Scientists always fall for the logical positivism meme. And they don't even realize it's a philosophical position with philosophical justifications....
They're pretty dumb to be honest. They have massive tunnel vision and because of that they don't realize their epistemic assumptions and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic, they think it's common sense. And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit...
They're simply very bad at thinking outside of a scientific framework. Thoughts?
-feyerabend
I very much agree. Scientists really need to stick to science. Every time Stephen Hawking talks about something not science, especially philosophy, I cringe. Now I am sure there are some scientists who are capable of philosophical study and thought, but the mainstream ones are wholly unfit for it. These scientists believe we can enter a "post-philosophical age", which in itself is a philosophy. You can't stop doing philosophy because it's meta-everything.
>>427415
>and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic
like every single epistemological framework ever.
>And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit
Thats their fucking job: to do science. They're not gonna care about other epistemological frameworks. They admit scientific methodology as their ideal and work from there.
Your issue isnt with scientists (even though I feel from your text and the pic you posted, its a very specific group of scientists...) but with a society that more and more gives ultimate credence to science as the provider of knowledge.
Who cares if they're bad a philosophy? They're very good at giving us medical technology and improving quality of life.
>>427482
They shouldn't be muddying the intellectual waters.
>>427513
>They shouldn't be muddying the intellectual waters
Prove that your argument is more valid then against whatever argument you find it muddies the intellectual waters.
Problem solved.
>>427522
If only it worked that way.
>>427415
So can you get me a concrete capacity listing for the Angel's annual Ring-a-Ding Swing Fling?
>>427533
then why do you give a shit?
Unless you want to act like a retard and be like Paul "Astrology, tarot and new-wave crystal treatments are totally as valid as science" Feyerabend, just fucking ignore it.
Again, your issue isnt with the scientists that try to play philosopher, but with our society that pays a lot more attention to them in those matters than they should (according to you)
>>427468
>Scientists really need to stick to science
And they do by a fucking massive margin. You just want something to whine about.
>>427571
I specified my griping concerns mainstream scientists.
>>427482
Quality of life insofar as reducing mortality rates.
As far as making people happier? They're completely fucking shit at it. The most miserable countries in the world are the UK and the US, of which like 30% of citizens are on SSRIs.
>>427468
>You can't stop doing philosophy because it's meta-everything.
You clearly haven't been reading the literature concerning non-philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy
>>427478
>gives ultimate credence to science as the provider of knowledge.
What else is there though?
Rationalism doesn't work because you can't work from first principles.
Faith doesn't work because it is merely an appeal to emotion.
Rhetoric doesn't work because Hitler.
>>427603
>French philosophy post 19th century
A theist rationalist Humanities Professor was teaching a class on Plato, known non-logical positivist
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Plato and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Newton!”
At this moment, an emotionless, Vulcan, logical postivist STEM major who had watched all episodes of Bill Nye the science guy and understood the necessity of Empiricism and fully supported everything Neil deGrasse Tyson ever said held up a copy of Phenomenology of the Spirit.
”How does any of this crap make sense?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite post-modernly and smugly replied “Of course not! Truth is entirely subjective, you stupid STEMfag”
”Wrong. The basis for truth is to test something 5,000 times with double blind experiments in a lab. If I can't see it.... then it isn't there!”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He stormed out of the room crying those continental tears, which just shows that he was still being controlled by his emotions. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, some gay Frenchman, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist philosophy professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself denied causality having read Hume!
The students applauded and all changed their degrees to STEM, though all of them would fail to find employment as the market was oversaturated, and accepted Sam Harris as their Lord and Saviour. An eagle named “Empiricism” flew into the room and perched atop a copy of Principia de Mathematica and shed a tear on the chalk. The Bill Nye the Science Guy theme was sung several times, and Steven Hawking himself showed up to explain how science has replaced philosophy.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of an existentialist crisis.
>>427758
goddamnit
>>427758
Not good pasta
>>427758
LMAO
I disagree. Some sci fi has some amazing philosophical implications. Read a brief analysis of foundations edge.
>>427585
>The most miserable countries in the world are the UK and the US, of which like 30% of citizens are on SSRIs.
Compared to what other countries? Developed countries that still benefit extensively from science? Undeveloped countries where this could be easily attributed to insufficient diagnosis and treatment?
What exactly is logical positivism?
>>427798
"Cant see it, isnt there"
>>427799
I'm sure there's more to it than that. If it were just that, I'd chock this thread up to a religious individual being buttrumpled that someone dismissed the divine out of hand due insufficient evidence.
Also there are fields of science that deal with plenty of things people can see, there are well accepted scientific concepts that are only mathematically sound.
Please suggest another framework for understanding the world which has produced anything of value.
Pretty much tbphwyf (to be pretty honest with you fan)
>>427807
That's just the thing, logical positivism says philosophy=religion
>>427810
Define value.
>>427810
This shitty meme again. Prove music hasn't touched more lives than science then faggot. Value exists whether it's quantifiable or not
>>427901
Better yet, perform an experiment that empirically determines the meaning of value.
There's no distinction between science, philosophy and art even if contemporary society encourages specialization. Only an absolute philistine makes that distinction.
I saw someone mention music. Don't you find it funny that much of theoretical music was laid out by Pythagoras? Or guys like Adorno?
>>427772
popper was not a positivist
>>427415
>Scientists always fall for the logical positivism meme
Internet Fedoras =/= Scientists
>>427482
This. At the end of the day, if all philosophers in the world died right now, it would probably mean nothing at all for the quality of life across the globe.
>>428086
It would cut the GDP of first world nations. Given that GDP is a common proxy for quality of life I think you're fucking shitposting cunt because you have no idea about the economic r philosophical problems about "quality of life."
Go get buggered by an elephant.
>>427758
2gud m8
>>428098
GDP per capita is what matters, though. That would remain the same.
>And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit...
Different epistemological frameworks don't have a very good track record. None but the scientific methodology have so far produced an accurate description of the universe.
>scientists literally can't try to explain why anything they do has any purpose without using philosophical concepts
lmao'ing at these memes
>>428113
Burger flipping embodies less socially necessary labour time than lecturing to failing first years. Abolishing philosophy would result in a reduction in use of skilled labour power and lower GDP and GDP per capita.
You have no idea what utility or value is btw.
>>427468
>psychology is just applied biology
If you discount fully two thirds of the biopsychosocial approach to modern problems as well as every cognitive, humanistic, or psychodynamic idea, I suppose it is.
>>428122
Scientific methodology doesn't describe the universe in any way. It only helps to explain how it works. To actually describe the universe requires deeper interpretation and thought that the scientific method isn't capable of.
Philosophy without pragmatism nor application is just cute mind games. You might as well be doing sudoku.
>>428140
How do you differ between "describe" and "explain how it works"?
>>427415
While I do agree with the 'tunnel vision', and 'axiomatic' parts of your post on the behalf of certain scientists, you've also shot yourself in the foot by engaging in a generalization when you lump 'scientists' into one category of behaving this way.
Plenty of the same mainstream scientists confess that of all the knowledge we possess of the universe at large, it is but a mere fraction, and this doesn't preclude the plausibility that there may exist a greater reality beyond the confines of the barriers of this universe.
