Here kitty kitty

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 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
- 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
- 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.

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.
- relevant xkcd
  
  You can put an exclamation point in front of the link to get the image directly
- The most useful branches of philosophy are important enough we’ve given them other names like “math” and “science”.

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)/¯
- I love The Oatmeal, but yeah, this one's a miss

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.
  
  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.

Metaphysics isn't looking for a black cat that isn't there. It's assuming that there is a black cat even though there might not be one, because flashlights don't exist yet.
- Metaphysics is about how things that don't exist affect what does exist. Things that don't exist include law, money, superstition, and belief. Santa clause isn't real, but everyone acting like he's real makes for a very real effect.
  Metaphysics is telling everyone there's a black cat so they step more carefully.
  
  What about superstitions about black cats being the reason everyone is looking in the first place?
  
  No but like stuff like Santa and money ins't part of metaphysics. It's like an attempt to answer stuff because we don't have the tools to know certain stuff. God would be metaphysics, but not Santa because we know we made Santa up, but the existence of some supreme being (while not exactly how we portray him) is unable to be unproven or proven

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.

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

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.

tips fedora

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.

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.
- Well duh. They all deal with finding the black cat

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.

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"

- The meme is silly but it starts with philosophy directing the science what to do - look for the fucking black cat using all your capabilities.
  Religion is also painted correct: if there's a part of the room that's lighted with the flashlight with no cats there, we don't want to ruin our worldview and still believe in the cat in the remaining part of the room.

Physics is like shooting balls at the cat and registering the sounds of pain to draw a shape of the creature. Except that it turns out to be also a dog at the same time

I don't like this allegory because if the room is perfectly dark the color of the cat doesn't matter, and if there's a bit of light its eyes will glow.

philosophy is my single favorite field ever invented.
I fucking love it so much. Some fuckhead somewhere was like "wait, why do things mean things, and what does meaning mean?" and now we have fucking nihilism. Truly an incredible field of scientific discovery.
- Too bad it peaked 2000 years ago.
  I know it’s kind of a meme, but Diogenes was really onto something. Don’t keep what you do not need, how can someone be respected as a person if they depend on servants, a wealthy ruler is no different from a slave once they’ve died, etc.
  
  it'll peak once we figure out how the universe was created, and how it relates to the rest of human existence.
- You're thinking on epistemology, not nihilism.
  
  that was just the example i picked to make a funny haha.

Philosophy is often more like looking for things that can't be seen with a flashlight but hypothesizing that they must exist and proving it logically.
- Philosophy is determining that there is, probably, a cat in the room. And science is using a flashlight to find it.
  
  Sci-fi is a little more about theorizing science before it gets there. I feel like philosophy is more like: "Why are we looking for the cat?"
  It ascribes meaning to the actions that science makes possible. I can find that cat if I use science. But why do I want the cat and what will I do once I have it?
  
  But sometimes philosophy is also like not knowing that flashlights exist and looking for a cat in the dark, sadly.

We wouldnt be in this mess if the fucking philosopher hadnt come up with it.

You are in a pitch-black room and hear a noise. A noise you can't describe properly, you've never heard or seen this creature before but it has a high pitched wail.
A man called Philosophy walks in the room. He hears the cry and takes some time to think. He names this creature the cat and deduces that it must be as big as a bear and as fierce as a lion. This creature must be dangerous. He tells you stories about strange exotic creatures, ones with black fur and long tails. These creatures have nails as sharp as swords and mean only harm. He tells you to stay back and listen to his thoughts as he contemplates more.
Then another man called Theology walks in. He too hears the creature yelling. Over some time, he begins to listen to the different tones of the noise this creature makes. He hears a shriek and thinks it's telling you to get back. It hears a purr and tells you it's playful. He begins to think it's communicating and assigns meaning to the creature's noise. He tells you to have faith in his belief and to follow the creatures demands. He tells you to offer tithes and sacrifices so you too can find meaning in this creature.
And, finally, a last man named Science walks into the room. He hears the cat and listens to the others propositions. He sets up ways to test his hypotheses. He thinks the cat must be big, so he throws some food near the creature and hears its footsteps; they aren't stomps, they are something more elegant. He no longer thinks he and Philosophy were correct. Because he thinks it's no longer big, he walks up to the creature and tries to get a closer look. He gets bitten and falls back to the others. Over time he tells you that Theology and Philosophy were right on some things and wrong on the others. He admits that he can be wrong himself but will correct and change his understand of this creature as he learns. He also offers little answers to the creature's as the others. You don't understand exactly how he works, you are merely a layman with little education.
So, which of the men do you believe?

You obviously didn't used your flashlight when you searched for philosophy and the others ^^

The old Dave Allen joke about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS3BZs5fx3Q

Stoopid.

"any. fuckin'. questions?"
Jeff Tiedrich

a fucking flashlight you say? how would that help finding a cat?

I think this isn't perfect, but pretty right.
Top 3 are ego-driven, with expectations. And that attitude is why scientific practices like Buddhism have been subjected to many attempts to make it a religion instead of a practice.
How many times have you heard someone say they believe in science?