/sci/ - Science & Math

Why are philosocucks like this?

Philosophy of science is unnecessary bullshit. We have the scientific method and it simply works, regardless of whether philosotards understand it or not. There are some fields of philosophy which are fun to think about, but ultimately philosophy is just a form of recreational entertainment without any practical applications.

>>6946705
>me: X is an instance of Y
>you: b-b-but not all Y are X

Why does it not surprise me that a philosotard doesn't even understand the semantics of a propositional implication? Come back when you gained enough IQ points to compete with a preschooler.

>>6430112
>>6430116
>hurr durr if x means position, how can we know an hour later it still means position?
>u cannot know nuffin xD
>what if reality doesn't real?
>science is wrong lol
>a potato can become an apple if I believe it

Can you please go shitpost/troll somewhere else?

>>6419870

>>>/lit/
>>>/x/

>>6410701
>so the very edge is moving away from us at about 3x the speed of light

This is what I was searching. Can you explain to others (and well for my feeling for a source) for myself too how did you come up with this result, in more detail? Please. :)

oh look, it's this troll thread again

Nobody cares. GTFO

>>6276444
No, it isn't. Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science is about explaining observations that happened in reality. Philosophy is about making up untestable nonsense far away from reality. Science has practical purpose and tangible results while philosophy consists of nothing more than pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

>>6253880
>1. What is the meaning of life?
Bad question. You assume that there is a meaning of life.
>2. Why is there something rather than nothing?
Bad question. You assume that nothingness exists.
>3. What are numbers? (ontologically)
A number is a mathematical object used to count, label, and measure. Nothing more.
>4. Do we have free will?
Bad question. The term free will has no set definition and you did not offer your personal definition which is crucial for the answer.
>5. Is an afterlife possible? Plausible?
Bad question. Asking whether something is possible goes against empiricism.
>6. What is the objectively best moral system?
Bad question. You assume that morals are absolute.

>looking for SCIENTIFIC answers to philosphical questions
You imply that philosophy is a science.

>>6169361
>cannot know nuffin

This is a science board, not a philosophy board. The scientific method works. We make objective observations. Cognitive tests are objective observations and their predictive power has been verified in hundreds of studies. Go back to /x/ or /pol/ with your ignorant garbage.

>>6131137

im afraid this is a question you have to find out yourself.


I myself meditate, express myself and try to fulfill my "dream", my purpose. As a researcher of medicine. (medical university). If I had to give advice; understand your potential, aim as high as you can, break it into steps, do it, you fail but try again until you can do it. Make your own destiny -> no depression.

i actually fucking edited this post maybe 20 times (or rewrited, whatever)

dunno how to do this part of this post but i am anyways same person as i am: >>6130319 aka "35889898 104"

>>6082264
>>6082273
The scientific method works and is the only valid method of finding objective truth. Deal with it, pseudo-intellectuals.

>>6082281
That's not even a real word.

>>6073753

>>6037171

>>6033987
also if pronunciation being the same excuses the false equivocation then my original H20 faux pas may be excused by the same reasoning

or you might say this is a tu quoque fallacy, to which I would respond, I dont care, I'm taking you down with the ship.

>>5965439

>>5904641
>I had this attitude. When I was 16.
You will have it again, once you got some science education.

>>5904643
>I find philosophy interesting. Now what?
Nobody cares. Go be anti-intellectual somewhere else. /sci/ is for science and math.

>>5829837
It is YOUR burden of proof. You are the edgy underageb& who comes to /sci/ just to claim that science was wrong. Please prove that science is wrong. For centuries it worked perfectly fine and it is still the only valid source of knowledge and progress. I don't care if you think you're "le master trole" or something. You just made yourself look incredibly stupid.

>>5822426
>>5822430
Philosophy is useless and anti-scientific. Please go back to >>>/lit/ and stop trolling /sci/.

>>5820297
Tell me how irrelevant, irrational and meaningless teenager babble isn't anti-intellectual.