Who are the most philosophical miscers?

[Aristotelian]

Interesting to see my name featured here in the context of being "wrong about everything". I'd consider myself humbled if there was any substance to those statements.

[magnefico]

Not that anyone cares, but I majored in philosophy, focusing on epistemology, classical skepticism (Sextus Empiricus, David Hume), and the American pragmatists. I just don't bring it up that often. Learning how to argue logically was useful in school but is useless here, as most miscers wouldn't know a logical argument if it fell on their heads from a significant height.

You're right, no one cares ~Bulldog

[numberguy12]

lol @ philosophy in general. Where there is metaphysics, there is babble. Turn to science if you want to know how the world works, or mathematics for truth.

[RoxyFoxy22]

Legz477
shesprints
redraider
AaronKyle
Cupernicus or something, he's older idk

[DemiBrah]

Not that anyone cares, but I majored in philosophy, focusing on epistemology, classical skepticism (Sextus Empiricus, David Hume), and the American pragmatists. I just don't bring it up that often. Learning how to argue logically was useful in school but is useless here, as most miscers wouldn't know a logical argument if it fell on their heads from a significant height.

Logic is derived from perspective which is always incomplete so on a forum you saying someone can’t argue with you logically is equally as incorrect and irrelevant as presenting your views as logical.

P.S. arguing that individuals logic isn’t based perspectively and furthermore perspective is limited to an individuals scope of knowlidge is philosophically infallible so no point in replying btw. That major was nice enough to teach you how to articulate your own lack of education. Congrats

[jamalfudge]

Logic is derived from perspective which is always incomplete so on a forum you saying someone can’t argue with you logically is equally as incorrect and irrelevant as presenting your views as logical.

Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.

[CalmWind]

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=175893941

[HayZues Christi]

Me.

[DemiBrah]

Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.

You can not assess the end or beginning of anything unless you were present before and after to view the difference of the before and after concerning the existence of whatever has begun or ended

Assessment without detraction is useless, which is the biggest issue in practicality regarding metaphysics, string theory. We know nothing and always will know nothing. Anyone who claims otherwise only confirms their mental limits and hubris

[jamalfudge]

You can not assess the end or beginning of anything unless you were present before and after to view the difference of the before and after concerning the existence of whatever has begun or ended

Assessment without detraction is useless, which is the biggest issue in practicality regarding metaphysics, string theory. We know nothing and always will know nothing. Anyone who claims otherwise only confirms their mental limits and hubris

Do you have any sort of creed or philosophy that you live by?

[wincel]

Oh, so you mean it's unscientific bullchit.


ETA I want to be clear, I give my "feminist theory" friends a hard time about their bias, too.

Evolutionary biology, as most people understand it, is almost entirely ridiculous folk science founded on confirmation bias.

If nothing else, most people don't seem to understand that evolution is not teleological.

Wrong. A lot of people confuse evolutionary biology with rationalizing justifications for "why" something occurred. This is not evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology is a science devoted to using scientific principles to determine evolutionary lineages of life on Earth. Do you like understanding how bacteria mutate over time and develop resistances to certain types of drugs? Because that is evolutionary biology. Pls don't speak ill of fields you are unfamiliar with. Thank you. Evolution is directly observable in a lab. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies over time in a population. This is explicitly measurable and testable. We also have observation data on several species, and speciation has even been directly observed in animals. Please take biology before you talk about biology. Thanks. While teleological reasoning is often used informally in order to motivate explorations about how to sort the lineages, it is not the core aspect of the science, and more serious evolutionary biologists are careful to avoid such claims or qualify them as necessary.

[PowersKenny]

Why's there no females in your list? O_o

Muzzie please

[SSGBroly]

I always thought of eod as a delusionist

[PowersKenny]

Most of the sciences originated in philosophy, dawgie.

Naw doggie most of the sciences evolved out of man's nature to control nature, philosophy is babble of the mouth, science and math are creators of invention

Best example for your pea brain.. philosophy..yep cavemen talking about how cold they are it sucks,. Science..cavechad sees a lighting strike, sees fire, brings fire to cave..gets cave whores for life...philosophers go F A...

[shesprints]

The complete illiterate garbage people are spewing in response to my discussion of some of my views is, quite honestly, the reason I don't discuss philosophy in the misc.

[DemiBrah]

Do you have any sort of creed or philosophy that you live by?

No I’m a principled person religiously. I have a mindset that I can’t quite label. I would like to have some taccy line as a motto but it would be weird to read. Something like “historically, information and knowledge are proof both of progress and the futility of its pursuit in regards to completeness”

[DemiBrah]

The complete illiterate garbage people are spewing in response to my discussion of some of my views is, quite honestly, the reason I don't discuss philosophy in the misc.

