/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6584589]

ITT: Give me one good reason why science is a bad thing, without using obscurantist language and/or likening science to religion (i.e. using the term ''Scientism'').

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.6584597]

I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which knowing the precise way in which your deceased hound has been decaying underground may be what might be appropriated as a "bad thing",
but in general I do not think scientific evidence is inherently a "bad thing".

[Anonymous No.6584604]

I doubt anyone would argue that science is inherently bad. I think most, who you may think do argue just that, dislike the science elitists that are plaguing the study as of late.

[Anonymous No.6584611]

Dialectic on enlightenment

[Anonymous No.6584627]

>>6584589
Science rips The Veil

[Anonymous No.6584631]

it hurts my feelings

[Anonymous No.6584638]

I cannot bring you true and lasting happiness

[Anonymous No.6584664]

Science isn't good or bad, it's implementation can be. Defending ideas with science is also pretty dumb since science's cool thing is being able to correct itself, so saying "science says so" is saying "i don't get the most basic elements of science"

[Anonymous No.6584670]

>>6584611
>dialectic

literally jgfjghfdjfdsf-tier

[Anonymous No.6584671]

No one ever claimed that outside of obvious trolling. Its more of a love the show hate the fanbase type situation and you fucking know it shitposter.

[fantasy No.6584682]

Science is not the only discourse.

[Anonymous No.6584696]

>>6584682

>discourse

You mean having a conversation?

[Anonymous No.6584703]

>I've discovered the cure to cancer, but oh wait what if reality isn't like real? Well, unless we prove it is real I can't use mah cure!

[Anonymous No.6584720]

>>6584589

Now you explain to me why Philosophy is a bad thing, without sounding incredibly retarded.

[Anonymous No.6584735]

>>6584597
nigga what the fuck are you talking about?

dead dogs? what?

>>6584604
except a lot of people on /lit/ unironically despise science.

[Anonymous No.6585138]

There is nothing wrong with science, it just pretends to know more than it really does about matters that are still properly philosophical, like psychology and morality.

[Anonymous No.6585149]

>>6584589
But science is not a bad thing, only scientism is.

[Anonymous No.6585160]

>>6584735
sure, i despise the basic ideology behind science and i think descartes was wrong about too many things to count

[Anonymous No.6585164]

>>6585138

How are psychology and morality ''properly philosophical''? Mental illnesses and aberrant human behavior can often be explained by science, as can morality, i.e. why we behave the way we do.

>>6585149
Scientism doesn't exist. It's a meaningless and empty term.

[Anonymous No.6585165]

>>6584589
Honestly it's the same critique of religion, which is why "scientism" is brought up.

It can lead people to believe that they are totally 100% right, that all knowledge can be discovered and that there is a correct answer. That's a dangerous game to play because it can be used to justify any action e.g. colonialism (they are a lesser species, science says so) or World War II (almost the same line of thought in the Nazi party--we are fuller, better people and we need to breed more of us. Killing others improves our virtue and strength, thus it's justified).

Science isn't the problem, belief in an absolute system is the problem because it can be used to any end.

[Anonymous No.6585168]

>>6584611
>Adorno and Horkheimer believed science is a bad thing
Nigga did you even read the book?

[Anonymous No.6585175]

>>6585164
>Scientism doesn't exist. It's a meaningless and empty term.
Scientism is the believe that only the scientific method can function as a meaningful approach to anything whatsoever. It clearly does exist.

[Anonymous No.6585243]

>>6585165
>it can be used to justify any action
Science does not "justify" anything, and those who tell otherwise clearly misunderstand the nature of science. Science is the tool to understand the world and (to a certain degree) predict its behaviour in response to our specific actions. Or, more precisely, a number of methods to construct such tools, as we still lack working scientific description in a good number of fields and subjects. If you understand the world correctly, your actions would have the consequences you expected. What you want to achieve is outside the scope of science.
>>6585175
Saying that scientific method is the only possible approach is too much, but as of now it is quite successful, by the sheer volume of predicative power. And it seems that there are no limits beyond which it cannot be applied by design. Dividing the world into "material" and "spiritual" is meaningless, as it's only a matter of definition.

[Anonymous No.6585252]

>>6585175
Not in the fanatical way that you imply. Nobody subscribes to ''scientism'' the way that people subscribe to Christianity or Islam or whatever.

And when it comes to finding things out (things that can be found out, not ''how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'') science has a great track record. I mean, what alternative is there to the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.6585261]

The logic of modern science is a particularly invasive, intense logic that given it's productivity and established authority, tends to overtake other ways of seeing the world. Measuring, calculating, instrumentality, objectification, and all it's other techniques come to apply not only to the whole of Nature, but to men as well. Communities become populations. People become human capital. Humans are resources.

[Anonymous No.6585319]

>>6585252
reason, logic
many people implicitly subscribe to scientism

[Anonymous No.6585322]

>>6584589
Why in the world a science would be a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.6585327]

>>6585261
Yes! Let us go back to the La-La Land of yesteryear, when people would merrily gambol 24/7 in beautiful green fields under a Teletubbies sun, the dew-wet grass brushing their soft feet oh-so-gently. Let us go back the times before evil science came along and twisted human nature.

[Anonymous No.6585333]

>>6585261
No surprise, science operates with models: any phenomenon can be described in different ways, each capturing different aspects of it. Those who do science can distinguish between the model and the object it describes, but to the outsider representing humans as resources and communities as populations may look cold and harmful. It's not.

[Anonymous No.6585340]

>>6585243
>>6585252
Hey, I wasn't denying that the scientific method works great. But there's a bunch of things it cannot do, including its own epistemological justification. Those things aren't magical, they just escape the scientific approach.

[Anonymous No.6585366]

>>6585340
Well, it's not a magic wand that can do anything. It's a tool to predict, basically, and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.6585374]

>>6585366
exactly, so dont go around believing it does more than that, or denying anything that doesnt use it

[Anonymous No.6585380]

>>6584589
Science isn't a bad thing, science as ideology is.

[Anonymous No.6585388]

>>6585319
Reason and logic are not a belief system, it's intelligence. Belief implies a choice. It's like saying that not wanting to die means you are implicitly subscribing to ''Healthism'' or whatever. Like, OK, so what?

[Anonymous No.6585393]

>>6585366
I know this, but tvere are people who will claim that if a statement isn't demonstrable via science, it is false and/or meaningless. This is the kind of thing that can only correctly be characterized as scientism.

[Anonymous No.6585398]

>>6585388
i didnt say they were belief systems, just that they were alternatives to the scientific method(or rather foundations of it)

[Anonymous No.6585406]

>>6585398
Reason and logic fall under the purview of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6585416]

>>6585164
Morality is not about "why we behave the way we do". It's about "how should we behave".

[Anonymous No.6585421]

>>6585406
More like, the scientific method falls under the purview of reason and logic. Think about it, which precedes which? Is it possible to make a scientific observation without logic? No. Is it possible to make a logical statement without science? Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.6585422]

>>6585393
>>6585340
But what exactly is the alternative here?

Can you give me a specific example of a subject or problem to the solution of which science can't contribute anything?

[Anonymous No.6585424]

>>6584720
>why Philosophy is a bad thing
It isn't. It's just that I've always seen most (sincere) philosophers as Sisyphus, but without the confirmation of having to roll the boulder up for an eternity; they spend most of their life searching and trying for them and for us but, in the end, they all die leaving behind work undone to be followed by others. It's sad, really.

[Anonymous No.6585426]

>>6585406
how?

[Anonymous No.6585432]

>>6585393
Scientific method lets you reformulate your statement to the language of predictions and then determine if it't true or false by comparing predictions to observations. I don't know of any other definitions of "true" and "false" that would be equally good (for example, independent of person making a statement)

[Anonymous No.6585436]

>>6585422
that is like asking how can you build a treehouse without nails

[Anonymous No.6585449]

>>6585416
"Should" implies the result that we want to achieve by behaving this way, as there are no intrinsic reasons in the world. As long as the question is "what should we do to achieve something", it can be approached (and possibly solved) by science. Of course, the whole social dynamics thing is awfully hard to describe and to solve this way, but it's possible in principle.

[Anonymous No.6585458]

>>6585422
If science fails, we are confronted with problems that can only be solved philosophically. These include problems of ethics (can science tell you wether or not you should sacrifice one life to save two?), epistemology (can science even tell you what an observation is, or how it relates to reality?), aesthetics (van Gogh or Picasso? Kafka or Joyce? Yeah, lets set up an experiment!) and the general purpose of human existence and human effort.
Science can contribute one or two things to these problems, mostly in the form of 'we have evolved to do this or that', but that's an insufficient answer to all of those.

[Anonymous No.6585460]

>>6585421
I thought about that as I was writing, yes, Reason and Logic preceded and gave rise to what we now call science.

