/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14678323]

What IS science?

[Anonymous No.14678365]

>>14678323
The systematic rejection of truths that are not commonly recognisable to all/most trained observers.

[Anonymous No.14678366]

>>14678323
It depends. Science can either be the method of understanding yourself through the world. This is the Goethean model of science.
The contemporary model of science as the ideological-cosmological conjuring is different. It works against human beings by conjuring illusions at the drop of a hat. The crisis in science right now is those illusions failing. Anyway, read Feyerbarend, then read Kuhn.

[Anonymous No.14678407]

>>14678366
>Science can either be the method of understanding yourself through the world
Can you expand on this? Do I understand myself during science? E.g. I could learn about the limits of my knowledge about the world. Or do I understand myself after? E.g. from its products like knowledge of some biology about me?

[Anonymous No.14678412]

>>14678323
it's a method of approximating truth via the scientific method

[Anonymous No.14678415]

>>14678366
Science in its purest sense doesn't help us understand anything. It just predicts how variables produce observable effects in one another and then abstracts those relationships into mathematical models.

[Anonymous No.14678419]

>>14678323
Empiricism

[Anonymous No.14678423]

>>14678323
My religion.

[Anonymous No.14678429]

>>14678366
>Goethean
not science
>Feyerbarend
not science
>Kuhn
not science

[Anonymous No.14678455]

>>14678323
dont't you mean what WAS science?

[Anonymous No.14678460]

Empiricist drivel that has done nothing but increase unhappiness
>inb4 but muh lifespans
Longer lives =/= better lives

[Anonymous No.14678469]

>>14678415
>>14678429
cringe
>>14678407
Before anything, let me ask, why do we try to find out more about the world?
I think you are asking all the wrong questions here. Attaining mastery over anything is a revelatory process. You have to understand that science was conducted COMPLETELY differently before the angl*s came along with logical p*sitivism and ruined everything. Science is the transmutation of the soul from base metals to gold and silver. I'm sorry for being vague, but I don't think we have the conceptual common ground for this to work smoothly.

[Anonymous No.14678474]

>>14678415
Perception in its purest sense doesn't help us understand anything. It just observes how variables produce observable effects in one another and then abstracts those relationships into phenomenological models.
See? I can do it too. Reductivist retard.

[Anonymous No.14678475]

Science is the study of the greatest masterpiece ever created.

[Anonymous No.14678486]

>>14678474
>Perception in its purest sense doesn't help us understand anything. It just observes how variables produce observable effects in one another and then abstracts those relationships into phenomenological models.
Unironically agree though

[Anonymous No.14678494]

>>14678474
Yeah but you're right though. Perception doesn't help us understand anything. It just gives us another model of reality to operate in. Reality itself is basically inaccessible except through modelling.

[Anonymous No.14678496]

>>14678474
Perception is all an illusion anyways, nothing ever becomes or changes

[Anonymous No.14678509]

>>14678365
Based

[Anonymous No.14678513]

>>14678486
>>14678494
>>14678496
yes but it's just pedantic retardation. you have literally said nothing of value in regards to the conversation. to make phenomenology not immanent to perception is to make perception an empty signifier, just pushing the heavy lifting to some other concept. to talk of human things divorced from the human experience is folly and gay.
>>14678407
Adding, check out >>14671365. Goethe explains in a conversation with Hegel this much better than I could.

[Anonymous No.14678521]

>>14678513
>words words words
Tl;dr
There is only Being, nothing ever changes so science is a joke

[Anonymous No.14678524]

>>14678412
this

[Anonymous No.14678533]

>>14678513
>said nothing of value
Literally just answered the question. OP asked what science was. It's one method of modeling reality. It gives us no understanding of the thing-in-itself because the thing-in-itself is categorically beyond understanding.

[Anonymous No.14678553]

>>14678521
>he hasn't read Deleuze
>>14678533
and that is a complete non-answer. "it is nothing, it is just a tool". no you idiot, a hammer is not nothing, it is a tool for hammering. science is not nothing. you have not answered the question, merely said "your question is worded in a slightly poor way, imma just be a pedantic asshat, nothing personell kid". i bet you ask people to define their terms.

[Anonymous No.14678561]

>>14678469
>but I don't think we have the conceptual common ground for this to work smoothly.
Why do we need a conceptual common ground when there is an opportunity for a fusion of horizons, at least from my perspective? You're reading in your own presuppositional biases here about my motives, and once again, like I said in the Heidegger thread, you are jumping on people about being analytics when I'm not. You're really quite annoying to people who are trying to engage you in good faith, I'm pretty sure you are the poster who does this a lot, like I said in the other thread, you've got a lot of knowledge to share, which is why I ask you questions, but you really have some personal communication issues.

It's not really clear to me what you mean by "understanding yourself through the world". My only common ground to this is something similar to aesthetics: understanding yourself through art. Either using artistic processes as a way to think, or its products as a way to think. My first question is asking, do I gain self-understanding via the processes of whatever the "goethean model" is, which you haven't really explained, and I'm interested in. My second is asking about self-understanding from whatever the finished product is and if there is something productive in the goethean model or if its an ongoing process.

>Before anything, let me ask, why do we try to find out more about the world?
I don't know. My answer six months ago would have been something like: to understand the world, which to me would be understanding the cosmos and our place in it. That isn't really satisfactory to me though, lately.


>>14678513
>Goethe explains in a conversation with Hegel this much better than I could
I will read it now.

[Anonymous No.14678570]

>>14678553
Lmao I didn't say it was nothing. I said it was a means of modelling reality, which is something, ergo, not nothing.

>science is nothing, it's just a tool.
>a hammer is not nothing, it's a tool.

Two mutually contradictory sentences, literally one after the other.

[Anonymous No.14678584]

>>14678323

Means to an end
Imagine you are digging for buried treasure
Science is the shovel
It's not even the map
We don't have the map
We don't even know if the treasure exists
All we can do is dig with this shovel

[Anonymous No.14678617]

>>14678521

[Anonymous No.14678627]

>>14678561
Not the Heidigger guy.
I understand what you're asking, but I just don't know how to explain it to you. The question "how does understanding the world translate into understanding the self" is utterly baffling to me. A science channel on youtube, Veritasium, described it as such. When you release a ball from your hand, you not only intellectually know that it's going to drop, your body knows as well. You know it not only with your brain, but your spleen. The know the world, know yourself is spleen-knowledge to me.
Any attempt I have made to try to explain it under a rational (or non-mystical) framework, I have to backtrack and be wholly unsatisfied.
In some sense, it is a bit like how Plato commented that to not know the strength and althethicism of your body is a terrible crime. You could think of science as powerlifing for your curiosity.
You could think of this as an attempt to learn more about God (in the Spinzosist vein). If you are an atheist, think CRISPR, Nietzschean ubermenches and humans being a fever dream of a machine.
It is part creating models for your own personal use. Did you know Goethe created a theory of color which, while completely at odds with the current models of light in the physics-sense, is still used in some areas due to it being based not on mathematical models of electrons, but human experience of color. This is very illustrative, one could deduce the metaphorical ocean from a raindrop from this paragraph in regards to what I'm trying to say.
It could be the pure joy of nature, and in trying to understand it we are partaking in something radically human, a oneness with the system. I go on walks with my little seven year old sister where we just look at mushrooms and their properties. We look at spore patterns and color, and we try to explain the adaptions to the best of our understanding. There is great joy to be found there.
I could go on, but I'm out of space.
>>14678570
you are illiterate.

[Anonymous No.14678636]

>>14678627
>>14678561
Source is
>The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy
Would recommend.
I also am trying to cross the gap, but it really is very, very big. I did answer the question to the best of my ability, after all.

[Anonymous No.14678660]

>>14678627
>>14678636
Thanks. I will look into these.

[Anonymous No.14678677]

Our last lightbulb of meaning, itll dim and go out like the rest

[Anonymous No.14678678]

>>14678627
>You could think of science as powerlifing for your curiosity
Forgot to mention, this is great btw. It fits in with the stuff I've been reading about aestheticism lately. The sense of wonder, rapture, and ecstasy that boots up thought. This is exactly the sort of insight I was looking for.

[Anonymous No.14678689]

>>14678678
without a joke, I almost didn't post it because it felt very cringe. no offense to you meant. having to write like malcolm gladwell to connect with you people (again, sincerely, no offense meant, after all, you are curious and trying to understand my point of view) makes me feel unclean.

[Anonymous No.14678692]

>>14678627
the reason science is restricted to positivism is because that’s the stuff that actually works

[Anonymous No.14678694]

>>14678692
any society that produces incels is not a society that works

[Anonymous No.14678846]

>>14678617
>not being a parmidean materialist
>posting wojaks
Both are cringe

[Anonymous No.14678961]

>>14678323
The minimization of measurement uncertainty through reproducible experiments.

[Anonymous No.14678976]

>>14678694
That's unscientific. Human incels are relatively tame compared to incels in other species. The "incel" phemonenon is almost universal in nature. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.14679068]

>>14678365
This but without the use of irony

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.14679883]

>>14678323
"During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas—which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science."