/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't.

Maybe it's not the neatest way of doing things from a philosophical standpoint, but philosophy never built me an air conditioner.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition. A definition which was chosen because it corresponds to human intuitions, which we know both because of human intuitions and empiricism.

These human intuitions are an Ansatz, true assumptions, but ones without which any kind of philosophy would be impossible, including your question. And like any interesting Ansatz, the tools it creates prove the inadequacy of it, and pave a way for continual self-improvement.

Any of the fruits of this system can be abandoned or replaced by it, if the other tools suggest it. Empiricism has so far worked flawlessly, and thus we consider its results true.

>>5863019
You should try being a buddhist monk, some of those guys can concentrate hard enough to have a measurable effect on their core body temperature basically taking away the need to pay thousands of dollars a year for a machine to regulate the temperature of the environment of your entire house.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

>>5863079
Hey hey, don't forget about modernist pseudo-science such as drinking plutonium to grow your penis and measuring intelligence by eyebrow density.

>>5863079
Except, empiricism is usually used to disprove old intuition and make room for new intuition by objectively demonstrating an idea well enough that people generally accept the idea without thought and train their children to subconsciously accept the idea on such a deep level from such a young age that in the future they can only attribute the knowledge to "intuition".

>>5863090
>drinking plutonium to grow your penis

Is this actually a theory?

I've never seen any evidence to contradict it.

>>5864320
You never had a dream?

>>5864932
Those rare cases where I use experimentation and prediction to analyse dreams when in them, rather than rationalization or a simple lack of analysis, I quickly become lucid.

There's nothing unempirical about dreams, you've just got to see what the rules are.

I once had a dream where I was in a bar, and trying to think of the name of a beer I wanted to order. The bartender was trying to think of it, as I described the label. We both said the name of the beer at exacty the same time. I was a bit surprised, and I though, in my dream, that it would be weird if I was living in some solipsist universe.
But, no, I thought. That would mean that there is some even-more complex intelligence that is controlling everything, and I am just a sub-character, along with everyone else in my dream, to that more complex intelligence. However, it is much easier to explain the existence of several or many separate, normal intelligences than the existence of a single, highly complex intelligence. The complex intelligence would have had to evolve from a simpler intelligence, such as I have, now.
This is what I thought in my dream. I used Occam's Razor to prove to myself that I was definitely not in a dream.

And then, I woke up.

>>5864984
>There's nothing unempirical about dreams

Um. Empirical means "derived from the senses." So, nothing that you experience in a dream is empirical.

>>5864984
So you are always bound by the same consistent rules of reality in your dreams?

>>5864984
>being so pleb he has no clue what OP is on about

I assume that I must be able to trust what my receptor organs tell my brain to some degree because if the alternative is true then I can't do anything about it so there isn't any point in worrying about it.

Any position other than this one is fucking moronic and hypocritical.

>>5865043
> if the alternative is true then I can't do anything about it so there isn't any point in worrying about it.

That is one alternative, another is that it means through introspective willpower you have the potential to transcend the rules of sensory perception that currently limits you and you personally have the ability to make vast changes to physical reality for your benefit that you could not have created through the power of only your senses.

>>5864932
How does neuronal activity during sleep contradict empiricism? You make no sense.

>>5865965
How do you know reality is not a 'dream'?

>>5866268

I don't. But I don't need to 'know', not in the way you mean. I'm more than reasonably certain for a plethora of reasons that reality is not a 'dream'.

>>5864932
>dream
I do not know what that is.

>>5866268
The question makes no sense. Reality is certainly more than just neuronal activity during sleep.

>>5867841
>certainly
You really need to write a book then.

>>5867996
Why would I write a book about something that is self-evident to anyone who has common sense?

>>5868504
OP is making a solipsistic argument which is neither provable or disprovable, let alone self-evident. That's the joke here.

So telekinesis is possible, cool.

>>5863019

This sums up the answer to this question

>>5868573
science is a philosophy bruh

>>5868575
No, philosophy is a science.

>>5869135
Philosophy is separate from science and thanks to science it has become obsolete nowadays.

