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.
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).
You know what I mean, brother. There’s a huge scope of difference between applied sciences and natural philosophy. Our technology advancement fails 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. medium.com/…/tautological-denial-of-magic-0e311ca…
explodIng_lIme@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Science is philosophy. Somewhere along the way people seem to have forgotten that
ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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.
turboshadowcool@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Thank you for your service o7
baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 year ago
I found a exemption:
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
Japanese language > Japonic languages
will also cause a loop.
veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The Help: namespace is not articles tho.
ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Excellent! Well played.
deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
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).
baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Apparently, there is a wikipedia article about this: …wikipedia.org/…/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
Wodge@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Started off at the page for Ham, and yep, it ended up on philosophy.
EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
There seem to be a couple of loops where you always end up circling between the same through pages
Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yeah. For example, Strongman gives a 2 page loop.
deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
if you click the second link instead when you encounter a loop, it fixes it, though.
baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 year ago
If this is true, then every wikipedia page will eventually lead to wikipedia of Greek. Hence, Greek best country confirmed by wikipedia?!
Haagel@lemmings.world 1 year ago
You know what I mean, brother. There’s a huge scope of difference between applied sciences and natural philosophy. Our technology advancement fails 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.
Grail@aussie.zone 1 year ago
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. medium.com/…/tautological-denial-of-magic-0e311ca…
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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”.
And 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.
Haagel@lemmings.world 1 year ago
Interesting read. I’m familiar with the Arthur C Clarke quote…