/lit/ - Literature

Why was this deleted? It's from a book.

"We must keep in mind that the exactness which the natural sciences have achieved, or are trying to achieve, no matter how far it is carried, refers only to the mechanical exactness of both the process and the subject of perception. Such exactness does not give us certainty beyond the certainty of facts found in repeatable experiences. Exactness in this sense is in fact correctness, but it is not truth, for it is meaningless to talk of truth where merely something mechanically repeatable has been ascertained. Truth is not identical with repeat ability; on the contrary, it is what absolutely cannot be duplicated. Hence truth has no place in any kind of mechanics. The term "scientific truth" is therefore quite equivocal. It is based on experiments, and it is used where some mechanically exact phenomenon has been made intelligible, provable, and capable of being repeated.

But the fact that something can be proved, tested, and repeated is no criterion of truth. If the scientist asserts that this exactness is synonymous simply with truth, or with a higher truth, the assertion shows only that the scientist's terminology itself is inexact. What sense does it make to call the proposition, "Two times two equal four," a proposition memorized by firstyear school children, a truth? Truth is not learned; one does not become more truthful by learning and by knowing much. Nor do we become truthful by exact thinking. A mathematical proposition does not become true just because it describes a fact with exactness, not even if it gets repeated a million times. The apodictical certainty of mathematical propositions lies entirely and completely within the field of exactness and correctness; but their content of truth equals zero, like that of any arithmetical proposition. Scientific truths are not "higher" truths. Where they claim to be, these claims are usurpations by the mechanical exactitude. It would be better to discard the term scientific truth altogether because its validity is merely descriptive.

The striving for exactness characteristic of the natural sciences must here be gauged in a different manner – not with those measuring instruments developed for the purpose, but from a point of vantage entirely beyond all science and scientism. No one will deny that it is needful and legitimate to seek such a point of vantage, unless, of course, we make science our religion, surround it with walls of dogma, and sanctify all its methods. But this would render all investigation and analysis impossible."

>>15065965
>less refined

>ITS ALL MARKET INTELLIGENCE GUYS
>relies on government programs and news for data
Welfare scientism

>>13303699
>>13303227
No wonder we are fucked.

>>13274315
lmao

>>13242283
A car's motion is derived from combustion, but combustion and the oil filter is not its purpose.
You'll need to go beyond .1D thought if you want to succeed here, STEMfag.

>>13211170
>Studies have shown
And if you chop off your balls you can't get testicular cancer.
My vet told me.

>>13196729
>a Kali Yugan
>believes in Darwinism
>thinks he's not a modernist
YIKES

>>13154723
Wow, and if you castrate dogs they can't get testicular cancer!

>>13042002

>>12743056
>bless the data

>>12214939
WE ARE BUT ALCHEMICAL BYPRODUCT!

>>11866175
>t.

>>11829157
>t. sexjunk god

>>11826322
You're a fucking retard, Harris.
KYS.

>>11766259
>MUH EXPERTS BY DECREE OF A PIECE OF PAPER

>>11491553
>there's no practical reason to believe what isn't true
>either a thing is true or it isn't
>if it's true you should believe it
>practical isn't a question
>unless it's impractical
>I'm a pinball
>I'm a goldfish
>around thirteen I began questioning if there was any practical reason to believe in God
>and now I'm a seventy-year-old-thirteen-year-old-Boomer-before-Zoomer trapped in the husk of King Solomon
>I have multiple accounts to upvote myself on reddit
>not because it's practical, of course
So this is the power of Scientism...