7 ms·

People tend to forget that PhD (when translated into english) means "Doctor of Philosophy in..." While getting my bachelor's in math, I often heard peers expla

by rotrux 9y ago

People tend to forget that PhD (when translated into english) means "Doctor of Philosophy in..." While getting my bachelor's in math, I often heard peers explain the following: Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology ...with the intended implication that all science rests on math. Here's the diagram I'd come back with. It wasn't exactly met with enthusiasm: Philosophy ==> Math ==> Physics ==> Chemistry ==> Biology

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gumby 9y ago
That is in fact why mathematics is referred to as the "queen of the sciences" -- philosophy is king. And PhD is literally "teacher of the appreciation of knowledge" -- until recently you had "the PhD" and were qualified to teach, theoretically, any subject.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
Applied chemistry is biology, applied physics is chemistry, and applied math is physics. Applied philosophy is not math. Another way to look at it is asking why in biology leads you to chemistry, asking why in chemistry leads you to physics, and asking why in physics leads you to math. Asking why in math does not lead you to philosophy.
- grive 9y ago
  Thinking about logic is a discipline of philosophy. Applied logic is math.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    I'm referring to philosophy as the study of matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Applied logic feels like discrete math to me.
    - rotrux 9y ago
      Semantic discussions (such as debating a definition) tend to make us intellerrrrlectuals argue about things we agree on, as appears to be the case here. It's helpful to split Philosophy into two over-arching conceptual umbrellas: - Epistemology - "how do we know what is real/true?" - Ontology - "what is reality/truth?" Epistemology is the portion of philosophy that likely rubs you the wrong way: theology is founded on epistemology. That said, so are linguistics & Political Science. In addition, mathematical NOTATION is a subset of linguistics, albeit an especially strict one. Logic, Algebra, &, not least of all, statistical-modeling are the spawn of ontology. Without the ontological sub-dicipline of metaphysics, there would be no mathematical innovation. Whether you think calculus was discovered or invented, it would never come about if Newton(/that-German-Guy) hadn't been considering metaphysics. Metaphysics rests on the theory that our epistemological-mathematical-notation provides a linguistic analog sufficient to describe the items & phenomena we have thus-far discovered as a species.
mattmanser 9y ago
So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. Philosophy is a massive con, basically armchair thinkers who offer no practical, testable, recreatable, advice. And I did an actual Philosophy degree! The only bastion of Philosophy had left was moral philosophy and even that's becoming irrelevant now neuroscience and social science are becoming grown up sciences and giving us cold, hard facts of why our brain finds things moral or not, and what moral rules actually work for communities. Meanwhile, the moral philosophers all wander off and have a good old argument about if being altruistic is really being altruistic because it makes you feel good and what is the meaning of the word 'know'. So edgy, so sexy, so completely pointless.
- posterboy 9y ago
  > what is the meaning of the word 'know'. that's the quintessential question, the holy grail. > so completely pointless. * pointfree
- igravious 9y ago
  > So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. blatant non-sequitur > Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. a recent study shows that “Physics, Mathematical Sciences and Philosophy are among the majors with the highest IQs in America, according to research.” https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811 https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-... – third on the list between the mathematical sciences and materials engineering. would you agree that IQ is a proxy for 'real disciplined thinking'? if you do then your assertion about philosophy is false. if you don't then you would need to explain why philosophers uniquely exhibit high IQ but fail to be 'real disciplined thinkers'. > Philosophy is a massive con, basically armchair thinkers who offer no practical, testable, recreatable, advice. And I did an actual Philosophy degree! the philosophical method is conceptual analysis. this can indeed be done in an armchair. it can also be done through dialogue. it can be ventured into via literature and art as the article demonstrates. it can even be performed by computational devices. as one manipulates concepts one makes claims about their interrelations and their relations to the world. these claims are amenable to analysis. it's not a massive con, it's just extremely difficult while at the same time deceptively easy because it looks like all philosophers do is "think about a bunch of stuff". philosophy is as much about introspection to see where our biases lie. think of your mind like a weighing scales, if that scales is off the measurement will be incorrect. part of philosophy is the removal of prejudices and biases from your mind and being able to spot the flaws and fallacies of others. this takes a long time. not everyone is able to do it well, some cannot do it at all. because of relentlessly increasing specialisation philosophy plays a more mediating role, it also tends towards abstraction – thus, not everyone is cut out for it. it's not to everyone's taste. just because it's not for you there's no need to trash the entire discipline. i never liked accounting (for instance) but i'd never turn around then and say it was a joke or a con. > The only bastion of Philosophy had left was moral philosophy and even that's becoming irrelevant now neuroscience and social science are becoming grown up sciences and giving us cold, hard facts of why our brain finds things moral or not, and what moral rules actually work for communities. bullshit. every branch of philosophy is thriving. i would argue that it is actually to the detriment of philosophy that moral philosophy and its various ethical branches (business ethics, environmental ethics, bioethics, territorial rights, human rights, and so on) secure funding over other areas through a perception that they're more relevant. they're not. > Meanwhile, the moral philosophers all wander off and have a good old argument about if being altruistic is really being altruistic because it makes you feel good kindergarten stuff – i suggest reading the works of the late Derek Parfit, for one, to see what actually concerns the contemporary moral philosopher > and what is the meaning of the word 'know'. wrong, that's epistemology (different branch to ethics) > So edgy, so sexy, so completely pointless. not an argument – you would think you might have learned that somewhere during your philosophy degree
lancebeet 9y ago
There's a clear distinction. Mathematics is axiomatic, anything that is proven in mathematics is also true in physics, provided it's in the correct context. This can be extended to the other sciences as well, anything that is true in a model of physics is also true in chemistry or biology as well, again, provided the right context. This doesn't hold true for philosophy, since philosophy has no requirement of logical or empirical consistency which mathematics and the sciences do.
- rotrux 9y ago
  I'd argue the distinction is not as clear as you think. You use the words proven & true as if the word we use to describe gravity isn't "theory." Considering Philosophy to be a superset, inclusive of mathematics but not exclusive to it, means portions of philosophy such as logic & applied ontology (aka statistics) fit within your axiomatic definition.

by rotrux 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gumby 9y ago

That is in fact why mathematics is referred to as the "queen of the sciences" -- philosophy is king. And PhD is literally "teacher of the appreciation of knowledge" -- until recently you had "the PhD" and were qualified to teach, theoretically, any subject.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Applied chemistry is biology, applied physics is chemistry, and applied math is physics. Applied philosophy is not math. Another way to look at it is asking why in biology leads you to chemistry, asking why in chemistry leads you to physics, and asking why in physics leads you to math. Asking why in math does not lead you to philosophy.

grive 9y ago
Thinking about logic is a discipline of philosophy. Applied logic is math.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  I'm referring to philosophy as the study of matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Applied logic feels like discrete math to me.
  - rotrux 9y ago
    Semantic discussions (such as debating a definition) tend to make us intellerrrrlectuals argue about things we agree on, as appears to be the case here. It's helpful to split Philosophy into two over-arching conceptual umbrellas: - Epistemology - "how do we know what is real/true?" - Ontology - "what is reality/truth?" Epistemology is the portion of philosophy that likely rubs you the wrong way: theology is founded on epistemology. That said, so are linguistics & Political Science. In addition, mathematical NOTATION is a subset of linguistics, albeit an especially strict one. Logic, Algebra, &, not least of all, statistical-modeling are the spawn of ontology. Without the ontological sub-dicipline of metaphysics, there would be no mathematical innovation. Whether you think calculus was discovered or invented, it would never come about if Newton(/that-German-Guy) hadn't been considering metaphysics. Metaphysics rests on the theory that our epistemological-mathematical-notation provides a linguistic analog sufficient to describe the items & phenomena we have thus-far discovered as a species.

mattmanser 9y ago

So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. Philosophy is a massive con, basically armchair thinkers who offer no practical, testable, recreatable, advice. And I did an actual Philosophy degree! The only bastion of Philosophy had left was moral philosophy and even that's becoming irrelevant now neuroscience and social science are becoming grown up sciences and giving us cold, hard facts of why our brain finds things moral or not, and what moral rules actually work for communities. Meanwhile, the moral philosophers all wander off and have a good old argument about if being altruistic is really being altruistic because it makes you feel good and what is the meaning of the word 'know'. So edgy, so sexy, so completely pointless.

posterboy 9y ago
> what is the meaning of the word 'know'. that's the quintessential question, the holy grail. > so completely pointless. * pointfree
igravious 9y ago
> So what? In the UK we have a bunch of old farts who get made Knights of the Realm. Doesn't make them great fighters. It's just a name. blatant non-sequitur > Philosophy today is a joke, it's all the bits which real, disciplined, thinkers can't be bothered with yet. a recent study shows that “Physics, Mathematical Sciences and Philosophy are among the majors with the highest IQs in America, according to research.” https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811 https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-... – third on the list between the mathematical sciences and materials engineering. would you agree that IQ is a proxy for 'real disciplined thinking'? if you do then your assertion about philosophy is false. if you don't then you would need to explain why philosophers uniquely exhibit high IQ but fail to be 'real disciplined thinkers'. > Philosophy is a massive con, basically armchair thinkers who offer no practical, testable, recreatable, advice. And I did an actual Philosophy degree! the philosophical method is conceptual analysis. this can indeed be done in an armchair. it can also be done through dialogue. it can be ventured into via literature and art as the article demonstrates. it can even be performed by computational devices. as one manipulates concepts one makes claims about their interrelations and their relations to the world. these claims are amenable to analysis. it's not a massive con, it's just extremely difficult while at the same time deceptively easy because it looks like all philosophers do is "think about a bunch of stuff". philosophy is as much about introspection to see where our biases lie. think of your mind like a weighing scales, if that scales is off the measurement will be incorrect. part of philosophy is the removal of prejudices and biases from your mind and being able to spot the flaws and fallacies of others. this takes a long time. not everyone is able to do it well, some cannot do it at all. because of relentlessly increasing specialisation philosophy plays a more mediating role, it also tends towards abstraction – thus, not everyone is cut out for it. it's not to everyone's taste. just because it's not for you there's no need to trash the entire discipline. i never liked accounting (for instance) but i'd never turn around then and say it was a joke or a con. > The only bastion of Philosophy had left was moral philosophy and even that's becoming irrelevant now neuroscience and social science are becoming grown up sciences and giving us cold, hard facts of why our brain finds things moral or not, and what moral rules actually work for communities. bullshit. every branch of philosophy is thriving. i would argue that it is actually to the detriment of philosophy that moral philosophy and its various ethical branches (business ethics, environmental ethics, bioethics, territorial rights, human rights, and so on) secure funding over other areas through a perception that they're more relevant. they're not. > Meanwhile, the moral philosophers all wander off and have a good old argument about if being altruistic is really being altruistic because it makes you feel good kindergarten stuff – i suggest reading the works of the late Derek Parfit, for one, to see what actually concerns the contemporary moral philosopher > and what is the meaning of the word 'know'. wrong, that's epistemology (different branch to ethics) > So edgy, so sexy, so completely pointless. not an argument – you would think you might have learned that somewhere during your philosophy degree

lancebeet 9y ago

There's a clear distinction. Mathematics is axiomatic, anything that is proven in mathematics is also true in physics, provided it's in the correct context. This can be extended to the other sciences as well, anything that is true in a model of physics is also true in chemistry or biology as well, again, provided the right context. This doesn't hold true for philosophy, since philosophy has no requirement of logical or empirical consistency which mathematics and the sciences do.

rotrux 9y ago
I'd argue the distinction is not as clear as you think. You use the words proven & true as if the word we use to describe gravity isn't "theory." Considering Philosophy to be a superset, inclusive of mathematics but not exclusive to it, means portions of philosophy such as logic & applied ontology (aka statistics) fit within your axiomatic definition.