/sci/ - Science & Math

>support physicalism 100%
So you're a robot with no subjective experience?

>>6431677
Maybe not 100%. I just can't get behind an alternative that doesn't believe everything has a physical cause

>>6431681
Just wait until you study phenomenology. Introductory level philosophy classes, just like intro physics or intro math, doesn't delve very deeply into the real issues of concern in philosophy.

>>6431665
Pic related.

I'm a "metaphysical naturalist". More or less. There are a few subtleties I'd probably have to clarify if compared to a textbook definition, but I can't think what other category I'd be in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

>Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling.

I place a high value on theory being ontologically grounded, and for such grounding to be clear and unambiguous.

I see empiricism as being too restrictive - strong empiricism has the habit of denying in principle an ontology where the 'real' elements are anything but absolutely conceptually identical to whatever properties are measurable <span class="math">currently[/spoiler] in experiment.

Empiricism (and positivism, etc.) sees no value in descriptions of reality which reduce to others in some limit, where experiment is <span class="math">currently[/spoiler] unable to explore outside said limit. That they will still reject these alternate approaches is odd, given that the <span class="math">current[/spoiler] approaches have their own demonstrable limits of validity.

>Yes, I'm talking about QM.

>2014
>not supporting physicalism 100%

How do you stand going to class with those morons?

>/sci/ what are your views on philosophy?
I can't know.

>>6433042
You can have a go at guessing what you think they are though. For the purposes of this thread we'll take your guess seriously.

>>6433049
I think philosophy is bretty good at formalizing human knowledge and thought in a systematic way and at teaching you how to approach any matter properly from a balanced point of view.

That said, I don't really like the idea of academic philosophy and that of being "a working philosopher".

In science, we discover answers to how the world works.
In engineering, we solve problems by creating things that never before existed.
In philosophy, we deal with the unanswerable questions and learn to ask better questions.

>>6431665
Philosophy can be a very good activity for sharpening your skills at approaching a problem from several angles. It can augment absolutely any career. Unfortunately the really fun part of philosophy is only going to come from self-study: buying philosophy books and reading them. Classes tend to ruin a lot of the joy one can get from the topic.

>>6433105
If you're sufficiently smart (read: non-retarded), reading philosophy won't "sharpen your skills". Everything philosophers ever said is either obvious and trivial or insanely wrong. All of philosophy is either "I explicitly make this argument everyone has already figured out" or "I deny obvious fact because muh feelings".

Feel free to convince me that I'm wrong. I'm open to counter-examples and good arguments. However, if you only post ad hominems, don't expect a more sophisticated reply from me.

>>6433156
Warning, this poster is a troll. He has explicitly denied the realm of inquiry which he goes on to invite you to challenge him in - don't expect a sophisticated reply from him at all.

>>6433156
I'd rather not waste my time, you'll simply not read my posts, claim that I'm saying something like "hurr reality doesn't exist", accuse me of mental illness for disagreeing with you on some detail of approach, introduce epicycles-within-epicycles for why you're "self-evidently" right, or for how any particular school of thought you disagree with is "obvious".

It's a shame that the second anyone mentions philosophy on /sci/, even in a scientific context, someone barges in and shits in everyone's Cheerios. Hiding and ignoring the thread just wasn't enough for them, the topic hurts their feelings, so they have to come have their little preach.

I am an anti-rationalist. This is not the same thing as an irrationalist. I simply accept the notion our rational frameworks cannot account for everything.

I like Graham Priest's inclosure schema and defense of Dialetheism. I like it because of the parallels it has with Nagarjuna's MMK, which I find to be well-argued.

Ultimately, what this means, is every attempt to create cogent ontological framework is bound to fail. Graham Priest's inclosure schema is analogous to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for mathematics. The reason philosophers have been talking endlessly is because their questions have too many "unknown" assumptions impossible to fully explicate. The way the human mind makes sense of reality will always be tinged with bias.

Understand this amounts to accepting one maxim: x must always arise co-dependent on something else, for x cannot possess a determinate nature of its own. What this does is lead to a series of modal logic formulations that supports my claim. I can give the papers if interested.

>>6433201

I am an anti-rationalist. This is not the same thing as an irrationalist.

I like Graham Priest's inclosure schema and defense of Dialetheism. I like it because of the parallels it has with Nagarjuna's MMK, which I find to be well-argued.

Ultimately, what this means, is every attempt to create cogent ontological framework is bound to fail because a statement can be both true and false. Graham Priest's inclosure schema is analogous to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for mathematics. The reason philosophers have been talking endlessly is because their questions have too many "unknown" assumptions impossible to fully explicate. The way the dualistic mind makes sense of reality will always be tinged with bias.

Understanding this amounts to accepting one maxim: x must always arise co-dependent on something else, for x cannot possess a determinate or independent nature of its own. What this does is lead to a series of modal logic formulations that supports my claim. I can give the papers if interested.

The answer is simply that thought has its limits. Thought is simply a tool and should be treated as such.

>>6433219
I was >>6433213
Fuck yea, I;d like some more docs

Check out page 16 and 17: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/NagarjunaTheLimitsOfThought.pdf

The essay begins by positing everything lacks a determinate character (i.e., they do not have an underlying essence that comes to rigidly define them) due to it dependently originating (i.e.,defined as emptiness, 'Shunyata'). Emptiness denotes things always arise in relation to something else, understood in relation to something else, and lack a inherent nature due to both co-dependent origination.Accepting either co-dependent origination/emptiness causes an inclosure schema, as explained here:

o The article goes on to claim emptiness is their ultimate nature.
o Consequently, not even this statement can be claimed to possess any determinate character! It lacks an ultimate nature.
o It is empty of essence and independent reality,and thus, nothing can be said, even that all phenomena are empty. Nor its negation.
o We can’t even say that nothing can be said. But we just did. And we have thereby characterized the ultimate perspective, which,if we are correct in our characterization, can’t be done.
o From the conventional perspective, this can be discussed: the relation of the ultimate to the conventional. It can be pointed at. "All things have one nature, that is, no nature." All phenomena are empty, and so ultimately have no nature. But emptiness is, therefore, the ultimate nature of things. So they both have and lack an ultimate nature.

