Empiricism vs Rationalism: What Do We Really Know When It Comes To Fitness? youtube.com/watch?v=qT3KP…
πŸ‘︎ 38
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/f2p
πŸ“…︎ Mar 09 2021
🚨︎ report
Why is there a culture of non-empiricism / anecdata / broscience on this subreddit? There are also innovative ideas and cutting edge science-backed recommendations. Is this Eternal September in action? A bit of extra help needed for the mod team? Have the grown-ups already moved elsewhere?

I am somewhat newer to this subreddit but it seems to be a strange mix of great information about stuff I wouldn't have heard about yet in the mainstream and then the unfortunate mix in of new age mysticism, people getting their information about sexual health from youtube influencers, junk science, and 'I personally get X effect from Y compound so it doesn't work'/'I feel great when I do X therefore it's magic and everyone should do it'.

Thoughts? Can any long-time subscribers tell me if it's always been a low signal to noise ratio or if quality has declined over time as it has across most of Reddit?

Any ideas about what we can do to fix it?

Edit: to give an example of what I’m talking about:

people describing their personal experiments of n=1 without a clear understanding of what it means to isolate a variable let alone attempt to do so.

people entering into scientific conversation talking about Qi with a straight face without any acknowledgment that such a thing is more of a religious / spiritual construct than something that has been scrutinized in science (more power to you if you believe in it but it’s not currently useful in a scientific discussion). I guess I’m just surprised to see upvotes on this in a biology subreddit rather than a Buddhist one?

people making claims about libido, testosterone, and related areas that aren’t even questionable but scientifically founded but straight up depart into la la land. Not even doing the common bro science thing of citing the study on male sexual abstinence and the testosterone peak on day 7 without acknowledgment that in the very same study that measurement dropped back down to normal levels afterward (meaning longer than a week or two of male abstinence has no positive effect on test), but instead jumping into the unsubstantiated pseudo religious claims about vital force and some form of spiritual energy or reabsorption into the blood via semen retention.

πŸ‘︎ 92
πŸ“°︎ r/Biohackers
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/kinkyghost
πŸ“…︎ Feb 23 2021
🚨︎ report
What is the difference between empiricism and materialism

I was studying Karl Marx a few weeks ago and thought that with his preferred use of studies to back up his claims that he was an empiricist, but then I read another article on Marxist archived (this onehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling2.htm) whiched claimed to echo Marx's rejection of empiricism.

So that lead me here. What is the difference (if any) between empiricism and materialism

πŸ‘︎ 20
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Nermal12
πŸ“…︎ Mar 07 2021
🚨︎ report
Language usability and empiricism

Programming languages are, first and foremost, user interfaces. When one reads this subreddit, one seldom reads about usability tests, A/B tests or a body of knowledge around how one maximizes the efficacy of a language. Almost every language design decision seems to revolve around either personal preference or a hypothesis about efficacy which never gets formally tested.

If you are building your language on the basis of empirical usability, or -- even better -- researching how to do so, I'd be interested in hearing more.

πŸ‘︎ 24
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Smallpaul
πŸ“…︎ Feb 10 2021
🚨︎ report
Why isn’t empiricism an inconsistent way of knowing?

I’m not very smart, so bear with me. If I say β€œI will test whether or not this water is hot by using a thermometer,” how am I sure the thermometer is an accurate way to measure temperature? If we say, we know boiling water is hot and ice water is cold, and a thermometer reflects that, how can we be sure this is an appropriate test for the accuracy of the tool?

Is it essentially that we take our senses for granted, so whatever we sense is hot or cold is truly hot or cold, and we compare our thermometers to that? However, oftentimes we’re told to β€œdistrust” our senses in favor of objective/empirical evidence. So how does that make sense?

Sorry, I know it’s stupid. Anything helps :)

πŸ‘︎ 7
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/ferdous12345
πŸ“…︎ Mar 17 2021
🚨︎ report
The big guns of empiricism
πŸ‘︎ 93
πŸ“°︎ r/DankLeft
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Cyborgkropotkin
πŸ“…︎ Feb 13 2021
🚨︎ report
What is transcendental empiricism?
πŸ‘︎ 8
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/dopeaf101
πŸ“…︎ Mar 22 2021
🚨︎ report
Criticism of Lockean Empiricism

Does anyone know any sources online that offer some criticism towards lockean empiricism?

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/IGolzD
πŸ“…︎ Mar 12 2021
🚨︎ report
How did Kant synthesise Rationalism and Empiricism?

I can understand the Empirical part of Kant's ideas, but I do not see the synthesis with Rationalism. Was he a Rationalist simply because he believed the mind was a structure necessary for knowledge and interpretation?

πŸ‘︎ 6
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/josephd090
πŸ“…︎ Feb 10 2021
🚨︎ report
Process of Evolution; Less Eldritch Mysticism, More Scientific Empiricism
πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/custommagic
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/IVIaskerade
πŸ“…︎ Mar 09 2021
🚨︎ report
Why are so many people on Twitter against scientific empiricism? (please read before replying)

So over the past few years I’ve noticed a trend of anti-empiricism across certain Twitter subcultures. You may have witnessed it yourself: someone makes a claim, another person asks for a source for that claim, and person A mocks person B for being β€œlow IQ,” or for engaging in β€œReddit debate tactics.”

Truth be told I have a hard time understanding this reasoning. Sure, some people do overvalue the idea of sources or use a lack of sources as a cheap gotchaβ€”and these same people tend to ignore the validity of common source arguments. Not every claim need a study or a poll to be accepted: if I claimed that most people wouldn’t like to be punched in the face, for example, it would be ridiculous to ask me to prove this to you.

But at the same time, common source and common sense are often invoked by people making claims which require substantive evidenceβ€”in other words, they’re misused. To give an example, I once saw a thread on Twitter where people were mocking a transwoman for not β€œlooking male” because she had a square jaw and broad shoulders. When I pointed out that many transwomen are able to pass, the OP pivoted to talking about genitals, claiming β€œnobody in their right mind would think a trans vagina is a real vagina.”

I assume you would need to have seen a broad cross-section of neovaginas to be able to make this type of inference about the millions of post-op transwomen who live all over the world, so I asked him just how many he’d seen. Apparently this was a self-own! I was just supposed to trust the ad hoc claims of this person, regardless of the fact that he couldn’t tell me how he knew what he was saying was actually true.

This might just sound like petty griping (and maybe it is) but it’s honestly kind of staggering how much of this type of discourse I see these days. Wild claims like β€œtherapy is a scam” proliferate daily; ask for clinical data proving that therapy is ineffective or even point out that clinical data is a thing and you’ll be branded a Reddit midwit or whatever. It gets to the point where even the very idea of science is called into question: scientists often have their own political agendas, and this apparently means we can disregard any science we don’t like or which doesn’t suit our political bent. Crazy!

I’m not sure how much of this is just cliquey nonsense and how much of it is genuine anti-empiricism, but the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Anyway, I’m curious to learn what you all think. Thanks!

tl

... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/skeptic
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Feb 01 2021
🚨︎ report
A Treatise of Human Nature is considered by many to be David Hume's most important work and one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. The Treatise is a classic statement of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. madnessserial.com/mdash/a…
πŸ‘︎ 156
πŸ“°︎ r/FreeEBOOKS
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/sephbrand
πŸ“…︎ Dec 14 2020
🚨︎ report
Do inventors ever have brand new ideas, or do they just combine old ideas? or Can a blind person imagine what colours look like? In the sense of Empiricism and David Hume
πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ“…︎ Mar 12 2021
🚨︎ report
Musk-haters annihilated by empiricism and reason 😀😀😀😀
πŸ‘︎ 983
πŸ“°︎ r/EnoughMuskSpam
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/elon_musk_is_god_
πŸ“…︎ Nov 21 2020
🚨︎ report
Some thoughts and questions on objectivity, empiricism, psychoanalysis and the philosophy of science

I just wanted to brain dump some thoughts and questions I have around the relationship between science and critical theory, and see if anyone can help me out. I'm a complete n00b really when it comes to theory & philosophy so really happy to be told where I've gone wrong or be directed to texts that deal with some of the things I raise. Most of my views I'm about to lay out as well are based on gut feeling or instinct so again happy to be told where I'm biased or where I've got things completely wrong.

First of all let me state I am absolutely not some positivist stemlord hack. I think a lot of scientific "knowledge" and "facts" are definitely not above criticism or reproach, there is undoubtedly a lot of ideologically motivated and philosophically naive guff out there. And there are serious questions to be asked about how science functions as a social system- about how economic and sociological factors affect which research questions get asked and how they are framed, and how results are interpreted, especially in the more "soft" science realm. But I don't think it's helpful or useful to simply dismiss all scientific theories as a discourse serving power or whatever. Like I don't believe in capital T objective truth, but I do think certain claims can be "more" objective than others, we can obtain a nuanced best approximation of knowledge of reality. Are there any theorists or thinkers from the continental tradition who try and resurrect a useful role for science in this way?

This is what gets me about psychoanalysis sometimes as well. Like, I think I'm fairly comfortable with it as an interpretive or hermeneutical framework that exists outside of the realm of scientific inquiry, but at the same time I feel like it does at times make empirical claims that are open to being tested, and for the most part the evidence doesn't seem to stack up in it's favour that much. Like is there any actual evidence to suggest that dreams always have a meaningful interpretation? Or that the mirror stage is actually a developmental milestone in the life of an infant? I have no problem with criticising overly reductionist or scientistic "findings" in psychology or neuroscience so I'm not saying those fields are superior, but nor is psychoanalysis beyond reproach.

Sorry I know this is a bit of an ill-thought-out poorly structured brain dump but just trying to get a discussion started on some of these topics.

πŸ‘︎ 46
πŸ“°︎ r/CriticalTheory
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Sister_Ray_
πŸ“…︎ Dec 13 2020
🚨︎ report
The contradiction of Scrum: "founded in empiricism" yet reliant on estimation

Provocative title to spark conversation πŸ‘‡

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/agile
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/KurtiZ_TSW
πŸ“…︎ Jan 21 2021
🚨︎ report
Trump's Coronavirus Press Conference Was the Apotheosis of 40 Years of Republican Philosophy | The neglect of science, the rejection of empiricism, the deliberately cultivated incompetence within the institutions of government. esquire.com/news-politics…
πŸ‘︎ 25k
πŸ“°︎ r/politics
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Tremor-Christ
πŸ“…︎ Feb 27 2020
🚨︎ report
Book explaining the general concept of Science? Empiricism, theory, etc

I am trying to relearn all the sciences and want to start with science itself. Looking for a book that explains what science is and what the scientific method is. How stuff is tested, how a scientist think and so on!

Any recommendations would be helpful.

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/suggestmeabook
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Prince-Cola
πŸ“…︎ Jan 30 2021
🚨︎ report
Question regarding science, the philosophy of Empiricism, and Religion.

Recently I’ve been delving into studying philosophy of religion. As a Christian myself, I’ve been familiarizing myself with plenty of apologists in this vein. And, as not to simply slip into confirmation bias, I’ve also looked into plenty of atheist scholars and minds as well (the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Paulogia, CosmicSkeptic, and others).

As I’ve continued to do so, I’ve repeatedly run into the same wall, and while I’ve found some answers, I can never find them quite satisfactory. So I turn to all of you for assistance, if that’s all right!

As the title states, I’m attempting to reconcile religion with those that subscribe to not only a materialist worldview, but one step further, empiricism, sometimes known as scientism. The sort of Hume-Ian, Aron Ra-esque view that knowledge in any true sense of the word can only be attained by the scientific method al-la natural processes, and presupposes naturalism, materialism, etc., thereby invalidating religions (writ large) as a viable explanation for events and experiences.

What is your take on this? Have I characterized things properly, and if so, is there any hope of talking to empiricists about religion? Any ground rules that could be laid to find common ground?

Thanks in advance!

πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/theology
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/OverlyPlatonic
πŸ“…︎ Dec 26 2020
🚨︎ report
Constructivism, empiricism and realism aren’t competing in a zero-sum game – they are partial, fallible and abstract philosophical maps that need not be mutually exclusive. iai.tv/articles/mapping-t…
πŸ‘︎ 1k
πŸ“°︎ r/philosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/IAI_Admin
πŸ“…︎ Aug 18 2020
🚨︎ report
Dr #LiWenliang died because #CCP tried to shut him up. Later they mourned him, hailed him as a national hero. But old habits die hard, CCP is still jailing journalists for speaking the truth. Empiricism and Truth are threats to a tyrant, lose the illusion that CCP will ever change and democratize.
πŸ‘︎ 33
πŸ“°︎ r/FragrantHarbour
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/SleepingTiger888
πŸ“…︎ Dec 29 2020
🚨︎ report
Behold, non-sceptical empiricism!
πŸ‘︎ 130
πŸ“°︎ r/PhilosophyMemes
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/humanplayer2
πŸ“…︎ Oct 12 2020
🚨︎ report
Trying to get a historical reading of Rationalism vs Empiricism. Can someone please tell me in what order shall I read the following books?

Hello! I am a Philosophy undergraduate sophomore. I am asking because I am planning to lay down my readings that will prepare me for my thesis. I am not really sure yet what my topic will be. But I am certain that my focal will be Epistemology-Metaphysics because I really enjoyed reading "Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell.

First instinct tells me that I should read the books in chronological order, basing on the year of publication. But I figured that some of these texts were written a long time before publication. Thus, I do not think that I can do that. Anyway the list of texts that I aim to read are the following:

  1. Discourse on Method by Descartes
  2. Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes
  3. The Ethics by Baruch Spinoza
  4. Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz
  5. Monadology by Leibniz
  6. An Essay concerning Human Understanding by John Locke
  7. Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley
  8. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkeley
  9. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume
  10. A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Also, I will appreciate if you can recommend good secondary readings for these books.

Thank you for taking the time to read this! Means a lot to me!

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/SpartanGasp
πŸ“…︎ Dec 31 2020
🚨︎ report
The Punching Bag of Philosophical Society - Logical Empiricism youtu.be/GoTnJ9o273Y
πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/philosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Infinitisin
πŸ“…︎ Dec 31 2020
🚨︎ report
Noam Chomsky on Empiricism and Rationalism youtube.com/watch?v=ylIri…
πŸ‘︎ 15
πŸ“°︎ r/noamchomsky
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/freewilllibrary
πŸ“…︎ Dec 01 2020
🚨︎ report
On Quine's 2 Dogmas of Empiricism

It’s clear that we lack any precise account of male baldness in any terms, even interdefinable terms.

Is that sufficient reason to abandon the bald/non-bald distinction? Should we conclude that there’s no real difference between bald men like Quine and non-bald men like Jimi Hendrix?

πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/justagency
πŸ“…︎ Nov 17 2020
🚨︎ report
Philosophical traditions parallel to Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) within the British Isles

Were there any contemporaneous anti-empiricist movements within the British Isles? Something like a philosophical tradition parallel to Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Was there any attempt to appropriate the continental rationalist tradition within the British Isles and play it off against empiricism?

Any sources or points of entry would be highly appreciated.

Thank you.

πŸ‘︎ 3
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Shintuku1
πŸ“…︎ Nov 21 2020
🚨︎ report
A perceived link between conspiracy theories, religion, pseudoscience, and pop astrology: Why anti-empiricism is the common thread that unravels society

I would like to start by saying this is somewhat of a rant so forgive any long-windedness (I'll attempt to be concise.)

My personal level of frustration and dejection with the state of affairs is perhaps at an all-time high. Since SARS-CoV-2 emerged, the United States has been barraged with an insurmountable supply of misinformation. Just in my own extended network, I have seen people share lunatic conspiracy theories that tie George Soros, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Jefferey Epstein into one gigantic pre-WWII conspiracy to found a German drug company to distribute a vaccine meant to implant microchips into the body and bring about a biblical apocalypse. I am floored by the cognitive dissonance needed to even entertain such a possibility. The rise of Q-Annon takes imagined conspiracies to a whole-new level and has a shocking level of growing support since the pandemic began. I question whether this many people going down such a rabbit hole could possibly be redeemed in some sort of better future.

While a modest faith in religion, astrology, certain non-traditional medicine, or assorted spiritual beliefs may appear to harmless or even charming, I am increasingly concerned that these impulses are the very same ones that bring you *lizard people running sex trafficking rings out of a pizza joint on Mars*-level insanity. What these have in common is that they eschew evidence in favor of myth and/or comfort. I think this is human nature to be fair. However, there is line crossed when you evangelize your beliefs and spread them without regard for fact. For example, if I superstitiously fool myself into thinking that my day will go well based on series of unrelated events, that is a private matter and by no means would I express my beliefs as being fact-based, rather this would be a convenient short-term mechanism to enhance my mood.

I worry about the psyche of humanity and how it is not meant to withstand this buffet of bad information. It's like junk food to the brain. I'm afraid that the people who have rigorous defense systems against this type of nonsense are in the minority. I suspect there are more people with "soft beliefs" than there are people who rely on reasoning to understand the world around them. I can ascertain from the social nature of humans that you don't change this phenomenon by fact-checking bad information. Therefore, I'll pose a question to you all. What is to be done about this? I am leaning toward achieving the lifestyle of a he

... keep reading on reddit ➑

πŸ‘︎ 17
πŸ“°︎ r/atheism
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/thetuuthfairy
πŸ“…︎ Aug 28 2020
🚨︎ report
Noam Chomsky on Empiricism and Rationalism youtube.com/watch?v=ylIri…
πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/Esperaux
πŸ“…︎ Dec 02 2020
🚨︎ report
Noam Chomsky on Empiricism and Rationalism youtube.com/watch?v=ylIri…
πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/Anarchism
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/freewilllibrary
πŸ“…︎ Dec 01 2020
🚨︎ report
Yall need a video in here that stands up to empiricism better. And I found one for you. youtube.com/watch?v=bhxby…
πŸ‘︎ 2
πŸ“°︎ r/telekinesis
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/SzechuanElectron
πŸ“…︎ Sep 14 2020
🚨︎ report
What is the difference between positivism and empiricism?
πŸ‘︎ 5
πŸ“°︎ r/askphilosophy
πŸ’¬︎
πŸ‘€︎ u/_MeatPlow_
πŸ“…︎ Jan 10 2021
🚨︎ report

Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.