[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 300x300, 1362757481295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5592809 No.5592809 [Reply] [Original]

Science is a series paradigmatic shifts that provides great insights and progress but to get that you need to be a radical with an open mind studying beyond the conventional methodology the teaching of which stagnates the entire enterprise into simple circle jerking empiricism (a form of religious worship).

>> No.5592813

Fuck off back to /lit/ with your undergrad pseudo-philosophy.

>> No.5592815

I approve this message.

>> No.5592812

That's what I tell niggas but they don't listen

>> No.5592823

Monitoring this thread to see if anyone can defend the faith.

>> No.5592826

>>5592813

That's not an argument; try again.

>> No.5592827

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

>> No.5592835

Gallileo, had he followed the scientific method, would never have found anything worthwhile.

>> No.5592840

Consider this:

>researcher finds something unique and ground-breaking
>peer-reviews
>everyone else fails to understand, considers the novelty an error, a stupidity, or a heresy
>no article published
>researcher runs out of funds
>back to being a lab-whore to some corporation that wants us to pay 200 dollars for a pill that costs 2 and doesn't heal us

>> No.5592845

>>5592840

Not to mention the drive for getting published in journals leads to lack of insight and diminishing returns. Nearly all the branches have been plucked free. Scientists are busy engaging themselves with ironing out existent knowledge in such a fashion as to lend themselves worthy of publishing. There is a similar, if larger, problem in the humanities, but it's definitely infecting the sciences more than the sciences are willing to acknowledge. There is a great deal of near-religious thinking going on.

>> No.5592855

Science is 21st century religion.

>only a few can actually read and understand scientific work at the cutting edge and long before

Just like clergy in Medieval times

>everyone else blindly believes

Same.

>anyone who dare say a thing against the dogma is considered a moron, a fool, or else

Just like heretics back then.

Same thing.

>> No.5592859

>the teaching of which stagnates the entire enterprise into simple circle jerking empiricism
You need to reinforce your 'stagnation' argument. Implied in this statement is that empirically deduced observation is causing said stagnation, when the entirety of the scientific method relies on a Bayesian probability applied to empirical data.

The claim here:
>that provides great insights and progress
is good. You concede the futility of relativism and denying of objective knowledge, but the whole argument hinges on the unfounded claim that 'circle jerking empiricism' – 'circle jerking' was uncalled for. Empirical models are traded, yes – is causing some kind of stagnation in the enterprise. We know this is not the case, as the scientific method is continuing to refine it's models.

>> No.5592867

Scientists are too biased. Only research whose foreseen conclusions are appreciated by them get funded and done.

That's why science hasn't been stellar lately. What's the last history-making discover science made?

>> No.5592872

Doubt everything.

....errrr except the fact that you should doubt everything..
...and the fact that you should make and exception to doubting everything.

AND...And of course, you shouldn't doubt that you shouldn't doubt, that you shouldn't doubt everything. Gotta put that in.

>> No.5592888

>>5592867
>What's the last history-making discover science made?

Just in the last twelve months:

-Higgs Boson
-Genomic Rare Variants
-Genome Sequencing for Fetuses
-Teleporting quantum particles more than 50 miles
-XNA: A fully synthesized genetic molecule. so now we have DNA, RNA and XNA
-The discovery of a planet 4.4 light-years from Earth, with saline oceans and an atmosphere.

>> No.5592893

>>5592888

>history-making

Press releases don't count toward relevance.

>> No.5592894

>>5592888
none of those matter though, and has more or less zero impact on us.

read the book for once.

>> No.5592907

>>5592894
>none of those matter though
are you clinically retarded?

>Genome Sequencing for Fetuses
Doesn't matter? You don't think the future of being able to scan for birth defects and hereditary diseases matters?

>XNA
Doesn't matter? You don't realise the potential medical implications of molecule that has a fully synthetic genome?

>read the book for once.
Which book are you talking about?

>> No.5592911

>>5592872

Skeptics countered this by arguing that skepticism was like a laxative: it goes away with the rest, but still works.

>> No.5592910

This thread is /lit/s attempt at trolling.

>>>/lit/3540748

>> No.5592917

>>5592888

-Higgs Boson
>changed nothing

-Genomic Rare Variants
>changed nothing, nobody heard of it

-Genome Sequencing for Fetuses
>changed nothing

-Teleporting quantum particles more than 50 miles
>changed nothing

-XNA: A fully synthesized genetic molecule. so now we have DNA, RNA and XNA
>changed nothing

-The discovery of a planet 4.4 light-years from Earth, with saline oceans and an atmosphere.
>changed nothing

I'm sorry but nothing here has had any deep impact on humanity. Thanks ever so much for proving my point. I feel for your embarrassment.

>> No.5592921

>>5592910

Invoking discussion and trolling aren't the same thing.

>> No.5592922

>>5592917
See
>>5592907

>> No.5592927

>>5592872
Balderdash.
Doubt just means you have to be open to fair consideration of the opposite, not that you have to believe the opposite. There's nothing inconsistent about doubting the virtue of doubt.

>> No.5592928
File: 20 KB, 300x480, 258Troll_spray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5592928

>>5592809
0/10000

>> No.5592931

>>5592907

Sorry but that anon you're talking to is correct: NONE of these things had any impact on humanity at large. 99% quite frankly don't give a fuck or even know of these. And those who do don't care or see how will affect them any time soon. (Because it won't.)

>> No.5592933
File: 19 KB, 240x249, 1340660741578.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5592933

>>5592872
The only thing in "doubt" here, is the OPs sexuality.

>> No.5592936

>>5592922

>potential

Yeah, everything has potential. Making it happen is a whole different ball game. Nobody's getting exciting over stuff that will happen long after we're all dead.

Announcing potential for the future isn't history-changing either.

>> No.5592938

>>5592933

And by "in doubt", you mean you're not sure OP is a faggot.

Glad you like the thread.

>> No.5592940

>>5592928
See
>>5592921

>> No.5592942

Can science prove that reality is real?

>> No.5592949

Guys, are you saying that science is what science uses to prove that science is correct?

>circular logic

>> No.5592950

>>5592888
>Teleporting quantum particles more than 50 miles

This didn't happen.

>> No.5592952

>>5592907
Oh boy. This one is brainwashed fairly dense.

>> No.5592954

>>5592949

They'll say it's "not the same" because "science is truth" or some shit.

>> No.5592957

>>5592907

>the future
>the potential

Yep, that's what we mean: science hasn't done shit in forever.

>> No.5592959

>>5592950
>>Teleporting quantum particles more than 50 miles
>This didn't happen.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/09/quantum-teleportation-achieved-over-record-distances/

>> No.5592961
File: 1.99 MB, 369x271, 1327175201845.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5592961

>>5592949
>>5592954

>The Bible is true because we use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true.

How come you guys can get away with it but Christians can't`

Oh yeah...

>science is actually the truth

>> No.5592963

>>5592921
>Invoking discussion
There is no discussion. This guy ripped apart your post (>>5592859) and you carried on trolling. Go back to /lit/.

