Positivism

>he hasn't taken Philosophy of Science class

Also, continuing on I'd say even if you were autistic and anal to actually experiment with, for example, plant biology in and environment which is absolutely replicable, it's results would probably be meaningless since it is of no use to know how plants grow under perfectably controlled circumstances unless you seriously want to produce all of our food in a room with thermostate and ultraviolet lights

I'll give postivism a proper hearing once I see hard data measuring exactly what the mind is, how it works, and (where) it is.

>scientifically verified
Meaningless buzzword brainlets throw around to sound smart..

How is it meaningless? It means that the scientific principle was applied and according to it the concept is true.
A theory was made, an experiment was conducted to see if the theory's predictions turn out, this was repeated multiple times and the mechanism published. Then the test was repeated by scientists worldwide so they can individually confirm if the predictions of the theory hold, and they all saw that they did. Thus it is scientifically verified.

>that the scientific principle
Meaningless buzzword brainlets throw around to sound smart...

>the concept is true
For the love of God read a real science book.

>A theory was made,
Out of what? 99.99% of the magic is in the making.

>an experiment was conducted to see if the theory's predictions turn out,
What kind of experiment? Any retarded monkey can curve fit and gather additional data points in the range and get the same results.

>this was repeated multiple times and the mechanism published.
Repeated how? Rereading the display screen is hardly impressive.

>Then the test was repeated by scientists worldwide so they can individually confirm if the predictions of the theory hold, and they all saw that they did.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh wait, you were serious? AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAahahahaaa, my fuckin sides. I cant breh...

Did you just learn that in middle school science?

Wasn't 'positivism' pretty much rekt when the Christians defeated Hellenism?

Religion is far worse by the same metrics because there are no hard data at all on any of their claims on mind so I don't know why you take it a fedora thing.

Honestly I only heard of positivism and sciencism when they are used by religionfags as some weird buzzwords to imply that you must worship science if you don't believe in a religion.

>because there are no hard data at all on any of their claims

"I know of no data so let me state absolutely that there is no data!"
"Why u call me autistic? REEE"

You are the one who sounds autistic though.
What kind of data do you have on souls for example?

>This
Also proponents of bs like Psychoanalysis use it.

That's not what scientism mean. It's describes people who don't believe in religious "cause science", only believe in "scientific verified" truths, believe "belief" must be replaced by the "scientific method", "fucking love science" yet don't know calculus, believe that if it's not science then it's bullshit, and other such autistic acts.

What a horrible anti-intellectual post. The philosophers you admire would choke you personally if they could read it.

>philosophers

That's your problem. Stop learning about science from popper and learn fucking science.

Honestly I only heard of people criticizing the idea of positivism and sciencism when they are done by Dakwins fanboys when people don't consider their condescension as high level intellectual argumentation.

You don't need a phd or being remotely smart to have a hard time believing religions and at least being aware of science producing tangible results even if you don't or can't really understand it personally.
Franckly I don't consider myself smart at all but I just don't believe in a religion because all of them make unlikely claims and ask you to have faith in them, they could be right but I don't really see the point of doing anything else but wait until one of them is proven right, if that's even possible.
Science seem to be at least an ok way to describe reality with a lot of results, so I'm not very skeptical of what mainstream science say even if I don't really understand much about science. (Not very smart, no higher scientific education,etc...)

What is your point? Yeah obviously STEM-like fedora wank is annoying but it's also annoying when religiousfags are ranting about positivism and sciencism every time someone express a materialist worldview or even doubts about religious beliefs.

>when pseuds get BTFO on forums by atheism+ kiddies

Fixed.

I've honestly never seen someone do this. I think you're blowing it out of proportion.

It's quite common on Veeky Forums or even Veeky Forums as a whole when religion is talked about.

>Franckly I don't consider myself smart at all but I just don't believe in historians because all of them make unlikely claims and ask you to have faith in them

>they could be right but I don't really see the point of doing anything else but wait until one of them is proven right, if that's even possible.

It is possible but requires you to look into it.

>skeptical
Being skeptical is just as bad as being gullible. Open mindedness (examining the arguments on all sides and then making an opinion/belief based on what's more reasonable) in the center like Aristotle taught is the only smart way to go about life.

>what study are you basing that one
you are diagnosed with cancer, do you go to a real doctor or try a fruitarian diet

>too autstic to understand the joke

What is there to examine in religions? almost everything in them is faith based except for some theistic philosophical arguments.
You could study theology all your life, you would still not truly learn about souls, because religion and spirituality is not a source of knowledge unlike science and philosophy.

