/lit/ - Literature

>What is 'scientism'
thinking that knowledge is possible
denying the existence of teleology
believing that sense data is trustworthy

>>4729147
>denying the existence of teleology

no, that is just called 'ability to think'. Scientism is when people think the universe is made of numbers, for example. Or retards say that science cannot solve the other minds problem right now, but it will be able to do so in the future when science advances further.

The other half of the coin are retards who think that science as a human practice actually depends on 'philosophical underpinnings' of a sort which belongs to the same area 'philosophy' as analytical and continental philosophy.

>>4729153


any sense of moral or ethical imperative (or value whatsoever) is incoherent without a concomitant sense of telos.

>>4729153
>science as a human practice actually depends on 'philosophical underpinnings' of a sort

There's nothing wrong with this. You're retarded.

If there is one practical use for philosophy, it's in forming the ethical foundation for science. That, and helping delineate the epistemological limits of human understanding.

>>4729170
Teleology in ethics does not require teleology in everything. Applying purpose to many natural processes is unnecessary and unknowable.

Also science is not based on sense data... That's an absurd statement.

>>4729126
Scientism is merely the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method. Which isn't bad when the position is held by people who actually understand science.

There are also people who don't understand science and treat it as their new religion. This is silly.

There also isn't any rivalry between actual STEM people and actual humanities people beyond American kids on the internet,

>>4729189
>Also science is not based on sense data... That's an absurd statement.

Thank you. Jesus fucking christ, I wish more philosophy majors would actually study science a little more before criticizing it. There's always some asshole undergrad philosophy major who thinks they know more than the PhD physicists at their school.

>>4729189
>Also science is not based on sense data...

What is it based on instead? Introspection? Because I'm pretty sure in order to explain phenomena, you have to first observe them... THROUGH YOUR SENSE, THAT IS.

It's basically the idea that all problems are solvable empirically through the methods of science.

So you get complete retards like Sam Harris who think they magically bridged the is-ought gap...

Mostly harmless because nobody with the least bit of intelligence actually thinks it's a reasonable position.

>>4729153
>The other half of the coin are retards who think that science as a human practice actually depends on 'philosophical underpinnings'
>as a human practice
>as a practice
>in a pragmatic framework
wow, way to be all kinds of wrong and stupid and dumb
science is a philosophy ask aristotle and hume and bacon and the list could go on

>>4729186
>ethical foundation for science

Oh crap, that's even dumber than the position I 'strawmanned' (based on past experience) for people who think science needs philosophy.

>>4729170
>any sense of moral or ethical imperative (or value whatsoever) is incoherent without a concomitant sense of telos.

Glad you're catching on!

>>4729210
this

>>4729212
>science is a philosophy ask aristotle and hume and bacon and the list could go on

This.

Ask yourself, what is a number? If you think it's anything other than a philosophical concept, you're retarded.

Scientism is the ideology that believes science to be the one perspective from which to experience, study or act upon the world. It's bad because, just like any other ideology, you're left ignoring all else, all other possibilities. It creates a certain extreme skepticism that is usually just drawn out when convenient, it also creates a fear of the unknown while raising the flag of seeking knowledge. The bad is not in the science itself, but as anyone can see, that everything is reduced and fit into scientific terms. The danger in that is in the very lack of understanding of the other. Metaphysics, art, or just ordinary experience is then either nullified or twisted by the thought that "science pertains everywhere", it creates a necessity of scientific justification that is put in front of reality itself.

>>4729223
>Ask yourself, what is a number? If you think it's anything other than a philosophical concept, you're retarded.

If you want to investigate the 'nature' of a number, sure. However, everyone uses numbers, and most people never consider numbers as philosophical concepts. Yet they still use them successfully, to count apples, and cars, and shitposts on /lit/ by retards like you.

The philosophical nature of numbers, epistemology, 'ethics' and anything else you naively think to be relevant for science can be, and is, black-boxed. In fact, they don't even have to be black-boxed because they are already in place and work just fine, no need to investigate them with an intellectual framework that has failed to answer any of its own questions in the last 2000 years...

