Ancient philosophers: Everything has a reason why it is so, and not otherwise

>Ancient philosophers: Everything has a reason why it is so, and not otherwise

>Modern scientists: You can't know nuffin!

Who's right?

Attached: 1521168085893.jpg (510x826, 42K)

Modern scientists
See quantum mechanics, Goedels incompleteness theorem, etc.

Anyone who claims to have the answer to everything is most likely a brainlet. Skepticism and distrust of authority is good for progress.

>standard model
>complete

Pick one amigo

Also ancient philosophers:

>the Sun revolves around the Earth
>there are only 4 (or 5) elements
>the heart is the source of cognition and intellect, not the brain

Nice reading comprehension

We're not debating truth but the possibility of truth

>heliocentric model was first proposed in the 3rd century BC
>elemental reductionism is the cornerstone of modern atomic theory
>heart has an intimate relationship with the brain and imposes a tempo upon thinking (hence why transplant patients personalities change)

Anything else?

That was the very point he was making you absolute subhuman.

Ancient sophisters (Socrates exceptioned) professed to know everything based on nothing. Modern scientists realize we know nothing based on everything.

Maybe our science is just shit and we can't accept it

Maybe we should suspend absolute judgement and that broad reaching statements about science are retarded considering the complexity of the system. Maybe people in the future will have better cognitive and empirical tools to appreciate "reality" to a finer extent than we do at the moment.

I know this is hard for millennial but maybe the best choice is to shut up and observe.

:^)

Maybe empirical observation and experimentation are inherently limited and unreliable. Maybe the secrets of the universe lie between our ears. Maybe materialism is an untenable fiction

Saying ‘broad reaching statements about science are retarded’ IS a broad reaching statement about science, shiteater. You don’t know a cunting thing hence your desperation to be seen otherwise anonymously online. Continue parsing nonsense.

>Maybe empirical observation and experimentation are inherently limited and unreliable.

Which is why you're on a computer, a creation built upon the work and studies of thousands and thousands of scientists.

And maybe you should observe men before talking of materialism as a fiction. If I lobotomize you, would you attribute your change of cognition and perception to a soul?

But it is retarded. You're using a fucking computer. You honestly don't understand anything about the sciences when you're using a fucking medium that's been built on the experiments and discoveries of countless scientists.

Meanwhile lecherous and pedophiliatastic preachers attempt to dominate the world through faith in a single book. Fucking retarded.

CONT

and the funny thing is that the minute biochemical world is far more complex and strange than imagination. You would not believe in a God bound to human notions of simplicity and economy if you memorized countless pathways.

There are more things under heaven and earth than in the retarded shit you keep cycling between your ears.

>computers work, therefore the credibility of science is unquestionable

You can lobotmize me, and the effects will definitely be mirrored in my consciousness, but that doesn't prove any causal connection between brain and mind

Pretty sure the human brain has more neurons than the known universe has stars fucko

the way you view the world is called 'hubris'

>doesn't prove any casual connection

Okay fine then, we live in Al-Ghazali's hellish world of occasionalism. What's the point in discussing anything then? Maybe Allah has no sense of our form of rationality and acts wantonly. How can we discuss anything under the rule of a being whose psychology we can't infer?

But honestly, you can't live in a world full of drugs and medicine and say "nuh uh, it just appears that drugs and medicines affect the brain but not really because muh God lol".

And neurons themselves are higher level structures composed of many more minute parts. What's your point?

CONT

The whole "soul" bit gets me even more mad because there are millions of children with degraded cognition because of poor nutrition. You can literally get more retarded with stress, poor nutrition, and poor physical habits. If the world cared about those factors as much as it cared about retarded monotheisms, it would be a much better place.

The monotheists might even become kingdoms of the body and soul worthy enough for a god. Not fat evangelicals with impaired cognition and diabetes.

>>You can lobotmize me, and the effects will definitely be mirrored in my consciousness, but that doesn't prove any causal connection between brain and mind
How does it not prove that? Your brain is damaged and who you are as a person changes, how in the fuck can the mind still be something different from the brain given this?

Because they're retarded. Instead of using the "neuron network" analogy to make sense of mental illness, they want a "singular soul".

It's like they don't understand that certain schizophrenics have autonomous networks that feed "voices and mutterings" into the interface of consciousness. Well maybe all schizos are just evil people with evil souls and we should give up understanding them.

:^)

Ancient philosophers:
>The more I know, the more I understand I know nothing.

Medieval philosophers:
>Dis all Gawd and Shiet!

Modern philosophy of science:
>Well, the guys that were before seem right.

Modern Brainlets:
>...

Just learn to have fun and you'll be content enough to be productive, friendly, useful, interesting and more. Maslow sux for not putting fun in the very base of his pyramid, it's the most obvious if you work with elderly. No fun allowed geezers and grannies once sick, they melt in months, because they are too conservative to learn new and never knew any better. Sorry to post this again, but it's a tragedy.

I’ll side with the guys who didn’t think animals randomly generated from old food

>>Modern scientists: You can't know nuffin!

Ancient skeptics, who were philosophers said the same thing. Post Modernists say the same as well.

Actually, the stance of the modern scientific world view is that all knowledge is tentative and subject to revision if new discoveries are made.

It's true in the sense that the ancient skeptics showed a remarkable humility towards the world. That it'd be foolish to declare such and such when one only lives for so long and when one only covers a fraction of the world.

Post Modernists have a habit of imitating "can't know nuffin" while acting like acolytes of various leftists ideologies which claim the triumph of their hubris over ancient skepticism.

Do you even double aspect theory senpai?

So you’re just butthurt about politics then and won’t actually argue the philosophy itself

?

I thought I was agreeing with the ancient skeptics, no?

I thought I was deriding the post modernists as elevating their politics-of-the-day over the entirety of human thought. No?

>Everything has a reason why it is so, and not otherwise.
What do you think axioms and brute facts are user?

the ancients

nihilism is self-negating: if you can't know anything then you can't know that you can;t know anything, thus making your argument false

>BRRRRAAAAAAAAPPPP

>science became a religion where questioning a scientists methods is heresy

Attached: Mann Made Climate Change.png (830x370, 31K)

Eratosthenes was the one with the correct model. But just by dumb luck. Archimedes was the smarter mathematician/astronomer

Attached: 1506657831602.gif (645x773, 9K)

Socrates was an ancient Philosopher. One of the greatest.

What was it he said about knowing nothing again?

>a bad example
>all science is invalid and corrupt

>.gif

This