/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5356087]

So now that radical empiricism, also known as Scientism, is becoming very popular, can we take a moment and talk about it again? (without this thread devolving into some stupid argument by idiots who believe in the false dichotomy of science and philosophy as completely incompatible entities). There seems to be a huge discrepancy between what those who abide by it think it is, and what it actually is.

From Wikipedia:
>Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
First of all, Scientism is a belief, as in: it implies a moral priority of only using empirical method for the faculty of understanding. This means it is, much like a religion, a practice that teaches what someone ought to do in order to obtain "the truth".

It also implies that science requires a leap of faith, in that one must fully accept the observations and deductions of those who came before, and even deeper: one must have faith that the natural world can be fully observed and understood-- this previous statement must be held true if one is to call themselves a follower of Scientism, because if the statement is false, then empirical science loses its value and purpose. Scientism could make the claim that the universe can only be understood empirically ONLY IF we, as humans, had already possessed all possible knowledge about the universe. However, this claim has been made in the present day, in which we (again, referring to us humans) do not possess all possible knowledge, and therefore to make the induction that the scientific method is the key to all knowledge without possessing all knowledge is a contradicting claim. You cannot know which key (science, philosophy, religion, etc.) opens the lock (truth) without opening the lock, assuming there is no obvious outside entity to tell you which key is the correct one.

A radical empiricist will say: "Science is the path to all possible understanding." But how does he know this if all possible understanding is not presently understood? The empiricist says we ought to cast aside philosophy because it is useless. But this just further reinforces the fact that Scientism is much like a utilitarian moral belief system, rather than an actual doctrine of method. The word "useless" is ambiguous and problematic, because it does not mention what it is that is useful and also implies that usefulness exists in the first place. What is science useful for? For improving lives or finding the truth? The empiricist who answers "improving lives" is making a subjective claim, and the empiricist who answers "finding the truth" is falling into the contradictory trap that I explained in the last paragraph.

cont.

[Anonymous No.5356094]

cont.

There is also much to say about the current state of the scientific method itself, and to question whether or not it holds up in modern empirical journeys into QM and subatomic particles, which can be affected by empirical observation. Much of the scientific conclusions that are made today do not come with a 100% seal of guarantee. Even Hume, an empiricist, could not place complete faith in science because although we see the sun rise everyday, you could not possibly be absolutely certain that it will rise tomorrow without seeing it for yourself. Remember the gravitational waves phenomenon of earlier this year? Turns out it might be just a bunch of errors. Remember when physicists at CERN discovered the higgs boson last year? That conclusion was initially made from a miniscule spike in energy, which was within the standard error margins; more evidence surfaced that hint it actually is the higgs boson, but its existence cannot be claimed with more than 95% certainty. But all of what I've said here isn't an attack on science, it's an attack on those who blindly believe in its power.

So basically what I am trying to say is that those who put all of their faith in science are doing so blindly. All avenues must be constantly explored to achieve understanding. There must exist a harmony between science and reason. Also, I am a STEM fag so anyone who accuses me of being NEET/humanities can fuck right off.

the end

[Anonymous No.5356105]

I hate to self-promote, but I wrote this for my Honors Rhetoric class and my teacher really liked it (I got an A+).

Scientism is problematic because of the thesis it posits implicitly, but incessantly: that the measure of a person's character - the test of what makes him or her (qua individual) nuanced and compelling - is the amount of arcane technical facts they know about "the universe." This "philosophy" du jour does not care about one's moral character, one's sense of justice, one's emotional depths; it casts aside the essence of what it means to be human, the experiences of the human condition, and replaces them with desiccated and slightly novel trivia questions.It's a painfully shallow "philosophy", and yet, we're told there's no real need to dig further. Indeed, Dawkins and Tyson don't sacrifice substance for shtick - they tell the audience that the shtick is the substance. What will a generation of children raised by scientists look like? Vapid and bland, just like trust fund kids, who haven't the slightest bit of authenticity or character - one homogeneous, un-diverse blob that has forgotten all of what it means to be human.

[Anonymous No.5356129]

Your teacher was a female, my "female commendation" senses are tingling.

[Anonymous No.5356146]

>>5356105
>that the measure of a person's character - the test of what makes him or her (qua individual) nuanced and compelling - is the amount of arcane technical facts they know about "the universe."
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.5356160]

>>5356094

>subatomic particles, which can be affected by empirical observation

false

[Anonymous No.5356172]

>>5356087
I watched an interview yesterday of Hilary Putnam from around 1980, who is a philosopher of science (among other disciplines).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E
He talks about the scientific method, the primacy of scientific knowledge over other kinds, and so on. The things he said have lead me to believe that I should read up on the development of the way science and the scientific method have been conceived -by philosophers, scientists, laymen- in the past 150+years, and not engage in talking about the topic at hand before I feel like I have a decent enough grasp of the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.5356174]

>>5356160
This is true, but only because the way to "empirically observe" a subatomic particle is to shoot an electron at it, which will obviously alter its state.

[Anonymous No.5356181]

>>5356174
lol you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.5356187]

>>5356181
lol you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.5356195]

scientism isn't radical empiricism. something like the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, which takes the human subjective experience as a sign for what all existence is like, would be "radical empiricism."

zen philosophy could also probably be called "radical empiricism"

scientism, which is based around positing abstract models as Truths, is not even close to radical empiricism

[Anonymous No.5356198]

>>5356105
>Scientism is problematic because of the thesis it posits implicitly, but incessantly: that the measure of a person's character - the test of what makes him or her (qua individual) nuanced and compelling - is the amount of arcane technical facts they know about "the universe."

Completely false. Scientism is the belief that asking a physicist for universal truths is more likely to yield "truth" than asking a philosopher. "Arcane technical facts"... wow. The rest of your writing is so obviously biased it isn't worth much to comment on.

>There is also much to say about the current state of the scientific method itself, and to question whether or not it holds up in modern empirical journeys into QM and subatomic particles, which can be affected by empirical observation.

You don't know QM

>All avenues must be constantly explored to achieve understanding. There must exist a harmony between science and reason.

This is also a philosophy. "Blindly believe in its power" is a bit off the mark when you consider the difference between science and other philosophies, namely that science has a direct, measurable relationship with people's lives. As in, I can go out and "test" scientific assertions by watching matter fall to the ground, and so on. Even if I don't know the specific equations underlying the universe, there is still an obvious relationship.

Worrying about the sun not rising tomorrow sounds like a much smaller worry than if God loves you or if you are living a "sincere" life.


However, these are all moot points because "science" doesn't occupy the same space in people's heads as religion or existentialism. They easily co exist. What we are seeing is a greater public awareness of the failings of philosophy and religion to give concrete, visible answers to life's problems. People will replace what they can with scientific explanation, and the rest will be the aforementioned philosophy and religion. Its like how many Christians now believe in evolution, but fit it in a frame work of God causing it or whatever.

Its horrible, absolutely toxic I tell you!

[Anonymous No.5356208]

>>5356105
>I wrote this for my Rhetoric class
It shows

[Anonymous No.5356210]

>>5356087

>First of all, Scientism is a belief, as in: it implies a moral priority of only using empirical method for the faculty of understanding

moral? no, practical. only the empirical method produces an understanding that is PRACTICALLY authoritative

>This means it is, much like a religion, a practice that teaches what someone ought to do in order to obtain "the truth".

for scientists, "the truth" is just shorthand for "whatever beliefs or conceptions which facilitate the achievement of specific physical goals" i.e. reaching the moon, harnessing nuclear energy

>It also implies that science requires a leap of faith, in that one must fully accept the observations and deductions of those who came before

no, you can test the scientific observations and deductions of those who came before, that's the beauty of the scientific method, nobody has to take the work of other scientists on faith, nobody has to take ANYTHING on faith in another person, although arguably some kind of faith is required, I'm saying not THIS kind of faith

>and even deeper: one must have faith that the natural world can be fully observed and understood

no, as i said, scientists/empiricists only claim that science is the best possible method of determining practical theories, theories that facilitate some action, whether these theories then constitute "the highest and fullest truth" is another matter

