/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12277834
I'd say the most autistic versions of analytic philosophy are the only areas where there is some semblance of correct/incorrect work, because you're writing proofs.
What could possibly be a reasonable way to evaluate the schizophrenic ramblings of someone like Hegel or Schopehauer. Interpreting how a student's work corresponds to a particular interpretation? How would you evaluate original continental work, except how much it /feels/ like it accurately represents reality?

Why not say it like a human being
>even if you know something, you can't know if you know it
i'm fairly certain the epistemologist's answer is that not only are you not obligated to show that you know that you know, but the meaning of knowing whether you know something is non-trivial.

What's the maths formula for the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
professor says it's dS = k_B ln(W), and therefore the second law is that net entropy in a system can decrease as long as some component of net entropy increases, and the overall reaction is enthalpically favorable. I understand how Enthalpy can drive a reaction, i just refuse to believe that the 2nd law doesn't state that net entropy has to increase.

pls no undergrads