/lit/ - Literature

>>3662071
>Dillio
>Dillio
>Dillio

>>3601855

>>3555928

woah, hold your horses, kid, think critically for a moment

>Let's remember that you said truth could be objective in math because it's a "formal system."
Truth can be objective in math because it is a formal system, like logic, where there are axioms and defined relations. Hence, "truth" is what is valid within the system. That is why you can have mathematical PROOFS and logical proofs, because you manipulate the symbols and theorems derived from the axioms to deduce something. Since this robust notion of "proof" is only possible in a formal system, objective truth exists only there -- not in science.

>Do you think the scientific method, and the many fields of study that follow it, are not a formal system?
No, they are not "formal systems" (for the reasons I gave above). Moreover, the "scientific method" is not a hard-and-fast thing, but merely a set of ideal guidelines, principles a posteriori in themselves. What I mean is, they were dreamed up after-the-fact, as it were, to describe things that natural philosophers were already doing, that is, experimentation. Here's more on that if you are feeling inclined to dispute (check myth 4): http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf

>Just about every scientist/engineer/mathematician would think less of you if you said that to them.
I am a scientist and mathematician. You are just being puerile, using the same argument against me that you claimed I used against you: "That's equivalent to name-calling, the lowest form of argument possible." I was not calling you any names, just remarking on that it seemed you were not (yet) far in your studies. After you've done real/complex analysis, the illusion that mathematics is a perfect model of reality, or somehow "unveils" reality, should dissipate.

Math is a language that describes only what is capable given its axioms. We can use it to help understand reality, but not all of reality is understandable through mathematics.

>>3507715

>Self-admitted hack who churned out purple prose pulp
>greatest American writer

If you've never even read James, whom OP posited as best, then you should just beat it, kid

>>3429927
>betas aren't allowed on this board
>/lit/
> no betas

>>3404471

>>3379221
>entire material of course can be summed up in 2 hours

yeah, why bother reading novels, when you could just read the sparknotes

>>3250401
>as the school year transcribes
>transcribes

>reading a novel cash-in based on a shitty TV remake of a mediocre comic

>>3192852
>dat font
>greentexting

>>3186974

>>3170648

people are people

>>3163315
>If you are against capitalism, shop second-hand.
>If you are against capitalism, shop

pic related

also
>2012
>not making your own clothes
shig

>Philosophy section
>Doctor Who

nigger what ARE u doin???

>people not jumping at the chance to list pomo obscurantists

>>3076212

>Poetry is for those who cannot write

ok ok I won't shitpost in this thread anymore I'm out

>>3000428

>>2975656
>>2975689
>>2975746
>>2975753

fuck me /lit/ must be full of people like this now