, and is part of unseen abstract and universal principles.

But, aren't we, like, all applied math...

>All logical concepts are understood through language
Not all languages are equally abstract. The language of mathematics is way more abstract than common spoken language.
>the concepts themselves are not specific to language
Then describe something like your concept of "being" without common spoken language like you would with mathematics. I don't think you can. Because it is in fact a higher level language game, not an actual lower level abstraction like numbers. It just pretends to be lower level.

Well empirical data is dirty, using it means you're immediately studying a special case instead of a general case, and you can't necessarily separate your theory from the special case you're working with.

Mathematics is the question mark, naked reality with all human baggage stripped away is mathematics.

What retard made this chart

I said that it uses both. Besides, extremely abstract mathematics eventually reach the point that they become meta mathematics. You said that metaphysics is below the hard sciences. You are right only about mathematics, as metaphysics at this point is really only abstract physics. Modern society has surpassed metaphysics and is in the process of understanding the most abstract mathematics. I understand that basic human language is different than pure mathematics, but I would like for you to give me a good argument that it cannot be as abstract as mathematics (not saying that I don't believe you, I just want some logic behind your claim.)

>he hasn't read Hume

arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

thx, I'll read that later

>Computer science -> psychology

Human cognition is a subset of computation.

Cognitive Science is a total failure of a discipline and they're back porting ML memes like NN to model the brain.

>In the land of the blind, the one eye'd man is king.

But mathematics is arguably philosophy about the quantitative.

top kek. its true.

but mathematics is often spoken of using a formal language. mathematics has no room for ambiguity even though ambiguity exists as part of our reality. Mathematics can't explain everything so you need something more abstract which is what natural languages are for.

>purity
gay

>Mathematics can't explain everything
Pic related.
Also:
>you need something more abstract which is what natural languages are for
Natural language isn't more abstract. Just to go with one low hanging fruit argument there's the fact mathematics doesn't change just because you're in a different country.

>mathematics has no room for ambiguity
Mathematics can be used to model probabilities.

You definitely will use calculus in any STEM MSc/PhD at Graduate School (except in Biology)

Right, mathematics is a formal language but what about Godel's incompleteness theorems?

Mathematics can't describe everything. You need something more meta.

Philosophers:
>Welcome to McDick's
>you can't know nuffin
>can i take your order?

>what about Godel's incompleteness theorems?
That just says any sufficiently expressive and consistent axiomatic system will be unable to prove certain true statements. Mathematics isn't just one axiomatic system. System A can't prove "this statement can't be proven true in System A" true, but System B can prove that.

Brainlet here, but would it be accurate to say that at this point philosophy asks the abstract questions, and mathematics answers them?

The use of logic is less dirty than the use of empirical data because empirical data contains imperfections and is never really precise.

>empirical data contains imperfections and is never really precise.
you can't know nuffin

But do you know that we can't know nuffin?

How about providing a real counter argument rather than an absurd strawman?

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

so?

Well, whenever I think of that quote I'm reminded me of how we can't just sit back and pretend to Logic through everything. Because, until you dirty your hands, you don't know if you have all the information. The best we can do is use what we have available, and be willing to correct our methods when we meet something that contradicts previous understanding.

Of course. I'm not trying to say that empiricism should be disregarded and that logic should replace all of it. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages; logic is more useful in the context of the abstract than empiricism, while empiricism has more use in the field of natural science than it does in the field of mathematics, for example

Philosophy of ethics, aesthetics and all that other bullshit is above psychology but below biology. One the other hand, Physics < Metaphysics < Theologian < Mathematician < Logician is the truly redpilled version

Support your claim. Keep in mind that ethics is considered by many to be founded in object natural truth, not limited to humanity or living beings.

Ah okay, I understand. Thanks.

No.
This image only refers to mathematics usage, and even in that, it's kind of false. The fields are mostly comprised of their own unique content, separate from others.

Math is like the grammar of science.
You cant really bitch about vocabulary
But you can always bitch about syntax.
I.e mathematicians are the grammar nazis of science.

Kind of scary that "sci fags" reduce psychology to computer science and biology.
Like the field justifys turning people into robots. Which i dont think is the case IMHO.

But you dont need to be aware to compute.
If you have been following trends in psychology you would know that mindfulness is a huge trend now, which is all about awareness/consiousness.

>But you dont need to be aware to compute.
That doesn't mean cognition isn't a subset of computation.
You're confusing "you don't need to be aware to compute" with "you don't need to compute to be aware."
The latter would mean cognition isn't a subset of computation if true (which it isn't). The former doesn't say anything relevant. You're making the basic mistake of thinking all rectangles are squares because all squares are rectangles. It doesn't work both ways. All awareness is computation, but not all computation is awareness.

I guess it my assumption that theres some sort of "automatic" nature to computation.
I think there are moments in human awaress that isnt computation (though to be fair that even when you are mindful theres still automatic "computation" going on like heart beat, breathing and digestion and some kinesiological stuff. ) These computation free states in the cognitive mind are similar to zen consiouness or satori or contemplating koans that are specifically ment to fuck with cognitive computation.
These states are one of the core elements to the mindfullness movement.

I also feel that computation is just a model for us to go off of so we can easily understand. Something compleley different could be going on. It seems like when we say the cell computew the amount of nutrient needed is really anthropomorphizing the cell.
For all we know that things really are predetermined and there was no computation involved. Just a script written by god on his own whims.

>Is that a flawed way to think about the world?
It can be flawed depending on how you use this classification. The claims about the purity that the comic make are pretty good but it doesn't say anything about what to do with that ranking.
"Impure" fields tend to be designed to be as useful for practical use as possible. It can be argued that the "impure" fields are the most useful in real life but the "pure" fields provide the foundation upon which the "impure" fields are built.

tl;dr they're all good

Psychology could be seen as coming from medicine though. Or maybe you could see psychology+medicine as one level more abstract than medicine.

>For all we know that things really are predetermined and there was no computation involved. Just a script written by god on his own whims.
A predetermined script would be exactly what computation is.

That'd be more psychiatry than psychology.

I thought computation was exploring elements in a problem/situation to find a solution
Or translating one thing into another thing like how a computer takes your inputs turns it into binary or machine code and turns it into an output on screen.

"God's predetermined script" would just exist.

>This is how normies delineate psychiatry and psychologyqZw

Yeah that's true, I often forget to separate them.
Could psychology be to psychiatry what biology is too medicine then?

>I thought computation was exploring elements in a problem/situation to find a solution
No, computation isn't exploration. It's the execution of scripted steps.
>"God's predetermined script" would just exist.
I don't see how that makes it not computation.
It's not wrong. Psychiatrists prescribe medicine for mental illness.

Theology is on the same level as looking for truth in Veeky Forums posts based on how many repeating digits the post number ends in. At best theology can be a useful tool in sociology and political science.

Theology isn't the study of the divine but rather the study of looking at stuff other humans had said. If God ever communicates with us then theology will be important.

>Doesn't this imply that those who use empirical data are dirty, and those who use pure logic are clean?
Yeah it implies that but it doesn't have any arguments for the usefulness of every field.

Statistics is just a form of applied mathematics. (but still obviously useful)

Since repeating digits predicted Trump becoming President.
Meme magic is perhaps more reliable than Theology.

Theology also contradicts Science.

While Meme magic is arguably based on Math's Probability, Statistics & "Number" Theory (Numerology of Repeating Digits)

> Computationis any type ofcalculation[1][2]that includes both arithmetical and non-arithmetical steps and follows a well-definedmodelunderstood and described as, for example, analgorithm

What you are implying is something called pancomputationalism
> Some argue that extant models of digital physics violate various postulates ofquantum physics.[35]For example, if these models are not grounded inHilbert spacesand probabilities, they belong to the class of theories with localhidden variablesthat have so far been ruled out experimentally usingBell's theorem.

And im sure you realize that medicine in pill form came after "the talking cure" which was started by one of the most prominent physicians.

Not sure what your point is here.

My gut tells me you're retarded and the post numbers have nothing to do with the message of the post and it's effects on real life.

There seem to have to enough apparent meme magic to question my instincts though, it would be interesting to see someone using statistics to really examine meme magic.

You're making the same mistake as the metaphysics guy earlier in this thread and focusing on what people say or think about a discipline instead of what people actually do with a discipline. In terms of actually prescribing medicine, that's psychiatry.

Pepe's Meme magic is based on Math (Gambling Digits)

Probability, Statistics, Game Theory, Data Science, Stochastics, Number Theory

And also Chaos Theory because Kek is the God of Chaos.

Meme Magic predicts the future.
While Theology can't predict anything

You and the rest of us. It's honestly the best part of the image.

Also, where would economics be? Around sociology? Or psychology?

Or around mathematics, considering some economists use heavy amounts of mathematical proofs to prove their concepts?

This is made by a person very proficient in math but very superficial in all other fields.

He understand his world in relation to math.

Computation is calculation. Not recitation or "wrote memory"

And i think you disagree becuase you take the philosphical view that is still conrroversial that all things are computation.

It could be seen as the study of civilization and all human activities. It's kind of related to sociology then.
I'd guess econometrics is more like statistics applied to economics.

>wrote memory
It's rote memory, dummy.

Now where do you draw the line. Many fields like logic, linguistics, and economics, all benefit philosophically from mathematics, or by being able to express the philosophies mathematically in more depth. But it's not to say said fields are mathematical inherently.

>that all things are computation.
I don't see how you could get that out of what I wrote unless you somehow believe cognition is "all things."

