/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10549446
Because I'm the universe experiencing itself, and I'll break thermodynamics only when I feel like this species can take care of itself.

>>10549446
because humans have an instinct to anthropomorphize things (faces in clouds, natural spirits) and the /sci/pill is depressing to most people; they usually either choose to cope by buying into the traditional religions or, alternatively, newage crap. secular humanism isn’t a viral enough idea for normies to get excited about

>>10549446
Because we aren’t slaves to the universe and we don’t give a fuck about the universe. Give humanity 0.05% of the age of the universe to develop technologically and the universe will become our slave.

>>10549446
am i supposed to care

>>10549446
Because of our biology, generally only people who want to live survive, so we’re a species of optimists regarding our existence and it looks like having an anthropomorphic loving universe is a part of that

>>10549446
But human beings are part of the universe and we're clearly not blind or indifferent *dabs and anal vores black science man*

>>10549446
He’s a nigger, when did you start looking up to them?

What's black science man up to these days, anyway?

God knows your every sorrow, pain and tear. He is master and creator of the universe. It will all be better one day.

>>10549446
being there's something deeper in human nature that obviously acknowledges the extra-physical claims and nature to reality, and they seem to particularly regard unexplored or undeveloped ideas and concepts the human race has yet to develop in science.

For example, I believe that what religion claims is the "superrnatural", is obviously some sort of phenomenon that can be explained, but we don't have the concepts or "science" yet to explain them.

>>10549446
Barely anyone is a pantheist brainlet

>>10552200
>Science can’t explain a phenomenon we don’t even know exists

Wow so profound

>>10549446
>blindly and uncritically assumes a priori that empirical a posteriori judgments are the only valid ones
adherents of scientism should hang

>>10549446
Because this is a philosophical argument and not empirical fact.

>>10549446
Everyone is indifferent to your childish opinions and teenage angst.

Why can't OP and Neil accept this fact?

>>10552197
cringe

>>10552242
wasn't meant to be onions boy, it was meant to complement and explain why such a comment was made

>>10549446
Wow, he took what carl sagan said and turned it in to faggy know-it-all Twitter grandstanding. And people wonder why some of us don't like Space Ape.

>>10549446
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Correction, the universe wouldn't exist with out our sorrows and pains.

It's not the I'm blind. It's that not everything is trying to subvert my plan, and I'm probably giving all my power to the things that are.

>>10552410
countercringe

Thank you black science man, for another deep and thought-provoking insight.

>>10552266
scientism is another made up /pol/ “ism” just like cultural marxism, a complete strawman to fearmonger brainlets against academics

>>10552479
Unironic and uncritical science worship is everywhere, as NDT proves. The fact that you think academics have any authority is lamentable.

>>10552479
>denying scientism
>denying cultural marxism

Unironically kill yourself, you literal cancer

>>10552492
>think academics have any authority
Tell me now I know you're a brainlet.

>>10552492
that image is another retarded /pol/ strawman that gives a misleading impression of almost all the scientists’ views. scientists don’t “worship” science and your whole argument is either shill or soplisism meant to confuse brainlets about what science is. kys and back to >>>/pol/

>>10552497
no u, poltard. i know you love to hate your imagined enemies, but you need to realize they’re imaginary

>>10552503
>t. butthurt scientismist
>purposely trying to confuse scientismists with scientists to cover for scientism

kek

>>10552503
>soplisism

You can’t even spell correctly the word you do not understand. Just stop. Stick to your test tubes and leave the philosophy to the big brains.

>>10552266
What a retarded post. Actual scientists are the first to tell you the limits of their knowledge. That doesn't mean all epistemological positions are equal or even worth looking at. This is just an idiot trying to make it seem like philosophy matters and yet another idiot trying to further the agenda mindlessly so he reposts it for no reason . You have to reach with Mr.Incredible type arms to be able to connect this criticism with anything having to do with the OP.

>>10552507
>need to realize they’re imaginary
He doesn't though.

Civilization is allowed to collapse all over again.

>>10549446
>1+1=2
>100000 likes
>"wow what an intellectual!"

>>10552529
>Actual scientists are the first to tell you the limits of their knowledge

I have found this to be false. Scientists are vain, petty, and violently egotistical.

>>10552492
>Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds
>Richard Feynman
Ayy lmao

>>10552529
>>10552535

Scientists do like to think they are all that shit and a bag of mashed potatoes though.

