/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15489486
>Imagine having such a bleak and depressive outlook on life
kindergarten level argumentation

>>15220275
Math
>rigorous logical proofs in highest levels of abstraction

Philosophy
>baseless ideological opinions

>>15197499
>>15197518
Show me the real serious philosophy. I could need a good laugh.

>>15165520

>

>>15105933
>>15106198
>>15106221
>>15107666
>>15107899

>>15074262

>>14554410
>Compatibilism is sadistic savagery
That doesn't mean it is false.

>>10673045
>NDEs can be reliably recreated in a lab

[Citation desperately needed.]

NDEs have never been replicated in a lab, and if they had, whoever could recreate them would be a quintillionaire by now. People who have NDEs describe them as vastly more amazing than any drugs they have ever tried. As one NDEr noted, the rush of ecstasy (MDMA) times a million would not even begin to scratch the surface to comparing to the love they felt in their NDE.

As another NDEr noted, "If I lived a billion years more, in my body or yours, there's not a single experience on Earth that could ever be as good as being dead. Nothing."

If you could sell the happiness of MDMA times 10^12, you would become rich fast. This has not happened. Hence NDEs have not been recreated in a lab.

>>10672134
>>10677411
>>10672700
Trying to argue with fundamaterialists is as much a waste of time as trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, unironically. While few fundamaterialists will admit to being fundamaterialists outright, just like how shallow people rarely admit that they are shallow, their behavior and other things they say betray their true stance on these issues.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc937962/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no3-227.pdf

Also, the general progression from unenlightened to enlightened is something like this:

Level 1: Megaultrabrainlet-tier of religion.

Level 2: Can be argued with somewhat-tier of fundamaterialism.

Level 3: Cautionary agnostic-tier of indecisiveness.

Level 4: Psychedelics are relevant to these issues-tier of being empirical about the true nature of reality.

Level 5: Taking NDErs at face value-tier and realizing why it is both empirically sound and rational to do so.

You seem to be at level 4. But please know that you are leagues ahead of those you are trying to argue with, and you can generally only argue with those one level up or down.

>>10419683
>>10419683
>philosophy is above all science

If by "above" you mean: more sloppy in methods, yeah I guess.

In no other field you can just argue for something with words being your only evidence.

>>10051288
>because he kept saying stupid stuff about philosophy and theology

>>9659141
Any idiot can advance philosophy.
>>9659203
Because modern philosophy is a joke.

>>9565248
>continental

Take you muh feelz bullshit back to >>>/lgbt/

>>9262576

>>8582690
Science involves no philosophy. Science uses FACTS and LOGIC. Useless drivel about "muh feelings" is not welcome in science.

>>8166347

>>8082280

>>7697053
>Will /sci/ discuss philosophy of science and epistemology?
There is nothing to discuss. You can repeat your "u cannot know nuffin" mantra ad infinitum, but don't ever expect scientists to care. We just continue to use the scientific method because it works regardless of whether some autistic "philosopher" fails to understand it.

A well-rounded engineer or scientist should have at least a cursory understanding of philosophy if for no other reason than ethical accountability.

>>7247729

Oh look, it's this guy.

>>7148144

>>7135836
>philosophy textbook

Top lel. There are no "philosophy textbooks" because philosophy is not science and does not produce factual truths. In philosophy you don't read textbooks, you only read the opinions of a small number of accepted authors, some of who contradict each other. There is no condensed collection of truths generated by philosophy. It's not like physics or biology where you don't need to read Newton or Darwin in the original because you have modern mechanics or evolution textbooks. Philosophy is about subjective opinions. And on top of that, every high schooler is allowed and encouraged to question and argue against historical philosophers. Any high schooler can disagree with Aristotle, Kant or Schopenhauer, and as long as he provides arguments which subjectively convince his teacher, he will be awarded an A. Philosophy is literally nothing more than a buzzword for holding opinions.

>>6943373