>tfw can't unread the read >can't see science and scientists in the same light ever again well, i guess, that's that

File: 15 KB, 300x300, 41RM+YbEv3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:44:20 2013 No.3540469 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw can't unread the read
>can't see science and scientists in the same light ever again

well, i guess, that's that

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:46:20 2013 No.3540476 Loosing yourself of dogma can be enormously freeing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:47:20 2013 No.3540479 That's a good book, Anal Crust should read it...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:49:20 2013 No.3540484 >>3540476 I agree: protocols and procedures, self-correcting methodologies are far more useful and liberating than adherence to some philosophical dogma. glad to see philosophers are catching up with scientists and doing away with them.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:53:20 2013 No.3540495

>>3540484
>protocols and procedures, self-correcting methodologies are far more useful and liberating than adherence to some philosophical dogma. glad to see philosophers are catching up with scientists and doing away with them.
Did you even read the book? Scientists are the ones that lack philosophical depth, not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 10:55:20 2013 No.3540501 >>3540495 That's what he was saying. I think.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:00:20 2013 No.3540516

>>3540501
Exactly: like dogma, philosophical depth is an obstacle to discovering valid, testable replicatable phenomena. It's too centripetal. Too vague and esoteric, and it doesn't admit of testing against observable reality.

Buy a hand lens and some calipers. Change your life. It's teh Source, Dude.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:02:20 2013 No.3540529 >>3540516 Read the fucking book, man. Holy shit. You really need to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:03:20 2013 No.3540530 so what's the difference between this work and Khun's scientific revolution?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:12:21 2013 No.3540557

>>3540530
If I remember correctly, the response to Kuhn is both that even after a "paradigm shift", there's a mechanism at work whereby the new model is made to fit to parts of the old model (because experts want to remain experts), and Feyerabend advocates rather than learning/using a small set of models, a more plural approach whereby people learn about all kinds of varied explanations in Science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:23:21 2013 No.3540583 >>3540530 Kuhn debunks the idea that science is strictly cumulative, adding knowledge to knowledge like building a brick wall. Feyerabend makes a compelling case that scientific methodologies cannot be evaluated in any neutral framework.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:25:21 2013 No.3540587 File: 6 KB, 420x336, tumblr_m1lre6oLPQ1qf9if6o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Take the redpill, /lit/ >>>/sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:28:20 2013 No.3540593 File: 9 KB, 320x180, totalrecall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540587 I could pull this trigger and it won't matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:34:21 2013 No.3540602 File: 31 KB, 252x239, TS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540583 Every methodology has a metaphysical foundation and, as a result, a value system. Neutrality is futile.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:34:21 2013 No.3540605 File: 231 KB, 250x141, imthesmartestracooniknow.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540587 I dont think so, Tim.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:35:20 2013 No.3540606 >>3540602 Back to /r/eddit with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:35:20 2013 No.3540608 >>3540587 >Take the redpill, /lit/ >implying I don't take both pills and wash them down with a dram of Ardbeg Uigeadail

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:36:20 2013 No.3540609 >>3540602 only on /lit/ when bullshit tries to be non-bullshit

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:36:20 2013 No.3540610 >>3540606 Dam it!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:48:20 2013 No.3540635 >>3540583 So which would be better to read first, for a /sci/ guy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:51:20 2013 No.3540644 File: 104 KB, 515x515, 1349569089092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540516

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 11:56:20 2013 No.3540650

You know, speaking as a scientist (not a science major: twenty years actual field experience), none of this matters.

I mean, when you're out in the field and you have to figure out why the distributions of prairie grasses have shifted north in the last three hundred years, or you need to find out why the copper salt levels are rising in reservoirs, the scientific method and basic experimental protocols are the only things that will help. And they'll answer your questions perfectly adequately. For 99.9% (at 98 percent confidence with two degrees of freedom) of the daily problems you encounter they're all you are going to need. And that's pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:00:20 2013 No.3540659

>>3540650
>I mean, when you're out in the field and you have to figure out why the distributions of prairie grasses have shifted north in the last three hundred years, or you need to find out why the copper salt levels are rising in reservoirs
>as a scientist
I hardly feel you are in a position to talk about all science. Further to that, some of the crap I've seen cited in ecological studies is shocking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:02:21 2013 No.3540663 >>3540635 do you really want your highly cherished dogmas of science to be shattered, get angry and depressed at the same time?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:12:20 2013 No.3540693 What was Carl Sagan's take on this book?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:14:20 2013 No.3540698 >>3540693 "If you can't take science at its worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve it at its best"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:14:20 2013 No.3540699 Summarise the book in one sentence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:14:21 2013 No.3540697 >>3540693 Who cares what a TV host thinks?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:15:20 2013 No.3540702 >>3540699 Against Method.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:15:20 2013 No.3540703 >>3540699 Just read the Wikipedia article.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:16:20 2013 No.3540706 >>3540703 Was doing just that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:18:20 2013 No.3540710 Post a thread in /sci/. We'll bump it and see what they say. >Hey /sci/, checkmate.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:18:20 2013 No.3540712

>>3540699
Science is a series paradigmatic shifts that provides great insights and progress but to get that you need to be a radical with an open mind studying beyond the conventional methodology the teaching of which stagnates the entire enterprise into simple circle jerking empiricism (a form of religious worship).

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:21:20 2013 No.3540716 >>3540712 Thanks, sounds great. >When science is sacred now, who can save us from ourselves? Wise words, wise words.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:25:21 2013 No.3540727

>>3540712
In other words, be Feynman, not Dawkins.

The latter is fine for teaching which is going to be conservative, conventional, reactionary as it's just communicating the simple established elements but all disciplines have a front line on which they need imaginative artists or else the field is unable to change while the world changes round about it.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:25:21 2013 No.3540729

>Angsty teen age shit hipster who doesn't know a shit about science misinterpreting the book.

The Scientific Method is proven, by the fact that it actually works. The rigorous method of falsification are there to improve existing models not to create paradigm shifts.

For that someone who thinks outside the box needs to come along, but thinking outside the box won't lead to the results alone.

You need the cummulative wealth of the science in your subject in order to see where the things are wrong.

It's literally like asking someone who doesn't know the first shit about drains to become a plumber. He doesn't even know where to look.

It is also the argument used by hack writers on /lit/ thinking they write experimental and alt-lit, even though they don't know anything about creating a story in the first place.

In fact with your way of thinking it's an argument about anykind of learning - like the school system.

In fact reading is based on the very same methodology. Why bother learning how to read? We will never have a paradigm shift! Nope, what is more likely is that you will invent the same wheel over and over and over again.

Why bother with the school system?

Pffhhh...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:26:21 2013 No.3540731 >>3540609 I don't understand. Science has truth-value within its own region of language, the minute you try to extend that truth value into a non-scientific domain, you are making a philosophical decision.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:26:21 2013 No.3540732 >>3540699 Science is just as dogmatic as religion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:27:20 2013 No.3540738 >>3540697 2/10 try harder

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:29:20 2013 No.3540744 >>3540732 >Science is just as dogmatic as religion. Exactly. There is absolutely no evidence for any empirically deduced models of reality. Relativism applies to everything. You fucking dunce.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:29:21 2013 No.3540748 >>>/sci/5592809 here we go

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:30:21 2013 No.3540753 >>3540732 Second.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:30:21 2013 No.3540754

>>3540659
That's sort of my point: if it's not relevant ot an actual scientist, practicing science, it's not really relevant TO science.

It's like being an artist and being an art critic. The artist really doesn't need to pay attention to, or understand the standards of, the critic to do what he does. It might help him, it might not, but it ain't art.

I'm not saying you can't talk about science without being a scientist though. I quite understand that years of experience in the field, teaching in the field and the laboratory, being well -accepted by the scientific community in no way qualifies me to discuss it in the sense you mean.

I'm certainly far more qualified than any philosopher or non-scientist of course, but that's like saying a plumber is better at soldering than a little league pitcher is. What's needed to address your point unfortuanately might not exist: you'd need a historian, scientist and philosopher. And unfortunately Russell is dead. I'd take Asimov in a pinch, but, well, there's the dead thing again...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:30:21 2013 No.3540755 >>3540727 No, be Bohr, not Feynman. Feynman lacked philosophical depth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:31:20 2013 No.3540758 >>3540753 >>3540732 >dat solipsism Only I know the true way. Do not listen to the millions of researchers of religious worshippers around the world. Listen to me! For I, and I alone know the state of the world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:31:21 2013 No.3540756 >>3540738 Sorry. Mediocre astronomer/TV host

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:31:21 2013 No.3540757 >>3540729 >The Scientific Method is proven, by the fact that it actually works. I think therefore I am.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:32:20 2013 No.3540760 >>3540755 Or even Einstein or Schrondinger.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:32:20 2013 No.3540763 >>3540732 give an example of a scientific dogma

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:33:21 2013 No.3540765 Please /lit/ stop embarassing yourselves.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:33:21 2013 No.3540766

>>3540729
>The Scientific Method is proven, by the fact that it actually works.

False. Consider the following example.

>C14 tests on snail shell
>we know the snail is no more than a year old
>C14 results suggest it's a million years old
>test again
>get different results
>pick result closer to what we know
>it works!

When this is applied to things whose ages we don't actually know: your method merely proves nothing but itself.

Peer-reviewing is similar: only people who already agree with you will let you have a say. It's a way to reduce the field.

The fact that most scientists are hired whores who work for corporations whose purpose is to make money only doesn't help the scientific cause.

They're just lab whores now, focused on such details that no big picture ever enters their mind.

This is why so many of them don't even wonder about much concerning the universe or God or any driving principle of lack thereof.

They don't question anything anymore. They became scientists because they were good at memorising what was in their books, not because they had brilliant, original ideas.

That's how you get stuck in ideological dogmas for decades.

Welcome to the new Dark Ages: the Age of Scientism.

>>	entry level trollan itt Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:36:21 2013 No.3540773 File: 35 KB, 205x229, 1359812915605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Responding to this guy >>3540766 ishig

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:38:20 2013 No.3540779

>>3540763

>The Scientific Method is proven, by the fact that it actually works.

But I'll give you a better one:

>reality is real

Since science solely resorts to the outside world to prove the existence of that very outside world, its evidence is worthless. It's circular logic. In fact, few scientists even consider the question.

Scientists are OK until they look away from the telescope or microscope;beyond that, they're confused like toddlers upon waking.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:39:20 2013 No.3540781

>>3540766
You don't know the first thing about science do you?

They get an accurate result, not a truth.
A scientist would put it like this: With our current method, this is how it works, and it the best available result we could get. Further research is recommended in the subject matter.

And it seems like you don't know the first thing about writing scientific articles at all. It strives to criticize your own article and other articles, and isn't that the element of critical thinking.

