5
   

The job of Philosophy

 
 
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 09:12 am
@maxdancona,
Good well informed mathematicians disagree, they often deal with experts on Language!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 09:27 am
...I am at a loss, what can one say when this frigging nonsense about Philosophy just doesn't stop?

Who the hell people think invented the Scientific method? Philosophers!
Mathematics who? Yes you guessed it right again, Philosophers!
Why so much Philosophy is bad? Because it is by definition working on the frontier not in trivial matters, because it is always was and always will be HARD! On the limits of human understanding! If it is not there it isn't Philosophy just gossip!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 09:35 am
...do people know what Theoretical Physics is trying to do for more than a century now with Quantum Mechanics results of observation and the Scientific method?
Guess what, yeah again they are trying to do Philosophy out of it because right now it just doesn't make any sense! One freaking century and no advance!

Yes Philosophy it is the hardest most dangerous career endeavour you could ever take. And as usual goes unappreciated because by DEFINITION it is supposed to make an ASSAULT on the ESTABLISHMENT! (Dumb assholes)
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 09:40 am
Saying that Mathemeticians are Philosophers is meaningless in every way.

When I was studying Physics probably half of my classes were in the Math department. Physics and Math are jointed at the hip.. I had to master vector calculus, linear algebra and differential equations (classes that are pure mathematics). I took 1 class in philosophy, a class on ethics that I thoroughly enjoyed. But it never had an impact on my work in science or engineering.

I work with pure mathematicians. I might go to a colleague and say I need a geodesic mapping function with these constraints that is hopefully order N. He will ask a few questions and then suggest a solution. The mathematician doesn't care what the mapping function is for (he may ask collegially) but it is irrelevant.

We have an advantage since I did all of that work in college... that we have a common vocabulary. But what we are talking about are abstract mathematical functions that we both understand from previous study. We aren't talking about "truth" or "morality" or any philosophical nonsense. All we want to do is solve the problem.

When I implement the mathematical solution, it is either right or wrong. We are going to put data through it where we know the correct answer... and my implementation had better get the correct answers or it will be considered a failure.

I also, using mathematics, have to predict how fast my algorithm will be. (My job is to make systems that process a large amount of data as fast as possible). If my algorithm is slower than predicted that is also a problem.

Mathematics is very useful in getting the correct answer where correctness is defined in purely a mathematical way. Any (other type of) Philosophy just gets in the way.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 09:43 am
@maxdancona,
You will soon be out of a job!
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 10:44 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
Funny enough Science always evolves into Philosophy if done right.

Even funnier, Albert said it was the other way around.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:05 am
@Leadfoot,
It is true that good Philosophy advances Science but it does not evolve into Science.
Good Science on the other hand establishes solid ground for new Inquiry which is then processed back by Philosophers before Scientist dare to take a shot at it.

Scientist came at the scene when the subject became trivial and the questions are clear enough to then apply the "thing", the methodology, not pure Reason.

It is a case to say it is easy to find stuff through observation when you know what you are looking for.

Philosophers on the other hand are always left with the new mess that pops up...

It saddens me the amount of stupidity currently coming from the fields of Science regarding claims to knowledge on the most 19 century Positivist style for funding purposes. (Philosophy is inconvenient to them because it exposes them)
Karl Popper comes to mind to remind them that more often than not what they come up with is a temporary consensus until Natural Philosophy gives them something to chew at that is easily digestible.

Now tell me why do we have to put up with these ignoramus for thousands of years?

These guys turned History upside down!
Cowboys I say!

PS - Their campus is so far off when it comes to consistent reasoning that even sophists like William Lane Kraig have an easy shot at them.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:30 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
It is true that good Philosophy advances Science but it does not evolve into Science.
My point was that Albert, a fairly universally respected thinker, said that it was intuition, not math, that led to his breakthrough theories which he later correlated to mathematical models. If you (or Max) want to disagree with him that is OK, but don’t pretend Albert did not clearly say in what order his thinking went. Google 'Einstein's quotes about intuition' sometime.


Quote:
Now tell me why do we have to put up with these ignoramus for thousands of years?
You mean in my personal opinion?
It must mean that the designer knows that the yield of the process is very small, but still worth all the effort.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:30 am
@Albuquerque,
Science doesn't need to prove whether it is useful or not. Science is busy sending robots to Mars, developing vaccines for deadly viruses, and creating the modern Internet.

It is Philosophy that needs to spend so much time defending its value. Science doesn't care.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:32 am
@Leadfoot,
Lead,

Are you one of the people who rejects Einstein's theory of General Relativity? I am pretty sure you are (correct me if I am wrong).

I find it funny that you are now treating him as some infallible Saint. I respect Albert Einstein because he was brilliant and interesting. That isn't why I accept his ideas. Although he was smart, he wasn't infallible. I think you are making Einstein say things that he never actually said... but even if you are right in divining Einstein's inner thoughts, it doesn't matter.

I accept his ideas because they are testable. Einstein's theory has been developed so that there are experimental results that can disprove them. Then people ran a bunch of experiments to do these tests, and these results never happened.

Science is based on experiment only. It is not based on personality. Einstein's non-scientific musings on life are interesting... but they aren't a religious text.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:49 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Are you one of the people who rejects Einstein's theory of General Relativity? I am pretty sure you are (correct me if I am wrong).

You must not be invested in the discussion. I did that already.

And I am not setting Albert up as the ultimate authority either. He said that intuition was an invaluable gift. (Google if you doubt) He just was not as interested in where the gift came from as I. Here, science failed him. It is a job for philosophy.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:52 am
@maxdancona,
You have a point in stating that Science is a parasite of Philosophy that borrows without paying them taxes... Wink
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:52 am
@Leadfoot,
You have God.

Albuquerque has Philosophy (which for him is a deity).

You are both anti-science. Science is simply a process of answering questions using experiment and observation. That works for me (with no need for God or Philosophy).

Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:54 am
@maxdancona,
I've seen more science in a month then you will ever will in a lifetime.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:59 am
@maxdancona,
I say this without any trace of malice.
Max, in spite of your meticulous understanding of math and science, you are the least intuitive person I’ve encountered so far.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 11:59 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
I've seen more science in a month


I don't even know what this means....

This science you see, does She talk to you?
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 05:05 pm
@maxdancona,
Usually it does in the form of journals, magazines, and videos!
....and you see Troll this is why you deserve every time to be pot shotted with duuuumb!

By the way Troll when was if ever the last time you risked to go against the establishment or question anything at all eh? I never saw it on A2K and I am here for a long time already. I would love to see ou do that in your fields of expertise whatever they are.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 05:11 pm
@Albuquerque,
When it comes to science.. I am solidly pro-establishment.

Establishment science gave you the internet you are you using to trash establishment science. Establishment science has sent men to the moon and robots to Mars. Establishment science has literally doubled the life expectancy of human beings in the past 100 years.

All anti-establishment scientists give us is perpetual motion, intelligent design museums and copper bracelets.
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 05:17 pm
The difference between a Philosopher and a Scientist if there is any is that the Philosopher is aware that he is utterly dumb while the scientist is full of himself.

Science sells trivial truths as a car salesman sells a cyber truck to their godfathers who throw money at them in hopes of bigger fish.
When it comes to bigger fish Scientist better take some lectures on Philosophy to HOPEFULLY avoid being discredited by sophists under the public eye.
As nurses of civilization Scientists have a very important job to simply be left taken for a ride or manipulated by smart thinkers!
0 Replies
 
Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2020 05:23 pm
@maxdancona,
...FFS that could be said 100 years ago to...imagine Einstein going with that attitude based on Newton or for that matter the entire Vienna group...Don't look at what is pocketed but take a look at what is weak and push something ahead!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/09/2021 at 05:30:00