Scientists on philosophy

File: quote-philosophy-of-science-is-about-as-useful-to-scientists-as-ornithology-is-to-birds-richard-p-feynman-37-73-57.jpg (48KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 850x400px

I don't know. But this one is funny. I mean, is this a good or a bad thing? Who knows?

>>1806330
so it is useful to scientists when you think about it

File: False Gods and Real Seekers.jpg (1MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1716x1710px

Here you go, OP.

>>1806836

>Professing to be wise, they became as fools...

>>1806851

That quote can be applied to almost any dogmatist

>>1806836
Thank you, based anon.

>>1806836

Whats wrong with the Bill Nye quote?

>>1807115
Nobody says reality isn't real. It's a dumb thing to even think people have said. And that thoughts and feelings aren't authentic is stupidly vague - and there is a very concrete and materialistic way to make that thought make sense which Nye should be able to agree with but he's too fedora'd to get (like, My thoughts and feelings aren't authentic in that they don't reflect any objective or changeless feature of reality - why can't Nye even consider that? Is he a fucking subjective idealist? Almost certainly not. My conclusion is that he is just retarded.)

>>1807115
Skepticism, an integral part of epistemology, investigates how the senses can be fooled.

The scientific method that the clowns on the right supposedly love, in it's many definitions, is ultimately a way to work around this shit.

IIRC it was Dawkins, the clown on the top right, for example, came up with the name for the Argument From Personal Experience, which clashes with Nye's statement.

As the anon above says, if you want to be a realist try not to end up being a subjective idealist instead.

>>1806117
Newton said that history and philosophy of science are the two most important foundations of any scientist.

Ironically today's meme scientists (krauss, Dawkins, NDT, Bill Byne, Sam Harriss, etc etc) are so blissfully unaware of philosophy its laughable.

I always get a kick out of how reddit and the typical normie worship these men as 'great' minds in their fields when they probably have a combined 30 publications of non-existant influence in the academic world.

>>1807191
>when they probably have a combined 30 publications of non-existant influence in the academic world.

Dawkins actually was pretty influential in his time though.

>>1806836
Post-modernism happened in the time between the quotes on the left and right.

>>1806836
>>1806117

Am I reading it wrong or do these two Dawkins quotes contradict each other? In the one in OP it sounds like he's saying that philosophy is the extension of religion where superstition is removed (like astronomy is to astrology and chemistry to alchemy) and is therefore completely legitimate and even great.

Yet in the other picture he seems to be dissing philosophy at first, especially in that second quote.

First quote still seems pretty much pro-philosophy to me though, common sense isn't always correct.

>>1807144
It's the inescapable condition of the modern scientist. Self-important, narcissistic ramblings on anything they have difficulty quantifying. It's how they developed cults of personality, or lack thereof. A good quote for them is "They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing".

>>1807390
t. Mullah Omar

>>1807404
>Getting that from an Oscar Wilde quote

Are you euphoric now?

>>1807454
No, I'm getting it from your self-righteous hatred of scientists.

Everything you said could literally be verbatim from a Saudi-Arabian cleric.

File: cchan1.jpg (3KB, 114x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 114x124px

>>1807214
no he wasn't . You can look up his bibliography. He was a bumble bee scientist who has 12 papers on bumble bee digging patterns.

The thesis in the selfish gene is largely dismissed but contains a lot of explaining of advanced evolution concepts for the casual audience. A lot of smart people incorrectly miscredit him as the discoverer of these theories such as the greenbeard, and kin selection.

Dawkins was a mediocore to poor scientist but a good writer and made money via controversy of polemics against Christianity. Very poor ones at that but witty enough to have a presence in a media that hates Christianity.

>>1807467
>self-righteous hated of scientists

In no way do I hate sciebtists, unless you think that Bill Nye, Tyson and other personalities are the embodiment of all scientists. Maybe I should have been more specific in that modern scientists seem more prone to this than Einstein or Schrodinger, but that's what happens when you start making your career into something closer to a pop icon.

>>1807499
>A lot of smart people incorrectly miscredit him as the discoverer of these theories

Then who was it?

>>1807501
actual scientists like Harry Noller are uknown to the masses and reddit.com because their work requires very high level of expertise to even understand and they don't waste their time writing for the masses.

