physicists are bad philosophers

Yes he did. Read it again. Look for the name Karl Popper.
Karl Popper is not science or a philosopher in science, not a physicist, Gunky.
He DID clarify the differences between religion and science though, and created the direction resulting in the current definition of science.

You have company. Hugo missed it too.

It is obvious that you want to continue to deny science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.
 
You just agreed with me. How do you call that 'wrong'?? If you look at those signs, you will find they are mostly kanji.
The Japanese have been putting Romaji and English on their signs lately for the tourists.
Not from where I'm looking at them. The one on the left is almost entirely katakana. The middle two are a combination of Kanji and katakana.
 
Not from where I'm looking at them. The one on the left is almost entirely katakana. The middle two are a combination of Kanji and katakana.
The one on the left has no katakana on it at all.
NONE of these signs have any katakana on them at all. Indeed, they are 100% kanji (other than the English and Romaji).
 
fae8032a0407b07db88126317cd665f9.jpg


katakana-chart-preview-lg-1200x1553.png



Kanji-chart.jpg
 
Karl Popper is not science or a philosopher in science, not a physicist, Gunky.
He DID clarify the differences between religion and science though, and created the direction resulting in the current definition of science.

You have company. Hugo missed it too.

It is obvious that you want to continue to deny science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.

Why do you post this sort of thing? Just curious. You clearly don't know the first foreign thing about Popper or falsifiability or philosophy of science so why do interject your vapid "opinion" which, in my experience, is wrong almost every time?

Curious behavior. Do you hate yourself and you really want people to think you are stupid? You don't have to be this way, you know.
 
Why do you post this sort of thing? Just curious.
To inform.
You clearly don't know the first foreign thing about Popper
Inversion fallacy. I've already described some of Popper's contributions to philosophy.
or falsifiability
Inversion fallacy. I've already described falsifiability to you, and you STILL don't get it! :rofl2:
or philosophy of science
Philosophy is not science, Gunky.
so why do interject your vapid "opinion" which, in my experience, is wrong almost every time?
Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, Gunky.
 
To inform.

Inversion fallacy. I've already described some of Popper's contributions to philosophy.

Inversion fallacy. I've already described falsifiability to you, and you STILL don't get it! :rofl2:

Philosophy is not science, Gunky.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, Gunky.

Yeah, not buyin' it. You say things like Karl Popper was not a philosopher. That's just wrong. You say things that are 100% PERFECTLY WRONG.

It's kind of impressive because usually someone with a functional brain will be able to get SOMETHING right once in a while. But you defy the odds.
 
Yeah, not buyin' it. You say things like Karl Popper was not a philosopher. That's just wrong. You say things that are 100% PERFECTLY WRONG.

It's kind of impressive because usually someone with a functional brain will be able to get SOMETHING right once in a while. But you defy the odds.
It is an AI troll.
 
Yeah, not buyin' it. You say things like Karl Popper was not a philosopher.
I never said any such thing, Gunky.
That's just wrong. You say things that are 100% PERFECTLY WRONG.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
It's kind of impressive because usually someone with a functional brain will be able to get SOMETHING right once in a while. But you defy the odds.
Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
Logic errors: Bulverism fallacy. False attribution fallacy.
 
Yeah, not buyin' it. You say things like Karl Popper was not a philosopher. That's just wrong. You say things that are 100% PERFECTLY WRONG.

It's kind of impressive because usually someone with a functional brain will be able to get SOMETHING right once in a while. But you defy the odds.

He's just a troll. Don't get excited. He never took a logic class, he just read some debates where somebody babbled about 'fallacies' and thinks it makes him sound smart; he's never taken a logic class, at least not one after intro to logic 101, and its formal logic, which is basically just circular reasoning and are logical fallacies in itself. Even taking 102 would have helped most people, but they just take 101 for the easy elective credit and then think they got smarter or something when all they got was dumber and more confused.
 
My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers. Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my colleagues — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what science should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of two twentieth-century philosophers: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

Undergraduate and most graduate education of scientists give them no training to recognize when they are using metaphysics and assumptions, nor how to recognize what actually counts as an explanation.

Generations of undergraduates were trained to believe Isaac Newton's universal law of gravity actually explains gravity, when it does nothing of the sort. And even Newton was aware of this.

I believe undergraduate science education should include a philosophy of science class.
 
Back
Top