pacmanrockshok
153465
5057
160
Credit to: Ray Lesser and Sue Wolpert
Nov 6, 2015 4:58 PM
pacmanrockshok
153465
5057
160
Credit to: Ray Lesser and Sue Wolpert
MrFantastic375
Sadly #2 is our society
SwarthyBastard
Re: #1 - "People who think that things are real are as stupid; people who think things are not real are even more stupid." Mahasiddha Saraha
Ivalicenyan
Anti-skub for life D:<
FlameJuggler
That first one really fucked me up...
kewpiebb
It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop -OC confucius/repost by me
HalfpriceFruitbasket
It's a lovely glass
goodnessgraciousme
Nice moral relativism troll
SimenHellesund
2deep4me
L34dP1LL
"It's a beautiful glass" -that other dude's grandpa
Warblade
I dislike the first one because it makes my eyes hurt.
DarkDragon2344
This is deep. No its not.
MrPorcupine
Marcus Aurelius: Does he look like four sticks?!
Mapusaurus
Neat.
woogigooie
volatiley
#2 tribalism
foliageman
Those assholes are saying the boat is sinking, but my ends 200 feet in the air!
volatiley
#1 Not all Romans espoused right-opinion
dontBErudeasshole
++
TimeFoDat
#1 seems like it has good intentions. We probably can't know things with absolute certainty, as science progresses we become more precise.
TimeFoDat
And we discover ways of perceiving previously imperceptible things with proxies we call tools. Today's bleeding edge is tomorrow's dark age.
Applepotamus
yeah well that's just like your opinion man
dontBErudeasshole
No, that's my opinion-man
RalinStorm
pacmanrockshok
This is perfect. I should've added this one
RalinStorm
you can edit the gallery to add it.
HortenseShamlin40
My objective, non-biased perspective.
tarnivore
Ahhh critical thinking for dummy's. I like
tarnivore
Dummies?
WellWornFleshlight
imgur
tarnivore
Clearly I am a dummy.
jetblue7
classic Marcus Aurelius
PhilTheFluffiestDogOnTheInternet
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0a/6b/ae/0a6bae7ac2c2a889f5424779c9feccdd.jpg
LinkBot
prfesser
"These facts are not up for discussion. I am right and you are wrong." Hans Rosling
drdavessardogs
Here's to you and me, may we never disagree; but if we do, the hell with you, here's to me!
pacmanrockshok
I respect your factpinion
whatismyusernameagain
"Detta är ingenting man kan diskutera. Jag har rätt, du har fel." It packs a better punch in Swedish if you understand it. Great moment!
ZedZaw
Yeah, somethings truly are facts
wednesdaywolf
For a given definition of 'truth' and 'fact'.
BigBlueBurd
Fact: The human body requires oxygen and nutrients in the form of proteins, sugars, trace minerals and vitamins to sustain its function.
wednesdaywolf
An observation which relies on several unproven assumptions, the first being that anything exists. (1/2)
wednesdaywolf
You could claim elves sustain us, and a lack of proof would render that not very likely. Facts are dependant on your probability tolerance.
wednesdaywolf
(2/2) The second being that alternative methods of sustenance are completely impossible, rendering the requirement a convenience.
ISayWrongThingsAndDontJustifyMyself
Mmm, however, the existence of necessary truth is pretty essential to most philosophy and ALL sciences. Some things just are. (e.g. math)
Vespy
It's more that it's necessary to that we fix points in order to agree on things. But at the far edge when you zoom out, it's still relative.
dualplains
If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error(1/2)
dualplains
it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.(2/2)
PompatusOfLove
Math is man made though.
foreverneverreallyuncaring
Was it invented or discovered?
vowofloudness
Some things may just be. But then again, they may not.
dontBErudeasshole
Permission whimsy? What fun or not
wobbu
To expand: You can convincingly argue that everything you know is false, but that doesn't get you anywhere other than up your own ass.
silnocus
Yep. You can argue all day about nearly anything, but if it has scientific support... Yeah. That's actual fact.
mrpopos10
An actual "scientific" fact, as defined by science.
