Was he right? Is philosophy unnecessary in a world dominated by modern science and its offshoots...

Was he right? Is philosophy unnecessary in a world dominated by modern science and its offshoots? Is modern science ultimately the destroyer of philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nope. Philosophy circa 1900 and Science have always been concerned with different questions. The relevance of philosophy will always be doubted; this has nothing to do with science.

I cannot think of any questions that science has answered in the domain of philosophy and vice versa.

He was a scientist and he thought as a scientist. Philosophy was no use to him, but no one is Feynman either.
Also I would say that he ahd absolutely no moral and ethical sense, and that he operated completely on common sense. He did not overcome moral philosophy, he simply never approached it in the first place.
I remember in a written interview him saying that experiencing the "weird" in particle physics (for "weird" he meant those moments in ehich everything clicks together and you get to truly get the full picture of Nature for a few seconds, similar to Heidegger's Dasein but applied to scientific contemplation) makes most human matters al ost meaningless, as though talking about ideas is like talking about nothing.

hey guys look, he posted this thread again

I can give you a few questions answered by science. There is no soul, no free will, and no God(s).

All these conclusions were already posited by Greek philosophers by rational deliberation before the scientific method knew its arse from its arsehole.

I get nauseous when science claims to have proven these things. Don't get me wrong, I agree that all three don't exist. I get just as nauseous when philosophers says philosophical moral progress has been made, like the instantiation of moral rights. WTF did moral philosophy have to do with that!

Philosophy is more relevant than ever now that we go into all kinds of artificial mind territory.

Not really. Nobody is going to listen to anything philosophers say. Whether or not AI gets the green light will depend on its usefulness, cost, and propaganda. We're way past the point of ethics, friend.

Even if philosophers 'posited' these positions, they failed to do so rigorously and did so totally without evidence, so there was no way to confirm whether they were right or wrong.

t. brainlet

this reeks of bait, but nevertheless please explain how science answered those questions.

You've got a very limited view of matters philosophy deals with, friend.

>theres no free will because causal determinism
>there doesnt need to be an unmoved mover because causality doesnt exist ontologically

1. No soul because "you" are just a manifestation of the brain (a biological organ). Anything elde is wishful thinking.

2. No free will because scientific studies have shown that it is possible to predict what someone will do based on things out of their control.

3. No God(s) because such a thing cannot even be taken seriously as a debate, much like a unicorn.

Common sense trumps philosophy, and the latter is not the former.

Oh I agree, ultimately what philosophers say is irrelevant because multiple states and companies are in an arms race towards AI so safety is an afterthought.

But what philosophers say has probably always been rather irrelevant.

...

>people still don't understand that he said those things in order to get people questioning it for themselves.

>"you" are just a manifestation of the brain (a biological organ).
prove it
>scientific studies have shown that it is possible to predict what someone will do based on things out of their control.
show me those studies
>No God(s) because such a thing cannot even be taken seriously as a debate, much like a unicorn.
why is that an unicorn cannot be taken seriously?

*blocks your techno-scientific domination and exploitation of nature*

Take a look around the world today. He didn't block shit.

Knows his philosophy

2. Isn't true though. The best experiments only predict to 60% certainty which is just over half. And these predictions are only for simple decisions, such as, pressing a button. Moreover, the best explanation for the lack of free-will is causal determinism. Scientific explanation from neuroscience only bolster the case.

once ecological catastrophe hits, people will be turning to and reading Heidegger and see that he was correct

>No God(s) because such a thing cannot even be taken seriously as a debate, much like a unicorn.
What is this, r/atheism?
Get out of here you fucking retard.

>t. LARPing christcuck

...

Thanks to philosophy and history I can make educated guesses about world events that are sometimes proven true. Science cannot even predict the fucking weather tomorrow.
Not to mention I can read philosophy from the ancients on and it is still relevant but science from just 20 years ago is out of date and useless.

is modern science necessary in a world dominated by kweenz? are kangz the killers of science?

*blocks your science*

While this is funny, you have to be pretty deeply retarded to take pop sci as seriously as the movers and shakers of physics.

Only Dawkins and the weird virgin physics guy (2nd picture) are actual scientists. Only Dawkins is a big deal in his field, he just happens to be retarded discussing any other topic

No, they won't. Poverty causes illiteracy. And Heidegger has nothing useful to say on the subject anyway. What are they going to spend years trying to understand his 600-page books for? Because he said "There will be ecological disaster because you don't respect nature enough?" What good does reading that do for anybody who's experiencing ecological disaster?

