/lit/ - Literature

Sounds about right.

Most scientists these days are so specialized and entrenched in their particular things that they hardly qualify as generally 'intellectual.'

>>2691916

No.

sorry we have our own problems to deal with, please write rebuttals for your board by yourself.

i wish saging actually meant something

>>2691914
In other words, they do actual work.

>>2691923

sorry which part of cutting pancreases out of frogs and running chi square tests is "actual work"

>>2691923
They generate data in ultraspecific disciplines which hardly add to the episteme. It takes critical thought and interpretive/application skills to be an 'intellectual.' I appreciate scientists and mathematicians, but I appreciate the ones who can actually think about their work in a meaningful context more.

>>2691931

And since you know neither science nor math, you couldn't read a paper and tell if it was insightful or not.

>>2691923
Sick burn.

>>2691932
The part where they get paid to cut out frog pancreases.

>>2691932
>The theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on the campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things

>>2691942

i remember when i worked for chipotle, too

>>2691947
Scientists do actual labor. So shameful, right? If only they were as intellectual as they pretend they'd sit in universities and read philosophy all day, instead of actually getting their hands dirty doing work to help us better understand the world.

>>2691947
uuuuggggghhhhhh

>>2691937
I'm pretty proficient in natural sciences -- and the social ones, not that you'd count that for much -- and I have a good conceptual grasp of physics and math. I was a science major for half of college. Eh. I still keep up with some genetics / molecular biology articles.

Thanks for the ad hominem, though.

>Henceforth there was only "profane" philosophy and "profane" science, in other words, the negation of true intellectuality, the limitation of knowledge to its lowest order, namely, the empirical and analytical study of facts divorced from principles, a dispersion in an indefinite multitude of insignificant details, and the accumulation of unfounded and mutually destructive hypotheses and of fragmentary views leading to nothing other than those practical applications that constitute the sole real superiority of modern civilization - a scarcely enviable superiority, moreover, which by stifling every other preoccupation, has given the present civilization the purely material character that makes of it a veritable monstrosity.

Postmodern philosophy is shit, certainly, but so is 99% of today's 'science'.

>>2691955

Substantiate this claim. What science? Do you know anything about science? Can you even do calculus?

>>2691931
If you had any idea the creative talent it takes to make it in the field of mathematics as a leading researcher you wouldn't be saying any of this

tldr; You have no idea what you're talking about

>>2691954

by all means holla back re: how the army and raytheon's pain gun helps us better understand the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

>>2691958
Elaborate. We can all make claims. Talk to me about graph theory, maybe.

>>2691955
Karl Popper once gave the example that if he catalogued every moment of his life, it still wouldn't be science, because mundane, non-connected details do not make science

When a paper is published i.e. Watson and Cricks "The Structure of DNA", it has linked together relevant facts though a framework of theories, these facts were only looked into because the scientist understood the theories well enough to discover them, it took intellect to forge these into the concept they became and linking them with existing theories

"the accumulation of unfounded and mutually destructive hypotheses and of fragmentary views"
That's actually the opposite of how science works, science gathers information into a comprehensive and consistent framework

Also, empirical and analytical judgements are of a "lesser form of knowledge"? By who's decree?

>>2691947
Your ass is stubborn.
0/10, because fuck you you ignorant cunt, no one's that stupid.

>>2691963
The math you do in school is not math, it is calculations
>learn formula
>practice formula on odds #15-31

Actual math is an entirely creative process
>Play around with existing formulas
>Understand how the numbers behave
>For example: Realize that p series are actually closely related to prime factorizations
>Come up with formula's

No computer could "discover" formula's yet, it is a creative act

>that feel when someone on /sci/ knows what they're talking about

fuck scientism fuck postmodernism fuck marxism fuck relativism fuck analytic philosophy

>>2691963
>>2691958
I'm still waiting for evidence or at least some kind of compelling argument. O NO UR WRONG N STUPID does not constitute a response. Or did you skulk back to /sci/ that quickly?

>>2691965
I like this. I appreciate the naturalism and empirical method of the sciences, but the entailments of generalizability and universality I question.
>scalar field theory up in this shit

>>2691968
Okay, mathematicians are creative. I never said they weren't. But what ultimately do their findings and innovations and poofs "do"?

>>2691960
No one thinks that is science, science is research into, for example, the behavior of the microwaves involved in the "gun" or whatever

If I were to defend it however, I would say that the actual act of inventing these machines, and the relevant discoveries in engineering constitute science

Assembly from instructions, however, would not

>>2691971
I wouldn't argue generalizability or accept a principle of induction, if you are interested I would recommend "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper

And I replied involving math in >>2691968

>>2691976

quite right -- i mean, bottom line here is, it would be cool if every so often you heard a voice from within the scientific community saying, "hey, our research is being used to add pain to people's lives -- to make the limited tenure of our fellow human beings here on earth worse -- and that's maybe not so cool"

but how often does that happen?

>>2691975
>He says while using a computer

>>2691980
Thanks. I really do appreciate constructive response. I'll add it to my goodreads.

>>2691981
Okay,Richard Feynman, if you recall on your most famous interview videos you talked about the questionable morality of being involved with the research and development of the atomic bomb

>>2691984
I'm talking about pure maths right now.

>>2691975
It fulfills some purpose, they are primarily additions to human knowledge and secondarily by science for human ends

What is the deeper purpose? Well that could be asked for any action, and we're still waiting on an answer from philosophy.

>>2691990
see
>>2691991

All applied math was at one point pure math

Interestingly enough, a large portion of famous number theorist valued their work by how uselessly and thus "purely" it related to humanity

>>2691991
See, this is a good answer. Thanks. I don't even know how I ended up disagreeing with this. I started out questioning narrow-minded scientism and some mathfag called me out. I lub science. I'm so sorry. ;(

>>2691996
Haha I've actually been making constructive responses as I'm one of the few people in the world who will defend science to the death without bashing humanities, that's why I get in fights with literally everyone

>>2691965

I think it's safe to say Watson and Crick's research doesn't fall into the "99% of today's science" this anon criticizes. That, if anything, would fall into the 1% of legitimately meaningful work.

I don't see how what he's saying is incompatible with what you posted.

Everyone's counterexamples to this...
>>2691931
>>2691931
...seems to be cherry picking quality research, side-stepping the anon's actual point.

When /lit/ discusses science it reminds me of a Sunday school class who thinks they're oh so wise because they believe that scientists, for all their knowledge, are blind to the obvious truth that life is so complex that evolution just can't be true.

The contemporary humanities are little more than secular church groups for people who claim to hate the hegemony.

>>2692001

>implying empirical truths aren't just glorified intersubjective notions

>>2692000
I think what we all miss is that a lot of work from other scientist goes into these amazing discoveries, for example in "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick, they site hundreds of otherwise meaningless papers that helped them come to their discovery, like for example the seemingly useless discovery that Adenine and Thymine and Guanine and Cytozine appeared in equal quantities, all these facts were crucial pieces to a bigger puzzle

For a more recent example, Perlemen rejected the only million dollar millennium prize because he felt other less directly contributing mathematicians weren't getting the recognition they deserved and that the effort spanned a hundred years and countless mathematicians, not just one man

>>2692001

I imagined Arvie saying all of that in a sissy boy voice.

>>2692000
Hi. >>2691931 here. I guess my claim was too general and coming from too small of a perspective. Let me rephrase more positively:

There is now vastly too much knowledge and information for any one person (i.e., archetypal "intellectual") to be able to ascertain, interpret, or apply. So I think more people need to be working toward connecting various disciplines than currently are. Because from what I can tell, every is diving into absurdly specialized topics of highly specific disciplines, and I would very much like those contributions to make some sort of return into the general episteme than just adding to an ethereal "body of human knowledge."

>>2691965
>That's actually the opposite of how science works, science gathers information into a comprehensive and consistent framework

...How do you figure that?

>Also, empirical and analytical judgements are of a "lesser form of knowledge"? By who's decree?

The author's, presumably. What has the emphasis we've placed on this sort of thought for the past couple of centuries yielded for us? Overpopulation, the worst and largest wars in human history, catastrophic damage to the environment... to what end? Why should these fields of knowledge be celebrated?

>>2692002

This is why both scientists and conservative intellectuals together hate the Humanities as it exists today.

>>2692001
>life is so complex that evolution just can't be true
0/10

>>2692002
>>2692002
>>2692002
>>2692002
>>2692002
You've just discovered what took philosophy thousands of years to find

>>2692001
This makes me sad.

You're really that inculcated from engaging in arts and culture? Like, we seriously can no longer draw the distinction between art and religion?

>>2692005
Please ignore my GUM mistakes. It's late and the light is off.

>>2692010
I think they're just being contrary.
>ur so dumb having conversations about this lelelele

>>2692008
>What has the emphasis we've placed on this sort of thought for the past couple of centuries yielded for us?

What are you using right now to post this? What information do you have access to right now? How difficult is it for you, with the proper currency, to get fresh food and clean water? If you were sick how long would it take to get you to the nearest health facility? How many diseases and injuries could they heal you of? How many vaccines are available and deaths prevented due to them?

It is easy to sit here and praise the "Noble Savage" and say that science is terrible, but in practice you're sitting behind a computer

>>2692010
>You're really that inculcated from engaging in arts and culture? Like, we seriously can no longer draw the distinction between art and religion?
I came to this conclusion from engaging in arts and culture. It's a cesspool of intellectually lazy people who think that anything that sounds interesting is as valid a notion as the truth.

>>2692003
>>2692003

Yes. I might suggest the humanities and its "psuedointellectual playgrounds" operate in a similar fashion.

To decry the state of modern English departments is one thing, but to completely discredit a whole field of knowledge, as /sci/ frequently does, is quite another. One field is no "better" than another. That's a childish notion.

>>2692017
>the truth
You're clearly not involved in contemporary humanities.

>>2692017
I think that may just mean you go to a shitty university.

>>2692005
I couldn't agree with you more, and that's a difficulty we'll have to face as humanity moves forward. No longer can you be Descartes, the polymath of geometry and philosophy. Too many people have lived before us, the web of human knowledge is too vast, you could spend a lifetime simply studying others works, and many do.

The reality too is that many of these obscure contributions work their way back into practical life, and no better example can be seen than the pure maths. Number theory for millennia had no real application until it rocketed off into the field of cryptography.

And could you clarify what you mean by "general epistime"?

>>2692017

it's endlessly fascinating that /sci/folk can be this terrified of the absence of objective truth decades after the introduction of quantum physics

>>2692028
>not understanding quantum mechanics
>2012

>>2692021
Freud was wrong about most things. This is not opinion, this is fact. That doesn't stop retards in the humanities from name dropping and referencing him like the field of psychology died at the same time he did. I bet well over half the people who namedrop that rich, dead, white male (all of whom would simultaneously love to decry the cultural hegemony of rich, dead white males) have never even heard of people who have seriously and with academic rigor contributed to our understanding of the field, like Daniel Kahneman.

>>2692026
I meant to spell it "episteme," in the way Foucault uses the word. I probably misused it, but I meant the body of knowledge a well educated layperson could be expected to understand roughly or benefit from practically. You already addressed this, though. I guess I was speaking from ignorance.

Again, thanks for being so nice. It's a rarity on this board and these days.

