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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.20 MB, 1716x1710, Ial4uv0_Bj0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16158942 No.16158942 [Reply] [Original]

Who was in the wrong here?

>> No.16158958

>>16158942
The first quote by Mr. Dawkins is pretty much the Platonic definition of philosophy, no?

>> No.16158973

>science progresses and philosophy doesn’t
t. Braindead retard pop faggot

>> No.16158985

>>16158958
but common sense = good and true, at least that's what I learned from watching epic debates on YouTube. When they say something is just common sense they scoff, make those little laughs and address the crowd, which means they are telling the truth and their opponent is stupid, irrational, illogical and uneducated.

>> No.16159186

>>16158973
yeah, but isn't it kind of true? like, has any philosophical idea ever been disprooven so no philosopher believes in it anymore?

>> No.16159210

>>16158942
I'm not a fan of either, but there's literally nothing wrong with Dawkins's and Nye's statements.

>> No.16159304

>>16159186
This is like saying Physics is untrue because theories keep getting replaced by better ones. The way truth in that common sense is foreign to Physics is analogous to the way progress is foreign to philosophy. Philosophy can't progress because among the things it examines is notion of progress. Philosophy is what decides the value of progress, so how could it itself progress?

>> No.16159327

>>16158942
No one in the right there can even hold a candle to the ones on the left, they were giants and legends, those on the right are smug 'hehe no old man in sky because kids die'.

>> No.16159357

>>16158942
There's the brainlet understanding of philosophy and there's the brainchad understanding of it. Guys on the right understand philosophy in a brainlet sense. Guys on the left understand that science they're working with is comprised almost entirely of models and is not absolute truth, which in itself is really hard to unveil. Don't know why Nye is there though, he's just being an epistemologist.

>> No.16159392

>>16158942
which butthurt christcuck made this image?

>> No.16159393

>>16159186
No we all still believe everything is made out of water, and that atoms are irreducible, obviously.

>> No.16159405

>>16158942
I almost doubt the authenticity of these quotes, Dawkins and Tyson not so much, but is Krauss really *this* much of a dumbass?

>> No.16159411

>>16159392
any one of heisenberg, einstein, schroedinger, or bohr, apparently

>> No.16159414

>>16159405
Yes, there are tons of videos of him being retarded about philosophy and getting btfo'd by his fellows.

>> No.16159422

>>16158942
The Dawkins quote is completely fine, the Nye quote is fine (and he developed much more nuanced views on philosophy once he engaged with it), Tyson is just a bumbling fool who has no idea what he is talking about, but he's just too retard-teddy-bear-like for me to hold any animosity towards him. Krauss is a rapist, a friend of Epstein, and one of the most satisfying metoo annihilations.

>> No.16159441

>>16159422
>Krauss is a rapist, a friend of Epstein, and one of the most satisfying metoo annihilations.
oh this is some hot shit please post more my shadenfreude is so hard right now, he always seemed like a first class creep

>> No.16159442

>>16158942
Dawkins > Heisenberg (both Dawkins quotes are respectable, whereas Heisenberg shows himself to be a Platonist)
Einstein > Krauss (Einstein's quote is a bit embarrassing, since he thinks the task of science is to "seek the truth", whereas Krauss is just upset at philosophers of science and methodologists exposing his science as shit)
Nye > Schrodinger (Nye's quote is just a witticism on him being skeptical about extreme sketicism, whereas Schrodinger is exposing himself as a retarded Platonist dualist)
Bohr > Tyson (Bohr's second quote is true, that physics concerns only what we can say about nature, but he doesn't replace the task of finding out how nature is with another. Unless he considers finding out what we can say about nature as the task of physics, which would almost make me want to put Tyson over Bohr for such stupidity.)

>> No.16159461
File: 91 KB, 600x357, Epstein-11.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16159461

>>16159441
>Investigators interviewed two eyewitnesses, and two other witnesses who immediately spoke with the unnamed woman. The witnesses described the woman as troubled and shocked. The woman told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."[4] ASU found that the preponderance of evidence suggested that Krauss had violated the university's policy against sexual harassment by grabbing a woman's breast without her permission.[30][31] As a result, Krauss was not renewed as Director of the Origins Project and the University moved its staff to a project run by planetary scientist Lindy Elkins-Tanton, formally ending the Origins project.[32]

>In response to the University determination, Krauss produced a 51-page appeal [read: COPE] document responding to the allegations, including a counter-claim that a photo claimed to be of Krauss grabbing a woman's breast was actually showing his hand moving away from the woman.[33]

>Several organizations also canceled scheduled talks by Krauss.[26] Krauss resigned from the position of chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors when informed that its other members felt his presence was distracting "from the ability of the Bulletin to effectively carry out [its] work".[34][35]

>Krauss retired from ASU at the end of the 2018–2019 academic year.[36]

Reputation and legacy has been destroyed, and he will not be working ever again.

>> No.16159475

>>16159461
holy fucking tits you made my day this is better than I expected thanks anon

>> No.16159478

>>16158942
imagine how buttblasted of a christcuck you'd have to be to reflexively lump dawkins with bill nye, krauss, and tyson, instead of einstein
those dawkins quotes aren't even bad, truly desperate

speaking of krauss, it was truly satisfying to watch that room full of scientists and philosophers gathered by sean carroll and some rich jew make fun of krauss for being a moron

>> No.16159483

>>16159186
You realize there are still scientists who don't believe c is the fastest possible velocity of a moving object? Of course all philosophers are not just going to stop believing in an idea. You will always get people who accept it, and evolve it further, or people that don't, and stray away from it. The same thing happens in all theoretical disciplines (though philosophy, strictly speaking, is not a theoretical discipline, but theory itself).

>> No.16159486

>>16159478
>speaking of krauss, it was truly satisfying to watch that room full of scientists and philosophers gathered by sean carroll and some rich jew make fun of krauss for being a moron
by all means do share, this thread is getting warmer by the minute

>> No.16159488

>>16159461
>not even getting destroyed over full-on Weinstein monstrosity but for autistically lashing out at a woman's tits
Makes it even better.

>> No.16159493

>>16158942
Heslisenberg had glasses and a beard who tf is the guy in the pic?

>> No.16159504

>>16159486
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3_yJTF5FM4#t=12m55s

>> No.16159505

>>16159493
Aren't you thinking of Shreaderinger?

>> No.16159513

>>16159504
delicious stuff

>> No.16159544

>>16159504
>The data forces me to make mathematical discoveries, therefore math is a science
These people are so dumb it is frusturating to watch this. You CREATE a mathematical system in which to form these scientific discoveries. This is what you get when you let a woman into the room on philosophical issues.

>> No.16159580

>>16159544
I assume the dumb journalist bitch said that, and not Rebecca Goldstein?

>> No.16159597

>>16159504
>I think we should use a word called scientia, which means knowledge in the broad sense, to refer to science, philosophy, math, and logic
We already have a word which means exactly that, moron. It's called philosophy.

>> No.16159614

>>16159580
The girl with the green bag on the Apple computer. Her name is Janna Levin, I think.

>> No.16159623

>>16159597
>has two phds, one of them in philosophy
>doesn't know what philosophy is
wh*toids need to be exterminated

>> No.16159638

>>16159504
>we should use the word understanding, which is broader than knowledge, to refer to thinking and bridge these disciplines
We already have that word, it's called thinking.

>> No.16159656

>>16159623
It just shows you the complete degeneration of education these days. And it is only going to get worse, seeing as though Corona is going to push more and more schooling online, resulting in even lazier teaching, resulting in more and more people not taking education seriously, resulting in even more and more stupid people.

>> No.16159788

>>16158958
this, I don't see Dawkin's quote here as being negative towards philosophy, he even says it himself.
Also he is the most respectable of the nu-atheist types imo, even if that isn't saying much. He also happens to be the only one who has ever put forth any notable ideas.
the others are absolute mongs who should be relegated to the rubbish bin of history tho.

>> No.16160568

>>16159186
Logical positivists don't exist anymore

>> No.16161075

>>16158973
both have regressed actually.

>> No.16161329

>>16158942
This is heavily biased since black and white portraits always look better.