/lit/ - Literature

"progress"

>>15955835
>(((sam harris)))

But he’s a neuroscientist.

>>15955835
Imagine being so stupid you can't build on Aristotle that you either dogmatically accept him or reject him.

Humans don't change

>>15955876
But Science

>>15955868
His mum sponsored his phd

you realize anyone who thinks about things is going to seem wrong on some topics to every other thinker, right?

pseuds on this board shit on people way smarter than them because they're insecure about their own intellect

>>15955881
You'd think he would argue more positively for him. Stupid progress meme

>>15955835
>american intellectuals

>>15955888
>literally starts science w a several fields
>well he was actually holding back science
Yeah like you're holding back ethics w your vacuous ideologies.
Seriously 1000 more years and we'll have to hear this shit about newton and einstein because some retard atheist

>>15955835
Looks kinda Jew-y to me...
Yechh.

One look at that schnoz tells me all i need to know about this guy.

>>15955868
he's not

>>15955868
His credentials are a joke. Whats better, it takes only minimal digging to figure it out and its hilarious.

>>15955835
(((Progress)))

Science

Why can't you guys just be 'rational' and accept the 'progress' of science and that religious people are just 'bad scientists' and that being rational is being moral and that only science is rational and only science is a valid tool for examining every other realm of thought.

>>15955899
There's already plenty of articles going
"NEWTON PROVEN WRONG" and the like because his laws don't apply everywhere

Can God lift a stone so heavy he cannot make it?

>>15955835
Him and all the other LA assholes

>>15956450
complex high level dynamic reasonable ideas

*Giggles in Feser*

>>15955835
Refute the statement.

>>15955888
This.

Science

>>15956450
that's just Aristotle though

>>15955835
All these public figures are massive egoists that love the sound of their own voice and opinions. Stop listening to them.

>>15955899
>Aristotle said many things that impeded the progress of science
>he was actually holding back science
Reading comprehension.

>>15956450
you were retroactively refuted by kant bro.

>>15956178
>>15956175
The fact that neither of you even bother to offer the least bit of supporting evidence or detail as to what the fuck you're talking about categorically invalidates your bullshit.

>>15956450

>yeah bro, there were all those scientists in their rational lab coats just chilling out, making the Progress towards the Science in Ancient Greece and then Arisdodl came and smashed their heads in with a rock

>>15957516
b-based aristotle

>>15955835
But he did.

>>15955861
/thread

>>15955835
>impede progress of science
source needed

>>15957516
>Arisdodl
i kekd very hard

>>15955835
You can always tell someone's a pseud when they allude to "science" as some great movement or mysterious God.

>>15957542
Aristotle formalized logic and literally laid the intellectual foundations for empiricism and scientific reasoning from first principles as we still mostly think of it today.

What has sam harris done for science besides be a B tier new atheism blogger?

>>15957461
Explain...

>>15957749
>besides be a B tier new atheism blogger?
That's pretty based though ngl

>>15957516
Wish he had.
Fuck science.

>>15955888
i know for a fact that im smarter than sam harris, and more importantly i could effortlessly beat him to death with my bare hands. anything he has to say holds absolutely no value.

>>15957749
> Aristotle formalized logic and literally laid the intellectual foundations for empiricism and scientific reasoning from first principles as we still mostly think of it today.
And this disputes the statement how?

>>15958386
This is the first alright take you've ever had.

>>15955835
>shits on christianity
>shits on islam
>completely ignores where all this craziness fucking STARTED FROM
>even manages to slide in the fucking jewish holocaust
ridiculous. it's like a satire

>>15958386
Why not smother him to death with your panties?

he's right though, why are you so angry?

Sam Harris is the psuedo-intellectual exemplar of our age. His championing of scientific "progress" (that somehow involves social progress ie liberal individualist ideology) is a parody of the abandonment of tradition and culture as a moral demand system that the likes of Tocqueville, Rousseau, Freud, Jung, Strauss, Rieff, and multitudes of others recognized as insidious anti-culture. His infantile historical understanding and not-even-disguised attempt to bastardize history to fit his agenda only betrays the parodical postivistic-normative-"scientific" dogma and religiosity he ironically so hopes to dispose of.

Has anyone else watched link related? Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgkHJpY6CF4

>>15957461

Literally how. Also, explain why I should take lessons from a universizable cuck whose ideas fail on every level of politic.

>>15958522

the idea of anticulture is kinda trash, but everything else was true.

>>15955876
>Humans don't change
That's why I'm waiting for our A.I. overlords to take over.

>>15955835
>dude proving the pythagorean theorem was useless because they used it as proof for a connection with other immaterial worlds and shit
>dude the islam golden age optics science was bad because they used it to locate mecca

>>15958595
Anti-culture is an appropriate term. Unlike traditional cultures:
>it does not provide an answer to the religious question, and there is no unified common purpose
>there does not exist a formal institution through which the organization of personality takes place (ie, mythology, church, state [as in communism], elders)
>it is arguably not even a moral demand system at all, there are no institutions that communicate ideals in ways that are compelling except insofar as tolerance and
You can specialize from here and get a variety of interpretations from Strauss/Straussians to Rieff to people like Tocqueville, Deneen, Nietzsche, and MacIntyre. But the term is appropriate.

>>15958410

The claim is that Aristotle impeded the progress of science. It disputes the statement because Aristotle literally laid the foundations for what we know of as scientific thinking today. Logic, reasoning from first principles, development of taxonomies for organizing concepts, all of these things were first formalized by Aristotle.

Sure, Bacon was reacting against Aristotelian scholasticism, but the idea that Aristotle "impeded the progress of science" by postulating a few things that turned out to be empirically wrong is completely fucking daft.

>>15957412
Aristotlr said many things that impeded the progress of science - and thats a good thing.

>>15958968
>Aristotle said many things that impeded the progress of science
Try again.
>Aristotle said many things that impeded the progress of science

>>15958968
>The claim is that Aristotle impeded the progress of science.
Try again.
>Aristotle said many things that impeded the progress of science

>>15955835
if only Sam Harris was there in antiquity to save us, how far could we have gotten by now!

>>15959109

First point, the claim that Aristotle "said many things that impeded the progress of science" necessarily implies that "Aristotle...impeded the progress of science." So no. Try again.

Saying things that aren't correct doesn't impede the progress of science. Scientists still do that literally every day. The "progress" of science comes from testing claims to figure out whether they are true or false. Putting forward hypotheses that we don't know yet if they are correct or not is literally most of the scientific method.

>>15959121
>how far could we have gotten by now!
Maybe. He is a scientist. They actually get stuff done.

>>15959159
Yes!! I fricking LOVE science!

>>15959166
Good for you dude.

>>15959121
Antique Sam Harris would write as much as Aristotle, but all of that would be lost, because literally no one would feel like copying that crap for posterity.

>>15959159
>scientist
read about how he got his phd lmao

>>15955835

>Yes, my morality is based on brain scans, how did you know?

>>15959177
>read about how he got his phd lmao
he did research and wrote about it?

>>15959159

You think Harris would have just spontaneously invented the modern concept of science if he was born in antiquity and all the thought he had access to on the subject was whatever Aristotle, Epicurus, and some astronomers and geometers had written at the time?

This guy, Shapiro and Kafka are the 3 house-jews of /lit/.

>>15959109
You are the biggest fucking retard I've seen today, congratulations

>>15959159
>NO, YOU CAN'T STONE THE HECKIN' TIME-TRAVELLING SCIENTIST!
>WE'D HAVE FLYING CARS BY NOW IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU SCIENCE DENIERS!

>>15959492
>Can't even formulate a counter argument
Imagine being this insipid.

>>15959156
> First point, the claim that Aristotle "said many things that impeded the progress of science" necessarily implies that "Aristotle...impeded the progress of science."
No. This is basic logic anon. You're not even qualified to participate if you can't get this right.

Why do you people follow these type of people?

>>15957445
what do you think "impede" means, brainlet?

>>15959620
How can Aristotle say many things that impede the progress of science without impeding the progress of science?
You know you have to be 19 to post here right kid?

>>15959809
18*

>>15959745
>No grasp on the concept of net outcome

>>15959809
>> >>15959818
Sure is a full house tonight fellas.

>>15959825

If you don't explain exactly what about this >>15959809
was incorrect in your next post then I'm going to stop responding to your low quality bait

>>15959832
That you still haven't grasped what I'm saying has proven your dismal IQ to render this entire conversation a non-starter. All the best anon.

>>15959883
Maybe you could actually explain what you mean if you weren't so fucking stupid that you don't understand that saying someone did something that impedes the progress of science means they impeded the progress of science
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I bet you can't.

