I go to an """elite""" college and this Bio person I know shared this shit on Facebook. Fuck these people...

post yfw the positivists were correct

op got btfo by fucking facebook meme and how he's here to bitch about it

>when memebook makes you question your entire worldview

Just read some Kant, some Wittgenstein, some Dostoyevsky.
C of PR, Tractatus, and Bros K, respectively.

Yeah, holy shit. He isn't even up to date on the very fucking little philosophy of science that has made it into the field. He probably does null hypothesis falsification all the time and can't even tell the difference.

>memes, a medium I've felt an affinity for for close to a decade now.

10/10 if bait

I would tell you to go read some French or German theory and get your scientism BTFOd but you're clearly too stupid for it. Don't bother. Just go back to your mathturbation.

Op again. I've read all those books. Only worthwhile one is Witty, imo, and I see the Tractatus as largely in line with the positivist project, despite what authors like Hacker argue. PI is largely worthless. Brothers K is a beautiful novel, but has little scientific merit.

I think you're baiting me. I won't take it.

It legit isn't. Sorry if I sound ridiculous. I'm being sincere.

How do you propose we save verification, given Popper and Kuhn's respective objections?

I don't see Kuhn's work as an objection. Just an observation as to how science progresses, which has become less valid particularly in physics since the 20s/30s, when scientists began to adopt a more positivistic outlook. Popper's arguments are simply unconvincing and outdated, as physicists have learned how to qualify their predictions in the past hundred years much more effectively, and error analysis has progressed significantly as a field, as well

>getting frustrated when my peers, people I know, post memes, a medium I've felt an affinity for for close to a decade now.
autism

What? Popper's objections completely changed the scientific method, and all science today is, at least nominally, done as falsification. I was half joking when I said you probably couldn't tell the difference between positivism and null hypothesis falsification, but this is just sad.

Sage and report.

Just wondering, why do you think Kant isnt worthwhile?

most scientists don't read any philosophy of science and turn out fine

You are the most ridiculous cunt I've seen here in a long time, congratulations. It's really quite remarkable how many boxes you tick, you either are a superb troll or living parody of a STEM cuck

I'm an actual empiricist, meaning that I deny that any statement on experience is valid.
No knowledge is gained from science, because induction is inherently a processing of experience.

I am absolutely sick of these tip-toeing dick-sucking philosophers.
A 'fine scientist' doesn't exist. One may as well claim there is such a thing as a 'fine sufferer of extreme exposure to radiation'

Try reading all the papers published in one field for one day in your home country, and you will learn how laughable the idea that most scientists turn out alright is. But yes, most of them don't read any philosophy of science - they pick up the modern bastardization of Popper's method by exposure.

haha you have autism

this has a lot more to do with people in certain subfields of """science""" being too stupid to understand statistics or what an experiment even is, and with lazy/morally lax journal editors, than with insufficent time spent reading Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc.

>Kant is largely worthless
This is possibly one of the dumbest and most pseud sounding statements I've ever heard. Please do yourself a favor and don't post on here again. People like you need to stop shitting up this board.

Says the guy who can't distinguish null hypothesis falsification and verification (if that is you - if not, ignore this).

different person, but as an example if you consider psychology a science, they regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of even basic statistics. biologists and medical scientists can also be pretty bad, see: when a doctor got a paper published reinventing the trapezoidal rule for approximating the integral.

I don't dispute that a lot of scientists are bad at math, but even those who are good at it are trapped in a system which has become solely focused on producing new theory, and hardly ever even acknowledges that repetition of previous experiments is a necessary function of the epistemological theory on which the field is based.

this is more of a critique of scientific institutions as they currently exist, though. you can read all the philosophy of science you want, but you aren't going to get tenure or NSF grants if you just replicate experiments all day. it's not as if people don't know that you're supposed to do these things, it's just that no one wants to be the one to do it.

>As far as I'm concerned, the positivists, in particular Carnap, were largely correct
Just leave already anglo-redditor

As a biochem grad student, I find it worrying how few of my peers do know that. To them, "falsification" is a word they heard once in a survey class and which has never impacted their actual research. I think it's important to read Popper to understand what they're supposed to be doing and why, and to read Kuhn in order to know the traps they can fall into. I would be satisfied with just the basics, but most seem to lack even that. Most of the older professors are certainly aware, but there's a distinct generational decline which I think is too sharp to be explained merely by difference in experience level.

