>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing Why you do this /sci/entists?

File: 28 KB, 343x429, images (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 00:39:24 2018 No.9975630 [Reply] [Original]

>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing

Why you do this /sci/entists?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 00:40:58 2018 No.9975635 >>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing But most of the discussion on this board is about mathematics, much of which cannot be experimentally verified.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 00:43:02 2018 No.9975637 >>9975635 Which is very ironic, because that's the argument most people have against philosophy, theology. Science is experimentally verified in an unverifiable framework.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 00:50:45 2018 No.9975655 >>9975637 >Which is very ironic, because that's the argument most people have against philosophy, theology. What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:00:15 2018 No.9975664 >>9975630 >>anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing Said nobody ever

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:05:44 2018 No.9975675

>>9975655
Basically philosophy is dismissed as intellectual sophistry in some circles because philosophers believe that some knowledge can be gained a priori, without experimental justification. Science required rigiouros testing and experimentation. However, mathematics is the foundation of science, which is knowledge that can be obtained by reason alone.

there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:08:48 2018 No.9975682

>>9975664
A few days ago I saw a post here where philosophy was dismissed as nothing but a bunch of circle - jerking tryhards. There are many people who believe philosophy is irrelevant in the modern age. Granted, these are mostly the 'I fucking love science! ' types, but still.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:12:41 2018 No.9975690 File: 40 KB, 960x720, 50.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9975655 >>9975664 >It's a /sci/ pretends they never said things they say all the time episode.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:15:51 2018 No.9975696 >>9975682 >There are many people who believe philosophy is irrelevant in the modern age. They're not wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:17:08 2018 No.9975697 >>9975682 >>9975690 They're just logical positivists anons, just leave them alone until they eventually stumble onto Godel, Popper, and Quine

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:17:57 2018 No.9975698 >>9975696 OK, explain why

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:19:44 2018 No.9975701 >>9975682 >philosophy was dismissed as nothing but a bunch of circle - jerking tryhards But that's a true statement. The philosophers that matter were mostly also scientists or mathematicians. See: Plato, Pythagoras, Descartes, Kant, Bacon, etc etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:22:59 2018 No.9975707 >>9975698 >OK, explain why The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its relevance.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:28:19 2018 No.9975715

>>9975701
St Thomas Aquinas was probably the most logically rigorous philopsher ever, but he was not a scientist.

To an extent, it is true. But people do dismiss all philosophy in this way. The fact is that those philosophers you mention were trying to answer both scientific and philosophical questions, each of which requires different methods.

For example; what is morality and what is molarity are two questions that cannot be answered with the same methods.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:32:00 2018 No.9975717 >>9975707 Shifting the burden of proof ad infinitum isn't going to get us anywhere. If science can answer questions like "what is the best moral system " experimentally, then philosophy is irrevelant . Can it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:36:04 2018 No.9975722 >>9975637 No. The problem with philosophy is that it lacks frameworks. It doesn't have well defined axioms you can use to definitely prove anything. When you can't prove what is true, it just becomes meaningless semantic mess.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:36:46 2018 No.9975725

>>9975675
>However, mathematics is the foundation of science
Absolutely wrong. Modern science is predicated first and foremost on observation. Mathematics a wholly separate discipline, has simply shown itself extraordinarily adept at describing a vast array of observations. If you go into research into any serious field, you will soon find that mathematics has extremely hard limits, and only that which is most well known and described has fully formed mathematical descriptions and understanding.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:40:04 2018 No.9975730

>>9975722
That's because defining the axioms themselves is a big philosophical problem, with each philosopher disagreeing with the one before him.

So philosophical arguments are not verifiable. However, that doesn't mean that these questions should not be bothered with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:40:27 2018 No.9975731 >>9975722 >It doesn't have well defined axioms you can use to definitely prove anything. In what sense are philosophical axioms less well defined than mathematical axioms?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:47:15 2018 No.9975738 >>9975725 If not mathematics, then theoretical science. However, this too is derived from axioms which are not completely justifiable.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 01:52:54 2018 No.9975743

>>9975730
Without axioms there is no truth. Without truth there is no valid answers to these questions.

>>9975731
Dunno, what are the philosophical axioms?
For example, in math you can take ZFC and simply build up new theorems, observations, validate hypothesis and everyone will agree with you that X is valid under Y given proof Z. Can you do the same in philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:00:37 2018 No.9975756 >>9975743 Just as an example - Nothing comes from nothing. This can be selected as the self evident axiom, and logically complete results can be drawn from it. It's just like a mathematical axiom insofar that it is not ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:00:48 2018 No.9975757 >>9975743 >Can you do the same in philosophy? Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#Symbolic_notation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:11:05 2018 No.9975774 >>9975756 >it is not ambiguous. define "nothing"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:11:38 2018 No.9975775 >>9975690 >/sci/ is one person

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:12:40 2018 No.9975778 >>9975756 What is a nothing and how can you completely define it? Eg. Set is a collection of unique items. And item is anything that can be distinguished from other items. It is fully described by just all the items it contains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:14:17 2018 No.9975780 >>9975630 but it's not, dumbass go smoke your drugs and spew your nonsense somewhere else >fucking humanities thinking they're worth anything

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:15:59 2018 No.9975782

>>9975743
A lot of philosophical axioms are basically straight from math. The thing is that they are given definitions in individual hypothetical frameworks that while internally consistent can't really be proven to be relevant to the reality we live in and are oftentimes quite nebulous in their nature.

There is a lot of logic in formal philosophy, and the logic is usually quite sound, but the logic simply can't prove what people want it to prove.

In any case it shouldn't be roundly written off if only because the the thought experiments themselves can be quite insightful and if nothing else serve as excellent thought experiments in many cases, provided you're not otherwise too busy to invest the time it takes to understand the arguments of course.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:20:05 2018 No.9975786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:22:34 2018 No.9975789 File: 16 KB, 480x360, sloanes gap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9975780 you seem upset have you output enough arbitrary integer sequences today?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:24:28 2018 No.9975794

>>9975782
>In any case it shouldn't be roundly written off if only because the the thought experiments themselves can be quite insightful and if nothing else serve as excellent thought experiments in many cases, provided you're not otherwise too busy to invest the time it takes to understand the arguments of course.
I agree and I also enjoyed reading some philosophical papers. But that's the reason why I said there is no frameworks. All these experiments are just independent stories that happen in different worlds with different laws. They do not form (generally) consistent larger picture. They are fun but they are inconclusive. Some of them are grounded in semantics and unambiguous terms which is especially stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:24:55 2018 No.9975796 >>9975774 >>9975778 Nothing is a relational term. It's definition depends on this axiom : Existence exists. If existence exists, then nothing is that which doesn't exist. It has no identity, no characteristics, no existence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:30:35 2018 No.9975803 >>9975796 >It has no identity, no characteristics, no existence. But 'it has no identity' is a characteristic.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:31:48 2018 No.9975806

>>9975635
It certainly can be. If mathematics threw us a result tgat disagrees with empirical observations, we would consider that theory useless. Almost everything is grounded such that it works for euclidean shit, and basic arithmetic, and the generalizations comea afterwards. Obviously not all of math is really empirically verifiable in the strict sense, but a buch of it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:33:07 2018 No.9975807 >>9975796 What is an Existance then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:33:21 2018 No.9975809 >>9975803 No characteristics which would imply existence, to be more precise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:35:02 2018 No.9975812 >>9975807 That's a philosophical question that has remained unanswered for millennia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:36:03 2018 No.9975814 >>9975806 >It certainly can be. Can you experimentally verify for me that the vector space of functions \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} has a basis?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:36:50 2018 No.9975815 >>9975812 And you guys wonder why you are not welcomed on /sci/. You can't even use your own axioms because you don't know what do they mean.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:39:59 2018 No.9975821 >>9975809 >No characteristics which would imply existence Which characteristics imply existence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:44:15 2018 No.9975828 >>9975815 Many hypotheses have been given. None can be proven. But it is not different from a mathematical axiom, which operates on logic alone.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 02:54:18 2018 No.9975837

