/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14164535]

Why are there so many science deniers on /lit/?
I see so much hostility to scientists like Dawkins and Pinker and facts like evolution.

[Anonymous No.14164553]

>>14164535
>facts like evolution

[Anonymous No.14164554]

>>14164535
because the picture that science paints of reality is not very nice. The only way to salvage it is unironic Christcuckery or Hinducuckery and such, and a lot of /lit/ don't want to do that so they engage in things like 'continental philosophy' to try to obfuscate reality so much that it might look a little bit nicer. They also get some pseud cred from being able to read these sorts of texts

[Anonymous No.14164561]

Man, like the Universe, is a fabric of determination and indetermination; the latter stemming from the Infinite and the former from the Absolute.

It may be objected that our preceding considerations on the human phenomenon are not an exposition of anthropology properly so called, since we offer no information on the "natural history" of man nor a fortiori on his biological origin, and so on. Now such is not our intention; we do not wish to deal with factors that escape our experience, and we are very far from accepting the "stopgap" theory of transformist evolutionism. Original man was not a simian being barely capable of speaking and standing upright; he was a quasi-immaterial being enclosed in an aura still celestial, but deposited on earth; an aura similar to the "chariot of fire" of Elijah or the "cloud" that enveloped Christ's ascension. That is to say, our conception of the origin of mankind is based on the doctrine of the projection of the archetypes ab intra; thus our position is that of classical emanationism - in the Neoplatonic or gnostic sense of the term - which avoids the pitfall of anthropomorphism while agreeing with the theological conception of creatio ex nihilo. Evolutionism is the very negation of the archetypes and consequently of the divine Intellect; it is therefore the negation of an entire dimension of the real, namely that of form, of the static, of the immutable; concretely speaking, it is as if one wished to make a fabric of the wefts only, omitting the warps.

Quite obviously, an anthropology is not complete if it does not take into account the spiritual dimension of man and therefore factors such as the eschatological hierarchy which we have just spoken, or of the analogous social functions. To say homo sapiens, is to say Homo religiosus; there is no man without God. [To have a center, Survey of Integral Anthropology, p. 50-51].

[Anonymous No.14164591]

>>14164553
>>14164561
Moron

[Anonymous No.14164593]

>>14164561
There is no form of my conception of man without God.*
FTFY, otherwise, purply prose to support unbelievably narcissistic egoism.

[Anonymous No.14164618]

>>14164535
Every good Nietzschean knows there are no facts, only interpretations.

[Anonymous No.14164744]

>>14164535
>Denying science
If science is right then why would it care?
>Dawkins
Barking up the wrong tree.
>Pinker
Jew.
>Evolution
Only relevant to biologists and wankers.

[Anonymous No.14164948]

[Anonymous No.14164954]

>>14164535

[Anonymous No.14164966]

>>14164553
what’s the traditionalist perspective on trends like postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.14164982]

>>14164535
I wouldn't say that there are that many, and neither is there a lot of evolution denial. No more than any other internet place for weirdos, at least.
Dawkins and Pinker are memes, though, and you're a moron if you treat them as representatives of science.

[Anonymous No.14164998]

Stuff that's objectively a priori true:
Mathematics
Stuff that's been proven by rigorous repeated observation:
Quantum physics
Stuff that's "useful":
Chemistry
Classical mechanics
Microevolution
Stuff that's believed:
Macroevolution

[Anonymous No.14165013]

>>14164998
Yo based.

[Anonymous No.14165031]

Scientific method isn't objective

[Anonymous No.14165111]

>>14164535
Dawkins and Pinker are shit for reasons having to do little with science. Nobody hates Einstein, Bohr, or any of those guys because they didn't constantly speak out their ass about things they're not experts in, and instead had a genuine appreciation and respect for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14165287]

>>14164998
Yeah I’m thinking this is based.

[Anonymous No.14165301]

>>14164744
>Only relevant to biologists and wankers.
That's just philosophy in general. Just replace "biologist" with "academic"

[Anonymous No.14165385]

>>14165111
This

[Anonymous No.14165590]

i wanna pet it

[Anonymous No.14165626]

>>14164998
an acceptable post
>>14164554
a precritical, unexamined post

[Anonymous No.14165706]

>>14164535
Humanities is a cope for people too dumb to cut it in STEM to convince themselves that they're still smart.

[Anonymous No.14165719]

>>14165706
>MUH SMART JOB
Bugmen and their life purpose of being pleasantly stifled into their wageslave hegemony

[Anonymous No.14165722]

>>14164535
The hostility is toward reddit; on that note, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14165735]

because the people who support them are useful idiots for the new techno-aristocracy that is eating the planet alive

[Anonymous No.14165780]

>>14165706
The STEM people are smarter meme needs to end. Some of my STEM peers were good at following directions and did possess a very narrow kind of intelligence, but my philosophy peers were far better writers and could actually hold intelligent conversations. In their free time my STEM peers played video games and watched Marvel shows while my philosophy peers read or socialized.

t. Physics, Philosophy double major

[Anonymous No.14165810]

>>14165780
>Physics, Philosophy double major
How do you make a living?
Are you working in academia? Do you teach students?

[Anonymous No.14165825]

>>14165810
Software engineer. Couldn't find a decent job related to either degree and I didn't want to continue amassing student loan debt.

[Anonymous No.14165828]

>>14164535
evolution is real and so is god

[Anonymous No.14165839]

>>14164535
Scientists are not philosophers and when they try to be they ignore the existing literature cause tldr and come out with their own inferior half baked version of it
The normies lap it up while scholars gouge out their own eyes

[Anonymous No.14165846]

>>14164535
No one gives a shit about evolution. These nibbas are specialists in their field, and that makes them think they are even kind of competent in other fields. They bumble around in these other fields like niggers stealing shit from an asian gas station owner.

[Anonymous No.14165861]

Because science is seen as a field(s) of inquiry that neither lives up to its self-professed epistemic humility (see most behavior on reddit or /sci/, or public scientists), nor its ends in terms of its original sense (scientia). It's an ideological system that serves as evidence for whatever bullshit policy elites want to push through, similar to the way religious power uses scripture. See that recent book about how a single psychologist got the entire psychiatric hospital system pulled apart due to complete bullshit research but flattered the opinions of left liberal elites. Or alternatively read any history of the US college system and watch how much of science is backed by gigantic elite foundations like the Rockefellers. Science is a handmaiden to power.

The only reason people like it is because its a system pushed as prestigious by bugmen technocrats so they can whop their opponents' heads with it. "You don't believe science! Haha what a rube!" It's why liberals and communists love science. It is yet another layer of control.

[Anonymous No.14165897]

>>14164553
kek

[Anonymous No.14165909]

>>14164966
i think there's a paper about guenon and postmodernism somewhere on b-ok or libgen. i cant really find it though

[Anonymous No.14165914]

>>14165909
>>14164966
nevermind, found it
http://93.174.95.29/_ads/6D73130E3D267985DFA8C54E94BD126A

[Anonymous No.14165966]

>>14164998
Wrong. Macroevolution has been observed and proven.

[Anonymous No.14166024]

>>14164535
Well, there is a tradition of intellectual esotericism enshrined in literature, so I guess it's not that surprising to find such views disproportionally represented on a literature board. They're smart enough that basic superstition doesn't satisfy them, so they cloak their mysticism in the pseudological.

[Anonymous No.14166050]

>>14165861
Hahah yeah, science is so stupid. Those bugmen better watch out, I'll be prowling the internet on my computer to prove them wrong whenever I can.

[Anonymous No.14166068]

>>14166050
how many marvel t-shirts do you have?

[Anonymous No.14166077]

>>14166050
>thinking you're smart
>on 4chinz
You wouldn't be here if you were anything else

[Anonymous No.14166880]

>>14165780
Most STEM people are calculators. The smartest STEM majors are the ones who are into theory and rocking the boat. They're the kind of people who philosophers can talk about metaphysics and they actually love it because they, too, have speculative, original, interesting ideas. Everyone else in STEM is a calculator who never thinks for themselves. So as you can see, the best STEM majors are basically philosophers in spirit. Philosophers will always be the smartest people in academia because they're the only ones trained to internalize actual formal logic, spotting fallacies from a mile away, and honing skills at discriminating tiny differences in anything you can express in language or thought. Everyone else is a fucking pseud if they think they're smarter because they lack the training.

[Anonymous No.14166918]

>>14166880

[Anonymous No.14166935]

>>14166918
ok humer

[Anonymous No.14166980]

>>14164998
>macroevolution and microevolution are different things
You aren't serious are you?

[Anonymous No.14166991]

>>14164553
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14167024]

>>14164535
>scientists like Dawkins
His last legittimate science article was in the 80s and has only ever written pseudoscience since then.

[Anonymous No.14167044]

>>14165861
>The only reason people like it is because its a system pushed as prestigious by bugmen technocrats so they can whop their opponents' heads with it. "You don't believe science! Haha what a rube!" It's why liberals and communists love science. It is yet another layer of control.

Speaking of communist science, look up "Lysenkoism."

[Anonymous No.14167096]

>>14166918
>Quote Hume, a PHILOSOPHER for one, and for two a philosopher who specifically subverts the possibility of science in the first place, in order to tell someone that science good, philosophy bad
>Probably never read the Treatise either, because Hume is actually being grossly misrepresented every time he's presented either as a radical skeptic or as anti-metaphysics
How could you disappoint so much

[Anonymous No.14167277]

>>14165861
Rockefeller Medicine Men
Rockefellers' authorized biography - Horowitz and Collier
In The Minds of Men - Darwin and the New World Order - Ian Taylor

[Anonymous No.14167279]

>>14167044
>Speaking of communist science, look up "Lysenkoism."
You talk as that disproves his claims rather than giving further credence to them.

[Anonymous No.14167360]

>>14164535
Pinker made some interesting findings in the field of language acquisition but apart from that he's a pop scientist who writes books for midwits who want to feel smart. Dawkins is roughly the same.

[Anonymous No.14168528]

>>14167096
1) I have no problem with philosophers (I consider rigorous philosphy a kind of science), but it should be acknowledged that many philosophers were empiricists who viewed philosophy as subordinate to natural science. There's also the analytic discipline, the disciples of which are probably more 'calculating' than the average scientist.

2) Hume was an empiricist. His skepticism was simply pointing out the technical uncertainty that accompanies all but the most apodictic truths (an old philosophical insight). He still knew that empricism is our only conduit to knowledge.

3) Hume expresses a contempt for metaphysical notions that aren't logically or experimentally demonstrable. There is a split among those who invoke metaphysics, between those who view it as an essentially neutral term referring to the widest possible scope of consideration, and those who build an assumption of mysticism into the term itself (and therefore any subsequent investigation). Hume is opposed to the latter brand of metaphysics.

Your disappointment is a function of your brainlet perspective.

[Anonymous No.14168553]

>>14164998
Well, techincally "Stuff that's been proven by rigorous repeated observation" is not a priori per se, it falls into the realm of practicaly true, but not theoretically so.

[Anonymous No.14168556]

>>14165111
Also this. I think Science, like how is use to be, should be an outcropping of academic philosophy. It prevent ass talk.

[Anonymous No.14168573]

>>14164535
>I see so much hostility to scientists like Dawkins and Pinker
Because they are literally close minded idiots who's view of the world is too narrow to meaningfully interpret it.

Scientism is a disease and it's adherents are pure cancer, science will not solve most issues and pretending that it can is nothing but retardation.
The only thing science can do is give us approximate models of reality. It can not determine truth, it can not solve moral questions and it can not effectively be used to reason about barely observable things (emotions, consciousness, etc.).

[Anonymous No.14168578]

>>14168528
So then we agree. having a basis in rigorous academic philosophy is important to then take the next step into empirical matters.

A real scientist has to accept the philosophical notion of uncertainty to have any kind of practical coherence.

[Anonymous No.14168586]

imagine your ideology being "evolution is real"
like this is your ideological crusade, or at least how you conceive of it

[Anonymous No.14168587]

>>14166880
>because they're the only ones trained to internalize actual formal logic
Yeah, that never happens in mathematics.

Mathematics is basically what you describe, it's philosophy with actually well defined objects and without handwaving away everything difficult and it is actually useful for anything besides self masturbating.

[Anonymous No.14168601]

>>14164535
>if you disagree with me, you DENY SCIENCE

What a loaded question. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.14168622]

>>14167279
I agree with his claims, though. I was adding to them, not disputing them.

