[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.15774784 [View]
File: 77 KB, 671x531, 1695845805170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15774784

>>15774731
100% based and truth pilled

>> No.15243625 [View]
File: 77 KB, 671x531, 1677775520315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15243625

What is the morally right thing to do? Traditionally this was a question of philosophy. But philosophy is not only dead, philosophy was never alive to begin with. After philosophy's 3000 years of failing to solve any ethical problem, we can now say with certainty it's the job of Science to provide the answers.

>> No.15212497 [View]
File: 77 KB, 671x531, 1676741064411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15212497

>>15212385
My hatred against philosophy is entirely based on my deep knowledge about philosophy. You cannot provide a single philosophical insight that is neither trivial nor wrong and retarded.

>> No.8225354 [View]
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1452614031377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8225354

>>8225347
>we wuz scientists n shieeet
Nice try, philosotard.

>> No.7135604 [View]
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7135604

This "muh feelings" bullshit has nothing to do with neuroscience. The absence of free will has no "moral" implications. The decisions of judges are just as unfree as the decisions of criminals. There is no "moral obligation" to change the law just because we are now aware that free will doesn't exist. The whole concept of "moral responsibility" is an illusion anyway.

>> No.7082590 [View]
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7082590

>>7082565
"Empiricism" in science means the systematic use of observation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical dogma of empiricism, which asserts that observation is the only valid epistemology. Of course science accepts and uses other methods of gaining knowledge, e.g. rational inquiry and logical deduction. Look up "quasi-empirical methods" on wikipedia for example. Don't use words you don't understand, you retarded piece of shit.

>>7082562
I'm not a "guy" and I am what people would call a polymath. I don't need philosophy because I have common sense. And to be honest there is really nothing deep about being aware of the historical and societal context of current scientific theories. You are so overly pseudo-intellectual that you actually turned anti-intellectual.

>> No.7041428 [View]
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7041428

Just like it always works. By using the scientific method. We don't need and we don't want philosophy in science.

>> No.6947020 [View]
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947020

>>6947011
Good thing I'm not a man.

And us STEM people are still better philosophers than the professional philosophers themselves, solely due to the fact that we are more talented at rigorous analytical and logical thinking.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]