/lit/ - Literature

>>18438785
add kojève too

ANNY...

>>18438790
L'idée du déterminisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne

NO LLORES, ANNY, QUE DE LAS LÁGRIMAS TUYAS LA SAL EL HIERRO DE LA SANGRE MÍA ES.

>>18438804

Reminder that attack on titan is cringe and extremely poorly written (yes seven before your last 20 chapters)

>>18438827
cringe and bluepilled

>>18438858
unironically can't even fathom how somebody who's on /lit/ and thus has read more than 2 books would think attack on titan is even above average by anime standards

>>18438827
>>18438922
this. I was actually dumbfounded how bad the writing was right from the start. It's like going trough a sack of awful tropes and mistakes

>>18438814
>>18438785
SNK was unironically good.

And all those who are discontent with the ending need to seriously read some shit akin to stoic perception of the fatum.

99% of manga/anime is forgettable after one has seen the whole thing.
With how SNK ended especially Eren became a real person compared to all the other protagonists. There is stuff to get upset about but it is miniscule and irrelevant mostly.

SNK is good and only plebs hate it cause they dont understand.

>>18439775

>>18439775
snk is good but i prefer the fan ending my fren > https://www.aotnorequiem.com/chapter/aot-no-requiem/part-1/

Feyeraband pretty much claimed reading star signs is equivalent to actually going to the moon?

>>18438785
>I know i should read lakatos, duhem, popper, feyeraband, and maybe others, but i don't know in what order
You should read Thomas Kuhn first.

>>18438785
Here you go OP

>>18441367
>>18441374
ty

you should consider picking up a philosophy of science textbook. reading long primary sources in order isn't feasible and won't give you a reasonable picture of the field.

bump

>>18441322
Pretty cool and high quality for fan-made.
I do not disagree with anything portrayed in it even deviating from the original, but it lacks the sublime aspect of Eren failing. The fact titan powers remain, eldia still needs to fight a war (and loses), him fucking up things with mikasa, etc. makes it so much less of the typical edgy shonen where everything got cleared up in the end by the now entirely all understanding main cast. In SNK no one was wiser in the end, and nothing mattered that had happened to the level that fans wanted it to be (and is a big aspect of why so many hate it).

>Part 1
ill check out the progress for sure. Maybe the author will fix this one aspect in later parts. Thanks for sharing!

>>18442836
>ill check out the progress for sure. Maybe the author will fix this one aspect in later parts. Thanks for sharing!
no pb fren
-> https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/comments/no3h8u/aot_no_requiem_fan_project_part_1_release/

>>18438785
Popper Kuhn Lakatos Feyerabend.

>>18442911
in this order?

>>18443075
Yeah. That’s the historical order of critique of positivism.

>>18443109
and what about quine and duhem?

>>18443293
Skip Quine until 4th year baby research papers
Read Duhem as a historian

>>18441356
Anon... I think you're braindead.

>>18443983
Feyeraband famously defended astrology.

>>18444207
He wanted his correspondent to survive to publish “For Method” to argue against him.

Bros, why do i despise Popper with every fiber of my being?
Everything i heard of him sounds like what the most pseud of women would say, problem is i know very little about him, and what i know makes his works repulsive to me.
Is he shit? Is he good?

>>18439775
SnK undermined the themes it had built up over the course of the entire series with its ending. That's not good writing.

>>18444254
>SnK undermined the themes it had built up over the course of the entire series with its ending
and thats a good thing.

>>18444235
What was Lakatos’s response to this dilemma? It is sometimes suggested, not least by Feyerabend himself, that Lakatos did have, or would have had, an answer but that he did not live to write it up. Their correspondence suggests otherwise. Although the locus classicus of Feyerabend’s argument is chapter 16 of Against Method (1975b) he had already developed his dilemma in “Consolations for the Specialist” (1968) and Lakatos had access to successive versions of the argument in the successive drafts that Feyerebend sent him in the last is six years of his life. Yet there is no trace of a counterargument in Lakatos’s surviving letters to Feyerabend. Instead there are a series of fearsome threats.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/#MincUnmaLakaVersFeye

>>18444240
he's based
science never talks about Truth with a big T

>>18444186
amazing, ty anon

>>18444240
>Bros, why do i despise Popper with every fiber of my being?
Same. He is actually a complete charlatan. I respect almost every philosopher from all traditions, even those I completely disagree with. But Popper just straight up lies about what Plato believed, I can't condone that. And all his opinions are completely uninformed by the wider philosophic deliberations of the time. His sociology just straight up misrepresents every opposing argument and his philosophy of science just completely ignores a priori systems (e.g. theory of relativity is a priori verifiable which refutes Popper's system of falsification, not to mention there are good reasons to believe in non-falsifiable theories like string theory). Also he literally just dumbs down epistemology and rebrands it as muh philosophy of science, and pretends Kant or the rationalists weren't working on the same thing.

>>18444318
>he's based
>science never talks about Truth with a big T
Never post on my board again.

>>18444329
>Never post on my board again.
He is right.

The Vienna Circle, rooted in positivism, rejects all metaphysics to devote itself exclusively to experience and materialism. Popper, on the other hand, believes that metaphysics can be useful to scientific knowledge, by serving as a starting point, by paving the way. He thus established the concept of "metaphysical research program", i.e. conceptions, theories, which cannot be verified or refuted by experience, but which can serve as more general frameworks, such as, for example, evolutionism. This model cannot be tested directly by experiment, but it allows for an interesting approach to observations and experiments. This revalorization of metaphysics is also part of Popper's attempts to reconcile science and philosophy.

However, Popper refuses to qualify these theories as scientific. At this stage, he had to define a criterion of scientificity, that is to say a criterion that separates science from non-science. He thus defines the scientific theory as refutable: the theory that carries the possibility of being tested and invalidated will be scientific. This criterion allows Popper to distinguish science from closed systems such as Marxism or psychoanalysis, which use a set of coherent statements (at least in appearance) to explain the world, but which are self-immunized against any form of verification, criticism or invalidation.
Moreover, with his criterion of refutation, he still opposes inductivism. Popperian thought plays on an asymmetry: the repetition of singular events cannot accredit a general thesis, but a single contrary event can refute it. Conversely, a system or a theory that would be immune to this possibility of being disproved could not be called scientific.

It is therefore not so much verification as refutation that prevails for Popper. A theory must above all be testable. The truth is established only provisionally, as long as the counter-example has not been exhibited. Consequently, the scientist cannot justify a theory as such, but must be satisfied with choosing from a number of assertions those which seem to him to be the most robust, i.e. the most likely to pass experimental tests. As long as this theory withstands the tests and is not replaced by another more extensive or more advantageous one, it is corroborated. But this state is only transitory, as any theory is bound to be outdated[2]. A scientific theory is therefore never true: it is only "not yet false".

In other words, science can never say "this is true" but only "in the present state of knowledge, this has not yet been disproved". On the other hand, it can say "this is false" because there is no symmetry between the true and the false: unlike the former, the latter can be demonstrated.

>>18444329
>e.g. theory of relativity is a priori verifiable
retard

The decline of Realism as a philosophical movement is best demonstrated by the prevalencee of arguments like "The no Miracles Argument" as ostensibly the best defence for scientific realism. The very opposite is true. The problem with most "Realists" is their uncritical acceptance of Lockeanism. Once you accept that all we ever have direct access to is mental representations, you are locked in Humean scepticism. "Inferences to the best explanation" are of no use, since it can never be shown that what has more "explanatory power" is also "more likely to be true", and the notion of objective epistemic probabilities is itself hopelessly obscure. The only way forward for realists is to abandon all theories of indirect perception and embrace what is called naive realism, the only doctrine that can account for the fact that objective knowledge is possible.

>>18444737
I just don't get it, why would you post about something you know literally nothing about? KYS.

>>18445016
read this faggot

>>18444957
>The problem with most "Realists" is their uncritical acceptance of Lockeanism. Once you accept that all we ever have direct access to is mental representations, you are locked in Humean scepticism.
This. The modern conception of matter, inherited from the first moderns like Locke, is such a paradoxical vision of the world and metaphysics that it can only lead to insoluble problems like the hard problem of consciousness, and nobody sees the problem: we told ourselves, for a century, that we will find it later. It is both funny and sad.

Materialism has inherited from Galileo, Descartes, Locke, and other modern thinkers, a highly mathematized conception of the material world, according to which matter possesses only quantifiable "primary qualities", such as spatial location, motion, size, etc., and is devoid of anything corresponding to what are called "secondary qualities", such as color, smell, sound, taste, heat, cold, etc., at least in the way common sense understands them. In this understanding, if you want to redefine a quality, such as "being red" for example, in terms of "the tendency of certain objects to absorb and reflect certain wavelengths of light", then only you can say that "an apple is red". But if by "being red" you mean what common sense means by "being red", namely "what red looks like to a normal observer", but would not look like to a colorblind observer, then there is nothing in the apple itself that corresponds to that, and you can't really say that "an apple is red". And the same is true for other colors, for tastes, smells, sounds, etc. Irreducibly qualitative characteristics were taken by early modern philosophers and scientists to exist only as qualia of experience - as parts of the veil of perceptions through which we are conscious of the material world, not as parts of the material world itself.

But if you define matter in this way, then you are already implicitly engaged in a form of dualism, whether you realize it or not. For if you say that colors, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., as common sense understands these characteristics, do not exist in matter, this implies that they do not exist in the brain either, since the brain is no less material than the objects outside it. Therefore, if you also say that these characteristics exist in the mind, in our conscious experience of matter, then you are saying that the mind is not material. Thus, a Cartesian type of dualism is in no way a strange kind of resistance to the modern scientific mode of explanation, but on the contrary follows from it. Indeed, early modern thinkers, such as Malebranche and Ralph Cudworth, insisted on it. Oddly enough, most contemporary philosophers and scientists seem blind to the fact that a Cartesian dualism lies at the root of the modern scientific understanding of matter - although Schrödinger is one of the scientists who saw the connection between the two, as well as Thomas Nagel among the philosophers.

>>18444957
> you are locked in Humean scepticism
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ar9AyE1po

>>18445028
I agree actually, although that wasn't the point I was making. I was attacking representationalist theories of perception, not the Lockean view of matter, which as you point out is untenable as an account of the natural world.
That said, the solution is not going back to premodern metaphysics (>>18445040
), which suffers from similar untenable dualisms like particular/universal or contingent/necessary.

>>18444731
Absolutely BTFO'd >>18444329

>>18445398
Neither of those anons, but he literally didn't address a single point made in that letter.

>>18445457
This letter literally doesn't have anything to do with the thing we are talking about, Poppers falsificationism. Poppers Open Society obviously was ideological garbage.

>>18445490
He literally avoids every single criticism that is usually made about Popper and just draws a false dichotomy with the Vienna circle. if you think he BTFOd anything, i don't know what to tell you, you are just delusional. He doesn't engage with the actual initial post (which I didn't like much as well) either, he just posted a random wordvomit in praise of Popper.

>>18445490
>>18445512
Actually after rereading the post, he doesn't even make an argument in favor of Popper, he just summarizes his "philosophy". There is no argument or counter-argument being made.
The absolute state Poppertards.