why does philosophy (mainly continental) so often ignore or seem uninterested towards findings in the sciences or mathematics? Is it just because they sometimes refute what was historically considered accurate?
Foucault predicted this science worship in the fucking 60s. Science has replaced religion as the authority on what knowledge is correct. That isn't to say that science has merely figured out a few things but that knowledge becomes more 'true' if you can slap the word science on it. Even if knowledge in question has nothing to do with the scientific method just add the word science and it has the same aura of authority as though you invoked the name of God.
Consider Sam Harris and his 'science based morality' which is just repackaged Unitarianism. Science is no longer just about testing things and recording the results, it now has the power to decide which results are good, which are bad, much like the old priests.
And again this is a French fag describing this 50 fucking years ago!
>>548381 No they haven't. It's just been limited. The world isn't (100%) deterministic.
>>548349 Marxism has a bunch of fun on ones >depending on if you consider economics a science, basically everything Marx ever said >Lysenkoism >Language and culture were created by bourgeoise to hide the workers' innate telepathy and hiveminded nature >Genes don't exist
>>548116 Depends from person to person but there are a lot of factors that go into it: social approval, sleeping enough, a good diet, etc.
Virtually, it can reduced to physical properties of the brain but, when push comes to shove, it's much to complex to do it (today). Dopamine, oxitocin, endorfins, etc... having these in test tubes is not the same as having them be chemical signals in a complex biological system. Emergent properties and all that.
>>548381 >Free will. Biology and physics have thoroughly disproved this idea, yet philosophers still seem to cling to it.
Well you've chosen an excellent example to show how the scientific world is completly fucking cluless without philosophy to explain basic concepts to this. The concept of free will is wrapped up in the concept of identity.
The general arguement goes like this "your brain is an agent of these chemicals. There for you do not control your action". This implies that 'you' are not your brain and that 'you' are not part of these chemicals.
So already we have the scientific group making a philosophical stance about the nature of self. Now here is the kicker. Your understanding of self is not a scientific based on but a CHRISTIAN one. Yes mr. Fedora, the idea that 'you' are not your brain, your feelings, etc. Is rooted in the Christian idea that 'you' is an immaterial soul. The idea is so rooted it's built into the very language (all of the 'your' because thoughts are not your identity in Christian philosophy they are a possession of the immortal soul).
So without even realizing it you have axiomatically assumed Christian concepts of idnetity to be true. You have merely removed the soul from the equation.
There are multiple ideas of how identity can work. The most sensible explanation in a worldview without souls is to say that those chemicals ARE YOU. So you would have free will because those chemicals would be yourself controlling itself. ...and identifying what the part of the human is 'self' and which is merely appendages is in fact fucking philosophy.
So not only are you taking a CHRISTIAN view on identity but you are also a fucking hypocrite for taking a philosophical stance while critisizing philosophy. Not only that but you arn't even fucking using science to assert yours stance. Biology and physics cannot make statements about free will because they cannot define will or define self.
Lacan's work was in fucking lanaguage. That's his central work. He never fucking made any statements on math, he just used math terms to make really crappy metaphors.
>>548426 >Genes don't exist This isn't a stance Marx took. You are thinking of Tumblr lefists which are not major figures in philosophy.
Also how would Marx even make this statement. The concept of a 'gene' didn't even fucking exist when he was writing. You seem unable to distinguish the present from the past.
>Language and culture were created by bourgeoise to hide the workers' innate telepathy and hiveminded nature While I disagree with this it's not violating science. "why" langauge is made is not even a fucking scientific question. That's a linguistic question which is a humanity.
>Lysenkoism Again I asked you to give me major philosophers that ignored science. You are describing a movement started by non-philosophers.
>>548466 >The general arguement goes like this "your brain is an agent of these chemicals. There for you do not control your action". This implies that 'you' are not your brain and that 'you' are not part of these chemicals.
If my 'self' is also fundamentally a deterministic chemical process, then that bodes even less well for the idea of free will.
If anything, this produces an even more positivist, deterministic worldview.
>>548549 >If my 'self' is also fundamentally a deterministic chemical process, then that bodes even less well for the idea of free will.
I'll debate this point in a moment. But first you need to realize that I've basically already proven my point. "Self" an "will" are need to be identified in order to say if there is free will which cannot be done by science. They can only gather data but the interpretations rest in philosophy.
My own concept of self is Nietzche's idea where the self is a collection of many competing wills. You can see some support for this in modern psychology which acknowledges that there are conflicting drives and seperate parts to our identity. For instance the conscious vs subconscious. Nietzche's model ends up rejecting both total free will and determinism. No will is entirly free since it's always in conflict and is sometimes subjugated but no will is not completely without it's own agency either. You can see this idea play out a lot in psycho-analysis which tries to identify what the competing parts of a person's mind are (ie the base instincts vs social conditioning, childhood influences etc.)
The general view held by a lot of atheists is that either the self must be completly free to choose anything at all times or everything is a big domino effect. This idea again has it's origins in Christianity which insisted that free will must be something where you always could have chosen any path, otherwise one is not truely guilty of their sins.
There are more options available. It's not an all or nothing, there are middle paths. There are also understanding of free will vs determinism that say the debate is just a language game, which is a new 3rd path. I believe this argument also has some strength. The defination of 'will' in free will has changed a lot through out the history of philosophy. For instance the big free will debate was in regards to the justice system, it's where we got the concept of intent as mattering.
>>548604 To add to this. The reason free will vs determinism is a debate where people do not accept a middle ground, one or the other again has to do with religious philosophy.
The religious view is that God can do anything he wants and if he wills it than there is no resistance. This led to a question of exactly what does God control? Some theological positions took the idea that God controls all action, argueing one could not do what God didn't intend to happen because it would mean a gap in God's power. This is where we get hard determinism in which everything is controlled by natural forces (aka God).
The other view is that God could control us but allows us to make choices on our own for one reason or another. Thus we are totally free will.
There could be no middle ground here because God's power is either absolute in it's control or not there at all.
>>548622 Any abstract interpretation of data gets into philosophy. Science actually has it's own specialized brand of philosophy to help with this. For instance to decide if something is ethical. Another example would be debate to which exstent things discovered represent absolutes and what is just a human labeling. For instance, to what extent to things have fixed identities and to what extent are the identities just our lanaguge? And than finally asking what we should use the new discoveries for (a hot button issue would be cloning or ai).
Science and philosophy are extremely related. Up until a few hundred years ago they were actually something that you learned at the same time. They are not really in conflict, they are complimentary.
>>549045 animism is the belief that all things have consciousness. Identifying the self as being a multitude of different drives with a material basis doesn't lead to that.
You can interpret consciousness as being an immigrant property of these several wills. You can take a Buddhist approach and say consciousness is just localized awareness. You can take a super strict material approach and deny consciousness.
The trouble with the super approach a lot of atheists have is they seem to be going on a path that does not allow for a self to exist. Yet at the same time they don't want to reach that. You don't want to have a the self exist in the form of anything non-material (neither 'soul' nor idealism). Ok far enough so what's the self? Well according to the atheists the brain and all it's chemicals is not the self it's the thing that controls the self. Who is the 'you' that owns the 'your brain' 'your feelings' 'your chemicals' So if the self doesn't even exist in the material basis, and you insist on there being nothing but strict materilism you cannot have a self at all. The ultimate conclusion is that there is no such thing as an identity.
In a purely materialistic philosophy the only way to have an identity is to say the material basis for feelings and emotions ARE identical with the self.
There are other options though such as idealism which allows for a transcendental self to exist attached to but separate from the material. So over all I believe the approach that has strict materilism but won't identify the self with the material is a bad model. It has no explanatory power, it can't even acknowledge the existence of an identity. There are better models.
>>549203 “Perhaps the greatest strike against philosophical pessimism is that its only theme is human suffering. This is the last item on the list of our species’ obsessions and detracts from everything that matters to us, such as the Good, the Beautiful, and a Sparking Clean Toilet Bowl. For the pessimist, everything considered in isolation from human suffering or any cognition that does not have as its motive the origins, nature, and elimination of human suffering is at base recreational, whether it takes the form of conceptual probing or physical action in the world—for example, delving into game theory or traveling in outer space, respectively. And by “human suffering,” the pessimist is not thinking of particular sufferings and their relief, but of suffering itself. Remedies may be discovered for certain diseases and sociopolitical barbarities may be amended. But those are only stopgaps. Human suffering will remain insoluble as long as human beings exist. The one truly effective solution for suffering is that spoken of in Zapffe’s “Last Messiah.” It may not be a welcome solution for a stopgap world, but it would forever put an end to suffering, should we ever care to do so. The pessimist’s credo, or one of them, is that nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.” ― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race
>>549305 We discovered a previously unknown number between 4 and 5. It's a whole number and is also the only number not divisible by 1, which is why the numbers scanners couldn't detect it until now. It's going to revolutionize the world, to start with everyone else need new keyboards to hold the new number. The addition of a new number into the number line also means that everyone's pay check will be larger too since $100 is now worth $101.
I can't tell you much more because a lot of this under wraps and we are still doing a lot research but the new number should be available for release this Christmas season (Christmas is now in November since the calendars need to be changed to hold 13 months)
>>547979 Why do philosophy majors think what they do holds any real signifcance at all? Name one real effect philosophers have ever had on the world as a whole. You can't. Wars may be fought over ideology, but it's mathmeticians and scientists that allow it to be more than people throwing sticks at each other.
>>549533 Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.
>>547979 Schopenhauer teaches that you can't know for certain that science/ math is going to work in the future. It is a priori knowledge. There is no way to prove it will always work. Only guesswork. I'm not discrediting the necessity of science though.
>>549533 >implying that having an impact on the world matters
You seem to be making a pretty big assumption. Why should we do things that benefit society? Why cure cancer, or go to space? Can you give an objective answer as to why doing something that "benefits society" is "good"?
>>547979 There is very interesting philosophy being done these days that interacts with other fields. Look at modern philosophy of mathematics, as relates to new axioms, for example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/large-cardinals-determinacy/ Hell the people who do philosophy related to such subjects are also the people who discover the mathematical results (look up Hugh Woodin or Tony Martin).
>>547979 >why does philosophy (mainly continental) so often ignore or seem uninterested towards findings in the sciences or mathematics?
Because science cannot explain or study the unique experience of being human.
It's really interested how someone like Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins, thinks it is axiomatic that a person who is a scientist, also is a secular, modern liberal, even though these two things are completely independent of each other.
>>549633 The fedora's will just axiomatically assume the Christian ethics they picked up from their culture are true but rebrand them in a secular understanding, removing God and there by destroying the entire justification they had. Now the ethics are assumed to be true purely out of habit.
>>549654 I highly recommend Alexander George's Philosophies of Mathematics to start with. It's a great historical overview of the important things that happened in philosophy of math from the past century, up to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
The next thing you would need to learn is about the Incompleteness Theorems, and other basic mathematical results in logic. And you really do need to see the math to appreciate the philosophy that comes out of it. A book that assumes no literally mathematical background, and goes through these results really well and very thoroughly is The Incompleteness Phenomenon: A New Course in Mathematical Logic by Goldstern and Judah. Also, if you want a good grounding in set theory (for large cardinals or determinacy), Jech and Hrbacek's Introduction to Set Theory is a good start.
>>549673 >Synthetic because it's predicate is not contained in the subject, a priori because it is independent of experience. You can't continually know if something will hold true in the future. You can only guess. Until we invent a time machine that's all we have.
>>549724 Depends on how you're defining "infinite" in this context. I think the most natural way would be to treat these as infinite cardinalities, in which case specify that the monster has kappa hit points for some cardinal kappa, and the sword deals lambda damage for some (possibly distinct) cardinal lambda. Then use the closest analogue to subtraction we have for infinite cardinals: If lambda >= kappa, the monster's hit points go to 0, if lambda < kappa there exists a unique cardinal gamma such that kappa = lambda + gamma, and so the monster's hit points drop to gamma.
Synthetic a priori knowledge is apodictic, meaning it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. The examples Kant gives of synthetic a priori knowledge are geometry, mathematics, and the pure physical sciences like theoretical physics.
I have no idea where you got this idea that synthetic a priori knowledge is time-conditional. This is suggested literally nowhere. You invented it in your stupid head.
>>549740 >>549730 There are ethics system without God. However we are still suffering the after affects of God dying. In the past society was relatively stable philosophical with certainty and the general gist of things coming from God. Now that's gone and it has created a philosophical black hole. That's why the world seems so full of uncertainty. As Nietzsche put God's chair is now empty. The world is still looking for how to fill this seat. It's at the point where we need philosophy more than ever before.
The positivist fedroas don't have a clue about this though and haven't even realized that appealing to old cultural norms about ethics rooted in Christianity are vapor-ethics. The Christians cannot understand that their aeon is over.
This is why movements like post-modernism happened. With the absolute certainty of the world gone EVERYTHING is being deconstructed and exposed as nothing but perception. Even the gold standard of certainty, mathematics, got hit and is now shown to not be a platonic form but just another human abstraction.
Philosophers tried to fill the huge gap of certainty with existentialism in various forms but this has only succeeded on an individualistic level. The collective western world still does not have a new meta-narrative to fill the gap. The rapid nihilism, disillusionment with reality, conscious acceptance of illusions (waifuism, hyper-reality, etc), general decay of culture, obsession with escapism and dreamy nostalgia for the distant past are all symptoms of an aliment that has yet to be cured. This also explains the idleness and apathy of the world as the Western world continues to be eaten away at forces we could easily swat away: there is no rallying cry because there is nothing to rally about anymore. Baudrillard tells us not only is God dead but meaning is also dead.
We are in the greatest philosophical crisis the world has ever known.
>>549757 As far as justifying things religion in a philosophical paradigm having a God in your corner is incredibly useful.
You can go divine command theory, you can go with teleology/natural law. As long as the ethics systems isn't self-contradicting you can justify fucking ANYTHING with a deity. Resolving a few weird chapters is a relatively minor obstacle.
An ethics system in a secular model is much harder to pull off. You can't just relay on old assumptions about 'good' 'happiness' or 'do unto others'. Nor can you merely assert something is nice because you like. Everything needs to be done from scratch. Nietzsche did it. Sterner did. The Stoics did it. But models like Unitarianism and humanism fail, they are just take old christian ethics about the common good and happiness as axiomatically true but no longer have the god to justify it.
>>549752 Well the sword is made of magic metal the channels the world soul and the monster is a paradox aeon. So what fucking happens man? Also what happens if the sword rolls a crit for 2x damage?
>>549831 >Well the sword is made of magic metal the channels the world soul and the monster is a paradox aeon. So what fucking happens man? Also what happens if the sword rolls a crit for 2x damage? Your first sentence sounds fun, you should GM games. And if the sword gets 2x damage, then since cardinal multiplication is well defined, letting lambda be the base damage of the sword, the sword would do 2 * lambda damage.
>>549880 I don't think society can survive like this. Some individuals can but the collectives society is in total nihilism. That's why it doesn't fight back anymore. It could eventually become consumed entirely and burn.
There are no easy answers to how to solve the crisis of the death of God and with it the death of meaning. Maybe it needs a new spook maybe we can do it without them. Following the twilight of post-modernism the state of philosophy moved towards trying to find a new banner, to no avail.
The progressive left is probably the strongest force in trying to create a new banner but that too is vapor-ethics. It's still rooted in the old spooks of Rousseau's tabula rasa and Revolutionary ideas about equality. It's just another symptom of the sickness.
You see glimmers of attempts to find the new banner in pathetic movements like the neo-reactionary, Harris's rebranded Unitarianism, and other pop philosophy. New "movements" pop up at a much faster rate than before. Humanity is like the wandering Jews, abounded by their God and traveling all over the world looking for a home, the promised land being only a vague promise in the future. We don't know what it is but we know we need to get there.
As I said the individual may be able to settle in and find meaning in his own ego but the Geist, the collective, needs a banner and we have not found that. The sickness is only going to get worst as time goes on. As Baudrillard points out the more advanced the sickness becomes the harder it will for us to even realize we are sick and thus the less we will look for a cure. I don't believe he is correct but theorizes the most advanced stage is an all consuming nihilism in which we cannot even discuss the 'real world' or 'meaning' anymore. The concepts will not be expressionable in language anymore, like how the proles in 1984 cannot even express bondage. As I said I don't think that will happen.
>>549203 "The self" is a useful concept/fiction used in meta-cognition to organize input, memory and thought. Things attributed to "the self" are the result of many processes, some inherently related and others unrelated except by how they are subjectively perceived. It does not exist in a "real" sense, but it is "real" on the level of human experience and the fact that people believe it to exist does affect behavior in real, measurable ways.
>>549992 If society worked up until now because someone said "because God, now shut up" eventually someone will figure out another capitalized term they can use to say "because Blank, now shut up." If it's an essential component of civilized life, one society will preserve it and survive while other societies either fail or copy the successful one. If it isn't an essential component of civilized life, then no big deal it got lost and we're just in a weird transition period.
Really, you just seem to like being dramatic. It seems like a fun time and makes for compelling reading it probably doesn't make for the most level-headed predictions.
>>550254 I didn't say that. I actually very specifically said "if they do, no big deal, and if they don't. that's also not a big deal." It was in response to the assumption that God was the absolutely necessary underpinning of meaning and the loss of the concept will necessarily cause disaster or collapse.
>>550190 I agree with you here. So the definition we give to self is one of practicality. The fedora position which wants things only to exist in the material world yet at the same time say the chemicals and the brain cannot count as the self, is essentially saying there can't be a concept of self.
It's a position with weak explanatory power because it can't even describe an individual. Calling the self the chemicals or saying the self exists in idealistic form actually gives us something to work with.
>>550116 I personally do not believe that the death of God marks an end for philosophy, it just marks a point of stagnation until a new paradigm appears.
>>550212 >>550247 Whether you think it's depressing or not is subjective (I don't really) but if you read any 21st philosophy you are going to get hit with the exact thing I described. A lot of it is communicated in rather complex ways with a lot self-referencing terms or in a very indirect way. My goal was just to restate in a concise way. If you think it's edgy that's really more of your interpretation, there's a lot of different perspectives on it in philosophy. Sarte thought it was fucking awesome because it means extreme freedom, Stirner doesn't give a shit because the collective is just a spook to him. There isn't a single 'correct' interpretation.
>>550254 Society ran for hundreds of years with religion playing second bass to Enlightenment ideals. From the 1700s up until the late 1800s religion had already been dethroned. God sort of died with Napeleon. A secular ruler put the Pope, the voice of God on earth, into jail for crimes against humanity using Enlightenment philosophy as the basis. This symbolically showed the world had already accepted that such philosophy was a higher form of authority than God.
The fact that society ran so smoothly in those years shows religion is not necessary, it's just one of many of forms that the big flag everyone gathers around can be.
>>550315 >The fact that society ran so smoothly in those years shows religion is not necessary, it's just one of many of forms that the big flag everyone gathers around can be. >liberals do not need to have faith in science
>>548381 >Biology and physics have thoroughly disproved this idea, yet philosophers still seem to cling to it.
if you have faith in physics, you believe that there is a the renormalization group floating around, also known as GOD, always renormalizing bare masses and other abstract parameters of elementary particles.
>>550237 God saying something is different than a person saying it if you buy into their philosophy. Whether something is true doesn't matter in whether a society can function (think of Plato's noble lie).
So in the pre-modern world "truth" and "God" are interchangeable words. Whatever God says is true because he is the platonic form of truth. The society believes in and they have a foundation to stand on. The gist of everything comes from God.
Of course that was the past. It doesn't work anymore. The logical conclusion of God being the absolute truth is those most attuned to him rule the country (either a priesthood or some king that has a special relationship with him).
Besides the modernists redefined truth to be something observable and figured out through empiricism. So God is no longer the truth. Post-modernism uses perspectivism. Whichever you like it doesn't mean something is true just because God said it.
> If it isn't an essential component of civilized life, then no big deal it got lost and we're just in a weird transition period.
I sort of agree. The scarey thing is we have had several failed experiments at transitioning into a new understanding. Enlightment science reverence, communism, fascism, salvation through capitalism, all flops at creating the big thing that unites us all.
The SJW and Dark Enlightenment are other attempts that will most likely fail. Essentially the current state of philosophy is to keep throwing out new models until something sticks. It will be the creation of a new philosophy that ultimately kick-starts us off, either that are Bauldrillard is right and we are going to be imprisoned by our own nihilism in a comfy cell with virtual reality, escapism through media and video games, and other soft things making us never have to face the real world. My guess is Baudrillard is wrong but I just want to throw that out there as one of the ideas that's floated about
>>550391 That is a really controversial considering that there are still whole schools dedicated on the basis of pure Empiricism. I don´t know wy philosophers make this distinction when "scientiscm" is consider a valid way of viewing the world as much as any other system.
>>550404 >That is a really controversial considering that there are still whole schools dedicated on the basis of pure Empiricism
Yeah it was called positivism and it was abounded by everyone including it's creators. Only fedoras that are completly clueless about philosophy still hold the position. It's like people that still literally believe in communism, only those that don't actually understand it believe it.
Can you empirically justify only using empiricism? Nope. This is part of the smack down Quin gave to the movement with his Two Treaties. So pure empiricism is self-refuting. Wittgenstein also BTFO with is Philosophical investigation by showing that us that even fucking basic communication cannot be understood empirically. A pure Empiricist cannot even speak.
>>550377 >God saying something is different than a person saying it if you buy into their philosophy. Not really. All you have to do is change a person into a legend, which we do all the time with historical figures and thinkers anyway. Just think of how often people invoke names as entire responses to ideas they disagree with, as though the names point to an inarguable truth rather than just another argument with specific context that may or may not be convincing.
> never have to face the real world If everyone is engaged with the virtual reality, that's about equivalent to the "real world" just a different one than the imagined history from our heads. Agriculture surpluses provided a way to worry less about short-term fluctuations in food availability than hunter-gatherers had to, in exchange for more labor. One limit traded for another, or in other words a "comfy cell." But nobody would say early agriculturalists didn't live in the "real world." Life changes, people make a big deal about it (especially when there's a chance to write a book about it and become famous) but it all works out in the end.
>>550572 I will go onto say, that's is so funny how science is its own cesspool of circular reasoning... because we know that 99% of science is ALREADY made toilet paper by some newer science, we feel better about the latest 1% of science, since it hasn't been downgraded to toilet paper yet... and the more constipated Scientists get, the more awesome that 1% must be, and if we get lucky: maybe they'll just shit themselves, and then we all have to be even more excited over their pride for their huge steaming accomplishment.
There is a pyschology mechanism that accounts for this, its to do with ponsy schemes after you've already invested too much to stop now.
Look, I'm not saying science is totally useless, its very similar to food and cooking; why should I make my chef a demi-God, plus he can also discover some new recipes for things no-one has ever tasted yet: but why would I believe he has any special relationship to the meaning of ANYTHING, just cause I depend on the food he makes to live well, doesn't make him my keeper.
False religion of the 21st century, and the dolts who fell for it, inb4: bestfalsereligion sorrynotsorry.
>>548140 >how do you acquire happiness >by having more of the happy chemical lmao XD science FTW! >implying bursts of diamond while you're eating or jerking off constitute true inner fulfillment >scifags are this out of touch with reality
>>550659 Maybe they did, I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, maybe be more descriptive so I can discern the context, I suspect its disparaging, but its not exactly clear.
Well, I'm 29, so I guess I can't just be 15...
If you want more than that, please try to couch your remarks in longer phrasing that more clearly indicates the purpose of your ideas.
How old are you by the way? Although I would hazard by the lack of sound form, or sense of reasonableness, that just as your shoe size, it matters little in exchanging with your sparse sense of mental integrity.
>>550681 They do you retard. You only think they don't because you aren't aware of how ingrained your reward system is in daily life. Everything from eating nice food to exercise can release it. What stops happiness is clinical depression, caused by a chemical imbalance.
Remember what separates us from the computers we type on is random chance and several billion years of evolution.
Do you realize how autismal it is to ask someone like you how to live a good life and you answer "just gotta regulate your chemicals maaaan"? As if the interplay of these chemicals don't produce a qualitative dimension to experience that is the real issue at hand?
>>550717 If I said it was peered reviewed science, would it work for you then?
Or still having trouble navigating to the end of a sentence with your tacit excuse of being confined to some kindof public schooling system?
If this thread doesn't improve this weak sauce mediocrity, I'ma give up already...
Oh right... actually you've convinced me, I see my errors now that I've gone back and tried to work out what that shit even was, I do need to work on my meth habit, I see the truth so clearly now, thank you for this invaluable reality check anon, may Science Bless us all in the light of these revelations that you've helped me find, now I can continue to serve the collective overmind, for the glory of our Science. ["plays portal song".]
>>550416 >Can you empirically justify only using empiricism? Nope. No need to justify anything. "Ultimate Truth" is an incoherent and useless concept. Empiricism concerns itself with matching up models with our perceived view of the world via experiments and observations - it's completely irrelevant whether this is theoretically sound or not, what matters is the actual practical outcomes.
>>550743 Can scifags ever respond to an argument without parroting their textbooks like it answers anything? He's literally pointing you to the rationalistic foundation of the scientific method, without which in and of itself empirical data can't justify itself and is therefore meaningless you fucking git
>>550744 please tell me about the 'where' of that "there"...
any information would be greatly appreciated, as my need is obviously great, please offer me anything in support of its pursuit... I can tell you've been there... please help a brotha out... have you no compassion, just please gimme something to go on at least. I await your response with the anticipation even.
>>550729 Except that is the issue in the end. Our brains are "merely" chemical computers. Stupidly advanced and utterly unique ones, but they use chemical compounds to process and express data none-the-less. The issue on hand is that we're still far from the days where we can simply force ourselves to be happy by making subconscious actions conscious (brain please run dopamine.exe), but have to find out exactly what experiences cause the release of certain chemicals.
I mean at the end of the day if you really just want something to make you happy, get an energetic hobby to do with friends. Skydiving. Swordfighting. Flying. Etc. Socialization + Adrenaline and Dopamine is a surefire way to lead to a happy life if you aren't suffering from depression.
Also, who the fuck cares if it's autismal? It's the truth. At the end of it all the supposed depth of experience is an illusion. If you could control the chemical releases in your brain, there would be no difference from your POV between living a supposed deep and meaningful life and sitting in a chair ordering your brain to pump your body full of a cocktail of happy juice in non-lethal quantities. The only thing that separates the two is that we sadly aren't there yet and are not true masters over our own biology, and probably won't be for some time considering how slowly neuroscience moves forward. We have to do it the old fashioned way, but just because we need actions to achieve this same happiness- hanging out with friends playing a fun game or having and being good at a job- the end result is the same. The how doesn't matter- it's the result that matters.
>>550752 >He's literally pointing you to the rationalistic foundation of the scientific method, And I'm saying that is irrelevant. >without which in and of itself empirical data can't justify itself and is therefore meaningless you fucking git No, whether empiricism is philosophically valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the outcomes of the experiments.
We all understand the metaphysical concept he is rambling on about.
Religious people pull this line all of the time.
Strangely they never seem to get round to metaphysically justifying the "making stuff up without evidence-ism" school of thought. And apparently feel an attack on science is enough, in itself, to justify believing in any old nonsense someone dreamed up.
too much work to educate you cretins. If your not willing to help yourselves, flounder as dolts, you can't expect me to jump through hoops just to convince you of your mistakes, when you hide them with your feeble intellectual dishonesty.
^ you see what I did there, I offered a full response, whereas if I answer in the same style you guys do, I would of just settled on replying with:
lol, just no.
Because I give you opportunity to access my reasoning, and you guard yours because it belongs in a gutter, and if you laid it out to bear, it would look like the obvious garbage that it is.
>>550764 >how do I become better at singing this part, anon? Its giving me some trouble >WELL IF YIU JUST OSCILLATE YOUR VOCAL CHORDS AT 440HZ FOR 3 SECONDS THEN RAISE THEM 50 HZ FOR ANOTHER 2 SECONDS.... >WHAT DO YOU MEAN IM ON THE SPECTRUM HEH WE ARE BUT STARDUST
Do you not understand that out of all the levels phenomena occur on, from atomic to molecular all the way up to the qualitative, harping about chemicals only betrays how abstracted your reality has become? It's like I asked you how to start a car and you told me I have to ignite a mixture of air and fuel and ... Yeah no shit that's how it happens you clown, so how the fuck do I do it?
Science can't tell you shit about how to live a real life and you're here telling me that because we know what dopamine is, it can? A method of empirical observation can arrive at a normative value system? Lmao go back to reddit
Let us start with those who take realism to be prior to reason. To fix ideas consider the pluralist who accepts realism about the natural numbers but not about arbitrary subsets of natural numbers and then, on this basis, concludes that theoretical reasons can be offered in the case of new axioms in number theory but not in the case of analysis or set theory. When pressed on the source of this asymmetrical stance concerning realism in the two domains the pluralist usually responds by resorting to the intuition that the natural numbers are “clear” while the notion of an arbitrary subset of natural numbers is “inherently vague”. To this the non-pluralist might respond that the notion of clarity is not clear. Intuitions of clarity, like intuitions of self-evidence, are notoriously vague and subjective and hence a weak point upon which to rest one's case.
Let us now turn to those who take reason to be prior to realism. People in this category take objectivity to be the hallmark of realism and they come to their conclusions concerning realism about a given domain only after one has a good understanding of what kind of theoretical reasons have traction in that domain. A pluralist who thinks that theoretical justification in mathematics must ultimately trace back to axioms which are self-evident will be unmoved by the above extrinsic case. Likewise for a pluralist who thinks that theoretical justification in mathematics must ultimately trace back to axioms that are extrinsically justified. The case we have given is clearly an extrinsic one. The issue, then, comes down to the legitimacy of extrinsic justifications.
>>550810 We are certainly not in a position to resolve this debate here. But it will be helpful to draw a parallel with the debate between the instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist in physics. An extreme form of instrumentalism was advanced by the neo-Kantian Hans Vaihinger in his book The Philosophy of As If (1911). According to this view, the “hard data” of physics consists in the data of our immediate sense impressions. Upon this basis we are free to construct—in common sense and in physics—a “reality”, but the result is not genuine knowledge—rather, it is a useful fiction for moving around in everyday life and making predictions in physics. In a similar fashion, the extreme pluralist takes the “hard data” to consist of the theorems that have actually been established and regards everything else as a useful fiction.
>>550813 In the physical case the non-instrumentalist sees theoretical reason at play at a much higher-level, far beyond the data. For example, in the time of Copernicus, when the Ptolemaic and Copernican theory were observationally indistinguishable, theoretical reasons could still be given for the Copernican theory over the Ptolemaic theory.
>>550789 Except it can. Energetic lifestyle. That's all there really is to it- the problem is that depression is one hell of a fucking pitfall that we don't really know how to clinically drag somebody out of. Science can tell us how to get there- the issue is that they didn't tell us about the nails littered on the highway.
>>550817 >science invented living an active, balanced life
lol you're fucking baiting right? You know even cognitive behavior therapy was heavily influenced by stoic philosophy, which was pantheistic right? Or that current mindfulness craze arose out of western contact with Buddhism, right? Do you really actually think science can do anything more than just confirm/invalidate the exhortations of religion, spirituality, wisdom writings etc.? Lol
>>550789 >>how do I become better at singing this part, anon? Its giving me some trouble >>WELL IF YIU JUST OSCILLATE YOUR VOCAL CHORDS AT 440HZ FOR 3 SECONDS THEN RAISE THEM 50 HZ FOR ANOTHER 2 SECONDS.... That IS exactly what a good singer should do, what the fuck are you implying here? A particular melody or a note does have an objective frequency of osculation, and if you miss it you'll sing out of tune. Should we instead tell them "yeah sing whatever - tonality, key or notes doesn't matter"? >harping about chemicals only betrays how abstracted your reality has become? That seems to be your problem. I see nothing reductive or abstracted about it - it gives you a precise and targeted way of actually measuring your progress. Talk to any body builder or anyone who decided to become fit, many of them will tell you objective measurements of things like their weight over time, fat ratio, how long they could run in time and/or distance, how much they could deaf lift, etc were invaluable tools for making progress.
It's only by looking at the chemicals (or w/e thing you're measuring) you can differentiate between 'fleeting happiness' (say taking drugs) and 'meaningful happiness' (seeing your new-born child for the first time) - they will have different brain patterns, memory imprints and utilize different feedback mechanisms - in particular by looking at the after effects when the instantaneous moment of happiness is over.
>>550805 >what is an outcome? The actual end of the experiment or observation. >implying "outcome" belongs to science foremost, or is represented by scientific description. You can only know an outcome (as it relates to reality) by observing it.
Every science has its method, and it's the approach of the plebeian to disregard those fields that do not use the methods of natural sciences.
Do people shit on history because it's worthless posturing and superseded by archaeological datings? There is simply no way to confirm a huge chunk of historical data because the only way to reach it is through written narratives. It could be a bunch of lies. But no, reasonable people don't disregard history and treat it like they should everything else - it provides the most likely account, and while dissent is indeed possible, for practical terms we should follow the historian's consensus.
Philosophy in its own way has advanced tremendously through the centuries and previous understandings are no longer accepted, or radically revised. if you think that metaphysics is worthless, for instance, you are a fucking idiot. It is a foundational field and forms the core of almost any sociopolitical ideology. But the plebeian will pretend it's worthless and simply go with metaphysical packages that are offered to him today.
>>550857 You're literally not getting what im saying. I gave you two fucking examples and spelled out why reductionism is retarded when consciousness enters the mix and you keep parroting the same points like a broken record of a guy who stutters. Fffuuuuuuuck
>>550845 >you do understand that scientific models are not linked to being good at chanting ? But they are. Sing at 251 Hz - bad singer. Sing at 261 Hz - good singer. (If they were supposed to sing a middle C for example).
And when it comes to technique it's all science - breathing techniques, vocal exercises and training your ears are all developed from looking at our actually biology - how do we produce and receive sound waves?
well because, the test would need to test its own rigor somehow; which is impossible without presuming a determinism;- so it does presume a determinism, and every idiot jumps on the bandwagon, forgetting the bandwagon is nowhere close to being sound, or established with reason.
This speculation on determinism means science is incapable of determining the operations of quantum of mechanics, because they don't match with its deterministic structure the 'test' depends on to read 'verification (sic)'. Which is why science can't ever explain quantum mechanics, and why it can only offer statistical descriptions, and speculative modeling that is really just a question of language-politics for the terms being used, which have no hope of extending the reach of human understanding because of the self-imposed limitations put onto the thinking imported from the faulty scientific method.
Mediocre minds can't fathom the essential nature of the prima-fabric for long enough to forge a better tool for the sublimation of human intelligence.
Let me go again: Science is an unfinished work in progress by the accounts of its own promoters, and you f***wits are totally sold on it before its produced a solid answer ON ANYTHING, because we must all have blind faith in a scientific process (that is fundamentally un-compelling), because its easier to think the truth is already out there for me to lean on in times of trouble, than having to work out how to actually discover a proper understanding. Oh, yeah, also cause the mind is not capable of knowing the truth of science, only computers filled with data are intelligent enough to see the truth of Science... Problem science can't even actually be criticized, lurking in the shadow of vague self-definition... because you can't destroy what you can't ever get your hands on defining...
>>550882 I'd also add for everything we know about natural phenomena we still don't know what nature is, what matter is, what energy is, in its absolute essence. It's like a guy metaphysically confined to a TV studio set and thinking the cardboard trees and shit are all there is and he's figured it all out because he can tell you everything about the structure, composition etc. Of the cardboard when in fact it is literally impossible for him to contextualize his reality as a studio set in a larger world.
We're monkeys in lab coats trying to understand a closed system. We can tell you a lot ABOUT this system. But we can't tell you what it IS, nevermijd spinning a whole new fucking quasi religion out of Darwin and dawkins worship
>>550853 History, as opposed to any other branch in the world, is completely useless. It matters not what historians do, I mean, after all, a bunch of revisionists already convinced half the world that a certain "holocaust" happened... at that point, it's pointless to hope history can actually be accurate or true.
>>550812 I cannot answer your query, because its based on an unfounded accusation.
As proof of my creatorship, I would reference my arguments in this thread, which are of the same quality, and consistent with my style of brilliance.
Also: im not gonna explain the strawman metaphor, your too dumb if you haven't followed the exchange well enough to understand what has taken place in that course of exchange.
Also, I think your probably just being intellectually dishonest, because you don't answer direct questions that would bring resolution to any of the contentions you pretend to raise, you just to conflate the issue into more sordid tangents, wherein you project further errors onto me without founding any of your claims upon statements or questions.
I will attempt to you ignore you as best I can, as you obviously a kindof trollish time sink, even if its slightly unintentional.
>>550882 >This speculation on determinism means science is incapable of determining the operations of quantum of mechanics, because they don't match with its deterministic structure the 'test' depends on to read 'verification (sic)'. Which is why science can't ever explain quantum mechanics, and why it can only offer statistical descriptions What the fuck are you on about? It's not speculation, it's actual experiments which have given rise to these statistical models. Scientists have actually observed the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in practice. >Science is an unfinished work in progress by the accounts of its own promoters, and you f***wits are totally sold on it before its produced a solid answer ON ANYTHING You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. >having to work out how to actually discover a proper understanding. Also known as science.
Also, I think your probably just being intellectually dishonest, because you don't ***ask*** direct questions that would bring resolution to any of the contentions you pretend to raise, you just to conflate the issue into more sordid tangents, wherein you project further errors onto me without founding any of your claims upon statements or questions.
>>550935 >the evidence for the holocaust is immense >it hasn't been refuted just lol i'm not even going to bother arguing with you, it's pointless at this point. i think it was hitler who pointed out that jews argue from the position of already have won, and snake their way out of any argument or debate, and if refuted successfully he will do the same thing. well, it doesn't matter.
>>550917 >Of the cardboard when in fact it is literally impossible for him to contextualize his reality as a studio set in a larger world. Because there's no reason to - and there's nothing to be gained from attempting it.
>>550945 Pointless at *what* point? What incredible historical findings have nazi revisionists brought to the holocaust debate?
I even went to /pol/ to see what this shit all about, it's a bunch of fake jpegs and fringe websites that have a clear agenda against jewish people. I have seen nothing that convinces a reasonable person of the absurd position that a mass genocide of Jews was going on. The numbers are debatable, sure, and the traditional reports may be exaggarated, but to deny it happened at all is the realm of lunatics.
>>550953 sure you have, you've seen "nothing" and everything you've seen is absolutely right, and since this is an anonymous image board you'll just fuck off and fight the same battle tomorrow saying the exact same shit.
Well, not today. Today I stop replying to your kind right now.
Scientists are still ignoring the Aristotelian foundations of their assumptions, and as long as they keep doing that it will continue to be an embarrassment and fellow philosophy historians will laugh at it.
>>550967 >but scifags are just as guilty of assuming shit about what's outside of this system as religious people so watch it with the high horse No, they aren't. Scientists answer to what is 'outside this system' is either "dunno, working on it" or "what do you even mean by 'outside'?"
>>550962 It was that thread where a guy kept refusing to see the sources being posted right? Can I have a link to the books posted there? I want to have them handy for the next time holocaust denial shows up.
In other words you are just smearing ordinary people who are happy enough with the evidence presented to them by scientists to except evolution as a pretty solid fact or are interested enough in science to be interested in prominent science communicators, because I mean being interested in what Stephen Hawking, for example, has to say without being a physicist is literally the same as "worshipping" him.
>>550934 Maybe if you could navigate to the end of a sentence, and work out what I was on about, you might stop being obtuse and going onto make idle denials and table thumping.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand (isn't this fun, its your turn again).
let me substitute words in what you've said, and we can all see how useless your sensibilities for reasoning are:
You might say scientists have actually observed a principle, but that's very unscientific. You owe money to the falsification jar (remember, every time you treat falsification like verification, you gotta pay up). Practically speaking, thats why I win, and never can, I HAVE ALSO given you big boy arguments and reasoning for this already, but you don't seem capable of asking me direct questions about that, just giving me obtuse "fuck are you on about?" sentiments.
Predictive principles are by nature inductive and therefore speculative (forever&always). that's a deduction. Also all prediction is based on a fundamental presumption about reality, which is actually doesn't correspond to the truth; which is why we can't explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (explain and model is not the same).
