/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6183979]

I am always frustrated when I see fairly intelligent people trying to talk to idiots like Deepak Chopra.

For those who are not familiar with Deepak, he uses the following tactic: Say things that make no sense but that sound profound. Just combine intelligent sounding words and say them in a way that makes the dumb people in the audience applaud.

I think I came up the perfect way to utterly crush such people on TV. Debating them in the traditional way just won't work. Instead, you take something they have written and ask them about it. Let's say, for example, Deepak has written the following "The unconscious mind is the extension of the fundamental universe at a quantum level which cannot be divided by our senses." You then just make a gap text, or ask them yes or no questions about these things. They probably won't remember anything. They have no chance to deduce it either because it's all BS anyway. So they will get most questions wrong, and those are questions about their own writing. Thus, they demonstrate even to the idiots in the audience that they have no clue what they are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6184003]

>Say things that make no sense but that sound profound. Just combine intelligent sounding words and say them in a way that makes the dumb people in the audience applaud.

Yep, that's how philosophy works.

[Anonymous No.6184007]

>>6184003

No. That's how pseudo-philosophy works. To compare his ramblings to actual philosophy is like comparing creationism to actual science.

[Anonymous No.6184012]

>>6184007
Philosophy has no rigour and according to philosophers themselves every baseless babble qualifies as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6184020]

>>6184003
top kek @ pic

[Anonymous No.6184042]

>>6184012

Are you claiming that it is impossible to study certain ideas and questions, such as questions about morality, in a rigorous way? If not, then philosophy has rigor.

>according to philosophers themselves every baseless babble qualifies as philosophy.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6184043]

I like his theories. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do enjoy them. It's called broad horizons and general openmindedness, OP.

[Anonymous No.6184046]

>>6184042

I should've said "If not, then you agree that philosophy has rigor."

[Anonymous No.6184051]

>>6184043

[Anonymous No.6184056]

>>6184012

Science is a branch of philosophy. It used to be called "natural philosophy". Sure, this convention changed but science is still about answering questions about the natural world by using rational means of inquiry. Thus, it's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6184059]

>>6184042
>If not, then philosophy has rigor.
non sequitur, pls lrn2logic

>[citation needed]
Paul Feyerabend

[Anonymous No.6184061]

>>6184059
>non sequitur, pls lrn2logic

See: >>6184046

>Paul Feyerabend

lrn2cite

[Anonymous No.6184063]

>>6184056
Even though science evolved from philosophical origins, nowadays the word "philosophy" is used to denote all kinds of verbal diarrhea without scientific basis. Science and philosophy are polar opposites in our modern world.

[Anonymous No.6184066]

>>6184061
>See: >>6184046
Still a non sequitur.

>lrn2cite
I did. I cited a philosopher who claims that all inane and empty garbage talk is of equal importance and validity. That's the main content of so called "epistemological anarchism".

[Anonymous No.6184068]

>>6184063
No. You'll grow up eventually.

[Anonymous No.6184071]

>>6184068
>ad hominem

[Anonymous No.6184075]

>>6184063
>Even though science evolved from philosophical origins

Evolved? It's still the same enterprise.Scientists and mathematicians are really doing philosophy. It’s just that they’ve specialized in a particular branch, and they’re employing the carefully honed tools of their specific shard just for that particular job. So specialized, and so established is that toolkit, that they don’t consider them philosophers any more, but they really are.

>nowadays the word "philosophy" is used to denote all kinds of verbal diarrhea without scientific basis.

No, that's called "pseudophilosophy".

[Anonymous No.6184077]

>>6183979
>Thus, they demonstrate even to the idiots in the audience that they have no clue what they are talking about
but will the idiots in audience remember the question themselves? or even u?

[Anonymous No.6184082]

>>6184075
>Evolved?
Do you deny evolution? Are you a creationist?

>It's still the same enterprise.Scientists and mathematicians are really doing philosophy.
No, they are doing science and math. Both have rigorous methods, unlike philosophy which allows everyone to make baseless assertions.

>No, that's called "pseudophilosophy".
That word doesn't make sense becaue it would imply the existence of rigorous philosophy. There is no rigorous philosophy. Philosophy has no rules or guidelines. Basically any nonsense can be published as philosophy and can claim the same validity. Philosophy is empty talk based on nothing but beliefs and rhetorical fallacies, without making any testable or falsifiable predictions.

[Anonymous No.6184081]

>>6184066
>Still a non sequitur.

It does follow.

Are you claiming that it is impossible to study certain ideas and questions, such as questions about morality, in a rigorous way?

If your answer is no, then you agree that it is possible to study certain ideas and questions, such as questions about morality, in a rigorous way.

Philosophy is the study of certain ideas and questions, such as questions about morality.

Thus, you agree that it is possible to do philosophy in a rigorous way.

Thus, you agree that philosophy has rigor.

[Anonymous No.6184083]

>>6184077

Just show them written down and compare them to the answers.

[Anonymous No.6184087]

>>6184081
Morality is a religious bullshit concept and does not exist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just too uneducated to know that you actually meant to talk about ethics. But even in that case you are wrong. The only rigorous approach to ethics would be through science, e.g. biology (evolution), psychology and economics. A philosophical approach on the other hand has to be inherently non-rigorous because it is the nature of philosophy to refrain from any notions of rigor.