The same logical positivism invariably gives way to numerous other problems, like the concept of 'infinite human potential', or the idea that whatever problem we face, it can be understood given enough time, resources, and so on.
If these people, by one means or another, came up against something truly infinite, they would be stuck running a literally endless amount of tests on something that empirically or rationally cannot be measured to begin with, but at the same time... if they don't keep at it, then they're breaking the very foundations of their own scientific method by looking into it no further, or making assumptions/conclusions without enough data.
This is even before I bring into the equation that said infinite could also be conscious, further complicating the scenario.
I don't get why people on this board (and formerly /lit/ before the split) obsess over this topic. logical positivism is deader than neo platonism among actual philosophers, even carnap and ayer came out saying they were wrong. anybody who actually has a philosophy degree knows this, so why do you autists go on and on about it?
>>428132
My scenario proposed that all philosophers physically died, not that they were relocated as burguer flippers.
>>428145
Playing language games in massive circlejerk is just as valuable as saving lives.
>>428161
Skill component of labour dickhead.
>>428152
It's basically the difference between "how something works" and "why something works". Science can apply function to the universe, but not reason or purpose.
>>428098
I love this common Philosophical damage control. Science enriches everyone's lives with life saving medicine and solutions to problems, Philosophy will tell you quality of life is an illusion and that philosophy is so god damn important that it separates the philistines from the elite.
It's laughably apparent why philosophy has been superseded by science when postmodernist trash remains "relevant".
>>428198
>science enriches everyone's lives
Define "enriches" using scientific methodism
>>427577
No, you where talking about popular scientists in media. "Mainstream" scientists are to busy to with science to care about your points crap
>>427758
>Bill nye theme sung multiple times
Fucking lol
>>428098
Philosophers don't produce goods or services. They hardly contribute to GDP at all.
>>428211
>more numerous and more varied goods assembled more quickly and distributed more widely
>more accurate prediction and documentation of virtually everything
>more work from the input of less human effort
>greater variety of human experience, more freedom of choice
>faster cheaper travel
>stronger cheaper materials
There are dozens and dozens of metrics you could use
Also
>methodism
>>428237
Those are a lot of facts which are produced from science, but you haven't explained how they enrich people's lives.
>>428211
I'm not looking at things from scientific methodism. I don't need to. When you've got someone suffering from a disease the scientist cures the man and he thanks him.
Then you've got the same scenario and when the man is dying the philosopher tells him his life will not be enriched by a cure. The man asks him what he means. The philosopher replies
>define enriched
The man dies.
Now who the fuck do you think enriched the human race more? The philosopher who waxes philosophical and lets a man die because his philosophy is powerless? Or the scientist who solved the fucking problem so that the man now lives? That's what one means when they say enriched. Of course the philosophers will play word games and dodge the fucking problem totally because they have no real problem solving ability, only in theory.
>>428229
The philosophags on 4chan actually seem to get mad whenever any of it becomes of use. Like, whenever someone applies some philosophy to a self-help book, they all get mad as fuck and rally against it/the author.
It's like it's not "real" philosophy unless it is 100% totally useless, like interior decorating for the mind.
>>428179
How and why are the same thing, if you look and measure closely enough.
>>428256
Define enrich
>>428256
More options.
>>428179
>It's basically the difference between "how something works" and "why something works"
You just described the difference between a scientific Law and a scientific Theory.
>>428237
You think those are good things?
>>427810
"Science" isn't a framework, gayboy. Nothing worse than an experimentalist physicist who just cannot understand how different fields might need different methodologies.
>>428269
How and why are the same thing. A theory is an unrefined law that might not end up being a law if evidence points to something else.
>>428276
>A theory is an unrefined law
>>428260
Without philosophy and interpretive thinking, a scientist acting on his own will, according to the studies of his field, would have no reason to want to progress science at all. Historically, people in the study of humanities have helped us determine why we should act in certain ways.
>>428268
Now there's the problem. Is "more options" necessarily a good thing? Certainly it makes day-to-day life less work for the average person, but how much does it take away? Doesn't it also deteriorate work ethics? Are people not less willing to take on tasks today than they used to be? And, having all these resources given to them, do they not crave them in their lack? This is where science ends and philosophy begins, because science is not for interpretation. It is philosophical thinking which allows us to measure value in our actions.
>>428276
>A theory is an unrefined law that might not end up being a law
Retard who didn't pay attention in science lectures, detected, that's not how it works. Theories and Laws are distinctly different and a theory does not "become" law. Theories are fucking models for WHY phenomena occur.
>>428280
Crudely speaking, yes.
A theory is an explanation for a phenomenon that might eventually be considered natural law if sufficiently supported by evidence and not outright invalidated by some other bit of evidence.
>>428293
No offense intended but you're fucking retarded
>>428293
>that might eventually be considered natural law
Yeah, because the theories of relativity totally became laws. No, that's not how it works, you're just embarrassing yourself.
>>428161
aren't most philosophers already burger flippers though?
Positivism really anchored itself in the scientific community with the explosive success of quantum theory and relativity theory.
Think about it, finally scientists had illustrated perfectly the old Baconian ideal, that new theories should not reject old theories but instead expand upon them. And how marvellously they do that: newtonian mechanics are a limit case at low speed of special relativity, and electrodynamics is a limit case of quantum theory for a large number of particles. All seems said and done, scientific progress now has a irrevocable definition: that is, a new theory is a progress over the old one if it includes it as a limit case. That way it explains everything the previous theory did, plus some more. All hail glorious scientific progress! Forget about "truth" or "reality", empirical match is all that matters!
The problem is that besides those two, there simply aren't many other examples. In fact, there is a very clear couter-example, and it is the scientific revolution that happened when the Newtonian theory replaced the Cartesian one. You see, Descartes model had an explanation as to why planets were all in the same plane and rotated in the same direction: there were driven by a vortex. Newton offered no explanation to that peculiar fact. Oh of course, it is possible to explain the planet's movement using Newton's theory, but it was done one century after he proposed it, long after everyone had already switched to Newtonian physics. Meaning a strict increase in explicative power isn't necessary for a new theory to replace the old ones.
>b...but there is no such thing as a vortex
Then it seems empirical match isn't all there is to scientific progress, is there?
You could also mention the baconian idea also doesn't fit with impetus theory: its predictions are not a limit of newtonian physics, they are just wrong.
>>428293
>a theory is just a geuss
dude
>>428309
Explanatory power is not as important as predictive power.
>>428335
What's the difference for you? Because Newton's theory neither explained nor predicted the coincident rotation of planets at the time of its adoption, unlike the cartesian theory.
>>428342
Explanatory power gives an explanation for how things happen. Predictive power is able to, ahead of time, model how something behaves. If hypothesis A gives an extremely elegant explanation for how something happens, but hypothesis B can predict that something's behaviour, hypothesis B is significantly better than A.
>>428335
This is the real heart of the matter. Philosophy can only "explain", but science can do both explanation and prediction. Your explanations don't mean anything when there's nothing to verify it consistently.
>>428357
>Explanatory power gives an explanation
Wewlad, great clarification right there. A theorie's axioms and formulas give you a certain movement of planets as a result, is that a prediction or an explanation?
