EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

File: 64 KB, 920x537, lawrence-krauss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Anonymous Mon Apr 17 10:49:07 2017 No.9392209 [DELETED]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 10:52:51 2017 No.9392224 Everytime I person say it 'hates' something, they are talking about themselves rather than the thing they chose to hate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 10:55:57 2017 No.9392236 Plus, what those type of people think 'rational thought' means it's extremely short sighted and clearly just a means to debase everyone that disagrees with them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:01:00 2017 No.9392252 Good video

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:01:31 2017 No.9392256 File: 385 KB, 1200x1800, Daniel_Dennett_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] BOG FART BACTERIA

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:10:54 2017 No.9392284 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7dRpWIdBo Holy...so this is the power of science

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:25:05 2017 No.9392346 All these nu-atheists are incredibly cringe and dumb dumbs

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:30:52 2017 No.9392359 >>9392284 i'm not an atheist but there's nothing wrong with incest just because it makes you feel icky doesn't mean its wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:41:43 2017 No.9392406 Kek Dennett BTFOing Krauss

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:43:45 2017 No.9392409 Why are we even allowing STEMfags to talk? They're not real people, they're autistic human computer. The right thing to do is to lock them away in a lab so they can produce for us new iPhones and spaceships

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:47:49 2017 No.9392420 >>9392409 Why are you pretending like he isn't parroting the Frankfurt school propaganda?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:49:01 2017 No.9392425 >>9392420 >Frankfurt school propaganda le cultural marxism

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:50:52 2017 No.9392435 >>9392425 What? I don't understand, I'm defending Postmodernism here senpai.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:51:46 2017 No.9392444 File: 58 KB, 1011x801, libarts.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] daily reminder

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 11:55:26 2017 No.9392458 >>9392435 He's making fun of you for pushing the cultural Marxism meme

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 12:00:50 2017 No.9392480 >>9392458 But that wouldn't make any sense, or does he not realize that the Frankfurt school is generally opposed to post-modernism? Marxists love objectivity and would agree with the statements made by Krauss.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 12:03:01 2017 No.9392487 >>9392480 His post wasn't concerned with whether or Marxists would agree with Krauss, he was simply making fun of the fact that you brought up cultural Marxism as a bogeyman

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 12:08:45 2017 No.9392518 >>9392359 Putting drooling husk babies into the world for everyone else to take care of is pretty shitty

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 12:13:21 2017 No.9392545 >>9392359 Nothing wrong with it until it is normalized after hundreds of years and then every kid is Charles II-tier

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 12:14:18 2017 No.9392548 >>9392545 Worked out great for UK

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:07:08 2017 No.9392744
File: 77 KB, 542x535, 1485507910135-4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9392284

"Take notice how a “moral man” behaves, who today often thinks he is through with God and throws off Christianity as a bygone thing. If you ask him whether he has ever doubted that the copulation of brother and sister is incest, that monogamy is the truth of marriage, that filial piety is a sacred duty, then a moral shudder will come over him at the conception of one’s being allowed to touch his sister as wife also, etc. And whence this shudder? Because he believes in those moral commandments. This moral faith is deeply rooted in his breast. Much as he rages against the pious Christians, he himself has nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian — to wit, a moral Christian."

Despook yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:17:02 2017 No.9392777 File: 97 KB, 1024x576, 6kDVVV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9392744 >christianity invented revulsion from incest

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:22:13 2017 No.9392805 >>9392209 I'm always genuinely shocked at how dense this nigga is

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:30:07 2017 No.9392837 >>9392744 >Having to accept christian morals to understand that you need christian morals This doesn't make sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:33:03 2017 No.9392851 >>9392209 E M P I R I C A L

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 13:51:41 2017 No.9392925

I absolutely hate nothing more than these fashion 'empiricists'. Dumbnuts, empirical data cannot be 'made into' evidence without rational processing. Not even a machine can escape skewing during this process.
Knowledge then comes from a rationalization of 'empirical evidence', not from the 'empirical evidence' itself.
Only something like a fucking rock can obtain knowledge from empirical evidence, and a rock can't obtain knowledge.

These people are not machines, nor do they not want to be machines. They want to be fucking rocks yet somehow employ the objective experiences of a fucking rock. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:04:09 2017 No.9392965 File: 30 KB, 666x408, 1411975937460.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] But can he define empirical?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:20:37 2017 No.9393031 >>9392284 oh boy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:23:17 2017 No.9393039 File: 120 KB, 960x720, ayyyyyyyyyyynicememe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:24:10 2017 No.9393043 >(FUNNY)

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:25:22 2017 No.9393046 >>9392284 kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:28:14 2017 No.9393056 >>9392359 yeah it does. if something making you feel icky doesn't mean it's wrong, you might as well extend that logic to the idea that nothing means anything at all is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:31:27 2017 No.9393072 >>9392805 He's so fucking dense light bends around him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 14:33:17 2017 No.9393082 >>9392284 .......and I thought Libertarians were stupid

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 15:53:06 2017 No.9393416 >>9393056 t. Letzter Mensch

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 16:56:16 2017 No.9393618 >>9392359 >just because it makes you feel icky doesn't mean its wrong A sociopath uses this argument against your feefees you call morality. What do?

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 16:59:34 2017 No.9393632

>>9392777
Considering the fact that Egyptians and everybody influenced by them did think highly of incest, Zoroastrianism, the effects of polygamy... The main cultural contributor against incest has been either artificial or Christianity.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it isn't a very smart thing to do, but it does take a religion to tell the masses such things. Not sure on how European pantheons liked incest, but their gods did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 17:09:32 2017 No.9393685 >>9392487 You sre mentally challenged and clearly have never read anything from the frankfurt school.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 17:28:52 2017 No.9393772 >>9392518 >>9392545 Incest doesn't necessitate reproduction Krauss specifically removed that from the equation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 17:29:54 2017 No.9393778 >>9393618 I show how he's retarded and perfomatively contradicting himself through the praexology of Hoppe's argumentation ethics

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 17:30:27 2017 No.9393783 >>9392209 ooga booga

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:22:34 2017 No.9394330 >>9392284 An idiot he may be, but there is literally nothing wrong with what he said here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:25:20 2017 No.9394344 >>9394330 >fucking your sister once in a while is perfectly fine and in no way corrosive to society. I mean, I haven't got any empirical evidence for that Ok Lawrence, gotchu senpai

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:32:20 2017 No.9394383 >>9394344 how is "society" affected by incest?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:34:51 2017 No.9394396 >>9394383 You see any thriving societies in which incest is celebrated these days?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:35:04 2017 No.9394398 >>9394383 Die-Jenny-Racie

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:35:55 2017 No.9394400 >>9394396 epic argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:42:08 2017 No.9394430 >>9392284 I don't care for Krauss, but the booing he got from the peanut gallery was ridiculous. An intellectual debate isn't a fucking baseball game

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:50:40 2017 No.9394468 >>9393043 It's the 'funny' that just denotes 'light-hearted', I think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:51:22 2017 No.9394472 >>9394430 The debate happened in front of a bunch of towelheads, would you expect order and civility from them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:54:31 2017 No.9394483 >>9394430 Serves him right desu. He, Hitchens, Harris and their lot care more about reactions from the public that buffer their egos than civilized debates. It's all about the applause, the sarcastic comment here and there, the cynic smile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 19:59:57 2017 No.9394508 >>9394483 In fairness, Sam Harris doesn't try to entertain anyone.

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:01:07 2017 No.9394519

>>9394344
Then why do dogs, sheep, livestock, etc, breeders force animals to commit incest all the time?
Incest is a viable option as long as you know what you are doing. That there is a lot of maintenance, culling, and introduced genetic diversity involved.

