You must log in or register to comment.
Aaking the important questions
Every time I see this meme, I get progressively closer to understanding what they want to solve
Philosophy > science
Fight me
Science is philosophy. Somewhere along the way people seem to have forgotten that
Here’s a fun game:
Pick any Wikipedia article. Click the first link. Keep clicking the first link. Eventually you’ll end up at Philosophy and forever be in a loop going back to Philosophy.
Turns out conscious thinking and applying logical rigor is the basis for everything we perceive.
I’m trying this out.
Here’s the results: Shadow King (Marvel character): success after about 10 links
Ernest Shackleton (article of the day): 10 clicks
Wikipedia (the article): 4 clicks
Church of the Holy Mother of God, Bolshiye Saly: 14 clicks
James Loren Martin: 24 clicks
Annette Ziegler: 14 clicks
Almost all of them went through Philosophy of Science or Philosophy of Art. Seems like a pretty reliable rule.
Thank you for your service o7
I found an exception:
Starting from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English: Help:IPA/English > Alphabet > Letter (alphabet) > Symbol > Sign (semiotics) > Semiotics > Help:IPA/English
If you don’t think the IPA link counts as “the first link”, then
Starting from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language: Japanese language > Japonic languages > Japanese language
will also cause a loop.
The Help: namespace is not articles tho.
If you don’t count link that leads to help, then Japanese language will lead to a loop of only 2 clicks.
See the original post.
Excellent! Well played.
wouldn’t count that stuff in the parenthesis, as it’s just showing the translation of “japonic lanuages” and then the transliteration of that translation. Sometimes they’ll have pronunciation or whatever in parentheses, and that shouldn’t count for the same reason.
If instead of clicking on “japanese” again, you had clicked on “language family”, you’d get all the way to philosophy in 8 or 9 clicks (i lost count and i’m too lazy to fix it).
Apparently, there is a wikipedia article about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
I really wish this article wouldn’t link to philosophy, but it does…
Started off at the page for Ham, and yep, it ended up on philosophy.
There seem to be a couple of loops where you always end up circling between the same through pages
if you click the second link instead when you encounter a loop, it fixes it, though.
Yeah. For example, Strongman gives a 2 page loop.
If this is true, then every wikipedia page will eventually lead to wikipedia of Greek, because the philosophy page leads to greek.
Hence, Greek best country confirmed by wikipedia?!
deleted by creator
You know what I mean, brother. There’s a huge scope of difference between applied sciences and natural philosophy. Our technological advancements fail to resolve fundamental questions about the human condition. Scientists rarely study epistemology or philosophy in order to attain our degrees and I think it shows in the public trend toward scientism.
Scientism is so pervasive and so ridiculous. For example there’s people who say magic isn’t real because science can explain it. No shit science can explain it, that’s the point of science. It’s people defining science in opposition to magic based on cultural values instead of actually knowing what science is. https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/tautological-denial-of-magic-0e311ca94c2a
Lol, I love when the woo community can’t argue in good faith, so have to artificially drag science to their level by calling it “scientism”.
Magic isn’t real because you can’t prove it’s real, and science isn’t opposed to magic, because magic isn’t on the playing board.
I’m a degree-holding job-working scientist and I love science. I also love magic. Magic can be proven. Scientists have published hundreds of papers on the powerful placebo effect, also known as magic. Don’t tell me you’re going to deny the existence of the placebo effect?
Scientism is the dogmatic belief that empirical science is the only source of knowledge. It’s not arguing in bad faith to say that this is a dangerously flawed ideology.
The inconvenient truth about scientific research is that 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. Information requires a metaphysical framework in order to be interpreted in way that makes sense.
Lacking a philosophical foundation, scientism produces dangerous results, like when Hitler and his ilk explicitly referred to Darwinism as their justification for the Holocaust.
Interesting read. I’m familiar with the Arthur C Clarke quote…
