/lit/ - Literature

muh b8

So the people who aren't majoring in some useful field, such as engineering, can feel useful or intelligent Anon.

That's why this board is full of people discussing philosophy over literature as depressing as that is.

Based STEM master race though.

>>5408205
>i disagree with you, this must be b8
english majors everyone

>>5408201
What's the point of anything

>>5408210
Shut up you fucking faggot. I know you think "oh this is b8 so I'm going to play along with it". The truth is that you can't dispute that science is based off facts while philosophical concepts arise from our personal, flawed perceptions on life.

For fun.

STEM party poopers go back to /sci/

le pleb face xd

>>5408226
What on earth are you talking about

The natural sciences cannot reckon with metaphysics, which, however much you hem and haw, are real.

Go read more about the Form of the Good and quit being a nomenalist faggot.

>>5408221
>What's the point of anything
The point of everything is to biologically stimulate our neurological functions that lets us experience positive emotions

There: a simple scientific answer to something philosophers couldn't figure out since the dawn of time.

>>5408235
>metaphysics
>real
You're probably a christfag too

>>5408245
>denying that the sensible world is anything but a watery reflection of higher reality

And even the natural sciences have begun to uncover this. Plato was right.

>>5408201
I'm glad to hear that science has proven the correct way to live morally and that /lit/ will now be shut down and folded into /sci/. Words are for autists, only numbers are real. Goodbye everyone, it's been fun.

>>5408259
Wittgenstein approves

>>5408259
>I'm glad to hear that science has proven the correct way to live morally
Have you ever heard of neurology/biology?

Our morals have already been decided through evolution as they helped the human race cooperate and achieve genetic success

>>5408269
What are those morals? Is lying ok?

>>5408269
Are those morals correct? Are everyone morals the same?

>>5408201
>started my first year at uni last week
>doing engineering
How is baby's first real analysis going?

>>5408269
Did you just use the is ought to be fallacy for your entire ethical system?

>>5408269
No, I've never heard of neurology or biology. Tell me about them and how they teach me how to behave morally.

>>5408201
You should ask you professor, make sure to bring lube for your thorough buttfucking.

>>5408305
Fuck off Socrates

>>5408320
>scarred because he sees the contradiction already

>>5408329
>scarred
He takes the internet way too seriously.

>>5408238
Why are you posting on /lit/ instead of chugging anti-depressants then?

>>5408329

"We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all." - Wittgenstein

/thread

>>5408201
>>5408210
>>5408329

Humanities teachers should get paid extra for each STEM-faggot trying to disprove philosophy

philosophy always gos in circles

have any of the great questions been answered?

>>5408528
Nope. Hundreds of years later and people still have no idea how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The greatest minds of our generation eschew crap like philosophy, that's why they're all hard at work coding for one of five interchangable taxi-service apps.

>>5408201
I think you're romanticizing philosophy and failing to grasp its true essence. Without philosophy science would not exist. This argument you're presenting - if you can call it that - wouldn't exist without philosophy. I suggest you take a course on critical thinking prior to any courses related to the Greeks or otherwise. Maybe your professor is just shit, maybe your school is shit (for philosophy). Anyways I endorse you to read 'Good Reasons For Better Arguments' by Jerome Bickenbach.

Unless of course this is b8, because it really does feel like b8.

>>5408554
i b8d ur mum wit my dik last nite

Actually OP I personally don't believe that we have answered the questions behind philosophy through science. While science explains the material world and the way it is, the behaviour of matter and how biology explains the homeostasis of life, I believe that we are still a very large way off from understanding ourselves. And that's what part of philosophy means to me. I am not trying to represent philosophy in a classic sense, but in my opinion it means knowledge of ourselves. At a very deep, personal level. In a way that we are happy and proud, and with wisdom to give it meaning without ignorance.

To me we are very far away from that goal, and science will never be the answer in attaining that. That is why it never makes sense to me when people say science explains everything. It dosnt. To think like that is to completly forget that we are the most important thing to exist, and that science will never be able to make us complete. It's inside ourselves

I sure hope you're trolling op or I really feel sorry for you

>philosophy isn't useful and it isn't applicable anywhere

are you even human

>>5408201
You don't need to know much to recognize that the pursuit of understanding through science only yields knowledge of what we can see around us and how it functions in a physical way. It has no explanation for human consciousness at all. How did I get here? We still don't have an answer to that specific question, and I don't know if we will.

>>5408201
>millenniums
l2plural

the sad part is that while science cannot answer these questions either, philosophy is still bullshit.

>>5408536
10/10 post

>>5408821
this
both science and philosophy are obsolete from the perspective of the occult

>>5408201
>Seriously, what's the fucking point of philosophy and everything related to it?
engie here, you basically summed up everyone in our field, you fucks have no appreciation of the subjunctive, what the fuck is wrong with you?

>me stemfag
>me very sure that physical concepts measured with imperfect human perception are accurate

How barbaric

>>5408865
>If I can't have 100% proof of anything it doesn't exist and its dumb because I'm smart and I say so.
I cry everytiem ;_;

>>5408876
Lol, that black and white stem thinking again

Of course science is useful for our society but to claim it has already made all philosophy irrelevant is ridiculous and ignores the limitations or flaws of the human mind.

