To all the dumb physicists in here trying to give ontological

>>8103019
Do i need to draw?

File: 5e4f6cae4f04b232088e468090b6ec7b.jpg (10KB, 388x379px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 388x379px

>>8103040

>>8103015
holy shit OP is SUCH a HUGE faggot

>>8103169
stfu

>>8103015
Call me when you have a physical theory that doesn't first order quantify over mathematical objects

>>8103015
Newton did some dumb stuff, he tried alchemy. Nobody's perfect. Nowadays, philosophy has no place. It based on bullshit and has no empirical basis like science. Basically, it's just the less evolved version of science.

>>8105591
>Nowadays, philosophy has no place. It based on bullshit and has no empirical basis like science. Basically, it's just the less evolved version of science.

That's literally what he's saying you dumbfuck.

Modern physics is not completely empirical, therego why i posted this.

Not even sure why i'm answering a memeing shitlord...

>>8105654
> modern physics is not completely empirical

Nigga, u wot?

>>8105658
Are you fucking serious?

>>8105658
>wut is theoretical physics

>>8105591
>philosophy has no place
wew lad

>>8105666
Yes, Aids Skrillex, I am.

>>8105667
> implying theoretical physics doesn't have a mathematical basis
> implying theoretical physics doesn't have an empirical basis
wew lad

>>8105591
What would you call semantic analysis of speech-acts if not empirically based? How about the swathe of philosophers whose goal was to make the language of science *less* philosophical by formulating a vocabulary made purely of logical connectives and observational reports? What about the fact that the majority of professional analytic philosophers have advanced degrees in either physics or math or both?

File: wnYTz7L.jpg (119KB, 602x655px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 602x655px

>>8105712

>>8105591
Tell me what gravity really is then

>>8105673
A mathematical basis is not an empirical basis. I don't know about theoretical physics though.

>>8107224

highschooler detected

>>8105712
"Formulating a vocabulary of logical connectives and observational reports" in the rigid way philosophers try to do it is absolutely pointless. Describing scientific theories in natural language isn't "more philosophical" (whatever that means) than describing them using more formal methods.

The majority of analytic philosophers do *not* have "advanced" degrees in physics/math/both. Many have undergraduate preparation in math, combined with a few graduate courses (mostly straightforward topics). Only a handful have any graduate training in physics at all, and a small number have undergrad physics experience.

Anyway, who cares what they got their training in? Just read analytic philosophy, it's obviously worthless, and has only contributed to our knowledge of the external world (get it?) in mostly accidental ways (applications of nonclassical logics in computer science, etc.)

"Semantic analysis of speech acts" in the Fregean tradition is about as "empirically based" as the claim that the sun is some dude riding a chariot around the earth on a big track, cause it's obviously big and powerful, and it goes round and round in a similar fashion every day. Most reference-based semantics (especially model theory oriented stuff) has demonstrated NO success in describing anything in the real world. The concept of 'reference' isn't even properly defined (certainly not consistently!).

Most importantly, no proposal for any experiment towards the verification or falsification of any theory of meaning exists, that I know of. That's what most people mean when they ask if a theory or field has an 'empirical basis'.

>>8107895
>I define empirically as whatever strangers desired to be paid do in their labs and take on faith


fucking pleb

>>8107911
Are you an idiot? I said nothing of my definition of 'empirical', I just pointed out issues with the person I responded to's.

I don't take scientific findings on faith, either. I try and reproduce whatever I can after reading the literature (in math and physics), and I investigate other findings to the extent that I'm able (and I ask friends in the relevant disciplines whom I trust).

Nice job formulating the most vacuous response imaginable, though. I'm not even being sarcastic, I'm really impressed.

File: 2016-05-29-11-55-53-259636843.jpg (3KB, 132x144px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 132x144px

>>8107911