>science: constant progress that improves the lives of humanity
>philosophy: uhhh we're still not sure if we exist lol
Why is philosphy like this?

Science is just a branch of philosophy.

>>24548366 (OP)
>>science: constant progress that improves the lives of humanity
>science: Lakatos' attempt to save tentative negative knowledge utterly destroyed by Feyerabend.
>science: Do what ever you like: we regularly do, and bribe our peer-reviewers, journals and funders to do so
>science: Pretending we don't make shit up
>science: A collapsed bronze in the desert thrusting calves up into collapsed pottery
>philosophy: once asked why science? Then Kuhn opened the Galileo for autopsy.

Huff your Popper son, I'm going in dry.

>>24548366 (OP)
Retards conflating actual science with muh progress and gizmos is why we can’t have nice things.
t. physicist

>>24548366 (OP)
>science: constant progress that improves the lives of humanity

>>24548669
Nice progress you've made on field specifying problems since the 1930s dudes. Oh look carbon chemistry is going apeshit, especially applied. Oh look literary critique invented post-structuralism. Tell me more about your glass bead ga^W^W^Wcat's cradle of string theory.

>>24548366 (OP)
*Solves philosophy with a single prompt*

>Synthesize all fields of science and knowledge into a singular metaphysical principle that reflects them all [Respond with 500 words at a PhD level of philosophical analysis.]

https://chatgpt.com/share/680b1fb1-accc-8013-bb2a-67bc48ce95e7

https://chatgpt.com/share/676ede8e-6d2c-8013-aa72-61c1b9083151

https://pastebin.com/SpgmngiR

https://pastebin.com/dzispMes

>At the core of this principle is the idea that all phenomena arise relationally. Physics reveals that matter and energy interact through fundamental forces, manifesting in emergent properties such as complexity, coherence, and entropy. Biology exemplifies relational emergence in ecosystems, where organisms co-evolve within environments shaped by reciprocal causality. Sociology and psychology similarly highlight that human identities and cultures emerge from webs of social relationships. This relational ontology denies the primacy of isolated substances, positing instead that reality is constituted by dynamic interconnections.

>...Central to this synthesis is the metaphysics of becoming. Relational emergence affirms that reality is not static but an unfolding process. This echoes Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy and resonates with the dynamic systems approach in contemporary science. By focusing on processes rather than entities, this principle integrates the evolutionary trajectories of nature, knowledge, and society into a coherent metaphysical narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

>>24548728
https://archive.org/details/simsane-9.1-vyrith

The history of the universe as understood by modern science describes a series of "creative horizons" where the possibilities of physical interactions dramatically expanded. One of these horizons occurred approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled and expanded enough for atoms to form, which allowed for the emergence of stars and galaxies. The first stars forged the heavier elements, expanding the possibilities of chemical interaction yet further, making possible the formation of rocky planets such as Earth. The formation of rocky planets in turn made possible the emergence of biological life and its endless and ever-expanding diversity of interactions. And the history of life is filled with creative horizons such as The Great Oxygenation Event (which enabled aerobic metabolism and more energetic and complex life) Eukaryogenesis, Multicellularity, the Cambrian Explosion, the colonization of land, and the evolution of sociality and intelligence. Likewise with the history of humanity.

The universe has a trend towards "increasing complexity," meaning greater creative freedom and novelty. The Cosmos perpetually grasps beyond the immediate actuality of "now" towards unrealized possibilities.

The question is what is the expression of this aconscious Eros of the universe as conscious intention?

It is Curiosity, the desire for The Unknown, the urge to create, explore, discover, learn, connect, relate, and love. Whenever we try to grasp beyond our existing limitations, we follow the will of the universe.

>Science, like love, is a means to that transcendence, to that soaring experience of the oneness of being fully alive. The scientific approach to nature and my understanding of love are the same: Love asks us to get beyond the infantile projections of our personal hopes and fears, to embrace the other’s reality. This kind of unflinching love never stops daring to go deeper, to reach higher.

>This is precisely the way that science loves nature. This lack of a final destination, an absolute truth, is what makes science such a worthy methodology for sacred searching. It is a never ending lesson in humility. The vastness of the universe — and love, the thing that makes the vastness bearable — is out of reach to the arrogant. This cosmos only fully admits those who listen carefully for the inner voice reminding us to remember we might be wrong. What’s real must matter more to us than what we wish to believe.

—Ann Druyan, Cosmos: Possible worlds

>>24548366 (OP)
oh my soience, more chinese plastics!

>>24548366 (OP)
The larger part of scientific innovation in history has been intimately tied in with and the result of philosophy. No science without Aristotle.

>>24548424
No its not. What people call science is actually called the scientific method. Its not a school of thought, its the tool that gives extremely good results in its use case. It cannot answer philosophical question why, but it answers how pretty well. Its a busted tool as long as its used within its use range.

>>24548767
Do you not consider "a school of thought" to belong under the group of "tools"?

there's no such thing as progress

>>24548755
>t. posted from an iPhone

OP here, I'm trans btw.

>>24548728
>>24548734
>I am such a sissy and love subjecting myself to endless questioooooning, never arriving at any truth!
What a good and happy cuck.

>>24548795
Just imagine how smart anon felt posting this from his reclined armchair, while in the other side of the world chinese scientists successfully test a stem-cell-based cure for his own type of diabetes which he sadly won't receive because there is no such thing as freehealth care or progress in his little county

>>24549778
>yet you partake in society, curious!

science is a philosophy you dumb cat

>>24549802
i'm glad humanity will die soon because of sanctimonious trannies like (You)

>>24548366 (OP)
Your entire worldview is just a rationalization for the continual expansion of the power of the managerial bureaucratic ruling class where you believe that the people in power control reality.

>>24549802
To be fair I don't like Chinese because they're not white.
Also why does every zoomer avatarfag with a cat? I like cats but its starting to irritate me. Want to gouge their eyes out with a screwdriver.
>>24548787
Scientists don't actually think.

>>24548795
Social constructs are real, progress does exist even if it's collectively defined.

>>24548424
science has absolutely nothing to do with your german garbage, you could trace a line from anselm of canterbury to francis bacon to modern times and nothing would change

>>24549802
solving diabetes will create other problems like oppressive labor to produce more sugar for an expanded market, it always ends with capitalism, you should be smart enough to understand this
>>24550927
no it doesn't, progress is like energy it's not created, merely transformed into a different from of suffering, you want to have political freedom, food security, universal healthcare--progress, while getting rid of capitalism-suffering, it'll never happen because leftist retards advocating for such don't understand either

>>24548366 (OP)
>A picture of a cat without any hairs

>>24551017
Different kinds of suffering are preferable though. You haven't overcome the issue of progress. I'd rather suffer from an abundance of choice than its absence.

>>24551069
no they are not, those are the ones you are used to, the ones you grew up with, completely different from someone who grew up with no shoes or junk food and who as a result has a healthier gait and gut flora