Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:47:58 UTC No. 16209328

>philosoplebs unironically believe their own ignorance was superior to scientific knowledge

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:55:01 UTC No. 16209336

both pooper and fagerabed are wrong

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:19:56 UTC No. 16209352

It is rationalists who try hard to merge their rationalism with empiricism and the end result is what they call science but there is no empiricism in this.
It's like a redefinition of empiricism by scientists.
Scientists are not empiricists. An empiricist does not run an 'experiment' and even less a 'thought experiment'. Running an experiment already is part of rationalism.

The whole secular infatuation over empiricism started by the self proclaimed enlightened secular rationalists who hated the christian rationalists larping as greek philosophers.

The secular intellectuals hated the endless christian speculations that they saw as unverifiable about god and the use of logic from aristotle. So they said they could speculate on nature and with their verification meme, their rationalist system about the world would be the truth.
So in order to be separate from the christian clerics, the secular rationalists said they were empiricist. Their big idea was the empirical proof which is completely retarded oxymoron.
A proof is never empirical. A proof always on the side of speculations passed as rationality.

Logic is just a field by autistic pedants about well formed formulas and valuations, ie a map sending a formula to 1 or 0 and asking what are those valuations which are stable under inference rules. Zero truth in this, especially truth in the casual sense. Tarski truth is moronic, meaningless. Peak atheist. Just like there is no truth in science, just some stats and a stat convention for saying ‘’if p value is XXX then the result is """"’true"""


At best scientists can come up about some stats about some formal system (ie a model) like the spring or harmonic oscillator or the standard model. Like ‘’your material has such and wear and tear, and our backlog of such conditions lead to 60% of breaking in the next year, therefore your material may break or not within a year’’ That’s the pinnacle of the scientific claim and all their claims remain phrased as uncertainty.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:51:00 UTC No. 16209381

>>16209352
>I say I just took a shit
>you ask for proof
>I show you the shit in the toilet, you can see it, smell it, taste it
>you say empirical isn't proof, I didn't logically derive my turd from first principles
>I take the turd and forcefully shove it down your throat, making you swallow no matter how hard you're gagging until you finally admit the undeniable truth of its existence

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:35:07 UTC No. 16210619

>>16209336
Cope.