[Anonymous No.6184088]

>>6184075
Please define "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.6184094]

>>6183979
>implying he won't say that Schrodinger's Cat proves the answer to your question is both true and false at the same time and only becomes our dualistic idea of truth or falsehood when perceived by the fundamental consciousness
>implying he won't receive such thunderous applause for this explanation that the sound wave will propel you off the stage

[Anonymous No.6184101]

>>6184082
>Do you deny evolution? Are you a creationist?

Are you trolling?

>No, they are doing science and math.

Science is a branch philosophy and mathematics is a branch of logic.

>unlike philosophy which allows everyone to make baseless assertions.

What do you mean by allow? Science also "allows" people to make bullshit claims about scientific matters. These claims are either rejected outright or scrutinized by peers. The same is true for all other branches of philosophy.

>Philosophy has no rules or guidelines.

But that's wrong. Look up "analytical philosophy" for example.

>Basically any nonsense can be published as philosophy and can claim the same validity.

The same is true for science. That's what "Christian Science" is all about.

>Philosophy is empty talk based on nothing but beliefs and rhetorical fallacies

So you're doing philosophy right now?

[Anonymous No.6184107]

>>6184087
>because it is the nature of philosophy to refrain from any notions of rigor.

Ok I'm done talking to you. Your reasoning amounts to nothing more than "I'm right because I say so!" It's not surprising that you don't like philosophy. I will also ignore your attempt to start a pointless semantic dispute.

[Anonymous No.6184111]

>>6184088

Any conventional definition that can be found in dictionaries or encyclopedias will do.

[Anonymous No.6184117]

>>6184101
>Are you trolling?
No. Please answer the question.

>Science is a branch philosophy and mathematics is a branch of logic.
Science is the opposite of philosophy. Science is rigorous, objective and based on observations in nature. Philosophy is empty talk about things that can neither be verified nor falsified and have no basis in observable reality. Logic is a branch of math.

>The same is true for all other branches of philosophy.
Philosophy has no peer review and philosopher's claims cannot be tested objectively. It's a clusterfuck of nothing but opinions, beliefs and rhetorical fallacies for the sole purpose of propagating a false sense of pseudo-intellectualism.

>But that's wrong. Look up "analytical philosophy" for example.
I looked at the wikipedia page. If "analytical philosophers" actually believe marxism is a valid ideology, they cannot be taken seriously.

>The same is true for science. That's what "Christian Science" is all about.
"Christian science" is pseudoscience and wouldn't stand a chance against rigorous peer review.

>So you're doing philosophy right now?
No, I'm applying logic.

[Anonymous No.6184120]

>>6184087
>The only rigorous approach to ethics would be through science, e.g. biology (evolution), psychology and economics.

What would that even look like? I think you're making the same mistake as Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.6184127]

>>6184107
>Your reasoning amounts to nothing more than "I'm right because I say so!"
1. That's not what I'm saying. I provided logical arguments and empirical facts.
2. Even if that was my reasoning, you should accept it because that's what all of philosophy boils down to. If you enjoy philosophy, you shouldn't have a problem with "because I say so" as a justification, because that's the only argument philosophers ever offer.

>I will also ignore your attempt to start a pointless semantic dispute.
I thought you liked philosophy. Philosophy is all about pointless semantic dispute.

[Anonymous No.6184134]

>>6184120
Sam Harris makes no mistakes. He's a neuroscientist and his proof that free will and consciousness don't exist is rigoruos and scientific.

[Anonymous No.6184136]

>>6184117
>Philosophy is empty talk
Opinion.

[Anonymous No.6184137]

>>6184111
I guess I just don't like that. I find

>the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline (OED)

to be awfully broad because in this definition almost anything is legitimately philosophy.

There's nothing in that definition to say that the pseudophilosophical quackery that the troll keeps ranting about isn't philosophy.

It's studying the fundamental nature of those things; why is it not philosophy? You need to add something extra to exclude quacks.

[Anonymous No.6184140]

>>6184136
Nope, it's the definition of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6184147]

>>6184145
>I thought the summer was well over by now.

Then why are you still here?

[Anonymous No.6184145]

>>6184140
The definition of philosophy is "empty talk"?

I thought the summer was well over by now.

[Anonymous No.6184148]

>>6184140
>phi·los·o·phy
>The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline

What the fuck are you doing on a science board?

[Anonymous No.6184157]

>>6184117
>No. Please answer the question.

You used the word "evolved" figuratively and then you accuse me of being a creationist when I tell you that science is still a branch of philosophy?

I won't take you seriously anymore.

>Science is the opposite of philosophy. Science is rigorous, objective and based on observations in nature. Philosophy is empty talk about things that can neither be verified nor falsified and have no basis in observable reality. Logic is a branch of math.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Ever heard of Carnap? I wonder what he would have to say about your "cannot be verified or falsified" claim. Positivism is the exact opposite of what you claim ALL philosophy to be. But of course you will keep denying that because "herp derp I have to win this internet argument!"

>Logic is a branch of math.

top lel

[Anonymous No.6184159]

"The most important scientific discovery of the modern era, I believe, is that eternal stillness embraces humble bliss, that the web of life is inside deep chaos and that the Higgs boson illuminates boundless potentiality. Thus, imagination influences infinite destiny. Quantum physics transforms existential belonging and as such, its greatness regulates positive abstract beauty.

Just think about it: qualia arises and subsides in unbridled love and the secret of the universe projects onto potential fulfillment, making intuition explore an abundance of mortality.

Our culture nurtures quantum excellence."

- Deepak Chopra

[Anonymous No.6184160]

>>6184148
Your dictionary definition is just an eloquent rephrasing of "empty talk".

>What the fuck are you doing on a science board?
Unlike you I am here for science and math. You apparently only want to talk about philosocrap. You're free to do that on /x/ or /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6184162]

>>6184147
It's winter and I like it.

[Anonymous No.6184163]

>>6184160
Philosophy isn't paranormal, and neither is it directly related to politics. I think you should put your blinders down.

[Anonymous No.6184165]

>>6184159
"The unexplainable constructs universal self-knowledge. Your consciousness is the continuity of great creativity.

Let us go forth and observe as the universe is reborn in the doorway to timelessness".

[Anonymous No.6184166]

>>6184137
>You need to add something extra to exclude quacks.

Definitions of "science" also don't mention all the things needed to exclude bad science and pseudoscience. Many definitions mention that science uses observation and experiments. Do you have any idea how many things have to be considered to make sure that said observations and experiments are done correctly? You cannot fit all that shit in a definition.

Even though, it does mention that it is an academic discipline, and as such it obviously has certain standards.

[Anonymous No.6184177]

>>6184157
>You used the word "evolved" figuratively
No, I didn't. "Evolve" means "to develop by undergoing gradual change". The use of the word is not restricted to biology, you uneducated simpleton.

>You have no idea what you're talking about.
I am more educated than you, dunce.

>I wonder what he would have to say about your "cannot be verified or falsified" claim
Why would you need an "argument by authority" fallacy, dolt? Can't come up with an actual convincing argument on your own, dullard? Why don't you show me where metaphysical drivel can be falsified or verified even though it makes no testable predictions at all, dimwit?

>top lel
You have no idea what formal logic is, lamebrain. If you took a mathematical logic course, you'd drop out after the first week because you wouldn't understand the formal notation, ignoramus. You'd be shocked to see how formal logic is fundamentally different from your philosophical "muh rhetorical fallacy" logic, numskull.

[Anonymous No.6184178]

>>6184163
/x/ is a containment board for all unscientific nonsense. Hence philosophy belongs there.

[Anonymous No.6184187]

>>6184177

Your emotional outburst notwithstanding, I still maintain that positivism is the exact opposite of what you claimed all philosophy to be. That's also the reason why I mentioned Carnap.

And I'm well aware that the word "evolve" is not restricted to biology. So why did you accuse me of creationism when we clearly weren't talking about biological organisms? I doubt you yourself even know.

The rest of your post consists of childish name-calling. Insulting people is an indication of lack of arguments.

[Anonymous No.6184188]

>>6183979
Why do people keep answering to this sad troll? Can you not see he is carving for attention as he gets none on the real world? OP just ignore this sad little kid.

[Anonymous No.6184193]

>>6184178
You're a fucking idiot. Go eat a bag of uneducated dicks.

[Anonymous No.6184201]

>>6184177
" Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." From the wiki page. Man you need to chill and realise that real philosophy is like a scientific theory. To the layman, theory means shit I think of but in science its a solid way of knowing things. Don't fall into the layman's definition of Philosophy

[Anonymous No.6184219]

>>6184134
>Sam Harris makes no mistakes.

[Anonymous No.6184228]

I don't have any clue what you're talking about or why it belongs on /sci/, OP.

If he made a factually incorrect statement on matters of science, post it here and we may discuss it.

[Anonymous No.6184234]

>>6184134
>He's a neuroscientist and his proof that free will and consciousness don't exist
>proof that (...) consciousness don't exist
>consciousness don't exist

He really thinks that consciousness doesn't exist? Is he retarded?

[Anonymous No.6184238]

>>6184228

He is famous for talking pseudoscientific nonsense. That's why I posted my idea about how to expose him here.

[Anonymous No.6184242]

>>6184165

He never made any of these quotes.

Will someone actually post something anti science he's quoted?

[Anonymous No.6184247]

>>6184238

Then what are you inventing quotes for, post something related to science he's said which we can actually debate / ridicule.

[Anonymous No.6184248]

>>6184234

Sci doesn't think so either. Naturally the conclusion also transfers over to sci

[Anonymous No.6184253]

>>6184248
>we're all evidently conscious
>consciousness doesn't exist

Typical delusional materialist. Consciousness is axiomatic.

[Anonymous No.6184260]

>>6184247

But nothing what he says makes sense anyway so why even bring it up? My point is that it's futile to try to address what he is saying. In order to expose him, he should be tested on his own claims. He won't be able to repeat what he said earlier because it's just BS he made up on the spot. When he starts contradicting his own words, even the biggest idiot should notice that he is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.6184267]

>>6184253

I am a materialist and of course I know that consciousness exists.

[Anonymous No.6184271]

>>6184242

i don't know anything about this guy, so i looked him up on the most reliable of sources, wikipedia. they have some quotes which give you an idea.

>Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting "a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction"

>Chopra coined the term quantum healing to invoke the idea of a process whereby a person's health "imbalance" is corrected by quantum mechanical means. Chopra claimed that quantum phenomena are responsible for health and wellbeing. He has attempted to integrate Ayurveda, a traditional Indian system of medicine, with quantum mechanics, in order to justify his teachings. According to Robert Carroll, he "charges $25,000 per lecture performance, where he spouts a few platitudes and gives spiritual advice while warning against the ill effects of materialism."[31]

>Chopra has equated spontaneous remission in cancer to a change in quantum state, corresponding to a jump to "a new level of consciousness that prohibits the existence of cancer".


also, someone in this thread is either a grandmaster ruseman with far too little in his life, a 15-year-old, or an actual idiot.

[Anonymous No.6184299]

>>6184253

I meant the conclusion that people who doesn't believe in conciousness are retarded was correct, and that it also applies to the denizens of sci who refuses to accept it. That said it is currently far away from the realms of science and the debate is pointless

[Anonymous No.6184320]

>>6183979

ITT:

autists wanting to "expose" people rather than just minding their own business.

top lel

[Anonymous No.6184372]

>>6184260
> He won't be able to repeat what he said earlier because it's just BS he made up on the spot.

You're assuming he's just randomly combining words into sentences in his head.

Watch his debate with Sam Harris. He does make scientifically unfounded cllaims about what he perrciees as the metaphysical nature of human consciousness.

But he's not inventing sentences; his claims do hae a certain consistency and make sense within the logical framework of the universe he has invented in his head.

[Anonymous No.6184390]

>>6184271

Besides the first outlandish claim, none of the other mumbo jumbo, while it is mumbo jumbo, has anything to do with science.

All his metaphysical claims are virtually untestable, even though he posits some relation to reality.

If I said the wumbo changes states with respect to the position of the squirl relative to the tree, is that an unscientific statement? Probably. Is it anti-science? Not necessarily. Wumbo is just something I invented; it only exists in my mind. It's not a testable claim, because its immaterial. It is whatever I imagine it to be.

[Anonymous No.6184391]

>>6184242
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com

[Anonymous No.6184400]

>>6184390
I think the danger is that once you substitute wumbo with some scientific jargon, even if you claim it to be metaphor, you are misleading lots of stupid people about science; which is never helpful in the long run.

[Anonymous No.6184411]

>>6184390
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=--hsVknT1c0

[Anonymous No.6184423]

>>6184390

Well. Basically what Chopra is doing it taking well-founded scientific concepts and then applying them to where they do not belong.

Hence the talk about changing quantum states of the consciousness, which prohibits cancer. He doesn't make his own ''wumbo'', he borrows these words from other areas and uses them to confuse people who don't know what those words really stand for.

Basically it makes him sound like he would be a cutting-edge scientist talking about the things other scientists are talking about, although what he's saying is mostly unfounded. It's a purposeful scam.

[Anonymous No.6184439]

>>6183979
another good strategy is to ask them to define "word". So that we can have this discussion while understanding each-other.
For example, if you argue with an american, and he starts the usual "socialist/communism" crap. Be it about Obama, another country or someone in general. Ask them to define it, and then challenge them on it.
This way you choose what to argue about, and if they refuse then they simply loose any debate since they were the one who brought it up in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6184463]

>>6184423

>qualia depends on cosmic sexual energy

i have no idea what that even means; it's bizarre because i know what each of those words means out of context.

[Anonymous No.6184474]

>>6184020
Stop typing like a moron or go back to reddit.

[Anonymous No.6184476]

>>6184043
>theories
>It's called broad horizons and general openmindedness
No, actually it's called ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6184503]

>>6184423
Good site,

[Anonymous No.6184519]

>>6184372
>You're assuming he's just randomly combining words into sentences in his head.

That's what he does most of the time, especially when he creates endless multi-clause sentences to appear smart. One of his favorite words is "experience". Whenever he gets stuck, he quickly says "experience" even if doesn't make any sense.

He won't be able to repeat any of this shit. 99% of what he says and writes is stuff he makes up, and he knows it.

[Anonymous No.6184524]

>>6184439
>another good strategy is to ask them to define "word".

That won't work on him. His definition will be a long-winded mess nobody understands so he can continue to use the word ambiguously.

[Anonymous No.6184530]

>>6184524
You choose a word you know, then you challenge him on it. Straight out say its wrong.

[Anonymous No.6184557]

>>6184476
Not really. You can indulge in other philosophies than your own for the sake of learning about new points of view. It's called being smart.

[Anonymous No.6184568]

>>6184557
>philosophies
Equating incoherent pseudoscience babble to actual theories is a point of ignorance. The fact that you would compare Chopra's nonsense to philosophy is an insult to actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6184571]

>>6184557
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

[Anonymous No.6184586]

>>6184568
>The fact that you would compare Chopra's nonsense to philosophy is an insult to actual philosophy.
And why is that? There's no right or wrong in philosophy. If anything, philosophy should strive to bring down boundaries and good philosophers should learn from plenty sources, even the most exotic ones because that's how you gain ground upon which philosophers thrive. You need new ideas in order to produce other ideas from the ones you already know.

Being ignorant is not listening to a person in the first place on the basis that it's "incoherent babble". Now let me get this straight, I'm not defending Chopra's philosophy, but I do find it interesting and I find his charisma appealing. I disagree with him on many if not most points, but that doesn't mean that here and there he can't provoke me to think about things differently. Point is, even Christianity makes sense when viewed through the eyes of the Christian, and that's what good philosophy is really about - viewing the world from a multitude of starting points. This enables you to understand the world better, and dwell into the potential unknown deeper.

