i fucking hate epistimilogy

[Anonymous No.14595080]

ive been reading on it (and other branches) for 8 months by now. i can't answer a question correctly anymore. i either respond with another question or "it depends".
how do i escape this social filter

[Anonymous No.14595158]

>>14595080
just be yourself

[Anonymous No.14595164]

>>14595158

[Anonymous No.14595569]

>>14595080
appeal to god

[Anonymous No.14595701]

>>14595080
Everything exists through sense-data. Our brains create internal models of reality based on the sense-data. Nothing can be known for sure, every "knowledge" is just a best approximation over sense-data received so far.

That's why nihilism is the only rational bedrock for any kind of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14595705]

>>14595701
>>14595080
Wittgenstein solves the "it depends" problem through concept of word-play. Every conversation holds the implicit context of what is expected as an adequate response. When someone asks you a question, first figure out what they're really asking. Then, answering is trivial.

[Anonymous No.14595722]

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/highly-advanced-epistemology-101-for-beginners

[Anonymous No.14595723]

>>14595705
>wittgenstein
imagine being this BASED
truly /ourguy/

[Anonymous No.14595726]

Magnus Vinding's essays on epistemology are worth reading.

https://magnusvinding.com/2017/09/03/induction-is-all-we-got/
https://magnusvinding.com/2018/06/11/the-non-problem-of-induction/
https://magnusvinding.com/2021/03/08/common-sense/

[Anonymous No.14595730]

>>14595726
induction is impossible

[Anonymous No.14595729]

>>14595080
>epistimilogy
Isn't this when they cut from V to A during child birth?

[Anonymous No.14595734]

>>14595730
Induction is approximation, using the simplest possible rule to approximate sense-data so far collected. Why couldn't approximation correlate with reality?

[Anonymous No.14595740]

>>14595080
So you got brainwashed for 8 months with "u cannot know nuthin"? Wow, what a waste of time. Why would you ever consent to such an anti-intellectual attack against logic and reason?

[Anonymous No.14595742]

>>14595740
>anti-intellectual
Who died and made you the president of intellect?

[Anonymous No.14595776]

I basically solved all of epistemology and objectively derived an ought from an is. Expect a thread about my groundbreaking insights this evening when I come back from wagecucking.

[Anonymous No.14596177]

>>14595701
You just contradicted yourself. You say
>Nothing can be known for sure
But right before that you say in an unqualified manner
>Everything exists through sense-data. Our brains create internal models of reality based on the sense-data.
So can the claim that
>Everything exists through sense-data. Our brains create internal models of reality based on the sense-data.'

be known for sure universally then?

[Anonymous No.14596190]

Can't write epiSTEMology without STEM

[Anonymous No.14596212]

>>14595726
>empiricist
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.14596487]

>>14596177
I'm gonna post it

[Anonymous No.14596500]

>>14595080
Epistemology is irrelevant to science as it has no effect on how anything works. You can just discard it from your brain entirely.

If you're just curious as fuck, you'd have to deconstruct every evolved mechanism you have as a human. This is very difficult as you might expect... Evolution produces the entire "interface" that you are aware of, depth perception and color etc is not natural. These things have evolved. Hearing a sound is not natural. Your brain is producing all of these things due to millions of years of evolution.

The biggest illusion is obviously the mind's dissecting of existence into separate objects. It is not so much an illusion, as it is an inability to see the big picture... Example: If you focus on individual parts of a tree you will see many leaves and twigs etc. But obviously it's all the tree....... That is existence. Existence is the tree that you're perhaps missing.

[Anonymous No.14596587]

>>14595080

Those eyes are so close together.

[Anonymous No.14598519]

>>14596177
Sense-data can be known for sure, retard.

[Anonymous No.14599162]

>>14595730
and yet it truly is all we've got

[Anonymous No.14599167]

>>14598519
What makes you so SURE of that?

[Anonymous No.14599390]

>>14599167
>What makes you so SURE of that?
Because it's literally the only information you have - what you see, hear, smell, taste and feel. Whatever you think is real, there could be a demon giving you an illusion of it. But the illusion is real, your experience of it is real. Denying your own experience is absurd.

[Anonymous No.14599522]

>>14595080
>epistimilogy
>epistemology
Damn it nigga, you almost wrote it like "ipistimiligy"

[Anonymous No.14599676]

>>14599390
Wow, that's sure a lot of reasoning you're using there without direct appeal to experience :^)

[Anonymous No.14599762]

>>14595080
It's rather simple anon, you just do what Descartes did and imply God. The rest follows trivially.

[Anonymous No.14599905]

>>14599676
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14600061]

>>14599905
Oh, no! That's not a direct appeal to sensory evidence either! Poor confused little wannabe empiricist.

