This is an on-its-face contradiction. Not only are you not explaining why science is true, you're also not explaining why it's "probably" true.
How is it a contradiction? I've claimed right from the start that there are very few things I can know for sure. Certainty is more often than not, a sign that someone is making incorrect assumptions. And I HAVE explained why it's probably true GIVEN THE ASSUMPTIONS I MADE. If you want to pick at my thoughts, pick on those.
Another circular argument, because you're defining "objective" as scientific; reformulated, you're saying that if science isn't true, then your scientific worldview isn't true. Sounds right to me!
Besides, why would you assume a position about truth to avoid difficult questions? Truth demands that we be honest.
Which of my assumptions are necessarily only applicable to science then? And my position isn't that if science isn't true the worldview isn't true (though that of course is correct), but that if the assumptions don't hold then Science doesn't either. So once again, focus on them! And some questions simply cannot be answered conclusively! I'm not shying away from them, I have no answer to them and no way to produce an answer, so in order to make any progress at all, I need to make assumptions.
False. Perspectival truths, by definition, do not appeal to an underlying totality.
In order for a perspective to exist at all, there needs to be a vessel for that perspective. Perspective does not exist in a vacuum, but only in relation to something. If I'm simply horribly off on your definition or perspective then tell me.
Are you really incapable of assuming a position you don't believe? I'm an atheist myself, but I can still dissect and evaluate arguments that invoke God. Don't be so obtuse.
I'm perfectly capable of assuming positions I don't believe. I do so very frequently in fact. In fact, I think it's entirely possible that god does exist! That's not at all connected to this though, because assuming a god doesn't change the position! As in, what you've said works IDENTICALLY whether or not you assume a god. Thus, bringing god into the equation had no meaning to it.
You've missed the point of the argument- again. I am assuming that a God does not exist, and then using it to show that the combination of no God and an intelligible cosmos is a contradiction.
But here's the thing, it doesn't matter one lick whether you assume a god or not. So why does assuming a does does not exist bring out a contradiction, when assuming there is a god provides the exact same contradiction?
Also, now I'm curious, what exactly are your views on truth that don't assume that you exist, don't assume any form of order, and seemingly don't assume anything at all?
Going by what you said about discrete mathematics, you seem to be saying that you cannot say anything leads to anything else, but doesn't that render logic as a whole unusable? And it isn't immediacy that makes me claim it, but rather that even broken into steps it still logically follows. I really, really don't understand how one could approach reality without first assuming it.
I'm not sure where immediacy comes into that particular quotation.
Have you read the Meditations? The entire point of the cogito sum is to be a building block for other formulations. This is also true of your worldview, or at least it appears this way.
I really don't know how much more you're looking for. Is "That which exists independently of thought" lacking still?
...Let me just quote myself:
"It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is."
Science is different from most methods in that it is more a method to reject properties than to prove them. In fact, science essentially never aims to prove, but to disprove.
This is wonderful question-dodging. Whether it's proving or disproving, why is science able to tell "true" apart from "untrue" in regards to base reality?
.As for false properties... Stuff like "the world is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "heavy things fall faster than lighter things", etc. Right up to the bigger stuff like time not being absolute.
All of these are empirical claims (except for that last one, which is another can of worms), which, again, implies that "base reality" is empirical. Why?
We keep coming back to this, and as of yet you haven't provided an answer.
Well, I've never studied philosophy and don't intend to.
Then you probably shouldn't be engaging in questions of philosophy!
One of the traits of science is that, at its core, it produces the same results completely independently of who seeks the results, where they seek the results, and etc. This makes it more likely to correspond to base reality than methods whose results do vary on who applies them and when.
Independent of the objection I've made a dozen times already that the scientific method as of yet as been uncritically accepted as "truth," why does intersubjective verifiability correspond to the way the world "actually" is? Regardless of whether we're talking about the scientific method or otherwise?
And I HAVE explained why it's probably true GIVEN THE ASSUMPTIONS I MADE.
And as I've explained repeatedly, the assumptions you've made are irrelevant, because they're rejected by reason. I've "picked" on them repeatedly. In fact, let's go over them again!
1 + 2) You yourself have accepted that we can't know that reality exists independently of subjective experience to it, a correlate of which is that we can't know if our subjective experience has existence. Reason rejects both propositions.
3 + 4) Both these propositions assume a stable and intelligible physical order; in other words, we're doing that "metaphysics" thing you dislike so much. Not only have you failed to provide any account of why this is true, but, if we assume that God does not exist, such an assumption is a contradiction.
What you're doing is assuming falsehoods in an attempt to talk about "truth." Does this seem like a fair thing to do?
In order for a perspective to exist at all, there needs to be a vessel for that perspective. Perspective does not exist in a vacuum, but only in relation to something. If I'm simply horribly off on your definition or perspective then tell me.
It's... a bit complicated. And metaphysical. Let's just table this part of the conversation, okay? There's a lot else going on as it is, and this isn't central to anything I'm arguing.
But here's the thing, it doesn't matter one lick whether you assume a god or not. So why does assuming a does does not exist bring out a contradiction, when assuming there is a god provides the exact same contradiction?
I'm invoking God because God offers a potential solution to the problem of cosmic instability. If the "default" position is no God, and we don't "assume" that God exists (which I did just as a clarification), then you're still left with the contradiction. Could you address this?
Also, now I'm curious, what exactly are your views on truth that don't assume that you exist, don't assume any form of order, and seemingly don't assume anything at all?
Truth compels us to deny truth without the presence of God, but some of us are simply more drawn to the will to truth than others. I consider myself one of these people, and I prize rational consistency (or as close as we can get to it) both because it gives me power and because it brings me pleasure. It's a perspective (in my sense), not an authoritative stake on what constitutes "reality."
Going by what you said about discrete mathematics,
Logic, not mathematics; logic precedes math.
you seem to be saying that you cannot say anything leads to anything else, but doesn't that render logic as a whole unusable?
Unusable? No. It's very useful, and logical claims are the most immediate claims we can make about experience (much more so than inductive/sensory ones). They're just not entirely immediate, and may or may not be "true."
I really, really don't understand how one could approach reality without first assuming it.
There's a difference between assuming reality, which I myself do, and "assuming that our slice of reality is the reality," which you and Touka do. I'd just like to hear why you made this leap.
Have you read the Meditations? The entire point of the cogito sum is to be a building block for other formulations. This is also true of your worldview, or at least it appears this way.
That is true that it is one of the foundations for my worldview, but... Well, is there somewhere online I can read the meditations, or would I need to try to find a hardcopy somewhere? Because I will freely admit I don't really understand what you've been saying.
...Let me just quote myself:
"It doesn't do anything to answer the question of what base reality is."
Ah, so you're asking me to make a grand sweeping statement that covers the entirety of reality. I can't do that however. I can only describe base reality relative to subjective reality.
This is wonderful question-dodging. Whether it's proving or disproving, why is science able to tell "true" apart from "untrue" in regards to base reality?
Alright then. If my assumptions hold, then the universe is ordered. Thus, experimentation will not produce a result that contradicts that order. Which is how they can reject things as true. If a very large number of tests designed to check a property we're investigating never once produces a result that contradicts said order, then it is likely to be true. By performing various experiments we can investigate that order itself, which provides us with a greater understanding of what the universe is and how it functions. It's circular, but that's because it builds on itself. Simple things like "apples fall towards the ground, and never fall away from it" can grant us insight into certain aspects of truth behind reality. All of these truths will be empirical, but of course science only deals with the empirical. If hunting for other forms of truth, you'd have to use a different method.
All of these are empirical claims (except for that last one, which is another can of worms), which, again, implies that "base reality" is empirical. Why?
We keep coming back to this, and as of yet you haven't provided an answer.
The last one is just as empirical as any other. Science can only work with empirical truths, never anything else. I'm not implying science is the only method towards truth, merely that it is very good at discovering empirical truth. Regardless of what base reality is, if the assumptions hold then at least part of base reality is empirical, and that's what I have the ability to access. So that's what I'll pursue.
Then you probably shouldn't be engaging in questions of philosophy!
I was just stating my worldview! And besides, just because I'm not interested in studying the culinary arts doesn't mean I can't cook and discuss the merits of various cooked things.
Independent of the objection I've made a dozen times already that the scientific method as of yet as been uncritically accepted as "truth," why does intersubjective verifiability correspond to the way the world "actually" is? Regardless of whether we're talking about the scientific method or otherwise?
It's not uncritically accepted as truth >_>. But anyways, it doesn't necessarily correspond to the way the world actually is, but it raises the probability that it does which makes it a better method. The less dependent a method is on very specific conditions, the more robust the method. Science is powerful precisely because it has far fewer conditionals on its results that many other methods. Once again, this doesn't make anything it claims true, it just means that given only the information we have access to, it takes a lot less assumption than other methods.
And as I've explained repeatedly, the assumptions you've made are irrelevant, because they're rejected by reason. I've "picked" on them repeatedly. In fact, let's go over them again!
1 + 2) You yourself have accepted that we can't know that reality exists independently of subjective experience to it, a correlate of which is that we can't know if our subjective experience has existence. Reason rejects both propositions.
How? Also, the fact that we cannot know something doesn't mean that we should just give up on it. Of the paths I can take to try to attain truth, only making those assumptions leads me anywhere. If I don't assume existence, then I can't pursue any truth regarding it, so I make those assumptions so trying to gain truth is possible. Even if I'm wrong and reality doesn't exist in any way, then I lose nothing because I get the exact same amount of truth. Zero. I'm not making these assumptions because they are safe to make, but rather to have a starting point. Someone trying to, say, invent a cold fusion reactor has to first assume that making a cold fusion reactor is possible even if it isn't. Because otherwise they wouldn't be trying to invent it in the first place.
3 + 4) Both these propositions assume a stable and intelligible physical order; in other words, we're doing that "metaphysics" thing you dislike so much. Not only have you failed to provide any account of why this is true, but, if we assume that God does not exist, such an assumption is a contradiction.
Stop trying to add god into a contradiction he's already part of. And I cannot give you any account of why it is true, hence why it's an assumption in the first place. Assumptions by definition are not something we can demonstrate, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions in the first place. I don't know of any mechanism that could conceivably result in an intelligible universe. Does that matter? No. No it does not. Because my own lack of knowledge isn't demonstrative of anything at all! And anyways, I'm making these assumptions because if they are not true I simply cannot pursue truth in any way. That's the core of the assumptions.
What you're doing is assuming falsehoods in an attempt to talk about "truth." Does this seem like a fair thing to do?
What you're claiming by saying those are falsehoods is that you KNOW that my assumptions are false. So, how do you know that reality is absolutely subjective, that my perceptions do not correspond to reality, that the universe is not ordered, and that truth is inconstant?
It's... a bit complicated. And metaphysical. Let's just table this part of the conversation, okay? There's a lot else going on as it is, and this isn't central to anything I'm arguing.
Fine.
I'm invoking God because God offers a potential solution to the problem of cosmic instability. If the "default" position is no God, and we don't "assume" that God exists (which I did just as a clarification), then you're still left with the contradiction. Could you address this?
The thing that I've been trying to say is that god is not a potential solution in the first place. If god exists, he is part of reality. To say it is only possible for reality to be intelligible if god exists is to say that reality can only be intelligible if a very specific portion of reality is intelligible first, which leads to me asking why god is intelligible. Following your logic, god would then need a god if its own. And so on recursively. In essence, god is utterly disconnected to that contradiction because invoking god creates the same contradiction. Meaning discussion of that contradiction flows the same way whether or not you add god to the mix, meaning it is simplest and best to not bring god in at all.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
Truth compels us to deny truth without the presence of God, but some of us are simply more drawn to the will to truth than others. I consider myself one of these people, and I prize rational consistency (or as close as we can get to it) both because it gives me power and because it brings me pleasure. It's a perspective (in my sense), not an authoritative stake on what constitutes "reality."
In order for god to be a solution to truth, we have to start off by assuming god to be true. And god is much, much harder to explain that assumption for than a reality without god. Denying god in no way denies truth, because god cannot be a solution to truth, as god would then need to be explained. And as for the last bit, what you say about your views can very much be applied to how I'm going about mine. Everything I say is a value judgement about what path is most likely to lead to truth.
Logic, not mathematics; logic precedes math.
I'd almost like to argue that math is logic. 2+3=5 isn't a hell of a lot different than A->B. But I called it discrete mathematics because I learned that sort of thing in my math class, and it was call that there.
Unusable? No. It's very useful, and logical claims are the most immediate claims we can make about experience (much more so than inductive/sensory ones). They're just not entirely immediate, and may or may not be "true."
Alright. Well, I guess "logic works" is also an assumption, but of course that means everything is an assumption as nothing can ever be conclusively demonstrated under any circumstance.
There's a difference between assuming reality, which I myself do, and "assuming that our slice of reality is the reality," which you and Touka do. I'd just like to hear why you made this leap.
When did I assume that? That's what my entire discussion on relevance was about. I only focus on the slice of reality I have access to because that's all I can focus on. It's actually quite likely that existence extends beyond that which I can ever conceivably encounter. But if I'm aiming for truth, there's no point to looking at things I can never know exist, because I can never learn any truth about them. I can make hypothetical constructs and look at those, but that's not the same thing at all and only gives me truth about those constructs.
That is true that it is one of the foundations for my worldview, but... Well, is there somewhere online I can read the meditations, or would I need to try to find a hardcopy somewhere? Because I will freely admit I don't really understand what you've been saying.
Not exactly the world's best translation, but it will do. Relevant stuff starts in Book III, although you'll need to read the rest to understand what's going on.
Ah, so you're asking me to make a grand sweeping statement that covers the entirety of reality. I can't do that however. I can only describe base reality relative to subjective reality.
No? I'm asking you to describe base reality, i.e. the metaphysics you're basing your entire worldview on. Can it not be clarified except indirectly?
Alright then. If my assumptions hold, then the universe is ordered.
Which they don't in my eyes. So that should be priority one in this discussion.
The last one is just as empirical as any other.
Touka can verify, but isn't "time" (in the scientific sense) now tied in with space?
I'm not implying science is the only method towards truth, merely that it is very good at discovering empirical truth.
Naturally. I have no objections to this beyond the possible claim that empirical truth is the only "relevant" truth.
I was just stating my worldview! And besides, just because I'm not interested in studying the culinary arts doesn't mean I can't cook and discuss the merits of various cooked things.
I'd say that if you cook on any serious level, you care about the culinary arts. At the bare minimum, you're participating in it. And any inquiry into truth, epistemology, metaphysics, and value theory means opening up some philosophy.
But anyways, it doesn't necessarily correspond to the way the world actually is, but it raises the probability that it does which makes it a better method.
This is only true assuming that "base reality" is somehow intelligible. You've assumed that it is, but you haven't justified this belief. See the discussion on your four principles below.
How?
Because it's arbitrarily assumed, not rationally grounded?
Also, the fact that we cannot know something doesn't mean that we should just give up on it.
No, but it suggests that we should rationally verify it rather than making blunt assertions.
Of the paths I can take to try to attain truth, only making those assumptions leads me anywhere.
Why? Why can't other perspectives offer up alternatives? If the answer is because they're not useful/empirical/quantitative/probabilistic, then you're simply making a circular appeal to the scientific epistemology.
And I cannot give you any account of why it is true, hence why it's an assumption in the first place. Assumptions by definition are not something we can demonstrate, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions in the first place.
That's not how assumptions work in philosophy. When dealing with truth claims, which are fundamental, you can no longer assume things in the way that you're doing. An assumption is conducive to some means-end relationship; when the end itself is truth, however, assuming some truth claim does not act as justification for that particular claim.
And anyways, I'm making these assumptions because if they are not true I simply cannot pursue truth in any way.
You cannot pursue *scientific* truth, but there may be other truths available. This, incidentally, can be seen as a fifth fundamental assumption of yours: that without science, truth is impossible. Sort of an inverted claim of "only science is true."
What you're claiming by saying those are falsehoods is that you KNOW that my assumptions are false.
No! They're just logically untenable.
The thing that I've been trying to say is that god is not a potential solution in the first place.
Separate discussion for another day.
For the time being, please just address the contradiction of how a stable cosmos is logically possible.
Denying god in no way denies truth, because god cannot be a solution to truth, as god would then need to be explained.
Not to get into this too much, but you can think of "God" as the philosopher's god: a self-fulfilling "assumption" (to use your favorite word!) that one's metaphysic is true. Because this is bothering you so much for some reason.
I'd almost like to argue that math is logic. 2+3=5 isn't a hell of a lot different than A->B. But I called it discrete mathematics because I learned that sort of thing in my math class, and it was call that there.
Numbers serve as content to logical form- that's how the theory goes, anyway. But you're right, the relationship is relatively symbiotic.
Alright. Well, I guess "logic works" is also an assumption, but of course that means everything is an assumption as nothing can ever be conclusively demonstrated under any circumstance.
Right. Except that for me, you don't start with assumptions; rather, reason itself defeats the very possibility. You're simply not going that extra step: beneath (what I believe to me your acceptance of) the untenability of your 4 (5) fundamental assumptions lies the snake of truth eating at its own tail.
When did I assume that?
How about all that talk about "objective" truth? And how without science, truth is impossible?
I only focus on the slice of reality I have access to because that's all I can focus on.
