"Athene" the world of warcraft celebrity claims to have killed philosophy, what do you say Veeky Forums?

He is right though, all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation. Truth depends on your formal setup, logic and mathematics are formal truths, but do not say anything meaningful about the "world".
Philosophy is pointless in the age of science.

23 million USD

What ever happened to that qt in his videos?

>all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation
And how do you know that?

That is a meaningless question.

>He is right though, all knowledge of the world comes from empirical investigation

In what sense are you using the knowledge?

>mathematics are formal truths

Requires unjustified assumptions that formal logic is true.

You need to go full critical rationalism with science. Empiricism is obviously absurd. It justifies itself with 'evidence' but doesn't have any justification for any other ideas. The empiricist mindset has set back scientific progress significantly. Most notably in physics where empirical investigation has less hold in attempting to provide good explanations. All of what you say is gibberish without a sound philosophical backdrop.

He's Belgian.

>Athene

>muh action
Stemlords pls leave

>ethics is pointless in the age of nuclear weapons

What does being a waffle have to do with the Nile river?

Justified true belief

Formal logic does not have a truth value you brainlet.
You philosophy guys need to accept that science has finished off philosophy. All knowledge rests on science or formal logic/mathematics.
I feel sorry for you lot, I have a qt lit gf (see my op), am working on a physics Phd and make a fair bit of money on the side, while you miserable sods can't even accept the obvious truth of scientism.

Come back when you're older, bud.

I hope that last statement is sarcastic.

>Justified true belief

You can't justify anything famalam. Check the Münchhausen trilemma.

>you miserable sods can't even accept the obvious truth of scientism.

I'm not even sure what this means, but I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-empiricism. You ought to read Popper.

What the fuck is his voice

You've never actually read any philosophy have you?

He's probably read Jackson. You never need to study anything ever again after you read Jackson.

>Muh trilemma.
I have read popper, but I am afraid the logical positivist were more in the right. Some things are justified by convention or tautology, but the question of the foundations of science is a meaningless one. There is no framework in which to derive knowledge about our framework which we call science. You are simply speaking gibberish when you insist that science requires something else to be founded upon.

It's called "God"

>You are simply speaking gibberish when you insist that science requires something else to be founded upon.

I'm not a foundationalist. The fact that I put forward Popper should have made you aware of that if you really had read him.

The thing is, you're supporting postfoundationalism but you've gave up past the point. You don't have any postfoundationalist mechanism for knowledge creation. You haven't investigated what science 'is' or what the scientific method ought to be/how it can be improved. Your earlier claim was a really quite ugly understanding of science as empiricism. This cannot be the case because science requires rational theories and has a backdrop of rational assumptions that cannot be justified through empiricism.

>Some things are justified by convention or tautology

Care to justify that? What makes these claims free from justification other than your intuition that they are true.

Of course science is not pure empiricism, most paradigm shifting scientific advances are theoretical, relying upon mathematical exploration.
You should read some quine or carnal if you want to understand what I mean by truth by convention, this is of course referring to formal axioms and theoretical definitions.
I think you philosophy types lack an understanding of formal truth, no doubt because you have not done much mathematics, never encountering model theory for instance. Read Tarski on truth in formal languages.

So if science doesn't need a framework to be founded upon, why does anything else?

I didn't say it didn't require a foundation or framework, I said any questions about these foundations are meaningless.

>I haev a hot gf and will maek big moneys with my stem degree :^)

the youtube comment section to a tai lopez video seems to be a more appropriate environment to you, sorry that you missklicked on Veeky Forums bud

kill yourself my man

You first but make me some fries first and wrap them in your liberal arts degree.

>karl ove
her facial expression conveys disgust and/or being held at gunpoint

I dont understand you autists who can't into STEM.
That is an expression of contemplation, probably mixed with satisfaction from the night before.
How are you going to write about women when you are never around them friend?

>best paladin in the world
>has a hot boyfriend names furious
>lives with a concubine
>pwns noobs every day
>doesnt afraid of anything

youtube.com/watch?v=cLYrFR9RT_U

youtube.com/watch?v=yUSVUYFUF_M

fuck, you're embarrassing. this is literally

>HEY MOM, LOOK MOM
>I'M OWNING THEM! COME HERE, WATCH!

I feel sorry for you dude.. Who actually brags about his pityful life on Veeky Forums of all places?

Why is her expression in every single pic: "What the FUCK am I doing here?"

>Read X and Y rather than actually answering my question

You've massively changed your view from the first post. You either need to seriously improve on presenting your arguments or you're just making this up as you go along in an attempt to troll and do the whole 'STEM IS THE BEST, PHILOSOPHY IS FOR LOSERS' routine that comes about on Veeky Forums a lot. Your position as you put it now, is not entirely different to my own. Your position that 'knowledge is justified true belief' and your earlier position that 'empiricism provides knowledge about the world' clearly don't stack. Nor does the idea that 'knowledge is justified true belief' stack now you've gone postfoundationalist.

Moving onto to conventionalism, you need to justify why certain principles should be based in foundation in convention. I also think it's very odd that you would bring up Quine when he made so many obvious criticisms of conventionalism, outside of the problems of justification, and basically #rektd the whole thing.

You haven't actually meaningfully addressed a single thing I've said and you've consistently changed your position. You've just engaged in a strange kind of posturing. I find it incredibly hard to have a genuine discussion with you and so I think I will finish it here.

implying firsthand experience is required for literary authority, how are you going to write?

anyway, i don't write about pussy, i slay it

Whoever made that was too stupid to differentiate an argument for atheism from an argument for not involving a god in science.

Fuck, that pisses me off.

>implying you can write about space travel without ever having traveled to space
>implying you can write a serial killer character without knowing one irl
>implying you can write about important historical events without travelling back in time

oh wait, you can? makes you think, doesn't it?

I remember watching one of his streams where he got really mad about philosophers and academics because they're the people who are best equipped to solve the world's problems but instead lock themselves away in ivory towers and spend all their time debating abstractions. I think he a point to an extent, but obviously this video is totally dumb because philosophy does still have a role to play in society.

I think he's belgian

I haven't seen this is years. I miss when YouTube was like this.
>EXORCISM. I'm killing his pet! BOOM! PET! BOOM! HAHA! BOOM!

We don't start with the foundations and build up, we start from results and build back until we find a firm foundation.
We start by observing things and from this we formulate theories. Knowledge is justified true belief but that depends on the framework you are working in, we create the framework around our experience. Many elements of classical empiricism are wrong, but there is a lot right too. Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge.

Nope.

>when Furious starts banging his no doubt 25 years old cathode ray tube screen

they deserved to get famous. brilliant comedy tbhfam.

how much of your self-worth is placed on this low tier skank dude, you can't be 4realz :^)

Difference is most men have never experienced those things, really makes you think doesn't it?

Very little. Stay envious lit.

>meaningful knowledge
is a value judgement based on what?
how did you empirically determine what is meaningful knowledge?

i beg to differ, she is featured in all your posts on a forum for virgins

Meaningful knowledge is gained empirically and can be falsified.
I am not sure what you mean by value judgement.

You define that because you assume that others would think the same. Classical sign of autism

Not all my posts. She is the best girl I have ever met, sorry if I am proud of that fact. I also enjoy watching you lit fags get envious.
You don't make money, get girls, or have access to objective knowledge what are the liberal arts for?

>Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge
>Meaningful knowledge is gained empirically

This is circular reasoning.

look a little deeper at your definition of meaningful knowledge you'll see that is it circular logic.
psst, how can something meaningful and falsifiable?

No it is a definition.

>tfw have gf
>tfw after five shitty relationships I am finally happy
>tfw never once felt the need to brag to Veeky Forums about it ('til now ofc)

you're just a fag. accept it. you're a dumb cunt. I'm sure you're getting all wet down there "haha look how i am entertaining those folks".

no. you just look like a fool. i'm glad you're happy with her. hope you treat her right. just stop posting about it as if it was some kind of achievement. that's just pitiful and embarrassing. many people on Veeky Forums, /mu/, Veeky Forums.. the less autistic boards have partners. only you feel the need to brag about it. it's nothing special.

if you are this much of a sperge to not follow any of the arguments that beat you the fuck out, your relationship won't last

It's a definition which is tautological. If empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge then the statement that "Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge" is therefore not meaningful since it was not reached empirically. It is reasoned from the mind, it was not induced from experience.

what that thing about not using the word in the definition?
oh yeah, then it is not a definition.

the *only girl you've ever met. no envy here, perhaps your faggy feelings distort your visual perception, she is fucking beat, not best

commercial value>all
again, i slay pussy niqquh
>objective knowledge
niqquh

Too bad she doesn't know she's dating a degenerate who posts pictures of her all over the internet for strangers to save and masturbate to.

Your post stinks of envy, I am sure you slay pussy in your imagination but reality is a different story.
Yes that statement is not a meaningful one. There is no fallacy.

but you just admitted your own notion of reality was meaningless.

Sup bitch ass niggas.
just a reminder that science is a Leap of faith

again, not envy, just triggered by your faggotry. in reality, im doing you a favor by inducing a bit of heterosexuality

No I didn't, that statement is not about reality, it is about terms in our framework.

How is it not a statement about reality? It's about knowledge and how it can be obtained. If you know something about the world, then surely it is also real. The statement:
>Empiricism is the only way to gain meaningful knowledge
is meaningless knowledge by your definition. How can knowledge be without meaning? If it does not mean anything then how can it be known? If it cannot be known then how is it true, which is what you are claiming it is, even though you do not consider it to be a meaningful claim.

>terms in our framework.
lol

No it doesn't.
Stay triggered.

>He doesn't understand that science theories are taken based on statistical probability of accuracy
>He doesn't know that David Hume already defeated absolutism in science
>He commits the fallacy of equivocation with the word "faith"

Meaningless knowledge is purely formal, analytic, a priori it is not about the world. You are confused, knowledge about our framework, i.e definitions and analytic truths are not statements about the world or reality.
We experience some things through our senses, you cannot doubt these experiences, from that ẃe build up empirical knowledge.

don't stay faggot

>you cannot doubt these
'no'

>Your post stinks of envy, I am sure you slay pussy in your imagination but reality is a different story.

>3dpd on Veeky Forums
>russian roulette: baby edition

Get out.

You cannot doubt that you are experiencing that data, say you are listening to Mozart, you cannot doubt that you are experiencing certain sound. Our sense data is what it is.

> i don't know what the fuck i am talking about

I know that I am experiencing it, but how do I know for certain it exists?

"It" is defined as a bundle of sense data, say defining an electron by certain measurements you can observe. If you find a new piece of data you may update or alter your definition.

>"F-Fuck you guys, y-you don't know a-anything!"

I am certainly experiencing stimuli in the form of the lovely melody of schubert's unfinished symphony, but I cannot claim with certainty that I am not in reality listening to Mozart. Sensory illusions exist.

Does your 2d waifu cuddle and read with you as you fall asleep?

Your 3d one most certainly doesnt

>read with you
kys

Yes you can, provided you know the difference.

You really don't know what I'm getting at

Actually I read to her instead

Are you a logical positivist, then?

Stay in denial friend.
That is probably because you are terrible at articulating your points, or you dont understand mine. Anyway Not an argument.

It's actually because you're a retard with no knowledge of anything you're talking about, yet you believe you can make insights

>#goals

Say you see a stick bending in water, you can't deny that sense data, however after collecting more sense data and deducing general optical principles you can conclude that the earlier sense data was not of a bent stick.

Im not saying the perception of the phenomena doesn't exist you retard. I'm saying that nothing about the phenomena can be proven, just about the perception of the phenomena

>actually taking a picture of your girlfriends face when she receives your presents

I really pity you. Nice #instagram relationship you got there, buddy. Hope you got a decent amount of likes.

#relationship goals amirite

?
But we define things as bundles of sense data, our logical principles are taken for granted so we can certainly prove things about terms in our theoretical framework (say electrons, mass and so on).
We will always be making observations and attempting to falsify our theories, but that doesn't mean we don't know knowledge about the world.

>we define things
Yes, key word being we. If these things exist independently of us, then they have essential properties and definitions independent of us as well. Our perceptions are necessarily colored by our physical bodies and therefore do not match up perfectly with the actual definitions. We can therefore only know about how we perceive things, not how they are.

These kind of bitter comments by litfags are exactly why I do it.
>muh things in themselves
Go home Kant this point has been destroyed by many thinkers over the last century.

>things don't exist
Ok