>>6585416

But even then the scientific approach can help us in many ways. From conducting various studies and observing many cases, we can conclude that a society which practices cannibalism is not a good idea, because it causes diseases etc; and also because, again from observing various societies, and altruistic community is better than a non-altruistic one.

[Anonymous No.6585466]

>>6585432
But not all statements are translateable into predictions, so...this doesn't help.

[Anonymous No.6585477]

>>6585449
>there are no intrinsic reasons in the world
My English is not great, so I could've misunderstood what intrinsic reason means, but why are so sure about it? Because science hasn't yet proven otherwise? That's what scientism is.

>but even then the scientific approach can help us in many ways
Of course it can. It can't answer all the questions though.

[Anonymous No.6585483]

>>6585458
i don't believe philosophy has ever officially ''solved'' a problem.

[Anonymous No.6585484]

>>6585466
I have a great temptation to define "translateable into predictions" as "meaningful". Well, I thing it would be too extreme. How would one define meaningfulness?

[Anonymous No.6585488]

>>6585252
Dude read a fucking book. The idea that no one subscribes to science fanatically is absurd. Like I mentioned above, the entirety of colonial logic was based on scientism, as was the Nazi ideology.

[Anonymous No.6585491]

>>6585449
>"Should" implies the result that we want to achieve by behaving this way
That statement is incorrect, as it only applies to hypothetical imperatives, not categorical ones, which can be defined as a 'should' that is valid regardless of consequences or intentions.
>as there are no intrinsic reasons in the world
That statement is unscientific.

[Anonymous No.6585505]

>>6584589
It's onto-theology.

[Anonymous No.6585508]

>>6585483
Among other things, it has given rise to science. Also, human emancipation.
>>6585484
>How would one define meaningfulness?
Dude, I have nothing. But one thing's for sure, all the science in the world won't help you solve this.

[Anonymous No.6585515]

>>6585477
>>6585458

it can't answer all the questions, but it can answer the most pressing ones, no? ok, it can't answer whether we should prefer Kafka to Joyce or the opposite, but how is that even a ''question''? we can discuss what we think of as the faults and merits of each, and maybe we'll even change each others minds, but there can't really be an official answer to such a thing.

it's like asking: should, aesthetically, we prefer sunsets over sunrises? like, fuck you, i like sunsets.

[Anonymous No.6585523]

>>6585515
>it can answer the most pressing ones
ethics, God, purpose, etc come to mind

[Anonymous No.6585525]

>>6585422
The alternative is any knowledge which is produced by something other than the scientific method. Have you ever read a book of philosophy?

There are many questions that can't be approached by science such as, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?', 'Why is there an order to the universe?', 'What justifies scientific knowledge?', to name but a few. These are some basic questions that can't be answered by the observe and report method of science.

[Anonymous No.6585528]

>>6585327
Anon is pointing out possible negative effects of modern (industrial) science, he's not referring to any ideal past. Unless you want to deny that science as we understand it blossomed along indusrialization and is associated (central, even) to the industrial society his complaint is not outlandish. That level of butthurt and strawmanning is completely out of place.

You're visibly not intellectually equipped for this conversation. Please stop forcing 4chan meme debates into everything.

[Anonymous No.6585530]

>>6585515
Dude you have just contributed something valid to the discussion of aesthetic merit, namely your assertion of the validity of the idiosyncratic reaction to the aesthetic experience. And without using any science! See how this works?

And yeah, science is useful because it is pragmatic, but without ethics, it produces atomic bombs at the same rate as it produces medicine.

[Anonymous No.6585531]

>>6585515
You have a pretty infantile understanding of the field of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.6585532]

>>6585488
I never claimed no one subscribes to science. A whole lot of people do (since, you know, it's proven to be correct over and over and over and...).

And the Nazi ideology was based entirely on scientism? YOU should read a fucking book.

[Anonymous No.6585535]

>>6585515
>but it can answer the most pressing ones?
No it fucking can't. Is the most pressing question of your life a material one? How old are you? I refuse to believe that a concious human being never asked a simple question "Why?"

[Anonymous No.6585538]

>>6585406
No. See maths for instance.

[Anonymous No.6585547]

>>6584589
Meaning in life tends to be an illusory thing based on rewarding feelings for meeting and besting life's challenges. Science, however, tends to remove challenge and thus meaning from life, until a point where none remains.

[Anonymous No.6585549]

>>6585175
Absolutely. Just look at all the redditors who blindly accept frontier evopsych over established and reciewes sociological research.

