/lit/ - Literature

>>16334875
Materialism is the logical conclusión to kantianism.

>>16334885

reason should not be impurified

>>16334885
How? This contradicts both the paralogisms of pure reason (for which we can never be justified in assuming that the subject is the product of physical events) and the third antinomy coupled with the second critique (for which we can be sure of the existence of free causes, namely, our will mediated by pure reason).
If anything, materialism as an universal explanatory framework seems to be refuted by his works.

>>16334875
I dont know

>>16334982
How would matter even exist if Kant thought that space, time and causality were dependent on the mind and not a part of the thing-in-itself?

>>16335068
What? Csn you rephrase the question?

Where is the underlying mind in Kant's system though, it's like an intermediate between the thing in itself and phenomena? I don't get how it can operate without time.

>>16335114
Kant thought that the mind came equipped with a priori categories that everything was necessarily filtered through, so the mind is in time since its conception.

>>16335155
>Consider the following objection of Bennett to Kant:

>The least swallowable part of Kant's whole theory of freedom is the claim that the causality of freedom is not in time. This follows from Kant's doctrine that time is an appearance, and anyway the theory of freedom needs it: it is because the noumenal cause of an event is not in time, and thus is not itself an event, that it escapes the causality of nature. Kant is unembarrassed: ‘Inasmuch as it isnoumenon, nothinghappensin it; there can be no change requiring dynamical determination in time, and therefore no causal dependence upon appearances … No action beginsinthis active being itself; but we may yet quite correctly say that the active being ofitselfbegins its effects in the sensible world’ [KrV, A541=B569]. That is indefensible. Something in which ‘nothing happens’ cannot be ‘active’ or ‘begin’ a train of events.
Not exactly what I meant but close enough.

>>16334888
He looks like he's about to btfo Anon with a post that containst anywhere between 3 to 8 paragraphs.

>>16335168
Are you asking about how the mind can operate or about the freedom of the mind? I’m not big into Kant’s moral or free will arguments.

>>16334885
no.... no, im afraid not... no
>>16334875
you have to be fair to them. it is hard to read.

>>16335226
Both I guess.

>>16334875
Not an easy read?

>>16334875
How can non-materialists exist when religious faith can be disabled by applying a magnetic field to the brain's threat processing center? Religion is a defect, the intersection of recognizing that unknown threats exist with the human brain's tendency to anthropomorphize concepts.

>>16334875

I read the prolegema and some of his ethics and thought both were a waste of time someone give me a good reason to read this meme front to back

>>16335310
We're all aware that we e.g. experience sleep. Nobody who's been seriously religious through all of history has been unaware of the conscious / unconscious form. I mean really, you're just presuming to have it all figured out, but you haven't engaged with the hard problems.

>>16335318
Anyone that hasn't seriously read the critique of pure reason is not even qualified to have a conversation about metaphysics. If that doesn't bother you, no problem. Be a farmer or whatever, content in your life.

They exists because science points to materialism overwhelmingly, and science also gives us literally every aspect of our current lives, making weird hermetic texts about "The Categorical Imperative" and shit like this seem like absurd schizophrenic babble. There is an allure in being able to take a complex measurement and see the cosmic background radiation or shit like this that makes people respect "matter" in a whole new way.

You might think I'm a complete fucking idiot, but this is the most honest answer you're gonna get here. It really just sounds like a bunch of babble, while studying hard and even softer sciences (biology and etc) you can understand so much. Every philosophy book like this seems like god of the gaps cope and over complicating things for nothing.

>>16335333
Nothing of what he said was about being unconscious you imbecile.
Kant making claims is not being engaged. It may seem to follow logically but if it does not conform with experimental data then it must be incorrect

>>16335344
i dont plan to extend this conversation very far, as I can tell you're not a very serious person from the random insult and the "appeal to experimental data." i will simply say that anyone who has read the CPR is aware that you've missed several of its main points in this post alone.

>>16335336
>be a farmer or whatever, content in your life

I’m still not convinced that kantfags aren’t larping about them having some epic burdensome wisdom. Kant’s cool, but it feels like reading the Timaeus or something. Interesting thesis, and definitely not meant to be presented as dogmatic in my opinion, but it’s not like reading the shit front to back is going to cause your power levels to increase like DBZ or something

>>16334875
>He believe in educating the masses.

>>16335361
I did not mean that line as insult, I was referencing Kant himself in (I think) some preface to the CPR or maybe the prolegomena, where he says that some people like farmers are perfectly content never to grapple with metaphysics. I don't believe in this kind of power level thing, I don't think Kant makes you a god on earth. I think people with an interest will read him. Others won't. But to talk about metaphysics without having read him is a huge mistake, that's all.

>>16335361
Philosophy larpers like this like to think that anyone who doesn't study what they study are bottom feeders, when they couldn't comprehend they basic premises of applying knowledge to something that resembles the real world. The very mockery of a farmer shows you this much. They have no idea of the kind of tasks and knowledge that goes into successful agriculture, building a silo or husbandry or shit like this. They must also imagine every single scientist who makes a breakthrough is well versed in Kant (because they saw that 75% incorrect cherry picked meme image with the physicists) and would be mindblown by the sheer number of people who move the world and human knowledge without every so much as referring to any philosophy, let alone Kant.
They massively, massively overestimate the importance of what they study. It must be the only possible cope for wasting their time like that.

>>16335371
Fair enough. I guess I may as well read the whole thing one day, even if I find the translations horrible.

>>16335377
You missed the reference and then hallucinated a bunch of extra baggage. Best to just stop digging.

>>16335377
No, that anon did not mean that, check here >>16335371

>>16335361
Kant gives apodittico arguments. If they are not to be' taken dogmatically, you should show why this is the case.
By the way I would say the same about Timaeus. Once you understand that most of the scientific details are meant to be likely illustrations of how a cosmos could operate, in order to give the blueprint for scientific research, it becomes a much less dognatic account. Chances are that there too you are missing the point.

>>16335377
This is what you are intellectually if you haven’t read Kant.

>>16335377
>and would be mindblown by the sheer number of people who move the world and human knowledge without every so much as referring to any philosophy, let alone Kant.
Kant never denies this. One of the first thing he says is that no one needs to know, for example, the doctrine of trascendental schematism in order to do geometry. This isn't the role of philosophy: what it does, instead, is critically reflecting on the assumptions behind our knowledge items, and their conditions of possibility. If you think that the pinnacle of reason is to unreflectively do scientific research, then you won't find any use in philosophy.

>>16335343
>seems
Change "seems" for "is" and I totally agree with you.
Metaphysics is cope for retards who don't know the world so they prefer to make shit up.

>>16335377
The philosophy of the past now forms unquestioned background assumptions, it's critical to study it properly at this juncture perhaps now more than ever.

>>16335445
>The philosophy of the past now forms unquestioned background assumptions
Maybe a very small part of philosophy, and even then studying philosophy is definitely not a requisite for anything.
The only thing studying philosophy will allow someone is to discuss philosophy, it's fine if you like it but the rest of the world can move on without it.

>>16335343
How is the CI refuted? Why is it schizo babble

>>16335464
>STOP THINKING
>NEVER REFLECT
>BE UNCRITICAL
Okay anon

>>16335343
>because science

>>16335464

>>16335343
holy shit fuck off and die bugman

>>16335464
Philosophy is highly interrelated and that's a very foolish attitude given what's at stake this century. It's make or break for the human species and you propose charging ahead uncritically.

>>16335465
Read Max Stirner.

>>16335471
If you did so much as to think a little you might find out that there are people different that you in this world and that doesn't mean they are stupid.
Btw I like philosophy.

>YAY SCIENCE
>YAY MATERIALISM
>YAY PROGRESS
>YAY STUFF

>>16335488
You don't need to study philosophy as in reading Kant or other respected philosophers to think for yourself, be critical and understand the world.
As for metaphysics, they are not something able to be proven and they have no useful application so they are nice as a hobby but nobody needs to study metaphysics, the world can move on "critically" without reading Kant.

>>16335507
You seem to be making an elaborate excuse for not reading but I suppose this is /lit/ after all.

>>16335507
>As for metaphysics, they are not something able to be proven
dude seriously, read Kant. this is the main thing he tackles. you're showing your own hand here, it's embarrassing.

>>16335493
>If you did so much as to think a little you might find out that there are people different that you in this world and that doesn't mean they are stupid.
I haven't claimed otherwise, you just assumed that I did. There is still a difference between not dedicating your own life to philosophy and disparaging the practicenas such, since to do so is to condemn rational, critical reflection.

>>16335525
If Kant proved any metaphysics it would be tought in school and considered parts of physics.
No, Kant's shitty arguments are probably not enough proof, but you can list them if you want to convince me that you can prove metaphysics.

>>16335493
>Read Max Stirner
No. Tell me how he refuted the CI please.

>>16335532
No, you said that not studying philosophy is being uncritical and not thinking.
Which is not, there's a entire world outside of philosophy.

>>16335533
i dont wanna give you any more (you)s after this - just gonna say the main activity in the CPR is in fact disproving and disqualifying various kinds of pseudoscientific metaphics.

>>16335533
>If Kant proved any metaphysics it would be tought in school and considered parts of physics.
the absolute state of STEMtards

>>16335539
I was responding to you saying that the only use of philosophy is to discuss philosophy. And yes, not doing philosophy is to be uncritical and unreflective. That said I haven't linked any value claim to this statement. I don't think farmers are bad or stupid for not doing philosophy.

>>16335541
These people actually think they're rational

>>16335538
I don't want to bother copying paragraphs from The Unique and Its Property so I won't.
If you think I'm wrong consider yourself the winner of this debate and move on.
If you want to learn more The Unique and Its Property is easy to find on the Internet.

>>16335540
He should disprove his metaphysics to then becuase they are many things but science.

>>16335541
Not an argument.

>>16335557
So yes, another student of philosophy who consider himself to be more enlightened than the rest of the world.
It's tiresome, I don't know why I even come here anymore.

>>16335557
You equate stupid with bad. Interesting. That's not what the farmer thing was about.

>>16335574
If I say "x is stupid or bad" I mean that stupid is equal to bad? Have you smoked crack?

I can’t tell if they’re baiting or not, bros

>>16335604
They are not baiting...
Students of philosophy are some time this stupid.

>>16335572
>So yes, another student of philosophy who consider himself to be more enlightened than the rest of the world
I haven't talked about enlightnement, just rational critical reflession. Can you read?

>>16335613
I was talking about you

>>16335603
And have you farmed? I'm guessing no? Just taking offense at random on behalf of others without understanding. Lol

>>16335625
I have literally said that farmers are not stupid io bad for not doing philosophy. Here's the direct quote:
>I don't think farmers are bad or stupid for not doing philosophy.
Again, have you smoked crack?

>>16335637
Nobody attacked farmers... you're taking offense on behalf of a group that wasnt insulted.
Then you act like OTHER people are the ones on drugs.
Sober up anon.

>>16335637
So you’re saying that all people who smoke crack are stupid? Interesting.

>>16334885
>conclusión
What did he mean by this?

>>16335494
>CBR, dark matter, gravitational lenses, general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, literally every theory that plays around with the fabric of the reality we experience and nowadays you can perform many of the founding experiments of these areas in your local college. Neuroscience, AI improvements, creating better crops so less people starve, cures for horrible life debilitating diseases, the very technology that makes posting in this website possible, or for this website to even exist in the first place. Getting at least a closer try to guessing what happened at the beginning of time, and what might happen at the end. Trying to understand things beyond the scope of your little planet, and to understand nature.

vs

>Some guy wrote something he thought in a book and it sounded deep because he used cool words, I totally think I understand him. Like, can you imagine anything cooler than like the metaphysics of Kant dude? Like seriously after reading the Critiques I feel euphoric.

Choose one, and only one, to give you an epiphany about the reality of existence.

>>16335647
Okay, you're on crack. Diwnright incoherent
>>16335654
Yes, for the most part

>>16335673
YAY FUNKO POPS

>>16335673
>CBR, dark matter, gravitational lenses, general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, literally every theory that plays around with the fabric of the reality we experience and nowadays you can perform many of the founding experiments of these areas in your local college. Neuroscience, AI improvements, creating better crops so less people starve, cures for horrible life debilitating diseases, the very technology that makes posting in this website possible, or for this website to even exist in the first place. Getting at least a closer try to guessing what happened at the beginning of time, and what might happen at the end. Trying to understand things beyond the scope of your little planet, and to understand nature.
read and understand kant and you'll understand that none of this shit actually matters

>the fabric of the reality

>>16335689
>the reality of the fabric

>>16335704
forgot the image

>Neuroscience, AI improvements, creating better crops so less people starve, cures for horrible life debilitating diseases, the very technology that makes posting in this website possible

>>16335344
>I trust the qualia I had when doing experiments on the brain to tell me that qualia do not exist
Nigger please

>>16335685
>>16335689
>>16335715
How's that cope coming along? After spending so much time reading Kant, you can't say a single new thing about the universe that surrounds you. Whatever understanding you got about metaphysics amounts to talking to yourself in your head.

>>16335673
Half that shit came from Einstein who did deep study of Kant.

>>16335745
2 of those things came from Einstein, who might've read anything from Kant to playboy magazines. That doesn't mean either of those is a direct reason for his special/general relativity findings.
To make matters worse Einstein completely fucks Kant's "a priori" notions of space and time, but understanding that would require you to actually study big boy undergrad level science, which we both know won't happen.

>>16335679
Hate those things. Hate the people who like those things probably just as much as you. Still think you're a fucking idiot.

Because stupid analytic Anglo's don't read German

>>16335733
Everything you've listed is naive metaphysics.

>>16335685
Imagine being impressed by any of that

>>16335764
Gravitational lensing and a major contribution to QM.

>Ilse Schneider, a philosophy student fortunate enough to travel with Einstein on numerous train trips to and from university, was working at the time on “the relation of [Einstein’s] theories to philosophy and, in particular, to the philosophy of Kant.” She refers to the typical claim “that Einstein’s theories had ‘refuted’ Newton’s and that therefore Kant’s ideas of space and time were refuted too” as being a grossly “superficial judgement” (Schneider, 1980, p. 522). She frequently discussed with Einstein “Spinoza’s metaphysics…as well as the epistemology of Hume or Kant.” In one such discussion, “concerning Kant’s views on the general universal laws of nature in their relation to geometry–which, by the way, are very similar to Einstein’s” (Schneider, 1980, p. 522), he reportedly offered the following, humorous metaphor:

>Kant is a sort of highway with lots and lots of milestones. Then all the little dogs turn up and each deposits its contribution at the milestones.” Pretending to feel indignation I said: “But, what a comparison!” With his loud, boyish laughter, he remarked: “But what will you have? Your Kant is the highway after all, and that is there to stay. (Schneider, 1980, p. 522)

>>16335800
>NOOOOOO DONT GIVE ME THOSE QUOTERINOS I HATE HECKING METAPHYSICS ONLY SCIENCE REAL NOOOOOOOOO

>>16335788
You have to be seriously mentally handicapped to not be, or you just don't understand the implications. Kant had an excuse because many of these things were not discovered by his time, but you don't have the same excuse. You would rather read a completely unfounded conjecture by Kant talking about space-time than an actual theorized and measured discovery of science regarding the nature of space-time because you're so intent on digging your heels into this. It must be some kind of fear of realizing just how much you don't know, or how reality might be counter-intuitive if you look into it.
I'm not gonna dismiss that a lot of the "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" people have 0 understanding of this as well, and they're in it just for the hype. But to actually wave quantum mechanics and general relativity as if any work of philosophy previous to that affected our notion of how reality operates is some serious ignorance. Worst part is QM and GR are just the start of modern physics.

>science gave you PRODUCT and PRODUCT and even better than that, PRODUCT. What kind of hecking dum-dum have you got to be to prefer investigation of the human condition and the Soul's perception than PRODUCT with some PRODUCT sprinkled on top???
>yikes cope harder incel

>>16335813
You don't need to be a Kantian or agree with everything he says to appreciate Kant's philosophy, nitwit

>>16335800

This is a direct quote by Einstein:
>Until some time ago, it could be regarded as possible that Kant’s system of a priori concepts and norms really could withstand the test of time. This was defensible as long as the content of later science held to be confirmed*) did not violate those norms. This case occurred indisputably only with the theory of relativity. However, if one does not want to assert that relativity theory goes against reason, one cannot retain the a priori concepts and norms of Kant’s system.

Cope more. Of course you had to cherry pick a philosophy student's opinion. You people really like to think highly of yourselves while being intellectually dishonest as all fuck.

>>16335813
*yawn* don't give a fuck

>>16335820
>NO YOU CAN'T JUST DISLIKE CAPITALISM AND TECHNOLOGY IT GAVE YOU NETFLIX AND THE INTERNET BE THANKFUL

>>16335820
>>16335812

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE NOUMENAL MATERIAL REALM IT DOESNT EXIST IT'S INACCESSIBLE YOU CAN'T MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT IT NOOOOOO STOP MAKING PREDICTIONS THAT WORK ABOUT REALITY ONLY MY MIND MATTERS

>>16335820
>scientific theories are products
>philosophical frameworks aren't though

>>16335828
There is more to Kant than the distinction between a priori and a posteriori judgements, stupid fuck. Kant's moral theories have been disproven by countless other philosophers for example but that does not mean he was not a great thinker. Fucking stupid retard fuck off back to plebbit you stupid motherfucking cunt face

>>16334875
I don’t read books written by short, ugly virgins.

>>16335863
you wouldn't like my diary desu

>>16335850
Who has disproven Kant's moral theory?

>>16335838
Yes.
you'll live on this earth for some 70 years or so. Consciousness last forever. You'll therefore spend most of your time as pure consciousness, might as well fall in love with it and investigate it all days of your life

>>16335850
You go back to fucking reddit you motherfucking illiterate piece of shit. "WOW LOVING SCIENCE" and studying science are two different things, not everyone is a fucking superficial pseud like you. I claimed that Einstein refuted Kant and you scurried like a fucking rat to cherrypick some useless quote by a philosophy student. Go fuck yourself pseud.

>>16335866
Schopenhauer and Heidegger

Now fuck off

>>16335871
>Consciousness last forever. You'll therefore spend most of your time as pure consciousness
Do Kantians actually seriously believe this?

>>16335875
You literally just googled 'Kant Einstein' you absolute cock gobbler. The anon provided citations and everything. It's obvious you don't read you intuitionless aphantasia riddled p-zombie fuck

>>16335886
Do you understand what "direct quote" means? Are you a bot? How did you pass the captcha?

>>16335838
>STOP MAKING PREDICTIONS THAT WORK ABOUT REALITY
Kant literally proved that you can objectively make predictions about the physical world, dummy

>>16335828
Well, he was wrong, just like his no action at a distance issue with entanglement.
>According to Einstein, his theoretical attitude “is distinct from that of Kant only by the fact that we do not conceive of the ‘categories’ as unalterable (conditioned by the nature of the understanding) but as (in the logical sense) free conventions. They appear to bea priorionly insofar as thinking without the positing of categories and of concepts in general would be as impossible as is breathing in a vacuum”

>>16335377
farmers don't care about the underlying physics going on in their tractors but they can still operate it. Engineers 99% of the time don't care about the exact underlying mathematics in their calculations or any physics outside of their practical uses, but they can solve a differential equation just fine after enough practice and instruction. Mathematics and pure theoretical sciences on the other hand heavily rely on reason and epistomology shows us the limits of reason. Like the farmer and the engineer in the other cases, the mathematician doesn't need philosophy to do mathematics, but it can help him to understand the tool he uses for mathematics, his mind. Btw Kant's CPR (and phenomenology) has actual real world practical uses in clinical psychiatry because of Karl Jaspers.

>>16334875
Don't be fooled, materialism is still a form of Hegelian idealism, a synthesis of subject and object

>>16335875
I don't mean to be rude, but you seem very ignorant in both the subjects of Physics and Kantian Philosophy. Anon, I'd recommend you go read or research or whatever you deem worthy of your intellect because all you're doing here is embarrassing yourself.

>>16336045
Not the guy you’re replying to
I agree with your idea that super/historical knowledge to your area of study can help you do more in that area, but I would go even further and say it’s necessary. To expand on the engineer example
>Engineers 99% of the time don't care about the exact underlying mathematics in their calculations
They absolutely do! In classes you get pounded over the head with the fact that you shouldn’t put into practice theoretical physics/math concepts you don’t understand. That’s why, besides physics and math, it’s the most math heavy degree at most universities (though obviously they aren’t leading the charge at the absolute edge of these subjects). Estimation and modelling are just tools introduced later in education for efficiency and to solve more complex systems built on smaller, repetitious chunks of theory. Similarly, mathematicians and physicist must understand varied types of thinking and the philosophical origins of their methods if they want to push the boundary of their field.

>>16336213
I used to study Engineering at a German uni, so I know what I'm talking about, but caring about actual mathematical theory outside of calculations is not something that most engineering students care about or are particularily good at. Exams in engineering mathematics are dumbed down compared to the understanding that mathematics and physics majors have to show. Of course the lectures provide an overview on theory but most of the time engineers are provided with the hows and whats instead of the why.

>>16334885
Based

>>16336468
>I used to study Engineering at a German uni, so I know what I'm talking about
I’m a grad student in engineering
>Exams in engineering mathematics are dumbed down compared to the understanding that mathematics and physics majors have to show.
For any math or physics course, we take the same courses as the math and physics students.
>Of course the lectures provide an overview on theory but most of the time engineers are provided with the hows and whats instead of the why.
I’d be concerned about those engineers. All of our classes had/have derivations and proofs in lectures and assignments. Engineering innovation and safe design requires you to understand a methods underlying math.

All of you are stoners. Kant is crypto-Buddhist, i.e. Materialist.

>>16335343
Basically this. The scientific method got better since Kant days, the falsiability is null nowadays.

>>16335310
>the intersection of recognizing that unknown threats exist with the human brain's tendency to anthropomorphize concepts.
Proof?

>>16334888

my immortal God: Schopenhauer

amen

>>16335377
you are the kind of people who wouldn't believe if somebody told you we are made of atoms 1000 years ago because you can't see them

>>16334875
>How do materialists still exist in 2020 when this book has been readily available for centuries?
Because I literally can't into Epistemology. It's by far the hardest branch of philosophy and yet it seems the most pointless and abstract.

I have confined myself to only read ethics for now.

>>16334875
A certain top lass btfo him

>>16335336
This bothers me. Am I potentially dammed for all eternity by all conceptions of otherworldlyness because I lack the intellect to understand Epistemology? Will my effort to perfect my ethics in this life be of any avail in the (potentially) next life?

>>16338544
Nope, Kant thinks that people who know nothing about philosophy (inclufing ethics and metaethics) can still act morally, as long as they possess a working practical reason

>>16338598
Your ethics is a product of your metapsychics, that's the whole point of my comment. Imagine if accept materialism and adopt Nietzsche, then imagine believing in metapsychics and adopting Aristotelian ethics. The result will be vastly different.

>>16338624
The CI, which we always know intuitivitely, will tell you in advance wether these moral theories lead to immoral action. If a moral theory tells you to torture a children, and you have a practical reason, you'll immediatly know that that moral theory is wrong. If you followed it for 40 years, but this is the first time that it lead you to an immoral action, then you're not guilty for having followed it in the past. The only thing that matters is your actions and your intentions.

>>16334885
no

Why do you guys bother arguing with /sci/ about philosophy? I mean look at this shit

>hey exists because science points to materialism overwhelmingly

They don't understand that science itself rests upon a philosophical abstraction, the principle of sufficient reason, which is itself unable to be proven by science.

So, again, why torture yourselves?

>>16338770
I'm not above indulging in a little mocking scorn of the mentally challenged.

>>16335843
Yes.

>>16338770
What the fuck are you even saying? Science (the scientific method) is a tool to understand reality. Thanks to it we can understand reality as it is in the most feasible precise way we humans are able to understand. WE are seeing reality its "matelist" like philosophy says not science nor scientists, it's not their job and their opinions are irrelevant.

>>16339318
Read Kant and then Schopenhauer.

>>16335813
Science itself proved that none of these developments actually do anything to help us be happy
If anything they made it harder

>>16335168
hmm, so dreams are problematic since you cannot experience time in them but can still have actions in your day initiated by them?

you can fight your wife about a cheating dream but in that dream time was not being actively recorded by you, right? just by your unconscious bodily functions?

so that is in a way outside time. somewhere in which 'nothing happens', a dream, nothing really happened, and at what time did it happen in this timeless space of dream, but it can still start the fight about the cheating dream?

>>16339318
Scientists should really read the history of science if they actually believe this shit

>>16339644
Read A Brief History of Time and watch Cosmos, see? I can say nothing too.
>>16339713
Scientists can believe anything they want their beliefs don't interfere with the nature of reality and peer reviewed research

>>16340053
Peer reviewed research doesn't have anything to do with the nature of reality either

>>16335343
>what is the replication crisis

>>16340130
Something that was detected by science and is being corrected internally to science, by the science of science, not by any philosophical intervention.

>>16340063
I guess, it's just the way we express reality in the most feasible precise way we humans are able to understand it so far.

>>16335604
Sauna :DDD

>>16340201
>what is epistemology

>>16340221
I refer to my former statement
Reading the history of science will cure you of your delusions
Why aren't you willing to apply the "scientific method" to science itself?
We're no closer to reality than Ptolemy was

>>16335068
He didn't believe that, and he wrote a refutation of that kind of idealism. What he (correctly) argued is that space/time is the necessary form of our experience.

>>16340235
Totally irrelevant, as I said, unless you can point me to where Ioannidis et al. consulted it.

>>16340261
>you can't apply the scientific method to science itself
But you can, it's called metascience.

>NOOOOO DON’T TELL ME SCIENCE IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF EMPIRICISM NOOOOOOOO IT’S DIFFERENT HOW DARE YOU NOT ACCEPT THE APPEARANCE OF REALITY AS THE THING-IN-ITSELF NOOOOOOO CONFORM CONFORM CONFORM

>>16335310
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a defect... It's probably an adaptive behaviour in some way(s) or it wouldn't be prevalent in all of us (we're all prone to 'religious thinking', even if not religious).

>>16335494
>>16335689
>>16335715
>>16335820
>>16337903
You guys are the reason I love this board

>>16340287
What are the other forms of empiricism and how have they been useful in any way to humanity?

>>16340130
>The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.
>affects the social sciences
>social sciences
>(((social))) """""""""""sciences"""""""""""""

Thank God all the scum in liberal universities is gettin exposed

>>16340339
What's funny is that one of the few things to survive in social psychology is stereotype accuracy.

>>16336583

maybe your uni has better practices.

these are all just private business, no matter how controlled by the government they are wished to be.

>>16338770
This is literally the only cope philosophers have.
You don't understand that science corrects philosophy, and not the the other way around, no matter how much you sperg about it. Measurement is king. Measurements are literally the only thing that matters for knowledge. Without measurements there is nothing but conjectures, no matter how pretty.

Even if we call science a specialized type of empiricist philosophy, it is the final and definitive generator of knowledge. This makes people seethe to no end, but it's always gonna be the truth. A philosopher can't make claims about the reality that surrounds him without risking someone actually measuring it and showing how stupid he is when he is wrong. This has happened with the Greeks (women have less teeth than men), this has happened with philosophers who opposed Galileo, this has happened with Kant (space and time are "a priori"), this will continue happening as long as philosophers need to cope about their "mental realm" and refusing to let measurement take its rightful place as king.

>>16340298
Samefag

>>16340298
>Posting ecochamber memes is the reason I love this ecochamber.
Epic.

>>16340287
But empiricism is literally correct. Rationalism doesn't even exist. Reason is just another type of material experience. Physicalism solved this, anon. Show me something non physical please.

>>16340424
Nigga

>>16340417
Science is more like a branch of sorcery that actually works, we don't really know how it works, scientists themselves have even commented on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in understanding nature. Clarifying the limits of knowledge like this was the point of Kant, he actually refuted all prior metaphysics and characterized metaphysics as generally impossible, he wasn't (in his critical phase) a metaphysician like some in this thread have been claiming. It teaches some fucking humility, you're calling philosophers arrogant yet they're the first to admit they simply don't know, whereas scientism cavalierly insists it will discover all knowledge and solve all problems. And by the way Kant was a good scientist too, he was the first to hypothesize other galaxies and the accretion disc model.

>>16340417
All branches of "science" were all different branches of philosophy that were given their own logical frameworks, through philosophy, and only then were they then able to become their own disciplines able to be studied independently.

This is what happens when kids don't read anything older than 200 years old in school.

>>16340448
Refute property dualism

>>16340417
Read Kuhn

>>16340448
>Show me something non physical please

Nice tautology, friend.

>>16340528
Well, you're the one claiming such things exist and asking me to blindly "see it through my intuition". I find that request unreasonable. What do?

>>16340495
You can claim this all you want, but philosophers are always running a catch up game. Scientists just make measurements. It has always been this way. Philosophers of science try to run after and make sense of it, but science has always, literally, been about making measurements and deducing things from it. It still is how science operates now. What constitutes a good measurement and how to draw conclusions from it changed over the ages, but measurement is always a fundamental presence, with or without philosophy. Note that when a rat solves a maze he might be using what we humans call logic, but that doesn't mean he is using "philosophy". There is a fundamental difference there.

>>16340570
Study the history of science

nigs be stupid, what can you do?

>>16340486
Science is science. If something should be called sorcery is the blind belief in "the realm of forms" or other such nonsense felt through a magic property called "intuition" which you magically claim is completely separate and innate and independent of experiences. That's some real sorcery there.
The first few humans in the savanna were surely using rudimentary logic and other types of things to test out the environment around them after that type of behavior was positively selected over just trying random shit. I would call this experience being passed forward by evolution, and the theory of evolution would surely agree. At a large enough level of complexity we might just say "you are born with intuition, regardless of your experience", but I feel this is a very incomplete account of things.

>>16340543
>According to all this, upon the path of objective knowledge, hence starting from the idea, one will never get beyond the idea, i.e., the phenomenon. One will thus remain at the outside of things, and will never be able to penetrate to their inner nature and investigate what they are in themselves, i.e., for themselves. So far I agree with Kant. But, as the counterpart of this truth, I have given prominence to this other truth, that we are not merely the knowing subject, but, in another aspect, we ourselves also belong to the inner nature that is to be known, we ourselves are the thing in itself ; that therefore a way from within stands open for us to that inner nature belonging to things themselves, to which we cannot penetrate from without, as it were a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us at once within the fortress which it was impossible to take by assault from without. The thing in itself can, as such, only come into consciousness quite directly, in this way, that it is itself conscious of itself : to wish to know it objectively is to desire something contradictory. Everything objective is idea, therefore appearance, mere phenomenon of the brain.

>>16340570
>Note that when a rat solves a maze he might be using what we humans call logic

Correct, and scientists are the rat. The rat operates himself through a maze (his discipline of science) through logic. Philosophers are the ones who created the maze within which he operates, and by which he is able to draw conclusions from empirical data.

>>16340577
I have. Since Democritus and Archimedes until the latest LHC experiment, measurement is king. "Paradigms shift", the concept of scientific method changes, whatever. Measurement was and will always be there. Inescapable.

>>16340570
>I just the pulled the scientific method out of my ass once upon a time.
There is no hope for people like you.

>>16340597
>Philosophers created logic and this is why rats can solve mazes.
Is this a literal statement? How could living beings use logic before the advent of philosophy?
Just because philosophers gave this thing, that already existed, a name, doesn't mean they created it. You see the fundamental fallacy here? In much the same way scientists use logic every day, and your claim that they do this "because philosophy let them" or something is bullshit.

>>16340602
Define measurement

>>16340602
And why did we believe these things were quantifiable in the first place? Read Kant.

>>16340614
yikes stop posting

>>16340594
Can you point me to 0 anywhere in the world

>>16340570
You must have a really skewed idea of what philosophy is. You're talking about it as if the philosophers of the past 400 years spent their whole time trying to prove the existence of intellegible substances, vitalistic principles, general theleological principles of nature, and other abdusrdly speculative claims like those.

>>16340618
Process of experimentally obtaining information about the magnitude of a property of a phenomenon, body, or substance, to which a magnitude can be assigned

>>16340614
Just because we utilise this tool doesn't mean it inheres in nature. You see the fundamental fallacy here? How can muh logic be applied without a perceiving subject?

>>16340594
Philosophy is simply organized bodies of thought regarding the bigger questions of our existence that we have asked since time immemorial. Science has taken over for some but not all of these questions and those that remain for example ethics are critical. Unethical science is going to land us in a world of shit you can't even imagine because you're stunted by your dogmatic metaphysical naturalism, which is still a metaphysical position by the way. You simply want to carry on with a weak philosophy and not put in the work of systematically scrutinizing it. It's a profoundly lazy and frankly reckless attitude. Your hatred of philosophy is the real cope here.

>>16340614
They didn't use logic. Homer didn't know how to separate a valid from an invalid argument, his only criterion would have been the one of persuasion (as in, how "true" a proposition might appear to us, rather than how true the proposition actually is).

>>16340636
>>16340641

Grug see sharp stone and non sharp stone.
Grug tries cut meat with both.
Grug sees sharp stone better for cut.
Grug sharpens non sharp stone.

"BUT THAT'S NOT LOGIC OR EXPERIENCE BECAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN NAMED YET REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Science is what we call particular systems of philosophy given logically consistent structures to operate within. That's it.

The debate isn't science vs philosophy, it's empiricism vs idealism. But to have that debate, STEMcels would have to have a basic grasp of philosophy, which judging by this thread they do not.

>>16340634
And how do you reconcile that definition with the fact sheet every time we change the scientific method, the meaning of these words also changes?

>>16340649
That's not what I'm saying you fucking dullard. Actually read Kant before you post in a Kant thread.

>>16340652
When has measurement not meant that? At what point of scientific history?

>>16340649
Again, I have not said that Grugg could have not made any valid inference, what I've said is that he did not know how to separate valid inferences from invalid ones. A formal fallscy would have gone over his head, especially if it was used to claim something he agreed with.
The other anon is pretending to be me, dunno why

>>16340624
Yes. Grab a piece of bread. Count it. You have 1 piece of bread. Now eat it. Count again. You don't have a piece of bread anymore. Feel free to give the amount of bread you have now a name. Someone in the hindu golden age did that.

>>16340261
>Why don't you use the tool to the tool itself to check if the tool functions as it should

This is what you asking

>>16340681
What about negative quantities? What's -1 pieces of bread?

>>16340676
He could separate them by trying and failing. Eventually evolution honed this. Eventually we had complex enough language to start giving this kind of thing names.

I'm saying a lot of scientists function like Grug in that sense. We might not call Grug's little experiment "science" there, but we could. It seems more like a semantics game at that point. The idea that somehow without formal philosophical definitions science just crumbles into nothing seems false, from that premise. It's what i'm trying to say.

>>16340681
The piece of bread still exists, I don't see where you get the 0 from

>>16340702
Had Grugg followed your advice, we wouod have never gotten to logic. Logical theorems require an a priori truth, not an a posteriori one: no matter how many attempts he made, he would have never discovered the principle of non-contradiction.
To discover it, he would have had to do the equivalent of what the first logicians all around the world did, which is, logic (or, abstract thought concerning propositional and inferential structures).

>>16340713
Does it exist as a piece of bread?

there is no real debate between idealism and materialism, they're both the same thing in the end. all monism is the same. your decision on picking sides is purely a psychological one

>i'm an idealist, i believe that everything is spirit so i can reunite with the godhead and ascend to a state of purity, so i no longer have to suffer on this realm

>i'm a materialist i believe that everything is made of matter, so i'm going to mix myself in with the rest of the world and continually have fun and suffer until i die in this form, and/or the heat death of the universe


saying all the "spirit" has been here since the beginning is just like saying all of the "matter" has been here since the beginning. obviously the idealists are correct, but we'll never have the appearance of winning for long. there will always be new technology, toys, and methods of control to keep the illusion going

>>16340720
Don't see why it changing form proves 0
If I just broke a little piece of it, would that prove zero?
Since the whole piece of bread doesn't exist anymore

>>16340733
It would be something different, therefore not that one piece of bread. So, you have 0 pieces of bread. This does not imply that to have 0 pieces of bread you have to annihilate 1 piece of bread out of existence, it only implies that there is no piece of bread left to count.

>>16340717
>Grug stone is sharp.
>Grug think sharp stone cannot be non-sharp.

It probably started somewhere there. How do you account of the creation of logic otherwise, in a species that came from monkeys which came from simpler mammals and etc?

>>16340739
>It would be something different
Why? It's the same atoms

>>16340762
Are you having trouble with object permanence, anon?

>>16340417

>if i can't measure it it does not exist, the post

>>16340772
Incorrect.
>If I can't measure it I cannot know it.
Fixed for you.

>>16340744
Those propositions are necessary for the beginning of logic, but they are not sufficient. What was needed was for Grug to think abstractly about the logical form of said propositions (hence, why they are necessary: without them he would have had no material to work with) and their place in an argumentative structure, and what can be derived from these abstract forms. By doing so, you introduce a criterion that is different from subjective persuasion. Grugg would have believed in those correct syllogisms becsuse they were useful to him, not because they were logically valid inferences applied to true premises.

>>16340774

not necessarily. with quantum physics as the ultimate example, you have clowns doing measurements on things that they do not know about, and claiming knowledge of category that purely comes from mathematical description. what exactly is the difference in metaphysical category of a tachyon, neutrino, gravity particle, and a unicorn fart?

>>16340762
Same atoms, different structures. We count the istsnces of a structure, not its costituents (although they always have to be present). So, in the previous case, I count how many istances of atoms aggregated in a bread-like form are in my possession. Before eating the piece, there's 1 istance, after having eaten it and digested it there are 0 istances.

>>16340783
>Grugg would have believed in those correct syllogisms becsuse they were useful to him, not because they were logically valid inferences applied to true premises.
Scientists are closer to Grug in this regard, I feel. To give you an example, where some mathematical model might predict a singularity or something like this, and a measurement gives you a finite value, scientists will readily "smooth" out the mathematical model by doing whatever they have to do. Mathematicians often shit on physicists and engineers for not being rigorous in their demonstrations. That's because they need them to be useful. Am I totally off on the analogy here?

>>16340803
I think in a sense your analogy supports my point. If all we had were the attempts of the physicists, we could not say that we have discovered math as a discipline. We certainly would have some material to work on, so that we can kickstart this branch of study, but that's it.

>>16340791
> you have clowns doing measurements on things that they do not know about
Do you know more than them? Why are you calling them clowns? If you have some ultimate knowledge of quantum mechanics interpretations you could win some serious Nobel prizes.
>knowledge of category that purely comes from mathematical description.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but "shut up and calculate" just means "this equation fits the experimental results observed". Anything beyond that is speculation.
>what exactly is the difference in metaphysical category of a tachyon, neutrino, gravity particle, and a unicorn fart?
Again, idk what you mean by this question, but briefly, as far as I understand from science:
>Tachyons
Are theoretical predictions that have never been measured in a laboratory.
>Neutrinos
Are particles which have been measured and correspond to theoretical predictions.
>Gravity particle
Another hypothetical concept without experimental realization so far, an attempt to unify quantum mechanics with gravity, which hasn't successfully happened yet.
>unicorn fart
Something which has never been measured, and has no theoretical support from physics.

So 2 of the things you cited are theoretical thigns never measured, 1 is a confirmed particle, and 1 is just something random.

>>16340828
>I'm not sure what you mean by this, but "shut up and calculate" just means "this equation fits the experimental results
observed". Anything beyond that is speculation.

this is everything that I was trying to bait you into saying, right here. quantum physics is metaphysics. you put the math first in categorization, so you have zero way of “knowing” whether the category itself is off base or not, you just know that the math works. if you actually “knew” you wouldn’t have to speculate

somebody please tell me why all of the neutrinos aren't just the farts of very small unicorns

>>16335310
>disabled by applying a magnetic field to the brain's threat processing center
Yeah I can also change my entire personality by getting shot in the head.

>>16335343
oh man nobody tell this guy about theoretical biology.

>>16336583
>For any math or physics course, we take the same courses as the math and physics students.
You take proof writing classes? Sounds like a big waste of time desu

>>16335310
How is it a defect if you have to use magnets to disable parts of your brain to get rid of it?

>>16340570

>atomism as a concept defined well over 2000 years ago
>philosophers are the ones playing the catch up game

holy shit lmao

>>16335673
It's not vs.

this thread convinced me not to bother with kant fuck pseudos

>>16341047
Because we haven't measured that and none of the theories based on what we have measured point to that. That's the basic gist. Although I imagine in the head of a Kantian the unicorn farts seem just as likely as anything else.

>>16340914
I don't understand what you mean. Also a friendly tip, when someone unironically uses the expression "quantum physics" instead of "quantum mechanics" they immediately out themselves as massive pseuds.
What part of "fits the experimental results" did you miss there? We only say "shut up and calculate" because we saw it fits the experimental results.

>>16341461

therefore, you don't have much of an idea if what is being measured can be properly categorized as a 'particle' in the first place

>>16341479
>I don't understand what you mean.

read it again then, i didn't say anything unusual

>Also a friendly tip, when someone unironically uses the expression "quantum physics" instead of "quantum mechanics" they immediately out themselves as massive pseuds.

i have no presumptions of being an academic, nor an "intellectual", so being called a 'pseud' doesn't phase me. your entire job as a scientist is correct my a priori speculations and the people that i'm influenced by, by either raising it up to my level or dragging me down to yours. be gracious

>>16335377
This go on a board banner.

>>16334885
Objectively no.

>>16335369
>tranime poster is based
wtf bros...

>>16341542

We haven't measured neutrinos coming out of unicorn's assholes. We have measures neutrinos in other ways. Hope this is more clear.

>>16340417
>measurement is king
kek always humor in seein caveman stupidity

>>16335343
Based

>>16335336
Valuable post. Thank you for laying it out for the plebeians anon.

Someone give the the QRD on kant.

>>16344444
Checked. Someone give this man a quick rundown.

>>16335871
>Consciousness last forever.
What's the source for this claim? Could be true if big.

>>16344444
Humean autismalized cope

>>16334875
>>16334875
I subscribe to Kant, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and I'm a biological determinist that believes there is an objective reality and that all relativism is a mere misunderstanding of objective variables.

Who wants to fucking fight?!

>>16344557
Share your take on usefulness of religion, I'm interested.

>>16344557
This is gross. Are you a philosophy undergrad by any chance?

>>16335310
>if you become mentally disabled youll hold my point of view

>>16344557
>Kant and Wittgenstein
>Nietzsche and Kierkegaard
''im not gay ,i just suck dicks''

>>16335800
But science gives me cool shit! Kant didnt give me cool shit.

>>16345390
Kant didn't give you anything.
>>16343725
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU NEEEEEED PHILOSOPHRRRRREEEEEEEEEE TO UNDERSTAND THIIIIINGS YOU CANT JUST MEASURE YOUR WAY INTO REALITY
Meanwhile the egyptians had figured out anatomy and how to build complex structures and a good chunk of other shit by being the first civilization to invent standardized measurement. (Which greeks and romans then stole to use on their proto-science).
Measurement is king.

>>16345516
The whole point of kant book was to answer how science is possible. I just skimmed this thread but you seem like you have no idea or misunderstood him.

>>16335572
Kant doesn't have any metaphysics.

>>16345516
You can't measure most of what goes on in your basic experience which has a solely qualitative dimension. A good empiricist rejects materialism.

There is nothing about moder science that refutes Kant. The opposite, modern understanding of neuroscience steelmans the fact that we do not have access to things in themselves but rather just aesthetic projected onto our mind by our sensory experiences.

Einstein General Relativity doesn't refute Kant either. People aren't making sense ITT