I just HAVE to talk about this with someone, even if I get banned, even if its offtopic...

This. To expand a little:
Engineering gives you cars, medicine gives you health, CS gives you AI and robots, the philosophy of science is a study of how these things impact society and this knowledge can be used to decide how and where to apply our new tools.

And you are right in thinking that this study is not sufficient for a full time job. That is not what ought to be, but alas, everything in our current society is pushed through the mould of the university industry, so everything is marketed as "a degree for a job" even if it really is not meant to be a "after this you can have x and y jobs".

None. It's not meant to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

I think every engineer should understand the philosophy behind their profession instead of separating the two. I am pursuing a Masters in IT myself and the philosophy I study is only in my spare time, I think what it does it can create a technician that isn't just a drone that is pnp for some corporation and does things with at least knowing the consequences. For example, the privacy question within recent versions of Windows is a philosophical issue.

They write books, essays, and papers that you can wipe your oh-so logical ass with.

So instead of solving any, they go around making imaginary problems? And this is a job now?

But why would any of these people know anything better than the people who actually do the stuff? Why would they know how to better use cars or aircraft than the people building them??

It is no surprise that they do not train engineers to understand philosophy (or teach anyone anything that isnt absolutely neccecary) under capitalism. They want obedient drones that can do what they are trained for, without questioning what they are doing.

The creator of something is the worst judge of its flaws.
In addition to that, the creator of something, especially under capitalism, has a vested interest in the widespread use of their creation, with the consequences coming in way second.
And as I pointed out in another post, you ought to study this field, and know about it, exactly because you are a scientist (or at least STEM), so you ought to understand the basis of the scientific method beyond accepting it as given truth (which is, ironically, not very scientific), and understand the impact of what you are creating. But you have said that you do not know what the philosophy of science is, and have expressed hostility towards it as "useless drivel", when in fact it is vital that you understand what and why you are doing what you are doing.

Why are you assuming they are supposed to be? Is there some liberal smugness you encountered that you assume that they think they are better than you in some way? The guy you responded to agreed that this study is not sufficient for a job. STEM students should have the technical classes along with some regarding the philosophy of their field.
Nobody is saying that, where are you getting this from?

You cant know what you are doing in engineering unless you know what you are doing.

But who cites or reads their works? And why? Alternatively: why is any book they write better than a book I'd write about "philosophy of engineering"?

But that is a non-issue dumb people want to make an issue out of. Just use encryption. If you know math you probably already made who knows how many encryption software by now.
Even shittier encryption programs can stall law enforcement or who ever for 20 years if nothing else.

And if you are too dumb to encrypt your shit, jokes are on you arent they?

What the fuck is this?

For someone who claims to know jackshit about science, you seem to have no idea what the history of science actually is.

Literally just read the Wikipedia entry on empiricism. The only reason edgy freaks like you are even around to wave your arms and freak out like this is because Spinoza and Descartes had to sit down and prove that science is actually possible. The whole history of civilisation is tied into this. The Greeks had a decent handle on it, and the medieval Islamic world, through the Greeks, had good empiricist sense as well, but the Western world was incapable of treating "science" as anything other than "natural philosophy", i.e. re-reading Galen over and over, before philosophers of science came along and basically did the entire Enlightenment.

Just google the Scientific Revolution. Just google the Scientific Revolution. Just google the Scientific Revolution. Just google the Scientific Revolution. Just google the Scientific Revolution. Fucking hell.

Attached: tumblr_mvb3gsSs871rt3w9xo1_500.gif (500x375, 825.83K)

Why would a boxer get into gardening?! Seriously why the fuck would a professional boxer waste any time growing turnips and mint, this makes absolutely no sense when you think about it!!!

This post in a nutshell.

Tell that to people in the military, who work on a need to know basis. Such as the people working on the nuke without knowing what it was.
You can work on something without knowing why. If your boss told me "make such and such software that collects such and such userdata", if I was not trained to and did not understand the implications of my work I would just do it. Trust me, I also do STEM (if you count CS as maths), you can get very fucking far with just going through the motions of applying methodology and formulas. You do not need to understand why you do what you do, just how to do it. You do not need to know why you follow the scientific method, why certain statistical methods are better or worse, just that it is so (told to you by your teachers).
Understanding the layer below, by removing the abstraction, by questioning the given, you get a deeper understanding of why you do what you do, and can spot other problems and mistakes that you might otherwise make.

Just because something does not produce designs for airplanes does not make it useless.

They are at an engineering university. Going into labs as fucking tourists. Asking people the most random fucking questions.

I have actual work experience in my field. I've worked with postgrads. I was even briefly in national lab propulsion place where they test jet engines. Guess what. Literally none of the people testing jet engines know anything about ancient Greeks or Spinoza.

So, you dont need to know any of that shit to test a jet engine… what DO you need that shit for?

Then why are resources wasted on them? Its not like we have an unlimited amount that we can spend on everything.. gotta prioritize. Cost efficiency is bread and butter of engineering. Which makes this whole thing so much stranger.

But I am already successful (enough) at what I do without ever knowing any of this shit. As are many actually successful people I was lucky to meet.

Asked one of my older professors about this, he also told its beyond insane. He doesnt get it either. He told me to just politely nod while they are around till we both figure this shit out.
AND HE IS A FUCKING ACADEMIC

The point is why is MS selling the data, where do we go from here? Can we somehow get Linux more support. What are the implications of future OSes being SaaS. Everything is becoming more of a walled garden and subscription based. Why is that? Fucking capitalism How could we apply technology to more efficiently run the world? That's why we have Cockshott threads.

Politics are not imaginary, dipshit.
Besides, science and engineering would be hell without philosophy. It is what defines progress to guide improvement, and in fields like computer science, seemingly abstract notions that an edgelord would call "feelsy" can have real world applications.

Financial success does not require you to be good at anything, if you buy enough lottery tickets.

Other people within their field or who are interested in their ideas.
Because they are scientifically minded people who are interested in questioning and refining the foundational principles scientific thought is based on.
Because you're a dullard who has never even thought about where the epistemological framework he operates within originated let alone questioned it sufficiently to write anything of interest.

This thread is philosophy

Either that or they just haven't told you because you're an annoying dweeb. You're hardly the only human ever to have "worked with postgrads" - I have too, in this and other fields, and yeah, they definitely do know basic history of science.

And yeah, they do need "that shit" to test a jet engine. Here, let me dig up a really complicated and obscure source for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon. He is also a creationist. Authority does not make you right.
I am not trying to be snarky, but maybe you should not ask people who agree with you, people who taught you their worldview, for their opinion. They are going to reenforce your beliefs. Be a true scientist, and ask many people, from all sides, for their answers.

Successfull by what manner? As I said here , you can be super successfull by just going through the motions, without understanding why. I can be a succesfull software engineer without understanding how a computer works, without understanding assembly, hell, without understanding primitives like bools, ints, etc. Many of my classmates are. But understanding what lies below the abstractions, understanding why we do what we do, why I need to follow certain practices, why the limitations are what they are, why this and that, gives me a far better understanding of what I am doing, why I am doing it, how to better approach things, and what is and is not "right".

keep talking about the burgerbux you supposedly make like anyone gives a shit, it has literally 0 relevance to how political economy and scientific practice works

Here is some videos (more coming)

Attached: Daniel Dennett - Why Philosophy of Science_.mp4 (640x360, 9.36M)

Again, I worked in the institute for propulsion testing for a bit. Over there I've met basically all the people you'd need to build yourself a real life missile. And I gave some of them a call, asking them about all these new courses. They are as weirded out as I am, and none of those were even invented when they were graduating.
So we have successfully tested jet engines out there, before this shit is even invented. How does this not invalidates the argument that without this new weird shit being invented, we'd be in stone ages or idk?

Im an assistant to one of my old profs (tho I dont have to teach anything thank god) for my masters with 2 more people, so there's 4 of us in total, and none of us know get this shit.
Everything these people do, we can do better. Everything. Every little bit (related to engineering, or engine of any kind).
There's not ONE thing they could do better than we can. Which really makes me wonder about their skills and what they are for. Naturally, none of this shit could be tested or idk. Their skills appear 100% useless to me.

Were you not the one that said:
?
By your admission, you do not understand them. And why else would you ask us to explain it to you if you already understood it?

Are you 4000 years old?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Pre-modern

Thats a large sample size mr super smart scientist who insists on testing everything.

Let me quote you from wikipedia, because you might not be inclined to read what we link to you
The philosophy of science concerns itself with the scientific method, if it is truth, what is and is not science. Using the scientific method relies on the axiom that the scientific method is true, it is a given. You cannot "prove" the philosophy of trying to prove if X or true or false, by using X. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true.

Here is a video from crashcourse. It should explain a bit, even if crashcourse is a bit eh at times.
youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ

now taking bets on this being the bike kulak back for round #3

your line of thinking is why all the meaning has been washed out of life.
i would rather live in a stone age society of storytellers than a furry convention* full of engineering bottom-feeders.
i'd blame it on "the engineering mindset" because they fit together so well, but it didn't used to be this way. you used to actually get well rounded human engineers. i wonder why that ended. it's very annoying.

*this is the official way of referring to a gathering of engineers.

ah yes.
while we're at it, let's just take the whole concept of "moments" out of engineering. they suck and are also for girls.

what physical thing is enjoyment
where do i poke enjoyment with a stick
will i get enjoyment if i poke your eyes with a stick?

look at programmers then get back to me

you don't need to know anything about farming to eat, let's just laugh at all the farmers
(oh wait no, i've got a better idea, let's replace them with robots using the blockchain.)

ah yes, i'm sure this is a statement you'll treat as rigorously falsifiable rather than anecdotal bullshit.
"be human"?

The philosophy of science has been around in a rudimentary form for almost 3000 years. It's existed as formal field of western philosophy for a century.
Except think.

First nice reply. So they are like.. historians of engineering. Who dont know any math. And who cant even participate. And who just make a lab overcrowded. As the guy who does it said so himself.
But they know… history of engineering. And this somehow helps someone.

Still, if they are so useful, how come all the most prestigious institutes, universities, and corporations that do engineering, dont employ them?

But these people, these 'philosophers' of engineering dont even know what is considered basic math. And believe me, engineers dont even really go into the messed up math some other people like physicists have to go. But these people dont even know the most basic stuff (requires for engines).
So.. how are they helpful? Knowing math is like, being literate. How are these illiterate people helping?

And also I am not discrediting what they are SUPPOSED to do. I guess engineering could use what they try to do.
Its just that literally any engineer is better at philosophy of engineering than a philosopher of engineering.

Speculation into the nature of things is what helps move the things that are the target of the speculation into a more certain light. Through dialectic approach towards the concepts of technology and science, a sort of understanding can be established, not in the sense of the technical knowledge needed to operate within the disciplines of science and engineering, but a sort of idea regarding the purposes of those disciplines. Perhaps the Philosophy of Science and Engineering may weigh the purposes of those disciplines and through a didactic approach may say, for example, that engineering and science should be used to further the human species as a beneficial means.

Perhaps the crossing of ebola and smallpox could be a situation for the philosopher of science and engineering to weigh and consider. Just because you are autistic and unable to think laterally doesn't mean that lines of inquiry are invalid.

Direct your ire towards gender studies as a social science, feminist dance theory, environmental racism, or social justice 101.

Not so nice yourself either.

You have proven again and again that you have no clue what the philosophy of science is. You even admitted that you do not know what it does in your own OP. Then how can you with a straight face claim you know better how to do that thing than the people trained to do it.

I sincerely hope you one day get over your edgy positivism. If you ever do, please read "Toward a New Socialism", and join us STEMlords in the cockshott thread.

Oh and if youre hawaiileftreview, stop being an edgelord, and get back on the discord, damnit, you shoulda just banned AW.

No

Attached: 1512375412068.gif (500x685, 951.91K)

Attached: Jimmy Dore Laughing.png (220x218, 105.8K)

I love when milk robot shill comes back for another thread
mildly more sophisticated thread this time

Op here. Ok. Philosophy of engineering is important.

But now my question is, why are these philosophers of engineering better at philosophy of engineering than the actual engineers?
I already dont like this touch-y feel-y non engineering way of doing things. Its not how the useful stuff gets done. It IS exact science. You not only know if you are right or wrong, but you even get to know precisely HOW MUCH you are right or wrong when you start using numbers.

Knowing how to use numbers is crucial to all the more useful intellectual disciplines. And these people are mathematically illiterate. Professional engineering institutions didnt use them till recently. And many institutions abroad, even more successful than our western ones arguably, also dont use them. Red Army didnt have philosophers of engineering when it came up with t54, did it? It had engineers.

milk robot shill?
Not saging because surprisingly engaging thread.

uncritically building nuclear missiles is literally the most important thing in the world and if you don't agree you're a useless eater.

But how is this not a low laying fruit?

You see in math, you basically cant know calc 3 if you dont know calc 2. You cant know linear algebra if you dont know idk, basic functions or trigs.
So naturally, if you know 'high level stuff' (building a nuke, miniaturizing it, like 30 different sciences), how can you not know WHY you'd build one?

If anything, you'd be an authority on any criticality concerning nukes, wouldnt you?

Attached: 1369962181213.png (399x376, 232.22K)

i build one so that i can collect my excessive salary and burn it on pornography of a garish hyena that i use to emulate a personality. as for why someone else wants one: not my job to ask questions, just following orders, ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.

I am the same, but my unease with it (probably caused by my undiagnosed 'tism) does not mean its "wrong". Just because I cannot fit things within my frame of perfect logic and internal consistency does not mean they aren't worthy of attention.

It is very usefull though. The philosophy of science was (and is) used to determine that the scientific method as we have it today is the correct one. Before, people used to formulate hypotheses, then find data to support it, and they also called it science. The philosophy of science is the field that eventually determined that that is not scientific, it is not truth.

What is your obsession with numbers? You don't even need fucking numbers to do mathematics. Category theory can (or is?) done without numbers involved, and using category theory you can model tons of computer programs.

Whoopsie, fucking pdf paper formatting, ignore all the weird enters.

Another interesting video
youtube.com/watch?v=SffJp89Ua8g

But is what a bunch of people who are saying they study the philosophy of engineering/science the philosophy behind it? Have philosophers really played a significant role as philosophers in the development of that? It's true that people who were philosophers among other things made contributions to math and physics, but are current philosophy students in a better position to judge the impact of those contributions than people who don't see themselves as philosophers, but are competent at math and physics? Where are the examples of philosophers contributing as philosophers to science in general? Did engineers write a thank-you letter to Popper for making their science all the more powerful and scienceier? Wasn't it rather the case that Popper took inspiration from (his layman understanding of) hard science to make a polemic to rub under the noses of his philosophy colleagues?

Unlike a tough anarchist rebel like Heidegger. (That was sarcasm.) Almost the entire history of philosophy is self-congratulatory wank by the ruling class.

I'd say it is important to have some knowledge of history/politics/economics to understand one's position in life and to think about the projects one works on and what their impact on society could be. I wouldn't look for guidance from these "science-philosophy" students though.

Pseudo profound my friend pseudo profoundities

Attached: FB_IMG_1529073919424.jpg (640x642, 43.82K)

We had the philosophy vs. science thread last month. HawaiiLeftReview was BTFO.

I'll say it again:
Science was originally known as natural philosophy. With the progress of modern science came the splintering of different fields of knowledge into things like physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, engineering, etc. With that splintering also came a tendency to abandon the critical and philosophical approach to science from which it originally came. Which is why people think the sum of human knowledge is bean-counting and statistics. It's not. The underlying logic of a scientific study is more important that the empirical method used to test it. Without an underlying philosophy of science we can't even say that empirical evidence is valid (in a given study.)

Attached: cockshott_arms.png (1139x690, 1.08M)

dude i meant like 2 classes or something about philosophy for engineers not tht every STEM student needs to start with the greeks and essentially dual major u sperg lmao

isn't that just britney spears from 75 years ago and she needs to bleach her roots?

They are there to tell autists like you why not every thing your galaxybrain can come up with is going to have a positive impact on society. Left to your own devices you would just end up building killbots or doing vivisection experiments on twins.

...

How do you even know what they say is true tho? The philosophers on the topic of engineering. Lets say they say x is bad. How do they know? Do they calculate it? Do they test it? Is any of their shit even falsifiable?

Honestly philosophy sounds like an opinion, and since we have science we no longer need it.
OR whatever these philosophers can do, engineers can do better (when it comes to engineering). How did these philosophers arrive at their magical knowledge about engineering?

Attached: 1519429872078.webm (480x270, 695.93K)

OP, repeating the same question over and over again does not invalidate all the answers you got.

Holy lel atomic take of the day.

How does a philosopher of engineering know if modelling stress-affected chemical reactions in non-linear viscoelastic solids with application to lithiation reaction in spherical Si particles is "good" or "bad"?
How do philosophers of science arrive at their conclusions about the effect of the interphase zone on the conductivity or diffusivity of a particulate composite using Maxwell’s homogenization method???

They turned my beloved, sacred halls of everything I like into everything I dont like. Guess Zig Forums isnt the place to vent, Im sorry about it.
I'll just get my fucking masters and get the fuck out of there. Find myself some sort of a job where I dont have to have any business, or share air with those clowns. Or just suck dick for money till I can open up my own private thing.
Even if I have to suck dick for 50 years. Fuck everything.

Attached: 1467244591285.jpg (418x475, 24.55K)

please volunteer at the cyanide pill testing department

If you wanted a torture chamber that reaffirmed your fedora tipping beliefs that anyone who doesnt study STEM is useless and ruining "what has always been", then you should have gone to Zig Forums.

You need someone to tell you good from bad because obviously you can't be trusted to do so yourself. How they dress it up is secondary.

...

Please do tell me how does a philosopher of science or engineering arrives at his opinions of redirection of a crack driven by viscous fluid.
Hell let me make it even easier for them and let them assume energy release is pic related.

Ooh that's fucking right. They cant. They skipped class for ~10 years while the rest of us did math. Now they cant answer. But we gotta tolerate them around. We gotta pretend these lab tourists are useful. Listen and believe.

Fuck everything.

Attached: energy release.png (415x36, 5.17K)

See
Your question does not make sense because you are unwilling to learn about things you do not understand.

...

My guess is that is not the question he aims to answer. You would know if you listened. "Why doesn't someone investigating one thing know answers to another thing - why can't he tell me what colour love is?".

Take your fucking meds, HawaiiLeftReview.

Listen, I don't begrudge anyone their right to understand the transience and fluidity of theory and its applications in astrophysics because they can't answer questions about oblique bow shock or the dispersion of plasma between MHD and Dual-kinetics theory. The philosophy of science is a critique and analysis that surpasses the extant order of things. At present, the pragmatisms of comparative trade and the gradual intellectual effacement of the scientific process into a precarious and vocational pursuit that is contingent more so on economic benefit than the "hallowed halls and pursuits" to which you attribute it. Philosophy of science is the rendering of science and its proper place within a civil society, not how or where its done or its particularities.

And became well rounded human beings as a result.
I'm off for a pint, tell me when the fursuit orgy is over.

RISE UP GAMER'S

Well fuck you too buddy, you can't stop me.

Attached: spiderman dinosaurs.jpg (813x960, 64.54K)

Philosophy is historically speaking mostly justification of society with stratified classes, and current philosophy is for the most part extreme navelgazing and about trying to justify its own existence. Philosophers in slave societies were mostly NOT concerned with abolishing slavery, they had rather an interest in maintaining that. You know who had an interest in abolishing slavery? SLAVES. Scientists and engineers get most feedback and guidance from each other, NOT from philosophers. Engineering is like a knife. You can do good or bad with it. The skills and knowledge of scientists and engineers will remain valuable after a radical transformation of society.

The existence of priests of the rentier class is tied to the existence of class division and will vanish with it.

Engineering is historically speaking mostly the search for new ways to intensify labor and produce profits in a society with stratified classes, and current engineering is for the most part measured entirely by its ability to commodify human knowledge. Engineers in slave societies were mostly NOT concerned with abolishing slavery, they had rather an interest in maintaining that. You know who had an interest in abolishing slavery? SLAVES.

Nice try, but doesn't really work. Engineers are usually obsessed with use values.

Philosophy of X consists of contemplating some X from a special perspective common to philosophers. You do not need to an engineer to do that (but engineering could help. You can have a Marxian philosophy of technology (e.g. polifilosofie.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/karl-marx-on-technology-and-alienation-amy-wendling.pdf ) which looks at technology though a class lense or how techonlogy interacts with capital as a social relation and self-expanding value. Asking what is technology as such, how does it relate to human condition, how was it and its relation to humans was percieved through time an so on. None of this requires engineering itself, it requires reading history, reading past philosophies, reading contemporary scholarship of the field itself and so on. Engineers don't do that, they study engineering for 5 years, so then they can be engineers. Nothing is stopping you from becoming a STEMfag and then pick up on the philosophy and switch to it, see Massimo Pigliucci for instance.
Your question is more like, why do we need to think at all? Why can't we just DO STUFF and live, how does philosophy helps us DO STUFF?! It may help or may not, it's not its task. Although people say that for example Allan Key, who create smalltalk and was a pioneer of oop and gui was inspired by Platonism, there are probably more examples of people reading philosophy and changing their praxis after it. *cough*marxism*cough*

Is that why they engineered lightbulbs that stop after 1000 hours when the ones before lasted for litteral decades? Or how they made phones that stop working after a certain time? Or how they made stockings that rip after a few times even though they are made from FUCKING NYLON WHICH IS STRONGER THAN STEEL?

"Science is the production of commodities. The more commodities it produces, the more sciency it is."

O U T

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (602x762, 1.15M)

Read the fucking thread you absolute retard. Almost everybody replying here to tell OP is retarded is STEM.

That's a basic misrepresentation self-styled intellectuals do when they are criticized. OP, whether he is right or wrong about the students, certainly doesn't claim that they think too much. Almost nobody who gets called an anti-intellectual actually espouses a position of, "thinking hard, my feelings good, I'm mad at you for being so smart durr". Instead, what the person called an anti-intellectual usually does is not acknowledging a particular person or group as wise, and so gets called an anti-intellectual by them in retaliation.

It is unlikely that such a decision is made by an engineer. It is made by managers and managers of managers. The businessman who is also an engineer is the exception, not the rule.

A use value isn't automatically a commodity. Production of use values doesn't imply production of commodities. Engineers are concerned with physical properties of objects and systems. The goals they have are usually in terms of physical properties: Make this thing go so fast, carrying this load, not using more fuel than…' Even when a goal is given in terms of reducing money cost by using the cheapest materials to meet a spec, the tools the engineer has available are all about engineering stuff, not options like appealing to jingoist sentiments in order to get people to work at higher intensity "to beat the dastardly Japs" or other psychological tricks. That's in the toolkit of the managers. Contrary to the Californian Ideology, there aren't that many engineers who are also managers, and engineers who become managers late in their career are often unhappy, because of the conflict between the engineering approach they are used to and the goal of profit-maximizing. Read Veblen.

People are giving you stupid answers.
The university makes money with these programs. Thusly, they teach them. Profit is as profit does. No one employs them because they don't do anything. People will employ them when it becomes profitable to do so.
Lol @ anons getting low-key butthurt because they know their pet philosopher is a total navel gazing dork.

Like me, when u signed up into engineering (me, like an idiot in 1987- manuf engin) you failed to come to the the real, rational conclusion that the advent of the industrial revolution was PREDICTED by several hundred years then INITIATED by forces of credit that (are still in the saddle today) were already over a MILLENNIA OLD by the time of the $taged invention of the printing press! "Money talks, but Credit stalks". This is where your misinformation about what is and is not relevant in sci is. People in eng using math are historically "cheap labor" and philosophy of engineering is "management" (read "forces of credit").

But, they still chose to follow that order. Which is EXACTLY what we have been trying to explain to you in this thread you insufferable idiot.

...

Nah, I'll continue to say what I think is right and comment that people are being stupid.

You're just validating OP's retardation

Wow, I didn't know engineers followed orders. Thank you person who can't tell who said what ITT. I'm now starting to read philosophers for the first time in my life, and will take their advice to heart. I already learned something: "The Führer alone is the present and future German reality and its law." More study of this genius will certainly give me critical insight into what I'm doing.

I am not mixing my own labor with the philosophers, humanities and artists (that I do not enjoy). A healthy dose of logical positivism should be practiced around these people. Their shit is either flat out wrong or doesnt even exist. The success of legitimate sciences or hard sciences is precisely in logical positivism. These people really do just talk with each other and eat food we produce, spend our electricity, use our machines without giving anything back. None of their blabbering is operational or useful in the sense of doing things. And whatever they come up with when it comes to physical things, others come up with much better.

zizek makes me laugh and makes me think fun thoughts
engineers destroy modernism by putting reddit memes in space.

Shilling for socdem parties and making them look less neoliberal than they actually are and then watching massive privatizations unfold sure is a kneeslapper. Is that your example for a person who might give guidance how to change society to engineers or anybody else? Might as well recommend Heidegger then. Or Slotterdick or however you spell that.

A man of culture, I see

go on. recommend i watch 'back to the future' for my laughs, you literal NPC.

Attached: Ideology ~ Žižek meme - Pingu theme.mp4 (1280x720, 1.71M)

Opinion discarded. I share an office with a fedsoc lawfag, and he'll probably become a communist before some little shit who think's he brilliant for being able to do muh triple integrals but couldn't even be trusted to learn Lagrangian mechanics as an undergrad. OP's probably a fucking mechanical engineer too. Absolutely disgusting.

Attached: no thanks.gif (200x270, 544.71K)

Well done, I'm certainly convinced now. Maybe you should go to reddit, they have these great subreddits called r/badX or r/shitXsay, where you can all pat each other on the back and give mutual assurance about how great you are all day long and be sure to never be subjected to the pain of having to handle a thought that's new to you.

Going to school for anything but STEM is pretty fucking laughable. Anything non-STEM you wanna learn you can learn for free with the internet. There's almost limitless access to non-scientific information today. It goes to show how unbelievably wasteful capitalism really is. Billions of dollars are poured into "humanities" every year to turn out idiots who have no ability to reason in the world and who have absolutely no technical skills whatsoever. So they can write a bullshit paper that can't be falsified; I'm sure that will help them take orders are starbucks.

Paying for intellectual content from anyone but individuals who offer free samples of their content is retarded.

Just boycott the quasi intellectuals. Boycott them some time and you notice your life is better without them. Save your time, effort, resources and value for yourself or for actually useful experts. There is a reason they cant justify their existence in a simple and clear way without mental gymnastics everyone else can.