[ 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: 50 KB, 180x151, mr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7246099 No.7246099 [Reply] [Original]

Science is truth. Philosophy is opinion. There is nothing else. Prove me wrong.

>> No.7246104

>>7246099
0/10

Scientific theories are still opinion.

>> No.7246108

>>7246099
This is Philosophy.

>> No.7246112

Science is based on philosophical assumptions, therefore science is opinion.

>> No.7246114

>>7246099
Troll thread.
Don't forget to SAGE

>> No.7246118

[citation needed]

checkmate, faggot.

>> No.7246123

>>7246112
This.

>> No.7246131

>>7246118
>>7246123
Sage the thread you idiots.

>> No.7246134

simon ferrari? we /game studies/ now?

>> No.7246137
File: 138 KB, 908x540, 1422398168771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7246137

This is true, but ultimately meaningless.

>> No.7246144

I want to apologise on behalf of /sci/ if this faggot came from our boards and shitposted here.

/sci/ and /lit/ shouldn't oppose each other :^)

>> No.7246159

>>7246112
>philosophical assumptions
My dick, idiot. Your heart is a muscular organ that has four chambers protected by a layer called as pericarduim. Is that a phiosophical assumption? You disgust me.

>> No.7246160

>>7246099
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHZGgMktbVQ

>> No.7246168

>>7246144
This fucknut.

>> No.7246175
File: 95 KB, 600x800, 1442621968022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7246175

>>7246159
Wow, i'm speechless, not even gonna try to respond

>> No.7246187

>>7246175
>not even gonna try to respond
>responds with a pathetic meme
Idiot.

>> No.7246199

>>7246112
>argues that philosophy has something to say
>retreats to truisms

>> No.7246210

>>7246187
Haha, science.

>> No.7246211

>>7246187
Claiming that science is based on philosophical assumptions is different from claiming that all scientific discourse is a philosophical assumption. Do you even know how to read, shitlord?

>> No.7246229

>>7246211
Science proves a philosophical assumption, fuckwit.

>> No.7246233

>>7246210
Science.

>> No.7246240

>>7246229
>the conclusion proves the premise

lol

>> No.7246257

>>7246240
If it's a philosophical assumtion then it's just an (opinion). When a philosophical assumtion is confirmed, it becomes science (fact). Grow a fucking brain.

>> No.7246283

>>7246257
Hey I recognize that writing style.

You - you're that troll that likes baiting people by making controversial statements entrenched within a believable set of beliefs.
How do you make your shitposts sound so sincere and convincing?

>> No.7246287

>>7246257
You're not talking about the philosophical assumptions that science is based on right? Like mathematics( literally a philosophical discourse), because that would be circular reasoning.

>> No.7246317 [DELETED] 

>>7246287
Math is science and vise versa. 2 and 2 is a (Phylosopgical assumption) sign +,-,*,/,= are (Philosophical assumtions) 2+2 =4 is (science). See >>7246257

>>7246257
Literally kill yourself.

>> No.7246332

>>7246287
Math is science and vise versa. 2 and 2 is a (Philosophical assumption). Sign +,-,*,/,= are (Philosophical assumtions). 2+2=4 is (science). See >>7246257

>>7246283
Literally kill yourself.

>> No.7246342

>>7246257
confirmed by whom? by what means? with 100% certainty? is the science of today set in stone? do "facts" change?

>> No.7246344

You're bad at science and philosophy. Try light novels >>>/jp/ you won't like any of our books.

>> No.7246393
File: 12 KB, 250x250, 1436483075467s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7246393

>>7246332
After that i'm gonna need you to define science. Define it.

>> No.7246399

>>7246332

There is no way to confirm 2 + 2 = 4 as a fact because the logical process stops working at the point where you need to prove that 4 exists and addition operates as we claim it does, we just assume it out of convenience.

>> No.7246419

>>7246099
Do you know any epistemology?

>> No.7246429

>>7246399
How does this make any sense?

Addition is a man made process, we have no need to assume how it works because WE made it.

>> No.7246433

>Science
define science
>is truth.
define truth
>Philosophy
define philosophy
>is opinion.
define opinion
>There is nothing else.
define nothing else
>Prove me wrong.
Answering those questions is a purely "philosophical" matter. Science depends entirely on how those questions are answered. Prove me wrong.

>> No.7246526

>>7246099
define is

>> No.7246560

>>7246159
The philosophical assumption in your example is that an empirical reality exists and that it could be accurately interpreted by our senses. You would have known that if you weren't a massive idiot.

>> No.7246567

>>7246104

I get that OP is trolling to the max, but that's not really correct. Scientific theories are backed up by as much mathematical precision as possible combined with observational evidence whereever possible.

>> No.7246590

>>7246433

>ohshitsophistwhatareyoudoing

Why have you not escaped the vicious circle of definition refining? All definitions infinitely regress anon.

>> No.7246591

>>7246257
>muh objective truth
>muh empirical realism
>muh philosophy is opinion
Literally all things are opinion, as there are no proper arguments against solipsism. And science is predicted upon the philosophical assumption that an empirical reality exists, that we can interpret it, that we exist, and that the logic system we have devised is objective. Not even /sci/ is this dumb.

>> No.7246642

>>7246590
It's not really a vicious cycle though, you can do a lot even with concepts that are vaguely defined or undefined. Just look at how primitive notions are used to build mathematical axioms.

>> No.7246892

>>7246433
>Answering those questions is a purely "philosophical" matter.

source on this?

>Science depends entirely on how those questions are answered.

source on this?

>> No.7246906
File: 14 KB, 220x298, Elise_Andrew_-_27_September_2013_(cropped).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7246906

>>7246099
I f*cking love science too OP!

>> No.7246910

>>7246591
Nobody believes or ever will believe in solipsism, so there is no need to argue against it.

>> No.7246919

>>7246892
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

>> No.7246938

People here really should study some Philosophy of Science before they criticize this subject. Scientism is the lamest ideol
ogy.

>> No.7246943

>>7246567
Theoryladenness of observation
Duhem-quine thesis
Kuhn's paradigms

Study these subjects and then tell me that science still isn't an opinion

>> No.7246950

>>7246938
I have read some and I came to the conclusion that all other systems of knowledge were merely word games or were pushing synthetic a priori.

>> No.7246951

>>7246099
What is LAW ?

>> No.7246958

>>7246951
opinions put into words and acted upon

>> No.7246973

>>7246429
>we have no need to assume how it works because WE made it.
>implying you made it
>implying you were present the moment it was "made"

literally kill urself my man

>> No.7246976

>>7246943
>>7246938
Many unobservable entities acceptance are based on 'inference to best explanation'. All scientific theories have theorethical aspects which at this moment can't be observed. Still most scientists choose to accept these based on the coherent evidence, but DONT believe in these entities.

I have done a minor on Philosophy of Science, which turned my view of science upside down. Don't believe the Scientific optimists blindly. Prediction and practical value of a theorethical concept don't necessarily make this concept real, lots of old, now trashed, scientific theories could predict as well and 'proved' their truth by being 'usable'. According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, you can't test a single statement in isolation, but only against a framework of background assumptions, theories, models, methodology. So experiments are actually tested against a framework that has been built to conform each other > circularity.

That's why Kuhn's paradigm is so succesfull. Old scientific paradigms were deemed true, untill a new paradigm took over. We are blinded by the paradigm. The framework behind a statement is based on the paradigm. This means that a lot of science should be accepted, not believed in. We still have no idea whatsoever how an atom looks like. Only models that idealize it and were selected for aesthetic value and simplicity.

Do you know what one of the main reasons is that the scientists and chemists of the Phlogiston theory era stepped over to the oxygen theory of fire? For aesthetic reasons.

>> No.7246997

>>7246910
Nothing about your post is true: it only makes you look even more retarded.

>> No.7247040
File: 970 KB, 2560x2048, linksawakening.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247040

>>7246099
Science is an empirical philosophy used to harvest symbolic approximations of truth, gathered through observation and experiment.

It is a specialized philosophy.

Philosophy, while largely opinionated yes, but not completely, is also useful for putting the discoveries of science to use. We need ethical, economic, and social philosophies to put our scientific discoveries to use in improving human quality of life. Without the philosophical frameworks of society, scientific discoveries would be without context or use: Just raw information.

>> No.7247057

>>7247040
Morals, economics and social philosophies are subjective

>> No.7247096

>>7246997
Why do you bother responding to me when you don't think I exist?

>> No.7247108

>>7246099
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgQMK9Ufi1c

SCIENTISTS (and OP) BTFO BY SEARLE!!!

>> No.7247115

>>7247108
that does not contradict what the OP said, Searle even states that he is giving his opinion

>> No.7247119
File: 16 KB, 317x450, 99068-004-A8011C46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247119

>Empiricism
LOOK AT WHAT THIS HAS LED TO
PEOPLE TAKE THIS MAN SERIOUSLY TO THIS DAY

>> No.7247131
File: 83 KB, 946x472, 1443630307029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7247131

>>7247057
This is a recent view common in the 21st century, but ultimately weakly grounded.
Even Nietszche didnt believe this.

>> No.7247139

>>7247057
And we are subjects, what's the problem?

>> No.7247148

>>7246332
>math is science
Oh lord