/lit/ - Literature

>>15752109
He didn't though. The philosophy of science he lays out in this book, model-dependent realism, makes no ontological commitments about the world. For him, successful predictions and reproducibility are enough, whatever story you derive from that about the world be damned.

>>15752208
ontology/metaphysics went bust over a century ago.

science has shown there is no such thing as "essence" and the whole can be explained by its parts.

therefore a model which can make predictable and reproducible assertions about reality derives its validity from these operations. science makes assertions whereas the claims of bygone philosophies and religions were never falsifiable and relied on appeals to the 'supranatural' world where 'essences and natures' of things resided.

>>15752499
>ontology/metaphysics went bust over a century ago.

No it didn't

>science has shown there is no such thing as "essence" and the whole can be explained by its parts.

No it hasn't

>therefore a model which can make predictable and reproducible assertions about reality derives its validity from these operations

Sure, but it has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with utility.

>science makes assertions whereas the claims of bygone philosophies and religions were never falsifiable and relied on appeals to the 'supranatural' world where 'essences and natures' of things resided.

Science tries to falsify things and succeeds to a degree that is reasonable enough for the ordinary man in his lab coat (problem of induction aside). It doesn't make claims about reality as such.

>>15752499
what do you think philosophy thinks an essence is, anon

>>15752109
Pretty sure Scientific Realism has metaphysical dimensions as well.

>>15753901
Meant to reply to
>>15752208

>>15752109
right, and Lawrence Krauss proved that the universe came from nothing

>>15752109
if he was so smart why couldnt he teach himself to walk?

>>15752763
I completly agree. Is there a philosopher that can elaborate on holism?

>>15752109
Science provides no metaphysical insights

>>15752499
Tell me anon. Do you think the principles of scientific empiricism are falsifiable.

I believe you are mixing science as a metaphysical and ontological view (empiricism) and science as a mere tool. In the first case there are ontological and metaphysical assumptions, in the second case nothing is proved or disproved; a chainsaw doesn't prove anything, it just chops trees.

>>15752109
If science can’t answer what is love and where it comes from, then they still can’t answer everything.

>>15752109
terrible bait

>>15752109
"stephen hawking" has been dead for many many years. he is just a puppet being used as a brand to publish pro-elite agenda propaganda with very little science in them.

>>15755955
He died 2 years ago actually.

>>15755971
try 20 years ago

>>15752763
>Sure, but it has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with utility.
Based and redpilled.
science is extremely important to help us understand the universe but everything has to be simplified somewhat to be meaningfully and successfully analysed as data, the greatest case of this may be biological: the species concept is vital to biodiversity studies to give some kind of measure, but as far back as Darwin, biologists have agreed that the definition of species will always be more or less arbitrary and not only unable to fit all forms of life, also poorly reflective of evolution’s extremely gradual nature, there is not true cut off point, only gradations of diversification. Ontological and metaphysical abstraction is necessary to approximate truth because science demands concessions to simplicity to male it practical, if those concessions aren’t acknowledged (as is becoming increasingly common), we will no longer be rational, science will devolve into dogma.

>>15753852
Aristotle held that the essence of a thing was its form

>>15755955
what proof do you have besides the fact his degenerative disease lead him to degenerate