When you're talking to a STEMtard who hasn't studied the philosophy of science and he thinks he's the logical one

>calls it a position
>asks to prove it

Yet you call yourself logical?

If you cant trust them then nothing is real
>Having to observe something in order for it to be real is circular
Really phams?

>If it cant be observed or proven by relations of other observations it doesn't exist.
Empiricism can't be observed.
Empiricism can't be proven without assuming empiricism first.
Ergo, we can't prove empiricism is real.

You haven't been keeping up with the philosophical development of the 20th century, I suggest you read Quine.

The proof lies in the results. Mathematics and scientific theories, laws and rules of nature all prove empiricism.

I havent seen Quine in the Journals I read.

>If you cant trust them then nothing is real
Not necessarily, it just means that nothing might not be real.

itt: people who studied humanities think their unprovable "knowledge" is somehow better than STEM.

Even if you couldn't trust STEM by logical reasons, the fact that it vas never failed when done rigth is more than enough to trust it, you're just being retarded contrarians, just like Socrates or Plato

Allow me to explain:

To say that results made in technology or science prove the scientific method to be true is to say that the scientific method proves the scientific method.

This is circular reasoning.

Philosophy is interesting but not useful, history is interesting but very much guess work influnced by the current political climate and sociology turned into a cult. There's a reason why STEMfags think "soft" sciences are for crazy people.

Read this, buffoon, do you even read the words you type?

>HUR DUR SO WHAT IF IT ISNT LOGICALLY CORRECT, ITS LOGICALLY CORRECT!!

>I think x will work based on y theory
>x works
>this means y is a correct theory

>when you're talking to a philosophy major who doesn't realize his entire discipline is pointless noodling and prevaricating
>don't give a shit about the problem of induction
>go ahead and build modern society anyway

Doesnt a theory have to be applied to prove itself in order to be correct?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

So do you trust or not trust your observations?

>it works therefore the theory is correct

LMAO

Isn't empiricism an approach rather than position?

Read Hume.

DUDE MINDGAMES LMAO
A theory isnt correct if it cant be replicated and prove itself using its ideas

I didn't say that, I said:

>HUR DUR SO WHAT IF IT ISNT LOGICALLY CORRECT, IT WORKS ALWAYS AND HAVE ALWAYS WORKED!!

>The only think I truly dislike in the majority of STEM students, is how far they'd go to try to justify their view as how human and social sciences are not sciences.

they're literally not

the following disciplines are not science, or are, at best, cargo cult science:

1) sociology
2) psychology
3) economics

Read Hume.

Please stop posting if you haven't read anything from the past 100 years, it is clear you guys know nothing of the philosophy of science as OP stated.

Read;
Hume
Kant
Frege
Russell
Hempel
Wittgenstein
Popper
Quine
Kripke

Thanks again!

Observe the past few centuries of development

>economis

STEMbabbies are mad that someone makes more money than them

Not an argument

Seriously, read Hume. He pretty much explains how wrong you are, but also explains why it doesn't matter.

if i cared about money i wouldn't have gone into STEM

economics is a thin veneer of 'science' used to justify ideology, riddled with shoddy mathematics and post hoc reasoning

If its wrong why does it just werk?

"Humans evolved from dogs"

"You've clearly never read books about the topic, here go read these"

"NOT AN ARGUMENT! I REFUSE TO LEARN ERGO YOU'RE WRONG"

Because the statistical probability is so high enough that we shouldn't concern ourselves.

Now, go and read Hume. As i said, he explains how you are wrong but also that it doesn't matter.

Maybe if you used the arguments of the books instead of saying:
>hur dur read these authors
people would take you seriusly

>I threw a bucket of water of someone's head, they got wet, therefore throwing a bucket of water over someone's head is the best way to get them wet!!!

Not an argument.

That's stupid and has nothing to do with how STEM works, kys

Until someone comes out with a better way. Thats scientific progress.

