Anti science philosophers

[Anonymous No.20639197]

anti evolution, anti science cultist, anti all science...

Also, does science have a unique methodology compare to other disciplines? Was Feyerabend correct that everything has methodology?

[Anonymous No.20639206]

>>20639197
Why haven’t you started with the Greeks yet?

[Anonymous No.20639214]

>>20639206
Greeks are proto-enlightenment, overrated

[Anonymous No.20639287]

>>20639197
Why is that quote anti science?

>does science have a unique methodology compare to other disciplines?
Do test that can disprove theories. See which theories are left. That is the only meaningful definition of science and it's why an entry containing the single word "evolution" isn't in the official canonical encyclopedia of scientific facts, wherever that is.

[Anonymous No.20639295]

>One of the many remarkable features of Popper’s thought is the scope of his intellectual influence: he was lauded by Bertrand Russell, taught Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend and philanthropist George Soros
>George Soros

wtf I love Evolution now

[Anonymous No.20639306]

>>20639295
The WEF is pretending to like analytic philosophers to drive their enemies towards postmodern leftists.

[Anonymous No.20639317]

>>20639306
Occam's Razor my nigga
you played yaself

[Anonymous No.20639705]

>>20639287
>Do test that can disprove theories. See which theories are left.

that is not unique to science actually.

>>20639295
>>George Soros

shieeet nigga, had no idea

>>20639306
>analytic philosophers

phils of science are not anality phi

[Anonymous No.20639716]

>>20639705
George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is named after Popper’s Open Society concept. Soros is just applied Popperianism

>>20639197
I fucking hate this kike like you wouldnt believe. Everything he said is a lie. Wonder why a dysgenic cosmopolitan would be against the theory of evolution. Gets the noggin joggin

[Anonymous No.20639748]

>>20639197
Is it not a fact that we are primates?

[Anonymous No.20639810]

>>20639716
>Popper’s Open Society
>Everything he said is a lie

His political "philosophy" is just tribalism for the tribe, nothing unexpected but his philosophy of science is pretty decent. Sure his tribal interests got in the way of intelelctual honesty with time and position at Cambridge but earlier work, his falsifiabiltiy criteria is 100% legit, evolution is catch22, from a cultural point evolution is nihilistic, postmodern pseudoscience.

>>20639748
evolution is pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.20639824]

>itt: luddites who couldn't hack it in STEM

[Anonymous No.20639825]

>>20639705
>>Do test that can disprove theories. See which theories are left.
>that is not unique to science actually.
That is the definition of science. If you're doing that but not scientifically proving anything it's because your "theories" aren't falsifiable and have no actual connection to your "tests".

[Anonymous No.20639834]

>>20639825
>without God the universe couldn't exist
>does the universe exist?
Checkmate gaytheists

[Anonymous No.20639837]

>>20639748
We are Apes actually. Not primates

[Anonymous No.20639856]

>>20639825
>That is the definition of science.

Feyerabneds point is that that definition is unprecise, scientific methodology existed before according to him.

>not scientifically proving anything it's because your "theories" aren't falsifiable and have no actual connection to your "tests".

how do you evaluate evolution according to this?

>>20639824
>luddites

far from it, this is s MSGA thread.

[Anonymous No.20639858]

>using the latest tech to post anti-tech threads on 4chan

[Anonymous No.20639860]

>>20639837
Apes are primates but not all primates are apes

[Anonymous No.20639868]

>>20639856
Maryland State Golf Association?

[Anonymous No.20639894]

>>20639856
People do a lot of shit before proceeding to incoherently argue it was proof of what they want to be true. What does them being bad at thinking have to do with anything?

>how do you evaluate evolution according to this?
Give me a theory instead of just saying a word and I'll tell you.

[Anonymous No.20639963]

>>20639894
>Give me a theory instead of just saying a word and I'll tell you.
Have you heard of the Bible? Hello?

[Anonymous No.20640024]

>>20639963
I dare you to post dumb wojack 93

[Anonymous No.20640690]

>>20639214
>Greeks
>proto-Enlightenment

[Anonymous No.20640697]

>>20639894
>What does them being bad at thinking have to do with anything?
Science is the epitome of people who can't think. It's the only faculty of knowledge where you don't have to be capable of clear and powerful abstract thought to actually make progress. Mathematics alone shits all over science in terms of intellectual acumen required.

[Anonymous No.20640745]

>>20639894
>Give me a theory
Humans have "evolved" from fish-like ancestors. Firstly, how do you even reformulate this as a testable hypothesis. And secondly how can it be conclusively shown that "natural selection" is real and not an unfalsifiable metaphysical copout? Evolutionists go from arguing "only the most fit survive and increase", to having their tongue twisted when asked what "most fit" actually means, because it turns out to be an unfalsifiable bit of verbiage which just stands as a placeholder for "whatever happens to appear", which obviously does not explain anything, but appears to when you rename it to "natural selection." It seems like "common sense" until you notice you cannot demonstrate that it is real scientifically.
>>20639287
>Do test that can disprove theories. See which theories are left.
You forgot verifiability. If science is only considered by this criterion someone could come up with their own scientifically valid corpus of knowledge which could not be verified by anyone else. It's also almost disproven by the state of modern physics today because there are more than two co-existing accepted theories which both cause measurement discrepancies of over 100 orders of magnitude when applied between the two fields, yet both are still considered valid. Scientific research is just as dependent upon theoretical constructs as certain other fields.

[Anonymous No.20640838]

>>20640745
Evolution gives predictions about what kinds of fossils we expect to find from various periods of time. I'm not an expert, but I think we don't expect to see any human-like fossils from the Jurassic period. If we did, that would basically falsify the current theory.

We also *do* expect to find increasingly modern-human-like fossils as we get closer to modern times. We should see a gradual progression. If we saw something besides this, it would need to be explained somehow, and it might lead to the theory being dropped or significantly reworked.

[Anonymous No.20640923]

>>20640838
>Evolution gives predictions about what kinds of fossils we expect to find from various periods of time
It doesn't. We know what fossils we expect to find in certain eras due to the large amount of fossils we've already collected from the relevant geological samples. We find huge amounts of dinosaur fossils in the Jurassic period, therefore we expect to only find more of the same when unearthing new specimens.
>We also *do* expect to find increasingly modern-human-like fossils as we get closer to modern times.
Correct, but not due to anything evolution has predicted for us.
>We should see a gradual progression
Which we don't. It's one of the biggest holes in the theory, actually. There are almost no gradual changes, according to the fossil record changes occur in large leaps, and then once that leap has occurred there are relatively minor phenotypical fluctuations around certain distinguishable types of organisms.

[Anonymous No.20640935]

>>20640923
>We know what fossils we expect to find in certain eras due to the large amount of fossils we've already collected from the relevant geological samples.
I was just trying to argue that the theory of evolution is falsifiable. Evolution predicts that there are no fossils resembling modern humans from the Jurassic era. Therefore, if we find one, it falsifies the theory. Do we agree on this?

[Anonymous No.20640945]

>>20640935
>Evolution predicts that there are no fossils resembling modern humans from the Jurassic era.
No, because all that demonstrates is that there were humans in the Jurassic era. The theory itself could be reformulated in all kinds of ways around that fact - exactly because it is unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.20640962]

>>20640945
Well, it would require a pretty significant reformulation of the theory, at which point you might say it's a different theory altogether. I actually just googled around and found this exact idea, with discussion of whether it would disprove evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit#Would_anachronistic_fossils_disprove_evolution?
In summary, it would disprove parts of "Evolution", which itself is a collection of numerous separate ideas.

And Wikipedia actually lists a bunch of ways evolution could be falsified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability.. Do you disagree with all of these?

[Anonymous No.20640993]

science is the biggest spook today.

[Anonymous No.20641021]

>>20639810
>oh yeah my little dark age edit will show them
go back to tiktok

[Anonymous No.20641029]

>>20640962
>it would disprove parts of "Evolution"
It would only disprove a particular theory of geologic history, not evolution.
>the fossil record showing no change over time,
It could simply be that there were no dynamic forces (see: "natural selection") acting on the historic populations. This is already the case for certain kinds of bacteria and other organisms which have not changed at all for millions or even a billion years. At the same time, this claim is absurd because our world is necessarily subject to all kinds of change, changes which are not biological (evolutionary) in origin, so it would be de facto unfalsifiable because it's impossible for anything to remain the same forever.
>confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating in a population, or
Only shows that these mutations are not beneficial according to the evolutionary presuppositions. In fact, empirically we have determined that mutations do not build up in populations because they are 99.9999% of the time detrimental (and this is only for microevolutionary changes). But it's scientifically impossible to demonstrate a negative (that something cannot occur), so this is a scientifically unfalsifiable claim itself.
>observations of organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.
Even if an organism is created supernaturally (whatever that actually means, because science would by definition never be able to designate a cause as supernatural, making this explanation de jure unfalsifiable in itself), it could still be subject to the forces of evolution after its creation. The point being that evolution is not the only biological explanation, does not mean that it is falsified thereby.

All of these do not actually falsify it. In fact two of these rebuttals are themselves unfalsifiable, making me think whoever wrote this wiki article is bordering on braindead.

[Anonymous No.20641057]

>>20641029
>>observations of organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.
>spontaneously
Evolutionists already accept this as part and parcel of the evolutionary theory. The idea is organic matter originally formed spontaneously out of inorganic matter, at which point evolution begins to apply. Of course, none of them can actually say at what point exactly evolution starts to apply, because they cannot define where life begins and the inorganic realm ends. Perhaps the inorganic realm should be the next frontier for evolutionists.

[Anonymous No.20641082]

>>20641029
The wiki editorialized the source in a way that made it a little more confusing. Here's the original

>There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
>>a static fossil record;
>>true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
>>a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
>>observations of organisms being created.

from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

If you can find a mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating, then you know they can't accumulate.

[Anonymous No.20641113]

>>20641082
>If you can find a mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating
That is what "natural selection" is, along with the powerful immune systems of most complex organisms. "Nature" selects against the accumulation of mutations. We already have that mechanism, yet it does not falsify the theory of evolution because all evolution needs is the tiniest amount of leeway, less than 0.0000001% of a chance in order to remain valid. So long as we cannot deductively prove that mutations cannot occur (which we never can obviously), then evolution will remain valid, ergo unfalsifiable.
>The wiki editorialized the source in a way that made it a little more confusing. Here's the original
My points still apply to all of these. Chimeras fall under the same general argument as the third point I responded to.

[Anonymous No.20641115]

>>20641113
>So long as we cannot deductively prove that mutations cannot occur
Cannot occur AND accumulate*