>>9975821
That is highly argued as well. Heidegger argued for being or "Dasein" - a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself.The being of life is different from the being of non sentient objects.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:28:14 2018 No.9975867 >>9975828 You don't prove axioms. None of mathematical axioms are proven.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:30:59 2018 No.9975868 >>9975867 No, the axioms are self evident and immutable. Their meaning is disputed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:34:44 2018 No.9975873 File: 158 KB, 1200x1181, 1529806270433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If I major in philosophy am I required to talk like a total fag at all times?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:36:11 2018 No.9975875

>>9975868
Mathematical axioms have undisputed meaning. They have been formed by describing the "meaning".
Making axioms by first forming the statement and then looking for its meaning is meaningless. You can use arbitrary definition to get any arbitrary meaning. It's no different than saying "X is true" and the X is just what you need.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:42:47 2018 No.9975883 >>9975630 >experimentally verified Lrn2science fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 03:46:25 2018 No.9975886 >>9975630 Atheist memes are not science. Learn the difference already.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 10:57:36 2018 No.9976263

>>9975738
>then theoretical science
Again no. You do not know what you are talking about. "Theories" in science are almost all created after rigorous observation of reality. Newton created his theory of gravity and forces through rigorous observation of the world around him, and sought to use mathematics to create a descriptive explanation of natural phenomenon. So to did Einstein, and Josiah Willard Gibbs, and Maxwell, and every other great scientist of our time. The foundation of all these scientists achievements are physically observably axioms and laws which had come to be known through experimentation, through which they put into a more formal frame work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 11:05:29 2018 No.9976273 File: 131 KB, 682x1023, ETERNALECLIPSE-FEDORA-B_1024x1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9975886 >still believing in religion when science has refuted it entirely well... at least you don't wear le social inept dunce cap

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:39:45 2018 No.9976397 >>9975630 >SCIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY OF ATTAINING TRUTH >A CLAIM UNPROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:51:55 2018 No.9976421 >>9976397 scientism brainlets can't into logic

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:52:48 2018 No.9976423

>>9975682
Philosophy has been important for the growth of humanity, especially during the dark ages, when they contributed as catalysts to the revolution.
And philosophy is still important, as they are able to put forth well thought questions and views of our current condition. We need them to keep order in chaos. Most philosophers aren't only philosophers, they usually work as, and have a dual education in, psychology or politics etc.

But they do not belong in science, rather they belong in ethical and political discussions (maybe about science). I can understand the view "philosophy is useless", but the anons who says so doesn't think about society in a whole.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 12:53:11 2018 No.9976424 >>9975868 >No, the axioms are self evident If the axioms were evident you would just prove them instead of assuming them to be true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:36:00 2018 No.9976544 >>9975730 >That's because defining the axioms themselves is a big philosophical problem No it isn't. A mathematician will chose givens which are convenient to the model.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:38:17 2018 No.9976545

>>9975731
>In what sense are philosophical axioms less well defined than mathematical axioms?
Philosophy has a tendency to blather over ideas that literally do not bear fruit in reality.
Philosophy has a tendency to make vague claims.
Philosophy has a tendency to not make sure their p's and q's add up correctly.

None of these problems exist with the use of mathematics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 14:40:19 2018 No.9976547

>>9976545
>Philosophy has a tendency to blather over ideas that literally do not bear fruit in reality.
>Philosophy has a tendency to make vague claims.
>Philosophy has a tendency to not make sure their p's and q's add up correctly.
What do any of these have to do with philosophical axioms?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 16:58:38 2018 No.9976715 >>9976263 But no observations are independent of theoretical assumptions. If you read phillosophy and history of science then youll see that these scientific advancements are often not the empirical juggernauts youd think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:03:07 2018 No.9976718 >>9976545 >Philosophy has a tendency to blather over ideas that literally do not bear fruit in reality. >math >reality