[Anonymous No.14168642]

>>14168573
>The only thing science can do is give us approximate models of reality.
>It can not determine truth
What do you think truth is?

[Anonymous No.14168649]

>>14165861
>It's why liberals and communists love science
No, they don't. They love the idea of science, as an ultimate decider of truth into which every question can be fed and an answer received.
That is today's popular idea of science and what Marxist will tell you about their "perfect system".

But this obviously is total nonsense, for far too many reasons.

[Anonymous No.14168663]

>>14168642
>What do you think truth is?
I would call a model "true" if it perfectly described every situation to complete accuracy with every measurement.

Every single model thus far has turned out to be false, the amount of failed theories is innumerable, eg. Newtonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14168668]

>>14164535
evolution is science, some "science popularizer" writing something philosophically naive about the merits of atheism is not science
also half of /lit/ nowadays is /pol/tards trying to appear cultured because it's the "white man's burden" or just so they can quote Evola instead of just saying they hate minorities

[Anonymous No.14168680]

pinker isnt a scientist, hes a CIA nigger shill

[Anonymous No.14168693]

>>14168668
Go dilate.

[Anonymous No.14168716]

>>14164535
ah yes, weak bait but here:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession

so which one do we, as patricians, deny?

>>dawkins, pinker

but who was sciensophists?

[Anonymous No.14168760]

>>14165861
Wrong. i'm a biologist /sci/ is full of engineers and engineer aren't scientist, they are technnicians they don't understand why they do things they just do it, for example bill nye is a fucking mechannical engineer, engineers aren't scientists.

[Anonymous No.14168767]

>>14168578
Yes, I think a good scientist will apply uncertainty when speculating or considering unexpected results. Is that uncertainty necessary for 'practical coherence'? No, not particularly; following evidence alone will often dispel false assumptions.

There's a lot of people here acting like science doesn't provide the most probable explanations for everything, ignoring its predictive and demonstrable track record while registering their puerile objections on sophisticated devices. As if they can offer alternative explanations with even a shred of comparable specificity or predictive power. It's absurd.

[Anonymous No.14168778]

>>14168663
So, incomplete knowledge is no knowledge at all? It's either 100% truth or 100% falsehood?

[Anonymous No.14168986]

>>14168528
>1)
Classical empiricism is very different from scientific """"empiricism"""" though. The main important difference is that the old empiricists like Locke, Berkeley, Hume, as well as the old empiricist analytics like Russell, Ayer, and Carnap, and also the people between the two eras like Mill (the utilitarian) and Mach (the scientist) all believed that there existed a sensation relation to direct mental objects (impressions, sense data, what have you) and that our certain knowledge was entirely limited to these and analytic truths. They did not believe we could "know" much of what science claims to know, or at best (or worst?) they took what science claimed to be non-literal, and to be interpreted in terms of possible and actual sense experiences. So for example by the tail end they said atoms were mere useful fictions.
>2)
You're right about this.
>3)
He's more specifically opposed to the metaphysics of the schoolmen (scholasticism) because of their introduction of 'occult qualities'.
>Your disappointment is a function of your brainlet perspective.
I fucking AM an analytic, with a master's, studying in a PhD program. I did fucking research for a professor on Hume's Treatise in my undergrad and took two classes on the Treatise at different schools. I'm disappointed because you want to suggest that Hume, and now empiricists and analytics, are the STEMlord allies against philosophers. Actually the real STEMlord allies come after the empiricists. They're honestly worse than them though. People like Quine or Dennett. I say they're worse because they actually endorse neo-pragmatist bullshit notions of truth and meaning which are at odds with traditional scientific realism. Actually something similar is true of Churchland, he says such anti-empiricist shit as "perception is always theory-laden." The remaining post-empiricist analytics are analytic metaphysicians who respect the sciences but are more than comfortable doing metaphysics, people like Kripke, Armstrong, and Lewis. On the one hand, they are well read in science and use formal calculi all the time, so their literature looks science-like. But on the other hand, they're very much doing metaphysics. You might not like the things they say about time, modality, mereology, if you're a hard STEMlord, because it's too speculative and broad tent (many different views are floated around) from the STEMlord perspective. So I'm telling you, as someone who actually likes Hume and analytic philosophy, STEMlord mentality is fucking dumb, and we are not your allies. The analytics who want you to think that are sycophants, but you go ahead and read them deeply, and like I said, either they're sense-data types like Russell, Carnap, or neo-pragmatists like Quine, or pro-metaphysics like Kripke, Lewis.

[Anonymous No.14169017]

>>14165966
Where do I begin learning evolution? Any textbooks or websites in specific?

[Anonymous No.14169112]

>>14168778
>So, incomplete knowledge is no knowledge at all?
Newtonian mechanics wasn't incomplete, it was wrong.

[Anonymous No.14169127]

>>14168760
Engineers scientists,neither of you can actually derive truth.

[Anonymous No.14169152]

>>14168760
As a biologist you're probably fine, so are the chemists and physicists and mathematicians who actually go the route of going deeper into their own fields. But science and math majors who only get an undergrad degree and then go into CS jobs or whatever else are honestly terrible. They aren't engineering majors, but they still are and always were, with few exceptions, mere calculator brains.

[Anonymous No.14169205]

>>14169112
But if the 'wrong' model offered predictive power, pragmatic applications and a pathway to a more accurate model, then was not some degree of truth conveyed? I think you're being intentionally naive.

[Anonymous No.14169242]

>>14169205
The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth fits all those to a degree.

I wish to God that more people would read Robert Anton Wilson’s “The New Inquisition”, it’s simultaneously one of the more sophisticated and the more readable modern analyses of the flaws of modern scientism.

[Anonymous No.14169256]

>>14169242
geocentrism is actually legit
read wolfgang smith

[Anonymous No.14169270]

>>14169242
>The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth fits all those to a degree.
It does, but is there not a truth in the observation of orbiting cosmological bodies, even if the whole of the relation was not understood? You're just proving my point.

[Anonymous No.14169288]

>>14168986
It's my understanding that Quine and Dennett are empiricists. Could you elaborate upon why you consider their approaches to empiricism invalid?

[Anonymous No.14169311]

>>14164553

fpbp

[Anonymous No.14169377]

>>14166918

This is absurd. Number is voodoo. The prospect for actually experiencing a single Number, or showing it to an other Empirically, has always been null. Not even Hume claims otherwise.

Also:

>hume is no longer a matter of fact and existence
>therefore he is nothing but sophistry and illusion

[Anonymous No.14169422]

Science is build on skepticism. If you accept the dogmas you are just driving against a wall.

[Anonymous No.14169631]

>>14169377
So abstractions aren't experienced, abstracted from and considered relative to experience? Big if true.

Well, his published work is still sufficiently extant, is it not? Also, couldn't we exhume his remains and test for correlation with historical account of his existence?

Also:

>you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.14169801]

>>14169631

In general, maybe. But the Numerical and the Empirical are mortal enemies. There literally is no such thing as Number. Even regarding one's own experience, countless people of all kinds claim they have experienced God, Satan, past lives, other worlds, the dead, etc. but all but none of any kind claim they have experienced Number.

[Anonymous No.14169846]

>>14164535
My problem with science is doctors. I've been hospitalized a few times for bipolar and they have no idea what they're doing. I mean, they do, but in a deeper sense, they don't. Until we begin to actually understand the mind, not just the brain, there will always be something unsatisfactory about mental health care.

Foucault's Madness and Civilization, Guatarri and Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.14170830]

>>14169288
Quine basically criticizes traditional empiricism, because it presumes that sentences can be verified by experience. But, says Quine, experience radically underdetermines any single strand of theory; one must presuppose auxiliary hypothesis to say experience verifies or falsifies anything. On this basis (underdetermination), Quine advocates accepting or rejecting entire holistic frameworks (that becomes the unit). Despite Quine granting that frameworks can be edited, with outer strands in the web of belief giving way while central strands stay, he ultimately will say that picking between frameworks reduces to pragmatic (non-empirical) considerations. This is why Quine was a major influence for Rorty's radical postmodernism. Both are neo-pragmatists. Dennett is also a neo-pragmatist by his own admission, but I'm less qualified to talk about him. My understanding is that, in being a neo-pragmatist, Dennett isn't understanding truth and meaning in the usual correspondence sense (with there being an external reality out there for us to grasp, but which could exist without us). Things are a bit more ambiguous with Quine. That being said, Quine is still going to say that it's not a matter of empirically-based "proof" that determines scientific enterprise, but rather pragmatic virtues. Thus he's not a scientific realist in the traditional sense. Quine, not unlike Carnap earlier, of course presents himself as "scientific," but you have to understand that these analytic anti-metaphysics "science" people aren't the best allies for science if you're a hard realist, as many in the sciences actually are.

[Anonymous No.14171443]

>>14164535
science isn't a world view. it is a tool. but it's been used to give midwits a world view in line with the banking agenda. if you leave the 'fuck i love science' playground, reality will be very different

[Anonymous No.14171479]

>>14164535
I fell for their atheist propaganda when I was in high school, having taught the lie of evolution in the same time I was watching a lot of Dawkins and hitchens videos. A lot of the science popularizers are nothing but pawns used by evil powers that be that try to hide God in any way they can. Hear the gospel and the word of God, and see the light for yourself fren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEBz25lGdY&t=

[Anonymous No.14171703]

>>14170830
Right, but Quine and neopragmatists do hold that there is an objective reality, nor do they dispute that empiricism is our only conduit to knowledge. They don't even rule out the possibility of a given framework more accurately describing objective reality than another, they just don't seem to think that striving for accuracy is a particularly realistic or useful goal. Now personally, I don't agree with that — I think that in seeking pragmatic application, we inevitably learn more about ontology and vice versa. Although they're more skeptical than I think is warranted, I don't see how their emphasis on pragmatic paradigms would actually alter how natural science is conducted or prevent us assessing from what theory is most probable/more accurate at the moment. It's just not the threat to empiricism you're making it out to be.

[Anonymous No.14171760]

>>14164535
Macroevolution has never been demonstrated, it is merely the myth of the self-apotheosis of beast to man and man to god.

[Anonymous No.14171817]

>>14164535
Those are atheists, not scientists.

[Anonymous No.14171822]

>>14171703
>Right, but Quine and neopragmatists do hold that there is an objective reality
Quine might, but they tend not to. They have entirely different theories of truth than the correspondence theory. Of course pragmatists and others with weird theories of truth still use "reality" language and "objectivity" language. But it means something very different form the usual.

[Anonymous No.14172342]

>>14171760

Indeed, but the particular God it anticipates seems to be Yaldabaoth.

[Anonymous No.14172348]

>destroyed Dawkins with biological facts and logic

[Anonymous No.14172417]

>>14169205
>But if the 'wrong' model offered predictive power, pragmatic applications and a pathway to a more accurate model, then was not some degree of truth conveyed?
No. You are bending what "truth" means. Truth can not be wrong, it can not be debated or challenged, the base principle of science is that needs to be falsifiable, truth is by definition not falsifiable.

Obviously Newton's laws approximate, under certain conditions, many physical phenomena around us quite well and as such they are useful in many circumstances, but as a "truth" they fail completely, they do not represent reality.

[Anonymous No.14172675]

>>14164535
cute af

[Anonymous No.14173926]

>>14169801
>mfw mathamas hiding in their caves

[Anonymous No.14173993]

>>14172417
That's apodictic truth you're talking about. If that's the only kind of truth you accept, that's fine, but then 99.9% of our knowledge can never be considered in terms of truth.

My point is that some aspect(s) of the noumenal must be conveyed in appearances, and so it is possible to refine and increase our knowledge of ontology (improve the accuracy of our description) by delving deeper into those appearances. Even though we'll never have the whole picture, we can increase the degree of it we apprehend.

Since you are determined to be pedantic about the definition of 'truth', just call it knowledge or whatever you want. The crucial point is, is knowledge really an all-or-nothing proposition? I don't see how it could be. As an analogy, I think it's reasonable to suppose that photograph of someone conveys more accurate information about their nature than a stick drawing, even though they are both ultimately representations.

[Anonymous No.14173999]

>>14164535
>categorizing evolution as facts
How does Darwins cock taste?

[Anonymous No.14174008]

>>14164535
Dawkins and Pinker just go around affirming the consequent whenever possible.

[Anonymous No.14174017]

Does the Orthodox Church have an official position on evolution?

[Anonymous No.14174019]

>>14166918
Reminder that you have no reason to believe the laws of physics wont change tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.14174037]

>>14174017
Yes it's bs

[Anonymous No.14174039]

>>14174037
Their position or evolution?

[Anonymous No.14174067]

>>14169801
Aren't all those things experienced ideas (you couldn't express a concept without having some experience of it)? No one can point to the concrete existence of any of that mystical bullshit either... The difference is that 'numbers' are symbolic tools embedded in a logical framework. Using math, one can make predictions about the concrete world which can be verified (to great effect, as we well know). This means that despite being an abstraction, 'number' is able to serve as proxy for something(s) in the concrete world; it is able to distinguish itself beyond mere imagining — a feat which those mystical notions cannot match.

[Anonymous No.14174084]

>>14174037
can u link cuz if they say its fake and gay I'll take their word for it

[Anonymous No.14174100]

>>14164535
>so many science deniers on /lit/
It's just this one french guenonposter.

[Anonymous No.14174104]

>>14166935
Underrated, are all zoomers humerists?

[Anonymous No.14174114]

>>14166935
The 19 year old hyoomer

[Anonymous No.14174118]

>>14174019
Except that they have remained consistent for the entire observable history of our universe. Even if there is some small degree of uncertainty, there's no practical reason to be concerned about it (if there was such a change, empiricism is the only way we could know about it — assuming life was sitll possible).

[Anonymous No.14174121]

I enjoy Pinker's work for the most part, but both he and Haidt have difficulty finding a balance between academic honesty and marketability.

[Anonymous No.14174162]

>>14174019

Indeed, and "laws" in the Materialist sense are in fact a paragon of weakness. The "laws" by which you are not currently falling through the Earth could be exploited or circumvented to make you fall through it, and the "laws" would let you fall just as thoughtlessly as they let you stand on it thus far. Whereas God would have to consciously choose to make it so, or not.

[Anonymous No.14174229]

>>14174067

I like the backpedaling from "NUMBERU AKBAR" to "c-c-come on g-guys it's not that b-b-bad", only took two replies. But to answer:

I guess? At the macro level, the Empirical does seem to lend itself to Number, but at the micro level, each individual swears by their own augurs, totems, rituals, etc. so much so that given rigorous enough observation of any one individual's preferred predictive methods, I'd wager it would appear as accurate as Number.

[Anonymous No.14174263]

>>14165626
I've examined that perspective quite a lot actually and I'm pretty much convinced that's what's going on.

[Anonymous No.14174344]

>>14174263
The issue is that science does not even paint a picture of reality as you or I would use the word. The a posteriori predictions of science cannot even be interpreted without our a priori intuitions of space and time and associated principles such as causality. Read Kant.

[Anonymous No.14174349]

>>14174121
>I enjoy Pinker's work for the most part
ASS

[Anonymous No.14174376]

>>14174344
If you do accept that things like causality and matter exist, which 99% of people do, congratulations for you if you don't, then you have to face the implications that things like evolution present to us.

If you want to quibble about whether we can know anything at all or what knowledge means go ahead, I dont care. In practice in real life you act like a naive empiricist just as everyone else does.

[Anonymous No.14174462]

>>14174039
Evolution is bs
>>14174084
http://orthochristian.com/91496.html
Here is giant book about it if you want really good refutation and a orthodox read of genesis

[Anonymous No.14174465]

>>14174462
thanks dawg

[Anonymous No.14174525]

>>14174229
What backpedalling? I never claimed numbers aren't an abstraction. The point Hume is making is that abstraction which can be demonstrably related to the concrete deserves a status and investigation that mere imaginings do not. This should be obvious, but I suppose it wouldn't be to a brainlet that thinks concepts aren't experienced.

This is backpedalling: >>14169801 followed by full retardation.

What the fuck are you even babbling about? If there are no common standards (like logic), then there would be no point whatsoever in participating in this debate, would there?

[Anonymous No.14174619]

>>14174121
ass

[Anonymous No.14174648]

>>14174462
>Evolution is bs
Imbecile

[Anonymous No.14174649]

>>14174344
This seems to be falling into that all-or-nothing knowledge fallacy. Surely our intuitions convey some degree of accuracy in apprehending reality, or they would be a poor adaptation?

[Anonymous No.14174671]

>>14174525

What cannot be demonstrably related to the concrete then?

[Anonymous No.14174723]

>>14174671
Any abstraction which can't make testable predictions about the world. Do you seriously not understand this?

[Anonymous No.14174730]

[Anonymous No.14174745]

>>14174462

[Anonymous No.14174755]

>>14164535
Because they've Petersonned their way into intellectual dishonesty, denial, and apathy

[Anonymous No.14174764]

>>14174723

Can you name a couple?

[Anonymous No.14174767]

>>14164998
mathematics belong in the second category and proven needs to be changed to demonstrated

[Anonymous No.14174814]

>>14164998
Stuff that's objectively a priori true:
OP is a fag

[Anonymous No.14174906]

>>14174376
My point is that to function you have to go beyond "science" into the realm of intuition or philosophy. You can't escape Hume's problem of induction otherwise.
>>14174649
But the validity of those intuitions can't be empirically tested. You can't empirically test causality, that's circular. So you have to accept that Science™ has nothing to say on the matter.
>Wovon Naturwissenschaft nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß Naturwissenschaft schweigen.

[Anonymous No.14175464]

If evolution is real then you can't deny that there is differences between races at a biological level.
I mean you can't even donate bone marrow across races.
Mixed race people are pretty fucked when it comes to needing marrow.

[Anonymous No.14175622]

I think it's a natural response to the scientism that is peddled in so many places. The idea that the sciences alone can contain everything that we know seems quite flawed.

[Anonymous No.14175803]

>>14174764
god, soul, forms, etc.

Any negative claim, the kind that people pretend are legitimate on the basis of their supposed ineffability.

>>14174906
Nor can we assume the invalidty of those assumptions. You're right, there's always a degree of uncertainty, but in the end it doesn't matter because empiricism is still our only conduit to knowledge.

The question here is whether appearances convey some knowledge about reality (no matter how distorted our intuition); I maintain that they must (appearances must bear some real relation to that which produces them).

[Anonymous No.14176079]

>>14175803
>empiricism is still our only conduit to knowledge
You refute yourself when you say:
>You're right, there's always a degree of uncertainty
If you can't be sure of concepts such as "space" and "time" then there's no way you can be sure of anything in the natural sciences.
>appearances must bear some real relation to that which produces them
Again, you make a metaphysical assertion which you hold to be a priori true, all the while you claim only empiricism can lead to truth. You really are dense.

[Anonymous No.14176815]

>>14176079
I don't refute myself. How is extreme skepticism tenable (do you realize that Kant was arguing against it)? Is knowledge possible? If so, then I hate to break to you, but experience is the only way to accrue it.

Our intuitions are conditioned by something, right? Does our concept of that something have to 100% accurate to tell us anything about it?

>Again, you make a metaphysical assertion which you hold to be a priori true, all the while you claim only empiricism can lead to truth. You really are dense.
I don't subscribe to the a priori/a posteriori distinction at all — I think it's an assumed dichotomy which hasn't been certainly established. Empiricism is the only conduit to knowledge, Kant knew this, which is why he had to qualify 'a priori' with 'synthetic'. Let's take the most apodictic truth for example, that of existence itself; this truth can only be known subsequent to experiencing existence, and its self-evident nature does not preclude that requirement. It's the same thing with a necessary relation between appearance and the noumenal, the obervation stems from the most fundamental logic pertaining to existence itself (the relations of which are experienced).

Now please, spare me your superficial 'insight'.

[Anonymous No.14176828]

>>14164535
pure fucking contrarianism. 99% of the people on this board only believe evolution isn't real because the jews/sjws/whatever fabricated leftist enemy happen to believe that evolution is real, and all of those people are wrong, therefore evolution isn't real.

pretty sure in a couple months we're gonna have myopic fucktards debating on whether or not gravity is real as well

[Anonymous No.14176861]

>>14164535
>Pinker
>Dawkins
>scientists
The problem here is you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.14176868]

>>14174745
>tfw

[Anonymous No.14176902]

>>14165111
> Einstein didn't constantly speak out of his ass about things he was not an expert in

lmao

[Anonymous No.14176904]

>>14176868
noice