Anti-pseudoscience and anti-science thread

[Anonymous No.20643407]

I guess you can put anti-science phils in 2 categories, and both are constructive criticism of modern science i.e. no group wants to pulverize it but clean it out (1st group) or decult it (2nd):

1. Anti-pseudoscience (Popper, Kuhn)
-clean unfalsifiable pseudoscience like evolution or astrophysics

2. Anti-science (Feyerabend)
-science is not worthless, but its importance in knowing reality is not above religion and similar tradictional methods

What are some other worthwhile philosophers of science and what were their positions?

[Anonymous No.20643429]

how aware is lit that at least evolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience? Its entirely circular and makes nor falsifiable predicitons about the future, and not even practical usefull observations about the present like presenting a methodology of testing for vestigial human organs. Its just crappy Hegelian mental exercise with scientific lingo.

[Anonymous No.20643457]

Feyerabend isn't worthwhile, he's a meme. David Stone is better

[Anonymous No.20643461]

*Stove

[Anonymous No.20643479]

>>20643457
>David Stove

what is his basics idea that got him criticizing popper kuhn and fey, he claimed that induction in science isnt as imprecises as they claim it is?

[Anonymous No.20643491]

>>20643457
on a first glance he seemed far more optimistic on the future of academic science...?

[Anonymous No.20643521]

>>20643429
>how aware is lit that at least evolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience?
This is bullshit. The standard you're using would invalidate all historical sciences like evolution, geology, astrophysics, or archaeology.
>Its entirely circular
Survival of the fittest is tautological, it's literally impossible to disprove. What is falsifiable is the existence of mutations, genetic inheritance, and genes having an effect on the phenotype of an animal and that differing phenotype increasing reproductive success. All of those have been empirically tested.
>and not even practical usefull observations
Being practical and useful is not a requirement for a scientific observation.

[Anonymous No.20643537]

Reminder that no one in philosophy of science takes Popper and falsifiability seriously. Theyre ironically analogous to Marx and labor theory of value in economics.

[Anonymous No.20643565]

>>20643521
>The standard you're using would invalidate all historical sciences like evolution, geology, astrophysics, or archaeology.

all would exist together with genetics, epistemiological worth of evolution is just decorative.

>Survival of the fittest

how do you EMPIRICALLY test for that as a trait? Can you EMPIRICALLY test "fitness" as you test IQ?

>What is falsifiable is the existence of mutations, genetic inheritance, and genes having an effect on the phenotype of an animal and that differing phenotype increasing reproductive success. All of those have been empirically tested.

yes dumbass, that is genetics, you can be a YEC or belive Thor or some random god created us 50000 years ago and none of what you mentioned would contradict your METAPHISICS as does not contradict METAPHISICAL theory of evolution.

>Being practical and useful is not a requirement for a scientific observation.

it is, one criterium of worthiness of a theory is what usefull new discoveries it produces otherwise its just historiosophy.

>>20643537
>Reminder that no one in philosophy of science takes Popper and falsifiability seriously

not surprised, science today is a shitshow

>Theyre ironically analogous to Marx

ironically, evolution is marxism-hegelianism, all 3 are retroactive closed unfalsifiable systems.

[Anonymous No.20643578]

>>20643565
>how do you EMPIRICALLY test for that as a trait? Can you EMPIRICALLY test "fitness" as you test IQ?
You just cut off the part that showed how stupid you are.
>Survival of the fittest is tautological, it's literally impossible to disprove.
You can easily empirically test for reproductive fitness if SOMETHING REPRODUCES. It's tautological the creatures that reproduce are the ones that reproduce.
>would contradict your METAPHISICS as does not contradict METAPHISICAL theory of evolution
What fucking metaphysics? You've just agreed that all of genetics is true what else is there to evolution?

[Anonymous No.20643592]

>>20643565
>not surprised, science today is a shitshow
According to what and whom? If you've bought into the dustbinned theory of falsifiability and think all contemporary science is pseudoscience because it doesn't abide by your antiquated and incoherent standard then there's really no point in discussing anything.

[Anonymous No.20643595]

>>20643592
Are you suggesting that science doesnt have to follow the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.20643596]

>>20643578
>It's tautological the creatures that reproduce are the ones that reproduce.

unfalsifiable circular bullshit, thanks for proving my point.

>You've just agreed that all of genetics is true what else is there to evolution?

you are an imbecile.

>>20643592
>bla bla

reproducibiltiy crisis. How is that for a criteria of a shitshow you midwit?

[Anonymous No.20643604]

>>20643595
that is what he is suggesting. If you want more mental gymnastics, ask him how do you empiricalyl test for "fitness" in "survival of the fitests"?

[Anonymous No.20643607]

>>20643595
No, where did you get that idea?
>>20643596
>reproducibiltiy crisis. How is that for a criteria of a shitshow you midwit?
Thats all you've got? Go back to /pol/ with this juvenile shit.

[Anonymous No.20643612]

>>20643604
Have you actually read philosophy of science at any point in your life or have you stuck to the same two Wikipedia articles and infographics?

[Anonymous No.20643615]

>>20643596
>unfalsifiable circular bullshit, thanks for proving my point.
But I gave the falsifiable part of evolution
>>What is falsifiable is the existence of mutations, genetic inheritance, and genes having an effect on the phenotype of an animal and that differing phenotype increasing reproductive success. All of those have been empirically tested.
and you agreed all of those were true. So survival of the fittest is tautological and always and true and genetics is empirically tested so evolution is true.

[Anonymous No.20643621]

>>20643604
>If you want more mental gymnastics, ask him how do you empiricalyl test for "fitness" in "survival of the fitests"?
Survival of the fittest is tautologically true. It can't be false. What can be false is genetics but you've already agreed that is empirically true.

[Anonymous No.20643638]

>>20643607
>Thats all you've got?

I have more, but if you werent a midwit you would realize that something like that means that 60% of science is fake.

>>20643615
>But I gave the falsifiable part of evolution

no you described genetics because you are that simple. Genetics is a part of evolution, genetics is a part of biology, genetics is a part of young earth creationism.

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

>>20643621
>What can be false is genetics but you've already agreed that is empirically true.

yes genetics is true and it existes paralley of whatever mythology you ad to it.

[Anonymous No.20643651]

>>20643638
>yes genetics is true and it existes paralley of whatever mythology you ad to it.
No it doesn't. Genetic lineage studies can trace back species for millions of years. Genetics explicitly goes against the time fame of creationists along with geology and astronomy.

[Anonymous No.20643657]

>>20643638
>no you described genetics because you are that simple. Genetics is a part of evolution, genetics is a part of biology, genetics is a part of young earth creationism.
So if you think evolution is something besides genetics what else is it? Paleontology? Do you think fossils are made up?

[Anonymous No.20643675]

>>20643565
>it is, one criterium of worthiness of a theory is what usefull new discoveries it produces otherwise its just historiosophy.
That's what I like about modeling life using natural selection. I can predict what other disciplines will find closely enough to be useful. It's probably the most useful thing science ever brought to the table.
That science is now shit is a separate issue. Bell Labs was a warning that the entire system of science was failing and that happened 20 years ago with no real reaction.

[Anonymous No.20643695]

>ITT two retards getting baited by a Christfag who misrepresents what evolution is

[Anonymous No.20643725]

>>20643695
>misrepresents what evolution is

its mythology of creation with scientific lingo.

[Anonymous No.20643746]

>>20643407
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.20643779]

>>20643746
that text is very similar to Feyerabends Against method, but not a new idea

[Anonymous No.20643794]

>another '/lit/ completely misunderstands basic science' thread

How embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.20643795]

>>20643725
the principle of evolution is self-organization, not creation

[Anonymous No.20643946]

>>20643725
BUZZWORDBUZZWORDBUZZWORD
Cope Christcuck you've been found out.
Evolution is not a thing in itself it's a description of how living beings change over time.

[Anonymous No.20643961]

>>20643946
Then why don't elephants and horses have their own internet systems?

[Anonymous No.20645233]

What he's saying is true and you're all "fucking love science" pseuds who are allergic to nuance. There is no quantifiable, testable theory which you can officially label "evolution". Gravity is a scientific theory because it tells me where objects will go when I stop holding them. I can test that. I can not test connotative handwaving which you are incapable of turning into a formula.

This doesn't mean the concept of historical macro-evolution is "false". Or that it has no value. It does mean it's not SCIENCE!. The idea that some non-scientific concepts can be true, and even related to claims which are scientific, really shouldn't be a revelation to you people.

[Anonymous No.20645253]

>The theory of empiricism is plausible because it assumes that accuracy about small matters prepares the way for valid judgment about large ones. What happens, however, is that the judgments are never made. The pedantic empiricist, buried in his little province of phenomena, imagines that fidelity to it exempts him from concern with larger aspects of reality.

[Anonymous No.20645290]

>>20645253
>You have to make claims about "larger aspects of reality".
>I, the king of science, command you.

[Anonymous No.20645415]

I didn't know /lit/ was this retarded and christcucked.

[Anonymous No.20645616]

the SCIENCE redditnigger vs. the wissenschaft chad

[Anonymous No.20645715]

I've noticed over time how much that various physical anthropologists, evolutionary scientists, and especially evolutionary psychologists just make shit up over time, without any evidence whatsoever.
To point this out usually gets one labelled a literal six day young earth creationist. I think, at this point, this crowd is so used to handling arguments from these people they can't smell their own bullshit, and this applies to a lot about evolution as a science.
Ultimately, we have fossils. We have some real world corollaries we can compare and contrast. But we can make zero direct reductions or assumptions about things like behavior. For example, the ever-present dipshit who believes all human behavior is reducible to some ambiguous caveman times, without a shred of genuine scientific evidence for their specific conclusion. That is, not about the basic idea of evolutionary biology, but the idea that everything in the human psyche reduces to some story they can tell about the caves or the Savannah, which is purely speculative.
Incidentally, I know of a man who spent a whole career proving one minor evolutionary aspect about stink beetles. A respectable dedication, and something which was a truly scientific endeavor.
It further seems biology is too wed to the concept of specifically Darwinian evolution. That is, that selective pressures and random change must always be minute and protracted over a period of time. This goes with the idea of uniform stratification. The problem with that is it's bullshit. Strata can actually form rapidly and nearly instantaneously, in the case of volcanic eruptions (it happened with Mt. St. Helen's). The denser particulate often layered underneath the lighter particulate.
Such catastrophism in evolution was prominent in the continental science until recently.

[Anonymous No.20645740]

>>20645715
>To point this out usually gets one labelled a literal six day young earth creationist.

That's because that's what they literally are. Including every spirit humping sub 90 iq pleb in this thread. They hate empiricism because it btfos whatever flavor of completely random made up bullshit they hold dear

[Anonymous No.20645743]

>>20645740
Empiricism is incapable of refuting anything even in principle. You can screech all you want, but the eternal truth of that fact remains.

[Anonymous No.20645760]

>>20645743
Behold the potency of the spirits who'll power my horse-cart to win first place in a Formula one race. Hmm hmm. That'll show them.

[Anonymous No.20645833]

>>20645715
Young earth creationist tier take.
Evolutionary psychology is the most scientific way to do psychology. Construct models and test them.
You made this long post and claimed to provide an example of what you're talking about but no actual example was provided.

[Anonymous No.20646502]

>>20643407
>Anti-pseudoscience and anti-science thread
Why is this a thing?