>>5408201
Is anyone actually so stupid that they can't distinguish between philosophical problems (eg what is 'knowledge', what is 'moral', etc) and scientific problems (how does matter interact in our universe)? Or are you all being willfully dense because these pointless arguments are fun to you

>>5408891
Please do not criticize the autists they might snap and shoot us all

>>5408880
also there is a log science can't explain that's why every Neruoscience class I've taken they always start with the same question:
>Is r we have soul?
We know that the brain makes people who they are, and we can track that down to electrical impulses but we can't really explain really what makes you... well you. The fact that were the only sentient species only compounds the need for questions of why we are here, who are we really, and so fourth.

>these threads STILL get 250 replies without fail

What the fuck is wrong with you, /lit/? You're the smartest retards I know.

>>5408895
>log
I meant a lot, also excuse my terrible grammar I just pulled an all-nigher for a test.

>>5408201
Maybe because some of us aren't poorfags and can do whatever we want/ Enjoy being part of the rat-race STEMshit.

>>5408201
because the processes by which facts are obtained (or more accurately, produced) are in no way objective, and because the process determines the outcome. What passes off as "science" and "engineering" is simply retooled versions of Enlightenment-era epistemology (philosophy).
Read fucking feyerabend.

>>5408201

oh lawd, people are going to claim this is bait but OP is right. There is such arrogance on this board. You get people literally saying: "Well now that science knows about evolution and neuroscience but they still can't answer any questions about metaphysics!"

And then you see these /lit/ philosophers (or anyone) talk about metaphysics and it's a bunch of utterly baseless claims.

Wow great job guys.

Oh lawd, and now the ethics fags. Of course science can't tell us what to do, but neither can any philosopher. An ethical system isn't something that only a philosopher works out, it's something that initially lays down the assumptions / axioms and then it all trivially falls in to place.

>>5408951
gr8, f8 m8 would r8 8/8

>>5408269
>Our morals have already been decided through evolution as they helped the human race cooperate and achieve genetic success

LOL this is speculation, not neurology or biology

⇒hurr durr science can't tell us the meaning of life or how to make moral decisions
⇒philosophy can't do it either
⇒philosophy failed for thousands of years to answer these questions and continues to fail over and over again
⇒somehow this legitimizes philosophy

Sure, idiots. Just like astrology is legitimized by the fact that it cannot explain quantum entanglement. Cool story. You sure are convincing OP with your inability to grasp basic logic.

>>5408201

Science is metaphysics (at least the most fundamental science). All major scientists before the mid-20th century knew that.

>>5408951
philosophy exists in forms in ethics, jurisprudence, economics, physics, all forms of literature and art...metaphysics and epistemology are not its only concerns.

>>5409007
⇒Science is metaphysics
No, it isn't. Stop talking out of your ass.

>>5409011

It amazes me how ignorant people are of the history of science.
The concepts of forces, space, time, etc isn't metaphysics?

>>5409006
Science has failed to show us how to do a large number of things (faster than light travel, sentient computers, etc.), that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing scientific goals. Same can be said of philosophy. It is a continual study of human thought and perception.

I urge you to not end your posts with 4chan memespeak as if it makes your argument stronger, it's embarrassing.

>>5409016
⇒The concepts of forces, space, time, etc isn't metaphysics?
No, they are mathematical models, you fucktard.

>>5409017
⇒Science has failed to show us how to do a large number of things
That's why don't name these things when defending science. Instead we name the things science succeeded to explain. Retards like you on the other hand continue to mention ethics and the meaning of life in defense of philosophy even though philosophy cannot solve them. How stupid are you? Would you on a school exam only write down a list of things you DON'T know instead of those you do know? Why is your IQ so disgustingly low that you fail at basic logic?

>>5409021

Oh I'm sorry, Mathematics isn't metaphysics? How so?

>>5409021
tell me about the mathematical model for time please

>>5409036
How is math metaphysics? Are you retarded? Math is amenable to rational inquity. Math does not need subjective beliefs. Math has practical applications. Mathematical descriptions of nature yield testable predictions. This is pretty much the exact opposite of metaphysics.

>>5409021
>Retards like you on the other hand continue to mention ethics and the meaning of life in defense of philosophy

Literally never said any of that, nice reading comprehension. Thought they made stemfags take at least one composition class so they wouldn't embarrass themselves in the professional world.

The only thing I said was that philosophy studies human thought and perception, that is, the space that neuroscience and in some cases physics have not been able to explain yet. Perhaps it will one day, philosophers would rejoice in knowing about the biological causes of our consciousness. Of course, there would still be much to be explained, but intelligent people will analyze any answer, whether it be purely philosophical or purely biological or a little of both.

If you can rephrase the rest of your post without all the autistic ranting I'm sure an adult can explain things to you.

>>5409039
⇒implying it's my job to teach you general relativity

Self-smart yourself. Sapere aude!

>>5409045
Tell me, what does philosophy explain? Which problems has it solved?

>>5409040

>Math is amenable to rational inquity.
What?

>Math does not need subjective beliefs.
You mean Maths doesnt need minds to exist? This isn't metaphysical speculation?

>Math has practical applications.
And I claim its metaphysics, so no problem

>Mathematical descriptions of nature yield testable predictions.
Same.

Please try harder, you're obviously not clear with yourself on this.

>>5408201
Is is isn't biiuiiouuuuttttcccchhhh

Jihad.

>>5409060
The definition of metaphysics is "empty talk without basis in reality". Obviously math is neither empty talk nor does it lack connection to reality. Thus it is not metaphysics. QED (<-- for the plebs: that means it's proven).

>>5409053
I was trying to imply that you couldn't really give me a mathematical model that defined time, and I still think you can't.

General relativity can (at least as I understand it) give you a schema to understand time in relation to the physical dimensions we observe, but it can't define what time is.

>>5409066

underage detected

>>5409066
LOL

>>5408201

Philosophy has always for people who struggle with metaphysics and ethics.

Easy solutions that are metaphysical ontologies lie with science and theology.

You can chose the easy road or the hard road.
It's a purely existential choice.

>>5409072
⇒at least as I understand it

And where did you gain this understanding? In a pop sci youtube video explaining GR with rubber sheet analogies while avoiding even the simplest math? You're full of shit, kid.

>>5409097
let me get this straight right now. you're saying that General Relativity literally gives us a mathematically correct definition of time, and not just one where you can solve for time in terms of the other dimensions.

like, that's actually what you're saying, and you're insulting people who think that sounds ridiculous.

>>5409040
>Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree.
Even materialism/physicalism is a metaphysical assumption about the universe. Similarly, if mathematics is based on axioms then one can argue it does need subjective belief. Also, metaphysics can have practical applications (even if not necessarily true). Take the Austrian analysis of the economy. Though they don't take into full account the different aspects of human behavior, they do an apt enough job to give a fairly good explanation of human interactions in the economy.

Also, testifiable predictions are not enough. Read Popper.

>>5408253
CITATIONS PLZ

>>5408577
Underated post

>>5408201
One should read this article

http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Philosophy-Obsolete-/145837/

>>5408339
>Wittgenstein

>>5409526

Just kill yourself please, only you can help the human race in such a way.

>>5409539
aww little shlomo is upset now

>>5409539
>race

Back to >>>/pol/

>>5408339
This looks strangely like an authority argument. Even if the sentence seems to be accurate, you shouldn't accept anything just because someone you might admire has said it.

>>5409552

True, if you think your intellect is sufficient to judge correctly the proposition.

Sometimes people trust authority because of the credited skills said authority has.

It is true also, that error often comes shaped this way, because even if authority is incredibly wise in a given subject, the limits of human understanding are apparently there for all.

But you can think also, that by knowing, the limits of human understanding somewhat get fuzzy, and that you get granted access to things that are further beyond, for a brief moment.

In that brief moment, you find infinity, and as you find infinity, you realize the boundaries aren't really there.

If the boundaries aren't really there, what do we get to know? Do we get to know nothing? Or do we get to know it all?

;)

>>5409581

>The limits of human understanding are apparently there for all.

Also, Authority sometimes blatantly lie, to justify unjustifiable things, based on said authority. Can the circle jerk be more circlejerkesque?

> science still hasn't figured something out
> science has failed!

So, philosophy students/enthusiasts are as dumb as crazy religious people?

While Philosophy is indeed shit, the people behind it are actually fun and worth hanging around. However STEM students can't stop taking about Hearthstone, steam game no. 48, and anime. And as shown by this thread, you can tell just how insufferable they are in any sort of argument/quarrel. They're really an autistic bunch.

>>5409581

When does science emit authority arguments? When the claims made are uncheckable by all the peers towards whom they're formulated.

This is the origin of Descartes critique of Aristotelian Scholars... Now... What would Descartes think of some sort of theoretical physics?

>>5409651

>>5409631
This.

Me and my a lot of friends have some different degrees of interest in political science and philosophy, and we can't discuss anything abouti t next to STEMfriends without them eventually resorting to NONE OF THIS SHIT IS REAL STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS BORING STUFF.

It probably is frustrating to spend 2 years studying calculus to listen to people talk about stuff you can't opssibly grasp

>>5408201
>one week as an undergrad
>claims to know the scientific answer to everything
>not even fucking studying hard science

spending three years with people like you was hell. oh, and don't assume you'll get work, by the way. If you're not the best then you're as fucked as the rest of them.

>>5409056
>implying the goal of philosophy is to 'solve problems'

>>5409108
The Holographic principle of string theory is essentially proof of Platonism

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

Another thread to prove my point: /lit/ is dead.

>>5409021
How could you begin to apply synthetic analytical assertions using geometers to describe an object without a priori claim of time & space to attach it to?

Philosophy is the last resort for pseudo-intellectual teenagers who are too uneducated to talk about actual science and math where their baseless drivel would be objectively disproved.

>>5408201
>will finish my 4th year of uni in 2 months
>doing physics and mathematics
>did an engineering course to see what it was like
>constantly talking about painfully boring, trivial physics concepts; nobody even understands what is happening and just memorises empirical equations
>realise that trying to uncover the truth of existence with equations is such a daunting task that it will probably not work. We should be researching drugs and the brain and philosophy and meditation
>realise many scientists like people on /sci/, and those funding research, are not aware enough of the philosophical consequences of the point physics is approaching so progress is likely to come to a halt
>have crisis about what to do with my life

>>5409898
>>realise that trying to uncover the truth of existence with equations is such a daunting task that it will probably not work.

And yet it keeps planes in the sky

Just admit it, philosophy is dead, and we should be glad it is

>>5409907
typical stem student confusion of basic ideas. how do you robotic nerds even manage to breathe?

>>5409907
The way we are using it, technological progress is taking the world in a direction I don't like. We will not be happier, and world will not be healthier, with 20 billion people relying on machines to be alive. Getting results doesnt necessarily mean it is an objectively good thing, and certainly doesnt mean it can replace a fundamentally different field.

>>5409921

>all these undefined terms
>all these unfalsifiable statements

It's like you want me to consider philosophy ridiculous

You're a pragmatist, ask yourself what railing against academic sputum is going to accomplish.

If you take pride in doing... then do. Don't worry about the weak, useless masses trying to build esteem for themselves out of nothing. If you want to lead the way, you aren't going to do it by complaining and finger pointing.

>>5409927
ok. if you ever want to be more in life than some number crunching tool, you know what you need to do

You're 18 years old, OP. Why are you so sure that you understand so much of life? Don't you think that maybe what you take as truth was just waht they told you it is? How do you differenciate your own knowledge from indoctrination?

Aslo, why is captcha forcing me to snitch on people's adresses? It's not giving me the autogenerated option, luckily I can just pretend to be dislexic.

>>5408269
>natural selection is the goal of all morality
Are you mentally retarded, this was the case before civilization, the more humanity progresses the more questions beg to be answered

>all these mad stemfags in this thread not realising that science is merely a belief system

>>5409895
Why do you base your understanding of something on teenagers behaving like teenagers? Are we gonna consider science on the quality of teens repeating half truths from xkcd? Are we cracked now?

>>5409017
Science keeps raising the bar

>>5408226
Cute little personal philosophy you got going there dude.

>>5410012
>idiot philosopher not knowing science is a process, not a thing

>>5410439

a thing can contain a process, you dolt.

>>5410484
irate waste-of-space philosopher detected

>>5409660
>>5409631
>tfw the stereotype is completely true
literally every STEMfag is an aspie

>>5409660
⇒However STEM students can't stop taking about Hearthstone, steam game no. 48, and anime

I had to look up what "Hearthstone" is and I fully agree. I hate the fact that STEM is so infested with nerds. During my undergrad I saw people browsing reddit or xkcd during lectures. In CS lectures it was even worse, some of the neckbeards played video games or watched anime on their laptops. When I had to interact with a group of them, I always cringed internally when their topic of discussion switched to whatever shitty game for children they were playing or what cartoon they were watching. I'm so glad I had plenty of opportunities to socialize with normal people outside of STEM. I fucking hate nerds.

>>5409792
What is the goal of philosophy?

>>5409881
⇒incoherent gibberish
Speak English.

>>5409898
Give me one reason why you think philosophy is relevant to scientic research.

STEMS, how does it feel to be a human calculator and nothing else ?

>>5410743
how does it feel to only have the ability to construct absurd strawman arguments?

so much fucking responses....

>>5410671
What's so bad about reddit?

>>5410801
lit is like the only board that seems to largely realize that 4chan is no better than read it and I unironically love this

Oh /lit/

>>5410801
It's a bunch of autistic kids taking themselves too seriously. Just take a look at /pol/ to see what the average redditor is like. /pol/ is their colony here on 4chan.

>>5408201
>First year at uni
>Doing engineering
Please, you're still in like Calc1

>>5410824
>/pol/ is their colony here on 4chan.
What the fuck? No it isn't, redditors are way too liberal for /pol/. If anything some of the more tame special interest boards like /sci/, /tg/ /mu/ etc. are filled with redditors. /pol/ is well known as one of the most retarded boards on 4chan that everyone tries to avoid.

>>5410864
You're wrong. /pol/ is the board with the worst reddit infestation. At times half of the board is nothing but reddit threads.

>>5410882
I don't think you know what reddit threads are if you think /pol/ is filled with redditors. Try going on fucking /v/ or something and you'll see true reddit. /pol/ is about the farthest from that.

>>5410887
You're a hilarious newfag. Have you ever been on /pol/?

>>5410882
>le ebin trollle xD

>>5410671
Within STEM I find that it's the engineering/CS students that are the most insufferable. The pure math majors I've met all enjoy talking about philosophy(At least analytical).

>>5410903
Go back to your containment board, imbecile.

>>5410922
What containment board?

>>5409581

Not only this, but nowadays, some concept of Science is used as a new authority argument.

Imagine scientists planting on purpose hoaxes in their own domain of understanding, for the sake of maieutics, and pedagogy...

>>5408226
Of course. Since they have different goals and methods.

>>5408201
The notion that science contains truth is perhaps mankind's greatest folly since the invention of agriculture.

>>5408337

/thread

>>5408201
An analogy: Seriously, what's the fucking point of science and everything related to it? Literally everything is being answered by mathematics and this continues.

This thread has convinced me that engineers are, apart from where mathematics are concerned, complete fucking idiots about anything else. Holy shit.

>>5410671
>complains about Reddit
>on one of the most Reddit-infested boards on 4chan
>hates nerds but browses 4chan
I think reddit would be a better place for you, actually.

>>5411059

they're shit at maths too. in fact most of them are mathematically illiterate as an earlier poster pointed out

>>5411059
⇒apart from where mathematics are concerned
Engineers don't know shit about math either.

>>5411060
/lit/ is surprisingly free of reddit shit. It seems this board has the most mature posters.

>>5411059
They are. Even on /sci/ they're complete idiots about everything including mathematics.

Maybe. 75% of those hopefulfags wanting to go into engineering will wash out once they realize that it requires actual studying and that nobody will hire them without 2 years experience, unless they enjoy making 35K/yr starting. And if there's anything the industry doesn't need, it's more FNG ("fuckin' new guy") engineers. And I'd like to add that once you get your job, chances are that nobody will train you. You will be expected to figure out things which are alien to you, in a timely manner, and your coworkers won't help you because they're too overworked as it is and don't want competition.

College kids are young and stupid, and think that they'll be sending rockets to the moon or building sentient robots straight outta college.

Why are there always so many STEM kids high on speed? Is there more of an incentive to cram information for tests or something? You never see this in the humanities departments.

>>5408235
>metaphysics, which, however much you hem and haw, are real.
top kek

>science answers everything
>philosophy obsolete
>"b-but there are things you can't see with science"
>don't even try to argue why philosophy has authority over this area

>>5408259
/lit/ is for books you fag

>>5410864
>>5410887
>what are mra's

>>5411116
A new age of Modernism

>>5411059
Relax, you making a blanket statement like that is as idiotic as the OP

I'm double majoring in mechanical engineering and studio art from a good school, and I read regularly and if I had to pick, I would say that I respect the humanities more than the sciences. But yes >>5411077 is right. Even though I'm decent at physics, I am absolute shit at math. That's actually why I chose engineering, because I liked physics way more than math. I'm not smart enough for math to be fun for me.

>>5411116
Sartre loved amphetamine

>>5411086
⇒College kids are young and stupid, and think that they'll be sending rockets to the moon or building sentient robots straight outta college.

Those manchildren are usually the same kind of person who believes discussing metaphysics or ethics is a worthwhile activity. Because after all that's the only thing they can do: dwelling in self-masturbatory pseudo-intellectual fantasies. They will never contribute anything to science.

>>5411154
You haven't contributed anything to science.

Why is arrows so mean? I just want to study things I find interesting.

Don't lump me in with those idiots that think philosophy has influence outside of itself.

>>5411170
"She"'s doing research on 4chan thread dynamics. Using very simple, yet somewhat provocative phrases "she" is able to generate angry responses.

>>5408896
Because /lit/ can't fathom that someone would not care about the only thing that differentiates them as not worthless. Or worse, /lit/ is terrified of the proposition of someone out there being a well-paid engineer with a very nice house and a great book collection ranging from Heidegger to MacIntyre, to Mishima to Hamsun.

>>5408213
no this is just so obviously bait its embarrassing.

>>5411196
>Or worse, /lit/ is terrified of the proposition of someone out there being a well-paid engineer with a very nice house and a great book collection ranging from Heidegger to MacIntyre, to Mishima to Hamsun.

I really doubt anyone on /lit/ actually cares about that.

The first point might be somewhat true, though.

>>5411146

no, I still stand by my statement. Even people studying physics (which I do) often only get a surface level reading of mathematics. I thought I was decent at math until I encountered my first pure math course and had to write proofs, I had to reevaluate my entire concept of what maths is.

In both engineering and physics there isn't enough time to go into maths deep enough, concepts are applied but only cursory proofs are given, if given at all.

And I'm with you on the arts/sciences divide, I would also say I have more respect for the arts. Not so much as an academic discipline, but as a product of the human soul. I don't know what I'm trying to say but basically but I love literature more than physics.

>>5408201
>"why we exist"
>taking existentialism as an intro phil course

It's pointless because you're retarded not because philosophy is pointless.

>all of these stemfags who know nothing about phil of science talking about how empirical and perfect and revelatory it is

>>5411466
The "philosophy of science" consists of exactly two things:

1. Trivialities every child knows (e.g. "science would be wrong if suddenly god appeared and used his wizard powers to change it")
2. Kindergarten tier anti-intellectualism (e.g. "u cannot know nuthing, u cannot even prove the chair ur sitting on exists lol therefore science is le wrong xD trololo")

>>5411478
thank you for blatantly confirming that you know absolutely nothing about the field.

>>5411485
Prove me wrong.

>>5411489
Induction introduces inherent bias and is the process by which hypotheses are selected and conclusions drawn from empirical experiments.

That was easy.

>>5411494
Induction is a trivial problem and has been addressed by the scientific method. Every child knows this.

>>5411498
>trivial problem
>inherent bias
>dictates the entire course of science

The scientific method doesn't remove the necessity of induction in the practice of science. Or are you some rational empiricist scum?

>>5411489
If you wanted to learn you shouldn't had started acting like an angry child. There's no need to be tsundere.
I'm not that anon but I'm sure that in a thread of 150 posts you can get some decent asnwers if you ignore the cirlcejerk that brought you.

>>5411489

If science cant emprically disproove God then it fails as the bringer of truth

>>5411498
>the scientific method
Do you know what that's based on?

>>5411502
What are you even talking about? Do you think it makes you special to point out that science often uses inductive reasoning? Are you literally 8 years old?

>>5411504
I don't need to learn. I already know the truth. I'm here to teach.

>>5411511
God is a logical impossibility.

>>5411517
common sense

>take some upper level poli sci course to satisfy a gen ed requirement
>discussion class
>show up to class three times before our first exam is given
>mfw 38/40 points on the exam
>in a class based entirely on discussion
>of topics that the class can choose each day before we start talking
>mfw liberal arts courses are so easy that you dont even have to know what you're going to be tested on, let alone prepare to be tested on it, in order to ace the course
and to think people choose this as their major and complain about their workload or difficulty of their coursework. fucking lel

Obvious b8 m8.

But sometimes I wonder if Wordsworth would stand by his statements in Lyrical Ballads, that literature and science would serve each other, if he were alive now. With even the idea of the hookup becoming shockingly accessible and capitalistic because of apps, I wonder if he would still agree with what he wrote.

>>5411540

What sort of value does political science contribute to the workforce anyhow?

