Is on the Gin
- May 26, 2020
- United Kingdom
Ah but we can only operate in the system we have and work based on humanities perception of reality as is.Now, it's kind of cool that you can use maths to prove the limitations of maths. But that's not really what I'm talking about. The problem isn't whether math has limitations, it's whether math is actually capable of proving anything at all. Do the mental constructs of mathematics actually correspond to real things, or is it a closed logical system with no basis in reality, like Anselm's medieval scholastic theology. You cannot answer that question using mathematics. You could go and grab an abacus and start moving real beads around to show the validity of mathematical concepts, but then you're not really doing mathematics any more, you're making empirical observations, with all the baggage that implies.
While 1+1 may = 4 we only generally perceive it as 2.
How can 1 + 1 = 4 ?
Well 1 election + 1 electron each fired 1 at a time at two slit with the observation being the impact area behind the slits. When non observed they each would go through both slits. When we observe to see what happens at the slits the electrons would only go through 1 slit each. Thus 2 electrons can act seemingly as 4 or 2.
But it goes deeper than this. Because I'm not actually talking about mathematics. Mathematics is just a simplified way of talking about the capacity to derive universal truth from reason (and no, the fact that maths can prove the limits of maths does not imply that mathematical reason is not universal).
I mean, generally philosophy doesn't write about maths at all. Philosophers who do write about maths are called mathematicians (or sometimes philosophers of mathematics).
But you cannot even adequately define science without referencing the philosophy of science. The idea that philosophers don't understand science is genuinely ludicrous.
Because it is a problem or contradiction requiring the work of criticism and intellectual labour to resolve (in fact, it will in all likelihood never be permanently resolved). That's what a crisis, in the philosophical sense, means.
A crisis does not mean a sudden disaster, it does not mean people wailing or rending their clothes in the street. In an extremely oversimplified fashion, it means living in a world which does not make sense. The reason it's called the crisis of modernity is because modernity is an inherently incoherent state. It's not painful or distressing to live in an incoherent world, it's not a disaster, it just means never actually being able to substantiate the things that you believe.
Of course they do.
We all do.
Think about what it would mean for a second not to assume any universal truths about nature. Heck, science didn't even invent the idea of universals. There was a massive theological controversy at the end of the 13th century over the existence of universals (incidentally, there is a pretty direct line of descent between theology and science, at least on the topic of universals.)
But what you're getting at is that scientists understand the limitations of an assumption, and that is true. That is part of why science works (a very important feature of my argument which I notice you've entirely ignored). The problem isn't that scientists are bad and think that they as individuals can have perfect knowledge because they did a single weak experiment (although that is sometimes true, it's not really an argument against science itself). The problem is, limited in relation to what.
Again, if science as a discipline is continuously iterating and progressing towards this point of hypothetical (and possibly unreachable) perfect knowledge when all flaws and inconsistencies have been ironed out, then how can you actually guarantee that that point of knowledge is perfect? How can you guarantee it is more truthful? Again, how do you use science to prove the capacity of science to even draw closer to truth?
You say that science is capable of resolving its own biases. If this perception of advancing truthfulness was the result of bias, how would you actually know?
There is no point in attempting to reduce nature to universals unless you believe nature can be reduced to universals.
What a dumb, ignorant statement.
Again, the crisis of modernity is the failure of modernity to validate its own normative assumptions. For most modern philosophers, living in that state is actually very exciting and intellectually liberating, particularly if you try to compare it to some attempt to imagine a hypothetical modernity that is not in crisis and where STEM nerds actually are the universal authorities on the validity of all human knowledge that they sometimes pretend to be.
To quote some incel's fanfiction.
There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.
I think the present research on that is you can be re-infected by one of the what is it no 6 or 8 strains of the virus but certain strains give stronger immunity.Since people have been reinfected, maybe this will make him get
bravestupid and think he is invincible and go catch it again in his ignorance..
I think it was one of the weaker strains that means people can be infected with one of the stronger strains later.
I'd guess thought Trump caught one of the weaker strains unless Melania is presently still fairly ill