Is he right?
>>12745439completely vacuous statement by some no-name stoner on twitter. Really /sci/-worthy.
>>12745456MC Hammer isn't a no-name though
Why are so many people ignorant of the origin of the natural scientific method these days?Btw pls ban all twitter posters.
Why do people keep making "muh philosophy" threads? They're all fucking dreadful. >>>/lit/
>>1274543999% of philosophy majors are brainlets that couldn't cut it in STEM. These are the kind of people saying shit like >"muh philosophy is the purest science" to cope
>>12745740No body in phil says that. You are loser that barely talks to anyone.
>>12745751>math>pureYeah, okay, continue to ignore the pile falsified theories in the corner.
>>12745807seething ""philosophy"" brainlet
>>12745439procedural generation belongs on /g/
>>12745751This picture is unironically true
>>12745807You missed the joke.Epistemological philosophers holding up the universe.
>>12745439His distaste for science is cringe, but his distaste for blind followers and for scientists is 100% true. You shouldn't be treating textbooks like bibles. If anything, you should be trying to falsify as much of it as you can.
>>12746083Epistemological philosophers are God. Nihilists are Buddha, though
>>12745439>Is he right?no. the correct spelling is 'cite', not 'site'. after that there is no redemption.