🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:26:27 UTC No. 16241442
I've seen a lot of philosophy threads here. Philosophy fags pretend their field has a lot to do with math and science which is of course bullshit. Reminder that pic related is the most (and perhaps the only) respectable humanities field and it is worthy of the "honorable STEM field" title. History of math and science is the perfect addition to any scientist's education. Whereas stuff like philosophy deals with hundreds years old undecidable disputes that lead to nowhere, history (like STEM fields) deals with facts and objective data - factual people, events and dates. It also utilizes cutting edge technology to study historical artefacts teaming up with other useful sciences. Studying history also seems to be essential in progressing, both in science and in society in general. It also has the least amount of pandering to sjws, in contrast to other humanities.
tldr
>philosophy and other humanities suck
>except history which is based and on par with math, physics, chemistry etc
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:42:19 UTC No. 16241464
>>16241442
>/his/
>worthy of STEM
Wrong faggot.
Unless you got a time machine /his/ is as bad as Cosmology.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:20:58 UTC No. 16241627
>>16241442
It would be a big problem for science if philosophy was undecidable. Scientific theories necessarily make philosophical presuppositions, so if philosophy is undecidable, so is science. If philosophy is undecidable, there's no way for people with different philosophical presuppositions to come to an agreement on the correct scientific theories.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:24:14 UTC No. 16241630
>>16241627
Don't wake op out of her empiricist stupor, she's too innocent
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:56:19 UTC No. 16241672
>>16241442
Why do you hold that belief?
What do you think doing philosophy entails?
As an example, right now I am writing a paper about threshold deontology. In several spots I have to use rigor and formalisms -- namely, to construct an argument from logical formulas.
"Deontology" is about meta-ethics. It means you believe some moral stance should hold categorically, in all instances.
Do you think philosophy is highly arbitrary?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:05:20 UTC No. 16242327
OP here.
>>16241672
Yes? I studied philosophy and know it for a fact. Your formalisms mean nothing, it's just autism for autism sake. If you make any breakthrougs in deontology and your paper will be treated UNEQUIVOCALLY as a starting point for further analysis (a la Einstein's or Newton's results for example), let me know lol
I don't know why you pretend, even philosophers mostly acknowledge it (I say mostly because of course there are different opinions because surprise surprise it's a highly speculative and arbitary field):
"Disagreement in philosophy is pervasive and irresoluble. There is almost no thesis in philosophy about which philosophers agree." (Peter van Inwagen)
"There has not been large collective convergence to the truth on the big questions of philosophy." (David Chalmers) (and he is a fucking optimist on that topic)
I'm sure you are familiar with these two giants of analytical philosophy.
I love people pretending they are well versed in something when they're clearly ignorants like these two clowns below.
>>16241627
The only big problem is for philosophy which is the one dealing with metaphysical foundations. Science is preocuppied with useful, concrete things and undecidable stuff (is what we found out is le actual truth, are there other potential theories that could be conformed to the experimental data, are we deceived by our senses in some way, to what extent can we aquire true understanding of the outside world, if at all etc) is left for after-work reflection as it should be.
>>16241630
Funny that you mention the naivety of empiricism, because it happens to be the dominant view of philosophers worldwide which is shown by the results of The 2020 PhilPapers Survey. It also says that non-skeptical realism is their stance when it comes to external world and scientific realism is winning by a huge margin in the reflection about scientific output (scientists themselves seem to be more critical of their endevour lol).