/lit/ - Literature

>>7526635
>I'd suppose that Epicureanism is becoming more mainstream amongst the typical middle to upper class American, i.e. life is seemingly meaningless so you should maximize feeling good, whether this means obtaining your "potential" or just materialistic hedonism, while balancing it with sacrifice to other people or to temporary feeling bad.
this seems more hedonism.

and hedonism is the praxis of the doctrine from the liberal/libertarian.

>>7525675
because in scientism, there is
-no perfect consensus on anything, not even in pure math [which logic to choose, what field is more important]

-the research is geared towards what scientist like and avoids what scientist dislike [say if you want to do research on perpetual movement, you cannot]

-science is hardly communicable [most people do not care, the few people who care cannot into science, and then the few who remain always fight on what model is right and what model is wrong]

-scientist and general population rely on faith towards other scientists who claim that such or such part of such or such model is ''verified'' in their laboratory

-then scientists say ''if we can claim that it hold a few times in our laboratory, then it hold everywhere, every time]

-there is no consensus on how to rank models/theories
which means that there is no consensus on what is true [in positing that science gives what is true]

-plenty of scientists say that predictions matter, but scientists cannot say why why predictions matter.
[and predictions are always flawed by their proper essence: to stem from an inductive process over initial abstractions[concepts] which are generalized through space and time]

they say that this question is for ''philosophers'' [which they despise, because philosophy does not give ''computers, cars, more pleasures, less pains''.
why do scientists get up in the morning ? nobody knows
why must we finance their activities ? nobody knows
yet scientists do not hesitate to ask for money again and again.


to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.

-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.

-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as you said: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.

-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.

-and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters'', there is no answer again.