>> No.5592967

>>5592959

>Teleporting quantum particles more than 50 miles

The only problem with this is that: teleporting particles is about as useful as teleporting my grandmother's asshole to Venus. Nobody cares, it does nothing, it's not important.

It's only incremental towards something, the something that would change history, but as of yet, doesn't.

>> No.5592982

>>5592967
Invention is the most important product of man's creative brain. The ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of human nature to human needs.

>> No.5592983

>>5592961

It's "truth" that you subjectively process. Science isn't as objective as you're implying.

>> No.5592985

>>5592859

>the scientific method is continuing to refine it's models

Would you care to give some examples?

>> No.5592990

>>5592982

>important

Is an arbitrary referent. There is nothing 'important' about an invention for its own sake.

>the ultimate purpose

Does not exist. There is no objective universal human goal, not in the sciences or elsewhere.

>> No.5592991

>>5592982
>the harnessing of human nature to human needs.

So your ideal is what exactly? To be strapped in a bubble of virtual reality, getting fed automatically, fucking virtual sluts all day?

That's regression to me. Humans don't evolve well on easy mode, they turn into babies.

>back to the womb, faggot

>> No.5593002

>>5592991
>So your ideal is what exactly? To be strapped in a bubble of virtual reality, getting fed automatically, fucking virtual sluts all day?
That's a quote from Tesla in the early 1900's, moron.

>> No.5593027

>>5593002

Who cares?

>> No.5593059

Alright, to an untrained observer, this thread may look like trolling and flaming, but I think I see what's actually going on here.

/lit/ sees empericism being used in the social sciences to justify totally fallacious claims about the structure of society and the behaviour of humans. They therefore "know" that it's wrong, but don't have suficient experience to identify what is wrong with it - thus they make a strained philosophical objection to the structured research of science. Although there is a systematic bias towards publishing too much low value science, it nonetheless still leads valuable discoveries. Moreover, the problem is systemic, not with empericism itself.

Similarly, /sci/ sees a criticism of empericism as a criticism of themselves and gets defensive about it (in a manner not befitting the discussion of a scientific tool), preventing the arguement from evolving beyond feces-throwing.

>> No.5593077

>>5593002

And? It changes nothing to what I said.

>> No.5593082

>>5593059
I think you are giving /lit/ too much credit.

They see science as the naturalism branch of philosophy that got corrupted and mutated while philosophy advanced to the point where it could reject objective truth. /lit/ now sees any model of reality as fallacious – calling it out as religious – as they think any claim of objective knowledge should be rejected. They don't really understand how the scientific method collects empirical data, and see things from a relativist stance; that 'as we have no objective knowledge, theory A is as valid as theory B', the only difference being subjective interpretation.

If you ever attempt to visit /lit/, your will see that their level of philosophical knowledge rarely progresses further than existential crisis threads, and 'brain in a vat' arguments, and they routinely reject the scientific method. /lit/ truly is an anti-intellectual cesspit.

>> No.5593086

>>5593082

Please browse /lit/ for more than a day.

>> No.5593098

>>5593082

>thinks /lit/ is a monolithic assembly of the same people he's read in this one thread

Anti-intellectual, you said? If so, I think you found where you belong.

>> No.5593106

Just be happy to hear new information, and love everyone. Try to learn from everything, and everyone you talk to, go to school in something you're passionate about if you can afford it, or, if you're filthy rich, go to school and learn about things you're also interested in.

Science, like art, is just a word.

>> No.5593107

>>5593082
>objective truth

>> No.5593111

>>5593106
>Science, like art, is just a word.

Yeah, but when we use these words, we don't mean the fucking words, we mean the things they stand for, you fucking genius.

>> No.5593127

>>5592855
>only a few can actually read and understand scientific work at the cutting edge and long before
Except there are universities, community colleges, libraries, wikipedia, TV shows, magazines, etc.

>everyone else blindly believes
There's nothing to believe in science, only to witness.

>anyone who dare say a thing against the dogma is considered a moron, a fool, or else
Untrue, these are considered morons because they refuse to accepts proven facts
>Just like heretics back then
Except heretics were tortured, persecuted and killed.

>> No.5593132

>>5593127

>anyone who dare say a thing against the dogma is considered a moron, a fool, or else

>Untrue, these are considered morons because they refuse to accepts the dogma

>> No.5593128

>>5593111

The point being, both are capable of acting outside of their diction.

Some people focus too hard on categories and strict definitions, which can be limiting...

>> No.5593140

>>5593127

>There's nothing to believe in science, only to witness.

Like I said, just because you don't doubt your faith doesn't make it true or objective.

>Untrue, these are considered morons because they refuse to accepts proven facts

Are you for real? How many scientific "facts" were proven wrong or partially wrong later?

Your post doesn't help the scientific community polish its reputation. You've been all we've denounced, you bigot.

>> No.5593148

>>5592917
Try the same list in 30 years or so

>semi-conductors
Transistors, computers, etc.

>Special and general relativity
GPS

>Quantum mechanics
modern chemistry, MRI, and whatnot

>Giant magneto-resistance
High density HDD

I don't feel for your embarrassment, only for your stupidity.

>> No.5593146

>>5593086
>Please browse /lit/ for more than a day.
Unfortunately, I have been to /lit/ on more occasions than I care to remember. I have never found anything of intellectual merit dwelling there. You have the same 5 basic philosophy threads, seasoned occasionally with the odd 'Derrida or Foucault' (lol) thread, and circle-jerk over the same 40 authors.

I have been there quite a few times over the past few years, a few times in recent months too, and it is always Camus, existentialism, DFW, Tao Lin, Objective morality, maybe a token 'how do I philosophy' or 'what is post-modernism', with the same regurgitated themes and absolutely no progression. I'm convinced you lot just flick through your archive and recycle the same drivel. You have been stuck in a loop since your conception.

>> No.5593150

>>5592942
>can science prove a definition ?

>> No.5593156

>>5593146

Not the guy who you're talking to, but why so hostile, bro?

>> No.5593159

>>5593156

Insecurity.

>> No.5593163

oh look it's this retarded english major again.

>> No.5593170

>>5593156
Why did you take that as hostility? It was a realistic summary of your board.

>> No.5593176

seems like lit has become overrun iwth these high school retards hurping about religion and whatnot. it was okay back in the day.

>> No.5593181

>>5593176

>it was okay

The board has never changed, dipshit.

>> No.5593182

>>5593132
>facts = dogma
Sure.

>>5593140
>How many scientific "facts" were proven wrong or partially wrong later?
None. You are unable to make the difference between a fact and a theory.
Objects with mass are attracted to one another : this is a fact.
Newtonian mechanics is a theory that tried to explain or at least describe those facts.
Funny thing is, those theories were never disproved by religious people or "morons" but by members of the scientific community.

>Like I said, just because you don't doubt your faith doesn't make it true or objective.
I know, that's why we use repeatable experiments in science.

>> No.5593191

All knowledge is either analytical or corroborated by empirical evidence. That makes science, i.e. the application of empiricism and rationalism, the exclusive source of knowledge.

gb2>>>/lit/, plebs

>> No.5593187

>>5593181
maybe. i can't tell because most of the threads are hidden.

>> No.5593199

>>5593182
>Objects with mass are attracted to one another : this is a fact.

A scientific fact is not an example of objective truth. Repeating your experiments confirms you observation and makes you think its more likely to be true, but will never give you objective truth. any scientific model or theory is potentially falsifiable upon receiving more information, and the new theory your make is just as falsifiable.

>> No.5593200

>>5593146
>the same 40 authors.

You're far too kind. It's usually just Pynchon and Wallace.

>> No.5593204

>>5593148
>Try the same list in 30 years or so

But that was my point. 30 years ahead isn't now.

>> No.5593208

>>5593182
>Funny thing is, those theories were never disproved by religious people or "morons" but by members of the scientific community.

For your sake, I hope you never find out how much science owes to "religious people".

>> No.5593213

>>5593208
>scientist was a catholic
>catholic church started scientific revolution
this is the level of thinking in these english major guys it's really a waste of time

>> No.5593220

>>5593213

>scientist belongs to MIT
>MIT started a revolution

How come it works one way, and not the other? In most cases, those Catholic scientists got their education thanks to the Church, which paid for it and made sure they got the best education available.

Say all you want but there's a reason by Fundamentalist Americans never became influential scientists while dozens of Catholics changed the history of science.

>> No.5593221

>>5593213

Most of modern science can thank Islamic scholars.

>> No.5593224

Has anyone here even read the book?

>> No.5593225

OP is surprisingly not a faggot

>> No.5593226

>>5593199
Bravo, you just understood why science is worthwile : because it is falsifiable.

>>5593204
You never implied discoveries had to have an effect right now and anyway, just because a discovery cannot be immediately applied doesn't make it worthless

>>5593208
Don't worry, I do. They spread literacy and arithmetics among other things. What I said stays true, though.
My point was that scientific theories were proven wrong by the rigorous application of the scientific method, not by blind and dogmatic refutations.

>> No.5593229

>>5593221
but not islam itself, ja

>> No.5593238

>>5593226
so something that is always wrong should be trusted over something that is always right

>> No.5593239

>>5593236

Which are?

>> No.5593236

>>5592859
and yet, is still stuck with the inherent limits of empiricism.

>> No.5593242

>>5593220
sure, but for catholicism to claim that credit would be like the nazis claiming credit for anne frank's dairy

>> No.5593244

>>5593239
that which is inside the box cannot trust its observations of that which is outside of the box

in this case, the universe

>> No.5593240

>>5593220
Because MIT aims is exactly to develop technology and science.
Catholicism goal is to celebrate the glory of god.
The religion and the discoveries of a scientist have nothing to do with one another.
The university on another hand...

>> No.5593246

>>5593226
>Bravo, you just understood why science is worthwile : because it is falsifiable.

Bravo, you just understood why faith in science is dogmatic and retarded : because you don't know if a theory you form is correct. You don't even know the accuracy because you could always be missing variables.

>> No.5593247

>>5593220
so we have catholics to thank for anthrax, H-bombs, mustard gas and predator drones?

>> No.5593251

>>5593238
>falsifiable = always wrong
0/10

>always right
I'd love to know a statement that has such a property.

>> No.5593250
File: 351 KB, 300x225, 4kXb7.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593250

>>5593244
>thinks subjective idealism is still a worry

>> No.5593255

>>5593242
diary* although it's funny

>> No.5593258

>>5593246
>faith in science
Again, there is no faith in science, only experiments and trial.
Every application of a scientific theory is a test trying to prove the theory wrong.

>> No.5593260

Jesus Christ, /lit/ is even worse than /pol/.

/lit/ pls go.

>> No.5593265
File: 9 KB, 800x800, 1362167848003.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593265

>>5593191
>all knowledge is either self-evident or corroborated by external evidence

>> No.5593268

>>5593260

>i can't defend blind adherence to empiricism

>> No.5593275

>>5593268
>blind
From what do you infer that our adherence to empiricism is blind ?

>> No.5593270

>>5593244

Empiricist says that what is real, what exists, is that which we perceive. If you postulate the existence of something that is in principle not perceptible, even indirectly... you have postulated nothing.

>> No.5593277

>>5593251
it's not a statement

it is God. and surprisingly, He wants to know you too

>> No.5593280

>>5593258
there is more faith that science will solve mankind's problems than there is that God will solve mankind's problems dude

after all, faith is believing the unseen

>> No.5593283

>>5593265
>argumentum ex pictura reactionis

>>>/b/

>> No.5593284

>>5593170

Sorry, i was out fetching a sammich.

My board?

I've never even really been to /lit/. I generally go to /g/ and /sci/. /lit/ sounds interesting, though <3...

Never dismiss an opportunity to learn something, even if it disagrees with you...

>> No.5593285

>>5593270
you have confused empirical with solipsism, a weak philosophy

>> No.5593286

>>5593277

God is Perfect and Immutable, Omniscient.
God does not WANT.

>> No.5593288

>>5593082
Why do you think something has to "develop" to reject the notion of "objective truth"? What do you even think "objective truth" means?

>> No.5593289

this guy's idea of nonblind is constantly herping about "how do i know i exist" while scientists doing experiments are really blindly adhering to empiricism.

>> No.5593292

>>5593286
surprisingly, He does. hence the word, surprisingly.

>> No.5593293

>>5593285

Solipsism is entirely valid.

>> No.5593294

>>5593285

Solipsism : only what _I_ think is real

Empiricism : Go back and read Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

>> No.5593295

>>5593280

Faith arguably "solves problems" in a very personal and intangible way, like many other things, not dumping on anything, i just don't understand the "one or the other exclusivity" approach...

>> No.5593296

>>5593292

How do you know?

>> No.5593297

>>5593295

>fairth CAN arguably...

>> No.5593298

>>5593285
>a weak philosophy
Is this philosophical top trumps or something? My Kierkegaard has level 12 epistemology, that should beat whatever you have.

>> No.5593304

>>5593292

You have a psychosexual dysfunction. Go get that looked at.

>> No.5593306

>>5593298

OVER 9000!!!!

>> No.5593316
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593316

>> No.5593317

>>5593280
There is no faith that science will solve mankind's problems. There's only the realization that science actually does solve some of mankind's problems. The reason we persevere with science is because it often yields good results.
If God did solve problems more often, then we'd be "using" it more.

>>5593277
Well if god wants to know me, it knows where to find me, I'm in my room typing on a computer.
I've never perceived God, I'm not even sure it exists, how can you assert that God is always true ?
For me God is unfalsifiable, but unfalsifiable doesn't mean true, does it ?

>> No.5593324

>>5593316

Sorry Charlie, 'hard-headed' Analytic Philosopher here.

>> No.5593331

>>5593324
Wittgenstein called, he said you just don't get it.

>> No.5593327
File: 36 KB, 264x400, not this guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593327

>>5593283
but I was alluding to the Lacanian real cf "To make things 'perfectly clear' is reactionary and stupefying. The real is not perfectly clear."

>>5593298
Kierkegaard only apprehends the extreme limit of philosophy, you'll have to find someone even edgier to become a pseudomon master.

>> No.5593335

Why do you /lit/ kids think there is some kind of science vs. philosophy war?

Science is natural philosophy, and concerned with analysis of the empirical. Just because it uses empiricism(with, i suppose, rationalism), doesn't mean our medicine, laptops, phones and lunar rovers don't work. Sure, we have errors and make mistakes, sure, we can't prove our models with 100% certainty, but to reject the scientific method entirely is ridiculous.

It is precisely because we don't have fully correct models of reality that we haven't stopped. Science is a continuing field, improving, adapting, and changing to the evidence it collects. Why anyone would want to sit with their fingers in their ears, chanting "you can't know anything", while greedily consuming the products of scientific inquiry, is beyond me.

>> No.5593336

>>5593327
>Kierkegaard only apprehends the extreme limit of philosophy, you'll have to find someone even edgier to become a pseudomon master.
Hmmm... I choose Sam Harismon.

>> No.5593338

>>5593331

Derrida called, he said this thread is freeplay dildos.

>> No.5593341

>>5593335
>Why do you /lit/ kids think there is some kind of science vs. philosophy war?
This isn't a /lit/ thing.
>It is precisely because we don't have fully correct models of reality that we haven't stopped.
It's precisely this ideology that stops you from seeing the bigger picture.

>> No.5593348

>>5593335

>Why do you /lit/ kids think there is some kind of science vs. philosophy war

>>5593316

>> No.5593349

>>5593331

Kripke called, he said you need to buy a clue.

>> No.5593350

>>5592809
Just checked out the thread on /lit/, there was one rational message that seemed to try and prove that science and philosophy do entwine, and both are much needed. The guy however worked at a STEM university. Go figure. Most tragic of all is perhaps that the most rational post and the one that praised both sides were entirely ignored and discared.

/lit/, don't think i'll go there again

>> No.5593344

>>5593338
Heidegger called, he said he wish he could be here, but can't be metaphysically present.

>> No.5593354

>>5593348

Because they can't read Russell, Church, Godel, et al.

>> No.5593359

>>5593350

I would only go there if there were discussing the actual historicity of Lord of the Rings.

>> No.5593360

>>5593350

>don't think I'll go there again

Are you always one for generalizing a populace based on a narrow view?

>> No.5593363

>>5593341
But what's the point of seeing the bigger picture?
I infer that since you are talking about a bigger picture, you or someone else must have perceived it. So why did this bigger picture never helped us in anything? Why doesn't anyone use it to answer questions or solve problems?

>> No.5593366

>>5593350
>/lit/, don't think i'll go there again

/lit/ is okay to browse when drunk. They seem to make coherent arguments then.

>> No.5593369

/lit/ fucking sucks.

/sci/ is leagues worse.

>> No.5593371

>>5593359
carbon-copy of the iliad

>> No.5593374

>>5593369

Did we ASK you to come in?

>> No.5593376

>>5593371

says you.

Got a carbon dating on that 'script?

>> No.5593377

>>5593363
>I infer that since you are talking about a bigger picture
I think he's trying to say that models of reality will never be 100% correct, as you can never know if they are 100% correct. This does absolutely nothing to reduce the validity of science, and I don't know why they use it as ammunition against it.

>> No.5593381

>>5593374

Nope. I'll be here all day.

>> No.5593382

>>5593377

how about 99.9999999......% ?

>> No.5593385

>>5593363
>science inherently helps us progress!
>what is the teleology behind not science?
Way to be consistent with your values there broheim. If all you can come up with is a variation of "ehh philosophy, no like it" I am not going to sit here making aeroplane noises. I will, however, be kind enough to leave you this quote:
>So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

>> No.5593390

>>5593381

ah, I see! a masochist.

>> No.5593392

Philosophy is a sham. It died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a cunt of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that all philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of living on Fathers money and forming semantic rhetoric to convince everyone you are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

"Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?"

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
"Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? STFU, Shoppy. Next."

>Hegel - Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
"Objectivity? Really, Hegel. Next."

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful.”
"Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant, m8.

The answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions should be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art. So go ahead, point your philosophical fingers and tell me that I can't have axioms or objective truth, because that's all you can do.

>> No.5593396

>>5593392

Read Heidegger and grow up a little.

>> No.5593401

>>5593392
The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all human constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology...,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Of course, these can be spread out to many more fields, but only an idiot would resort to philosophy. Even Philosophy has to resort to other fields to scrutinize our axioms. I can question '1 = 1' from a linguistic and psychological standpoint; can we ever have identical viewing of these symbols. Or a physics perspective; am I just using empirical observation to confirm the axiom - one apple is one apple, and so on. Philosophy is dead.

>> No.5593405

>>5593401
>these things are all constructs
>if we throw more constructs at these constructs that will somehow make everything go away

>> No.5593416

>>5593392
Objective =\= objectivity


1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

>> No.5593417

>>5593405
>these things are all constructs (Beauty, morality, God).

>if we throw more constructs at these constructs...
Empirically based models =/= linguistic constructs

>> No.5593421

>>5593416
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

>> No.5593422

>>5593417

>thinks his models aren't socially constructed

>> No.5593428

>>5593417
>Empirically based models =/= linguistic constructs
You sure about that? Tell me about how they aren't.

>> No.5593431

>>5593385
>If all you can come up with is a variation of "ehh philosophy, no like it"
That's not really what I did, though.
Although it is true that I am not very knowledgeable in philosophy, I actually like philosophy (I wouldn't be arguing with you if it weren't the case), and I see science as a philosophy.

As for your quote, it is true that some scientists do fit to that description, but it doesn't really hinder them in their research.
I think they are better off keeping on with their work and ignoring philosophical depth than wasting time in asking questions that have no clear answers. Life is short so we should gather as much knowledge as possible. We have not progressed enough in the current theories to start a paradigm shift or a scientific revolution. There is still a lot of work to be done before such extremities.

>> No.5593432

>>5593392
"[Undergrad literary analysis is] the literary equivalent of tearing the petals off and grinding them up and running the goo through a spectrometer to explain why a rose smells so pretty."
—DFW

Speculative realists basically believe the same thing you've said but without being faggots about it.

>> No.5593433

>>5593421
I realize what objectivity is in philosophy. But Hegel is saying that art is an approach and not just an opinion. He wasn't saying anything about art being objective.

>> No.5593435

>>5593199
There's hardly any scientific theories that are proven completely false, where the opposite claim suddenly rules it out.

Instead it's a matter of optimizing prior discoveries, and seeing as science actually does create -progress-, thinking it's just fault upon fault is rather naive.

>> No.5593440

>>5592942
Fuck off neo

>> No.5593441

>>5593431
>Life is short so we should gather as much knowledge as possible. We have not progressed enough in the current theories to start a paradigm shift or a scientific revolution. There is still a lot of work to be done before such extremities.
Blind assumptions, blind assumptions everywhere. It doesn't even make sense to be quite frank.

>> No.5593444

>>5593293
as are coconuts

>> No.5593448

>>5593295
it's a false choice; christianity does not eschew science. it is science that has intruded into religion's realm with its naturalistic philosophy that only that which reals, reals.

it's "scientism", for lack of a better term, and its adherents are quite rabid.

>> No.5593450

>>5593296
In Matt. 7:7-8 Jesus said everyone who asks for salvation receives it. In John 3:16 He said that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life. In John 6:28-29 He said belief in Him is the only work God requires of us. In John 6:40 He said that everyone who looks to Him and believes in Him will have eternal life. In John 10:25-28 he called those who believe in Him His sheep and said He gives us eternal life and we can never perish. In John 11:25 He said whoever believes in him will live even though he dies.

that is how I found out

>> No.5593451

>>5593444

'Coconuts' is not a rhetorical claim.

>> No.5593453

>>5593298
bro, if you're not maxed out at 99, stay under the porch

>> No.5593454

>>5593450

Why should you believe those words? How sure are you that they're correctly translated?

>> No.5593456

>>5593451
coconuts are, nevertheless, valid

for solipsism to be as valid as coconuts, one would have to experience a coconut.

>> No.5593462

>>5593454
how sure? i bet my soul on it.

>> No.5593463

>>5593462

What is a soul?

>> No.5593464

>>5593456
I didn't realise people on /sci/ couldn't into basic logic:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

>> No.5593466

>>5593450
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

...But he loves you.

>> No.5593467

>>5593463
Capital of Korea.

>> No.5593469

>>5593428
>You sure about that? Tell me about how they aren't.
A linguistic construct is something that doesn't exist. A word like 'morality' is invented, given life, and used as a grid to overlay reality. We observe through this grid and assess reality through it. Morality doesn't ever become material and remains linguistic.

Empirical models are a mapping of the material, of things that are thought to exist. The material exists independent of a linguistic model, independent of analysis, and can be modelled in a variety of ways that aren't linguistic.

>> No.5593471

>>5593456

What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.5593475

>>5593463
a soul is that thing which only a being with a soul is concerned with

>> No.5593477

>>5593469

>The material exists independent of a linguistic model

How so?

>> No.5593480

>>5593469
>and can be modelled in a variety of ways that aren't linguistic.
Can you tell me about that?

>> No.5593474

solipsism is not valid.

>> No.5593481

>>5593474

Of course it is.

>> No.5593485

>>5593471
coconuts

>> No.5593482

>>5593469
and yet, the model gets treated as though it reals; see, i.e., modelitis

>> No.5593490

To all your philosophers out there, tell me how the eye works.

Tell me how your ears work.

Tell me how you are able to write words on your computer.

Tell me how you are able to talk.

>> No.5593493

>>5593490

Philosophy isn't interested in how.

>> No.5593494

>>5593490
>To all your philosophers out there, tell me how the eye works.
You first.

>> No.5593496

>>5593494
How about you take a basic biology class?

>> No.5593499

>>5593481
that's from a mistaken belief in the completeness of subjective representation. i.e. that you feel, therefore you are.

>> No.5593504

>>5593499

cogito ergo sum has a flaw I'm unaware of?

>> No.5593508

>>5593441
But it is true. Maybe you are the one that should look to historical facts and the current state of science.
Before the scientific revolutions that were QM and relativity, scientists had theories about pretty much everything.
There were only a few phenomena they could explain and it is by trying to solve those problems that they triggered the scientific revolution. One of those phenomena was the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein got a Nobel Prize.

Today the state of science is absolutely not the same, there numerous of problems to solve and our theories aren't complete yet (unification of physics for example)
Scientists are working on new experiments (Higgs Boson), they are gathering more data.
Another problem is that even if one wanted to have a new scientific revolution, one wouldn't know where to start, what to put back in question.
QM changed things by saying that energy was quantized and didn't have a continuous spectrum.
Relativity stated that time wasn't elapsing at the same rate everywhere thus the need to consider space-time.
What would be the next step? No one has answered this question yet, and certainly not philosophers who claim to be able to see the bigger picture.

>> No.5593505

>>5593496
How about you? Apparently you don't understand it well enough to explain it.

>> No.5593510

>>5593466
Science has actually convinced people that there's a seat of thought inside your head who watches everything you do, every minute of the day. And this seat has a special list of transgressive desires it wants to do. And if you do any of these things, the state has a special place full of rapists and murderers [and so on and so on]

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God"

>> No.5593516

>>5593508
couldn't explain*

>> No.5593524

>>5593490
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8aTYUrPi0

>> No.5593525

>>5593504
yes. you have this special faculty of 'self awareness' but it has nothing to do with perception. it's just a separate routine of representation apart from recognizing objects in the world and so on. that entire line of thinking is self masturbatory, and only seem to be about the world because evolution takes by assumption the fact that you exist. i.e., the first personal location doesn't have to be specified.

>> No.5593534

>>5593525

What does the recognition of objects have to do with anything?

>> No.5593536

>>5593220
The Catholic church didn't fund, facilitate or help with any scientific discoveries. MIT did.

>> No.5593542

>>5593480
>Can you tell me about that?
Neurological, rationalism. I can drop the feather and stone from the tower and observe the consequences. Sure, I can also create a linguistic model, but empirical observation doesn't necessarily require it. A construct like morality isn't empirical, therefore cannot be observed without the linguistic model overlaying a material action.

They are two separate things. and I'm trying to make the distinction between them. Beauty is the same; it cannot exist external to a linguistic model, but the material object, the one we call beautiful can.

If I want to know how much salt is in this saline solution, I can analyse the molecules because they exist. I'm not overlaying a linguistic grid, I'm using the material to extract one from observation.

>> No.5593543

>>5593534
your body is one such object, so are your neurons etc. that you do not know your neurons while still having this capacity to say "i am" means that, your capacity to feel located in the world by saying "I" is a distinct represntational route from the recognition of objects in the world. (an example of this recognition would be walking outside and hitting your head against a pole)

in your pleb language i can just say, "external" objects." but this internal/external distinction is a relic of this particular representation of yourself as a subject

>> No.5593544

>>5593510
No, the logically inclined comes to the rational conclusion that "There is no God".

>> No.5593550

>>5593543
same shit as cartesian theatre, existential crisis etc etc. it's really a waste of time though so make it quick.

>> No.5593552

>>5593508
>they triggered the scientific revolution
No it didn't, they were giving the same spiel as the century before, that science was about to come to an end. That's what modernism is all about: we've sussed everything scientifically, pretty much, art can be the saviour of the excellence and culture of humanity etc etc. then the solution turned out to be radical and had a lot of explanatory power. We now have two incompatible theories, we don't know what the hell gravity is exactly with either (one would like it to be carrier particles, the other a field), and plenty of objects that can't be described by one theory or the other. Attempts at combining the two theories either don't work or are kind of weirdly abstract.

I mean, now you're more or less arguing that we're coming to an end of scientific knowledge. If you believed that a real paradigm shift was round the corner, you'd have to accept that all this knowledge being "collected" might cease to make any sense in the new paradigm.

>> No.5593561

>>5593542
Hmm, thank you for telling me about this allegedly non-linguistic model there using language. I will point out one thing to you: all those linguistic labels are a way of demarcating one thing from another using language. It's the demarcation, not the observation, that makes it linguistic.

>> No.5593565

>>5593544
really? you observe the Creation and logically infer there is no Creator?

do you similarly look at a painting and logically infer there is no painter?

>> No.5593570

>>5593240
>The religion and the discoveries of a scientist have nothing to do with one another.

Keep deluding yourself. You're trying to say that men who seek God in this life and place this as their main goal have zero influence from it in their scientific research. You are way mad crazy.

Do you seriously think George Lemaître's Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with the fact that he believed God created the universe? Even at a time when everyone else thought this theory ridiculous for being so "creationist"`

That's wishful-thinking, at best. You've never met actual Catholics, either. These people are fucking serious about education and doing well in life. And raising their children, too.

>> No.5593571

>>5593240
>The university on another hand...

>implying Catholics don't have any schools
>lol

>> No.5593573

>>5593242

It claims the credit of having formed a very important scientist. That's good enough in my book.

>> No.5593578

>>5593247

Just checked these guys, none was Catholic and none was a priest.

>being nominally Christian in an age where everyone was Christian isn't a very good argument, bro

>> No.5593580

>>5593573
wouldn't it be better, in the scientist's case, attribute the credit to the pursuit of knowledge? that the knowledge was thought to be reliigous is unfortunate but was either overcome or avoided

>> No.5593583

>>5593270

>Empiricist says that what is real, what exists, is that which we perceive

And there is no evidence for that. So empiricism is wishful bullshit.

>> No.5593587

>>5593565
That's not a logical claim:

Nobody disputes the fact that there is a "creator"; there's just a difference in thinking what that creator is:

Religious people will say it's a "who", a sentient being of varying charasterics.

Scientists will say it's a "what", a prior event, but by no means sentient, that put everything into motion.

>> No.5593607

in nowhere can you find the edge of the world, yet you are to represent it completely by that word. seems strange, no? that concept is outside of the world, but you have to use the concept to talk about it.

wittgenstein resolved this skepticism long ago and it's the correct solution.

>> No.5593614

>>5593580
no

the pursuit of the truth. not knowledge. truth.

>> No.5593612

>>5593578
you really missed the irony, didn't you

>> No.5593619

>>5593466

>has never read the Bible

>> No.5593620

>>5593587
there are in fact millions, if not billions, of people who neither concerned themselves, or were sure of, the existence of a creator.

my problem with "science" is that it not only assumes there is no God, it sets about in an attempt to prove that there is no God.

as the existence of God is, and must be, revealed knowledge, the pursuit of "science" to explain the works of God, but without the existence of God, fails in its mission to find the truth.

>> No.5593622

>>5593505
>get asked a question
>refuse to answer it
>tell the asker to answer the question himself

5/5 bretty good :DDDD

>> No.5593623

>>5593612

>I was just trolling!

You suck.

>> No.5593625

>>5593619
i find it astounding that people would devote thousands of hours to reading textbooks, and five misspent minutes misunderstanding scripture, and yet, somehow, completely dismiss scripture as "fairy tales", "allegories", or "corrupted over time".

>> No.5593627
File: 239 KB, 520x638, 1332028869956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593627

>>5593620

Five-star anon. I'm not even kidding. I appreciate your existence.

>> No.5593632

>>5593625

>allegories

Most sensible Christians believe in a metaphorical approach to scripture.

>> No.5593633

>>5593552
>you'd have to accept that all this knowledge being "collected" might cease to make any sense in the new paradigm
Exactly, but the data that is gathered before the revolution is absolutely necessary to be able to achieve the paradigm shift.

>>5593570
I'm trying to say that the gist of catholicism has nothing to do with the content of the science that has been made by its believers.
And this is for the simple reason that catholics weren't the only ones to make scientific progress : Athesists, Deists, Muslisms, Taoists, etc.
What's the common denominator between all these people? They're not all Christians or European or whatever. They're just humans. That's the greatest common denominator between all the people that contributed to science.

>Do you seriously think George Lemaître's Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with the fact that he believed God created the universe?
No. But do you seriously believe that it has something to do with Jesus resurrecting on the third day ? One does not have to be catholic to believe that God created the universe.
And one does not have to believe that God created the universe to take a wild guess about the big bang.

>You've never met actual Catholics, either.
Talking about wishful-thinking...

>These people are fucking serious about education and doing well in life. And raising their children, too.
Again, one does not have to be catholic to be serious about education.

Religion has been a great vector of culture and knowledge all around the world, but the content of the knowledge has very little to do with the actual content of the religions.
And that's because knowledge is based on the observation reality and that religion is based on the brain farts of some random shepherd.

>> No.5593629

>>5593623
not my fault you missed the inference that not all that science produces is sunshine and lollipops

>> No.5593634

>>5593625

Go to infidels.org, read all the articles, then come back.

Then you will be qualified to talk about atheism.

>> No.5593635

>>5593614
whatever

>> No.5593636

>>5593627
thank you, that's very kind of you.

>> No.5593637

>>5593620
Saying "God" is just revealed knowledge is just a redefinition to fit it into whatever form is most conventional to modern society.

Regardless, most atheists I know are also agnostics to varying degrees, I for one do not believe in a God, but do not claim to be able to disprove it either.

>> No.5593638

>>5593625

It is astounding indeed. Most atheists have this inner impression that they've read the entire Bible because they read a few pages.

Few have read the actual thing and even fewer understand the context of the times, the traditions, the meaning, and interpretation.

There is very little stock to put in most atheist's opinion of religions.

>> No.5593641

>>5593638

Do you believe in a virgin birth?

>> No.5593642

>>5593629

>implying you emphasise science and not Catholics

You're one deluded bastard.

>> No.5593643

>>5593632
most wise men take scripture literally, unless scripture indicates that it is to be taken in another way, for instance, symbolically.

>> No.5593647

>>5593643

You believe in a six-day creation story?

>> No.5593650

>>5593632

In fact, when Hebrews interpreted one text as an allegory for centuries, you'd be a downright moron to take the same text and assume it's literal without any backup.

Yet that's what atheists believe, and if you dare say, "But I think you shouldn't take it literally," they get mad and call it a cop-out, even though the "new thing" was literalism, not the metaphorical approach.

>> No.5593651

>>5593634
i've seen the lies; i prefer the truth. how about you?

>> No.5593653

you should take the bible literally. it's literally wrong. tha'ts about it

>> No.5593654

>>5593650

You're quoting an atheist.

>> No.5593655

>>5593637
God revealed Himself to many people. those people left records. those records are available to you. they are eyewitness accounts of the Creator making Himself known to His creation.

there are very few people who seek out God on their own and find Him; most people come by way of invitation.

if you want to know God, you have to seek God; but if you seek God with all your heart, you will find God

>> No.5593656

>>5593651

The truth is that there is no evidence for God

>> No.5593657

>>5593642
i think you've mistaken me for another poster; i assure you, i'm likely more anti-papist than you are

>> No.5593658

>>5593620

You have no understanding of science if you believe that it attempts to prove there is no God. Science doesn't care about unobservable fairy tails. It doesn't assume there is no God, it just doesn't posit a supernatural Creator. As it doesn't need to. God, is not an answer to anything, it does not develop knowledge, it is an end to knowledge. "God did it", will never help us in our pursuit of understanding anything. The human race has already been down that road, it was called the medieval age, or dark age. The ignorance and stagnation that resulted from that time is the direct result of the answer "God did it"

>> No.5593659

>>5593647
of course. the hebrew text is quite clear; morning and evening, 24 day periods. to think otherwise, is to naturally balk at the immensity of the task

without considering for a moment the omnipotence of the Creator

>> No.5593662

>>5593650
the hebrews also tried Jesus for blasphemy

see where i'm going with this?

>> No.5593664

>>5593653
on no account. all mankind is wrong; is broken; has fallen. that should be clear to all.

in fact, all creation is wrong; is broken; has fallen. that should comport with your experiences.

>> No.5593665

>>5593655
Why trust in a civilization that was more primitive and less enlightened than the current?

Because that's the kind of civilization that wrote the bible in the past.

>> No.5593666

>>5593656
the truth is, the heavens declare the glory of the LORD, and the earth displays His handiwork

He is God

>> No.5593669

>>5593658
by your own words, science discounts, nay, eliminates the possibility of, a supernatural Creator

and yet, there exists a supernatural Creator

tell me again where i am wrong vis-a-vis scientism?

>> No.5593674

>>5593666

>god

>not allah

>> No.5593675

>>5593665
God wrote the bible; i trust God. the bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 men over a period of about 1,500 years; it is entirely amazing in scope, precision, and wonder.

it is the consistent story of the creation of man, the fall of man, the depravity of man, the redemption of man, and the future of man

but if you don't want to personally have access to the power that spoke the universe into existence, please feel free to continue examining God's fingerprints.

you will see Him one day.

>> No.5593676

>>5593664
hurr durr

>> No.5593678

>>5593674
correct. God is not allah, and allah is not God. allah is a minor canaanite moon goddess.

>> No.5593679

what the fuck are you people talking about god
back to the book damnit

>> No.5593681

>>5593666

You mean the same earth that he flooded because he fucked up? Or maybe you mean the cities that he burned to the ground? Can't forget all those he ordered destroyed and there women taken.

List goes on. That's some divine Creator right dare. A real role model.

>> No.5593682

>>5593676
don't go full retard bro; you may herp so hard you derp

>> No.5593686

what has this become? atheists and theists on r/atheism?

>> No.5593687

>>5593681
the Creator is divine; the creation is not. the creation was "good" in God's sight, and completed.

it then fell; first with a rebellion in heaven, and then in the Garden of Eden. sin and death entered the world, as well as all other kinds of wickedness. all of that wickedness was killed in the Flood about 4500 years ago.

it's all back now. only this time, there will not be a flood.

>> No.5593690
File: 147 KB, 1020x629, 1351086791801.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593690

>>5593620
>my problem with "science" is that it not only assumes there is no God, it sets about in an attempt to prove that there is no God.

It doesn't set out to disprove God. It doesn't start with 'God doesn't exist' as a hypothesis, it just slowly nudges God out of the picture.

>> No.5593696

>>5593675
I see a lot of beautiful words, but no arguments or logic whatsoever in your post.

But then again that's what religion always has been: empty rhetorics.

>> No.5593697

>>5593675
>God wrote the bible; i trust God. the bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 men over a period of about 1,500 years

Nope. The bible is a collection of ancient stories. Some originating in the Qing dynasty, some coming from Mesopotamia, some from Egypt; they are thousands of stories from all over the world, usually ranging from central Africa to Siberia Longitudinal, and Spain to China Lateral. Here are a couple:

-Epic of Gilgamesh 2000BC (Noah -Genesis)
-Cylinder of Nabonidus 550BC (Book of Daniel)
-Ipuwer Papyrus 1850BC (Book of Exodus)
-Deir Alla Inscription 800BC (Book of Numbers)
-Cyrus Cylinder 600BC (Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles)
-Sennacherib Prism 701BC (Isaiah chapters, 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles)

The OT has virtually no new material, and while the NT does have some, it's still an accumulation of older myths and stories.

>> No.5593704

>>5593690
it thinks it does, anyways.

>> No.5593707

>>5593679
I've read the abstract of the book on wikipedia.
The author seems to think that the scientific method can be reduced to the verification and elaboration of a single theory, while the paradigm shifts are actually a very important part of the whole scientific method.

For me he's just complaining that scientific revolutions happen very rarely.

>> No.5593708

>>5593696
more bluntly then: the people past, who were better people than we are now, were inspired by God Himself to write their part of the bible.

if you think we are better people now than they were then, you've confused technologically advanced with "better than"

>> No.5593711

>>5593697
you may need to continue researching this issue for yourself.

>> No.5593718

>>5593708
That's fucking stupid:

I don't see anyone getting crucified here in modern western world, do you?

People back then were not better than we are now, as I said earlier: They were more primitive and less enlightened.

And that applies to their moral codex as well.

>> No.5593720

>>5593654

I wasn't quoting anybody.

>> No.5593723

>>5593657

I think you got things wrong, I'm Catholic.

>> No.5593725

>>5593708
>if you think we are better people now
Define better?

Are you using a subjective interpretation of human behaviour and dropping things into a socially constructed good/bad dichotomy? I hope not.

>> No.5593730

>>5593662

No. You probably do, because you don't understand the difference between Old and New Testament, but that's fine.

>those who wrote the old book weren't the same as those who killed Jesus, and even if they were, it makes no difference. Killing Jesus was still part of the plan and announced in the psalms.

>> No.5593734

>>5593690

>scientists
>2013
>"the universe came from nothing"
>"nothing"
>assumes "nothing" means the same as "vacuum"
>you fucking champs

>> No.5593737

>>5593718
America has killed how many babies in abortions today? a hundred? a thousand? in total? fifty million?

>> No.5593735

>>5593697

>implying ancient Hebrews both had access to these books and could read them

You're fucked up.

>> No.5593740

>>5593718
people in south africa were getting tires around their necks filled with gasoline and set on fire

>> No.5593744

>>5593723
i'm afraid we're not going to see eye to eye on the catholic church then.

say hi to petrus romanus for me

>> No.5593748

>>5593737
Only religious people actually equals abortion with murder, so that's a moot point, it's been proven time and time again that the fetus does not experience pain and doesn't holster a consciousness prior to the third trimester.

>>5593740
I said "In the modern western world".

