/lit/ - Literature

first post

>>5453200
Very few people identify as scientismists. Why?

>>5453211
"Scientismist" is a weird-sounding word, probably why nobody wants anything to do with it.

>>5453211

There are several, they're called Scientists.

Also, there is no rational argument against rationalism.

>>5453211
because it already has a name: right.

>>5453200
There is no rational argument because it's a philosophy whose central idea is that they're right about everything. So, I mean how can you argue with a wall?

>>5453262

Surely you must be joking or you haven't a fucking clue what the scientific method actual is or entails.

>>5453269
I mean scientism itself, not the scientific method. They believe that no other school of thought is even worth discussing. The scientific method is great and can be applied to a lot of things, but not to everything.

>>5453272

I see your point. Perhaps those are the people that incite so much anti-intellectualism because the people you speak of are being confused with science itself.

>>5453200
But science itself is not rational.

There is no rational argument FOR scientism

>>5453200
b-but muh feelings.

>>5453277
Ya, scientists are pretty cool, but when people spout other people's opinions and refuse to hear out any other arguments or viewpoints, it becomes a different matter. You don't have to refute science to not be a scientismist, but to be a scientismist, you have to refute all other views.

So? Rationalism is responsible for like every bad thing ever

Dawkins is worse than Hitler.

>>5453200
As what?

Since when are facts being grouped with the likes of pleb tier religions and philosophy?

>scientism

you mean the way shit works?

>>5453277
>anti-intellectualism
On a bit of a tangent, the scientism concept is rather anti-intellectual in its own way, by its willful omission of other interpretations.

>>5453311
>Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints
You're on a literature board m8, learn to google shit before spouting shit opinions

>>5453232
scientists practice science

scientismists are proponents of scientism (aka fedora flipping popsci redditors)

>mfw I read "there is no rational argument against sunscreen" and came in here to angrily argue its worthlessness, only to get here and see that I'd misread the OP and this was just another bullshit thread about unimportant shit
You're luck dog.

>>5453200
Ackytually, there are three.

One, science makes assumptions that cannot be justified by the scientific method alone, such as the laws of science being constant everywhere in the universe.

Second, scientism cannot say anything about historical or moral knowledge.

Third, the scientific method cannot be found out about through science alone, so scientism is self-defeating.

>>5453335
these comics are amazing
is there a website

Scientism is problematic because of the thesis it posits implicitly, but incessantly: that the measu re of a person's character - the test of what makes him or her qua individual nuanced and compelling - is the amount of arcane technical facts they know about "the universe." This "philosophy" du jour does not care about one's moral character, one's sense of justice, one's emotional depths; it casts aside the essence of what it means to be human, the experiences of the human condition, and replace s them with desiccated and slightly novel trivia questions.It's a painfully shallow "philosophy", an d yet, we're told there's no real need to dig further. Indeed, Dawkins and Tyson don't sacrifice sub stance for shtick - they tell the audience that the shtick is the substance. What will a generation of children raised by scientists look like? Vapid and bland, just like trust fund kids, who haven't the slightest bit of authenticity or character - one homogeneous, un-diverse blob that has forgotten all of what it means to be human.

>>5453342
Will Laren google his name

>>5453339
⇒One, science makes assumptions that cannot be justified by the scientific method alone, such as the laws of science being constant everywhere in the universe.
Science makes no such assumptions. If we observe different laws of physics somewhere in the universe, we will refine our models. You failed to understand the scientific method.

⇒Second, scientism cannot say anything about historical or moral knowledge.
1. Neither can philosophy.
2. There is no "moral knowledge". Ethics is just expressions of "muh feelings".

⇒Third, the scientific method cannot be found out about through science alone, so scientism is self-defeating.
The scientific method is based on common sense and requires no justification.

>>5453357
>Will Laren
thanks

>>5453358
Not that anon, but you are wrong in your attempt at refuting the first point. Not every scientist puts forth such an assertion, buy plenty do. I cite to the first hit on a quick Google search:

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html

>>5453358
>The scientific method is based on common sense and requires no justification.

as a scientist, this is infuriating. the whole point of science is to destroy the platitude of "common sense". we deduce and investigate in order to explain even the smallest details. claiming that something or ANYTHING needs no justification is some insane bullshit. you really are jumping on the science bandwagon without respecting it, at all.

>>5453379
⇒uses a religion blog to refute science
⇒has less than an elementary school understanding of the scientific method

Don't embarrass yourself, kid.

>>5453385
>>5453358
What the fuck is up with your meme arrows

>>5453388
he's a tripfag that doesn't use a trip

>qualia

check mate sciencetists

>>5453385
The source of the article has no bearing on the point being made.
I'd wager I'm older than you and have a much better understanding of the scientific method.
I also don't use those stupid arrows to scream for attention on an anonymous image board.
In conclusion, eat my shorts.

>>5453384
⇒as a scientist
Watching Neil Tyson on youtube doesn't make you a scientist, kiddo.

⇒the whole point of science is to destroy the platitude of "common sense"
You are retarded.
>The whole of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday
thinking.
>Albert Einstein

⇒claiming that something or ANYTHING needs no justification is some insane bullshit
A lot of things are so obvious that they don't need justification. 1+1=2 is an example. The scientific method is another example. If you disagree, please tell us what part of the scientific method you disagree with, so we can laugh at your ignorance.

⇒you really are jumping on the science bandwagon without respecting it, at all.
I'm working as a scientist. Your projections are hilarious.

>>5453394
⇒implying science won't explain qualia sooner or later

>>5453398
>The source of the article has no bearing on the point being made

To clarify, the source has no bearing on the quote from a cosmologist disproving your point.

>>5453398
⇒christfag
⇒claims to have better understanding of the scientific method

Toppest lel. I apply the scientific method every day. It's my fucking job.

>>5453403
>implying it will

>>5453410
wait a minute, meme arrow man is an atheist?
fuck it i'm spamming fedora to stop his shitposting

>>5453403
>having faith in science

top heh

>>5453405
⇒using appeals to authority as an argument

Typical christfag. Why don't you educate yourself? In science we use facts and not authority.

>>5453418
⇒faith in science

Science and faith are opposites.

>>5453410
>I'm a christfag because I cite to a particular source when I clearly stated it was simply the first hit on a Google search.

Wow you don't even have any reading comprehension skills.

For the record, no I am not christian. Please just go away, this board liked that "vote third party" asshat way more than you, and this board HATED that cat.

>>5453421
⇒doesn't understand the scientific method
⇒thinks some christfag blog refutes science
⇒gets called out
⇒replies with ad hom

*yawn*

>>5453420
*tips fedora*

>>5453419
Oh good grief, are you actually mentally handicapped???

You claimed that science makes no such assumptions. I cite to a fucking scientist who makes that exact assumption. Holy fuck I hope you're just a pre-teen trying to rustle some jimmies, there is no way anyone could be this stupid.

>>5453200
Chesterton on Heretics

>>5453200
>There are no rational arguments
Yep.

>>5453426
>doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is either

So many chuckles. Thanks, I was kinda having a shitty day

>>5453403
all of your arguments revolve around the assumptions you make about other posters. if we were all sitting in a room together you would keep your mouth shut.

also,
>implying 1+1=2 hasn't been rigorously proofed

>⇒implying science won't explain qualia sooner or later
you said earlier that scientists don't make assumptions. i guess science for you is a way for you to never be wrong.
>if the science is wrong, science will fix itself
>if science can't know it, science will allow itself to know it
humble yourself you arrogant prick

>>5453430
⇒You claimed that science makes no such assumptions.
⇒I cite to a fucking scientist who makes that exact assumption.

You are really talking like a creationist. Creationtards also think naming a few scientists who believe in god somehow makes creationism a valid scientific theory. No, you fucking retard. Just because one person says something stupid, this doesn't mean the scientific method is flawed. Science does not make any of your straw man assumptions. One individual makes them. You are literally too stupid for this debate. Please stop bragging about the fact that you failed the logic section of the IQ test.

>>5453441
>Please stop bragging about the fact that you failed the logic section of the IQ test.
>yet she complains about ad hominems >>5453426

kill yourself

>>5453441

>>5453436
⇒if we were all sitting in a room together you would keep your mouth shut.
Haha, no. If we were sitting in a room, you would all agree with me because you know you couldn't use ad hominems without getting a fist in the face.

⇒>implying 1+1=2 hasn't been rigorously proofed
implying it requires a proof
implying it isn't self-evident

⇒you said earlier that scientists don't make assumptions
I never made such a claim. Work on your reading comprehension.

⇒>if the science is wrong, science will fix itself
This is part of the scientific method. You should have learned this in elementary school.

>>5453200
No, you're confused. There is no rational argument against rationalism. There's no *scientific* argument against scientism.

>>5453441
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

You literally have zero reading comprehension skills. Nowhere do I say that article refutes science or anything of the like. I merely pointed out that some scientists do work of the original assumption. It is not that I am too stupid for this debate, but rather that you are too stupid for society. Haven't taken an IQ test since I was about 7, but I did take the LSAT several years back, which is almost purely a test of logic, and scored in the top 4% in the country. I am done with this conversation, I can't deal with someone who strives to be ignorant and refuses to educate themselves while holding their nose up as though they are better than everyone else.

>>5453420
>⇒implying science won't explain qualia sooner or later
>implying this is not faith

>>5453449
>ad hominems

>Typical christfag.
>You are retarded.
>Watching Neil Tyson on youtube doesn't make you a scientist, kiddo.
>kid.
etc.

>>5453454
⇒I merely pointed out that some scientists do work of the original assumption
Why is it too hard for you to understand the difference between a specific scientific hypthesis and the scientific method itself? Why do you fail so hard at abstract thinking?

⇒but I did take the LSAT several years back
Wow, how impressive. You took a test designed to weed out the potato kids? Well, congrats on proving that you are at least as intelligent as a monkey. Anything more is not decidable on the basis of data you provided.

>>5453473
>has no argument
>uses ad hominem
>someone refutes your ad hominem
>make up some bullshit and throw another ad hominem at them
nice m8

>constructing your entire world-view and belief system using the scientific method
>implying the scientific method is trust-worthy

>>5453488
I did not post any ad hominem. I completely refuted and destroyed the kid's fallacies.

>>5453493
you are literally not posing any logical arguments, you just keep calling people stupid, kids, christfags, or creationists. The only arguments you had were refuted already

>>5453441
>Please stop bragging about the fact that you failed the logic section of the IQ test.
>You are really talking like X. You must be X.

>>5453316
That's called science.
Not Scientism.

>opinion


no, opinions can be wrong

facts are not wrong you stupid fuck

>i dont agree
>therefore the fact of science is an opinion

oh lawd

worse than a christian burgican

>>5453496
I refuted every insane attack against science posted ITT. Please stop abusing the word "logical". You obviously know nothing about formal logic.

>>5453501
no it isn't, the difference is that scientism states that only science can be fact, but what about things that can't be proven by the scientific method? Like historical facts.

>>5453502
still no arguments m8

>>5453512
Denial doesn't make you less wrong.

>>5453502
>i flung shit harder than he did

epic job gurl u totally #rekt him with ur insults #BTFO

to attack science for doing its job is just as wise as to attack a screw-driver for doing its but to use it to guide your life is equally stupid imo

>>5453502
You did no such thing. You are clearly delusional in addition to your wholly unfounded superiority complex and utter lack of social skills. Seek help. Soon.

>>5453522
noone is attacking science, they're attacking scientism

>>5453441
>starts to lose argument
>accuse opponent of talking like a creationist
>deduce from this that opponent is a creationist
>deduce from this that opponent is wrong since they are a creationist
>declare victory
>break arm patting self on back for being so logical

You are retardation made flesh

>>5453524
⇒projection

>>5453537
He didn't even have an argument to begin with. He attacked a straw man and he has been called out. The homogeneity of physical laws is an assumption frequently used in physics. It is not an assumption of the scientific method in general. If such a simple fact is too hard to understand for you, then your IQ is too low to post on /lit/.

Philosophers BTFO ITT.

>>5453550
ebin

>>5453200
How do you solve the problem of induction? Falsificationism in the Popper sense? Because if so, you must accept that you can never know anything to be true, you can only know things to be false.

Which is probably correct in some rigorous way but really fuckin hard to live by.

>>5453564
>Falsificationism in the Popper sense?
Nope. Kuhn / Lakatos make enough problems there.

>>5453564
⇒How do you solve the problem of induction?
When induction fails, i.e. when a hypothesis is disproved by contradiction observation, then we create a new improved hypothesis. Why did you never learn the scientific method? Every 8 year old knows this.

⇒you can never know anything to be true
All observational facts are true.

>>5453580
But I'm 7.

>>5453580
So if you're on acid and you see a paisley-patterned dog vomiting rainbows, it is a true fact that there is a dog vomiting rainbows in front of you?

>>5453358
I agree (more or less) with points 1 and 2 but:
>1. Neither can philosophy.
>2. There is no "moral knowledge". Ethics is just expressions of "muh feelings".
Ok, what's your argument for this? Is it because since science can't tell us anything about ethics then it's bullshit? That's an appeal to authority. Whether or not there is "moral knowledge" depends on what you mean by "knowledge", this is a trivial issue imo, but it is true that moral understanding is different to scientific understand, in that moral understanding is non-theoretical, science is theoretical. Also as soon as you say "Ethics is X" then you have started to do moral philosophy. Philosophy doesn't "tell us" things, one DOES it, it's an activity.

>>5453624
Don't be silly.

>>5453632
1 and 3*

>>5453200
>mfw a pleb implyed he can know somtin when he can't know nuthin

or maybe that isn't my face, whose to say?

>>5453638
All observational facts are true, though.

my experience of aesthetic value is alone a rational refutation of scientism

>>5453632
⇒Ok, what's your argument for this?

It is a rather trivial fact that ethical claims do not hold any truth values and are merely expressions of emotional preferences. Call it emotivism or expressivist nihilism, if you like, but this is the only sound "stance" on ethics, destroying every other stance.

>>5453647
Your experience of aesthetic is fully explained by neurochemistry.

>>5453651
That's not an argument

Taking 'scientism' to be the doctrine that all truths are facts of science:

Do you mean specifically natural science, or the kind of 'science' that means just any body of systematic knowledge about anything in particular (i.e. including mathematics, philosophy, etc.)?

If the first, then scientism is obviously false, since mathematical truths are not the right kind of 'scientific' truths as they are not amenable to the methods of natural science, which assume them prior to any experiment or theory.

If the second, then I'm not sure it's a particularly controversial claim, since 'science' then also includes mathematics, logic, history, etc. And so every possible body of knowledge, so a negation of this kind of what you might call 'weak-scientism' would be that there are facts that are unknowable.

