Holy fuck, physicists BTFO

>Because during the process billions are embezzled in the name of selfish egotism.

Well spooked, my property.

has he made fable good yet?

>don't spray bullets at my childs brain invent an iphone
>Literally not an argument
That wasn't the argument, and it's proof you're being avoidant.
The argument is: produce something or you don't have a right to tax money.

Do you have a counter-argument?
No. You use denialism.
>Confirmation Bias detected.
>Circular Logic detected.
>Denialism detected.
>Psychotic detected.

>produce something or you don't have a right to tax money.

Not an argument.

>I don't have an IQ as high as einstein
>I cant appreciate the significance of science stuff
>Stop investing money into advancing the human race
>Start making things average humans can appreciate like iphones and mcdonalds

Muuuuhhhhh wishes

>do something the market wants!

He's a communist and he doesn't even know it

It is an argument.
If you don't produce anything, then you're not doing anything.

>I don't have an IQ as high as einstein
Einstein didn't have a high IQ.
My IQ is higher than Einstein's.

>I cant appreciate the significance of science stuff
It's not science if the scientific method isn't used.
Hypothetical Sciences aren't sciences.

>Stop investing money into advancing the human race
If they're not producing anything, which is his argument, then they're not helping anyone

>Start making things average humans can appreciate like iphones and mcdonalds
His argument is that they should produce SOMETHING, not all those straw man arguments you injected in there

I hate being the only perfectly intellectual honest people on Veeky Forums and most probably on the planet.

Do you people even understand how intellectual honest benefits everyone to extreme degrees?

If everyone is honest, then no money or time are wasted.
If no money or time are wasted, we can fix absolutely everything. EVERYTHING.

Wouldn't you like to hop on a transport, go skydiving, have sex, play games, go swimming, and then off to a good nights rest?
Any time you want?

THE ONLY REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE THIS IS BECAUSE SELFISH EGOTISTS PROMOTE ANTI-INTELLECTUAL SELFISHNESS.

And they're not benefitting either.

>do something the market wants!
>He's a communist and he doesn't even know it
That's not communism.
Private ownership + marketing =/= Communism
However
Taxes + Non-productivity = Communism

>Taxes + Non-productivity = Communism

simply ebin fallacy

Replace "market" with "people" and you'll see he's a communist. He's also a Marxist.

>people are smart enough to not be ruled over by people who know what's best for them

your profound oversimplification and naive idealism combined with SJW-tier rage is making you hard to place.

my guess:
1. You're still in HS and have been taking the rants of bitter liberal arts teachers to heart.

2. You're a non-stem freshman in uni and just had a bad experience with an introductory science course.

3. You read way too many trash blogs on uber-biased "liberal" sites written by special snowflakes who are obsessed with themselves and their feelings.

4. You're a full-blown anti-science zealot who believes in left vs right brain, GMO, organic foods, and alternative medicine.

It is true that playing with big electric toys doesn't guarantee that it will result in anything useful to the market or the societys benefit. It may even end up bad like another atomic bomb type WMD.

does anyone have a credible argument for why this money shouldn't go to funding engineering or basically to sectors that are dedicated to fulfill the publics demand ?

>He asks them to produce something, and states they should not receive any tax money unless they can offer poofs or contribute in some fashion.
Let's make science a Russian roulette where you can either kill yourself because your research didn't improve iphones nor revolutionized theoretical science, or you actually belong to that 1%. I am sure it won't discourage even people who are the 1% and lower the education levels nation wide. All in the name of muh iphone and muh tax money as spoken by entitled retards who can't see more that the size of their TV.

This.

The guy is a prime example of "scary stupid." If he was in charge, just think how much damage the deficiencies in his brain would cause humanity.

>It is an argument.

It is not an argument. There is no reasoning given.

It is a(n incorrect) statement.

>If they're not producing anything, which is his argument, then they're not helping anyone

Zero proof provided that they produce nothing.

>I hate being the only perfectly intellectual honest people [sic] on Veeky Forums and most probably on the planet.

ad hominem fallacy

>Do you people even understand how intellectual honest [sic] benefits everyone to extreme degrees?

Not an argument.

>If everyone is honest, then no money or time are wasted. [sic]

Not an argument.

>If no money or time are wasted [sic], we can fix absolutely everything. EVERYTHING.

Not an argument.

