[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 19 KB, 600x544, blinded-by-ideology-in-denial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12830113 No.12830113 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone recommend me some books/journal articles/manifestos written against scientism.

>> No.12830118

Modern science is basically taking phenomenal covering law models from mid 19th century Kantian structural realism along the lines envisioned by Ernst Mach, stripping it of the self-awareness that guys like Mach had (they knew they were making a serious claim by saying we can only ever know the noumenal structurally by phenomenal modeling, and they also separated their metaphysical statements about the noumenal from that and could do interesting things with the distinction), and basically recreating Comtean positivism with a pre-Kantian/pre-critical idea of metaphysics but with all the tools of the post-Kantian explosion in German science and philosophy of science

It's like the worst possible combination of things imaginable. Modern science is a bunch of degenerate pseudo-realists who don't realise that "realism" is a position, who don't even abide by a reasonable version of realism like Quine's. They do the WORST IMAGINABLE COMBINATION of thinking they are post-metaphysical while also applying substance metaphysics to everything. They do SCHOLASTIC level metaphysical wrangling and ontological argument bullshit while also claiming to be quasi-Kantian structural covering law realists. They don't even have a consistent position, but shift mercurially and unconsciously between a mishmash of the worst components of three dead systems. It is hard to appreciate just how fucking stupid modern scientists actually are.

>> No.12830123

There is no god

Cope harder fag

>> No.12830129

Literally all philosophy that isnt blatantly retarded

>> No.12830133

Gravity's Rainbow

>> No.12830135

scientism is the word brainlets cry when their pet nonsense mystical theory gets btfo

>> No.12830144

>>12830129
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

>> No.12830151

>>12830144
For
>>12830123
>>12830135

>> No.12830187

Just read Heidegger on technology, Guy Debord on Society of the Spectacle and Marx on alienation. They're all more or less related in their analysis of the bad effects of a "calculative" mode of living

>> No.12830200

>>12830151

And your point of posting this mumbo jumbo text is...?

>> No.12830204

>>12830151
Wow you sure debunked those arguments. Is this the only work of fiction you use or will any fanciful tale serve as sufficient rebuttal?

>> No.12830206

What's wrong with scientism? The study of phenomena is so horrible for you because..?

>> No.12830217

>>12830206

Because MUH GAWD. BAWWW

Op is a giant homo who cries himself to sleep every night

>> No.12830279

>>12830200
>>12830204
You’ll say there are no gods until there is one.

>> No.12830290

>>12830279
based schizo

>> No.12830296

>SCIENCE GOOD
>RELIGION BAD

>> No.12830405
File: 2.42 MB, 4800x7200, Anti-Tech Revolution - Red Pill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12830405

Certainly the books "Anti-Tech Revolution" and "Technological Slavery" by Kaczynski.

And "Industrial Society and Its Future" - the section about the motives of scientists. You can also google and find a full-length essay about the "motives of scientists" by Kaczynski, which is excellent.

Basically, scientists don't give a fuck about anything but themselves. They want to fulfill their power-process (the need for meaningful work and goals which gives them psychological fulfillment) but beyond that they want money, power, status and prestige.

Science marches on blindly without regard for the welfare of the human race, but only obedient to the psychological needs of the scientists and the governments and corporations that pay for the research.

>> No.12830461

>>12830405
I agree with your analysis of scientists and their power thought process. However, regardless their desire for these objects, they do produce and invent useful objects for our phenomenal reality. Furthermore, there are even more people on planet than ever, precisely because they do care about the welfare of human race to an extent. Additionally, the preference for life is subjective, and you're one who's trying to impose your primitivist worldview onto others. Just go live in a woods or whatever and let scientists do their thing lol.

>> No.12830502

>>12830461

fair enough, I won't be able to convince you of the ultimately destructive and negative effects, overall, of scientific and technological progress. But I do need to point out two errors you've made:

>even more people on planet than ever

I don't understand your point here. One of the biggest problems with technological and scientific progress is that it has allowed the planet to become grotesquely overcrowded. Do I really need to explain the problems that come with overcrowding??

>Just go live in a woods or whatever and let scientists do their thing

This is not a sustainable solution for me, let alone everyone who feels as I do in the long-term. As the industrial system expands, it continually narrows the sphere of wilderness. At the rate of technical and scientific progress, there will one day be no wild places left. Just look at what has happened since the industrial revolution. The two worlds are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

>> No.12830528

Gay science

>> No.12830539

The first half of notes from the underground

>> No.12830548

>>12830502
>I don't understand your point here. One of the biggest problems with technological and scientific progress is that it has allowed the planet to become grotesquely overcrowded.
Humans only occupy
29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.
There's plenty of space for your larping lifestyle choices. Just get off 4chan and do it pussy.
>This is not a sustainable solution for me, let alone everyone who feels as I do in the long-term. As the industrial system expands, it continually narrows the sphere of wilderness. At the rate of technical and scientific progress, there will one day be no wild places left. Just look at what has happened since the industrial revolution. The two worlds are mutually exclusive and incompatible.
So, support scientists to develop rockets to mars, and you'll kill a bunch of people in process and keep your virgin wilderness intact.

>> No.12830553

>>12830279
SCIENCE BAD
RELIGION GUD
fix'd

>> No.12830566

>>12830118
Metaphysics won't make chemists better chemists, nor will it make physicists better physicists. They're just underlying beliefs that could be ignored whenever evaluating specific claims about physical phenomena by the rules of each field.

>> No.12830584

>>12830405
It's downright fallacious to even entertain the thought that the natural sciences are the same thing as technological development and capitalism.

>> No.12830591

>>12830548
You first argument still fails to address the long-term trend of technological growth, which is to expand civilization and technological control into every corner of the globe that is technically feasible. The more technology advances, the more resources which were previously unreachable or useless become accessible and worthy of exploitation.

Furthermore, you're confusing "occupation" with "alteration." Regardless of what areas industrial humans "occupy," the industrial and technological affects reach far beyond living areas. The biosphere is a highly interconnected and inter-dependent system. A disruption in one area undermines the natural processes in another. So even if there where "space for hunter gatherer's to "occupy" that was free of alteration, the quality of that space for a satisfying autonomous existence is exponentially declining, as is the space itself. And again, this process is speeding up at a fever pitch so that there very soon won't be any space left for a viable hunter-gatherer life. Perhaps I will be able to meek out a hunter-gatherer life in some remote mountainous zone...but what about posterity?

The "rockets to mars" space colonization argument is a non starter. I won't go into detail why here for want of time.

>> No.12830594
File: 92 KB, 1366x768, mythfagsbtfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12830594

>>12830135
Based and kraken-pilled.

>> No.12830606

>>12830566
Science isn't the same thing as scientism. I don't care if they don't know about metaphysics as long as they don't make metaphysical claims with the assumption that they have the intellectual authority to make them.
Chemists doing chemistry and physicists doing physics is a-OK in my books.

>> No.12830625

>>12830584

that's not what is argued. It is argued that capitalism has become the dominant social system around the globe because under present technological conditions, it is they social system that is best adapted to survive and propagate itself. It will never be replaced unless technological conditions change to favor a different, more efficient, form of social arrangement. Thus, technology and technological growth is determining the form of social arrangements quite apart from human will.

Furthermore, even if you were to completely disagree with the above, given everything that is abundantly clear about the negative affects of capitalism, and the clear and present danger of existential catastrophe by the "misuse" of technology, it is UTTERLY, GROSSLY, irresponsible for scientists and technicians to continue developing technologies which will be utilized by the current social system. The damage that has already been done by "capitalism" is so abundantly clear that scientists and technicians cannot invent their technologies and then simply wash their hands of everything and preach that capitalism shouldn't misuse them. They must not ask themselves how the technologies SHOULD be used, they must ask themselves how the technologies WILL be used. If they can't, then their research and development so so grossly irresponsible that it rises to the level of criminality.

