What did he mean by this?

File: 51 KB, 1439x711, tGoZT67d1FxX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 05:40:29 2023 No.15644523 [Reply] [Original]

What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 05:42:16 2023 No.15644530 >>15644523 He means it's just barely possible that people stupid enough to believe men can be women are proof you can be "educated" and still dumb as a fucking post.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 05:46:13 2023 No.15644540

>>15644523

Academics, for the most part, are not trailblazing visionaries they often make themselves out to be. The vast majority are doing puzzle solving on safe, incremental work on the existing paradigm because work on the visionary frontier requires risk. Risk that could mean the end of funding sources, the decrease in output and social pressure from peers.

Maybe when you're an old man in tenure you could try that far oit idea you've always really wanted to pursue, but most academics don't even get to thst stage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 05:56:41 2023 No.15644565 >>15644523 He is not wrong, but my guess is he's just bitter that his white swan concept is found to be not scientific (I don't know why, I just heard it from a jewess politiologist)

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:12:57 2023 No.15644599
File: 124 KB, 1080x786, 20230808_020715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644523
That academics provide very little utility. Society puts a lot of resources aside for them, but most researches are bunk and useless, especially today. Academia destroys knowledge more than it creates it. Academia is the America's worst investment, the ROI is negligible but it keeps getting funded because America's economy at this point unironically relies on us continuing to feed these piggies to do nothing. Through their mischief, lying and crookery, all for the purpose of maintaining a facade that legitimizes them continuing to be fed by taxpayer dollars, they hurt the actual quest for truth much more than they aid it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:17:41 2023 No.15644608 Read Antifragile but tl;dr experimentchads > theorycels. That's not even a bastardization the book just says that with a lot more detail. Among other things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:24:10 2023 No.15644623 >>15644523 You pay for it and get a tangible outcome.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:28:07 2023 No.15644628

>>15644599
>Academia is the America's worst investment
Do not throw the baby with the bath water, but you have to throw away the bathwater, because it is full of rats. Yet science is what makes a country civilized. American contribution to it and biotech is tremendous and it is not even about money, even though it is one of the main factors which make the USA prosperous and China is as poor as Russia because of their communist retards stomping out freedom of thought.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:50:08 2023 No.15644667

>>15644628
Inertia from when Academia's contributions were higher (which they did by providing workers to other industries), when coincidentally, the money we gave them was far lesser. What groundbreaking discovery has American academia made in the last 60-70 years? Even LK99 is from Korea, not us. Though we have the largest research budget in the world by a large margin. Science is good, but science is not done in academia. It has always been done in private companies and government projects. Whatever is done in academia itself is not worthy of being called science.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:53:20 2023 No.15644672

>>15644667
>What groundbreaking discovery has American academia made in the last 60-70 years?
Are you living under a rock? There is revolution going on in every field. From human genome project to genetic engineering in humans is the most spectacular one going on today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:57:38 2023 No.15644682 >>15644667 Making fun and all of indians is good and all. But really those Koreans are replicating an Indian mans experiments. If I were being robbed of recognition I'd let it be known if I were him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 06:58:54 2023 No.15644685 >>15644672 >human genome project Government project. I already mentioned govt. projects last post. >to genetic engineering Bust field, at least rn. Definitely no groundbreaking progress.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:16:37 2023 No.15644716
File: 54 KB, 1139x537, 20230805_195517.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644682
Actually, they really copied it off of some Soviet esoteric alchemy-lite project that was lost in obscurity, but the Koreans somehow found it and it worked. picrel

Over the years, Soviet science has emerged almost as mysterious as something like Atlantis. Those niggas were literally doing crazy experiments like Human-chimp hybrids and philosophers stones etc. They didn't have as rigid of a materialist approach to science and much of it was just magic alchemy trickery. A massive cultural difference. A lot of it didn't work (Look up Lysenkoism for example; they believed in a Soviet style, almost religious Lamarckism as opposed to genetics for crops). But a lot of it did work. The Soviets basically started the space race and won it, which is some magic shit if you think about it "Hey, let's just go to space". The Americans definitely didn't think of that. They also believed that oil was non-biological in origin. Heck, the F-117 was made only because some nerds found lost Soviet papers on stealth military tech that was never used because the USSR government didn't like it and was lost in obscurity. But then we found it and used it to make the planes.

Some of their works survived, most of it was lost. So much woowoo going on. So little attention, and so much knowledge lost. Wonder what else those guys were cooking up that is completely lost now. And wonder what else we could retrieve. What else could they have discovered that was as revolutionary, or maybe even more.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:19:55 2023 No.15644723

>>15644685
>Government project.
Ah, clueless nigger bootlicker!
Government tried to curb the project. They poored a billion of usd into it when it was on the finish line, and it was poisoned money, because they also installed their own puppet as the head of the project, and they planned to do it for the other 20 years, but the previous head of the project found PRIVATE CAPITAL and finished it in nine month.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:20:57 2023 No.15644726 >>15644685 >Bust field ah, clueless nigger indeed, now go dilate or whatever, you commie scum

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:23:09 2023 No.15644734 >>15644723 >They poored a billion of usd into it Tells me all I need to know about you. Thanks for discussing!

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:29:09 2023 No.15644747

>>15644716
Being intelligent is not the whole story. Look I've been a neet for a long time, my mentality used to be how do I make money but over the years my mentality became what do I do to avoid becoming bored. In the Soviet union not only was that their mentality, scientists was seen as prestigious and was rewarded with benefits such as a vacation house, there was plenty of funding to do whatever experiment they wanted. Now people's main concern is money, a scientist has to apply for grants, some people mock them. Oh noes my precious tax dollars I got from muh real plumbing jerb is going towards the science they say.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:29:58 2023 No.15644750 some thing have to be done by the govt. taleb hates govt but still so

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:35:24 2023 No.15644760
File: 135 KB, 2100x1381, 106839373-1613063690079-35113486893_8ac554d125_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644734
Francis Collins (here in the centre) is the puppet. Wiki tells he was placed as the head of the project instead of James Watson (somebody has to interview the man about it before he died, somebody probably did. This situation is probably why the campaign against him was started) and it was not one but three billions, and Collins was installed into the project years before I thought he was, so take my story with a grain of salt. But one thing is certain, state clerks are incompetent by design.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:42:52 2023 No.15644784

>>15644747
No, I don't think that's the case. Scientists were quite impoverished and were strictly under the government's boot (why these types of studies were lost to begin with). American scientists enjoyed much more privileges. No vacation house for Soviet scientist. But you're right that they had more freedom to do what they wanted. Try out the craziest fever dream and see if it's true or not. Pure experimental science. Whereas in the US, there are rigid guidelines and science is much more autistic.

I think it was more of a cultural difference that lead to this though. I have heard some describe Western Science vs Soviet Science as the dichotomy of the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. Both scientific traditions are descended from the Socratic school, but through different people. One is just inherently more spiritual, magical, idealistic, fluid, holistic etc as opposed to the other which was rigid, materialistic, observational, reductionist, specialized etc.

The results of both these approaches to science are going to be extremely different. Though now, in the face of globalization, this difference has been dissolved much like the Soviet union itself.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 07:50:06 2023 No.15644799

>>15644747
>In the Soviet union not only was that their mentality, scientists was seen as prestigious and was rewarded with benefits such as a vacation house, there was plenty of funding to do whatever experiment they wanted.
HAHAHAHA you commie faggots are retarded, and I lived in the ussr and became antisoviet before its collapse, because it was rotten to the core, you niggers are fucking retarded. In the dictatorships you do not have freedom to do what you're not told to do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:06:05 2023 No.15644817 File: 971 KB, 3125x2453, LB40X30FOREIGNTABLE_147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644716 Damn, Imagine if Stalin ruled for another 50 years. We would have already colonized Mars by now!

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:19:32 2023 No.15644832
File: 379 KB, 512x512, powders.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644530
i turn angry little boys like you into pretty princesses for breakfast. what are your plans this coming sunday? maybe you'd like me to put lipgloss on you? post physique. no, better yet, post your hairline. i'm holding my breath until you do it. if i die it's your fault!

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:23:13 2023 No.15644837 >>15644799 I just asked chatgpt if scientists could get a vacation house and it said yes. I believe my remembering it and chatgpt. That's not to say all of them could ofc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:33:19 2023 No.15644853 >>15644523 The meaning seems obvious, I don't get what needs to be explained.

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:35:57 2023 No.15644858

>>15644817
While not ideal maybe. Estimates say had Stalin stayed there until 1970 the Soviet Union would have surpassed the the us economy. So I think it's safe to assume we'd have a mars colony. But we'd be listening to communist propaganda in mars then and be afraid of getting shot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:40:48 2023 No.15644863 >>15644716 >But then we found it and used it to make the planes. It's interesting how western industries started falling apart right after the soviet union fell. Don't you think?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:46:02 2023 No.15644873 >>15644716 This is the weirdest made up nonsense I've ever read, are you russian or schizo or both?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 08:50:13 2023 No.15644880 >>15644523 A pervertion of

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 09:11:11 2023 No.15644916 >>15644523 >allah ACKbar (pbuh)

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 09:13:19 2023 No.15644924

>>15644837
You could get your vacation house, so fucking what! You had to grow your own products on those 600 square metres minus a kennel you'd only be allowed to build without building materials available to buy if you're a private citizen, to grow your own food after your daily job, because otherwise you'd starve. Was it what I argued? You kikes think you're smart, but you're just annoying and useless, which parasites are, why would you choose this path I can only guess, I guess genetics, no wonder commies hate this field not knowing that this field can cure you from your disease.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 09:13:25 2023 No.15644925 >>15644858 >(((estimates say))) yeah 16 more years or something...

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 10:46:14 2023 No.15645190 [DELETED]

>>15644924
My expirience in the United States made me a bit wary of capitalism. I left. The problems that people complain about in the United States are because of capitalism. Not the gold standard. The gold standard wouldn't make housing more affordable(a trailer can cost more than +$1000 a month btw, not a house a trailer), it wouldn't stop jobs from being sent overseas, it wouldn't stop people from being able to go to college without having to get into a mountain of debt, it wouldn't make healthcare more affordable, etc...
I'm assuming you're not from Russia because most Russians left right. I could go on but really.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 10:52:03 2023 No.15645212 Okay never mind

bodhi Tue Aug 8 11:22:52 2023 No.15645296
File: 75 KB, 828x608, commiefreaks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644858
it is easy to grow an economy when you simply steal everyone else's innovations. the only space program the soviets (and Americans) had they stole from the Germans. two more weeks

Anonymous Tue Aug 8 16:18:54 2023 No.15645968

>>15644540
>Academics, for the most part, are not trailblazing visionaries they often make themselves out to be. The vast majority are doing puzzle solving on safe, incremental work on the existing paradigm because work on the visionary frontier requires risk. Risk that could mean the end of funding sources, the decrease in output and social pressure from peers.
why is everyone in the thread ignoring this
its litteraly this

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 17:26:39 2023 No.15646158 >>15645296 Society doesn't need that kind of "successfulc people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 17:27:40 2023 No.15646165 >>15645296 Society doesn't need that kind of "successful" people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 17:28:27 2023 No.15646168 >>15644832 your post is nothing else that materialized mental brainwashing by commies, good night

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 17:36:36 2023 No.15646185 >>15644523 It will give you a proxy form but it's not it in its essence and it's soulless

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 8 19:17:43 2023 No.15646510 File: 236 KB, 1086x1039, 1686092061704154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644523

Anonymous Wed Aug 9 01:20:28 2023 No.15647405
File: 423 KB, 1546x917, 20230808_211428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15645296
You are not better looking than Stalin. He would steal your Indian wife immediately.

lmao, you retards really think that Soviet communists were the same as the lgbt communists of America. They would have shot each and every one of your freaks in the back of the head. You as well for being a capitalist pig.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 01:54:11 2023 No.15647456 >>15644599 Based AF.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 02:00:53 2023 No.15647470 >>15644628 Contributions like that? Those fuckers produce nothing of value but poison like covid boosters, cancer boosters, and suicide inducing drugs. Those billionaires who profited from the pandemic deserve to be flayed and boiled alive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 02:06:15 2023 No.15647478 >>15644832 You sound rapeable

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 02:38:35 2023 No.15647552 File: 1.00 MB, 2012x864, 1691036426169428.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644832 If I post my hairline, will you post a picture of your juicy jiggly mammae?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 03:32:18 2023 No.15647647 While I agree with this quote, Nassim is no better when it comes to being blinded by his delusions of grandeur. He has succumbed to the same traits as a modern day academic.

Anonymous Wed Aug 9 05:30:09 2023 No.15647846
File: 300 KB, 1080x1818, 94a3552ee7e3e4b6ecbee62aed2b09af244134d863a4c5b4e2fddab42c2d6b2e_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

how come when one scientist does something good all scientists immediately say "science did that and i'm a scientist, therefore i'm super special and important" but when one scientist gets caught fucking dogs all scientists don't immediately try to share credit for the dog fucking and brag about how they also fuck dogs?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 05:47:55 2023 No.15647878 >>15647846 Because doing good is difficult and fucking a dog is easy. Difficult tasks require collective effort and easy tasks require individual effort.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 07:03:54 2023 No.15648009 >>15644628 >science is what makes a country civilized no, religion is what makes a country civilized.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 07:21:00 2023 No.15648048 >>15648009 >Religious sciences are what make a country civilized, not science

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 09:29:59 2023 No.15648295 >>15644523 Perhaps in the past it was prostitution compared to love, nowdays its more like pornography compared to love.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 09:31:59 2023 No.15648297 >>15648295 There is no love anymore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 10:25:26 2023 No.15648397 >>15644523 Meaning is unclear, but my guess is one of his female students didn't want to bang him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 17:13:14 2023 No.15649224 >>15644523 academics produce a mimicry of knowledge for pay the way prostitutes offer a mimicry of intimacy for pay

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 9 17:14:18 2023 No.15649228 >>15648295 "me love you long time"

Anonymous Wed Aug 9 22:04:36 2023 No.15649930

>>15648048
Science can't exist without Christianity, the scientific method is a subset of Christianity, thats why atheists can't do science. When atheists try to do science you end up with the replication crisis, tons of fraud and no progress because atheists have no morals

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 04:01:00 2023 No.15650634 >>15644523 prostitution: its expensive and after you're done and you've paid your fee you have nothing but a diseased dick academia: its expensive and after you're done and you've paid your fee you have nothing but a diseased brain

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 04:13:33 2023 No.15650664 >>15644523 They pervert basic human relations by commercializing them and putting a price tag on a fundamentally valuable good (knowledge and love), turning the sacred acquisition of knowledge and love into merely transactional exercises.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 19:13:27 2023 No.15652316 File: 148 KB, 1488x1488, school makes you dumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15650634

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 19:15:52 2023 No.15652324 It's a very political system that prioritizes midwits and people who know how to suck each others cock rather than actually doing good work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 19:56:57 2023 No.15652418 >>15647405 Looks like a janitor

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 22:42:34 2023 No.15652844 File: 34 KB, 748x380, Screenshot 2023-01-03 at 13-33-25 Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Twitter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644523

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 10 23:53:53 2023 No.15653050 >>15644523 it means he's a sore pretentious midwit

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 11 04:36:29 2023 No.15653586 >>15653050 maybe you are

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 11 18:18:42 2023 No.15655323 >>15652418 Stalin purged the kikes, jannies are jew bitches

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 03:31:08 2023 No.15656623 >>15650664 they also both offer losers the opportunity to purchase status, either the status gained by being deemed a satisfactory sexual partner or the status acquired by purchasing an academic title.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 03:39:32 2023 No.15656643 File: 760 KB, 1080x1296, OR0NDLt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644599 baste fat tail researcher

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 15:06:09 2023 No.15657764 >>15649930 there is no such thing as the scientific method

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 15:08:57 2023 No.15657768 >>15653050 he is smarter and more successful than any person posting on this board lol at least i doubt people that post here were successful as traders, worked as professors of mathematics, and wrote several best selling books

>>	Barkun's Cum Rag Sat Aug 12 15:09:12 2023 No.15657769 No you may not. THIS IS THE RULES. fags

Anonymous Sat Aug 12 17:49:35 2023 No.15658023

>>15644523
Covid-era politics melted his brain in a very similar way to how Trump-era politics melted Chomsky's brain. They're both too comfortable and socially entrenched to dissent from academic orthodoxy. And since thoughtful dissidence was Taleb's only value, his thoughts no longer have any value to anyone but the very institutions he derides in that quote. Oh well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 18:07:09 2023 No.15658076 >>15657768 Nancy Pelosi traded better, he was never a professor of mathematics, and Obama sold more books. He's probably more successful than anyone here, but also probably dumber than most politicians.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 18:19:18 2023 No.15658104 >>15644523 >>15644540 This, plus: Academics are more like office workers than "philosophers of nature". They memorized procedures and definitions and now they produce papers without real understanding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 12 19:15:46 2023 No.15658290 >>15644523 Black swan > fooled by randomness > antifragile > skin in the game

Anonymous Sun Aug 13 02:47:17 2023 No.15659492
File: 104 KB, 1100x825, dumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15658076
>Obama sold more books
have you ever seen anyone reading any of his books?
he didn't sell any, his main demographic can't even read. the (((publishing industry))) cooked the books as a justification to pay him a bunch of bribe money

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 13 02:59:04 2023 No.15659527 >>15658076 >Insider trader traded better >The president is more famous Any other mindblowing revelations you got anon? Because these definitely blew my mind

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 13 20:23:01 2023 No.15661174 >>15659527 Its actually her husband who does the stock trading. She is the pasty out front to distract the media so he can concentrate on whats really important to him: money and gay sex. Pelosi's husband and Al Gore have sex together.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 14 04:22:30 2023 No.15662215 File: 42 KB, 850x400, einstein says soyentist are shills.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15658104

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 14 12:32:00 2023 No.15662904 >>15644523 I think he means that academia, like a prostitute, is a poor but necessary subtitute for love, and knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 14 21:47:13 2023 No.15664330 >>15659492 >have you ever seen anyone reading any of his books? no

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 15 04:25:07 2023 No.15665125 >>15644523 both academics and prostitutes fuck dogs, but only academics will do it for free

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 15 18:15:40 2023 No.15666733 >>15665125 What is the science behind why all scientists fuck dogs anyway? Are there any peer reviewed studies on the topic yet?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 16 04:24:29 2023 No.15667859 >>15666733 scientists refuse to investigate the topic because they are ashamed of their disgusting private lives, however james joyce's ulysses exposes it all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 16 06:53:45 2023 No.15668073 >>15665125 How do I fuck a prostitute, as a dog?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 16 19:59:54 2023 No.15669266 >>15668073 Just hang around a university STEM department and before long some whore will come along and start giving your the dicking you crave so badly

>>	bodhi Wed Aug 16 22:20:05 2023 No.15669518 >>15644716 Geore Soros bought millions of dollars of obscure occult texts from the Soviet Union after it collapsed https://ugetube.com/watch/the-elites-and-the-occult_GyWWHZ2CGJb1fP6.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 17 04:20:03 2023 No.15670195 >>15666733 Fucking dogs is part of the peer review process.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 17 18:35:41 2023 No.15671280 >>15659492 every library in every school in the country was forced to spend their money to buy his books

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 17 18:55:34 2023 No.15671314 >>15662215 yes

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 17 20:45:36 2023 No.15671586 >>15671280 This, my university library has multiple copies of all of Obama's books, all paid for with my tuition money

Anonymous Fri Aug 18 00:26:20 2023 No.15672115
File: 3.12 MB, 2288x1700, 1691658624992071.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644540
This. And the best example of this is what NDErs say versus the dogmatic paradigm of materialism. 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, and the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

But pseudoskeptics never actually read the literature on NDEs. They just pretend that it does not exist.

But NDEs are more real than life. One way this manifests is how much better and more intense the feelings are there. As one woman remarked:

>"So I went into the light, and as I was moving up into the light, I just started to feel so good. You know like I can't, words can't explain it. Like the higher that I went into the light, and the more that I moved up and further away from Earth, the better I felt. And the feeling of pleasure does not really apply to this Earth, like nothing can compare. Like if you took everything that you were in favor of, like maybe getting a massage, in a hot tub, your favorite music, your favorite food, your favorite drink, everything that you love, happening to you all at once, no matter what it is, all at once, it would not even closely compare to the pleasure that was just within that light. And as you moved further into, like further away from this Earth, the pleasure felt even better. So you just moved up it felt better and better, it was insane."

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

And the NDE convinces everyone who has it, even hardcore skeptics, according to this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So this argument is literally airtight, irrefutable proof of an afterlife, because we know now that the NDE will convince anyone, no matter how skeptical they may be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 18 04:39:47 2023 No.15672495 File: 47 KB, 500x365, 0 Wv5rHUzi5-61HcCw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15668073

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 18 04:56:19 2023 No.15672518 >>15652316 That tree is pretty creepy ngl, I'm gonna hop on the assembly line.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 18 17:54:19 2023 No.15673638 >>15648295 all women are whores, they are all for sale

Anonymous Sat Aug 19 03:20:38 2023 No.15674931

>>15644599
>Society puts a lot of resources aside for them, but most researches are bunk and useless, especially today.
Every last one of them will tell you that they're important as individuals because someone else with a similar job title once did something worthwhile.
>Science is important because someone other than myself once did good work, that justifies my existence
Just another one of their many lies

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 19 17:25:21 2023 No.15676637 >>15656623 >purchasing an academic title. a sinecure

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 19 17:35:32 2023 No.15676657 >>15676637 Very impressive, faggot!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 19 17:46:14 2023 No.15676686 File: 284 KB, 498x392, 1692458726202607.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Teaching is objectively useful though.

Anonymous Sat Aug 19 18:43:49 2023 No.15676818

>>15644599
The academy DOES provide utility, just not in research much at all. The academy's utility has and continues to be training, especially of the complex stem subjects. Yes the majority of what you learn is bogus due to the academy being hoarders of knowledge, but once you get to the graduate level there a many classes that are highly valuable.

The other part of the academy's life is credentials. Modern society runs on credentials. In fact, society probably has always run on credentials due to the normies need to follow (arguments from Ethos always sway the most people). Academy gives out credentials. No one else really does that outside of some businesses in some fields.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 19 18:45:57 2023 No.15676827 >>15647647 He is a rich and successful boomer with millions who read his books (especially a lot of 'sir pls' indians). It's pretty expected for his ego to be massive. He IS human

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 20 05:39:49 2023 No.15678194 >>15676686 academics don't teach anything useful, they teach gay fake garbage like dark matter and relativity and 9001 genders

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 20 10:38:01 2023 No.15678741 >>15644523 a cheap imitation but in academia as in prostitution, quality varies with discrimination.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 20 17:40:17 2023 No.15679681 >>15676827 you're only jealous of him because he is wealthier and more successful than you are

Anonymous Mon Aug 21 02:01:35 2023 No.15680707

>>15678194
they teach whatever the replication crisis peer review mafia says is true because everyone who disagrees with the midwit replication crisis consensus is excluded from academia via abuse of the peer review system.
same people who refuse to countenance dissent are also always bragging about how open minded and worldly they are too, everything about them is a lie.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 21 02:07:24 2023 No.15680715 >>15647846 how the fuck does you even get arrested for this? like was this fucking dude fucking his dog in the middle of a public park or something or did his wife catch his ass and call the popo

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 21 02:18:17 2023 No.15680732 >>15644523 Academics are paid to do knowledge Just like prostitutes are paid to do love when you're paid to do something you never do it genuinely

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 21 15:50:38 2023 No.15682209 >>15680715 that scientist was fucking his dog in the middle of a public park

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 00:37:06 2023 No.15683692 >>15680732 >Academics are paid to do knowledge they're paid to profess that they have knowledge, they're not paid because they know anything. "professor" is just a fancy synonym for braggart

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:04:01 2023 No.15684246 >>15683692 >is just a fancy synonym for braggart or shill

Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:14:37 2023 No.15684262
File: 194 KB, 860x856, 35234234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15644523
Prostitution is a shallow substitute for men who want to feel the ecstasy of love but can't get it through a meaningful and intimate relationship with a woman. Academia is a shallow substite for men who want to feel the ecstasy of knowledge but can't get it thoguh a meaningful and intimate relationship with a field of inquiry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:27:28 2023 No.15684285 >>15656643 This pic just describes bullshit people, not bullshit jobs. All three of the office drones could've just said "I write code", "I crunch numbers", or "I make charts" but they have to embellish themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:33:42 2023 No.15684300 >>15684285 > All three of the office drones could've just said "I write code", "I crunch numbers", or "I make charts" Well, shit. I guess the three-word criterion doesn't work because those are still bullshit jobs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:36:23 2023 No.15684304 >>15684300 Yea no shit, but if I had to guess, the artist isn't mad at the work itself, just the people who get shuffled into that work. Cuz art doesn't have to be a bullshit job, but comics sure as hell are.

Anonymous Tue Aug 22 07:51:43 2023 No.15684323
File: 140 KB, 780x438, intro-1621085821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15684304
You know what, fair enough. You made a decent point overall. It's the bullshit culture surrounding certain bullshit jobs. Pic related is a bullshit job but that probably doesn't get under anyone's skin.

Anonymous Tue Aug 22 19:32:00 2023 No.15685753 [DELETED]

File: 167 KB, 1538x963, TELEMMGLPICT000338747179_16863976004120_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqA9BFpPubSL4shKIIqk3dQFwQVwnuNYbkjRP05g5Iemc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15684262
>but can't get it through a meaningful and intimate relationship with a woman
due to their own atrocious personality problems

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 22 20:47:08 2023 No.15685951 >>15644523 scientists are grant whores.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 23 02:21:18 2023 No.15686743 >>15685951 atheists don't have consciences

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 23 17:08:56 2023 No.15688720 File: 64 KB, 815x1024, wood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685951

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 04:26:12 2023 No.15690285 >>15644523 Thats like one of those SAT questions

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 09:34:03 2023 No.15690677 >>15690285 lel

Anonymous Thu Aug 24 19:58:32 2023 No.15691906 [DELETED]

File: 86 KB, 407x534, 420fantics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15686743
Consciences are something that develop in a person with normal psychology around age 5-7, but some people never mature that far and so have no conscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_development

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 20:09:51 2023 No.15691951 >>15644523 He is trying to tell you the institutions aren't what they should be. the science you get is watered down bullshit. imagine what this world would be like if we started teaching 6 year olds the nuclear model.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 20:23:08 2023 No.15691985 I am so sick of you sniveling morons constantly shitting up this board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 20:27:15 2023 No.15691995 File: 244 KB, 1200x800, sophist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644523 sophism

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 24 22:59:47 2023 No.15692321 File: 35 KB, 320x267, ww2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15656643 >I kill people

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 25 04:46:14 2023 No.15692911 >>15691906 The vast majority of people in the west have 0 capacity to cooperate. You stand out when you are a social creature, usually they decide that you are mentally retarded, as tgey would never willingly cooperate except for money or sex.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 25 04:50:13 2023 No.15692915 >>15691906 The vast majority of people in the west have 0 capacity to cooperate. You stand out when you are a social creature, usually they decide that you are mentally retarded, as they would never willingly cooperate except for money or sex.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 25 05:24:47 2023 No.15692961 >>15644832 i'm so glad he's dead bros

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 25 18:45:03 2023 No.15694423 >>15644523 He means that science is fake and gay

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 25 22:29:42 2023 No.15694974 >>15644599 I mean it's true that 99% of science papers are pure shit but its not 99.99999%

Anonymous Sat Aug 26 04:36:15 2023 No.15695692

>>15644599
>America's economy at this point unironically relies on us continuing to feed these piggies to do nothing
we'd be better off giving them welfare checks, but not funding their research. we don't pay negro ghetto dwellers to research new ways to get high on drugs

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 26 13:44:53 2023 No.15696676 >>15644540 Pretty much this. Though Universities can be pretty cool experience and you can learn a lot there. Wouldn’t even be bad to stay there as a teacher, but it’s just not all that and they’re kind of limited. >>15644599 This is nonsense however

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 26 19:30:26 2023 No.15697258 >>15696676 >you can learn a lot there false, you can only learn to regurgitate the conventional wisdom like a goodgoy

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 27 04:45:27 2023 No.15698245 >>15694974 >but its not 99.99999% probably closer to but its not 99.9999%

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 27 19:34:54 2023 No.15699917 >>15694974 they publish millions of those articles ever year and the only ones that are ever noteworthy are the ones that get retracted. 99.999% = 100%

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 28 18:11:03 2023 No.15702236 >>15699917 >99.999% = 100% lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 28 18:13:14 2023 No.15702245 >>15644599 This entire post is just hick cope

>>	Barkun Mon Aug 28 18:16:08 2023 No.15702254 Academia fakes it is the path to become intelligent; academia hogs and misuses all social power around the subject of becoming intelligent. It's not this. We become intelligent through nature and time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 28 21:07:38 2023 No.15702580 >>15658290 antifragile>black swan> fooled by randomness> skin in the game

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 28 21:23:14 2023 No.15702604 File: 244 KB, 1240x1060, 1693037384416928.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15644523 Why do I still get emails like picrel? No one could possibly interpret "social science" worse than Nassim Taleb in 2020+

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 06:43:38 2023 No.15703433 >>15702604 you will never be a woman

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 11:30:44 2023 No.15703855 >>15649930 >scientific method is a subset of Christianity Explain?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 11:35:05 2023 No.15703859 >>15703855 He's not even totally wrong. The mechanistic/deterministic concept of the natural world is Christianity 101. So is the obsession with simple and clear-cut objective truths.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 14:05:13 2023 No.15704110

>>15703855
Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe (Logos) created by a divine being through his Word (God's Word = Logos), but unlike the Stoics they also believe in doing good works as a moral duty (necessary for salvation). This provides the philosophical basis for elevating the value of searching for Truth, especially when it's in an systematic, ordered, empirical way: i.e. the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 14:56:47 2023 No.15704191 >>15704110 >compelled to believe the revelatory truth of the trinity, a concept that fails the transitive property of equality when properly stated >rational and orderly universe

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 14:58:57 2023 No.15704196 >>15704191 Low IQ/poorly educated take.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:04:48 2023 No.15704205 >>15704191 Lol filtered

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:11:31 2023 No.15704217

>>15704196
>>15704205
Demonstrate the logical consistency (necessary for a "rational and orderly universe" in which the "Truth" can be "searched for" in a "systematic, ordered, empirical way") of the trinity without falling into an ancient heresy (persons as proper subsets of God (partialism), persons as predicates of God (modalism), one person creating/adopting the others (arianism/adoptionism), identification of the persons (sabellianism), multiple gods (various))

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:15:09 2023 No.15704223 >>15704217 >Demonstrate the logical consistency ... of the trinity Why? What bearing does it have on what he (correctly) pointed out to you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:21:31 2023 No.15704232 >>15645296 while the Germans research was invaluable to the start of both programs, to call them stolen is just flat out wrong.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:21:31 2023 No.15704231

>>15704223
It contradicts the claim that Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe (Logos), because they are compelled by their faith to believe a logical inconsistency by fiat of the Word (God's Word = Logos) of its creator. God's Word being logically inconsistent, the rational and orderly universe created through it and believed in by the Christian is not rational.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:24:10 2023 No.15704238 >>15647846 basic human nature, that happens in every field and industry

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:27:33 2023 No.15704241 >>15644523 “You only love me because I pay you, honey”

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:29:06 2023 No.15704243 >>15704231 >It contradicts the claim that Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe (Logos) How? Are you literally retarded?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:30:03 2023 No.15704244

>>15644599
>Academia destroys knowledge more than it creates it

Much as modern medicine destroys peoples health more than it heals them.

They feel the need to create a demand for their position.

If you actually share knowledge with the plebs, that simply makes the plebs more equal to you.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:33:33 2023 No.15704251

>>15704243
>>It contradicts the claim that Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe (Logos)
>How?
Because they are compelled by their faith to believe a logical inconsistency by fiat of the Word (God's Word = Logos) of its creator. God's Word being logically inconsistent, the rational and orderly universe created through it and believed in by the Christian is not rational.
This contradicts the claim that Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe in this way: the universe they believe in is not rational.

>Are you literally retarded?
No. And not in the figurative meaning of the words 'literally' and 'retarded', either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:34:13 2023 No.15704252 >>15704251 >>How? >Because they are compelled by their faith to believe a logical inconsistency by fiat of the Word So? Are you literally retarded?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:37:16 2023 No.15704259

>>15704252
>>>How?
>>Because they are compelled by their faith to believe a logical inconsistency by fiat of the Word
>So?
Unless we disagree on the fact that the law of noncontradiction is rational, a logical inconsistency entails irrationality. Therefore a universe containing a logical inconsistency is irrational.

>Are you literally retarded?
No. And not in the figurative meaning of the words 'literally' and 'retarded', either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:38:15 2023 No.15704260 >>15704259 >a logical inconsistency entails irrationality. Irrationality of what? The belief in the Trinity? Ok. What bearing does it have on their belief in how material reality works?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:42:43 2023 No.15704265

>>15704260
>>>a logical inconsistency entails irrationality.
>Irrationality of what? The belief in the Trinity?
Yes. And because the trinity is a subset of Christian belief, that entails the irrationality of Christian belief, by transitivity.

>Ok. What bearing does it have on their belief in how material reality works?
From >>15704110
>Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe (Logos)
>created by a divine being through his Word
>(God's Word = Logos)
but as shown above, God's Word = Logos is inconsistent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:44:06 2023 No.15704268 >>15704265 >because the trinity is a subset of Christian belief, that entails the irrationality of Christian belief Ok, and what bearing does this have on their belief on how material reality works? I feel like I'm bullying a cripple...

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:52:38 2023 No.15704282

>>15704268
>Ok, and what bearing does this have on their belief on how material reality works? I feel like I'm bullying a cripple...
We have established that the trinity is inconsistent.
Is the trinity not believed by the Christian to be "Truth"?
From >>15704110
>Christians believe in a rational and orderly universe
>This provides the philosophical basis for elevating the value of searching for Truth, especially when it's in an systematic, ordered, empirical way: i.e. the scientific method.
But the trinity, which is part of "Truth", cannot be "searched for" in "a systematic, ordered, empirical way", because it is 1. revelatory (thus it cannot ever be discovered by empirical means), 2. inconsistent.
Therefore there exists "Truth" in the universe that cannot be "searched for" in "a systematic, ordered, empirical way". Christian "Truth" cannot be empirically searched for. This is a new claim not previously stated.
Moreover, and more pressingly, there exists "Truth" in the universe that is inconsistent, which is irrational. The Christian universe is irrational.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:55:47 2023 No.15704288

>>15704282
You sound like you're having some kind of psychotic episode, but you still haven't explained how their having an irrational belief about [insert thing] entails that they don't believe God created a mechanical and deterministic clockwork universe that can be studied and understood through logic (which they do or at least did back in the day).

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:58:25 2023 No.15704294

>>15704288
>You sound like you're having some kind of psychotic episode, but you still haven't explained how their having an irrational belief about [insert thing] entails that they don't believe God created a mechanical and deterministic clockwork universe that can be studied and understood through logic (which they do or at least did back in the day).
I guess what you're implying here is "if they can believe one contradiction, they can believe two"?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 15:59:43 2023 No.15704298 >>15704294 What I'm implying here is that you're mentally challenged so you can't wrap your head around how people can have inconsistent beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:00:18 2023 No.15704302 >>15704298 So that IS what you're implying. Fair enough.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:00:56 2023 No.15704303 >>15704302 They can believe a million contraditions and it wouldn't change the fact that your clockwork universe derives from their dogma.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:07:14 2023 No.15704310

>>15704303
>your
Not mine.

>They can believe a million contraditions and it wouldn't change the fact that your clockwork universe derives from their dogma.
Yeah, that's fair. What's one contradiction compared to a pile? Once your belief is irrational, you can irrationally believe that you're rational, too.
So to the Christian, despite it being inconsistent, the following argument looks completely rational:
>God created the universe rational and orderly, Truth to be searched for systematically, orderly and empirically
>that is why he forces us, who live in it, to believe logically inconsistent beliefs about the world that cannot be discovered empirically
After all, ex falso quodlibet.

I concede. I should've attacked
>Science can't exist without Christianity, the scientific method is a subset of Christianity
directly as absurd instead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:08:45 2023 No.15704313 >>15672115 NDEs aren't real. If you "came back" to tell then you were not dead.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:09:39 2023 No.15704316

>>15704310
Pretty much everyone holds a bunch of irrational and mutually inconsistent beliefs. Has no bearing on anything.

>I should've attacked
>>Science can't exist without Christianity
Yeah, you should have. The fact that it happens to exist in its current form because of Christianity doesn't mean it can't exist without Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:18:39 2023 No.15704331 >>15704316 Better luck next time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:18:48 2023 No.15704332 >>15644628 >Yet science is what makes a country civilized. It's not. It's violence. Science just facilitates violence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:20:51 2023 No.15704335 >>15704331 Yeah, better luck next time, sperg.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:25:19 2023 No.15704338 >>15704335 A true lesson against engaging with firmly believed inconsistent premises. Reductio ad absurdum only works if the other party won't accept absurdity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:26:17 2023 No.15704339 >>15704338 What inconsistent beliefs do I hold? Have you considered taking your meds?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:26:36 2023 No.15704340 >>15704339 I don't know. Are you Christian?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:27:24 2023 No.15704342 >>15704340 >Are you Christian? No. Did I ever say or imply I was? I'm just reminding you that your worldview derives from theirs. It seems to have made you really salty. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:35:06 2023 No.15704352 >>15704342 >No. Then I don't know what inconsistent beliefs you hold. >I'm just reminding you that your worldview derives from theirs They had a hand transmitting it to modern times at best, and it thrived despite them at worst.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:38:26 2023 No.15704354 >>15704352 >They had a hand transmitting it to modern times at best, and it thrived despite them at worst. You'd know this is patently false if you had any actual education.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:42:08 2023 No.15704362

>>15704354
I know that they struggled a lot with the internal and external inconsistencies of their belief and the nascent scientific method, and that post Medieval scientists held various shades of deistic ideals that were more or less incompatible with Christian doctrine.
Doesn't invalidate what I said though.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:44:35 2023 No.15704366

>>15704362
It only took about 40 posts to help you understand your trivial mistake earlier ITT. Considering that, I don't think there's any hope of helping you understand why you're wrong about this as well. I hope life as a low-functioning autist works out for you.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:51:26 2023 No.15704374

>>15704366
What? We concluded that Christians are, for the most part, retarded in their beliefs and can't be trusted in their conclusions. That can't have helped the development (or transmission from ancient time) of empiricism, because even if they hold belief A that conduces to empiricism, they have to spend time reconciling it with belief B that directly contradicts it.
Or am I supposed to pretend that the bad thing is actually good?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:54:07 2023 No.15704379 >>15704374 ... and even if I bothered taking the time to write the 400+ posts it would take to help you understand your new mistake, you would immediately rewrite history in your head to save your fragile little sperg ego.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:55:53 2023 No.15704384 >>15704379 Bad thing = actually good, got it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 16:57:30 2023 No.15704385 >>15704384 ... and then you'd just break like a GPT and start saying stuff that doesn't connect to anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:00:07 2023 No.15704390 >>15704385 No, you see, the inherent logical inconsistency of Christian belief made the scientific method all so much better because they really had to think it through all the way.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:05:47 2023 No.15704398

>>15704390
>the inherent logical inconsistency of Christian belief made the scientific method all so much better
It just had no effect. Meanwhile other aspects of it compelled Christian thinkers to make certain assumptions about the world that inspired a scientific approach towards the material world.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:17:42 2023 No.15704415

>>15704398
>It just had no effect
This is false. You can't just take the good while ignoring the bad. Christian thinkers DID spend a lot of time trying to reconcile their beliefs with themselves, and with the nascent scientific method.
Why did humanists have to go back "ad fontes" and abandon scholastic (Christianizing) hermeneutics of ancient literature? Why did Aquinas and scholastics have to Christianwash Aristotle in the first place? Because they're incompatible. And they spilled a lot of ink realizing that.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:19:17 2023 No.15704421

>>15704415
>Christian thinkers DID spend a lot of time trying to reconcile their beliefs with themselves, and with the nascent scientific method.
And? Are we gonna spend 40 posts cycling over why none of what you say has any bearing on anything I've pointed out again?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:22:49 2023 No.15704428

>>15704421
I said
>They had a hand transmitting it to modern times at best, and it thrived despite them at worst.
and it is just true. You objected to it.

They took more time to reach the same conclusion as the ancients, with Christian holdovers. That's an effect, a detrimental one. They transmitted it at best, it thrived despite them at worst.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:27:48 2023 No.15704435

The idea that there is a single underlying truth behind all things, and one that is accessible to the human mind is a fundamentally Christian idea. Without its Christian philosophical underpinnings, there is no science and truth becomes either relative and subjective (polythiesm), or else the will of the powerful (judaism, athiesm, islam)

You can kvetch all you want, but the proof is right before your eyes in terms of the state of modern science

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:32:07 2023 No.15704445 >>15704428 >They took more time to reach the same conclusion as the ancients Which is why today we use physics developed by the Greeks rather than physics developed by Christians. You're so stupid it hurts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:32:58 2023 No.15704447 >>15704435 Ill-digested Socratics are fundamentally Christian in that they're ill-digested, but none of Socrates, Plato or Aristotle were not Christian.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:36:36 2023 No.15704457

>>15704445
>Which is why today we use physics developed by the Greeks rather than physics developed by Christians. You're so stupid it hurts.
We use physics developed by the humanists, the first Christians smart enough to clearly separate their faith from inquiry of the material world, and read the Greeks as Greeks, not pre-Christian virtuous pagans implicitly inspired by the Christian Logos.

Now we're entering the territory I described in this sentence:
>post Medieval scientists held various shades of deistic ideals that were more or less incompatible with Christian doctrine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 17:41:26 2023 No.15704466 >>15704457 Your recycled dross in all its variations was already getting old and stale back in 2004. One way or another, you reap what you sow and everyone can now see what the consequences of your belief system are for science in modern academia.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:10:10 2023 No.15704518

>>15704466
The arguments don't change, because the past never will.
Leibniz thought that theology and reason must not contradict each other, and contradictory articles of faith must be rejected. Does this sound like anything I said ITT? As such, he struggled with Theodicy, the problem of evil.
Newton was an occultist. It's disputed whether he even was a trinitarian. Do you ever make use of Newtonian physics?
Laplace. "I had no need of that hypothesis". Ever used a Laplacian?
What was the great theological insight of Lagrange?
Did Gauss swear by the Athanasian Creed?

What IS the purely Christian contribution to the scientific method? Bishop Berkeley trying to kill calculus in its infancy? The suppression of Epicurean atomism? You tell me.

>One way or another, you reap what you sow and everyone can now see what the consequences of your belief system are for science in modern academia.
People aren't striving to embody the classical virtues, which I mostly share with Christians, so I'm not seeing consequences of my belief system. I'm also not an atheist, or an American. Christian censorship of ideas happened in the Middle Ages, it's part of the strawman that allowed the current Marxist censorship of ideas to coalesce in modern non-Christian academia. So Christianity seems to be a non-factor whether censorship of ideas is allowed to happen or not.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:15:32 2023 No.15704529

>>15704518
>The arguments don't change
Indeed, they don't. I can show you a hundred examples of Christian theologicians introducing concepts fundamental to science based on theological reasoning or Christian scientists basing their work on principles inspired by their beliefs about the nature of God and you're recycle the same braindead cliches about how it's all "despite" Christianity, or how this or that ancient Greek philosopher said something that sounds vaguely similar if you interpret it loosely and out of context, and declare victory. It's a waste of time. Empirically speaking, we can just see who is responsible for building up Western scientific institutions over centuries and who is responsible for driving them into the ground over the span of a few decades, and correctly deduce that your anti-Christian obsession is a mental illness and that you're a spiteful mutant.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:19:39 2023 No.15704539

>>15704518
Honestly, the bottom line is that you're mentally deficient. Yours is a literal example of developmental retardation. Most teenage ferdoras start wondering who that Occam guy even was after invoking Occam's Razor for the 200th time, if not the 20th, and then see that somethign doesn't quite fit with the Dawkins narrative. But not you. You will never develop.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:29:48 2023 No.15704551

>>15704529
You're on the back foot now. I guess Newton and Leibniz just weren't all that important to science, and that modern science is firmly rooted in Aquinas having a fit over Aristotelian teleology. Honestly, given the sorry state of contemporary academia, maybe that is true after all.

>>15704539
>Most teenage ferdoras start wondering who that Occam guy even was
The guy who quoted Aristotle's posterior analytics? Yeah, he's part of the scholastics Christianwashing him I mentioned before! I know him.

>Dawkins
Is that the guy obsessed with black holes? I'm not into race mixing. I'm not American or an atheist, so I don't strive to return to bonobo.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:35:52 2023 No.15704559

>>15704551
>I guess Newton and Leibniz just weren't all that important to science
I guess Newton and Leibniz were atheists. In fact, Newton and Leibniz were paragons of consistency and rational beliefs. And so were the Acient Greeks. Low functioning autism is one hell of a thing.

>The guy who quoted Aristotle's ...
And here we go. It's like clockwork. LOL. Anyway, like I said, I don't care about your subjectivist tripe. I'm very much an empiricist. Empirically speaking, you are cancer and we will all be better off when it finally becomes acceptable to silence you.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:48:20 2023 No.15704575

>>15704559
>I guess Newton and Leibniz were atheists. In fact, Newton and Leibniz were paragons of consistency and rational beliefs. And so were the Acient Greeks. Low functioning autism is one hell of a thing.
I never said they were atheists. Do you actually read what I write?
Newton was an occultist and didn't believe in the trinity. Leibniz rejected logical inconsistency in faith (which you admitted Christian belief is ITT) and struggled with theodicy. They're not these paragons of perfect Christian scientists, who are such great scientists because they follow Christian ideals so perfectly. Rather, they seem more like how I described the humanist Christian scientist. Struggling with a faith that conflicts with reason.
The most productive scientists? People around the time of Laplace and Gauss, when they were either completely silent about the issue like the latter, or openly atheistic like the former.

>And here we go. It's like clockwork. LOL.
>>how this or that ancient Greek philosopher said something that sounds vaguely similar if you interpret it loosely and out of context
>Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
Damn... this wording is so vague... the context is so unclear... he's basically saying something else entirely... is this the power of Christian science...?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:51:03 2023 No.15704582 >>15704110 >believe in a rational and orderly universe Don't Hindus believe in the same thing though?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 18:51:31 2023 No.15704584

>>15704575
>I never said they were atheists
Oh, ok. But surely they were AT LEAST rational and consistent? Not that, either? How is it possible? I thought science was established by rational crypto-atheists.

>Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
How did he justify this?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:05:55 2023 No.15704615

>>15704584
>Oh, ok. But surely they were AT LEAST rational and consistent?
It's LITERALLY what Leibniz says his ideal is.
Do you understand the difference between happening to hold inconsistent beliefs, and holding them purposefully? He clearly did, because he wanted to get rid of his. When I postulate for God's creation to be rational (as in devoid of irrationality, not in your "IRRATIONAL THEREFORE RATIONAL" clownish sense), I'm being more Leibnizian than you, despite not being a Christian.

>I thought science was established by rational crypto-atheists.
I'm not an atheist, so I don't believe that. It's completely rational to hold deistic ideals, as many of them did.

>How did he justify this?
The obvious way. Fewer assumptions = easier to justify.
>(1) We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses-in short from fewer premisses; for, given that all these are equally well known, where they are fewer knowledge will be more speedily acquired, and that is a desideratum. The argument implied in our contention that demonstration from fewer assumptions is superior may be set out in universal form as follows. Assuming that in both cases alike the middle terms are known, and that middles which are prior are better known than such as are posterior, we may suppose two demonstrations of the inherence of A in E, the one proving it through the middles B, C and D, the other through F and G. Then A-D is known to the same degree as A-E (in the second proof), but A-D is better known than and prior to A-E (in the first proof); since A-E is proved through A-D, and the ground is more certain than the conclusion. Hence demonstration by fewer premisses is ceteris paribus superior.

Even Aquinas, who predates Occam, uses it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:12:49 2023 No.15704627 >>15704615 >It's LITERALLY what Leibniz says his ideal is. Did he live up to it? He was a theist, after all. :^( >The obvious way. Fewer assumptions = easier to justify. Is that a rational argument according to you?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:19:24 2023 No.15704641

>>15704627
>Did he live up to it? He was a theist, after all. :^(
Nope, he lived in cope as a Christian to his death, miserably for him. Had he been freed from such superstitions!

>Is that a rational argument according to you?
Yes, fewer assumptions are, in fact, easier to justify. I don't know what trap are you trying to set up here, or if you're just tilting altogether by this point.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:23:58 2023 No.15704652

>>15704641
>Nope, he lived in cope as a Christian to his death
Then why bring him up? He's just another one of countless figures scientific figures whose legacy your militant atheist cancer is currently destroying.

>fewer assumptions are, in fact, easier to justify.
Therefore what? How does being "easier to justify" make something any more likely to be true?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:34:53 2023 No.15704683

>>15704652
>Then why bring him up? He's just another one of countless figures scientific figures whose legacy your militant atheist cancer is currently destroying.
Because he's an important figure in science who struggled with his Christian faith, rather than it helping him with his science, duh. That's the topic.

>Therefore what? How does being "easier to justify" make something any more likely to be true?
On one hand, it makes it easier to verify, because there is less to check. This is what Aristotle says. On the other hand, it also makes it more likely to occur, because less preconditions have to be true for the conclusion to be true as well. This is my comment.
But Occam's razor is just a heuristic, though, and it can and does fail. That's why it appears in Aristotle's *Posterior* Analytics, the one dealing with empirical knowledge. You know, the scientific method.

Are you trying to take down the whole concept of the razor now, because I showed you that it's not the original product of Christian minds?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:39:52 2023 No.15704691

>>15704683
>he's an important figure in science who struggled with his Christian faith, rather than it helping him with his science
Was that his final judgment on this matter, or is it yours?

>it makes it easier to verify, because there is less to check. This is what Aristotle says
Right, which is where you took it out of context.

>On the other hand, it also makes it more likely to occur, because less preconditions have to be true for the conclusion to be true as well. This is my comment.
Which you can't actually justify.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:48:36 2023 No.15704713

>>15704691
>Was that his final judgment on this matter, or is it yours?
His belief that "faith and reason should not contradict each other" and the fact that he spent a lot of ink trying to reconcile Christian doctrine with his reason is exactly what I said humanist Christian scientists did, and then stopped doing, which you said had no effect. Medievals never faltered like that, and they weren't at the forefront of scientific advancement. Newton and Leibniz were. What changed? I just told you.

>Right, which is where you took it out of context.
I told you it's posterior analytics. I gave you the paragraph. You're grasping at straws.

>Which you can't actually justify.
It's because of the revealed Christian Truth of the Trinity, isn't it? The failure of the transitivity of equality makes Occam's razor true... now I see the light.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 19:51:38 2023 No.15704720

>>15704713
>which you said had no effect.
It didn't. He continued to do science just fine and stuck to Christianity.

>It's because of the revealed Christian Truth of the Trinity, isn't it? The failure of the transitivity of equality makes Occam's razor true... now I see the light.
What are you sperging off about? You understand the Law of Parsimony (as most people do) in the sense that everything else being equal, fewer assumptions => higher likelihood of a hypothesis being true. (Which is not what Aristotle is saying, by the way). Go ahead and prove it. :^)

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:01:37 2023 No.15704737

>>15704316
>doesn't mean it can't exist without Christianity.
I never implied that.

You've done a good job of explaining to that retard how the Christian understanding trinity being "inconsistent" has no bearing on how Christians view the material world. However, I don't understand how it's inconsistent in the first place. Christian doctrine states that God is a single being that exists, simultaneously and eternally, as three hypostases who share a single essence.
>>15704217
Where's the contradiction

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:03:31 2023 No.15704740

>>15704720
>It didn't. He continued to do science just fine and stuck to Christianity.
Not a lot of science under Aquinas though. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the ink spent on Christian theological diatribe and the ink spent on scientific advancement. Rather, scientific advancement is correlated with the abandonment of Christian hermeneutics, and reading the Greeks, and their rationalist empiricist philosophies, as they were.
Christian hermeneutics went from a society wide business (Aquinas), to an individual one (Leibniz), to an inactive or repudiated one (Gauss/Laplace). Science advanced the other way around.
I have to reiterate this, over and over, because you ignore what I say. Because it's true and you don't like it.

>What are you sperging off about? You understand the Law of Parsimony (as most people do) in the sense that everything else being equal, fewer assumptions => higher likelihood of a hypothesis being true. (Which is not what Aristotle is saying, by the way). Go ahead and prove it. :^)
Honestly, you can probably prove something of the sort out of Bayes' theorem.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:06:18 2023 No.15704744

>>15704740
>Honestly, you can probably prove something of the sort out of Bayes' theorem.
Go ahead and prove it. To Christian theologicians, it was a logical consequence of the premise of a divine aesthetic of elegance and simplicity. To you, it is a logical consequence of what? :^)

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:17:36 2023 No.15704769

>>15704744
>To Christian theologicians, it was a logical consequence of the premise of a divine aesthetic of elegance and simplicity.
I could simply agree to it, it's a deistic argument, not a Christian one.

>To you, it is a logical consequence of what? :^)
Probability? I'm not gonna sit here and figure out how to define the terms to prove it.
But at least, it seems that I'm not the first one to think of Bayes' theorem as a justification of Occam's razor. Searching for it, there are a few hits. See for example here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29774559

Let's skip the next few interactions:
>You: yeah but where does Bayes' theorem come from? :^)
>I: Logic, mathematics.
>You: yeah but where does mathematics come from? :^)
>I: [long answer about mathematical philosophy]
>You: Haha see, you cannot know nuffin without God! It all comes from the Christian Logos of the God of the Bible!! Christianity wins again.
>I: But I'm not an atheist, I pretty much personally agree with this deistic argument. Natural law comes from God. [Ignored]
>You: Haha stupid atheist haha you suck science is Christian.
What next?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:18:46 2023 No.15704773 >>15704744 And I forgot to mention again. Occam's razor is a heuristic, not even a valid law of thought lol. It fails all the time, as it should.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:23:40 2023 No.15704779

>>15704769
>Probability? I'm not gonna sit here and figure out how to define the terms to prove it.
I can save you the effort and tell you right off the bat you have no compelling way of doing it. The furthest you'll get is some arguments based on premises about how it's rational to assume this but not that, which are themselves unprovable. You end up clinging to Christian theology, minus the logical explanation, and lying that it's from Aristotle.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:28:32 2023 No.15704785

>>15704779
>I can save you the effort and tell you right off the bat you have no compelling way of doing it.
Cursory search disagrees with you, you've been wrong on multiple things throughout the thread. I'm just not gotta trust you on this one.

>The furthest you'll get is some arguments based on premises about how it's rational to assume this but not that, which are themselves unprovable.
>You end up clinging to Christian theology, minus the logical explanation, and lying that it's from Aristotle.
>"you cannot know nuffin" into "therefore Christianity is real" with a side of "ignore the argument is merely deistic"
And here we go. It's like clockwork.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:29:57 2023 No.15704787

>>15704785
I don't know what your insane ranting is about. This still stands:
>You end up clinging to Christian theology, minus the logical explanation, and lying that it's from Aristotle.
If you dispute this, go ahead and logically justify your interpretation of Law of Parsimony.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:32:09 2023 No.15704790 >>15704787 >If you dispute this, go ahead and logically justify your interpretation of Law of Parsimony. Bayes theorem. Also, not a law.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:33:21 2023 No.15704791 >>15704790 >Bayes theorem That's not an argument. Try again. >Also, not a law. The label makes no difference here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:42:04 2023 No.15704803 >>15704790 Protip: make sure your Bayesian "justification" has a plausible frequentist interpretation, because if it doesn't, you are parting ways with empiricism and entering meme rationalist a-priori masturbation.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:45:51 2023 No.15704811

>>15704791
>That's not an argument. Try again.
Linked you a paper on it. You're more invested in the validation of this heuristic from the principles of probability than I am. For all I care, it could be the worst heuristic possible.
Intuitively, more is less likely than fewer, because combinatorially the more contains the fewer, so for the more to occur, the fewer has to occur as well, and more than once.
If I had to formalize the idea, I'd follow that sketch and tie it at the end with Bayes' theorem, because probability.

>The label makes no difference here.
Yes, but you conceded so much ground ITT that all of Christianity now depends on the utility of a heuristic that isn't even valid most of the time. You literally go outside, learn anything new, and violate it six ways from Sunday.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:50:58 2023 No.15704817

>>15704811
>Intuitively, more is less likely than fewer
What is this intuition based on? For all you know, you live in a universe constructed specifically to thwart this intuition.

>because combinatorially the more contains the fewer, so for the more to occur, the fewer has to occur as well, and more than once.
>combinatorially the more contains the fewer
Fucking what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:55:58 2023 No.15704824 Everything within Christian theology is self-consistent anyway, so this entire argument is useless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:57:16 2023 No.15704828 >>15704824 Nothing in any human belief system is self-consistent but it's funny to watch this sperg lose his mind trying to prove that Christians weren't real Christians etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:57:31 2023 No.15704829 >>15704817 Not him but n! = (n * (n-1 * (n-2 ...

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:57:31 2023 No.15704830

>>15704817
>What is this intuition based on? For all you know, you live in a universe constructed specifically to thwart this intuition.
On the next sentence.

>Fucking what?
A&B&C contains A&B and A&C and B&C. A&B&C&D likewise contains all combinations of A, B, C, D.

If both A&B&C and A&D derive E, B&C and D ultimately can't be entirely disjoint, because they agree on E, unless E was independent of both, in which case they should be discarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:58:46 2023 No.15704831 >>15704830 >A&B&C contains A&B and A&C and B&C Does X&Y&Z contain A&B?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:59:04 2023 No.15704832 >>15704824 >>15704828 You can't even get your shit together among yourselves, and I'm supposed to believe that the scientific method would be impossible without minds such as yours.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 20:59:56 2023 No.15704834 >>15704832 >the psychotic sperg still insists I'm a Christian after being specifically told that I don't believe in any god and I don't think Christian doctrine is rational

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:00:07 2023 No.15704836 >>15704831 You can refer to the sentence below that about disjoint propositions that justify the same conclusion (as in Occam's razor).

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:01:08 2023 No.15704838 >>15704834 Don't care. Occam's razor. You're a Christian now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:02:19 2023 No.15704842 >>15704836 Sorry, I don't understand schizphrenese. Please explain how A&B => something is more likely than X&Y&Z => something when A&B are false and X&Y&Z is true. :^(

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:09:53 2023 No.15704852

>>15704832
We're two different people with different beliefs, anon, even if we're on the same side of this debate. That should be celebrated, not ridiculed. However I do concede that he's actually right about "no human belief system is self-consistent".

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:23:11 2023 No.15704870

>>15704842
Got the order of implication wrong for the disjoint case, it's getting late here. I thought I could sneak ~(A&B) => conclusion, and with A&B => conclusion derive that the conclusion was independent of the premises.
Still, that's what I mean when there is at least some overlap between the propositions. Again, it's a heuristic I don't particularly care about, that's violated all the time. If that's the thread the whole of Christian theology has to hang upon, so be it.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:31:02 2023 No.15704881

>>15704870
>Got the order of implication wrong for the disjoint case, it's getting late here. I thought I could sneak ~(A&B) => conclusion, and with A&B => conclusion derive that the conclusion was independent of the premises.
I have no idea what your schizobabble is about. The most sense I can make of it is that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Occam's Razor says "don't assume A&B&C if A&B sufficient", but it's actually "don't assume A&B&C if X&Y is sufficient" so nothing you're saying makes sense.

>Again, it's a heuristic I don't particularly care about
Probably because you care a lot more about spouting your fedora ideology than you do about science per se.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:31:44 2023 No.15704887

>>15704870
You're an araboid muslim aren't you. I knew it when I saw the standard shitty arguments with muh transitivity and being filtered by the trinity, a concept understood by second graders in my country. Literally rent free. You people make me sick.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:33:39 2023 No.15704891 Another muslim on 4chan endlessly shilling against christianity. It's like PATHOLOGICAL with you people. GET OFF OUR FUCKING BACKS AND GO WORSHIP WHATEVER STONE YOU LIKE AND LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:35:11 2023 No.15704893 >>15704842 >Why is it more likely to get a a pair of 7s than three 9s? I got three 9s and no 7s! Not him but come on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:38:05 2023 No.15704902 >>15704893 On what basis are you assuming that all premises as equally likely?

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:38:46 2023 No.15704904

>>15704881
>I have no idea what your schizobabble is about.
Maybe you're just not smart enough. I'm tired and sleepy, but I'll explain my mistake.
Occam's razor says: in explaining C, given explanations A&B => C and X&Y&Z => C, A&B should be preferred.
I assumed A&B and X&Y&Z disjoint, ~((A&B)&(X&Y&Z)). Without giving it too much thought, I thought I'd be able to extract ~(A&B) => C from it, then from (A&B)v~(A&B) get C independent of both A&B and X&Y&Z.
I get X&Y&Z => ~(A&B), but I needed ~(A&B) => X&Y&Z, so the argument fails. No big deal. Unlike a Christian, I can acknowledge and correct logical inconsistencies.

The fact that disjoint premises work out against Occam's razor is an argument in my favor anyway, since I minimize its importance, while you make a big deal out of it.
It explains why it fails all the time, causes that have nothing to do with each other can bring about the same effects, while also explaining why it is occasionally useful, because when there is an overlap the combinatorial argument applies.

>Probably because you care a lot more about spouting your fedora ideology than you do about science per se.
You literally brought up Occam's razor, bro. You'd believe you have atheists in your walls. I'm not an atheist.

>>15704887
>You're an araboid muslim aren't you
No. I'm not a "polytheist paganlarper" before you say that, either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:40:44 2023 No.15704909 >>15704904 >I'll explain my mistake. Not reading any of it. >You literally brought up Occam's razor Yeah, and as far as I can tell, you concede that you can't justify its application.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:42:05 2023 No.15704910 >>15704902 If they're not, you're not using Occam's razor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:42:20 2023 No.15704911 >>15644760 Why would they curb the HGP?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:42:53 2023 No.15704913 >>15704910 Occam's razor is not a probabilistic argument, retard.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:43:58 2023 No.15704915

>>15704909
>Not reading any of it.
By Occam's razor, you're illiterate. God finds it simpler that you're a cretin.

Anyway, I'm gonna go sleep now. The thread was fun. Christian kvetch is always a sight to see. I'll give you Occam's razor, what the hell. You can have it. It's yours now, not Aristotle's.

The fact that I'm running away means that I have been detected as an arab fedoralarper paganatheist mudslime trying to undermine Christianity on 4channel.org/sci/ and that proves the truth of the trinity and that science is Christian and transwomen are women. Take the vaccine and wear the mask. Tata.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:45:17 2023 No.15704918 >>15704915 You're a legit psychiatric patient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:46:36 2023 No.15704922 >>15704918 Good night to you too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:47:12 2023 No.15704925 >>15704913 Do you know what probabilistic means?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:48:19 2023 No.15704928 >>15704922 Ok. Now eat your thorazine.

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:48:40 2023 No.15704930

>>15704904
The generally protected form is A is more likely than AB.
The extended form would have associated probabilities - PaPbPc... - which don't actually exist in most situations as the disproof of some proposition ABC... will often imply a logical contradiction within. Lack of information informs incorrect probabilities. Still, there are situations where Occam's razor holds but it just isn't very useful in fields where those probabilities are well defined.
Has there ever been an argument that rides solely on Occam's razor with disjoint items?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:49:20 2023 No.15704934 >>15704925 Yes. Does this upset you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:50:07 2023 No.15704936 >>15704934 You're funny.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:50:44 2023 No.15704938 >>15704936 Eat your thorazine and let it go. You lost.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:51:31 2023 No.15704939 >>15704938 Meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:52:29 2023 No.15704941 >>15704939 See >>15704938

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:53:07 2023 No.15704943 >>15704941 >>15704941

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:53:38 2023 No.15704946 >>15704943 >>15704941

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:54:26 2023 No.15704947 >>15704946 >>15704946

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:54:49 2023 No.15704949 >when even the thorazine doesn't help anymore

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:55:29 2023 No.15704951 >>15704949 Meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:56:28 2023 No.15704952 >it keeps trying to (You) me

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 21:57:24 2023 No.15704953 >>15704952 >>15704952

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:00:30 2023 No.15704958 @15704943 @15704947 @15704953 >fedora tranny being "rational"

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:02:53 2023 No.15704961 >>15704958 Meds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:04:18 2023 No.15704963 @15704961 >fedora tranny simply can't stop replying Negrosis of the prefrontal cortex is complete and irreversible. This is boring. Closing this tab. The animal will (You) me again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:05:19 2023 No.15704964 >>15704963 >>15704963

Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:29:15 2023 No.15705007

>>15704915
>The fact that I'm running away means that I have been detected as an arab fedoralarper paganatheist mudslime trying to undermine Christianity on 4channel.org/sci/ and that proves the truth of the trinity and that science is Christian and transwomen are women. Take the vaccine and wear the mask. Tata.
Understandable. Have a good one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 29 22:32:58 2023 No.15705014 Bloody love that bald autistic bastard. I just read 'Chaos Kings' actually... Very good

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 30 04:05:53 2023 No.15705517 >>15704773 >do not spawn new entities unnecessarily how is that a heuristic

Anonymous Wed Aug 30 04:22:07 2023 No.15705532

>>15644628
brother all science is supposed to do in a capitalist system is discover more refined methods of exploitation. E.g. Discover the ulcer medication that provides only temporary relief so they are inclined to purchase more - also if the side effects can be treated with another of our products.

Idealizing science is for children. The golden age ended a century ago.

Anonymous Wed Aug 30 17:26:07 2023 No.15706599

>>15705517
>A heuristic (/hjʊˈrJstJk/; from Ancient Greek εὑρίσκω (heurískō) 'to find, discover'), or heuristic technique, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 30 18:52:45 2023 No.15706767 >>15705532 >The golden age ended a century ago because of atheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 30 21:05:39 2023 No.15707070 >>15706767 >because of atheism How?

Anonymous Thu Aug 31 05:12:44 2023 No.15707827

>>15707070
atheists can't do science, they scientific method was developed exclusively by and for exclusively Christians. Francis Bacon wrote extensively on the topic. atheism is a coping mechanism for sinners.
Can't obey God's laws?
The easy way out of that is to deny the existence of God, the more difficult way is to develop a spine.
People who are unable or unwilling to resist temptation to do one evil will be unable to resist all evils. Those who are unable or unwilling to stop masturbating are the same people who are unwilling to stop lying, stop falsifying data, stop plagiarizing, etc.
Science is for good people, soience is for the evil.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 31 09:10:16 2023 No.15708199 File: 189 KB, 750x959, 16825081792193501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15707827 Beautifully said. Leave this barren board and come join us in /lit/, brother!

Anonymous Thu Aug 31 21:20:14 2023 No.15709464
File: 21 KB, 736x271, 21efbb4528a8f8bcdc61b2701f85681e--clueless-dr-who.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15680707
>same people who refuse to countenance dissent are also always bragging about how open minded and worldly they are too, everything about them is a lie.
They're saying stuff like picrel, but they never behave that way in practice

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 31 21:22:32 2023 No.15709472 >>15704963 >>15704964 Ya;; both homo

Anonymous Fri Sep 1 02:07:32 2023 No.15710037

>>15644540
>Maybe when you're an old man in tenure you could try that far oit idea you've always really wanted to pursue

That's basically what Meijer's work seems to boil down to, lol

Literally doesn't give a fuck about scientific orthodoxy and just throws the wildest trailblazing stuff out there in his papers

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 1 02:24:21 2023 No.15710082 >>15680707 >>15709464 I feel like it would help if the dissent wasn't literally "the earth is flat"

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 1 03:41:08 2023 No.15710221 >>15644608 Nice.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math