>Wouldn't you like to hop on a transport, go skydiving, have sex, play games, go swimming, and then off to a good nights rest?
>Any time you want?

changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/wishful_thinking.htm

>THE ONLY REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE THIS IS BECAUSE SELFISH EGOTISTS PROMOTE ANTI-INTELLECTUAL SELFISHNESS.

Prove it.

>And they're not benefitting either.

Not an argument.

Denialism fallacy

>Replace "market" with "people" and you'll see he's a communist. He's also a Marxist.
Literally "if you change what he said, then he's x!"

>>people are smart enough to not be ruled over by people who know what's best for them
Non-sequitur wordsalad

Literally loaded with nothing but ad hominem fallacies

I'm actually against factions and biases of all kinds, but if you have to label me, then label me a centrist or a libertarian.

I'm also exceptionally pro-science and pro-logic, and that's the issue here.
Science uses the scientific method.
Logic uses the socratic method.
If you're not producing results or are using fallacies, then you're neither scientific nor being logical.

I don't believe in anything related to doxa, and in fact point out people that use doxa, fallacies, biases and are subject to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

All of what you said it pure BULVERISM.
Ad hominems based on conjecture are always irrational.

>Zero proof provided that they produce nothing.
The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. That is what the burden of proof means.
Google it.

>I hate being the only perfectly intellectual honest people [sic] on Veeky Forums and most probably on the planet.
It's not ad hominem fallacy unless I dismissed an argument based on a personal attack.
I didn't. I dismissed an argument based on it's use of denialism. I didn't dismiss the conclusion.

Anyway, the rest of your nonsense is just nonsense.
If you don't have any proof, then there is no reason to listen to you.
That's how science works.
:)

>denialism fallacy

>communism/ˈkɒmjʊnJz(ə)m/
noun

>a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Nice attempt at the fallacy fallacy though.

> everyone is calling each other non-sequitor, ad-hominem and fallacy.
I have no idea whats going on in this thread.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

Dumb man having dumb views on problems he does not understand. Here we had the physics edition.

>Doesn't it ever make you wonder why Academics and Scholars and Intellectuals lean left?

>mfw

The ones that really mattered didn't lean that way user

>Von Neumann
>Newton
>Gauss
>Kepler
>Euler

Just to name a choice few off the top of my head

I'd wager $1000 you can't name a left leaning individual who's come close to matching the impact any one of those men have had on mankind.

so what's your problem or argument again?

the video was just some butter-brained scrub opining on issues he clearly cant comprehend and has no qualification to speak of.

what's your argument and your reasoning?

there is seriously way too much semantics in this thread, we are approaching critical levels.

stem people don't care about fallacy spamming and definition googling, please keep it in line with the board.

ITT:
- Ad hominems
- If we switch what he says, then he's crazy
- Flat out denialism
- Fallacies

This guy irritates me to no end even when I agree completely with what he's saying.

He has the balls to raise valid points and concepts I'll give him that, but he needlessly over-complicates thing, probably so can continue to view himself as being more intelligent than he really is.

nice binaural denilaistic fallacy

>burden of proof
The burden of proof applies to those who assert the claim. You asserted the claim that they produce nothing without providing proof of your claim, ergo you lack warrant.

>It's not ad hominem fallacy unless I dismissed an argument based on a personal attack.
>I didn't. I dismissed an argument based on it's use of denialism. I didn't dismiss the conclusion.

No you dismissed their arguments by personally calling them intellectually dishonest.

>Anyway, the rest of your nonsense is just nonsense.

Not an argument.

>If you don't have any proof, then there is no reason to listen to you.

That would be the case if I lacked proof.

>That's how science works.
>:)
Not argument.

Can you even speak of left and right in Newton's times?
>Von Neumann
I dunno, people sometimes call me left leaning but I would totally nuke ZSRR.

nice fallacy fallacy.

I 100% support the use of force against other people for my benefit by the way.
Stirner is far more convincing than molyneux.

I wish Stef would get a real job that is productive unlike running a cult.

>ctrl+f fallacy
13 matches
>ctrl+f argument
28 matches

holy shit take this low-brow drivel back to pol or whatever libtard board it clearly originated from and stop trying to impress everyone with your fancy words

I can't believe I have to post this:
*facepalm*

>Said the Sophists about Socrates

nice fallacy fallacy fallacy. Is that why you shitpost with binary strawman non-sequitors rather than using arguments ? Your ad-hominems are showing

This video illustrates perfectly the problem with hard-line libertarians.

