/sci/ - Science & Math

Principle of induction is self-dependent, this is well understood.

>>3685594
>I've observed that observations are accurate, which itself is accurate.

Also, lrn2bootstrap

>>3685602
>>3685607
can't deal with me defeating science

Yes. You can't really KNOW anything, maaaaaaan

But acting like we can turns out to make life a lot fucking easier.

>>3685618
>has no idea what things are in reference to.

defeat troll by starting interesting discussion!

>>3685607
what do you mean bro?

>>3685642
Basically what OP said. We believe that things will continue to follow the same patterns as they have in the past. We believe this because this have always continued to follow the same patterns as they have in the past. This is the foundation of empiricism, but it's self-referential.

However OP seems to imply that this descredits empiricism, which is just stupid. He needs to read a book, I'm not going to expound the whole philosophy of this in this thread through, OP needs to read a book.

For all the pussyfooting ITT OP, I agree with you.

We are left with the objective of doing the best we can with what we have, which is exactly what we do. If you fail to acknowledge that the idea observations are accurate is circular though, you miss a fundamental point in the acquisition of information.

>>3685691
This. If OP can come up with a more useful way to look at the world I'm all ears, but until then I'm sticking with the scientific method since it has the best track record of actually getting shit done.

>>3685602
wait, what is bootstrapping in this context?

>>3685719
there's no evidence for that that isn't provided by that.

LOLOLOL LET'S DO THE CONVERSE

>rationalism: humans have a special, intuitive grasp on truth
>basis for this: rationalism
>mfw circular logic
>mfw when OP lacks the basic intellectual ability to apply his arguments to himself

>>3685736
I'm using a computer that works because of accurate quantum theory, among other things. You can choose to believe that it works because of invisible pink fairies if you want to, but you wont get far by applying that philosophy to all aspects of your life. Even religious people will step out of the way of a speeding train instead of praying to god stop it.

>>3685753
no, you *think* you are. Provide evidence that you are without using the world external to your senses.

>>3685594
>"oh no, my philosophy professor told me logic isn't self justifying"

I guess you should become a nihilist and kill yourself.

>>3685719
>look
Observing.

Not quite sure you understand the troll.

>>3685818
I don't know why people are so insistent OP is a troll, he makes a valid point.

>>3685836
A valid point doesn't make it useful.

>>3685772
Obviously I can't. But I challenge you to find a better alternative. What is a more accurate way to see reality?

>>3685852
It's not my job to invalidate your point, it's your job to validate it.
>>3685843
It does when we're talking about it.

>ITT: I just heard some random bits of philosophy and now think I've reformed the last 2300 years of logic, science and philosophy.

You haven't thought of anything new. Make an actual effort to read up on this, then come back.

That is indeed circular reasoning. Inductive reasoning must be assumed a priori, just like deductive logic. Why should we expect to be able to use reason to prove that our basic reasoning methods are valid?

>>3685856
>thinks thread is useful

The only reason this is a problem is that people for some reason want to believe that science is carved in stone, and that being wrong is somehow bad, rather than essential to the process.

>>3685884
>implying I said that
lawdeh, there be straw men everywheres

>>3685836
Valid in the sense that it's not false.

The problem with postmodern infatuation is that some people can't simply say "hmm, that's interesting. Oh well, time to continue making the most of the human condition."

Once you've reached philosophical bedrock, stop trying to dig! It does no good to linger at the bottom of the mind shaft waxing clever with idiotic syllogisms that get you nowhere.

"Durr, rational discourse can't justify rational discourse."

Congratulations. Do you want a ribbon? Quit being an insufferable pseudo-intellectual and do something useful with you brain.

>>3685898
>ignore massive logical flaws and continue bullshitting

>mfw when I haven't posted in more than an hour

you guys are better than /k/

This is the definition of suffering that we'll be using for this discussion:

Suffering: Something that you wouldn't want to risk feeling no matter what other feeling you could get by risking feeling it. Example: I don't want to risk feeling X not even if by risking feeling X I can feel feeling Y which feels infinitely enjoyable.

I intend this to be a proof for all so since I can't prove a feeling such as suffering exists for all i'll just state it as something that could potentially exist.

Suffering could potentially exist because nothing makes its existence impossible. Therefore its existence is possible. If something makes suffering impossible then if its possible for that which makes suffering impossible to be not working then the suffering would be possible.

Since suffering could potentially exist, it would be better to relatively painlessly die and feel nothing forever than to live, feel infinitely enjoyable, but be potentially risking suffering.

How is this not a logically valid proof that we should all die to avoid risking suffering?

>>3685902
>Liberal arts major

>>3685890
>trys to ignore how useless point and thread are, and how intertwined they are.

>observing.

>>3685931
>>3685930
>mvq there are two of you

>>3685902
I guess we disagree on what qualifies as a massive flaw.

>>3685936
>Most Valuable Questioners.

>>3685925

Not one Scientist or a Philosopher could invalidate my Argument.
/Sci/ i am dissapoint.

>implying any claim of truth won't be ultimately based on a leap of faith

>>3685950
Also, I'd make the distinction between logical inconsistencies, and logical dead ends.

It's not inconsistent to accept of the philosophical underpinnings of medicine by saying it's more healthy to not have malaria than to have it. So what if you can't justify the 'healthiness' of not have malaria to someone who wants to have it? There's no inconsistency that I can see, only a dead end and a stupid question.

>>3685898

This guy is the only sensible person here.

>>3685996
> writes a 'proof' that no human would want to live through an experience that no human would want to live through
> thinks he is intelligent

>thread has no mention of Godel.

>everyone is an idiot

>>3686124
>thread has no mention of Godel.

i c wat u did thar