>>What is epistemology?
the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.
>>What is logic?
part of the metascience framework
>>What is cognitive science?
science
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What is philosophy of science? >What is logic? >What is epistemology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy >What is cognitive science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science >Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of the mind and its processes with input from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, *philosophy*, computer science/artificial intelligence, and anthropology.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.
So you agree that epistemology is beyond the scientific method, and is also necessary to establish the scientific method? Wouldn't that make epistemology (i.e. philosophy) of importance to science?
>What is epistemology?
Dumbest word games. They endlessly drool over their own failure to define words like "knowledge" or "truth". From studying epistemology you gain no insights other than a deep contempt for these infantile bastards. >What is logic?
A field of math. >What is cognitive science?
Largely political narrative bullshit disguised as neuroscience. "Look at this picture of the brain. It proves that transwomen are real women."
"Philosophy of science" is a bunch of useless morons pretending to be smart for describing that which is trivial to anyone who actually does science. The scientific method is taught to every kid. There is no intellectual merit in describing it once again.
Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone. This is a serious challenge to logical positivism.
You clearly have no understanding of what an "appeal to authority" even is and like your fellow redditors, think that reciting names of logical fallacies is a way to make arguments.
>Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone
Why do morons love to namedrop shit they don't understand?
That's a nice logical fallacy, the fallacy fallacy, by assuming that calling someone else's argument fallacious makes it invalid. Would hate for someone to think you actually know something.
>We
So you speak for the entirety of humanity and you view yourself as having some sort omniscient overview of the whole so? Common delusion, your understanding of whats going on in your home town just barely scratches the surface, your attempt to claim insight into the whole ball of wax reeks of grandiosity and delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions > Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, super-intelligent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, pseudoscientific, science fictional, or supernatural theme.
Why is Narcissus so ugly in that photo? He was said to be the most beautiful of men, so much so that he fell in love with himself. That's not even reaching a 5 out of 10.
Science can disprove things, but doesn't tell you what to do with that information. Philosophy does. Also philosophical thought is what leads to the creation of a hypothesis that you can test in the first place. Also logic is a philosophy, which is necessary for any mathematical field.
It's more like we need philosophy to ask the right questions and we need science to answer many of them.
There are also many important questions that philosophy can approach that science just can't, our judicial system being a very obv case
of something we can't just do away with because there are no scientific answers as to what constitutes legal/illegal.
You can't get to astral projections esoterics (whatever /x/ shit) with scientific method either. This doesn't invalidate science, but on the contrary only shows how full of bullshit your field is if it cannot be put on a basis of logic and facts.
Stop projecting, the people bringing up Astral projection and other schizo shit are only the people who are into it. This smells the same spirit as self depricating repressed trannies. Just grow up.
Okay, even if (You) deny that ethics is possible because you're a soulless NPC, you still can't deny that epistemology is possible. Otherwise your fetishized "science" can't prove anything, since you don't even have a way of defining what counts as an "observation".
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do not need an autistic definition of natural language terms like "observation". The definition game is a futile exercise in infantile pseudointellectualism. We just DO science and it works.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We just DO science and it works.
which is why scientists can ""conclude"" that race doesn't exist and that there's no such thing as women, right? It's just obvious what counts as a valid observation!! How dare you question it, you bigot!!
2 years ago
Anonymous
What you're criticizing is that scientists in modern academia don't follow the scientific method anymore but instead promote philosophy. Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
Maybe it was a bad idea for you to specialize in a field that can't investigate first principles? If you don't supply the first principles, then somebody else will do it for you.
Nah, denying that there are first principles is mysticism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Show me a "first principle" then. Are these first principles in the room with us right now?
>inb4 she mistakes axioms or a priori knowledge for first principles
2 years ago
Anonymous
What is the first principle of the scientific method?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What is the first principle of the scientific method?
First principle: Do not talk about the scientific method.
Second principle: Do NOT talk about the scientific method.
2 years ago
Anonymous
to accept the unprovable idea that logic itself is correct as true. you know, like a religion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My hypothesis is that logic is correct, and all the empirical evidence confirms this hypothesis.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How can logic itself be true if truth is only defined within logic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>philosophical bullshitting
Lmao.
2 years ago
Anonymous
truth is what describes reality, and the idea that a way of thinking that achieves this must be logical in nature is the unprovable hypothesis that i was talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>truth is what describes reality
Which reality? Yours or mine?
