/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12304310
>Scientifically speaking,
>why is philosophy considered more difficult than math or physics?
>Scientifically speaking
Scientifically speaking, its not

>>12304310
substantiate your premise

>>12304310
It's not. Philosophy is accessible even to normies, whereas math and physics require an IQ of at least 110-120

>>12304310
>vtuber moron is a moron

>>12304310
With Math and Physics it's easier to assess whether you've got things right or not.
One can memorize the entire philosophical canon word for word and still be a massive retard while being able to do the exercises in textbooks generally indicates that you've gained scientific knowledge.

>>12304532
>
>/sci/

you can't do math without philosophy retards.

>>12304636
True, infact Math-Physics = Good math.
Aka all human narratives that make contradictions in mathematics are derived by philosophy.
Philosophy is good to get a look at to know how stupid people can be.
It's a necessary evil considering we are all humans and bound to make stupid correlations like in philosophy.

>>12304668
Sorry, I meant

Math-physics = bad math

>>12304673
sorry,
I meant
[Current Math] -[All physics that can be discovered] = [All current bad math]

>>12304532
>IQ 110-120 aren't normies

t. 399 IQ

>>12304668
>>12304538

any rationalism, being philosophy or science is just trying to turn fantasizing as non-fiction all the made up categories and made up relations between those categories by intellectuals.
For instance think of classification of all finite groups. The classification of all Lie groups, clifford algebras or whatever the fuck mathematical entities all the various mathematicians have made up.

This is a social construct, subject to time and geography. All relative.

math sis a subfield of philosophy restricted to first order logic. mathematicians seethe over intellectuals who do not restrict to FOL.
Anything after presocratics (who actually live as they taught, contrary to Socrates and plato, arsitotle and all those larpers) is just intellectuals larping more and more as truth tellers in monasteries and university, to get a comfy pay while contributing nothing to society, with the pinnacle being the academics in secular democracy.

if you come from the secular humanist movement where the bourgeois hype the idea to the plebs that the plebs should get a (mandatory) education (more or less for free) in order to be smarter to larp as the greeks, (and not the unofficial and very fact that people get educated to make better workers already knowing how to do a job (so the companies need not to train them) and tax payers ) then yes it is moral idea to disregard the value of the education system

>>12304310
because math and physics can ultimately always be tested and/or measured in one way or the other and is constrained in very specific rules and laws that allow you to have a predictable outcome and in turn can be easily proven or disproven by ignoring blatant errors

philosophy as a concept has no finite resolution and is ever changing depending on the circumstances and to try and set a theory in stone requires you to look at an idea in every angle even if its ass backwards and you must include and anwser even the most stupid and rudimentary questions otherwise someone can come in and say
>ah akhshually but you didnt consider this hur rdurr

>>12305149
110 is too low for math and phys and borderline for any STEM degree. minimum threshold is probably around 125 for math/phys, and I'm talking about barely passing a degree with no delay and decent grades

>>12305364
also all profs in math/phys are around 135-140 IQ so their exams cannot be passed by people who are barely above average, as they wouldn't be able to understand the problems (even if the prof thinks it's piss easy)

>>12304310
You only consider it more difficult because you've studied maths and physics but don't know anything about philosophy.

>>12304532
>It's not. Philosophy is accessible even to normies
this, they desperately want to be considered intelligent for occasionally having "philosophical" conversations but dont want to put in any actual work or study as required for math and physics

>>12305420
there is some truth to this; philosophy is heavily reliant on rationality, and the faculty of rationality is something we all have access to, though sometimes debates still rage on.

>>12305364
>110 is too low for math and phys and borderline for any STEM degree. minimum threshold is probably around 125 for math/phys, and I'm talking about barely passing a degree with no delay and decent grades
Feynman's IQ was like 125 though

>>12304310
because you have to use your brain.

Because using your brain offers nothing.
philosophy asks about the study of knowledge.
math and science are part of that.
meaning we generate formal systems to describes those and say this is math when this is this.
or more abstractly
this is a this if this is this.
then we add a property off uniqueness.
this is this and not that.
That in itself is a group inside philosophy that holds formal systems, basically the formal system that defines formal systems, imagine it represents all permutation of formal systems. that's infinite.
But it's all based on belief and axioms.
so Philosophy is a set within Religion.
making religion harder than all of it.

>>12304310
Philosophers smells with huge ego even trough computer. They literally stink with their missasumptions.

>>12305364
Thats a lie, 120 iq is enough to get straight As and even a phd as long as you have the problem solving skills. The reason math and physics autismos have high iq is because you can force problem solving skills out of high iq which is more common

>>12304310
"Scientifically speaking"
Shut the fuck up

why do you spam the catalog with all this garbage you fucking retarded imbecile. kys

I've never heard this claim.

>>12304310
Philosophy is like trying to explain truth without a roadmap.
Mathematics is an airborne view of the whole truth, with markers to the exact roadmap you are looking for.

idk bc philosophy is made up so

>>12304310
By philosophy students who think math is long division?

>>12304310
Logical depth > Logical possibility.

I have spoken to professors and students about abstract philosophical concepts that go in depth about logical systems eg.

Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown knowns
Unknown unkowns

Most never understand these concepts and its simply because science is analytical while philosophy is all abstract.

One is not harder then another but one is simply less common.

Philosophy also has 0 value as a social currency and thus is infested with genuine discussion with real arguments as opposed to a manipulated system of science.