[ 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: 87 KB, 640x566, scientism-refuted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5914478 No.5914478 [Reply] [Original]

to dismiss anything that can't be empirically proven as nonsense is not logical and places you in a small box of perception

>> No.5914480
File: 136 KB, 625x424, evidence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5914480

Believing in absurd nonsense without evidence is anti-scientific and irrational.

>> No.5914482

>>5914478
atheists get rekt

>> No.5914483

>to dismiss anything that can't be empirically proven

by empirically, do you mean... evidence?

>> No.5914485

If you want to believe in paranormal pseudoscience and similar hogwash, you are free to do so -- on >>>/x/

>> No.5914501
File: 18 KB, 287x400, bazinga!!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5914501

That's an extraordinary claim, OP.
Where's your evidence?

>> No.5914502

>>5914501
>inb4 philosophy

>> No.5914512

>>5914501
>Occultism/paranormal speculation has intrinsic value
>consciousness is absolute proof, transcending the mind and manifested reality

>> No.5914518

>>5914478

why isn't it logical?

that comic is illogical because it uses a pronoun without referring to anything specific.

anyways, there's time when it's appropriate to dismiss something based on empirical evidence, and other times, it's not

>> No.5914524

I've thought about this kind of thing before and came to a conclusion.

Science is the accumulation of knowledge through a systematic approach that tests testable hypothesis, and people tend to abuse the word science/scientific, because there's this allure that anything scientific is absolute fact.

>>5914502
It sorta does come down to philosophy if you think about it.

>> No.5914533

>>5914478
>>5914480
>>5914482
>>5914485
>>5914501
samefag killing /sci

>> No.5914535

>>5914533
Where's your evidence?

>> No.5914539

>>5914533
Thanks for the insightful contribution to this discussion

>> No.5914540

>>5914533
I gonna need evidence on that.

>> No.5914552

>>5914478
Can you logically prove logic? Can you intuitively prove logic? Can you logically prove intuition? You can't prove anything. Talking about "ye but u kno dat u cant kno" is fucking retarded.

>> No.5914557

>>5914524
i just hate how laymen abuse science as a form of religion and genuinely accept everything that stems from it as objectively true

it's no better than believing in god or odin

>> No.5914561

>>5914557
Are you saying that SCIENCE isn't objectively true?

>> No.5914566

>>5914561
theories are not

>> No.5914568

>>5914566
>it's just a theory (a geuss)

>> No.5914606

Believing what you want without evidence is also irrational. The only logical thing to do is believe what's evident within your 'box' of perception, and be open to the fact that reality could be dramatically different to what you believe.

>> No.5914961

>>5914557
>>5914561
Theoretical physics has disproven objectivism.

>> No.5914995

>>5914552
>Can you logically prove logic?

If logic did not exist, then the statements "logic does not exist" and "logic does exist" would have equal truth value; so as logic would exist even it did not exist, logic exists.

>> No.5915050

>>5914483
Empirical evidence is a kind if evidence, yeah; and how exactly do you go about proving that Empirical Evidence is the thing you need to demonstrate true-ness?

>> No.5915052
File: 29 KB, 200x253, bohmyoung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915052

>>5914961
>quantum mechanics necessarily implies subjectivist probabilistic magic

>> No.5915054

>conflating "evidence" and "empirical evidence"
I seriously hope you scientists realise how disingenuous it is to do this

>> No.5915067

>>5914995
>equal truth value

what 'truth value'?
using what you want to prove, what's that called?

>> No.5915081
File: 107 KB, 640x566, 1374369367580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915081

>> No.5915086
File: 11 KB, 219x232, 1270028310092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915086

>to dismiss anything that can't be empirically proven as nonsense is not logical and places you in a small box of perception
Anything you can percept can be empirically proven, therefore, only accepting things that can be empirically proven places you in exactly the right sized box of perception.

>> No.5915091

>>5915086
>percept

>> No.5915094
File: 96 KB, 640x566, 1374369367580-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915094

>>5914552

>> No.5915103

>>5915094
I lol'd

>> No.5915127

A proper scientist never completely dismisses anything, nor does he completely trust anything. Through observation and calcuations, he simply chooses the option least likely to be wrong.

>> No.5915135

I just do whatever gets results, be it using the scientific method, or believing in God.

Whatever gets me what I want and need, whatever works.

>> No.5915147

>>5914478

You can't have illogical logic.

>> No.5915148

>>5914502
Philosophy is about fitting the most euphoric statement into 140 characters or less

>> No.5915155

Ok lets put it this way.

imagine you are in intense pain. Your friend has studied neuroscience and knows that giving you a sugar pill will relieve your pain due to the placebo effect.

i would give a link here but i get a spam warning anyway google placebo effect mediated by endogenous opioid release

now just believing something causes a psoitive response. Now if you are a severe skeptic and dont believe in the efficacy of the pill your friend gives you, you will continue to be in more pain. therefore the actual ingredients of the pill are completely irrelevant whether there is a real analgesic in the pill or not what matters is that you believe.

The same goes for god. It doesnt really matter whether he exists or not as long as you believe in him it can give you comfort. I hate all the militant atheists saying ohh you are dumb for believing in god. No you are the dumb ones because happiness is not some empirically observable phenomena that you can quantify if believing in god is what makes them happy does that make god any less real than the placebo effect? Why would you actively try making people miserable just because they believe in something you dont.

>> No.5915159

>>5915155
Dice nubs.
>Why would you actively try making people miserable just because they believe in something you dont.
Because you enjoy it?
Happiness seems like the most important thing to you.

