/lit/ - Literature

>>6644916
I enjoy reading theology.

It reminds me of how important science is.

I think /lit/ doesn't hate science itself, but rather the populistic ideology of the New Atheism. To be honest, to me this whole deal of melodramatic 'scientism' seems quite frankly very bizzare, an egregore antithesis to the Sunday school soccer-mom attitude perhaps.

I don't read books on Science with capital 's', if that's what you're asking. But I do read books on specific fields of research, predominantly psychology (because that's what I study).

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply there.

If people are using the term "scientism" as intended then that by no means would preclude them from being avid readers of science books.

I'm sure there are a few retards who are anti-science in a general sense but most people don't mean that when they talk of scientism.

>>6644932
books about science
>theology
Really,are lit tards really this retarded?
>>6644946
Lit hates science,almost with a passion.There is a huge amount of people here who admire Derrida,Foucault etc.
Main problem lies in inferiority complex that /lit/ has.It is not new though.Also,there is not even one reason to "believe" that scientific method isnt the authoritative worldview.

>>6644946

>>6644981
>there is not even one reason to "believe" that scientific method isnt the authoritative worldview
>being this naive

>>6644916
Science is cool. Talking, on a casual level, about science is fucking boring. Holding the self-contradictory philosophical position known as "scientism" is just childish.

So, no, books on science are boring unless they are on the philosophy of science or empiricism or what have you. However, scientific literature is great if you're interested in some particular field.

science is great and important.

"scientism" is usually reserved for people who are spooked out of their heads by all the assumptions that go along with science that are not always useful.

>>6644916

>science
>2015
>still trying to find "truth" on things
>not paying attention to Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.

Science is the opium of the masses

>>6645001
Give me one.I know you cant.Go back to reading Deepak Chopra r-tard.

>>6645041
>Derrida isnt the biggest pseudointellectual of the 20th century
Post modernism is a joke and so are you.

>>6645051

scientific assholes that think they can bring the absolute truth of all things and can talk about subjects as art, ethics, happiness or love are the joke, actually.

>>6644981

Well, I have a different perspective on that. From the various polls, apparently most people on /lit/ are either agnostics or atheists. I don't think there is a direct disaproval of the atheistic position itself, but rather of the (from the perspective ignorant) belief that 'scientism' itself can somehow substitute for a worldview. What I mean by that is that atheism is extremely broad position and doesn't have on its own e.g. a set of ethical principles. An atheist can be a hedonist, an existentialist, a nihilist, etc... But the attitude of scientism acts like if there is a codified set of values in the scientific method itself, and therefore it has become a sort of a cult among some of its adherents. Atleast that's my two cents.

>>6644993

I think a lot of people would be horrified to find out how 'impure' psychology sometimes is. I once heard someone say, that is is like a tower of Babel - everyone speaks a different language, everyone discovers his own method,... I gotta agree with that notion. But I don't think you can be too concerned with epistemological purity, when you want to help people. Let's not forget that some of the most rigid scientific minds rode around the States jabbing ice-picks into people's pre-frontal lobes.

>>6645045

Not that guy, but I think Brave New World makes a good case in point. If you take all the implications of the positivistic world-view into account, Huxley's world is the ultimate eschaton. But most people when they read the book feel that there is something inherently wrong with the world where everyone is maimed and conditioned to life of happiness and bliss (albeit in ignorance), even though they can't really point a finger to it.

>>6644946
Yes, I meant to include books on individual fields in 'books on science,' as well as philosophy and history of science.

>>6644966
I just haven't seen much discussion of science books here compared to other kinds of non-fiction, so I'm wondering if it's because this is 'not the right board' or because the interest is low.

>>6645041
Why

>>6645067
Why are you so afraid of science?Is it because you could never master math/physics?
Is that the reason you went on to read shitheads like Derrida whos "philosophy" is worth as much as 2 month supply of toilet paper.If you are so intellectually retarded so you cant see the connection of science and art(picasso/dali,hg welles/carroll/abbott and a fucking new genre of literature),ethics(evolutionary perspective/looking at other animal structures of behaviour),happiness(effect of dopamine and too big glands and underdeveloped fronal lobes of the brain) or love(surogate "instinct").Also faggot,science gave you the opportunity to write your shitposts on a computer/internet,not to mention it gave the best description of the world to this day.Crawl back into your cave and suck off post modernists "intellectuals" like Derrida.

>>6644916
I read mathematics and physics texts and research literature, so yes.

>>6645067
You imply that truth is a bad thing.
>>6645069
Yep, most people on here absolutely despise objective truth, that could explain their hatred for "new atheism" or science in general.

>>6645113

>I just haven't seen much discussion of science books here compared to other kinds of non-fiction

Tbh except for phillosophy and theology there is little discussion about any non-fiction books (inb4 that's stretching it). /lit/ is mainly for beletry. You might want to go to /sci/ instead.

>>6645121
Learn how to put spaces in you writing; it makes you come off as even more of prick.

>>6645136
He's not a prick, he's just presenting his view, in quite a logical manner as well. Don't be so butthurt

>>6645132

>Yep, most people on here absolutely despise objective truth, that could explain their hatred for "new atheism" or science in general.

Where in my comment did you read that?

>>6645144
I was just agreeing with you and adding my own opinion.

>>6645132
>objective truth
>science

What is inductive reasoning for 500?

>>6645153
>What is inductive reasoning for 500?
what

>>6645069
I am saying that scientism as a concept is utterly retarded.Of course you will presume everything about nature can be quantified/examined by science if it works.You can see this faggotry emerging as early as Kant started with it."agnosticism" in finding things out which is just a bad attempt at reasoning why should they keep their cabinets and salaries if they are not contributing anything to society."scientism" is coined to undermine science in a political correct world where you do not need to be "mathy" or rational to be smart.

>>6645152

Well...but I don't really agree with that (in general atleast). You might want to re-read my post.

>>6645136
You sure showed me.See this,you know you are lame,but you stay with your dumb beliefs like a fundamentalist.Stay butthurt "intellectual".

scientism is a spook created by the ressentiment of retarded humanities students. it's tough being worthless losers.

>>6645142
>He's not a prick

Some choice excerpts:

>shitheads like Derrida whos "philosophy"
> intellectually retarded so...
>Also faggot,science gave you the opportunity to write your shitposts on a computer/internet
>Crawl back into your cave and suck off post modernists

Seems like a prick if I've ever seen one, although not surprised as he fits into a certain group of haughty atheists.

>>6645163
Here he goes again accusing philosophers he disagrees with of partaking in "faggotry"; a true intellect.

>>6645069
Also,hate that pyschology gets is unbelievable.I love me some Pinker and I think as a field it has a lot of potential,but the amount of retards in psychology is unbelievable or they are just constantly in the media.It gives a bad name to a field that could change the way we think about our social networks/interactions in the long run(that will prove to be necessary when you look at the exponential technology growth).I would reccomend you looking into Nick Bostroms works on intelligence.Highly interesting.

>>6645180
>I read Thus Spake Zarathustra and nothing else Nietzche wrote!

>>6645172
Periods go on the inside of quotation marks; no need to thank me though as a gracious tip of your head-wear should more than suffice. I bide you good night my gentle sir. *tip*

>>6645185
Well it is hard to "disprove" those philosophers when they do not like the concept of truth itself.Give me one reason why science should not be taken as the ultimate answer.Just one.I dare you.I double dare you.Pretencious prick.Stop being so condescending prick.

>>6645204
Typical response.you pwned me m80.Now go to bed and cry yourself to sleep.

>>6645159
Are you not familiar with the problem of induction? Inductive reasoning, which science is predicated on, uses numerous premises to support a conclusion; however, unlike in deductive reasoning, the conclusion is here is not absolutely, but rather it is highly likely.

>>6644916
>but does anyone here enjoy reading books on science?
NO

because the entertainment industry is here to entertain you, not to make you understand any model in science.

If you want to learn those models, you must watch a course on coursera for instance, or conferences made FOR SCIENTISTS, especially those in interdisplinary fields, where the panelists will expose concesily their models. Once you enjoy a model, you learn it deeper in watching the conferences and courses of these persons.

>>6645228
Are you not familiar with the problem of having a missing chromosome?You do know that deductive reasoning is used after inductive assertions are made?That is the main difference between science and every other field.

>>6645224
>>6645208
>>6645195
>>6645172
>>6645163
>>6645121

How old are you? Is it normal to communicate in such a brusque, belligerent manner now?

>>6645091
because in a humanist society which has been ours for so many centuries, hapiness without liberties is not hapiness !

>>6645244
>brusque,belligerentr manne
Put down your fedora and remember you are on 4chan you pretencious autist.

>>6645121
this is why scifags will remain mediocre

>>6645258
you are not even good at what you are doing.

>>6645121

>evolutionary perspective as ethics
>effect of dopamine as happiness
>instinct equals love
>dali and science
>derrida shithead

Why are you so afraid of science not being the absolute truth of things? why don't you just accept that there are no absolutes? read some Hegel and stop saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a non-master on math. Maybe you mastered just those things and you're afraid of anything that isn't that. Maybe not and you just went full retard by buying all what science is selling

And yes, truth is a bad thing if it becomes a dogmatism or if it makes us do some unjustified propositions to confirm that something is true. Truth is just a lie, a bunch of words, a bunch of concepts tie together to makes us think that there is something that stands outside of us. We can't expect living all this life not taking the responsability of being free when it comes to choices. I'm don't want to talk Episthemology, tho, because it's a subject that doesn't interest me. But i don't want just a bunch of science guys invading philosophy with their cold and absolute truths about every subject in the world so i can't escape from their thinking.

>>6645195

I think that most of the negative attitudes about psychology really come from the concept of the field itself and not so much from the public image (or rather, an underlying primary perspective is what makes the public image what it is). The ego, if we are to speak of something like that, feels threatened by the notion of being understood and therefore potentially completely subjugated. And from historical perspective, it probably has every reason to be. I'm not a freudian, but I think one of the best arguments for Freud's theories is the satisfaction you see on people's faces when they say his theories have been disproved (people seldom know how or when, but they are extremely relieved by the knowledge that they were).

>>6645268
b-b-but s-s-science gives us computers, do you not understand ?

>>6645262
this whole text,it is so bad I do not even know were to begin.

>>6645293
then do not begin, who cares ?

>>6645249

But aren't your 'liberties' just illusory social constructs which naturally evolved in the primitive society as a way to counteract the economic disparity and lack (and which would be therefore useless in a society which can provide a reasonably high standard of living for all of it's members)? And are there really any 'liberties' when human being are the product of their genetical and enviromental blueprint? Do you propose the liberties are natural categories? On which ground do you base that?

>>6645241
>Are you not familiar with the problem of having a missing chromosome?

...


>You do know that deductive reasoning is used after inductive assertions are made?That is the main difference between science and every other field.

I don't see how this is germane to what I initially replied to. You claim science provides objective truth, and I think that because it is predicated, at least in part, on induction that it necessarily can not provide objective proof; rather, it gives us strong reasons to accept the conclusions drawn from it, but these conclusions are not objective because they were drawn from a inexhaustive number of premises drawn from observation of reality. If you could somehow observe the whole totality of existence, then, and only then, would your claims be objective truths. This is true even under a materialistic perspective that eschews any consideration of metaphysics, ethereal stuff, etc.

Honestly though, I think I am done engaging with what seems to be a dedicated troll from reddit.

>>6645249

Also, as Huxley stated, aren't people today victims to the horrible institution of family and relationships, which burden them with myriads of complexes and emotional stresses? Isn't there war because states exist, hatred and discrimination because cultures exist, depression and alienation because people aren't conditioned to be satisfied with certain conditions, but only desire more and more?

>>6645268
You do realise that no scientist ever said that science IS THE ABSOLUTE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.Now,try to remember 1,just 1 time in the last 100 years when a philosopher,with his philosophy,has pushed society forwards.
> cold and absolute truths
> truth is a bad thing if it becomes a dogmatism
You do realise that for example two biggest theories in physics in 20th century went against basic principles of physics and are now well established.There is no dogmatism there.
>read some hegel
That motherfucker is perhaps the densest of them all,bunch of convoluted horeshit.
> just went full retard by buying all what science is selling
I can literally test everything science tells me with a pen and paper via math,a priviledge you cannot do.Or I can point a fucking laser on the surface of the moon to measure the speed of light or the moon hoaxers theories.
Nobody is saying that perhaps science is 100 % right,but to stop with science to give more funding to Derrida-types is preposterous.
You do realise that the only worthy branch of philosophy has long departed from philosophy itself-natural philosophy.Also,SCIENCE will solve the global warming,SCIENCE will solve impending energy deficiencies,SCIENCE will get us off this planet when sun swallows earth,SCIENCE will get let us colonize planets/galaxies,SCIENCE could take humankind in an another universe when entropy gets to high.Quit your bitching and try to grasp basic principles of science before you shitpost.

>>6644916
Reading a good book on the history of science at the mo, pretty fun stuff, Kepler had a hard life

>>6644916
When I have specific interest in how something works or the current theory sure.

