''but dude... like, how do you KNOW... that you KNOW something? and how can you KNOW you actually KNOW that...

>''but dude... like, how do you KNOW... that you KNOW something? and how can you KNOW you actually KNOW that?'' Ad infinitum

2000 years of epistemology summed up. This is why STEMfags look down on philosophy.

Literally every sentient being is experiencing reality through the lens of its senses. How the fuck do you know for sure anything is real?

You don't, and you just move on. Seems pretty simple to me

STEMfags were already in advance biased against philosophy, they just use cursory readings of wikipedia pages to justify their bias. Case in point: OP who believed he was "summing up" all of epistemology when he was actually summing up an extremely marginal movement within epistemology (skepticism)

t.

But dude like how can you like really be sure that I'm an idiot and you're actually like the smart one?

What do you suggest we do then? Pointlessly ruminate over gettier problems?

There exists no delimiter of real and non-real. Reality is as worthless a concept as they come.

>pseud detected
Descartes was up front with his goals and reasons for skepticism

STEMfag here. You make us look bad with these idiotic posts.

>epistemology, the field of philosophy that regards knowledge, asks questions on knowing things
NO FUCKING WAY, OP

Not even that, your entire being and experience is a conjuration of your brain. You can't conjure from nothing but much of your experience and memory of experience isn't a 1 to 1 experience of reality. You cannot experience reality in a pure form. Assigning colours, meaning, space, time, etc. All dilutes reality.

Is this why they say babies see reality in a purer form than adults?

All fields of STEM are instantiations of epistemology.

>"but dude... like Science is God now... and like I have no idea how society or the human functions because I'm autistic" Ad infinitum

The real redpill is that STEMcels and Philosophy pseuds are both inferior to the CHAD sociologist.

descartes... easy on the dickings...

STEMfags are making and programming robots and other futuristic tech, meanwhile philosophy and lit students are jerking off to hundred year old concepts. Even art fags are doing better, cmon step it up.

>pointlessly
What makes it pointless? The fact that it's not profitable?

objective reality isn't objective in the sense that we percieve it as it is, but it is objective in the sense that our subjective perception of it is comparable to its perception by almost every single other human
it is entirely subjective but entirely objective at the same time given our only possible perspective is that of a human, scientific facts on the other hand are truly objective statements that are applicable to every perception of reality but aren't necessarily perceivable by our subjective perception e.g. gravity. we can witness the effect it has but not the fact itself

just my 2 cents brahs

Im not sure Richard Feynman had much access to wikipedia.

Occams Razor: Its the most simple and logical solution.
We see no Dog suddenly avoiding objects that are invisible to us, therefore we assume that their eyes are similar to ours.

Didnt know they allowed you access to Veeky Forums in McDonalds. Slow day or just slacking off?

Sociology and anthropology really are way more fascinating subjects than either STEM or philosophy tho.

They have no determinate subject matter.

the world whitout philosophy not only doesnt make sense but is headed for a dystopia

that's just like your opinion man

>its another thread where people who haven't read Descartes argue about points he covered

Pro-tip. Descartes didn't just end at Cogito Ergo sum

The Americans are the living refutation of the Cartesian axiom, "I think, therefore I am": Americans do not think, yet they are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is therefore open to every kind of standardization.

lol

i want to bully you

Sociology and anthropology are hobbies not disciplines

Congratulation. You just solved philosophy.

agree on philosophy, but STEM, thats just LOL.
If you had studied STEM instead, you would immediately see why thats correct and you are not. The classic Catch-22

how much STEM have you taken.

LOL You realize that the Cartesian meditations demonstrate that you can know certain facts with certainty, things like your own existence (cognito ergo sum), an external existence, etc.
You're totally characterizing Descartes to demonstrate... what? That you can't understand why analysis of knowledge itself is useful and fun?
Also Descartes isn't the entirety of philosophy.

>You realize that the Cartesian meditations demonstrate that
He demonstrated Jack and Shit.
His musings have just as much credibility and basis in reality as Twilight or 50 shades

>its a Wikipedia Philosopher talking out his ass

im not a philosopher at all, I am oposed to all philosophers.
You really do struggle with text understanding, dont you?

That's quitter talk.
>senses
Kek.
Feynman was biased against life desu
Of course they have no basis in reality, they're a priori my dude. Like, you know, maths.

>Of course they have no basis in reality, they're a priori my dude. Like, you know, maths.
No, not at all. Quite honestly, you mixing up intellectual masturbation with such a pure thing as math is quite embarassing.

Math is coherent, based on axioms. Each theorem or lemma can be proven to be right, wrong or "not even wrong".

Philosophy is a heap of dung compared to that.
"We r all totes living in a cave, dudes" t. some greek dude
"Gay love can bloom without buttsex" t. Plato
"Here is a new way of expressing the golden rule I just made up" t. Kant

"we should like, totally be jerks unto each other, this will bring about utopia" t. Rand

LOL okay lad. Please demonstrate to me that all of these theorems/lemmas can be implied from a complete list of axioms, all of which are self-evident truths/imply eachother. Also make sure to provide the entire list of axioms and show your work. Try to avoid any austrian logicians while you're doing your important task.

Remember that if you can't accomplish this feat, there is no basis for saying that mathematics is on "another level" than philosophy. Therefore your antiphilosophical vision falls apart. Good luck

thats literally what a college degree in (pure) math is all about.
It takes 3 -5 years of intense study to do that for normal people, for a brainlet like you it might take much longer.

In any case, not something that can be done using only the 1000 characters available here.

>you experience reality by means of something, thereofore your experience is invalid
whoa...

>thats literally what a college degree in (pure) math is all about.
a-are you quite sure about that?

math is rly weird
when u think about it

kekek

bro, goedel was an arch-platonist on mathematical objects

I know, that's part of the reason why he came up with the theorems.

then what r u implying?

that male bonding is gay

STEMspergs can't answer the problem. Good job.
>haha le logic and simplicity is correct becuz i sed so

All those means have an increasing number of limits that we know of - with them. Cavemen and scientists fall for the same fallacies.

>coherent
Doesn't mean shit
>axioms
Not coherency, axioms are exterior. Axioms cannot be justified within the coherentism. You're just spewing shit based on a turd you dumped in space.
>proven
Nope.
You know nothing about mathematics.
One can be an antiplatonist and believe that abstract objects are not actually abstract.

>haha le logic and simplicity is incorrect becuz i dun get it
FTFY

>Doesn't mean shit
Hurr, im too stupid to look up this word in a dictionary.

>Not coherency, axioms are exterior. Axioms cannot be justified within the coherentism. You're just spewing shit based on a turd you dumped in space.
Coherentism, lmao.
Axioms are axioms, they define the "building" that is built using them as a base, thats why they need no justification as they are the one doing the justifying.

brainlet!

>>proven
>Nope.
Yes. Math is all about proving/disproving stuff.

>You know nothing about mathematics.
lmao, get a load of this bookworm, trying to get into an intellectual fight with a mathematician. Too bad you came unarmed.

Go ahead and justify Occam's Razor.

Project harder you illiterate.
Foundherentism is an invalid epistemology.
Axioms do need justification. Sorry that your STEMsperg education didn't inform you of that.
You can stop trolling now.

>One can be an antiplatonist and believe that abstract objects are not actually abstract.
okay. and?

>Foundherentism is an invalid epistemology.
Making up words will not help you get out of the hole you dug for yourself

>Axioms do need justification.
Yeah, that they are axioms and nothing else. If they are not, you can break them apart into axioms.
Seriously, why dont you make a video where you praise Tolstoi or Stone-cold Jane Austin instead of making a fool out of yourself by pretending to be educated.

>Go ahead and justify Occam's Razor.
You did not just imply that Occams razor is an axiom, did you???
This is getting better and better.
I feel like a reaper in a field of wheat with all you brainlets.

Foundherentism isn't made up. Thanks for confirming that you're an illiterate.
There are actually educated, read people (me) on this board, trolling doesn't work. Go back to /b/.

Yeah but if epistemology never asked the questions STEM wouldn't exist.

>You did not just imply that Occams razor is an axiom, did you???

If you read very carefully, you will notice that I did the exact opposite.

Don't bother. The boy is autistic. Good Doctor Heimstein will be at his door tomorrow evening with the apparatus.

no, dont wiggle out of this.
I say axioms need no justification and you ask me to justify occams razor.
Thats a pretty clear implication that you think that occams razor is an axiom.

>Foundherentism isn't made up. Thanks for confirming that you're an illiterate.
Its as made up as "objectivism" which is not at all about being more objective but about being a huge douche (guess doucheism was not hip enough for Ann Rian)

>I say axioms need no justification
Justify this proposition. Surely you cannot say it is an axiom.
Foundherentism is the epistemic model developed by Susan Haack which defines the topology of knowledge as a model which is both internally coherent and based upon an undoubtable axiom. This is exactly what you believe. It is invalid.

So what is invalid in it? t. Different user.
I mean, logic itself is like that.

Logic is invalid.

>Justify this proposition
Why do you jump from topic to topic.
Please, let us dwell a little longer on your last blunder: the implication that occams razor is an axiom when it is not.

t.brainlet among brainlets

>Thats a pretty clear implication that you think that occams razor is an axiom.

No, it's actually the complete opposite again. If I though it was an axiom, I wouldn't go about asking for it's justification, now would I?

Now we have that out of the way, and we both agree it's non-axiomatic, could you go ahead and justify it?

I never said that. You can stop trolling.

It's crude trolling, but I'll admit it is slightly amusing. Take your (you)

Allow me to walk you through your chains of decisions (each worse then the next) that lead to this blunder.

Exhibit A:
my post here where - for the first time in your life I presume- you were divinely touched by the term "occams razor".
Then follows your (?) post where you demand justification for lemmas based on axioms.
Alternativel this was you which is just as ridiculous.

In any case, we finally reach the crescendo of cretinism (crescinism?) with this anti-masterpiece: namely the sentence >Go ahead and justify Occam's Razor.

As if Occams razor was included in the axioms that we were talking about and which you asked me to justify, ignoring that axioms are the ones doing the justifying.

Leading to your present situation where you look like an utter fool in public and full view of the rest of this esteemed Nepalesian gardening forum.

Now. Can you maybe tell me where you thought you started to err? (Protip: It starts with "your" and ends with "conception")

Goodless, you are illiterate. Go home, Chinaman.

>I have shot what little powder of arguments I had and now I have to switch to insults
FTFY

:^)

So this is the power of STEMtard IQ...

When they're doing science, they don't.

You tell yourself that.

Jobs mask?

...ya

makes it even worse.
So you saw those morons fail and you decided that you should fail in exactly the same way.

Your libEd-powerlevels might just be too much for me to understand.

>demonstrably gets blown the fuck out
>attempts to collect the pieces of his dignity to form a coherent post
>fails again

Well you're right about this though:

>Your libEd-powerlevels might just be too much for me to understand.

Descartes quite literally was a STEMfag

Oh yeah? The robots that will steal the stemfag's job? Lmao, they are digging their own grave

>Oh yeah? The robots that will steal the stemfag's job? Lmao, they are digging their own grave
Real Stemfags would know that this is not a threat but a meme/hype. They have been going on about muh jobloss since the first assembler was invented. Never once did it come true.
People simply find other jobs. Its not because 90% of the people once were emplyoed in agriculture and today only 2% that we have a 88% unenmployment rate.

This right here is potentially the best streak of plain fucking with people I've ever had the privilege of witnessing on this shithole website.
If it was sincere you ought to retrace you/r/ steps back where you came from, or better yet abstain from online forum boards for a while and try to actually pass to the 2nd year of your education in mathematics.

Science renders philosophy outdated, we all secretly know this

science is a methodology

empiricism is correct because (?????)

You do realize STEM works on the presupposition of that philosophical work even understanding what is true and what is not?

They wouldn't even understand what they find without this.

Plurality of people having plurality of sightings of things is accurate enough for us to base our systems.

If you don't believe in Truth, please put up a loaded pistol on your head with live ammo and pull the trigger.

Oh? You are not doing this? HMM HMMM HMMM HMM why not? Are you cucking out and implying that you CAN know something?

because it has shown to be correct.
Contrary to philosophy. Or do you know many four-legged flies and girls with less teeth than men?

>They wouldn't even understand what they find without this.
Keep dreaming.
Its just common sense.

If you don't believe in Truth, please put up a loaded pistol on your head with live ammo and pull the trigger.
This. Also the best counter against cultural marxim and their "muh racism/patriarchy"

Descartes was a stemfag you dope, he had massive achievements in both mathematics and science

Be a sophist and explain your points in greentext story format

Because for there to be anything for me to experience, there needs to be a foundation for those sensory interpretations.

The fact that I am experiencing anything, even if simulated, even if a simulation of a simulation inside the dream of an A.I being simulated etc. etc. eventually you'll escape the simulation out into what can be construed as actuarial reality.

So I know that existence exists, even if I am but a figment of its imagination.