what chatGPT is actually perfect for, instead of browsing the web
Although the graph is fliped when there's big hand rising in the sky.
You're right, it's probably not right way ro put it, it's not The truth in the philosophical sens.
Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.
However i don't think science is just about facts, it's also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That's what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.
So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.
That's why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don't know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it's true if there is enough evidence.
However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can't never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.
(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)
...
For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in in earth's frame of reference.
(Of course Greek's model were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)
What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.
But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn't actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy's idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.
It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.
(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)
Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn't science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That's an important distinction in most context...
Sometimes asking the right question is the hard part
Only if we don't protect mike
T is for Tired as fuck.
Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.
What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.
Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.
So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.
Believing isn't just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.
I don't think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that's contradictory.
As for moral, i didn't explicitly say it's science, because it isn't, it's philosophy. But scientists that don't want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.
Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.
Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it's application always had concerned about morals.
P.S. I don't have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn't a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.
They do overlap in their goals.
God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that's not based on God.
Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.
Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That's very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.
And atheists aren't all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they're not fundamentalist.
Well i've never really done AoC or test alike myself. So i don't know the difficulty or amount of time you should spend.
To me if you have ideas but just not elegant ones, you could always do them. Despite being wrong or ugly they'll still teach you something, especially if they're complex.
But if the idea gets too hard to do, to time consuming for your little time, or if you're really stuck, you can look at the solution.
Just remember that a solution isn't a great way to learn, at best it will teach you what you need to learn more about.
I get that, went through it myself and i've known plenty of people in that case.
What got me into programming is learning c++ to make games. I started the summer after high school when i didn't have any work left.
But my programming skills became useful for my job though. If it's not for you I get you would rather look for a job.
Good luck with your work my friend.
Especially for anything tech related, don't wait for a school to teach you, you'll have way more fun and learn so much more by yourself.
At least until college, then it depends...
The problem is there is no edge on that coin.
You can't really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.
One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.
(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one...)
But you sure won't make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It's too involving, we're bound to be obnoxious.
The turn signal to turn left looks like an arrow pointing to the right.
Income can't be irrelevant, you do need to provide for that child. Only if poor people didn't have a problem to do so would it be irrelevant.
If a woman abort because she really doesn't want the financial trouble, it's not wrong. Furthermore, having the right to choose means she could even have bad reasons without it being wrong.
Now if you ask me, the meme isn't really about the choice itself. Poor people often choose to have a kid regardless, most women are wise enough to know it's worth it. I think the real problem is how harder it is for them to take that choice.
NSFW Removed
What does this meme even mean ?
Jump
That's racial fetishes. Asian women fetishizing on white guys.
I've seen a lot of that in porn, it's usually men's perspective, but here it's women's. If you wanna see what i mean "blacked" or it's opposite "bleached" are the keyword for black/white racial fetishes.
To me this meme and everything like this is to far and an unhealthy way of fetishizing over a race. It's not just liking a race wich is fine, but putting it above others.
The choice is not yours so you can't say what it should or shouldn't be based on.
So what is the possibility you meant by "kneeling to religion" ?
What would be another reason? What i'm saying is religion isn't a reason, honoring the deads is.
Is there something else, maybe i didn't understand what you meant?
Edit : Yes in this particular case it's a soldier on the grave of its brother in arms who died at war. Not sure who the artist is but the meaning is pretty clear, stand for America and honor the soldiers that fought for it in war.
And all of them are reasons to kneel for, religion itself isn't a reason, religion gives you a reason.
That's probably the most useful way we can use language models.
But i do think there is also a use for finding key information (like a name) way quicker without the need to use keywords as we do in browsers.
Then it make any research using that information extremely easy if you got the keyword, and if that's the goal you also will confirm the validity of the answer in your process...
P.S. The first time i used chatGPT this way was very conclusive. I was looking for a philosophical point of view but didn't know at all if it even had a name, it gave it to me extremely quickly from just few lines of explaining (ontic structural realism for anyone interested).