GlutenFreeCommunionHost
I would respectfully say that you should read Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature."
hardytardigrade
1) But science is, and only ever will be, a model of what really happens. The existence of objective reality is assumed, but as it requires
hardytardigrade
2) subjective observation to be detected, it can never be proven.
ThatNameAgainIs
Never be proven to correspond to any underlying "reality" beyond it's remit, you mean. "Proof" is a scientific term.
hardytardigrade
I think you meant mathematical term, as science doesn't really prove anything. But it also has colloquial and other uses. So what?
alexcoldt
hitshappens
Technically speaking, everything you experience is a decision made from evidence for thing. So technically, there are only opinions
hitshappens
For example, You say a car is red because your eyes perceive it as red. But there is an infinitely small possibility that the red is a trick
PilotChristy
Illusions, Michael!
purrincess
You beat me to it!
vowofloudness
That appears to the fact, from your perspective.
alexcoldt
My objective, non-biased perspective.
alexcoldt
My objective, non-biased perspective.
vowofloudness
I'm sure that your perspective appears to be objective and non-biased. From your perspective.
alexcoldt
It's easy when you assume that both parties are right and both parties are wrong.
vowofloudness
You gotta fight for your wrong to party.
alexcoldt
When you look at things objectively from the outside your perspective becomes the correct one.
DownvotePolice
I'd recommend reading Nagels "the view from nowhere." He suggests that such a view is an important ideal even though there is no such view
jaxon000
But someone from an outside perspective is bias in that they may not understand the effect of the situation on the individual.
brandnew94
No one is capable of removing their personal bias, and therefore cannot objectively "look at things from the outside". We try, but are human
alexcoldt
I'm a psychopath.
NexiKuro
That only removes your empathy towards the parties involved, doesn't solve personal bias/preference.
Catumi
Yea for the true objective view we will have to wait for Skynet.
iDrawStuff
This is why scientific papers are peer reviewed, so that one person's bias doesn't get in the way.
DownvotePolice
Yeah, but that doesn't prevent societal bias from getting in the way. Thats much of what we've learned in philosophy of science in 100 years
GraphicsInterchangeFormat
So that's all i'm gonna learn if I take that course? Sweet sign me up.
Leifinator
that quote is bullshit. that's a fact, not an opinion.
Bent0916
No, because an expert's opinion is still just an opinion and you need to personally investigate to make sure it's true.
neverknowsbest138
That's not how facts work. The truthfulness of facts doesn't depend on a person's investigation of them.
Bent0916
It's the Stoic way of doing things, and few people ever disagree with it. Unless you're morons that think the quote is about dissing 1+1=2.
neverknowsbest138
That's not a moronic thing to assume the quote is about when the image implies quantifiable fact, not philosophy.
Bent0916
Likewise, Hitler's words were not all wrong because he was Hitler. When you hear a fact from someone else, treat it with skepticism. [2]
Bent0916
The quote is slightly out of context. It's about working with people. Consider they may be wrong or biased, and consider their perspective.
Bent0916
Until you personally prove it yourself. And when you convey facts to others, give them the supporting details, not just the result. [3]
Bent0916
You're missing the point. The source is the question, not the fact. Einstein's word was not law because he was Einstein. [1]
flowseeker
Tell me more about how you've found objective truth.
Mergul
Why, I set conditions. Such as "1+1=2 in decimal math". That's an objectively true statement.
Bent0916
Show your proof.
MrBananaBeak
Don't be obtuse.
IHaveThePerfectPuzzleForYou
1 + 1 = 2.
Ivesaidtoomuchalready
Unless it's 1 person + 1 person which could end up with 3 people
IHaveThePerfectPuzzleForYou
"Could" isn't "is", methinks. If a baby is born, it's actually 1 + 1 + 1.
Ivesaidtoomuchalready
I suppose that's just how you see the equation... Like an opinion... Or something I don't know I was just making a joke
neverknowsbest138
The top image suggests people have different truths, when in reality there is only one truth: they are both wrong, it's an optical illusion.
CatrionaShadowleaf
How did you miss that beautiful opportunity to say "There is no spoon"?
ElTigreChang
I think it's more of an impossible object.
pacmanrockshok
I guess I've always viewed truth as a Schrödinger's cat situation. There's only one truth out there but since we (1/2)
pacmanrockshok
don't know, we can't say for sure that what anyone feels if "their truth" is wrong (2/2)
neverknowsbest138
I agree that applies with philosophy and values, but not with quantifiable fact.
pacmanrockshok
Give me an example
MrBananaBeak
Matter is made of atoms. The speed of light. 2+2=4. E=mc^2. Take your pick.
neverknowsbest138
The laws of physics.
MrBananaBeak
#1 no fuck that noise. This is the kind of bullshit that lets people get away with saying "well it's my opinion" as though it can't be wrong
nmeunier
I agree.
HisDudness
They're both wrong. There is two boards. If you look closely there are only two full rectangles.
WellWornFleshlight
Yes, that's right-opinion (true) and wrong-opinion (not-true) @volatiley
drbabaloo
Its not 3 or 4. Its one. Fact.
cabacale
It's actually a digitation of a drawing.
MrBananaBeak
It CAN be wrong. Opinions can be objectively falsifiable. If your opinion is that the earth is 6,000 years old, your opinion is wrong.
ISmellManFlesh
Fucking thank you, I've been watching a lot of Richard Dawkins vs creationists lately, frustrating as fuck.
smd34
Did you watch Richard Dawkins vs Wendy Wright? :D
ISmellManFlesh
Holy shit don't even get me started, I watched the whole thing whilst screaming at my screen
smd34
"But where is he evidence!" lol
HisDudness
Don't watch the Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm debate. This gif sums it up well:
LuckyICantSeeFarWithThisLeg
You've missed the point of the image.
MrBananaBeak
I get the point. I disagree with it.
LuckyICantSeeFarWithThisLeg
You don't get it. It's a matter of perspective not opinion.
MrBananaBeak
I get what you're saying. I do. I just think it's wrong. Quantifiable fact is not subject to one's opinion of it.
LuckyICantSeeFarWithThisLeg
Quantifiable fact, whatever that means, can't be fully understood or even explored if people's perspectives vary.
Sheepyhead
Everything we perceive, we perceive through our senses. Senses are subjective and can be tricked.
CitizenDickbag
Empiric testing removes the subjectivity, and can establish objective fact. Claiming there's no such thing as facts is solipsistic bullshit.
Sheepyhead
Empiric testing is still an incomplete model, limited by our perception. We still have to perceive the result
CitizenDickbag
This is the very definition of solipsistic nonsense. Sufficient date points remove the subjectivity of perception.
CitizenDickbag
*data
Sheepyhead
With enough testing we make progress towards a model of the truth, we cannot observe truth directly in any manner.
RexLion
He means you can't directly perceive reality, you do so from a certain perspective, through preconceptions.
MrBananaBeak
And he's wrong, because you most certainly can. Because science.
McDankMeister
Everything you see is filtered through your senses. You could be a "brain in a vat" and science would still function w/o being able to tell.
MrBananaBeak
This doesn't render observations unobjective, just adds variables that must be accounted for.
foreverneverreallyuncaring
Until you can directly observe the universe without using either your eyes or your brain, then all of your observations are subjective.
MrBananaBeak
I disagree. The entire foundation of our understanding of science is the drawing of conclusions based on objective observations.
everythingallatonce
Those observations have to be reproducible, yeah? That's because one person's perception could be distorted in some way or another.