philosophy of science

File: 69 KB, 476x478, Science-MEME.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

philosophy of science Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:11:13 2014 No.5202197 [Reply] [Original]

I want to learn more about the epistemological stance known as "scientism".

Which philosophers supported scientism?
What are the essential texts/books on this position?
What are the best arguments proving scientism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:14:20 2014 No.5202203 There is no such thing as scientism, that is pejorative term. The closest thing to what you are thinking of is logical positivism, and it was discredited over 50 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:16:47 2014 No.5202208 >>5202203 Discredited a bit earlier, thanks Popper, thopper.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:17:32 2014 No.5202210

"Scientism" is part of the blow-back of the so-called "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and the other guy). It's basically religious and/or offended people attempting to paint "belief in science" as something as irrational and requiring just as much faith as mainstream religions.

It's not worth a shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:17:59 2014 No.5202211 ignore these fags scientism is when the objects described by science actually exist (atoms etc)

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:20:40 2014 No.5202214

>>5202210
It refers to a pathetic belief in the infallibility of science as a positive process; as opposed to the best methodological accounts of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend). The practice of science, while failing to live to that height, is at least founded in epistemological doubt, as opposed to scientism which is founded in epistemological creedence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:21:08 2014 No.5202216 >>5202203 Oh god this is gonna be good. Please explain how scientism is related to logical positivism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:21:14 2014 No.5202217 Scientism has got to be one of the biggest examples of misrepresentation ever. It's also a term that is invariably used by people who spout incoherent nonsense

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:24:29 2014 No.5202227 >>5202203 Can you scientifically prove that logical positivism has been discredited? Do you have objective evidence or are you just stating an uneducated opinion?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:26:32 2014 No.5202230 >>5202227 Supply an exhaustive definition of "objective."

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:28:22 2014 No.5202235

>>5202216
>Please explain how scientism is related to logical positivism.

As I said, there is no such thing as scientism. That was a term invented by rubes to mock anyone that things science is relatively trustworthy.

>>5202227
Can you scientifically prove that the only things we should accept as true are things that be "proven" using empirical evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:29:55 2014 No.5202241 >>5202235 Given they don't know the difference between objective and empirical, and you don't know the difference between science and epistemology, this is going to be "fun."

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:30:51 2014 No.5202243
File: 37 KB, 400x225, whats-wrong-with-dragon-ball-z-part-one-20080410025918448-000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202241
>ou don't know the difference between science and epistemology, this is going to be "fun."

Science is a form of applied epistemology you imbecile

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:30:58 2014 No.5202245

"Hello, Sci."

"Oh Christ, not you again. What do you want?"

"What are you doing?"

"Ptoteomic synthesis"

"What does that mean?"

"I'm trying to synthesize a form of tryptophan with an additional modified benzine ring attached to the amino arm."

"You can't prove that benzine rings exists. That's just fedora pleb scientism. gee bee two reddit. I'm Ubermensch."

"Look, if you're going to start rambling again, you can just get out now. You shouldn't even be in here, you're a liability."

"I'm sorry, it's like tourettes. Umm, so, why are you doing that?"

"Because it will cross the blood brain barrier and potentially counteract the effect of Alzheimers by the way it stimulates certain receptors. If I can just..."

There is no objective morality, scitard. I bet you haven't even read stirner. gee bee two reddit, gee bee two reddit. Do you even existentialism?"

"Right, get out."

"Get out of what? You can't prove reality exists."

"Do I have to call security?"

"Security is a social construct. And you can't objectively prove that security exists. tipping intensifies"

"Fine... Hello, is that campus security? Yes, one of the philosophy students escaped again... I don't know something about gee two existential something... Yes, I'm in a position to subdue him."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:31:51 2014 No.5202248 >>5202241 And, yes, I know the difference between objective and empirical. You do not seem to understand what logical positivism is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:31:54 2014 No.5202249 File: 44 KB, 468x469, u_wot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Don't feed it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:32:16 2014 No.5202251

>>5202235
>That was a term invented by rubes to mock anyone that things science is relatively trustworthy.

It was invented by people who are not idiots to mock people who think the scientific method is a useful approach to truth-seeking in all domains. The most blatant example is Harris who thinks he can "solve" ethics through science.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:32:57 2014 No.5202253

IF you want an actual understanding, and not just pop culture, I would recommend this reading order:

1. Plato: Republic
2. Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery
3. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
4. Foucault: The method chapter in The history of Sexuality

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:34:26 2014 No.5202258 >>5202243 Thanks for demonstrating my point with further documentary evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:34:35 2014 No.5202259 >>5202253 >le ebin start with le greeks maymay Come on, there was no fucking reason to put Plato on that list.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:35:17 2014 No.5202261 >>5202245 this is /lit/ in a nutshell. bunch of pseudointellectuals not smart enough for real science so they counter everything with "u can't know nuffin!1!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:35:21 2014 No.5202262 >>5202258 He's right though, or do you not think that epistemology governs our understanding of so called empirical evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:36:01 2014 No.5202263 File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:36:48 2014 No.5202267 File: 143 KB, 1280x720, reading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5202245 >>5202261 >>5202249 Too late.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:38:19 2014 No.5202270 >>5202259 Yes there is. Read the Republic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:48:49 2014 No.5202294 >>5202262 Not nearly as much as theory does. Lakatos is fine too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:52:38 2014 No.5202309 >>5202294 >as theory does. If your theory tells you how to understand empirical evidence and guides your understanding of knowledge then you are doing epistemology

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 07:58:12 2014 No.5202321 >>5202309 No you're not "doing epistemology."

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:18:57 2014 No.5202365

>>5202251
There's nothing wrong with the scientific method in ethics.

I have an ethical proposition. Is it okay to kill in this situation?
I test it with my ethical sense. Nope, that feels wrong.
With enough ethical propositions tested, I posit an ethical theory.
The ethical theory creates some new ethical proposition.
I test it with my ethical sense.

Granted, that's a very dumbed down version of it, but if you accept that thought experiments are essentially the only way to actually experiment with ethics, then you can attempt an almost scientific method version of ethical exploration.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:20:25 2014 No.5202370 >>5202365 >I test it with my ethical sense. top fukken kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:23:41 2014 No.5202376 >>5202249 Don't feed it? He is completely correct, that is how it very often goes when a self important philosopher keeps annoying scientists who have better things to do by telling them their entire field is bunk.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:44:46 2014 No.5202420

>>5202251
Science isn't about truth so much as validation of hypotheses and repeatability. It can be said to be "verifying" only in the most limited sense, since it sets up the standards so specifically, and defines its terms so exactly. It might be better seen as a tool to eliminate wrong hypotheses. the most common sort of statement a scientist would make would be like "we have eliminated these possibilities, we have disconfirmed this hypothesis. We have these hypotheses that have survived testing. This one is tentatively confirmed for these cases. at 95% probability in 82% of trials."

Not so much absolute truth, as the way to bet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:46:45 2014 No.5202423

>>5202245
The guy sounds more like an engineer than a scientist.
If anything scientism today comes in this form:
-incomprehension of the distinction between truth and technical prowess which comes from an unexamined acceptance of pragmatism+no miracles argument.
-The lack of respect for other fields which often turns into bragging about one's ignorance.
-Consequence of those previous two points is the idea that engineeristically oriented sciences are the only worthy pursuit in human life and that everyone should dedicate themselves to them.

But the most surprising thing is how these people who consider themselves intellectuals are actually allergic to thought. Their energy, when outside of their field, is spent not encouraging thought but trying to silence any voice are idea that might undermine their certainties (so much for their "let's falsify it", which is also a myth in today's practice because repetitions of experiments are increasingly rare due to publishing polices).

If scientism is something today it is nothing but the sound of science's PR drum. After all the scientific enterprise is not a disinterested search for truth but a billion dollars business and they quickly realized that it was good to come up with PR campaigns to support their earnings. The result that we see today is ted talks and the whole "Science, fuck yeah" culture.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:51:38 2014 No.5202434

>>5202423
>The lack of respect for other fields which often turns into bragging about one's ignorance.
>But the most surprising thing is how these people who consider themselves intellectuals are actually allergic to thought. Their energy, when outside of their field, is spent not encouraging thought but trying to silence any voice are idea that might undermine their certainties

This isn't so much a symptom of scientism as a fundamental human behavioral bias. People tend to think that if they're knowledgable in one field, they must be knowledgeable in all others as well.

Just look at anyone from a literature/sociology/etc. department trying to talk about politics or economics for example.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:57:12 2014 No.5202443

>>5202434
I agree. But I also think that cultural circumstances can exacerbate the behavior or reduce it. For example I believe that the politicization of the humanities came as a result of a culture that was increasingly unable to understand their importance. Hence to demonstrate that the humanities started to deal with fields that seemed to have a greater weight.

Similarly the current spread of scientism isolates a lot of people to believe that there is nothing worth knowing outside their personal definition of hard science.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 08:59:47 2014 No.5202446

>>5202423
⇒The lack of respect for other fields which often turns into bragging about one's ignorance.
Actually that's a perfect description of philosophy. Just look at all the philosotards on this board denigrating science even though they have less than a 3rd grade elementary school understanding of science, yet they attack science with anti-intellectual "u cannot know nuthin" nonsense, praising ignorance as if it was a desirable goal.

⇒Consequence of those previous two points is the idea that engineeristically oriented sciences are the only worthy pursuit in human life and that everyone should dedicate themselves to them.
This is a non sequitur and a false dichotomy. Of course we need people doing all the low wage jobs. Just because we factually established that philosophy is dead and useless, this doesn't mean everyone should be doing science. There are still a lot of useful employment opportunities for those of lower intellect, e.g. cleaning toilets. Someone has to do these jobs and it's better when they are done by people who can't contribute to science.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:06:46 2014 No.5202457

>>5202423
Nah, that's science: engineers usually solve discrete problems using established tools and techniques. Scientists elaborate protocols to test assumptions and basically come up with new ways of doing things. It's the difference between a cook at McDonald's and a nutritionist trying to develop a good tasting, nutritious food with a long shelf life. The word "engineer" or "technician" could be used for some types of scientific fields, but engineering a new molecule for a specific purpose is closer to science, and uses more actual scientific work, than just mixing known molecules together to make them do the thing they always do. I realized that's vague, but the distinctions get sort of fuzzy.

And I've never seen the type of arrogance and disrespect for other fields you mention: there's a lot of good natured badinage between the different disciplines, but thats closer to Marvel versus DC than real dislike, or disparagery.

And as far as the worlds of art, music, philosophy or religion, most scientists have only peripheral interest or interaction with them. We assume they do what they do for their own reasons, and are judged by their own standards. No scientist is going to tell an artist his statue is bad, or a philosopher that his ethical theory is wrong, though he might point out proportional problems in the statue, or logical errors in the ethics. He won't try to say they should change it: some philosophies (Democritus for instance) don't work if you take the errors out, and if you change the proportions of some statues, they might fall over. And who knows what religion needs?

I've been a scientist for thirty years, and I can tell you from experience of hundreds of scientists, that none of this stuff exists, and that nobody follows an idea like "scientism" a all.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:09:17 2014 No.5202464

>>5202446
I tend to see very little you know nuthin on lit. Most ppl at most voice real epistemic problems that was mostly voiced by scientists.

The second part shows how right my comment was. The only alternative you see is as support to the scientific enterprise. It's not surprising also that it's a view that is radically ignorant of society as it is today, where businessman have more economic and political power than scientists and engineers. Yet you didn't say "of course you can be a CEO that will fund our research or an administrator paid three times what a professor gets."

Scientism is also an ideology that works on order to conceal the economic realities of the scientific institution and disavow both the sociological and economic structures that permit it to exist.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:12:28 2014 No.5202470

>>5202197
Scientism comes in two flavors;
strong scientism is the self-refuting stance that only scientific claims are meaningful or capable of making or proving truth claims
Soft scientism is the self-refuting belief that the scientific method is universally applicable to all fields of study or for the solution of any problem.

Both are fallacies, not philosophical stances.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:13:29 2014 No.5202472 >>5202217 like you?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:13:56 2014 No.5202473

>>5202464
>Scientism is also an ideology that works on order to conceal the economic realities of the scientific institution and disavow both the sociological and economic structures that permit it to exist.

Elaborate on this statement please: I'm the scientist form above. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:14:41 2014 No.5202474

>>5202457
I don't agree on the first part but I'm running out of time now. I'll write why later if you'll still be curious.

I agree that scientism is only a fringe movement, but denying its existence is impossible especially when one reads the works of, for expletive, Stephen pinker where he criticizes art on the basis of Evo-bio.

But I agree those are generally the minority in what is an unconcerned majority.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:15:03 2014 No.5202476 >>5202235 >Michael Shermer >Rube pick one

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:17:19 2014 No.5202478 >>5202263 >I don't know that science is a branch of philosophy FTFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:18:56 2014 No.5202481 >>5202365 >EVERYTHING is the scientific method and I am unaware of any other form of deduction, etc. soft scientism in a nutshell

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:19:11 2014 No.5202482

>>5202474
I'd just like to know more about it. And also what percentage of scientists subscribe to it? I mean I was probably understating the number of scientists I know by an order of magnitude if you take my whole career into account, and I have never heard one of them even mention it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:19:40 2014 No.5202483

>>5202457
⇒I've been a scientist for thirty years
I refuse to respect someone who's older than 40 and still posting on a meme forum for teenagers. Are you a pedophile or something? Get the fuck out. You're a failure at life.

⇒logical errors in the ethics
Ethics and logic couldn't be more diametrically opposed to each other. Logic is objective, ethics is "muh feelings" subjective beliefs.

>>5202464
⇒Most ppl at most voice real epistemic problems that was mostly voiced by scientists.
"Hurr durr u cannot prove reality exists" is not a real epistemic problem but purely quisquilious balderdash below preschool level.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:21:10 2014 No.5202485 >>5202478 If science is a branch of philosophy, then why can't philosophy graduates work in a science lab?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:22:43 2014 No.5202490

>>5202473
Scientism describes science as a perfect rational machine that advances towards truth.

But in reality science is an institution and as such is influenced both by politics and money.

An example is how the hiring practices in certain times may skew research for decades to come. For example Lee Smolin talks about the preeminence of string theory as a result of hiring practices in the 70s which ended up excluding a lot if people working on alternative theories.

Massimo Pigliucci often commented how the craze for molecular biology (which brings in pharmaceutical investments) is slowly rooting out the figure of the field biologists with a consequent loss of knowledge.

For scientism all this is not only untrue but inconceivable.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:23:39 2014 No.5202491

>>5202423
Sounds pretty close to my theory
-modern education is terrible
-specialization is the way to go
-scientists are ignorant of actual philosophy, etc.
-average person things technology, engineering, medicine, etc. all = 'science'
-scientists think Westboro baptist = religion = philosophy
-in actuality the average person and average scientist has no idea of the philosophical assumptions that under-gird science
-soon scientists and laymen think 'science' = 'truth'

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:25:30 2014 No.5202493 >>5202483 Shut up, arrowcunt. There, you got your warm tingly strokes for the day.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:29:31 2014 No.5202500

>>5202491
⇒scientists are ignorant of actual philosophy
So are philosophers. Everyone is equally ignorant of philosophy because philosophy is vaguely, intentionally ambiguously defined subjective hogwash and its highest goal is to acknolwedge that "u cannot know nuthin".

⇒in actuality the average person and average scientist has no idea of the philosophical assumptions that under-gird science
We are well aware of the underlying assumptions, we are just too busy dealing with real problems instead. We are not sufficiently underagedly pseudo-intellectual to consider ourselves deep and insightful for spouting trivialities such as "hurr durr science assumes reality exists" or "herp derp science would be wrong if our brains aren't real". Sorry, kid, academic people like myself operate intellectually on an entirely different level of abstraction. Keep your platitudes on facebook, please.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:29:54 2014 No.5202501

>>5202485
LOL!
Herre is a counter-question;
Why can't my neighbor, with her PhD in molecular chemistry, get a job working at the Large Hadron Collider? After all, particle physics and molecular chemistry are both branches of science.

After all, you must admit that cellular bio

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:31:05 2014 No.5202503 >>5202501 Stop embarrasing yourself. Your failure to understand the concept of a logical implication is almost pathological. You'd fail the logic section even of the simplest IQ test.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:31:29 2014 No.5202504

>>5202483
Haha! I like your style young man! I disagree that anyone who has been doing anything at all of a productive nature for thirty years and still has time to post on literature boards is a failure at life, but since that sort of thing is a philosophical conclusion, and not a scientific one, I'm sure i can't oppose it. And my statement about logical errors in ethics actually agrees with yours: I basically hold that errors in ethical structures might invalidate it from a scientific standpoint without addressing what allows it to function as a philosophy. Hence the inclusion of the statue analogy.

And I thought the "meme forum for teenagers" and "pedophile" things were undeserved slurs that the site was trying to shake?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:33:40 2014 No.5202509

>>5202500
Just proving your ignorance.
>a guy that claims to both understand science AND be well aware of the philosophical foundations of science claims that philosophy's highest goal is 'you can't know anything'
>expecting anyone with an actual education to not realize those are self-contradictory positions

This is /lit/, pal - at least some of us have actually read a book or two - we all know you just exposed your profound ignorance of philosophy AND science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:34:42 2014 No.5202511 >>5202503 ...so you can't answer and don't understand the implication of ad hominem attacks...

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:35:45 2014 No.5202514
File: 87 KB, 500x800, philosotards REKT by Sam Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202504
⇒I like your style young man!
I am not a man.

⇒I basically hold that errors in ethical structures might invalidate it from a scientific standpoint
Pic related explains why this is futile. Philosotards reject the very notion of logic. Particularly in ethics, where "muh feelings" is the only justification for anything. Can't argue with dumbfucks who value their beliefs higher than facts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:38:32 2014 No.5202518 >>5202514 Map=/=territory.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:42:59 2014 No.5202520

>>5202490
You might be confusing science with academia. Or even with funding sources. Scientists want to do science, and to work in their fields, preferably on their favorite projects. If the academic atmosphere, the political climate or the business community wants to get involved, they are tolerated, accommodated and deferred to as needed, But that's not what science is: that's politics. Only very seldom does a political ideal get in the way of doing science (Lysenko) and when it does, science comes pretty much to a dead stop in the field it affects and the scientists don't go into it.

think of this stuff like plumbing: the essentilas of what is done are the same, regardless of the politics, ethos, religion or level of culture of the practitioner. Saying that all the plumbers are in the pay of the government, or that they are mostly liberals, or catholics, or getting most of their jobs in PVC versus black iron, and you're mostly not talking about the essentials of what they do or who they are, just peripheral issues.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:43:34 2014 No.5202522
File: 224 KB, 670x670, mingyur-rinpoche-basking-in-sunlight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202514
You might want to go out and enjoy life a little more. You seem really tense over some words. Go to Nepal, breathe some fresh air, get horrifying diarrhea, have a spiritual experience from it. Live a little and relax that butthole before you get hemorrhoids.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:50:58 2014 No.5202536 File: 14 KB, 226x346, Sam Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5202522 samharris org/blog/item/how-to-meditate Read Harris before commenting on Harris.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 09:57:51 2014 No.5202553

>>5202536
I wasn't talking about harris, I was talking about you frothing yourself up into an autistic rage over a view you yourself created. Go get off the internet and out of that academic pedantry for a little while and change it to something positive before you shit yourself because of people on the internet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:00:12 2014 No.5202558
File: 20 KB, 367x243, cookless.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202514
>I am not a man.

