>take philosophy of science class

>take philosophy of science class
>the high IQ STEMchuds are straight up laughing at what the philosophy teacher says half the time.

Brutal.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    philosophically speaking they're all homosexuals

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a STEMcel and I got alot out of the philosophy of science/engineering and social issues of engineering classes. Even though I had some disagreements with some of the written works presented in the course it was clear to me that the lecturer had some valuable insights and I didn't appreciate the horse blinders knee jerk elitist rejection that many other students seemed to have.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >alot
      you should forget about philosophy classes, as you need to retake your english classes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not sure STEMcel will catch on

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >philosophy class
    >the professor rejects dualism and preaches materialism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      then he is not a philosopher but a scientist

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Empirically prove that you're conscious or shut up and listen.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >look at this problem science can't solve
      >no, philosophy can't solve it either
      >but somehow that makes philosophy valid and important
      What's the name of this fallacy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >completely misses the point
        Science is an answer to ''how do we know''. Philosophy teaches to ask the question and develop an answer yourself. Otherwise NPC's like you will spend their entire lives like a factory worker just inputting data on the conveyer belt of a prescribed method.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like you have absolutely no idea what people in STEM classes actually do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But I did attend STEM classes. General relativity be like: 5 minutes of star wars jokes and history after which the teacher chalks the blackboard full of equations that you can barely follow so you're encouraged to practice equations at home like you did in high school.

            There are also statistics classes that are like: here are some fallacies in method design like regression to the mean, here is a program, these are the buttons you need to push in these cases and this is how you interpreted the output. Also funny are the ''evidence-based medicine'' classes with a short history lessons after which a ranking system for study designs is explained.

            Now tell me where in all these examples does a STEM student learn to think for himself?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "Thinking for yourself" is how pseudoscience happens. You need to learn to tell your inner voice to shut up in order to be able to listen properly.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If one is by default too dumb to discern what is valid and reliable then how does one know that the authority he listens to is valid and reliable and has one's best interest at heart?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Authorities are reliable by definition, that's why they're authorities.
            >inb4 some rant about climate denialism, abiotic oil, creationism, flat earth, etc etc

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Authorities are reliable by definition
            And how is that established? By the same people and methods educated by authority. So it's a self-perpetuating scheme. Don't get me wrong: I don't doubt the validity or reliability of authority so much as the frame. For example: I don't doubt that humans are defined as bipedal and without feathers. That's true. But humans are not naked chickens. That's the danger of authorityative narratives: they are true but not completely true leading to a false frame of the truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Just trust your leaders goy, they have good intentions when they ass frick you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Science is just a bloated form of philosophy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is an important lesson for self control and to become self supporting or to self learn. Otherwise you're just like one of these academic drones who are like cannibals, laughing at teachers in their own system to set an example to possibly smart people who don't take part at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here's how the hierarchy works
            >Philosophy, in general - which includes the parts you don't like
            >Empiricism
            >Science, as a general concept and rubric
            >Science, as a discipline
            >Pop Science, as "hurr Science = Knowledge", like what you're trying to peddle

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't Science as a whole basically Empiricism?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not if it's hegel's science

            >knowledge that science has yet to discover.
            like hegel's moronic cult that has brought humanity the greatest suffering that any idea has?, go pound sand, you moron of the land

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            why not?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. Empiricism, in general, can include something like Geocentricism. Why? Because observational evidence does in fact point to the stars, sun, and planets revolving around the Earth - just look at the night sky. And if you really want to die various hills, you advocate all sorts of other evidence and observation based claims that are totally bogus. None of those positions are "Scientific" automatically just because they are empirically based.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can include something like Geocentricism.
            Even worse: empiricism can't include any kind of induction at all or you're a hypocrite. An empiricist can't even use words that don't point to an object. It's a mental handicap. A child that doesn't develop and rely on imagination becomes an officially certified moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No way you actually (mindfully) attended a GR class. Yes, you're encouraged to solve problems on your own, which is when you're awoken from the classroom coma and have to get creative yourself. It's not about plugging in numbers into equations, as you put it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Classes and lectures in general are just bullshit humiliation rituals. Their purpose is to test your obedience and the reward is a piece of paper that allows you to be a wage slave at some other place. If you desire intellectual satisfaction then university is the wrong place. Smart people figure this out on your own. The fact that you didn't, shows that you are not worthy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >humiliation rituals
            Le epic buzzword of the year. Back to Wrong board, moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ritual humiliation in traditional societies can serve to enforce a particular social order, or, as with hazing rituals, to emphasize that the group takes precedence over its individual members.
            he used it correctly

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Complete non-sequitur

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            academic study is absolutely a ritual.
            >A ceremony in which the actions and wording follow a prescribed form and order.
            >The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship or by an organization.
            >A set of actions that are conducted routinely in the same manner.
            so if only the humiliation part is in question I point to my previous reply
            humiliation in traditional societies can serve to enforce a particular social order, or, as with hazing rituals, to emphasize that the group takes precedence over its individual members.
            considering you are largely ignored if you want to contribute but haven't gone through the ritual it kind of speaks for itself. unless you respect the order imposed by the humiliation ritual your opinion is usually discarded

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frick you, rather be a factory worker than some numbnuts suck up for a little higher pay but still forced to slave like a cow. I make by and live comfortably and small, never needing to go through the humiliation rituals.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >look at this phenomenon that is obviously true philosophically but cant be proved using scientific epistemological methods

        >hurr actually its not provable at all because im simply defining all knowledge as empirical knowledge
        >therefore philosophy is useless because i defined it that way

        im surprised your strand of thought still exists

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >obviously true philosophically
          i.e. you can't prove it either but you want to hand-wave it away with wordgames and stoner logic and pretend you're just as smart as the scientists anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >smart as the scientists
            scientists aren't smarter then any other demographic that deals with technical knowledge. I've seen car mechanics that know more about how a car works then scientists know about their respective field.

            >you can't prove it either
            that's just you playing word games with the word "prove". I can "prove" 2+2 = 4, but you changing the meaning of the symbol "2" doesn't mean anything about the actual intuition I have.

            The fact of the matter is the vast majority of people have a strong intuition that other people are conscious and for various reasons we can know they are conscious because this intuition is reliable for knowledge.

            You claim that the epistemological status of other people having conscious feelings is in the same bracket as not knowing if the Rieman hypothesis is true or other certain galaxies exist is silly.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >definition
          Philosophy has no definitions or rigor, it's just bla bla bla blabbering. On par with complete meme "study objects" like theology or gender hot-topic political nonsense. That's why no progress is ever made there, because no one even knows what good philosophy is supposed to look like.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be honest, I think you're mixing up the academic aspect of science/philosophy, with Science/philosophy itself.

            Science at its core is basically understanding the physical universe, while philosophy is just the systematic study of the fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, life etc. You seem to be very concerned with degrees and jobs so I think your critiques are more so targeted at university systems then actual Philosophy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >while philosophy is just the systematic study of the fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, life etc
            So brief on the progress which has been made in the last let's say 2500 years, so I grant you Aristotle and the Greeks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The concept of Truth, Materialism, Platonism, Idealism, Atheism, The vast majority of religious beliefs that people believe today were first formulated by philosophers, The scientific method, The modern concept of a republic, Marxism, determinism, dialectical materialism, judicial law, laws of logic, branches of government, the list goes on

            the reason it seems so all over the place and gives you anxiety is because these are the fundamental ideas that we are forced to grapple with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            define "progress"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Every time somebody tries to cage philosophy with some line of rigor, contradictions are found and extensive criticism is levied.
            The same goes for science. I think it would be a stretch to say that science has "one" singular rigorous approach, it's just that the claims of science are (usually) falsifiable and pragmatic so it's not necessary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Every time somebody tries to cage philosophy with some line of rigor, contradictions are found and extensive criticism is levied.
            Nothing ever comes off it.
            >it's just that the claims of science are (usually) falsifiable and pragmatic so it's not necessary.
            Exactly.
            >I think it would be a stretch to say that science has "one" singular rigorous approach
            Agreed. Even though it's by far more rigorous than philosophy is.

            The concept of Truth, Materialism, Platonism, Idealism, Atheism, The vast majority of religious beliefs that people believe today were first formulated by philosophers, The scientific method, The modern concept of a republic, Marxism, determinism, dialectical materialism, judicial law, laws of logic, branches of government, the list goes on

            the reason it seems so all over the place and gives you anxiety is because these are the fundamental ideas that we are forced to grapple with.

            People figured those out on their own.

            define "progress"

            Solving problems in the field.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're concerned with more than just the immediately falsifiable and pragmatic. To even know what claims to make in the first place is philosophy. To interpret and derive meaning from the findings of empirical processes is philosophy. Without philosophy we'd be going in circles. It's very subtle and profound. Philosophy is rigorous because you have to navigate the fuzziness of being a human being. The foundationalism and reductionism that come with cliche "rigor" are insufficient

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We're concerned with more than just the immediately falsifiable and pragmatic.
            >To even know what claims to make in the first place is philosophy.
            Every human is. The only way in which you're "special" is that you think you're special for it.
            > To interpret and derive meaning from the findings of empirical processes is philosophy.
            Not really, it's none of your business. If you want to interpret findings in let's biology, you'd have to be a biologist. Let's be real.

            So what is it:
            >Philosophy is rigorous because you have to navigate the fuzziness of being a human being.
            Rigorous or
            >The foundationalism and reductionism that come with cliche "rigor" are insufficient
            not rigorous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have poor reading comprehension and are resorting to personal attacks. You've already decided on what philosophy is because you've never actually engaged with it. You're also stuck on the idea of silo'ing fields, insisting that because one field is named "philosophy" and one is named "biology" that they have no overlap and it would be unthinkable for a biologist to do what philosophers do. Closing the thread now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You have poor reading comprehension and are resorting to personal attacks.
            Brevity is soul of wit. We're on IQfy - no blabbering policy. It's not arguable.
            >you've never actually engaged with it
            I did. It was unsatisfying.
            >You're also stuck on the idea of silo'ing fields, insisting that because one field is named "philosophy" and one is named "biology" that they have no overlap and it would be unthinkable for a biologist to do what philosophers do.
            You need years of training to interpret any of their data in any productive way.
            >Closing the thread now.
            rage quit, kek
            back to

            [...]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People figured those out on their own.
            because they were philosophizing

            what is your vendetta against philosophy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is exactly why everyone other than philosophers views philosophy as a worthless endeavor. Congratulations on another millennial of playing yourselves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Avoiding what exactly?

        Your specific skintone?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only good philosopher of science is one that effectively is also a scientist. Same with math.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    STEM students are literally midwits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Midwits that can actually get jobs after they graduate

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        its true pure philosophy students have less job options than pure engineering students in an academic sense, but you're missing the point. Having philosophical knowledge makes it alot easier to understand people, society, and how the world works. Someone going into trades that has very good philosophical knowledge will 100% be more successful then a stembug engineer degree with zero percent philosophical knowledge.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >*gives you the illusion that you understand people, society and how the world words a lot easier

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >omg I achieved understanding, I'm no longer an npc after 22 years of my life!
          If you weren't conscious by 7 you were never gonna make it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not the guy you replied to, but you're supposed to already have a natural gravitation towards certain memes, ways of thinking, etc... philosophy helps you get that in order, to experience and explain in words, what you cannot throughout years, even decades. That's also what literature is for. It saves you time and helps you become a better version of yourself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        who's going to tell him?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every scientist acts as a philosopher as soon as he attempts to interpret results, construct claims about the natural world, or make suggestions on any of the issues of metaphysics. Philosophy is the glue that holds all knowledge together. It's wisdom, the combination of intelligence and experience. STEM students who don't understand this are like fish who don't know what water is.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Friendly reminder that Philosophy is the #3 undergrad major for doctors.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    gays

