/lit/ - Literature

>>3496326

the trip isint the same, ill reserve judgment until the decidedly picante style of faggotry is made self evident.

>>3496371
>not recognizing D&E's old trip

>>3496362
But DFW has a PhD and I bet he thinks Infinite Jest is good

>>3496368
Cool bro, just vomited all over myself

>>3496334
he is pretty hot

>>3496421
>has
had

>>3496433
oops my bad

Now I'm sad that he's dead

>>3496440
Bloom, on the other hand, still has a PhD.

>>3496362
i raged.

literature is a subjective field about abstract concepts.
how can it not all be subjective?

>>3496457
What, my dear boy, do you mean by the term 'subjective'?

>>3496462
something a fifth grader can do as well as a lit grad student

>>3496476
if we were to go by the standard of your posts sure

>>3496483
i write for a general audience

>>3496462
an idea that somebody focusing hard as shit to justify doesnt necesarily make it true or universally thought (excluding factual data).

for instance, fucking literature and concept people focus on. try as they might to explain it, the idea cant fully be conceptualized and understood by everyone. this implies that the idea is unique to them, however much they insist its universal.

in other words, subjectivity.

anything else is just idol worship.

>>3496489
>>3496483
>>3496476
>>3496462
you
all
are
enormous
twats

>>3496498
d&e is too fun. i can't stop

>>3496483
D&E, are you implying one needs advanced musicology studies in order to fully enjoy a piece from a maestro?

>>3496527
It's probably even more stringent than that.

>>3496489
well there are a lot of plebs out there so i guess that's fair enough

>>3496495
>an idea that somebody focusing hard as shit to justify doesnt necesarily make it true or universally thought (excluding factual data)
That someone has to focus hard to study a subject is merely incidental, not even necessary. I've never hard to focus very hard on my studies but I'm still very clever and learned.

But this is besides the main point; what do you mean by the words 'true'? Universality has nothing to do with the validity of expertise, which is the core of what we're discussing, btw. Such a notion is absolutely contrary to it, actually.

>the idea cant fully be conceptualized and understood by everyone
The universe can't be fully conceptualized and understood by a handful of people on the planet yet, nevermind everyone on it. Does that somehow mean that if I say the world's flat my epistemic claim is just as valid within a certain epistemic context as the claim that it's round?

Another issue; you'll find that most legitimate authorities in the arts don't insist their opinions as universal. This is inconsequential.

>in other words, subjectivity
You seem to think that subjectivism is what we're left with when we deduct the relatively small chunk of epistemic knowledge that most people don't care enough about to argue over or simply haven't been given the opportunity, and that what's left is this huge mass of propositions that are open season for anyone to talk about, and anyone claiming to know more about some propositions according to some criteria are simply setting themselves up as false gods. Surely I'm incorrect in my reading, though? You can't believe something this ridiculous, right?

>>3496544
>Does that somehow mean that if I say the world's flat my epistemic claim is just as valid within a certain epistemic context as the claim that it's round?
Yep.

>>3496544
im going to devote a portion of my life to proving black people are a sub species.
he is going to devote a portion of his life proving black people are not a subspecies.

both come out in the end with loads of research and are experts in their field.
who is more correct?
who is promoting a lie?

what youre arguing for is that if a person is an expert on a topic, then they should be regarded. however, one can object morally to an odea. is it not then an idea that cannot be universally or proven as fact?
are they not then just experts at their opinion?

>>3496527
the music student would be able to tell you what her knowledge contributes, as well as the subjective enjoyment she has personally attuned to. she'll not dismiss the fifth grader's appreciation, but can teach the child how to listen to the music better.

it's not exactly complicated or a vitrolic subject. d&e just wants to establish a sense of superiority with retard arguments

>>3496580
*vitriolic

>you will never be fucked by Deep&Edgy

>>3496588
Get out of there, Dan Tunstall from Manchester, UK.

D&E what happened to your original trip?

>>3496566
> however, one can object morally to an odea
Why the emphasis on morality in this case? You can simply object to an idea outright, for any reason. You can believe that the world is flat if you want, for any reason. Good luck making any big trips across the globe though, and if I had a behavioural understanding of belief I'd call you a liar. I'm easy-going though, so all I'll say is that it's definitely going to affect the way you live your life, and most likely negatively according to some criteria. But hey, you can opt-out of the well-set belief that the world's round, and no-one can stop you, regardless of whether they use the words 'proof' or 'fact' in their arguments.

This is all a little nonsubstantial, however. It would help me if you told me what you mean by 'fact' and what you take as proof, if you're not going to tell me what you mean by 'true'. I can't really tell you what I think about the relationship between moral/aesthetic ideas and factuality until I know what sort of a conception of factuality you're working under.

>are they not then just experts at their opinion?
In a certain sense, yes. But an opinion isn't something that is self-contained, it is very much constitutive of other opinions that have existed previously. That's what a field of expertise is, after all, the collected relevant opinions of people who have studied the subject the most in history.

>>3496588
You forgot your trip onionring/BB/Caracalla/Isabelle Huppert/Korororowyourboatviev/Ty

>And that’s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don’t’ seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.

>G.R.R. Martin

You're learned, D&E. So tell me, is this true? Would a prince ever have sex with or rape a peasant? I'm trying to tell people on 4chan that this would never happen as royalty had disdain for peasants and it would constitute a social scandal to have had sex with one.

>>3496566
And as far as this is concerned-
>who is more correct?
>who is promoting a lie?
Holy shit, experts disagree over controversial subjects. This and more fundamental strikes at the foundations of human knowledge at 5.

>>3496614
did you put them in order of which you would most like to fuck yourself?

not onionring btw

>>3496580
I'd call this "sensitivity" as opposed to "knowledgeability" though.

>>3496642
it is a form of knowledge. but knowledge in itself does not imply a caste of taste.

>>3496606
>>3496629

You're mixing up what can be backed up with factual physical data and what can only be implied.

Literature, however well researched, is still only literature and in the world of fiction.
Im not arguing against stupid subjectivity in regards to whether the world is flat, or if you have cancer, however, what happens in people minds cannot be proven universally. That is the idea of subjectivity in this regard.

For instance, I am an avid follower of objectivist ideas, however, many many people object to it (lol).
How is this not a subjective topic then, if it can be interpreted many ways?

In the end, all youre doing is misinterpreting subjectivity in an effort to call people stupid.
Your parallel with the world being flat and morality shows you dont understand either. You can't morally object against factual data, because factual data is not subjective.

>>3496595
Cracked by /sci/.

>>3496595
Satan paid me a huge amount of money to leak anonymously it on /sci/.

>>3496682
his /sci/ raids were the best

i'd rather talk to a physics nerd about philosophy than an uppity lit theory guy.

D&E, what do I do when my little sister starts going to really trashy nightclubs?
Time to disown my liberal, i.e. lazy, family and make it on my own right?

>>3496700
Why is that.
Usually physics nerds have a very bad comprehension of philosophy.

At least lit theorists have some respect for the subject and once you show them to have a modicum of authority they will be listen to you.

>>3496700
No, no, no, no. Lit theory guys might be smug, but science nerds are malignant.

>>3496679
What happened to /lit/ lately?
Seems like we should read through Plato to Wittgenstein again.

Clearly, there can be objectivity within ideas, while we can still believe that this 'objectivity' doesn't allow for ultimate truths, it's objective as it follows from logical arguments.

Also physicists have no understanding of phenomenology or german idealism.

>>3496700
This so fucking much.
Many recent discoveries have deep philosophical implications yet the scientists I've hard in lectures are always circumspect and humble about their work. I appreciate it.

>>3496718
heard*

>>3496709
i'd say they have the right idea lol

>>3496732
Durpity durp.

>>3496718
>humble about their work

nah, it's a complete front. All academics are envious, clawing vultures without exception.

>>3496718
Where?

>>3496679
>You're mixing up what can be backed up with factual physical data and what can only be implied.
Oh crap, thanks for pointing that out, where did I do that?

>Literature, however well researched, is still only literature
So true!

>what happens in people minds cannot be proven universally
Of course not. I can't "prove", by means of neuroscience, (you forgot to tell me what you mean by this, btw) to a hardcore cartesian that the pineal gland isn't the center or locus of all mental activity. That, after all, is why he's a hardcore cartesian. That doesn't mean I can't "prove" it to any other number of people who aren't as dogmatic. I also can't prove that the world isn't round to spear-chuckers, but that doesn't mean that the claim that the world is round is invalid and scientifically unqualifiable for many developed communities.

>How is this not a subjective topic then, if it can be interpreted many ways?
You still haven't told me what you mean by 'subjective', my good man, unless I'm to believe that ridiculous position I had to specify in your stead, so I can't tell you how it is or isn't a subjective topic.

>In the end, all youre doing is misinterpreting subjectivity in an effort to call people stupid.
Oh crap, I wasn't aware I was doing that at all! Goddamn, now where did I manage to do that?

>Your parallel with the world being flat and morality shows you dont understand either.
How so?

>You can't morally object against factual data
Of course you can. There are these things known as organized religions, and they do a whole lot of that sort of thing on occasion.

> factual data is not subjective
Of course it is, insofar as you understand the term subjective properly as essentially relative. That doesn't call into jeopardy the usefulness of factual data for various ends, however.

>>3496756
>That doesn't mean I can't "prove" it
What if you can't prove it? Why can't the arguments of someone like the ardent Cartesian move you from your position?

By the sounds of things this guy's going to shit up this board, should I just add him to a filter?

>>3496807
No. He is the perfect example of morality in the pejorative sense.

>>3496679
>>3496756

niggaz gettin blasted in this thread

>i'd rather talk to a physics "nerd" about philosophy than an uppity lit theory guy.
Onionring wants the big bang theory audience.

>>3496728
Well I don't know if they have the right idea because they don't know anything about it. The only thing they say is "well I don't know much about it but I'm pretty sure my work does not need it", yet they get offended if I say that I don't know much about physics but I'm pretty sure that my work as a philosopher does not need it.

With the difference that my statement would be true but their statement would be false, as most physicists with at least a passing understanding of Kant (for example Lee Smolin) would tell you.

>>3496718
Recent discoveries like?

>>3496756
Nice use of sarcasm. You sound very confident in your beliefs.

Your interpretation of subjectivity is that one person can believe something, while the facts stare them in the face and prove them wrong. This is just "ignorance". Subjectivity is to believe in an idea that is abstract, like for instance, the validity of certain philosophies.

Subjectivity, by definition, is this. You're mixing it up with ignorance. You're definitions are wrong.

An example would be telling somebody that they are fat. They can be obese, overweight, etc, but each and all of these are subjective in that "fat" is an abstract concept.
Cancer however is not subjective in that if somebody has a benign growth int hem, they have a growth in them, and that growth is cancerous biologically.

Its really quite simple, but you dont seem to have a grasp on the idea.

>>3496840
>You sound very confident in your beliefs.

And this is exactly why D&E 'wins' every argument here.
Because people get more and more frustrated as the argument goes on but D&E remains cold & patient.

>>3496828
As a physic nerd who loathes this show I take offense to that post.

>>3496839
i don't think they uniquely need german idealism to get the basic themes used in interpretation of the mathematics.

>>3496840

>Subjectivity is to believe in an idea that is abstract, like for instance, the validity of certain philosophies.

does sentence make sense to anyone else? reads like complete gibberish to me.

>>3496839
>Well I don't know if they have the right idea because they don't know anything about it.

That's quite an ironic thing to say when physics has answered many a question that was once deemed philosophical.

>>3496881
it's extremely desperate and bizarre

>>3496846
>cold & patient
Read:
>snotty & tedious

>>3496865
Well you know Mach would not have gotten to relativity if it wasn't for Kant.

But knowing a little bit of the history of philosophy would at least make them distinguish what Einstein called "the difference between the building and structure you use to build it"

>>3496902
>Well you know Mach would not have gotten to relativity if it wasn't for Kant.
[citation needed]

>>3496865

kant -> frege -> godel, etc.

pretty straightforward, friend

>>3496840
>You sound very confident in your beliefs.
I'm more comfortable in them than anything else, although I don't mind them being shaken up every so often.

>Your interpretation of subjectivity is that one person can believe something, while the facts stare them in the face and prove them wrong
My interpretation of subjectivISM (this is the proper term to use, btw), insofar as we concern ourselves with the aspects that are relevant to our exchange, is that epistemic claims are essentially relative. Now, that does not mean empirically that anyone can believe anything they like, it simply means that as a consequence in theory and occasionally in practice people believe epistemic claims under one framework that conflict with another. And that's true, you need only reflect on the reality that not everyone agrees with each other on everything. None of this is very controversial, and rather than being ignorance, it is common sense.

>Subjectivity is to believe in an idea that is abstract, like for instance, the validity of certain philosophies.
Subjectivity is to be a subject.

>Subjectivity, by definition, is this.
By whose definition?
>You're definitions are wrong.
Lol, get a load of this guy. "Wrong" definitions lol. Next he's going to tell me the axioms I'm using are wrong. Whoo-wee, I have to admit I missed hammering down these idiots. Definitions themselves cannot be "wrong", they can only be "wrong" according to some relative end (see the preceding paragraph I just wrote). In this case, the relative end being your moronic notion that equates being a subject to merely one function of being a subject.

>>3496890
>>3496881

subjectivity : judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts

philosophy falls under this definition. every philosophy is laughed at by at least one person.

>>3496888
Which were deemed philosophical when? In antiquity when there was no distinction between natural sciences and philosophy?

After Descartes none of the philosophical questions can be answered by physics because it poses the question of the subject which, due to the division of disciplines, is not a topic of physics.

Descartes with his dualism saved both modern philosophy and modern physics. Modern physics because it would not be anymore under the power of the church, and modern philosophy because they would be independent of empirical sciences.

>>3496840

>Cancer however is not subjective in that if somebody has a benign growth int hem, they have a growth in them, and that growth is cancerous biologically.
Cancer is essentially relative (i.e. subjective), in the sense that it is a medical condition that is intelligible within a certain epistemic framework, which itself is only one framework among many, although that is not to undermine its usefulness in achieving certain relative ends (e.g. diagnosis, treatment) according some some relative criteria.

>>3496910
talking about a modern physics guy, retracing the history of the discipline is helpful for perspective, but it's not like it has to be done

>>3496917
>modern philosophy because they would be independent of empirical sciences
When mankind accesses immortality and fully unlocks the secrets of the brain what will your philosophy be about?

>>3496904
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

Influences David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Richard Avenarius
August Comte

>>3496926
>influences
That's a pretty fucking vague word which doesn't mean anything.

>>3496915
yeah but you aren't using the term correctly.

>>3496915

so if i laugh at quantum mechanics, does it become subjective?

>>3496921
About why some people still would chose to die when offered immortality.

>>3496921
>When mankind accesses immortality
This will always be "immortality", there's no reason to think people still won't die eventually.
>and fully unlocks the secrets of the brain
Whatever you mean by that.
>what will your philosophy be about?
The same stuff it's about now and more. Neither of the above really affects philosophy as is.

>>3496931
He credited his philosophical awakening to reading, at age fifteen, his father's copy of Kant's Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics:

The book made at the time a powerful and ineffaceable impression upon me, the like of which I never afterwards experienced in any of my philosophical reading. Some two or three years later the superfluity of the role played by “the thing in itself” abruptly dawned upon me. On a bright summer day in the open air, the world with my ego suddenly appeared to me as one coherent mass of sensations, only more strongly coherent in the ego. Although the actual working out of this thought did not occur until a later period, yet this moment was decisive for my whole view.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ernst-mach/

can we hurry this up I want to watch my two episodes of generation kill tonight before it goes into the morning hours. i'm trying to get my sleeping pattern back on track have a bit of cop on bud

>>3496950
That's what he says.

