Is divorcing philosophy from science a hallmark of midwitism?

File: 123 KB, 1244x1206, Snapchat-893675722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 13:13:10 2023 No.15755150 [Reply] [Original]

Is divorcing philosophy from science a hallmark of midwitism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 13:17:52 2023 No.15755155 >>15755150 It's the Hallmark of scientistic orthodoxy, which is positively correlated with but not identical to mitwittery.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 13:26:29 2023 No.15755165 >>15755150 Let me guess you are catholic?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 14:02:08 2023 No.15755221 >>15755150 >Is divorcing philosophy from science a hallmark of midwitism? It's a natural consequence of rationalism, which happens to be an inexhaustible source of dogmatic midwittery, but who can you blame for its existence if not philosophers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 14:22:14 2023 No.15755254 File: 83 KB, 340x392, Gigachad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755150 Philosophy is the hallmark of midwitism. So, in essence, you're correct. Because pursuing philosophy but not science is something only a midwit would do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 14:23:55 2023 No.15755263 >that one mentally ill automaton triggered by keywords

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:07:18 2023 No.15755341

>>15755150
>Is divorcing philosophy from science a hallmark of midwitism?
It depends. Today there's a reason both are separate fields, it's stupid to deny science stems from philosophy like some people do (soience fans)
If you mean retards like >>15755254, who are most likely undergraduate STEM majors that for whatever reason attach their existence and identity with the field they're studying and disregard philosophy and pretty much everything else that isn't the sperg. niche field they're studying, then yes. They're total retards who will never achieve anything, will never make any breakthroughs nor discoveries.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:11:32 2023 No.15755352

No, it's the hallmark of developing objectively useful scientific models which accurately describe nature....not that the buffoon pictured would know anything about that. Once you introduce philosophy, you open the gate to "interpretations" of data, i.e. the point at which you can essentially just apply any weed smoker "deep" ideas about nature you want to the mathematics that are developed by real physicists because "nobody can prove otherwise."

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:20:06 2023 No.15755368

>>15755352
> Once you introduce philosophy, you open the gate to "interpretations" of data
Once you introduce philossophy, you open the door to reflection about the fact that you interpret the data no matter what. This is inconvenient for those who control you and shape your interpretations. They want their middling-IQ lab monkeys interpreting data in a very particular way that suits certain moneyed interests and they don't want you reflecting on this fact.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:28:30 2023 No.15755392
File: 63 KB, 220x221, 1695137290037.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Philosophy is a subtopic of science. For millennia philosophers failed to make any progress. So we, the STEM superhumans, took philosophy away from the philosophers who proved themselves to be unworthy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:29:14 2023 No.15755394 @15755254 @15755392 >mentally ill samebot

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:31:33 2023 No.15755399 >>15755394 Tell me the most profound insight you gained from studying philosophy.

>>	Barkun Tue Sep 19 15:31:48 2023 No.15755401 File: 77 KB, 249x406, 1692794624249673.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:40:04 2023 No.15755415 >>15755394 You will never be a philosopher.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:41:31 2023 No.15755418

>>15755221
>It's a natural consequence of rationalism
>Rationalism, or a belief that we come to knowledge through the use of logic, and thus independently of sensory experience
Sounds like philosophy to me, science has to touch grass and run an experiment at some point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:44:43 2023 No.15755427 File: 33 KB, 657x527, smug apu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755392 Philosophers invented science accidentally and this makes autistic stemtards seethe like no other.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:45:48 2023 No.15755430 >>15755427 Scientists invented science and no philosotard ever contributed to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:46:44 2023 No.15755433 >>15755150 yes but divorcing science from philosophy is greater midwittery

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 15:46:50 2023 No.15755434 >>15755418 Looks like you suffer from advanced negrosis of the prefrontal cortex. Had you finished reading the post before you replied, you would've known how redunded your post is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:12:35 2023 No.15755476 File: 93 KB, 1038x1015, seethe2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755430 Philosophers invented the scientific method, sweetie. No matter how much you cope and seethe, you can't overcome this fact.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:23:20 2023 No.15755512 >>15755476 You are either lying intentionally or - even worse - uneducated. Which one is it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:28:16 2023 No.15755531 Why do we do science? Who funds the science? Who checks the science and who funds them? Are there conflicts of interest? What do we do with our findings? etc etc Answer this scientifically. Oh wait you can’t. /thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:29:42 2023 No.15755533 >>15755150 Science is philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:41:38 2023 No.15755592 >>15755150 What is the difference between philosophy and science in this regard? Why is the question "Why does the hallway chirp?" beyond the realm of science?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:43:24 2023 No.15755600 File: 145 KB, 888x1274, calmjak seethemeter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755512 That's it, let the cope flow through you. Deep breaths. Inhale. Exhale. Take a hit from your asthma inhaler. Calm. Collected. Focus.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:50:41 2023 No.15755615
File: 539 KB, 1280x905, 1280px-Aristotle's_Four_Causes_of_a_Table.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15755592
>Why is the question "Why does the hallway chirp?" beyond the realm of science?
Because the answer is a result of human laws (which can mandate the presence of a smoke detector but not the conscientiousness to change its batteries) rather than natural laws.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:52:35 2023 No.15755619 >>15755531 I can answer all these questions. Philosotards on the other hand can't. It's a matter of common sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:54:44 2023 No.15755622 >>15755592 Because all you ever end up doing is modeling data.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 16:56:24 2023 No.15755625
File: 972 KB, 1836x875, 20230905_133749.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>just use the maxwell equations goy
>it doesnt matter if magnetism and electromagnetic waves are just Coulomb forces
>don't get too philosophical
>trust the experiments and scientists

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:05:18 2023 No.15755643

>>15755592
because in the past 70 or so years, and accelerating in recent times, science has become incapable of using inductive reasoning to posit new frameworks outside of existing theories. It has instead become a simple exercise in applying computational power to data. Anything that can't be explained by computing power + existing theory is either ignored or explained away as 'dark matter' tier cludges added on to said pre-existing frameworks. There is no such thing as innovation anymore, and any innovation that may be is dismissed as pseudo-science or philosophical ramblings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:09:32 2023 No.15755651 >>15755619 Yes they can lmfao

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:27:19 2023 No.15755699 File: 89 KB, 588x279, 1674093788073158.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755155 fpbp, it's textbook scientism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:27:49 2023 No.15755701 >>15755392 >Philosophy is a subtopic of science. You have it backwards, midwit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:35:52 2023 No.15755719 >>15755701 You didn't understand the post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:35:58 2023 No.15755720 >>15755430 >Scientists invented science Astrologers invented science. Galileo was an astrologer. Tycho was an astrologer. Kepler was an astrologer. Newton was an astrologer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:36:28 2023 No.15755721 >>15755719 You don't understand sets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:36:58 2023 No.15755723 >>15755720 Yes, even astrology is more valuable than philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:37:59 2023 No.15755725 >>15755723 Post a timestamped picture of your masters or Ph.D, or admit you don't have one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:42:32 2023 No.15755736 >>15755721 Nobody understands sets. Zermelo-Fraenkel, von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel, etc - all the foundational frameworks of set theory are flawed. Good thing though that naive set theory is good enough for math.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:43:41 2023 No.15755740 >>15755736 That's no excuse for thinking that philosophy is a subset of science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:44:38 2023 No.15755742 >>15755725 1. Not gonna dox myself. 2. Degrees are worthless when even a retard can get them nowadays. 3. My knowledge and my arguments presented ITT stand for themselves and do not need additional appeals to authority.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:45:56 2023 No.15755746 >>15755742 confirmed pseud

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:46:02 2023 No.15755747 >>15755742 >admitting you don't have a graduate degree lmfao loser. Your arguments are dogshit and dont stand at all, and you'd never be able to make it through even an undergrad degree

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:47:34 2023 No.15755749

>>15755740
It is though. Scientists are better at philosophy than philosophers. Philosoplebs have been cucked out of their own field. Physicists took the philosophers' wife metaphysics and impregnated her with their BBC while the philosophers were watching impotently from their cuck chair. You cannot do metaphysics without quantum mechanics anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:49:09 2023 No.15755750 >>15755746 >>15755747 I have a better degree, more knowledge and better arguments than you. You literally cannot refute what I posted ITT. Have fun seething.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:49:49 2023 No.15755751

>>15755749
>he thinks subsets and supersets imply some sort of value judgement
You really are retarded. Most of philosophy does not even pretend or aspire to follow the scientific method, calling philosophy a subset of science is completely moronic. You clearly don't know how sets work at all.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:51:07 2023 No.15755754

>>15755750
>I have a better degree
You don't have a degree
>>15755750
>more knowledge
You don't
>>15755750
>better arguments than you
Nope
>You literally cannot refute what I posted ITT.
Everything you've written has been refuted. You going "muh philosocucks!" aren't arguments.
You're the same retard who couldn't even read a single paper in that other thread. You're not and never will be a scientist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 17:59:02 2023 No.15755768

>>15755751
>Most of philosophy does not even pretend or aspire to follow the scientific method
Neither does most of science.

>muh sets
I said topic and not set. You are extremely cringe for bragging about your preschool understanding of set inclusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:00:13 2023 No.15755772 >>15755754 What other thread? Are you too autistic to tell apart different posters? Go ahead and post your shitty paper. I could need a good laugh.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:00:17 2023 No.15755773

>>15755368
>Once you introduce philossophy, you open the door to reflection about the fact that you interpret the data no matter what. This is inconvenient for those who control you and shape your interpretations. They want their middling-IQ lab monkeys interpreting data in a very particular way that suits certain moneyed interests and they don't want you reflecting on this fact.
This. The anti-philosophy meme is really just anti-reflection and pro-golem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:00:50 2023 No.15755774 >>15755772 Post your masters or Ph.D or admit you don't have one. This is not an "argument from authority" by the way, learn your formal fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:02:18 2023 No.15755779 >>15755368 >>15755773 >hurr durr I need some ancient Greeks to tell me how to think >nooo, you cannot reflect without having studied muh wise meme authors because uhm you just can't, okay? Low IQ. Very sad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:02:30 2023 No.15755780 >>15755772 >I could need a good laugh. ESL

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:03:15 2023 No.15755781 >>15755768 You said SUBtopic. >I-I wasn't implying any sort of taxonomy... Define subtopic then, retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:04:07 2023 No.15755783 >>15755774 Post your paper, coward.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:04:49 2023 No.15755787 >>15755783 Post your masters or Ph.D or admit you don't have one. So far, it's clear you don't have one LMFAO

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:05:13 2023 No.15755789 >>15755772 The phrase is "I could USE a good laugh", ESL-kun

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:07:07 2023 No.15755793 >>15755779 What does your psychotic reaction have to do with the contents of those posts?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:10:37 2023 No.15755800 File: 58 KB, 591x879, when the aliens nut inside you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755150 https://youtu.be/KcqFDUJsBE0 https://youtu.be/KcqFDUJsBE0

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:27:01 2023 No.15755836 >>15755150 Monkies can also predict which food drop from a vending machine. They are also not distracted by the why's of how button mashing can gift them their favorite juice box.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:32:16 2023 No.15755850

>>15755836
I doubt you can fully explain the complete operation of a vending machine either. You could look up the details but you don't presently have them in your head and yet you use the vending machine anyway, unconcerned by your lack of understanding. So what makes you any different from those monkeys?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:33:21 2023 No.15755854 >>15755850 The difference is that he understands his position and the gaps in his knowledge while and you don't.

>>	bodhi Tue Sep 19 18:33:40 2023 No.15755855 >>15755850 I know how the machine works AMA

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:34:56 2023 No.15755857 >>15755854 On the contrary, I realize that I do not fully understand the operation of vending machines. But that anon is trying to make a point about monkeys not understanding the vending machine, as though that is profound.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:35:53 2023 No.15755862 >>15755857 Feeble-minded cretin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:37:04 2023 No.15755868 >>15755855 What model of switch do the buttons use? If you don't even know precisely what kind of switches are in the machine, then you cannot know precisely how those switches function. Your understanding hasn't even gotten past the buttons!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:39:27 2023 No.15755873 File: 24 KB, 520x386, BJCGyDNCUAEVzOR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the feeble-minded are unironically gonna argue about vending machines now /sci/ never disappoints.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:41:33 2023 No.15755882 >>15755873 >he realizes that he cannot fully explain the operation of a vending machine because he has not been trained as a vending machine repairman stupid monkey, who uses the vending machine without even understanding it.

>>	bodhi Tue Sep 19 18:43:22 2023 No.15755887 >>15755868 just because I dont know what brand the toilet paper is doest mean I ddont know how to shit. this is an extremely brainlet take. I could build one from scratch, what brand the parts are is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:54:41 2023 No.15755911 >>15755882 You unironically think it's about vending machines. Don't lie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:55:27 2023 No.15755913 >>15755911 >given example about vending machines >get challenged >"s-stop talking about vending machines" Admit it, you are no different from those monkeys.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:56:08 2023 No.15755917 >>15755913 You are clearly mentally crippled.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:56:35 2023 No.15755918 >>15755917 Push the button, monkey. Get yourself a treat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:58:28 2023 No.15755926 >>15755918 Explain what you thought that poster's vending machine analogy was about, without referencing vending machines or any specific physical mechanisms. Demonstrate my point that you're a subhuman ape with no capacity for abstract thought. :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 18:58:59 2023 No.15755927 >>15755926 Explain how a vending machine works.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:01:03 2023 No.15755932

>>15755927
I don't know and I don't care. Explain what you thought that poster's vending machine analogy was about, without referencing vending machines or any specific physical mechanisms. Demonstrate my point that you're a subhuman ape with no capacity for abstract thought. :^)

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:02:33 2023 No.15755940

No? Following the methods of empirical science and discarding philosophy has led to the accumulation of vastly more knowledge in like 300 years than pre Scientific Revolution man was able to achieve in 4000 years of civilization. What's midwit about adhering to the demonstrably better method of finding truth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:05:02 2023 No.15755948 >>15755940 Demonstrate empirically that "discarding philosophy" has been helping rather than harming science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:11:56 2023 No.15755965 >>15755940 What is “truth”? Also that’s not what science is for.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:13:23 2023 No.15755972 >>15755965 >What is “truth”? what is

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:13:46 2023 No.15755975 >What is “truth”? ... he asks a rabid monkey, expecting a fruitful discussion. lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:15:54 2023 No.15755979

>>15755948
that question belongs to the realm of philosophy of science, not science itself. Therefore it doesn't even need an argument from empiricism. But I can argue as I just did, by saying the advances humanity has made since the scientific revolution speak for themselves when considered against what came before. One system of knowledge is the primary driver of the advance, and its not the one that's been moving humanity forward at a snail's pace for thousands of years. Philosophy plays a part, but it's like a bicycle with a rocket engine strapped to the back. We all know what's primarily responsible for the modern world

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:16:09 2023 No.15755980

>>15755150
According to Plato, who really established the term, Philosophy is simply the love of all knowledge. Not the more vague "love of wisdom" in the common modern translation.
Loving the whole of knowledge is a rare trait. A philosopher is fascinated by all information (note that "information" is different from "everything", because "information" specifies that we don't care about repeated messages)
Notice that no other modern academic subject contains the prefix "philo-" = love. For example, we don't call "physics" as "philophysics" - the subject is nature, not the love of nature
So in philosophy the core of the subject is loving all knowledge, information, ideas, insights.
When you love something, that means you care for every part of it. This is why philosophers are uncomfortable in the material world of lies and fraud, where the concept of knowledge is constantly attacked and abused.
People who love knowledge are hardly tempted by corruption, since it never brings them more of what they love most.
Awarding PhDs to non-philosophers has polluted that system beyond repair, Academia is now filled with comfort-seeking rat-racers who are not passionate lovers of knowledge, and there is hardly a point to being educated by such people, whose primary focus is on generating and sustaining their salary

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:18:59 2023 No.15755986 >>15755932 >I don't know and I don't care Just like the monkeys.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:19:11 2023 No.15755987

>>15755979
>that question belongs to the realm of philosophy of science, not science itself. Therefore it doesn't even need an argument from empiricism.
Sorry, all I'm seeing is "I made an empirical claim I can't support".

>advances humanity has made since the scientific revolution speak for themselves when considered against what came before.
That doesn't tell anyone anything about how good/bad philosophy is for science. Try again.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:20:15 2023 No.15755991

>>15755986
Sure, with respect to a literal vending machine. I don't think or care about the internals of a vending machine. Now explain what you thought that poster's vending machine analogy was about, without referencing vending machines or any specific physical mechanisms. Demonstrate my point that you're a subhuman ape with no capacity for abstract thought. :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:21:14 2023 No.15755992 >>15755991 >Sure, with respect to a literal vending machine. As I said, thank you for your concession.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:22:00 2023 No.15755993 File: 44 KB, 379x600, Luther.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755987 disappointing. No attempt at good faith argument. Farewell my close-minded friend

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:22:16 2023 No.15755994 >>15755992 Your subhumanity has once again been demonstrated. Come back when you're capable of abstract thought, you tar-black gorilla nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:23:18 2023 No.15755997 >>15755993 I accept your full concession. You can't support your neoreligion's founding myth with any real evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:23:37 2023 No.15755999 >>15755994 >Your subhumanity Ironic from you, who has conceded that you are like those monkeys previously criticized.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:25:21 2023 No.15756005 >>15755999 I'd assume you are having a psychotic episode if I didn't know you were a literal nigger ape who thinks this is a discussion about vending machines.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:25:39 2023 No.15756006 Reminder that all scientists are natural philosophers, even if they reject that label.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:26:09 2023 No.15756007 >>15756005 I accept your concession.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:27:24 2023 No.15756013 philosophy is a second opinion which might or might not help or impede.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:27:40 2023 No.15756014

>>15755399
I'm not sure which insight to present to you, we would need some context on what you would find interesting.
For example, a profound insight about the material world, which is what most people care about, is that central banks are private organizations that were granted the legal right to mint currency in countries like the US, and that we've had 5000% inflation since the Fed was created in 1913, and that the Fed is nothing other than a naked pyramid scheme for private profit.
You can't find these statements in textbook economics. Instead you find a shell game of layered explanations about the minting process, that dances around and obfuscates the core issue: who works for money, and who fabricates it for free? Who receives the payments on the principal of the US national debt, who eventually receives it in their private bank account?
And so a philosopher can easily ask an economist such penetrating fundamental questions about their own domain, and puzzle them, as the economist has never gotten to the bottom of those questions themselves, they are put off the trail by rhetorical nonsense and fear of the absurd, and so the philosophers are the ones who end up burrowing a path to a poorly understood truth like this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:29:24 2023 No.15756018 >>15756013 All scientific claims are philosophical claims, while the opposite is not true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:30:59 2023 No.15756025 >>15755399 >Tell me the most profound insight you gained from studying philosophy. I've learned that it's morally, intellectually and practically necessary to exterminate your golem subrace.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:31:43 2023 No.15756028 >>15756014 The economist will simply call you an antisemite for asking these questions.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:36:46 2023 No.15756041

>>15756018
humans should never be trusted with philosophy. humans are weak, the strongest of us is still weak as fuck. for philosophy. it will break them in one way or another, it cannot be trusted to mere mortals. most of them wreck on it.
the nature of science makes it so it doesn't matter who presents its findings. you can have the most schizo dimwit who happened to stumble upon it. the nature of the scientific framework implies you can take whatever schizo dimwit found and successfully use it, it facilitates this transfer. philosophy is a wild cat, no human can properly use it. hence it will always be optional/subjective and all that shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:37:42 2023 No.15756042 >>15756041 >>humans should never be trusted with philosophy. What should humans be trusted with? Do you trust me with a rock? I'll split your skull open with it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:40:04 2023 No.15756050 >>15756041 One of the most absurd, mentally ill posts I've read in a while. Thank you for this gem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:40:11 2023 No.15756052 >>15756042 >What should humans be trusted with? well make a scientific argument and I'll trust you, because I have ways to validate your claims. faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:41:12 2023 No.15756054 >>15756050 that is not an argument you dipshit

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:41:57 2023 No.15756056
File: 631 KB, 2000x1333, glacier-national-park-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15756041
>the nature of the scientific framework implies you can take whatever schizo dimwit found and successfully use it
Oh, yeah. They are definitely milking it for all its worth. Exceedingly successful when used against you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:43:05 2023 No.15756060 >>15756052 Why should humans be trusted with science when they use it to invent nerve gas and other technological horrors?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:43:05 2023 No.15756059 >>15756054 Anyone who bothers to "argue" with you is necessarily a half-wit like you. You've never had a conversation with anyone intelligent and you never will. lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:44:52 2023 No.15756062

>>15756056
that's orchestrated by free will having, soul enjoying religious fanatics, your whole shit is based on it. that's exactly my point, philosophy enjoyers should never be trusted with totally not lying and trying to bullshit you into doing things they understand are right for you so it's justified anyway, the bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:45:48 2023 No.15756063 >>15756062 >global warming is philosophy I bet it was philosophy that convinced you to get 4 shots, too. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:49:40 2023 No.15756066 File: 61 KB, 833x611, its_jover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755836 Physfags will never live this one down.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:51:12 2023 No.15756073 >>15756063 no, I mean the people who are pulling the strings, the powers that be. the whole bullshit is done by fanatics who know science works so they improperly use it for various shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:51:51 2023 No.15756075 >>15756066 But you don't know how a vending machine works, either. And by the way, I did eat breakfast. Stop asking me about it. I don't understand what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:53:49 2023 No.15756079 >>15756073 >the whole bullshit is done by fanatics who know science works But you just told me it doesn't matter if literal schizos are doing your science and corporate media presents it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:54:52 2023 No.15756082 What about free will?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:55:33 2023 No.15756085 >>15756075 You are right, I don't know how the metaphoric vending machine work. But I don't pretend that I do or gloat about my ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:57:07 2023 No.15756088 >>15756085 >But I don't pretend that I do or gloat about my ignorance. And that's why you will never be a good modern scientist. :^(

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:58:06 2023 No.15756089 >>15756082 Stop asking about it, monkey priests told me based on their button meshing scheme it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 19:58:46 2023 No.15756091 >>15756079 listen dimwit, what politicians and corporations do with what science finds is not science's business. you sort that shit out on /pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:03:17 2023 No.15756098 >>15756091 Sorry, chud, but science has found that the world is ending in two more weeks if you don't wear the mask and eat your bugs. We have studies and all. There's a scientific consensus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:07:16 2023 No.15756104 File: 1.18 MB, 1166x870, island_man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756091 Consider you little /sci/ sluts will suck any dick for funding, I'd say this place is pretty much /pol/ lite.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:08:47 2023 No.15756108

>>15756098
that's bullshit US politics enacted by religious people. has nothing to do with science, is not science's responsibility the least bit, it's US's politics at most. go back to /pol/ faggot. political bullshit got us in this situation, you will bear it faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:10:27 2023 No.15756112 >>15756108 >peer-reviewed studies have nothing to do with science >worldwide scientific consensus has nothing to do with science Ok, chud.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:14:51 2023 No.15756120

>>15756112
you are at the mercy of politicians, not science. don't expect the consensus to be 100% scientifically objective. it's politics and money which use science as they need, always.
>uses science for shit purposes
>goes on /pol/ "holy shit what did science do guys?"
fucking politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:15:35 2023 No.15756121 >>15755787 You better hope that poster has a degree. Because getting BTFO by someone without a degree would be even more embarrassing for you, lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:16:17 2023 No.15756125 >>15756066 You don't understand how vending machines work either, and if I had not eaten breakfast I would be hungry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:17:54 2023 No.15756129 File: 186 KB, 928x1024, 1640376917953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756120 >peer-reviewed studies have nothing to do with science >worldwide scientific consensus has nothing to do with science Ok, chud.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:18:39 2023 No.15756130

>>15756112
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. Peer review is for journals to cover their asses and avoid publishing something embarrassingly bad. The core of the scientific method is replication, not peer review. Peer reviewers do not attempt to replicate the papers they review as part of the peer review process.

>>	bodhi Tue Sep 19 20:18:43 2023 No.15756131 File: 148 KB, 336x449, seething.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:19:29 2023 No.15756136 >>15756125 >What do you mean? I did have breakfast! Nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:20:09 2023 No.15756137 >>15756136 >I'm a huge nigger who quotes people as saying things they didn't say. See, I can do it too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:20:36 2023 No.15756139 >>15756130 >it wasn't real science >my magical, infallible version of science has never been tried Ok, retard.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:21:20 2023 No.15756141

>>15756129
those are the result of politics you moron, not science.
the complete failure with the pandemic is purely due to politicians and corporations, not science supporters, you moron. they have no agency at such level, they either do what they are being told or they mysteriously drop dead, under totally normal circumstances. because of politicians and corporate working together to make sure they do as they are being told.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:21:26 2023 No.15756142 >>15756139 The scientific method is regularly put into practice every day and has been practiced for centuries. And peer review is not part of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:21:38 2023 No.15756143 >>15756137 Why do you keep telling me about your breakfast, nigger? Did someone press your buttons?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:22:24 2023 No.15756145 >>15756143 Is your blood sugar low? Press one of the buttons on the machine, monkey.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:22:50 2023 No.15756147 >>15756141 >>15756142 Please familiarize yourself with: https://retractionwatch.com/ Your god never was real and never will be real.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:23:41 2023 No.15756148 how many scientists drop dead because certain politicians and money interests and how many politicians and billionaires drop dead because they didn't do what some scientist told them? are you fucking insane? don't you see what's happening?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:24:00 2023 No.15756151 >>15756125 Meh, one of them crazy schizos from /x/ probably saw a circuit board through a creaves. But since they are too scatterbrained to hack out a Mars bar based on what they saw you autists laugh it off everytime.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:24:08 2023 No.15756153

>>15756147
Retractions do not come about due to peer review. Retractions come about after a study passes peer review, gets published, and then fails replication. Replication is the core of the scientific method. Peer review is just ass covering for the scientific publishing industry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:24:30 2023 No.15756154 >>15756148 What's happening is that people are starting to figure out that "science" has always been a scam and you are shitting your pants with fear and rage. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:24:43 2023 No.15756155 >>15756151 >one of them crazy schizos from /x/ No need to speak of yourself in the third person.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:26:06 2023 No.15756157 >>15756153 Your false god is dead. There is no magical method for finding truth. There's just a bunch of people, fallible at best, corrupt on average, pumping out their educated (and/or paid for) guesses.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:26:21 2023 No.15756158

>>15756148
>how many scientists drop dead because certain politicians and money interests
To what are you referring?
>how many politicians and billionaires drop dead because they didn't do what some scientist told them?
Are you talking about Steve Jobs? Does the example of Steve Jobs prove some greater social trend?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:26:30 2023 No.15756159 >>15756154 you don't even understand how retarded you seem, do you?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:28:04 2023 No.15756165

>>15756157
The scientific method is trying things to see if they work. This process works better than any other.

Peer reviewers do not try things to see if they work. They skim papers, maybe look at charts for obvious fabrications, then stamp it as good enough to publish. They don't actually try the thing themselves and see what actually happens.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:28:28 2023 No.15756167 >>15756155 If I am crazy I'd believe one of you. But since I'm not I know you autist bullshit me as much as the schizos. Only difference is you try to bribe me with a candy bar.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:29:37 2023 No.15756170 >>15756167 >>15756151 Your bad grammar is evidence of a mental disorder.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:30:18 2023 No.15756171

>>15756159
>>15756165
Science broders on uselessness when it comes to any complex system. Scientists can and will find data to validate whatever conclusion they or their benefactors want to support. Your false god is dead. There is no magical method for finding truth. There's just a bunch of people, fallible at best, corrupt on average, pumping out their educated (and/or paid for) guesses.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:32:25 2023 No.15756173 >>15756170 Settled science strike yet again.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:33:42 2023 No.15756176

>>15756171
>>Science broders on uselessness when it comes to any complex system.
Complex in what sense? To describe human society and predict the ways people will react? Yes, it's generally useless for that.

To describe the motion of an artillery shell, given two dozen parameters from sensors and other inputs? It works quite well for that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:34:12 2023 No.15756177 >>15756173 >'strike', not 'strikes'

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:35:04 2023 No.15756179

>>15756176
>Complex in what sense? To describe human society and predict the ways people will react? Yes, it's generally useless for that.
It's useless for any complex system.

>To describe the motion of an artillery shell
That's what scientists should stick to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:36:21 2023 No.15756183 >>15755742 Confirmed for being a reddit atheist who fucking loves science

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:36:51 2023 No.15756184 >>15756179 >It's useless for any complex system. Drilling a target with artillery shells from several miles away is complex, the math and knowledge necessary took centuries to develop.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:39:07 2023 No.15756187

>>15756184
>Drilling a target with artillery shells from several miles away is complex,
That's about the level of complexity scientists should stick to. No one needs to hear "scientific" takes on the ecosystem, the climate, human psychology, human consciousness, human society or any other complex system.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:42:19 2023 No.15756194

>>15756187
That's fair, in fact I think you can reasonably argue that performing the scientific process on things like that is effectively if not actually impossible. Running experiments on humans is often effectively impossible due to ethical reasons, and doing the experiments on large enough groups of people to get statistically meaningful results is practically impossible. Good nutrition science on humans is impossible because you can't just lock people up and control their diet. Even if you try to do it with prisoners, you run into ethical violations that prevent you from actually performing the experiments.

None of this refutes the fundamental effectiveness of the scientific process. We are limited by our practical, ethical, and legal ability to scientifically study some matters but that doesn't mean the process itself is somehow flawed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:43:38 2023 No.15756199 >>15756194 >None of this refutes the fundamental effectiveness of the scientific process. All of it refutes the fundamental effectiveness of the scientific process. It's not a reliable method for discovering truth beyond a certain level of complexity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:44:39 2023 No.15756201 >>15756177 >autist think people writing thesis paper for him on 4chan the only thing that cares about giving you good grammer here is my auto correct nerd if I bother enough to press it that is

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:45:48 2023 No.15756204

>>15756199
Our inability to implement the process with regards to some matters is not a limitation of the process itself.

For instance, the process of painting somebody with blue paint is an effective method of turning people blue. But I cannot turn you blue using this process because I don't know who you are or where you live. I am limited by my knowledge of you, not by the process of painting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:45:55 2023 No.15756206 >>15756199 >It's not a reliable method for discovering truth beyond a certain level of complexity. as long as it's mixed with philosophy religion and politics no, it is not. it will be misused/blocked/controlled by said fanatics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:47:21 2023 No.15756209 >>15756206 which is what some of you are trying to do now. scientific method works too good and reveals your bullshit, so you must shut it down. make it seem something bad. get it the fuck under your control.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:47:55 2023 No.15756210 >>15755723 Astrologers were often philosophers. Astro(logy/nomy) was one of the original natural philosophies. Science and philosophy being distinct is a more recent thing than astronomy and astrology being distinct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:48:41 2023 No.15756211 >>15756209 Nobody here is shutting down the scientific method. This is a conversation on 4channel, the fate of science does not lay in the balance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:48:55 2023 No.15756215 >>15756204 >the inherent inapplicability of my process beyond a cetain level of complexity is not a fundamental limit of my process >it totally would work in my alternative fantasy universe Sorry about your mental illness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:49:45 2023 No.15756217 >>15756211 social media sustained propaganda goes a loooong way. >90% vaxxed >stop noticing bro

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:49:50 2023 No.15756218

>>15756176
>To describe the motion of an artillery shell, given two dozen parameters from sensors and other inputs?
In a total war economy that is a job for MBAs, not scientists. Which is why in WWII Harvard Business switched from training MBAs to training ballistic analysts.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:51:14 2023 No.15756220

>>15756215
I do not have plutonium. I don't have enough money to buy plutonium, nor is it legal for me to acquire plutonium. It is therefore impossible for me to scientifically study plutonium.

Does this mean that the scientific method is fundamentally inapplicable to plutonium, or is the limitation really just matter of my own circumstance?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:52:30 2023 No.15756222 >>15756217 4channel discussions didn't stop those 90% from getting vaxxed, nor will they prevent people from employing the scientific method of trying things to see if they work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:52:41 2023 No.15756223 >>15756220 You're like a retard arguing that bogosort is not a fundamentally limited algorithm because if you had infinite time and computing resources you could use it to sort anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:53:22 2023 No.15756224 >>15756218 Actually it's the job of engineers who implement firing control computers to calculate solutions using the equations given to them by physicists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:54:38 2023 No.15756226 >>15756223 Ah, so when you talk about "limits to science" you're really talking about matters of efficiency? Some things are more expensive to study than others, and some things are impractically expensive. This is the limitation you speak of?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:55:46 2023 No.15756232

>>15756226
>you're really talking about matters of efficiency?
I'm talking about matters of applicability in a reality that doesn't abide by your fantasies where you have infinite time, resources and freedom to conduct experiments of unbounded scale, complexity and cruelty.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:57:23 2023 No.15756235

>>15756232
Ever scientist wishes they had more resources available to them, to more effectively study whatever it is that interests them. The practical limitations of resources, time, money, etc are widely understood by everybody. If that is your point, then you're just being tedious.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:57:33 2023 No.15756236

>>15756066
The typical candy ones use a corkscrew-like wire that pushes your desired candy bar forward by making a single full turn. It knows which one you want because you input a number which tells the embedded device (with code probably written in C) which wire to spin.

I'm a physicist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:59:14 2023 No.15756240 >>15756236 There's a lot of hand waving in that story, monkey.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:59:19 2023 No.15756241 >>15756236 How does the wire spin?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 20:59:39 2023 No.15756242

>>15756235
I'm glad we agree that your method is fundamentally inapplicable in this reality as a general method of finding truth. Now kindly fuck off and stop retarding the development of organic processes to deal with issues your dogmatic relic can't handle.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:00:11 2023 No.15756243

>>15756085
Well, the metaphorical vending machine is bullshit, because you're imposing rules on the monkeys that don't necessarily reflect the real world. And even if they did, the monkeys might be able to figure out some of the inner workings of the machine regardless of being unable to examine the internal machinery. Really, the whole analogy is about as shit dumb as a trolly problem. Are you an ethicist by chance?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:01:01 2023 No.15756245 >>15756243 I have some bad news for you: you're too low-IQ to understand the point of a simple analogy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:01:03 2023 No.15756246 >>15756242 >>I'm glad we agree that your method is fundamentally inapplicable in this reality as a general method of finding truth. It is frequently applicable in reality as a method for finding truth. And it frequently isn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:01:42 2023 No.15756249 >>15756243 Why is the trolly problem dumb?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:02:02 2023 No.15756251 >>15756246 >It is frequently applicable >frequently I don't care about your pure subjectivist tripe. It doesn't scale therefore it is not general. Case closed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:02:58 2023 No.15756254 >>15756249 Because it is used to argue in favor of consequential ethics, and consequentialism is fundamentally the art of finding lame excuses to behave immorally.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:03:11 2023 No.15756255

fuck it. money part is made by specialty company. it gets integrated with the rest of the machine. its electronics command motors on the delivery spiny shit, don't know if stepper motors or just dc motors with some feedback, either a switch is pressed each turn, either some magnetic detector . I think that's it, nothing very complex. I've never seen one inside, but pretty sure it's not much different than what I described it as.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:04:10 2023 No.15756257 >>15756251 >It doesn't scale Yet it has produced equations which accurately describe the motions of planets far more massive than all of humanity.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:04:27 2023 No.15756260

>>15756240
Just because it's not explained from first principles doesn't mean it's not true. Those things are all concepts that represent the macro-scale phenomena created by deeper physics. A candy bar is made of a weaving of quantum fields, but it's still a candy bar.

You suck at philosophy and science.

>>15756241
Probably an electromagnet. Have you ever made a piece of wire spin using a battery and a magnet? It's an incredibly simple experiment you can do at home.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:05:02 2023 No.15756261 >>15756255 >I think >don't know

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:05:08 2023 No.15756262

>>15756257
>Yet it has produced equations which accurately describe the motions of planets
So what? It doesn't scale. You've aleardy conceded this. You seriously have some mental issue. It's like you think that if you somehow reframe your concession in different words, the concession will stop being a concession.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:05:27 2023 No.15756263 >>15756249 Because why am I responsible for the evil done by the madman tying people to railroad tracks?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:05:50 2023 No.15756264

>>15756260
>Just because it's not explained from first principles doesn't mean it's not true.
I didn't say you're wrong, I said you're leaving details out. For instance, how does the computer induce a screw to turn?
>probably an electromagnet
And how does the computer control the electromagnet?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:06:34 2023 No.15756267 >>15756263 Legitimate take. You just did a philosophy, reflecting on the issue of moral responsibility. Uh oh. Stop it, dumdum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:06:47 2023 No.15756270 >>15756262 >It doesn't scale. It scales in some regards and not others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:07:24 2023 No.15756272 >>15756261 yeah, best guess based on previous experience with other gear. science is like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:08:26 2023 No.15756274 >>15756270 See? Mental illness. You've already conceded it doesn't scale in one regard. That means it's not general.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:09:30 2023 No.15756275 >>15756274 When was the scientific method ever claimed to be a practical way to examine literally any arbitrary thing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:10:15 2023 No.15756278 >>15756275 >When was the scientific method ever claimed to be a practical way to examine literally any arbitrary thing? If you get out of your basement, you will find that a good 90% of soientists and 100% of pop-sci fans think this way.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:11:15 2023 No.15756281

>>15756264
>how does the computer induce a screw to turn?
pff, easy. if it has a sensible motion sensor it may be able to tell that there's a resonance forming with the CPU cooler at certain speeds which depends on the heat the CPU is producing which is controllable via software. you could optimize a PID loop to whack that bitch out, keep the CPU load at the perfect temperature for the right CPU fan vibration which works the screw out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:11:34 2023 No.15756282 >>15756278 Every scientist understands that limits are imposed by their access to resources.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:12:16 2023 No.15756283 >>15756281 lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:12:32 2023 No.15756284 >>15756281 Wow, that sounds just like the way I use emacs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:12:36 2023 No.15756285 >>15756281 Oh I've seen this video. The Rockwell turbo encabulator right?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:14:24 2023 No.15756287

>>15756282
They only understand it on the primitive monkey level of "society doesn't pamper me enough", not on the level of fundamental limitations. It's truly remarkable that we've been using the same primitive algorithm for centuries and no one is doing any serious work to come up with a better one. Science is the most static and crude religion humanity has ever known.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:16:44 2023 No.15756291

>>15756260
Jesus fucking christ this is the reason why people call you lot autists.
"Candy bars" here represents experimental results. The story is that you autist spins complete bullshit stories and when get questioned on it you simply go "but the numbers confirm it".
You might have 200 IQ on paper but evidently it means jackshit outside your autistic hobby of juggling mathematic scribbles when the meaning of such simple metaphor goes completely over your head.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:16:47 2023 No.15756292 File: 10 KB, 325x325, 1685286444204428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756287 >They only understand it on the primitive monkey level Just like you using a vending machine, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:17:48 2023 No.15756296 >>15756292 Uh oh. Did I push your buttons again? Are you angry that the vending machine of society doesn't give your priests the goodies?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:18:34 2023 No.15756298 >>15756291 You shut the fuck up. We will understand the universe as soon as we discover the mcguffion

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:19:20 2023 No.15756300 >>15756296 >>15756287 We all eagerly await your new process for finding truth. I'm sure you can do better than a primitive algorithm worked out centuries ago. That is, unless you are just another one of those monkeys.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:21:36 2023 No.15756301 >>15756300 >We all eagerly await Of course your priests are gonna "eagerly await" and nothing more. They are quite fine lying through their teeth and conducting meaningless, fake "research" while living on public funds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:22:31 2023 No.15756302 >>15756301 You suggest that a better process is possible. Show us the way it's done.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:24:13 2023 No.15756303

>>15756302
well you see there's a few chosen ones, you cannot question them, they will tell you what you need to do and you have to shut the fuck up. that's the best method of finding truth. will also package some meaning and purpose, maybe a soul...free will?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:24:22 2023 No.15756304 >>15756302 How many hours of your life have you invested into this question yourself?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:25:18 2023 No.15756307 >>15756304 None, because I am satisfied with the effectiveness of the scientific method. You, who is unsatisfied, should be the one investing time into finding a better way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:26:46 2023 No.15756310 >>15756307 >None I rest my case. Your god is dead and your stagnant religion is falling apart. All you can do is seethe and claim "it wasn't real science" every time your priests get caught.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:27:28 2023 No.15756311 >>15756310 You, who claims that a better method for finding truth exists, cannot produce this method. Curious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:31:52 2023 No.15756322 >>15756311 >curious My point stands undisputed. The growing mass of people shitting all over your establishment and its dogma are unironically doing more to advance human knowledge than you ever will with your hyperspecialzed fart-smelling degree.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:31:58 2023 No.15756323 ATTENTION FELLOW HUMANS THIS IS A NIGGER TEIR THREAD ANYONE WHO DOESNT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS A RETARDED NIGGER FAGGOT WHO SUCKS BILL GATES’ JEW NIGGER COCK

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:32:01 2023 No.15756324 >>15756311 Nta, but if you were around 300 years ago and pointed out that blood letting wouldn't cure anyone of cancer, you wouldn't be incorrect just because you couldn't find an actual cure to cancer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:32:46 2023 No.15756328 >>15756322 You have no method which produces truth more effectively than the scientific method. If you did, you would be able to present it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:33:40 2023 No.15756331 >>15756323 >ATTENTION FELLOW HUMANS >THIS IS A NIGGER TEIR THREAD It's a black science man thread, you don't need to explain this to us. We all already know it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:34:55 2023 No.15756333

>>15756328
I never claimed I did. But you have zero credibility on the issue of whether or not it makes sense to look for a better method, since you, according to your own admission, have never bothered to consider it or look beyond your traditional dogma. lol.

REMINDER: The growing mass of people shitting all over your establishment and its dogma are unironically doing more to advance human knowledge than you ever will with your hyperspecialzed fart-smelling degree.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:35:03 2023 No.15756334 >>15756324 There is no better method for determining whether something works as claimed than trying it yourself to see if it works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:35:33 2023 No.15756335 >>15756333 see >>15756334

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:36:16 2023 No.15756338 >>15756335 I don't see anything relevant. Try again.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:38:09 2023 No.15756339

>>15756338
Trying something to see if it works is the fundamental scientific process. There is no more effective process. Nobody can produce one, nor can anybody even provide a reason to believe that a superior method might exist. Why then should we entertain the possibility of such a superior method?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:38:54 2023 No.15756341 >>15756339 >There is no more effective process. You've already conceded that you have zero credibility on this matter since you never bothered to think about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:39:43 2023 No.15756342 >>15756341 You, who has thought about it, cannot produce any reason to believe a superior method for finding truth might exist. All your thinking produced no fruit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:41:39 2023 No.15756346 >>15756342 I really don't care about your tripe. You've conceded all of my main points and I'm satisfied with that. Anything else you shart out into this thread is irrelevant after your open admission that you have zero credibility in this matter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:42:42 2023 No.15756348 >>15756346 You have conceded my point. You cannot produce a better method for finding truth. No such method exists.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:46:17 2023 No.15756354

>>15756348
Your "point" is worthtless. The fact that I can't produce a better method (assuming that's even true) proves nothing. Meanwhile my demonstration of the dogmatic stagnancy of so-called "science" (not to mention your delusional pride in it) stands for all to see.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:46:52 2023 No.15756355 >>15756354 >I can't produce a better method I accept your concession.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:46:54 2023 No.15756356 >>15756348 Even if he is incapable of identifying a method that would be superior, it doesn't mean such a method doesn't exist or that his critique of the scientific method is incorrect. You seem like a disingenuous nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:47:21 2023 No.15756357 >>15756348 Science doesn't care about truth. It doesn't produce truth. In fact, it's scaffolding is the opposite of truth and it sweeps the rubble under a different rug of lies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:47:48 2023 No.15756360 >>15756356 If he cannot produce evidence for such a method, then there is no rational reason to believe that it exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:48:11 2023 No.15756362 >>15756356 You are arguing with a nigger monkey who is outright proud of his inability and unwillingness to think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:49:49 2023 No.15756366 >>15756362 Share the fruits of your thinking with us. What have you found?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:50:28 2023 No.15756367 >>15756360 So you are a disingenuous nigger then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:51:15 2023 No.15756369 >>15756367 Then you should be able to explain why you believe a method superior to the scientific method exists to be found.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:51:18 2023 No.15756370
File: 147 KB, 800x789, 23523433.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>ummm, sweaty??
>i don't see any peer-reviewed studies that suggest there's a better way to do X
>therefore there's no rational reason to think there may be a better way to do X
>therefore the scientific approach is not to consider this possibility
This is the state of modern science. lol. It's like these apes are going out of their way to demonstrate that their critics are right about everything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:51:59 2023 No.15756372 >>15756370 Peer review is not part of the scientific process, we've been over this. Peer review is nothing more than ass-covering for the publishing industry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:52:40 2023 No.15756374 >the retarded ape is gonna keep trying to (You) me Obsessed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:53:20 2023 No.15756377 >>15756374 With this comment, I have successfully (You)'d you. It was easy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:55:09 2023 No.15756379 Sooner or later, a retarded ape will try to react to this post in some way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 21:55:14 2023 No.15756380 File: 1.68 MB, 470x264, ITT.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:00:38 2023 No.15756393 >>15756380 Don't you question his monkey business, that furry creature understand exactly what he's doing. The rest of you shut up and calc..I mean button mash.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:02:44 2023 No.15756398 >>15756393 The monkey does as well as he can. None can do better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:05:52 2023 No.15756402 File: 106 KB, 1024x682, 32524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >The monkey does as well as he can. None can do better. The final state.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:09:38 2023 No.15756405 >>15756402 This is the whole point of the thread, isn't it? The best the monkey can do is to try things and see if they work. This is also the best scientists can do. Nobody has ever been able to propose a better way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:14:10 2023 No.15756408 File: 100 KB, 600x723, 532444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the dumb ape keeps grunting at me Sad.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:14:40 2023 No.15756409

>>15756393
>>15756405
Oh but the monkey is doing better than he can.
Because according to the monkey the ability to mash out a coke can means technically he understand electronics and how the machine was made.
I like the coke, I don't like the stories. The priests already bs'd me for my bananas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:15:19 2023 No.15756410 >>15756408 >"dumb ape!" grunts the dumb ape You aren't smarter than everybody else, you haven't figured out a better method than the monkey's method. If the monkey is a dumb ape, then so are you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:17:06 2023 No.15756414 File: 62 KB, 640x500, 41232.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the dumb ape forgoes grunting and starts squealing at me and making violent gestures MODS! Put this animal back in its cage!

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:18:43 2023 No.15756416

>>15756409
The monkey doesn't know how the vending machine works, but he tries pressing buttons and figures out which buttons get him what he wants.
And you do not understand how the universe works. But what you can do is try things and see if they work. That's what the monkey does, that's what scientists ostensibly strive to do, and it's the best you can do.

You seem to believe there is some better way waiting to be discovered. This seems like faith to me, because you cannot explain what that better way might be or why you believe it should exist, but you believe in it nevertheless. That's pretty silly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:19:21 2023 No.15756418 >>15756414 >the dumb ape, confronted with the fact of being a dumb ape, screeches for the jannies to silence the stimulus that causes him displeasure

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:19:41 2023 No.15756419 >>15756414 ironic that the person frothing at the mouth in this thread is the one calling people apes

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:23:28 2023 No.15756425 File: 192 KB, 960x956, k2pbq6kzrty41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15755625 >best post in the thread >ignored because sci is too retarded to respond

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:23:57 2023 No.15756426 File: 353 KB, 700x343, 5324324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >monkeys keep seething and screeching at me Fuck off, I don't know how to fix your vending machine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:27:26 2023 No.15756433 >>15756425 >>15755625 >The real test of a physical theory comes in comparing it's predictions with observations. We call that the scientific method.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:27:45 2023 No.15756435

>>15756416
And just like the other autist above metaphors fly straight over your head.
The metaphor doesn't allude to fact that there is a better way to figure things out.
The metaphor allude to the fact monkies take advantage of their button mashing skill to bs the rest of the tribe on things they actually know nothing about.
You should leave that part to the priests, they bs'd enough as it is.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:32:56 2023 No.15756441

>>15756435
The monkeys don't know how the vending machine works and the stories they invent about the vending machine are bogus. But the monkeys nevertheless learn how to get the desired treats out of the machine. They learn what combination of buttons get a treat to come out, without any real understanding of the underlying truth.

This also is the best that physicists can do. Instead of combinations of buttons, they produce equations. The real test of those equations is to compare their predictions to observations: >>15756433 That is the scientific method. It doesn't produce correct stories about why the equations work, the "interpretations" of the equations are as false as the monkey stories about how the vending machine works. But that doesn't matter, the point is that the equations and button combinations produce results which are useful to society. The stories about why those things work are superferlous. Monkey society doesn't reward the vending machine specialists for their cute stories, they reward them for testable results. So it is with scientists as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:39:39 2023 No.15756450 >>15756179 >That's what scientists should stick to. I think there's a way for you to make this distinction much earlier in your arguments that would save you a lot of time in the future

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:39:40 2023 No.15756451

>>15756441
>Monkey society doesn't reward the vending machine specialists for their cute stories
You sure about that? You sure there aren't entire disciplines whose sole purpose is to spin cute stories?
You sure when like things like "free-will" or "consciousiness" or "beginning of the universe" gets in the way of their cute stories they don't throw a fit? Just like the priests do when you question their cute stories?

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:40:31 2023 No.15756453
File: 22 KB, 200x223, 200px-Kepler-Wallenstein-Horoskop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15756433
And when people make novel predictions that advance science the most. Who are they and how do they make them?
>o-obviously they use the s-scientific method, right?
Whatever helps you sleep at night anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:41:19 2023 No.15756455 >>15756450 The way to save time is to stop reasoning with soience apes altogether and continue defaming them and their institution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:42:08 2023 No.15756458 >>15756451 The only reason the monkey society may humor the stories of the vending machine specialists is because the vending machine specialists are able to get treats out of the machine.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:43:37 2023 No.15756461

>>15756453
>>And when people make novel predictions that advance science the most. Who are they and how do they make them?
>>o-obviously they use the s-scientific method, right?
No, they use intuition, guesswork, and stumbling in the dark. Those aren't the scientific method; the scientific method is the process of trying the ideas produced by that intuition and guesswork to see if those ideas actually work.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:48:42 2023 No.15756471

>>15755150
Yes it is. How much science are philosophy majors capable of doing? Since they do no science, this is why they are midwits. Besides your strawman image, physicists have to develop the questions before they can attempt to answer them, and without the required background and understanding of high level mathematics, it is not possible to ask these questions.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:51:18 2023 No.15756475

>>15756458
Oh but the tribe do much more than humor; They think it's the Truth, and it's been spinned as such.
Just as the priest caste asked for absolute faith in God, the vending machine specialists are now asking for absolute faith in the vending machine mechanic. Just as like the theorized God they exclaim, these constants would never change.
And because they never change, we can now know everything through extrapolation about past and future of well, everything! Now hear my cutes stories!

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:52:18 2023 No.15756478

>>15755720
Lets not forget that essentially ALL of mathematics in history up to around the renaissance period, was also made by astrologers. Abacists, actuaries and accountants had their golden era from then until the late 1800s, when imo mathematics became its own discipline and not a subdiscipline of physicists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 22:53:47 2023 No.15756479 >>15756475 If you prefer the monkey tribe believe your stories instead, then you should find a better way of getting treats out of the vending machine. Otherwise the tribe will never see you as anything more than a bitter complainer.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:03:50 2023 No.15756486

>>15755150
Through capitalism, society continually attempts to divorce both economics and science from philosophy.
Too much philosophy and feels get in the way of number going up.
The only encouraged philosophies are the ones that support the endeavor.

The disciplines are all intertwined, but they can stifle each other in our limited mental bandwidth if you let them, so we often curtail one to the benefit of the the other to make progress.

How long do you want to sit around and debate the benefits and costs of an action before you do it?
You will never find closure in the eternal Should VS Could debate.

The only people who talk about this are madmen, pseuds, and people who are upset others aren't taking their feelings into consideration (see: liberals or conservatives who want to use technology "responsibly" to push their own beliefs/agendas)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:18:56 2023 No.15756502 >>15756479 I don't have a story; I'm an honest man and admit what I don't know.

>>	bodhi Tue Sep 19 23:20:07 2023 No.15756506 return to monke (for free snacks)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:20:11 2023 No.15756507 >>15756502 >>I don't have a story Then you're pissing into the wind. You''ll never put those story tellers out of business unless you tell better stories.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:26:40 2023 No.15756516 File: 153 KB, 1280x853, 35as5s56680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756507 It's not my business what people choose to believe; I just find it fun to point out bullshits. What people make of it got nothing to do with me.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:30:11 2023 No.15756521

>>15756486
>How long do you want to sit around and debate the benefits and costs of an action before you do it?
>You will never find closure in the eternal Should VS Could debate.

>The only people who talk about this are madmen, pseuds, and people who are upset others aren't taking their feelings into consideration (see: liberals or conservatives who want to use technology "responsibly" to push their own beliefs/agendas)
Deranged.

Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:36:19 2023 No.15756533
File: 33 KB, 1152x648, 173233456783.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15755980
>>15755979
>>15755993
>>15756014
>>15756056
>>15756089
>>15756120
>>15756130
>>15756142
>>15756157
>>15756194
>>15756209
>>15756240
>>15756251
>>15756267
>>15756291
>>15756292
>>15756334
>>15756486
>>15756475
This is 4chan's Science & Math board.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:41:48 2023 No.15756546 File: 340 KB, 445x360, 35tle6s64sd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756533 So? Plenty of people go on /x/ to laugh at the schizos. Did you think you were above ridicule?

Cult of Passion Tue Sep 19 23:52:08 2023 No.15756566
File: 206 KB, 664x853, 2022-10-03_18.36.26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15756546
>to laugh at the schizos.
"Why do I only have bread and circus."

...because you only wanted a laugh, you fucking idiot...tell me your major so I can flip your ficking table, boy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 19 23:58:20 2023 No.15756580 >>15756533 Yes, you have successfully oriented yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 00:07:49 2023 No.15756590 File: 72 KB, 564x1032, 57503ec09495d5edfaa82ad4f798eb6a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15756566 >offended schizo /x/ told me hot alien babes from the Pleiades going to be here by 2027. I'll laugh until I get sexually harassed by one.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 00:41:12 2023 No.15756638

>>15756521
You really took the time to write a post thinking you've deciphered something that wasn't already overtly implied.
Yes, I engaged with the idea.
Yes, that means I fall into one of those categories.
I'd personally put myself more into the pseud category, but I'm flattered you think I belong under madmen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 00:54:14 2023 No.15756656 >>15755392 You are not White

>>	D. A. G. I. A. Wed Sep 20 03:56:07 2023 No.15756837 >>15755150 My favorite class in college was the philosophy of science

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 04:08:17 2023 No.15756847 File: 358 KB, 1536x2048, p159395_p_v10_ab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] A world of ever advancing science and knowledge with ever diminishing philosophy and wisdom is a 1 way road to Idiocracy.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 04:47:45 2023 No.15756896
File: 95 KB, 641x1000, Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15755150
No the midwittery is pretending that not asking the question of philosophy solves the questions posed by philosophy. It's fine to not ask the question and begin your inquiry in medias res, the great advance of the Enlighenment was to forgo trying to philosophise systematically from first principles and to rather approach problems discretely and advance piece by piece: you can better understand the study of the parts by not losing them in a study of the whole. The great stride in scientific advances begins when natural philosophers stop trying to be system builders like Descartes and start to approach the problems in scientific fields discretely as individual problems and more or less ignore the systems or premsies the field relies on, see Cassirer for the history of it.

The problem is mistaking the benefits of that strategy of discrete study of particular fields with actually answering the questions of the whole. Assuming the premises that ground your field does not prove the premises, and establishing them remains a valid question outside the remit of the particular fields that rely on those premises to establish their field.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 07:09:18 2023 No.15757078

>>15755749
x is a subset of y =/= y is more betterer than x
Just because you believe scientists to be more betterer than philosophers it doesn't mean philosophy is a subset of science. Dumb niggerfaggot.
Likewise science being a subset of philosophy doesn't imply that most (let alone all) of philosophy has any value whatsoever.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 07:13:02 2023 No.15757083
File: 213 KB, 986x728, d489063a722b63f8241e466c96e73e5c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15756896
They can't.

The old answers to the questions of the whole has been vested with too much cultural significance. The old guards that won the day from the Abrahamics through fire and blood have been carved into every highschool science book and generations associate them as the gospel truth. Any attempt at heretical deviation is implicitly seen as "anti-science" by the plebeian masses. Politically entire disciplines of livelihoods depends on the legitimacy of the old answers, as well as the career of actual politicans.

The temptation of the priest robe proved too much, its riches too rewarding, ever as it has been.
Through out the generations, too many whose predecessors who had their humble beginnings in the scientific method forgot their root and in moments of weakness decide to don the robe. Moment after moment, speech after speech, book after book, and field after field. The bureaucratic monstrosity that stands today do not and can not tolerate paradigm shift. Externally it demands solidarity in placating the masses and internally it demands results without interpretation. New answers must never contradict the old, only adding to it. New initiates are not permitted think for themselves until they have earned the right, after thorough indoctrination.

It's the story of human nature, demonstrated again and again in fiction or history. Noble beginning progressing to the inevitably fall. A cycle as old as time.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 07:44:37 2023 No.15757117

>>15755850
The point of this post, just to clarify for those that don't get it (most of this board): fitting data might tell you what are the rules, i.e. what sequence of buttons to push to get the treat. Once you know that, you can say your "theory" predicts accurately the operation of the vending machine. Notice though how the theory doesn't tell you anything about the inner workings of the machine, you're merely fitting data. Yes, you will consistently get treats, but what if the internal mechanism are not efficient at all as they are? Like some gear that gets stuck because of friction, requiring you to push the same button multiple times? Your theory won't tell you anything about it, so you won't be able to improve the machine at all, for example by requiring a single push of the button instead of a sequence. This is the essential problem in modern physics: QM is a black box that spews out numbers, just like the spewing out of treats from the sequence of buttons. There's no deeper understanding of the workings of nature, and physicist will tell you "that's ok, we can still build quantum computers out if it!" disregarding the fact that there might be a way more efficient way to build one if we only dug deeper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 08:20:02 2023 No.15757153 >>15757117 >if we only dug deeper. How If you can think of a way to dig deeper, by all means tell us

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 08:43:28 2023 No.15757177 >>15757153 >t. 14th century Plague Doctor believing in miasmas.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:11:01 2023 No.15757210

>>15757153
For one, recognize that conceptually the probabilistic interpretations suck, that QFT is plagued by infinities and that renormalization is not a legitimate physical thing, and that particles are not infinitesimal point-like excitations of waves of probabilities. After you're done with that you can go further back to GR, and recognize that the speed of light is not constant at all in the theory; that the original vision of Einstein was that of space as a transparent medium, a single unified field unlike the multiple particle fields of quantum mechanics.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:15:50 2023 No.15757220
File: 15 KB, 645x264, tpmzoao826iuhfppr1gw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15755150
If philosopoors were so based how come not a single one siding with /sci/zos on epistomology of picrel
I could give a fuck about their intellectual wankery if they talked about real life problems instead of circlejerking each other

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:22:12 2023 No.15757235
File: 111 KB, 696x1000, metametaphysics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15757083
Don't be daft, there's plenty of study and discussion of the issues. That popular science spokespeople beclown themselves when they stray outside their fields and attempt to speak on it is neither here nor there, it's merely the very common character fault of hubris.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:39:18 2023 No.15757261 >>15757210 Ok, done, realized. What now?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:56:40 2023 No.15757286 >>15757261 Now go back to the fucking drawing board instead of perpetrating pseudoscience to inflate your paycheck. I want my hoverboard yesterday

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 09:57:12 2023 No.15757289
File: 64 KB, 815x1024, 1675715341347798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15757235
Typical philosopher with nose stuck squrely between pages.
Signs of institutional rot are all there, just matter of time before the whole business implode under itself own weight.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 10:21:54 2023 No.15757323 >>15757289 >Typical philosopher with nose stuck squrely between pages To the contrary, I think he's very adapt at been political ;)

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 10:29:37 2023 No.15757334 File: 23 KB, 600x439, 1744278832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15757286 >I want my hoverboard yesterday WHERE IS THE HOBERBOAAAAAARD!?

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 10:31:54 2023 No.15757341
File: 480 KB, 1620x1080, 1640797097283.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>this thread is still getting bumped
Daily reminder:
1. Science is a false god
2. God is dead
3. Scientism wasn't even a good religion - it became stagnant and died because its doctrines never evolved

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 11:43:03 2023 No.15757449 >>15755150 You need to value objective truth for your research to have any worth but no philosophy beyond the search for truth should influence your findings.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 11:44:05 2023 No.15757451 >>15757449 Low IQ take. There is no "objective" way to do induction.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 11:46:46 2023 No.15757455 >>15757451 True, that is why hypothesis must be tested.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 11:47:34 2023 No.15757457 >>15757455 Testing doesn't resolve this "issue".

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 11:54:04 2023 No.15757464 >>15757455 Two different algorithms framed in terms of different entities and different processes can generate identical data. Hopefully you can see why this doesn't bode well for your argument.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 13:01:10 2023 No.15757561

>>15757289
You're neurotically crafting your own misery porn to masturbate to and making a hell of heaven; there have never been more people discussing and working on philosophy than ever before in human history, philosophy has never been easier to learn and engage with. That scientists give bad answers when asked about philosophy matters little if anything at all, if you want philosophy questions answered ask a philosopher and engage with philosophical texts and journals. What does engaging in misery porn tantrums have to do with answering any philosophical questions? What actual philosophy have you avoided by weeping over Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other science media figures giving poor answers outside their field of expertise instead of reading and engaging with a philosophy work?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 13:03:51 2023 No.15757567 >>15757561 >there have never been more people discussing and working on philosophy That's bad. If your IQ is below 130 you shouldn't know how to read and write, let alone discuss philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 14:11:57 2023 No.15757664

>>15755368
>This is convenient for those who control you
Yeah if you are a retard who believes in whatever "interpretation" they tell you instead of just picking whichever one is your personal favorite. Interpretation is personal; it is not objective fact. Being unable to separate the two is indicative of being a dick-riding philosophy major who knows nothing of mathematics ;) (and no, they are not the same thing just because philosophy predates mathematics. Mathematics was invented as a way of extracting objectivity from all the other subjective areas of philosophy--i.e. separating actual provable truths from the stuff that requires you to simply "believe" in some BS someone else who you think is smarter than you told you... but you wouldn't know anything about that, because you do not understand how logic and proofs work; you just like to read opinion pieces that sound "cool" or "smart" to you. That's why YOU'RE an easy to manipulate midwit)

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 14:13:30 2023 No.15757670 >>15757664 Your incoherent drivel doesn't address anything I said. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 17:35:23 2023 No.15758152 Scientism fags seething itt

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 18:20:07 2023 No.15758235 >>15755434 >redunded lol lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 18:37:42 2023 No.15758276 >>15758235 I accept your congession.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 18:47:07 2023 No.15758294
File: 84 KB, 1024x985, 11235543269246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15757561
Like I said, squarely between the pages.
It's absolutely bewildering that a discipline with politics as one of 5 official branches can be so completely oblivious to its machinations in the world at large; this latest charade by Tyson is just a drop in the bucket of the signs of stagnation and decay.

The modern scientist cannot afford to ask those fundamental questions, period. Too many interest are at odds and too many livelihoods at risk.

I swear, the greed of science is ever matched by the naivety of the philosopher. This misery porn practically writes itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 21:10:15 2023 No.15758696 Academia and Fiat faggotry ruined all Science progression

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 22:25:46 2023 No.15758864 >>15755150 Philosophy without science is worse than science without philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 23:34:50 2023 No.15758966 >>15758864 >peaceful farming communal >cyberpunk 2077 Sure bout that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 20 23:40:20 2023 No.15758970 >>15758966 >peaceful kek >Philosophy without science you mean religion.

Anonymous Wed Sep 20 23:54:59 2023 No.15758979

>>15758970
Of course, ethics strives to achieve a harmonious society. It falls short of that ultimate mark same as science do theirs since I don't have my 10/10 cyborg waifu and have to work 9-5.
But if I had to choose I'd rather live in a hypothetical peaceful pre-industrial village than a high-tech cyberpunk society full of conflicts, but that's just me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 21 00:24:49 2023 No.15759030

>>15758979
yeah but fleas and bugs and disease. it CAN be good, for short while, in between getting raped, have all of your shit taken away and other classical shits.
meanwhile cyberpunk is just fearmongering, we don't really know how it will end up. and that's not dictated by any morals dude, that's dictated by money. with or without religion or philosophy. army generals and politicians and billionaires decide shit, they don't give a fuck about all that noise, religion and philosophy and morals. lol.

Anonymous Thu Sep 21 01:12:15 2023 No.15759107

>>15759030
>cyberpunk is just fearmongering
>disease and rape is for sure
Why do you somehow think the classical period is the ideal philosophic utopia? Why because some of the best philosophers are alive then? By that logic I guess the 1900s must be the ideal scientific utopia since Einstein and other greats are alive there. I mean that's as good as scientific progress will ever get right?
Technology devoided of ethics is a one way ticket to cyberpunk, thats not fearmongering that's an absolute certainty.
Ethics devoid of technology means I might lead a meager life, but at least I don't have to worry about getting raped as you so aptly put it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 21 06:31:35 2023 No.15759661 >>15758966 Non-sequitur response

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