51–60 of 219 posts
True: Philosophy is a way towards impeccable logic and humanity - thanks for saving us technically oriented purists from destroying ourselves and eating eachother alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if that's really true about mathematicians lacking rigour. I do recall a logic professor of mine jokingly say that mathematicians were afraid of logicians, and (more seriously) that the former thought the latter were unnecessarily precise. (I hope I'm remembering this right and not misrepresenting what he said) I'm not sure about the superiority in rigour in the rest of philosophy (even if we narrow the…
I can only assume his persona and commentary is an elaborate satirical parody of the snooty narcissistic philosopher (but you never know.. Poe’s Law and all that). To quote from saintzozo’s website: Mathematics is easy. If you think it's hard, you are retarded. proof Any true mathematical statement is logically equivalent to the axiomatic framework within which it occurs. If you do not understand such a statement, th…
I'm going to reproduce a reddit post I made recently that I think is relevant: Analytic philosophy has made my mind a razor. It forged in me the confidence and mental discipline to learn anything, and I'm now dominating the tech scene despite having little in the way of formal coursework. I was lucky to choose one of the few disciplines that can be fruitfully studied at Brown. As any student of a rigorous discipline,…
Your shit ain't that great, man. If anyone goes through four years of philosophy and is talking about their worldview like this, run away from them.
Edit: agh I read his blog and I regret to inform you all that this person really has his stuff down pat definitely a true scholar here
I'm going to reproduce a reddit post I made recently that I think is relevant: Analytic philosophy has made my mind a razor. It forged in me the confidence and mental discipline to learn anything, and I'm now dominating the tech scene despite having little in the way of formal coursework. I was lucky to choose one of the few disciplines that can be fruitfully studied at Brown. As any student of a rigorous discipline,…
[1] https://www.reddit.com/domain/soixante-neuf.homosexual.horse...
After taking some in college, philosophy to me was more like a stepping stone in critical thinking to embracing the light of science. I've noticed on so many youtube forums for example, people postulate things without external verification in nature, "if this then that" where tautologies and vin diagrams and the like are held as absolute truths. It never was sold on that as there are more dimensions to reality than o…
For one, the scientific study of perception itself (not to mention the study of chemistry and physics) brings in to question how much of what we perceive is real. The solid-seeming table not really being at all as solid as it seems, or the small trees in the distance not really being small being some of the commonest and simplest examples. There are plenty of other examples, from optical illusions to a wide variety of phenomena detected through experimental aparatus but not usually available to our senses, such as x-rays, viruses, and so on.
Such phenomena and the stories scientists use to explain them have lead to the widespread questioning of the reality of the world as we commonly experience it, and even to questioning if the world itself is a simulation -- questions from physicists, no less. These are philosophical questions, but ones I'm not convinced that science is equipped to answer. I'm not sure what experiments could ever be performed to determine whether ultimately, deep down, whatever scientific instruments detect or theories postulate is "really real" or just illusion. At the most basic level, it's questionable whether science ever even "gets closer to" some kind of ultimate "truth", or whether they're always just attempts to explain mere apperances.
There are many other objections to the claim that science is the only true, valid, or legitimate way of acquiring knowledge, and to the claim that scientific results are either true or approaching truth. But I'll spare you in the interest of not making this post in to a book or boring you any more than I already have. I'll just point to you these articles on Skepticism[1], Epistemology[2], and Scientism[3] and move on to pointing out that even were we to grant that the practice of science gives us access to truth, there are still some realms off-limits to it, such as (more specifically) ethical questions, and more generally telling us how we should act when given a choice. There are no experiments which can be performed that can show us which is the "right", "moral" or "ethical" choice in any given situation. One could certainly survey some population, but that would only tell you what some people think is right, moral, or ethical, not what actually is (unless you think what the majority believe must be true, which is yet another philosophical position and up for debate). So this is yet another example where science just stands mute, and I don't see any way it'll ever be able to speak on these subjects.
I think most well educated scientists realize these limits of science, and consequently don't make grand claims for the Truth of what they're discovering or the superiority of science over other fields. In fact, those subjects and such claims are off-limits in most if not all scientific journals. It's outside scientific journals, and one could say outside of science proper that such claims are heard, and they're often made either by science fans who are not scientists, or by scientists who really haven't studied the philosophy of science much and get a little too carried away with the popular view of science.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if that's really true about mathematicians lacking rigour. I do recall a logic professor of mine jokingly say that mathematicians were afraid of logicians, and (more seriously) that the former thought the latter were unnecessarily precise. (I hope I'm remembering this right and not misrepresenting what he said) I'm not sure about the superiority in rigour in the rest of philosophy (even if we narrow the…
I can only assume his persona and commentary is an elaborate satirical parody of the snooty narcissistic philosopher (but you never know.. Poe’s Law and all that). To quote from saintzozo’s website: Mathematics is easy. If you think it's hard, you are retarded. proof Any true mathematical statement is logically equivalent to the axiomatic framework within which it occurs. If you do not understand such a statement, th…
Wonder why it took 2000 years to came up with alternatives to the 5th postulate, if all three variants (Euclidean, elliptic, hyperbolic) is so evident apriori?
I'm going to reproduce a reddit post I made recently that I think is relevant: Analytic philosophy has made my mind a razor. It forged in me the confidence and mental discipline to learn anything, and I'm now dominating the tech scene despite having little in the way of formal coursework. I was lucky to choose one of the few disciplines that can be fruitfully studied at Brown. As any student of a rigorous discipline,…
Is this satire? This is pretty much the perfect expression of all the most insufferable moments and people I knew during my own analytic philosophy education. It's even wrapped up in the fondest delusion of philosophy undergrads: that you, through the sheer strength of your intellect, rose above your surroundings. Your shit ain't that great, man. If anyone goes through four years of philosophy and is talking about th…
> Grant studies at Wake Forest, where he majors in philosophy and economics.