What is the opinion of /sci/ about Mario Bunge? https://en.

Another Bump

>>8015350
>>8016068
>>8017308
stop, no one cares

File: Stopbeingstupid.png (25KB, 333x505px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 333x505px

Honestly?
Completely underrate.
Just like Popper before him, and "Science-logic buddies" like Feynman he has been dismissed in the mainstream due to Frankfurt Scientists [New Social Scientists] because objectivism and scientific realism get in the way of the "argument from authority" that many people, especially in the medical and legal fields, attach themselves to [professional narcissism and shifting burden of proof for personal gain or due to malpractice].

Yes, materialism, consequentialism, empiricism and epistemology are wonderful RATIONAL fields, and individuals like Bunge are sadly overlooked today.
I like to think Bunge, Popper and Feynman were the only true semi-popular logical-scientists [I do consider all of them scientists] that hit the mainstream.
I'd place Illich among them as well, since he did dive into the science-logical-consequentialism relationship as well, but he went overboard.

>>8017324
*underrated

>>8017324
>popper
>scientist
you either didn't read popper, or didn't understand shit
popper himself would slap you

>>8017328
>Reading comprehension

>>8017329
see >>8017324:
>I like to think Bunge, Popper and Feynman were the only true semi-popular logical-scientists [I do consider all of them scientists]
>I do consider all of them scientists
>I do consider (Bunge, Popper and Feynman) scientists

again, Popper would fucking slap you. you clearly don't know what you're talking about with your popsci "rational fields" shit

>>8017328
>>8017329
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

>"Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science"

He didn't have a problem with science, he had a problem with those that were post-modern subjectivities, especially social scientists.

>>8017336
>post a quote without knowing what it means

slowly for you now
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ISN'T SCIENCE
if you had really bothered to read any fucking popper you would clearly understand the distinction

you haven't
popper would slap you

>>8017332
See
>>8017336


I've actually read his books and his interviews.
I think I know more about Popper than someone that learned about him in a college lecture or through internet/wikipedia articles.

You provide no evidence to your claims, which oddly Popper would slap you for.

Claims are always irrational without proof.

>>8017341
you really are a retard and anyone who read 5 minutes of popper can realize you're lying through your teeth

NO ONE who knows ANYTHING about philosophy of science would make the stupid assertion that philosophy of science is science

fucking liar idiot

>>8017332
>>8017340
You are strawmaning based on some definition of scientist. I don't even agree completely with him, but holy fuck you are one butthurt /his/ 15 year old.

>>8017340
>PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ISN'T SCIENCE
Actually, it is the basis of science, that is, empiricism, coherency and consequentialism, and therefor is part of science.

This isn't an opinion.
Without the Philosophy of Science there is no Science.

Axiomatic fact. It's in the name.
Get a college degree you hack.

>>8015350
[math]\text{ }^{\color{#571da2}{\displaystyle\text{N}}}\text{ }^{^{^{\color{#462eb9}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f47c8}{\displaystyle\text{b}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f62cf}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#437ccc}{\displaystyle\text{d}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b90bf}{\displaystyle\text{y}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#56a0ae}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#62ab99}{\displaystyle\text{f}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#71b484}{\displaystyle\text{u}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#82ba70}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#96bc5f}{\displaystyle\text{k}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a9bd52}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bcbb48}{\displaystyle\text{n}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#ceb541}{\displaystyle\text{g}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dcab3c}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e39938}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e68033}{\displaystyle\text{a}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e3632d}{\displaystyle\text{r}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{\color{#de4227}{\displaystyle\text{e}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}[/math]

>>8017349
it's not an opinion all right, it's objectively wrong
read ANY author in philosophy of science and then come back you fucking liar

>>8017347
>some definition
it's the first thing you learn when going into philosophy of science. if you knew any, you'd realize how retarded it sounds. it's like those threads about quantum magic, it's obviously shit for anyone who knows the first thing about physics

>>8017349
what the fuck do coherency and consequentialism have to do with science you retarded fuck?

>>8017347
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

>>8017352
You are literally clinging onto an ill defined term. Maybe for some, you don't need to have a research thesis in some new field to be called a scientists. You just sound dumb by irrationally getting mad over some stupid definition instead of actually refuting his point.

>>8017357
this is pretty good bait
but pretending to be retarded in an anime imageboard is retarded
which means, hey, you're still a retard

>>8017358
>his point
what point? again, if you knew anything about philosophy of science, you'd realize everything here is just thinly veiled bullshit like the "quantum magic" version of philosophy of science

there's nothing there

File: 1436391691784.jpg (100KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 720x720px

>>8017354
>what the fuck do coherency and consequentialism have to do with science you retarded fuck?

That is literally the dumbest questioning I've heard in my life, and I think you're trolling.
But I'll still answer.
Science, and Scientific testing depend on the idea that the rules that govern the reality we live in to be dictated by coherent and consistent rules, and one of the fundamental rules is that of cause and effect (consequentialism).

If you're not aware of this, then you would actually be labeled as retarded my a psychologist, as understanding coherent rules and cause and effect are part of basic intelligence; lack of them would indicate you have the mind of an infant.

>>8017361
No one is talking about that you autistic fuck

>>8017362
>consequentialism is the material law of cause an effect

you are a fucking retard, stop making shit up and lying
now you're going to say that objectivism is being objective about things?
you fucking make me angry, you're a fucking retard making terms up as you go and hoping they mean what you're using them for

>>8017359
ad hominem attack?
into the trash

bait avoidance fallacy
into the trash

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

Reason: Antisocratic Trolling

>>8017366
but this is false because the universe isn't deterministic (quantum uncertainty)

athiest 1
dumb believe (you) 0

>>8017365
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

>now you're going to say that objectivism is being objective about things?
There are three kinds of Objectivism.
- Rand Objectivism [Not the topic]
- Logical Objectivism [Not the topic]
- Scientific Objectivity applied as a constant in the Philosophy of Science [The topic]

Let me guess, you're a pseudo-political anon obsessed with either hating or being pro-Rand, and you think that's the only kind of Objectivism?

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8017369
>Popper is a scientist
>consequentialism is the material law of cause an effect
>"scientific objectivity" is a constant in philosophy of science

keep adding more i'll keep counting

>>8017367
>but this is false because the universe isn't deterministic (quantum uncertainty)
That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

>>8017374
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8017369

4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

>>8017372
Popper may not be a considered a scientist in the mainstream, but the other two are actually 100% accurate.

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8017378
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

ITT:
>The Philosophy of Science has nothing to do with Science.

>Quantum concepts remove coherency and determinism.

What's funny about this is that only pseudo-intellectuals claim to understand quantum physics.
The top quantum scientists in the world have given this phrase to make fun of quantum woo bullshiters:
"If you say you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics."
Google that, you pseudo-intellectual woo-miser.

>>8017383
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8017385
1.) Tu Quoque fallacy.
2.) Fallacy-fallacy fallacy

My posts are not hypocritical, because my comment about a poster isn't part of the argument.

This is proof you don't understand coherency or logic.
Comments =/= Argument

>>8017389

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8017390
"Tu Quoque Roundabout":
When your comments about people using fallacies end up as part of a of a tu quoque/fallacy-fallacy argument.

Comments are not part of the debate.
You're being illogical.
Either you're trolling or you really don't understand the Socratic/Debate Method.

Now you're looping thinking your proving hypocrisy, but you're not.
You're using fallacies in your attempts to prove fallacy usage.
That's fallacious.

>>8017394
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

File: example.png (42KB, 870x345px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 870x345px

>>8017390

>>8017397
That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

>>8017395
Again, see:
>>8017394
and
>>8017397

Prove for 100% that you're being illogical in your approach to show inconsistency and hypocrisy.

You have yet to prove your case at all.

Have you any proof?

Do you have an argument?

Are you "loop cancer" and "fallacy cancer"?

Prove your case.

The burden is yours.

Using fallacies and copy-and-paste techniques don't mean anything, and it doesn't prove incoherency since my comments were not ad hominems. I never dimissed your case because I pointed out you were being immature.
It was a side comment.
I posted references and asked for your proofs.
You provided none.

>>8017404
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

File: 123.png (10KB, 452x426px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 452x426px

Using fallacies and copy-and-paste techniques don't mean anything, and it doesn't prove incoherency since my comments were not ad hominems. I never dimissed your case because I pointed out you were being immature.
It was a side comment.
I posted references and asked for your proofs.
You provided none.

>>8017409
"Tu Quoque Roundabout":
When your comments about people using fallacies end up as part of a of a tu quoque/fallacy-fallacy argument.

Comments are not part of the debate.
You're being illogical.
Either you're trolling or you really don't understand the Socratic/Debate Method.

Now you're looping thinking your proving hypocrisy, but you're not.
You're using fallacies in your attempts to prove fallacy usage.
That's fallacious.

File: 123.png (15KB, 452x426px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 452x426px

>>8017409
Sorry, typo on the image.
Corrected.
Stop using the fallacy-fallacies please.
You're using them and you're not even intelligent to get it.

>>8017413
Prove for 100% that you're being illogical in your approach to show inconsistency and hypocrisy.

You have yet to prove your case at all.

Have you any proof?

Do you have an argument?

Are you "loop cancer" and "fallacy cancer"?

Prove your case.

The burden is yours.

File: 123.png (15KB, 452x426px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 452x426px

>>8017412
You keep posting my posts over and over without pointing out a single error, as if you're trying to imply it's self evident, but there is zero error.

You're using obvious fallacies.

The ad hominem fallacy fallacy:
When you accuse someone of using an ad hominem fallacy when they did not. Comments are not part of a debate.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy Fallacy:
When accuse someone of being a hypocrite via the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy.

File: 1234.png (17KB, 452x426px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 452x426px

>>8017422
Using fallacies and copy-and-paste techniques don't mean anything, and it doesn't prove incoherency since my comments were not ad hominems. I never dimissed your case because I pointed out you were being immature.
It was a side comment.
I posted references and asked for your proofs.
You provided none.

File: A.png (15KB, 452x446px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 452x446px

>>8017425
Are you going to prove an argument or are you going to continue to use more fallacy-fallacies.

If you're going to use copy-and-paste to claim a fallacy or contradiction, then say so.

Act like an adult, not a child.

If you don't, then you forfeit via argumentum ad nauseum.

File: 1461125181353.png (17KB, 452x446px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 452x446px

>>8017436
"Tu Quoque Roundabout":
When your comments about people using fallacies end up as part of a of a tu quoque/fallacy-fallacy argument.

Comments are not part of the debate.
You're being illogical.
Either you're trolling or you really don't understand the Socratic/Debate Method.

Now you're looping thinking your proving hypocrisy, but you're not.
You're using fallacies in your attempts to prove fallacy usage.
That's fallacious.

>>8017440

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omB6bSfskCI

Stop using my posts.
It doesn't imply what you think it does.
It wasn't part of the debate.