Am I a redditor if I only like Nietzsche and the logical positivists?

Am I a redditor if I only like Nietzsche and the logical positivists?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why you think "social" identity matters? Who cares if a sweaty fat IQfy user thinks you're a redditor? Why this low self esteem everyone has in this website you must be proud of what affiliation you have for frick sake and stop waiting for people to prove your existance based on their mood.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Who cares if a sweaty fat IQfy
      That's not the point. OP is asking whether he's a human ant – totally defined by the zeitgeist.

      The alternative is being a 4chameleon, aggressive, nasty, contrarian beasts. Can't host two in the same vivarium.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't matter in a point because both are equally horrible but i get that Redditors lack the self awareness of their dumbness but still I guess that both think differently in a perspective of their own but still the meaning goes astray when it's used too often that it turns into an insult (e.g. Normie or Incel) so it just becomes a form of "if you don't agree with me then you're this"
        Seriously tell them yes i am then frick off from the argument and enjoy your day relaxing and totally letting a weak willee moron wait for a reply from you to feed his sadistic desire

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Reddit bugman reply.

          >Who cares if a sweaty fat IQfy
          That's not the point. OP is asking whether he's a human ant – totally defined by the zeitgeist.

          The alternative is being a 4chameleon, aggressive, nasty, contrarian beasts. Can't host two in the same vivarium.

          Hecking based cool guy reply. This man smokes cigarettes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      spoken like a true redditor

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would say you're funny but i got permanently banned there for 2 times so i can't say i'm one sadly

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I do not believe in God. It seems to me that theists of all kinds have very largely failed to make their concept of a deity intelligible; and to the extent that they have made it intelligible, they have given us no reason to think that anything answers to it.
    Is this persuasive?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The universe is very obviously designed, even if none of the man-made religions are coherent. Abiogenesis doesn't work. Atheism IS moronic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ayer might have actually been moronic. I read his Language, Truth, & Logic a week or so ago, and it's completely riddled with obvious mistakes. The Verificationist Principle, the idea that certainty of factual knowledge is impossible (to his credit, he walked back on this in 1949), the idea that logic is analytic, &c.

        >the universe is very obviously designed
        the universe will always look designed until we completely understand it. If we have equations to model the universe, they will always be somewhat incomplete, so we HAVE to plug in constants to accurately reflect the way things are. These constants appear as though they could've easily been different, but the only possible world in which this isn't the case is the world in which we already understand everything.
        >Abiogenesis doesn't work
        Even if we don't know how it works, there is still good reason to believe it does.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hume and Popper had already demolished logical positivism before it even came into existence. The Verification Principle is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable and so is meaningless according to its own criterion. Logical positivism seduces many philosophical neophytes because it's simple, easy to understand, seems to provide all the answers, and it can be wielded like a weapon to intellectually terrorize people by asking them to verify and prove everything they say.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The verification principle is neither analytic nor verifiable
      this is by far the weakest objection to an already weak philosophical system. If "meaningful" is only defined to mean that which can carry a truth value within a given logical language, AND the empiricist premise is correct (viz. that all reasoning is founded on experience, which is inherently intelligible), then the positivist can argue that the Verification principle is analytic.

      And Positivism is the logical conclusion of Hume. How did Hume retroactively destroy it?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Positivism is the logical conclusion of Hume

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes, problem?

          Huh? Hume pointed out that no number of observations, however large, can logically entail the truth an unrestrictedly general statement. That's the problem of induction. Just because my water boils at 100 degrees centigrade doesn't mean it always will. I could 'verify' a million times that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. But if I boil the water in a closed container, or at high altitude then I discover that water doesn't always boil at 100 degrees centigrade. The million 'verifications' I performed at sea-level atmospheric pressure and using an open container never proved the truth of my claim and they never increased the likelihood of my claim being true. Scientific laws cannot be verified. That's why we accept them as provisionally true and then look to falsify them. Because a single observation can falsify the claim but an infinite number of observations can never 'verify' or permanently establish the truth of the claim.

          Ok, but positivists admit this, and also all philosophers who recognize science as valid must also accept induction. Either this refutes all philosophers or none, but it cannot be taken as a case against positivism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Either this refutes all philosophers or none, but it cannot be taken as a case against positivism.
            No, it only refutes those who claim to verifiably prove their philosophical claims/system as true. If you engage in philosophy but dont claim to prove it then this is not an issue for you, it does however refute the whole project of the positivists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Proving the validity of induction has never been a goal of positivists

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reichenbach has his own theory for validating induction, the Ordinary Language theorists too.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Huh? Hume pointed out that no number of observations, however large, can logically entail the truth an unrestrictedly general statement. That's the problem of induction. Just because my water boils at 100 degrees centigrade doesn't mean it always will. I could 'verify' a million times that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. But if I boil the water in a closed container, or at high altitude then I discover that water doesn't always boil at 100 degrees centigrade. The million 'verifications' I performed at sea-level atmospheric pressure and using an open container never proved the truth of my claim and they never increased the likelihood of my claim being true. Scientific laws cannot be verified. That's why we accept them as provisionally true and then look to falsify them. Because a single observation can falsify the claim but an infinite number of observations can never 'verify' or permanently establish the truth of the claim.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Because a single observation can falsify the claim but an infinite number of observations can never 'verify' or permanently establish the truth of the claim.
          Then why the frick even call it science?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A single observation cannot falsify a scientific theory. A scientific theory is "falsified" when a theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more comes along. And even then it is not truly falsified. Newtonian physics still explain the phenomenons it was proposed to explain, even though Einstein's theory explains even more. Frick, you can even use what Ptolemy developed in Aristotelian Physics to predict the positions of planets with some accuracy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean you can use a sundial to tell time too. Let's destroy all clocks.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think we don't use Newton's physics anymore just because relativity came along?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I think everything is contextually applied. Newtonian physics makes sense when appraising macrophenomena in a limited context, Einsteins makes more sense at the microscopic sphere in other limited contexts, and sundials make more sense within their given context. I was more so remarking on the total indeterminacy of "the truth" and how theoretical constructs shape knowledge rather than lead to its discovery.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Models explain parts of reality. A new model might come along and explain more than the previous model, treating cases that were discovered to contradict it or to not be explained by it, but the previous model is never truly "falsified", because it still explains a segment of reality. Newton's logic assumed that space is absolute, there are observations that contradict this, and Einstein developed a theory that doesn't take that as an assumption. Still, Newtonian physics is valid.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree.
            Every system of knowledge is predicated upon its axioms and is valid within the system housed by that axiom.
            But what if the axiom isn't true, as was the case for Newton?
            Is space absolute?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Space is not absolute in general, but Newtonian physics is still a somewhat accurate approximation as long as relativistic effects are neglectable (when speed is way lower than the speed of light and bodies are in a microscopic scale).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Macro*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right, so, within an analytical context where his axiom is accurate enough to make an appraisal, aka, between macro entities, it "works." And Einsteinian physics "works," this same way. As long as we're in a context where that pesky "spooky action at a distance" isn't relevant, the axiom holds and it "works." Once we get into the quantum layer, we need to go deeper into a new kind of probabilistic physics that renders Einsteins stuff unintelligible. And once we really grapple with what statistical-probability means, we find that nothing "works" and no axiom holds.
            Interesting, isn't it? How science is concerned solely with mere appearance, and deals nothing at all with "the truth." Science HATES the truth. Just ask Kuhn.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You know nothing about science you vapid parrot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Enlighten me, ma'am.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think one of the effects of Nietzsche's philosophy on science is the idea of truth in a nonmoral sense. Science doesn't necessarily worry about truth in a moral sense (true and false, good and evil), but rather in a sense of effectiveness (strong and weak, good and bad). This allows us to learn different already established scientific models for different circumstances.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, that I disagree with in some respects and agree with in others. It's true that Nietzsches method of amoral analysis impacted everything, absolutely everything, including science. But I don't think it's true that science judges amorally at all, I think Kuhn laid that out pretty clearly. The morality of science is always centered around paying service to "the truth," or rather, whatever a particular group of scientists thinks "the truth" is. This is a delusion that will soon be shown as such.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, science is a social construct (meaning historically determined). Philosophy of science exists to understand the way science is constructed, which was, in the end, determined by those who actively constructed it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but also more than that. Science is a useful method, until it shuts its eyes because it doesn't like what it sees. But to be fair I guess at that point it isn't science anymore and becomes scientism.
            What I'm alleging here is that science has already lead itself to realizing the truth is indeterminate and ineffable using its own tools but is keeping up the ruse of materialism and determinism in the popular consciousness because mainstream scientists are punk ass b***hes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A single observation cannot falsify a scientific theory
            Any confirmed observation that doesn't fit falsifies any theory, that's how that works.
            >A scientific theory is "falsified" when a theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more comes along.
            Just look up the subject before yapping. Shouldn't that be the minimum? A kindergarten level intro to science should tell you how it works.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nta but you sound foolish.
            Anon you're replying to is invoking Poppers falsifiability doctrine. It's a well established doctrine with a lot of argument behind it. There's an alternative school, verificationism, that most scientists reject as valid but has as much argument behind it. Neither one is truly more valid than the other, but falsifiability tends to be what is used to judge theories.
            You seem to not be aware of this and are arguing it as if it's not something that's been argued for a hundred years. I say this as someone who is laughing from the sidelines
            Read about Karl Popper

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Read about Karl Popper
            Incredible how deranged you commie morons have gotten. The scientific method was well established in the 20s when it actually produced results.
            A model is invalidated by any deviation. That's not a theory or something to fricking argue about.
            The fact that models with errors can still predict things has nothing do with this basic fact of logic and it's not some fresh insight physicists didn't understand before some subhuman like Popper showed up and started confusing morons like you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you having a menstrual attack of some kind?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think reading Popper jerk off about social constructs gives you any insight into science or truth? Why do you morons never have any clue about the actual history of science, just troony nonsense like this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, if you actually wanna learn something.

            >kindergarten level intro do science
            Oh, I see. That's the only background you have on the topic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think Kuhn really is where one should start for falsifiability. Popper is better.
            Kuhn is more useful after one has gained acquaintance with Popper and then with verificationism as it's opposite.
            Kuhn is a sort of meta over these two concepts.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not necessarily where to start, but the book specifically addresses how a scientific theory is "replaced" by another. He can try to read the book and if he doesn't understand anything, he will look for bibliography until he knows enough to understand it, like any normal student.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dont know if that anon will do any of that. Lmao. But fair enough and true.
            It's just how I learned and I found it useful to do it that way. Familiarity with Popper made Kuhn easier to understand.
            I also think Kuhn is vastly more astute than Popper was in that he bypassed total fictions like "falsifiability" and "verification" and got to the root of what paradigms are all about: social constructions

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the book specifically addresses how a scientific theory is "replaced" by another
            This isn't new you anti-human terrorist. What purpose does undermining basic tools like this serve?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing, unless you're interested in truth.

            Why do you think reading Popper jerk off about social constructs gives you any insight into science or truth? Why do you morons never have any clue about the actual history of science, just troony nonsense like this?

            Popper said very little about social constructs. I don't know if he even said anything about them. Poppers philosophy of science was about how falsifiability can be used as a test for theories, a test that can't be falsified has no value. It must be able to be theoretically disproven. If it can't be theoretically disproven, it can't be tested and thus can't be considered scientifically valid. That's all.
            You having a panic attack?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Poppers philosophy of science was about how falsifiability can be used as a test for theories
            And any deviation in observations from what the theory predicts falsifies the theory. You don't need to present a better one which is the braindead claim you illiterate reddit parrots started with. This was all understood in the 19th century.
            >a test that can't be falsified has no value.
            Because it makes no predictions that can be checked. It's a model that models nothing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it makes no predictions that can be checked. It's a model that models nothing.
            Yes, very good, that's what Popper was saying.
            Deviations from observations are considered anomalies. The assumption is they can be explained, either the theory isn't being applied correctly to explain it, or must be altered to accommodate it. If enough anomalies stack up, it could mean that the central axiom of the theory is junk and needs to be scrapped.
            Some of that was understood in the 19th century by some people, but 20th century philosophy made it more explicit and part of western scientific education as a whole.
            I dont understand why you're so emotional about this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I dont understand why you're so emotional about this.
            You're both evil braindead morons.
            Why did you defend this shit if you understand the concept? You simply fricking don't, you're a braindead parrot who got caught hallucinating like a chatbot.

            A single observation cannot falsify a scientific theory. A scientific theory is "falsified" when a theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more comes along. And even then it is not truly falsified. Newtonian physics still explain the phenomenons it was proposed to explain, even though Einstein's theory explains even more. Frick, you can even use what Ptolemy developed in Aristotelian Physics to predict the positions of planets with some accuracy.

            >A single observation cannot falsify a scientific theory. A scientific theory is "falsified" when a theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more comes along.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alright it's time to stop playing around with you. I understand the concept to a far greater degree than you do, and with much better articulation all around, and you sound like a fricking moron that just got out of undergraduate courses. You also cry like a girl. Is that better?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you understood anything or were capable of any hint of thought you wouldn't have made any of these posts.
            >I have secret posting powers that don't get reflected in my actual posts
            >A single observation cannot falsify a scientific theory. A scientific theory is "falsified" when a theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more comes along.
            You defended this and then made the most vapid post imaginable about how big your dick is. That's who you are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I defended that post because it's accurate in what it was getting at. The observation is considered an anomaly until several more stack up and can't be reconciled which prompts re-evaluation of the core axiom and replacement with an axiom that informs a better explanative theory.
            Why are you thinking about dicks lol wtf

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The observation is considered an anomaly until several more stack up and can't be reconciled which prompts re-evaluation of the core axiom and replacement with an axiom that informs a better explanative theory.
            Thus creating a new theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more. I don't see how he doesn't understand this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, the reason this matters is because sometimes anomalies do get reconciled under the same axiom when reappraised, aka, the theory still holds, which is why "a single observation doesn't necessarily falsify a theory."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the theory still holds
            The model doesn't hold, you added to it.
            >a single observation doesn't necessarily falsify a theory
            If the observation is valid and it's not accounted for then your account is necessarily missing something.

            >The observation is considered an anomaly until several more stack up and can't be reconciled which prompts re-evaluation of the core axiom and replacement with an axiom that informs a better explanative theory.
            Thus creating a new theory that explains everything that the previous theory explained and some more. I don't see how he doesn't understand this.

            You only need several observations if there's doubt in the validity of the actual observations. You're trying to do the braindead weasel thing homosexuals like you always do.
            >if x then y
            >but we don't know if x
            Irrelevant moron. If we have a deviation we have a deviation, the conditional in the hypothetical isn't about what would happen if some drugged out commie like you thought gravity stopped working.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Models and theories aren't the same thing. Yes, a model that wasn't aware of or accounting for something is necessarily updated or replaced when a new object or observation enters the scene. No doubt, but that's a truism.
            A theory isn't a model though, a theory is an hypothesis with evidence supporting it. These are different concepts. A model is a simplification of reality through which theories can be tested.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why the frick are you so pissed? You were the only one calling people names from the very beginning of the discussion. I for one made no comments on your intelligence at any moment. Do you need to talk?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The observation is considered an anomaly
            We know for certain that the model has failed to do what it was supposed to do. It's been invalidated. Adding an exception is a new model, the exception was not in the old model.
            Exceptions get added until they can be abstracted into a simpler pattern that accounts for them all on top of what the previous model accounted for.

            >it's accurate in what it was getting at
            It's a complete inversion of reality and a demonstration that you're parrots who mystify basic shit and can't apply any of it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            Also, the reason this matters is because sometimes anomalies do get reconciled under the same axiom when reappraised, aka, the theory still holds, which is why "a single observation doesn't necessarily falsify a theory."

            >Also, the reason this matters is because sometimes anomalies do get reconciled under the same axiom when reappraised, aka, the theory still holds, which is why "a single observation doesn't necessarily falsify a theory."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >see
            See the vapid brainfart that's directly being addressed in that post? Is that what I should see you illiterate piece of shit?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            Models and theories aren't the same thing. Yes, a model that wasn't aware of or accounting for something is necessarily updated or replaced when a new object or observation enters the scene. No doubt, but that's a truism.
            A theory isn't a model though, a theory is an hypothesis with evidence supporting it. These are different concepts. A model is a simplification of reality through which theories can be tested.

          • 3 weeks ago
            ytard

            Nothing, unless you're interested in truth.
            [...]
            Popper said very little about social constructs. I don't know if he even said anything about them. Poppers philosophy of science was about how falsifiability can be used as a test for theories, a test that can't be falsified has no value. It must be able to be theoretically disproven. If it can't be theoretically disproven, it can't be tested and thus can't be considered scientifically valid. That's all.
            You having a panic attack?

            Why do you think reading Popper jerk off about social constructs gives you any insight into science or truth? Why do you morons never have any clue about the actual history of science, just troony nonsense like this?

            I dont know if that anon will do any of that. Lmao. But fair enough and true.
            It's just how I learned and I found it useful to do it that way. Familiarity with Popper made Kuhn easier to understand.
            I also think Kuhn is vastly more astute than Popper was in that he bypassed total fictions like "falsifiability" and "verification" and got to the root of what paradigms are all about: social constructions

            Sir Popper was debunked by two different angels:
            1.) Kuhn and Feyerabend, among others, how show that the history of science doesn't follow the theory of popper. They plead for a more historical take on science.
            2.) Quine with his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism".

            And Popper avoided in this whole life the work about Bayesianistic theories of induction, too.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i really like the 'natural language approach' but i DID NOT LIKE the 3 years of 'dude it's the language approach naturally'

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Elliot's Husband

    >implying that reddit would like the positivists
    >implying that 4chud would either
    You are far more based than the average user from either of these sites if you actually read positivist literature.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think you'd have to be fundamentally misunderstanding either Nietzsche or the positivists to hold both in esteem at the same time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Elliot's Husband

      Not really, you can respect different philosophical opinions at the same time. That is what it means to expand your horizons, and as Hegel said, the quest for self-realization and self-actualization of the spirit is never over.
      And really Nietzsche and Positivists aren't even that different, because they both start from a similar position and then develop their ideas in different directions.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can respect them, I dont think you can see them both as accurate

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you like them the wrong way (which is very common) then yes you are major reddit. There is a right way to like Nietzsche, and a right way to like the logical positivists. If you like both the right way, you're better even than IQfy, since IQfy is more reddit in those respects (they totally misunderstand both Nietzsche and the logical positivists). If you really want to understand Nietzsche you have to read The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra very very closely. As for the logical positivists, the best guide there is Carnap and the Aufbau + Logical Syntax, but if you read Ayer's Language Truth and Logic at all, again pay closer attention than others do. Ayer still unfortunately tends to get people confused about positivism because he misrepresents it somewhat, but the people who misunderstand even Ayer get it wrong even worse. Carnap loved Nietzsche.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're an imbecile, whatever other titles you give yourself. That title, you were born with.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can't be measured, do not care.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Redditors don't like them. Redditors believe in morality and implicitly in free will.
    They think they like them, but they don't. Also, no Redditor is an atheist, nor a materialist. At some deep level they believe in dualism and in a higher immaterial order.
    They're Anglos. If you're an Anglo you can't stop being a Protestantoid just by removing one or two premises from the system. It's the old George Eliot mistake identified by Nietzsche.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *