Thread 16818517

You may read a philosopher's writings, but you will never get his entire thought process. You can only develop an interpretation of his idea, never getting the full picture. Something will always be missing, as you are simply not him. And even if you knew his exact thoughts, your personal experiences in life might lead you to a different conclusion than the one he came to. At best it can give you an idea. But to use others' thoughts as a foundation for further thought seems wrong.

I always thought it was best practice to just let people build their philosophies from the ground floor with zero outside influence. Yet every famous philosopher seems to have previously been a student of philosophy. It's all a big circlejerk of bullshit.

No. Science deals with the purely physical, not metaphysical. Philosophy as a part of technology or mathematics is laughable. Closest thing is engineering, but psychology ≠ philosophy. Philosophy as built as a foundational network can also never be proven since all philosophy is based on purely subjective experience, not objectively based on a set of rules like math is.

>>16818517 (OP)
>best practice
assistant to the regional manager detected

>>16818517 (OP)
>Is philosophy respected as STEM?
Who actually respects STEM at this point?

>You may read a philosopher's writings, but you will never get his entire thought process. You can only develop an interpretation of his idea, never getting the full picture. Something will always be missing, as you are simply not him. And even if you knew his exact thoughts, your personal experiences in life might lead you to a different conclusion than the one he came to. At best it can give you an idea
Philosophy (e.g. the so-called Scientific Method) is finitely more reproducible than most published stoodies.

>>16818542
>finitely
I mean infinitely*. Fucking finitists must be getting into my head.

Philosophy plays critical role in science. It formulate new ideas, and eventually gives birth to new sciences as enough of ideas pile up. In ancient Greece physics was part of philosophy. In the resent times it produced sociology, linguistics, economics. It helps to understand logic and creates basement for scientific method.

>>16818538
You don't know what philosophy is. Neither you know what science is.

>>16818560
>In the resent times it produced sociology, linguistics, economics.
Friendly fire! Friendly fire! lol

>>16818517 (OP)
Science grew out of philosophy, it used to be called natural philosophy. People didn't care about science much either BTW until it started producing technology recently, its prestige among the masses and in your mind lends nothing to their or your intellect

>>16818517 (OP)
Philosophy will never be STEM. This is why I hate analytic philosophy, because they all wanted to larp as scientists.
I actually prefer the schizo philosophy of Hegel, Heidegger, Deleuze because at least they knew that what they were doing wasn't really scientific.

>>16818768
>retard gets filtered by analytical philosophy
>been seething about philosophy ever since
>pretends Hegel's incomprehensible schizobabble is better, just to out himself as a pseud

>>16818517 (OP)
Philosophy is a primitive science like astrology. It was made up when people didn't know about real science.

>Philosophy is a primitive science like astrology. It was made up when people didn't know about real science.
I like how 99% of attempts to undermine philosophy are just extremely dumb attempts at philosophical thought.

>>16818777
Attempts to undermine Philosophy always end up being philosophy. The competent attempts at such philosophy only undermine incompetent philosophy. The incompetent ones only undermine themselves.

>>16818777
Your post is just an extremely dumb attempt at psychoanalysis.

>>16818783
I can tell someone else just called you a schizo in another thread.

>>16818785
Tell us more about your hallucinations.

>Tell us
>us
Off to a great start.

>>16818789
Obviously, I mean me and your handlers :^)

>>16818791
>me and your handlers :^)
Are my handlers in the room with us? How often did you say they whisper things about me through the walls?

>>16818777
>Indian reply syntax

>>16818773
It is a historically verifiable fact that horoscopes and zodiac signs have contributed more to science than big bang cosmology, black holes, dark matter/energy etc.

>>16818809
Is that so, philosotard?

>>16818517 (OP)
Short answer, no.
Long answer, kind of... it attracts a lot of pseuds and atheistfags. But at the same time, some of the smartest people to ever live are well-educated in the field of philosophy much the same way they are well-versed in history and literature. It attributes to the well rounding of a man. It is also the base study of priests, who have historically held a significant role in the overall field of naturalism for the last 2,000 years

>>16818809
>It is a historically verifiable fact that horoscopes and zodiac signs have contributed more to science than big bang cosmology, black holes, dark matter/energy etc.
Kek. This is unironically true, which may have something to do with the fact that the former relies on easily verifiable observations about astronomical objects.

>>16818844
So much this, unironically speaking.

>>16818517 (OP)
I think that science and philosophy align where they seek to expand the available space to explore. Where they appear to provide concrete answers to things, both fall apart. Stunted little philosophy students have a greater tendency to believe they already know everything worth knowing, however. It is more difficult for scientists to fall prey to dogmatism, since 'finding out new stuff' is the job description.

>>16818882
>Stunted little philosophy students have a greater tendency to believe they already know everything worth knowing, however. It is more difficult for scientists to fall prey to dogmatism, since 'finding out new stuff' is the job description.
I'd call you delusional but your post is such a perfect inversion of reality I'd say you're aware of it at least on some level.

>>16818517 (OP)
You can tell if a subject is more philosophy or more science by how much of it relies on gatekeeping schizos. On one end of that spectrum, if you build a better mousetrap or find a much quicker solution for some combinatorial problem, you'll get published no matter who you know because those things are real or easily verifiable. On the other end, anyone with a pencil and a thesaurus can perfectly describe whatever old or new dichotomies and archetypes they want, with none of it being any more or less dispositive than the rest of it, so the point is literally just to pass along the torch of academic genetics from one generation to the next and there's no value or interest whatsoever in publishing something written by a random schizo, unless you're sexually attracted to them (which isn't all that uncommon, see Genet and countless others). In the middle of the spectrum, you have stuff like maybe RH or QM.

>>16818894
See, there you go, alluding to reality as a *known*.

>>16818898
So where on the spectrum do you put the infinite amount of non-reproducible, mutually-contradicting, "results-are-inconclusive, please fund another study" science papers, about things like how climate change affects the Spinchter muscles of Polynesian muskrats?

>>16818902
I see that you're profoundly retarded based on the content of your posts. Since I'm more empirically-minded, I consider such observations to be indicative of reality. If I were a philosophy student maybe I'd humor pants-on-head retarded post instead of simply noting that you're some blue collar retard with no higher education.

>>16818903
Almost pure philosophy.

>>16818905
If you were really more "empirically-minded" then your default would be to coax more interesting responses from your interlocutor. An objective I have also singularly failed at, but I shan't speculate as to why.

>>16818894
It's usually the philosophy undergrads who entertain an endless variety of retarded ideas, because Epistemology 101 said something or other about the limits of knowledge. Figuring out what abstract possibilities deserve consideration is apparently a more advanced topic. Meanwhile all the STEM-adjacents (e.g. med students) and pop-sci fans will go around informing everyone how "we" KNOW the answer to some eternally contentious question, based on the opinion of their favorite lecturer, or Current Theory, or the latest slop to come out of the scientific publishing mill.

As for dogma, the standard modus operandi for wannabe philosophers (academic wagies) is to pick something everyone takes from granted (usually for good reasons), call it "dogma" and dream up an alternate reality where it doesn't apply - the few people who care applaud this. Meanwhile wannabe scientists (also academic wagies) busy themselves pumping out stoodies about hypotheses compatible with, but tangential to, their field's Holy Cows. The less the outcomes of their studies matter, the better, because they have neither the competence nor the inclination to be productively involved in some kind of scientific controversy.

>>16818906
Good thing you just own up to the incoherence of your worldview instead of trying to deny what scientific publishing is like. Science is philosophy, philosophy is philosophy, anything you don't like is philosophy.

>>16818920
>incoherence of your worldview
What's incoherent about "you can tell if a subject is more philosophy or more science by how much of it relies on gatekeeping schizos"?
>anything you don't like is philosophy
I haven't even hinted at a preference.

>>16818921
I don't care about your retarded post. I just asked you where most science belongs on your spectrum and you told me it's philosophy.

>>16818918
>STEM-adjacents (e.g. med students)
actually have to gravitate towards certainty because they make decisions that save lives on an immediate basis. Different emphasis. I'd find it difficult to justify my alcoholism if my definitive impact were tangible.

>>16818926
Bzzt. You asked specifically about
>non-reproducible, mutually-contradicting, "results-are-inconclusive, please fund another study" science papers, about things like how climate change affects the Spinchter muscles of Polynesian muskrats
which is almost pure philosophy. You can tell by how gatekept the subject matter is. What you describe are essentially academic shibboleths written as an exercise in research paper style, à la Queneau.

>>16818938
>you asked specifically about [80% of scientific publishing]
Yes, and apparently it's all "philosophy", despite it dealing with scientific topics (however moot) and applying scientific methodology (however poorly). You're yet another mouth-breathing in the endless stream of inbreds on this board so there's no need to take this any further. Nothing else you post will be read, but you obviously lack the impulse control to stop yourself shitting out more.

>>16818934
>actually have to gravitate towards certainty because they make decisions that save lives on an immediate basis
They only need to gravitate towards statistically favorable outcomes but they gravitate towards delusions of omniscience.

>>16818940
>Nothing else you post will be read, but you obviously lack the impulse control to stop yourself shitting out more.
Indian debate syntax.

This retarded schizo and the retards who keep responding to it.

>>16818945
>Indian reply syntax

>>16818517 (OP)
why the fuck do you losers even post this lazy shit

>>16818517 (OP)
all philosophers are schizophrenic

I really don't get the philosophy and science shitflinging. They're not even in competition in a lot of cases.

>>16819093
>I really don't get the philosophy and science shitflinging. They're not even in competition in a lot of cases.
It's not a feud between scientists and philosophers. It's a feud between retards and retards. As you can clearly see from countless examples on the internet, retards are always in competition.

>>16818560
Another example is English tradition of Analytic Philosophy which modern Set Theory is based on.

>>16818517 (OP)
it's arguably closer to math than math is to engineering

>>16818768
A real philosopher would never say he was conducting science, quite the opposite

>>16819389
>A real philosopher would never say he was conducting science, quite the opposite
This thread brings to mind an introduction from some book by Bertrand Russell I read once, about the history Western philosophy. Russell points out that philosophy is distinct from both science and religion, in that it appeals to reason instead of dogma, trying to analyze questions that can't be settled by empirical knowledge. This invites attacks from both: the religious demand that you accept whatever their experts claim to know, while the "science"-minded demand you ignore whatever their experts admit they can't know. In my experience, his observation (which I may have paraphrased it a little) is appealingly simple and accurate.

>>16819276
they’re both schizo ramblings so yeah you’re right

>>16818661
It did but we need philosophers who dont come from reddit or lit in order to inherit the power that is quantum technology.