Say the last man and woman in the world were brother and sisters, is incest wrong then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:02:50 2017 No.9394526 Empiricism is epistemology, but these dumb nu-atheists treat it like its ontology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:03:24 2017 No.9394529 >>9394483 It's better to be firm, committed, and clear in your argument and come off as an asshole than using wavy words so that later on you can excuse yourself that the opponent misunderstand your language.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:05:22 2017 No.9394537 >>9394483 I'm Catholic but I actually like Hitchens explicitly because of the entertainment factor. He was an actual character. I'm almost sad that God turned him into an egg for a year before killing him

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:05:30 2017 No.9394539 >>9392359 t. muslim

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:06:05 2017 No.9394543

>>9394529
>It's better to be firm, committed, and clear in your argument and come off as an asshole

Reminder that this is your response to a comment that had the following:

>It's all about the applause, the sarcastic comment here and there, the cynic smile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:06:51 2017 No.9394546 File: 18 KB, 360x393, 1458178187462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9392209 >engages in philosophical argument >denies philosophy everytime

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:11:50 2017 No.9394560 File: 2.35 MB, 1920x1080, iceicebaby.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJSmUExU6M

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:15:06 2017 No.9394579 Krauss is both really ugly and really unlikeable. You'd think someone who looks like he does would try to work on his personality.

Anonymous Mon Apr 17 20:24:57 2017 No.9394625

>>9394537
I'm not even religious, I just don't like their style. And it's a shame because it's never harmless banter. Hitchens particularly does it with the intention to belittle his opponent. That takes away his credibility, unless you are there to be amused.

>>9394508
With him it's more about his smug disposition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 02:07:38 2017 No.9395811 i just happened upon this guy via JRE and i felt the glory of good fortune that i found Jordan Peterson before i turned into a immoral materialist like Krauss.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:03:08 2017 No.9396801 >>9392224 he's philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:05:37 2017 No.9396809 >>9392518 the only way you can believe this is if you also believe in sterilizing the mentally ill, disabled etc.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:08:55 2017 No.9396818

>>9393632
You've never even seen a documentary on the BBC on any indigenous people ever, did you? The moment any incestuous tribe gets discovered is the moment anthropology will have to sit down and rewrite entire books, it's something that doesn't happen at all in humanity.
If anything, european royalty was more incestuous than most other peoples.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:18:05 2017 No.9396842 >>9392284 Thinking that things like cannibalism, necrophilia and incest are intrinsically morally wrong is an indication of intellectual immaturity

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:24:10 2017 No.9396862 >>9396842 There are rational reasons to avoid cannibalism and necrophilia though. Largely disease.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:30:17 2017 No.9396883 >>9396862 >Largely disease. Yeah, clearly disease is the largest argument against cannibalism. If only we could eliminate this one annoying factor, we could all enjoy delicious well-cooked babies in peace

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:44:22 2017 No.9396937 >>9396883 Name another. Also babies can't consent you idiot, it would have to be done with consent, and probably a natural death >Sex is bad, imagine having sex with babies, look how horrible that sounds, sex is immoral

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 11:53:51 2017 No.9396976
File: 310 KB, 852x502, levi_strauss_emmanuelle_loyer_sciencespo.jpg.crop_display_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9392284
>Christianity is what makes incest a tabboo

Is Krauss actually retarded? Maybe himself the fruit of incestuous relations?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 12:00:55 2017 No.9396996 File: 274 KB, 535x1320, 1492368285962.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9395811

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 13:05:57 2017 No.9397281 >>9396937 >Consent is bad because i sed so

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 15:08:21 2017 No.9397641 >>9397281 >That reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 15:43:06 2017 No.9397751 >>9397641 I meant 'consent is good' but didn't care to delete my post or correct my post in a follow-up post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:14:12 2017 No.9397872 File: 120 KB, 1177x437, postmodernists making fun of themselves.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9392965

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:26:06 2017 No.9397919

It's stupid how many of these nu-atheists are out there. They're so close-minded because they believe that the only way to know something is through scientific evidence so it's impossible to have a conversation with them. No matter how many reasons you give to believe in something like God they'll just repeat the mantra of "no evidence, no proof, no empirical data." instead of engaging with the reasons provided. I think they just do it to protect their ego. They can never be proven wrong if they don't challenge their ideas so they just fall back onto that mantra to kill the conversation.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:53:47 2017 No.9397997

>>9397919
I'm one of those nu-atheists, and I legit can't see a problem with believing something once it's supported by evidence
It seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss something that isn't empirically supported and work with things that are, that's what has always worked, and nothing else has
If cold science people like Krauss and Dawkins annoy you, you can read/listen to people who are more well read in philosophy, like Pinker who is a linguist or Hitchens who is a writer

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:56:53 2017 No.9398016 >>9397997 There is no direct empirical evidence or scientific experiment that can prove the belief that all true beliefs must be validated with the scientific method. Do you see the problem with this? It's a self defeating belief.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:58:30 2017 No.9398026 >>9393632 What the fuck you're just wrong

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 16:59:28 2017 No.9398032
File: 20 KB, 468x286, you die now.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9397919
>They're so close-minded because they believe that the only way to know something is through scientific evidence
You shouldn't trust experience, humans are to naive to access any absolute truths, we're deeply mentally flawed, if something can't be externally verified in some manner I don't see why I should place any deep faith into it

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:00:35 2017 No.9398037

>>9397997
>I legit can't see a problem with believing something once it's supported by evidence
Can you see a problem with the idea of entertaining a concept ONLY once it's been supported by evidence? To ascribe to that is to cut off productive thought at the knees.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:04:38 2017 No.9398048

>>9398037
>Can you see a problem with the idea of entertaining a concept ONLY once it's been supported by evidence?
Yes, and that's not how science is done, you make hypotheses based on what you know and the devise experiments to test them
Can you see the problem with believing something to be true (not just "entertaining the idea", that's not what religious people do) before it's supported?

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:06:39 2017 No.9398061

>>9398032

>if something can't be externally verified in some manner

I absolutely agree, We don't verify mathematical or logical truths with the scientific method because the scientific method isn't the only way to know truth. The problem is that these nu-atheists narrowly restrict the term "evidence" to mean direct empirical evidence. I don't think they realize what they're doing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:08:35 2017 No.9398066 >>9398061 >The problem is that these nu-atheists narrowly restrict the term "evidence" to mean direct empirical evidence. I don't think they realize what they're doing. There has never been a different form of, meaningful, useful evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:10:00 2017 No.9398075 >>9398066 Well that makes you as nu-atheist and everything I've said applies to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:15:34 2017 No.9398097 >>9398075 So are you obviously, because you can't name a different kind of meaningful evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:18:14 2017 No.9398106 >>9398097 I just gave you two, mathematical and logical. I'll give you another one for free - historical truths.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:25:43 2017 No.9398141

>>9398106
>Historical truths
We gather evidence to support those
There are personal anecdotes, but they are often not taken too seriously in academia, documents etc. are preferred

>Mathematical and logical
Those aren't kinds of evidence, they are systems, and the way we've discovered them to be inherent in the universe is through empiricism

I don't think any "nu-atheist" would challenge logical truths, or mathematics, or historical information. What is being challenged is:
>Revelation
>Profecy
>Faith
>Intuition
>Authority
>Dogma
>Augury
>Clairevoyance
>Conventional Wisdom
>Subjective certainty

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:27:43 2017 No.9398151

>>9398061
listen mate. no one in their right mind would claim that empiricism should claim totalitarianism over epistemology. Most scientists are well aware of the limitations of empiricism which is why filtering information through as many epistemological layers as possible is part of the scientific method. You can't deny the fact that even though limited, science has a self-purifying/correcting property like no other method. The definition of a scientific theory doesn't claim absolute truth value and the antidote for bad science is more science which hopefully makes it good science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:30:01 2017 No.9398167 >>9393778 The sociopath is also an egoist. He doesn't care about being a hypocrite, and shows that by thinking in such terms you submit to a creed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:31:19 2017 No.9398172 >>9398032 Placebo proves you naive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:38:16 2017 No.9398203 >>9394546 Why would you need philosophy if you are always right?

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:39:04 2017 No.9398207

>>9398151

Have you seen the guy in this thread that I've been talking to? He just made the claim that the only way to know truth is through science. I'm not attacking science or denying its usefulness, I don't know why you believe that I am when I'm only saying science is not the only way to know truth.

The scientific method has a very narrow purpose, so to say "which is why filtering information through as many epistemological layers as possible is part of the scientific method." is complete nonsense that only makes sense when you conflate the scientific method with epistemology. You can't filter historical, logical, or mathematical evidence through the historical method.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:40:27 2017 No.9398216 >>9392435 god you're stupid

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:43:41 2017 No.9398230 No matter how carefully you demonstrate to an atheist that scientism is a self defeating philosophy they always seem to ignore it and double down on their belief. Some men just can't be reached.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:44:44 2017 No.9398235 >>9398207 >You can't filter historical, logical, or mathematical evidence through the scientific method. Fixed that

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:49:12 2017 No.9398249 >>9398230 Have you tried to make them admit that they even exist as actors in this interactive world? They usually deny that. Must be the TV influence, video games are a step in the right direction.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 17:57:17 2017 No.9398288

>>9398230
so not subscribing to any form of epistemological totalitarianism makes god self-evident. to you all atheists are scientismists. wew lad.

nu-Christians/theists are just as bad as nu-atheists. Probably even worse, as they're not doing a very good job at mirroring the image of Christ.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:11:09 2017 No.9398358 >>9398288 >Probably even worse, as they're not doing a very good job at mirroring the image of Christ. I guess atheists mirror the image of nothing better, but anything above zero is closer to the infinite by default.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:12:00 2017 No.9398361 >>9392224 wow, really activated my almonds.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:13:04 2017 No.9398367

>>9392744
There's a scientific reason for why we are naturally repulsed by incest, it's because it would be selected against in natural selection. Why would an organism evolve to waste energy making unhealthy offspring?
Even the reasons for why people are predisposed to holding unscientific views are scientifically understood
Science is fucking running circles around your nonsense

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:15:01 2017 No.9398372 >>9398367 Could you give me a scientific reason why the idea of fathers having sex with their sons is repulsive when there's no chance of creating offspring?

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:15:48 2017 No.9398374

>>9398358
I for one, see much descriptive value in the story of Christ, even though I'm an atheist. I won't get into how I interact with it as I have a feeling it won't interest you. You might want to take that approach next time you talk with a nu-atheist though.
>I guess atheists mirror the image of nothing better, but anything above zero is closer to the infinite by default.
I think you should be ashamed of your self-indulgence. Stop wasting both of our time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:16:59 2017 No.9398378 >>9398367 Well, polygamy has created modes of behavior that can tolerate incest better. New genes through war, tons of offspring that competes with itself, incest (cousins) means that the house gets to keep the wealth etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:19:02 2017 No.9398383 >>9398374 >I think you should be ashamed of your self-indulgence. Shame is dead. Drowned in politics and inflation. >Stop wasting both of our time Yours is waste by definition.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:19:28 2017 No.9398388
File: 60 KB, 498x668, 1418861046060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9398372
That's probably the result of pure social conditioning... homosexuality being rare and that sort of incest being rarer means the issue probably doesn't arise in nature that often but perhaps some cultures say fucking your son in the ass is necessary for him to become a man, who knows?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:20:38 2017 No.9398394 >>9398388 It's probably because the son would be less likely to get married and still have a relationship like that.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:20:52 2017 No.9398395

>>9398372
>Could you give me a scientific reason why the idea of fathers having sex with their sons is repulsive when there's no chance of creating offspring?
Genes aren't that precise I suppose, they lump family members into one category: "to not have sex with". Remember that humans identify good mates with compatible genes by smell and other factors, and family members smell similar and share these factors, so gender is irrelevant
There might be a much more nuanced reason, but i'm not a biologist or psychologist
Also, if the son is at an age where they can meaningfully consent, I actually DO find it less repulsive than male-female incest, somehow

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:21:18 2017 No.9398397 >>9398367 Fucking your mom in the pussy is taboo even with bonobos but there is no evolutionary incentive not to get a nice blowjob by your brother once in a while.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:22:05 2017 No.9398403 >>9398388 That doesn't sound very scientific.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:22:06 2017 No.9398404 >>9398397 STD

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:22:21 2017 No.9398406 >>9398395 >Also, if the son is at an age where they can meaningfully consent, Isn't meaningful consent a meme invented by prudes that is completely arbitrary?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:23:17 2017 No.9398410 >>9398395 >Also, if the son is at an age where they can meaningfully consent, I actually DO find it less repulsive than male-female incest, somehow Atheists are moral people lol

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:24:06 2017 No.9398416

>>9398383
>Shame is dead. Drowned in politics and inflation.
That's nice. You should print some tshirts.
>Yours is waste by definition.
I can see why a nu-Christian would think that. You really need to change your ways.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:24:32 2017 No.9398419

>>9398141
>Mathematical and logical
Those aren't kinds of evidence, they are systems, and the way we've discovered them to be inherent in the universe is through empiricism

Perhaps, but what makes it qualify as empirical or non-empirical knowledge is the justification of propositions. Mathematical and logical truths are not justified empirically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:25:28 2017 No.9398420 >>9398397 I think the human brain just doesn't clearly differentiate between sex with the potential for reproduction and casual sex for pleasure. Sex for pleasure is quite rare in nature

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:25:56 2017 No.9398423 >>9398404 STDs are pretty much a disease of civilisation, they've only been an issue for the last 10,000 years, not the 190,000 years of human existence before it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:26:02 2017 No.9398425 >>9398419 >Those aren't kinds of evidence, they are systems, and the way we've discovered them to be inherent in the universe is through empiricism Did /lit/ get linked to r/atheism or something? Where did all this retardation come from?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:27:09 2017 No.9398430 >>9398425 He meant to have the meme arrow there too, it's a quote from the other post

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:27:54 2017 No.9398433

>>9398416
>I can see why a nu-Christian would think that.
You meet the sword that fell me. Wrong order, but it happens to be the era where the goy conspiracy is in effect. I don't know how they all got the idea to pretend to be retarded ape cattle mentioned in talmud. Pretty sure they didn't read any of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:28:09 2017 No.9398434 >>9398425 I meant to greentext that, I'm responding to the other guy. But to answer your question, yes it seems so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:29:09 2017 No.9398439 >>9398423 Last I checked, bonobos don't have civilization.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:30:23 2017 No.9398444 File: 2.99 MB, 186x186, shig.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9398425 >being a rationalist

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:32:07 2017 No.9398451

>>9398439
The point is that civilisation has been around for such a short time that incorporating its factors into an evolutionary explanation for our behaviours does not make sense.

It would be like explaining a tiger's behaviour as if it evolved in a zoo.

We are genetically the same as we have been the last 70 to 200 millennia.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:36:24 2017 No.9398467

>>9398451
>The point is that civilisation has been around for such a short time that incorporating its factors into an evolutionary explanation for our behaviours does not make sense
You underestimate us. Both in the claim that civilization is only a thing of mere 10 000 years and in the implication that evolution is blind in conscious beings.