"All things are empty by virtue of not having a nature. However, if things are empty, then they have no nature, and so they are not things. Therefore, there is no thing that has the nature of emptiness. Therefore, any thing that is empty is not empty." So they both have and lack an ultimate nature.

This is the only argument capable of extinguishing the claim of physicalsists. Indian materialists called Carvakans argued:

"To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.[24]"

>>6433167
I'm neither a "he" nor a "troll" and I explicitly said I'm here for a good and civilized discussion. If you can't handle dissenting opinions, then please go away. By yelling "troll" you are achieving nothing and you are effectively only shitposting.

>>6433183
No sane and serious philosopher denies reality. If you literally think you need to prove how deep and edgy you are by denying the existence of the physical universe, then you are most likely lacking actual education in the field of philosophy. Statements/questions like "can you prove you exist?" or "how do you know observations are objective?" are not academic philosophy but simply puerile nonsense. There might be a lot of interesting philosophy out there, but this infantile pseudo-intellectual talk definitely doesn't qualify as more than shitposting.

>>6433256
>All things are empty by virtue of not having a nature. However, if things are empty, then they have no nature, and so they are not things. Therefore, there is no thing that has the nature of emptiness. Therefore, any thing that is empty is not empty.
I'm going to have to read this in full - but this statement just looks to me as if the author has tacitly assumed that "things" must by definition have "a nature", that things with "a nature" must not be "empty"; and then gone and circular-referentially contradicted himself. The problem seems to be entirely avoidable by using different terminology and "requiring" different notions as per your definition of "nature".

>>6433256
>http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/NagarjunaTheLimitsOfThought.pdf

Ah yea, I've read this one already, Thanks though.

Good to see not all of sci are teenagers masturbating to pop sci

The essay begins by positing everything lacks a determinate character (i.e., they do not have an underlying essence that comes to rigidly define them) due to it co-dependently originating, referred as "emptiness". Emptiness or co-dependent origination denote x always arise in relation to something else y, x is only understood in relation to something else y, and x lacks an independent/inherent nature. Accepting co-dependent origination causes an inclosure schema, as explained here:

o The article goes on to claim emptiness is their ultimate nature.
o Consequently, not even this statement can be claimed to possess any determinate character! It lacks an ultimate nature.
o It is empty of essence and independent reality,and thus, nothing can be said, even that all phenomena are empty. Nor its negation.
o We can’t even say that nothing can be said. But we just did. And we have thereby characterized the ultimate perspective, which,if we are correct in our characterization, can’t be done.
o From the conventional perspective, this can be discussed: the relation of the ultimate to the conventional. It can be pointed at. "All things have one nature, that is, no nature." All phenomena are empty, and so ultimately have no nature. But emptiness is, therefore, the ultimate nature of things. So they both have and lack an ultimate nature.

"All things are empty by virtue of not having a nature. However, if things are empty, then they have no nature, and so they are not things. Therefore, there is no thing that has the nature of emptiness. Therefore, any thing that is empty is not empty." So they both have and lack an ultimate nature.

This is the only argument capable of extinguishing the claim of physicalists. Indian materialists, called Carvakans, argued all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things:

"The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety ? from their own nature was it born.[24]"

>>6433278
>>http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/NagarjunaTheLimitsOfThought.pdf

Forgot to post it in my new updated text.

>>6433272

It's as simple as accepting this maxim:

1. Is it possible for x to arise on its own accord (i.e., from their "own nature") or must x always arise in relation to something else y (i.e., interdependent origination)? If you accept the latter, then the argument is supported and leads to the support of Dialetheism.

>>6433269
>I explicitly said I'm here for a good and civilized discussion.
You make this hard to believe when in your original post you claim that
>anyone who considers reading philosophy to sharpen their skills is retarded
, and by presenting a gross misrepresentation and undervaluation of philosophy as per your own "muh feelings".

>yadda yadda you're saying reality isnt real
And you went and did the exact thing I said you would, which is not read the post, and claim that I was arguing that reality didn't exist.

Confirmed troll.

>>6433294
>>6433183
>>6433167
Why are you bothering to reply to him? Just ignore and discuss the thread itself, he'll (sorry; she'll) get madder for a while, then get bored, and find another thread with people more willing to take the bait.

>>6433294
⇒and claim that I was arguing that reality didn't exist.

I didn't claim this. It's just my experience with discussing philosophy on /sci/, that whenever someone mentions how philosophy has lost importance, there's instantly a troll (or an edgy kid sufficiently ignorant to sound like a troll) who starts posting these puerile bait questions like "hurr durr can u prove u exist?" or "lol the number 1 is an abstract concept, therefore science is wrong". I'd love to discuss philosophy without shitposting, but I guess that's impossible on any board other than /b/.

>>6433312
While that does sometimes (often...) happen - it doesn't seem fair/civil/whatever to *assume* that that's the purpose of the discussion, or of the poster. If you're arguing against this "usual shitposter", instead of the actual poster you're quoting (talking to, whatever), then I don't see how you can expect to get any other kind of response.

tl;dr read <span class="math">our[/spoiler] post, talk with <span class="math">us[/spoiler]; not with the shitposter you presume us to be

>>6433320
I'm awaiting your opinion on >>6433156

>>6433269
What is unscientific is making grand assertions about anyone who meets a given qualifier without sufficient substantiation.

If you want to convince someone that an assertion is false, disprove it. Do NOT simply assert the absurdity of the idea. This will NEVER convince ANYONE. And if you are not trying to convince, then why are you engaging? Vanity?

Also, the questioning of reality has been a cornerstone of countless philosophies for years, and is a vital essence of nearly every single major philosopher who attempted to establish universal theory. Clearly you do not have the historical background information necessary to make these assertions.

I mean, the idea has a name. It has several names. The references to schools of thoughts and prominent scholars on said subjects is rife throughout this thread alone. Holy shit, the more I elaborate the more I can't believe I'm having to point this out.

>>6433156
>Feel free to convince me that I'm wrong.
I see no need.

>>6433156
> philosophers make claims without any evidence
> posts about how philosophers are always wrong, without providing any evidence

4/10 for getting me to respond.