>>4729206

>Because I'm pretty sure in order to explain phenomena, you have to first observe them.

Are you living in the 17th century? Because I cannot think of anyone who has any experience with modern science who claims that science today relies on sensory observation.

In fact, the majority of science today relies on instruments which exceed human senses.

>HURR BUT YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR SENSE TO READ THE INSTRUMENTS

Your position is so asinine it's not even worth debating. But here goes, when you have ten different instruments with different methods of detection all reporting the same thing, you can be pretty damn sure it's real. And your senses do not even factor into it.

Fuck, stop giving philosophy majors a bad name you fuckwit.

The idea that just because science is really effective in its field its methods work in other fields.

It is dangerous cause it rots all those other fields where it is imported; we see that science methods do not work there and this lead us, instead of questioning science's application there, to think that those fields are irrelevant in human life. In other words, science becomes our frame to read everything

It is as if a monolingual person had books in different languages and, after trying to read them all, only kept those he understood and ignored the rest thinking they are not written in any language or that they at best are primitive stages of his own language.

>>4729231

I'm giving a simple example to illustrate a point. What the average person thinks is of no concern to this argument. You're literally appealing to majority opinion instead of making a substantive case.

Consider complex numbers. Are they anything but philosophical ideas? They're called imaginary numbers for a reason. But their results are verifiable in reality and are verified over and over and over again in modern physics.

>>4729251
>Consider complex numbers. Are they anything but philosophical ideas?

Yes, they are. They are mathematical concepts. You are simply defining maths as a subset of philosophy, when the two share nothing in terms of methodology, applicability, etc (inb4 formal logic, philosophy deals with statements about things which exist outside of and prior to logic).

There are actually pretty good arguments for the existence of numbers. Quine was a number realist.

>>4729260

A mathematical concept IS a philosophy. What the fuck do you think philosophy is other than a mental construct?

Protip: What is labeled as "philosophy" by the humanities department does not encompass the entirety of philosophy.

>>4729240
>And your senses do not even factor into it.

how the fuck are you reading the instruments, then? Instruments provide you with different sensory data, that has been augmented or filtered. Are you seriously incapable of understanding this?

>>4729260
>philosophy deals with statements about things which exist outside of and prior to logic

Maybe the shitty continentals you read...

>>4729266

No, cunt. The debate concerning truth values of propositions about future events, for example. Those events exist outside of formal logic.

>>4729265
>Your position is so asinine it's not even worth debating. But here goes, when you have ten different instruments with different methods of detection all reporting the same thing, you can be pretty damn sure it's real.

Did you completely miss this whole thing? Because I was pretty abundantly clear in my point.

If I have ten different instruments like, say, an electron microscope, a nanomachine reporting physical details, a spectroscopy machine, etc. and they all report that substance A is substance A, then it's true, regardless of what my senses or your senses say.

If we are talking about qualia, then it doesn't matter because every human being can read the instruments in the same way. If we are talking about the senses tainting our reading of the instruments in the same exact way, you'd have to first:
a) How our senses would be limiting our reading of these instruments
b) How your mental construct (of epistemological limitations) is superior to the standard mental construct of science

Right now, your argument is on the level of Jaden Smith opining that, "How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?"

>>4729153
>Scientism is when people think the universe is made of numbers, for example.
that is wrong

>>4729223
It doesn't matter that "numbers" are a way for us to interpret the world around us. Three apples are still three apples whether or not a human is around to count them. The universe still exists in a state that can be measured by mathematics even if humans aren't around to apply that mathematics.

>>4729126

>is the gulf between STEM and the arts a new development or a recurring dispute?

Complicated and interesting question, and this touches on many aspects of Western intellectual history. (I don't know about the same question in Eastern history.)

There definitely was less of a "gulf" in ancient times. For one thing, Greek mathematics was mixed up with metaphysics; see the school of Pythagoras, many references in Plato to geometry, and Parmenides' reasoning regarding "the One".

The division (in terms of organization of intellectual work) really started with the scientific revolution, and particularly with work of Newton, who basically invented "applied mathematics" as we think of it today.