You must have Down's. I didn't say Kant was largely worthless, I said that PI (Philosophical Investigations) was.

You are so stupid. Popper's work had pretty much no impact on the scientific method whatsoever. Most successful scientists of his time were totally ignorant of his work or its 'consequences'.

>be Anglo
>not a positivist, empiricist or rationalist
>have an affinity for German idealism and the notion of the imperceptible and/or unintelligible thing in itself
>brute facts

stop this anglo hate

Define 'worth'

These subfields aren't even worthy of being called "science".

Of empirical value.

That's not a definition, that's a tautology with ideology stirred in.

You haven't the faintest clue about empiricism and its conclusions.

Except you're wrong, you can only view truth through your ideology where as science is absolute.

Come back to me when you're done with Newton.

Science is ideology and not absolute.
Newton is irrelevant, like every other dope.

Science is nice but it's not Hegel.

>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
>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'
Veeky Forums was a mistake

Your picture is very applicable to your post.

this.

Veeky Forums pseuds rarely engage, but when they do it's usually irrelevant namedropping that shows a complete misunderstanding of authors and a total lack of historical contextualisation. The little they smugly contribute with gets BTFO by a curious positivist who merely wanted to see if the debate is still hinged on anything serious enough to grant it survival. You can't even give him that, even though you claim the debate has been long over. Pathetic.

Veeky Forums is satire you fucking morons, stop taking it so seriously

shut up bitch Evola was right about literally everything

don't ever use that image again, you're embarrassing yourself.

analytics

Nick Land, the best example of what happens when you go full contie, is anglo.

You are not an Anglo. Your world view is one of a celtic/norse mystic

Then what are we finding p scores for?

Those have been around since the 18th century....

Nice try, OP

Yes, and? They didn't become the universal status quo for demonstrating the validity of a finding until after universities began teaching the scientific method as concieved by Popper. This is because a p-score is a very convenient way to falsify the null hypothesis. If you don't understand how that approach derives from Popper, then I would suggest reading literally any Popper.

Veeky Forums isn't even as great as they were in shitposting either. Nothing but plebs here - back in the day anons dedicated themselves to elaborate high quality shitposts but now it's either copypasta or utter amateur elitism.

These faggots should be gassed. Veeky Forums post moot's self-castration should be gassed. moot should be gassed.

That's just fucking not true. Fisher standardized their use more than a decade before any scientists started paying attention to Popper.

Also, at least in physics, p-values are just one means of testing for accuracy, Bayesian methods are used just as often, along with other means. It's absurd to claim that it's the "universal status quo for demonstrating the validity of a finding". It simply ain't. For example, examining the perihelion shift of Mercury and seeing that Einstein's theory accounted for the Newtonian deficit hardly required any recourse to p-values, or frequentist statistics in general. It seems like you've been misled as to Popper's effect on the practice of science. His influence has been most keenly felt in psychology, sociology and anthropology, not as much in the hard sciences.

Regardless, the concept of a null hypothesis hardly came from Popper, and that's certainly not where most scientists get the idea from. I have read the first part of the Open Society and Its Enemies.

>I'm quite familiar with philosophy of science. Before I got to high school, I read a lot of it
>before I got to high school

whoa guys, we've got a true genius here

And then you'll turn around like the pleb you are and go to lectures on quantum physics. Face it faggot you are almost certainly as bad as the po-mo retards you are mocking.

The concept of a null hypothesis didn't come from Popper, that's correct. He would vomit if he saw what people had done to his theory of falsifiability. It's an utter bastardization. By the way, if you've ever criticized or been criticized for proposing a theory that wasn't sufficiently falsifiable, you've been personally impacted by the theories of Popper. It's clear that you've never read him. Why keep embarrassing yourself?

The point is OP: empiricism works within the conceptual framework of our human perspective. STEM faggots get it wrong when they argue that science is objective or absolute truth, and can answer epistimological questions. It isn't and it can't. It is a system created by us and compromised by our local and limited perspective. It is not a 'pure form of access to reality.' To claim otherwise is 'scientism'- baseless, essentially unfalsifiable faith in the powers of science. Ironic, huh?

A truly objective view of reality is impossible- the hypothetical 'Archimedean point' where representations of the world can be differentiated from the world 'as it is'.

As a fun aside, to see just how dependent our understanding is of the world is on 'local concepts', try explaining the experience of colour to a blind person. You might say 'light waves presenting in x fashion', but this communicates essentially nothing about the actual experience of 'green' or 'red'. When you see colours, you see green and red, not 'lightwaves hitting in x fashion'. It's entirely dependent on you already knowing what red and green are. Vanishingly few things are truly 'objective' as you think they are.

