/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6610801]

Is he right? Is scientism right?

[Anonymous No.6610808]

>>6610801
>Is scientism right?

About what?

[Anonymous No.6610814]

>>6610801
science doesnt tell anything, it is there to be interpreted by sound metaphysics

[Anonymous No.6610825]

>our belief is not a belief
>our belief

[Anonymous No.6610827]

>>6610825
/thread

[Anonymous No.6610828]

weird image

And yes, "scientism" is correct.

You can masturbate if you want to, just dont pretend its equal to observed fact

[Anonymous No.6610845]

>>6610828
>observed fact
>observed
>fact

[Anonymous No.6610848]

>>6610828
>equal
>not in fact better

[Anonymous No.6610852]

>>6610801
CELESTIAL NORTH KOREA

[Anonymous No.6610855]

Tell me how the idea that the scientific method can answer non-empirical questions is any sillier than the idea that a bit of bread can magically turn into a man's flesh.

[Anonymous No.6610857]

>>6610828
HOW DARE YOU

[Anonymous No.6610863]

>>6610801
I hate that face so much; I want to grind it in asphalt.

[Anonymous No.6610865]

>>6610855
non-empirical questions are not real questions

[Anonymous No.6610867]

>>6610855

>he thinks non-empirical questions have meaning

[Anonymous No.6610871]

>>6610857
brothers and sisters

[Anonymous No.6610873]

>>6610865
Then tell me how scientism is nowhere near as dogmatic as organized religion.

[Anonymous No.6610875]

>>6610865
>real

>>6610867
>meaning

[Anonymous No.6610878]

>>6610867
>non empirical questions don't have meaning
I'm going to have to ask you to prove this empirically.

[Anonymous No.6610907]

daily reminder

[Anonymous No.6610914]

>>6610865
Can you back this statement with empirical evidence?

[Anonymous No.6610916]

>>6610907
you must find the 'right' religion first

[Anonymous No.6610919]

>>6610914
Yes.

Read some analytical philosophy faggot

Popper, Kripke, Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine etc.

Youa're a cuck

[Anonymous No.6610933]

>>6610919
>Quine
>Popper
>Kripke

gogged hard fwiend

[Anonymous No.6610938]

christposters should be killed

[Anonymous No.6610942]

>>6610938
Can you empirically verify that? :^)

[Anonymous No.6610943]

>>6610919
>mfw Wittgenstein called Kierkegaard the most profound thinker of the 19th century
Looks like you'll have to read some continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6610947]

>tfw bug STEM friend with 'prove 2 + 2 = 4' every day

[Anonymous No.6610950]

>>6610916
I already have anon

[Anonymous No.6610955]

>>6610947
4 is only equal to itself, that is why it is termed 4.

2 + 2(itself) is simply an impossibility, since 2 is 2, and there are not other 2's to sum.

math is an impossible circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.6610958]

>>6610943
CONTINENTAL ARE FOR WOMEN AND GAYS AND LIBERALS AND FEMINISTS AND CUCKS

REAL MEN READ ONLY ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY. THAT IS WHERE YOU FIND RATIONALITY AND NOT MUH FEELS

[Anonymous No.6610962]

>>6610947
Why doesn't he just show you the proof?

[Anonymous No.6610967]

>>6610958
remove ANALytic

[Anonymous No.6610971]

>>6610958
There are plenty of manly continentals.

[Anonymous No.6610973]

>>6610938
Is that even falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.6610979]

>>6610962
Cause you can't.

[Anonymous No.6610984]

>>6610958
>wittgenstein
>not a gay cuck

[Anonymous No.6610986]

no, obviously everything I make up is equalliy valid to things people have painstakingly proven over hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.6610989]

>>6610971
NO HE'S A LIBERAL FAG

HIS GENEOLOGICAL METHOD INSPIRED FEMINISM AND POSTMODERNISM

[Anonymous No.6611004]

>>6610989
I know you're trying to be a parody or something but the all caps gimmick was already taken.

[Anonymous No.6611007]

I don't really see a reason why we shouldn't believe in, say, Newton's third law. There's always the chance that our human perception of things is flawed, but using our senses we can basically agree on certain things.

[Anonymous No.6611019]

>>6610955
You are literally retarded. This is why people with a real education actually accomplish things. People like you have no use.

[Anonymous No.6611021]

>>6610979
>http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf
Surely you jest.

[Anonymous No.6611030]

>>6611019
what use have i in your math?

[Anonymous No.6611037]

>>6610916
ISLAM
S
L
A
M

[Anonymous No.6611042]

>>6611021
I'm gonna need some proof of all that.

[Anonymous No.6611043]

>>6611030
You wouldn't be able to use /lit/ without math, and then your social life would be over.

[Anonymous No.6611047]

>>6611042
It's all there man

[Anonymous No.6611051]

i'm not using your math to shit on you, i'm using my butthole

[Anonymous No.6611059]

>>6610801
scientism is either self-refuting or trivial

[Anonymous No.6611062]

>>6611051
Get out of my face

[Anonymous No.6611067]

>>6610865
That statement cannot be proven scientifically

[Anonymous No.6611068]

>>6610865
What about math?

[Anonymous No.6611071]

>>6610989
>doesn't respond to an actual point

step your game up, feminist cuck

[Anonymous No.6611085]

>>6611047
Your lack of evidence is utterly unscientific.
Trashed.

[Anonymous No.6611087]

>>6610962
Because math is a priori

[Anonymous No.6611088]

i didn't respond to your post because i was doing exactly that, i was walking away, it was directed toward the room we're in

i'm doing it again, hopefully you catch on

[Anonymous No.6611091]

this whole thread is unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6611092]

>>6611091
only thing not unfalsifiable is your mum riding my dickhole right now

[Anonymous No.6611093]

>>6611087
So is everything else.

[Anonymous No.6611095]

>>6611091
I'm going to need some evidence of that.