>Be undergrad freshman failing philosophy/psychology dual major
>Assert that the consciousness is a special snowflake
>no proof to back it up
>B-B-BUT HAHAHA LOGICAL POSITIVISM WHAT A SCRUB
>IT CAN'T BE JUST MUH ATOMS
>IT'S AN INTEGRAL AND UNIQUE PART OF HUMANITY NO WAY IT CAN BE THAT SIMPLE
>I'M GOING TO ASSERT THAT IT'S SOMETHING SPECIAL INSTEAD OF IT BEING A RESULT OF NEUROCHEMICAL PROCESSES AND ELECTRICAL SYNAPSES LIKE LITERALLY *LITERALLY* EVERYTHING ELSE DISCOVERED THUS FAR
Science serves a practical purpose in understanding our physical world and its natural phenomenon. Scientific method is based on repetition which tests empirical knowledge. However, there is a distinction between scientific methodology and scientific thinking. Scientific methodology is designed to test empirical observations, but inferences made by the researcher can be abstract. Lastly, science does it's best to understand natural phenomena, but by no means is it absolute - theories and discoveries are being constantly redefined. In this sense science is much like philosophical debate.
>>427415
>>428156
Logical positivism is part of the propaganda pushed by critical theory to displace culture and undermine society. Anyone who follows this is misguided and quickly becomes both stupid and shallow in their thinking. Science has virtually no say in anything outside of its narrow physical framework. It simply can't discuss anything beyond that with any degree of certainty or proof, because that is not science. The problem is the media have been pushing this meme for a long time and distorting the idea of what science is among the masses so that it is a poor shade of what it ought to be. It isn't even science anymore. It has become a religion in itself. All the attention whores and idiotic new atheists aren't capable of thinking and don't even understand the limits of science that they prophess to love so much.
>I FUCKIN' LOVE SCEINCE!!!
>Yeah right, whatever.
>>427928
When the last human goes extinct from nuclear winter, I hope your corpse wipes its smug grin off its face.
>>427970
Well, colloquially his falsificationism is sometimes called "scientific positivism".
>>428145
>You might as well be doing sudoku.
>IMPLYING sudoku isn't THE APEX OF human ENDEAVOR
>>428269
>a scientific Law
um no, laws in science are just observed regularities in nature, they are a starting point really and don't even come close to explaining "how something works" or "why"
>>428576
It's not so much that it's become a religion (though this is getting into the definition of what a religion is), as it's taken on the role of a legitimating ideology.
In the middle ages, the priesthoods job was, in part at least, to explain why we have Kings.
This new caste of 'scientific' commentators, now performs the role of legitimizing the current ruling class.
This class can't claim to offer any moral vision, or meaning in their subjects lives. They can't actually articulate a reason in itself why they SHOULD be in charge.
So they find people to propagate an ideology that claims to be free of, and make obsolete 'value judgements,' while promising an ever increasing stream of consumerist crap to fill up your life.
>>427478
Scientist here, can confirm that we don't give a single shit about philosophy.
Muh test tubes mothafucka.
>>427415
Everybody knows that adults change doctrines far less easily than children, and that if by some miracle adults do change doctrines, for instance from hedonism to epicurism, the change rarely happens tenderly, with, at best, incomprehension from the entourage of the adult changing perspective on life.
The national education is mandatory, imposed precisely by those who have faith in the concept of secular education, precisely because people do not spontaneously follow the conventions advocated by those who impose the doctrine.
This education is imposed in order to format children into being a citizen and making natural, for them, the principles of the liberal-libertarian doctrine, or far more pragmatically, to educate the children in order for them to be employed; just as the proponents of the other doctrines attempt to shape children into their principles...
As for efficiency of this education, after having created, without reflecting, hundreds of millions of people without knowing what to do with them, besides putting them in the middle class in making them work before dwelling in leisure, and yet still praying very hard for them to apply daily the human rights and other sanctified legal conventions; after a few decades of this mandatory education and few generations under it, with all the billions injected year after year over the span of 18 years to shape a voting child, the liberal-libertarians are still in needs of their police, justice and administration in order to keep the deviant adults on the track of the liberal-libertarian doctrine.
>>428669
Currently, the secular liberal-libertarians are acknowledging that they missed ''the religious'' in their doctrine, or as they call it, the ''religious phenomenon'' studied under the ''religious studies''. Their response as a patch to their doctrine is the fantasy of ''learning while we have fun'' through the merging of the mandatory national education with the entertainment industry which takes the concrete form of the merging of the books, or even ranked higher, the screen of the calculator, with the screen of the entertainment.
After all, in the manner of the classical liberal and his heirs, the ''secular society'' is nothing but the result of the perpetual tension, already explicitly feared right after the french revolution, between the praxis of the explicit hedonist and the praxis of the rationalist, since the classical rationalist, of pursuing knowledge (for knowledge's sake) in the ''secular'' universities, where the liberal-libertarian still enjoys what he calls the breakthrough of the dissociation of the theology from philosophy and the creation of the formal logicS as explicit meta-physics, in order to explicitly reach ''knowledge'', ''objectivity'' and ''truth'' through concepts, theories, models, more generally ''abstractions'', rendered concrete through the discourse, or the logos, with its pinnacle as [i]the number[/i] which quantifies the qualities and even more importantly, the number which is [b]communicable[/b]. The problem of liberal-rationalist is that the scientific result is hardly communicable, especially to the hedonist.
>>428674
With the fantasy, à la Kant, that each person composing the people will apply its (fantasied) free will since each person is performatively now a ''willing agent'' secretly abiding by the ''common sense'' --- human will that is a religious notion beforehand, that the heirs of the so-called enlightenment have been attempting to secularize for the last centuries through their legal concept of ''consent'' --- once that the ''knowledge'' and ''truths'' are dumped, by the idolized disinterested scientist-rationalist, into the social realm, wherein the liberal-libertarian keep the fantasy of the Reason as normative, social realm which is structured only through the sanctification of the legal conventions applied onto what remains of the masses, after the fantasy of educating the masses --- with the explicit wish, from the liberal-libertarian, for the people to vote, and even better, to vote rightly --- whose daily praxis consists of nothing but leisure due to the total sterility of the principles by the enlightenment to find a practice of the human rights and other rules in the constitutions, and even better, a mandatory practice, beyond a faint fantasy of social progress brought by science and technology, but with a far more concrete the one of attending the secularized education and paying the taxes whose sole purpose remains to further the imposed secularized education for the future children and paying the taxes again next year.
People have always claimed to desire liberty and the possibility to choose; yet, when they are indeed in the dreadful situation to choose, they regret their choice sooner or later, if, by some miracle, they cast their choice at all. No wonder why persists the fantasy of the truth reached and communicated through the reason, from which every ''willing agent'' is expected to choose according to the reason.
>>428676
The defeat of the rationalist in order to reach objectivity makes him hardly capitulate, but still in denial, In standing before his despair, the rationalist chooses to confuse the efficiency with the veracity. So much for the universal agreement on some model supposedly intuitive by its authors.
The (moderately) realist-rationalist feeling that the universal stance has been frankly undermined brings quickly the notion of (objective) standards of (personal) judgements in the discussion, in an attempt to regain some objectivity, some universality and prays that his standards of judgements will be acknowledged, if not shared, by the other individuals in the current gathering. The famous interdisciplinary notion of [b]inter-subjectivity[/b] has thus emerged and the realist-rationalist believes that he saves the situation in reaching a (objective) compromise when some individuals attempt to achieve some tasks (of solving some problem, by seen as problem by the rationalist, through a (plurality of methods of) hierarchy of plurality of solutions). Finally, if he abandons after this stage, or even before, he falls back to the stance wherewith he believes that he remains in a favourable light, that the current plurality of perspectives is a wonderful fact, since it permits a social activity, evidently without motivating, otherwise from some fantasized anarchy, chaos, catastrophe, the relevance of such an activity, in forgetting becomingly that the foremost purpose of the discussion was to establish the concrete statements falling under his notion of “ truth ”.
>>428677
The failure of the academic realm to fulfil the fantasy of the liberal-libertarian leads The social realm to be left with people who have their issues that they care about, because it is advantageous to them if they change it.
The failure of the rationalist to reach objectivity and his fall-back on inter-subjectivity consolidate the hedonistic side of the liberal-libertarian since now, leaving unbounded, contingent the goals of this activity, the scientific progress remains sterile (therefore unfunded), unless it is passed down, from the academia to the populace, with the explicit purpose of easing people's life [people who are more and more numerous] : more identification of a person, especially thanks to the boom of the entertainment industry where she compares herself with people with easier lives, with her desires, with her aversion towards pains, with her avidity towards pleasures and with her pains and pleasures.
The rationalist must adopt the terror of an unfulfilled hedonism if stops what the rationalist calls science: the rationalist-scientist in our universities is wonderful because it is him who brings us computers and a life without computers, tractors, medicines; thus a life without him would be dreadful, especially now that billions of people are on earth thanks to him...
>>428678
Once more, the lack of praxis is the sole effect of the faith in a rationalism supporting a doctrine (religious or not), sometimes more or less blend in some bastardization of empiricism, in order to acquire knowledge, whereas the traditional quest of the rationalist, especially the one who qualifies himself as secular, since this is all that he has, to link the productions of the mind, which are the abstractions, to the « states of the world » remains sterile, thus far. And the desire for western academic to find a political philosophy in the asian doctrines (appealing because seen as exotic) --- that is to say to construct and then having faith in such political structure in sanctifying it, à la Human Rights --- shows how deeply misguided he is through another tragedy of the occidental rationalism claiming to be a occidental humanist and seeking some salvation through some concrete objectivity via a universalism, since, let's face it, he more or less understands that his Human rights are nothing but universal in a performative manner...
In such a situation, despair falls upon the liberal-libertarian when he discovers that those exotic doctrines are far less ''secularized'' than he thought. This leads him to ''secularize'' the ''secular exotic doctrines''. What remains from those ?
>>428679
The good news for the liberal-libertarian is the blend of the morality, taken as anything going beyond the human rights, with the leisure industry: we can now be moral when we consume our favourite goods, from our favourite companies. When we pay on ebay some chinese good, sold for double by some western company, we can give a bit of money to some unknown charity.
[b]Each person today is being far more a client than a citizen (the fantasy of the new liberal) or an employee (the fantasy of the classical liberal)[/b] : any moral principles beyond those of the human rights is now claimed through the consumption form such companies which manages to advocate for those principles.
the identity of one person is the good that she purchase ***as a regular Client of/recipient of the service from*** her favourite company. the good is no longer material, but rather the brand and what principles the company has decided that the brand must convey. the great fallacy is that the clients believe that the company is a moral agent, when it is not. The company makes the client believe that the company is a moral agent [Mozilla fired one of its CEO, because Mozilla chose to refuse his personal opinion on some gay marriage, or even Amazon which put a little drawing of the effel tower, for a few hours, after the events in Paris; In passing, Google recently changes his slogan ''do not be evil'' into ''do the right thing'', showing thus the beginning of the authoritative google. of course, the authority remains implicit, so the liberal-libertarian is in agreement with the situation.].
This situation was created when the professionals acting as revolutionaries establish the legal structure that we have now and becomingly created rights for the printed press.
>>428680
It is always the same problem, irrespective of the doctrine, religious or not : how can the few proponents of such doctrine manage to get dozens of millions of people, who were birthed by parents precisely not following the doctrine, into adopting a doctrine which is not theirs spontaneously ? There is no answer to these besides a mixed of proselytism and imposition, more or less explicit.
>>428619
Mathematically and grammatically, a Law can be described as how something works, but not why it works the way it does. Newton's Laws of Motion for example describe how, but not why motion works. The laws of Thermodynamics have actual mathematical equations to them to describe how it works.
>>427415
>logical positivism
Explaining everything around you with pinpoint accuracy for about 400 years
Even created the computer you are now using
Calls it a meme.
>GTFO FAGGOT
>>428684
Also, in that context, ''why'' is ultimately an irrelevant and somewhat childisch question. The answer will only spawn the next ''why'' or an endless discussion on whether the answer was ''true''
The only two things scientists actually need are a powerful imagination and knowledge of the workings of the universe. Spending time on politics serves absolutely no purpose, fuck people who call themselves scientists and yet all they do is relish in their bullshit "accomplishments" and downtalk people.
>>428684
Laws are just the framework for learning a system. In the future we will casually break laws we once thought as fundamentally unbendable as easy as breathing.
>>428714
What you described is called science, not logical positivism.
Uneducated shitlord...
I find it hilarious when people that dont know anything about modern science still think its 1930 and the vienna circle are taken seriously. Critical realism is a lot more dominant as a viewpoint right now.
All laws and theories are representations and gestalts.
Checkmate, objectivists.
>>428379
If you apply your formulas to the movement of other planets and they are accurate, you had a prediction. If you apply your formulas to the movement of other planets and they were innacurate, all you had was an explanation of your past observations. You should either revise or come up with something new, then do the test again on another set of planets. Eventually, you should be able to come up with a set of formulas that predict the behaviour of all planets within the context of their solar system.
>>427415
>"Scientists are pretty dumb to be honest."
~ some redneck farmer on 4chan, 2015
>>427758
I really hate the anti-intellectual culture brewing here. Its been a long while since I was genuinely sad about something, but this is it. After /his/ started I keep seeing it everywhere too, like my eyes opened.
>>428808
Briefly explain what "method" is in Feyerabend, and the point of the argument against method.
Explain commensurate theories without the use of the concept of "paradygm."
Explain, briefly, what is wrong with the Needham question?
I'm guessing that you're part of the problem, bud.
>>428814
>if you dont know about these hand picked wikipedia articles that i have read, you are part of the problem
The problem is that people dont respect intellectuals and science.
I respect intellectuals and science, thus I cant be part of the problem.
Its deep philosophy, I know. Sit down, draw a graph, see if you can figure it out.
I wont waste both our time by randomly selecting a few problems that I in particular have heard of and have interest in, and that odds are you havent, since the volume of them is so big. Oh, and I actually knew the last one without looking it up, so 2/3.
>>428828
They're critical concepts from 4 of the seminal historians and philosophers of science of the 20th century. The only "big name" who didn't get a shout was Popper.
"Hand picked," my fucking arse.
>>427415
>>427478
>Thats their fucking job: to do science. They're not gonna care about other epistemological frameworks. They admit scientific methodology as their ideal and work from there.
Agreed.
It's one thing to talk about a societal tendency to defer to scientists because "SCIENCE!", but what the hell would one expect from actual scientists?
Of course they "treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic", they probably wouldn't be scientists otherwise. And there's nothing wrong with that.
>>428861
I think the problem is the tendency of 'pop' scientists to start believing that the scientific method is *the* method to use for everything.
>>428808
Philosophy and science have always been complimentary fields. Scientific discoveries have always opened up new doors in philosophy. For instance Darwin had a profound effect on philosophy. And on the other side science has becomes clarified with no philosophical ideas telling them how epistemology works.
Only an anti-intellectual would think either of them are 'bad'.
>>428864
If philosophers could do anything other than say "define the word useful" when asked by laymen "what something useful philosophy has done for us lately" I would think people would be more willing to listen to philosophers rather than pop scientists.
>>427585
You are a moron. Other countries are just as miserable, but they don't have pills to alleviate the misery.
science 1 philosophy 0
>>428868
>"what something useful philosophy has done for us lately"
What's with this idea that philosophy, or all fields for that matter, should basically just sit around making fucking gadgets all day?
Not even science does that, it's only marketers that concoct some bullshit product nobody needs and slap "LATEST NASA TECH!" on the packaging. The philosophical equivalent would be if your favorite movie had "INSPIRED BY NIETZSCHE!" on the opening credits.
Actual scientists blow enormous sums of money on things like colossal particle accelerators just so they can watch protons smash into tiny flying bits and they don't give a flying fuck if anything "useful" comes of it.
>>428877
The human design dictates that you are always unhappy, and want that one thing that you dont have.
So everyone is always unhappy. However, when you have everything you could reasonably want, and you still want "that one thing", except you cant tell what it is, you fall into a particular kind of sadness that requires pills and later suicide.
>>428861
No other discipline gets the right to treat their methodology as an axiom and proceed. Some of the most interesting work on whether science should be epistemologically (as opposed to politically) "privileged" in the apparatus of our society has been done in reaction against method.
Almost no scientist actually uses the "method" that they claim to adhere to. And what's worse: there's nothing wrong with that. Until you get small n social science papers being claimed to be representative of human nature. Or state and reserve bank policy dictates lending based on statistically inept papers. You know, the usual, cancer, dead children, rape camps for the indigenous.
>>427415
>They're simply very bad at thinking outside of a scientific framework
Thank you Sherlock. What next, carpenters don't make good plumbers?
>>428868
Every epistemic framework has an foundation on philosophical discourses, including the empirical sciences.
Also, if you're appealing to uselfulness as a criteria to see the worthiness of something then philosophy is in that list by default, given the normative nature of uselfulness and worthiness. You're literally using philosophy to discard philosophy. That's how retarded you are, go read a fucking book.
>>428804
>dissing farmers
enjoy your starvation fag
>>428868
>what has philosophy done for us lately
invented science
>>428880
>so they can watch protons smash into tiny flying bits
The part where the protons smash into each other has no immediate applications other than pure knowledge, but perfecting the parts that make the protons smash together will yield useful "gadgets" in other fields.
Or, taken from another view, even finding the Higg's Boson is something special. Is there something comparable philosophy has done recently?
>>428888
Foucault's discussion of power replacing normativity, and Gramsci and Lukacs' discussion of praxes as a socialist "science" indicate an epistemology not grounded in philosophical discourses, but mass proletarian action.
Didn't really demonstrate second order reflexivity though, outside Italy.
Daily reminder that science is literally a branch of philosophy.
>>428884
>No other discipline gets the right to treat their methodology as an axiom and proceed
What? In a way, to treat a methodology as an axiom and proceed is practically the definition of working within a discipline. The question of a methodology being privileged in such a way with society at large is different, but working within a discipline demands you accept some methodology as an axiom.
Pretty tough to be a scientist if you disown the scientific method, they may not always live up to it but they certainly work from it. Also tough to be a painter if refuse to claim some kind of tradition or manifesto, the painter must presume some impact effected by visual stimuli that they can manipulate.
>>428901
If science is just a branch of philosophy, philosophers shouldn't get so furious at it succeeding.
>>428896
>>so they can watch protons smash into tiny flying bits
Last time I checked apparatus were used for that.
Hooke was a LONG time ago.
>>428893
Philosophy has done absolutely nothing for science. They're entirely separate.
>>428904
They don't.
>>428905
Finding ways to make superconductors work better is an important step in getting the LHC to work, to be able to do the experiments. But the act of making those work well provides knowledge to get superconductors to work in other contexts and fields.
>>428904
They could be from a conflicting school of philosophy and be irritated that their rivals are so established. Or they could be pissed off that one of their most successful projects has effectively been turned against them, at least as far as popular thought is concerned.
>>428906
the scientific method can't exist without the foundation provided by philosophy
>>428906
are you just illiterately smashing your face on the keyboard and extremely unfortunate, or are you actually retarded?
>>428916
Yes it can. It is founded on science.
>>428902
>but working within a discipline demands you accept some methodology as an axiom.
Most of discipline is the critique and challenge of your own method to the point where you can outline its deficiencies clearly for sharing. You don't naively storm in on the object of inquiry and publish, unless you really want snide discussions about you at conferences and eventually a paper dedicated to your uselessness.
>Pretty tough to be a scientist if you disown the scientific method
Which one? Naive observationalism, verificaitonism, falsificationalist Popperianism, paradygm aware falsificationalism, commensurability issue aware falsificationalism, grant chasing, techno-science applicationalism?
Which scientific method?
The sociology of science studies demonstrate that hypotheses are post-facto inventions for the paper. Most doctorally qualified scientists have been exposed to Popper, so mutter something about falsification instead of positive knowledge. Yet, on the whole, sociological studies of science in practice demonstrate positivism. Just as much as statistical investigations of social science (including disciplinary statistics) demonstrate misuse of statistics.
The liberating, the freeing thing about Feyerabend is that he lets you go, "So? We all know that. Now let me get back to stealing my female post-doc's results."
>>428896
>but perfecting the parts that make the protons smash together will yield useful "gadgets" in other fields.
Incidentally, in a manner that scientists give zero fucks about.
>Is there something comparable philosophy has done recently?
There are huge overlaps with neuroscience and branches of analytic philosophy. Daniel Dennett is practically a meme now, so that's pretty low hanging fruit. Also Searle's Chinese Room is central to ongoing research into Artificial Intelligence.
>>428923
>either he says the scientific method is founded on science and is arguing in a circular pattern
>or he's saying that the scientific method predates the foundation of the Academy and is the source of deductive reason
you're trolling
>>427585
If thirty percent of your citizens require antidepressents, I fail to see how that's the fault of the scientists. More likely their society as a whole is shit. The SSRI is a treatment, not a cause.
>>428925
>Incidentally, in a manner that scientists give zero fucks about.
So? I said a layman looks to one side who pumps out material results, and another side that says "but what is a result, I mean, really?" and they are going to trust one more.
>There are huge overlaps with neuroscience and branches of analytic philosophy.
And I wonder who is doing the heavy lifting actually finding results.
>Also Searle's Chinese Room is central to ongoing research into Artificial Intelligence.
Valid point.
>>428924
>Which one? Naive observationalism, verificaitonism, falsificationalist Popperianism, paradygm aware falsificationalism, commensurability issue aware falsificationalism, grant chasing, techno-science applicationalism?
>Which scientific method?
One of those. Or perhaps a different one. You can cut this as fine as you want, but at some point one has to take some methodology as an axiom if they want to get to work.
>Most of discipline is the critique and challenge of your own method to the point where you can outline its deficiencies clearly for sharing.
Which is a methodology. That is... being taken as an axiom.
This is a rather banal point, to be honest. I agree that "hypotheses are post-facto inventions on paper", but they still have to be invented and then worked through the gears of some methodology which you outline clearly for peer review.
If you haven't taken a methodology as an axiom, you're literally doing nothing. You're not even throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.
>>428935
If you're actually interested in the research programme which deals with the issue of whether "science" is responsible for mass depression you start by reading Foucault, do some post-Foucault history of medicine (Nick Rasmussen, On Speed), and then go through the "technoscience" school of depressed marxist historians of science.
>>428936
>Finding neural correlates is the heavy lifting job
LOL
>>428942
>Which is a methodology. That is... being taken as an axiom.
You're playing a shell game here with "methodology," I propose you make the out.
Let us say that I cut this as fine as I please, such that every single paper in a journal indexed as a science journal uses a methodology incommensurate with every other paper. What then is "scientific method."?
>If you haven't taken [for clarity: the existence of] methodology as an axiom, you're literally doing nothing.
Well you could be doing a pre-modern practice or a proto-science or a pseudo-science. There are LOTS of things that people do in history.
>>428946
this
it's honestly piss easy with the right software and an fMRI
I worked with the data myself, as a know nothing undergrad.
>>428946
Yes, it is. Designing experiments to find and prove something, then executing it, is the difficult part (or if you object to the word difficult, we could say tedious and time consuming but practical). The easy part is saying the word "qualia" over and over, and then neuroscientists have to do everything all over again in an attempt to finally get the philosopher to shut up.
Don't get me wrong, they're important to ensure nobody gets complacent with a result. It ensures the field keeps advancing. But the division of labor isn't anywhere near equal.
>>428962
>the division of labor isn't anywhere near equal.
Check the division of appointments, research grants and block grant funding some time.
You meat monkies get all the grants you want, for basically pushing a button all day and not having to think about epistemology while stealing your female post-doc's results.
>>428972
>stealing your female post-doc's results.
This seems to be weighing pretty heavily on your mind. You obviously have something to share, so please feel free. You don't need to bait it out, just say what you want to.
>>428977
Hey, look, if you wanted me to attack the Humanities, I'd suggest that it would be "encourage your female PhDs to get pregnant near completion." I am trying to point to a well known phenomena in STEM research that undercuts the idea of the purity of research. I am in no way arguing that humanities research is pure.
Hell, there's a joke that you need to be able to receive blow jobs to be hired as an analytical.
>>428948
>Let us say that I cut this as fine as I please, such that every single paper in a journal indexed as a science journal uses a methodology incommensurate with every other paper. What then is "scientific method."?
We're moving into a hypothetical situation quite a bit far removed from here. But if you want an answer I'll say that "scientific method" likely does not exist in such an index, and if it does it certainly bears no resemblance to the common usage of that term.
>Well you could be doing a pre-modern practice or a proto-science or a pseudo-science. There are LOTS of things that people do in history.
Which would still have some methodology to them, even if it is not explicit.
I already admitted I was making a banal point about the necessity of some form of "methodology", not sure what else you expect here. You only think I'm playing a shell game because you're fixated on a very specific notion of "methodology" that has to be modern and scientific.
All I've said is that it's self-evident scientists will take some form of methodology as an axiom, just as anyone of any discipline will use some related methodology as an axiom.
>>428962
>The easy part is saying the word "qualia" over and over
You clearly have no idea how hard is to develop a general theory of mind...
>>428996
I'm trying to get my head around your conception, which I'm having difficulty with because of your idealist treatment of "methodology" as a definition you always apply rather than a historically contingent mode of human practice. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but like a westerner being asked to taste umami...
The point is that if any behaviour is a methodology then there's no real value to the statement from an epistemological perspective, your argument is of identical value to an anti-methodological argument.
>>428262
Dude, philosophy is supposed to be the help in itself.
Any philosophy that prides itself in being practical probably has less in being philosophical and more like being some manual. It's appreciated, but it's not high brow philosophy.
>>427415
>muh paradigms
>>428923
So basically you're trying to make philosophy look useful by pointing at something actually useful and saying "See, philosophy made that!" As though that argument amounted to anything more than smug coattail riding. I'd respect you more if you were honest and just admitted that name dropping and quoting archaic literature to feel smarter than people makes your dick hard.
>>429010
I'm taking "methodology" as roughly a reasoned approach towards a goal based on specific premises of what results from particular actions. In short, a very broad definition. I will admit that having no methodology is not equivalent to doing literally nothing, that was a hyperbolic statement, but such situations would involve wholly aimless actions in my view.
In the sense of an individual scientist a methodology would consist of the impetus for an experiment then what the experiment will be and how it shall be performed and the results acquired and so on. In the sense of "science" as a general discipline (nevermind which science, this too could be cut much finer) a methodology would consist of the steps required for one's research to pass professional muster, as it were.
This is not exclusive to science. I mentioned painting earlier, all painters have a methodology too whether it be explicit or not. An academically trained painter would have a methodology consisting of proper subject matter, materials used, techniques applied, conventions followed, et cetera. Even more idiosyncratic painters at the least develop their own methodology, it's quite understood what Jackson Pollock's "Action Paintings" are and how they came about and his repetition of the theme also consists of a methodology.
So, in short, I was making a tautological statement about methodologies that of course a "scientist" would have some "scientific methodology" they take as an "axiom" because, to put it bluntly, a "scientist" is prone to do "sciency things" in a "sciency manner" and it's a bit silly to expect such a person to step outside of that boundary.
>>427758
topshrek
>>427415
Here's the kicker: philosophy is pointless mental masturbation. Science is reality.
>implying experience isn't an infinite set of patterns that you can conform to your will without limitations
Wew lads.
>>429096
You are about to get mentally masturbated into the ground by /lit/ pseudo intellectuals.
>>429096
>Science is reality
Justify that without using philosophy. :^)
>>429065
Seems like you can't differentiate science from any other human practice without inspecting "sciencey."
Okay, I'm revisiting this thread for a quick question.
When Mitya Mendeleev created his famous table of elements, not all of them were known. He predicted many of them, saying this thing will exist, it will have these qualities, it will have this density and weight and so on.
Was this science on his part, or philosophy? Because it wasnt the result of experiments, these elements didnt exist (or we werent aware they exist). He deduced that they should exist, and should have these qualities.
He was only proven right later, and the proving was experiment and science, but was the initial idea science?
>>429159
He organized existing data into a hypothesis with testable predictions (x element with y atomic mass will have properties z). If you define science as an extension of philosophy, he was doing philosophy. If you define science as its own field, then the part where you look at data and come up with a hypothesis that can be tested and falsified is one aspect of the overall scientific method.
>>429152
Obviously, but rather than attempting to define such a term I'd rather point out that you're being pedantic on a Cantonese Anglo-text Exchange Center in a bait thread.
I apologize that I haven't shown sufficient rigor in an informal discussion about the attitudes of scientists and pop-scientists when speaking outside of their field and the resulting "black science man" memes.
I also apologize for not outlining my specific methodology behind this post, but alas there is a hard 2000 character limit.
>>428576
I'm not OP, but the second anon you quoted. I'm not sure what part you disagreed with me, unless you felt the need to vent this response.
Yes, I agree with your points that individuals, if not whole political groups are latching on to the science that confirms their beliefs, while trying to politicize, distort, or twist other aspects of it to fit the rest of their beliefs. This isn't controversial or new by any stretch of the imagination.
The egotistical lot within 'New Atheism' certainly do this, but so do the religious idiots who take anything in science that suggests or gives credence to there being ANY kind of creator, let alone their specific version; when nobody possesses enough empirical data about reality to say what is actually going on. Beyond the bounds of scientific facts, or the more plausible sections of philosophy; everything else is speculation.
Within science, its very clear that whatever evidence we amount now can ALWAYS be supplanted with a larger mountain of evidence that suggests a better or even entirely different mechanism for how anything works, and just because the data gives the appearance of painting a naturalistic picture of our origins, that doesn't mean our reality couldn't be engineered by an entity or series of entities who could cede all life on this planet and have set everything up in such an elaborate way that their purpose is unknown and we could never truly know the answer.
Just one example above, because not every aspect of reality is amazing and rosy, sometimes it can be weird and terrifying.
>>429177
>that you're being pedantic on a Cantonese Anglo-text Exchange Center in a bait thread.
Feyerbend allows us to convert bait threads into epistemology threads.
Well, really Lakatos does with his destructing of commensuration.
I think you need to consider whether terms define themselves independently, or whether social relationships are produced by social relationships.
>>427415
You posted this shit on /sci/ too. I'm going to give you the same answer.
Science doesn't work that way. Yes it has some social kinks that refuse to think outside of the box, but that is because the box works, and is continuing to work, at least for a bit longer.
But the kicker is this. If you can give enough logical proof for something you think, some tangible proof. You can change the way people think. We might be seeing just that with the Meme Drive.
>>428889
I didn't realise that shit-talking about scientists was an important part of agriculture. I'm sorry farmers, do as you must.
Scientists cannot even disprove solipsism.
>>429253
Uh, we already know that there is more than just the ego - the subconscious and that the brain is just a bunch of neurotransmitters connected to each other influenced by hormones
>>429340
Argument by distraction is a shit mate. Just tell the cunt "Hume" and get on with ripping off your female post-doc's results.
Daily reminder that science is the ONLY useful branch of philosophy, making philosophy more or less obsolete.
>philosophy v. science dick measuring thread #4545646
there is zero need for a tension between these two fields, if anything they can compliment each other. any respected philosopher OR scientist (this excludes the new atheist crowd if you couldn't already guess) wouldn't give two shits about this """""""competition""""""
>>427415
The scientific method and experimental design and all they entail are based on opinions. However they are attempts at reducing bias, so don't be surprised if someone prefers to ask for that over your shitty opinions.
>>428283
Throw away your computer, the drywall to your house, your electricity, your car, and all of your microchip utilizing devices if you believe so.
>>429674
Typical argument of simple minds.
>>429696
Why not practice what you preach instead of playing devil's advocate? Also, that isn't a counterargument. If you're so smart, feel free to pull out proof.
>>429674
>anything but drywall
>a problem
Check out this nerd
I'd gladly live the simple life again. It was a very vitalizing experience which has left me permanently skeptic of technology.
things of value science has produced:
>...
things of value philosophy has produced
>value itself
btfo
>>429674
>Throw away your computer, the drywall to your house, your electricity, your car, and all of your microchip utilizing devices if you believe so.
nobody is as hedonistic as you.
>>429724
/thread
Where will the value of science lie once it is proven that modern technology makes people fucked up and unhappy?
>>429852
>once it is proven
This is the fundamental problem of what you're criticizing. Rationality is what makes technology and its benefits so persuasive.
>>428122
>defines universe as a naturalistic entity
nice tautology faggot
>>427415
The difference is that "Philosophy" doesn't make this happen.
>>429096
oh shit nigger
>>428658
Another scientist here, I second this.
I'm not sure what an epistemological framework is, and I'm honestly not bothered about that fact. Got too much NMR and shit to do for any of that.
>>429988
Fuck off to Reddit or something, that was a shit example. I bet you said Bazinga when you posted that.
>>430193
This whole board is literally reddit tier.
>>429096
Define reality
>>430407
Things that physically happen. Punch yourself in the face. That's reality.
>>429852
Your inability to find happiness isn't anyone's problem but your own. It certainly isn't the fault of the enlightenment or of empirical rationalism.
You live a lifestyle that 99% of humanity from history couldn't even dream of. It's up to you to find meaning in the absence of a daily struggle to merely remain alive.
Because many of the scientists are somewhat autistic and need their shallow and cold positivist worldview to keep themselves in check. Try to attack some of their basic presumptions and they start acting a bit like the religious people that THEY attack.
People need shortcuts on how to live, they want to create a set of basic guidelines to make quick and decisive decisions on how the perceive new information.This is a very basic survival instinct and you shouldn't fault them for it.
>>430407
Reality's what's still there when you stop believing in it
>>430430
>Things that physically happen
How do you know they happen, faggot?
Philosophy is like useless math. They're both just advanced forms of tautology but maths isn't useless.
>>430510
Hume is a fucking autist
>>427897
I really highly doubt a product of philosophy says philosophy is religion.
>>430545
It called declared them equally meaningless.
Logical positivism fundamentally was aimed at the destruction of philosophy itself. Instead they wanted to be science's retarded little brother - Problem was even science didn't want them, which is why the movement ultimately died out, but its ideal of "destroying philosophy" remains among STEMlords.
>>430510
Jump off a building and find out
Starve yourself and find out
Shoot yourself with a gun and find out
>>430585
>Jump off a building and find out
And find out what?
>>430595
How reality feels.
>>430605
Is it reality?
>>430585
>No atheists in foxholes argument.
>>430495
This. For all those autists displaying the absolute retarded of philosophy by asking
>hurr what is reality
Why don't you try to do something that is against what people consider reality? Try to fly under the power of your own body or abstain from eating or drinking for a year. You'll quickly find out what reality is.
>>430637
'Define reality' has to be the death rattle of an organism so insulated from any meaningful contact with the world they need you to formally prove the fact they are alive and conscious in a world shared with other alive and conscious beings
>>427415
>Scientists always fall for the logical positivism meme.
It's widely known to be self-refuting.
>And they don't even realize it's a philosophical position with philosophical justifications
How many scientists did you actually survey to come to this conclusion? It's just pulled out of your ass.
>They have massive tunnel vision and because of that they don't realize their epistemic assumptions and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic, they think it's common sense.