>>3496828
is it a good show.

>>3496965
Define "good".

>>3496969
ive left the task to the respondent

>>3496952
hi d&e

>>3496965
preferred it when it was an hour long

>>3496356
Doesn't work.

I am.

>>3496919
It's not mandatory I agree, but it has been and can be useful. Especially if this science guy wants to go on and start talking outside his discipline.

If some of the physicists would have studied a little more philosophy they would not have said such silly things in their interviews.

Silly things that have an effect because they quickly get picked up but not so cultured teenagers like:

>>3496888

>Deep&Edgy is back

>>3497017
/lit/ might be worth coming to again

>>3496982
who are you mate and how did you get through security

>>3496913
So then you aregue that definitions are subjective in nature?

>>3496918
you argue then that everything is subjective in the grand sense of things?

>>3496934
im speaking conceptually. definitions are subjective afterall.

>>3496938
no. the definition of subjectivity restricts it to human thought, which has judged quantum mechanics as factual. so it cant be subjective.

>>3497017
>>3497022
this will make others mad, but count me in this fanclub

i'm not trying to flatter him, but his posts were frequently hilarious while also being sharp and penetrating critiques (of some person's argument, about aesthetics, etc)

d&e do you still lurk /fa/

>>3496655
and this is why deep and edgy is out of his element.

this thread is a glorious blast from the past its not even my birthday. lit trips are the best trips.

>>3497037
Euthydemus and Dionysodorus pls go

The Systems of Philosophy Deconstructed by Unlearning the Language of your Fellows take on Ethics/Aesthetics/Metaphysics/Inspiration and finding New ways to talk to them.

Deep&Edgy;
Piercing Abyss;
Shallow&Softly;
Obtuse insistence:

Literature will be the death of me;
You will be the life of Literature.

>>3497144
Ah, you're a newfriend, so you don't truly know the beauty of a D&E post yet.

>>3497131
You missed the entire point. Good job.

Relative newfag here, will someone please explain this deep&edgy ? I've gathered its some tripfag but beyond that i'm lost.

>>3497037
>im speaking conceptually. definitions are subjective afterall.
>i'm backpedalling and was just obscuring the fact that i didn't have any point at all. just kidding guys jkjkjkj!

>>3497257
drop-in detected. re-read the entire debate. he argued subjectivity is a no-no. then proceeded to talk about definitions subjectively.

>>3497166
I'm to trips and anons, old as I am young to acknowledge 'em:
Always curious to know
What I will unlearn:
So the the fetus of unlearning the Edgies has Always been 'ere in the STEM Cell research in Saving our ever dying friend from his cancers.

Sign: 'ere
and 'ere and ;ere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-up8ebz06yA

>>3496326
I can't stand the way he holds his cigarette.

It looks like he is jerking a tiny dick off with just the tip in his mouth.

Cannot unsee.

>>3496354
>implying Dark Souls and Stalker are bad

Hell, TF2, LoL and even Skyrim are alright.

Fuck off.

>>3496345
I don't see what is trollish about this one.

>>3496495
>idol worship
>a bad thing

christian, jew, or muslim detected

>>3497343

>defending Skyrim

Just fucking stop you have no fucking clue at all.

I didn't know /lit/ could be like this.

>>3497343
>TF2, LoL and even Skyrim are alright

>>3497483
>the casuals!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>3497488
>Eragon is a good book because lots of people like it!!!!!!!!!!!

>>3496356
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

I am Deep, I am Edgy, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

>Deep&Edgy is back
>Quentin remains in exile

Truly these are dark days for /lit/.

>>3497498

What was the last anyone heard from Quentin? He's built quite the reputation for himself.

>>3496918

lelele prototypical /lit/ basement lord shallow&rotund makes his return, how are the lads, have they let you pitch yet, etc.

>certain epistemic frameworks
>certain relative ends
>cancer

hrhrhrhr well then better adjust ourselves along that dubious epistemic framework allowing for such trivially 'relative' ends such as, ummm....not fucking dying of cancer?
i swear your staggeringly un-diversified parrotings somehow seem even dumber this time around, didnt think that was possible

>>3497723

>undiversified parrotings

Define subjectivity routine is his calling card and I for one have missed it.

>>3497726

>calling card

repetition as the only refuge for this depressing one trick pony, i'd rather roast in suncawk fred

>>3497505
he's in jail

>>3497723
unless you're being chummy, i thought cancer was a perfect example to look into the whole subjective/objective thing

so, if someone in the dark ages got cancer, today we might be able to say that person objectively had cancer, but subjectively, back then, they would have thought the guy's sickness was a punishment from god

do people not understand this distinction? there's this ultimately incomprehensible totality out there (this is what is objective), and we can only access partially--subjectively. this is because we are human, our understanding is mediated by language or imperfect tools of measurement and observation, etc

look, even niels bohr knew this:
>There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.

I fucking hate all of you fuckers. This place was marginally better when there was little to no tripfucker action going on.

>>3497735

>punishment from god

literally shut the fuck up, an inherently deficient epistemic framework (herp derp religion as a diagnostic standard) will inescapably get trumped by more efficient ones (societal/scientific progress granted)

obviously the path to total objectivity is long and arduous, and we have not yet reached it (a current epistemic framework might be judged as inefficient later on, though a paradigm shift at this point in science is unlikely, string theory and GTR disconfirmation granted) but this does not justify the crude pessimist meta induction your objection is based on. a structural realism (in the sciences at least) has been preserved since the days of plato and galileo.
deepthroat trying to extend viable principles in criticism to the realm of science is hilariously misinterpreting the scope of his useless degree in aesthetics

>>3497762
I bet you don't believe in an afterlife.

Shalom! Tard!

>>3497746
no it wasn't

i always thought d&e just makes the science references to troll the sci stragglers. nobody can take that 'science is objective so is lit theory' line seriously, right?

ITT: embers of the tripfag bonfire.

>>3497723
Someone post that "night with the lads" pic of D&E

>!Rrxa7zePwI

>>3497789

>troll

this implies a trollee; i'm just here for the free hate

>>3497805
satan, how does it feel to be responsible for the fall of D&E?

>not banning D&E in an effective manner
Useless.

>>3497804
what of it, hipster

>>3497806
You give him too much credit.
D&E still went on strong afterwards under different names before returning to being D&E.

Any lack of positing activity is based on D&E's choices has nothing with Satan.

Can someone post that famous quote from D&E about anons?

>>3497813
I wouldn't call them famous, and I don't know what you mean, so here, have this.

>>3497789

Pretty sure he means it.

>>3497817

>>3497817
etc

>>3497816
Noice. And Anon's rebuttal?

Who knows

>>3497823

>>3497811

You know it just wasn't the same after that. #ddets was his Sampson hair.

>>3497824
D&E loves to troll any board.
http://fuuka.warosu.org/tg/thread/S16980439#p16980723

>>3497825
Thanks.

>>3497735
>so, if someone in the dark ages got cancer, today we might be able to say that person objectively had cancer, but subjectively, back then, they would have thought the guy's sickness was a punishment from god
The main difference between then and now is that medicine can predict that person will likely get a set of symptoms (lumps, pains, difficulty moving, breathing, urinating etc, strange bleeding, vomiting, death (technically a sign)) by looking at certain symptoms and signs. It still boils down, though, to an imbalance: we all have cancer cells in our bodies, but the problem is when we have too many cancer cells. This is not that far removed to the idea of having to balance our humours. In fact, today, there;s still a lingering subjectivity. Let's say you're in a car crash and you die at impact, and for whatever reason a post mortem examination occurs and they find a cancerous tumour. If you had been unaware in any sense of its existence (i.e. no symptoms whatsoever), can it really be said that you had cancer?

>>3497820
>>3497822

What's surprising about him trying to mask idiocy and avoid criticism with "lol i trol u"?. This is standard stuff junior.

>>3497826
Well, maybe.

>>3497829
Oh yeah, you are.

>>3497827
http://archive.foolz.us/tg/thread/17025364/#q17026424

>>3497832
>LE wordplay
It looks like a ribbit thing now.

>>3497762
>a paradigm shift at this point in science is unlikely
is this meant to be both, ontologically and inquiring-into-the-ultimate-structure-of-the-observable-cosmos kinda way? or just the latter?

>>3497762
>though a paradigm shift at this point in science
m8 i don't know why you keep acting as if paradigm shifts can't happen within individual scientific disciplines

>>3497832

I'm not D&E buddy and I'm not jelly either. This is his leaked trip, compliments of Stan.

Try it out
#ddets278A

testing

>>3496364
An Anon's Reply

>>3497847
For the record, this trip leakage was a retaliatory measure from /sci/ for abusive trolling from stan.
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S2181013#p2183097

Anything posted with this tripcode after Nov 7th is considered to be dubious.

>>3497852
D&E reply's to anon's reply to D&E's original statement.

>>3497839
>>3497844

That's beside the point though. He's saying that even if the unlikely occurred, it would just be superior epistemic standards overtaking inferior ones.

>>3497762
you're missing the point

epistemic framework = subjectivity

EVERYTHING that is interpretation is subjective. every time you use a word to describe something, you have made a cut, a distortion. the standard model, general relativity, the periodic table of elements, they're all human constructions. total objectivity is a priori impossible because we are biologically limited

>>3497828
you also aren't quite grasping it. the concept of "cancer cell" is a label we create to crudely apply to some phenomena we observe in the human body. the limits of medicine (cancer, AIDS, stem cells) have everything to do with our poor understanding of what is happening in the body.

example: we used phlogiston as a label to apply to the phenomenon of fire until other people created a better understanding on a chemical basis known as combustion

even here, the combustion analogy is apt: the chemical reaction doesn't capture it either. you might also want to describe a burning log in terms of thermodynamic equations. both of these are true in a sense, but they are two different subjective ways of interpreting/describing/explaining something that happens in objective reality

Does anyone have a bigger pic for this?

>>3497472
hi slavoj

>thinks there are credible arguments against scientific realism
let's not do this

>>3497873
you misinterpret me, as always happens with this argument

my claim doesn't come at scientific realism's expense

i am merely saying one is mistaken to think such an approach is complete, or that it is the only approach

it's also funny how people who advocate "science is the one and only true way, everything else is a waste of time" haven't really thought out their position. you must also accept some kind of mind-body dualism to elevate scientific knowledge into some objective/timeless/universal/otherwise-special-relative-to-other-kinds-of-knowledge status.

>>3497891
not at all necessary. do you need a metaphysics to understand "run after the ball"

>>3497891
what do you mean by "knowledge"?

>>3497891
Feyerabend pls go.

>>3497867

>missing the point

the ironing

its clear that an epistemic framework= mere subjectivity for any given period of time (in the dark ages, in the time of phlogiston, flat earth etc). however with substantial progress that subjective epistemic framework becomes objectivity (at least in the structural sense)
and your appeal to "biological inferiority" is just the product of unsophisticated version of still-cant-fucking-believe-its-being-used pessimist meta induction ie. even if we still didnt know the fundamental nature of the universe it is not the case that we will never know the fundamental nature of the universe

this is getting boring.

>>3497894
knowledge that objects fall at a certain speed owing to certain properties of other objects they relate to: for example the rate at which a crumbled ball of paper falls toward the earth when released from a given height

>>3497893
yes, the english language, among others. my experience of time and, depending how i choose to interpret your sentence, i could construct at least two images: myself running after a ball or myself watching someone else run after a ball

again, let's say you did away with the way we experience time. the phrase "run" becomes senseless, since english verbs fragment time in particular ways. let me put it another way, in a passing remark i made to a friend of mine who said "i wish i was dead". i said, "hah, but we ARE dead, time is just an illusion"

>>3497472
/lit/ used to be like this all the time. I remember hating it, but it's so much more fun given what we have now.

>>3497909
>i wish i was dead
You should've responded that your friend doesn't understand the subjunctive mood and it was supposed to be "were".