A philosopher made me feel stupid today

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

A philosopher made me feel stupid today..

Science is real r-right guys?

Attached: B8C09AD5-71E5-4D34-8097-D4842DEC5A28.jpg (30 KB, 574x430)

All urls found in this thread:

lesserwrong.com/rationality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
iep.utm.edu/socrates/
youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw

King_Martha
King_Martha

define real

happy_sad
happy_sad

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

iluvmen
iluvmen

Shhh...
Good kitteh.

D:

Playboyize
Playboyize

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
Prove that statement scientifically. I'll wait.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

math is real therefore science is real

philosophy died 2000 years ago

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

I had a dream I was in the Philippines and my car got stolen and a bunch of other stuff happened, and then I turned around and there was a nice steak on a plate for me, and I sat down and ate it while crammed together with a bunch of strangers, and I got all cozy and sleepy in the dream and woke up in the real world snuggled tight in my blanket and I feel really really good from the dream, all full of love and shit. So what's real?

JunkTop
JunkTop

Which one? Neither are provable scientifically anyway, enjoy waiting.

The first statement is simply extracted from the scientific method. Its "proof" hinges on linguistics and philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. The second statement is simply a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

Seek professional educational assistance.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Philosophers specialize in creating scenarios where the terms are pre-defined and agreed upon, and then use these terms to corner and humiliate their opponent through language.

Basically, the 'debate' is won and lost at the definition phase, well before you're thinking of refutations.

They're skilled at verbal gymnastics and luring scientists into word traps, thinking that a hard definition must be good, when in reality they twist the sentences and thought processes around the definitions.

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

StonedTime
StonedTime

Read this if you want to into epistemology: lesserwrong.com/rationality

Attached: 1519462627866.png (678 KB, 1200x758)

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

wizard and rogue classes

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

Spamalot
Spamalot

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

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

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.

Playboyize
Playboyize

linking lesswrong
the absolute state of Veeky Forums

Emberburn
Emberburn

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 ;^)

Evilember
Evilember

all of philosophy is semantics

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

TechHater
TechHater

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.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

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

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

t. butthurt redditor

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

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

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

Booteefool
Booteefool

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.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

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

happy_sad
happy_sad

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.

w8t4u
w8t4u

define science

iluvmen
iluvmen

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.

idontknow
idontknow

Prove that statement scientifically
scientifically

brainlet detected

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

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.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

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.

Nojokur
Nojokur

philosophy is just a pastime for ancient neets and wordjugglers

viagrandad
viagrandad

HUUUrr U poPSi retAAaard hUuuRrr

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

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

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

askme
askme

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

likme
likme

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

Techpill
Techpill

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

WebTool
WebTool

taking bait so hard

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

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.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

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?

DeathDog
DeathDog

Greentext?

FastChef
FastChef

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 (59 KB, 412x462)

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

didn't mean to quote

Nojokur
Nojokur

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.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

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.

King_Martha
King_Martha

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.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

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.

Playboyize
Playboyize

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?

Emberfire
Emberfire

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.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Are assumed* To do any practical stuff*

StonedTime
StonedTime

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.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

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

whereismyname
whereismyname

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/

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

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.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Nice false flag.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

No one cares, philosophy is subjective bs.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

the philosopher is probably right OP
Veeky Forums btfo

Soft_member
Soft_member

/x/

massdebater
massdebater

Who is no one?

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

muh cant know nuttin

RumChicken
RumChicken

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?

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

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.

Nojokur
Nojokur

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.

Supergrass
Supergrass

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".

Spamalot
Spamalot

Hey OP what was the argument?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

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.

Snarelure
Snarelure

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.

DeathDog
DeathDog

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?

w8t4u
w8t4u

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.

iluvmen
iluvmen

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

likme
likme

Who are you quoting?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

The post below it.

Snarelure
Snarelure

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.

StonedTime
StonedTime

Nearly everything, from particle physics to relativity.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

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

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

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

CHAD Mathematicians and Physicists all love reading philosophy

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

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

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

hello my undergrad friend

how's calc 1 going?

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

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.

Booteefool
Booteefool

are you anglo?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

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.

likme
likme

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

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

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

DeathDog
DeathDog

A critical mind.

TechHater
TechHater

Can you give me an actual answer?

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Youre confusing philosophy for religion.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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).

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw

5mileys
5mileys

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.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit