What is with popular scientists/empiricists and being insufferable pedants...

Considering yours was "hurrdurr we got to the moon cuck" it's on par - I'm not the guy you were replying to either.

Well I'm not the guy who was replying to the other guy old chap, so I guess we have no outstanding issues.

NDT is known for being the "well actually," guy of Twitter. That's probably what OP is talking about, and this "Rationalia" bullshit is just the latest in smugly satisfied posts.

Prove that murder is wrong using scientific evidence. I'll wait.

>how do we solve world hunger?

LET'S GO TO THE MOON!

What does strong anti-empiricism have to do with either Marburg or Baden neo-Kantianism?

NDT is doing the same thing that Sagan did, popularizing science. And it is not a bad thing.

we cant prove anything right or wrong based on scientific evidence. we would still need an underlaying framework by which we can decide that something is good/bad for the society. the most rational one would be a utilitarian one despite its "holes" (utility monster etc)

It's not even strong anti-empiricism. It's just anti-positivism. Empiricism is a powerful tool we can use to obtain useful information, but it has blind spots like many analytical frameworks, namely in ethics, which, if you were to found a country and write a constitution and penal code, you would need to use something other than empirical evidence because of the is/ought problem.

Science isn't about 'why,' user, it is about 'why not?'

So you're saying empiricism has limitations and that the society NDT based entirely on positivistic garbage is inherently unable to formulate ethics. Which is OP's point. Define utility by the way.

that is a wholly irresponsible position for science to take

>empiricism is limitless
this is what you're saying. It either has limits or it doesn't. That's the way it goes.

>Responsibility
Once you figure out a way to measure responsibility , science will become concerned with it .

Weight based evidence? Alright, In the United States, African Americans are responsible for about 50% of homicide but make up under 15% of the population, does this mean we get rid of them lol? Is that what your trying to say Neil?

What's more important: freedom or safety? Answer this question empirically, please.

tweet it at him

It should be about the 'why' when hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line. That being said, developing space technology is probably a net win in the long run.

NDT gets up on his high horse way more than Sagan ever did tho.
He's always doing this "I'm the smartest guy in the room thing" with everyone, even when he's not the expert on the subject at hand. He's also not even like the smartest astrophysicist around.
Like it's good he's popularizing science, but he can just be smug and obnoxious sometimes.

/pol/ go

so until then, science has no standards to be measured by and can suck its own dick while millions of people starve or die from disease?
ok user.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

That's such an oversimplification of statistics that it's dumbfounding. Nearly all black people in America live in ghettos. Crime statistics in white and native American ghettos are extremely comparable.

I hope that in place of your ignorance of worldly things, you are a dedicated aesthete. Good day.

Don't post your selfies here, stemfaggot

So if I see a black person on the street, according to you, I would be justified in thinking he would be more violent than a white person, given the higher rate that blacks live in ghettos. Because that's what you're saying

Not seeing the problem here.

Yes. And remember that envy is ugly user.

It is, but there's no evidence to believe this is racial.

>tfw empiricism cannot into normativity
>tfw writing a constitution in the first place isn't evidence-based
>tfw positivism just wont die in spite of being fundamentally pants-on-head-retarded

>"but we went to the moon!"
Which was the US showing its technological strength, and spurned on by a famous presidential speech. The scientific progress was almost accidental. It would be funny if it weren't so sad

They're not though.

Empiricism can't into causality.

I didn't think Neo-Humeans were a real thing.

Scientific inquiry requires more than habits/trends and, in short, educated guesses, which is all empiricism has to offer when it comes to events which cannot be entirely experienced with our senses.

Trips of truth

You think Sagan wouldnt have used twitter the exact same way? He was pre-social media and still had plenty of little quips on atheism and society

fortunately i'll never know, so i can pretend like he wouldn't
but he probably would have

>tfw you rape your fourth little kid to death in #Rationalia while all the nerds are frantically trying to find evidence that it's wrong to do so

>Tfw autists don't realize that metaphysics is the queen of science

>tfw people don't know that metaphysics is dead

>tfw people think Heidegger killed it

Underrated post.

Where to begin with Heidegger?

And why?

Unlike Nietzsche, he doesn't have the excuse of a sneaky sister for his Nazi associations.

>Please tell me what got us to the moon, you insufferable cuck.
And what did that give us? Fuckin' nothing.

If you want to waste your time playing with your space toys that is fine but let grown ups do real stuff that is actually important.

>mfw scientific retards are becoming the new Christfags
>mfw science becoming a new dogma

200 years ago called they want credit for their realization

You're alright for a frogposter.

>le black science man XD
>stating crap that was already debunked by XIX century Law doctrine.

He could at least read about Hans Kelsen if he wanted to do the "scientific approach" to Law, Jesus Christ.

>becoming

Could you explain? Or at least point me towards what Kelsen to read to understand the context.

There's no denying that Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party, and he did, at least at some point, harbor some anti-Semitic-adjacent views. He did in his later years say negative things about fascism, but never really acknowledged his anti-Semitism.
I personally abhor fascism/anti-Semitism, but Heidegger is my favorite philosopher.

His political leanings don't explicitly inform his thought, even if they implicitly do, but I find that what he says is much wider reaching than why he says it. So even if anti-Semitism or Nazism is somehow related to his philosophy, I don't think they're necessary to come to the conclusions he does.

Heidegger is important (to me anyway) because his thought runs counter to the Western ideas about consciousness that developed in the wake of Descartes, namely dualism. He argues that the human being is a unique being that experiences/"founds" its existence on "care," or concern for how entities/ideas are interrelated and oriented toward the being of Dasein, or the human being.

What first made me sort of "get" what Heidegger was talking about was his essay "What Is Metaphysics," and then I also think "The Origin of the Work of Art" is a good introduction to Heideggerian concepts. Being and Time is obviously the most thorough explanation of his thought, but it utilizes idiosyncratic jargon that can be difficult to follow without some context. His later essays/lectures, like the one's I mentioned, are more straightforward.