>"People that deride the pursuit of exploring abstract mathematics are fucking retards who don't know what they're talking about. Math has its own value, and even if that doesn't convince you, there are tons of results from pure math that were later applied to the real world in ways that no one could have foreseen!!"
>"Philosophy is useless semantics; engaging in conversations about common philosophical topics such as free will or consciousness is pointless because doesn't change anything in your actual life and serves no purpose!!"
Does /sci/ realize that it is the dumb kid in school who would complain about learning something because they didn't know "when they would use it in real life"?
Your perspective is that bad
>Does /sci/ realize that it is the dumb kid in school who would complain about learning something because they didn't know "when they would use it in real life"?
Actually, that's what the smart kids said.
The dumb kids were always the collectivists that worshiped authoritarian groupthink and could never grasp why empiricism outranked conjecture.
Popper won numerous awards and is universally considered to be a genius by philosophers and scientists alike.
If you state empiricism isn't the only thing we have, then you have to provide proof that something is better.
Chances are you're an anti-science liberal arts douche; some radicalist that decided to come here to scream against facts because they don't fit your egotistical worldview.
Fuck you and your ego.
Proof for everyone else is all that matters.
It's always been that way and always will be.
Always.
:D
>>8206140
Who you idiot?
You didn't link and there is more than one post in the thread.
If anyone here is not too bright, it has already been scientifically proven to be you.
>>8206144
You alright man? I deleted my post
You don't sound too bright.
>>8206132
no one says philosophy is useless semantics
however, if you're "engaging in conversation about [...] free will or consciousness" then chances are you're not doing philosophy. you're just throwing your idiotic nonsensical opinions around and are rightfully being called out for it
>>8206146
That doesn't change the fact you don't understand how 4chan, logic or science works.
Also you haven't defined how you BELIEVE intelligence works.
So you're irrational.
Learn how the Socratic Method works and get back here when you're a full grown man and not some antiscience manlet.
>>8206175
>proof is based on ego, as ultimately some things are assumed to be mutual for sake of establishing a consensus
Wow, you're the dumbest person alive.
Proof is based on empiricism.
The reason science was developed was solely because ego and consensus DIDN'T work.
Holy shit.
This guy is retarded!
One sec!
HEY GUYS, THIS DUDE IS RETARDED!
Willing to bet they want to grow up and be a cop of something.
>Muh ego
>Muh group
Nigga, you're fucking retarded.
>>8206170
You just sound loud, if that makes sense, you seem like you have a loud personality and loud people are usually not up to par.
>>8206170
>the socratic method
>advocating outdated thousands of year old methods of "science" that say how things "naturally tend to order" so that's why things fall to the ground and plants grow
fuck off
>>8206132
usefulness in real life is largely overrated
modern philosophical thought is rarely prescriptive. see post-analytic philosophy esp. with rorty, quine, and putnam
>>8206180
empirically prove empiricism is the best way to know anything beyond ebin lab experiments
>>8206133
i think that if a person only learned things that were empirically true (basically just facts) they wouldn't be able to teach themselves anything new.
both facts and methods are important.
>>8206194
That's not what the socratic method is.
That's socratics.
Two entirely unrelated concepts.
The Socratic Method is a form of debate where people take turns offering citations and pointing out fallacies to prove their case.
Socratism is about Socrates personal beliefs.
The fact you don't know this suggests you know nothing.
And yes, they do use the Socratic Method when debating Scientific Theories.
>>8206309
>The Socratic Method is a form of debate where people take turns offering citations and pointing out fallacies to prove their case.
No, the socratic method is repeated posing questions to the person who is advancing a position. It has nothing to do with citations and only sometimes leads to pointing out fallacies.
>posting a picture of Popper
Opinion automatically invalidated. Stop worshipping shit tier philosophers. Thanks for proving that you don't know shit about neither philosophy nor science.
>>8206666
>mad that Popper BTFO his precious logical positivism
>>8206701
You don't even understand what "logical positivism" means.
>>8206132
Math board. Lets build a wall.
>>8206666
>implying there are non shit tier philosophers
Haha, good one anon.
>>8206751
>he never read Otto Weininger
>>8206132
>OH FUCK OFF!
Abstract math is of no use to no bugger!
>>8206132
>Does /sci/ realize that it is the dumb kid in school who would complain about learning something because they didn't know "when they would use it in real life"?
Modern /sci/ doesn't like learning, science, or math. It likes cubicle jobs and six figure salaries.
>>8206133
Tfw when born dumb and valued conjecture over objectivism
