Fake: science isn’t based on science. Isn’t even real.
Gay: science comes from philosophy. Philosophy comes from the ancient greeks…
Anon gets philosophical
Submitted 3 weeks ago by kali_fornication@lemmy.world to greentext@sh.itjust.works
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a34b5515-b915-4677-a823-00427fe8e01a.png
Comments
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ancient greeks come from man boy love.
alcibiades@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
anon doesn’t know what formal logic is
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
which formal logic? symbolic?
there are lots of logics.
alcibiades@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I’m pretty sure symbolic logic with Ps and Qs is colloquially known as formal logic. Which is usually treated as a strand of philosophy. I was making fun of how anon is acting like philosophy is just people bullshitting when any philosopher worth a dime is making pretty complex and airtight arguments that you learn the basis of in a logic class, which a 4chan user wouldn’t have taken because they are usually losers with nothing good going for them.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
a priori mothafuckaz!
GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Fucking hate seeing people talk about how we have “literal AI” now. No we don’t, we have LLMs that have been marketed as AI.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Well there is an entire field of philosophy called the “philosophy of science” which tries to determine the ideal way we should conduct science so it’s an iterative process. Issue with philosophy (and science but more complicated) is that they are simply ideas but many take them as gospel.
Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not “just philosophy” like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it’s impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It’s also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.
flandish@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
newb here but is that just epistemology and hermeneutics?
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Sadly, I’m a psychologist and not an expert in scientific philosophy. The topic is interesting but I haven’t deeply read into it so sadly can’t help.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
no.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
the thing that most people fail to understand is there are multiple methods and approaches to various types of science.
they make the faulty assumption there is one method and one truth. that isn’t how reality works.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
That’s also a very good point and a problem even within scientific communities. This is partly tribalism, partly jargon, and partly structural. People identify with a discipline or method, dig in their heels, make new terms for old ideas, dont read work outside of their bubble, and everyone is left confused. I agree the scientific method isn’t strict which is a double edged sword. We can’t come to perfect truth but only make good faith efforts to approch the mysteries of the universe.