/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15614762]

How do you argue against midwits who are completely immersed in a materialistic worldview and will dismiss any claims without ((sources))?

[Anonymous No.15614772]

>>15614762
Unironically, stop arguing with people.
If you don't want to listen to me, think back on all the arguments you have had with people then consider how many of those people actually changed their mind.

[Anonymous No.15614798]

>>15614762
Why are you coming out of left field on some unsuspecting midwit, normie and expecting them to understand whatever esoteric bullshit you're interested in at the moment?

[Anonymous No.15614806]

They only people who like useless pseuds like Nietzsche are midwits - a smart person can just think of what he wrote themselves. Are you just upset that you actually have to out effort in to your arguments when discussing science?

[Anonymous No.15614819]

>>15614762
By sending people like you to >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.15614822]

t. A man who lived an incredibly soft life who's greatest adventure was strolling around Italy

[Anonymous No.15614826]

>>15614762
Wrong place for this kind of rhetoric, Anon.
There's no shame in belief - Leibniz, Heisenberg, Dyson all examples who had it - but you can't exactly test it in a lab or calculate it. We're here to figure out the world we live in, not unprovable metaphysical layers to it.
I'd head over to >>>/lit/.

[Anonymous No.15614847]

>>15614798
Because he's 17

[Anonymous No.15614852]

>>15614762
Recognize that philosophy and theism =/= science and to stop trying to mindlessly mix the two like a room temp IQ retard. There will always be people that refuse to talk about or debate non-scientific concepts because they are no fun allowed autistics, but it's also on your shoulders to not swing the other way and treat objectively unverifiable and unfalsifiable concepts as fact.

[Anonymous No.15614867]

>>15614852
>There will always be people that refuse to talk about or debate non-scientific concepts because they are no fun allowed autistics
It's because by the age of 20 you've already done it all a hundred times and have realized that it's completely pointless because you can't prove anything so no ones opinion will change and you can't get the satisfaction of winning the argument. That's why so many of us don't want metaphysical threads on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15614900]

>>15614847
there's nothing scientific about physicalism, dear.

[Anonymous No.15614920]

>>15614900
I never claimed anything about "physicalism", which I believe is a synonym of materialism. A lot of philosophy posters think that because a lot of people don't want unscientific debates about metaphysics or creationism that means they're all materialists, and that the philosophy posters are fighting a great battle against these people.

[Anonymous No.15614945]

appeal to authority has nothing to do with materialism

[Anonymous No.15614955]

>>15614762
If someone isn't willing to be wrong then it's a waste of time to argue with them.
A good quote from black science man is that you can ask someone, what would you have to give them (proof, etc) in order for them to admit they're wrong - if they can't respond, then they won't ever admit it so it's useless to attempt to argue

[Anonymous No.15614964]

>>15614920
All scientists are materialists. Science is an open access cult with the only requirement being you dogmatically label anything you aren't intelligent enough to scientifically speak about as theistic nonsense. The line between materialism and idealism is non-existent, obviously, but when scieniggers are faced with the choice of admitting they don't have answers for something, their fragile egos override their system and start spamming out "T-THAT'S N N NOT SCIENCE!!!!!" in repeat. You're a clown and a minion because you fellate dennet daily.

[Anonymous No.15614970]

>>15614964
>All scientists are materialists.
Yeah thats why we are getting consistently diminishing scientific returns ever since it became really common to be an atheist in the "community". But it is by no means a normal situation just a result of the vast poisoning of our societies by cultural marxism.

Even Einstein was firmly a believer in God.

[Anonymous No.15614974]

>>15614762
How do you argue against midwits who are completely immersed in an idealistic worldview and will dismiss any claims without ((anecdotes))?

[Anonymous No.15615031]

>>15614964
>The line between materialism and idealism is non-existent
Do you mean the material and non-material? Because there's a clearly distinguished line between things that can be observed and things that cannot.

> scieniggers are faced with the choice of admitting they don't have answers for something,
Post an example of something science can't answer and post your answer to it. You won't because you can't We discuss science to actually discover and prove things about reality. One cannot do that with philosophy, it's just stupid debate after stupid debate. You are the clown, kiddie.

[Anonymous No.15615053]

>>15614964
I'm sorry no one wants to discuss your head canon, but that doesn't make us materialists.
we're just not interested in arguing with a midwit who will dismiss any claim about reality as being a Jewish plot.

[Anonymous No.15615124]

>>15615031
>Do you mean the material and non-material? Because there's a clearly distinguished line between things that can be observed and things that cannot.
Here's your scientist, ladies and gentlemen. lmao. There is absolutely nothing in this world that cannot be observed. Post your cult membership card so I can laugh at your incel face.


>Post an example of something science can't answer and post your answer to it. You won't because you can't We discuss science to actually discover and prove things about reality. One cannot do that with philosophy, it's just stupid debate after stupid debate. You are the clown, kiddie.
You want me to post my answer to questions that are debated precisely because they have no answer. Okay. Here's your scienigger, folks. Sorry niglet, I'm not as arrogant as your kind, I'm under no egoistical delusion to have answers for things I do not. Nor will I pull an answer out of my ass and screech that it's right because my fragile ego demands I say so. Try roping soon,maybe you can find an answer for me?

[Anonymous No.15615133]

Christcucks sure are annoying.

[Anonymous No.15615155]

>>15615133
People who use the word "christcuck" are much worse.

[Anonymous No.15615215]

if you're a nazi you're a materialist too you insufferable faggot. You place importance on genes which are part of the material realm.

[Anonymous No.15615230]

>>15615124
>There is absolutely nothing in this world that cannot be observed.
No, nothing material cannot be observed. But your OP was attacking "materialist" people who ask for proper sources for evidence rather than anecdotes.

>I'm not as arrogant as your kind, I'm under no egoistical delusion to have answers for things I do not
So why did you attack scientists for not having answers then? You don't have the answer to anything, at least science can answer some questions.

[Anonymous No.15615232]

>>15614762
You don't? People decide their philosophy as a teenager and almost never change it.

[Anonymous No.15615251]

>>15615232
Not really, I did not give a fuck about philosophy when I was a teenager. I dabbed a bit into marxism because the us economy kept getting worse later on. It keeps getting worse. Found no answers from people like noam chomsky. Moved on and now I focus on other stuff.
I'm skeptical of the free market will fix it answer.
In the end the main problem is Americans because they're anti physical labor and anti intellectual labor so I don't know what they expect really. I left so its no longer my problem.

[Anonymous No.15615285]

>>15615230
Everything in the world is observable. Are you listening to me? Everything. Did you miss the part where I told you there is no materialism and no idealism? Honey? They are just ideas. The fact that you actually think there is material matter or psychic phenomena is hilarious and telling. Your entire life is sheepwalking to nowhere.
>So why did you attack scientists for not having answers then? You don't have the answer to anything, at least science can answer some questions.
I don't even know what you're saying here. I've attacked no one for not having answers, sweetums. If you read my post, you'd understand very quickly that I attacked scientards for not having answers AND THEN using science as a bludgeon to dismiss any conversation on topics they're too stupid to approach. Please read my words next time, poojeet. Am I attacking them for not having answers, or for using science as a bludgeon. Do you understand words, dearie?

[Anonymous No.15615303]

>>15614772
This place is done with gpt 5,6,7 or so. Why the fuck would I ever discuss anything with real people that don't have a clue about the topic. Then your post inadvertently triggers some emotional baggage within them or they see a hair to split. After a few exchanges no matter how hard you corner them they just start arguing in bad faith or pretend they were trolling. When you outwit them they have no perception of humiliation because there's no feedback from an audience. I know you are all tired of it and you're only here because no registration, little moderation, and no records so you post with a clean slate. But what does it help when it all ends in the same shit.

[Anonymous No.15615305]

>>15614762
Give them evidence about this "magical spiritual world".

[Anonymous No.15615351]

>>15615251
>I dabbed a bit into marxism because the us economy kept getting worse later on.
Because you're dumber than a midwit. Most of us here had already figured out our lifelong philosophy at 16.

>>15615285
You've started talking like a really aggressive leftist, which is fitting.
>Did you miss the part where I told you there is no materialism and no idealism?
Define these words and explain how that works. You won't.
>using science as a bludgeon to dismiss any conversation on topics
Example?

[Anonymous No.15615365]

>>15615303
What topic do you have such expertise on that normal people wouldn't understand?

[Anonymous No.15615369]

I'm open to talking about metaphysics and epistemology. What specifically has your britches in a bunch?

[Cult of Passion No.15615412]

>>15614762
>without ((sources))
Imagine the ones that reject all sources contradictory to their stance.

The solution? The beatings their fathers spared them.

[Anonymous No.15615421]

>>15615365
Snails

[Anonymous No.15615426]

>>15615421
What do you know about snails, anon?

[Cult of Passion No.15615462]

>>15615426
They love in ways you never can or will feel.

[Anonymous No.15615484]

>>15614806
>a smart person can just think of what he wrote themselves
are you a professional quote maker by chance? i bet you have so many upvotes on reddit

[Anonymous No.15615530]

>>15615484
No, that's reserved to useless edgelords that you form personality cults around since you're so fucking dumb you have to read their books to get new ideas instead of just randomly thinking it.

[Barkun No.15615542]

>>15615484
Derpus Herpa Flerf the second. Stfu you're not smart.

[Anonymous No.15615582]

Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Protocol 2, part 3: DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
>3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

[Anonymous No.15615608]

>>15615530
What mind blowing ideas are you sitting on, anon? Enlighten us.

[Anonymous No.15615621]

>>15614762
You are wasting your time. If they ask you your opinion on anything just say "Start with the Greeks" and refuse to elaborate further.

[Anonymous No.15615694]

>>15615305
Yeah but they won't read it because they are already adamantly convinced that

MATERIALISM == ETERNAL TRUTH

Why would they read evidence to the contrary of that when such evidence can not exist in their mind? Therefore it doesn't, reasons the pseudoskeptic. QED.

But as one NDE researcher said that he does not know anyone who has read the literature on NDEs who has not been convinced by it.

One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. Like this:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

From here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

[Anonymous No.15615795]

>>15615608
No.

[Anonymous No.15615891]

>>15614762
>>15614772
damn, fpbp
came here to say "dont argue with cattle"

[Anonymous No.15615898]

>>15615891
Only midwits call people things like that

[Cult of Passion No.15615900]

>>15615530
I found Dostoyevsky to be ham fisted and banal, same for most others in that catagory of literature. This is because I had theory logic'ed the same ideas as a child and moved on to other things like lighting shit on fire, skipping school and getting high.

Twenty years later and the world is talking about ideas I had as a kid. School isnt for geniuses, I learned more in detention than any class, evem read Breif History of Time in there. I didnt understand half of it atleast but the other half I felt I had a decent enough understanding.

[Cult of Passion No.15615907]

>>15615898
Only dimwits defend their superiors, the midwits.

[Anonymous No.15615946]

>>15615694
I've have personally experienced similar profundity on very large doses of psychedelics. I'll read the book since it's short. I'm not convinced by the article.

[Anonymous No.15616021]

>>15614762
Set a framework (((train tracks))) in your mind of how you will get the person you’re arguing to get to the idea you are trying to present. With every step you lay out, immediately rope them in and kill, Continue until you’re both dancing :)

[Anonymous No.15616359]

>>15615365
Never said I did. GPT wouldn't ask loaded questions. I could explain more, but that would be writing the post twice. That would unnecessary if gpt were reading my post. Do you see that by just slightly misunderstanding me, even if your question is in good faith, you will be inferior to an AI?

[Anonymous No.15616377]

>>15615900
>Twenty years later and the world is talking about ideas I had as a kid
Literally this. I'm not going to say philosophers and their books are completely worthless since they might give you a new perspective on things you haven't thought before, but most of this shit the average thinker should figure out themselves.

[Anonymous No.15616547]

>>15614762
you can't. For them, the nonexistence of anything beyond cold hard material is an axiom and anything they can't explain with this worldview is just something that must somehow be explainable eventually. No different from people who treat faith in God like an unquestionable axiom.

[Anonymous No.15617803]

>>15614762
If they're genuinely too retarded they can't understand basic philosophical argumentation, they're beyond all hope. Either they get it when you explain it to them, or they get it a loooong time later.

(But this doesn't negate your responsibility to provide physical evidence for physical claims)

[Anonymous No.15617969]

>another "pseudoskeptic reddit atheist vs. 'based schizo' reddit (but was banned) christfag" thread
The actual /sci/ position is agnosticism and cautious interest in parapsychology.