2 years ago
Anonymous
me experiencing 1 (one) reality leaves the hypothesis that there allegedly is more than one up to you to prove.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I asked you, dumbass. You made the claim.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>forced upon us
while you were sucking your thumbs in a corner and hoping the paychecks will keep coming?
Well for starters the scientific method is something people arrived at thru enlightenment and renaissance epistemology. And humanitarianism alone has arguably solved quite a number of problems for a lot of people anon.
You dismiss philosophy outright you are either uneducated about history of thought or a complete edgelord.
The """enlightenment""" and """humanitarianism""" spawned the cancer currently destroying not just every human value, but the essence of humanity itself, in addition to causing the extinction of every higher organism on the planet. I'm not opposed to philsophy, but you've just provided an argument for why everyone would be better off if every philsopher was shot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Enlightenment dethroned Catholicism, are you saying the world was better off when philosophies’ moronic cousin theology was ruling the roost?
2 years ago
Anonymous
By all objective metrics it was.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>gay confuses objective and subjective
Like pottery.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are outright mentally ill. There is no other possible explanation for your incoherent reply. I wonder what the strawman in your head said to trigger it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>all objective metrics
List them. All of them.
What’s that, you can’t without admitting you were wrong?
Lol, go back to sucking priest dick homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You and your likes are literally a dysfunctional organisms. Nevermind that you are dysfunctional as humans in terms of social and spiritual behaviors. You are dysfunctional even on the lizard level: you don't want to reproduce, you don't want to move, you don't even want to survive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>deflects from the Objective because he knows he can’t possibly defend it
F A G G O T
A
G
G
O
T
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why are you lying? I've literally just explained to you how to determine objectively when an organism isn't getting what it needs: it starts to behave abnormally, and modern humans behave abnormally to the extent that they don't even want to reproduce or live. Goylems like you are deeply confused: material measures of "welfare" may be objectively measurable, but the idea that such metrics determine an animal's overall wellbeing is a subjective idea that borders on the insane.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Abnormal is a subjective measure, not an objective one.
The frick are you even doing here when your IQ is so flagrantly lacking?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Spoken like a real 85 IQ subhuman drone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
OK you had nothing, have nothing, can’t concede when obviously wrong.
Neat trolling dude, sure showed your betters how clever you are.
Kys, no more (you)s for your moronation, bye bye subhuman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Please tell me more about how chopping off your dick and pumping yourself full of estrogen isn't abnormal. Tell me more about how I can't objectively determine what the normal patterns of behavior of an organism are, you 80 IQ postmodernist troon. I wonder how your buddies will square your impending suicide with their "objective" wellbeing metrics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The so called enlightenment was not driven by philosotards but by financial institutions. The main theme is the transition of power from the church to economic elites. Philosophical propaganda porn was merely a massively overrated byproduct of the enlightenment.
You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers. The victory of the scientific method began in the late 18th century when alchemy became chemistry. For practical and pragmatic reasons the early chemists wanted to achieve reproducibility and predictability of their experiments. And they would have done the exact same, irregardless of whether some ivory tower aristocrats jerked off over their treatises on empiricism vs rationalism.
You fricking burn, you think by being edgy on an edgy platform you have a point.
Philosophy is the only thing that will get your shit together so you don't crumble down in modern society.
Philosophy has nothing to do with politics fricking midwit,just a reminder in case your onions milk has affected your neurons.
So what is your next bait thread, arts are useless ? Liberal arts yes, arts in general. I hope you get torn apart by a giant bear and kept alive long enough to witness your balls being crushed under his teeth, one eye exploded under the sheer force of its Jaws, and your ear to hung like a fricking pendulum.
>Yes for art that promotes beauty and divine talent
You're just coping by saying "old thing is le good, new thing is le bad." Pic related promotes beauty and divine talent as well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You have no soul. You are aware of that and yet you still want to be taken seriously. I know some underground artists, they have real talent. They never felt pressured to follow the trends or for their paintings and artworks to be political. They may not have the recognition they deserve right now. But your liberal works will be the first to be destroyed whenever it clicks and switch the business model. You are irrelevant. History will not remember them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is evidence of a soul found by multiple doctors. You're just afraid of judgement. Your soul is located in your microtubules.
Science is for understanding the mechanics of the world, philosophy is for determining meaning, values, and forms of economics and governmental systems.
Every discipline including science has roots in philosophy. It is the father of all sciences.
>you must worship old white men
No. If you did actually read him and were convinced that he spoke universal truth, then you'd be able to present said truth independent of his person. You can't and you're probably just a larper who hasn't even read him. Kierkegaard was a religious cuck btw and has been debunked a lot.
>finally determined
show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.
>show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
Evolution >but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.
Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician, at least he attempts to be systematic in his theory of descriptions. But this attempt seems to be its only merit. Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Evolution
Nope. 99.99% is not 100%. Try again. >Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician
Kek, which somehow excludes him being a philosopher? Is Descartes not a philosopher either then? >Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.
relevant to who exactly? according to you, ETHICS has no relevant implications. do you just mean "it has no relevant implications to soulless nihilistic goblins like myself"?
you still haven't addressed epistemology yet
I guess you get to decide what counts as an observation, and we'll all just follow along?
2 years ago
Anonymous
i'll be devil's advocate: evolution is, I think, proofed beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, you can say that the mechanisms on how it functions are not, but a misunderstasnding of the mechanisms doesn't make evolution itself wrong.
Especially if you define it in the most basic terms: descent with modification.
The worst part about this thread is the fake pro-philosophy NPCs who serve the sole function of bumping this thread and creating the false impression that subhumans like OP are real people that need to be argued with and proven wrong.
>if you stop talking and thinking about something, it magically disappears
The crux of the "anti-philosophy" agenda is to discourage rational reflection, so that the philosophy driving the modern world goes unnoticed and unchallenged; so that it becomes a matter of fact implicitly embedded in everything. Scientists will continue to do shitty, ad hoc philosophy every time they interpret empirical results, but never stop to contemplate where empiricism stops and their opinions begin, or where those opinions actually come from.
>opinionated scientists are le bad, therefore opinionated philosophers are le good
Shitty self-contradictory strawman non sequitur. Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.
>Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.
So what? That's why you should study philosophy to learn how to separate the real people from the charlatans. Same with science.
What you're criticizing is that scientists in modern academia don't follow the scientific method anymore but instead promote philosophy. Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
which is why you need to study philosophy. you wouldn't be in this situation is you had known how to defend yourselves.
Why would I need philosophy for something I can trivially do with common sense? I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists. Because unlike you I'm not an NPC and hence don't need an epistemic authority to tell me how to think.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists.
Sounds like we need you working in philosophy of science.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't waste my time with such trivialities. I rather prefer to engage in intellectual activities such as posting on IQfy.
With science you understand the world around you, with philosophy you understand the world inside you.
When I say philosophy, I'm not talking about specific philosophies such as stoicism or nihilism. The same way when I say science I'm not talking about specific field of science such as chemistry or physics.
Philosophy can teach you how to think, and react to events that can be either unpleasant or pleasant. It teaches you how to distinguish between what you have control over and what you don't have control over.
Philosophy is a school of thought. How we think affects our every day. In science thinking is the most fundamental thing.
Philosophy and science are intertwined, a good philosopher can become a better scientist and a good scientist can become a better philosopher.
Science and philosophy don't oppose each other, but complement each other.
>Philosophy can teach you how to think
I can already think on my own. I don't need any ideologists to "teach me how to think". Because that's what philosophy is.
Electromagnetism was discovered more than a century before Kuhn. Quantum mechanics and relativity in the early 1900s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And are you claiming that there have been no new discoveries since the early 1900s? Either paradigms occur or science is a solved game. Just because there isn't some popsci article about some massive shift in science, doesn't mean that paradigm shifts don't happen regularly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm saying Kuhn had nothing to do with it. People had already been using their creativity to come up with wild ideas. Science was how we figured which ideas were more likely to be true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And Kuhn's model of scientific revolutions is a closer fit model than the logical empiricist notion that "science is a linear progression of ideas". Have you even read the book?
>You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers.
Imagine being this mentally ill and having an irrational kneejerk reaction whenever you hear the word "philosophy".
There's no clear definition of what science even is. It's just a set of conventions. The scientific method is one such convention and is hardly even used today. Most of what is called science today involves creating mathematical models to fit data and statistically analyzing data to make certain inferences. It yields no deep knowledge about reality except that which can be gleaned from the math when the models are accurate.
