/lit/ - Literature

>>2962209
Who says that?
Cause that seems like a really stupid use of the word 'predict'.

>>2962212
/sci/fags?
These are usually the same kind of people who like to make fun of philosophy, calling it obsolete.

>>2962215
but science can predict everything about the universe.

Me: Hey, OP, look. I have a tennis ball and I'm about to drop it. Based on my past experiences I think it will probably fall to the ground.

OP: Fuck you. You can't know anything about the universe, you have no fucking way of knowing that. It really pisses me off that you think you could predict that.

>>2962209
Instead of being pissed about it can't you read some science textbooks?

3/10
Go back to >>>/sci/

Science is "God". So yes, with science you can know everything. Even why you failures think you're so deep for reading books.

>science can predict anything about the nature of the universe

philosophy of sciencebro here, this statement could mean several different things

>>2962215
I've crossbrowsed lit and sci for years, and there is more in common than either board might think. Sure, you have the stereotypical 15 year old faggots who have essentially replaced god with science and call themselves atheists (the type who laugh at the mention of philosophy but don't know shit about it besides reading three chapters of a hawking book).

But then, there are a lot of fucking pretentious douchebags on /lit/ too.

There are occasionally really fucking good threads about philosophy of science on sci, but more often they're filled with shit like the OP question.

people always search someone to tell them what to do with their lives, this is trivial

>>2962761
>someone

>>2962225
>being able to predict physical actions
>implying that tells us anything about the nature of anything

>>2962742

It's been a long fuckin' time since I've seen a good philosophy of science thread on sci.

Though, it's also been a long time since I've seen a good philosophy thread at all on /lit/.

>>2962813
You big silly, there is only the interaction of physical things.

>>2962820
>being
>a physical thing

also

>materialism
>2012

>>2962864
>being
>not a physical thing

inb4 Ayn Rand

>>2962864
>thinks 'being' isn't the interaction of physical things.

>>2962872

Measure being.

>>2962813

>using vague terms like "the nature of something"

>>2962878

All it needs to mean in this scenario is anything outside of empirical observation, including the judgement of empirical observation.

>>2962876
You will need to define being first. If you are talking about sentience then:
Alive. Being = 1
Dead. Being = 0
If you mean physical being, then you can use just conventional systems, try weight, volume mass...

>>2962876
If something can't be measured, does that mean it doesn't exist? My guess is that you're an atheist windbag lefty.

>>2962907
>My guess is that you're an atheist windbag lefty.
Grow up, kid.

>>2962907
>If something can't be measured, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Isn't this basically true?

>>2962907
Your guess is wrong.

>>2962905
>being
>definable

>>2962928
Existence isn't predicated on what can be measured, unless you're some kind of archaic positivist.

>OP

There is probably nothing 'morally consistent' about the universe, and the nature of things isn't more complex (to use two words in the wrong way; 'complex' in the 'philosophical' sense) than just a bunch of pseudo-randomly assembling and disassembling substances with no abstract connotations beyond that.

It just so happens that a cluster of particles started reacting to each other and the things around them in complicated ways, and these reactions all sum up in what we can understand as abstractions from the base reality (assemblies of differently structured tiny things).

Philosophy, moods, and feelings are all abstractions of the way all the things we're made of react to each other, and there is no inherent consistency or meaning to it that we didn't just make up.

This is all baseless conjecture and arbitrary combinations of words and concepts, but so is everything I guess.

Let's assume philosophy is a way to satisfy ourselves, and there is nothing inherently 'true' that comes from it; this does not demean philosophy. Now let's assume science is just a way to busy ourselves, and actually produces results close to 'true' and objective. It's a fallacy for 'scientifically-minded' to assume that the philosophers are looking for objective truth or something above science, and it's a fallacy for the 'philosophically-minded' to assume the scientists are trying to find anything for any purpose, or that they're searching for some abstract 'true nature of the universe.'

Boy, do I use a lot of single quotes and suck at rhetoric.

>>2962894
>empirical observation
>2012
Not using bayesianism.

>>2962209

We can't do that yet, bot the universe behaves in completely deterministic ways.
If you believe otherwise, you are a christian.
Ouch.

>>2962980
You are right, sir, but be careful; the mention of the D-word could get you attacked.

>>2962994

Not by scientists, I hope. Oh yeah, this is /lit/.
Haven't you guys read Schopenhauer?

>We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.

>>2962209
This nigger doesn't know about the chaos theory.

>>2963036

"Why is there something rather than nothing"?

Look, the tree main question religion have tried to answer are these:

1. Why are we here?
2. What created this world?
3. Do I have a soul?

We know now that today's apes and we share a common ancestor. We also know that life is entirely made out of the same thing the rest of the universe is made of. We do not yet understand how life was formed, but we are getting closer.
We also now know that human beings do not have a soul and their thoughts, emotions and etc. are entirely physical relations in the brain.

But the last question, even Einstein asked himself:
"Did God have a choice in creating this world"?
remains unanswered.

>>2963081
what about the Jurrasic Park theory?

how has nobody mentioned this... smh

>>2963083
Spontaneous creation through gravitational fluctuation.

>>2963093

that sounds like a kind of fart to me

>>2963111
I imagined it as more of a bang.

go away /sci/

>>2963093
>this is what /sci/tards actually believe.

>>2963131
HURR ILL SOLVE MATH PROBLEMS MY ENTIRE LIFE BUT NEVER CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING UNIQUE OR INTELLIGENT THAT I CAN CALL MY OWN

>>2963131
Our equations show that the the world is probably a sphere.
>this is what /sci/tards actually believe.

Our equations show that the the earth probably orbits the sun.
>this is what /sci/tards actually believe.

Our equations show that visible light probably can't escape the gravitational pull of a black hole.
>this is what /sci/tards actually believe.

Our equations show that the universe was probably created from nothing.
>this is what /sci/tards actually believe.

>>2963138
TIL scientific work contributes nothing, requires no intelligence, and/or involves nothing you can call your own.

>>2963145
-74/10

>>2963146
He loves Brazilian writer José de Alencar. Lulz

>>2962215
But science is just an extension of philosophy. Why would they say that?

But I had a always presumed that science was just a collection of ideas.
It explains as much as the ideas that have been gathered by individual people.

>>2963222
>But I had a always presumed that science was just a collection of ideas.

Wait, are you saying science has not delivered genuine knowledge of the natural world?

>>2963249
> are you saying science has not delivered genuine knowledge of the natural world?

All science delivers are hypothetical theories that it continually tested. Take Newtonian physics for example, that was believed to be correct until Einstein managed to disprove Newtons theories with relativity. He demonstrated that Newtons Equations concerning gravity were wrong.

Now, Einsteins relativity stands up to much higher scrutiny, but can't be regarded as 'genuine knowledge', because somebody may have a better theory that explains reality with a higher degree of accuracy. Science is just a collection of theories that are continuously being refined.

>>2963249

Sure, it's helped us take some measurements and aimlessly build various technologies, but what does that have to do with "genuine" knowledge?

Science cannot deduce everything. Even scientists know that.

>>2963275
If the knowledge to send a spaceship with people on to the fucking moon and back isn't "genuine knowledge" then what the fuck shut up you utter bellend.

>>2963275
If we understand the physical world and can manipulate it, how is that not genuine knowledge? Unless you mean answering questions like "What is the purpose of life" or deciding what is ethically right. That kind of stuff is subjective.

>>2963274
That's a terrible example. One day we will understand physics completely and arrive at a truth. You're not going to tell a ballistics analyst that a bullet moving at 2689 FPS will wound a person is a theory and not a proven fact. Philosophy on the other hand can never be proven because it is subjective. The movement of matter is objective whereas base theorizing about the purpose of things and whether or not something is right or wrong is completely utterly subjective.

>Science cannot deduce everything. Even scientists know that.
If they had unlimited knowledge and processing power they could. However even a super computer couldn't deduce the meaning of life because it is subjective. Philosophy is important because it tells people what is right and wrong, what is worth striving for and what isn't. It certainly ain't truth though.

>>2963313
>That's a terrible example.
It's a perfect example.
>One day we will understand physics completely and arrive at a truth
Probably not, but who really knows what a GUT would be like.

>You're not going to tell a ballistics analyst that a bullet moving at 2689 FPS will wound a person is a theory and not a proven fact.
Yes it's a theory. Again, are you going by Newtons Laws of motion? The bullet will conform to repeated experiments, but when you can scrutinize the velocity more accurately you may detect an error.

Suppose we can only measure to 2689.0..0^100 FPS , and at some point in the future we develop more sophisticated measuring devices that can clock a bullet travelling at 2689.0...0^300 FPS . With this new tech we detect an inconsistency further down the decimals, and can now say our theories of motion seem to be incorrect. Now we have to form new ones that can handle the results we see.

ICP knows how you feel OP.

I am astonished to see people from /sci/ have such weak knowledge of mathematics history they forget the philosophical implications behind the number 0 before it could be accepted.
Also science is the son/daughter of philosophy and it's grandfather/grandmother is mythic thinking. Deal with it.
You are just like Newton, evading the fact he was the offspring of a peasant couple who where functional illiterate.

>ITT: 14yo discovers basic epistemology and uses it to rant on 4chan about science because his mom wouldn't buy him a second ipad until his grades improve

>>2963313
read Hume bro. You cannot establish cause and effect. There is always, ALWAYS, a more basic question to ask, a more basic way to pose the causal question.

All we can do is extrapolate from data, but if you learn some statistics you'll realize that extrapolation isn't fucking the most reliable method. We've only been gathering data for a few hundred years, if that. To use science to extrapolate back to the big bang or to the indefinite future is to lose sight of the basic issue that we are fucking tiny.

>>2963348
Bro, you should economize more your efforts.
Just show him this video and sure he will understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

>>2962980
>statistical mechanics
>Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem
>deterministic

hahahahahahahaha

>>2962215
>>2962820
This thead should have ended here.

Sure is ignorant in here. Here are some wacky assumptions:

* It's not genuine knowledge if it's not based on deduction.
* It's not genuine knowledge if it is wise to treat it as provisional.
* QM somehow proves that the universe is indeterministic.
* David Hume somehow showed that causal knowledge is not real knowledge (even though all his work was aimed at getting causal knowledge of human psychology).

Without these wacky assumptions, this discussion is a stream of baffling non sequiturs.

How does /sci/ always get here so fast? Do they have a signal for when someone on /lit/ is posting something even a little skeptical about scientism?

>>2963374
>thinks "the smallest observable phenomena might not be predictable via observation" necessarily defeats the concept of causation

Fucking STEM majors can't into rationalism when it invented their field.

>>2963887
Right, it's "scientism" to not make up bullshit reasons for saying scientific knowledge doesn't count as genuine knowledge. Good luck getting that accusation to stick.

>>2962209
Tell the the scientists

>Need statistical backing for such statements

>>2963892
You don't realize how ignorant you are and it's okay. You'll get it eventually if you keep at it. The "genuine knowledge" argument is worthless. If insights into the absolute are impossible, there is no known ultimate order of things that grounds all other forms of knowledge.

Philosophy maintains metaphysics' goal of producing a synoptic view of human life, but it does so in a merely provisional way, which is open to empirical research that genuinely follows the contours of history. Science, on the other hand, maintains its rigorous empirical methods, but must open itself up to the role it plays in the broader social framework.

>>2963903
> If insights into the absolute are impossible, there is no known ultimate order of things that grounds all other forms of knowledge.

You're making the bizarre and ungrounded assumption that all knowledge must be grounded in "insights into the absolute". Name a contemporary epistemologist who defends your view, and I'll listen. Until then, you're just making up assumptions to maintain your weird paradox that scientific knowledge (of all things) is not genuine knowledge.

And since when is the goal of metaphysics "producing a synoptic view of human life"? That would be news to Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche, Leibniz, Clarke, Kant, Hegel, ..., pick your favorite metaphysician.

Reading these threads always make me ashamed of /lit/. Hurr durr feelosofeee. Thank god, its a phase most youths grow out of.

>>2963935
What exactly are you saying is a phase? Philosophy? Dismissal of philosophy? Something else falling under "Hurr durr feelosofeee"?

>>2963913
>all knowledge
Never said that. Just playing around with the kind of statements you'd have to make to accept a form of knowledge to be "genuine" or not. My contention isn't specifically with science being genuine knowledge, it's with the category "genuine knowledge".

And, human beings engage in metaphysics in an attempt to explain the enigmatic elements of human life. In this attempt, certain characteristics of experience are emphasized and developed into coherent world views that have putatively universal validity, and describe the significance of the world and human life. So “metaphysics,” in this sense, amounts to a kind of intellectualized, theoretically elaborated attempt at turning partial, finite experiences into a comprehensive view of nature and human experience. I was critiquing both metaphysics and science.

Science has no realistic grasp of that comprehensive relationship upon which its own existence and the direction of its work depends, namely, society. All human work, be it in the sciences or anything else, depends on a broader context which supports it, and the activities that are associated with the social interests prevalent at any given time affect the direction of scientific research. There is no “view from nowhere” from which empirical research begins, but only socially situated standpoints.

>>2963940

Sounds pommeranian, enormously pommeranian. Feed the horses. Gravity will have it's pull.

all in all, clarification of terms, a universally agreed upon lexicon, will lead to semi plausible objectivity.

foundationalism is our requiem,a sweet sound to our forgotten death

>>2963940
>the kind of statements you'd have to make to accept a form of knowledge to be "genuine" or not

No, you're going out of your way to be stupid.

The 'knowledge' had by chiropractors is not real knowledge. The 'knowledge' produced by polygraphs is not real knowledge. If you're going to do any serious intellectual inquiry, as a scientist or as a journalist or even as a plumber, you're going to try to separate the real knowledge from the crap that passes for knowledge. It's an interesting question how to distinguish real knowledge from crap pseudo-knowledge. But none of it requires your magical vision of knowledge being grounded in insights into the absolute.

Your "critique" of metaphysics starts with a highly tendentious construal of what it's about, and fails to provide any argument for or against any proposition in particular. Unless vague sneering is an argument.

Your "critique" of science rests on a wild falsehood: that science is unaware of the fact that humans living in societies are the ones who do science.

So it sure looks like you're just an ignorant bullshitter who wants to say something profound but has nothing to say.

>>2963956
>all that relativism

It's like you don't even know what you're talking about. Oh wait. Like I said earlier, you're ignorant and it's okay. You'll reach a point eventually where you realize what I'm actually saying and don't respond hilarious with a fucking relativist argument.

And nowhere did I make any "vague sneering" in that critique of metaphysics. I think you just aren't a very good reader.

>>2963973
Relativism?

Apparently thinking there's a difference between crap that passes for knowledge and real knowledge, and thinking that scientific knowledge is in the latter camp (despite the shocking fact that human scientists are in fact humans) makes you a relativist? Who knew?

I mean, if you're going to throw around ignorant insults, 'positivist' would make a hell of lot more sense than 'relativist'.

>>2963956
>that science is unaware of the fact that humans living in societies are the ones who do science.

His critique didn't imply that it wasn't aware, it implied that scientific truth, then, cannot predict everything about the nature of the universe given this limited perspective.

>>2963978
You can't be serious, dude. Look at your defenses of "real knowledge". They're all based on relative contexts. You're failing to see the big picture, as usual.

>>2963989
>They're all based on relative contexts.

Wow, you mean real knowledge comes from human beings doing the best they can to understand the world? What a shocking development!

>>2963982
>cannot predict everything about the nature of the universe

And that's a boring point everyone recognizes. Just because scientific knowledge isn't super godlike knowledge, that hardly disqualifies it from being knowledge.

>>2963993
Conveniently a "boring point" suddenly, even though it's the fucking thread topic. Nice moving of the goal posts, faggot.

>>2964000
Did anyone in this thread deny that science is done by scientists, and that scientists are humans, and that humans are raised in societies? Did anyone even raise any sort of doubt about it? No, so go eat shit.