/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4169329]

Why does lit hate science so much?

[Anonymous No.4169334]

I love Science

I hate Scientists

There's a difference

[Anonymous No.4169338]

I don't hate science, I just don't think it's the perfect achievement of humanity which is of necessity always objectively good and the final and objective marker of all truth

[Anonymous No.4169342]

I don't. I don't even hate scientists, like this retard claims to >>4169334

[Anonymous No.4169348]

I don't hate it. It's just that the love for it is making people blind. In other contexts I might reactive negatively to other things, to whatever is "bloated" at the time.

[Anonymous No.4169349]

I love science. I love scientists. I hate dogmatism and dismissiveness, though, whether these are to be found in the religious or in the religiously scientific.

[Anonymous No.4169367]

>>4169334
So you like the product, but not the people giving it to you?

Can you elaborate on why you hate scientists (seemingly indiscriminately)? I really am curious as to why there's this incredible resentment around here.

>>4169338
I've never heard anybody making the claim that it is the single perfect achievement of humanity. Maybe I haven't been around long enough.
Is the pursuit of knowing more than we did before not a good thing though? It kind of reminds me of people who don't think scientists should be publishing papers on some viruses in the fears that it could be misused. Again, I don't want to impose my thoughts, but rather extract more from yours.

>>4169348
>the love for it is making people blind
Could you provide an example, just to help cement the detriment to me?

>>4169349
Again, I don't mean to ask too much, but exactly when does a dogmatism thrive in science? Does the idea of something like the heliocentric solar system being handed down as true count as dogmatic?

I hope my questions aren't coming off as disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.4169380]

>>4169367

>So you like the product, but not the people giving it to you?

That's a very bold remark about who holds the keys to scientific knowledge

[Anonymous No.4169389]

Because scientists don't take non-scientists seriously.
Philosophical types like to be able to comment on everything and be taken seriously, whether they ought to be or not.

[Anonymous No.4169396]

Empiricism is inherently hegemonic

this wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't also so fucking inadequate

[Anonymous No.4169408]

>>4169367
>Is the pursuit of knowing more than we did before not a good thing though? It kind of reminds me of people who don't think scientists should be publishing papers on some viruses in the fears that it could be misused. Again, I don't want to impose my thoughts, but rather extract more from yours.

I was using a bit of, you know, hyperbole. A lot of it, actually.

I don't think the pursuit of knowledge is a bad thing. I do think that there are worrying tendencies, including a tendency to assume that science is the only legitimate means of pursuing knowledge while shitting on all others, and a tendency to confuse the practical products of science and the ends to which they are put with the process of knowledge in itself, and to assume that anything which is the result of the advancement of science is ipso facto good.

Of course none of these things are contained within science proper, because I don't have a problem with science as such - I think very few people here actually have a problem with science in and of itself - they're simply things that have to do with our views surrounding science or the role science plays in our society or what have you. But that's what we have to talk about when we talk about science, and when you ask a question like what we think about science, because we're not just talking about the process of science itself, we're talking about science in many different respects, as a cultural institution, as an academic institution, as an image in peoples' minds.

[Anonymous No.4169410]

>>4169389
So much this.

[Anonymous No.4169412]

>>4169380
If somebody is providing scientific knowledge, then they're a scientist. Or is there something more deep than that which I'm missing? It's not as though you need a degree in a science to be considered a scientist (although it surely helps to have gone to school to contribute to our current body of knowledge). It goes without saying that we all take part in the scientific method every day.

>>4169389
I don't think it's so much that they don't take non-scientists (a term that to me, seems a little silly) seriously, but rather that it's entirely decided by data and experimentation. If somebody hasn't collected the data on a topic, what reason is there to take it entirely seriously? If there was evidence, going back to an earlier example here, that our solar system was geocentric, it would be taken seriously as long as it could be substantiated. Of course, that claim can't be substantiated by evidence or data so it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Or is that not an apt comparison, or not what you're getting at?

[Anonymous No.4169414]

It's just that science vs. humanities bullshit people start in high school.

[Anonymous No.4169413]

>>4169367
>Again, I don't mean to ask too much, but exactly when does a dogmatism thrive in science? Does the idea of something like the heliocentric solar system being handed down as true count as dogmatic?
I'm not really trying to talk about scientific knowledge or practice itself so much as I am about the USE of science in areas where I frankly feel it doesn't apply—I get rather annoyed with people who take a reductionistic viewpoint and claim that anything that doesn't have a basis in scientific evidence is bullshit. Not talking about heliocentrism here (Kepler is awesome), or atoms or evolution or anything like that. Talking more about the way people try using it to amputate the humanities and the extreme literalism I see some people justifying with the word "science".

I'd be more specific, but I really need to go to bed. Maybe later.

[Anonymous No.4169439]

>>4169414

They should leave it in high school.

[Anonymous No.4169444]

>>4169408
>science is the only legitimate means of pursuing knowledge
I think there's a tendency for science to assume it's the only legitimate means of understanding the physical world. What better mechanism is there to understand the physical world? I don't find science to be making claims outside of what can be observed (of course, observed is used loosely here, perhaps substantiated by data and mathematics would be more fitting?). I suppose this comes to another point made by
>>4169413
in which the problem seems to reside in people viewing science as able to make firm statements about topics outside of it's scope (following from that, his resentment towards the reductionist viewpoint).

Is it fair to associate these complaints together?

>>4169414
This is what I'm trying to understand a little bit better here. Unfortunately, a more eloquent OP isn't likely to garner as much attention. Please forgive the heavy handedness in an attempt to collect opinions.

[Anonymous No.4169445]

Science is autism.
Art is love, life, laughter.

[Anonymous No.4169449]

>>4169367
>the love for it is making people blind
>Could you provide an example, just to help cement the detriment to me?
There is an overwhelming uprising of an ideology, based on individualistic, and even often capitalist notions that people cling to, but it just go over their head that they do. The idea that we "advance" through time, the idea that knowledge is the only way to salvation, binary thinking, denial of faith, reductionism, resistance to any subjective approach, the myth that anything that carries the name "science" is devoid of moral quality, well, a general lack of sensibility and reflection. Knowledge is a form of power and we spend more time seeking that power than pondering on what it means to have it. When it comes to the point of signifying science, there are all sort of twisted egoistic intentions surrounding the desire for the power to control, utilitarian excuses or just plain love for the word "science". And I think the word "science" is just as mistreated as all else. Then it comes to the examples and we have just as much medicine as we have moral questions to ask. The practical car is also the polluting one. But this technical race strives on through compensation. Science has produced diet chocolate and eco-cars, it gives you what you want and that invites you not to question what it means to be healthy or what it means to be ecological, in this example.

The pyramid is upside down now: information > knowledge > wisdom. What the hell?

[Anonymous No.4169450]

>>4169444
>Is it fair to associate these complaints together?

Yeah, I think our points are pretty similar, really.

[Anonymous No.4169453]

I'm an intended bio major. Love science, hate the division between science and humanities>>4169414 mentioned. I love reading, writing and discussing non-scientific ideas, but I never get a fucking chance to because I spend too much time with science.

[Anonymous No.4169455]

>>4169445
Science is respect, wonder and amazement for the world in which we find ourselves.
Art is jerking off onto a piece of loose-leaf and having mom hang it on the fridge.

[Anonymous No.4169456]

>>4169444
Here, a quote I rather like:
>No idea is ever examined in all its ramifications and no view is ever given all the chances it deserves. Theories are abandoned and superseded by more fashionable accounts long before they have had an opportunity to show their virtues. Besides, ancient doctrines and 'primitive' myths appear strange and nonsensical only because the information they contain is either not known, or is distorted by philologists and anthropologists unfamiliar with the simplest physical, medical or astronomical knowledge. Voodoo, Dr Hesse's piece de resistance, is a case in point. Nobody knows it, everybody uses it as a paradigm of backwardness and confusion. And yet Voodoo has a firm though still not sufficiently understood material basis, and a study of its manifestations can be used to enrich, and perhaps even to revise, our knowledge of physiology.
Paul Feyerabend, from Against Method.

[Anonymous No.4169467]

>>4169456
Crucial context:
1. Feyerabend rather likes to be provocative, to overstate his claims, to be ridiculous, etc. He's a bit of a contrarian.
2. This book is actually overall a weird roundabout defense of science—he defends what he calls 'epistomological anarchism', the view that 'anything goes' (as he memorably puts it) and that scientific study and progress can't be reduced to any particular method or set of principles—and this, he says, is science's STRENGTH. But when you start dismissing possible approaches and ways of arriving at knowledge, you do more harm than good.
3. And yet he still tries to avoid simple subjectivism and the idea of truth-as-consensus. It's a tricky position he outlines, and it's worth reading the book in full to get the big picture.

[Anonymous No.4169482]

>>4169453
Hurrah for Bio majors! During my undergrad I double majored in Biology and Ecology & Evolution. I'm in a similar situation to you as I love both what I've formally studied and what I enjoy in my leisure; primarily reading, listening to music, and looking at local art. I'm especially transfixed by the visual arts as I can barely draw a recognizable cell!

For me, I see the humanities in the science I study, even more so now that I've almost finished my graduate work in Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology. I find it hard to imagine the beauty in the sterile view some of the people I work with take. This has driven me to want to understand this seemingly growing divide. I believe that the divide is a result of both coasts receding and so I wanted to try and get a more fair representation of the view of the opposite side.

>>4169456
>>4169467
Certainly thought provoking, although I harbor some hostility towards you for sharing this (you've increased my reading backlog).

[Anonymous No.4169488]

>>4169453
Yet another reason to hate the overspecialization of the modern age.

[Anonymous No.4169506]

>>4169329

Because a lot of people who champion science these days do so explicitly or implicitly using (pop-)philosophy of science that was seriously problem-izited, if not debunked, by the work of Kuhn, Feyerabend, Quine, and their descends, decades ago.
There are also a lot of champions of science and scientists who dismiss philosophy and other humanities, even the social science, out of hand, without demonstrating any understanding of the field, especially the contemporary field, which is already deeply considerate of science.

We're also insecure for a number of reasons. The dire economic circumstance and the claim to better employment rate, and grant money, the STEM fields have. There's also the changing public perception of education as vocational in some sense rather than properly intellectual or, loosely understood, spiritual. There have also been a lot of breakthroughs in the last decade in areas like neuroscience and physics, which have captured the public imagination in ways that Kant doesn't, ultimately leading to the critiques above.

[Anonymous No.4169508]

>>4169488
My uncle is the person who has inspired me most during my academic career. He's a doctor with an extensive knowledge of allergy and immunology at a well known university. He also got his first undergraduate degree in history. He holds degrees in photography and creative writing as well.

He's proof that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, but it certainly takes time and a large financial investment for all those years of schooling.

I find that there is some value in specialization. Surely the devoted work of individuals on a specific task has led us to great advances. On the other hand, I've met people during my studies that are essentially world experts on diseases with only a couple hundred recorded cases. Surely they're contributing to what may be an important body of knowledge, but I would find much more satisfaction in diversifying.

To each their own I suppose.

[Anonymous No.4169525]

>>4169506
>champions of science and scientists who dismiss philosophy and other humanities, even the social science, out of hand, without demonstrating any understanding of the field

This is what concerns me the most. I hope soon any respectable scientist will see the folly of this thinking. Although all of my academic work has been in STEM programs (so I may not be justified in saying this), I don't think it offers any superiority to any other fields of study offered at universities. I'm a firm believer that acquiring the knowledge I have in Biology and related sciences is no more difficult than it would be to have obtained an equivalent amount of knowledge in philosophy, linguistics, or engineering.

I think that the tendency to relate the amount of effort required for a passing grade and the difficulty of a field of study is an odd one. I think the blame for this lies on professors to an extent.

[Anonymous No.4170649]

>>4169445
i love you man

[Anonymous No.4170668]

STEM major who reads continental philosophy, hates Sam Harris, and hates most other STEM majors checking in.

/lit/ doesn't hate science and anybody who accepted the premise of your thread is a dummy.

[Anonymous No.4170673]

>>4169525
To be honest, now (or very soon) is the perfect time for a revolution in the sciences. A no bullshit, fuck scientism, burn Neil DeGrasse Tyson approach that addresses the philosophy of science rather than dumb "i fucking love science" bullshit.

Modern science needs a Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.4170686]

>>4170673
Tyson is actually pretty good as a philosopher of science. It's his fans that are the problem.

[Anonymous No.4170685]

Will you guys please stop making threads like 'Why is [outlandish assumption]'? It doesn't make your idiotic babbling any more credible than just framing it as a statement.

[Anonymous No.4170690]

>>4169329
Science is great. Scientists often are as well. Scientism however is a different story. They're the equivalent of bible thumpers on the other side of the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.4170691]

I don't know, OP, but the pic makes me sad to see Carl like that. Seems like it was towards the end.