[Anonymous No.6611099]

>>6611093
Dogs aren't

[Anonymous No.6611103]

>>6611088

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6611111]

>>6610801
Epic bait bro, well-done bait image on a well-done bait thread. Hook, line and sinker. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.6611118]

>>6611111
Very good.

[Anonymous No.6611124]

>>6611111

[Anonymous No.6611125]

>>6611111
YOU HIT MULTIPLE OF THE NUMBERS IN A ROW

THAT'S AMAZING

THAT MAKES MY ADRENALINE RUSH

I HAVE SUCH A GREAT LIFE

THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME WITH MAKING ME HAPPY BY GETTING DOUBLES


HOPEFULLY YOU WON'T SAY 'THE GAME' HEHE BECAUSE THIS MEANS WE ALL LOST IT HEHE

[Anonymous No.6611126]

>>6611111
Thanks, I've been doing this for years. Old enough to be your father ;)

[Anonymous No.6611131]

>>6611125
I find this guy's posts to be extremely adorable in a good way :)))

[Anonymous No.6611134]

>>6611099
Sure are.

[Anonymous No.6611136]

>>6611125
I think you need to just chillax man.

[Anonymous No.6611139]

>>6611134
Prove how dogs are a priori

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6611169]

>>6611111
>Salutes

[Anonymous No.6611187]

>>6610814
>putting the cart before the horse

[Anonymous No.6611249]

Reification fallacy you faggots. Abstract mathematical models do not describe the way the world really is

[Anonymous No.6611253]

>>6611249
do you have any scientific evidence for that statement?

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611261]

i don't care about what anyone says 99.9% of science is boring as fuck who gives a shit how many degrees it is on venus and the name of neptune's moon thanks for some of the technology and the medicine but please quit making me update my phone i miss my old weather widget

[Anonymous No.6611276]

>>6611253
I'll bite. It really just boils down to the classic realism vs. instrumentalist debate. If science can't even agree with itself on whether or not the entities it proposes actually exist, why should it be taken as the sole bearer of knowledge about the world?

[Anonymous No.6611312]

>>6610867
>implying empirical questions have meaning

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611323]

how do you explain the constants/natural laws or whatever
where does nothingness cOmE fRoM

[Anonymous No.6611333]

>>6611276
does this question have any practical application?

[Anonymous No.6611345]

>>6610919
Wittgenstein does not claim that non-empirical questions lack meaning, only that they go beyond the limits of language and therefore discussing them is meaningless. Please refrain from namedropping what you don't understand. Everyone else on the list tried to reach far beyond their cognitive abilities and made a fool of themselves, similar to you.

[Anonymous No.6611371]

>>6611333
From a purely practical perspective, probably not. The purpose of science, most physics, is to describe how things work, not what things are. But this is precisely why Scientism has never and will never function as a tenable belief system. If the scientific method can only give us abstractions, then it's useless when it comes to getting down to the real essence of phenomena.

[Anonymous No.6611376]

>>6611371
can this be empirically demonstrated?

[Anonymous No.6611382]

>>6610919
>namedropping

>>>r/philosophy

[Anonymous No.6611391]

Hitchposting is the Baneposting of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6611396]

>>6611376
Spacetime is a pretty good example of this. Most popularization present it as an actual substance that bends and warps in the presence of matter, but if you press a real physicist on the matter they'll tell you the curvature tensor is purely mathematical and that spacetime is a clever invention used to rationalize the phenomena we observe. So yes, it can be :^)

[Anonymous No.6611403]

>>6610907
daily reminder reminder

[Anonymous No.6611476]

>>6611376
God does not exist.

Can you please get god to confirm it for me?

He does not subscribe to your religion, therefore this is the equivalent of your conversation. Empiricism has been refuted in numerous ways, it is not logically consistent, extremely limited is the highest possible standing it could hold. In its essence a circular argument - what I perceive is true because I perceive it. It even refutes itself by empirically demonstrating how obvservably limited and unreliable sensory experience is, even without philosophically questioning it. Treating it as a religion is sickening.

[Anonymous No.6611494]

>>6610845
>objectivism

[Anonymous No.6611539]

>>6610828
In a physical sense, this is right since the scientific method is based off of empiricism (thanks Mr. Bacon). However, in a metaphysical sense, you have just blasphemed.

[Anonymous No.6611585]

HOW

[Anonymous No.6611612]

>>6610919

That's not empirical evidence though, that's just you namedropping.

Also it's funny that you mention Russell since his whole deal was basing everything on the certainty of mathematics and logic, not empirical experience. But what about Kripke ?, let us look on the Wikipedia page.

"Kripke is an observant Jew.[17] Discussing how his religious views influenced his philosophical views (in an interview with Andreas Saugstad) he stated: "I don't have the prejudices many have today, I don't believe in a naturalist world view. I don't base my thinking on prejudices or a worldview and do not believe in materialism."[18].

Hmmmm. Have you ever read any analytic Philosophy have you just been on reddit a few times ?

( did I just take the bait?)

[Anonymous No.6611731]

>>6610801
Vive les francs maçons et le temple de la raison

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611733]

>>6611585
DARE

[Anonymous No.6611756]

you

[Anonymous No.6611786]

>>6610958
>Russell
>not a humanist, anti-racist, sjw cuck

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6611796]

https://youtu.be/KZTS6iVpSPI

what do you guys think about c. hitchens' views on circumcision

[Anonymous No.6611808]

>>6611796
what an asshole. He's just shitting on the beliefs of this rabbis' spirituality. He has no argument aside from his feeling that 'mutilation is bad guise'.

He seems very angry and that rabbi was doing a good job of being calm about it.

c hitch needs a little DFW
>In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships.

[Anonymous No.6611811]

>>6610801

[Anonymous No.6611837]

>>6610955
Even the most baby mathematician knows that you need to base the entire field on axioms. You need to take whole numbers as a set of whole numbers. Math is different from all other sciences in that you have to take base principles for granted. Some of these may be common sense but unprovable, since math can't be 'observed' in a satisfactory manner

[Anonymous No.6611854]

>>6611371
Not useless at all. You probably haven't kept up with the current interpretations of quantum mechanics or holographic principles. There are now current theories in place to test these ideas. Like, is the nature of our universe actually a hologram, a 2d sphere that projects a 3d space. There is an experiment right now testing the granularity of information in spacetime to see if this is true. That is actually a step to discover the nature of reality

But yeah, physics should get more help from philosophy, it may have smoothed over some of this quantum mechanics interpretation bullshit.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6611866]

>>6611808
>>In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships.
Yeah but that doesn't justify being a Christian

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6611870]

>>6611837
>Even the most baby mathematician knows that you need to base the entire field on axioms.
Er, no, the most baby mathematician knows that math is intuitive and we invented axioms ad hoc to justify those intuitions.

[Anonymous No.6611872]

>>6611866
God's salvation justifies being a Christian. Praise the Lord!

[Anonymous No.6611888]

>>6611870
I was referring to the rules of base arithmetic as the parent poster was talking about. Some of the basics can't be proven, because you need to take some axioms.

But you are right that for a lot of theorem s they take whatever they need

[Anonymous No.6611908]

>>6611870
The most baby mathematician knows that "intuitive" axioms can lead to bizarre results (le banach tarski meme theorem, well ordering principle), that some intuitively obvious ideas are contradictory (AoC and AD both sound pretty reasonable, don't they?) and that some of the great geniuses of humanity have spent their lives formalizing and analyzing mathematical ideas and the logical thought process for these reasons.

[Anonymous No.6611917]

>>6611888
The rules of base arithmetic are easily defined ("proven") from the Peano axioms.

[Anonymous No.6611922]

>muh scientism
>muh bullshit strawman for people who won't accept that magic is real like me

Daily reminder that Christfags are a cancer

[Anonymous No.6611925]

>>6611922
>muh magic strawman

>>>/womb/

[Anonymous No.6611931]

>>6611854
>That is actually a step to discover the nature of reality
not it does not. Science supposes realisms/physicalism/naturalism and describe via many mechanisms (which can be nece several phenomenon as well as predict quantities and qualities. There is no reason to say that physics discover the nature of reality. There is no reason to say that to predict some phenomenon is to know the world, to discover the reality.


Even if we have a mechanism which leads to the most accurate predictions that the humanity as ever seen, there is nothing telling us that there is not another model with different mechanisms which leads to the same predictions.

[Anonymous No.6611936]

>>6611925

But you people literally believe in magic. It would be a strawman if there was any other way to describe it. Unfortunately, you people literally believe in unobservable, supernatural forces that can be commanded to give you anything you want. Which is literally a belief in magic

[Anonymous No.6611942]

>>6610801


Mathematics is the activity of the mathematicians consisting in
-a choice of logic (developped by the logician) by the mathematician, where he chooses what is a proof, what is a theorem, what are the quantifiers...
-a choice of axioms which are devoid of direct ontology since what matters is now the axiomatic relations between the symbols
(this is key in the language : you no longer ask what is a plane, but how it interacts with other concepts in geometry, such as a point or a curve. In natural languages, some stronger degree of ontology remains, but this ontology could well be removed and some mathematics in a natural language would remain).
Naturally, there are mathematicians who are against the axiomatization of the mathematics. See, the finitists.

The task of the mathematicians is thus to derive as many theorems as possible, with the definition of theorem belonging to the choice of the logic. Hopefully, soon, we will have the computers to carry all our proofs, all that will remain for the humanity will be to seek new logics and new axioms. However, even this last task will be done by some machines sooner or later.

OFC, most mathematicians denigrate the logical aspect and choose the classical logic. My bet is that they love the law of excluded middle since it is too difficult for them to carry mathematics constructively, for they were not trained to love weaker logics. The choice of the logic is crucial for both the pure mathematics and their applications.

[Anonymous No.6611943]

Hitchens is the last guy to speak on 'science'. All he has been doing is talking politics and antitheism.

Anti-theists always tend to claim 'science' on their side. Science has nothing to do with belief/or lack thereof

[Anonymous No.6611944]

>>6611942

Physics is the activity of the physicists consisting in providing some models of the phenomenological world, models called objectivity, once assumed the metaphysical stance of the realism.
In physics, the predictions can be done qualitatively, instead of quantitatively. All our apparatuses are now quantitative, but every rule and prediction of every physical model can be formulated in a natural language. In physics, nobody knows if the the equations derived by the humanity concerning their experiences do hold in others parts of the universe. This is a mild solipsism, a humanist solipsism, analogue to the old question on how to know whether China exists, if I never have been to China. Any other kind of solipsism would be frowned upon socially in our times, anyway.
In science, there is a choice of many things, in the department of philosophy, loigc, mathematics, physics: of postulates/axioms/principles/methods for induction/methods for collection and treatment of experimental data
The output of the scientific method is a variety of models, more or less overlapping, which describe and predict, more or less broadly, more or less accurately, more or less quantitatively, more or less qualitatively, some phenomenon assumed to be repeatable within a framework determined by each model.
What are the absolutes ? They are the predictions, the outputs of the models. Each choice of model, by a person, is a matter of affinity, of belief, of ''I like, I do not like'', of preferences.
For instance, I can measure a thing with a ruler, ruler1, I get the number X. I choose another ruler, ruler2, I get the number Y. The number Y will always be gotten, in the process of applying the ruler2 to the thing to be measured, if the ruler2 is used.
But there is no necessity to use the ruler2, nor even the ruler1. There is not even a necessity to measure anything. Why do you want to measure something ?

[Anonymous No.6611946]

>>6611936
>unobservable, supernatural forces that can be commanded to give you anything you wan

kek

i bet you say they're "fairy tales" too

[Anonymous No.6611949]

>>6611942
>>6611944

Beforehand, though, each model describe, more or less partially, the phenomeon. If you venture on the WHYs and the HOWs, you engage yourself in metaphysics (literally, what is beyond the physics, the phenomenon and its acquirement by the senses).
Here, the objectivity is the numbers. The objectivity relates to the repetition of the procedure as well as to the prediction. We believe that the quantitative data aforementioned are more objective than qualitative data, precisely because we believe that numbers are more objective than qualities, because they are derived from some algorithm. The point of the person choosing this algorithm, over some others, is to convince/persuade the other people that her choice is right/better/relevant.
Then each person chooses her models that she likes the most and endlessly debates politically with the other persons in asking which method is better than the other, which must be applied in such fields, in such social doctrine.
You see that the physicists is always at the frontier of the explainable in terms of mechanist models. The physicists is interested in the domain where its favourite models DO NOT work, while the domain where the physical models do work is left to the engineer throughout the (industrial) technology, in order to solve some material problems.
We see with all this that the tragedy of the scientific method is its inability, so far, to advocate/prove (scientifically) its necessity and its sufficiency towards the goals that the humanity sets it up, that is to say, towards acquiring knowledge about the phenomenological world.
Indeed, under a monist stance, especially physicalist/naturalist, where everything is --- the physical realism starts here--- and is nature, the humanity and its thoughts included, the sciences must explain then what the humanity categorizes today as metaphysics. THe first questions is

[Anonymous No.6611955]

>>6611942
>>6611944
>>6611949

-why do the human models which predict (accurately or not) do predict ?
(how come the maths are so useful in physics ?, Einstein asks)
If we answer this, we can thus say why the physical models are necessary and sufficient to predict the quantitative and qualitative results.
Nonetheless, these predictions might not be all the knowledge to have.

These questions lead to the philosophy. The philosophy is nowadays the activity of the philosophers, those who love the sophia. With the greeks, It means that the philosophers are not sage themselves, but only that they love the sophia. At the time, in their perspectives, the philosophy is the activity to live the good life.

The philosophers put back the ontology in the language (natural), contrary to the mathematicians who try to impoverish the mathematical symbols (beyond the logical symbals, such the quantifiers). The phisophers do not hesitate to talk about what is not real. let us take the concept of the idea. An idea is not real, but it is pure being. An idea is pure ontology. It is a thing that is not another thing. The purity defines the idea. The traditional question is the one of the justice. What is justice ?
But why do we think Plato talks about the concept of idea. Plato talks about this concept, put it higher than anything else, for it was important in its time. Plato was looking for the selection of the pretenders (to the magistracy, let us say) since there is the competition, as established by the Greeks. THe concept of the idea solves the problem what gives somebody the right to something or not the right to some thing.

[Anonymous No.6611958]

>>6611942
>>6611944
>>6611949
>>6611955

In Deleuzian terms, The task of those people is to create some concepts, through the creation of problematics. They must identify, at their time and location in space, what are the problems in their societies. This step is incredibly more difficult than what it appears. What matters less is the solution to their identified problems. For instance, the typical problem of the modern democracies is the question of the knoweldge, as exposed below:

-why does the humanity hold the human predictions (from scientific models or not) as authentic knowledge about the world (as if there are two worlds, the world of the phenomenons and the world of the thoughts/predictions) ?

(for instance, if you can predict the output of some game, everybody on earth will tell you that you know about the world)

-is there knowledge that is not about prediction ?

why do we assume that there is a reality ?

If you replace maths with one philospher's doctrine, it works all the same. For each philosopher, we choose to follow the deductions that he makes according to the logic he chooses. Since philosophy is done in natural language, there is more vagueness and circularity than in maths, because the words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the job of the philosophers to do this.
At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, we will disagree, or we will be surprised or will not follow the deduction.
This where we stop believing in his doctrine, or stick to it and continue, or learn another one or explore your own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6611962]

>>6611946

Then please tell me what you believe and how it's in any way different from a belief in magic

[Anonymous No.6611985]

>>6611962
>i'm sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about

it's ok :)

[Anonymous No.6611988]

>>6611985

Nice dodge

[Anonymous No.6612006]

>>6611988
find a passage from the bible that talks about people controlling supernatural forces lol faggot

[Anonymous No.6612037]

>>6611917
>Peano axioms
like I said axioms, not proofs

[Anonymous No.6612039]

>>6612006

Didn't Moses open seas by commanding it so? Couldn't Jesus multiply loafs and fishes with a flick of his wrist? Or was that all sleight of hand?

[Anonymous No.6612046]

>>6611931
Yes, science is all about models, but the models themselves tell us about reality. Like, does free will exist? No, it does not fucking exist. Science is answering fundemental questions

[Anonymous No.6612051]

>>6612039
both were works of god lol faggot

[Anonymous No.6612057]

>>6612051

Oh, so you named your magical entity. That's indeed very different. Also

>lol faggot

Yeah, great wisdom there, O wise elder of Zion

[Anonymous No.6612065]

>>6612057

>refering to God as "magical entity"

The fact that you would disbelief to such extent is indeed evidence of Him. SWT

[Anonymous No.6612070]

>>6612057
the fuck definition of magic are you using, faggot?

>the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

are you retarded? (yes you are)

[Anonymous No.6612081]

>>6611958
good posts
But I can't help to think philosophy has misstepped in taking itself so far away from science. I think philosophers should really be more involved in the cutting edge of Comp Sci, AI, and Quantum Theory

[Anonymous No.6612086]

>>6612081
Why?

[Anonymous No.6612092]

>>6612070
There is only one definition of magic that is not a science. That would be something that, when tested against the laws of physics can not be made to fit. Since physics can and has been changed to fit contradiction this means by definition it can not exist.

[Anonymous No.6612102]

>>6612086
because it would help those fields immensely. Quantum Mechanics interpretations has floundered for decades, especially since the Bell experiment. And after that experiment all the teachers just said 'shut up and calculate' rather than dealing with the problem. Only in the last decade have physicists admitted that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. If philosophy was more involved this problem would have been addressed much earlier.

[Anonymous No.6612111]

>>6612046
Science has not yet answered the free will question lol, get the fuck out of here

[Anonymous No.6612116]

>>6612111
nothing in science is fully answered. It's a model with parameters. And as far as science models have shown free will does not exist. It's not like it's the final say in the matter but currently that is the answer

[Anonymous No.6612119]

>>6612116
You're conflating logical models and metaphysical speculation drawn from scientific observations with science itself. It's impossible to employ the scientific method to answer questions about free will, and the current state of science in fact seems to be against determinism, despite what Sam Harris says. It doesn't answer the question one way or another and as far as most educated people are concerned, the debate is still open.

[Anonymous No.6612135]

>>6612119
>It's impossible to employ the scientific method to answer questions about free will

How is that impossible in any sense of the term free will? It's testable, has predictive outcomes and has a base theory. Any way you look at it, it's provable. Maybe not 100% right now but in the future it will be 99.99.... provable

[Anonymous No.6612141]

>>6612135
Are you actually claiming that the existence of free will can be empirically tested?

[Anonymous No.6612160]

>>6612141
Yes, because the brain is a physical thing with cause and effect. how is that not something that can be tested?

[Anonymous No.6612162]

>>6611931
how do we find out the nature of reality then? is it impossible?

[Anonymous No.6612174]

>>6612162
is it a naive and fruitless inquiry?

[Anonymous No.6612180]

>>6612160
In a physical sense, we don't have the equipment and know-how to conduct such an experiment that will prove definitively, beyond all doubt, the existence/nonexistence of free will. If you're referring to the 'readiness potential' experiment, it only showed that the brain is electrically primed for decision-making a split-second before the actual decision, not that the outcome of the decision is predetermined.

In a metaphysical sense until we have a working model of consciousness - including a scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness (something many, myself included, would argue is ontologically impossible) it would be foolish to think of the brain as simply some monist Newtonian bundle of atoms - I'm not even arguing for dualism or an immortal soul here, but there exists consequently huge, empirically observed and unaccounted-for uncertainty in the purely physical realm. And of course, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[Anonymous No.6612184]

>>6612162
This is the are we a brain in the vat argument. Which can't be solved by philosophy and only by science. If science can find out something crazy like is our universe a hologram I think it can eventually solve this.

Whatever you think of the Many Worlds principle of QM it is actually getting close to provable theories.

[Anonymous No.6612191]

>>6612184
re: science solving brain in the vat, really? you realize that it is impossible for the inhabitants of a simulation to empirically prove that they're living in a simulation, because the informational limit of the universe is necessarily less than the amount of bits needed to define that universe? i.e a computer can never truly define itself.

[Anonymous No.6612197]

>>6612180
actually many experiments have already been preformed that say the outcome is predetermined. People keep leaping to the 'randomness' of QM to explain free will but it just doesn't hold up.

I see your problem with Induction and that's the only thing I see wrong with my origional point. But probably not for your reasons. The brain isn't always cause and effect, it takes time as chunks rather than linear. It's why people can read a word and not know the middle letters are all mixed up. Since the brain works in chunks, is there a possibility for free will to be saved in this? Seriously wondering cause I want to write on this

[Anonymous No.6612201]

>>6612197
>actually many experiments have already been preformed that say the outcome is predetermined.
Could you post some links?

[Anonymous No.6612203]

>>6612191
Information theory is proving that wrong. It is possible to analyze the granularity of information within space-time and test these theories.

[Anonymous No.6612211]

>>6612201
I didn't want to wait too long too post you something, plus, I'm tired. Here is a like from io9 which generally gets their sources right.

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

Hope it answers your questions cause I haven't read it. There is a lot of stuff out there though that supports this idea.

[Anonymous No.6612212]

>>6612203
That's irrelevant because the nature of the question of simulation requires perfect information of the universe - it seeks a container for the universal set - which according to information theory and perhaps more importantly non-naive set theory cannot be stored in the set itself. If you have evidence to the contrary then please go ahead and present it.

[Anonymous No.6612222]

>>6612212
I'm not saying it solves the Brain In the Vat or Matrix problem. I'm saying it is a reason to think that science CAN solve those problems. IF we can look into the face that we live in 2 dimensions +1 time, why can't we solve the issues of whether we live in a vat? Science is challenging questions that philosiphers are still battling with so why is there any reason to think this won't continue?

I still wish there was more cooperation in the two fields

[Anonymous No.6612228]

>>6612222
>IF we can look into the face that we live in 2 dimensions +1 time, why can't we solve the issues of whether we live in a vat?
Nice quads. All extra dimensions exist in this physical universe, we just can't perceive them, as opposed to a possible simulator which would be external to this universe.

[Anonymous No.6612229]

>>6612162
well it is the traditional problem of what is epistemic solipsism and the one of induction

[Anonymous No.6612233]

>>6611187
>Has not read Hume

[Anonymous No.6612239]

>>6612162#
well it is the traditional problem of the is epistemic solipsism and the one of induction.
the first step is to ask why do you believe that there is a reality, that you are not what you feel, that you are not what you experiment

[Anonymous No.6612247]

>>6612228
I understand where you are coming from. But it is a great example of how science can solve multiverse problems. Another example is the proposed theories of testing the Multiple Worlds theory. Which every quantum result ends up with a new universe. This is a more philosophical argument but it is very close to a physical test. Science is far more ahead than you think at this shit

[Anonymous No.6612250]

>>6612046
>>Yes, science is all about models, but the models themselves tell us about reality.
the models are nothing but a bunch of stories which the humanity grades according to what suits the humans.

[Anonymous No.6612255]

Congratulations OP. This may be the first time I've felt my personal space violated by a digital illustration of a deceased sophist.

[Anonymous No.6612262]

>>6612250
>the models are nothing but a bunch of stories which the humanity grades according to what suits the humans.
>>>/lit/

oh wait.

The models are testable by you and me.

[Anonymous No.6612274]

>>6610801
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism

Can we even go beyond Humane and Kant ?
What do you think of this speculation ?

>Speculative materialism

In his critique of correlationism, Quentin Meillassoux finds two principles as the locus of Kant's philosophy. The first of these is the Principle of Correlation itself, which claims essentially that we can only know the correlate of Thought and Being, that is to say, that what lies outside that correlate is unknowable. The second is termed by Meillassoux the Principle of Factiality, which states that things could be otherwise than what they are. This principle is upheld by Kant in his defence of the thing-in-itself as unknowable but imaginable. We can imagine reality as being fundamentally different even if we never know such a reality. According to Meillassoux, the defence of both principles leads to "weak" correlationism (such as those of Kant and Husserl), while the rejection of the thing-in-itself leads to the "strong" correlationism of thinkers such as Wittgenstein and Heidegger. For such "strong" correlationists, it makes no sense to suppose that there is anything outside of the correlate of Thought and Being, and so the Principle of Factiality is eliminated in favour of a strengthened Principle of Correlation.

[Anonymous No.6612277]

>>6612274

>Meillassoux follows the opposite tactic in rejecting the Principle of Correlation for the sake of a bolstered Principle of Factiality in his post-Kantian return to Hume. By arguing in favour of such a principle, Meillassoux is led to reject the necessity not only of all physical laws of nature, but all logical laws with the exception of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (since eliminating the Principle of Non-Contradiction would undermine the Principle of Factiality which claims that things can always be otherwise than what they are). By rejecting the Principle of Sufficient Reason, there can be no justification for the necessity of physical laws, meaning that while the universe may be ordered in such and such a way, there is no reason it could not be otherwise. Meillassoux rejects the Kantian a priori in favour of a Humean a priori, claiming that the lesson to be learned from Hume on the subject of causality is that "the same cause may actually bring about 'a hundred different events' (and even many more)."[9]

[Anonymous No.6612278]

>>6610801
That picture is disturbing as fuck

[Anonymous No.6612290]

>>6612247
I agree that the multiple worlds interpretation is promising, and I am personally a fan, but it's unfortunately not taken very seriously among scientific circles. Note that if true, the MW interpretation would open possibilities for metaphysical libertarianism, or at least a form of it, and would strengthen the case for not against free will.

[Anonymous No.6612300]

>>6612290
actually a recent poll put it at the top 5 interpretations. The work on it is being done and now supported by many scientists. Granted, this poll had no interpretation above 15% and that's why I think phil's needed to get involved earlier. But these things aren't unanswerable questions like they like to pretend

[Anonymous No.6612314]

>>6612262
what models have you tested ?

[Anonymous No.6612323]

>>6612314
/sci/ here, and going through physics university, you test nearly all of them. Save for general relativity you test them all. There are some really clever lab experiments you are needed to do.

Physics isn't all pen and paper, it's actually testing things, and they teach you this in undergrad studies.

[Anonymous No.6612347]

>>6611808
>mutilation is bad guise

You mean it's not?

[Anonymous No.6612379]

>>6612323
okay, so what models have you tested ?

I bet you did some Michelson stuff, but besides this ?

[Anonymous No.6612388]

>>6612379
wave/particle duality, specifically electron wavelength was my favorite. Also statistical radiation. Both these have various methods of testing them to prove that they are correct.

Oh, and I forgot, tested the weight of electrons. God damn was that a terrible experiment that made my eyes water. But it worked.

[Anonymous No.6612404]

>>6612388
so you have witnessed some phenomenon, described them quantitiatively and qualitatively. You also have gotten from the current modelssome predictions and verified that they are correct, as you said.

What makes you say then that you speak about reality ?

[Anonymous No.6612407]

>>6612388#
so you have witnessed some phenomenon, described them quantitiatively and qualitatively. You also have gotten from the current modelssome predictions and verified that they are correct, in the sense that they correspond to your observations, as you said.

What makes you say then that you speak about reality ?

[Anonymous No.6612437]

>>6612407
They have actually made me question reality, which led me into papers of people far smarter than me. These experiments, however, gave me the info about these ideas that I can understand them. The Wave/particle duality is something that you really understand a lot better once do you the experiment. I still doesn't make sense, but you can understand the reasons why people battle over interpretations so heatedly.

[Anonymous No.6612453]

>163 replies and 26 images omitted.
>about a meta-narrative talking about a meta-narrative

wow

[Anonymous No.6612496]

T-mack always related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OX77Qv66qw

[Anonymous No.6612577]

>>6611808
>what an asshole. He's just shitting on the beliefs of this rabbis' spirituality.

It's called "Metzitzah b'peh". The mohel has to mutilate the penis of a child by slicing off the foreskin and then orally suck the blood from the circumcision wound.

"In New York alone, at least 11 boys contracted herpes from the practice. Two died from the disease and two others suffered brain damage" -- NY Board of Health report, 2011.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to request that a boy waits until he is old enough to consent to having part of his penis cut off and a blowjob from an old Jewish man with potentially fatal STDs.

[Anonymous No.6612592]

>>6612577
>It's called "Metzitzah b'peh".

[Anonymous No.6612619]

>>6612577
>the year is 2084
>11 kids die in new york from genitle-sucking incident
>the mayor will have no more of this intolerance
>she bans all religion in the state of new york

[Anonymous No.6612620]

>>6611811
But only when scientists don't fuck up and both gather in a way that doesn't leave blindspots, and interpret the information they get that way correctly. That's the big problem with Scientism. People who believe that having scientific 'proof' for something means that it must be true, even when logic and reason tell them that it can't be, are no different from religious fanatics who blindly trust in what their god tells them.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6612622]

>>6610865
Way to go science, you turned another youthful man with a future into a recluse. If it weren't for the internet, he would be in Paris now. Ah yes, he ran into a French teenage girl in a museum. She came up and made a joke that he looked serious as he was contemplating a painting. Then they had a long day discussion art and philosophy, then she read him some Baudelaire and got quieter and quieter and they kissed, and then rushed back to his sumptuous hotel room were they made passionate love, and she told him he could sodomize her and she had not done it with anyone else. In the morning she would sleepily open her eyes to to smell of espresso, brewed proper with a little espresso kettle, and as she poured her demitasse full, he would lightly slap her undressed bottom, and she would gasp and turn around and say, "Yoo ar sooth a cad!" and without even getting dressed, she would join him on the balcony, and they would share a cigarette together and talk about how lovely the day is...eventually he would get around to how he's a successful writer living the bohemian lifestyle, and how she wanted her to come traveling with him...but not yet...that could wait...

But here's the internet, thanks to science. So instead he's shitposting and masturbating to cheap porn.

[Anonymous No.6612684]

>>6610801

[Anonymous No.6612688]

>>6612622
faggot/10 bad method anon

[Anonymous No.6612696]

>>6611811
hes right, absolutely right. But what he proves with that statement is that humans have never done science. Ever.

[Anonymous No.6612708]

>>6612696
This just about sums it up. If we live in a world that has actual, hard rules, and not some kind of consciousness bubble, then the truth is true whether we believe in it or not. That doesn't change the fact that we have no way of knowing for sure what that truth is.

[Anonymous No.6612716]

>>6611958
Fuck, these were some great posts. Did you write them? I'm thankful nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.6612742]

>>6610801
Is scientism like atheism plus? A bunch of sad, angry faggots who aren't capable of just having no religion or are desperate to feel superior because of their lack of intelligence so they create their own 'religion' where all they do is talk about how stupid other religions are and how they don't need one.

[Anonymous No.6612747]

>>6612716
Yes, but do not be petty, if you do not think they are good, say so, I am a big guy

[Anonymous No.6612760]

This is the most stereotypical /lit/ thread ever.

Board is called "literature". So post about books? Zero or few replies because the /lit/ hivemind will only admit of a tiny collection of meme authors that they haven't read anyway

Make a post about "scientism" with a picture of Christopher Hitchens? Every angry teenager who has a copy of Pop-thinking for Dummies and who thinks they have some uniquely special insight into the world bawls their stupid fucking head off

[Anonymous No.6612816]

>>6611019
You have won me over with your flawless argument.

[Anonymous No.6612869]

>>6612747
No, I mean it.
I hate how being polite and nice on the internet is so absurd I'm constantly accused of sarcasm. You were very didactic and consistent and I am happy you took the time to post. Since I have no issues or questions all I can say is thank you (or say nothing at all, but, oh, well).

[Anonymous No.6612873]

>>6612869
okay, I was biased from 4chan :)

[Anonymous No.6613544]

>>6610801
Contradicts himself in the very first sentence. Distrusts anything that contradicts science even though science contradicts itself all the time. Is this really the best fedora-tippers can come up with nowadays?

[Anonymous No.6613580]

>>6612233
>>Has not read Hume
An incompetent philosophy lecturer was teaching a class on moral properties.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the is/ought problem. You must accept that it's fundamentally impossible to get an 'ought' from an 'is' using empiricism.

At this moment a brave atheist, with a PhD in neuroscience and who had over 45 million youtube debate views stood up.

"Raping a child is wrong/bad/negative."

The arrogant professor smirked quite Scottishly and smugly replied,

"On what basis, you stupid STEM-tard? Raping a child is a descriptive statement. You are prescribing a normative value and implying it 'ought' to be a negative thing."

"Wrong. The entire debate resides inside a semantic framework with the concept of normative having no relevance. All we have are 'IS' statements based on empirical observation, and various forms of the verb 'TO BE'. There 'IS' a Child; the Child 'WAS' raped; a governing body 'HAS' decided that it's a punishable offense; you 'ARE' crying about 'oughts'; and you 'ARE' ignored while punishable offenses 'ARE' influenced by empirical observation, economic trends, social pressures and other forms of 'IS'. Your so-called normative 'ought' has been demolished because we can and do form policies and decisions inside inter-subjective semantic models, and individuals voice their own subjective 'IS' statements to collectively influence the framework."

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of A Treatise of Human Nature. He stormed out of the room crying about what he ought to do. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, David Hume, wished he had embraced New-atheism.

The previously faux-Christian contrarian students erupted into applause and declared that moral values are officially in the hands of science. An eagle named "the scientific method" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "The Moral Landscape" and shed a tear on the hardcover. The last sentence of "the God delusion" was read several times, and the Pope declared that morality does not come from God.

The professor lost his tenure and was executed by Hume's guillotine the next day.

The brave student's name? Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.6614439]

>>6612577
That is disgusting. I don't know how I never heard of that before

[fantasy No.6614450]

May I ask: Is science a coined term for something that is fantastical, but more so coined from something that is fantasy?

[Anonymous No.6614470]

>>6613544
>science contradicts itself

That's exactly how it progresses. Someone finds something that doesn't fit an old theory and creates a new one that fits all the evidence.

And if you are talking about multiple theories for different scales. That's why all theories have parameters.

[Anonymous No.6614471]

>>6613580

I really really want to believe that you posted that with satire intentions towards scientism, but one can never know how much retardation there can be nowadays.

[Anonymous No.6614487]

>>6613580
I loled and saved

[Anonymous No.6614491]

>>6610828
>tfw a wild fact appears

[Anonymous No.6614756]

>>6612300
you're dumb and have proved you know nothing about quantum mechanics or its interpretations. Interpretations are by their very definition untestable, the "worlds" that Everett proposed are spatiotemporally separated from ours so that we'll never be able to contact them.

[Anonymous No.6614785]

>>6614756
you do know that you don't have to directly interact with other universes to test some theories right?

[Anonymous No.6614796]

>>6614785
How are you going to test the existence of other worlds without finding some way to contact them? The only thing MWI has going for it is that it adds nothing new to the theory, it's quantum mechanics taken as a literal description of the world. But you can't test the universal wavefunction

[Anonymous No.6614808]

I liked Hitchens but Dawkins and Harris can go fuck themselves

[Anonymous No.6614811]

>>6612102
It's probably the philosophers who'd profit most, less so the physicists. But I agree that physics was better back when physicists still felt committed to metaphysics. Witty & Co. pretty much fucked up philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.6614839]

>>6611403
>taoism
>reincarnation

[Anonymous No.6614842]

>>6612039
>couldn't Jesus multiply loafs and fishes with a flick of his wrist?

You miss the point. Once Jesus shared the little that he had, other people started to share too. It's a moral lesson on how to treat others. It's also interesting that there are enough resources on the planet to feed and clothe every man woman and child. The beauty of Christ's teaching is that most of it is ironic and encourages introspection. The Old Testament God commands, under pain of death.

Jesus, when met by a mob, about to stone a woman for adultery says "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". He is not commanding the mob not to stone her, he is inviting us to turn our judgement inward and to reflect that mankind is flawed. But to accept those flaws and seek to atone for them. It's a fantastic piece of irony.

There is a lot to learn from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Theology after all is the foundation of philosophy.

It saddens me that so many atheists are anti-theists. They do not appreciate the beauty that religion inspires, religion is like love. Although love can be the cause of murder and great pain, it can leave someone paralyzed in despair. The response to love is that it is an overall good thing, and so is religion.

Atheists are incredibly closed minded and most of them have not seriously read any works of philosophy that support religion. The fact that so many of them adore Christopher Hitchens (a journalist) and Richard Dawkins (a mediocre biologist), just shows how little research they have even done into their OWN position.

Atheists are arrogant and have a habit of never bothering to read the views of their opponents

[Anonymous No.6614859]

>>6614796
By testing some of the implications. A lot of things in physics are tested on the implications rather than the thing itself.

[Anonymous No.6614862]

>>6614842
A lot of us wish religion was treated as a history or cultural understanding rather than how it is treated. It's the following of dogma and power we hate.

[Anonymous No.6614881]

>>6614862
>It's the following of dogma and power we hate
what is it about other people's belief in a higher power triggers you?

[Anonymous No.6614889]

>>6614881
It's because atheists are terrified of being judged, they want to do what they like without consequence. What this says about the morality of atheists is up to you.

[Anonymous No.6614894]

>>6614889
I agree. it is interesting that a group so afraid and resistant to be judged themselves, is so passionate about judging others.

[Anonymous No.6614896]

>>6614889
judged by whom?

[Anonymous No.6614898]

>>6614881
It's that the world would be a better place if people didn't believe they had to go to war for their god, or mutilate little girls/boys for their god.

[Anonymous No.6614906]

>>6614894
ha, yes the irony is lost on them no doubt!
>>6614896
divine judgement

[Anonymous No.6614909]

>>6614898
Paris went to war for over his love for Helen. People hurt themselves and others for love. Would the world be a better place without it? I don't think it would.

[Anonymous No.6614919]

>>6614898
I agree that child mutilation is universally wrong (even though it is practiced by a small minority of extremists that do not at all typify mainstream religious attitudes), but if you believe in the concept of just war, which most people do, then what's the practical difference between a secularly just war and a divinely just war?

[Anonymous No.6614929]

>>6614889
>>6614889
>they want to do what they like without consequence
I really don't know how this shit meme lives on especially when you have guys like Stirner who is often talked about around here but seems to be rarely read spending a good bit of time attacking the "pious atheists" whom he saw just as chained to some idea as christians were.

[Anonymous No.6614979]

>>6614929
I don't see how ''not'' living virtuously, being cruel to your fellow man, being selfish and dishonest is somehow a "liberation" as moral relativists seem to argue.

Stirner is only mentioned here in meme form lol

[Anonymous No.6614988]

>>6614979
You misunderstand Stirner. He does not advocate being a dick, he merely says there's no reason not to be one if it's your will to do so.

[Anonymous No.6614991]

>>6614979
liberation, freedom, is isolating yourself from everything, which stirner never describes with his egoism.

holy shit fucking read his book one fucking book not so difficult wow guys let's all just learn from meme images

[Anonymous No.6614998]

>>6614979
>I don't see how ''not'' living virtuously, being cruel to your fellow man, being selfish and dishonest is somehow a "liberation" as moral relativists seem to argue.
virtue, goodness, etc being spooks doesn't mean you have to act the complete opposite, just that you don't *have* to follow them

[Anonymous No.6615657]

>>6614859
The implications are unobservable. Determinism, other worlds, the world as wavefunction. The consequences are metaphysical. All you have is the formalism of quantum theory, so any of the observations we've made regarding that can be taken as evidence of many worlds. The theory as it stands is all MWI relies on, so what physical implications are there that could provide us with an understanding?

[Anonymous No.6615763]

>>6612081
I agree


Nowadays, the philosophical departments are (physically) disconnected from the science ones, just like the mathematical ones are separated from the department of computer science. All these dichotomies are more detrimental than anything else.

Illustration : the p-adic numbers which would prevent the hideous renormalization in the theory of the quantum fields, thus calling for a discussion, anew, f the motivation of the usage of the typical achimedian space that R is --- invoked from the analysis for the values taken by the functions coding the observations, to the topology for the relativistic spaces, to the statistics for the values of the probabilities which were first dominantly bayesian, then dominantly frequencist, to think of them nowadays as either one or the other; then after all, of its construction which leads us, in particular, to the questions of points and spaces of points as foundations, that is to say, the number and aside, its ontology by its computability; far away from the spaces devoid of points which themselves speaks, in branching out, of the constructive logic, thereby of the mathematical proof, whereas a bunch of theorems in mechanics remain as expressible as provable in this logic, thereby inviting us on questioning the necessity and the sufficiency of the kind of tools in mathematics; consequently in metaphysics, for those seeing the mathematics as far more than a mere technical method.