[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.93 MB, 1716x1710, 2020.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11226310 No.11226310 [Reply] [Original]

>Science is the death of philosophy.

Can any one deny this?

>> No.11226324

I too assert that matter is made from quantum particles, does that make me just as right as the people who proved it? Am I just as smart as they are for being just as right? It's not like every scientist knew more than I do, I know that protons exist, not every scientist in history knew that, making me smarter than Newton.

>> No.11226326

>>11226324
So my hard-drive is basically smarter than you, is that what you're saying?

>> No.11226329

>>11226326
Well I can't calculate things that your hard drive can, but I also know trivial knowledge that your hard drive doesn't, so we each have our own edge.

>> No.11226331

>>11226310
I don't see how what Richard Dawkins said in the image contradicts the people on the left in any way.

>> No.11226332

>>11226329
Hard Drives do not make calculations anon. I guess you're correct after all.

>> No.11226333

>>11226310
Werner is very wrong there about Plato, unless he is talking in very broad strokes. Plato explicit regarded mathematical constructs and math in general to be beneath the Forms, as well as having a very top-down view of the way the Forms were organized, to the point the if following his theory would demand you to reject that subatomic particles have Forms as he defined them.

>> No.11226334

>>11226332

Well I guess that's one thing you know but I'm sure there are things I know that you didn't.

>> No.11226337

>>11226334
>"like what"
Well you wouldn't know would you? Lol.

>> No.11226340

>>11226310
So when will people remove Dawkins’ and Bill Nye’s quotes from here at minimum because they don’t even say anything negative about philosophy? Or will the retards who actually think there’s some kind of fight between philosophy and science post it forever?

Have you considered the possibility that the reason people may think science is somehow superior to philosophy in general is because they have instrumentalist attitudes and science apparently does improve our wellbeing and understanding of the world whereas the popular image of philosophy is of unfalsifiable, unverifiable conjecture?

>> No.11226341

>>11226324
That's a fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Intelligence and knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

>> No.11226344

>>11226341

And smart and intelligence are also not mutually exclusive lol.

>> No.11226345

>>11226340
Name one modern prominent philosopher

>> No.11226346

>>11226341
Well, then it also doesn't make me less smarterer either if I know less than them you've fallen for my trap lol.

>> No.11226349

>>11226337
>>11226344
>>11226346
> lol

>> No.11226355

>>11226349
Haha you're not the one who's going off on fallacies are you? Because pointing out that I say lol would make you a hypocrite then. Lol.

>> No.11226365

>>11226345
>Name one modern prominent philosopher

Not sure what “prominent” quantifies as, but I can name Slavoj Zizek, Daniel Dennet, David Chalmers, and, dare I say, William Lane Craig. He’s a moron but he is a comparatively prominent modern philosopher. My “problem” with philosophy, if it can be called a problem, is that all the questions that interest me have been answered in a satisfactory manner *decades if not centuries ago*.

>> No.11226371

>>11226365
>literally whos

lol

>> No.11226376

>>11226371
Maybe to you, but were philosophers ever major public figures since the classical era? Maybe the Enlightenment.

>> No.11226380

>>11226376
Meanwhile everyone knows who Einstein is.

>> No.11226382

>>11226380
Everyone knows who plato is and he doesn't even exist

>> No.11226391

>>11226310
First Fisics were aleays atached to filosophy ,you cant deny that fact
see for example the first definitions of atom or mater

>> No.11226394

>>11226365
>He’s a moron
yet you name dennet and zizek lol

>> No.11226399

>>11226394
They don’t commit obvious fallacies of composition as far as I know. What’s your problem with them?

>> No.11226414

>>11226399
>obvious fallacies of composition
Such as? All of his arguments are solid. They could appear that way at first because alot of them are designed for lay people. but he backs them all up

Zizeks actually not that bad, more of a meme but very interesting. But dennet just cant conceive of anything other the his overly empirical tunnel vision. Dude dosent even have coherent thoughts regarding mind.

>> No.11226432

>>11226414
>Such as?

The cosmological argument is a fallacy of composition. That things in the universe have causes does not mean the universe has a cause. This is ignoring the fact that causality itself is uncertain as pointed out by Hume and the extremely obvious physics problems with positing causality occurring outside of the context of spacetime.

> All of his arguments are solid.

No, they really aren’t. That you’d defend Craig’s sophistry is a bad sign.

> But dennet just cant conceive of anything other the his overly empirical tunnel vision.

No such thing as “overly empirical”. Knowledge that doesn’t source from observation doesn’t exist.

>> No.11226456

>>11226432
>The cosmological argument is a fallacy of composition. That things in the universe have causes does not mean the universe has a cause
If the universe began to exist it has an efficient cause. And even if the universe is infinite in time, which it most likely isn't, there must be a reason it exists. We aren't talking about physical spacio-temporal causality in the cosmological argument.

>No such thing as “overly empirical”. Knowledge that doesn’t source from observation doesn’t exist.
yikes

>> No.11226463

>>11226456
>If the universe began to exist it has an efficient cause

Unprovable assertion.

> And even if the universe is infinite in time, which it most likely isn't, there must be a reason it exists.

Unprovable assertion.

> We aren't talking about physical spacio-temporal causality in the cosmological argument.

That’s the only kind of causality known to exist, so you are talking fiction, effectively. You’re making the cosmological argument sound even stupider than I originally thought it was. Goddamn.

> yikes

Yikes.

>> No.11226470

>>11226340
>Have you considered the possibility that the reason people may think science is somehow superior to philosophy in general is because they have instrumentalist attitudes

Interesting. You think it's the case most people don't actually care to learn how something works, just what can be done with it?

>> No.11226471

>>11226456
>yikes
He is right, thought. You need axioms to set any sort of capacity to obtain knowledge, but in the end those axioms must be grounded on something to actually to have valid, otherwise you are just making shit up.

>> No.11226472

>>11226432
>No such thing as “overly empirical”. Knowledge that doesn’t source from observation doesn’t exist.
This is the most retarded thing ever written on this board.

>> No.11226489

>>11226463
>Unprovable assertion.
proof: suppose nothing conceivable brought the universe into existence

then there could be no such thing as experience because nothing is universal negation

but there is experience

therefore something conceivable brought the universe into existence

>> And even if the universe is infinite in time, which it most likely isn't, there must be a reason it exists.

>Unprovable assertion.

proof: suppose there is knowledge which has no reason for existing (negation of PSR)

then there are true statement which literally have no proof or explanation

but the negation of PSR is itself proof and explanation of knowledge

contradiction, therefore there is a reason for everything


your problem is you are cucking yourself into not realizing that being for thought is actually the essence of truth

>> No.11226490

>>11226471
You do not need to define you axioms on anything empirical. So long as the axioms don't lead to a contradiction, all axioms are equally valid regardless of whether or not they conform to empirical observation about the behavior of material objects that we see.

>> No.11226502

>>11226489
Your proofs make no sense

>> No.11226510

>>11226490
>You do not need to define you axioms on anything empirical. So long as the axioms don't lead to a contradiction, all axioms are equally valid regardless of whether or not they conform to empirical observation about the behavior of material objects that we see.
That is the single most retard thing I have read today, and I just saw the Aether thread.
While you can made any arbitrary axiom you feel like, no matter how absurd they are, that doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid.
For example, if I set up the axioms that all men are made of gold and all things made of gold are immortal, which leads to the conclusion that all men are immortal, it doesn’t actually make neither the axioms nor their conclusion sound, despite there being no contradiction within the axioms chosen.

>> No.11226512

>>11226470
> Interesting. You think it's the case most people don't actually care to learn how something works, just what can be done with it?

Perhaps. The results of scientific investigation and its application in engineering are directly and plainly obvious, and the knowledge, or whatever approximation of knowledge we’re assuming, it creates is testable and independently verifiable. We exploit it to harvest ore from the earth and purify it into useful metals, eradicate smallpox, destroy cancer cells with targeted radiation and surgery, send probes out into the solar system, land on the moon, and create mobile phones that we can use to communicate practically instantly over thousands of miles and look at furry tentacle porn. Does it matter whether or not any of it is actually “true” or “actual” to most? Doesn’t really to me. In comparison, the effects of philosophy are much more subtle, and mostly consist practically speaking of ethical shifts. As Hume pointed out, reason is the slave of the passions at least in the context of morality, so can these changes even be attributed to philosophy?
Why ought we implement democracy instead of monarchy?
No math equation or experiment to answer that.

