Should a man of science read philosophy of science, or is it just a waste of time? Are double and triple integrals all that matter?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Should a man of science read philosophy of science, or is it just a waste of time?
Absolutely. The start of the Scientific Revolution was fundamentally philosophical when Enlightenment philosophers threw out the old nonsensical Aristotelianism.
You should read philosophy no matter what you do if you want to live life as a conscious being
What's the benefit of being conscious? Bring woke redpilled or knowing has rarely led to any beneficial change and increases unhappiness.
>asks what's the benefit of being conscious
>is literally conscious
you think you'd die slower in a coma or what?
>Need philosophy to be conscious
>You're conscious anyway
Philosophy useless
it doesn't seem like you are
Just read CS Peirce, he explains everything about the scientific method.
Yes, there's some still based guys around but they are getting fewer and fewer.
I would just cover the essentials if I were you, most human behaviors are being washed out by neurochemistry, evolutional theory, and anthropology anyways.
philosophy (of any kind), psychology, law, management, sociology, political science, feminism ism, studies studies, people anything soft sciences..
these all have predictive power of gypsy fortune tellers
and deserve as much of your attention
listen, while people who skip this side shit and focus on the fundamentals (math, empiricism, aka actual scientific method, not questionaires/gossip) built everything that matters in this century and the last one
aeronautics, semiconductors, nuclear industry, pharmaceutical industry, every other trillion dollar global industry
these other morons got filtered into /x/ tier cargo cults of blue hair student debt cattle
fricking hell mate, if you have a fricking degree outside math/physics/etc, you are just signalling your low iq to the world
not a single relevant paper, not a single darpa project or defense/heavy industry(arms, aerospace)/strategic sector patent or test or prototype or laboratory is quoting fricking popper or kuhn or some similar pseud you heard about in fricking 80 iq pop sci clickview media
How would you, for example, run a country with no theory of law, politics or economics?
Predict everything according to the most minute laws of physics and then act accordingly to prevent the bad predictions happening
why are some things morally right and some things morally wrong, anon? what is beauty? what is the best way to run a country?
Okay Anon, but what do all these flashy industries and pinnacles of science mean if the world in which they were brought to being resembled feudal Europe more than capitalist society today? Do you think there would be implications for the production of nuclear weapons if the society which was conscripted to build them were illiterate peasants with an illogical view of the world? What about religion or politics? What would it mean for aeronautics if the king of France, in a fit of rage, had all of his top scientists executed after they publicly shamed him? What if pharmaceuticals were left to be distributed by lone wandering doctors without any aid of a medical establishment? Moreover, what if we weren’t even allowed to pose questions about the structure of things (seeing as this is what philosophy in essence is) which would bar us from any societal improvements? Why is the scientific method the way it is and not some other way? >uhhhh because this one gets us closest to the truth lmao. What is the truth?
Without philosophy you cannot even pose questions about the implications of our thoughts in relation to the world. If no one knew what 5, 10, and the addition function were then 5+5=10 would be a meaningless statement. If we aren’t allowed to question the world then how can we know what 5 is? Of course no STEM papers reference it, it is by its very nature the conditions for reference.
>If no one knew what 5, 10, and the addition function were then 5+5=10 would be a meaningless statement. If we aren’t allowed to question the world then how can we know what 5 is? Of course no STEM papers reference it, it is by its very nature the conditions for reference.
That's math Black person. The M in STEM.
What is 5?
>ummm... it is just is what it is bro simple as gottem hahahahahaha
youre going about making your point in a really mongy way
i see this even in higher education, where peoples minds cleanly accept any idea as fact because the dude at the board said so with half reason half hand waving, and occasionally even something along the lines of "you dont need to understand this fully"
having a bunch of obedient zombies might be useful for bulking out a workforce, people pushing the envelope need to be able to inspect foundations, and check they arent building on sand
How am I making my point in a mongy way? It’s meant to show him the truth of my original post: that without a concept of what 5 is math as a discipline is entirely worthless. What’s wrong with letting him think about it himself when he obviously didn’t digest it the first time?
because its inviting the inevitable definition of 5 (hurr durr
), and any other follow up line of questioning will be met with stonewall claims for it to be contained inside mathematics
It literally is contained inside mathematics. The Peano axioms are definitely math.
this is why i said
>youre going about making your point in a really mongy way
The natural number 5? S(S(S(S(0*~~) from the Peano axioms. Again math. Philosophy is worthless.
The Peano axioms are all well and good for a formal system of containing natural numbers but do you really think that carpenters are referring to the number 5 as a series of inductive statements. No, of course not. But, the first of his axioms is “Zero is a number.” He relies on an implicit conception of number to create the mathematical conception of number. The third axiom “Zero is not the successor of a number” only holds in the set of naturals and therefore requires a conception of both value and sets (both which can be mathematically determined of course, the issue with this is that the idea of value presupposes the idea of number, making the argument circular). Fortunately for the sake of the proof his idea of value is logically determined and not strictly mathematically. From here you can argue that everything which I’ve pointed out as having a philosophical basis is actually determined in other fields of math but wouldn’t that make your entire system circular? And, if we accept math as a system divorced from all others then how do we practically apply it? If the only acceptable definition of 5 is from a series of axioms and any intuitive understandings of it are inherently flawed then we cannot say with absolute certainty that our reality is mathematical. There is already a similar issue in physics with the macro-micro divide and taking your position epistemologically divorces math from any claims to Truth in reality. You preserve the dignity of your discipline at the cost of its castration.
i could be wrong but when starting with peano axioms, i think you introduce isomorphisms first to create a set of negatives, and dont explicitly use the successor function on them
this is not a contradiction, as im sure you are aware, a function is defined by its domain, codomain and its graph so this is not circular reasoning
adding to this, if you really want to attack mathematics, the world of countables are not the place to do it
the step to the continuum is where we can not ascertain if our theoretical discoveries do not line up with reality, this is no secret either
yes we should be skeptical of foundations and grundlage, and be interested and inquisitive as to how language, notation and definitions arise, but you are stepping into wildberger territory with your attempts
> you are stepping into wildberger territory with your attempts
Why? It was you that said that math can be sufficiently described by itself. If that is true, which I agree, and philosophy can have no truth in relation to math, as you posit, then what is the epistemological link from mathematical concepts to reality? At best we can infer a kind of metaphorical relation which does not hold for any relations beyond mere similarity of appearance. If philo is all fake then how can math be grounded? You can’t just sidestep an epistemological barrier (which you are beholden to by the rules of logic to observe) and call it a nothingburger without showing why.
i think you might have lost track of who is speaking
mathematics can and does describe itself, our reference points and means to communicate it in such a manner are linked with the real world or sometimes chosen for ease of use
>similarity of appearance
is this referring to physics?
>If philo is fake
i think you lost track of who is saying what, i am in favour of eclecticism
it may be interesting to note that mathematical structures can exist without living beings, but philosophy is almost entirely dependant on them
>nothingburger
wildberger is a real person who rejects things that can not be counted(i think marks on a board is a phrase he uses), or at least contemporary treatments of it, the "circular" argument reminded me of him - while what he does is in fact a legitimate study, the way he has been presented to me is more emotional in its rejection of infinity
Romans didn't even have a representation for 0 and mathnigs try to found their autism on it
wtf no, ZFC was made before cavemen could count fingers???
>not a single relevant paper, not a single darpa project or defense/heavy industry(arms, aerospace)/strategic sector patent or test or prototype or laboratory is quoting fricking popper or kuhn or some similar pseud you heard about in fricking 80 iq pop sci clickview media
masterful bait. I'm in awe
Learning to think critically about science is definitely a worthwhile pursuit in today's world.
Also kinda surprised your list doesn't have the only good book to ever come out of the continental tradition.
>a literal pedophile
Remember when we used to have smug dogge-cade book threads? Good times.
Whoa, I clicked on this thread expecting a laughable list of books on the philosophy of science but that's actually pretty good. Start with "What is this thing called science?".
Why do I read these threads?
I know I don't know the answers. I know I couldn't participate in the discussion despite leaning one way rather than the other.
Why do I get so pissed off?
>re double and triple integrals all that matter?