>>4729278

I never argued that believing our sensory data to be accurate is a shortcoming of science. I only pointed out that whatever technological tools you use, you will always be interpreting sensory data.

>>4729303

But that's the point of philosophy, no?

If I were to ask you what an ethic actually is, you might come up with something like, "A heuristic used by humans to organize society in a more efficient manner." The point is an ethic is nothing more than a mental construct used to describe and affect the real world.

So it is with numbers. There is no intrinsic property which makes a set of apples "3" for example. That grouping exists solely within our minds. But it's useful and is very good for helping us understand the universe around us.

>>4729199
Then again, there are also idiot savants such as dawkins and hawkings who think their expertise in their own area allows them to make sensible statements beyond it.

>>4729210
>Mostly harmless because nobody with the least bit of intelligence actually thinks it's a reasonable position.

Yeah, except that Sam Harris is invited to speak at universities worldwide.

>>4729229
Spot on.

>>4729310
>I never argued that believing our sensory data to be accurate is a shortcoming of science. I only pointed out that whatever technological tools you use, you will always be interpreting sensory data.

Which is either:
a) A non-argument
b) An asinine argument on the level of a Jaden Smith quote

Take your pick moron.

>>4729261
How can a system that only vaguely 'exists' when we think about it have a material basis?

these threads are embarrassing

>>4729315
When religion is used to describe the history of the Earth/the universe/natural processes, it is stepping into the realm of science, and scientists have every right to use science to show the evidence that says otherwise.

>>4729319

No, fuckface. You argued against the 'you cannot trust your senses' argument by referring to measuring instruments. That however only shows that you don't understand the argument (even if it is inherently retarded).

>>4729189

In Aristotle's physics final causes were identical with the formal which mean that physical objects extend towards their completion merely by having a definite form and being whisked about by outside forces according to the laws of nature. Living things are different from physical objects because the final and formal causes are not the same, which is to say he attributes to them motive or biological imperative.

>>4729357
The original point was that science is based on sensory data, which it is not. It is required to actually fucking ingest the data that is collected but the method has a basis in extensive investigation beyond what the biological senses make immediately apparent.

>>4729366

I should also note the importance of final causes in biology or medicine, for when we say "the heart exists to pump blood" or "the still heart is not functioning" we are invoking final causes.

>>4729376
>The original point was that science is based on sensory data, which it is not. It is required to actually fucking ingest the data that is collected but the method has a basis in extensive investigation beyond what the biological senses make immediately apparent.

It is still based on sensory data. No matter how hard you think about the data, they are still the basis. It's like a bottleneck. Stop trying to argue. No one suggested that science is made up of sensory data and nothing but sensory data (weird idea).

>>4729382
>>4729366

The concept of teleology implies actions analogous to what we would call purpose or intent. While final outcomes exist to all things, and many natural processes tend towards certain ends, there is no initial purpose or intent outside of those made by conscious beings.

>>4729396
It is no more the basis than any other action anyone makes in life. Highlighting this final "bottleneck" in science as its basis is asinine and meaningless.

>>4729417
>It is no more the basis than any other action anyone makes in life

Are you retarded? Defecation is not the basis of science. Every scientist has to defecate every once in a while, but defecation is not a non-optional component of the scientific method. Observation (which by definition works through sensory data) however, is.

>>4729212
>>4729223
Maximum retardation in these posts. You obviously understand neither science nor philosophy. Associating Aristotle with science is cringeworthy. The scientific method was developed in the 19th century and its application does not necessicate any philosophical considerations. The same goes for math. We can and do work with numbers all the time without ever questioning their ontological status. Please grow up and don't try too hard to be pseudo-intellectual and contrarian.

>>4729410

I agree. Aristotle agrees. He means the same when he says final and formal causes are identical in physics. The things which do act with an internal motive are considered living. It helps to understand that Aristotle was principally concerned with motion and that his "metaphysical" system was a description of how we produce genuine knowledge. He doesn't claim knowledge of the things themselves and chastises Plato for making such moves in his thought. Aristotelian causes are answers to the question "Why has x moved and changed?". The answer in the case of physical objects is "outside forces" which implicitly contains the statement "rocks tend to fall". The answer in the case of living things, he says, in addition to this outside forces, is the soul which is internal.

>>4729264
>A mathematical concept IS a philosophy.

You're stretching the term "philosophy" too far. By this reasoning you might as well say "taking a shit is an act of philosophy". There is a reason why math and philosphy are taught as distinct subjects. If you need to relabel every human activity or idea as "philosophy", then the word "philosophy" becomes redundant and loses all its meaning. Also it shows that you have no idea what philosophy actually means nowadays.

>>4729442
Are you? What the fuck kind of parallel is that?

The scientific method is NOT about immediate observations.

>>4729461
>The scientific method is NOT about immediate observations.

You said that sensory data are no more the basis of science than any other action anyone makes in life. The retardation is all yours, although I am beginning to suspect that this very retardation also precludes you from understanding this.

>>4729189


a coherent sense of natural law is equi-valent to a sense of natural telos.

why such a case instead of any other case? just so.

>>4729453
>>4729453

Aristotle is the founder of biology as a discipline apart from medicine. His method of inquiry was refined by Bacon and then again to produce the method that we know. And though Bacon did provide many excellent critiques, he was a poor interpreter of Aristotle and failed to give him enough credit.

Here is Aristotle on his own general philosophical method: "We must set down the phainomena (appearances) and, first working through the puzzles, in this way go on to show, if possible, the truth of all the ta endoxa (beliefs we hold)about these experiences; and, if this is not possible, the truth of the greatest number and the most authoritative." I leave the Greek untranslated because the standard translation of "phainomena" as "appearances" and the translation as "ta endoxa" as the "beliefs we hold "is inadequate. Phainomena doesn't just mean the visual appearance of object or the theoretical conception of it, but rather the complex understanding of the object tempered by social and theoretical understanding. Ta endoxa doesn't mean just belief, but popular belief and elsewhere he specifies that the starting point ought not be just any popular belief but the ones supported by the wise and authoritative because they stand up to scrutiny.Though his description of method is not specific enough to entail only the scientific method, it does describe exactly how we do go about doing science. We begin with a complex understanding of a thing inherited from the wise and authoritative, sort out the errors in those understandings, thereby producing new knowledge, then preserve what we can of the previous theory though it was shown wrong in part. For example, quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate Newtonian altogether, but only at the atomic scale.

My point is that Aristotle made major contributions not only to he sciences themselves, but to scientific methodology. As is generally the case in Aristotelian philosophy, he understood the way we actually do produce knowledge better than we do ourselves.

>>4729206
>>4729265
>>4729310
>>4729357
>>4729396
>>4729442

Wow this is pathetic. I hope you're young because if this is the personality that you've developed past teenage years, you are in trouble.

>>4729516
>Wow this is pathetic. I hope you're young because if this is the personality that you've developed past teenage years, you are in trouble.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm 26, but I do behave somewhat differently outside of 4chan. I'm right, though.

>>4729521
The word 'based' completely destroyed your argument.

For example. If I bet $1 on a team to win, whether or not I win is based on the teams ability to put more goals in the net than the other team. It's true that I have to be able to perceive they won (experiment) to collect the payout (data) from the win (perceiving the data), but they will still win or lose regardless of whether I perceive it.

>>4729516

feel free to point out where I'm wrong, btw.

>>4729533
>For example. If I bet $1 on a team to win, whether or not I win is based on the teams ability to put more goals in the net than the other team. It's true that I have to be able to perceive they won (experiment) to collect the payout (data) from the win (perceiving the data), but they will still win or lose regardless of whether I perceive it.

But that example is crap. Science in your example would be equivalent to an evidence-based method for choosing the right team, which you would do based on past observations of their performance.

>>4729229
This anon has it down

>>4729535
No, you asserted that to pad your argument.

>>4729550

Okay... what did I assert? What is the argument I was padding? I don't follow.

>>4729497
The fuck? How is sensory data not the basis of all decisions you make? Your experience of the world around you is purely sensory, you complete mong. You can't say that a scientist reading data from a computer readout is different from someone navigating the shelves of a grocery store. The reliance on the visual sense is of equal importance in both situations. The difference is that a scientist ultimately needs to rely on his ability to read the data but that does not mean *the data itself* is sensory.

I don't know how you can misunderstand such a simple concept.

>>4729613
Okay, it seems that the problem stems from your inability to express your thoughts in English:

>It is no more the basis than any other action anyone makes in life.

What this means is sensory data is no more the basis of science than any other action anyone makes in life is the basis of science. If you wanted to say 'sensory data is no more the basis of science than it is the basis of any other action anyone makes', you should have included more prepositions.

op here. I was mainly asking because people make me feel bad for being an English major. I feel like I have learned lots. Can anyone give more answers for the question 'And is the gulf between STEM and the arts a new development or a recurring dispute?'

>>4730125
If you can still hear the insults of plebs then your ivory tower isn't high enough.

>>4729210
>It's basically the idea that all problems are solvable empirically through the methods of science.

Harris rejects this stupidity. Scientism is just people pretending to do philosophy.

>>4730158
>all males

>>4730191
>scientism

This thread was over before it even begun. Modern philosophers / sociologists / feminists (biologism) have basically become the modern Catholic Church, in terms of yelling the world is flat.

>>4730191
kek

>>4730201

The Catholic Church was a champion of science. It's a myth that the persecuted scientists for scientific reasons.

>>4730201
As >>4730286 says, thanks for the compliment.

As >>4730158 says, aptly, "Scientism is just people pretending to do philosophy."

If you are not using your academic discipline to support your statements on a point, you are talking shit.

>>4730286
No shit. The motives were much pettier.

>>4730286
Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean to offend the Catholic Church.

>>4730294
Yes, it's satire shitlord.

What I don't get is why idealists can deny materialism all day long, but the second an atheist denies idealism or dualism, all of a sudden they've gone beyond the pale and must be hating philosophy.

You can only take this stance, consider atheists are not doing philosophy if you deny that their position is philosophical.

Oh, but its cool if you're like a Spinozan pantheist doing similar because we throw out our standards if you died hundreds of years ago and are white, European, and Xian. Xians are supposed to be dumb so we relax our standards.

Such le double standards.

>>4730363
In other words, you can only take this position against new atheists, by being actually doing what you're accusing them of yourself, while denying them the capacity to do it.

>>4730363
The shit you're talking right there is evidence that you're not doing philosophy.

Fucksake mate. Read Spinoza to get a handle on what God means philosophically, then try Kierkegaard: he's the most useful atheist philosopher because he acknowledges clearly the impossibility of knowing faith. Also his claims about knowing through faith (effectively a grace) are so tenuous as to be dissatisfying unless you yourself possess faith.

Spinoza was Jewish, by the way.

You have no handle on any of the source material, and you're making other atheists, like myself, look bad.

>>4730363
Fat dyke thinks its a people haha

Scientism is the idea that science and logic are more intelligent than childish shit flinging over untestable opinions without any practical implications. Scientism means to prefer well-thought out and logically consistent arguments over "I want 2 believe". Scientism means to welcome the advancements in technology and in human knowledge instead of denying or rejecting them. Scientism is the insight that we are intellectually capable of more than delirious children's fantasies. Scientism means to accept that a testable mechanism consistent with empirical data is a better explanation than baseless and empty metaphysical talk. Scientism is the knowledge that we can understand and influence nature and everything within it without ever having to resort to archaic magical thinking. Scientism means to know the fact that a STEM degree will give you more job opportunities and higher salaries than a philosophy degree.

>>4730125
STEM guy (comp sci) with a math minor.

English is a legitimate major, but it does have lower job oppertunities. Also, many English majors display a near-total ignorance of STEM concepts. This leads many to make fun of them.

As long as you are well-rounded, then those insulting you are idiots

>>4730389
CS isn't STEM. You don't use the scientific method. Your shallow and watered down EE courses are not enough to be proficient with technology. You are not engineers and you don't learn any math.

>>4730395
Math minor.

>>4730388
Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend. Close your fucking mouth until you've read against method.

>>4730403
Minor doesn't mean shit. Especially when you're studying at an americlap college.

>>4730408
I refuse to read anti-scientific creationist tier propaganda. The anti-intellectualism of someone actually believing "hurr durr muh fairy tails are just as valid as science" would probably hurt my brain. I prefer to read intellectual texts with actual content.

>>4730413
Okay buddy.

>>4730378
>Kierkegaard
>Atheist
>I'm an atheist

Egggh, I'm going to go with you're a multikulti shill. Either way though, you're a fucktard with shitty opinions so thanks for wasting my time. You haven't justified as to why its worth studying something that can't even be precisely defined or understood. Philosophy does this. Why haven't you even bothered?

>>4730416
>I refuse to read anti-scientific creationist tier propaganda.
You've just claimed that Sir Karl Popper is an anti-scientific creationist. Good work you cretin.

>>4730432
If you don't realise why a deficient excellent argument for the existence of god is an excellent argument against the existence of god then you need to take remedial reasoning classes.

>>4730408
Feyerabrand is shit. The incoherence is appalling. Not worth studying. Doesn't even bother understanding modern scientific method.

But while we're going into the past, if you want to defend him, answer this:

If the scientific method is so anarchic and rhetorical, why is it that Galileo's ideas on tides never caught on?

-

Also Galileo was an empiricist and did not rely on a priori arguments. He only wrote that way because mathematical fictions were a way around the censorship he endured. Catholic church still a shit.

>>4730447
The poster recommended reading "against method". Was "against method" written by Popper? No. Please learn how to read, you intellectually disabled dingbat.

>innocent question
>everyone calling each other retards, cunts, etc.

>>4730389
>Also, many English majors display a near-total ignorance of STEM concepts

That's OK because many STEM majors display a near-total ignorance of Humanities concepts.

>>4729229
Seriously. Stop with all other meaningless arguing and read this.
Thread should've ended right here

>>4730462
>>Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.
>I refuse to read anti-scientific creationist tier propaganda. The anti-intellectualism of someone actually believing "hurr durr muh fairy tails are just as valid as science" would probably hurt my brain. I prefer to read intellectual texts with actual content.
Keep up this intellectual honesty and you'll make department chair of unemployment.

>>4730125
i think it's just arrogant freshmen who think that since they've learned so much more from their first year of tertiary study than high school or wikipedia that they now know most of the information they're supposed to know from tertiary education.

>>4730125
Well STEM was created in the late 1950s by the US fear of Soviet science. Prior to that there was just "science" which is what "people did." Though obviously the precursors to the STEM sweatshops were private engineering firms with employee engineers, and "science labs" like Edison's patent mills.

>>4730476
Guy who posted that here.

Both are equally bad in my mind.

>>4730489
Your intellectual disability is not my problem. I explained my reasoning. Either you understand it or you don't.

Humanities is much more dangerous and oppressive than science.

Let's take 'scientific racism' as an example. Where did this actually come from? Anthropology. Where did the pendulum swing after that? Mead's crazy bullshit.

But no, science is the scapegoat because the humanities' stupid flavor of the week is being ignored. Never mind that they only took power by suppressing all criticism against it. But they'll never succeed in the sciences, because rationalism doesn't play like that.

>>4730476

At least STEM has the decency to ignore the humanities until their concepts are misused or idiots start frothing at the mouth at it.

>referring to people by their college majors

>>4730508
>I explained my reasoning.
This doesn't make your reasoning valid. Fuck off with your hot opinions.

>>4730539
In philosophy EVERY opinion is valid. Did you learn nothing in your philosophy 101 class? Truth is a social construct and of no meaning.

>>4730539
I lold

But yeah, I wouldn't even begin to know where "anti-scientism" and "creatonism" are in Popper's or Feyerabend's works, it's weird.

>>4730544
Feyerabend literally said religion was as valid as science.

>>4730550
So if A should be equal to B, it means that you're anti-B? And how does that imply creationism is valid? Religion isn't all about 6000 years old earth, you know.

