Ever heard of this guy called Descartes? He basically wrote the script for this movie, The Matrix, a few hundred years before they started shooting it.
TLDR: Science only exists because philosophers laid out the framework for science. The entire concept of the scientific method was designed and refined by philosophers, the whole concept of science was created by philosophers. The dangers and risks of science were identified by philosophers. It is the duty of the scientist to gather knowledge, it is the duty of the philosopher to question science.
Science runs because philosophy walked.
Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form a basis on which science may be grounded. Logical positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized.
Francis Bacon (no direct relation to Roger Bacon, who lived 300 years earlier) was a seminal figure in philosophy of science at the time of the Scientific Revolution. In his work Novum Organum (1620)—an allusion to Aristotle’s Organon—Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism. Bacon’s method relied on experimental histories to eliminate alternative theories. In 1637, René Descartes established** a new framework for grounding scientific knowledge in his treatise, Discourse on Method, advocating the central role of reason as opposed to sensory experience.** By contrast, in 1713, the 2nd edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica argued that “… hypotheses … have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy[,] propositions are deduced from the phenomena and rendered general by induction.” This passage influenced a “later generation of philosophically-inclined readers to pronounce a ban on causal hypotheses in natural philosophy”. In particular, later in the 18th century, David Hume would famously articulate skepticism about the ability of science to determine causality and gave a definitive formulation of the problem of induction, though both theses would be contested by the end of the 18th century by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. In 19th century Auguste Comte made a major contribution to the theory of science. The 19th century writings of John Stuart Mill are also considered important in the formation of current conceptions of the scientific method, as well as anticipating later accounts of scientific explanation.
Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Amongst its central questions are the difference between science and non-science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose and meaning of science as a human endeavour. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of scientific practice, and overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, logic, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and the concept of truth. Philosophy of science is both a theoretical and empirical discipline, relying on philosophical theorising as well as meta-studies of scientific practice.
The most essential activity in science is observation. Consensus on the facts is the most essential thing.
As a bonus, you can propose explanations. The only acceptable ideas are those that agree with observation.
A “good” scientific idea is one that not only agrees with known facts but also predicts facts not yet known. That way you can “test” the idea to get a stronger sense of how useful it is. Most ideas are not even valid, never-mind good.
So the most important aspect of science is to test ideas against observation. But where do the ideas come from?
Philosophy is the way we try to assign (semantic) meaning to science/scientific observations.
Does the universe really exist outside of our minds? Is the position of matter actually the position we view it at? What is consciousness? I mean it depends on what you mean by existing, or being in a state, or consciousness. When you break language down far enough it becomes clear that it’s not objective, and it’s entirely suited to each person’s unique subjective understanding and interpretation with the context. Language is definitions all the way down. It doesn’t make sense to use human language to describe anything objectively, yet we try anyways.
At least, that’s how I feel about philosophy as a linguist and someone who really likes theoretical universe stuff.
You assume that those in power want the problem to be fixed. The republicans actively fight making voting a holiday (going as far as saying that dems pushing for it are trying to manipulate elections) and have criminalized giving people stuck in lines for hours (again, as intended) food or water. And since our system was designed by and for wealthly land/slave holders, its not designed to work for the will of the people.
The fact that something like a Gameboy advance sp would be considered retro at this point when it was something I remember wanting a lot growing up still boggles my mind. Still don’t know how I should feel about that.
Personally, I consider the cutoff point between Retro and Modern as being when the sixth generation (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast) ended and the seventh (PS3, X360, Wii) began.
I guess I’m a bit weird in this regard, because I did grow up with sixth gen games (I never had a GBA, but I did dabble with GBA emulation at the time) and thus should probably also feel the same way you do, but I remained quite fond of them even as a lot of people moved on to newer consoles and no longer shared my interests. I guess I had an easier time labeling them as retro because it was easier to justify me still liking them as opposed to “being stuck behind the times” or “being too poor to afford the newer games/consoles” like people used to say to me.
Like… yeah, I was too poor to afford the newer stuff, but that wasn’t the ONLY reason I liked the older games. I just thought they were neat and had sentimental value to me.
Well, it seems to be considered retro gaming as soon as the console (or Game in case of PC) is discontinued. So the Xbox(the one older than the one out now, which I don’t know how they are called, because xbox names are strange), PS4, wii u and the 3ds are already retro game consoles per that definition.
That’s a fair assessment, though I personally believe there should be a distinction between “previous generation” and “retro”. When the PS3 was a current-gen console, the PS2 and PS1 weren’t really seen as retro, just old and outdated.
Then again, I guess it’s a distinction without much of a difference. ^^"
So, all consoles that were used in the timeframe of 20 years starting between 1995 and 2005 🤪 Which consoles are those, and does this imply that the earliest consoles are now not retro anymore? Are they now “ancient consoles”? Is then ancientgaming? 🤔😆
Super Smash Bro’s Ultimate is still the premier Couch Co-Op game for my circle of friends. We also play the JackBox party games and occasionally Mario Party.
I genuinely don’t know what options are even available outside of Nintendo’s fence anymore.
Edit: My reading comprehension is in the garbage today. Baldurs Gate 3 and It Takes Two.
They also know precisely how much we owe in taxes, but instead of telling us and we pay it, they allowed a multi billion dollar industry to pop up around it and dictate tax law.
Not an US citizen. And in my country tax returns are certainly easier than the US. And our country also have a system in which people below certain money can just go to the tax agency and a government employee will do your tax return for you. But it cannot be fully automated, as the government doesn’t actually know 100% what do you own.
When they send you letters after asking for things is for you to give them paper documentation on why you deducted some things, or because they are inspecting some things a your deduction raised a flag. But it’s not like they just know precisely how much everyone should pay. If it were that easy tax returns would not be a thing as it is in most of the world.
They know my tax liability based on the income reported to the IRS by my employer - but you’re right that something they don’t necessarily know is the variety of valid deductions you might be eligible to take. Part of the process of filing is also calculating your tax liability though - and that part of it they know precisely and rather than TELLING you, you’re expected to determine your own liability and heaven help you if it’s wrong.
Where I live its true that that part of the tax refund is already filled by our IRS equivalent. We have to fill the income that they don’t know about, and our deductions, which can be quite complex.
the american authorities don’t want everyone to vote so they require registrations for each election cycle and make doing so, as well as retaining that status until election day, as legally difficult as possible for the ones that they don’t want voting. they also take extra steps to make the act of voting itself as legally difficult as possible for those that they don’t want to voting as well.
the people who they don’t want voting are majority of registered voters so to further minimize their voting power; our authorities gerrymander political districts so that the people who they DO want voting have an artificially oversized voting impact compared to those who they DON’T want voting. nearly all of the conservative states use this approach with texas being one of the worse examples per the 2020 census.
kbin.life
Oldest