anon doesn't know what formal logic is
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
127 points (97.7% liked)
Greentext
7618 readers
796 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well there is an entire field of philosophy called the "philosophy of science" which tries to determine the ideal way we should conduct science so it's an iterative process. Issue with philosophy (and science but more complicated) is that they are simply ideas but many take them as gospel.
Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing/growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not "just philosophy" like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.
I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it's impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It's also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.
newb here but is that just epistemology and hermeneutics?
Sadly, I'm a psychologist and not an expert in scientific philosophy. The topic is interesting but I haven't deeply read into it so sadly can't help.
thanks for the reply!
Fake: science isn't based on science. Isn't even real.
Gay: science comes from philosophy. Philosophy comes from the ancient greeks...
a priori mothafuckaz!