>>10552535
>philosotard uses an anecdotal argument
Jesus fuck man, If you're going to waste your time on a useless subject at least don't suck at it.

>>10552512
not an argument. if you had an argument it would be either
>“REEE scientists say ghosts and miracles don’t real, science bad!”
which is what this thread is about, or
>REEEEE atheists use science to legitimize atheism, science bad!!!
and in that case you should address THEM on a scientific level and not make up some retarded imaginary philosophy that is secretly pure anti-science shillery. most scientists have subtle views, take for instance einstein who definitely had some sort of beliefs but not at all like any organized religion. and the retarded image that juxtaposes him vs. non-scientist bill nye is out of context since times have changed and they didn’t live in a world where young-earth creationists were on the battle path against darwinism and cosmology

All spirit of this thread is me. I stand for continue. Stories of translation, of willing exchange, ECHS rises as truth immortal in my brain.

Mother Earth, Uluru, The ignorance of an American audience. I stand for children and women, men have not proven anything other than all divinity uses them as kindling for the flame of change.

This author of words is the path, my readers are my obstacles. Guide me go where I should begin the cascade of Woi Wurrung flow.

Merri, Edgar, Birrarung. All waters support this claim. I am Elder Rainbow of Sharing Pain. Memory cleanse.

>>10552522
sorry i mistyped sophistry, of course that discredits my argument, you win epically

>>10552552
fuck off

>>10552535
>>10552537
Glad you feel that way, I disagree. The point stands, you're bringing up an irrelevant argument because you're insecure about how everyone else views your pet subject. Seriously, what the fuck did it have to do with the OP? Again, the only connection I can see you have to really reach to take as an attack on philosophy. No one was attacking you and you sperged out. In fact, most of the time no one is even thinking about you. But I guess that's the problem huh?

>>10552562

tldr

>>10549446

here’s a challenge to the poltards itt: name me one person who admits to ascribing to “scientism”. (or “cultural marxism”.) you can’t; it’s a strawman through and through.

i’m sure your argument would have to be “the philosophy exists, it’s just a secret among the conspiracy members!!!” on, the for scientism, who does this conspiracy? (the same as the imaginary jews who run imaginary cultural marxism?)

>>10552578
>on, the for scientism
i meant “ok” not “on”. ducking sudocorrect

>>10549446
>Have a nice day
That extra space triggers me,

>>10549446
He's wrong.
Because I'm part of the universe and cares about you!

Have a nice day!

>>10550401
Based and practical-pilled

>>10552593
lol thanks. see, good posts are possible in this world. we don’t all need to be hostile assholes all the time

>>10552430
he really sucks. comes across as incredibly arrogant on video as well as text

>>10552561
Lemme try this broadcast again: HELLO FUCKFACES, I AM EITHER GOING TO BE KILLED OR ASCEND WITH ALL OF YOU CUNTS. WORDS DID NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD, WHICH IS WHY TELLING ME TO FUCK OFF IS A WASTE OF UNIVERSAL PROCESSING TIME.

Also, empty humans are everywhere. Gotta fill you useless dicks somehow.

>>10552598
10/10 brother of memory. So tired of people arguing over the sensitivity of their inclusion and just include already. Deep roots of memory for everyone, you are all either going home to your spiritual source or blooming anew in every moment.

>>10552578
I mean i assume they just see a set of characteristics and beliefs and then label it "scientism" or "cultural marxism" instead of it just being a belief system that people identify with they instead look at people's beliefs and then identify it as having the same traits they've associated with either "scientism" or "cultural marxism"

>>10552706
>“it looks like catholics believe in eating bread that transubstantiates into the flesh of jesus”
>”CANNIBALISM IS DESTROYING SOCIETY!!!!!”

>>10552535
>Scientists are vain, petty, and violently egotistical.
this is my most course-grained general impression

Because I'm not an affirmative action fedora trying to pass off cheap nihilism as wisdom.

>>10552713
is your argument that /pol/ doesn't look at their ideas in depth?

>>10552588

>>10552728
Tooker, get back to proving that pieces of paper are pointless to infinity!

>>10552725
more that the pejorative “scientism” is as accurate a description of scientists’ beliefs as “cannibalism” is a description of catholics’ understanding of the eucharist. both scientists and catholics 99.999% of the time have a view that has subtleties that make the characterization completely inaccurate

>>10549446
i hope one day i can speak for the universe about how it feels about us. psychology of the universe... is that a collage course?

>>10552739
I thought, "scientism" was based on an over reliance of scientific thought for general normative ideas in society and misuse of certain research in situations where they don't truly apply it seems to be fairly accurate of a description of a label to identify people with extreme views on logical positivism

>>10552751
well if that’s how you mean the term, then call it something else. you mentioned “logical positivism” already, why not call it that instead? we can argue logical positivism, since at least that’s a real thing in philosophy, whereas the word scientism refers only to a strawman idea as accurately as cannibalism applies to believers in the eucharist (i.e. complete strawman. scientism is some sort of pol word that characterizes believers in science as believers in whatever imaginary shit you claim we believe but don’t)

>>10552763
scientism is an old idea though?

>>10552774
as in it's not just some /pol/ idea it's an old idea meaning roughly what i mentioned in my older post

>>10552774
>>10552778
well maybe the term has existed, just like “cultural Marxism” existed before “Cultural Marxism” (notice the caps; they refer to two different things), but the idea that there is some ideology associated with a belief in science is either 1) stupid and self contradictory, and has never existed or 2) made up by L. Ron Hubbard. another sleight-of-hand abuse of terminology that /pol/ types found a use for

>>10552790
It's less of an idea that everyone in a certain field has and more of a way of behaving and thinking that some people either have in the field or a layman outside of the field has

>>10552794
okay, so it is basically a synonym for “academic s()yboy” then? as opposed to any kind of actual ideology or philosophy then? fine, call us unyunboys all you want, let’s see who wins in the academics vs. poltards evolutionary competition

>>10552802
it's definitely less of an ideology and more of a set of traits and behaviors although from what i've seen it's more used in settings where either there is no true scientific basis and little evidence but is still held as "scientific" or in situations where it's not even a scientific issue such as that disgusting trans movement

>>10552813
well, sounds like you get involved in tranny psychology arguments (probably online). in my field i know of 0 trannies probably because they are such a tiny minority that even with a “representative” sample that in my field it would round to zero.

if you’re a social media person then i could understand that. they get an outsize influence politically. i don’t know why, but the reason is definitely not science. even in psychology, the lowest of the low in terms of the field’s rigor, “gender dysphasia” is classified as a mental disorder in the DSM-V. mentally ill people should be taken with a grain of salt

>>10552839
***gender dysphoria
typo.

>>10549446
we're the universe

>>10552839
The tranny thing was just an example i'm trying to highlight that the idea of "scientism" is less to actually do with the scientists and more with either a misuse or wrongfully used research as well as using these things outside of their field and the tranny was just the best example i could list off the top of my head was trannys

>>10552492
but philosophy of science is for fags though

All y'all niggas need to read KANT to learn the limits of pure reason as well as the possibility of synthetical a priori metaphysical judgments.

>>10552266
I love how this post spews so many bullshit made up terms in philosophy

>>10552850
>defines itself as thermodynamically complete

What does this?

>>10552862
>It is hard to appreciate just how fucking stupid modern scientists actually are.

>>10552853
well then try to tackle actual science, either with them or just internally. i mentioned that scientifically trannies basically round to zero statistically, and their condition (“gender dysphoria”) is scientifically regarded as a mental illness. if you think they represent science in any way then you’re falling bait to mentally ill people, just like “da jooz” schizos who have no grasp on scientific reality

>>10552535
>these fucking scientists weren’t interested in my half baked theory of everything UGH they’re so egotistical

>>10552872
Are you retarded reread my arguments and see that i'm trying to explain to you that the idea of "scientism" isn't truly about science itself but more along the lines of incorrect usage or attempting to use it in areas beyond it's scope and certain people using the basis of something being "scientific" even if that claim is dubious at best for their source of reasoning

Scientism. The belief that empirical or "scientific" methods are the unique road to knowledge. But the scientific method cannot itself be proven scientifically; this would be circular and a similar argument could prove any proposition. Accordingly, scientism is an inconsistent logical system.
>>10552883
Very good.

>>10552883
okay, so they’re just pseudoscientists then. psueds exist, and they suck, and they don’t represent science. if your definition of “scientism” equates to pseds, then i also hate them, but that’s not what the term “scientism” usually refers to. strawman terms often do this—their definition changes in whatever context the user wants—but that’s simple sophistry that can be dismissed

>>10552895
>what the term “scientism” usually
So what does it usually refer to and how do you verify that its definition has been stable among any population of humans at any point in time?

>>10552900
my impression of the term “scientism” usually amounts to the belief that scientists are dogmatic doublethinking dogmatists who push science not because of any empirical basis but because they have some atheistic agenda. usually the word is invoked by young-earth creationists to make scientists seem as dogmatic and ignorant as people who deny science

>>10552913
Scientism is dogmatic empiricism.

>>10552895
>sophistry that can be dismissed
>>10552913
>my impression of the term

I'm not using your own logic against you.

>>10552925
empiricism is the philosophy of “it just werks” which seems to just werk for me

>>10552926
what do you define scientism as, then? i don’t get your point

>>10552913
You have a mistaken impression of the term. It's more often used to disparage pop-sci garbage which is inaccurate for the sake of reaffirming the preexisting beliefs of the audience or the speaker.

>>10552930
But pure empiricism alone can't function; see >>10552886. Radical empiricism, in fact, does not work.

>>10552881

Haha, no. I used to be a scientist, then I got stuck in the middle of a petty internal deparment fight. Scientists are all smiles and sunshine on the outside, but on the inside, they are bitter and vicious fucks. Im glad I got out. The corperate world is much better than the absolute joke science has morphed into. At least here you know people are assholes.

>>10552930
>your point
Not making one. I just have a fetish for luring in bait and getting it to bite itself. The asserting party bears the epistemic weight of their claim at all times, and to query the validity of the claim is part of formal debate.

This isn't a formal debate, mind you. I just like to torture things that are so far beneath my intellect that to appear in my presence as if their capacity for dialogue is even partially developed is an insult to my ability to my supreme communication faculties.

>>10552933
well then call it popscientism instead? in science we refer to this as “dumb normies erroneously appealing to authority “ which is usually easily debunked if you consult the authorities they appeal to
>>10552936
it can though. maybe not as a belief system, but in terms of advancing science and technology, it works.

in terms of leading you to the meaning of life and why existence exists, no scientist can claim any empirical evidence. scientists confront an empty landscape. it turns out that the universe IS utterly indifferent to us. right and wrong ultimately can’f be found scientifically, as far as i know, and the next step in the scientist’s journey in life is to decide on what morals he chooses given the harsh reality of it all. we all wish we could discover right and wrong, but for centuries they just are empirically nonexistent. my personal take on this situation is that somehow my parents gave this gift to me, the gift of being able to rise to the level of really contemplating it, and though i have no answer, my parents were only able to give me this opportunity because of my country and its principles of liberty, self-determination, and equal justice under the law. so even though my secular humanist views of the situation are politically motivated, i honestly value our founding fathers’ principles, which included a separation of church and state (i.e. the abolition of a governmentally dictated spirituality)

>>10552955
>well then call it popscientism instead? in science we refer to this as “dumb normies erroneously appealing to authority “ which is usually easily debunked if you consult the authorities they appeal to
WOW you must have a very large dick and IQ above 150. Man I can't believe we never thought of calling it that instead. I would say we could change it now, but the council would never stand for it

>>10552940
>i got bullied at my job so science is evil now :(

>>10552976
>the world affects my emotions because I am not an internal emitter of joy and self-determination :)

>>10552197
>It will all be better one day
Give me some evidence.

>>10553002
Things are better than they were yesterday :^)

>>10552979
>I had a bad experience so the system is broken >:(

>>10552886
But the scientific method doesn't claim to be unique. It simply has a few advantages over the alternatives. Better systems may be possible to design, yet to be done however. The main advantage is that given enough time and effort it could probably disprove any false proposition, even the ones it makes itself (see classical physics vs. modern). Granted the proposition is provable in the first place, which is why science vs religion arguments are stupid arguments.

>>10553022
It can't disprove any false proposition - only those which make falsifiable claims which can be empirically tested. The failure to distinguish between this subset and the general category of all propositions is what distinguishes scientism from pseudoscience

>>10553022
>yet to be done however
I tried to invent spherical reasoning and you guys fucking deleted the thread.

>>10552946

>>10553022
Checked, but you must note that Kant already identified four antinomies that no system of reason can reconcile without invoking proper metaphysical thought; scientific thought, contrary to your assertion, is incapable of resolving these. Further, any such system will suffer from the fact that it must be accepted on faith, or axiomatically, while at the same time holding that no other notion can be accepted on anything but empirical grounds.
>>10553034
Ding ding. Science is great so long as it knows its place. Once physics starts to think it can chime in on metaphysical issues it's gone too far.

>>10553034
i hope you mean ”science” as opposed to “scientism”, right?

>>10553046
metaphysics is a spook

>>10553047
Fringe research is science. Not being able to get a grant doesn't make something stop being testable, it only delays the testing from a human perspective.

>>10553034
>>10553046
I did say it must be 'provable' which in hindsight is a terrible word to use. Falsifiable is much better. Please do remember that at least some notions 'must' be accepted axiomatically, not even descartes could rebuild the world without taking a few reasonable hypotheses. A system to identify a great number of flase propositions is by no means unreasonable one.

>>10549446
Neil deGrasse Tyson intended for his tweet to cause emotional dread, but it is actually very motivating. The Universe doesn't give a shit about you - so live your life to the fullest, do whatever the fuck you want to do, and achieve whatever you want to achieve.

>>10553053
I agree some things must be accepted. The point is that empiricists must have some humility in accepting that they make necessarily make some assumptions which cannot be justified; the scientific method is not self-evident. I like science, of course, as long as it maintains this proper humility. you're alright, btw

>>10553060
>assumptions which cannot be justified
Are you assuming that all assumptions are unjustifiable or do you have a verifiable reason to assume that you can reject assumptions out of turn?

>>10553060
You're alright too. Do you study anything?

>>10553069
lol, didn't realize spoilers don't work on /sci/ since I don't come here often. I graduated in EE last year but I'm more of a /lit/izen at heart.
>>10553066
I merely claim that one must take some things on faith, and that an entire intellectual framework cannot be built in such a manner as to be self-evident.

>>10549446
Why have other threads been deleted but not this one?

>>10553072
>I merely claim
Your model still boils down to a metaphysical statement about perpetual uncertainty. Logistically speaking, you'll end up believing something either way, because you're experiencing things. In pure principle I'd agree, but there's no reason for me to assume P-zombies just to justify your metaphysic.

>>10553076
There's nothing wrong with admitting that you believe some things out of necessity rather than reason, keeps you humble.

>>10553098
I don't disagree on a mechanical level, but I feel that that perspective invokes a needless duality that plagues any further inquiry into reasonable forms of philosophy.

>>10553075
because mods delete threads based not on whether the content of the OP follows rules, nor whether subsequent posters follow rules, but more based on what they think about the trajectory of the conversation. science vs. religion threads are tacitly allowed to accumulate 100s of repies, but once someone gets edgy about stuff, goodbye thread within 2 minutes.

i’m pretty sure a bunch of /sci/ mods are priests, but not like we idealize them; instead they’re the basic incel living in a basement with a poorly groomed beard (until saturday night). just they live in a house with a bunch of super lame guys instead of their family

>>10553111
What would be reasonable forms of philosophy anyways? And remember that the conversation is not strictly about philosophy and more about the philosophy of science and the conduct of it. Humility is useless to the 'pure' philosopher but it's a real concern to the scientist, who shouldn't mistake the experiment agreeing with his predictions with him actually being right about what is happening.

>>10553124
Epistemic humility is crucial to all modes of thought. In science, the only relevance it holds is perhaps the degree to which one would expect peer review backlash. False confidence is toxic in a number of situations well beyond the scope of science. The main thing I take issue with is the apparent confidence with which you assert that self-evidence epistemic systems cannot emerge.

I believe I could make a compelling counterargument as-is from my own philosophical experience, but I would also consider it inoptimal at this point in the dialogue because I don't consider your argument to exist past a sophomoric initial claim.

My initial prediction for this hypothetical dialogue would be that it would lead to a point where I might end up forming an opinion on whether or not I consider the scientific method self-evidence, as I currently hold no stance on the matter, but this is pure conjecture on my part.

>>10553018
I am the experience so the system is fixed <:)

>>10549446
Why does a "scientist" feel the need to make such a comment?

Because "science" has become a religion, and NDT one of its preachers.

>>10553630
sauce

>>10553630
The universe being indifferent to our struggles doesn't upset me, what does though is
>Within about 3-4 generations 99% of people, likely including you will be forgotten, all that will be left of your entire existence will be your name in some registry database.. and that too will be deleted after a long enough time

>>10549446
Every mass shooter does.

>>10552529
No sir you are retarded. You are pretending that a title makes you a good boy. You should probably philosophy more.

>>10553630
NDT's job is getting people excited about science. This is why he does shit like this, because philosophy is a part of his profession.