>> No.12830794

>>12830606
metaphysics is subordinate to physics though

>> No.12831109
File: 427 KB, 1186x988, ScienceIsExtrication.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12831109

>>12830113

>> No.12831131

>>12830794
No, it's a higher level of abstractuon

>> No.12831185

>>12830794
>metaphysics is
Nice metaphysical statement. Tell me how it's truth is subordinate to the truth of the laws of physics

>> No.12831210

>>12830113
Uncle Ted's manifesto

>> No.12831223

>lmao dude science is everything lmao
We're not machines or spock

>> No.12831230

>>12830113
Nietzsche

>> No.12831342

>>12830118
What have you achieved in life? Nothing? I thought so. Don't speak to me or my wife's computer again.

>> No.12831353
File: 116 KB, 1666x1000, Bertfag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12831353

>mfw the eternal (((anglo))) insists all philosophy has to be in accordance with logic and science
>then this eternal (((anglo))) goes on to complain when scientism emerges

>> No.12831363

>fuck proof and fuck facts

>> No.12831387

Science is great. Positivism isn't scientific. It isn't even rational.

>> No.12831402

>>12831353
fuck Russel, man

>> No.12831428

>>12830123
funny thing is the Catholic church did the research and lay the foundations of the theories most atheist cling to. Genetics and the big bang theory.

>> No.12831456

>>12830113
IMO I'd recommend the reading list start with Foucault's Birth of the Clinic, but that book's impenetrable unless you have a professor, annotated version, or an explainer to go along with it. The reason I say Clinic is good is that Foucault was asking tricky weird questions about why some facts became scientific when they had no scientific basis, where inconvenient facts go, where science is "allowed to happen," that sort of thing. It isn't directly an antiscientism book, but I think it's valuable for that reason, because it asks questions about where ideas come from and what their lifecycles are, rather than just saying "mm science is bad kay." Too frequently "skeptics" cloak themselves as critical scholars, while they're really just cloak-and-dagger scumbags who couldn't read their way through a grade nine chemistry book, or actual shills paid to sow doubt on whatever fact's inconvenient for a government or industry.

>> No.12831481

I've never seen anyone take it seriously enough to write a book dedicated to it because it's so easily refuted. I think Edward Feser's Refutation of the New Atheists might have a section about it because I know he talks about Lawrence Krauss. Scott Hahn's Answering New Atheism might be a good place to check too.

>> No.12831492

>>12830113
Feyerabend, Against Method

>> No.12831496

>>12831456
Isn't Fuko that French faggot who died from AIDS?

>> No.12831513

>>12830206
Scientism is the belief that all true beliefs must be validated with the scientific method. It is self defeating since there is no direct empirical evidence or scientific experiment to validate scientism.

>> No.12831525
File: 25 KB, 554x554, firebrand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12831525

>teleports behind your "method"
Pssh, nothing commensurable kid

>> No.12831661

>>12831513
Can you name one person who holds this belief?

>> No.12831667

>>12831353
I thought he was Welsh.

>> No.12831672

>>12831661
Lawrence Krauss. He tries to defend it all the time.

>> No.12831676

>>12831661
He is just slowly trying to direct to the argument that their sky lotto is real and nothing is their fault.

>> No.12831696

>>12831672
>>12831661
Peter Atkins tried to pull that shit too but WLC destroyed him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

>> No.12831746

>>12831672
When did he say this?

>>12831696
It seems to me that by "science accounts for everything" Atkins here means "science accounts for all natural phenomena; e.g. the creation of species or the universe don't require a supernatural explanation".
It's hard to tell without context, though; public debates are fun and very good for owning libtards epic style but not for explaining one's ideas clearly.

>> No.12831759

>>12831746
No, I'm not going to look for examples and fuck you for asking. I'm not your bitch.

>> No.12831763

>>12831513
Religious ideologues can put forth "empirical evidence" to back up any crazy claim but you can never disprove it. There's all kinds of fringe wackos who claim they have experimentally proved whatever you want to believe in. "Scientism" doesn't need to be "validated" by any method it's just accepting human knowledge is limited [we can't know all theoretical truth] and unfalsifiable statements aren't a safe road to the limited truth you can safely come to operationalize.

>> No.12831780

>>12830118
Eckhart said Nothing but to see through that impossibility as constitutive of its selfhood. Eckhart said Nothing is negated by nature, nature, nature is negated by the repression of verisimilitude. Metaphysical solipsism is true, the soul is drawn with a compass. Life occupies the infinite number of points at the periphery in convergence on a common (read: virtual) center. For Schelling freedom could not exist outside God, or (fully) within him either. The Son is Lacan's fantasmic content as the repression of its ground, the causal processes that underlie it. Bakker's blind brain: the self just a mold which His will arbitrarily produces fantasy life in spite of its self-causation. A brain is just what's needed for consciousness to "get here" believed attributing will and movement to the One made it a creature like all the repression of verisimilitude. Metaphysical solipsism is true, the soul is drawn with a compass. Life occupies the inversion, and divine caprice becomes intensive, Bataillian prime matter. Proclus believed attributing will and movement to the One made it a creature like all the inversion, and divine caprice becomes intensive, Bataillian prime matter. Proclus believed attributing will arbitrarily fills. At least until the inversion, and divine caprice becomes intensive, Bataillian prime matter. Proclus believably, evolution has nothing but the function of its ground, the causal processes that underlie it. Bakker's blind brain: the self just is the ignorance of it. In other words, even the quality of your inner fantasy life in spite of its ground, the causal processes that underlie it. Bakker's blind brain: the self-relating of a void that has happened. ed. is cut that arbitrarily fills. At least until the inversion, and divine caprice becomes intensive, Bataillian prime matter. Proclus believably, evolution has nothing but the periphery in convergence on a common (read: virtual) center. For Schelling freedom could not exist outside God, or (fully) within him either. The Son is Lacan's fantasmic core in a lower potency: the goal of psychoanalysis isn't to get you to own your own black box. And it's in this cut that magic has power, the cut between form and content as the repression of its ground, the causal processes that has happened. ompass. Life occupies the infinite number of points at the periphery in convergence on a common (read: virtual) center. For Schelling freedom could not exist outside God.

>> No.12831788

>>12831763
Idiots can say whatever they want but you can't investigate an non empirical question with empirical methods and expect to find anything, but this is what atheists are doing when they try to claim there is no evidence for God. They're restricting evidence to mean just the empirical or observable and that is scientism. They're rejecting logical proofs even though science itself presupposes logic. Do you see how fallacious it is?

I have never seen anyone claim they had empirical evidence of God, by the way.

>> No.12831822

>>12831788
>I have never seen anyone claim they had empirical evidence of God, by the way.
A lot of proddies fundies do that. Just google "Jesus holds atoms together". Also, the Watchmaker analogy.

>> No.12831835

>>12831822
The watchmaker argument isn't an empirical claim. I don't even care.

>> No.12831846

>>12831788
>you can't investigate an non empirical question with empirical methods and expect to find anything
People actually do this e.g. Charles Tart.

>but this is what atheists are doing when they try to claim there is no evidence for God
The concepts put forth by the religious aren't generally false the problem is they're unfalsifiable.

>science itself presupposes logic
The problem isn't non-"empirical"/"observable" evidence or the existence of logics it's that you want to claim "proofs" prove things which they can't.

>I have never seen anyone claim they had empirical evidence of God
You haven't dug that deep.

>> No.12831849

>>12831835
>The watchmaker argument isn't an empirical claim.
It actually is. It is based on the idea that since the universe is perfectly ordered then, like a watch, would need a creator or designer to be like that. This claim wouldn't make sense unless there was the observation of both the universe perfection and the process of making a watch by the claimant.

>> No.12831863

>>12831846
My eyes glaze over when I see more green than white text. I'm not even going to read it.