[Anonymous No.4170694]

I love science, I hate scientism

[Anonymous No.4170695]

>>4170673
Modern science needs a Latour.

[Anonymous No.4170699]

>>4170694
oh and STEMs are mostly very arrogant because they believe their majors require more talent

[Anonymous No.4170700]

>>4169349
>I hate dogmatism and dismissiveness

As if these things aren't found in scientists...

Not in science mind, but scientists - the people who practice it can be just as fallible, malicious, spiteful, exclusive, elitist, and stubborn.

[Anonymous No.4170703]

>>4170699
humanities majors are often the same way, especially here

[Anonymous No.4170706]

>>4170700
That was more or less my point—scientists can be just as dogmatic as everyone else. I like them when they're not, though.

[Anonymous No.4170722]

>>4169329

I enjoy science but nowadays all the big public figures in science are all intellect and/or pop-sci figures and no wisdom.

What happened to the time when to be a scientist also meant having a healthy interest n philosophy, theology, humanities, and liberal arts?

I also dislike how some scientists feel compelled to talk about issues, and give opinion on matters completely outside their jurisdiction or expertise e.g. that Neil de grasse tyson thread with his top recommended books which he stupidly tagged with snide comments on 'why' you should read them basically to agree with what he got from them.

[Anonymous No.4170735]

>>4170722
>What happened to the time when to be a scientist also meant having a healthy interest n philosophy, theology, humanities, and liberal arts?

>I also dislike how some scientists feel compelled to talk about issues, and give opinion on matters completely outside their jurisdiction or expertise
I hope you can see how the first point sorta contradicts the second?

That said, I agree with you—the problem is that they don't have any interest in gaining any level of expertise in those matters of philosophy, theology, humanities, etc., and yet still feel entitled to speaking out on them. Really, I blame overspecialization and modern emphasis on what makes money and is quantifiable, but I might be attacking the wrong ideologies.

[Anonymous No.4170743]

>>4169329
Why doesn't /sci/ just stay on their board rather than shitposting on ours?

[Anonymous No.4170759]

Scientists often forget that they are making models of the universe, not "discovering fundamental laws" of it. You can even catch them sometimes saying that the universe "obeys" their laws.

I love science, but scientists are usually stupid when they try to philosophize, or even simply interpret their own results. There is probably a certain stupidity required to become a scientist, since no one else could stand all the data collection. Thank God someone's willing to do all that work.

[Anonymous No.4170770]

>>4170735
>I blame overspecialization

Overspecialization is the only way to get things accomplished in science nowadays. There's just too much accumulated knowledge in any given field for someone to actually come up with something new without first going through decades of increasingly specific studies.

if Da Vinci were born today and spread his interests as thinly as he did in the 15th century he would be completely unremarkable in all fields.

[Anonymous No.4170777]

Why is it that in the past scientists were usually also theologians, philosophers or authors, but today's scientists are for the most part very inarticulate and rigid, dismissing the study of theology, philosophy or literature as a "waste of time"?

[Anonymous No.4170789]

>Richard Dawkins makes a smug "gotcha" at Christianity's expense
>said gotcha could be dismissed by somebody who has read the first few pages of the Summa Theologica
>he is criticised for his poor understanding of theology as a whole
>"You don't need to study leprechaunology to know that leprechauns don't exist" (sic)

[Anonymous No.4170798]

>>4170789
>My grandmother wasn't a monkey!
>It could be dismissed by somebody with even the most rudimentary grasp of evolutionary theory
>Get criticized for poor understanding of evolutionary theory as a whole
>"You don't need to study biology to know that evolution isn't real."
Hell, I'm pretty firmly agnostic, but Dawkins basically just did this. Flouting one's ignorance is not a way of winning an intellectual debate. It's a way of being a smug asshat.

[Anonymous No.4170819]

>>4170789

What was the "gotcha"?

No one takes theology seriously anymore. Let alone theology written hundreds of years ago. What does it even mean to have a "poor understanding of theology?" "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."

>>4170798

Just that in the case of evolution you dismiss something for which there is actually evidence. When you dismiss god or whatever it was that Dawkins dismissed or was smug about, he probably had a farily reasonable reason for being smug about it.

[Anonymous No.4170836]

>>4169414
The only places I've encountered such rivalry between the sciences and humanities is 4chan and reddit. Then again, I don't get out much.

[Anonymous No.4170839]

>>4170819
gr8 b8 m8, i am ir8 with h8, i r8 an 8. my m8 and i aw8 more b8 to r8, for we are l8 and this is our f8.

[Anonymous No.4170840]

>>4170819
>No one takes theology seriously anymore.
You lost me right there. People do take theology seriously. And it's wrong to say it's founded upon nothing—it's just that it lays its foundations in ways differently from how the natural sciences do. So when you dismiss theology, like Dawkins does, you dismiss something that actually has a fair amount of reasoning behind it.

Really, that's the kind of analogy I was pushing for with the evolution thing—the fact that evolution isn't founded in the same things that religion is founded in doesn't give a religious person license to dismiss it entirely.

[Anonymous No.4170843]

>>4170759
This is the essence of the problem. All science is based on and limited by the philosophy of science. When this is not understood, science becomes a horrible bastardization of itself. It is vital that the historical progression be understood. The principles of science were in fact formulated UNSCIENTIFICALLY, and thus the achievements of science owe themselves to unscience. When science belittles and antagonizes it's philosophical ancestors it resembles a precocious and ungrateful child. Followers of Dawkins would do well to study Nietzsche's account for the evolution of truth from untruth in Beyond Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.4170846]

>>4170819
That quote seems like a good argument for solipsism if it was twisted around. The study of science, as it stands, is the study of nothing. It can demonstrate nothing because the only thing we can be sure of is our own existence.

Haven't you already taken a leap of faith in not being a solipsist, big boy?

[Anonymous No.4170852]

>>4170846

not that guy but you are fucking retarded holy shit

[Anonymous No.4170857]

>>4170843
>All science is based on and limited by the philosophy of science.
I'm not sure I agree with you in saying it's "based on philosophy of science", but I think I might be with you in general. How does this sound?

Scientific research and knowledge relies on a boatload of presuppositions for its validity, and when scientists take these presuppositions for granted rather than examining them seriously, they fuck things up.

[Anonymous No.4170860]

To troll idiots from /sci/ which is literally the dumbest board on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.4170862]

>>4170839
Okay.

>>4170840
Then theology is little more than a branch of philosophy trying to justify an inherently unjustifiable position. I like Russell's criticism of Aquinas here, because it can be extended to anyone who studies theology: "He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times."

Who takes this seriously beyond those who study it? Indeed, how can something like theology even be taken seriously by anyone who tries to be a little intellectually honest?

[Anonymous No.4170875]

>>4169455
>wonder
>amazement

>Art is jerking off

very euphoric :)

[Anonymous No.4170876]

>>4170862

Russell was the classiest fedora. Dispatching of Jesuits left and right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

[Anonymous No.4170883]

>>4170876
> Dispatching of Jesuits

>being this anti catholic

remove crumpet

[Anonymous No.4170880]

>>4170743
/lit/ has been shitposting all year about "muh marxist feminists"

[Anonymous No.4170879]

>>4170862
And I'm saying that what you're doing wrong (as is Dawkins) is that you're coming in from the beginning assuming that god DOESN'T exist, and then when theology doesn't match up with this, this proves that theology is wrong. And while I ultimately find a lot of the stuff unconvincing, I find it intellectually dishonest to not at least try to bracket my own assumptions (at least temporarily) and to think through theology from the theological standpoint.

As for Russell's argument, he oversimplifies a lot—Aquinas does his best to set some definite boundaries between what can be discovered through thinking and what requires revelation. It's this aspect of his thinking that I actually find most interesting.

[Anonymous No.4170886]

>>4170860

/sci/ should be renamed to /firstyear/ or even /highschool/.

[Anonymous No.4170892]

>>4170886
more like /centralafricanuniversity/

[Anonymous No.4170893]

>>4170883
Copleston was a Jesuit. Jesuits are preachers and theologians.

[Anonymous No.4170895]

>>4170879
>And I'm saying that what you're doing wrong (as is Dawkins) is that you're coming in from the beginning assuming that god DOESN'T exist, and then when theology doesn't match up with this, this proves that theology is wrong. And while I ultimately find a lot of the stuff unconvincing, I find it intellectually dishonest to not at least try to bracket my own assumptions (at least temporarily) and to think through theology from the theological standpoint.

Again I feel like quoting Russell. I have examined the arguments on both sides (with an open mind, and with different religions) and I simply find none to be compelling. The only religions that are attractive to me are eastern ones, mainly because they don't make any unjustifiable claims to a [personal] creator, but are more like moral systems.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and solely at what are the facts."
Just based on this quote alon, theology fails because they let themselves be diverted by what they wish to believe, and many of them simply ignore facts about the world.

[Anonymous No.4170902]

>>4170895
>theology fails because they let themselves be diverted by what they wish to believe, and many of them simply ignore facts about the world.
This is only true to a certain extent, but it's also something that you find (in a different form) in, say, Russell himself. But perhaps the best thing I can do is to make recourse to Nietzsche when he pointed out that EVERYONE does this, and you can't simply try to escape it or avoid it. Mind you, I'm aware of the ironies in trying to quote Nietzsche for upholding the validity of Aquinas... but then again, as religious philosophies go, I've always preferred Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.4170905]

>>4170892
I went to /sci/ yesterday and there were three different threads ridiculing philosophy on the first page. According to /sci/, philosophy = "I don't know nuffin."

It's like they don't know what the scientific method is.

[Anonymous No.4170910]

>>4170857
I think we're on the same page. I might be using the term philosophy of science wrong, but yeah I meant to refer to the fundamental suppositions of the scientific method. In the argument that science justifies itself, it ironically comes to resemble a kind of causa sui or "unmoved mover", fundamental concepts of the same theology that is belittled as inherently unjustifiable!

>>4170862
Isn't empiricism the scientific revelation? If the ideological lineage is followed, the conflict is clearly a resurgence of Empiricism vs. Rationalism. If the fault of theologians their lack of investigative honesty, is it not the fault of both sides for not recognizing what the conflict really boils down to? Aren't both sides clutching to their dogma to avoid real threatening debate?

[Anonymous No.4170923]

>>4170879

I see no reason to assume God exists without any evidence. This is why the cosmological arguments fail. If you look at them closely you should notice that they operate under the assumption that God exists, making them useless.

[Anonymous No.4170942]

>>4170910

The conflict boils down to this: an agnostic asks "how?" while a theist asks "why?". The question of why assumes that there is a rational agency behind the existence of everything and this is ultimately a meaningless question.

One of these positions is not scientific and I think you might guess which one it is. There is an ncompatability between these inquiries.

[Anonymous No.4170969]

>>4170942
>There is an ncompatability between these inquiries.
In a sense, yes, and in a sense, no. Basically, they're conquering different territories, so to act like they're at war with each other and one must pick sides makes no sense.

I mean, look: one of the originators of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest. (Makes sense, really—creation ex nihilo.) Kepler and Mendel were both religious. The Catholic Church's current official position is that evolution is real.

The scientific and the theistic worldview are in a certain sense compatible in that one can hold scientific beliefs in areas founded on scientific method and can hold theistic beliefs in ares not founded on the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.4170986]

>>4170969

When the pope tried to use the idea of a big bang as evidence for god, LeMaitre sent a letter to him telling him to stop, because he was embarrassing himself.

[Anonymous No.4170991]

>>4170986
Rightly so! I wasn't trying to point out that it proves creation ex nihilo to be real (though I think I did accidentally end up saying something like that)—I think the better way of looking at it is that inspiration for scientific theories comes from all sorts of places, not all of which are scientific. (The eventual justification for these theories, though, does have to be empirical if it's to be scientific.) I've seen it convincingly said that Darwin took inspiration from Adam Smith.

[Anonymous No.4171052]

>>4170910
>I think we're on the same page.

[Anonymous No.4171069]

I hate that people think science is about mystical shit like "discovery" instead of finding things we can use.

[Anonymous No.4171101]

>>4171069
>muh pragmatism
>300k starting
>productive

[Anonymous No.4171105]

>>4170880
>>>/pol

[Anonymous No.4171156]

>>4169329

/lit/ doesn't hate science, it hates /sci/.

And a night on /sci/ will be enough to know why.

[Anonymous No.4171157]

>>4171069
If it didn't have its mysticism we might aswell just hand it over to marketing, and let some humanities major or economist tell you what you should "innovate".

[Anonymous No.4171189]

Don't deny that you think you're better than STEMfags. You think they are autistic and plebeian, while you yourself are artistic, intellectual, and sexy.
This thread is one big circlejerk.