[Anonymous No.14600606]

>>14600061
Best thing about being right is seeing 4channers seethe when they run out of arguments lmao

[Anonymous No.14600653]

>>14595080
Scientifically, what's the answer to the Munchhausen trilemma?

[Anonymous No.14600671]

>>14595701
But we can just run a shitload of virtualized sandboxes of literally any thought possible besides those bedrock sense-data services and reflections.
And it turns out, you can do a lot of shit within these virtual boxes. You can enact change within the human condition and basic information/knowledge content via these.

[Anonymous No.14600708]

>logic is tautology
>maths is tautology
>science is tautology + induction
2500 years and that the best philososhits can come up with?

[Anonymous No.14601068]

>>14595701
Wrong, everything can be known for sure. You just must acknowledge that everything appears to be transformed by the vehicle or mode of understanding or instruments of measurement. That being the physical and mental person which you inhabit/are.

[Anonymous No.14601071]

>>14598519
True

[Anonymous No.14601076]

>>14595705
But it's impossible to find out what they are "really asking" with word thought-symbols because the symbols have independent and complex histories of meaning that may be applied in different ways and can only be refined and selected from the unintended chaff and held under a magnifying glass of shared understanding through the nature and extend of our shared understanding, which is only certain insofar as we understand it to be.

I think it was Elon Musk who said that one of the primary problems we have is a data -interface problem.

Meaning the inexactity of the ways in which we interface, transmit and receive data with the world and each other.

On the otherhand the fact that we can interface to the extent that we can is a miracle in itself.

[Anonymous No.14601081]

>>14595776
No I did. I'll write a paper and publish it but... The only problem is my work is rather verbally inaccessible.

You need to be familiar with SOOO MUCH literature and symbolism based on specific pieces of literature in order to understand it.

[Anonymous No.14601085]

>>14601081
My theory is self-contained and all references to literature in it are optional and only meant to highlight how much of an educated intellectual I am. Such is life with an IQ in the genius range.

[Anonymous No.14601090]

>>14596500
HOLY BASED.

This goes even further though. It ties into the way we define objects. INCLUDING NUMBER AND ALL MATH. whether you have one, two, three, or zero of a thing depends on how a thing is defined.

The entirety of exiatance can be classified as a thing. Or the entirety of your experience. But in doing the meaning of the words "exiatance" and "experience" would seem to implicate the meanings "non-existance" and "that which is outside of experience"

HOWEVER, I propose that thinking this way is a trick. Existance being variable is a LOCALIZED PHENOMANON IN SPACETIME.

The prerequisite to identifying a thing locally is mathematical thinking. Namely the difference between one and two. (Where does one end and two begin) once you can say x is one and y is two. You are defining the exiatance as localized in spacetime based on your frame of reference.

The extrapolation that just because one is a time/place where two does not exist and two is a time/place where one does not exist to the identification that: there must be a place where no localized integer exists.

Is not logical.

Therefore both space and time should not be thought of as things. I'm not a physicist but I would venture to claim that: they will never be separated. It is impossible to do so. I would also venture to claim that there are probably other concepts that are included in the space-time category.

That being they are not of the internal nor the external but of the interstitium the medium in which both engage in access and discourse.

[Anonymous No.14601095]

>>14601085
I don't make any specific references to literature... But for example in order to fully understand you would have already had to read and fully understand the ideas of Pythagoras, Buddah, Moses, Lucretius, Plato, Nietzsche etc etc.

And the impression I get from talking to people is that noone I have met actually understands what the fuck Pythagoras was getting at.

[Anonymous No.14601112]

>>14601090
Is this a low IQ version of Kantian a priori vs a posteriori?

[Anonymous No.14601124]

>>14601095
Interesting choice. Quite contrary to my work which is partially inspired by Kant, Schopenhauer, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Langan, Leibniz and Descartes, and presupposes knowledge of general relativity, quantum field theory, complexity theory, thermodynamics and a well-rounded graduate level math education.

[Anonymous No.14602523]

>>14600653
Circular reasoning is stable when all facts are true, but also when all facts are false, so tells you nothing. Infinite regress is the same way. Only axiomatic grounding works.

[Anonymous No.14602531]

>>14595080
You're right, all of you people are right. Not only can I not tell you what a woman is, I can't tell you what a box or a bag or a rock is. You win. Nobody can give a clear definition of anything.
Here's the real problem: why do things work anyways? I honestly cannot give an unambiguous definition of 'woman', and yet when I see one in the street, I know it. My friends know it too, and everyone I've talked to agrees, without any prior discussion. Why is that?
It gets even worse, because there really are some cases where things fall apart. They're rare of course, but there really are people out there who I couldn't answer for, or who could truly be said to be both. Yet again, it works. There are chairs on the boundary, there are rocks on the boundary, it's everything, and it still works.
You know about the fallacy of the beard, right? Have you ever actually had that problem?

[Anonymous No.14602773]

>>14602523
>Only axiomatic grounding works.
Axiomatic grounding is just infinite regress with extra steps.

[Anonymous No.14603640]

>>14595729
That's an episiotomy.

[Anonymous No.14603665]

>>14601076
just dont be autistic, read the context, and their faces. It doen't apply all the time though of course.

[Anonymous No.14603691]

>>14595701
>That's why nihilism is the only rational bedrock for any kind of philosophy.
This is the most retarded sentence I've read in /sci/ in months

[Anonymous No.14603702]

>>14602773
Yes. But those extra steps matter in a pragmatic level. All your schizo formulas mean nothing of importance.
In circular reasoning or Infinite regress
1: Everything is true.
2: Everything is false.
But, when humans do speak, they have set for something to be true. It doesn't need to be universal for all humans, but in context we understand what we're talking about in a local level. So we set an axiomatic ground to extend the local level of understanding to anyone that takes the same axioms. They do choose to accept the axioms because they want to cooperate in meaningful discussion instead of schizo blabbery.
Epistemology done for its sake is useless, edgy, midwit shit. "Oh look how smart I am for asking questions that not even I care, b-but muh greeks did it so it's COOL OK?"

[Anonymous No.14603765]

>>14603702
>schizo formulas
lol. lmao.

[Anonymous No.14603839]

>>14603765
I study Math, of course I know what that schizo blabbery is. Analysis of logic for the sake of it doesn't give you any useful insights or results, it's masturbation for pseuds

[Anonymous No.14603932]

>>14603839
>I study Math, of course I know what that schizo blabbery is
Sure thing bud.
>Analysis of logic for the sake of it doesn't give you any useful insights or results
That must be why Microsoft funds it.

[Anonymous No.14604005]

>>14595080
There are many ways to gather knowledge.

1) sensory data
2) memory
3) reasoning
etc

But you could say "yea but they can be flawed" we live in a flawed world with flawed senses, flawed capacity to rationalize, flawed memories, flawed etc. But we know that the knowledge is flawed, hence that is the knowledge is work with.

[Anonymous No.14605170]

>>14595080
Is that a guy or girl?

[Anonymous No.14606055]

>>14595080
>>14595158
>>14595164
>>14595569
>>14595701 (ur a really big retard)
>>14595705
>>14595722
>>14595723
>>14595726
>>14595729
>>14595730
>>14595734
>>14595740
>>14595742
>>14595776
>>14596177
>>14596190
>>14596212
>>14596487
>>14596500
>>14596587
>>14598519
>>14599162
>>14599167
>>14599390
>>14599522
>>14599676
>>14599762
>>14599905
>>14600061
>>14600606
>>14600653
>>14600671
>>14600708
>>14601068
>>14601071
>>14601076
>>14601081
>>14601085
>>14601090
>>14601095
>>14601112
>>14601124
>>14602523
>>14602531
>>14602773
>>14603640
>>14603665
>>14603691
>>14603702
>>14603765
>>14603839
>>14603932
>>14604005
>>14605170
You're all faggots who have seem to have forgotten the prime rule of philosophy
>START
>WITH
>THE
>GREEKS
(pic related, it's a good starter)

[Anonymous No.14606141]

>>14602523
>Only axiomatic grounding works.
>axiomatic grounding
choose one (or fewer)

[Anonymous No.14606254]

>>14603932
Microsoft also funds vaccines and synthetic meat.

[Anonymous No.14606259]

>>14604005
How do you gain knowledge from memory? All memory comes from sensory data. So this isn't a separate case.

[Anonymous No.14607200]

>>14606259
It depends on what you mean by knowledge. If you try to identify knowledge with its logical consequences then you couldn't get new knowledge by simply thinking or remembering, but that tends to be a God's eye view of the world because someone whose knowledge was like that would know all of mathematics if they knew just the axioms.

Actual knowledge is probably more subtle than that.

[Anonymous No.14607219]

wittgensteins on certainty helped me emotionally cause when i was trying to read history books as a child i stupidly took seriously some guy on the internet who said "be critical of sources" and whatnot

as a result i dropped the study pursuit because i felt like i couldnt imbibe even a single fact due to doubts about the legitimacy and the interests of the authors, institutions etc. the same tendency continued really for long. I wish someone had showed me "On Certainty" back then so I could now be more literate in history. Although "On Certainty" is just the npc version of nietzsche i guess.