/lit/ - Literature

Yes, but only on the basis of Dasein's involvement with it's world

no

it's blind

>>3531071
"No, daddy, I won't have chemotherapy. You can't prove to me that cancer really exists. Medicine is a dogmatic religion."

>>3531109
>oh noooo mommy daddy im too pussy to acquiesce with death
to each his own, i guess

though enjoy the lethal effects of enervated immune system, reduced life expectancy and dying shortly afterwards, if not in the middle of the treatment

Yes.

>>3531109
there's a cure for cancer??

>>3531109
>implying medicine is science

Medicine is a service. Doctors are not scientists, doctors are people who are paid for having memorized a huge amount of scientific results without deepr understanding. Doctors are not furthering our knowledge. They only apply what others have researched.

>>3533731
>"implying medicine is science"

>Doctors are not furthering our knowledge. They only apply what others have researched.

That's
what's called
applied science
you inbred moron.

As objective as it gets. You can't say math isn't objective. Science is just a way of understanding nature, so she gives us the answers. To say that that isn't objective is rather... weird.

>>3533736
It's about as much "applied science" as a plumber or a janitor is doing "applied science".

>>3533740
>being this retarded

>>3533742
>had his position completely destroyed
>lacks further (pseudo-)arguments
>resorts to infantile insults instead of being thankful for the correction

How about you go back to >>>/b/, underageb&?

>>3533740

and a plumber especially IS doing applied science. We always joke in my field (Agricultural science) that all our field researchers wear overalls. It's hard to get away from applied science these days.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY

>>3533744
You're wrong Plumbing is not in the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applied_sciences

>>3533745
>THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY

Go back to school, kid.

>>3533739
Math isn't objective. The axioms are a matter of belief.

>>3533747
Hmmm. I'll remember to add it next time I'm on Wikipedia. Thanks for spotting that.

>>3533750
Metanarrative upon metanarrative.

>>3533752
So beliefs can't be objective?

>>3533758
>beliefs
>objective

>>3533731
>Doctors are not furthering our knowledge.
Yeah, they are. It's not (only) scientists publishing in the medical journals. To even become a doctor, you often have to be involved in research on some level, and you're expected to know about scientific research since you may well be publishing your experiences of certain treatments at some point.

That said, it isn't right to call something like medicine science, because it's broader than just science.

>>3533759
I thought objectivity involved the size of the subject pool. That an individual in order to be objective had to constrain the pool to a sample small enough to retain consensus, but at least comprising one, then compensate for bias and define level of certainty. Is that not right?

It's objective within our perception, but there's no guarantee that what we deem objective is actually objective.

Science with its scientific method is the only objective and effective way of studying, analysing and understanding the universe and humans. Any other human activity that futilely aspires to conquer science in this context is fundamentally erroneous and prone to illusions.

>>3533763
It's a question of whether meaning/value/truth is decided by the subject (the thing doing) or the object (the thing being done to). You're describing something vaguely like Hegelian objectivity. Where did you find/learn of that idea of objectivity if you don't mind my asking?

Can objectivity exist without consciousness or is it a universal truth, regardless of sentient observers?

>>3533771
>implying consciousness exists

Where's your evidence?

>>3533774
I think, therefore I am

>>3533771
Science is based on objective observations, i.e. physical measurements, and has nothing to do with metaphysical soul magic.

>>3533774
> D.gif

>>3533775
Wrong. You are because you are objectively observable. Your premise is flawed because it cannot be proven.

In fact, this history of science is not a history of the true, of its slow epiphany; it would not be able to claim that it recounts the progressive discovery of a truth "inscribed forever in things or in the intellect," except to imagine that contemporary knowledge finally possesses it so completely and definitively that it can start from it to measure the past. And yet the history of science is not a pure and simple history of ideas and the conditions in which they appeared before being obliterated. In the history of science the truth cannot be given as acquired, but one can no longer economize on a relation to the truth and the true-false opposition. It is this reference to the "true-false" which gives this history its specificity and importance. In what form? By conceiving that one is dealing with the history of "truthful discourses," that is, discourses which rectify, correct themselves and which effect on themselves a whole work of elaboration finalized by the task of "speaking true. " The historical tie which the different moments of science can have with one another necessarily has this form of discontinuity constituted by the alterings, reshapings, elucidations of new foundations, changes in scale, the transition to a new kind of object - "the perpetual revision of contents through thorough examination and amendment," as Cavailles said. Error is not eliminated by the muffled force of a truth which gradually emerges from the shadow but by the formation of a new way of "speaking true." One of the conditions of possibility because of which a history of science was formed at the beginning of the eighteenth century was, as Canguilhem notes, the awareness that there had been recent scientific "revolutions": that of algebraic geometry and the infinitesimal calculus, of Copernican and Newtonian cosmology.

