[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 452x678, images (49).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632104 No.12632104 [Reply] [Original]

Will Materialism be proven right in the next years?

>> No.12632122

State a hypothesis and its falsification conditions.

>> No.12632125

>>12632104
All 19th c isms are confused reactions to then contemporary science and industrialization

>> No.12632176

Only Fedoras believe in this Santa looking Faggot

>> No.12632193
File: 606 KB, 240x240, 1606381073239.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632193

>>12632104
Nope, energy>matter, forces(gravity, electromagnetism...)>matter, dark energy/matter>matter and so on, materialism is outdated.

>> No.12632203

>>12632122
>muh falsificationism
Read Hempel loser

>> No.12632243

>>12632193
Energy, forces and dark energy/matter are materialist concepts.

>> No.12632257

>>12632243
No they aren't, neither gravity, electromagnetism, energy nor dark energy/matter depend on "matter", all of those concepts rule over matter not the other way around, matter simply obeys their laws.

>> No.12632258

>>12632122
Philosophy isn't a science numbskull.

>> No.12632489
File: 32 KB, 326x294, 1540359609849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632489

>>12632203
> this guy says I don't need to demonstrate or prove anything!
> i win!

>> No.12632506

>>12632489
Guess how I know you've never read Hempel?

>> No.12632514
File: 57 KB, 683x817, 1570204315144.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632514

>>12632506
> just read man
> he says me right you rong
> no need prove!

>> No.12632527

>>12632514
So you're not going to read Hempel?

>> No.12632536

>>12632104
Probably not, while I mostly agree with him. The thing-in-itself will never be proven, but it is likely that our understanding of neuro function will progress and we may learn a bit better how consciousness emerges but on a phenomenological basis we won't move a bit.

>> No.12632541

>>12632527
So, you're never actually going to make a point?

>> No.12632546

>>12632489
>>12632514

The one-two punch of these brainlet images has me cracking up over here, anon

>> No.12632566

>>12632541
The point is that falsificationism is not restrictive enough as a criterion of empirical significance because an empirically insignificant sentence like "All swans are white and the absolute is perfect" is falsificable by the fact its first conjunct is falsifiable. Now read Hempel for Christ's sake!

>> No.12632571

>>12632527
>implies scientific method is pointless
>argument by authority
>doesn't bother to (probably can't) summarize his authority

I don't take reading suggestions from lazy idiots.

>> No.12632574

>>12632566
>>12632571
read every post before posting

>> No.12632577
File: 92 KB, 581x767, 166B9CC6-538A-4E6E-9E66-52796C063867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632577

>>12632566
>poorly framed statement has two unrelated assertions
>falsification BTFO!

>> No.12632583

>>12632577
You're too dumb to see the point I'm afraid. Anon, there's no hope for you.

>> No.12632587
File: 1.69 MB, 395x520, 1547540487966.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632587

>>12632583
>me argument not dum U DUM

>> No.12632592

jesus, can someone PLEASE make an actual point in this argument as opposed to NO U NO U?
>>12632583
>>12632587
>>12632577
>>12632571

I'm a big fan of popper, and always like to look into ideas contrary to my own. What did Hempel champion, and which of his books should I start with?

>> No.12632593

>>12632587
You clearly don't understand Hempel's point because you don't understand the basics of the logic of conjunctive statements. I can't help youé

>> No.12632596

I have no idea who Hempel is but keep the brainletjaks coming

>> No.12632601

>>12632566
>falsificationism is not restrictive enough as a criterion of empirical significance
danke, am investigating Hempel

>> No.12632604

>>12632601
I'll also shill Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery for a contrary viewpoint, I'm surpised to hear that commenter say falsificationism isn't sufficient to be a principle of demarcation

>> No.12632609

>>12632601
Just start by reading the very short paper "Empiricist Criteria of Cognitive Significance: Problems and Changes". It's to the point and a nice discussion of shortcomings of verificationism and falsificationism.

>> No.12632623

>>12632593
In your example assertion clause A is unrelated to clause B, despite the word "and". Okay. Nice strawman. Good for you.

That I could falsify A but not falsify B does not not mean the scientific method is invalid. Which is what you're saying when you claim "falsificationism is not restrictive enough as a criterion of empirical significance"

It sounds like you read something above your grade level.

>> No.12634792

bump

>> No.12634869

>>12632571
this
>>12632527
>So you're not going to read Hempel?
and what if I read and I think you are a retard?
the whole particle physics damain is infested by a proper lack of falsifiability

>> No.12634914

>>12632566
This only applies to conjunctive statements. A non-conjunctive statement is sufficient for empirical significance. Now stop being retarded.

Metaphysics is just a language game anyways.

>> No.12634922

>>12632104
>Materialism
Not science nor math. Fuck off to >>>/reddit/wallstreetbets

>> No.12634958

>>12634922
Isn't materialism the official Worldview of most scientists?

>> No.12634974

>>12634958
yes, all scientists are materialist bluepilled s o y jewish shills/cucks/cia agents/illuminati members/cult initiates/paid actors

>> No.12634981

>>12634958
Materialism, idealism and panpsychism are all non-scientific metaphysical claims, at least as they are normally argued about. Nobody typically makes any claims how world would look any different it one of them turned out to be true rather than any other of them. Sometimes they maybe do, but then they'd be better off not using these wishy-washy metaphysical terms at all and clearly stating their hypothesis. Since they are not necessarily talking about the same thing as other people who nominally subscribe to the same -ism.
The same goes for dualism, though I have my own ideas how an interactionist dualist world would look experimentally different. But again that might be just my own interpretation of the idea.

>> No.12636032

>>12632257
Next you’ll tell me photons aren’t material because they don’t have mass.

>> No.12636168

>>12636032
Correct they aren't, they are not matter, light is not matter. Matter obeys what electromagnetism says. Same witht he Strong nuclear force, gluons aren't matter either.

>> No.12636457

never. it's incoherent.

>> No.12636466

>>12634958
no. they might pretend to profess it but only because they don't understand what they're talking about, including materialism. every time you see someone claiming its obvious, you realise they don't understand what they're claiming and can't into philosophy. these same people believe physical models literally exists.

>> No.12636474

>>12634958
Yes, but most people dont even know what materialism means as evident by this thread.

>>12636168
materialism is when our ideas are derived from our perceptions of matter. As opposed to idealism which holds the ideas are distinct. Some idealists believe they are derived from but distinct, and others go so far as to say that idea is what creates matter, or that matter does not even exist. There are many kinds of idealists because all that is not materialism is simply some form of idealism trying to be clever.

>> No.12636478

>>12636474
and matter here means the actual material reality and all things in it.
If you think it exists outside of your head, it is matter.
If you think my definitions are wrong you are a confused idealist who has fallen for your own memes.

All is matter.

>> No.12636898

>>12634922
this

>> No.12637445

>>12632104
>materialism
Not science or math.
>>>/lit/

>> No.12637783

>>12636474
>>12636478
>All is matter.
Light is not matter. Light is the reason matter exists(Sommerfeld's constant), solidity is an illusion, matter is nothing but energy in a state of vibration, since everything in quantum behaves as waves with frequencies.

>> No.12639842

>>12636032
Photons don't exist.

>> No.12641586

Bump

>> No.12641604

>>12632104
no one who believes in materialism is smart enough to comprehend why things aren't working out like they "predict"

>> No.12641615

>>12632104
The woo woo crew will always find somewhere to hide their woo woo.

>> No.12643342

>>12632104
Fag

>> No.12643856
File: 257 KB, 516x526, 1409630808061.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12643856

>>12632203
>Hempel
>Deductive-nomological model
>For explanans C1, C2... (condition) and L1, L2... (law) the explanandum E can be logically deduced
>Only proves correlation, doesn't explain shit
>flagpole problem

Yup, the causal-mechanical model is the only way to explain phenomena.

>> No.12643876

>>12639842
redpilled

>> No.12645588

bumo

>> No.12646036

>>12643856
isn't logic based on axiomatic understanding of truth, truth limited by the human condition, unless you are a positivist this is absurd

>> No.12646901

Materialism is a tautology. "We can only measure things our measuring sticks are capable of measuring."

>> No.12646973

>>12632104
It's a meaningless term. We know energy exists and isn't matter. Whatever exists will just be considered 'material'. The term is clung to because of the Prophet Marx's obsession with it.

>> No.12647025

>>12632104
Materialism is currently the most correct lens for understanding our current society and economy. Who knows how long that will be the case. But for right now, materialism is king.

>> No.12647030

>>12646973
This. Whatever new forces we would find it would be incorporated into physics and called physical. Likewise idealists can always interpret everything as mental somehow by appealing to some cosmic mind or whatever. It's a meaningless debate.

>> No.12647131

>>12637783
>>12646973
Semantics. To say "all is matter" is to say that everything that exists supervenes from the laws of physics.

>> No.12647160

>>12647131
It's still meaningless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_dilemma

>> No.12647174

>>12647160
Thats incoherent.
It simply means everything which is real, known and unknown. There is no need to reference some already existing perfect totality of knowledge nor are real things that exist, right now, but which are unknown, existing outside of the realm of the real.

This dilemma only works if you are thinking about it from a fully idealist world view to start with because it depends on there being no way for the idealist form of actualization into being to function when using materialism - which is the point.

>> No.12648106
File: 443 KB, 1280x897, 1593ce5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12648106

>>12632104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
>>12647174
Abstract concepts exist and they aren't physical. In Whitehead's philosophy physical and mental poles are aspects of every real being(actual entities), but are not real beings themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
>Thus an electron within a living body is different from an electron outside it, by reason of the plan of the body; the electron blindly runs either within or without the body; but it runs within the body in accordance with its character within the body; that is to say, in accordance with the general plan of the body, and this plan includes the mental state. -Alfred North Whitehead

>> No.12648408

>>12632104
>Will Materialism be proven right in the next years?
sounds like a leap of faith lmfao

>> No.12648690

Vzno

>> No.12648847

>>12632104
What's the material basis of a proof, you fucking idiot?

>> No.12649794

>>12632104
Already done, the tech that allowed you to post is based upon. With nothing else even shown.
Only do-nothing philosophers try to still maintain a illusion of usefulness by arguing against, ironically using what materialism has produced.

>> No.12649820

>>12632104
>Will Materialism be proven right

Was never proven wrong

>> No.12649826

>>12632104
>Philosophy
>Proof

>> No.12649841

>>12649794
>>12649820
>>12649826
Samefag

>> No.12649863

>>12632104
It will be proven but not proven right

>> No.12649894

>>12649820
>Was never proven wrong
Wrong.

>> No.12650443

The fuck?

>> No.12650625
File: 50 KB, 648x234, Screenshot_20210131-192006_Samsung Internet_copy_648x234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12650625

>>12649841
Nice try, not even one of them was me retard.

>> No.12650637

>>12650625
Lol

>> No.12650651
File: 26 KB, 128x128, pepe123.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12650651

>>12632257
>>12632193

>> No.12651986

Supper

>> No.12651998

>>12649794
>>12649820
>>12649826
your iq is under 130

>> No.12652345
File: 20 KB, 400x400, VDBht2wz_400x400-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12652345

>>12651998
And?

>> No.12652402

>>12632566
and?
this sounds like a stupid game. a conjuctive statement does not mean they are connected with eachother in reality, you could possibly make a conjuctive statement about things that are but just making a statement with 2 unrelated things and putting an "and" in between them does not mean shit
i cant believe this is what counts for philosophy in the 20th and 21st century