I'm stupid, I meant before I got to college. Sorry, was a bit tipsy when I wrote that post.

You are beyond saving from your ideology.

You're saying quantum physics is equivalent to po-mo?

This "true objectivity" you refer to is nonsense. I also understand qualia-based arguments and think they're bullshit. Our senses give us information about the world, there's no other way to get information about the world besides our senses and cognitive faculties, so naturally we use these tools to confirm or falsify ideas we have about the outside world which may or may not be true. I don't have 'unfalsifiable faith' in science, and neither do most scientists. Anyone trained in science learns that their hypotheses are constrained by the observations they can make, and ultimately, their biology and sensory organs. You're projecting some sort of religious belief onto scientists that they simply don't have.

I've read him, and yes, falsification is important. I concede this, and that science has been influenced by his work. However, I don't think falsification is significantly different from confirmation or verification in practice, over the past hundred years or so, at least in physics.

Why ARE Anglo's so empirical and analytical? Is it just a coincidence that analytical philosophy and empiricism were disproportionately developed in the UK? Or is it something to do with English/British culture? Asking as an Anglo

Unfortunately the basis of your field is NON-'empirical'. Math has equations that are logically, factually true that AREN'T observed in the known universe. The soul knows more then the eyes. Sometimes there isn't even an empirical ROOT!

>Anyone trained in science learns that their hypotheses are constrained by the observations they can make, and ultimately, their biology and sensory organs

well said, i agree with you entirely user. The meme in question is addressing certain vocal subspecies of STEMtards and 'i fucking love science' normies who don't make or understand that important distinction you've mentioned. The sort of Harris/Dawkins/DeGrasse-Tyson types who believe philosophy is a silly waste of time, and that all questions can be answered by grossly over-stretching scientific inquiry to answer questions it cannot by definition answer. That's the pseudo-religious thinking- scientism.

I think the scientism refers more to people who just read about science, not scientists.

>You're saying quantum physics is equivalent to po-mo?
Yes of course.

They aren't. It's a meme perpetuated by humanities majors who heard Carnap and Ayer namedropped one day and spend the rest of their days trying to talk their way out of a fear of the positivist bogeyman that no longer exists

>I haven't heard any persuasive rebuttals to their position. I certainly don't think Two Dogmas counts as one.

What about Sellars, Lewis and Kripke?

>memes, a medium I've felt an affinity for for close to a decade now
>Before I got to high school, I read a lot of it
>as far as I'm concerned, the positivists were largely correct

Fucking 11/10 bait dude. I'd say it was a bit too obvious but you got a ton of people so hats off, honestly.

Not familiar with Lewis' rebuttal. I think Sellars' work misunderstands the positivists and sees Carnap and Schlick in particular as having more faith in perception than they really do. I'm not familiar with Kripke's objections, I don't think he addresses the issue directly in Naming and Necessity, and I think Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language is a pretty stupid book. I don't think the rule following paradox is an issue for positivism at all.

>stop this anglo hate

No more possible than halting the tide, friend

You're ignoring how there's a bunch of anglo empiricists and utlitarians born BEFORE Carnap. Even Nietzsche mocks anglo pragmatism.

This is so awesome to see. Give it five years. Then you'll look back with when that paradigm shift of yours occurs and laugh. Best of luck mate.

Could you put that reaction in logical notation so I can properly know what you mean?

ITT brainlet has trouble grasping meme scientismists. They're well aware of how empiricism is hinged on their biology

What are your thoughts on the philosophy of physics? Should we take a positivistic approach to the interpretation of physical theories? Does it matter if our best theories tell us that the objects of scientific study have counter-intuitive properties if those properties cannot in principle be observed? Should prediction be prized over explanation?

>scientism

use of this word is as much of an indicator as "problematic"

I didn't know people could get this pretentious.

What's your opinion on Husserl?

>I also understand qualia-based arguments and think they're bullshit. Our senses give us information about the world, there's no other way to get information about the world besides our senses and cognitive faculties, so naturally we use these tools to confirm or falsify ideas we have about the outside world which may or may not be true.
Why? Why are sense organs correct in their observations? Why do you assume one gains any information?

You don't understand empiricism. Get over yourself.

t. Alan Sokal

>Current Year +2
>Not being a structural realist