Love the philosophy defenders saying "We're all gonna need it soon because AI".

Philosophy didn't stop WWII or cancer or poverty, doesn't stop people from raping each other or raiding poor countries, doesn't even stop shitposting, but you think it's going to suddenly sprout out a bunch of guidelines for how AI is gonna work and everyone's gonna put their things down and listen?

Philosophy right now is either boring, trivial, or completely meaningless (Deleuze). It's not spitting out guides for how to behave or how to be smarter or experience the world better. If it did, no one would give a fuck anyway.

On the same argument though, Science is not stoping any of it - in some cases it is perpetuating those disasters

Philosophy is not an ethical watchdog. Actual philosophy has little to do with ethics at all.

Really, your presumption that philosophy, or any science for that matter, should tell people how to behave or how to 'experience' things better is laughable. Philosophy deals with what is universal and principles of thought, not with individual whims and desires.

The difference is nobody claims science stops wars. Philosophers claim we need them to do anything involving ethics, even though it produces no useful conclusions regarding ethics, and philosophers claim it has "little to do with ethics at all". This sort of nonsense is just what philosophy is correctly stereotyped as.

Great, so the conclusion of this thread is that everyone will need philosophy in the future to solve the ethical problems that philosophy has nothing to do with. Very, very great stuff, Veeky Forums. Can't wait to read more 700-page-books about nothing.

Now you're just baiting. Kindly remove yourself.

I blame Neil deGrasse Tyson for this post.

I'm responding to the people in this thread who argued those things. Repsonding to somebody's bad argument and saying why it's bad is the exact opposite of a "presumption". It's a refutation.

I'm participating in the conversation. The op's question was whether philosophy was unnecessary. Only one person actually tried to say that it was (because ethics because AI), and he was contradicted by another lover of philosophy who said he was wrong (philosophy has nothing to do with ethics). No one else even answered the OP.

Well memed, m'friend, you sure showed him

>Was he right?
No.
>Is philosophy unnecessary in a world dominated by modern science and its offshoots?
No.
>Is modern science ultimately the destroyer of philosophy?
No.

>While this is funny, you have to be pretty deeply retarded to take pop sci as seriously as the movers and shakers of physics.
It seems you haven't been to Veeky Forums lately. Or have met many STEM students.

I used to hate the word "scientism". But it seems to exist for a reason.

But user, Whiteheadian process metaphysics are being put into practice within the STEM field!

The nature of "individual whims and desires" have a lot to do with "what is universal and principles of thought" though.

But the study should focus on the principles, the desires secondary.

That's like insisting on studying molecules without first looking at the mechanical properties of the metal.
Studying the behavior of things is incredibly useful before going into more detail.

But that's very different from telling things how they should behave.

Not necessarily.

>2. No free will because scientific studies have shown that it is possible to predict what someone will do based on things out of their control.
Most of those studies have shown most people have the freedom to inhibit acting on impulse. There is a "conscious won't".

It sounds like Bill Nye was refuting gnosticism and plato's whole thing that the forms are the true reality. And both those things are stupid, so I don't get what's wrong about refuting them.

jimmy fallon is shit

this

Aristotelianism and immanent reality not Platonism and necessary dualism

praise Hegel

and what if science is a branch of philosophy?.

Feynman? The guy who brainwashed a generation of young physicists into his "shut-up-and-calculate" dogma when confronted with conceptual questions at the foundation of his discipline? The guy who couldn't differentiate between ontological and vertiginous questions? The guy who is literally quoted as saying that it doesn't matter what a field "is", just so long as you use whatever equation that acquires the best results? The guy who revealed his startling ignorance by rebuffing suggestions that Bell's Theorem was a significant result? The guy who was afraid of interpretation?

That Feynman? If so, no, he was not right. His famous statement that philosophy of science is not useful to science is correct, but that doesn't say much about the value of the problems that PoS inquires into itself. Science "works", yes, but why it works and what it is actually doing are important questions that nonetheless can be ignored by the practicing scientist. Science did not subsume philosophy, they remain separate, however interrelated. Both are important

There's so many obnoxious students of philosophy that draw completely insane conclusions by misinterpreting scientific experiments. Like when C. S. Lewis said that the observer effect proves the existence of God. What he and just about every philosophy geek I've ever spoken to doesn't get is that the "observer" can be an inanimate object, like a photographic plate, photomultiplier tube, a piece of metal, of even a single atom. When a cesium-137 decays and emits a beta particle, it becomes a barium-137 atom. You can detect the change in the identity of the atom spectroscopically without ever having to actually observe the beta particle itself. So clearly the atom is not smeared between states until the beta particle is detected. People are dumb about this, and it's frustrating, which is why the guys of the right made those comments. I don't think they truly meant to contradict the scientists on the right. I think they were trying to encourage stupid philosophy students to not be so stupid. I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid, but that's how it looks to me.

lol

Okay so firstly that does not disprove freewill, nor in fact does it really do much of anything unless you are making a strawman position of what some idiot make have called free will. Secondly there have never been any studies which suggest that humans decisions are predetermined or are determined before the decision to take the action is made. The famous study used to try to argue for determinism are made by people who didn't even read the paper and are so unaware of the actual meaning of the results.

>No soul because "you" are just a manifestation of the brain (a biological organ)
If it is even possible for science to tackle consciousness (which for people like Nagel think is impossible) we are such a long way off of it

>No God(s) because such a thing cannot even be taken seriously as a debate, much like a unicorn
The philosophical God is a metaphysical entity that provides a basis for reality. It is of such a fundamental level that science is inherently unable to have anything to say about it. And before you say if it isn't subject to science it's useless/false/wankery mathematics isn't subject to science but have fun doing science without maths. There are fields of knowing that exist outside of science. Metaphysics (the question regarding the philosophic God) belongs to that realm. And before you say metaphysics is bunk that is itself a metaphysical question that can only be asserted in the realm of metaphysical inquiry. So saying metaphysics is bunk is to do metaphysics.
Also science can't even disprove of a god like Zeus. It is philosophy that uses scientific data that would make the arguments against the existence of that sort of god, not science alone.

> I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid, but that's how it looks to me
Yes you are. You made came to the conclusion that the scientists on the left said philosophy was great because people who study philosophy are stupid. For someone who is all about science you seem to be making some truly enormous logical leaps for no reason.

Science is a load of irrelevant, invalid piss.
No, your cancerous ideology just requires that all three be ignored for it to spread.
>THEY DONT EXIST BECAUSE I CANT LE MEASURE
>THEY DONT ESIT BECAUSE I CANT LE MEASURE

Common sense is a child's ideology. No, I THINK REAAAAAAAAAAALY HARD does not trump anything.
The coming of Communism means the coming of Christ and the means for the Earth to recover.

>thee things are bad becuz i sed so
Back to /r/eedot

Nothing is universal, smelly systematizer.

Science is the most unimportant thing ever

Philosophy and its misinterpretations throughout the years are what is the cause of WWII, and a lot of poverty in the world. Cancer not so much: but you should be able to draw your own conclusions from that.

The entirety of human philosophy doesn't need defense from idiots who don't even pretend to comprehend it: it works in the fabric of what we do, how nations make decisions, how individuals center their own decision making. It plays into effect much as science does, whether you're conscious of either or not.

TL;DR either stop being a pleb or go outside play some basketball because you're not getting anywhere here

Thank you for your irrelevant fucking opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would see that I do not agree with the notion of science has monopolized knowledge.

Empiricism isn't a philosophy?

Color me surprise.

I did read your post you turd, I just disagree with your cop-out little quirp at the end.

Essentially the equivalent to "black people sure are violent, but I'm not racist"

Science isn't empirical.

Logical positivism isn't a philosophy?

Color me surprise.

No, it's piss

Tell me more about your views on science. Do you think modern science is bad?

Tell me, do you live by assumptions? Why is progress made by science consider good?

As far as one can tell, mathematics is the only subject which is self-evident, and even then one needs assumptions for it (Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica was a childish attempt to correct this).

All science is bad. Why do people say 'modern science' as if anything has changed.
>1700s
Stealing and dissecting 'exotic' animals for the sake of autistic categorization.
>2000s
Stealing and dissecting 'exotic' particles for the sake of autistic categorization

Mathematics is not 'self-evident' you fucking tool.

What about technology?

Same junk.

...

That's it? What's junk about it? You're using a computer that was invented because of science, lad. You could at least try to explain away the entire modern world a bit better.

