/lit/ - Literature

>mfw a diehard "lets write off the scientific method because I just wikipediad objectivity" philosophy undergrad wanders into my laboratory and tells me my cancer research is pointless because I can't objectively prove stem cells exist.

>>5127086
>mfw a scientific method diehard refuses to entertain any ideas that can't be scientifically proven

>>5127086
>philosophy undergrad
>I just wikipediad objectivity
lol

>tfw trying to explain the role of bayesian probability modelling in the internal verification of empirical models to a philosophy undergraduate.

>philosophy
>worth discussing

>>5127096

>being terrible at explanations

>yfw continental philosophers haven't come up with a single theory that has defeated capitalism

>trying to discuss philosophy with a scientific method diehard

"Hello, Sci."

"Oh Christ, not you again. What do you want?"

"What are you doing?"

"Ptoteomic synthesis"

"What does that mean?"

"I'm trying to synthesize a form of tryptophan with an additional modified benzine ring attached to the amino arm."

"You can't prove that benzine rings exists. That's just fedora pleb scientism. gee bee two reddit. I'm Ubermensch."

"Look, if you're going to start rambling again, you can just get out now. You shouldn't even be in here, you're a liability."

"I'm sorry, it's like tourettes. Umm, so, why are you doing that?"

"Because it will cross the blood brain barrier and potentially counteract the effect of Alzheimers by the way it stimulates certain receptors. If I can just..."

There is no objective morality, scitard. I bet you haven't even read stirner. gee bee two reddit, gee bee two reddit. Do you even existentialism?"

"Right, get out."

"Get out of what? You can't prove reality exists."

"Do I have to call security?"

"Security is a social construct. And you can't objectively prove that security exists. tipping intensifies"

"Fine... Hello, is that campus security? Yes, one of the philosophy students escaped again... I don't know something about gee two existential something... Yes, I'm in a position to subdue him."

>>5127094
e.g. the scientific method.

name one thing the scientific method have brought us.

you can't.

>>5127126
progress
e.g. almost everything

>>5127126

lel when people start attributing their computers to science instead of just money

>>5127079
Fo realz doe.. is this 'attack' on philosophy really real or is it just a red herring?

I can't imagine serious members of the scientific community thinking that the scientific method is capable of answering every important question, just as I cant imagine any serious philosophers thinking science isn't relevant...

>>5127132
hubris is forever

>>5127132
>scientific community thinking that the scientific method is capable of answering every important question

I think this is a modern view espoused by science communicators like Kaku, Harris, Dawkins, not so much my "proper", working scientists anymore. Dawkins and Kaku haven't published in quite a while, I have a feeling that the growing reliance on (advanced) statistics has passed them by. With the growth of the use of statistics, scientists realize that their results always have an error margin attached and that there's a chance their results are actually incorrect.
Of course, your Reddit, /sci/, "I fucking love science crowd" doesn't realize the caveats of modern science either.

tl;dr: fuck dawkins, kaku, harris and the other weirdos

>>5127129
>lel when people start attributing their computers to science instead of just money
Thank you, money. No, sincerely. Thank you, Mr. 20 dollar bill, for slaving away with that transistor array for months.

>>5127136
I don't know why but I hate the phrase "I fucking love science"

>>5127119
/thread

>>5127136
Your ignorance is truly staggering.

>>5127134
>>5127136
Yeah, I think the recent Dawkins article along with the Hawking "philosophy is dead" remark are merely related to the questions about the origins of the universe. And yeah, I take their point that philosophers haven't really kept up with advancements in theoretical physics and so forth. And they should have.
But you know.. I mean that's just one tiny area. There's also epistemology, there's ethics, there's intellectual pleasure and modes of aesthetic interpretation, etc.. Science clearly isn't equipped to say anything definitive on these matters. I mean you don't have to be an intellectual athlete to figure this out. Are these people obtuse on purpose?

>>5127149
>There's also epistemology, there's ethics, there's intellectual pleasure and modes of aesthetic interpretation, etc.. Science clearly isn't equipped to say anything definitive on these matters.
lol. Philosophy is a sham. It died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a absolute cunt of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that all philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of living on Fathers money and forming semantic rhetoric to convince everyone thatyou are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

"Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?"

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? Next.

>Hegel - "Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty."
Objectivity? Really, Hegel, that's just embarrassing. Next.

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful"."
Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant, m8.

The answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions need to be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art. So go ahead, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, because that's ALL you can do.

>>5127157
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all linguistic constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology, along with neurology etc.....,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Of course, these can be spread out to a great many more fields, but only an idiot would resort to philosophy. Even Philosophy has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from a linguistic and psychological standpoint; 'can we ever have identical viewing of these symbols?' Or a physics perspective; 'am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on'. Philosophy is dead. Don't even mourn it.

>>5127137

>being autistic

>>5127157
It's good to see that /lit/'s facetious fellows put some good solid work into what they do

>>5127149
⇒Science clearly isn't equipped to say anything definitive on these matters

But neither is philosophy. No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy. They only repeat the same "muh feelings" nonsense over and over again. And epistemology outside of science and logic boils down to "u cannot know nuffin". There are some questions science can't answer, but philosophy cannot answer them either. So you cannot use them to defend philosophy. Philosophy is dead. It stagnated and became obsolete a long time ago. There are no noteworthy new ideas in philosophy and no great philosophers anymore in our times, unless you count Dawkins and Harris who basically only present facts to us which every non-religitard will immediately accept out of common sense.

>>5127164
>No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy.

Exactly, these people are fucking idiots. The dude above wonders if scientists are being obtuse, but the question also applies to philosophers. Philosophers will say, "man, I wish scientists would study philosophy" yet their field not only has no results (because there are always counterarguments to the results), but there is extensive philosophical works dedicated to undermining the way they do philosophy, i.e. works dedicated to undermining reason, or undermining phenomenology, or general skeptical arguments against knowledge.

So you end up with a field with no results (or a plurality of results that often contradict each other), and no reliable methods, and they expect us to thank them. Of course, they'll go tu quoque on us and say, "b-b-b-ut muh feyerabend, muh skeptical arguments against science" as if the same sorts of arguments don't apply to their bullshit.

It is almost as if science-hating philosophers on 4chan aren't actually interested in wisdom, but are instead interested in appearing wise so they can score imaginary internet points.

>>5127157
>>5127161
b-b-but guyze, c'mon.

Take epistemology for instance. Science deals with unveiling causation in deterministic systems and explaining things. Its epistemology relies on observation and correlation. However, science isn't equipped to deal with nondeterministic (stochastic) systems. Yes, true, neither is anyone else because we don't have the cognitive tools. Proof and thinking are products of determinism so it looks like we'll forever throw deterministic frameworks onto everything. We won't know if nondeterministic systems exist even if they hit us in the face. I'm not saying philosophy is equipped to deal with this problem. I'm saying epistemology should not be absolute.

As for subjectivity, sure, it may be possible to be explain it, measure it and theorize it. It could be possible if the system is truly deterministic and we'll ever be capable of taking so many variables (finite nonetheless) into account. Sure. How will that help.. ethics for instance? The days in which evolution through natural selection pokes us and tells us what's right and wrong are long gone. We're getting close to literally engineer our evolution. We're also doing it indirectly through socio-political systems but nevermind. So how will science help ethics when we're on the verge of engineering our future selves?

>>5127164
arrows, you can fuck off, as you claim to be a sociopath and I, along with the majority of the population have nothing to gain from a discussion with you.

>>5127184
nigguh, I ain't hating on science, nor am I saying that scientists should study phil. while phil may not be answer to provide definitive answers to ethical questions, it sures lays em out and strives to achieve intersubjectivity..

>>5127079
Mathematician here.
I know some formal logic and have encountered many philosophy graduates(not philosophers) asking me to define or prove concepts.

In math, we understand that the concepts that are the basis of mathematics are undefined, yet we understand them perfectly, such as "number", "straight", "quantity" etc.
Point is that everything including the scientific method are based on axioms and things we leave undefined. When you ask a question about somethings existence then the only evidence I can give you is that I can "feel" it, I cannot give you a mathematical "proof" on objectivity.

You cannot prove god exists nor you can prove god doesn't exist, the only logical conclusion is to leave concept of a god as unfalsifiable.

>>5127214
> the only logical conclusion is to leave concept of a god as unfalsifiable.

luckily theistic religions almost struggle to make him falsifiable.

>>5127157
>Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? Next
Wow, great retort. Truly convincing.


>Objectivity? Really, Hegel, that's just embarrassing. Next.
Another wonderful example of rhetoric brought to you by /sci/.


>Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant, m8.
If I Rite Lik Diz Wut I Sei Becums Tru.

>if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields.
First and foremost you must explain what is beauty. A metaphysical agent. Something beyond both science and psychology.

>>5127184

why was this deleted?

'>>5127164
>No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy.

Exactly, these people are fucking idiots. The dude above wonders if scientists are being obtuse, but the question also applies to philosophers. Philosophers will say, "man, I wish scientists would study philosophy" yet their field not only has no results (because there are always counterarguments to the results), but there is extensive philosophical works dedicated to undermining the way they do philosophy, i.e. works dedicated to undermining reason, or undermining phenomenology, or general skeptical arguments against knowledge.

So you end up with a field with no results (or a plurality of results that often contradict each other), and no reliable methods, and they expect us to thank them. Of course, they'll go tu quoque on us and say, "b-b-b-ut muh feyerabend, muh skeptical arguments against science" as if the same sorts of arguments don't apply to their bullshit.

It is almost as if science-hating philosophers on 4chan aren't actually interested in wisdom, but are instead interested in appearing wise so they can score imaginary internet points.'

>>5127188
Go away.

>>5127236
make me.

or just show me where I'm wrong instead and I'll gladly go away.

>>5127214
Dude wtf -- none of those things are undefined.

>>5127238
Leave.

A definition isn't like some name that a thing has, like how you'll read about in fantasy books with wizards where they can control shit.....Philosophy and mathematics deal in the same definitions, it's just philosophy revels in infinity at times, where mathematics must work around it.

>>5127241
Other mathfag coming to the rescue. Which of those things are clearly defined ? "Number" ? Certainly not, at least not without picking a field. "Existence" ? What the notion of mathematical existence actually entails is a problem of philosophy of mathematics, that mathematicians may or may not be willing to tackle. There's a axiomatique definition of statements like "X exists" but it doesn't tell us much. Likewise, the notion of set which is the basis of set theory, which in turns provides a framework for most modern mathematics, is not defined. I'm afraid >>5127214 is pretty much right.

>>5127243
nope.

>>5127119

>stem grad fantasy

>>5127235
>So you end up with a field with no results (or a plurality of results that often contradict each other), and no reliable methods

OH No! Life is is complicated! Who would've thought.

>>5127235
>he thinks producing results matters

>Studying a career that only makes you able to shit-post on some retarded imageboard.

>>5127250
Yes, I realise it's all axiomatic, but there's no difference between definition in math or philosophy. "Straight" has definition within a geometric field, does it not? "Straight" is just a word -- just like...fucking "epicureanism" or whatever -- which describes or perhaps categorises something. Again, there's no difference between math and philosophy, just that math leaves dreaming behind.

>>5127259

>building a persona for some retarded imageboard

>>5127259
>living a life as a tripfag

>>5127260
>but there's no difference between definition in math or philosophy

The language used is not exactly the same. Which obviously matters a lot.

> "Straight" has definition within a geometric field, does it not?

It depends of the geometry you consider, but it's always drawing from a mathematics-specific terminology.

>Again, there's no difference between math and philosophy, just that math leaves dreaming behind.

A statement that is easy to make but not so easy to make interesting. The difference depends on how you define math and philosophy, but if you consider the professional practices of philosophers and mathematicians nowadays, although the fileds overlap, there are definitely different.

Also if you honestly think maths leaves dreaming behind I suggest you actually study maths. Philosophy is the no-fun allowed guy here. I couls just as well say "philosophy is like math that leaves fun behind" or "that leaves dreaming behind" or (why not) "that leaves creativity behind". All those statements are just as valid as yours.

>>5127157
>. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art.

Say all that hard work pays off. All that relentless deterministic framing of every system pays off and we figure out subjectivity. We've got one giant map of it so we package it in 'subjectivity pills' and live in a world where everyone gets along.

Congratulations, you're a utilitarian. Some of us aren't. Or if we are, we don't think that thinking ends there. And solving the problem of 'beauty' and 'subjectivity' certainly doesn't end with explaining them.

>>5127267
>Implying I am not a persona
>>5127269
>Implying I don't shit-post as a tripfag AND as an anon

>>5127260
Mathematics doesn't have a satisfactory definition. Anything you will come up with is either really generalized or just wrong.
No offense, but please learn some math before making a statement for it.

>>5127188
⇒science isn't equipped to deal with nondeterministic (stochastic) systems
*tips dunce hat*

This is the most ignorant post I've read today. Science and math have all the tools to examine nondeterministic and stochastic systems. This is a very prosperous topic of contemporary research in mathematics, physics, computer science, cognitive science, finance, economics, pyschology and linguistics.

10/10 if bait
retard/10 if serious

>>5127281
>⇒
10/10 if bait

>>5127281
haha. determinism is not falsifiable, muh nig. and it will probably never be unless our brain changes somehow. so we can't prove a system is nondeterministic.

the way science and math deal with 'stochastic' systems is by assuming they're in fact deterministic and by throwing deterministic modes of thinking on them. and it's worked for most of them.

fucking arrows. you dunn it again.

>>5127214
What this guy said.

>>5127281
The concept on nondeterminism can't be proved or disproved by science, it completely contradicts the scientific method.
There is no evidence for nondeterministic systems other than analogies.

>mfw this thread got btfo by mathfags

>>5127285
>>5127284
Are you retarded? Do you believe nondeterminism is some kind of /x/ spiritual magic? Learn some math, numbnuts.

>>5127289
I don't think nondeterminism is some kind of /x/ spiritual magic, but that's because I can't think about it in any significant way. And neither can you or anyone else, you fucking self-indulgent pleb.

>>5127289
The concept is unfalsifiable.
Pick up your high school math book and read the first 50 pages, basic logic and group theory should be there.

>>5127290
>but that's because I can't think about it in any significant way.
Free will through qualia.

>>5127290
I can think about it quite clearly because I know the math. Get the fuck out and educate yourelf. Stop using words you don't understand.

>>5127291
"Unfalsifiable" doesn't apply here. We're not talking about an explanatory hypothesis but about a mathematical model. The model makes testable predictions. Why did you fail to understan the scientific method? Did you drop out of school before reaching 3rd grade?

>>5127280
Of course it does, it's descriptive...it's the same as words, only to a different purpose (a more precise description where one is available, if you will). And I was a math olympiad dude.

>people on /lit/ actually believe nondterminism is magic

This thread has revealed a whole new dimension of retardation.

>>5127293
If I smash your pleb brain with a hammer => qualia's gone.

I'm not even one of those /sci/ plebs who thinks science makes philosophy useless, but mayne.. free will? We've already explained why we can't think (prove) about nondeterminist systems.

>>5127305
You have no idea what "nondeterministic" means.

>>5127281
How does on prosper from studying random, if that random is to forever remain random? You make these dumb charged posts, insisting that everything is under man's control -- it's really quite silly.

>>5127298
>>5127304
you aren't saying anything.

please explain how determinism is falsifiable.

>>5127277
>>5127157
Well, I'm thirty years a Neurophysiologist and behavioral scientist, and I can tell you that most of the questions you're asking just don't come up a lot. Looking at a flower and telling why anybody thinks it's beautiful isn't how we'd phrase it, or a position we'd defend. I worked specifically with motivational triggers, multiplier cascades and secondary sexual responses. I was trying to figure out how much limbic template responses were genetic, how much based on adventitious brain development, and how much learned and how these things interacted to create template responses and then fed back into complex behaviors. Thus, i might be one of the best people to discuss why "what you feel looking at a flower" isn't something science would address. It's just not specific enough. That kind of thing requires interpretation by the subject and is therefore sort of individualized. what happens to your bolld and brain chemistry, and what sort of behaviors this causes and whether you consciously act to inhibit or encourage or exploit the next step in the cascade, that's something we would work on, and then we'd ask you why you think you might have done that, but that's not what you're talking about. And I'm not entirely sure knowing exactly how you "felt" looking at a flower, or even why, would get us very far. We have to treat you as part of the natural world, since we can't address any other aspects that might or might not exist, and so we're more interested in what you do, and what changes occur in you and (in my case) what sequences of behaviors manifest.
I hope that helps.

>>5127307
please, enlighten me.

>>5127310
It isn't. And all that falsifiable stuff is nonsense anyway, just twisted pragmatism.

>>5127317
The scientific method is pragmatism, nothing more. There is no truth to it, but useful consistencies.

>>5127309
We got it, you never got in touch with math. Please stop parading around this board, showing off your ignorance as if ignorance was something to be proud of.

>>5127310
Why does it have to be falsifiable? Protip: That's irrelevant. Please learn the scientific method.

>>5127310
"Falsifiable"? Of course not. It's probably true but probably cannot be proved

>>5127324
>Why does it have to be falsifiable? Protip: That's irrelevant.
That is the sound of Popper spinning in his grave

>>5127141
So do scientists

>>5127079
Yeah, most science fans are as retarded about philosophy as philosophy fans are about science

>>5127311
thanks. I agree. I've agreed from the start.
>>5127317
if it's intellectual one upmanship through sophistic faggotry that you're after I'm sure that your brain will be able to figure out a way to render your self-indulgent performance as victorious. but I'm afraid I have nothing to gain from a conversation with you.

>>5127324
>We got it, you never got in touch with math. Please stop parading around this board, showing off your ignorance as if ignorance was something to be proud of.
Again, I was a math olympiad, my IQ is 150+. Answer the question, retard. Protip: You can't.

>>5127315
⇒enlighten me

No! Enlighten yourself. Sapere aude! Kant would turn around in his grave over your self-incurred tutelage.

>>5127336
arrows, same goes for you >>5127332

>>5127332
>if it's intellectual one upmanship through sophistic faggotry that you're after I'm sure that your brain will be able to figure out a way to render your self-indulgent performance as victorious. but I'm afraid I have nothing to gain from a conversation with you.
Actually I was merely answer your question. I dislike the god-complex to go with science.

>>5127341
Arrow, for example, has a blatant dumb god-complex.

>>5127323
I like that. That "useful consistencies" thing. I think that's just what science does: it starts with observed consistencies, tries to find correlations, determine the connection if any that these correlations signify to what they have observed and then refine the conclusions reached to a more consistent and predictable (and possibly controllable) picture of events. In the original, general meanings of the word it's certainly pragmatic, utilitarian, objective and naturalistic. when you start refining those terms you might include or exclude it, but I think the phrase "useful consistencies" is perfect.

>>5127328
How can you be so ignorant of the scientific method?

>>5127335
My IQ is >170 and math olympiads are artificial autism contests and of no intellectual merit. I prefer to do real math instead of sudoku tier nonsense. This being said, there is no question to answer in your post. If you don't know anything about mathematical stochastics, then go the fuck to school.

>>5127136
People don't often realize how quickly the margins add up to. Take five studies in sequence each with a 3% margin of error, and p<.03 becomes a 15% margin of error

This is why metastudies and critical thinking are so important

>>5127349
>has obviously never heard of Feyerabend

Please, go back to Facebook or whatever hole you crawled out off.

>>5127303
>And I was a math olympiad dude.

Are we supposed to laugh or what ?

>>5127303
>Of course it does, it's descriptive

Then please tell us what it this definition, and what it does describe (if it describes anything).

>>5127149
Hawkings said "philosophy is dead" in the same way Nietzsche meant "god is dead": society killed it

Hawkings is not anti philosophy

>>5127349
>>5127335
+arrow and other fucks

this thread is dead.

I still think that the scientific community isn't as deluded as to think that the since scientific might be able to explain everythin, it can also provide answers for everything. I take their point about philosophy being behind on theoretical physics and so forth. And it should catch up before it resumes tryin to think about the origin of the universe... But that's about it.

>>5127157
So clever the troll I bet you're pretty proud of yourself eh?

>>5127356
Feyerabend is a delusional moron on the same level with creationists. I cannot take a person seriously who believes every fairy tale is as valid as science. How much of a pseudo-intellectual dimwit does one have to be to resort to going full retard like this?

>>5127349
Nah, you're unintelligent. And I also studied applied maths in school: statics, buoyancy, pulleys and all that shit -- only a Chinese dude and a Russian whose parents were a rocket scientist and computer programmer in the class with me. And I asked how can one prosper (perhaps substitute "prosper" with "benefit") from studying that which is inherently unpredictable?

>>5127214
Right, and poking at the undefined terms to see what they truly mean is worthwhile practice

>>5127372
Oh, and I also have two engineering degrees pretty much, but they're in electrical and instrumentation, not much to them but very specific formulas.

>>5127364
The fact that science cannot answer everything doesn't validate philosophy, just like it doesn't validate religion, astrology or scientology. Philosophy as a method of answering questions failed. Philosophy has never solved a problem and will never solve a problem. It is obsolete and dead not because of science but because of its own insufficiency.

>>5127361
>Are we supposed to laugh or what ?
You're supposed to get over your bullshit ad homs.
>Then please tell us what it this definition, and what it does describe (if it describes anything).
My argument is merely that there's no difference between mathematical and philosophical definition. That straight lines are as well mapped out as Objectivism.

>>5127281
I'm not a fan of arrow but they're right. Statistics is literally the mathematical study of stochasticity

>>5127188
Dude, all science is based in probability, and "stochastic system" is a contradiction in terms. Systems are deterministic by definition

>>5127385
philosophy isn't for metanarratives muh man. but I agree that it could use more rigour.

some /sci/entists have become so comfortable with results, that they can't escape this paradigm. I'm sure that this crowd isn't representative of the whole scientific community though.

>>5127372
You can look up applicatinos of stochastics on the wikipedia page. But please keep damaging your brain by pretending to be retarded. I will continue replying to you and force you into going more and more full retard only so you can keep up your pathetic bait attempts. In the end you'll actually be the drooling moron you pretend to be right now. Smilingly I await your next reply. I know you cannot resist.

>>5127388
No, you're wrong. Probability is order, otherwise it's just historical and of no real use.

>>5127395
Read:>>5127396
And be less dumb.

>>5127392
semantics. alright.

do you mean that nondeterminism is impossible?

>>5127396

>what are stochastic processes
>"why am i such a moron"

>>5127399
This isn't that hard, really. Random is inherently unusable. The only thing you can depend upon random for, is to be random.

>>5127402
Oh, so they don't deal with random then? Again, I'm a fucking genius mate. I am smarter than your dad motherfucker

>>5127392
⇒Systems are deterministic by definition
Too bad the rest of the world doesn't share your private austistic redefinitions of everyday language.

"i'm guna say the name of a thing that supposedly deals with randomness and hopefully that should cut it lel"
If a thing pops up 1 in every 32 times, that's ordered, it's not random. You cannot use random.

>>5127387
>You're supposed to get over your bullshit ad homs.

Well, you can take that personally if you want. I was merely commenting on the absurdity of claiming "having been a math olypian" as a proof that you have an experience of higher mathematics (because this is what we're talking about).

>My argument is merely that there's no difference between mathematical and philosophical definition.

That's not really an argument, merely a statement. And you haven't adressed my criticism (for instance the fact that philosophy and mathematics, as far as academia is concerned at least, don't use the same language). I'm afraid you can't compare the precision of philosophical terminology in general with that of formal logic, or even with that of the mingle of formal logic and vernacular language that the mathematicians use. Well, you can try, but there's no reason they should compare. If you want to be able to draw working paralelles between math and phil you'll have to consider particular subfileds of each.

Not that you can't do a lot of interesting things with vague terminology, or that the way things are defined in formal logic is completely satisfactory, by the way.

>>5127405
Sorry, Mr philosophy NEET. I can't hear you over the sound of all that money I'm making with my professional knowledge of mathematical stochastics and statistics applied in finance.

>>5127304
>people on /lit/ actually believe in true randomness

This is what a non deterministic system implies

>>5127417
You're dumb, mate. Have a read back through the posts I made. Granted, we were arguing about triviality, but still.

>>5127418
OHH...........it just works? You make money, ergo random isn't actually random at all, but predictable. Makes sense bro.

>>5127415
Nobody cares whether a dropout like you is too linguistically impaired to express himself comprehensibly. In science and math we don't need to masturbate endlessly over semantics. We just describe, make mathematical models and work with their predictions. This is productive and leads to results. This is why we make money and get jobs while you are a NEET escaping into unwarranted pseudo-intellectualism on an anonymous meme forum.

>>5127385
Philosophy ultimately isn't about "answering questions", doofus

>>5127426
Also, as I said, I have two engineering degrees

>>5127420
Again you have no idea what nondeterminism means. Learn some math.

>>5127429
Filtered

>>5127427
I'm laffin at you bro. I'm merely hammering out the facts for those with their god-complexes. And my qualifications and ability are probably 10 times more lucrative than yours mate.

the fucking ego on some pseudo-/sci/entists and scientists here. Luckily the scientific method has no room for your egos, sso their work isn't compromised. But holy shit it's a waste of time to debate these people.

>>5127426
Please go back to 4th grade and this time pay attention to your intro to probability theory.

>>5127430
You weren't even addressed, fucktard.

>>5127429
Then what is it about? Stagnation and escapism? That's even worse.

>>5127400
It's only possible if you're looking at an incomplete part of the system, or if the system has an element then is truly random. Otherwise, the universe must be deterministic

Given that science has been instrumental in stripping away more and more "randomness" and replaces then with complicated systems, it seems to me by induction that there is no true random in the universe

>>5127414
If one of the inputs of a system is not systematized, that doesn't make it a "nondeterminist" system, it means one of the inputs hasn't been systematized.

>>5127437
>Please go back to 4th grade and this time pay attention to your intro to probability theory.
Lol, keep throwing ad homs because you can't back up your retardation. I'll say it again: random is inherently unpredictable and thus unusable.
>You weren't even addressed, fucktard.
What? That was me. Fairly accomplished for being in the 4th grade though, right?

>>5127434
What "facts"? Your pseudo-intellectual semantics trolling isn't facts. On the contrary it's the last resort for someone so fucking uneducated that he has nothing else to contribute to the debate.

>>5127396
Probability is definitionally not order.

>>5127429
I think your statement is insufficient, but I see what you mean >>5127394.

as for >>5127439, I think you're confusing mathematical induction (where everything is fixed and defined) with the other induction, where I'm sure you know, there still is a problem hehe.

"hey guys, ya that thing is random.....but it also predictably thus this"
Hmm.

>>5127424
>You're dumb, mate.

Whi was the one calling ad hominems again ? Nevermind, just being picky.

> Have a read back through the posts I made.

Depending on how I read them, they either state the obvious or are flawed. I was assuming you were trying to make a point, which led me to believe the latter. So, if I get you, you were saying "there's no difference between mathematics and philosophical definitions because they use words", thus implying that all there is no distinction to be made between definitions, as long as they're made of words. I don't see why you would post that, but okay. Chocolate cakes are cool, I guess.

>>5127444
We still don't care about your autistic misconceptions. A system can be nondeterministic, even if you don't understand what that means. Your ignorance is not a valid argument against science and math.

>>5127450
Probability finds order, mate. There are 52 cards in a deck, no mathematical model besides inspecting the order of the deck to make a good guess at what comes up next. That's not random, it's finding order.

>>5127432
Or maybe you do not understand randomness very well

>>5127457
How about you write down the math?

>>5127437
Philosophy is just about questioning things. If Wittgenstein hasn't tried in the Tractatus, we wouldn't know why his system doesn't work,

>>5127453
I'm not making ad homs, mate, just observations. There's a difference.

And true enough, we're arguing about triviality largely. Unless of course someone wants to escape into that triviality.

>>5127451
If the whole universe can be described by numbers, then the two are the same

>>5127461
there is no math in randomness (if such a thing exists) you fucking cunt. fuck off. I am tired of your pubescent ass derailing this thread.

Predictability and determinism are two different issues.

Something can for all practical purposes be unpredictable yet also completely determinist.

This is one of those common confusions that cause troll threads.

>>5127463
Questioning things requires no qualifications. If you have to resort to something as pathetic as to relabel every question as "philosophy", then this only underlines how fucking dead philosophy actually is. Next you're gonna tell me the question "Ay gurl, wanna fug?" is a great work of philosophy.

>>5127468
is the whole universe described by numbers though? I'm not saying I know the answer to this btw...

>>5127452
Yeah.. If you were to find a nondeterministic system, all you have is a collection of systems with a part that is either not understood (systematized) or truly random. The probability field of particles doesn't mean "particles are inherently probablistic", it means "physicists don't know the system underlying particles"

Neuro guy from before. Just wondering what any of this has to do with actual science? Is the whole science/philosophy thing just an excuse to bicker? because if it is that would be pretty interesting.

>>5127478
Indeed -- which doesn't spell random. But there is real random.

>>5127454
I don't care what stupid, incapable thoughts are in your brain. A "nondeterministic" system implies a system wherein some part is not understood, it doesn't describe a fundamental characteristic of that system

>>5127385
>Philosophy has never solved a problem

Wrong! Philosophy has solved many problems. The difference is that it offers options.

>>5127484
we don't know. and can't know unfortunately.

>>5127456
What are you trying to say? There's absolutely no random elements about the ordering of a deck of cards.

>>5127487
Nondeterminism is perfectly well understood.

>>5127482
It's politics versus evolution, anon.

>>5127461
Write down what math?

>>5127492
hmmm? hadn't seen evolution even mentioned. are you serious?

>>5127488
What is the objective answer to the trolley problem?
What is the objective meaning of life?

Philosophy hat thousands of years to think about it. Where are the answers?

>>5127490
he's saying that where a 5 yr old would see randomness, he sees order. he then proceeds to use this as evidence for the nonexistence of randomness. he is not worth talking to.

>>5127489
Of course we can. Existence itself is inherently random, infinite, etc.
>What are you trying to say? There's absolutely no random elements about the ordering of a deck of cards.
Exactly -- which allows probability to have use.

>>5127495
You are making claims about probability theory. Write down the math.

>>5127476
I don't know. I like to think it is so, even if we may not ever get there

>>5127497
wowwww........ reallllly?

it's in our fucking laws. it's in our fucking culture. it's in the way we think about things. philosophy isn't about finding objectivity. objectivity only gets you so far.

>>5127496
It's what I think -- that the scientist deals in materialism whilst the philosopher deals in politics and uncertainty. Of course it's not true right across the board for either side, but it's what those ardent combatants bring to the table. Oh, and there's also cultural capital, I suppose, but I'm talking about those interesting, existentially infuriated folk.

>>5127504
you are the only tripfag I like. also one of the few people on /lit/ who is willing to have a conversation for the sake of clearing things up/finding out about things. I like you.

>>5127506
What law dictates the meaning of life?

>>5127497
>What is the objective answer to the trolley problem?
First you must accept an ethical code. As a utilitarian, save the most people. If you're not a utilitarian, then the there are other options. But ethical codes arent objective, they can only be rational.

>What is the objective meaning of life?
Meankng is not inherent to life. Existence precedes essence. You give yourself meaning.

Next?

>>5127484
Is there? Where?

If I were to take a computer, a discrete system that is absolutely not random, you would say "the user makes it random". Well okay yes, the users input is too hard to predict for us to systematize it and say, "oh look, we can tell you the state of the system at any point"! But of we were able to predict the users actions, we could fully systematize the problem and have full predictability

There isn't randomness here anywhere. There's just extreme complexity

Don't mistake "physically possible" with what is possible in theory, either

>>5127510
This is the saddest samefag I've ever seen. But then again it came from the dumbest tripfag I've ever seen.

>>5127491
Yes, of course it is. I understand it very well.

Point out to me one nondeterministic system where the "randomness" is essential to the system and not just do to a lack of understanding

I'm waiting

>>5127512
I asked for an objective answer and not an opinion.

>utilitarian
into the trash

>>5127513
You... you are random, trole faec. Existence itself is. We are necessarily dealing with infinity and the unintelligible in general when pondering upon existence.

>>5127510
Thanks anon

>>5127511
nigguh, law is a manifestation of how we think about ethics (a branch of philosophy). we don't know if there is an 'inherent meaning' to life. we fill it with stuff in the meantime.

>>5127509
politics is necessary as long as we're social. materialism can help reveal truths around which we shape socio-political systems, but it will never reveal truths on what is the best politics.

>>5127515
nope, I can assure you that I am a separate individual who really likes the way in which troel faec conducts himself.

>>5127521
Okay, but there is no proof of randomness. None at all. No proof for determinism either. I already said in a determinist because of induction and because I like to believe it

>>5127517
/b/ is by definition random

>>5127525
>politics is necessary as long as we're social. materialism can help reveal truths around which we shape socio-political systems, but it will never reveal truths on what is the best politics.
It will though -- it's just most of the scientific crowd are post-politics. And, in truth, philosophy is good for society (or at least I think so, and given observation).

>>5127529
Actually, once a thing can be deemed "unintelligible," I'm pretty sure that suffices as a proof of random.

>>5127520
>I asked for an objective answer and not an opinion

Then the answer is this. There is no answer to the trolley problem. Morality is a spook. Theres no objective reason for you to even intervene. However, an individual picks up a sense of morality according to his circumstance. The answer to the trolley problem depends on the person confronted with it. It is irrelevant in a vacuum.

>>5127535
>it will though

entertain me with a hypothesis then. disregard the current hurdles science faces and thinnk of a time where it has explained everything. how will it dictate which political system works best?

>>5127538
..

>>5127538
you must be kidding. .

>>5127542
Well we're a pretty ordered being anon. It's like how we know how to break people with torture, only the opposite. Science needn't be all numbers dude.

>>5127509
Why are they angry though? is it the credibility science has in the matters it addresses? or some feeling that it's impinging on their own fields in some way? There used to be lots of arguments in the sixties and seventies between communist scientists and more conservative ones on what science "should" be dealing with, but it was mostly about how grant money should be allocated, not jurisdictional stuff.

>>5127538
>Once you can be deemed as stupid by someone else, I'm sure that suffices as proof of your stupidity.

>>5127543
>>5127544
No I'm not kidding. If a thing is unintelligible, if there is no sense to be found as regards it, then it is random, that's as fucking random as it gets.

>>5127548
I know it's not all numbers. But still, artificially inducing a perfect system once science has mappedout subjectivity still depends of your definition of perfect. Science can't define that. neither can philosophy, but at least it talks about it in a different way. which helps with ethics, epistemology, etc.

>>5127555 -->>>5127550

>>5127550
Bad post, anon, I'm dealing in perfectly sensible definitions.
>>5127549
Well, take Steven Hawkings for example -- dude's fucked up and hates everyone and wants the whole world under his thumb. You read his book? I cringed so hard at the bit about the bet about porn. It's all god-complex, basically, some people getting lost in numbers thinking, "these are the answers, this is the truth," others lost and feeling less secure, arguing politics.

>>5127563
just because everyone thinks "Y" is "X" doesn't make it "X".

>>5127568
Agreed -- your point? What you just said there amounts to, "Your definitions are not necessarily sensible." OK? Well, let's have them stand until someone can point out why they aren't.

>>5127568
⇒implying it doesn't

When the Party announces 2+2=5, then you better believe it.

Steven Hawking, basically, is a man with nothing to lose, and so he doesn't give a fuck.

>>5127575
fuck. me. randomness can only occur in a nondeterministic 'system'. randomness is falsifiable. you're saying that unintelligibility equates randomness. no. it equates 'not knowing'.

>>5127583
And then everyone else is a solipsistic retard crying at the world pretty much. But then there's those badass motherfuckers who are a mix of the two, practical and political gods.

>>5127578
arrows, you have no idea how much you disgust me. troll or no troll, sociopath or no sociopath.

if you indeed are a sociopath, you've certainly chose the boring life.

>>5127585
Actually, randomness isn't falsifiable, but segments of it are by naming them "ordered". The whole universe might disappear tomorrow, anon. This may all just be one mindblowing streak of random complementary occurrence.

>>5127591
when saying a mix of the two your view is probably restricted to social darwinists. amarite you fucking pleb?

>>5127605
Uh....no. I'd say Nietzsche was one.

>>5127607
Einstein was another.

>>5127599
My life is exciting. You have no idea what I'm doing outside of 4chan. Keep projecting.

>>5127602
sure, randomness isn't falsifiable only because we don't know what we don't know. but we also don't know what we don't know what we don't know...

I take it you're saying thinking of the world as random isn't 'useful', whatever that means. I agree, it doesn't lead to results. All I'm saying is that science still isn't sufficient in a deterministic universe.

>>5127563
I think some people are obsessed with the flyspeck in the milk sometimes. Or maybe a better metaphor is chasing the final piece of a ten thousand piece puzzle because somebody out there keeps trying to fit in things that clearly can't possibly fit in the space, and they want that last hole filled up so they can stop patiently explaining why that piece or that other one won't work. I do know some of the frustration that keeps scientists from discussing things with laymen. It can be pretty hard to explain something pretty simple to somebody when they don't have any background in it, even if they're not politically, or philosophically indisposed towards your point of view, or even to simple facts.
I find guys like Hawking and Dawkins and even Gould a bit vulgar, since i don't think its polite to call an idiot an idiot no matter how rude he's being. or how deliberate and facile his "idiocy" is. This apparent rancor on subjects that i doubt a tenth of a percent of scientists ever even trouble themselves over is what I find bizarre. I mean a botanist is trying to compare the relative environmental plasticity of certain understory plants to varying shade conditions, and the mechanisms that that obsolete certain tropistic responses. He never even considers the definition of truth, the logical absolutes or stochastics unless he's having trouble rejecting his null hypothesis. remember that biological significance is usually 95% confidence with repeatability, and one or two degrees of freedom.) Philosophy and science really only overlap in a tiny way most of the time, and i doubt many philosophers care about it any more than scientists do

>>5127615
Science is just pragmatism, anon, not truth. There will always be an infinity behind anything we will ever know. I mean, how does one know they've achieved omniscience?

>>5127612
nig, you have no idea, nor will you ever have, what more complex beings are doing and feeling outside of your incomplete physiological processes. so I'm good where I'm at.

>>5127621
oh, okay. I thought you were one of those people who sees no use for philosophy. I pretty much agree with everything you've said so far.

>>5127623
I'm superior to you in every aspect of life. Feels good.

>>5127621
>>5127631
also, science isn't 'just' pragmatism (in the philosophical sense hehe) as it doesn't see meaning only in pragmatism. some boring scientists are pragmatists though. science is just a very cool and useful tool.

>>5127616
Agreed. It's like Feynman's quote about philosophy of science being as much use to physicists as ornithology is to birds. But then you have the dullards hoisting this on banners against all of philosophy, which is frankly incorrect. Social sciences certainly need philosophical (or political) monitoring. It's just there's a hatred there, I think, so conflated as god and government are in people's minds. I mean we're not long gone from god-kings -- that should tell you quite a lot about how politics works.

>>5127637
whatever works for you anon, whatever works.

>>5127641
⇒Social sciences certainly need philosophical (or political) monitoring

Science should be unbiased and independent and solely rely on objective facts, not on political opinions or metaphysical beliefs.

>>5127644
Contain your jelly, please.

>>5127646
When someone thinks to build a machine that could blow up the universe, politics comes into it. Your wishy-washy feels-good science is just that.......er, dumb.

>>5127646
we get it man. you are a sociopath. sure this could make sense for you. also you can't make an 'objective' socio-political system no matter how many objective truths science discovers.

can you let the humans talk now?

>>5127637
Bet my dick is bigger. and more utilitarian than yours, in a pragmatic, naturalistic sort of way.

>>5127655
Funny.

>>5127646
You definitely need monitoring

>>5127652
I'm not sure that's a political thing either. I mean any technological thing can and does, have tremendous impact on society. blowing up the world is one thing, but if Lockheed Martin has their reactor out in the time frame they claim, Russia will have nothing to base its economy on. Should they be lobbying the U.S. To shut down the Skunk Works? The mold-board plow and the horsecollar changed the world more than the A-Bomb. Where would politics have come down there?

>>5127652
⇒social science
⇒building machines
Your reading comprehension is sub-par. This being said, I would never trust a philosopher when it comes to destructive weapons. In the end he might use the weapon because he deluded himself into believing reality doesn't exist.

>>5127654
Philosophy can't make a socio-political system either. It only ever produced unrealistic utopia fantasies which failed immediately after being implemented. Only common sense can help in politics.

>>5127655
I'm glad I don't have a dick.

>>5127667
I think it is. In my mind philosophy and politics = the organisation of people, and science = the study of the natural world. They will and should overlap when science's study impinges upon the individual. (Of course you could argue philosophy to be common sense by those terms, but there's still absolutely no harm in having a discussion on morality going.)

>>5127677
>Your reading comprehension is sub-par.
Arrow, get with the program here. Social scientists have done some absolutely awful things. I just took the situation to the extreme for you.

>>5127677
of course you can't see why philosophy can't make a socio-political system. you're a fucking sociopath.

but really now? do you reside in London by any chance? do you wanna see who is the better man of us, objectively, by evolutionary or survivalist standards? I'd rek you, trust me.

>>5127679
The rest of philosophy is largely nonsense then (like what Arrow referenced in that last post), but it's still worth discussing -- and there's where philosophy and psychology conflate, and it's healthy to air that shit too. I'm pretty sure the majority of mass-murders are carried out by extremely solipsistic individuals and there's no way around that psychology but the make yourself real in it by contact.

>>5127694
There will never be an anti-solipsism pill, not short of straight up lobotomy.

>>5127694
ethics?

>>5127687
⇒Social scientists have done some absolutely awful things
Only when they were misguided by philosophy. Philosophy should be kept out of science.

>>5127689
Unless you're a big guy you'd stand no chance in a fight.

>>5127704
I am above average, but how about we let the actual experience pick out the winner instead of wasting time to analyse what is indeed a deterministic system whose variables we can never be too sure of since one of us could always lie. How bout it then, Arrows?

>>5127079
Was it like this? (Red button for best part)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879

>>5127677
>>5127679
I think the hard thing here is when the villagers show up with the torches and pitchforks are they there because your monster threatens their children and crops, because your new potato strain threatens their corner on the food market, or your astrophysical or evolutionary discoveries threaten their worldview? How do you tell the luddites from the creatards from the genuinely threatened and fearful?

>>5127704
Oh shut up talking rubbish.

>>5127708
Arrow is a chick dude.

>>5127724
haha, fo realz? do you know if she's trollin or if there's reason to believe she's an actual annoying sociopath?

Dealing with other people is good for the soul, it's as simple as that, and that's what philosophy is.

>>5127729
She looks like Stephen Hawking and she's mad with god, anon.

>>5127736
hah. I actually remember posting a picture of a boy looking like Stephen Hawking, only autistic, in order to illustrate how she comes across in these threads and yeah... I remember that her only remark was that she can't be like the picture because she's not a boy...

>>5127708
⇒I am above average
Your size? That's all you have to offer? No martial arts experience? I bet you don't even lift.

>>5127724
If he read the thread, he knows. And you should of used a comma.

>>5127746
>should of

why are you all replying to this mong

>>5127746
Am I a misogynist because I laughed at a girl using the "do you even lift bit"?

>>5127746
I have some martial arts experience, only the non full-contact kind, so it's of no use. My physical superiority (in a fight) simply stems from my background in the eastern-european ghettos. Also from the fact that I am a man and you are a girl. So I must withdraw my proposition.

I personally don't lift, but I've been a farmer and in industry all my life and so I'll kill anyone with farmer strength and farmer's tan (also, I'm fighting Irish). Just in case anyone was wondering.

>>5127757
And I'm also super-intelligent and do chalk down my physical dexterity in part to that. I just know how to hit people.

>>5127437
>>5127463
Philosophy, for me, is a therapy; or it was a therapy when I read it, it is producing brain activity and at its best helps to cope with the world around you. I never had thought about what of my reading was true etc., was a dumb question to me. All good philosophy is meditation.

>>5127079

>mfw psychology majors who haven't read Freud or Lacan dismiss them because muh hivemind
>mfw they still believe they're doing real science

I'm not even a continentalfag, but christ these people.

what in the world could you possibly oh w/e

>>5127784
>I ameth a fool whom knoweth naught natural philosophy

How do people live not knowing the basics of what constitutes science, and why.

Well, we may not have solved any scientific/philosophical disputes, but we've made some progress on who has the biggest dick, who can beat who up, and who has the highest IQ, and isn't that really what's important? Now if only somebody would tell us how rich and successful they are...

>>5127235
Namedropping without knowledge of the subject matter and objections to it occurs in real life.

It's a fucking industry now, with the increasing privatization of higher education.

>trying to discuss science with a philosophy diehard

>>5127831

I wonder how he feels being billed like that on BBC.