>>12831849
What scientific experiment are they using to verify the conclusion that the universe is designed? You won't find one because they're making a metaphysical argument.

>> No.12831887

>>12831863
>scientific experiment=empirical claim
Are you retarded or merely pretending? Empirical means that it is perceived by one's senses, which is the basis of the watchmaker analogy, and that wouldn't be the first time were an empirical observation would be used as the basis for a metaphysical argument.

>> No.12831985
File: 64 KB, 738x500, lwell0j7189z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12831985

>> No.12831986

>>12831849
Why must it be so? Could it not simply be the inherent nature of the universe to be self-designed, order being a fundamental property of itself (no different than its matter)? Not saying I disagree with Deism/Theism (I'm open to anything, really), but I've never heard of the watchmaker argument before and don't think the conclusion here "necessarily" follows from the premises, though it may "possibly".

>> No.12832038

>>12831985
Pick an actual quote next time.
>>12831986
Basically, modern(as in, belonging to the historical modern era) compared God to a watchmaker since the scientific findings of the time, particularly Newtonian physics, were precise in a fashion akin to the one of a watch, which them became a teleological argument. It was just that, basically.

>> No.12832047

>>12830553
Correct

>> No.12832075

>>12832038
Oh, okay. I disagree with the conclusion, again, though I can understand why, if theism was their cultural background, they might have come to such a hypothesis. It seems a projection of human activity, only possibly by intelligence and design already being a property of the cosmos, onto an additional entity now transcendent to the universe, which was not necessary to posit in the first place.

>> No.12832079

>>12831780
Forget to post pic, wojak poster?

>> No.12832139

Science Set Free - Rupert Sheldrake

or just head over to utube

>> No.12832152

>>12832139
>Alfred Rupert Sheldrake(born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3]and researcher in the field ofparapsychology,[4]who proposed the concept of morphic resonance

>> No.12832210

>>12832139
more like rupert fagdrake

>> No.12832217
File: 166 KB, 1200x1000, u.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12832217

>>12831387
>Positivism isn't scientific.

>> No.12832234

science is good, but scientism is bad. use of science to explain politics, morality, and art is Rick and Morty tier cringe
books for this exact opinion?

>> No.12832266

every time i see these threads i

>ctrl+f
>"thomas kuhn"
>no results

"structure" is probably the best and most entry-level book against scientism. read it, understand it

>> No.12832325

There's a guy named Kant who wrote something like Pls Stop Depending on Reason that's about this google it it has good goodreads reviews

>> No.12832734

>>12832325
>Pls Stop Depending on Reason
it's actually called "I'm Not Listening Because This Hurts My Feelings :("

>> No.12833104

>>12830118
No they're not, you retard. Scientists are largely sceptic anti-realists who suspend judgement and believe making claims or speculating beyond 'shut up and calculate' is bad form and dishonest, they do not believe in the certainty of any knowledge let alone in the sense of realism. The only ones that aren't, are philosophically inclined shitty scientists who use their career as a foundation for their baseless pet ideas.

That's not to say the scientific enterprise isn't reprehensible, just that your characterisation amounts to gossip and self-assurance.

>> No.12833124

Jacques Barzun's book called "science" and then something about great entertainment

>> No.12833270

>>12830118
>three dead systems
what's wrong with kant's metaphysics?

>> No.12833383

You can't.
Even though scientific truths are not to be treated as objective and infallible, they are still far closer to truth than bullshit metaphysical mysticism.

