/lit/ - Literature

It's called scientism and plenty of people have written on the topic.

Hard science is concerning, because it encourages "technocracy," because it pushes the view that we live in a world that is and should be governed by simple rules. But technocracy is just a way of pretending that there's such a thing as ideological neutrality, and that the technocrat's ideology is neutral. This ideology will also clothe itself in the aesthetics of hard science, with similar worship of mathematical elegance, even though the math is itself just ideological positions (i.e., in the construction of its axiomatic system).

ITT Christcucks
>Nyhh, nuh! Math is fairy dust!
>The Technocracy infiltrates hard science. Taints it. Beware beware.
You seem one step away from telling us to seek Jesus’ love.
The problem is some people in the scientific community having dogmatic ideas. (“Pop science worship“) But they get their day of peer review like everyone else.
Can science solve everything? No one’s certain, many are quite skeptical. Nothing tangible is even brought up ITT, just a lot of “beware!” bs.

Science and technology work even when people don't agree with their "ideology". Ghost Dance didn't stop bullets.

>>14435453
Not hostile, but definitely not taking any of their shit

>>14435783
This isn't true of psychology or economics.

>>14435783
In a sense, technology works whether you believe in it or not, because technology is the creation of things in the world. Though even this is misstating it, since people have different tolerances for something "working." Does a car work if it starts and goes down the road? But what if it's misfiring, or billowing white smoke, or its gears are slipping? Though really this has more to do with whether most computer/"smart" technology actually works, or whether people just have no standards.
As for science, its working is entirely dependent on whether you believe it, because science sets out to describe the world. How do you decide if that description is any good? But now you're doing epistemology, so you've already lost the purity that internet-scientists cherish. Internet-scientists (and, sadly, real scientists) will now become verificationists, and among other things, point to technology as proof of the validity of science. They do this because neither internet-scientists nor real-scientists understand engineering or philosophy. But since the only yardstick here is what you believe, it's easy enough to let all this slide, since (apart from any understanding of epistemology) you want science to be true, so by god, verification is good enough.
Unless of course someone else is trying verificationism, then suddenly you're the skeptic.

This nigga using a computer to tell me technology is all in my head. Seething humanities major tries to validate studying something only they give a shit about.

>>14435688
I'm not a christcuck and I hate science. Also your chink looks like shit, as always.

>>14435795
Those are not real sciences

Psychology and economics aren't sciences they only pretend to be to get respectability. Fucking Marx is counted as an economist.

>>14435803
Pretty sure I recognize your writing style (I enjoy your posts btw), what's some good phenomenological and hermeneutic literature (books/papers) on the topic of philosophy of science, tech, and methodology?

>>14435453
Yeah dude you're so cool and above those plebs. How dare the public be interested in science.

/lit/ - Smartypants Stuff

>>14435783
>>14435814
>>14435847
>>14435848
>literally mindless sleeper cells being triggered to defend a god
pathetic

>>14435453
Yes partially because pop science and scientism (and the people that espouse them) show extremely bad understanding of science. Scientism is not rigid adherence to biological determinism, because if it was then people who ‘fucking love science’ would be ethnonationalists, they would want trans people to get genuine psychiatric help instead of helping them mutilate themselves, they wouldn’t be cringy antinatalists adopting pets instead of having children. The typical ‘love of science’ is feigned, those people don’t read published journals, they watch edutainment YouTube videos by the brother of a guy who likes to have dicks in his cereal.
Also because science is used as a justification for atheism by these people and it’s ridiculous, there is no conflict between any scientific discovery and belief in higher powers, though it makes most sense for scientists to be as agnostic as possible.
t.STEM major