/lit/ - Literature

>>12260470
they're NPCs

>>12260470
Engineering at last is really not that difficult.

It's based

Math is really interesting and the most tolerable and acceptable stem subject. I have no clue how anyone can do anything else really. Computer Science maybe but staring for so long at a screen really seeming wearying, and unfortunately if you study math, it seems like you face the same fate of the computer screen.

i like rocks

>>12260504
I know that there are a few people that actually like their subjects, but most engineers and even most math/cs people are not actually interested

>>12260487
There is much more that goes into Computer Science than you probably think but it still doesn't make any less insufferable. I tried my hand at it and I doubt my experience is unique.

>>12260504
Geology is great; in itself and as an adjunct applied to Life and Earth science, prospectors get the bullet.

>>12260470
is abandoning my STEM degree in 4th year to study philosophy for a year to get a liberal studies degree a waste of time?

>>12260532
Are you talented at either or currently making good grades?

>>12260470
*STE

>>12260470
Maths student here,

I like working with math because it feels rewarding to work creatively with something that has applications. Writing stuff on the side is great too but it seems like math has a similar creative joy without the risk of not being employable.

>>12260532
yes, undergraduate degrees don't matter anyway so you should just finish. you can get a non-quantitative job if you want to. if you want to study philosophy that badly go for a graduate degree, taking classes for a year will not satiate you.

>>12260541
not sure, i am at least well above average at both

>>12260470
I enjoy building things, and it is incredibly satisfying to get something working. Engineering is quite satisfying in a way that I believe most other jobs are not, since you are designing something that will be built and used.
t. EE student

>>12260487
CS doesn't have that much programming in it, it's mostly algorithms and how to make the abstract even more abstract.
Software engineering is much more about programming and designing software.

>>12260470
BECAUSE STEM GOOD
ME COMFY
ME BELIEVE IN PROGRESS
ME LIKE TRUTH
ME SKEPTIC
ME NO LIKE NO NO THOUGHTS

>>12260569
Most engineers work as grunts doing QA or stuck in testing.

>>12260470
I actually enjoy it, but with that said a large part of me wishes I was a writer. Unfortunately I suck at writing.

>>12260585
I've never heard of that, so I don't know. Almost all of the engineers I've known have been very happy with their career and what they do. Also, companies can claim some of their employees are "engineers," even if they don't have an actual engineering degree.

>>12260569
Imagine thinking any American University is teaching "computer science" and that CS isn't just a nice acronym for software engineering.

>>12260550
i don't want to fill my head up with more useless knowledge

>>12260601
Most of the CS majors I've talked to say that they mostly take pure math courses.

>>12260607
>Uhhhhh my half assed education is useless.
>I need to pay a research university money to babysit me and spoonfeed me my education.
Learn harder fagget, become interested and learn everything you can about what you are paying to learn, then when you graduate you won't be a useless child.

>>12260609
You're either lying or they are. Check a curriculum. This is blatantly false.

>>12260650
I did, and you were right. However, they have a lot more electives, but also quite a few software engineering classes.
My uni's software engineering major seems to put more emphasis on how it applies to business, so that CS is software engineering without all of the "enterprise" classes.

>>12260633
i just dont want to dedicate 40 hours a week to studying stem when i could be studying philosophy

>>12260470
Easy, you are building skills required in order to work on projects that you actually find interesting.

>>12260633
anyways, good post

>>12260470
Only engineering and CS are boring.

>>12260669
Save philosophy for your own time. If you are in science or math it's well worth it, if you take some initiative and learn the fields of your science. If you are in tech or engineering you are clearly a brainlet and should simply drop out and join the military.