>>5869135
>>5870660
You obviously have no clue what philosophy really is

>>5870798
You're talking to the necrobumping troll. Look at the post times.

is it just me or is sci actually full of retards=

>>5870817
You're looking at a strongly biased sample.

>>5865965
Getting vivid sensory information without any input from sensory organs goes against the idea that everything is just sensory input and the fact that you don't have to play by the same physical rules shows that empiricism isn't universal indisputable objective truth for every brain.

>>5868568
Nothing is impossible as far as we know. Most things are just very difficult.

>>5864985
I think this is the most unsettling thing I have ever read on /sci/.

>>5871361
Opps, didn't mean to shage.

>>5868568
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22344950

Yes it is, maybe not the way you assume, but it is entirely possible and in the beginning stages of development.

I don't. It's an assumption which is good at generating theories with predictive value.

>>5863081
okay now show me a buddhist monk that can survive in outer space and I'll disregard empiricism as useless

>>5864990
Of course; it's a dream, not magic. The laws of physics apply at the computational level, with the computer power limited to a single human brain, which would have noticeable effects if you're actually in analytical mode. For example, dreams don't have the visual capacity to display a page from a book, and they don't have the storage capacity to keep track of integers such as the position of an analog clock while no attention is given to it. More specific to my dreams, I have limited peripheral vision and sound is single-band and travels instantaneously, unless the plot demands it or I question it without hypothesizing that I'm dreaming.

>>5865064
There is also the alternative that I'm secretly a ferret.
Please give any reason why your alternative is in any way more likely than other random bullshit. That it sounds nice to humans is not a reason.

>>5866268
See above; my mental capacity is insufficient to model reality.

>>5871313
Straw man. Empiricism holds that everything is either observable or non-existent, not that everything observed must be reducible to things which enter through the five human senses. The brain must and does observe itself in motion. Dreams can themselves be reduced to neural patterns, which are molecular motions, which are quark configurations, which are excitations of the quantum fields in space-time, which are something even more Occamesquely simple but humanly alien.

At any level, it's possible to add in a layer "which are a simulation run on a computer/in a mind, which is ...". If it's outside humanity, science will find it. If it's not -- what kind of difference would you expect across the barrier?

At no point does it become a good idea to turn inward and limit yourself to the definitely computable confines of your mind. At worst, your observations are all somehow inside your mind, so you gained nothing by limiting your scope.

>>5871457
>Please give any reason why your alternative is in any way more likely than other random bullshit
I can give you two: measurable physiological change through transcendental meditation, and the discovery of the double helix of DNA through LSD induced visions.

>At no point does it become a good idea to turn inward and limit yourself to the definitely computable confines of your mind.
This is ironic from someone whose dreams are limited by what he read about dreams.
>For example, dreams don't have the visual capacity to display a page from a book, and they don't have the storage capacity to keep track of integers such as the position of an analog clock while no attention is given to it.
I have read schematics and written instructions in dreams and there is no way to tell what something is doing when you aren't observing it in a dream, so I pretty much disregarded everything you said after that.

Also I don't think you understood the question that was being answered with dreams about seeing empiricism contradicted let alone what you are actually talking about.

>>5871457
Your last point is not necessarily valid. Sometimes context can be arbitrary and it can cause exactly similar objects to not be similar on inspection. These sorts of objects will cause observable ones to appear non-existent.

>>5871507
>measurable physiological change through transcendental meditation
Physiology is reachable through neurons by the brain.

>discovery of the double helix of DNA through LSD induced visions.
Not sure about the LSD, but it was discovered by people who were actively doing experiments which could observe the shape of DNA which required interpretation.

>I can give you two
If what you're saying qualifies as potential evidence, then by generalization the lack of correlation between meditation and science constitutes thousands of data-points against your claim. Therefore, you should rationally believe that your claim is false.

>I have read schematics and written instructions in dreams
It is extremely easy not to notice inconsistencies, and I do think lucid dreaming pages specify text rather than pseudo-visual representations.

>there is no way to tell what something is doing when you aren't observing it in a dream
You can look at the clock again. Usually, the time isn't just a few seconds after the first time you looked.

>Also I don't think you understood the question that was being answered with dreams about seeing empiricism contradicted let alone what you are actually talking about.

If you are correct, that is a profoundly unhelpful way to express it. Clarify, if you are able.

>>5871532
I don't follow.

>>5871619
In your dreams the objects form depends on the context of the supporting 'hardware' state. The objects themselves cannot be inspected to determine the hardware because they are all the same thing. You cannot inspect your dream and prove you are dreaming unless you simply state it is a dream and it is an axiom all characters accept.

>>5871619
>the lack of correlation between meditation and science constitutes thousands of data-points against your claim.
Ok, then present just a few of the thousand because all that I see is inconclusive or unable to determine how statistical effects are definitely seen in meditators.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation_research

>It is extremely easy not to notice inconsistencies
There are no inconsistencies in dreams, they don't obey the empirical laws you keep claiming they do which has been my point this entire time that doesn't mean you can't read a page, it just means the page doesn't obey the same laws of reality you keep trying to impose and if you have seen a dream then you have seen that empiricism is disputable and subjective to not being in a dream.

>If you are correct, that is a profoundly unhelpful way to express it. Clarify, if you are able.
I hope I just have, but I doubt you will get it.

>>5871507
actually that is just a myth with francis crick never admitting or being known to take LSD. Please find a trustworthy source that says otherwise.

Kary Mulis on the other hand directly attributed his discovery of PCR to LSD visions. he says he was not on LSD when he thought of it but it helped his lateral thinking to paraphrase. Of course he also went crazy in later life and talked about time travelling possums.

>>5863081
lol i can change my body temperature to in fact every single mammal can its in the very definition of mammal that we are homeothermic.

>>5871740
>talked about time travelling possums
elaborate pls.

>>5862983
We don't! Scientists are pragmatists! The notion that there can be facts independent of us is ridiculous. Our mind impresses facts and categories to our appearances. The whole idea that you have to be an empiricist if you conduct science is stupid.

>>5871740
WTF I thought that only owls could do that.

>>5871748
well this doesnt actually mention the time travelling possums but a lot of his other stuff. I http://www.cracked.com/article_18638_4-nobel-prize-winners-who-were-clearly-insane.html


ohh and here sorry it was a transdimenional green glowing racoon.


Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, "Good evening, doctor," and he replied with a "hello". Mullis later speculated that the raccoon "was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible". Mullis denies LSD having anything at all to do with this.[34]

>>5871763
"Once he turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, he lighted his path to the outhouse with a flashlight. On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’ and he replied with a hello."

ohh lol

>>5871763
>transdimenional green glowing racoon
o yes, I remember reading about that.

>>5868504
shit, people make good money doing that

>>5871665
QFT, QCD, QED, general relativity, inflation, dark matter, radioactivity, the periodic table, telescopes, microscopes, germ theory, evolution, atomism, the curvature of the earth, algebra, set theory, number theory, ...

To clarify, since the point should have been obvious, I am referring to the fact that prolific meditators are not prolific scientists. Never has there been a scientific advancement borne of meditation by even the most loose of standards without previously acquiring all necessary empirical data.

>There are no inconsistencies in dreams

By inconsistencies I mean things inconsistent with the standard assumptions of waking reality - object permanence, unlimited computational power, not being the center of the universe, your observations being sensory input of the world around you, etc. The laws of empiricism still apply, which has been my point, and can be used to observe the inconsistencies, reject the unfounded assumptions, establish that it is a dream, and then if you want find the dream laws (which in practice are intuitive enough to allow dream control almost immediately).

>you have seen a dream then you have seen that empiricism is disputable and subjective to not being in a dream.
Do you have lucid dreams? Empiricism works inside dreams, if you know where to look.

>I hope I just have, but I doubt you will get it.
You don't have the tools so you call it unchartable.

>>5871800
some of those aren't even empirical

> I am referring to the fact that prolific meditators are not prolific scientists
Why would a someone who lives with a different of rules for reality be concerned with controlling other people's thoughts with pedantic documentation as a scientist rather than exploring their own personal existence as a shaman?