[Anonymous No.6585550]

>>6585477
>Because science hasn't yet proven otherwise?
Because no evidence of its existance has been found yet, so we don't need to consider it. The simple reasoning is that if we'd consider all the things we have not observed, that'd be too many things to consider.
Moreover, the science has already determined with a great degree of certainty the basic structure of the world: particles, fields and all that. These by themselves don't hold any reason, nor any components these might be made of (like strings or whatever) are likely to hold it. Therefore there's no intrinsic reason, and no intrinsic moral, in the world.
>>6585491
>That statement is unscientific.
I explain what I mean above.
>it only applies to hypothetical imperatives, not categorical ones, which can be defined as a 'should' that is valid regardless of consequences or intentions
Categorical imperatives always imply consequences or intentions by the context. Without it it becomes a meaningless statement: I can say "you should do this" and "you should do that", just any phrase of this kind, which won't indicate anything about what you really should do. Because they lack consequences.

[Anonymous No.6585551]

We can do without science and have in the past. We can't do without non-scientific domains like ethics or politics.

[Anonymous No.6585560]

>>6584589

"science" itself isn't bad. It's a tool, a means to an end (the "end" being improved quality of life) just like all STEM.

However, there exists a breed of idiots that have come to worship Science (or how they perceive it) in the same manner their parents worshipped Christ. I notice this the most when arguing with people about automation/ai/singularity stuff: they treat the matter of human enlightenment by STEM just like people treated the matter of human enlightenment by the church. Which is to say, they don't actually know any "science", these people would be lost at a command-line, can't name any of the Noble Gasses, and don't know how to handle equations with more than two variables.

It's probably natural, technology has become so complicated and so pervasive in our daily lives people begin to worship it. They eat up whatever some clickbait tech news site shits out at them as long as it confirms their beliefs, and they are the ones that relentlessly fanboy for apple products. What really annoys me is how they think they're better than everyone else because they figured out how to read blogspot on their phone. And they get CS jobs as web developers entirely because "my job isn't automateable" and then are dumbfounded when they have to compete with outsourcing.

A bit of exaggeration? I don't think so. I've met into several people in real life that has done this shit and it needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.6585564]

>>6585531
k

>>6585530
i'm sure we'll reach a point in science where it can tell with great detail and precision why it is that we like the art that we do.

like why do some people like shit art, like twilight, sartre, transformers movies, etc.

[Anonymous No.6585574]

>>6585532
Nazi ideology was absolutely scientist. Misunderstood biological differences were overextended to prove the inherent superiority of German people, ignoring basics of archaeology and history.

One basic tenet of archaeology is that similar material culture does not imply the same people made or used them. But vaguely similar basic patterns in Germany, Greece, Egypt, and Mexico were used as proof that ancient Nordic peoples established all of those societies before mixing with their "degenerate neighbors".

[Anonymous No.6585576]

>>6585550
>I explain what I mean above.
Yeah ok, if intrinsic meaning is something you'd try to find evidence for (how even?), then you simply have no grasp of the concept of meaning itself. Which is pretty bad for science, too, as even Popper knew when he rejected vienna positivism.
>which won't indicate anything about what you really should do. Because they lack consequences.
That, however, is an ethical position, namely consequentialism, that has as much a basis in scientific observation as the opposite, none.

[Anonymous No.6585579]

It doesn't alleviate suffering. It changes the mode.

It's just as much of an illusion as vanity.

[Anonymous No.6585584]

Nothing is wrong with science, but the misunderstanding of science and the spread of pop pseudoscience (like the anti-GMO movement or redpill "biotruths") is poisonous.

[Anonymous No.6585590]

>>6585550
>no evidence of its existance has been found yet
but the issue that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence you can depend on is precisely what we are discussing
>These by themselves don't hold any reason, nor any components these might be made of (like strings or whatever) are likely to hold it. Therefore there's no intrinsic reason, and no intrinsic moral, in the world.
that is philosophy, a very bad one in fact
you are implicitly doing philosophy to deny philosophy

[Anonymous No.6585596]

>>6585564
>i'm sure we'll reach a point in science where it can tell with great detail and precision why it is that we like the art that we do.
Even when it eventually does find explanations for how certain aesthetic judgments have their basis in evolutionary selected traits or something, this still doesn't come close to answering the really tough questions of aesthetics, which deal more with the intricasies of subjectivity and objectivity than with 'lol why du ppl lik dis?'

[Anonymous No.6585599]

>>6585535
What ''Why''?

Why are we here? Yes, I pondered that question very intensely when I was something like twelve, in that range. Then I become interested in the ''How?'', because it was obvious one couldn't commit oneself to the answering of the question ''Why?'' in any systematic way.

What does the question ''Why?'' mean to you, or what do you want the answer to be? Like, do you expect or hope for some kind of supernatural answer?

[Anonymous No.6585601]

I know it's shitposting, but I couldn't help it.

[Anonymous No.6585606]

>>6585599
>it was obvious one couldn't commit oneself to the answering of the question ''Why?'' in any systematic way.
holy shit youre just tipping it REAL hard, arent you?

[Anonymous No.6585613]

>>6585590
Evidence as in, something we percieve, directly or indirectly. And I don't want to deny philosophy, mind you. I'm not very familiar with philosophical schools, but to consistently describe everything I'd start with senses, and then introduce the "world" as the simplest of the fullest ways do describe (which means predict) the information I sense. How would that approach be called?

[Anonymous No.6585617]

>>6584589
There's nothing wrong with science, that's retarded. There is something wrong with people who don't understand science, constantly spouting "science this" and "science that."

You say I shouldn't liken it to religion but I will. Religion depends on the faith and devotion of it's followers, people unquestioningly believe what their religion tells them. Science is not that, it's the study of things. Science is experimentation, hypothesis, and research. Science is constantly changing and correcting itself. But there are still people who blindly believe everything "scientific" as fact, just like religious fanatics do.

It's like that vaccine shit. People blindly follow the idea because they think science says so, but are unwilling to look at facts and proof that goes against their belief. This isn't science, it's fanaticism.

Also, can we stop this shit with science being the antithesis of religion?

[Anonymous No.6585621]

[Anonymous No.6585629]

Nothing is wrong with science. Science is a good and noble thing. But modern proponents of science are idiots. Let me explain.

Science is a methodology for determining truth by using inductive reasoning and experimentation to study phenomena. It does so to convert generalizations, into universals. Or in laymen's, science studies the universe by using the senses to observe reality, then when a consistent pattern is noticed, its declared a universal law. Since the universe seems to follow such laws, this is generally speaking reliable. This science has been used since the schoolmen, since Aristotle, its ancient as fuck is my point, even if it was formalized around the 1600s.

The purely modern ideas, are the following.

1. That science is the only truth. This is nonsense, since numerous things [Logic, mathematics, semantics, etc] are NON-EMPIRICAL, and thus outside the domain of science by default. You can't establish a mathematical statement or the law of identity through observation and research, yet you see no end of morons wanting to try. And why? Because they're convinced Science=Truth, and there is no truth outside of the strictures of the scientific method. This leads to retarded statements like "We can't know the law of noncontradiction is true, because we haven't studied the whole universe yet". In short, logic and mathematics themselves are outside of science, so most of these 'scientists' dismiss any a priori truth as being 'unproven'. First principles of logic are dismissed as being unfalsifiable, when the whole point of those axioms is to reach a foundation for thought!

2. That science is a body of knowledge, not a methodology. Because these people think science is the only truth, they generally tend to forget what SCIENCE even is. They're fetishised science so that those who promote it most understand it least. Oh they'll keep up with the latest inventions, they'll tell you all day long about how philosophy is dead, but ask them to explain even the basic workings of the methodology itself, or inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive and they just stare at you.

3. That anything outside of 'science', in their narrow understanding of it, does not exist. This is especially true in that many of these lay scientists [actual scientists are far less likely to fall into 'scientism' then the average evangelistic pop science junkie], don't even question the underpinnings of their statements. In short, they assume far too much, and become trapped in their 'science'.

For example, they will make a statement like "The entire universe is nothing but the interactions of particles, therefore nothing matters, there are no values, there are no morals, and thats the plain scientific fact, no debate allowed".

And you will claw out your own eyes trying to get them to understand that

[Cont]

[Anonymous No.6585631]

>>6585613
Different anon here, I think it's called sensualism, and it comes with a shitload of problems.

[Anonymous No.6585633]

>>6585165
This view comes from a confusion of language games.

Science can only provide the how. The myth of the German Folk was, which included arts, traditions, literature, poetry, etc provided the why.

If you really wanted to prevent Nazis from arising again, by looking at their particulars and extrapolating to universals, you should censor free expression of culture.

After all, mass murder has existed, and been done effectively, way before science was cool so it doesn't make sense to look at science for an explanation. And certainly not a view advanced by Heidegger, known Nazi.

[Anonymous No.6585634]

>>6585617
>Also, can we stop this shit with science being the antithesis of religion
Everyone with a brain stopped that shit long time ago.

[Anonymous No.6585637]

>>6585629
"The universe is made of particles" is a fact, but "This makes everything worthless" is merely an evaluation they have placed ONTO that fact. They never question their value-system or logical assumptions effect on their ideas.

Basically, the problem of 'scientism' is a group of modern science junkies who don't understand science overstepping the traditionally understood boundaries of science [and no I don't mean to leave room for mysticism or religion, I mean to leave room for logic, philosophy, and math], making outrageous claims, then failing to understand the effects their logical underpinnings and value-assumptions have on their ideas.

Being they think SCIENCE ALONE [being understood not as methodology but as sum total of truth] leads to all answers in everything, and they are entirely objective, they are entirely vulnerable to ideology, to viewing their ideas as empirical and unassailable by default, and by excluding by definition anything that could induce them to see the error of their reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6585640]

>>6585576
Intrinsic meaning some reason that exists regardless of our being, our wishes or our actions, something we (and everyone else in the world) should do. The God's will would be an example, provided there's a God.
>That, however, is an ethical position, namely consequentialism
I'm merely trying to find meaning in a statement, because not any gramatically correct sentence has one. Just what "I should do something" means without any implications of the consequences?

[Anonymous No.6585661]

>>6585574
First, you're greatly oversimplifying the nature of the Third Reich.

Second, their philosophy was hardly very scientific. It was a hodge-podge of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mystical nonsense. They may have affected, at times, a vaguely scientific approach, but there was nothing logical or rational about it.

[Anonymous No.6585664]

>>6585637
"This makes everything worthless", would most commonly mean that one can't define "worth" in such a universe, if one wants "worth" to have certain natural properties (lack of arbitrariness, for example)

[Anonymous No.6585676]

>>6585606
Well, is there?

[Anonymous No.6585681]

>>6585640
>Just what "I should do something" means without any implications of the consequences?
That's a question of metaethics, and remains unanswered. But think about it, does 'you should not murder people' just rranslate to not wanting the consequence of you murdering people, is it just another way of saying 'people should not be dead'?

[Anonymous No.6585684]

>>6585661
But it would not have existed without blind devotion to "science". The shift of prejudice from culture to genetics was incredibly destructive and incredibly scientist.

[Anonymous No.6585687]

>>6585664
No, it wouldn't. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from defining a non-arbitrary system of values in a purely materialistic universe. In fact every single major ethical system, virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, etc, all function perfectly well in such a universe.

Such a statement as "The universe being material devalues all value" is one purely based out of ignorance, and even if it could be proven, it would not be an immediate, obvious deduction from "The universe is material."

To put what I'm saying into context so we don't get hung up actually arguing about ethics while discussing thought, the problem with those who practice scientitism is that they practice philosophy badly then try and say they're just practicing science.

[Anonymous No.6585704]

>>6585687
>the problem with those who practice scientitism is that they practice philosophy badly then try and say they're just practicing science.
This so motherfucking much

[Anonymous No.6585710]

Science is like police, it wants to ensure that what we think is in order.

[Anonymous No.6585711]

>>6585684
Watson and Crick discovered DNA way after Hitler killed himself.

The Germans never got into Darwinism as much as Anglos because it was British and they resented their empire, but were really into these bizarre and homegrown psuedoscientific biological theories that have yet to provide anything of worth to the scientific community. Much less genetics.

[Anonymous No.6585715]

>>6585687
It's not that you can't construct a system of values, of course you can. It's just that you won't get any selected system of values that is somehow preferrable to other systems.

[Anonymous No.6585725]

>>6585711
Yeah I can't think of any German speaking Moravians who founded the field of genetics in the late 1800s

[Anonymous No.6585729]

>>6585715
I'm not going to argue my position here [which is, that I think you can get such a system], my point is that it CAN be argued about, and the arguing incorporates elements of logic, semantics, ethics, all non-empirical at least in part.

There is a network of logical underpinnings to these statements and ideas, and it gets completely ignored and trampled by the tech-happy illiterates who think that "Neurology has discovered the basis of empathy" means "Science has discovered morality!"

[Anonymous No.6585731]

>>6585715
>It's just that you won't get any selected system of values that is somehow preferrable to other systems.
Are you saying that materialists who subscribe to, say, utilitarianism or deontology, have no reason for their conviction? What kind of thing do you even believe these positions depend on?

[Anonymous No.6585758]

>>6585684

The Social Darwinist element in Nazism was undeniable, but Social Darwinism itself was a misreading of Darwin's theory. If the Nazis were truly scientific they would have tested their theories.

If you read Mein Kampf, you'll see that Hitler at times invokes ''Providence'' etc. to justify his many hatreds. There wasn't a blind devotion to science, but rather a blind devotion to a preconceived ideology, based, as stated before, on a hodge-podge of pseudo-mystical, -religious, and -scientific ideas.

[Anonymous No.6585759]

>>6585704
/lit/ has yet to find someone who says 'scientism', that doesn't practice philosophy as if it provided them with magical argument bullets where it doesn't.

If you've found someone who doesn't do this, by all means correct this.

[Anonymous No.6585767]

>>6585759
>that doesn't practice philosophy as if it provided them with magical argument bullets where it doesn't.
How did I do this? Seriously.

[Anonymous No.6585774]

>>6585731
People have reasons and people want things. Like, I don't want people suffering. But universe does not operate with concepts such as "reason", it's introduced to describe percuilarities of human thought process. You can choose the value system, but you can't make the universe choose, that's my point.

[Anonymous No.6585778]

is being anti-science currently the hottest meme on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.6585797]

>>6585710
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiT-c3NA0M

[Anonymous No.6585809]

>>6585774
>But universe does not operate with concepts such as "reason"
It doesn't operate with concepts at all, only people do.

[Anonymous No.6585810]

>>6585778
I'd say it's the dankest one for sure

[Anonymous No.6585818]

>>6585778
Only a tiny minority of posters ITT could be described as anti-science, so, no.

[Anonymous No.6585823]

>>6585528
Couldn't have said it better; throughout this thread he doesn't seem to grasp what others are saying while offering inane responses that talk past the other person.

[Anonymous No.6585826]

>>6585778
There's nothing wrong with science, but when people talk about science they really mean to wank over technological progress.

[Anonymous No.6585840]

>>6585406
>Reason and logic fall under the purview of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.6585843]

This whole science X religion debate have been superfluous for more than 200 hundred years.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc2b2a.htm

[Anonymous No.6585887]

>>6585601
This thread probably warrants it.

[Anonymous No.6585911]

>>6585887
the le-you-can't-know-nuthin fags have been thoroughly BTFO ITT

they never had a chance tbh

[Anonymous No.6586020]

>>6585758
So Hitler invented reddit?

He mixed traditional superstition, an ignorant misunderstanding of science, and faulty, unprovable theories that appealed to preconceived biases.

[Anonymous No.6586041]

>>6586020
>So Hitler invented reddit?
well, fuck. can't find a flaw with your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6586049]

>>6584589

[Anonymous No.6586054]

>>6585826
>when people

yeah generalize that to all people, fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.6586063]

>>6586049
>dat 9gag tier image containing a reasonable observation
This truly transcends the dichotomy between bait and sincerity. It is a work of art. Science can't explain this.

[Anonymous No.6586428]

is this IP still blocked

[Anonymous No.6586442]

>>6585424
Such is life. So make yourself well and enjoy what comfort you may find.

[Anonymous No.6586456]

>>6585243
>Science does not "justify anything"
>Implying any knowledge exists separately of the observer

Darwinian evolution based on selfish individualism just happened to coincide with the expansion of capitalism.

Declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness just happened to coincide with changing social values about sexuality.

[Anonymous No.6586488]

It may hinder the jewish plot to eradicate white people.

[Anonymous No.6586507]

>>6584589
>a bad thing
it's up the individual to decide on what constitutes good or bad

if doing something scientifically, or pertaining to science, doesn't interest me, i can only see it as bad, but i wouldn't say it's always a bad thing for me

[Anonymous No.6586523]

>>6584703

I have never heard anyone make this argument ever.

[Anonymous No.6586529]

>>6585160

Sorry but I'll take solid scientific evidence over non-falsifiable bullshit any day.

[Anonymous No.6586560]

>>6584589
Modern technology and modern science require precision, which is fine, but our ability to find precise answers in certain areas causes us to think that scientific precision should be pursued in all areas of life, such as relationships or art. We've become insensitive to anything ambiguous, and are terrified of anything that we can't force into some sort of systematic schema. Science isn't the problem; it's our idolization of it that is.

[Anonymous No.6586566]

>>6586529
Good, stop reading literature since it's apparently useless to you and leave us alone you crypto-STEMfag.

[Anonymous No.6586569]

>>6585388
The problem is thinking that reason and logic are the only ways or always the best ways to understand things, and becoming closed to other ways of trying to understand and live, like with emotion.

[Anonymous No.6586570]

>>6586529
is math non falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.6586586]

>>6584589
Mathematics are
-a choice of logic by the mathematician, where he chooses which Rule of inferences to use
-a choice of axioms which are devoid of direct ontology since what matters is now the axiomatic relations between the symbols
(this is key in the language : you no longer ask what is plane, but how it interacts with other concepts in geometry. In natural languages, some stronger degree of ontology remains, but this ontology could well be removed and some mathematics in a natural language would remain)

OFC, most mathematicians denigrate the logical aspect and choose the classical logic. My bet is that they love the law of excluded middle since it is too difficult for them to carry mathematics constructively, for they were not trained to love weaker logics. The choice of the logic is crucial for both the pure mathematics and their applications.

The best illustration is likely the topology where the classical mathematician rely on the notion of point and give it to the mathematical physicist, whereas the constructivist avoids the notion of points at all cost, by principle. This principle is also backed by the consequences (for those who love the Consequentialism) since in order to do topology constructively, we must forget the notion of classical points, by generalizing what a point is. In this method, we retain most of the classical theorems, but in a constructive mathematics. On the contrary, in intuitionist logic, where the notion of classical points can be kept, all the topological theorems are destroyed. Idem in algebra, where a intuitionist version has less good theorems than a constructive one.

[Anonymous No.6586593]

>>6586586
The task of the mathematicians is thus to derive as many theorems as possible, with the definition of theorem belonging to the choice of the logic. Hopefully, soon, we will have the computers to carry all our proofs, all that will remain for the humanity will be to seek new logics and new axioms. However, even this last task will be done by some machines sooner or later ; at least it is my hope.

The use of the mathematics is thus a human framework in order to see, once somebody more or less believe in this framework, how far can we apply the rule of induction, the modus ponens and all other concepts of logic to the human experiences. There is nothing magical to it. Nothing tells us that the mathematics give us a knowledge on our experiences, even less true knowledge (if there is, somehow, a truth ; sadly, nobody knows what a truth is).
The various mathematics are not able to tell us how to rate them. Why does the humanity believe in the modus ponens ? Are there other rules of inferences of this kind that the humanity could broadly accept ?

Nothing tells us that the mathematics are special. There may equally be well other methods to have knowledge for those who believe in knowledge, or true knowledge for those whose who believe in this.

[Anonymous No.6586595]

>>6586529
What would piece of evidence would falsify evolution?

[Anonymous No.6586600]

>>6586586
>>6586593
In physics, the predictions can be done qualitatively, instead of quantitatively. All our apparatuses are now quantitative, but every rule and prediction of every physical model can be formulated in a natural language. In physics, nobody knows if the the equations derived by the humanity concerning their experiences do hold in others parts of the universe. This is a mild solipsism, a humanist solipsism, analogue to the old question on how to know whether China exists, if I never have been to China. Any other kind of solipsism would be frowned upon socially in our times, anyway.


The contemporary doctrine of Scientism via the broadest application of the logical framework with the belief that the human ability to predict either qualitatively or quantitatively becomes unbecoming when many people forget that it remains nothing but a human choice, without a shred of evidence (since the scientists believe in the concept of evidence) to back the speciality of the sciences.


if you replace maths with one philospher's doctrine, it works all the same. For each philosopher, we choose to follow the deductions he makes according to the logic he chooses. Since philosophy is done in natural language, there is more vagueness and circularity than in maths, because the words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the job of the philosophers to do this.

At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, you will disagree, or you will be surprised or will not follow the deduction. You do not see why the modus ponens applies here (or anothe rrule of inference)

This where you stop believing in his doctrine and learn another one or explore your own or stick to it and continue.

In all this exposé, the key word is belief or affinities.

[Anonymous No.6586605]

Science is good, you're just projecting your feelings of annoying stem majors towards it.

[Anonymous No.6586606]

It's not
neither is philosophy
fucking magical that both can be good, right?

[Anonymous No.6586614]

>>6586566
Literature is mostly jews telling you what to think and giving legitimacy to unprovable claims by intimidating the reader with fancy smug language, why don't you form your own opinions?

[Anonymous No.6586633]

If god isn't real then what caused the big bang?
Atheist Scientists BTFO