User Controls
The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-31 at 12:06 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 12:12 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 12:14 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 12:14 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 12:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Why don't you tell me? Making online personality tests is the only marketable skill you're getting out of your special snowflake degree so you might as well put it to use.
idk i guess you'd score horribly on my intelligence tests. downs is a noxious fume for everyone surrounding -
2018-03-31 at 12:15 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 12:24 AM UTClike one guy who wants to find meaning in the world will resort to philosophy to make unfalsifiable theories and delude himself into thinking his work has more truth then a schizophrenic's paranoid rantings
the other guy will realize our perception of the world occurs through the brain and is interested in the experiments and statistics behind the different cognitive processes that govern what we understand of reality
the first guy is retarded and will never contribute anything of value and will spend his whole life living a lie, the second guy might actually produce something innovative -
2018-03-31 at 12:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus like one guy who wants to find meaning in the world will resort to philosophy to make unfalsifiable theories and delude himself into thinking his work has more truth then a schizophrenic's paranoid rantings
the other guy will realize our perception of the world occurs through the brain and is interested in the experiments and statistics behind the different cognitive processes that govern what we understand of reality
the first guy is retarded and will never contribute anything of value and will spend his whole life living a lie, the second guy might actually produce something innovative
I agree that cognitive science is much more useful than most of philosophy. But you still need philosophy to grapple with things like epistemology which are essential to doing good science. -
2018-03-31 at 1:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus like one guy who wants to find meaning in the world will resort to philosophy to make unfalsifiable theories and delude himself into thinking his work has more truth then a schizophrenic's paranoid rantings
Funny choice of words since the entire notion of falsifiability as being the demarcation criterion for science emerged from academic philosophy and accepting it immediately commits you to a philosophical position.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 1:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Funny choice of words since the entire notion of falsifiability as being the demarcation criterion for science emerged from academic philosophy and accepting it immediately commits you to a philosophical position.
great. so how have you contributed to the study of philosophy?
heres how i've contributed to the study of psychometrics
https://iqexams.net/test/index.php?test=MOL30#no-back-button
https://iqexams.net/test/index.php?test=AG32#no-back-button
https://iqexams.net/test/index.php?test=ETS32#no-back-button
https://iqexams.net/test/index.php?test=RADIUM34#no-back-button
notice how the score distributions are generally pretty close to a bell curve -
2018-03-31 at 1:51 AM UTCis falsibility in science still consider an aspect of philosophy? no let me guess, it's considered an aspect of science. someone in philosophy among their piles of useless ideas occasionally have ideas that are still useless but can be taken by someone and turned into a theory that can actually be applied to something. while i'm working on studying cognition from a perspective of statistics and logic you're busy cramming words together hoping to hit the bullseye of having an actual meaning
-
2018-03-31 at 1:54 AM UTCtesting philosophy with science: cant because philosophy doesnt produce anything that can be studied or analyzed by the scientific method. sort of like astrology or homeopathy.
testing science with philosophy: just write a few nice sounding fiction paragraphs and hope someone's stupid enough to fall for it -
2018-03-31 at 2:15 AM UTCCase study in leftist hypocrisy:
The Left when a handsome and well tanned individual commits a terrorist attack - "NOT ALL MUSLIMS!!1!"
The Left when a white guy shoots up a school - "All white males are socially conditioned to be violent killers"
I want these people gassed ASAPThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 2:22 AM UTChating white people is popular now just how the jedis wanted it
-
2018-03-31 at 2:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus is falsibility in science still consider an aspect of philosophy? no let me guess, it's considered an aspect of science. someone in philosophy among their piles of useless ideas occasionally have ideas that are still useless but can be taken by someone and turned into a theory that can actually be applied to something. while i'm working on studying cognition from a perspective of statistics and logic you're busy cramming words together hoping to hit the bullseye of having an actual meaning
What do you think it means for falsifiability to be an "aspect" of anything? That sentence doesn't even make sense. The fact remains that modern scientific technique revolves around philosophical ideas, even if the average working scientist's understanding of them is quite poor. You hold a philosophical position when you do science (using "you" in a general sense here since you personally don't do science) but because you're either afraid or unable to engage with philosophy you don't understand how it stands in relation to the field of possible positions or how it's justified.
Originally posted by lempoid loompus testing philosophy with science: cant because philosophy doesnt produce anything that can be studied or analyzed by the scientific method. sort of like astrology or homeopathy.
testing science with philosophy: just write a few nice sounding fiction paragraphs and hope someone's stupid enough to fall for it
"testing mathematics with science: cant because mathematics doents have physical properties, cant be tested, and cant be analyzed by the scientific method. sort of like astrology or homeopathy.
testing science with mathematics: just write some fancy looking equations and hope someone's stupid enough to fall for it"
Wow, math BTFO'd. -
2018-03-31 at 2:28 AM UTCyeah i guess when a circuit uses the most convenient path to its destination or a toddler learns how to walk and talk they NEED philosophy to arrive at a replicable conclusion
"testing mathematics with science: cant because mathematics doents have physical properties, cant be tested, and cant be analyzed by the scientific method. sort of like astrology or homeopathy."
except mathematics is something you can find an example of in the real world in a second, and when scientific studies and physics predictions using equations turn out to be accurate it supports the rigor of the equation and its foundations. did you really just substitute philosophy with mathematics and think it would be equivalent you fucking retard? -
2018-03-31 at 2:30 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 2:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice I am not a morning person.
Who else thinks about suicide every single day right after waking up? I mean, it's a pretty mild desire relative to the worst I've ever felt, I know what it feels like to be right on the edge, but, still, the happiness/pleasure I feel in life doesn't come close to being worth putting up with this bullshit for the rest of my life.
You are such a fucking queen -
2018-03-31 at 2:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus "testing mathematics with science: cant because mathematics doents have physical properties, cant be tested, and cant be analyzed by the scientific method. sort of like astrology or homeopathy."
except mathematics is something you can find an example of in the real world in a second, and when scientific studies and physics predictions using equations turn out to be accurate it supports the rigor of the equation and its foundations. did you really just substitute philosophy with mathematics and think it would be equivalent you fucking retard?
Lol, see, this is why you need philosophy. There are no examples of mathematics in nature. There are physical systems that are well modeled by some piece of mathematics but these systems are not instantiations of mathematics in the world. "F=ma" is not a theorem of mathematics, it's a physical model using mathematics. If we were to find an example of a body breaking this law we wouldn't be falsifying anything in mathematics, we'd be falsifying the proposition that that equation models the world. Something like "1+1=2" is a theorem of some arithmetic systems but there is absolutely no empirical physical finding that could falsify it. Indeed, mathematics is unfalsifiable.
Good luck "studying cognition from a perspective of statistics" if you can't even figure out what mathematics is.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 2:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Lol, see, this is why you need philosophy. There are no examples of mathematics in nature. There are physical systems that are well modeled by some piece of mathematics but these systems are not instantiations of mathematics in the world. "F=ma" is not a theorem of mathematics, it's a physical model using mathematics. If we were to find an example of a body breaking this law we wouldn't be falsifying anything in mathematics, we'd be falsifying the proposition that that equation models the world. Something like "1+1=2" is a theorem of some arithmetic systems but there is absolutely no empirical physical finding that could falsify it. Indeed, mathematics is unfalsifiable.
Good luck "studying cognition from a perspective of statistics" if you can't even figure out what mathematics is.
good bullshit 10/10 would not real again
math is like philosophy but the non-fiction version. its working very well as a tool in scientific studies
