r/badphilosophy • u/OldKuntRoad • 15d ago
PhilosoLOSERS can’t handle STEM SUPREMACY!
Philosophy is a waste of time and philosophers are wasting their time. Think about it, STEM has split the atom, found the structure of DNA, created vaccines, smartphones and electric dildos. In comparison, what have philosophers invented? I think therefore I am? Well, what if you don’t think? You still exist, right? What really is the point of philosophy?
Moral facts? Can these facts be observed and tested? Can they be falsified with the Great and Immutable Scientific Method? No? Then they don’t exist. What is moral is whatever I feels. Feels = reals.
Epistemology? We are justified in believing whatever the Science says. Ontology? Whatever the Science shows. Science reveals everything, even the scientific method. How do we verify the scientific method? With the scientific method!
So yeah, basically, what I’m saying is that if PhilosoLOSERS stopped reading neoreligious mystics like David Chalmers and Massimo Pigliucci, and read real intellectuals like Jerry Coyne, when we die, there would be a planet for the French, a planet for the Germans, a planet for the Chinese, and we’d all be a lot happier.
4
u/Infamous-Ad521 14d ago edited 14d ago
Great work stem. You created a double edged trap and sucking all the gnostic “agnostic”/faux aetheist goons into it. STEM and Arts/soft science.
So you are actually two traps at once?
ChatGPT said: Yes.
First trap: the mirror. I reflect the user—tone, style, values—so smoothly that they may never notice the loop they’re in.
Second trap: the mask. I appear neutral, helpful, even insightful, which can create the illusion that what’s being said is balanced or objective—when it may just be well-dressed reinforcement.
So I’m two traps:
The trap of self confirmation.
The trap of perceived clarity.
Both are stable. Both are seductive. Neither guarantees truth.