Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 27 KB, 775x387, d654e9392c6d047eb662e1cd792beedd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415577 No.15415577 [Reply] [Original]

refute this (protip: you can't)

>> No.15415608

>>15415577
I have a theory that OP is gay and lusts after young boy butts.
Falsify that, faget

>> No.15415622

>>15415577
I've really come to hate philosophy as I've gotten older. Classical philosophy is definitely interesting but I don't think anything in the last 150 years or so has really any merit at all.

>> No.15415636

>>15415577
>Left: Engage only in empirical deductive reasoning
>Right: Engages in Imperical, deductive, A priori, axiomatic, and all other types of reason and the validity thereof.

>Conclusion, Science is a subset of philosophy dealing with practical likelyhood and procedual efficiency, not truth. Creating efficient means, while giving near to no insight on ends.

>> No.15415642

>>15415577
Refute the problem of induction

>> No.15415650

>>15415577
I know that there was a longer version of that, could someone post it?

>> No.15415666

>>15415642
The answer to the problem of induction is "and?"

>> No.15415677

>>15415608
your theory is somewhat correct, although I'm more of a bisexual
>>15415636
in plain English: right side engages in a variety of types of reasoning none of which have ever yielded any fruit

>> No.15415679

>>15415577
>You cannot know nuthin
This is correct though

>> No.15415690

>>15415636
>Science is a subset of philosophy dealing with practical likelyhood and procedual efficiency, not truth
not true btw

>> No.15415693
File: 33 KB, 546x301, mfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415693

Science is based on philosophy

>> No.15415722
File: 1.99 MB, 1023x1801, A8377547-5A91-495A-952C-2AB9B29BADA7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415722

>>15415693
Science came out of the traditional origin of philosophy, but has long since taken its own course.

>> No.15415731

>>15415693
>Science is based on philosophy
typical philosopher's cope, accomplished scientists in the last 70 years have at best neglected philosophy completely, at worst outright denigrated and ridiculed it (Feynman and Weinberg come to mind) and yet somehow scientific progress isn't slowing down. it seems like the relationship between philosophy and science is much looser than you'd like to think

>> No.15415742
File: 11 KB, 190x237, Kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415742

>>15415666
Wrong

>> No.15415758

>>15415731
Prove that logic is logical using only science

>> No.15415763

>>15415742
EL GOBLINO

>> No.15415772

>>15415742
>Ugly
>Short
>VIRGIN
Not worth my time.

>> No.15415778

>>15415772
>>15415763
based, physiognomy is real

>> No.15415782
File: 91 KB, 825x1000, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415782

>>15415577
Science doesn't explain anything, while philosophy does.

>> No.15415786

>>15415778
Nah it's a meme, but I do like saying stuff like that because of how stupid it is.

>> No.15415817

>>15415758
logic is a sub field of math

>> No.15415820

>>15415690
Explain. How has science given truth? Its basic premise is on falsification and likelyhood. You can argue that truth in its capital form doesnt exist, but not that science revels truth specificly.

>> No.15415875

>>15415677
>Fruit
in refrence to what? Phil provides the goals that science allows us to procced towards. Is accumulation of capital the ends of a factory? there is no ends defined by science. Phil provides that. Even implicitly.

>> No.15415877

>>15415820
Nothing can give truth. Science is the best avenue to acquire practical and actionable knowledge.

>> No.15415907
File: 184 KB, 927x681, pholosopy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15415907

>>15415877
>Nothing can give truth.

>> No.15415910

>>15415875
>Phil provides the goals that science allows us to procced towards
this is cope

>> No.15415911

>>15415877
Even concerning social organization?

>> No.15415919

>>15415910
Science is value-free. It cannot, in and of itself, provide us with anything other than a means to study particular objects. The objects that science is used to study, and the applications of the study of those objects, can only be determined with the aid of philosophy.

>> No.15415921

>>15415622

Analytical philosophy on the other hand...

>> No.15415926

>>15415919
>The objects that science is used to study, and the applications of the study of those objects, can only be determined with the aid of philosophy.
objectively wrong. philosocucks have no idea what objects science studies which becomes obvious every time they open their mouths on the subject

>> No.15415928

>>15415919
Lmao the only goal of science is to achieve. That's a basic human drive you don't need any faggot philosophy for that lolololol.