>> No.11226515

>>11226471
you have to use intuition reason and insight to come up with axioms in the first place...

I think therefore i am is the most reasonable axiom. And that is not empirical at all.

>> No.11226516

>>11226472
>This is the most retarded thing ever written on this board.

Can you name one thing you know that doesn’t source from observation? I’m genuinely curious.

>> No.11226517

>>11226502
In what way?

>> No.11226527

>>11226510
>While you can made any arbitrary axiom you feel like, no matter how absurd they are, that doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid.
Yes, it literally does.
The only thing that constitutes a valid axiomatic system is if it doesn't lead to a contradiction. All axiomatic systems that are consistent are equally valid. Whether or not one axiomatic system models what we see better or worse than another has no bearing on it's validity as an axiomatic system and has no bearing on the objective truth of the tautologies and results of these axiomatic systems.
Under your system, it is in fact true that all men that are made of gold are immortal, as you have proven. That is as objectively true as the statement "2 + 2 = 4".

>> No.11226529

>>11226515
> And that is not empirical at all.

You, uh, think that observing that you exist isn’t an observation?
Peculiar.

>> No.11226531

>>11226516
square root of 2 is irrational
some graphs are isomorphic
no triangle has 5 sides
no bachelor has 3 wives
God exists
and so on

>> No.11226537

>>11226529
you do know you can still think when you're wearing a blindfold right?

>> No.11226554

>>11226527
I think you misunderstood the original argument being made and what “valid” as supposed to meant(albeit that is my fault, to be honest). The point is that a system that seeks to obtain “knowledge” would need to ground its axioms in a observable reality, rather then being conjured out of thin air, even if there is no contradiction within the axioms.

>> No.11226560

>>11226310
Epistemology and ontology will never not be central to the body of scientific knowledge.

>> No.11226562

>>11226489
> then there could be no such thing as experience because nothing is universal negation

Non sequitur. Whether or not something is conceivable in the first place is dependent on the mental faculties of the individual. Beetles can not conceive of bicycles, and there is no reason to expect the origin of the universe to be conceivable to apes.

> proof: suppose there is knowledge which has no reason for existing (negation of PSR)

What the fuck is PSR? Define your terms.

> contradiction

Humorously, you have your own fallacy of composition. Not all knowledge having a proof or explanation does not mean that all knowledge has no proof or explanation.

>> No.11226571

>>11226554
>The point is that a system that seeks to obtain “knowledge” would need to ground its axioms in a observable reality, rather then being conjured out of thin air, even if there is no contradiction within the axioms.
If you want physical descriptions of things, you would start at "observable reality". But If you want deeper understanding of thought ALONG with empirical knowledge you would have to start with the thinking subject itself.

>> No.11226574

>>11226531
>square root of 2 is irrational

Only “know” that because it follows from the axioms of mathematics, and you learned about mathematics via observation.

> some graphs are isomorphic

See above.

> no triangle has 5 sides

That’s just a definition, and that definition was learned about through observation.

> no bachelor has 3 wives

See above.

> God exists

Nice meme.

>> No.11226575

ITT people who think koans are the limits of philosophy.

>> No.11226580

>>11226515
>you have to use intuition reason and insight to come up with axioms in the first place...
Such as? Even something as basic as A=A needed to be observed on some level to break always from magical thinking as well as being justified.

>> No.11226583

>>11226537
Thinking without access to the senses wouldn’t encounter or create any new knowledge whatsoever unless that knowledge follows from pre-existing memories of observation.

>> No.11226587

>>11226554
I agree that we should base the mathematics that we use to build things and study the natural world on axioms that stem from how we observe objects to behave.
I do not agree that these mathematics are more deserving of respect than any other. Math precedes physics, the mathematics that we have that are founded on physical observation do not have a privileged position in terms of learning about reality and truth.

>> No.11226594

>Non sequitur. Whether or not something is conceivable in the first place is dependent on the mental faculties of the individual. Beetles can not conceive of bicycles, and there is no reason to expect the origin of the universe to be conceivable to apes.

Apes and beetles dont have the capacity to reason.

In other words, Its the notion that Hegel Described. This is the fundamental ability that humans have. more proof: Suppose something was not conceivable to your mind. Then you term the object with the concept "I dont understand it" "Magic" "Mysterious force" and so on. In doing so, you have made development of the object of thought. As history unfolds these concepts some into view more clearly, "Magic" becomes "Electricity", "Mysterious force" becomes "gravity" and the elements that explain them becomes clearer. The realization of science was really the realization that the human mind and being are ultimately the same.


>>11226562
>What the fuck is PSR? Define your terms.
principle of sufficient reason

>Negation of PSR implies that some things have no cause or grounding, yet PSR implies it?? Contradiction.

>> No.11226617

>>11226594
>Apes and beetles dont have the capacity to reason.

So humans don’t have the capacity to reason???????
Being able to “reason” doesn’t mean what you “reason” is accurate or that you can conceive of everything that exists.

> As history unfolds these concepts some into view more clearly

“We’ve figured out some stuff therefore we can and will figure out everything”
I admire the optimism but this is fallacious.

> principle of sufficient reason

Principle of sufficient reason is a bare assertion fallacy.

>Negation of PSR implies that some things have no cause or grounding, yet PSR implies it?? Contradiction.

>Negation of plate tectonics implies that continents don’t shift over time yet plate tectonics implies it??
Contradiction.

>> No.11226620

>>11226574
>muh definition
>muh axiom
There is a difference between concept and definition. Definitions are more stale and concepts refer to an actual intuition in the mind. No new words or mathematical developments would ever be made if definition and axioms were the essence of truth because everything would just be contained in the symbols on a page. There is creativity of reason sourced in the human mind.


>>11226583
the source of knowledge is reason and abstract speculation though, I agree it can't be accompanied by "pure nothingness of mind" but there is a reason why we are different from animals even though animals have sense perception, memory aswell.

>> No.11226621

>>11226376
In the 1960s French philosophers were massive public figures in the French speaking world and in some cases developed huge cults of personality (esp Derrida and Lacan). In the Anglophone world philosophers don't get famous because English speaking philosophers are tedious nerds.

>>11226371
This reflects more on you than anything else honestly.

>> No.11226631

>>11226617
>Being able to “reason” doesn’t mean what you “reason” is accurate or that you can conceive of everything that exists.

the accuracy of reason is its coherency, thats what im trying to tell you. Something is wrong if there is contradiction. This is ultimatley the backbone of science. There exists no "universal function" that maps words and concepts to the phenomena. The fact that hundreds of languages alone should be proof enough of this.

I can conceive of everything that exists. For example nothing exists apart from it. What remains to be seen is how the concept unfolds with developments in math, philosophy etc.

>“We’ve figured out some stuff therefore we can and will figure out everything”
thats what youre claiming, im simply observing truth and you are denying it

>> No.11226635

>>11226310
no.. but it is the death of theology

>> No.11226636

>>11226620
>There is a difference between concept and definition.

Both require observation for someone to have knowledge of them.

> No new words or mathematical developments would ever be made if definition and axioms were the essence of truth because everything would just be contained in the symbols on a page.

No one said definitions and axioms are the essence of truth.

> There is creativity of reason sourced in the human mind.

Sourced from observations made by the human mind.

> the source of knowledge is reason and abstract speculation though

No it isn’t. It’s observation. You can learn things by studying prior observations but you’ll inevitably have to seek out more data to obtain more knowledge.

> I agree it can't be accompanied by "pure nothingness of mind" but there is a reason why we are different from animals even though animals have sense perception, memory aswell.

We’re different because of some mutations that affect the way human brains develop, allowing us to use symbolic language on a level not present elsewhere in the animal kingdom. We use this symbolic language to share knowledge about our observations and make even more observations. Humans, though, have to be taught this symbolic language, which by itself makes all human knowledge empirical, as we’d have no way to discuss any of it without first figuring out how to think.

>> No.11226645

>>11226631
>the accuracy of reason is its coherency

A system being internally coherent does not mean that system is “true”, “actual”, or really maps onto reality in any way whatsoever.

> I can conceive of everything that exists.

That’s never been justified, and sounds more insanely egotistical the more it’s repeated.

> thats what youre claiming

No, it isn’t.

>> No.11226665

>>11226635
Theologians have destroyed every atheist in debates over the last five years or so. It hasn't even been close.

>> No.11226668

>>11226665
Source: Abstract speculation

>> No.11226669

>>11226645
>A system being internally coherent does not mean that system is “true”, “actual”, or really maps onto reality in any way whatsoever.
Yes it does, objectively. In fact, "truth" only exists within the internal consistency of a system. The system of the laws of physics is provably and objectively not the only system that exists (this proof is trivial, in that I can just write another consistent system, which I don't care to do right now)
Also, I'm not this guy>>11226594 I'm this guy >>11226587

>> No.11226671

>>11226631
>I can conceive of everything that exists.
No you can't. Your mind is finite and thus you can not conceive of anything infinite, for one thing.

>> No.11226675

>>11226669
>Yes it does, objectively

Holy shit that’s a hot take.
Gorillas are green.
Plato is a gorilla.
Therefore Plato is green. This is confirmed objectively true.

>> No.11226679

>>11226675
Yes. You getting angry at this doesn't change it.
I can also prove that there exist an uncountable set of real numbers that you will never be able to compute or observe. Thus we can prove a literal infinite set of objects that objectively exist that we will never have any observational knowledge of.
Honestly, Empricism is buried. Of course empirical knowledge is real. But it's provably not the only knowledge that exists. I don't see the motivation to continue with it.

>> No.11226680

why do people still major in philosophy? what are they supposed to do? is modern philosophy just like gender studies, in that it is a scam where your only job chance is to teach the subject to other people, so that they can get the same useless degree?

>> No.11226695

>>11226679
>Yes.

No. Gorillas aren’t green. Plato wasn’t a gorilla, and even if Plato wasn’t a gorilla, he wasn’t green anyway. So that’s wrong.

> I can also prove that there exist an uncountable set of real numbers that you will never be able to compute or observe.

Mathematics is a human invention and any and all conclusions made within mathematics follow from its axioms we established because they seem pretty useful for approximating the physical world. It isn’t “real”.

> Thus we can prove a literal infinite set of objects that objectively exist that we will never have any observational knowledge of.

Numbers don’t exist objectively and we only “know” that there’s infinite real numbers because it follows from the established system of mathematics, which you can only obtain knowledge about by absorbing sensory information from other humans and reading books, which itself requires making the observations necessary to develop the required grasp of symbolic language.

Honestly, rationalism is buried. Rational knowledge literally doesn’t exist in any sense whatsoever, and observational knowledge is provably the only knowledge that exists. I don’t see the motivation to continue with it.

>> No.11226707

>>11226695
>No. Gorillas aren’t green. Plato wasn’t a gorilla, and even if Plato wasn’t a gorilla, he wasn’t green anyway. So that’s wrong.
All of those things are true under the system you outlined.
>Mathematics is a human invention
No, it isn't. Mathematics corresponds to a branch of a Heyting Algebra. It is not "invented", human beings mentally traverse the branches and find tautologies. Anyone who claims 'math isn't real" is automatically forfeiting any philosophical position that follows.
>Numbers don’t exist objectively
Yes, they do. Again, denying this doesn't make it true, it just means you're denying it because you don't like the conclusion. If your position can only be predicated on denial of objectivity then you do not have a position worth listening to, as it's retarded.

>> No.11226710

>>11226671
I can conceive of the natural numbers. Give me a number and i can tell you which number system it belongs to and its cardinality. Even if it belongs to an infinite set. Im starting to wonder whether you literally can't understand the concept natural number or concepts at all

>>11226645
>A system being internally coherent does not mean that system is “true”, “actual”, or really maps onto reality in any way whatsoever.
why do different languages exist? Why do several different mathematical models explain the same things in the natural world?

>That’s never been justified, and sounds more insanely egotistical the more it’s repeated.
Im conceiving of everything right now, lmao. If you can't conceive of everything then nothing literally exists. How do I even write it down here without conceiving of it?

>> No.11226711

>>11226695
>>11226707
Also, I can empirical observe the objective existence of mathematics, and that it isn't a "human invention". So that doesn't even have anything to do with empiricism or rationalism.

>> No.11226715

>>11226680
People who major in philosophy go on to do all kinds of stuff, just because there isn't a literal "philosophy industry" doesn't mean it's a useless degree or a scam. Same could be said for gender studies.

>> No.11226723

>>11226675
Youre acting like those symbols on the screen actually objectively map to reality, instead of the mental concepts they are describing.

again, truth comes from the concept and the relationships between the concepts generate new concepts. this is what is mapped to reality.

>> No.11226742

>>11226680
My buddy majored in philosophy, went on to study law and became a judge.

So yeah.

>> No.11226747

>>11226707
> All of those things are true under the system you outlined.

It’s demonstrably wrong because people can actually go look at gorillas and observe that they aren’t green.

> No, it isn't.

It is, sorry to say. Or more accurately, an invention of minds as some other animals can perform simplistic mathematics.

> Mathematics corresponds to a branch of a Heyting Algebra.

Logic itself is a human invention, being a pseudo-reification of the human brain’s capacity to conceive of things.

>Numbers exist objectively

No, they don’t. Again, asserting this doesn’t make it true. It just means you like the conclusion.
Yawn.

>> No.11226748

>>11226695
>Numbers don’t exist objectively
you mean they dont exist physically. They are objective objects because they are not subject to the will of a mind.

>> No.11226753

>>11226747
>It’s demonstrably wrong because people can actually go look at gorillas and observe that they aren’t green.
not if they use the language you made them use

>> No.11226763

>>11226747
>ratios only work because you like them to work
Yup, galaxy brain

>> No.11226784

>>11226747
Nope, logic, computation, and mathematics are not human inventions. In fact, all of them are studied both empirically and rationally, all the time, in every single university on the planet.
This argument actually retarded, you don't genuinely believe this do you? You're ACTUALLY ARGUING that logic, computation, and mathematics are "human inventions" in order to salvage pure empiricism?
That's just pathetic desu

>> No.11226795 [DELETED] 

How many men have you killed in real life?

>> No.11226803

>>11226512
I think some ethical questions are tractable in terms of mathematics in the form of game theory.

I'd consider a goal of ethics to find strategies that would benefit everyone if they all adopted it, but would also benefite the individual when others don't adopt it, giving incentive to adopt it.

You need to balance the mutual benefits of cooperation with protection and robustness of bad actors.

>> No.11226821

>>11226711
>Also, I can empirical observe the objective existence of mathematics

You saw numbers just floating through space?

>> No.11226827

>>11226803
>I'd consider a goal of ethics to find strategies that would benefit everyone if they all adopted it

Why ought we seek to benefit everyone?

>but would also benefite the individual when others don't adopt it, giving incentive to adopt it.

Why ought we seek to benefit ourselves? What actually constitutes “benefiting” ourselves?
Ethics looks easy when you *assume* utilitarianism as an axiom. I don’t.

>> No.11226829

>>11226784
>Nope, logic, computation, and mathematics are not human inventions.

How do you actually believe this? Bizarre.

>> No.11226837

>>11226748
>They are objective objects because they are not subject to the will of a mind.

They are, though. They don’t exist if there’s no observers to conceive of them, making them not objective. No one is around to observe the apparent quantities in nature and start counting them for some practical purpose like stocking food.

>> No.11226863

>>11226837
What is object permanence?

>> No.11226882

>>11226863
Object permanence has no relevance.
Photons with various wavelengths will go flying about all they like whether or not humans are around to see them.
But “color”, without animals to see those photons and turn them into nerve impulses, doesn’t exist, because “color” is qualia brains translate nerve impulses into because it is practically useful. It’s not some physical feature of the world. Wavelengths are.
In the same sense, there will always be quantities of things in the world whether or not anyone is there to see them, but only when organisms capable of performing mathematics are present do “numbers” exist, as abstractions of physical phenomena present in the brain.

>> No.11226884

>>11226537
you do know observation doesnt literally mean seeing right?

>> No.11226889

>>11226516
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missing_Shade_of_Blue

>> No.11226890

>>11226884
you do know empirical observation is equivalent to sense perception right?

>> No.11226893

Science and Philosophy need each other.

Science gets the answers to the big questions. Philosophy thinks of then big questions and why they need answering.

>> No.11226902

>>11226310
>Science is the denial of philosophy.
FTFY

>> No.11226903

>>11226747
Numbers did not exist objectively outside of our minds, but the abstract concept of computation (which was figured out after numbers) does, even finitists doesnt argue to much about it.

>> No.11226909

>>11226884

LOL this guy dont know what the word "Measure" means Embarassing

>> No.11226920

>>11226909
"to make up a standard of observation based on a standard of measure".
Or "to compare something which what I think is a basis for the universe"

Or I like the real practical definition of "you make up the divisions as you go along and pretend it means something"

>> No.11226924

>>11226889
What a trivial problem. We can imagine different shades of blue because we’ve already seen blue. I can imagine novel houses because I’ve already seen a bunch of houses. A more meaningful question would be whether or not someone who has never seen color could imagine color.
No.

>> No.11226929

>>11226903
>but the abstract concept of computation

How is computation abstract? It’s a physical process performed inside of computers.

>> No.11226980

False kys

>> No.11226992

>>11226920
did you finished school?
>>11226924
>What a trivial problem.
lack of humility, check

>We can imagine different shades of blue because we’ve already seen blue. I can imagine novel houses because I’ve already seen a bunch of houses

Be confident enought to typing gibberish strawman fallacy. check

U must be joking anon, if not, u dont deserve to be enlighted at all.

>>11226929
I'm out.

>> No.11227030

>>11226715
>>11226742
so they don't actually need the degree for getting the job? sounds like a scam to me then.

>> No.11227063
File: 32 KB, 636x773, npc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11227063

>>11226668
>Source?

>Do you have a source from a respectable org.?

>Need talking point approved by respectable source

>> No.11227081

>>11226310
science without philosophy is just literal autist NPC with abacus. All those "scientists" on the right are hacks btw

>> No.11227082

>>11226365
>Naming zizek near chalmers

>> No.11227089
File: 291 KB, 1024x938, hehe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11227089

>>11226635
>he doesn't know "science" was how the first brahmin found God

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

Oh lord this board is such predicable lame af LARPing teens, hack cringe fest of donkeys

>> No.11227091

>>11226310

This is not a fair comparison. There are plenty of scientists and mathematicians that delve into philosophy and metaphysics. Bill Nye is literally not even a scientist and the others have barely published more than a couple papers. Anyone who thinks the right is the pinnacle of scientist now is frankly retarded.

>> No.11227129

>>11227030
Some jobs or professions require a bachelor's, but not necessarily one in philosophy (a philosophy/gender studies degree isn't a thing that exists anyway, it's either a "bachelor of arts" or a "bachelor of science"). What you're trying to argue is like saying that getting a psych PhD is a scam because social workers can hold some of the same positions or work in some of the same specialties.

>> No.11227142

>>11226310
All on the left and Dawkings are intellectuals. The rest are either retarded or pedophiles

>> No.11227144

>>11226340
Except Bill Nye’s quote shows that:
1 - he’s a retard
2 - he has knowledge below philosophy 103
3 - he’s not a scientist

>> No.11227151

>>11226574
Your post is a big confusion and the first 6 pages of Kritik der reinen Vernunft show your mistake

>> No.11227749

Modern Scientists are the real philosophers of our time.

>> No.11227784

>>11226310
No you are right. Modern science (post 1900 for Physics, post 1980 for biology) can study, explain and think about every single philosophical concept better than philosophy:
>What is time?
>What is life? Its origin?
>What is death?
>What is matter? Energy? Space?
>What are emotions?
>The beginning, the existence

That's why we don't have famous philosophers anymore.

>> No.11227797
File: 14 KB, 288x288, 1564162211789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11227797

>>11227063
>People that don't believe everything I say at face value are normies and NPCs.

>> No.11227800

>>11226310
Not really fair to compare actual scientists to retarded attention whores

>> No.11228150

>>11227784
Because the effects of Philosophy take way longer than the effects of Science
You could just ask why there are no big geniuses nowadays besides Stephen Hawking (dead) and then say that entrepeneurship is above science cuz Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on. Also, those are not all the philosophical questions. I'd say they are not even philosophy but new age trash, you clearly never studied the subject.
In the end, you're not very bright.

>> No.11228183

>>11226571
Man... Principle of sufficient reason has no ground. It is known that it constitutes a metaphysical assertion since before Dilthey. Don't out yourself as an ignorant moron.

>> No.11228185

>>11226365
>Zizek
My sides, why not Peterson or Joe Rogan while we're at it?

>> No.11228205

>>11228150
Do not be afraid of science and its power of emancipation, /pol/ and /x/ lie to you.

>> No.11228477

>>11228205
Now I understand why people use the word “schizo” so much here

>> No.11228510

>>11226829
Because they aren't (this is actually seen empirically).
If they were, there wouldn't be objective limitations to computation. Computer science is the superclass over math and logic and it's existence and investigation proves without any counterargument that mathematics is discovered, not invented. Logic is a subcategory of mathematics that again, is not invented.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IOiZatlZtGU [Embed] [Open]

Just repeating what Im saying back to me as a pseudo="gotcha!" attempt isnt going to work as an argument and only makes you look like a mad petulant moron. You have no actual argument, just denial of reality and empirical observation (which ironically, you are arguing in favor of).

>> No.11228517

>>11226924
Blind people who do LSD have been observed to see color. So yes, people who have never seen color have been able to see it without gaining sight.
You're wrong.

>> No.11228524 [DELETED] 

>>11226310
>>Science is the death of philosophy.
>Can any one deny this?
Kinda. Science is metaphysics that seeks to describe physical reality. In addition, there's a great deal of metaphysics that does not seek to describe physical reality, but rather metaphysical constructs which may or may not be dependent on physical reality. Btw, this is philosophy.

>> No.11228557

>>11228517
>See color
>Without gaining sight
How stupid

>> No.11228780

>>11228557
Just saying "how stupid" doesn't change the experiments that showed this to be the case. They perceived color in their mind in the same way you or I do when we imagine it despite being blind their whole life. Later on, some of them went on to get cornea transplants and were able to actually see color, and they corroborate that the visuals they saw while on LSD are the same colors that they see when they gain the ability of sight. This is, ironically, an empirical example of a form of non-sensory knowledge being gained.

https://mindhacks.com/2009/11/18/do-blind-people-hallucinate-on-lsd/

http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/1094.pdf

An experiment, with 24 people, who experienced phenomenon without sensory data. Empiricism is falsified empirically (lol reality truly loves irony). And this was just that example from that experiment - we nowadays have hundreds of examples of born-blind people having visual hallucinations while on various hallucinogenic/psychedelic drugs despite lacking the sensory faculty for it. The same for born deaf people hearing auditory hallucinations while on them.

You're wrong, and you have to accept it.

>> No.11228799

>>11228183
>Principle of sufficient reason has no ground
it literally does, because its negation is a contradiction.

>> No.11228856
File: 84 KB, 626x429, eye.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11228856

>>11226882
Those brains and those nerves, like anything of the body, are visual objects of color-qualia. So the point is self-contradictory, and self-refuting. The brain and nerve impulses can't be the source of color, if they are themselves colored products. One could not then deny the phenomena of color, while affirming the colored phenomena of the brain and nerves, without engaging in a violation of logic.

>> No.11228868

>>11228557
The "mind's eye" is real, anon.

>> No.11229052

>>11228780
>Such phenomena occurred only in blind subjects who reported prior visual activity

Do you read what you link or have you been blind you whole life lol

Even if blind people could see things by chemical stimulation of their brains... it is still seeing, so your point is laughably stupid

>> No.11229055

>>11228799
No, it's not.

>> No.11229080

Aristoteles was a brainlet, change my mind.

>Hehe if I think a lot I will know everything hehe.

>> No.11229119

>>11229052
now here is an opportunity to run some DMT studies and see if they see the same astral planes

>> No.11230453

>>11229052
>Even if blind people could see things by chemical stimulation of their brains... it is still seeing, so your point is laughably stupid
Holy shit you're a moron.
If you do not have a sensory factulty to experience a sensation but then experience that sensation without that faculty, you are gaining knowledge without sensory experience i.e. you are gaining knowledge non-empirically.
If blind people were 'seeing things from chemical stimulation of the brain" that is NOT "still seeing", they are not using a sensory faculty. You are just using circular logic now, which is invalid. You're essentially claiming "all knowledge is sensory because all knowledge is sensory".
That isn't gonna work, buddy boy.

>> No.11231066

>>11230453
>If you do not have a sensory factulty to experience a sensation but then experience that sensation without that faculty
Except that the have the capacity to experience the sensation. What they lack is the capacity to receive it in the experience sensing parts of their brains.

>> No.11231071

>>11231066
>>11231066
>that the
That they*

>> No.11231297

>>11226333
in spite of three three's, you are most wrong, partially right. every mathematician and physicist i know is a platonist -except for mediocrities and stupid 19th century materialists.

of course the is a form above all other forms - it is the form of the form, the Good, the One.

“Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here”.