/lit/ - Literature

>>5553753
Nonsense. Why can't we just ask moot to create /phil/ for a day? We'll go with ourselves, damn it. Like a fucking fairytale.

>>5553763
I'm okay with this.

>>5553763
No, fuck off. We're going with /sci/

/z/

>>5553773
>tfw no soviet Russia

Can you please fuck off with your infantile role playing garbage? It has nothing to do with literature.

>>5553808
Literature was born from infantile role playing garbage.

>>5553808
fuck off

>>5553808
I would recommend you leave 4chan, isn't exactly known for its maturity.

>>5553834
>>5553830
>>5553824
This is a literature board. Literature is for mature people. Go back to /v/ or wherever your manchild cancer comes from. We don't need more off-topic shitposting.

what is this?

>>5553841
>no fun/meta allowed
fuck off shitposter

>>5553841
>implying
Immaturity sometimes amusing, would you please fuck off?

>>5553853
>>5553848
Disgusting infantility is neither amusing nor meta. Go back to >>>/v/. Your shitposting contest is off-topic.

>>5553841
Go back to your endless philosophy and /pol/ cancer threads, nerd. Let us do something different for a change.

>>5553862
Keep your /v/ culture in /v/. We don't want it on /lit/. You are disrupting the intellectual harmony of this board.

>>5553860
>I'm a mature 4chan poster

>>5553867
>intellectual harmony
I've seen people on this board to take positivism seriously. I've seen people on this board and sis postmodernism doesn't exist.

>>5553867
>waaaah something I don't like must not be intellectual waaaaah

>>5553867
>intellectual harmony

You don't even know what that means.

>>5553867
Keep fighting the good fight anon you'll show them eventually.

>>5553867
>>5553860
>>5553841
>>5553808
Get a load of this pathetic little aspie wannabe mod who can't ignore things he doesn't like.

>>5553870
/lit/ is one of the few mature boards. Don't ruin it. Stay on /v/, cancer.

>>5553874
>>5553877
>>5553882
This thread and this cross-board cancer contest in general has nothing to do with literature.

>>5553887
Humanism sucks (don't worry I still love you Sartre)

>>5553903
>liking Sartre

>>5553894

>>5553753
correct, we fuck /mu/ and go with /sci/

>>5553894
Nobody cares about your hurt feelings and wrong opinions. This isn't your board and we're not your autism doctor.

>>5553918
/mu/ is underage
/lit/ is a successful but pretentious undergrad
/sci/ is a hot older male

What's this thread even about? Aside from shit-slinging I mean.

>>5553926
/sci/ is an overweight thirty-something landwhale with foot fungus groping her pipette in the same fashion as her vibrator and wondering why nobody's shared the photo of "Science Cat" she put on Tumblr last night.

>>5553922
Go back to >>>/v/. You have no interest in literature.

4chan winter ball 2014

we're not going, we're staying in and reading.

then wishing we'd gone afterwords

>>5553928
It's a "ball" we are having. Apparently /k/ is going with /an/. I think they're the only ones who decided.

>>5553949
Nobody is gonna have any "ball". If you want to play with balls, go to >>>/hm/.

>>5553933
Most /sci/ posters at least know calculus.

>>5553958
Just like every adult who passed high school?

>>5553955
>>23137581

>>5553965
Most of the 30-year-old land you were describing don't. And I was saying that was a minimum.

>>5553939
You hate literature. That's why you shit up all the threads here that you have personal psychological issues with.

>>5553975
>"Oh, why do you hurt me so?"

/lit/ and /sci/ hate each other.

>>5553998
>Using falsification is a criterion While mocking philosophy

It's like you guys don't even Popper

>>5553753

do we get to be the girl :3 ??

>>5553998
The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.

>>5554006
Yeah.

>>5554013
>Feynman
>even approaching Bohr
lmao

>>5553998
Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper, Feyerabend, and Quine.

>>5553998
They do realize popper added that criterion to the demarcatation of the science pseudoscience dichotomy. Right?

>>5554004
⇒implying falsification wasn't used long before Popper
Do you really think before the 1940's everyone kept believing in theories even though had been falsified?

>>5554013
⇒muh vacuous Feyerabend quote
Ad hominems and appeals to emotion are not real arguments.

>>5554037
Stop dropping names you read on /lit/ without ever reading their works.

>>5554053
See the first comment in my post.

>>5554060
>Do you really think before the 1940's everyone kept believing in theories even though had been falsified?

No, but they didn't use it as a demarcation. Before Popper no one could explain why they thought Freud or Marx were pseudoscientists. In fact, before popper, they were often considered scientists.

>>5553888
trips of truth

>>5554060
>Do you really think before the 1940's everyone kept believing in theories even though had been falsified?
No but they sometimes considered unfalsifiable theories science.

>>5554060
>>5554082
>>5554100
Arrowcunt getting BTFO

>>5553887
humanism sucks

>>5554082
⇒No, but they didn't use it as a demarcation.
It isn't used today as demarcation either.

⇒Before Popper no one could explain why they thought Freud or Marx were pseudoscientists.
Freud himself admitted that he wasn't working scientifically and he expressed his hope that future generations of scientists would examine his claims. Marx has been falsified over and over again throughout the 20th century.

⇒In fact, before popper, they were often considered scientists.
By whom? By their ideological followers?

>>5554100
⇒No but they sometimes considered unfalsifiable theories science.
We still do that today.

>>5553753
>>>/z/
>>>/5/
>>>/prog/
>>>/book/
>>>/q/
>>>/mlp/

>>5554211
>Marx has been falsified over and over again throughout the 20th century.
No he fucking hasn't. You're either talking about short run absolute emiseration, which was:
a) Never the conjecture
b) Exists at times
c) Even where claimed by unorthodox Marxisms as necessary, these Marxisms survived falsification

or, you're talking about the Bohm Bawerk's critique which is laughable in its obvious and tendential misreadings.

>>5553753
It's either /p/ or /po/. I'm all for fucking the asian, let's go /po/.

>>5553753
I wholeheartedly support this

>>5553986
Did you really pull up your schoolbooks to feign intellectualism?

>>5554211
how are you even managing to shit up this thread

>>5554037
feyerabend and kuhn, despite being well thought out, would, at the end of the day, enrage the common /sci/ posters if they knew their content

>>5554791
Hermeneutics, despite being the best method of reading secure meanings from insecure texts, would, at the end of the day, enrage the common /lit/ posters if they knew its contents.

p.s.: The curtains were blue.

>>5554880
just saying, don't list random philosophers of science to prove that a science board and a literature board can like each other when two of those spend a good amount of time talking about why science is, at the end of the day, not describing anything, or incapable of true advancement.

>>5554791
⇒implying Kuhn doesn't argue in favor of science

You have no idea what you're talking about. Kuhn explains why science is NOT a religion. He destroys your scientism straw man, dumbass.

>>5554927
what? How was that at all scientism? I never said Kuhn argued science is a religion, he just says that because different paradigms describe different things with the same language (famously "energy" meaning different things under newtonian and relativistic physics) none can be said to be "better" in a rigorous sense, and therefore no "advancement" can strictly be said to be made. Kuhn is anti-realist.

Is /lit/ still in the Autumn cup?

>>5554890
>why science is, at the end of the day, not describing anything, or incapable of true advancement.
If you don't get why Against Method liberates science from "science" then you don't get it. Your loss. It doesn't invalidate not dying of typhus; it just illustrates the social and cultural contexts.

Now /sci/ would shit themselves over the techno-science debate.

I'm down with /sci/

>>5554028
>thinking Bohr would rank in the top 10

clearly has not done QED