Computers don't exist though.

nice

i like the heisenberg quote on plato, quite interesting way of looking at it

would be interested in anything to read about looking at atoms/particles as Platonic forms, if anyone has anything

(you)

>the coming of communism

>he doesn't realize that communism as a meme won't actualize itself and bring Dies Irae

Hey, I've got a good idea for a prank! Here, here, get in this room with me. Now, its nice and flammable, see? Built with wood. Now, look here, I'm going to stab you. See? You're bleeding out now. You'll probably die. But as an added joke, I'll set the building on fire! Yes, while I'm still in it, haha, of course you'll put the fire out, I'll just leave a fire extinguisher next to you. How humiliating for you! I'll just handcuff myself to a post here in this room thats burning and wait for you to put out the fire.

Uh... its getting kind of warm in here. Why are you staring at me like that?

Look, I know I stabbed you and you're probably mortally wounded, but do you really want to BURN to death?

Isn't it getting hot for you? The extinguisher is right there?.... hahah...

hahhahhahaha... stop looking at me like that, it was a joke.

ahahhahaha...ahhahahha...AHHAHAHAH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

WE'RE IN A BURNING ROOM YOU FUCKING MADMAN USE THE EXTINGUISHER AND STOP LOOKING AT ME WITH MIRTHFUL CONTEMPT I DONT WANT TO BURN

Best prank idea ever.

It's not a cop-out. Both are useful when inquiring into the world. Your comment is pants-on-head retarded. What's unimportant about science?

Wrong. There is no world to inquire. Institutionalizing memes about the 'world' is navel-gazing.

Navel-gazing as opposed to what? Whatever you're doing? What is it you're saying exactly?

No actually I just said:
>I don't think they [Bill Nye and the rest] truly meant to contradict the scientists on the right.
Which was an error on my part.
What I meant to say that was that
>I don't think they [again, referring to the people on the right] truly meant to contradict the scientists on the left."
So I made a typo.
Thanks for pointing it out :)

>the blindman thinks he can understand what I do

Let's trust science: science has told us there are no genders.

>as though talking about ideas is like talking about nothing.
I don't understand, from the rest of your paragraph he seems to have been saying the opposite?

Science is invalid and irrelevant.

the difference between the deeply nuanced mittel-european weltschmertz and the anglo american arrogance makes me wanna dissolve

WHY COULDN'T I HAVE EXPERIENCED VIENNA AT ITS PRIME?

communism is obviously satanic

Yes, that's what I said.

Communism is the conclusion to humanity's attempt to escape their punishment and 'rise above' sin. When this transgression is made, Dies Irae will come.

"Philosophy is dead," said Stephen Hawking, as he resurrected philosophy.

Nye got totally schooled on philosophy though, and he admitted it. He says he respects it now.

qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/

The feels, bro. :'(

So this thread confirms again that "philosophy" is squirmy retardization. There's not a single person in this entire thread who contributed anything at all in defense of philosophy, and all the philosophers just had knives at each other's throats in defense of complete jibberish

>when ecological changes lead to mass poverty people will turn to Heidegger to find out where we went wrong
This is what philosophers actually believe
>the universe doesn't exist
This is what philosophers actually believe
>you need to define truth before asserting anything
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy can't make any statements about ethics
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy is more relevant than ever
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy is not useful
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy is necessary
This is what philosophers actually believe
>proving X wrong is a mistake because it presumes X
This is what philosophers actually believe
>science is invalid
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy is important
This is what philosophers actually believe
>philosophy is relevant

Literally all of these things were said in this thread so don't even reply to this post unless you're a brainlet who can't read. If you agree with those posters just respond to their posts and elaborate on what good arguments they have. If you disagree with those posts just respond to their posts and elaborate on why they are wrong. But this thread, again, shows that philosophers are complete retards who disagree on absolutely everything. Please respond to another post and elaborate on why they're right if you agree with anything in this thread. Literally the only thing philosophers can't pretend to do is agree with each other about anything so it's all good for a chuckle. Meanwhile the universities defund your gibberish and you insist that they're making a mistake because of how useful philosophy is. And you insist that it's not supposed to be useful and also it's not useful. Every single day these threads pop up and philosophers make the same non-arguments about nothing, insist philosophy is not useful, and then walk away without defending anything. It's amazing.

Again, don't even respond to this. Philosophers in this thread say philosophy is useless and irrelevant. If you're mad about that and want to post "Bill Nye", respond to them, not me. If you're okay with that statement—philosophy is not necessary—then just fuck off because the OP's question has been answered