I am taking issue with the fact that
The computational model of pstchology didnt even come about till the sixties and timothy learys 8 circut model of the mind.
If anything observations of human behavior and thinking produced computer science and not thr other way around.
Psychology came more from existenialusm and literature than any hard science.
Neurology is the product of comp. Sci. and biology than psychology. Considering its neurology that produces psychopharmacology and more applicable to what psychiatrists do.

>he thinks rote is spelled 'wrote'

Everyone point at him. Point at him and laugh.

>ITT: brainlets too dumb to realize that science itself depends on philosophical assumptions
It's like trying to explain zoology to animals.

Did you not say that computation is the execution of scripted steps?

What doesnt execute scripted steps?

>The computational model of pstchology didnt even come about till the sixties
That's irrelevant because it's not about history, it's about what mental processes actually are. It wouldn't matter if this was discovered in the 1960s, the 1760s, or 10,000 years further into the future, it's meant to be a map about what's believed to be true and truth is independent from the historical happenstances of varying discoveries about the truth. Whether it actually is the truth is debatable, but the point is it's meant to be based on reality rather than on cultural history.

I don't know where to draw the lines.
I guess in economics, making the models might be a very statistical task.
Much of simple economics is described in a way that's based on mathematical logics.

That's been brought up and debated already, read the thread before posting next time.

>>that all things are computation.
If reality is a Simulation?
youtube.com/watch?v=tlTKTTt47WE

>What doesnt execute scripted steps?
Most phenomena in the world don't unless you take a really extreme interpretation of "executing steps" to refer to any sort of physical movement involving cause and effect relationships.

No it completely depends on the person writing the economic analysis. For instance, marginal utility is described by both Carl Menger and Leon Walras.

One of them uses only arithmetic, the other uses mathematical proofs and calculus. But they both describe the same concept. Is the science necessarily mathematical? No. But can it benefit from a mathematical analysis? Yes.

Many fields are not like that, but for those that are, like Logic or Economics, what do you think is the purpose of mathematics? Simply to understand, to explain concepts sometimes.

I feel you are moving the goal post but whatevs.

Tell me what you think "executing steps" is really supposed to ential.

Still i feel it should be neurology.

Psychology should be removed from that thing entirely.
Or they should find a place to put literature and existenialism in there.
And now that im thinking about it.
Whats the djfference between math and computer science .
Sounds like computer science is just typed out on a keyboard while math is written down on paper.

Probably the most straightforward definition I can give you for what you're asking about which is itself a definition of yet another term we've already discussed (and I'm going with simple here because otherwise we're going to end up endlessly defining definitions of definitions of definitions) is to just point you to a computer and say "that." Or if you wrote a recipe for a meal and someone followed it, that'd basically be the same sort of idea of computation and executing scripted steps.
What I claimed earlier which you've been responding to is that cognition is a subset of computation. As in the various different processes the brain supports that we consider "thinking" are ultimately a comparable sort of thing to what a computer does (and before I get a million responses saying "bad analogy," yes, I'm aware it's popular now to point out brains and computers aren't really the same thing, and yes, it's true they aren't the same thing, but despite this I'm arguing at a very high level what brains do is ultimately computation despite the particular mechanisms of computation being radically different).

>Still i feel it should be neurology.
That map doesn't conflict with it following neurology. Neurology isn't on that map which means its location is inside the Biology node, and the Biology node is one of the nodes that are parents to the Psychology node.
Really I think you and the others commenting about this chart are way overthinking it. It's not meant to be an ultra- high fidelity mapping of the relationship between disciplines, it's just meant to establish the general point that there is a progression from less abstract to more abstract that you can roughly outline with the conclusion being there might be one most abstract source node at the top which you could identify and effectively make the basis of a "theory of everything." Whether psychology goes one node to the left or two nodes higher doesn't have much impact at all on that point.

Not the guy, but the steps in the "recipe" you mention consists of algorithmic problem solving, right? Set order to solve a problem?

Oh yeah most definitely.

That’s like saying Parkinson’s being Kreutzfeldt Jacob scientifically but medically it is just Parkinson’s. Par-kin-sons (12 sons of Jacob) and Park In, Son (Turning to park in private driveway). Scientific (logical) vs Medical (Legal).

Now if I show you a person that has aids and another person that has Parkinsons who’d you run away from first?

Now if I say AIDS is not caused by HIV but a radical Prion enveloping protein in blood cells and caused by KJD. Except it has found some resistance and slowly progresses via a preferred vector. Once you’ve slept with a person that is around someone that has it you have it as well under certain panels. It spreads exactly like KJD. How does it feel? What would you do?

Now if I say there are two doctors. Ones that have to work under legal terms because they are insurance doctors so are trained by other doctors to follow legal norms. And all cash doctors that do not have to follow laws governing insurance boards and are trained by other cash only doctors. Who’s worse off?