/lit/ - Literature

>>11367010
>science is pseudomath

>>11367017
Math is pseudo-logic

>tfw science is a pseudoscience

4. and 5. contradict each other.

>>11367037
not necessary

>>11367025
logic is pseudo empiricism

>>11367010
the construction of science as a 'good' category with identifiable characteristics like 'falsification' is a pseudoscience

>>11367047
You just fucked it up. Empiricism opposes ra

Poincare wrote:

>What is the nature of mathematical reasoning? Is it deductive as commonly thought? Careful analysis shows us it is nothing of the kind; that it participates to some extent in the nature of inductive reasoning and for that reason is fruitful.

What he means by inductive reasoning by the way has nothing to do with formal mathematical induction - which of course is another form of deduction. He goes on to say:

>The analytic process of construction does not compel us to ascend, but only to stay at the same level ... we can only ascend by mathematical induction, for from it alone can we learn something new. Without ... induction, construction would be powerless to create science.

>>11367010
>>11367017
>>11367025
>>11367032
>life is pseudo-existence

>>11367010
When did philosophy as a whole claimed to be science? Something can't be pseudoscience if it doesn't view itself as science.

>>11367074
Right? It's as if these hacks thought being a science was the most ambitious a discipline could get. They don't even realize it's actually way better to be philosophy.

>So what do you do?
Im a philosopher
>You mean as a hobby?
No, as a career
>Oh...

>>11367086
>>11367074
>tfw someones philosophy isn't a science

>>11367010
>No results being repeatable
Come on son

>>11367010
>>11367056

>>11367010
I hope you realize that identifying pseudoscience or what we call demarcation now as Popper said is philosophy. What you presented in that pic is philosophical doctrine. Accepting it and applying it makes it a science because it no longer has absolute freedom and reign like philosophy. The same as postmodernism is a philsophy that is applied to social constructionism and many feminists and other ideologists apply that to their scientific method. They are ideologists and so is positvism in this sense. The only way to distinguish is by paradigm and by your own sense of what is better, more useful which is philosophy again.

Philosophy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science. It would be more appropriate to call science a method of philosophy. The tradition is split and natural philosophy is called science now. Science is a group of methods, ideas and procedures that works best and are most reliable for getting information about the world. All of science is based upon philosophical assumptions that can't be tested, proven or disproven. Science is a complex system of traditions of different methodologies and ideas shared in a group of scientists using tools to either understand the world or use the most useful models of the world. Philosophy is the ground for everything and it makes science possible. Without philosophy science will become dogma and lose its purpose like logical positivism did.

Nitpick all you want. Philosophy is not a science. Science is not unified one group or process. Everything is based upon abstract grounds of ideas that are untestable but are taken as true.

Science is pseudophilosophy

>>11367392
All of that is of course true, but here's some extra perspective:
We don't have to use "science" in its Whewellian sense referring to this narrow empirico-mathematical stereotype of "modern science."
For those who don't know: There's tons of historical precedent for "science" referring to any field of higher learning, including all the "humanities."
That was its usual sense before the 19th century ideology of "the scientific revolution," when the term was basically coextensive with "philosophy," and going back to its Greek roots meaning "knowledge."
"Wissenschaft" and its cognates in other Germanic languages still function like this.
So from this perspective, "science" was always the pre-eminent positive epistemic qualification, and the 19th century "terminological" shift was really a philosophical (metaphilosophical and epistemological) shift to deny that anything other than the stereotypical "core natural sciences" were actual areas of knowledge.
So acquiescing in the Whewellian use of the term "science" may actually be acquiescing in scientism.
Even the term "natural science" is tendentious; philosophy is a Wissenschaft and it obsessively deals with nature--in fact our deepest inquiries into nature are philosophical: the meaning of "nature," its ontology, our epistemic access to it, its relations to consciousness, morality, freedom, God, etc. Excluding all these investigations from "natural science" is arbitrary.

>>11367037
I believe it meant was 'Claims that counter established scientific fact without adequate evidence'

>>11367010
Evolution can’t be proven false.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/4900001