Like virtually every epistemological system ever.
>And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit
Like they even need to care. No other epistemological framework has the same reliability or results that modern science does.
>>428139
>humanistic psychology
>>430637
>Why don't you try to do something that is against what people consider reality?
I'm a historian. I do that every day.
>>430681
>I'm a historian.
That's a record of reality, imbecile.
![cocker_spaniel[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5ZmtTAm.jpg "cocker_spaniel[2].jpg")
>>429852
I have lots of gadgets and gizmos and I'm happy. I have a woman I love, a beautiful family, and the technology surrounding me keeps me entertained and safe. I can go on my phone and watch The Magic Flute anytime I like.
The modern world is the closest we have come to a utopia
Scientists and engineers have got to be the dumbest people in academia. I'd sooner converse with a Business undergrad.
>>427415
I really wish eminent physicists would realize that most eminent philosophers are even more autistic than themselves.
Ever seen Kripke speak?
Read some accounts of Wittgenstein's eccentricity?
I feel that some bonding and common understanding might be attained
>Muh relativism
>Muh critique of reason
>Muh unknowable unknowns
Worst memes that humans have come up with desu.
Scientists are usually interested in doing useful things, not philosophy AKA be the biggest wanker you can, wagging your hypothetical all over the place and unleash your inner three year old who rebuffs every single thing said with "Why?".
>>431036
good, now tell us how your little hedonism will become if you do not have the means to sustain it.
Science is a cult/religion.
"unscientific" is the new "heretic"
>>430663
>Like they even need to care. No other epistemological framework has the same reliability or results that modern science does.
the fact that you think science has epistemological result shows a total lack of reflection on what the scientist does. not single scientist can tell you what a cause is, what to explain means, what why means, what how means, why he does what he does, why he chooses to consider his experiments good/relevant, why he has faith in abstractions to reach truth and denigrate empiricism, but still claiming that he is an empiricist in order to, he thinks, escape the sterility of meta-physics..
>>432193
>dissing the socratic method
russel pls go
>>428802
So you argument is that it doesn't matter that much that a theory can't even explain what we already know?
I'm sure many positivists would disagree with you.
And what you use to replace it is that a theory is better if it explains things we haven't observed yet? How can we now that if we haven't observed them. This is nonsensical.
>>427415
I genuinely don't understand why humanities people pick fights with science people. Nothing outside the realm of empiricism matters to a scientist, and you're not going to persuade them otherwise.
Good philosophy resembles science anyways.
>>432622
>Nothing outside the realm of empiricism matters to a scientist
Yeah sure mon, those destruction operators are really empiric, amirite?
>>432628
Abstract theoretical concepts in science are just placeholders waiting for the proper apparatus to test what the numbers represent.
>>432580
That isn't what philosophy of science is.
Read Popper, then Kuhn, then Lakatos, then Feyerabend.
>>432635
Wut? Realism is a minority position among scientists.
>>432567
Science is based on fact and results, not fairy tails or opinion. You can think you're deep all week long but science is what's going to actually expand humanity's knowledge of reality while you just mentally masturbate your life away.
>>432567
It is a cult.
Science has its roots in Pythagoras' methods, the Masons, naturalism, materialism and Copernicus.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." - Romans 1:25
Evolutionism and Heliocentrism are heavily entrenched in the scientific community. They practically worship Darwin.
https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
>>432661
I bet you also think Evolution is a theory, climate change is a myth and the moon landing was a hoax.
>>432670
I bet you believe we came from a rock 9 gorillion years ago after the universe exploded from nothing and magically created everything.
>>428643
>This new caste of 'scientific' commentators, now performs the role of legitimizing the current ruling class.
I see this meme repeated a lot and I absolutely don't understand why.
Where was the last time you saw a scientist on TV explaining why we need socdem? What the hell? Politicians and political parties have their own apologists, what does that have to do with science?
>>432677
No, but there's evidence of a "big bang" and expansion of matter. Who knows what caused it. That seems to be something morons can't comprehend. Science observes things and makes no assumptions. We have observed what we can currently describe as a big bang, but no one has made a scientific claim as the origin of the universe or reality.
>>432687
>but no one has made a scientific claim as the origin of the universe or reality.
Your hero Lawrence Krauss did.
Approved by your other hero Dawkins, too!
>>432687
Science focuses too much on the 'what' rather than the 'why'.
It misses the big picture, which is why religion/philosophy is more important.
Can science answer the 4 fundamental questions to life?:
1. Who am I?
2. Where do I come from?
3. What is my purpose?
4. What happens when I die?
No, they only talk about useless shit nobody cares about.
God is laughing at the fools who claim they are wise.
>>432707
Religion and philosophy cannot feed you, house you, or heal you without science. Who cares if it gives you some "purpose" if your starving, cold, and dying of the plague
>>432704
They can have their opinions, but they are making conjecture. That isn't science.
>>432707
Science focuses on reality. Observing the natural world and testing its workings. Those things can potentially be completely answered by science or maybe it's unknowable. I don't know if something unknowable exists. You say that god is laughing at fools to claim they are wise, but it seems that you're surprisingly too stupid to get that my whole point is that science does not assume anything. Science moves forward with what works and people may try to explain it but at the end of the day only hard data of actual events persists.
What you call useless shit has propelled your meaningless existence into such that you can shitpost about your dumb musings on a chinese image board.
>>432760
>conjecture isn't science
Top kek
>>432752
>building a house is science
>killing a pig and eating it is science
>>432785
>the materials we use for modern housing are applied science
>the machines that prepare your mass produced pork are applied science
Research nigga do you even
>>432620
>explains
No. Predicts. A theory that explains is easy to make. Astrologists do it all the time. But theories that explain are worthless if they can't also accurately predict.
Prediction is crucial. If you can predict something accurately the majority of the time, that means you've touched upon the underlying mechanics of the phenomena.
>>432785
>what is physics, material sinences, metalurgy, electricity, and engineering.
> what is biology, agroculture, and chemistry
I don't understand what these scientificist cultists are doing on this board, you fuckers are worse than /pol/fags and marxist redditors. Go back to your own board or go do some science shit and discover what people already discovered 2 thousand years ago.
>>432833
Why don't you just gaze into your own navel you purposeless fucktard
What I can't stand is the liberal pseudo-science showbizz bullshit (Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse, etc).
>Look at me I'm wearing a labcoat, I'm such an expert on the subject xD
Literally Reddit fedora tier.
>>432833
>I don't understand what these scientificist cultists are doing on this board
Historians, social scientists, antrhopoligists and most other humanities people don't invoke magic in their fields. It's just dualist philosophers who should go back to /x/.
>>427585
proofs
A good scientist and a good philosopher (and historian) understands that the two fields are interlinked, with philosophy laying the groundwork for what would be science.
But this thread is full of pseudo intellectual faux philosophers who basically suck at thinking. Put down the marijuana and try to be objective.
>>428609
Nulcear winter is an overblown meme thrown around by uneducated hippies.
Philosophy seeks to justify it's own existence. Science feels no such need to. It's existence is justified by it's products
>>432885
Then what justifies its products?
>>432898
They need no justification. They simply are. Go ask gravity to justify itself and see what happens
