They are ultimately no closer to their goal in describing the fundamental nature of the world than Plato or Aristotle

They are ultimately no closer to their goal in describing the fundamental nature of the world than Plato or Aristotle.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SqFhd-Igs6w
youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

?? and this is a bad thing ?? we understand more and more with every experiment, but we will never know the true nature of the universe

Hence, I'm only here for the math, science is DOA, anything with firing neurons adhere to philosophy

The goal is to gain understanding, not some impossibly perfect understanding. Of course if you make up a straw man by saying that the goal is to count to infinity then no matter how high you count you will never be closer to that goal. But you're still counting much higher than those before you.

We want to count every grain of sand in the world. We counted a lot so far. It's pointless but we know more about sand than you.

> we understand more and more with every experiment

About how wrong you are. You motherfuckers are doing metaphysics first, science second. It should be science first (observing, testing and repeating experiments, then on to metaphysics to explain the findings in a metaphorical way.

This is why chemistry works, you put two substances together, observe what happens, what behaviour it depicts, and then you come up with the metaphysical explanation for why that's happened, and then give it some arbitrary name. You are almost certainly going to be completely wrong in your metaphysical description of what's going on "behind the scenes" as it were, but it doesn't matter because you're still putting the right substances together.

You only think it's pointless because you can't think of any application of the new understanding. Don't worry, it has always been like this, and types like you have always been proven wrong.

gtfo

This is the fundamental nature of the world
The world is flat

You should gtfo too. No uneducated/"home-schooled" creationist spawn allowed here.

...

Philosophy is all about logic. If your logic doesn't hold up, if it contains contradictions or fallacies, you're out! The problem is... whether something holds up or not is subjective...

Is it gay to love traps?

Trips of truth.

Fortunately, fewer and fewer people believe your nonsense these days.

And it's all because, as soon as religions (not singling any particular one out) lost the power to ban thinking, people began comparing the Word of God(s) against Reality. And the Scriptures were usually wrong.

The Fundies haven't given up. They're still pushing to have "alternative facts" taught in schools.
The countries where they retain power are invariably terrible, 5th rate pestholes.

The World is a Social Construct

The Reality, all Nature & Universe are Social Constructs

youtube.com/watch?v=SqFhd-Igs6w

youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0

The concepts of "World", "Reality", "Nature", "Race" and "Gender" are Social Constructs.

Race is a Social Construct

youtube.com/watch?v=RK3sguRWYK0

As long as they keep creating useful things while they are searching, I ain't complaining.

>pretending that science isn't philosophic

>The true nature of the universe.
And if that truth lies in pieces. What would say you then?

When you think about it, it's sort of weird that democratically elected governments spend so much money on stuff like the LHC and other physics experiments, which to 99.9% of the voting public are just completely esoteric projects with no clear benefit to anyone. I mean, I'm glad that they are able to, but I don't really understand how they convince governments to fund them.

Yes is gay, because a trap is a effeminated man, but a man nonetheless