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 17:29:55 2018 No.9976755

>>9975630
because when discussing something that cannot be quantified the inevitable result is that the dumbest, loudest least courteous and most egotistical blowhard will inevitably be the one who produces "the answer" to your question and it will always be a wrong answer designed around some sort of self-serving concept. this is the nature of human social psychology.
its why women don't like nerds, their selfishness and narcissism can be neutralized by quantification, but dumb jocks types are too stupid to quantification and present less danger of rejection.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:10:38 2018 No.9976825

>>9976718
>>math
>>reality
Yes.
As long as a math model is consistent, you can be confident that you are talking about something in the universe.
You may not know WHAT you are talking about in relation to reality, but if it's consistent within the realm of math, then you can be confident that it exists somewhere somehow. It takes empirical evaluation to determine WHAT it is talking about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:21:08 2018 No.9976849 >>9976755 So much irony in a single post

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:53:32 2018 No.9976883 >>9976825 Wtf. this is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 18:54:36 2018 No.9976884 >>9976755 Do wmen like you?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:09:51 2018 No.9976903

>>9976883
Every modern theory of physics says that our universe is a mathematical object, and that we are substructures of that object. Theories differ only with regard to - which - mathematical object we happen to be a part of. Particles, forces and energy are not just described by equations; they - are - the equations (together with abstract, purely mathematical relations among those equations).

If you want to think of the universe as something other than a mathematical object — say, something that is controlled by mathematics, or described by mathematics, as opposed to made of mathematics — then you’re up against the fact that nobody has the slightest idea how to construct a useful physical theory along those lines. It’s not just that science rejects all the alternatives; it’s that no scientist has even been able to imagine a useful alternative. (Perhaps you can find solace in religion.)

I never cease to be amazed by people who uncritically accept the reality of rocks, geese and butterflies but want to deny the reality of mathematical objects. Science tells us that rocks, geese and butterflies - are - mathematical objects. What else could they be?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 19:15:22 2018 No.9976908

>>9976825
>As long as a math model is consistent, you can be confident that you are talking about something in the universe.
The problem is that physical reality is not consistent, it is ever changing, mathematics is the opposite to this.

Mathematics is metaphysical, and applies metaphysical quantity to metaphysical concepts. That can still be very useful when it comes to labelling the properties of physical things such as weight or size etc (again, can never be perfect).

The problem comes when mathematics is used to spawn metaphysical concepts like "spacetime". Metaphysical concepts are the domain of philosophy and formal logic, which is why theoretical "science" has separated itself from philosophy, it means it can make up all sorts of illogical metaphysical nonsense while calling it "science" and getting away with it.

Metaphysics has been replaced by theoretical "science" and formal logic is replaced with mathematics, so you're left with metaphysical concepts that don't need to be logically sound in the formal sense, only the metaphysical quantities need to work logically.

If science and mathematics merged properly back with philosophy again, and philosophy began rigorously analysing the concepts used in these domains, things would change overnight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:03:48 2018 No.9976979 >>9975722 You are doing good philosophy right there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:04:40 2018 No.9976981 >>9976884 Yes, I have the necessary skin deep values to attract 10/10 looking bitches with 1/10 personalities pretty easily if thats what you're asking. Manipulating retards is pretty easy.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:45:34 2018 No.9977062

>>9976715
>But no observations are independent of theoretical assumptions
Unless your talking about some bullshit about the assumption of reality existing or some other nonsense, no many observations are indeed devoid of theoretical assumptions. In fact if you actually worked or practiced science or even engineering or anything to do with reality at all instead of masturbating furiously in your office, you would soon realize that the vast majority of all knowledge accumulated by humanity is independent of theoretical assumptions.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 20:52:18 2018 No.9977078

>>9976908
>The problem comes when mathematics is used to spawn metaphysical concepts like "spacetime". Metaphysical concepts are the domain of philosophy and formal logic, which is why theoretical "science" has separated itself from philosophy

Do you even know what the fuck your talking about? Fucking spacetime isn't metaphysical. The nature of space and time were once the domain of philosophy but once it was determined that spacetime has certain aspects and effects which can be directly measured it immediately became the realm of science. Spacetime, while not directly perceivable by humans is indeed very physical and has direct and measurable effects on reality. In fact the only reason why we now call it spacetime is because we have measurements conclusively showing us that time and space are indeed linked together, not because some philosopher dreamed up the idea one night.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:01:51 2018 No.9977092

>>9976884
unable to attack the premise of the post so you attempt to undermine credibility of the author, textbook character assassination technique, straight out of the textbook narcissist's playbook when confronted with information that doesn't dovetail with "their version of reality".
you probably feel like you're being clever with that reply, you give yourself the dopamine reuptake inhibition you feel that you merit, but any keen educated observe sees your reply as some flustered retard falling on their face trying to refute something with no success.

