A philosopher made me feel stupid today

>wizard and rogue classes

Attached: 1519073999768.jpg (256x256, 8K)

>The easiest way to piss one off is to keep splitting hairs at the stage where you must agree upon common terms and definitions.

That's what you just SAID philosophy is

This. Philosophy only exists to make people think they are dumb. Any good philosopher will understand that he is no exception to his own cognitive circles.

That being said I actually enjoy philosophy, it's an interesting way to investigate the knots and holes people have created in the logic they father.

>linking lesswrong
the absolute state of Veeky Forums

>So as we both know, X = Y
>Okay
>Which means X is Z, because you already agreed it was Y haha
>That's retarded
>Sorry you didn't read Heidegger ;^)

>all of philosophy is semantics

Attached: brainletwojak.jpg (645x729, 46K)

Philosophy hinges primarily on semantics, yes. There's a reason the bulk of all great philosophies come from languages that don't permit fuzzy definitions like English does - less time is wasted trying to clarify the specific meaning of your building blocks and rather how you're going to use them.

holy shit dude lesswrong is psuedo-intellect central. You don't actually take it seriously, do you?

t. butthurt redditor

Attached: chadrationalist.jpg (2047x788, 223K)

Philosophy is a lot more than just semantics though. It is about determining what map reflects the territory, not just the meanings of words.

>lesswrong is psuedo-intellect central
In what sense? What about Yudkowsky's epistemology do you think is incorrect?

I agree, I'm just pointing out that semantics mustbe beaten like a dead horse first in English before tackling anything else because the odds of someone trying to use slippery word definition jew sorcery on you later is 300x more likely in English.

The fact that they accept Everette interpretation immediately bars them from being taken seriously.

So what evidence do you have that the Many-Worlds interpretation is incorrect? And even if it is incorrect, that doesn't mean he is wrong about Bayesianism, AI, etc.

define science

>Science is all about reproducibility while eliminating as many variables as possible
>Among everything we have in life, science is the most real because it leaves as little to chance as possible

Stop reading popsci retard.

>Prove that statement scientifically
>scientifically

brainlet detected

I don't know why people get so shocked by shit like the problem of induction or whatever. It's fundamental to keep searching so the comfort of our predictive models can be assumed to certain degree. It's ultimately a remainder that doesn't affect directly, because it just gives an epistemological limitation, but it gives no alternative whatsoever. So no, science is not necesarilly the ultimate absolute truth of everything, and there are questipns beyond it's scope, but you need to work in some high level framework almost always, and it just seems that our models are useful/insightful to some extent. Philosophers have their own specialization and questions which are important in their own way, but their reach isn't necesarilly all that big, but I suppose you at least should be familiar with certain limitations and questions about thd merit of any field.

Science without a firm grounding in philosophy is doomed to fail, as we are currently witnessing. When science sticks to the scientific method, it can be a great force for good, that's where progress is made.

What we've been believing to be science in modern times is not science at all, because it does not follow the scientific method. Theoretical "science" is metaphysics, using mathematics in place of scientific experiment, and this has been a disaster.

We're at a very interesting time now because it's becoming more and more obvious (even to the public) that current theories are completely wrong and belong in the realm of sci-fi.

There's now a battle emerging between the theorists and the naturalists. The theorists believe in a relativistic universe along with the heliocentric model, the naturalists believe in an electromagnetic universe along with a geocentric model. Only one of them can actually be considered scientific.

philosophy is just a pastime for ancient neets and wordjugglers

HUUUrr U poPSi retAAaard hUuuRrr

Attached: 1520966471844.png (980x940, 102K)

Lol, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. That's not even a debate in philodophy departments.

Bayesianism is shit. His idea's on AI are not bad but greatly exaggerated. Many worlds is the worst interpretation.

Philosophy is so gay. Who cares if science is "real" as long as it produces results. Philosophers are a bunch of wirgins

I can't tell if the philosophy hate itt is genuine or just a Veeky Forums meme.

>taking bait so hard

>That's not even a debate in philodophy departments.

What departments? And most people who study philosophy are too focused on the past/history of philosophy, rather than creating their own and trying to apply it to the present.

>Bayesianism is shit.
>His idea's on AI are not bad but greatly exaggerated.
>Many worlds is the worst interpretation.
Do you have any actual arguments to back up any of these statements?

Greentext?

Atomists are nothing new which is why philosophers will always destroy them, they were already proven wrong by this guy.

Exactly, you can't. It is impossible.

>I counted the number of illusion i "saw" so it's real.

>Science without a firm grounding in philosophy is doomed to fail, as we are currently witnessing. When science sticks to the scientific method, it can be a great force for good, that's where progress is made.

What we've been believing to be science in modern times is not science at all, because it does not follow the scientific method. Theoretical "science" is metaphysics, using mathematics in place of scientific experiment, and this has been a disaster.

Holy fuck, nailed it right on. Science and mathematicians only consider what is "countable" as real. Also goes along with the "settled science" meme, there is no such thing as "settled science".

>science without a firm grounding in philosophy is doomed to fail, as we are currently witnessing. When science sticks to the scientific method, it can be a great force for good, that's where progress is made.

>I don't know what a "Cause" or "Effect" is; the post.

Attached: 879[1].jpg (412x462, 59K)

didn't mean to quote

There are branches of theoretical physics that deal with models that, because the lack of technology, can't be empirically tested, that doesn't mean that's what modern physics is all about. Not every single physicists is doing dtring theory you moron.

>because the lack of technology, can't be empirically tested

"Allegory of the cave" by Plato. Like I said Atomism is not a new belief.

Allegory of the cave? No one is claiming that these models are scirntific truths, it's just investigation into possible models that unify certain phenomena, it has nothing to do with a limited world view, and what the hell does atomism has to do with anything? Yes, atomists existed since ancient greece, but scientific models are done through empirical findings and until there wasn't evidence for elementary particles, it wasn't really part of the empirical science.

Have you ever worked in a lab? If you're getting schooled by a philosopher I think the problem is likely that you only have a popsci or low level undergraduate understanding of science, where they focus mainly on getting you up to speed on recent developments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

"Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day, and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was"

The "shadows" are analogous to any posterior attribute of an object, the fire is analogous to any "instrument of observation". We are the prisoners chained to the wall of our senses and having nothing but shadows to define things as they really are is IMPOSSIBLE. They are posterior attributes to the actual object casting said shadow. Only until the prisoners are free and see the object for what it is, then it is "reifiable", BUT only from the ideas of a prisoner who has been chained to a blank wall his whole life. The object is whatever, it is the same as any other object given to him because all he was given his whole life was LIES. Every object therefore is one thing to him "an idea".

So how is it any different to us right now? Everything is a posterior attribute. There is no cause, nothing is real.

So how do you plan to reify what is not there? What is light other than changing electromagnetic "waves"? How does light "cause" shadows to occur? Shadows are posterior attributes, they don't exist. How does light exist?

Claims made by physicists are made in a framework were certain metaphysical aspaects are assumed? Why? Because if not it would be impossible to fo any actual practical stuff. Your layman intro to philosophy is nothing knew, and academics are aware of that sort of stuff, but that's why we have a philosophy department and a physics department.

Are assumed* To do any practical stuff*

>muh reality muh reality muh reality
How about you give us a testable question instead of asking whether reality is real

If the shadows can be measured/observed then they are real, in the sense they have the attributes that you can observe from them and not necessarily whatever metaphysical importance you ascribe to them. Stepping outside of the cave and obtaining a better understanding of where they come from does not make the shadows any less real.

>taking a professional YOU CAN'T NO NUFFIN seriously
Brsinlet, the only proper response to these people is laughter and spare change for their cup

No because philosophy can be interesting and insightful if you aren't a complete drone, the thing is, philosophy majors fall for the same trap and just repeat same tired meme arguments without worrying about it. But all you retards act the same, but here's a concept that all we internet intellectuals forget a lot iep.utm.edu/socrates/

Was refering to "socratic ignorance". Humility is fundamental.

Philosopher always make us scientists feel stupid, it's a feeling you'll have to get used to if you're serious about getting into science, because they're smarter and more knowledgeable than us. There's no shame in them though.

Nice false flag.

No one cares, philosophy is subjective bs.

the philosopher is probably right OP
Veeky Forums btfo

...

Who is no one?

>muh cant know nuttin

>How about you give us a testable question instead of asking whether reality is real.

Lol okay. Explain what causes a "field".

