Veeky Forumstards think so reductively they think they can reduce all decision-making and ethics to 'molecules' and...

nice strawman retard whatever helps you feel better about your liberal arts degree

Learn what a strawman means, retard.

You would have to have made an argument prior to the thread in order for the OP to have been a strawman.

I said "Modern scientific method" but whatever floats your boat, friend!

Except his argument on causality is still relevant today and literally nobody has defeated it.

Name one individual.

>You would have to have made an argument prior to the thread in order for the OP to have been a strawman.

But u can't kno nuffin, he could have made an argument that very well could have been strawmanned by this very OP U CANT KNO NUFFIN
WELCOME TO MCDICKS U CANT KNO NUFFIN

There is only THE scientific method and it existed before Popper.

I'm on the fence and I'm going to sit this one out. I can't say I'm smart enough to defend scientists' position. I suspect they aren't as dumb as you're painting them, however. I'm sure they are aware of these arguments and have some legitimate reasons for rejecting them. I haven't read or heard these arguments, nor have I read or heard any scientists speak on this, specifically. So I can't really argue about it.

I know that Kant, for his part, basically irreversibly BTFO philosophical rationalism, essentially saying that truth is not absolute. I guess that's why continental philosophy has been in such a sorry state ever since he died. Meanwhile, analytic philosophy and empiricism seem to be doing okay. Hume was an empiricist btw.

Nice sperging out, loser.

Laughing at you right now, go ahead, make another reply so I can continue laughing at you, retard.

You philosophically uneducated philistine swine. Hume's problem of induction was never meant to disprove science. On the contrary, to Hume, science or the scientific method was the solution to the problem of induction.

>There is only THE scientific method and it existed before Popper.

Name this method for me, friend :^).

You think all scientists throughout history or in recent history have followed a particular method :^)?

My point is that for some reason, philosophers seem to prefer to sat that science is flawed instead of David humes argument even though it's pretty clear that scientific method has succeeded in every way. Like some other user said, why would you try to have the world fit your narrative instead of otherwise? The best thing about science is that it's pretty flexible and will adapt to whatever seems to best represent whatever phenomenon you are studying. This means that yes, if you find out there is a black swan, you will take that into account and revise your knowledge to change it. But for some reason philosophy majors interpret this as if you DESTROYED science.

...

>You philosophically uneducated philistine swine

Stopped reading right there.

Nice to see you got the message.

Yes, the message that you're retard.

Thanks for playing.

Where was the observation in Copernicus Heliocentrism :^)?

Where was the "experiment" :)?

Where was the prediction :^)?

No we don't, those are fedoras.

...

The fact that science is reproducible is not evidence for the fact that science is "correct" or "optimal".

Astronomy is not a science. Try astrology.

Kant was blown the fuck out himself by Quine.

Heliocentrism has been replaced by relativity, philosocuck.

So instead of answering my question because you couldn't, you decided to pull a strawman instead?

Thanks for playing :^)

>Astronomy is not a science.

>>>/lebigbangtheory/

Alright, you won, oh wise one. Now tell me please, how does philosophy justify the scientific method?

His model predicted the position of certain stellar bodies at certain times which were measured by him.
And no scientits say it is completely correct or without the possibility of change. But we have some security considering all modern infrastructure and technology is built upon this. For some reason, that science itself cannot give, science works splendidly. This is at least some reason to believe that science is doing something differently that is worth investigating about.

>His model predicted the position of certain stellar bodies at certain times which were measured by him.

Sounds a lot like taking the data to fit the theory to me :^)

No, if your theory predicts something, you test it. If it fails, then change your theory if it matches your prediction, test it in other ways. That was also why his model was superceded by Kepler's.

Sounds a lot like taking the data to fit the theory to me :^)

>If it fails change your theory

Exactly, a lot like taking the data...and adapting it to fit the theory to me :)

Well then you are retarded.

1) The hard problem of consciousness is that we don't have a physical explanation for the subjective phenomena of consciousness. Consciousness is a streaming event while the brain is an organization of discrete and disjointed events(neurochemical reactions). Consciousness is not only a unity but a substantial unity, because we retain our identity even through experiences of unconsciousness(we go to sleep at night and wake up as the same entity the next day). The information structure in the brain is insufficient to properly explain the substantialy unity of consciousness. The events in the brain are more akin to bouncing billiard balls against one another in a chain reaction as they are connected but only in a one-to-one relationship and lack a relationship with the whole in a continuous manner.

There is also the phenomena of the electromagnetic field which hypothetically could connect all of these events. However, we run into a similar problem because the electromagnetic field is quantized as discrete entities, electromagnetic waves. How is one part(current of electromagnetic force) informed of all other parts? It isn't. We run into a conundrum where our current understanding of science can not produce a physical system which adequately explains the phenomena of consciousness.

2)
However, we can use the flaws of the brain(and EMF) argument to produce what we should expect from a physical system that explains consciousness. Consciousness is a self-refrential knowing, that is to say, you know that you know. Much like how computers know certain programs or are informed of them, your consciousness is a process that is informed of its own informational processesing. This informational processing is integrated harmoniously. Looking at it from a reductionist stand point, a single act of knowing is informed by a congolmeration of knowing, and simultaneously informs a congolomeration of knowing of itself. This process is also physically unified through a substratum.

Investigating this substratum produces a knowable physical system that explains consciousness. Trying to use current known phenomena, we can try to invent a new phenomena which possesses the qualities we are looking for. It could be a super-imposed wave of quantumwaves which are all entangled non-locally (as posited by Karl Pribram) or could be a sublte-energy field which unifies all of the electromagnetic waves into a seamless whole, possessing the integrated informational processing we have come to expect. Finally, we can use another new phenomena, which we will call the soul. The soul would be a monad(simple physical unit) with an abstract nature of awareness much like how electrons have the abstract nature of a negative charge.

3)
When we come to a crossroad of hypothesises, we often turn to Occam's razor. Normally we try to use old phenomena to explain new phenomena but as the phenomena we are analyzing are all new physical phenomena, occam's razor doesn't help much yet. Then we try to use the most simple and elegant explanation and in my opinion that would be the soul. I think it is a simpler structure (but would require another mental monad to connect it to the brain), and it is certainly the most elegant which fits the greater design of the universe.

What is the purpose of the brain then? The brain could be a manner of empowering the soul with energy.

That is why I believe in the soul.

haha I'm laughing at you go ahead and respond again to my totally ironic bait. You're such a moron lmao. Did I win yet?

>Consciousness is not only a unity but a substantial unity, because we retain our identity even through experiences of unconsciousness(we go to sleep at night and wake up as the same entity the next day).
What are you babbling about? You have the sane identity because you have consistent memories. If you lost all your memory or had false memories you would not have the same identity. And this in fact happens all the time. This does not somehow get you out of deterministic mechanics. One's continuous identity is merely an illusion of memory.

life is more simple when you just call things what they are. unless you're selling something.

Replying two hours later so you can feel less of a sperg?

Nice try.

I win.

Even without memories a person still has an identity.
They are the same person experiencing moments of confusion.

Science cannot answer value related problems, it just describes shit. Anyone that thinks otherwise is autistic (in the literal sense).

What is your non-reductionist alternative? Systems science? Or is the attack on reductionism just to distract from an even more reductive "god has a plan for everything" belief system?

ethics