User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-11 at 9:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks That fundamental and abstract thinking is the source of modern day physical sciences.
It might sound obvious now (because of hindsight bias), but they really did come up with the idea that material is constructed of atomic units, paving the way for chemistry, and Aristotle wrote a bunch of books about laws of physics (now mostly discredited, admittedly, but who else was sitting around positing laws of motion in Ancient Greece? most people were preoccupied with raising their cattle and tending to their farms).
Those fundamental thoughts were around before the philosophers were, and would've been around long after had they not existed.
Aristotle and other philosophers who actually science'd are a little different. Nigga had formulas, not just thoughts. He was a scientist before it was cool to be one, though I guess if you break it down, all scientists are fundamentally philosophers. -
2018-11-11 at 9:42 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Those fundamental thoughts were around before the philosophers were, and would've been around long after had they not existed.
True, the ancient Egyptians were using sophisticated engineering well before it was codified.
Originally posted by GGG Aristotle and other philosophers who actually science'd are a little different. Nigga had formulas, not just thoughts. He was a scientist before it was cool to be one, though I guess if you break it down, all scientists are fundamentally philosophers.
The reason they call doctorates a "PhD" is because it stands for Doctor of Philosophy. That's because, historically, "science" as we now call it, was once considered a branch of philosophy. -
2018-11-11 at 10:18 PM UTCLANNY THE PHILOSOPHER:
"IF I CAN"T BAN EM MIGHT AS WELL CLOSE REGS LMRAO"
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-11 at 10:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks True, the ancient Egyptians were using sophisticated engineering well before it was codified.
The reason they call doctorates a "PhD" is because it stands for Doctor of Philosophy. That's because, historically, "science" as we now call it, was once considered a branch of philosophy.
why not call it D;Ph -
2018-11-11 at 10:39 PM UTC
-
2018-11-12 at 2:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks True, the ancient Egyptians were using sophisticated engineering well before it was codified.
The reason they call doctorates a "PhD" is because it stands for Doctor of Philosophy. That's because, historically, "science" as we now call it, was once considered a branch of philosophy.
I think it stands for 'philosophae' which is Latin for wisdom. Philosophy itself can be separated into 'love wisdom' (I forget which part is which) but obviously Latin parts do not create an English meaning. You can't use 'philosophy' interchangeably with 'wisdom' in English, so I imagine the PhD degree was named after the latin word and not the english one. -
2018-11-12 at 4:10 AM UTCIt's a greek word.
-
2018-11-12 at 4:19 AM UTClol
-
2018-11-12 at 8:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks True, the ancient Egyptians were using sophisticated engineering well before it was codified.
The reason they call doctorates a "PhD" is because it stands for Doctor of Philosophy. That's because, historically, "science" as we now call it, was once considered a branch of philosophy.
if you really think of it, quantum mechanics are really just philosophies since most of it are just theoretical.
ie, think-dos.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-12 at 8:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by GGG I think it stands for 'philosophae' which is Latin for wisdom. Philosophy itself can be separated into 'love wisdom' (I forget which part is which) but obviously Latin parts do not create an English meaning. You can't use 'philosophy' interchangeably with 'wisdom' in English, so I imagine the PhD degree was named after the latin word and not the english one.
it stands for philosophaegott. -
2018-11-12 at 12:56 PM UTCReading the historical works of philosophy is kind of a waste of time now, except as entertainment. Like nobody needs to ever watch a Superman or Spiderman origin story again.
Honestly, nobody really wants to read shitty 2000-200 year old philosophy books. You don't see physics hobbyists reading the Principia Mathematica as a modern maths textbook either. The only reason people do it for philosophy is because it's easy to let your imagination get lost somewhere down the tracks of more primitive philosophical discussions, which are written like the Bible. People love a good story, and it's easy to get convinced along the way and refuse to see the legitimate criticisms of the next one you read.
Going into philosophy to confirm your own biases is a real hazard that people don't give enough credit.
In general I would recommend picking up a good textbook that can walk you through the history of philosophy in medium depth, so you can get to contemporary philosophy, where IMO the actual meat of the interesting discussion is.
You can understand the points and reasons behind the works of the big papi philosophers without actually reading their book, and it will help you stay outside of the yarns they spin and remain rational.
There is a big payoff to working your way up to contemporary philosophy, where we've really advanced since we moved past discussions that mostly focused on correcting Descartes's errors. This is where it actually gets interesting. -
2018-11-12 at 1:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics Reading the historical works of philosophy is kind of a waste of time now, except as entertainment. Like nobody needs to ever watch a Superman or Spiderman origin story again.
Honestly, nobody really wants to read shitty 2000-200 year old philosophy books. You don't see physics hobbyists reading the Principia Mathematica as a modern maths textbook either. The only reason people do it for philosophy is because it's easy to let your imagination get lost somewhere down the tracks of more primitive philosophical discussions, which are written like the Bible. People love a good story, and it's easy to get convinced along the way and refuse to see the legitimate criticisms of the next one you read.
Going into philosophy to confirm your own biases is a real hazard that people don't give enough credit.
In general I would recommend picking up a good textbook that can walk you through the history of philosophy in medium depth, so you can get to contemporary philosophy, where IMO the actual meat of the interesting discussion is.
You can understand the points and reasons behind the works of the big papi philosophers without actually reading their book, and it will help you stay outside of the yarns they spin and remain rational.
There is a big payoff to working your way up to contemporary philosophy, where we've really advanced since we moved past discussions that mostly focused on correcting Descartes's errors. This is where it actually gets interesting.
True, and if I had to recommend any book on the entire sweeping history of Western philosophy, it would be Richard Tarnas' Passion of the Western Mind.
He covers everything you need to know, from the Pre-Socratics through to Kant and even Nietzsche, and in a way that actually weaves it all together like some kind of fictional narrative, rather than dryly listing the facts as they are.
Once you have a firm foundation for philosophical inquiry, you can get into the real meat of the discussion, as you call it. But without that foundation, there is so much room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation, which basically just creates pointless debates. -
2018-11-12 at 1:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if you really think of it, quantum mechanics are really just philosophies since most of it are just theoretical.
ie, think-dos.
That's incredibly true.
Actual empirical experiments have been conducted to help substantiate claims about how the physical world really works, but these are still just based on theory.
I mean, quarks, bosons, dark matter, what the fuck is all this? The Pre-Socratics would have probably accused us of the same kind of mythological/religious invention that Pythagoras was on about with his mystical mathematical ratios that seemed to explain all of God and man's creation. -
2018-11-12 at 3:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks That's incredibly true.
You're an idiot.Actual empirical experiments have been conducted to help substantiate claims about how the physical world really works, but these are still just based on theory.
Do you not understand how science works?
The theory is a model for explaining actual, empirical observations of behaviours in nature. That's the starting point, nobody just pulled QM out of their ass. Each correct prediction by a theory increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. QM is not any different.
We can't deductively prove anything, science is the realm of synthetic statements, we use statistics to bolster our confidence in theories; we can say through repeated experiments that we either have the right answer, or the alternative is that we are getting consistent results by luck on the order of winning the lottery 6 times in a row. If you want to cling to that alternative hypothesis then great, but the rest of us are fine with saying we have 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% confidence in the explanation.I mean, quarks, bosons, dark matter, what the fuck is all this? The Pre-Socratics would have probably accused us of the same kind of mythological/religious invention that Pythagoras was on about with his mystical mathematical ratios that seemed to explain all of God and man's creation.
We observe actual effects in the world that are very accurately modelled as force carrier particles between interacting fields. It's not just made up out of someone's ass. Literally wtf are you babbling about? -
2018-11-12 at 3:50 PM UTCLanny is a rapist(and a faggot) and a child molester he's told me all this through email
-
2018-11-12 at 3:53 PM UTC
-
2018-11-12 at 4:55 PM UTC
-
2018-11-12 at 5:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics The theory is a model for explaining actual, empirical observations of behaviours in nature. That's the starting point, nobody just pulled QM out of their ass. Each correct prediction by a theory increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. QM is not any different.
you need to dig a little deeper into relativities, -
2018-11-12 at 5:14 PM UTC
