/lit/ - Literature

It's like poiesis, it rhymes.

bravo raphael

noice.
though aristotle might have just been pointing to the nearest scroll-boy getting ready fir the rod likes,

philosophy died with aristotle

>>4504798

hrhrhrhr, shut the fuck up

>teleological anythings

yir dain it wring

>>4504778
Aristotelian materrace reporting in

>>4504797
>>4504802
trip off my /lit/

>>4504802
the death of philosophy bergan with aristotle tho

>>4504813

i run this shit you faggot get in line

>>4504817

Stan, you've been gone too long. You don't run anything anymore. /lit/ is a republic now, controlled by the Fedora Party.

>>4504824

oh

and both were wrong because they didn't know shit about science

>>4504837
>inventor of the scientific method

>>4504837

aristotle in particular presented a roadblock for centuries

>>4504837
And you know nothing of the history of science.

>>4504837
>>4504843
>gapleftbythechristiandarkages.jpg

>>4504843
Yeah man, his method of observing and noting down what was observed to then theorize about it, observe some more and then adjust the theory was really a shackle on the feet of human progress.

>>4504853
Galileo was a Platonist.

>>4504841
The scientific method was invented in the late 18th / early 19th century.

>>4504843
Aristotle and philosophers in general hold back progress just as much as christfags did.

>>4504845
>projection

Meh, Heraclitus should have been the central figure of the picture. I will gladly change my view if someone shows me otherwise.

> This was the last time they spoke as friends
> Plato is walking forward
> Aristotle is standing in place

>>4504873
>worshipping pre-socratic mystics

He was an /x/ tier crackpot.

>>4504866
>Aristotle and philosophers in general hold back progress just as much as christfags did.

Whilst in some instances the church did hold back scientific endeavour (note that the 'church' is not the same as 'Christianity') it was more so the unquestioning infallibility that people had in Aristotle and the authoritative texts from centuries past that held back progress - not so much those people and their thoughts themselves per se.

>>4504873
Heraclitus wouldn't have cared about being in the center.

>>4504893
Hah, excellent point.

>>4504882
Hegel would like to have a word with you. And if you are an analytic (as the tone of your comment makes you out to be), well we will just have to agree to disagree.

>>4504898
>Hegel would like to have a word with you.
Hegel is dead.

>And if you are an analytic
No, I'm a scientist.

>>4504900
What field of science do you study? I am not being acrimonious, I am actually curious.

>>4504906
All of them. I'm a polymath.

>>4504906
I have a double PhD in relativistic astrothermodynamics and quantum consciousness.

>>4504911
Oh okay, so you really are just some retard shitposting on 4chan. Thanks for being so forthright about it.

>>4504900
>I'm a scientist.

>>4504841
I respect science, but to put all of your faith in it is just as foolish as putting all your faith in mediums. Like anything human, it is subject to corruption.

>>4504920
Science is objective truth.

>>4504911
I actually hope you are being honest. But if you need to post this on 4chan odd are you aren't.

>>4504916
>ad hominem

You asked. I answered. No need to be upset.

>>4504924
So Newtonian theory is subjective truth? I think it is more like a process of striving towards objective truth, but perchance never reaching it. Bacon (a famous expositor of the scientific method) compared it to a courtroom proceeding that never ended.

>>4504920
>Dat pic

http://youtu.be/26YLehuMydo

>>4504933
But only through science we can find truth.

>>4504866
>The scientific method was invented in the late 18th / early 19th century.

'scientific methods' have existed since antiquity.

>>4504943
What is truth?

>>4504943
And you know this how? It isn't "scientific" to make claims that are not backed by any evidence,.

>>4504945
Said Pilate, and did not wait for an answer.

>all these plebs not reading feyerabend

>>4504805
Respect.

>>4504951
Will have to check him out, thanks for the suggestion.

>>4504944
But not THE scientific method.

>>4504945
You should know what that word means. Do you have a problem with the English language?

>>4504947
It is self-evident.

>>4504951
Feyerabend is creationist tier. His denial of science and his belief in the validity of fairy tales make highly anti-intellectual.

>>4504948
So you are basing your notion of truth on the actions of a single man?

>>4504866
>Aristotle and philosophers in general hold back progress just as much as christfags did.

Seriously? As in, you are serious and not just trolling? As in, you are not just a contrarian with chaos as his only aim?

If you are serious, can you back up your claim? I'd be really curious to read it.

>>4504961
Have you heard of Tarski's Undefinability Theorem? I thought you said you were a polymath.

>>4504965
It is all explained in pic related.

>>4504961
>You should know what that word means. Do you have a problem with the English language?

>evading the question

>>4504968
So what? How do you mistakenly believe it refutes my point?

>>4504961
>It is self-evident.

Circular reasoning as known used by religious fags.

Anon, I am not doing this to antagonize you. I just love a good (and respectful) debate, that's all.
"Backward I see in my own days where I sweated through fog with linguists and contenders."

>>4504980
Every 5 year old knows what "truth" means. Are you less intelligent than a 5 year old?

>>4504962
>an?
No, I am too much a doubting Thomas to base my understanding of Truth on the actions of a single man. It is only after much irrefutable supernatural subjective experience that I find it to be absolutely irreverent and asinine to not take the text of the Judeo-Christian tradition with utmost seriousness.

>>4504990
>Every 5 year old knows what "truth" means. Are you less intelligent than a 5 year old?

>evading the question

>>4504984
How does it not refute your point?

>>4504986
Circular reasoning is also very popular in philosophy. If philosophy and religion didn't exist, everyone would be rational and scientific, and something like circular reasoning would never happen.

>>4504976
If only the Greeks had crudely drawn MS paint comics back then, it would have saved us all a lot of time

>>4504997
>Circular reasoning is also very popular in philosophy. If philosophy and religion didn't exist, everyone would be rational and scientific, and something like circular reasoning would never happen.

>tu quoque

>>4504994
If you can't into English, then use a fucking dictionary to look up how "truth" is called in your language. This should answer your question.

>>4504996
>shifting le burden of proof

>>4505005
>If you can't into English, then use a fucking dictionary to look up how "truth" is called in your language. This should answer your question.

>evading the question

>>4505010
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
Very helpful.

>>4504998
1. It's a caricature, not a comic.
2. At least you acknowledge its validity as an argument.

>>4505004
>>4505010
Did you follow my advice to consult a dictionary? While you're at it, you might as well look up the names of the fallacies you used incorrectly in your posts.

>>4505014
>circular reasoning

It's true because it has the quality of being true, alright. How?

>>4504961
>But not THE scientific method.

"The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

>>4504976
It is "all explained" if you're a fucking dumbass haha, I'm in computer science and while a lot of soft sciences seem like a collection pool for second grade minds, philosophy is in it's own category.
If you are a pure empiricist, do not ridicule others for going beyond the limits you set for yourself. Be nice.

Euck I don't even know who is who any more. Good thread, I am out.

>>4505018
>Did you follow my advice to consult a dictionary? While you're at it, you might as well look up the names of the fallacies you used incorrectly in your posts.

>evading the question

>>4504866
Christianity held back material progress, science holds back spiritual progress.

>>4505020
Use your common sense, moron.

>>4505024
>posting a quote
>not naming the source
Opinion discarded.

>>4505033
>Use your common sense, moron.

What is common sense?

>>4505033

Google is your friend.

http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf

>>4505026
>I'm in computer science
That would explain why your post was exorbitantly ignorant. Go have fun in your "something with computers and video games" degree, but please don't try to participate in debates that are above your intellectual level.

>>4505028
>ad nauseam

>>4505029
There is no such thing as "spiritual progress". Go back to /x/.

>>4505045
>ad nauseam

>evading the question

>>4505038
The thing philosophers and autists are lacking.

>>4505042
>dat anti-intellectualism
>dat ignorance of science
top lel

>>4505053
>ad nauseam

>>4504997
>If philosophy and religion didn't exist, everyone would be rational and scientific, and something like circular reasoning would never happen.

Wow I thought they were kidding when they said this board is full of complete idiots. I can surmise that you dislike philosophy by the invalidity of your argument. I should complete your enthymeme but I think this one is a lost cause.

>>4505045
It's the only form of genuine progress my fedora wearing friend.

>>4505061
>ad nauseam

>evading the question

>>4504945
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

ITT: nothing about \lit\

/sci/ pls go home

>>4505045
so much fedora

>>4505063
>enthymeme

What meme?

>>4505089
An enthymeme is a premise often left out of an argument, as presented.

For example, if I say "He is a murderer, he should go to jail" - the enthymeme is "murderers should go to jail."

It's kind of an outdated term now, but a useful one nonetheless.

>>4505045
I'm computer science guy. I would really like to argue with you but you are spitting out conclusions without premises. I apologize for offending you, but if you are not smart enough to realize how little you are actually contributing, you should keep posting. Keep posting and never stop.
Hopefully, the decline in your health lack of physical activity will precipitate will kill you earlier, saving the rest of humanity from being rendered stupider by exposition to your senseless ramblings.

>>4505063
>ad hominem
>no arguments

>>4505065
Spirituality is holding back progress.

>>4505071
>ad nauseam

>>4505079
/sci/ is too slow and has nothing to offer other than troll reposts and high school homework. That's why I came to /lit/ instead.

>>4505088
>ad hominem

>>4504866
The scientific method actually originated with Parmenides.

>>4505096
>/sci/ is too slow and has nothing to offer other than troll reposts and high school homework. That's why I came to /lit/ instead

Hahahhahhahhahahahah. Are you seriously not a bored troll? Wow. Do you really believe this shit? You should be banned you have a lot of reading to do.

>>4505095
Why so angry? Can't handle facts?

>I would really like to argue with you
Unfortunately you are too uneducated to argue with me on any level other than infantile shit flinging.

>but you are spitting out conclusions without premises
I am posting facts and logical arguments.

>the decline in your health lack of physical activity
Sorry to disappoint you. I'm physically very fit.

>>4505096
>ad nauseam

>evading the question.

>>4505096
>Dunning-Kruger in full force

Classic irrational simpleton. Your time would be better used gaining more knowledge. It seems you are more concerned with appearing right than being right. Tsk tsk tsk.

>>4505101
Parmenides is just another mystic crackpot.

>>4505111
>ad nauseam

You guys are idiots for taking the time and responding to him, for fuck's sake...

>>4504990
No, they don't, you terrible troll.

>>4505119
I can feel his anger, we made him sperg in full force once. It was a glorious day.

>>4505109
>I am posting facts and logical arguments.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
God you really should stay on /sci/.
Here's a fact. Arguments need one or more premises and one or more conclusions to be called arguments.
You are a dumbass spewing conclusions with nothing to back them up.
Please read a book on basic logic and revisit your existence.

>>4505106
Not kidding. Take a look at /sci/. That board is dead.

>>4505114
I am already highly educated. Yet I'm learning something new every day.

>>4505121
Yes, they do.

>>4505119
Responding to who?

>>4505119
But he's such a moron, it's a brilliant waste of my time.

>>4505136
>Not kidding

You just made my day, even though I don't believe you.

>>4505135
I'm sorry to hear that you are too cognitively impaired to figure out the self-evident factual premises of my arguments. And please take your own advice. I am already more knowledgable in formal logic than you ever will be.

>>4505093
I think the enthymeme is the argument with the missing premise.

>>4505144
OH GOD ITS STILL GOING I'M GOING TO DIE HERE FUCKING LMAO

>>4505153
Fight me irl, nerd.

>>4505147
Maybe he meant 'warrant' the supposed premise behind the postulate.

Look at this thread, and then tell me that science isn't a religion for some people.

>>4505154
GOD THIS IS TOO PERFECT PLEASE DON'T HIT ME I'M SO SCARED
YOU FUCKING IMBECILE
I'm getting out of this thread otherwise I'll spend my evening laughing at this dude

>>4505147
Oh? I always took 'enthymeme' to refer to the missing premise itself. As in "let me just fill in the enthymemetic statements here..."

Perhaps I've been using it wrong, all this time? Not sure.

>>4505170
I know that feel, but maybe it is correct in the way that you fill in the missing premise of the enthymeme?

>>4505096
progress to what?

>>4505182
golden age / iron age, who gives a fuck we can't find reverse

>>4505167
>implying I'm a "dude"

>>4505182
scientific progress

>>4505191
pls be a dude, i don't want chicks to be this dumb

>>4505200
I am not dumb. My IQ is higher than 170 and everything I said ITT was factually correct.

>>4505184
Would a guy who finds reverse just disappear as he goes back in time?

>>4505184
That's not progress just the acquisition of trinkets that you believe will have some form of value and the delusion that you can save more lives, you can save bodies that is all, only god can save lives. That is the true uselessness of science, its progress is the most base and unfulfilled.

>>4505206
Everything everyone said in this thread is factually correct.

>>4505213
>only god can save lives

Pls elaborate

>>4505206
>My IQ is higher than 170
me too :D doesn't preclude you being an idiot. please feel free to tell me how you can be factually correct when scientific progress is so restrained; if there's progress to be made, your "facts" are most certainly subject to change from their original correspondence to correctness and fact.

>>4505213
>only god can save lives

>>4504778
Was this taken with a Kodak?

>>4505211
i'm more in the camp that believes he couldn't perceive the past beyond himself, so the world would disappear while both entities eclipse in relative space. either that or klingons appear on the starboard bow.

>>4505224
Are you verbally impaired? Did you drop out of primary school? How is it possible for an adult not to know the difference between a fact and a theory? I'm honestly concerned about your health.

>>4504945
Truth is what humans perceive as being the process by which something happens.
Which is exactly what science is
You dumb fuck

>>4505242
So truth is a model of a process?

>>4505240
Are they supposed to be self-evident distinctions? You're playing too hard; troll me softly, sweet tits.

>>4505221
>>4505231

Life is a spiritual force it can only be saved through divine guidance which comes in many forms, the physical manifestation is unimportant in comparison.

>>4505248
Socrates was a hack job just like the rest of the philosophers.

>>4504778
>Hey Aristotle, you feel like going up town to grab a bite to eat?
>No thanks Plato. I'm good.

>>4505250
Seriously, what kind of intellectual disability are you suffering from? Have you been diagnosed?

>>4505258
yeah, it's a serious case of your only meritorious value is tits and you're not showing them to me.

>>4505178
Gotcha, thanks for the correction man!

>>4504961
Sounds like someone hasn't actually read feyerabend

>>4505206
>>4505224
>>4505240
>>4505250
>>4505258
>>4505263
Guys, guys, guys... Stop fighting. You're both autistic, ok? Now behave yourselves.

>>4505299
I haven't. And I don't give a fuck. Deal with it.

>>4505307
>calls renowned philosophers anti-intellectual without reading them or bothering to understand their arguments
>thinks he can have an opinion
all of my lel

>>4505313
I don't need to study astrology indepth in order to know that it's bullshit.

>>4505319
>comparing feyerabend to astrology
my sides are being destroyed here, pls stop

>>4505321
According to Feyerabend himself EVERY theory is just as valid as astrology. That would include his own work.

>>4505329
here http://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf
read something for a change
Feyerabend doesn't say science is bad, he says that viewing any methodology as objective is bad, which is what people do with science all the time

>>4504798
That's not how you spell ibn Arabi

>>4505340
Why does he hate science so much?

>>4505349
I hate methodologies that cast themselves as objective, not science

>>4505351
Science is objective.

>>4505364
do you want me to make you do binomials?

Typical conversation with a scientismist:

>all philosophy is bullshit
>but the scientific method came from philosophy
>no jsustusdjfoskdfd
>you mad?

>>4505368
>implying you know what a binomial is

>>4505364
tell me how the world looks like outside our senses
oh wait

>>4505371
>implying I haven't raged at every "statistic" on the internet

>>4505369
And astrophysics came from astrology. And chemistry came from alchemy. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, you fucking moron.

>>4505378
Go read a science book.

>>4505364
Yep the scientific method is perfect in every way and science is always the best, definitely doesn't fuel western coloniality or hurt indigineous culture. Nope, its objective so its right

>>4505391
can you tell me though? can science tell me?
don't evade the question

>>4505392
Finally you accept it.

>>4505393
Scientific measurement tells you everything about the world.

>>4505403
It tells you everything about the observable world, but can it tell you why kids LOVE cinnamon toast crunch?

>>4505024
>ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937)
Karl who?
what a pathetic anglo-centrism.
The modern scientific method was already described in Descartes's Discourse on the Method.
Which was an introduction to his Treaty on Optics.

Now sure, kids get fooled when they're made to believe all they're taught is science because it's products of "THE scientific method".
but you can't deny that the science of nature made great progress when people decided to ask "how" instead of "why", use empiricism and put their theories, called hypotheses, to the test. Also, use induction rather than deduction (inference).

For Aristotle, a stone fell because it was a "grave" element. "Heaviness" was part of its properties, like color or shape. On the contrary, clouds didn't fall because they belonged to the class of the light objects. They had "lightness".

Newton's theory was quite different. Some objects don't fall because it's in their nature (their destiny, purpose, telos) to fall. All objects attract each other depending on distance and mass. His theory could produce predictions, which could be tested.

Sure, the idea that you can always test a theory with experiments has been criticized. A famous example is a test that for some proved that light was made of particles, and for others that it was made of waves.

But the skepticism in you quote is pretty weak.

>Close inspection will reveal that
some call it "the scientific method", skeptics call it "close inspection".

>>4505407
Never go full retard.

if science is objective then why is there hardly any concensus on many prominent theories?

the scientific method is not some magical machine you put your questions in and you get objective answers out of

>>4505385
that's a weak analogy considering we're talking about the genus 'science' which came from philosophy, not specific branches which had been influenced by other branches of philsophy. after all, all inquiry about truth is phiosophy.

science already existed since aristotle, he called all those branches of philosophy 'beings' which was the ancient word for science. aristotle laid the foundation for the scientific method as we know it today

>>4504852
>christian dark ages
>implying that the Christian church wasn't the sole custodian of literacy and learning in western Europe during the dark ages

>>4505403
>Scientific measurement tells you everything about the world.

Not even scientists believe that. Data is data and nothing more. What you do with it, what it "means" in whatever kind of narrative you want to form, is a much less objective ballgame.

>>4505421
>implying that the Christian church wasn't the sole custodian of literacy and learning in western Europe during the dark ages

That was the actual problem.

>>4505411
>but you can't deny that the science of nature made great progress when people decided to ask "how" instead of "why", use empiricism and put their theories, called hypotheses, to the test. Also, use induction rather than deduction (inference).
This. Descartes was the first one to do this, but Aristotle started the whole 'why don't we look at things carefully before we judge'-thing

Guys science is so awesome, have you seen the alternatives that those indigenous people, wait no, I mean indigenous MONKEYS use? Lol they think that the earth is on a turtle's back, good thing we have the good word of science behind us which will allow us to give them civilization! They clearly are just retarded and lesser beings for using anything other than western science, can't they see how OBJECTIVE it is? Can't they see that it has to be the be-all, end-all of society? Those stupid lesser cultures

>>4505421
>defending western culture and history
<not liberating yourself from it by criticizing it
reactionary dipshit/7

All great scientists were not scientismists

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God

Daily reminder

>>4505445
PRAISE THE HOLY SCIENCE SPREAD THE GOSPEL! FINGERBOXES FOR EVERYONE!

>>4505447
>stating historical facts == defending western culture
piss off, bud

>>4505437
what's your point? that they should have spread the learning & literacy throughout the barbarian kingdoms? and how exactly do you propose that they go about doing that?

>>4505045


if thats true then how is it possible for a rich man to be unhappy?

checkmate atheists.

>>4505478
>what's your point? that they should have spread the learning & literacy throughout the barbarian kingdoms? and how exactly do you propose that they go about doing that?

They kept society in the dark any knowledge that insinuated their hypocrisy had someone burned on the stake for heresy as Saturday night entertainment. They kept knowledge locked away and any 'scientist' had to get on his knees like the choirboys and ask for the churches blessing of his discovery. Look what happened when people got tired of the bullshit and god finally died.

>>4505498
>had someone burned on the stake for heresy as Saturday night entertainment.
How could you not see how cool this is? Were you raised in Boringwienersville?

>>4505502
I don't humor edginess, I find it sophomoric. I'm past that.

>>4505445
>>4505464
Don't samefag, pls. It's not allowed.

>>4505418
>science already existed since aristotle
The scientific method was invented in the 18th century.

>>4505433
>Data is data and nothing more
Data is objective.

>>4505560
>Data is objective.

Data doesn't tell you how to interpret it.

>>4505566
Yes, it does.

Ancient greek philosophy a shit.

>>4505498
No—during the Dark Ages, the Christian churches were sparsely distributed about west Europe, had minimal influence, and were lucky that they weren't stamped out by the unruly kingdoms which replaced the Roman Empire. You're confusing (or aren't aware of the distinctions among) different periods of European history, as your comments (to the extent that there's any specificity in your post) seem to pertain to later parts of the middle ages as well as the early Renaissance.

>>4505629
I stand corrected. I didn't know what I was talking about so I wrote my 'social truth' I have grown up with.

>>4505498


>all this fan-fiction history.

>>4505571
Except Epicureanism.

>>4504790
>raphael
>not RAFFAELLO

anglomerda

>>4505857
Farkin' misfire! Meant >>4505593
Phooey.

someone post the picture in which aristotle is bouncing a basketball and Plato is spinning one in his finger and Aristotle says
"your game, as your forms, is nonexistent"

>>4507396

>>4504778
Aristotle was right

>>4507450
No, Plato was.

>>4507476
Nuh-uh.

>>4507476
I thought we settled the problem of universals long ago.

>>4504965
Aristotle did not himself keep the progress back, but scholastic tradition that emphasized him and bible over anything new did.

>>4504778
Look at all that lean muscle mass on Aristotle's arms. Fit as fuck.

>>4507476
Epicurus is still right.