>>13718594>>13718829Lol I love these threads. It's always hilarious to come in a see a bunch of IFLS tier undergrad bitching about philosophy. It's pretty obvious that you retards have no background in science, since pretty much every major branch of science today is associated with certain long-standing philosophical problems. This is especially true in mathematics, physics, biology, and cognitive science, and I say that as a grad student studying combinatorics with a view towards the interactions between combinatorics and dynamical systems (especially Ramsey theory).
I mean, it is truly amusing. Pretty much and grad student or professor in the theoretical science has an interest in philosophy, and many philosophers have and continue to make significant contributions to science. I could literally list a few dozen from the late 20th/early 21st century off the top of my head. For example, in my own field of combinatorics, much of the recent work has been conducted by philosophers like Harvey Friedman, Stephen Simpson, Jeremy Avigad, etc. In particular, a lot of philosophers today are working in a philosophical paradigm called intuitionism, and a lot of that work has contributed to reverse mathematics and constructive analysis. Pic related is just one example. It was a paper written by Jeremy Avigad, who is a major researcher in reverse mathematics, and who happens to be a philosophy professor at Carnegie Mellon. If you don't believe me, feel free to look up any of the people I just mentioned: Harvey Friedman, Stephen Simpson, Jeremy Avigad.
Mathematical biology is another good place to look. Most of the field is rooted in 20th century cybernetics, which was quite explicitly a philosophical movement (as well as a scientific and mathematical movement). For example, Stuart Kauffman is probably one of the most famous mathematical biologists alive, and he has also done a substantial amount of philosophical research.
