There is no point to philosophy because it cannot be quantifiably proven...

Philosophy is the study of representations. You are trying to find a accurate representation or model, using language or mathematical symbols, to describe reality. Either what you say matches what happens or it doesn't. The only thing that matters is prediction.

What is the point to this post if it can't be proven?

you just did though
what kind of fairy jargon faggot shit is this? truth = sceince and reason. plain and simple
>positivists
what?
read the rest of the thread

>truth = sceince and reason. plain and simple
>Can't even grasp first year epistemology

So because there's no math equation for an answer you shouldn't stop to think whether something is moral or ethical? People write there thoughts down on what they think. Imagine if they didn't and the wheel had to be reinvented every time.

It's naive to think that science has answers for everything there is to know to about the world. A scientific answer would only resolve the facts and facts alone don't really ever solve philosophical arguments. Empirical science isn't the only thing of worth in the world. Science can tell us how things are empirically, but it can't prescribe how we should then live.

>science and reason are (truth) is plain and simple
Do not limit truth.

How else can we define it?

>truth = sceince and reason. plain and simple

Wake me up

Edgy

Truth is just someone's own belief made real in their perception of reality based off their personal experiences and faith. Fact is something that can't be argued is wrong. Like saying "fire is hot" that can't be proven false because it's a fact. If someone says fire is not hot they are not lying they are just wrong. But truth is something that can't (or hasn't yet) been made factual and because of that people can take ideas that they strongly believe in and say they are real because they can't be proven, logically, otherwise. So for all intensive purposes, I can say that a omnipotent cucumber is the one true God and in a way I will be correct because no one can say I'm wrong even with big bad science. So yeah science is fact and philosophy is truth.

that satifies me

But fire is only perceived as hot to us. It doesn't have the property of "being hot." Now we're doing philosophy.

I'm glad I could help. I get it though philosophy isn't for everyone. It's more appealing to study and divote yourself to the descovery of fact than to play the guessing game. One way to look at it would be if you're an architect is it more productive to make a blueprint for a house, or sit there and question why you are building a house in the first place?

This is how I understand the distinction between philosophy and science. Broadly speaking, we can say there are two types of problems: those problems for whom potential solutions can be falsified empirically, and those problems for whom potential solutions cannot be falsified empirically. Problems falling into the first category are scientific problems, since they are amenable to both reason and empirical observation. Problems in the second category are philosophical problems, as they are only amenable reason and not empirical observation. We should think of science and philosophy as parts of the broader project of using reason to understand the world around us, not as competing means of solving the same problems.

No now you are crossing into science territory. Fire is hot because of a chemical reaction and that's a fact there's nothing philosophical about it

It depends how you're defining "hot." If you're defining it as the subjective character of coming into contact with fire (the feeling of hotness) then it's philosophy because you can't falsify claims about other people's subjective experience. If you're defining "hot" as high internal kinetic energy then it's a scientific claim.

Let's say two guys are sitting by a fire okay? One of the guys puts his hand out to see if the fire is hot and he decides that no the fire is cold and he very strongly believes this so he tells he's friend sitting next to him. So in order to prove him wrong the other guy sticks his hand into the fire and let's his skin melt right off the bone. He takes it out and shows the "philosopher". He says no the fire is hot. Who is right? The guy who believes he's right, or the guy with physical proof?

Anecdotal evidence
>not an argument

We're talking about the subjective perception of heat, not its objective (using that term loosely here) effects. That one guy who claims the fire is cold could be entirely justified (from a philosophical perspective) if he actually subjectively feels a sensation of cold when putting his hand in the fire. From a scientific perspective, he would be wrong, as the fire is hot according to measuring apparatuses, but that's not the claim he was making anyway. Subjective perceptions like these elude a scientific explanation.

This is why philosophy is important. The character of our subjective experiences are a product of the innate properties of the things we come into contact with (such as the kinetic energy of fire), and also of the organization of our own nervous systems. So it's theoretically possible that there are humans or aliens that, when they come into contact with fire, subjectively feel cold. This doesn't change the object facts about fire and its destructive capabilities. But different nervous systems may be able to experience the same objective phenomena in different ways. The fact that fire melt someones hand doesn't falsify the claim that they feel a sensation of cold when they touch it.

So what you're saying is that philosophy provides some kind of framework for science?

It is if you wanna talk philosophy. It's called a thought experiment it's a very common practice. Also your the one trying to argue that fire is not hot I was just trying to be nice about it

The first guy didn't make any effort to prove his idea, while the second obviously did. Do you think the guy with no evidence is right? Regardless of your answer, you're still an idiot.

But if you can just disregard a fact in favor of a belief where does that stop? Would there be exceptions to all facts? Then their wouldn't be facts at all science would be obsolete

I was trying to avoid out right calling the user an idiot but yeah pretty much

I'm sorry.
Fire is hot. Sometimes when thinking abstractly I fail to see the empirical world that exists all around me.

Nobody is disregarding facts, we're just acknowledging that there are two facts here to consider. The first is the fact of the objective properties of fire. The second is the fact of the nature of the subjective experience of beings who come into contact with fire. SUbjective experience is just as much a realm of facts as the objective world is, they are just facts that are harder to know. This epistemological limitation is what makes questions about the character of other people's subjective experience largely philosophical questions.

They're both facts. The fire is both hot and cold. Scientific facts are just verifiable intersubjectively whereas assertions about perceptions (qualia) can only be confirmed to be true by the person experiencing them.

The dangers of philosophy my friend

No, shithead. I mean to say your analogy is shitty and is misrepresentative of the idea of philosophy, a subject you have obviously never read past the wikipedia article about.

You didn't push the envelope far enough. Hot isn't a property, it's a description. The fire is of a certain temperature, but whether that temperature is hot or cold is fully subjective, what is hot to me can be cold to you, and what is hot to the both of us is almost freezing compared to the hotness of the sun, which is all perfectly relative and is all right in their own way.

I'm guessing you anons are big fans of Hume?

You still think fire is not hot sorry I can't take you seriously

The troll's outed himself. Pack your bags everyone. I honestly thought this was a troll the moment I laid eyes upon SmugHarris.jpg but the sheer retardation of his comments baited me.

It is true, most of philosophy doesn't come to much truth in regards to metaphysics or what have you. But it is interesting to study rationality and inductive/abductive reasoning which is used to form the most accurate belief system possible.

Why would I argue with someone about the objectivity of a Fact? I might as well be trying to convince someone that the earth is flat

Positivism is a dead meme, user.

>what is logic

t.B A I T B O Y Z

Apha I swear to fuck if this is you.

It definitely comes to truth in regards to metaphysics. What do you think God is- O wait you're a brainlet haha sorry man I didn't know, we can keep talking about foucault if you want I don't mind really.

>Do not look through the window! there is nothing there!

>No need to turn away from the window to see if the room has any other windows, or even doors to the outside. If it did, we'd see them through the window.