/sci/ - Science & Math

[Abandoning the common sense No.2106202]

Basically the common sense is a set of intuitions that is hold by a majority of people. These intuitions however failed again and again during the course of history.

Therefore I think we should for pragmatic reasons alone abandon the common sense in the intellectual discourse. In our everyday lives we may still use it because it is hard to abandon it completely. But it has no place in the intellectual discourse because our intuitions about the world often enough failed to be in agreement with actual reality.

Instead of the common sense we need to create a methodology that is objective and based on empiricism. Only basic logic succeeded in being right.

[Abandoning the common sense No.2106210]

ITT: epistemological Methodism vs. epistemological particularism

[Anonymous No.2106215]

You know what you get when you take intuition out of mathematics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_mathematics

Fuck everything about that. Every. Fucking. Thing.

[Anonymous No.2106218]

common sense = basic logic

[Anonymous No.2106220]

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

[Anonymous No.2106230]

>>2106218

nope. Basic logic is part of the common sense (for most people) but it is not the same.

[Anonymous No.2106232]

We really need a philosophy board.

[Anonymous No.2106242]

>>2106215

What's wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.2106244]

The problem with your thesis is that Godel proved you can't do it. (There's a lot more to it than that but that's the short answer)

[Anonymous No.2106251]

>>2106244

I am not saying we should abandon our intuitions completely. But they can not be used for arguments in the intellectual discourse

[Anonymous No.2106258]

Was going to post that...

[Anonymous No.2106262]

>>2106242

It fosters the myth that modern mathematics is somehow "too complex" for a deductive approach, and thus devalues the emphasis put into developing rigour among undergraduates in lieu of generating a tonne of, what is essentially, meaningless data.

[Anonymous No.2106284]

>>2106262

Fair, but do you suppose that there are cases where that is warranted? I mean are there cases where taking the path less traveled allows for revolution?

[Anonymous No.2106288]

>>2106210

Methodism. You can't be religious while being an Epistemological Methodist. Shows that religion is BS once again.

[Anonymous No.2106297]

>>2106288

why?

[Anonymous No.2106329]

>>2106284

Certainly. It has led to many important discoveries. However, the correct way to go about experiments in mathematics is:

Intuition => Numerical experiment => More intuition => Deduction

What we seem to be heading towards is:

Stick some numbers into the magic box => ??? => Profit!

[Anonymous No.2106338]

>>2106297

Because the theists cannot formulate a precise and all-embracing criteria prior to their arguments. For example: What meaning is given to "probable" in the context of the actualization of possible universes by a creator? This question can not be answered by the theists when they are urged to explain why it should at least be probable that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. But when probabilistic concepts are applied to arcane metaphysical claims, clearly we have the right to ask the question of whether such concepts have legitimate application here. The theist refers to occult processes that by their very nature utterly transcend any possible experience and therefore they can not say HOW they know anything about their probability.

[Anonymous No.2106345]

>>2106338

[Anonymous No.2106348]

ITT: Rationalists try to justify a way of living without experience.

HAVE....FUN! <3

[Anonymous No.2106371]

>>2106338

This sounds amazingly reasonable. Too bad no christfag will ever be able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.2106384]

>This thread
One guy talking to himself.

[Anonymous No.2106376]

>>2106348
Too bad, better luck next time
Try another board, you might have more luck