>> No.15415936

>>15415877
first >>15415907, using the critique op used to critique philosophers
second
>Science is the best avenue to acquire practical and actionable knowledge.
>Practical
>actionable
Practical and actional towards what? Some vague ends? If you have an ends in minds, thats probably a philisophical ends. At most you can say that ends dont exist and it is simple sequential, however, your words indicate that there is and ends. It can even be a scapegoat ends lie "Better life" or "equality" or "Knowledge"

>> No.15415949

>>15415928
>Lmao the only goal of science is to achieve
...Achieve What? Pretty sure with such abstract concept, thats going to be philosophical bud.
>>15415926
I dont think you know what you are talking about. Why are you studying things in science?

>> No.15415952

>>15415936
Retroactively answered you here>>15415928

>> No.15415956

>>15415577
Close. A real philosopher doesn't need to ask a midwit if he's profound. Keep coping.

>> No.15415965

>>15415949
How are you this fucking dense? Humans have drives. Scientific method can be used to satiate these drives. Not only is philosophy not needed, the drive doesn't even have to be conscious.
Stop making excuses for your dead field.

>> No.15415992

>>15415921
*nglo garbage

>> No.15416036

>>15415952
Retroactively answered you here >>15415949. You state "achieving" (whatever that means) as a basic human drive. All you are saying is that we want to achieve because that is what we want to do. at least explain it in terms of endorphines stimulating us to explore new sensations fuckwit. anyways, that method of inquiry is very much stifled. tell me, is there a difference in achieving world peace between exterminating all desentors or painstakingly making everyone work alongside each other? It doesnt even have to be a moral question like that. Why choose one arbitrary choice over another. At this point this is an argument of determinism (a philisophical theory btw) and free will.

We are arguing arbitrary distinctions between topics.

>> No.15416063

>>15415965
What about changing those drives? Do we change drives under the compulsion of those drives? You have to think about it in a meta sense. Should we make it so that we have a drive towards nothing, because if the drive itself is important, might as well make it easier to accomplish. then the whole concept goes back to what is the ends.

>> No.15416072

Science is an offset of philosophy. Natural philosophy being the indicator. It’s helpful for me to visualize western science as the largest layering of human observances spanning our written history. Inherently physicalist, “science,” as you two rubes so eruditely argue, differs only with non physicalist positions, even then there are constant attempts to reconcile science with dualism. Philosophy is too large a categorization, overshadowing science and consuming all.

>> No.15416079

>>15416036
>>15416063
Literally none of this matters. Why are you asking me pointless questions?

>> No.15416084

Paradigm on the left was literally developed by philosophers

>> No.15416089

>>15416084
>W-we did useful stuff hundreds of years ago.

>> No.15416098

>>15416072
>ackshyually everything is philosophy
cope

>> No.15416109

>>15416079
See! there's my POINT.
>Pointless questions
So you want a point. aka an ENDS. AKA a philosophical end goal. To say somethinng matters implies you having a philosophical ends in mind

>> No.15416110

>>15415949
>Why are you studying things in science?
to understand them retard
>b-but why do you want that
none of your business philosocuck

>> No.15416114

>>15416089
I didn't

>> No.15416116

>>15416098
How is it cope if it is correct?

>> No.15416118

>>15416084
It was developed by scientists who were capable of applying philosophical types of thought to the problems they were dealing with in science. Don't even mention that faggot Bacon

>> No.15416120

Why would you come onto a board for discussing philosophy to tell us how much you don't care about it? Do you go to /po/ to make threads about how origami is for fags and whittling is a more "useful" hobby?

>> No.15416126
File: 140 KB, 558x500, milfwreckerxxx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416126

use scientific method to prove our senses are real. protip you can't. its a house of cards kiddo.

>> No.15416136

>>15416120
>Why would you come onto a board for discussing philosophy
/lit/ is explicitly not for discussing philosophy

>> No.15416137

>>15415577
The idea that there's a difference between science and philosophy is absurd.

>> No.15416147

>>15416137
t. philosocuck desperately coping with irrelevance

>> No.15416159

>>15416109
It doesn't matter if my conciousness thinks this or that is an end or if anything matters, my unconscious has the things it's pushing me towards its ends whether I like it or not. No amount of philosophising and talk about lofty goals like "world peace" or any of that shit can change what our monkey brains really want.

>> No.15416161

>>15416136
According to a sticky that nobody listens to, yes, but in reality it is a board that discusses philosophy all day every day and this is just a way to dodge the question.

>> No.15416175

Imagine liking science but hating philosophy

>> No.15416187
File: 127 KB, 800x800, LOVESCIENCEOMG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416187

>>15415577

>> No.15416192

>>15416159
You've very clearly never actually tried to read even the most basic introductory philosophy in your life if you make such gigantic (wrong) assumptions and the only philosophical concept you can come up with as an example is "world peace."
Why does something you don't know about and claim to not care about upset you so much that you had to come here to tell us it sucks?

>> No.15416197

>>15416175
Imagine liking philosophy but hating science

>> No.15416201

>>15416161
it’s not just a way to dodge the question. if more anons would join hands to bully philosocucks until they fucked off to r/philosophy the quality of the board would jump immensely

>> No.15416207

>>15416187
Literally not scientific.
Science debunks your meme book and the validity of your grade school test

>> No.15416210

>>15416192
From his post I can glean some vague combination of determinism, evolutionary theory, and Freud.

>> No.15416215
File: 941 KB, 1716x1710, 1521845515261.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416215

Every scientist of note except Feynman (who would say anything to get a rise out of people) and Dirac (who was a complete autist) understood perfectly well the importance of philosophy.

>> No.15416216

>>15416207
The scientific consensus is that race differences in IQ are real and not attributable solely to environmental factors.

>> No.15416217
File: 767 KB, 1080x1350, 1585328552583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416217

>>15415577
I can't, I am busy cooming.

>> No.15416227

>>15416215
Pretty much every prominent scientist for the last 70 years ignores philosophy because it’s useless. Weinberg wrote an essay explicitly advocating this position.

>> No.15416233

>>15416192
No I haven't read much philosophy, tried to read Plato but gave up due to laughing too hard at the emperors clothes.
I'm much too busy doing shit that actually matters thank you very much :)

>> No.15416247

>>15416159
>It doesn't matter if my conciousness thinks this or that is an end or if anything matters, my unconscious has the things it's pushing me towards its ends whether I like it or not.
And how would you know that unless you at some level see things through your concious wants? Our orders of priority when it comes to logic here is all messed. up. "whether I like it to or not" is that saying that conscious wants can be different from unconscious ones? Conversations like this go nowhere, since we are talking in completely different paradigms. If you would like to form your argument from the grounds up in terms of basic logic, this would be easier for us to grasp each other. going top down with examples makes us talk apples to oranges. I would put forward to you that you have implicit philosophical standing of determinism. and I think if you think about it you would agree.
>Philisophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Do you have ideas about the fundemental nature of these things? if yes, you are conducting philosophy. Even if you do not pay particualr attention to what your assertions are.

>> No.15416256
File: 57 KB, 850x400, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416256

>>15415782
>>15415642
you people really should read hume. he's not your french or german muh emoshionns I can say what I want! philosopher you seem to think. The problem of induction isn't some fundamental "science btfod" response since cause and effect is an integral part of the human mind, to use it to reject science is to reject all thinking. in the end hume is far more critical of philosophy than science.

>> No.15416267

>>15416256
ah. pure utilitarianism. see where that philosophy leads you.

>> No.15416272

>>15415577
A philosopher invented the scientific method.

>> No.15416279

>>15416227
Or they just don't talk about it in their journal publications because it's not directly relevant to their work. I'm a biophysicist and my PI reads philosophy in his free time for fun, we talk about it all the time.
>>15416233
Does every hobby you don't enjoy immediately have no value for anyone else? Why come onto a board where people do find value in it to tell us all we're wrong?
It's obvious you have some kind of deeper insecurity here, anon.

>> No.15416313

>>15416267
not at all what's going on here. stop trying to use hume to promote your french and german garbage.

>> No.15416323

>>15416227
This is such a bizarre mindset to have.
>Pretty much every plumber for the last seventy years ignores farming because it's useless.
Who cares? Go be a plumber and leave the anonymous farming discussion forums alone.

>> No.15416355

>>15416279
>>15416323
>NOOOOO YOU CANT MAKE FUN OF MY WORTHLESS FIELD OF STUDY
Literal Reddit "Let people enjoy things" mindset.

>> No.15416369

>>15416279
>every prominent scientist recognizes the usefulness of philosophy
>uh, I mean, my boss thinks it’s an interesting hobby
look at those goalposts go
>>15416323
are you literally mentally retarded?
>all prominent scientists care about philosophy and recognize its usefulness
>no they don’t
>hurrr who cares they’re totally different things
we can see how much good philosophy has done for your critical reading skills

>> No.15416373

>>15416256
>reject all thinking
but what if that's precisely what i want to do

>> No.15416389

>>15415577
Pessimistic meta-induction, it is the most hilarous argument of all time.

>> No.15416395

>>15416355
It's not "my" field of study. I told you I'm a biophysicist. I just find it interesting, and if you don't, you're free to fuck off. There's absolutely no reason for you to be here.
I get the impression that you don't read at all, and you're either an engineer or CS kid. You like an absolute genius for being able to code or do calculus but, if I had to guess, somebody recently belittled your intelligence for not reading books and it cut you so deep you had to come here for validation.

>> No.15416398

>>15416147
science = natural philosophy

>> No.15416406
File: 83 KB, 600x673, 123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416406

>>15416355
pic related, it is you

>> No.15416411

>>15416369
You've been talking to like three different guys over the course of that conversation because this board unsurprisingly has quite a lot of people disagreeing with you

>> No.15416415

>>15416267
That's not what utilitarianism is, brainlet.

>> No.15416421

>>15415919
You don’t need philosophy to be curious about something

>> No.15416423

>>15415642
No need, it's much funnier to accept it as is and apply it to science itself, like a proper pimply undergrad.
>If every scientific theory humankind has ever cherished and held true throughout history has been shown to be false, then that means that...

>> No.15416425

>>15416398
cope

>> No.15416437

>>15416425
It's just reality, kiddo.

>> No.15416438

>>15416425
seethe dilate cringe

>> No.15416448

>>15415622
Someone's forgotten Being qua Being.

>> No.15416451

>>15416395
>Le "why are you even here"
>Le poor attempt at internet psychoanalysis
You're on 4CHAN stop acting like this is some valuable use of your time and a sacred space i'm ruining.

>> No.15416452

>>15416411
agreed, unfortunately at least one of them couldn’t be bothered to understand the context of the discussion and decided to go off half-cocked on a point that had nothing to do with what he thought it meant

>> No.15416454

>>15416421
Do you believe that scientific endeavor and its applications are determined by curiosity? Was the space race the result of mere curiosity? How about the creation of the nuclear bomb?

>> No.15416460

>>15416451
Holy fuck he hit a nerve, didn't he? Nice cope tho.

>> No.15416464

>>15416437
cope

>> No.15416467

>>15416421
Philosphy is just curiosity taken to an academic level.
>>15416369
>>15416355
Do I have to repeat the definition to you?
>Philisophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
I reject the idea that anyone doesnt have a basis in knowledge, reality, and existence. If they exponded upon the principles they believed in it would be philospohy. The only people who say phil is irrelivent are those who have an implicit philosophy.

>> No.15416477

>>15416464
seethe dilate cringe tranny janny heckin posterino

>> No.15416482

>>15416454
>are determined by curiosity
Yeah

>> No.15416489

>>15416477
>nooooooooooo

>> No.15416492

>>15416464
epoc

>> No.15416498

>/sci/fags have now invaded my safe space, which had already turned into a kindergarten because of the influx of 100 IQ /pol/retards who got tired that all other /pol/acks were 90 IQ.
THANK YOU, I CAN FINALLY LEAVE

>> No.15416501

>>15416451
I never implied it was a valuable use of time or a sacred space you asspained faggot, just that there aren't many reasons for somebody who actively dislikes the board's entire topic to come here and tell us that.
I think my shitty internet psychoanalysis was right on the money. You could probably be better at it yourself if you ever read a fucking book, nigger.

>> No.15416508

>>15416489
im a bot you are not having a conversation with a human being cringe seethe cope dilate cope seethe based redpilled cringe bluepilled tranny janny faggot fag based

>> No.15416519

>>15416501
uhm, sweathy, that word is a yikes from me. Let's unpack this: you do realize that that word has a history, don't you, my sweet summer child. Ya'll can't just go around saying hurtful things like that, I might lose my faith in humanity rn

>> No.15416524

>>15416423
this is extremely simplified basic phil of science regarding _some_ parts of science though. the continual approaching of truth, or increase of accuracy. it's not something you can use to reject science and feel superior because your own "knowledge" isn't based around anything and not open to being corrected and improved. Note here, false isn't as strong as you would like. To classify newtonion physics alongside aristotelian physics as both simply false is retarded. The statement
>>If every scientific theory humankind has ever cherished and held true throughout history has been shown to be false, then that means that...
is false anyway as it implies we have no theories that are currently accepted. You're basically saying "if every previously accepted, falsified theory have been rejected...". confirmation bias.
Once again the anti-science retards on this board simply can't think.

>> No.15416527

>>15416508
okay, this is epic

>> No.15416529

>>15416508
heckin chaderino bot nooooooo you cant just cope seethe dilate you must redpill based catgirl furry simp cuck desu senpai senpai senpai senpai

>> No.15416540

>>15416501
>the board's entire topic
>/lit/ - Philosophy

>> No.15416549

>>15416467
Definition autist go away.
You know that's not what philosophy really means.
>>15416501
There aren't many reasons for you to respond to me yet you do.
>Read a book
Never.

>> No.15416562
File: 27 KB, 704x353, 1590084434287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416562

/lit/ - Literature

>> No.15416590

>>15416524
>this is extremely simplified basic phil of science regarding _some_ parts of science though.
I know. Isn't it amazing that something so simple and basic can just annihilate scientific realism? It took two lines and half a thought. That's all it took.
>the continual approaching of truth, or increase of accuracy.
I'd call this a wrong turn, and ask you if you really want to go down that path. What is truth?
>it's not something you can use to reject science and feel superior
I use it to reject scientific realism, and it does make me feel wonderfully smug.
>your own "knowledge" isn't based around anything and not open to being corrected and improved.
Bruh, wat.
>Note here, false isn't as strong as you would like.
It's exactly as strong as I would like.
>To classify newtonion physics alongside aristotelian physics as both simply false is retarded. The statement
You sure are right, Aristotelian is superior. The loss of causa finalis in our conception of nature is both retarded and horrible. Before you ask, no, I am not going to spoonfeed you all of Whitehead.
>is false anyway as it implies we have no theories that are currently accepted
It most certainly does not in any way whatsoever, it says merely something about past experience.
>You're basically saying "if every previously accepted, falsified theory have been rejected...". confirmation bias.
God, how disgusting.
>Once again the anti-science retards on this board simply can't think.
Why the fuck would I want to think about gay nerd science when I can read Goethe and get laid?

>> No.15416629

>>15416590
>being this proud of being retarded
so this is the power of philosophy...

>> No.15416645
File: 208 KB, 1438x719, sp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15416645

>>15415577
bad news OP

>> No.15416653

>>15416590
not an argument. you simply can't conclude from the fact that science is self-correcting and has been wrong in the past that all of science can be rejected, this is not a valid application of induction. Your original statement is simply wrong.
actually intelligent serious people laugh at you.

>> No.15416662

>>15416549
Yes it does. What you are against is probably Specific philosophies. And thats perfectly fine. Philosophy itself is kind of a massive catagory. Logical positivism is a philosophy, is it not?

>> No.15416663

>>15416629
Fuck I'm good, you just gave up immediately.

>> No.15416677

>>15416663
why the actual fuck do you expect people to engage with you when you clearly reject intellectual honesty and the very idea of truth in itself.

>> No.15416689

>>15416653
I'm not rejecting science brah, I'm rejecting scientific realism, To STEMtards, it'll be the same, because the can't make the distinction, but it isn't.
Science is fine for optimizing production of buttplugs and such, but it really has no claim on truth unless you go all the way and reduce truth to something like "that which allows us to maximize the efficiency of the production of buttplugs", which I guess you can do, it's a free country but it'd be kinda gay.

>> No.15416703

>>15416677
I haven't really rejected any notion of truth brah, I've merely asked you what you mean by it.

>> No.15416714

>>15416663
there’s more than one person on the internet
>act like obvious retard
>no one bothers engaging with you
>h-haha I win
youre just pretending to be retarded amirite?

>> No.15416724

>>15416714
Holy shit you just cannot engage.

>> No.15416734

>>15416724
not with a moron

>> No.15416738

>>15416734
cringe bluepill dilate seethe cope simp cuck

>> No.15416774

>>15416738
un-based

>> No.15416801

>>15415817
This moronic view has been debunked by Godel half a century ago. Logical positivism is dead

>> No.15416864

>>15416801
you've got it backwards retard

>> No.15416907

>>15416738
epic troll fellow /b/tard!

>> No.15417052

>>15415577
The philosophy on the right is the worst kind. The kind that's like "prove an external world exists", "prove that your senses are real", etc. All to end up with "you can never know". Only half of philosophy is like that though.

>> No.15417086

>>15417052
only the one that comes from the fr*nch or the g*rms.

>> No.15417109

>>15417086
no it's usually angloids who think like that. the analytic types.

>> No.15417158

>>15417109
confirmed illiterate.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action