To all the dumb physicists in here trying to give ontological character to their mathematical discourse (which is only descriptive of relational properties):
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phænomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy." -Isaac Newton
Robert Lewis
...
Chase Ramirez
Do i need to draw?
Lincoln Carter
...
Anthony Collins
holy shit OP is SUCH a HUGE faggot
Jayden Murphy
stfu
Joshua Flores
Call me when you have a physical theory that doesn't first order quantify over mathematical objects
Cooper Adams
Newton did some dumb stuff, he tried alchemy. Nobody's perfect. Nowadays, philosophy has no place. It based on bullshit and has no empirical basis like science. Basically, it's just the less evolved version of science.
Gavin Watson
>Nowadays, philosophy has no place. It based on bullshit and has no empirical basis like science. Basically, it's just the less evolved version of science.
That's literally what he's saying you dumbfuck.
Modern physics is not completely empirical, therego why i posted this.
Not even sure why i'm answering a memeing shitlord...
Robert Green
> modern physics is not completely empirical
Nigga, u wot?
Noah Ward
Are you fucking serious?
Easton Cooper
>wut is theoretical physics
>philosophy has no place wew lad
Jordan Jones
Yes, Aids Skrillex, I am.
> implying theoretical physics doesn't have a mathematical basis > implying theoretical physics doesn't have an empirical basis wew lad
Aaron Diaz
What would you call semantic analysis of speech-acts if not empirically based? How about the swathe of philosophers whose goal was to make the language of science *less* philosophical by formulating a vocabulary made purely of logical connectives and observational reports? What about the fact that the majority of professional analytic philosophers have advanced degrees in either physics or math or both?
Alexander Rivera
...
Tyler Nguyen
Tell me what gravity really is then
Mason Torres
A mathematical basis is not an empirical basis. I don't know about theoretical physics though.
Easton James
highschooler detected
Asher Perry
"Formulating a vocabulary of logical connectives and observational reports" in the rigid way philosophers try to do it is absolutely pointless. Describing scientific theories in natural language isn't "more philosophical" (whatever that means) than describing them using more formal methods.
The majority of analytic philosophers do *not* have "advanced" degrees in physics/math/both. Many have undergraduate preparation in math, combined with a few graduate courses (mostly straightforward topics). Only a handful have any graduate training in physics at all, and a small number have undergrad physics experience.
Anyway, who cares what they got their training in? Just read analytic philosophy, it's obviously worthless, and has only contributed to our knowledge of the external world (get it?) in mostly accidental ways (applications of nonclassical logics in computer science, etc.)
"Semantic analysis of speech acts" in the Fregean tradition is about as "empirically based" as the claim that the sun is some dude riding a chariot around the earth on a big track, cause it's obviously big and powerful, and it goes round and round in a similar fashion every day. Most reference-based semantics (especially model theory oriented stuff) has demonstrated NO success in describing anything in the real world. The concept of 'reference' isn't even properly defined (certainly not consistently!).
Most importantly, no proposal for any experiment towards the verification or falsification of any theory of meaning exists, that I know of. That's what most people mean when they ask if a theory or field has an 'empirical basis'.
Luis Barnes
>I define empirically as whatever strangers desired to be paid do in their labs and take on faith
fucking pleb
Oliver Ross
Are you an idiot? I said nothing of my definition of 'empirical', I just pointed out issues with the person I responded to's.
I don't take scientific findings on faith, either. I try and reproduce whatever I can after reading the literature (in math and physics), and I investigate other findings to the extent that I'm able (and I ask friends in the relevant disciplines whom I trust).
Nice job formulating the most vacuous response imaginable, though. I'm not even being sarcastic, I'm really impressed.
