Semantics is the bane of scientific discourse.

Math can be modeled anyway you want but only the way that approximates reality gives proper results. How do you model like that without observing reality

>>16891806
>everything I don't like is semantics

>>16891806
Objectively false. If semantics are ignored there is no discourse whatsoever. Especially not scientific discourse. Semantics are extremely important to all discourse. It is especially important to scientific discourse.

>>16891802
Rationalism is a meaningless category, scientifically speaking

Applying pure mathematics is rationalism and applying statistics is empiricism. Modern science and good scientists already practice the best available synthesis between rationalism and empiricism we have

>>16891860
Anon physicists can’t even agree on what matter means. I’ve seen more than enough slap fights photons and rest mass and “what IS a particle in relation to mass anyway??”.

>>16891802
Was there something you wanted to discuss? Looks like you forgot to write a post.

File: ohyou.jpg (61.8 KB)

61.8 KB JPG

There's no point in arguing with an empiricist, other than for the experience.

Indeed, there's no point because you know you'll lose the argument.

>>16891940
And it's extremely important to have those slap fights. I have a lot of bets in place and if those slap fights don't occur, I'll never get paid back.

>>16891802
Physics isn't built on empiricism unless you're a midwit. Physics uses models which are built from rationalizing axiomic laws of the universe but the laws of physics we use do not have to obey observable reality. You are just a retarded hylic.

>>16891802
Reading Kant should be mandatory before using this board, holy shit.

>>16892147
which should i read
https://annas-archive.pm/search?q=Kant+

Rationalism is a retarded -ism. What do you call being rational, or adhering to the cause of reason, or logic? What is it to be rational? Is it NOT rational-ism????

File: 1692597381042249.png (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB PNG

>>16892151
The left side of pic related will set you up right. If you're already familiar with the main currents of empiricism and rationalism then you can probably get away with just Monadology and then reading the first Critique with Baumgarten's Metaphysics as a reference. Kant wrote the Prolegomena as a guide for retards who got filtered by his (admittedly very dry) writing so you can grab that too if needed. The big thing is making sure you know what problems Kant was diagnosing and attempting to treat before reading his work, so you don't end up like this tard >>16892169 who doesn't even know what rationalism is and thus getting lost when Kant burns both rationalism and empiricism to the ground.
Lurk /lit/ if you want, there are a couple educated people still hanging out there who can answer questions if you get lost, but avoid the dude who spams le spooky black and white edits of Kant and Hegel and uses the phrase "esoteric kantianism" as he is just an undergrad narcissist who likes the smell of his own farts.

>>16891814
Math doesn't have to model reality you retarded hylic. Math can model whatever fundamental rules you put in place. It is the place of goycattle to worry about materialism.

>>16891920
Retarded hylic. The fact that you would even say that applied statistics is empiricism as if there's nothing wrong with that tells me that your life is as valuable as a summer ant. The idea that reality is subject to probability should disgust you. The fact that you are content without determinism. The fact that you think that God plays dice.

>>16891802
Rationalism is the domain of artificial knowledge. Empiricism is the domain of experiential knowledge. Neither point towards the true state of the world, but rather the state of a specific domain

>>16892172
I have a huge respect for Kant for opening up the minds of the western world to the problems of knowledge. Even to this day, he hasnt been surpassed.

>>16892172
No he’s right. Isms are retarded.

>>16892199
What's the point of attempting to contribute to a discussion if you know nothing about the topic at hand? You're complaining about the word used to refer to a set of ideas instead of addressing the ideas themselves. The people who named it "rationalism" are long dead, so why are you complaining to me about it?

>>16892172
>>16892147
There's nothing to be learnt from /lit/ or philosophy. Everything a philosopher has ever said is either trivial or wrong.

>>16892203
You're so right, dude. You should never read philosophy and you should definitely stay out of philosophy discussions. You know, for your own good.

>>16892117
>axiomic laws
... you mean axiomatic?
those laws have to be derived from empirical evidence, otherwise you'd be interfacing with pure fantasy.

File: stop-doing.png (101.3 KB)

101.3 KB PNG

>>16891802
Empiricism is to the study of reality what behaviorism is to the study of the mind. It's like defining an iceberg by its tip. OP's strawman basically claims everyone has to make that error, because no one would be contemplating icebergs if someone hadn't observed at least the tip of one. Physical reality inspires the abstract laws that must underlie any conceivable universe. The mathematician is free to study any of them and can do so productively.

If I’m being rational does that make me a rationalist?

My rational mind tells me I should look at something first.

>>16892376
Why would behaviorism be the study of the mind? Is this term predating behavior of bodies which is what science studies. Nothing about a dog salivating from a ringing bell says anything about what is going through its mind. And generally, the belief is signaling would be grounded in natural selection and evolution and not the organism as a mind.

>>16892381
>Why would behaviorism be the study of the mind?
You're a fucking moron.

>>16892207
Sorry if my factual statement offended you.

>>16892203
>t. functionally illiterate Americoon
Imagine coming to a "science" board just to screech about how science is either trivial or wrong.

>>16892400
Ah, a philosophy fan who thinks he can appropriate the achievements of science by including it under philosophy. It's a really pathetic tactic which only proves my point about how trivial philosophy is.

>>16892403
See >>16892400

>>16892413
Mhm. Keep your temper tantrums and philosophy worship on /lit/ next time. See ya, loser.

>>16892417
See >>16892400

Funny. Until now I thought empirical meant objective, independent of myself, absolute capital-t Truth.

This thread annoys me.

>>16891860
nigga what

>>16891802
empiricism is used to prove shit to the public on a higher level like epidemiology or whatever

rationalism is used to keep yourself open minded and get to the truth with objectivity

>>16891802
>/his/ thread on /sci/
geg

>>16891806
Fpbp
/thread

>>16892783
>I thought empirical meant objective, independent of myself, absolute capital-t Truth.
That's hilariously wrong.

>>16891802
>vs
Science always utilizes empiricsm and rationalism in tandem.

>>16893704
>Science is one person

>>16893705
Your uneducated, personal definition of science is not interesting to me.

>>16893706
>mentally ill retard hallucinates things again

>>16893694
Empyrean. Heaven = Truth.

>>16893724
ἐμπειρία =/= ἔμπυρος.

>>16893731
Truth is in Heaven. Absolute Platonics. Stars will always be Stars. Deal with it.

>>16891802
Kekaroo

>>16892184
>Math can model whatever fundamental rules you put in place.
Cool, my fundamental rules are third order logic. Now formulate a computability theory.

>>16895645
kleene's higher-type recursion. next!

>kant argued for synthetic a priori by saying you can learn properties of a triangle based on the nature of a triangle
this is the dumbest argument i have ever heard

>>16896478
Your mother.

>>16891802
Lol

>>16892783
It should.

>>16896478
Fuck you.

File: exposition.png (66.1 KB)

66.1 KB PNG

china proved moving slit in bohr's favor, and this thread already demonstrates that rational thought doesn't exist because geez y'all are very hangry at the fact that truth is always relational

>>16900508
I think the issue is that empiricism vs rationalism is splitting hairs to some more holistic thinkers. Rationale is an observation of a sort.

>>16891802
Both empiricism and rationalism are retarded safety blanket ideas asserting the "sum of all conceivable truths".

Seems kinda trivial to me

Why hair split

>>16891802
Lul

>>16891860
This. Only retards wouldn't understand that this is just fundamentally true. If you can't agree on what you're discussing, you're not having a discussion, you're casting spells at each other.