Maybe you should’ve majored in English instead

[wincel]

Naw doggie most of the sciences evolved out of man's nature to control nature, philosophy is babble of the mouth, science and math are creators of invention

One can easily ask questions that are inherently impossible to determine the truth of via science and cannot be addressed mathematically without knowledge of the core axioms and laws that describe the behavior of the universe. One simple question one can easily ask that is neither scientific nor mathematical is "Why does anything exist at all?" Some physicists have pointed to the laws of nature to show HOW something could come from a vacuum. But, one can easily ask "why those laws?" These "why" questions can never be answered by science, and without some underlying axiomatic framework, they are not mathematical either. We can still ask them, so there needs to be some field devoted to these questions, useless though they may be. That field is the domain of philosophy (and religion to an extent).

[shesprints]

Maybe you should’ve majored in English instead

I actually double-majored in both English and philosophy.

You're the one who keeps misspelling common words, so ????

[propreffered7]

lol @ philosophy in general. Where there is metaphysics, there is babble. Turn to science if you want to know how the world works, or mathematics for truth.

Honestly..

If you break everything down to molecules. Isnt everything always moving? Freeze water, molecules tighten up, it becomes solid. Heat it up it loosens to liquid. Heat it more, it turns to gas.

In specific points in time there are "solids" but theyre not forever.

Of course, this points to subjectivity but perhaps subjectivity is all there is

So long as 1 represents something and 0 nothing, and there is 1 molecule (or atom or quark..or whatever) math is true but i dont believe math is inherent either, its simply a system evolved to describe whats going on; reactionary in a way

[PowersKenny]

The complete illiterate garbage people are spewing in response to my discussion of some of my views is, quite honestly, the reason I don't discuss philosophy in the misc.

Check your signature and report back

[DemiBrah]

I actually double-majored in both English and philosophy.

You're the one who keeps misspelling common words, so ????

Yes spellcheck is what’s holding you back I’m sure

I’m guessing this is another example of those illogical arguments you don’t engage in because you’re actually ****ing retarded?

Be honest honey if you don’t know what detraction is because a quick google search brings up a religion I can explain it nice and easy for you

[CalmWind]

The complete illiterate garbage people are spewing in response to my discussion of some of my views is, quite honestly, the reason I don't discuss philosophy in the misc.

TIL that shesprints believes there are different stages to illiteracy

[wincel]

The complete illiterate garbage people are spewing in response to my discussion of some of my views is, quite honestly, the reason I don't discuss philosophy in the misc.

I completely misinterpreted the spirit of your post. You were saying evolution is NOT teleological. I agree then.

My bad. I thought you were labeling evolutionary biology a folk science. If that was your intention, then I stand by saying you were wrong. If you are instead saying most people misunderstand, then I am inclined to agree.

[Peter Ruby]

Me.

Says the tradie. Sorry but cavemen aren't very philosophical.

[CalmWind]

I actually double-majored in both English and philosophy.

You're the one who keeps misspelling common words, so ????

women are very good at showing up to class every day, turning in homeworks, and text book studying for those tests.

rinse and repeat for 4 years and you get a worthless college degree.


but your posts ITT show me that you wasted your money

[shesprints]

I completely misinterpreted the spirit of your post. You were saying evolution is NOT teleological. I agree then.

My bad. I thought you were labeling evolutionary biology a folk science.

I said "as most people understand it." The popular idea of evolutionary biology, especially the way people here use it to discuss dating, is definitely what I would call folk science.

Obviously, studying evolution in a formal context is not folk science. I do think the soft sciences like psychology/evopsych are more prone to bias, which is a pretty good argument in favor of philosophy, actually.

[numberguy12]

Most of the sciences originated in philosophy, dawgie.

And it is precisely the scientific developments that are the more interesting ones. Take chemistry: You can philosophize all you want about the nature of matter....the ancient Greeks thought it was all made up of simpler substances air, water, fire, and earth......or you can take a closer look at matter from the perspective of modern chemistry and physics, and learn about its composition and behavior down to atomic and subatomic levels (very predictive, useful theories). You can philosophize all you want about the nature of motion, and how fast objects should fall due to gravity (and almost certainly come to incorrect conclusions), or you can literally just go out and measure that they fall at roughly 9.8m/s^2 with certain factors controlled. Observation trumps rationalizing.

[wincel]

I said "as most people understand it." The popular idea of evolutionary biology, especially the way people here use it to discuss dating, is definitely what I would call folk science.

Obviously, studying evolution in a formal context is not folk science. I do think the soft sciences like psychology/evopsych are more prone to bias, which is a pretty good argument in favor of philosophy, actually.

I completely agree. A good rule of thumb (though not always the case) is that the more mathematically rigorous the models are for a field of science, the less BS it is, provided the models actually make accurate predictions about experiments.

[AWillis]