Would you rather read some rehashing of a Veeky Forums poster or read the original?

Here's the link:

davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html

there are many more people to read after this

>*PUTS FINGERS IN EARS*
>"Thats stupid!!!!!"

Refute me then using his argument against it.

I'm just not going to bother reading a book about many things and with many arguments against what I said while other user could just point out fast why I am wrong and also tell me about differents authors if I'm interested in more

The guy after me pointed out why it was wrong, I just expected you not to be a retard, but basicly.

I throw a bucket on someone and they get wet.
I look for why they get wet.
Find it out.
Knowing this, I can figure the best way to get people wet.

sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section1.rhtml

Read the first several section summaries

this is sparknotes btw

And how do you find the best way to figure out the best scientific method :^)

I'm in STEM.

Science works and models. It doesn't prove

I think either I have misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me as I think Hume is rigth and was arguing in hiw favour.

ITT: philosophy freshmen so desperately trying to get at their STEM contemporaries.

Look niggers, it's okay to study the physical world using more than induction and common sense. It's okay.

>against it

Again, read Hume. He doesn't necessarily disagree with it.

"David Hume took empiricism to the skeptical extreme; among his positions was that there is no logical necessity that the future should resemble the past, thus we are unable to justify inductive reasoning itself by appealing to its past success."

The scientific model, for example, is based on a logical fallacy. Period. Even science itself accept this, and scientist often try point this out. Science does not deal with absolute certainty. The scientific method is based on statistical probability, and this probability is so high that we as humans should not concern ourselves. Something like 99,99999996%.

"The theory proves the theory is true" is no better than "The author of the books says it is true, so it is true."

It's circular reasoning, plain and simple.

Economics largely make less money than STEM. The top bunch of them that actually work as analytics, bankers, entrepreneurs etc. do, the gross majority of them are burger flippers though.

The reason behind the hostility is, in general is caused by the way STEM and humanity majors build their future.
If you're studying humanities and DON'T socialise with varied range of people(often doing voluntary work etc. etc.) you're not very likely to work in your field after graduating. In humanities soft skills>>>hard skills.

STEM on the other hand is the direct opposite. You may be autistic shitheap hated by everybody but if you're the second coming of Bob Widlar you're going to have successful career which creates the image of STEM being more merit-oriented.

I studied philosophy in undergrad and sorta regret not doing a STEM-related thing but on the other hand I do like to enjoy myself and have fun so... anyway, I think science and technology is "better" at accounting for natural phenomena and also better at helping us understand our own subjectivity t b h. Philosophy is is basically irrelevant outside of understanding the history of various political ideas

You try to lower the number of steps you have to do and make sure it still works, this was done centuries ago.

It's a system that may seem stupid, but it works.

And how do you find the best way to figure out the best way to figure out the scientific method :^)

By kys

Thanks for conceding :^)

Good post.

Economics largely make less money than STEM. The top bunch of them that actually work as analytics, bankers, entrepreneurs etc. do, the gross majority of them are burger flippers though.

Eh, not really.

bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm

bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/an-overview-of-employment.htm

STEM is just much larger with more variance.

Ur welcome :^)

I don't trust them, but I act like I do because whether they are true or not, they are what I perceive and the only thing I can react to, even if sometimes I'm processing the information incorrectly or making shit up.

>this one chick I know is a STEMfag
>she's studying to be a doctor
>walk up to her
>"prove to me that this table exists, you positivist cuntbag"
>"who are you and why are you talking to me"
>logically prove that empiricism is wrong
>"i don't know who you are and i need to get to my class"
>tip my fedora
>"oh my little maiden, how ignorant you are of the humanities"
>hand her a philisophical essay I made critiquing empiricism
>she's too ignorant to even take it
>she walks away
tell me your experiences dealing with STEMfags, Veeky Forums

Stem that has a deep appreciation for history here. You monochrome faggots are both retarded

Same.
Everything is good for something.

As always it's just a matter of definitions. What is known as science, a collection of facts that make sense through the usage of logic via mathematics and natural language isn't supposed to have absolute certainty, nor do all types of what you call science have the same degree of certainty. Mathematics might have an absolute degree of certainty, maybe, but because the mathematics in physics use observed, empirical data as variable, physics do not. A statement about the behaviour of a group of badgers isn't as rigorous as a statement about gravity, despite both being considered "science". In the same way a statement that belongs to sociology or whatever usually won't be as trustworthy as a "scientific" statement, that doesn't mean it's useless, though. Obviously, none of these are absolutely certain statements either.

>when you're talking to an English major who things he will get a job while you have oil companies head hunting you

We aren't logical because we have studied STEM fields or have the ability to study STEM fields

We are logical because we chose STEM over other joke majors like you chuckle nuts did

>not telling her to read Hume
Jesus user

It's all different facets of Understanding only a fool vibrates on one frequency

>When you ask a STEMtard if the science is in on whether or not the transgender community is mentally ill and they refuse to consider the hypothesis and shut down the debate
>When a STEMfag reveals go you that his political philosophy isn't based on anything but a childish desire for everyone to be accepted by everyone in a creepily utopian sort of way
>When you realize just how big the gap between your /pol/ self and all the Democratic Socialists around you really is

>getting a degree in a completely unmarketable and worthless skill.

I'm amazed there are people on this earth who had their parents pay 100k+ or took out loans to that effect so that they could go get a college education and learn about fucking philosophy.

It is like the male equivalent of majoring in Women's Studies.

Can't wait for there to be so many people with STEM degrees that the market totally dries up and the STEM fags are the one languishing in their mother's basement.

Not because I'm philosophy major or anything, but just because I like when smug cunts get their due.

>going to college
>not learning a trade

>going to college
>learning a trade

It's almost like what universities were has been totally forgotten as it's just lame, expensive vocational schools where learning is optional as long as you get a good job.

The money argument has always been worthless. There's more to life than money.

>When you get BTFO on Veeky Forums and run crying to Veeky Forums

>thinking I made that cringey thread

Both the OP and scientists in that thread are retards.

[spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]

>has always been worthless
then don't complain about paying back your student loans over the rest of your life

Okay, sam harris time to stop posting.

Philosophyfags proper (science is a field of philosophy) are just butthurt that people found a way around "cant no nuffin" via extreme statistical probability and have actually applied it to the world around us. What they're so butthurt about today is that it's being to the great questions that have stumped them for years such as consciousness and qualia and it's heading down a path pointing to humans not being special snowflakes.

Hahaha holy shit OP, you got utterly BTFO there. Did you have to go to your priest to help you cope with you being triggered?

>There are people who actually believe this shit. Holy hell, I thought you people were a meme or just being ironic, but you actually believe in this crap.

Social "sciences", aren't actual sciences because they can't be quantified, unlike real science which is based on observation and has an honest to good method and process to it. I mean, I'm willing to give economics the benefit of the doubt, but psychology and sociology are a load of shit made by lefties so that they can keep jobs and pretend to be smart.

Holy god that cuck got btfo.

Eh behaviorism and cognitive can be observed but humanistic and especially psychoanalysis are definitely just memes.

You forgot to add in some bullshit about "special snowflakes"

so electrons disn't exist before they were discovered? if you think that something doesn't exist becuase you can't see or theorize it yet, you're denying everything that is currently observable, as it once was unobservable, while we don't know what can be observed in the future, you can't say that something doesn't exist

>oil

good luck.

>frogposter thinks he's smart

shouldn't have opened that, you know christcucks, humanity-fags would just storm in here and call you heathen and throw in a couple of strawman.

>muh scientific realism

>that is currently observable
by whom?

> directly observing electrons

STEM is far more useful to society than shit like philosophy though.

There is no science without phiolosophy