anon doesn’t know what formal logic is
which formal logic? symbolic?
there are lots of logics. typically people only ever learn/study the 101 version of it, but it’s own entire subfield with lots of applied areas and systems with their own unique rulesets and applications.
just like your average high school student thinks physics is done with algebra alone, and has no idea with a field equation is or classical mechanics outside of Newton.
most people who learn that stuff doing go beyond the 101/102 level because it’s not applicable for their jobs. like medical professionals. very few universities offer 300+ coursework on logic, it’s hyper specialized field with a few dozen folks working on it really, compared to say ethics, where you have probably 50K+ professors and most universities have graduate level coursework in ethics.
I’m pretty sure symbolic logic with Ps and Qs is colloquially known as formal logic. Which is usually treated as a strand of philosophy. I was making fun of how anon is acting like philosophy is just people bullshitting when any philosopher worth a dime is making pretty complex and airtight arguments that you learn the basis of in a logic class, which a 4chan user wouldn’t have taken because they are usually losers with nothing good going for them.
Well there is an entire field of philosophy called the “philosophy of science” which tries to determine the ideal way we should conduct science so it’s an iterative process. Issue with philosophy (and science but more complicated) is that they are simply ideas but many take them as gospel.
the thing that most people fail to understand is there are multiple methods and approaches to various types of science.
they make the faulty assumption there is one method and one truth. that isn’t how reality works. the scientific method isn’t really a strict method, it’s a generalized concept which is applied differently depending on the field and object of inquiry.
That’s also a very good point and a problem even within scientific communities. This is partly tribalism, partly jargon, and partly structural. People identify with a discipline or method, dig in their heels, make new terms for old ideas, dont read work outside of their bubble, and everyone is left confused. I agree the scientific method isn’t strict which is a double edged sword. We can’t come to perfect truth but only make good faith efforts to approch the mysteries of the universe.
Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing/growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not “just philosophy” like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.
I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it’s impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It’s also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.
the problem is the population conception of things must be portrayed in a super simplistic narrative. and lay people think that narrative is how things work because they have no experience of the actual processes that go on in highly specialized areas of knowledge and research and such processes are entirely opaque to them.
hence why a lot of people hate science and don’t trust it, because they literally can’t understand it. the science they learn in high school is nothing like the way in which contemporary science is done. and they feel like that is a failure of science itself, that it scientific inquiry can’t be a simple as a high school physics experiment than it’s ‘wrong’.
I used to teach philosophy and about 70% of my students just straight give up on learning it once they realize they won’t get ‘answers’ out of it. their POV is that it’s suppose to give them answers they can use to beat other ‘stupid’ people over the head with… they don’t understand that they are learning a process or a skill. like they come into philosophy 102 thinking they will ‘learn’ the ‘answer’ to the question of ethics of abortion, and get angry/upset that they come away ‘knowing’ less than they did before, and feel ‘cheated’.
average people don’t want to think, or challenge themselves intellectual. this want clear, definite, and simple answers from which to construct a worldview that is consistent and unchanging and therefore ‘correct’.
newb here but is that just epistemology and hermeneutics?
no.
Sadly, I’m a psychologist and not an expert in scientific philosophy. The topic is interesting but I haven’t deeply read into it so sadly can’t help.
thanks for the reply!
Fake: science isn’t based on science. Isn’t even real.
Gay: science comes from philosophy. Philosophy comes from the ancient greeks…
ancient greeks come from man boy love and men getting pregnant.
checkmate feminists.
a priori mothafuckaz!