How can a materialist escape the know-nuffins without hiding behind autism and worshiping sense-data and logical...

How can a materialist escape the know-nuffins without hiding behind autism and worshiping sense-data and logical positivism?

in English please

But you really can't no nuffin
Escaping this is deluding yourself

Know*

Look at it this way

How can you know that you can't know anything when you can't know anything?

Only someone on the most basic level of critical thinking thinks you can't know things, it's a paradox on the most simple of levels. I am literally observing myself knowing where the tea is in my fridge when I go and get it.

Bait or just stupid?

Explain how I'm wrong, or explain how you can know that you cannot know. While you're at it, explain how you can't explain, and say that you can't speak, because doing that makes just as much sense.

all view of reality is a fixed view, you cannot see anything from a viewpoint that isn't yours so anything you or anyone says is biased because you have a separate experience of reality but either the same one. It is a paradox but it being a paradox doesn't make it invalid. When you believe that you left the tea in the fridge that is a truth but only to those who observe it. No one else is aware of this so it is not a truth for them. Also when you see an object you are not seeing it for what it actually is you thinking an object will act a certain way when I use it is only based on past experiences, that object is more complex on a smaller level but your brain gives you a fixed image of the object. If everything you percieve is a fixed image then why would you assume that you could possibly understand anything. Things you consider truths are only that through your experience.

It's really very simple. If you assume materialism is true, science works. You can argue all you like about MUH GAP OF INDUCTION, but if there's one thing science has taught us, it's that philosophy is a waste of time.

>I failed calculus

give me 5 reasons why this mode of thinking is useful whatsoever

Science doesn't even claim to know in absolute terms, just know as far as what it has shown.

Even the most airtight theory will be discarded the moment some thing better comes along.

Exactly. Science assumes that we know what is meant by "knowing" something and works from there, skipping the whole pointless debate about "u can't kno nuffin".

So isn't that why science is ultimately productive? Facts are facts, throw the wrong ones out and move on. Philosophy? Let's argue and not come to any absolute conclusions, because that's useful and muh thought and mind expansion

> Five reasons
>Come to terms with death
Other then that it's not really useful I guess but I enjoy thinking this way, you may not but that is personal choice. I could argue that this view is a much more rational view seeing as I'm taking alot more things into perspective, realizing it is impossible at this state to grasp the true nature of reality.

>It is a paradox but it being a paradox doesn't make it invalid.

>The idea of god is a paradox
>We still have religion for some reason

There's no obvious reason, philosophically, to value facts or even to acknowledge them. Beyond even the problem of induction, facts are essentially "consensus reality", there's no obvious philosophical reason to assume they can be relied upon any more than other consensus findings, such as the consensus among religious people that god exists. Science works because it simply ignores the various philosophical reasons that it shouldn't work.

>philosophy is a waste of time.

Depends on what kind of philosophy you're referring to.

is this supposed to imply that the idea of god has merit?

Bait or just stupid?

No simply that other people believe in its existence but it is impossible to prove or disprove because it is unfalsifiable, you could say that based on a rational view that that God has not influenced you in anyway so it is irrelevant but you could not argue that what that person percieves is wrong because it is their experience.

If it's such a waste of time, "explain" to me why it led to the creation of science, math, and political theory, amongst other things.

Not really.

He is right though, a paradox is a logical problem, not an illogical problem.

Yeah because there are philosophies on how to live a good life, love, death, sadness and emotions, and politics many more

Simple: It didn't. Science in the sense of experimentalism doesn't owe it's existence to philosophy but to figures like Gallileo and Newton who conducted experiments to answer questions posed by math and astronomy, not in response to any kind of "experimentalist" movement in philosophy.

Yes really

The fact that it is a logical "problem" is what makes it invalid. You are literally trying to project your opinion that you wish a paradoxical argument was valid onto reality, even though it's not true. There are no problems with a logically valid statement.

>he doesn't realize Language is flawed
>he thinks Humans can solve any problem despite it being beyond our comprehension
Wewlad

The 50's was like the 90's but not quite as good

>I can't explain something fake into existence
>therefore language is flawed

Language is flawed...
Also I used the idea of god as an example to show that yes people can do this and they still do. If you believe the Universe is more complex then you yourself can understand then why would that make the paradox invalid. The paradox you are referring to "knowing that you cannot know" is a paradox through language and language is flawed

I'm guessing you don't know who Francis Bacon is.

Science works in most other metaphysical frameworks as well, and considering how problematic materialism is I'd rather not assume it.

>If you assume materialism is true, science works
science "works" without any need of metaphysical assumptions
before positivist autists made it into a vague meta-metaphysical framework under which all truths ought to be confined to, science worked(and still works) under purely utilitarian means, as in, finding models whose predictions are useful within an acceptable error, with no need to assume those models represent anything true underlying it

Well, a materialist in the metaphysical sense is someone who thinks everything in space and time is ultimately physical, but that doesn't include things that may exist outside of the spatio-temporal structure of the world (ie. universals, numbers, etc.) You may want to try physicalism instead

Materialists are usually fine, because most materialists end up weirder than most people allow for.

The problem is reductionists. They can only hide behind autism, because it's pure autism.

Read Santayana and still engage with literature, art, music, poetry, and all the fun, pleasant things in life.

actually in real life the know-nuffins end up being the most autistic if they really take it to the heart

most guys who says you can't know nuffin just say it in a hip way, they really don't think like that

it's like the church when your an underage, everyone says they believe, but only the autistic ones really believe, the other just use it for the pussy and the social game

To be fair, if materialism is done right, philosophy is only useful if you are bored or high.

You can fill your gaping void with materials and the fact that you know nothing is irrelevant because you surrounded yourself with material comforts.

I mean, do men who fuck trophy wives and snort cocaine worry about the fact they know nothing?

You know what else was a useful concept?
Religion.
Funny how it's usefulness doesn't stop materialists from trying to destroy it.

>I mean, do men who fuck trophy wives and snort cocaine worry about the fact they know nothing?

Ask Patrick Bateman

I don't know. I'd settle for some cocaine and hookers right now rather than having that moment where I realize I know nothing.

Wut

>inding models whose predictions are useful within an acceptable error, with no need to assume those models represent anything true underlying it

That's called nominalism, btw. And science can work without being a materialist. The 'ism' that science does not work without, however, is empiricism.