This guy believes his iPhone is possible without public subsidization, but it's not. Breakthroughs in engineering are permeated on EVERY LEVEL with public money, and that's not even counting the skilled workers who make it all possible being put through school by federal grants.

Technology isn't driven by demand, demand is driven by the secrets we discover.

THIS MAN WANTS ME SHOT AND MY CHILDREN RAPED

HE IS THE RESULT OF CHILD ABUSE NOT AN ARGUMENT

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

>who cares

These people are the fucking worst. That attitude will sure get us far as a species. Why are we electing presidents, why are we moving towards technological improvement?! What a fucking idiot.

>The burden of proof applies to those who assert the claim.
Yes, and the claim is that theoretical sciences are a science. They provide no proof.
The burden is on them.

>No you dismissed their arguments by personally calling them intellectually dishonest.
No, their arguments were intellectually dishonest, so I dismissed them.
You have it backwards.

>Anyway, the rest of your nonsense is just nonsense.
>Not an argument.
Never said it was.
My counter-arguments still hold, so I don't have to defeat loaded questions or loaded accusations.

You must prove your case for it to be taken seriously.

>If you don't have any proof, then there is no reason to listen to you.
>That's how science works.
>Not argument.
>That would be the case if I lacked proof.
Then you must provide the proof.
Otherwise it is an argument.

All claims require proof.
But all truths do not.
There are unknown unknowns.
But to make a claim is to claim a known known.
That requires proof.

>This guy believes his iPhone is possible without public subsidization
Argument from ignorance is a fallacy

>Breakthroughs in engineering are permeated on EVERY LEVEL with public money, and that's not even counting the skilled workers who make it all possible being put through school by federal grants.
False dilemma is a fallacy

You can't claim to know what could have been done without taxes.

You should just label those people that says "who cares" and restrain their rights for making public remarks and decisions forever since they don't care, so the people who care can make decisions without these retards interfering.

That's a straw man argument.
No on said that but you.
And so from this point on, since you're the only nutjob making those claims, no one here is going to take your criticisms serious because they're non-sequiturs.

Existential fallacy users like you two nutjobs are the worst.
You can't take a criticism against X and then lie and say it's an argument against ABCD...etc.

If you can, then you can do that for all arguments against anything.

You have no idea how the socratic method nor scientific methods work.

Do you even understand methods?
No. You do not.

It is satire of stefan though. You really do not understand what an argument is do you?

Before you try and dodge the question by accusing it of being a fallacy, you should realise that it is a question, not an argument.

Stefan is a weirdo

I am not even the one being addressed here. He is trying to influence other people by saying "My opinion is that nobody cares about this subject so nobody should even have an opinion". And I'm simply saying that since you don't care, you will be left out.

Your mad-hominem bi-tetrahedral nonuniform fallacies can't help you here.

Literally
>My straw man argument isn't an [bad] argument
>I can say my straw man arguments are satire to avoid criticism
"I was just pretending to be stupid. Fooled you!"

Agreed. I think he's a weirdo and a liar most of the time, but many of his criticisms are sound time to time.

>Yes, and the claim is that theoretical sciences are a science. They provide no proof.

No. The claim that YOU made was that they produce nothing. If you cannot provide proof of YOUR claim then do not make the claim.
You can prove a negative (see the law of non-contradiction) and there is zero reason to think that the burden of proof applies to only positive claims

>The burden is on them.
No. It is on you.

Saying I have no proof does not make it so, by the way.

Just so you know, I am no longer going to reply to you. I hope you do not get this mistaken for a concession, you dishonest intellectual lightweight.

>You can't claim to know what could have been done without taxes.

You also can't know what discoveries we might have missed if we relied on bringing products to market as our sole source of advancement. For example: all that money our grandparents spent on NASA probably jumped the worldwide level of technology ahead 50 years. Stuff they did in the 60's-80's has trickled down into every facet of every life on the planet.

Maybe Stefan is right, though. I'm sure we'll all be just fine in another 50 years if we can just concentrate on making better iPhones.

Literally a strawman.

mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

molyjew savagely BTFO

nice strawman

>He is trying to
Presupposition fallacy
>A very common fallacy based on ego, mind projections, induction, paranoia, etc.

>"My opinion is that nobody cares about this subject so nobody should even have an opinion"
No one has ever said that though.
You're a liar trying to use "implications"... which is always irrational.

>And I'm simply saying that since you don't care, you will be left out.
No one is criticising that.
The criticism is your straw man attacks where they say they don't care. If they're communicating via polemics, then they care they're just on the opposing side of the debate.

>Your mad-hominem bi-tetrahedral nonuniform fallacies can't help you here.
I don't use fallacies. I've been tested.
- C4 Chicago
- Medical Center Chicago
- KP Los Angeles

I don't appreciate when people use fallacies, biases, etc.
They're what's fucking everything up.

FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY
FAGGACY FAGGACY FAGGACY FAGGACY
HOLY SHIT JUST SHUT UP I THOUGHT LIBERAL ARTS STUDENTS WERE AT LEAST SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD AT CONVERSATIONS YET THIS IS GOING NOWHERE

Straw man =/= Satire
You are using a straw man argument
Saving this thread

thats literally a non-eucliden fallacy based on appealing to self bias and denialism

>philosophers

This.
Fucking leave and never come back.

Checking for errors in presumptions [fallacies] is part of the scientific method.

You can't support an argument with fallacies.
The real question is why would you want to?
What kind of anti-intellectual believes lies should be used to make arguments?
The bullying, egotistical, extremely irrational, unstable kind.

And don't use the fallacy-fallacy here because it's already been corrected in the thread that pointing out fallacies isn't the fallacy-fallacy.

Literally
>fuck reason and evidence
>assholes demanding reason and evidence!
>fuck them! my ego is entirely based off fallacies!
>they say fallacies are illogical! fuck logic!
>fuck logic I can still be scientific is I say fuck logic!

>If you don't produce anything, then you're not doing anything.

The thing is that they actually produce something : a bunch of papers and PDFs that are generally worth between $50 and $90 a piece.
Companies, journalists, universities and rich nerds buy those papers.
Selling knowledge this way is fundamentally a capitalist thing, I don't understand why you aren't content with that.

>Literally everything ever created has started it's life as a hypothesis or as part of some contrived theory.
>"WAHHHHH WAY ISNT EVERYTHING USEFUL RIGHT NOW, I NEED A BETTER IPHONE."

And that right there is the ultimate normie. It's sad that people honestly think like this, but it's inevitable end product of a modern society that promotes instant pleasure and gratification over long term goals and planing. The worst part is, I can practically guarantee that user here thinks he's part of an enlightened minority. Like I said sad but unsurprising.

We should let people opt out of paying taxes...

and then not allow them to use any products, services, or infrastructure even one cent of tax money bought.

Literally a strawman.

>scientists are worse than academics
???

>fucking physicists, go be useful instead unraveling the secrets of the universe !
>from a philfag

You're arguing over the OPINION of a philosopher who presented zero proof for his claims on the science board.

Instead of providing an argument, or evidence that supports his opinion, this thread has just turned into retards spouting 'fallacy'.

The only anti intellectual here is you. Take this shit to Veeky Forums.

Prove it.

Straw man.
Argument is that scientists should focus on production.

And here you are samefagging a third time.
You don't know how science works because you reject logic.
You keep using straw man arguments and then act like an infant by calling all criticisms of your straw man arguments... straw man arguments

Don't you have burgers to flip ?
Chop chop !

>scientists should focus on production.
Not an argument

>scientists should focus on production.
see

>Prove it.

That was 'Literally' not my position. Get fucked retard.

That is also the only post of mine that you quoted. You sure are paranoid for somebody who enjoys hurling baseless accusations of mental illness.

For what it is worth, I fully support the use of force against you.

Not only is none of that true, it's ridiculous.
We're on a science debate board debating on whether theoretical sciences that don't promote testing or production are really science and should have access to taxes.

That's always been the argument.
Then people starting being illogical and started using fallacies.
You can't be illogical and promote science.

And Epistemology belongs in Veeky Forums not Veeky Forums.
You could debate if it belongs in Veeky Forums but not Veeky Forums.

Philosophy is not: Everything is right or wrong until proven.
Philosophy is: Claims require proof and evidence and presumption is not proof nor evidence.

It's a form of deduction and deduction is used in science.

You can't use fallacies to support conclusions, albeit false arguments can confidently be used to support correct conclusions.

Emotionally psychotic ad hominem attack.

>scientists should focus on production.
>Not an argument
Yes it is. You don't know what arguments are.

Circle jerking is a product

Yes it is. You promote the uses of fallacies.
End of story.
The only thing your posts have been about are the right to use fallacies to make claims.
You're illogical.