Well, nobody's perfect. Somebody has to have the babies and bake the pies and buy the flowery aprons and things I guess. I had a wife for awhile, myself. seemed alright. All those murder attempts were probably just "female troubles"

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. didn't think it was relevant.

But I think you take a low opinion of philosophy. Most people earnestly engaged in it are not like its defenders here, any more than William of Occam was like the crusaders.

And the Harris thing is sort of discounting the fact that a lot of people have to take certain positions that they know may be factually incorrect for other reasons. The Pope can't really come out as an atheist, and a man selling health foods probably can't support the idea that Monsanto is doing a good job. As a scientist of course, i can say nothing of the ethical quandaries presented by these positions.

weirdluy apt captcha:

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:03:55 2014 No.5202563 >>5202514 >Quoting Harris who was, as usual, strawmanning >claiming philosophers reject 'the very notion of logic' betraying your ignorance of the origins of logic You're going to hurt your back digging that hole for yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:11:22 2014 No.5202578 >>5202553 Please use less pejoratives. It's not very logical.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:12:56 2014 No.5202581 File: 86 KB, 1280x720, terminus_est.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5202578 Please buy a dildo and stop being hysterical for the attention of homosexuals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:21:15 2014 No.5202611 >>5202581 Irrational. Your butt is already in pieces.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:22:03 2014 No.5202615 >>5202514 As the official representative of Logic™ and a board member of Objectivity, Inc. I have to say that you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:27:04 2014 No.5202630 >>5202611 And that's why I can wholeheartedly recommend one. Takes that need to cry out for attention to strangers on the internet right out of you. Best money dollars I ever spent. Improved my entire life.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:33:37 2014 No.5202644

>>5202520
No I don't confuse the two in fact I talk of scientific institution to mean what you say the academia. Science is a collected body of knowledge and practices that need an institution and the institution weights on how the practice is done.

Again the example of Pigliucci is perfect: the greater rewards for molecular biology are leading to the slow disappearance of systematic biologists and a consequent loss of a lot of specialized knowledge.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 10:53:07 2014 No.5202693

>>5202644
I disagree: There are plenty of systematic biologists and a demand for more. Advances in genetics and cladistics have made systematics a wide open field, and the integration of molecular biology techniques into systematic and community biology has been a breath of fresh air. What has been happening though is that the biologists who were trained in older methods of systematics are losing ground to those with more recent degrees, but this is true in all fields I think. I believe you were using it simply as an example, and field biology basically has lost out to community theorists and population biologists, but only because the new tools have yet to be integrated.

And the idea of "Big Science" (scientific academia) having any real influence on content or direction is really only a problem in situations like with Lysenko. Most governments and corporations want workable solutions rather than PC ones, and will fund and award in the directions they feel best fit their policy goals, but this is the case in all times and places: science is a tool, and what the tool is used for is irrelevant to how effective the tool is, or how well used. sometimes you might be killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer, or stirring soup with one, but that does work.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 12:45:11 2014 No.5203148
File: 230 KB, 960x720, face of atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202365
So you just do whatever feels good and make up a bunch of nonsensical terminology ("I test it with my ethical sense").

Congratulations, dude, you're already a philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 12:54:44 2014 No.5203177 >>5202472 No, because I understand that science is an imperfect, self correcting process, unlike you

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 12:55:52 2014 No.5203181 >>5202208 > Reading Philosophers who studied and made their careers in London School of Economics cmon

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:05:42 2014 No.5203214

>>5202514
>water is two part hydrogen and one part oxygen.

Ha! So is ice and vapor. What we call water is the liquid state of a large bundle of water molecules, but there's more to it. A simple equation does not equate to the concept it is composes. I, as a man, a productof biology, am composed of bones, chemicals, muscle, tissue, organs, but even, in a more microscopic level, I am but atoms. So, is man but atoms? Or, even further down that logic, atoms are themselves composed of subatomic particles, consequently, following the microscope, is man but subatomic particles? And is everything but subatomic particles as well? I doubt anyone here would identify themselves as subatomic particles bundle together or would referr to water as two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Those ignorant of metaphysics will always misunderstand and misuse what they call logic. How we relate to matter will always chage it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:08:28 2014 No.5203221 >>5203214 Can't tell if bait or genuine anti-scientific pseudo-intellectual. Do you honestly believe the chemical composition of water isn't H2O?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:12:13 2014 No.5203237 >>5203221 >Do you honestly believe the chemical composition of water isn't H2O? >>water is two part hydrogen and one part oxygen. >So is ice and vapor I remember when people read.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:14:51 2014 No.5203247

>>5203237
Ice and vapor are different states of water. You are clearly baiting. This is 6th grade chemistry knowledge. You will not convince me that you're posting on an 18+ board without knowing what states of matter are. Go back to /b/ and learn some subtlety.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:15:39 2014 No.5203250 >>5203214 >I doubt anyone here would identify themselves as subatomic particles bundle together I would

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:16:25 2014 No.5203254 >>5203247 >You will not convince me that you're posting on an 18+ board without knowing what states of matter are. >What we call water is the liquid state of a large bundle of water molecules I remember when people read.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:19:00 2014 No.5203273 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=quantum+biology&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aquantum+biology seems more like something that /sci/ would have read about and could point you to some of the good ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:19:14 2014 No.5203276 >>5203254 >Go back to /b/ and learn some subtlety. I remember when people were sufficiently self-aware to realize that a failed troll attempt is not worth continuing. Protip: You're wasting your time and make yourself look like an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:19:26 2014 No.5203277 >>5203221 >>5203237 >>5203247 >>5203254 Lol. This is making me laugh.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:20:01 2014 No.5203280 >>5203254 It's "read" not "read", why do you keep using the present tense?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:21:20 2014 No.5203287

>>5203214
It's very simple, really. Everything that can be described by Physics is defined as existing.

If you deny this, the following happens:

1) You cannot use Logic to argue because Logic is derived from the way empirical reality operates. Hence, instead of arguing you might as well start typing random nonsense, it will be 100% as valid for defending your position and 100% as convincing.

2)You cannot tell what is real and isn't. At all. Hence, you have no reason to assume that a car will hit you, for example. You will always behave as if the Physical reality is real. If you don't, you can't interact with people who do and expect really any outcome, because you might as well say anything and declare anything to be real, no reasoning required.

That's why we call it an Axiom. You behave as if it's true, it cannot be proven true or false and by denying it you automatically contradict yourself.

>muh Metaphysics
More like
>muh Mysticism

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:21:39 2014 No.5203288

>>5203214
Hmm. You're just playing with words. Solid, liquid and gas are phases, of water, mercury, iron, ammonia. Each of the phases have different properties. As for the rest, you're ignoring emergency. The whole often has different characteristics than the parts, or the sum of the parts. and "two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen" isn't right either: it's a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to one atom of oxygen. It has properties far different from those of either of the two component elements. I have no idea what you mean by "parts" though they usually imply weight or volume. In fact, the different properties of water versus its component atoms is the textbook example of emergence. I'm not sure why any need for metaphysical intrusion is inferred. or for that matter, logic: simple observation seems sufficient, and the emergence of the observed characteristics of the organism can be inferred from the example, though of course not established.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:22:14 2014 No.5203290

>>5203276

I dont know what you're on about, but I already answered and proved you wrong twice. Is this how you cope? You asked if I didnt believe in the chemical composition of water, I redirected you to the first sentence of my post which shows I do. Then you asked If I didnt know the difference between states of matter from which I redirected you to the second sentence of my post which shows I do. I dont see how this is /b/ behavior.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:26:25 2014 No.5203309 >>5203290 Water is H2O. Please go back to school and stop being retarded.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:27:28 2014 No.5203318

>>5203287
>Everything that can be described by Physics is defined as existing.

Only in the material world. You deny all that which affecs us which isnt material. Plus, physics also operates with hypotheticals that arent shown to exist as of yet. All sciences do.

>>5203288
What i was trying to convey was simple, actually. Water isn't just a chemical composition. Water has semantical implications. Do say water is just two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is wrong from a macroscopic level.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:29:30 2014 No.5203325 >>5203318 Describe to me how you know immaterial things exist. >physics also operates with hypotheticals that arent shown to exist as of yet. All sciences do. Completely irrelevant to what I said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:29:49 2014 No.5203326 >>5203318 Why do you deny the chemical composition of water? What absurd religious belief do you have where water isn't H2O? Not even creationists deny this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:30:02 2014 No.5203328 >>5203309 No, water's chemical composition is H20. But there's more to water than it's chemical compostion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:31:11 2014 No.5203332 >>5203318 ⇒You deny all that which affecs us which isnt material. So you believe in spirits, demons and tulpas? Back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:32:15 2014 No.5203338 >>5203328 No, there isn't.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:34:31 2014 No.5203350

>>5203326
None. I never said any such thing. I refer to you to >>5203328

>>5203325
>Describe to me how you know immaterial things exist.
Easy. Ideas arent materials. The faculties by which we are having this conversation dont exist in the material world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:35:40 2014 No.5203353 >>5203338 Its behavior, its state of matter and our definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:36:15 2014 No.5203358 >>5203350 Irregardless of what some pseudoscientist told you, water does not possess any spiritual properties. It's just H2O.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:36:43 2014 No.5203360 >>5203332 No, I believe in ideas. Do you not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:37:05 2014 No.5203363 >>5203350 Really? How many minds have you met that didn't have a brain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:38:20 2014 No.5203367 >>5203358 Never said it did. I dong understand why you need strawmans like these>>5203332 >>5203326 I never said or mentioned anything about religion, spirits or spooks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:38:22 2014 No.5203368 >>5203360 >>5203350 Can you prove ideas exist? Else I will apply Hitchens' razor. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:38:33 2014 No.5203369

>>5203350
>Easy. Ideas arent materials.
Great, except I wasn't saying that only materials exist.

>faculties by which we are having this conversation dont exist in the material world.

Yes they do. They are entirely described by the laws of Physics. They can be actively tampered with through Physical interference.

Not to mention, they can also be modified by sound(which is the vibration of matter), sight(which is usually photons falling onto one's retinas), etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:39:27 2014 No.5203374 >>5203367 Ideas are a spook.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:39:28 2014 No.5203375 >>5203363 Brains arent ideas, anon. Brains can form ideas. But ideas themselves arent brains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:40:28 2014 No.5203380 >>5203375 Ideas are physical processes taking place in brains. Nothing immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:40:33 2014 No.5203381 >>5203368 Ideas exist insofar as they're a combination of effects produced by chemistry and electricity within the human brain. "Idea" is just a concept attached to this specific effect long as it meets certain arbitrary conditions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:41:21 2014 No.5203384 >>5203332 Things like the logical absolutes aren't material. That might be what is being groped toward here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:41:40 2014 No.5203385 >>5203375 How do ideas disprove H2O? Why does water stop being chemical just because of "ideas"?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:42:14 2014 No.5203388

>>5203368
>Can you prove ideas exist?
You have one every day at any given moment. Ideas are the product of impressions which you have all the time. Do you need more. Or are you to deny ideas exist?
>Else I will apply Hitchens' razor. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Then you are asserting that ideas dont exist without evidence so that as well can be dismissed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:42:47 2014 No.5203391 >>5203388 Define "idea" and show me physical evidence.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:43:55 2014 No.5203400

>>5203375

Even if that were true, that would still make all of this stuff about the 'immaterial' completely based on an argument from ignorance.

We can't explain it by material means, so let's just make up this 'immaterial' stuff that explains just as little as our ignorance does

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:44:07 2014 No.5203401

>>5203369
Great, except I wasn't saying that only materials exist.
>Describe to me how you know immaterial things exist.

Yes they do. They are entirely described by the laws of Physics. They can be actively tampered with through Physical interference.

You misundertood, i meant the faculties of memory and imagination, which are immaterial as well.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:46:08 2014 No.5203415

>>5203381
You're denying emergence: we have plenty of evidence for that, certainly.
>>5203328
Yes, there are its physical properties. I hope that's all you mean
.>>5203318
Water, the substance, has no semantic properties, whatever baggage water, the word, may carry.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:46:38 2014 No.5203420

>>5203401
>Describe to me how you know immaterial things exist.
So? Do you see an assertion here? I don't.

>You misundertood, i meant the faculties of memory and imagination, which are immaterial as well.
They're only immaterial in the same sense that lightning is immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:47:41 2014 No.5203431 >>5203391 You are an insufferable faggot and no one likes being around you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:47:50 2014 No.5203433 >>5203415 Give me one piece of evidence then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:47:52 2014 No.5203434 >>5203401 Memory is information stored in the brain. Nothing immaterial.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:47:58 2014 No.5203435

>>5203385
>How do ideas disprove H2O?
They dont and I nerver said such thing
> Why does water stop being chemical just because of "ideas"?
Becuase our notion of water is an idea first and foremost. We differentiate between water and ice even when they share the same chemical composition because they have different behavior, etc. These are factors we must take in consideration when we say "water is...."

>>5203391
>Define "idea"
The image we create of our impressions.
>and show me physical evidence.
They're immaterial, so i can't, by nature. That's the whole basis for this argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:48:59 2014 No.5203442 >>5203435 Water is not some mystical "idea". Water is a molecule.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:49:00 2014 No.5203443 >>5203433 certainly. for which assertion?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:49:20 2014 No.5203444

>>5203385
>How do ideas disprove H2O?
They dont and I nerver said such thing
> Why does water stop being chemical just because of "ideas"?
Becuase our notion of water is an idea first and foremost. We differentiate between water and ice even when they share the same chemical composition because they have different behavior, etc. These are factors we must take in consideration when we say "water is...."

>>5203391
>Define "idea"
The image we create of our impressions.
>and show me physical evidence.
They're immaterial, so i can't, by nature. That's the whole basis for this argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:49:30 2014 No.5203446 >>5203443 For "Emergence".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:50:32 2014 No.5203451 >>5203435 >They're immaterial, so i can't, by nature. That's the whole basis for this argument. So you're saying you can't provide physical evidence for something that is described and modified by physical laws?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:54:46 2014 No.5203470

>>5203415
>Yes, there are its physical properties. I hope that's all you mean
No, the ideas and impressions of water are a factor as well.
>Water, the substance, has no semantic properties, whatever baggage water, the word, may carry.
No, but water, the idea, does. And we know nothing about water, the substance without water, the idea.

>>5203434
A part of our brain may perform the role of memory, but memory is an abstract notion. You cant extract a piece of the brain and say "this is memory"

>>5203420

>They're only immaterial in the same sense that lightning is immaterial.
Explain.

>So? Do you see an assertion here? I don't.
Hitchens razor, ironically, is an assertion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:56:12 2014 No.5203479 >>5203451 >So you're saying you can't provide physical evidence for something that is described and modified by physical laws? They're not though and if it's so I wait on you to explain them.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 13:58:54 2014 No.5203491

>>5203470
>Explain.
Well, first of all it's an effect of matter interacting with matter, but second of all, it's energy, much like electrical impulses.

It's not the whole picture of course, but that's the only type of "immaterial" you're going to get.

>Hitchens razor, ironically, is an assertion.
No, it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:01:34 2014 No.5203511 >>5203479 Well, ideas are a general description for when certain chemical compounds, cells and electrical impulses interact. All of which are described by, you guessed it, Physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:02:55 2014 No.5203521 >>5203380 Ideas have corresponding physical processes but arent themsleves their processes.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:03:34 2014 No.5203525

>>5203446
Hmmm, well, water is a good example of emergence, as I said before. The characteristics of hydrogen, a flammable gas, and oxygen, a gas that promotes combustion, are substantially different, in either a gravitationally sorted distribution mixture or a simple diffusion mixture of the two gasses, or the gasses individually, from water, which is made up of the same physical components. Chemical bonding producing properties that neither of the two bonded substances or their mixtures possess is a very straightforward expression of emergent properties. It has been metaphysiced as a "gestalt" but that's not what we're talking about here, since gestalt assumes a purpose, and not simple property change. Another, non-chemical example of emergence is the ability of a piece of paper to fly when folded into a dart shape: the property is emergent, in this case, due to a specific shape and material. The ability of non-metals to pass light, and spread or concentrate it, are emergent properties of their crystalline structures. All clear?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:03:46 2014 No.5203526 >>5203380 Ideas have corresponding physical processes but arent themsleves their processes

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:05:14 2014 No.5203534 >>5203470 Memory is an emergent property of the architecture of the brain. Have you guys never heard of this?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:06:21 2014 No.5203540

>>5203491
>Well, first of all it's an effect of matter interacting with matter, but second of all, it's energy, much like electrical impulses.
>matter interacting with matter
>energy
>eñectrical pulses
All of these things are matter already. Idea and impressions arent. They're notions, abstract by nature. You can study the chemical process of how an idea is form, but what's being form isn't a ohysical part of the brain, it isnt a chemical and it isnt energy or electricty.

>>5203511
What i said above really is what i would say to this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:07:06 2014 No.5203545 >>5203525 What's not clear is: 1) How was I "ignoring" it in my post? 2) What part of your post is the evidence, exactly? 3) Why is there a new name for it if it's saying nothing new?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:08:27 2014 No.5203551

>>5203470
The properties of water as an idea are certainly not what is meant by "the properties of water" in most contexts. Also, I think you're stretching the concept of semantics pretty far. Ideas and impressions of water are not properties of anything but our subjective interpretations and prejudices. "Water" the substance, doesn't possess or convey them.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:09:07 2014 No.5203554

>>5203534

Think of it like this, maybe I can clarify with analogy: a storage building is a material thing, that physically exist and is part of a city. However, the conceit of "storage building" is not a physical thing. It's not part of the city. The building exist and what it does and how it does it can be studies physically, but the idea of "storage" is not physical and cannot be studied through physical means.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:11:35 2014 No.5203563

>>5203540
>What i said above really is what i would say to this.
Well, that's neat because I'm the same guy.

Anyway.

>All of these things are matter already.
Okay, lets use that definition for now, why not.

>They're notions, abstract by nature
The fact that it's abstract doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. The term "building" is also relatively abstract and is also a definition for a certain set of phenomena, which in reality can substantially differ from each other, but still fill the definition. Yet, you won't deny that buildings are real, would you?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:11:42 2014 No.5203566

>>5203545
A new name? emergence is a very old name for it. Admittedly not as old as gestalt. The evidence is a simple statement of the definition, with illustrative example. If you deny it, or claim it doesn't sufficiently establish it, we can go further. Still, I've honestly never heard of anyone denying emergence. It's pretty self-evident. Limiting it is usually the problem.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:11:50 2014 No.5203567

>>5202365
Don't listen to the other idiots, what you basically said is the truth. They just hear the words "science" and instantly make that face Spongebob had when he found out Squidward liked Krabby Patties. Let them think themselves superior for not being able to follow a simple thought experiment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:12:42 2014 No.5203571 >>5203566 I don't care who accepts or denies it. I want to see evidence of it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:13:14 2014 No.5203574

>>5203551
>Ideas and impressions of water are not properties of anything but our subjective interpretations and prejudices. "Water" the substance, doesn't possess or convey them.
But we cannot understand water, the substance by any other means than our our subjective interpretations and prejudices. How would you seperate water, the substance form water, the idea.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:15:43 2014 No.5203586

>>5203287
>Everything that can be described by Physics is defined as existing
....
FFS
First, the map isn't the territory
Second, are cosmic strings 'real'? They can be described by physics! So can dark matter - does that mean it has to exist, even though it has never been encountered?
Science is a *tool used to attempt to describe reality* it is NOT reality itself.
This is why reality forces changes to science, not the other way around.

Your outlook, BTW, is a great example of 'soft scientism'

>>	Algernon !!sVjWF4WbXNX Mon Jul 28 14:16:38 2014 No.5203589 yes

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:16:56 2014 No.5203590

>>5203563
>The fact that it's abstract doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. The term "building" is also relatively abstract and is also a definition for a certain set of phenomena, which in reality can substantially differ from each other, but still fill the definition. Yet, you won't deny that buildings are real, would you?

But isnt this the point I've been trying to make? That immaterial things exist. Abstractions are immaterial and obviously exist. They're ideas and have a correspondent physical process, but are themselves immaterial.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:17:07 2014 No.5203591

>>5203554
Hmm. well you're close to the idea. Your storage building is a storage building because it possesses certain characteristics and is used for a certain purpose. You're confusing "water" with " a drink" or "a shower" or "an ice cube". These are subjective identities supplied by context and conferred by individuals. The function of a storage building is like that, while the aptness it has for this function is an emergent characteristic of its materials and shape. Emergence in this sense may be subjective as well, though the physical characteristics and their usefulness aren't really connected to it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:18:42 2014 No.5203597 >>5203571 Hmm. what evidence would you like? i can put together as much as you want . if you don't like mine, tell me what you'd consider a good evidence and I'll put it together.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:20:48 2014 No.5203602
File: 2.87 MB, 3264x2448, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5202365
>I have an ethical proposition. Is it okay to kill in this situation?
>I test it with my ethical sense. Nope, that feels wrong.
>With enough ethical propositions tested, I posit an ethical theory.
>The ethical theory creates some new ethical proposition.
>I test it with my ethical sense.

That would be great, but Hume already theorized it and this is his conclusion.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:21:04 2014 No.5203603
File: 280 KB, 250x141, catoopsdance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5203287
Whoa, there, hoss! You have the definition of 'axiom' wrong.
the real definition is
'a statement that cannot be proven true or false must must be either accepted or rejected'.
If your lame definition were true mathematicians would be forced to accept both the Axiom of Determinacy AND the Axiom of Choice even though they are mutually contradictory.
.
What are you, an Objectivist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:24:17 2014 No.5203612 >>5203368 Of course, Hitchen's asserted that rule without evidence that it is true, so referring to it is self-contradictory

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:25:55 2014 No.5203618 File: 923 KB, 424x240, headshakegirl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5203391 scientism in one sentence. First why don't you define the term 'define' using only physical referents

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:30:33 2014 No.5203631

>>5203618
So scientismists (boy that's a clumsy word) deny the existence of any property that isn't composed of matter, even though the ideas of "composition" and existence, are themselves not composed of mater, but are only concepts referent to it? No wonder there are so few of them. Where do they get this idea? I may be trying to explain emergence to one in this thread, even though, ironically, emergence is essential to understanding science.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:30:52 2014 No.5203632

>>5203368
Whenever I see someone trying to support a position with "Hitchen's Razor" I immediately know i can ignore their opinions.
Why?
If you are resorting to the lame, unsupported assertion of a mediocre journalist and are unaware that the 'rule' is self-nullifying you obviously are one of the following
1) to ignorant to pay attention to
2) too stupid to pay attention to
3) too dishonest to pay attention to
4) some combination of the above

Please start using a trip so that people with an education can ignore your future blathering

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:36:05 2014 No.5203643

>>5203551
Water, the substance, exists and possess its properties without our knowledge, control or consent. Water the idea requires a mind and subjective interpretations interpolated by sensory data more or less complete as well as an interpretative context.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:36:52 2014 No.5203646 >>5203631 No, people who adhere to scientism are the sorts to demand a definition of idea without noting the irony of what a definition is

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:36:59 2014 No.5203647

Hello, /lit/ >>5203214 here. I have something to do know, so Im leaving. I dont know what it is that's impelling me right now, but I just wanted to say thanks. I found this to be fun, productive and invigorating. I think we should all take a moment to soften our biles and reflect on this. It's not everywhere were you can have a level-headed discussion like so. Even if some of us were very opinionated and deliberately inflammatory, it was still a very good quality argument. This is very rare in our world were even the supposed educated ones are so case-hardened and part of the rabble. I one day will venture of to /sci/ and hope to find the same intensity and commitment for it would be very dissapointing to discover that those arguing for scientific interest here are more passionate of it than there. Say what you will about me now, as Im share I sound faggy, but I dont find this kind of stimuli anywhere else and feel genuinely grateful. Im not a fan of the science vs. Phil mentality, but these threads are some of my favorite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:38:50 2014 No.5203655 >>5203647 >know: Not suppose to be there >share Sure*

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:39:40 2014 No.5203657

>>5203631
No, the sorts of people that think scientism is true are the sorts of people who think 'only physical things that I can measure are real and then only science has anything to say about them - everything else is false'
As if often pointed out if you reject metaphysics you must actually reject the core conceits of science
But since scientism is inherently contradictory and you seem to follow it you are so used to cognitive dissonance you probably can hold 4 or 5 mutually contradictory positions at once and not notice

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:42:28 2014 No.5203672 >>5203657 Then i wonder who is rejecting emergence? it sort of straddles the line between both sides. Though I have to admit, I have never had anyone claim to be a scientismist or whatever they call themselves. Can we be sure they're not just strawmen?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:44:24 2014 No.5203677

It need scarcely be emphasized that nothing we shall have to say is aimed against the methods of Science in their proper sphere or is intended to throw the slightest doubt on their value. But to preclude any misunderstanding on this point we shall, wherever we are concerned, not with the general spirit of disinterested inquiry but with slavish imitation of the method and language of Science, speak of “scientism” or the “scientistic” prejudice. Although these terms are not completely unknown in English, they are actually borrowed from the French, where in recent years they have come to be generally used in very much the same sense in which they will be used here. It should be noted that, in the sense in which we shall use these terms, they describe, of course, an attitude which is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed. The scientistic as distinguished from the scientific view is not an unprejudiced but a very prejudiced approach which, before it has considered its subject, claims to know what is the most appropriate way of investigating it.

The Counter-Revolution Of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1955)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:46:29 2014 No.5203688 >>5203672 the term describes the fallacy and is usually not self-applied.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:47:10 2014 No.5203693 >>5203677 stuff like Lysenkoism or Social Darwinism then? Surely there can't be much of that? Isn't it mostly just a way of rationalizing political positions?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:55:38 2014 No.5203733

>>5203586
>First, the map isn't the territory
Completely irrelevant to what I said.

>They can be described by physics!
You yourself have said that they haven't been measured. Hence, they can't be described. So far, they're just hypothesized.

>Science is a *tool used to attempt to describe reality* it is NOT reality itself.
Point me to a post where I define Science as reality.

>>5203590
No, it's not the point you've been trying to make. Abstractions are themselves effects of reality, as I already described twice or thrice.

>>5203603
No, I do not, or at least I wasn't aiming to define it.

My point was rather that if we have different axioms we're not going to have significant overlaps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 14:56:20 2014 No.5203737 >>5202321 Not the guy you are quoting but you sound like an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:04:37 2014 No.5203762 >>5202197 So you only want to study works that support this theory and none of those who argued against it? Sounds like Fascism to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:05:43 2014 No.5203770 >>5203733 >Abstractions are themselves effects of reality They're still immaterial... What's your point?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:07:34 2014 No.5203774

>>5203733
>No, it's not the point you've been trying to make. Abstractions are themselves effects of reality, as I already described twice or thrice.

Elaborate please. How are abstractions effects of reality but are themselves unreal? are they not the effects of real causes, and therefore real?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:12:53 2014 No.5203793 >>5203770 No, abstractions are just descriptions for what exists. The term "abstraction" as well as the process of abstracting are both caused by material phenomena. >>5203774 I guess I misinterpreted what you said then. I apologise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:16:19 2014 No.5203805 i think this thread made me stupider

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:16:36 2014 No.5203808 >>5203793 >abstractions are just descriptions for what exists. The term "abstraction" as well as the process of abstracting are both caused by material phenomena. Nothing of this makes abstractions material.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:17:38 2014 No.5203812 >>5203805 Your own fault.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:19:53 2014 No.5203816 >>5203808 Who has maintained that abstractions, as opposed to interpretations of abstractions, are material? Is someone intentionally or incidentally blurring the line between conceptual and material existence? I've missed it if so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:22:57 2014 No.5203826 >>5203816 Posh, conceptual existence is inherently immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:24:17 2014 No.5203832 >>5203808 You're using two meanings of "abstraction" interchangeably, that's your error. Either way, apparently you're just hell-bent on baselessly believing that immaterial things exist. That's fine by me, but you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:26:21 2014 No.5203840 >>5203832 I only use one. >abstraction: something that exists as an idea. Either way, apparently you're just hell-bent on baselessly believing that immaterial things dont exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:28:04 2014 No.5203850 >>5203826 well yeah, that's sort of my point.I was pointing out that conceptual existence is real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:29:08 2014 No.5203853 >>5203850 So have I...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:30:20 2014 No.5203860 >>5203214 >Those ignorant of metaphysics will always misunderstand and misuse what they call logic. thank you based god can someone frame this and put it over the doorway into /lit/? right in front of 'know thyself' please

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:33:13 2014 No.5203875

>>5203832
I can't believe anyone thinks that immaterial things don't exist. The properties of material things are immaterial, and they exist. The relationships of material things are immaterial, and they exist. This isn't just platonic; it's sesame street: "far" and "near" are immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:34:26 2014 No.5203880 >>5203860 You're conflating concepts with metaphysics. Not the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:36:10 2014 No.5203892 >>5203880 Metaphysics is the philosophy by which we operate and study concepts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:43:30 2014 No.5203923 >>5203892 nope

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:43:48 2014 No.5203924 >>5203892 But it's not the only one, anymore than science is the only one that studies the material, and an argument can be made that there are better ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:47:15 2014 No.5203940 >>5203924 No you can't. I dont have a problem with science, if anything, I commend it. But you cant answer "What is Man" with science. Unless what's being ask is "what is man made of?".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:50:37 2014 No.5203958 File: 27 KB, 400x400, 1389370645525.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ⇒that tfw when trolls derailed my thread I only wanted to have an informative discussion ...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:52:21 2014 No.5203969 >>5203940 This is one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:53:31 2014 No.5203976 >>5203969 So what is man?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:54:14 2014 No.5203982 >>5203976 Do you even biology?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:56:19 2014 No.5203987 >>5203982 It's like you literally didnt even read my post. Oh god, im not asking what man is composed of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:56:41 2014 No.5203989 >>5203976 the weaker gender

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:57:54 2014 No.5203995 >>5203987 Man is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Is this not what you're asking? Then rephrase your question, fuckwit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:59:22 2014 No.5204001 File: 1.35 MB, 300x169, fittyernie.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5203958

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 15:59:36 2014 No.5204004 >>5203995 I dont have to. I didnt ask what are homo sapien sapiens. I asked what is man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:00:36 2014 No.5204012 >>5203880 get a load of this guy metaphysics is the study of the hidden functions of reality, the hidden functions of reality delineate reality itself and how it behaves. tell me son, was i looking for the word concept

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:01:35 2014 No.5204016

>>5203940
This guy
>>5203969
Is kinda right: You answer questions like "what is man" with language, not science. You use comparisons, metaphors, descriptive terms and you limit your definition to a specific perspective. A correct answer can be anything in the elephant parts catalog, from a featherless biped possessing a soul, to a complete genome. No answer will be complete, but all will be accurate. "How can science answer "what is man?"" is essentially a meaningless question.

Might as well ask "how can science answer the question: "what is the best tasting burrito?""

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:02:06 2014 No.5204019 >>5203989 I asked about Man, not men. It should be obvious, by context alone that im not referring to the sex.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:02:08 2014 No.5204020 >>5204004 I answered that question.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:02:54 2014 No.5204025

>>5203995
>>5203982

OP here is the answer to your question. Scientism is this guys problem.

It is like post modernism. When the subject (science/modernism) looks back upon the object (itself prior) madness results. The madness can be enjoyable with post modernism, but with science it is detrimental to the actual thing science is attempting to do.

as Lao Tzu said m8, when good recognises itself, evil follows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:03:09 2014 No.5204026 >>5204019 I wasn't referring to sex either. I said "gender".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:03:29 2014 No.5204027 >>5204004 What do you mean by "man"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:03:31 2014 No.5204028 >>5204012 Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood. In that case you're just plain wrong. And "hidden"? Really?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:07:33 2014 No.5204044

>>5204020

No you didnt. You said "Man is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens". Which makes no sense. How is man a memeber of homo sapiens sapiens, as oppose to?. Even in your rejection of metaphysics you failed. By your logic that means that the male specimen of any of our evolutionary ancestors are not man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:08:25 2014 No.5204048 >>5204044 ⇒psychotic gibberish Take your meds.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:08:33 2014 No.5204049

>>5204028
I'll bite, I'm always happy to be shown that I am wrong.

>In that case you're just plain wrong.
Please show me how.

>And "hidden"? Really?
Metaphysics is essentially attempting to answer the question 'What is the case.' or 'What is reality.' What we are presented by reality, or 'the case' is aesthetics. Some aesthetics belie their function to a degree, but often do not do so exclusively of other aesthetics. So, we are studying the thing behind the very first thing, if we are the practice metaphysics at all; leading us to the conclusion that we are studying the hidden functions of reality. As well as the obvious ones, but there are less of those and they are covered by traditional science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:09:56 2014 No.5204053 >>5204027 Humans, in their ontological context.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:11:19 2014 No.5204059 >>5204048 >Man is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens this excludes any other previous evolutionary ancestor of homo sapiens sapiens to be called Man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:11:22 2014 No.5204060 >>5204053 So you want to learn about cancer? I'm not a doctor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:11:30 2014 No.5204062 File: 35 KB, 905x845, higgledypiggledy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5204053 Should probably read a brother before you try imitating him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:12:33 2014 No.5204065 File: 75 KB, 480x497, evilution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5204059 Who cares? They are dead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:12:51 2014 No.5204067 >>5204053 humans are these weird monkey things that turn dirt into going-faster. your question is intentionally vague and conceptually confused.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:13:40 2014 No.5204070 >>5204053 Ontology is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:14:48 2014 No.5204073 >>5204053 ⇒ontological You can't even tell me what that empty buzzword means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:15:11 2014 No.5204074 >>5204070 "Spook" is a spook.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:16:09 2014 No.5204079

>>5204049
Metaphysics, even under the broadest terms, is non essential to logic. Concepts are needed, but not any particular structure of metaphysical rules. The logical absolutes and what can be inferred from them are all you need for logic, and these are essential concepts. They're strictly conceptual and in no way metaphysical.

Metaphysics requires interpretation, not simple inference, and are as subject to the rules of logic as anything else. Aesthetics and perceptions of reality are not "hidden" concepts. They're simply subjective. And I object to hidden because it implies a deliberate obfuscation, not a simple undiscovered quantity.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:19:25 2014 No.5204095

>>5204062
What are you trying to say though? Heidegger was metaphysicist.

>>5204060
>cancer
>ontology
What?

>>5204067
It isn't vague. It's been asked simce forever. Anyone, in a lit board, should be able to pick up the context.

>>5204073
In what categories of existence does Man fall under and what are the role it plays and their meaning.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:23:13 2014 No.5204109

>>5204095

I'm saying he doesn't help your argument here. And even though he spends a lot of time on "ontology," it is in an attempt to divorce that term from its connection with the Western Canon, so calling him a "metaphysicist" really isn't appropriate, as he's engaged in something much more complicated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:23:23 2014 No.5204110 >>5204095 ⇒In what categories of existence does Man fall Homo sapiens sapiens. We already told you. ⇒and what are the role it plays and their meaning. This part of the question makes no sense. Stop arbitrarily concatenating words, you schizo.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:26:13 2014 No.5204125

>>5204079
What you have done, is take my argument, dissected it and removed all context, and then responded to mere words. And even with that, you are still wrong, and deciding to dig a hole, possibly to tunnel into the earth and reflect on your wrongness I hope.

>Metaphysics, even under the broadest terms, is non essential to logic.
In the same way that the study of thermodynamics is non essential to cooking. However, we can agree that you will be a better chef if you understand thermodynamics. In fact, fancy chef tricks revolve around thermodynamics. So, in this way, a budding logician can reason his way through the heat death of the universe, but can't explain why an individual despite having his whole family die of cholera in front of him still loves a God who promises to protect them.

>The logical absolutes and what can be inferred from them are all you need for logic
rofl

Yeah I'm not going to learn anything from you mate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:26:40 2014 No.5204129 >>5204110 ⇒Homo sapiens sapiens That isnt a category of existence. ⇒This part of the question makes no sense. If it's not ask then it's not ontological.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:27:37 2014 No.5204130 >>5204110 Do shut up, you ugly cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:30:06 2014 No.5204142 >>5204125 >However, we can agree that you will be a better chef if you understand thermodynamics No you won't. Who agreed on that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:31:19 2014 No.5204148 "Haha, I am a harpy, it is so fulfilling!!! Take that, humanity!!" OK...

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:38:31 2014 No.5204174

>>5204125
>Metaphysics, even under the broadest terms, is non essential to logic.
>In the same way that the study of thermodynamics is non essential to cooking

I doubt ive read a more wrongheaded statement anywhere.

The logical absolutes and what can be inferred from them are all you need for logic well, considering this structure forms the grounding for axiomatic structures and the basis of the first principles, how is it wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:41:15 2014 No.5204182 >>5204129 ⇒That isnt a category of existence. Do you even taxonomy? ⇒If it's not ask then it's not ontological. schizophasic gibberish

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:42:44 2014 No.5204190 >>5202485 the academic manifestations of a field of study =! the field of study itself

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:44:53 2014 No.5204199 >>5204182 ⇒Do you even taxonomy? ⇒categories of existence=/=biological categories Do you even know what ontology is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:45:38 2014 No.5204202 Stop using this ⇒ ⇒ arrow It is not colorful

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:46:18 2014 No.5204206 >>5204174 What you are trying to do is twist my words into >In the same way that the study of thermodynamics is non essential to making a sandwich If you see the difference then you understood my analogy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:46:41 2014 No.5204208 >>5204199 I would love to watch you try and explain it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:47:07 2014 No.5204211 >>5203976 A miserable pile of secrets?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:50:32 2014 No.5204228

>>5204206
We're clearly not communicating for some reason. All I did was quote what you posted. I'm having a hard time telling if we even disagree entirely. I find metaphysics and its hypothesis non-essential to logic, and object to the word "hidden" in this context as misleading. I'd appreciate if you could show me some logical structure in which metaphysics is essential and that cannot simply be derived form extrapolation from the logical absolutes, assuming the premises and conclusions are valid and sound.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:52:02 2014 No.5204234 >>5204199 ⇒Do you even know what ontology is? No, and neither do you. It's a buzzword kept intentionally vague and undefined for purposes of baiting. It's a word philosophers pull out of their ass when they lost the debate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:53:15 2014 No.5204238 >>5204208 The study of the nature of being. But not simply being in a material, but its metaphysical and epistemological implications. Is this too vague for you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:55:17 2014 No.5204249 >>5204238 I thought you were her. nevermind, mate, my mistake. Looks like she delivered, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:55:19 2014 No.5204250 >>5204238 I still don't understand. Could you please define it without using more and more vague words?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:55:25 2014 No.5204251

>>5204234
⇒ It's a word philosophers pull out of their ass when they lost the debate.
No, its a filed of study that has existed for thousands of year. Pick up a single introduction to Ontology and you may understand. It's not on us to account for your lazy behavior.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:56:56 2014 No.5204263

>>5204250

Okay. Herre you go, straight for wiki: "ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:58:14 2014 No.5204272 >>5204251 ⇒its a filed of study You can't even tell me what it's studying. >>5204263 But that's biological taxonomy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 16:59:38 2014 No.5204281 >>5204272 >but that's biological taxonomy no, it's not. it's a matter of more fundamental categories, such as "matter."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:00:30 2014 No.5204287 >>5204272 Biological taxonomy only deals with biological entities

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:00:51 2014 No.5204291

>>5204228
This is exactly what politeness can do, thank you for reminding me. Because you have responded to me in proper prose whilst I was willing to descend into high horsed antics, I will do my best to aid us both in coming to a shared conclusion.

>I find metaphysics and its hypothesis non-essential to logic

It is non-essential to logic. However, is it non-essential to objective logic? True logic? Good logic? I don't bother with any logic that cannot pass those qualifiers as it is most often tantamount to a child shitting in a toilet for the first time, and concluding that toilets are partially responsible for generating shit, despite how ironic that is.

>object to the word "hidden" in this context as misleading

I believe you object to hidden because we are using different standards of the word here, when I say hidden I mean 'necessary to reveal'. I do not believe any function of reality is not necessary to reveal, and if this is not the case, please show me how?

>I'd appreciate if you could show me some logical structure in which metaphysics is essential and that cannot simply be derived form extrapolation from the logical absolutes, assuming the premises and conclusions are valid and sound.

Although I could do this, I will do you one better and come at it from the point at which we disagree -- can I ask how you find a logical absolute, and determine it is in fact an absolute?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:01:39 2014 No.5204295 >>5204287 >>5204281 So it's physics?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:02:17 2014 No.5204300 >>5204295 No.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:02:45 2014 No.5204302 >>5204287 >>5204281 So it's physics?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:02:59 2014 No.5204304 >>5204300 Then what is it? Tell me, oh wise one.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:03:01 2014 No.5204305

I think that science revolution was more of a reaction to the growing material wealth and the greater communication of ideas happening across the world because of improvements in transportation, than as a completely new way of thinking developed by Galileo and the empiricist philosophers before him. To me the scientific method has been around since prehistoric times. You follow the knowledge that produces consistent results, whether that be fire, hunting axes, or satellites. Of course primitive people (and many today) are diluted with 'religious' thinking which appeals to the feelings and imaginations of the people, and this kind of thinking can have a stronger influence then the empiricist and logical sides of human nature. The need for physical verification is still active in a majority of people, even if they are religious or spiritual.

People had been creating new technologies well before the arrival of the scientific revolution. In opinion people held on to religious notions because it gave them a sense of solace in the cruel world of reality. It wasn't until the material world, through human innovations and works, began to transform into a more pleasurable place for humans. The material world was proving to be a greater provider of happiness than the spiritual world. Unfortunately religious thought was still (and still in many areas) in the grips of their irrational ways to the point of inflicting harm on those who contradicted their doctrine. The scientific revolution was simply creating a 'safe-guard' in society for those who wished to pursue more materialistic endeavors, but the instinct for physical verification is an ancient one. The influx of information and materials through trade and communication is the backbone of science. Scientific thought is the philosophical foundation of the materialist cultures.

Today we see the ever present 'cult of materialism', whether scientific or hedonistic or for social status, where the solution to all are problems (or most of them) will be delivered to us by physical means, preferably in a pill or downloadable form.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:04:30 2014 No.5204316 >>5204304 Funny, you used the exact same line yesterday. Can you do nothing but repeat yourself, endlessly, everyday, without producing a single original thought or sentence? Are you a robot?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:05:36 2014 No.5204322 >>5204316 I'm applying the Socratic method. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine, philosotard?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:05:46 2014 No.5204323

>>5204291
Actually I will do that, let me ask another question,

How do you determine the prime delineator of reality?

I will take the question forward several steps, to make my point more obvious.

What is the most pervasive function being expressed by a determinable pattern throughout every manifestation of reality?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:06:29 2014 No.5204327

>>5204295
>>5204272
>>5204287
>>5204281

What the fuck guys. Categories of existence is not a fix set of categories. Its a term used to referr to the result of an ontological theory that studies the nature of categorization and its relation to our epistemic capabilities. In short, the importance of categries of existence is not the actual categories considering theres no consensus, it's on the explanation on how we caregorize and how does this affect us cognitively.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:07:12 2014 No.5204331 File: 162 KB, 425x629, 2slow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5204322 It's cute that you think that. I'll leave you to it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:09:07 2014 No.5204340 >>5204304 I know you're just being a smartass, but even a cursory glance through the Wikipedia article on ontology should tell you what it is and how it differs from physical science.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:10:36 2014 No.5204345

>>5204327

Right. The implications of the category "Matter" would under consideration in an investigation of a materialist account of nature.

Have you never had a conversation with arrow before? She can't handle anything abstract. Absolutely nothing, so you have to spell out everything simply and, most importantly, concretely, however much this distorts the actual matter at hand.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:12:37 2014 No.5204358

>>5203733
>moving the goalposts from 'described' to 'directly experienced'
Lame, weak minded, and dishonest

>sure, I stated that physics defines reality, but tell me where I said the map is the territory or science is reality
Suuuure
>I wrote an (incorrect) definition of axiom but I wasn't trying to define axiom
Dishonest

I know why you're a believer in scientism - you're a moron

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:14:36 2014 No.5204367

>>5204327
Categories are studied by category theory.

>>5204331
This is the part where you have to admit that I'm right and you have to praise my wisdom. Read your Plato again. You must of forgotten your text.

>>5204340
Yep, wikipedia tells me it's pointless mental masturbation for people who can't into rigorous study of nature like science and math.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:15:06 2014 No.5204373 >>5203880 >concepts aren't metaphysics Just like a booster of scientism yo be this stone ignorant

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:18:47 2014 No.5204391

>>5204367
>Categories are studied by category theory.

There not even related!!! How are you people so stupid! Are you being serious!!n Category theory has nothing to do with categories of existence. Please, for the love of god, READ! You're in a literature board, it's the least you can do. Just go to an online philosophy encyclopedia, wikipedia or google or whatever. It's just a click away, anon. Stop, what do you gain from shitposting?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:18:50 2014 No.5204392 >>5204228 Do you give up? Was I right? Did the philosopher beat a scientist? brb greece, gonna take a victory lap with the greats

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:19:49 2014 No.5204398 >>5204391 They're*

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:20:01 2014 No.5204400 >>5204373 Concepts aren't metaphysics mate. They may adhere to similar rules, but they do not function in the same way. Concepts are an understanding of metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:21:26 2014 No.5204406 >>5204367 You might not grasp the merit of philosophical inquiry, but you're not wrong about Plato

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:22:06 2014 No.5204407 [DELETED]

File: 7 KB, 432x432, dodecdog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Let's get a moral realism thread going.

Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it.

What is the nature of this thing called "morality"? Is it nominal? Universal? Is it natural to humans? Or is it artificial to humans-- viz., do humans construct it?

How is morality actualized? Through thought or action? Through gestures or contracts?

And what of moral qualities? Are "virtues" and "vices" real traits of an individual identity? How do these traits exist, metaphysically speaking? More, what is "identity", and what is its relation to action? Are "virtues" and "vices" words to describe habit? Habits of what? Of thought? Of action?

Is there a such thing as moral progress or regress? How can we improve ourselves, morally speaking?

Be sure to mention what kind of conceptual schema your description of morality relies upon. Where does morality fit into the whole of human experience? Where is its place in epistemology? And what of aesthetics? Are morality and aesthetics at all related? After all, morality is generally taken to be within the purview of human valuation/value judgments. So, what is the conceptual nature of morality in a broader, axiological context?

And what about linguistically? Morality usually implements terms like "good" and "bad". Do "good" and "bad" in the moral sense share their meaning with other usage of "good" and "bad" in common parlance? Do you think that morality can be descriptive, or does morality necessarily implicate "prescriptive" or "normative" language?

And, finally, if morality is a thing held in common by humans, where does morality fit into a sociological and political framework? Do leaders lead the State's construction of morality, or does the State reflect the morality of the people? Different cultures doubtlessly reflect systems of morality that differ from one another... why is this? But, simultaneously, there are common threads amidst the moralities of different cultures... why is that?

Let's hear it, /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:22:51 2014 No.5204409 >>5204407 >Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it. We have a word for unicorn, too, mate.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:23:18 2014 No.5204414

>>5204391
I know very well what I'm talking about. I don't need to google or wikipedia anything. It's just fun for me to see you pseudo-intellectuals getting riled up over not being able to define your own terms. I love to see you struggling and writhing, to see you making more and more embarrassingly stupid posts only so you can avoid having to admit that you don't have sufficient education to talk about the topic. This is the point of the Socratic method, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:24:02 2014 No.5204417 >>5204073 So you aren't aware that science rests upon a foundation of ontology? Typical ignorance

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:24:10 2014 No.5204418 >>5204409 And unicorns exist as a concept.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:24:38 2014 No.5204422
File: 9 KB, 432x432, dinotile.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5204376
Anon, what are you doing?

>>5204360
>>5204360
>>5204328

This is unacceptable. It would be a shame if we let /lit/ slip in quality.

Mods... since some are responding in another thread, I guess that you could please delete the ones without spam. But please note that I am the OP of this thread, so if you are doling out punishment, I have not done wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:24:58 2014 No.5204424 >>5204409 We also have the word "god" even though it doesn't refer to anything in existence. lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:25:02 2014 No.5204425 >>5204391 Getting heated is the worst thing you can do in a thread like this. She feeds on your anger and frustration. Either ignore her or humor her; there's little else that can be done. She will not be educated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:25:35 2014 No.5204427 >>5204407 Morality is an artificial limit shaped through history for the survival of the individual and his neighboors. The more complex a society the shakier the lines of morality are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:26:32 2014 No.5204435 >>5204418 Ah. Yes. Crowded universe, that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:26:50 2014 No.5204439 >>5204417 I'm very well aware of science's foundations. I'm just not sufficiently pseudo-intellectual to consider talking about these trivialities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:29:24 2014 No.5204452 >>5204110 So you demonstrably don't know what 'category', 'concantenate', or 'schizo' mean. Is this thread a cry for help?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:29:50 2014 No.5204458 File: 104 KB, 665x598, wut.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >not from /lit/ >reading the end of this thread >mfw pic related

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:30:20 2014 No.5204462 >>5204439 The philosophical claims underpinning modern science are far from trivial, and if you don't think they're even worth considering, I doubt you're a serious scientist.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:31:40 2014 No.5204467

>>5204414

No. What's frustating is the fact that I have defined te terms over and over again and even given you empirical reference, even resources by which you can verify yourself yet you are too hard headed to understand or even try to. What makes me mad is not that you may be trolling, but the oppposite. What makes mad, even sad, is that you may genuinely believe what you say. That waht most consider an act, is in fact not. I have defined my position and explained and you come here and bring in category theory which has nothing to do with philosophy, existence, being or cognition. Even a fucking dog would see that so i suppose you're fucking dumber than a dog and should be treated as a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:31:48 2014 No.5204468 >>5204452 ⇒pathetic projection >>5204462 ⇒appeal to emotion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:33:01 2014 No.5204477 >>5204458 What didn't you understand?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:34:06 2014 No.5204483 >>5204477 I don't know anymore

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:36:26 2014 No.5204498 >>5204483 pleb

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:36:27 2014 No.5204499 >>5204467 ⇒and bring in category theory which has nothing to do with philosophy, existence, being or cognition Your ignorance of category theory is amazing. Kripke would laugh in your face. ⇒and should be treated as a bitch. You're not my boyfriend.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:39:30 2014 No.5204516

>>5204499
>Kripke would laugh in your face.
Well, go on, bicth. Go on and explain how anything Kripke has said has anything to with ontology. What is his thoery of category of existence. Oh, thats right, bitch. He doesnt have one. Again with an irrelevant namedrop. Just like a fucking bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:41:28 2014 No.5204528 >>5204516 Wow. I'm usually on the "defending the merits of philosophy" side of these arguments, but you're a fucking embarrassment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:42:46 2014 No.5204537 >>5204516 You still haven't defined "ontology", "category" and "existence".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:45:15 2014 No.5204553 >>5204528 You forgot your arrows. You're not fooling me. >>5204537 And you still havent explained why you're such a bicth

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:45:39 2014 No.5204558 File: 23 KB, 460x357, 1378656635075.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5204516

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:50:47 2014 No.5204583 >>5204400 >not reading Peacocke

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:53:48 2014 No.5204595 >>5204439 So the concepts of science that allow science to function are trivial? Careful! Keep on this path and you'll have to dismiss the physical universe as inferior to scientific theory!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:55:51 2014 No.5204609 >>5204468 >misdirection is typically acknowledgement of accuracy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:58:26 2014 No.5204624 >>5204583 break it down for me

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:59:07 2014 No.5204629 >>5204609 >Yes, WHAT ARE YOU AGREEING TO? I DID NOT ASK A QUESTION.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 17:59:15 2014 No.5204630 >>5202214 > Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend holy shit someone on sci who actually knows what they are talking about

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:02:45 2014 No.5204652 >>5204629 Are you having fun?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:11:04 2014 No.5204691

>2012
>having an uncritical devotion to "science"

These people tend to be uber-liberal faggots in soft majors like literature and graphic arts, too, which is the irony.

Anyone who studied "scientific" fields like chemistry or physics or math know that the vast majority of scientists are welfare queens who bullshit their findings in order to get grants so they don't fucking starve to death, and have zero actual integrity. Look at global warming, I mean climate change, I mean....you get the point.

P.S. I study medicine - there is very little empirical evidence for even 50% of medical interventions, and for the other 50% so much of it is unsubstantiated bullshit where some guy selectively picked and chose a P value from somewhere.

Then we come to ethics...what retard would trust empiricism over their gut when it comes to ethical situations...that makes very little sense. We have millions of years of evolution to give us a finely tuned sense of right and wrong, and yet people are so quick to throw it out...

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:19:16 2014 No.5204721

>>5204691
⇒P.S. I study medicine

Hahaha, and this is where you lost all your credibility. Have fun memorizing a shitload of facts you'll never use outside of an exam. Medicine is a service, not a science. You will be nothing more than a prostitute, only with (insignificantly) higher salary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:24:23 2014 No.5204745 >>5204721 I agree that the medical field is largely unscientific hokey, but damn, why do you need to be hostile to everyone? Do you troll online because you've alienated everyone in real life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:25:33 2014 No.5204751 >>5204745 That anon was agreeing, possibly sarcastically, that your solution to his problem was an appropriate one. Subtlety really isn't your thing, is it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:29:11 2014 No.5204772 >>5204691 As a guy with a chemistry degree, this couldn't be further from the truth. You know not what you talk about.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:30:23 2014 No.5204780

When I have a problem, I try to talk about it with my friends, either with some that are good at bouncing ideas off of, or other writers. They usually help me work out whatever problem I'm having. If it's a generally stylistic problem though, I don't know what to tell you. Most of my problems are with content. Style is something that has always been pretty intuitive, and even if what I write is bad on the first take, I can usually salvage it through revision if I think the content is good enough.

Talking to other people, both friends and other writers though is incredibly helpful. Differing opinions are great, just pick people who are insightful.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 18:38:28 2014 No.5204832 >>5204691 >>5204772 In the interest of accuracy, can we have any proof to these claims, maybe a timestamped picture of your diplomas/coursework?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:05:44 2014 No.5205264

>>5204392
had to go to dinner. and give a speech.

the logical absolutes are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Nothing logically valid can violate any of these. it might make more sense to say there's no reasonable way to violate them. add to this the first principles of mathematics and physics, in normal cases, and you just need to establish the validity and soundness of your syllogisms and no further depth is required. i admit that seems facile and over-glib.

still, while it might be possible to overturn anything in formal logic, let alone mathematical logic, since they have to be falsifiable, you can't do it with metaphysics; you have to use logic.

Also don't think im disparaging metaphysics per se, i just dont find them essential, or even particularly useful

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:18:37 2014 No.5205304 >>5202259 wat, do you even philosophy, bro?

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:27:29 2014 No.5205355

>>5205264
I do think that is a facile way to put it.

When dealing with metaphysical questions, these tools are insufficient. As above so below even seems to function more efficiently as a rule for discerning truth.

I am a proponent of epistemological pluralism, as such to temper every idea by the standards of mathematics, physics, and Aristotelian logic will rarely bring you more than three exact steps further in discerning a conclusion. What do you do when there are multiple answers that pass your qualifiers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:29:46 2014 No.5205371 >>5205264 To go a little further, What do you do with a question like 'Why this and not something else?' You can hypothesise as much as you like with a question like that. How do you discern truth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:31:12 2014 No.5205377 >>5205355 >I am a proponent of... >as such... This is worded very poorly, sorry. It is 1:30am. I do not mean to suppose that because I think something something else is the case. I am sure you can intuit what I meant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:35:24 2014 No.5205400 >>5204629 It is obviously pointing out that your misdirection was an admission you don't know what you're talking about

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:42:07 2014 No.5205442

>>5205371
"why this and not something else?" does have a lot of answers; there used to be something else, there may be something else later. there is something else somewhere else. Or just "this is the result of whatever happened before", which is necessarily true. truth would be that which is consistent, valid. sound and answers the problem. or at least thats conditionally true, which is usually good enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:44:05 2014 No.5205456 >>5205355 oh and when multiple answers pass the filter, they all go into the set, unless they mutually exclude one another, in which case you have to tighten the filter.

Anonymous Mon Jul 28 20:49:13 2014 No.5205492

>>5205442
I think you misunderstand the sentiment behind the question.

'Why this and not something else?' meaning why this specifically. Why is the sky blue and not green? Because of the way light behaves in air? Why does light behave that way in air? Because the laws of physics delineate it. And what delineates those laws?

Eventually, you always get to a point where metaphysics is required, in my understanding of reality. The question 'Why does light behave that way in air' is a metaphysical question, even.

It really just depends on how and what you are looking at and for.

Anonymous Tue Jul 29 00:26:38 2014 No.5206391

In my opinion Scientism isn't so much about positivism as it is about the blind faith that's put into science. There's an implicit assumption that the study of the sciences will automatically lead to a positive outcome or a "better future," yet historically that hasn't always been the case. It's almost as though science is accepted as an independent factor beyond human beings, as opposed to a mere interpretation of data and experience. Others probably disagree.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature