Ludwig Wittgenstein on Darwinism

My point being why should we listen to Evolutionists when it comes to their current model if it is based on a previous one which they themselves not only now declare faulty but with much less confidence than Darwin and Darwinists touted the original theory? It's entropic Epistemology, if you will.

Survival of the fittest, my simian competitor.

worst new meme

>empirical evidence

this is still taking seriously amongst liberals in 2017

>Evolutionists
don't exist amongst scientists, that's not how science is structured or conducted - individuals are irrelevant, let alone ideology. All parts inform all parts. It's not up to the consensus of scientists or their beliefs, it's up to the Scientific Method and the results it produces.
refer to this post again It's not based on it - is literally looking at DNA and documenting what it does negated by a common idea of trait inheritance being vague? - nor is it faulty, just vague (hard to be definitively faulty when vague) and used to draw incomplete or irrelevant conclusions. It sparked interest in finding proper evidence for it, which then birthed an actual theory. With subsequent refinement and additions over the decades. As biology improved it would have been the results regardless, just less readily accepted and probably inferior to today's theory. In a hundred years it will still be refined. It's like you don't grasp the basic concept of the Scientific Method.

>that's not how science is structured or conducted - individuals are irrelevant, let alone ideology
>it's not up to the consensus of scientists or their beliefs, it's up to the Scientific Method

are you for fuckin real

this isn't the 18th century anymore where some maverick can apply the "scientific method" and get results. modern science is a bureaucratic "peer reviewed" system where you will never get results if it isn't something politically safe nor profitable

if you want proper science to be done, how about we cut all funding and leave it up to the "invisible hand" of the darwinian free market?

...

Why do you put any stock in today's refinement if it will be superseded by tomorrow's refinement?

Wittgenstein was a christian after all, of course he would refuse evolution or anything contradictory to his faith.

Read Nagle's Mind and Cosmos. Lotta pathetic stemlord worldviews will be triggered.

Man disappointed in the failures of philosophy trying to grasp straws.

If evolution is real why is most of the variance between species due neither to deleterious nor advantageous alleles or gene fixing?

Threadly reminder that Platonic Forms account for all biodiversity.

Wow what a racist.

Is it natural selection you don't like? Or the fact that being common ancestors with a bunch of filthy poo-throwing apes shits all over your superiority complex? Hopefully the latter because you can watch natural selection take effect species-wide real-time:
youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

evolution btfo
>muh light sensitive patch that developed into an eye!
>Nonononono the pieces dont matter, its the function that evolved!

By Evolutionists' own words, there is no selection. There has never been a single observation of any one trait becoming extinct. I don't like projecting my own Nietzschean babble on benign phenomena and functionally null data thereof.

As for filthy poo-throwing apes, I don't mind sharing this thread with them, at least.

Discussions like this show an unbelievable maturity and depth/breadth of wisdom and knowledge. Questioning academic dogma is perhaps one of the biggest assets human beings have.

>Evolutionists
>don't exist amongst scientists, that's not how science is structured or conducted - individuals are irrelevant, let alone ideology. All parts inform all parts. It's not up to the consensus of scientists or their beliefs, it's up to the Scientific Method and the results it produces
You are one naive and dumb son of a bitch. There's nothing I hate more than the touting of science as a God tended to by completely objective, unbiased researchers who don't let their humanity get in the way of their research.

Please delete this, you are weakening my argument by association.
I'd really prefer if you stopped talking.

kek

See: Discourse is red in tooth and claw, unfit fledgling.

look pal, you just don't know anything about how research is done. The free market only funds research that has strong potential to be profitable in the short term, hopefully you don't need me to tell you this isn't the only proper or useful science. Only some companies in unique positions are willing to fund slightly longer term research. And its all applied work anyway.
>it just keeps getting better and more accurate and having more predictive power. If its going to be more accurate tomorrow how can we trust it today?
Evolution is a thing that happens today and will still be a thing that happens tomorrow. We will just understand exactly how it happens better.

As someone who has done some research and spends a lot of time around people who do research I will be happy to answer any questions I can. I can educate but have no intention of arguing.

By distancing my self from the weak link i am utilising a form of eugenics.
Survival of the fittest indeed.

>Evolutionists
There's your red flag. Stop replying to this piece of shit.

But Darwin was MORE confident that his version is accurate and predictive, both in and of itself and relative to what came before it, than pretty much any major Scientist is today. So much so that it was assimilated by Politics and Philosophy. And today's alleged increase in "accuracy and predictive power" of the theory of Evolution, in light of allegedly new data or whatever, is claimed with far LESS confidence and, paradoxically, even with less Empirical data relative to the claims it is invoked to support.

The Epistemology of Evolution eerily mirroring its opponents' contention pertaining to entropy and information potential. I hope the irony is not lost on you.

The Grand STEMquisitor is here.

I have no expertise in biology and have only taken into level classes on the topic. In particular to evolution I have no idea how confident Darwin was about which of his ideas or how relatively confident he was compared to how confident biologists today are about various new ideas that may be being researched further. But such comparisons seems fairly unimportant to me for various reasons though I can somewhat understand such an approach given a certain background. So I really have no real opinion on any irony in the situation.

There are certain fields which might be described as more "soft" science where bad practice are common place that really are deserving of general skepticism. Biology doesn't really fall under this category and research is conducted with enough rigor that from a scientific point of view consensus results can be trusted. Not to say anything or anyone is perfect, but on something as well established as evolution I don't see that there is any grounds for reasonable doubt from a scientific point of view. I qualify from a "scientific point of view" because if you don't believe in the philosophy of the scientific method clearly none of this holds. And your criticism of evolution strikes me as fast and loose rather than rigorous and scientific. A vague philosophical attack on the "epistemology of evolution", a term I'm not entirely sure what you mean by. Perhaps its not evolution you have a problem with but science, a different topic but I don't mind discussing it.

He's a moron.
Like most philosophers.
He sat and thought (basically masturbated) over "philosophical topics" as a vocation. Meaning he nitpicked words to death. He over-analyzed to the greatest extent that it is possible for a human to over-analyze. This is what it means to be a "philosopher". And like all philosophers, he considered himself an intellectual and the results of his philosophizing, the fruits of his "labors", to be high quality and high in value.

Like most philosophers, then, every time science starts unlocking new secrets or undermining philosophy by finding the truth of reality in a practical, objective way rather than just speculating about it and guessing, he gets upset. Especially when those findings contradict his own views, which he has spent a career analyzing and building upon.

Basically, he was to Darwin what a geocentrist is to heliocentrist.
Suddenly decades or more of "work" based on bad guesses is out the window and science is stealing the spotlight from the "thinkers" who have now been proven to be hilariously wrong.

He knew next to nothing about Darwinism or evolution in general, but because his life was dedicated to semantic games and over-analysis, he nonetheless fancied himself equipped to not only comment on the subject, but to judge it and dismiss it on faulty premises.

This is why we don't have any superstar philosophers anymore. So many have been disgraced in history by science that the breed is going extinct. (Is that a pun, given the topic?)

>grand STEMquisitor
user, i-

Post the rest of the quote.
An argument can't be examined without premises to accompany the conclusion.
His claim about "multiplicity" requires support. Darwinism explicitly accounts for varieties of species. The differentiation of finches is central to his work. "How do we have so many kinds? Here's why."

I suspect Wittgenstein just couldn't fathom the means by which finches and dogs and turtles and lions and humans all diverged. Perhaps he thought each taxonomic phylum or class was wholly separate from others.

*tips some sort of hat in your general direction*
Nice scientism my man.

>scientism
The pinnacle of ignorance.
>"hurr, who cares that the study of nature by empirical means is the single most stunningly successful approach in our history, let's dismiss it all with a meme to avoid defending our intellectual failings!"

Nice try kid.
Science gave you everything you have in life and you know it.
Go live a life without science. I dare you.
Throw away your phone, your computer, your clothes, fire, etc.
Do away with everything that was acquired by observation and experimentation.

You can sit and circlejerk over induction and Descarte all day long but when it's time to get real work done you know you rely on science for EVERYTHING.

Before you cross the fuckin street you look both ways. You gather evidence. You apply that evidence to evaluate the scene before you. You don't sprint out into traffic because "lol we don't truly know cause and effect exist or that our senses accurately depict reality!"

Philosophy is dying because science is answering all of its questions with facts. Deal with it.

The combination of posters like this and /pol/sters are on the verge of ruining
Veeky Forums.

I doubt you've ever taken a post-secondary level science class. And I don't care that this is ad hom, you deserve it to be quite honest.

"Why should we listen to scientists on Gravity after Newton's theories were proven to be incomplete and additions had to be made?! Not to mention dark matter!"

>he thinks science has made much more progress to understanding gravity than newton

>he hasn't taken even physics 101 and seen that Newton's original findings only apply to Earth's surface, and virtually all other applications, including just airliner flight, required expansion of the theory

You obviously don't know anything about Wittgenstein. He wrote his only real work (all 85 pages of it) in trenches of WW1 and finished it in a prison camp. He abandoned philosophy after he published his book, thinking he ended it and moved on to STEM pursuits, then ethics, then back to philosophy to tweak his early ideas.
>Like most philosophers, then, every time science starts unlocking new secrets or undermining philosophy by finding the truth of reality in a practical, objective way rather than just speculating about it and guessing, he gets upset.
There is zero crossover between Wittgenstein's philosophy and Darwin's theory. He was expressing his opinion and it had nothing to do with philosophy.
I would doubt if you could cite a single instance of a philosophy being undermined by a scientific discovery in the past century. There's just no crossover.
If you want to post an uninformed self- congratulatory wall of text about muh scientism being superior to philosophy do it on reddit

>IMPLYING NEUROSCIENCE HASN'T BEEN SHITTING ON PHILOSOPHY'S ENTIRE CORPUS OF WORK PERTAINING TO THE SELF, EGO, MIND, THOUGHT, AND PERCEPTION, ETC, IN RECENT HISTORY

Wow. And you call ME ignorant? And then plead that there's no crossover despite both trying to solve the same problems and sharing common ancestry, with science delivering truth at an accelerating pace while philosophy gets itself fisted to death in gay bathhouses (lol foucault) while rambling about how everything is a social construct?

My analysis stands. Wittgenstein's perspective on the world was poisoned by philosophy to the point that he rejected fact on arbitrary basis, as is the custom of philosophers. I didn't refer to his body work. I refereed to his philosophy hobby in general.

>I would doubt if you could cite a single instance of a philosophy being undermined by a scientific discovery in the past century.

hahahahahahaha
t. I've never heard of Philosophy of Mind

>he thinks science has not made much more progress in understanding gravity since newton
>he also has no basis for this belief and has never taken a college science class
>he thought he could get away with contradicting a statement he didn't really know nothing about and look like he won the argument because that's all he cares about

...

Actually, Language gave you everything you have in life. If you don't agree, shut up.

Exactly. Newton's theory is way more structurally and Logically secure than anything that came after it. Not only that but, according to Materialists, the gaps in knowledge are bigger than ever before and virtually all meaningful evidence is immutably hidden inside of them.

Can you name one truth that Science has delivered?

Damn. You really don't know anything about Wittgenstein, do you?

>research is conducted with enough rigor that from a scientific point of view consensus results can be trusted.

So you agree that the accuracy and predictive power you speak of cannot be measured against anything other than Human confidence? And that, unlike most Philosophy, the irreducible particle in the Scientific Method is mutual assumption between two or more people? You keep digging yourself deeper. It's uncanny.

Everything you said is wrong and everything you claimed I said in that quote I didn't say or imply in any way. What you quoted is only about your relationship with scientific research as a layman who has clearly never taken a college level science class. The only thing uncanny here is how intellectually dishonest or retarded you are. Consider my interest lost you clueless arrogant faggot.

>muh modern science invented clothing and fire!
What

>Do away with everything that was acquired by observation and experimentation.
Oh, youre just retarded

Philosophy paves the way for science. How did newton discover gravity? He was philosophizing :^)
Stop posting any time

You said research is conducted with enough rigor that from a scientific point of view consensus results can be trusted. I said research, rigor, consensus, result, and trust are all immaterial aspects of the Human Mind, therefore the Scientific Method is just as Empirically relevant as scrying.

Bad thread. It's no good!

>research, rigor, consensus, result, and trust are all immaterial aspects of the Human Mind

Everything is bud. But it is the only perspective we can ever have.

I agree.

>transfinite numbers don't real
— Luddite Fittgenstein

Not only that, but it accounts for abiogenesis, causality behind variation, and extinction too. All the while being 100% Rational and never implying a Creator, though not precluding one either. Evolution is a mess and a waste.

>individuals are irrelevant, let alone ideology

I'm sorry, but you just don't know how the world works. I'm not here offering a refutation of evolutionary theory but if you think that somehow any intellectual theory is free from ideology or the dominion of certain individuals then you've clearly been dazzled by the ideology of Scientism, ironically.

But you can say that for everything in science. It's understood that scientific theories are models to explain physical phenomena. A theory will never be the real thing since by definition it is a representation. But that does not mean it is not useful, that it can't be accurate, make predictions, and use for engineering. No model maybe 100% accurate, but no two models are worth the same. One is more accurate than the other and so we have a way to reach truth.

So coming back to the Darwinist-Modern Synthesis issue, and my initial question of why should anyone entertain the latter if its Etiology is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future just like it has now superseded Darwinism - is there a non-ambiguous answer as to when the truth will be reached? Relegating this answer to a temporal gap, like "Transhumanism" or "Singularity", means conceding that there either is no truth to be reached or that Science is about being constantly wrong.

Oh geez

Can you elaborate more on this, or point me to a source that can do so?

>is part of a great continuum of constant change and thus will be superseded in the near future
wtf I hate truth now

The Darwinism of today is called NEOdarwinism for a reason. It is much more complex, than Darwin ever thought and even elements of Lamarcks theory have found their ways into it (epigenetics).

...

Take a fucking anthropology class, for Christ's sake.

Darwin's original theory was supposed to be a fundamental principle like a theorem (i.e unchanging). This view has since then collapsed and it is now established that evolution, as a process, is also evolving in itself. Which leads to things such as epigenetics, hereditary "memory", and also spontaneous modification of DNA DURING the lifetime of a single organism.

Sorry, meant to answer with

>be a fundamental principle like a theorem (i.e unchanging
You mean it was an axiom of him of, which he derived the theory. I wouldn't disagree, but he was accurate enough so that I don't use the terminus techniqus "modern synthesis". Obviously science is only accurate to a degree and you need to chose your axioms (even in mathematics).
>This view has since then collapsed and it is now established that evolution, as a process, is also evolving in itself. Which leads to things such as epigenetics, hereditary "memory", and also spontaneous modification of DNA DURING the lifetime of a single organism.
Like I said it hasn't fully collapsed, but turned out to be more complicated and nuanced. It's a rather semantic discussion..

You might be intrested
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Much of this variation is heritable (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

>Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact).

No single trait has been observed as having reproductive relevance outside the laboratory (fact).

saying Darwin was "wrong" is like saying Isaac Newton was "wrong" because Einstein later developed General Relativity

it's more accurate to say Darwin's theory, like Newton's was the most accurate description for reality at that time, but was incomplete

later generations would then expand on those ideas

>Philosopher of language
>caring what he thinks about evolution
What the fuck is wrong with you people? According to Seventeen Magazine's skincare consultant, the speed of light in a vacuum can't possibly be the cosmic speed limit, because, like, ew, why would it be?

my nigga

See:

what a retard

STEM is a footnote even to incidental Philosophers like Glenn Gould.

Best post ITT

That word doesn't apply

how is Newton's theory more "logical" than General Relativity...when General Relativity has already been proved correct?

>proved correct
mein gott

your posts are so weak that im the only dude to give you any (You)'s. thats not eugenics thats life-support

btw my post was better than yours.

>Proved correct
>Implying anything can be "proved correct"
>Implying General Relativity isn't currently falling apart due to discoveries in quantum physics

Nothing is falling apart these theories just have ranges of validity.

As this thread is quickly reaching an Evolutionary dead end, the...visible hand will intervene and guide it to further expression:

youtube.com/watch?v=z_dkgW7lNkA

youtube.com/watch?v=iyodQqilqyU

Gould emerged fully formed.

>implying you need to study at a collage to understand fucking evolution