What are the best arguments (and arguers) against positivism and the ability for science to find an absolute truth? I read a little Nietzsche, and it seems like he says that science isn't completely true (or at least not the only objective truth) because it is ultimately an interpretation of the world, and a representation of the will-to-truth, but this doesn't seem to be satisfying to me. I'm not saying that I think that STEM is better than philosophy, because they attempt to explore different things, but I'm wondering as to what makes people doubt the legitimacy of say, the existence of numbers, and their representation of the world.
Read Immanuel Kant, scientism is reddit-tier and Kant blows it the fuck out.
This video might give you some insight, some guy sharing his path to enlightenment, not new-age even though his channel looks like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjCDdhTPC54
>>8731943
Positivism and science as a arbiter of absolute truth are mutually incompatible notions. Positivism is a rejection not only of metaphysics but of scientific realism
>>8731971
Is this in the critique?
>>8731943
Science doesnt tell you what you should do. Science is the effort to understand and verify and utilize causal relations between the interactions of substance. One element of philosophy is one element of an attempt at a science of conscious being
>>8732142
not what I asked but thanks I guess
>>8731943
Our knowledge of the world has always been (and may always be) incomplete
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
>>8731943
Define 'truth'.
>>8732154
Science + reason/abstract thought/imagination = best/only chances of approaching truth/Truth = increased control/comfort/power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
Gray's Straw Dogs gives you the right tools to address this question and several others.