>>12260601
This. CS is literally IT with an algorithm class in most american universities

>>12260470
Curious about life and my own body. Always have been
>>12260678
This is good advice >>12260672 you should heed it

>>12260678
i am not convinced that only studying philosophy on the side is adequate

>>12260776
almost got holy trips

I haven't taken a math class since trigonometry my sophomore year of high school. Did the bare minimum needed to graduate and never want to touch it again. I'm a video game dev, I pay the grunts to do the math and software engineering grunt work. I have zero need to learn it, and hope I never do. If I didn't have money to hire people I probably would have had to study it in university

>>12260850
"""""Dev"""""

OP's commonly viewed way of hating on STEM is such a insecure trend on this board. Is it so hard to imagine people being interested in math or science, or even worse having a stable income?

>>12260504
based, im studying geology/geophysics
what are the best geology related books (preferably fiction)?

>>12260532
just finish your current degree first

>>12260504
based and igenouspilled

STEM is ultimately more fulfilling than humanities, to think otherwise is coping

>>12260870
I write and design the games exclusively, along with hired help in the art and 3d modeling work. I give my senior software engineer the instructions and he keeps the code monkeys in check. I literally have no need to learn that part of the design considering how fucking easy it is to find developers all over the world, their work requires zero creativity, only the type of problem solving an ai will be able to accomplish in the coming decades. Give them a book of detailed instructions, that's it

>>12260874
it's more just that i'm in a stem field that i dislike and want to study humanities yet feel pressured to finish the stem thing

Eh. Double majored in math and comparative lit, currently PhD in mathematics. Once you clear the pesky arithemetic and knock a little calculus in your head, it's really nice. Higher-order math has this crystalline, cold beauty to it, glowing with soft white light from some deep center. It just never ends. It's almost like a cathedral carved out of ice. You could lose yourself examining one corner in one room in one wing off one hall of the entire structure.

I don't know. Anne Carson once said that if language was a tree, English was playing around in the leaves and Ancient Greek was the root-ends. It's like that with math too, except for the whole world. You almost gain another set of eyes, another vision overlaid on top of what you normally see. The parabola inscribed by a jump rope, the flat curves of kitchen chairs, leaves bobbing in a creek or the fractals of clouds expanding into one blue infinite plane. If language is the stuff of human thought, math is the world's vocabulary. Each branch you learn is another dialect.

>>12260470
Humanities are the kikeniggers of academia, sitting on their asses bitching with the artists and social "scientists" while STEM labors away to improve the scope of human knowledge and push our capabilities. You will never invent a cure for a disease through deep philosophical nonsense. You will never find a way to explain quantum gravity while writing an essay on how a certain novel or collection of poems satisfied your feel cummies. Even the computers and internet you use to deride the sciences rely fully on the fruits of those sciences, just like niggers never quit bitching about western society despite the fact that they would be living in huts made out of compacted shit and twigs without the white man (ie the scientifically minded man since you're all niggers lmao.) The funniest part is that we all know you are ultimately well intentioned and are forced to feel pity for you. You genuinely want to push the boundaries of human knowledge just like a real academic in STEM does. You're just incapable of it thanks to your inability to pass calculus 1.

Finishing undergrad in english-lif w/ spanish minor soon. I wanted to go continue studying lit into grad school and then eventually teaching english at high school and maybr adjunct level. But now i’m considering on getting an engineering undergrad from state school like my father. He made off pretty well to support a family and i would like to do the same some day. Thoughts?

>>12260470
I honestly have no fucking clue, it makes me want to kill myself

>>12260967
>Humanities are the kikeniggers of academia, sitting on their asses bitching with the artists and social "scientists"

Is that what you think the humanities is?

>while STEM labors away to improve the scope of human knowledge

In one field of study. And do not act as if 99.999% of STEM majors do anything but implement others ideas, the type of job that will be automated, a design by the 0.0001%, to put the rest out of work. STEMfags are treated like organic robots because they are the precursor to the real thing

>and push our capabilities.

To do what? Guess what buddy, even just trying to answer this question will display your hypocrisy and general ignorance


>You will never invent a cure for a disease through deep philosophical nonsense.

I can't tell if you're just trolling or are serious about this. You're telling me you cannot accomplish something in one field of study by using knowledge in another field? Philosophy isn't medical science? WOW. Explain to me why inventing a cure for disease is valuable without using philosophy


>You will never find a way to explain quantum gravity while writing an essay on how a certain novel or collection of poems satisfied your feel cummies.

And you never will write a poem by writing an essay on quantum gravity


>Even the computers and internet you use to deride the sciences rely fully on the fruits of those sciences,

Even the rhetoric and thought processes you use rely on the fruits of humanities. I honestly cannot believe somebody wrote this post unironiclly. Do you even know what philosophy and the humanities is?

>>12260934
>STEM
>Fulfilling
Yikes

It's simple really. They have no imagination. You take it for granted, OP, that you can imagine the lived experiences of other people, even imaginary people. A STEMfag can't do this though. They see only the literal level of anything they read. This is why they prefer nonfiction, philosophies, histories, and so on. Fiction they cannot comprehend, because to them it's a record of events that never happened, i.e. nonsense. Where you or I experience through fiction things we never could otherwise, to them it is simply words on a page and that is all it will ever be.

>>12260934
>STEM is fulfilling

>>12260470
By being intelligent and interested in the subject.

>>12260953
> their work requires zero creativity
Solving problems with code requires a lot of ingenuity at times. There's rarely ever only one way to solve something and the multiple solutions generally always have trade offs that you need to think about. Being able to think laterally and make connections between seemingly disparate ideas is important in programming and software architecture.

I will say though that in my experience most of the work a programmer gets is not creative or fulfilling, it's just implementing whatever I'm told to. This job can definitely be automated, that's why I want to get above it at the level where I think about software in terms of business concerns and real world solutions. That's where the real creativity happens.

>>12261016
Yikes, the humanitiesnigger is lashing out!
>To do what? Guess what buddy, even just trying to answer this question will display your hypocrisy and general ignorance
We would still be a preindustrial civilization if your kind had your way, and we both know it. The one benefit of living in this bland consumerist society is that it completely ignores the bitching of luddite humanitiesniggers such as yourself who use sophistry to pretend that the advances in our knowledge and corresponsing advances in our capabilities are trivial.

>>12261073
Explain why this progress is valuable

>>12260470
i was afraid i wouldnt have a job after college otherwise.

now im trying to make up for my past mistake as well as i can by reading, shitposting on /lit/, and writing. you guys are the closest thing to a literary community that i've ever experienced.

Astro-physics is the only interesting subject. Space is quite fascinating and one of the last frontiers to discover, the other being our ocean's depths.

>>12261077
Because it is gradually leading to an exponential growth in the total intelligence present on earth, and to the spread of intelligence to other planets. These should be the ultimate goals of intelligent life, not sitting around on our home planet daydreaming like niggers.

>>12261085
Why is an increase in intelligence valuable? Why is the spread of intelligence a worthwhile goal?

>>12260934
>Spend your time researching what receives funding rather than what matters
>Toil away building software that will be obsolete within 1-5 years and might never be used
>Expect to build interesting things but actually it's mostly status quo bullshit
>Make out like you're a chad who enjoys great salaries for staring at computers and ruining your wrists but you're really a virgin monkey with a "fuck you got mine" attitude who cheers on the technological replacement and subjugation of humanity
It's not fulfilling mate. People are just riding the wave.

>>12261085
Hey dude, this is a civilised discussion. Refrain from saying the n word or you will be banned because you are threatening the advertisers. They are the ones who keep this place alive.

>>12260542
based

>>12261090
There is no point for intelligent life to exist if it does not self-actualize. What meaningful way does intelligent life have to self-actualize besides:
A) maximizing its intelligence
B) spreading itself theoughout the universe to minimize the chances of extinction
C) attempting to utilize its intelligence to figure out a way to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics?
It's either this, or we wait for an extinction level event, the sun becoming a red giant, or the heat death of the universe to extinguish all intelligent life.

>>12261094
Fuxk niggers, fuck academic niggers (humanities staff and students,) fuck the corportations, and FUCK jannies.

>>12261077
Because I can eat all of the highest quality food, have drinkable water come out of faucets everywhere, live and sleep in a climatized shelter, have easy access to remedies to most of the diseases and have enough free time to pursue intellectually fulfilling activities. None of this would be possible if it weren't for technological progress. And you are giant fucking retard for not realizing it.

>>12261104
You know full well there’s another option. If fact, there’s an infinity of options. There’s a brick layer I know who has never frowned once since I’ve met him. I for one never seen my dog maximized his knowledge. Existence needs no justification or goal.

I love science and especially love biology so that's how

>>12261116
>Because I can eat all of the highest quality food, have drinkable water come out of faucets everywhere, live and sleep in a climatized shelter, have easy access to remedies to most of the diseases and have enough free time to pursue intellectually fulfilling activities.
Bears do this, monkeys do this. Shit, even ants do this.

>>12261125
No they don't. They live hard gruesome lives until they eventually get killed under violent circumstances. Maybe you would know that if you had paid attention in biology.

>>12261118
Laying bricks will not prevent the heat death of the universe
>I for one never seen my dog maximized his knowledge.
That’s fine. You can remain on his level while the rest of us become biologically immortal, telepathic, superhuman geniuses while colonizing the solar system.

>>12261125
>Animals doing what they're biologically optimized to do.
You're being disingenuous and you know it.

>>12261131
He's already implied that he has the same standards for existential fulfillment as his dog. Is it really surprising that he idealizes the lives of wild animals?

>>12260504
You're one of the good STEM people.

>>12261131
Now now, exaggerating to prove a point when you know full well that’s not case is needless. Most bears, monkeys and ants live complete, natural lives, some may even live longer healthier lives than you. Just like humans. Science only solves a problem if you have one to begin with. Many have lived centennial lives with medicine or “progress”, and many have died needlessly due to it. What justification for science do have for them? The benefit of science is entirely contingent.

>>12261142
without* medicine or “progress”

>>12261136
And could the same not apply to us?

>>12261132
>Laying bricks will not prevent the heat death of the universe
What good would preventing the heat death the universe do when a criminal comes and kills you and you die anyway?

>>12261142
The estimated survival rate for bear cubs is 30-40%. Every year there are bears who could not pile up enough fat and wander around in winter.
You are just scientifically illiterate and idealize something you know nothing about.

Most humans on this planets could not survive in the climate zones they live in, in the numbers they do exist in, without technology. The vast majority of humans who ever existed only do do some because technology enables it.

>>12261142
>Most live complete, natural lives, some may even live longer healthier lives than you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RW9Cg0QRCyE
>>12261154
It's not all about my subjective point of view. There is an objective reality, and I am personally invested in its ultimate fate. Are you really that much of a solipsist that you don't care what goes happens to the world after your death?

>>12261162
>You are just scientifically illiterate and idealize something you know nothing about.
Im STEM major, a good one too.

>Most humans on this planets could not survive in the climate zones they live in, in the numbers they do exist in, without technology.
Hmm. It’s almost as if we were enaed to do things by some sort of mechanism that allowed us to do it... hmm what could we call this. Maybe some form kf knowlege or thing that makes us do things that we dont have to, hmmm.
>The vast majority of humans who ever existed only do do some because technology enables it.
Ah there you go. That’s the thing. You basically reach the conclusion that without science we wouldn’t kive in places we shouldnt and do things we shouldn’t. Maybe there’s a good reason for 30-40% bear cubs not surviving, maybe something to do with resorces, scarcity, blah blan. Maybe the rest of us are better thanks to the fact that beats cant artifically sustain a population that the world wasnt intended to hold.