>If the shadows can be measured/observed then they are real,

HOLY FUCK LOL. No, what CAUSES the shadow. Effects are misleading, you need the cause to understand what (insert phenomena) is CAUSING the effect.

Do shadows "exist" without light? No, because then they wouldn't be defined now would they? You would have no measurements to take, no info whatsoever if everything was suddenly blackened completely, no light whatsoever anywhere in the universe then how could shadows exist? How could we or anything exist without light?

While science doesn't give a clear answer to existance questions, that doesn't mean in anyway that you can conclude that nothing is real. The fact that we could be fooled by our empirical limitations, doesn't mean it MUST BE that other shir exist. Plato was arguing that such situations can ocurr to argument why we should focus on truths that are not dependent of our empirical knowledge i.e. he was a rationalist. I don't really understand how you sre trying to apply thid to modern science besides handwavy claims.

Explain what it means to cause a field.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with that last statement. Are you insinuating shadows are no longer real as long as you understand the underlying principles that cause them? Yes, if I am unable to observe anything then I am unable to observe anything.

>While science doesn't give a clear answer to existance questions, that doesn't mean in anyway that you can conclude that nothing is real. The fact that we could be fooled by our empirical limitations, doesn't mean it MUST BE that other shir exist.

You're right, I should not have said "nothing is real except change".

Hey OP what was the argument?

>Explain what it means to cause a field.

Why do fields exist? What is the CAUSE of their existence? Really simple, they don't explain themselves do they? They just are because...why?

>Are you insinuating shadows are no longer real as long as you understand the underlying principles that cause them?

No I'm insinuating that if you can't explain what causes something to happen then you can't accurately describe what it is. Shadow is nothing other than a change in the amount of light. You can call it a "shadow" but you can't say it exists by itself as something that does something.

My hypothesis is that when a shadow sees a physical object it projects a light source behind it. All shadows collaborate to project the least amount of light sources ad possible. Let's test it.

Do they need a cause to exist? As a philosopher you should be well aware that you need to take certain ideas as axioms. Of course, whether or not they admit as a simpler underlying structure will always be of interest, but you can again apply the same question.

>No I'm insinuating that if you can't explain what causes something to happen then you can't accurately describe what it is
You would have to define cause and accurate. Suppose we say that A is caused by B. By your definition, it suggests we need to understand what causes B in order to understand B, and it seems natural then the problem of understanding A devolves into the problem of finding the cause of B. We can apply this ad infinitum to the next causes C, D, E and etc and it becomes trivial that in any finite time A cannot ever be understood. Is this your proposition?

Literally Classical Physics. In mechanics, f=ma is too simplified. By eliminating more variables, we leave as little to chance as possible by being more precise.
For smaller things, look into a microscope or look at a circuit.

>current theories are completely wrong and belong in the realm of sci-fi.
Such as?

Who are you quoting?

The post below it.

I hope that everyone realized that both sides here are making philosophical arguments rather than science based ones.

Thus demonstrating the use and meaning of philosophy to science. Scientists were once known as 'natural philosophers', yknow.

Nearly everything, from particle physics to relativity.

Can someone honestly and genuinely tell me what they gain from reading philosophical literature?

ITT: Virgin Engineers and Computer """"Scientists""""

CHAD Mathematicians and Physicists all love reading philosophy

No they don't. Why would they want to read something less insightful and true than what they already work on?

hello my undergrad friend

how's calc 1 going?

I'm in grad school and have read lots of philosophical literature. All I've read thus far has been a huge waste of time.

are you anglo?

Lmao at all the brainlets ITT

Read Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas you absolute plebians. You faggots probably don't even realize that metaphysics is prior to epistemology.

>read these three brainlets who other brainlets in their field all reject

Why should I read them? What will I gain from it?

A critical mind.

Can you give me an actual answer?

Youre confusing philosophy for religion.

Imagine science is a car, philosophy is the steering wheel and the road at the same time. Philosophy will help you to use science effectively by clearly defining what it actually is so you don't steer off track, and it will help you define the purpose/meaning for why you're using science in the first place i.e. what's the goal (the road).

youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw

Spider-Man, Spider-Man
Friendly neighborhood Spider-Man
Wealth and fame
He's ignored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Wherever there's a hang up
You'll find the Spider-Man.