How can metaphysics and ethics be anything other than unfalsifiable garbage? I know that unfalsifiability as a worthwhile criterion is unfalsifiable, but isn't that just a fucking given due to the munchhausen trilemma?
I'm serious guys, why the fuck should I take metaphysics or ethics seriously?
Does philosophy just suffer from the fact that as soon as it finds answers, the answers go from being philosophy to being common sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Is there one guy posting all of these threads?
>>861273
Or trolls recycling pasta.
>>861296
Fuck Yes!
Does /his/ agree?
>>861267
>Does philosophy just suffer from the fact that as soon as it finds answers, the answers go from being philosophy to being common sense?
Yes, Philosophy is common sense
That said, this is now a Hitchens thread. Post Hitchens
>>861306
Essential Hitchens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHoAQW_DBI4
![Paul_Feyerabend_Berkeley[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bz02utF.jpg "Paul_Feyerabend_Berkeley[1].jpg")
How can the scientific method be anything other than unfalsifiable garbage? I know that unfalsifiability as a worthwhile criterion is unfalsifiable, but isn't that just a fucking given due to a large part of scientific breakthrough not being caused by rational thinking and experimentation but clever rhetoric and stubbornness?
I'm serious guys, why the fuck should I take the scientific method seriously?
Does scientists just suffer from the fact that as soon as it finds answers, the answers are only held to be true for pragmatic reasons before we throw em away in a pile of things we thought we knew but didn't when new theories prevail?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism
>>861723
>It is simply true that the Sun is hotter than the Earth, true that the desk
on which I am writing is made of wood. These are not hypotheses
awaiting falsification; not temporary approximations to an ever-elusive
truth; not local truths that might be denied in another culture. And the
same can safely be said of many scientific truths, even where we can't
see them 'with our own eyes'. It is forever true that DNA is a double
helix, true that if you and a chimpanzee (or an octopus or a kangaroo) trace your ancestors back far enough you will eventually hit a shared
ancestor. To a pedant, these are still hypotheses which might be falsified
tomorrow. But they never will be. Strictly, the truth that there were no
human beings in the Jurassic Period is still a conjecture, which could be
refuted at any time by the discovery of a single fossil, authentically
dated by a battery of radiometric methods. It could happen. Want a bet?
Even if they are nominally hypotheses on probation, these statements
are true in exactly the same sense as the ordinary truths of everyday life;
true in the same sense as it is true that you have a head, and that my
desk is wooden. If scientific truth is open to philosophic doubt, it is no
more so than common sense truth. Let's at least be even-handed in our
philosophical heckling.
>>861306
>Philosophy is common sense
Obviously not. Because then it would be science.
>>861723
>I'm serious guys, why the fuck should I take the scientific method seriously?
>>861723
> falling for the Feyerabend meme
