/lit/ - Literature

See
>Pragmatism
>Common Sense Realism

>>4143331

>science useless as way of obtaining knowledge

said the poster who used knowledge obtained by way of science

>being rational

>not operating on instinct

>>4143331
Shit, really? Tell you what, you keep talking about that and we'll just go ahead and put more robots on Mars.

>>4143391

If i operated on purely instinct i'd be in jail for murder and rape

>>4143395
Your not doing shit. Oh look you dropped something

but science works regardless of philosophy. cry more, humanitiesfags.

>>4143442

science and philosophy go hand in hand. we'll never reach the point where we can't ask questions good sir

cry more, fag

>>4143444
>science and philosophy go hand in hand.
not really though. scientific inquiry and verificationism has developed and permeated discourse to the point the point that it's being used to shoot down purely philosophical ideas.

Philosophy provides the questions, science provides the answers.

>>4143449
>scientific inquiry and verificationism has developed and permeated discourse to the point the point that it's being used to shoot down purely philosophical ideas.
>the point the point that it's being used to shoot down purely philosophical ideas.
>shoot down purely philosophical ideas.

Wat

>subscribing to reductive and generalizing dichotomies like "science vs humanities
>being so insecure that you have to try and denigrate the "other"

Undergrad problems yo

>>4143395
Controlling nature =/= obtaining knowledge about nature.

>>4143449
It's a shame, really. Academics have given in more and more to scientism's dogmatic grasp. I cringed when that survey was released, where it showed that most philosophers are physicalists.

Males are more leftbrained while females are more rightbrained. The left is used in literal thought and rationality while the right is more emotional an abstract.

Can we then conclude that STEM majors have very masculine brains, while abstract artsy philosophers are a bunch of girly men?

>>4143462
yep. c.f. dualism. there are still old-school substance dualists around. they get published, too

>>4143469
a more pressing issue are the people who choose out of intellectual cowardice or lack of ability to be passive and non-descriminating in these matters :)

>>4143470
>physicalists
why would you not be?

>Controlling nature =/= obtaining knowledge about nature.
there is a whole lot of knowledge-gathering involved in "controlling nature", to the extent a statement like that can be considered seriously

>>4143482
Yes, I am androgynous and detest violence and don't fantasize about hurting others despite being a weak nerd.

>>4143482

http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

>>4143491
>they get published, too
Then they haven't been shot down, have they? Also their claims are being disregarded not disproven, important difference.

Scientists know "how" but they don't know "why". Their data is useless on its own, in other words. It needs synthesis and interpolation at a level which most scientists are not intelligent enough to provide :)

I'm sorry, what? I clearly said LARGE fries, these are medium.

>>4143331
only looking for black-assed swans nigga if you can't bring me dat ethnic bird hipped ass don't be looking for me to read your monograph

>>4143503
>at a level which most scientists are not intelligent enough to provide :)
i'll need to see evidence for this claim ;)

>>4143501
>Also their claims are being disregarded not disproven, important difference.
that would be fine except substance dualists take it on themselves to exempt themselves from any and all scientific enterprise (i.e. criticism), so any enquiry into their mental substance is futile. but then again they would know this if they'd have read their kant.

>>4143492
fag

>>4143507
>they would know this if they'd have read their kant.
why kant over lovecraft? it's almost a serious question

>>4143482
>scifags
>masculines...

Newton , tesla and other sci faggots, didnt even like vaginas.

>>4143507
>dualists take it on themselves to exempt themselves from any and all scientific enterprise (i.e. criticism), so any enquiry into their mental substance is futile.

Yes, this is only a problem if you consider this a heresy against your dogma.

>>4143470
>Controlling nature =/= obtaining knowledge about nature
1. What do you mean by 'nature', and in what sense is sending a robot to Mars 'controlling nature'?
2. Do you imagine that you can put a robot on Mars without obtaining knowledge about such things as, I dunno, how to put a robot on Mars?

>>4143551
phsysics, combustion, telecomunications, etc.

>>4143557
Eh? Those are what you mean by nature?

>>4143565
idk man I just watching the argument, i dont have an agenda to push yet. I just wanted to help with the knowledge needed to put a robot on mars.

>>4143520
At least my water-like being knows how to push all the buttons of your insecurities and make you my bitch, if I find you worthy.

>>4143551
1. By "nature" I am referring to the material world, the world that is traditionally studied by the sciences. By "controlling nature" I am referring to performing actions to manipulate nature such as building computers, or like you said, putting a robot on mars.

2. Yes. You can know how to put a robot on mars, but that doesn't mean you actually know anything about mars.

>>4143583
>You can know how to put a robot on mars, but that doesn't mean you actually know anything about mars.
How do you know that?

>>4143583
>By "nature" I am referring to the material world
>By "controlling nature" I am referring to performing actions to manipulate nature
That's an interestingly broad definition. I'm moving my fingers right now. Am I controlling nature?