>> No.5915176

>>5915155
>Why would you actively try making people miserable just because they believe in something you dont.
Implying theists dont do this when you dont believe in something they do.

>> No.5915207

>>5914478
you're just ignorant. you can prove anything with scientific exploration. Not god. god explains nothing but himself, the self centered narcissist.

>> No.5915210

>>5915155
>Implying believing in god stops at making the people feel good and doesnt influence real life laws and situations that actively destroy the lives of those the theists dont accept as being part of them

>> No.5915216

>>5915176
>>5915159
Theism isn't well spread throughout the world. God is. God, is unbelievable to humans. But they believe, and if you were to convert the world to a godly sense it would just become a brainwashed system. I absolutely don't believe in god. I'm still sort of happy. Life.. is life besides the fact you found god hiding in your head or not. Humans want to think of the far future, but not the near future. It's all in your mind, you're trying to say. There is no point of confronting the idea of insane people. Why? as long as an emotion called happiness exists? so mental hospitals should be filled with happy people who don't take meds? If you want to intemperate the world, just become a philosopher and do it, don't take god into account at all. Fuck rules. Just think about what's right and wrong. they may control you, but do they really control you? no. You're just stupid

>> No.5915223

>>5915210
it does. I'm not saying it wouldn't. God and it's irrelevant community can honestly suck my dick. Public school teaches religion YES. But in the sense of comparable religion. So okay there will be a godly figure in these types. But leaning over to one side and saying fuck you to the rest is incomprehensible to me because life doesn't revolve around that factor. How much evidence do scientists need to bring the universal community to a place away from the stone ages. People believed because there was no logic. I doubt that, but life was different then, and humans were controlled like cockroaches and practically couldn't think for themselves. There was a government in the sense of religion. And it's still happening.

>> No.5915225

>>5915081
yes, through evidence and time. Maybe not at the moment but you'd explain it.
>>5915094
gay and fake

>> No.5915228

>>5914478
Looking at this thread I miss the 0.999..=/=1 Threads.

>> No.5915230
File: 203 KB, 632x483, philososhitposter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915230

>> No.5915233 [DELETED] 

>>5914478
>>5914480
>>5914501
>>5915081
>>5915094
>>5915230
epic meme. Post it on reddit or funnyjunk so i can upvote :^)

>> No.5915237

>>5915233
>>5915228
>>5915230
I thought this was /sci/ not /b/.. Discussing topics of other nature is part of sci friend. if you dont like the thread leave. No need to Looking at this thread I miss the 0.999..=/=1 Threads. Because it's redonk

>> No.5915254
File: 28 KB, 450x537, david-hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915254

FUCK RATIONALISM
FUCK DAYCART
FUCK SPINOZA
EMPIRICISM > YOUR MOM

>> No.5915255

>>5915254

O hai, Dawid Home.

>> No.5915266

>>5915233
maybe you should not go on 4chan, phisicsforum may be better for you.

>> No.5915271
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915271

>> No.5915273

>>5915254
Hume you fat bastard.
The world wasn't ready for you.

>> No.5915282
File: 22 KB, 250x318, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915282

>>5915254

#swag

>> No.5915391
File: 90 KB, 708x547, philosophyGRE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5915391

>>5915271
>philosophy gives meaning to science

/thread

>> No.5915428

>>5915391
How is math not even on there?

>> No.5915432

>>5915428

must be a tipo

>> No.5915442

>>5915428
Programming code wasn't an acceptable medium of communication therefore nullifying their exams

>> No.5915451

>>5915391
I have done the math, and to be honest I'm not likely to, but isn't the only statistically significant difference in those three categories the "Quantitative" one?

>> No.5915453

>>5914478
Concerning the image:

Societies which assume the statement are successful, societies which do not are not. Therefore the statement is probably useful and true. QED.

>> No.5915471

>>5915210
not really; just because some religious people don't want to have sex until they are married since god said so, means that they are instituting laws on you? Soon the government will be completely apathetic to religion so scientists will be able to have their field day with whatever(though not politics so have fun dealing with that). Does people believing in god and reading the bible for their own happiness really affect you?

>> No.5915481

>>5915453


In Natural Philosophy, or any other science of that sort ... we may lay down certain principles, primary or proved, in the beginning, from whence we account for the several phenomena, connecting all together by the same chain. This latter, which we may call the Newtonian method, is undoubtedly the most philosophical, and in every sense, whether of Morals or Natural Philosophy, etc., is vastly more ingenious, and for that reason more engaging, than the other (the Aristotelian method). It gives us a pleasure to see the phenomena which we reckoned the most unaccountable, all deduced from some principle (commonly a well-known one) and all united in one chain, far superior to what we feel from the unconnected method, where everything is accounted for by itself, without any reference to the others. We need not be surprised, then, that the Cartesian philosophy (for Descartes was in reality the first who attempted this method) though it does not perhaps contain a word of truth, - and to us who live in a more enlightened age and have more inquired into these matters, it appears very dubious, - should nevertheless

>> No.5915489

>>5915453
>successful => correct
This just in, stealing and not getting caught is the correct thing to do because the ends justify the means.

>> No.5915610

>>5915489
Technically it is. The only things that make it incorrect are law, morality, and your emotions.
We are not completely correct just because we're humans.
>this is me on a tangent

>> No.5915622

>>5915610

>This is me on a sine
>This is me on a cosine

etc, etc

>> No.5915671

You can clearly see the differences between the contributions science and religion have made to humanity and objectively see which one produced better results.

>> No.5915674

>>5915671

value judgment
objective

cool story, bro