>>12261108
WOW DUDE, DELETE THAT IMMEDIATELY!!!

>>12261171
Is an appeal to nature the best you have? Is the might of the humanities?

>Im STEM major, a good one too.
Maybe come back once you finished the first semester.

>>12261166
>It's not all about my subjective point of view. There is an objective reality, and I am personally invested in its ultimate fate.
It would nice you stuck to your premise and didn’t immediately contradict yourself.
>Are you really that much of a solipsist that you don't care what goes happens to the world after your death?
I can, and I do care. But only because I do. I, unlike you, have no need to validate my personal decisions with metaphysical illusions regarding the value and merit of my scientific work.

>>12261175
And is an appeal to utility the best you can?
You’re not going to win this one, anon. Im sorry to tell you im better at this than you.

>>12261091
It is fulfilling if you're not a worthless mediocrity shifting the blame on the field rather than own ineptitude.

>>12261182
>Im sorry to tell you im better at this than you.
No you are not. An appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Pointing out utility is not a fallacy.

I don't know but it is gradually pushing me to kick the bucket

>>12260470
Challenges and competition are fun. You learn a lot about yourself and emotions and life and shit too.

>>12261188
Prey tell, where did I appeal to nature? Did i ever said we SHOULD act according to nature? No. I pointed to nature as an alternative. Humans, as a scientist you must agree, are physical biological things with physical biological functions that can be explained physically and biologically? Do we not come from nature? Did we not evolve to be optimized to eat certain foods, to do certain things do function in certain ways? The human can live a full, healthy, fulfilling life without any product of “progress” or science and this is a scientific FACT. Im not appealing to nature by saying this. Im not saying you SHOULD live according to nature, but do disregard it is well unscientific to say the least.

>>12261177
There was no contradiction. I refuse to trap myself in the pitfall of egocentric solipsism. The simple fact of the matter is that you have no vision, despite that being all you humanitiesniggers ever prattle on about. You fail to see the ultimate existential purpose of intelligent life engaging in scientific pursuits, because you are a brainlet.

I'm studying accounting instead of computer science. I think it's the right choice.

It's quite enjoyable if you have the mental capacity to succeed in the field.

>>12261205
>Prey tell,
>You basically reach the conclusion that without science we wouldn’t kive in places we shouldnt and do things we shouldn’t. Maybe there’s a good reason for 30-40% bear cubs not surviving, maybe something to do with resorces, scarcity, blah blan. Maybe the rest of us are better thanks to the fact that beats cant artifically sustain a population that the world wasnt intended to hold.

Man, you're a joke. You are both scientifically illiterate and illiterate when it comes to argument and logic.

>>12261205
This is beyond embarrassing you sound underage and severely retarded at once. Go cope elsewhere.

>>12261188
Also, I forgot to add, but appealing to utility is a logical fallacy, all appeals technically are logical fallacies cause you can establish a logical connection between cases and prescriptions (is-ought problem). Utility is no more a reason to do anything than nature, bed bugs, larry david, or reggea music.

Again im better at this than you.

>>12261091
Why are you describing engineers? They're not people, they're like jannies IRL. It should really be just STM

>>12260470
picture this,

you get to create 3d scenes with realistic lightning using nothing but a bunch of words and numbers, how cool is that?

I like computers

>>12261212
Again, where’s the appeal there, anon? I hope you dont mind my asking but do you KNOW what an APPEAL is?
Let me point you at the exact moment i didnt do an appeal
>MAYBE there’s a good reason

Also, dont think i ddint notice that you didnt respond to the actual argument of my post and focused on a technical point. Again, im so much better at this than you.

>>12261217
>is-ought problem
>im better at this than you
The level of Dunning-Kruger is off the charts.

>>12260601
I'm at a British uni and my CS program (which is actually called "computing") is very maths heavy. In fact it feels more like an applied maths degree than anything
Not that I'm complaining as I like maths a lot

>>12261227
>argue from nature
>oh no no no I said "maybe" this invalidates the implication
literal special ed wordgames, neck yourself

>>12261217
>>12261227
You don't even understand what the "is-ought problem" is.

>MAYBE there’s a good reason
Fuck off with your weasel argument. Why make an argument if you put no merit in it? MAYBE you will pick up a book some day.

>>12261206
I dont know why you all respond like angry children yelling like you do.
>There was no contradiction.
Yes, there was anon. You said not all is subjectivity pov and later followed by saying your personally blah blah. Is this not obvious and clear to you? You made a subjective justification for you believe after saying that such a thing doesnt have to be the case. Which one is it?

>I refuse to trap myself in the pitfall of egocentric solipsism.
Here yoh at it again. >i refuse. Whi cares what you refuse or not? Do you have a logical argument or not?
>The simple fact of the matter is that you have no vision, despite that being all you humanitiesniggers ever prattle on about. You fail to see the ultimate existential purpose of intelligent life engaging in scientific pursuits, because you are a brainlet.
You see, none of these matters do anyine because it’s all just whinning and yelling and therefore no actual scientific or logical reasoning behind it so keep crying.

It's actually pretty easy since it offers a good way of dissociating. You can lose yourself in there and not ever face the overwhelming anxiety of moral ambiguity or the subpar alienating social relationships. Or maybe STEMfags are brainlets with limited perception that don't even experience reflection and value crises.

>>12261229
I’ve read the Critique TWICE. Anon, Kant made the subject the supreme center of all judgement. He doesn’t solve the is-ought problem. He simply put its reason on our manner of knowing. Hume is still entirely correct and completely unmoved that there is no logical connection between facts and oughts, Kant simoly said we provide the conenction. Kant is the prime subjectivist in philosophy. Again, im bettter at this than you and your wikipedia knowledge.

>>12261234
What implication?

>>12261239
>is proven wrong with facts and logic
>cries
I showed you the FACT that i never made an appeal and here you are insulting me due to lack of an argument.
Is this your science? Cause its not looking very good.

ive been coming here to broaden my horizons for a few months now, have started reading for really the first time ever. Can't believe the faggotry in this thread. I study biology and thanks to this board ive recognized and abandoned my previous belief that i was participating in the narrative of the progression of society, doesnt mean theres NO reason to study stem

>>12261264
>doesnt mean theres NO reason to study stem
It's just brainlet cope.

>>12261029
youre a faggot, bet youre fat as fuck

>>12261258
You are not arguing in good faith, that is why I am not addressing your natural fallacy arguments. It's not very hard to argue that things that enable me and other people I put value in to survive are valuable to me and those other people.

>>12261245
>You said not all is subjectivity pov and later followed by saying your personally
Of course one can have opinions while still existong within objective reality. This is the exact autism peddled by philosophers which makes philosophy useless.

>>12261049
i know, i was thinking more about those who do not like the subjects that they are studying and yet do it anyways

>tfw CS major
>regret it so much, graduate this year
>fucking hate the entire subject and it's industry
>wished I followed my enjoyment of writing
>wish I studied English or history or language
>I am graduating college without having accomplished any of the things I wanted and I'm not even employable because i don't know anything (if you dare even think imposter syndrome I'll fucking gut you. I know me better than you don't you dare make false assumptions . I don't know anything I'm a cheater .)

I hate this so much. I'm miserable and have been miserable for four years. I wish I never followed the STEM meme I wish I never browsed /g/. I'm going to kill myself

>>12261276
>You are not arguing in good faith,
How do you figure? Admittedly im teasing you guys, but only dialectically, do make you realize you don’t know as much as you think you do.
>that is why I am not addressing your natural fallacy arguments.
Again, i’ve made no fallacies. I pointed that out the other fella. I simply speculated as means do show that your dogmatic fixed ideas aren’t the only logically possible.

>It's not very hard to argue that things that enable me and other people I put value in to survive are valuable to me and those other people.
Yet, here you are having a hard time at it. There’s no reason why you can’t do it. Hume himself puts it, without some drive or will do act, pure reason would never let us. You just have to be honest that this drive or will isnt itself purely rational.

>>12261281
>one can have opinions while still existong within objective reality
Close, but not cigar. Philosophy and science arent matters of opinions now are they? You can have personal desires, wills and drives as much as you want. But this is all they are. Objective reality or whatever isnt a matter you can describe or talk about with terms such as utility, value or any other riddled with metaphysical reasoning. Science is useful and explains physical material phenomenon, but there’s no inherent value to it or anything for that matter. If you want to explain physical material phenomenon, as far we know, Science is the big cheese, but if you don’t then its value is onky contingent. Welcome back to square one.

>>12261258
>Kant simoly said we provide the conenction.
Kek, no he didn't. Facts don't even come into question when it comes to oughts in Kant. This is really embarrassing and your kindergarten-style repeating of the I'm-better-mantra doesn't in fact compensate for lack of actual understanding, brainlet. Maybe try to actually read things you pseud about.

>>12261222
if theyre not then neither is anyone in science or math or cs or medicine

>>12261303
>Science is useful and explains physical material phenomenon, but there’s no inherent value to it
Yes there is, becauss the capacity to explain thise things and create new technologies from those insights has inherent value to our individual survival, our personal comfort, our long term survival as a species, and our ultimate manifest destiny to conquer the universe and find a way to circumvent the heat death of the universe.

>>12261303
>I simply speculated as means do show that your dogmatic fixed ideas aren’t the only logically possible.
And appealing to nature would be logically false and an invaild example. Your shitty backpedaling and "teehee I was being a sophist for educational purposes" is not impressing anyone.

>>12261305
>Kek, no he didn't. Facts don't even come into question when it comes to oughts in Kant.
Anon, if you think im going to use actual terminology in that throwaway post, you misunderstand the nature of this argument. If you want to discuss Kantian philosophy im more than happy. I have a copy of the critique here with me. Do you want to do this?
>>12261305
>Facts don't even come into question when it comes to oughts
Of course they don’t. He sidesteps the Humean problem. Kant doesn’t talk about facts, because what is a transcendental fact? How could there be room for facts in Kantisn philosophy? All there is are determinations, utter subjetivism.

>>12261319
>say something obviously false and retarded
>oh no no no I just didn't want to use terminology
Yeah, okay.

>>12261300
>"CS" brainlet
>"STEM meme"
STEM is not just CS. Stop extrapolating your mental deficiency on other disciplines, disgusting IT plankton.

>>12261318
>And appealing to nature would be logically false and an invaild example
Yet, you failed to point to where I did this supposed appeal. I stipulated a premise and drew logical conclusions from them. You may not like it, but having said MAYBE frees me from this continuous criticism of having made an appeal. If more ridiculous that you genuinely believe that stipulating that natural things dont have natural explanations. This is the very maxim of science, yet here you are trying to defend science by destroying its epistemic foundation, but carry on please, ignore the hypocrisy.

>>>12261313
Anon, are you ignorant of the metaphysical reasoning you just made? Frankly? What science studies this manifest destiny? Show me the empirical data? Is it falsifiable?

Maths and CS are extremely creative fields. Physics and engineering is pure autism

>>12261331
>If more ridiculous that you genuinely believe that stipulating that natural things dont have natural explanations.
This typo makes the setence incomprehensible
>It is more ridiculous that you genuinely believe that natural things dont
have natural explanations.

>>12261325
Did you read the post you are responding to or did you just respond in blind rage? I explained my point.

>>12261331
>What science studies this manifest destiny?
You're being a pedant. It's a logical application of technology given our position in the universe in the same way that technology is a logical application of scientific knowledge. Not everything has to have l'epic metaphysical justification run through the autism of philosophers that you're looking for.

>>12261331
>You may not like it, but having said MAYBE frees me from this continuous criticism of having made an appeal.
It doesn't. Introducing this hypothetical as a supposedly logically valid alternative is in fact claiming it is logically valid, i.e. committing the fallacy. Your pathetic weaseling out and dishonesty truly knows no bounds.

>>12261344
Im a pendant from keeping you grounded and not lost in metaphysical ramblings.
>It's a logical application of technology given our position in the universe
Not it’s not. There’s no logic in this justification of science as this quasi-religious activity of the universe “saving” itself.
>and our ultimate manifest destiny to conquer the universe and find a way to circumvent the heat death of the universe.
No, this is not our purpose or science’s. You BELIEVE this with no scientific reason or logical basis. This isnt science. There is no quantum, no data, no nothing in nature or science that establishes this or is the logical application of. This is all in your head. If you can’t accept that, you’re a in consistent scientist you claims the world has a certain matter of being known (empiricism, falsifying, material), yet you claim to have knowledge that is none of these things.

Generalizing people based on their subject of choice seems shallow minded and insecure. Have you guys never talked enough to living humans to figure out they aren't mindless slaves to their major? Or is it that you yourself have so little personality that you can be pigeonholed based on what you study?

>>12261369
I wish I had a pineapple cocktail right now.

>>12261359
>Introducing this hypothetical as a supposedly logically valid alternative is in fact claiming it is logically valid
This is actualy completely utterly, verifiably, untrue.
Logic 101: the premises need to be true for a proposition to be logically valid
As in, as excuse me for using this cliche example, i do it only to show how basic an idea it is and how dumb you are for not seeing it
1. All men are human
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, socrates is human.
I need not to ground whether the premise (all men are human) is valid in order to say that the syllogism above is logically valid (which it is).
Any more questions before i dismiss class?

I have no idea. I should've studied physical chemistry all week but instead I've been learning koine and reading.

>>12261366
More autism. You will be left behind with your useless metaphysics while STEMfags become gods. Perhaps we will even find out how to move along or manipulate the higher spacial dimensions theorized by physicists, thus demonstrating that humanitiesniggers can't even use their useless semantic games to access the "higher realms" they fantasize over.

>>12261375
Fuck off brainlet, your stupid MAYBE defense doesn't even work, because you already committed a natural fallacy before your maybe dance. You are just trying to patch up your inane rambling after the fact.

>You basically reach the conclusion that without science we wouldn’t kive in places we shouldnt and do things we shouldn’t.

>>12261375
What are you even on about? The Aristotelian syllogism is used to show direction of induction and has nothing to do with what I said. You're literally a retard spouting vaguely related buzzwords and memes heard here and there. Fucking apply yourself, sophist brainlet.

>>12261381
>You will be left behind with your useless metaphysics
I has to sigh. I have done zero Metaphysics and have consistently told you to stop doing Metaphysics and pointed out your doing Metaphysics yet you small brain, for reasons beyond me, doesn’t see this. If you read the thread, and you can do this as empirical practice in gathering evidence, you will see me continually telling you to stop doing metaphysics, but you don’t listen cause you’re angry, sad, blah blah who cares.
>while STEMfags become gods
YOU are going to die. That is all. I have nothing else to tell you since i have EMPIRICAL evidence that you don’t listen.

>>12261300
Dont KY, come to Jesus Christ

>>12261387
Anon, YOU literally said that thw onky reason we live in the climates we do and the manner in which we do (which is counter to nature according to YOU) is because of science.
if we CANT live in certain climates naturally. Yet we DO because of science. Then NATURALLY we’re NOT suppose to. This isnt an appeal, because im not saying that we SHOULDNT use science do so, but that logically without science we COULDNT. And i stipulated from YOUR logic) that MAYBE theres a reason. Are you following? Cause it cant be clearer.

>>12261375
Your reply is in no way related to the quoted text.