Basically, never dismiss something out of sheer pessimism or dislike, because that's truly the root of ignorance. Study it objectively, and then create an opinion about it. And even when you do create an opinion, recognise that it's only your subjective opinion and don't defend it or try to divert others from it, because that just creates unneeded tension. Your goal as a philosopher is to study things, and not play favorites.

These are just my 2 cents, feel free to disagree.

[Anonymous No.6184695]

>>6184586
The fact is that Chopra spreads incoherent babble that he (and those that follow him) holds as truths when really it's just plain misinformation that appeals to ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6184705]

>>6184253
>>we're all evidently

No, we're not. I know I'm not and as long as you cannot even name observable effects of your dualistic nonsense claims, I have no reason to believe in them. Do you even Hitchens' razor?

[Anonymous No.6184735]

>>6184705
Hitchens razor is based on a faulty premise that objectivity in any form exists.

[Anonymous No.6184739]

>>6184735
Science is based on objectivity. If you want to deny science, then GTFO back to /x/, philosotard.

[Anonymous No.6184742]

>>6184705
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSd5xep30w

[Anonymous No.6184755]

>>6184739
No need to get all emotional.

Science is based on objectivity, but it's viewed through subjectivity. Everything is essentially subjective. For example, you can't really know whether or not you're in a Matrix. We can assume that we're not, but there's no way of proving it. And because it's a chicken-and-egg problem, the Hitchens razor can't help you there.

[Anonymous No.6184760]

>>6184739
Top lel, science is based on our senses, which are subjective.Stay where you are /sci/fag

[Anonymous No.6184764]

>>6184760
>Top lel
Go back to reddit.

[Anonymous No.6184767]

>>6184755
>but it's viewed through subjectivity
No, it isn't. Scientific data are objective.

>Everything is essentially subjective
No.

>For example, you can't really know whether or not you're in a Matrix
Anti-intellectual "cannot know nuthin" bullshit belongs on /x/, /pol/, /b/. You're not deep and insightful, you're just childish and annoying.

>the Hitchens razor can't help you there.
Everything that cannot be settled by science or math is not worth discussing.

>>6184760
Do you even peer review, nincompoop?

[Anonymous No.6184772]

>>6184767
>peer review
Your colleagues senses are subjective too.

[Anonymous No.6184776]

>>6184767
>You're not deep and insightful, you're just childish and annoying.
*your

[Anonymous No.6184777]

>>6184772
Scientific data are objective. If you can't deal with it, you are wrong on the science board.

[Anonymous No.6184784]

>>6184777
And how is scientific data obtained? Through your senses. Just embrace that you know nothing and you'll be happier.

[Anonymous No.6184789]

>>6184767
>No, it isn't. Scientific data are objective.
And processed through the senses, thus making them subjective.

>No.
Yes.

>Anti-intellectual "cannot know nuthin" bullshit belongs on /x/, /pol/, /b/. You're not deep and insightful, you're just childish and annoying.
Instead of random rambling you could try to disprove my point.

>Everything that cannot be settled by science or math is not worth discussing.
Literature is not worth discussing?
Films are not worth discussing?
Comic books are not worth discussing?
Art is not worth discussing?
Love towards my girlfriend is not worth discussing?

I mean if you're going down that road, we might as well settle this and agree to disagree. If you're capable of that, that is. Given by your fluctuating mood and irrational responses, I have my doubts.

[Anonymous No.6184793]

>>6184789
Love towards your girlfriend is not worth discussing

[Anonymous No.6184798]

>>6184568
>The fact that you would compare Chopra's nonsense to philosophy is an insult to actual philosophy.
It's true though. Basically every scribble ever published as philosophy is completely on par with Chopra's tripe.

[Anonymous No.6184795]

>>6184784
My senses are objective, because unlike you I am not mentally defective.

[Anonymous No.6184802]

>>6184793
:(

[Anonymous No.6184803]

>>6184795
Do you even mirage?

[Anonymous No.6184808]

>>6184789
>And processed through the senses, thus making them subjective.
No, see >>6184795

>Yes.
No.

>Instead of random rambling you could try to disprove my point.
What point? You didn't make any. "Look at me being immatue" is not a point.

>Literature is not worth discussing?
Scientific literature is worth discussing.

>Films are not worth discussing?
Films about science and math are worth discussing.

>Comic books are not worth discussing?
Comic books are anti-intellectual garbage for children and not worth discussing.

>Art is not worth discussing?
Art is worth discussing. It follows mathematical rules which can be found through science.

>Love towards my girlfriend is not worth discussing?
Love doesn't exist and you probably don't even have a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.6184809]

>>6184784
I use a lock-in amplifier you smarmy fedora-wearing git. Equipment and properly designed experiments are not subjective.

Take your stupid 'philosophy' to another place.

[Anonymous No.6184810]

>>6184795
>My senses are objective

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous No.6184811]

>>6184810
I lol'd because it's a reverse troll.

Well played sir, well played.

[Anonymous No.6184815]

>>6184809
Silly anon, how do you read the results of an amplifier? Surely it isn't with your eyes.

[Anonymous No.6184817]

>>6184159
>the Higgs boson illuminates boundless potentiality
wat

Come on Deepak, why you gotta bring the Higgs into this?

[Anonymous No.6184820]

>>6184808
You're surely full of opinions. And opinions are a highly subjective thing. So there you go.

[Anonymous No.6184824]

>>6184755
>For example, you can't really know whether or not you're in a Matrix.

Nah. Read Putnam. What you're saying isn't profound, it's just a misuse of language.

[Anonymous No.6184825]

>>6184820
I did not post opinions. I only posted facts.

[Anonymous No.6184829]

>>6184776
>*your
No. You're an idiot.
Now leave.

[Anonymous No.6184830]

>>6184820
The argument was that everything is subjective.

[Anonymous No.6184834]

>>6184798

[Anonymous No.6184835]

>>6184829
Lol, can't you even into grammer?

[Anonymous No.6184836]

>>6184795
>My senses are objective
No they're not, and they won't ever be. In fact it's ridiculously easy to confuse your senses.

See pic related (open it to see it in full scale). It's actually a static image, but you see it moving, don't you?

Enjoy your moral dillema.

[Anonymous No.6184842]

>>6184798
The fact that you would say something so ludicrous only reveals your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.6184845]

>>6184825
You lost your argument a bunch of posts ago. At this point I'm just laughing because you're probably too young to even understand what we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6184847]

>>6184817
Because he's full of bullshit quantum mysticism and people lap it up like ignorant mugs.

[Anonymous No.6184850]

>>6184830

Jump from a tall building without a parachute or other accessories. The fact that you will turn into a bloody pulp on the sidewalk doesn't depend on anybody's personal feeling or opinion.

[Anonymous No.6184854]

>>6184842
>>6184845
And here we see the typical philosotard resorting to ad hominems when he cannot back up his nonsense anymore while simultaneously being too socially retarded to handle his cognitive dissonance appropriately.

[Anonymous No.6184857]

>>6184835
Troll harder.

[Anonymous No.6184861]

>>6184372
>he's not inventing sentences; his claims do hae a certain consistency and make sense within the logical framework of the universe he has invented in his head.
I don't think that's generally the case. Chopra has little to know understanding of science, but uses its language constantly, particularly that of quantum mechanics, to assert nonsense. Sometimes he says things that make sense which are wrong (e.g. when he asserts or implies the existence of macroscopic biological coherent quantum states), but just as often or perhaps more often, he says things which don't make any sense at all, like "There is a hidden meaning behind all events, and this hidden meaning is serving your own evolution."

The idea of the OP is to confront Chopra with the most inane of his quotes and ask him to defend them, which is as good an approach as any I guess.

[Anonymous No.6184862]

>>6184854
>resorting to ad hominems
Please look at your posts in this thread and then rethink what you're saying here. You're only making it funnier.

[Anonymous No.6184864]

>>6184850
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/man-survives-fall-from-15th-floor-in-new-zealand-1.1395742

[Anonymous No.6184865]

>>6184862
>Please look at your posts in this thread

I did and they are still informative and factually correct.

[Anonymous No.6184866]

>>6184854
>doesn't understand what an ad hominem is

Oh you're one of those people.

Protip: ad hominem =/= insult

lrn2logic

[Anonymous No.6184867]

>>6184864
Good thing he knew in his head that the possibility of dying from a 15 story fall is subjective.

[Anonymous No.6184868]

>>6184857
Lol I was proven wrong so you must be a troll.
Pleb

[Anonymous No.6184870]

>>6184865
That's a rather eccentric point of view then. Maybe get your posts peer reviewed first?

[Anonymous No.6184871]

>>6184866
>Protip: ad hominem =/= insult
They are synonyms.

>lrn2logic
This has nothing to do with logic. But given the fact that you're a philosotard, we cannot expect you to know anything about formal logic.

[Anonymous No.6184872]

>>6184867
It was a good thing

[Anonymous No.6184873]

>>6184868
Please. Continue shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6184874]

>>6184871
Still waiting for you to disprove >>6184836

[Anonymous No.6184878]

>>6184871
>Protip: ad hominem =/= insult
>They are synonyms.

[Anonymous No.6184879]

>>6184871
They are not synonyms. If I said, "you're biased towards mothers because you have a child" that would be an ad hominem but not an insult.

[Anonymous No.6184880]

>>6184866
lrn2latin

Almost half of the fallacy names in your picture are spelled wrong.

[Anonymous No.6184883]

>>6184878
This is getting ridiculous.

Hey femanon with Hitch's razer troll, why do you always stir shit in threads like this? Are you like, set on world domination or something? Are you an evil villain?

...Will you date me?

[Anonymous No.6184886]

>>6184874
Disprove what? His ignoratio elenchi?

[Anonymous No.6184890]

>>6184871

Kid, just stop. You aren't that stupid. Stop pretending.

An ad hominem is an argument. A fallacious argument, but an argument nevertheless. Merely saying "You're a cunt" is not an ad hominem.

>This has nothing to do with logic.

It's a logical fallacy (inb4 "no I'm too stupid to use a dictionary and define logic differently! Fuck conventional language!")

[Anonymous No.6184894]

>>6184871
Most ad hominems are insults, but most insults are not ad hominems. I can say "you're a faggot" and mean it but not use that to refute a point you made about something other than your sexuality. "Ad hominem" is strictly a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6184891]

>>6184886
>blurum hurrdurrum
Can you speak in English just this once?

[Anonymous No.6184892]

>>6184873
>implying I'm shitposting
Plebs who constantly whine about "shitposters" are shitposting. Learn to make an argument.

[Anonymous No.6184896]

>>6184883

I'm OP who just returned to this thread after eating dinner. I'm not the Hitch's razor guy.

[Anonymous No.6184897]

>>6184896
How was your dinner?

[Anonymous No.6184898]

>>6184896
Almost as bad as
>Lol that was my brother typing as me on the computer just now

[Anonymous No.6184901]

>>6184897

It was ok considering my fringe was almost completely empty. I made some rice with peppers, tomatoes and a curry sauce.

[Anonymous No.6184904]

>>6184883
No, I don't date losers.

>>6184890
>An ad hominem is an argument
No, it's a fallacy.

>Merely saying "You're a cunt" is not an ad hominem.
But it is.

>It's a logical fallacy
No, it's an informal fallacy. Please at least try to look up what formal logic means. Surely you won't understand any of it, because all the mathy symbols make your philosotard brain melt, but hopefully you'll realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6184910]

>>6184891
Are you too uneducated to understand latin? Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta latina.

[Anonymous No.6184911]

>>6184904
>>Merely saying "You're a cunt" is not an ad hominem.
>But it is.
no it isn't, it's a premise

[Anonymous No.6184915]

>>6184910
No it doesn't sound better.

[Anonymous No.6184916]

>>6184894
>"Ad hominem" is strictly a logical fallacy.
No, it's an informal fallacy, you fucking retard. Look up formal logic.

[Anonymous No.6184917]

>>6184904
>No, I don't date losers.

[Anonymous No.6184918]

>>6184898

Uhm...ok? What would I gain by pretending to be another person exactly? We are all anonymous here anyway, remember?

I really would like to know what your problem is. Why are you so angry? Why do you attack everybody ITT? Why do you throw one temper tantrum after the other?

Have a cup of tea, put on a Cat Stevens record, sit down and chill out.

[Anonymous No.6184919]

>>6184916
>No, it's an informal fallacy
Right, an informal logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6184920]

>>6184904
>No, I don't date losers.
Pot calling the kettle black.

[Anonymous No.6184922]

>>6184918
>What would I gain by pretending to be another person exactly?
What would you gain by saying you're not not an anonymous person, when you easily could be?
I'm just mad at all these shitposters ITT

[Anonymous No.6184923]

>>6184904
>Please at least try to look up what formal logic means.
Nobody said "formal logic," faggot. Almost all logical fallacies relate to informal logic anyway.

In fact, informal fallacies are generally also non sequiturs, which is a formal fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6184929]

>>6184904
>An ad hominem is an argument
>No, it's a fallacy.

A fallacy is an argument. How about you do a little research before you respond?

>Merely saying "You're a cunt" is not an ad hominem.
>But it is.

No it's not. Can you provide me with a single credible source that claims that an ad hominem is just a synonym for "insult", rather than a fallacious form of argument? You can't because you're talking out of your ass and you know it.

>No, it's an informal fallacy. Please at least try to look up what formal logic means.

Why do you think they bother to call it "formal logic" rather than just logic? That's right, because there is also informal logic.

>Surely you won't understand any of it, because all the mathy symbols make your philosotard brain melt, but hopefully you'll realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Those are a lot of words but all I read is "Oh god I am so mad right now because I am losing an argument on the internet!!!"

[Anonymous No.6184932]

>>6184929
Is your picture supposed to be misspelled?

[Anonymous No.6184937]

>>6184929
>Oh god I am so mad right now because I am losing an argument on the internet!!!
Excellent self-reflection.

[Anonymous No.6184939]

>>6184937

[Anonymous No.6184940]

>>6184937
Oh god
>project more faggot

[Anonymous No.6184941]

>>6183979
Thank you for this thread. I've always been a firm believer in the idea that being unable to communicate a complicated idea to something an 8 year old can understand, means you truly don't fully understand the topic yourself. If you can't find a way to teach it to the layman, I mean actually teach it to the point where another person KNOWS the topic as well as yourself, then anything you have to say is worthless. I've read articles about this idea, and how this skill is derived from "emotional intelligence"
>inb4 psychology isn't science, not saying this idea is true but it's food for thought

It says somebody who explains themselves such as this man you've mentioned, doesn't have the intent of passing knowledge on to the listener. Their primary objective is to inflate their ego by having other people who know less than them validate their false sense of intellectualism. I know friends on facebook who will say things like "Time visually reaffirm my stress and strain data analysis to reinforce the intellectualized importance of brute calculation in physics opposed to that in engineering on my cartesian euclidian surface" (I'm dead serious, this is almost word for word) instead of "I need to graph data in MATLAB". These people think they're intelligent because they're emotionally retarded basically, and they need everybody to tell them how smart they are so they can continue believing they're God's gift to the green earth. This may not be true for all people who speak like this, after all, it isn't all that easy to tell an 8 year old how to do the math required for differential geometry. However, I do feel that most ideas provide ground for anybody of any level of intelligence to stand on, so long as a fit speaker/educator tells them how.

[Anonymous No.6184943]

>>6184919
>>6184923
This is a science and math board. The only logic we use here is formal logic.

