/lit/ - Literature

>>19135151
>t.upset that he got told to take the vaccine at work

>>19135151
Do you want to refute the Scientism present today or science itself?

bfy dot tw slash Rjf3

>>19135162
In general science has become the big idol in the West following the death of God. Science is seen as a sort of way to discover absolute truths about nature and to better human society. It is really a form of totalitarian control used by politicians. They hide behind ‘the science’ and pretend like there can be no debate over the infallible truths the labcoats hand down to the pleb masses. If people let themselves be ruled by science they will be nothing but carefully managed cattle in every aspect of their lives. This is the technocracy that is being built.

>>19135172
Books on both would be welcome. I assume that science itself can mostly be attacked by skepticism though

>>19135188
Kek, so you actually are a booty bothered vaxtard.

>>19135151
Kuhn is a must as well as Feyerabend. My girlfriend (I mean a friend who is a woman, not a partner or anything like that) was doing her master's thesis on Feyerabend and in the process she got blackpilled so badly that she went full schizo, began to distrust reality itself, dropped out of uni and became a crackwhore. Given that most questionable research today comes from the so-called social sciences I think an overlooked antidote would be the epistemological works of the Austrian School of Economics, in particular Hayek's and Mises' books

Assumptions modern science makes that I believe are wrong.

The universe - Its existence is a brute fact.
Big Bang - Nothing came before it.
Natural Laws of universe - Accidental
Consciousness - Its source is the brain
Abiogenesis - Life arose from a chemical origin.
Human Evolution - It was an unguided process.

There is no book that goes into detail formulating these arguments, and true, some of the arguments are not very convincing, but some are.
There are books that cover the topics though, for instance "A Fortunate Universe" (fine-tuning) and "The Soul Hypothesis" (plausible alternatives to traditional neuroscience)

>>19135194
>science itself can mostly be attacked by skepticism though
Science is based of skepticism. It has advanced only through people asking questions and challenging assumptions. You're not going to refute science through its bread and butter.
Scientism is different because it holds certain assumptions as absolute. It is the one the says the science is closed and challenging truths is ignorant.
Don't reject all of science because a bunch of brain dead morons think of it as infallible

>>19135239
I wouldn't say any of those are unchallenged in science. Yes they are all prevailing assumptions, but there are some credible arguments against them. Quantum mechanics has thrown a wrench in most of those theories. The Big Bang and Abiogenesis have pretty solid supporting evidence. Human evolution as a guided process is an unfalsifiable claim and I would argue it is outside the scope of science. However, I did read a book called the Biology of Belief which may be relevant to what you are talking about.

>>19135151
Science refutes science. Go get an education.
Wrong board

>>19135311
>water destroys water

>>19135151
Read the last essay in Otto Weininger's *Über die letzten Dinge*, entitled *Wissenschaft und Kultur*. You will get a nice analysis of the notion of science (and scientists themselves) there. He also briefly comments on the economic conception of science, i.e. the people who say you should get a STEM degree not because pure natural science interests you, but because it usually pays well. He notes that the Americans and Jews are particularly fond of this type of thinking.

>>19135426
>He notes that the Americans and Jews are particularly fond of this type of thinking.
wasn't he a jew himself?

>>19135323
Stupid comparison.
Correcting theory with experimental results is what happens in science.
You just have no stomach for truth or the bumpy road to it

>>19135230
>My girlfriend (I mean a friend who is a woman, not a partner or anything like that)

This is the most retarded thing i've read today.

>>19135435
Yeah, his father was Jewish. He also explicitly mimicks Wagner's *Das Judenthum in der Musik* in chapter 13 of his *Geschlecht und Charakter* by trying to analyse the significance of Jews in modern science.

Being and Time

>Books about refuting science
You have to go beyond the mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNA147yCKs

>>19135151
Are you attacking science because it doesn’t say what you want, or are you ready to attack Knowledge itself?

>>19135465
thanks, I tried my best
>>19135441
ask me how I know you have no proper education in the sciences

>>19135465
kek (I was about to say this lol)

>>19135483
>attack Knowledge itself?
Show me the way.

Lyotard, Sextus Empiricus, Nagarjuna

>>19135505
This, especially Sextus' treatises against the geometers and the arithmeticians. He specifically argues against the "Suppose. Let. Assume. If" method which characterizes mathematics in the beginning of his treatise against geometry.

>>19135498
Firstly, you must forget all preconceptions - you must suspend all of your beliefs. There is one pernicious belief that almost all humans share - time & causality. Humans believe that a cause must necessarily happen before the effect - this is a result of our perspective. This idea is the underpinning of all science, and many more things besides. Now, let us say that event A occurs before event B, and that they are temporally linked (a series of collisions, for example). Did event A cause event B? Or did Event B cause event A? However, this analysis is still hopelessly oversimplifying the full range of possibilities. Indeed, events B and A may both be results of some Event C, and who knows when that occurs. Without causality, science is left as a purely empirical program whose predictions cannot be regarded as signifying any deeper metaphysical reality.

>>19135151
>t.upset at genetic determinism and the positive correlation between iq and lifetime success after scoring 85 in mensa.dk

>>19135483
Science is a lower form of knowledge. It is the not the key to understanding all of reality.

>>19135598
Anon genetic determinism has been debunked. Older children are statistically more likely to have a higher IQ and achieve more. You're the one with an 85 IQ

>>19135151
>I’m tired of science, I’m tired of the scientific method.
Have you been engaged in science all your life? Do you have scientific discoveries? Are you a Nobel laureate?
It's like saying, "I'm tired of snowboarding!" When was the last time I stood on a snowboard? Never.

>>19135239
All macroevolution is fake and gay. This is the biggest redpill there is. The whole thing is based off a confusion between varieties and species, and there is almost no evidence for the entire materialist myth, whether it is fossil evidence, evidence of speciation and much else.

>>19135638
I’m tired of science domineering over my life, fag

>>19135619
oh and would ya care to debunk twin studies and adoption studies bro?
>Older children are statistically more likely to have a higher IQ and achieve more.
by 1 -1.67 fucking point with an sd of 15-25 .lel

>>19135687
>Anon tries and fails to learn about statistical confidence
There is no hope you'll understand cell biology, but genes are read and duplicated based of inputs from the environment.

>>19135710
>but genes are read and duplicated based of inputs from the environment.
kek not shit again.anon enough with the cringe b8s .
yes a mice does die if u deprive it of essential resources necessary for survival for long periods of time but what happens when u maxx out on the environment?

>>19135798
At a cellular level, there are proteins embedded in the cell membrane that regulate cell activity, including gene replication. When stressors are introduced, these hormones and other signals from the body are read by individual cells. Adverse environments cause impairments in the function of genes through the cell membrane.

>>19135230
>doing her master's thesis on Feyerabend and in the process she got blackpilled so badly that she went full schizo, began to distrust reality itself, dropped out of uni and became a crackwhore
Really glad I wasn't the only one this happened to. It's taken me years to recover from just a light exposure to Feyerabend, and even so I'm not actually 'recovered,' I'm just coping.

>>19135435
>he's not Weiningerpilled yet

>>19135230
>an antidote to disenfrenchisement with sciences must be a book on economics

>>19135151
The go-to book is Bruno LaTour, Steve Woolgar, 'Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts' (1979). It's a very readable and rather fascinating book, based on Latour’s work as a participant-observer at the Salk Institute from 1975 to 1977. It offers a 'peek behind the curtain' of modern scientific practice. It does not aim at refuting the scientific method, as such, but it shows that as a matter of actual practice, the scientific method is often applied in a chaotic and haphazard fashion. In particular, the design of an experiment and the interpretation of the data are always ambiguous and disputable.

LaTour subsequently wrote several other books that address similar issues, notably 'Science in Action' and 'We Have Never Been Modern'. I haven't read them, but the latter book is mostly concerned with critiquing the presuppositions of science (although that indeed is subject to analysis and criticism in all three of these books).

The Kuhn is a very good book, well worth reading.

>>19136144
>Bruno LaTour
I got We Have Never Been so Modern on my bookshelf and will give your rec a shot if I like his other book. What should I expect from Bruno?

>>19135565
This actually makes a lot of sense.

>>19135151
"The founding of a science more or less on the notion of repetition brings in its train yet another delusion of a quantitative kind, the delusion that consists in thinking that the accumulation of a large number of facts can be of use by itself as ‘proof' of a theory; nevertheless, even a little reflection will make it evident that facts of the same kind are always indefinite in multitude, so that they can never all be taken into account, quite apart from the consideration that the same facts usually fit several different theories equally well. It will be said that the establishment of a greater number of facts does at least give more ‘probability' to a theory; but to say so is to admit that no certitude can be arrived at in that way, and that therefore the conclusions promulgated have nothing ‘exact' about them; it is also an admission of the wholly ‘empirical' character of modern science, although, by a strange irony, its partisans are pleased to accuse of ‘empiricism' the knowledge of the ancients, whereas exactly the opposite is the truth: for this ancient knowledge, of the true nature of which they have no idea whatever, started from principles and not from experimental observations, so that it can truly be said that profane science is built up exactly the opposite way round to traditional science."

"[Modern scientific] theories can necessarily never be more than hypothetical, since their starting-point is wholly empirical, for facts in themselves are always susceptible of diverse explanations and so never have been and never will be able to guarantee the truth of any theory."

"The profane sciences of which the modern world is so proud are really and truly only the degenerate ‘residues’ of the ancient traditional sciences."

>>19135194
It's ironic, isn't it? 'Science' starts out by tearing down other disciplines and all that is established, all because the individual person can do these experiments at home.

Then science becomes the establishment, and devours itself. Now flat earthers do the exact same thing the scientific revolutionaries did. The individual can see for himself what shape the world is, so why waste time with antiquated enlightenment nonsense? :^)

If you want something that is a fun and easy read, then check out Rupert Sheldrake's books.

Realize that consciousness is not reducible to materiality. That made me hostile to science quickly

>>19136251
His books are trash
The sources he gives are rotten

>>19135239
I feel like writing about this so fuck you. I don't buy the claims that evolution involves processes that require executive managerial decision making. This is because the claims that people make don't comport with what I know about evolution. To understand this, you have to know something about evolution, which you almost certainly don't. I shall briefly adumbrate a lesson in phylogeny. Consider the Metazoans. Metazoans comprise all of the animals. Metazoans are Eukaryotes, as are all multicellular life forms. Extremely early in the evolutionary process, Eukaryotes were separated into Opisthokonts and Bikonts. Opisthokont cells have a singular flagella, like a sperm cell. Bikont cells have flagella on both ends of the cells. All animals and fungi have Opisthokont reproductive spores, whereas all plants and algae have Bikont spores. There are many more degrees of development here; I shall mention the most major. Metazoans diverged into Parazoans and Eumetazoans. Eumetazoans have multiple tissue layers, Parazoans are as simple as sponges. Eumetazoans diverged into Radiata and Bilaterians. Radiata have radial symmetry like jellyfish and anemonae. Bilaterians have symmetry on all three axes. This is one of the most major developments life has undergone. Some Bilaterians became Triploblast, having a third germ layer. Think of a tube within a tube, just like a worm or yourself. Xenacoelomorphs didn't catch on. Triploblast organisms split into yet another fork. One branch became Protostomes, the other became Deuterostomes. The difference is embryological. These organisms develop as a cluster of cells called a blastula. When the blastula achieves a certain number of cells, it invaginates. (Like sticking thumbs in playdoh.) In Protostomes, this cavity becomes the mouth, in Deuterostomes, it becomes the anus. All arthropods, molluscs, nematodes, tardigrades and actual worms are Protostomes, and all vertebrates and echinoderms are Deuterostomes. And this gets us to the point I wish to make. Every evolutionary development is simple, much more simple than you realized. Every single evolutionary development is a simple modification of pre-existing features. So why does God need to be involved in choosing whether the first definable embryological feature is the ass or the mouth? An intern could have handled that one.

>>19135151
are you looking for refutations of positivism?

>>19136539
>I don't buy the claims that evolution involves processes that require executive managerial decision making.
> Every single evolutionary development is a simple modification of pre-existing features.

Four of the six categories the anon mentioned do not fall under an evolutionary paradigm.

>>19136166
>What should I expect from Bruno?
I thought Laboratory Life (the only book of his I've read) was a very interesting read. The writing and the arguments (which turn on the detailed exposition of circumstantial evidence) were clear and fairly engaging (for this kind of book). Like Kuhn, LaTour is obviously a very smart and well-informed guy. Some anthropologists have a real gift for storytelling; LaTour is one of them. Parts of the book are like reading a nice piece of long-form journalism.

>>19136298
You can't "realize" a state of affairs which isn't the case, better words are deluded, hallucinated. We are graceless concatenations of atoms and there is nothing mysterious in our self-awareness, as the problems of consciousness pretend.

>>19135151
"...Mathematics treats of the mere forms, time and space, in which the Ideas, broken up into multiplicity, appear for the knowledge of the subject as individual. All these, of which the common name is science, proceed according to the principle of sufficient reason in its different forms, and their theme is always the phenomenon, its laws, connections, and the relations which result from them. But what kind of knowledge is concerned with that which is outside and independent of all relations, that which alone is really essential to the world, the true content of its phenomena, that which is subject to no change, and therefore is known with equal truth for all time, in a word, the Ideas, which are the direct and adequate objectivity of the thing in-itself, the will? We answer, Art, the work of genius.

It repeats or reproduces the eternal Ideas grasped through pure contemplation, the essential and abiding in all the phenomena of the world; and according to what the material is in which it reproduces, it is sculpture or painting, poetry or music. Its one source is the knowledge of Ideas; its one aim the communication of this knowledge. While science, following the unresting and inconstant stream of the fourfold forms of reason and consequent, with each end attained sees further, and can never reach a final goal nor attain full satisfaction, any more than by running we can reach the place where the clouds touch the horizon; art, on the contrary, is everywhere at its goal. For it plucks the object of its contemplation out of the stream of the world's course, and has it isolated before it...

The logical method of mathematics is also antagonistic to genius, for it does not satisfy but obstructs true insight, and presents merely a chain of conclusions in accordance with the principle of the ground of knowing. The mental faculty upon which it makes the greatest claim is memory, for it is necessary to recollect all the earlier propositions which are referred to. Experience has also proved that men of great artistic genius have no faculty for mathematics; no man was ever very distinguished for both."
-Spottem Gottem

>Refuting science
Science leads us closer to the Almighty. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DAKaR16cY

>>19135151
my diary desu

>>19135188
>hurr I don't unnerstand it must be voodoo

lol

>>19138071
I dont think most of our leaders understand science either

>>19138071
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics

>>19135151

>>19135638
I am a PhD. I am very tired of science. I am fairly successful, but I can not cope. Too much bullshit and scammery.

>>19138118
This. I got two engineering degrees. Science has its uses and can be functional, but i am so tired of people treating it like an ideology. They think something a person with a lab coat says is dogma. The world is a fascinating and mysterious place, it cannot be summed up in convenient facts. Human intellect has biological limits and everything we think we know should be periodically challenged.

No need for books, just understanding p-hacking and a cursory reading of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

If you really want books, then Against Method is really good

>>19135479
TL; DR: FY is saying humans are at the base, emotional creatures driven on our imagination of the future. It's inescapable whether you are a fundamentalist baptist or a researcher.

It takes too much work to sort through his egotistical pompous flowery phrasing. Stop listening to/recommending Taiwanese Joe Rogan fueled by THC and tryptamine.

hating "science" seems kind of retarded,m but i absolutely cant stand what passes as science these days and how insanely easy it is to pass anything as a "scientific fact" based on the results of a few studies. and dont even get me started about the fact that "science" to the average joe is a CNN article telling them what they MUST accept is or isn't truth

>>19138742
I think it is something to do with the way that science is framed within media narratives, and these narratives themselves feeding back in to how some scientists come to view their own work.

As with most cultural developments in the last 10 years, I blame twitter for making the culture war non-optional for public figures.

>>19138766
it just bothers me how quick we are to write things in stone then vilify all skepticism of this sloppy fast-food tier science despite the fact that its foundation is often blatantly questionable, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with leaving the discussion open.
then of course there is the more existential question of the fact that no one outside of these institutions can actually verify literally any information, thats a whole other story though. im not a schizo as a lot of people but it still bothers me when people say "you have to trust the science" because its not "science" i mistrust, its scientific institutions, the human element, and their eagerness to produce some sort of results at best, or political aims at worst

>>19135151
Try Sex, Science And Profits. The general claim is that our technological development was driven by ground-up inventions (often being done by laymen) and not by academic "scientific" research.
Like, one guy had invented the steam engine and only _later_ "the scientists" made an attempt to fit some theory into it.
I like the case of airplanes - the whole academia insisted that it's just impossible (while still squandering some "public" money on some "research" projects) until some guys have proved them wrong in their barn. Btw, "the scientists" still, to this day, don't know why airplanes even fly; there is no complete theory of lift.

>>19136210
Based flat earthers

>>19135151
Against Method.

>>19138818
Unironically due to the death of religion. And I say this as a non-religious person. The state requires some epistemic ground it can point to as part of its self-justification for its power and use of power. I sincerely think that God was a better ground than the Scientific method because it largely preserved a more organic power-relation between man, himself, his family, and the state. At least so far as the concept of God is so far removed as to be unassailable materialistically which, by virtue of this, conferred a similar unassailability on the human soul/subject. Which is to say a circle was drawn around the concept of man, which true or false, allowed offered a manner of protection from managerial interference of the body as such, and a level of quiet autonomy, not without controversy, for natural philosophers.

Under a state that seeks to authenticate itself through empiricism man is no longer a category or and end in and of itself but simply what can be measured as man. And what can be measured can be altered. The grounds of authority become equally fluid, require more oversight and administration to prevent being blindsided by results unfavourable to ruling ideology.

>>19135311
Fuck you cocksucker

that shit galbraith book?

>>19135230
Great way to go mental, though. If you're gonna do it, go crazy doing something interesting.

>>19135151
Unironically read dialectic of enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer

Btw. I firmly believe rightards would love Adorno if it wasn’t for „muh joos“ and „muh cultural Marxism“

>>19135198
Your level of rhetoric in response to his reasoned out, paragraph long post is really indicative. At best you're like 30% as smart as you think you are by glomming onto the scientific achievements of others.

>>19139198
no, adorno is still a massive faggot

>>19139238
No
First of all, he’s dead
Second of all, he was married to this cutie, unlike your bitter internet virgin ass

>>19139248
t.

Modern science needs Aristotle.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/

Is science in the room with you right now?

>>19139198
leftists are more used to appropriating thinkers for themselves.

>>19135188
>If people let themselves be ruled by science they will be nothing but carefully managed cattle in every aspect of their lives. This is the technocracy that is being built.
TradLARPers are so fucking oblivious and braindead jej

>>19135151
>I'm emotionally motivated but I want to pretend to search for truth while reaching the conclusions I had already decided on
It's your mind buddy, you're the one that has to live in it
>>19135188
there can actually be a debate, but you're not equipped to take part of it if you're knowledge of science is coming from youtube.

>>19135239
The claims that you think science is wrong about aren't even the consensus.

The universe - Its existence is a brute fact.
>currently a hot debate whether or not it's a simulation and whether we could probe it
Big Bang - Nothing came before it.
>string theory claims many universes are constantly budding from one another
Natural Laws of universe - Accidental
>multiverse theory claims that there are many universes with gradually changing laws. You only get to see the universes which support life.

The remaining claims actually are in consensus in science, but you are still too uneducated to make any substantial claims about them.

Consciousness - Its source is the brain
>when you see a consciousness that isn't connected to a human brain, be sure to let me know. your feelings of wanting there to be a soul doesn't concern anyone else.
Abiogenesis - Life arose from a chemical origin.
>look up the miller experiment
Human Evolution - It was an unguided process.
>you only need to see one autopsy of giraffes neck to realize evolution was either unguided or guided by an idiot. This is an obvious example, but the more biology you learn the more equally stupid designs you get to see.

I suggest taking an actual university course on evolution, but assuming you're too lazy for that, the sapolsky lecture are also great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL150326949691B199&index=2

>>19135323
Imagine being so retarded you think that's an actual stepping stone on your way to reaching the truth.

>>19135162
kek

>>19139414
>multiverse
wacky new age retard

>>19135230
>I think an overlooked antidote would be the epistemological works of the Austrian School of Economics, in particular Hayek's and Mises' books
How so?

>>19139414
>Human Evolution - It was an unguided process.
>>you only need to see one autopsy of giraffes neck to realize evolution was either unguided or guided by an idiot. This is an obvious example, but the more biology you learn the more equally stupid designs you get to see.
this translates to "i don't see the reason for it (giraffe's neck) therefore it must be irrational/stupid
not the guy you're even replying to, but u sound like a materialist fag

>>19139221
>ooga booga grug write more word mean grug more smart
Calling your apoplectic schizo screeching "reasoned out" doesn't make it so, my rectally inconvenienced friend. Stay mad and don't forget to vaccinate.

Making Order, Harry Collins
Knowledge and Social Imagery, David Bloor

>>19139519
Should be Changing order, not Making order

Why?

>>19135188
>the big idol
We live in an idiocracy, the average persons, of which you are a prime example, notion of science is on the level of their knowledge and understanding of anything else - ignorant and butthurt

>>19135188
>Science is seen as a sort of way to discover absolute truths about nature and to better human society.
This has been the case since the 17th century lol

>>19138092
You are very cringy.

>>19135151
How do you want do refute a system that is based on proof and refusal of imperfect truth? Science is a framework for a self-refining truth, always seeking to reach a higher truth. How can such thing be surpassed?

>>19139414
> cringe: the post
Were you trying to choose the shittiest representations of science possible?
Science that it seems you guys are reffering to is actually fringe science or pop culture.

These mainstream theories gain their momentum from news outlets which over exaggerate already overexaggerated results to the point that someone guiding an acoustic wave around a slight bend is suddenly advertised as the invention of an invisibility cloak.

Science, when properly defined as in scientific method, is objective empirical results. Theory is NOT science, only a motivating factor for science to develop from. Scientific theory is not the science itself, it is only based in science. That is to say the theory makes predictions which obey the rules outlined by scientific results.

There is no such thing as real scientific method. There will always be human biases and motivations behind every interpretation of an objective result.

You all sound like idiots talking about mainstream scientific theory as if it is undisputable fact.
People critisize flat earthers for example, and while I do not personally believe the earth is flat, their role in science is invaluable as a constant demand to keep the agreed upon truth proven by questioning its every aspect and demanding that these truths become simple enough to prove that we can conduct experiments in our very own front yards (or in the case of you guys, your parents front yard).

So please, you fucking nigger. SHUT THE FUCK UP

Thanks

t. Scientist for 20 years

>>19139607
Yes, since the death of god.

>>19139588
>We live in an idiocracy,
There's no difference between idiocracy and scientific rule. Democracy/idiocracy is the consensus (democratic) method of science applied to politics.

>>19135230
A priori economics is doomed right from the start

>>19135230
>My girlfriend (I mean a friend who is a woman, not a partner or anything like that)

>>19135151

Umineko no Naku Koro ni.

>>19136210
>The individual can see for himself what shape the world is, so why waste time with antiquated enlightenment nonsense? :^)
The fact that the government fears the flat earther is very telling as well. Support zetetic science.

>>19140505
why?

>>19138891

Interesting anon. Do you have a book that delves more into this topic of scientific institutions replacing government's mandate from heaven?

>>19135188
>totalitarian control used by politicians.
most politiciand have no idea about science whatsoever dumbo.

>>19138711
TL; DR: Science's starting point is in its own empty paradigm, and people take logic/reason for granted as fundamental, rather than consciousness itself. The 'answers to the universe' can't be accessed/discovered merely with exeperiment and logic but beyond them. Founders of quantum mechanics like Schrödinger knew this. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/189820.Erwin_Schr_dinger

Read fucking Hume, boy.

>Those who from Bacon to the present day have endeavored to polish "new organs" of knowledge, to follow new methods, and found a purely realistic and practical science, have also failed to form a separate planetary system. Their works, if they have really influenced the inventions of which our century is proud, will have been useful; They have provided man with certain comforts that are not entirely unpleasant, such as being able to travel fast, although unfortunately it is to get where one would get to by traveling slowly. But its ideal value is null and instead of dethroning Metaphysics, they have come to serve it and perhaps even to favor it; they wanted to be masters and hardly become servants.


1/

>>19140863
>He who, disdaining faith and reason, devotes himself to experiments and discovers the telegraph or the telephone, does not believe that he has destroyed the "old ideas"; what he has done has been to work so that they circulate more quickly, so that they spread more widely. I was one day in the Antwerp Museum of Painting, contemplating, it seems to me that the Jordaens Supper, when I saw my maid come looking for me, a healthy and chubby Flemish woman, bringing me a little badge of those that at the entrance of the museums They give in exchange for walking sticks and umbrellas. Without effort it will have been understood that I must have left the house in good weather, that later it would start to rain, something that happens almost every day in that country and that my excellent maritornes had the attention to bring me an umbrella.

2/

>>19135151
>Thomas Kuhn
>Refutation of science

>>19135151
You should check out Cea D.

>>19140870
>So it was and it also happened that when I left the Museum it had stopped raining and I came back with the umbrella under my arm. And then an idea occurred to me that has now reappeared in my memory and that seemed to come here very relevant. It occurred to me that in that most vulgar event I had represented, not by my own merits, but by an effect of circumstantial perspective, the perennial force of the ideal that is in us, and that my maid had, without knowing it, practiced experimental and practical science. . I applaud the wise and prudent men who have brought us the telescope and the microscope, the railroad and navigation by means of steam, the telegraph and the telephone, the phonograph, the lightning rod, the electric light and the X-rays; Everyone should be thanked for the bad times that have occurred, as I thanked my maid, thanks to her good intention, for the one she gave herself to take the umbrella for me; But I also say that when I manage to rise even two feet above the routine vulgarities that surround me and I feel the warmth and light of some great and pure idea, all those beautiful inventions are of no use to me.

3/3

>>19135188
Lol at all the seething in the replies. When someone criticizes science people always say he just doesn’t understand it. But they usually don’t understand it either. In my view, the problem is that no one understands science except for scientists. Allowing this “black box” to govern society will lead to and already has lead to corruption.

>>19140714
Doesn’t matter, they use it anyway

>>19140875
Who?

>>19135151
Science is just systemized human psychology, "refuting" it simply means suicide.

>>19140936
Cee deez nutz lmaoooooooooooooooooo

>>19141010
Gay.

>>19135162
KEK

>>19135239
>Big Bang - Nothing came before it.
Literally no scientists believes this

>>19139482
>I don't like/understand evolution so it must be magic
it doesn't inspire great counter arguments

>>19135230
> His listeners were enthralled, and he held his huge audiences until, too ill and too exhausted to continue, he simply began repeating himself. But not before he had brought the house down by writing “Aristotle” in three-foot high letters on the blackboard and then writing “Popper” in tiny, virtually illegible letters beneath it!
top fucking kek

>>19135151
Science is predicated on causation. However, causation as we think of it is internally contradictory. I can supply a proof of this

foucault's history of sexuality volume 1

>>19135188
Very well put and checked.

>>19135188
Literally a you-problem

>>19140899
>Science is seen as a sort of way to discover absolute truths
You think this is something science does?

>>19135183
this

>>19139414
what >>19140406 said. multiverse stuff is not science, it is theory. Science is a method for testing theories on empirical data. As multiverse stuff does not have empirical data, it's not science. Saying "there are many universes with gradually changing laws so actually our universe is not arbitrary" is basically the same as saying god exists, and is derived from people not wanting their universe to be arbitrary. Science as a method looks only on the data we can collect and makes no claim to anything beyond that, in fact, just look at the origins of the natural sciences in the renaissance, they tended to claim that those laws they found have come from god almighty and is his wonderful creation in action. All modern science can be taken together with belief in God, albit a probably more loose god than the christian one. questions like "why is gravity?" can be answered with "god", or "multiverse", it is just background noise attached to the scientific system.
this point is one I care about because my brother keeps sending me pop videos about science and I keep having to explain to him that those videos are missing the point about science by a mile. But it doesn't matter - those videos exist to fill the void Godlessness gives people, give them easy answers for "what, I have no reason to be?", "why am I here?" etc... but science was not created for answering those questions, it is the mental eqvuilant of a wrench, it's just a tool used to extract deeper systems out of empirical data.

on another note, the evolution stuff is a nice point, although the existence of ATP-synthase makes me wonder sometime. That thing just seems too complicated for my lizard brain to believe it is accidental.

>>19141582
Ergo science is worthless

>>19141655
claw out your eyes and cut off your ears,
seal nostrils with wax and nail the mouth shut -
for they are worthless, worthless, floating on air
for only true, glorious (moan) incandescent truth is real

"As technology progresses, the relation between science and technology undergoes a change. Science becomes the servant of technology. It is a symptom of this shift of power that the scientist becomes increasingly an employee in the institutes and laboratories of industry, where his knowledge is exploited for technical uses. The disciplines of science become auxiliary disciplines of technology, and they fare the better the more willingly they submit to this role. “Pure science" declines because the important thing is no longer an understanding of the laws of nature, but, first of all, the application, the uses, the exploitation, of those laws. Discovery and invention are today the handmaids of this exploitation. Therefore, if today inventors are called upon and exhorted to give new proofs of their genius, to forge ahead, to deliver more quickly, the purpose is to increase the pillage of the earth through a rationalization of the methods of plunder."

>>19141958
"There is a type of intelligence which might be termed naked. In it reason considers itself absolute and refuses to admit any concepts not established by itself. All non-intellectual concepts are held to be unreasonable and are discarded. All our perceptions are put to this test. In this process, all that cannot be resolved and explained by reason is eliminated. It is precisely by this methodical effort that our knowledge becomes scientific. Man's knowledge of nature becomes "pure" and "exact" to the extent that his relations are limited to reason. By this effort science has grown to its present stature and has evolved the methods by which to transform the world and to supply mankind with keys that unlock the treasures of nature. However, by the very same process, science ruins itself, for, since reason implies the faculty of making distinctions, scientific progress marches straight toward disintegration. Science is compelled to split up into more and more disciplines and its claim to universality is destroyed by the growing isolation resulting from its concentration on minutiae. In place of the great concepts which stand at the beginning of scientific development in which intuition held mastery over reason, we find the mechanical, antlike industry characteristic of modern laboratories – that nakedly utilitarian cleverness which aims to trap the phenomena of nature. The scientist, now in possession of a tremendous arsenal of tools, begins to squeeze and torture nature and to compel it by the use of force to reveal its secrets."
Friedrich Georg Jünger
The Failure of Technology

This is the only answer anon.

isn't there a seraphim rose on that

>>19140406
>Were you trying to choose the shittiest representations of science possible?
Was asking myself just that.

Your post is pretty based in my view. Can I ask you that:
What's the role of science in technological progress?
Are people just calling science what is actually the lindy effect?

Thomas Campbell - My Big Toe. (toe is an acronym for theory of everything)

This book provides an explanation for how the universe works. However, the author actually accounts for consciousness in his theory. In fact, he postulates that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality.

If you want something that 'goes against' science, but still isn't retarded, then this book is for you. If you read it I guarantee it will change your life.

What work(s) by Feyerabend should I check out?

>>19138678
>>19138890
Against Method is like a half hour read, really concise, I would check it out if I were you OP

>>19135151
Proceed where Jung left off criticizing the arbitrary nature of selecting matter as their standard for a proof medium, as man (still) knows very little about the true nature of matter at the most core level. That the selection of chance and statistics as the defining characteristic of things happening for a particular reason is actually not saying almost anything more than "these things happen more often after these things happening", and that saying X happened due to "chance" is just as much of a bullshit abstraction as saying X happened "because the gods willed it", and actually the single biggest cope humanity has ever developed to impotently describe the causal nature of his circumstantial reality.
Your average scientist is honestly just extremely lucky that it is indeed a very effective cope so far.

>>19138823
>scientists to this day don't know why airplanes fly.
Yeah, and same for bees and helicopters.
Stop watching youtube popsci garbage.

>>19141958
Brilliant.

>>19136539
Interesting read, and clearly put tho you could format a bit for added clarity.

>Too much bullshit and scammery.
So you're saying you're sick of the way science is practiced?
Or generally sick of the scientific method and its products?

>>19136539
Interesting read, and clearly put tho you could format a bit for added clarity.
I'd be happy if you followed through to hominid species, too

Where do you stand on the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)?

>>19138118
>Too much bullshit and scammery.
So you're saying you're sick of the way science is practiced?
Or generally sick of the scientific method and its products?

>>19135230
>Feyerabend
The thread alone was worth it for this recommendation. Thank you, restores some of my sanity. I will check him out.

>>19135230
Made my day

>>19141958
This is me and this is what I do.

>>19136539
excellent post, anon

>>19136539
Nice unsubstantiated fairy-tale, no one ever seen "Bilaterians becoming Triploblasts" or anything other of this crap.
It's worth exactly as much as "on the first day He created light".

>>19140806
Are you referring to the fact that a lot of things change in their nature of they are measured/observed?

I don't think Frank covered that, but the key tenant of science should be "how am I wrong about this" rather than "how can I prove my hypothesis right".

If anyone carries out the latter, they are doing the Scientific Method wrong.

Berkeley and Hume do a good job of undercutting it

>>19135188
I'm surprised at all the snarky seething you're getting for this. /lit/ really must be overrun with normalfags and redditors
Anyway, I reccomend pic rel. While the book's criticisms are focussed on Psychiatry specifically a lot of the message can be extrapolated into the grander trend of things. The basic point is that social morality and ethics are subjects independent of science. People trying to make normative claims on tbe basis of science are not actually practicing science. There are absolutely totalitarian forces trying to hijack the supposed objectivity of science to act as if their normative claims are settled. It's total horseshit.

Subjective idealism destroys naturalism and there is no way to refute it

>>19142960
Also wondering

>>19141964
there is a type of intelligence that may be termed sullen, for it will not admit insights from types of intelligence which do not conform to its wisdom.

Science is the only correct way to learn about reality. It's kind of ridiculous if you think aboutnit, we are now able to calculate the effect of black holes millions of lightyears away correctly, we are actually able to predict there's such a ridiculous thing as a black hole, we are able to calculate with 19 decimal places the momenta of the electron, to predict and verify the existence of antimatter, etc.
All these ridiculous anti-intuitive things that we would never have thought on our own without empirically being forced to submit to them as being real because it's what we observed.

HOWEVER, you simply cannot expect the 99% of the retarded populace to even be able to passingly understand anything about reality and science, so you need to tell them to "shut up and trust us". It has always been like that, the plebeians need to be servile and trust in the guidance of their betters. We once thought mass education would make genuises out of the population, but we were so fucking wrong, god...

>>19135151
I think this was already addressed ITT, but you cant "refute science" because science is a method and thus doesnt make a positive or negative claim about anything. But, if you mean "scientism," which is the transformation of science into a veritable religion of worship the way it is for some plebs today, that can be refuted best, I think, by engaging with sacred texts, the wisdom of the East, the occult. Shit like that.
Read the Kybalion and you can refute scientism in 5 minutes by being armed with an holistic philosophy/worldview that demonstrates how materialism (scientism) and spirituality are coexistent and inseperable.

>>19135188
I totally agree with and respect this sentiment, anon, the only thing Id argue, again, is that what you're describing here is the problem with scientism, and not science itself. Science itself is entirely neutral, totally dependent on how we view and use it. But yes, like this anon >>19144255
said with so much clarity, they are basically using normalfags ignorance of science and baser slavish instinct to look for a mystical authority so they dont have to think, to commit a giant act of fraudulence by pretending their normative assumptions and preferences are empirically backed, when they arent and that isnt even empiricisms relationship with normativity. Norms drive the direction of empiricism by the empiricist, empiricism cant "prove" norms.
I have so much contempt for these fuckin shitheels at the top, its unreal

>>19135151
POPPER
KUHN
LAKATOS
FEYERABEND

dark matter kek. there must be something invisible pushing it. i wouldn't just trust science if i were you.

>>19135485
I hate butterfly but am an actual working “scientist” (physicist) and that is how it works. Dumbed down it’s create theories, do experiments, correct theories/create new ones. Each time get a little closer to discovering the truth through a physical lens.

>>19135151
A general refutation of the philisophy behind science is clearly Dostoevsky's notes from underground

If you want a refutation of the actual method, read about p-values and the replication crisis. The wikipedia article on the latter is a good overview to the topic, and you can get more books from it. Fuck off anyone saying wikipedia is credulous blah blah it's fine for a lot of things provided they're relatively unknown by the hoi polloi.

My background is maths (I'm one of those dilettante philosophy and literature readers that make humbugs seethe) and while I genuinely respect physics and chemistry as fields, biology and psychology are a train wreck that are rapidly becoming a practice in "how to manipulate statistics to your advantage". No surprise that most women in stem are in bio and psych, go figure...

>>19145102
By the philosophy behind science I mean the whole rational egoism shtick where it's "good" to do what's good for you, etc... Not the philosophy of the universe is calculated and predetermined (which I strongly believe)

>>19141964
Based.

Science is gay, blind intuition is based. Take the alchemy pill

>>19145845
So ridiculously based

>>19144864
>>19144840
Science is not neutral, the moment you choose a subset of reality to analyze you start being biased, this notion that a neutral description of reality exists is absurd, whatever you are trying to describe requires that you ignore an infinite amount of other details. "Science" in the most abstract idealistic form might be neutral, but whenever you apply it to the world in any way it becomes biased

>>19139700
What? It's an institution, a cultural icon, an academia, a business. There are endless things you can critique not just the concept of the scientific itself (which is very weak intellectually) and the behaviour of scientists.

So what's the deal?

>>19135162
>Wants to discuss science in general
>Forces the topic to the mRNA experiment
Libalism is a mental disorder
>>19135151
Look into Epistemology. Also read about Parker (solar wind) and Pathagerous.
People that think "scientists agree," don't know any actual scientists.
It is more common for innovators to be called heratics than hailed as pushing the boundaries of science.
The march of science is littered with people ahead of their time and midwits dinouncing them.
>Science gets it wrong more than it gets it right
>Human science is barely out of the stone age

>>19142617
I was not actually familiar w the lindy effect until reading your post and looking it up online a bit.

My understanding is that this refers to how humans value and trust ideas which have only actually proven themselves by not being disproved or becoming irrelevant.

If that is the case I think you may be correct. That is, of we can agree on a certain defenition of science which is not the rationalist conception of the world, but the empiricists. As it originally was.

Unfortunately, for us who still understand and believe this, this definition is no longer agreed upon by the general population who sees science as what you describe. The lindy effect.

Basically, we are using the same word to reference two different ideas. Either we give the old science a new name or we give the new science, the science based on rationalism, the new name. I prefer the latter and I would like name to be "bullshit". Right now, because of the popularity and success of the previous science, advocates for this (not so)new way of thinking have found it more convenient to advertise their reasoning as the old science, which it is not.

Cont. And ill answer your 1st q to the best of my ability

I trust the science. Therefore I am never wearing a mask or taking the wuhan "vaccine".

>>19142617
2/2

As for science role in technological progress I cannot say for certain where we are headed based on where we have come from.

It may have been that instinct and intuition originally lead humans to improve their surroundings before we methodically began scientific development of our technology.

Scientific method is not the only way to advance technologically. You can blindly attempt improvements, and brute force it, but you can expect that this is very inefficient. We could also have aliens come down and bestow upon us the technology which we did not develop for ourselves. Kinda like what has happened in these 3rd world countries who were not ready for all the shit we gave them.

It could be that we hit a wall of human understanding and that science is no longer a tool that can be used to advance us. Then we are at the mercy of chance to allow us an accidental discovery of new technologies.

It seems like were already approaching our limits in some areas as there has been scientific research in quantum physics which does not align with human logic and it may suggest that human logic is incapable of predicting certain realities which we are still able to observe. Look up some of the many paradoxes in quantum mechanics.

Ofc these phenonmena have been exaggerated by mainstream media like I originaly critisized and its entirely possible that we find logical explanations to our observations. Just remember that the science is in the observation only.

>>19139271
YES

>>19140481
No, the death of alchemy read a history book

>>19136206
Long-winded and obvious. Is this the power of Guenon?

>>19147588
Good thing there's alternatives to sinovac lol

>>19143586
>So you're saying you're sick of the way science is practiced?
>Or generally sick of the scientific method and its products?
Both, although I do not think the scientific method is invalid. It is an incredibly broad term and describes a lot of human behavior. Nowadays, it is just applied too dogmatically and exploited as a means to justify bullshit. Feyerabend, who has been mentioned ITT has some really interesting thoughts on this.

I still believe "science" is largely a self-correcting process but unfortunately people have lost the sense of scale of how long this self-correction really takes. Scientific results that are just a year old are immediately seen as "valid", partially because they tick all the methodological boxes. Makes my skin crawl.

In reality, modern "science" is really just composed of poor, desperate grad students and professors following trends as rapidly as they can. This process produces a wave of nonsense of which you maybe get one or two useful paradigms (best examples of these are deep learning and blockchains currently). But you will only know this in a decade or two the earliest. The longer I work in this space the more I believe that methods that are simply drawn from personal experience and oral tradition can be just as valid if they survive the test of time, which in itself is validation.

>>19135162
look what they did to gilbert ling, most people are too stupid to even undestand his ideas, he was fully axed and excommunicated because he proposed ideas way above the intellectual understanding of most brainlets.
intellectually honest persons wont be scientists for long.

>>19135230
>she got blackpilled so badly that she went full schizo, began to distrust reality itself, dropped out of uni and became a crackwhore.
Should've read Spinoza instead, she would've been the one selling the crack

>>19145870
I meant it in the abstract sense.

>>19135151
Um no thank you sweaty. I prefer science that refute books!

>>19151362
Based

>>19135151
The only thing you need to refute science is to understand that the things that matter the most for humans are not the things that are true whether or not we believe them. It’s the things that BECOME true BECAUSE we believe them that are important.

Humans are story telling being not science beings. We think, feel, dream in stories. Everything about your past becomes a story you tell and retell yourself and it changes your whole life. Everything about our future is a story we wish to come true. At present you are constantly living a narrative you confabulate for yourself.

>>19152177
>It’s the things that BECOME true BECAUSE we believe them that are important.
This. If you can train you subconscious to believe something, it becomes true. For example, science can offer no good explanation for the placebo effect

Sorry boys I'm just not getting it (the vaccine)

>>19152177
Based tranny supporter. If you believe you're a woman you are a woman. I'm an otherkin elf/tiger

>>19152324
>consciously believing something is the same as subconsciously believing in something
Retard alert

>>19152332
Retard is the guy going full postmodern relativism and not realizing it opens the door to everything he hates along with Jesus.

>>19135151
>>19140675

Erik Voegelin - Political Religions and Science and Gnosticism

>>19142960
Against Method

> Nice hat Sòyjak!

>>19135151
>ctrk+f "Against Method"
>3 results
today was a good day

>>19135188
Not sure why this post made people seethe so hard. It’s true.

Research flat earth

>>19135188
How the fuck is there so much reddit in /lit/ now?
What this guy says is simply true. W*stoids don't think for themselves they just do what is deemed "most efficient" or "scientific" without questioning anything and everything (true science).

>>19135188
The only way to beat science is with more science. Honestly learning more about statistics will do you better if you think politicians using studies as proof of fact is the issue.

>>19152403
>Eric "everything that I don't like is Gnosticism" Voegelin
nah

>>19137592
>there is nothing mysterious in our self-awareness
Bro

>>19149262
So you're against early research being touted as law? That's a reasonable stance but moreso pro science than anything.

>>19135239
Big Bang - Nothing came before it.
Natural Laws of universe - Accidental
Consciousness - Its source is the brain
Scientists do not believe these things mate.

>>19149262
>blockchain
>useful paradigm
Blockchain is the tulip speculation of our generation.

>>19139700
That's what it pretends to be. What it actually is is a system of perverse bureaucratic rent seeking and gatekeeping incentives that exists to launder political agendas and soak up grant money and prestige in the process.

>>19153291
To butcher a quote "Science is worst form of investigation except for all the others that have been tried." Every human endeavor is crippled by human weakness but science still produces results. Religion and philosophy don't.

>>19153307
Science is completely pwned by political power.

>>19144817
None of that shit is real you numbskull.
Mathematics is a language not a tool based in reality.

Imagine not believing in science and God

>>19135151
Is probably be totally against science if not for this like electricity, airplanes, computers etc.

>>19153631
Science doesn't work it's belief that matters. If you stopped believing in your phone it would stop working simple as that. Magic really happened in the past we just stopped believing in it.

>>19135151
Prophetic and visionary works of William Blake who mogs urizen worshipper sciencefags with poetic genius and eternal life, of course.

>>19153661
Magic and tech are totally different things, magic never stopped existing like some urban fantasy movie, it’s just hidden. The elites use forms of ritual magic all the time to control the masses. If it was just about “believing” Santa Claus would exist.

>>19153680
Santa Claus does exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXnef2Ltklg

>>19141958
High quality post.

>>19153764
Except technology adjacent science isn't what people complain about. The big bang, evolution, and neuroscience are all boogeymen of the culture wars and they have no practical application.

>>19153782
They are one and the same.

>>19153824
You're very confused if you think there are technological applications of cosmology.

>>19153834
Try reading a book anon.

>>19153824
Correct.

>>19153834
Cosmology gives us observations which are crucial to theoretical development in the foundations of physics. e.g. the positive cosmological constant, lithium levels etc. And a breakthrough in the foundations of physics would have unpredictable affects on technology. The last big breakthrough gave us semiconductors...

>>19155067
Brb charging my FUCKING BLACK HOLE. Get the fuck out of here you pseud.

>>19140840
aren't the philosopher that are directly inspired by hume literally build the idea of positivism ?

>>19155124
Wittgenstein was the inspiration for the logical positivists. Hume came up with the problem of induction that kind of fucks over empiricism.

>>19144255
Thomas Szasz is part of why there are so many mentally insane kooks on the streets and why all the hospitals for these people went away. Also yes he's Jewish. His family fled from Hungary because of Uncle Lamp Shade. He was also a libertarian so he bought into the idea that people should "own" their body and their mind, which meant locking them up was some sort of inhumane treatment that robbed them of mental and physical liberty. The answer thus became disposing of these hospitals so these people could shit in a bucket down on the corner because they're living their freedom by doing so. Local and state governments were more than happy to buy into this bilge because it meant diverting a lot of budget money to other programs that could be used to buy votes. Also a bigger stigma about mental illness existed back then so people didn't really care what happened to these people as long as they didn't have to think about them. Of course now they do have to care because one of them is pouring a bucket full of hot diarrhea over your mother's head.

Start with the greeks, reverse engineer their studies to use the sciences to your advantage against them. Next, apply and use that same method to postmodern thought.

Science is based, scientism is not.

>>19153277
Maybe. At this point I do not really know what pro science or anti science means. I think the modern scientific process is largely compromised by institutional implementation and short-term gains.
>>19153284
That is what I am saying. Consensus research, which is part of blockchain work, is fairly reasonable but 99% of the other work is nonsense. Same as deep learning. There will be a correction and/or reckoning at some point. Everyone knows it but they are still playing the game.

>>19138890
this. its a fascinating book. its not even necessarily against science, but the scientific method. the idea is that its good for science if anything goes rather than sticking to a precise method

i dont know if i hate science but i sure am tired of being told "the science is always changing" as an excuse for why scientists get things wrong all the time. if the science always changes why the fuck should we even care what they have to say?

>>19135151
Kevin Solway has a good essay on Scientism here: https://thephilosophytakeaway.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-source-of-meaning-by-kevin-solway.html

>>19156090
What would you prefer to happen, science not changing in the face of contradictory evidence? No human knowledge is certain if you believe otherwise you wind up like the christcucks talking about the inerrant word of god.

>>19135151
Not a book, but if you are looking for more academic research into this topic I highly recommend looking into the "Replication Crisis." Here's some relevant material:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/?utm_source=pocket-app&utm_medium=share

https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a?utm_source=pocket-app&utm_medium=share

From this article: "More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/?utm_source=pocket-app&utm_medium=share

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8139580/?utm_source=pocket-app&utm_medium=share

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine?wprov=sfla1

Evolution is generally irrelevant in people’s lives, I don’t see why people care debating it

>>19156353
Does her booba just pop out if she stands up straight?

>>19156797
Double sided tape

>>19156810
Man, I hate women.
And that's an empirical observation.

>>19155657
>He was also a libertarian so he bought into the idea that people should "own" their body and their mind, which meant locking them up was some sort of inhumane treatment that robbed them of mental and physical liberty.
Imagine my horror. If they commit crime then lock them in prison, if not then stick your fake concern in your ass. We truly have degenerate, totalitarian psychos running wild among us, you're the best example. Still, I would not lock you up until you actually try to carry out your ideas.

>>19156993
You know that you cannot succeed in current capitalism much less completely "free market" (as likely to work as communism) without committing crime on the daily right?

>>19157007
This is not capitalism but social democratic welfare state
>you know, right?
Get the fuck out of here with these kindergarten level baits.

>>19157034
>you know, right?
Because It can be proven by having 1(one) job under a small business/ entrepreneur. All of them who don't go bankrupt within the first year HAVE to engage in shady practices and mandatory tax evasion.
>This is not capitalism but social democratic welfare state
Even better proof towards my case. If this is the way things work when businessmen are constrained you can easily see how they would behave with even less government threats.

>>19157065
>If this is the way things work when businessmen are constrained you can easily see how they would behave with even less government threats.
On the contrary, the more government involvement the more corruption (BY DEFINITION - look up what "corruption" even is) and the edge case of total government control (like in former communist countries) meant total disenfranchisement of commoners.

>>19135151
Try some of Chestertons work maybe his autobiography of Thomas

>>19157078
*teleports behind u*
Nothing personel..

Just because you can't categorize it with a name and it is not under any law doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
There were no laws against spilling all your waste into the rivers until people figured out that it's retarded and local warlord threatened to cut off any fuckwits head for litter.

>>19157120
You are going off topic with this commie drivel.
We shall possibly continue this discussion elsewhere.

>>19157127
Read something more on economics than Adam Smith. Sure it's nice and flowery and I too was enthralled by Wealth of Nations, but it's not the whole picture.

>>19157144
Don't make me laugh kid

>>19157156
No u.

>>19135239
>>19135304
>>19139414
Am I correct in saying that someone calculated that the chance of amino acids on the early Earth forming themselves into self-replicating, self-assembling structures was one in 11 trillion or some other impossibly huge number?

>>19157313
I doubt you can put such a thing into a formula.
Same with calculating the mass of a galaxy. You only end up with bullshit like "dark matter".

>>19135188
Nigga what? Its just math and chemistry and shit, the hell you talking about?

>>19157471
Take the jab.
Eat the bugs.
You only need 60k to be happy.
Nepotism bad.
Those with a degree make 1$million more.

>>19153516
retard

>>19157488
take your meds schizo

>>19135943
u wanna expand on that? go ahead
show us on the doll where Feyerabend hurt you

>>19157488
>Take the jab.
Alright, a vaccine is a thing for a long time, even if it seems to be rushed at the moment
>Eat the bugs.
Que?
>You only need 60k to be happy.
Dunno what science has to do with it
>Nepotism bad.
Correct
>Those with a degree make 1$million more.
Dunno what's scientific about it, but I guess more educated people get better job

>>19156090
duhh i dunno maybe read a white paper for once in your life and find out

>>19156285
but this is just fraud, not science

>>19157598
Tell that to the general public.
Now drink your onions, it's scientifically proven to be the optimum food.

>>19157671
you're arguing against yourself. This crisis is exactly what science was designed to solve. If you're skeptical you try to reproduce the results yourself, don't just take it as gospel.

>>19157689
You guys are just using the word science in different ways. People switch between them depending on circumstances. Falling back to the very defensible science is just a continuous process, but usually meaning something much broader, ambitious, cocky, and error prone

>>19157699
no, you're thinking of lazyness

>>19157471
Back to Twitter

>>19157704
Back to school

>>19157703
You're an idiot. Can I be so bold as to say science will not solve the replication crisis, and was also the sole reason for it. It will not be solved and only added to and retards like you will be the reason

>>19157727
if something isn't replicable it isn't science...

>>19157738
Then what's in all these science journals

>>19157743
oh I didn't know those were science gospels

>hates science
>still uses all the stuff developed by it

Lol retard

>>19157598
If peer review can not prevent massive amounts of unreproducible studies from being published then it is a flawed process at the heart of science

>>19157598
If peer review can not prevent massive amounts of unreproducible studies from being published then it is a flawed process at the heart of science, and as much as you have your ideal conception of what science is or should be, the reality is that what gets published is what ultimately drives the direction of scientific discourse

>>19157977
>Hates God
>Lives on God's Green Earth

>>19158218
no, it was just poorly peer reviewed

>>19158244
not the own you thought it was chief

The way the "scientific method" works, you make an assumption about what you are observing, for instance "this machine counts electrons" and you use this to "prove" models, or "theories" as they call them.
The induction fallacy applies here. They are going from something specific(what they assume to observe) to something general(the model). You cannot prove anything this way. And yet scientists insist on talking about "scientific facts" and "scientific knowledge", but if you look into theory of science, they will admit that there are no facts and no knowledge in science. They use this language to be more convincing, and the "scientific model" is built around practical concerns rather than as a coherent philosophy. Karl Popper, for instance, rejects theories that can explain everything because they are "useless", and not because they are necessarily wrong.

>>19158500
>Christian God is the only God.
In a sense that is true, there is only one God, but it isn't a bearded sky daddy as atheists like to believe.

>>19141274
>I don't like/understand evolution so it must be magic
I don't like/understand giraffe necks so they must be stupidly designed.

>>19157471
t. living under a rock

>>19153284
Blockchain is QAnon for the """highly educated"""

>>19158787
t.takes redditors who worship it seriously

>>19135151
Kuhn, Popper
>>19135188
Very based, redditors are, obviously, seething.
>>19157471
Fucking retard

>>19158738
>In a sense that is true, there is only one God

And how do you know this, other than feels = reals? Also, I've always loved monotheists running away from the embarrasing implications of their own beliefs, almost like they subconsciously know that they're full of shit, but just have to cope now due to sunk costs

>>19159957
Given the traditional attributes of God (esp. omnipotence) it is impossible that there could be more than one God. In the case of omnipotence it’s especially obvious to see why.

Hume already did it.

>>19135162
If you don't have a problem with scientism you're retarded

>>19149531
Based cell membrane denier

>>19135151
Bitch you're using a computer. Cave painting that shit if you're going to cry about science

>>19160971
Computers work because we believe in them science has nothing to do with it.

>>19159957
There is not a single feel in this.
It's simply logic and deduction.

>>19160971
What If I want to use rock tools? Do I need formulas on gravity? A watermill? Do I need a course in fluid dynamics?

>>19161723
>a proof using logic and deduction
>oh yeah you also have to accept a bunch of retarded Aristotelianism
>and it still just devolves to axiomatic leg of Munchhausen's trilemma

>>19161750
It's mathematical. What are you even on to shizo?

>>19161766
It's not mathematical by a long stretch and even if it was math is axiomatic just like I said. The argument is just everything must have cause dressed up in deceptive definitions so to avoid the obvious question. What caused God? And if God doesn't need a cause why does the universe? Occam's razor would tell you to cut God out and just make the universe the uncaused cause.

>>19161780
Oh and I forgot that his discarding of infinite regress is bullshit too

>>19161780
What caused gravity, strong force, electromagnetism?
Nothing. It just exists as a non material rule of this reality.
God is one of those rules.
Why do YOU believe in bearded sky daddy so much?

>>19161804
Huh? I thought you were trying to make an argument for God's existence. Gravity exists because we have evidence for it we don't have to make up retarded philosophical proofs of it. There is no empirical evidence of God and Aquinas's five ways are dumb.

>>19161819
Can you prove the existence of human consciousness?

>>19161837
Sure if I talk to someone and they talk back I count them as conscious. That's the point of the Turing test, we count things as conscious if we can have some type of human seeming conversation with them. If I could have a conversation with God I would certainly say he existed and was conscious

>>19161847
Again you go with your "Sky daddy" bullshit. Take your pills.

>>19161855
I'm extremely confused now. I'm the one arguing God doesn't exist and that Aquinas's proofs are dumb. Are you agreeing with me?

>>19161858
No, because you believe in God the entity - schizophrenic .
I only believe in proof of God the concept - Genius.

>>19161858
>>19161855
https://youtu.be/M_FEDEBbZT4
You're both retarded. Watch this.

>>19161886
I already gave my opinion on Aristotelianism. His physics is comically wrong and so is his metaphysics. He gets credit for his logic and for being the first serious thinker in so many different fields

>>19161886
actuality and potential are not real things
they are man-made descriptions that tries to describe nature, but fails horribly

*actualizes a potential fart*

What caused the fart?
Was it the bean sandwich I ate, was it my sphincter?
Nay.. It was God.

>>19160283
And I should accept those attributes because...?

>>19161723
>causality
>therefore god dun did it

>>19161943
Ever considered that God IS causality?
It is the force that makes passing of time even possible.

>>19161965
Then just call it causality why bother with the God shit. And causality doesn't fucking burn bushes and talk to people that's fucking dumb.

>>19161965
>Ever considered that God IS causality?
Why call it God then? Causality seems to work just fine without taking the flesh and blood of an apocalyptic faith healer in the form of a cracker and wine

>>19161804
>What caused gravity, strong force, electromagnetism?
>Nothing. It just exists as a non material rule of this reality.
Math really did a number on your brain. Imagine believing such nonsense.

>>19157034
>Complaining about 'you know, right'?
Calm down, bro/sis you're on 4chan, condescension is the vernacular here.

>>19157065
>You know, right?
Yes, we get it. Under this corporate feudalism, socioeconomic class mobility is damn near impossible while boomers and some genx enjoyed the ease of life. You're right, but *you should know* this delivery method is antagonistic and inimical to discussion. How does that feel? We are emotional creatures, and even the most dry witted spergs need more than straight facts in a discussion.

>>19153180
genus, species and subspecies are by definition social constructs LMAO

>>19161819
>Gravity exists because... IT JUST DOES OKAY?!?!!!??!????!????!??!??!!!?!???

>>19161819
You have proof of things falling. You have no proof of "gravity".

>>19162919
I got a feeling that's what he meant, he's just too stupid to realize there's a difference

Are science and technology the same thing? If not, what is more important: the scientific method, which allows us creating new technologies, or technologies, which extend our scientific views?

>>19163621
If you're kneepads sycophant: Science
If you're a boomer: Technology
If you're ascended: Neither.

>>19152689
cyber demons