/lit/ - Literature

How do you respond without sounding mad?

>>18223931
I'm going to spend time, uselessly, debunking this image one more time, despite knowing you vermin will just repost it again and pretend this never happened. Let's start with the left side of the image:
1 - No matter what any scientist believes in his free time, he always sets those beliefs and feelings and etc aside to do pure science and measurements at the end of the day. What Schroedinger believed about the Baghavat Gita is absolutely irrelevant to whether his equation predicts or not the correct transitions for Helium atoms. Scientists can say dumb esoteric shit if they want, and it still doesn't mean esoteric shit is worth inherently more. Philosophy as a mental masturbatory act beyond the basis of science is still useless.
2 - The quote by Heisenberg is straight up false. Werner Heisenberg has never stated that.
3 - What Bohr is talking about in terms of subjectiveness is not what the vermin of humanities think. Talking about developments in quantum physics and general relativity in terms of reference systems and etc is not the same as the mental masturbatory acts esoterists and philosophists engage in claiming things about supernatural, superphysical, or worst of all, religious entities and forms.
4 - It is very easy to find influential, fundamental modern physicists that also won nobel prizes and absolutely shit on philosophy, but it just doesn't make for a good look, I guess. Just look up some quotes on philosophy by Feynman and add them to your next image.
5 - Einstein literally shit on Kant's "a priori" time, and proved philosophy literal wankery when veering away from science

Now onto the right side of the image:
1 - The opinions of pop scientists is irrelevant to science, even more than that of philosophers. Nobody outside the USA even knows who the fuck Bill Nye and Tyson are or why they are relevant. I'm not even joking.
2 - The fact that you think Dawkins is incommensurately stupid or cringy, and you feel like philosophy died in the old ages, is less about philosophy and more about your narrow mindedness. At any point in time the zeitgeist will shit on a given philosopher, and this doesn't mean much. What the average mouth breather thought of Schopenhauer in his time is irrelevant. Not saying Dawkins is schopenhauer, and I've never read him, but just the type of argument presented here is stupid.
3 - What Lawrence Krauss said is literally true. I've graduated in physics and I can tell you with absolute certainty no laboratory discusses or teaches philosophy of physics as a main part of modelling the world, so whatever the fuck is happening in the last 100 years in Philosophy of science is happening tangentially to science. I don't know what Krauss did or why he is famous, but what he says here, even if shitty and dumb sounding, is true in one way or another. If philosophy of science really is still relevant now, the same way the findings of physics in the last 100 years are, it's doing a really poor job of showing it.

Holy based.

>>17733781
No thank you. I'll stick with the better secular jew.

>>17587031
>virgin humanities major

>that tfw when math is infinitely more rigorous, logical, and useful when it comes to understanding reality and human beings than anything in the humanities

You study philosophy and the social "sciences" in order to understand human beings, but subsequently get lost in tangles of unfalsifiable garbage. Meanwhile, STEMchads are harvesting raw data and are using it to shape humans into their ideal form. Decade by decade, STEMchads make progress and man is fashioned into their liking. At the sidelines, the humanities cuck writes impotent criticisms of the damage done and eventually offs themselves. Your time is over. This is the era of the mathematician and our new man is the Bugman.