Philosophy is an advanced discipline, their arguments are contingent upon you already having a lot of prior knowledge. They couldn't enter a pop debate without either descending to pop level, or giving a long speech beforehand so everyone understands what they're talking about.
I'm surprised Sam Harris hasn't been publicly BTFO yet, he's already lost several debates with actual philosophers and he's so easy to debunk that threads here on /his/ do it routinely. Yet he keeps getting invited to talk on the news. He needs to get shrekt.
>their arguments are contingent upon you already having a lot of prior knowledge. They couldn't enter a pop debate without either descending to pop level, or giving a long speech beforehand so everyone understands what they're talking about.
Metaphysics and theology are intrinsically pop-tier.
>>521005 Yes we hear this all the time, but where are all the big name philosophers in modern academia tearing this stuff apart? More to the point, are there not philosophers in modern academia who more or less agree with logical positivism?
>>520966 >Science is- >BRAIN IN A VAT >But Sci- >INDUCTION >Look, the statisti- >BIG BANG NOTHING EXPLODEDDDDDDDDDDD >BTFO
Pretty much all the philosophical arguments against scientific are based on epistemology, and most people would say that's no practical way to live your life, because they presume your life may or may not actually be a thing you are living. Scientism isn't ultimate rationalism, it's really practical rationalism.
Also consider there are 3 tiers of living life >we dont know if this world even exists even if we observe it >the world we seem to observe is real >there is a divine and afterlife we don't observe but is real
It's pretty obvious why certain types of people gravitate towards certain ones. Basically, if you believe in the observed world, rather than disbelieve in the observed world, or believe in an unobserved world, you're going to gravitate towards scientism.
>>521072 >where are all the big name philosophers in modern academia tearing this stuff apart?
There are very few 'big name philosophers' writing on any issue in current academia.
Some well-known (for philosophers) people who have criticized scientism include Jurgen Habermas, Paul Feyerabend, Massimo Pigliucci, Thomas Nagel, Bas van Fraassen, Alain Badiou, Bruno Latour, Bernard Stiegler, and Richard Rorty.
>>521087 Sure they do, but they generally aren't going to engage a pop thinker directly, they'll just write commentary. Chomsky debated Harris, I know, but mostly they don't want to do that because it is retarded. Not the same as just writing commentary on what these thinkers symbolize or are symptoms of.
>>521133 kek no he did not. Everyone of the New Atheists have blown the fuck out of theism.
Every time William Lame Craig supposedly comes to debate religion, he turns it into a stalemate buy citing all the traditional logical arguments for the existence of deities, but he never once tries to defend his theism.
>>521107 That's not what I consider scientism. Scientism to me is applying scientific/technocratic concepts such as utility, efficiency, determinism, materialism, mathematical principles, etc., to all aspects of life. The kind of guys who would argue non-STEM fields are "useless" or "outdated" and that the world would be better if it was run by Objectively Correct™ scientists.
>>521146 Dude, Sam Harris got BTFO by him, even atheists generally acknowledge this. If it were a debate with judges, Craig would have won. Sam Harris tried to say we could derive objective morality from science, ffs. Craig curb stomped him.
Hitchens especially got soundly thumped him. Hitchens couldn't even engage him, he'd say something, and Hitchens would go, "Uh, you know, just because we can't prove God isn't real, that doesn't mean he exists," when Craig never even made that claim.
>>521156 >Sam Harris tried to say we could derive objective morality from science, ffs.
No, he said we could possibly apply scientific principles to ethics and morality, which honestly would be way more sane than applying Craig's divine command theory to society.
>Hitchens couldn't even engage him, he'd say something, and Hitchens would go, "Uh, you know, just because we can't prove God isn't real, that doesn't mean he exists," when Craig never even made that claim.
We clearly didn't watch the same debate then, because if that's all you got from it, then you clearly weren't listening.
>>521164 >No, he said we could possibly apply scientific principles to ethics and morality
And he's WRONG. This is the point we keep coming back to, every time we talk about Harris. His assertions about scientifically derived morality are flat-out counterfactual. Anyone who has read their Nietzsche knows how to defeat Harris in a debate.
Man-made climate change is universally accepted except by biased political advocates in the US.
As for vaccinations, as far as I understand it, only the flu vaccine is in really in any doubt by any level headed person. And rightly so, since it's mostly a guess each time of year wether or not to take it. A lot of countries don't issue flu vaccine because a small part of it boils down to: "What's the point? If I take this, it's a 75% chance that it's gonna work, but in the end, I might not even catch it."
All other vaccination obstructions are just idiots. Who wouldn't want their kid vaccinated for polio or some other shit that just might fuck up your life if you catch it.
>>521167 If you don't want me posting anymore in this thread, I will leave it. I only post for mutual enjoyment in debate or discussion, but if I am hampering your happiness, I assure you will cease to participate, because that would defeat my whole purpose in even commenting.
>>521163 Infinite universes means every possible universe. It does not mean that there are not impossible universes. It's like bounded infinity. If you take a set between 0 and 1, there's an infinite amount of points between the bounds, but 2 is not inside of it.
>>521131 Well anime is real, usually an adult cartoon, or animation Now the world that the story of the show is fictional in our perspective,usually invented by the creator >>521142 I don't think so, they follow whatever the script says.
>>521247 Sure they do. But that doesn't mean they're consistently better just because they're newer, I don't subscribe to Whig history. I think it's pretty sad we don't still bow to our elders and kiss their hands.
>>521281 No, it's carnal. I mean, it is Christian when it is fulfilled by Christ, in which case it is corporeal, but without Christ, is is a purely carnal covenant. It is represented by carnal morality and carnal initiation.
>>521334 Yes, scientism is basically the SJW-boogeyman of philosophers and religious people. They both label anything remotely resembling positivism as scientism, while at the same time pointing to the most extreme examples of it.
>>521334 A lot of people use it like that. But it primarily refers to people who treat science as if it were a dogma that applies to all aspects of life, rather than as an empirical system of inquiry used to study and understand the natural world.
>>521584 Thats actually a nice save. I'm honestly impressed. Other /his/ christians would've clinged to the english translation of the bible.
>>521586 Consider the patent laws. If I make the best barbecue sauce, and call it Dave's Sauce, and have a red band around the bottle, and some guy down the street makes a worse, cheaper sauce, and he copies my name and design to sell more, thats not unchristian. Yet it would harm me, and harm consumers, and it is thus unlawful in modern societies. Christianity hasnt evolved enough to cover things like brands, intellectual property, communication technologies and such. Laws move slow, but still faster than morality and religion in that domain.
>>521589 No, when he says "no laws" he means "no written laws". There would still be "laws" enforced by everybody's desire to be good, and the agreed upon definition of what good is.
>>521589 No, because I do not object to authority. I do not object to servitude.
>>521595 >Christianity hasnt evolved enough to cover things like brands, intellectual property, communication technologies and such That is correct, the Orthodox Church does not consider that to be theft, despite copyrighting stuff herself.
>>521604 Sounds like a society which rewards opportunist criminals. And such a society will be very unstable, since promoting such criminals will lead to many of them appearing, and since they dont act in that way the society itself would change and disappear.
>>521614 How would you quarantine that fucker who sells his bad sauce at my expense? How will I be compensated for the lost consumer trust, since everybody now thinks my sauce is bad? How will consumers be compensated for having their barbecue ruined with shit sauce? How do we ensure this wont happen again, and other opportunists wont use the good name and trust in quality producers to make a quick buck themselves?
Christian morality isnt up to the task. People, christians included, still dont consider intellectual property theft or fraud to be immoral, and thus wont see it as a sin.
>>521678 Any economic system which makes everybody middle class, instead of having 1% filthy rich people and some horribly poor people, cant coexist with capitalism. People are optimists. If you look at your neighboring state, and there are beggars and millionaires there, you wont think to yourself "man, if our economy was like theirs, i'd have 20% chance to be a beggar". You would think "man, if our economy was like theirs, i'd surely be a millionaire, the hard worker that i am". This leads to depression, and people want a change, so they can try to beat the odds and become filthy rich in their pursuit of happiness. Thats not even going through the less spiritual and more practical stuff like exploitation of less developed countries for profit, or big business working at a loss for a while to starve the competition, and so on. Capitalism feeds on non-capitalist economies. The only way to have a non-capitalist economy is if everybody else does too, else you will only make the remaining capitalists more successful.
Same way you got here, you have to die. Don't be in such a rush, goddamn. You have infinite time on your hands. You will spend billions and billions of lifetimes living in an infinite variety of those universes and you will become sick and tired of it until you crave a mundane experience bringing you right back to this life where you crave one of those anime universes.
Protip: Chill, just dream your dreams and make them reality when possible but just take it easy mane
>>521183 >Yes, and what's wrong with them? Deontological ethics is retarded. There is no way in hell you can easily argue for it as a normative ethics. Look up Hume's "Is-ought gap", "naturalistic fallacy", and "appeal to nature". Read those three and you'll see how a deontological ethics derived from observations of natural phenomena is nearly impossible.
>>521072 To quote Ayer, who was a strong proponent of logical positivism: Logical positivism is dead as a scool of thought can be. No serious scholar nowadays believes in the ideas of scientism, its just that the arguments need a wide elaboration, at least starting with Bacon, that makes it hard to convey to wide audience
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.