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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 63 KB, 371x475, cosmos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3584924 No.3584924 [Reply] [Original]

Is Cosmos considerable as a religious work?

It invokes the same sense of awe as traditional religious literature, but the basis is absolute fact.

>> No.3584929

Stop teasing the continentals. Bad troll.

>> No.3584939

>>3584924
>absolute fact

New atheist detected.

>> No.3584949

OMFG, have you heard about these dumb scientists? They totally believe in the sun. What blithering idiots they are. When will they realise that belief in the sun is a dogmatic religion and be a genius like me?

>> No.3584966 [DELETED] 

>>3584924
no such thing as absolute fact op
even in the science world

>> No.3585079

Never read any of this. What's the deal?

>> No.3585107

>>3584966
square has 4 sides

>> No.3585142

>>3585107
SHUT UP NOT IN MY WORLD IN MY WORLD IT HAS 46 LOL PWNED

>> No.3585160

>>3585107

it's an axiom not a fact. it's not derived from senses, it's more of a concept in our universe, such like "one thing cannot be square and the cricle at the same time." mind blown, chek dem pre socratics, bitches.

>> No.3585166

>>3585160
I am seeing your post right now as I write this.

Game over, man. Game. Fucking. Over.

>> No.3585192

>>3585166

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/

inb4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

>> No.3585199

>>3585192
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism
“Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”

>> No.3585206

>>3585192
Sorry, I can't doubt that I see what I see. I can doubt the process which led to it, at best.

>> No.3585210

>>3585209
That it is logically impeccable does not mean it is correct, only internally coherent.

>> No.3585209

>>3585199

inb4 authority bias / argument from authority

your copypaste doesn't even invalidate previous point since it's says scepticism is logically impeccable, deal with it bre

>> No.3585212

>>3585206
Just ignore them, they are wrong. You can have objective knowledge.

>> No.3585215

>>3585212

nice samefagging bre

>> No.3585216
File: 50 KB, 635x854, Witt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3585216

>>3585209
Scepticism is a linguistic construct that only appears valid within an abstract linguistic context. Scepticism cannot be objectively regarded as correct.

>> No.3585217

>>3585215
Nope. You are confusing multiple people.

>> No.3585224
File: 4 KB, 294x171, sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3585224

>>3584924
I remember watching this on tv in the early 80s when I was about 12. Blew my fucking mind.

The theme music still sends shivers down my spine.

>Is Cosmos considerable as a religious work?
No. It is scientific.

A sense of awe? Certainly. I get a sense of awe when I look at stars in the sky.

Religious? No. Just curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dADUBcoEEHw

>> No.3585232

>>3585212
>You can have objective knowledge.
Time to sort this shit out once and for all.

Sensory observation: You can observe reality, and that is an objective observation – you have obtained some truthful knowledge of reality. Once you assign anything on top of that, even something as basic as saying 'this is red', that is an interpretive overlaying of a construct, and cannot contain objective truth.

Yes, you can have objective knowledge in the sense that you can see and hear reality – even though your neurological interpretation of reality may differ to someone else's – but you cannot make any claim, labelling, models, or predictions about it without having the potential for inaccuracy.

>> No.3585238

>>3585216

it's not a lingustic construct. It's a system that defines relations to objects and concepts in a logically impeccable way. Hence it's correct, true, deal with it.

>muh eatint muh own tail wittgenstein
>implying tractatus isn't a metaphysical work in itself

get lost bre

>> No.3585241

>>3585238
On Certainty isn't the Tractatus.

>> No.3585246
File: 40 KB, 400x399, WTFAMIREADING.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3585246

>>3585232

>You can observe reality, and that is an objective observation
>you have obtained some truthful knowledge of reality

>/basicsofthebasics
>/linguistics
>/witty
>/daveward/

>> No.3585244
File: 218 KB, 524x468, 1363890473291.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3585244

>It invokes the same sense of awe as traditional religious literature

ya mang we are all just like guitardust or something waaowww

>> No.3585247

>>3585238
>It's a system that defines relations to objects and concepts in a logically impeccable way
>It's a system
Exactly, it's a system; it's a linguistic model. The moment you say 'Reality is ...' You are open to potential failure.

"We CANNOT have true empirical knowledge" becomes an attempt at a truth statement, when really it is a faith claim as you have to be within a particular model to make it. You would be better to say "I BELIEVE that we cannot have true empirical knowledge," thus accepting your dogmatic method of making your conclusion.

>> No.3585251

>>3585246
>You can observe reality, and that is an objective observation
Attempt to refute it then, oh mighty greentext warrior.

>> No.3585253

Are all of the people who deny objective knowledge solipsists?

If you think you can't have any objective knowledge, surely that also has to cover the view that you can't verify the existence of another mind as objectively true?

>> No.3585258

>>3585247

bitch sceptisism isn't some metaphysical doctrine you dumbwit. It correctly defines relations of objects and concepts. No sceptic will say the sentence "reality is..", how dumb are you?

buy a brain, get lost, read books etc etc

>>3585251

2/10 almost responded

>> No.3585262

>>3585258
>It correctly defines relations of objects and concepts.
No, it's faulty epistemology.

>No sceptic will say the sentence "reality is..",
That's my point. You can't make a truth claim. Yet you seem to be content to treat it as one.

>> No.3585263

Cosmos is actually kind of outdated now.

>> No.3585264

>>3585258
>It correctly defines relations of objects and concepts.
*I believe it correctly defines relations of objects and concepts.

Son, you are shooting yourself with your own gun.

>> No.3585266

>>3585263
The series is being (has been?) remade with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

>> No.3585269

>>3585266
I'm just. Saying. If Cosmos is gonna' be OP's religious book, then he's going to be disconnected from reality by faith just like the rest of us.

>> No.3585270

>>3585258
Why do you look before you cross the road? Why do you put bandages on yourself when you are cut? Why do you eat? Why do you try to avoid walking into walls? Why don't you just try to fly to work every morning? Why do you press the H key when you want to write a H? Why do you read this post as if it was written in English? Why do you write back in English?

You are not a scpetic. You believe in the things around you. You have trust in many inferences you have made about reality.

As you should. Those are things it would be hard to conceive how to be sceptical about.

>> No.3585280

>>3585270

Being a sceptic and operating in the world are not mutually exclusive.

try again.

>> No.3585285

>>3585253
By default, yes, they would have to be solipsists.

>> No.3585286

>>3585280
They clearly are. If you are a sceptic, you do not believe you have grounds to believe any of the many things you have to presume for everyday life and action to have any purpose.

You odn't actually believe. You are just confused by words.

>> No.3585291

>>3585286
Not that guy, and most certainly not a sceptic. But they use bayesian probability. They say 'I use empirical models for convenience. I have a higher certainty that x exists, and y will happen, as within the models I am using there isn't relativism, and the chance of x and y occurring are higher than the chance of them not occurring. However, I don't accept that the model I am using can ever be objectively true'.

Obviously, sceptics run into a lot of problems with their beliefs, but this is their fundamental justification for using models.

>> No.3585328
File: 21 KB, 367x451, media_preview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3585328

>>3585286

"Why do I get on a bike expecting not to fall?"

In your opinion a true sceptic doesn't belive that the physical laws will keep the bike nicely level and running, because he has no grounds to belive and presume the physical laws hold true.

In reality, a sceptic knows that the physical laws may not work a second from now, but they appear consitent from his reference frame and hence he finds useful to rely on the apparent continuum of the pattern, even if on a fundamental level there are no certainties.

chekmate take it to /r/autism

>> No.3585346

>>3585328
So you are saying they do believe they can be certain about it.

>> No.3586020

>>3584924
It is a great book/series indeed.
But it's not even close to religious literature at all, for Sagan includes his own thought in them, so Cosmos could be called "Sagan's vision of our role in the Universe"

>> No.3586041

>>3584924
>It invokes the same sense of awe as traditional religious literature

no

>but the basis is absolute fact.

no

>> No.3586042

>YOU CAN OBSERVE REALITY AND THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION

I've just entered this thread, but once again, the people who don't read are clearly distinguished from the people who do.

I'm crying

>> No.3586052

>>3586042
That greentext sentence is correct.

>> No.3586060
File: 153 KB, 475x311, tumblr_l4u9pzaDsX1qcym1wo1_500[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3586060

>SCIENS SO AMAZIG I CRI EVR TIEM ;________; PRAISS LE SCIENCE SPIRIT

Relevant:

www.snotr.com/video/8344/The_Universe

>> No.3586070

>>3586042
>>YOU CAN OBSERVE REALITY AND THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION
"Any 'model' is potentially falsifiable and beyond verification. Perception is not a model, but an isolation of the material it's observing. Self-perception exists prior to the overlaying of (or forcing into) a model of empirical speculation, and will, even in the crudest of solipsist sophistry, grant objective truth in an isolated abstraction."

>> No.3586084

My epistemology class was the worst thing I ever took in college it was a bunch of smelly(cigarettes and coffee) hipsters arguing about skepticism and insisting it was still a useful and relevant field especially in an era of advanced science where we have a greater understanding of our perception and how it works. It felt like people trying to be obtuse for the sake of it

>> No.3586094

>>3586042
even Kant thought it's right

>> No.3586105

>>3586084
>advanced science where we have a greater understanding of our perception and how it works
hahahah get a load of this brainwashed puppet

>> No.3586115

>>3586094
Kant was a toad who was born in the 1700's. If he was alive today he would be a genetic engineer.

>> No.3586121

>>3586115
confirmed for not reading and understanding Kant

>> No.3586159

>>3586020
Impying the authors of the bible didn't include their own thoughts into its writing

>> No.3586161

>stoner fanfiction of a cold and indifferent universe

I sure hope.

>> No.3586171

>>3586094
>kant
>observing ding an sich
>possible

>> No.3586186

>but the basis is absolute fact.

Sorry, Carl, your work was lost on this fool.

>> No.3586202

>>3585107

A real square would always have six though. Nothing can exist in just the 2nd dimension.

>> No.3586228

Science fills the role of religion in my people's life. A feeling of belonging to something greater than oneself. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that. Everyone needs a God, be it YWHV, television, science or new age.

>> No.3586268

>>3586159
The Bible was more of a controlled publication

>> No.3586285
File: 54 KB, 250x250, 1360295684326.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3586285

>>3586115

>> No.3586298

>>3584966
yes there is. it's called math.

>> No.3586318

>>3586298
A is A because of A therefore A.

Cool fact bro.

>> No.3586423

>>3585160
fact
/fakt/
Noun

A thing that is indisputably the case.

It is a fact, whether or not its truth is derived from the senses.

>> No.3586433

>>3586423
>A thing that is indisputably the case.
But nothing is. Nice try.

>> No.3586473

>>3586433
>The screen I'm looking at seems blue
>Not indisputably the case

I think you need to try again.

>> No.3586490

>>3586473
No, you can't have 'blue'.

You can look at the screen, but that's it. You can't call it a screen, you can't call it blue, you can't say its rectangular, you can't give it any properties... You can just look.

Any property you assign it is falsifiable. 'the screen is blue,' congratulations, you are colorblind. 'the screen is blue,' no it's not, the lighbulb in your room is offsetting the color. the screen is blue,' no, it... always has the potential to be falsified.

>> No.3586492

>>3586473
No, I have no way to tell if you're lying. In fact I suspect you are. Also:

http://stereopsis.com/flux/

Enjoy a better computing life.

>> No.3586510

>>3586490
No, you missed a spot brah.
>Seems
Your making an introspective statement about how things appear to you, not how they are.

>> No.3586522

>>3586492
Feel free to doubt my statement. What seems to be the colour of the screen you are looking at anon? It's the same thing, and it can't not be true.

>> No.3586532
File: 280 KB, 400x300, Kant Destroyer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3586532

>>3586115
Say that to my face, fucker, not online and see what happens.

>> No.3586593

>>3586522
jokes on u i browse on an e-ink device

>> No.3586598

>>3586510
>Seems
Ahhh, you sneaky e-prime using motherfucker. Okay, you can have your statement.

>> No.3586665

>>3586268
no doubt, but it still was influenced by its different authors and their viewpoints

>> No.3586837

>>3586490
>You can't call it a screen, you can't call it blue
Yes I can.

>> No.3586842

>>3586837
I think he's talking about objective truth not verbal ability.

>> No.3586855

>>3586842
He's not showing any objective truth himself, just his own verbal ability. Or typing ability, in this case. Him saying properties are falsifiable makes them just as falsifiable just as much as me saying a screen's blue makes it blue.

>> No.3586860

>>3586855
Nice Pyrrhic victory bro.

>> No.3586862

>>3586855
>Him saying properties are falsifiable makes them just as falsifiable just as much as me saying a screen's blue makes it blue.
By your logic, you didn't manage to falsify his post.

>> No.3586880

>>3586860
It's not a Pyrrhic victory, you're just saying it is.

>> No.3586909

this thread has been such a fun read.