I love this fat fuck like you wouldn't believe

I love this fat frick like you wouldn't believe

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Still BTFO skeptics

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Called bullshit on most of philosophy and we still haven't recovered since.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who? Stephen Fry?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    this moron said, don't believe a miracle even if you see it with your own eyes happening. also he's fat, so gg go next trash team.
    total atheistBlack person death.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody actually believes you're a christian for real

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >AtheistBlack person
      >Engaging in sinful wrath and hating thy neighbor

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The style of this man is not good; but his matter is excellent. He deserves to be read because he thinks, and he thinks because he has read.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And the exact opposite can be said about Voltaire

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    He has been BTFO by the scientific method though.

    >Hume: you can't trust induction, look I'm so deep
    >Science: no problem, bro, here's my method that actually improves knowledge when induction fails

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are very moronic. All knowledge acquired by science is acquired by induction, and the problem of induction applies no matter how good your methods are.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did you repeatedly fail every science class in highschool? Induction plays almost no role in science anymore. Go tell me how you mistakenly believe the standard model of particle physics was derived inductively. good luck doing induction on empirically unobservable entities like virtual particles. Let me guess, you never took a calculus class?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Go tell me how you mistakenly believe the standard model of particle physics was derived inductively.

          Why don't YOU explain exactly how you think it was derived?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I'm not your personal teacher. I don't get paid for explaining things you should have learned as a teenager already.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you don't understand physics or philosophy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t understand anything because I am a fat kraut lady with the Iq of a bread box. It is only natural I would be on a literature board of all places.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I enjoy my son in laws sexy balls. His all’s are hairy and I enjoy them. I also like his butthole.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I crave Jon’s wiener in my fat and loose “Scheide.” I crave his wiener

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody does. But I can say with certainty that my limited understanding is better than yours.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobody does.
            cope of the week

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it isn't. You're unable to explain the derivation of the standard model because you fundamentally don't understand it. Go ahead and prove me wrong

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you deny that the quest for the standard model heavily employed non-empirical methods? You deny that a lot of predictions were made a priori and deductively long before they became testable experimentally? Well, you're free to deny all this. It's not illegal. But it makes you intellectually dishonest.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Science is based on prediction
            Prediction deductively derived from hypotheses. Deductively. Let me give you an example.

            >Hypothesis: All IQfy posters have at least triple digit IQ.
            >Deductively derived prediction: Every IQfy poster will understand Hume's problem of induction.
            >Observation contradicting this prediction: Your posts.
            Thus the hypothesis has been falsified. By observing your post I have gained knowledge that there are IQfy posters with only double digit IQ. This knowledge is not subject to Hume's problem of induction. It is 100% certain knowledge gained via observing a counterexample.

            But like even if this is the case, this is, so to speak, a kinda of development based solid empirical observations. In the example you gave, you can't just assume that people from the place will be literate, interested and committed to tasks that involve the specific challenge you posed, etc. The hypotheses can't be just about anything, they involve prior and more basic empirical predicates.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The homosexual doesn't even understand that the statement is not sound, even if it deductively follows and is valid. Its a mere syllogism that has nothing to do with science or induction and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion about what science does. He is apparently unable to see this distinction because he is a first yr zoomer with a limited experience of practicing science.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't just assume
            I didn't assume shit. I formulated a scientific hypothesis and deductively derived a prediction from it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why was the hypothesis scientific? Why does that deduction specifically matches, establishes the hypothesis?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I asked you to explain how it was derived, not to whine at me. Get better reading comprehension before going online to discuss philosophy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You asked a stupid off-topic question. If you want to understand the standard model then spend a few years reading physics textbooks. I won't summarize this in a IQfy post. But for the purpose of this thread it's irrelevant. This discussion is about epistemology and the scientific method. I made my point. You can either engage with it (i.e. admit that I'm right) or you can remain dishonest. It's your choice, dipshit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >off-topic question
            you are a moron. I can guarantee that I understand more physics than you. No amount of reading will raise your intelligence.

            Answer my request for an explanation, and I can point out exactly where the problem of induction applies. Or keep acting like a woman.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Already answered in

            So you deny that the quest for the standard model heavily employed non-empirical methods? You deny that a lot of predictions were made a priori and deductively long before they became testable experimentally? Well, you're free to deny all this. It's not illegal. But it makes you intellectually dishonest.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            non-answer. goodbye gay

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >refuses to address the point
            Your dishonesty won't be missed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >heavily employed non-empirical methods

            dun't matter. If the empirical evidence is called into doubt, the whole model crumbles

            >You deny that a lot of predictions were made a priori and deductively long before they became testable experimentally?

            dun't matter. they were PROVEN experimentally, so fundamentally inductive

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they were PROVEN experimentally
            Fundamentally false. They weren't proven, they merely haven't been disproved. Experiments can only falsify, not verify.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this concedes the problem of induction, which is the subject of the post. The exact thing that you claimed the sceintifc method btfo's. Hume's whole point is asking you to justify how something can be proven or supported at all through inductive reasoning, not how they can be falsified by counterexample.

            This isn't a harmless concession. It would imply that the theories of quantum mechanics are no more supported now than 1000 years ago, since they were falsified in neither time.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >unobservable entities
          >>>/x/

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The assumption that calculus can model the real world is an inductive assumption.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao. Abduction is induction. The use of bayes theorem is basically induction. The standard model builds on the knowledge of electrons and other particles which were discovered using quantum mechanics which was discovered because of statistical mechanics, which was discovered because of classical mechanics, etc. I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science literally breaks down when you get to the quantum level and we just ignore it because it's more convenient.

            Hell even in pure mathematics Pi makes no fricking sense when you actually think about it for a second. How does that shit never end? WHY does that shit never end?

            >t. brainlets
            How can you get filtered so hard by basic science and philosophy?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Abduction is induction.
            False.

            >The use of bayes theorem is basically induction.
            False.

            >The standard model builds on the knowledge of electrons and other particles which were discovered using quantum mechanics which was discovered because of statistical mechanics, which was discovered because of classical mechanics, etc.
            Way to show that you completely missed the point.

            And what point is that? What abduction basically does is use bayes theorem. Bayes theorem uses markov chains which assume the next state is relate to the current state which is basically induction. I saw the sun rise today, therefore there is some probability it will rise tomorrow. Tomorrow, you take the same assumption, I saw the sun rise today, therefore there is some probability it will rise tomorrow, and so on... There is no logical foundation to predict with any probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that some particle that has been theorized by a dead boomer 60 yrs ago will be discovered in some 20km circumference cyclotron in europe. Induction basically covers all knowledge with the same skepticism. There is no reason to predict anything will happen with any degree of certainty. It doesn't matter whether you believe god created gravitons or that they were theorized to exist by some genius physicist. If we are talking about knowledge and predictions, then they will eventually have to meet the final boss of epistemology, which is hume's skepticisms about induction. Try to see whether you can refute that without resorting to lazy ad hominems about my knowledge in philosophy and physics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry to hear that you're epistemologically disabled. Science is based on the procedure of conjecturing hypotheses, deductively calculating consequences and then empirically attempting to falsify them. See, no induction involved. You should have learned this in highschool. But you didn't. You failed at the most basic level of epistemology. Please never talk about philosophy again.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science is based on prediction, which is based on induction. Go back to school and ask for your school fees, moron. You can attempt to falsify them all you want, it won't stop you from making predictions, which will lead you back to induction. You can conjecture all the hypotheses you want, those hypotheses conclusions predict something. They are not mathematical theorems that need to be proven, they predict physical phenomena, there is nothing deductive about predicting the state of a dynamic system. Deduction is why the linear algebra and calculus works, its not why the velocity will be x m/s. Learn the difference moron and post better criticisms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Science is based on prediction
            Prediction deductively derived from hypotheses. Deductively. Let me give you an example.

            >Hypothesis: All IQfy posters have at least triple digit IQ.
            >Deductively derived prediction: Every IQfy poster will understand Hume's problem of induction.
            >Observation contradicting this prediction: Your posts.
            Thus the hypothesis has been falsified. By observing your post I have gained knowledge that there are IQfy posters with only double digit IQ. This knowledge is not subject to Hume's problem of induction. It is 100% certain knowledge gained via observing a counterexample.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            : All IQfy posters have at least triple digit IQ.
            derived prediction: Every IQfy poster will understand Hume's problem of induction.
            You would need to prove that all triple digit IQ people on IQfy understand (will, would) Hume's problem of induction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not science. That is statistics which is math. Science explains why, not what is already there. You have not made any model by assuming what is already there. Your hypothesis should be based on a scientific model. I could as well make the same hypothesis about how many people shit today morning on IQfy without alluding it to science. You could argue its psychology but that's still not a scientific hypothesis because it has no predictive power.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then F=m*a is also not science. It's math.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is a scientific model moron based on statistics. Where is your model with an equation about predicting how many people understand hume on IQfy? Are you a fricking zoomer in his first year arguing about things you don't understand? Where is your scientific model? Collecting statistical data is not science, you have to build a predictive model over that data and show that it's not merely correlated variables interacting with each other in a not necessarily predictive manner.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a scientific model moron based on statistics.
            Which statistics did Newton use when inventing his laws?

            >Where is your model with an equation about predicting how many people understand hume on IQfy?
            My hypothesis was that ALL IQfyners understand it. Your posts falsified my hypothesis. You are the counterexample. Thanks for participating in science.

            >Are you a fricking zoomer in his first year arguing about things you don't understand?
            You are projecting.

            >Collecting statistical data is not science
            I did not collect any statistics.

            >you have to build a predictive model
            I did and its predictions have been falsified by your existence.

            Your cognitive disability is getting tiresome. I'll give you a 4/10 in case you're trolling.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I won't answer you stupid about newton collecting anything. F=ma is a scientific model. Go google what that means zoomer. Yes you don't need to collect them, you made a statistical proposition about what people on IQfy have based on their iq. You don't have to collect anything because you already assume what a population has based on statistical data about iq. You have not built any model homosexual, again go google the meaning of a scientific model and how it is represented using math equations. I give you 0 out of 10 because you are not even capable of trolling, you are too stupid for that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said F=m*a was a statistical statement. Then according to you it's math and not science. You keep contradicting yourself, my dear low IQ hylic. I'm afraid, I can't bring the light of epistemological insight to someone who doesn't even understand on the most shallow level the distinctions between statistics, math, science, induction, deduction, a priori and a posteriori.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did not say that you stupid homosexual. I said your statement about the number of people with a certain iq on IQfy and how they understand hume is a statistical statement. And you have yet to give me a scientific model on that. Are you so stupid that you have forgotten you made that statement, and if you didn't, why the frick are you piggybacking on conversations that you didn't contribute to without announcing yourself? I don't need you to bring light to anything, you are barely a functioning human as it is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The homosexual doesn't even understand that the statement is not sound, even if it deductively follows and is valid. Its a mere syllogism that has nothing to do with science or induction and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion about what science does. He is apparently unable to see this distinction because he is a first yr zoomer with a limited experience of practicing science.

            My hypothesis was entirely scientific. It was a plausible statement about an aspect of reality with testable predictions. I even conducted the test and falsified it. None of your chatgptesque cargo cult buzzwords have any relevance here. You do not understand science at all. And unlike you I'm neither a zoomer nor a student. I'm a boomer with a PhD.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Give me the scientific model you used you stupid homosexual, otherwise frickoff because you can't prove anything. You have not even attempted to defend your statements with any data, any graph or any reference to the former. You are moronic zoomer with no experience in the scientific method.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know what a "scientific model" is. You keep syntactically repeating this buzzword without having a grasp of its semantics. You are of lower intelligence than chatgpt. Come on, spam it a thousand times more that you believe I need a "scientific model". I don't need shit. My toy hypothesis for epistemological demonstration purposes was entirely self-contained, doofus.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I fricked your mom
            Your mom gave birth
            Therefore i am your father.
            There is your scientific deductive statement. I won't give you any data, try to see whether you can disprove that syllogism my homosexual son.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >t. failed the logic section of the IQ test
            Sigh. It's sad to see that simple first order logic is already too hard for you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll give you one better my homosexual son. Your siblings are my children and the homosexual partner you have is my son in law. There's the predictive power of the model you use in your moronic statement. Your adopted children with your homosexual partner are my grandchildren. The predictive power of unsound syllogism people, no data or scientific model needed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >incoherent nonsense
            I'm so sorry for your lack of cognitive skills. But nonetheless I am dedicated to defending the truth.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No data or model, we are just making shit up as we go my homosexual son, why are you suddenly offended with your syllogism? This is the new science, get with the program.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We've collected more than enough data of your cognitive deficiency by now to make an accurate model of your limitations. My scientific prediction is that you will never understand scientific methodology nor basic epistemology.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            My homosexual son hasn't gotten buttfricked in a month
            He thinks he understands hume
            He starts arguments with his father
            Therefore, he is sexually frustrated.

            Refute that statement homosexual. I have data and a model but will not provide any of it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How long are you gonna seethe about being wrong?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can't you predict it with your model my homosexual son. You are supposed to know how to deduce this, lmao, didn't you say you have collected enough data, keep up homosexual, I didn't realize you were so stupid when i was raising you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Abduction is induction.
            False.

            >The use of bayes theorem is basically induction.
            False.

            >The standard model builds on the knowledge of electrons and other particles which were discovered using quantum mechanics which was discovered because of statistical mechanics, which was discovered because of classical mechanics, etc.
            Way to show that you completely missed the point.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sorry to hear that you're epistemologically disabled. Science is based on the procedure of conjecturing hypotheses, deductively calculating consequences and then empirically attempting to falsify them. See, no induction involved. You should have learned this in highschool. But you didn't. You failed at the most basic level of epistemology. Please never talk about philosophy again.

          actual 50 iq poster lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mine is >150. Keep projecting and samegayging, kid. You lost the debate. Prepare for next time by actually studying epistemology.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Science literally breaks down when you get to the quantum level and we just ignore it because it's more convenient.

      Hell even in pure mathematics Pi makes no fricking sense when you actually think about it for a second. How does that shit never end? WHY does that shit never end?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pi just never ends if you try to express it as a decimal number, Pi itself does end, it's just Pi.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Damn 1/3 doesn't exist, the number never ends bro. It's just 3s all the way down, how deep is that
        Unironically start with the Greeks, they figured this shit out so long ago.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Idea of Pi exists and it makes sense in of itself. How it relates to the rest of the physical world I don't know.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It manifests itself in multiple instancesin in our world. Take the metaphysical realism (Platonism) pill

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >multiple instancesin in our world
            Which ones?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anywhere where there is a circle for example

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a true and insightful post. Your anti-intellectual seething is deeply immoral.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    He was right about one thing: the origin of morals/ethics. Sentiments drive almost all moral codes of conduct.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you sure this isn't your ideal philosopher?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hume is a true intellectual titan I will grant you that. One of the finest mines to ever grace the earth.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >finest mines to ever grace the earth.
      minds, even

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He might've dug some fine holes. You don't know. Maybe never will.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine this guy, Adam Smith, and James Watt hanging out together, like playing golf or something.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not quite as cynical and evil as Hobbes and therefore not quite as based, but a good second.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I feel almost the same way, but Hume is #1 in my heart just because this jolly fellow makes me smile whenever I see him.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does he keep appearing in Anon's dreams?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hume I can understand, his problem of induction makes sense to me.
    Popper seems to have problems in that falsification doesn't really describe science, but perhaps part of it.
    Kuhn and Feyerabend make some sense in terms of describing how scientists actually operate day to day, at least in some cases.
    Not sure where this leave "science" moving forward.
    I guess I would return to Hume and say that it's not about science but about people making theories, experiments and seeing what shit sticks and works.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hume is king.
      Popper is a fraud, his israeliness and being a political mouth piece propelled his fame.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no one debating science here has read popper or feyerabend
    jfl
    anyway OP you are correct, hume doesnt get enough credit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oof, you really shouldn't.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Popper and Feyerabend are cringe pseud midwit crap. Just read proper science textbooks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's ok to get filtered, no need to be angry. some people are better suited to dogmatic kid's books than real understanding

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >dogmatic kid's books
          Yep, that's pretty much what Popper and Feyerabend produced. They are lacking genuine insight and thus only appeal to the redditard audience.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > they think IQ is a good measure of philosophical prowess

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mixed feelings on the guy as a historical figure, but as a philosopher, he's basically just correct.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >david

Comments are closed.