>Strangely, science separated from people who just want to sit around all day uselessly quibbling about semantics and asking what if "dog" meant "cat."

>>16349748
The separation of science from philosophy only damaged philosophy. Philosophy died while science is unraveling the mysteries of reality.

>>16349748
Nigga what is science and what is philosophy? One is the act of testing processes to see if they work. The other is explaining why ideas do as they do. Both do the same thang just one deals in the real while other in mind. Ya catching what I'm putting down?

The question makes no sense, science emerged from philosophy. There is even a philosophy of science, ethics in scientific research. The modern approach to scientific discovery comes from the Scientific Revolution, modern science is born from that early modern part of history.

I study math and physics and call myself a natural philosopher. I still larp by also doing quadrivium-trivium activities every day

>>16350050
>There is even a philosophy of science
there is a science of philosophy
oh wait phiolosophy is bullshit and not science.

>>16349748
>would giving room for biased subjective arguments in describing objective phenomena be beneficial at all?
No

>>16349763
>Philosophy died
No, curiosity died as science slowly started trying to take credit for truth and replace mindfulness with instruction and introspection with obedience.

>>16349763
>science is unraveling the mysteries of reality.
No, it's just observing and predicting behaviour, it doesn't answer anything about what things are or why things are.

>>16350576
>what things are or why things are.
Then why has physical science determined that things are bundles of particles and radiating waves because energy holds particles together in bundles and releases tension with waves if the scientific method can't tackle what and why questions?

File: 1714851601712223.jpg (749 KB, 3012x2151)

749 KB JPG

>>16350582
>particles
And what are those particles made of?
>radiating waves
And what are those waves made of?
>energy
What is this "energy" made of?
All your knowledge is relegated to observing behaviour and assigning names to things that behave a certain wave, you have no qualitative explanatory power.

>>16350586
>behave a certain wave
way***
too lazy to delete my post

>>16350586
>And what are those particles made of?
Subatomic particles which themselves are bundles of condensed held energy.
>And what are those waves made of?
Energy moving through space and time.
>What is this "energy" made of?
Potential to do work across space and time.

> you have no qualitative explanatory power.
Then why has physical science determined that things are bundles of particles and radiating waves because energy holds particles together in bundles and releases tension with waves if the scientific method can't tackle what and why questions?

Just because you don't understand the explanations and qualities that scientific theories have theorized doesn't mean they don't exist or that science can't theorize about what and why questions.

>>16350602
define "work" as a qualitative object, not as an abstract property

>>16350605
First, qualities are abstractions, second, I don't need to follow your bullshit while you move the goalposts when I already demonstrated instances where science answers what and why questions, prove that scientific theories demonstrating that things are made of particles waves because of energy distribution across space and time isn't an answer to a what and why question, but if you really are curious, its common knowledge that work is the ability to forcefully transfer energy through space and time.

>>16350610
>no answer
All I needed to know, thank you

>>16350613
>can't read
All I need to know.

>>16350615
>I don't need to
You already admitted you can't answer the question, you know jack shit

>>16350618
No, I admitted the question is goalpost moving and has nothing to do with your original claims and you don't even understand what abstract or qualitative means, then I answered it anyway.

>>16350622
I didn't move any goalposts, I've been asking you the same question, saying that a chair is made of "potential to do work" is not an answer

>>16350624
>I didn't move any goalposts,
No, you definitely moved the goals posts because I answered the why and what question I set up and you just asked more why and what questions acknowledging that your original why and what questions were answered and you wanted to make followup why and what questions.

>I've been asking you the same question,
No, the original question was what are things made of and why and the scientific answer is that they are made of particles and waves because of energy and force. Then you moved the goalposts and started answering more why and what questions as the original had been answered.

>saying that a chair is made of "potential to do work" is not an answer
Correct that was not the original scientific answer you were provided at all, you are too retarded to follow science and understand the answer was that the chair is made of particles and waves because of energy and force in space and time.

>>16350627
>the answer was that the chair is made of particles and waves because of energy and force in space and time.
And when asked what these particles and waves are made of your response is "potential to do work", which is just describing behaviour and doesn't say anything about the objective nature of your observations.

>>16350637
>when asked what these particles and waves are made of your response
While you are correct science can not only answer the original what and why questions, but can recursively answer what and why to your goalpost moving followup questions, you are inaccurately recounting the answers I provided to your follow up questions.

>describing behaviour
Which is a what answer, providing a definitive name for the identity of the phenomenon you are inquiring about.

>doesn't say anything about the objective nature of your observations.
It would if you didn't ignore my definition of what work since I provided it under duress since there was no need to answer any of your follow questions since I already proved that science has what and why answers and you were just begging the question while proving you don't understand how words work since they all depend on other words to define a what.

If that is the road you want to go down, you can't even prove that what/why questions are valid ways to infer information at all since you need further context to understand the concept of a what or why based question in the first place and words are also always recursive and defined by other words too.

File: 1714892256155911.gif (2.8 MB, 498x278)

2.8 MB GIF

>>16350649
>wordswordswords
>still can't explain what things are made of
pathetic
>Which is a what answer
That's a how answer, saying car wheels are made of angular momentum does not describe what wheels are made of.

>>16350661
>till can't explain what things are made of
Except I did and your only argument is just that words are bad.

>saying car wheels are made of angular momentum does not describe what wheels are made of.
Wheels aren't made of angular momentum you retard, they are made of metal and rubber which thanks to science we know exactly what molecules and the exact ratio of various particles that various metals and rubbers are made of and why those particular arrangements of particles leads to physical properties of the specific metals and rubbers used to make wheels.

>>16350661
>That's a how answer
No it is answering a question about the identity of the behavior and being able to define the identity of a thing is to be able to answer what that thing is.

File: 1700476418568314.png (336 KB, 640x480)

336 KB PNG

>>16350665
>Wheels aren't made of angular momentum you retard
And waves aren't made of "potential to do work", retard, your inability to differentiate between describing how something behaves and what something is made of is what invalidates your entire argument.

>>16350667
>waves aren't made of "potential to do work"
Correct, if you could actually read what I said instead of being an illiterate retard trying to prove that words are evil, you would know that waves are made of actual work forcing radiating energy through space and time in specific bursts of frequency, not just the potential.

So your final apex argument is that science can only answer what an object's behavior is and why objects behave the way they do, but it can't answer what and why questions?

>>16350672
>radiating energy
Cool, now tell me what this "energy" is made of without invoking descriptions of behaviour

>>16350673
I already did, you are just retarded and don't understand that if something is in motion, it also clearly has the potential to remain in motion, so energy being a potential source of future motion doesn't mean that waves are also purely potential rather than in motion through space and time with enough reserve to allow continued motion and forceful interference when encountering a different medium.

Also the fact that you are asking more what/why questions to follow up on the original answers proves you acknowledge that science has what/why answers, you just aren't satisfied with any answers because you are a lethargic retarded liar who is just looking to justify your dumb lazy lifestyle.

>>16350674
>science has what/why answers
describing what something does =/= describing what something is made of
wheels are not made of angular momentum, remember?

>>16350675
>Answering what and why questions isn't actually answering what and why questions because I don't want it to be.

>wheels are not made of angular momentum, remember?
You are the only retard who thinks that they are made of anything but metal and rubber, remember?

>>16350682
And wood if you >>16350675 are talking about your retarded ancestor's wheels.

>>16350682
>You are the only retard who thinks that they are made of anything but metal and rubber, remember?
>metal and rubber
What's metal and rubber, I thought everything was made of potential to do work?

>>16350685
see
>>16350665
>they are made of metal and rubber which thanks to science we know exactly what molecules and the exact ratio of various particles that various metals and rubbers are made of and why those particular arrangements of particles leads to physical properties of the specific metals and rubbers used to make wheels.

Just learn to read instead of constantly embarrassing yourself with your illiteracy, charlie..

>>16350686
Still doesn't say what they're made of, everyone already knows electrons are oscillating waves, but you can't describe what is oscillating, because all you can do is observe behaviour.

>>16350690
It still does, what exactly do you think knowing the exact molecules and ratio of particles is if not knowing what they are made of?

>you can't describe what is oscillating
Oscillating is a behavior, it is when a body rotates through multiple states, so of course it would be described as such.

>all you can do is observe behaviour.
Besides documenting, modeling, and repeating what you observe, that is all you need to do to identify things and statistically determine why something behaves the way it does and why its particular particle arrangement leads to the qualities being observed.

>>16350693
Except I didn't say anything about identifying things, I'm asking you what things are made of, which you still can't answer, because all you can do is categorize objects according to their behaviour, this, however, does not say what an object is made of, what is doing the behaving?

>>16350698
>Except I didn't say anything about identifying things
Answering a what question is just an identification.

> I'm asking you what things are made of, which you still can't answer
I have repeatedly answered and you just move the goalposts or apply you illiteracy and misinterpret what I wrote.

>all you can do is categorize objects according to their behaviour
That is the identification aspect, answering the what question, but I also explained how interactions (ie the particular arrangments and ratios of particles and molecules and forceful movement through space and time) lead to other properties and behavior, ie answered the why question.

>>16350698
Then how exactly do you think what and why questions can be validly answered and if your interpretation of those categories of questions can never possibly be validly answered, how are they valid types of questions in the first place if they are impossible to answer?

>>16350701
>wordswordswords
>still can't answer what things are made of
>>16350702
That's my entire point, it is impossible for you to fundamentally answer what anything is made of, all you can do is categorize by behaviour.

File: scientistsonphilosophy.png (299 KB, 655x723)

299 KB PNG

Threadly reminder that philosophy is garbage

>>16350705
>still can't answer what things are made of
Still refuse to engage with answers because you are too illiterate to read words.

>That's my entire point, it is impossible for you to fundamentally answer what anything is made of, all you can do is categorize by behaviour.
Your entire point is retarded and self refuting because you are literally using words that you keep complaining about to answer a what question (answers=impossible) and a why question (because you can only observe behavior).

>>16350712
What answers, I didn't ask from you how things behave, which is all you can talk about.

>>16350719
Then what is a question?

>>16350719
If nobody can even know what things are, then how can you even say they are watching them behave?

>>16350720
>>16350727
Questions are like magic spells meant to confuse people who hear them but it looks like the question of "what a thing really is" just failed to be confuse you.

>>16350738
The perfect model of that looks like a squared off - triangle flat hat with few side falling lines

>>16350738
So questions aren't really as you described, you don't actually know anything, not even what questions and answers are, so your opinion on science and questions in general is trivial?

>what a thing really is
No, it obviously confused you since you still can't understand that things really are made of particles and waves since scientists have defined what those are through observation and discovered why different combinations of waves and particles lead to different properties in things.

>>16349748
Science and engineering practice for that matter, at it's best is essentially still a form of philosophy without the name. Though it carries with it less pedigree and people are mislead into thinking that it is not a form of philosophy, science was always a mere process to be applied to the difficult task of understanding nature. Engineers are routinely known for having their own philosophies regarding practice, and the philosophy of nature is something they routinely bump up against. But as much as many people have a warped view of it, I doubt that people that actually study physics and it's brothers and sisters are actually under such a mal-impression. If anything, the only real thing that it has lead to is philosophy majors having overinflated egos, thinking that they in their bubbles are now the only heirs to philosophy. Obviously not true, and I think has lead to stagnation in philosophy, ocassionally you'll get utterly bizzare philosophies taking pop-science tier understanding of something shiny and new like quantum mechanics, and claiming that they apply at the non-quantum scale in nebulous and misleading ways, and don't take my word for it, this is something that they'll talk about in a fricking introduction to philosophy class. Ocassionally it can lead to magical thinking, like astrology, and as terrible as that sounds, it's at least at heart supposed to be about observation and venturing into the difficult to understand.
tl;dr Science is still philosophy, some philosophers just don't want to hear it

>>16349748
Scientists are pseuds. I am glad we broke up.

>>16350745
I'm not the poster you were arguing with; I was just commending you for not falling for certain verbal spells.

>>16350751
No u

>>16350751
Yea until you new boyfriend gives you stds, then you are going to crawl back to science to dull the burning of all the inflamed oozing bumps.

File: IMG_0718.png (112 KB, 512x512)

112 KB PNG

>>16350060
King

>>16350745
Cool, what are those particles and waves made of?
>inb4 the potential to do work

>>16350778
No, if you didn't bother to read >>16350602 >>16350627 or >>16350649, you aren't going to bother to read any new summary of the answer you have been repeatedly given because you have clearly made up your mind that words are evil and you will only use them in the most retarded ways possible.

>>16350780
Cool, what is energy made of?
>inb4 the potential to do work

>>16350781
No you aren't, you have repeated that line several times, but at least you are applying it to the right thing instead of leaving out all the other things waves and particles are composed of.
>I won't accept answers provided by science because.. I just won't, I don't get it, words confuse me... ok.

>>16350792
>No you aren't,
Aren't what, you illiterate retard?

>>16350796
inb4, do you not even understand the meaning of the internet slang you use either, mongoloid?

>>16350799
Doesn't matter what you say but it does what you do. Doing that. I'll keep trying.

>>16349748
Midwits would simply say "Troost da Natural Philosoiphy!" instead of "Troost da Soience!"

>>16350802
Keep trying what? To type your thoughts while you are having a stroke?