>>2692018
I think better is a notion that only makes sense in humanities, so it's almost cheating to use it one way or another, science can only be compared quantitatively, say by utility, and it cannot be measured

Science might argue it saves more lives, improves quality of living, gives people the opportunity to engage in humanities etc. but the humanities might argue that they are the aspiration of humanity, and the only reason they should strive for life, and that science is but a tool

These are all valid objections and there is no judge to appeal to, one is not better than the other unless a criteria relevant to both is given

>>2692030
>"understanding" quantum mechanics
>2012

Someone hasn't into quantum.

>>2692028
There are certain developments and experiments in quantum mechanics which lend evidence to the concept of a consistent, objective reality though.

>>2692037

Quantum mechanics isn't taoism. And I don't mean final understanding. Just a general grasp of the subject.

>>2692036

see

>>2692002

>>2692033
What the fuck are you responding to?

>>2692045
I think that was Shakey. Am I missing a joke?

>>2692033
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with objective truth, please stop abusing the name of Richard Feynman

In "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" Popper argues a whole chapter about quantum mechanics, and Feynman famously stated that, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't"

It only talks about probability and superposition, things that do not relate directly to objective and subjective truth

I'm assuming you're interpreting things like Schrondinger's cat to mean that the cat is not objectively in either position. He is in fact in superposition. Superposition (so far as empirical observations are fact and the cat a male) is a description of his objective state.

If empirical observations are not objective than the entire argument is irrelevant, as the set in question is subjective.

>>2692036

"neither a borrower nor a lender be" - ben franklin

>>2692034
>>2692034

What I'm saying is this whole line of inquiry is fruitless. It's like arguing that my dad could beat up your dad.

Reread the greentext in...
>>2691955
>>2691955

It's spot on.

>>2692049

lmao even better

>>2692047
Read the text again, it's filled with entirely loaded words, it reads like a political pundit against science

>negation of true intellectuality
no defined meaning
>the limitation of knowledge to its lowest order
who says?
>makes of it a veritable monstrosity
less violent than any other point in history, better standard of living, more interest in humanities

The part about science being a jumble of unrelated facts, as I've already addressed, is the opposite of both science's methods and its aims

It is utter nonsense, pure banter of ego stroking that gets one labeled a pseudo-intellectual who characteristically decries society as "materialistic" and the humanities as the only viable course

>>2692045
>ben franklin
You tryin to rustle my jimmies? I know Dante, man, that's from his Aeneid.

...But seriously now, there's been some important things happening like the reality of wave functions, Zeno effect, and the consistent histories and decoherence theory. Granted, I'm just a chemistry student who read some good pop-sci on the subject, but it was interesting and enlightening to see somebody argue well for Einstein's view with modern evidence.

>>2692033
>>2692033
Yeah, I still don't see how this doesn't make your original comment a gross exaggeration.

It seems pretty outlandish to compare all humanities departments to churches for shit that undergraduates pull.

>>2692033
No problem, on other boards I'm generally less constructive, but I'm translating my love for literature into a love for this board, I believe there can actually be constructive discussion, and I think this board should have the best chance

>>2692057
I wonder what people who decry ontological materialism (i.e. physicalism) would have us do. Would they rather imagine a supranatural Formscape or some other such nonsensical noumena?

>>2692048
>>2692036

These. The Feynman tripfag is a pleb and knows nothing about science just like the rest of /lit/

>>2692014
>What are you using right now to post this? What information do you have access to right now? How difficult is it for you, with the proper currency, to get fresh food and clean water? If you were sick how long would it take to get you to the nearest health facility? How many diseases and injuries could they heal you of? How many vaccines are available and deaths prevented due to them? It is easy to sit here and praise the "Noble Savage" and say that science is terrible, but in practice you're sitting behind a computer

Even if my life could be prolonged indefinitely, I have to ask myself if I'm truly better off than my ancestors simply because I'm able to spend my time engaged in pointless arguments with anonymous strangers on the internet. Is it better to live in a world which we have the capacity to destroy several hundred times over (or whatever the current count is,) one that we've already destroyed to a large extent for the sake of industry? More importantly, are most people -- the ones who don't have access to most of the things you listed -- better off? Will they be better off when and if they finally do have those things and the gulf between them and us has grown even larger in the meantime? These are genuine questions; I don't dwell on them and they don't define my daily existence or anything, but I occasionally get to wondering.

>>2692058
What pop sci did you read? I've been looking for some.

>>2692058
I think you're interpreting subjective and objective as they relate to space-time, like "respective to the observer" or the Aristotilian conception of a fixed or absolute sense

I would also like to see that debate, however, I think /sci/ would be a more appropriate board, the wikipedia page for Bohr has some interesting though experiments devised by the two as they actually argued

>>2692057
It's also criticizing "profane" philosophy as well. This isn't "anti-science," your just defensively reading it this way.

The bigger problem is that people are no longer convinced knowledge for knowledge's sake is a worthy pursuit.

Leading to bullshit like this...
>>2691954

>>2692068
Oh my SAGAN the "noble savage" bullshit is dripping off of you!
Do you think quality of life was better finding food for 30 years and dying of tooth decay or 12 and in childbirth? Your entirely worldview is predicated on an mythico-historical nostalgia. Fuck's sake.

>>2692068
So you're saying it would be better if we were doing just as bad as they were. Maybe if everyone's lives were equally shit the world would be a much better place.

>>2692067
No, I'm >>2692036 , >>2692058 and I think Feynman's a pretty sharp guy who knows a little about what he's talking. He just holds an opposing viewpoint, and that viewpoint is nowhere near disproved.

>>2692073
>you're

my bad

>>2692068
If you were starving from hunger you wouldn't be saying, "Well at least I didn't spend my life in pursuit of scientific i.e. practical knowledge, also I can die peacefully knowing the trees are safe."

I apologize for the less constructive response, but I can never take seriously people who decry science's benefits. Defend literature and the rest of the humanities to the ends of the earth, but that does not necessarily entail attacking science.

Also you wasting time arguing on an anonymous message board is not a decision science made, right now someone is having sex with an attractive stewardess thousands of feet in the sky, men and women move around weightlessly in the international space station, and a man composes music for a living because he does not have to live in a tribe-like social structure which forces him to hunt for food.

Once again, you keep saying better off, it's not a valid question in science. Do you mean healthier, happier, safer, with a wider range of experiences?

>>2692071
>>2692070
Well, the book I'm talking about is Paradigms Regained, and it's a follow-up to Paradigms Lost. Lost was written in 1989, so it's definitely dated, but it gives a very thorough groundwork and I'd consider it essential for most of the follow-up, although the part in Regained on physics' view of objective reality does pretty well on its own.
John L. Casti, a Mathematics professor, goes into some of the "Big Questions" in science and philosophy, and focuses on these questions as a sort of courtroom trial: what does science have to say on the subject? And he hands out his own verdict, but he does a great job of presenting the scientific debates as just that, debates of many learned people.
The big questions/claims/chapters:
1. Life arose out of natural physical processes taking place here on earth.
2. Are human behavior patterns dictated primarily by the genes?
3. Does the human capacity for language come from a biological portion of the brain?
4. Can computers literally think?
5. Are we alone in the universe?
6. There exists no objective reality independent of an observer

>>2692079
>Once again, you keep saying better off, it's not a valid question in science. Do you mean healthier, happier, safer, with a wider range of experiences?

I guess this is what I should really be asking myself.

I like science. I really like philosophy.
I think the two complement each other well.
I would say the average person doesn't need to study either to get along in the world, and I'd say both have had a profound effect on the world, with science obviously having a more visible effect.
But, I think people that don't know the history of philosophy don't understand how it has shaped even non-intellectual peoples view of life and life issues, while pretty much everyone appreciates what science has done for all of us.

>>2692113
That summarizes the entire thread, goodnight people