/lit/ - Literature

>>16316056
am >>16315977
>How do you decide that in philosophy outside of science? "Occam's razor"? Torturing those with opposing views?

A scientific "truth" is always rooted in some philosophical principle (epistemology, ehtics etc.) The decisions we make on how to present and use a model are philosophical.
If I teach a class of high school students Newtonian physics and tell them it's the truth, is it? It is a good model for the truth at a human scale, but isn't the end of our knowledge. We do this because we understand this as a building block towards a better model, and it will help train them to understand that better model. Is that our underlying truth? I wonder what classes will look like in a 100 years when the true model has changed.

If a flip a coin, call tails, and it lands tails, I spoke the truth didn't I? What if I was to guess correctly for 10 000 coin flips. This is a different truth then stating the statistical probability of that outcome, but no less a truth.

What if our current way of doing science was thrown out by a civilization that used some other process of experimentation that develops better models faster? This civilization destroys the scientific ones, erasing its memory. What is true then?

I'm just thinking this over, spewing questions because I don't have all the answers. What I can see is that there is a discussion on these ideas outside the scope of science.
>but it's bothersome because it leads to people who don't believe in the law of gravitation making greater claims about reality and influencing other peoples mindsets
I think you're just getting trolled. There's also a lot of dumb people on this board (including me) and it's not representative of real life discourse.
>why would it hurt philosophy students to study science?
It would not. Good philosophy takes science into account, and good scientific practice is inherently philosophical. Maybe the issues is the rift created between these two practices by increasing specialization in the modern era.