>>6433269
>Btw I'm a girl

>>6433156
I'll take you up on that offer. In the style of Socrates, I will engage with a question concerning your so strongly held beliefs, picking, in this case, a subject that you have repeatedly brought up, for it's ease of reference:

How do you know observation is objective?

>>6433347
⇒unscientific
Well, this thread is about philosophy and not about science. Of course most of the discussion will be unscientific.

⇒Do NOT simply assert
But baseless assertions seem to be the very core of philosophy. Every philosopher works on some premises/axioms he never justifies. Only under certain assumptions a philosopher can start drawing conclusions.

⇒you do not have the historical background
Name 3 famous philosophers who honestly believed in solipsism!

>>6433269
If you read over this post of yours, you will see (unless.. you just somehow don't I guess) that in your arguments (the second segment) are wholly statements regarding the invalidity of the philosophers to which you are referring.
But don't you see, that is largely the discussion?

If I posted a couple paragraphs using your exact same phrasing, but simply replaced the adjectives synonymous with "stupid" with "smart", that wouldn't make me right, just as it does not make you right.

I know it's painfully obvious (speaking of obvious philosophical principles) but you cannot argue a point simply with assertions that the opposite is false. Many would consider the idea that reality may not be objective to be just as obvious and irrelevant for any productful conversation as such

In my introductory class on philosophy, we read writings by famous philosophers, Plato, Marx, Niche, etc. We didn't get too hung up on words like dualism, epiphenominalism and physicalism.

>>6433365
>But baseless assertions seem to be the very core of philosophy. Every philosopher works on some premises/axioms he never justifies. Only under certain assumptions a philosopher can start drawing conclusions.

There are assumptions whenever a scientist does not reject the null hypotheses. Just like every form of statistics has assumptions and mathematics rests on set theoretic axioms (that are agreed not to reference the world), scientific hypotheses are operationalized to avoid implicit metaphysical conclusions. The purpose of science to give useful tools in order to effectively guide action or successfully do something; however, science does not provide a more "veracious" perspective of the world, for all perspectives are ultimately partial. Does this, consequently, mean no perspective is the best perspective?

No, it simply means the dichotomy between element and non-element collapses at a certain point.

>>6433367
⇒you cannot argue a point simply with assertions that the opposite is false

Here you made a philosophical claim. Can you prove this claim? Because philosophically I see nothing wrong with this kind of argumentation.

>>6433365

Your first two replies...weren't arguments. You are just asserting your point. Yes, I get that you think philosophy is unscientific. Yes, I get that you think philosophers elaborate upon arbitrary axioms. Can you please actually substantiate this? And that doesn't mean paraphrase.

>Name 3
I was only talking about philosophers that questioned the objectiveness of reality. Do not twist my words to fit into your imposition of contradiction. Now, following the parameters I am actually talking about, Nietzche (spelling is wrong I'm sure), Descartes, and Socrates. If you want names that aren't so easy, you could just google it. If you want to meet your standards exactly, I believe Descartes would fit among those three, and if that's not enough you could seriously just google "famous solipsists"

>>6433365
Yes I can. It is logically empirical. If you cannot accept the validity of logic than I'm afraid you contradicted yourself when you started trying to reason/question/etc.

>>6433405
I should be clear, that wasn't really supposed to be a hard argument. But I am not about the crack open the "objectivity of logic" can of worms. I'm just assuming I don't have to explain why my statement is logically empirical?

>>6433385
⇒science does not provide a more "veracious" perspective of the world

But it does. Accepted scientific theories are better than the delusional claims of an /x/tard. Evolution or relativity are more true than "hurr durr aliums".

>>6433390
I like to see that you have started to take philosophy seriously! I look forward to your applying your newfound toolset to science also, and noticing that it too contains ground just as shaky.

(that the ground is shaky of course has little bearing on the usefulness of science, but inspection of exactly why it is shaky is interesting for its own sake, and may hint at alternate approaches to science itself)

Actually, I'm not going to get roped back into this... I've spent way too many hours arguing this exact point on this board, with the exact same person, often, I suspect, given by the similarities of argument and the incessant need to clarify that they are not a man. I will not give in to this poisonous bait, now matter how much the sight of the struggling worm enrages me. sorry, truth. I've failed you

>>6433420
It's OK, anon. I'm frustrated too, but at least today is nowhere near as bad as last night was.

Come here, give me a hug.

>>6433413
>But it does. Accepted scientific theories are better than the delusional claims of an /x/tard. Evolution or relativity are more true than "hurr durr aliums".

If you're not going to type in an intelligent manner, I don't see the point in talking. If you're going to be condescending, then I don't see how you're fit for either science or philosophy.

Look up "operationalize hypothesis" on Google or something. Science's aim is to develop models that can effectively predict measurable phenomena, but its function is not necessarily to provide an estimation of the nature of reality. This includes questioning our common-sense notions of subject/object dichotomy, objects, time, and so forth. Many philosophical ideas perfect jibe with science, for example, and while they may be unfalsifiable, they have not been rejected. Science is useful in the sense we can gather experimental data, devise predictive models, and so forth, but it does not tell us what reality "is", the nature of "self", or anything like that. It requires a deeper level of inspection, hence the prevailing field of neuroethics and so forth.

Many Neuroscientists take eliminativism as given, for example, but this is an over-simplification of an immensely difficult question.

>>6433398
⇒Nietzsche, Descartes and Socrates

Would you mind explaining why you believe they questioned the existence of reality?

>>6433413
But it doesn't. Accepted scientific theories are no better than the reasonable claims of a person posting on a science board. Evolution or relativity are not necessarily more true than "something other than hurr durr alliums because no one ever said that, much less implying that it meant..anything".

Hey look, I left the quantified parts of your "argument" and just replaced the opinion parts, leaving the "reasoning" language. Now it not only says something else, but isn't any more true because of it. Guess there's something wrong there, huh?

Actually, I have to say, if you show me the philosopher's work titles "hurr durr aliums" then I will apologize

>>6433405
What logic are you talking about?

>>6433428
I'm a different anon, but I believe they questioned the existence of reality out of a sense that despite reality's "self-evidence", it was very difficult to form a cohesive argument which did not bake "reality exists" into itself in some manner. They were very intelligent people, who had a lot of very interesting things to say, even if you disagree with what they're saying - a good sign of the intelligence of the author (and also I suppose of the reader).

>>6433417
What scientific theory do you disagree with? What evidence do you have to invalidate science?

>>6433426
How did I not type "in an intelligent manner"? What do you mean by "intelligent"? Please don't post /pol/ tier racism IQ bait. We all know IQ has nothing to do with intelligence.

And what's objectively wrong with condescension? Many science professors are condescending. Michio Kaku for example. The personal attitude of a scientist does not affect the truth of the results he's researching.

>>6433439
Statements like "reality is real", "measurements necessarily reveal properties of reality itself", "action at a distance is impossible"; and the kicker - "information gained 'empirically' has any kind of actual value" can not <span class="math">a~priori[/spoiler] be justified. Pointing this out is not the same as saying that you disagree that they are true, or that you believe that they are false. It is simply an acknowledgement that in at least some sense science, as with ANY other approach to knowledge-gaining, must effectively define itself to be true, and then place all the information gained using that approach in the context of the approach itself.

>>6433444

Why don't you respond to my actual message instead seeking to incite drama by nit-picking on one or two points I made regarding your tone?

I'm a scientist btw, but I don't think it's necessarily the "best and most immutable way" to see reality and shit.

>>6433428
Well, Descartes is often considered the father of solipsism. Ever heard "I think, therefore I am?" That's descartes. He is referring the concept that nothing is empirically existent except for the mind, or rather, oneself, without assuming the nature of that existence. But most of all... the whole father of solipsism thing..

I don't know the exact works, but Nietsche posed the question just about verbatum multiple times in his works and dialogues, totally verbatum in concept. Hell, he was known for posing the validity of nihilism, something with directly contradicted most of his ideologies due to their nature of assigning value (ever heard of his value systems?)

As for socrates, since he never wrote anything, it's less specific. But his entire philosophy was, evidently, held up upon the pillar that we can be sure of nothing. This is an even more extreme example on the spectrum than descartes.

There's also that black guy who is famous specifically for championing the argument that nothing in all of reality is empirical, objective, etc in any way or aspect, like the ultimate chaos theory. I hesitated to mention him because I Can't for the life of me recall his name

>>6433431
⇒Accepted scientific theories are no better than the reasonable claims
Are you one of those creatoinists who say "evolution is _just_ a theory"? Please take a science class.

⇒Evolution or relativity are not necessarily more true than "something other than hurr durr alliums because no one ever said that, much less implying that it meant..anything".
gr8 b8 m8

⇒Actually, I have to say, if you show me the philosopher's work titles "hurr durr aliums" then I will apologize
Philosophy is the act of thinking. Giorgio Tsoukalos is a thinking person. Therefore the Ancient Aliens tv show is a work of philosophy.

>>6433444
Just take it as us being unwilling to trust someone who hasn't shown any signs of being willing to even consider the possibility that they or their viewpoint is wrong. It might be useful for yourself to focus on the "actual" discussion, rather than tangentially nit-picking about the fact that someone tangentially nit-picked.

>>6433437
I was asking for direct quotes from their texts.

>>6433446
Are you saying science isn't true? How do you disprove science? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that science is wrong?

>>6433451
s/is wrong/has so much as even a hairline fault/

>>6433456
>Are you saying science isn't true? How do you disprove science? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that science is wrong?
"How do you disprove God, etc."
The issue in hand is the presupposition that science, or whatever, is something that is "true until proven false".

YES, science has Popper's falsifiability, which regards theories in a similar way - but it is crucial to note that
>falsifiability is a necessary principle
is not "self-evident", but must first be asserted...

So the question is not "how you you disprove science"; that would only be the case if science /were already true/. The question is "how do you justify that 'science' is the approach to take, and frame all knowledge in terms of?".

>>6433450
I think you've entirely mistaken the point of my first sentence. I was trying to make a point about the arbitrariness of the statement I was clearly mocking, and in no way making a serious statement (in that first sentence).

That being said, your definition of philosophy is a rather shallow one, AND you are making some painful leaps of logic in your conclusion. For the sake of being concise, though, I'll just point out that you could apply this to science to make all of science philosophy.

However, no one here is including his work in the field of philosophy within the context of meaningful discussion. If you try and abstract the subject of the conversation wide enough to include otherwise irrelevant data, you are purposefully blockading progress of the argument, like in The Art of Rhetoric, in which Aristotle is much more concerned with the "win" of the debate, rather than the determination of truth.

>>6433448
⇒I'm a scientist
I highly doubt you are a scientist. How could you do science if you deny the validity of the scientific method?

>>6433449
Sorry, but you're lacking the education in philosophy. If you honestly believe Nietzsches "nihilism" or Socrates' "scio me nihil scire" are denying or questioning the existence of a physical universe, then you failed to understand the difference between χρήματα and ὄντα. Back to philosophy 101.

>>6433485
>How could you do science if you deny the validity of the scientific method?
Inspecting the extent to which the justification for the scientific method holds water =/= denying it. You'd have realised this were you reading people's posts.

>>6433451
What is the "actual" discussion? What is the ontological essence of what makes a discussion "actual"?

>>6433463
Cool straw man. Nobody said science was the approach to ALL knowledge. Of course there's also things like math.

>>6433481
⇒your definition of philosophy
I never defined it.

⇒leaps in logic
What's that supposed to mean?

>>6433485
Are just bluffing here? I'm at someone of a lost, this just simply is true. Socrates I could see being questionable, to be honest, although I still feel he raises the questions indirectly.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist, and was not a proponent of nihilism. This is a common misconception in the academic community. However the consideration of nihilism and it's principles were very important to his philosophy.

Aside from that, they both questioned the availability of any empiricism at all within existence. VERBATUM. Multiple times. I don't have to resources to provide direct quotes but I know this absolutely to be fact, and this fact, the existence of an objective reality, partially or otherwise, I believe, falls under the category of "something, if anything, empirical"

>>6433491
Again: How can you do science if you honestly believe that the results of science hold no truth? You are contradicting yourself.

>>6433501
>What is the "actual" discussion? What is the ontological essence of what makes a discussion "actual"?
There is a delightful irony that you are only willing to entertain philosophical discussion in directions which paint people you perceive to disagree with you in a negative light.

Polite sage for responding to an obvious, though for now merely mildly amusing, troll.

>>6433501
>I never defined it
>Philosophy is the act of thinking

Come on.... really?

>>6433511
If they are a troll, how is it ironic?

>>6433501
>Nobody said science was the approach to ALL knowledge. Of course there's also things like math.
In that case, I look forward to your faultless, assumption-less, internally consistent, and non-circular justification that
>science and math are the only two valid approaches to knowledge

>>6433516
Apologies.

*science, math, and whatever additional approaches you did not mention but alluded to

>>6433485
>I highly doubt you are a scientist. How could you do science if you deny the validity of the scientific method?

I think you're confusing me for someone else.

Did you ever look up what it means to operationalize a hypothesis? If you did, you would understand what I'm getting at.

I'm the guy who was arguing for Graham Priest's Inclosure Schema and etc.

I am a scientist who does not step outside his boundaries. I realize things get increasingly complex the more we act like we "know". Science is a tool, not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence with the "way things are".

>>6433507
⇒Nietzsche was not a nihilist, and was not a proponent of nihilism
That's why I put "nihlism" in quotation marks. I was quoting the poster I was replying to. Where is your reading comprehension?

⇒they both questioned the availability of any empiricism at all within existence
Wrong. Did you not read my post?

⇒verbatum
That's not a word. Please learn how to spell "verbatim".

Philosophy belongs on /x/, because philosophy fags like stupid goddamn "what if god is outside the universe" We don't know if there IS an outside, but philosophy fags think "It counts as a legitimate question because PHILOSOPHY IS MAAAAAAAAAGIC!"

You don't ask or answer hard questions, you're just faggots that hate obvious answers.

>>6433512
Post your definition. Maybe then we can figure out why you are wrong.

>>6433516
Why would I need to justify this? Please justify why it requires justification.

>>6433530
Oh my God, people asked dumb questions! Clearly no Scientist has ever asked a dumb question, and are elevated above such things.

>>6433540
>Why would I need to justify this? Please justify why it requires justification.
If you are able to ask such questions, I invite you to take a long, hard, think about the reasoning that you have been using to dismiss the viewpoints that you have dismissed.

>>6433540
>Why would I need to justify this? Please justify why it requires justification.
>Science is just true because it is, I ain't gotta prove shit
And with that, almost every single argument you have made points right back at you.

It was nice chatting with you.

>>6433543
>A BLOO BLOO BLOO YOU'RE MEAN!

Cry me a river, idiot.

>>6433512
No. YOU are wrong because you said something that is FACTUALLY UNTRUE LOOK YOU FOOL. THE PROOF! DON'T JUST PRETEND YOU DO NOT SEE DEAR GOD

>>6433550
No, thanks. I decline your invitation.

>>6433558
What's your problem? I explained my argumens.

>>6433530
So you are basically saying hypotheticals are useless? Good luck ever innovating.

>>6433563
>anon's_grasp_of_the_points_made.jpg

>>6433540
I can't believe I am answering this but...
You need to justify it because you are asserting it to others with the expectation/purpose of absorption. If you purpose is just type for it's own sake, then please, do so outside of a dialogue with others so that you will do no harm.

>>6433575
There is a difference between scientific thought experiments and deliberately unanswerable questions.

>>6433575
"What if god is outside the universe?"

A hypothetical made of 5 conjectures is NOT A FUCKING HYPOTHETICAL, BITCH!

>>6433571
>I explained my argumens.
Your own arguments fall apart if you yourself intent to also deny that points or positions require any kind of justification. If points do not, in fact, require justification; then clearly all points must be true; and you hadn't a leg to stand on trying to argue against anyone else's points!

>>6433540
>Why would I need to justify this? Please justify why it requires justification.
Why would I need to justify that God exists? Please justify why God requires justification.

^ Do you have a problem with this statement? If you do, I invite you to explain why. After all, it is of exactly the same logical form of the statement you made.

>>6433584
Yes... it is. You just called it one. You called it one by definition.

I'm afraid I fail to see why the level of abstraction is a meaningful distinction.

>>6433587
Calm down, anon. Don't get all emotional over an internet chat. Perhaps you should turn off your computer once in a while and go outside. Maybe talk to other human beings or something.

>>6433590
Where do my arguments "fall apart"? I did not say that positions never require justification. Don't post straw men.

>>6433596
⇒After all, it is of exactly the same logical form of the statement you made.

No, it isn't.

>>6433588
Deliberately? Do you think that might be an assumption?

Regardless, the value of the question exists independently of the intent of original asker, dependent of it's content.

>>6433571
>No, thanks. I decline your invitation.

This is why you are a fucking idiot.

>>6433607
>>6433605
>>6433571
le trole face ecks dee

>>6433597
I deny it is a legitimate question, I just hear it from assholes like you.

You imagine yourself to be clever.

Shameful display.

>>6433607
I don't understand, how can you deny this?
Look at the sentences. They are exactly the same, other than the subject word, which was swapped. By definition, the referenced subject is not a constituent of empirical justification. That means he left the logic alone. If you can only believe in the more quantifiable fields of thought (science?) than believe in this, because this is about as self evident as they come.

>>6433622
Every time you reply to a troll, the troll wins. The troll knows what contradictions to make, and then deny. The troll knows which of your buttons to press.

>>6433615
Yes, I understand what you deny. That's how we got to that point. Now how about instead of, without substantiation, repeated your intended point, followed by an insult, you say something that advances the conversation. For example, you could start by getting back where we left off when we were actually responding directly, and address the question of whether or not it is a hypothetical. That was your justificiation, was it not? That it was not a hypothetical? At one point your contribution was that entirely, so I'm afraid you can't just call me a nitpicker, either, as you left me nothing more to debunk.

>>6433629
But you see, for every troll, there is an idiot who everyone thinks is just a troll. I feel it is an idiot's right to consideration, rather than being dequalified from valid thought simply for low intelligence. Opportunity, I believe, is just. But how do I reconcile that with the existence of trolls?

I find myself torn between my sense of intellectual duty, and the selfish desire to relax.

>>6433640
The whole point of the /sci/ "philosophy is shit" troll is to attack people who have a genuine interest and understanding of the subject by using and mis-using philosophy itself, by repeatedly presenting apparantly-consistent viewpoints but presenting an overall inconsistent view. The whole point is to rile you by using an argument against you, dismissing your criticism of his argument; but then to use the exact same dismissal against you moments later as if nothing happened.

The poster in this thread has demonstrated enough competence with each individual "tool" that he has used, that it is not then reasonable to give him the "benefit of the doubt" that he is making genuine mistakes, instead of making malicious omissions.

>>6433609
What is the value of a meaningless question? How do you objectively determine the value of a question?

>>6433612
⇒ad hominem

>>6433622
That's not how logic works.

>>6433645
⇒people who have a genuine interest and understanding of the subject

Please tell me you're joking. The people I'm arguing with have no understanding of philosophy at all. No academic thought has been posted ITT. They are stuttering high schoolers who think they are incredibly deep for realizing that science is based on certain assumptions. Some of the posts ITT allegedly defending philosophy are grossly profane and actually more of an insult against the entire discipline.

Fuck it, I could start a philosophy thread on /b/ and get more intelligent comments.

>>6433645
Philosophy trolls are especially annoying by nature of the fact that troll's tools are disingenuous statements and questions - and philosophy is the study of statements and questions.

Conversations about these topics tend to benefit greatly from not being anonymous. When everyone twigs to what you're doing, you get shamed as a disingenuous ruseman, and are usually expelled from the conversation and not admitted into later ones.

>>6433673
>>6433671
Another side-point as to the effectiveness of the "philosophy is shit" troll is that the sheer confoundingness of the overall-incoherent arguments made is usually combined with direct insults of the other posters' intelligence - who are usually being astronomically patient and careful with their responses to said troll.

You know, this debate could be settled if you guys just Google "operationalize a hypothesis".

"Operational definition: A concept defined solely in terms of the procedures to produce and measure it.

Operationalized hypothesis: a hypothesis defined in terms of the operations or procedures a researcher will perform to test it."

- pg.222 of the The Design of Experiments in Neuroscience

How many times do I have to explain myself? Science is not out to prove or disprove any metaphysical theories you have. It either rejects or does not reject the null hypothesis, and science works in a provisional way where its purpose is to generate models with predictive capacities. It is not out to validate or refute your strongly held religious beliefs or lack thereof because it is ill-equipped to do so.

"I am sceptical of science's presumption of objectivity and definitiveness. I have a difficult time seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations, to be enjoyed for a while and discarded as soon as better accounts become available". - Antonio Damasio

>>6433683
Being /insulted/ for working hard to identify someone else's carefully-crafted faulty reasoning is very hurtful for those accustomed to more intellectually honest situations in which participants have a genuine willingness to self-examine or self-criticise.

>>6433692
What is your background in philosophy? What education do you have? I'm honest: If I had to guess from your posts ITT (which are easly identifiable thanks to your childish avatarfagging), I'd guess your only philosophy knowledge stems from facebook or youtube comment discussions with teens and preteens.

>>6433683

So you come here and insult people, but it's only unfair when you are on the receiving end.

>>6433692
The "philosophy is shit" troll is often found initially making statements as to the "self evident truth" of reality, science, or whatever. When almost any philosophical objection is made to these sorts of statements, the troll has a sort of "meta-plan" for how he will proceed through the thread.

In essence, he wishes to argue that "because you can always regress further by noticing that something has been asserted without justification, we must therefore take his definitions of what things are self-evidently true to be the correct ones".

>>6433700

You have no excuse except trolling to bring metaphysics to /sci/.

>>6433710
You have no excuse except trolling to bring physics, which necessarily requires a metaphysics (look up what the words mean, for fuck's sake), to /sci/.

>>6433710
metaphysics IS what you say is or isn't a part of your physical account of reality, holy shit anon get it together

>>6433710

You do realize philosophy is kinda the backbone to scientific methodologies and ways of gathering experimental data, constructing hypotheses, and etc.?

Statistics is basically philosophy supplemented with math, as an example. In statistics, you must always clearly express your assumptions and the limitations of what statistical methods you employ.

If we didn't have philosophical inquiry, everyone would make false-positive claims about fMRI study results.

>>6433700
>>6433707
As can evidently be seen, the "philosophy is shit" troll is not averse to using any and every kind of logical fallacy to get a rise out of the unsuspecting anon, including as shown here the bog standard ad hominem.

>>6433707

So you get your feelings hurt, and it is because "people who hate philosophy that involves metaphysics are all trolls".

Use the scientific method, or go to /x/. We are not for discussing metaphysics, ghosts or god.

>>6433724
Go to /x/ if you can't stick to the boards topic.

Pushing this "philosophy(LOL) belongs on /sci/"-bullshit is trolling.

>>6433710
Why are you quoting me? I agree with you. Metaphysics doesn't belong here.

>>6433727
And, as can be seen, the very idea that an inspection of the scientific method, and what it explicitly implicitly asserts about reality, might yield further insight into any aspect of their lives, or into science, is utterly inconceivable; though this particular example has more chance of being a result of the poster's genuine misunderstanding (and disinterest) of what the scientific method actually is, rather than a malicious comment of said troll.

>>6433727
>Use the scientific method,

It's not always used in science. Some forms of science are heavy on philosophy, such as applied dynamical systems and other stuff. You have to clearly delineate all assumptions and etc. They require different ways of substantiating one's hypotheses or models...

I don't know, I think you're being stupid.

Have you ever read Karl Popper or anything vaguely similar? I don't think Philosophy is more useful than Science, per say, but they both have their uses.

Just come out already: You ultimately hate diversity and want a hive mind of people glorifying scientific inquiry, regardless whether some published journal articles have issues in methodologies or not.

>>6433732
/x/ is not "Philosophy", /x/ is "Paranormal".

The overwhelming majority of philosophical discussion is far from "paranormal", it is an attempt to discuss concepts which are in fact usually taken to be quite normal! Are you unaware of the centuries-long philosophical debates which have resulted in the scientific method, and in constant clarifications of and improvements of it?

>>6433712
>>6433717
What is metaphysics and why do we need it? Please post a definition.

>>6433723
The scientific method works without philosophy. Measuring, observing, interpreting, forming hypotheses, designing experiments etc -- all that shit can be done and is done without ever questioning existence.

>>6433724
But logical fallacies are very popular in philosophy. Every philosopher uses them. One could define philosophy as the art of using logical fallacies.

>>6433742
Metaphysics does not belong on /sci/, it is a slap-dash paranormal belief system.

>>6433739
What use does philosophy have? What questions does it answer? What problems does it solve?

>>6433742
/x/ is a containment board for all scientifically untestable nonsense. By definition this includes metaphysics.

>>6433745
>The scientific method works without philosophy. Measuring, observing, interpreting, forming hypotheses, designing experiments etc -- all that shit can be done and is done without ever questioning existence.

Philosophy is not always about questioning existence. There are different branches of it.

Some forms of philosophy deal with questioning the assumptions and foundations of what we posit to be true and applicable to a large population (based off gathered data on a sample).

Philosophy is important on many levels when we start looking deeper into operationalized hypotheses. It can help us come to terms with the limitations of scientific models, which is especially evident in neuroimaging studies and so.

I don't know. You have a very limited understanding of what philosophy is about, and I feel you are not willing to possibly consider otherwise. You are being very dogmatic though because you assume the scientific method is the only way - when in reality different approaches like reverse-engineering, simulations in software like AnimatLab, and etc. are used.

>>6433745
>>6433749
Oh boy here we go again.


Advice to everyone in this thread. Just go. There are other forums on the internet where we can discuss this without this shit all the time. Let's leave /sci/ to their masturbatory troll threads, homework threads, and Black Science Man threads.

G'night everyone.

>>6433745
>TROLLING IS OKAY WHEN PHILOSOPHY IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS IT CAN'T ANSWER, BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN'T ANSWER THEM EITHER! PHILOSOPHY WINS!

This is why we can't take you seriously.

>>6433754
Why do you believe reverse engineering and computer simulations contradict the scientific method? Your post is incredibly ignorant.

>>6433761
How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

>>6433760

You just nit-pick one or two points I make... You can't see the forest for the trees. Reverse engineering has it's limitations (e.g., there are many valid criticisms of the Blue Brain Project's methodology).


The scientific method is more "eclectic" and "diverse" than the traditional way we're taught. We can philosophize about it all day.

Instead, I'll leave that to philosophers like Karl Popper and others.

>>6433769
Coming from someone with that particular complaint, I have no answer to give you.

>>6433754

A limitation of the scientific method is its ill-equipped in helping to devise an ontological framework of reality. That is a more nuanced problem that requires contributions from different domains of research, making it interdisciplinary, and philosophy is one that greatly helps in such a specific goal.

>>6433773
⇒We can philosophize about it all day
Go on. Do it. Philosophize all day. Nothing is holding you back. In the meantime I prefer to do science instead.

>>6433777
Not surprising. I didn't expect any answers from philosophy. After all philosophy failed for more than 6000 years to answer any questions.

>>6433780
/sci/ posters are thick as pigshit though, do you seriously expect them to see nuance as something other than THING I DONT LIKE?

>>6433787
>In the meantime I prefer to do science instead.
You, in fact, have preferred to spend all day philosophising with us. It's probably your turn to buy the rounds, actually.

>One interesting observation I have heard for this is that the photons from the act of observing the electron interact with it enough to manipulate the outcome.
All the better that it places a higher value on the questions and modes of inquiry themselves, than the answers.

>>6433787
>I prefer to do science instead.

Have you ever worked in a research lab?

I don't think you have.

I have... and I can tell you when talking about findings with my peers, many times philosophy and science blur.

I can't believe you said "do science". What are you? A caveman? lol...

It's better to say, "I prefer to conduct replicable research," or some shit, dumbass.

>>6433780
Why would we need an "ontological framework of reality"? What does that even mean? What purpose does it have? What use does it have? What applications does it have?

>>6433787
>Not surprising.

Woops. I linked to the wrong post. I meant to link to someone you replied to, but I don't actually care enough to delete all the posts to fix it, so just accept my apology.

I'm sorry. Just accept it's context as not being directed at you.

>>6433810
What did you study? What did you research? And why do you prefer to shitpost about philosophy instead of talking about your science?

>>6433808
I've seen this post before.

An "ontological framework of reality" is something which I shan't waste my time explaining because you won't listen, but it's something that YOU won't care about because it doesn't in-and-of-itself have "applications" beyond intuitive explanatory power.

Taking this any further would just be you going "I don't like thing" but trying to dress it up as if "thing" is somehow objectively unimportant. The mental gymnastics, while humorous, will be a waste of everyone's time.

>>6433816

You have way too much "misplaced" conviction in shit you don't even understand...

>>6433819
⇒The mental gymnastics, while humorous, will be a waste of everyone's time.

Isn't that what philosophy is all about?

>>6433754
dude the fact that ex post facto experiments simulation etc. do not follow the "scientific method" and invite difficult formalisms like popper's work is a level of nuance WAY beyond the average /sci/ poster, for whom "the scientific method" is synonymous with "science" is synonymous with a gelatinous glob of general "rationalism"

actual fucking scientists in field such as artificial intelligence / data analysis discuss these epistemological issues all the time (see chomsky v. norvig and the whole "causality is dead" debate), but pop outsiders talk as if it all one big consistent institution (and defined by its opposition to religiosity or w/e the fuck)

>>6433825
Very astute, but there is an element of malice in selectively only criticising points which you personally don't like.

>>6433829
Do I really? Or are you just projecting your own unfavorable traits into me?

>>6433829
Pic related.

>>6433832
Why would I criticize the points I like? You are making no sense.

>>6433833
Or are you, as has already been suggested by several anons, "just a troll"?

>>6433816
i mean not that guy but i study data analysis and the hottest topic in big data right now is whether "correlation does not imply causation" is still a valid idiom for sufficiently large datasets; this is an epistemological problem. you will probably try to turn it into a statistical one, which would show how little you know about data science

>>6433838
Post of the year.

"my points do not require scrutiny, only yours do, oh boy I'm so smart"

>>6433843
Correlation does imply causation. Anthropomorphic global warming for example.

>>6433787
>After all philosophy failed for more than 6000 years to answer any questions.

What questions has science answered? Can you provide me with one?

>>6433844
Theorem: Any sufficiently deep philosophy is indistinguishable from trolling.

>>6433838
Too obvious, man. You were on a roll, too.

>>6433858
But Anon, we already have Poe's Law.

>>6433857
⇒What questions has science answered? Can you provide me with one?

"Why is sky blue?"

The answer can be found here btw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrAiBPEpSgE

>>6433826

Yeah, man, I am familiar with most of that...

My Intro to Neural Models felt more like a philosophy class with a lot of math sprinkled in.

The Blue Brain Project is pretty much bullshit because of such epistemological problems.

There are technical problems with the Blue Brain project, such as "at what point do you know the model is complete?", "what about experience dependent plasticity?", "aren't there more "emergent" properties on higher scales (e.g., slow wave bandwiths that allow for frequency coupling), which we cannot predict from the activity of one neuron alone? You can't predict this stuff by just iterating a neuron piece by piece and employing Hodgkin–Huxley formulas. There's stuff like theta precessions even on the hippocampal level", "how will the model know about stuff like discharge of GABAergic neurons being important for circuit dynamics?", "how will the mode maintain stuff like DMN which we are still learning about?", etc. The Blue Brain Project is nonsense that was hyped up for funding.

Lets get this over with.

"YOU PEOPLE ARE LIKE HITLER!"

>>6433874

If people were good in philosophy, millions of dollars and energy wouldn't have been wasted on that bullshit project... The Blue Brain Project really is nonsense, from every angle you look at. Some simple questions of its epistemological foundations could have saved a lot of money. This is why philosophy is useful...

>>6433871
>Rayleigh Scattering
That's your answer? A wrong explanation that has been falsified for hundreds of years?

>>6433874

I'm going to break down the philosophical problems of the Blue Brain Project as an example of its uses... I'm doing this for the obviously derpy anti-philosophy people:

1. "at what point do you know the model is complete?"

2. "what about experience dependent plasticity?"

2. "aren't there more emergent properties on higher scales (e.g., slow wave bandwiths that allow for frequency coupling), which we cannot predict from the activity of one neuron alone? You can't predict this stuff by just iterating a neuron piece by piece and employing Hodgkin–Huxley formulas. There's stuff like theta precessions even on the hippocampal level

3. "how will the model know about stuff like discharge of GABAergic neurons being important for circuit dynamics?"

4. "how will the mode maintain stuff like DMN which we are still learning about?", etc.

The Blue Brain Project is nonsense that was hyped up for funding. Some basic epistemological questions could have prevented unnecessary funding.

>>6433886
I'd rather believe Daniela than an anonymous troll on 4chan. She has a physics PhD, so she knows what she's talking about.

>>6433903
So you'd rather troll and use fallacies instead of answer my question?

>>6433922
I did answer your question. You don't like the answer? Not my problem.

>>6433927
Wrong answers are not answers.

>>6433936
In philosophy there is no "right" or "wrong". As long as you are eloquent, you can receive an A even if you have no content.

>>6433945
If the content is gibberish not following the logical system defined by the author, it's wrong. Philosophy, science, whatever. Your answer is wrong scientifically because it has been falsified.

>>6433945

Thanks for the philosophy, dimwit.

>>6433967
>>6433968
An opinion is not falsifiable.

You both fail. Go back to your high-school philosophy class.

>>6433987
There are no "opinions" in science.

>>6433993

There are as many opinions as there are scientists, and each scientists has at least 4 for every subject.

Philosophy is made of opinions. I will not be swayed by pink shadows.

>>6434003
Science is defined by the scientific method and not by the beliefs of scientists.

>>6434011
I was insulting philosophy, not science.

Scientists are people. I was just saying that they are people.

>>6434011
Have fun proving that the scientific method is an objective fact.

Protip, you can't use the thing you're trying to prove in order to prove the thing you're trying to prove, because that's just circular, i.e. "Im right because i'm right"

>>6434026
Science is right because it works.

This is why philosophy needs to go to /x/.

When scientists start waxing philosophical, that usually means they did something they probably shouldn't have, and now you need a new lab.

>>6434026
Why would it become wrong just because it's circular? Sounds like arbitrary bullshit to me.

>>6434026
Why should I follow your subjective(!) laws of logic?

>>6434032
>When scientists start waxing philosophical, that usually means they did something they probably shouldn't have, and now you need a new lab.
baseless assertion central

>>6434039
>Why should I follow your subjective(!) laws of logic?
Why should I permit you then to use yours?

>>6434034
>things i dont like are 'arbitrary;

>>6434046
Because this is an american website. That means we have freedom.

>>6434043
>he never folded, spindled or mutilated a lab

Doesn't sound like a scientist to me. What are you, a psychologist?

>>6434049
>>6434049
Except you're being a filthy liberal by trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is just mentally ill and should leave for everyone's good, and be censored, What kind of Christian are you?

>>6434049
Is that so? Then where are the burger?

>>6433012
ew at way oversimplification math<logic, and not having language on there anywhere

>>6434053

It's like how bronies like to post their MLP shit on other boards. Philosophy is trolling on /sci/.

That is why philosophy and religion are paranormal metaphysics, and they need to go to /x/.

>>6434060
OP here. I posted a philosophy thread on here because I'd rather discuss it with sane people than the whackjobs on /x/. Trolling was an unintentional side effect

>>6434032

So the fact Schrodinger liked Schopenhauer makes him stupid cuz he was being philosophical?

You're pretty slow, you know.

Also, on an interesting note, Schrodinger was an Monistic Idealist.

http://www.amazon.com/My-View-World-Erwin-Schrodinger/dp/0918024307/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1395630002&sr=8-3&keywords=schrodinger

>>6434065
>unintentional

You misspelled "intended".