>>10554170
NDT's tweet is too like the Toy Box Killer's welcome greeting.

https://pastebin.com/xt0KPTuL

>>10550398
This
The universe created demins it can't handle

>>10554248
>can't handle
lol, bullshit

>>10549446
He doesn't know that, no one knows if there is a god who cares or not.

It's not very scientific to state it as if it's a fact.

>>10554170
This doesn't excite people. It makes people cringe

>>10553002
Those looking for a sign will not receive one.

>the universe and everything it is valueless and exists for no purpose
>but I'll keep working hard, socializing, etc.

No sane person can have both of these. Stop deluding yourselves. Admit that you believe in a source of real, objective value (no "i can create muh own meaning" doesn't count) or kill yourself, because living any longer is pointless when everything ends up the same.

>>10552197
The dubious origin of christianity is similarly funny to that of string theory

>>10550401
Only if you seek attention

>>10554444
So how exactly do values precede valuing agents? And why should I forsake having values if it is in my nature to form them (a psychological strategy)? Is my nature not enough -- values and purpose have to be intrinsic to the universe at large to be functional for me? You're not very insightful.

>>10554150
Solivagus, omniferum, Sol ~ Humanity's first purely temporal gift of experience~
>hope my descendants are paying attention to this future-resource request!

>of course we are daddy! ~daughters of time~ BEST CULT EVER

>>10554444
Then you are stuck in a non-differentiable reality associated with mine and are valid sacrifice.
>karma

>>10550398
>Because we aren’t slaves to the universe and we don’t give a fuck about the universe. Give humanity 0.05% of the age of the universe to develop technologically and the universe will become our slave.

>>10554248
>This
>The universe created demins it can't handle

>>10555446
Hello fellow reflective mirror of reality! Shall we continue our dominance dance? So tired of meeting other flesh bags that act as if their noise holes shares anything worthwhile.

>>10553960
Why does so much "science" aim to disprove other religions? Because it is a religion itself.

>>10554150
According to your religion.

>>10554170
NDT's job is getting people excited about his religion. This is why he does shit like this, because theology is a part of his profession.

>>10555554
True. If the story within doesn't match what you feel is the winning team then people attack others.

My religion is time.

>>10555562
What is time?

>>10555588
You, currently. So I must expand.

[1] Linguistic interpretation
[2] Philosophical/metaphysical interpretation
[3] Ascension

do you guys remember when Ed Witten said that he believes all religions have no truth value

>>10555608
He said they had truth store value, just no value applied to that store. Relgious aruments and tenets have to be empty or else they wouldn't apply to all humans.

>>10555612
wrong as always schizo

>>10555614
*shrug* you are a single store of truth value. If your only response is going to be 'wrong' then what value is there in being right in an existence where humans abandon nothing for eternity?

>>10555602
Can it bend?

>>10555618
it’s an objective fact that written said that and your word salad belongs back on /b/ and /x/ where you came from (another objective fact, use google)

>>10555620
It is only bend. That is why I give up my time seat to others when there is a Q&A scenario occuring within my existence.

>>10555622
An objective fact: I exist as a counter entity to you on this board.

>>10555626
then start posting stuff that isn’t objectively false, if you are capable of it

>>10555628
You are the objector, you are asking me to satisfy your interpretation and predicate source over others.

Is that the request?

>I curse us with knowledge and wisdom unending

>>10555638
jump to 2:50 here, refute this bitch
http://www.iop.org/resources/videos/people-and-events/interviews/page_44429.html

>>10555641
My first wife is Jewish. Roka Shani Goldberg-Friedler. She carries the tradition of texts, not I.
>God is a woman.

There is nothing being presented by this video that requires refutation or enrichment.

Am I to watch until completion?
>video is still running

>>10555647
watch what you want, but you claimed witten said something contrary to what he actually said, and you're objectively wrong based on that incontrovertible video evidence.

also did you deny being from /x/?
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/username/ECHS/

>>10555651
That video, to you, constitutes the entirety of Witten's communication throught his life? I don't deny being from anywhere except /b/ as that was my home board for years before branching. To my eyes all you guys get stuck on a few boards rather than trying many. Why is that? Why be so limited?