The problem is that science cannot prove anything. All it can do it produce theories that are either approximations or simulacra of the truth. We have no way of knowing, and the conventions of science will never lead us to absolute truth.
>What is philosophy of science?
the only part of Philosphy worth discussing, which might as well be rebranded as "metascience"
>What is epistemology?
>What is logic?
>What is cognitive science?
>>What is epistemology?
the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.
>>What is logic?
part of the metascience framework
>>What is cognitive science?
science
>What is philosophy of science?
>What is logic?
>What is epistemology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy
>What is cognitive science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
>Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of the mind and its processes with input from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, *philosophy*, computer science/artificial intelligence, and anthropology.
>the only important part of it is the one necessary to come up with the scientific method.
So you agree that epistemology is beyond the scientific method, and is also necessary to establish the scientific method? Wouldn't that make epistemology (i.e. philosophy) of importance to science?
>What is epistemology?
Dumbest word games. They endlessly drool over their own failure to define words like "knowledge" or "truth". From studying epistemology you gain no insights other than a deep contempt for these infantile bastards.
>What is logic?
A field of math.
>What is cognitive science?
Largely political narrative bullshit disguised as neuroscience. "Look at this picture of the brain. It proves that transwomen are real women."
We are doing philosophy of science right now with our light commentary on science
Most people need to learn to think like a scientist and basically rely more on facts, logic and less on reified ghosts
"Philosophy of science" is a bunch of useless morons pretending to be smart for describing that which is trivial to anyone who actually does science. The scientific method is taught to every kid. There is no intellectual merit in describing it once again.
>Ornithologists teaching birds how to fly
Scientism is pseud shit for euphoric redditors. Godel BTFO it long ago.
>Godel BTFO it long ago.
That's a nice logical fallacy of appealing to authority you've got there, would hate for someone to take it as valid
Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone. This is a serious challenge to logical positivism.
You clearly have no understanding of what an "appeal to authority" even is and like your fellow redditors, think that reciting names of logical fallacies is a way to make arguments.
>Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you can't investigate the consistency of the foundations of science using science alone
Why do morons love to namedrop shit they don't understand?
2+2=4 as 20+20=40
Nothing incomplete about it, just difficult to reach proportions due to energy and material and time and space constraints
This is not even what Gödel's incompleteness Theorems are about...
>lmao at this midwit BTFO failing to understate the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorems
That's a nice logical fallacy, the fallacy fallacy, by assuming that calling someone else's argument fallacious makes it invalid. Would hate for someone to think you actually know something.
>We
So you speak for the entirety of humanity and you view yourself as having some sort omniscient overview of the whole so? Common delusion, your understanding of whats going on in your home town just barely scratches the surface, your attempt to claim insight into the whole ball of wax reeks of grandiosity and delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
> Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, super-intelligent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, pseudoscientific, science fictional, or supernatural theme.
Why is Narcissus so ugly in that photo? He was said to be the most beautiful of men, so much so that he fell in love with himself. That's not even reaching a 5 out of 10.
Jews love philosophy because it lets them speak a lot without saying anything
I disagree, quite a lot gets said for those who've got ears to listen.
sneed sneed sneed
this
Science can disprove things, but doesn't tell you what to do with that information. Philosophy does. Also philosophical thought is what leads to the creation of a hypothesis that you can test in the first place. Also logic is a philosophy, which is necessary for any mathematical field.
b***h you need philosophy to teach your ass to stop fudging results because corporations paid you to publish a bullshit study.
that's common sense
And where does common sense originate from?
Natural philosophy :^)
>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
The irony is that's a philosophical statement.
If every statement is automatically "philosophical", then "philosophy" is a meaningless, redundant and empty word and should be dismissed.
Go frick yourself Tooker.
It's more like we need philosophy to ask the right questions and we need science to answer many of them.
There are also many important questions that philosophy can approach that science just can't, our judicial system being a very obv case
of something we can't just do away with because there are no scientific answers as to what constitutes legal/illegal.
This. You can't get to ethics (or epistemology) using the scientific method alone.
You can't get to astral projections esoterics (whatever /x/ shit) with scientific method either. This doesn't invalidate science, but on the contrary only shows how full of bullshit your field is if it cannot be put on a basis of logic and facts.
Stop projecting, the people bringing up Astral projection and other schizo shit are only the people who are into it. This smells the same spirit as self depricating repressed trannies. Just grow up.
Okay, even if (You) deny that ethics is possible because you're a soulless NPC, you still can't deny that epistemology is possible. Otherwise your fetishized "science" can't prove anything, since you don't even have a way of defining what counts as an "observation".
I do not need an autistic definition of natural language terms like "observation". The definition game is a futile exercise in infantile pseudointellectualism. We just DO science and it works.
>We just DO science and it works.
which is why scientists can ""conclude"" that race doesn't exist and that there's no such thing as women, right? It's just obvious what counts as a valid observation!! How dare you question it, you bigot!!
What you're criticizing is that scientists in modern academia don't follow the scientific method anymore but instead promote philosophy. Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
>Transfeminism and other political bullshit trends were invented and forced upon us by philosophy departments.
Maybe it was a bad idea for you to specialize in a field that can't investigate first principles? If you don't supply the first principles, then somebody else will do it for you.
>first principles
Meaningless pseudoreligious mysticism buzzword.
Nah, denying that there are first principles is mysticism.
Show me a "first principle" then. Are these first principles in the room with us right now?
>inb4 she mistakes axioms or a priori knowledge for first principles
What is the first principle of the scientific method?
>What is the first principle of the scientific method?
First principle: Do not talk about the scientific method.
Second principle: Do NOT talk about the scientific method.
to accept the unprovable idea that logic itself is correct as true. you know, like a religion.
My hypothesis is that logic is correct, and all the empirical evidence confirms this hypothesis.
How can logic itself be true if truth is only defined within logic?
>philosophical bullshitting
Lmao.
truth is what describes reality, and the idea that a way of thinking that achieves this must be logical in nature is the unprovable hypothesis that i was talking about.
>truth is what describes reality
Which reality? Yours or mine?
me experiencing 1 (one) reality leaves the hypothesis that there allegedly is more than one up to you to prove.
I asked you, dumbass. You made the claim.
>forced upon us
while you were sucking your thumbs in a corner and hoping the paychecks will keep coming?
>There are also many important questions that philosophy can approach
I'd like to see 1 (one) problem philosophy ever solved.
Well for starters the scientific method is something people arrived at thru enlightenment and renaissance epistemology. And humanitarianism alone has arguably solved quite a number of problems for a lot of people anon.
You dismiss philosophy outright you are either uneducated about history of thought or a complete edgelord.
The """enlightenment""" and """humanitarianism""" spawned the cancer currently destroying not just every human value, but the essence of humanity itself, in addition to causing the extinction of every higher organism on the planet. I'm not opposed to philsophy, but you've just provided an argument for why everyone would be better off if every philsopher was shot.
Enlightenment dethroned Catholicism, are you saying the world was better off when philosophies’ moronic cousin theology was ruling the roost?
By all objective metrics it was.
>gay confuses objective and subjective
Like pottery.
You are outright mentally ill. There is no other possible explanation for your incoherent reply. I wonder what the strawman in your head said to trigger it.
>all objective metrics
List them. All of them.
What’s that, you can’t without admitting you were wrong?
Lol, go back to sucking priest dick homosexual.
You and your likes are literally a dysfunctional organisms. Nevermind that you are dysfunctional as humans in terms of social and spiritual behaviors. You are dysfunctional even on the lizard level: you don't want to reproduce, you don't want to move, you don't even want to survive.
>deflects from the Objective because he knows he can’t possibly defend it
F A G G O T
A
G
G
O
T
Why are you lying? I've literally just explained to you how to determine objectively when an organism isn't getting what it needs: it starts to behave abnormally, and modern humans behave abnormally to the extent that they don't even want to reproduce or live. Goylems like you are deeply confused: material measures of "welfare" may be objectively measurable, but the idea that such metrics determine an animal's overall wellbeing is a subjective idea that borders on the insane.
Abnormal is a subjective measure, not an objective one.
The frick are you even doing here when your IQ is so flagrantly lacking?
Spoken like a real 85 IQ subhuman drone.
OK you had nothing, have nothing, can’t concede when obviously wrong.
Neat trolling dude, sure showed your betters how clever you are.
Kys, no more (you)s for your moronation, bye bye subhuman.
Please tell me more about how chopping off your dick and pumping yourself full of estrogen isn't abnormal. Tell me more about how I can't objectively determine what the normal patterns of behavior of an organism are, you 80 IQ postmodernist troon. I wonder how your buddies will square your impending suicide with their "objective" wellbeing metrics.
The so called enlightenment was not driven by philosotards but by financial institutions. The main theme is the transition of power from the church to economic elites. Philosophical propaganda porn was merely a massively overrated byproduct of the enlightenment.
You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers. The victory of the scientific method began in the late 18th century when alchemy became chemistry. For practical and pragmatic reasons the early chemists wanted to achieve reproducibility and predictability of their experiments. And they would have done the exact same, irregardless of whether some ivory tower aristocrats jerked off over their treatises on empiricism vs rationalism.
You fricking burn, you think by being edgy on an edgy platform you have a point.
Philosophy is the only thing that will get your shit together so you don't crumble down in modern society.
Philosophy has nothing to do with politics fricking midwit,just a reminder in case your onions milk has affected your neurons.
So what is your next bait thread, arts are useless ? Liberal arts yes, arts in general. I hope you get torn apart by a giant bear and kept alive long enough to witness your balls being crushed under his teeth, one eye exploded under the sheer force of its Jaws, and your ear to hung like a fricking pendulum.
>arts are useless?
Art is alive and well!
I pointed it out already. No for liberal arts. Yes for art that promotes beauty and divine talent.
>Yes for art that promotes beauty and divine talent
You're just coping by saying "old thing is le good, new thing is le bad." Pic related promotes beauty and divine talent as well.
You have no soul. You are aware of that and yet you still want to be taken seriously. I know some underground artists, they have real talent. They never felt pressured to follow the trends or for their paintings and artworks to be political. They may not have the recognition they deserve right now. But your liberal works will be the first to be destroyed whenever it clicks and switch the business model. You are irrelevant. History will not remember them.
There is evidence of a soul found by multiple doctors. You're just afraid of judgement. Your soul is located in your microtubules.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
https://lizroberta.com/2019/09/25/scientists-have-found-that-your-soul-goes-back-to-the-universe/
Many countless neuroscientists have found evidence of a soul.
>Muh quantum vibrations supports immaterial souls.
Cope.
You fear death so desperately seek to confirm an afterlife may exist.
Have you ever been to a religious revival? You can just feel your spirit wrangling around inside you and the holy spirit flowing through you.
Bland, unoriginal, uninspired. Shit, a woman probably designed it.
Ah yes, the feminist talking point of...bifurcated forearms.
I can literally smell it for frick's sake
Science is for understanding the mechanics of the world, philosophy is for determining meaning, values, and forms of economics and governmental systems.
Every discipline including science has roots in philosophy. It is the father of all sciences.
> philosophy is for determining meaning, values
Where has philosophy ever done this? Show me a meaning or a value finally determined by philosophy.
Read Kierkegaard.
>you must worship old white men
No. If you did actually read him and were convinced that he spoke universal truth, then you'd be able to present said truth independent of his person. You can't and you're probably just a larper who hasn't even read him. Kierkegaard was a religious cuck btw and has been debunked a lot.
>finally determined
show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.
>show a hypothesis that science has confirmed with 100% certainty, kek
Evolution
>but if you want a good example of a philosophical insight, consider Russel's theory of descriptions.
Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician, at least he attempts to be systematic in his theory of descriptions. But this attempt seems to be its only merit. Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.
>Evolution
Nope. 99.99% is not 100%. Try again.
>Due to Russell primarily being a mathematician
Kek, which somehow excludes him being a philosopher? Is Descartes not a philosopher either then?
>Its contents remain trivial and without any relevant implications.
relevant to who exactly? according to you, ETHICS has no relevant implications. do you just mean "it has no relevant implications to soulless nihilistic goblins like myself"?
you still haven't addressed epistemology yet
I guess you get to decide what counts as an observation, and we'll all just follow along?
i'll be devil's advocate: evolution is, I think, proofed beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, you can say that the mechanisms on how it functions are not, but a misunderstasnding of the mechanisms doesn't make evolution itself wrong.
Especially if you define it in the most basic terms: descent with modification.
>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
The absolute state of cattlebrained frickwits.
The worst part about this thread is the fake pro-philosophy NPCs who serve the sole function of bumping this thread and creating the false impression that subhumans like OP are real people that need to be argued with and proven wrong.
Is that a scientific statement?
>if you stop talking and thinking about something, it magically disappears
The crux of the "anti-philosophy" agenda is to discourage rational reflection, so that the philosophy driving the modern world goes unnoticed and unchallenged; so that it becomes a matter of fact implicitly embedded in everything. Scientists will continue to do shitty, ad hoc philosophy every time they interpret empirical results, but never stop to contemplate where empiricism stops and their opinions begin, or where those opinions actually come from.
>opinionated scientists are le bad, therefore opinionated philosophers are le good
Shitty self-contradictory strawman non sequitur. Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.
You will never be human.
>Everything you hate about SOIence you'll find in its purest and most repulsive form in philosophy.
So what? That's why you should study philosophy to learn how to separate the real people from the charlatans. Same with science.
which is why you need to study philosophy. you wouldn't be in this situation is you had known how to defend yourselves.
He will never be human, and you're a moron that needs to stop triggering his spam mechanism.
Why would I need philosophy for something I can trivially do with common sense? I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists. Because unlike you I'm not an NPC and hence don't need an epistemic authority to tell me how to think.
>I have no problem distinguishing charlatans from genuine scientists.
Sounds like we need you working in philosophy of science.
I don't waste my time with such trivialities. I rather prefer to engage in intellectual activities such as posting on IQfy.
With science you understand the world around you, with philosophy you understand the world inside you.
When I say philosophy, I'm not talking about specific philosophies such as stoicism or nihilism. The same way when I say science I'm not talking about specific field of science such as chemistry or physics.
Philosophy can teach you how to think, and react to events that can be either unpleasant or pleasant. It teaches you how to distinguish between what you have control over and what you don't have control over.
Philosophy is a school of thought. How we think affects our every day. In science thinking is the most fundamental thing.
Philosophy and science are intertwined, a good philosopher can become a better scientist and a good scientist can become a better philosopher.
Science and philosophy don't oppose each other, but complement each other.
>with philosophy you understand the world inside you.
Don't forget religion which is a form of philosophy written by a higher power.
>Philosophy can teach you how to think
I can already think on my own. I don't need any ideologists to "teach me how to think". Because that's what philosophy is.
>only
If you want to see the world through the discoveries and lenses of other people who died years ago then go ahead.
What a way to spend your life on the Earth, not learning in your own way.
>logical positivists be like
>anons can't think without philosophy
Lmao. Npc need to learn how to think lmao, can't so it naturally.
IQfy regularly gets btfo on the topic of consciousness. there is no scientific way to approach or describe it.
Observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience
>You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers.
Imagine being this mentally ill.
Try suppressing your knee-jerk reaction for long enough to read more than just the first sentence. You might actually learn something.
Cmon science yourself out of a hungry mountain lion encounter or your son or Youssef out of watching a screen all day, redditor
ITT: anons retroactively refuted by picrel
What paradigm shifts have occurred because of Kuhn? Seems science already went through the revolutions before he made the observation.
Check any academic journal. Paradigm shifts occur regularly at every scale.
My favorite paradigm shift is the one where science made philosophy obsolete.
Again, did that not already occur before Kuhn?
Electromagnetism was discovered more than a century before Kuhn. Quantum mechanics and relativity in the early 1900s.
And are you claiming that there have been no new discoveries since the early 1900s? Either paradigms occur or science is a solved game. Just because there isn't some popsci article about some massive shift in science, doesn't mean that paradigm shifts don't happen regularly.
I'm saying Kuhn had nothing to do with it. People had already been using their creativity to come up with wild ideas. Science was how we figured which ideas were more likely to be true.
And Kuhn's model of scientific revolutions is a closer fit model than the logical empiricist notion that "science is a linear progression of ideas". Have you even read the book?
>You are misattributing the scientific method to philosophers.
Imagine being this mentally ill and having an irrational kneejerk reaction whenever you hear the word "philosophy".
>We only need science to understand the world. Philosophy is meaningless garbage.
Pretty sure everything humans do is meaningless garbage.
Science is never conclusive
You can't understand shit with it
There's no clear definition of what science even is. It's just a set of conventions. The scientific method is one such convention and is hardly even used today. Most of what is called science today involves creating mathematical models to fit data and statistically analyzing data to make certain inferences. It yields no deep knowledge about reality except that which can be gleaned from the math when the models are accurate.
The problem is that science cannot prove anything. All it can do it produce theories that are either approximations or simulacra of the truth. We have no way of knowing, and the conventions of science will never lead us to absolute truth.