Basically, this means that the only scientism that 'works' is the kind of weak scientism that says 'all truths are in principle knowable', not the kind that says 'all truths are in principle reducible to natural science, physics, or whatever'. You might as well not call it scientism at this point, it's usually referred to it as the knowablility thesis.

You can look up Fitch's paradox of knowability for a sort-of challenge to the knowability thesis from the point of view of epistemic logic, but really that's a whole new topic.

>>5453671
including math but excluding philosophy

>>5453660

No it isn't.

>>5453677
That seems like a very arbitrary distinction. Both are a priori, and both use the methods of logical argumentation to reach conclusions.

Neither mathematics nor philosophy rely on experimental data, to be honest, the only difference between the two is subject matter, the methods of mathematicians and philosophers are almost identical.

If you let in just one branch of a priori knowledge, you can't leave philosophy out just because it is also a priori.

So someone who argues that mathematics is, but philosophy is not counted as 'science' will have to argue against philosophy without also excluding mathematics. You'll need to argue for reasons to exclude one but not the other.

>>5453722
⇒both use the methods of logical argumentation
Hahaha, my sides. Philosophy used "muh belief" and "muh feelings" as arguments all the time. I have yet to see a philosopher using logic.

⇒the methods of mathematicians and philosophers are almost identical.
Rigorous proof and baseless belief are polar opposites.

>>5453741
>I have yet to see a philosopher using logic

>>5453753
Aristotle's primitive ramblings have nothing to do with formal logic. He merely made the word "logic" popular, but in his time it had an entirely different meaning from what it means today. Formal logic was invented by mathemticians in the 19th century. Please take a logic class or read a book.

>>5453741
I know you're probably a troll, but this is for anyone lurking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Check the top right corner. Logic, as an academic discipline, is a goddamn sub-field of philosophy.
We invented the study of it, bro.

Nowadays, research on logic is done in philosophy, math, and compsci departments, but most of it is done in philosophy departments.

Outside of the study of pure logic, the method of proof is also used in other areas of academic philosophy, though not as often as it is in mathematics.

>>5453651
→ethical claims do not hold any truth values
Not of the kind you find in science, no, because scientific statements are empirically verifiable/falsifiable. Ethics isn't. Now, it doesn't follow from this that ethics is all rubbish or doesn't exist or whatever, it merely says that it's different to science, uses a different reasoning, has a different conception of truth. The only way you can deduce that ethics contains no truth of any kind from that premise is if you commit an appeal to authority to science and say that, since it's unscientific, then it isn't true. That's what Christfags do, Arrow, only to the bible instead of science. It may the case that ethics IS just nonsense, but that requires further argument, which you haven't provided

>>5453763
>I have yet to see a philosopher using logic

>>5453782
Formal logic is a branch of math. And you obviously know nothing about it.

>>5453784
The concept of truth is simply not applicable to ethical claims.

>>5453791
That's a mathematician.

>>5453293

top fucking kek, continentals actually believe this

>>5453200
scientism promote the rational part of brain.
scientism will fall like all the visions of the world.
is just a fashion for the head. you not will see, but maybe your granchildren.

>>5453802
What is the concept of truth? inb4 science. That's circular reasoning. I've already stated that scientific truth isn't applicable to ethics, but there are other truths. inb4 no there aren't because they're not scientific so they can't be true. That's an appeal to authority.

>>5453784
That's because ethics/morals are a "should" and science is an "is". Which isn't to say it's possible to escape from ethics because we all have muh feelings, but in the strict sense it doesn't exist because there isn't a "should", there's only an "is". At it's most diluted state, morality informs you how you go about living in relation to other moral beings, so in a way it mimics the scientific method in that you are provided with stimuli, process it, and act upon it, but it's fundamentally different, and to use the term "moral knowledge" is completely disingenuous.

>>5453272
It applies to everything useful, so the things it can't apply to might as well be nothing because we can't do anything with them anyway.

>>5453763
>Pseudointellectual - a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship. a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

>arrowfag makes an argument
>/lit/ responds not by making a counter-argument, but by by posting pictures of men in silly hats

never thought I would ever side with the arrowfag because jesus christ he's a cunt, but I did today

none of you are any better than the fedorafags you make fun of incessantly

like rats pressing a button for food, you have been conditioned to respond to a specific stimulus by posting a picture of a man in a silly hat

think about how fucking retarded that is for a minute

>>5453845
You'll find in another post of mine that the notion of whether or not it can correctly be regarded as "knowledge" is one I give negative fucks about. You also take for granted that what "is" is any more real or more strict than what "should". It's obviously a real truth in some cases that if I want X then I should Y.

>>5453882

The only real idiot in this thread is you.

>>5453890
Then you're just using a very obscure definition of knowledge.

It's only "knowledge" in the sense that it can inform you how you should act, but "should" is 1) different for everybody and 2) changes from situation to situation. There is no universal "should". It's the difference between objective and subjective.

To put it in simpler terms, science (gathering the data) provides you with the information; the stimulus. What exactly you end up doing with that information is anybody's game.

>>5453910

>>5453925
Did you read my post? I never used the word "knowledge", I merely mentioned it.
The rest of your post doesn't counter anything I said.

>>5453945
>Did you read my post? I never used the word "knowledge", I merely mentioned it.

It's true. You never did, the Kenosha kid.

>implying Max Weber didn't settle this shit 100 years ago

>>5453333

Appeal to emotion (rage).

fags

>>5453449
>implying it requires a proof
>implying it isn't self-evident

It's a valid question to ask about the mechanism you're using to justify math.

If all mathematical operations are reducible to iterated addition, it's of significant value to try to show nothing is going to, through enough mathematical manipulation, legitimately "disprove" 1+1 and thus all mathematics.

They're not proving it because it's self evident, but because of the fear of what it could mean to find a second solution. Consistency is what they sought.

What fucking baffles me about New Atheism and Scientism is how much they jerk off what is essentially logical positivism.

I mean, our current paradigm is post positivism. Like, fuck, they taught us this shit on day one of Year 2 Scientific Method. Like, this isn't some fucking obscure information.

>>5453272

What exactly can it not be applied to?

>>5454552
>Like, this isn't some fucking obscure information

In America it kind of is. People generally aren't educated about how science works. People act like the New Atheist icons are unnecessarily abrasive when it comes to religion but it's only as vicious as American fundamentalism is stupid.

It's a response to the retardation spread by Ken Ham and William Dembski and that whole crowd who try to hijack education for creationist shit.

>>5454560
it can't be applied to proving itself

>>5454574
Ah, well. I'm not American.

>>5454560
God, qualia, certain parts of psychoanalytic theory...

And if you roll your eyes at these examples, remember that the very reason these things have become unpopular is because of their unfalsifiability...a great proof of scientism in culture.

>>5453544
>projection

dat Freudian logical positivist

>>5454678
>God, qualia, certain parts of psychoanalytic theory...

so things that don't exist, gotcha

>>5454685

Popper is rolling in his grave. I bet if he saw what he wreaked with falsificationism he'd have turned that footnote about how unfalsifiable ideas are still important into an entire book.

>>5454575

That's irrelevant to science though, it's uninterested in proving itself because predicated on an ontological question: "Does what we observe exist external to the self?".

Science philosophically starts with the introductory statement "Operating under the assumption that the world is external, ontologically sound and measurably consistent..."

Questions about the external world and its link to our perceptions may someday be answered by science, but science is not in any way obligated to attempt to prove axioms.

>>5454693
>unfalsifiable ideas are still important

yes, but still unfalsifiable

if you start ranting about leprechauns and unicorns nobody will take you seriously anon

ironically if you start ranting about how in this moment you are euphoric because of the blood of christ, plenty of people will take you seriously

>>5453417
Man arrow guy is the worst autist/atheist around at the moment. Terribly broken individual. Do not engage.

>>5453882
It's arrowfag we're talking here. He has an established history around these parts. That most people call him a retard know that if you do give him the time of the day he will turn retarded sooner then later.

If it was some new guy then I'd agree with

>>5454727
he's a sci troll

>>5454750
At best.

Otherwise he's a science loon

>>5453850
>in applies to everything useful
Not unless you don't consider social interaction to be useful.

>>5454884
This accepts his shoddy qualification that all things must have an apparent "use value" in order to be justified. If you can't glean any use value using your limited human reasoning, "durr into the trash it goes!"

Some day this record will stop. People will stop jerking off to science, technology, and "progress" and realize that it was never really science that they loved, but the security of the illusion of progress, doing the "right" thing, being on the "right" side of history. Disillusionment will come when they realize the emptiness of this delusion and people will return to older myths...hopefully new myths will be generated. Myths which are truer to previous human greatness, but without the traps which led to their degradation.

>>5454884
What if you're good at both science and social interaction?

People have this idea of STEM majors being "autistic" in the buzzword sense, and I admit that it might be generally true, bu not everybody in STEM is a smelly anime-loving autist.

>>5454909
>Disillusionment will come when they realize the emptiness of this delusion and people will return to older myths..

Butthurt religionfag detected

What's wrong buddy? Can't have things be true because you want them so?

>>5454912
I'm not saying you can't be good at both, I'm saying you don't apply scientific method to social interaction.

>>5454909
>Some day this record will stop. People will stop jerking off to science, technology, and "progress" and realize that it was never really science that they loved, but the security of the illusion of progress, doing the "right" thing, being on the "right" side of history. Disillusionment will come when they realize the emptiness of this delusion and people will return to older myths...hopefully new myths will be generated. Myths which are truer to previous human greatness, but without the traps which led to their degradation.

Nobody in respectably large numbers is doing this shit, though. That's what you don't understand. It's a cultural reactionary viewpoint.

Refer to this post:

>>5454574

>>5453850
The scientific method cannot determine what we should value.

If you disagree, show me a falsifiable, reproducible experiment that establishes the fact that you should not be killed.

Spoiler: you can't.

>>5454931

>science is incomplete
>therefore it should be rejected for gibberish

Great logic

>>5454909
>Disillusionment will come when they realize the emptiness of this delusion and people will return to older myths

Also, to add, this might not be happening to /lit/, but on other boards like /pol/ and /tv/, ironic Christianity is actually a thing, and sometimes it's not even ironic.

>>5454913
I'm not religious. There will come a time when people realize that the difference between knowing and not knowing is negligible. As much as that might break your heart.

>>5454929
I'm perfectly aware that a lot of modern science worship is a form of shadowboxing with fundamentalist Christianity. Which is why there is such a fear on the part of these people to ever allow anything outside of the domain of established (= falsified) knowledge into "respectable" conversation. It is possible that the energy of this reaction fueled the "progress" motif of many modern tech schools/pop science promulgators, I don't know. All I am saying is that this will pass. Mythic thinking is far from dead.

>>5454912
I work as an engineer and I despise arrow guy. You can tell he's pathetically one dimensional, on the spectrum - trolling or not. These people are literally prisoners of their own thinking - they can't deal with being wrong on a single issue so they rationalise their way out of it ("everyone is stupid except me"). It's everywhere in STEM.

>>5454939

Which only proves how retarded the people on /pol/ and /tv/ are.

Anyway, this 'scientismism' schtick is nice, but scientists are the first to admit that science is incomplete and that we don't know everything. We don't know yet how consciousness works, and we don't know yet where the universe came from. However, that does not justify anyone saying that it must therefore all be wrong and we should all return back to magic and superstition.It simply means that you have to admit that nobody knows everything there is to know about reality, which most adults do. Those who don't usually turn to philosophy and religion, where it's commonplace to start with a conclusion and to try and fit reality into this conclusion. A bad fit is usually covered up with semantics, and namecalling and misrepresentation of critics, which only shows how intellectually bankrupt these fields of 'knowledge' are

>>5454953
>There will come a time when people realize that the difference between knowing and not knowing is negligible.

When that time comes, let me know, I don't think it will ever come. I think grownups will continue to realize that they don't know everything, and therefore have to suspend judgment about certain things

>>5454938
Science alone could never answer that question. You would have to set the limitations of the value of life, quantifying it according to some metric that *you* (or the researcher) decides.

>>5454963
>Science alone could never answer that question.

That's a fairly extraordinary claim. You already know exactly what it will and won't discover before any research has been done?

>>5454961
I'm not sure what the point of your second sentence is. Seems irrelevant to anything I'm discussing.

>>5454963
wow you should write books

>>5454884
But what about Neuroscience? I'm sure one day we'll be able to completely map out the brain and after that create a mind that reacts to things the way we want them to react. All this because of science.

Social interactions are just responses we generate in our brains through difficult processes which I hope one day neuroscience will be able to read and recreate perfectly.

>>5454969
Did you not continue reading? At the end of the rope, a human is deciding what is to be measured. How does science factor into what that human values?

>>5454973

My point is that your dichotomy of the real is probably between the natural and the supernatural, while the common dichotomy of the real today is between the known and the unknown. This makes the whole scientism strawman a completely moronic concept

>>5454975
Wittgenstein already said as much in "On Certainty."

>>5454977

And I already told you that the area of research that is about human perception and decision making, namely consciousness, is an unknown at this point, making your claims completely baseless, as nothing is known about it at this moment

>>5454982
>My point is that I'm assuming what your "dichotomy of the real" is

Okay. Nice gibberish.

>>5454990
Sigh.

Even if consciousness is completely mapped out, a decision will have to be made as to what aspects of the decision making are more preferable, etc. Data is data. Humans provide the context for what to do with that data.

>>5454560
Ethics.

>>5454992

I know, that's why I said 'probably'. And if you don't like dichotomy of the real, I'll just use epistemological dichotomy instead. Still doesn't change my point though

>>5454996

How come do you start with that and end up with anything but a refusal of what you refer to as context?

>>5454996
Context they get from the data they already have stored

>>5454996
>Humans provide the context for what to do with that data.

Which in your scenario would be completely mapped out by then.

And still, your point throughout all of this remains the same tired old point. Science is incomplete, therefore, for some reason, we should reject it in favor of magic. That doesn't fly

>>5455005
What the fuck are you talking about? Who is saying that anyone should reject science for magic?
What the fuck? Are you the arrow guy without the arrows?

>>5454999

My point is that most people are already perfectly okay with the unknown, but speak to themselves as if they are promulgators of knowledge, science, etc. I don't care if you call that scientism or whatever, it's a trend that like all trends will fade. Epistemologically, they will know just as little as before...but they will do so with less guilt, realizing that they never minded their quality of life knowing as little as they do.

>>5454938
Science will never be complete because the high standard for truth set required in the scientific method means much human knowledge falls outside of its scope.

Which political ideology is the best? You can't study that in the way you study the anatomy of rats.

You enjoy this illusion that science will be complete one day because you look at the expanding practical uses of scientific knowledge, and assume all our problems will be solved one day. But what issues are problems we should solve, and what arent? Tell me why your life has value from an objective standpoint.

Also, I'm not rejecting the usefulness of science. I am rejecting the naive belief all of society should be centred on the ideal that science=good.

>>5455002
Elaborate.

>>5455005
What would be mapped out? I don't think you're logically thinking this out. The map of consciousness will provide *nothing* in terms of which values to preference. If you think otherwise, please explain or else we're just going to go in circles here.

>science is incomplete

The scientific method is very much complete. It's that data which is incomplete and will never be complete. "That's a bold assumption!" It's the completely uncontroversial nature of the method, some things can never be falsified.

>>5455015
It's just sort of a moot point. It doesn't actually matter.

>>5455023
Preference is within the conciousness. Preference will be mapped out. Please, are you trolling or are you a woman?

>>5455041
Yes, preference will be mapped out...but using the preference that is mapped out is no different than using the preference that isn't mapped out. It's the same preference, it doesn't tell us why we should use the preference. You're literally saying we should preference values that are already in our consciousness. Think, for fuck's sake.

>>5455015
>You enjoy this illusion that science will be complete one day

No, I'm saying that we don't know this, but until a better method comes along that can better explain reality, we have no choice but to stick with science, because it's so far the best method we have

Scientism is simply a strawman of this view, where you think that people think that science is perfect and flawless, which it isn't by default

>>5455032
Science can't determine human values is a moot point?

Is that really the best response you can come up with?

Then please conduct a scientific experiment on decapitating yourself because science=good, and your death is a moot point.

>>5455048 here

I gotta go to work. Don't think I copped out. Will bump thread later.

>>5455052

Again, it's like you can't imagine there's anything between 'true' or 'false'. You are aware that there are some things nobody knows, right?

It seems like scientism isn't so much a criticism of science, but more your misunderstanding of it

>>5455051
I never argued the scientific method is wrong because it is incomplete.

But tell me, why is explaining reality the only priority that humanity should have? Tell me this without making a value claim because value claims are outside the scope of the scientific method.

>>5455072
>But tell me, why is explaining reality the only priority that humanity should have?

Because it allows us to predict our environment, which helps our chances at surviving in it

>because value claims are outside the scope of the scientific method.

That's your opinion

>>5455079

Why is the survival of the human race a favorable thing?

Why should you survive? In any case, you and everyone you know will die, why is it necessary to ensure the continuity of our species? Why work for these theoretical future persons? Understand that I'm not saying we shouldn't, but also understand that this is no cop out, conversely, it is precisely because the scientific method cannot possibly answer these questions.

What you are calling opinion is this, I don't even understand how you're not seeing it. If you were in my position, I think you would also start suspecting bait at this point.

>>5455058
>It seems like scientism isn't so much a criticism of science, but more your misunderstanding of it

What? I think you mixed up your words there.

nihil in intellectu nisi prius in sensu

We believe that knowledge comes from sensory experience, but don't know that human perception is limited. We believe in naive realism, but don't know about the Necker cube. We are not very smart.

>>5455091
>Why is the survival of the human race a favorable thing?

If it doesn't, you wouldn't be talking about this in the first place

>why is it necessary to ensure the continuity of our species?

Well, why not?

>it is precisely because the scientific method cannot possibly answer these questions

And again you make the same tired old mistake you have been making this entire thread now. Science cannot prove something to be 100% true or 100% false, therefore it's a complete failure. Grow up

>>5455094

Science isn't 'we can prove X to be 100% true or 100% false'. That's simply your misunderstanding of science, which you have labeled 'scientism'

>>5455079
>That's your opinion

Then please cite the falsifiable, reproducible experiment that you have conducted that determine (not describe) what you value.

>>5455097

NO, WHEN I SAY IT CAN'T ANSWER I DON'T MEAN 'NOT WITH 100% POSSIBILITY', I JUST MEAN THAT IT'S NOT A QUESTION YOU CAN EVEN BEGIN TO ANSWER WITH SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

GOING ON, I DON'T MEAN THAT IT'S A COMPLETE FAILURE. I JUST MEAN THAT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE IT, BY DEFINITION, DOES NOT CLAIM TO APPLY.

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK

>>5455101

Unknown today =! unknown forever

>>5455106

>capslock
>namecalling

Philosophy majors, everyone. Truly the beacons of reason.

Anyway, you still return to the tired old point of 'if it's unknown today, it will be unknown forever', which is completely nonsensical.

>>5455114

>>5455114
Not him, but you *are* thick. You don't even understand what he was saying but want to argue anyway.

>>5453358

>There is no "moral knowledge". Ethics is just expressions of "muh feelings".
>There is no moral knowledge
>Makes a claim that implies moral knowledge

Oops.

>>5455100
No, scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the singular valid guiding focus for all of humanity, and everything else is 100% wrong.

I'm not critical of the scientific method, just how some people overestimate its applicability to human existence.

>>5455110
lulz... so you're saying "have faith my son, the messiah will surely come!"

>>5455125

>scientism
>belief

I rest my case.

>>5454988
and wittingstein was inadequate

>>5454534
⇒If all mathematical operations are reducible to iterated addition
They are not. Please take a math class higher than elementary school.

>>5454919
⇒I'm saying you don't apply scientific method to social interaction.
Never heard of psychology? Seriously, kid?

>>5454931
⇒The scientific method cannot determine what we should value.
The question is ill-phrased. There is no "should" because there is no free will.

>>5454955
⇒so many projections
⇒mfw a low tier engineer thinks he's entitled to insult a hard scientist several tiers above him in the hierarchy
top kek

>>5455015
⇒Which political ideology is the best?
How does philosophy answer this question? Oh wait, it doesn't. Politics is driven by common sense and economics. When philosophers enter politics, they only cause destruction. Communism, fascism and religitardation are philosophy and they caused the worst wars and genocides in human history. More reason why philosophy should stay out of politics.

>>5455125
This is a straw man and you will never find a person holding this belief.

>>5455180
See OP, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and reddit.

Philosophy cannot solve scientific problems but science can solve philosophical problems.

There is no good argument for philosophical naturalism

>>5453205
i knew this thread would blow up

>>5453200
Scientism is self-refuting, therefore there is no rational argument *for* it

>>5453211
No, but there are plenty of people who hold the position.

You don't fall in love by studying the neurological condition of people in love. There is no reason to reject truths outside of the empirical method and only a very narrow minded thinker can do this

>>5455563
>only a very narrow minded thinker can do this
>implying the epistemological nihillist negative theologian is not the narrow minded one

>>5453269
>on /lit/
>can't be bothered to look up a word he doesn't know before commenting about it
"Scientism: The belief that the scientific method is the only valid way of determining truth"
This is obviously false

Fallacy of Induction.

What are some objective facts we know of that aren't empirically/mathematically provable?

This is a sincere question.

>>5455602
your mom is a slut
oh wait i proved that last night

>>5453272
>metaphysics

>>5455614
>/lit/

>>5455602
what is love

>>5455602
That's a tautology

Also, there are no objective facts, just the subjective consensus

>>5455563
>There is no reason to reject truths outside of the empirical method and only a very narrow minded thinker can do this

Yes there is, as neither the veracity nor the falsity of such statements can be determined, making them completely meaningless

>>5455642
> Also, there are no objective facts, just the subjective consensus

sure OK
so when you leave your house, do you walk out of the door, or do you step out of the upstairs window?
how do you know that the latter is not actually better?

>>5455665

>>5455624
Baby don't hurt me

>>5455693
don't hurt me

>>5455706
no more

>>5455706
No more

>>5453200
There's not even a definitive way to measure the direction of the flow of causality because there are more inclusive and accountable levels of organization both larger and smaller than our comprehension. Paradigm shift is not just possible around every corner, but likely considering the causally paradoxical state nature seems to be in through the eyes of any scientific theory.

>>5455712
fucked that up didn't you

You know, I am a real scientist, with three advanced degrees and membership in two professional societies and one honorary degree awarded by the Pentagon. I don't know any scientist who cares about any of the stuff you guys are talking about at all.

>>5455831
>I am a real scientist, with three advanced degrees and membership in two professional societies and one honorary degree awarded by the Pentagon
is it scientists' version of 300 confirmed kills

>>5455834
Haha! No, It's for cleaning up three polluted lakes in Army Corps jurisdiction and laying out protocols for doing it in the future. I delivered a talk at the Pentagon and met the Secretary of Defense.

why is "science vs humanities" still a thing here

why do you keep posting the same things over and over and over again

>>5455858
it's an elaborate ruse

well, anything an ordinary real scientist care it's some basic epistemology and even that probably not as formulated principles but some basic skills

>>5455882
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

>>5455892
What's with all the stupid capitals?

>>5455173

All operations where all values are given can ultimately be reduced to these four types. Multiplication is iterated addition. Subtraction can be notated as addition of a negative number. Division reverses multiplication which is interated addition. Taking a number to a power is multiliplication by itself n times, which can again be reduced to interated addition. Logs, derivatives, integrals, sums: If all values are given they're all reversible algorithms which could be described in terms of addition.

If intuition is correct, if we really wanted to we could derive the following for, say, 272+864:

1+1+1+1+1+1... = 1136.

Intuitively this makes sense. "What gives you the right to say that's always true if you don't even know what it means when you say 1+1", you might reasonably ask. Mathematicians felt the same way and wanted to find a fundamental core to mathematics rooted in logic and fundamentally true. They needed to know that the same stream of 1's from above would always act consistently and couldn't do something like

1+1+1+1+1+1... = 109

where

109 =/= 1136.

Having a rigorous understanding of such a fundamental operation then becomes very desirable.

Even if we now know it was a futile goal because no nontrivial logic system can be used to prove itself, it's not all that far fetched either. Math is weird and things which seem fundamental can't be assumed. The number sequence 1+2+3+4+5+6+... taken "all the way to infinity" is supposed to equal -1/12.

>>5455549
⇒Scientism is self-refuting
No, it isn't.

>>5456253
Top tier b8.

>>5456253
>The number sequence 1+2+3+4+5+6+... taken "all the way to infinity" is supposed to equal -1/12.

That's not true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

>>5456607

Using zeta function regularization and Ramanujan summation, it is.

>>5456639
>Ramanujan summation
"It is important to mention that the Ramanujan sums are not the sums of the series in the usual sense"

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

>>5455144
nice get

>>5456988

The idea is it's the approximate answer.

For example, 1 / 0 is undefined. But 1 / 0.1 is defined, it's 10. So's 1/0.00001, which is 100000. As you get closer to zero, the answer tends towards infinity, so we say that the limit of 1 / x as x approaches 0 is infinity, rather than simply undefined. Ramanujan sums let you find what the answer "should" be in a similar manner and thus are a useful tool.

>>5457194
It's an exact answer. Nothing approximate.

>>5453358
>neither can philosophy
Why is it that my homeboard has several of the dumbest posters on 4chan? Those nerdy faggots from like 2 years ago, feminister, the moth thing, and now le unique arrows sciencefag. This must be an elaborate troll spanning several years and using various accounts. The arrowman is poorest one, though. Not even the lesbian duo were this obvious.

>>5453358
Don't listen to the philosophy major shills.

I'm on your side, this place is infested with dumb ass wastes of space.

Objectivity and absolute truth are easy, comfortable solutions for the intellectually cowardly. Like causality, there is ultimately no argument to support them, which is why in the end people like ⇒⇒⇒ always have to fall back on non-arguments like "it's obvious" or "it's common sense" (while conveniently forgetting that the sciences frequently come to conclusions that run completely counter to what's "obvious" or "common sense").

Or the old classic "Well if you don't have absolute knowledge concerning the objective existence of food and your need for it, why do you eat?" As though it's necessary to believe that an apple is "objectively true" in order to eat it! Nietzsche understood this matter well: "The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely."

But who wants to hear what sounds strange? Who wants to hear about illusions and uncertainties? Better to just stick to good old "common sense" -- it's much easier and more comfortable, after all.

>TFW you try to explain to a STEM friend the difference between an opinion and the factual basis of the opinion and it goes right over his head

>>5459353
It's funny because I'm a STEM and I always have to explain the same thing to philosotards and they always refuse to understand it.

>>5459342
My thoughts exactly.

>>/lit/thread/S5311430#p5311444

If you follow the replies to above link you will find golden nuggets of arrowtruths like:

>The philosophy of science is not worth reading.

>To someone who knows the scientific method Popper and Kuhn have nothing new to offer.

>there is no reason to read the original works of Einstein when you can learn his theory from a modern textbook

>Actually I'm extremely intelligent.

Best post in that thread: >>/lit/thread/S5311430#p5312487

>>5459453
All these statements are reasonable. What's your problem?

>>5459466
I got 99 problems but a bitch aint one

>>5459453
Some more gems from her posts:

>1 + 1 = 2

>Horses are animals.

>Snow is usually white.

>Coadjoint orbits possess a canonical G-invariant symplectic structure.

Wow, how can someone be so ignorant?

>>5459342
This. Not to mention that even in an objective world "common sense" is obviously still subjective - common sense in say, most of Europe 1305 was that the divine right of kings and serfdom were completely natural. Plus arrowboy has never heard of Gramsci yet thinks he's qualified to discuss politics authoritatively the silly cunt.

>>5455173
I'm not the OPs of these, but I'm going to go through these anyway.

>⇒I'm saying you don't apply scientific method to social interaction.
>Never heard of psychology? Seriously, kid?

Psychology is field of study with incalculable results, gathered by inferred knowledge. I mean this in no disrespect to the field of study, but that is simply the case. You could attempt to argue that it uses the the tenants of the scientific method, sure, but you would quickly come to find each test differs greatly to the next, to the point of being obsolete. To cite one example of this would be the spectrum of autism; the observable symptoms are similar, but not exact. Pure scientific method cannot help us here; each case is unique.

>⇒The scientific method cannot determine what we should value.
>The question is ill-phrased. There is no "should" because there is no free will.
While I applaud your acceptance that such a bold claim will be -quite rightfully- challenged, I would believe it to be a strong claim to suggest that those who disagree are doing so because they were preordained to, and had no choice in the matter.

>⇒so many projections
>⇒mfw a low tier engineer thinks he's entitled to insult a hard scientist several tiers above him in the hierarchy
>top kek
Given your presence here on 4chins I'm going to assume this is a nervous tick in response to your weak ego being threatened.

>⇒Which political ideology is the best?
>How does philosophy answer this question? Oh wait, it doesn't.
If you believe Philosophy is designed to answer questions then you show a remarkable lack of knowledge in the field. You say you're a scientist, but I would have expected better than to comment on something you know little of. Philosophy, by and large, deals in questions rather than answers, though many do attempt to answer their own questions raised, the main body of the work is to get the reader to think.

>Politics is driven by common sense and economics.
While I'm keen to post an image of a smug anime girl, I'll refrain, and simply tell you that the monstrous beast that is Politics is driven by many forces both seen and unseen. I'd personally take a stab at falling into one of the three grand categories of: Power, Status or Wealth for the rulers. Perhaps not all three at once.

>When philosophers enter politics, they only cause destruction. Communism, fascism and religitardation are philosophy and they caused the worst wars and genocides in human history. More reason why philosophy should stay out of politics.
It's interesting that you cite facism as a form of philosophy, when many of its traits deal with a harshly rationalised world view based off the scientific believes of the time. That aside, your assertion that philosophy is the leading cause of destruction in the world is almost laughable. Men don't need reason, or some perceived enlightenment, to be spurred on to kill one-another; they've been doing fine without it for a very long time.

>>5459705
To add to the last of your points, for quite a while socialism/communism was viewed as 'rational/scientific', hence Dostoyevsky's arguments against rationality in the first half of notes from underground, and Chesterton's in orthodoxy

>>5455173

Your last point makes my head hurt. You do realize that all formations of government exhibit a form of philosophy, right?

Look at the enlightenment, when a group of philosophers, economic and otherwise, postulated the precepts for individualism, captialism, and societal progress.

And afterwards, Marx's contributions proved so helpful to capitalism that they helped to reform some classical economists into the neo-classical school.

All movements of human government are necessarily philosophical, even if that philosophy is one of force and violence. To decry the worst and ignore the best is tantamount to equating biology to nothing but eugenics and chemistry to nothing but chemical warfare.

If you want to cast stones at tasks which do not offer obvious solutions (such as political science, sociology, various fields of philosophy, including ethics and ontology), you're going to have a fantastic time; because they are very very resistant to positivistic or behavioralistic interpretation. Finding the 'best form of government' is as we would interpret it is nearly a sisyphean task because there are fundamental disagreements as to what role a government should play.

Even if we wanted to tackle that problem, we would see yet further divides as to what metric we would judge the worth of that society. Even so, if you really, truly want to say that political philosophy is absolutely worthless, (Ignoring for a moment the fallacy that you could ever not have a 'political philosophy'), you would be implicitly claiming the optimal form of goverment was the one confederated by great apes in our prehistory.

>>5455173
>hierarchy
Still doing your dumbass thing, I see. Scientists are basically English lit professors btw, short of inventing and patenting someone. Nobody's paying anyone to sit around doing nothing, and that's what most scientists do. Cancer research, for example, pays nada, zilch. Enjoy contributing to the human species like, 100 years down the line or something when some other guy markets your now-incomplete work?--I dunno. Oh, but therein comes the delusion, that pathetic speciesism which is like to an animalistic religion.

>>5459811
something*
See what happened there? Linkage to the next line: "something" -> "someone" -> "nobody". Well, I think it's cool how the brain moves through things anyway.

And you know, it's actually interesting too that you should bring up "hierarchy". It's reminiscent of Britney Spears breaking down, because women are so concerned with societal place, and then even when they have the top, they feel trapped and break down (maybe it's reminiscent of that because I'd like to see you land on your ass). Same reason women are so given to becoming nurses, teachers, etc. too. Oh shit, Arrow, you're on 4chan clawing for place! And that explains the tripfagging too!

It's pretty easy to game that pretty much unconscious mechanic in women too. And it's kinda sad, to be honest. No wonder religion has them as second class citizens, really.

>>5459705
⇒Psychology is field of study with incalculable results
⇒Pure scientific method cannot help us here; each case is unique.
Psychology is the closest we get to a scientific understanding of human behaviour and cognition. It is a thousand times more objective than some philosotard talking out of his ass.

⇒Given your presence here on 4chins I'm going to assume this is a nervous tick in response to your weak ego being threatened.
What an autistic ad hominem projection.

⇒you show a remarkable lack of knowledge in the field.
1. According to some retards on this board science is a branch of philosophy. Therefore I am a professional philosopher and thus an authority on the field of philosophy.
2. Disregarding (1) you are still wrong. I have a deep and broad knowledge of philosophy.

⇒Philosophy, by and large, deals in questions rather than answers
This is what armchair fedoras actually want to believe. Every child can ask questions. Asking questions requires no qualifications and does not make you deep. Philosophy is much more than "asking questions". Unfortunately you are too uneducated in philosophy to know this. The most meaningful questions are asked by science and not by philosophy btw.

⇒the main body of the work is to get the reader to think.
Things like designing algorithms, finding mathematical proves, developing testable scientific explanations, designing experiments etc make you "learn" how to think. Philosophy has no monopoly on teaching thinking. It makes you think only insofar as reading any other text makes you think as well.

⇒While I'm keen to post an image of a smug anime girl,
The fact that you have such a picture on your computer resonates perfectly with your perceived manchild personality.

⇒It's interesting that you cite facism as a form of philosophy
It's interesting that you picked only that part of my example even though it is effectively no different from the other examles.

⇒Men don't need reason, or some perceived enlightenment, to be spurred on to kill one-another;
We're not talking about something as trivial as killing a stranger to get his money. We are talking about ideologically motivated systematic genocide. The latter has been "justified" by PHILOSOPHIES such as marxism, nazism and religion. Philosophy has played a crucial role in the biggest crimes of human history. Without philosophy the holocaust would have never happened.

A scientist is basically an engineer's secretary, lol.

>>5459894
Shit, you just did the thing, too: the "v" in "proves" to link to the "v" in "developing". Did you do that on purpose?

>>5459906
It's really cool! It's like there's a big web of letters in our heads!

>>5459705
>>5459705
Don't bother m8. Arrow just loves to hurl shit about shit he doesn't understand and then runs away whenever he's forced to confront his prejudices.

Women are retarded. Though in fairness, most men are too, but women are especially retarded--a special sort of retarded.

>>5459754
⇒denying human nature
⇒scientific
Choose only one. Your propaganda lies belong on >>>/pol/.

>>5459774
⇒You do realize that all formations of government exhibit a form of philosophy, right?
No, they don't. Humans - or even monkeys - had hierarchies long before philosophy existed. It's just an evolutionary fact.

⇒To decry the worst and ignore the best is tantamount to equating biology to nothing but eugenics and chemistry to nothing but chemical warfare.
You mean it is like shouting "scientism"?

⇒there are fundamental disagreements as to what role a government should play.
If philosophy had any intellectual merit, those "fundamental disagreements" would of been resolved a long time ago. In science we don't have "fundamental disagreements". We see the facts and all agree that for example evolution is true.

⇒if you really, truly want to say that political philosophy is absolutely worthless
I only said it was responsible for genocides, war and poverty. As a sociopath I find people's suffering funny, so I'm not inclined to call political philosophy "worthless".

Did you know, Arrow, that gorillas are the only ape that eat solely vegetation? It's because they're the king of the apes, I figure, and so have room to show some compassion. And I bet that's what it is, too.
>it's just an evolutionary fact
Keep lying to yourself. It's not *just* anything. It's all fucking mental and awesome is what it is.

Oh, and the tabula rasa is true--that's a scientific fact, and one eerily reminiscent of that whole "God created man in his image" dealie.

>as a sociopath
lmfao

>>5459894
>Saying ethics is just "muh feelings" in one post.
>Condemning genocide as a horrible crime in another.

>>5459926
>As a sociopath
sorry what?

>>5459894
>Psychology is the closest we get to a scientific understanding of human behaviour and cognition.
"Closest we can get" is useless for a base of scientific knowledge.
>It is a thousand times more objective than some philosotard talking out of his ass.
I never implied this was the case.

>What an autistic ad hominem projection.
I'd call it 'irony', but I think that word would be lost on you.

>1. According to some retards on this board science is a branch of philosophy. Therefore I am a professional philosopher and thus an authority on the field of philosophy.
So you acknowledge a falsehood, then take the stance of aforementioned falsehood and now you're use it to promote your righteousness?
>2. Disregarding (1) you are still wrong. I have a deep and broad knowledge of philosophy.
Then you say I'm wrong because you are right?

Really?

Moving on.

>This is what armchair fedoras actually want to believe. Every child can ask questions.
Because if a child can do (A) then (A) surely must be a worthless endeavor? So following that, a child who builds of tower from building blocks must render architects retarded? Right.
>Asking questions requires no qualifications and does not make you deep.
So where do the answers come from? Thin air? You think the progress of human understanding comes from people just making things up on the spot? Or do you think it comes from people asking the right questions?

>Philosophy is much more than "asking questions". Unfortunately you are too uneducated in philosophy to know this.
"I am right and you are wrong."
"I am knowledgeable and you are not."
Zzzzz. I'm getting bored now.

>The most meaningful questions are asked by science and not by philosophy btw.
A completely subjective epithet.

You know, at first I thought your petty resorts to ad hom were the crux of your complete failure to engage in a reasonable discussion, but it's far worse than that. In spite of being a self proclaimed scientist you have absolutely zero intention of learning anything. You are here to represent one strata of persons and damn anybody else who would hold a different opinion. You're not a scientist, you're a blight.

Good day, sir.

*tips fedora*

>>5459970
⇒"Closest we can get" is useless for a base of scientific knowledge.
Having some scientific knowledge is better than having no scientific knowledge.

⇒I never implied this was the case.
You defended someone who did.

⇒I'd call it 'irony'
Nothing was ironic in my post. I didn't use any words like "kek", "dubs", "le" or "ebin".

⇒So you acknowledge a falsehood, then take the stance of aforementioned falsehood and now you're use it to promote your righteousness?
This technique is known as "reductio ad absurdum". Of course I cannot expect a high school dropout to know this.

⇒Then you say I'm wrong because you are right?
You made a factually incorrect claim and I proved you wrong.

⇒Because if a child can do (A) then (A) surely must be a worthless endeavor?
If every child can do it, then it has no intellectual merit.

⇒a child who builds of tower from building blocks must render architects retarded?
There is much more to architecture than simply stacking lego blocks.

⇒So where do the answers come from?
science and common sense

⇒Or do you think it comes from people asking the right questions?
Scientists ask the right questions. Philosophers don't. There is no point in asking intentionally unanswerable and irrelevant infantile questions such as "What if solipsism?" or "Does reality really real?"

⇒you have absolutely zero intention of learning anything
maximum projection

>>5459922
I know. I tried my best to make it as entertaining as possible for everybody else. In the end the outcome is going to be the same; he's going to walk away with his head held high and another notch on his ever growing tablet of 'internet arguments won'. It's kind of tragic, really.

>If every child can do it, then it has no intellectual merit.
I lol'd at this one too.

>>5459970
>dat ragequit

I know you wanna save your face by insulting Arrow but factually she's right and you can hardly say anything against her arguments.

>>5460000
>head held high
Not sure I agree. He's clearly very troubled and bitter about his life. I feel bad for him. I wonder what went wrong.

>>5460037
>but factually she's right
No facts have, at any point, have been shown.

>you can hardly say anything against her arguments
I'm fairly certain my two responses constitute saying something.

I certainly wouldn't say I insulted Arrow, more like condemned them for their poor capacity for discourse. If they and yourself want to take that as an insult then you're free to do so, it matters little to me.

>>5460044
I hope he does, for his sake. He's certainly gained nothing else from this argument. If you're right, then I too feel a lot of pity for the poor fellow.

>>5460044
⇒why can't I hold all these projectors

>>5460052
⇒I'm fairly certain my two responses constitute saying something.
Indeed, you conveyed a lot of information about being emotionally disturbed and about your lack of willingness to engage in a debate.

⇒more like condemned them for their poor capacity for discourse
This is a literature board. We use arguments. If your conception of "discourse" consists of reaction images, fedora memes and buzzwords, then you should stay on one of the many containment boards dedicated to people of your kind.

>>5460037
You can't argue with faith

>>5459894
>Without philosophy the holocaust would have never happened.
Same could be said for science- really- the biggest enabler of genocide and general industrialized slaughter is science. And the biggest leaps and most imaginative inventions have been done in the name of warfare and pursuit of applied suffering.

>>5459926
>As a sociopath I find people's suffering funny
Why don't you take your own advice here:
>>5460066
>you should stay on one of the many containment boards dedicated to people of your kind.
>>>/b/

>>5459926

>As a self-diagnosed sociopath

fixed that for ya, don't cut yourself on that edge and so forth

>>5453200
Science explains how the world is, not why the world is.

Look into Nietzsche's critique of science and the is/ought fallacy

>>5460275
>not why the world is.

This is a meaningless statement

>>5460311
That is one opinion.

>>5460316

Then enlighten me about what it's supposed to denote

>>5460174
⇒Same could be said for science- really- the biggest enabler of genocide and general industrialized slaughter is science
Most vitims died from starvation or forced labor. There's hardly any science involved.

>>5460275
⇒Science explains how the world is, not why the world is.
That means science is better than philosophy because philosophy explains neither.

>>5460351
Science is just an application of philosophical principles

>>5460446
Hahaha, no. Science is much more complex than philosophy.

>>5460351
And are you 16? Who cares what's better?

>>5460338
There are many metaphysical notions of existence. Some denote a why for the world and then there is nihilism which you evidently ascribe to

>>5460453
Science is definitionally part of philosophy. This isn't even an argument you just don't know what these words mean

>>5454560
Language (a part of it), logic, mathematics and all the things that precede it and form it.

>>5460473
Science and philosophy are different fields of academic studies and have fundamentally different methods. Science uses the scientific method, which is based on objective observations. Philosophy uses the philosophical method, which is based on subjective belief and appeals to authority.

>>5454693
He actually did. He wrote an entire book on Parmenides philosophy

>>5460463

And metaphysics needs a view from outside of reality, which isn't available to us, making it a useless field of research

>and then there is nihilism which you evidently ascribe to

Nice assumptions. Not very accurate though

>>5460483
⇒linguistics, logic, math

They are formal sciences.

>>5460499
Definition, please?

>>5460524
Wikipedia, please?

>>5460526
Yeah, just did it.
But if we are to have a discussion you should provide your own, to avoid confusion. I have the feeling these threads would be a lot shorter if we defined properly things like scientism.
Assuming scientism as radical empiricism, the very existence of such a category is a strong proof of it's failure. There are valid and worthwhile intelectual enterprises that are not empirical and don't use the scientific method. The end.