>>1807504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton

>>1807512
So would you say that he is a better scientist than Dawkins, Tyson and Nye, and if so, could you say it's a better credit to the scientific community that he centers his career around scientific advancement rather than a personslity?

>>1807515
Thanks.

>>1807499
Hope he got stung a lot.

>>1806881

>I'm looking at the man in the mirror....

File: bill_neye-itsafake.png (109KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 400x400px

>>1807115
>>1807169
>>1807144
Well, that, and Nye doesn't have a single degree that isn't honorary, aside from a BS in Engineering from Cornell, and thus, has no business discussing either science nor philosophy. He isn't even scholastically qualified to teach kids in an elementary school, let alone talk as an authority on science.

We need to go back to the days when a Ph.D. actually meant what it stood for, as clearly a lot of our STEM spokesmen don't even realize what philosophy is about - which is kinda scary, when you realize the same can probably be said of the folks actually working on human genetic engineering and the like.

>>1807115
Nothing. His skepticism of such a concept is entirely legitimate. It just betrays a degree of his own ignorance of the subject, as there's quite a bit more to philosophy than the metaphysical nature of reality.

>>1807144
>Nobody says reality isn't real.

Depends what you mean by real. He'd probably mean "not real in the sense of not physical." Which idealists and spirituals have both been known to claim (assuming they're monists). There are also matters in philosophy such as Descartes' demon, the brain in the jar thought experiment, or the simulation hypothesis.

File: drwho_i_can_fap_to_this.webm (3MB, 694x536px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 694x536px

>>1807499
Well, in his defense, he never took credit for any of the discoveries and footnotes everything at the back of his books.

Plus he's fucking Lalla Ward... It's hard not to at least some respect people who fuck Lalla Ward.

>>1806117
>dawkins
>scientist

>>1807499
>a media that hates Christianity.

Lol. There's a massive media conspiracy against Christianity, sure buddy.

>>1807580
Those solipsisms are about as central to philosophy as "a tree falling in the forest" is to buddhism, or "why is the sky blue" is to science. They are introductory exercises, at best, and it's frightening that anyone with any academic recognition could ever think otherwise.

It's indicative of a society getting ready to water its crops with gatorade.

>>1807593
The jews in the media have no love for Christianity. That's obvious.

File: n-s-fq.jpg (11KB, 386x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 386x242px

>>1807563
>only doctorate holders can discuss science or philosophy

???

He never claimed to be an authority on anything, he's an activist and speaks out against the absolute retardation of creationism trying to masquerade as academia

What about all the other scientists who say the same thing? Kaku? Hawkings? Neil Tyson was well distinguished even before his fame. Alain Aspect? Julian Huxley?

>>1807583
Never said he did. But normies cite it as if he came up w it.

>>1807597
>Those solipsisms are about as central to philosophy as "a tree falling in the forest" is to buddhism, or "why is the sky blue" is to science. They are introductory exercises, at best, and it's frightening that anyone with any academic recognition could ever think otherwise.

Again, there are entire philosophical traditions that claim reality isn't real (assuming you consider physical to be synonymous with real, which someone with a STEM background likely does).

You also missed the first part where I said it betrays his own ignorance on the subject.

>It's indicative of a society getting ready to water its crops with gatorade.

Oh god, you're one of those fucking morons who takes idiocracy to be gospel. Let me guess, you're 19-25, and consider the surest sign of maturity and intelligence to be how dismal an opinion of "the masses" you can hold, and consider the true mark of taste in how counter-cultural your own are.

>>1807597
>it's indicative of a society getting ready to water its crops with gatorade

Tbh it's time that we make the leap from water to gatorade already. We've progressed, water is obsolete.

>>1807608
No one cares, tripfaggot.

>>1807608
Creationism is the truth. I find it funny how evolutionist retards like yourself cannot explain the gaps in the fossil record, the hard problem of consciousness, and the mutational rate.

>>1807631
>no argument
>no aditional content to thread
>no discourse
>triggered by digital characters

Holy Autism, Shut up sperg, go cry about it in your safe space >>>/vip/

>>1807643
We're discussing philosophy and the philosophy of science on the History and Humanities board, shut the fuck up with your creationist criticism of science and take it to >>>/sci/

File: 1414877211244.jpg (87KB, 702x899px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 702x899px

>>1807645
>getting trolled this hard
kek almighty

>>1807656
make me fuccboi

>>1807643
They can explain things in several mutually exclusive and false ways, at length.

What they cannot do is get it right, once, ever.

>>1807643
this

>>1807645
>>1807608
I have a simple response to this, but you're attention whoring too much already.

http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1475691863073.webm

>>1807643
There is literally zero evidence that creationism is right. Prove me wrong.

>>1807643
>>1807670
>>1807673
This is why scientific ignorance needs to be ended in schools. I don't want to live in a society of idiots.

>>1807656
>implying creationism and religious philosophy isn't philosophy

I could make the same case for about half of these anyone taking their "science bullshit" there too.

>>1807692
>doesn't know how to save and post webms


LMFAO fucking newfag, shut the fuck up and speak when spoken to

>>1807703
>creationism
>philosophy

Nah. Sorry, philosophy stems from a love of wisdom and truth. Creationism by definition cannot be philosophy.

>>1807643
>mfw these anons don't know enough about philosophy to distinguish truth from fact

>>1807702
>hurr durr science
Please keep your church out of my education kthxbye

>>1807723
Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.

Nonetheless, take it to >>>/sci/

>>1807708
>Doesn't know you canna post webms with sound on /his/.
>Doesn't know when to turn off his trip code.
>Doesn't know how to deal with his identity.
issues causing him to beg for attention on a anonymous image board.

>>1807723
>>1807731
Please ignore the tripfag - the last thing we need on /sci/ is more trolling creationists.

>>1807714
Wisdom and truth is purely a matter of personal preference and choice.

>>1807736
>canna post webms with sound on /his/
Yes you can

You're just too retarded to figure out why you're fucking fuck

God, you're fucking retarded

>>1807744
Prove it, tripfag.

>>1807749
kill yourself first creationist fag

or better yet, prove you can't

I'll wait

>>1807714
Philosophy stems from a curiosity of nature you fucking retard. By your definition, the majority philosophers weren't philosophers at all. Creationism is a cultural and philosophical way of expressing man's origins. Don't be this much of a pleb.

>>1807743
No. Wisdom and truth are absolute. You've just chosen to commit intellectual suicide.

>>1807761
>wisdom and truth are obsolete

I think you're the one who needs go back to /sci/.

>>1807754
>By your definition, the majority philosophers weren't philosophers at all.

And? Everyone with even an ounce of philosophical spine knows and will verify that philosophy is full of charlatans pushy sophistry as truth to make a name for themselves.

>Philosophy stems from a curiosity of nature you fucking retard.

Natural philosophy. True philosophy stems from a love of things beyond nature, namely, wisdom and truth.

>>1807761
>Wisdom and truth are absolute.
LOL
Prove it.
Protip: You can't.

>>1807769
>I haven't read Plato.

Pleb.

>>1807774
If there is no absolute wisdom or truth, then there is nothing, because we then exist in a state of chaos where nothing truly is.

File: fucking_tripfags.png (64KB, 858x439px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 858x439px

>>1807752
>or better yet, prove you can't

>>1807643
based

>>1807780
Pretty much.

>>1807702
Science is literally ignorance.

You turn away from the truth and make your best guesses, and try to make them false.

It's literally wrong. Always. And it always will be.

Name anything 200 years ago that scientists said was absolutely 100% true.

100 years ago.

50 years ago.

10 years ago.

>>1807780

You need to rethink your own comment.

"There is no absolute truth."

Is that absolutely true? If so, then there is absolute truth, isn't there. If not, then there is absolute truth as well.

Either way. Absolute truth exists.

>>1807780
So you choose to _believe_ in absolute truth because you _believe_ the alternative sucks.
I think you just proved >>1807743 right.

>>1807819
>>1807811

>>1807770

>is distinguishing the roots of philosophy by separating man and nature


Nigga, man is nature.

>a love of

Holy shit, keep you emotions out of it, Mr. Sci. Can easily be substituted with an interest or curiosity.

>Muh charlatans and sophistry

Maybe you're not human at all, come to think of it.

>>1807780
>implying there must be an absolute

>>1807788
the fact you actually fell for that is cringe, firstly, don't ever waste your time doing what a random anon tells you to do, and secondly, kill yourself for being so gullible

>Science is literally ignorance

Holy shit, why do you flyover state retards who sit on computers all day always think you're smarter than the academics who are incredibly smart and work tirelessly for what they have?

>>1807801
That's fine, but it's not a position that can be meaningfully built upon. There's nothing to be done with it. The impossibility of perceiving absolute truth (as we can be reasonably assured that there is a universe outside of our perceptions) does not mean one should stop attempting it; our entire tradition of philosophy is built upon it.

>>1807811
I think you misunderstood my statement. Re-read it.

>>1807819
Not because the alternative sucks, but because there's no point in addressing the alternative as there is literally nothing to be done with it.

>>1807775
>Probably as far into philosophy as you got

Pleb x2

>>1807803
>Name anything 200 years ago that scientists said was absolutely 100% true.

Just about nothing. Science doesn't work like you think it does. I can think of a small handful of facts that scientists asserted as absolutely true, and they tend to hold fairly fast (C being the limit of motion in the universe for instance).

>>1807830
>Nigga, man is nature.

Our bodies are. But the idealistic landscape of our minds is something beyond and outside nature.

>Holy shit, keep you emotions out of it, Mr. Sci. Can easily be substituted with an interest or curiosity.

Interest and curiosity are both emotional responses. Emotions are a core component of the human condition, and not addressing them is one of the big follies common in philosophy.

>Maybe you're not human at all, come to think of it.

More human than you.

>>1807843
>That's fine, but it's not a position that can be meaningfully built upon.
So what?
There's no objective reason to value building upon things.

>our entire tradition of philosophy is built upon it
All the more reason to tear it down like any other structure built upon a rotten foundation.

>>1807843

If...then

I showed you how to prove that the "if" is not real.

"There is no absolute truth" relies on it being absolutely true.

"There is no absolute truth" is therefore self-refuting.

That does not necessarily mean that everything matters; there can be things that are true that do not matter at all.

>>1807850

C is not a constant. It has been recorded to change for many years in the early 20th century, and posited to be near infinite near the beginning of the universe.

Science is always wrong.

>>1807878
source?

>>1807874
>There's no objective reason to value building upon things.

That's fine. Most people don't become philosophers for this reason.

>All the more reason to tear it down like any other structure built upon a rotten foundation.

It's not a house. It wont collapse because we can't perceive its foundation. The impossibility of the idea is what keeps it moving forward.

>>1807850
Light doesn’t always travel at the speed of light. A new experiment reveals that focusing or manipulating the structure of light pulses reduces their speed, even in vacuum conditions.

A paper reporting the research, posted online at arXiv.org and accepted for publication, describes hard experimental evidence that the speed of light, one of the most important constants in physics, should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable rate for light zipping through a vacuum.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

Should really keep up on things, m8

>>1807886
>>1807891

>>1807890
>It's not a house.
Autism.
>It wont collapse because we can't perceive its foundation.
Are you claiming philosophers are not aware of the premises they base their philosophical statements on?

>>1807891
I already know that. There's a reason I called it C, rather than the speed of light. Because C is not the speed of light, it is C, which light often moves at.

>>1807850
>>1807891
Well, the maximum speed isn't really the speed of light, but the maximum speed of information propagation, it just so happens that photons in a vacuum, like most massless particles, usually happen to travel at that speed.

At the same time, both quantum mechanics and relativity predict causal violations under certain conditions, even if they've yet to be observed, so it's still not an absolute.

But when science declares an "absolute truth" it ceases to be science. Everything is subject to change, and there will, likely, always be certain places where shit just can't be coherently worked out.

>>1807909
>Autism.

Pointing out the fault in your allegory is not autism. The reason we tear down a house on a flawed foundation is because it will collapse; philosophy wont do that.

>Are you claiming philosophers are not aware of the premises they base their philosophical statements on?

Nobody can perceive the absolute due the nature of human perception, the point of philosophy is to attempt to get around this through the multiplicity of perspectives and the application of reason.

>>1807910
kek

trying this hard

>>1807917
Yup. Science is always wrong, and always will be.

>>1807923
Exactly, it's supposed to be.

On the other hand, it's enough in the ballpark that we can have this conversation through this medium.

>>1807921
Find me something that goes over C and we'll talk. Also as >>1807917 pointed out, even C is not touted as absolute truth. It's just about as close as you can get in science.

>>1807920
>The reason we tear down a house on a flawed foundation is because it will collapse; philosophy wont do that.
Wrong.
The reason we tear down a house built upon a flawed foundation is to build a new one. All structures eventually collapse without maintenance and this includes philosophy as well which only continues to exist so long as there are philosophers to maintain it.

>the point of philosophy is to attempt to get around this through the multiplicity of perspectives and the application of reason.
Wrong.
The point of philosophy is to get rich men to pay you to sit around drinking wine all day as you think of reasons to justify why they should pay you to sit around drinking wine all day. Obviously not all philosophers succeed at this task.

>>1807969
>The reason we tear down a house built upon a flawed foundation is to build a new one. All structures eventually collapse without maintenance

We tear down the house to build a new one because the one on a shitty foundation will collapse regardless of maintenance, potentially with the occupants inside, you fucking imbecile.

>this includes philosophy as well which only continues to exist so long as there are philosophers to maintain it.

Philosophy has been working on this premise for its entire history and it hasn't collapsed or shown signs of collapsing yet.

>The point of philosophy is to get rich men to pay you to sit around drinking wine all day as you think of reasons to justify why they should pay you to sit around drinking wine all day. Obviously not all philosophers succeed at this task.

Plenty of philosophers were poor fucks. Diogenes, Spinoza, and Stirner come to mind.

>>1807929
Is it? Or is that technology?

>>1807931

Yes, it's wrong, and always has been. I'm glad you people are understanding this dilemma.

Believe science which is always wrong.

Disbelieve the bible which is always right.

But you're rational, fair minded seekers of truth, yes?

>Spoiler: No. You're not.

>>1807931
There was a burst of neutrinos that were thought to go over C until it took some investigation to note that the measuring was done improperly.

But at that moment, everyone in the field thought "this could go faster than C!".

And like usual, they were all wrong.

If you had an infinite light source, a laser, and you swept it in an arc, the end of the arc on a wall a million light years away would be going at much faster than C.

What's faster than light?

Shadows.

>>1808032
>Shadows.

Aren't actually a thing. An absence of a thing is not a thing.

>>1808021
I'll just ignore you henceforth. I don't like to talk to crazy people. My life is too precious to me for that.

>>1808032
>But at that moment, everyone in the field thought "this could go faster than C!".

No they did not.

what the fuck is going on in this thread

>>1808032
There's lots of ephemeral phenomena, such as you describe, that are faster than light, but you can transmit information with them at faster than the speed of light.

Closest you get, so far, is quantum entanglement, but as there's no way to determine the state of the pair or whether its partner has been observed on the other end, there's still no FTL information transfer.

But again, there are predicted phenomenon under the current theories that should do this, we just haven't observed them yet. Said theories have predicted other fantastical phenomena that turned out to exist (such as black holes), so there's no reason that these shouldn't come to pass as well.

>>1808021
Seeing as how the Bible is read and interpreted by flawed humans, even if it was the word of a perfect god, it'd still often be wrong.

Besides, anyone on a journey towards the truth that can admit they are wrong and have an incomplete picture, most of the time, is more likely to be on the right path than the one that can never admit they are wrong.

>>1808107
rather: but you can't* transmit information with them at faster than the speed of light.

>>1808077
/And Humanities/ at its best

>>1808069
Are you 12?

>>1808055
Actually, since you have a godless worldview, you have zero inherent worth.

You're just a random accident in a meaningless universe spiraling towards heat death.

Enjoy your delusions while you can!

>>1808129
What's so 12 about that? He's absolutely right. I remember the incident, and at the time there was quite a bit of skepticism at the result, which proved to be valid.

>>1808134
>Actually, since you have a godless worldview, you have zero inherent worth.

Never claimed inherent worth, you silly billy.

But good job, you got me to reply again.

>Enjoy your delusions while you can!

You too!

>>1808107
>Seeing as how the Bible is read and interpreted by flawed humans, even if it was the word of a perfect god, it'd still often be wrong.

Show me how your conclusion stems from your premises.

The Holy Spirit inspired bible is too deep to be properly understood by human beings, therefore the bible is wrong?

>>1808138
There was quite a bit of excitement.

Maybe you should try to populate more boards than just 4chan?

>>1808143

I will enjoy basking in the love of God, while you live your life as an animal, yes.

If only there weren't consequences too horrible to contemplate about living a human life as an animal.

Oh well. You'll find out.

>>1808144
Well, more accurately, I'm saying that even if the Bible were divinely right and not flawed in any way, humans, by their nature, will more often than not read it wrong, both through their personal perceptual paradigm and innately flawed nature.

...and much the same can be said of an attempt to scientifically discover the workings of the universe, but at least there, you assume your understanding is flawed and incomplete, rather than absolute.

>>1808147
>There was quite a bit of excitement.

There was. But it was hardly "everyone in the field." There was widespread skepticism, and most of the excitement was from people outside of the field.

>>1808183
Well, there was a lot of skepticism when Hubble first discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe... But after a few million confirmations, it turned out to, unfortunately, be right.

He's exaggerating when he said, "*everyone* in the field thought 'this could go faster than C!'", but there were certainly some - and, provided the operator was "could", it would be an accurate assessment.

Yeah, they became bullshit prostituted to madmen and scum to gain power instead of divine truths and real sciences. Modern science is a joke.

>>1808181

Yes, that happens because the Word of God is divine, and we are not.

It never happens in science, because scientists are not divine, and do not provide divine works to be understood.

>>1808183

Dubs and you leave 4chan forever.

>>1807225
Cherry picked as hell.

And neopositivism and conductism too.

Recently read the Notes on Frazer's Golden Bough by Wittgenstein, and it is all about this topic in here; science is a language, an incredible and powerful language, but it has no answer to questions that philosophy can answer.
Scientists are kind of bully nowadays, like you're not rational if you don't use their language to answer ANY question of life; so it blames religion or philosophy for not being rational - that means scientific - but the point is, human is not always what science pretend to call the ultimate level of rationality of humankind; humans are creative, have fantasy and faith. Science blame religion and philosophy like a knife could blame a spoon for not being sharp.

File: JoJo_spin_going_for_infinity.jpg (65KB, 724x457px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 724x457px

>>1807225
Its not just post modernism.
Its also how far PERCEPTION moved.

Once you go far enough that you can prove time space curvature is a thing, then you have gone from raw perception to perception of what might be.
The same is true of molecular biology, quantum theory, and lots more.

Most of the people on the left side lived in a era where their work was untested, and it might be right.

The people on the right side got to see said work pan out to be the truth, pushing the envelope against the closed circuit of philosophy.

Lots of shit like earlier philosophy, like Kant or Aristotle or Descartes can only argue from the position of speculation.
One of Descartes positions boils down to "what if our perception is too flawed to truly perceive", and then we got Astophysics and Quantum Theory online.
Once you step into the 21st century, you get to see things like Psychology debasing everything that could be speculation. You get to see several schools of economics sit around the table and just shout to each other, instead of working empirically.

>>1807840
You're not an anon you useless faggot

>>1806117
Wasn't the scientific method derived from philosophical advances?

>>1806836
There's nothing wrong with the Dawkins quote, I think the person who made this image didn't understand what he was saying.

>>1807287
The second quote in the second pic kind of depends on what he was talking about specifically when he said it, it's sort of taken out of context here.

Dawkins is a fraud. His idea's aren't his; he stole them from Robert Trivers; can't wait for eternal recurrence to make its nth go around.

>>1807225
>Post-modernism
Along with a couple other types of shit
/thread

>>1807850
Newsflash: if it's not absolutely true, then it's false.

>>1810171
Then everything is false. (Including this! Mind fuck!)

Sadly, the best you can really hope for is in the ballpark. That includes the Bible, as even if it's perfect, it's your own subjective reasoning interpreting it.

>>1810215
>Then everything is false.

...............................................what are you talking about?

Point is, verisimilitude is a very problematic concept and it seems you're completely uninformed about this.

>>1810171
Prove it.

>>1811603
It's like proving a fucking basic concept with a shitload of problems. Can't be bothered.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthlikeness/

>>1807840
My first day coming to this board and I now have someone to block. Thanks a bunch faggot.

>>1811590
Verisimilitude is about perceiving something that isn't true as true, it has nothing to do with absolute truth, which doesn't exist, from the limited human perspective. (Save that, arguably, from the individual perspective, that he has one - it's just politely assumed for everyone else.)

You can say the sun will rise tomorrow, but it won't be absolutely true, until tomorrow (and even that maybe an illusion - or hell, maybe the false vacuum collapse will reach us and it just wont.)

Humans maybe capable of limited objectivity through shared consensus, but absolute truth is just beyond our grasp. So to say, "if it's not absolutely true, then it's false" is to declare there is absolutely no truth to be had, and is ultimately a meaningless statement.

>>1811723
Can you refresh my memory on how to do that? I know it's somewhere under settings...

>>1811689
The only people who hold that absolute truth is the criteria for being not false are positivists. I.E. Idiots.

Science is demonstrably not false, but it's not touted as absolute truth. Ergo your premise is demonstrably wrong.

>>1811747
Also Plato, but he's a fucking moron too.

>>1806836
Nice image.

I have noticed, however, the widespread appeal of logical positivist and materialist dialectics has seeped into the mindsets of many philosophers too, equally in both the Analytic and Continental schools. Knee-jerk reactions to what is perceived as pseudoscience are widely prevalent, but I feel this is a genuine response to the growth of New Age nonsense, which lacks intellectual rigor and honesty.

So there are a lot of issues either way you look at it. I think, ultimately, we must come to accept pragmatism on one level: science's goal is simply to either reject or not reject the null hypothesis based off gathered data, and its function is create models with predictive capacity and not to "understand the nature of reality". However, the attempt to "understand the nature of reality" is a far more nuanced and unfalsifiable question that science cannot easily inform or give closure too. Therefore, we need to understand metaphysics and empirical science have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

In closure, my approach involves acknowledging the value of both science and philosophy for their respective endeavors, but I do not think they should "join forces", since these endeavors are fundamentally at odds. Ultimately, however, there is more value in empirical science in a pragmatic sense, but the philosopher would beg to differ since normativity is a philosophical question (note, Sam Harris is an absolute retarded who thinks we can derive normativity from empirical science -- called 'ethical naturalism'). It's when scientists derive philosophical conclusions from empirical science, or when philosophers try to base their philosophy on scientific foundations, that these problems emerge.

>>1811738
>You can say the sun will rise tomorrow, but it won't be absolutely true, until tomorrow
You won't *know* it's true until tomorrow. And you might not *know* whether it's true or not because it could be an illusion. But it's still either true or false.

>>1811747
>Science is demonstrably not false
What does that statement even mean? Science is a practice.

But scientific explanation has been consistently false all throughout history. F. example, atoms are fundamental, false. crystalline spheres, phlogiston, newton's mechanics, all replaced, i.e. false. Useful perhaps, and reasonable, but false.

>>1812123
You can't prove it, you can only assume it, therefor it is not absolutely true. As a human being, you don't have access to absolute truth. Thus, to say the only truth is one that is absolute, is meaningless. The absolute is not something within our ability to verify or know with certainty we are experiencing, for we are limited beings and not omniscient.

2+2=4 is true, but as it's only an assembly and interpretation of logic and reasoning as assembled by an imperfect being, it isn't 'absolutely' true. It is, nonetheless, a truth that the rational among us agree upon, even if we may not always agree upon the particulars in application, such as the definition of what makes up a particular group of two. Thus, for something to be true does not require it to be absolute.

>>1812184
Science that isn't demonstrably false on some level either isn't science, or is, well, done. Science, taken as a whole, will always be consistently false in one aspect or another until it is complete, which, likely, isn't humanly possible.

Science, however, as demonstrated by the fact that we can have this conversation through this digital medium, to an ever-increasing degree, works.

Replace "science" in this post with "reason" and you get the same effect. Science is merely the process of finding reasonable predictions for material interactions and testing them. That understanding is never complete, and thus continues forever, as that understanding and exploration is constantly expanded, refined, and revised, with every new answer opening the door to even more questions.

Scientific explanation has only been as consistently false as human reasoning has, such are the limits of said, but it's a collective self-improvement process that never ends (or at least, lasts as long as humanity does - with the occasional setback).

You double niggers are literally saying the same thing but refusing to compromise on semantics.

I was hoping for informative posts about philosophy's interactions with science historically.

>>1807643
>We don't have fossils of every single animal that ever died, gaps in fossil record!
>Consciousness has no known place in body, but I still think it's real and I'm sad if it doesn't!
>Mutational rate is a problem! That sounds sciencey, right?

Troll elsewhere, please.

>>1812184
I meant more that the results of scientific inquiry have often proven demonstrably not false, we're currently communicating over something that works because scientific inquiry has given us a workable understanding of the principles necessary, that while not asserted to be absolutely true are also not false because they work.

It's pretty much pure an artifact of Plato and positivism that anything that isn't absolutely true is false, there are areas between. Hell I think I'm wrong on the Plato thing because even he said correct opinion was a middle ground between absolute knowledge and ignorance.