By the way, incase you didn't notice, I was talking about statistical models in a disparaging way, not because they don't hold up, because they are unreliable in a crucial way:
You can't distinguish mathematical models to be independently operative outside the hypothesis, so its a tautology that has effectively duped you into taking the futility in the Scientific grasp, as the highest authority.
>>551004 Evolution as a metaphysics is not the same thing as accepting the theory of evolution you clown. It's an extension of evolution to the metaphysical domain; making assertions of the true nature of reality and the non-existence of a higher power based on the phenomenon of evolution alone, which is absolutely absurd. Hence, evolution as metaphysics. I couldn't have made it clearer but you're still flailing at straw men.
>>551031 Because by definition it would be metaphysical and outside this closed system we call the universe. Goddamn. It's not being metaphysically restricted to never going outside your front door and having to prove the nonexistence of something ridiculous like polka dotted alligators across the street. It's having to prove the non-existence of the guy who built your fucking house in the first place, though first you have to prove your house isn't eternally cyclical, or a Brute Fact, or whatever, shit that evolution can't tell you
>>551046 lol you're retarded dude. The point is the house is the closed system, an ordered system that it is reasinae to assume was designed, although we cannot know for sure. So if for all intents and purposes the outside world doesn't exist, "God doesn't exist" is not any more a given than "God does exist".
>>551016 >You might say scientists have actually observed a principle, but that's very unscientific. >just giving me obtuse "fuck are you on about?" sentiments. Because you're being completely incoherent. >Predictive principles are by nature inductive and therefore speculative (forever&always). No scientist disputes this. >that's a deduction. The flip side is that deduction without observation is completely useless for gaining knowledge, i.e you have to start from an observed premise about reality to actually get anywhere. >because they are unreliable in a crucial way: Quantum mechanical models are extremely reliable and give very precise and consistent results. >You can't distinguish mathematical models to be independently operative outside the hypothesis I can only repeat my questions: What *are* you on about? Mathematical models are supposed to explain the hypothesis, they are supposed to be dependent - and that's where the role of experiments come in, when they showed the model to be wrong or inaccurate you have to refine it constantly.
I see. I'm a history fag who never gets involved in the 'god' debates and only joined this thread because I was scrolling the front page and saw you trash talking ordinary people just for being interested in science, or scientists or accepting scientific facts and calling it worship.
I do happen to be non-religious, although I was unaware that is what you were harping on about with your trash talk.
I don't know why people even bother to have debates with people like you because you are clearly incredibly tiresome. There's no sensible concept of god I am aware of for me even to believe in let alone having people like you trash talking and harassing me with shit like "god exists is the default option, you worship scientists, prove everything, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, the Universe is just like a house etc etc".
>>551069 I literally just said god exists isn't the default option lol. Also you can't into metaphors or basic philosophic terminology, and the fact you're fucking baffled as to why as to why I'd rash on scientism in a thread filled with fedoras rashing on philosophy they never read is hilarious too. Thanks for wasting my time I guess
>>551061 Mathematical models don't explain the hypothesis. unless you take explanation to mean: incoherence that can't be questioned because its an idol worship for the blind faith in Scientism.
Your whole foundation is build on the shaky premise, that you can get away with calling people stupid when they don't understand what you label as explanation, to be [a] valid [explanation], or any kind of explanation at all. The hypothesis is a description, the mathematical model is a description of the operation of the hypothesis, its not new information, its just expressed in a different language. Also prediction is not explanation, and fundamentally this correlation is self-evident in the current state of Science's undeveloped sense of indeterminacy over quantum mechanics (which has remained static (dead) over the last four generations).
--- and now, what the fuck man, your being totally inconsistent, you said there is NOTHING SPECULATIVE going on, now you say the speculation is something NO SCIENTIST DISPUTES.
Its a waste of time talking about this, your on the merry-go-round, and anybody with 2 feet on the ground is supposedly revolving around you, and if they even run to match your rate of rotation to tell you that your on a merry-go-round, you say "I know, being on the merry-go-round is what it means when the world is revolving around me".
Except, as you said yourself, "fleeting happiness" is the same as "meaningful happiness". The only thing that divides them is cultural norms.
From your position, there is no real justification for one type of happiness over another, except for shaky cultural forces which are hardly scientific. The only flaw in heroin addiction vs fatherhood is that heroin addiction is not socially accepted, and is difficult to maintain indefinitely (although so is the happiness of holding your child for the first time).
Are you saying that the value judgement "heroin use = bad happiness, fatherhood = good happiness" is really just a comment on the fact that heroin use has yet to be perfected?
>>551098 "hypothesis hʌJˈpɒθJsJs/Submit noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
Apparently have to pull dictionary because you appear to literally now know what the words mean. An hypothesis is the explanation, "explain the hypothesis" is asking "explain the explanation" leading to an infinite regress.
>you said there is NOTHING SPECULATIVE going on When have I ever said that? I've actually implied speculation is the only form of true knowledge (speculation + track record of accurate predictions to be more exact)
>>550839 >''it helps people to have easier lives'' You think it takes a philosophically articulate person to make this point stick?
Are you that far up your ass that you don't realize people don't need such complex rationales to make decisions?
And where do you get the idea from that there is no overlap between scientists and philosophers? Every other scientist has opinions on ethics, epistemology, politics, etc, and use their status to press forward their values.
>>551103 No, I'm saying you can objectively differentiate someone having just used heroin vs someone just having become a parent, and the way you do that is by looking at "the chemicals". So IF you wanna claim one form of happiness is better than the other, using empiricism is the way to actually measure them.
What makes one chemical reaction superior to amother? One area of the brain lights up when a father holds a child that doesn't light up when he injects heroin, sure. How do you go from that to "the happiness derived from holding the child is better"?
>>551137 Only way to measure them, but the respective chemical profiles of these different happinesses can in no way at all tell you anything about their qualitative dimension. Science is toothless in the realm of consciousness
I dont have the energy to pull apart your BS, fuck low IQs.
hypothesis might be defined like that, but a scientific hypothesis is not a true hypothesis.
It doesn't explain the prediction, either because it presumes the context of a process or a substance that contains the potency for a description to attach onto, and never gives an account of both process and substance, which is just fine in the field of science, because no-one expects it to offer comprehensive answers, and it never has (or will).
Just look at the uncertainty principle, science which as I have given full descriptions for, and even by your own admission, is a predictive enterprise! And Science has told us convincingly in plain terms its own self-refutation; because:
Science gives us knowledge through the predictability of a GIVEN principle (still no guarantee the principle isn't bullshit ever, its inductive; but let's continue with no doubt).
Uncertainty principle tells us the future is fundamentally uncertain (non-deterministic) (which is also antithetical to the entire methodological system of science, but lets ignore this).
Science creates math-model to prove that uncertainty can be made certain by math (*coughs* can you smell the bullshit).
Everyone believes it, and math displaces philosophy so no-one can even question it in words. ---
By the way: Math is the language of everything, but we don't even live in an 'everything universe', we live in a probabilistic universe, where the possibilities are limited, math has not even begun to discern how it correlates to the structure of probability, perhaps all the leading math of today, when its translated into speech, are all contentions over the geometry pertaining to square-circles, because math has no inherent affinity for corresponding to probabilistic regularities.
--- might be dangerous, and I need to update my tumblr, but its stevenw8.tumblr.com
Philosophy encompasses science as it is performed, in process. This is why you get a 'PHD', or, 'doctorate of philosophy'.
Next, think in terms of results and means. How does philosophy work? Well, it starts with language. . . therefore, much of philosophy is language focused, and in fact, something true in logic is not necessarily factually true in material existence and its accounting. I.E. logic is syntactic more than semantic. Much of philosophy is this way, in that, it accounts for the phenomenal world where a metric or measure - that which is accomplished with 'science' - can not accomplish.
What is the value of the phenomenal and the syntactic? I would argue, if you are human, everything you take for granted has its value wrapped in the phenomenal experience you cant measure. BUT, philosophy can achieve what measuring a dose of pill can, when it comes to treating a person's particular case of 'autism'.
people favor idealized results because they are too stupid to value the possible conditions, and this is why 'science' is seen by many as something outside of philosophy, and not simply a 'method'.
