/sci/ - Science & Math

UV, Infrared, X-ray, Gamma ray, etc. all cannot be perceived by the human eye. Likewise, many sounds cannot be heard. This exists, but is not perceived.

Finally, the stuff that you and I and everything we know is made of, Matter, only makes up about 4% of the total mass of the Universe. 20% of the total mass is made of Dark Matter. About 70% of the Universe cannot be perceived whatsoever.
This exists but is not perceived.

If reality is the state of existence of substance extended in space then what you and I know is certainly not reality.

THIS IS NOT REALITY

How arrogant it seems then to call what we know to be reality, when we know that we cannot perceive everything in the universe

yes, but what separates a proton from empty space?

Chemistry: "The balls touch."

Quantum Mechanics: "The balls never touch."

>>3082834
philosophy: "there are no balls"

And that's just the stuff we know we don't know.

Who knows what there is that we don't know that we don't know.

You know?

>>3082841
priests: are those your balls?

Well it is our reality... What we perceive is what the world is to us. I don't think many people are arguing that the world around us is how we perceive it, but that does not make it any less our reality. Color and sound are two easy examples

>>3082834
>Quantum Mechanics: "The balls touch."
>"Also, the balls don't touch."
>"Also, the balls are in a superposition of touching and not touching"

ftfy

>>3082864
Eunuch: "I have no balls"

>>3082841
Wrong.

Philosophy: "If you can observe the balls touching, it destroys knowledge."

>>3082869
But what we perceive is not REALITY. It is not the whole of what is REAL. How can we call our subjective perception REALITY as if it were an objective fact.

>>3082893
I have a gun. If I shoot you, you won't be injured?

>>3082918
Red Herring

>>3082918
Strawman too, but red herrings and strawmen usually go together anyway

>>3082885
Engineers: Oooo..can i touch your balls?

>>3082928
No, it shoots bullets.

>>3082944
It's beyond the point. What im saying is that what we perceive cannot be called reality, regardless of what happens in the material world

>>3082955
Wait, is this some string theory you're talking about?

>>3082955
uh. Just redefine reality, problem solved.

>>3082971
then why call it reality if it isn't Real?

not just redefine, rename

>>3082984
correction: why call it reality if it isn't the whole of what is real? we only see a tiny piece of the real universe.

>>3082984
It only doesn't exist half of the time.

Rather, it exists by existing in a superposition of existing and non existing.

>>3082989
Well, that's because a lot of shit is blocking the view.

>>3082984
uh..thats not how words work.

You're just too stubborn to accept that people tend to use words that define reality.

>>3083008
No, i'm too stubborn to accept what I can see and measure as all that is "real" and that makes up "reality"

I think it shows the human arrogance that we try to call what we perceive "reality."

>>3083023
Yes yes, it's arrogant to believe in empiricism.

>>3083023

What's the difference between 'imperceptible' and 'nonexistent'?

>>3083058
There's an enormous difference.

E.g. A dog whistle is imperceptible. A unicorn is nonexistent.

>>3083085

If there's an enormous difference, explain what it is. Dog whistles have perceptible effects, just not to human ears.

>>3083108
appearently, if OP cannot see it, it does not exist.

>Sounds like someone never passed the infant stage

>>3083108
that's exactly what i'm talking about, perceivable by a human. If a human being cannot perceive it, it is called imperceivable.

Making a measurement is not perception.
Making a calculation is not perception.
Using one or more of the senses IS perception.

>>3083023
You're right. We should call it, "sammich."

OR, we could sell the name to McDonalds, for grants, and call it "Ronald".

>>3083123

Nonexistence is the state of NOT existing, clearly. I have not once in this thread claimed that anything does not exist (except unicorns).

My claims have been limited to "what we call reality is not the whole of what really exists, therefore it is arrogant to call our perceptions reality"

>>3083123
>perceivable by a human.

We can observe the dog react to the dog whistle.

>>3083149
that is a perception of an entirely different event, though causally related.


This is not that hard people

OOOOooooh, philosophy.

We have science now. Get with the times, cavetroll.

>>3083157
philosophy always has and always will lead science every step of the way

>>3083157
Scientists are the oompa loompas of philosophy.

>>3083167

Perception destroys knowledge!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! PHILOSOPHULK IS GONNA RAPE YOU!

>>3083167
Tell that to the corporations. That's right, they won't let homeless people in for an appointment.

>>3083154

How do you perceive something directly? All your senses rely on entirely different events that are causally related.

>>3083173
And you are a smelly troll with opinions, and nothing else.

>>3083200
ah, that's a very important observation. I'll defer to Kant here who said that objects create sensations in the body, sensations are "organized" by certain innate ideas like that of space/time, modality, and quantity/quality, then finally the organized sensations create conceptions or ideas.

>>3083211
Neurobiology says he's an idiot.

>>3082864

/sci/: we worship Carl Sagan's balls

>>3083225
please explain the formation of ideas from a neurobiological view then

>>3083232
Electro-chemical processes. Not going to go into detail, because it's not my fucking field.

I don't have a problem with my answer, and it doesn't interfere with me enjoying my life.

>>3082816
OP, it sounds like you never mastered object permanence when you were "between 8-12 months old".

Perhaps you should slap your mother for not teaching you.

>mfw sci gets trolled again by a freshman philosophy major

>>3083246
Kant might have been wrong, but he certainly wasn't an idiot.

And if you want to explain formation of ideas by electro-chemical processes, you must realize that you are talking hardware, and I am talking software. Yes I am aware of how the brain operates on a physical level. What Kant claimed, and the claim for which I am using Kant as support, is a description of the formation of ideas from a software POV, the processes beneath the 1s and 0s of the neurons

But the atomic nuclei and electrons exist, so reality exists...

>>3083261
working on PhD actually

>>3083261
Trolled? That wasn't trolling, nigger.

Trolling is: "Nietzsche is right. Ubermench are better than whiny Jewish people. Discuss."

>>3083274
Have fun at McDonalds.

>>3083279

you know, trolling formerly was an art. gentle, elaborate, and well-constructed trolls have big payoffs. see: this thread

>>3083283
Don't worry, I already have and MBA and an MFA to survive

>>3083267
The hardware IS the software, with your expieriences doing the programming.

Kant is the Sasha Grey of philosophers.

>>3083295
Sorry but no, Kant is more highly respected by philosophers than even Aristotle or Socrates

>>3083284
this thread was not well constructed:
>>3082834
>>3082841
>>3082864
>>3082876
>>3082883
>>3082885
>>3082971

>>3083302
What???

way to make a hasty generalization fallacy there.

>>3083300
The more you rape his face, the more popular he gets.

That's why whores are better philosophers than philosophers.

I watched the movie "dark matter" today, I highly recommend it

Well, this thread has sufficiently diverted from the topic so I guess this will be my last post.

No one yet has given a good refutation to my original argument that "What we call reality is not the whole of the universe as it really exists, therefore we should not call what we perceived reality"

g'night /sci/ it's been fun.

>>3083307
way to learn logic

>>3083318
We did, you just wanted a philosophical argument, and philosophy sucks for understanding, discovery, and knowledge of the universe.

Humans can be a lot more than human.

>>3083334
you see:
>>3083167

>>3083229
Piccolo: "The balls are inert."

I'm the guy whos been talking about trolls for the last few posts. I was a history major, and now I'm 2 of 3 years through law school - I'm no scientist, but I have this to say.

Philosofriend, nobody cares anymore about your blowhard nonsense. Science gives people computers (the theory behind computing quickly went from philosophy to computer science), space travel, new medicine, etc. Philosophy gives us debates on medical ethics and questions about reality. Both are necessary, with one of them being a lot more important and compelling.

I don't get to go to labs anymore and I can't do math beyond Calc 3-4 but goddamn if I won't throw down for my bros putting in hours at the telescopes and microscopes. Even if you win your debate with some undergrads on a science forum, they're still going to make me better coffee machines and computers while you write shitty books that nobody will read.

That is all, carry on gents.

>>3083345
Hillary Clinton: I have balls

>>3083340
That "see" was a reply to my post, and you did not refute it.

>>3083352
Law school huh? You can thank the philosopher John Locke for our legal system. Oh, do you argue a point in court? you can thank the philosopher Aristotle for that. Do you think we will ever be able to know that a computer is AI? You can thank the philosopher/mathematician Allen Turing for the Turing test.

Just because you can't see how it's important doesn't mean its a troll

>>3083367

>both are necessary

sure glad they teach philosophers these days to fucking read

>>3083367
Awww, it's so cute when beggars try to justify their existence.

>>3083355
that point was a refutation. Do you want proof that philosophy ALWAY leads science, here goes.

1. Kant proposed the theory of natural selection 100 years before Charles Darwin
2. Leibniz, while contemplating the existence of what he called "substance" invented Calculus
3. Descartes single handedly started the fucking renaissance and the birth of modern science.
Do i need to go on?

>>3083378
> Even if you win your debate with some undergrads on a science forum, they're still going to make me better coffee machines and computers while you write shitty books that nobody will read.

clearly, those shitty books have massive influence on your life in particular

>>3083334
where/what is your refutation to my original argument?

>>3083391
Great. What have you done lately?

Nothing? You mean religion does more than -you- do for people?

You're a lazy fucking faggot, and you belong in a sideshow. It's fucked up that you have to go back centuries to justify your profession.

>>3083416
ah, ya got me, science is now too highly specialized for philosophers to make significant contributions. Except the transhuminst movement and theories of AI, of course. But those aren't science, right?

at least not yet

>>3083415
Reality exists by existing in a superposition of existing and not existing.

>>3083434
>transhuminst movement and theories of AI

Silly strings and time travel, much?

Hey, lets throw in an invisible dragon for good measure.

>>3083436
but what we call "reality" does exist, it just isn't all of what exists. The atoms we see and feel are really there, i never claimed otherwise, so how can you claim they go in and out of existence?

>>3083444
once again, im just sayin', philosophy always leads science. Fact. get over it.

>>3083453
sorry, how can you claim it both exists and does not exist?

>>3083453

I only need to do 2 experiments with my particle accelerator to observe this.

Helooo 1884.

>>3083469
PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

>>3083469
Even if quarks or other particles exist in such a state, that does not translate into all of "reality" existing in such a state. Gravity, for instance, is a part of "reality" but does not adhere to your principle. The same for electromagnetism.

>>3083458
Troll. You looking to fuck my fat hairy ass, aren't you?

Give be a break, I just had sex.

>>3083488
pot meet kettle

>>3083483
>, that does not translate into all of "reality" existing in such a state.

Yes it does. Reality, by the same experiments, can be observed to be unable to operate any other way.

>>3083496
You just had trollsex too? I bet you sucked him, didn't ya?

>>3083505
Does gravity both exist and not exist?
What about electromagnatism, or strong forces? what about weak forces?

all this is part of reality but is not subject to the quantum fluctuations you build your theory off of.

Therefore, reality is not existing in a superposition of existing and not existing

>>3083505
PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

PERCEPTION DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE!

>>3083458

this might have been true hundreds of years ago.

now, scientists are often most involved in the philosophy behind what they make. you used alan turing as a modern example, whom i would consider more of a scientist than a philosopher by a long shot.

the transhumanists and ai philosophers that youre talking about are hardly leading the way in their fields. the scientists who are developing these technologies are, and as they get more defined then people will listen to both what the philosophers and the scientists (some people are both of course) have to say.

we are at a point in human history now where these philosophers would be science fiction authors talking about something entirely unachievable if there weren't scientists doing the actual work required to bring these technologies about. scientsts are definitely leading the philosophers on this one.

now go take a shower, hippie

>>3083524
>now, scientists are often most involved in the philosophy behind what they make. you used alan turing as a modern example, whom i would consider more of a scientist than a philosopher by a long shot.
You may call him a scientist, but he called himself a logician, a philosopher who focuses on theories of logic.
>the transhumanists and ai philosophers that youre talking about are hardly leading the way in their fields. the scientists who are developing these technologies are
The ideas are solid, but science has yet to give us the math or practicality. I'd say you are wrong here.
>we are at a point in human history now where these philosophers would be science fiction authors talking about something entirely unachievable if there weren't scientists doing the actual work required to bring these technologies about.
This has always been the case, notice that my argument hinges on previous scientific observations? There is a bit of give and take, but philosophy looks further ahead than science does.

>>3083518
I thought you studied something besides philosophy?

Any science in there?

Never mind, of course not. If there was, you wouldn't be making horrible arguments.

Outside of knowledge is mystery, not philosophy. Shut up, and fuck off.

>>3083551
>Outside of knowledge is mystery, not philosophy
huh? what does this even i don't know
Philosophy is only after the truth of how the universe operates, sound familiar?

>>3083550

Philosophy didn't give us those things. People did.

>>3083560
Way to focus on the one thing you can argue.

>>3083551
you claimed that reality, based on quantum fluctuations, both exists and does not exist. I'm telling you that because gravity is not subject to that same fluctuation, but is a part of what we call reality, then what we call reality is not subject to the effects of quantum fluctuations.

Instead of refuting that claim you attacked me as a person. Should i point out that fallacy too?

>after the truth of how the universe operates,

Yes, but science actually discovers it, not philosophy.

You know, making measurements, testing theories, that stuff.

Sure, it's great that the old ways are observed, but you haven't been helping people lately, and when debate emergencies happen in the public arena, you shut up like a bitch because you haven't attained tenure.

Take a risk, or crawl on a hole and die, faggot.

>>3082816
IS THIS THE REAL LIFE

>>3083592

>>3083592
but, as i've pointed out, all that you can observe and measure only makes up 25% of the universe. So, you will never, by your measurements, be able to get the full truth of the universe.

(neither will we, but that's beside the point. I just wanted to show that your high horse is actually a hobby horse)

Philosophy: Why did you abandon science to the tender mercies of creationists?

>>3083609

All that we can observe at this time. Rather than hang up the cleats and say "well, guess we gave it our all", science is hoping to be able to eventually explain much more than we can now.

>>3083592
So, very recently one of John Locke's theories were proven to be correct by modern science. You may say "oh, but he lived 200 years ago," but, lets not forget that science JUST confirmed his claim: philosophy leads science

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/health/research/26blind.html

The universe is a recursive function

>>3083609

There's a lot that we can't observe, because things are blocking our view, like you standing on the mirror of a telescope trying to justify yourself to science after abandoning us to the Christians.

It's YOUR fault public schools in Texas have to teach creationism in science classes. These are the kind of arguments that make you useful.

WHERE WAS PHILOSOPHY FOR THOSE DEBATES?

"bew bew bew, you cannot prove that god does not exist, bew bew bew."

FUCK YOU, AND YOUR PIECE OF SHIT PAPER.

>>3083642
sorry but in comparison to the advances science has made recently, thats nothing.

>>3083663
eloi eloi lama sabachthani indeed

>>3083663
first of all, it's not my fault that creationism is taught in texas. I'm not a texas resident, and i firmly know that evolution happened.
Second, you're right, no one can prove that god does not exist, but since no one can prove that he does, I'm going to default to evidence.
Assumptions make an ass out of you, but since i have nothing to do with you I'm still ok.

>>3083642
Fucking trolls, IF YOUR VISUAL CORTEX NEVER DEVELOPS, OF COURSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A CUBE IS IF YOU CAN SUDDENLY SEE.

>>3083666
*sigh*
>ignoring the endless line of philosophical principles that make up the all theories of science.

>>3083674
Sorry, but if philosophy created science like you say, then philosophy is also responsible for abandoning science.

You are a HORRIBLE parent, and you should be ashamed.

I'm sure, however, you can find a justification for it. That's what you're good at.

>philosophy created science
>all philosophy is good and worth consideration

OH HAI!

>>3083681
if it's so obvious then why did it take 200 years to prove it?
But even still, that wasn't Locke's point. Because a blind person who recently regained sight can't recognize a cube by sight alone but can by feeling, that proves that shape and extension are not innate ideas in the mind but are given by experience.

Do you know what the implications of this are? It means that science is valid, because we can in fact observe the external world.

Be happy, Locke justified your work, even if you think he was just a troll

>>3083687
>ignoring the scientific method kept only the useful bits, like humans do when making improvements.

>>3083704
>ignoring that the scientific method was established by a philosopher

>>3083700

Go to:

>>3083692

and

>>3083663
and justify yourself.

>>3083700

nobody is saying locke is a troll, he is widely reknowned as being one of the most advanced and important thinkers in all of western history.

you're really grasping at troll straws now

>>3083711
>I implied that in the post you replied to

>>3083719
I don't feel the need to refute red herring arguments. Philosophy in no way "abandoned" science

I don't know why you want me to justify >>3083663 since i neither wrote that nor agree with it

>>3083728
No, the article is a troll.

>>3083738

I figured you were worthless. Nice justification. Now, go back in the geriatrics unit, grampa.

>>3083739
This scientific study of a philosophical theory is a troll then?

>>3083738

DERPY DERPY DERPY red herring HERPYDERPY

>>3083746
God, I thought /sci/ would be a little more mature than this.

You alone have given me 3 fallacious arguments, then you demand to know why I disregard you as an idiot.

>>3083748
>new york post

>>3083759
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n5/full/nn.2795.html
Better?

>>3083755
No, your profession had opportunities to advance humanity recently, and you successfully held us back.

Your are the idiot, and you lessen everyone on earth.

>>3083764
No.

>>3083774
when exactly has philosophy ever held society back?

>>3083776
I'm sorry, but I can't get a much more authoritative source than the publication of the study itself

>>3083782
"You cannot prove something does not exist."

>>3083790
and how exactly does that hold society back?

Personally, I think that moves society forward by demanding empirical evidence for empirical claims

>>3083786
Except Locke could not prove that he was correct.

Philosophy is a guess.

>>3083793
"God exists. Prove me wrong."

i hate you -so- much.

>>3083782
look a china. they recently applied taoist principles on green energy and organic food, which is nothing but bull.

>>3083795
Locke proved it with reason and logical arguments. If you actually read his work you will see that he argues so well that one really doesn't even need to test it to know that he's right. Of course, I'm really glad it was tested and confirmed

>>3083800
I actually made the exact opposite of that argument.

Philosophy =/= theology

you
>>3083800
see
>>3083677

>>3083804
1. I know nothing of eastern religions
2. how exactly has that been a problem for chinese society?

>>3083815
Sure, after science finally pushed theology off and started winning the fight again.

Way to stand by the sidelines while your kid is getting gang-rushed.

>>3083838
*sigh*
you so completely misunderstand the entire realm of philosophy

>>3083824

-You-, see:

>>3083838

>>3083852
What's to misunderstand. You want respect from someone you abandoned.

Sorry. You fucked up. What belongs to science, belongs to science, and you are a worthless old man, complaining about being alone while reminiscing of your youth.

>>3083838
I'm generous, so I'll enlighten you

Philosophy literally means "the love of wisdom"
and that's exactly what we do. Philosophers love knowledge and love even more figuring truths out through logic.
Philosophers want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Science does not offer the whole truth (see original argument), so philosophers look elsewhere for truths. THIS seems to be where you and I butt heads. We look ahead while you look through the microscope. We seek real understanding, you seek real numbers.
This is also exactly what i mean by "philosophy leads science" because philosophers are generally taking what is known and applying it to what is completely unknown. Scientists take what is known and applies it to what is barely known.

>>3083881

>>3083888
Philosophy, Science, and Theology all separated at the same time, the Renaissance. Up until then all three were under the same name, Philosophy.

Philosophy did not "abandon" science, but simply let it take flight on its own. During the great awakening Science (and theology for that matter) became highly specialized, requiring more and more expensive equipment and detailed educations. This is the precise reason philosophy and science diverged, but they are both still after knowledge of the same thing

>>3083881
also I'm 25, so...

"assumptions"

>>3083888
Funny way to love wisdom you got, abandoning knowledge to theocratic madness.

If that is how philosophy behaves when things get tough, then nobody needs to have a parent who is a philosopher.

>>3083908
And I'm 44, but I'm arguing for science.

Kiddo, I thought you were defending philosophy, not yourself.

Any excuse is a good excuse, eh?

>>3083914
how many fucking times do I have to repeat that philosophy didn't abandon anything???

There is a philsophical argument behind EVERYTHING. I know you won't be convinced by any argument, but how about an experiment. Go to wikipedia, click the first link of each article you get and eventually you will reach a philosophical topic.

To say that philosophy abandoned anything is ludicrous because absolutely everything can be traced back to philosophy

>>3083925
I finished refuting the rest of your claims, so I thought I'd show just how wrong assumptions can be, but surely you learned that in the 19 extra years you have on me

>>3083925
also, I find it extremely ironic that YOU called ME an old man

>>3083935
You said philosophy created science.

