1 point

This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn’t a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Basically :gun-hubris:

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Except that mathematics mostly isn’t a “casual model generating precise predictions”, especially at the higher levels, famously so with the philosophical failures of Bertrand Russell.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Gödel tapping the sign

No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers

permalink
report
parent
reply

:wojak-nooo: Kronecker and Wittgenstein crying: Noooo! you can’t use a diagonalization argument to prove by contradiction.

Cantor, Gödel and Turing: haha, well look at that, the diagonal can’t exist. QED

Whoops: Hilbert actually liked Cantor’s proof.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Just your average STEM douchebag

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Here’s the twist: This guy isn’t a STEM lord, he’s an assistant professor for philosophy.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Well that’s fucking hilarious

Love to “make casual models generating precise predictions” for philosophy problems such as the problem of universals

Fuckin dweeb needs to go back to helping determine the answers to such critical conundrums as “does a haybale exist if you remove five pieces of straw from it”

permalink
report
parent
reply

Thus the intense drive by neo-liberal economists to mathematize their “science.” It’s physics envy. A bunch of dorks made massive assumptions about human behavior and motivations because that made it a lot easier to model with mathematics, then spent the next century jacking themselves off until they were left with nothing but a bloody stump.

Too bad their assumptions WERE WRONG and they should be laughed at for being such dorks :farquaad-point:

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Positivism zealots are so tiring

permalink
report
reply
1 point

This isn’t even positivism, this is baby’s first falsificationism. I would respect a positivist critique since they at least acknowledge induction exists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Mfers read Popper once and think they’re brain geniuses who’ve debunked Marx

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

What did Poppel say?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Cockshott is a TERF Anglo prick, but he has in fact shown, mathematically, that the LTV is correct. Yes, in a peer reviewed journal.

permalink
report
reply

Stafford Beer also arrived at this conclusion (accidentally too). Then actually put it in practice in Chile before the coup

permalink
report
parent
reply

Yeah if only those Hegelians and Marxists had some sort of iterative philosophical framework that moved between theory and practice to inductively arrive at a conclusion.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Holy shit:

Liam Kofi Bright is a British philosopher of science who is an assistant professor or lecturer in the department of philosophy, logic, and scientific method at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He works primarily on formal social epistemology, particularly the social epistemology of science

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING THEN

permalink
report
parent
reply

average anglo philosopher cannot read books, all they know is utilitarianism, twerk, call things “continental” and lie

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

But my baby-brained understanding of “utilitarianism” says communism is good, yet I don’t think Mr London School of Imperialism Apologia agrees with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Popper/Kuhn brain is a powerful drug.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I know how Popper is responsible for these brainworms - but how is Kuhn implicated?

permalink
report
parent
reply
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yes, indeed. But saying you know shit about epistemology and then masterfully show how shit you are at it makes me wonder why even say you are good at epistemology specifically to begin with.

Why not just: “Yeah I do the philosophies and let me tell you bombing the third world if anglo pigs don’t get enough treats is good and ethical and very philosophy”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I like my models to be casual, ya know, nothing too fancy

permalink
report
reply
1 point

If you’re going to be sneering about people looking dumb you should probably spell causal correctly lol

permalink
report
parent
reply

philosophy

!philosophy@hexbear.net

Create post

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

“I thunk it so I dunk it.” - Descartes


Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

Community stats

  • 43

    Monthly active users

  • 116

    Posts

  • 502

    Comments