However the problem I have with "science books" is that they are either written for the experts in the field are really dense for someone not intimately familiar with the subject matter or fucking pop garbage that ranks down there with YA. Popular science and magazines like it are sensationalist garbage for milquetoast people who fancy themselves intellectuals.

Having a good general knowledge of things is fine enough I suppose, but to meaningfully understand even a small part of some field of study takes years, even decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise and thinks that they can casually "read books on science" probably thinks that they know more than they do in dangerous and idiotic ways.

You don't just casually read academic journals about science.

>>6645241
>You do know that deductive reasoning is used after inductive assertions are made?That is the main difference between science and every other field.


My experience so far has been that if I put a layer of cloth on my body, I get warmer.
Is this science to you ?

>>6645319
> whole totality of existence
What is that whole totality of existence you dense retard?Also,you act like philosophy offers objective truths.FYI philosophy doesnt bring anything to the table,besides word salads.Why do you think scientists have ignored you people for the last 200 years?
Also,there maybe are some intrinsic limitations in our capability of understanding of the universe which preventes us from gaining "absolute truth",but that does not mean that science is wrong/faulty.It is the best attempt at grasping the world around us,whether you like it or not.

>>6645358
>fucking pop garbage that ranks down there with YA. Popular science and magazines like it are sensationalist garbage for milquetoast people who fancy themselves intellectuals.

This is exactly how I feel; there may be a few good ones, but general they are horrible.

>>6645365
The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. You take a theory,make predictions on the consequences and test it.Is it really that hard to understand?
/lit/ is filled with the densest mofuggas on 4chan.

>>6645354
>SCIENCE will solve the global warming,SCIENCE will solve impending energy deficiencies,SCIENCE will get us off this planet when sun swallows earth,SCIENCE will get let us colonize planets/galaxies,SCIENCE could take humankind in an another universe when entropy gets to high.

yeah m8, go SCIENCE! what could possibly go wrong? :^)

>>6645395
Because a full on land invasion of Japan against the most stubborn mothefuckers on the planet would be so much better.
Proved me wrong again.Also,nuclear energy bring so much to the table that you cannot even comprehend it.Fusion(see ITER in France) has the potential to stop the energy problems FOREVER.You really have no brain.

>>6645354

lol, it's really silly discusing this with you, my fundamentalist friend.

Science, if we want it to be considered a truth, is a truth to itself, which is pretty nice, but for me is useless in their propositions about subjects that i think we need a subjectivity, a non-absolute, a clash of ideas and feelings, such as art, love, feelings, etc.

>>6645414
so youre saying hiroshima and nagasaki were justified?
>mfw i spot a consequentialist

>>6645414
u fell for the b8, u tried to justify his red herring

>>6645426
Are you saying that death toll in millions and complete destruction of all 4 islands is better than 150 000 dead?Really?

>>6645376
>Also,you act like philosophy offers objective truths

Never said this; nevertheless, since I think logic is a branch of philosophy, I do think philosophy can provide objective truth, although something like modus ponens is not exactly a life changing truth.

>FYI philosophy doesnt bring anything to the table,besides word salads.

I'd say "word salads" are something because, at the very least, they influence, in a tangible way, the actions of people, their readers; for instance, maybe a political leader is enthralled with a philosopher and subsequently enacts policies reflective of this appreciation. (American and French revolutions with Paine, Locke,Voltaire, etc or various South American movements and liberation theology)

>Why do you think scientists have ignored you people for the last 200 years?

Wasn't Heisenburg a fan of plato? He may have been wrong to think Plato's thinking was germane to modern physics, but him simply engaging with the Athenian starkly rebuts your assertion that all scientists entirely ignored philosophy.

>that does not mean that science is wrong/faulty

Once more, I never said science was fault; rather, I simply disagreed that it could provide objective truth.

>best attempt at grasping the world around us,whether you like it or not.

Never denied this either; science is the best way to ascertain accurate information about the material world, although I think there may be more to reality than the observable, material world. You probably disagree.

>>6645424
Give me one reason why we should exclude science from art,love,feelings?Other than "I think that way therefore it is that way".Just one.

>>6645438
>implying there were only two choices

>>6645438
are you saying that killing 150 000 innocent people is A-OK?
>mfw someone actually said this

>>6645444
>we should exclude science
He never said this.

>>6645365
If you're applying rational thought to empirical evidence, you're doing science.

>>6645442
>>6645442
So you are basically saying that math,on which physics is built upon,doesnt not provide objective truth(as well as physics) even though math is built on logic?Well my friend,you just disproved yourself.
Also,Heisenberg was a student of philosophy,hence his interest.

>>6645450

>mfw this is the much vaunted "ethics" of science

>>6645450
>killing millions of innocent people after an invasion is A-OK(collateral damage)
Go to bed r-tard.

Hey, would someone like to argue the Brave New World issue? I'm really curious if someone can find a way out.

>>6645451
He implied it,he said science was useless.I must repeat myself,/lit/ sure is retarded.

>>6645463
>deliberately killing innocent people is ok, ever

go back to school, autismo

>>6645463
Hypothetical death of millions is less bad than actual death of 150 000. And the Soviet declaration of war was more of an influence on Japanese surrender than the bombings.

>>6645458
>So you are basically saying that math,on which physics is built upon,doesnt not provide objective truth(as well as physics) even though math is built on logic?

Yep, you are a certified moron. I never said anything about math.

>>6645354
>I can literally test everything science tells me with a pen and paper via math,a priviledge you cannot do.Or I can point a fucking laser on the surface of the moon to measure the speed of light or the moon hoaxers theories.
>Nobody is saying that perhaps science is 100 % right,but to stop with science to give more funding to Derrida-types is preposterous.
>You do realise that the only worthy branch of philosophy has long departed from philosophy itself-natural philosophy.Also,SCIENCE will solve the global warming,SCIENCE will solve impending energy deficiencies,SCIENCE will get us off this planet when sun swallows earth,SCIENCE will get let us colonize planets/galaxies,SCIENCE could take humankind in an another universe when entropy gets to high.Quit your bitching and try to grasp basic principles of science before you shitpost.


science in the future will solve the current problems that it creates. You guys, it is awesome

>>6645463
>r-tard

Is it really ethical to deride handicapped people? Can you justify your use of this language empirically?

>>6645458
>>So you are basically saying that math,on which physics is built upon,doesnt not provide objective truth(as well as physics) even though math is built on logic?
and what are the truth in physics ?

If you deny that science is the best method humans have ever come up with for learning about reality, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

>>6645485
DAE like I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE on facebook?

>>6645497
Where has anyone said this; people are saying its scope is limited, but they are not saying it is bad as a method for ascertaining truth.

>>6645452
>If you're applying rational thought to empirical evidence, you're doing science.
yes, and what is rational for one is not for the other, if by miracle they find a mutual understanding of this notion of rationality

>>6645475
For a literature board you have no reading comprehension moron.Physics is math in real world,math is built on logic.Somehow you are not able to comprehend that if logic gives objective truth,math and physics follow up the ladder.Moron.

>>6644916

>>6645393
>>The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. You take a theory,make predictions on the consequences and test it.Is it really that hard to understand?
at least you understand that predictions are not correllated to morality through what is seen as some ''problems'' by people.

>>6645497
>If you deny that science is the best method humans have ever come up with for learning about reality
predictions are not knowledge

>>6645514
Mathematician here. Would you like to explain to me how physics...um..."follows up the ladder" from math and hence produces objective truths? Isn't there a bit of an important conceptual leap that happens when pure math becomes physics?

>>6645531
Do not demand too much from this 20 yo.

>>6645524
>>6645529
>>6645534
>>6645538
>>6645544
>>6645547
>>6645550

The sad thing is this worthless piece of garbage might actually think he's making a point here instead of just being a shitposter.

>>6645531
Firstly you are not a mathematician,but hey if I responded to 2 dozen retarded /lit/ posters,one extra wont hurt.Physics is literally using the same mathematics(from analysis to topology) as mathematicians do,only the models are translated into real world.Now,it is pretty interesting that abstract math concepts explain the world so perfectly(and vice versa).Max Tegmarks concept of a mathematical universe is the most interesting one(look it up).

>>6645557
Ithoughtthiswasashitpostingthread?Isitnotone?

>>6645539
You see,pretenciousness reeks from every single post on this board

>>6645562
HOwdoYouemPricalLyknowthatheisnotAMathematicIan?SeEmSlikeanunscientificsuPOSTION?No?

>>6645562
>Firstly

>>6645562
>explain
they do not explain

why do you fial to apply basic logic so much, while talking constantly about it ?

>>6645485
Yes,because science is responsible for our sun turning into a red giant.R-tard

>>6645579
your point being ?

>>6645577
English is not my native language.
>>6645578
Well excuse me,what are they doing then?

>>6645584
Science solves problems,human psyche fucks things up.

>>6645562

>Now,it is pretty interesting that abstract math concepts explain the world so perfectly(and vice versa)

Bingo, dipshit. Now, is the seemingly mathematical nature of the universe proof, to you, that physics is objectively true? When has physics ever been anything but an extremely good approximation? Is it an assumption that the universe is mathematical, or have you found a proof that follows from the evidence? or an argument that it cannot be to the contrary?

Do our observations of phenomena that approximately follow more or less simple mathematical descriptions mean those descriptions are necessarily objective and true? When has the mathematics of physics ever been anything other than a sequence of extremely good approximations, each new model subsuming the previous?

>>6645562
>Max Tegmarks


ho my, he is like the typical undergrad from /sci/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

thanks for the reference.

>>6645589
and what creates problems in the first place ?

>>6645589
>Science solves problems,human psyche fucks things up.
>implying science is naturally good or bad, and not just a tool to make predictions about a supposed universe

>>6645599

Nothing creates the problem imbecile.Science fixes them though.If you can't get that through your thick skulk thats not me problem.R-tard.

>>6645609
That pic is better with the caption.

>>6645594
>>6645594
Everything you percieve around you is just your brain making approximations.Our brains are limited,our truth finding tools are limited.I still do not see how philosophy offers anything better or while we are at it,that our approximated "guesses" justify word salads and spirituality?God from the gap is the old argument,used again and again.You like it pretty much I see.
>>6645596
Out of my whole post,you took that out?Lame dude,lame.

>>6645609
I have not said that r-tard.

>>6645615
you understand that to call an event a problem is already having prejudices ? (this is basic logic)

>>6645615
S-Science didnt do nothing, i-it was g-good all along!
>global warming
>nukes
>abortion

>>6645625
>Our brains are limited
how do you know ?

you have not experienced the reality, yet that you presupposes, and so how do you know that this aboslute reality exists ?

How do you know that what we perceive is an approximation ?

>>6645635
Well average lifespan of 21 and 70% infantile mortality rate is far more superior than modern scientific society?Fucking retard.

>>6645625
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't create word salads or argue for the existence of God, you said physics is somehow as objectively true as math. Math is deductively true. The deductive truths derived from the mathematics that is introduced in physics is only as good as the fit of the model to reality, and judging that fit is not done deductively or mathematically usually, it is done empirically and on the basis of other assumptions, that I certainly believe in, such as the consistent behavior of matter and energy in the universe, but doesn't warrant me saying that modern physics is as objectively true as mathematics.

>>6644916
I don't worry to much about 'scientism' the whole thing seems to be cyclic. It was big early on in the 20th century before the counterculture of the 60s and 70s rebelled against that thought. Now we're just seeing the reemergences of scientific populism. In fact going further back you had the romantic period which was in itself a reaction to the age of enlightenment.

>>6645632
Prejudice is politically correct term applied these days to silence and hamper the advancement of science.It is not my fault that you fail to so magnificantly percieve that logic is a form of science and validates science as a means to objective truth.I'm getting real tired of contending with such inferior intelligences.I though a literature board would offer up great minds but apparently I was wrong.The humanities are truly worthless in age where science can answer any concievable problem.R-tard.

>>6645635

Fuck off degenerate.Blaiming science for those atrocities is a false delimea fallacy and you know it.I don't know why so many religious lunitics browse this board but it is embrassing.

>>6645637
>>6645637
How do you know that physics is an approximation?
How can I know that our brains are limited?There are algorithms that are million times faster than humans,we see only the narrow range of electromagnetic radiation,there is a fucking black spot in our vision,we cannot percieve quantum mechanics or higher dimensions?Try harder r-tard.Also,how do you know that you are not living in a perfect simulation where laws of physics are perfect representation of the world around us?You see your retarded logic,r-tard?

>>6645648
Science is never cylical.It always has been the best form of knowledge acquesition.Since the ancient Greeks killed Democritus for atheism humanities has been stifling science but now in the 21st century science is finally wining for good.No matter how much you fail to accept that truth.

>>6645637

>our capability to see is directly related to the amount of photoreceptor cell activity
>the less activity the less we see
>the more activity the more we see

Therefore, what we see is limited by the amount of photoreceptor cell activity, therefore what we see is not all we could see.

>>6645650
>>Prejudice is politically correct term applied these days to silence and hamper the advancement of science.It
you really must take a course in analytic philosophy, or at least open a dictionnary instead of going into metaphysical statements who makes sense only to you.

your bait has been very poor so far.

>>6645650
We're enlightened by the goodness of God. You're enlightened by your fedora-tipping.

>>6645658
>>6645658
>therefore
this therefore is not logically valid.

Are you familiar with the various rules of inferences ?

>>6645656
>How do you know that physics is an approximation?
never claimed this, the other one did

still poor bait. Will you be there the whole summer ? I think that your bait will improve over time.

>>6645650
why? science put them there

what's more embarrassing is your grasp of English
>mfw he goes on and calls everyone a R-tard
>mfw he doesnt see the irony

>>6645642
You do realise that "objective truth" is a philosophical term.It has no meaning in the physical world.There are theories that values of constants changed as universe evolved so fine structure constant cannot be percieved as "objective truth" since it can change.

>>6645664

How is that not a logical conclusion? Are you saying photoreceptor cell activity does not have a direct effect on sight? Or what the fuck are you saying?

>>6645674
I'm responding to someone who claimed physics is as objectively true and analogous to math. I realize that to claim any such thing would require philosophical justification

>>6645667
You literally do not respond to arguments and complain like a bitch.Typical.

>>6645393
>mofugga
why are we paying attention to this obnoxious, ignorant underage b&

>>6645683
It is in principle(it has the same foundation),but unlike math/logic it is fucking applied in the REAL WORLD.Why are you unable to do basic comprehension and thinking?

>>6645676
I am saying that the implication is not valid logically.
you have a statement of the form A=>B, with A your model for sight via photoreceptors, with B your conclusion that what we see is not all we could see.

Even if A is true, how do you motivate the logical implication to get B true ?

>>6645685
as if you do not do this yourself

The more you post, the more I love you.

>>6645686
>>6645686
Namecalling,so mature of you pretencious hipster subhuman filth.Also,they respond because they cannot comprehend that someone shattered their beliefs like "muh objective truths and muh science is bad".

>>6645689

And I explained to you why the deductive truths derived from the mathematical models in physics are not necessarily deductively true, as it depends on the fit of the model to reality, which is not verified mathematically but empirically.

>>6645696
I love you too ma nigga

>>6645689
then provide an elementary truth form physics, why do you refuse to co -operate ?

>>6644993

Where's the one where philosophy holds everything up?

>>6645596
>MUH

>>6645702
So,you are telling me that science is somehow faulty cause it experimentally proves it theories?You do realize that I can circlejerk too and say axiomatic approach is faulty?

>>6645657
Are you retarded? I was talking about the rise and fall of science in the popular sphere of thought. Not about it's merit as a method for truth finding.

>>6645692

>Even if A is true, how do you motivate the logical implication to get B true ?

Because if increasing photocellular activity increases what we see what we see currently is not all we could see. For example some birds see things more accurately than we do due to differences in photocellular activity and brain patterns. Also obviously there are wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum our eyes can't see.

In addition to seeing other animals also have senses we do not have like being able to sense activity in magnetic fields. So not only do we see all we could see but we do not sense all we could.

>>6645718
Did I say anything about it being faulty? You said it was as objectively true as mathematics, I showed you that it wasn't. Whatever I think of physics (I think highly of it, by the way), is irrelevant. If you like being sloppy with your language and implicit philosophical positions, fine, but I like precision.

>>6645718
Where does God appear in Science? Nowhere? Then it's faulty.

>>6644916
>threads about books
>4-5 replies

>thread begins with the word "scientism"
>a billion replies

this board is the shittiest thing on the internet

>>6645726

>not only do we not see all we could see

>>6645726
all you are saying is that you believe that sentient beings different than humans perceive differently than humans.

There is no notion of approxiamtion here: humans perceive fully what they can perceive.

perhaps we will be able to broaden our senses, perhaps not. but to be real sense, thesse new ones must not relate to the previous ones, just like sight does not rely on touch. So far, we do not know if animals perceive like us. You just assume that the same nervous circuits makes the same perceptions.

also, you seem to take the stance that somebody can know is through the senses. So how do one perosn knows that the others humans are indeed humans, with thoughts and feelings ?

>>6644981
How does Foucault and Derrida come into this? They're on my shelf next to Darwin, Dawkins, and Feynman.

>>6645786

>all you are saying is that you believe that sentient beings different than humans perceive differently than humans.

"Birds have magnetoreception" is about as much of a belief as "birds can see" is you humongous retard.

>perhaps we will be able to broaden our senses, perhaps not. but to be real sense, thesse new ones must not relate to the previous ones, just like sight does not rely on touch. So far, we do not know if animals perceive like us. You just assume that the same nervous circuits makes the same perceptions.

Yeah, similar to how I assume any law of physics or chemistry applies to my body the same way it applies to any other object. If I didn't I would be dead probably.

>also, you seem to take the stance that somebody can know is through the senses. So how do one perosn knows that the others humans are indeed humans, with thoughts and feelings ?

Wow dude you just blew my mind. What if this is all just a dream a butterfly is having? What if we're all in the Matrix? Wowzers, you're really smart dude. You should take this show on the road then kill yourself for being a fucking waste of oxygen.

>>6645822
all our models are said to be valid once our current senses at the time of the experiments confirm the prediction.
going beyond this is illogical and contrary to the experience.

also, poor bait.

so the conclusion of the thread is once more a defeat of the scifags.

that's a pity.

>>6645862

How did you conclude that?

>>6645414
>Nuclear Fusion
It's just 50 years away, guys! (For real this time)

>>6645121
breddy good bait. 8/10

Halfway through watching this, not a christian (a filthy heretic, actually) but I gotta say, Hitchens is getting BTFO'd hard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26OZQ_CRLPc

>>6645067
So now scientists can't have valid opinions or talk about art, ethics, happiness or love?

If any of you mofo's want a good book on science and art.

>>6645697
it's spelled pretentious, retard

>>6645228
There really is no specific problem of induction, because both deduction and induction are the same. There is no "general rule", only in the form of a specific instance itself.

>>6645228
And this is why natural science does not produce scientific knowledge, but only hypothetical knowledge.
Scientific knowledge can only be known through deduction.

>>6645268
>why don't you just accept that there are no absolutes?

All philosophy and knowledge is impossible without the existence of absolutes. Without absolutes, we would have no ground to speak on and would have to go straight to a Buddhist quietism.

> The Robot is destined to become the centerpiece of the Palace of Discovery... It is he who is the end-all and be-all of so much civilizing "rationalistic" effort... admirably Naturalistic and objective (the Robot occasionally becomes intoxicated, however! the sole human trait of the Robot at this time)... Ever since the Renaissance there has been this tendency to work with ever- increasing enthusiasm towards the advent of the Kingdom of the Sciences and the Social robot.

- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Is Dr. Frankenstein's robot the ultimate end of science? Is science what Sir Francis Bacon said it was - power ("knowledge is power")? Is the goal of science ultimately one of power, the domination of the natural world, and ultimately the domination of man by scientifically understanding him so much that one could create a man (Frankenstein's monster)?

>>6646277
>a good book on science and art.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

hahahhahahahahahahha

hahahahahah

>science and art

hahahahahahha

>science

ahaahahahahahhaha

>art

ahahahahahah

>>6647254
you have a containment thread for sperging the retarded pasta of your literary husbando

really /lit/?one retard managed to outclass you?this board is dead.

>>6644932
>>6644932
you fool

>>6647748
>theology taken seriously
ISHYGDDT

>>6644916
Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is really good, but it's not the type of scientific writing you may be talking about.

>>6644916
>'Scientism' is often used as a pejorative on /lit/,
It's not only pejorative on /lit/. Scientism is a pejorative word everywhere, disregarding not only philosophy and literature but humanities altogether in favor of the (unknown) scientific explications of the world that (somehow) prompt social change for the good.

Scientia Salon has a few entries about Scientism. I invite you to listen the small talk between Kaufman and Pigliucci entitled 'Science vs Scientism'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0DDGi8ZNP8

>>6644993
>>6645711

>>6644966

"Scientism" is often used by pseudointellectual creationists or pseudointellectual "radicals" to say "because research doesn't agree with my beliefs, it must just be another belief itself." There's a disturbing amount of deflection there in that kind of anti-intellectualism.

>>6647759
>>6644932

Theology actually is a valid field with plenty of well-argued and thought-provoking literature, but it comparing theology to science is like comparing a bowl of peanuts to a traffic cone

>>6648643
>valid field
Literally no valid proof of it or motivation for doing theology, ability to groom and fuck young male children does not count.

>>6649546

How is researching and grappling with the understanding of God within your or another's religious faith not a valid intellectual exercise?

any good "Pop-Science" books? I'm reading Mlodinow's Subliminal. are his other books good? i know these types of books arent to be taken as solid proof of whatever is written in them but I find some of the actual facts interesting.