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:07:35 2018 No.9977109

>>9976908
>The problem is that physical reality is not consistent.
No it is consistent. It is consistent for the very same reason why Nebraska as a territory is consistent. What I think you mean is constant? Math can model that change in the same way as math can model the changes in elevation of the Nebraska territory.
>Mathematics is metaphysical [...] "spacetime"
No. Mathematics is not metaphysical. Mathematics is a consistent structure much like the Nebraska territory. The axioms that are used can be inconsistent - but the mathematician doesn't care, since he can change the axioms he uses at will. It is important to remember that a map of Nebraska is not the territory of Nebraska. The axioms are the map (and the theory), and the Mathematical structure is the territory (and the model).
Much of the wonkery seen on the internet can be borne out of terrible theories, but not out of mathematics, and the refusal to distinguish between the two.
The Nebraska territory - can’t - be inconsistent. Only a description of it can be inconsistent.
It can be easy to mess up the distinction between the two because of informal discussions of this subject. This is true since a single word can have multiple meanings in the English language.
So when I mention "peano arithmetic" i'm talking about a theory - a list of axioms. When I mention the natural numbers, I'm talking about a consistent structure, that exists, and is used as a model for the theory of peano arithmetic.

So when evaluating anything of value, you have to ask: Is this theory consistent? In other words, is the theory free of self-contradiction? Second: Does this theory have a model? In other words, is there actually some structure that this theory describes?
This is why, ultimately, math is used so heavily to describe our natural world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:13:01 2018 No.9977117 >>9975696 >happiness is irrelevant >science, not philosophy leads to happiness you're so sheltered

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:26:42 2018 No.9977127 File: 31 KB, 400x250, 1290034114773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9976273 >>still believing in religion when science has refuted it entirely >an atheist on lelddit said it so it must be true way to be a freethinker

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 3 21:29:23 2018 No.9977131 >>9977117 >>happiness is irrelevant Who are you quoting?

Anonymous Mon Sep 3 22:15:15 2018 No.9977170

>>9975630
The issue I have with philosophy is actually more an issue with language. I have learned over my lifetime that we can create phenomena and pose questions with language that doesn't actually exist in reality, we can ask absurd things like "what does the color orange taste like?" or even more absurd "what's the purpose of life?" and people will argue over these things as if there's actually an objective answer to them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 02:13:37 2018 No.9977504 >>9977170 Sounds like you'd like analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein, whitehead, Bertrand Russell were all mathematicians who looked at philosophy with the same rigor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:02:08 2018 No.9977670 >>9975630 >anything that cannot be experimentally verified is not worth discussing you cannot experimentally verify that statemnet

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:06:14 2018 No.9977674 >>9976423 >he anons who says so doesn't think about society in a whole. generous way of exposing them as idiots

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:09:27 2018 No.9977676

>>9977170
>whats the purpose of life is equivalent to asking what orange tastes like
first of all orange tastes like vitamin c
second of all you're a brainlet
you don't know what a purpose is
saying "well you've said something in language and I can say anything in language haha" isn't even anything
all you pop sci dumb fucks are lazy, callous and stupid, that's all there is to it. the only smart ones who think like this are literal autistic savants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:10:37 2018 No.9977678 >>9975655 Any evidence of sciences existence would have to be interpreted through its own methods. Thus a tautology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:26:46 2018 No.9977685 >>9975722 You would like naturalism. Keep up the good philosophical enquiry!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:33:40 2018 No.9977690 >>9977670 Not with that attitude

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 06:34:14 2018 No.9977691

>>9976715
This, and it's rather liberating.

How has no one mentioned how all the great scientists that IFLS types champion against philosophy, were in fact not only making discoveries on the back of their own philosophical questions, but also had a deep and cultivated respect and understanding for metaphysics, ontology and epistemology?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 07:45:45 2018 No.9977774 >>9977685 I considered myself to be nihilist, but it pretty much the same.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:14:15 2018 No.9977800

>>9975675
>there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.
I cannot see how philosophy could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:18:31 2018 No.9977805 >>9975717 >If science can answer questions like "what is the best moral system " experimentally, then philosophy is irrevelant . Can it? You sound like a kid who just took his first philosophy course. Philosophy doesn't answer such questions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:20:07 2018 No.9977807 >>9975756 How is this self evident?

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:21:46 2018 No.9977809

>>9977062
not true. you need theoretical assertions to interpret what youre observing. this is of consensus for anyone whos read philosophy or history of science. Maybe you should read some. "What is this thing called science?" is a good start. you should really read it. Maybe you only disagree because people take for granted the current conventions they use to analyse data or interpret information. But really they are ignorant of changes through history. Even with the invention of the telescope there were assumptions required what you saw from earyl telecopes. leading to lots of ambiguity about what people saw through it concerning the celestial bodies.

Read a book. Ignorant faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:24:18 2018 No.9977817 >>9975757 Formal logic is math, not philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:26:34 2018 No.9977818 >>9975796 >Existence exists What does this mean?

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:29:00 2018 No.9977824

>>9977170
what you dont understand is that its not philosophies topic. philosophy is just critical enquiry. its subject matter is not stupid questions but questioning in general. hence why its been useful in how we categorise and look at science... unless youre a popsci fag.

>>9977062
And again, if you think none of the experimental instruments we use are devoid of theoretical assumptions then lol. youll only see the truth when paradigm changes happen. which happens all the time. remember particle-wave dilemma? the only difference between einstein and the other guys theory of relativity is theoretical assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:38:08 2018 No.9977840 >>9977817 False. Mathematicians just stole it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:42:57 2018 No.9977848 >>9977676 >I ate an orange skittle once and it claims that you can taste the various spectrums of light You should also go and discover what arsenic taste like

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 08:56:35 2018 No.9977867 >>9977848 >too unevolved for synesthesia split sense primate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:00:59 2018 No.9977873 >>9977678 Tautologies are true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:02:19 2018 No.9977878 >>9977840 Just like scientists "stole" natural philosophy right? Fuck off kid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:03:12 2018 No.9977880 >>9977878 >hurr durr muh separate disciplines neck yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:21:18 2018 No.9977902 >>9975873 Apparently

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:26:05 2018 No.9977911 >>9977867 >sees auras and somehow thinks it's special You're special alright

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:30:28 2018 No.9977917

>>9977800
>>9977805
It's one of the most important branches or philosophy, ethics. And great progress has been made by some very intelligent men.

>>9977807
Unless you can produce something from nothing, it remains true. Like all such assumptions in mathematics and philosophy, it appeals to human logic. No definite way of proving it though.

>>9977807
>>9977818
there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 09:45:46 2018 No.9977937 >>9977911 it's like he's colorblind trying to argue he's superior for being defective I bet you can;t even see UV lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 10:03:53 2018 No.9977959 >>9977937 >has an extra non-articulating thumb growing from his thumb and tries to argue it's necessity

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 10:20:14 2018 No.9977986 File: 104 KB, 480x608, 1536032889467.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9975630 Fugg can't believe no one posted this yet Applies well to the 'I fucking love science! 111!!' types

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 15:55:53 2018 No.9978550 >>9975698 Not him, but what has philosophy brought is the last 100 years? As "Natural Philosophy" it had its moments but that is long gone now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 16:23:41 2018 No.9978590 >>9975774 the content of the empty set

>>	SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS Tue Sep 4 16:34:39 2018 No.9978614 >>9977986 Chemicals telling themselves they are worthless. What a bunch of edgelords. Must be the molecules entering puberty.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 16:49:22 2018 No.9978638 >>9978550 Understanding. 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 17:11:35 2018 No.9978670 File: 2.93 MB, 1716x1710, scientsts_vs._popscientsts_on_philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 19:55:40 2018 No.9978953

>>9977917
>It's one of the most important branches or philosophy, ethics. And great progress has been made by some very intelligent men.
So what has ethics determined?

>Unless you can produce something from nothing, it remains true.
I don't know what that means. It's just vague language, not an axiom.

>there is something, as opposed to nothing.
OK but you claimed "existence exists" not something exists. What is existence? And how do you know there isn't nothing alongside something?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 4 21:58:33 2018 No.9979129 >>9977809 >this is of consensus for anyone whos read philosophy or history of science. Strange how it is the consensus of people who read and study things tangentially related to science and not actual science.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:04:38 2018 No.9979141

>>9977170
>"what does the color orange taste like?" or even more absurd "what's the purpose of life?"
Yes. Exactly.
It's like talking about quantum mechanics, assuming an electron is in a box and asking, "Where is the electron?"
It's a nonsense question. Without a model to work with, you're bound to ask nonsense questions.

Anonymous Tue Sep 4 22:12:46 2018 No.9979157

>>9977824
>And again, if you think none of the experimental instruments we use are devoid of theoretical assumptions then lol.
The "assumptions" that go behind them are largely meaningless. What matters is that they are capable of measuring an attribute of the object under study. When people thought that light propagated itself through a primordial ether, did that negate any of the observations made using light or on the properties of light? No, it changed only human perceptions and ideas of what light is. An observation is void of theoretical assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 06:08:19 2018 No.9979720 >>9978670 Based

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 07:31:07 2018 No.9979825 File: 15 KB, 212x270, 1534310600655.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9975722

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 10:40:46 2018 No.9980015 >>9979825 Calm down Gobel. I mean just widely accepted frameworks that are used in given branches of Math. Not a framework that completely encapsulates whole math.

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 11:42:16 2018 No.9980108

>>9977170
>>9977170
>"what does the color orange taste like?"
That's not a question philosophers deal with. It's a question science deals with however, since some people can taste colors.

From a materialist perspective, visual perception and taste are ultimately the result of the brain. So if materialist view is falsifiable scientifically, then it is science.

Purpose of life is something philosophers dwell into. And if there's no objective answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?", then philosophy can reach that conclusion.

>phenomena and pose questions with language that doesn't actually exist in reality

So you're talking about what exists and what does not, which is itself a topic of philosophy. So it's weird you're not accusing understanding reality of being an issue with language.

All of science ultimately rests on human sensory experience.

How do you know if something exists if you didn't have the senses to examine them, and how would you know if the senses can ultimately be trusted, even after being put under great scrutiny.

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 11:55:20 2018 No.9980134

>>9977078
You're saying that space time wasn't a thing until people made it part of science, which is nonsensical. If space-time wasn't a thing and it is a fundamental part of the universe, then the universe didn't exist until the 20th century.

See this is why you need philosophy, so you don't end up making such nonsensical statements.

>>9976825
The universe may very well be a mathematical universe, but that does not make it the mathematical universe. Therefore, mathematics would go beyond just what the universe is and be able to describe other worlds, which may not have any relevance to this one. Pure Mathematics doesn't care about the universe. It's truth is independent of any scientific inquiry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 11:57:57 2018 No.9980140 >>9980108 >And if there's no objective answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?", then philosophy can dwell into that conclusion. Fixed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 12:13:10 2018 No.9980168 >>9980015 then you're just using it as an undefined buzzword to ironically try suggest it's reasonable to expect people to be able to agree on anything on the same level as theorems of formal symbolic proof systems not to say this hasn't been attempted

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 13:27:27 2018 No.9980266

>>9980108
>it's weird you're not accusing understanding reality of being an issue with language

The issue that's usually in play is not a misunderstanding of reality but rather a full well understanding of reality, just with duplicity and frivolity.
I imagine if one were to ask a Wu Wei master "what's the purpose of life?" he would likely not answer with words but would instead go out into his food plot and continue cultivating those things which sustain his existence. For me, philosophy, especially western philosophy, is filled with too many words that have very little bearing on what is actually essential.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 13:33:45 2018 No.9980278 >>9980266 So the guy just ignores you and fucks around to do whatever and this is a good reply to you, but words are bad because why talk at all when you can pantomime and maybe drop a sly wink?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 13:47:44 2018 No.9980297 >>9980278 But he did give a fantastic answer you see. He gave you a very tangible example of what the purpose of life is and in doing so didn't speak one lie or half-truth. I find that virtuous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 13:58:58 2018 No.9980314 >>9975635 math is verified logically rather than experimentally

tveetv Wed Sep 5 14:51:35 2018 No.9980400
File: 36 KB, 712x500, scientism_foundation_fundamentalism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LMFAO.
1•All of you need to let go of the illusions that have been fabricated for you. It's ALL absolute nonsense. Employ some critical thinking please everyone.

2• Here is a little insight into what's going on in the physics establishment - from the perspective of a genuine and honest man who has become so disenchanted by the disgraceful club of frauds who sit at the very top of their field. www.bibhasde.com *I highly recommend downloading the case files from the site. There will be quite a few of you stunned by what you will discover.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:10:36 2018 No.9980452 >>9975707 >burden of proof Sorry, what's that? I don't know any philosophy of rhetoric or debate. After all, it's irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:15:03 2018 No.9980469 >>9977774 >I considered myself to be nihilist Sounds like you're in a dire need of some philosophy, man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:18:37 2018 No.9980481 >>9975837 >The being of life is different from the being of non sentient objects. What makes you say that?

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:40:46 2018 No.9980535

>>9980469
I never denied that. I only said that it doesn't belong in here.

I don't really care about it. Just recently my friends were discussing moral systems and asked me what I follow. Well I think it's just a cultural construct and there is no absolute values, so they called me nihilist. I looked up definition and it pretty much fits. Now it's the first time I see 'naturalism' and it seems very similar.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:48:24 2018 No.9980545 Nobody believes this that isn't a brainlet. But let's not confuse "discussing" with "believing it 100 percent*

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 15:59:01 2018 No.9980559

>>9975630

Well, no.

>Prove the existence of God.

We do not currently possess the information necessary to design a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove this. But that doesn't mean we can't expand our knowledge to the point where we might be able to do this someday, or that it's not even worth thinking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:08:30 2018 No.9980582 >>9980559 Testing God is blasphemy tho.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:14:24 2018 No.9980596 >>9978670 reddit utterly btfo

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:20:32 2018 No.9980618 >>9975635 based retard

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 16:43:54 2018 No.9980677

>>9975630

Philosophical speculation is, ultimately, unavoidable and inevitable. The moment we begin to ask questions on the nature of truth or the essence of reality we find ourselves in discussions on epistemology and ontology which exist within the formal field of philosophy as such. Unless one is exclusively interested in the production, verification or falsification of hypotheses through experimental science and has absolutely no interest whatsoever in what all this knowledge actually means in any synthetic or higher abstract sense you are going to find yourself in a philosophical mode of thinking at one time or another. The distinction between philosophy and science is an unhelpful contrivance for the pursuit of knowledge.

Anonymous Wed Sep 5 21:31:41 2018 No.9981110

>>9980134
>You're saying that space time wasn't a thing until people made it part of science, which is nonsensical.
>This is your brain on continental philosophy

No. You do not understand my statements at all, and worse have somehow constructed this pseudo argument in your head that is absolutely moronic. My post stated that mathematics did not space time, it merely predicted effects which would occur if space and time were indeed united. Effects which are directly testable and measurable. Before these predictions were made the concepts of space and time belonged to the domain of philosophers because the nature of time and how it operated were questions which were believed to be beyond the scope of science because it was unknown how such ideas could be tested. Thus, the only option left is to use pure reason.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 09:36:22 2018 No.9982278 >>9980582 Wtf

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math