I go to an """elite""" college and this Bio person I know shared this shit on Facebook. Fuck these people. What does it even mean to secure knowledge if it isn't empirically? First order logic? Mathematics in general? I sincerely doubt that's what po-mo continentals are talking about.
Sorry if you guys feel this is more suited to Veeky Forums, I'll post it there, too.
It's philosophizing about philosophizing about science. It's politics as usual if you're a brainlet who is thinking of new ways to sound smart.
2/10 not rare enouth
didnt read
how is that rare? there's an entire stretch of overcooked meat on the top and bottom of the pink middle
>What does it even mean to secure knowledge if it isn't empirically?
Knowledge of values, ethics, virtue for example cannot be taught by formulae.
Excellent use of empirical observation.
I see what you're saying. But would you consider our moral faculties to be a form of knowledge, or just a cognitive structure along the lines of our cognitive faculty, or vision? I think there's considerable evidence it is. I don't object to classifying virtue or morality as knowledge, but I would then classify basic cognitive functions as such, too.
cognitive functions are not knowledge in and of themselves but the awareness of them in the context of maturity and the use of them for good as an expression of virtue rather than evil is
If that's what you mean, then I'd agree. But do you think this is what most continental philosophers are referring to? In my admittedly limited experience with the field, that hasn't been so. They seem to be making broader epistemological claims.
I feel like a nigger if I am too stupid to go to an elite school but this cunt can.
My greatest fear is being so ignorant and sef absorbed like OP that i could never realize my own faults. At least you know where youve gone wrong. OP is just a potato who can memorize fairly well.
I don't concern myself with such labels rather the claims they make, the notion in the OP is not a new one or one unique to whatever label you want to give it.
Scientism is a bogeyman made up by Christian apologists. It has nothing to do with philosophy.
But surely one can be intelligent and self absorbed? How do I know I'm not just a retard who is just barely smart enough to realize I'm dumb?
Don't concern yourself with philosophy. It's all bullshit.
>But muh field is superior!
That's what all this is about, is it?
Nothing matters except which field of study is superior to other fields.
I'm op, and quite bad at memorizing. I do theoretical physics, which requires more than that. I'm good at remembering stuff I've read in novels, social science papers/books, and philosophy, though. Why do you say I'm a potato?
Not really. I don't think any field of science, nor any of the social scientific fields besides economics, is worse than math or physics. Not English or comp lit, either. Just philosophy over the past century or so.
Because you refuse toy with the idea that there are things you can't know or can't use the scientific method to fix.
Introspection is one of the key signs of intelligence that lots of tests look for actually. Chances are you are naturally more apt than you'd believe because you seem like you only focus on faults and not how to use and improve your skills. Actual intelligence is more than numbers and memorization, it's much closer to creativity.
You're strawmanning. I simply never said that.
that image is stating the obvious
Also, I've 'toyed with the idea' plenty, I only got into science recently. Was a hardcore philosophy person prior.
"Absolute skepticism in regards to scientific knowledge" is something a /pol/tard would say after seeing Bill Nye's vagina monologue.
there are obviously things you cant apply the scientific method too. Those things dont have any right answer though. Knowledge that isn't verifiable by the scientific method isn't knowledge, it's opinion. It's actually possible in our lifetime that humanity will discover literal immortality. Compared to that and what science has accomplished in the last 100 years every humanities field is a fucking joke lmao. Talk to me when your field of study has enabled men to walk on the moon.
>What does it even mean to secure knowledge if it isn't empirically? first order logic? Mathematics in general?
its not a strawman if you implied it you fucking moron.
You apply concepts you know are far from the meaning of the image to prop up your rage. It's literally just ignorance. Nice try gomie
>Knowledge that isn't verifiable by the scientific method isn't knowldge.
So the scientific method is perfect in its filtering of ideas?
and btw i have a PHD in Nuclear sciences and engineering lol. My field keeps the austonauts alive
1) Biologically-evolved awareness. Ultimately, this is the root of all knowledge, what causes us to reject solipsism and know that our senses detect truths about a real universe while our imaginations do not, but it isn't limited to this.
2) Culturally-evolved awareness. I don't mean the accumulation of knowledge, I mean assumptions not to be questioned, which are acted upon by the darwinian selection of cultures. Occam's Razor is by no means obvious to primitive man, nor derivable through empirical observation without circularity, but cultures which apply it to mechanical problems win wars against those which fail to.
Both tend to be brought into line with reality over time through mechanisms that have nothing to do with conscious empirical observation.
We tend to respect empirical knowledge while dismissing these foundations on which empirical knowledge is built, in a similar way to how non-biologists tend to respect the evolution of multicellular life, which all happened in the last ~1.5 billion years, while dismissing the nearly 3 billion years of evolution single-celled life underwent to make multicellular life possible.
It's easy to look at fossils and comprehend the progress they represent, much harder to appreciate the far more profound advancements in cellular chemistry and organization which predated any of it.
Not the other guy bu isn't this just an argument to authority?
Childhood is thinking STEM is better than the humanities. Adulthood is realizing the humanities are what keep STEM alive. Sagehood is realizing that STEM is largely make-work for aspies.
>They seem to be making broader epistemological claims
I don't think they are. Your facebook friend brings up a good point. Science vs. philosophy in academia hasn't been contentious for hundreds of years, but yet autists seem to flock to taking sides where there isn't any need to.
So if you go to a skilled physician and you tell him your symptoms. He says he is not sure what is wrong with you but if you take these pills you will feel better. You take the pills and are cured.
Was the doctors opinion and diagnosis based on knowledge or something else?
Then fuck off and argue about it on Facebook you fucking normie.
ITT
>brainlete normie op raging about how some girl friendzoned him so he comes here garner insults about an innocent facebook post
>retarded people being baited to argue with brainlete OP over topics that don't matter
>Scientism is a bogeyman made up by Christian apologists.
Not necessarily. It's also used heavily by butthurt left-wing philosophers who are insecure about science infringing on their turf.
> Just philosophy over the past century or so.
So you're still saying that one field is inferior to another.
I agree with you that a lot of philosophy these days is a circlejerk, but then you should be criticizing those philosophers, not all of philosophy.
>PHD in nuclear scienes and engineering
right
>scientific method is perfect in its filtering of ideas?
No, but at over the entire course of human civilization, the scientific method has benefited humanity orders of magnitude more than any humanity.
i do but whatever. nothing will convince you.
And??? The arugment was never that the scientific method wasn't beneficial. fucking retard lol
the argument is that the scientific method and science as a field is much more important than the humanities, and that humanities don't really offer any knowledge, just opinions. There is no progress in literary criticism, just different fads.
Nice job getting triggered by a fucking facebook post
anthropology could be important if it was put to any use and not just observation
arts are important given that we are human beans with irrational emotions and as such arts play an important role in our lives, even if it's not quantifiable or functionally useful
>not realizing philosophy encompass all of the sciences and opinons are just another form of idea that isnt inherently worse than facts
butthurt logical positivist detected, u mad cuck?
>opinions arent less valuable than facts
really got my noggin joggin. It's my opinion that youre wrong.
what is this logic? What is this thread?
>implying humanities and philosophy dont heavily influence le S T E M
>continental philosophy
In the trash it goes.
Just kinda funny that Veeky Forums doesn't know how big empiricism vs rationalism was and how many scientists weren't strict empiricists.
>hurr durr im a retard who cant read
I said inherently. Learn to read. Are the opinions Plato drew from his factual observations worthless just because they wernt just 1+1=2?
I go on Veeky Forums pretty often and every fucking week I see several threads debating the same things over and over:
>Science vs Philosophy
Both of them are important. Although many philo questions in the past have been answered by science philo is still important for thinking about things. It is useless to debate which is better than the other. Many scientists are philosophers and many philosophers are scientists.
>science vs religion
religion can be beneficial to many people. Veeky Forums should only attack religion when religion attacks science. All you have to do is sage and report creationist posts.
> Veeky Forums vs /pol/
science should not have any political bent. If you want to discuss politics, go to . Sage and report political posts not related to science.
> Veeky Forums vs /pol/
Op here. What the fuck? I'm the moron? You can gain empirical knowledge
that isn't scientific.
it's not saying there are better ways than empirical to secure knowledge, it's saying you can't always solve problems empirically
obviously if you had all the necessary date to solve any given problem that you could, but the flaw of 'scientism' is inability to admit when you don't have enough data for the scientific process to be effective
also the the pic is totally accurate, people who study science and use that as the principal definition of their self-worth have a bad habit of thinking they know or are capable of empirically deducing things that they don't or can't know, which is totally against the spirit of science in the first place.
Can you read? The claim in the meme, clearly, is that 'not all knowledge can be secured empirically'. It's clearly implied.
emperical is by definition based on facts.
Nonemperical is by definition based on faith.
For example its nonemperical knowledge that you have any semblance of intelligence.
>emperical is by definition based on facts.
by definition, it's based on experience. that's a significant difference.
the word literally means varifiable by observation. Its a bit of both
and
>plato
lmao out of all the examples you could choose you chose Plato. Plato epitomizes everything wrong with humanities and philosophy in general. He used commonly accepted ideas and """"logic"""" (although I didn't think most of his arguments actually followed any real logic when I read the Republic) to make arguments that have been hugely influential. That doesn't mean he was right(as being right is literally impossible in philosophy which is one of my main problems with it) or that his ideas were valuable.
>that have been hugely influential
>not valuable
what did he mean by this? Not that dude but you seem like you havn't read much of his works. His later works were literaly based on opinions of his and therefor not emperical but they are not the foudation for western political philosophy. Literally a massive portion of the wests progress is due to something that was not emperical yet valuable.
Stop acting like you're smarter than everyone
Rarity is a spectrum.
Of beautiful.
but that's fucking wrong faggot
it's only knowledge because it can be secured empirically, I guess unless we're talking about knowledge of fantasy worlds
>secured empirically
lmao
I'm just using their words
>which I understood by making inferences
>understood by making inferences
again, LMAO
autist
>this thread on Veeky Forums: cliché tier humanitardian pseuds completely incompetent in and scared of science greentexting 'lul stupid anglo trash kek xd read idealists :-DDD'
>this thread on Veeky Forums: cliché tier stem fedoras completely incompetent and in and scared of philosophy use ""arguments"" from utility to explain their babby emiricism
Veeky Forums was a mistake