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How do you feel about the work of David Stove?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Im a high iq stemcel and the class about platon reading timaios was the hardest ass whooping I got during my studies.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something about living an unobserved life can do tremendous damage to a person. Those STEMtards probably only know video games, science, vacations with their lame-ass parents and the palm of their hand.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what hobbies, profession and leisure time with your family? LOL how ridiculous and unfulfilling! Now excuse me, I'm reading Camus and want to imagine myself happy.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    philosophers sure do like to posture about how it can help to "understand people, society, and how the world works", but they never explain what this understanding entails exactly. I don't doubt that this possible, but it does seem like many people who are into philosophy are putting on an act

    It is a handy subject for coming up with words and phrases to describe concepts at least. Even if the vast majority is a bunch of mumbo jumbo which serves no purpose other than verbalising the 'philosophers' mental problems

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >understand people, society, and how the world works
      >they never explain what this understanding entails exactly
      it means you understand how other people think, what you believe a priori, and how to progress with knowledge

      >It is a handy subject for coming up with words and phrases to describe concepts at least
      thats the point, it represents the domain where new ideas are formulated at the horizon of fields of knowledge. If you dont understand the philosophical motivations behind general relativity for example, you sound like an idiot when you explain it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it means you understand how other people think, what you believe a priori, and how to progress with knowledge
        Again, this is too vague to get anything from. If I were to point a gun to your head and ask you to explain what knowledge *exactly* you have gained then you would likely state things that everyone knows and thinks, at which point the philosophical posturing is pretty useless here

        >If you dont understand the philosophical motivations behind general relativity for example, you sound like an idiot when you explain it.
        General relativity requires no academic style philosophical explanations, if by philosophy though you are just referring to common sense explanations for abstract concepts, then philosophy just returns back to posturing again

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If I were to point a gun to your head and ask you to explain what knowledge *exactly* you have gained then you would likely state things that everyone knows and thinks
          ...... thats kinda the point

          When I was a kid i didn't think anybody actually believed in Necessitarianism. Now that I am educated in philosophy I understand people do and why people believe this, and can anticipate their other beliefs and behaviors based on this. I think there are dozens of good arguments against Necessitarianism, and therefore when I see a scientist presuppose necessitarianism, I know he is talking out his ass about something he dosent understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >...... thats kinda the point
            In which case then - with respect to all other humans - your statement towards a heightened knowledge through philosophy are moot

            >and therefore when I see a scientist presuppose necessitarianism, I know he is talking out his ass about something he dosent understand.
            You are getting into nonsense territory here, why do you assume he doesn't understand it? Why do you dogmatically fix his stance onto an adjacent philosophical word - which likely isn't even his position to begin with

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You are getting into nonsense territory here, why do you assume he doesn't understand it?
            I assume he doesn't understand it if he has no arguments or evidence or reasons for his beliefs. And I think it is immoral to claim you have knowledge, especially deep philosophical knowledge without any sort of evidence or reason.

            >Why do you dogmatically fix his stance onto an adjacent philosophical word - which likely isn't even his position to begin with
            It usually is, empirically speaking, most of the time the conversation of asking why a scientist is a necessitarian results in him saying its not a philosophical position and they dont want to discuss. But the point is, this is even the case when I repeat back their own belief to them in the most good-faith fashion. Alot of people simply dont care to put in the work to explain to others what they believe, and being educated in philosophy would prevent this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I assume he doesn't understand it if he has no arguments or evidence or reasons for his beliefs
            Reality itself is the grounding for scientific inquiry to proceed. Reality should be the primary domain for philosophy too however at some point most of it got side tracked and went into weird and rather fanciful avenues

            >results in him saying its not a philosophical position and they dont want to discuss
            Almost every scientist would be more than happy to have a conversation about that
            >But the point is, this is even the case when I repeat back their own belief to them in the most good-faith fashion
            Perhaps you weren't as good-faith as you claim
            >Alot of people simply dont care to put in the work to explain to others what they believe, and being educated in philosophy would prevent this.
            Again most scientists are more than happy to get into that, if someone is truly just asking in a curious fashion. If you are trying to trip them up then they are likely to be more guarded. Being educated in philosophical terms would indeed help with regards to communication, but let's not get mixed up and act like knowing a specific word is a substitute for real knowledge

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how can philosophy get us out of the current mess science is in?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      easy. read evola, heidegger, spengler and nietzsche

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        try briggs and stove

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s because they’re arrogant and don’t care about what they don’t understand, believing that only what they do understand matters. This is is the essence of narcissism.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy should use science to peer into the yet unknown, and probe various seemingly possible paths, and work out their implications at individual and group level.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then it'd just be science. Science is a branch of philosophy, not the other way around.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not just science, philosophers should be the architects of humanity's destiny.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >not an argument
    moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's like, each of them has ideas related to their own narrow field of study.
      a philosopher understands all of their points of view and draws more general lines. science geniuses are tools for philosophers for probing reality

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophers in general have a deep-seated hatred of the natural sciences because it invalidates all of "epistemology" i.e. pseudoscientific theories of how humans "think and learn".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it invalidates all of "epistemology"
      Epistemology would be ANY explanation for how knowledge functions. This can be as fantastical as Plato's Land of the Forms, or as mundane as "information is stored in neurons and communicated via a neural network". It's all epistemology.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This can be as fantastical as Plato's Land of the Forms, or as mundane as "information is stored in neurons and communicated via a neural network". It's all epistemology.
        Yes, so they're both pseudoscientific. For the first one it's obvious; for the second one, it's because it uses pseudoscientific concepts like "information"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >for the second one, it's because it uses pseudoscientific concepts like "information"
          You must be one of those special kinds of contrarians who don't think Humans are sentient.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >OH MY GOD IS THAT A LIMITING BEHAVIOUR AAAAAAH I'M GOING INSANEEE SAVE ME CAUCHYMAN

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The so called "philosophy of science" is a gross misnomer. Any class or book on that topic boils down to merely an extremely superficial and reductionist sociology of science. There are in fact many interesting intersections of science and math with epistemological and metaphysical questions. None of them are ever touched by the "philosophy of science" because instead the student is forced to regurgitate the repulsively shallow platitudes by unqualified midwit trash like Russell, Popper or Feyerabend. Once again dimwitted Anglo "analytic" garbage has ruined philosophy by turning it into forced conformity with NPC midwitism.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can see why people think philosophy as taught, especially in Anglo countries, is laughable. To get anywhere you have to unlearn a lot of what the university teaches. Then you see it does absolutely vital work and people who stick to just being "scientifically trained" are (very dangerously for humanity) completely blinkered.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moronic dunning-krugers like you are why stemchads laugh at philosophers. Tone down the delusions and maybe you'll not be so worthless

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dunning Kruger was proven to be a statistical artefact. You don't even understand science, you're a moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >science
          >proven
          moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That was mathematical analysis, in which proof is possible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >confusing the real world for mathematics
            Keep digging that hole

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You scientism geeks are the ones who insist the entire reality is fundamentally mathematical.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I enrolled for a specialized philosophy class for an mandatory elective. I was only STEM student in that group. I found 3/4 of the material interesting, as it was about modern philosophy (20th century at least), topics explored included foundations of logic and scientific methods (Tarski etc) . I felt too much removed from it and haven’t spoken up during the classes. However we had written assignments week by week. At the end I received an A+ with an e mail from the professor literally praising my works - stating that he was shocked by my ability to express my arguments, especially given that my main subject of study is different. What it implies I think is that humanities are not the best fit for philosophy as it gets more analytical (motivated STEM majors can do better?) OR I was just an outlier.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Higher level philosophy involves a lot of logic use, and guess what is applicable to STEM?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Alright guys, what's better?

    A STEM pilled philosophy maxxer or a philosophy pilled STEM maxxer?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the later one i'd say, although im sure the former has some interesting stuff to bring to the table

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    philosocucks better update their boomer cope

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just deconstructing the words here but does philosophy just mean philo sophia or liking wisdom?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no that's moronic. it means you desperately search for ideas that validate your insanity, and cling to them for dear life. anything else and you're doing it wrong. what philosopher in their right mind reads for the sake of gaining knowledge?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Etymological fallacy

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Science is a branch of philosophy
    All you homies hating on philosophy are probably just hating on metaphysics and epistemology. A just act, let me be clear. Logic and ethics are bae and essential to a credible scientist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Science is a branch of philosophy
      You got it wrong. Philosophy is a branch of science. Only a scientist has the necessary knowledge to talk about metaphysics and epistemology. Talking about philosophy without knowing science just means baselessly talking out of your ass.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Talking about philosophy without knowing science just means...
        ...making decisions based on a superior form of knowledge that science has yet to discover. For example:
        >philosophically speaking I think I should buy some fresh plants and meats at the grocery store today because that seems more evolutionarily appropriate for the body
        Meanwhile millions of scientists, billions of dollars, gorillions of studies are detailing molecular processes to come to the same conclusion. Don't you feel any shame?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >knowledge that science has yet to discover.
          like hegel's moronic cult that has brought humanity the greatest suffering that any idea has?, go pound sand, you moron of the land

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >like hegel's moronic cult that has brought humanity the greatest suffering that any idea has?,
            yes, suffering builds character and moves us in the right direction. What do you have against Hegel? His dialectic makes perfect sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just evading the point that at least in some areas science has diverted a tremendous amount of resources without making a significant contribution to human wellbeing. Once again you confirm the recurrent theme that the self-correct button of science is broken.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Science is just a bloated form of philosophy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah u need to read more. Science is basically an extension of our senses at its root. Thus fundamentally flawed. A positivistic worldview will always fail to see the complete picture

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >le positivism strawtransman
          >le science is just le empiricism
          Way to tell us that you know neither science nor philosophy. The entire philosophy of science deals with the task of absolutely destroying your ignorant misconception of science. Which is quite a big task because your view is so utterly idiotic that it can be deconstructed, refuted and ridiculed on a dozen different levels.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because of philosophy, I can spot s°yence. Can you spot s°yence with science? Yes you can, and it's more accurate, but that doesn't void understanding s°y profoundly by registering empirical logics through philosophy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are the soiboi here. You are not willing to engage with the subject on an intellectual level. You merely seek a confirmation of your very narrow world view. In Plato's words you're not a philosopher, you're a philodox.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >cope the post
            Face it champ, u got got by an 'idiot'

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philos°yphy.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some empirical logics can only be understood by understanding everything because you would need to be able to sense these logics in the universe, thus allowing you to see all the empirical logic. This is philosophy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, philosophy can include subjects like theology (regardless of whether you believe in it), epistemology (so how we know things, both in terms of where knowledge comes from as well as how we organize our knowledge and talk about it), and morality (which cannot be scientifically or empirically determiend due to the is-ought problem; which no you can not jump over so easily, the closest I've gotten is a 'is-use-should-ought' bridge that goes from objective knowledge to conceptual to practical to moral, which still isn't a perfect solution).

      Empiricism is just low hanging fruit. Easy to prove, relatively speaking. The harder philosophical subjects are more difficult to talk about in a disciplined manner.

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