>>3533781
>objectively observable
Not even making sense there brah.

>>3533781
I do not understand

>>3533787
>>3533788
Me thinks a circular argument has ensued.

>>3533791
Explain yourself. I'm genuinely interested.

Of course there a lot of people who don't understand how science works or don't want to understand it and try to undermine its objectivity and effectiveness reffering to literary texts. These efforts are comletely futile. Science and scientists don't care about such people and their opinions because they have better things to do. Discovering the truth and workings of the universe is much more fascinating than literary musings and babbles characteristic of some fools who are always fighting a lost battle.

>>3533787
Observation is a physical process of measurement. Do you deny the laws of physics?

>>3533788
>I do not understand
Maybe because you lack scientific education.

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." -- Richard Feynman

>>3533798
>thinks he's clever because he doesn't fully comprehend the scope of "I think, there I am."

>>3533798
>Observation is a physical process of measurement. Do you deny the laws of physics?
An objective observer has nothing to do with "the laws of physics". Unless you want a magical, invisible, all-knowing, observing friend in that framework. Otherwise, it's a subject observing the object, in which case observation is subjective, not objective.

>>3533770
It's from a computer programming class. When an iterative subroutine is checking and possibly altering itself, and other subroutines are doing the same thing either simultaneously or at different times it has to use some statistical algorithm to determine whether the routine making the decision (and thus the alteration) is the same one that initiated it or has been changed by itself or other routines. It can't just compare itself to a past state. It needs to know whether it's the subject or the object or both. And it does this by using a degrees-of -freedom approach based on the sample size and the error (defined by whatever standards of coherence it's using) in the data. It's away of eliminating endless loops and things, so the program can learn from its inputs.

It's supposedly from symbolic logic. I assumed it came from some philosophy or other. Not really my field.

>>3533803
"The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending."
Paul Feyerabend

>>3533805
What scope? Cartesian dualism has been disproved several times.

>>3533806
Observation is objective. It's an entirely physical process. There is no magical subjectivity interfering with the physical processing of physical input.

>>3533806
>Otherwise, it's a subject observing the object, in which case observation is subjective, not objective.

There is scientific method that successfully eliminates all subjectivity from observation. Observer can be subjective but scientific method is impermeable to subjectivity. That's the power of science and scientific method. In consequence the result of observation is always the most objective.

>>3533809
Dafuq? What class did you take? Do you have any links?

>>3533820
It holds true with or without dualism.

>>3533821
Objective = enough number of subjective observations to call the hypothesis true.

Objective is still subjective

>>3533830

You can't prove you think.

>>3533809
I then refer you to:
>>3533786
I do also get the feeling that you may be getting too bogged down in details there. Subjectivity is probably best summed up by Protagoras' statement "man is the measure of all things", e.g. it isn't that "fire" is "hot" in itself, it's just our interpretation (meaning is imposed from outside, the subject (man) is where the object (fire)'s value (hot) comes from). On the other side, objectivity, that the value is from the object, not the person, is more difficult to argue. The guy to look at for this is Kant, with his thing in itself: while the object may have inherent values, we cannot directly know them, we can only gain imperfect knowledge of them through phenomena (there is something in "fire" which makes us perceive it as "hot"). Then there's guys like Hegel who argue for things like consensus being manifestation of objective truth, if we can all agree that fire is hot, then what does it matter if it's some other deeper thing causing that.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter how you look at it, subjective is meaning imposed by the subject from outside, objective is inherent meaning in the object itself. As far as the learning program there's concerned, rather than finding the de facto truth in relation to inputs, it sounds like it's trying to find the more pragmatic approach of "speaking true" as it were.

What if subjectivity and objectivity are the same thing?

mind = blown

>>3533821
>There is scientific method that successfully eliminates all subjectivity from observation.
No there isn't.
>Observation is objective.
No it isn't. The easiest counter-example is that, in science, some observers are privileged over others.

>>3533848
If it's not me doing this thinking, it's somebody or something doing it for me.

Not even solipsists can refute this.

>>3533837
>Objective = enough number of subjective observations to call the hypothesis true.
>Objective is still subjective

You are completely wrong. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. Scientific method is the best tool nad guarantee to give objective results. Therefore science is objective.

>>3533867
>some observers are privileged over others.

What kind of nonsense is that?

>>3533869

You can't prove anyone is doing any "thinking". Thinking is not something that can be objectively proven to exist.

>>3533872
I have witnessed a machine that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Do you believe me?

>>3533869
Faulty premise is faulty. You circularly assume that your nonsense is true and try to come up with an explanation instead of proving existence in the first place.

>>3533878
>proving existence in the first place
Now that's super circular.

>>3533874
>Thinking is not something that can be objectively proven to exist.

Another nonsense.

>>3533881
Bullshit. There's nothing circular about asking for evidence.

>You: I have an invisible ghost in my closet.
>Me: Prove it.

You made a claim of existence. Do you even burden of proof?

>>3533878
If you can't prove existence, how can you prove anything?

>>3533888
I think, therefore I am.

>>3533876
>Do you believe me?

First, you must use scientific method and prove that it's true.

>>3533888
And so proof is a way to establish the nature of existence. In the same way as there's no logical basis for logic, one cannot show existence exists. If you believe in proof, you just have to assume existence.

>>3533897
Well, that's going to be difficult since the "scientific method" doesn't prove things.

>>3533886
Except that he's right.

>>3533889
You can prove existence by providing evidence. Do you even science?

>>3533892
That outdated bullshit argument has already been debunked. You completely failed at basic propositional logic.

>If A, then B.
>We observe B.
>Therefore A.
Fail. Epic Fail. Abductive reasoning is not logically tenable.

>>3533898
You made a claim. It's your burden of proof. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>3533849
>>3533825

Not going for truth, going for valiidty.

Graduate school class in program design. They had us write a program, then subroutines that would observe a pool of data and report it, then report and interpret, then observe report interpret and modify, then modify themselves (by altering their selection criteria) to adapt to what they "learned" from the "environment". The idea was to see which ones could cumulatively progress and adapt, and which would fail, and see if we could determine a rule for it. We used the Matchbox Game model, the Bureaucracy model, the memory model and the bacterial model (which doesn't let information pass between routines but lets routines duplicate themselves with random varitions). It turned out the bacterial model was the only robust one. The objectivity standard was supposed to prevent things from going too fast in one direction, or corrupting other routines, and keep the bias implicit in the simple routine's decisions from crashing the program. This is pretty basic AI stuff. I'm sure a lot of schools use the same work.

>>3533906
You're just spouting dogma.

>>3533911
Science isn't dogma. Why do you resort to low level christfag fallacies?

>>3533902
>since the "scientific method" doesn't prove things.

Really? Are you going to be facetious?

>>3533910
>Not going for truth, going for valiidty.
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it, though it assumes a known notion of what is valid. I think though most of us have some idea of what science is.

>>3533903
>Do you even science?
No. I don't even existence, apparently.

>>3533916
Well, I haven't been yet.

>>3533889
>If you can't prove existence, how can you prove anything?

You are just playing with words. Playing with words is funny but brings useless in terms of objectivity

>>3533913
>Science isn't dogma.
Burden of proof is on you.

>>3533932
The burden of proof is on you to prove that the burden of proof is on me.

Annoying, isn't it?

>>3533874
>You can't prove anyone is doing any "thinking". Thinking is not something that can be objectively proven to exist.

Heard about MRI, ECG and other methods of studying the brain?

>>3533933
Maybe if I were an idiot and actually thought like that.

>>3533932
Unlike your fairy tale religion science is open to changing its theories upon new observations.

>>3533934
Physical measurements of brain activity do not justify metaphysical conclusions. You don't see magical souls in a brain scan.

>>3533938
>Unlike your fairy tale religion science is open to changing its theories upon new observations.
>implying science exists any more than a fairy's tail

>>3533903
Actually it's:
>If A, then B.
>We observe A.
>Therefore B, thus existence.

>>3533938
>consciousness=soul
Finally got banned from /sci/ eh?

>>3533938
>Physical measurements of brain activity do not justify metaphysical conclusions. You don't see magical souls in a brain scan.

Yes, you are definitely facetious.

>>3533897
>First, you must use scientific method and prove that it's true.
And ta da, you have privileged one kind of observation over another.

>>3533941
How hard did you fail at IQ tests that you don't even understand a simple implication? In "I think therefore I am" observing the conclusion doesn't justify the premise. I asked you for evidence of the premise. You don't have any.

>>3533942
Haha, no.

>>3533945
I'm serious. Do you really not understand science? Science works with objectively verifiable data, not with magical non-interacting spirits.

>>3533952
>I asked you for evidence of the premise. You don't have any.
You'd have to be able to think, so unfortunately in your case it can't be shown.

>>3533952
You observe your own ability to observe. You have to be to observe. You have to exist to be.

Kant already did this.

We are invariably subject to perception so we cannot know Reality. There might be an independent reality out there, somewhere, but by it's very nature it's inaccessible to us.

>>3533957
Neither can it be shown in your case.

>>3533979
>You have to be to observe.
That's the exact opposite direction of Descartes' "I think therefore I am". Do you seriously fail that hard at logic?

>You have to exist to be.
Meaningless tautology.

>>3533989
>That's the exact opposite direction of Descartes' "I think therefore I am".
Kill yourself

>>3533989
>Meaningless tautology.

That's the point, idiot. Welcome to existence :)

>>3533919
You have to decide what your standards of validity are. basically you use the "rule and range" idea, where you decide what meets the standard and what criteria you use to judge whether something has met it, within a given range of deviation.

>>3534006
>basically you use the "rule and range" idea, where you decide what meets the standard and what criteria you use to judge whether something has met it, within a given range of deviation.

>The scientist, from his objective point of view, wants to see the anomaly as a mere statistical divergence, ignoring the fact that the biologist's scientific interest was stimulated by the normative divergence. In short, not all anomalies are pathological but only the existence of pathological anomalies has given rise to a special science of anomalies which, because it is science, normally tends to rid the definition of anomaly of every implication of a normative idea. Statistical divergences such as simple varieties are not what one thinks of when one speaks of anomalies; instead one thinks of harmful deformities or those even incompatible with life, as one refers to the living form or behavior of the living being not as a statistical fact but as a normative type of life.
Canguilhem, On the Normal and the Pathological

There is no particular reason to put "rule and range" on a pedestal, it is simply another part of the mythology of science.

stop the derping pls

>>3534049
Rule and range isn't on a pedestal. It's a method: a protocol it has as much myhtology about it as peeling a potato. If that. And its use isn't confined to science either. any logical sytem can use a rule to identify something and describe a range of characteristics that will be accepted under that rule. It's basic systematics.

>>3534067
>It's basic systematics.
It's a very simple way of systematising something, but not exactly "basic systematics". Rule and range is just one way of stating a norm, but it is not the only way of stating a norm if you even want to state norms, and ultimately is akin to Hippocrates' ideas about imbalanced humours.

>>3534173
Weeeell, the primary problem in systematics remember is reducing the continuum. That means you have to set limits so that you know when you're in theI S part of the continuum and not in the NOT part of the continuum, as defined by your rules for each particular case. . It's a way of creating an atrificial discontinuity or of limiting an actual one.

If you have a rule, but no range of discretion, you end up with only holotypes, and that usually means you end up with the defining case being the only member. If you establish paratypes and set a range, then you can "split" more realistically without running the risk of "Lumping" too much. It's a way of controlling discrimination.

>>3534212
But there are things that we recognise as belonging to something without being able to apply anything like rule and range. If we look back to a classical example, that of Plato's universals, we have problems defining a chair in such terms, although another concept, like green, can have rule and range applied. For a lot of these things, it comes down to your perspective: using fourier transformation, wavelet analysis, normalisation etc. can reveal certain relationships. But for something like recognising what a chair is, none of these things seem to work. It isn't exactly a cultural thing beyond maybe some people delineating chairs from stools or benches. It isn't any particular physical shape, nor any particular ability, and while its use is to be sat upon, not everything that is used in that way is a chair. You could make an infinite number of rules with appropriate ranges but there'd be just as many exceptions. Then there's stuff which is cultural, which often means constantly evolving or changing. In many cases it wouldn't make sense to apply a rule and range to language or genres of music, because a lot of ways of looking at those things or working within those things don't work with prescriptivism at all.

>It's a way of controlling discrimination.
Which is fine, but one must be careful about taking something which works in a particular situation, circumstance or under certain assumptions and mistaking it for a general case. I'm getting the impression you're doing that, but even if I'm mistaken there, you can understand it's by no means unusual for scientists et al to do the same.