It sounds like you're starting to realize what kind of wisdom you practice, kiddo.

This has to end soon. I got lung cancer, and I have a breathing machine I gotta hook myself up to for a few hours.

>>3083952
I called PHILOSOPHY an old man, kiddo.

>>3083944
LOL, no you didn't. All you did is pretend that doing nothing over the past 100 years is "helping humanity" or "loving wisdom".

>>3083970
>>3083964

not that other guy but you sound like you're really sure of yourself.

Let me ask you this question:

Has science always proven to be a good thing?

HOW /SCI/ REACTS WHEN A PHILOSOPHER IS PRESENT.

a crash course.

1. ad hominem after ad hominem
2. red herrings
3. hasty generalizations
4. faulty assumptions
5. general faulty logic
6. false claims
7. troll

Amazing, the board that is supposed to be 'intelligent' can't form a structured, sound argument. I'm suprised you genuinely think you are better than everyone else when I have seen only one other coherent argument in this whole fucking thread

>>3083970
"you" can be a very tricky word. Be more clear with your words and maybe this can be avoided in the future

>>3083436
Thank you for your participation. You were the one post that actually made me think. You were the only one who actually challenged my theory. I tip my hat to you.

>>3083992
2 philosophers complaining about their argument with a 44 year old scientist with lung cancer.

Classy.

Hey, how about you actually do something that contributes to your field, or the human condition?


Or is a contribution too much to ask from wisdom?

>>3084003
And you even thank me for my post. Now, that is an unexpected politeness.

You're welcome. I gotta go too now, my chest is starting to hurt.

>>3082816
OP, since this thread seems to have fallen into a horrible pit, I'll try and pull it out for you.
>99.99% of the volume of an atom is empty space. This exists, but is not perceived.
I don't agree with this. You seem to think that anything that we cannot directly see is not perceivable.
>that is a perception of an entirely different event, though causally related.
How is this not the same as perceiving it directly? Are you denying the logical connections made?

>>3084023
Oh, you're the same person? let me rephrase.

You had a great start.

>>3084034
OP disappeared when someone actually tried to talk about his original argument?

>>3084046
Oh, then let me rephrase myself too.

Do something useful, asshole.

>>3084034
i'm really tired from arguing against trolls, but I'll try to dig out an explanation for you.

the 99.99% empty space is a proven fact. What I'm saying with that point is that what we do "see" is actually mostly composed of nothing. So, what we see there is not all of what is real.

Then, there are all kinds of electromagnetic wavelengths, for instance, that we humans can not see, hear, feel, etc. We can build machines to perceive these, but we cannot perceive them ourselves-- that's what was meant by the dog whistle argument.

Now, since what we call matter only makes up 4% of the universe, then when we call our world "reality" we are leaving out the factual existence of the other 96% of reality.

Therefore, what we call "reality" is not in fact the real nature of the universe, and should then not be called "reality"

>>3084063
ah com'on, I was at least half nice.

You did, btw, have a great start, but wtf happend?

>>3084066
I love how the problem of induction always leads to huge, beautifully elaborate troll threads.

>>3084066
Don't worry, I'm not a troll. I also don't have any real education in either fields, but I've always been fascinated by both. I'm just throwing my thoughts out. Anyways..
When we perceive a sound, are we not using a "biological machine" (ears) to decipher the vibrations in the air?

>>3084066
Sorry, I'm not that great at putting all my thoughts in a post. We can also verify the existence of that empty space by knowing that nothing is there. The fact that it is empty is, to me, VERY real.

>>3084090
That argument also came up. I defered to Kant then and I'll defer to him again. See>>3083211

Even though you can call the Eardrum, for instance, a biological machine it still directly effects our cognitions. The mic on a machine might absorb sound in a similar fashion, it does not cognize the sound but must give it to a human, thus it is a middle man.

>>3084071

A lot of things. Anger over the past decade, and realizing that philosophical arguments were the cause of a lot of lost science and math education in schools, hell education in general.

Knowing I'm leaving life soon with education in a worse state than when I learned it...

Dying doesn't scare me, but the state of education in America makes me weep.

If I hear someone say "you cannot prove God doesn't exist" again, well,.. I'm dying soon anyway.

They won't like what happens.

>>3084066

It would be more accurate to say that we don't perceive the totality of reality, and not that we don't see "reality." You make it sound like what we're looking at isn't real.

>>3084103
Ah, sorry. I didn't see that.
Personally I don't really see a difference between the eardrum and a microphone, but I suppose that's just how I view things.

>stroll by to see what's up on /sci/

>mfw so much hilarious bullshit.

>>3084090
I also defined "perception" as observing, measuring, or otherwise sensing the external world. So it is possible to perceive Dark Matter, for instance by its gravitational ring. It is not possible to directly perceive Gamma radiation, but we can measure it so we know it's there.

We call what we perceive Reality, but I'm showing here that there are many things we know exist but we cannot directly perceive

>>3084108
again you are confusing philosophy and religion.
The one argument you gave to me to show that philosophy is detrimental to society was "You can't prove that God doesn't exist herp derp"
To which I also responded that philosophy is not the same as religion.

stop repeating the same bad arguments

>>3084123
I'm assuming you mean gravity, electro-magnetism, ect.
While we cannot perceive them, we can perceive their effects. Is that not enough?

>>3084112
That is what I said many times, if not in that particular post.

If you read through the thread you will see that I said "reality is not the whole of what exists," not to suggest that what we call reality isn't a part of the whole of reality

>>3084137
Ah. Well fuck me. Sorry about that, I see your point now... Though rather than saying it's "Not Reality", wouldn't "Reality as far as we know" be more appropriate?

>>3084133
Gravity and electromagnetism are perfectly observable, even directly.

Since they are all forces, it is only through their effects we know they exist, therefore observation of the effect is observation of the cause or force.

A much better example of something imperceptible is Dark Energy, the other 70% of the universe that appears completely unreactive with matter

>>3084142
That is enormously arrogant to call what we humans subjectively perceive to be at all reality, even reality as we know it.

>>3084152
I regard it as arrogant as the geocentric theory or the creationist view that the universe was made for us.

>>3084131
"you cannot prove XXXX doesn't exist" or similar arguments for why science "might" be "wrong". Every time that happens, more school funding gets cut, and kids have a harder and harder time learning when they get to college.

Those argument are philosophical arguments.

I've decided that people who use them should be cut on by someone who doesn't know how to dress a deer.

>>3084155
The objective fact that something cannot be proven to not exist does not destroy science education, it aggrandizes it.

That claim demands factual evidence for all empirical claims, the very fact that you cannot prove the non-existence of something drives science to find proof FOR the existence of many things.

This is not a philosophical argument, this is an objective fact of the universe. The only way to prove a needle is not in a hay stack is to go through every individual piece of hay: when hay stack is the size of the universe that task is impossible.

So you, the claim "you cannot prove XXX does not exist" is correct, whether or not it makes you rage

>>3084170
On the other hand, the claim You cannot prove that XXX exists is a sound claim. In fact, it is the most important claim in science.

>>3084170
The problem is, that those arguments are not used to improve people or education, or to examine how we look at our beliefs or the world. They are used to rob it.

The wisdom is still there, but it is an evil and malevolent wisdom, that ruins peoples lives a little bit at a time for no reason.

You can be both wise and evil.

>>3084208
It is not the fault of knowledge how humans make use of it.


Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find ANY philosopher who would ever use that argument.

Now, that is a very frequently used RELIGIOUS argument. If you make me repeat myself one more time, i think i might scream.

>>3084208
Of course, the use of the Argument "You can't prove that XXX doesn't exist" is only valid if it is left as is. If the argument goes "You can't prove that XXX doesn't exist, so therefore it must exist" is completely fallacious. It is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

>>3084208
...no response. Are you done? can I go to bed now?

>>3084214
>>3084221

I'll stop. I'll stop.

You understand me, and how I feel. You can see what I've had to deal with, and what people have been doing.

I just wish I'd get to see something that makes me feel better for the future humanity.

>>3084261
Read more and believe you can change people's minds. That's how I get through it. Well, it's been frustrating, but fun. if you're the same anon I already complemented earlier, then it's been doubly frustrating and fun. But now, g'night