>>551240 >because no-one expects it to offer comprehensive answers, and it never has (or will). Science is the only enterprise which have a shot at it. Philosophical ponderings without starting from an experimentally verified premise is completely useless in terms of gaining knowledge because no matter how logically sound or rational an argument is it tells you nothing about whether it actually models reality or not, that takes actual observation. >still no guarantee the principle isn't bullshit ever, its inductive; It's guaranteed to the degree of which everyone - including you - actually lives their lives. >Uncertainty principle tells us the future is fundamentally uncertain (non-deterministic) You don't even need quantum mechanics for that, simple practical limitation makes a lot of things uncertain. >Science creates math-model to prove that uncertainty can be made certain by math No they conduct repeated experiments which confirms or denies their models. >math has not even begun to discern how it correlates to the structure of probability Probability theory
>>551286 >can you justify that with emperisism I don't care to justify it. >You make an axiom that covers the interaction between literally all forms of philosophy and have basically zero justification for it. Yep. >"Everything should be justified with Emperisism only?" >"Why? Because I said so" No, it's because the experiments work.
Drop that ball from your window and it will fall to the ground at appropriately 9.8m/s^2 EVERY SINGLE TIME, and it will continue to do so regardless of what any philosopher says.
>>551302 >I don't care to justify it. That don't get upset when people say this type of philosophy is retarded and essentially secular religion
>No, it's because the experiments work.
>Drop that ball from your window and it will fall to the ground at appropriately 9.8m/s^2 EVERY SINGLE TIME, and it will continue to do so regardless of what any philosopher says.
That's great. Just make no claims to any truth about ethics, morality, aesthetics, or any issue other than extremely low level logic. Positivism is the path that has the least explanatory power possible. Also since it cannot even justify itself it needs to bow to literally every other philosophy, since it has no way of approving it's assertions using it's own terms.
>>551302 >Drop that ball from your window and it will fall to the ground at appropriately 9.8m/s^2 EVERY SINGLE TIME, and it will continue to do so regardless of what any philosopher says. this depends on what model you CHOOSE to carry your analysis.
>>551302 >>551330 To give you an example of how weak your position is. Let's say I were to assert that we will now say that balls NEVER drop at 9.8/s^2 and than they instead fall at the speed of light.
You might be able to say that's incorrect but you cannot say we shouldn't agree to it anyway.
After all a purely emperical philosophy cannot even assign a value to truth. There would be no reason to say that believing something true is any better than believing something that is not true. You can't even appeal to values about 'good' or 'humanity' because they cannot be proven to exist empirically.
Of course nobody including yourself is really a pure emperisist, you just say you are because you think it makes you sound smart. In reality everyone sticks to the superior philosophy whether they admit it or not, because pure empiricism is a position that doesn't work.
>>551273 >What is the value of the phenomenal and the syntactic? I would argue, if you are human, everything you take for granted has its value wrapped in the phenomenal experience you cant measure. BUT, philosophy can achieve what measuring a dose of pill can, when it comes to treating a person's particular case of 'autism'. it is already a personal stance to wish to measure. the question is not about what method to choose to reach whatever fantasy, typically ''certainty'', you want accomplished by your measured, but why you cling to measurements and your fantasy beforehand; and no scientist is able to say why they want to measure things (even less if they are paid for it).
>>551330 >That don't get upset when people say this type of philosophy is retarded and essentially secular religion I don't get upset. >Just make no claims to any truth about ethics, morality, aesthetics, or any issue other than extremely low level logic Those are all subjective concepts, they don't have any truth to them. >Positivism is the path that has the least explanatory power possible. It's the only position which leads to any knowledge at all, anything else is just blind philosophers fumbling around in their own thoughts. >justify itself That you think this is important shows how useless that kind of thinking is. Lets say I now gave a coherent logical proof of positivism, would that change anything? No. And same for the reverse, you now proved it wrong, my response would be: "And?" You, me and EVERYONE ELSE in the world would still conduct their lives as if it was the true way of knowledge anyway because it evidently works.
>>549992 >As I said the individual may be able to settle in and find meaning in his own ego And that is the new narrative though. After the death of the traditional narrative of the christian god, and the death of the metanarratives of liberalism and all its subsequent ofshoots (like Marxism), we're effectively going all in, into radical individualism more and more.
>>551299 >still no guarantee the principle isn't bullshit ever, its inductive; It's guaranteed to the degree of which everyone - including you - actually lives their lives.
oh, cant wait to read your account of sanity defined in terms of psychological schema, guess its probably a one liner: science proves Im not ... hot air flouting above quicksand using the mystical powers of rhetoric to save myself from an alternate paradigm.. now I guess I slowly await the mindless science-mafia from fixing their credibility problems.
Perhaps they might be obtuse as you to see me as a crackpot, guess I can only hope for the best.
>>551339 >Let's say I were to assert that we will now say that balls NEVER drop at 9.8/s^2 and than they instead fall at the speed of light. Then I would test it out myself and immediately prove you wrong. >You might be able to say that's incorrect but you cannot say we shouldn't agree to it anyway. I would say: Don't believe what me, you or anyone else *says*, try out the experiments yourself instead. >After all a purely emperical philosophy cannot even assign a value to truth. Empiricism doesn't concern itself with truth. >There would be no reason to say that believing something true is any better than believing something that is not true Indeed, which is why you rely on experiments, and not what people say. >ou just say you are because you think it makes you sound smart. In reality everyone sticks to the superior philosophy whether they admit it or not Other way around - everyone is an empiricist, we all know you would physically count the money when selling something to a stranger, we all know you would look at a termometer if I told you it was 100 degrees C outside, we all know you would measure the amount of coffee to put in the machine, etc. It's all fun and games pretending nature or induction isn't real, but when push comes to shove you will rely on it every single time because you have no other choice.
>>551342 >unironic positivists in the tyool 2016 >subjective =/= non-existent, false
Your knob gargling of the pop sci establishment is a purely subjective preference (unless you're claiming an objective truth about the validity of the scientific method, which cannot be proven by the scientific method itself unless you want to risk an infinite regress) and thus does not exist. Good day to you friend
>>551342 >It's the only position which leads to any knowledge at all And how to do figure this. If you cannot justify using only empiricism than the statement is objectively false.
>anything else is just blind philosophers fumbling around in their own thoughts. Well you've already defined knowledge as being something other than thoughts. So we are already in a hopless situation, even if you figured something it could be only be expressed as thoughts. Essentially you have an epistmology that tells us true knowledge is impossible....also you figured it using non-emperical means which ends up defeating your own philosophy. So in defining your own terms you have essentially explained why pure emperisism is shit.
>Those are all subjective concepts, they don't have any truth to them. Define truth using empirical terms only. There have been many diffenations of truth in a variety of philosophical systems. You are just grabbing onto old ghosts about 'truth' being an absolute thing that is observable, which is an Enlightenment idea (which itself could not justify itself using pure Empiricism....)
Also you have NO REASON TO VALUE TRUTH. None! There is no Empirical reason to care about truth over false-hood. Since you cannot assign a value to truth using only emperical reason the position that "emperical reason should be the only basis because it gives truth" is self refuting.
So you've already refuted your own position in two seperate ways....
>>551367 >Then I would test it out myself and immediately prove you wrong. Ok but why do you care if it's true or... >Empiricism doesn't concern itself with truth. Ok you don't....so there's no reason to test anything. Whether you are right or not is a meaningless concept using your own damn terms.
Until you can empirically justify caring about truth (and no your personal feelings do not count) you have no reason to give a fuck about anything.
>>551348 >And that is the new narrative though. Correct, however it's not a narrative that can create a new standard that let's us move towards any sort of goal...other than the goal of finding said goal.
>After the death of the traditional narrative of the christian god, and the death of the metanarratives of liberalism and all its subsequent ofshoots (like Marxism), we're effectively going all in, into radical individualism more and more Also correct. Truth, as existing outside of perspective only made sense with some sort of God the platonic form, you needed some sort of non-human thing to be what Ziveck called a 'big other'. The Enlightenment got by on the ghost of God in Deism but that's God. The Marxist essentially made destined history fufill the same role. The only place that truth without some surrogate God is in the indivual. That's why all the upcoming philosphies focus more and more on it. We got Stirner and existentialism.
As I said the problem is that this doesn't really unite society as a whole. So there are several paths. We can continue down this path of indviualism with the idea that once we kill all the spooks all will be left is a union of Egoists. We can accept that only some members of society can handle the responsibility of being their God and everything will revolve around these Ubermench. We can accept the nihilism in it's entirity and go down whatever hole that leads to. Or we can continue trying to come up with new big narratives that make a rallying flag.
>>551392 >And how to do figure this. Without input from the real world no new information can ever be gained. You can think up the most logically sound and amazing philosophical model, but what use is it if you have no way of determining if it actually is a model of reality or not? >If you cannot justify using only empiricism than the statement is objectively false. Again, completely irrelevant for the outcomes of empirical experiments. >Well you've already defined knowledge as being something other than thoughts. It's information, of which thoughts is one form. >Essentially you have an epistmology that tells us true knowledge is impossible....also you figured it using non-emperical means which ends up defeating your own philosophy. No, I've said empiricism is the only true knowledge. >Define truth using empirical terms only. Empirical 'truth' (to be more precise, there's no such thing as Truth) is that which can be experimentally verified. >You are just grabbing onto old ghosts about 'truth' being an absolute thing that is observable, No, not an absolute thing. >Also you have NO REASON TO VALUE TRUTH. None! And I don't. >There is no Empirical reason to care about truth over false-hood. Indeed, which is why I only care about experimental results.
And this is what is meant by 'philosophy is dead' - philosophical arguments have ZERO relevance on experimental outcomes. Various interpretations like many worlds, hidden variables or conscious collapsing the wave fun of the double slit experiment? A fun armchair exercise I guess, but whatever interpretation you arrive it will not make any changes to the actual data.
>>551398 >Ok but why do you care if it's true or >Ok you don't....so there's no reason to test anything. You test it for the sake of the outcome. If I wanted to drop a ball on my floor it would be a good idea to know if it would annihilate it or not because of its insane kinetic energy from moving at light speed. >Until you can empirically justify caring about truth (and no your personal feelings do not count) you have no reason to give a fuck about anything. Truth is irrelevant, but even so that does not follow.
>>551433 >If I wanted to drop a ball on my floor it would be a good idea to know if it would annihilate it or not because of its insane kinetic energy from moving at light speed.
Well "it's a good idea" isn't an empirical statement. You can relay on feelings and instincts as somewhat of a basis or you can construct an ethics system that says what behavior is preferable. Empiricism is a specialized form of philosophy, it gathers data. Epistemology tells us what we can extrapolate from the data. Ethics interprets the data. Meta physics tells us how the data fits into a big picture. You can't use empiricism for everything. We can dig up Francis Bacon put a dynamo coil around his body and harness and gather free energy from him spinning in his grave but we can't really figure out what to do with the energy using Empiricism.
>>551455 >Epistemology tells us what we can extrapolate from the data. do not objectify your behavior. it is your personal choice to have faith in induction.
and induction does not belong to empiricism, but to any rationalist doctrine.
the sole question of interest is why do you take your imagination seriously, in knowing that, since you have so much faith in induction through space and time, people have been doing it for millenia and still have no clue on how to connect back their speculation/abstraction/delirium/fantasy back to empirical events, nor do they even know why they want to take seriously their speculation. they prefer to live in the past in order to live in the future, therefore that they are nihilistic.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the onion is in actual fact wrong. The objects to which the onion refers, and their structure, orderings and relationships are in fact independent of human discovery and cognition, frequently (though not always) also finding expression in the physical world.
When a tree falls in the woods, it makes a sound. When you have a prime number's worth of cubes, they persist in only being capable of being arranged as a larger rectangular prism in exactly one significant way. And two plus two persists in being equal to four, regardless of whether any humans are around to appreciate any of these facts. On the contrary (and with certain caveats pertinent to observation itself), it nevertheless takes a certain human arrogance to suppose that things are otherwise in the absence of human observation. I think they call that solipsism.
The onion's own word "constructed" also suggests Muh Social Constructionz, more generally, and is part of a broader trend in academia which takes as a default starting point that reality begins in the human mind. Generally, this is false.
but scientism sees evidence in the data, because they have taken permission to label anything whatever Science might allow them to get away with because:
1. math 2. philosophy is dead 3. math replaced philosophy 4. only math can refute us now.
I recognize the logic of Scientism is infallible, I only request that you leave all words to us philosophers, as the purity of science: with its awesome math, is better kept above the realm of mere humans, rather you gently display your supreme proofs in the expressions of the math itself, so we might directly cower in the wake of your post-post modern mathocalypse.
If you must continue with your mentally forged singularity, and wish to continue with some form of communication to our such as me, please take on the avatar and voice of Johnny Depp, after watching that movie, I think that is the nicest kind of superior force of incomprehension I would wish to relate to...
>>551589 >When you have a prime number's worth of cubes, they persist in only being capable of being arranged as a larger rectangular prism in exactly one significant way. And two plus two persists in being equal to four, regardless of whether any humans are around to appreciate any of these facts
Well consider that exactly what defines the 'number of cubes' is going to be a little arbtiary.
Let's say the cubes are carved of wood. Are they still all part of the set 'cubes' if they some of them are cut unevenly?
The onion is correct that Platonic numbers are not a thing but numbers but numbers are not exactly a social construct either. It's only in a strictly material understanding of the world where number can be demoted to a mere term. An idealist model can explain the fundamental rules of numbers occurring while not having to go full Platoism.
>>551455 >Well "it's a good idea" isn't an empirical statement. The empirical statement is "the ball moves at X speed", "the ball will make an X diameter hole in my floor". >or you can construct an ethics system that says what behavior is preferable. Also known as feelings. >Epistemology tells us what we can extrapolate from the data. Ethics interprets the data. Meta physics tells us how the data fits into a big picture. So far all of those have told us nothing, they haven't come up with a single answer to anything. > but we can't really figure out what to do with the energy using Empiricism. There's plenty we can do with it, power a computer for example.
A prime number's worth of cubes isn't arbitrary--it's either a prime number of then, or it's not. We are describing a true state of affairs, or a false one. This is the platonist's claim. Even if the (square number of) cubes are imperfectly formed, as they will be, they will still only be (imperfectly) arrangeable in one significant formation.
>>551727 Knowledge can only exist in subjectivity you doof. And yes how I plan to utilize experimental results involves knowledge of my goals and how to achieve those goals. So you just conceded subjectivity has to take over where empiricism is no longer sufficient? That empiricism is a tool used at the discretion of an agent? Wow Cool thanks for blowing your own self the fuck out brosef
>>551739 And this is why positivist fags aren't even worth debating seriously. They can't understand basic logic and end up refuting their own positions. Asserting positivism is itself a refutation of positivism, since it's ultimately a subjective understanding of how to handle information. And once the positivist starts saying the knowledge should be used for something oh boy have we BTFO empirical exclusivity.
What really bakes my noodle is that even among people who do math, mine does not seem to be a majority opinion, even though all that's necessary to arrive at my correct conclusion is a little clear thought.
A theist rationalist Humanities Professor was teaching a class on Plato, a known non-logical positivist
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Plato and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Newton!”
At this moment, a emotionless, Vulcan, logical positivist STEM major who had watched all episodes of Bill Nye the science guy and understood the necessity of Empiricism and fully supported everything Neil deGrasse Tyson ever said held up a copy of Phenomenology of the Spirit.
”How does of this crap make sense?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite post-modernly and smugly replied “Of course not! Truth is entirely subjective, you stupid STEMfag”
”Wrong. The basis for truth is to test something 5,000 times with double blind experiments in a lab. If I can't see it....than it isn't there! ”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He stormed out of the room crying tears, which just shows that he was still being controlled by his emotions. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, some gay Frenchman, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist philosophy professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself denied causality having read Hume.
The students applauded and all changed their degrees to STEM, all of them would fail to find employment as the market was over-saturated, and accepted Sam Harris as their Lord and Savior. An eagle named “Empiricism” flew into the room and perched atop a copy of principia de mathematica and shed a tear on the chalk. The Bill Nye the Science Guy theme was sung several times, and Steven Hawking himself showed up to explain how science has replaced philosophy.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of an existentialist crisis.
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 email@example.com with the post's information.