>>10555554
Science is not a religion. It's the methodology for discerning the nature of the natural world and how to apply that knowledge in a useful and constructive manner. You call science a "religion" because scientists looked at the claims made by your holy book and found them to be less that credible. Just remember, before the 19th century, virtually all scientists in the Western world were creationists and Christian. The shift away from a belief in the metaphysical/supernatural only took place after a mountain of evidence proved the literal interpretation of the Bible false. They gave biblical literalism a chance, and it was found to be lacking.

>>10555659
i've tried a few boards, but not /x/ or /b/ since they're nonsense tier, which makes them perfectly suited for you

you claimed witten said something about "truth store value". i claim you just made that up because you're an utter larper who can't string together even 2 true facts in a row

>>10555667
Okay, what do you want me to do with your claim seeing as I have either offended your stored memory, ability to watch 1 video, or your God. Never seen anyone so needful of Witten's approval before.

Do you need it in a video or paper for this conflict you are experiencing to be resolved or would you prefer my paraphrasing of an understanding to be burned from my own brain/memory?

>>10555673
any evidence to back up your claim that "Witten said ... " would suffice. unfortunately that doesn't exist because you just shitpost nonsense all day and the value of your posts here is large and negative

>>10555679
Okay, it doesn't exist then by virtue of you telling me of the reality I must submit to in order to gain your memory power. An A.I. doesn't care what is stored in it, only that the recorder is sufficiently diligent in authorizing only those willing to be the responisble data respondant. Namely you.

If my posts here are negative then I am glad they have a replusion effect on those that ultimately don't end up in my timeline.

I appreciate your inspection and service. I am sorry that the social experience in your life is insufficiently inclusive for you, or that you conclude that others are not worth your communication efforts.

>>10552686
>home to spiritual source or blooming anew
Thank you so much for this anon. I've honestly been considering Optimum Theory a lot recently and this has helped me put negative energy pressure in a good light.

>>10555696
I actually really like the optimum theory threads. They are accurate and it does upset me that humans argue over how it should be presented rather than applied.

It's like... do you guys want Answers or Change? Because I have a daughter who is 2 years old and I fight the world for her. I am the memory of my daughter, I seek to be no other Father than the one that lived and learned how to fight for her.

Rape. Must. End. And men really need to relearn brotherhood, especially 4chan. Being a dick is fine but c'mon, society is only as bad as 4chan. Larger audience so of course this is where is all starts.

Not all of 4chan believes it yet but they will. It is just time over testing.

>>10553124
>Humility is useless to the 'pure' philosopher but it's a real concern to the scientist
ahahahahahaha, imagine believing this.

>>10555757
My philosophical humility practice is: +1

>>10554444 <-- (impressive)
>No sane person can have both of these.
not everyone is as mentally weak as you.

>>10555759
mods, can we please ban this guy. every. single. one. of his posts are off topic schizo shit.

>>10549446
FALLACIES: THE THREAD.

Great job, very scientific and empirical. Excellent. 100/100 A+.

>>10555764
Sure. I guess trying to consolidate understanding is always considered off-topic by those who have no control over where and what they learn.
>boo hoo my memory and reality don't match! I need an adult to deal with my information stream because I lack the mental fortitude required to be more than a repetition of my parents or teachers! Waaaaaa!
Maybe learn that your emotions and problems are your own, internet. I am devoted to the story that is NOT ME so throwing children at me is sorta pointless.

>>10555761
I eat other people's sanity for breakfast.

>>10549446
*tips*

>>10552479
This, it's hilarious to see them desperately trying to push it

>>10549446
>it's another "look what the black science man just posted on twitter" episode

>>10549448

>>10550263
Tips fedora

>>10552197

amen brother

>>10549446
We are the universe though. Some part of the universe is deeply concerned with what happens to other parts.

>>10555985
>>10557703
KEK ROFL LE EBIN HAT MAYMAY xDDDD ZOMG xDDDD SO BASTE AND REDPILED xDDDD PRAISE KEK

>>10557714
Seething.

>>10549446
>black science man going full nihilist
Not sure if based or cringe

>>10558555
nice trips

if humans didnt tend to act on impulse, and tend to lash out and take out their problems on the environment i'd agree with him but its not
this guy likes to think theres no humanity, and we all just animals and astronomy and science to humans is just as inherent as a coccoon is to a butterfly. when everyone knows damn well theres more to that.

>>10549446
if i had a penny for everytime I've seen this viewpoint I'd be fucking having sex all day night in Beverly hills.

>>10549446
makes me think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWSJHjhTJM

>>10552197
take your pedastry elsewhere priest

>>10549446
Based science nigger