/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16315166]

All the philosophy commonly discussed on this board was developed at a time where we were deeply ignorant of the workings of nature and our own bodies.
The last 200 years had a massive change of paradigm for all sciences, and the last 100 years even more so, and the last 50 years even more. The scientific developments about physics, medicine, neuroscience, genetics, astrophysics and etc show how staggeringly limited our understanding of the universe was for all of the previous history.

How can any philosophy made before this actually have any legitimate points about the nature of reality or the human experience? By definition so much knowledge was out of the reach of those philosophers. They were basically rambling opinions, which you people still repeat to this day.

It's impossible to shake the impression that philosophy students have an insane amount of hubris that comes from a deep ignorance of scientific developments. If you understood even 1% of the results found on the last 80 years you would probably never be able to read a philosophy book again and take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.16315180]

[Anonymous No.16315194]

Even if you solve quarks and how black holes work, what does this have to say about how humans ought to live, what is experience, aesthetics or the fundamental metaphysics of being all of which have nothing to do with science. You want everything on a platter, and science like religion before it, has offered it to you. But life doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.16315221]

>>16315194
The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier. Some basic experiments could've made them question themselves, but they didn't, because it seemed to make sense. Galileo and Newton already understood that was wrong, and nowadays there is plenty of experiments in vacuum chambers confirming that. There's many other beliefs about how the earth and other celestial bodies worked, from that time, that influenced how human life was supposed to work, what the gods were, what the gods expect of us or what we must think is beautiful.

Similarly, conceptions about what we feel, what other animals feel, how we developed as a species, etc etc etc, changed massive since then. All of these have a MASSIVE effect on discussions of aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.

To give you an example, why can animals seemingly find certain things beautiful? This type of question was only answered on the last 100 years. Serious research about this only began even more recently. You have no idea how much of your worldview is based on false premises, if you only follow the opinions of greek philosophers who had a massively primitive understanding of the world.

[Anonymous No.16315285]

>>16315166
Alright.

[Anonymous No.16315295]

>>16315166

[Anonymous No.16315296]

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier.
I believe that too. It is common sense and until I see a rock fall as slow as a feather I will not think otherwise.

Simple as

[Anonymous No.16315298]

>>16315166
Even better because you get to test the metaphysics more
>needing empirical evidence to have a rational thought
No way you spin that where that makes sense

[Anonymous No.16315303]

>>16315166
I hope this is bait. If not you sound too stupid to be reasoned with

[Anonymous No.16315307]

>>16315166
>how can you discover quantum physics when we haven't done so yet??

[Anonymous No.16315312]

new thing solve old thing

[Anonymous No.16315321]

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier

drop a rock and a feather at the same time and tell me which one falls faster

[Anonymous No.16315350]

>>16315166

[Anonymous No.16315352]

>>16315296
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
Welcome to modernity. You can finally let go of your stupid monkey brain instincts and rely on science instead.
>>16315307
More like: How can you make claims about the fundamental nature of reality when you don't even know quantum physics. It's like a blind person making claims about the nature of color qualia.
>>16315321
See the link I posted above. Drop a rock and a big rock and see which one falls faster, you absolute fucking moron. 1500's english farmers understood this better than you, and then you would see the feather doesn't fall slower because it's "lighter".

[Anonymous No.16315380]

>>16315352
motherfucker you dk about quantum physics. It had to be theorized first. Who do you think theorized, some fucking lab rat robot who doesn't read philosophy?
You can't think so im not asking just stfu and read >>16315350

[Anonymous No.16315381]

>>16315350
It's always sad when someone invokes this image for reasons already posted a billion times, but I guess I'll point it out too:
People on the left side are not remembered by this metaphysical mumbo jumbo contributions. Schroedinger specifically was heavily mocked for his hindu bullshit speak. Physicists are known to try and find parallels to their work in poetry and ancient myths, but that doesn't mean the myths are correct. It's fun to read about eastern religions, but fun doesn't mean it's right.
Also, no one in the right side is an actively researching scientist or anyone who made a contribution of note to science. Try pic related, also a nobel prize winner who had massively negative views of philosophy and its bullshit.
Also again, even if by complete chance someone finds something poetic or interesting about religion, and that person is an award winning scientist, that still doesn't mean that religion can stand on its own or is more correct or even as correct as science.

But whatever, keep posting that image like it means something.

[Anonymous No.16315396]

>>16315380
I am actually a postgrad physics student, lol. The forefathers of quantum mechanics were absolutely 100% using experimental results of the time, that had no explanation until that point, to start and theorize about quantized energy levels and orbitals in atoms. You really think Schroedinger was just reading about hindu gods and all of the sudden he blurted out some equations? How do you fucking think physics works, you moron?

[Anonymous No.16315412]

>>16315381
How do you conceptualize physics without a philosophical groundwork? How do you conceptualize the scientific method without Roger, Francis bacon, aristotle?

Oh you're a dumbass scientist who can only deal w what you see. You see physics blasted through media so ur dumbass thinks true.

You can not, I repeat dumbass, can not operate without defining a framework. This can not be done inside the field. This was proven by the platonist goedel.

[Anonymous No.16315428]

>>16315396
yeah you're a dumbass motherfucker.
>it's experimental
>op says you can't experiment without seeing it

No you dumbass you don't understand how humans work or reality. You make metaphysical claims and you get a framework. It's how reality works and you betray that by saying the word experiment. We are not robots you moron. I have less respect for post grad physics students. This obvious 101 shit

[Anonymous No.16315457]

>>16315381
Cope harder, "wow science" guy.
You don't even understand the role of science, it's not about understanding the world. It's about making better or more useful models. Real scientists know that you can't grasp reality with this method, that's why there will always be new theories and models and you will always find reasons why the old models don't apply anymore. There will never be a point where we can say "Ok, now this is the perfect model"

[Anonymous No.16315468]

>>16315396
why aren't you sucking Aristotle's dick since he allowed you to be a physics student? His metaphysics allowed it and physics is derivative of an ontology and epistemology.

[Anonymous No.16315473]

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier. Some basic experiments could've made them question themselves, but they didn't, because it seemed to make sense.
Rocks fall faster than feathers on earth. They didn't have access to vacuums back then. Also that's a scientific question not a philosophical one.

[Anonymous No.16315474]

>>16315412
Any part of philosophy that is backed by experimentation is science. That's just it. If you willingly ignore experimental developments, your theory could be beautiful, but it's useless.
>>16315428
The double slit experiment.
Blackbody radiation.
Boltzmann proposes quantized energy levels based on statistical mechanics results;.
Balmer series of hydrogen spectral lines.
Photoelectric effect.

These were all known and studied before Schroedinger was even BORN. If you think this doesn't influence his theoretical contributions, you are willingly ignoring verified scientific history.

[Anonymous No.16315488]

>>16315396
Wait maybe we can teach this dumbass.
If you're learning code, what is faster to learn the fundamentals or type random shit into it? If you want to learn the foundations of coding, do you learn logic/turing machines etc or do you watch tv and wait for some big sense-data to reach you?

I'm not expecting to think or respond as you're a pathetic stupid post grad physics student. But maybe if I tell you this enough it will invoke enough sense-data to shut you up

[Anonymous No.16315491]

>>16315457
>Real scientists know that you can't grasp reality with this method
No true scotsman on a topic you don't understand against someone who studied the area more than you. That's some clever shit there, champ. "Wow science" people don't work in academia. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.16315503]

>>16315491
>No true scotsman
No it's not because people who think that don't understand their field

[Anonymous No.16315513]

>>16315474
oh no you're right before schroedinger nobody read philosophy. Holy shit what a good argument. God am I glad I didn't become a physics student. Jesus christ you're stupid. Do you know mach, boltzmann etc they were all philosophical materialists? They had philosophical arguments for it? It's pretty simple, you need a framework to do anything. Prove me wrong. Just to feed you stupid because they don't teach you shit, your clue is what is a hypothesis and what is a conclusion. I do not expect your dumbass to do anything with that as you're used to citing papers and running away. You are a moron and it pleases me to tell a science postgrad you are a failure in your field because you don't understand common sense.

[Anonymous No.16315515]

>>16315473
I gave the feather cause it's a famous example. Aristotle thought objects made of metal fall faster than objects made of wood, of the same size.

[Anonymous No.16315529]

>>16315491
>no true scotsman
>uses normative reasoning
>is against philosophical frameworks entirely
You're doing a bang up job retard

[Anonymous No.16315540]

>>16315515
And, ppl get wrong conclusions. You follow the framework which allowed them to come to the conclusion otherwise you're kicking dust. But I know your dumbass can't think except "paper a cites conclusion different from paper b"

[Anonymous No.16315547]

>>16315503
>>16315529
I'm against philosophical frameworks that go against scientific results. It's that simple. I'm not sure why this makes you seethe so much. You are so smart and I'm so stupid, it should be easy for you to catch up with the current scientific state of the art. Who knows, maybe it'll change one or two things about how you see the world.

[Anonymous No.16315551]

>>16315515
>Aristotle thought objects made of metal fall faster than objects made of wood, of the same size.
They do if the metal is heavier. He didn't have the experimental methods we have now.

[Anonymous No.16315559]

>>16315540
Why are you so scared of taking the experimental leap? It might show you you're wrong? Reminds me of how Galileo offered philosophers of his time to look through his telescopes and they refused because they didn't want to be proven wrong. Is this part of your framework too?

[Anonymous No.16315567]

>>16315547
>I'm against philosophical frameworks that go against scientific results.
You absolute mongoloid, the examples you gave didn't go against scientific results. They were just observations people made and they are still true in the real world. You try to debunk them with some lab results that don't even apply in rl. How stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.16315571]

>>16315551
>They do if the metal is heavier. He didn't have the experimental methods we have now.
OH NO NO AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.16315575]

>>16315547
Science is derivative of ontology and epistemology. You dismissing a metaphysics because a conclusion wasn't correct is about as superficial and shallow as you can get. Look at every famous person in science math and philosophy from the first half of the 20th century. They all had very developed metaphysics. Without a mature metaphysics you can only talk about their conclusions. You are a moron. You cannot criticize any one of these ppl.

[Anonymous No.16315581]

>>16315567
>They were just observations
Grab two objects of different weight in your room right now, and let them go at the same time from the same height. Seriously. Just do it. It's gonna blow your mind.

[Anonymous No.16315582]

>>16315571
What relevance would this even have to a metaphysical inquiry?

[Anonymous No.16315607]

>>16315582
At the very least it makes you question the rational methodology of whoever is making such an inquiry. If they can't get something easily verifiable right, why should I trust their deeper conclusions about things outside of their grasp?
Furthermore, something considered metaphysical at some point might become measurable and understandable from a scientific point of view centuries later. You'd expect people to maybe revise their understanding of metaphysics after that point, but I scarcely, if ever, see this happening.

[Anonymous No.16315609]

>>16315166
Based. Philosophy is worthless; science explains the real world. I remember "starting with the Greeks" and reading Thales's idea that the world is made out of water. That was when I realized philosophy was a waste of time.

That said, literature is still immensely valuable as a form of entertainment, and I still recommend reading fiction.

[Anonymous No.16315612]

>>16315581
What are you trying to say? The heavier fell faster.

[Anonymous No.16315618]

>>16315166
why are STEMfags like this
literally everyone else accepts that their are other viable ways to attain truth than purely empirical lab work

[Anonymous No.16315622]

>>16315612
Do it more, more objects. Drop a paper weight and a fork, a pen and a remote control, a sheet of paper and a bottle of water, now crumple the sheet of paper into a tiny ball and repeat. In no time you're gonna beat the greeks anon. I believe in you.

[Anonymous No.16315628]

>>16315166
Philosophy isn't about the acquisition of knowledge. There is no data in philosophy. It is not a collection of facts or findings. Much of what philosophy concerns itself are with timeless and perennial things, issues such as the problem of future contingents or the mind-body problem which no accumulation of empirical facts has permitted us to resolve.
Philosophy, put another way, is about gaging the extent of our ignorance rather than accumulating knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16315630]

>>16315559
you are a superficial retarded dipshit. Experimental results were defined in philosophy. You take that as an axiom. I do not i take it as a metaphysical conclusion. Experimenting is great but you cannot assert experimenting because you can't refer to philosophy. You will not understand what I said because you're retarded and you will say something else even more stupid from your programming (which you of course deny).

[Anonymous No.16315640]

>>16315628
Philosophy allows this framework. The scientific method was like you said an examination of perennial concepts to allow this.

[Anonymous No.16315644]

>>16315607
>If they can't get something easily verifiable right, why should I trust their deeper conclusions about things outside of their grasp?
It really isn't easily verifiable. You would either need a mathematically sufficient system of physics or high-tech (at the time) experiments. Also, who even cares about this? The only reason people care is because it's an unintuitive result that we came to know through physics. No one wonders about it beforehand because, frankly, it's an irrelevant question.
>Furthermore, something considered metaphysical at some point might become measurable and understandable from a scientific point of view centuries later.
Like what? Descartes' pineal gland? Saying that is a basic category error. Science can tell us nothing of metaphysics. It can't talk about the soul, God, the infinite, being, etc. because that's all prior to science. Could you give examples?

[Anonymous No.16315647]

>>16315630
You misunderstand. Let me try to simplify this for you.
Philosophy + Science = Good.
Philosophy - Science = Not as good.

There. Did we clear things up? Now start from Newton.

[Anonymous No.16315648]

Good philosophy is informed by and informs the science of its day. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16315649]

Philosophy isn't just the study of why the world exists, it's also the study of the human experience. Our entire politic, the laws created by man, and the courts that implement those laws are all based on ideological dispositions rooted in the philosophical tradition. Our society is a function of both philosophy and scientific rigor. We can measure all the ways a brick is a brick, but the use of that brick to build something or to throw through a window is decided by an individual within a society that is the result of philosophical musings.

[Anonymous No.16315652]

>>16315622
Why are you using syntax instead of polling ppl and making correlations before you reply? I need a citation of your sentence reply based on experimental papers. Why don't you follow your ideology?

[Anonymous No.16315657]

>>16315609
>I remember "starting with the Greeks" and reading Thales's idea that the world is made out of water. That was when I realized philosophy was a waste of time.
Maybe you should realize that you are stupid and are reading a translation of an ancient text and it isn't literally water but more like spirit. People used it interchangeably. In some languages you do it to this that. For example in German spirit is Seele and See means sea.

[Anonymous No.16315659]

>>16315647
stfu you moron. Science literally takes axioms, it takes mathematical axioms. You can deny physics through bad math, you cannot deny philosophy with science. You can't deny it w math, math takes axioms.

[Anonymous No.16315666]

>>16315609
too bad your boy is getting fucked up and too bad he's denying fiction. Don't you feel stupid

[Anonymous No.16315676]

>>16315652
You don't need a paper to tell you it's ok to crumple up a paper and drop it from your hand, anon. It's ok. You're gonna make it. Science doesn't have those authority fallacies they made you so scared of in college. Go on. You can do it.

[Anonymous No.16315688]

>>16315644
>Like what? Descartes' pineal gland?
I'm referring to the god of the gaps argument. Whatever we can't explain is just left as metaphysical at any given time.

[Anonymous No.16315694]

>>16315609
That makes a lot of sense. Discarding a field with more than 2000 years, because you read one philosopher. A presocratic for the matter. Amazing!

[Anonymous No.16315696]

>>16315166
Most philosophy does not deal witg the motion of bodies, and as such it is not directly refuted by modern scientific findings. I don't need to accept geocentrism in order to defend a theory as old as Plato's theory of forms.

[Anonymous No.16315698]

>>16315676
Oh you don't, what do you refer to if not experiments? Also still you're referring to aristotle for experiments. Are there any non contradictions you have?

[Anonymous No.16315702]

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier.
Damn, then they cannot say anything about virtue and justice because... ? Is this even an argument?

[Anonymous No.16315703]

>>16315688
That is not true.

[Anonymous No.16315718]

>>16315688
>left as metaphysical
>doesn't understand what he's denying
Holy shit op this just gets better

[Anonymous No.16315719]

>>16315703
Before we understood the circulatory system it was believed to be spirits flowing through our body, for instance. All kinds of shit in the history of medicine go along this line until someone figures out what biological part of the body is causing things.

[Anonymous No.16315724]

>>16315676
You need experience to know that paper can crumple. But is experience a reliable source of knowledge? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.16315725]

>>16315719
The material aspects of science are helpful but not everything refers back to material elements, such as math. So you cannot deny a metaphysics with material arguments

[Anonymous No.16315735]

>>16315698
You can be the one performing the experiments and writing the papers. That's allowed.
>>16315696
What is "most philosophy"? Can you give me a quick rundown and I tell you if science has something to maybe add about it?

[Anonymous No.16315743]

>>16315735
Oh that's odd because that's what aristotle claims and it informs his ethics/politics and physics. Hmm bro, you're not making a lot of sense

[Anonymous No.16315751]

>>16315719
Materialism can be easily be refuted as pure speculation just by thinking about the epistemological requirements necessary for the knowledge concerning other minds (see Chalmer's hard problem).
Basically, you're making a category error, and your grounding it on a sophomoric view of the history of science.

[Anonymous No.16315759]

>>16315735
who cares what science can add, what if science is screwed up from the foundation. You can't comment on it. This is you

[Anonymous No.16315763]

>>16315724
>Is experience a reliable source of knowledge? If so, why?
Yes. The reason being it reduces a quantity known as "experimental uncertainty". This quantity basically says how reliable your predictions are for a given thing. Experiments that reduce this uncertainty provide more reliable results, meaning there's a better chance you'll see the same behavior in the future.

For this particular example, crumpling many similar pieces of paper and noticing they all behave similarly makes you more confident that the same will happen the next time. This experimental result can be used in many different ways, due to its reliability. (And yes I'm aware of the induction problem, but the induction problem doesn't matter for experimental uncertainty).

[Anonymous No.16315767]

>>16315735
https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

Science can help philosophy in forming good arguments.

[Anonymous No.16315780]

>>16315767
No it can't. It can help in dismissing a material conclusion. It can't comment on philosophy. It takes philosophy as an axiom. It's an asymmetric relationship

[Anonymous No.16315787]

reminder that this sort of retardation is what happens when our society starts deifying stem

[Anonymous No.16315793]

>>16315735
There are so many examples, you could pick 99% of the philosophers we still study. Just to stick with the first Greek philosophers, Parmenides' general ontology, Plato's theory of forms and Aristotle hylomorphism are not left unscathed by modern scientific discoveries. If these views are wrong, they are not wrong because of contemporary scientific notions: if you want to refute them, you have to do so with a philosophical argument. As such, they are still actual

[Anonymous No.16315794]

>>16315763
Why does it not matter and I like how you skirted so many rebuttals to your point. Of course you now see the induction problem with the scientific method. You cannot explore this without referring to metaphysics which cannot be contradicted in science. A material conclusion can. You cannot deny aristotle/plato/parmenides/empedocles etc etc except in metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16315795]

>>16315787
You have someone on your team here, in this very thread, who refuses to acknowledge the universal law of gravitation and refuses to drop two objects to visibly see its realization.
I'm not sure how you people think you're somehow "winning" in the intellectual arena.

[Anonymous No.16315798]

>>16315719
Stuff like the four humors or spirits in the blood don't come from philosophy. They come from folk tales or proto-scientists.

[Anonymous No.16315802]

>>16315763
Did you use any kind of scientific method to arrive at that conclusion. I think not, because what you have done is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16315804]

>>16315793
*are left unscathed

My bad

[Anonymous No.16315814]

>>16315795
It doesn't matter because in the end you cannot deny that science takes axioms and you fucked up the induction argument. It's not science you moron. Conclusions don't matter and they're not all equal. Your ideological fuck up is more damning than that

[Anonymous No.16315823]

>>16315795
>intellectual arena
Holy shit op

[Anonymous No.16315827]

>>16315794
>Why does it not matter
Because nature is uncertain. And I'm not talking metaphysics, I'm talking quantum effects observed in laboratory. So there is no such thing as perfect measurement, even if you had the perfect measuring instrument (which is also not a thing). But in reality most experiments don't even reach that level of precision to begin with, and experimental uncertainty is a reality of every measurement. Most STEM colleges don't go deeply into this, but good ones do.

The problem of induction is EMBODIED by experimental uncertainty. The problem of induction IS experimental uncertainty. That's why it doesn't matter. The fact you might measure something 1000 times and on the 1001th time it might be different is exactly the nature of experimental uncertainty. This is why you perform experiments that minimize it. In this sense I say it doesn't matter.

If you have observed an event 1 trillion times behaving consistently, and you have observed another rare event only 10 times varying wildly, you can reliably these both of these apart by quantifying this variation. There are many different names for this depending on your area, but they all fall under the umbrella of experimental uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.16315828]

>>16315795
no were not winning because it’s not a fucking competition and there aren’t two sides actual competent physicists understand the nature of philosophy and it’s importance and don’t discard it as muh stupid pagan thoughts

[Anonymous No.16315829]

>>16315221
Stupid fuck. No scientific discoveries have any impact on, to use your example, aesthetics. It's ridiculous to even think natural science could answer a question like "What is Beauty?"

[Anonymous No.16315843]

>>16315829
This shows a deep ignorance of scientific developments in the last century. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You explain to me why non human animals appear to show aesthetic preferences towards one another. What does your favorite philosopher say about this?

[Anonymous No.16315867]

>>16315827
Yes because you're only capable of talking about particular objects (material) in science so you run up against it. It is EMBODIED in science. It is not embodied in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16315872]

>>16315166
Give an argument for why we should rely on science as a reliable pathway to at least approximate truth without falling into a philosophical argument.

[Anonymous No.16315877]

>>16315827
If you don't allow asymmetric relationships then you can't allow discovery at all. How can you allow computer science without logic as an axiom?

[Anonymous No.16315904]

>>16315843
that just says correlation with x. It doesn't define x it takes it as an axiom and it doesn't define it, you absolute fucking moron

[Anonymous No.16315917]

>>16315843
>this shows a deep ignorance of scientific developments
>>>r/eddit

[Anonymous No.16315922]

>>16315166
Philosophy uses only reason and logical deduction to come to truth, as such truth is immediately available to all people as long as you put in the work to have your proposed systems and analyses be logically coherent, which is different from science considering experimentation is more expensive in all regards to 'contemplation', so if you don't want to have all of what you believe taken on faith, as you are doing when you accept scientific claims that have not been demonstrated in reality or haven't proved yourself, then you must use reason to determine the nature of reality and how to operate within it as humans.

Russell also said that what we don't know is far greater than what we know, and philosophy is the business of addressing what we don't yet know by scientific means.

[Anonymous No.16315927]

>>16315872
Read >>16315647

I almost don't have to give an argument because you already do. You and all the people in this thread, actually. Every single aspect of your life is driven by science, everything you use, the hospital where you were born, the medicine they gave you, the computer you use, the materials of the floor you stand on, of the roof over your head. Philosophy might run in the very far background as a basis, I don't deny this, but you already chose science as the leading paradigm in your life, even if you try to deny it. It's worse than vegan brainwashing. Every minuscule aspect of everything you live is influenced by scientific results, recent or old.

[Anonymous No.16315934]

>>16315927
>you already chose so its right

Holy fuck, anyone else want a post grad physics degree? It's apparently not hard to get

[Anonymous No.16315942]

>>16315927
>you already chose computer science so logic isn't necessary
>you already raped a girl so it's okay having done so
The state

[Anonymous No.16315945]

>>16315934
You asked me why you should rely on it. I said you already rely on it. By all means, do study physics and get a postgrad. If it's easy to you, all the best.

[Anonymous No.16315962]

>>16315945
the scientific paradigms you adore and we rely on have a foundation in philosophical thought i don´t get whats so hard to understand and why you are presenting philosophical doubt and inquiry as an antagonist to scientific thought

[Anonymous No.16315963]

>>16315945
You don't rely on physics. You rely on some epistemological choice, definitionally. Epistemology is how we can know. Physics takes an epistemological view as an axiom particularly positive empiricism.

[Anonymous No.16315964]

>>16315942
More like
"I do computer science and use logics everyday but I don't think it works, can you tell me why I should rely on it".

[Anonymous No.16315971]

>>16315964
Topkek

[Anonymous No.16315977]

Science is the child of philosophy. The scientific method is a great tool, one that has done a lot to further our understanding and standards of living. It lets us create a human-understandable model of reality and how it is "operating", and not much else outside of that.
No matter how much you dislike it, you are not some operator looking objectively into a world. You are a part of this world. You have developed a model using the scientific method, good! Now how will you use that knowledge? What is the best ethical outcome if this model involves human life? How do we decide the model is "good" or even "true"? How do we communicate that model, convince people of its efficacy, and why do we do it the ways we do? Is the model "beautiful"? Why do we prefer it over other models? What does the model say about our reality? How and why do we even categorize these randoms things that we monkeys do as "science" and "philosophy"? These are all questions rooted in philosophy.
>It's impossible to shake the impression that philosophy students have an insane amount of hubris that comes from a deep ignorance of scientific developments. If you understood even 1% of the results found on the last 80 years you would probably never be able to read a philosophy book again and take it seriously.
why are you so scared of different ways of thinking? Does it hurt your ego? Not everyone can be a scientist. There's a million ways we wouldn't be here if that was the case. Maybe reading some philosophy will give you a new perspective and therefore help you do science, knowledge is all no?
Not sure why I spent so much time replying to a intentionally inflammatory post.

t. STEM student

[Anonymous No.16315993]

>>16315963
Then positive empiricism provides the basis of basically everything your modern life is built upon. It has given us a deeper understanding than any other previous framework. Why should I believe you that other frameworks hold better accounts of reality?

[Anonymous No.16315997]

This thread either shows a master baiter or a prime example of a "le fuck yeah science" ledditor

[Anonymous No.16316003]

>>16315993
Because it doesn't allow math, it takes math as an axiom and what if we want to improve the scientific method such as solve the induction problem? You can't do so in the same system that propagates it necessarily. The only one denying progress is you

[Anonymous No.16316013]

>>16315962
Again, read >>16315647
The problem is people here are not actively questioning or updating their views with more current scientific results. It's the whole point of the entire thread. "Science vs Philosphy: who is better" is just something you seething butthurt morons keep digging for some reason.

[Anonymous No.16316033]

>>16316013
You can't deny metaphysics with physics. It takes metaphysical axioms, such as its epistemology. What of this is confusing? You're obfuscating on purpose. You cannot deny the Greeks metaphysics particularly considering most mathematicians are platonist and that helps with math.

[Anonymous No.16316043]

>>16316013
Who is wrong here? You or stanford/a lot of mathematicians/etc etc https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

[Anonymous No.16316050]

>>16315352
>>16315515
>>16315547
you fucking pseud, solve the differential equation with a drag force added and see for yourself. A ball of metal the same size as a ball of plastic will fall faster on earth, Galileo was equally as wrong to conclude what his experiments meant as Aristotle. Just because we have found the source of gravitational acceleration and know that it is constant doesn't mean that the balance equation of all acceleration forces leads to a constant speed, that is only true in vacuum and if you want to be even more precise (while using Newtonian mechanics) you'd have to factor in the additional g from the mass of the smaller object.

[Anonymous No.16316056]

>>16315977
>How do we decide the model is "good" or even "true"?
Well, how do you decide that in philosophy outside of science? "Occam's razor"? Torturing those with opposing views? Is this why 80% of this boad is "has X been debunked already" threads? How do you choose between two equally logically consistent models, without using science?
>why are you so scared of different ways of thinking?
I'm not scared, but it's bothersome because it leads to people who don't believe in the law of gravitation making greater claims about reality and influencing other peoples mindsets. It creates a situation where people don't question things for themselves, of "can someone tell me how X was debunked" rather than debunking things yourselves, and it's fertile grounds for all kinds of nonsensical bullshit.
On the other hand I could ask you, why would it hurt philosophy students to study science?

[Anonymous No.16316077]

Imagine being so autistic that you stick to the feather and wood shit because of a vacuum in which we certainly aren't existing

[Anonymous No.16316084]

>>16316056
You use ontology, tautologies etc. There's your answer buddy. There's even mereology, you can look for a consistent framework without referring to a material instance. You cannot refer to a material instance without referring to a framework. That's the conclusion you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.16316098]

>>16316050
this is the solution btw, v_E depends on the mass of the object and its drag force (coefficient c_W, area A and density of the air rho)

[Anonymous No.16316102]

>>16316056
A lot of us do study science math or logic. Youre the one being close minded. You're out of your element. I recommend you read Plato.

[Anonymous No.16316109]

>>16315166
Philosophy isn't about answering questions it's about raising the right questions

[Anonymous No.16316159]

I am also a physics student but I disagree with OP, we are not all like him. I don't know much about philosophy, having only studied it for three years at high school, but I believe that it is important to have a strong philosophical framework in which to develop science. I also think, however, that philosophers should try to understand modern science, because it poses some interesting questions for which an answer should be researched. So I think that we should cooperate more.
>>16315350
>>16315381
It's funny that those speaking against philosophy are all Anglo-Americans. They really are a civilization of brainlets.

[Anonymous No.16316179]

All science is conducted under axioms developed by philosophers
The scientific method was invented by a Christian polemicist and developed by sandniggers
>Human experience
What does science tell us about it that philosophy hasn't?

[Anonymous No.16316187]

>>16316159
They both do work together and I think that science should be confronted just as a framework which op denies because he only reads conclusions

[Anonymous No.16316270]

>>16316056
am >>16315977
>How do you decide that in philosophy outside of science? "Occam's razor"? Torturing those with opposing views?

A scientific "truth" is always rooted in some philosophical principle (epistemology, ehtics etc.) The decisions we make on how to present and use a model are philosophical.
If I teach a class of high school students Newtonian physics and tell them it's the truth, is it? It is a good model for the truth at a human scale, but isn't the end of our knowledge. We do this because we understand this as a building block towards a better model, and it will help train them to understand that better model. Is that our underlying truth? I wonder what classes will look like in a 100 years when the true model has changed.

If a flip a coin, call tails, and it lands tails, I spoke the truth didn't I? What if I was to guess correctly for 10 000 coin flips. This is a different truth then stating the statistical probability of that outcome, but no less a truth.

What if our current way of doing science was thrown out by a civilization that used some other process of experimentation that develops better models faster? This civilization destroys the scientific ones, erasing its memory. What is true then?

I'm just thinking this over, spewing questions because I don't have all the answers. What I can see is that there is a discussion on these ideas outside the scope of science.
>but it's bothersome because it leads to people who don't believe in the law of gravitation making greater claims about reality and influencing other peoples mindsets
I think you're just getting trolled. There's also a lot of dumb people on this board (including me) and it's not representative of real life discourse.
>why would it hurt philosophy students to study science?
It would not. Good philosophy takes science into account, and good scientific practice is inherently philosophical. Maybe the issues is the rift created between these two practices by increasing specialization in the modern era.

[Anonymous No.16316306]

>>16316179
2000 years ago we didn't know anything about genetics, evolution, physics, astrophysics, etc etc etc.
Now, there is still much left to be learned, but we know a lot of detail about cognitive functions of our brains, how our bodies are formed, how they relate to bodies of other animals, how those animals behave. A lot of thing thought to be unique to humans are found not to be exactly that unique (whether because animals do it or we are becoming better at programming AI to do it), and so on and so forth. I'm not sure how someone looks at this and says "yeah this doesn't change anything".

As in, lets say you believed the sun in the sky is literally a god that comes up and down every day. This dictates your life through the rites and whatever of your people. You are now transported to a place in time where people have pictures of the sun being a fireball and can tell you with great exactitude what constituents form it, how they react, and how this can be measured. Does this change your view of life and the universe in the slightest?

Lets say you believe there is a plant that has a magic property to cure you. You are now transported to a time where the active component of this plant has been isolated, and you now understand through chemistry what this does. Does that change anything about your experience/rites/culture/views of the world? Maybe the magic medicine man from your tribe was not magic?

Lets say you believe there is something inherently unique about love, aesthetics, suffering, reasoning, etc, that has been granted to humans by the gods, by the powers that be, by the spirits, by the souls. The mix of all discussed above and many other rites and cultures and whatnot of your time lend strength to the idea that these spirits and souls and gods are possible and are indeed a source of these morals. You are now transported to a time where irrational animals, previously thought to be automatoids, display similar behaviors. You have experiments showing babies demonstrate certain traits of this before being able to receive any proper education or influence on the matter. You have experiments showing brain damage in certain parts of the brain specifically influences these behaviors positively or negatively, or there are substances that can inhibit or enhance such behaviors. Do you question at all those previous notions you had? If you really don't, if you really think none of this ever matters, then I guess I just come across as a crazy person. But I don't see how an inquiring mind would forego of these results. In fact, I don't see how an inquiring mind wouldn't desperately look for these, and more, and constantly test their notions. But if you go down that path, you end up in science.

[Anonymous No.16316393]

Scientism is a fucking plague. Every day I realize more and more how much “knowledge about how the world works” AND “knowledge of what makes a good person” I totally took for granted my whole life. Not only took for granted, but wrongly believed it like the people before me and before them that passed it down. I never really thought that the “modern world view” was a big deal, people can live how they want and I’ll be Smart and be able to set myself aside from the dumb materialism etc. But the other day I had this realization of just how blind even I am. Things I was doing assuming “durr it doesn’t hurt anyone else so it’s okay” and “I still appreciate the beauty of the world so I’m fine“ when in fact my soul has become so disgustingly separated from God and the powers and purposes he gave my soul. I’m not really a Christian, I’m really not trying to turn this into a religious argument at all. If you understand the sentiment of my revelation then you know what I’m vaguely getting at. Every single day since I was born I was so wrapped up in the modern material free do-anything worldview that I was harming myself and disrespecting the beauty of MY OWN being in ways I didn’t even realize. Never before did I feel actually angry about the state of the world but I did then. Without my knowledge or consent, so sneakily, I was indoctrinated into a certain world view with no one around me to teach me better because they haven’t got a single clue themselves. Now I feel so bad for everyone and angry at what I missed out on and what goodness I squashed. Nice bait OP you get a big fuck (you) from me

[Anonymous No.16316410]

>>16316393
It's great you decided to let go of modernity. But why did you decide to do that through high speed bandwidth transcontinental connections on a world wide web in a digital interface on an international name calling forum?

[Anonymous No.16316426]

>>16316306
You seem to be confusing philosophy with occultism
>Evolution
Anaxagoras was the first man to talk about evolution and Aristotle had developed a model of natural selection
Literally everything you've said has been addressed and discussed by philosophy across the millenia in much more depth
Also, all the systems upon which you base your inquiry are philosophical, why do you accept them?
You're very good at talking in empty platitudes but if you want to address philosophy, you should first consider reading it

[Anonymous No.16316444]

>>16315166
That image is wrong, Aristotelian physics did not end with Copernicus. It was used well into the nineteenth century (cf. Against Method by P. Feyerabend).

[Anonymous No.16316460]

>>16315166
I was totally with you in your indictment of the retards on /lit/. Then you outed yourself as just another /lit/ retard when you went after "philosophy students". Like every other mouthbreather on this board, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.16316473]

All major physicists of the twentieth century were very fond of philosophy

[Anonymous No.16316477]

I don't see how modern science refutes philosophy.
Just because Kant didn't know about semiconductors doesn't mean that his ideas about ethics are retarded, even more so with the greeks and romans.
Their thoughts about life and morality are no less relevant, just because they were unfortunate enough to live 2000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.16316492]

>>16315166
>Here are the rules:
>You CAN read science from the last 80 years
>But you CANNOT read philosophy from the last 80 years, NO! You can only read philosophy from antiquity!
>With these constraints, you will find that (ancient) philosophy is obsolete relative to (current) science!
>Hence philosophy is obsolete!

You may be the most retarded sack of shit ever to post on this board.

[Anonymous No.16316497]

>>16315166
You're a STEMtard, you're not even a real human being, why do you think your so-called "opinion" matters?

[Anonymous No.16316521]

>>16316473

>Firstly, it is appropriate to mention some critiques Boltzmann made against other philosophies. Within these critiques, it is possible to see Boltzmann worry about danger of popular philosophies expressed by certainty for public. Two typical examples were mentioned here. Since it is often thought that Boltzmann’s critique of traditional philosophies is due to his personal dislike, an example from traditional philosophy and another regarding a philosophy expressed by scientists in the field of philosophy of science are noted.

You said "all". I looked up on google in 2 seconds and debunked your claim.

[Anonymous No.16316527]

>>16316497
he is not even a STEM-tard, he doesn't even understand basic mechanics, he just likes to watch videos on epic science and is too lazy to read philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16316533]

>>16315166
>The last 200 years had a massive change of paradigm for all sciences, and the last 100 years even more so, and the last 50 years even more.
And yet Nietzsche has held up perfectly.

[Anonymous No.16316540]

>>16316492
You can and should read anything. You should also question and test the claims you read accordingly.
>>16316497
That seems like a great mindset and framework to operate on. Who did you get this from?

[Anonymous No.16316549]

>>16316540
>Who did you get this from?
Interacting with STEMtard irl and on the Internet. Soulless husks.

[Anonymous No.16316595]

>>16316549
Develop that further. What framework allows you to claim certain humans have souls and other ones don't based on their area of knowledge. Put yourself through the same sieve you're putting me through. Why should I believe anything you say to be valid? Why do you think this type of sentence you type is more valid than anything I'm saying?
>>16316527
Are you the air drag guy? Are you also gonna account for minuscule relativistic effects caused by slight differences in the initial heights of both objects or the imperfect shape of the earth? Lol. Fuck off, you pseud. If you weren't so intent on being intellectually dishonest you'd notice the open/crumped paper is already enough to talk about air resistance in the kind of setting I proposed for the experiment. The drag coefficient is affected by the cross section of the shape in regards to the fluid flow, and this becomes intuitively obvious with the paper sheet / crumpled paper, more than with two balls of same radius and different materials that you'd need some laser instruments to really measure in any significant way.

[Anonymous No.16316602]

>>16316540
^ AI bot reply.

[Anonymous No.16316632]

Seems not even /lit/ is safe from the pseudointellectual brainlet mumbo jumbo that is "pure" philosophy huh.

[Anonymous No.16316669]

>>16316595
>Why should I believe anything you say to be valid? Why do you think this type of sentence you type is more valid than anything I'm saying?
You shouldn't believe anything I say, you can't believe it, because you have no mind. You're autistically gifted when it comes to math or coding or some other meme STEM shit, and good for you, you'll work with some utterly worthless task on a computer while making good money, but you have no soul, no spirit. There's no convincing to be done on my part, it just is the way it is, your posts reek of it.
I took the time to find this image from a few years ago. My advice to you is forget about literature and philosophy and poetry and art and do what your genetic roll fated you to spend your time on.

[Anonymous No.16316679]

Here, for instance, something that should be easy for people to understand in this board. Since you believe me to be a complete soulless brainlet, take it from a class by Boltzmann himself on Schopenhauer:

>At the first, Boltzmann talks about contradiction of the Schopenhauer’s definition of space and time with the modern theories of space and time (at his time). He continues by emphasizing on carelessness of Schopenhauer in using “a priori”. Boltzmann criticize the claim of Schopenhauer that it is a priori that space has three dimensions, by noting that it is known that a space of more than three dimensions is conceivable and even a non-Euclidean. He makes a similar critique of Schopenhauer’s inference from the principle of sufficient reason that the law of conversation of matter is clear a priori. He expresses: “Landolt has conducted experiments on precisely this law, and his findings seemed at first to contradict it. Today it is indeed more likely that they will not be able to impair the law of conversation of matter, but what is important here is not the results of his experiments but merely whether experiments are as such able to refute laws, or whether logic can prescribe the paths that the pointer on Landolt’s scales must take. For a second time doubts about this law have arisen in connection with the behavior of radium. I am convinced that these experiments too will confirm the law, but that proves the law to be other than a priori: were it not to hold, we could retort nothing from a logical point of view.” Nowadays, we understand well Boltzmann view, since the law of conversation of matter was replaced by a more general theory namely the law of conversation of matter and energy.

Are you gonna tell me Schopenhauer understanding physics better wouldn't change anything about his understanding of reality? Of what things are truly "a priori"?

[Anonymous No.16316706]

>>16316669
You understand that this kind of angry rethoric is fun to type out, but at the end of the day you're still arguing something extreme about the reality of human experience and refusing to back it up? You really believe in souls, and that people who study STEM don't have them, and that somehow I can't be inclined to the arts or poetry or perhaps even enjoy it or take part in creating some, all because I'm asking you to study a little bit more physics and biology before you spew this nonsense?
In this little echo-chamber here you might think you're killing it, but honestly, just look at what you're saying. Go out. Meet some people. There are plenty of ways I could have a soul and like art and whatever the fuck and still enjoy STEM.

[Anonymous No.16316723]

>>16316679
>Archimedes wasn't correct on everything therefore mathematics is a fraud
That's you.

The problem with dumbfucks like you is that you are incapable of logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16316731]

>>16316706
Feels good to see that I hit the nail on the head. Good luck with the STEM droning, OP.

[Anonymous No.16316745]

>>16316723
>Uses the lowest, bottom of the barrel forms of argumentative fallacy and expect it to work.
That's you.
You'd imagine you rhetoric loving boys would come up with something better.

[Anonymous No.16316751]

>>16316745
>no u
It's too late, anon. You've been outed as a retard.

[Anonymous No.16316753]

>>16316731
miss u dougie

[Anonymous No.16316771]

>>16316745
please just leave you clearly didn’t come here to hear different ideas just to validate your hardon for science

[Anonymous No.16316783]

how can have such a lack of knowledge in philosophy? this is worse than normie levels

[Anonymous No.16316806]

>>16316771
I expected someone to be open to saying "yes, there are philosophers who have taken modern science into account, for instance, read X Y Z", or maybe even "See, when a philosopher claims something that science later describes differently, we change our views, as seen in X Y Z". Instead all of you just dug your heels on why it's a good thing not to study science because STEM takes your soul away and other such nonsense. Also the common "this is literally the worst post", "literally no one ever knew less philosophy", etc etc kind of posts. I'm at peace with myself. If a single one of you had a really strong point to be made, you had every chance to make it.
>>16316783
However weak that might be, it doesn't begin to compare to how little science people here know. There's some seriously scary posts on this thread. I'm amazed you people are able to function in a modern society.

[Anonymous No.16316830]

>>16316783
Same stuff can be asked about the people that has zero knowledge on evidence that refutes their philosophical stances on things.

[Anonymous No.16316844]

>>16316521
Boltzmann was a philosopher just like Freud is included. If you use your metaphysics to attack another metaphysics then you are a philosopher

[Anonymous No.16316846]

>>16316806
>I expected someone to be open to saying "yes, there are philosophers who have taken modern science into account, for instance, read X Y Z"
and other people expected you to actually read philosophy, or at least realize how much of an idiotic hypocrite you are, developing your own philosophies related to the usage of science and its validity and spewing cringe shit about philosophy, yet here we are, you being as much of a blind moron as you were at the beginning of this thread, even with the numerous barrages of valid critiques of your stupidly reductionist non-informed views.
>it doesn't begin to compare to how little science people here know. There's some seriously scary posts on this thread. I'm amazed you people are able to function in a modern society.
Even if we suppose that we know little science (and keep in mind that don't even know who we are), why the fuck do we need to know it to be able to function in today's society? Are you that much of a dunce? Do you seriously think that there aren't a shitton of people who don't even know e.g. some basic physics formula yet who not only are functioning in the society (since the same obviously doesn't depend on knowing science, and I can't believe that I even have to spell this out to you) but are more successful than you?
I am still hoping that you're just some poor, bored man who decided to entertain himself by pretending that he's a shallow STEMtard. If you are really honest about all this and aren't able to grasp that not everything is science and that science isn't the only thing that matters etc. then I can only pity you and hope that one day you'll see the error of your ways

[Anonymous No.16316858]

>>16316806
>I expected someone to be open to saying "yes, there are philosophers who have taken modern science into account, for instance, read X Y Z"
Nice bait, retard. Do your own research.

[Anonymous No.16316859]

>>16316806
You're retarded. Gtfo this board

[Anonymous No.16316889]

>>16316806
>I have no idea what philosophy is, I just know it's bad
>spoon feed me basic information or I'll keep posting like a retard
Fuck outta here, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16316902]

>>16315166
> Science
Go back to jerking off horses.

[Anonymous No.16316915]

>OP doubts philosophy
>reasons his doubts of philosophy using philosophy
>thinks he has btfo'd philosophy
holy based narwal bacon

[Anonymous No.16316926]

>>16316915
It will keep happrning as long as there will be humans (and as long as the word "philosophy" id used). I must admit, people like OP get boring after a while.

[Anonymous No.16316943]

>>16316806
>I expected someone to be open to saying "yes, there are philosophers who have taken modern science into account, for instance, read X Y Z"
Next time, simply ask for recommendations in analytic philosophy, philosophy of physics, biology, etc. By insulting an entire field of inquiry (of which you are completely ignorant), you only end up provoking people into insulting you back. Live and learn.

[Anonymous No.16316956]

>>16316859
>>16316858
>>16316902
>>16316915
>>16316926
I don't mean to be triggering you guys this badly, but you still haven't answered:
How does your favorite philosopher explain animals having aesthetic preferences or moral behavior or in some cases even behavior that approximates figure worshiping or some level of abstract reasoning? If you could explain this without using science that'd be even better.

[Anonymous No.16316994]

>>16316943
I've read some Popper and Kuhn and some of the previous history of scientific methodology back to Descartes, but as a curiosity. I know it's not my area and it's gonna be harder to penetrate because of that, and I haven't read it in the same depth as I read scientific works. But the idea that I never even tried to read any of it is just an assumption people here are making. It's not even philosophy of science that bothers me the most.

Again, the claim is, when people here discuss Schopenhauer or Kant, for instance. Do they go and look up the modern physical understanding of space time, when this is mentioned in their works? Or do they just take it for granted? I haven't seen these things discussed in this board, and I believe this is a problem that goes deeper. This thread only makes me think that even more. When these things are discussed in philosophy courses, are they discussed with the background of modern science on the side?

[Anonymous No.16316996]

>>16316956
You seem to have no clue at all what philosophy is. Why wouldn't animals exhibit the behavior you describe, and what does philosophy have to do with it?

[Anonymous No.16317007]

>>16316996
If animals exhibit moral behavior (group punishing bad deeds and rewarding good deeds), and this behavior is increasingly more seen the more you get closer to humans in evolutionary terms, doesn't that affect at all the discussions of how morals and ethics arise in people? Isn't this a relevant area of philosophy? Shouldn't this be of interest?

[Anonymous No.16317118]

>>16316994
Again, the fundamental delusion you are suffering under is the belief that the ramblings of pseuds on /lit/ have something to do with philosophy as it actually exists and is practiced. The median age here is like 16, and 99% of the posters here have never even taken a philosophy course. Schopenhauer and Kant are historical figures like Kepler and Galileo. Some of what they said still holds true, and some has been superseded by subsequent developments. Judging the views of philosophers writing hundreds or thousands of years ago from the perspective of contemporary textbook science is just idiotic. Plotinus is not going to have an interpretation of quantum mechanics since it hasn't happened yet. When quantum mechanics is discussed in philosophy courses, the assigned readings from authors like David Bohm, John S Bell, Hugh Everett, Carlo Rovelli, Giancarlo Ghirardi, David Wallace, David Albert, Tim Maudlin, etc. There may be some background historical material from the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence or something, but obviously nobody is thinking progress hasn't been made since then. Philosophy is essentially theoretical science, and there is a constant interplay between it and applied science.

[Anonymous No.16317135]

>>16317007
"How morals and ethics arise in people" is just another empirical question, not a philosophical one. Whether you are dealing with homo sapiens, dolphins, or space aliens, the grounding and justification of moral claims still needs to be addressed.

[Anonymous No.16317147]

>>16317118
This is the first actually useful and insightful response in this entire thread. Thank you. I once took some classes in a humanities department and had a different impression, and this board certainly didn't help rectify it. But what you're saying makes me hopeful things aren't as bad as I thought.

[Anonymous No.16317155]

When reading the ancients I am often struck how prescient their concerns and observations still are. It's a modernistic fallacy to assume just because civilization's technological and scientific knowledge has increased vastly it's easy to forget that people back then were just as human and intelligent as moderns. They still had the same brains, and for the most part, the same concerns. They had less to work with, but the problems they raised are still as pertinent now as they were today. Some things never change. They addressed the same human condition that is with us now.

[Anonymous No.16317186]

>>16317147
See pic related for a rigorous introduction to philosophy that reflects the subject as it is actually practiced today.

http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=AAF65873C6E0A000D8D11B66531E1727

[Anonymous No.16317212]

>>16316595
you don't understand, the difference of the air drag force is not the point, but its presence. If you take an object in vacuum and let it fall, the gravitational force is equal to the inertial force, thus canceling out the effect of the object's mass in the balance equation. If you add another force that is NOT dependent on the object's mass, say a drag force or a magnet, the mass will have an impact on the following motion. You can see this immediately when trying to solve the diff. equation in pic rel, now you can't cancel out the mass like in the simple vacuum equation, thus the object's velocity will directly depend on the object's mass. Because of this after falling for a sufficient amount of time, the object reaches its terminal velocity. Two balls of the same radius but different materials will have the same drag coefficient and that's why I picked the example, the drag force is the same but the metal ball is still faster and will ultimately reach a much higher terminal velocity than the plastic ball.

[Anonymous No.16318165]

>>16315166
>t. never read Plato

[Anonymous No.16318499]

>>16316393
all that is what giambattista Vico and E michael jones and even nietzsche and many others are trying to warn us that pure materialism or "scientism" is going to "break" something in the human psyche...in a way we are the broken generation, I find it fascinating that whithin the young theres a nostalgia for the 80s and 90s this is not normal and I think its because something is happening in the "collective mind/logos" something has really break and people can perceive it.... scientism is telling us we live in the best epoch of human history meanwhile theres a huge amound of misserable people and high suicides in the "first world" nations while the young live on nostagia

[Anonymous No.16318651]

>>16315166
We've had this thread a million times already. Lurk first, fag.

>All the philosophy commonly discussed on this board was developed at a time where we were deeply ignorant of the workings of nature and our own bodies.
Not entirely true, not relevant to begin with.
>How can any philosophy made before this actually have any legitimate points about the nature of reality or the human experience?
Firstly, the supposed science that deals with many human philosophical topics, psychology, is bullshit and not at all like the others.
Humans in Antiquity and the Medieval period understood that their physical brains processed their experiences in the world, among other things.
But the greater issue is that you obviously don't understand western philosophy to begin with. If you haven't read the short five dialogues surrounding the trial and death of Socrates, than you don't have any business describing what you think philosophy describes. Because in the past, and what you often read about in school textbooks, philosophers might've speculated about the nature of scientific topics. But that wasn't the central thesis of their work.
I think Socrates describes this turn himself, in Phaedo. The passage is too long to quote here, so why don't you read it.
>>16317007
>If animals exhibit moral behavior (group punishing bad deeds and rewarding good deeds), and this behavior is increasingly more seen the more you get closer to humans in evolutionary terms, doesn't that affect at all the discussions of how morals and ethics arise in people? Isn't this a relevant area of philosophy? Shouldn't this be of interest?
You mean that social features are evolutionary advantages? OK. Then how does that prove that I ought do one thing over another, or ought not care at all?
These very same questions are discussed in the Republic, better than I have. And people have discussed these ideas in some form for most of human history.
Your problem is that you assume most of human knowledge and reasoning was established 200 years ago. It wasn't. And you presume that all ideas in science or speculated on by scientists are equally as complex and evidential. And that's not true, either.
People may not have understood evolutionary theory, but they understood the concept of instinctual behaviors in animals, and that man himself was an animal after a kind. And it's what can be abstracted from both ideas that draw the philosophical.
So the premise seems to be: we have new knowledge on a topic, therefore previous philosophy that's tangentially similar is irrelevant or proven wrong. How does that actually follow, necessarily? It'd be on the impetus of the claimant to prove that, but that would require knowing what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.16318684]

>>16315647
>Philosophy + Science = Good.
HAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT
you have to be retarded or something holy shit.

[Anonymous No.16318685]

>>16315296
Based

[Anonymous No.16318720]

>>16316669
lmao STEMtards on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.16318765]

>>16318651
I haven't read The Republic yet, so you tell me if this statement follows:

>At the end of Book IV, Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He claims that the soul of every individual has a three part structure analagous to the three classes of a society. There is a rational part of the soul, which seeks after truth and is responsible for our philosophical inclinations; a spirited part of the soul, which desires honor and is responsible for our feelings of anger and indignation; and an appetitive part of the soul, which lusts after all sorts of things, but money most of all (since money must be used to fulfill any other base desire). The just individual can be defined in analogy with the just society; the three parts of his soul achieve the requisite relationships of power and influence in regard to one another.
If I could ask: How does this extend to the other animals, and what is "right/wrong/honorable"? How does this extend to humans before cultures and societies had properly developed? Is the concept of a soul necessary to explain this, if we take into account these other animals that evolved similar traits? Do their souls also have three parts? What about the idea we might have little by little adapted those learned "moral" instincts to different cultures over time, explaining the variations? It seems like this modern scientific perspective could bring a lot of interesting questions to the debate. Although you and many others keep saying I don't know what philosophy is, it seems like it's quite exactly what I'm arguing about. Now I don't expect that serious philosophers just take Plato's word for granted here and still believe in three-part souls in 2020 (though you never know with people on this board), and I know much has happened since then in the discussions of Morals. What I'm saying is, why shouldn't you incorporate as much of the scientific state of the art into the discussion as possible?

[Anonymous No.16319180]

>>16317118
>>16317186
really interesting responce, not for nothing physics was once known as "natural philosophy"

is not that we are all ""zoomer gen"" here (i'm so glad I'm not) our sin is that we are all stuck on the classics

but this is not out of ignorance, theres a good reason for this, is kinda difficult to "step up" to modern "natural philosophy" because things in general have become ugly in the wides sense of the world from critical theory to quantum mechanics all this speaks of uglyness even art has adopted ugly as a central theme, everything is relative and relativity is in the sciences too...(btw I think all this is not just a coincidence but that we are goin throu an epoch of history)
if everything is relative, what is really there? and while this is happening theology is actually emerging in some scientific circles for example in cognitive science for example see john vervaeke or stephen meyer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FKmIDApbe0

[Anonymous No.16319285]

>>16318765
i don't know why you are dismissing the soul when there exists an entire science devoted to it (Plato's word for soul is psyche and his theory of the three part soul is an attempt at psychology). Three part souls don't seem too ancient when you consider that modern psychology was founded on such a theory (Freud's ego, super-ego and id).
>In psychology, the psyche /ˈsaJki/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious.

[Anonymous No.16319303]

>>16318765
How do you conceptualize the relationship with truth and falsity? Are you a pluralist, a monist?

[Anonymous No.16319558]

>>16319303
I'm not sure under which of these terms my worldview falls, but I guess it's close to physicalism, so monist maybe? I don't particularly worry too much about this definition in general.
>>16319285
I'm dismissing the soul because it doesn't seem to be necessary to explain that phenomenon (or any that I know, but we're talking specifically about that post). I wasn't aware Freud equated "mind" and "soul" when talking about "psyche". This explains perhaps some of the reproducibility crisis Psychology seems to be under (notably more than other areas of science).

[Anonymous No.16319605]

Scientists can still lack a sense of superior reasoning which someone more well versed in philosophy can elucidate.

3 examples of faulty reasoning I've found in modern science.
1) RNA World Hypothesis : What at first seems like the most likely possibility actually has many holes in it. In turn, there are solutions offered for these counter-arguments, but now it is only ascertainable that there is merely a possibility it is not unlikely. It is no longer the most probable explanation it once was.
2) Higgs Boson : When the experimenters set the threshold of particle discovery at 98% confidence, they were finding far too many new particles. They increased the standard to 99.95% confidence and presto, the particle discoveries went down while low and behold the higgs boson manifested itself. So reality boils down to there is a 1 in 40 chance the higgs boson is reliably real, or it could have just been a statistical fluke like before, albeit more rare as one would expect.
3) QFT And Vacuum Catastrophe : There is an assumption that QFT still is true, but that something is missing from the theory to explain the miscalculation of energy in empty space. Alternatively, based on our new knowledge base it should be equiprobable that the underpinnings of the theory themselves are wrong.

[Anonymous No.16319612]

>>16319558
It's kinda fundamental if you're attacking a trilist conceptuion of reality. Being a physicalist doesn't imply one or the other. If you have no conception of truth then you can't criticize anyone else's.

[Anonymous No.16319643]

>>16319612
That sounds like a cool mental juggle, but I can in fact question anything at any given point in time. The worst that could happen is that my questions don't apply to a given issue. There is no evidence that this is the case here. In the same vein you could question parts of science even if you don't have a particular stance on it, (like you can perform research in quantum mechanics without having a favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics or etc).
Also how is physicalism not monist? Isn't it literally claiming everything is physical (1 type of thing)?

[Anonymous No.16319653]

>>16315194
for someone who i presume pissed away an enormous amount of money on a literary education, your writing is fucking dreadful

[Anonymous No.16319660]

>>16319643
How you perceive reality make-up is derivative of truth or even creation. Those are more fundamental. Lots of materialists are pluralists and believe everything is subjective etc because they put empiricism as a primary epistemology.

Anyways, you accept truth exists, objectively, for science to move forward right?

[Anonymous No.16319681]

>>16319653
lol, what you fucking talking about? all the liturature on the topic is prettymuch free seeing how its all like 100+ years old.

sounds like a cope to me.

[Anonymous No.16319706]

>>16319660
>Anyways, you accept truth exists, objectively, for science to move forward right?
Sure, I guess I can go with that. Though I believe said truth is by definition inaccessible to science. At the same time I believe science is the only tool that gets us closer to it with any degree of confidence, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.16319720]

>>16319706
Sure, do you think logic is a good tool? Let's assume you do. We can assume science takes logic as an axiom (via math). If we want to parse through different logic languages could we use science alone?

[Anonymous No.16319726]

>>16319706
got any experiments indicating the truth of this belief?

[Anonymous No.16319754]

>>16319720
My honest particular individual belief regarding this is that science only uses math/logic as a language because it was shown to work experimentally when describing or approximating certain aspects of reality. This is not something I read somewhere, just a personal interpretation of mine. I believe this to be the case because mathematical models never correspond exactly to the physical reality of measurements, and this is why we use statistics and uncertainty calculations and etc to see how well the measurements match the mathematical model. If math was shown to be broken we wouldn't use it. Sometimes other types of math or logic are developed where that becomes a necessity (like fuzzy logic), because that fits some specific application better. Fuzzy logic would be terrible for most philosophical applications, but is great for certain electronic devices.
>>16319726
Do you have another framework that makes the same predictions as science, but with a lower uncertainty threshold? I'll stop doing science and use that instead if you do. It isn't one particular experiment, but the body of work of science. Note that many such experiments predate our modern conception of scientific method. Even a caveman could perform tests that would satisfy my criteria of "trying to reduce measurement uncertainty and obtain reproducible results". Even without knowing, you probably perform these small "experiments" everyday, many times.

[Anonymous No.16319773]

>>16315166
It’s because all of those people spent more time with themselves than anyone does today. The more advancements we’ve made the less reflection we have done. The more distant from nature we have become.
Our perspectives are allowed to separate from what is compatible with nature even further and still sustain ourselves because our technological advancements remove nearly all selection pressure.

As Rousseau said,

“There you see how luxury, dissolution, and slavery have in every age been the punishment for the arrogant efforts we have made in order to emerge from the happy ignorance where Eternal Wisdom had placed us. The thick veil with which she had covered all her operations seemed to provide a sufficient warning to us that we were not destined for vain researches. But have we known how to profit from any of her lessons? Have we neglected any with impunity? Peoples, know once and for all that nature wished to protect you from knowledge, just as a mother snatches away a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child, that all the secrets which she keeps hidden from you are so many evils she is defending you against, and that the difficulty you experience in educating yourselves is not the least of her benefits. Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had the misfortune of being born knowledgeable.”

If you’re genuinely curious to understanding the answer to what you’re asking I highly reccommend reading Discourse on the Arts and Sciences by Rousseau. One of my favorites.

[Anonymous No.16319799]

If you read contemporary philosophy you'd realize the shift is back to Plato, not some new "leap".

[Anonymous No.16319859]

>>16317118
>Philosophy is essentially theoretical science, and there is a constant interplay between it and applied science.
100% wrong
>>16317147
any rationalism, being philosophy or science is just trying to turn fantasizing about made up categories and made up relations as non-fiction

[Anonymous No.16319877]

>>16319754
I believe in science, but you are making the claim that it's the only thing that brings us closer to the objective capital T Truth and that it isn't just restricted to the prediction of physical phenomena and your argument for that hypothesis is that we can sufficiently predict physical phenomena with the scientific method? Do you deny the objective truth of mathematics? You don't need to conduct experiments to prove that an abstract mathematical claim is true and thus concerned with truth in the general sense, not just physical truth, concerned with describing specific phenomena around us.

[Anonymous No.16319880]

>>16319754
The fact that fuzzy logic works sometimes, but not all the time, and that other types of logic work sometimes, but not all the time, should be troubling. What are the attributes necessary in any given situation for any given type of logic to work or not to work?

Is the applicability of a logical system inherent to the context it is applied in or to the logical system itself?


If option A: how can the external world influence the pre-existing models in our heads BEFORE we even do our experiments? Through what causal chain?

If option B: what is it about logical systems that make them different from each other, if not the measurable context in which they are placed?

[Anonymous No.16319911]

>>16315166
The contemporary world is based on 0
Some mathematician faggot trained from University of Ancient Taxila properly made up this concept from Buddhist philosophy

[Anonymous No.16319920]

>>16319911
Buddhists have to be the worst larpers after niggers
0 predates Buddhism

[Anonymous No.16319991]

>>16319920
Yeah but Babylonians invented it THROUGH philosophy. And Buddhist took this shit to their core. Neuroscience proves the illusion self which is another core Buddhist concept.

[Anonymous No.16319997]

The thread that eternally humiliated /lit/
I think I might give up on books and go study the sciences

[Anonymous No.16320004]

>>16319880
Can you be fat and thin at the same time? Can you be tall and short? Can you be far and close at once? In conventional boolean logic you can't, but in fuzzy logic you can. Each of these has different uses, and the different premises lead to different arithmetics and etc etc. Think of it like euclidian and non-euclidian geometry. Both are geometry, but slightly different rules. Fuzzy logic is still logic, just with a slightly different set of rules and axioms. I'm not sure I understood fully, but I think we are in your option B.
>>16319877
This question is giving me a hard time. I need to think more before I reply. I already wrote and rewrote my answer 20 times and I'm not satisfied with it.

[Anonymous No.16320013]

>>16319991
>Neuroscience proves the illusion self
You what?

[Anonymous No.16320025]

>>16320013
Read linear notes on Being no one by Thomas Metzinger

[Anonymous No.16320094]

>>16320004
Alright we're getting somewhere. Option B states that the applicability of a logical system is only influenced by the axiomata that the system presupposes, independently of the context in which you want to use the system.

Now it is up to you, as a hardcore scientist, to prove to me how it is possible, in a world made only of measurable entities, that logical axiomata which have no measurable quality can influence logic in such a way that it either works or does not work, while logic is your only tool to measure the world itself.

[Anonymous No.16320098]

>>16319991
>Neuroscience proves the illusion
is that statement made by your illusionary self as well, if so then its an illusion

[Anonymous No.16320141]

Can some anon give me a tldr of this circlejerk of a thread? I fully disagree with OP, I think he's baiting and too much credit has been given to him. But still, can anyone summarise the most important points and the state of the art here?

[Anonymous No.16320154]

>>16319605
No i'm pretty sure they have verified he highs boson to far more than 99.99% now

[Anonymous No.16320214]

>>16320141
he's two steps before going down the rabbit hole of Platonist epistemology for the first time. Now we just need someone to ask OP whether he knows what a triangle is and if he has ever seen one in the physical world.

[Anonymous No.16320339]

>>16320141
Why don't you want to read the thread for yourself?

[Anonymous No.16320356]

>>16320013
>Metzinger
Immediately discarded

[Anonymous No.16320361]

>>16315296
right on robbo

[Anonymous No.16320395]

>>16315166

Anon look around you look at the world that science has wrought
All of those philosophers were capable of creating such monumental works because they were ignorant of the nightmarish world science has created not in spite of it

[Anonymous No.16320421]

>>16320339
I'm at work. Reading it is not a priority at the moment. I just wanted to know what the discussion led up to.

[Anonymous No.16320426]

>>16320421
Is it really that urgent for you that you can't wait until you finish work so that you can read it? There's a lot of stuff to unpack here and it's for the best if you read the thread for yourself.

[Anonymous No.16320450]

>>16320426
Why are you so bothered by the fact that I wasn't going to read it for myself? wtf I'll read it afterwards if I'm willing to

[Anonymous No.16321481]

bump

[Anonymous No.16321487]

>>16319754
Buddy I think you've admitted you've learned nothing over the day this post has been up and that you, self-admittedly, have no idea wtf you're talking about

[Anonymous No.16321498]

>>16321481
you bumped you little shit? You're a fucking retard and you're showcasing. I can't shove an axe between your skull without reaching your ass

[Anonymous No.16321504]

>>16315166
I prefer to think for myself. I don't care what you do in the lab. You may as well turn yourself into a lab rat, won't change a thing for me. It would be absurd for me to live my life according to how a scientist envisions reality through his fiddling.
S.A.G.E.D.

[Anonymous No.16321507]

>>16321481
if i had power i would torture you. Name one thing you've learned in this thread so we can all laugh

[Anonymous No.16321508]

>>16321498
k

[Anonymous No.16321523]

>>16321508
>idk what you're saying guys
the post
>no i can't prove math is an axiom of physics, I just take it for granted
Then wtf was the point of you arguing for

[Anonymous No.16321539]

>>16321523
Have you taken your meds, buddy? I think you're mistaking me for somebody else. And I thought /x/ had gone schizo

[Anonymous No.16321546]

>>16321539
Motherfucker wtf r u doing away from reddit

[Anonymous No.16321563]

>>16321539
idk wtf ure doing here. You don't read, you're retarded as shit and you're a terrible debater who likes attention (I really can't believe after a full day of debating you admitted you had no idea if math was an axiom to physics and you just took it as granted).
You've continually adjusted your view then played the victim by asking if "philosophers kill each other if they disagree w metaphysics". You are an absolute child and the fact that you bumped means you haven't got in a fight irl as an adult and you haven't had your ass beat enough as a kid.

[Anonymous No.16321574]

>>16321539
It really takes some balls, or lack of self awareness, to not know at all wtf anyone is saying for a full day and have the balls to bump as if you're correct

[Anonymous No.16321601]

>>16321539
You didn't understand one God damned thing anybody has said. You are the epitome of the failure of the academic system.

[Anonymous No.16321602]

>>16315166
nice dubs and true save for the exception that proves the rule.
Peirce wins again.

[Anonymous No.16321692]

>>16315829
I mean I don't agree with OP but you're just choosing to be ignorant at this point.
https://meltingasphalt.com/a-natural-history-of-beauty/

[Anonymous No.16321705]

>>16321692
That's not defining beauty. Science can only correlate material things

[Anonymous No.16321717]

>>16321705
OHH MY RUBBER DUALISM

[Anonymous No.16321776]

>>16321717
>let's redefine beauty as desire
Not science
>let's show things that can incite desire in humans
Particular. It wasn't that hard

[Anonymous No.16321863]

>>16321776
It's an approach.

[Anonymous No.16321951]

>>16321863
Jesus you could do from reading this thread. Science takes math as an axiom. Math takes logic as an axiom. Logic takes ontology, ontology truth, truth being. You can find an asymmetric relationship by what subject is inherently present in another one that gives it being. You can't do physics without math but you can do math without physics.
This being said, physics cannot deny math. It's similar to saying a baby can decide not to birth his parents. It's too particular to do so. Science cannot define universals, it is only interested in material instances and laws that govern those material instances.

[Anonymous No.16322019]

>>16321951
You lost me on ontology.

[Anonymous No.16322726]

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier.
That’s literally true. Mass is part of the equation for terminal velocity

[Anonymous No.16322802]

>>16315166
>How can any philosophy made before this actually have any legitimate points about the nature of reality or the human experience?
If they couldn't, how can you?

>>16315221
>The greeks you love so much believed a rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier.
Then drop that rock through their philosophy. What are you saying changes? Was there some point at which Aristotle said, "Well, seeing as a rock falls faster than a feather, it is more beautiful" which needs to be changed or which you disagree with? Or are you just poking at this from the outside?

[Anonymous No.16322849]

>>16322726
see >>16316098 >>16317212 and >>16316050
the retard didn't even reply. If you follow his own logic we can now disregard all of his opinions because like Aristotle he came to false conclusions from looking at experiments.

[Anonymous No.16322863]

>>16321487
How did you conclude this from that post? Also, wow this thread is still up, what the hell.
>>16320395
I think this is a really skewed view of how good the world supposedly was in the past and how bad it supposedly is now. I'm not sure I would've enjoyed being a slave in ancient greece anymore than being a mcdonald's cook now.
>>16320214
This is the answer I didn't end up typing yesterday. It was exactly about that Platonist discussion of "do numbers really exist in the real world, does a perfect sphere exist?". They usually bring this up on the first term of a physics course, and students usually have varying answers. I think my opinion of this has changed over time. Since I don't believe anything exists outside of the physical world, the only way I can incorporate "metaphysical" concepts into physical reality is by claiming that they exist within the cognition of people, much a text file "exists" inside of a hard drive. It might not be recognizable to us in the way it is stored, but when properly decoded it becomes the representation we understand. I'm vaguely aware there is some debate in the consciousness research community regarding this topic and that there is still open room for discussion. But within this worldview, you would never "see a perfect triangle" under a rock, but it would still exist, even if just as a representation, on your physical brain. (Bear in mind not even your mind could realistically picture a perfect triangle, because you'd have no way of testing it. The most you can do is define what a perfect triangle is and use that definition).
This is not the major problem. The major problem is that mathematical (and other language) sentences that are mathematically true indeed don't seem to necessitate the scientific method to validate them in general. But this concept of "mathematical truth" seems unsatisfactory to me when it comes to describing big t Truth, as another person put it earlier up there. This is the part I'm still pondering over.
>>16321487
There were a couple of answers that were interesting, and definitely left me wondering, plus I ended up reading some Plato and other philosophers I didn't have direct contact with, and I spent quite a bit of time answering mostly seriously while half of the answers are just calling me an idiot, lol. I mean I'd say it seems I'm trying to challenge myself and see new perspectives. Can you say the same?

By the way you people seem to have been replying to someone else as being me. I'm not this guy >>16321539 >>16320426 >>16321601

>>16321951
>Science takes math as an axiom.
This is the easiest way out, and I think many scientists would instinctively agree with this notion, but I believe that when math is shown as a good approximator for physical reality, then it's not exactly just an axiomatic language taken for no reason.

[Anonymous No.16322892]

Science this and science that.
Science showed the worth of science without philosphical and political backing in the recent crisis.
Science to develop even more durable dragon dildos and then we're incinerated by the Sun.

[Anonymous No.16322893]

>>16316994
How does the modern physical understanding of space time contradict/refute Kant?

[Anonymous No.16322926]

>>16315221
Evolutionary Psychology is pseudo science and says nothing about aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.16322931]

>>16322726
>>16322849
I already answered to this and I already said you people are just being intellectually dishonest. I did make the mistake of not mentioning terminal velocity in my previous post, but the idea, including the experiment I proposed to that guy, was to show exactly the effect of air drag on things, and it's easier to see air drag influenced by the drag coefficient (which not influenced by mass) than by terminal velocity (which is), using just household items and dropping them from your hands. Neither of you has addressed the relativistic corrections I also mentioned, which are real (and used for GPS satellites for instance). Although they have different orders of magnitude, there are multiple other minuscule effects we could add to that equation of motion, that that guy would never be able to measure in that simple experiment. In real experimental terms this would translate as those effects being negligible. The affirmation "dropping two balls of the same size, of different materials, in many cases, will lead to the same fall time" is true. Plus you would literally require him to have two perfectly identically shaped objects to test your claim, otherwise he might claim those negligible differences are accounted for by small differences in shape, changing the drag coefficient.
You don't really have any "GOTCHA" moment here, but you're desperate to think you did it somehow, so I guess I'll just let you larp. For any practical purposes saying to someone they can prove Aristotle right through this terminal velocity discussion is a desperate move to just have the final word.

[Anonymous No.16322943]

>>16322863
I've got the groundwork for a new logic language. You just want to play the victim. No i got nothing out of your shit ideology because it's too shallow. I got more out of this, ontologically, than you have but it's just shit. Now existentially this may be huge for you but this is embarrassing if you're a god damned post grad anything.
Jesus christ dude. Your education has warped your ability to think. Taking math as an axiom and saying that logic defines those axioms doesn't mean math is unproven, or can't be proved. I don't want to sift through you 10 years of bs they brainwashed you with. I highly recommend you read plato/aristotle in terms of the mechanism/framework in which they get their conclusions. I would normally not say this but you don't criticize them with your own. You just learn right now, you need to unpack that shit ego your shit school fed you with. Just read gorgias and theatetus and if you agree then republic then aristotle. After them read parmenides and heraclitus. Their conclusions don't matter, just their metaphysics. Those presocs are metaphysical extremists. Then read a history of philosophy and try to engage their metaphysics with yours.

Also if you admit platonist math is regular for mathematicians then I expect you to retract op.

[Anonymous No.16322947]

>>16322893
From Einstein himself:
>"... an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?

In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..."
Read more here https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_GR_geometry/Einstein_on_Kant.html

Basically, Philosophers sometimes claim things to be a priory because they haven't thought or made enough experiments about it.

[Anonymous No.16322970]

>>16322892
There needs to be a name for this. You know that image about how vegans are living a lie, because they use all kinds of animal products without realizing? So much in your life is a result of science, yet you'll refuse to acknowledge so.

[Anonymous No.16322984]

>>16322931
but this is not miniscule at all! If we take the example of both balls being equally big but one being e. f. 4x heavier, the heavy object will fall at double the velocity of the light one after some seconds of free falling.

[Anonymous No.16322996]

>>16322970
If you're American did you know we had slavery in this country? It was a fundamental part of who we are. I'd wonder why you're still here.

You can reject something in part. I want to say, and I think it's very fair, nobody here is rejecting science entirely. We are rejecting your metaphysics. You can only understand consequences because that's all your school taught you. I will repeat, nobody is rejecting science. We are rejecting your shit scientific reductionist ideology. It is ass. You saying you like philosophy but still being a scientific reductionist does not change the criticism. You will not understand this because you can't understand anything aside from consequences. It's something your school will never teach you.

[Anonymous No.16323008]

>>16322943
Isn't the definition of axiom something which is taken to be self evidently true? How do you "prove" an axiom? I think you're confusing yourself there. Also, you people get incredibly defensive and it's extremely easy for you to disregard anything I say as being stupid/result of a faulty education/etc, while these are all just empty conjectures on your part. This is part of why it might seem I don't give much of a shit about the opinions you are giving. I don't, when they are shit. I've had the experience of having scientific discussions, of discussing things with reviewing panels, of reviewing works myself. You think some teenagers larping on a site claiming they somehow know infinitely more than I do about things in even my own area is gonna have much of an effect? This might be the first time in your life you actually spoke to an actual scientist about something.

[Anonymous No.16323035]

>>16322984
>Drop something from your hands.
>Some seconds of free falling.
You see the problem here, right? But in either case, even if he did realize objects in a fluid have a fall time dependent on mass through the terminal velocity term in the differential equation, claiming this is the same as Aristotle said is nonsense. It's really just stretching the definition a lot just so you can say "Aristotle was right all along" and win the discussion. Similar to epigenetics and Lamarckism, and etc.
For practical purposes air resistance is negligible in the cases I proposed, and the experiment I proposed would help him figure out when it isn't, and it doesn't even rule out your conclusion either. Again, you could claim Aristotle is right even just from the feather vs bowling ball example, by the same type of logic.

[Anonymous No.16323074]

>>16323008
I've spoken to ppl more educated than you buddy you come off as naive. Are you in your 20's?
That you won't admit platonist math is relevant and a direct counter to your argument in op is proof enough of your engagement.
An axiom is something which is taken as true and can't be proven in its field, yes. Godel proved this in math that you can't solve a field's axioms in its field. The axioms are solved in the field it takes axioms from. For instance the law of excluded middle was taken in science until quantum mechanics. Now they're taking a more intuitionist logic but you can't prove these axioms in physics, qm or classical, you can only show physical instances that seem to not be working with the axioms. Nobody is discounting you have an education, we're taking that as a given, but you're clearly incapable of a conversation like this so idk why you came in guns blazing especially with obvious counter evidence to your statement, again I am only citing mathematical platonism and not anything else like ethics etc which can't be proven in science.

[Anonymous No.16323077]

>>16322984
as you can see V_t ~ sqrt(m), the term below the denominator is constant (if you don't factor in the layered atmosphere). Playing with this expression is how sky diving works, in theory you can take a shit mid air to lower your terminal velocity.

[Anonymous No.16323084]

>>16322996
I'm not sure why you think people go to science schools to get indoctrinated into thinking in a specific way, while believing people in other walks of life, or more specifically humanities, or more specifically philosophy are supposedly the only free thinking agents and immune to said "brainwashing". I could just as easily claim you are brainwashed by your "school" to accept faulty metaphysics that include delirious unreal concepts and impenetrable meaningless jargon, and I would have plenty of acknowledged thinkers to back me up on it. But that kind of discussion is fruitless. Schopenhauer thought Hegel was a hack, Boltzmann thought Schopenhauer was a Hack, nearly every single of botlzmann's peers thought he was a hack to the poitn where he killed himself, and yet does this mean anything about the truth each of them might have said at some point? Of course not. Only someone really intellectually dishonest could think so. I'd really urge you to stop thinking in these terms and just test things for yourself.

Your comparison of science to slavery is yet another proof of intellectual dishonesty and fallacy, as I see it.

[Anonymous No.16323104]

>>16323084
Nobody say that you moron. You are extrapolating science axioms as reality. We can prove it's not by simply saying mathematical platonism.
Nobody compared science to slavery you comsequentualist fuck. Your argument framework was similar. You made a bad argument.
What is your iq, are you retarded? I'm just curious.

[Anonymous No.16323112]

>>16323084
Historical consequentualism can't account for mathematical platonism. You are done.

[Anonymous No.16323120]

>>16323074
>I've spoken to ppl more educated than you buddy
Irrelevant, also impossible for you to prove (if we have to even go there, also there is always someone smarter than both of us that disagrees with us. Refer to my Hegel/Schopenhauer/Boltzmann example. This is a diseased king of thinking that permeates this board and you people have yet to outgrow it.
>Invoking Godel's incompleteness where it doesn't apply.
Damn. You people shit on me so much but when you're put to the corner you also show some staggering level of pseudry.
Furthermore, if I understand you correctly, you're claiming mathematical platonism could be proven true by science. Is that right?

[Anonymous No.16323146]

>>16323120
You brought it up you stupid moron. I never bring it up. It your "diseased" projection.

Godel proved you can't solve math's axioms in math. Considering you have no rebuttal for computability in other fields then I invite you to shut up.
No mathematical platonism, like any math that takes a metaphysics as an axiom, cannot be proven in science. Science is just interpreting physical instances or observations. Math is not physical.

[Anonymous No.16323178]

>>16323146
Godel's incompleteness is not concerned with proving axioms. You can't prove axioms. It's definitional. The minute you prove one, it's not an axiom anymore. Godel's incompleteness says you can formulate statements within an axiomatic framework that can't be proven. There is a difference there, and even then it's entirely irrelevant to the application you're trying to force here.

[Anonymous No.16323192]

>>16315166
bruh kant literally compared his epistemology to the copernican revolution

[Anonymous No.16323196]

>>16323178
No it's not retard.

Also obligatory mathematical platonism refutes your op and you still won't admit it because you're a consequentualist fuck that has made you an egotist.

[Anonymous No.16323207]

>>16323196
>obligatory mathematical platonism refutes your op
How?
Also, you haven't answered. Is your claim to Godel's incompleteness that while somehow math itself can't prove mathematical platonism, science could because it's outside of math? Is this what you're saying? Yes or no?

[Anonymous No.16323210]

>>16323178
When will you accept you've skipped over many arguments and direct contradictions to all your nonsense? Can the consequentualist accept he is wrong?

[Anonymous No.16323219]

>>16323207
gee idk you claimed platonism was entierly irrelevant because it's refuted by science.
Can you really say science can rove its axioms? You've already said no. Let's see what you say.

[Anonymous No.16323242]

>>16323207
no you moron you stupid illiterate fuck. I'm saying science cannot prove it. Wtf r u reading stupid? Are you esl? Wtf is wrong w you

[Anonymous No.16323261]

>>16315166
Prove to me empirically the principle of non contradiction (which is a fundamental basis for empirical science) and that the sun will come up everyday or won't come up everyday

[Anonymous No.16323269]

>>16323207
this is proof it doesn't matter wtf u say. You're not going to read it and are going to put it back in your paradigm in some warped way.

Science is derivative of math, okay stupid? Derivative means its answers aren't as universal. So if math can't prove mathematical platonism why in fuck's name would you think im saying science can. I haven't once said science can solve anything. It can, first time saying that, but it only solves material instances in a physical framework. It can't solve shit in fields it takes axioms from.

[Anonymous No.16323284]

>>16323207
This is highly educational for you. It's not for anyone on this board. You are a moron with shit arguments and a shit framework

[Anonymous No.16323321]

>>16323207
by postgrad you mean you have a doctorate right? Well I'm glad I'm going in the right direction and you went in the wrong. When I get to physics I'll study it analytically instead of empirically

[Anonymous No.16323364]

>>16323242
I'll propose you a challenge. Try to write your next answer without name-calling. Imagine you're writing this in a public forum where every scholar in your university can read your answer, and it's under broader scrutiny. It's not on me that you wrote vague things and so far my English hasn't been any less proficient than yours. I mean just look at your own post.
>>16323219
I honestly couldn't find where I said this. Can you quote the specific post?
>>16323261
>Prove to me empirically the principle of non contradiction
Again, and I've already stated this, I believe if this didn't lead to measurable conclusions in physical reality, we would discard it. See my example of fuzzy logic.
>>16323269
>Science is derivative of math, okay stupid?
Lol. So this was the big punch you were saving. I'm not gonna repeat everything I think and already wrote in the thread regarding this, I'm sorry. Especially not for someone who argues like you do, with 90% name calling and 10% vaguely constructed criticism. I already stated how I think math arose as the main language of science above, and it's relevant to your point.
>>16323284
Hegel/Schopenhauer/Boltzmann, see above. You can think I'm literally the lowest IQ idiot who ever roamed the planet, and this might instill you deep anger. It is still not an argument, and is irrelevant.
>>16323321
This is one of the most amazing things I've ever read in my life.

[Anonymous No.16323406]

>>16323364
No you dumbfuck. You're on our board. You came here acting like you could strut. Many academics, publishers, writers etc post here you stupid newfag.

You fucked up. I'm not responding to you. Your consequentualist ass will think that means you won. But you lost so much and your paradigm can't allow it. But rest assured everyone knows you lost.

[Anonymous No.16323420]

>>16323406
I will highlight because your empiricist ass can only think in experiments, take this as another point of data which proves you wrong (go hide out in some science forum that tells you you're right so your data points saying you're correct creeps back up). Mathematical platonism is basically rambling that most mathematicians accept. You are contradicted. Bad reasoning. Experimentalism did not help you here. Good bye

[Anonymous No.16323431]

>>16323178
>NOOOOOOOO! YOU CANT JUST LIKE PROVE AXIOMS WTF NOOOOOOO! ITS DEFINITIONAL!
shut up pedant you know what it means. Now stop avoiding the argument by splitting hairs, only an autist gets caught up in semantics games. Now how's that for an "intellectual disease"! LMAO your insecurity is showing, bill nye. Your "intellect" is nothing.

[Anonymous No.16323443]

>>16315166
No.

[Anonymous No.16323474]

>>16323406
>>16323420
Are you writing in multiple posts or is this two different people?
Point by point

1 - I never said philosophers don't accept philosophy.
2 - Mathematicians are not scientists, we seemingly agree on this. We might argue whether they are philosophers or not, but mathematicians accepting mathematical Platonism is not in contradiction to the highlighted paragraph.
3 - The highlighted paragraph does not state science refuted mathematical platonism.
4 - The OP says philosophy should use the state of the art to inform itself and update where necessary. As far as I understand this has indeed happened with mathematical Platonism. Modern science might use mathematical Platonism to conceptualize theoretical models (which I'm not even sure it's true in general but let's say it is), and then adds the bulk of scientific methodology to that in order to create models of reality. This does not go against the original post.
>>16323431
Seriously, just imagine writing this post to a scholar, in a scholarly debate. Look deeply into it and see if you actually made an argument in this entire sentence.

I think I already got as much as I'll get from this thread. There were like 2 or 3 well meaning people who gave insightful answers. The rest seems like a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.16323577]

>>16315180
there are two kinds of men in this world

[Anonymous No.16323594]

>>16323008
>This might be the first time in your life you actually spoke to an actual scientist about something
Truly a blessed day, please accept my deepest gratitude

[Anonymous No.16323631]

>>16315166
>he has faith in science
lmao

[Anonymous No.16324934]

die stupid thread die
fuck stemtards
sage