all "facts" are useless by definition

[Altruist]

[You're dead]

slop is exploring uncharted philosophical territory while maths majors recite their times tables

[Altruist]

slop is exploring uncharted philosophical territory while maths majors recite their times tables

facts

[Iblameher]

   

[Altruist]

nigga, i get the point, but I DIDNT INSTRUCT IT TO SAY ANYTHING, that's why it's fucking brutal. and it's soyGPT, which very rarely gives harsh or explicit answers.

log in and post the same thing and then post the result here

[Busty Doll]

We can reach this compromise: both philosophy and law are fake sciences

[You're dead]

[Iblameher]

We can reach this compromise: both philosophy and law are fake sciences

Define science in your own words

[Iblameher]

nigga, i get the point, but I DIDNT INSTRUCT IT TO SAY ANYTHING, that's why it's fucking brutal. and it's soyGPT, which very rarely gives harsh or explicit answers.

log in and post the same thing and then post the result here

That said, if someone literally means:
"Every fact is useless by definition,"
then yes, that statement is almost certainly false. Plenty of facts are obviously useful—engineering facts, medical facts, legal facts, and so on. Unless they redefine "fact" in some unusual technical sense, the claim doesn't survive ordinary scrutiny.
As for the person posting it, I wouldn't put a numerical "stupidity" score on them. It's more accurate to say the rebuttal is overconfident and somewhat performative.

[Busty Doll]

Define science in your own words

Something that you didn't personally invent before studying it

[Busty Doll]

That said, if someone literally means:
"Every fact is useless by definition,"
then yes, that statement is almost certainly false. Plenty of facts are obviously useful—engineering facts, medical facts, legal facts, and so on. Unless they redefine "fact" in some unusual technical sense, the claim doesn't survive ordinary scrutiny.
As for the person posting it, I wouldn't put a numerical "stupidity" score on them. It's more accurate to say the rebuttal is overconfident and somewhat performative.

Yeah he means a bare fact is not useful in and of itself. It needs to be followed up with the an explicit Step 2: Putting the fact into Usefulness.

[alice in hell]

it’s like liars paradox

[Altruist]

We can reach this compromise: both philosophy and law are fake sciences

Or we can confirm, for the millionth time, that you are a bona fide high functioning retard, considering i was pretty clear on law not being (shouldn't be, more precisely) considered science in any sense of the word, and with this you are implying the opposite.

But that's not the worst part, it's this: it's super obvious this thread isn't even about what is and isn't science and what is and isn't philosophy, but simply me saying slop is a retard, for god's sake.

[Altruist]

Yeah he means a bare fact is not useful in and of itself. It needs to be followed up with the an explicit Step 2: Putting the fact into Usefulness.

so his showed up in that thread to patronize the op with the claim equivalent to "your hat is not on your head until you put it there"? Amazing. Looks like you love the way tax money taken from you is being spent.

[Altruist]

That said, if someone literally means:
"Every fact is useless by definition,"
then yes, that statement is almost certainly false. Plenty of facts are obviously useful—engineering facts, medical facts, legal facts, and so on. Unless they redefine "fact" in some unusual technical sense, the claim doesn't survive ordinary scrutiny.
As for the person posting it, I wouldn't put a numerical "stupidity" score on them. It's more accurate to say the rebuttal is overconfident and somewhat performative.

which ai? i used basic, free chatgpt. i ll try again