>> No.5593749

>>5593730

amazing that the God of all humanity and all of the universe only interacts with the Hebrews in the fertile crescent only in the last three thousand years and belonged to the canaanite pantheon before that.

>> No.5593750

>>5593725
to cancel out the assumption that we are better people now than people were thousands of years ago, sure.

now we're at even, and we can look more closely at the issue. the blind assumption that because we can Google information means we're smarter, when a preliterate man could cite Homer, is baffling to me.

we have better machines. the question is, do better machines make people better?

>> No.5593760

>>5593750
We ARE smarter -collectively-.

And the collective intellect of our species is what matters.

>> No.5593767

>>5593730
nobody killed Jesus; Jesus lay down His life for us. for me. for you. He is the Good Shepherd, and the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.

you say that the Flood story was written about in other areas, and that therefore the bible must be a collection of other people's stories. what nonsense. the bible is a divinely inspired book; Gilgamesh is not.

what you're saying is that after the Flood, some mesopotamians, descendants of Noah and his sons, wrote their account in their language.

and then on Mt. Sinai, centuries later, God told Moses what had happened, and Moses wrote it down.

the mesopotamians writing down their history, the descendants of the Flood, does not make the biblical narrative invalid

>> No.5593771

>>5593734
your "nothing" has too much "something" in it

>> No.5593773

>>5593748
yes, that's the rationale for killing babies, that it doesn't matter

it matters.

we kill babies now like there's no tomorrow, 'cause, well, there might not be

>> No.5593778

>>5593749
first part, everything God does is amazing

second part, the perhaps most evil people on the planet calling their main god el does not make el into the Creator of the universe

God was not the God of the canaanites; God actually ordered the extermination of the canaanites.

for killing babies, doing drugs, and having wanton ses, amongst other things.

>> No.5593780

>>5593760
i do not think that humanity is smarter than God, even collectively

in fact the word for such a thought is hubris

>> No.5593781

>>5593543
>>5593474
these are flat out wrong btw.

>> No.5593789

>>5593781
good joke

>> No.5593791

>>5593781
it's hard to rebel against the Truth and maintain any intellectual integrity

>> No.5593816

>>5593791
the truth is all your solipsist/idealist/whatever herping is absolutely useless, but maybe it is entertaining. same level of depth as acid trip

>> No.5593818

/lit/ here, if you are all so god damn smart then stop being trolled and let this thread die a painful death.

Yes, we are embarrased for this fucking abomination of a thread.

Salute to your dear brothers and lovers of knowledge!

>> No.5593848 [DELETED] 
File: 372 KB, 1930x1282, lolipsism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5593848

>>5593474
>>5593481
>>5593781

There is a board on /lit/ (>>>3530143) that pretty much shows why and how solipsism is garbage. It's funny to read and watch how the proponents for solipsism keep trying to change the meaning to avoid critical scrutiny.

>> No.5593857 [DELETED] 

>>5593848
>(>>>3530143)
that should be ( /lit/>>>3530143 )

>> No.5593860

>>5593848
IDK, are you SURE you exist?

>> No.5593869

>>5593474
>>5593481
>>5593781

There is a board on /lit/ >>>/lit/3530143 that pretty much shows why and how solipsism is garbage. It's funny to read and watch how the proponents for solipsism keep trying to change the meaning to avoid critical scrutiny.

>> No.5593912

>>5593869
seems like some kind of undergrad with some mental issues. solipsism is entirely dead.

>> No.5593925

>>5593869

You can't argue FOR solipsism. Who would you be arguing with?

>> No.5593936

>>5593778

You are either a troll or just embarrassingly ignorant.

>> No.5593968

>>5593925

oh no, no, no

the argument isn't for solipsism, it's about how solipsism is theoretical possible.

It's a thread dedicated to misunderstanding Wittgenstein's remark on solipsism.

>> No.5593998

>>5593968
wittgenstein can be read to have touched on solipsism in a few places. the one i was referring to is in hte tractatus. it's the most elegant treatment fo the problem.

>> No.5594015

>>5593968
>>5593998
what the solipsist means is true, only it can't be said.....

>> No.5594017

>>5594015
and theres no point listening to it

>> No.5594045

>>5594015
that 'circle' isn't to say solipsism is true, it is to dissolve that worry entirely. it is impossible to represent solipsism consistently

>> No.5594066

>>5594017

A solipsist wouldn't listen to someone else.

>> No.5594085

>>5593998
>>5594015

Wittgenstein used solipsism as a jumping off point to point at the problem of communicating the full-disclosure of someone's meaning or intention. He wasn't touching on solipsism as he was touching on what solipsist were pointing at.

Wittgenstein knew solipsism was garbage, he also knew he did not have be explicit about that. He himself was not a solipsist, he only pointed out something unique the solipsist had said.

>> No.5594105

>>5592809
anyone has a digital version of that book?
if so, would you care to post it here http://filechan.net/9 ?
thanks

>> No.5594143

>>5592812
Please try to maintain a high level of discourse on /sci/.

>> No.5594144

>>5594066
Well to be technical, a solipsist couldn't listen to anyone else

>> No.5595471

bump

>> No.5595743

>>5593748
>the fetus does not experience pain and doesn't holster a consciousness prior to the third trimester.

Factually erroneous. Studies have shown the exact opposite.

But hey, if killing is OK as long as no pain is felt, why are you against death penalty you pussy?

>OK to kill harmless babies
>not OK to kill rapists, killers

I bet you're against owning guns too and would be the first pussy to call people with guns if anyone intruded your home at night.

>> No.5595745

>>5593748
>consciousness

This is a science board. Please keep dualism to >>>/x/

>> No.5595781

>>5595745

counciousness exists

whether it's seperate from the body or not is up for debate

>> No.5595795
File: 1.12 MB, 2000x3000, daniellekingofthenerds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5595795

>>5595745
Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism,

>> No.5595817

>>5595781
It doesn't exist. It has absolutely no evidence.

>>5595795
Exactly. That's what I'm telling him. Posting /x/ shit on /sci/ is trolling.

>> No.5596328

>>5595817

As Trolls go... you must be retarded

A living thing’s soul is its capacity to engage in the activities that are
characteristic of living things of its natural kind and conducive to their
well being and survival. What are those activities? Some are listed in DA II.1;
others in DA II.2 (in increasing order of degree or complexity):
• Self-nourishment
• Growth
• Decay
• Movement and rest (in respect of place)
• Perception
• Intellect
So anything that nourishes itself, that grows, decays, moves about (on its own,
not just when moved by something else), perceives, or thinks is alive. And the
capacities of a thing in virtue of which it does these things constitute its soul.
The soul is what is causally responsible for the animate behavior (the life
activities) of a living thing.

>> No.5597454

>>5595817
>It doesn't exist. It has absolutely no evidence.

Are you for real? Consciousness is self-evident to itself. You can't prove it to anyone, but you can't deny your own.

>being this retarded

This is why scientists still haven't found a cure for cancer; if you don't get the basics, how you can do anything worthwhile?