>>15959903
I'm not him, but you're completely wrong about this. Look at it this way.
Aristotle made some body of statements. This body of statements constituted a body of knowledge which later philosophers used to construct broader systems of belief. Some philosophers used some statements within the Aristotelian body of knowledge to reject [insert important part of science, I'm not sure what Harris is referring to], which impeded the progress of science.
Thus, we get the result that some statements made by Aristotle impeded the progress of science, but Aristotle himself did not.

>>15959903
Aristotle said things that impeded progress, according to Harris

>>15957732
This

>>15959921

Strictly speaking, on the most autistic level possible, you're not totally wrong. However if Aristotle saying some things isn't what impeded the progress of science, but instead other people believing them was what impeded the progress of science, then why are you formulating this proposition as "Aristotle made statements that impeded the progress of science"? This isn't a massive leap in reasoning by any stretch, unless you have some sort of debilitating autism.
This discussion would be a whole lot simpler if you Harris fangirl dimwits could just say what you actually mean. If you make a statement, but that doesn't impede the progress of science, it's only that other people believing that statement does impede the progress of science, then that necessarily entails that you making the statement lead to science being impeded. If no one had made that statement in the first place, particularly no one who was considered an authority, then there would be no impeding. This necessarily implies that Aristotle was the one who impeded the progress of science. Otherwise there is no point in dragging his name into this.

That's why Sam Harris chose to say "Aristotle made statements which impeded the progress of science" instead of saying "People believing in [things Aristotle said] impeded the progress of science." Because he meant that Aristotle did things that impeded the progress of science.

Just because there's technically some hyperliteral alternative interpretation of the statement that isn't completely retarded doesn't mean that the statement doesn't mean what it actually means.

>>15960100
>but instead other people believing them
That's not what I said. There is a difference between interpretation and original meaning. The recent Supreme Court decision is an excellent example of this. These later philosophers presumably interpreted Aristotle in such a way as to "impede science." Note that this does not exclude the possibility of interpreting Aristotle in such a way as to support the progress of science.
My point here is that, if you take his words at face value instead of jumping to partisan conclusions, there is an interpretation that makes him sound perfectly reasonable.
>This discussion would be a whole lot simpler if you Harris fangirl dimwits could just say what you actually mean.
I hate Sam Harris.
>That's why Sam Harris chose to say "Aristotle made statements which impeded the progress of science" instead of saying "People believing in [things Aristotle said] impeded the progress of science." Because he meant that Aristotle did things that impeded the progress of science.
I have no clue what Sam Harris thinks inside his tiny brain. The only thing I have to work with is the cherry-picked statement posted in the OP, and that statement is ambiguous enough to allow for an interpretation that does not make him look stupid.

>>15960173

The only thing I have to work with is the cherry-picked statement posted in the OP, and that statement is ambiguous enough to allow for an interpretation that does not make him look stupid.

Fair enough, however...

>These later philosophers presumably interpreted Aristotle in such a way as to "impede science."

You're trying to put words into Harris' mouth at this point to make his case more historically cogent than it is. He didn't choose to pick on the scholastics or certain Islamic philosophers he's apparently on about here--he chose Aristotle. Being charitable is a good intellectual virtue, but stretching interpretations to the point beyond which it's obvious that the original speaker didn't mean that shit is bad reasoning. Resisting the temptation to strawman is fine, and attacking weak arguments is boring, but steelmaning is just as much of a logical fallacy as strawmaning and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that everyone actually meant the strongest possible version of whatever ignorant shit they happen to be gurggling at any particular time.

>>15960220
>He didn't choose to pick on the scholastics or certain Islamic philosophers he's apparently on about here--he chose Aristotle.
I can think of two potential "good" reasons for him to do this.
1. He's an opportunist, and he knows that there is an audience that will respond positively to any attacks on Aristotle. There is an opportunity here for him to divert some unspecified number of individuals away from "the left" and into his own brand of vulgar Utilitarianism.
2. The Enlightenment was, in its own way, predicated on the rejection of Aristotle. Sam Harris, as a self-proclaimed successor to the Enlightenment project of building a world based on "reason," has picked up the anti-Aristotelian mantle, despite the fact that very few people believe in Aristotle and his virtues at this point in history. He is essentially beating on a dead horse.
Basically, I can see what you mean. If we place him in his historical context, he is attacking Aristotle and every single one of his successors. But if we take his words at face value, that's not necessarily what he's doing. The trouble is that the man is still alive, and we no longer live in an era in which it is "acceptable" to attack public figures directly, especially since they will always find a way to distort the truth.
In terms of strict interpretation, you are wrong. But in the bigger picture, you are right.

>>15958386
based butterfly

>>15955876
I have noticed this trend seeping into mainstreams intellectual discussions more and more. If someone had certain views that cannot be framed in today's orthodoxy then they are entirely discounted by these types of people.

>>15960465
It's always been like that. Would you listen to an unabashed monarchist who thinks we should bring back public execution and get rid of incarceration as a system of punishment?

>>15960513
Yes.

>>15960367
Yeah I don't really have much to disagree with here as far as what you're saying. r/atheism sciencefags not updating their view of the enlightenment past the 18th century is definitely one of my pet peeves which is why I've been particularly ornery in this thread. Whatever

Isn't he right in a way? I thought it was fairly mainstream to view the Condemnations of 1277 as allowing us to break free of dogmatic Aristotelianism which laid the foundations for modern science.

>>15961002

Aristotle didn't do anything to discourage anyone from not pursuing inquiry into naturalistic philosophy. He openly admits his method is based on reviewing common doxa and trying to settle on the best ones or at best render them logically consistent and where they contradict trying to figure out the better argument. Nothing he said was ever supposed to be dogmatically adhered to. "Dogmatic" Aristotelianism is completely a product of Christianity. Specifically as it was reintroduced into the Medieval tradition of philosophy by Aquinas after it was initially purged along with everything besides Neoplatonism by the early Church. Either pick up a history book every once and a while or shut the fuck up about it. You and your ilk aren't helping anything with your half baked fucking retarded opinions about everything.

As Wittgenstein once said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must shut the fuck up."

>>15961241
That's why I qualified that statement with "in a way". It's unfortunate that you feel personally insulted over this.

>>15955888
I think Sam Harris makes often shallow, weak, and just embarrassing arguments that belong to sub 18 y.o. thinking tool set. And I also think you are 100% right of the real motivation of people mocking public intellectuals on /lit/. Same case with Jordan Peterson, for an example. It's nothing but weak straw manning, jealousy and resentment.

>>15955835
>Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American
>his mother is Jewish but not religious
It never fails.

>>15959809
Thid

>>15957470
Hi sam

>>15957749
ad hominem, better objection pls

>>15956178
Not a Harrisfag but I checked his wikipedia page and his credentials look fine to me.

>>15955835
Oh Oi LUV basedence, Oi luv it!

>>15955876
K but the vast majority of humans don't "build upon" or have the means to build upon past people. And Aristotle didn't really have anything to actually build upon. Aristotle wrote about stupid shit for the most part, and mathematicians already were already using arguments complicated and rigorous enough to utterly BTFO "Aristotelian logic" (i.e. Euclid, Archemedes, Appolonius, Ptolemy, etc.)

Also Aristotle had something closer to a monopoly on thought due to how few relatively Greek thinkers survived and the fact that his works were really lucky to get published especially pre-printing press.

What happened with that thought? Well, ass wrong shit like Aristotelian physics.

>that you either dogmatically accept him or reject him

Well the reality is that humans are dumb and fall for propoganda, so when the churches propogandized his positions physics was automatically set back for a long time and it took getting over these foibles to formulate stuff like how inertia actually works. So yeah Harris is right.

>>15955899
Newton and Einstein will forever be way more correct than Aristotle because their pontifications on physics can actually predict stuff. Meanwhile Aristotles speculations on physics can be shown to be ass wrong right fucking away. What a dumbass comparison.

>>15959156
>saying things that aren't correct doesn't imprede the progress of science
Lelno, people are dumb and fall for propoganda especially if they think the propoganda is coming from an authority on science. If Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the general consensus of professors pushes wrong, dumbass things it would *definitely* impede science, without any question. A large enough authority on science can very obviously impede science by pushing wrong, dumbass things as correct.

>Comes from testing claims
K but which claims are tested and receive funding to be tested is partially a function of what is being said by authorities, who can affect this process negatively by saying dumb, wrong things. These things aren't disconnected IRL, they're only disconnected in your head.

>>15955835
He's a Jew. Jews are negationists by nature e.g. Spinoza, Maimonides, and Marx. They deny and deny and deny until there is nothing.

>>15962182
Why you have to shit on spinoza though?

>>15955835
fuck islam

>>15955861
>>15956303

>>15962163
>Aristotelian physics
Is the basis of physics you retard. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying it's the core of your object of worship so you should shut the fuck up religious fanatic.

>Humans don't change
Yes they do. This is uniquely modern behaviour. If you look at premoderns they don't have this ideology entrenching or forcing thinking.

>>15962382
>If you look at premoderns they don't have this ideology entrenching or forcing thinking.
Where can I read about this? Charles Taylor?

>>15962163
>And Aristotle didn't really have anything to actually build upon. Aristotle wrote about stupid shit for the most part, and mathematicians already were already using arguments complicated and rigorous enough to utterly BTFO "Aristotelian logic" (i.e. Euclid, Archemedes, Appolonius, Ptolemy, etc.)
How is it even possible to be this much of a philistine? Astaghfirullah.

>leave him to me, Ari

>>15955868
Then he's not talking about his area of expertise so his words are as valuable as any random who's

>>15962721
He's still a scientist though.

>>15962726
Being a scientist still doesn't give you thorough knowledge about every single science, for example, you wouldn't rely on a gynecologist to understand the origins of the Indo-European languages or fluid behaviour in non-Euclidean geometries

>>15962382
t. Knows absolutely no physics and just made something up to save face. Aristotelian physics is the thing shown to be flat out fucking wrong by every test. We are talking concentric heavenly spheres, four elements, geocentrism, and other really easily refuted, stupid shit. The “basis” of physics is Lagrange/Hamilton mechanics, relativity, and QM, tested over and over again.

>>15962459
t. Failed math and worships Aristotle because taking Aristotle very seriously seemed like a “smart person” thing.

>>15955835
>Google
>Wiki
>Early life
>It's a yid
And I only came here to hide the thread because this face is incredibly fucking annoying.

>>15961911
OP here. I'm a Hebrew myself so stfu

>>15958386
For once, based butterfly

>>15955835
(((Science))) is pushed to create technology whose only purpose is to create Capital
Someone just post that Uncle Ted quote on ((academics))

>>15958386
>i could effortlessly beat him to death with my bare hands
is sam harris a woman?

>>15955835
Science is based but pop-scientists and scientism are cringe af

>fuck islam

>>15955835
>Here’s the basic fact. That the Muslim community just has to grapple with. There are single zip codes in New York and Massachusetts that have produced more of enduring value scientifically, artistically, ethically, politically, than the entire Muslim world has produced in 1000 years. And if you think that claim is inaccurate, or that it contains a shred of bigotry, you are lying to yourself.

wish i was a jew so i could say this

>>15955835
>Sam Harris
>Not a retard
lmao

>>15963418
no but butterfly is a muscle tranny

>>15955835
Jews and Muslims are natural enemies LMAO

>>15957516
HAHAHA

>>15959224
He bought his phd without having ever studied neuroscience beforehand. All the experiments related to his thesis have been designed by other people (which, in STEM academia, is basical,y a joke), then he wrote a paper based on their findings. Even given all of these advantages, the paper turned out to be worthless. This is ALL he did in his career as a neuroscientist.

>>15959921
I'm not sure this makes sense, Aristotle never intended for his work to be treated in this way. In Parts of Animals, for example, he explicitly states that observed phenomena are more valid than any dialectic speculation, which means that you can't use Aristotle to argue against new discovered facts about nature. Aristotle's natural philosophy isn't dogmatic at all (just like modern science). He can't be blamed for the scholastic interpretation of his texts.

>>15961556
His proof for deriving an ought from an is still baffles me. Even an high schooler could easily see how fallacious it is, and Sam supposedly thought about these topics for decades.

Looking back into ancient history and saying "Look at how dumb they were" is just peak temporal arrogance no matter what the topic is. People did what they could at the time with the circumstances they were dealt.

>>15960513
>just outright refuses to even consider monarchy
>makes comical claims about prisons that have nothing to do with having monarchy or not
Jesus Christ.

I fucking hate that faggot.

>>15958386
My God. Based.

>>15960513
Yeah, probably.

>>15958386
Wtf, Based.

>>15958386
Nice.

>>15955835
>man from 2000 years ago said ''unscientific'' (non progressive) things oh nooooooooo

Not one scientist in this thread.