Working at a university, not studying (which I doubt you do), really opens up your eyes to the kind of people who work there. And they are far from lacking in philosophical ideas.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:41:20 2013 No.3540786

>>3540754
>I'm not saying you can't talk about science without being a scientist though. I quite understand that years of experience in the field, teaching in the field and the laboratory, being well -accepted by the scientific community in no way qualifies me to discuss it in the sense you mean.
What I am saying is is that you are in no way a scientist par excellence, at least not in the way Feyerabend is talking. His focus is more on physicists and chemists, where there's a stronger theoretical/experimental division. I would still think him relevant, however, to work looking at "environmental impact" or any form of social angle.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 12:42:20 2013 No.3540789 retarded english majors lookig for relevance

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:42:20 2013 No.3540790 >>3540781 >you can only criticize the scientific method if you have spent years in an expensive cloister/daycare with its' advocates

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:44:20 2013 No.3540800 >>3540781 >You don't know the first thing about science do you? >They get an accurate result, not a truth. I wouldn't ask the first question if you don't even know the whole accuracy/precision thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:45:20 2013 No.3540802 File: 1.40 MB, 375x283, 1344974207751.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540766 >Welcome to the new Dark Ages: the Age of Scientism. Is there a cure? With the birth of internet, it only further spreads and advocates the scientific dogma

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:45:20 2013 No.3540803

>>3540729
It doesn't reject the scientific method. It says that for the scientific method to work you need to start with a hypothesis. That requires creativity and imagination, thinking about how the world could be or how things might work.
The scientific method without that is just endless rigorous testing on things for which we already have an comprehensive understanding.
The entire project of science started when someone had the gall to break from the norm. Without that you wouldn't have anything to test.
Scientists who reject alternative visions of understanding and investigation are neglecting the basis for their own field.
It's usually because they're not educated enough and science is kind of like a political conviction which why they get insecure and have to fight against religious faith and alternative medicine. Real visionaries don't reject these things on dogmatic terms. They use the insight provided to invent their creative questions to ask the world.the entire field of 'theoretical [whatever]' is devoted to that imagination that engenders innovation. At the same time, the dogmatists would have us doing the same engineering and medical procedures forever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:45:21 2013 No.3540804 >>3540781 I'd love to believe you but every time I've engaged a "scientist" in a philosophical discussion, I didn't get Einstein, I got Mohammed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:46:20 2013 No.3540805 >>3540802 We have to become rich.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:46:20 2013 No.3540807 >>3540789 >retarded english majors lookig for relevance >lookig >no caps, no punctuation Sounds like you need some English education, friend.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:47:20 2013 No.3540808 science is great for producing plastic baubles and convenient yet nutrient-deficient foods, but skepticism is the only intellectually honest position

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:47:22 2013 No.3540809 >>3540805 Too much effort. Back to masturbating and reading 19th century books I go.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:47:22 2013 No.3540812 >>3540808 >but skepticism is the only intellectually honest position Yet how many know what "skeptic" fucking means? Because literally everyone that deems himself a "skeptic" is everything but.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:48:22 2013 No.3540815 >>3540789 retarded instrumentalist trying to defend his dogmatic and brainwashed reasoning by ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:49:20 2013 No.3540821 File: 72 KB, 555x710, look-im-feeding-the-trolls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540808 holy fuck 9/10 almost wrote a paragraph

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:49:20 2013 No.3540822 >>3540807 Please don't pay attention to onionring.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:49:22 2013 No.3540819 >>3540812 You seem very skeptical.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:50:20 2013 No.3540824 >>3540812 i mean radical pyrrhonian skepticism, or the kind of thing unger defends in 'ignorance'

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:50:20 2013 No.3540825 >>3540821 >don't like it >it's trolling

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:51:20 2013 No.3540827

>>3540819

Trap detected.

A true skeptic is someone who doesn't judge and keep searching. That's hardly the attitude of many scientists.

Does it sound to you like Dawkins is anything "skeptical" about God?

If scientists weren't so scared of new things, we'd have cures for cancer right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:51:20 2013 No.3540829 >>3540821 >almost wrote a paragraph You can't "almost" write a paragraph, asshole.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:52:20 2013 No.3540833

>>3540804
Since I work with a good STEM professor, millionaire and electrophysicist, I can tell you that there isn't by random chance that all his experiments and projects are named after greek gods. His office is littered with classical works, not scientific publications.

In fact my entire department regularly discuss philosophical ideas.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:52:20 2013 No.3540834

>>3540824

I wasn't going that far, although you could. That's why science only has models and theories, no truths.

Even science can't go beyond a certain point, and they hate to be reminded of that.

That hate they usually take out and self-project on Christians.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:53:20 2013 No.3540838 File: 27 KB, 240x286, taiogenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540827 >dfw you will never find an honest person

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:53:20 2013 No.3540839 'Think we're starting to derail the thread by invoking shit-tier scientists such as Dawkins into the discussion We have awaken the brainwashed apes of /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:54:20 2013 No.3540841 >>3540822 Just you wait until she publishes her earth-shattering work! We'll all be sorry when naturalism rises again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:55:20 2013 No.3540845 >>3540833 >I can tell you that there isn't by random chance that all his experiments and projects are named after greek gods. So a good classical sophist then?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:55:21 2013 No.3540847

>>3540833

I'm glad to hear that. I'm indeed an English major (amongst other things) but I have a secret interest for science.

What always kept me from it was the attitude of some and my natural inability to do maths. And boy, I tried. I went to the scientific section between the ages of 12 to 16, that's where I learned I wasn't cut out for science (or at least maths).

That said, I'm Swiss. Our standards are different. What I've done in High School on the low level of maths is probably higher than what you guys needed before doing maths at university.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:57:21 2013 No.3540849 File: 79 KB, 500x333, laff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540841 >earth-shattering work >naturalism >she >her

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:58:21 2013 No.3540851

>>3540847
>What I've done in High School on the low level of maths is probably higher than what you guys needed before doing maths at university.
A good friend of mine failed his undergrad masters and was immediately accepted to a course in Switzerland. Your science education is okay, but it's by no means amazing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 12:59:21 2013 No.3540854 >all of science presupposes the validity of inductive reasoning >it's impossible to establish the validity of inductive reasoning using scientific means that right there is the problem, sci bros. you gotta make quite the leap of faith

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:00:20 2013 No.3540858 >>3540469 I know a similar feel. >tfw can't unread Ishmael >can't see history, religion, and philosophy in the same light again

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:00:20 2013 No.3540859 >>3540854 >>all of science presupposes the validity of inductive reasoning P sure Popper took an axe to that one.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:01:20 2013 No.3540860

>>3540786
Except you're wrong: In many ways I define the "scientist par excellence" as you put it. Much more than a simple physicist or chemist would, since as a biologist i have to understand their fiields a lot beter than they have to understand mine. I've never done any work in physics, but I've done quite a bit of cell and molecular, which is chemistry of a sort.

And Ed Wilson liked me well enough and certainly never disparaged my credentials, and if you want a philosopher of science you wouldn't look farther than him.

Sorry for the digs at chemistry and physics. It's a science thing. We life science guys are quite aware that the stink boys and the fumblers have their place in the heirarchy of science, just like us Real Scientists....

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:01:20 2013 No.3540862

>>3540845
Well yes, but I'd say that is a general trait in the STEM fields. The research is so specialized that you cut into unknown areas all the time that are bound to tie together with philosophical and meta-physical concepts.

I don't think it's an accident that "meta-physics" meaning "after physics" got it's name because the discussion of what it means to be came after the physics section of aristotoles works.

If you work in any field that long you are bound to run into existential questions.

The other part is the fact that most scientists in my dept. have an enormous curiosity of the world, and only wants to know more and more and more. They strive to understand what they see and observe. It's an addiciting experience, perhaps like a physical regime is to some.

Of course the greeks praised both of these two institutions because they both are addicting as hell. The same can be observed when you get hooked on reading. Same mechanisms. The more you read literature, the more you will slowly start to dip into philosophy.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:03:20 2013 No.3540865

>>3540860
>Much more than a simple physicist or chemist would, since as a biologist i have to understand their fiields a lot beter than they have to understand mine.
>thinks he can talk outside his area of expertise
You're a total idiot, and an arrogant one to boot. You should also look up what "par excellence" means before having a mini-tantrum about it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:03:20 2013 No.3540866 >>3540865 >how do i into sarcasm As he said, it's a science thing

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:05:20 2013 No.3540871 >>3540859 lol, popper? falsificationism is a ridiculous and outdated idea, and it presupposes some form of induction anyway (how else am i supposed to falsify a theory, if i'm not allowed to learn from experience and use observational evidence?)

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:07:21 2013 No.3540880

>>3540862
Also: I'd like to say, that you come to a point when you see it all come together. History, contemporary, physics with the nature of epistemology and etymology, our shared collective experience of what is real.

That fact that my professor manages to make these connections to the cutting edge concepts that he is working it, make philosophy alive, vibrant and vital for science.

I'm sorry that you all can't see that, because you are missing out. Why have only one, when you can have both?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:13:20 2013 No.3540894

>>3540851

>immediately accepted to a course
>a course

The other thing about us is that we help the weak.

My girlfriend wasn't allowed to join uni because she didn't choose enough A levels. Upon this, I tried to understand the British ways, and I shat a million bricks. How fucking retarded is your fucking system?

Here, you go to "gymnasium", a sort of demanding High School, and you're forced to succeed in every major subject, with some choices, but always "this or that", never "this or nothing if you want."

Then your diploma allows you to go to any Swiss university.

Swiss High School is the second hardest in the world after Japan. We present 15 subjects, you fuckers only need 4 to get to Oxford.

So give me a break.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:14:20 2013 No.3540896 >>3540858 Quinn dude? I keep seeing this fucker pop up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:18:21 2013 No.3540903 /sci/ reporting in. Can any of you explain what's wrong with logical positivism?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:20:20 2013 No.3540905

>>3540903

it is inconsistent with scientific practice, has absurd consequences, and is self-refuting.

you could read this hempel paper for a brief survey of these problems, though are plenty of others: http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hempel_rip1950.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:21:21 2013 No.3540906 >>3540903 We only like continental philosophy here.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:22:21 2013 No.3540907

>>3540880
>>3540862
I was only having a little jab. The one thing that is interesting to not, and this comes across both from Feyerabend and the French philosophers of science is that scientists look to philosophers as experts. I think it was some work on Canguilhem that said something like scientists more or less quoted verbatim philosophers when asked about that side of their work, whereas both Canguilhem and Feyerabend place themselves more as educators than experts: they want scientists to become philosophical in a way. So I agree, you should have both, you should always have both, Feynman can go fuck himself with that line about philosophy being for the birds.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:25:20 2013 No.3540915 >>3540906 logical positivism is not taken seriously by analytic philosophers either, at least not for the past 60+ years

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:26:20 2013 No.3540918

>>3540903
>Can any of you explain what's wrong with logical positivism?

Absolutely nothing.

LP says Empiricism is our only source of knowledge about reality, and we can process this mentally.
It makes a distinction between analytical and synthetic prepositions, which is perfectly sound.
And it says any linguistically derived framework, like morality, God, and metaphysics, are nonsense as they aren't material (though they can be useful to overlay reality with)

We just have a load of Kantian and Hegelian undergraduates here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:28:20 2013 No.3540922 File: 15 KB, 393x377, 1299269052640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3540918 >And it says any linguistically derived framework, like morality, God, and metaphysics, are nonsense AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is why you are so retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:28:20 2013 No.3540923 >>3540663 Yes. Very much so.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:29:20 2013 No.3540927

>>3540894
>never "this or nothing if you want."
Yeah, you don't have to take anything at the very end, but many courses have a requirement of a particular A-level or equivalent. We're also talking masters level education here, not undergrad. He was accepted onto a masters course for being Swiss with a pass degree.
>We present 15 subjects
That sounds like GCSE. I ended up having to do 6 full A-levels because of weird funding rules and taking some subjects early or externally, and we go into plenty of depth in all. In case you haven't worked it out yet, I have met Swiss undergraduates and postgraduates.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:30:20 2013 No.3540928
File: 88 KB, 261x254, cum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>google this guys book
>first result marxists.com

Lol, get to fuck you stupid communists?

