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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 283 KB, 1280x960, 1555936312880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19363366 No.19363366[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Just look at the data. The position which has more correct data is true.
Is there a name for this philosophy? Is there a valid critique of it?

>> No.19363403

>>19363366
Sounds like a pretty racist and antisemitic philosophy to me

>> No.19363411

>>19363366
Argumentum ad numerem is a logical fallacy.

>> No.19363434

Is philosophy without a reference to any philosophical text allowed here again?

>> No.19363442

>>19363366
Bah, it was that simple all along! Just look at number and pick betterer number! OP has demonstrably solved philosophy and subsequently all human discourse!
Wait a second what makes a number betterer, again?

>> No.19363444

>>19363366
What is "correct data"? Data is just data. Turning data into useful information requires interpretation and analysis which is subjective. You can give the exact same data to two people and they can disagree with what it means and what the implications are. There's nothing more insufferable than the faggots who think just because they have data it automatically means their interpretation and solution from that data needs to be accepted by everyone.

>> No.19363461
File: 133 KB, 1400x1400, 12f343938f2e7afee46a4ed697d1205e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19363461

>>19363366
1. Data is theory-laden. Interpreting it correctly requires a correct framework.
2. Saying that correct data makes it true is circular.
3. You need justification for why the data is able to show truth in the first place, which is not found in the data itself.

>> No.19363466

>>19363434
Ah yes, this was written in my diary desu.

>> No.19363476
File: 114 KB, 1400x1080, sam-hyde-1632342628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19363476

>>19363366
That sounds like his philosophy.

>> No.19363484

>>19363461
Can't take Dyer seriously anymore since he got wrecked by Trent Horn

>> No.19363485

>>19363484
>Trent Horn
>we believe in one god as the muslims
>abraham didn't know the trinity
lol.

>> No.19363489
File: 796 KB, 647x656, 1636353595515.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19363489

>>19363485
Also
>natural death before the fall

>> No.19363493

>>19363485
>Dyer
>You need to smoke a fuckton of weed to be a good theologian
Dyer fears the Dimonds
https://youtu.be/XRLOQUnw-FY

>> No.19363494

>>19363366
Define data. If I poll three homeless people living under a bridge on who the current president of the United States is, and two agree that it's Lyndon Johnson, is that data?
What you're describing is basically Positivism, but you're wanting more rigorous terms.

>> No.19363505

>>19363493
>>You need to smoke a fuckton of weed to be a good theologian
not an argument.
>Dimonds
Weren't they literally a two-man "monastery" in schism with any apostolic church?

>> No.19363511

>>19363366
Empiricism

>> No.19364280

Based thread