People who think like this have a long way to go, spiritually

Spirituality is dumb as fuck and just magical thinking, at least most big religions are self-consistent and are based on more than how the dude contantly making up shit feels.

>examining the arguments on all sides and then making an opinion/belief based on what's more reasonable
That's good skepticism buddy

Positivism is a self-refuting meme

positivism may be a meme but what's actually wrong with empiricism as an account of the mind?
what epistemic faculty of the mind doesn't reduce to sense experience?
>memory stores sense experience and recalls it
>thought is just imagination which relies on memory
>feelings are sensations in the body
>etc

>almost everything in them is faith based
It's not really. If you read the Bible, and I mean really read it and try to understand it you'll find it's actually one of the most insightful collections of writings on the human condition ever assembled. You don't even need to accept any of the supernatural claims in it to derive a great deal of wisdom from it.

>Spirituality is dumb as fuck
Spirituality is essential for human life just as much as food and water is. The modern form of spirituality is a vague worshipping of science as the salvation of humanity

>what epistemic faculty of the mind doesn't reduce to sense experience
Self awareness

>it doesn't matter if we're inwardly consistent, at least I have muh science
>"daddy, do you love me?"
>sorry honey but that is an incoherent question
>love is just chemicals
self examining experience isn't. Hence either love really is incoherent, or positivism is simply incorrect in a universal application.

We are here aren't we?
>my entire frame of reference relies upon shared experience
>except for the experience of anyone who disagrees with me

Usually they cop out by claiming that you shouldn't let your intellectual knowledge affect you living your life or some such. The same thing nihilists do. "It's meaningful to meeee!", well by your own admitted philosophical stance on existence it's actually not but whatever.

why couldn't that just be a more complicated application of sense experience, like thought and memory are?

>Being skeptical is just as bad as being gullible.
>t. i don't know what skepticism is

Because self awareness doesn't derive from any sensory information. If I put you in a sensory deprecation pod and anesthetize you so you have no sensory input at all you can still think to yourself. Self awareness precedes sense experience.

bruh you can't kno nuttin
peeps who think they kno smthn is foolz yo

t. philosophy gang

>If I put you in a sensory deprecation pod and anesthetize you so you have no sensory input at all you can still think to yourself
that's because you have sensory memories
>Self awareness precedes sense experience.
how would you think of yourself if you had no sensory memories to serve as material for your thoughts?
self awareness is just some kind of concatenation of memory and imagination desu

That would make you an automaton. I know I'm not an automaton so your argument fails at the first test.

how would it make you an automaton?
i'm not saying sense experience is the only mental faculty, just the fundamental epistemic one
there is also the will

Oh please, you don't worship science if you don't believe Jesus was God or that souls and ghosts are real.
I never had a good reason to believe in the miracles of the Bible, devas and chakras and that's all, I don't see why religionfags and spirirualfags need to gang up since they basically don't agree on anything.
Maybe you only believe in souls and reincarnation while that other guy only believe in aliens, what is wrong with a third guy who completely lack any beliefs of that kind?
You can just happen to not have a religion or "spirituality" without even caring much about science.

>You can just happen to not have a religion or "spirituality" without even caring much about science.
That would make that person an animal since it's the thing that separates humans from apes. Knowing your raison d'etre is essential for human life, if you don't think about things then you're not human.

You can do that without having spiritual faith in that kind of things or a literal fedora using science in a religious way.

Ok then point to a single culture that has developed without any form of spirituality. Just one.

>in b4 "but they were primitive we know better now!"
Nope.

>another "im right because I say i'm right and i'l ignore everybody else who says otherwise" thread

So what? people with a "spirituality" cannot agree on anything or produce tangible results about the things they believe in, so most of them would be wrong even if one form of spirituality was true.
And I was talking on a individual level.

It's more the religiousfags here for once though.

>for once

>tip fedora

So was the Holocaust right or wrong? Remember to only use peer reviewed scientific evidence in your response

What does empiricism has to do with positivism anyway all criticism against the latter has to do with the fact that it autistically try to observe natural scientific laws that guide morality and evolutionary laws for society or stuff like that (Marx was, although supposedly a Hegelian Idealist, very very VERY much a positivist in his way of talking about history for instance)

Also, empiricism=/=scientifical method

Well it depends on how you define knowledge.

What exactly is knowledge? Is it a piece of information that is considered true about the world? If so, true by what standard?