You have access to poetry, phenomenology, social relations... hell, an infinite number of perspectives and realities. You also have access to a science that prides itself on *usefulness* instead of *truth*!
You choose to focus only on science; don't lie to yourself by pretending alternative perspectives don't exist. Allow your existential motives to shine through a bit.
Alright, I should head to bed so this is the last one for the night.
Not exactly the world's best translation, but it will do. Relevant stuff starts in Book III, although you'll need to read the rest to understand what's going on.
Thanks, I'll read this after my exams are over.
No? I'm asking you to describe base reality, i.e. the metaphysics you're basing your entire worldview on. Can it not be clarified except indirectly?
Unfortunately, it can't be directly clarified. Any statement I make about it is only relative to something else.
Touka can verify, but isn't "time" (in the scientific sense) now tied in with space?
Yeah. Time and space are more or less the same thing in a lot of theories actually. The term spacetime will come up anytime you discuss relativity as well.
Naturally. I have no objections to this beyond the possible claim that empirical truth is the only "relevant" truth.
I think you've misunderstood something. Relevant simply means it's possible for me to observe it in some way. Hell, by reading your posts I'm attempting to learn philosophical truths, which are relevant despite not being empirical.
I'd say that if you cook on any serious level, you care about the culinary arts. At the bare minimum, you're participating in it. And any inquiry into truth, epistemology, metaphysics, and value theory means opening up some philosophy.
I will think about philosophy often, but I rarely dabble in heavy philosophical discussions like this one (which is a lot of fun by the way). Much like how I'd learn a recipe I feel like making but wouldn't pursue a career in cooking. When I said I had no interest in studying philosophy, I meant more in an academic sense. I like learning stuff about philosophy, but I don't seek it out much.
Why? Why can't other perspectives offer up alternatives? If the answer is because they're not useful/empirical/quantitative/probabilistic, then you're simply making a circular appeal to the scientific epistemology.
If reality is not constant, then all methods and every single part of them are not constant, so poetic truths vanish in the same way as scientific ones. Perhaps science demands a higher level of consistency than other methods, but in the end they all require having their previous statements not being erased from reality.
That's not how assumptions work in philosophy. When dealing with truth claims, which are fundamental, you can no longer assume things in the way that you're doing. An assumption is conducive to some means-end relationship; when the end itself is truth, however, assuming some truth claim does not act as justification for that particular claim.
I'm making the assumptions so I have a means to go with in the first place. I'm making them so a path to the end exists at all. I'm not going to try to claim I'm using assumptions in a way that works with philosophy, but I see them as a necessity step towards forming a worldview at all.
You cannot pursue *scientific* truth, but there may be other truths available. This, incidentally, can be seen as a fifth fundamental assumption of yours: that without science, truth is impossible. Sort of an inverted claim of "only science is true."
Absolutely not. I am not making that assumption. The assumption I make is that without rationality truth is impossible. That rationality leads to science is separate. Because once again, without rationality truth itself is not constant, so pursuing it isn't possible. If what's true now isn't true an instant from now (and in fact the concept of now vanishes entirely), then no method survives.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
For the time being, please just address the contradiction of how a stable cosmos is logically possible.
I don't know. And it isn't possible to distinguish a stable cosmos from an unstable one anyways, as an unstable one could move to a state identical to the stable one at any time for any length of time. How long has our universe been the way it is? I can't tell you that with certainty. There's no way I could.
Not to get into this too much, but you can think of "God" as the philosopher's god: a self-fulfilling "assumption" (to use your favorite word!) that one's metaphysic is true. Because this is bothering you so much for some reason.
Well, that's not how most people would use the word "God". Usually, they use it to denote some sort of sentient being of extreme power. The capitalized one in particular being absolutely omniscient and omnipotent. I have no issues with using the self-fulfilling assumption definition, but that's a completely empty statement. It turns it to "If you don't handwave it off, how does it work?" which doesn't add anything. The reason it bothers me is that I've run into one too many people who thing that the universe existing is proof that their particular god exists, when it does nothing of the sort.
Right. Except that for me, you don't start with assumptions; rather, reason itself defeats the very possibility. You're simply not going that extra step: beneath (what I believe to me your acceptance of) the untenability of your 4 (5) fundamental assumptions lies the snake of truth eating at its own tail.
The first step in any endeavor is an assumption though. Any attempt to work with logic must first assume logic works. The same can be said of anything you can try. And I'm sure anything you believe requires assumptions as well.
How about all that talk about "objective" truth? And how without science, truth is impossible?
Oi. Objective truth is one part of truth taken as a whole. That does not mean that objective truth is the only truth that exists. It's just that objective truth is much more constant, and aiming for objective truth is to aim for a more consistent truth. And I never said that without science truth is impossible. Once again, it's some form of order that's required. The two claims may appear similar, but they really are not the same.
You have access to poetry, phenomenology, social relations... hell, an infinite number of perspectives and realities. You also have access to a science that prides itself on *usefulness* instead of *truth*!
You choose to focus only on science; don't lie to yourself by pretending alternative perspectives don't exist. Allow your existential motives to shine through a bit.
Those are all part of relevant reality though! I can observe poetry, I can observe all of those. They produce an effect which can then be directly or indirectly added to the collection of thoughts I refer to as me. And I do pursue them, I just don't pursue them as my main method of attaining truth. I enjoy reading fiction and I certainly gain truth from that, I just feel I gain less truth from having done so than from having read a science paper. Because science produces rules that apply to many, many different situations, you learn more truth by reading those rules than by leaning truth about singular specific cases. If a picture is worth a thousand words, an equation is the oxford dictionary. So science is a very efficient and consistent path to truth, than that's why I pursue it.
Yeah. Time and space are more or less the same thing in a lot of theories actually. The term spacetime will come up anytime you discuss relativity as well.
No it's NOT arghasdfpoi7asdgjp0a78sdf.
Or rather.
Yes you can consider as another dimension, but that's only a term that's a mathematical artifact, not a physical one; we still treat time very differently from space in general relativity and special relativity: what's changed is that we've found that spacetime or the COMBINATION of space AND time doesn't change, not that time and space are the same thing.
I'm going to need time to think up an adequate analogy to show you how Special Relativity treats time versus space, but if you don't mind math: the Spacetime interval squared is equal to - (Speed of light*time) Squared + Distance squared. Notice that the sign in front of time is DIFFERENT from the sign in front of distance. (The speed is light is there because we messed up defining our units, really, there are ways you can set length and time units so that c = 1 and you don't need to bother with it, but think of it as a way of converting between distance and time)
It's always interesting to me that philosophy types like to talk about the narrowmindedness of science types, when they're not the least bit scientifically literate, whereas almost every scientist I've talked to has been widely read (but apparently not on western philosophy specifically which makes them ignorant because ???????????) Has anyone actually seen a scientist not enjoy any book, any picture, any musical composition because they only believe in one worldview?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Alright, I was being rather flippant by saying they're the same thing. I was however recently reading a brane theory of the universe that predicted time eventually folding over and becoming a space dimension, so that's where that probably came from. I'll hold off any being silly like that though >_>.
And the way I've always pictured it is that the total motion through space + and the total motion through time act close to sin and cos functions, in that as one increases the other decreases in an exponential sort of way. Not actually sin and cos mind you, but similar in function. Well, ignore my wildly inaccurate musings. Sadly, I've never actually learned anything about relativity/QM in a class, and I'll be unlikely to in the near future because my university suddenly decided to remove all second year physics courses for some reason V_V. So I'll have to wait for a bit down the line when I transfer. I'm pursuing a math degree right now myself, with some physics and compsci on the side.
I feel like I should take this time to do a small writeup of why I aim towards objective truth via science instead of subjective truth via most other methods, but I really should get to studying for my remaining finals >_>
--
Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it.
It's always interesting to me that philosophy types like to talk about the narrowmindedness of science types, when they're not the least bit scientifically literate,
A baseline scientific literacy is good to have, but anything more is largely irrelevant. Understanding the intricacies of a large tree and all its branches is a waste when its roots are shriveled up.
whereas almost every scientist I've talked to has been widely read (but apparently not on western philosophy specifically which makes them ignorant because ???????????)
It only makes them ignorant if they're discussing Western philosophy.
Has anyone actually seen a scientist not enjoy any book, any picture, any musical composition because they only believe in one worldview?
This is a shameful strawman, but you're the one who chose to end our discussion because it got a little too heated :((((
Who cares if something like objective truth exists? Why use it as a concept at all? Let's say that it is something completely beyond our so called inferior "subjective truth" and blah blah blah blah.
How can we differentiate it from something that philosophers made up, and isn't actually a useful definition? Like sure, I can start generating a bunch of hypotheses about invisible dragons and how the search for them is extremely important because their invisible dragon blood offers us immortality, but how do we know that the definition isn't a confused and misguided one in the first place?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!