Is STEM the only path to concrete truth?

>>8919899
No, only math is.

>>8919899
No, but it's a great path to underemployment and suffering.

>>8919899
Depends what you mean by concrete truth. Do you mean the observations we can make about the phyisical world and the interactions in space and time? Then yes, STEM is the tool to discover these truths. Are you talking about, absolute Truth? Then no, as it is not empirical.

>>8919899

"Truth" is a spook, it doesn't exist in nature, it's literally just a social construct.

Why not philosophy? Knowledge of the universe doesn't give you any tools for how you conduct yourself, what you should value or how you should actually live your life.

>>8920680
Philosophy won't show you truth. It will verse you in the history of people who failed at that because they didn't want to learn to apply mathematics.

>>8920779
Of course not, that's not the claim. But creating the atom bomb and choosing whether or not to ever drop it are both as necessary to us. Science is driven by an inherent bias of interest, people look into fields they are interested in personally, all the money goes into the goals of whoever wants to fund it. Science doesn't run around indiscriminately finding truths. There are a basically infinite number of scientific truths.

>>8919901
There's only thruths there after making up your definitions and axioms, which are arbitrary.

>>8919968
This. Truth is a meme, stop worrying about it and do what you find interesting

>>8920779
Successful Philosophers in the west were usually mathematicians as they were seen as of the same discipline and entangled.

>>8919901
this

>>8919901
>math
>concrete

>>8919901
>t. First year undergrad

there is only one thing that is concretely true : I think therefore I am

everything else falls to the munchausen trilemma , where every statement is either justified by unsupported axioms, or is justified by circular reasoning, or is justified by an infinite regression of explanations.

I think therefore I am on the other hand is certainly true because you have definite evidence of yourself experiencing things so the part of you experiencing things must exist in some sense.

this is the only thing you can be totally sure about in the whole universe

>>8919901
Which is a part of STEM...

>>8920866
the truths are admitting that assumptions are made, and working from there

[math] M [/math] is the only path to concrete truth.

>>8920993
>I think therefore I am
*something thinks therefore something exists

>>8920680
>Knowledge of the universe doesn't give you any tools for how you conduct yourself, what you should value or how you should actually live your life.
Neither does philosophy. Philosophy doesn't give you ethical truths or facts, it gives you opinions which you then pick from based on random chance, psychological comfort, and rhetoric. This is not analogous to science or math at all. Science has a solid ground in the empirical world. Math has a solid ground in logical rigor, which can then be applied to empirical facts. Philosophy has no solid ground. It's just animals making things up and then fighting over those things.

>>8921078
>empirical world.
nah, scientists rely on tools and not on what they experience.

>>8921063
Molarity is the only path to soluble truth.