/sci/ is talking about philosophy again

I think you must have me confused with another anonymous poster, I hope you don't have schizophrenia and are seeing conspiracies that aren't there.

I thought you'd say something like that. very well.

>tripfag

you already lost me there friend

The SEAS speak to those who will listen, intently, observing. Look to the continent of the OCEAN.

>Honestly you rarely see someone on Yea Forums with anything resembling expertise
that's the thing. you won't find anyone over there with anything resembling expertise either.

its a myth to "redpill" someone born of trying to get things easily

thats not rocketscience

It's actually not. They mostly just talk about math equations nukes and global warming.

>sci is talking about philosophy again

did you read the op?

The main problem comes from them not understanding the role philosophy has in current academia. They think that philosophy is trying to answer the same questions, at the same level, in a way that isn't testable. The problem with that view is that philosophy's role isn't looking at those questions at the same level. Philosophy is interdisciplinary and it also posits hypothetical possibility on ideas, in addition to attempting to answer questions that very well can not be answerable by modern science. Philosophy's scope is so broad that it is negligent of them to make assumptions on its credibility based off of a purely scientific perspective. I personally won't deny that scientific methodology is the most effective set of tools we have for making judgments about the world, but this set of tools IS limited in scope. Believing that a "theory of everything" is possible to be found in science ignores the rest of our tools at our disposal. Math, Science, Philosophy, Theology (even a negative theology) are all important.

The idea that science has the final say on all inquiry is myopic to the point of idiocy. It's also one of the hallmarks of the dominant ideology of the present. Beneath it is actually a historical-philosophical idea about the progressive nature of history. It is actually extremely strange that many proponents of scientism have such stalwart political ideas, because science is completely mute on politics per se. But good luck getting them to see that.

I was blessed to realize science rested on broader philosophical axioms and had a restricted domain of inquiry when I was fairly young. Saved me a great deal of grief.

kys my friend.

:(

name one (1) question that has been answered by philosophy since its inception

Name one question that has been answered with absolute certainty by science. My point wasn't that philosophy answers questions in a verifiable way. If you want answers, do math.

>Name one question that has been answered with absolute certainty by science.
Na+ + Cl- = NaCl

>enter currently reading thread on Yea Forums
>/sci/ spergs post their maths textbooks

Modern science: semiconductors, nuclear power, modern medicine, etc.
Modern philosophy: "Here is why we need my preferred variant of Communism immediately:"
Philosophy has been utterly rekt by Communism, it is like heroin for intellectuals.

And that was figured out using induction, which does not guarantee absolute certainty.

nothing can be discussed with authority through anonymity. that's the beauty of this shithole site.

/sci/ - Computer Science Majors Share Their Uncritical Theories of Mind