I guess the unabomber said it best "Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative."

You guys just want your stupid "personal experiences" crap to cut the mustard, well guess what? Sociology is shit.

None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 13:31:20 2013 No.3540932

logical positivism only needs some slight revisions. as applied to the physical world it is perfectly fine.

i don't see any interesting unresolved issues with respect to realism to warrant spending time with you guys on them. the stuff im working on is just to resolve some confusions in analytic metaphysics and contemporary logic. the traditional 'metaphysical' debate is so far gone you've got to be a retard to not be naturalist in some way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:31:20 2013 No.3540933 >>3540922 >believes in nonsense without evidence >calls others retarded Oh, the irony.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:33:20 2013 No.3540936 >>3540928 >citing the unabomber as a figure of authority >making me reply

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:34:20 2013 No.3540938 >>3540933 >linguistically derived framework >doesn't understand the nature of logic and mathematics not >>3540922 but please die in a fire

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:35:20 2013 No.3540940 >>3540922 Do you not understand the difference between the material, and things that only exist as a semantic framework? Are you the same guy that struggles with 'objective morality' and has to post that same thread every day?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:35:20 2013 No.3540941 >>3540938 As someone who both I understand the nature of logic and mathematics better than you, high school pleb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:35:20 2013 No.3540942 >>3540936 Jealous of his propagande par le fait? You wish you had the balls to act toward change like he did.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:37:20 2013 No.3540946

>>3540927
>accepted onto a masters course for being Swiss with a pass degree.

We consider education a right, not a privilege. That doesn't mean he'll fare well automatically. If you have your high school diploma here, you can enter any uni. Believe me, he fucking earned it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:37:21 2013 No.3540944 >>3540936 >>citing the unabomber as a figure of authority It's the same argument Jean-Jacques Rousseau made in his discourses, except he didn't use "leftist".

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:38:20 2013 No.3540949 >>3540927 >6 full A-levels Imagine doing 15 in 3 years and you know Swiss education.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:38:20 2013 No.3540951 >>3540927 >6 full A-levels Critical thinking doesn't count, nor does ICT.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:40:20 2013 No.3540954 >>3540933 Stop assuming what I "believe". All I believe is that you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:41:20 2013 No.3540957 >>3540954 >out of arguments >too ass pained to be thankful for the correction >resorts to ad hominem attacks instead I thought this was an intellectual discussion board. Shouldn't the children stay on >>>/v/?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:42:20 2013 No.3540958

>>3540940
>Do you not understand the difference between the material, and things that only exist as a semantic framework?

I fully understand them and I think we can both agree that neither of these domains can be evidence for the other.

Am I right?

Then stop assuming we disagree.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:44:20 2013 No.3540963

>>3540949
>Imagine doing 15 in 3 years and you know Swiss education.
Again, I've met Swiss people, their education is not somehow above what is done in A-level. The only difference is that one is more specialised than the other. In fact, not everyone that wanted to come over on exchange to England or to my old uni from anywhere got to, meaning I've met some of your brightest and best. Now imagine doing those 15 subjects in 2 years and you'll begin to see what I did at A-level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:45:20 2013 No.3540964 >>3540957 >ad hominem Doesn't mean the same thing as 'insult'.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:45:20 2013 No.3540965

>>3540957

Ahaha, you're funny.

>you call me dumb for believing in stuff I never believed in or said so (doing an ad hominem)

>then I tell you I don't actually believe in these things, and that this wasn't the point of my post

>your post

Examplary bad faith, dud.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:48:20 2013 No.3540966

>>3540963
>Now imagine doing those 15 subjects in 2 years and you'll begin to see what I did at A-level.

Nah. I know what your A-levels are like. It's not that impressive.

The only difference is that we are forced to have a general education while you guys can just choose what you like.

When I did HS, every average under the requirement was doubled to make it even harder to catch up. You couldn't afford being bad at anything.

I don't think you've met our best and brightest. Our best and brightest either work here or in America. England is never seen as anything relevant in the scientific world.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:49:20 2013 No.3540971

>>3540951
If I get to count those, I got an AS as well in "General Studies". I nearly got an NVQ level 3 in IT I think, but they kept changing the time and it got annoying with everything else. I did do psychology, but it had the highest dropout rate of all my other subjects (the AS ended up being just me and this one girl), so I'm not entirely sure what to make of that one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:49:20 2013 No.3540972 >>3540964 I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, retard. >>3540965 You called another poster retarded for not believing in fairy tales. Seriously, what are you? A troll or a delusional /x/tard?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:50:20 2013 No.3540974 >>3540966 >Our best and brightest either work here or in America. >work >he thinks "exchange" means "work" Oh dear lord.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:50:20 2013 No.3540976 >>3540755 this nigga right here fucking niehls

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 13:52:20 2013 No.3540979 >>3540712 >thinks empiricism is about adhering to specific scientific theories

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 13:54:20 2013 No.3540983 leave it to the contienntal type to purposefully confound the difference between any particular theory and science in general. >omg new science overthrows old 'knowledge' >science is wrong!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:55:20 2013 No.3540986 >>3540983 The history of science is the history of getting stuff fundamentally wrong though.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 13:56:20 2013 No.3540987 >>3540986 so? takes more science and better science to reveal those errors. a gyroscope always moves but it is still able to stay balanced. ja

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:56:20 2013 No.3540989 >>3540829 dude, i'm just reading the thread. but of course you fucking can. wtf

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 13:58:20 2013 No.3540991 >>3540987 >takes more science and better science to reveal those errors. Now you're making science sound like a bottomless pit we have to endlessly fill with more and more science.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 13:59:21 2013 No.3540993 >>3540991 i'm sorry but talking to you will make me mad. byebye

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:03:20 2013 No.3540997 being a naturalist is fine (as in, not believing in anything outside of nature), but being anything more than an instrumentalist about any individual scientific theory is ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:04:20 2013 No.3540998 >>3540941 well clearly not enough to make a coherent sentence

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:04:20 2013 No.3541001 >>3540942 >jealous of a propagande stay murican

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:06:21 2013 No.3541007 >>3540998 Your failure to imagine the missing word reflects only your abilities, not mine.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:07:21 2013 No.3541009
File: 107 KB, 483x650, Samuel Beckett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3540944
Not really.

Rousseau doesn't really trust science and progress. He simply says that it is a lesser evil to correct societies. Also, there is no "objective reality" for Rousseau; rather objective "truth". Lastly, Rousseau is the first leftist philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:08:20 2013 No.3541011 >>3541007 why should i correct your flawed sentence, and thus logic?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:09:21 2013 No.3541014 >>3541011 >logic You have no idea what that word actually means.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:09:21 2013 No.3541015

>>3540865
Now how do you get temper tantrum out of what I said? Mild amusement is ll that's there. Not even contempt. What I'm trying to get acr5oss to you, to all of you, is that the "science" you're talking about here isn't "science as she is spoke". It's not the science of the, you know, scientist.

It's more like what a creationist means when he says "evolution".

Science is about solving mundane problems in very mundane settings using tried and true methods and tools. It requires insight, intelligence and understanding, as well as skill and practice. Some talent is good, and genius is nice if you can get it. But the "par excellence" scientist is basically most scientists. If only because they're all doing different things. Just about every researcher out there is the top man in his particular field.

Now, there are guys who excell, certainly, but they excel at the same things everybody else does, and don't assume they'd be more qualified to talk about science becasue they won a prize or wrote a book than any other scientist. It's sort of like thinking Kobe Bryant would write a better book on basketball than a journalist simply because he can play it better.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:10:21 2013 No.3541016

>>3541015
That said, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. When you say "science you don't seem to be thinking, field sampling and data input and rejecting the null hypothesis. And when you say certainty your not talking confidence intervals and degrees of freedom.

So you seem to be talking about some hypothetical thing, that I and no scientist I know, (and I know scientists all the way up and down the chain, though I won't name-drop any more than I already have) deals with it either. Wilson is the closest I can come.

If you want to treat it as a philosophical question, by all means do so. I don't think science has any interest in it. It seems to be a very specific, specialized thing that's not got any real general application. More so than most questions, and considering I know guys who spend their lives counting spores in coal samples, that's saying something.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:10:21 2013 No.3541017 >>3540993 lmao how can petty inconsequential shit like this make you mad

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:10:21 2013 No.3541018

>>3541014
Logos (pron.: /ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego "I say") is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason"

Under Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 50) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[6] The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),[7] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnate Logos.

i hope that's enough to make you shut the fuck up, uneducated pleb.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:12:21 2013 No.3541023

>>3541018
I told you that you don't understand logic and your response consists of mindlessly copypasting the wikipedia entry for "logos"? Way to demonstrate your illiteracy. Are you sure you want to be on /lit/? It seems you are mistaken. >>>/v/ is the right board for you and your anti-intellectual attitude.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:16:20 2013 No.3541032

>>3541015
>Just about every researcher out there is the top man in his particular field.
That's bollocks. Anyone I worked under in my undergrad and every researcher I've known (with the exception of one) was not "the top man in his particular field" because that rarely exists, although if that helps you inflate your ego...
The guy above talking about "par excellence" means you are not the kind of scientist Feyerabend is talking about. Not anything to do with how "good" you are as a scientist, but how good you are as an example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:16:20 2013 No.3541033 >>3541023 In fact, I just gave you the definition of logic. You don't have to further display your ignorance; that's alright, there, there.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:18:21 2013 No.3541035

>>3541033
>In fact, I just gave you the definition of logic.
No, you didn't. You copypasted the wikipedia entry for "logos". That's not the same. Please educate yourself. Have you ever taken a course on logic? Or read a book on the topic? Obviously not. You should.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:19:20 2013 No.3541039 >>3541018 It's spelt legos you dimwit.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:19:21 2013 No.3541038

>>3541009
The Unabomber made an identical argument to Rousseau. They both said that the rise of science and technology is detrimental to the flourishing of humanity. It degrades humans, and enslaves them to material objects. They both said science is the cause of consumerism and class differences, as there is a need to have a state to protect and rank those who have accumulated things. The only difference was that the unabomber suggested anarcho-primitivism as a solution, while Rousseau said anarcho-primitivism is the best state for man – he phrased it in terms of mans beastial or natural state –, but we have done too much damage to return. Lastly, the unabomber spent a long time outlining his definition of 'leftist', which seemed to stem from a Marxist argument. Marx claimed anyone focusing on race, gender, minor laws, etc, was being distracted form the larger issue, class struggle. The Unabomber modified this argument, adding class struggle to the list and saying anyone worrying about this things is a slave to the system, –these people he called 'leftists.'

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:21:20 2013 No.3541040 >>3540469 summarize plz

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:22:20 2013 No.3541043 >>3541039 No, it's fucking LEGO. Not plural, all capitalized, no periods. Seriously, have some respect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:24:20 2013 No.3541045 >>3541035 Have you ever had a class on philosophy or Greek? You seem to be, as expected of an American, devoid of any culture. Shall i take you by the hands and show you the relationship between logos and logic?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:25:20 2013 No.3541047 File: 8 KB, 194x259, spock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541043 It seems so... ilLEGOcal,

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:25:20 2013 No.3541049 >>3540972 >You called another poster retarded for not believing in fairy tales. Seriously, what are you? A troll or a delusional /x/tard? Your reading skills, work on them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:26:20 2013 No.3541055 >>3540974 No connection between the two. Any student who goes to England for an exchange, instead of more prestigious places, must have been bested by better students (who then went to MIT and such). You met our dregs and didn't realise.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:27:20 2013 No.3541057

>>3541045
>Have you ever had a class on philosophy or Greek?
Unlike you I am proficient in both.

>You seem to be, as expected of an American, devoid of any culture.
I am not american.

>Shall i take you by the hands and show you the relationship between logos and logic?
I didn't ask you for the etymology of the word "logic" but for the contents of logic. What is your education regarding logic? I studied propositional, predicate, temporal, modal and fuzzy logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:28:20 2013 No.3541060 >>3540989 >doesn't know what a paragraph is >doesn't know a paragraph can be one sentence, or even one word

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:28:20 2013 No.3541064 >>3541055 >he thinks MIT is like exchange Mecca

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:28:20 2013 No.3541065

>>3541038
Rousseau does not seek to return to the primal state. He is well aware that it's only a fiction, and uses the story to prove his point that humans are inherently endowed with reason, that only society and state degrade. Rousseau's works aim at driving the human society to the best possible state, a some sort of democratic entente, ruled by reason and "common interest", rather than going back to a individual & anarchic form of life that had never existed.
But i agree with you for most of your point, just nitpicking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:30:20 2013 No.3541070 >>3541064 >thinks MIT isn't that good This is why nobody wants to study science in England unless they're born there ore African.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:30:20 2013 No.3541071 >>3541057 >I am not american >please >I studied propositional, predicate, temporal, modal and fuzzy logic. and still unable to make a sentence, tee-hee

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:31:20 2013 No.3541076 >>3541071 What an immature response. How old are you? 14?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:34:20 2013 No.3541092 >>3541076 >retarded materialist >spends his time calling others 'pleb' >dur u imaturr 14

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 14:34:20 2013 No.3541094 >>3541092 you should wish that you were 14 because that means you still have a chance at redeeming your life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:35:20 2013 No.3541096 >>3541092 I'll take that as a "yes". Would you please stop violating >>>/global/rules/2?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:36:20 2013 No.3541100 >>3541070 And the Swiss racism starts to rear its head... Is this some kind of fox and grapes thing btw?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:37:20 2013 No.3541105 >>3541094 >>3540993 now please go

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:38:20 2013 No.3541108 >>3541094 >tripfag >thinks he burned anon Want a medal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:38:20 2013 No.3541110 >>3541096 >extrapolating >logic

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:39:20 2013 No.3541111

>>3541045
>>3541018
There's an important secondary meaning of λέγω which means 'connect' (or "I put in order, arrange, gather," as you will have learned by the wiktionary entry). The implications this has on logic as an ordering of things in their proper place are surely worth discussing but from the trail of comments it looks like your all retarded.

>>3541039
legos are fucked up tho cos it looks like it would totally make sense that they come from the aforementioned sense of "lego" but it's actually just some Danish faggotry

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:40:20 2013 No.3541114

>>3541100

How's that racism? Do you feel bad in any way that your country is getting a yearly injection of black folks that numbers in the hundreds of thousand?

>Swiss racism
>Swiss common sense

Go spend some time in your lower class schools and see what happens in there and who makes it happen.

>or you can remember those summer riots
>"we're poor and aaaangry!"
>steal blackberries because of the social injustice
>also TV's

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:42:21 2013 No.3541118

>>3541110
What happened? Are you in a state of distress? Does said state of distress reduce your verbal expressiveness to meme arrows? Was it really necessary to demonstrate that your defectiveness effects not only your education but also your emotional stability?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:45:20 2013 No.3541119 >>3541118 >are you in a state of distress? >ask 4 questions in a row, seems rather upset >2013 >projections

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:45:20 2013 No.3541120

>>3541114
>steal blackberries
Have you crazy Swiss privatised your wild berries or something?

>Go spend some time in your lower class schools and see what happens in there and who makes it happen.
Oh man, you mad. Go on, what amazing shit did you learn in your "high class" schooling?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:46:20 2013 No.3541121
File: 2.90 MB, 290x189, 1358444876287.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3541118

>What happened? Are you in a state of distress?

Lul.

>Does said state of distress reduce your verbal expressiveness to meme arrows?

>meme arrows

*Represses laughter*

>Was it really necessary to demonstrate that your defectiveness effects not only your education but also your emotional stability?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You're trying so fucking hard, man, I literally spat coffee all over my desk and didn't stop laughing until it dried.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:49:20 2013 No.3541123 File: 40 KB, 480x275, Blackberry Curve 8900 Phone_Naijapals[dot]com.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541120 >Have you crazy Swiss privatised your wild berries or something? Are you fucking retarded?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:50:20 2013 No.3541125 >>3541123 And no sense of humour either! What a nation

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:52:20 2013 No.3541128 >>3541125 Nah, I just really believed you were this fucking dumb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:53:20 2013 No.3541129 >>3541123 mademegiggle/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:54:20 2013 No.3541134 >>3541121 man you're just as insufferable as the person you're lolling at

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:56:20 2013 No.3541135 >>3541128 And now we come back to the classic Swiss gullibility.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:57:20 2013 No.3541141 >>3541134 Did I rustle your jimmies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 14:58:20 2013 No.3541142 File: 124 KB, 540x729, laughingsamuel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541135 >>3541125 >>3541120

None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 14:58:20 2013 No.3541143

>>3540991
unless you are a god capable of ominiscience this is always the case, it has to do with the limit of our knowledge feelers.

although, the very ease with which you can represent the world as a whole, in contrast to the always limited epistemic position we have in practice, should tell you that these fundamental skeptical worries are really only working with a peculiar way of representation. one that has nothing to do with science itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:01:20 2013 No.3541153 >>3541135 No Swiss is gullible to assume some bad-toothed Britton is inferior to him in every way and has never seen a blackberry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:13:21 2013 No.3541176 >>3541153 >No Swiss is gullible to assume some bad-toothed Britton is inferior to him Well, at least you've finally come round to the idea Britland is Bestland, and Switzerland is Sworsterland.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:15:21 2013 No.3541179 >>>/sci/5593191 Bazinga!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:15:21 2013 No.3541181 >>3541176 I've lived in both countries. Sorry but I prefer Switzerland by far. If only for the food. The way you guys are eating, you'll be fatter than America in about 15 years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:16:21 2013 No.3541184 >>3541181 What food were you eating?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:20:20 2013 No.3541193

>>3541184

The best I could find, which, to be honest, wasn't much. Here, any supermarket has a fresh section with fruit and vegetables and more. The general state of food in England is sad.

Even our fast food looks classy compared to yours. I've never had a single decent pizza in England. They're all this fat, greasy and gross lump of nastiness that tastes bad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:21:20 2013 No.3541197 >>3541179 Ugh, he's flat out wrong on every aspect

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:23:20 2013 No.3541200 >>3541197 epic refutation, /b/ro 10/10 convincing, would read again

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:25:20 2013 No.3541206 >>3541200 I suggest you actually read the book before blatantly regurgitating someone else's opinions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:27:20 2013 No.3541212 >>3541206 >muh epistemological anarchism >muh edge Is an appeal to emotion the best argument you have?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:28:20 2013 No.3541215

>>3541193
Are you sure you were in Switzerland? Whether it be Switzerland, Germany or even Austria the supermarkets were terrible in comparison (you can never be sure exactly what they're going to have in), and there's not much variety.
>any supermarket has a fresh section with fruit and vegetables and more. The general state of food in England is sad.
Did you only go into Iceland in England? Because, obviously, they don't tend to have a fresh produce section, unlike every single other supermarket. Also, we have exactly the same fast food crap, as evidenced by the whole horse meat thing. Why you want to eat that crap I have no idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:31:20 2013 No.3541230 File: 164 KB, 500x500, zero___rage_face_by_samusmmx-d5g6reb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>>/sci/5593082 >>>/sci/5593146

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:40:20 2013 No.3541246

>>3540896
He pops up because he's writes grade level philosophy that should be obvious to anyone with decent knowledge of world history.
>societies present themselves as being superior to other societies
>industrialization is bad
>pollution is bad
There, I just saved you bother of having to read Ishmael.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:43:20 2013 No.3541255 File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:44:20 2013 No.3541257 >>3541255 Are there people on this planet who actually believe this?

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 15:44:20 2013 No.3541259 >>3541255 calm down /sci/duck, this op is not a philoospher

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:45:21 2013 No.3541263 >>3541257 Yep. >>>/sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:45:21 2013 No.3541265 File: 14 KB, 267x200, mad4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541230 But he's absolutely right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:47:20 2013 No.3541271 >>3540698 lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:47:20 2013 No.3541272 >>3541263 How terrifying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:49:20 2013 No.3541274 File: 429 KB, 1365x1200, sci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541259 How do you know? Are you a telepath??? Oh my God! >>3541255 2/10 propaganda-tier gibberish

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:54:20 2013 No.3541283

>>3541179
i hate these vague definitions of science. people like him make me hate science

anyway how "science is formed":
people come to conclusions that best fit the evidence they find. it's not as simple as "they find the answer"; no. it is an educated guess that CAN POSSIBLY BE WRONG, but still the conclusions they have reached fit with the evidence AS WELL. just because these findings are published and accepted by peers (because it is the best explanation possible given the evidence, unless someone else has a different idea, which is common) doesn't make it suddenly 100% truth unfalsifiable science and progress. science zealots like the guy you are quoting completely misunderstand the process of legitimisation in science. it's embarrassing.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 15:57:20 2013 No.3541295 >>3541274 continental types are not philosophers of course, so don't get too excited

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:57:20 2013 No.3541296 >>3541283 Name a better epistomological tool than science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:58:20 2013 No.3541298 >>3541296 Phenomenology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 15:59:21 2013 No.3541300 >>3541295 >has never read Heidegger You know they're using his work in artificial intelligence studies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:00:21 2013 No.3541303 >>3541298 >solipsism That's ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:01:20 2013 No.3541305 >>3541296 that's not the fucking point you idiot. get your fucking zealot shit out of this board

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:01:20 2013 No.3541310 >>3541298 Phenomenology is pretty mathematical.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:02:20 2013 No.3541312 >>3541305 Not my fault that science is too hard for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:03:20 2013 No.3541315 >>3541310 Not exactly. And so what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:03:20 2013 No.3541317 >>3541312 i'm not saying that at all. i support science. i don't support your zealot view of science. you know less about science than i do. again, get that shit out of here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:03:20 2013 No.3541318 >>3541303 Yet entirely valid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:04:20 2013 No.3541321 >>3541315 Yes exactly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:04:20 2013 No.3541322 >>3541318 Then why do you bother posting on 4chan? Why not just sit and talk to the wall? It's all your bro.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:04:20 2013 No.3541323 This thread once again proves how shit /lit/ is. You bastards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:05:20 2013 No.3541325 >>3541303 14 year old teenager without any grasp of philosophy detected

