>U CAN'T NO NUFFIN Why do a lot of philosophers and theologists

Because it exposes them as hacks and leeches on society. Philosophy and theology ceased being important from Copernicus, Galileo onwards.

>U CAN'T NO NUFFIN

Obviously true statement. Even your own fetishization of reason and so-called objectivity are entirely faith-based beliefs.

>>2614574
Wtf i thought contemporary scientists abandoned the term "truth" and adopted "intersubjectivity".

Thank you op for demonstrating us that empirical sciences are the true path to objective truth. I thought sciences worked on mutable paradigms, but you have obviously proven me wrong.

>>2614622
This. I pray every time to the lord of math whenever I do a an edition problem so that 1 plus 1 will in fact equal 2.

>>2614636
But they are the true path to objective truths.
Sorry philosophy is useless anon.

>>2614673
Whoa you sure showed him anon

>>2614680
Someone's offended.

>>2614574
Because they depend on subjectivity to avoid being called out on being hacks just spewing opinions.

It's exactly why cultural Marxism is pushed so hard in academia. If everyone has an irrefutable subjective experience that's independent from some sort of objective facts or truths, then nobody can say you're wrong.

>>2614680
t. butthurt blogger/barista

File: 149595671.jpg (286KB, 1440x1385px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1440x1385px

>it's another science can prove unfalsifiable statements
that's why philosophy and theology exist faggots, because some questions still cannot be answered empirically (or in fact, may never be).

>inb4 u shouldnt waste ur time asking urself those quesshuns then
anti-intellectual spotted

>>2614696
1 + 1 = 2
Sorry that offends you.

>>2614710
>Theology tard mad about science
>Calls someone else anti intellectual

>>2614710
If science can't answer something that doesn't mean theology can anon.

>>2614711
Why should it? I'm not a philosonigger.

>>2614574
there are no such thing as objective means.

>>2614712
>if you ever indulge in metaphysical reasoning/questioning then you MUST be a faithfag
As I said, anti-intellectual to the core

Please just read Hume you utter fucking retards

>>2614714
of course, but I don't see the harm in those that do it, whether through philosophical or theological discourse. Is the science crowd becoming scared of people asking themselves questions now? I would hope not, that'd be very sad state of affair.

>>2614722
>Wastes time on "Metaphysical" nonsense
>N-No you are the anti intellectual

It's not philosophy it's sociology, anthropology, woman and gender studies and other complete and utter shit "studies" that give humanities a bad name!

#NotAllHumanities

>>2614711
Get off your high horse and don't pretend that empirical sciences have the same validity as math. They don't.

>>2614722
This. GHOST HUNTERS IS INTELLECTUAL

>>2614741
Yes they do. Physics is objective.

>>2614741
They are empirical though.

File: 13945675691.jpg (286KB, 1280x750px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1280x750px

>>2614737
>>2614742
>I-I don't like people thinking d-differently than m-me
Sad!

>>2614726
Great argument
>Please look at my magic hippie crystal healing lady you pleb

>>2614763
You can try to catch ghosts all you want anon, me and everyone with a brain will look down on you though.

>>2614574
Can you point out those "lot of philosophers and theologians" that you know, that get mad at science?

As far as i know, religious people aren't epistemologically skeptics.

>>2614763
You don't have to think with logic or reason anon, that is your choice, but keep in mind you chose to be an idiot.

File: 134895771.png (103KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 624x434px

>>2614766
I can live with that

>>2614770
>logos is not a literal byproduct of philosophical enquiry
Yes, I am clearly the idiot here.

>>2614764
Hume didnt even believe in God, much less magic

>>2614780
>Theology
>Logos
Pick 1.

>>2614785
But he brought up the problem of induction and causation. The biggest "you can't no nothing" arguments ever proposed.

>>2614780
Yeah anon, arguing about succubi on /x/ is so smart. Those stupid science tards always making stuff up.

>>2614793
Well if the logic is solid...

>>2614788
Read my posts again, I hardly make a strong defense of faithfags. But I do believe they indulge in the same sort of unfalsifiable enquiries as philosophers do, so it would be hypocritical of me to shut them down. They go about things their way and I go about mine.

>>2614793
Hume very likely was an atheist from the positions he took in his Dialogues. A hard skeptic is probably the best you can get away with, if you are gonna try to accurately pin down his position on God.

>>2614797
>fight against my strawman anon pretty please
how about no.

>>2614806
>Strawman
But that literally is what Metaphysics and theology are. It's arguing over bullshit that there is no actual scientific evidence to show that it exists. Arguing over demons and ghosts is the same as arguing over santa claus and the easter bunny. You aren't an intelligent person.

>>2614714
t. retard

>>2614817
>hurr muh materialism

>>2614825
>>2614831
Do you people think acting stupid is an argument?

>>2614817
Metaphysics also encompassed your beloved empiricism, anon.
If you ever asked yourself about what the universe is, how it began, why or how then congratulations, you indulged in metaphysical inquiring. Guess you mustn't be that intelligent either.

>inb4 metaphysics is the only branch of philosophy
protip lad, it isn't

>>2614841
>How did the universe begin
That is physics and is looked at by physics majors

>>2614846
Of course, but it doesn't change the fact most schools of philosophy begin with metaphysics, which is basically just looking at the world and trying to make sense of it. Every scientific or moral query begins with metaphysics in one way or another.

Why is the sky blue? Why does apple fall? Why does day follow night? Why does the tide come and go? Until people finally run out of questions, metaphysics ( I feel like I got to keep mentioning that word since it gets you so bung up) and philosophy WILL persist to exist.

>>2614856
>Posts questions that can all be answered by science

What, pray tell, are non-subjective truths?

>>2614869
1 + 1 = 2

>>2614856
>Why should the sky be blue? Why should the apple fall? Why should the day follow night? Why should the tide come and go?

Phixed for philosophy to remain relevant for one more year by giving you some free questions to ponder over, you're welcome.

Meanwhile in the real world

>>2614866
And they all began with metaphysics, that was the point. Philosophy in general just seeks to answer the questions people ask themselves everyday. Why must we live and die? Why must we suffer? Why did we exist? What is our purpose? Why are my thoughts mine? Is there a free will? What is the best way to live? What is the best way to think ? Is there a best way to think? If so, what is it? What is good and what is bad? Is everything relative or are some things objective and immutable?

All of these things are valid questions and many are still unfalsifiable. So when we make value judgments (yet another thing that is derived from philosophy) about the usefulness of philosophy, then you must be very carefully about assessing whether it is pointless endeavor or not. Because I think many would disagree with you if you think it serves no purpose or yields nothing of value. Most of scientific discoveries began with questions like that.

>>2614900
>They began with metaphysics
And answered with physics. These questions are now science questions. Why would I go to a shaman to learn about space when I can learn it myself with something that is actually true?

>>2614874
So numbers exist outside of the mind?

The stemautists in this thread apparently define "truth" as brute logic, the the defined terms or dynamics of data. Numbers and shit, with no contrast or cause and effect as information and meaning. The problems with science and "truth" are underpinned by the problems of realizing observation and manifest things as "really true". People trust science because it's strong and reliable, just a seeming validity that is fundamentally allowed to waver and redefine. Science isn't wholesome, it doesn't tie 'everything' together so it's realized truth isn't the same sort of truth as mathematics, logic, or systematic philosophy and that's a serious limitation. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning and shit

>>2614909
Numbers are tools but they represent real things. 1 plus 1 does equal 2 and this is true no matter what.

>>2614923
>1 plus 1 does equal 2 and this is true no matter what.
Does having the property of being the correct answer to a question make something a non-subjective truth? How can we know the answer when we can't conceive of numbers from beyond the standpoint of subjectivity?

>>2614912
Therefore God exists and muh feels are totes real so SHUT UP WORTHLESS SCIENCOLOGISMISTS.

>>2614934
What?

>>2614907
Nobody is telling you to go see a shaman about what has been answered. I am talking about what has not been answered, or what might never be answerable empirically such as what is good or bad. Questions are as powerful as answers. That's why there is a whole field dedicated to political philosophy. Scratch that away and you can kiss human rights, democracy or justice goodbye.

That's more along the lines of ontology than classical metaphysics, but it's still philosophical nonetheless.

Even the concept of objectivity is philosophical. We know that under certain circumstances, things such as speed of light or mass can become relative. Who knows if there are some cosmic phenomenons where 1+1 stops being 2. What will empiricism do for you then?

Philosophy is nothing but mental masturbation.

File: Eyes+be+real+if+mirrors+aren+t+_0283a0eaf8d3e92b58729975f0d9e594[1].jpg (21KB, 325x285px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 325x285px

>>2614928
>We can't conceive numbers
Bruh

>>2614940
The scientism crowd are literally becoming scared of people asking "why" or "what if". That's what have things come to. Even though the whole field of hard science is built on such propositions.

>>2614948
>Who knows if there are some cosmic phenomenons where 1+1 stops being 2
This is literally impossible. Math works the same no matter what universe you are in. Even in cases where adding 2 separate things create 4 is a transformation.

>>2614958
From beyond the standpoint of subjectivity, that's right. That is to say, if we're thinking about numbers, we're thinking, which implies our own subjectivity, which implies that the truth is not 'non-subjective' but rather contains an irreducible element of subjectivity within it, to the extent that we're capable of accessing this truth at all.
Or are you telling me that a computer running a program is treating numbers in exactly the same way that its programmer deals with the binary code that runs it?

>>2614961
>Scared of asking what if
No they aren't. You are an idiot.

>>2614961
I didn't say "What if...?," I asked "What?" As in, "I don't understand, could you explain?"

>>2614968
Computers don't think like humans. Objective truth in maths are real and you going "But muh brain" Doesn't stop something from not being true. Numbers are objective because they exist even without a human around to observe them.

>>2614973
Sorry I'm drunk, my post was basically if you don't like science being truthful, then why not let anything anyone says be "truth" including complete nonsense like religion or philosophy or anything anyone says.

>>2614978
Numbers have never been observed.

>>2614978
>Objective truth in maths are real and you going "But muh brain" Doesn't stop something from not being true.
Nowhere have I claimed that 2 + 2 =/= 4. I am simply positing that we can't think "2 + 2 = 4" from outside of subjectivity because only that which possesses or is defined by subjectivity is even capable of thought.
>Numbers are objective because they exist even without a human around to observe them.
Cool, where can I go to see, touch, taste, smell, or hear the number 9?
>>2614988
It isn't about disliking science's ability to interact with the truth, it's about the fact that the STEMlords ITT have either never interacted with the philosophy of language of the 20th century or are all trolls.

>>2614996
You can literally observe them in any physical thing.

>>2615002
9

>>2615003
Seeing one object isn't the same as seeing the concept '1.'

>>2615002
I interacted with philosophy once and it seemed like a game to justify incorrect things so to hell with the whole school.

>>2614970
Judging by this thread, some clearly do.

>>2614964
That was just a far-fetched example. I don't quite remember the name of the exact particle, I think it's quarks but it could be something else, which apparently exist in a state of both being and not being. Or what about "dark matter", which has apparently a mass but doesn't quite exist either (or at least cannot be measured or quantified by any means yet known to man). All I am saying is that science has its work cut out and there are many questions about what can be objective known or not.

So what's the problem with asking ourselves these questions about a lot of other things? What is the exact harm or pervasiveness of such inquiries? Isn't it good old plato which stated "I know that I know nothing"?

>>2615006
That is no more or less 'objectively' present than anything else on my computer screen.
>>2615010
That's nice and all, but you're probably trolling me.

>>2615003
What number am I observing if I look at a tree?

>>2615007
Numbers exist as both a standalone concept and as a real quantity of a thing. Even before the concept of the number existed animals have been able to understand and see the quantity of things and even without an observer a quantity still exists.

>>2615014
>Clearly do
Kek, no.
No one is scared of answers, it's people laughing at idiots who try to answer basic questions with theology.

>>2615019
OK, so where in nature can I find the number 9 standing alone? I'm not talking about finding a group of 9 rocks or anything like that, where is 9 itself? If 9 exists objectively in nature then I should be able to go out and touch it.

>>2615002
>Cool, where can I go to see, touch, taste, smell, or hear the number 9?

Nowhere, because numbers are abstract objects without physical or temporal location.

>>2615028
So they aren't non-subjective? Or do abstract concepts exist independently of the human mind?

>>2615027
In nature a number exists as a quantity. It isn't separate but it is still an objective quantity.

>>2615035
OK, where is the objective quantity 9? Is there some universal faculty shared by all plant and animal life that recognizes and responds to its presence?

>>2615033
Even without humans numbers still behave the same. Every living thing would be able to construct the rules of math separately if smart enough so it is not subjective. Numbers and the rules around them exist in the quantity and rules of things.
>>2615039
Any time you have 9 of something that is nine in an objective manner.

>This thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

>>2615033
>Or do abstract concepts exist independently of the human mind?

They exist independently of the human mind, but not as concepts in the sense of mental objects or representations.

>>2615047
>Even without humans numbers still behave the same
Again, how can any human possibly know how numbers behave without humans prsent?
>Every living thing would be able to construct the rules of math separately if smart enough so it is not subjective.
>if smart enough so it is not subjective
This is what escapes me--you think that intelligence, at any degree, is somehow separate from subjectivity. I don't understand why this should be true.
>that is 9 in an objective manner
I'm confused about what you think 'objective' and 'subjective' mean.

>>2615024
I would agree dogmatic theology is "dumb". But underneath that layer, they are asking the same existential questions all of us do. The belief of god is the belief in an objective absolute, that is something which is immutable, such as 1+1=2 for the sciencefags. So for this reason, I tend to give most faithfags the benefit of the doubt.

But while knowing 1+1=2 is nice, it still leaves a lot to be desired about a whole manner of things. It doesn't tell us much about how to live our lives or what are the right questions we should ask to achieve that. And that's philosophy's job.

>>2615062
>but not as concepts in the sense of mental objects or representations.
So there's some kind of active intellect thinking abstract concepts into concrete forms that humans can conceive or perceive? Or are concepts not intrinsically mental?

>>2615064
>Again, how can any human possibly know how numbers behave without humans prsent?
Other animals can count. By that train of logic I shouldn't be able to know how chemistry works without humans because hurr durr whenever I look away from something it might not exist!
We know because all evidence of the universe before humans existed shows that math worked the same then too.

>>2615074
>We know because all evidence of the universe before humans existed shows that math worked the same then too.
Whether or not this is the case (and I am by no means saying that it isn't), this doesn't change the fact that you, a subjective being, can never conceive of math from beyond the standpoint of subjectivity.

>>2615069
Numbers are abstract objects, not concepts. Concepts of numbers are concepts, and also abstract objects if you follow Frege.

>>2615083
Ok but using proof I can objectively prove something. 1=1 is objective outside of my mind or anyone elses.

>>2614618
You do realize not everything has a scientific answer right?

>>2615111
This doesn't make the part of you capable of doing math into a non-subjective being.
>>2615109
>Frege
I must confess that I'm not that familiar with the guy but it's beside my point, which is that humans cannot think without subjectivity being involved in the thought.

