/lit/ - Literature

>>5988016
you can ask these questions without the image, fyi

Kuhn - The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kuhn-function-dogma.pdf

>>5988021
>Because limitations of space and time force me to stop at this point, my case for dogmatism must remain schematic.

>>5988016

Watch out. Militant empiricism becomes a form of ideology for a lot of people. Especially those still at that young age where they walk around naively thinking that they have life all worked out now.

Recommend him whatever you want but if he's starting to become resistant and insecure even in simple debate you can bet your ass that he won't allow himself to take in or even consider any of the lit that you're trying to show him.

>>5988048
actually dualism seems to be more common of a view than hard empiricism

Gödel's incompleteness theorem tells us it's mathematically impossible for one formal model (such as a scientific theory) to accurately describe all possible cases (such as the natural universe)

In other words, U KANT KNOW NUFFIN.

>>5988076
>Gödel's incompleteness theorem tells us it's mathematically impossible for one formal model (such as a scientific theory) to accurately describe all possible cases (such as the natural universe)

Gödel's incompleteness theorem tells us it's impossible for one formal LOGICAL system to both be complete and consistent when it's developed enough to be able to perform arithmetic.

Literally no one but idiots like you who don't actually understand Gödel's proofs say things like what you did.

>>5988092
Are you implying that philosophy and science aren't logical systems and can't be used to preform arithmetic?

More specifically In this case are you implying that science isn't math?

>>5988107
>Are you implying that philosophy and science aren't logical systems and can't be used to preform arithmetic?
No, they are not.

>More specifically In this case are you implying that science isn't math?
Science could be performed without a lick of math.

>>5988118
Idiot detected

>>5988118
You don't understand science, math, or philosophy.

>>5988092
If logical systems can't do it, then obviously it follows that no other formal system could do it because logic is the most atomistic formal system that could exist.

Foucault and Merleau-Ponty

>>5988125
I hypothesize that if I mix aqueous silver nitrate and hydrochloric acid, I will get a silver chloride precipitate. Now let's test that.

No math. Unless you're saying all things are math, in which case you're logically imposing a rationalist view of the world, which of course is contradictory.

If your brain is a formal system, then why can it solve problems that formal systems cannot? Look into Alan Turing and infinity.

>>5988076

what an idiot

OP stop being hipster and realize that science is already more closer than anything in finding actual truth. a lot of studies are bullshit but actual physics and chemical are pretty good standing

>>5988130
Could you explain more? I have no reason to trust your simple statement.

>>5988134
There are logical systems wherein no contradiction lies. It is necessary that the system be capable of arithmetic.

>>5988134

You are really stupid if you think science is a consistent formal system.

If anything science works in very example-result way, rather from a deductive logic way.

>>5988141
>No math

Yeah, no way that could be represented in logic.

>>5988076
Godel's theorems are pretty specific about what systems they applies to.

>>5988161
>apply
oops

>>5988151
>You are really stupid if you think science is a consistent formal system.

How would that imply that one is "really stupid"? I don't think you understand how logic works.

Wittgenstein

>>5988145
*tip*
interstellar was the greatest movie in the last 20 years.

Start throwing a bunch of statistics at him like race IQ and debunk the female wage gap. He'll either have to dial back his MUH FACTS and become bearable to be around or get even worse.

You'll never win the religion battle, though.

>>5988175

i accept your gentleman gesture *tips*

and interstellar is fucking bad, cliche and ironically too emotional

>>5988171
I think logic is starting to mean "whatever you say"

>>5988179
"Racial realism" can be debunked by anyone with a background in biology

>>5988171
I don't believe physics, chemistry, etc. are considered formal systems. A formal system does have a precise meaning in mathematical logic.

ITT: /lit/ discovers logic
lel you guys should stick to your soft science crap, whenever things get a bit formal and hard your incompetence is showing

>>5988156
The logic required to perform that science is more primitive than set theory. You can't do mathematics without at least the axioms necessary to form Cartesian sets

You do realize that there is not just "logic", there are "logics"? Math-based science founded in set theory is where Godel applies, but we don't know the actual foundation for math.

I know you must really like your CS professor but take it easy, you don't know anything yet

>>5988198
It doesn't matter if that part is true. There are obviously plenty of instances where one can "think" science is a consistent formal system without necessitating that one is "really stupid." It was a logically messy insult.

>>5988208
>we don't know the actual foundation for math.

The axioms are the foundation. What does this have to do with anything?

>>5988220
ZFC is assumed for most mathematics, although the details are not important for most working mathematicians. Sometimes extensions are used like Grothendieck-Tarski set theory (which extends ZFC a bit to support category theory, which is important for algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, and other things). There are also other ideas for the foundation of mathematics that aren't set theory, as far as I know.

>>5988220
It's no different than David Hume's problem of induction. We use the axioms we do out of necessity, not because we have divine knowledge that mathematics is necessarily a product of logic

Get your ontology straight.

>>5988148
You can make a Turing machine with simple language by describing what the machine does in each step.
The Turing machine can then be used to preform simple arithmetic.
Thus language falls under GIT.
If language falls under GIT, then so too must philosophy and science. Thus any attempt to find the perfect philosophy or a theory of everything is fundementaly flawed.

The people who won't accept this are probably just buthurt that they can't know everything.

>>5988262
If we accept your premise, using language to describe a system that does not fall under GIT nonetheless does fall under GIT.

Your premise is not very good.

>>5988262
>Thus language falls under GIT.
Language isn't arithmetic.

>>5988282
"One plus one equals two" I just did arithmetic using language.

Is Ian Hutchinson legit?

>>5988291
All that proves is that arithmetic can be represented in language, that doesn't prove that language is arithmetic.

>>5988262
I.. uh.. just please stay in class and learn from your professors.

If you can find a time where science was wrong and religion was right than you could. But that doesn't happen

>>5988333
Are you le trolling?

There is no conflict between religion and science

OP check out Edward Feser's work

Honestly anons, your knowledge of hard sciences hurts. Lets not discuss math ever again, stick to soft stuff where you can mumble and pretend to be smart.

>>5988282
>not having an idea of what im talking about
>try to act smartass anyway
>muh me much knowledge

>friend is literally autistic
>studies Science at University but doesn't know who won WWI
>worships Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
>always talking about how weed should be legal even though he's smoked it less than 8 times in his 20 year life
>a girl said "swear to God" and he replied: "I'm an atheist"
>I send him a condensed version of Fear and Trembling
>he doesn't have the attention span to read it
>he continues to be a euphoric
>mfw

>>5988376
It's not. Prove that language is arithmetic if you're so convinced.

>>5988360
If you're in the position to judge how bad we are at "hard sciences", then why aren't you in a position to spread that knowledge?

>having "debates" with people

>>5988383
>studies Science at University but doesn't know who won WWI

The Zionists?

>>5988332
My professors have been talking about computability, proofs, and formal logic. When I asked them about GIT, they agreed that it applies to philosophy, language, and law.

>>5988403
I actually spread that knowledge for a living. Are u gonna pay me anon?

>>5988419
>My professors have been talking about computability, proofs, and formal logic. When I asked them about GIT, they agreed that it applies to philosophy, language, and law.

"Your professors" may be wrong.

>>5988432
>accepting money for educating your fellow human being

>>5988419
I mean, I didn't start learning until I intellectually challenged my professors.

I've had philosophy professors back down from points a time or two when I emailed them some tough questions about something they taught. 90% of the time they aren't saying what they say as a serious testament to truth.

>>5988444
It can be apllied to language processing tho. Can't rly imagine connecting it to philosophy.

>>5988459
>being a scientist

>>5988459
>he does it for free

>>5988016
>My buddy is a bit too euphoric lately. Can't even make a casual debate about something without him screaming MUH SCIENTIFIC METHOD and stuff.
Is your buddy's name perchance /lit/?

>>5988060
yet "hard empiricism" presupposed dualism because it can't explain lots of things any other way than to reduce it to an illusion.
>What's perception, desire, feeling, memory?
>It's just the brain m8, they are all just an illusion.
>So, what's illusion?
>It's just the brain m8, illusion is just an illusion.
It's ultimately but implicitly the dualism between "hard reality" and illusion.

>>5988016
The Birth of Tragedy.
Kind of dangerous since the rest of Nietzsche would be like throwing gas on the fire, but it does address the cul-de-sac of rationalism.

>>5988016
>Recommend some decent (short) literature for dealing with the modern naive scientism and atheism.

"letter to a learned neighbor" by chekhov
not very modern but it's golden

>>5989095
how would the rest of Nietzsche be throwing gas on fire? Nietzsche sees science as a continuation of religion. in his eyes OP's buddy is closer to religion than he thinks.

>>5988016

>>5989112
Because a zealot would just cherry pick the anti-christian stuff and trumpet it with no subtlety or understanding whatsoever.
Nietzsche: Keep Out of Reach of Children.

>>5989141
Feyerabend is probably the best thing to throw at him.
If you no longer want to be his friend, you could probably do a John Zerzan impression.

>>5989167
>John Zerzan (/ˈzɜrzən/, ZUR-zən; born 1943) is an American anarchist and primitivist philosopher and author. His works criticize agricultural civilization as inherently oppressive, and advocate drawing upon the ways of life of hunter gatherers as an inspiration for what a free society should look like.
Zernan should read Foucault (is power primarily oppressive? is there anything outside of power?) and Nietzsche (are power and oppression inherently bad?).

>>5989101

i just readed it, very funny heh

>>5988016
Get him to try one of these. I was an edgy atheist and positivist, then I tried peyote at the insistence of some friends at the Sierra Madre. It was a sudden epiphany sort of thing. after that moment, I have always believed in god, whether I wanted it or not.

>>5988145
this
except, you OP should also read on epistemology and philosophy of science

>>5989223
Interesting, but what kind of God? I'm asking because Spinoza also talks about God but it's quite a different God than it is usually meant.

>>5989223
one time i did a bunch of ketamine and i thought that rodney dangerfield was telepathically speaking to me from heaven

doesn't mean its real

>>5989235

If it's the pantheistic god, then science is actually the most close one to find it.

Science what lacks it's artsy side. Science doesn't move any emotion so people find it plain and silly.

>>5988016
New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson

He wasn't a philosopher, but if you study this book you'll be locked and loaded

>>5989255
What is Saganism.

>>5988016
Oh look, it's another guy who thinks philosophy and semantics should trump methodological naturalism.

can we filter the word "Gödel"? it's so embarrassing that everytime someone namedrops him it's clear the person hasn't read him

>>5989235
Something which is in everything yet transcends everything. Something beyond description and categorization.More or less comparable to the Brahman of Hindu thought,the Hasidic concept of Atzmon, or Adhi-Buddha in Vajrayana philosophy.

>>5989255
pantheism is the same thing as atheism essentially

>>5989300
>he doesn't think x is all there is therefore he is against x as such
fucking pleb

>>5988016
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire/

>>5989355
>same exact title as sheldrake
w0t

>>5989374
And merely a one year difference in publishing. I guess scientism and new atheism really are becoming enough of a poisonous part of culture.

>>5988016
These are worth looking at, whether you agree with them or not

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full

>muh scientism
your insecurity is pathetic. no one gives a shit if you're a worthless humanities student.

>>5989448
>being this butthurt
Seems like you're projecting your own insecurity.

>>5989489
and yet you're the pathetic sperg who's begging /lit/ to try and show him up. keep up that projection, m8.

>>5989514
Keep projecting your resentment m8. OP just wants to change his "environment", so to speak. There's no sign of any resentment in his post.

>>5989580
what am I resentful of? shitposting retards who can't even deal with simple logic and have to cry muh scientism whenever their feelings get hurt?

>>5988016
theres some sort of flannery o connor story about a kid with a telescope or something that im remembering but i cant remember the name

Does anybody else hate these "hey /lit/ tell me what to think" threads as much as I do?

>>5988048
wrong, militant empiricists are anti realists when it comes to science.

>>5989249
>rodney dangerfield was telepathically speaking to me from heaven
A manifestation of the divine mediated by a trickster archetype. You should listen closely to whatever he has to say.

>>5989716
true but at least op is asking for /lit/-related literature recommendations here

they same can't be said for a ~1/3 the posts on the board

>>5988333
ayyyy check that full house for 25 points

>>5988016
Kuhn's SSR followed by Feyerabend's Against Method is what you want, OP. Short? I dunno, stop being a lazy bitch.

>>5989607
what are you on about?

>>5989355
I hate articles like that. Full of strawmen and half-truths, just to push an agenda.
And I'm not big a fan of those neo-atheists, but I'm even less of a fan of dishonesty.