This guy pokes his head out of his car at you and says
>History is inherently unscientific
How do you respond?
throw my copy of guns germs that i have with me at all times and then cry
Science is inherently unhistorical, man.
>>333121
Time you read Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Ok, so? Not everything has to be science to be worth something.
i think im dumb
ur a fagit wew
At least I didn't pierce my buttcheeks together!
that is correct.
i'd also warn him not to poke his head out like that because Murad IV might cut it off.
I agree and inform him that it is not supposed to be scientific.
>>333116
Why do you carry that one?
>>333130
If something isn't science, then it's impossible to base decisions on it because it can't be verified whether it's likely true or not. History is mostly propaganda.
>>333470
>verified
Read popper
>true
Read Lakatos and Feyerabend, then backtrack to Hume and Russell.
>>333490
Oh, wow, it's like I'm actually on /lit/. I thought posters on this board were above name-dropping. How about you make an argument?
>>333470
Yeah I guess that's why nobody made good decisions before the scientific method. People were literally just flailing around and it didn't matter if you thought about something, used your judgment, or just sat around with your thumb up your ass, because everything was up to chance.
>>333470
>I put my finger on the hot stove and got burned
>If I do it again, surely nothing bad will happen since when I got burned last it wasn't science :DDDDDDDDDD
lol
>>333070
"haha okay, whatever dude."
then I do a flip on my skateboard
>>333578
>How about you make an argument?
I'm sorry that you're disgustingly pig ignorant on the history and philosophy of science. You've been given the resources to correct your ignorance, use them.
>>333628
I've read those people. I'm sorry you think an inability to articulate an argument is something to be proud of. This is a board for discussing history, I'm sorry you aren't interested in defending your own position.
>>333639
>I've read those people.
Sure, sure you have. That's why you're claiming science verifies reality and produces truth. Fuck off mate.
>>333685
Good for you, care to supply a topic?
Jumping into threads and dead posting is pretty fucking shitcunt behaviour mate. Stop your ciggie butt brain crap.
>>333720
Other arguments have already been posted, shut the fuck up and respond to them instead of harassing this one guy if you want discussion.
>>333720
>asking you to back up
I'm not going to recapitulate the evidence present in Lakatos for you.
You're already familiar with the arguments present.
You disagree with me that actually knowing the content of the seminal texts is necessary to post on /his/, that's because you're a useless shit cunt who doesn't believe in reading.
You appear to not know the meaning of "back up."
The explicit claim is that science neither verifies nor speaks truth. This is readily readable by the use of le shiggy mem aroos.
>>333070
Can History provide testable, repeatable predictions?
>No.
>>333578
Today I finally learned what "name dropping" means. I always asumed it was dropping names in conversations as to showcase your own worth, be it intelligence or popularity, for knowing these people.