>The laws of empiricism still apply
How so because they don't apply as indisputable objective truth because what you observe and experience is not consistent in dreams which is the entire premise of being indisputable objective truth.


>You don't have the tools so you call it unchartable.
No, you just don't understand the context or any perspective but your own and no amount of trying to explain will get you out of trying to make your own little point when you don't even understand the circumstances, but have a deeply implanted agenda of control.

>>5871835
>some of those aren't even empirical

All of them are empirical.

>>5873161
How were QFT, atomism, algebra, set theory, and number theory derived from direct sensory experience and experimentation rather than being devised rules of abstract theory?

>>5873729
I'm not that guy, nor am I particularly positivist (philosophically), but empiricism, as we know it, is a bit more comprehensive than that.

I live under the assumption empiricism is indisputably objectively useful.

>>5862983
Because it sort of fulfills itself without leaving any subjective answer that can be misinterpreted.

>>5873729
If you knew anything about these things, you would have answered your own question.

>>5875383
Same to you except I don't go around making claims without the knowledge needed to explain myself and resorting to personal attacks when I don't have the education needed to elaborate.

Also, your ignorance doesn't make those empirical.

>>5876050
It is not her fault you demonstrably lack the knowledge that the elementary school should teach everyone.

>>5876194
No it is her fault she does and it is your fault you do.

Also please link to the Quantum Field Theory atomism, and Number Theory textbooks and experiment labs designed for elementary schoolchildren. I have seen Algebra books for advanced placement elementary kids, but that still doesn't make Algebra itself empirical rather than abstract theory.

>>5871835
They're not all scientific, but they are all empirical.

>Why would a someone...shaman?
Because they choose to be a Bodhisattva, i.e. not a selfish asshole?
Or, more simply, because you counted Watson and Crick as evidence the other way.

>what you observe and experience is not consistent in dreams

As I have explained before, everything is entirely consistent with being in a dream. Your sensory experiences don't measure what they measure when you're awake, but they're still empirical and deterministic. It's just that some basic laws which have been empirically determined for the universe don't apply in the simplification where dream objects are considered as true objects.

So anyway, I don't believe you answered my question: do you dream lucidly?

>>5873729
They were fit to match the behavior of reality; no mathematical construct can prove its own consistency and be consistent, yet these systems are considered true and useful.

>>5876194
Wow, they teach about quantum field theory in elementary school now?

>>5876244
They are indirect abstract constructs based on a perception of reality that relies on a set of axioms hence abstract theories, they are not derived directly from experimentation and observation, so they are not empirical observations or data.

>>5862983

Because even the awareness of our own thoughts and sensations are "empirical". It's not enough to merely say "I Think Therefore I Am" as if neurologies were unified entities rather than messy compromises of different processing functions.

>>5863081

Show me a buddhist monk that actually provides for his own means of survival without dependence on begging or a peasant class and I'll take those schmucks seriously.

>>5877125

Or rather, being "anti-empricial" leads to even worse and more unsolvable conundrums then simply realizing "oh yeah we can observe some patterns and make use of them according to our desires".

There are an infinity of plausible axiomatics that one could assert about our "world of facts" but we can't calculate all of them and at some point we are forced to expediency as limited beings running on limited resources in limited time.

The faggotry of absolute truth is for those who want to postpone actually living as much as possible, which is certainly a viable strategy for maintaining a flatline of serotonergic and dopaminergic activity but I'd prefer to oscillate a bit more and not being such a faggot has yielded far better results than the false demands of such an idealism.

Hey /sci/, whats a nice scientific newspaper that you can read on the go, or while you are on the toilet, without the new pseudo-science bullshit, but with good scientific news, scientific pappers and works and simmilar stuff, mainly in the fields of physics, but general science, from biology to geology or the simmilar will do too. I am not looking for books, where you need to be concentrated on the subject, and are hundreds of pages long. I have enough of them. Yet i dont want something for a child or the common man. I am looking for a scinetific newspaper for the academic, if you understand what i mean. Thank you all in advance.

>>5871353
contradictions are impossible. An object cannot simultaneously be a circle and a square.

Everything else is possible in that there is a set of hypothetical circumstances in which it could exist.

>>5862983
the very fact that you call empiricism indisputable means that you don't understand the concept. It necessitates that every hypothesis is falsifiable. This applies to the concept itself.

I just realized how many replies a troll thread got, and here I am bumping it. Good job me.

>>5877158
>This applies to the concept itself.

No, it doesn't. Do you even meta-logic?

>>5877576
I'm not sure how to respond to this. For one, you're wrong. Second, I'm not sure that means what you think it means.

Truth is not objective Truth is Truth because it is that which cannot be changed. Falsehood is False because of it's objectivity and changeability Truth is Truth because unlike Falsehood it is not changeable. Science is not Objective OP Science is Science because of it's exactness and factuality

>>5877739
You should share some of your drugs, you are using too much on yourself.

>>5877739
>A thing is factual but not objective
how do I into words?

>>5878412
Yea there is so much wrong with that post I didn't even bother and just chalked it up to all the drugs impairing his ability to make coherent thought.

>>5864985
That's the same thought process i've had concerning solipsist ideas, it doesn't really make sense that there can be "philosophical zombies" because if other people were just a simulation or whatever the solipsist believes them to be, that means there would have to be some sort of higher "mind" if you will controlling or depicting the reality around the solipsist. And it's pretty prepostruous to believe that there is only one real mind and something else thats creating mind "simulations", because that in itself means that there would have to be a computer mind by necessity, which would be another mind, regardless of the form it takes.

Much easier to just take reality at face value and believe other individual minds exist. Doesn't make sense to think that they don't.

>>5877728
If you think I'm wrong, you should explain why. A vague feeling that you don't like my post is not enough to warrant a reply.

>>5878436
>And it's pretty prepostruous

Why? It's consistent with all the evidence.

>>5880007
No, the evidence indicates that the mind is a virtual function of a physical brain and every person has an independent brain with an independent mind.

>>5880609
You must be mistaken. There is no evidence of any "virtual functions". By definition metaphysics has no scientific evidence. If it had evidence, it would be physics and not metaphysics.

>>5882053
>implying you know anything about philosophy

>>5863019
No, but math (which does not use an empirical method) allowed for the air conditioning unit to exist.

>>5876235
>No it is her fault she does and it is your fault you do.
>projecting
>Also please link to the Quantum Field Theory atomism, and Number Theory textbooks and experiment labs designed for elementary schoolchildren.
This is not at all relevant. You have successfully demonstrated that your Broca's area is in an atrophic state.

>>5882725
>>5876235
>>5876194
>>5876050
>>5875383
>>5873729

I think we can all agree that both of you should kill yourselves

>>5882053
> implying "the mind" is metaphysics, instead of neuro/cognitive science

>>5862983
>not an assumption
/thread

>>5882747
Neuroscience doesn't know about a "mind". Neuroscience only knows the brain. You should read up on neuroscience and stop confusing it with philosophy.

>>5884195
if I can fuck up my mind with physiologically measurable effects, then I can conclude that the mind is a physiological construct.

>>5862983
>indisputably objective truth?
But that's wrong.

>>5884210
Please prove it. Please demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon without an empirical basis. This is a science board and not a place to ostentate empty and inconsequential gestures.

>>5884807
>existence of a phenomenon without an empirical basis

This is physically impossible.

>>5884195
>implying there is no such thing as cognitive neuroscience

>>5862983
lrn2kant

>>5887092
I mean to say, what the fuck? Kant isn't mentioned a single time in this thread. Analytic-synthetic distinction anyone?

>>5887099
ok

>>5878423

It's ridiculous but not incoherent. How stupid are you?

>>5887150
>Truth is subjective because it can not be changed.
>exactness and facts are subjective measures

I guess the statements are internally logical and consistent, too bad the appropriate words are arranged nonsensically instead of a way that would make make them logical and consistent in a global sense that conforms to actual definitions provided by the english language.

>>5887263

Meh. Not really. The grammar is fucking atrocious, I'll give you that. I find the first few lines rather compelling, but the last one is a fucking joke, making no intuitive sense and failing to have any argument attached.

>>5887296
>>5887263
I understand not because grammar is bad, so he stupid wrong.

>>5887311
no, >>5887263 is not refuting the structure of his sentences, but his use blatant misuse of words stemming from the fact that he doesn't understand what subjective or objective means yet his primary point is a definition of truth and falsehood via their subjective and objective nature.

>>5863081
>need to concentrate to study
>too hot to concentrate
>I know, I'll just concentrate even harder on lowering my body temperature!

See the problem?

>>5862983
I live without that assumption? Fag.

>>5862983

does this just mean (basically) that knowledge is only true when it is proven by observing or testing it or shit


and that absurd theories about xyz that may or may not be true cannot be certified until they have been observed or tested or shit?

Is shared dreaming possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_telepathy

>>5887613
>knowledge is only true when it is proven by observing or testing it or shit

Yes. Knowledge that isn't derived from empirical observations is meaningless.

Someone is keeping at least 36 threads like this alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5864124 >>5865965 >>5866752 >>5867841 >>5869135 >>5870660
>>5873161 >>5873729 >>5875383 >>5878847 >>5880007 >>5880609
>>5882053 >>5884195 >>5884807 >>5886281 >>5888798
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5884717 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

Someone has been keeping at least 35 threads alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5864124 >>5865965 >>5866752 >>5867841 >>5869135 >>5870660
>>5873161 >>5873729 >>5875383 >>5878847 >>5880007 >>5880609
>>5882053 >>5884195 >>5884807 >>5886281 >>5888798
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

>>5889323
Your samefag detector is broken, why don't you write someone about that?

>>5862983
We don't. That assumption is blatantly false.

All science is understood to be, at best, a close approximation of the universe, with the approximation growing increasingly close as time goes to infinity.

What empiricism is useful for is producing a model of the universe- and then we test that model until we're pretty sure it provides a good approximation of the truth, and then use that information.

>>5862983
Show me empirically that <span class="math">\sqrt{2} \notin \mathbb Q[\math][/spoiler]

>>5862983
Show me empirically that <span class="math">\sqrt{2} \notin \mathbb Q[/spoiler]

>>5884807
Axioms are concepts proven deductively and as such, have no empirical basis. "existence exists" is an axiom. Despite any empirical evidence, it holds true.
In mathematics, this would be something like "2=2." This is indisputable, and as a result requires no empirical data to substantiate the claim. From here it is possible to deduce a multitude of things (2+2=4, 2x2=4, etc). While you can use empirical data to back up these claims, it is redundant.
As far as other "phenomena" without empirical evidence, syllogistic logic follows from axioms. For instance.
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) therefore, Socrates is mortal.
All of your assumptions come from axioms and allow you to arrive deductively at your conclusion without the aid of empirical data. Before you go off on a tangent about the falsifiable nature of the assumption "all men are mortal" I'll save you the trouble. A) this is merely an example. B) if something is not mortal, then it is not man as he is currently defined.

>>5878847
Asking me "Do I even metalogic" was dumb so I replied in a dumb way. The concept of metalogic actually proves my point. You don't just use entirely new symbols to explain a process if they have no relation whatsoever to the language the process itself uses, otherwise those symbols carry no meaning in an epistemic sense. In this case, metalogic would show how the empirical concept would necessarily have to apply to OP's question, thus proving the illogical nature of his inquiry. If your...I guess I can really only call it an opinion at this point, since the only evidence you've given to the contrary was in the form of a meme, has any substance to it, I would love to hear a counterargument. Otherwise I suggest you go read a book.

>>5889480
Mathematical axioms do not "exist", you unhinged madman. They are a tool.
>Despite any empirical evidence, it holds true.
Wrong. Existence exists because it is observable.

>>5889581
even without you observing existence, it would still exist. The whole point of an axiom is that it is not falsifiable. That is why they have to be the simplest possible, most universally agreed upon things, such as "A=A".

Also, if you recognize that something is ____, like "a tool" for instance, then you recognize that something is (that is to say that something exists).
And calling someone an unhinged madman for explaining one of the simplest concepts in both philosophy and science makes me wonder about your own sanity.

>>5890152
>The whole point of an axiom is that it is not falsifiable

But the scientific method requires falsifiability.

>>5890664
I feel like we are talking in circles here. That was my whole point to begin with. OP's claim is silly because he confuses a nearly conclusive empirical process with indisputable truth. Or at least that's what I thought when I first read it. The more I read this sentence over and over, the more I think that he was pointing out that we make the assumption that certain tenets of science are objectively true because of how much empirical data we have gathered leading us toward that end despite the fact that we know it is technically falsifiable.

I can only be sure, at this point, of one of 3 things. either:
1) OP misunderstood the concept of empiricism
2)this is a troll post, or
3) OP is expressing his concern with our natural tendency to accept nearly conclusive empirical data as objectively true despite their falsifiable nature.

Given any of these possibilities, I implore you to read the thread since your response leads me to believe you haven't done so.

>>5890797
see
>>5889323

>>5862983
Because Empiricism is the flaw of Thermodynamics and it lets me believe FTL will come... owait

>>5890152
>it would still exist
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5891382
If you're going to live your whole life questioning even the most basic assumptions, like "A=A" then you're going to be pretty miserable. I'm out.

>>5890819
you understand that by making that post, it's actually him keeping the threads alive, right? It's a joke anon.

>>5862983
Empirically, you're only right under a specific point-of-view. In others, you're WRONG!

>>5892425
>In others, you're WRONG!

There are no other views than empiricism in science. Keep pseudoscience in >>>/x/

>>5893134
empiricism is not science.
CHECK MATE, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!

>>5893144
What is your point? Atoms are not subatomic particles.

>>5893144
The scientific method is nothing but empiricism and rationalism. Rejecting empiricism means rejecting science.

>>5894876
15 hour bump for something the poster already clarified

>>5894882
Which poster clarified it?

>>5890797
>OP's claim is silly

OP did not even make a claim. She was only asking a question.

>>5896916
>she
so either you're the original poster or a woman that feels the need to bend the rules grammar-wise.
Either way, if you can't see that there was an obvious claim in the assumption of the original statement, you make me sad.

The thing about empiricism is that it's based solely on observation. So while we may say "This is natural law, based on observation repeated ad infininitum with the same results" if some sort of evidence pops up as to contradict said findings, empiricism is fluid enough as to correct findings based upon it.

For example: Moore's law.

>>5897405
>Moore's law.
Computer science is not a real science.

>>5897393
Are you disagreeing with the fact that empiricism is the basis of scientific truth?

I don't. I'm no philistine.

>>5899320
>scientific truth

you have a lot to learn son

>>5862983

All science is metaphysics; Science as we know it is a meaningless concept. We're never actually *doing* science.

>>5862983
David Hume pls.

I support Kant's empirical rationalism. The middle ground between Descartes' rationalism and Hume's empirical belief. I find that experience can give us a lot of knowledge, but it is also obtainable by a purely rational process. For example ; have you ever seen a centaur? Of course not, but you can easily imagine a man's torso on a bull's body.

>>5889323
Is this a clinical study of autism, holy shit.

>>5862983
It is not. It is a useful intuitive assumption and we will use it until it becomes useless. Next question.
>Philosophy and Math major, minor Physics

>>5899439
Well, that is not what Kant really means by a priori analytic truths. A good example is the following: "A bachelor is a married man."
He wants to emphasis that our mind is actually adding something to the body of knowledge. I find this flawed for the same reasons that Quine found it flawed. However, I do not hold Quine's foundationalist notion that we can reduce all to some kind of petty empiricism. I don't find a problem with the notion of a priori iff it is one like that of CI Lewis's notion.
>will give references if interested

>>5899809
>until it becomes useless

Please give an example of a hypothetical event rendering empiricism useless.

>>5901010
Illusions.

>>5901095
How are illusions themselves useful?

Also you can make many empirical observations of the nature of illusion and they are still bound by the empirical laws of physics mostly what we know of optics.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=optical+illusions

>>5901095
Empiricism shows us that those are the result of a brain disorder.

>>5901758
They're still a distortion of reality. If you see nothing but shadows, that's the reality you're bound to acknowledge as being reality, as a result of an empirical analysis.

>>5901870
See above.

This thread.

>>5902331
2deep4u

>>5902141
Reality is objective and does not depend on the flawed perception of a mentally ill person.

>>5903412
Ill mentality != not knowing the truth.

If you live your whole life only seeing shadows, you will believe your whole life that they are the objects. Now, we know better than that: shadows are projections of the objects, distorted projections. The person who is bound to only know the shadows may be mentally sane, bur that will not stop the person from acknowledging what he can see as reality.

For these reasons, reality is in fact subjective and a matter of perspective. This is also the major flaw in empiricism.

>>5903531

i think what you meant to say, is that our preception of reality is subjective

reality itself isn't even if we can't know what THAT is

>>5892420
Shut the fuck up Setti

The important thing is that Evangelion is the best cartoon of all time, the only one taken seriously by every scientist.

>>5903531
empiricism isn't what we see or perceive, its what we measure with tools and most reasonable folks know what they see and perceive directly isn't the actual empirical fact of objective reality because organic limitation and tricks of light and in fact, we only know about shadows and illusions because of objective empiricism.

Also, you can't spend an entire life only seeing shadows because shadows depend on the existence of external light sources, so your post is just nonsense.

>>5903531
>If you live your whole life only seeing shadows, you will believe your whole life that they are the objects.
No, you will not. You will be diagnosed with multiple brain lesions by a neurologist and will learn basic facts about the real world some other way.

>>5903882
Empiricism is knowledge based on experience. Sight is a type of experience, and thus a way to gain knowledge according to empiricisim.

Does the word "hypothetical" mean anything to you?

>>5904027
You're clearly not the right person to talk to about philosophical subjects.

>>5904195
>Empiricism is knowledge based on experience

Source? Everything I see say it is knowledge based on very specific experiences - observation and experimentation. However there is a difference between the subjective observation of direct sight and the objective observation given by tools of measurement, and most people are reasonable enough to understand the difference and realize there are faults from certain perspectives and in the organic sources involved in direct observation, so objective empirical evidence hold more weight than subjective empirical evidence because it is more reliable and, well, objective.

>>5904216
The Wikipedia page for "Empiricism" says it itself: knowledge based on sensory experience. Yes, it does talk about experiments, but only in a specific case when you're studying the philosophy of science. If what we're talking about is science, then yes, you can say that empiricism is knowledge based on measurements and experiments. In everyday life, it's knowledge based on all sensory experience.

>>5905512
This isn't an everyday life board, it is a science board, people are going to assume you are discussing things from a science perspective, so unless you are willing to that, then back to >>>/soc/ with your nonsense.

>>5906168
Science is something present in everyday life.

>>5906290
Yes, but everyday life is not present in science because science is full of rigorous definitions and well defined metrics and doesn't have time for mutable concepts that each individual gets to define on their own using their opinion of the commonly understood definition of the word instead of the objective physical definition arrived at by scrutinous well documented observation according to the formal rules of applied telemetry and redundant peer reviewed experimentation.

tl;dr Take your pop-sci bullshit back to >>>/soc/

<span class="math">\mathcal{HOLY~SHIT}[/spoiler] this thread has been alive for two years now. Stop bumping dead threads.

>>5906168
>Nonsense

>>5906582
wat

The original post is from the 27th of June of 2013. How the hell is it two years old?

>>5906582
see
>>5889323

blame this guy >>5907914 who keeps bumping these threads 12 hours after the last response with pathetic 1-10 word posts full of foolish nonsense and lacking any clarity or articulation.

>>5906305
>well defined metrics
What are the metrics?

>>5908602
They have a whole system for keeping track of them, you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

lol

>>5908505
I am "that guy" and most of my posts here have several lines. That post you quoted was my only short post.

>>5909946

I love how you don't defend the slow, pathetic, foolish, unclear, inarticulate, nonsensical nature of your posts and point out that at least your slow, pathetic, foolish, unclear, inarticulate nonsense also generally lacks brevity.