/lit/ - Literature

no

>>7154385
"We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all"

>>7154388
Why not?

>>7154399
Nonsensical quote
It assumes problems of life arent scientific questions without explaining why

>>7154385
lol no

fucking moron

>>7154385
No.

See:
Humes Problem of Induction

And also Kierkergaard's Argument of the Unknown.

It could cover everything that we have access to by means of experience, but it would have to be expanded epistemologically

The Scientific Method is scientifically gay

>>7154403
>Why not?
because why would we?
it's far more likely that we'll all be living in our own simulated realities (which will make this whole endevour pointless) than know everything there is to know ever

>>7154385
Everything worth knowing has already been explained by science.
The world is boring, people are animals, the universe is a big dumb lifeless and pointless machine and your personality and experiences are simply chemicals and energy in your brain.
Nothing matters and all post artificial niche human behaviour is based on declaration and creativity, which is really just lies and fantasy.
One day this whole universe will be gone and it will be as if none of this ever happened.
Also faculty of arts is all declarative and it's basically a cult.
Don't be talking about those guys like they're educated or do good work.

>>7154418

>>7154425
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>7154418
Check out this guy over here.

Scientists, philosophers, poets -
Why don't you go back to bed?
Everything worthwhile is already said!

>>7154425
>posts hat meme
You seem lost dear.

>>7154418
>>7154433

>>7154441
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>7154443

Don't bother, he's a christposter, he can't be blamed for his retardation

Of course the board full of butthurt STEM rejects would respond like this.

Let me explain to you OP, yes science would absolutely answer all those questions and most of philosophy is utterly worthless.

>>7154443
>'everting's ben proofd by sceince xDD'

Quality stuff, compadre *fips mehora*

>>7154437
Keep working guys we need more Two and a Half Men, Angry Birds, superhero movies and explosions!
We're not done yet!

>>7154448
Lol couldn't do maths as a kid hey?
Sucks for you bro.
Keep on meme'n tho brah moms must be proud.

proof to me why there is something at all, science autists

>>7154447
that wasn't the question

The scientific method can only provide models that generalize phenomena.

We can make those models more precise, but we will never be able to separate model from phenomena.

Its only matter of time for scientific method to became obsolete.

the scientific method will help bring about the end of humanity wayyy before that point, OP

>>7154451
>Thinks that is culture.
You poor devil.

>>7154455
Why don't you actually read a philosopher like Kierkergaard, Camus or even Hume or Kant, and countless others, who all attack the empirical method with very solid arguments?

Normally people who like to think the universe is pointless and petty, do so because they have lived pointless and petty lives.

>>7154385
Lol at the philosophy gimps who got sucked into an online cult.
Too general philosophy is drunk talk and PHD philosophy is just a wanky term for research.
Anything good that came out of philosophy happened a long time ago and has since evolved into a legitimate and rigorous field of study.
Lmao did you guys seriously think your dusty old magical spell books were making you super smart?
You guys are just another shitty fandom like skateboard kids or juggalos.
If you had any real interest in knowledge and learning, you wouldn't read philosophy.
And don't tell me I'm epistemically demarcating an incorrect ontological wheelbarrow, because I know all about that little trick.

>>7154418
>>7154507
We get your point, m8. Calm yourself and stop posting

>>7154489
>misses point of post
are you retarded?

>>7154407
this tbh

>>7154523
Curious how you would expand on what I said. In what way does it need to be extended epistemologically?

>>7154507
>And don't tell me I'm epistemically demarcating an incorrect ontological wheelbarrow
b-but that's precisely what you're doing anon

STEM weenies are just mad that they can't extirpate the philosophy from the physics that was supposed to make it irrelevant. Bohr brainwashed an entire generation of physicists into disregarding foundational issues in physics because he was afraid of the metaphysics that entailed from questioning what they had discovered.

The scientific method only explains how things work, not what things are. Newton devised his laws of gravitation to describe how gravity behaves, but was unable to provide an answer as to what the mediator of gravity is. Similarly, present day physicists are mostly instrumentalists concerned with repeatable experimental results, because that's what brings in the grant money. They focus on what can be said about nature, not how nature is. Therefore physical phenomena is far from being entirely explained, and the present day method is philosophically inadequate. We know about as much about how nature is as Thales did tbh

>Do you think that the Scientific Method will eventually explain all physical phenomena in the Universe

The scientific method is always unfinished, it is scientifc only when it is an open possibility, ready to surrender itself to the better hypothesis to come. How could there be a point to say "after this, there is nothing left to know?", which I presume you can see the problem already: how would we know when this point is met? Perhaps a stage of stagnation would indicate that point, but couldn't we keep going past the point? Could we know more than that is to know? Or maybe it is better to put: couldn't we be explaining more of the world than there is to be explained to each other? Can our explanations surpass us?

Another problem: "all" is a word used to speak of that which is countable, it is already ideological you see, even to the use of that word to describe the universe of events. The physical phenomena being an "all" and not, for example, a "one" is already a condition to be met, were your idea to become real. But of course, it is in accordance with the analytic vision of the world of science: that you always ever identify the similarities and differences and sharpen your razor some more to define things and separate them...

But what is strange is to expect that, from this, we would one day to stop doing it. "Are we ever going to know so much that we have nothing else to know about?" This is greed manifesting itself in a very brute form, like seeking satisfaction so to find the end of our need for satisfaction. That is, doing it because you seek the dissolution of your reasons to do it. What you are asking is akin to asking "are we ever going to find the biggest number?" and simply: no, we won't. Because inside that "find", there is implied that it doesn't allow for any value to stand alone as an answer, the "biggest number" cannot be a number, it is a condition before you always go one more. There are no numbers that we want to have as an answer, there is only always counting.

cont

>>7154701 cont
We always explain. Everything is explained right now, only explained. And the real question is, what does it mean to explain everything? Say it is so, then, what do we have? Are we happier? More in control of our lives? Is everyone going to be fraternal and understandable because we can see inside one another? Are we powerful because of it, but power to oppose who else? What is the keyword to this whole fantasy that is achieved with "explaining all"? And if you were to realize that you want to be "happy", are you going to verify other ways to be happy outside this one? And if not, how would you know that it is this all encompassing explanation that would make you happy? I personally think that explaining everything might perhaps be depressing, or traumatic, to explain all may be impossible for us to support. To have nothing else left to be explained, nothing to be said.

If it is a given that we are invested in this, then we ought to know what we are to gain from this journey. What do we want when we want to explain all?

Notice as well, that "the scientific method" is not the one that explains. Only people can explain things, even by the name of scientific method. There is a person explaining it and a person reading it at least, this is what configures an explanation. We have always explained everything we met, that doesn't mean we understood it all or knew it all for a fact. And that which everyone knows for a fact has no need for explanation at all.

>science will never out magic spell book my magic spell books
>STEM fags just mad cause I can't do maths and I'm an insane person who uses big words to describe nonsense
>science doesn't explain how to follow your heart or what the meaning of rocks and trees are
>computers have souls electricity is a lie
>the earth is flat
>drink the kool aid
Ok then philosophy guys...

>>7154712
lol get fucked buttnuked stemfag

not sure if anyone in this thread actually knows what the scientific method is

>>7154704
>>7154701
comfy zizek

>>7154414
This guy knows what's up.People simply aren't curious enough for those tasks.Hell people aren't curious enough about how all the shit around them works they just live in those own small worlds worrying about their little everyday problems

>>7154418
>>7154414
>>7154413
>>7154399

No, I'm not in high school anymore

We haven't even figured out how a cell works completely yet we talk about shit like conciousness.
Smh tbh fam
Of course science will explain all the problems in philosophy right now, then philosophy moves on to problems that still havent been answered by science at that time.
I suspect it would get harder and harder to find new questions though.

>>7154385
No


>unity of science
See Philosophy of Science.

See "Bridging Principle."
See "arguments against unity of science."

>>7156255
Also see "Argument from Multiple Realization."