Does this destroy 90% of writers, pseuds and philosphers?

Does this destroy 90% of writers, pseuds and philosphers?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only a newfag who never read philosophy would say something like this.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      only a fucking pseud would say that

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, he's right.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          only a fucking samefag would say that

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Delusional

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He was talking about physics you mongoloid

      /thread

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If your idea requires multiple different frameworks to serve as a foundation to be kept up, it's probably a house of cards.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing complex can be explained with simplicity. It can ne dumbed down but not explained.
    I don't think Einstein explained relativity intelligibly either.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What could be more simple than the equations that define it? Not meming it’s really simple

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It really isn't

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It really is. time on two objects is related to the speed and the speed of light. It’s really really simple.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, he's right. It is simple.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He's right.

      Bullshit. If you can't explain it, you just don't get it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nothing complex can be explained with simplicity
      It's the opposite. The most complex ideas can be explained very simply, for that is part of their complexity. It's the convoluted (read: retarded) ideas that can't be.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nothing complex can be explained with simplicity. It can ne dumbed down but not explained.
      I cannot think of a more wrong statement than that. Man, nuLULZ is so comically stupid, it's not even funny.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Man, nuLULZ is so comically stupid, it's not even funny
        LULZ has always been stupid. Since its inception

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can explain it simply but you are not going to understand it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      this, the reason why philosphers write entire books over a single topic is so that the reader can fully understand why the writer thinks in a certain way, if Nietzsche just said "le life bad but you should live anyways" no one would give a shit

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Define simply, and then explain why your definition of simply bears the same authority as Einstein's quote there.
    This should be simple enough.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    explain general relativty simply please

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      heavy objects bend gravity

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Heavy object bend space-time.

        It destroys Hegel, that's for sure

        Hegel is trying to understand everything, so he has a tough mission. Anyhow, his lecture notes are clear enough.

        best way to btfo pseuds and philosophers (same thing) is to simply point out that none of their nonsense has any predictive power
        simple as
        philosophers put in their place, along gypsy fortune tellers, based on the merits of their predictive power

        >What are logical truths?
        A lot of work is done using mathematical reasoning, not testing observations against predictions.

        Also, plenty of science isn't predictive. Shit gets falsified all the time and then people just generate ad hoc reasons about why they aren't wrong. Intro to economics textbooks still almost all teach that productivity growth is what drives wage growth despite the two being observably decoupled for 50 fucking years now. They also claim that the velocity of money is static despite that being falsified by 30 years of data.

        Much of the research on brain imaging is unfalsifiable. See also, pic related.

        Well akshually, read Popper.

        Popper is bullshit. No observation can falsify a theory because you can always generate another plausible reason for why X is happening. Popper isn't how science is actually done. Newton's theory was falsified quickly by the planets orbits. Did we throw it out? No, we posited an unseen planet, and lo and behold we found it. Saying something isn't science because it isn't falsifiable is bullshit, it's not how science is actually done, it's just how the very brief intro to philosophy for scientists is framed.

        It leads to people calling all of quantum foundations unfalsifiable. But Mach famously thought atoms were unfalsifiable. Quarks were also called pseudoscience because they were unfalsifiable. Now people are upset about parallel universes, even though wave function collapse is totally as hoc itself and also not falsifiable.

        Anyhow, if you want to focus of predictability, go Bayesian.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't conflate Popper's criterion for evaluating theories for a scientific methodology. Also, Newton's theory wasn't falsified by the planets' orbits.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Falsifiability is only useful for determining if something is scientific. It’s a reaction to verificationism which holds that only things that can be proven true or false are meaningful. Falsifiability rejects this as flawed and simplified it simply to ‘if something can be shown to be false it’s a scientific statement’.

          It’s not about Newton’s theory being false it’s the idea that one could design an experiment and reveal if it was false or not that determines if it’s scientific. Of course newtons physic can be rested by charting planetary orbit and comparing them to newtons laws predictive abiltiy to see if it’s true or false. Or dropping a feather on the moon or whatever.

          And ALL that falsifiability says is that it is scientific. It doesn’t say true. It doesn’t say false. It doesn’t say meaningfulness. It doesn’t assign a value.

          Nu-atheists use and abuse it to bash Christianity but this is in correct in every form I’ve seen it unless they’re saying Christianity isn’t scientific and therefore false, but that’s also a weird path to follow becuase many things go out the window with Christianity

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gravity is not something being bent, it's the effect you get from bending space-time

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is a similar principle in writing: don't use 12 words to say what you can say in 6 words. Meaning: beware of being too verbose.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      They're narratives, not scientific papers.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        There is a maxim in law that states: 'Almost every statement can be written with fewer words without loss of clarity.'

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Except that's not true, not everything can be explained simply. Writing is writing and the rules of writing don't mean that you have to explain everything as simply as possible.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >grug right

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It destroys Hegel, that's for sure

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      True, but he's all too easy a target.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the problem with empiricist, nothing is simple if you examine it deeply enough. I think quantum mechanics has proved that the more you examine something the more complicated things get.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    best way to btfo pseuds and philosophers (same thing) is to simply point out that none of their nonsense has any predictive power
    simple as
    philosophers put in their place, along gypsy fortune tellers, based on the merits of their predictive power

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based. Also

      >garbage in, garbage out
      Faulty input yields faulty results. Careful whether your information is accurate

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well akshually, read Popper.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      the goal of philosophy is rarely to predict future events, and to do so requires omniscience.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    > space is a thing because I can think of it as a liquid, which it isnt of course, but since the analogy superficially works then its definitely what it is.
    Sad!

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it will if you say it will and it will not if you do not

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You must be able to both explain something simply, and explain something in-depth.
    For example, if I was telling somebody what an animal is, it'd take about a sentence at most. But if somebody wanted to REALLY know about animals, it could take thousands of pages to explain taxonomy, anatomy, adaption, ecosystems etc.

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2022
    >Uncritically taking quotes as indisputable fact because some dead celeb said it
    shiggy diggy

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no cap in the year of 2022
      >using goofy ahh dead normie ahh memes like shiggy diggy like a yt boomer
      Hopin y'all don't be doin this frfr though

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      taking quotes as indisputable fact because some dead celeb said it
      >implying

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >my intellectual horizons extend to the limit of my ability to comprehend

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. Explaining it simply to the average joe is one thing. Going through a process of actually proving something through rigorous testing and logic is a completely different thing. It's because someone did a lot of very complicated legwork that someone may be able to explain that same thing into simple terms. People who use this as some kind of catch all argument against philosophy or whatever else are dumb. But then again it's just bait.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean I can say so many things simply but there are subjects and ideas that need deep back ground information so they can be appreciated. I have a better quote from Dr. Ironside, "Put the cookies on the bottom shelf so the kids can reach them."

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      One of the best image reactions I've ever seen on this site, even if I don't necessarily agree.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      but he can reach those grapes.....

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but he can reach those grapes.....
        Maybe that's the point...

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Actually, it self-immolates Einstein because it's a stupid quote, being, at best, half-truth.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is true only in the strict sense. It speaks to one's ability or inability to identify key ideas or arguments in a larger work and summarize it with minimal use of specialized terminology. Of course an explanation like that van never be adequate.

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    i think it probably goes another step toward undermining Einstien

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you can't explain it simply, it's probably israeli sophistry.

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it does

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    einsteins razor..i kneel

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This quote is being taken too literally. If you can explain a complex idea simply and with the same fidelity and depth as the complex idea, then your idea is actually simple. If you have a deep enough understanding of a simple idea then you can translate it into a simplified form which will not be equivalent to the complex idea (some understanding is lost) but has the same general idea presented in a way for your chosen audience. All philosophers should be able to give a layman's summary - not that that would necessarily be a good thing

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *