So i have a exam for tomorrow and it some basic philosophy stuff.

>>2971159
Go do your own homework, you faggot

give her the dick

File: 1480298069506.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>>2971159
>Descartes
Dude mechanism lmao

>David Hume
Dude problem of induction lmao

>Karl Popper
Dude falsification lmao

>Thomas Khun
Dude paradigm shifts lmao

There

File: 1482957993107.jpg (182KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1920x1080px

>>2971237
Well, thank you anon!

>>2971276
reminder that scientists are not empiricist and that ''empirical proof'' is an oxymoron: they do not rely on what they experience, instead they rely on tools that some stranger built, and output some number, and they try to what they call ''model'' what the tools output (all of this after some guy accepted to pay them).

Also, recall that modelling is a bad word since
to call something a model, you know
-the ''reality''
-the model
-the discrepancy between the model and the ''reality''

without these three things, you do not know you have modeled anything. All you have is the model and no knowledge of anything beyond the ''model'', no knowledge that there is a modelling of anything.

And if you have these three things, you know the ''reality'', thus you do not need to model it afterwards, so it is useless to have models.
=>the word model does not describe what scientists do.

what they call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, ie people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.

bjump