I disagree completely. Science and philosophy complement each other. Science deals with objective questions about the nature of reality, philosophy deals with subjective questions of how we use and apply the knowledge that we derive from science.
What we consider to be desirable is an inherently subjective question, and philosophy provides us a framework for coming up with a shared way to talk about that.
Phylosophy is absurdly wide and smeared. Ethics are already a subject that can be perceived under Marxism, and while Marxism is also a phylosophy, it doesn’t contradict science. We should not permit ideologies that contradict Dialectical Materialism be in the way by being granted respect just because.
The problem I have with that is the following: when scientists disagree, there is an effective methodology for resolving the dispute. We run experiments, and then find out who is right and who is wrong. (sometimes we’re all wrong!) Social Sciences in general, but philosophy especially, have no such mechanisms. It becomes impossible to resolve disagreements and make progress.
As I’ve explained, philosophy deals with the realm of subjective which inherently deals with interpretation. There is no objective right or wrong possible, however it’s absurd to claim that having a framework for what’s desirable is not important. Humans are social species and we need a framework to govern our interactions and to decide how we use technology.
Yep, absolutely. Phylosophy is infected with ideology and almost nothing with Materialism.
Phylosophies that contradict science should fucking disappear from the general public unless speaking for history, and people still don’t get why.
As a physical scientist, philosophy always felt like astrology or homeopathy. Lot’s of bogus terminology, but no real substance. Just pseudoscience.
I disagree completely. Science and philosophy complement each other. Science deals with objective questions about the nature of reality, philosophy deals with subjective questions of how we use and apply the knowledge that we derive from science.
What we consider to be desirable is an inherently subjective question, and philosophy provides us a framework for coming up with a shared way to talk about that.
Phylosophy is absurdly wide and smeared. Ethics are already a subject that can be perceived under Marxism, and while Marxism is also a phylosophy, it doesn’t contradict science. We should not permit ideologies that contradict Dialectical Materialism be in the way by being granted respect just because.
The problem I have with that is the following: when scientists disagree, there is an effective methodology for resolving the dispute. We run experiments, and then find out who is right and who is wrong. (sometimes we’re all wrong!) Social Sciences in general, but philosophy especially, have no such mechanisms. It becomes impossible to resolve disagreements and make progress.
As I’ve explained, philosophy deals with the realm of subjective which inherently deals with interpretation. There is no objective right or wrong possible, however it’s absurd to claim that having a framework for what’s desirable is not important. Humans are social species and we need a framework to govern our interactions and to decide how we use technology.
Yep, absolutely. Phylosophy is infected with ideology and almost nothing with Materialism. Phylosophies that contradict science should fucking disappear from the general public unless speaking for history, and people still don’t get why.