>>2615112
You can make up questions and try to answer them. That is what most philosophers and theologians do but it's pretty much the mental version of fapping.

>>2615115
Me being able to do and understand math is subjective. But it's an objective truth that 1=1.

>>2615120
It isn't a non-subjective truth. Your mind is involved in the process of articulating the sentence "One plus one is two." The universe doesn't perform mathematical operations, the mind uses mathematical operations to make sense of a world.

>>2615119
You know we are social beings and most of our norms and customs (even the "enlightened" modern ones) rest on philosophical premises , right? People asking themselves whether democracy or human rights or having a judiciary branch is just fapping right? It has no real, practical effects on people's lives, right?

>>2615167
>You know we are social beings and most of our norms and customs (even the "enlightened" modern ones) rest on philosophical premises , right?
Not the guy you're respdonding to but the idea that all social customs have deep 'philosophical' justifications is nonsense. Philosophy justifies these things after the fact, if it does at all.
>People asking themselves whether democracy or human rights or having a judiciary branch is just fapping right?
In 99% of cases, it probably is. Just look at /pol/.

>>2615173
>Philosophy justifies these things after the fact, if it does at all.
You are completely wrong. Try to explain away the objective purpose of democracy or any political ideology without making a single value judgment.

File: 1489708040475.jpg (107KB, 1920x1541px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1920x1541px

What the fuck are the anti-science people even arguing against ITT? Seems like a bunch of butthurt brainlets to me.

>>2615194
They are arguing against reason and trying to use reason to argue against it.

>>2615167
>>2615179
Slavery and democracy didn't come about because of philosophy, we use philosophy to justify those things. Case in point that all the philosophical arguments in the world didn't stop slavery until slavery was no longer economically needed by the northern part of America.

>>2615281
>literally a combo of utilitarianism and materialism arguments
really made me think

>>2615297
That still didn't come about through philosophy, just selfish need. Philosophy was used after the fact to justify it.

>>2615305
>That still didn't come about through philosophy, just selfish need
The very concept of slavery "being good for us then" and "bad for us now" are judgments based on materialism and utilitarianism. You making that call is literally you employing those philosophical concepts, you nonce.

>>2615316
>The EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY argument
No. Stop this stupidity. Someone wanting slavery because it gives them a free labor force isn't a philosophy.

>>2615327
>Someone wanting slavery because it gives them a free labor force
Literally MOAR utilitarianism

>>2615340
Yeah, you are an idiot. Just because you try to define everything as philosophy doesn't make it so. A monkey eating a banana isn't a branch of hunger materialism or whatever bullshit you humanities tards make up to justify your shit degree.

>>2615350
Stay mad brainlet, remember to pop by anytime you want to be reminded any action judged by its results is called consequentialism.

>Just because you try to define everything as philosophy doesn't make it so
Philosophy is literally the art of thinking, so anytime you work those braincells try to make yourself rage too hard.

>>2615362
>Humanities hipster calls others brainlets
kek.
>philosophy is the art of thinking
Oh wow, so I guess monkeys and frogs are philosophers. I guess everything is philosophy so now it's a useless term.

>>2615362
That isn't what philosophy is you fedora fag. I bet you think Math and science are philosophies too.

>>2615389
When you tried to apply self-interest as a justification for slavery, you just indulged in rational egoism (which is part of consequentialism and utilitarianism when applied on a larger scale).

> I bet you think Math and science are philosophies too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
Wittgenstein certainly seemed to think so, and I am sure he was much smarter than any of us here.

>>2615389
Actually now that I think about it, I can't wait for the retards in philosophy to make up another useless major
>I have a masters in animal philosophy, oh wow look how deep Fido is, he got the ball!

>>2615414
>Apply self interest as a justification
It doesn't work like that stupid. You do something because you want to. You use philosophy after the fact to justify the actions. Wanting to have sex with an attractive girl isn't you being philosophical, it's you being a thirsty nigger.
>Look, one person here thought something wrong!

>>2615424
Look, you're the one who sperged from "slavery makes sense because self interest due to free labor" to "MONKEYS EATING BANANAS IS JUST THE SAME".

That's a false equivalence fallacy and I poked some fun at you for it. Obviously naked animalistic self-interest is devoid of philosophical thought. BUT when you tried to use it as a justification for a society wide policy, you are dabbling in philosophy.

Slavery made sense to you in that argument because you put value on material gains and how to enhance those, and then you justified it as beneficial to the "whole". That's not you scratching your balls because they itch, that's you trying to solve or ease the problem of labor. Stop getting mad at yourself.

>>2615448
Solving a personal problem isn't philosophy. I really hope you don't think all reasoning or self interest is philosophy.
The romans didn't use philosophy when they enslaved people.

>>2615471
>>2615448
Oh and don't try to pretend early ice age humans were using philosophy when they took slaves.

>>2615471
It's not a personal problem when it's a society wide policy. You're just redefining your argument with each post and shifting the goalpost.

>The romans didn't use philosophy when they enslaved people
But the reasoning as to why they did so IS philosophical. I just explained that to you. They put value on material gains, and how to best achieve it. That IS reasoning. Sorry to burst your bubble. Nobody just captures and keep someone captive entirely mindlessly. Animals do not practice slavery, only humans do. Because it made sense to them.

I just hope all you stemfags are not that dumb.

>>2615493
>But the reasoning as to why they did so IS philosophical.
>All economic calculation is philosophical reasoning
No, that's not true. You have no idea what philosophy is. Read Marx and get back to me.

>>2615493
>obody just captures and keep someone captive entirely mindlessly
By this logic anyone who takes a woman captive and keeps her as a sex slave in his basement for a decade is a philosopher.

File: c4a.jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>hurr durr noting is true
>ebrybing is subiectyve
>gender is a social construct
>marxism works
Should philosoniggers be put out of their misery like stray dogs?

>>2616479
Nobody said any of those things ITT

>>2616488
>>2614928

>>2616498
If you knew how to read, you'd realize that nothing I wrote in that post amounts to "Everything is subjective." I'm merely claiming that there is no way for humans to experience the objective world without an element of subjectivity being involved in our perception of it. This isn't to say that there are no objects outside of the human mind.

>>2616302
>what is logos
>what is inductive reasoning
Those are literally building blocks of philosophy. Before trying to answer the bigger questions you must agree on how to conduct your reasoning properly. That's part of it, sorry.

>muh marx
Don't really see how marx would disagree. Read thread before sperging, guy I was talking with kept moving the goalpost from "political philosophy is possible without ethics" to "slavery makes sense to solve labour" to "muh monkey bananas". So by the end of it it kinda broke down to its most basic componentz and I had to explain that reasoning =/= animalistic impulse.

>>2616359
Same fallacy as other poster. He was arguing about society wide slavery and got butthurt when I pointed out he was playing with philosophical concepts to make his arguments. Then he got so butthurt he started pretending logos doesn't exist (in which case just fuck math and economics and science n shieeet).

At no point I state animalistic self-interest is philosophical or that slavery is philosophical musing. I simply had to explain that reasoning is a building block of philosophy, and that when you tey to solve an societal economic problem, you are employing logic (which *gasp* is part of philosophy). You stemniggers love pretending nothing is happening in your brain and that subjective abstract thinking isn't employed, even in many of the crudest part of human thinking.

>slave in basement for 10years is just a strawman yet again.

Why would you even waste time arguing with someone who doesn't believe in objective truth? Just relegate philosophers, social "scientists" and others of the same ilk to the limbo of irrelevance. It's really simple.

Next time a philosopher tries to talk to you, between writing down your order and bringing your caffe latte, put on your headphones and pretend you're not listening.

If it doesn't work, tip him and ask him politely to leave. They need the money!

If he insists, however, call the manager and tell him that he's harassing and scaring away clients.

This is the only fair way to deal with philosophers.

>>2616596
So chimps are philosophers too. No wonder why Philosophers can only flip burgers.

>>2616596
>>what is logos
>>what is inductive reasoning
>Those are literally building blocks of philosophy
Everybody who speaks is a philosopher? That's idiotic.
>Don't really see how marx would disagree
Have you never heard the word 'ideology' before?
>guy I was talking with kept moving the goalpost from "political philosophy is possible without ethics" to "slavery makes sense to solve labour" to "muh monkey bananas"
You keep moving the goalposts and trying to turn any aspect of discourse into 'philosophy' when plenty of things are not philosophy.
> Then he got so butthurt he started pretending logos doesn't exist (in which case just fuck math and economics and science n shieeet).
You use the word 'logos' when you mean 'ratio,' the Greek verb 'legein' does not mean 'to philosophize.' You are attempting to equate several distinct concepts under the umbrella term 'philosophy,' in the process devaluing geuninely philosophical discourse.
>I simply had to explain that reasoning is a building block of philosophy, and that when you tey to solve an societal economic problem, you are employing logic (which *gasp* is part of philosophy).
Logic is a fundamental faculty of the human mind. There are areas of philosophy dedicated to logic, but in many ways these are closer to being part of mathematics in this day and age.
>You stemniggers
I double majored in history and philosophy, actually.
>strawman
So you're going to ignore my point that your definition of philosophy makes the freak holding the poor woman as a slave into a philosopher instead of admitting that your definition is too broad?

>>2614574
Examples? If you can't provide, then this whole thread is just about strawmen. And note that you said A LOT of philosophers do what you said, so I want you to list a lot.

>>2617119
>the Greek verb 'legein' does not mean 'to philosophize.
I should have added that being the consequence of deductive reasoning doesn't make a claim philosophical, either.

>>2614912
>Science isn't wholesome, it doesn't tie 'everything' together so it's realized truth isn't the same sort of truth as mathematics, logic, or systematic philosophy and that's a serious limitation.

This. The scientific method is at its best when it is regarded and used as a tool. Means to an end. What end should be pursued, is a question that ultimately fall outside of of purely scientific thought.

>>2617119
This anon gets it.
>N-No guise philosphy is important EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY
They don't realize doing this make philosophy useless then.

>>2617282
Nice

>>2614928

>Does having the property of being the correct answer to a question make something a non-subjective truth? How can we know the answer when we can't conceive of numbers from beyond the standpoint of subjectivity?

Mathematics aren't validated solely through one person's mind. The whole point of why they're important is that they work consistently for any number of independent subjects and for any number of independent tools and systems that are built with their objective truth as a premise.

Try to make a working computer with your own subjective truth as a substitute for mathematics. I'm pretty sure it won't work. Similarly, try using your own subjective truth to put a man on the moon or set up a telecommunications network that allows for people on opposite sides of the Earth to communicate with each other. It's completely retarded not to acknowledge the difference between what works independent of any one subject (mathematics) vs. what doesn't. The proof is in products a rigorous / true abstract system yields. At absolute best, all you have to argue against this validity is "b-but you don't know with 100% certainty!" Which is a shit argument since it can be applied to anything, including itself. You have to choose what to doubt and what not to doubt, and doubting mathematics while not doubting your own philosophical framework of doubt isn't a great choice. Wittgenstein had a good quote about this:

>The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

You have to assume something to even begin having a concept of doubt. If you were really skeptical about everything, you would doubt whether you were actually typing a response on your computer or whether you were really using the right words for your argument or whether you really knew how to spell those words or whether your memories of what you were doing a second ago were accurate, etc. Mathematics deserves a lot less doubt than all those countless other things you accept without doubt every second.

>>2617429
>Mathematics aren't validated solely through one person's mind. The whole point of why they're important is that they work consistently for any number of independent subjects and for any number of independent tools and systems that are built with their objective truth as a premise.
Intersubjectivity still involves and implies subjectivity.
>Wittgenstein
Yes, if I want to learn about subjectivity, this is the guy I'm going to consult, definitely.
>Mathematics deserves a lot less doubt than all those countless other things you accept without doubt every second.
Why is it that saying something like "You can't think about numbers without thinking" always gets something like "What do you mean numbers don't exist?" as a response?

>>2617445
>Muh thinking
Different anon but are you going to argue that u can't no nuffin because everything is subjective and you can be a brain in a jar?

>>2617448
No, I'm not, shut the fuck up and don't reply to me again, you goddamn faggot

>>2617445

>You can't think about numbers without thinking

That's a tautology, and you don't need to think at all for numbers to still hold true. I doubt any of us are actually thinking about what our computers are doing in the full detail they're doing it while we use them. They work regardless. You can't say the same for subjectively true ideas.

>>2617452
>No, I'm not
But I subjectively interpret that you are, therefore you really are.

>>2617454
>That's a tautology,
Have you fucking idiots never heard the word 'analyticity' before? Can you explain to me how it is possible to think about numbers without thinking? If not then shut the fuck up, god damn it you people are fucking thick.
>and you don't need to think at all for numbers to still hold true
This is about knowledge of numbers, though, not about the existence of numbers. You can't know nuffin if you can't think in the first place.

>>2617462
Being able to think makes your thoughts objectively true and every proposition you speak objectively true
I sincerely hope that you're trolling me and that your reading comprehension isn't as bad as it seems.

>>2617452
>This mad
Kek.
Ok, so objectivity doesn't exist because everything is subjective. So how do you know everything is subjective if that is subjective?

>objective means
No you don't
>>2614746
I DUN SENZ ITS

>>2617471
>Being able to think makes your thoughts objectively true
Explain

>>2617475
You fucking faggot, you don't know what the word 'subjective' implies, stop replying to me. yes I'm fucking mad, you're wasting my time.
>>2617481
That line should have been greentexted, as in
>Implying that being able to think makes your thoughts objectively true and every proposition you speak objectively true
It was a typo

>>2617467

>Can you explain to me how it is possible to think about numbers without thinking?

I can explain to you why that's an irrelevant question. You don't need to think for the truth of numbers to continue working. The fact we need to think to think about them doesn't mean they're subjective since our thinking about them isn't required in the first place. That's the point. They work even when we aren't thinking about them. They're more than just subjective.

>>2617487
Why is math subjective? If you argue that 1=1 is subjective then that means your beliefs that everything is subjective is subjective and I trust math over your posts.

>>2614793
Because induction and causation are subjective experiences, so is sense.
>>2614817
scientific evidence doesn't exist, there is no scientific evidence for it.
>>2614874
Wrong.
>>2614923
Sorry, there's no scientific evidence for that. Wrong.
>>2614912
There's no scientific evidence for logic. Sorry, kys my man. just look at shit man thats all u need to do

>>2617471
>reading comprehension
>implying there's an object called a text to be read
>implying there's an objective interpretation of said text
Wew are you a stem austist or something?

>>2615272
What's wrong with that?

>>2617493
>1 + 1 = 2
>wrong
Philosophy everyone.

>>2617498
Logic isn't your strong suit.

>>2617488
>You don't need to think for the truth of numbers to continue working
I'm talking about epistemology, not pure math. Keep up!
>They work even when we aren't thinking about them
This thread is about having access to objective truths, not about whether or not there are objective truths. At no point have I denied the existence of an objective world. I have, however, strongly affirmed my commitment to the idea that it is not possible for subjective entities, i.e. human beings, to grasp these objective truths without an element of subjectivity being involved in this grasping. I don't know how many fucking times I have to clarify that I'm talking about HOW ACCESS TO NUMBERS AND THE ABILITY TO PERFORM MATH MUST WORK IF MENTAL FACULTIES ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN ACCESS THEM, and not WHETHER OR NOT NUMBERS EXIST. Fuck you. This board was a mistake.