>>4730542
>In philosophy EVERY opinion is valid. Did you learn nothing in your philosophy 101 class? Truth is a social construct and of no meaning.
Actually Philosophy 101 is where we disabuse children of that idea.

>>4730558
It is a scientific fact that religion is wrong.

>>4730561
Now you're not even trying anymore

>>4730560
Post the objective facts philosophy has produced. What facts can every philosophy agree upon?

>>4730563
I don't need to "try" anything. I'm posting facts.

>>4730544
>>4730550
>religion was as valid as science
Yes, in that they're both discourses and social practices. Feyerabend never denied that science, as a discourse, has reduced the volume of bacterial infections in humans—and thus preventable deaths—but this doesn't give science any special argument in its favour.

After Feyerabend the arguments in favour of doing science over doing religion are:
* I enjoy it
* I enjoy reducing bacterial infection deaths
* I've convinced myself that the holes in the claims that science is "special" don't exist, and therefore have faith in something I don't understand.
* We will nuke you if you disagree
* Science has a greater internal coherence, and rests on smaller matters of "faith" than other discourses

Options 1 & 2 are good reasons for doing science. Option 2 is, given a particular kind of ethical argument, very convincing over religions claims in the same space. Option 4 is a fall back, societies without science will be assimilated or destroyed by societies with science.
Option 5 is a "gap reducing" argument, that the orbiting teapot supporting science is more credible than the orbiting teapot supporting religion.

>>4730564
>objective facts
Hume called.

>>4730564
No philosophers can agree on everything, but there are people with PhDs in biology who don't believe in evolution.

One generally accepted truth is that you can prove that you exist at any given moment by having perception, even if you can't prove that the past existed

>>4730578
He thought parts is math were objective, didn't he?
He only criticized the idea that the past was indicative of the future.

>>4730571
Your anti-intellectual interjections don't invalidate science. Science is the best objective method of finding truth in nature. Deal with it.

>>4730578
No, he didn't. He's dead, just like the discipline of philosophy in general.

>>4730583
Prove to me that you exist. Do it.

>>4730589
Mathematics aren't facts, they're eternal reasoning. They have their own problems (cf: Godel). But the "objective," which is pure reason, aren't facts.

>>4730594
>Mathematics aren't facts

1+1=2 is a fact. Or are you denying this equation?

>>4730590
>science is objective
Popper disproved this. The object cannot be apprehended.
>finding truth
No, Popper disproved this again. The most that can be found is "not wrongness."

Let's rewrite your phrase to be correct:

Science is a method, currently acknowledged the best by popular acclaim, of finding that which has not yet been proven wrong in nature.

Deal with it: there is no way to evaluate the correctness of discourses which make claims about external reality. There are ways to evaluate the incorrectness of particular claims, but this doesn't produce correct claims.

Read fucking Popper.

>>4730596
So you're suggesting that as a "fact" that should the antecedents of 1+1=2 change then the correctness of this will change?

>A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

1+1=2 isn't actually the case, it isn't part of a case, it is independent of cases. Nor is it something that has actually happened, it is an inherent and eternal quality of being.

Facts are changeable things that exist in external reality. Maths isn't external nor changeable.

>>4730608
Are you seriously saying 1+1=2 is not a fact?

>>4730611
>>A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
Are you suggesting that mathematics is an empirical phenomena. Because to be a fact, mathematics would necessarily be an empirical phenomena.

I am seriously saying that 1+1=2 is not a fact, because facts are so much less persuasive than 1+1=2. Look up what a fucking fact is before using it as a cheap metaphor when the epistemology of science has already been tabled.

>>4730596
1+1=2 is an axiom, not a fact.

>>4730611
A fact is a thing which is changeable in a different universe.

It is logically possible for Rome to be in France in another universe. It is not possible for 1+1 to ever be something besides 2.

>>4730619
1+1=2 is actually the case. It is a fact. Facts cannot be changed. Take your meds, you fucking schizo.

>>4730624
Fact =/= truth, mongoloid.

>>4730623
>different universe

>>>/x/

>>4730630
All facts are true. All truths are facts. Are you brain damaged?