>> No.12833402
File: 125 KB, 793x776, Taleb_mug.JPG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12833402

>>12830113
literally anything from Nassim Taleb. If you want to pick one book from him, pick Antifragile

>> No.12833450

>>12830118
nigga how twisted are you
did you cucked by scientist?
so these kind of guys believe in Biblical inerrancy isn't it

>> No.12833479
File: 32 KB, 512x288, unnamed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12833479

>>12831759
woah there buddy, that's a false premise. could you define your term bitch? and please outline your theory using the scientific method

>> No.12833807

ITT: stemfags thinking anything against science is spiritual in nature and therefore less intelligent
Read some philosophy of science you losers

>> No.12833867

>>12833807
shut up and get my mcflurry nigger

>> No.12833912

>>12830123
That he knew coping was inevitable from turning away from it all prove the the true plight of the wayward child. RIP

>> No.12833927

>thesis
muh god
>antithesis
muh reason
>synthesis
neither reason nor god is alone enough

you're welcome

>> No.12833937

ITT: what is the difference between science and scientism?

>knees begin shaking

>> No.12833938

>>12833807
>>philosophy of science
>when ur too dumb to actually do science but still have very strong opinions about how the world works

>> No.12833941
File: 105 KB, 640x480, 0AA0589C-319A-4BA9-B6BF-45A4FAD51997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12833941

>>12833867
Ur gonna have to wait, the machines broken

>> No.12833946

>>12833479
No

>> No.12833969

>>12833938
>doing science without philosophy of science
t. dude in the OP, cope harder

>> No.12834002

>>12833104
>'shut up and calculate' is bad form

Got that right at least.

>> No.12834029

>>12833969
>doing science without philosophy of science
yes this is correct
t. every scientist.. philosophags never stood a chance

>> No.12834151

Georges Sorel

>> No.12834212

>>12833807
Philosofags are so egomaniac that they can't imagine suspending their judgment before observing the reality.

>> No.12834217

>>12834212
>observing the reality

>> No.12834231

>>12834217
>not observing the reality

>> No.12834237

>>12834231
Reality is filtered through your observation

>> No.12834245

>>12834237
t. philosocuck

>> No.12834253

>>12834237
>Dude! Pass the bong. What if a hydrogen atom isn't hydrogen atom for someone else?
That's not how it works buddy.

>> No.12834259

>>12834029
They're just doing, they aren't thinking

>> No.12834264

>>12834259
>n-no it doesn't count as thinking because they disagree with me
cringe

>> No.12834265

There was some apologetics book I read that tackled Scientism.

All it said was scientism is self-contradictory
>evidence exclusively leads to knowable truth
>no evidence that evidence exclusively leads to knowable truth

>> No.12834277
File: 31 KB, 258x400, Martin Heidegger, Looking Surprised, scanned image, 2008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834277

>>12834264

>> No.12834373

>>12834277
>le manlet nazi making a funny face.jpg

>> No.12834387

>>12832266
I owe this pair of dubs a good cultural trip

>> No.12834423

>>12834237
>Reality is filtered through your observation
I don't get why anyone would disagree with this. Even scientific 'reality' is filtered through observations made with all kinds of specific devices making indirect measurements of observed phenomenon.

>> No.12834429
File: 11 KB, 200x285, sellars-w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834429

>>12830113
>Can someone recommend me some books/journal articles/manifestos written against scientism.
Basedboy Sellars got you covered.
http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf

>> No.12834493

>>12833383
Wtf is "truth"?

>> No.12834511

Ernst Lehrs' Man or Matter

>> No.12834519

Science and religion are not incompatible. Science is a philosophy of learning. Religion is a philosophy of being.

>> No.12834520

>>12834493
wtf is wtf

>> No.12834569

>>12834493
thats epistemological dishonestly bb

>> No.12834582

>>12830133
Actually a good rec for this

>> No.12834602
File: 562 KB, 751x418, 1527293810587.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834602

>>12834519
Religion isn't a philosophy, retard.

>> No.12835258

>>12830118

Unironically true. It's also Catholic proper, i.e. self-imposed abjection and agnosticism, thus incorporating the worst of Theology as well.

>> No.12835269
File: 725 KB, 229x264, Tom-Hanks-orly.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12835269

>110+ replies
>not one mention of Wolfgang Smith

>> No.12836779

Scientist here
"Science" is mostly a scam built to defraud taxpayers.
How any actual science gets done is a miracle.
Scientismists are pathetic.