>>2617493
>1+1=2
>Wrong
This is why you shouldn't get a humanities degree kids.

>>2617500
>its true because i said so
Sorry, no scientific evidence
>>2617502
Why?
People make arguments using ideologies they disagree with all the time. If reason is cannibalistic then reason is irrational.
>>2617510
its true becuz i sed so

>>2617492
>Why is math subjective?
Fuck you, I've explained this at least half a dozen times now, read the fucking thread. God damn it. The mental faculties associated with the ability to do mathematics are inherently bound up in subjectivity, even if numbers objectively exist, which they very well fucking might, I don't fucking know or care. All I care about is the fact that you cannot eliminate the subjective element of human experience even when you are experiencing an objectively real phenomenon, like a number of a brick coming through your window and hitting you in the face.

>>2617500
>>2617510
It has finally come full circle. Centuries of philosophical enquiry, two millenia of intense intellectual labor have finally arrived at this magnificent result. an army of PhDs! Behold the fruit of our labor!

1+1 != 2

File: 1418212807792.jpg (16KB, 231x244px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 231x244px

>>2617521

>>2617515
You realize everyone here is mocking you right? Now fetch me a latte!

>>2617518
>a number of a brick
a number or* a brick

>>2617515
>It's true because I say so
No, it's true because of a number of reasons that have all been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
>Why?
You can't use reason to argue against reason.

>>2617527
>You can't use reason to argue against reason.
Yes you can. Being rational doesn't mean that you're right about everything.

>>2617531
>Right about everything
No one said you were. But if you believe reason is wrong you can't use reason as a means to argue against reason. You would have to be unreasonable to argue against reason and if you aren't using reason then you already lost.

File: 1418856934077.jpg (43KB, 416x409px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 416x409px

>>2617539

MY FEELINGS >>>> your truth

Your move objectivists.

>>2617523
>mocking
Don't care
>latte
I'm actual upper class, the kind that you trash were essentially enslaved to just a few generations ago.
>>2617527
>No, it's true because of a number of reasons that have all been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
Wrong, I am doubting it now and without a shadow of a doubt know more maths than you.
>You can't use reason to argue against reason.
Wrong, I already explained how one can.

>>2617547
>Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason
I am so happy I never "learned" philosophy. jesus christ soon you people will be so well learned you wont be able to breath.

>>2617553
What is rationality?

>>2617506

>it is not possible for subjective entities, i.e. human beings, to grasp these objective truths without an element of subjectivity being involved in this grasping

The element of subjectivity is irrelevant to mathematics unless that subjectivity involves the subject making a mistake.

>HOW ACCESS TO NUMBERS AND THE ABILITY TO PERFORM MATH MUST WORK IF MENTAL FACULTIES ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN ACCESS THEM

Mental faculties aren't the only way we have to access numbers and mathematics. The vast majority of work involving numbers and mathematics isn't even done with a human thinker. Your hangup about human thinking is completely meaningless. Maybe Person A has synaesthesia and imagines colors while doing arithmetic while Person B has no mental imagery but associates bad memories from back when he was in university with calculus. Great, none of that matters though. The math doesn't care about your subjective experience. It doesn't care whether it's being used by a human thinker or an unthinking mechanical process. It works the same in either case. Because it isn't subjective, and the fact we need to think about it to think about it doesn't make it subjective. What we need to do to think about it isn't important. Our thinking isn't involved most of the time anyway.

>>2617547
Good for you! I bet your parents wished that you had a larger income than they had, and that you had accomplished it all by yourself, but instead you chose to be a bum who doesn't even qualify for cashier at wallmart.

>>2617556
The use of reason.

>>2617553
h-how dare you question muh greek meme
reason is obviously a divine gift from le zeus even though im le atheist cuntface living 2500 years later!
muh ancestors... DEUS VULT! im a atheist though tehe

>>2617560
I make more money than my parents.
Stop being stupid, please.

>>2617557
>Mental faculties aren't the only way we have to access numbers and mathematics.
This is news to me.

>>2617561
What?
>>2617564
He can't.

>>2617569

What mental faculties were you using to keep the mathematics your computer is structured around from suddenly not applying?

(None)

>>2617577
>Computers aren't products of thousands of years of scientific work that involved thinking
wat

>>2617577
Wrong, the computer doesn't exist without mental faculties.

>>2617564
Flipping burgers? I don't think so!

>>2617583
>tfw you can't block people on this website
Hiroshimoot pls add this feature soon

>>2617573
>the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason
The definition of rationality.

>>2617587
That doesn't explain much.

>>2617580

What led up to their creation isn't the same as what keeps them running right now. You aren't using any mental faculties to keep your machine running, you wouldn't know how to do that even if you wanted to. It runs without any human intervention. You don't keep it working with your mind.

>>2617597
And yet people need to maintain computers. The people working at the power plant supplying my home with the power to run my computer almost certainly need to know a bit of math. Computers don't produce and maintain themselves. Are you some kind of Singularity cultist? Because you're coming off like one.

>>2617608

Just because some human input is involved doesn't mean the vast majority of work isn't still done without human input. That's the whole point of computers, they do lots of useful things automatically. Nobody's been doing work to maintain my old laptop all these years I've had it (unless you count power plant people working to supply electricity, which is a bit of a stretch).

>>2617626
>Just because some human input is involved doesn't mean the vast majority of work isn't still done without human input
Which disproves my claim that subjectivity is involved in our experience of numbers...how? I say again that I'm not denying the existence of objective numbers.

>>2617626
>Nobody's been doing work to maintain my old laptop all these years I've had it (unless you count power plant people working to supply electricity, which is a bit of a stretch).
That isn't a stretch--unless you're saying that your laptop has been running on the same power source without being recharged for all that time.

A math major will tell you what sine(2A) equals, prove it using math and then explain how it's used to send rockets to space.

A humanities major will say it's all subjective and false and that you can't know while flipping his burger.

>>2617662
STEM majors are being conditioned to enjoy living on nothing but Soylent. Humanities majors will one day rise up and seize control of all burger joints and coffee shops. They will bulk up and come to your cubicle to rape your waifu and expropriate your office building.

Oh wow all these stupid philosophy gags not understanding science. Sure a scientist has his own subjective thoughts and brings those with him but the data that is collected and retested and examined isn't.

>>2617635

It's a stretch because you're now not even talking about computation the machine is doing to try to shoehorn human subjectivity into computers, you're appealing to the work done outside of it to produce an energy supply.

>>2617631

>Which disproves my claim that subjectivity is involved in our experience of numbers...how?

I already said it's true as a tautology that you need to think about something to think about something. It isn't wrong, it just isn't saying much of anything. My point isn't to disprove that claim which is obviously true since it's just an "X is X" statement, my point is to make it clear why that claim is irrelevant. Human thought isn't an important part of mathematical truth. What we need to think about mathematics ourselves doesn't matter. Nature operates consistent with mathematical truth without any of our thinking required.

>>2617671
Yeah, nothing says alpha male like a hipster.

