You must log in or register to comment.
One of the painful things about having studied philosophy is experiencing the fact that nearly everyone on the Internet are absolutely sure having read a few paragraphs about the topic makes them an expert.
I think everyone with a niche skill experiences that to some extent. Almost all posts about mathematics on lemmy attract people acting like they understand what’s going on while making wrong claims lol, I only rarely see comments that are fully correct.
Yeah I expect climate change scientists would roll their eyes pretty hard at my post as well =)
I don’t think I saw any math related post tbh, other than witty 3! = 6 one
I guess me being a mathematician makes me notice them more. I’ve seen many in several communities, but me being biased makes me wish there were more.
I just began math PhD program, maybe it becomes different after finishing it. Maybe we are in different communities? Mine is mostly this one, linux and programming.
Different communities then I guess, I browse ‘all’ a lot.
I hope that one day people can call themselves philosophers without feeling cringey, because the world finally understands and respects it.
For what it’s worth, as a non-philosopher, I absolutely agree that it’s a field that needs and deserves to be taken far more seriously by far more people.
When I grow up, I want to work at the philosophy factory, making philosophies
Hey, I’ll have you know that I’ve read TWO paragraphs!
Shit! We got an expert here! ;-)
Same with studying anything and then seeing it mentioned on the internet.
Very true
Yeah, I’m an engineer myself, and even I can see that the take on philosophy here is really unnecessarily disparaging, and doesn’t even really fit well into the joke due to a rather meaningful lack of pertinence.
You’re right! I read a few paragraphs about this.
My high-school class on philosophy concerned itself with formal logic (syllogisms, really) and a little ontology, though I have forgotten most of the ontological stuff again. I don’t know just how much there is to know, so I don’t know just how ignorant I am. But where other Internet philosophers pretend to know what they’re talking about, I at least know that I don’t.
Astronomy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat by analyzing the raw image data of several insanely sensitive cameras, then finding out what the cat looks like, what it looked like right after birth, where it’ll be next year and what its gut microbiome consists of, based on a slight reddish hue in its fur.
Alternatively: Astronomy is like being in a dark room and saying “Something seems off. There must be a black cat in here.”
There are certain behaviors of ordinary cats which can only be explained by the presence of “dark cats”.
Voids, one might say.
Some catronomers suggest that ‘dark cats’ might just be bugs, but we haven’t seen any bugs in the room yet.
This meme is making these different disciplines answer questions they were never intended to answer. It’s like complaining that a school principal isn’t out there teaching students: that’s not their role and it would be silly to expect them to do otherwise.
Philosophers would ask something like, “what is a cat?”
Metaphysicians would ask something like, “how can we know that the cat truly exists?”
Theologians would ask something like, “what does the Bible say about cats?”
The categories themselves also show his ignorance.
Metaphysics is a sub-discipline of Philosophy.
And theology and science stood on philosophy’s shoulders as a means to different ends. It’s almost like the author started at the beginning and selectively broke off little bits to build up a joke, in service of the joke.
The joke didn’t land. That’s cool. It’s not my joke, I’m not offended. But I am mystified by the number of “well akshully…” replies. Had this been intended to be a serious, thorough commentary on various disciplines maybe I could understand the circlejerk around pedantry. But it’s not. It’s a gag based on oversimplification. In a meme community.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comedy can be and is used to make real criticisms of the world and various institutions. “It’s just a joke” is one of the most common lies.
People can laugh at the joke, or disagree with the criticism it communicates, or both, or neither.
But having and exercising critical thinking skills when engaging with memes in a meme community full of scholars and academics is exactly what I would expect.
I love The Oatmeal, but yeah, this one’s a miss
Lol, all of those are philosophies. Philosophy isn’t separate to science, or theology, of whatever. It’s the bigger group they’re all part of.
The meme’s accurate in that sense. All the others are also in a dark room looking for a black cat.
You can put an exclamation point in front of the link to get the image directly
You can embed the image, but I think you need to use the image link, rather than the comic page link:
Hmm. On one hand, the image link properly embeds while the comic link is just a little OBJ square that I can open. On the other hand, the comic link preserves the alt text.
While true, be advised that some consider it rude to hotlink images without permission
Edit: as pointed out below, Randall gives permission to hotlink/embed on each comic page.
Hmm, I’ve never seen that unless it’s nsfw
It’s old internet etiquette. I think the point is that hotlinking asks someone else to serve content without giving them traffic, if that makes sense.
Does Randall putting “Image URL (for hotlinking/embedding)” directly below each comic on the xkcd site count as permission?
lol I forgot he does that! And yes definitely.
It actually gets funnier than etiquette like the old poster mentioned. Some folks got pissed enough from people doing it that they would replace the images with goatse.
deleted by creator
The most useful branches of philosophy are important enough we’ve given them other names like “math” and “science”.
Remember, who made the flashlight for the scientist? The philosopher.
The amount of “science fans” dismissing philosophy is ridiculous
I don’t see this as being dismissive of philosophy at all. Science has always stood on the shoulders of philosophy. In the context of the meme, it established the possibility of the black cat existing. It’s the baseline. Science then used tools to test the idea, while metaphysics and theology are off somewhere making unfalsifiable claims.
Judging by some of the responses, I’m in the minority with this interpretation.
This meme is highly misinformed about how any of these academic subjects work though. (Meta)physicists and theologists don’t make claims, they research the consequences of certain assumptions. Most elementary sciences work that way.
If it puts us in a minority to regard scientific achievement as owing a debt of gratitude to epistemology and empiricism, not to mention ethics and countless other branches of study that cannot be taken for granted, then so be it. To take science on its own as merely a self evident and wholly objective practice solely fit for solving problems and creating better technologies is as boring as it is anti intellectual.
It’s not about whether or not the meme is dismissive of philosophy. It’s that the writer clearly doesn’t understand the basics of these fields and the kinds of questions they ask/answer, including science. Heck metaphysics isn’t even a separate field, it’s a sub-field of philosophy.
It’s completely insane how they think science somehow invalidates philosophy. First off, it doesn’t even ask the same questions, and only really applies to the physical aspect of the world.
I agree with the conclusion of your metaphor but I think that literally “the scientist” invented the flashlight.
who made the flashlight for the scientist? The philosopher.
You misspelt engineer.
Engineering is crinkling the treat bag so the cat comes to you.
Science is more like systematically searching the room while exhaustively documenting all findings to define every place the cat wasn’t, as well as where it was. Then you release the cat and do it several more times. Then you invite your peers to come in the room and try to achieve the same results, comparing their findings with yours, so everyone can have a better chance of finding the cat in future attempts.
Science isn’t easy. It is precise because it is tediously thorough.
Science isn’t easy.
But, unlike the others, it fucking works.
But observing the cat with the flashlight fundamentally affects the cat.
The cat both has and hasn’t knocked something breakable off a counter or table before you enter the room.
Could it be me who doesnt know what metaphysics is? No, a whole sub-field of philosophy is actually useless and none of them see it.
Also hilarious seeing “philosophy” referred to like its a method you can use and not a whole field including everything from ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, epistemology, aesthetics, etc.
Also hilarious seeing “philosophy” referred to like its a method you can use and not a whole field including everything from ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, epistemology, aesthetics, etc.
well i mean, philosophically, it could be considered a framework to think about things under.
tbf, being in a dark room with no flashlight will give you lots of undistracted free time to work through complex problems and ideas. The presence of a cat in there with you is largely irrelevant.
If the cat comes over and let’s me pet it then I can think better
I work in an underground mine and sometimes when I’m waiting for someone to come pick me up, I torn my cap lamp off and sit on a rock. It’s the darkest dark you can imagine. No shadows, no pin pricks of light just your thoughts. All you can hear is the sound of moving air and the occasionally the rock moving.
It’s genuinely peaceful and so so relaxing. Definitely had some philosophical moments down there
I think religion is represented wrong. It should read :
Being in a dark room looking for a black cat, believing that it is there.
I get where the OP is coming from and many religious people have been loud, vocal and hostile recently but it’s not a core principle of religion to be that way.
Not even religion, theology. There are grifters and scammers in every field but apparently theology is the one where the goal is just to unrepetantly lie.
A very clear bias on display.
tips fedora
Meh. Natural sciences and philosophy/methaphisics are quite closer/more intimately linked than you seem to think.
To quote my former physics teacher:
If you remove maths from physics you’re left with philosophy.
I’m not qualified enough to approve or contest this statement, but I know for a /phisicistsfact that there was a time when great mathematicians were also great philosophers and they couldn’t conceive doing one without the other (Leibnitz or Descartes, among many others). Why I changed and exactly how, I don’t know, but I find it interesting.
Philosophy and maths are still linked via formal logic.
Indeed!
Well duh. They all deal with finding the black cat
What’s the one that’s in a perfectly lit empty white room, with a decently sized black cat thats covered in arrows flashing towards it with a loud siren blaring from it and signs saying “the cat you are looking for is right here!”, who still can’t find the cat?
Pseudoscience/conspiracy theories.
The signs are a fakeout for the lizardpeople scooping your thoughtsponge out via economic taxation.
Just gotta do your research and follow the obvious signs. No, but not those obvious signs.
deleted by creator
Problem: Can a black cat be found in a dark room?
Hypothesis: yes
Variable: flashlight
Control: no flashlight
Findings: “v” group found the cat; the “c” group didn’t.
Theory: You can find a cat in a dark room using a flashlight.
Law: cats land feet first (indisputable)
Scientific literature doesn’t always take on the observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion form so strictly. A lot of the time it’s “This is the state of the field so far. Hey look what we found, that’s interesting. Conclusion: somebody should look into this”
