Philosophy is fake news

Not an argument, just feelz. So much for your ability to recognize faulty arguments.

Either it is testable and being tested or it's not science.

>What's so special about humans? Why is beauty only quantifiable by what humans find beautiful?

What is considered beautiful is based on preference of the organism, so it isn't limited to humans. For example female peacocks prefer mates with certain traits, humans prefer symmetrical faces because they show healthy development, etc.

>Why? Why can't we judge moralities based on other things?

Morality evolved for a reason: to facilitate the survival of humans in social groups. You wouldn't judge a leg based on other things than its ability to walk, same for morality.

>What if everything is not as objective as you assume it is?

Only objectively testable things matter as far as knowledge is concerned.

This, most people haven't even read an intro to theoretical philosophy book and start ranting about the field

>Only objectively testable things matter as far as knowledge is concerned.
Is this objectively testable? If not then I guess I'm justified in calling you a pseudointellectual faggot who probably just got finished reading his first Neil DeGrasse Tyson book

>Philosophy is rigorous as fuck.

So is theology but that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. Playing with rules is meaningless unless it relates to actual reality, i.e. measurement, testing etc.

>not an argument

you don't know enough of the field to judge it. that's what it means to be credible to judge it. to be an expert in it.

>mfw you're retarded

Sure it is, it's a matter of utility. Is it useful? No? Then into the trash it goes.

Mathematics has been shown to be profoundly useful so don't try to make an argument there.

I don't need to know enough of the field. Show me what can be done with it (which in turn makes it testable) or else it's just mental masturbation.

Prove me wrong.

>Sure it is, it's a matter of utility. Is it useful? No? Then into the trash it goes.
I didn't ask for your opinion, I said is it OBJECTIVELY TESTABLE. Give me the study that states only knowledge that is empirically provable is useful. Prove it to me, otherwise your statement, by your own admission is useless bullshit

OP is just a spook.

>Either it is testable and being tested or it's not science.
So is astronomy not a science according to you? Because I don't see how you can test out how the solar system was formed.

Why is that even a gif?

Scientific thinker: Wow this hammer is useful for building a variety of things using wood and nails.

Philosopher: How do you know it is useful? Prove to me this hammer is useful.

Trash and fake news.

>humans prefer symmetrical faces because they show healthy development, etc.
So if beauty means symmetry why do we call the same thing by two different names? And what about the people that find non-symmetric faces beautiful? You could just call them outliers, but it still begs the question: why is there a separate word for beauty and symmetry and why do some people disagree about it?

>Show me what can be done with it (which in turn makes it testable) or else it's just mental masturbation.

show me (in a testable fashion) what can be done with algebraic structures such as hodge cycles or etale cohomology. what's that you can't? i guess it's useless mental masturbation.

>What is considered beautiful is based on preference of the organism, so it isn't limited to humans. For example female peacocks prefer mates with certain traits, humans prefer symmetrical faces because they show healthy development, etc.

Anyone else have that close-up pic of Loius from Left4Dead doing a really crazy headshake, like he's losing it and going "WUBUBUBNBVHD\VF"? I couldn't find it for this post and I have a feeling I'll be needing it for the rest of this thread.

Then why do different kinds of beauty produce different kinds of responses? I don't recall being sexually aroused by a abstract themed stain-glass window. I'm all for a more empirical approach to understanding the nature of experience btw, but god damn that was painful what you just typed.

A lot of mathematics was developed by philosophers for philosophers. Just read some actual philosophy, because its clear that you never have. In many respects, new scientific research begins in the philosophical literature before it actually becomes its own field.

>Only things that can be objectively proven have any merit!
>I don't need to objectively prove my view is right! Fake news!
Get the fuck outta here

Scientific thinker: smacks philosopher in the face with hammer to prove it's use
Shitposter: moves the goalpost and trolls on

Everything I have said follows from the axiom that reality is real.

If you don't believe reality is real, feel free to jump off a cliff.

That's a philosophical axiom, not a scientific one. Congratulations, you've played yourself

everyone shut up im going to end this argument that philosophy is useless by showing you that you can't use all your math wtihout it.

do you use calculus on any level? you need functions?

like functions and their surjective nature? built on set theory.

oh shit you need set theory? then you are going to rely on first order logic to formalize it.

and suddenly you are utilizing a sub branch of philosophy.

boom. what's that you are just going to ignore first order logic? ok cool. guess what your math is no longer rigorous and just flew back in time by several centuries. nicely done. you sure made wildassburgers proud.

You dumb nigger no one cares about the fucking hammer the questions are to get you to think more than superficially about your concept of "useful".

"""scientific thinker""" (you): Wow this shitpost is the epitome of intellectual enlightenment and will surely serve an effective and utilitarian purpose from which it shall derive it's value

Philosopher: Drink bleach faggot

kek

It's a basic observation of existence, not something thought about abstractly. If you think otherwise plz jump off a cliff, because if reality isn't real you have no foundation to believe you would die, since death isn't real. Literally and absolutely fake news in the most abstract.

You don't need philosophy to utilize those things. Science doesn't give a fuck about them. Can it be used to model phenomena to make predictions? Then it is useful. As for where mathematics comes from, take a pencil, and then take another pencil. You have two pencils. Wow, amazing, no philosophy needed. Math is based in physical measurement. Also logicism crashed and burned you idiot.

>"""scientific thinker""" (you): Wow this shitpost is the epitome of intellectual enlightenment and will surely serve an effective and utilitarian purpose from which it shall derive it's value

LOL, it isn't enlightened, this is shit that any school child knows by instinct or else they'd fucking die. It's the cuckademic philosophers who complicate things via meaningless mental masturbation.

Philosophy is a Jewish lie.

Oh, you're a /pol/ retard...

Go back where you came from brainlet.

I've been browsing around for the last 10 minutes genuinely thinking I was on /b/. You reminded me I wasn't and I thank you for that.

Jews have controlled culture and society for hundreds of years. They invented the internet to make shekels but it accelerated cultural evolution so much that they cannot control it any longer. Hence the rise of the truth of the Alt Right and the destruction of Jewish lies. Trump marks the turning point for humanity, we won in the U.S. have won in Russia with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the uncuckening by Putin and will win in Europe. Philosophy is dead, Marxism is dead, globalism is dead.

We won, we rule now and get used to it. We own the internet.

>rejection of enlightenment ideals
>valuing monogamy and traditional views of what it means to be masculine (as evidenced by your use of "cuckademic")
>Judaism, and those that prescribe to it's ideals represent and/or architect nearly all that is wrong with society today
>"HURR THESE AREN'T PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINTS, THEY'RE JUST MY VALUES AND WORLDVIEW"

You know you can be a reactionary without being a moron, right?

...

Was I not clear? Go away faggot. Nobody cares.

>take a pencil, and then take another pencil. You have two pencils. Wow, amazing, no philosophy needed.
What is a pencil? What if the pencil is sharpened down to a single molecule? At what point do you stop calling it a pencil? What if you tape two pencils together so that it only works as a single pencil? Boom, philosophy.

You don't need philosophy for high level math any more than you need to know philosophy to know 1+1=2. You don't even need to know WHY 1+1=2 or be able to prove it to use it in real life.
So why make this assumption philosophy is necessary for any other objective field?

>They invented the internet to make shekels but it accelerated cultural evolution so much that they cannot control it any longer.

>believing the jews are not in control

>All this bullshit
If I were to use your logic
DEFINE DEFINITION BEFORE DEFINING ANYTHING ELSE AND PROVE YOUR DEFINITION OF DEFINITION IS CORRECT WITHOUT USING ANY DEFINITIONS - philosotards

There are some "useful" branches of philosphy but "hurr durr what is x you cant kno nuffin" is not one of them.

>you need to know philosophy to know 1+1=2. You don't even need to know WHY 1+1=2
You may not need philosophy to know 1+1=2, but you do need logical consistency if you want 1+1=2 to always be true. If there was no logic, 1+1=fish, and that would be perfectly normal. Logic, and therefore philosophy, is necessary for a proper foundation.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I pulled it off Google.

If I had to guess, .GIFs are the lightest weight image format to support transparency?

>but you do need logical consistency if you want 1+1=2 to always be true.
Reality is independent of philosphy
If I pretend 1+1=fish reality will give no fucks and I may or may not live to pass on my genes, depending on how fatal the conclusion is.

I propose a question to you, philosophy thread.

Take psychology, a field with philosophical roots. In this field, heuristics are "shortcuts" in thinking meant to process information efficiently.

I propose that most of philosophy is just an analysis of heuristics or, more ambitiously, an attempt to construct better heuristics. What is being described by most of philosophy is not the world, but how we as human beings see it. Which is not the same as saying there is no truth, just that we merely approximate it in most things, and may only seek to approximate it better.

Though, that leaves me to ponder something. What does a closer approximation of the truth look like, from an individual heuristic perspective? Groups of people (or one person with a lot of time) can use the scientific method to be better, but what can one person do in a short amount of time? What perspective of the world sees the closest to the truth?

>Reality is independent of philosphy
But we aren't talking about reality, we are talking about mathematics. And mathematics is not independent of philosophy. Just because reality is logical doesn't mean mathematics needs to be, so if you want math without logic (without philosophy) you're gonna have to accept that sometimes 1+1=2 and sometimes 1+1=fish.

>But we aren't talking about reality, we are talking about mathematics
But math is reflected in reality. 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rock.
This is basic caveman shit.
You can play around with words all you want that shit isn't going to stop you from starving because you think 1 rock + 1 rock = food

Going to catch shit for this, but you first need to define truth.

The entire field of theology is based on the relaxation of rigor. We make the assumption going in that God exists and go from there. It's not philosophy and being rigorous within a non-rigorous field doesn't count. Just like how randomly mating with your family members is still inbreeding.

>What does a closer approximation of the truth look like
You say "the" truth as if it is an objective thing. Why do you assume this?
>What is being described by most of philosophy is not the world, but how we as human beings see it.
Is there a difference? Philosophy seeks to answer this question, and it tries to do so without "describing" anything.

What if take rock and smash other rock to make many rock?

Do I birth more rock? Or still have two rock?

>But math is reflected in reality.
Only because logic is reflected in reality, and math is based on logic.
>You can play around with words all you want that shit isn't going to stop you from starving because you think 1 rock + 1 rock = food
Yeah and the square root of a negative rock is an imaginary rock. Totally based in reality lmao.

That's beyond math though.
That's physics.

The truth is an objective thing in the sense of the universe, as it is, running upon its naturalistic laws. There is only one and, I can assure you, no matter of thinking changes it. This isn't The Secret, and I'd be a sucker to bet on a simulation that acts any differently from an actual universe.

I love it when retards come to Veeky Forums to bash philosophy, thinking they're in good company. These are the ultimate brainlets.

>The truth is an objective thing in the sense of the universe, as it is, running upon its naturalistic laws. There is only one and, I can assure you, no matter of thinking changes it.
These are all assumptions.

That's called solipsism. Remember that next time you try to make some grand criticism of an entire field.

nice bait.
What's knowledge?
What's success?
What does it mean for something to be good?

I have much evidence for these assumptions. I observe things through my senses and they process through my brain, and not yet have I seen any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, many people are in agreement with me. Though I can accept minuscule probabilities otherwise, they are so tiny as to not be worth consideration or planning. You may accept my assertions of a physical, naturalistic universe at 99.999999999% probability.

>Just like how randomly mating with your family members is still inbreeding.
kek

100-99.999999999=.000000001% of observations agree with yours.
7 billion people*.000000001%=7 experiences where there is no objective truth. Any more than 1 would be enough to prove my point, and you gave me 7.

First, I'd like to reiterate that by truth, I am saying a physical, naturalistic universe.

Second, if you know any of these 7 people who have hard evidence otherwise, I'd like to meet them.

Third, each of those who "experience" otherwise would need it be evidence at 99.999999999% for there to be a 50% chance against the prior of an objective, naturalistic universe.

Firstly, I wasn't being serious.
Secondly, it's impossible to prove there is only one object, physical, naturalistic universe. You can only assume based off your own experiences, which are fundamentally subjective.
Thirdly, every one of those 7 billion people experience "otherwise", if they didn't then there would be world peace and we would be in complete harmony with each other and the universe. Each person is in harmony with their own subject universe, and that's why disagreements exist. And if you think all this is bullshit, then prove why it's bullshit, otherwise you're bullshit.

Firstly, hard to tell sometime.

Secondly, yes, I can only assume based on my subjective experience of evidence that I have gathered in the course of my subjective existence that suggests, at high probability, a physical naturalistic evidence. When I have sufficient evidence otherwise, I am willing to change my mind. Nothing needs to be at 100% to operate based on it and, indeed, it is the winning bet to operate on the most likely probability. I do not know with 100% certainty the sun will rise tomorrow, but I operate as if it will because it is the most probable outcome and, if one was to bet Arbitrary Monetary Units, it should always be on the sun rising the next day (in lack of additional information that would inform you otherwise).

Third, a physical, naturalistic universe does not exclude difference in human experience, and I'm curious as to why you think it would. We each have limited capacity to observe and reason, and we all use heuristics.

Excuse me, some typos. The most important of which is "that suggests, at high probability, a physical naturalistic evidence" which should say "physical naturalistic universe."

>a physical, naturalistic universe does not exclude difference in human experience, and I'm curious as to why you think it would.
I'm curious as to why you think a single subjective experience (your own) is a good basis for the universe being a physical naturalistic universe. A multitude of different human experiences is possible in a subjective or an objective universe, but to to me the more objective a universe is, the less differences in beliefs there should be. As the universe tends toward perfectly objective, experiences should tend towards perfect agreement.

>I can only assume based on my subjective experience of evidence that I have gathered in the course of my subjective existence that suggests, at high probability, a physical naturalistic evidence.
What evidence specifically convinces you that the universe is a physical naturalistic one?

You made me think I was in reddit for a second. Fuck you user

In math and science, there are concise definitions for all that shit. Though I suppose the discussion as to why we define it that way is pute philosophy, but it's not as transcendental as you think.

A universe does not have degrees of objectivity. It is either objective, or it is is not; things are either exactly one way, or it is not. My subjective experience is the only basis I have, and if I had to bet between the universe being exactly one way, or being some mess, I'm betting the first because this is what all my evidence tells me.

The evidence that specifically convinces me of this is a combination of several elements; first, we have laws which the universe follow according to fields such as physics. I did not derive these myself, but I take in as evidence the work of others. Further, in my life, I have yet to experience anything that would suggest anything other than everything plowing along according to underlying rules; every instance of my own mistaken beliefs can be accounted by a mistake in my construction of those beliefs (insufficient evidence, biases in processing), rather than the universe suddenly changing its Terms of Agreement. As to why I prefer the prior over the latter, Occam's Razor.

It always seems to come back to Occam's Razor, doesn't it. On a more serious note:
>I have yet to experience anything that would suggest anything other than everything plowing along according to underlying rules
I suggest looking into quantum effects that imply some of these "underlying rules" cannot exist.

I have, and it doesn't imply as much as you think; most of the belief behind things like Schrodinger's Cat is based on misinterpretations of experimental data leading to a bizarre theory that observation collapses quantum probabilities; there's no proposed mechanism behind why this should be the case and so, Occam's Razor again, we live in a universe that is Just So and there is another universe that is Just So in the other direction, and never the twain shall meet. Multiple Worlds theory is superior to Collapse theory in this way; same evidence, less assumptions to make and processes unexplained.

I'm not talking about meme shit like Schrodinger's Cat, nor am I talking about different interpretations of quantum mechanics. I'm talking about things like Bell's theorem which shows that hidden variables are not present in entangled particle interactions. This fact is inconsistent with the notion of causality. All I'm trying to say is that the universe may not be as deterministic as you want to believe, but whether this relates to the universe being physical and naturalistic I have no idea.

If you don't have a philosophy of life, rules to live by, then you run the risk of realizing on your deathbed that you wasted your life. Philosophy is useful for providing rules to live by. Sadly, academic philosophy has lately abandoned the philosophy of life.

I can't say I've studied Bell's Theorem to a level enough to discuss it and its implications here. Something to look into more in-depth, I suppose. Thanks, for that and the discussion.

Philosophical work doesn't manifest in tangible or utilitarian benefits. It's decline as a field and a major is proof that there is no demand or need for it. Empirical science and math have proven themselves on their actual attachment to reality.

"Pencil" is defined as "an instrument for writing or drawing, consisting of a thin stick of graphite or a similar substance enclosed in a long thin piece of wood or fixed in a metal or plastic case." When it stops following these criteria, it stops being a pencil and this definition can change depending on the authority defining it, and now I've wasted a whole minute pointlessly arguing about this nonsense.

Alright but what about my other question?
>What if you tape two pencils together so that it only works as a single pencil?
Then you have a case where 1 pencil plus 1 pencil equals 1 pencil. Explain that "science"

Just because you're able to attach a very specific subfield of philosophy to useful STEM fields doesn't validate philosophy in its entirety, just like how my usage of logical argument doesn't mean I'm using philosophy until you start trying to attach it to that. Useful subfields you might try to attach or have been historically attached to philosophy usually branch off i.e. sociology and doesn't equate to grown men thinking to death whether breaking a pencil in half makes it two pencils

...

Science comes from philosphy you fucking brainlet.

Science has outgrown philosophy, the same way it outgrew alchemy. Philosophy's decline as a degree and lack of demand in the free market is proof of its lack of utility and our lack of need for it.

>the same way it outgrew alchemy.
Science never outgrew chemistry, it got better at it.

but chemistry isn't alchemy

>Makes a series of (poorly thought out) philosophical statements
>claims philosophy is bad

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Modern chemistry outgrew alchemy, and is dead outside the fantasy genre.
"Alchemy is a philosophical and protoscientific tradition practiced throughout Europe, Egypt and Asia. It aimed to purify, mature, and perfect certain objects.[1][2][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble" ones (particularly gold); the creation of an elixir of immortality; the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease; and the development of an alkahest, a universal solvent." 'nuff said

By its textbook definition, I reiterate that a pencil "[consists] of a thin stick of graphite or a similar substance enclosed in a long thin piece of wood or fixed in a metal or plastic case". So it's two pencils, but taped together, not one.

>'nuff said
I, too, hold that hydrochloric acid, gold leaf, and gunpowder are all worthless innovations.

Just change the tape to a metal or plastic case. Or alternatively, stab the first pencil into the eraser of the second pencil until the two graphite sticks touch. My point is that trying to define math based on what's useful rather than what's logical is going to create inconsistencies. Because even though my double-pencil is only useful as a single pencil, it's still logically two separate pencils in union.

Even if you could claim those under the wing of alchemy, and not chemistry(you can't), that doesn't validate everything alchemy does. Like transmutation, or the fucking philosopher's stone. We now use more rigorous and proven scientific methodologies in chemistry that ignore most, if not all, of classical alchemy and its list of inventions would fill a textbook.

Wish hiro moot deletes /pol/

Whether you choose to define your freak of nature pencil centipede as one or two doesn't matter. Whether Webster's dictionary or anyone will define it as one or two is arbitrary and ultimately an irrelevant discussion. We just need to call it something.

>1+1=2
>But I can shove 1 into another 1 without making it 2 (as long as I find a valid use for it)
This is math without logic

They are fundamentally the same thing.
Those innovations were made by people who referred to themselves as alchemists, at a time when alchemy and chemistry were still synonymous.

Do you not consider Aristotle's "On Coming to Be and Passing Away" to be a treatise on physics?
Read that shit some time, it totally is.

embarrassing thread

You sound beyond retarded. Plus all of the reasoning you use is itself philosophy.