>>2617681
>It's a stretch because you're now not even talking about computation the machine is doing to try to shoehorn human subjectivity into computers,
You're trying to eliminate the actual production of computers from the existence of computers. You can't do this. It makes no sense. Computers don't come out of thin air at the behest of the number gods. People make computers, run computers, design them, make programs. Computers are not self-producing, programs do not program themselves.
>It isn't wrong
Yes, that's right, now shut the fuck up.
>my point is to make it clear why that claim is irrelevant
Being tautological doesn't make something irrelevant. "I am myself" is not an irrelevant sentence even though it's true no matter who says it and regardless of context.
>What we need to think about mathematics ourselves doesn't matter. Nature operates consistent with mathematical truth without any of our thinking required.
And at no point-I don't know how many times I've already said this ITT-have I said the opposite of this, so stop fucking replying to me. I am talking about epistemology. You are talking about the laws of nature without regard to our ability to understand or experience them or the things that they cause to happen. This is not a difficult distinction to make, but you seem to have failed to make it for most of this thread.

>>2617706
People make computers but a computer doesn't think 'll like a human as need. All things that have the ability to do math have come to the same conclusion about it. Humans. Animals and computers all agree that 1 plus 1 is 2 and it isn't subjective.

>>2617706

>You are talking about the laws of nature without regard to our ability to understand or experience them or the things that they cause to happen.

Explain why our ability to understand or experience mathematics matters to mathematics. That's the part I don't see from anything you've written so far, why does it matter?

This post captures pretty well why it doesn't matter:

>>2617679

>Sure a scientist has his own subjective thoughts and brings those with him but the data that is collected and retested and examined isn't.

Your argument is both truth and pointless. Who cares what people have to do to think about mathematics? What purpose is there in pointing out people need to think to think?

File: 1451763706269.png (361KB, 858x725px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 858x725px

>>2617722
> All things that have the ability to do math have come to the same conclusion about it. Humans. Animals and computers all agree that 1 plus 1 is 2 and it isn't subjective.
OH MY FUCKING GOD
SHUT THE FUCK UP
I NEVER SAID THAT MATH IS SUBJECTIVE
I SAID THAT SUBJECTIVITY CANNOT BE ELIMINATED FROM THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF MATHEMATICS
GOD DAMN IT
YOU PEOPLE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED NEAR A LITERATURE BOARD
YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS
GAAHAD;OIFASHDFPOASIDHFASEOPIHFSAEPOIFASEDFHIOSDFA.D
I'M SO FUCKING MASD
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
READ MY GODDAMN POSTJS
FUCK YOU

>>2617727
>Explain why our ability to understand or experience mathematics matters to mathematics.
I don't *care* if it matters to mathematics. It's entirely beside the point.
>Who cares what people have to do to think about mathematics?
This thread is about how STEMlords have found ways to access objective truths non-subjectively. Ask OP.

>>2617739

>This thread is about how STEMlords have found ways to access objective truths non-subjectively.

See:

>>2617679

>Sure a scientist has his own subjective thoughts and brings those with him but the data that is collected and retested and examined isn't.

Your obsession with "you have to think to think" isn't important. It adds nothing. It doesn't mean anything.

>>2617731
Yes it can. Proofs do this. A humanities is a subjective thing but his personal opinion has nothing to do with the math he was doing. Conservative and liberal math is the same math and a person doing math is not doing it differently based on what he believes. As the opp said there are objective ways to find objective truths.

File: 1482194225710.jpg (109KB, 750x1024px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 750x1024px

>>2617749
>Your obsession with "you have to think to think" isn't important. It adds nothing. It doesn't mean anything.
FUCK OFF AND TAKE IT UP WITH OP, WHO MADE IT AN ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
I DON'T CARE
FUCK
THE DISCUSSION IS LITERALLY ABOUT THE THING THAT YOU ARE SAYING IS MEANINGLESS
'OH I'M WRONG BUT IT'S OK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I'M RIGHT'
FUCK STEM AND FUCK YOU
YOU'RE A BUNCH OF RETARDS
FUCK

>>2617754
AND MAKING USE OF THEM DOESN'T MAKE YOU LESS OF A SUBJECT
FUCK YOU

>>2617759
So you agree that there are objective ways to find objective truths?

>>2617756

You're "right" about something no one would ever disagree with that doesn't say anything about anything.

>you need to think to think

WOW, GIVE THIS ANON A MILLENNIUM PRIZE.

>I'M WRONG

I never said I'm wrong. I've consistently pointed out I'm not debating whether your stupid tautology is true, I'm explaining to you why it's irrelevant. My not engaging your tautology isn't the same as arguing it's wrong. You're not even making a good enough argument to merit being called wrong because you're hung up on turning everything into a debate about a pointless claim no one would ever dispute.

Heh, philosoniggers BTFO.

>>2617587
What is reason?
>>2617597
> You aren't using any mental faculties to keep your machine running
Wrong, nothing exists unless I say it does.
>>2617662
>prove it
Prove math
Math majors don't learn that, they jack off and whine about failing calc 2 while drinking all day

>>2617679
Data is inherently subjective

I understand science better than you, stop sucking your own braincock, brainlet.

>>2617770
There is no objectivity because there are no objects

>>2617843
Talking is cheap. Let's see you cross a highway with your eyes closed.

>>2617858
Why? Objects don't exist. No scientific proof --- that's your method of truthinessfinding after all

>>2617869
Lol you're dumb.

>>2617843
I agree with you that we can't talk about an object without talking about a subject, but how can we talk about a subject without talk about an object? If there's subjectivity there's objectivity.

>>2614574
Everything is objectively fake, everything is subjectively true. You don't exist. Nothing really exists. All perception is flawed. All abstraction is meaningless. The material universe has no value and no real existence. You do not exists. You don't have free will. There is no choices to be made. Everything you do is cosmically meaninglessness. Nature, love, truth, these are spooks.

Gee I'm so glad and philosophy has freed us from our terrible mental prisons of the past and enslaved us in a prison of worthlessness.

Stop existing as anything but a slithering, eating, shitting, human calculator of objective mathematical reason. All else is shot.

>>2614622
>Obviously true statement
Do you know that?

>>2614574
Since when did they teach evolution in Mission Control? Captain Hell seems misinformed.

>>2614731
Encounter enough nails, you start treating everything with a hammer. Scientists have to deal with "evolution is wrong because the bible" often enough that they make little distinction between that and "quantum physics is wrong because Aquinas. "

>>2615179
>value judgment.
This is -by far- not the definition of, nor the sole realm of philosophy

>>2617931
Why?
>>2618177
Evolution is wrong because the entire scientific method is wrong.
They dislike this claim because they are perpetual children.

>>2615179
Value judgements is axiology, political theory is not a part of axiology.

>>2618975
Because subject and object are correlates, you can't have one without having the other: the object is the object of a subject and the subject is the subject of an object. A subject can't be the subject of nothing, it wouldn't make sense.

>>2619045
>correlates
Why?

>>2619048
Try to read the post before asking "why?" at the first sentence.

>>2619062
I did read, why does it matter if it doesn't make sense? Sorry Anon, things don't make to make sense. muh raisins isn't a divine gift

>>2619068
Because if it doesn't make sense it means nothing. If it means nothing, when you talk about it you're talking about nothing. And I prefer to use words to talk about things, that is, and they can only be useful if they make sense.

>>2615119
>You can make up questions and try to answer them. That is what most philosophers and theologians do but it's pretty much the mental version of fapping.
this is literally meaningless
nobody has ever been able to explain what this charge of "mental masturbation" is supposed to amount to

>>2614574
>objectivity exists
>objectivity is the contradictory of subjectivity
>science and mathematics are real
>science and mathematics use objective means
>truth exists
>science and mathematics find truths
>truth can be objective
>science and mathematics find objective truths
>it makes sense to speak of "science and mathematics" separately
>science and mathematics are not part of philosophy

every single one of these lines is a philosophical thesis that you are assuming to be a real philosophical truth you have found, in order to even make your retarded implication that philosophy is incapable of finding real truths

anyone who knows the first thing about what philosophy is knows that what i just said is essentially correct, ergo anyone who disagrees is too ignorant to even speak on the subject

but of course that will not stop STEM-monkeys because the best outlet for ignorant philistinism is aggression

>>2619258
Holy strawman and stupidity Batman. Of course if you label everything as a philosophy then you can have objective philosophy, hell logic in practice allows you to find objective truths assuming premises are correct. The issue comes from the idiots that science is based on "faith" or something stupid like that or that you can't find objective truth.

>>2619174
No it's not. Not every action is based on philosophy. The romans didn't use philosophy when capturing slaves.

>>2618975
>Evolution is wrong because the entire scientific method is wrong.
You are retarded and a prime example of a modern philosopher.
>People who are far more intelligent than me are children!

>>2619094
>it means nothing because it doesn't fit my ideology
>use is good because my ideology says so
>>2619462
Objectivity doesn't exist. Science is inherently based on faith in comprehensibility.
>>2619470
Yes they did, they had a philosophy behind their choice to capture slaves.
>>2619477
UR STOOPED BECAUSE MY IDEOLOGY SAYS SO
STEMshits are not intelligent, they're children.

>>2619535
Ok, tell me how talking about a subject without an object would make sense.

>>2619559
>making sense is good because my ideology says so

>>2619567
Okay, it's becoming evident you're more preoccupied with "winning" an argument than with actually making your point and trying to understand other people's views.
What do you mean when you say that "making sense" is a useless thing? The problem is: either your answer will mean something, "make sense", or it will be just vacuous rambling. How can meaningless concepts and statements have any value?

>>2619567
And I need to clarify that by "meaning" I don't mean only "objective" or rational meaning, but also affective meaning.

>>2619595
>winning
What's to win? You're just wrong.
>things i dont understand are bad because im a stupid caveman that needs to turn fire into a god
>>2619601
>presupposing pragmatism

>>2614737

>Say shit like "Wastes time on "Metaphysical" nonsense"
>unironically calls someone anti-intellectual immediately afterwards

>>2619609
>What's to win?
That's why I quoted "winning"
>>things i dont understand are bad because im a stupid caveman that needs to turn fire into a god
Where I've said that things I don't understand are bad? Show me the post.

Also:
>You're just wrong because what you say doesn't fit my ideology

>>2615112
Yet.

>>2619626
>it doesn't make sense, so it is useless (bad)
your words
>>2619630
There is no such thing as a scientific answer

>>2614866

What is with you STEMtards thinking science and philosophy are opposed to one another? It's like you went "they're different college majors therefore they must have nothing in common ME SMART!"

>>2619633
Well, if by "bad" you mean "useless", then in fact I've said that meaningless concepts are bad. So what you're saying is that meaningless concepts can be useful, how so?

>>2619644
You've implied it.

>>2614574
they don't

>>2619653
"Bad" in what sense? "Evil"?
Also, answer my question: how can meaningless concepts be useful? I'm genuinely curious about your stance on this.

>>2619639
>STEM
>Tard
Whats that make all the idiots getting useless degrees?

>>2619614
>Metaphysics
>Calls himself intellectual
I LOVE GHOST HUNTERS

>>2619657
See this thread.

File: 1419010947981.jpg (21KB, 173x226px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 173x226px

>>2619748
>mfw someone says that studying metaphysics is important because they don't realize that the entire point of philosophy is the overcoming of metaphysical dogma

>>2619614
>>2614737
>>2614722
Name something in our universe outside of physics.

>>2619752
You mean the one where STEMlords keep moving the goalposts?

>>2619767
Oh outside of math. math works the same no matter which universe you are in.

>>2619767
Physics is just a discourse.

>>2619773
>Literally using a reddit term
kek.
Also no one has moved the goalpost. Look at OPs question.

>>2619776
No, it's the underline of our universe. You can study physics and that is discourse but physics themselves govern all things in our universe.

>>2619767
>Name something in our [physical] universe outside of physics

>>2619783
So physics are just gods, but scientific?
>>2619780
>>U CANT NO NUFFIN
is the first line in the post. No philosophag is saying that, but STEMlords keep acting like someone is because they have awful reading comprehension. In addition to this, STEMlords get mad when someone suggests that subjectivity doesn't contradict the existence of objective reality outside of the subject, for the same exact reason.

>>2619665
>he keeps implying 'use' is good and 'nonuse' is bad

>>2619767
Everything, physics is wrong about everything. There is no universe, either.
>>2619774
Mathematics doesn't work, and is metaphysics

>>2619791
>So physics are just gods, but scientific?
What?

>>2619785
Good, so you admit meta physics is bullshit.

>>2619808
This is sarcasm right? This is a board where some posters literally think the earth is 6k years old so it's hard to tell.

>>2619829
Gods govern the universe, according to theists. Have you just replaced the concept of a god with the concept of a natural law and theology with a discourse studying natural law?

>>2619834
No because physics is observable and actually determines the events of our universe. Even many christians admit that god probably doesn't mess with the laws of physics since after all he would have created them. But either way
>Theists
We are talking about actual ways of knowing something or figuring something out.

>>2619834
>Have you just replaced myths with the truth

>>2619804
Holy fucking shit. What does "bad" even mean and how am I implying it? Oh wait! if I want to make sense of something, I'm implying that "uselessness" is bad! What a bad thing to do! Bad me!
Now, why don't you answer my question (which is just the expression of curiosity without any value judgement): how can meaningless concepts be useful? By what you've said you're implying that they can be of use, I can't see how, so I want to widen my perspective on this matter.
Now, you would probably answer something like:
>>Something can only make sense if it fits my ideology
Well, if by "ideology" you mean "conceptual framework", then no shit Sherlock. But you know what? Said frameworks can evolve, and they're always evolving.

>>2619830
I just said what you implied. But if you're going to appeal to cheap moves...

>>2619867
By calling it a physical universe you admit that everything in it is physical and therefore metaphysics is bullshit.

>>2619878
I haven't called it a physical universe, I only said that when you wrote "universe" you probably meant "physical universe" so that you would probably exclude beforehand anything that couldn't be reduced to physical terms.

File: 1450452430123.png (346KB, 1829x788px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1829x788px

oh boy one of these again

>>2619848
How are gods not observable? You must be stupid.
>>2619850
>It's true because I claim that I understand it

>>2619890
What can't be shown to be physical anon?

>>2619916
Can you post the observational data anon?

>>2619891
Wait, is this image implying that facts aren't facts, that getting a degree in something that pays well and is needed is bad and that evolution isn't true?

>>2619930
I don't need to post data. Gods reveal themselves. Meanwhile, you wouldn't even believe that falling from a tall height would cause you physical harm if nobody were around to perform a case study and show you the results.

>>2619927
What you call the physical universe isn't an immediate datum of consciousness/experience, which is prior to any concept and, thus, is prior to physicality itself. Now, we can observe correlations between immediate experience and physical reality (which is not an immediate representation, but rather a spontaneous interpretaion of sensory data), but that is it — a correlation —, it doesn't mean that experience is reducible to phisicality, even though we can infer the states of one from the states of another. So the answer is: the immediate datum of experience/consciousness isn't physical.

>>2619943
>God reveals himself
So where is the data?

>>2619946
> the immediate datum of experience/consciousness isn't physical.
It's based on physical processes and is in itself a physical process or a byproduct of a physical processes. Unless you are arguing that psychology isn't biology which isn't chemistry which isn't physics.

>>2619933
its implying your a fag whos not in with it

>Board is filled with people who think the flood actually happened
>Board spends its time get mad at "Stemlords" and people who actually want to use evidence to back up their claims
This place is doomed.

>>2619961
>Implying the Flood didn't happen

>>2619947
You want me to plug raw sense-data into your brain? That would be playing God. It's wrong to do so. You can read the Gospel, if you want, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts of miracles over the years, too.

>>2619952
It's not "based" on physical processes, it's parallel to physical processes. And, as I've said, you're trying to reduce the immediate to the mediate. But what I'm saying here was already said on the post I made, it's like you haven't even read it.

>>2619974
No, just sent the data showing that god revealed himself and then how and why it happened.
Oh, i'm sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to believe random anons on bullshit.

>>2619853
Yes, that is what you are implying. Stop trying to avoid the consequences of your language you filthy STEMsperg.
>Said frameworks can evolve, and they're always evolving.
Why is that relevant, did you fall for the 'progress' meme?
>>2619961
Evidence doesn't exist, it's a meaningless abstraction.

>>2619989
>random anons
The authors of the Gospel were not 'random anons.' Their identities are well-documented.

>>2619639
It's too bad you're too stupid to see the irony of your own post

>>2620107
Most people who study philosophy are exposed to epistemology at some point. The same can't be said of the STEMlords ITT.

>>2620128
Wow
Who cares

>>2620058
>Yes, that is what you are implying
"That" what? I still have no clue about what you're talking.
>STEMsperg
????
What makes you think I'm one? Dude I am ARGUING with a "STEMsperg". I am: >>2619988
>Why is that relevant, did you fall for the 'progress' meme?
Because you make it seem like opinions can't change because people will only accept what fit their "ideology". Also I've said nothing about progress, I used "evolution" in the neutral sense of "change".

About your reply to the other anon: so what if it is a "meaningless abstraction"? Now meaninglessness is bad? And what is meaningful to you, if not something that "fits your ideology"?

One thing that can be noted in our conversation is that I try to address every point you make, while you ignore almost everything I say and instead of actually saying something you just say things like "You're saying that x is bad, what a STEMfag!"

>>2620194
a common trait of autism is being unable to pick up on subtleties of written communication, such as sarcasm.

>>2620198
I believe I have some autistic traits. Which part was sarcastic? The reply to the other anon about evidence being a meaningless abstraction?
Anyway, if that's everything you have to say to my post, you're only confirming what I've written on the last paragraph, and therefore confirming that you're not really interested in having an actual discussion, probably because you're just a fucking pseud with no substantial thought.

>>2620275
>discussion is good because some greek guy said so

>>2620291
Ok, I give up, talking with you will lead me nowhere. If you're troll, those were well-made baits.

>>2620331
>anything i dislike is bait

>>2620079
The original post is to show that something above the physical universe exists. You haven't shown that.

>>2620128
>People who learn something useful don't waste their time on something that isn't

>>2615027
Ok, so where in nature can I find a person standing alone? I'm not talking about finding a cluster of atoms that humans are made up of or anything like that, where is the man himself? If people exist objectively in nature you should be able to separate the human from any other cluster of atoms.

>>2619462
>Of course if you label everything as a philosophy
i didn't label anything as "a philosophy," but i pointed out a number of philosophical assumptions behind OP's statement
what do you disagree with? that OP assumes those things or that they are philosophical? the former might be debatable but the latter isn't
>logic in practice allows you to find objective truths assuming premises are correct
this is just more philosophy
logic itself is part of philosophy, as everyone knows
of course the view that what results from a deductive inference is objective is part of the philosophy of logic (logic itself doesn't actually operate with the notion of objectivity)
>strawman
wtf are you hallucinating here you little wikipedia fallacy-spotter

>>2619470
>Not every action is based on philosophy.
more hallucination. who said anything like this?
philosophy is not mental masturbation, because nothing is, because the notion of "mental masturbation" is meaningless, it's just a little edgy offensive-sounding phrase that appeals to teenagers

lol this thread

>>2614574
>u can't know nuffin

Indeed. Virtually every argument eventually comes down to unfounded assumptions, circular reasoning or infinite regress. Mockery doesn't change this. You can get around it by discarding things like the law of noncontradiction, but the resulting product in no way resembles the turboautist STEM worship you champion, or anything really useful.

Modern science and mathematics are somewhat arbitrary, just accept it and move on. Your frustration with perfectly valid critiques that lead to further questions means nothing except much feels.

>>2614673
>true paths to objective truths

"God is real because the Bible says so, and we can trust the Bible because God says so"

It's almost like you have no understanding of falsificationism, peer review or instrumentalism.

>>2617429
You could make a computer without mathematics if it had a different form of symbolic logic. Mathematics is based on axioms that are defined by language, which is intersubjective.

>>2617518
>All I care about is the fact that you cannot eliminate the subjective element of human experience even when you are experiencing an objectively real phenomenon

>ids tru bcuz i sez so

>>2620338
If you're serious and not a troll, could you tell me who are your favorite philosophers? So I can at least know where you're coming from and, as I will not get anything from you, maybe I can get something from them.

>>2621800
W.V.O Quine

Hey bros, why can't you just accept that science can answer metaphysical questions? We have the answer to the question of God- and it is that he doesn't exist, at least not in the way Christians and Muslims think.

Just look at the cold, hard facts- metaphysical beings don't exist because we can't see any signs of his exist in the material world!
Why bother talking about metaphysical concepts anyways? All that matters is the here and now, material concerns of your every day life, anyways.

>>2621466
They're only "unfounded" assumptions if we're talking about being founded on other assumptions. If we try to get the ground of a chain of assumptions, it either ends in intuition or in our understanding of reality, anyway in something "subjective", or it's really unfounded.

>>2621810
Thanks.

>>2614574
Science is a system of competing models constantly vying for the label of "objective truth". Metaphysics refers not only to traditional philosophical questions, but also to interpretations of physical theories. Try to convince a physicist that interpretations of quantum mechanics or the ontology of spacetime isn't philosophy.

>>2621466
No it doesn't. You are a mad idiot because science is more than random guesses like the bullshit you like.
Even if you don't know why something is the way it is you can make a model and prediction and if that model fits reality you can safely say that model works.

>>2621474
>You can make a computer without math
No you couldn't and no math isn't based on our language. Other cultures also had math.

>>2619633
Philosophers are useless, they would rather argue semantics, and obsess over irrelevant questions to never give an answer to anything.

>>2622326
>useless
why is use good
You can't give an answer your useless haha btfo

>>2622642
What? Can you name the important things philosophers have done in the last 50 years?

>>2622985
Haven't you read the "discussion" I had with him? Why do you even bother trying?
And not all philosophers are just autists (when they're not hacks) obsessed with semantics.

"An explanation based on will rather than knowledge. There is no truths, in either the moral or the scientific sense"
Who would have guessed Hitler was a retarded U CANT know fedora tier philosophers?

it is sad that people need to invent the ideas of supernatural things because the world we live in bored them and so they won't realize how empowering it is to know that all things can be explained rationally.

>>2614574
That's post-modern philosophy and eastern mystic philosophy. They get mad because they hate their society and get a chub out of questioning their opponent's world-view until it becomes and abstract battle of language and semantics. They think it makes them smart or having it over on others, when all they've really done is retardedly ask over and over again, in different ways, WHY things which are not can't be, necessarily.

>>2624083
To expand, it's mostly western pseudo-intellectuals misunderstanding eastern philosophy, that go this rout, not the easterners themselves.

There's alot of western philosophy that's perfectly in-line with scientific laws and natural order.

>>2614618
But science is nothing but applying philosophy to the real world