[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 611 KB, 960x1299, 2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5132654 No.5132654 [Reply] [Original]

So you philosokids would have me believe that science has nothing to say (or do) about the human condition. I put to you that this is about to change. Why am I retarded?

>> No.5132668

>>5132654
That's not true. Science has quite a lot to do with the human condition. The fields of philosophy and physical science are not mutually exclusive.

>> No.5132815

>>5132654

Think a lot of sciencekids would have themselves believe that people who read philosophy have nothing to do with science.

We do.

They're not mutually exclusive at all.

Shit thread/10

>> No.5132829

great comic, would kek again

>> No.5134925

>>5132815
A lot of philosophy is incompatible with philosophy.

Kinds that some people on /lit/ seem to like a lot. But keep ducking the question faggot.

>> No.5134947

I am a physicist working at CERN. I have to say I'm very glad CERN hired a team of professional philosophers. Every morning a philosopher enters my office and reminds me that science relies on the assumption that the world around us exists and is physically observable. Without his daily reminder I would have forgotten this quintessential fact. Thank you, philosophy. You are doing more for our research than the physicists who merely figure out the theory, design and conduct the experiments and interpret the results.

>> No.5134980

>>5134925
Christ, you STEMfags all write so atrociously.

>> No.5134983

>>5132654
Because whenever Science makes statements about Human Condition, its philosophy, not science.

>> No.5135641

>>5134983
I would agree that the human condition is largely philosophy's territory at the moment but certainly some scientific disciplines (evolutionary psychology at the very least) can address some of it

>> No.5135651

>>5135641
evopsych is not science though
woo at best, reactionary apologia at its worst

>> No.5135654

>>5132654
No sensible person thinks that. Philosophy and science go hand in hand. It are only the dimwits on both sides that are contrarian because they feel like the other field's prestige takes away from theirs.

>> No.5135692

>>5134983
>>5135641
Science may produce information about the human condition, or relevant to the human condition, but it's actually methodologically incapable of making value, and seriously limited when it comes to the bigger picture. For example, science might be able to say that conditions x, y, and z cause people to report they are experiencing emotional state a, b, and c, but nothing more. Anything else, like, condition y is good but condition z is bad, are philosophical, specifically, ethical statements. As for the second point, science is explicitly reductive. It reduces things to condition x, y, and z. Sophisticated science has condition x when y is present, etc, in more and more sophistication, but it's really, really fucking hard to say anything like that about the bigger picture because the bigger picture would require millions of variables to describe, IF it is describable in those terms at all. It's possible that there are states of being that are "fuzzy," or are, part-x and part-y but neither, or that are emergent, occuring when x, y, and z are present but not x, y, or z, and that sort of thing.

This is all assuming materialism, which is another, or should be (see: Nagel) a contentious issue. There are all sorts of experiences I have direct access to, and science is actually extremely indirect, and designed to strip these experiences of a lot of their features, to translate them, into its concepts and methodology, its assumptions, despite the fact that I have strong, direct, evidence that they work otherwise. Free will, for instance: I have a direct experience of choosing, freely, one thing or another. It's only until you erect a huge (and particular) scientific conceptual edifice that you start thinking differently. (Don't want to get into fine arguments about psychological determinism, just want to illustrate for OP.)

Also, you know, plain old fashioned caution and open mindedness, ala Feyerabend and Kuhn, point even more strongly to the fact that the "sucess" in science is often not even brought about using self-proclaimed scientific method, and the methods used are actually much more liberal, philosophical, even emotional, pointing towards a fuzzier, slippier kind of inquiry leading to even our strongest successes in manipulating our world.

>> No.5135698

>>5134925

Ok, I'll do that. Keep waging your deluded war.

>> No.5135704

>>5135692
Science solves problems that are handed to it, and answers questions that it is asked to the best of its ability within the limits specified by the questioner. It has a really good track record with this. Perhaps you expect too much of it? or are asking the kinds of questions it isn't useful for?

>> No.5135715

>>5135704
He's responding to the claims that its proponents are making for it.

>> No.5135726

>>5135692
I am saving this. Well spoken.

>> No.5135731

>>5132654
>So you philosokids would have me believe that science has nothing to say (or do) about the human condition.

No one has ever said this here unless they were literally trolling for teh sake of irritating some edge kid who wondered in from /sci/ but belongs on /b/.