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:05:20 2013 No.3541326 >>3541322 For the pure enjoyment of conversation I would imagine, do you enjoy your dreams?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:05:20 2013 No.3541328 >>3541317 What is zealot about _not_ being a delusional religitard? >>3541321 If you don't see why solipsism is bullshit, you're mentally ill.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:06:20 2013 No.3541330 >>3541322 I never said that it was sound.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:06:20 2013 No.3541335 >>3541325 Stop projecting. Only teenagers like you are impressed and jerk off over solipsism. Grow up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:07:20 2013 No.3541336 >>3541326 I had a dream where there was a horse and it bit my hand and wouldn't let go last night. I have other dreams involving freakish insects. I constantly dream about getting in contact with my ex. I hate my dreams.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:08:20 2013 No.3541339 >>3541295 >continental types only silly americans make this kind of distinction

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:08:21 2013 No.3541338 >>3541336 Have you ever fantasized or daydreamed?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:09:20 2013 No.3541342 >>3541339 >>>/sp/

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:09:20 2013 No.3541344 >>3541300 is this the same as irigaray using fluid dynamics in her work? lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:09:21 2013 No.3541345 >>3541335 The philosophy is less impressive than entirely valid.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:10:21 2013 No.3541350

>>3541328
the fact that you misunderstand what science is and are such a die-hard supporter of science you thought basic comments on the process of science were an attack, which explains your completely irrelevant point of "name a better system"

you're as delusional as 'religitards'

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:10:21 2013 No.3541352 >>3541335 Who said anything about impressed, my slippy little Freud? Solipsism is just there as a thing. There are ways around it, but I'm gonna guess you don't know them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:10:21 2013 No.3541354 >>3541345 That doesn't change the fact that solipsism is nothing but meaningless edgy drivel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:11:21 2013 No.3541355 >>3541354 That's a /mu/-level criticism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:11:21 2013 No.3541357 >>3541354 >meaningless arbitrary >edgy arbitrary >drivel hardly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:12:20 2013 No.3541362 >>3541350 Your faux attacks against science only stem from your moronic ignorance. Did you ever take a science class? >>3541352 >There are ways around it True. And the most rational one is to dismiss it as the garbage it is.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:13:20 2013 No.3541366

>>3541354
>what someone told me solipsism is made me think it sounded like meaningless edgy drivel because of how they told me what it was. i haven't actually looked into it myself and subsequently come to my own opinions on solipsism but if i did i would probably be convinced by my own confirmation bias. EVERYTHING I SAY IS TRUE -- PROVE ME WRONG

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:13:20 2013 No.3541367 >>3541362 >And the most rational one is to dismiss it as the garbage it is. Nope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:14:20 2013 No.3541373 >>3541362 yes i did. if you have no idea how science is made "knowledge" then maybe you should read an extra book or two every decade. it is an explanation, not an attack. calling it a "faux attack" doesn't make it an attack.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:15:20 2013 No.3541382 >>3541373 >how science is made "knowledge" how lit theory is made "knowledge" is the more obvious and hilarious instantiation of the process you seem to worry so much about in science

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:16:20 2013 No.3541386

>>3541328
>What is zealot about _not_ being a delusional religitard?

>severely delusional baby is unable to realize that he's a part of the 2 coin anti-intellectual, internet-based polemical discourse of science vs. religion
>dogma absorbing baby lacks philosophical depth and education in order to judge science from a skeptical point of view
>severely delusional baby cannot accept the fact that he's just as religious and delusional as the partisans of religion

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:17:20 2013 No.3541387

>>3541032
Everybody specializes these days. Being the top man in your field basically means usually being the only man in your field. And most researchers are that, since there's not enough money for duplication of effort. If your field is the sedges of the Cumberland Plateau, then being the top man in the field probably means beating out three other guys, if that many. and the "type of scientist?" as I just pointed out there are millions of "types" but basically there's really only one. It's sort of Zen maybe, if I knew what zen meant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:17:21 2013 No.3541388 >>3541366 You clearly didn't understand solipsism. >>3541367 Yes. >>3541373 What's your argument? Oh yeah, that's right. You have none. You're spouting pseudo-intellectual hogwash without deeper meaning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:17:21 2013 No.3541389 >>3541382 what? that is completely irrelevant why the fuck do you people think i'm "attacking" science? get the fuck out back to your echo chamber >>>sci

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:19:21 2013 No.3541393 >>3541389 maybe you should examine how you present your "questions."

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:19:21 2013 No.3541394 >>3541388 Your thoughts on Wittgenstein, oh knowledgeable one.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:19:21 2013 No.3541395

>>3541388
what? that is literally the process science goes through. if you had undertaken tertiary education instead of relying on wikipedia for your scientific knowledge then you would know this. YOU ARE TAUGHT THIS PROCESS OF LEGITIMISATION. IT IS A PART OF YOUR TRAINING AS A SCIENTIST.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:20:21 2013 No.3541396 >>3541393 maybe you should be relevant

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:21:21 2013 No.3541400 >>3541394 >red herring Stop distracting. We're talking about your failed refutation of science. >>3541395 What the fuck is your point, retard? I'm more familiar with the epistemology of science than you.

None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:21:21 2013 No.3541401

>>3541389
if all you want to say is, let's ive alternative theories a chance, more oppen and philosophically aware epistemic community, ,sure. but that's worlds apart from challenging scientific realism and you are better off picking on economics or something

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:23:20 2013 No.3541404

>>3541400
no you're fucking not as evidenced by your irrelevant replies, misinterpretation of what i said and complete unrelenting support of science.

do i have to explain my point to you for a third time? really? just because i don't agree with you doesn't mean i "don't have a point." what the fuck is your point? that you love steampunk? well congratulations

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:23:20 2013 No.3541407 >>3541401 >but that's worlds apart from challenging scientific realism what? this was never my point

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:24:20 2013 No.3541410 >>3541404 >do i have to explain my point to you for a third time? Yes, please. I'll give you another chance to phrase a coherent argument. So far you failed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:25:20 2013 No.3541413 >>3541404 >that you love steampunk? What the fuck is steampunk?

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:26:20 2013 No.3541419 >>3541407 if all you want to talk about is feyeraband then present specific claims because he made a lot of fuzzy mistakes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:26:20 2013 No.3541420 >>3541400 If you're so up on epistemology, tell us your thoughts on Wittgenstein, a philosophy allegedly integral to analytic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:27:21 2013 No.3541423 >>3541420 Irrelevant to science.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:28:21 2013 No.3541424

>>3541181

Related pasta:

1/2

Englishfags,

I often see you attacking our brother Amerifags for being any number of nasty things, but I must tell you the truth.

I am neither American nor English, I am Swiss, and I have been to both of your nations. The difference between what you think you are and what you actually are almost makes me cry with sympathy for you. I will explain.

The thing that struck me once I was in England was how you people never finish your houses. Bricks, bricks everywhere. Is this a nation? Is this a Minecraft server? The first brick house I saw, I thought it was a nice rarity. You never see such houses in my country, we finish what we start; we cover our bricks with esthetically pleasing layers of plaster and paint and what not.

The second thing that struck me, and this is unfathomably more important, is your people. I don't know how to say this politely, but 90% of you have weird angular faces with excessive features. You seem straight out of a cartoon show, or an inbred lineage that lasted too long. It's almost as if you guys had been isolated on a small island for millennia and were reduced to mating with your aunts and uncles.

I'm a man, and upon seeing your females, I cried a little for you. Most of them are not only ugly, but very fat. Having been to America, I can honestly tell you you're on par with them, and more often than not, you're generally fatter. In America, you have extremely fat people, but on average, not everyone is lardy. In England, however, 80% of the girls I saw were overweight. It's a dick's nightmare.

Fashionwise, these ladies dress like potato bags unless they're going to a club, at which point they dress like garish sluts. That stunned me to no end. In my country, we always dress nicely during the week, and we mostly dress the same when going out. We don't suddenly apply 2-inch thick layers of makeup with platform boots and skirts that give your wussy a cold. In my country, we call it class.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:28:21 2013 No.3541425 >>3541423 Bro, you're messing up. Wittgensteins logical models form the base of modern computing and object oriented language.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:28:21 2013 No.3541426

>>3541410
my point is that i like science and its processes. i don't question them but i am aware there is room for flaws in the presentation of evidence, simply because it is compiled by humans and not robots. my point is that people like you -- the 'blind zealots' -- are embarrassing to science. it's because of people like you why other people lash back against science. you are not scientific. i hate people like you because you are not scientific in your support of science. you have a purposefully vague idea of 'science' and you think any sort of comment on what you vaguely call 'science' is an 'attack'. let me link you back to my first post so you can read exactly what i said and realise you shat your big-boy pants in front of /lit/:

>>3541283

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:29:21 2013 No.3541428

>>3541424

2/2

Your houses, now. Most are made of wood, as the Americans, and wherever you are in these houses, you can tell what everyone else is doing and where they're doing it. Everything makes noise all the time. Your doors are as retarded as American doors: the edges don't cover the doorframe, you can see and hear through the slit that goes the length of it. In my country, the door is made so that it fully covers that side slit: you cannot see through it, and the sound is very diminished. Our houses are made of modern and solid material. Isolation is good.

Your food. Your food is terrible. This is why everyone is lardy in England: you cannot buy healthy food in England. I still cannot believe your pizzas. I have NEVER tasted a real pizza in England; all I found was a sad and pathetic lump of flour with hefty amounts of greasy fat in it. I ordered pizzas from every pizza place I could find: they are all the same. I ordered thin pizzas and still got fatass lardy thick pizza soaked in fatness. My fingers shone afterwards.

As to your schools, I doubt any other nation has more bullying than you have. It's unthinkable in my country, even in our worst schools.

As to guns, even your policemen aren't allowed to carry any. In my country, anyone can have a gun and we have far less crime than you have. What you guys don't do with a gun, you do with a knife. You "shank" each other.

As to your pronunciation, most of you don't even bother pronouncing the T's in your words: "Bri-ish" is how you say "British". Some of you even get the TH wrong: one, two, free. "I can't be bovered" for "bothered".

After all this, I find it extremely cocky of you to criticise your Ameribros, who are nothing if not your more successful cousins.

Regards,

A Swissfag

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:29:21 2013 No.3541429 >>3541423 >analytic philosophy is irrelevant to science Haha oh wow.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:29:21 2013 No.3541431 >>3541423 >Irrelevant to science. and this is why most scientists are retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:29:21 2013 No.3541432 >>3541419 maybe you should.. um.. read

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:30:21 2013 No.3541434 >>3541423 Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:30:21 2013 No.3541435 >>3541425 >object oriented language. my sides Take your business tier java enterprise edition code monkey work back to >>>/g/ or whatever anti-intellectual pleb cave you came from.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:31:20 2013 No.3541440 >>3541400 This guy only likes "science" because he wants to feel smart, hence his use of the word "retard". Pay him no mind. He's only damaging the reception of science at this point.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:31:21 2013 No.3541438 >>3541432 going by your op youare pretty retarded so that you expect people to draw the same conclusions from this book is really amazing

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:32:20 2013 No.3541442 >>3541215 Switzerland, Germany and Austria have nothing in common. Switzerland has its own supermarkets and they're big on good, healthy food. I wouldn't think Germany and Austria have the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:32:20 2013 No.3541445 >>3541438 i never mentioned this book at all

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:33:20 2013 No.3541448 >>3541438 ...Because the only correct way of interpreting Feyerabend is the way Onion Ring interprets it. We get it.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:34:20 2013 No.3541451

>>3541215

Tesco
Sainsbury

It's all shit.

The only drawback is that everything is far more expensive in Switzerland, but the quality is higher.

Also, most of us are fit and dress well. Most of the English people I saw were fat, dressed poorly, and their teeth never got straightened up.

And the amount of assholes per 100 people was impressive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:35:20 2013 No.3541455 >>3541246 He's written philosophy or novels? That said, I do believe some societies are better than others. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:36:21 2013 No.3541460

>>3541426
>my point is that i like science and its processes.
That's not an argument, that's an expression of personal preference. I don't give a fuck about your emotions.

>i don't question them but i am aware there is room for flaws in the presentation of evidence, simply because it is compiled by humans and not robots.
There is no difference. Humans are basically robots, biological robots. We consist of biomolecules deterministically processing interior and exterior information. Do you deny evolution? Are you a creationist?

>my point is that people like you -- the 'blind zealots' -- are embarrassing to science.
Scientists are embarrassing to science? What a huge load of bullshit. Appeal to emotion is not an argument btw.

>it's because of people like you why other people lash back against science. you are not scientific.
Argumentum ad hominem and entirely baseless. I am certainly scientific, I'm working with science everyday.

>i hate people like you because you are not scientific in your support of science.
Supporting science is a task outside the scope of science, you ignorant pleb. And again your emotional response is irrelevant to your fallacy.

>you have a purposefully vague idea of 'science' and you think any sort of comment on what you vaguely call 'science' is an 'attack'.
Unlike you I know what science is. I have scientific education.

>let me link you back to my first post so you can read exactly what i said and realise you shat your big-boy pants in front of /lit/:
You posted nothing but trite trivialities every kindergarten kid already knows. If that's what /lit/ considers impressive knowledge of science, I have to say you're uneducated as fuck.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:37:21 2013 No.3541463 >>3541445 >>3541448 get names and actually make arguments so i know what i am responding to

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:37:21 2013 No.3541464 >>3541440 I don't need science to feel smart. Me being smart is simply a fact.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:37:21 2013 No.3541466 File: 13 KB, 508x428, italics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541328 >What is zealot about _not_ being a delusional religitard? >_not_ Is this how we officially do italics on 4chan now?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:38:21 2013 No.3541468 >>3541455 >Only a fool would think otherwise. You are one, brainwashed fool. Outside of intellectual and factual analysis we're essentially the same

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:39:21 2013 No.3541472 >>3541350 Christian reporting. I'm not delusional, thanks.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:39:21 2013 No.3541475

I guess I'm missing the point of all this. It's not just "science doesn't know everything, nyah nyah nyah!" is it? I mean there's an actual point being made about methods of gaining and interpreting information from observations right? Not just bullshitting about the "nature of truth" or "what is knowing" or all that hippie nonsense, right?

I had the whole, how can we know that we know conversation a dozen times in the sixties, and while I can't say whether it's accurate, it's so damn far out on the periphery of relevance it's like consulting quantum theory before you drive a nail. It may not be nonsense to consider how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but it's not something you're going to use much, scientist or not. In fact I'd say it might be a lot less useful to a butcher or a baker than to a scientist. Can somebody give an example of a concrete practical application of something being discussed here that would be useful in a real-world situation, such as deciding how best to say land a man on mars or develop a tranquilizer? Just a simple example. I'm only a scientist and this is not my specialty.

also, alternatives to the scientific method? things that work better?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:41:21 2013 No.3541479 File: 29 KB, 570x533, 1299435272654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541423 You blew it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:42:20 2013 No.3541484 >>3541038 Holy shit, I think I agree with the Unabomber! Thanks guys, this has been one of the best threads on /lit/ in quite some time.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:44:20 2013 No.3541492

>>3541468
>Outside of intellectual and factual analysis we're essentially the same

OK man, my bad. Compared to some African societies, I don't beat up old ladies for assuming they're witches (because believing in witches doesn't make you a lesser society, since they exist - oh shit, they don't!).

There are quantifiable ways in which you can see what the better society is.

>we're essentially all the same

That's the brainwashed propaganda right here. Only a fucking moron would fail to spot the differences between everyone and everyone else, societies included.

Go read a history book and learn about societies. Wanting the same things doesn't imply you'll use the same ways to get there, and that makes EVERYTHING different.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:47:21 2013 No.3541504

>>3541460
>There is no difference. Humans are basically robots, biological robots. We consist of biomolecules deterministically processing interior and exterior information. Do you deny evolution? Are you a creationist?

you can't say "there's no difference" and then cower away from your claim with "basically"; "basically" being something is not the same as actually being something. the point is that humans make shit up if they think they can get away with it, which is what you've done throughout your entire response.

>Scientists are embarrassing to science?

you're not a scientist. that much is obvious.

> I am certainly scientific, I'm working with science everyday.

no you're not. there is absolutely nothing in your manner that identifies you as scientific by any stretch of the imagination. you are wikipedia self-educated and you think you are scientific because you hang out on /sci/ 6 hours of the day

>Supporting science is a task outside the scope of science, you ignorant pleb.

irrelevant

>Unlike you I know what science is. I have scientific education.

i do know what science is. evidently i know more about it than you. you have not yet defined it. instead you've just shouted "no" at me because you thought i was attacking it. present an argument.

>You posted nothing but trite trivialities every kindergarten kid already knows.

empty cop-out sentence. not impressive.

>If that's what /lit/ considers impressive knowledge of science

what on earth are you talking about

>I have to say you're uneducated as fuck.

apparently not.

anyway,
>you have a purposefully vague idea of 'science' and you think any sort of comment on what you vaguely call 'science' is an 'attack'.

is this not true? how do you define science? put forward an argument. try keep it relevant to what i said this time

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:48:21 2013 No.3541505 >>3541460 >I have scientific education. >spending years of accumulating spoonfed powder of brainwash in x >muh x, muh precious x... >defend x dogmas all of your insignificant life classic. apply 'x' to any field

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:48:21 2013 No.3541507 File: 28 KB, 308x479, feynman laughing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." -- Richard Feynman

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:48:21 2013 No.3541511 >>3541464 not peer reviewed

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:49:20 2013 No.3541513 >>3541492 Yeah, missed my point entirely. Just as expected. Keep on being a try-hard intellectual and a blindfolded bat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:51:20 2013 No.3541519 >>3541442 >Switzerland, Germany and Austria have nothing in common. Fine, everything is better in Switzerland from your shitty supermarkets to your Swiss owned Horse Lasagnes!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:51:20 2013 No.3541520 No one likes scientists

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:53:20 2013 No.3541529 >>3540779 >reality is real A has the qualities of A. I'm not an objectivist, nor a philosopher or thinker, nut isn't A=A one of the most fundamental axioms of any thought, anywhere? Are there an epistemologies or metaphysics in which A does not equal A.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Mar 8 16:55:20 2013 No.3541535 >>3540779 if all you are doing is raising the spectre of "hurr outside world" then there's nothing to talk about. it's a completely retarded worry

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:55:20 2013 No.3541538 >>3541529 'has the qualities of' isn't really a = a but 'reality is real' is such a worthless sentence regardless

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:56:20 2013 No.3541542

>>3541529
>A has the qualities of A.

OK, since you need an explanation, I'll bite.

When I say "reality is real", by "reality", I don't mean "what is real", I mean "what we perceive".

That's how it's not "A and A". It's B may have the qualities of A, which we know nothing about.

It takes a point of view to perceive anything, and that always twists things, gives it a perspective. You'd need to have infinite points of view to see reality as it "really" is, and only God can do that. (Inb4 religion drama, you got the point.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:57:20 2013 No.3541546 >>3541538 >but 'reality is real' is such a worthless sentence regardless Only because you assume it's true, while nothing warrants such a belief.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:58:20 2013 No.3541550

>>3541504
>you can't say "there's no difference" and then cower away from your claim with "basically"
The use of the word "basically" was justified by the second part of my sentence, specifying that the only difference between humans and robots consists of the latter usually being built of anorganic matter.

>you're not a scientist. that much is obvious.
Argumentum ad hominem and wrong.

>no you're not. there is absolutely nothing in your manner that identifies you as scientific by any stretch of the imagination.
Do you even know what science is? What do my manners have to do with science?

>you are wikipedia self-educated and you think you are scientific because you hang out on /sci/ 6 hours of the day
Both wrong. I have studied and am studying science.

>i do know what science is. evidently i know more about it than you.
Your previous "points" are evidence to the contrary.

>empty cop-out sentence. not impressive.
It's true nonetheless and it destroyed your nonsense.

>is this not true?
No.

>how do you define science?
I will not solve the demarcation problem for you. However there are certain defining properties of science you are definitely ignorant of.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 16:59:20 2013 No.3541553 >>3541475 I'll check in and see if anybody responds to this in awhile. Gotta go do some science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:00:20 2013 No.3541554 >>3541542 But if what we perceive as reality is consistent, couldn't our perception be regarded as reality? If it isn't consistent, wouldn't we know by now?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:03:21 2013 No.3541570

>>3541554

>But if what we perceive as reality is consistent, couldn't our perception be regarded as reality?

Not necessarily. People have perceived consistent things in a consistently wrong way: "the sun moves around us." That perception never changed until we learned more. Some people still believe that colours are part of the objects.

> If it isn't consistent, wouldn't we know by now?

Actually, we do know. "Reality" isn't consistent on the quantum level. It's virtually impossible to know the consistence of a thing given that we don't have infinity to observe them and if they change, they may change at any point in that infinity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:06:20 2013 No.3541581 File: 65 KB, 400x400, 1358632623588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3541507 "—Usually attributed to Richard Feynman (or somebody else who has never heard of songbird habitat preservation.) "

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:09:20 2013 No.3541589

>>3541550
>being built of anorganic matter.

beside the point.

>Argumentum ad hominem and wrong.

i am not convinced. you seem to be scant on details. your legitimacy hinges on this very point so how interesting it is that you refuse to qualify it with any explanation. i still think you're wikipedia-educated but it is irrelevant to my point anyway. the point is that people who do not understand the methods of science seem to paint it as the answer to everything just on the account that it is called 'science'.

>What do my manners have to do with science?
manner, not manners. nothing you have said -- or how you have said it -- indicates that you are scientific. you have the insight of a wikipedia-educated science supporter so i continue to think you are wikipedia-educated until convinced otherwise.

>I have studied and am studying science.

congratulations on your first year in college then

>Your previous "points" are evidence to the contrary.

yeah ok let's just do this until the thread 404s. "you're wrong"

>It's true nonetheless and it destroyed your nonsense.

it's not. it's a throwaway sentence that is meaningless. i can easily say the exact same thing to you but i don't because it doesn't achieve anything. it wouldn't even make me feel good about myself which is why i assume you said it in the first place. "what you know is dumb" is not the most convincing of arguments, let alone one that can 'destroy' someone else's.

>No.

elaborate

>I will not solve the demarcation problem for you.

i'm not asking you to solve a problem. i am specifically asking how you personally define it. but thanks for yet another cop-out response. your intellectual laziness is another reason why i think you are lying.

>However there are certain defining properties of science you are definitely ignorant of.

i'm sure they don't alter the legitimisation process

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:09:22 2013 No.3541591 >>3541570 >Some people still believe that colours are part of the objects Wanna explain why does the light 'gives' a certain color, say red, to a particular object, instead of green, yellow or blue? What determines the color?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:10:22 2013 No.3541596

>>3541570
I suppose that equations which predict the boundaries of behavior for these particles don't counts as consistent since there is always a small but non-zero chance of, say, a neutrino gaining or losing energy for no causal reason, or the Pauli exclusion principle being violated in neutron stars. Doesn't science compensate for this by speaking almost entirely in probabilities?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:11:22 2013 No.3541603 >>3541591 Are you asking the empirically determined reason or are you making some philosophical point? I suppose you could be saying that color is an intrinsic part of an object because the photon wavelengths they absorb is a property of an object.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:15:22 2013 No.3541618 >>3541591 photon goes pow on the electron. electron is excited. electron is then relaxed. a photon pops out. this photon has a wavelength. this corresponds to a color. this photon hits your eye.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:21:22 2013 No.3541629

>>3541589
>beside the point.
Just because you fail to understand it, it's not besides the point.

>your legitimacy hinges
My legitimacy is irrelevant to the correctness of what I post. Do you cognitively operate on such a low level that you cannot distinguish between the content of discussion and the person you're discussing with?

>the point is that people who do not understand the methods of science seem to paint it as the answer to everything just on the account that it is called 'science'.
Yes, there's alot of retards on /sci/. I am not one of those.

>nothing you have said -- or how you have said it -- indicates that you are scientific
Maybe that's because we're not talking about the theories of science? We are discussing the methods of science from a meta-level here and I highly doubt you have the education to talk about actual scientific contents.

>you have the insight of a wikipedia-educated science supporter
I don't even have a wikipedia account.

>congratulations on your first year in college then
I'm working on my MSc.

>yeah ok let's just do this until the thread 404s. "you're wrong"
No, YOU are wrong.

>it's a throwaway sentence that is meaningless
You mean just like the empty phrases it was addressing?

>"what you know is dumb" is not the most convincing of arguments
Then why did you use it twice in your post by accusing me of browsing wikipedia?

>i'm not asking you to solve a problem.
Do you not know what the demarcation problem is? Look it up on wikipedia.

>i'm sure they don't alter the legitimisation process
How do you justify any form of "knowledge" gained by unscientific methods?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:21:22 2013 No.3541631 Today /lit/ made me proud. Soon you can start to read Ways of worldmaking.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:29:24 2013 No.3541659

>>3541629
>Just because you fail to understand it, it's not besides the point.

it is beside the point. the point was that humans make shit up because they think they can get away with it, which i already stated in the post you last responded to.

>My legitimacy is irrelevant to the correctness of what I post

it is entirely relevant to "i'm a scientist so i know about science" since that is literally the only way you have tried to explain how you know about science. the rest of your sentence is a throwaway

> We are discussing the methods of science from a meta-level here

which you haven't done at all. all you've said is "no" followed by cop-out explanations of "you're too dumb". not impressive

>I don't even have a wikipedia account.

you're not tricking me into thinking you don't know how wikipedia works. don't bother.

>I'm working on my MSc.

yes and that comes like five years after where you are now. again, congratulations. or let me guess -- you're doing computer science?

>No, YOU are wrong.

no, you are wrong. believe me, i'm a scientist. i'm working on my masters.

>You mean just like the empty phrases it was addressing?

no, what YOU know is dumb.

>Then why did you use it twice in your post by accusing me of browsing wikipedia?

that's not what i accused you of. there is a difference between you saying "i destroyed your nonsense by calling it kindergarten level" and me thinking you are wikipedia-educated because you don't offer any more insight into any subjects than the quality of what is found on wikipedia.

>Do you not know what the demarcation problem is?

i was asking you for your definition of science, so define it. your definition. your personal definition.

>How do you justify any form of "knowledge" gained by unscientific methods?

i'm not trying to

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:39:24 2013 No.3541688 >>3540766 Was I trolled? Please, someone tell me I was trolled; I refuse to believe this is real.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:39:24 2013 No.3541691

>>3541659
>the point was that humans make shit up because they think they can get away with it
In science they won't get away with it. Ever heard of peer review? Probably not, because in your edgy pseudo-philosophy peer review doesn't happen.

>it is entirely relevant to "i'm a scientist so i know about science"
So it is important to a straw person of yours? Cool story.

>which you haven't done at all. all you've said is "no" followed by cop-out explanations of "you're too dumb"
Oh, the irony. You're projecting way too hard. The description perfectly fits your behaviour ITT.

>yes and that comes like five years after where you are now
It's happening right now. Your jelly won't make facts disappear.

>or let me guess -- you're doing computer science?
lol, no. CS is pretty much the lowest pleb tier subject in existence. Even social sciences are better.

>insight into any subjects
We haven't yet talked about any subject. The only thing we talked about so far was your ignorance for which there is plenty of evidence ITT.

>i was asking you for your definition of science
I'm not going to play your shifting the burden of proof game. You are the one attacking science and I told you why you were wrong.

>i'm not trying to
You're not trying to justify your position? What are you even doing ITT? Shitposting for the purpose of shitposting?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:44:24 2013 No.3541710

>>3541038

>hey both said that the rise of science and technology is detrimental to the flourishing of humanity. It degrades humans, and enslaves them to material objects. They both said science is the cause of consumerism and class differences

That's an incredibly stupid idea. I'm gonna need the source of this.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:49:24 2013 No.3541727

>>3541691
>because in your edgy pseudo-philosophy peer review doesn't happen.

are you kidding? i directly reference peer review as how knowledge is legitimised.
"these findings are published and accepted by peers"
in >>3541283

>So it is important to a straw person of yours?

what? this is what you said: "Unlike you I know what science is. I have scientific education."
in >>3541460

>You're projecting way too hard.

you're still not discussing science on a meta-level

>Your jelly won't make facts disappear.

it is unproven

>The only thing we talked about so far was your ignorance for which there is plenty of evidence ITT.

again with this throwaway bullshit. you're purposely avoiding talking about any subject because you know you will be exposed.

>You are the one attacking science

i wasn't attacking science. i've outlined that three times now

>You're not trying to justify your position?

that was never my position.

>What are you even doing ITT?

trying to get you to explain how you're right at all

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:51:24 2013 No.3541742 >>3540469 >>5592809 >These threads /lit/ vs. /sci/ >ITT Let's preach to the choir, on the other side. So, who exactly threw the first rock here?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:54:24 2013 No.3541751

>>3541727
>i directly reference peer review as how knowledge is legitimised.
Then why do you ask me to legitimise scientific knowledge when you already accepted it as legitimate?

>this is what you said: "Unlike you I know what science is. I have scientific education."
Yes, that's what I said.

>you're still not discussing science on a meta-level
Right, because I had to go down on your level.

>you're purposely avoiding talking about any subject
How about you post a subject? Instead of insults? Ever thought about that?

>i wasn't attacking science. i've outlined that three times now
Why are you even arguing then?

>trying to get you to explain how you're right at all
I have nothing to defend. I didn't even make any claims. I'm merely pointing out how your nonsense is half-witted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 17:57:21 2013 No.3541768 >>3541603 >>3541618 Not asking 'how', but 'why' here Why does a particular object absorb the wavelength which is the outcome of red in particular, and not green, yellow or blue?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:01:21 2013 No.3541785

>>3541751
>Then why do you ask me to legitimise scientific knowledge

i don't

>Yes, that's what I said.

so it isn't a 'straw person'?

>Right, because I had to go down on your level.

keep avoiding it. go on. really prove your worth.

>How about you post a subject?

how about you respond to what i've already posted without insults? go back to my first post and respond to it intelligently and with demonstrated insight

>Why are you even arguing then?

see above

>I'm merely pointing out how your nonsense is half-witted.

prove it.
"i'm a scientist" is not proof

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:04:22 2013 No.3541802 >>3541691 haha this haughty fanatic pseudo-intellectual science undergrads sure posses the illusionary superiority

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:05:22 2013 No.3541806

>>3541768
i'm not really sure what you're asking, but
take hydrogen. hydrogen has specific energy levels that its' electrons can be in. when excited to a specific level, the photon that will fall out when it goes back to its' base level, corresponds to the difference in energy between the levels.

hydrogen has different energy levels than say, helium, and so on and so forth. therefore the photons will have different wavelenghts, and therefore different colors.

different type of atom, different energy levels.

although i guess that's even more how, not why.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:06:22 2013 No.3541810

>>3541785
Okay, let's go back to your post >>3541283 where you said
>science zealots like the guy you are quoting completely misunderstand the process of legitimisation in science

How do you justify using the word "zealot" and how do you justify your baseless claim that I "misunderstand the process of legitimisation in science"?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:11:22 2013 No.3541825

>>3541810
are you the guy from /sci/ that is being quoted?

i use the word 'zealot' because, as demonstrated, there is no compromise in how you treat science. "science" is a purposely vague term that is supposed to represent all the technological advancement our societies have seen, but in its vagueness it is equally applicable to being the cause of the holocaust. not only that, even a simple explanation of the legitimisation processes triggered you into an unrelenting attack on what i said, in response to a supposed "attack on science", which was not the point of what i was saying at all.

the fact that you disagreed with my mentioning of peer reviews is a clue to how you misunderstand the process. science is legitimised through peer review. that's all i said and for some reason you thought this was an "attack"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:16:22 2013 No.3541838 >>3541806 >although i guess that's even more how, not why. Exactly

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:18:24 2013 No.3541848

>>3541825
>that is supposed to represent all the technological advancement our societies have seen, but in its vagueness it is equally applicable to being the cause of the holocaust

What a huge load of bullshit. Technological advancement is only tangentially related to (application of) science. Your holocaust example is absurd and off-topic. It seems you are confusing science with the entirety of societal consequences of the age of enlightenment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:19:24 2013 No.3541850 >>3541838 nothing will ever give you the 'why' though, will it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:23:24 2013 No.3541866 >>3541850 Guess not, but it's still intriguing as fuck phenomenologically. There are people that spout shit like "Oh man, I figured that out when I was in kindergarten wetting my diapers" yet the question of Why goes completely over their heads

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:25:24 2013 No.3541872 >>3541838 >>3541850 >>3541866 Do you guys seriously think you're deep for repeatedly asking "why"? Any 5 year old has done this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:27:24 2013 No.3541876 what is philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:27:24 2013 No.3541879 >>3541848 >What a huge load of bullshit. this is my point. it is a huge load of bullshit which is why i'm attacking zealots in the first place. if you're not the same as them then fine. this shouldn't have been half a thread's worth of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:28:24 2013 No.3541884 >>3541876 A pseudo-intellectual escapism activity for people who are too cognitively impaired for science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:30:24 2013 No.3541893 >>3541879 You completely ignored how I explained why your post was mindless garbage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:34:27 2013 No.3541912 >>3541876 An intellectually life affirming activity for people who aren't too cognitively impaired in believing scientific and religious dogma

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:46:27 2013 No.3541957

>>3541893
because you didn't explain

unless you're talking about 'science' being used as a vague term, which is where i explain that in using such a vague term you can also apply it to the holocaust

to be honest i don't think you understand what i'm getting at. i think you still think i'm attacking the scientific process, rather than 'science' as how i've observed many people treat it; i.e. the zealots

your argument is not really with me

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:53:27 2013 No.3541988

>>3541957
>unless you're talking about 'science' being used as a vague term
You were claiming science is a "vague term" and you proceded to stretch the "vague" to an extent that was becoming ridiculously wrong.

>rather than 'science' as how i've observed many people treat it; i.e. the zealots
Why do you confuse science with the misconceptions of uneducated children? What is your level of education? What do you know about science?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 18:55:27 2013 No.3542006

>>3541988
no i'm saying that science is used by zealots as a vague term and in using that vague term you can explain how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change

>Why do you confuse science with the misconceptions of uneducated children?

i'm not. the very point at the beginning was an attack on these misconceptions rather than the scientific process. hence this: " i think you still think i'm attacking the scientific process, rather than 'science' as how i've observed many people treat it; i.e. the zealots"

again, your argument is not with me

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:00:27 2013 No.3542031

>>3542006
>no i'm saying that science is used by zealots as a vague term
You are using science as a vague term. Are you a zealot?

>is not synonymous with positive progress or change
Science has never been synonymous with progress or change.

>the very point at the beginning was an attack on these misconceptions
The attack was uncalled for and unrelated to the post you were initially quoting. Btw I think you aren't better than the people you're criticizing.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:03:27 2013 No.3542054

>>3542031
>You are using science as a vague term

i'm not

>Science has never been synonymous with progress or change.

that's my point

>The attack was uncalled for and unrelated to the post you were initially quoting.

no. "that makes science" is vague

>Btw I think you aren't better than the people you're criticizing.

because you keep misinterpreting my posts. it's kind of a given that you don't think highly of me but it's mutual and not really worth bringing up. are you hoping to end this through intimidation? just accept that you misinterpreted my initial argument just as you continue to misinterpret what i say now

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:07:28 2013 No.3542083

>>3542054
>i'm not
You did in >>3541825

>that's my point
Then why did you state the opposite in >>3542006?

>no. "that makes science" is vague
There's nothing vague about these three words.

>because you keep misinterpreting my posts.
No, because you are either intentionally contradicting yourself or incapable of expressing yourself properly.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:11:28 2013 No.3542104

>>3542083
>You did in
"you are" implies an ongoing process. even if i did in that post (science is legitimised through peer review?), it is one example

>Then why did you state the opposite in

i was still stating their view.

>There's nothing vague about these three words.

"making science" is incredibly vague

>No, because you are either intentionally contradicting yourself or incapable of expressing yourself properly

i keep having to correct you over very basic sentences

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:15:28 2013 No.3542123

>>3542104
>even if i did in that post, it is one example
Your backpedalling is pathetic.

>i was still stating their view.
You didn't say that.

>"making science" is incredibly vague
Read the whole sentence, you illiterate fucktard.

>i keep having to correct you over very basic sentences
You never did such a thing. It's me who constantly has to correct your ignorance/illiteracy/simplemindedness.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:21:28 2013 No.3542149

>>3542123
>Your backpedalling is pathetic.

you didn't clarify where i used 'science' in a vague manner. can you do that now?

>You didn't say that.

i did. the implication was in their view science is synonymous with progress, while i could use 'science' in an equally vague manner to say that it wasn't synonymous.

>Read the whole sentence

i did. make a point

>You never did such a thing.

did i not?
>"you are" implies an ongoing process.
>i was still stating their view.
>that's my point
>no i'm saying that science is used by zealots as a vague term
>i'm not. the very point at the beginning was an attack on these misconceptions
>this is my point
>the fact that you disagreed with my mentioning of peer reviews is a clue to how you misunderstand the process

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:25:30 2013 No.3542161

>>3542149
>you didn't clarify where i used 'science' in a vague manner. can you do that now?
Sure. In >>3541825 you said
>"science" is a purposely vague term that is supposed to represent ...

>i did. the implication was in their view science is synonymous with progress
Show me where you said this. Link the post and quote the sentence.

>i did. make a point
Tell me what part of the sentence you didn't understand.

>did i not?
You didn't. Copying a few empty phrases does not constitute a point.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:31:30 2013 No.3542186

>>3542161
ok so me defining it as a vague term is evidence of me using it as a vague term? no fucking kidding. is that representative of how i view science? no. the entire point is how 'zealots' use it as a vague term. what exactly is your problem?

>Show me where you said this.

>science is used by zealots as a vague term and in using that vague term you can explain how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change
(the implication being that they do view it as synonymous)

>Tell me what part of the sentence you didn't understand.

not the point. my problem is with its vague use.

>Copying a few empty phrases does not constitute a point.

copying phrases where i've had to correct you on your interpretations constitutes the point that i've had to correct you on your interpretations

to be honest i think you're a little mad that you couldn't close out the argument as quickly as you hoped with your disengaged, lazy style of argument. couple this with misinterpreting my first post initially, it seems like you're in damage control mode now.

can you make a single point of why you're still continuing this conversation? bonus points if you don't end up saying "you're dumb" or something to that effect

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:45:31 2013 No.3542258

>>3542186
>ok so me defining it as a vague term is evidence of me using it as a vague term?
> is that representative of how i view science?
Yes. My impression of your views is solely based on what you post. I cannot read your mind. If you wanted to express something different from what you wrote, then it's your fault that you failed to do so. Is your mentalization stuck in kindergarten?

>(the implication being that they do view it as synonymous)
This implication doesn't occur in your sentence. On the contrary your sentence says their vague use of the term is not synonymous with [...].
Please work on your written language skills. You expressed the exact opposite of what you meant to say.

>not the point. my problem is with its vague use.
There was nothing vague in my sentence. If you disagree, please explain why.

>copying phrases where i've had to correct you on your interpretations constitutes the point that i've had to correct you on your interpretations
But you didn't correct anything.

>disengaged, lazy style of argument
... says the guy who can't even bother to capitalize his sentences.

>it seems like you're in damage control mode now.
>can you make a single point of why you're still continuing this conversation?
On the contrary I am now confident that I'm in the superior position. In the beginning you managed to appear eloquent, but now you're reduced to grasping at straws. I refuse to call it my victory, for there is no winner in such a debate. In the end your ignorance remains more sad than amusing. I will however try my best to help you learn from this conversation.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 19:58:20 2013 No.3542356

>>3542258
but the point is that i'm not representing my personal views on science. maybe you need to repeat this every time you go to respond because i've had to tell you this nearly every time in the past dozen posts.

>This implication doesn't occur in your sentence.

why else would i say that? to use their vague definition of science to counter my own personal belief that it is synonymous with progress? that makes no sense

>There was nothing vague in my sentence.

science is more than just the application of empiricism and rationality, is it not? "applying rationality" is pretty vague. how it is applied? is it applied in every possible way it can be applied in 'science'? "applying empiricism"?

>But you didn't correct anything.

saying "no" and clarifying tends to constitute a correction

>... says the guy who can't even bother to capitalize his sentences.

i'm talking about your "you're wrong and dumb but i refuse to explain further; just take my word on it" style of argument that has been common throughout this discussion. "you do something similar" is not an argument, by the way

>I will however try my best to help you learn from this conversation.

no dude you get the bonus points for NOT saying "you're dumb" or something to that effect

but really is this your sole reason for continuing?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:07:21 2013 No.3542432

>>3542356
>but the point is that i'm not representing my personal views on science.
You should of said this earlier. I'm not a mind reader.

>that makes no sense
Indeed. Your sentence made no sense. Just look at it. Look at its grammatical structure and try to objectively justify how it was supposed to convey the intended meaning. You will quickly realize why it failed to do so.

>science is more than just the application of empiricism and rationality
Now you're quoting an entirely different part of my sentence. Previously you quoted "That makes science". How am I supposed to understand your thoughts when you are that inconsistent and incoherent? Did you never learn to express yourself clearly and unambiguously?

>i'm talking about your "you're wrong and dumb but i refuse to explain further; just take my word on it" style of argument
Yeah, I shouldn't go down on your level.

>but really is this your sole reason for continuing?
I want to help you become more educated. You should be grateful for my efforts.

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:20:22 2013 No.3542513

>>3542432
>You should of said this earlier.

it was in my very first post, to which you replied with an irrelevant response

>Look at its grammatical structure and try to objectively justify how it was supposed to convey the intended meaning.

i just did. there was literally no reason for me to bring up making 'science' not synonymous with 'progress' other than to imply it was part of the views of the 'zealots'

>Now you're quoting an entirely different part of my sentence

it's a subclause of the same sentence

>Yeah, I shouldn't go down on your level.

"no u"? how creative

>I want to help you become more educated.

no you're just arguing semantics and trying to explain how you misinterpreted my posts. obviously this is because we agree with my initial argument; that 'science zealots' are an embarrassment. if you don't think you're one of these people then great we can move on

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:33:24 2013 No.3542570

>>3542513
Let us analyze this sentence:
>science is used by zealots as a vague term and in using that vague term you can explain how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change
Or more specifically this subclause:
>in using that vague term you can explain how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change
Especialy the last part:
>how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change
The word "their" refers to the "zealots". Alright, so you're talking about the zealot's conception of science. What are you saying about their conception of science?
>is not synonymous with positive progress or change
What is their conception of science? Is it synonymous with progress or change? Oh wait ...
>not
Ha! You are saying that their conception of science is not synonymous with progress or change.

Now let us look at >>3542186
Here you say in reference to the above sentence:
>(the implication being that they do view it as synonymous)
Do you remember what you said? You said they do not view it as synonymous.

Well, this is quite weird, isn't it? You claim to imply the exact opposite of what you said.
I thought I was familiar with rhetorical devices and figures of speech. But that act of yours appears only absurd to me. Care to enlighten me?

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:39:24 2013 No.3542597

>>3542570
>What are you saying about their conception of science?
that it is synonymous with progress or change but you can use a vague definition of science to say that it isn't

> in using that vague term you can explain how their vague idea of science is not synonymous with positive progress or change

using the vague term of 'science' you can explain to them how their view of science is not synonymous with progress. why would i be using 'science' in a vague way to say that it is not synonymous with progress? because in their view it is

there is no reason why i would have added that to the sentence other than to imply in their view science is synonymous with progress

>You said they do not view it as synonymous.

then why would i bother explaining, using the vague termed 'science', that their views aren't synonymous with progress? think about it

Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:47:24 2013 No.3542636

>>3542597
I have never seen such incoherent, incomprehensible and self-contradictory gibberish. On the slight off-chance that you're not a troll my honest advice to you is to talk to a psychiatrist. You might suffer from a disorder of the psychotic spectrum. Have a good night. Bye!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:50:25 2013 No.3542647 >>3542636 great response! 0/10!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 8 20:56:25 2013 No.3542667 This thread went from shit to bitter-shit-rivalry to 'what-is-this-I-don't-even' Thanks /lit/

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

/lit/ - Literature