>>6184920
>projection
I am very successful.

>>6184929
>A fallacy is an argument
No.

>Can you provide me with a single credible source that claims that an ad hominem is just a synonym for "insult"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ad%20hominem

>That's right, because there is also informal logic.
"Informal logic" doesn't belong on a science and math board. We use rigorous formal logic here.

>Those are a lot of words but all I read is "Oh god I am so mad right now because I am losing an argument on the internet!!!"
Did I hit a nerve? Or why do you project so hard?

[Anonymous No.6184946]

>>6184943
>>projection
>implicit insult that the person you're responding to is a "loser"
>I am very successful.
Bitch are you for real?

[Anonymous No.6184949]

>>6184943
>"Informal logic" doesn't belong on a science and math board. We use rigorous formal logic here.

[Anonymous No.6184955]

>>6184946
She's a very curious form of internet troll. I am only here to study her behaviour and see how she responds to different stimuli.

[Anonymous No.6184956]

>>6184943
>This is a science and math board. The only logic we use here is formal logic.
Science IS informal logic, you dipshit. The argument we are having right now is informal. All debates are informal.

>>A fallacy is an argument
>No.
Right, but it is. A fallacy is by definition an invalid argument.

[Anonymous No.6184959]

>>6184955
Some things are better left unknown Picard.

[Anonymous No.6184966]

>>6184956
>Science IS informal logic
Science is formal and rigorous.

>The argument we are having right now is informal.
Only because you are too unintelligent for a formal debate.

>All debates are informal.
Nope.

>A fallacy is by definition an invalid argument.
An invalid argument is not an argument at all.

[Anonymous No.6184971]

>>6184943
>>A fallacy is an argument
>No.

"A fallacy is an argument" Those are the first five words in the wiki article about fallacies.

Dictionary.com defines a fallacy as "a misleading or unsound argument."

You lost. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.6184972]

>>6184966
If you call someone a faggot, is that formal too? Because you just did, here >>6184940

[Anonymous No.6184974]

>>6184943
>credible source
>urbandictionary

Totally credible! But even that source agrees with ME not with you.

[Anonymous No.6184976]

>>6184972
That wasn't my post. I do not use homophobic slurs.

[Anonymous No.6184984]

>>6184966
>Science is formal and rigorous.
No it fucking isn't. There are FORMALISMS of many scientific theories like quantum field theory, but they do not comprise the entire theory, and there are many more theories like vertebrate psychology that are not fully formalized. Natural science is inductive, which makes it an INFORMAL science, not a formal science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science))

All debates are informal because they use natural languages like English rather than formal languages like those used in symbolic logic. This is the defining distinction between the two. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/))

>An invalid argument is not an argument at all.
Yes it is. Validity is a property of arguments that can be true or false. You can check an argument for its validity. The very phrase "invalid argument" betrays the fact that it is an argument.

[Anonymous No.6184987]

>>6184941
This guy again

can we get back on topic? I actually enjoyed this conversation until people started arguing, thanks in advance /sci/

[Anonymous No.6185176]

>>6183979

>The unconscious mind is the extension of the fundamental universe at a quantum level which cannot be divided by our senses.

Translation: The unaware consciousness is part of the universe that can be quantified but not understood.

[Anonymous No.6185203]

>>6185176

Simplification: The universe that can be quantified but cannot be understood by the unaware consciousness/person

Deepak Chopra unintentionally has his words in the wrong order; which leads to the confusion.

[Anonymous No.6185246]

>>6185176
You do understand that that phrase was invented for sake of example and is actually complete gibberish, right?

[Anonymous No.6185674]

>>6185246
what is going on in this thread? Pseudo Science or philosophy? And why are people angry?

[Anonymous No.6185680]

what does /sci/ think of Terence Mckenna? intelligent or deepak tier?

[Anonymous No.6185689]

>>6184003
I seriously don't get why people can't accept the fact that you can be smart and do porn. Hell you'd have to be an idiot not to do porn if you're a sexy girl that likes to have sex. It would be like getting payed to play video games except you don't need any skill or put forth any effort.

[Anonymous No.6185723]

>>6184012
>according to philosophers themselves
Oh you mean another hack? that's not at all mainstream. It doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.6185724]

>>6184059
>>6184059
that's not a citation, that's a name. Also, you're implying that he won out over Kuhn and Popper, which is not at all the case.

[Anonymous No.6185746]

I'm a philosopher and I wanted to let you know that when we hear scientists (dawkins, black science man, and the rest) argue philosophical/ethical/existential questions they all sound like Deepak Chopra does when he talks about Quantum Physics.

Just so you know, stick to what you are good at and leave the big questions alone.

[Anonymous No.6185749]

ITT:
>we can neve know nuthin
>we can neve know nuthin
>we can neve know nuthin
>we can neve know nuthin

Looks like /lit/ is leaking again.

[Anonymous No.6185786]

>>6184586
I want to punch you in the jaw.

[Anonymous No.6185791]

>>6185689

Because if you're smart enough to make a good living based on those merits alone, it's probably not worth it to make the otherwise horrible PR decisions to publicly fuck on camera for money.

PR is important because we usually have to interact with others to live and work in a society effectively and efficiently. Most people look down on the adult industry.

[Anonymous No.6185805]

>>6185724
>which is not at all the case
bullshit