[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 9 KB, 528x404, spurdo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5577315 No.5577315 [Reply] [Original]

"The so-called philosophers who still survive in the world (just as fortune-tellers and witch-doctors survive) argue that a scientist cannot carry on his business without some grounding in metaphysical theory, but for this there is no evidence whatsoever; on the contrary, the career of almost any competent scientist proves that it is false. All the metaphysical equipment he really needs in contained in common sense, and he shares it with carpenters and bricklayers. Whenever he steps beyond it he gets into difficulties, and very often he comes dramatically to grief. Some of the great glories of science, including many who have adorned the non-physical sciences, have been as innocent of metaphysical theory as so many police lieutenants. The business of a man of science in this world is not to speculate and dogmatize, but to demonstrate. To be sure, he sometimes needs the aid of hypothesis, but hypothesis, at best, is only a pragmatic stop-gap, made use of transiently because all the necessary facts are not yet known. The appearance of a new one in contempt of it destroys it instantly. At its most plausible and useful it simply represents an attempt to push common sense an inch or two over the borders of the known. At its worst it is only idle speculation, and no more respectable than the soaring of metaphysicians."
Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

So why do we need philosophical babbling again when science and common sense can explain everything?

>> No.5577381

Because we can't even prove that the scientific method is the best way to explain the Real around us.

It just works.

>> No.5577392

>the fact of someone having a career disproves the reliance on a metaphysical grounding

great logic, mencken. no wonder people prefer your quotes to your texts. hoist the black flag!

>> No.5577420

Sounds more like he's arguing against science needing a philosophy to function, not philosophy as a whole. Also, notice that he uses the phrase "so-called philosophers." He's attacking what he deems to be charlatans, not philosophers in general.

>> No.5577453
File: 27 KB, 775x387, 1300634359951.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5577453

>>5577420
Science made philosophy obsolete.

>> No.5577485

>>5577453
My dick makes science obsolete

>> No.5577493

"they don't know what they are doing, but they are nonetheless doing it"

>> No.5577507

>>5577315

Why did you post the exact opposite argument on /sci/?

>> No.5577513

>valuing the opinion of a man who is pro-capital punishment

>> No.5577543

>>5577513


>not being pro capital punishment

you are an accessory to murder simply by existing, check your entropic privilege shitlord.

>> No.5577551

>>5577315
You know Mencken was a devout Nietzschean? He valued philosophy, just not traditional metaphysicians.

>> No.5577582

>>5577453
why are you even here?

>> No.5577771

Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.