>>16350804
No, it would be more like "Trust the Philosopher King that Nature has currently placed in a position of power and influence" but that doesn't roll of the tongue as easily.

>>16350804
>>16350818
True, and that's sad. But conceptually speaking, natural philosophy is a better term for describing the wildly varied thought processes that are involved in understanding the workings of the universe. And anyways, normies were never particularly interested in science until it helps them directly, or if they're propogandized into believing it. And even when they see it as beneficial, it's largely lip service.
Historically speaking, this has always been the case.

>>16349748
That's just stupid. Philosophy is, almost by definition, that part of knowledge where no progress has been made for millennia and is not even sure what they're doing anymore. Science, on the other hand is successful, verified knowledge with dedicated communities working on various parts of it. Mixing up the two can only lead to disaster.

>>16350839
The only reason AI is currently a thing being engineered is because of philosophical progress concerning intelligence and information over the last century.

>>16350086
>science of philosophy
That's logic

>>16350842
Where's your evidence for that causal claim?

>>16350845
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artificial-intelligence/

>>16350847
You'll have to be more specific.

>>16350845
It's true in a way, though biology was also involved. And also the meaning of ai has shifted over the years.
>We can make complex decisions; that's intelligent thought.
>Erhhmmm we can learn to make decisions that's intelligent thought
>Uh uh we're using weighted action potentials to adjust our learning! That's intelligent thought!
>We're conscieous of ourselves! That's intelligent thought.
So far we don't think that computers are conscieous. But if we did, ih boy you can bet that definition would change again. Humans are kind of self centered.

>>16350848
Where's your evidence for that causal claim?

>>16350848
Its a century's worth of philosophical development regarding information and intelligence, those few pages are pretty much as specific and condensed as it gets, which parts are you having trouble understanding?

>>16350180
Science is also not absolutely objective

>>16350851
>And also the meaning of ai has shifted
No, that is not an and also, changing meaning over time to expand functionality IS philosophical progress.

>>16350859
There's little to no philosophy there, mostly just computer science. It's just a brief encyclopedia entry, not an argument for your specific causal claim.

>>16350864
It an infinite feedback loop between subjective/objective observation using inductive/deductive logic, the method combines numerous modes of philosophical inquiry.

>>16350865
I wasn't disgreeing, I was refining... while thinking about how funny it is.

>>16350867
Nope those diagrams don't have to be computerized, they predate the computer science, the reason digital data structure could be developed is because of the concepts invented through philosophical progress.

LLM is primarily a philosophical construct, for instance, you could do it with flash cards instead of computers, the computing power just helps realize the logic more rapidy.

>>16350872
Same just wanted to clarify that what you were saying AND ALSO was actually an example of philosophical progression providing greater functionality in the realm of computer science as the definition evolved.

>>16350875
You're just repeating your claim without providing evidence for it. What you have to show is how specific developments in AI were caused by specific "philosophical progress". Which philosophical question needed to be definitively resolved for computers to exist?

>>16350880
You are just complaining without actually reading the evidence.

>What you have to show is how specific developments in AI were caused by specific "philosophical progress".
Read section 4 and how they say dramatic changes to Copi’s (2004) Introduction to Logic resulted in an explosive growth in AI research.

>Which philosophical question needed to be definitively resolved for computers to exist?
Arithmetic logic and data encapsulation/encoding, the philosophy of language and ciphers and such.

>>16350893
You misunderstood what they said
>Though it should perhaps be noted that an analogous increase in philosophy would be marked by the development of entirely new formalisms for reasoning, reflected in the fact that, say, longstanding philosophy textbooks like Copi’s (2004) Introduction to Logic are dramatically rewritten and enlarged to include these formalisms, rather than remaining anchored to essentially immutable core formalisms, with incremental refinement around the edges through the years.
What they're saying is that some development of new formalisms of reasoning (I'm guessing they mean reinforcement learning or something) resulted in changes to standard philosophical textbooks, so if anything the causation is backwards.
>Arithmetic logic and data encapsulation/encoding
Those are issues which arise in computing, not philosophy
>the philosophy of ciphers
Come on now

>>16350908
No it happened on pen and paper before it happened in a computer and it happened in someone's mind before it happened on pen and paper, so it is philosophical first.

>some development of new formalisms of reasoning
No that means new formal definition for intelligence and reasoning that led to new data structures being developed, the causation is as I claimed.

>Come on now
Encryption/Obfuscation/Deception is a huge philosophical topic.

>>16350916
>No it happened on pen and paper before it happened in a computer and it happened in someone's mind before it happened on pen and paper, so it is philosophical first.
So if I imagine anything that becomes a philosophical fact? You sound very confused
>Encryption
Computer science
>Obfuscation/Deception
Lolwut

>>16349748
Does anyone in this thread know what the abbreviation PhD means? Americans sure love their acronyms.

>>16350937
>GUYSSS I JUST LEARNED THAT THE PEE IN PHD STANDS FOR PHILOSOPHY
>SO THAT MEANS ALL PHDS ARE PHILOSOPHERS AND DOCTORS OR SOMETHING
Embarrassing

>>16350870
Knowledge about non existence of objectivnesa is very beneficial for science

>>16350923
You are such retard it seems you are hopeles

>>16350864
It is after thoroughly empirically tested and trimmed of false assumptions

>>16351396
Always will be fallacies that could make it unreliable

>>16351494
Look up the meaning of empirical on a dictionary and stop saying retarded shit. Science is immune to fallacies because scientists don't actually get a say in how experiments result.
Scientist -> just an observer
Philosopher -> intentionally comes up with stuff

>>16349748
The reason they divorced was because math and science shot far past philosophy. while modern philosophy students try to explain why eating meat is actually le heckin ebil bad satan, math students are discovering new theorems and models, chemists are making drugs to poison people, physicists are jumping off roofs because they were misgendered, and biologists are being told by the dean to stop misgendering the people in the physics department.

>>16349748
It'd be bad because everything would have taken much longer. It's still sad that it did though. Just take a look at the responses you are getting here.

File: IMG_7237.jpg (170 KB, 968x1171)

170 KB JPG

>>16351857

>>16350086
>philosophy is bullshit
so i take you are retarded?

>>16350610
lol you believe space and time have properties.

File: lezddw8uokgc1.png (105 KB, 497x691)

105 KB PNG

>>16351851
>Science is immune to fallacies because scientists don't actually get a say in how experiments result.

>>16350923
>>Encryption
>Computer science

>durr the concept that predates the other concept was actually caused by the newer concept

>Lolwut
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/
https://csli.sites.stanford.edu/publications/csli-lecture-notes/self-deception-and-paradoxes-rationality
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-manipulation/
https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2020/entries/perception-problem/

>>16351851
>scientists don't actually get a say in how experiments result.
Then why do the results always seem to turn out differently if you are paying one scientist to prove fat is good vs paying another to prove fat is bad like why is it when the Big Egg pays the scientist they say eggs are good, but when Big Vegan is footing the bill suddenly eggs are bad?

>>16351857
>while modern philosophy students try to explain why eating meat is actually le heckin ebil
No, actually its the scientists who are doing that same with sugar and fat and seed oils and pretty much anything else you can eat or buy.

>>16352012
You don't have to believe the answers they provide for them to be providing them using their methods, the belief and absolute truth don't matter, what matters in this context is that the method produced the answers.

>>16352218
Frauds exist anon, that's why you should always take recent studies with a grain of salt and rely more on studies that have been verified for a long time.

>>16352346
Fraud isn't fallacious? How can fraud determine the result of those recent studies if science makes it immune to that kind of thing?

>>16350060
Based

File: IMG_2807.jpg (260 KB, 1080x1096)

260 KB JPG

Science HAS a (natural) philosophy holy shit. Why are modern scientists so awful when it comes to semantics?

Science cannot be done without logic, and it necessarily employs assumptions about measurement, categories, models, language, and theories. It must also have some metric for determining what counts as good science and what does not. These are all philosophical questions. Even when science it done without an overt focus on philosophical problems, scientists cannot escape taking philosophical positions. In biology, for example, questions about the nature of species, biological individuals, and units of evolution and selection are all addressed in the phil-bio literature. A biologist who names a new species, for example, must employ a species concept; a biologist tracking a population must have some concept of what counts as an individual member of the population, as well as some criterion for determining the boundaries of a population.

I'm sympathetic to the view that philosophy should not impose baseless constraints on science, but I do not think that science can be done without taking positions on these questions, and I do not think that such positions are chosen randomly. Scientists always have reasons for practicing science the way they do, and those reasons are inescapably philosophical. Even the "shut up and calculate" folks are making philosophical assumptions; as this is a normative claim about how science ought to be done.

This ‘science vs philosophy’ thing makes no sense, and I’m frequently questioning whether or not I’m living in some sort of surrealist simulation.

>>16352348
In such cases studies aren't conducted properly, often because those who fund them want to brainwash the population, but that wouldn't meet the definition of science even if most call it so. Tbh, if we make it past 500 years without going extinct or turning into mindless orcs, most quantum/dark matter tier shit will be forgotten while human scale physics, geology, chemistry and biology will remain considered science pretty much guaranteed.

>>16350706
Dirac's quote is actually fake. He didn't said that. Suck your ass

>>16352779
This

File: 1725105631923.png (35 KB, 4273x2939)

35 KB PNG

Philosoplebs have been cucked out of their own field by mathematicians and physicists. You need to know at least formal logic, quantum mechanics, relativity, stochastic processes, game theory, theory of computation, information theory etc etc before talking about metaphysics. If your idea of metaphysics relies on a computable, deterministic universe with local hidden variables in absolute time then it is simply factually wrong. Philosoplebs are not even aware anymore of all the established facts and proven theorems contradicting their bullshit.

>>16353975
None of those things have anything to do with metaphysics. No amount of logical rules will ever give the spark of life.

>>16354009
Metaphysics has to be compatible with physics and math. You will grossly misinterpret this statement.

>>16354009
>No amount of logical rules will ever give the spark of life.
Then metaphysics is a pointless endeavor because humans fail to think outside of logical rules. Kant already established this.

>>16354023
>/sci/tard discovering FOL

Metaphysics aren't real

>>16354033
I hope by FOL you are making an ironic statement about the fountain of life. Because if you're referring to first order logic you're a prime example of what >>16353975 said about the ignorance of philosotards. Gödel proved that first order logic is insufficient as a tool for metaphysics. Yet philosotards continue to misuse it dogmatically as if it was applicable universally outside of its intended scope, completely unaware of how this illusion has been destroyed by math.

>>16352216
He didn't reply because he shitted his ignorant pants

>>16352779
>Science cannot be done without logic, and it necessarily employs assumptions about measurement, categories, models, language, and theories.
Yes it can, people like you would just complain and be all, "but that is not TRUE science".

>>16351396
Impossible, that would require every single person observing the exact same thing from the exact same perceptive at the exact same moment.

>>16354028
>>16354023
Incorrect. There are many transcendental forms which cannot be explained by logic.
For example, the transcendental synthesis of imagination or even the synthesis of apperception. Even if some logic provides its categorical relationships, it will never cross over to the is-ness. Such things are comparable to divine revelation.

>>16356717
You are replying to your own imaginary strawman, not to the quoted posts. You can't just say "incorrect" and then agree with the posts.

>>16356728
Strawman your ass

File: 1680375125305771.png (3.04 MB, 2288x1700)

3.04 MB PNG

>>16349748
Yeah, because sometimes science and philosophy compliments each other, like with NDEs, since NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.

Classical philosophy is important or else you'll fall for BS rhetoric and ideological cults like many scientists do.

>>16357677
When most people shit on Philosophy they are shitting on obscurantist word game sophistry instead of Philosophy based on strict applicstion of reason.

Massive branches of psuedo-philosophy were designed to destroy peoples reasoning in order to inject bullshit narrative games for political purposes.

>>16357677
>>16357681
Science and psuedosciences like psychology and sociology have caused msssive harm to civilization because they are based on a false idea that comes from old liberalism known as the false belief that humans are a "blank slate" that can be fooled and manipulated by narratives. This only applies to low intellects, the philosopher that relies on narrative injections to mold and craft humans is essentially a manipulative psychopath.

File: particles-wiki_ver_1.png (34 KB, 630x327)

34 KB PNG

>>16350702
"What" questions are fairly easy to answer, what is a red ball? this is a red ball:
funny enough you also get a picture of some red balls when you look up particle, perhaps "particle" is just another word for red ball, though that would contradict everything being made of particles since blue is not made of red balls.

File: 2024-09-03-041335_55x34_scrot.png (692 B, 55x34)

692 B PNG

why do they block utf 8, this must be the act amatour philosophers trying to silence me!, worry not here is a red ball and a blue ball in an image instead:

>>16357688
Totally, people obviously didn't start manipulating each other until sociology took over liberalism using psychology.

>>16357677
This

>>16350706
I hate to ever speak so low about ang group or person's intelligence, especially in such a passive and dismissive manner, but I have noticed a pattern of many serious Philosophy students either being actually quite intelligent, or just dumb. There's a good number of people who are something resembling some level of average who are either in Philosophy as a Minor because they just think it's interesting, or because they don't really know what else they wanna do, or because it's somehow a prerequisite for some bigger goal they have in school. However, those who are in school for Philosophy and take it seriously are disproportionately filled with lazy, unintelligent stoners or otherwise intellectual people whose mind's potential is crippled by their own neuroticisms and faults in character that prevent them from becoming something like a STEM major. It's like, Philosophy majors get to perform the dance of intellectualism and intelligence, without having to work through and uncover anything really substantial. I'm just rambling at this point, but you know what I mean.

>>16352779
I like this image but a couple of people on the right aren't really that bad. Dawkins' quotes don't demonstrate contempt for philosophy, without context. It's ambiguous whether Nye is just mindlessly saying shit or taking a thought-out philosophical position. Surely it was possible to find 4 pop-sci quotes that are more hostile than that.

>>16351851
Hahaha

>Plato was right

>>16351851
>Scientist -> just an observer
No, they form hypothesis and design experiments, hardly just observing, they set up all the variables and input all the energy.

>>16350546
Winner
>>16349763
What's funny is that the opposite is true; the hard sciences have produced basically nothing of note for the past 20 years which is why "AI" is being propped up as an ad scam

>>16350844
Checked and correct, logic underpins science and math and philosophy (although it's sometimes considered a philosophical field)

>>16357632
Then why doesn't the proprietor of heaven just give everyone NDEs when they hit puberty or first realize they are themselves or something so life isn't such a retarded guessing game full of conflicting ideologies and how do all those ideological conflicts actually get solved in heaven is there like a communist heaven and a capitalist heaven and a big berlin wall between the two or something?

>>16359721
No, stem kids are too busy playing with toys and making doodles to actually engage in intellectualism and intelligence.

>>16361580
How come there are different types of logics that disagree on what the truth is? Isn't this literally the argument against religion?

>>16349748
Imagine being arrested for breaking laws of thermodynamics.

>>16362046
Huh?

>>16354036
Like math

>>16354036
Holy shit, Arithmetic means "Alien Number".
>Arith; Greek noun arithmos, meaning "number,"
>Metic; an alien who paid a fee to reside in an ancient Greek city
I be xeno af.

File: e33914ebd47aae2658abc9408(...).jpg (145 KB, 563x949)

145 KB JPG

>>16349748

>>16349748
>If I change their name things will be different!
As usual the philosotard cannot restrain his magical thinking, and that's why he'll never accomplish anything

>>16363483
No chink shit

>>16362319
Just imagine bunch of people run on you because you heat up by heat pump, telling you you broke laws of thermodynamics, because it has COP over 1.

>>16350602
Subatomic particles have energy equivalency, but energy is a construct defined as the capacity to do work and it's localized changes are dictated by conservation laws. That's why we have mass-energy equivalence equations even though mass is a very real property of some particles. When energy isn't derived solely from the mass property, it's derived from the wavelength of the particle (which we have empirically found by doing diagrams of interactions between them). Why they have specific energy value is unknown and a largely philosophical question, but they form a self consistent system.

Philosophy is a science

I was just about to make a thread asking something similar. Is it worth investing potentially a decade to self teach advanced physics just to see if physicists can really afford to act the arrogant big brains they are? questions such as realism vs instrumentalism can't just be ignored due to "pragmatism" when scientists openly state as a matter of fact that multiple universes, black matter and other assorted bullshit are real.

bump

>>16349763
Fundamental physics hasn't progressed since 19th century. We're still stuck at quantum mechanics.

>>16370209
False and wrong.

>>16370229
An imperfect wrongness.

>>16349756
>asking what if "dog" meant "cat."

That's not any different from trying to discern what QM is telling us about the nature of reality. It's all natural philosophy at the end of the day, and ultimately harkens back to Metaphysics always.

>>16372138
Fag

File: Popperquote.jpg (8 KB, 245x206)

8 KB JPG

>>16349748

Philosophy: The discipline which studies knowledge in general

Science: The discipline which studies knowledge obtained through a more or less rigorous method based on experience, math and statistics.

Science is already a subset of philosophy. We consider it separated for the simple fact that it became huge and it's impossible to study them together.

>>16352779
What, no Feynman?
>any thinking is philosophy
Any right thinking is science. Don't be a retard, the reason a line is drawn is because one can learn about reality from reality, and the other is blind guessing and false assumption.
Sure you could call all thinking philosophy, but if I were to say "I do philosophy while petting my cat and taking a shit because I think about tits" you'd probably say that doesn't count.

None of you know what science or philosophy is. Academia doesn't even know. We live in fools reality.

ITT: nerds toss about terms like science and philosophy even though they bare no understanding of such terms. It stupei

>>16372285
Truke

>>16349756
Plato solved philosophy, rest of philosophy is people coping about it.

Philosophy is sense-to-mind relations as created in brain, or the root where sense-to-mind relations stems from.

Philosophy is eternal

Why would you care

File: 1714204576097245.png (2 MB, 1716x1710)

2 MB PNG

>>16350706
Huge copium

philosophy is mostly nonsense
but a very small part of it is good

>>16379264
I like this. Which part is good?

Thales the first "philosopher" was a scientist. He cared about nature and not human affairs. Stupid thread.

>>16379290
Philosophy isn't science, it literally means "I love being a sophomore" which literally mean "I'm stupid"

>>16379288
Non red communist philosophy in general

>>16379294
With experience you will come to realize it's all sophistry except engineering.

>>16379294
You are stupid yourself

>>16350706
Dirac's quote isn't real. You made it up

>>16350706
Philosophy is actually very necessary for answering questions on good/evil, ethics, morality, and how individuals should behave within society. Science can never answer those questions.

>>16381897
Philosophers haven't answered shit about ethics and morality, they just adjusted and coped with the morality of their times.

>>16372332
>Don't be a retard
Don’t be an ass.

> the other is blind guessing and false assumption.
There’s blind guessing and blind assuming in science today.

>Sure you could call all thinking philosophy
It is. Theoretical physics can’t escape philosophizing.

Is thinking philosophical, or is only thinking philosophically philosophical?

When you ask a question such as this one, you are thinking philosophically. In other words, you seek to know “Why is it so?” and that a philosophical question.

“Why is it so?” is a core aspect of science.

>>16381912
>It is
You are extremely stupid lol

>>16372285
I think it was necessary to separate the two. Philosophy can investigate nonfalsifiable questions while science cannot. If we separate them, now philosophy can be used to investigate nonfalsifiable questions and science can investigate falsifiable questions.

>>16381906
>the morality of their times.
Which is dictated by the philosophy of their parent's times.

>>16379899
No puppetry is just as much sophistry as anything else, you are still just playing with toys and supporting the business of illusion.

Bump

>>16385786
If you want to be a philosophy fag, you should at least be able to come up with a viable reason to bump.

File: Portrait_of_Sir_Isaac_New(...).jpg (910 KB, 2218x2671)

910 KB JPG

>>16385793
I'm a natural philosopher and have phd title

>>16349756
more like governments quickly realized the danger of people questioning their authority
>asking why an apple falls? you can do that. But questioning why I get to steal from everyone and call it a tax? death.

>>16372335
Enlight us

File: IMG_2986.png (107 KB, 640x640)

107 KB PNG

>>16381919
How is it not? You appear to be blind to basic simplicity. Do you also think that science isn’t just repeatability? It is.

>>16388003
He is retarded

>>16363857
This could be explained tho

>>16381897
you use philosophy to answer speak about something like the speed of light

>>16350546
>science slowly started trying to take credit for truth
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

>>16392875
Correct, most scientists misunderstand the scientific method, hence the current state of science.

>>16394162
Philosophy could help

>>16395073
No.

>>16394162
I bet you have no clue either so I'll give you one. When the ancients started the practice of bookkeeping that was the dawn of what is known in modern day management terms the Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) cycle which has an undeniable resemblance to the scientific method. That's not a coincidence: the goal is total control of nature.

>>16379294
Midwit

>>16396711
Thanks for proving that it doesn't take a scientist to misunderstand the scientific method, even boring dumb old bookkeepers can misconstrue the scientific method.

Philosophers are bigger quacks than astrologers

There have only been two philosophers who were right: Heraclitus and Democritus
One theorized the constant moving of our universe and the other atoms
The rest are all a bunch of brainlets

>>16398578
Atoms were debunked when subatomic particles were discovered, though, they just keep the name because so much books and material reference atoms and atomic bomb is shrouded in the culture.

>>16349748
it doesn't matter, it's just a name

>>16398581
He was still right about there being fundamental, indivisible particles in the void. It's just that we called them atoms too early

>>16398604
>He was still right about there being fundamental, indivisible particles
No, that has not been confirmed since we split the atom and found that it could be divided into smaller subatomic particles and those subatomic particles might be part of some kind of wave or string or aether or sheave or other substrate.

>>16398617
Read again

>>16349748
good for physics, bad or neutral for almost everything else. "physics or stamp collecting" is a derogatory way of putting it, the "stamp collecting" part matters hugely in other fields and philosophy doesn't help much with it.