Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tjs8rj 1471 days ago
Saying religion is the opposite of science is like saying philosophy is the opposite of science.

Religion is a philosophy, it’s an incredibly diverse, rarely entirely faith based, etc

Deep theoretical physics in some ways has more in common with religion or philosophy than with experimental and verified physics.

To the extreme: science itself is faith-based at the deepest levels. Like that experiments are replicable, that the universe behaves predictably, that anything exists in any real sense, that we can trust our own perception and observations at all, etc

Science is a useful construct that seems to work, it’s also deeply intertwined with philosophy (including the philosophy of religion)

2 comments

I hate philosophers and I think the entire field is illegitimate. Not to be insulting to you personally. It's just my opinion of the field in general. I have nothing against you.

I look at your entire field with very high disdain. To me it one of the most inconsistent, illogical and irrational and useless academic fields in existence. Useless is ok. Irrational is not ok.

I once gave a deep, complex and logical argument to a philosopher about why i thought philosophy was complete bullshit. He laughed at me and said my argument included elements of philosophy, and since my argument contained philosophy I was basically proving philosophy to be not bullshit. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend how stupid that argument is, then it's fine. I actually have nothing more to say on the matter. Agree to disagree.

As opposed to what, science? That thing relying on the axiom that perception somehow lets us predict reality? No, science is nothing more than the arbitrary notion that a pattern perceived right 'now' will continue into the 'future', one after the other. This is not necessarily true, and hardly something to derive absolute truths from.
See. This is another problem with philosophers. Did I say opposed to anything? You just pulled that notion out of your ass and assumed I don't understand science. You guys use big words but in actuality you make a lot of random irrational assumptions.

You cannot prove anything in science and therefore reality itself. This is a well known property of science and you can explain this property without utilizing pretentious vocabulary and concepts like "patterns." You already know what science is, so we won't get into it.

Even though science can't prove anything, it's still a valiant attempt at proof. Can't say the same for philosophy.

https://josephnoelwalker.com/139-david-deutsch/

Philosophy is currently reshaping science and math. I'm curious what your take is on the discussion in this link.

My take is it has absolutely nothing to do with why I think philosophy is complete garbage.

Think of it this way. If let's say a cultist religious sect believes in science and contributes to science then at the same time this cultist religion also believes that the universe is a bubble sitting on the nose of a cosmic hippo.... Then despite the good science, the entire cultist religion is still utter bullshit.

That being said it is still highly questionable how large and how meaningful philosophies contributions are to math and science. Historically they may have been one in the same field, but today there is clearly a category error.

I would say philosophy contributed nothing to math and science. It only seems that way. What's actually going on is if a philosopher contributes something to math, he is actually doing mathematics, he is not doing philosophy. Same with science. If a philosopher reshapes science he is doing science, he is not doing philosophy. Because philosophy is a bullshit category that literally encompasses everything under the sun I dismiss it entirely.

I didn't read the article or listen to the audio you sent me. I may if I have time later on in the week. But in my opinion, that is an article on math, not philosophy. Nothing is philosophy it's all bullshit to me.

Also please don't tell me my argument here is philosophical and therefore contradictory. Absolutely please don't sink that low.

Purely out of curiosity, have you ever even taken an elementary university-level philosophy course? I'm wondering what the basis for all of these rather absolutist conclusions might be.
The basis is logic. Certain attributes of philosophy make it ludicrous. Additionally the way philosophers formulate arguments brings the whole field into question.

Philosophy is just a vocabulary word. It is a arbitrary word with a definition that is so general literally every academic field or school of thought on the face of the earth can fall under it's purview however ludicrous or legitimate. Literally, any form of deep thought or complicated complex is "philosophy." It's the most pointless and pretentious category to have ever existed.

This is the main problem with it. It's like a man who won 7 nobel prizes but is a child rapist at the same time.

Ok, so that's obviously a no, then.

You might want to learn something about a given topic before thinking you are informed enough to casually parody it. There are legitimate attacks on philosophy which are possible, but you don't seem to be finding any of them.

I will very much contradict you on this. Religion is absolutely not a philosophy.

No philosophy ever had immutable scripture that must be defended.

No philosophy ever had a hierarchical social structure with the aim of preserving the purity of that philosophy.

No philosopher ever sentenced other people to death for not complying to their philosophy.

Religion is a much more perverse disease.

Religion by definition is a subset of philosophy. It’s a particularly old form of it, and has very ardent supporters, but it’s philosophy all the same.
There's a thing called philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. Every single thing on the face of the earth falls into the purview of philosophy. It's harder to see but the field is just as ludicrous as religion itself.

No doubt some of it's ideas are mind bending and complex. But that attribute is independent of legitimacy which philosophy lacks.