OP's problem is more indicative of the modern education system. Philosophy professors are almost always horrible boomers who lack any self-awareness or deep understanding of the texts (excerpts) they are teaching. Education is in a horrible state.

>>5411532
>I already know the truth.

There was only one poster on all of 4chan who had ever known the truth. And that poster was a tripfag called AgnusDei

>>5411582
not a clue

>>5411532
>God is a logical impossibility.
Show your work.

>>5411296
>no, I still stand by my statement.
Then you're a retard as bad as those who try to act superior over /lit/ majors because they have a STEM major, congrats on mentally being in high-school.

>>5411586
You read excerpts too? My sister went to phil for a couple of years and each class had a book to read per week, while in our phil classes they give us 10 fotocopied pages now and then and people complain.

>>5411532
>What are you even talking about?

Asking this question means that my original point that you know absolutely fucking nothing about phil of science and won't hesitate to make a straw man out of it is true and I have absolutely no reason to continue this conversation.

philosophy is like flow chart for science

>>5411601
You cannot prove that I do not have proof of god's non-existence.

>>5411532
>God is a logical impossibility.
How?

>>5411611
What school did she go to and which one do you go to?

>>5411615
So you have no argument?

>>5411478
>2. Kindergarten tier anti-intellectualism (e.g. "u cannot know nuthing, u cannot even prove the chair ur sitting on exists lol therefore science is le wrong xD trololo")
But you really can't know nothing, I don't know why people use that as an insult, probably because they're fucking idiot plebs.

>>5411639
My argument was that you don't know anything about philosophy of science. I referred to some extremely basically problems in philosophy of science and you didn't know what I was talking about. My argument is over.

>>5411634

>>5411646
>what is the condition of free will

read some Leibniz faggot

why is /lit/ so goddamn illiterate

>>5411645
I know more about philosophy of science than you. The whole philosophy of science is divided into 2 categories: trivialities and anti-intellectualism. You posted an example of the first category. Thanks for proving me right, you imbecilic asshole.

>>5411646
>the problem of evil

>>5411657
>I know more about philosophy of science than you. The whole philosophy of science is divided into 2 categories: trivialities and anti-intellectualism.

I'm sure you do. I'm done. Feel free to preach this view to /lit/ without my interfering.

>>5411653
⇒free will

Does not exist. Read Sam Harris.

>>5411009
THIS
People don't understand that the two are very different in approaches and ultimate goals. It would be like comparing Literature and History.

>>5411670
Sam Harris is a hack.

>>5411646
That's not a logical proof, that's just tiresome semantic sophistry and equivocation.

>>5411653
>humans having free will
>an omnipotent god
Choose only one. You are disproving yourself, christfag.

>>5411671
>It would be like comparing Literature and History.
History is an art, therefore it is literature, you retard.

>>5411685
Wait how are those mutually exclusive?

>>5411669
I almost pity you. You are blinded by your own ignorance.

>>5411642
Because it's an over used example to make phil look important when it shouldn't even be a matter of discussion. If people don't care about what you do it's fine and everyone should move on.
I've met people who complained that the LHC was a waste of money and that finding the origin of the universe was a pretty pointless thing to do. And I just dropped the subject and moved on with my life. It's that easy.

>>5411687
>History is an art
how the fuck can people say shit like this. what exactly isn't art?

>>5411688
Are you literally retarded?

>>5411691
>this ignorance-parading troglodyte calling me ignorant

as expected of /lit/

>taking a philosophy class now
>teacher responds to one of my online class discussion posts with "What distinguishes the Socratic method form simply asking questions?"

If I post "The difference between Socratic method and asking questions is like the difference between "from" and "form". Context and placement."
Will he hate me for the rest of the semester and attempt to sabotage me?

>>5411670
Why should I read pseudoscience?

>>5411713
He'll probably just mark it incorrect.

>>5411700
You have been proved wrong. Your ignorance has been pointed out. What are you still doing here?

>>5411721
You espousing blatantly misinformed views doesn't really feel like being proven wrong but OK. I guess I'm still here just to watch you get more and more irritated by how transparent your idiocy is to me.

>>5409006
>>5409011
>>5409021
>>5409040
>>5409066
>>5409053
>>5409097
>>5409097
>>5410671
>>5410683
>>5411084
>>5411154
>>5411478
>>5411489
>>5411498
>>5411532
>>5411646
>>5411657
>>5411670
>>5411691
>>5411721

>>5411693
History. And tons of thinds people say is art without defining art. It's the same as people saying that chemistry is the same as physics on a deep level, you can argue it is but you only go out of the discussion knowing less than before because you were decided to prove a point instead of building knowledge.
I don't know why I'm answering in a thread with a huge "hide me" sign. I'm sorry.

>>5411730
Your backpedaling is pathetic. I'm still waiting for you to post an argument. I know you have none.

>>5411693
But it is, why do you think so many historians were also writers back then?
The point of history isn't about being as objective as possible, that's disgusting and no one should care about that, it's about making it as artistic as possible.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/ntntn10h.htm

>>5411757
I'm not backpedaling. That you think because I don't post an arguments means I have none is a pretty funny logical leap though. Why don't you spend some more time in this thread describing the logical validity of that statement to me? And then once you're done I'll relate that description to the relevance of induction as a problem in philosophy of science.

Look, don't argue with philosophy faggots.

Honestly, they will just call you bait, troll, or ignore you because they know they don't have any argument so they hide behind memes.

We all know philosophy is useless because of science
juts like alchemy is useless because of chemistry

>>5411771

>>5411763
if you're not objective in telling history, then it breaks from history and into the realm of fiction

>>5411765
Every child knows the problem of induction and how it is being addressed by the scientific method. You are not deep. You are not special. You are not insightful. You are only confirming everything I said about the triviality of philosophy of science.

>>5411779
So there is no such thing as history?
Because no one can be objective, it's impossible.

>>5411781
If all it takes is me posting on /lit/ to confirm your theory I question the non-triviality of it.

>>5411630
I.. didn't say you didn't?

>>5411784
history is written by the victor, but it's not like you can paint it in a manner significantly different than how it happened.

>>5411786
You obviously don't know the difference between "confirm" and "prove". Neither do you know the difference between "observation" and "theory". You are embarrassing yourself, kid. Please take your time to learn what normal people are expected to learn in 3rd grade.

>>5411798
>but it's not like you can paint it in a manner significantly different than how it happened.
haha oh wow

>>5411016
>>5411016
ohhhhhhh

>>5408201
Philosophy and Classic major here.

Sucks that I get all the linear applications and thought processes of a STEM major plus the critical thinking/reasoning aspect of liberal arts.

Well and I think I want to go to law school. If that doesn't work out I'll just be in academia and that's perfectly fine with me.

Also OP is probably b8tamus maximus.

>>5411798
It's constantly done and it has always been like that. Part of the beauty is also making people think history is absolute.

>>5408201

U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN'

>>5411784
Did you even look at his link?

>>5411779
Did you even look at his link?

>>5411119
You're right, of course.

The true authority over things which cannot be observed is religion- or more precisely, theology.

>>5411771

>We all know philosophy is useless because of science

- Uses an universal, while there are at least one element who do not fall into the set

- Makes a statement without further justification

- Uses science in the sense of >>5410976

>>5412127

I disagree.

There are at least one thing that can not be observed that does not fall into the domain of theology, therefore, not only theology does not explain all that is not observable, but it also has no authority over that domain.

One of the things that one can not see, is for instance goodness, who falls into the domain of morals, or ethics. Since it is possible to fund those on "secular" ground, theology, or the part of theology that verses over goodness, should stand in equality with said "secular" ground.

What version of philosophy, OP?

The type of philosophy used like it's a math equation? Through indirect axiomatic proofs? Reductio ad absurdum? That type of thing?

Or are you wailing about 'pie-in-the-sky' philosophy, the harumph haroo tennis match of impractical ideas shat about with "intellectuals" that have no use for the common man?

>>5412202
>muh common man
plebn

>>5412202

What you describe with second one, is not philosophy. The first one does not cover all that falls under the notion.

>>5412209

>muh words

>>5408238
>trying this hard

50% of the words you used in that post were redundant and unnecessary, not that it detracts from the claim you're trying to make, just a pet peeve of mine that (in my experience) pretentious individuals do.

Anyways, science doesn't say that the point of life is to stimulate those neurological functions, it just says that stimulating them is beneficial to our health and "happiness". Perhaps there's some higher purpose that we're unaware of? Also, philosophy addresses other aspects of life, such as aesthetics, ethics, logic, etc..

>>5408201
>Scientism

by God this needs to end!

>>5411016

go to bed Ted Kaczynski

>>5412285
⇒philosophy addresses other aspects of life, such as aesthetics, ethics, logic, etc..
It doesn't address them at all.

⇒aesthetics
The best a philosopher can say about aesthetics is "hurr durr in my opinion I find this thing more aesthetic that that thing". Cool story, every idiot can have personal preferences.

⇒ethics
"Muh feelings" is a statement without any depth or insight. Literally most animals are equally qualified as a philosopher to do "ethics". No ethical problem has ever been solved by philosophy and ethics relies on nothing but emotional preferences.

⇒logic
Logic is a field of math. Ever since it has been formalized by mathematicians, philosophers do not understand it anymore. Philosophers get a dumbed down version of propositional and first order logic and even that's too hard for them. All researchers in logic over the last 100 years had degrees in mathematics.

>What's the point of philosophy.
Do almost no people alive in any given population understand the definition of philosophy, or a philosophy.

>>5413625
What is the definition of philosophy?

inb4 "love of wisdom"

>>5413647
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Philosophy is what all science starts out as.

>See that big thing in the sky, i wonder what that is.
>100 thousand years later.
>Science.

Philosophy as an academic study isn't a science, but its just as valuable.

god i hate this board

>>5413671
ayy lmao

>>5413671
i know that feel

>>5413614
>Logic is a field of math.
Logic is it's own separate category. Mathematical functions such as adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing are merely subsets of logical functions.

>>5413671
Who are you trying to fool anon? If you hated it you wouldn't be here. There's a little bit of love nestling inside of you. It's okay to love anon. Let it out.

>>5413671

>>5408201
Sounds like you're just stupid.

1. Don't take philosophy in uni if you can help it at first
2. Study philosophy on your own until you start to "get" it

Lower division philo is cancer. Upper division is slogging through boring-ass arguments. However, on my own I can study however the fuck I want and jump around and read just the parts I enjoy. It's fun

>>5413614
Non-scientific theory can be highly valuable. Theories of mind, for instance, we need just get along in day-to-day life, and they are far from qualifying for scientific method. Philosophical theory is application of patterns to things where scientific method isn't feasible. That means the patterns are not nearly perfect (neither are the patterns used to predict markets, but people still become millionaires with them), and the patterns may well become obsolete, but the study is still useful.

>>5408226
Lololololol

What is a fact?

>>5413874
a confirmed observation

>>5408577
>we are the most important thing to exist
no we're not. you have a very ethnocentric view. you're probably religious.

>>5408238
Then go smack up on heroin

>>5411653
>free will
read spinoza or kant

>>5413614
philosophy doesnt claim to solve any problems. philosophy adresses problems. how is that hard to understand?

>>5413899
What is their opinion on free will, I haven't read them.

>>5408238
ever heard of hedonism

>>5413908
they pretty much claim that free will doesnt exist. or at least there's no way to know if it exists or not. we just have to pretend there is one for moral purposes.

>>5413907
There is no intellectual merit in only acknowledging the existence of a problem without attempting to solve it.

>>5408238
Hedonism.
But even with that you realise that doesn't really give you meaning.

>>5413918
let me rephrase by saying it doesnt give you the answers, but the keys to solve it.

>>5413918
Adressing=trying to solve

>>5413907
That's Foucault's idea of philosophy ("problematization"), perhaps Socrates' as well, but that hardly applies to most philosophy.

>>5413922
What keys does it give to solve the trolley problem?

>>5413927
How does it try to solve the trolley problem?

>>5413942
The trolley is not a problem because it isn't real, and even extraordinarily vaguely similar situations won't ever apply to the vast majority of humanity.

>>5413948
So we shouldn't pull the lever?

>>5413969
we shouldnt

>>5413870

>boring-ass arguments

Those boring ass arguments, once understood, and internalized, might help you produce well formed thoughts, who might help you solve quarrels in your day to day live, where rules of discourse apply.

Rhetorics are indeed, one of the foundations of success in community life, specially when decision making is involved.

Even Dali had to learn his classics before doing something deliriously new.

:)

>>5408210
The humanities are not dead, they've just been poisoned. People have forgotten the human condition. It is only by overcoming suffering that we are even beginning to be able to call ourselves knowledgeable or wise. People today are avoiding pain by sinking deeper into escapist fantasy worlds. The philosophy of today has become a corrupt escapist philosophy that is separated by three generations and a revolution from a more tactile philosophy. People say philosophy degrees today are useless, and they are. But the pursuit of philosophy is more valuable than ever. Real applicable philosophy dealing with real world problems. The kind of shit we write stories about and tell each other so we will never forget their lessons.

>>5413985

That being said, the rules of discourse, and reasoning, can be seen as analogical to some sort of programming language.

But there is always room for the sparkle, for the brightness, for the light, for the one way of speaking that changes it all...

>>5413988
>People today are avoiding pain by sinking deeper into escapist fantasy worlds.
>in an era where religions are dying en masse and people don't need to take their minds off the brutal reality with folk tales every night around a campfire
Lol.

>>5414098
When's the last time you went to the mall and saw people standing in circles talking?

Did you hear? Apple is coming out with a new iWatch! First phones replaced watches, now they're trying to sell us a watch to replace their phone! It's like they're making fun of us! You might say I'm paranoid, but paranoid people are just people with all the facts.

>>5414124

Right now, right here. Or is it all a mere soliloquy?

>>5414137
>he thinks this is better than the suffering that gave birth to the knowledge that built this place.

>>5414144

>puts his own judgment in other peoples words.

>>5413990
>...
Post disregarded
(not like it was retarded crap anyways)

>>5414191
who's words? Seriously, did I quote someone? I wanna know.

>>5414124
>but paranoid people are just people with all the facts.
No, people are paranoid because they have to speculate what comes next, which means that they don't know what will come to pass, which in turn means means that they don't have all the facts.

>>5414201

>he thinks "x thought"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8gl5J5p31s

:^)

>>5414204
Semantic shift?
"knowing enough to know that you don't know anything" is knowing MORE than "not knowing that you don't know something"

>>5414217
erkay

>>5414217
and probably "x thought" isn't even his...
disregard this kind of bait, saves trouble.

>>5413884
Express to me a "fact", then, and be perfectly unambiguous.

Protip: don't try because you can't. "Fact" in your world is a delusion

>>5408238
>leaving it to a STEM to understand a question

>>5408238
LEONARD: What's the point of anything?
[Audience chuckles in anticipation]
SHELDON: The point of everything is to biologically stimulate our neurological functions that lets us experience positive emotions.
[LEONARD and the others stare at SHELDON]
SHELDON:
There: a simple scientific answer to something philosophers couldn't figure out since the dawn of time.
[Audience erupts into laughter]

>>5415258
toppest lel

>>5415258
9/10. Would have been 10 if you'd have the audience laugh after the second comment as well

>>5408201
>Literally everything is being answered by science and this continues.
>literally

you don't know what literally means do you? I was going to say that your post was invalidated but look at all these shit serious responses itt.

>>5415258
tep cock

>>5415258
lmao

>>5413614
>hurr durr in my opinion I find this thing more aesthetic that that thing
>implying contemporary aesthethics have anything to do with this

>>5414098
>religion
>the only form of escapism ever


If anything, I think religion should have a comeback at least as a mean of stabilizing a CLEARLY schizophrenic society.

We sink and sink deeper into our fantasies, ignoring common sense or basic social interactions, and that's easy to observe in any meta-reality like 4chan, tumblr or reddit. Now, these things aren't the problem in themselves, the problem lies in their escaping to everyday life, as if people are entitled to live in the world they want, instead of trying to build a similar world based on whatever tools and resources they have at hand.

>>5409170
Seconding that, just gave it a read