/lit/ - Literature

>science
that's just a meme version of something else.

>>12229868
what limits?

>>12229868
>I know what scientists think about science because I watch the Big Bang Theory

>>12230088
Fact-value gap, for starters. The reconciliation of the existance of incommensurate paradigms is another big one.

>>12230117
>paradigms
don't just rephrase things, what are those paradigms then ?

i hate science

By its current nature, no. If it does become self-aware, then it can't be called science anymore, but would, in my opinion, become something else altogether.

It's not the sciences that need to, but simply Modern Science which is more of a tool of bourguoise materialism and corruption before a way of knowledge. All legitimate sciences inherently recognizes its limits.

Why does /lit/ hate science and intellectualism? Isn't that the opposite of what your thinkers of antiquity taught? I don't understand.

The progress narrative of history
That tells of the birth of science and the expansion of reason
Is meant to redeem mankind
From the crushing blow of his incomprehensible pointlessness
by allowing him to participate in the historical progress
Described by the progress narrative

>>12230433
That was quite good.

I forgot something:

The progress narrative of history
That tells of the birth of science and the expansion of reason
Is meant to redeem mankind
From the crushing blow of his incomprehensible pointlessness
As described by science and reason
by allowing him to participate in the historical progress
Described by the progress narrative

In other words it is an ethics
Founded on a metaphysics
Containing a result
That is ethically unacceptable

>>12230337

Not that anon, but by paradigm he means metaphysical beliefs. The reducibility of matter to discrete units could be named as one of the given beliefs. Only "fringe" or "pseudo" science works outside that metaphysical belief.

Science is better than philosophy simply because, while scientists are brainlets themselves, at some point they will create a singilarity which will solve philosophy for them

>>12230616

Resource scarcity is a thing. We're going to have a massive technological society breakdown like Ted speaks of way before any AI singularity meme occurs.

>>12230602
Are you using "metaphysical in the mystical/esoteric sense or in the philosophical sense?

>>12230616
I thought you were going to say something simply stupid, then I realized that you're crazy enough to have an actual point.

>>12230700

Read my post again and you'll notice the tantric-yoga reference. If you look closely, the thumbnail I posted depicts a copy of the kybalion as well.

>>12230418
I'm pretty sure 70 percent of /lit/ is made up of buttblasted english and history majors who never passed high school algebra
not that there's anything wrong with history or english majors, but to despise a field that enables you to access hundreds of thousands of works of literature is stupid

>>12230700
OG anon here. There is only one sense of the word "metaphysical", and that is philosophical sense. To illustrate my point, however: the leap from geocentric to heliocentric conceptualization of the cosmos was just that; a leap. It necessitated an accommodating mutation in worldview i.e. an accommodating mutation in foundational metaphysical assumptions about the universe. Galileo achieved this NOT through the use of the scientific method, but rather analogy, psychological trickery etc. All scientific revolutions occur in this same manner. What the FUCK is the point of the "scientific method" then?

>>12230418

Insecurity