>this previous statement must be held true if one is to call themselves a follower of Scientism, because if the statement is false, then empirical science loses its value and purpose

you can take the above as an explicit refutation of this

>Scientism could make the claim that the universe can only be understood empirically ONLY IF we, as humans, had already possessed all possible knowledge about the universe

no, they need only prove that within the varied connotations implied by the terms "understanding" and "truth" there are limitations defined that prevent the possibility of acquiring them in some other method than empirically. this would be a tall challenge, no doubt, but it is a lot different from saying that one must have all possible knowledge to know that empirical is the highest or best kind of understanding

>You cannot know which key (science, philosophy, religion, etc.) opens the lock (truth) without opening the lock, assuming there is no obvious outside entity to tell you which key is the correct one.

this idea of "truth" is meaningless, if "truth" has no internal, connotative limitations, such that literally any possible proposition "could be truth", then what is truth and why should we want it? and furthermore, how are you supposed to recognize it even after you've "opened the lock with the key" unless you already have some idea of what it must be like?

[Anonymous No.5356215]

>>5356146
>>5356198
>>5356208
i think you all got trolled hard

[Anonymous No.5356226]

>>5356174

it doesn't matter, the point is that it has nothign to do with the mind or consciousness, but rather measurement mechanisms

[Anonymous No.5356227]

"It has almost become embarrassing to point out that science is in a state of crisis…not because it is untrue, but because it has become a cliché too often accompanied by little or no remedial insight. For all of the magnificent achievements of science, its grander ambitions long ago succeeded in taxing its traditional models and organizational principles beyond their explanatory limits. In the search for ever deeper and broader explanations, science has reached the point at which it can no longer deny the existence of intractable conceptual difficulties devolving to the explanatory inadequacies of its fundamental conceptual models of reality."

[Anonymous No.5356246]

>>5356210
fuck man. /lit/ is a slow board, take some time and write a paragraph

people who follow scientism are not the same as people who practice the scientific method (AKA scientists)

yes i agree that science is a humble process that serves practical purpose, yet those who are "scientismists" are those who believe that science is a divining method for knowledge

[Anonymous No.5356289]

>>5356246

>fuck man. /lit/ is a slow board, take some time and write a paragraph

paragraphs are better when you are just trying to explain a bunch of stuff

when i am trying to explicitly respond to somebody, I see no reason why I wouldn't quote and address each of their points specifically and point out exactly where I disagree

>people who follow scientism are not the same as people who practice the scientific method (AKA scientists)

I am torn between being pretty sure that nobody is a follower of "scientism" or that "scientism" is actually much more conservative in its claims

i am sympathetic to the "scientistic" claim that science is the only or best method of understanding, I personally believe that knowledge is impossible, when strictly defined, and that almost everything is just emotional appeals like morality. science is at least objective in that we can all test for ourselves it's conclusions, this cannot be said of any other method of inquiry, science achieves a truly unique and truly greater level of objectivity than anything else. it is also all-encompassing of objectivity as a whole:

1-only that which is mutually understandable or knowable is objective
2-only that which is reproducible is mutually understandable and knowable
3-science is the study of all that is reproducible
4-science is the all-encompassing (nothing else will do, and it is equipped for anything) study of objective "truths" or ideas

[Anonymous No.5356370]

>>5356289
OP here, I'm not attacking science. What I'm going after is the faith in science in which the people who believe in objective truths seem to blindly accept. I don't even know if I can call it Scientism anymore, because like you said, it is much more conservative and the general population adopts this and goes into extreme territory by doing a couple of things: by assuming science will drive us to the "end" of knowledge and that it is more "useful" than philosophy when in reality science can only come to localized conclusions.

For example, even though science, in theory, can answer every question of the natural universe, it will never be able to answer the question: "why does reality exist?" because the answer to that lies beyond the realm of empirical observation. The answer is either unknowable or is knowable through some other rational means. But there are those who have said, explicitly, and even here on /lit/ that empirical science will lend us to objective truths, which makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous No.5356406]

>>5356215
I adapted it from a paragraph in this article http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/96904/zooey-deschanel-new-girl-annoying , the one that says "nuanced and compelling."

[Anonymous No.5356517]

>>5356087
Dawkins believes that a Universe is created when a Daddy Universe and a Mommy Universe love each other very much, and so they fuck and then a baby Universe is born, and these Universes all somehow evolve and our Universe is the result of atoms evolving.

There is nothing even remotely empirical about that.

Scientism is not radical empiricism, it is just another form of New Age Mysticism. Like those people with the crystals, or the dudes who think the Internet is some collective consciousness. It is a different (nonsense) language for the same (nonsense) questions people always ask when they get too much time on their hands.

[Anonymous No.5356575]

>>5356517

Isn't the internet very concretely a collective consciousness?

[Anonymous No.5356600]

>>5356198

Is this bait? Please tell me this is bait...

>What we are seeing is a greater public awareness of the failings of philosophy and religion to >give concrete, visible answers to life's problems. People will replace what they can with ?>scientific explanation, and the rest will be the aforementioned philosophy and religion. Its like >how many Christians now believe in evolution, but fit it in a frame work of God causing it or >whatever.

>Its horrible, absolutely toxic I tell you!


Define your terms.

[Anonymous No.5356612]

ITT:
Tl;dr
Tl;dr as far as the eye can see.
Also, how does this relate to LITERATURE?
MODS!!

[Anonymous No.5356668]

>>5356087
is radical empiricism really also known as scientism?

[Anonymous No.5356688]

>>5356087
>So now that radical empiricism, also known as Scientism

No. Learn the difference. Radical empiricists like William James criticized scientism at length.

[Anonymous No.5356715]

>>5356612
The only other place to discuss philosophy is /pol/, and there's no way we're going there.

[Anonymous No.5356718]

>>5356715
>>>ribbit

[Anonymous No.5356728]

> tfw math isn't empirical
> tfw scientistic people should exclude math from their worldview

[Anonymous No.5356751]

it's just positivism all over again. it will end when some spencer-like retard appears.

[Anonymous No.5356852]

>>5356575
Only in the sense that Borges wrote about the Congress of the World referring to the entire human race (>>5356612, literary enough for u bb?).
When people talk about the internet as a collective consciousness, they're heavily exercising self selection, confirmation bias, and probably some other buzz words that mean they imagine "the Internet" to be the sites that they visit,and they've smoothed over all the disagreements to create some vague, unitary ideal.

Most recent place I saw people proposing the internet's collective consciousness was in reference to the slacktavists' reaction to Ferguson. But most of the internet (which, amazingly enough, isn't limited to the US) is barely aware of the Ferguson meme, and of those that are aware, there is a substantial portion that are on the side of law enforcement. Those participating in the Ferguson meme only imagine they are part of a global consciousness because their sense of the "globe" is limited to their slacktavist friends and the reports from Huffpo, etc.

If the internet were a consciousness, it would be a very sick one. Schizophrenic, depersonalized, self-loathing, and with a sever case of disassociative identity disorder.

[Anonymous No.5357004]

>>5356087
> also implies that science requires a leap of faith, in that one must fully accept the observations and deductions of those who came before

this plain isn't true since the main aspect of science is how well documented it is any experiment can be reproduced that is what is great about science you can test it for yourself

[Anonymous No.5357049]

you are posting this thanks to the scientism

[Anonymous No.5357089]

>>5356087
>radical empiricism
>Scientism
stop

[Anonymous No.5357130]

>>5357049
>implying the internet isn't magick ether manipulation

[Anonymous No.5357242]

>>5357049
No, I am posting this thanks to several military funded projects which sought to find more efficient ways of killing people.

You, however, are capable of reading these words silently thanks to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.5357257]

>>5356370

>why does reality exist?

is that really a meaningful question? i'm honestly sympathetic to the scientism stuff if this is what they're missing out on. how could there ever be an answer to that question? if you gave a cause, then that cause would need its own cause. but how else would you answer but with a cause?

[Anonymous No.5357294]

>>5357049
>>5357242
It is a gross mistake to attribute these vaguely stated possibilities to any one ideology

[Anonymous No.5357298]

>>5357257
Except that scientism doesn't ignore those questions. Read The God Delusion. Dawkins thinks that Darwinian evolution applies to literally EVERYTHING, including non-living matter and human consciousness which is becoming "elevated" (read: euphoric).

[Anonymous No.5357314]

>>5357298
Are you sure you weren't just taking "raising consciousness" a little too literally

[Anonymous No.5357531]

OP, You cannot objectively prove that radical empiricists exist. To believe they do is an act of faith.

[Anonymous No.5357855]

>>5357294
they arent attributing it to the ideologies, rather the institutions operating on ideologies (which seems to be exactly what this thread is about; the personal implications of aligning with people who hold an ideology, an important distinction)

[Anonymous No.5357882]

>>5357298
>Dawkins thinks that Darwinian evolution applies to literally EVERYTHING, including non-living matter and human consciousness which is becoming "elevated"
Good lord, why is it that hardcore scientism always degenerates into the vilest, simplest forms of first-century gnosticism??

If you're going to join a religious cult, at least join something that has class and aesthetical value, not deranged ramblings of sandnigger neckbeards.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5357890]

I, Madame Butterfly, have been ordained as a scientism Bishop, and can tell you that it is the best religion.

There are fuckheads out there putting their 'faith' in the idea of invisible dictators and talking snakes, of animal deities, of telepathic wishes being granted; there are pagans lighting mother candles and performing spells, men in dresses believing they will be given 99 virgins for blowing up a car outside an embassy. Meanwhile, we get the brunt of the hate. The Aristotelian elements were once believed to make up all of matter, and now we have molecules and atomic theory. We put our 'faith' in the idea that the modern atomic theory is a different, and potentially more accurate description of reality. Of the two, we believe that the latter uses more data and provides results that have more internal consistency when making predictions. "But you cant no nuffin, you cultist," scream the children. Well, that's why it's faith. We can't prove our laptops exist, We can't prove salt will dissolve in water, We can't prove holding our fingers to a flame will burn us, but we have faith.

Now lets not get mixed up in the idea of truth. Nobody, not even our Pope, claims that scientism gives us truth. In fact, the second commandment of scientism declares that science is not, and never can be, truth; that our descriptions and models only seem to be the most accurate with the knowledge that we think we have, and can always be falsified later. So what is scientism?
Scientism is the belief that we have models to describe reality. Even though we cannot objectively prove we have any models at all, we believe that we have them.
Scientism is the belief that we can falsify and refine these models within themselves. We cannot prove that we can, but we have faith.
Scientism is the belief that people scoffing at us from the infantile cover of militant skepticism have a fundamentally inferior faith, as the dogmatic "You cant know nuffin" that they chant like a fucking Krishna mantra cannot be objectively verified either.
Scientism is the warm euphoric glow that comes from pure enlightened intellect.

Nobody is asking you to take our holy sacraments and erect a shrine to Richard Feynman and Einstein. We have no door-to-door recruitment agents; "excuse me, have you heard of science and how it can improve the quality of your life?" we just work away improving the transistors for your smartphones, developing ways to cure your cancers, inventing improved hydroelectric dams so third world orphans can drink; and no, we can't prove that smartphones, cancer, or third world orphans exist, and we'll get screamed at and persecuted in a contemporary witch-hunt with brimmed hats, but we won't ever stop. We have faith.

[Anonymous No.5357964]

>>5357890
>Nobody is asking you to take our holy sacraments and erect a shrine to Richard Feynman and Einstein. We have no door-to-door recruitment agents; "excuse me, have you heard of science and how it can improve the quality of your life?" we just work away improving the transistors for your smartphones, developing ways to cure your cancers, inventing improved hydroelectric dams so third world orphans can drink; and no, we can't prove that smartphones, cancer, or third world orphans exist, and we'll get screamed at and persecuted in a contemporary witch-hunt with brimmed hats, but we won't ever stop. We have faith.

So the only difference you really have with mainstream western societal beliefs is that you overtly believe in the myth of endless progress rather than just not acknowledging it?

Isn't this just a secret treehouse club for entry level technicians and engineers?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5358004]

>>5357964
>you overtly believe in the myth of endless progress rather than just not acknowledging it?

It depends on how you play with the linguistic construct "progress". If you are attaching a positive connotation to it, then no. If you treat progress as moving from a given point to another, progressing from A's to B's, so to speak, then yes.

"Endless", not necessarily, though not impossible. A lot of things appear to be accurately described by Moore's Law, progressing at an exponential rate. We may always be able to add more transistors to a microprocessor, or more digital neurons to the next neuromorphic chipset, or we may hit a wall with everything. Your 'endless' would come from the the second commandment of scientism, that science is not truth but merely describes and forms models. Given this, it's always conceivable that something has been left out of the model, and it will always have the potential to be refined further, without end.

[Anonymous No.5358062]

/sci/entist here
ask me anything

[Anonymous No.5358072]

>>5358062
>/sci/entist here ask me anything
Two questions.

First: How do you pull away from relativism without faith?

You have two theories, one you think is absurd and one is supported by empirical observation, yet externally both are equal, and supporting either requires faith. You can't enter into one model when you are an external skeptic employing relativism.

Second: Can consciousness every be fully captured in a scientism model? I hear Obama is replicating a brain in his multi-billion dollar program, and has already mapped the entire nervous structure and neurological makeup of a few insects and smaller animals. When we have a digital replication of a human brain, and if it responds in exactly the same way as a human does, what is the scientism community going to do with qualia?

[Anonymous No.5358086]

>>5358062
Have you liked a "SCIENCE IS AWESOME!!!111!!" facebook page?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5358090]

>>5358072
>First: How do you pull away from relativism without faith?
>You have two theories, one you think is absurd and one is supported by empirical observation, yet externally both are equal
We have a third model, bayesianism, giving a probability value. We don't say that either is true, we say that within their models, A has 13%, and be has 84%, then continue to try to falsify both.

>what is the scientism community going to do with qualia?
Qualia and the hard problem of consciousness are only problems to philosophy undergrads. The rest of the world and neuroscience functions exactly the same whether you crowbar the linguistic construct "qualia" into your poor understanding of neuroscience of not. When the BRAIN initiative has it's model, it wont even address qualia unless a specific empirical event is observed that calls for a linguistic construct like qualia to be employed. They will use their model to work on methods to tackle Parkinsons and Alzheimers, maybe in a few decades start seriously working on neuro-implants to interface with axons beyond the crude experiments they already have. The only people raving about qualia will be Nagel and a few kids in Chinese Cartoon forums.

[Anonymous No.5358100]

>>5358072
first question: lets just say i belive in induction. I belive in the scientific method. I belive that there is an objective real world with set rules and laws and that we can create theories with empirical experiments.
We can see that the scientific method works. We can prove our theories with experiments.
But to "believe" in science you have to believe that there is a objective real world (no solipsism, no matrix etc.), that induction is possible and that the set laws never change
second: i can't really say. I'm no neuro or computer scientist. I have probably as much information as you about the idea of conciousness

[Anonymous No.5358106]

>>5358086
no
i fucking hate "i fucking love science"

[Anonymous No.5358127]

Do you think scientism is a reaction to the nihilistic perspective that came with the post-modern age? As if it were the will to truth by way of faith through ignorance of the flaws and a method to fit into the current cultural/economic models more easily.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5358154]

>>5358127
>Do you think scientism is a reaction to the nihilistic perspective that came with the post-modern age?
In some ways yes, and maybe even a reaction to the phantom pain of an amputated post-enlightenment God too. Aimless floundering in the relativistic swamp of nihilistic post-modernity is obviously a cause though. The faith in scientism is heralded as the best because the faith that empirical observation is real is a lot harder to deny, for contemporary westerners, than the antiquated concept of a Christian God.

Scientism advocates will believe in a smartphone and take the one they believe they are holding for a revelation that smartphones actually exist. We also have the other reaction to the post-modern perspective; that the "meaning" discussed in nihilism is a linguistic construct, just like the grand models of sceintism, created by man and superimposed on empirical observation, yet scientism is more hasty to dismiss "meaning" through lack of tangibility, and it's status as only a concept with no primary tie to the empirical.

[Anonymous No.5358309]

>>5356087
I know pretty much all scientists, scince students and scientifically literate people consider it a load of crap if they think of it at all. Sort of like those "quantum conscientiousness" and zero-point guys stuff. Are you sure it's not just a buzzword used by freaks and politicos for their own purposes? Do you even know anybody who will say "I am a scientismatist" or whatever they call themselves?

[Anonymous No.5358311]

>>5356087
>one must have faith that the natural world can be fully observed and understood

Where did you get that? Of course not. That's retarded.

[Anonymous No.5358318]

>>5358309
Scientismatic might be a better word. Think of it in terms of trying to expand any profession until it encompasses all aspects of life. People who worshiped and admired plumbers, but werent really plumbers themselves and didnt know about plumbing might become "plumberismatists" and tell people that if they put teflon tape on their wounds they'd heal faster, or that homosexuality was bad because male and female pipe ends don't fit together. Real plumbers or people who understand plumbing would obviously think they were freaks. Think of them as cargo cultists. fortunately as you point out there are vanishingly few of them.

[Anonymous No.5358347]

>>5357890
oh look another stemfag that gets mixed up over science and technology

[Anonymous No.5358352]

>>5358347
>He thinks there is a distinction.
>I bet he says chemistry is not science because the field has it's own name.

[Anonymous No.5358396]

>>5358347
>>5358352
you could easily have chemistrism, biologism, technologism (applied scientism?) too. If you try to expand the boundaries of a field to cover everything you get some weird crap. science in raw form is really just a way of testing assumptions and hypothesis against the demonstrated and replicable rules of the natural world. Expanding this to include aesthetics, ethics, religion, anything non-material or subjective is asking for trouble. which is why scientismatics are so irritating. still, while they seem to be a microscopic minority they seem to be imagined everywhere. Arethere really any unironically self-identifying scientismatists?

[Anonymous No.5358407]

>>5358396
>Expanding this to include aesthetics, ethics, religion, anything non-material or subjective is asking for trouble

Hardly. Aesthetics and ethics are covered by science, despite the insistence of the philosophism kiddies.

[Anonymous No.5358426]

>>5358407
not well enough to make a difference. saying there's a biological basis for aesthetics or a behavioral basis for ethics doesn't really steer you tell you anything about what most people think about them, and there really is no accounting for tastes. Knowing meteorology won't tell you whether it will rain on your house this time next year, and certainly not whether it "should". Science might be able to draw limits around some of these things, like it probably won't be ten thousand degrees at your house next year, and everything won't appear beautiful to everybody, but that's not really that helpful.

[Anonymous No.5358450]

As a scientismist, I believe that you can't know nuffin, but you can use science to build things that you can't without science. Furthermore, since at any moment you could start observing things that radically disagree with what you know, a universe where you can know nuffin is completely indistinguishable from a universe where you can't know nuffin. Therefore, you can't even know that you can't know nuffin.

[Anonymous No.5358462]

>>5358450
how is this perspective useful to you? is it another version of Mr. Punch's dilemma?

[Anonymous No.5358467]

>>5358462
It's useful because it helps me to avoid getting bogged down in useless debates.

[Anonymous No.5358471]

>>5358426
So you're argument is that because some of the models within the scientific method aren't refined enough for you yet, you get the proverbial two steps backs to fill in the gaps with is/ought's and play in a semantic playground that doesn't offer anything better?

[Anonymous No.5358477]

>>5358471
>you're
>two steps backs
Yeah, sorry, i'm borderline nodding.

[Anonymous No.5358489]

>>5358471
Nope. The fact that the gaps aren't filled in yet just means that there are gaps. Nothing more. Think of it as an error polygon. when it expands to a certain extent, your ability to say anything useful about what it pertains to becomes less and less. Doesn't mean anybody else's ideas are any better, but it means that yours don't matter either. If your chance of being wrong and their chance of being wrong are the same, it doesn't matter if your method is more reliable. Here's where an actual scientist would simply drop a few significant figures and make a more tentative suggestion.

[Anonymous No.5358494]

>>5358090
>seeing the BRAIN initiative as a "when" and not an "if", while denigrating other's understanding of neuroscience

[Anonymous No.5358515]

>>5358489
>Doesn't mean anybody else's ideas are any better, but it means that yours don't matter either.
"count to ten"
"Okay, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..."
"You haven't finished yet, there are gaps, I get to play now. Sausage, lemon, purple, stratocaster."

This, though a little extreme, is essentially the scenario we are faced with. Every single day there are advancements that usually support the initial hypothesis, every day these models get more and more refined in the way that we expect them too, yet philosophism supporters still insist on trying to play too. You remember those paint by numbers things you had as a kid? Well science is rapidly filling those paintless patches in, you can easily see it's a picture of a pineapple, yet philosophy is still trying to eat the canvas.

>If your chance of being wrong and their chance of being wrong are the same.
But they're not.

[Anonymous No.5358557]

>>5358515
your example goes outside the set. Try this example: 1, 6, 9, 13, 76, 132....

the next number can be assumed to be an integer, and higher than the other numbers in the series, but not too much higher. A good guess would be between 133 and 9999. You might say 248 might be more likely, someone else, using humor as his guide, might predict "over 9000" but since you nor he knows the rule used to get the series, neither of you is more likely to be right, and from the sample you might not even be right about the assumptions you used to define the error polygon. You can probably rule out "sausage" or "god' , but in this case you should step back and say, as a scientist, "i bet the next thing in the series is a number" then you're logic is sound and you're reasoning is clear.

[Anonymous No.5358634]

whole = whole

[Anonymous No.5358650]

>>5358557
Your example fails to stipulate any rules while count to ten was presented with a framework. The scientist is going to have to rigorously experiment with what you have presented to create a descriptive framework. The philosopher is going to sit in the corner and question whether your sequence is real, whether he is real, whether 132 ought to be higher than 76, then attempt to weigh in at the end after the scientist has his hypothesis and expect to be treated with validity.

There are three player in this game: Science, linguistics, and philosophy. Science observes and describes, it sees a knife, it watches as it penetrates the abdomen, it doesn't detect a pulse. Linguistics plays with the structures that science needs, "Knife," "Abdomen," "pulse" and creates conceptual tags for science to use. Philosophy sits pretending to be busy, but watching from the corner of its eye. It needs science, it needs linguistics, it needs the act that science can describe and the terms that linguistics can create. It steals these and attempts to build sandcastles; ought, is, utility, morality, murder, wrong.

All philosophy has done is stolen terms that can either be described by science or exist exclusively as intangible semantic ideas in linguistics... and still only approached by science. Ethics and aesthetics reside in the monarch state of science, linguistics is parliament, philosophy the court jester.

[Anonymous No.5358697]

>>5358650
far more than three players, and most of the players aren't going to have any tools or understanding at all. the reason i didnt give the rule for my sequence is that science must confront the information and derive the rule from it. saying "count to ten" and implying that someone might claim that "sausage" is a valid member of the sequence is setting up a strawman. Anyone who holds that sausage is a valid member of a sequence of numbers between one and ten is trolling you. My example reflects reality: you get what you get, and you apply the tools you have to it. In science, you would attempt to confirm and refine your guess, but you would never make an inference that the data couldn't support. Someone not using those tools might.

remember that science is fanatically conservative. It never makes statements without giving an indication of what their value might be and in what circumstances they are applicable. A layman looks out his window and sees a house that is painted white, a scientist sees a house that appears white on at least one side, maybe because of paint, and in the prevailing lighting.

[Anonymous No.5358719]

>>5358697
>far more than three players
Fair enough. Lets wheel in others like sociology and politics. We can cover ethics completely without philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5358728]

ITT: a semantic bullshit bingo