*do you think of Karl Popper...
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Existential comics punches scientism in the face, writes articulate blog post why.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post*do you think of Karl Popper...
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostI don't know that name. Who is he and how does he relate to the discussion?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostI don't know that name. Who is he and how does he relate to the discussion?
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...t-region&_r=1&Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLook him up. Very famous philosopher of science, very strong atheist but doesn't take crap from those who think that science explains everything. As a result folks like Dawkins despise him.
More to the topic, I mentioned Karl Popper because Karl Popper (among other things) offered a fairly specific criteria of 'what is science' and it's been influential enough of a definition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostIt appears Mr Ruse doesn't think too highly of Dawkins either
More to the topic, I mentioned Karl Popper because Karl Popper (among other things) offered a fairly specific criteria of 'what is science' and it's been influential enough of a definition.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostWhat do you think of Karl Popper?
Random side note: I did my philosophy degree at a university Popper used to lecture at, and in a building named after him."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View PostThis isn't true.
The question of 'why' is asked all of the time.
Most of those 'why' questions have answers on the physical realm (why do birds build nests?) but even if a question doesn't have an answer it should be asked anyways and a small 'unknown' put in as the answer. The blanket declaration of no 'why' is science seems heavy handed - just because that question irritates Dawkins doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. He has no problem asking 'why' when attacking religion. He's just a really bad philosopher.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSure, not all comics are intended to be humorous, but how most of the panels are drawn in this one I don't think it's a leap to think the author intended it to be humorous. The humor here may have been intended to be oblique, but it's still not funny.
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostI enjoy them though, because its intrinsically funny to see people discuss serious ideas while calling on Captain Metaphysics, or watching Neitzsche literally announce the death of God as a news caster, or see Marx get upset at thoroughly classist board game.
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThat's cool. I get the appeal of a comic for philosophy geeks. Probably what rubs me the wrong way is that, stylistically, it seems very similar to the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic strip. I don't find SMBC that funny either (not that I've read a whole lot of it), but compared to this comic, I'd say that it looks like SMBC gets the job done with less effort, and it's wittier. Looking over the last three Existential Comics submissions, the jokes are there, but it all comes across so heavy-handed, and the timing is all off. It feels like someone explaining a joke to me rather than telling a joke.
Eh, but if people like it, it doesn't really matter what I think.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostQuestions of ultimate purpose are still asked, and I think it's bit anti-humanist (in the best sense of the word, not in the popularly appropriated sense of the word), to ignore them or pretend like they don't matter.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View PostDid Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI think he over-philosophizes the scientific method. The scientists I know generally try everything they can think of and when nothing works, ask everyone around them for ideas, and then try all those ideas, and then on the 200th attempt it sort of works, and then they declare victory and submit a journal article. I would summarize the 'scientific method' as 'ad hoc trial and error' or 'you try lots of stuff with your fingers crossed hoping something works', which is not really a method that needs any sort of philosophical foundation or explanatory theory.
Secondly, I read a study awhile back that argued that access to the internet gives people overconfidence in certain topics. The researchers' first experiment (using a control group and such) suggested that "yes" people get overconfident due to easy access to information on the internet. The researchers then thought that some other factors might've influenced the outcome... so they repeated several variations of the experiment (nine total iirc), to account for other variables... which does seem a rather rigorous series of tests for falsification.
Does that seem to weaken or strengthen the conclusion of their research?
To the best of my knowledge I have not met a scientist who ever once used the concept of 'falsification' in their work. So I would say that Popper was empirically wrong about how science is actually done.
Random side note: I did my philosophy degree at a university Popper used to lecture at, and in a building named after him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIt's a stretch to call it 'funny', but yeah. It's an amusing twist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostAlright, in debates about Creation Science, detractors often argue that Creation Science is not truly a science, because it is not falsifiable (among other reasons). Is that something you're willing to give up if you do not think an empirical falsification criteria is what separates science from ... whatever?
Secondly, I read a study awhile back that argued that access to the internet gives people overconfidence in certain topics. The researchers' first experiment (using a control group and such) suggested that "yes" people get overconfident due to easy access to information on the internet. The researchers then thought that some other factors might've influenced the outcome... so they repeated several variations of the experiment (nine total iirc), to account for other variables... which does seem a rather rigorous series of tests for falsification.
Does that seem to weaken or strengthen the conclusion of their research?
Maybe, but Popper is rguing for a sine qua non of what science is at an essential level. Brute empiricism alone isn't get that. After all, you'd have to have a definition of 'science' before you could argue 'this is how we observe science being done.'"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
604 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment