Destroying Science with Philosophy

[dr.hee]

I find it rather funny that one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.

Maybe he's getting paid in fallacies per minute?

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.

They all share the same damn mission.

Seek truth.

I say f*ck it.

Abolish it all.

Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.

[fiddy]

Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.

They all share the same damn mission.

Seek truth.

I say f*ck it.

Abolish it all.

Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.

Agreed. OP with very childish agenda.

[bladefd]

Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.

To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had SIGNIFICANTLY bigger impact.

[DonDadda59]

Pure Booty Chatter.

[KNOW1EDGE]

I took a philosophy class in college, it was by far the worst class i have ever taken.

[niko]

OP should give us knowledge he is intimate with, like what goes into the chicken pot pie at KFC.

[IamRAMBO24]

a scientist says A=A and confirms with calculations and measurements.

but a philosopher argues that A cannot equal A because A is only perception of the mind, imagination, or emotion, and A is not reality so it has no measurement and therefore cannot equate to anything, including replication of itself, because A cannot be proven to exist nor not to exist, nor subexist nor pre-exist; therefore A has no congruent value nor equation, which means it cannot equal A.

these methods of explaining things are why scientists are paid a lot of money and philosophers are paid nothing. lol

This is why philosophy is better; it deals with the universal while Science only deals with you see.

People who seek truths by the method of Science usually aren't seeking any truth at all. If you are versed in philosophy, you will know about the human mind, politics, art, logic, morality, religion and yes even Science itself since *cough* they created this sh*t.

To say Science is a better world view when it does not provide answers to 99% of world problems is just from a position of ignorance and a lack of appreciation and knowledge of Philosophy itself.

[IamRAMBO24]

Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.

To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had SIGNIFICANTLY bigger impact.

You want to talk about impact:

1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.

2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).

3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.

4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.

5. Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.

6. Nietzche is the father of modern psychology.

7. Schopenhauer is the father of sociology.

8. Adam Smith is the father of economics.

Not to mention, all the great mathematicians such as Euclid, Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc. are directly responsible for most of the math you know today.

The last huge impact Philosophy made was from Karl Marx and the huge revolution in communism, Dewey's creation of the public educational system, and sadly Hitler's influence from Nietzche. After that, Philosophy was controlled by all major industrialized nations because of Hitler; this is the reason why you do not feel it's impact today.

There is a reason why Philosophy is shunned and those in power do not want you to study it. Why do you think they can care less if the majority of the people are versed in such a narrow, unimaginative, fundamental view of reality such as Science and Religion? It is simply easier to control those with such a black and white perspective of things.

It is sad Philosophy has been watered down to a simple ethics bullsh*t class you take as an alternative curriculum in college class.

[ILLsmak]

How about this, science is a mixture of language and numbers. That's basically what it boils down to. You have math and language.

Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers. However, philosophy is based almost entirely on language and idea. I am a philosopher... brothar. I think it's great and I am more interested in ideas than reality. However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values.

It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy. Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, we don't have tools or measurements for "energy." Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.

That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't. So many variables you can't really tell what will happen at any given moment. I think that's why so many people go ape shit about certain events because it breaks their concept of what reality is. If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen. But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.

-Smak

[MavsSuperFan]

Religion can't destroy Science. Why? Because they are dumber. Their assumptions don't hold up to truth. Truth is innate; we are born to know it since it is who we are; it is not founded on objectivity or facts; it is simply founded on access. There are smarter people who can see the truth better than those who can't. And those people are called "Philosophers."

These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:

1. They believe in facts.

Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today. What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.

2. They believe in materialism.

What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees. But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory. But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.

3. Their methodology at arriving truth.

1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion

That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an intepretation of a person's view of reality. Not to mention, this methodology is created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).

4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.

Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.

Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack;

Kant talked about the theory of relativity? (how time gets slower as you approach the speed of light).

Kant talked about E=MC2? (that mass and energy are the same thing)

iirc Kant's whole thing was you need to do the right thing for no other reason that it was the right thing or you were immoral. I only took intro philosophy because I need some liberal arts courses and it was an easy A.

Descartes developed calculus?

[Inactive]

Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers.

What?

However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values.

Science isn't an attempt to explain anything to anyone.

It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy.

Scientists make predictions which are either confirmed or falsified via experiment. Those predictions are based on conceptual models which they create to make sense of the universe. Through that process they refine their models, making them function more like the actual universe, and increase the accuracy of future predictions. Without the ability to make predictions, and form hypotheses (i.e "conceptualize above what you can not yet prove"), one wouldn't be able to do science.

Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, we don't have tools or measurements for "energy." Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.

We have many tools for measuring energy!

That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't.

You forgot the "in a vacuum" part.

If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen.

Have you never seen a balloon?

But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.

Unless the universe behaved in a random way, I'm not sure why science wouldn't work.

[Dresta]

You want to talk about impact:

1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.

2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).

3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.

4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.

5. Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.

This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.

[Hazard]

So by calling scientists stupid you're suggesting that medicine, technology, and any kind of comfort you have in this lifetime is pointless as long as we acknowledge philosophy as being the only truth. Yes philosophy is the thought of how to improve, but science is the action. Its nice to have a little of practicality mixed with spirituality to create a nice easy balance that is necessary for advancement. I respect philosophy, even theology to an extent.

[bladefd]

This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.

What is also ill-informed is he makes it seem as if the ideas of 'liberty, freedom & justice for all' weren't known of before Locke wrote about them in 17th century.

I guess somebody didn't learn about Greek philosophy long time before Locke and/or ideas of Eastern philosophy. Even Rome flirted with those very ideas here and there, but as we know, Roman Empire ended up being monarchy and even tyranny at times after the initial Roman Republic debacle (screw you, power-hungry bastard Julius Caesar). They also had major class divisions. Until the USA in late 18th century, the ideas of true liberty, freedom & justice for all were not 100% practiced by an entire nation, but they were known of WAAAAAY before Locke (technically, USA didn't truly follow "liberty, freedom & justice for all" until 1960s after civil rights movement).