HIV is from monkeys, too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:51:58 2017 No.9398527 >>9398048 I'm not arguing against science, that's insanity. I'm well-balanced between STEM and the humanities. The subject of discussion is the rhetoric at play, not the discipline.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 18:58:46 2017 No.9398558 File: 79 KB, 850x400, Feynmane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw to smart for philosophy

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:01:24 2017 No.9398569 >>9398395 >>9398388 Wow that sure is a lot of science you guys did there, really makes me think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:06:03 2017 No.9398588 >>9398569 Not sure what you're saying

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:07:27 2017 No.9398597 >>9398588 Read left to right and take it one word at a time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:09:11 2017 No.9398605 >>9398597 It's more the unclear connotation I'm having my problem with

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:14:03 2017 No.9398624 >>9398467 Are you segueing into an Atlantis spiel, laddo?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:17:18 2017 No.9398628 >>9398624 I said something broad not to be wrong. 'Caveman' cultivated other species, why not himself?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:22:13 2017 No.9398632 >>9398628 Pls be less cryptic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:24:49 2017 No.9398640 >>9398016 You're tilting at windmills.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:25:50 2017 No.9398644 >>9392209 It would be better if that form of false knowledge called "the scientific method" were never invented.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:27:25 2017 No.9398653 >>9398632 It's still civilization, whether Atlantis or Cavemen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:28:44 2017 No.9398660 >>9398644 He said, on a computer, over the internet

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:29:36 2017 No.9398667 >>9398588 Reread the post you replied to, then read your post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:30:00 2017 No.9398670 >>9398660 You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The scientific plague has infected the whole world.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:33:13 2017 No.9398684

>>9398667
I replied
>"humans identify good mates with compatible genes by smell and other factors, and family members smell similar and share these factors, so gender is irrelevant"
to
>"Could you give me a scientific reason why the idea of fathers having sex with their sons is repulsive when there's no chance of creating offspring?"
Now where's the connotation when someone says "Wow that sure is a lot of science you guys did there, really makes me think"
Please spell this shit out for me because it's going over my head

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:42:27 2017 No.9398718 >>9398684 That's not science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:50:14 2017 No.9398749 >>9392965 >the idea itself >>ideas in/by/for themselves

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:51:19 2017 No.9398755 >>9398718 It's the scientific reason they requested

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 19:57:49 2017 No.9398788 >>9392209 It's funny how anti-intellectual STEMfags can be

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 20:12:59 2017 No.9398843 >>9398653 Civilisation starts with sedentarism and urbanisation. Hunter-gatherer society is pre-civilised.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 21:11:03 2017 No.9399002 >>9398151 No scientists are empiricists. >science has a self-purifying/correcting property like no other method. No it doesn't, it masturbates over the same salted grounds and hopes that tainted seed will bear fruit when fruit doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 21:57:45 2017 No.9399191 There is literally nothing worst than close minded popperian critical rationalists. >Empirical evidence is the only valid form of knowledge >just look at all the empirical evidence I just used to support my initial assertion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:19:43 2017 No.9399263 >>9392209 I haven't been on /lit/ in a while but is this board full of moralfag, pseudos about science now? You have a problem with Lawrence Krauss because he doesn't like philosophy? Who gives a shit?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:20:48 2017 No.9399268 >>9392236 >just a means to debase everyone that disagrees with them nice strawman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:27:59 2017 No.9399288 >>9399263 It's fine to dislike philosophy, but to regard it as entirely useless is laughable. If you want a good laugh just listen to him talk about politics.

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:30:11 2017 No.9399299

>>9399288
His opinion on philosophy, which itself is not a concrete or tangible entity, is fine. He finds it useless. If he's a pragmatist or materialist, I can understand why he has that opinion. I don't get triggered about it like some philosophy major who dropped out and is buttmad about science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:32:13 2017 No.9399309 >>9399191 >Empirical evidence is the only valid form of knowledge >just look at all the empirical evidence I just used to support my initial assertion. So, are you something autistic like a presuppositonalist or something?

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 22:34:29 2017 No.9399318

>>9399288
>If you want a good laugh just listen to him talk about politics.
I assume you have some sort of issue with him not being conservative? That's all it ever boils down to on this fucking website, getting mad that someone is more liberal than you are. Right?

Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:12:06 2017 No.9399435

>>9399318
Watch his appearance on the JRE podcast if you're curious. Him being left or right leaning didn't matter to me. It was that there was no nuance and he approached politics with the same arrogance and self-aggrandizement as he does with philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:14:55 2017 No.9399447 >>9399435 You act like he has to respect philosophy, or else that offends you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:19:56 2017 No.9399463 >>9396976 Why are you replying to things he didn't say in a video you didn't watch?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:22:58 2017 No.9399470 >>9399263 We have a problem with scientards who don't know their place, and are too stupid to understand the field they criticize, yes. >>9399447 I'm offended by his lack of respect for inquiry into the human condition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:27:20 2017 No.9399482 >>9399470 >We have a problem with scientards who don't know their place Oh, so you are a pseudo then? Gotcha. I can't imagine what autistic shit you must believe then. I find that people with a hate boner for science are usually anti-science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:28:26 2017 No.9399487 >>9399482 I am anti-science

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:28:38 2017 No.9399489 >>9399470 >I'm offended by his lack of respect Kek, look at this keyboard warrior. Nothing demands respect, bud.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:29:19 2017 No.9399495 >>9399489 Not of an idiot, no.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:29:58 2017 No.9399496 >>9399487 Are you? That's unfortunate. That's like willfully wanting to be retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:31:00 2017 No.9399501 >>9399495 I think it's laughable that you would consider Lawrence fucking Krauss an "idiot" just because he mocked your Associates in Philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:31:46 2017 No.9399505 >>9399496 It would be better if the scientific method were never invented. All it's done is disenchant the world and give us is new ways to sin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:33:00 2017 No.9399513 >>9399505 >and give us new ways to sin oops But really, far fewer people would go to Hell in a world where the scientific method was never invented.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:33:16 2017 No.9399514 File: 3.01 MB, 294x238, 1470522357814.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9399505 >It would be better if the scientific method were never invented LOL oh please, stop it kiddo. Nobody is going to fall for that bait.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:34:52 2017 No.9399521 >>9399513 Oh, so I was right about moralfags polluting this board?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:36:19 2017 No.9399526 >>9399521 This is a religious board.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:44:25 2017 No.9399557 >>9399501 I, in turn, think it's laughable that you don't even realize when someone's calling you an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:51:07 2017 No.9399574 >>9399299 Pragmatism and materialism are philosophies, you fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 18 23:52:02 2017 No.9399578 >>9399470 >I'm offended by his lack of respect for inquiry into the human condition. That's not what philosophy is, you fucking platitude-spouting teenager. >>9399496 muh ideology

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:18:15 2017 No.9399645 >>9399526 >/lit/ >is religious Please tell me how that works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:19:18 2017 No.9399652 >>9399578 >muh ideology How does that word apply to anything I've said? Do you know what that means?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:20:20 2017 No.9399656 >>9399574 I was using those words as qualifiers to his personality, anon. I obviously know those are philosophies. I was more using them in terms of their APPLICATION.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:21:22 2017 No.9399662 >>9399557 You are doing a great job, anon. How will I ever recover?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:22:00 2017 No.9399664 >>9399652 Yes, I do. Science is an ideology. >>9399656 You cannot be this stupid. >person rejects all philosophy as useless >person can be considered a pragmatist Pick one, you dope.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:22:24 2017 No.9399666 >>9399574 >You can't be a pragmatist and have a shitty opinion on philosophy as a whole kek, okay.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:24:37 2017 No.9399679 >>9399666 You can, but one cannot say philosophy is useless. Read the thread, please.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:25:12 2017 No.9399682

>>9399664
>Science is an ideology.
No it isn't. So you don't know what that word means? Okay.
>Pick one, you dope.
Anon, someone can be a pragmatist and still dislike philosophy. You realize that "pragmatic" is not married to the philosophical definition, right? Even if it wasn't, it was used as a qualifier to what I think his beliefs are.

I think you may be a retard. Anyone who calls science an ideology is pretty silly to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:26:40 2017 No.9399686 >>9399679 >You can, but one cannot say philosophy is useless Well, he just did and it really seems to trigger you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:29:18 2017 No.9399699 >>9399664 You are conflating big-p Pragmatism and small-p pragmatism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:30:03 2017 No.9399701 >>9399682 *even if it was I meant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:32:53 2017 No.9399715 >>9399682 >science isnt an ideology because that hurts muh feelies >Anon, someone can be a pragmatist and still dislike philosophy Read the fucking thread you ass-licking ideologue.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:37:20 2017 No.9399730

>>9399715
>science isnt an ideology because that hurts muh feelies
It's not an ideology because you don't know what the fucking word "ideology" means. Christ you are so autistic that it hurts.

You are posting on a literature board and you have this abysmally poor grasp of the English language?

Shit, kill yourself already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:38:22 2017 No.9399735 >>9399715 >Anon, someone can be a pragmatist and still dislike philosophy See >>9399699

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:41:00 2017 No.9399751 >>9399715 People like you remind me why I never come here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:41:05 2017 No.9399752 >>9399730 No, I know what an ideology is. You do not. You have a high schooler's comprehension of the word.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:42:04 2017 No.9399757

>>9392209

There is some useful background here. Krauss wrote a book claiming that science could answer the old philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (called, appropriately, 'A Universe from Nothing') Then, a philosopher of physics, David Albert (who also has a doctorate in physics) wrote a review where he pointed out that Krauss failed to answer the question. At best, Krauss shows how, from the basic laws of quantum field theory acting on quantum fields, you can explain where ordinary material objects come from. But, of course, that doesn't explain where the laws of quantum field theory come from or where the quantum fields come from. So, Krauss didn't really start from nothing and he didn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. Krauss was very upset by this review and, ever since then, has been extremely dismissive of philosophy in general.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:44:22 2017 No.9399766

>>9399752
>No, I know what an ideology is. You do not.
You clearly don't if you are calling science an ideology. I don't know what Christian blog or local pastor said to convince you of that but it's retarded.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

Calling science an "ideology" is intellectually dishonest. Were you the same faglord that said we should get rid of the scientific method or that life would be better if we didn't have it?

Yeah, you aren't very intelligent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:46:25 2017 No.9399776 >>9399766 >anybody that doesn't fall for my 'quick rundown' nonsense is just stupid! PEOPLE I DISLIKE ARE STUPID PEOPLE THAT CALL ME NAMES ARE STUPID REEE FUCKING CHRISTIANS Science falls under all definitions listed in your source, by the way,

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:46:42 2017 No.9399777

>>9399752
>You have a high schooler's comprehension of the word.
You have a pseudo-intellectual's comprehension of the word. I wouldn't be surprised if you have image macros of "deus vult" crusaders and wore a trilby.

What else do you believe? That Evolution is a lie? The world is flat? Please, enlighten me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:47:23 2017 No.9399779 File: 216 KB, 506x538, 1453847746661.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9399757 Yeah, he's a brainlet like all pop-sci nu-atheists Kant is still king

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:47:43 2017 No.9399782 >>9399776 >Science falls under all definitions listed in your source, by the way, No...not really. That's why it is dishonest. You are being dishonest either on purpose or you are just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:48:25 2017 No.9399786 >>9399777 damn these are some solid arguments

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:50:59 2017 No.9399796 >>9399777 Oh look, more sick projection. Catholics are STEMspergs lite. >science is rite becuz muh ideology sez so >>9399782 >it doesnt because if it did it would hurt muh feelies

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:51:18 2017 No.9399798 File: 362 KB, 1106x1012, 1490460287738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] it's really sad how few people understand what science is you should read maps of meaning

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:53:04 2017 No.9399806
File: 68 KB, 835x577, What makes this NOT an ideology.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399752
>>9399776
>>9399786
>>9399796
Your attempt is just to disparage science by conflating it broadly with "ideology". When the two share virtually no similarities in characteristics. You have a very poor grasp of this language, brainlet. Regardless, it's just an ulterior motive to dismiss science for whatever autistic reason you seem to have.

science is not an "ideology".

Again, kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:53:33 2017 No.9399807 >>9399798 Stupid frogposter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:54:31 2017 No.9399809 >>9399806 SCIENCE IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY BECAUSE THAT WOULD HURT MUH FEELIES THEY SHARE NO SIMILARITIES BECAUSE THAT WOULD HURT MUH FEELIES IDEOLOGUES R DUMMBIES SMARTEIES R SCIENCE GUYS UR JUS DUM HAHA BTFO IM LE SMART

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:55:02 2017 No.9399811 >>9399796 >science is rite becuz muh ideology sez so Jesus kid, what is your fucking problem with science?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:55:30 2017 No.9399812 >>9399811 >kid I'm the only person over 25 on this disgusting board.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:56:34 2017 No.9399817

>>9399779
>Yeah, he's a brainlet like all pop-sci nu-atheists

Here is how Albert ends his review:

>And I guess it ought to be mentioned, quite apart from the question of whether anything Krauss says turns out to be true or false, that the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong — or it does, at any rate, to me. When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for everything essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:56:41 2017 No.9399818 >>9399809 So just to recap; I've cited the definitions to both words, I physically showed you a visual example of the definition for science, I fucking outlined the characteristics... ..and your response is just screeching?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:57:43 2017 No.9399821 >>9399812 I highly doubt you are over 16. Not with underage opinions like that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:57:46 2017 No.9399822 >>9399812 You know that isn't true. I'm over 30 with two children, and you're being incredibly childish without any sense of reciprocal play.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 00:58:42 2017 No.9399827
File: 768 KB, 1280x1172, 1491261262670.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399806
>he cited the dictionary

okay now im cringing

Science does not inform us of Truths. Science contains and espouses pragmatic truths within its own epistimological framework. Science is the process of attempting to consistently predict what appears to be commonly true among the perceptions of subjective individuals.

I just came into this thread so I don't know what fucking retarded bullshit you have been posting but your last couple posts have been incredibly stupid.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:02:07 2017 No.9399840

>>9399818
>i did these meaningless things, so muh ideology isnt an ideology!!!
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS ARE IRRELEVANT
A FURTHER PROCESSING OF BOTH DEFINITIONS WILL REVEAL THAT THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF 'SCIENCE' EASILY FALLS UNDER THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF 'IDEOLOGY'
YOU DISLIKE THIS REALIZATION AND REJECT IT BECAUSE IT DAMAGES YOUR EGO
>>9399821
If you DISAGREE WITH ME, you are UNDERAGE WHICH IS BAD

>>9399822
Reciprocity is irrelevant.
You aren't over 30 in any relevant way.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:02:56 2017 No.9399842

>>9399827
>he cited the dictionary
Yes and? Some anons here don't know what words mean.
>okay now im cringing
Then you may be just as retarded.
>Science does not inform us of Truths. Science contains and espouses pragmatic truths within its own epistemological framework.
Despite this being loaded as all fuck, no. It's not about "epistemological" frameworks. Who tells you faggots this? Where do you get these ideas from?
>Science is the process of attempting to consistently predict what appears to be commonly true among the perceptions of subjective individuals.
Holy shit...no. It's not about "subjective individuals", it's about establishing a consistent objective reality based on reliable laws that exist independent of your own personal subjectivity. How can you be this retarded about what science is?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:04:00 2017 No.9399845 >>9399842 >it's about establishing a consistent objective reality You need to read more

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:04:49 2017 No.9399847

>>9399827
People like you, who need to inject epistemological horseshit into science, are very frustrating. I don't have time to argue if we need to rework the very fabric of reality in a conversation, it's going to be impossible to get you to fucking understand why you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:05:30 2017 No.9399851 >>9399845 No, that would damage his ego. Can't have that. He's le smartie agnostic man and everybody else is stupid. >>9399847 hahaha how dare you question the epistemological basis of my ideology, thats just fucking gay haha

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:05:51 2017 No.9399854 >>9399845 But I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:06:57 2017 No.9399861 >>9399840 >I have no actual argument so let me write out what it's like to have a stroke.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:07:51 2017 No.9399864
File: 114 KB, 557x305, 1455008360367.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399847
>le science is objective truth xd
>le i browse reddit and luv bill nye and neil degrasse tyson xd

>>9399851
why are you talking to yourself?

>>9399854
no objective reality exists independent of subjectivity

read hegel

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:08:14 2017 No.9399866 File: 41 KB, 468x402, no one will notice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9399840 Check this guy out! lol

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:09:14 2017 No.9399869

>>9399851
>He's le smartie agnostic man and everybody else is stupid.
If your argument is that science is epistemological or "subjective", then you are retarded and don't honestly know what any of those words mean.
>le smartie agnostic
Right, so this just boils down to some weird fetishistic issue you have with nonbelievers or something? I must be that strawman? Right. It's obviously not that you are a brainlet...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:11:16 2017 No.9399878 >>9399869 go watch bill maher since youre too smart to read books

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:12:20 2017 No.9399885
File: 2.49 MB, 300x315, 1490070837616.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399864
>le science is objective truth xd
Well yes, that's its goal.
>le i browse reddit and luv bill nye and neil degrasse tyson xd
Nothing wrong with Bill Nye, Tyson or (now don't get too riled up) Reddit.
>no objective reality exists independent of subjectivity
That's just being silly for the sake of it. That's just flat out ignoring how your reality works, independent of your fee fees.
>read hegel
Just kill yourself.

You seem to have your own issues with science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:12:57 2017 No.9399889 >>9399869 >>9399885 concisely explain how a truth can exist without a subject?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:13:22 2017 No.9399890 >>9399878 That's quite a compelling argument you got there, how will I ever recover? WTF I love Jesus now!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:15:08 2017 No.9399900 >>9399840 https://youtu.be/YZF2gh2Ua-c

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:15:50 2017 No.9399903 >>9399890 What argument was there to make? Your post didn't contain any claims. No one said anything about Christianity either.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:16:48 2017 No.9399906

>>9399889
Take it out of philosophical terms, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. It's pointless for this.
>concisely explain how a truth can exist without a subject?
I'll do:
>concisely explain how an objective world can exist without a subject?

The world I exist within, is not contingent on me existing or even registering that I exist. It just...is, with or without me and with or without me knowing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:18:09 2017 No.9399909 >>9399885 Let me rephrase that since I made assumptions your a priori knowledge. No objective reality is observable independent of subjectivity. Then, pragmatically, no objective reality exists.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:18:37 2017 No.9399910

>>9399903
>What argument was there to make?
You keep spering the absolute fuck out about how you dislike science, how you wrongly think it's an ideology, how you apparently think anything related to objectivity is reddit-tier or basically fedorafagging. You have been sperging for like, a dozen posts.

Someone literally made a post saying "I am anti-science".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:18:43 2017 No.9399913 >>9392209 By far the biggest anti-intelligence moron in science. I say that as a euphoric atheist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:20:07 2017 No.9399916 >>9392359 >>just because it makes you feel icky doesn't mean its wrong on the contrary what is wrong is what is makes me icky

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:20:29 2017 No.9399918

>>9399906
>Take it out of philosophical terms
Yeah because you're a brainlet who doesn't read books.

>The world I exist within, is not contingent on me existing or even registering that I exist. It just...is, with or without me and with or without me knowing it.

Lots of epic claims without evidence but this claim doesn't even address my question.

Maybe a WORLD exists independently of an observer but how does a TRUTH exist independently of an observer? Where are TRUTHS stored in your material, physical world that your purport just is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:21:00 2017 No.9399920 >>9399900 Nice. Anon's delivery is more like Sarek's at this end of this, though: https://youtu.be/FHPtcQSvjxI

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:21:15 2017 No.9399921

>>9399909
>No objective reality is observable independent of subjectivity
This isn't true though. We know this isn't true. You are just getting absolutely autistic about what constitutes objectivity or not. What are your qualifiers? You haven't defined squat.
>Then, pragmatically, no objective reality exists.
Your premise was loaded and your conclusion is faulty.

I'm really sick of brainlets. If you have a gripe with science so much, go to /x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:21:49 2017 No.9399923 >>9399910 I've only made like 4 posts in this thread. Since you're obviously a redditor newfag, let me help you out. Multiple users utilize the name "Anonymous" on this website.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:23:48 2017 No.9399930

>>9399921
>This isn't true though. We know this isn't true

You pop-/sci/ brainlets are real good with making claims but not so good at providing evidence. Maybe you should actually READ BOOKS to learn philosophy instead of raiding this board with your INTJ spergfest of
>le science is objective xd

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:24:32 2017 No.9399931

>>9392284
>>9392744
Religion hasn't only been an arbitrary moral code or instrument of power, it has also served to transmit extremely old stories about the Earth and Humanity, as well as to warn against perceived dangerous behaviours.
Some of these notions are true, others aren't. The methodology and accuracy, for lack of better words, can be discussed, but by no means one should reject absolutely everything any religion has said. Such ideological and close-minded stance would be no different from extremely sectarian religious views.
Stirner actually explains this pretty well and Lawrence Krauss is an absolute moron.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:24:52 2017 No.9399934

>>9399918
>Yeah because you're a brainlet who doesn't read books.
Right, that must be it. I don't apparently read enough about metaphysics or presuppositionalism, or whatever theological garbage you are spouting..
>but how does a TRUTH exist independently of an observer?
What are you using to define the word "truth"? What constitutes how you are using the word? What is a truth? A fact?
>Where are TRUTHS stored in your material, physical world that your purport just is.
Well, after you properly define what you think "truth" means, I would say they just exist Gravity doesn't cease to be if nobody is around to experience it.

This is aspie as fuck. Science isn't about philosophy. Why are we having a philosophical discussion on "le truth"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:27:28 2017 No.9399942 >>9399861 No, I've made an argument. Sorry that such things are beyond you. >>9399866 My initial statement was that dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Read for once, you fucking dope.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:28:19 2017 No.9399945

>>9399930
>You pop-/sci/ brainlets are real good with making claims but not so good at providing evidence.
Saying I exist in an objective and consistent universe based on laws is "pop-/sci/" to you? I can't imagine what you think is actually credible.
>Maybe you should actually READ BOOKS to learn philosophy
I'm not trying to have a philosophical debate you dumb faggot.
>le science is objective xd
Well, it is. That's its function. That's what it tries to do. If anyone is asshurt over fee fees, it's you.

I have no clue why you have such an issue with this, it really isn't healthy. Look, I get that you are angry because you are some sort of spiritual or you put immense stock in epistemological or even theistic arguments, I get it. classical theistic philosophy looks nice and "le nostalgic" of those good ol days of antiquity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:29:22 2017 No.9399947 >>9399942 >My initial statement was that dictionary definitions are irrelevant. They aren't when you don't know what words mean, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:29:59 2017 No.9399949 >>9399869 >science doesnt work this way because it hurts muh feelies! >>9399885 Reality doesn't exist. >>9399934 Science makes infinite presuppostions. >>9399947 I do know what those words mean, you do not. That is why you rely on a book.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:33:13 2017 No.9399955
File: 214 KB, 345x336, 1471440939917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399949
>Reality doesn't exist.
kek, okay. Thanks for sharing.
>Science makes infinite presuppostions.
Ironic, seeing as that is exactly what you have been doing in this entire thread. Also, no. It doesn't.
>I do know what those words mean, you do not.
You didn't know what the word "ideology" meant.
>That is why you rely on a book.
Because that book had definitions in it, yes. We are both using (well, you are trying) the English language, kiddo. So use it correctly.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:33:44 2017 No.9399957
File: 482 KB, 809x781, 1487359077869.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399945
>>9399934
You are literally as dumb as Krauss claiming that empirical evidence elucidates objective truths and have no business being on an intellectual board like /lit/ if you refuse to learn about epistemology to see how fucking retarded that statement is.

Go back to /sci/ with your other brainlet redditor pals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:34:19 2017 No.9399960 >>9399949 You going to answer of the questions here >>9399934 or no?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:36:49 2017 No.9399967 >>9399955 >You didn't know what the word "ideology" meant. Yes I did, redditor. >Because that book had definitions in it, yes. No, redditor, it contains limited or incorrect definitions. >>9399960 They weren't directed to me, moron.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:38:31 2017 No.9399972
File: 1.69 MB, 383x576, 5qscBso.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9399957
>claiming that empirical evidence elucidates objective truths
But, they do. Not a single one of you has explained why this doesn't work.
>have no business being on an intellectual board like /lit/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>"intellectual"
>science is an ideology
>there is no reality
>science is epistemological
>I'm anti-science
>/lit/ is "too smart" for me.
Holy shit I'm laughing.
>you refuse to learn about epistemology to see how fucking retarded that statement is.
epistemology is for fucking philosophy 101 brainlets and moralfags You aren't smart if you think it answers questions regarding objectivity or consistency.

You just aren't that bright, samefag.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:39:59 2017 No.9399977 >>9399967 >nuh uh >t-the dictionary i-is incorrect Wew, looks like you won. How can I compete with that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:42:33 2017 No.9399988 >>9399972 >>claiming that empirical evidence elucidates objective truths Empirical evidence doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:43:30 2017 No.9399992 >>9399988 >Empirical evidence doesn't exist. Then you are simply retarded for the sake of being retarded. This is not an intellectual statement to make.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:44:41 2017 No.9399996 >>9399992 UR DUMB IF U DISAGREE WITH ME HAHA IM SO FUCKING SMART HAHA AHAAH XDDD LE SMART PEOPLE THAT SAY THINGS I DONT LIKE ARE LE DUMB

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:46:57 2017 No.9400007 >>9399996 Epistemologists are the fucking worst. They never have any real arguments and just sperg out when you don't swallow all of their bullshit immediately. You are the fucking worst, the libertarians of philosophy honestly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:48:18 2017 No.9400010 >>9399942 You were almost funny for a while, then you ran out of material. It's really sad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:51:26 2017 No.9400014 >>9399972 Claim: Empirical evidence is objective truth Proof of claim: ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:52:27 2017 No.9400018 File: 69 KB, 403x403, statism-e1484307563232.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9400007

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 01:54:52 2017 No.9400021 >>9397872 Fuck America.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:02:07 2017 No.9400040

>>9400014
These are the gymnastics you go through. You go through a loop of "prove this" then "prove that", until you get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller...into fucking oblivion because that's what epistemology is; just an endless ring around the rosie until one of us blows our brains out. That's ALWAYS been the weakness of epistemology, you fundamentally won't accept that objective realities exist, so it can never happen. So you autistically can't prove anything for a foundation. It's the fast-food of philosophy, it doesn't say anything important. It never does anything real.
>Claim: Empirical evidence is objective truth
>Proof of claim: ?
First of all you stupid faggot, I have repeatedly explained to you why using the term "truth" is loaded. You need to unpack it and define what you mean by the word "truth", what qualifies? I'm going to assume it means "fact", for the sake of this dumbfuck argument. So the question is, do facts exist? Is your argument that facts are impossible?

The proof is the test/retest ability of consistency of the world around me, reinforced by that empirical evidence. "hur dur" you may begin, "how do you know da laws are consistent???" Well that's the crux, isn't it? I have no reference point outside of this consistent reality to assume or infer that there is some "other" thing that I can't observe in any meaningful way. Part of your rabbit hole would have us go down into a pit about limited human perception and to a point, you'd be right. Beyond a certain degree it becomes pseudo-intellectual. I can't sense multiple dimensions, they could be there but I have no fucking idea. All I know, is the laws that exist on this reality I experience are virtually the same for everything else. Gravity doesn't change, physics doesn't change, math doesn't change. Fundamentals that I can test over and over again, don't change.

The proof for an objective reality is consistency.

Now, kill yourself brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:03:22 2017 No.9400045 >>9400018 >being told you have shitty ideas that are probably wrong >is the same as Statism Holy shit, you can't handle criticism at all can you?

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:08:51 2017 No.9400056

>>9400040
Just to add, usually epistemology leads in to a discussion about God. That's where it ends up. I have a hunch that you believe in some fashion of presuppositionalism to counter how fucking retarded a rabbit hole you dug into. It always ends up some theistic garbage to try and fill in your flaws with a deity.

Watch that be the case with you. Tell me, does a god fit into your epistemology at all?

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:09:53 2017 No.9400060

I'm slowly going through Roger Penrose's Road To Reality, which began with a 80 page preamble about the connection of mathematical concepts and platonic ideas, and difficulties scientists face conceptualizing even simplistic ideas such as the square root of 2. Scientists worth their salt rarely fall for the empiricism meme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:11:08 2017 No.9400062 >>9400060 >empiricism is a meme Fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:13:05 2017 No.9400063
File: 70 KB, 1200x1088, penrose.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9400040
If you know, a priori, through rational deduction, that Penrose triangles can't exist, and then you walk into a room and on a table sits a Penrose triangle, do you:

A) Realize you are hallucinating and that your senses are not accurately informing you of truths/facts about reality

or

B) Remain consistent and purport that empirical evidence is objective truth thusly discarding logic to claim that, in fact, Penrose triangles can exist

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:22:09 2017 No.9400080
File: 421 KB, 359x371, 1478637466966.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9400063
>A PRIORI, A PRIORI, A PRIORI, SEE ME SMART!
Probably the tenth time you have used that term.
>If you know, a priori, through rational deduction, that Penrose triangles can't exist
Right, because they are illusions.
>and then you walk into a room and on a table sits a Penrose triangle
You keep setting up these loaded scenarios. Penrose triangles don't exist so you are willing them into existence for the sake of your premise. It's bullshit.
>A) Realize you are hallucinating and that your senses are not accurately informing you of truths/facts about reality
>B) Remain consistent and purport that empirical evidence is objective truth thusly discarding logic to claim that, in fact, Penrose triangles can exist
C) realize that it's a visual trick and not a tangible object.

Your logic is so fucking backwards it hurts. All you do is lead and beg questions. You seriously can't see that, can you?

Also:
>Realize you are hallucinating and that your senses are not accurately informing you of truths/facts about reality
This happening doesn't mean that the world around me ceases to exist or function consistently. It just means that I am impaired in some way. The fact that you hallucinate doesn't disprove that objective reality exists.
>still using the term "objective truth" without defining it.
Are you going to put any work or just parrot what you get off of some blog or wiki article?

Fuck you are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:28:26 2017 No.9400096 Just jumping into the thread here, but everyone in this thread needs to read Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Then kill themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:30:05 2017 No.9400102 >>9400096 >Read the worst godfag philosophers no thanks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:30:52 2017 No.9400107 >>9392359 >what is the wisdom of repugnance

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:31:35 2017 No.9400110
File: 108 KB, 700x673, 1483660611232.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9400080
Looking past the banalities of your post... thank you for agreeing with me that empirical evidence is not objective truth.

>C) realize that it's a visual trick

Yes, exactly.

Your senses can and do fail to provide accurate information about reality, by varying degrees of falsehood.Thus empirical evidence is not objective but instead reliant on the subject measuring the empirical evidence.

Thanks for playing brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:32:15 2017 No.9400113 >>9400107 >what is the wisdom of repugnance moralfaggotry

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:35:55 2017 No.9400125
File: 18 KB, 384x384, 1471481172335.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9400110
>thank you for agreeing with me that empirical evidence is not objective truth.
No retard, I said that empirical evidence for objective facts exist whether I am impaired or not. Gravity exists, if I was impaired and didn't think gravity was real, it wouldn't change the fact that gravity is real. Are you stupid?
>Your senses can and do fail to provide accurate information about reality
Not a single anon has questioned that.
>Thus empirical evidence is not objective
Stop making these autistic as fuck jumps! No, that doesn't just magically through meme magic make empirical evidence less objective. It's like you don't know what the word "empirical" means.
>but instead reliant on the subject measuring the empirical evidence.
We already explained how this doesn't work this way.
>Thanks for playing brainlet.
Kill your fucking self you logically dishonest, epistemological, question begging degenerate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:38:52 2017 No.9400134 >>9400125 gravity is not evidence evidence does not exist without an observer

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:41:28 2017 No.9400141

>>9400134
>evidence does not exist without an observer
Jesus fucking Christ this is retarded. I really think you are mentally challenged here.

How does someone get this bent out of shape?

But tell me faggot, do you believe in a deity? Do you agree with presuppositionalism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:47:29 2017 No.9400157 >>9400134 >evidence does not exist without an observer So when you close your eyes, gravity stops existing? Get help.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:49:28 2017 No.9400165 >>9400141 Hume BTFO of inductive reasoning 300 years ago and was an atheist, but keep trying to push that meme so you can try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you. >>9400157 >gravity is not evidence Try reading.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:51:01 2017 No.9400169 >>9400165 >gravity is not evidence Again, this is autistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:51:11 2017 No.9400171 >>9400096 >Hume DUDE U CANT KNOW THAT YOU EVEN EXIST LMAOKEK DUDE IS DOES NOT NECESSIATE OUGHT LMAO AM I BEING PROFOUND YET?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:52:03 2017 No.9400176 >>9400165 >Hume You have to be some sort of godfag.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:57:36 2017 No.9400193 >>9400171 >>9400176 >to intelligent too read

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:57:39 2017 No.9400194

>>9400165
Again, if you close your eyes, does something cease to be? That's lacking fucking object permanence, like an infant. If I'm an observer and I observe something, then you put me in a closed off room, does the thing I observe magically disappear?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:58:41 2017 No.9400198 >>9400193 *too it has an extra "o". Hume is a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 02:59:28 2017 No.9400199 >>9400198 >to intelligent for epik memes

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:00:34 2017 No.9400205 >>9400199 Again, it's "too".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:01:27 2017 No.9400207 >>9400198 Hume has sound arguments.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:02:38 2017 No.9400208

>>9400194
Or, does something only get to be considered "observed" if I'm looking right at it? If I looked at something, the walked away, I'm not observing it anymore...so it doesn't exist? Or do you check a checkbox of "observed" one time?

Are you just an actual baby?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:03:39 2017 No.9400212 >>9400207 Seeing as how Hume was easily blown the fuck out of the water by an autist on a /lit/ thread, I highly doubt that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:04:34 2017 No.9400214 >>9400212 Yeah?

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:08:12 2017 No.9400221

>>9400214
>A 300 year old philosophical argument that has been widely discarded
>is your proof of some autistic bullshit that "there is no objective reality, facts don't exist"
>all just a gymnastic to disparage science
You just don't like science, anon. We get it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:14:23 2017 No.9400241 >>9400221 >there is no objective reality, facts don't exist What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about the problem of induction. I have no problem with science, I have a problem with STEMfag scientismismists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:15:45 2017 No.9400246 >>9400241 Give me, without memes, your autistic as shit problem with STEM?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:18:07 2017 No.9400252 >>9400169 not an argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:19:22 2017 No.9400256 >>9400252 nothing you said was either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:20:50 2017 No.9400262 >>9400246 Again, I have no problem with STEM, I have a problem with people who subscribe to the ideology people call "scientism." AKA STEMfags, STEMtards, whatever the meme term is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:25:05 2017 No.9400273 >>9400262 >"scientism." this meme? You are just full of memes. This is just a dismissal used for any scientist you don't like it seems. What even does that meme word mean? Science is one of the most important things to human development.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:26:17 2017 No.9400278 >>9400273 If you're having a discussion and you don't recognize a term being used, you should google it. I know this is 4chan, but this really isn't asking for much.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:29:28 2017 No.9400291 >>9400273 Holy fuck you are dumb. "Scientism" is not the same as science you retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:30:51 2017 No.9400294 >>9400291 >>9400278 I'm saying that "scientistism" is often used as a hand wave.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:31:23 2017 No.9400298 >>9400273 You've got a lot of reading to do lad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:33:47 2017 No.9400304 >>9400294 Scientism not scientistism, and it should be hand waved, it's a completely indefensible position.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 03:34:48 2017 No.9400307

>>9400294
You don't have to save face, you're anonymous. Just fuck off. You're a cluelessly pretentious shitposter with an acute lack of self-awareness. You should pick up a book instead of trying to argue topics you know nothing about. Try again in a few years, assuming you'll be getting educated in the meantime. I'm not the anon you were talking to before, but I won't waste my time spoonfeeding you replies and they shouldn't either.
If it's any consolation, /lit/ is full of people like you, just as young and ignorant, except they're usually much better disguised.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 05:06:13 2017 No.9400448 >>9400307 >SPOONFEEDING REEEEEE

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 05:13:52 2017 No.9400466

>>9400307
well, the argument between you two was autistic to begin with.
science makes no claims on epistemology. scientism does. but scientism isn't merely empiricism, but the whole spectrum of epistemic inquiries that make up the scientific method. it is controversial to have this totalitarian view over epistemology, but it is in no way irrational. you could have argued how logic, or mathematical thinking can be viewed as products of empiricism. that would have made for a much less autistic conversation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 05:55:55 2017 No.9400528 >>9400466 I specifically pointed out >I'm not the anon you were talking to before I know the argument is retarded, the whole thread is retarded. It's just the one comment that made me point it out. I don't even care about the argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 06:53:32 2017 No.9400631 >>9399996 Fucking sperg, fuck off and die

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 06:55:05 2017 No.9400633 >>9399988 >Empirical evidence doesn't exist Actual cringe

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 07:22:41 2017 No.9400675 >>9400633 Empirical data exists, however, data by itself proves nothing. Interpretation (which extends the data far beyond empirical field) is required to make sense of the data.

Anonymous Wed Apr 19 09:37:34 2017 No.9400975

>>9400007
uhh abloobloo muh claim to truth isnt le epistemology its le trooooooooooooooooooooof
>>9400010
I'm not your whore, Anon.
>>9400040
>objective realities exist cuz i sed so
>i dun needz 2 proofs it iz jus troof
>muh empiricism confirms empiricism
>>9400125
gravy iz reel cuz i sed so

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 09:38:25 2017 No.9400978 >>9400273 Science is useless, sorry! >>9400631 >>9400633 REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEE STOP SAYING THAT

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 19 10:08:45 2017 No.9401045 >>9400062 You know that memes are just tools, not good or evil right?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature