science without philosophy is mastubatory

[Anonymous No.15100597]

discuss

[Anonymous No.15100667]

[Anonymous No.15101370]

>>15100597
>chemical company needs to stay ahead of the curve
>fund lab
>develop new process to make specific monomers polymerize at half the temperature
>goes into production 10 years later
What about this is masterbation?

[Anonymous No.15101373]

>>15100597
Philosophy is like masturbating near the community trash bin

[Anonymous No.15101380]

>>15100597
I hate this bitches face so fucking much

[Anonymous No.15101398]

>>15101370
Science without a pursuit of knowledge is engineering.

[Anonymous No.15101399]

>>15100597
Its called philosophy of science, there is no science without philosophy, the scientific method is a development of philosophy.

>>15101370
>chemical company needs to stay ahead of the curve
Then staying ahead of the curve is the company philosophy and they are applying science to enforce their philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15101402]

>>15100597
this is some directionbrain shit

everyone should study Plato and Aristotle

everyone should study 1 to 3 premodern theologians of their choosing (including Confucius etc)

people should ask themselves Tough Questions

but I have nothing to learn from a Communist mutant or miscegenation victim

[Anonymous No.15101414]

>>15101399
>there is no science without philosophy, the scientific method is a development of philosophy.
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15101442]

>>15101414
The Scientific Method is obviously a type of dialectics method that was developed as a direct extension of The Socratic Method, of course it is philosophical in nature which is why your counterargument is so vague, brief, and uninformative.

[Anonymous No.15101452]

>>15101442
>The Scientific Method is obviously a type of dialectics method that was developed as a direct extension of The Socratic Method,
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15101456]

>>15101452
>of course it is philosophical in nature which is why your counterargument is so vague, brief, and uninformative.
Its literally called philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.15101457]

>>15101380
She almost looks like a scientist

[Anonymous No.15101459]

I can only express my utmost contempt for the so called philosophers of science. Everything about them is quintessentially cringe. They describe a trivial and well-known process, yet the way they describe it shows how they failed to understand it. With unwarranted arrogance they proclaim to know more than scientists while their writing resembles the ramblings of a 5 year old child who "explains" the world to his father based on his very limited level of knowledge. Except that these philosophers are grown up adults and allegedly educated, so we'd expect more from them than only childish platitudes. Philosophy of science is trivial at best, cringeworthy and outright anti-intellectual at worst. A complete disgrace for the historical tradition of philosophy as a pursuit of deeper knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15101462]

>>15101456
'Philosophy of science' is just philosophy without science. Scientists don't consider it a serious field.

[Anonymous No.15101466]

>>15101462
No every degree in science is called Doctor of Philosophy Degree for that scientific field.

[Anonymous No.15101467]

>>15101466
And doctoring means synthesizing because it is a type of dialectic where they are synthesizing "truth" from information via a particular method, in the case of a Doctor of Science, it is the Scientific Method.

[Anonymous No.15101472]

>>15101466
>>15101467
This is a very naive and stupid pair of posts

[Anonymous No.15101480]

Niels Bohr:
>I felt ... that philosophers were very odd people who really were lost, because they have not the instinct that it is important to learn something and that we must be prepared really to learn something of very great importance. There are all kinds of people, but I think it would be reasonable to say that no man who is called a philosopher really understands what one means by the complementary description.

Paul Dirac:
>I tried to appreciate it, but I did not get very much success in trying to appreciate philosophy. I feel that philosophy will never lead to important discoveries. It’s just a way of talking about discoveries which have already been made.

Richard Feynman:
>I rapidly learned that philosophy, as far as I was concerned, the philosophers who were respected were really quite poor and rather stupid people — at least, from the modern point of view. It seems to me that there were trivial errors in logic which were obvious. Very poor, it seemed to me.

Steven Weinberg:
>After a few years' infatuation with philosophy as an undergraduate I became disenchanted.
>I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers.

Stephen Hawking:
>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15101481]

>>15101414
>>15101452
>>15101472
Thank you for the (You)s, but I am noticing and extreme lack of argument in your posts,so here is an equally worthless post, just to arbitrarily give you (You)s for trying your best to keep the thread alive.

[Anonymous No.15101484]

>>15101480
>It seems to me that there were trivial errors in logic which were obvious.
Says a guy who regularly uses values like 0 which is specifically defined as it own opposite value completely contrary to the logical law of explosion which asserts any system that has an element defined as its own opposite is an explosive system of logic.

[Anonymous No.15101487]

Philosophy is just an advancement of religion, but not as evolved as science. Philosophy, like religion, never answers any questions, but at least it doesn't try to with supernatural answers.

[Anonymous No.15101505]

>>15101487
>Philosophy, like religion, never answers any questions
Dialectics is the philosophical process specifically about trying to find truth by asking and answering questions, though, and its the concept that lead to the rise of the Scientific Method.

[bodhi No.15101507]

why does wondering why you are doing something instead of just wondering how to do something make NPCs piss and shit themselves?

[Anonymous No.15101509]

>>15101507
Much more fuzzy subjectivity is involved in the why compared to the how such that there is often no stable coherent answer to whys compared to hows.

[Anonymous No.15101514]

>>15100597

[Anonymous No.15101517]

>>15101514

[Anonymous No.15101529]

>>15100597
masturbation is keyed THOUGH

[Anonymous No.15101557]

>Philosopher: The scientific method is flawed. We need philosophy to fix it.
>Scientist: Okay, go ahead and fix it.
>Philosopher: *introduces tranny pronouns, critical whiteness theory and LGBT history to the STEM department*

[Anonymous No.15101572]

>>15101557
Those are social scientists introducing those concepts, not philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15101619]

>>15101507
Do you ever wonder why you're such a fucking retard, bodhi?

[Anonymous No.15101656]

>>15100597
zoomers unironically think this is hot

[Anonymous No.15101661]

>>15101656
Maeby

[Jealous No.15101664]

The scientific method is a philosophical exercise.

[Anonymous No.15101673]

>>15101664
>>15101414

[Anonymous No.15101751]

>>15101656
She cute enough for me no cap.

[Anonymous No.15101842]

>>15101673
Incorrect. Apply yourself.

[Anonymous No.15101876]

>>15101480
It's interesting how intelligent people come to similar conclusions. Philosophy works often read like fiction. The language is always flowery, and needlessly verbose. Often you'll see stupid people trying the same thing when they talk to appear smart.

[Anonymous No.15101925]

>>15101459
this, unfortunately. people tend to idealize philosophy. but when you look at the modern practitioners they mostly don’t measure up. they get hung up on the dumbest shit, like: significant figures are wrong because it’s granular to multiples of 10 and sometimes a different number would give a tighter bound. like yes, every highschool student has noticed that why do you think this is publishable retard

[Anonymous No.15101947]

>>15101480
The moon landing broke philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15103370]

>>15100597
philosophy is just masturbatory sophistry.