>For what it is worth, I fully support the use of force against you.
Then you're either a mentally ill narcissist or a psychopath.

arent u the faggot the mirrors people arguments against them when they point out youre being irrational?

mirror arguments and denials are not logic

i cant seriously believe you think mirror arguments mean anything

>a cat meows for food
>this psychotic kicks the cat and screams "meow" at them

I know.
He rejects the socratic method but thinks science can be promoted with presumptions.
Then he acts like a child mirroring people and attacking them.
It would be insulting if he wasn't such a child.
He doesn't even understand how logic works.

Apatheism FTW.

>logic has no place in science
>science is an authoritarian meme
stupid people actually believe this

>Apatheism
Straw man. And you keep using that same straw man.

The argument is against non-productive studies that call themselves sciences and demand rights to taxes.

Stop being a psychotic and just accept that.
You actually have to.
>"I don't HAVE to accept other people's arguments when I can use straw man fallacies!"

>You don't know what arguments are.
But I do

>Hypothetical Sciences aren't sciences.

All science is hypothetical. That's how you start, with a hypothesis. then you try to disprove that hypothesis.

Are you in school? Haven't they taught this yet? Don't you know what science even is?

btw, authoritarian nutjob... if you think fallacies can be used rationally, then you're psychotic.

That's actually how psychosis is determined.

>Circle jerking is a product
So you do agree that they actually produce something that sells ? What is your problem then ?
If it's about the value of the product, as I told you, those papers are expensive and bought by companies, journalists and any private educational facility worth its salt.
If you think that's not enough, then I guess we should also exterminate 99% of the population according to your ideology because they aren't smart enough to design new iPhones™.

Yes. Google Polemics.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't have an argument.

In fact, if someone disagrees and provides reasons why, that is an argument.

If they point out your uses of fallacies, then that too is an argument against your argument.

The idea that you think someone can never legitimately criticize you proves you're psychotic.

Hey, illiterate faggot.
That's the wrong argument.
This was point out literally 6 times already:
Most Science are science.
There are SOME studies that promote the idea of being scientific when they are in fact purely hypothetical but do not move on to testing.

To be a science, you must move on to testing.
End of line.

The scientific testing is NEVER just
>I have a hypothesis
>I can not test it, call it a theory and never do anything else
That isn't science.

>Yes it is. You promote the uses of fallacies.
>End of story.
>The only thing your posts have been about are the right to use fallacies to make claims.
>You're illogical.

Incorrect. I just do not see the value of this thread to Veeky Forums. It is the opinion of a philosopher. That is all. It is no more relevant to here than a thread about an individual school child's opinion of science.
>We're on a science debate board debating on whether theoretical sciences that don't promote testing or production are really science and should have access to taxes.

The allocation of taxes belongs on /pol/.

There has been no proof presented that they produce nothing (the burden of proof does fall on him for asserting that claim). But if the thread was about whether they do produce things or not, it would be Veeky Forums relevant. But it isn't.

>And Epistemology belongs in Veeky Forums not Veeky Forums.
>You could debate if it belongs in Veeky Forums but not Veeky Forums
This thread was not originally about epistemology, if it became relevant to Veeky Forums does not retroactively justify its creation. I will not argue whether it should go to Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums, molyneux could be considered relevant to both of these boards, as philosophy is allowed on both IIRC.

>Then you're either a mentally ill narcissist or a psychopath.

Not an argument.

But I'm curious user, why does somebody not valuing YOUR welfare, make THEM a narcissist or a psychopath?

ITT:

To be a science you don't need the whole scientific method

Science doesn't need logic

Hypothesis and Theory are the same thing

True Science can be illogical

I know you are but what am I

[These are the actual arguments provided here]

See
You just got the blown the fuck out in less than a paragraph.

Logic always must be intact when it comes to science. Your personal attacks and fallacies are ridiculous.
Do you have proof to support your claims?
No.
You're illogical.

...

Try again

>But I'm curious user, why does somebody not valuing YOUR welfare, make THEM a narcissist or a psychopath?

That's the actual definition you idiot.
You're an anti-science psychopath that doesn't understand how logic works.
Do you even understand logical sequences, or do you just jump all over the place?
Well, we have proof here that you just jump all over the place and when people as for poof, you rage and misuse terms.
>not an argument
>fuck, fallacies are rational
You're delusional.