1 + 1 = 1

>>4730644
Only if 1=0.

>>4730634
Truth is independent of facts always. When truth becomes a fact it loses all its intellectual value.

>>4730656
Too bad nobody cares about your private autism language. Normal people treat truth and fact as synonyms. Deal with it and learn how to language.

>>4730571
>>4730601
>No, Popper disproved this again
>After Feyerabend the arguments in favour of doing science over doing religion are

in science authority is not allowed :^)

>>4730631
Theoretical universe, not one that exists

>>4730662
There is no point in considering something that cannot exist.

>>4730659
>>4730661
>>4730666
I think this is a sufficient demonstration of scientism in practice for /lit/ to move on.

>>4730621
>1+1=2 is an axiom, not a fact.
I need to get off this board.

>>4730723
You do.

>scientistic idiots itt actually think science produces objective truths
>mfw

>>4730294
>>4730502
>>4730508
>>4730571
>trying to apply single methodologies to reason

read
fey
e
ra
bend

Also, you know how I know Fey fey was a liar with concealed motives? He argued for democracy. If he was really interested in making sure no single method dominated science, that'd be the last method supported.

It's absurd that democracy is a more anarchic process than the one we have now: where any field or area of expertise can simply be created from enough interest or disaffection from current ones, and where scientists frequently shit on competing fields with the common refrain 'not science'. That's what created what he observed as a lack of one true method. Fucking piece of shit.

>>4730903
>Also, you know how I know Fey fey was a liar with concealed motives?

All scientists are.

>He argued for democracy. If he was really interested in making sure no single method dominated science, that'd be the last method supported.

I've got a loaner here Galison _Image and Logic_ UC, which goes over method in physics. Physics is commonly appreciated by the public as the queen of sciences, rigorous in method, stable in theoretical methodology, secure in theory formation. Was it cunt. Shit, I mean do your work on apparatus in actual science—there is no commensurability of methods.

>It's absurd that democracy is a more anarchic process than the one we have now: where any field or area of expertise can simply be created from enough interest or disaffection from current ones,

Science is by social practice the ability of bodies of men to acquire state funding to teach doctoral students. That's it.

>and where scientists frequently shit on competing fields with the common refrain 'not science'. That's what created what he observed as a lack of one true method. Fucking piece of shit.

Maybe if science as a social practice wasn't an anarchic piece of funding squabbles where men play games pissing in each other's faces all sabbatical cycle then Feyerabend could have avoided documenting the sociology of science as the actual epistemology of science.

It would be nice if we were all nice little Popperians. We're not. We'd suffocate each other's graduate students with our own shit for $50M in recurrent funding. We're just lucky that politicians believe we made addum bawms.

>>4730723
Please go. What that anon said is absolutely true.

>>4731290
how can numbers be real if our eyes arent real

>>4731445
How can you say you love her?

>>4731495
I just called

>>4730723
>being this retarded
pls go, lrn 2 math

>>4730655
or + is *

>>4731445
I'll explain.

'Possible worlds' isn't referring to some alternate universe. Say you have to go to the bathroom, right now its a fact you're at your computer because you can get up and leave the room. In contrast 1+1 will always equal two therefor it is an axiom.

>>4730928
>Science is by social practice the ability of bodies of men to acquire state funding to teach doctoral students. That's it.

Sociology is not epistemology. Not real philosophy. Go away.

>>4731634
There's no epistemological foundation to science, we demonstrated that above. Therefore the only justifications are ad hoc sociological ones.

Enjoy; or solve the problem of induction.

>>4731641
>or solve the problem of induction.

Along with Goodman's new riddle.

>>4731641
That's a misunderstanding. You can't read him like that.

Claiming to be the neutral arbiter or that there are no neutral arbiters requires holding some sort of meta discourse. But science asserts a similar discourse. Fey-fey gives no objective way of deciding between these.

Fee fee's view is just his own, and has no power beyond those that don't accept it. Unlike science, whose methods are designed for violence. Bendy renounced these. He's just some guy saying stuff.

>>4731696
Every act of speech is an act of violence, even the most dissimulating ones.